No, seriously: throw it on a bonfire, pour gasoline on it, and watch it burn from a distance. Destroy white nationalism before it’s too late.
White nationalism is what we call a surrogate, or a fake thing that stands in for what you need. It wastes your time and, because it claims to solve your problem, prevents you from finding the real solution.
Although this is unpopular — like everything I write for all four of you to enjoy — my viewpoint remains that we need a revitalized mainstream conservatism. Only that will solve our actual problem.
Let’s look at the logic:
If you care about the issues white nationalism discusses, the last thing you should do is endorse white nationalists. There are better ways; even more, there are ways which do not outright fail as white nationalism does. You probably don’t want your hopes to fail, do you?
White nationalism is a failure.
If political movements are each a type of person, white nationalism is an underconfident teenager.
White nationalism sulks in its bedroom, takes its toys and goes home, refuses to play nicely with the other kids, passive-aggressively throws spitwads at the African-American kids and takes candy from the Jewish kids (at least until it needs a doctor or lawyer).
Even worse things happened in underground conservatism:
The vanguardist is a peculiar species of White Nationalist with a range that extends across cyberspace. This political animal has a number of discernible, trademark characteristics. Specifically, a â€œvanguardistâ€ is someone who believes:
(1) Conservatives are worthless.
(2) Ordinary people are lemmings.
(3) Worse is better.
(4) The system is broken.
(5) A collapse is coming.
(6) They will benefit from this collapse.
(7) A massive Jewish conspiracy is responsible for their plight.
(8) Revolution is the only solution.
Instead of engaging the cultural and political mainstream, a vanguardist is someone who favors withdrawing from the system, sealing themselves off in enclaves, and organizing around a dynamic leader. – Why Vanguardists Can’t Win, by Hunter Wallace
Vanguardists have a point: mainstream conservatives flee the room when issues like diversity, race, sexual liberation and pre-emptive geopolitics enter the discussion.
However, vanguardists need to realize that the reasons conservatives flee now versus the reasons for their flight in 1968 are different. In 1968, they didn’t want to be put on the losing side of a cultural war guaranteed by the flood of Baby Boomer children, who having been raised by two working parents during the WWII and recovery years, were naturally a neurotic mess, and so turned liberal en masse.
Right now, the reason mainstream conservatives won’t touch racial issues (for example) is because vanguardists exist — and instead of beating back the left who call any critic of total anarchy a racist, the vanguardists are fulfilling the stereotypes of Hollywood movies of angry, violent racists who have no real political plan or solutions to the breadth of problems that we face. – “Forward”
Unable to clearly state what it wants, it complains emotionally about what it does not want and then when people attempt to take it seriously, proclaims “You just don’t understand me!” and runs into its room slamming the door.
It doesn’t address the whole question.
We all know diversity is a failure.
If diversity was a success, all the nice white liberals would have moved to multiracial neighborhoods.
Instead, when given a chance and especially after they have children, they flock to the tightey whitey suburbs and talk a lot about how “interesting” their Japanese neighbors are.
Finally, in the 1960s, the left found its ultimate weapon: race. Bring in non-majority people, or enfranchise existing ones, and they will always vote against the majority.
Conservatives had a chance to oppose this but bungled it, missed the boat, or opted for an easier fight. Now their country has changed and has a huge population that not only will always vote against them, but increasingly demands more federal aid. – “White Secession”
Ninety percent of the liberals I know live in places where the only black faces are working on the lawn.
But beyond knowing that diversity is a failure, what does white nationalism want? I mean aside from sociopathic fantasies of Holocaust II, that is.
That’s correct: other than the name, which tells you that white nationalists want an ethnostate of only white people, there is no further content to white nationalism.
Where do they stand on defense spending? Who knows — there’s no organized theory behind white nationalism. Other than not spending defense dollars on black-owned weapons, I guess.
White nationalism has failed. Mainstream conservatism has failed by not integrating the sane parts of white nationalism into its platform. This unity will only occur when we make these philosophies grow up, and answer the difficult questions (instead of the easy, dogma-laden ones) in order to find a better future for ourselves. – “A tale of two cities”
Indulges in psychotic and ineffective behaviors.
I will always be an ardent nationalist. What I don’t like is fake nationalism, especially if it carries with it the burden of supporting illogical positions like emotional outbursts of racial hatred and paranoid anti-Semitism.
Itâ€™s not the kids at the top of the hierarchy â€” well-adjusted white people â€” who are bullying others. Itâ€™s those who want to replace them. They are using the unpopularity of people lower on the totem pole to raise themselves higher, through cruelty. And at the top of this group are the people crying â€œracistâ€ who need to be better than those toothless uneducated country folk.
To raise your own social status, nothing works better than by using relative motion. No matter how ignorant someone thinks you are, if you can find someone more ignorant that person becomes the focus, and you rise. The instant you designate someone as a target, especially for â€œgoodâ€ reasons e.g. that they are elitist or racist, everyone else in the room unites against them. – “Racist? We’re not; multiculturalism is”
I wouldn’t recommend those psychological burdens to my worst enemies, let alone those who want to be working with me.
“Hi, would you like a nice hot steaming cup of socially-alienating futility?”
Encourages a cult-like mindset.
White nationalism has a binary view of the world: you are either with us, or with them.
As a result, you cannot have a normal life once you touch white nationalism.
What we have here, then, is a group of people claiming that all whites should be equal and should join together to commit racial holy war against non-whites, thus delivering us to a society that is a mirror image of our current one except that it is all â€œwhite,â€ including the mixed tribes mentioned above. Further, those who are involved in the quest wish to dominate this new society, and to exclude or execute those who have collaborated with the current society, much like revolutionaries have in the past. It is a revolutionary movement, not a constructive one; it wishes to tear down a hierarchy and replace it with a workerâ€™s paradise, even if all the workers are ostensibly â€œwhite.â€ In short, it is racial Marxism, and it will prove as destructive to the Indo-European tribes as capitalist multiculturalism has. This is the reason it does not appeal to the Silent Majority: it would end their ability to separate themselves from the â€œbaseâ€ rabble and achieve greater heights, therefore, White Nationalism is not the one roll of the dice we should take when reforming our society.
Among thinking people of course there is no question that our society should be reformed, and more radically than any White Nationalist has so far suggested. Our values became fundamentally rotted to the point where the first mass revolt could occur, and since then, we have been degenerating as a population even without the influence of other races. We are breeding people to have jobs, buy hot food, and then eat it watching television. Divorce rates are sky-high, drug abuse is rampant, STDs are skyrocketing, pollution increases yearly, our climate is shattered, we die of cancers at incredible rates, depression is on the rise in all industrialized countries, we spend increasing amounts of time manipulating a system that was supposed to be working for us, our leaders are cynical predators who use the image of truth to disguise a personal profit agenda; we are declining into a third-world state without the intervention of any other races, and while multiculturalism is a symbol of this and a failure of an ideology in itself, it is not the cause. The cause is within. We cannot blame others; we have to look within. And when weâ€™ve found the cause, argue Silent Majority types, instead of screaming for vegeance we should find a long-term solution to the problem. Since that involves replacing economic-driven modern society with something that lives for values itself, and is a reversal of the steady decline of the last thousand years, itâ€™s no small order. Not only is White Nationalism not up to task, Silent Majority types argue, but by the nature of its Marxist roots it will interrupt the healing process that is needed. – “Lock up all the neo-Nazis”
Instead, you must measure yourself in terms of how well you fulfill the white nationalist dogma.
Supplants real nationalist movements.
If I wanted to start a nationalist group tomorrow, what would happen — specifically, if that nationalist group surpassed all the current white nationalist ones?
I wish someone would test this theory by creating a pro-White website with these dealbreakers in mind: exclude the HBD nerds who glorify Asian women, the negative curmudgeons, the â€œall is losters,â€ the creepy weirdos, the embittered misogynists, the effete homosexual intellectuals, and the Neo-Nazi atheists on a jihad against Christianity.
The website would need a good editor that would balance political discussion with a hefty complement of articles about culture, religion, and family. There would also have to be more talk about ethnicity and pocketbook issues.
I would bet money that would solve the problem. In fact, I predict that racially conscious women would start coming out of the woodwork because women are more social than men and would be attracted like moths to a flame to other women who share their views and who are potential friends. – OD
Answer: white nationalists would fight it tooth and nail. It would replace them and their comfortable clubhouse, therefore even if it was more likely to achieve the goals white nationalists hold dear, they would destroy it.
Misdiagnoses the problem.
White nationalists tend to be racists, not nationalists.
Nationalists believe in ethnic self-rule. One ethnic group, one nation; it defines its own standards through culture, language, customs, heritage and values.
No form of diversity works. Too much variation â€” Haidt estimates it at 20% and up â€” and a society falls apart, whether that variation is basic philosophy, basic values, religion, social class, genetic caste, race or ethnicity. It doesnâ€™t work because without social accord, you have a pluralism in which each group competes with all others for predominance, and so manipulation becomes the standard â€” as does a victim/oppressor mentality.
Even mixing groups of the same race does not work. â€œWhiteâ€ people are highly varied between Southern, Eastern, Western and UK/US populations. In the large multicultural American cities, white outliers like Polish, Italian, Greek, Russian and Irish tend to cluster with their own, rather than integrate into the Anglo-German mainstream. Itâ€™s not really much different from how North Asians segregate themselves. – What comes after liberalism?
Racism is some sort of perverse desire to declare others as beneath you so that you can feel better about yourself.
It is not limited to white nationalists; the entire left hates racially-aware white people as a means of feeling better than them.
Obstructs correct diagnosis and action.
The disaster of white nationalism is like a lonely night when you answer the phone, and it’s a wrong number and the other party thinks they have phoned a pizza delivery place. In a surly mood, you take their order, hang up, and leave them without a pizza.
So long as white nationalism exists, we’re not going to get responsible and effective nationalist movements, because no one with any future outside of the basement is going to touch white nationalism with a ten-foot pole.
We can finally say whatâ€™s on many peopleâ€™s minds, which is that leftist politics, television commercials, hipsters and polite lies have more in common than not. We need to hit people over the head with the idea that our individualistic â€œfreedomâ€ and â€œdemocracyâ€ are not manipulated by commerce, but are its children. A society based on individual desires becomes a giant open-air bazaar with no standards, and eventually, it collapses.
The reason the right-wing is hard to define, politically, is that right-wingness is not politics. Itâ€™s a whole vision, a vision of a society of a type opposite the liberal democratic, yet predating it. It cannot be broken down into lifestyle, politics, economics, and religion, yet it contains all of these. Unlike liberalism, which is an idea of fragmenting the existing, conservatism is a whole idea.
For that reason, conservatism is incompatible with modern politics, which are based in liberalism and its triumph, liberal democracy. – “Outrage!”
Why does the American FBI so freely scatter millions of dollars among its far-right informants? First, because they’re terrified of another Tim McVeigh; second, because by funding the pretend Reich of the useless, they ensure that no one with any brains will publicly support white nationalism.
Sure, they can handle a few Jared Taylors, Kevin MacDonalds, Peter Brimelows, Steve Sailers, Bill Whites and Billy Ropers, but they’d prefer that no one new comes to the table. They want to make sure nationalism stays taboo, and the best way to do that is to subsidize insane “nationalists.”
We need a vital movement.
Instead of the failure that is white nationalism, we need a nationalist movement with a chance of success.
In the suburbs and countryside, you need an actual community and people who are whole members of that community. If your handyman is also dangerously unstable, thatâ€™s a problem; on the flip side, if your handyman is good but a bit of an alcoholic, youâ€™re less likely to be put off like a buyer seeing a dent in a new car.
This sense of community is what separates country from city. The city is transactional, without memory or any awareness of the effects of its action; the country (and burbs, which are half-country but might as well be all country because the people who move there are fleeing the city) is about observing the effects of your actions, and planning carefully. – “A nation divided”
Ideally, it would argue for nationalism in the abstract; that way, all peoples can have nationalism, and each group will work to help get the same rights for everyone, so they can have them as well.
Addresses the whole question.
While race may be a cornerstone of politics, it is not the only cornerstone. Even in an all-Swedish society, political issues arise beyond race.
For this reason, any nationalist movement also needs a political platform and values system. Many want this to be leftist, socialist, anarchist or even Marxist; however, those belief systems are based on the individual as separate from the tribe, nation and culture. That is the exact opposite of what any nationalist movement will believe.
The left and right cannot agree, and do not constitute a center. Constant debate, while we are trained to think it is “refreshing” and “keeping our options open,” is in fact a giant ruse to keep us from ever having a center. This keeps us on hold while the process grinds on, never finding an answer, and thus leaving us in convenient anarchy — which benefits rapacious individuals and businesses most of all, good people the least.
- Left: equality. Before we challenge ourselves and get judged by life, we must all agree that no matter what happens in reality, we are all equally important and we all belong here. This philosophy emerges from and creates people of low self-esteem and self-confidence. It also sounds really good on paper.
- Right: evolution. In a broader sense than Darwinism, “evolution” means gradual improvement through measurement against a standard. The right rewards the best and pushes for excellence, not inclusiveness. This cycle of improvement is essential to all ideas that do not want to stagnate.
There is no reconciling these two. If you want to sabotage a government, make sure its job is to make both groups happy. If you’re really hell-bent on getting nothing done, make sure you trade off parties every four years. Then government will become inert, which if you fear its control by the other party, may be your ideal. – “Identity”
For this reason, any future nationalist movement will be conservative at its core, although it should choose to modify conservatism to avoid the calcified, hide-bound reactionarism that mars so many conservative movements.
Diagnoses spiritual decay at core.
For a civilization like the West to collapse, it needs to lose its organizing principle or consensus. This happens on the most basic level of a civilization, which is its collective will to live.
Encourages participation by normal healthy people.
While intellectuals like to think that they and the proletariat are the prime movers in politics, the real force is the center: the educated but not bookish middle class who work the jobs that require knowing something about how the system works.
These are teachers, police officers, firefighters, lawyers, doctors, architects, entrepreneurs, managers, and specialists.
Without the participation of these, any movement ends up marginalized.
Like women, this demographic group responds to its interests: family-oriented values for raising healthy kids, safe neighborhoods, economic growth and political stability.
Brings nationalism back into public discourse.
It has been convenient for too long for the left to simply cry “That’s racist!” whenever something it dislikes shows up.
Unfortunately, then our big media masters can draw aside the screen and oh look, there are white nationalists, honey. They want to — what is it again, WNs? — oh right, they want to exterminate all the Jews and African-Americans.
Guess the talking heads were right: you’d have to be crazy to be a nationalist.
Coulter puts it mildly. Diversity is a cancer. The problem isnâ€™t blacks, or whites, or Jews, or gentiles. Itâ€™s diversity. Itâ€™s a stupid idea to group different things together and force them, through benevolent moral authoritarian states, to â€œjust all get along.â€ They cannot all get along. To do so would require they compromise the cultures, values and heritages that make them unique.
Modern liberals are caught in the illusion that â€œus all getting alongâ€ is the highest good. That way, the lion lies down with the lamb and so on. But the cost of that getting along is that we lose who we are. We lose culture. We lose religion. We lose heritage. And whatâ€™s left? A Nanny State government, shopping malls and lots of TV, of course!
You canâ€™t blame Jews for wanting to avoid that fate. If the gentiles are so cow-stupid that they elect to destroy their own culture through an ethic of convenience, well, itâ€™s not Jewsâ€™ problem or fault. But if one is a Jew who likes oneâ€™s heritage and culture, itâ€™s important not to follow that example. – “Helen Thomas and the case for Israel”
And if a sane nationalist movement arose?
Acts honorably and competently toward its ends.
The politics that will supersede the rancid politics of this time will do so not by being demagogues, like the left, or fear-mongers like the right, but by being practical and keeping government minimal by keeping political drama minimal.
True, all the people with nothing better to do love the political drama, so it’s easy to whip up an army; however, these people do not represent the middle of our society, and that middle knows it.
A political organization that will inherit the future will do so by behaving like someone we can trust. Honorable behavior that achieves its ends, and not one side or the other, will distinguish this group.
How to get there.
Right now we’re very far from our goal, and yet so close. In fact, with the ongoing failures of liberal society people are beating a path to our door as nationalists, but have no intention of joining up with us as long as we partner with these mentally defective white nationalist types.
Now that theyâ€™re seeing that â€œdiversityâ€ has gone from â€œtolerate others living in our countryâ€ to â€œevery subdivision must be diverse, speech codes must be enforced, and those who do not obey are called racists,â€ the white majority is fighting back.
Their message is simple: we want to change the laws so we can get the Nanny State off our back and continue to live as we have been, without having to subsidize others.
Liberals will never understand this, but in conservative ideology, you donâ€™t subsidize other people â€” in part because itâ€™s condescending, but in part because it ruins the work ethic of your nation. Thatâ€™s what all the rambling about â€œsocialismâ€ is about: we want to preserve our values, including work ethic. – “Race: The Ultimate Taboo”
After all, white nationalists appear to be a group of angry misfits without a plan except destruction, and no sane person is going to sign up for that. Even more, their cult-like attitude means that they destroy anyone with a good idea — burn that witch doctor! — who might rise above the mob.
Our future path consists of recognizing that white nationalists are the obstruction on our path to power, and we must remove them by replacing them with an effective and coherent movement that can then un-do the damages of leftism and in the process, solidify its own power base.
Destroy white nationalism.
For nationalism to succeed, white nationalism must be destroyed.
Almost all nationalist leaders will oppose this. For them, it’s a risky prospect to leave behind the diehards and standbys, even if those are such alienated psychopaths that they drive away normal people.
Yet this is what must be done. White nationalism to an outsider resembles a trailer park full of drunks, criminals, burn-outs and embittered failures. Even worse, it is ruled prison-style by thuggish loudmouths who insist on the most insane dogma as a type of loyalty test.
White nationalists like to tell us they are the only alternative for nationalism. If they’re right, however, nationalism is doomed to occupy a tiny segment of society populated by its least organized and effective people.
If that is true, nationalism will get nowhere. This is why white nationalists, FBI agents, and anti-nationalists all agree that the current white nationalism underground is exactly what should be there.
Adopt mainstream conservatism.
Although many current nationalists seem to fear this, adopting mainstream conservatism is the solution for nationalism.
Not only does it avoid the excesses of white nationalism, but it already has a structure in place for addressing politics beyond race.
Both groups are waiting for this great awakening when people discover the outrage, and proclaim that the right was correct all along, and even more, that many of modern society’s enemies and detractors were also right. They think that the only reason outrage has not triumphed is that people are apathetic.
There’s a simpler explanation: the right isn’t ready to rule, isn’t organized and is dyfunctional. Before we can aspire to rule, we need to clean our house:
- A straightfoward concept. “Tradition” only partially summarizes our values. It makes more sense to restructure ourselves as the party of science, since we are concerned more about practical cause-effect relationships than moral/social relationship. We don’t need to bow to the religious extremists or their opposites, the fanatical atheists. We need to say we are looking for verifiable, replicated results in order to understand our world, and that some things — like creation, like God, like morality — we can’t test and thus cannot disprove. In that view, we are the only truly scientific viewpoint.
- A clear philosophy. It would be just great if our philosophy was so intuitive and easy as liberalism. It ain’t. So we need a thought-leader, and one 200-page-ish book that explains it all in simple terms, so that people can see why we believe what we do, what real-world factors influence our decision, and even make them sympathetic to the vision of society that we desire. We need a synopsis, especially one that can boil down to a sentence or two.
- A mainstream voice. The idea of “underground” politics only works for the left, because the left inherently tunes in to dissatisfaction and excuse-making. Therefore, it’s easy for them to later legitimize violent thugs as peaceful revolutionaries. However, our vision of the world isn’t based in victimhood. For that reason, we need to stay away from the revolutionary rhetoric entirely, and instead focus on clear points that make life better for our constituents.
- Competent, morally unimpeachable rulers. We need people we can trust who have no association with violence, crime, corruption or dubious personal decisions. Newt Gingrich will not be president of the USA because of his conduct in marriage; John McCain failed to be president because he was unclear on his positions and had similar marital trauma. No leader with connections to Nazi, skinhead, white supremacist or other violent groups that make personal attacks on people for their race, gender or religion will make it to president. An upright citizen who claims that diversity cannot work, however, could.
- A real plan. What happens when right-wing leaders get in power? Is it as it is with Republicans, where you get a slightly more warlike and fiscally responsible group that fixes all the problems the Democrats introduced, then gets blamed for the fallout of those problems before surrendering power in the next election cycle? God (or Ungod, if you’re an atheist) only knows what a neo-Nazi-related leader would do, besides hang people. What’s the platform, and how will it change us? Hint: less is more.
- A sense of stability. When a customer buys a Mercedes-Benz, he is trusting in the brand reputation and the support network behind it. More than buying a car, he’s buying into a process whereby the car will in theory work better and last longer, and if it doesn’t, there’s a whole group of people who can help. Reliability oozes through it. People need to have trust in the right-wing brand and not see it as more politicians who will use their power to conveniently enhance themselves at the expense of the country.
Without the above, the right-wing stands no chance of winning power. Like the left-wing is a spectrum anarchy to Communism with liberal democracy in the middle, the right-wing is a spectrum from aristocracy to National Socialism with paleoconservatism in the middle. Political wings tend toward their middles and, if successful in that, gradually move toward extremes.
Unless they screw it up, the right is a clear winner because they tackle the one big problem — the elephant in the room — that few are willing to recognize, much less discuss: our civilization is in decay and, other than our technology, we are producing nothing of worth and are boring ourselves with our increasingly shallow amusements. This is how empires end. – “Outrage!”
And unlike many of the left-leaning European nationalist movements like the New Right, it has a practical attitude toward adoption of American hegemony and other factors that most people in the middle agree have been stabilizing.
Introduce paleoconservative elements.
WND, an American mainstream conservative organization, wants me to be outraged by Eboo Patel’s statement. I am not outraged; I think he’s right. Per the norm for liberals, he told you half the story. He represents a totalitarian government that wants to rule by thought control through social guilt.
On the other hand, traditional religious governments want to rule through a type of ideal, which is a form of identity. It matters whether it’s Islamic or Christian, but the type of society they desire is the same. Greens, national socialists, and deontological moralists all fall into this camp as well.
Many of us want a civilization based around an ideal:
- Identity. A clear sense of a purpose to a society, its uniqueness and the fundamental ideals that make it who it is.
- Values. A system of things it aspires to, things it wishes to avoid, and things that fall in the middle and are not obstructed but are not celebrated.
- Philosophy. The reasoning behind the values system.
- Theology. An explanation for the cosmos and the human place within it that supports that philosophy.
- Heritage. A genetic record of others who have thrived under these ideals and thus, whose offspring will perpetuate them.
We are denied this type of civilization by another civilization type, which is the society of no center. All of these are the same: chaotic, lowest common denominator, anarchistic life in the streets, a powerful government with a powerful dogma verging toward the left, and behind the scenes, a vast web of corruption and payoffs and oligarchs who actually make things happen, invisibly.
All civilizations with a center naturally find compatibility between that ideal and the various areas it could manifest, like identity, values, philosophy, theology and heritage — a genetic record of not just geography, but cultural values in the past — because all interpretations converge on its core ideal, or center.
This means that for a civilization with a center, nothing is guesswork. You know what behaviors will be rewarded, and what will not, even in ambiguous situations. Even more, it provides a firmer “glue” that keeps the group bonded to you as an individual: not “we must support him, because he’s equal” but “we want to support him because he’s a good guy defending the values all of us cherish.” – “Identity”
After all, racial unity with culture has been the dominant order for most of history:
Borisâ€™s point that racial tribalism did not exist before the modern era is not correct. This tribalism did not express itself as â€œwhite nationalismâ€ or even as â€œwhiteâ€ as it was often bound up with ethnic and religious identity. But the people of Europe and the ancient world were highly conscious of race and saw it as a determing aspect of life. Again, they usually saw it as intertwined with other aspects of identity, such as tribe, clan, ethnicity, religion and class. Virgilsâ€™ Aeneid is a story of racial consciousness, as Aeneas sets out from the ruins of Troy to found a new nation, which will be the basis for an entire civilization. This new civilization is not to be based on ideas in Virgilâ€™s conception of it (a vision which was embraced by Romans and Europeans for many hundreds of years in their almost fanatical devotion to this tale), but racial and tribal identity. Aeneas does not stay in Carthage, despite the temptation to do so. His people and his ultimate destiny are not there.
The ancients and later Europeans did not intermarry or form integrated communties with other races despite extensive mixing with the peoples of Asia and Africa. It is not correct to say they were bound in place because of lack of transportation. Goods were exchanged with Asia and Africa and there was ample opportunity for intermixing if it was desired. The white race also has for many hundreds of years had an overriding transcendent aspect to its collective identity in the form of Christianity.
I am confused by Borisâ€™s point that we cannot treat the white race as â€œan objectively fixed entity.â€ It is treated as an objectively fixed entity every hour of the day. It is a determining factor in where we live, what jobs we get, what colleges we get into, what scholarships we receive, whom we marry and where we send our children to school. Whites may not perceive the white race as â€œan objectively fixed entity,â€ but others do. – The Thinking Housewife
If this is done without racial hatred, but from a simple practical perspective (“diversity doesn’t work; nationalism does”) it has a good chance of succeeding.
If youâ€™re going to make a nation to preserve the Jewish people and culture, you want to have only Jews in it.
Otherwise, some silly young person marries outside the fold, and then those genes get enfolded into the group, and when this happens enough, the group becomes a generic mix of humanity â€” itâ€™s no longer Jewish.
Enough competing ideologies and people get sick of the decision and turn their backs on Judaism.
When culture becomes mixed, there is no dominant strain, and so people get confused and who rushes in to re-educate them? Marketers. They hate culture because it handles needs with learned practices, not products. Culture is bad marketing. Marketing is bad culture. But itâ€™s what replaces culture in mixed culture states. Just look at the USA.
What works better than mixed-culture/mixed-race (â€œdiverseâ€ or â€œmulticulturalâ€) states? Organic states: one language, one set of values, one culture, one heritage. – “Diversity continues to fail”
And base our reasoning in sound conservative tradition:
As a philosophy, conservatism espouses the following:
- Consequentialism. This is the biggest part of conservatism: results matter more than morality, feelings, appearances or social popularity. Everything is a means to an end, and if the results of our actions turned out badly, we need to figure out why and to avoid it. Even more, we can find some methods that always work, a kind of political Scientific Method, and use those instead of others. Summary: there is a right way to do things, and it is time-proven, and it trumps any new but unproven notions.
- Conservation. As a corollary to the above, there are some products from multiple successful actions that we should cherish and conserve. Culture, customs, values, language, art, traditional religion and last but not least, our organic history of “blood and soil,” meaning that we conserve both heritage and our geographical homelands including their natural wildlife, plants, ecosystems, forests and geological features.
- Social Darwinism. Part of conserving is to ensure that the best thrive. When we have farms, we keep the seed from the healthiest plants to stick in the ground the following year. Before genetically modified crops, farmers over many generations took everyday weeds and made them into high-producing crops. One other aspect to this is our people. We need to always reward the actual best, not just the most manipulative or popular. We need a replacement for natural selection or we stagnate.
- Self-discipline. People hate to hear this one, because it sounds “un-fun,” but self-discipline, systematic thought, and control of our emotions are conservative values. We are defined by our experience, and the types of things we experience we tend to replicate in future actions. When conservatives endorse chastity, relative sobriety, hard work, studying, and avoiding time-wasting activities, we are talking about conditioning our minds and bodies for the best possible outcomes.
- Moral attention. To the conservative mind, consequences matter more than intent. If you didn’t mean to shoot anyone, but you did, the result is someone shot — whether you meant it or not. In the same way, even our actions at home alone condition our view of the world and how we will treat others. Healthy societies are constantly at moral attention, filtering out the destructive and endorsing the good.
This is a starting list of true conservative values. You will notice that exactly zero of these are popular. That is because what is popular is always wish-fulfillment fantasies (“you can be a rock star”), making excuses (“you’re only poor because of the Reds, not because you do so much meth”), endorsing hedonism (“if it feels good, do it”) and encouraging apathy and complacency. – “The future of the right”
Introduce futurist and deep ecologist elements.
Conservatism formed before the industrial revolution made environmental crisis manifest. For this reason, it needs to catch up — by going back to the mostly conservative thinkers who invented conservation, and with it, the need for a national spirit of valuing nature and thus wanting to conserve it.
If we look at the works of thinkers as diverse as Garrett Hardin and Arne Naess, we see that environmentalism cannot work as a tack-on. We have to have a culture, and it must be part of that culture, so that we can work it seamlessly into our society at large.
Environmentalists hate this idea because it puts them out of a job. For the same reason, white nationalists hate the idea because it supplants their race-fanaticism with conservation as the highest abstract level of our values system — we conserve forests just like we conserve culture and heritage.
Disenfranchise the disinterested.
In our modern society, the disinterested masses represent a threat because they will treat politics like a sporting event. Generally oblivious to politics, they will get involved if there is a chance that it can become like sports an us-versus-them scenario.
What makes this complicated is that appearances donâ€™t define reality. Leftism appears to be more collaborative: give others what they want, eliminate authority, and weâ€™ll all work together. However, in reality all expansions of possibility include both positive and negative, so in the interest of trying all options there are going to be good options â€” and very bad ones. In human terms good are the productive and inventive and diligent; bad are the criminal, the perverse, the disaffected directionless and angry.
So true collaboration probably doesnâ€™t involve accepting everyone, and since we know some solutions are better than others, it must involve a hierarchy of promoting good solutions and demoting bad ones.
This is not only like natural selection, but it resembles the scientific method: come up with many hypotheses, and test them all, and keep the ones that are more accurate than others. Not absolutely accurate, because almost nothing is if anything, but more accurate because itâ€™s an ongoing process. With each iteration, kick the good upstairs and forget about the bad.
Thatâ€™s the face of true collaboration because it has a goal in mind for everyone: a healthy society. To that end, itâ€™s willing to be good to some and kick out others. Every society, to some degree, is willing to do this, even if itâ€™s a very â€œprogressiveâ€ society that locks murderers and pedophiles up in glorified daycare centers.
Collaborative societies tend to therefore operate on the principle of self-interest first, as a means of defining the individual and seeing what he or she is capable of, and then secondarily, helping others. This is to avoid the reversed justification where someone who fails at other things makes themselves a Christ-like figure who dedicates their life to fighting poverty, misery or some other unsurmountable goalâ€¦ itâ€™s cognitive dissonance: they could not succeed, so found a surrogate goal, and are using it to justify their success as an individual. – “The Psychology of Leftism”
A sensible starting point for future politics is to remove universal enfranchisement and replace it with vote by land-owning heads of households, or others who are in positions of responsibility. We should not allow those who do not understand responsibility and generally resent it to vote alongside those who put their lives on the line to get things done.
Remove subsidies of the dysfunctional.
Our society likes to spawn an Idiocracy within it because that produces compliant, oblivious, easily-suggestible voters.
My inner conservatism awakened. It was a basic realization: first, the causes of our misfortune are not external, generally. Theyâ€™re internal: drink too much, and you fail at life. If you canâ€™t do your job without being reminded of basic details, youâ€™ll work at Mickey Dâ€™s forever. If you are responsible, organized and apply yourself, you rise. In fact, the only substantive bias I saw was people biased against themselves, which is very common.
Still all my friends were liberal. We drove past a ghetto â€” white, black or other â€” and they saw people who were victims of an education system that was bad, or a corporate conspiracy, or whatever it is in poverty that â€œmakesâ€ people drink. Iâ€™d point out that these people went to the same schools the rest of us did, in which if you learned a few basic things or scored well on a standardized test, they tried their hardest to help you.
Iâ€™d point out that if these folks had any aptitude in getting grades or scoring on standardized tests, they could go to a wide range of universities that were specifically looking for impoverished or minority students. Then Iâ€™d point out the obvious inconsistencies: vast consumption of expensive alcohol and cigarettes, expensive cars next to hovels, obvious disarray and lack of maintenance, and so on. My friends wouldnâ€™t hear it. – “Area 51”
By replacing a welfare state with job insurance, and replacing entitlements with benefits cost-discounted through bulk purchase, we can stop subsidizing the incompetent, dysfunctional and disorganized.
Subsidize the highly functional to overbreed.
A nation is its people; its people, far from being equal citizens that spring out of the same mold and then get painted differently, vary in ability. We should encourage the best to overbreed, or have extra children, by subsidizing those extra children in medicine and education.
Decline starts with loss of consensus. When you have social consensus about what is valued, you can reward people for upholding that and thus create a constant stream of â€œbetterâ€ people. What replaces that is a measurement of a personâ€™s viability to business or popularity (media), which is not a measurement of their overall competence but their skill/determination at only one skill out of thousands. Without a values system, society rewards the outlandish, the corrupt, the conniving and the dramatic. It rewards those who play the social game, not those who can create better function.
This is why in third world nations, people are generally more verbally and socially competent than they are competent with technologies and learning. They can talk a good game, or really make something sound like an appealing product; are they the descendants of long-ago corrupted hipsters? Hipsters themselves are the most evident product of decline. When your middle class kids stop trying to do anything productive and become egomaniacs trying to prove how unique they are, you know the system is broken, has failed them and has failed itself. – “What will split America”
This means that instead of concentrating our future population on the lower end of the voting pool, we aim toward the higher.
Union between practical and aspiration
Politics is a tool; tools exist to (in the right hands) help people; by people we mean not just individuals, but whole civilizations, which represent people united around ideas (New Righters call this meta-politics, or how culture and ideas shift politics to support them).
Our ideas are straightforward: nationalism is the best order for a society; diversity doesn’t work.
Even more, there are biological differences not only between races, but social castes and classes, and ethnies as well as individuals. Human biological diversity is more complex than superior/inferior.
Clyburn, who met his wife at a 1960 court hearing after spending a night in jail for having engaged in a civil rights protest in Orangeburg, S.C., then brought up Obama’s race as the first black president.
“You know, I’m 70 years old,” he said. “And I can tell you; people don’t like to deal with it, but the fact of the matter is, the president’s problems are in large measure because of the color of his skin.”
Clyburn noted that he himself got hate mail, racist phone calls and offensive faxes on a regular basis. Asked how that relates to the president, Clyburn retorted: “We have the same skin color; that’s how it relates to him.” – McClatchy
We need to create a society that unites people toward a goal, and then gradually improves the quality of individuals so we do not need centralized control and police on every street corner. The only rational starting point for this is culture, which is embedded in race/ethny and vice-versa. Heritage, culture, language, customs and values exist in parallel with the same center, which is a national population, and this is what nationalists defend.
Racism, hatred, anger, anti-Semitism, paranoia and other angry low self-esteem teenager behaviors are simply not needed, or in technical terms, obsolete.
The point of a healthy society is to unite the practical and the beautiful. You imagine a future you want and work toward it; it’s not just a matter of, in true reactionary fashion, adapting to what exists now. You must also plan what you desire, and the best vector for that is culture.
The future awaits if we cast aside the failed and reach out for the more ambitious but actually beautiful.
All of this begins with the end of white nationalism.
What is presented here is a plausible future that lies within our grasp. However, white nationalism stands in our way. If we remove it, we can build something better and by not being pointlessly alienated and unrealistic, be responsible enough to deserve power and the trust of our fellow citizens.
To most on the political spectrum farther right than moderate Republicans, this seems like heresy. “But we get 100,000 people a day here through our angry genocidal forum! You can’t turn down numbers like that!” — sure we can, especially when you consider that ten million a day investigate mainstream conservative information.
Itâ€™s modern society: any chirping cheeseball can put forth a notion, detach it from reality and get a few hundred thousand people discussing it. They do this quite successfully for trivial things like rock bands, TV shows, favorite products and even dumb trends like putting bacon in ice cream.
In other words, that we have a few hundred thousand warm bodies pounding on their keyboards in unison about some idea proves nothing. If anything, itâ€™s a useful moneymaker for our adversaries, whoâ€™d just love an organized uprising of Hollywood-style totalitarianism. The donations would keep rolling in at a snappy pace, then.
But on the other hand, all good things start small. Every giant tree was once a seedling that for a long time looked just like any other weed. The Puritans who founded America were probably considered the 16th century equivalent of potheads home in England: â€œRight, religious liberty. Good luck with that. Donâ€™t eat too much when you get the munchies.â€
However, for any cultural shift to succeed â€” and in a time when politics responds to trends both illusory and realistic, the only change that happens is a cultural shift in attitudes and expectations, and politics follows that â€” it must be distilled down into a clear, simple and easily-transferred message. A meme, if you will. – “Resisting Assimilation”
As is normal in a civilization that is collapsing from within, all of our words have become mis-defined for the political convenience of our rulers. Even more, most of our institutions, including the underground ones, are corrupt. Instead of trying to work with such broken objects, we should start anew and make something with a hope of survival.