Identity versus racism redux

santa_nazi_salute

Most people are denialists who lack the spirit to oppose the ongoing degeneration of our civilization. They compensate for this by picking “surrogate” activities and beliefs that symbolically substitute for effective counteraction.

Almost all political philosophies fall into this camp because to do otherwise is to contradict the founding myth of our current civilization and thus to break taboo and not only be ostracized, but be unpopular because most people are compensators not concerned with the truth so much as what makes their choices in life seem correct.

The problem faced by the right is that over the years, we have seen too many apologists and compromisers who serve as an entry point for compensators into the right. Our goal is not to find parity with modernity, which formalized itself in 1789 with the French Revolution, but to oppose it.

That situation leads to a fracturing of the Right where the mainstream right is exclusively compromise-oriented as a means of “keeping the shop open” or working with others much as one would in any office, which results in perpetual compromise shifting incrementally to the left. On the other hand, the underground right tends to emulate the left and adopt an ideological dogma as its sole agenda. This then also drifts to the left.

Recently the fellows at Aryan Skynet blog wrote about my outlook on white nationalism:

The philo-Semitic “New Right” writer Brett Stevens offers a typical Cain-critical hack job in his neoreactionary rant “Serf’s Up!” at Amerika.org:

Fact is, modern man, you were so clever — you saw what the lord of the manse had, and you desired it, like Cain viewing Abel naked in the shower, resplendent in a natural glory you are in your Gollum-like ugliness not given, resplendent in a natural intelligence that in your Goliath-like stolidity you are not given — cheated! — like Esau viewing Jacob the future inheritor, like a dark-haired girl looking longingly on a blonde until longing turns to hate. You saw what those gifted by nature had and you determined you’d take it. You gathered all you knew and said, now we rule — and you did. You overthrew the Lord of the Manse, you married and impregnated his granddaughters, and now everything’s equal. Yet there’s a new Lord of the Manse and it’s not one person, but millions, hiding behind your credit cards and your house payments, parasitically wanting exactly what you do which is more money all of the time, and thus we all prey on each other, parasitic brothers locked in arms as we descend the whirlpool of our feedback loop rotting society for our profit — but surely it was worth it, because you’re free?

His attitude toward Cain, moreover, is of a piece with his dishonest and belittling attitude toward racialist politics. Zionist rodeo clown Stevens, who claims that “Hitler’s goals are near realization” and that “Jews are under attack and now are not protected by the liberal media establishment”, argues in his mean-spirited hit piece “Destroy White Nationalism”, that “white nationalism is an underconfident teenager” who “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).” What Stevens really believes, however, is that racialist identitarianism – nationalism writ large – violates the Jew-god’s insecure and incessant demands for humility and its enviously infantile prohibition of “idolatry”.

Stevens instead suggests that conservatives should “celebrate” the degenerate pederast, ethnomasochist, heroin addict, and murderer William S. Burroughs as one of their own. “Shoot the bitch and write a book. That’s what I did,” conservative Burroughs flippantly said of his 1951 murder of spouse Joan Vollmer. “When all the cards are counted,” Stevens writes, “Burroughs will be remembered as one of the good guys.” “That their children’s children’s children might be a different color is something very alarming to them,” this “good guy” literary celebrity said of white nationalists; “in short they are committed to the maintenance of the static image. The attempt to maintain a static image, even if it’s a good image, just won’t work.” Stevens, then, by his endorsement of Burroughs as a model conservative, must believe that miscegenation represents progress – the mule’s vibrant dynamism as opposed to the thoroughbred’s monotonous stasis in genealogical symmetry.

This same “conservative” wise man, Stevens, in tweeting a link to an Aryan Skynet post about Francis Parker Yockey, dismisses white nationalism as “ethnic Bolshevism” – the idea of the qualification being that historical, Jewish-financed-and-administered Bolshevism was somehow not ethnic? He characterizes white identitarianism as “fake nationalism” – as opposed to the “revitalized mainstream [i.e., kosher] conservatism” he extols – because of what he claims are white nationalism’s “emotional outbursts of racial hatred and paranoid anti-Semitism”, which, one assumes, include the telling of inconvenient facts about 9/11. Merely to speak the inviolable name of Larry Silverstein in vain and in lieu of its tetragrammaton is to murder Abel all over again in the Stevensian contribution to Talmudic theology.

“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,” Stevens writes, and he would know this, considering his own services rendered to “our rulers” in perpetuating their historical distortions and misappropriating the concept of ethnonationalism as a label for psychotic maladjustment, paranoia, brutish behavior, and rabid calls for the resuscitation of some mythological program of genocide – a vast multiplication of the purportedly evil act of Cain.

As for Bolshevism, it is important to note that Vladimir Ilych Ulyanov, the embodiment of that Judaic plague, is remembered principally, in addition to his political destiny, murderousness, and personal dynamism, for his pragmatism – that and the fact that his party won. Lenin’s biographer Robert Service describes him as “an improviser” who “worked by instinct as well as by doctrine” – a man not willing to sacrifice a victory on ideological grounds. There are lessons in Lenin’s life for whites who would revolutionize their people. White activists might lack the deep New York pockets that Lenin had at his disposal, but can still benefit from a study of the Bolsheviks’ pragmatic approach to the tasks of strategic subversion. Allies change with political winds, as should political programs and propagandistic exigencies. Let whites dispense with Bolshevism’s more obviously Jewish aspects – the mass executions, contempt for tradition, and service to the Zionist banking complex – and embrace its flexibility and its pagan versatility.

The Babeuvist Conspiracy of the Equals failed, as did the Paris Commune; but this did not prevent Lenin and his supporters from learning from the mistakes of their less successful forebears within the revolutionary tradition. Racialists have their own rich heritage of failed experiments – and, to this extent, there is a grain of truth in Stevens’s nasty characterizations – but, like Marxism, white nationalism cannot allow itself to rigidify, stagnate, and become overly patterned and doctrinaire. When classical, economically fixated, and insurrection-oriented Marxism failed to produce the Western European revolutions its theorists and propagandists had prophesied, the neo-Marxists of the Frankfurt School reinvigorated the movement by changing its arsenal, image, and tactics, if not the ultimate target of its perpetual onslaught. While recognizing and honoring the triumphs of nationalisms past, the white nationalist of today must choose either to look to the future or else relegate his cause to nostalgia fetishism.

Nietzsche “would remind us, too,” Stevens writes in his essay “Morality”, “that it’s important not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just because you don’t like herd morality doesn’t mean you get all Sandusky on some kids” – unless, of course, one is as staunch a reactionary as William S. Burroughs. Racial solidarity being as noble a cause and commitment as any, should whites jettison identity and group interest – and throw their babies out with the bathwater, as it were – only because the moral herd happens to have frowned upon some of their forebears’ fashion sense?

I am thankful to Aryan Skynet for introducing the many topics which are considered above, and for having read so deeply of the articles on this site.

However, I disagree with their conclusions and can point to a few errors among their assumptions as well.

Civilizations die where there are too many conflicting loyalties for them to be united. They literally fall apart because they no longer reflect a group of people inclined toward the same purpose or social standards.

Identitarians like myself suggest that identity — comprised of the triad culture, heritage and values — is the only method of avoiding this collapse. It forces the majority to declare the social standard to which it is otherwise blind, and forces those who are incompatible with that to leave or form their own republics elsewhere.

We tend to favor strong action to establish that state, and then no action; the strong action was like our response to an earthquake or hurricane an emergency measure.

The advantage of identity is that it restores the idea of social order. Instead of simply having government administer rules which make everything turn out OK, the nebulous concept of social order includes social roles, caste distinctions, and cultural standards as well as a tendency to promote the best leaders to leadership roles independent of whether most people — who lack leadership ability — can make the leadership-level choice to decide who should be leaders.

White Nationalism, like leftism, is the idea that racial ideology alone can fix a problem. It emulates the 1789 masters by proclaiming an ideology and demanding that it be the method of fixing society, which not only imitates the methods of its enemies but their goals, namely a civilization without social order. They want government and dogma in place of social order.

Conservatives like myself see it the other way around: government is limited in what it can do. It can write rules by the tens of thousands of pages (in fact, it has) and then enforce those, but only after a tragedy has occurred. Further, its enforcement relies on bureaucrats, courts and police who are not present everywhere nor would we want them to be. Thus most infractions get missed and many thousands of people are involved who can easily be bribed to simply look the other way. Government as a solution to human problems is a failed model.

Instead, we propose that every citizen be a police officer, compliance specialist and intervention expert in their own right. With cultural standards, we apply standards on each other by having ideals that we aim for, and having no-fly zones that we seek to avoid. This is not a single level of rule, like laws and regulations, which only specify a no-fly zone; it also includes the goal, which tends to be an ongoing standard like morality itself, which is both timeless in that it applies in every age and evolving in that as a society gets healthier, the moral standard raises and becomes less rigid.

Most people missed the salient argument of the book The Bell Curve, since the denialists and compensators on the left had a huge tantrum about it and one chapter in which it discussed race. The real argument of the book was that the Standard Distribution applies to all population groups. Whether that is a group of white-haired Nordics or spear-holding Bantu, within that group intelligence and other traits will break down according to the standard distribution, with most in the middle (the “bell curve” shape) and some outliers on the right who are excellent. This is evolution in action; healthy evolution takes the far-right (heh heh) group and promotes it above the rest, as monarchism, aristocracy and identitarianism did in the past.

Liberalism opposes this because it wants equality, or the notion that people in the middle of the bell curve are equal to those on the far right and that — this thought is created backward in order to justify an argument for equality — there are no special abilities to those on the far-right. Any person can judge with “common sense” or better, be “educated” in the right ideology and science and make the decision. This turns out to be nonsense, since leadership intelligence which the far-right excels at requires consideration of many factors in a particularized, context-dependent and non-universal way, which clashes with the exoteric/universalist ideas of education, ideology and equality. Liberalism perpetuates a denial of evolution in order to argue for equality, which while it is enforced by a mass, herd, mob or crowd is actually an individualist idea, which is the individual and his ego wanting to be the center of his own world and not contradicted by reality, social standards or awareness that he is anything but the apex of humanity.

All of this states that leadership is rare and we need social order to promote those who can lead to the top, because there is no way we can design a “system” to replace the ability to understand particularized (context-dependent) problems. Universals do not work because these are false abstractions which assume that context can be equalized and that all cause-effect relationships consist of a single step, which is obviously false.

With that in mind, let me answer the charges laid at my door:

I do not support White Nationalism for two reasons. First, it is racial Marxism that seeks to abolish social order for the purposes of equality, and thus will fail and destroy the host civilization like all parasitic liberal governments have since their birth in ancient Greece over two thousand years ago. Second, it equates nationalism with racism, which is not so. Nationalism is the idea that identity is required for social order and that culture is better than ideology, thus each ethnic group — defined by culture, heritage and values simultaneously — needs its own space and self-rule. While nationalism does not rule out noticing racial differences or the biological root of race, it tends not to focus on such things because much as people are different, ethnic groups will be different, with each working to evolve or become the best version of itself that it can be. A highly-evolved African kingdom like ancient Ethiopia will be radically different from a highly-evolved European or Asian one; we are different peoples and have different fundamental structure to our beliefs, needs and ideals. Nationalism is a workable way to address this situation, but White Nationalism is not and is often correctly categorized under the Hate Group tag. Most conservatives do not mention this since we do not believe in circular firing squads, but since it has been brought up by others…

As to “philo-Semitic,” I stand accused. I support Israel and the ability of the Jewish people to have nationalism, which is described by the phrase “Zionism.” I think the Holocaust was disgusting and horrible and shocked our people, and makes us think less of ourselves. We have moral standards and one is enslavement of enemies, but this is generally for a temporary period and does not involve mistreatment. The Holocaust is actually two things, the first being the use of Jews as slave labor in Germany and Poland, and the second the field executions that generally occurred in Eastern Europe and the Baltic States. I recognize that Jews in Europe occupied two ugly roles, the first as perceived nepotistic wealthy merchants and the second as overrepresented in the Communist Party. These two factors contributed heavily to their genocide and any ethnic group should learn from that and avoid both of those perceptions if possible. But this does not justify or excuse genocide. If you endorse the quest against the Jews, you will first make yourselves into craven murderers, no matter how good your intentions, and second expend your energy fighting the wrong enemy. The enemy is an idea, liberalism with its roots in individualism, and the solution to it is social order with social roles, rooted in identitarianism.

Beyond that, I cannot offer much other than to point out that William S. Burroughs, like many of us, has his scars as well as his victories. Among other things, he was a heroin addict for most of his life and a marijuana farmer during his thirties just outside Houston, Texas. Let’s look at that quotation again:

That their children’s children’s children might be a different color is something very alarming to them…in short they are committed to the maintenance of the static image. The attempt to maintain a static image, even if it’s a good image, just won’t work. – William S. Burroughs

He is not saying “go miscegenate” here; he is talking about methods and not goals. The point is that we cannot defend our goals by looking backward and saying “change nothing,” but that we must find ways to keep that society alive. He outright says that the image “is a good image,” implying approval of the idea of having children of the same heritage. He says however that the right will not succeed by pointing to a static image, a form of ideology, and implies that there must be another way. (This makes sense given his life interest in semiotics and criticism of static symbology as having parasitic aspects, which he attacks among the left — for whom Divisionists may be a metaphor — as well as the right in Naked Lunch.)

Those of us who are not in denial or compensating recognize that our civilization is in decline and that we would like to not only reverse the decline, but have a sense of pride again derived from the legitimate tendencies of a civilization toward higher levels of its own evolution. White Nationalism and Anti-Semitism will not deliver us there and, like liberalism and other denialist and compensatory mechanisms, seeks only to distract us with false promises and illusory solutions while we wait for the inevitable end.

Tags: , , , , ,

28 Responses to “Identity versus racism redux”

  1. foampenguin says:

    Cliffs:

    -WN is bullshit because “if it’s white it’s alright” means white retards are included. This is bad because retards should be enslaved and sterilized, not included as equals.

    -there is a plurality of white cultures therefore uniting them makes little sense. Germans, French, Scots, English and Swedes have a lot in common compared to the rest of the world but it’s important to allow them to specialize so the best model rises.

    You are welcome for the summary, Aryan Skynet and Brett Stevens. (Suggested gratuity $10)

  2. Steve says:

    The Aryans would be a tremendous force able to reshape civilization if they consisted of a few hundred talented, disciplined, professional, successful winners. Unfortunately, they are disgruntled losers dreaming of an ideal society they cannot contribute towards, and live much like third world laborers among first world populations.

    They lust for what they could never create.

  3. Refman says:

    “A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within.” (Will Durant)

    Brett, do you happen to have any definite idea how to incite or enforce the promotion of the top share of the standard distribution in society and culture, social standard, evolution and leadership? What kind of action do you have in mind?

    • Brett, do you happen to have any definite idea how to incite or enforce the promotion of the top share of the standard distribution in society and culture, social standard, evolution and leadership?

      Yes: I think we need a clear whole goal, like what type of civilization is desired, and then to promote that through a cultural renaissance.

  4. I’m the guy who wrote “The Razers of Cain”. Here are a few brief reactions to things you’ve written in your response.

    “White Nationalism, like leftism, is the idea that racial ideology alone can fix a problem. It emulates the 1789 masters by proclaiming an ideology and demanding that it be the method of fixing society, which not only imitates the methods of its enemies”

    White nationalism is the idea that biology informs identity, and that a vigorous identitarian movement should take this fact into account. Or, as Sam Francis put it, “If the people or race who create and sustain the civilization of the West should die, then the civilization will also die.” He refers of course to the white race.

    Ethnonationalism imitates the methods of its enemies defensively – because an equal counterforce is required to combat these – and because the left’s methods have been so successful. Not successful at ordering a society, of course, but in attaining power largely through convincing the public of the correctness of its values and policies.

    White nationalism at this stage is mostly a matter of consciousness-raising. We want whites to know what is happening to them, how they’ve been taxed to pay for their own dispossession, and how they’re being softly genocided in their own countries all over the world. We want cultural Marxism to die and for anti-white attitudes to be confronted openly and opposed as a common denominator and prerequisite in any political platform which whites are expected to support.

    “With cultural standards, we apply standards on each other by having ideals that we aim for, and having no-fly zones that we seek to avoid.”

    Who is “we”? Good luck convincing America’s Fergusonites that they are your countrymen and fellows, all brothers in a postracial “nation” sharing the same “ideals” and “cultural standards”. The possibility at least exists that liberals or their children or grandchildren might be persuaded to become overt racial identitarians and what I would characterize as true nationalists since they are already covert racial identitarians as illustrated by their settlement patterns, aesthetic affinities, sexuality, and nearly every other criterion one can think of. They have the cognitive equipment, if not the emotional and ideological motivation, to process and understand the facts of race and history. The main problem with them is that they’ve internalized so much Judaic propaganda. Blacks are a self-interested and hostile herd and happy to be that way. They’re a burden and should be recognized and jettisoned as such from any political program that seeks to be useful. The selection pressures of their development as a race have made them neurologically ill-disposed to participate as citizens in your nationalist ideal.

    “I do not support White Nationalism for two reasons. First, it is racial Marxism that seeks to abolish social order for the purposes of equality, and thus will fail and destroy the host civilization like all parasitic liberal governments”

    No. It would, however, mitigate inequality of the type exacerbated by globalist economics. White nationalism is Marxism no more than your postracial variety is. Some in the movement might prefer to see it take a turn to the left, but white nationalism in its essence is only the promotion of a particular group interest and a communitarian commitment, just as your nationalism is, but more specific and biologically realist in its conception of identity. I, for one, don’t want an all-white equivalent of the dysgenic welfare state we currently enjoy. People should work in order to eat. I’d like to see my people as a transnational group thrive, but not at the expense of productivity and eugenic principles.

    “The Holocaust is actually two things”

    Yes – a highly successful extortion racket and a taxpayer-subsidized brainwashing scheme.

    Finally, I’m putting you on the spot. How would a nationalist regime of the sort you imagine contend with the Larry Silversteins, Dov Zakheims, George Soroses, Sheldon Adelsons, and Benjamin Netanyahus of the world? Do they continue unchecked in their power plays and scheming? Just let them continue to run free and murder innocent people, us included, with our money? Does Israel remain America’s richest welfare queen? Cut aid to Israel or not?

    You’re the king of nationalist America. Where is Larry Silverstein in this scenario? In jail? Exiled to Elba? Having a sleepover at the White House? Getting his back rubbed by the Secretary of Defense?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NC21mUNO1NQ

    • White nationalism is the idea that biology informs identity, and that a vigorous identitarian movement should take this fact into account. Or, as Sam Francis put it, “If the people or race who create and sustain the civilization of the West should die, then the civilization will also die.” He refers of course to the white race.

      Most people do not think in such binaries. They do not see how letting a few starving illegal immigrants into their town constitutes white genocide, nor do they have the historical consciousness for such considerations. Many movements recognize this biological imperative, but in the West our problem runs deeper; our people do not even see us as the West, or worth preserving as a civilization.

      The answer to that problem is to restore civilization and identity. “Raising awareness” of racialism will not alone do that, but will stand-in for it and prevent it from becoming an agenda item among those who become racialists. You are helping in the defeat of the West, not hindering it.

      White nationalism at this stage is mostly a matter of consciousness-raising. We want whites to know what is happening to them, how they’ve been taxed to pay for their own dispossession, and how they’re being softly genocided in their own countries all over the world.

      You are not offering them an alternative by advancing an ideological fragment as a complete solution. This is why they are more likely to turn to conservatism: it includes all that white nationalism offers, without the zombie aspects or the terrifying seemingly pointless rage, violence and revenge.

      Who is “we”?

      In that paragraph, any group that elects to have cultural standards.

      It would, however, mitigate inequality of the type exacerbated by globalist economics. White nationalism is Marxism no more than your postracial variety is.

      Whose postracial variety?

      How would a nationalist regime of the sort you imagine contend with the Larry Silversteins, Dov Zakheims, George Soroses, Sheldon Adelsons, and Benjamin Netanyahus of the world?

      I don’t know half of these people, but my question would be that if these people are so destructive, what gave them power and how does it refuse to stop them? You cannot eradicate a disease by fighting symptoms, nor can you indict a whole people by a handful of bad examples.

      • “I don’t know half of these people”

        Considering that they’ve helped to shape the century you’re enduring, you might want to look them up.

        “the terrifying seemingly pointless rage, violence and revenge.”

        Oy vey. Sure, just go on attacking the cartoon archetype. Guilty as charged. We’re all tattooed skinheads like Edward Norton in American History X. Just keep pretending that white nationalist intellectuals, men like Kevin MacDonald, Sam Dickson, Alex Kurtagic, Richard Spencer, Jared Taylor, Colin Liddell, Greg Johnson, and Michael O’Meara don’t even exist. We’re all soccer hooligans and goosestepping paraders if we don’t endorse politely inclusive “conservatism”.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7AMMuBWWJY

        • Sure, just go on attacking the cartoon archetype. Guilty as charged. We’re all tattooed skinheads like Edward Norton in American History X.

          This is a mischaracterization of my statement for the convenience of your argument, not mine.

          Just keep pretending that white nationalist intellectuals, men like Kevin MacDonald, Sam Dickson, Alex Kurtagic, Richard Spencer, Jared Taylor, Colin Liddell, Greg Johnson, and Michael O’Meara don’t even exist.

          Considering I cite most of those on this site, your point seems spurious. I am criticizing white nationalism, not trying to give it or myself validation as “intellectual.” You also omitted Alex Linder, Varg Vikernes and Yggdrassil, and I think it a mistake at this point not to include Andrew Anglin, or to mention past greats like George Lincoln Rockwell, William Pierce and Sam Francis, as well as many others.

          However, a thinker/writer must be able to disagree with ideas and to amplify upon them if a healthier direction exists. White nationalism has some serious flaws, mostly in the fact that it identifies a problem without a solution, so offers to white people the choice of following a rather extreme ideological crusade with no working plan or to keep trying to make the best of what is. Most white people file white nationalists in the crazy bin despite agreeing with them on many topics, mainly because white nationalism has no real plan, resembles a leftist extremist movement, and seems to be at least OK with if not outright endorsing events like the Holocaust and terrorism against Jews.

          Nationalism does not require witch-hunts. It requires us to build a new society from the ashes of the old, and you cannot do this by destroying alone. Remember what happened to Robespierre, whose Terror was the archetype of the Holocaust: start killing ideological enemies, and soon you cannot stop. The bodies pile up and misery compounds.

  5. Crud Bonemeal says:

    It seems to me that it is rather easy to attack a semi-straw man version of white nationalism, because white nationalism is a political current, rather than a formal ideology, and it has a rather large base of support among non-intellectuals, at least on the internet.

    If you have a problem with a political idea, you can probably find some prole-WN who endorses it and expresses himself poorly.

    But it seems wrong to suggest that WN is by definition associated with the idea that “racial ideology alone” can fix all problems. Many WN thinkers are willing to trace the roots of the problems of our civilization to all the same historical events that the rest of the alt-right loves to talk about. In many cases they were into this kind of talk before NRX or Identitarianism was even a thing.

    Similarly, WN is not necessarily egalitarian in character, although there are, no doubt, plenty of prole WNs who are otherwise politically naive and egalitarian.

    Same for “racism” vs “nationalism”.

    If there is any core to White Nationalism, it lies in the 14 words, which state that “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White Children.” Which is an expression of simple group survival values for a nation under threat.

    In a world context “white” may not be an ethnic group, but in the United States it is certainly at least a proto-ethnic group, with the potential to complete the process of ethnogenesis and strong incentives to do so, in the form of enemies who are happy to help define the group.

    WN and Identitarianism are political currents, not formal ideologies and as such, neither of are as clearly defined as you might like to imagine. WN signals “white trash / prole” while Identitarian signals “internet intellectual”, but there is no real hard line distinction and incredible amounts of overlap.

    Resist the narcissism of small differences.

    • Nicely stated. I concur.

    • It seems to me that it is rather easy to attack a semi-straw man version of white nationalism, because white nationalism is a political current, rather than a formal ideology, and it has a rather large base of support among non-intellectuals, at least on the internet.

      It may not be a formal ideology, but by presenting itself as a solution, it serves the role of ideology. In doing so, it does not specify the type of society it wants, and thus unites people on a goal they do not understand, with only one single factor present, and that is ideological. Thus it may not be a “formal” ideology — despite attempts by most involved to formalize it — but it is an ideology and acts like the leftist ideologies it claims to counter, with the inevitable leftward drift of people in modern society making it tend toward a socialist and leftist direction. Further, by not specifying the role of things such as caste which are parts of all human society, it declares its intent to exclude them.

      Your argument is fallacious. It boils down to “Because there are many varieties of white nationalism, and it is not formalized in a single place, it can mean anything to anybody, thus it cannot be argued against because it is too nebulous.” This is nonsense since the common understanding of it is clear.

      If there is any core to White Nationalism, it lies in the 14 words, which state that “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White Children.” Which is an expression of simple group survival values for a nation under threat.

      That’s a nice goal, but by itself, it will not suffice. Further, what is “white”? Big logical hole there.

      • Anon133 says:

        “Further, what is “white”? Big logical hole there.”

        Thats a disingenuous statement. White is defined as European Caucasian, one of the 9 races outlined on the Cavalli-Sforza genetic linkage tree: htps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/9_Cluster_Tree.png

  6. Dave says:

    Excellent retort. Mr. Stevens has brushed right past the JQ, and wherever he stands on the issue, he cannot deny that the tribe has had an inordinately negative impact on Western societies.
    The extent to which the tribe has negatively affected European civilization highlights our collective weakness and gullibility.
    The fact that the tribe have been allowed to settle in a variety of Western societies for the better part of 2000 years and end up being a thorn in our collective sides, to put it lightly, is a serious question that deserves a considered response.

    • Mr. Stevens has brushed right past the JQ, and wherever he stands on the issue, he cannot deny that the tribe has had an inordinately negative impact on Western societies.

      I’m looking at a list of great Jewish inventions. While they seem to fail at novel-writing and classical music, they have contributed quite a bit to math and the sciences, so if “disproportionate” is to be thrown around here, we should mention their disproportionate positive effect as well.

      • Dave says:

        Agreed. But there is certainly no shortage of praise for Jewish contributions to Western civilization, much of it coming from Jewish leaders, writers and pundits, and swallowed whole by the rest of us. There has yet, aside from Kevin McDonald, to be a serious, intelligent discussion of the negative impact, micro and macro.
        As someone who has lived in NYC for 25 years, I have worked and socialized with many Israelis and Jewish Americans, and my experiences have been overwhelmingly positive. That being said, the JQ is a crucial element to any discussion of where the West has been and where it’s going, if not down the toilet.
        By the way, you have one of the best alt right sites. Your perspective is greatly appreciated.

      • Anon133 says:

        Their positive contributions are completely cancelled out several times over by the destruction they bring with their hostility. Anyone unbiased will choose to pass on their intellectual advances if it also avoids ending up like the Visgoths, and requiring a bloody Reconquista to take back land that was once securely possessed by their ancestors to begin with.

        Its even more ridiculous to even consider the alternative when you realize these scientific contributions will be achieved by whites on their own, albeit on a longer time horizon. Unless you want to insinuate they would be not be made at all without the Tribe’s aid.

        • Their positive contributions are completely cancelled out several times over by the destruction they bring with their hostility.

          Moral absolutes are tricky. Every people has its ups and downs. What went wrong in the West, we did to ourselves, and until we admit that we will never face the solution with honest minds.

  7. MeToo says:

    We have moral standards…

    Oh, do we? Is it “moral” to pretend that powerful leaders are going to listen to our “moral” arguments? If we are nice enough to them, then they’ll start being nice to us?

    • Is it “moral” to pretend that powerful leaders are going to listen to our “moral” arguments?

      No, it would be delusional to do that. Democracy is still democracy, which is a popularity contest not leadership, and it is right to expect leaders to behave like any other business.

      • Anon133 says:

        You admit that the current system is a popularity contest, and moral considerations are secondary in the democratic arena. Then you should understand the political calculus of organizing a coalition to institute a nationalist platform based around a strategy involving scapegoating. Someones going to need to take the blame for all thats happened and will happen, especially when things get bad enough that people consider radical change. And since the Tribe make up the current ruling class responsible for the ongoing decline of the last 4+ decades, its an easy sell. Not to mention the fact that whites are the only with a positive opinion of them. Its easy enough to rally blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, and Asians since they already possess hostility to their leadership (including myself).

        Personal ancedote: I was on public transportation a few years back shortly following the Trayvon Martin case, and I heard some blacks discuss how the Jewish media whitewashed George Zimmerman’s face in all the photographs in order to divert outrage towards whites. I even heard an elderly Asian man summarize it as a case of a black teen being killed by a Hispanic man and then being acquitted by a jury of women, and the Jewish media still blaming white men. This all occurring without me saying a word. To me, that was heartening, though I doubt you feel the same considering your philo-Tribe sympathies.

        And on the historical grounds of the Lavon Affair, the attempted assassination of John Gunther Dean, and the sinking of the USS Liberty are together enough for nationalists to extend animosity to the Tribe in the Middle East. At minimum, the welfare and military alliance will come to an end.

        • Someones going to need to take the blame for all thats happened and will happen, especially when things get bad enough that people consider radical change.

          I suggest we blame what actually should be blamed: the terrible ideas of The Enlightenment™ including democracy, equality, tolerance and multi-level marketing.

  8. foampenguin says:

    On a similar note, why couldn’t racism simply be regarded as disdain for the identity of others, either because they are on a lower evolutionary level or just because they are different and we prefer things different?

    In my family, every meal is a holocaust of meat, oil, spices and vegetables and almost nothing else. We have reasons for liking it this way. We knew some british people and ate with them once and were horrified at first of all how bland they liked everything and second of all what a carbohydrate festival it was.

    Lo and behold, for some time we made jokes about their food.

    British food for a family of 4: just one boneless, skinless, fatless chicken breast, boiled, and 5 full sized bread loaves. No condiments, no dressings, not even any salt.

    We were, in essence, being racist against them in that we were talking mad crap about them for being different in ways we would never be able to tolerate.

    Our instinctive urge to do that reinforces our group identity – as lean, vital, passionate people who eat strong flavored, face meltingly spicy piles of meat and vegetables nearly devoid of carbohydrates, contrasted against british people who are fat, pasty, look kinda like babies and eat nothing but plain bread.

    Imagine this if it were us doing the same thing but against blacks. The more revolted we are that they look like golliwogs and smell like cocoa butter and ass, the more it reinforces our identity as ghostly pale hyperborean uberwhites.

    This is healthy and natural, and helps us create and strengthen the “identity” that you advocate for us to build our whole communities around. It is basically impossible to do it your way without also doing it my way.

    I seem to be the very last apologist for honest racism left on the whole internet. I don’t need justification to feel anything but universal brotherhood towards people different from me, the mere fact that they are different will suffice.

  9. MeToo says:

    “You cannot eradicate a disease by fighting symptoms…”

    Couldn’t agree more. Yet in your article about “anti-vaxxers”, you stated,

    They have seized on the anti-vaxxers who, against not just modern medicine and modern science but the experience of two generations ago with epidemics, believe vaccines cause autism and thus must be avoided.

    The above statement implicitly attributes the supposed end of epidemics to widespread vaccination. And what is vaccination but the eradication of symptoms through suppression by vaccines? Vaccination does not improve overall health. And overall health is the deciding factor in (a) protection from infectious disease or (b) the ability to overcome it, if you do get sick, with mild, traditional, natural treatments. If you are interested but likely you aren’t, look up the classical Chinese understanding of measles.

    And while I’m here (as one opposed to vaccinations), this issue to us is not about autism. It is much broader than that. Lots of children never get autism no matter how many vaccines (about 50 by the time they’re 6 years old) they receive and we recognize that, but that doesn’t make us any more likely to have our children endlessly poked with…ah, you look it up.

  10. Musashi says:

    If the preservation of the White race is a desirable objective, perhaps we could start with convincing our fellow Whites (especially middle/upper middle-class females) that disposing of your unborn children is not a good thing. How can we blame anyone for our demise when we ourselves clamor to murder our own and then congratulate ourselves for our “freedom” and “progressiveness”?

    All moral authority is forfeit until this is corrected.

  11. […] and cyclical demography. The worse, the better. Chatting with Chesterton. No NRX for Mike (loosely related). Still speciating. Finally! Reaction […]

  12. Your website is one of the most coherent nationalist platforms I have found in NRx. I am not a nationalist, but I’m in complete disbelief reading your white nationalist article and this one. I see none of the internal hatred and negativity that have come to perspect from this perspective.

    I would be very happy to give white people the pure white european country they want in the finest lands that would be reasonable but I don’t even think they would let me try.
    I have met nothing but hostility even attempting to communicate with these people. I’m not white but I never really attached to any particular identity but these people motivate me to have to think of a platform and a world were I would have to make broad alliances across ethnic lines just to make sure they didn’t win.

    The positions that you have are completely immune to any criticism I would reflexively have given. I’m reading through your website and articles to see if I haven’t missed something big. The quote below is absolutely accurate

    “Most people do not think in such binaries. They do not see how letting a few starving illegal immigrants into their town constitutes white genocide, nor do they have the historical consciousness for such considerations. Many movements recognize this biological imperative, but in the West our problem runs deeper; our people do not even see us as the West, or worth preserving as a civilization.

    The answer to that problem is to restore civilization and identity. “Raising awareness” of racialism will not alone do that, but will stand-in for it and prevent it from becoming an agenda item among those who become racialists. You are helping in the defeat of the West, not hindering it.”

    I wish I had more to say but the big deal is that I have nothing bad to say.

  13. mike says:

    And nothing regarding duel citizenship, as that would further clarify the positions of loyalty and an over indulgence of cultural awareness that is boardering on a Kalergi prize winners democratic achievement.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>