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:
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.