Posts Tagged ‘Ethno Nationalism’

How Ethnic Separation Happened

Monday, November 21st, 2016


It all started with an earthquake. Or rather, the crushing wave which came after it.

A wall of water swept into Fukushima, Japan and smashed the ruined nuclear power plants there, rushing far inland and sucking out to sea everything in its path. This deposited hundreds of millions of tons of radioactive waste into the nearby ocean where it sank.

The general feeling was a sigh of relief. But as the months went by, problems emerged. It was not just the one-eyed three-limbed babies, but the sudden rise in cancers among the young, and the disappearance of much of the wildlife. Something was afoot.

Scientists monitoring the waters around Japan had at first insisted the problem was contained, but now found themselves re-calculating. Eventually it came out that scientific grants were handed out to those willing to design studies that showed the problem was minuscule, when in fact it was huge.

A re-calculation of risk based on models including all factors, and not just those the government and industry wanted to see, showed the worst case scenario: Japanese fishing waters were entirely radioactive, and because of evaporation and landfill, the island itself was rapidly becoming so.

Japan would have to be abandoned, a monument to the foolishness of humankind in exploring nuclear energy so recklessly.

Owing to the recent rise of right-wing leaders in Europe, the UN was powerless, but in order to prevent genocide by inaction, Europe acted. Boats arrived and transported the Japanese to New Zealand.

The same boats relocated the white population of New Zealand to northern California where the high real estate costs made them feel at home. President Trump welcomed them as he prepared to relocate all Leftists to the new state, “Cow,” formed of California-Oregon-Washington.

Relocation created a cascade of effects. As the only power in the region, China surged into Southeast Asia, dominating these nations as vassal states. Taiwan was quickly overrun.

That in turn thrust India and Pakistan into conflict as they attempted to stabilize their own position. That war ended with India arming several hundred million citizens with rapidly manufactured AK-47s and overwhelming Pakistan with sheer numbers, driving those citizens and all of its own restive Muslims into Afghanistan.

Like a bowling ball in a watch shop, the political initiative careened across the globe. The destabilization of the middle east brought about by the war in Afghanistan inspired Russia to invade to calm the region.

The Russians learned from their own Afghan adventures and, this time, simply drove the people of the middle east into North Africa. Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and other nations simply ceased to exist as their people were relocated. Only Israel and Russia remained.

Europe experienced existential panic. While Russia crushed the middle east, a newly-joined Germany-Austria-Hungary axis powered into Turkey and drove those people into the Russian sector, where they disappeared. German reclaimed its lost lands, including half of Poland.

During these wars, a call was sent out for all able-bodied men to join the war effort. When it was found that fewer than one percent of all non-European-descended residents responded, popular outrage hit a fever pitch, and these were forced into boats and pushed across the Mediterranean.

Driven by necessity, nationalism in Europe hit overdrive. All who were not native to the founding people of a land were exiled. Russian-descended people found themselves driven out of France, and in Germany, all who were not solidly ethnic German found their passports confiscated as they were escorted to waiting boats, trains and planes under the steely eyes of heavily armed guards.

Emboldened by the new environment of political conquest, Brazil armed its excess population and pushed into nearby countries, essentially conquering all of South America except Chile. Its armies got as far as Mexico city.

The Americans reacted by driving south into Mexico, meeting Brazilian forces head on and driving them out of Central America. As part of the new political Machiavellianism sweeping the goal, the Americans relocated all of Central America to the Brazilian Empire and send those who were not of the American founding group after it.

American Indians, Mexicans and other groups joined the great exodus to the South. This freed these groups from the tedious and often controlling arm of the American Western European population, which had a fetish for social order, efficiency and casseroles.

Not to be outdone, Canada invaded Greenland. Americans chuckled until they realized the strategic position that Greenland served, and allied with the Danes and Germans, pushed the Canadians back from the island then conquered Canada.

Again an exodus of those who were not Western European flowed to the South.

Skirmishes broke out in Africa and, in recognition that Africans need a continent of their own, a combined Indian-American forced swept the continent of Chinese and Arab investors, and repatriated all of the white people to Texas, where they could enjoy carrying around weapons for fun instead of purely self-defense.

Mixed-race people everywhere emigrated to Libya, where the remnants of the middle east except Israel had gathered. The North African area became the official genetic punch bowl of the world, and the rest of Africa was ruled by its indigenous people.

The sheer horror of this all induced many Leftists to shoot themselves in the face, and others emigrated to Libya or Brazil, where the values of diversity and tolerance were still in full force.

A new dark age dawned in the West as people realized that equality, brotherhood and liberty were lies, and that social order (and casseroles) alone was real. Parasites, miscreants, perverts and Democrats found themselves on boats to Libya.

All people of Irish descent were repatriated to Ireland, all Italians sent to Italy, Greeks restored to their nation, and mixed-race people given a choice of one of those lands or Libya. Lena Dunham was repatriated to the Bikini Atoll.

Trees grew back on empty land, and reduced pollution and overfishing allowed the oceans and land species to regrow. Wilderness closed many areas of North America and Europe once again.

While most remained in shock from the sheer horror of events, a good number began to realize that this was not an end, but a new beginning. Order was restored, and humanity, freed from the virus of egalitarianism, could resume improving itself.

On Jewishness And The Alt Right

Tuesday, November 1st, 2016


The messages started almost immediately.

As my piece went live, new Twitter accounts begun for this purpose began reaching out. “I’m a Jew, and I’ve always felt this way but I’m afraid to say it” was one common refrain. This was followed up by Facebook messages, invitations to shadowy right-wing Jewish forums, and furtive Kahane supporters verifying my right-wing credentials. Was I really a spy? The right wing Jew is such a rare breed in the wild, some simply didn’t believe it.

The comment section of my article attracted a not-so-rare breed: the “get in the oven” trolls, there to let me know they weren’t cutting me any slack and a Jew remains a Jew. Even here there were gems. One insightful commentator noted that I wasn’t a REAL racist like they were, I’d merely made the calculation that the modern right was less dangerous to Jews than the modern left. While this fellow underestimated my genuine support of the West qua West, he wasn’t totally wrong, and his next observation was keen: “Do you realize how incredibly neurotic your people are, including yourself?”

Well… yeah!

There are those in the alt-right who define their movement entirely in respect to White Nationalism. To them, the alt-right is the political vehicle in the battle for white “ethno-states” which will replace current democracies in Europe and possibly North America/Australia. Many self-consciously model these states on the example of Israel. The least extreme version of an “ethno-state” need not be racially homogeneous, but the political, economic, and cultural power in the state will remain in the hands of the dominant race/ethnicity, who will decide for themselves what will constitute citizenship. As some call this “white supremacy,” the alt-right points out that it’s simply how most of the world works:


So what is an “ethno-state” and why would figures in the Alt-Right look to Israel for an example?

The idea has been around for some time, in different names and reiterations. For Alt-Right leaders such as Richard Spencer, (head of the National Policy Institute, a “pro white think tank”) defining European and North American states using racial criteria is necessary. Spencer, called the “Karl Marx of the Alt-Right” by Glenn Beck, has written at length about the situation facing American and European Whites. What situation? Minority status, loss of culture, and loss of identity in a multi-ethnic state where the standard of living has fallen for everyone. The solution? Make race or ethnic identity the core organizing principle of the state. Germany for the Germans, France for the French, Japan for the Japanese, etc. The policies of these states can vary, but the bedrock principle would be the maintenance of a majority for the dominant ethnic group.

Israel has chosen to extend certain rights to non-Jewish citizens, including the right to vote; there are Arabs in the Knesset. This is all true, yet between ethno-states, policies can differ greatly.

To the Alt-Right, this solves many problems at once. In his book The Ethnostate, Wilmot Robertson (deceased, 2005) talks about what such a state would look like and what policies it would have. The specifics are less important than the idea that race is a “shortcut” to fix other issues. Problems with Wall Street? Less of a problem in a White ethno-state, where high trust and cultural/ethnic pride lead to better behavior from executives. There’s less of a need for regulation in the first place. Where to put educational resources? Easier question when we aren’t dealing with issues of race and immigration, isn’t it? In an ethno-state, the focus of the government will be a more efficient affair. The time and effort put into bridging ethnic and racial divides in our public institutions will evaporate, leaving societies’ energy focused on more productive issues. The well-being of such a country could be more objectively measured. What’s the standard of living? What’s the pay gap? How’s inequality? These questions are easier to answer without issues of race.

Does any of this sound familiar? Do any states exist with policies intended to keep one ethnic/racial group as a majority? Policies that favor this group? The example given by many Alt-Right figures is Israel. Spencer claims to “respect Israel” as a “homogenous ethno-state.” Israeli policies discouraging non-Jewish immigration and encouraging Palestinians to move away from disputed areas are cited by alt-right leaders as examples for their own ethno-state.

Immigration/emigration are part of the story for Israel, but its commitment to the Jewish population is deeper than that. A good description comes from author Sammy Smooha, in the Journal “Nations and Nationalism”. Smooha writes:

Contrary to its self–image and international reputation as a Western liberal democracy, Israel is an ethnic democracy in which the Jews appropriate the state and make it a tool for advancing their national security, demography, public space, culture and interests.

This is what the Alt-Right theoretically wants. A state in which White people, however defined, have control over the public spaces, the culture, the politics, and the demographic future of their country.

What’s that you say? Israel’s not really an ethno-state? They have minorities? Well, of course. Israel has chosen to extend certain rights to non-Jewish citizens, including the right to vote; there are Arabs in the Knesset. This is all true, yet between ethno-states, policies can differ greatly. There’s no need for such a state to be free of minorities, as long as the state itself is defined around the majority. Israel, which encourages (and pays for) large orthodox Jewish families, and calls itself the “Jewish State” is certainly such a country.

So why isn’t the alt-right thrilled to have more Jews among its ranks? Surely we could provide the guidance they need to set up their ethno-states. If they are impressed with Israel, why not more engagement with sympathetic diaspora Jews?

Many in the Alt-Right fear Jewish influence on their movement, citing the Neoconservative “takeover” of traditional Conservatism, and the change in the movement’s character as a result. They fear that Jews may “dilute” the ethno-state they ultimately want to build.

Kevin McDonald, ex Cal State professor and Alt-Right theorist, has written a piece on Jews and the Alt-Right that mentions nineteenth century Austrian-Jewish politician Victor Adler. Adler’s Austria was the seat of the multinational Austro-Hungarian Empire, and was under strain from the repeated influx of “Slavic” immigrants and refugees.

Merely preserving German language and administrative customs wasn’t enough. Actual German people needed protection as well.

Difficult questions of identity revolved around German-speaking Austrians. Should “German” policies, German language, German culture, predominate? Should loyalty to the Emperor and the state trump ethnic loyalty? Adler was a “cultural” nationalist, part of the Linz Program of 1882, explicitly calling for the primacy of German culture, language, and policies in the Austrian State. One of Adler’s co-signers to the Linz Program was Georg Schönerer, who advocated for the inclusion of an “Aryan Paragraph” which would make explicit the connection between German culture and people of German ethnicity.

So what does this have to do with the ethno-state? Schönerer’s concerns are a model for the concerns of the Alt-Right today. As Austria took in more and more refugees from the east, the relative power of the German-speaking population was reduced. To Schönerer and even Adler, the Slavic “Hungarian” side of the Empire was distinctly inferior to the “German” side. To allow more Slavic influence at court, and to allow more Slavic people into the intuitions of the state would invariably weaken and degrade Austro-Hungary. The Linz Program signers made their feelings explicit:

We protest against all attempts to convert Austria into a Slavic state. We shall continue to agitate for the maintenance of German as the official language and to oppose the extension of federalism…[W]e are steadfast supporters of the alliance with Germany and the foreign policy now being followed by the empire.

Adler agreed with Schönerer regarding the “inferiority” of Slavic culture to German culture, but Schönerer took things a step further. Merely preserving German language and administrative customs wasn’t enough. Actual German people needed protection as well. His “Aryan Paragraph” provided that Germans would receive privileges in the empire including more access to government positions.

Schönerer also advocated for a breakup on the Empire along ethnic lines, and his ideas are said to have motivated Polish and Hungarian Nationalists, as well as providing a model for Zionism. Today’s Alt-Right also feels the need to go beyond “cultural nationalism” as well — which means that their ethno-state will not be welcome to any but those who are genetically of its founding ethnic group. To them, race and ethnicity are biological facts.

There’s something genetically distinct, for example, about a German person, and this genetic distinctiveness expresses itself in German culture, which then influences what will be the German state. A majority Black country in Africa could attempt to become a German “culturally nationalist” state, but in the eyes of the Alt-Right, this would end in failure. Only Jews can make a Jewish state, only Zulus a Zulu State. We can speak each other’s languages, eat each other’s food, but there will always be a deep distinction between us.

There’s something genetically distinct, for example, about a German person, and this genetic distinctiveness expresses itself in German culture, which then influences what will be the German state.

Adler broke with Schönerer over the Aryan Paragraph and soon ended up leading the Austrian Labour Movement and publishing an influential Marxist journal. MacDonald and other Alt-Eight commentators fear that Jews in the Alt-Right would exert a similar influence to that of Adler. It’s not the disagreement between cultural/ethnic nationalism in and of itself that bothers them, but the possibility that Jews will push the former and vilify the latter, all while taking on the mantle of the alt-right. Seems a bit farfetched? Perhaps, but who would have thought that Neoconservatives would take the mantle of American Conservatism from John Birch?

The Alt-Right is mixed on Jewish help, but nuanced. MacDonald is still open to the idea of Jews “allied” to the alt-right, assuming they are “vocal critics of the Jewish community and its role in the dispossession of European-Americans.” More nuance comes from a recent press conference given by top alt-right luminaries including Spencer and Jared Taylor. In Taylor’s own words:

“I tend to believe that European Jews are part of our movement,” Taylor said. “I think it is unquestionable there has been an overrepresentation by Jews [among] individuals that have tried to undermine white legitimacy.”

But, he said, the same is true of Episcopalians.

“Does that mean all Jews are enemies of the white race? I reject that,” Taylor said.

Taylor has long been a “white nationalist” writer, well known for being one of the “moderates” in the movement. His views were well-expressed in a recent NPR interview. What he wants is fairly simple: freedom of association on private property. If (non-Jewish) whites wish to have an all-white club, private school, or neighborhood, government shouldn’t intrude. Is this, in and of itself, anti-Semitic? Will I be on my way to the oven? Not sure, but I managed to avoid oppressing the Goyim on my way to Jewish Summer Camp, so who’s to say Whites couldn’t exhibit similar restraint? This really isn’t terribly different than current American policies. Taylor’s “ethno-state” would be far milder than Israel!

Israel has chosen to extend certain rights to non-Jewish citizens, including the right to vote; there are Arabs in the Knesset. This is all true, yet between ethno-states, policies can differ greatly.

Regardless of individual feelings on the Alt-Right, White People, or ethno-states, there is more nuance here than most will give credit for. Media accounts (Betsy Woodruff in Daily Beast) of the NPI Press Conference claim the participants “hate Jews”, despite Taylor’s clear stance to the contrary:


Covering the NPI Press Conference for the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Ron Kampeas writes:

“I want my grandchildren to look like my grandparents,” Taylor said, “not like Fu Manchu or Whoopi Goldberg or Anwar Sadat.”

There were nods of agreement and more pledges to continue the conversation in the Willard bar.

As the room emptied, I prayed silently that Taylor would enjoy good health long enough to behold a grandchild with a pointed goatee, thick braids, foot-long fingernails and a prayer bump, and I recalled his opening remarks, and his overarching predicate for the existence of racial differences.

Most Jewish people would have a similar reaction to Woodruff and Kampeas. Hostility, referring to the Alt-Right leaders as “racist”, mocking their desire for racial and ethnic purity. But why? Are figures like Spencer racist for wanting a White ethno-state? Is Taylor to be condemned for wanting his grandchildren to look like him? (and, it could be assumed, wanting the same or better standard of living for them?) Why can’t we turn the lens around for a moment? What are we really quibbling over? Is it the location of Spencer’s hypothetical ethno-state? What if it was Norway? Is it a problem that White people want to be around other White people? Want their grandchildren to be like them?

I want my grandchildren to be Jewish, I want the Jewish state of Israel to retain its majority Jewish population and character. I want Israel to be there for me and my grandchildren. I want Judaism and the Jewish people to survive. Am I any different than Spencer? Are you?

Race-Nationalism Versus Ethno-Nationalism

Thursday, September 29th, 2016


Now that the Alt Right is firmly established in the public mind, and media attempts to portray it as “white supremacy” have failed simply because it is more complex than that, the Alt Right faces an internal crisis: it must decide what it stands for, and what its goal is.

The Alt Right arose from the convergence of several postwar Rightist movements — the New Right, anti-modernists like Ted Kaczynski, the nationalism and Nietzscheanism of black metal, the anti-liberal critiques of Michel Houellebecq, Traditionalism, White Nationalism, revitalized Social Conservatism and Neoreaction — and still bears the internal conflicts between the differing methods and goals of each.

One large question it faces is whether it wants politics at all. The New Right made a convincing case that a cultural wave was needed to change politics, but Traditionalists rebutted that as long as we live in a society of mass opinion, the herd will always choose degenerate options. Mass opinion is the core of modernity and the root of all politics.

Sidestepping politics would act in accord with the founding idea of the Alt Right, which is that demography is destiny and genetics — not rules on paper or economic rewards — defines the nation and its future. That view is anti-egalitarian because it recognizes that we are not all equal in ability, either as groups or… and this part is unpopular… as individuals. Some are more fit to rule than others.

Richard Spencer of Alternative Right and Radix Journal fame recently gave a speech where he promoted the goal of a race-based state:

We need an ethno-state so that our people can “come home again,” can live amongst family, and feel safe and secure. But we also need an Ethno-state so that Whites can again reach the stars. Before the onset of the “equality” sclerosis, Europeans had a unique ability to risk everything for ends that are super-human. We must give up the false dreams of equality and democracy—not so that we could “wake up” to reality; reality is boring—but so that we can take up the new dreams of channelling our energies and labor towards the exploration of our universe, towards the fostering of a new people, who are healthier, stronger, more intelligent, more beautiful, more athletic. We need an ethno-state so that we could rival the ancients.

This image brilliantly describes why a homogeneous society provides the best option for us: with similarity of goal and abilities, we can not just be better on practical levels, but can also move toward a future that works for Us instead of facilitating the dreams of others. However, the question arises: is his vision homogeneous enough?

The American Conservative describes the roots of Americans:

By 1776, British colonists—mostly English, but with strong Scottish, Welsh, and Irish contingents, along with New York’s Dutch colonials and later German arrivals—had created an American branch of British civilization. At the time of the Declaration of Independence, they were long-settled: almost 170 years in Virginia, over 150 in Massachusetts. At great effort—and at the expense of the Indians they uprooted and the African slaves they imported—colonial Americans formed a nation in their own image. The diversity of their settlements reflected the variety of their British origins. David Hackett Fischer’s magisterial Albion’s Seed traces four great British colonial migrations that leave their mark still: Puritans from East Anglia to New England, Cavaliers from the West Country to Virginia, Quakers from the Midlands to the Delaware, and northern Britons, including the Scots-Irish, to the American backcountry.

Revolutionary Americans, the United States’ founders, were fairly homogeneous: 80 percent of British origin (60 percent English, 20 percent Scottish and Scots-Irish), most of the rest Dutch and German—the great majority American-born. Overwhelmingly Christian, 98 percent were Protestants.

This group made a fatal flaw in its plan: in its zeal for liberty, it forgot that civilization needs guardians.

As a result, it opened the doors to Europeans who were not Western European, and within forty years found itself embarking on a disastrous civil war in which these new Americans served a pivotal role.

The problem with White Nationalism — a variety of Race-Nationalism, as opposed to Ethno-Nationalism (the original definition of Nationalism) which designates a nation by ethnic group, such as “Germany for Germans” — is that it is a form of the proposition nation, or idea that we can combine dissimilar people and force our intent upon them to make them in our image through laws, economics and propaganda.

Proposition nations do not work. The failure of globalism that is currently roiling humanity is proof of that.

Our nation is still divided by pan-European immigration, causing division within the white voting base. The Southern and Eastern Europeans are disproportionately active in Leftist politics and most likely to support them, not because these non-Westerns are “bad” but because they see themselves as underdogs because they are not of the founding group, nor was this society designed for them. Their pride makes them committed to undermining the founding group.

If we are to restore Western Civilization, our goal must be to restore Western Civilization, which is defined by a population of Western peoples, or those from Western Europe who share a Nordic-Germanic root. Adulterating this will produce “ethno-Bolshevism,” or the creation of a generic white race which loses its Western character, and will also destroy that white race through mainstreaming of the trace admixture present in Southern/Irish and Eastern Europeans.

Spencer correctly gauges the magnitude of our task and the necessity of inspiration not just to “end problems” but to rebuild and rise higher than we have ever before. This is a statement of health and sanity. It shows us rising above the concerns of modern politics, and to make good on that quest, we must go further. As Dean Abbott writes in a scathing critique of those who demonize the “reactionary” label:

Reactionaries do not want to return to a “golden-age”. We want a future society consistent with the best of the past, that prizes spiritual riches over material ones, heritage over trinkets. Much reactionary thinking, far from being obsessed with returning to the past is quite vigorously focused on bringing that more humane future into being.

To be sane, we should take stock of where we are, what went wrong and how to create a plan which both avoids this pitfall and heads toward health. Starting with Generation X, our people have had to face the reality that the good and smart people are no longer in control, and that everything in nu-Western Civilization is corrupt and bad. Our task is Herculean, but our people perform best when faced with impossible odds. It is part of our DNA and our romantic mythos of ourselves.

One grim fact is that the ethno-Bolshevist state which triggered the Civil War will not save us; it will doom us, both politically by being unstable, and genetically through backdoored admixture. Instead, we must point our aspirations to the stars yet again, and go with what works: the ethno-state, not the race-state.

Alexander Hamilton on diversity

Thursday, May 7th, 2015


Organicists such as myself have long argued against diversity. It replaces an organic population with a mixed-race group like is common in most of the world. In doing so, it averages traits and replaces unique ones with generic ones. It removes the identity of that group, and replaces it with ideology and commerce. In losing identity, citizens become essentially clients of government with no values system of their own.

It turns out that others have had this thought. Here’s Alexander Hamilton on diversity:

Hamilton was likewise unconvinced that diversity was a strength. The safety of a republic, according to him, depended “essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment, on a uniformity of principles and habits, on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice, and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education and family.” He then drew out the implications of this point: “The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”

This essentially tells the story of the difference between Europe and the rest of the world. Europe kept its identity; other nations based theirs on trends, commerce and other short-sighted impulses. The result was disaster for them.

Mainstream conservatives are apologists on race

Tuesday, May 5th, 2015


Mainstream conservatives — I might as well use this term now — have been in retreat from conservative principles for years. They do this by confusing conservatism, a defense of what is eternally true, with defense of what the previous generation did. Over time they become more liberal as a result.

For this reason, conservatives of the populist variety find themselves defending liberty, the Constitution, freedom, gun rights, and other methods, but they forget the goals for which those methods were invented. Conservatism is not a “do whatever you want” style anarchy, but a defense and furthering of the type of social order that made ancient Athens and Rome in their early years rise up above other civilizations to become in contrast to all others excellent.

Perhaps that is what Bill and Ted meant when they said “be excellent to each other.” Not flatter each other, not defer and allow other people to do whatever is convenient based on their own delusions or desires, but to achieve excellence so that all might enjoy. The movie presents the happy side of this, but the other side is what Plato himself might have said: make sure the good are rewarded and the bad punished, because the bad — in the name of excellence for themselves only — destroy excellence for all. But most importantly, this suggests that we aim above acceptable and non-controversial, and build toward ultimate solutions that create the best possible society.

Conservatism defends excellence by attempting to make a beautiful, good and truthful society. Mainstream conservatives give up on this goal and as part of their retreat, merely defend concepts from the near past, and abandon the idea of rising above that standard. As the nature of time is entropy, and the slow decline of order, this means that conservatives become people defending B- against C+ and not the people striving for A+. The original idea of conservatism is that some methods and goals will raise any society to a level of excellence, and that we should pursue those. Mainstream conservatives dare not lift their faces up to look at the glow of that possible future.

On race, this means that mainstream conservatives are defending the 1940s ideal of America: through tolerance and inclusion, we make sure that no members of any ethnic minority group are persecuted. The problem with this is that like socialism, it takes the burden off of minority groups to strive toward excellence on their own by presuming that every lack of success on their part is directly attributable to majority intolerance. This is basically racial prejudice inverted but preserved: if minorities are not succeeding, it is because they are inferior and someone noticed, so make war on the noticing and hand out subsidies and they will end up not discriminated against. As anyone with a brain pointed out back then, this was a band-aid at best and a form of eternal subsidy at worst. It was not going to succeed. Lo and behold seven decades later it is still failing.

While I admire Thoma Sowell and his writings on many topics, mostly economics, he follows the mainstream conservative line. That line consists of defending the idea of a mixed-race society as an achievable positive end, even though there are reasons why it can never succeed. Sowell writes, in his usual crisp and logical style, that the Baltimore race riots of 2015 are a result of liberal policies:

We are told that such riots are a result of black poverty and white racism. But in fact — for those who still have some respect for facts — black poverty was far worse, and white racism was far worse, prior to 1960. But violent crime within black ghettos was far less.

Murder rates among black males were going down — repeat, down — during the much-lamented 1950s, while it went up after the much celebrated 1960s, reaching levels more than double what they had been before. Most black children were raised in two-parent families prior to the 1960s. But today the great majority of black children are raised in one-parent families.

His argument presents difficulties because it is partially true. Liberal policies have ruined everything they have touched because liberals are reality-denialists who sew the seeds of future bad results and hide those behind very public “good intentions” a.k.a. altruism at the time. However, Sowell does not tell the full story, which is that multi-racial societies are doomed to failure because having multiple groups obliterates a sense of shared identity and replaces it with a political identity. That is a leftist goal: replace culture with ideology. The happiest populations know who they are through a strong organic identity, which is that they all look similar, act similar, have similar abilities and approximate preferences, and that they can all trace their origin to an original group who started up in their land to build an excellent society. When a society becomes multi-racial, all that holds it together is shared economic and political interest, which as we see from the fall of the Soviet Union, is not enough.

Sowell like other mainstream conservatives wants us to believe that if we just roll back a few liberal policies, everything will be just fine. Keep On Truckin’, in other words. But in reality what we see now is the crest of a wave; our policy has been wrong for a long time, but we have avoided seeing that because the results were not immediate, tangible and highly visible. We keep applying patches to the paradoxical and hoping for the best, but it keeps failing. Mainstream conservatives might peel off a few decades of failure, but ultimately they deny that the problem is multiculturalism. Note that I say the problem is multiculturalism, not specific groups (such as African-Americans or Jews, for example). Even if our society was composed of only 200 IQ point Norwegians and Japanese, it would still suffer the internal conflict of diversity and become unstable as a result.

It is time to stop apologizing for the failure of not just liberal programs, but the liberal concept of civilization. Conservatives aim for an excellent society, not just patching up failures, but mainstream conservatives have forgotten this in their zeal to be “pragmatic” and “compromise.” The result is that they have removed their legitimacy entirely. A dividing line now runs through conservatives, with those who want an excellent society and to that end have become ethno-nationalists on one side, and modern conservatives — a.k.a. “Marxism lite” — on the other. Ethno-nationalists realize that the best society has an organic identity and, without slighting other groups, the only way to achieve an excellent society is to exclude all other ethnic groups. This does not require hatred, violence or scorn, merely pragmatism about what will benefit all of us, which is excellent societies of people like us.

Sowell is a highly intelligent man who comes by this illusion honestly. He is, like other mainstream conservatives, trying to find a way to “make our society work” in the same way one can fix a 1960s Fiat ten thousand times and keep it running, but never rely on it because it is a poorly-designed car. Mainstream conservatives all follow this path, but in doing so, they are betraying their constituents. We do not need a white power movement or a pro-majority movement; we need recognition that our desire is for a society that thrives, and to do that, it must be mono-ethnic. Otherwise, the Baltimore and LA riots will be only the tip of the iceberg as it destabilizes and fails.

Not racialist, but nationalist

Friday, April 3rd, 2015


For years different flavors of conservative have looked for a reason to unify on action against the ongoing leftist takeover and consumption of our society. The social conservatives look toward the family, the religious conservatives toward God, the racialists toward race, moderates toward independence from social engineering, and the fiscal conservatives toward small government. None of these address the actual issue which is the health of civilization itself.

The task will not be easy. Healthy, normal people rarely see themselves as part of a political outlook because they have no special interest or single issue to pursue. They want life as they live it to continue or improve, but are generally aware that this sort of thing does not happen with elections and laws. They care about thousands of issues tangentially, but none as a singular focus, which makes them a weaker force than liberalism as hitting someone with the flat side of a board is less effective than using a knife, because the smaller the surface of impact the less momentum is diffused.

On the “bad boy” side of politics, the racialists talk about their desire for a society without ethnics. Generally they frame this in terms of disadvantages: crime, intelligence, and politics. What they do not do is to find a positive goal to unite their side, much as conservatives never do because to them, there is no striving for a goal because like most majorities they believe they already have it. Your average conservative is busy with life, family, career and mental pursuits, and views society as an annoying gadfly but not something to care about. This is where they are wrong, limited by the inherent solipsism of human awareness which has us know ourselves both as instrument and measure of reality: what society does directly impacts us, even “victimless” crimes, by adjusting the environment in which we live and thus directly regulating the health of society at large.

I suggest a different model for both conservatives and racialists: nationalism. Leave behind the concerns over whether immigrants fit in our society and ask instead whether we fit in our society. The answer is that as social standards collapse, no one fits… except those who obey the call of power and join the liberal party, just as it was in revolutionary France and Bolshevik Russia. We need nationalism not to exclude others, but so that we have a goal for ourselves. This is about us and not them.

In making this suggestion, I note yet again the original definition of nationalism, which is the society literally “born together” and from a common ethnic root. This group knows itself and excludes all others by necessity, because even tiny traces of admixture — 0.0001% or twenty generations — make themselves known in an individual and change that individual’s behavior and attributes significantly. These truths are known to us through history and common sense. A society either keeps itself completely free of invaders, or it becomes changed, and since the invaders represent “random” data versus the consistent data of internal breeding, all admixture is self-destruction.

This gets us away from the depressing crime statistics and ugly counting of bio-markers. It removes us from the question of how to portray other ethnic groups as bad. It also takes away the question of whether our racism in the past was bad: when it led to racial separation, it was good; when it did not — as in the case of slavery — it was bad and terrible. We do not need studies, reports, statistics, rules, laws, terms and conditions or popular approval to say this. It is common sense, plain as the nose on your face and as serious as fire safety at summer cookouts.

Not only that, but nationalism does something conservatism has never been able to do: it has a goal.

Conservatives have always been the rearguard in a slow steady retreat in the face of civilization’s decay. “But where do we start?” they moaned, throwing hands in the air and looking at thousands of problems at once. My answer is simple. Stop looking at problems, and start looking at directions. We want to be healthy and a rising civilization again, so what does one of those look like? Ethnically-stable, good leaders, people doing meaningful stuff and while not a theocracy, probably most people go to church at least for the coffee, conversation and contemplation of things larger than ourselves.

We have been trying for too long to fight the methods of liberalism, but it always wins because its methods cannot be opposed; they can only be obsoleted. The future belongs to those who discover within themselves, in nature/reality, and in their fellow citizens a purpose. This purpose is Us. It is being what we always have been, but better, and it requires that we separate from all others — without rancor, without scorn, and without spite, but also without exception. The future belongs to those who can create a tribe with direction and the only gateway to that future is nationalism.

The West is not your salvation

Monday, October 20th, 2014


Dear third world,

It’s time for us to revise our relationship. Much as we treat our own poor like perpetual gelded children, we have been treating you as the same. That not only keeps us both in a bad relationship from which we do not progress, but also holds you up by keeping you dependent on us when you should be launching into the world on your own.

Our well-intentioned aid, designed to make up for years of abusive colonialism, turns out to have retarded development of the third world across the globe. Not only that, it was given mistakenly. We see now how the technology, learning and structure given to your societies by Western occupation has enabled you to even participate in a globalist system. The net benefit was yours, even if a few million were enslaved. The smallpox epidemic we feel bad about, but it was not intentional. We can see how it is time to stop the myths of our perpetual guilt and your perpetual dependency simultaneously, because they are the same myth. The image of a cruel parent and sobbing child comes to mind and, like that relationship, implies a future of each party hurting the other.

Bad parent relationships involve a parent being both in control and guilty of excessive control, and a child being both dependent and wanting to set themselves free. Our liberals act like children who are rebelling against their parents. This means they both push back against, and yet depend upon the parent figure, which makes them perfect candidates to support large totalitarian governments. This is why tyrannies tend to follow democracies: democracies make people into self-centered perpetual children who want more benefits and guidance from government, which creates an electorate of useless people who must then receive total guidance via complete control. In the same way, you gladly accept our aid and ask more from it, but also want us to accept you as our own:

Ebola now functions in popular discourse as a not-so-subtle, almost completely rhetorical stand-in for any combination of “African-ness”, “blackness”, “foreign-ness” and “infestation” – a nebulous but powerful threat, poised to ruin the perceived purity of western borders and bodies. Dead African bodies are the nameless placeholders for (unwarranted, racist) “panic”, a conversation topic too heavy for the dinner table yet light enough for supermarket aisles.

…To be black – African or otherwise – is to be born into a world that anticipates your death with bated breath (or botched execution cocktail, or vigilante bullet, or syphilis needle). It is to occupy a position of social death, to exist in a liminal space that guarantees neither rights nor recognition under the law. It is to be a perpetual contaminant in the body of the western world.

Although our conservatives will dismiss this for its ingratitude and liberals will agree but note its lack of friendliness to trendy Western issues like gay marriage and transsexual equality, what is being said is essentially true: you will never be us. We have our own path, and it is different from yours. However, my solution is different than that of the writer. She wants more aid to the third world; I suggest total separation. We will go our path and like every other group in the world, be selfish and see only our own interests; Africa will see only its own. Then no one depends on anyone else and we can stop this neurotic, sado-masochistic, broken home of a relationship between the third world and the first.

Cause for war

Monday, August 1st, 2011

People think in binary terms: would I want this? Would other people want this?

It doesn’t occur to them that beneath this rigid, conformist and authoritarian yes / no view, there’s another angle.

That angle is want.

We have at this blog long championed the conservative position that life is a struggle for moral, intellectual and spiritual clarity. Few people get very far on that path. Most people remain selfish, easily manipulated, confused and directionless.

What they “want” is usually to be promised something impossible, lied to when it fails, and then for a scapegoat to produce itself for a little bit of the ol’ ultra-violence.

In other words, if you have bad leaders, the voters elected them. If you have a totalitarian Communist state, the peasants who revolted are at fault. If you have bad corporations, the consumers are at fault. If there’s a lot of crime, the citizens are not upholding community standards.

This is the opposite of what you hear in the press, which is a reliance on externalized authorities. Blame the leaders. Blame the corporations. Blame poverty for criminality. If there’s a revolution, it just “went bad” because some evil person stole it away.

Except that what most people don’t realize is that history expresses patterns, and these patterns repeat themselves, making almost all of our human disasters predictable and avoidable.

That means the fault lies on The People.

Bad leaders deceive, but they do this by promising things that appeal to the greed, vengeance, resentment, powerlust, megalomania and fears of ordinary people. Without those people to elect or approve the selection of the bad leader, that manipulator is powerless. We the people gave them the power.

Bad corporations pollute, destroy economies, and churn out wasteful products. They do this by knowing that (a) there’s an audience just clueless enough to buy them and (b) the community won’t oppose them. Without clueless consumers and a community that just shrugs and says “oh well,” bad corporations don’t exist.

Bad people — thieves, perverts, rapists and abusers — proliferate because no one stands up to them. If the first kid to vandalize a car on a block goes directly to jail, everyone calms down. If one little old lady phones in to the cops each time something suspicious happens, crime plummets.

Instead, there’s a lot of shrugging and casting the blame around. “It’s poverty,” says one woman. “It makes them do it.” Translation: I don’t want to get involved.

Even ardent Communists who graduate from Harvard insist that Stalin was not a logical result of the Russian revolution. He took over and perverted it, corrupted it. But what part of “power vacuum” and a political climate where killing your adversaries is de rigeur does not foster a Stalin?

Even now, we’re seeing the world shocked — shocked, I tell you! — that history is repeating itself:

There was a moment Friday in the Egyptian capital when the people’s vaunted uprising brought to mind Tehran in 1979: Just when the left-wing secularists thought they had ousted the Shah, the Islamists ousted them.

Hundreds of thousands of ultra-religious Islamists packed this capital’s central Tahrir Square in an unprecedented show of support for the creation of an Islamic republic, rather than the planned unity demonstration in collaboration with secularists. In doing so, they drove a stake through the heart of a united revolutionary movement that had brought together Egyptian Islamists and secularists, Muslims and Christians, and shared the goal of democratic elections and the punishment of the corrupt regime of Hosni Mubarak. – Effete News

Gosh, who could have predicted this?

Let’s oust the strongman and then everything will turn out magical.

Wait, why did we have a strongman in the first place?

Could it be that our country’s a total mess, and inhabited by several fanatical groups (not just Islamists), and that these forced us to have a strong tyrant to keep everyone in line?

Then we ousted that tyrant, and made it clear power was up for grabs, and suddenly our coalition fell apart. I guess “we hate the strongman” wasn’t a political party after all.

Efforts by insurgents to topple Muammar Gaddafi are in disarray after a senior Libyan opposition figure admitted that rebel soldiers were responsible for the murder of their most senior army commander.

The transitional government’s oil minister said that General Abdel Fatah Younis had been shot dead by Islamist-linked militia within the anti-Gaddafi forces, provoking fears of future unrest and instability among those fighting the old regime. The revelation will raise doubts over the wisdom of the British government’s decision last week officially to recognise the rebel transitional government, declaring that it had proved its democratic credentials.

Only a day later, the bullet-riddled and burnt bodies of Younis and two of his aides were found dumped on the outskirts of Benghazi, the rebel capital.

Labour’s former defence secretary Bob Ainsworth said that the murder and the identities of the killers were evidence that the government had not thought through its policy in Libya.

“One of the biggest risk factors in this was our lack of understanding of the people we were working with and I think that lack of understanding still stands,” he said. – The Guardian

You have to wonder what they were thinking. Did no one there read history? Had no one there graduated from a political science degree?

Here’s another example:


Right now, in the West, pluralism is also de rigeur. Pluralism is the idea that we can have a society where no one has anything in common.

The central concept of pluralism is tolerance, which is that if my neighbor follows a path that would obliterate my own, we smile and nod and agree to “tolerate” each other.

While we both plot to obliterate the other through passive means, or by waiting for “tolerance” to come to an end.

The fact is that in a pluralist system, anyone with any beliefs or culture is doomed, because the society advances on the lowest common denominator. An LCD is universal, or compatible with everything else.

This means that instead of having a bright tapestry of many different colors, after a few generations you have a dull grey sheen of everything smashed down to the average.

Norway, after all, has some of the toughest and most restrictive immigration policies in Europe. Its refugee process is unusually strict too.

As a result, even after 40 years of immigration driven by a booming oil economy’s labour shortages, barely more than 10 per cent of its population are immigrants or their descendents – and the majority of those are Swedes, people from Baltic countries, Poles or other Nordics, most of them indistinguishable from the native population. Members of visible minorities are few, mostly clustered in the capital.

Even Norway’s Muslims, mostly Pakistani or Somali and considered well-integrated by European standards, did not consider these rising voices of intolerance a major threat. Not until last Friday, at least.

“We knew that there were anti-Muslim movements, but not to this degree. We always thought that they would keep to their argument that there were too many Muslims,” says Kadra Yusuf, a Norwegian of Somali descent whose activism had been directed against religious conservatives in the mosques of Oslo, notably in the fight against female genital mutilation. – Effete News

The Western news media — that is: people who couldn’t make it into the professions, so decided to seize power through popular notions instead — still doesn’t get it.

This isn’t about Muslims. In fact, most anti-Islamists are not hostile to Islam or Muslims.

This is about diversity (or “multiculturalism,” for the technical term) not working.

That in turn is an example of pluralism not working.

The point is that society needs to have a unifying agreement and culture, or it becomes a giant shopping mall where people wander around like zombies because no knowledge, purpose, identity or customs are passed down between the generations. These are the gray people and anyone with an IQ over 92 does not want to be one.

Pluralism doesn’t work. Diversity is a form of pluralism. It also doesn’t work. Society needs an identity, which is to say it needs a purpose, which is to say it needs a culture.

Religion, philosophy, science and art can help explicate that culture and make it evolve to be a better form of what it is. It doesn’t need to become universal in some perverse sense of morality that insists we must all be equal or we will all burn in hell.

The fact is that pluralism is intolerant of one idea: anti-pluralism.

The thought that any person might say, “You know, I’d like a Nordic Norway” — or a Christian Norway, a Norwegian Norway or even a conservative Norway — sends the pluralists into spasms of anger and fear. This challenges their idea that a universal morality exists that can be applied in every nation.

Pluralists, who claim to accept every belief, are hypocritical. They accept every belief — wait, we mean every belief that endorses pluralism. It’s a fancy way of saying that since they have low standards, they accept nearly everyone, except those who disagree. It’s a method of social control based in a fake morality.

The pluralists have made up this “universal” morality as a way of opposing anything that opposes pluralism. They have as a result become intolerant of anything but pluralism. This is the way we do it around here. Get with the program or you’re an ignorant jerk.

And that is an honest cause for war.

The Ecology of Race, by Robert Martin ©

Thursday, February 10th, 2011


During an Executive Council meeting of the Renaissance Vanguard International last summer, in the course of conversation was floated the notion of “the ecology of race.” Intuitively all Council members knew we were onto something. Our preliminary intellectual probes were simply that.

A search on the Internet revealed a surprising dearth of material on “the ecology of race.” What small handful of papers did exist, certainly were not coming at the notion from an Ethno Nationalist nor an ecological perspective.

For several months the idea sat until it dawned on me that there was probably one English member of the Renaissance Vanguard International, based on his past work, who could kick-start this idea and make it work. Robert Martin was approached with a request to philosophically and conceptually open the door into an intellectual room of which the extent, parameters and content were unknowns.

With the essay that Robert has prepared, he has performed admirably and opened up intellectual terrain that is, for the most part, uncharted. The door is now open. The idea is as exciting as was originally anticipated last summer.

This essay further establishes the RVI’s intent to sit on the cutting edge of Ethno Nationalist and ecological politics. Where Occidental youth may be wanting on the development of a nationalist consciousness, we know for a fact that a sincere concern for the ecological health of the planet is a given. It is also a given that this concern of Occidental youth is being grossly mismanaged and misdirected politically by the now Globalist co-opted Green movement.

Our opportunity to construct a bridge beckons.

Robert’s essay, “The Ecology of Race” nudges one step further the timely legitimacy of the slogan: Green and White Unite!

Sebastian Ernst Ronin, Chairman, Renaissance Vanguard International

(This essay first appeared in Civil Liberty for a European audience.)

The Ecology of Race

The Ecology of Race is a new principle proposed by the Renaissance Vanguard International to help us understand the reality that race plays in nature, and rather than appeal to emotional justifications, we propose a reverent philosophical system of thought for the realistic benefit of all races in their respective Ethno Nationalist state. Such organisations working in parallel can act ecologically, thus enhancing our collective existence as an ecosystem of races spread across the planet.

Firstly we take a brief overview of the mechanics behind the principle “Ecology of Race”. This principle can be split into two things, the ecology and race. The ecology firstly means house or housing of biology, it is supporting biodiversity which in turn supports the ecosystem.

Now of race: we see it is part of the biodiversity of the ecosystem that is shaping it and is shaped by it.

Making things more complicated, ecology can look at two properties:

  1. The contracted dimensions of the microcosm – these can be the atoms, chemicals and proteins of biology.
  2. The expanded dimensions of the macrocosm – these for example can be the gravity, oceans, land, atmosphere of the planetary geology.

Together the planetary geology and biology create an ecology, which are co–dependent and we find that they are mutually beneficial. Between them we can study an ecosystem in depth, how it all works together and the combination of many smaller things create a pattern of large things. For instance many atoms bond to form compounds in the smaller microcosm, yet also they settle together to form the solid surface of a planet.

The microcosm is smaller and more abundant than the macrocosm. A macrocosm is necessarily expanded, engulfing and containing many alternate microcosms. So when we think “Ecology of Race” we are looking for the small things which constitute and sustain the existence and future of a race; the individuals, society, the ideas of their cultures, their genes, their dreams — these provide the undercurrent and subconscious of a collective entity known as a race, just as the undercurrent of magma beneath the Earth’s crust keeps the surface young and habitable with nutrients for life.

The stuff of life – the sub-microscopic world of DNA

The Ecologic Origins of Race

The origin of race isn’t a difficult question. The very same question is similar to that of species, except races of a species have some distant similarities but not distant enough that they cannot interbreed. Race is then an ecological fission of a larger species into smaller groups of individual organisms, bio-synchronised to their geographic territory of evolutionary origin; Europeans from Europe, Africans from Africa, Asians from Asia, etc. Race here is a pathway to becoming an independent species within a unique microcosm of the overall biosphere.

In this planetary biosphere all things influence each other in some shape or form. However, as we descend into a microcosm (a continent) of this biosphere we find variable differences that filter biology forcing them to adapt as a prerequisite for survival. At this level the influence of distant microcosms becomes more obscure, whereas the shared planet guarantees a range of light on the surface, the use of air to breathe, the use of water and other external factors. It is through these elements, that they hold similarities that conjoin all these separate ecologies to create a bigger, more complex one with a wealth of biodiversity.

Different ecologies receive variable abundances of energy (see the contrast between deserts and the polar ice caps, between the tropical rain forests and temperate forests — how the wildlife and people have adapted). In these environments, life undergoes a specialization, they are isolated environments to all but the migrational animals. The life that remains in isolation undergoes a strict natural selection and the variables are very specific to that ecology. What affect this has on life that exists in these parts is that they gradually become geographically and biologically synchronised, they are one with their environment and have roots.

All unique ecosystems have specialized life forms

It is when we introduce civilisation, an evolutionary trip wire, that many new threats arise along with the benefit of technology for spreading life further beyond the limitations of standard Darwinism. It is here in the artificial structures that races may evolve and create themselves physically and mentally how they wish with even greater precision — If a race wishes for technology, it will reward those who are competent with technology with land, money and social value as if to lead by example. It is inegalitarian for it selects a desired value in an individual that the race would like the harness for their collective benefit. The resources allow them to sustain more offspring and from this the gene that generates technology becomes common over a steady period of time, making it an racial asset, if that is desired.

The Death of Race

In contrast to the origin, we can achieve the demise of our race (and consequently our civilisation) by being placid and ignorant, refusing out of fear to create ourselves a destiny. Instead allowing another infamous “Glorious Proletariat Revolution” to promise unnatural levels of disorganisation and levels of consumption. Another lie to further burn out the soul, the order and health of a race and the planet’s finite resources. If we want to kill our race and every other species with it, we can use these advancements made by our forefathers as highly precise evolutionary tools to merit the stupid, dysfunctional and most irresponsible individuals to poison the notion of quality and turn everthing into blight, creating poverty, famine and mob rule who demand flashy trinkets and endless entertainments.

A major fault in our civilisation is the immoral value of humanism. Many like to insist the equality of all people as ‘the human race’ because it’s cool and nobody gets offended. This humanism enshrined in the West, is beyond a doubt, superior to all other living organisms; to all animals, the birds, the fish, the forests and insects that exist together in the ecosystem.

Humanism is an unscientific grouping where we find that, what it means to be human, is simply that animals can speak some symbolic language, look like something that can function brainlessly at a job and can lie compulsively about reality. We find that these members of the human race on the majority are not effective in sustaining the standards of traditional living in a European civilisation, in fact if you are part of the human race you are between every race and lack any identity or loyalty to your kin. These humanists, ‘the citizens of the world’ are a band of incompetent traitors living in the corpse of a rotten society, like spineless maggots whose destiny is to fly around and buzz about unnatural entitlements. The human race then, is for those who are spineless enough to destroy their European blood, or their African blood, or their Asian blood, attempting to mix insolubles that only ever seperate through time.

There are some traits that are inherent in A race and not in ALL races. Those compulsive liars who oppose ’discrimination’ are cowardly attacking first-world levels of organisation which they attempt to worm their way into like insects. Those who deny or simply are too stupid to understand the need for organisation – for selfish survival, giving into social pressure, whatever — they are irrelevant because they hate nature and any understanding of the biosphere.

We shall now use an analogy of tame species, this shows that when people venture into uninhabited lands, the species there appear tame and show their curiosity unafraid to these strangers. When people venture into lands near settlements we find the species there are naturally terrified and either courageously attack the (known) strangers or flee as if from mortal danger. The reason being because there is only a limited supply of resources and the species (or race) that occupies the territory must necessarily begin competing with them if resources are thin. Now as the unknown strangers begin taking what was theirs, they will begin to conflict — the life that is affected then begins to learn the danger of this new group, the predated group will lose territory and individuals to the invasive species who get themselves too close. Most are naturally unable to defend themselves to this unknown threat. As the population of the preyed begins to decline, the survivors are selected by their ability to recognise and avoid/ challenge the rivalry — this is evolution and the end of tame species.

In times of increased abundance, the instinctive rivalry begins to fade as the those with the least recognition of self-preservation take bold and naive steps into the open ecology. They survive and they reproduce more often, they evolve to become tame toward outsiders as the selective pressures vary. Eventually the abundances dry up, the resources spread thin, those with the boldest and most naive view of survival find themselves quickly in the ‘no-mans-land’ of ecology and consequently die for having no distinct loyalty to one group or the other. The shrinking resources force compromise and consensus — with abundant resources each individual is their own destiny, their ‘freedom’. When resources are thin, each individual must sacrifice their ‘freedom’ for survival, quit moaning about ‘discrimination’ and find similarities in common and form a group organisation, the race is the logical outcome for they share heritage, ecology, culture and spirit.

Europeans are being tamed into weak domestic animals that have little self conscience, little ability to drive themselves toward a destiny, little independence subservient toward the tools that once made us strong. Once our technology, that mostly Europeans invented, had initiated colonization of more extreme environments in Antarctica, within the Ocean, in the atmosphere around the Earth and even let us set foot on the Moon — with our tools the right way around, we can venture into ecological dimensions never directly adapted to, but intuited, pre-empted, pre-conditioning our evolution for these environments.

Europeans being tamed through unhealthy lifestyles and media propaganda

The West has also allowed the colonisation of our environment by populations that have not been able to achieve the above, yet we now insist that they are supposedly, ‘equal’ and just as capable of pre-empting and pre-conditioning their own evolution — all common sense indicates that dysfunctional individuals or many of the immigrants now taking advantage of our territory are unable to preserve the quality of standards and the independence of the European race.


Conservation is the most important for preserving biodiversity in an ecology. Race is just as vital for conservation as any other indigenous fauna or flora that is put at risk of extinction by invasive species. Indigenous fauna, flora and races are put at risk thanks largely in part to our dependence on mass transport through, it is the modern religion of symbolic growth. Were we to keep native species and races where they should be geographically, there would be a huge benefit for they have the adaptations, a heritage, a past and a future there.

In keeping balance between our people (of similar ecological, racial and cultural heritage) and the ecosphere we see that Ethno-Nationalism is the sensible political asset to carry both the realisation that biodiversity can only be conserved globally with the secession and localisation of populations from the long-term damaging effects of globalisation.

It is in this light that each locale possesses the autonomy to live as they prefer and in such autonomy that there is little to no risk of offending non-indigenous peoples whilst simultaneously providing the platform necessary to allow our civilisation independence from oil/ coal/ gas dependency.

We are not afraid to realise that this is exactly analogous to wildlife and how the introduction of invasive species can threaten and undermine the ecologies of native species. Assimilated populations face certain extinction (deliberate or otherwise) being unable to compete due to there being multiple, separate methods of survival and that pretending there is equality of all people is both an insult to the unique characteristics and abilities of every race and also an indirect form of servitude to petrochemical based globalisation regime. Ethno-Nationalism is therefore a naturalist and reverent appreciation of the innate biological and cultural diversity that forms the many hues on the spectrum of the various races.

In keeping balance between the many races native to this world we recognise that racial conflict is unavoidable when overpopulation of certain groups forces them to compete in foreign territories that they are able to root into and conquest — it is further that we the West as a collective, on average, have a death wish by actively encouraging them and repression any kind of suspicion or common sense to what (in the times of collapse) is inevitable group warfare.

By recognising this universal nature that is not unique to human races but also to all wildlife on this Earth, we seek to keep Western nations for those of Western (White European) descent primarily and with this our own preference with the possibility of reforming our cultural and political consensus As Post-Peak Oil becomes more omnipresent in modern society, resources like food, water, metals, materials become far more scarce.

It is also worth noting that ‘growth’ as used by many fickle headed economists is both unnatural and half the reason behind the mass immigration epidemic that is currently facing Western nations to this day. The use of growth shows both a lack of concern for long-term wealth and stability and a stupid, childish short-term demand for more wealth than is realistically possible – hence why the ‘global economy’ is a fiat currency worth nothing more than a social valuation and the paper (or virtual digits) it is symbolised on.

Growth in an ecology is however a steady and stable process. The insistence on exponential growth seen in ‘development’ both increases the human population and destroys the biosphere, the perpetrators envision an endless supply of oil/ coal/ gas and are by all means criminally stupid. This growth in population leads to limited resources being spread more thinly and a bulk of the population that, unable to attain necessary resources for survival, immigrates to foreign nations in an instinctive method of annexation.

It is time to move towards a New Ecology for all!

Recommended Reading