Posts Tagged ‘hierarchy’

Western Civilization Needs To Break Away From The Failing Human Species

Thursday, November 23rd, 2017

Next time you encounter a so-called “conservative,” you might ask them what goal conservatives aim to achieve. You will usually either get an answer about traditional values, or a short discourse on the Constitution (if in Europe, they will talk about social benefits instead).

Very few of them will point out that the word “conservative” comes from the Latin word for “to preserve,” and that this means they are preserving something. If you bring this up, they will probably answer something about the founding of the nation, or maybe a favorite decade like the 1980s or 1950s. Anything farther back is a mystery, except the founding, which since no one remembers it, is handy like a movie screen for projecting upon.

But preservation calls to mind a few ideas. We can only preserve that which is alive, so it implies a continuity with the society of the past. Since civilizations outlast governments, which are institutions tasked with preserving civilization, it means the civilization is the goal of the preservation, not government. And since fortunes vary, it brings to mind a normally forgotten dimension of thought, which is that composed of degree and quality. When were the best days, and what did they do differently? That is what we preserve, and by recognizing that there are ups and downs to civilization, we argue for a timelessness, meaning that there are some ways — folkways, customs, structures, patterns, principles — which are good no matter what the year number is. In this sense, conservatism is entirely different than ideology, which argues for what “should” be true; conservatism argues from what is real, and within that, thrusts the question back onto us of what is good, which is more complex than “right” because it combines function and morality into a single measurement.

If you make it to that point, you have found an exceptional conservative.

From there the ship departs to unknown and barely remembered lands. Most conservatives grew up with a knowledge of Western Civilization, the series of societies stretching forward from the Romans and Greeks to the present day Western nations — Britain, Germany, Scandinavia, the Netherlands, maybe parts of France, perhaps the money-addled Swiss — who shared a similar outlook on the world and notion of what civilization should be. This group is easily spotted because it is distinct not just from those in other parts of the world, but from the people and styles of society in Eastern Europe, Southern Europe and, of course, Ireland. It will not be hard to achieve agreement on the idea that we are attempting preserve Western Civilization, and that not just governments but nations are a means to that end.

At that point, you might even ask about what defines Western societies, and the answer after much batting about will converge on the notion of a “spirit” or “principles,” rarely mentioned as seeming to emerge as if autochthonous to a genetic group who not only look like those ancient Romans and Greeks — but not their modern descendants — but appreciate and act toward the same notion of “greatness” which means not just a prosperous society, but one geared toward beauty, virtue, and a transcendent appreciation of the wisdom of nature instead of attempting to replace it with an entirely anthropogenic substitute. They might mention Plato and his quest for the good, the beautiful and the true by doing good to the good, and bad to the bad, or they might look toward a semi-modern alternative like Fred Nietzsche:

Let us look each other in the face. We are Hyperboreans — we know well enough how remote our place is. “Neither by land nor by water will you find the road to the Hyperboreans”: even Pindar,in his day, knew that much about us. Beyond the North, beyond the ice, beyond death — our life, our happiness… We have discovered that happiness; we know the way; we got our knowledge of it from thousands of years in the labyrinth. Who else has found it? — The man of today?— “I don’t know either the way out or the way in; I am whatever doesn’t know either the way out or the way in” — so sighs the man of today…This is the sort of modernity that made us ill, — we sickened on lazy peace, cowardly compromise, the whole virtuous dirtiness of the modern Yea and Nay. This tolerance and largeur of the heart that “forgives” everything because it “understands” everything is a sirocco to us. Rather live amid the ice than among modern virtues and other such south-winds!… We were brave enough; we spared neither ourselves nor others; but we were a long time finding out where to direct our courage. We grew dismal; they called us fatalists. Our fate — it was the fullness, the tension, the storing up of powers. We thirsted for the lightnings and great deeds; we kept as far as possible from the happiness of the weakling, from “resignation”… There was thunder in our air; nature, as we embodied it, became overcast — for we had not yet found the way. The formula of our happiness: a Yea, a Nay, a straight line, a goal…

If we look deeply into the Western spirit, we see that it is not of this material world, but a desire for greatness and beauty which denies the lazy impulse of the human heart to lounge in the comfortable, familiar and unchallenging. This spirit demands conquest, but first of the self, and only then through the ways of the world.

Most of humanity, even most of our own people, will never understand this and so they will oppose it as if it were superfluous ornamentation. And yet, it is the core of who we are: we are that which is endlessly becoming, pushing farther, striving not for distance itself but for excellence, which is a combination of adaptation and grace, beauty, honor, pride, and all other good things. We aspire to the greatness of life itself amplified through our consciousness, instead of denied so that we can lurk in the seemingly impregnable castle of our bodily urges and self-importance.

With this in mind, “conservatives” have a full task indeed, because their cause forms a resistance not just toward the inevitable pull toward entropy of the universe, but to the natural human tendency of solipsism, or to pay more attention to our own thoughts and impulses than to the greatness that can be found in joining with the world and bringing forth all that is excellent about it.

With that in mind, we have to realize that our people — the genetic group that produces Western Civilization and has done so over the centuries — will be a target, simply because others will resent them. This means that any attempt at preservation starts with our people, who will always be a target no matter how nice they are, simply because others resent the heights to which we can climb:

The observations of liberal African-American journalist Keith Richburg are particularly pertinent here. Richburg believes that on the Dark Continent, tribal allegiance trumps political persuasion and envy carries the day. He cites the fate of the Tutsi—an alien, Nilotic African people, who formed a minority in Rwanda and Burundi—among the Hutu who are a Bantu people.

The Hutu have always resented the tall, imposing, attractive Tutsis, who had dominated them on-and-off since the 15th century. When Hutus picked up machetes to slash to bits nearly a million of their Tutsi neighbors in the 1994 Rwandan genocide, they were, on a deeper level, contends Richburg, “slashing at their own perceived ugliness, as if destroying this thing of beauty, this thing they could never really attain, removing it from the earth forever.”

To preserve an ethnic group, you must first preserve it from itself, because people are inherently chaotic and make personal decisions based on whims, convenience, finance, and simple proximity. For that reason, the group must isolate itself by removing itself to a territory where there are no others, and actively excluding those others with a strong sense of self and the need for its preservation. Every species that has come about on Earth broke off from others, went its own way, and by excluding its nearby relatives, became something different — often greater — than the larger, more varied group from which it originated.

However, this racial-ethnic preservation alone will not be enough because in itself, it is not the grand force of unification that we need. Jared Taylor convincingly argues that instead of mere racial preservation, we need civilizational preservation and nurturing, because race alone is not enough:

I agree with Rabbi Schiller (and for that matter with Father Ronald Tacelli in an earlier issue of AR) when he writes that “so much of our civilization’s crisis goes beyond race.” While race is necessary for an explanation of the civilization of European man, it is not sufficient. If race were sufficient, there would be no problem. If racial (biological, genetic) factors were sufficient to sustain a people, it would never experience a decline as long as its racial integrity endured.

Thus, whites did not descend to their present pitiable condition because their racial purity was somehow diluted but because they conceptually surrendered their will and identity — which they did well before they began to surrender their heritage politically and materially. If race were sufficient, that conceptual surrender would never have taken place. The conceptual surrender is leading to a situation where the biological survival of the race is threatened, and if that occurs, then — because race is necessary, because no other race or people seems able to replicate or adopt the concepts on which white civilization is based — the conceptual surrender will not be remedied, and white civilization, the whole conceptual corpus, will die with the race.”

Taylor goes on to argue that separatism is therefore also not sufficient, nor is white supremacy, but that our only future comes in understanding a racial hierarchy where we are in power in our lands and other races are seen in a negative light, such that cultural forces push back against miscegenation and any kind of power-sharing. Although his logic is good, a more sensible approach might involve separation on an ethnic level, where culture is strongest and not weak as on a racial level, and a pervasive sense of xenophobia that is both non-judgmental and absolute. The point of being racially-aware is not to focus on other races, but on our own, which requires separation and alienation from other groups no matter how good, friendly, nice, or intelligent they are.

He touches on the ethnic issue briefly:

To name only the obvious, would John Kenneth Galbraith, Bill Clinton, Earl Warren (were he still alive), George Bush, Bill Buckley, etc., be admitted into the white separatist enclave? All of them are undoubtedly white, but if you did admit people like these, you would soon have all the problems that made you want to separate in the first place. There would be other debates: How about Eastern and Southern Europeans? The Irish? How about Jews? Could Yankees come into a Southern white separatist state? If there were several white racial states, would one or some ally with non-white states against the white states? My point in bringing up all these questions is that it is idle to talk about racial separatism without (a) a widely shared and well defined concept of race to which virtually all whites would rigorously adhere and (b) equally widely shared and well defined concepts of other criteria in addition to race that would prevent replication of the same errors and flaws that caused the problems in the first place.

Perhaps, looking at this from the opposite angle, we can see another path. We experience life in terms of effects which we diagnose backward to their causes; in other words, by the nature of time itself, we experience life backward. For that reason, it makes sense to look at the threat to our existence from outbreeding — the real problem behind all racial strife — as an effect of the underlying cause mentioned above, which is lack of an understanding of the spirit of Western Civilization.

Our struggle in doing anything about this is The Human Problem, namely that every organization adapts to its members instead of its purpose, purely because humans are social animals because they fear the disapproval of others or worse, the lack of approval, which in a society with specialized roles, means an inability to gain what is needed in daily life from others. Evolution worked for humanity when each person started a farm and provided everything needed for the family, but with the rise of other organized civilizations — think of the Mongols here — it became clear that centralization would occur and with it, specialization of roles. That presents to us the challenge of civilization: how do we motivate people to work together without placing the focus on individuals, who will then make the group adapt to them and in doing so, change its purpose to an inward-looking and thus neurotic one?

Davis M.J. Aurini summarizes the problem as a question of the simpler and thus more inclusive pushing out the finer and thus more elitist:

Our civilization is suffering from a failure of coordination. We are no longer able to organize mass movement with an achievable purpose, and nowhere is that more evident than in the still birth of Right wing movements. This is because every attempt at a movement compromises its purpose for a lower common denominator that will attract more adherents.

In other words, popularity beats out rarer analytical ability. This is not surprising since humans tend toward solipsism, and this encourages them toward social thinking because others are controlled with the same tokens and words used in our thoughts.

We have tried many forms of collaboration. Modern states work by self-interest; citizens are rewarded with money and services for working together. This ended up being exploitative just like the notion of uniting citizens by ideology, as in Communism or fascism, or even uniting them by religion, as we see in theocracies. If there is a problem for the ages, it is this question.

A hint can perhaps be found in the idea of inequality in nature, namely that there must be potentials which people seek to transect. For us to avoid the apathy that comes when any decision leads to about the same result as any other, which is what crushes both Communist societies like the Soviet Union and large corporations with their bloated pointless jobs, we must have striving:

I have a friend named Bob Wyman; he was the founder of a startup company I worked for a few years ago. He’s a mighty smart guy. One of Bob’s pet ideas is that we can understand a great many things about the human and social world through the metaphor of thermodynamics. In particular he likes to say that everything that is good in the world tends to reduce entropy, while everything bad increases it. For example, war is bad. This makes sense, in Bob’s view, because wars take highly ordered systems — the social and physical infrastructures of nations — and reduces them to disordered rubble. Meanwhile, wars also kill people — and a living human body is a far more ordered arrangement of the substance of the world than a decomposing corpse. And so on.

It isn’t hard to apply Bob’s idea here. For any system to be capable of producing useful work, there needs to be disequilibrium, a difference in potential. For a mill-race to turn a water-wheel, the water must flow downhill over the wheel. If the water on one side of the wheel is at the same level as on the other — that is, the parts of the system are at equilibrium — then nothing will happen. When the potential gradient inside a flashlight battery reaches zero, the battery is dead.

We need not just inequality between people, but between our current situation and where we want to be. We need something to strive for, and it cannot be anything we can fully achieve; it must be an ongoing goal, with a transcendental component such as a quest for virtue, such that we can always strive no matter how far we climb.

Western Civilization once had such a goal, when it was new, at which time the goal was to survive, and then to become the type of place its inhabitants had always dreamed of, beating back nature and enemies. Once that was achieved, a trap awaited: at the same time society became becalmed by its lack of goal, its success also led to the breeding of many of the lower echelons, which caused a Dunning-Kruger trap in that the lower classes could not understand the utility of their leadership hierarchy, its principles and values, or the need for their own position as lower echelons. For that reason, overcome by resentment and scapegoating, they revolted.

Specifying a future plan involves both external elements of form, such as restorationism and the ult right, but also an inner sense of what we want our spirits to be like that is in concert with the traditional spirit of Western Civilization. Any scapegoating, focus on economic systems, trying to use race or strong power (fascism) to apply this, or appeal to what is popular to the group will defeat us. We must become what we once were, but in the context of the future, and this requires resurrecting that ancient spirit and then picking up where it left off, in the process restoring a purpose to the remnants of our civilization.

Understanding r / K Strategies

Tuesday, October 24th, 2017

The Right is obsessed with finding the root of our downfall, and it will be our doom if we let it continue. We are wondering how deeply the rot goes, which is another way of wondering out loud what we can trust in a wasteland of failed ideas, lies and corrupted institutions.

In my reading of history, the answer is simple: any time herd behavior takes over, which always happens, human institutions begin focusing more on unity than purpose, and through that lose unity, because focusing explicitly on unity causes us to concern ourselves with bribing and cajoling people to stay in line. That then empowers them to act in chaotic, selfish ways.

Our society hit this one hard simply because we were good. We rose above the rest, and beat all of the relatively simple challenges of early civilization, but that meant that we then encountered other challenges that were harder. We leveled up, and the new level boss is more of a beast machine than any of the others.

People keep looking for “automatic” reasons that we failed, all of which are essentially versions of, “well, that’s just how things happen, everything fails over time.” This attitude is an artifact of our time, where everyone is having a screaming tantrum in order to avoid seeing the truth:

This was a choice. We made a bad choice. It did not need to happen. We screwed up and wasted centuries and many lives.

There, I feel better now that I have gotten that out. I know the temptation to rationalize/justify is immense, and I am sympathetic to those caught in its grip, because who wants to face the fact that most of their lifetime is wasted on garbage, their society is thrown in the dungheap, and almost all recent achievements are landfill? But that is what equality does really well: destroy things.

Out there, everyone has someone to blame. The white nationalists blame Negroes and Jews; the Left-wing Jews blame the white nationalists; the poor blame the rich; the middle class blames the politicians; the politicians point out that the middle class voted for them, without complaint, for a hundred years. On and on it goes.

In fact, as written about on this site, what kills civilizations is the same thing that kills other human organizations: they focus on their members instead of their goals, creating entropy because each member, when encouraged to do so, will name something different that they want as a way of demonstrating that they are unique. This enables them to stand out from the crowd and socialize with others more effectively.

As Anonymous Conservative was kind enough to point out, this puts me and people who think like me at odds with most theories of our decline, including the notion that imbalance between r/K reproductive strategies is the origin.

In my view, the r/K strategy differences are inherent to humanity because of the way the standard distribution works. In any group of things, there will be variation of any given attribute that approximates a bell curve; for this reason, there will always be mostly r-strategy people in the lower castes, and K-strategy people will occupy the upper castes.

AC’s explanation of r/K strategies shows the deeper problem, however:

One microbe might find that other species of microbes would take their food, or even eat them, and these threats too, had to be dealt with through expenditures of energy, and the production of still other materials. The food available to them was limited in nature, and thus they would evolve complex machines designed to only digest a specific compound or compounds, to exploit a specific niche. They might even evolve to alter their metabolic processes, extracting energy less efficiently, but producing metabolites which killed their competition.

As a result, these organisms would spend a lot of the energy they consumed doing a myriad of things to survive, and this energy would, as a result, not go into reproducing. In nature, any microbe which did not have all of these adaptations would be quickly killed, and would be a Darwinian dead end. Thus those I isolated were programmed by eons of evolution to expend a lot of energy on a lot of complex efforts to keep themselves alive in their natural environment. As a result of all of this magnificent complexity, they grew quite slowly following their isolation.

On Tryptic Soy Agar, however, millions of cells would each grow freely, absent any selective pressure like that applied by nature. Invariably, a few would lose a gene here or there, which would disable some of these complex adaptations to their natural environment. These cells, now unburdened by these complexities, would channel all of their energy into reproducing their simpler descendents, and they would grow faster. Instead of preparing to fight off the microbial hordes, they would simply focus on converting substrate into new (simplistic) cells, thereby reproducing as quickly as possible. They would out-populate their more complex peers, and eventually become the defacto form of the isolate.

In many areas of life, and in the West since the Mongol invasions, the simple truth has been that whoever produces the most people will not be clobbered by his neighbors, and when it comes time to launch industry, he will have plenty of warm bodies to do that, too. This probably goes back even before agriculture, when warring bands ran at each other with swords and spears.

In fact, the history of Europe may be that of a roving band of people who avoided such behavior, and as a result were able to refine themselves to a higher degree of ability, even if that meant that they had to avoid conflict by remaining nomadic. When they settled in Europe, they became prosperous, and this allowed them to become bottom heavy with r-strategy people.

For many centuries, an aristocratic system kept this in check by relegating proles to subservient roles. After enduring many crises, including the Mongol invasions, the Black Plague, Islamic invasions, religious wars and the imperial wars following the rise of ancient Greece and Rome, the European aristocracy gradually began to fall behind in numbers.

Eventually, the mercantile middle class — people who were good at making money, but were not bright enough to foresee the problems with their desire for more — and the proles joined together and overthrew the aristocrats. Since then, our civilization has been in the final stages of decline.

My guess is that the decline began even earlier, after the end of the nomadic days, when the rise in fixed civilization essentially made the leaders beholden to spend most of their time taking care of the rest of the herd. This is the nature of any human group, and the only solution is to have a strong internal hierarchy, but that was weakened by crises.

If we make a bad decision, we can later stop doing that thing and then reverse it, and it is that for which I argue. Instead of seeing a two-stroke cycle by which society gets good and then inevitably fails, so that it is no one’s fault, and then society gets good again, I see that we made a bad choice and must resolve to never do that in the future.

Another view of this can be found through a view of population roles:

According to Eric Gans, the first human scene, upon which we can model later ones like that sketched above, is more precisely specified. Here we have a desirable object, presumably some food item, at the center of the not yet human group: these advanced, highly imitative apes, have their appetite for that central object inflamed, made into desire, by the awareness of the desire of all the other members of the group. This intensifying desire overrides the animal pecking order that normally maintains peace within the group—the alpha animal eats first, the beta animal eats when the alpha is finished, and so on. The alpha could never withstand the force of the group as a whole, but animals never “organize” themselves as cooperative, coordinating groups. Now, as all start to rush to the center, the animal hierarchy is abolished. What takes its place, according to the originary hypothesis, is the sign—what Gans calls the “aborted gesture of appropriation.”

…I’ve explored in a couple of recent posts the problems involved in the process of institutionalization. There’s nothing new here—in one of the commemorations I’ve read recently for the just deceased science fiction and military writer Jerry Pournelle, I’ve heard attributed to Pournelle the observation that in every institution there are those who are concerned with the primary function of the institution, and those concerned with the maintenance of the institution itself. Anyone who has ever worked in any institution knows how true this is, with the exception that plenty of institutions don’t even have anyone concerned with (or cognizant of) its primary function any more. Those concerned with the primary function should be making the most important decisions, but it will be those interested in institutional maintenance who will be most focused on and skilled at getting into the decision making positions. But someone has to be concerned with the maintenance of the institution—those absorbed in its primary function consider much of the work necessary for that maintenance tedious and compromising. (The man of action vs. the bureaucrat is one of popular culture’s favorite tropes—in more fair representations, we are shown that sometimes the bureaucrat is needed to get the man of action out of holes of his own digging.)

If we go back to the simple scene outlined in the beginning, we can see this is a difference between those who are first on the scene, and those who are second—for simplicity’s sake, we can just call them “firsts” and “seconds.” The seconds establish the guardrails around the firsts as the latter do their work, and they make for the “interface” between the firsts and those who gather around the scene (the “thirds”). They will also decide which resources get called for and which get through to the firsts, who are too busy to see to such details. There is no inherent conflict between the firsts, seconds and thirds, but there is the potential for all kinds of conflict. The firsts (and the first among the firsts) should rule, and should be interested in nothing more than enacting all the signs of deferral that have been collected through successive acts of rule. Even defense against external enemies is really a function of enhancing the readiness of the defenders of the community, and the community as a whole, and doing that is a function of eliminating all the distractions caused by desires and resentments, with the most attention dedicated to where it matters most. The seconds should be filtering information coming from below, marshalling resources, and transmitting commands and exhortations from the ruler. And the thirds, the vast majority of the community, should be modeling themselves on and ordering their lives in accord with the hierarchy constitutive of the community.

Like r/K strategy theory, this explains how people corrupt their own organizations, but not the cause. The fundamental cause is a failure of hierarchy, usually brought on by many sustained threats, and its replacement with an order based on social concerns, like what is popular and who wants to do what.

The West has avoided this realization for some time because it means that we are the source of our own failure, and that we must actually change in order to fix it, including rejecting the idea of equality. External “this just did it to us” theories make it easy for the individual to continue his path of hubris without accepting responsibility for the role of individualism in our decline.

Gaining Clarity On The Ethnic / Racial Question

Sunday, October 1st, 2017

No discussion about politics can avoid mentioning race. This becomes further complicated, because “race” means not just the four root races but all of the ethnic groups formed from them, like Germans or Maori. It gets more complex because the races are genetically different and therefore have different average abilities and tendencies, which implicates class and caste as well as ethnic origin.

Politics in fact is inherently tribal. “Tribe” proves to be a complicated term, but to be trendy, we should use it as an intersectional term, meaning the overlap of race, ethnic group, caste, region, and political orientation. Your tribe are people like you. There are many levels at which that determination is made.

Competing with tribe is ideology, or the notion that life “should” be different than it is according to natural order, and that humans should force a human-only pattern onto the world. Ideology is a way of holding together a group of people and motivating them, and so it naturally competes with religion, culture, and heritage.

At the end of the day, political thinking divides into two camps: the ideologists and the naturalists. Naturalists think that we should use the mathematical and informational patterns of nature to guide us, and so tend to see race as a prerequisite — a necessary element, but not the complete set of necessary elements — for a healthy society, where ideologists want to abolish race and replace it with ideology.


This division means that we will discuss race from two angles. The Left (ideologists) will argue that we should not have a majority race, which fits their single philosophy, egalitarianism, or that all people should be equal, which requires reducing or removing inner traits like caste, race, class, ethnicity, sex, religion and family. The Right (naturalists) will argue that we should either preserve the majority or at least allow it to preserve itself.

Since America birthed itself with some degree of ideological direction toward egalitarianism, even if as a means of affirming it in order to limit it and avoid a situation like what destroyed Athens, a hybrid approach was adopted: classical liberalism, or the idea that individuals would have freedom and liberty to pursue their own course in life. This is a form of the pluralism inherent in equality, which means that people do not have to work together toward a goal, but each tries to survive as in nature, and we see what comes out on top, even though civilization is the opposite of nature in terms of order and what it rewards. The “freedom” approach of classical liberalism, now called libertarianism, seemed to work, but the ideas that take time to fail are the most deadly, and by the 1960s, a combination of wartime propaganda (Cultural Marxism) and American individualism led to an increasingly Leftward drift.

As this Leftward drift manifests, it demonstrates an increasingly Communist-like attitude toward race which it views as its primary method of smashing the majority and removing the religion, culture, heritage, caste, ethnic, class and sex distinctions which impede the imposition of total ideology:

We may call Trump dumb but he figured out this country while we never did, understanding as the black militant H. Rap Brown put it 50 years ago, when he said that “racism is as American as apple pie.” And 46 percent of Americans voted for him, not in spite of that racism but because of it.

He misses the fact that throughout most of human history, “racism” has been what saves societies from dissolution. We know that diversity destroys formerly-thriving civilizations, but to our knowledge we can add the recognition that ethnic diversity just as toxic as racial diversity; the presence of diversity itself — and not the presence of specific racial or ethnic groups — is what causes civilizations to fall apart. Demography is destiny, and diversity destroys that, with ethnic diversity opening the door to racial diversity which then finishes the job of destruction, including ethnic erasure through miscegenation.

In fact, most traditional societies used “racism” and “classism” — based on caste, or inner traits, more than class, which is an intersection of caste, education and income — to create social order that avoided the problem which destroys all civilizations, namely revolt by the more numerous lower castes against the less numerous people of greater intellectual and moral competence. We can see how the Aztecs created social order using caste:

The Aztec civilization was also highly developed socially, intellectually and artistically. It was a highly structured society with a strict caste system; at the top were nobles, while at the bottom were serfs, indentured servants and slaves.

Strong nationalism — the idea that every nation is composed of only one ethnic group — enabled the Aztecs and other ancient civilizations to remove themselves from the genetic chaos blowing around, and focus instead on refining their traits so that they preserved desired abilities, which they then distributed to the rest of the population by elevating those who bore those traits to the level of nobility, at which point others emulated them, and they were prosperous, causing gradual genetic influence in the direction toward which that society aspired. Caste and nationalism supported one another; for example, look at ancient India:

Under the caste system, Indian society was divided into four hereditary divisions. The highest is the Brahmans (priests and teachers). Second was the Kshatriyas (rulers and warriors). Followed by the Vaishyas (merchants and traders) and finally was the Sudras (workers and peasants). In additional to these four castes, there were the Harijans or Untouchables, which were not in the social order. The Indian caste was hereditary and marriage was only permitted within the same caste. Each caste had its own occupation and any contacts with another caste was strictly regulated and prohibited.

We can only make sense of this by looking into the genetics of caste in ancient India:

Researchers found that people from different genetic populations in India began mixing about 4,200 years ago, but the mingling stopped around 1,900 years ago, according to the analysis published today (Aug. 8) in the American Journal of Human Genetics.

…Moorjani’s past research revealed that all people in India trace their heritage to two genetic groups: An ancestral North Indian group originally from the Near East and the Caucasus region, and another South Indian group that was more closely related to people on the Andaman Islands.

Today, everyone in India has DNA from both groups. “It’s just the proportion of ancestry that you have that varies across India,” Moorjani told LiveScience.

…Archaeological evidence indicates that the groups began intermarrying during a time of great upheaval. The Indus Valley civilization, which spanned much of modern-day North India and Pakistan, was waning, and huge migrations were occurring across North India.

In fact, Western civilization famously had similar caste systems, designed to separate people by role and heritage, as was seen in the Nordic countries:

The jarls were the upper echelon of the freeman in ancient Norse society, either noblemen or wealthy landowners, merchants or traders.

…The karls were considered what is known as ‘freemen’, meaning they were free to own land, build property and start a family or business.

…Slaves in ancient Norse times were known as thralls, and they were the lowest rung on the Viking social ladder. Thralls had little to no rights in Norse times, they were not able to own land and they would perform jobs and chores for their owners. With all this considered however its important to note that the bad treatment of a slave was looked down on.

This paralleled the social order created in English society nearly a thousand years later, as remnants of caste were present during the Victorian era:

The Victorian Upper Class consisted of the Aristocrats, Nobles, Dukes, other wealthy families working in the Victorian courts…The Upper Class was by inheritance a Royal Class. Many Aristocrats did not work as for centuries together their families had been gathering enough money for each generation to live a luxurious life.

…The Middle class was the next in social ranking. The Victorian period was very prosperous for the middle class. Middle-class people also owned and managed vast business empires.

…The lowest among the social hierarchy were the working class. This class remained aloof to the political progress of the country and was hostile to the other two classes.

These castes were genetically different, and the pattern resembled that of India. Modern Europe was formed when nomadic hunters mingled with a farming population that was closely related to them, but the higher echelons of Europe came from the root of Western European society, the Nordic-Germanic element. These took up positions in the higher castes, and managed the darker, smaller people who worked for them.

Over time, every civilization succumbs to entropy which occurs when the more numerous lower echelons overpower those above them, who understand things they do not. These things are then lost, and the society loses a degree of internal complexity and becomes essentially an open-air shopping mall where some people have money and others do not.

This is why caste revolt is so important to the Left: their goal is to rationalize this decline and instead, view it as positive, and to make it come about by creating the conditions that cause the imposition of caste and then thwart those conditions, allowing the society to become totally “equal” by losing all structure and standards, including heritage.

By the converse, diversity causes racial conflict and in turn accelerates class conflict, because without a sense of shared unity that comes from being a homogeneous population, groups fragment into internally competing sub-groups. We can see how this process happened in American history:

Let’s back up to the early 1600s. This was a time where racism didn’t exist. People didn’t call themselves Black or White. Back then it was all regional. We’re Irish, we’re Greek, or we’re African and so on. Fast forward to the colonization of what would become the United States of America. This is about 1640. You basically had two groups of people. There were the rich and the workers. There were a few slaves but most people were indentured servants or free labor.

In this way, we can see how questions of race and caste are intermingled, and how the Left has used racial and ethnic diversity to force caste revolt, while the Right attempts to suppress caste revolt by preserving ethnic homogeneity, which confers a sense of shared identity and purpose.


Interestingly, the revolts against traditional social order are initiated by those who seek to expand their profit motive, giving in to the individualism that says they can take civilization for granted, and should be concerned only with the immediate effects on themselves and their profits when making decisions. This bourgeois mentality arises from those with enough mental power to be clever, but not smart, leading to a fragmentation of the power of the higher echelons:

Drawing with varying degrees of conviction and plausibility on Marx’s ideas and insights, the class-based account of modern British history begins with the social origins of the bourgeois revolution of the mid-seventeenth century–otherwise known as the Civil War or the Great Rebellion–that witnessed the transition from feudalism to capitalism and thus from late medieval to early modern times. The victims and beneficiaries of these changes were, respectively, the declining aristocracy and the rising bourgeoisie (or, in other versions, the rising gentry), and it was during the Civil War that these two classes, set on very different historical trajectories, first clashed directly. But although in the short term the bourgeoisie vanquished the monarchy, the peerage, and the established church, its revolutionary movement was curiously incomplete. By the late seventeenth century, after the Restoration and the “Glorious Revolution,” the traditional forces of authority were back in control, and for much of the eighteenth century the aristocracy, by now transformed into a quasi-bourgeois elite of agrarian capitalists, reasserted themselves.

If you wonder why so many celebrities, business leaders, professors, shopowners and union bosses lean Left, this is why: they want to destroy the power of anyone who is naturally superior to them in intellectual, morality or wealth. We are in the grips of the final parts of that process now, after it won the upper hand during the turbulent 1960s.

“Amerika” the nation, as we might describe the nu-America that manifested after the racial policies of the 1960s went into effect, replacing America, which was deliberately designed as a Western European nation, as the American Nativists argued, because ethnic diversity is as toxic as racial diversity and leads to a Leftist European-style total State where a Western European only society — as opposed to one including other “white” ethnic groups like Southern Europeans, the Irish who are Iberian/Mediterranean-infused, Eastern Europeans and Jews, who are at this point about at the same level of admixture as Italians or Irish — would be internally self-consistent, and therefore able to overcome the problems of social distrust, trace miscegenation, lack of social standards and caste revolt.

As a result, at this point, racial politics of the ideologist variety have won out, and since they are being used to shatter natural social order as manifested in caste, they are exclusively obsessed with race, to the point where the Right wants to have freedom of association — which would allow it all-white suburbs and offices — just to escape the vast horde of predator-parasites who hate our majority here in the United States and Europe, but want to be here for the socialist style welfare state benefits and also, to conquer us by outbreeding us.

They hate you. They always will hate you. Every group acts in self-interest, and theirs is to conquer you.

The grim fact of racial politics is that it is based in self-interest. Every group has a self-interest, which is in having control of its destiny and then becoming the best version of itself that it can. In order to act on that, it must not exist in the situation that produced the Indian caste system; any situation that is “diverse” threatens the ethnic group.

For that reason, it must win by beating down all other ethnic groups. This somewhat Machiavellian view is borne out by history. The groups that conquered others and drove them away lasted longer than those who attempted to co-exist, producing centuries of ethnic conflict until both groups, exhausted, were destroyed or hybridized.

This is not the fault of other groups, nor does it vary with the group. Any immigration above tiny levels, which is also a bad idea as it obliterates the original group through trace admixture, brings about a conflict between groups, no matter who they are. Simpler groups fight back with crime; smarter groups attempt to conquer by gaining education, wealth and power in law and business.

Ironically, the solution to this problem is for a majority group to double down on its identity and assert that identity positively in a stronger sense, which causes the groups that wish to overthrow it to reveal their nature as aggressors. The more that the majority group focuses on “racism,” instead of strengthening its culture and opposing diversity, the more it plays into the win scenario for its opposition.

Perhaps a greater step further is to oppose equality — the philosophy of lower caste revolt — itself, and by doing so, to assert a strong social order which in turn also broadcasts the importance and solidity of racial and ethnic identity.

Identity must be both racial and ethnic, as when it is racial alone, it allows itself to be adulterated by other ethnic groups from the same race, which ends up then creating a generic racial group which has no particular claim to any identity.

Already the signs are on the wall that this is happening. During the 1990s, “diversity” was a magic word for that bright cosmopolitan future where we ruled the world by inviting them here. Europeans, who both are less accustomed to diversity and are seeing its effects more immediately, have led the way in visualizing how destructive diversity is:

The most common view among the 10 European countries surveyed is that cultural diversity is neither a plus nor a minus in terms of quality of life. In no nation does a majority say increasing diversity is a positive for their country. At most, roughly a third in Sweden (36%), the UK (33%) and Spain (31%) describe growing racial, ethnic and national diversity in favorable terms.

This antipathy can be seen in events in Germany and Israel. In Israel, the victims of the nationalist powers in WW2 have now come around and are endorsing National Socialist levels of ethnic solidarity in order to deal with the third-world population (“Palestinians”) in their own homeland that threatens to take over at the ballot box; several years later, Germany has awoken as well, shattering the postwar political order:

It was the worst performance for her Christian Democrats (CDU) since 1949. They got less than a third of the vote and lost ground in all 16 of the country’s states​—​this for a party that used to dominate the right of German politics and was capable of winning absolute majorities. The old party of the left, the Social Democrats (SPD), did worse, barely scraping 20 percent. Coming in third with 13 percent of the vote was the brand-new Alternative for Germany (AfD), an anti-immigration party that will send 93 members to the 709-seat Bundestag, the parliament in Berlin.

Leftism is caste revolt. Racial and ethnic diversity are the weapon that Leftism uses to bring about caste revolt. When one part of this structure fails, the whole thing goes down in flames, and is replaced by sentiments of tribalist unity as the basis of nations, renewed identitarian awareness, greater trust in caste and tradition, and finally, a hearty cynicism for Leftism as it joins other ruins on the junkpile of history.

We are seeing a massive shift here. For the first time since the French Revolution in 1789, Leftism is actively losing ground; for the first time since The Enlightenment,™ the idea of human equality — a form of individualism — is also losing ground. But first, we are going to go through a period of great upheaval.

As with many bad ideas, Leftism seemed hip and refreshing when it was untried, but once it was applied, it made a mess of things. Multiple failures of Leftist programs — overpopulation, diversity, collapse of the family, debt, command economies, ignoring third world warlords, nuclear proliferation, pollution and widespread ineptitude — are now coming due. Liberal democracy and Leftism have fallen, and the furious activity we see of late is an attempt to hold on to the franchise granted to those who were allowed to succeed because they were good Leftists or fit the Leftist ideal.

What matters for us, then, is to understand race and caste so that we can reverse the process by which race became the dominant issue of our time, which is the Leftist agenda of caste revolt that is now shattering in ungraceful decay around us.

Targeting the High-Average

Monday, August 21st, 2017

The people who effect the most change in society are those of high-average intelligence, whom I call artisans. People of straight-up high intelligence only change things if they can reach the high-average people.

People whose IQ falls in the 100 to 140 range are both relatively smart and numerous, at slightly less than 50% of the population, with another 50% below 100 and a vanishing few above 140. If this section of society moves, the whole thing moves. That means we have to get to them. So how do we do that? We can answer that question by asking the counter-question, why aren’t people in that range following our way of thinking already? There are three reasons:

  1. Ignorance. Artisans don’t know about our views because they are not exposed to them.
  2. Not smart enough. Artisans are good at implementation, less good at understanding the finer details of theory. We can’t teach them the rudiments (too fundamental for their level of mental articulation) or the final consequences (too complex), only the practical applications and the direct antecedents of those, that is, “Do this for this reason.”
  3. Not ready. Artisans are brainwashed by modernity and are not yet ready to see things our way.

So what do we do? 2 is a hopeless cause, because you can’t put a square peg in a round hole. They will never get the depths of it, except on a gut level. That means we have to tackle 1 and 3, and, as with all things of this nature, we have to tackle them in tandem. The solutions are simple:

  1. Keep convincing the spiritual and mental aristocrats, and get the trickle-down started.
  2. Replace modern values with our own. Appeal to the artisans’ sense of identity, orderliness, and purpose. This tactic operates at a fundamental gut level, and will mostly be done through art and literature.
  3. Simultaneously with the above, discern what our immediate next step is as a society; I see us going through a relatively brief libertarian phase involving massive roll-back of laws and regulations. Creating a “wild west” culture and society makes us all feel a little more adventurous, more willing to try things we normally wouldn’t. The imperative is to spread ideas conducive to deconstructing the suffocating bureaucracy and regulatory mechanisms of modernity in order to make this happen.

To make the first tactic work, we can’t rely on institutional or systemic methods. Those fail. This one can only be carried out by the alt-heavy, which means finding other people on the same mental level and convincing them slowly over a period of years through many one-on-one conversations, and befriending them in order to do so. I won’t say more on this point, because those who fall into the alt-heavy group already know what to do, and have been doing it for years.

The second tactic requires art. Alternative media is already taking off, and it’s already got one foot on the Right, so let’s bring it in all the way. Conservatives have already bewailed that culture-creation is the sole province of the Left, so it’s not as if we’re taking hostile territory. This is not an invasion, but a gold rush, a scramble for empty lands. We already have plenty of alt-heavies and alt-middles working on the information war, but this front requires action from both as well. Alt-heavies who are artistically inclined need to focus on conceiving of new artistic paradigms and creating the foundational examples, and alt-middle aesthetes will naturally follow their pattern.

The third tactic is made easier by the second. As our values replace those of modernity, there will be a natural backlash against the strangled regulatory state we’ve lived in for so long. The approach is simple: ride the backlash while steering it with the artistic and intellectual works. If we do it right, we land squarely back in Tradition.

We’ve successfully manipulated the Overton Window to the point where the above is possible, but intellectual tactics, by themselves, can’t unseat modernity. It’s time to stop pushing the Overton Window and begin pulling it. Replacement of modern values with our own creates a natural “pull” that keeps us from reaching equilibrium until we achieve a Traditional society again, analogous to the attractor in a phase-space. We can’t attack the trunk (everyday life) so we have to attack the branches (intellectual sphere) and roots (fundamental values). Note that it is impossible to move from where we are to a Traditional society without a “chaotic” phase, though this need not imply violence. What we want is to push for a situation where there are considerably fewer rules, where everything is fast and loose and open, and where our current and future crop of thinkers, artists, and writers can most effectively disseminate their message.

The above may not look like a workable strategy, but it is. You have to pay attention to the consequences of each point, and remember that the consequences of each tactic interact with one another and develop at the same time. If you can’t think organically, you won’t get it. If you can, you’ll see the obvious result; the luminaries of the next generation will be ours (from 1), our values will already be displacing modern ones (from 2), and we’ll be entering into an open and unstable social state where those luminaries will be the guiding lights. The inevitable outcome is a traditional society

Dunbar’s Number

Tuesday, August 15th, 2017

Dunbar’s number is a popular topic among primitivists: they like to claim that because humans recognize only about 150 people in their extended friend group, that any society over that size will not work, and (conveniently) any form of government — democracy, socialism, fascism — will work with a small group.

They envision a vast network of tiny human settlements, usually ruled by some kind of wealth redistribution scheme, where everyone knows each other. The tail wags the dog here: they believe this so that they can keep believing that things like socialism, democracy and equality will work.

Dunbar’s number comes from the work of Robin Dunbar, who found that humans have limited awareness of others:

Dunbar did the math, using a ratio of neocortical volume to total brain volume and mean group size, and came up with a number. Judging from the size of an average human brain, the number of people the average person could have in her social group was a hundred and fifty. Anything beyond that would be too complicated to handle at optimal processing levels.

…When Dunbar consulted the anthropological and historical record, he found remarkable consistency in support of his structure. The average group size among modern hunter-gatherer societies (where there was accurate census data) was 148.4 individuals. Company size in professional armies, Dunbar found, was also remarkably close to a hundred and fifty, from the Roman Empire to sixteenth-century Spain to the twentieth-century Soviet Union. Companies, in turn, tended to be broken down into smaller units of around fifty then further divided into sections of between ten and fifteen. At the opposite end, the companies formed battalions that ranged from five hundred and fifty to eight hundred, and even larger regiments.

…We may widen our network to two, three, or four hundred people that we see as friends, not just acquaintances, but keeping up an actual friendship requires resources. “The amount of social capital you have is pretty fixed,” Dunbar said. “It involves time investment. If you garner connections with more people, you end up distributing your fixed amount of social capital more thinly so the average capital per person is lower.”

The interesting thing about this is that Dunbar’s number is about socializing, not interacting, and assumes a denial of hierarchy. Consider the military units: each of those smaller units has a leader, and those are grouped into larger units with a leader, under a leader for the company who is in turn under generals and them, under a king.

Aristocracy had a similar structure. A king ruled over many lords, who in turn presided over lesser lords, who in turn commanded local lords. Each one regulated a relatively small group, but all together, they were able to form a flexible hierarchy. In other words, Dunbar’s number was not what counted, but the hierarchy.

Dunbar’s number will always remain popular with those who fear hierarchy. They want a group of people small enough that they can use social pressure and flattery to get what they want, without having someone above them to make sure their behavior does not have negative effects in the long term.

Why We Need Aristocracy Always

Monday, August 7th, 2017

Most people are afraid to admit that we need aristocracy. They realize that if hierarchy is needed, they as individuals are no longer little autonomous kings who can do whatever they want and have the rest of the monkey troop defend them… that in turn means that they will have to pay attention to external order like social standards, nature, logic, history and the question of whether or not what they are doing is actually good, or merely self-serving.

Those of us who have been around for some time see a simple pattern: whatever is created will quickly be brought to destruction by the Herd, which invades and demands that the matter in question fit its own convenience, instead of whatever form is most effective for reaching the goal. The individual replaces the goal. That is why we call it individualism.

Unless there is a hierarchy, where the wiser are bumped to the top so that they can intervene before the infinite stupid ideas of humanity are acted out, stupidity wins. This is affirmed by an unusual source:

We all know from reams of experience that if consumers are offered a cheaper, yet environmentally irresponsible option vs. a more expensive, yet environmentally conscious option: The vast majority of consumers will sadly choose the cheaper option. Better-for-me unfortunately trumps better-for-everyone just about every time.

Meditating on this phrase reveals its simple and profound truth: people choose what is more convenient for them, at the expense of civilization and nature, every time. This means that we need a force to intervene and force civilization at large to do what is right, because its impulse is to do otherwise unless such an intervention occurs.

Huntington Triumphant: Tribalism Rising As Ideology Dies

Thursday, July 13th, 2017

Samuel P. Huntington might be seen as the prophet of the Alt Right. In the 1990s, he wrote a paper entitled “The Clash of Civilizations” (later developed into a book, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order) which posited that ideology had lost its ability to hold societies together, and as a result, liberal democracy was collapsing while tribalism was rising.

He was engaged in an indirect debate with scholar Francis Fukuyama, who had argued that liberal democracy was the endpoint of human history, a conclusion he seemed to dislike but accepted as rational. Fukuyama argued for a permanent era; Huntington saw this era as ending.

In a broader sense, the two men were each arguing for a different type of civilization. Fukuyama believed in one unified by ideology and organized through rules and laws; Huntington saw civilizations as being united by physical, moral, religious and intellectual similarity, and predicted a future that relied more on gut instinct and identity than rules.

We can see this conflict playing out in the “populist” (really: upper half of middle class) wave that has propelled Brexit and Trump to the tops of the political heap by acknowledging that Huntington was right:

The central remark in Mr Trump’s Warsaw speech was this: “The fundamental question of our time is whether the west has the will to survive. Do we have the confidence in our values to defend them at any cost? Do we have enough respect for our citizens to protect our borders? Do we have the desire and the courage to preserve our civilisation in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it?”

Interestingly, the Financial Times included the following image with the article:

To the author of the article, it represents a reason to be afraid of “America first” actions, in that those might alienate and cut out those rising markets. But another way to see it is that it represents a declining first world with others taking up the slack. At that point, other nations rise to fill the gap, and the first world recedes into a rationalizing mindset which allows them to praise “the information economy” and “the service economy.”

Voters can be counted on to be oblivious as a group, but individual people start to snap out of their stupor when they realize that the thread is not some far-fetched prediction, but a certainty. Liberal democracy has chosen to self-destruct through thirdworlding and low reproduction rates which fit within its endgame, which is to destroy everything so that a few government employees can escape to enclaves for the rich and corrupt. This will come about through a consumer economy which will gut itself as the fake value it has generated collapses.

As this system hits rock bottom and it becomes clear that not only will it be a sure path to doom unless interrupted, but also that it was always a fake design just like the fake news, fake food, fake architecture, fake nationhood, fake love and fake friendship of modernity, the era of ideology will end and be replaced by real things which are innate to the human experience and not projections of the human ego. This will fortunate as unless we escape the modern lifestyle, we will likely die out from low reproduction rates.

Between its economic failures, the existential misery of its citizens leading to low investment in family and children, and the instability of the societies it has administered, liberal democracy no longer looks like a better option than strong authority and nationalism:

With global growth continuing at roughly 4 percent a year, the link between income and democracy isn’t actually so strong these days.

…It is again time for the West to learn from China. The emotional force of nationalism is stronger than we had thought, stability is not guaranteed, and the Western democratic status quo ex ante is less of a strong attractor than many of us had believed or at least hoped for.

If you asked the average person what was more important, order or freedom, and no one else was listen to virtue police them, you will probably see someone struggling with the fact that what they crave now is order. The great quest to make everything equal turned society into a wasteland and, while this was survivable for some time, it eventually became a great burden. Now they want the bottom line: make stuff work, and leave people alone who are productive and healthy.

The age of tolerance is over. The average American middle class European-descended person has finally gotten it through their skulls that diversity itself is the problem, so it cannot be fixed with more education, law enforcement or welfare. Diversity causes us to hate each other. They are “over it” and want to see it go away. If the Right-wing “populist” wave continues, by 2030 the average American voter will be interested in repatriation with reparations and other schemes for a soft landing for the disaster that diversity built.

Much like people have simply come to view ideology itself, like all of our news which seems to be fake, as a deceptive and threatening thing. If anyone who imbibes even a little ideology ends up in the Full Soviet state to which the EU and US have sunk, then the path of ideology is completely fatal and needs to be avoided. In their gut instinct, people know this.

Even more, it has sunk in that the great war against inequality has simply ended up making other people wealthy who are not as competent as the original group, so most people have stopped caring, unless they are personally having trouble making a decent living. This is why people care less about equality than social order, despite what they claim in social situations when asked about politics:

Researchers found that 77% of participants were willing to redistribute income from rich to poor—so long as it didn’t make person A poorer than person B. Just 45% accepted the redistribution when it changed the hierarchy. The results showed people are both interested in equality and preserving the status quo, but if these two inclinations clashed, most participants would maintain the inequality.

…Researchers could only speculate as to why people are reluctant to upend the status quo. They suggest that it might come down to survival: We may want to maintain hierarchies for fear of sparking anarchy. Researchers note, “Evolutionary theory suggests that groups with stable hierarchies have a fitness advantage.”

As liberal democracy lowers itself into collapse by its own ineptitude, people are turning to what is innate and what works. Heritage, gut instinct, making the trains run on time, and keeping happy families together have become more important than any words on paper or abstract ideological concepts. This represents a human return to sanity so that it can move upward, instead of “forward” to a dead Utopia.

Why There Is No “White Race”

Monday, June 19th, 2017

American Renaissance points out a vital problem with the Caucasian animal, namely its seeming lack of racial loyalty under duress:

The racial dynamic in prisons puts whites at a tremendous disadvantage. First, whites are often outnumbered by both blacks and Hispanics. But far more important, just as they show no racial solidarity in “the free world,” whites in prison do not band together to protect each other from predators. As No Escape reports, Hispanics sometimes rape Hispanics, and blacks sometimes rape blacks, but neither group permits anyone of another race to rape its own people. If a black tried to “turn out” a Mexican, the Mexicans would riot and try to kill him. Blacks also defend each other from white or Hispanic rapists. It is only whites — unless they are known members of white racialist gangs who do stick together — who are on their own and can be raped with impunity. It would be hard to think of a more cruel consequence of stripping whites of racial consciousness.

It is important to read this in context: these are whites in prison, many of whom are not really good people at all. It is quite possible to go to jail in this country for something that is not bad, but the majority of people in jails are sociopaths. Lots of people use drugs, for example, and some guys get sent up for wrong place/wrong time. But the rest are probably greedy dealers.

White Nationalists bemoan the fact that whites do not stick together. They do not do it at the ballot box, nor in the media, nor in conversation. Whites seem to identify more with the type of automobile they drive than with race. If pushed, most of them will admit that they like to live near, work with, and befriend “people like me” but will not elaborate.

This is why we should face the ugly truth: there is no such thing as the white race.

But first, let us look into the other reasons why whites are not particularly race-loyal. The first is that whites still perceive themselves as a majority in power and as a result see no reason to be racially alert, and the process of awakening takes many years, so when thrust into prison or another rough situation, they are not prepared to think in racial terms.

Another important reason for the missing white cohesion is that whites are highly competitive. This means that we see each other not as natural allies, but as the other team that needs to be beaten down. In highly competitive situations, helping out the opposition means losing position and prospects.

With this we see the problem of high-trust societies like we have in Western Europe. That high social trust is used against us in class warfare, where those with more than others are perceived as free riders and demonized for their lack of sharing. Think of how your average white parent would react to a child in preschool who refuses to share a toy.

High-trust societies function efficiently and as a result are wealthier and more resilient than other types of societies. However, they also have an Achilles’ Heel, which is that the trust can be weaponized into demands for universal sharing of resources. At first, this seems like a good idea, because it promises to reduce conflict.

The problem with it however is that it also reduces trust. When any person can launch a social attack on you for what you have, it is best to socialize only with those who you know will not do so. This is why class warfare produces even more radical class separation: each class can only trust others of the same class, and so naturally acts to exclude all other classes.

In addition, whites do not perceive a need for racial unity because they still see themselves as the majority in Europe and the USA. For those of us who have grown up in majority-minority areas, this is laughable delusion, but most people take a snapshot of the world around age eleven and expect it to be (mostly) that way for the rest of their lives.

As a result, most whites expect that the mostly-white communities of the 1980s and 1990s still exist, when in fact rising majority populations, refugee resettlement and redistribution of Section 8 housing to the suburbs has changed the nature of those communities. In addition, propaganda in schools has raised new generations who see this not as threatening but positive and cheer their own replacement.

Majorities are notoriously slow to defend themselves. The reason for this is that they do not recognize themselves as having an identity as a majority since they view themselves as the norm. To whites, identifying with being white is like introducing yourself as an aficionado of breathing air.

Because of this majority status, people within a majority identify with smaller groups (lifestyle, class, region, profession, religion) and see no link between themselves and others who share a genetic background, identified as generic because it is of the majority, but not the special interest group to which they belong.

Minorities on the other hand are constantly reminded of their racial identity. They are aware every minute of every day that this society was not designed, created or maintained in its healthy days by people who looked like them. Instead, it belongs to the Anglo-Saxons who founded it, drove out the murderous Indians, and set up systems of law, economics and culture which reflect their heritage.

In addition, it is important to note that white diversity does not work, just like every kind of diversity does not work. Poles and English and Germans and Italians can work together, but at the end of the day, they want to go home to neighborhoods filled with people “like them.” This is why ethnic groups have steadily been pulling apart in America, starting with white groups.

This is why there is no white race. There are white ethnicities, but many of these reflect an origin in Nordic-Germanic people and subsequent admixture, so they are alien to the root and resent it much as minorities resent the majority. Someone of Irish-Italian descent who is told that white diversity does not work inevitably retaliates by insulting Western Europeans. Diversity creates resentment, even among whites, and among admixed whites like Southern and Eastern Europeans, envy and hatred of the Western European founders can be seen as clearly as it is in Hispanic, Black, Asian, Arab and Amerind groups.

We do not view ourselves as a white race because of internal differences, and trying to force us to do so will fail as it has in the past. We know that there is a seed of our people which came out of Asia, brought its blonde-haired long-faced blue-eyed presence among us, and melded with lower castes of previously mixed whites from Central Europe with some ancestors from the Mediterranean.

All of our literature alludes to this distinction in castes, where those who are blonde, tall, long-faced and cerebral rule over the darker, shorter, and brown-eyed lower echelons. In German, Scandinavia, England, France and the Netherlands this is recognized as true, as it was in American class tension literature from the last century. Whites are different based on percentage of Nordic-Germanic (“Aryan”) heritage.

Those who are not Nordic-Germanic tend to want to displace that group, so that the shorter/browner trace admixed Central Europeans — who are either a previous iteration of Europeans, or a group with some mixture that happened in the near Middle East — can rule in their place, just like minority groups agitate for overthrow of whites. Every group wants to rule the world, and needs to displace higher groups to do that.

Some would call this white supremacy, but in actuality, it is a revelation of the caste system within whites which ranks us by degree of admixture, plus the natural tensions of diversity in which every group wants to be in power.

The good news is what white unity is not what we need. Our future will be one of balkanization, or many small tribes breaking away from the failed nation-states of liberal democracy. These groups will be defined by a cascade of race, ethnicity, caste, religion and region on a basic level, with additional modifiers like lifestyle, sexual preference, politics, philosophy and profession.

For example, you may find a neighborhood filled entirely with Irish Catholic ship-builders, or a gay neighborhood that is open to whites and Asians. Maybe there will be a community of metalheads or punks somewhere, like the squatter communes of the 1970s. Perhaps people will find nice WASP neighborhoods isolated by high walls and armed turrets. We are entering a time of collapse when government is an enemy.

In the coming “balk,” being one big group is not useful. Being a distinctive group is however. For example, Western Europeans can recognize each other by sight and immediately read caste/class status, so they group together well. That distinctiveness counts in the split seconds before encountering another person or group will turn out to be friendship or racial violence.

There will be no middle ground. Where old school racism was based on stereotypes and perceived slights, new school racial politics will have a simple rule: if he is of my tribe, he is good; if he is not, he must be killed quickly before he calls others from his tribe to conquer mine. Friendship or violence will erupt seconds after meeting, and to be indecisive is to die.

This saves us from a unique form of suicide that many — usually from the admixed groups of “whites” — think is a really good idea. They want to create a white group, at which point they abolish distinctions between types of white (Western, Eastern, Southern) and caste/class differences. That will produce a generic white group with none of that traits of the group that made Western Civilization great.

Our suicide move would be to throw all whites into a category for purposes of defense, just like in the prison written about above, at which point interbreeding will be natural. This means that all of the white sub-groups will assimilate each other, losing ethnic distinctiveness and caste orientation. This will create generic Europeans who will lose their distinct traits.

To do that, in effect, will be to genocide ourselves. Western Civilization pops up from time to time in different places. Those societies eventually fail, and then the members of the tribe move on to another place and start another society. Ancient Greeks fleeing the fall of Athens went into Central Europe just like Europeans fleeing their socialist states came to America.

But the core, the essence, of Western Civilization remains its Western European people. These are basically still the same group that ranged the steppes, set up empires across Asia, North Africa and Europe, and provided the genetic seeds for the Greek, Roman, German and Nordic empires. These are the Western Europeans.

America has fallen, and Europe is dead for all practical purposes, but as long as we have our people, Western Civilization can rise again. This is why all of our enemies, both white and non-white, want to destroy that group. (Note: there are many non-whites who do not want to destroy us, but their position is a relative rarity because diversity creates such intense minority-majority resentment).

If we mix all the whites together, we will bring in the trace admixture of Asiatic found in Eastern and Southern Europe, which rather than being reduced will be amplified as racial mixing tends to be. At that point, we will have destroyed the seed of our unbroken heritage, and replaced it with a mixed future.

That will lead to white third world countries, where a light-skinned group with the features of the Middle East rules over a slightly darker but dumber herd. If we mix within the “white” race, we will produce a hybrid society like those of Iraq, Mexico, India, Brazil, and the Levant. We will have destroyed our potential for restoring Western Civilization that way.

As the West slowly awakens from its latest stupefactive flirtation with equality, interest in nationalism has risen to new heights. The problem is that the newly-minted “nationalists” are taking Leftist assumptions with them, and so they want an egalitarian nationalism, which is the exact opposite of what nationalism is.

We can see nationalism in white attitudes toward other whites. Nationalism is not race-patriotism, or swearing fealty to the “white” race, but hierarchy including caste and a rough calculation of how much Nordic-Germanic is present in each person. Its ultimate goal is not to form a political herd, but to preserve the subspecies of our peoples, and this cannot be done by combining or associating them.

The Winning Disease

Thursday, January 26th, 2017

“I’ve got the winning disease right now, and I’m enjoying this one,” Bennett said. “I don’t need the antidote now.” – New England Patriots Tight End, Martellus Bennett

There are times when it just works. Whatever “It” happens to be; it runs like a Bitchin’ Camaro. The obvious course of action here is to figure out the set of conditions that tuned your particular reality like the aforementioned “Bitchin’ Camaro” and replicate these conditions with as high a frequency as possible.

The first step to this is to recognize that success is almost never a fluke. It is the result of systematically executing good decisions. Successful organizations and people repeatedly do intelligent things. It is not an accident. An example of this from the sports world is “The Patriot Way.” This is how The New England Patriots have been to seven Super Bowls since 2000 and have won their division almost every year over that stretch of 16 seasons. How does this happen? Coach Bellicheck only gives us part of the story.

The New England program, Belichick said that day, “is built on competition and trying to improve every day and trying to work hard. And it’s not built on excuses.”

But it’s built on so much more. An organization requires a mannerbund. A Mannerbund requiring the guys that will do what you want, not the guys the crowd tells you are awesome. The Patriots demolished the opposition yesterday with a lineup featuring starters they found almost at the bottom of several draft pools. Their leading receiver played Lacrosse for Monmouth rather than Football for Coach Saban and the Crimson Tide. THeir starting QB famously had his resume ready in case the NFL never bothered with him. So how do they kill all these products of the NCAA Football Factories? It’s a three step process.

  1. They logically decompose what they need to do to win and solve the problem.
  2. They demand their brothers compete and work hard at implementing that decision.
  3. They totally believe it will work.

Wouldn’t it be awesome. Wouldn’t it be totally awesome if we could implement this insatiable and relentless quest for excellence all over society. Perhaps, Ladies and Gentlemen our recent election was the beginning of just this sort of process.

Why Social Caste Exists

Saturday, December 3rd, 2016


Back in the days of suffering through what passes for “education” in our declining civilization, you were probably told about “top-down” and “bottom-up” orders.

Leftists — most teachers and professors are of this variety, because it makes them feel powerful — fetishize bottom-up orders, or those which have no guiding principle except self-interest of their smallest particles. For them, self-interest means individualism, and they draw the line at capitalism, which they see as limiting the self-interest of other particles.

On the other hand, top-down orders occur with a plan in mind that is used to arrange all those little particles so they work together.

Professors tend to point to nature as an example of bottom-up order. Bacteria form, evolve, and become higher organisms, which then exist in ecosystems, where each particle serves one of many different roles, unequally, and together through acting out those roles, achieve a balance to the whole.

What they do not tell you is that this arrangement demonstrates all of the attributes of a top-down order, only done indirectly and not in the human method of carving things up with large machines. There is some kind of plan inherent to the order of nature where some are granted more power and form different levels of a hierarchy, much like eagles and sparrows are both birds.

This natural hierarchy is what Leftism seeks to abolish.

If you went further on in “education,” you probably encountered the equally mystifying concept of vertical and horizontal hierarchy. In vertical hierarchy, some end up potters and some end up coopers, and the coopers tell the potters what to do. In horizontal hierarchy, everyone is a potter, and some are acknowledged as better potters than the others.

If Leftism has a message with its one ideological pillar, namely “egalitarianism” or the idea that everyone is “equal” (whatever that means), it is that we should have horizontal order alone, and that this will magically create a bottom-up order through competition. This extends from classical liberals (“libertarians”) to Communists; all want everyone equal, and then to see a magic calculation emerge from this.

Only traditional society offers actual social order, which is both top-down and bottom-up as well as both horizontal and vertical. Part of this is aristocracy, which includes social caste or its modern depleted equivalent, “class.” The classes are ranked in vertical hierarchy, but within them, there is horizontal hierarchy. This allows those who are good at making pottery to be ranked alongside their companions in caste, but also, for them to be limited from rising above their level of competence, where they will make decisions without having any idea how to do so.

Social caste is important because it liberates each group from competition beyond what is appropriate to it. Sparrows cannot compete with eagles nor can eagles subsist on grain and grubs as sparrows do, but both are needed. Without the eagles, the sources of grain up which sparrows depend would be unduly depleted by others, such as rodents. In this way, the unequal roles of the ecosystem hierarchy preserve health and happiness for all.

The difference between the ecosystem we had with traditional society and what we have now is that the past was based on authority, and the present is based on control. With authority, those in power are accountable for their decisions, and to that end, given more power. As soon as we regulate their power, they are no longer accountable, because those regulations have hampered their ability to act directly. Instead, we get Control: making everyone do exactly the same thing in order to eliminate deviation so that those in power remain in power. It turns out to be less hospitable to human flourishing.

Recommended Reading