Posts Tagged ‘identitarian’
Wednesday, October 26th, 2016
Liberalism is like sewage: one drop of it in your food supply will ruin the whole thing. Despite two hundred years of brave resistance to liberalism, America has collapsed because its population has gone insane, thanks to Leftist ideas which compel people to deny reality.
At this point, there is no way for this to end peacefully. Those on the side of the Left — third world immigrants, angry single women, and blue-haired hipsters — will never be welcome in the America that the other side wants. And the other side has no purpose in the world of the Left except as a tax cash cow.
The forefront of this movement appear to be deracinated urban Caucasians called “Social Justice Warriors” (SJWs) who weaponize minority groups for use against the majority. This creates the archetype of democracy, a permanently angry mob that blames others for its problems, and therefore cannot survive unless it destroys them.
The Left will not relinquish its control of the centralized authority in the United States and Europe without a fight. Since World War II, it has held the power with only a few interruptions, but none that drifted significantly away from the basic Leftist egalitarian dogma.
After the fall of the Soviet Union, the quasi-Right and the Left together announced a new vision: the New World Order (NWO) based on merging consumerism and the 1930s-style socialist welfare state which produced only a generation later our most radical Leftists, the 1960s “Me Generation,” in whom both product fetishism and virtuous Leftism were dominant.
This “1968” social order came to power in the late 1980s and early 1990s, provoking a backlash that was most clearly seen in underground metal music, writers like Michel Houellebecq, and the rise of dissident thinkers such as the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party (LNSG), Michael Moynihan and his Evolan revival, and of course the writing your author was doing back in that decade.
We are still ruled by the Baby Boomers but they are aging fast and will soon have to retire, so they created a “mini-Me”: people who are entirely products of the 1968-dogma education system, the Leftist news and entertainment media, and the new diverse (read: cultureless) social landscape of the West.
Under the Baby Boomer agenda, which is NWO (consumerism + Leftism + social preciousness) at its core, America has become a third-world nation in terms of its political behavior, notably aggressive and metastasizing corruption:
Crime, collusion, and banana republic stuff we’ve only heard about are the new norm.
And the conspirators go about their dirty work as though we were not even here, oblivious to the public scrutiny. Hillary has laughed off questions of a potential indictment since the beginning, sneered at suggestions that her scandal might keep her out of the White House. Even more frightening than her confidence that she won’t be indicted is her unshakable faith that she’ll be elected. Hillary’s not concerned about the coming election; she doesn’t campaign or hold press conferences, and she has few rallies. It’s almost as if she doesn’t really need the votes.
This has culminated in a scandal more damaging than Watergate: the attempt by our President and his staff to evade oversight by transferring their communications from inside government to a server controlled by, if we cannot call it a “shadow government,” at least a corrupt gang with intent and methods reminiscent of organized crime.
That same President went on national television and denied that he knew about the server, which he claimed he first heard about in the mainstream media, but we can see his use of an anonymous address to send mail on that server. Many emails from the server were later deleted and two investigations fizzled out presumably to protect the careers of those claiming to enforce the law.
If you want a smoking gun, Sondjata over at Garvey’s Ghost has identified what will be the smoking gun of our time (which has even made it into state organ The New York Times):
What this means is that the powers that be — which are Leftist — have nothing to lose by increasing the degree of corruption as a method of seizing power. They have a lot to lose, however: as Trump reminded Clinton at the second debate, if he wins, she goes to jail. So will Barack Obama, most likely, since he will not have the Clinton pardon he is relying on.
For these reasons, it is entirely conspiracy thinking to expect that the sitting party will not fake election results, declare war, enforce martial law or use some other method of remaining in power in perpetuity. Those are standard behaviors in the third world, and American government now behaves in a third-world way.
All of this horrific chaos and instability has forced the rise of an opposition movement, who can be roughly described as those who (a) want something more like pre-1930s and pre-1960s America and (b) are concerned with the future of the West as a whole, and realize that the only way to escape decay is to find a big (yuge) purpose and strive toward that instead of running away from risk, fears and socially unpopular ideas.
Americans resemble the wise old guys on the farms who warned us long ago that every liberal idea was crazy. The American Nativists, the religious zealots, the Confederacy and the Founding Fathers have all been proven right or at least “more right” and the Left has been proven wrong. Add to that a healthy dose of Nietzsche and you have the outlook of the Alt Right.
The Alt Right has been legitimized because white people in America feel that a racial identity has been imposed upon them, and so they have accepted it. The Left targeted white people, so white people have begun to see themselves as a special interest group instead of a majority whose role is to provide taxes to pay for social welfare benefits for the rest. This allowed the Alt Right to pop up in the mainstream and be accepted.
White identity arose from Leftist racial antipathy toward whites:
Whereas racial prejudice refers to animosity toward other racial groups, white identity reflects a sense of connection to fellow white Americans…ongoing demographic changes in the United States are increasing white racial identity. White identity, in turn, is pushing white Americans to support Trump.
As white identity becomes accepted, and people see the need to assert their interests, they quickly become aware of who is voting against those interests: single women, third world descended people, and career Leftists. This has caused what the Left calls a revolt against democracy:
This suspicious Republican electorate is joined by growing ranks of conservative politicians, pundits, and intellectuals. They’re all increasingly willing to say that the existing American political system is hopelessly flawed and needs to be rolled back to the days before blacks and women could vote.
…Suspicion of the democratic system is so pervasive on the right because it’s driven by the fear that white Christian America is facing demographic doom. The evidence is right there in the election results: Republicans have lost the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections, and if current polling trends hold, the GOP will be batting one for seven when the results come in on November 8.
American whites have finally snapped to and realized that all post Hart-Celler immigration has been designed for a single purpose: to destroy the white majority, so that a permanent Leftist regime can exist.
Europeans are realizing the same thing about the third-world immigrants that have been flooding across their borders since the early 1970s. These groups are here to displace the original citizens so that Leftists can rule forever.
If conservatives are opposing democracy, it is not because they have “given up” on it, but rather that they have seen through it. Diversity has forced whites to recognize that minority groups never vote for white interests, and that democracy made this mess because democracy creates manipulative Leftist leaders.
In turn, this has whites realizing that the current mode of American politics is not just insupportable, but has failed. Its failure means that it must be un-done and we must choose another direction. That in turn provokes the realization that America requires an intense and radical change unlike anything else in its history.
This extends to Europe as well where democracy has produced the exact same results. The NWO is not an anomaly, but the end result of all Leftist movements. The next stage is always third-world style kleptocracy administered by Leftist strongmen. The Leftists get rich, and everyone else starves or gets beheaded.
We are seeing our society follow the path of the Soviet Union, which failed because it pursued ideology and found that doing so necessitated ignoring and suppressing notice of reality. We are also following the path of the French, who threw a Revolution and then spend the next century trying to take over Europe.
We are also seeing our society follow the path of every third-world nation on the planet. Our new “Me Generation” direction feels a lot like what happens in Cuba, Venezuela and China. Like China, we will be unstable and corrupt but cling to our industry and finance, but even that cannot save us from eventual collapse.
There is only one way out of this disaster, and it is to revoke Leftism by choosing a positive purpose instead, but to get to that point, we must protect the remaining sane people through the following:
Remove all diversity. Not even one drop of diversity can be tolerated because diversity lowers social trust and destroys social order. This will require reparations with repatriation so that those who were mistakenly brought here can re-establish themselves in comfort in their new homes.
Physical removal of parasites. Within our own population, there are parasitic people across a wide range of roles — financiers who are con men, blue-haired SJWs, lazy bureaucrats, criminals, Leftists and the congenitally stupid — who need to be relocated to the third world. This should be done as gently as possible.
Rebuild civilization through bootstrapping. For us to have a rising civilization, it needs a purpose, which should be some intangible and irrational transcendental ideal like excellence, beauty and goodness. It will require the four pillars to operate with that goal. Adopting those will in turn enable more clarity of purpose.
Avoid retribution and murder. The Left are our mortal enemies, and those they have imported see us as either those who should pay their benefits or those who should be eliminated. It is tempting to lash out in kind, but will divide us. Better to forcibly but gently relocate those who are incompatible with our needs.
We are learning that power concentrates itself and destroys civilization if not entrusted to those who are not purely self-interested. Donald Trump and Nigel Farage show us a breed of men who can make money without having political power, and therefore have gone into public service without hope of actual recompense or profit.
The problem is that such leaders only appear when there is a crisis. It may already be too late to salvage the situation in which we find ourselves, for example. Democracy — designed to avoid power — creates an even greater power because it makes the mechanisms of power invisible and covers them in a layer of pleasant illusion.
Our path has led us to a bad end and clearly we need to choose another direction. The big risks are that we do not think radically enough to create enduring change, and that we react to the present by going in the opposite direction without a plan. Those aside, the future is brighter now that we realize change and war are upon us.
Sunday, February 1st, 2015
You know all those “coexist” bumper stickers? They may have gotten it exactly 180 degrees wrong. From “The Geography of Ethnic Violence”:
Our analysis shows that peace does not depend on integrated coexistence, but rather on well-defined topographical and political boundaries separating linguistic and religious groups, respectively. In exactly one region, a porous mountain range does not adequately separate linguistic groups and violent conflict has led to the recent creation of the canton of Jura. Our analysis supports the hypothesis that violence between groups can be inhibited by both physical and political boundaries. A similar analysis of the area of the former Yugoslavia shows that during widespread ethnic violence existing political boundaries did not coincide with the boundaries of distinct groups, but peace prevailed in specific areas where they did coincide.
In other words, our world is comprised of opposites:
- If you want peace, prepare for war.
- If you want tolerance, create intolerant boundaries.
- If you want happiness, do not flee what you fear.
For different tribes to coexist, they must know who they are and be separated from others so that competition does not force them into ruinous postures. When competing with others, any given party is prone to discard as “unnecessary” many necessary functions in order to win the competition, which is why inducing an enemy into unnecessary competition is an effective technique.
Those who have strong ethnic identity are happiest and to have that strong ethnic identity, they need separation from any groups which might assimilate them. For the most part, people focus on the everyday and want things like society to “just work,” which includes needs they cannot articulate like having strong ethnic identity and strong borders.
In fact, we might view the desire for mental stability as the key to happiness and what ethnic identity provides most. People benefit from strong answers, not ambiguities, that tell them that they are living in the best possible way. With that, comes contentment. But in order to have that, they must erect strong boundaries between themselves and others, no matter how un-pc that is.
Friday, May 30th, 2014
Little kids always ask “why?” whenever you tell them something must be done. They do this because human memories work best when reasoning outward from a core principle or central idea.
In the same way, societies shape themselves around their primal Why. To have a healthy society, make this a strong identity. Identity takes its strongest form not in politics/ideology but in organic identity.
Organic identity comprises three major factors: culture, values and heritage. The three shape each other and depend on each other. Culture arises from a sense of being “a people,” which necessarily involves a sense of some unity and uniformity in heritage, and values arise from the aesthetic determinations made by culture.
A healthy culture loves itself and traces its origins to a founding. That founding produced the ancestors who live on to the present day through a “nation,” or group of similar genetics. These people are shaped by generations of culture that rewards what they find good in their values system, casting out the bad, and so they have similar inclinations.
Identity allows people to have shared values beyond the political. About fair play, honorable conduct and what should be done, in a way that politics and elections with the memory of a gnat cannot.
If you lack this identity, your society will be shaped by commercial forces and government. Media, industry, special interest groups and politics itself will wear you down until you are nothing but a series of compromises, resulting a generic middle-of-the-road approach.
Some people argue for this generic approach because it removes rules and standards from above them. Then, they can do anything they want! It takes them until old age to find out how boring this is. When serving the self, one soon serves the cruelest master, a form of Satan who cannot be exiled to hell. Pleasures age and dissipate. Having a place and doing right makes us feel good, on the other hand.
On this blog, I pay little attention to race-crime stats and human biodiversity. That tendency does not assert that these are wrong, only that they do not communicate the relevant message: we need people like us, formed together and united by culture, heritage and values. If we do not, corporations and government will rule us instead.
When you see crime wracking our society, consider that perhaps that results not from “bad guys” or “bad races,” but diversity itself. Diversity requires a lack of identity. It aims to destroy the majority and its values and replace it with no values, no culture and no heritage. Then only the individual reigns which makes for perfect consumers: neurotic, adrift, desperate and egomaniacal.
The West can solve most of its problems by resuming the practice of having identity which has been taboo since the second world war. Instead of relying on police and politicians, we can rely on ourselves and each other. We can shape our values and eject those who violate our values. In the process, we would lose a massive overhead in government and parasitic commerce.
We can achieve this process by peaceful means. When we signal that identity is our goal, others realize they are in the wrong place and depart. Without the free handouts and political favoritism of government, they have no interests here and will go elsewhere where opportunity is better.
Even more, we can stop the dog and pony show of elections and constant “wars” against social problems. Fix our social problems by fixing our people, and start by giving them a sense of pride and joy in who they are. Encourage them to be better at who they are, not adopt unproven and conjectural “solutions.” Re-take our society from within, and renew it with a sense of purpose.
Wednesday, January 1st, 2014
by Generation Identity
Arktos, 45 pages, $13
Generation Identity leapt into the public mind when they occupied the top floor of a mosque in Poitiers and took a number of pictures of normal, healthy and unafraid people who clearly believed they were doing what was right. There was not anger or other denial or compensation behavior, only a clear-eyed attempt to do what needed to be done.
Since reading Generation Identity: A Declaration of War against the ’68ers by Markus Willinger, I have wanted to read more from this interesting movement. They are above all else practical and base their ideas not on restoring the past, but on having a future worth experiencing for those who are currently young. The future and the past dovetail of course because what worked in the past will work in the future and vice-versa, since the really big questions of human life are timeless and independent of technology, but the focus on building a future instead of looking backward to something for inspiration frees the Generation Identity movement from the encumbrances that have bogged other movements in futility.
We are… Generation Identity is an odd collection of documents that maintains the breathless, flyer tossed your way in the street feel that all of their writing has. Whether they agonize over its editing or not, it has the sense of being dashed off in the heat of battle. This book includes articles, letters, propaganda leaflets, interviews and other interactions between Generation Identity and the world in which they state the reasoning behind their viewpoints. Since this group took most of us by surprise and emerged fully organized and with a full complement of members, it’s interesting to see the coalescing of ideas that precede its origin. Equally interesting is seeing the articulation of a newer type of political movement:
As an identitarian, daily life in the Maghred, the Near East or New Guinea is not my problem; they are free to live according to their traditions (and unfortunately, multiculturalism, combined with an overall process of homogeneity, tends to erase cultural particularity). We are young people ‘living amid the world,’ to borrow a religious expression, who have chosen the love of our people and of our neighbors as our vocation. We are secondary school and university students and young working people integrated in this society by force of circumstance. We wish to live together, of course — but without them. (17)
The sentiment is rarely expressed this bluntly, but here it is: without identity, society is pure obligation and control. With identity, the outsiders cannot exist among us. And in the present time, where we cannot face this truth, our society tears itself apart with contortions of moral reasoning and euphemism. Generation Identity commendably avoids trying to play this game and speaks plainly instead about quality of life.
Underneath the skin you will find many of the same ideas shared in the nexus between New Right, archeofuturist, traditionalist, paleoconservative and far-right movements. They desire nationalism and reject internationalism and participation in any empire or at least, any empire but Europe (a term which sometimes includes Eurasia). The point is for a triple identity: first as European, then with conventional nation-states, and then with locality. Thus someone might be European, French and a Parisian at the same time and see all three as integral to his or her identity.
Today again Europe must unite itself in a common act of political construction that respects local identities. Against the Europe of merchants and bankers, against the integration of Turkey in the European Union, let us realise a powerful Europe which can stand up to any and all imperialisms. In friendship with our Slavic brethren and Russia, we must clearly affirm: neither Alla, nor the USA — Europa Nostra! (38)
This reads like something straight out of Guillaume Faye’s Archeofuturism, where Europe is united in a long federal entity from Siberia to Ireland and yet is somehow based on local entities. This faces a challenge from the nature of modern politics, which is that those who do not form federal identities that can field impressive fighting forces soon end up being captives of the Mongols. However, what is important about Generation Identity is that they are not here to solve every problem but one: how to unite people toward a vision in which they can see themselves participating.
Thus the power of this small book is that it isn’t complete. It’s a work in progress that calls for participation, if only someone to shuffle the pages and see how they look from different directions. It’s a call to action for a future which is a thinly disguise now and forevermore, a scream for a solution to the modern problems which have wracked the West and turned it against itself for decades. They don’t need to have all the answers. In fact, it is better if they do not. This is the first step of a new type of journey, and the beauty of it is that its incompleteness draws us in and compels us to push feet forward to the next step.
Wednesday, March 1st, 2006
It now marks our letters as a disingenuous parting formality, but the term “sincere” once meant a type of seriousness toward life that enlightened and rewarded all that it touched. To be sincere was to intend to do well by the world as a whole, and therefore, to look at each task for its own sake in the context of all things it touched. Of course, since all systems, eco and otherwise, on earth are interrelative, the only way to understand “sincere” is as a holistic morality which addresses not the individual nor the collective exclusively, but the order to which both belong.
Immanuel Kant brilliantly used the word “hypothetical” in a sense that is parallel to novelist Michael Crichton’s use of the word “misinformed”: both terms refer to someone who answers the wrong question. While in the public vernacular “hypothetical” conflates to “conjectural,” in Kant’s usage it means any response to a stimulus which by design is responding to a different stimulus; obviously, this is equivalent to misperceiving the situation, or having an emotional and not logical response, or as Crichton says, to simply be “misinformed” and to have fundamentally necessary data wrong or contorted in their contextual application. A hypothetical response is one that answers the wrong question, and thus responds to stimulus with an irrational and unrealistic countermotion.
Here we get into trouble with the misinformed moderns, of course, who believe the greatest “freedom” can be had by not believing in an “objective” reality; if these people really believe this, I suggest they stand in front of a loaded gun and stop believing the bullet will hit them when they pull the trigger — and then pull it. Objective reality as shared physical space exists, although the reality itself is relative, in that we know it only through the contrasts in its parts considered in juxtaposition. In other words, while it is objective, it cannot be known completely and in a single stroke in exact detail, as to have such knowledge would to literally become either the whole of reality or to have all of reality within oneself; even therein, Heisenberg’s theorem would apply. We do not have complete knowledge of our own selves, but it is unlikely that we need complete knowledge, and clear we do not to see that we exist in the same physical world and the same organizational and physical laws apply to us all. We are atoms, and atoms behave the same way, no matter how much our interpretation of them is hypothetical.
For this reason, we can derive sincerity over the protests of the irrational moderns, who are demanding “subjectivity” not for scientific reasons but for a desire for personal political recognition; it isn’t an argument for realistic interpretation of reality (“truth assessment”) that they’re making, but a grab for power. After all, to be able to sabotage any organization larger than the individual makes the individual most powerful, and by insisting on the preeminence of the subjective, the individual is able to “disprove” any plan affecting more than one person. Obviously this is ludicrous, as if these people were given the task of founding a civilization they could not do it; they can only exist where others have found common ground (and yes, perceived laws of objective reality) and made it for them. Even more baffling, these people argue for subjectivity using “objective” laws, starting with “we each have our own reality” — in “have” is the concept of an externally-created personal reality handed to the person, and by demanding we respect it, they are suggesting that this “subjective” reality exists in the context of the objective. If you said “what?” it’s because the premise they’re invoking is so ludicrous that to explain it clearly in language renders it to gibberish. The problem there isn’t language; the language has done its job well and represented the idea as it is. The problem is the idea of “subjectivity.”
Sincerity is a sense of wanting to do right in the highest context possible. One desires the highest — most abstract — context in order to avoid making any errors of omission that render one’s proposed action hypothetical. For example, one error is to be ethnocentric, and only to have perspectives from one’s own culture; another error is to be anthrocentric, and only to see human perspectives; yet another is to be terracentric, and to assume only perspectives from planet Earth (humorously, since multiculturalism is a culture unto itself, to see only the multicultural perspective is to be ethnocentric, although multiculturalists will rarely admit this). To in any way foreshorten one’s awareness is to leave out details that one might need to construct a vision of the whole order of the universe (the highest context) and thus to know how to do right by all things as equally as can be. To slight the human is to benefit the squirrel; to slight the squirrel is to benefit the human. Better to take neither “side” and do as most benefits the natural order — and this requires understanding the natural order via abstract principles, or laws. Interestingly, the ancients were far ahead of us moderns in this area, in that while their methods unquestionably lagged behind ours, everything that they did had a place in the larger context of a metaphysical understanding and the tradition based upon it. There were no random acts, and therefore, fewer chances for insincerity.
Without sincerity, we are doomed to fail, as a will toward sincerity more than a will toward truth or morality is what allows us to share a conception of reality and to work within it to avoid crises and better ourselves as a culture and as individuals. It is easy to mislead; deception is a destruction of the fragile perceptions of truth that make up the mapping of the world that each individual keeps in his or her head, and to deceive that individual is a process of carefully replacing a few ideas that like support struts in a bridge hold the rest together. Pull out the supports, and the whole thing comes crashing down, leaving the person suggestible — don’t you want to buy a new car? It’s not at all unlike buffer overflow attacks used to hack distant computers. To be insincere does not require construction of a complete worldview, only enough knowledge to destroy the entirety of one and incite a panicked human to follow a linear path, such as “new car = reproductive success” and therefore success in all of life, something too complex to be measured simply by reproduction (and within that, the quality of that reproduction: not every BMW-lovin’ bimbo is mate quality). Sincerity is holistic, because only by knowing the entire system of the cosmos do we know where we fit and thus what will achieve ultimate success, which is to complement and revere the universal design so as to further its growth and thus benefit to us as we were conceived by it. To target part of this system is to create a hypothetical solution, but such a response is exactly what a manipulator desires, because by focusing on one and not all attributes, it is easy for them to construe the world as a bifurcation between “good” and “bad,” artificially. Interestingly, they do this through the conflation of subjective (“good” for me might be “bad” for you) with the objective, something we call the “absolute” as it doesn’t “exist” per se in reality (“good” applies outside of a perceiver, thus “good” to you is “good” to me, even if one or both of us dies).
“The world may be explained in sociological terms. David Riesman describes three basic social personalities in The Lonely Crowd. ‘Other-directed’ people pattern their behavior on what their peers expect of them. Suburban America’s men in gray-flannel suits are other-directed. ‘Inner-directed’ people are guided by what they have been trained to expect of themselves. [General Douglas] MacArthur was inner-directed. The third type, the ‘tradition-directed,’ has not been seen in the West since the Middle Ages. Tradition-directed people hardly think of themselves as individuals; their conduct is determined by folk rituals handed down from the past.” – American Caesar, by William Manchester, p 537
In traditional societies, the goal was to achieve a complete understanding of the universe so that the social order produced people who were not only capable but sincere (Ariya, or “noble”). This sincerity was the basis of heroism by which they valued doing what was right over doing what was personally advantageous, and thus not only would sacrifice themselves for the common good, but would avoid the mundane pitfalls of greed and gluttony and stupidity because they had something to which to compare these things and find them wanting. If you are accustomed to having the wisdom of the stars, what is a 12-pack but distraction? You might drink in context, with friends, but by having a bigger context than simple intoxication you avoid being lured in by the linear promise of alcohol as a replacement worldview. Sincerity was not only good for society and nature as a whole, but it was good for the individual, as it gave them something larger than themselves to nurture and believe in, thus removing the sting of death and teaching them healthy living at the same time. In traditional worldviews, the universe was a supreme order worthy of reverence and awe and a form of love for which we do not have words today, but did not demand such things; we knew our place, and our place was like that of ants to an oak tree, both essential/integral and at the level of detail.
Sincerity obliterated the idea that we could pretend one linear factor determines the whole; you cannot make someone live longer only by feeding him better food, as diet is only one of many (exercise, genetics, wounds) criteria that determine the length of survival. We like to pretend that one factor determines the all, whether we call it truth (or “truth”) or God or money or television, because it makes us feel as if we are in control and thus our mortality is not real, or at least deferred to the point where we can ignore it without feeling foolish. Our rigid linear orders are not realistic and therefore demand that we create great ziggurats of exceptions, such as “To kill is wrong” to which is added “Except to kill killers” to which is added “Except when they’re insane or retarded or of an ethnic minority or Christian women who drowned their children.” We patch together these pathetic, incongruous idea-trees because we want that in control feeling, and even more, we want it personally, which is the ultimately linearization of life: it can be divided into “what’s good for me” and “what’s bad for me,” and needs no further analysis – this is individualism, which in the philosophical definition means placing individual preferences before everything else in the universe! We create chaos by making rigid rules because there is only one rigid rule, and that is reality itself, which per its flexibility is not as rigid as human absolutes. To pretend one thing is the whole (or “represents” accurately the whole), when reality operates differently, is to be insincere. Could it be the simple fact of our downfall, then, that we have lost sincerity?
Thursday, February 17th, 2005
When the neurotic flailing about of current conservative, Indo-European nationalist and deep ecological movements ceases, and the participants in those parties recognize the greater commonality of their cause than its divisions, we can begin reconstructing an Indo-European cultural identity as a means of creating local governments which, by placing common interest in health of nature and populations as a whole over monetary and other means used to divide us, can replace the one world government of a money-driven, liberal democratic society. Once we have created this conceptual ideal, one of the first goals is to wake up the members of our race who have not yet given themselves fully to a dronelike, subservient existence, and the first step in this is encouraging lifestyle change.
With a cultural identity to which we can point and state its superiority to the greedy and reckless disposable society that rules us today, we can compare the mindless and empty lifestyles of consumer products and mass-entertainment media that bewitch our people and reduce their cognitive capacity to that of an intoxicated ape. This is the first element of lifestyle change: weaning people from a passive world in which they follow blindly what government and industry designate as healthy, and giving them something of a greater nature for which to live, including their own individual satisfaction derived from existence in a society that is as a whole much smarter and healthier. They may give up some individual comforts, but it must be clear to them that they gain something meaningful in exchange, not effete “culture” in the form of artifacts from the past but a living and unique lifestyle based on the shared ethnic and cultural values of our race and its myriad tribes.
When people change lifestyle, they are voting in the oldest method possible: with their money and their feet. Although the system of democracy promises results for our votes, the truth seems to be that it cannot handle the details of managing complex societies because it is engaged more in internal combat than in any thrust toward a resolute direction, and thus we rage back and forth between partisan camps without ever accomplishing anything substantive. Accordingly, its highest and best use is to elect leaders who can replace it with a better system. For this to happen, attitudes must change, and lifestyle alteration is a powerful means of achieving this because by voting with money and feet, the elites of society abandon bad values and cease supporting the institutions that uphold them.
Some will scoff at the idea of boycotts and organized support of positive cultural means, but look at the damage wrought on the American economy by periodic disfavor in Europe, and the choking effect on Israeli companies created by a boycott of them in the Arab world. These are not small successes; they are huge, in that they show one way we can quickly begin reducing the power of those ideas that oppose us. Phrased in another way, if even ten percent of Americans turned off their televisions and cancelled their newspaper subscriptions, those industries would suffer, and in order to regain the votes of money and feet, would internally re-adjust to accommodate better values. Further, those who escape the television addiction that afflicts our population in general would leave behind a passive “what would the herd think?” mentality and begin living for their own satisfaction and knowledge that they have done right.
The media and government are powerful tools, but they are not omnipotent, and depend on having an audience for their power. Voting on paper “sends a message” but effects no real change; voting with boycotts, and selective support of institutions and communities so to opt for those with positive values, immediately deprives them of this power. As most operate on relatively tight margins, losing even a small portion of their audience triggers an internal crisis in those businesses; the prospect of longer-term losses creates shareholder revolt, and turns the same mechanisms used against us into self-destructive behavior. Even more importantly, as such businesses fail and cease to employ many people, the economy itself is forced to adjust to the new preferences of its customer base.
This is a smart form of revolution, and one that does not require radical acts, but most in the “white nationalist” community are unwilling to undertake it, nor are they willing to face the honest reason for their unwillingness: they are addicted to the passive entertainment lifestyle provided by television and degenerate products. Well, of what use are you? – it is a fair question to ask these people, since they are upholding the tools of their enemies, and further, by endorsing them through their own usage of them (you do not engage in a behavior unless you believe it is worthwhile), are delivering victory to our enemies at our own expense. Is this “activism”? If so, this writer wants no part of it: turning off the television, canceling the newspapers and magazines, and dropping out of the consumer lifestyle by buying only what you need, and avoiding frivolous products, is far more effective than even millions of people who take their behavioral and political cues from Hollywood sops like “American History X.”
Ask yourself: what do you really need from television, and newspapers, and consumer products? “To see what’s going on in the world” – you mean to say, to see what the corporations and religious groups who control media wish you to see as the activity of the world, and to give more attention to governments that don’t address your needs. Or maybe the objection is that your Playstation 2 with “Grand Theft Auto” and shiny new car and plasma television give you some kind of enjoyment you cannot find elsewhere; to that a thinker says that no victory occurs without change, and no change occurs without sacrifice. Could you live without these things? Surely. And would your life be any worse? Unlikely – it would be different, and you would be freed of your daily programming by the interests of those with money.
Most people are unaware that televisions, newspapers, et al are businesses; their goal is not to tell you the truth, but to prepare an entertainment product that you will consume, thus transferring wealth to them and their advertisers. If they can get you to see their entertainment product as a source of reality, why then, they control what you will admit as truth and, by repeating big lies often enough, will deceive you. Do you really want to make yourself open to such an attack, and then to unknowingly use that attack against your own people? All of your arguments distill to a preference for convenience and an easy vision of reality, where glowing boxes tell you what to do and you feel as if your life will be fulfilled with the next shiny object you purchase. You are being misled.
There are many ways you can vote with money and feet against the system that will destroy your people and culture – that of modern industrial liberal democratic society, which is motivated only by what is popular, and thus what is profitable. Since we know that most people do not see the big picture, and thus do what is convenient with no thought as to its long-term consequences, we can immediately recognize that what is “popular” is always what is convenient and not what is right to do. They will tell you that it is “freedom” and “individualism” to have certain preferences in entertainment media and products, but think like a brave and assertive person here: what kind of freedom and self-definition comes from products that anyone can buy off of a shelf? You are becoming a weapon against all you claim to uphold.
Business has prospered at the expense of Indo-Europeans because we have all been too busy buying products, working at jobs, and consuming media – billions of dollars of it – without seeing the big picture, and thus being unable to oppose it, we are dominated by it. To continue in that lifestyle is to submit, but to use your purchasing power and personal allegiances to select healthier things is an assertive and strong method of making change. Buy organic fruit, and never buy junk food; throw out your television, and stop reading the garbage prepared to make profit from your delusion and thus sacrifice of not only your race, but your planet and its natural ecosystem. Would you really miss anything? Not anything you could not get from instead of watching television, spending time with friends and family, or in doing things to better yourself. These are real things; television and products are an imaginary reality constructed so others can make money from your decline.
They are laughing at your stupidity and ignorance, these profiteers. “It was so easy to conquer these people – and everyone said they were independent, and tough-minded, and smart – see how quickly and how low they have fallen!” But while they laugh, the people with televisions and shiny products make excuses, and because deep in their hearts they know they are lying, they degenerate further as individuals. Make the lifestyle choice that matters; reject this plastic garbage heap of a world and everything meaningless that is in it, and instead spend your money and your time doing things that have long-term positive consequences. You will be amazed at how many follow you, and how effective, together, we are.
Saturday, January 1st, 2005
To look at the topic of the political rights of Indo-Europeans in the current society is to dismay; we are viewed as those who control it, and thus those responsible for stewardship of others. In short, we are the oppressors and providers, and the nagging schoolteachers, over a horde that views us with distrust, as they should – for any population ruled by another is in an unstable and submissive state. Part of the goal of any Indo-European nationalist movement, then, is to escape this classification and to return to a phase where it is seen as acceptable and logical that we assert our right to be ourselves as a tribe.
For us to do this, we must first construct an ideal, next purge ourselves of counterproductive behaviors, and finally take action in a unified way. To miss any one of these steps is to give in to disorganized behavior, at which point we will undoubtedly commit the classic error of revolutionaries: to strike against the appearance of the system we wish to replace, without seeing the chain of ideas underlying the symptoms that make up the appearance we abhor; to do this is to literally repeat the same error under a new appearance. For this reason, most revolutions become power struggles that upon achieving their visible aims collapse from within, giving way to a form of government strikingly like the one they replaced.
As regards the first step, constructing an ideal, it seems to this writer that while the goal of many in the Indo-European nationalist movements may be to lash out at symptoms, what is meant by the broader sense of our goal is a cultural reconstruction and replacement of our current society with one that harmonizes with the goals of Indo-European culture. Although most “white nationalists” content themselves with merely saying nasty things about Africans, if they were to sit down and list the things they would change in our world, it would become clear the “race issue” does not exist in a vacuum: far from a cause, it is one of the final symptoms of a decline that grips our race and is manifested in many aspects of modern society.
This does not mean that we should soft-pedal the race issue, or be illusory about it, but that we should be honest. Regardless of whether other races are “superior” or “inferior,” our goal is preserve our own kind, which to a studied mind recalls that every population is defined by both ethnicity and culture; without either, that is, without both, no population exists independently of the broadest mass of humanity, who have seemingly always been of indeterminate racial origin. For this reason, there is nothing wrong with Africans, nor with Asians, nor with mixed-race people, unless they exist among us, in which case we must eject them because they threaten our existence. We do not have to judge them, or to insult them, or even to wage war upon them, but by making this clear when we redesign society, we will induce them to leave, as no person feels safe where they know they are not wanted – regardless of how much we like them as individuals.
When we reach this state of honesty, our desire for racial separation becomes natural alongside other good ideas, no matter how demonized, such the breeding of smarter, stronger people of better character in general, and developing our culture through art, learning, food and ideas. By seeing the “racial issue” as one component of a cultural revolution, we address the root problem of our racial decline, which is that our culture has been replaced by industry and social and religious morality. It is because of this lack of culture that few see the point in preserving themselves racially; they do not perceive they are part of a larger population group except that of international citizens, who are those who get ahead in commercial society and a generalized learning (science, sociology, economics) without having a specific cultural tradition.
In this mindset, people do not belong to population groups, but are atomized individuals attempting to advance in a single world order where money and popularity define success. Nationalism, by its very nature, is opposed to internationalism, because with the replacement of culture comes a loss of uniqueness and a lowest common denominator culture composed of media, politics, economics and generalized learning. When culture is lost, the population is lost, and all that its ancestors have done to make it powerful is dissipated. Astute observers of history will note that a mixed, cultureless population is what is left after the fall of every great empire; to most it seems inconceivable that an empire could fall by means other than warfare, but when one examines every great defeat, behind it is a lack of unity in the population.
Nationalists value unity in populations because it creates localization of power, and allows each tribe to define itself, meaning that specialization can occur as well as the only form of advancement which applies to populations: the creation of ascendant, or highly adapted and idealistic, civilization. Such civilization is the rarest thing on earth; the earth however is littered with the remnants of such civilizations, which when they decay do so through internal strife, usually a conflict between workers and elites, and end without any dramatic consequence in what we know today as third-world republics. One of the symptoms of such decline is race-mixing, which regardless of the excellence of the races mixed, produces a population without heritage which loses the uncountable specialized traits bred into a population by its distinct ideals, which regulate which traits breed most widely. Another symptom is democratic, or passive, government, and a transition made from traditional culture to abstract, quantitative entities such as commerce and science.
In this light, we see the goal of nationalism is not racial partisanism, but a distinction and separation between all races such that each tribe can retain its own culture and ethnic heritage as part of a broader revolution which, in contrast to the last two millennia, pits cultural revival against the utilitarian forces of industry and democracy, which together constitute the fundamental tenets of modern society. Although few take a broader historical view today, if we back up and view history through the lens of aeons, we see that since the middle ages Western civilization has been engaged in the process of replacing traditional civilization with such a modern society. While modern society brings many short-term benefits, as its shortcomings become visible, we see the long-term damage it creates and thus can realize that it is unfit for any form of enduring civilization.
This cultural revival is our goal, and it cannot take reactionary forms, e.g. solely aiming to restore something from the past, or it will collapse from our lack of direct knowledge about the past. Rather, like every diligent worker, we must take what we know of the past and join it with what we know to be sensible to the values of the past to create a society of the future. This society is the aim of our cultural revival; when viewed in this light, our movement is not a passive or reactionary one, but an assertive direction which replaces a fractured system with a better one. We do not make our demands in the context of the current society, but so that its successor can arise, and humanity can move forward lacking the widespread – but invisible to most people, by the very nature of their limited function and belief in their own political efficacy – failings of the current system.
Our keystone realization is that, as Indo-Europeans, despite our different tribes, there is more that unites us than divides us, and that except for those who are already of mixed Indo-European tribes, we can continue to divide into our traditional societies and will not have to live under a one-size-fits-all bureaucratic government administering a sterile “culture” to us all. On top of that, we can recognize that whatever religions or cultural traditions we wish to uphold, we can keep those by finding within them that which is compatible with our spirit, and rejecting the rest. Like society itself, beliefs must be remade in the context of our culture.
Most Indo-Europeans are not politically active as they see no culture, thus nothing worth preserving, and therefore are afraid to take on mass opinion (commerce/social/media/religious) in defense of something to which they have no immediate connection. When we realize that our preferences as a people unite us, and that we have more in common than in difference, we can begin to work on this culture, meaning the methods and ideals of our learning and art and lifestyles, and use it to unify our disparate opinions with those we have in common. It is important that we realize that without such unity, we are divided in the face of our real enemy, which is a values system that emphasizes modern society as the only rational future for humanity, and thus continues the death march toward ecocide, loss of culture and heritage, and loss of personal integrity as we find nothing of meaning except earning money and buying things; in that state, we are drones, and fodder for the machine of corporations and governments. In that state, we do not command, but we submit.
All peoples in the multiculturalist system have this type of identity, except those of Indo-European heritage, for the reasons mentioned: we are perceived as the guardians of this modern civilization, and not a culture within it. Giving our people a cultural identity – including their unique tribal identity, such as French, German, Italian, Irish and so on – is essential toward moving forward. Defensive and passive ideals such as conservatism and bigotry have failed, and there is no point repeating a failing attempt without changing method, as it will undoubtedly fail again. When we leave these reactionary and panicked emotions aside, we can achieve a cultural identity and begin working on ourselves to strengthen and develop a new society in the ashes of the old. This can be achieved by democratic means, and is the only revolution worth supporting.