Posts Tagged ‘identity’
Saturday, February 11th, 2017
Nationalism has become confused because we live in an anti-nationalist age. With the advent of equality, any constraints on the individual — culture, race, heritage, ethnic group, religion, values, family — were rejected in favor of the ideology of equality.
But, as we try to rediscover the methods that work in any age, including nationalism, we must rediscover what it means to be of a tribe. This leads to confusion: is our tribe our national group, or European-descended peoples generally, or “whites”?
The answer is simple. We are many identities, and the one we use depends on how close the question at hand is to our heart. That is, we will be part of many groups at once, but those which are smallest or most specific will be the ones we go to in times of confusion.
Dr. Tomislav Sunic writes about ethnic confusion:
In this sense American nationalists, such as they are in their current historical and social context, deserve credit for attributing a lesser role, to say their German, Irish, or Italian heritage, and focus instead more intensely on the imperative to protect and preserve this common bio-cultural heritage. European small-time nationalisms, with a flurry of national identities of sorts, inherited from the 20th century, must no longer play a crucial role in our new identity building process.
…As witnessed in the artificial state of Yugoslavia, despite all the former academic paeans about the alleged romantic diversity of its former constituent peoples, this composite state made up of different peoples and religions ended in chaos and brutal civil war.
Here we see a duality: (1) national/tribal identity should surrender to racial identity, and (2) artificial states do not work. Another take might argue that the latter applies to the former, and as a result, we cannot create a binary decision tree regarding nationalism. Instead, we must accept that both are true.
Race alone is not enough to form unity; ethnic groups can fight for themselves, and fight for Europe, and in fact natively do this when not interrupted by democracy. This is why it makes sense to see a “cascading” identity, such that one can be first of a local group, next of an ethnic group, then of a type of European, then European, then white, then human and so on…
For example, someone from Southern France is first of his locality or tribe, then of his region, then of the ethnicity “French” which is also the nation, then of the Southern European meta-tribe, then finally of European heritage and more broadly, “white” or Caucasian, as the linguistic demands of the situation demand.
We cannot ask people to sacrifice any part of their identity, nor does it make sense to merge different groups instead the same identity. Work together without become a grey (but white!) mass.
Thursday, December 8th, 2016
Richard B. Spencer, President and Director of the National Policy Institute, marched into the lion’s den at a college campus in central Texas. His speech to the mostly-student audience may well have shattered the media as, despite the constant whining by mainstream sources, it converted many from “hostile” to “curious,” especially white students. It showed an insight into the Alt Right and explained its appeal.
Here is my transcript, relying on the video sources linked below, of Mr. Spencer’s speech:
Good evening, everyone. Long live Texas! Thank you for having me. I appreciate it.
I’m just curious; I want to do a bit of a demographic study. If you’re a member of the media, please raise your hand. Okay, okay, put your hand own, please. That’s a very offensive gesture. Shut it down. We knew you were the lying media, but for God’s sake, that’s out of hand.
I’d like to first off thank Preston for bringing me here. He is truly a brave man and he is bringing a level of discourse to the university that otherwise probably wouldn’t be there. The fact is that we know universities have become stifling, in terms of what you can talk about, and Preston’s fighting against that and I greatly appreciate it. So please give him a round of applause.
I’d also like to thank the Texas A&M University Police. They have been absolutely professional with me; they also care about free speech and they have really gone the extra mile in terms of allowing this event to occur. So please give them a round of applause. Thank you.
So, just out of curiosity, please raise your hands if you are a Texas A&M student. Awesome. I am very happy to be here and I hope you all ask questions. I actually did grow up in Texas, so I am proud to say, the Alamo did nothing wrong.
Well. What is the Alt Right? Who are you? Pepe. Yeah, absolutely. I’m sure some of you have first heard about the Alt Right after the “hail heard round the world” that occurred at the NPI conference. That was a lot of fun.
I would say that that moment, which went viral, is an expression of a lot of different things. It is certainly the expression of the desire of a mainstream media to slander and just silence us with one thirty second footage. “Aww, these people are terrible.” But I think it also says something about the life of the Alt Right. We don’t allow other people to tell us what we can joke about. We don’t play by their rules. We have fun, we can be outlandish, and that is never going to stop.
So, the Alt Right can’t be defined by something from the past. We can’t be trapped in the past. But we also need to go forward guilt-free. We need to be high energy, we need to have fun, we need to be a little outlandish, we need to trigger the world. So all I would say is: keep it up. I love you all.
So what is the Alt Right? When I first started using that term, it was about mid-2008, and at that point, I think the Alt Right was fairly, you could say, negative in its meaning. We didn’t quite know exactly what it was. I knew that something was profoundly wrong with mainstream conservatism. That was evident enough with the George W. Bush administration, with the neoconservatives disastrous wars in Iraq and so on, and with the rest of the mainstream Right offering no answers, the religious Right, all that kind of stuff. I knew that we had to have a new starting point. I also knew that we needed to — this wasn’t a matter just of tweaking the Right, as it is — this was really the matter of a new beginning. Of a new starting point for conservatism in America.
You can actually look at the starting point of the conservative movement, and they talk about global capitalism, and free markets, and the Constitution, and vague Christian values of some sort. But they never ask that question of “Who are we?” They never ask that question of identity. They probably assumed it. They probably assumed a white America, a European America, but they never really asked about it and they were never really conscious of it.
And so the conservative movement became, in its way, a mirror reflection, a photographic negative, of the Soviet Union. It became an ideological nation, it became a nation based on abstract values, like “muh freedom,” “muh democracy,” “muh bombin’ muh commies and Muslims.” It was never a place; it was never a people; it was a kind of ideology. That’s what conservatism was. And so I don’t think George W. Bush was some kind of aberration, some kind of wrong turn to the conservative movement; I think sadly he was an expression of that general trajectory. Not towards identity, not towards nationalism, not towards a sense of “us” or who we are, but towards this abstract universalism that ends up in ridiculous two trillion dollar wars in the middle east, that no one understands and no one can even remember what started them.
So, in a way, George W. Bush was the founder of the Alt Right. He was at least the founder of the term, because I knew that we had to get away from that. We had to get away from him. So I started using the term “Alt Right” in about mid-2008, and at that point, as I said, I don’t think it had an essence quite then. It was just a sense of not-that; let’s get away from W, let’s get away from all that, let’s start anew. From there, the Alt Right evolved, it took on new meanings, and in a way it was outside of my control, absolutely — the Alt Right has never been the Richard Spencer agenda or anything like that — the Alt Right has been organic, that’s why it has succeeded, precisely because other people have picked it up and they have added meanings to it, and so on.
But it kind of evolved with me, in a way. After I dropped out of graduate school, I worked in what you could call the anti-war conservative movement. I wanted to oppose George W. Bush’s agenda but I wanted to do it from a Right-wing perspective. That is, I evolved too. And by around 2010, I would say, I had an idea of where that new starting place was going to be. And that new starting point was going to be identity. And that was going to be the question that we asked first.
So what is identity? In a way, it’s the question “who are you?” We all have many different identities. You could say that you’re a student at Texas A&M. You’re into weight-lifting. You went to a Star Trek convention. You like to wear sweatpants. These are elective identities. They say something about us, but they’re elective.
But then you can delve a little bit deeper, and you could say, “I’m a citizen of the United States. I grew up somewhere. We all grew up somewhere. We’re all part of something. We all come from someplace.
You can go even deeper, and say, “These are my parents. This is my family.” The Left in the eighteenth century had this line “an accident of birth.” An accident of birth. No birth is an accident. There’s no historical or cosmic accident in birth. You come from somewhere. You have parents. They have parents, they have a history. So you’re part of a family. And you grew up somewhere. And you can go deeper, and you can say that you are part of an ethnicity and you are ultimately part of a race. You might not like this. You might really resonate to the idea that we’re all individuals, we’re all citizens. “We’re just Americans. I don’t see color. But color sees you. That’s a good line — I think Trevor Noah said that to a young conservative. She says, “Oh, I don’t see color. I’m a good young conservative.” He says, “What the hell do you do at a stoplight?” It’s a good question actually. We all see color. And race isn’t just color. Color is, in a way, a minor aspect of race. But you’re part of something. Whether you like it or not, you’re part of a bigger extended family. You’re part of this world; you’re part of this history. And that race has a story to tell.
As a European, I can tell a story about people, people I never will know. Our lives stretch back to prehistory. We first started to become ourselves in the Greek and Roman world. So there’s a story that involves people you’ve never met. As a European, I can tell this story about the Greeks and the Romans, about the foundation of our civilization, about empire, about the coming of Christianity.
Sure, Europe’s a place. It’s a place on the map, the people, the blood and its spirit. That’s much more important than some map. There are Europeans all over the world. If we went into space, we’d still be European.
So we can tell a story. We went through tumults, we went through reformations, we went through revolutions, and we are who we are, and I think we’ve learned something about ourselves. That’s the story I can tell as a European. I think if I were an African-American I could tell a very different story. If I were to say what that story would be, it would be about being rooted in an African continent, and enslaved and kidnapped, and going through trials that perhaps I cannot imagine, but then becoming a people. You’re still a people. That’s the story I would tell. But it’s a different story.
So that’s what it means to be part of a race. A race is genetically coherent, a race is something you can study, a race is about genes and DNA, but it’s not just about genes and DNA. The most important thing about it is the people and the spirit. That’s what a race is about.
A lot of white people do not want to have a race. They say, “Oh, I’m just an individual. I’m just an American.” You have a race whether you like it or not. You’re part of a race whether you like it or not. When a Syrian refugee — so called — whether they’re from Syria or Africa or somewhere else in the middle east, when they enter Europe, they don’t look at anyone as “Oh, look, lookee there, this man, he’s Bavarian. Oh, he’s a Bavarian Catholic. Oh look, this guy must be from Ireland. Hmm, interesting. He’s Italian.” No, they don’t see that at all. They see us as white; they see us as white men. They see us as a race, and our enemy can see who we are whether we want to define ourselves as such or not. We are white.
So that is the foundation of identity. You can go up, you can look at elective identities — I’m into weightlifting, I’m into Star Trek — and you can keep going down, and you go down, and down, and down, and you get to the root of identity. You get to that base, where you can’t go any further. And that is race.
In America, we have a very peculiar conception of race. This has been perhaps the most racialized continent. It was a place that was an open country. It was an open country for Europeans who confronted people who were radically different than they were. And that confrontation, I’ll be honest, was terrible, bloody and violent. It was terrible, bloody and violent, but we conquered this continent. Whether it’s nice to say that or not, we won. And we got to define what America means, we got to define what this continent means. America, at the end of the day, belongs to white men.
While I was coming here on the airplane, I re-watched perhaps my favorite movie, which is John Ford’s The Searchers. There’s a moment in that film that I love. It actually comes from a very minor character. It’s one of the Sorgesens, who are a Swedish family. This movie The Searchers takes place in Texas. It’s a brutal movie. It’s about Indians capturing this young white child, and Ethan — played by John Wayne — and his companions chasing after her for years, years, almost endlessly. There’s a moment when this woman Sorgesen, her husband Lars says, “Texas — This terrible country — killed my boy.” Their boy died on a revenge mission against these Indians and the Indians killed him. And Mrs. Sorgesen said, “No, the country didn’t kill your boy. We’re Texicans. And that means we’re a human man way out on a limb. We’re going to be out on that limb for years, for decades, maybe a hundred years. But we won’t be out on that limb forever. At some point, Texas is going to be a wonderful place to live. It’s going to be a great place to live. But perhaps our bones have to be in the ground before that will happen.”
Texas is a wonderful place to live. And there are a lot of the white man’s bones in the ground to make that happen. White people did it. And I’m not going to ever claim that there wasn’t a lot of brutality that went along with it. But we did it. Our bones are in the ground, we own it, and at the end of the day, America cannot exist without us. We defined it. This country does belong to white people, culturally, politically, socially, everything. We defined what America is. But things change. The architect is what matters. It’s the genius behind something, it’s not just whoever happened to do the labor. Other people could have done it. But no one could have imagined it, no one could have designed it, because no one else did. History is proof.
But things change. What is America now? Is it great? “Make America Great Again” was the slogan that captured the imagination really of the world. Embedded in that slogan “Make America Great Again” is its opposite, and that is an acknowledgement that America is not great. I think we know that. I think we know that in our bones and our guts, that things are getting worse. Previous generations couldn’t imagine that their children would have a worse world than they enjoyed, even a worse world than their parents enjoyed. Now 75% of white people think the country is on the wrong track; who could disagree with them, exactly? Does anyone think it’s getting better?
“Make America Great Again.” The opposite is embedded in that statement. That’s what makes it in a way so powerful. We assume that America is not great. And it isn’t. And why isn’t it great? America is not great because in my lifetime, America has lost an essence. It’s lost a people, it’s lost a meaning. You listen to presidential inaugurations, these are these times when presidents will go up and tell us “what this is really about” and get everyone fired up, they don’t talk about America as an historic nation and a people with a story, as the product of a race, of a worldview, they basically talk about America as a platform for all of humanity. They talk about America as an economic system, effectively.
Many have talked about the Roman Empire’s decline. It went from being a people to being a population, then to being a mob. I think that says a lot about the fall of Rome. America went from being a frontier, to being a people, then to being an economic platform for consumers from around the world. And let there be no doubt: Americanization, in this worst possible sense of the word, this is what Hillary Clinton was talking about when she said she wanted a “hemispheric open market.” This is what George Soros and Mark Zuckerberg want. They want an undifferentiated global population, raceless, genderless, identityless, meaningless population, consuming sugar, consuming drugs, while watching porn on VR goggles while they max out their credit cards. Don’t deny that that is the kind of passive nihilism that so many in the elite class actually want. They want a world without roots, they want a world without meaning, they want a flat grey-on-grey world, one economic market for them to manipulate. That’s what’s happening in the world.
It isn’t just a great erasure of white people. It isn’t just an invasion of Europe, an invasion of the United States by the third world, it is ultimately the destruction of all peoples and all cultures around the globe.
I’m not paranoid, they’re just out to get me.
That’s what America has become. We might not all be able to put it into those words, but we know that that is what America is becoming. It’s becoming an homogeneous consuming mass, and no one wants it. Whether you’re black or white or Asian or Hispanic or whatever, no one wants that. And that’s what America has become.
I agree with liberals who might say, “Oh Donald Trump, he’s vulgar, he’s ridiculous, listen to what he’s saying, this is crazy.” Look, I agree. But just the fact that Donald Trump said that word “great” — “Make America Great Again” — meant that he had higher hopes than the Clintons, and the Zuckbergs, and the Bill Gates, and the George Soroses combined. That he had a sense of height, of upward movement, of greatness, of that thing that makes the white race truly unique and truly wonderful, that striving towards infinity, that however vulgar he might be that he had a sense of it.
And that’s what inspired the Alt Right. That’s what made Donald Trump an Alt Right hero. So this is where we are. We’re in a battle between that other America, that America we don’t want to talk about, that America that has our bones in the earth, that America that white Americans died for, that white Americans defined, and we have this other America, that’s just coming into view. This America that is a nihilistic economic platform for the world, that’s taking over the world and destroying everything in its path. That’s where we are. We’re at a tipping point.
What we need right now are people who are willing to speak truth to power. I find that there’s this amazing thing about the Left. And I have a certain respect for the Left, believe it or not. I understand the Left in a way. What I find so amazing about the people who are protesting me out there, who are attempting to create the largest safe space in the world of 100,000 people at Kyle Field, is that they think they’re the underdog. Let me let you in on a secret: Richard Spencer is not the Establishment. Richard Spencer is not running the government. Richard Spencer is effectively a heretic in the modern age. Think about those places of power. The US military, public education (academia), major corporations whether they’re financial on the east coast, Silicon Valley, what have you. What do they all agree on? “Diversity is good.” “We’re all the same.” “We’re one world.” “C’mon man, we all bleed red.” You might think that that kind of limp liberalism is some kind of underdog perspective, that you’re speaking truth to power by saying that nonsense. You are not speaking truth to power. The military-industrial complex agrees with you, so does every major corporation, so does the US government. You are not speaking truth to power, you are power speaking.
These institutions do not want you to have a sense of yourselves. They do not want you to have identity and rootedness. They do not want you to have duties to your people. They do not want you to think of yourself as part of an extended family that is bigger than any single individual, because the moment you have those duties, the moment you have that identity, is the moment that you are no longer the perfect, passive consumer-citizen that they want to create.
Have an identity. I don’t need to tell black people in this room to have an identity because you all have got it. You know who you are. Have an identity. I don’t need to tell that African-Americans, I probably don’t need to tell that to Native Americans or Indians or Asians or anything. But I will tell that to white people: have a goddamn identity, have a sense of yourself. Be a part of this family. You are not an individual, you are not “just an Amurrican,” you are not just a citizen, you are part of this family; be a part of it. Find that within yourself. Find that shadow of self. Not the day-to-day self, find that shadow of self, that European, that hero within you. Be that person.
Having an identity is the greatest challenge to the power structure that there is. Speaking truth to it means speaking the truth about race, about people, about nations, about who we are. You are not a rebel when you mouth this tired, boring, annoying, Left-wing pablum of the so-called “anti-fascists.” Or of these sinecured academics, people with six or seven figure salaries who think they’re Marxist revolutionaries. You are not speaking truth to power when you mouth their tired bullshit.
Have an identity. Be something bigger than yourself. Become who you are, become a member of the people and speak truth to power my brothers and sisters. Thank you very much. Video sources: 1 2
I was fortunate enough to attend this event with Roderick Kaine as well as my wife, and they made excellent company as we waited in line for what felt like hours, hoping to be admitted to the event as a mass riot swelled outside and spilled out of the “safe space” that TAMU created in the football stadium across the street.
Kaine is worth meeting, if you get a chance. Witty, intelligent and sarcastic in a way that debunks the insanity all around us, he interacts without requiring the crutches that most modern people do and injects a fair amount of realistic yet absurdist humor at the same time. His book Smart and SeXy, about biological differences in intelligence between the sexes, is worth pursuing, and you can find more about him in our interview where only a small amount of his zest for life is unveiled.
Mr. Kaine summarized the significance of the event well:
Seeing all those leftists really brought it home to me that these people hate us. And by us, I don’t just mean reactionaries or alt-right shitlords. I mean every white person in this country. Especially those who have even the most modest amount of reservation about our demographic replacement or wealth transfers from working class whites to the ethnic underclass. They hate us and want us destroyed. They have no intention of listening to reasoning or respecting our right to exist and disagree with them. I really do not know how we will ever be able to shed ourselves of these parasites without the use of force, and probably massive force. At some level, I think the underclass and other leftists recognize that their existence is dependent is on us. Where else would they be able to steal the money to pay for welfare? Whether that welfare be make-work “professorships” or the official thing. If we collectively decided we were not going to pay for any of their shit anymore and would rather watch them starve, they would starve. And they know it. They aren’t capable of taking care of themselves. To stop us from collectively recognizing that we don’t need these ingrates and would in fact be better off without them, they are resorting to these intimidation campaigns and gaslighting the white population. “You raped, murdered, pillaged this country from other races, especially blacks. This country was stolen by whites from the work of blacks.” They need this lie not only to prop up their fragile egos, but also to keep the white population complacent in its current abused position. They are desperate for the lie to be maintained because its loss is an existential threat. Unfortunately for them the cracks are widening and white guilt will be cast off like so many other lies. They themselves will be cast off shortly after.
The world is racing to a collision point. The order of “diversity” — based on ethnic whites subsidizing everyone else — has failed, as has the guilt manipulation used by the Left to coerce us into supporting it lest we be called racist/Hitler. It has become widely observable that diversity, liberal democracy, Leftist economics and other liberal programs have failed and left our civilization in ruins, and people want an alternative. This is the alternative Right, which unlike the mainstream Right, does not agree with Leftists on the assumptions that produce Leftism. We are going a different direction entirely.
Spencer was a convincing speaker. He started out slowly, and built to a few major points:
- Against the Modern World. The Alt Right opposes not just the Left, but all of what the modern world has finally revealed itself to be: a grey race lumpenproletariat, working pointless and brain-numbing jobs, stranded in a “culture” of shopping malls and television. The only way out of non-identity is identity, and in the Spencerian view, every ethnic group needs to find its own because this modern hell will destroy us all equally.
- Western Civilization. The stakes here are not an election, or even a single country, but whether we can save Western Civilization from its internal decay brought on by a lack of purpose, resulting in individualism. We are not individuals standing alone, but only here and only significant because we are members of a group.
- Diversity Has Failed. Diversity is what the elites want, which is a population with no value higher than ideology and money, which makes that population easy to manipulate. Those who want a future will break free from these parasitic elites, whose agenda will lead only to Rome-style collapse, and instead begin restoring civilization.
- Identity Is A Spirit. Both Left and Right are dancing around the real issue, which is that those who understand the vision of Western Civilization are Western Civilization. We do not need reams of theory; we need a living spirit and to select all those who understand it, and using them, push forward to reconquer the ruined West and renovate it.
To my eyes, Spencer was convincing and had the positive energy and direction that denotes a good leader. Calm and yet impassioned, he gave a powerful speech which also allowed for lulls so that the audience could assimilate the more difficult concepts. Meeting him in person later was a great deal of fun and showed that he is high energy and fully versed in the Alt Right literature to date. If he speaks near you, it is worth attending.
While Roderick was subverting the crowd with timely memes against the dominant narrative, Spencer attracted the world media to TAMU for a confrontation. The panic was palpable, and the media response — editing the video of the event to show certain soundbites — revealed their impotence and agenda. The result conveyed a single truth: the Alt Right renovation of politics is happening now, and it is time to join in and help push the illusory Leftist regime out of the way, because we have a future to create.
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.
Sunday, August 18th, 2013
Traditional writers assumed nationalism as a pre-requisite for the idea of a nation itself. Nationalism means that the nation is defined by that intersection of people who share the same language, heritage, religion/philosophy, customs, cuisine, calendar and values. In short, “culture.”
Unlike moderns, traditional writers saw how traits were usually convergent and did not originate from a single source. Thus culture was inseparable from heritage, and from the land itself, because this was what shaped the “nation,” or the people of the same birthright.
As a result, traditional writing is not replete with strong calls to allegiance by heritage. First, because this was assumed; second, because heritage alone is not the whole story. Nationalism includes culture-ism because it is built upon it.
More substantially however is that nationalism is built on the negation of pluralism, or realism. Under this view, there is one reality and many ways to describe it, but the reality — not the description or the describer — is the essential part.
This clashes with the modern view of pluralism, in which every person’s opinion, desires, judgments and feelings are equally valid at the same time. Pluralism tends to make people resent each other because, since everyone’s right, there is no solution but to have no standards.
Now, however, nationalism is steadily coming back into vogue. It makes it possible for a group to identify themselves, outline the standards they wish to use, and to use that identity as the basis for positive reasons to work with others.
This is in dramatic contrast to our modern society, which claims to offer positive reasons like increased money, but actually is threatening us with being absorbed by its dysfunction at every turn, including ghettos, poverty, violence, urban decay, etc.
In a recent article for The Awl, journalist Adnan Khan explores the necessity of national identity for empathy to exist:
Physical recognition can be the first step towards empathy or its opposite. Understanding is preceded by a desire to understand: you have to want to care to care.
He raises the salient question of our time: as our society falls apart around us, has it become clear that for us to work together, we need a shared identity? And that this identity can only come from national (ethno-cultural) identity?
In turn, this makes us question whether our model of society, where people are united by political objectives like “progress” and kept in line with law enforcement and economics, can work at all. It seems it is a lesser model to a society based on shared identity and goal.
Saturday, May 28th, 2011
If there is anything besides domestic social policy that divides the Western right, it is the Israeli state.
The liberal left prefer to oversimplify this issue, as with all things, into a binary ‘just’ or ‘unjust’ case. This is convenient when your supporting constituents are constantly fed victim and oppressor indoctrination and very little else about life. So the left is neatly united on one side.
For the right, more interested in difficult truth than in easy popularity, there are many subdivided facets to the Israeli state and the people involved.
To the business and economy rightist, a security and intelligence ally in the middle of an oil rich region is a very important consideration. To them, the prosperity, and by extension, military capability of the West depends on reliable access to the petroleum in a volatile part of the world.
For the rightist whose evangelical faith is paramount, his loyalties are biblical in nature. The Promised Land must be the sovereign realm for those who are considered the Chosen people today. To the faithful, this is God’s will.
But the principled rightists are further split, with half expressing some social justice principles as with the left:
Despite the Arab Spring, Likud does not seem to realize or understand that the Palestinians are not animals to be shuffled around, that the absence of dignity and constant humiliation of their people led to the downfall of autocrats like Mubarak, and that this message is getting through to Washington. Still, Netanyahu and his Likud gangsters rely on the American Jewish community to pressure Obama, something AIPAC has been doing for the last fifty years. The final truth is the following: Israel’s Likud does not want peace, and Obama has to realize this and act accordingly. – Taki
Others on the principled right take a different approach. Geert Wilders is one example:
“Israel is a lighthouse and the only democracy in a dark and tyrannical region,” he declares. “It’s part of us, of our European identity. Israel is fighting our war.” – Ynet
The last two subdivisions is where the conservative right both gets itself into trouble, yet if played carefully, can be a method for acquiring some of the left’s popular territory.
There is no question that human rights and democracy are Western values. They are however, liberal progressive values rather than traditional. Because of this, conservatives who take a liberal progressive position with regard to the Israeli state may tend to find themselves out of their element, as they stray from traditional grounds.
A more traditional principled position on the Israeli state would argue for sovereignty and peoplehood. These people are an ancient culture of two distinct ethnic groups, the Ashkenazic and Sephardic. They have a long established, consistent history in the area and now a modern state as well.
Local authority regarding a competing people who are not firmly established and often unstable would go to the stronger and more stable. The side that has its act together in other words, gets to decide for each. Simply put, observable merit in inequality are the traditional grounds.
The alternative is to help perpetuate the leftist system of blind equality against the real observable differences in quality. Furthermore, perpetuating this very myth ultimately causes the conflict and horror experienced by both the inequal sides.
What’s missing is a decisive resolution with finality derived from the more qualified authority that is directly involved and not any distant third party. If observable quality and established right, rather than a baseless equal right to the same thing (living space, resources) in any given competition between groups were adopted throughout the West, the lack of resolution, wasted time, and the utterly useless third party mediators like the United Nations would disappear.
Clearly conflict would still remain in the world, but only for the losing group. But the matter would be decided for the long run so that each side can move on. This is the distinction between a traditional way and a modern democratic way.
Thursday, May 12th, 2011
White Identity: Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century
by Jared Taylor
295 pages, New Century, $25
Paleoconservatism presents a unique problem to people born after 1945. Our modern political spectrum has leaned so far to the left that paleoconservative ideas have been almost eliminated from public discourse, and the terms necessary redefined.
Take “nationalism,” for example. Your modern person uses it to mean “patriotism” and thinks himself educated for doing so. In reality, it refers to the doctrine that races or ethnic groups form organic civilizations which constitute the best means of organizing humanity.
From a nationalist viewpoint, one race or one ethny is one nation; the nation is not the government, or some lines drawn on a map, or even an economic or political dogma shared by the group. The nation is organic and it defines itself by heritage.
The IQ figures, crime reports, and ethno-political clashes are not the reason for nationalism. The reason for nationalism is, as in all conservative ideals, a pragmatic notion of “real life”: apart from our fancy institutions, and our invented dogmas, human life is a struggle for individuals to find moral clarity, and groups to find purpose.
Jared Taylor has written for years on The National Question, namely: how do we rediscover a national consciousness, and separate and segregate the white race in America so that it can experience self-rule once again? Unlike the odious White Nationalists, Taylor represents a hybrid between a classic liberal and a 1930s paleoconservative like H.L. Mencken. He is a practical thinker.
Unlike most “white nationalists,” Taylor takes a pragmatic view: the problem is not an inherent superior/inferior balance to humanity, but a combination of the need for identitarian politics and the rather radical differences between racial groups. Diversity itself is the culprit, he argues, because it’s a non-sensical feelgood message but not a functional groundwork for a civilization.
American institutions pursue diversity with such enthusiasm that it would be easy to misunderstand their goals. there is a kind of diversity that is essential for any group undertaking, and one might think this is what Americans are celebrating. A contractor, for example, cannot build houses if he hires only electricians. He needs a diverse workforce of carpenters, roofers, masons, etc. If the advantage of hiring people with different skills had only just been discovered, it would make sense to promote it but that is not the kind of diversity Barack Obama or Lee Bollinger are extolling. They would insist that a “diverse” construction team have the right mix of blacks, whites, Asians, handicapped people, Hispanics, and American Indians. It is not clear how this would result in better houses. (56, emphasis mine)
He divides his book into roughly four parts:
- Diversity has failed. Not only have diversity programs fallen apart, Taylor argues, but members of every ethnic group and racial group choose self-segregation for purposes of both identitarian politics and the practicality of having people like oneself surrounding oneself. To paraphrase my liberal Dad, “I think everyone likes to live, work, date and play with people most like themselves.” Taylor addresses many functions of modern life, including schooling, housing, and the workplace.
- Human nature. First, Taylor explores the scientific evidence for kin-selection and preference in biology, from insects through higher mammals. In a comprehensive review of the theories and examples that address this issue, he shows how kin selection aids survival of any species. Next, the book explores the need for racial identity and how it functions as a kind of cultural and social “glue” that avoids the need for even greater control mechanisms.
- Racial consciousness. The next four chapters each explore an ethnic group and how it views itself: Blacks, Asians, Hispanics and whites. With each chapter, we see similar patterns, and then when we get to the chapter on whites, we see how these patterns are camouflaged and distorted. The previous chapters provided what to most of us is an unknown history of other ethnic groups and how their views of themselves have changed over time in adaptation to historical conditions, but the chapter on white racial awareness shows a stifled and confused expression of identity borne out by actions but not rhetoric, which officially denies it.
- The Crisis. Taylor demonstrates mastery of numerous fields in his research and writing of this book, but the final chapter seems like something straight out of management science. It’s a study of how diversity itself, and secondarily our hypocrisy in dealing with our attitudes toward it, perverts our society from a place of hope and potential to a place of grinding, numbing dysfunction and denial. In this chapter Taylor is like the wise elder our culture needs, warning us of what will come our way if we do not change our path.
Taylor writes with a fluid, amiable prose reminiscent of the smarter writers at Newsweek if they were working for Scientific American. He clearly explains all concepts, cleanly links logical leaps, and guides us systematically through a volume that is both informative and enjoyable to read.
In many ways, the book is a counterpoint to our media-created worldview that has us living in a rather simplistic and narrow version of reality, ignoring essential data. Taylor emphasizes this split succinctly:
Americans must open their eyes to the fact that a changing population could change everything in America. The United States could come to resemble the developing world rather than Europe — in some places it already does. One recent book on immigration to Europe sounded a similar alarm when the author asked: “Can you have the same Europe with different people?” His answer was a forthright “no.” It should be clear from the changes that have already taken place in the United States that we cannot have the same America with different people, either. (286-87)
The entire book works up to this idea through its relentless analysis of mostly cultural, but also biological differences, including intelligence and health. What makes Taylor a man of the future is that these are not disparaging analyses, only a thorough look in order to prove difference. This is not about elitism or scorn, but about knocking it into our heads that even if others are personalities like us, they are biologically and thus mentally different enough that incompatibility is a fact of life.
To this end, throughout the book Taylor illustrates how each ethnic group has self-pride and desires (to some degree) segregation; how no two groups trust each other, and in many cases don’t want to be entangled; how a demographic victory by Hispanics, Asians or Blacks would make the country resemble the places from which those groups had fled. He shows us that diversity is a one-way street to failure.
If we need to pick on faults, they are two: first, it would have been great to see a historical survey of diversity attempted in other nations, showing the cycle of internal fracture and then conflict that resulted; second, this book could use more moments where the author clearly says that the consequences it lists are proof of the basic thesis, which is that diversity itself is unstable regardless of who is involved. This point cannot be made clearly enough or loudly enough, and while it’s in this book, it could be hammered out more powerfully.
White Identity: Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century presents an insightful view into the reality of a situation that we normally package up in homilies like “diversity is our strength” and “freedom for all.” While no mainstream publisher will touch it at this time, that is a failing of the publishers, as this book is considerably more rigorous than most mainstream history or politics books, and in addition, doesn’t simply repeat to us the dogma we already know — it forges ahead with a pathway around a persistent American dilemma.