The resurgent nationalists who made the Alternative fuer Deutschland into Germany’s third-largest party and the Austrian Freedom Party into that country’s second-largest (and a likely member of a new governing coalition) have an extreme-right reputation, but they are now the most pro-Israel parties in Europe.
…There are European nationalists who support Israel out of conviction rather than expediency. They admire the accomplishments of the Jewish State, moral as well as military or commercial. They observe that Israeli women bear on average 3 children compared to just 1.3 in Germany. They wish that Europeans could show the same love of country and culture that the Jews evince in Israel, and the same willingness to defend themselves.
Nationalists have realized that Zionism is a form of nationalism, and that all nationalists share a quest, which is to beat back Leftism and establish traditional societies. We may not be the same group, but we are fighting for the same thing.
In addition, it has been pointed out here that internationalism is exterminating world Jewry and that the “Jewish Question” is the wrong question, because Western Civilization has been laid to waste by lower caste revolt, and the cause and solution are therefore both in our hands. If we assign agency for our fate to another group by scapegoating them, we remove from ourselves the ability to change our future, and thus commit suicide; if we admit that no matter what contributing forces may have been, the core and root of our problem was entirely within our society and caused by the revolt of peasants and their mercantile enablers in our Vaisya caste, then we have a chance of fixing it.
We can say, forthrightly, that no two civilizations can co-exist in the same space, and most Jews will agree with us. When we start looking for an external force to blame for our downfall, we have surrendered agency and ignored the internal factors that caused it, and as a result, we have blinded ourselves to what we need to fix, namely our sudden lack of desire to be virtuous. Anti-Semitism is emotionally satisfying but it misses the point of nationalism which is that each group must go its own way. Yes, we are different groups but joining a hate cult just removes responsibility for results and replaces them with symbolism, namely crushing of the antithesis as a means of removing the Other and fixing all of our problems, which is much vaster than ethnic cruelty and racial scapegoating can provide. Our problems are of our own cause and are our own to solve.
As the world turns away from the Age of Ideology, people are increasingly looking toward organic and naturalistic ways of life such as traditionalism, nationalism, localism, aristocracy and religious customs. Israel is leading the way away from modernity and toward this new future, so are natural allies for the new nationalists in Europe who are doing the same, after we have been told for two centuries that our impulses are wrong and the Leftists know better. It turns out that the Leftists were 100% wrong all along, and so now we are clearing away the dead, cleaning up the mess, and getting ready to restore Western Civilization so we can move on toward a new future.
We no longer have anything in common as citizens of the USA or EU. Once we did, because we were born of a common root and shared a culture, but now we are merely those who attend a legal, political and economic system.
Arising from our pursuit of ideology, the notion of America as merely a system flourished for some time, but now has died, raising doubt about the question of unity as a nation:
It was Sept. 11, 2001, that sent existential concerns slamming into American speech. But there was something new, something dissonant, in the way we began to use the word — a change meant to accommodate the idea that just 19 men might strike at a nation’s being. We’d been exposed to an event people found truly unimaginable, one that shifted their sense of the world and what seemed possible in it. And yet, disorientingly, day-to-day American life continued. No armies massed on the country’s borders. The nation felt itself plunged into momentous conflict, and yet so much of that conflict existed somewhere else — not just in remote places but in abstractions and arguments over what developments, far from any battlefield, would indicate that “the terrorists have won.”
…For white nationalists, an America in which minorities mingle and miscegenate and share power with whites is an annihilating, nation-ending danger; for others, America cannot be itself until that happens. For the conservative columnist and radio host Dennis Prager, writing for TownHall in July, “left-wing-dominated media and universities pose an existential threat” to Western civilization — not because they seek to raze cities and scorch the earth, but because they envision it in ways Prager declines to recognize as the thing itself.
In other words, the individual demands to be aided by others, even if they have not made a contribution. Consider how this contrasts the roots of civilization:
For many researchers, our cruelty to “them” starts with our kindness to “us.” Humans are the only animal that cooperates so extensively with nonkin, and researchers say that, like big brains, group life is a quintessential human adaptation. (In fact, many think big brains evolved in part to cope with group living.) Studies of living hunter-gatherers, who may represent the lifestyle of our ancestors, support this idea. Hunter-gatherers “cooperate massively in the flow of every imaginable good and service you can think of,” says anthropologist Kim Hill of Arizona State University (ASU), Tempe, who has studied hunter-gatherers for 35 years. “Anything you need in daily life, the person next to you will lend you: water, sticks for firewood, a bow and arrow, a carrying basket—anything.”
Thus the group buffers the individual against the environment. “Our central adaptation is to group living,” says psychologist Marilynn Brewer of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia. “The group is primary.”
A few elaborations: first, the group is not primary; social order is. The reason that hunter-gatherers — and really, people in every type of non-modern civilization — aid each other is that they are sharing a task, and it benefits all to have more hands on deck. People are a scarce resource, and if you are going to hunt, make shelter, prepare food, or otherwise support a society through productivity, mutuality within the group is essential because it makes each person more efficient through delegation of tasks and specialization of labor.
In order to support that, social order emerges. With social order, you have some leaders, and some whose judgment is generally respected, so you achieve both hierarchy and caste. In addition, the basic formula of civilization appears: those who are willing to contribute to productivity are to be aided; those who are free-loading, or subtracting productivity, are to be hated. In addition, the group needs to be xenophobic and paranoid about outsiders because for the group to establish its standards, values and genetics, no competing versions must exist nearby; realists recognize that every group wants to dominate all others unless sufficiently removed from them that the task of conquest entails much burden for little reward.
Even in the years after our hunter-gatherer days, which really might simply be termed a time of nomadic civilization, this principle applied. Those who contributed were aided; once wealth was abstracted into gold and later ownership of businesses or farms, a general notion arose that people should be compensated according to the degree of their contribution, which was measured in the ability to make intelligent leadership decisions more than labor-by-the-pound.
Leftism — individualism — emerged in reaction to that condition. The Leftist wants reward-before-productivity, and they want to remove the system by which people are measured for their abilities. This is the desire of the individual for pacifism; he wants to eliminate the possibility of being lowered by his own failure, whether in battle or in daily tasks in which he will either demonstrate a knowledge of reality or a lack thereof, and by that will be assigned a status somewhere in the hierarchy.
This reveals the great secret of the Left, which is that despite their method of collectivism, they are fundamentally malignant individualists of the type we normally call “parasites,” but ironically, it is not because they cannot contribute, but because they fear their contributions will be insufficient. In this lies the key to defeating them: when you give them other tasks to do in which failure is anonymized, then they have only positive gain because of the “opt-in” nature of this new pursuit, and their fear of failure is alleviated; ironically, a caste system does this by assigning them to roles in which only egregious failure is punished, which gives the 80% who are functional a position that requires very little effort to achieve and maintain, freeing them up to spend more time on the rest of life. Interestingly, it does this without requiring novel changes to society so that there are always new opt-in pursuits to join.
Once we understand that social order is the root of civilization, and that individualism opposes social order, it becomes clear why America has fragmented entirely: the Leftist vision — including diversity — divides us from the sense of mutuality through shared purpose, and replaces it with obligation, or assigned tasks under the threat of social disapproval and possibly ostracism if one fails to do them. With individualism, there is nothing left but power, control, commerce and the chanting mob calling for your head on a pike.
The position someone holds in society — defined by social status, rank and hierarchical level — then, contrary to appearances, grants people stability and freedom from control, where individualism, also visually paradoxically, leads to dominance, control and rule by commerce. Diversity came about as a Leftist social weapon against hierarchy, because if you erase race and ethnic group, obliterate heritage and values, and mangle faith, language and memory, you create equal identical people who can be molded much as we shape products in a factory.
Americans adopted diversity in its most recent form because they believed it would end class warfare caused by racial, ethnic and caste differences in ability because of the genetic differences between those groupings. The Left likes to tell us how these divisions are “social constructs,” but that is deceptive because all language is a social construct; we notice similarities between things, group them into a category, and give that category a name. When language is used well, it groups people by the right traits, and the time-honored use of ethnic terms suggest that is true; when language is used poorly, it reflects the needs of the person coining that language, and focuses instead on political or external characteristics of groups like ideology, for example.
Internal characteristics are useful because they cannot change. You cannot alter your genetic code, and if that ability ever becomes possible, those who take advantage of it will be viewed with suspicion; to alter your genetic code is to hate your roots, which means without exception that those roots were bad which means you are bad and trying to hide that fact. In the same way, those who hate their own race or ethnic group have some actual reason for that hatred, in contrast to whatever reasons they state, which is most likely that they are broken and hate their roots as a result. If your roots made you broken, you would hate them as well. Internal characteristics like race, ethnic group, caste, moral character, intelligence, class and intuition allow us to act in good faith within the context of mutuality.
In the 1990s, America finally got onboard with the diversity agenda, since we no longer had a real fight — against the Soviets — and were now focused on fighting each other, which we did by “keeping up with the Joneses” on an ideological level, since WW2 and the Cold War had shifted us from being an organic nation based on realism to being an ideological nation based on politics and economics. In 2008, this new diversity elected Barack Obama; in 2016, amidst a downpour of other anti-globalist actions worldwide, the Obama agenda was rejected because of the disasters it created, Soviet-style, in manic pursuit of ideology even when it contradicted reality.
For us this means a seemingly uncertain future, but even that is human pretense. We know what the future holds: it turns out that diversity was wrong, in the sense of being a policy based on unrealistic/incorrect principles, and therefore, it is ending. People are pulling away from each other not just by race, but by ethnic group, religion, caste, politics, region and class. Two hundred years after we began this experiment, we have our answer: civilization requires both genetic commonality and hierarchy for mutuality, or it self-destructs.
As usual, Israel is leading the way to ending the diaspora for all peoples by advocating a strong and sensible biological nationalism. In the latest, courts in the Jewish state have recognized mitochondrial DNA tests as a means of tracking the matrilineal Judaic heritage:
Mitochondrial DNA, the genetic material present in cellular bodies called mitochondria, is inherited exclusively from a person’s mother, and therefore genetic markers in this DNA can be traced back many generations to determine a person’s maternal ancestors with a high degree of certainty.
According to the rabbi, experts in Jewish genealogy and history have determined that fully 40% of all Ashkenazi Jews are descended from just four Jewish women who left the Middle East over 1,000 years ago and settled in Europe.
According to the scientific report commissioned by Eretz Hemdah for its ruling, there is a certainty of at least 90% and up to 99% that someone bearing specific genetic markers in their mitochondrial DNA is descended from one of these women.
This test is somewhat unique in that Jews have a strong link back to these four women, and so mitochondrial DNA, which tracks the maternal genetic line, can be used as positive proof of relation to that group. However, the broader issue of using DNA testing has been introduced and is now legally acceptable in a modern courtroom.
One possibility is that tests can be designed to look for networks of genes that code for certain traits which, in groups, frame a certain population. This gets us past simpler methods such as looking for blonde hair and blue eyes only, and instead toward looking for the group of clusters of genes that code for those traits in historically German people, for example.
With gene sequencing becoming ever cheaper and faster, it will soon be possible to easily separate a historical population — for example, Western Europeans (English, Germans, Scots, Dutch, Scandinavians, northern French) in America — from all others, and then to repatriate the others with reparations for their loss of citizenship and past lack of self-determination while they were stranded in a foreign society.
As liberal democracy falls worldwide and gives way to a “clash of civilizations,” this technological capability will allow us to unmake the “proposition nation” which has so liberally failed us:
Holland [Email her] claims that “in this country, citizenship is not about cultural identity; it is about constitutional principles. From the beginning, Americans embraced a new definition of citizenship and a new process of naturalization that set the nation apart from its European heritage.”
Bunk. This is simply a myth invented by anti-national liberal intellectuals in hysterical reaction to the trauma of World War II.
In contrast, back in the 18th century the founders explicitly said, in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, that their purpose was “to secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity”–their posterity, not the people of the world but the posterity of a specific, essentially British, community that–in the case of New England, for example–had grown rapidly through natural increase with essentially no immigration for nearly 200 years.
Similarly, John Jay’s first essay in The Federalist Papers, written as part of the campaign to get the Constitution ratified, explained that the federal experiment could work precisely because Americans were “one united people–a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs…a band of brethren.”
As it turned out, the federal experiment could not work, as we have seen with its determination to begin experiments in ethnic diversity in the 1800s and racial diversity in the 1960s. The Constitution has now been inverted for some time, or interpreted to mean the exact opposite of its original meaning. This means that our experiment in limited democracy — a.k.a. a “republic” — has failed.
It was not hard to see how this would happen because we had seen experiments in democracy before in the ancient world. When people are given the vote, they engage in herd behavior, which paradoxically is an expression of individualism, or the belief that the individual and its desires are more important than “invisible” networks like future prediction, natural law, social order and values systems.
Individualists seek to escape Darwinian consequences for doing the wrong thing in a society that has purpose. If there is a purpose, all acts either further that purpose or do not; those acts that do not can either be against the purpose, or merely neutral or irrelevant, but only those who advance the purpose or at least act in harmony with it experience the reward of an increase in social status.
That fear of external reality — including the invisible but real factor of cause/effect reasoning, which allows us to predict the outcomes of our actions over time — plays into the inherent solipsism of the human mind. Our big brains get strong signals from our internal impulses, and weaker ones from the more ambiguous interpretations of external objects, tendencies and events. We favor the internal signals.
Those are different from our inner selves, in which we have intuition and the ability to use logical analysis, because those faculties are not impulses but require deliberate, self-disciplined behavior to discover. However, inner selves are not uniform; as individuals we are all somewhere on a spectrum of intellectual ability and moral character.
When we declare equality, and its political counterpart democracy and philosophical counterpart pluralism or “agree to disagree,” we suspend the need for people to demonstrate ability to fulfill or harmonize with social purpose in their actions in reality. This cuts the solipsism free, and people indulge in emotional impulses, the first of which is pacifism or a refusal to find answers that upset other people.
At that point, unreality becomes the norm, and eventually insanity reigns as we descend deeper and deeper into the world of our mental signals. This manifests ultimately in a society where people have nothing in common and delusion is the norm, which causes the remaining sane people to pull back. However, they are atomized, or isolated by a lack of coherence to their civilization.
We find ourselves in such a situation now. Modern European and American civilization has disintegrated as a result of this atomization, and so we are returning to tribalism, rejecting the proposition nation and the idea that a union can be formed of ideology or economic system alone:
Europeans, like Trumpians, want their borders secured and closed to the masses of the Third World.
Germans are weary of 70 years of wearing sackcloth and ashes.
Race, tribe, borders, culture, history — issues of identity — are tearing at the seams of the EU and pulling apart nations.
We Americans may celebrate our multiracial, multiethnic, multilingual, multicultural diversity as our greatest attribute. But the acrimony and the divisions among us seem greater than ever before in our lifetimes.
Not many Americans are actually celebrating diversity. White Americans thought they were ending white guilt by electing Barack Obama. Instead, they merely emboldened the racial grievances of the past, leading to an identity politics where each person sought to find a victim group to join so they could win the “oppression Olympics” and no longer be seen as a guilty party.
From that came a situation where every time a black person was killed by police, riots burned the city. Ferguson was just the most notorious of these. This resulted in “de-policing,” where officers essentially ignored as many African-American suspects as possible and concealed the crimes, causing a wave of lawlessness in American cities.
At the same time, the Obama/Merkel globalist policy came crashing down. Higher social welfare benefits led to currency devaluation at the same time that the diverse populations seemed to explode in assault, rape, vandalism and theft. A new generation of Red Guards, called SJWs, took over campuses and corporations. The American way of life was threatened and people had trouble making ends meet.
The dawning suspicion emerged that no matter what white people did, the blood debt of race guilt could never be paid, and so diversity became a cross to die upon or something to fight. Polls showed shock at how America had changed since the 1980s, resentment of immigration and diversity, and increasing skepticism toward both Leftism and liberal democracy.
As this shakes out, the people of the West are divided into two camps: those who want the old order of the Obama/Merkel years, and those who are done with all of the modern nonsense that culminated in that ugly era, and wish to do away with all of it. These “awakened” people come from what has historically been known as The Remnant, or the approximately 5% of civilization who are intellectually alert and desire positive change:
Apparently, then, if the Lord’s word is good for anything — I do not offer any opinion about that, — the only element in Judean society that was particularly worth bothering about was the Remnant. Isaiah seems finally to have got it through his head that this was the case; that nothing was to be expected from the masses, but that if anything substantial were ever to be done in Judea, the Remnant would have to do it.
…The picture which Isaiah presents of the Judean masses is most unfavorable. In his view, the mass man — be he high or be he lowly, rich or poor, prince or pauper — gets off very badly. He appears as not only weak minded and weak willed, but as by consequence knavish, arrogant, grasping, dissipated, unprincipled, unscrupulous. The mass woman also gets off badly, as sharing all the mass man’s untoward qualities, and contributing a few of her own in the way of vanity and laziness, extravagance and foible. The list of luxury products that she patronized is interesting; it calls to mind the women’s page of a Sunday newspaper in 1928, or the display set forth in one of our professedly “smart” periodicals. In another place, Isaiah even recalls the affectations that we used to know by the name “flapper gait” and the “debutante slouch.” It may be fair to discount Isaiah’s vivacity a little for prophetic fervor; after all, since his real job was not to convert the masses but to brace and reassure the Remnant, he probably felt that he might lay it on indiscriminately and as thick as he liked — in fact, that he was expected to do so. But even so, the Judean mass man must have been a most objectionable individual, and the mass woman utterly odious.
If the modern spirit, whatever that may be, is disinclined towards taking the Lord’s word at its face value (as I hear is the case), we may observe that Isaiah’s testimony to the character of the masses has strong collateral support from respectable Gentile authority. Plato lived into the administration of Eubulus, when Athens was at the peak of its jazz-and-paper era, and he speaks of the Athenian masses with all Isaiah’s fervency, even comparing them to a herd of ravenous wild beasts. Curiously, too, he applies Isaiah’s own word remnant to the worthier portion of Athenian society; “there is but a very small remnant,” he says, of those who possess a saving force of intellect and force of character — too small, preciously as to Judea, to be of any avail against the ignorant and vicious preponderance of the masses.
The Remnant is the group that must be convinced for social change to occur. When that mental shift happens, momentum will gather behind changes previously thought too extreme under the old order, and this will roll over what had previously been considered “common knowledge” and the only legitimate way things could be done in a civilized society.
Among the Remnant, the sea change gripping the West is a foregone conclusion: they realize that the era of ideology, equality and liberal democracy is over and that it is being replaced with a pre-Enlightement™ “dark age” in which identity, values and hierarchy are prized over any of the stew of buzzwords — justice, liberty, equality, freedom, diversity, pluralism, tolerance — that define the modern era.
All of those reduce to individualism when thoroughly analyzed. Individualism can be seen as a rejection of the need to rise above ourselves, and thus a retreat into the natural human solipsism from which we broke out, initially, to make great civilization. With individualism necessarily comes the idea that the inner traits of the individual do not matter because everyone is equal, and this inevitably extends to class, other ethnic groups, and finally other races; however, with the fall of individualism, this belief in a society without an identity and without hierarchy will also die.
Already the momentum of this change has proven overwhelming for the forces that be. The elections in Germany and France, while they did not deliver wins, proved that enough people support the revocation of modernism that its days of unchallenged rule are over, and as all of its programs seem to fail at once — environmental, economic, social, overpopulation and military — it will fade away.
That moment brings us to where Israel is now. A nation dedicated to preserving an ethnic group, like Japanese or Germans, will need to exclude all others including any hybrids. To weed those out, in the twenty-first century nationalists will use genetic tests and other means, and send those who do not belong back to appropriate homelands.
For us in the present day, that seems unbelievable. But a hundred years ago, diversity seemed impossible, and a hundred years before that, a classless society did as well. As vast as those changes were, an even vaster change is coming: modernity is being deposed, and as part of that, a great population re-sorting will occur.
No discussion about politics can avoid mentioning race. This becomes further complicated, because “race” means not just the four root races but all of the ethnic groups formed from them, like Germans or Maori. It gets more complex because the races are genetically different and therefore have different average abilities and tendencies, which implicates class and caste as well as ethnic origin.
Politics in fact is inherently tribal. “Tribe” proves to be a complicated term, but to be trendy, we should use it as an intersectional term, meaning the overlap of race, ethnic group, caste, region, and political orientation. Your tribe are people like you. There are many levels at which that determination is made.
Competing with tribe is ideology, or the notion that life “should” be different than it is according to natural order, and that humans should force a human-only pattern onto the world. Ideology is a way of holding together a group of people and motivating them, and so it naturally competes with religion, culture, and heritage.
At the end of the day, political thinking divides into two camps: the ideologists and the naturalists. Naturalists think that we should use the mathematical and informational patterns of nature to guide us, and so tend to see race as a prerequisite — a necessary element, but not thecompleteset of necessary elements — for a healthy society, where ideologists want to abolish race and replace it with ideology.
This division means that we will discuss race from two angles. The Left (ideologists) will argue that we should not have a majority race, which fits their single philosophy, egalitarianism, or that all people should be equal, which requires reducing or removing inner traits like caste, race, class, ethnicity, sex, religion and family. The Right (naturalists) will argue that we should either preserve the majority or at least allow it to preserve itself.
Since America birthed itself with some degree of ideological direction toward egalitarianism, even if as a means of affirming it in order to limit it and avoid a situation like what destroyed Athens, a hybrid approach was adopted: classical liberalism, or the idea that individuals would have freedom and liberty to pursue their own course in life. This is a form of the pluralism inherent in equality, which means that people do not have to work together toward a goal, but each tries to survive as in nature, and we see what comes out on top, even though civilization is the opposite of nature in terms of order and what it rewards. The “freedom” approach of classical liberalism, now called libertarianism, seemed to work, but the ideas that take time to fail are the most deadly, and by the 1960s, a combination of wartime propaganda (Cultural Marxism) and American individualism led to an increasingly Leftward drift.
As this Leftward drift manifests, it demonstrates an increasingly Communist-like attitude toward race which it views as its primary method of smashing the majority and removing the religion, culture, heritage, caste, ethnic, class and sex distinctions which impede the imposition of total ideology:
We may call Trump dumb but he figured out this country while we never did, understanding as the black militant H. Rap Brown put it 50 years ago, when he said that “racism is as American as apple pie.” And 46 percent of Americans voted for him, not in spite of that racism but because of it.
The Aztec civilization was also highly developed socially, intellectually and artistically. It was a highly structured society with a strict caste system; at the top were nobles, while at the bottom were serfs, indentured servants and slaves.
Strong nationalism — the idea that every nation is composed of only one ethnic group — enabled the Aztecs and other ancient civilizations to remove themselves from the genetic chaos blowing around, and focus instead on refining their traits so that they preserved desired abilities, which they then distributed to the rest of the population by elevating those who bore those traits to the level of nobility, at which point others emulated them, and they were prosperous, causing gradual genetic influence in the direction toward which that society aspired. Caste and nationalism supported one another; for example, look at ancient India:
Under the caste system, Indian society was divided into four hereditary divisions. The highest is the Brahmans (priests and teachers). Second was the Kshatriyas (rulers and warriors). Followed by the Vaishyas (merchants and traders) and finally was the Sudras (workers and peasants). In additional to these four castes, there were the Harijans or Untouchables, which were not in the social order. The Indian caste was hereditary and marriage was only permitted within the same caste. Each caste had its own occupation and any contacts with another caste was strictly regulated and prohibited.
Researchers found that people from different genetic populations in India began mixing about 4,200 years ago, but the mingling stopped around 1,900 years ago, according to the analysis published today (Aug. 8) in the American Journal of Human Genetics.
…Moorjani’s past research revealed that all people in India trace their heritage to two genetic groups: An ancestral North Indian group originally from the Near East and the Caucasus region, and another South Indian group that was more closely related to people on the Andaman Islands.
Today, everyone in India has DNA from both groups. “It’s just the proportion of ancestry that you have that varies across India,” Moorjani told LiveScience.
…Archaeological evidence indicates that the groups began intermarrying during a time of great upheaval. The Indus Valley civilization, which spanned much of modern-day North India and Pakistan, was waning, and huge migrations were occurring across North India.
In fact, Western civilization famously had similar caste systems, designed to separate people by role and heritage, as was seen in the Nordic countries:
The jarls were the upper echelon of the freeman in ancient Norse society, either noblemen or wealthy landowners, merchants or traders.
…The karls were considered what is known as ‘freemen’, meaning they were free to own land, build property and start a family or business.
…Slaves in ancient Norse times were known as thralls, and they were the lowest rung on the Viking social ladder. Thralls had little to no rights in Norse times, they were not able to own land and they would perform jobs and chores for their owners. With all this considered however its important to note that the bad treatment of a slave was looked down on.
This paralleled the social order created in English society nearly a thousand years later, as remnants of caste were present during the Victorian era:
The Victorian Upper Class consisted of the Aristocrats, Nobles, Dukes, other wealthy families working in the Victorian courts…The Upper Class was by inheritance a Royal Class. Many Aristocrats did not work as for centuries together their families had been gathering enough money for each generation to live a luxurious life.
…The Middle class was the next in social ranking. The Victorian period was very prosperous for the middle class. Middle-class people also owned and managed vast business empires.
…The lowest among the social hierarchy were the working class. This class remained aloof to the political progress of the country and was hostile to the other two classes.
These castes were genetically different, and the pattern resembled that of India. Modern Europe was formed when nomadic hunters mingled with a farming population that was closely related to them, but the higher echelons of Europe came from the root of Western European society, the Nordic-Germanic element. These took up positions in the higher castes, and managed the darker, smaller people who worked for them.
Over time, every civilization succumbs to entropy which occurs when the more numerous lower echelons overpower those above them, who understand things they do not. These things are then lost, and the society loses a degree of internal complexity and becomes essentially an open-air shopping mall where some people have money and others do not.
This is why caste revolt is so important to the Left: their goal is to rationalize this decline and instead, view it as positive, and to make it come about by creating the conditions that cause the imposition of caste and then thwart those conditions, allowing the society to become totally “equal” by losing all structure and standards, including heritage.
By the converse, diversity causes racial conflict and in turn accelerates class conflict, because without a sense of shared unity that comes from being a homogeneous population, groups fragment into internally competing sub-groups. We can see how this process happened in American history:
Let’s back up to the early 1600s. This was a time where racism didn’t exist. People didn’t call themselves Black or White. Back then it was all regional. We’re Irish, we’re Greek, or we’re African and so on. Fast forward to the colonization of what would become the United States of America. This is about 1640. You basically had two groups of people. There were the rich and the workers. There were a few slaves but most people were indentured servants or free labor.
In this way, we can see how questions of race and caste are intermingled, and how the Left has used racial and ethnic diversity to force caste revolt, while the Right attempts to suppress caste revolt by preserving ethnic homogeneity, which confers a sense of shared identity and purpose.
Interestingly, the revolts against traditional social order are initiated by those who seek to expand their profit motive, giving in to the individualism that says they can take civilization for granted, and should be concerned only with the immediate effects on themselves and their profits when making decisions. This bourgeois mentality arises from those with enough mental power to be clever, but not smart, leading to a fragmentation of the power of the higher echelons:
Drawing with varying degrees of conviction and plausibility on Marx’s ideas and insights, the class-based account of modern British history begins with the social origins of the bourgeois revolution of the mid-seventeenth century–otherwise known as the Civil War or the Great Rebellion–that witnessed the transition from feudalism to capitalism and thus from late medieval to early modern times. The victims and beneficiaries of these changes were, respectively, the declining aristocracy and the rising bourgeoisie (or, in other versions, the rising gentry), and it was during the Civil War that these two classes, set on very different historical trajectories, first clashed directly. But although in the short term the bourgeoisie vanquished the monarchy, the peerage, and the established church, its revolutionary movement was curiously incomplete. By the late seventeenth century, after the Restoration and the “Glorious Revolution,” the traditional forces of authority were back in control, and for much of the eighteenth century the aristocracy, by now transformed into a quasi-bourgeois elite of agrarian capitalists, reasserted themselves.
If you wonder why so many celebrities, business leaders, professors, shopowners and union bosses lean Left, this is why: they want to destroy the power of anyone who is naturally superior to them in intellectual, morality or wealth. We are in the grips of the final parts of that process now, after it won the upper hand during the turbulent 1960s.
As a result, at this point, racial politics of the ideologist variety have won out, and since they are being used to shatter natural social order as manifested in caste, they are exclusively obsessed with race, to the point where the Right wants to have freedom of association — which would allow it all-white suburbs and offices — just to escape the vast horde of predator-parasites who hate our majority here in the United States and Europe, but want to be here for the socialist style welfare state benefits and also, to conquer us by outbreeding us.
They hate you. They always will hate you. Every group acts in self-interest, and theirs is to conquer you.
The grim fact of racial politics is that it is based in self-interest. Every group has a self-interest, which is in having control of its destiny and then becoming the best version of itself that it can. In order to act on that, it must not exist in the situation that produced the Indian caste system; any situation that is “diverse” threatens the ethnic group.
For that reason, it must win by beating down all other ethnic groups. This somewhat Machiavellian view is borne out by history. The groups that conquered others and drove them away lasted longer than those who attempted to co-exist, producing centuries of ethnic conflict until both groups, exhausted, were destroyed or hybridized.
This is not the fault of other groups, nor does it vary with the group. Any immigration above tiny levels, which is also a bad idea as it obliterates the original group through trace admixture, brings about a conflict between groups, no matter who they are. Simpler groups fight back with crime; smarter groups attempt to conquer by gaining education, wealth and power in law and business.
Ironically, the solution to this problem is for a majority group to double down on its identity and assert that identity positively in a stronger sense, which causes the groups that wish to overthrow it to reveal their nature as aggressors. The more that the majority group focuses on “racism,” instead of strengthening its culture and opposing diversity, the more it plays into the win scenario for its opposition.
Perhaps a greater step further is to oppose equality — the philosophy of lower caste revolt — itself, and by doing so, to assert a strong social order which in turn also broadcasts the importance and solidity of racial and ethnic identity.
Identity must be both racial and ethnic, as when it is racial alone, it allows itself to be adulterated by other ethnic groups from the same race, which ends up then creating a generic racial group which has no particular claim to any identity.
Already the signs are on the wall that this is happening. During the 1990s, “diversity” was a magic word for that bright cosmopolitan future where we ruled the world by inviting them here. Europeans, who both are less accustomed to diversity and are seeing its effects more immediately, have led the way in visualizing how destructive diversity is:
The most common view among the 10 European countries surveyed is that cultural diversity is neither a plus nor a minus in terms of quality of life. In no nation does a majority say increasing diversity is a positive for their country. At most, roughly a third in Sweden (36%), the UK (33%) and Spain (31%) describe growing racial, ethnic and national diversity in favorable terms.
It was the worst performance for her Christian Democrats (CDU) since 1949. They got less than a third of the vote and lost ground in all 16 of the country’s states—this for a party that used to dominate the right of German politics and was capable of winning absolute majorities. The old party of the left, the Social Democrats (SPD), did worse, barely scraping 20 percent. Coming in third with 13 percent of the vote was the brand-new Alternative for Germany (AfD), an anti-immigration party that will send 93 members to the 709-seat Bundestag, the parliament in Berlin.
Leftism is caste revolt. Racial and ethnic diversity are the weapon that Leftism uses to bring about caste revolt. When one part of this structure fails, the whole thing goes down in flames, and is replaced by sentiments of tribalist unity as the basis of nations, renewed identitarian awareness, greater trust in caste and tradition, and finally, a hearty cynicism for Leftism as it joins other ruins on the junkpile of history.
We are seeing a massive shift here. For the first time since the French Revolution in 1789, Leftism is actively losing ground; for the first time since The Enlightenment,™ the idea of human equality — a form of individualism — is also losing ground. But first, we are going to go through a period of great upheaval.
As with many bad ideas, Leftism seemed hip and refreshing when it was untried, but once it was applied, it made a mess of things. Multiple failures of Leftist programs — overpopulation, diversity, collapse of the family, debt, command economies, ignoring third world warlords, nuclear proliferation, pollution and widespread ineptitude — are now coming due. Liberal democracy and Leftism have fallen, and the furious activity we see of late is an attempt to hold on to the franchise granted to those who were allowed to succeed because they were good Leftists or fit the Leftist ideal.
What matters for us, then, is to understand race and caste so that we can reverse the process by which race became the dominant issue of our time, which is the Leftist agenda of caste revolt that is now shattering in ungraceful decay around us.
All of human history has played out through cycles: a truth is found, then people complain about how difficult it is, so they invent “truths” that explain why the truth is the opposite of the plain reality, and then everyone gradually goes insane as the anti-truths seep into every area of society, discourse and even the psychological makeup of individuals.
You might think that infiltration events of this nature are rare, but in fact, they are the norm, which is why every organization ultimately drifts Leftward, even when it tries to be Right-wing. When the raw material coming into an organization is indoctrinated in Leftism, they will simply arrange their Right-wing beliefs around that core, which forces all those beliefs to be re-interpreted in a Leftist context.
If everyone thinks the sky is green and the grass is blue, and you set up an organization dedicated to the principle of blue skies and green grass, then you will immediately suffer a flood of people who insist the sky is “green-blue” and the fields are “blue-green,” at which point it is an easy step to full subversion.
In the same way, American mainstream conservatives found themselves, over time, becoming dedicated to “equality” by spreading democracy and capitalism worldwide, and underground conservatives found themselves fighting for white ethnic equality instead of nationalism. They were subverted not by deliberate act, but by the entropy of individual bias as people coming into the groups re-made them into what people were indoctrinated to expect.
Few modern people think about the word, but inversion destroys all meaning. Inversion occurs when people start banning certain accurate ideas. This can be as simple as excluding them through social means, like saying that it is impolite to notice something or another. Inversion changes the definition of words to be their opposite, since something in the original meaning was taboo.
Right now, the Alt Right is under assault by people who want to re-make it as “American Nationalism,” despite the contradiction in terms that this phrase implies. They argue that by adopting the flag, we can further radicalize the Left into revealing itself as anti-American:
Over the past several months, as anti-White condemnation of Confederate monuments and memorials has spilled over to a hatred of all “old, dead, White guys” in American history, we now see the Left equating Americanism with racism in the most vitriolic and bombastic fashion. The recent NFL controversy has attempted—and is succeeding—in painting both the National Anthem and the American flag as naked symbols of White oppression over non-Whites and the systemic White racism inherent in all White-constructed systems. The Left is attempting to complete a final rout of the already gutted late American cultural form-world.
…We need to say that “yes,” America was founded as a racist country. We need to say, “yes,” the flag is a symbol of White conquest and murder. And as our enemies stare confused, we declare the fact that all peoples that have ever lived were just as ruthless. We must move the dialogue beyond moralism, beyond Christianity, beyond right and wrong, good and evil. We need to affirm the right of a people to fight for their existence, putting others under the boot or sword when necessary, as being as natural as a flower stretching towards the sunlight. We need to declare: I am a White American and my people built this country—now get out of my way!
…So, yes, let’s join the liberals in calling America a racist White country. Let’s concede that the American flag is a hate symbol and rally behind it. Let’s be quick to point out to conservative normies whenever we can about just how brutal us Whites were to others, why we were right to do so, and why others will do it to us the moment we become a vulnerable minority. Nice guys always lose. Well, we aren’t nice guys anymore, and we should brag about what bad boys we really were. And our ancestors really were the baddest, most brutal men the world has ever known.
So what could be wrong with this? It sounds strong, bold… visionary. It seems to turn the initiatives of the Left back onto them like captured cannon. It appears to give us a unique identity and goal. But it does none of those things.
Let us look at the many ways that this “American Nationalism” is totally wrong.
No New Tale To Tell. Leftists have never hid the fact that they are against America. They do not admit this in public when asked the question directly, but allude to it and flaunt it many different ways. The ultimate goal of Leftism is international, or equality and unity of all the workers of the world.
It’s Anti-Nationalism.Nationalism means that one ethnic group equals one nation. Mixed-ethnic “nations” are not nations, but nation-states, unified by political and economic systems alone. Patriotism, sometimes called “civic nationalism,” is the idea that we can unite the nation-state using those abstractions, and replaces the goal of nationalism, which is not just race but ethnic group, which in the case of America is Western Europeans. We have seen this reliance on civic nationalism in the guise of racism before, and it was just as wrong-headed then. Adopt this “American Nationalism,” and invert everything you stand for.
It Denies Reality. Modernity is defined by its denial of any facts or truths but those that humans in large groups want to believe are true. The reality denied by equality is that genetics determines our abilities and inclinations, and this is relevant to nationalism because it means that groups of people who are genetically similar are best matched and disparate groups will have problems. Homogeneity works; heterogeneity, only really a thing for the past sixty years, has produced nothing but problems. Genetics defines us at many levels, including race, ethnicity, family and individual traits, with those creating naturally unequal populations that require a hierarchy to make use of their different abilities.
Pragmatism Is Not Realism. In a time where nearly everything is unreal, the only strength can be found in asserting reality loudly and clearly at every opportunity. We are fighting the human tendency toward pleasant illusion. Pragmatism states that we should achieve what is most easily achieved in the present system, but it obscures the need for realism. Only radical accuracy in thinking will win in the next era, so pragmatism is dead. We need to say what we want and not play clever games in order to manipulate others with symbols.
You Are Taking On The Lesser Symbol. The Left does this time and again, and the Right falls for it: they demonize an accurate symbol so that you will embrace another symbol that is easier for them to subvert. When you endorse the American flag, the Left cheers. They will wait for you to lose momentum, then quickly point out that America has always been mixed-race, and then they will steal away your audience and they will find themselves cheering for diversity and equality. Typical inversion.
We Are Not “Racists.” Racism, as it makes sense to define it, is contempt for other races and a desire to subjugate them and keep them as inferiors. Racism is ethnic cruelty. We are both race realists and nationalists, but not “racists.” Race realism means that we recognize that genetics is the root of ability and culture, and therefore that homogeneity works and heterogeneity does not; nationalism means that we believe that each nation should be comprised of only one ethnic group, because that way, the ethnic group is preserved and culture — not laws, economics or government propaganda — guides that population. Nationalism is a way beyond the “money first” and ideological dogma of modern societies.
“American Nationalism” is a meme or trope instead of sensible policy. It sounds good to those who want an easy symbol to unite lots of people, but because it loses meaning in doing so, it defeats itself. Our real goal is the restoration of Western Civilization and since America is only part of that, America is a means to that end.
Keep the Alt Right. It is a good brand, and it has withstood many challenges. It stands for those who are both conservative and realist, which means that we embrace the roots of conservatism including traditionalism, monarchy, hierarchy, nationalism and social order. It is the only force that can challenge modernity, and that is what we need to escape this thoroughly stupid and evil age.
For years, Leftists relied on Stephen Jay Gould’s assertion that the races were all equal because, in Gould’s writing, he claimed that earlier skull measurements were incorrect and that these alterations were motivated by “racism.”
In a 1981 book, “The Mismeasure of Man,” the paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould asserted that Morton, believing that brain size was a measure of intelligence, had subconsciously manipulated the brain volumes of European, Asian and African skulls to favor his bias that Europeans had larger brains and Africans smaller ones.
…But now physical anthropologists at the University of Pennsylvania, which owns Morton’s collection, have remeasured the skulls, and in an article that does little to burnish Dr. Gould’s reputation as a scholar, they conclude that almost every detail of his analysis is wrong.
…But the Penn team finds Morton’s results were neither fudged nor influenced by his convictions. They identified and remeasured half of the skulls used in his reports, finding that in only 2 percent of cases did Morton’s measurements differ significantly from their own. These errors either were random or gave a larger than accurate volume to African skulls, the reverse of the bias that Dr. Gould imputed to Morton.
…But Dr. Gould himself omitted subgroups in his own reanalysis, and made various errors in his calculations. When these are corrected, the differences between the racial categories recognized by Morton are as he assigned them. “Ironically, Gould’s own analysis of Morton is likely the stronger example of a bias influencing results,” the Pennsylvania team writes.
It is important to realize how pervasive the mental virus of egalitarianism is by looking at cases like the above. Assumptions about systematic racism and unconscious bias were made, revealing the opposite truth: the bias was not there, and the results were the opposite of what was asserted.
When we say that we are egalitarian, we are buying into the caste revolt that has catastrophically ruined the West over the past couple centuries. In order for the proles to seize control, they have to argue that there is nothing different about a king or high IQ person from anyone else, and therefore anyone can rule, and to make that fair, we will all choose whoever that is.
As a necessary side-effect of this, we have to stop noticing differences and adopt the unconscious bias that says that, since all people are equal, different outcomes are the result of chance or “oppression” instead of a difference in ability. This society would have you look at someone with wealth and assume that he has no different abilities from someone who is poor.
Maybe in some cases that is true, but in the vast majority of cases, those who are more intelligent and capable rise above the rest. That outraged us, so we started offering workarounds: education that rewards the obedient instead of the intellectually capable, jobs that reward hours doing nonsense paperwork instead of results, government that chooses what is popular over what is true.
This causes a tension common to failing societies: what “everyone” agrees is true, is in fact not true, and since there is no reward and great risk in speaking what is true, society becomes dedicated to lies. The converse of that is that it must suppress notice of what is actually true, and by doing that, it creates an industry built around sustaining the lies.
Consider that, much as in the French Revolution people were required to pretend that peasants were equal to kings and not laugh at that, in our current day, we are still struggling with the ability to admit differences between social classes, races, ethnic groups, sexes and family lines:
There are three areas where ideology has impinged on biology, trying its best to distort data: differences between human ethnic groups (“races”), between human males and females, and the study of evolutionary psychology.
…The ideologues’ problem with all these areas is the same: were biology to show, for example, that there are genetic differences between sexes, ethnic groups, or cultures, that could be used to justify racism, sexism, and exceptionalism. And indeed, this has happened in the past: all of us know the sordid history of assuming biology translates directly into human rights, which led to eugenics, racism, the denigration of and lack of opportunity for women, and so on.
It is even more damaging than that: if we reveal that, like Stephen Jay Gould’s research, biology is true and ideology was based on lines, then we know it is time to throw out ideology, or what the authors of the above piece refer to as “ought” instead of “is” based thinking. That which is unrealistic is emotional or social in origin, and that means it puts us at a disadvantage for following an illusion.
This is the core of the struggle between the rising dissident Right and modern society: modern society is based on egalitarianism, which is an “ought”-based notion, where the Right is based on what “is,” and then improving that by selecting the best possible option. If diversity does not work, multiculturalism must go, replaced by the better option of benevolent nationalism.
Here we see redemptive liberalism’s great ingenuity: It seized proprietorship over innocence itself. It took on the power to grant or deny moral legitimacy across society. Liberals were free of the past while conservatives longed to resurrect it, bigotry and all. What else could “Make America Great Again” mean? In this way redemptive liberalism reshaped the moral culture of the entire Western world with sweeping idealisms like “diversity,” which are as common today in Europe as in America.
So today there is sweetness at the news of racism because it sets off the hunt for innocence and power. Racism and bigotry generally are the great driving engines of modern American liberalism. Even a remote hint of racism can trigger a kind of moral entrepreneurism.
…The great problem for conservatives is that they lack the moral glibness to compete with liberalism’s “innocence.” But today there are signs of what I have called race fatigue. People are becoming openly cynical toward the left’s moral muscling with racism. Add to this liberalism’s monumental failure to come even close to realizing any of its beautiful idealisms, and the makings of a new conservative mandate become clearer. As idealism was the left’s political edge, shouldn’t realism now be the right’s?
This shows us an even greater split, as noted by Samuel Huntington, which is that Leftism is inherently universalistic, or based on what humans have in common, but that is a social construct because people are increasingly concerned with what makes them and their specific local group united instead.
For that reason, identity politics is rising because as Mr. Steele notes above, Leftism has failed to “come even close to realizing any of its beautiful idealisms.” People are fleeing the Left, and turning instead to what they have in common with others that is exclusive of other groups, which causes a rise in identitarianism alongside a simultaneous rejection of universalism, or the notion that we are all the same and therefore, the largest unit within civilization is the individual:
Recent surveys suggest that roughly 47 percent of Republicans are what you might call conservative universalists and maybe 40 percent are what you might call conservative white identitarians. White universalists believe in conservative principles and think they apply to all people and their white identity is not particularly salient to them. White identitarians are conservative, but their white identity is quite important to them, sometimes even more important than their conservatism.
These white identitarians have taken the multicultural worldview taught in schools, universities and the culture and, rightly or wrongly, have applied it to themselves. As Marxism saw history through the lens of class conflict, multiculturalism sees history through the lens of racial conflict and group oppression.
…I’d love to see more research on the relationship between white identity politics and simple racism. There’s clear overlap, but I suspect they’re not quite the same thing. Racism is about feeling others are inferior. White identitarianism is about feeling downtrodden and aggrieved yourself.
The latter sentence is not quite true: white identitarianism is not just white, but focuses on ethnic groups within the European races, and is not based on feeling aggrieved so much as realizing that, if universalism (egalitarianism) is wrong, then no one else will represent the interests of a group that they do not belong to.
For members of a definable ethnic group, this means that they alone must stand up for their own interests, have their own country, ethnic self-determination or control of their future, impose their own standards and laws, defend their language and practice, maintain their genetic heritage, and do so in full knowledge that every other group is representing its own interests, which are contrary to their own.
The Left has acknowledged this, mainly by calling anyone who stands up for their ethnic interests and is also white or whitish a “white supremacist” which equates acting in self-interest while white with wanting whites to rule the world and subjugate other races:
It’s easy to focus on the angry white men in paramilitary gear who looked like they were mobilizing for a race war in the Virginia college town. But it’s the ordinary people — the voters who elected a reality TV star with a record of making racially insensitive comments, the people who move out of the neighborhood when people of color move in, the family members who ignore a relative’s anti-Semitism — who give these type of men room to operate, they say.
That was the twisted formula that made the Holocaust and Rwanda possible and allowed Jim Crow segregation to survive: Nice people looked the other way while those with an appetite for violence did the dirty work, says Mark Naison, a political activist and history professor at Fordham University in New York City.
Never mind that “nice people looking the other way” is what enables Antifa to rampage across the land while Leftists destroy vital institutions, tear down statues, censor free speech and engage in other totalitarian practices that fit within the gulags, censorship, guillotines and secret police heritage of Leftism that goes back to the French Revolution in 1789.
The Leftist argument that white self-interest is “supremacist” only if we make the assumption that multiculturalism is a permanent state, and one group wanting to be in control of itself somehow deprives other groups of something that only that group can provide, like welfare benefits and entitlements. That order has already died, although the death scene is taking some time to play out on stage.
As much as it aggrieves the Left and Leftist minorities, whites are going their own way. They do not want to be part of the multicultural tapestry of failure any longer. They are tired of being the group which is worked into the ground to pay for taxes that support a permanent minority underclass while whites face higher victimization at the hands of other groups.
Historical guilt only goes so far. Like the bad science, it was based on lies, and so now people have thrown out the entire argument. They do not want to “just get along”; they want to just get away from what is obviously another crazy ideology which is going to plunge everyone into disaster, much like Communism and National Socialism did.
This much has been apparent for some time. People trust results, but are less trustful of ideology, and so were resistant to the Tower of Babel agenda until the 1960s, when the combination of WWII anti-racism and a desire to out-compete the Soviets by offering more freedom and social benefits to living here converted the West into a Leftist ideological regime which then expanded after the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. With its competition gone, the Western capitalist-Leftist hybrid could triumph over the socialist-Leftist variety.
However, since the 1860s, Americans have been wary of the “one big happy” approach that was used to federalize the independent states so that the USA could unite behind an ideological agenda, and at that point, the Americans hit on the French Revolutionary ideal of equality for workers across the globe, and spun that into an anti-slavery narrative that surpassed previous abolitionist efforts in its dogmatic ferocity.
This agenda reached its full power with the defeat of the last ostensibly Right-leaning powers in WWII, and accelerated after the fall of the Soviets, causing an intensification of things whites had noticed about their homelands — constant ethnic violence, higher crime, loss of social trust, abolition of values and standards, and the dumbing-down of almost everything — since diversity became state policy in the 1940s.
As the 1990s approached with a post-Reagan Leftist narrative diversity and immigration, conservatives wanted to speak out, but felt they could not, and they were proven right by the ongoing destruction of careers for having said the wrong thing. The first incident to really make this popular was the crucifixion of Jimmy “The Greek” Synder in 1988, which shattered his career and left him to die, penniless and alone, eight years later.
Leftists had realized, during the Reagan years, that they could use diversity as a weapon. Given the choice, white people tended to vote for conservatives who would then interrupt the cozy arrangement that liberals had with industry. The only solution was to replace white people by using immigration, legal and illegal alike, as well as accelerated affirmative action to replace whites in positions of power.
At this point, a curious inversion began to happen. Previous diversity theory had held that whichever group was dominant was the only group that could be “racist”; newer thinkers began to realize that, with government behind an ideology, it could use diversity to replace the dominant group through forced interaction, outbreeding and civil rights and affirmative action style employment, education and quota programs in position of authority.
As a result, white people began to think the unthinkable… the despite being the historical majority, they might be entitled to have an identity and act in defense of it, too. This helped united the disparate elements of anti-modern thinking — social conservatives, human biodiversity, men’s rights, the New Right, libertarians, monarchists, traditionalists, and the Old Right — into a common movement based around the defense of the rights of the majority against the historical narrative of guilt and oppression.
These movements rediscovered the nationalism of the 1900s through 1940s, and now began to express it as a right to nationalism for all peoples which thwarted the modern agenda of globalism and diversity, or merging all peoples inevitably into one grey race that, lacking culture and identity of its own, would dependent on Soviet-style Leftist government for its sense of purpose:
But the reasoning behind the linking of the two symbols – white supremacy and Zionism – is far from torturous. The two are not strange bedfellows, but rather natural allies. Both represent a desire to establish and maintain a homogeneous society that posits itself as superior, more advanced, more civilised than the “others” who are, unfortunately, within its midst, a “demographic threat” to be contained through border walls and stricter immigration law. American fascism, then, is holding up a mirror to Zionism.
…Spencer explained that, logically, Zionists should “respect” his views: “… an Israeli citizen, someone who understands your identity, who has a sense of nationhood and peoplehood, and the history and experience of the Jewish people, you should respect someone like me, who has analogous feelings about whites. You could say that I am a white Zionist – in the sense that I care about my people, I want us to have a secure homeland for us and ourselves. Just like you want a secure homeland in Israel”.
…”Do you really want radical inclusion into the State of Israel?” Spencer replied. “Jews exist precisely because you did not assimilate to the gentiles… I respect that about you. I want my people to have that same sense of themselves.” Rosenberg was left speechless, unable to effectively rebuke Spencer.
For too long, we have been taught a fake narrative of diversity along with fake science because both are needed to support the illusion that “equality” is desirable, functional and will lead to good things. It has failed, leaving us with a corrupt and tyrannical government, a shattered economy, social unrest and a people who are blighted by promiscuity, obesity, moral incontinence and the narcissism that is found in the intersection of hipsterism, special snowflake syndrome, and the victim narrative. The nationalist ideal is rising because the internationalist, globalist, diversity and multicultural ideal has been implemented and it is a disaster.
Diversity has already died, just like Stephen Jay Gould’s theory that all humans are the same in abilities. More importantly, the notion that we can exist without acting in our own self-interest as organic groups has died, and with it, the Leftist ideal of one world population has collapsed. Now we are fighting over how to make the transition without committing the errors of the past.
Zionism is Jewish nationalism, which is the idea that the only way to preserve the Jewish people is to curate them in a state inhabited only by people who are ethnically Jewish. This is no different from any other form of nationalism, which always seeks to preserve an ethnic group by creating a homogeneous society and excluding all outside influences.
In this way, nationalism is not bigoted, but xenophobic, in that it recognizes any foreign intrusion as a pathogen which will eventually harm the health of the “nation,” or the ethnic group united to its land, as a whole. Nationalism views ethnic groups as organic wholes, meaning arising from nature and consisting of unequal parts interacting like an ecosystem.
Three days after Israel’s top court ruled that African asylum seekers can be deported to Rwanda and Uganda, but only can be held in detention for sixty days, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited south Tel Aviv neighborhoods and the area around the central bus station, where many asylum seekers live.
…”We will return south Tel Aviv to the citizens of Israel, they are not refugees, but infiltrators looking for work,” he said. He added: “If needed, we will legislate an amendment to the law or change the agreements with the African countries, or both.”
…Speaking with residents, the prime minister also promised that the government would step up enforcement against asylum seekers “in the face of those who employ them, in the face of the lawless infiltrators.”
…The flow of African migrants into Israel has been halted entirely, with only one person getting caught attempting to cross the Israel-Egypt border. In addition, in the first six months of 2017, about 2,100 of the asylum seekers have left Israel.
Netanyahu has followed a course of action which will work across the West: use the courts to remove special protections given to migrants, then identify the refugees as a hostile commercial force, and finally, go after those who employ them, which will cut off the attraction that brings them in.
Further sensible action would consist of removing civil rights laws, affirmative action programs and all social benefits because those also serve as magnets for the worldwide population of impoverished people without the moral fortitude to stay and improve their homelands. In this way, Netanyahu and Trump are working in parallel by showing first-world nations that diversity can be gently abolished.
After the fall of the Soviet Union, the West pursued its victorious form of Leftism, but without competition or an upper boundary as imposed by the Soviet example, American Leftism quickly expanded to an intensity like that of the Soviets, only without the centralized, so it was enforced by citizens and businesses instead of government in a form known as “soft totalitarianism.”
Using diversity as its driving force, the Left smashed down all existing order on the basis that it was discriminatory, a move that people tolerated out of a desire to be good. With the rise of Barack Obama, however, it became clear that racial problems were becoming worse and that civil rights was being used as a means to further Leftism on a path toward Soviet levels of control.
As the world recovers from the financial, environmental, political, social and existential disaster of the Obama years, the founding groups of the first-world nations are discovering that they, too, can have identity politics. For them, this consists of an anti-parasitism view, which is that we do not need diversity, and would prefer to live with our own kind, so it is time to end it.
This contrasts how the Left has portrayed the sensible xenophobia of identitarian populations as bigotry, when really it was a drive for self-preservation against the perhaps not hostile intentions of other groups, but the certainty of destruction with their inclusion, since diversity makes societies fall apart.
As more nations emulate the Israeli example, nationalism will recover from its post-WW2 demonization as it becomes not just a viable force, but a worldwide assumption about the correct basis for social order.
Civilizations run like machines, as most organizations do. Individuals have roles with inputs and outputs, and these mesh and interweave to create a cycle of life which keeps the engine going.
The term “civilization engine” was described in the book A Whole Which is Greater, in which a distinction was made between Utopianism and Eutopianism. A society which is Utopian requires a controlling authority, where a Eutopian society exists in balance with the natural world around it.
It describes this distinction partially correctly:
We might even say that the “civilizational engine” with its dominant image (and energy) of aristocratic prerogative, is in process of slamming into the wall of ecological limitation and environmental capacity, with millions upon millions of folk casualties in its wake, not to speak of all the ecological mayhem and species extinctions.
The mostly painful, difficult and crucial step is displacing utopian mythology with a far more livable and Earth-friendly Green Eutopianism. To get beyond utopian mythology is also to get beyond the controlling influence of the “patriciate”…
We need both a deepening of Eutopian democracy and a shriveling of utopian “democracy”. That is the point we have reached.
A patriciate is a class of nobility or those who act like them. The above analysis falls short for that reason, because you can have a good leadership group or a bad one, depending on whether they are motivated by external factors such as the good of society as an organic whole and balance with nature, or whether they exist only to perpetuate their own power as the expense of those other factors.
Reading more broadly into the idea revealed, the engine in an organization is the part where force multiplication is achieved. One example is the System Engineering Department in an Aerospace company. The company may have 10,000 employees but only forty System Engineers, and yet those few engineers direct the others to be more efficient than they could be with three times their number.
Another example is an Army’s Special Forces contingent amplifying the effect of the entire Army. Small groups of highly proficient warriors, utilized in surgical actions, avoid the need for a battle. Some would say that certain industries, like Silicon Valley, serve this role for the American economy, but perhaps it is merely the efficiency of computers that does so.
Since organizations are managed and thought of entities under the control of someone, it escapes logic (sometimes) that inside each organization there must be an engine that drives it. What makes an engine interesting is that it operates by itself as long as it is fed its inputs, much like a car engine will keep running so long as it is given gasoline, oil, electricity and air.
Engines rely on multiple factors, including the qualities and abilities of their personnel, and so each organization needs to “create” its own engine based on personalities, culture, methodologies, tools etc. One example of how unique each engine is was visible in the failure to replicate Silicon Valley across the world.
The alternative is unfortunately also possible, which is that the “engine” can make the organization collapse. The book referred to above describes one such scenario. It seems clear then that there are multiple engines: those that are dedicated to the organization are good engines, and those made for another purpose, which is necessarily different from the needs of the organization, are bad engines.
Recent history shows that the greatest generation worked hard and sacrificed for the greater good. During that time period America was not globally active and simply made a huge success of trading between its own States. The interests of the engine were aligned with those of the organic society around it, and so it was a good engine.
In a sense things changed when it became an Atlanticist global power. This change was effectively a change in law because the American Government was used to National Law and suddenly it adopted Admiralty Law without batting an eyelid. Essentially the spectre of corruption entered because business people and politicians realized that American law does not apply outside its borders, making it easy to secure illegal benefits.
This on its own would have been enough to change the engine that made America great. However, the point is not to find a culprit, but merely to find an avenue of thought towards finding how to change the engine back to positive again. Trump is moving in the right direction with the America First policy and although a lot of work needs to be done, a focus on the engine might expedite MAGA.
While he is doing this, the “other” engine busily works against Trump and the America First policy. Apart from the difficulty of finding and fixing the original engine, Trump must battle the bad bad engine. Like most solutions, his policy must be twofold, which is to increase rewards for the good and to raise costs for the bad.
What makes this book interesting is the phrase “a whole which is greater,” which refers to a systems engineering ideal of gestalt where “the system is more than the sum of its parts.” This points towards the force multiplier effect: a force multiplier creates an exponential increase in efficiency and output, while a linear or algebraic increase adds units which have a fixed output increase.
The American bad engine only emerged in full view after the 2008 recession when Reserve Banks initiated Quantitative Easing. Do you remember in the “old” days when you needed money, that you would visit a Bank official, while conservatively dressed in a suit, where he/she would earnestly consider your application showing express interest in the security you could provide?
After 2008 that changed almost overnight. Bank officials dressed in pink t-shirts, and all customer-facing employees were changed to women. Almost every loan proposal was cheerfully accepted because the banks feared that they would lose those clients to loan-sharks. Money became cheap to such an extent that one Reserve Bank went to negative rates, literally paying customers to borrow.
From a civilizational perspective the engine saw the opportunity to follow the drug addiction methodology. Just like a drug addict gets addicted causing him to steal his mother’s purse in order to satisfy his desires, the new “engine” saw an opportunity to drug humans with money by giving it to them for free, thereby causing them to become addicted to it.
Quantitative easing essentially broke the rule of “good” money and turned it into bad money. This was a liberal idea because liberals have no limits and business directors are liberals wanting more and more profits every year. If it means turning other liberals into greedy druggies then that’s great for the Democrat Party, but not for America.
This bad engine fueled by the combination of greed and liberal mentality needs to be opposed by a stronger engine based on productivity directed toward the health of the nation. At the same time, the policies that support this bad behavior, and the illusions or political tropes that support them, need to encounter hard criticism which makes anyone using them appear to be the bad investment they are.
Most of us think of a society, like a corporation, as having leaders that command it to do what it does. In reality, leaders direct it after setting up functioning organs and institutions within it, and the most important of these is the good engine that generates actual productivity, which appears to be against the inclination of the average human being.
In this light, “America First!” is not just a slogan, but a moral statement that will synchronize that engine. We are not working for ourselves, for an ideology shared by the globalist world regime. Instead, we are acting so that the sum of our activity is greater than adding us all up as warm bodies performing rote tasks.
Naturally this will meet with a fair amount of opposition. Bad engines run because people, if not directed toward a goal beyond themselves, revert to doing what is convenient and profitable in the short term. But if Trump can achieve a sense of American unity, and the idea that we all benefit from the force multiplier if we work toward a purpose we share, he can make the good engine outpace the bad.
Where this gets interesting is that America is a thoroughly divided country, something the Founding Fathers anticipated when they designed it as a cascading power structure, with semi-autonomous states responsible to the federal government only in cases of shared interest in defense or monetary systems. For a good engine to form, people have to be working toward the same shared goal.
As the Alt Right reveals in its own theory, these shared goals are organic, or arising from the similarity between people. It seems there can be social factors to whether an engine is good or bad, and with diversity, people have no interest in the whole, and a contrary interest in taking from the whole and giving to their own particular group, like a more extreme version of the confederation of states it once was.
Perhaps our greatest revelation in the future will be that for us to have a good engine, we must be similar enough to be working toward the same purpose, and that this is more biological, cultural and moral than it is political, economic or legal. It may be that good engines only arise from our inner traits, and reliance on our external traits creates bad engines that then doom us to failure.
We know that diversity is dysfunctional because throughout history, we see no examples of societies which adopted diversity continuing to thrive after that point. In fact, all of them dove straight into third-world disorder and consequent erasure from history.
There are many arguments against diversity. Some are based on genetics, others on culture, and some on looking at current examples of diversity. These are often convincing, but a more fundamental argument can be made which we might call the “Machiavellian argument”:
Every ethnic group has its own agenda, which is to be dominant in any lands where it is present. The reason for this is that any ethnic group is unstable if it is not dominant, because one can only be dominant or conquered. There is no middle ground, but diversity pretends to be this, which more resembles a temporary truce than a long-term plan. Each ethnic group seeks to make its culture, values, language, standards, beliefs and behaviors into the norm wherever that ethnic group resides, because if it does not do this, those are quickly supplanted by either those from other groups, or the standard-of-no-standards that occurs when a standard is designed to incorporate the standards of multiple ethnic groups. Ethnic groups have their own self-interest, or goal of dominating so that they are not dominated, and no amount of laws, economic incentives or government propaganda can change that.
This means that it does not matter who the racial or ethnic minorities that make up a diversity society are, only that different groups be present. They do not need to have pre-existing culture; if cultureless people of different groups were put on a desert island, they would quickly separate by appearance, and invent a culture that makes each group feel as if it has a unique purpose and quite possibly, is the best group in the world. We know that all cultures do this, as do groups within cultures. As Tom Wolfe writes, this is the “fiction-absolute”:
Even before I left graduate school I had come to the conclusion that virtually all people live by what I think of as a “fiction-absolute.” Each individual adopts a set of values which, if truly absolute in the world — so ordained by some almighty force — would make not that individual but his group…the best of all possible groups, the best of all inner circles. Politicians, the rich, the celebrated, become mere types. Does this apply to “the intellectuals” also? Oh, yes…perfectly, all too perfectly.
The human beast’s belief in his own fiction-absolute accounts for one of the most puzzling and in many cases irrational phenomena of our time. I first noticed it when I read a book by Samuel Lubell called The Future of American Politics. Lubell was a political scientist and sociologist who had been as surprised as everybody else by the outcome of the 1948 presidential election. That was the election in which the Democratic incumbent, Harry Truman, was a president whose approval rating had fallen as low as 23 percent. Every survey, every poll, every pundit’s prediction foresaw him buried by the Republican nominee, Thomas E. Dewey. Instead, Truman triumphed in one of the most startling upsets in American political history. Lubell was determined to find out why, and so he set out across the country. When he reached a small Midwestern town that had been founded before the turn of the 19th century by Germans, he was puzzled to learn that the town had gone solidly for Dewey despite the fact that by every rational turn of logic, every economic motivation, Truman would have been a more logical choice. By and by Lubell discovered that the town was still predominantly German. Nobody had ever gotten over the fact that in 1917, a Democrat, President Woodrow Wilson, had declared war on Germany. That had set off a wave of anti-German feeling, anti-German prejudice, and, in the eyes of the people of this town, besmirched their honor as people of German descent. And now, two World Wars later, their minds were fixed on the year 1917, because like all other human beasts, they tended to champion in an irrational way their own set of values, their own fiction absolute. The question Lubell asked was very much like the question that Thomas Frank asked after the election of 2004 in his book What’s the Matter with Kansas? By all economic and political logic, the state of Kansas should have gone to John Kerry, the Democrat, in 2004. But it didn’t. Had Frank only looked back to Samuel Lubell, he would have known why. The 2004 election came down to one state: the state of Ohio. Whoever won that state in the final hours would win the election. Northern Ohio, the big cities of Cleveland, Toledo on the Great Lakes, were solidly for Kerry. But in southern Ohio, from east to west, and in the west was the city of Cincinnati, Ohio went solidly for George Bush. And the reason? That great swath of territory was largely inhabited by the Scots-Irish. And when the Democrats came out in favor of gun control, the Scots-Irish interpreted this as not merely an attack on the proliferation of weaponry in American life but as a denunciation, a besmirching, of their entire way of life, their entire fiction absolute. Guns were that important in their scheme of things.
For a group to be living the best of all possible lives, it would have to be the best group on Earth, and for that to be true, there can be no competing groups, which means that even if at a glacial pace, that group will work to subvert and conquer all nearby groups that are discernibly different. This is as much part of nature as natural selection.
The fiction-absolute guarantees that every ethnic group will act in self-interest, and over time realize that this self-interest includes conquest of others. This was once recognized as a principle of human nature, but even more, it is a principle of nature, and we see it in other species as well:
Slave-making ants—yes, that’s actually their common name—also stage raids on other ant species, notes Katy Prudic, an entomologist at Arizona State University.
…“There’s good evidence that chimpanzees conduct deliberate raids on neighbouring communities, and that this can lead to annexing of territory.”
“The behaviour of chimpanzees is much more akin to a guerrilla band”—wearing down the enemy—than what we think of as a traditional battle, Newton-Fisher says.
Others point out that there are battles between groups within the same species, usually over who predominates in a certain territory, such as ants and termites whose competing colonies frequently go to war:
Insects, particularly ants, have become popular examples of this form of warfare, where tens of thousands of members from rival colonies will do battle, often tearing one another apart, and engaging in other strategies and tactics that might be seen on a human battlefield from the Middle Ages.
These insect battles, which are also seen in termites and other colony-based species of insects, are typically started over territory.
In other words, ethnic battles within species are common in the animal kingdom, and for the same reasons that human ethnic groups clash: only one group can predominate. That group gets to choose its destiny instead of having it chosen for it, and can set standards, cultural values, habits, cuisine, customs, language and other identifiers that support the fiction-absolute of its members.
Examined in the context of a logical racialist analysis of diversity, we can see how our refusal to admit that each group has self-interest dooms us to race riots, violent crime, political agitation and other forms of guerrilla warfare:
Race or any of the fashionable victim statuses may and must be substituted for sex. Further, race doesn’t exist. This is why strict mandatory quotas based on race must be enforced, to teach people that race doesn’t exist. There are thus no differences among people based on race. Yet Diversity is our strength, so ensuring quotas based on race, which doesn’t exist, will make outcomes better, outcomes which must be the same, since there is no such thing as race, therefore there can’t be differences in performance among peoples of different races. This is why Diversity is our strength.
All disparities are formed and held in place by power. Where there are more men than women in a position, or more whites than blacks, it is because of the power men have over women, or whites over others. Yet Equality says men and women and the races, which do not exist, are not inherently different, therefore this power must be illusory. This is why the men who think men and women are different, or those who say race exists, must be fired from, or kept from securing, their positions, so that they may not wield the dangerous power they by theory cannot have.
This sardonic view correctly deciphers the Leftist attitude toward race and diversity: the only idea of Leftism is that all people are equal, which enables the caste revolt they seek, so this means that diversity must exist in order to prove that we are all equal, which requires quashing anything and anyone who is not 100% on board with diversity.
In this way, even diversity logic recognizes that groups have different interests. In order to prove equality, diversity must be enforced, which means that some groups must be favored over the others in order to erase natural differences and make those groups equal, which makes diversity a weapon of the guerrilla war. It is a deceptive weapon, in that the end goal of diversity is a beige race, not any one ethnic group becoming victorious. Diversity will destroy whites, blacks and Asians as it has in the past, leaving behind populations like those in Latin America, North Africa, the Middle East and parts of near Asia where the people are mostly Caucasian, a good bit Asian, and traces of any other groups. This mixture corresponds to how well those groups do in a civilization, namely through commerce and productivity, and the mixing occurs as people find others on their socio-economic level and have children with them, even though they are of another race, mainly because the increased disorder of social chaos caused by a lack of trust then forces people to become insular on the basis of class.
This view liberates us from the notion that other racial and ethnic groups (even The Irish) are our enemies. Instead, they are symptoms of a broader problem, which is the adoption of diversity by a civilization dying from caste revolt. The actual enemies are the ideas of diversity, equality, and pluralism, and these create a civil war within the civilization that, being a guerrilla war, grinds on until there is nothing left to destroy:
The war for civilization is almost entirely between groups of whites, in fact mostly white Christians. The white Left has drawn in other groups, but mostly as auxiliary forces. The same battle would be going on, as it has been in much of Europe, if we were only dealing with white opponents. None of the multiculturalists I have known has been black; and calling white multicultural fanatics “race traitors” is a gross oversimplification because the object of leftist hate goes well beyond their own racial group. It now includes all normal people who have not been reconstructed by the managerial therapeutic state or are fighting the scourge of Political Correctness.
Our struggle is not a race war. It is a war against the collapse of civilization, and we cannot fight that directly, but instead can only orient ourselves toward a renewal of civilization. That process automatically excludes those who wish to, like parasitic insects, devour civilization for their own sustenance. There is no middle ground in this fight.
When we refocus our views on the failure of diversity along with other civilization destroyer programs, we reveal exactly why there is no middle ground: as in the struggle against Communism, or against any tyranny or power which serves itself, we are waging a war of ideas through culture. Through that, the necessity of our struggle becomes evident.
After Charlottesville, the battle lines are drawn and the sides are polarized. Those in the middle are realizing that to waffle makes them a double target, and they are looking for a side that will win so that they will not be targeted. Since our side is the only side that includes the survival of our civilization, and thus the comfortable life to which people aspire in the West, we will win over time.
The mainstream press, deep state, Establishment, Cathedral, herd or whatever you want to call them — the agglomerate of human failure — wants to equate the Alt Right with Nazis, which as usual is a partial truth. Both Nazis and the Alt Right are nationalists who realize that democracy always tends Leftward, and so they want to junk the whole The Enlightenment™ agenda of equality and pluralism.
It is well and good enough to say that we are not Nazis, neo-Nazis or white supremacists, and while this is true, it still leaves the question of what the Alt Right believes:
I have been asked by multiple people what exactly the ideology of the alt-right is? The short answer is pragmatic nationalism. The alt-right does not really hold a set of conservative or liberal views on any one subject. The primary concern is that the policies chosen benefit America first. This means that on some issues we can side with the left and on others with the right.
The Alt Right does not have an ideology; ideologies are wishful thinking about how nature should operate according to a human-centric and reality-denying position. On the other hand, the Alt Right like conservatives are from the realist camp: we see how nature works, its patterns and the reasons why it does things the way it does, and we adapt to those and then improve ourselves so that we can attain excellence. Our goal is not to redefine reality through a human perspective, but to make humans understand reality.
However, any outlook consists of both beliefs and logical truths (I prefer the phrase “logical facts”) and the Alt Right has a few ideas of its own. These have been oversimplified by various for-profit entities like the Alt Lite, but really, we can boil the Alt Right down to a few realizations about the nature of reality:
People are different. Races, ethnic groups (sometimes called ethnes), castes, social classes, sexes and even political alignments reflect differences that are genetic and inborn. You cannot make someone smarter or improve their character; people are born to a set of alignments in their soul that are expressed in outward characteristics. You can teach them to fake being intelligent or moral, but in the end, when they have power, it will reveal who they really are. Humanity succeeds when it engages in a sorting practice where the more competent rise above the rest, but egalitarianism is dedicated to the opposite idea, which is raising the less competent above the more competent so that everyone “feels” good, safe and pacifistic.
Hubris versus order. In the Alt Right view, what is most important is that civilization have purpose and social order, so that the individual is appreciated for their inner traits instead of their outer traits like obedience, willingness to socialize and the pursuit of trends. We need order, which consists of a hierarchy of leadership, a caste system within society, an understanding of “natural law” or the logic and patterns of nature, and a willingness of each of us to fit within this order at the appropriate place, and not to attempt to rise above our station by pretending to be something we are not. The fundamental idea here is that external reality is more important than human intent, desires, judgments or feelings, and that we can learn from that external order and apply it to ourselves, mostly by understanding the nature of placing the best above the rest and creating hierarchy from that.
Heritage. The formula goes like this: genetics is upstream of culture, and culture is upstream of politics, so for us to have a sensible political result, we need to preserve our heritage. You cannot have Western Civilization without Western European people, and no other population can “have” Western culture. The best they can do is uphold our legal and economic systems, but as we have seen in the third world already, these systems are “re-interpreted” differently by different genetic groups. And so, we reach the conclusion: we do not survive if we do not exist genetically, and if we mix with something else, that genetic profile is destroyed and we cease to exist, as the mixed-race states of the middle east show us.
Entropy and Pathology. In the conventional view, there are two sides in politics, Left (egalitarian) and Right (order/hierarchy/realism/purpose). If we look more closely, however, there are only working behaviors and dysfunctional ones, and at this point we start realizing that many ideas that we have been told that we must accept like equality, pacifism, democracy, individualism, egoism, hubris, collectivism, tolerance, and equality are merely pathologies, or common mentally dysfunctional behaviors into which humans become ensnared. These mental pitfalls trap us because they are easy errors to make, but once we make the error, it is hard to admit it, and so we double down and rationalize the error as “a higher truth” instead of admitting that it was just another defective behavior like gluttony, envy, drug addiction, obesity, denial, obsession, and resentment. In this sense, our personal struggle as human beings is to use self-discipline to achieve sanity and stability, and as a society, our task is to avoid dysfunctional behaviors including Leftism, which may simply have occurred because as we became prosperous, deleterious mutations persisted instead of being filtered by Darwinism.
Economics of reproduction. In order to produce good examples of our people, we need to emphasize the K-strategy of reproduction, which requires stable families. Stable families require an end to the sexual revolution, so not just chastity but an emphasis on family as the only healthy context for sexual activity. That in turn requires different but complementary sexual roles, where men and women have different duties, responsibilities and roles but work together to maintain the family and raise children to be the best that they can be.
Hierarchy. Democracy, or mob rule, operates by the same mechanism as consumerism: whatever most people think is good in the moment is adopted, and then society absorbs the cost of that decision, despite the fact that most people are too far to the left on the Bell Curve to understand the implications of what they are doing, that even intelligent people can be baffled if fed bad information from an early age (GIGO), and that even good people when given the vote tend to select compromises, evasions and half-truths instead of tackling difficult problems. Like a hunting party or military group, we need a constant hierarchy, where the best people are on top and their decisions benefit everyone else. This even applies to social settings, where there need to be some people recognized as having better intelligence and moral character, and they make even seemingly trivial decisions, because those shape the behavior of the rest of us.
Where the Alt Right and White Nationalism overlap is that both are nationalist, but the Alt Right has a different view: its nationalism is ethnic, works for all population groups, and is designed to let culture lead societies instead of politics. White Nationalism is more based on a defensive outlook. The outlook of the Alt Right, pan-nationalism, is based in a positive outlook, or creating a lasting, organic, resilient and durable social order.
Pan-nationalism, or world nationalism, is the idea that each ethnic-cultural group (joined by language, heritage and culture) deserves its own nation. Pan-nationalism suggests that no nationalist can afford to work only for his or her own tribe, but must realize that all tribes are joined in the same quest: to bring about a nationalist order on earth. Our enemy is not each other. Our enemy is the system of “modern society” that exploits us. Our goal is to re-structure modern society to keep its good aspects (technology) and weed out its destructive aspects. This is achieved by putting culture before commerce in every nation on earth, and our method of reaching this is Pan-Nationalism.
Nationalism is more than a political idea; it is a form of social order which bonds people to community, nature, history, heritage, customs and future:
Nationalism develops from the idea that the nation, in contrast to the nation-state, is formed of the indigenous people to an area. It is the longest-lasting and most sensible form of government, for it groups together people who have culture, heritage and language in common. The modern nation-state imposes political boundaries on an area, moves people into it, and declares it a “nation,” but without this lack of inherent consensus such states become marketplaces instead of living cultural entities.
Nationalism advocates a more meaningful life through a re-assertion of the organic bond between individual and society.
In a world where human thoughtlessness in the name of enhancing personal wealth is ruining our environment and turning our lives into passages between grey concrete tunnels to fulfill ultimately meaningless tasks, nationalism is a re-assertion of the organic bond between individual and society. By placing culture before commerce, nationalism advocates a more meaningful daily life. It ends the bad judgment and ugly cities justified by someone somewhere being willing to buy something, regardless of its eventual utility or indirect, socialized costs. Nationalism makes the state serve the people, where nation-state systems make the people serve the state.
White nationalism was an older form of pro-white activism. Its goal was to make all of the different white races equal, and within them to erase caste distinctions, much as the National Socialists aspired to in Germany. By doing this, it creates a type of “ethno-Bolshevism” that denies much of what makes people individuals, including their ethnic and regional background, family and individual traits.
We have had enough of such modernist nonsense. The Alt Right is a movement to restore civilization in its organic form, not the managed mass culture nanny state that modernists prefer, and to do so, it reaches outside the narrow scope of white nationalism and applies nationalism in a positive form. For this reason, no matter what the media says, we are distinct and our audience prefers that.