Posts Tagged ‘nationalism’

Family World Order

Tuesday, June 27th, 2017

Humans thrive only with civilization, and civilization remains a popular topic in discussion although we do not frequently frame it explictly as such. Current talk about civilization is mostly spurred by the decline of what George H.W. Bush famously called a “New World Order” (NWO) which consisted of an American empire of globalist economics based in world domination by liberal democracy.

Its failure was apparent back in the middle 1990s when Samuel Huntington declared it dead in his epic The Clash Of Civilizations and the Remaking Of World Order, but has recently been in the news with the Chinese proposal of a “Real new World Order,” a replacement for the presumably (by the logical inversion) fake old NWO.

Meanwhile, based on the results of the multicultural experiment called South Africa, the top Institute for Security Studies in Africa has declared that the most important risk to society is “social organization.” Some books have been trying to entertain this idea as well.

This confuses economists and politicians unknowingly fighting the multitude of problems emerging from the above-mentioned social organization. We can’t blame them, because they are focused entirely on their own fields of expertise. However, these people only acknowledge standard societal risks identifiable as a combination of the following:

  • Health risks
  • Security risks
  • System risks

However, these standard risks ignore the risk of failure of social organization, which is cyclical by nature and apparently coincides with societal growth and decline. Using industry as illustrative example: a company starts a new patent becoming quite profitable, after which it goes bankrupt because the next creative patent destroyed its market. In the same way societies grow and decline, to be replaced by a next society.

Any organization within a failing society will also fail. This civilizational growth and decline cycle can also be visualized through a healthy (competitive) society becoming dark (defensive), ending up becoming toxic (decomposing) while its territory is taken over by the next healthy society.

The combination of risks as it applies to a healthy society has shown that life expectancy correlation with GDP/capita is 0.61. The same correlation in a dark or toxic society is obviously unknown, which implies that the risk of “social organization” has a funny (complex) effect on top of our “standard” society.

Projecting this idea further means that whatever handbooks economists and political professionals now produce will mean nothing in a future (healthy society) which is unfortunately also true of current leadership concepts.

A new social organization is undoubtedly on the way, whether Chinese or our own, meaning we may as well start discussing it. Since we cannot tell future leaders how to arrange their future organizations, the best would be to identify probable solutions to risks currently perceived as enduring over time.

To mitigate the currently unattended risk of social organization — the organizational cycle of health-to-dark-to-toxic) — a more realistic view of humans is required. Apart from the natural formation of culture, what we also confirmed historically is that women do things differently than men. In fact, we should expand on that because families are the most important economic unit of all.

Based on that, a slight change in how we do things is proposed herewith. Instead of the “equal” workplace where men and women are “equal,” why don’t we acknowledge the benefit of inequality and make women line managers, with men getting the job of project managers. This is of course a sort of matrix organization few “experts” know how to deal with, despite the fact that they are married.

The specialized roles are consistent with use in a matrix organization, which as the name implies is one where both horizontal and vertical aspects of power exist:

Employees in a matrix organization report on day-to-day performance to the project or product manager whose authority flows sideways (horizontally) across departmental boundaries. They also continue to report on their overall performance to the head of their department whose authority flows downwards (vertically) within his or her department.

Taking it further, since not all women are excellent line managers, or men excellent project managers, this inequality benefit can be even further “taken advantage” of by establishing whatever they might be excellent at that others are not. This will be made possible, because of the one benefit a matrix organization has above all else, which is that it optimizes resources from both angles continuously.

For example, look at the flexible structure of a family. It can include members of different abilities both horizontally and vertically, and by allowing each member to succeed using his own methods, a group of unequal people can cooperate flexibly and without excessive internal communication toward an implicit goal.

In a matrix organization, it is easier to accept “Who You Are,” through which implicit goals are set. Any group wants to be itself and improve itself qualitatively, which requires both external methods such as excluding the Other, and internal ones such as improving the moral discipline and capabilities of individuals.

By way of contrast, a typical pyramid-based or vertical-only structure relies on people being interchangeable parts, some of which rise by attempting to be “perfect,” resulting in a “crab bucket” effect where every person competes against every other for the same things. This encourages dark organization by forcing people into a defensive mindset, at which point they exploit the organization for their own purposes, which usually takes the form of incompetents getting promoted because they “worked the system” and “played the game” instead of trying to achieve the goals of the organization.

A more flexible organization can be found in a civilization of families, where the civilization itself is understood to be a “family” because it will almost automatically mitigate the risk posed by social organizations. In other words: everyone has a place, in exchange for these places being unequal, and everyone works toward the same goal as they can according to their abilities.

We could call it the Family World Order (FWO) after a statement by Queen Elizabeth II. When asked what (Her Majesty’s) highest priority was, she answered “Family.” She understands that civilization must be a family, and within that have health families, so that each individual is guided to a cooperative role instead of competing against all others.

Many of the defects of our society blamed on capitalism are in fact aspects of the managerial pyramid structure. Without social order, where each person has a rank and within that, a level of horizontal specialization, competition becomes destructive. Where there is stability first, the tendency toward dark organizations is limited.

For those of us looking to replace the NWO, the FWO offers a consistent model that is both flexible and resilient. It also fits with traditional ideas of nation, caste and decentralized cooperation through strong principles and implicit truths shared through culture and genetics. As the old order fails, let us strive for this new better option.

What Are “Left” And “Right,” Or, Why To Avoid National Socialism

Thursday, June 22nd, 2017

It is a popular thing to say that one is neither Left nor Right, because the public parties of both have done nothing to save us from the fate that has been obvious and inevitable for so long.

Few know what these terms mean, so it makes sense to revisit them through history. The Left arose when people in France, inspired by The Enlightenment™ and its predecessor The Renaissance,™ overthrew the monarchy in France and established a new system. Those who supported it sat on the left side of the French senate.

On the right sat those who opposed the “new” — only if one had missed what happened in Athens and Rome were these new — order, but were concerned enough for the future of their country that they wanted to work with it. They wanted to preserve as much of the old way as possible, but were hampered by the need to compromise with the democratic regime.

It is not a stretch to call it a “regime,” either, since the time after the Revolution brought changes we might associate today with Stalin-era Communism. Whole families were executed for being aristocrats; secret police were established, and people sentenced to death for hearsay evidence that they had denied the regime or supported the aristocracy. The new nation quickly impoverished itself with egalitarian social roles, since people no longer had to be productive in order to be supported, and quickly launched on a disastrous series of wars to conquer Europe so that it, too, could be democratic. Some of us refer to this process as “the Napoleonic Arc,” referencing how revolts by the people quickly produce tyrants who launch impossible ideological wars in order to keep the disintegrating society together.

All of those Left wing ideas had a single root: egalitarianism, or the idea that everyone is equal. Equal how? However they want to interpret it. They start by asking for legal equality, which means that an intelligent contributor to society for fifty years has the same rights and treatment as a criminal who has never given anything. From that the demands expand to equal participation and subsidies, or “socialism,” in which every citizen is a stockholder of the industry owned by the state, and receives dividends in the form of social benefits or entitlements paid directly to them.

The Right, on the other hand, did not have a single idea except for the notion of classical civilization, which was more a spirit and moral code than a method. Ideology like the Left has is much simpler and easier to understand. The Right wanted to preserve a society that can only be described as “Tolkienesque”: kings, lords, a feudal caste system, code of honor instead of laws, a clear ethnic identity for each group and benevolent xenophobia toward all others, customs, folkways, calendar, cuisine, and an intense reverence for nature and the gods they saw within it. This put the Rightists at a disadvantage, in addition to the “first mover” advantage the Left already had by acting first and changing the dialogue to follow their actions. We can summarize the Right as a perception that there is a kind of natural order to humanity, found in parallel in nature and the divine, where each person has an unequal place that allows them to cooperate toward the goal of civilization by contributing what they can, and being limited in contribution where their abilities are not appropriate to the task.

In our contemporary era, these terms have lost most meaning because of the political parties that represent them. Most conservatives today are a variety of Leftist, a consequence of both their necessary compromise with the Leftist regime, and the fact of democracy, which requires them to say things which appeal to the broadest section of the population. This mass culture has no awareness of history, future or the principles of civilization. It cares about tangible things, like checks in the mail from the government or displays of patriotic fervor. As a result, both parties have been made simplistic relative to their original beliefs.

No sane person can support Leftist, which resembles a fanatical cult or a mental health disorder. It is a pathology that serves individualism, or the idea of “me first” that is supported by discarding the need to maintain civilization, and spending that effort on the individual instead. This institutionalized selfishness naturally leads to the kind of social breakdown that causes the Napoleonic Arc to run its course. The era of modernity is defined by its support of individualism, naturally arising from the ideas of The Enlightenment™ and The Renaissance.™

During the early twentieth century, after the disastrous and fratricidal first world war, several movements arose to try to stop the Napoleonic Arc. Two of these, fascism and National Socialism, are commonly identified as Right-wing. However, these movements were both fundamentally modernist, in that they did not want the Old Order, but to make out of the Leftist regime something with Right-wing values. However, as history shows us, the form of the civilization outweighs its stated values, and so even those extreme forms of government led back to the same problems experienced by Leftism. Both supported some degree of socialism, a lack of caste system, suppression of the aristocracy, and the replacement of culture by ideology, even when they did not intend it according to their public statements.

Some argue that National Socialism was a different type of socialism, but the problem remains that it is a state instead of an organic civilization comprised of aristocratic leaders and different castes, and as such it is still stuck within the modern framework of egalitarianism. Any attempt to distribute wealth makes the focus of the nation the state instead of the culture, and while it is within the realm of good leadership to remove threats — relocating Others and exiling defectives — any step into socialism makes the state the replacement for the nation. This is why such arguments are unconvincing:

In our time the traditional left wing is predominantly Marxist — even to such a degree that the very term “left wing” is thought to be synonymous with the word “Marxist.” This, of course, has no basis in reality. Any revolutionary is a left-winger — it is just that the Marxists have had so little competition that they have been able to appropriate the term.

On the other side of the political spectrum we have the right wing, consisting of reactionaries who want to preserve the present society and the so-called Christian civilization of the West with its materialism and capitalism. The rightwingers stand up for traditional patriotic values: they are good Christians and good citizens who defend the Constitution and are loyal to their country and their monarch, if they have one.

…National Socialism seeks to build an entirely New Order based on idealism and a profound respect for the laws of Nature in all aspects of life. This, definitely, is the most revolutionary idea of this century — and thus very much left-wing! — and it certainly is not Marxist! Compared to National Socialism, Marxism is nothing but a pseudo-revolutionary idea, invented by Christianity and upheld by Liberal Democracy: If all people are created equal, why should not all wealth be distributed equally among all people? Seen in this light, Marxism is simply part of the Old Order we want to destroy.

The mistake here is not going far back enough. The Old Order to which he refers is in fact the “New Order” which was formalized with the French Revolution. To be Rightist is to want not just nationalism — the definition of nation by its founding stock and exclusion of all Others — but an entire civilization built around eternal principles. Some compare it to Tolkien, others look to the middle ages, and still others of us look at the “golden age” described by Plato, which was contra-materialist. Those early idealist times involved acting toward consequences which fit within an order of nature and the divine, an ends-over-means analysis, in contrast to materialism, which is a means-over-ends analysis designed to protect the participants from having to face consequences or exert themselves, contra their own individualism, toward goals higher than themselves. When we say we live in materialist times, it is to this distinction that we refer.

European Aristocracy guided the core of our civilization, which is the genetic strata of Indo-European people, through many tragedies and challenges. They eventually succumbed after being weakened by Mongol invasions, plagues, Muslim conflicts and inter-national conflict but what really took them out was the rise of the middle class. The middle class make their living not with their hands but their ledgers and calculators, and while they may be more natively intelligent than the lower classes, they are not intelligent enough to rule for anything but the type of sphere in which they interact. And so they like laws, rules, fines, taxes, punishments and other short-term solutions that cause long-term chaos. They overthrew the monarchy by pooling their money and dividing the power structure of Europe against itself, essentially allowing their short-sighted greed to predominate over more complex thinking and benevolent visions for the qualitative improvement of Western Civilization.

A middle class person, essentially a glorified clerk, distinguishes himself by his literacy. He knows words and texts. He then remakes the world in his image, thinking “if this, then that,” and reasoning deductively from physical facts. His interpretations of those facts go no further than the sphere in which he operates, and so he thinks exclusively in terms of money, safety, gaining customers and flattering others. “Middle class” or “bourgeois” values are the values of the advancement of the individual in the middle class, and run contrary to what civilization needs, which is for the smartest and most morally excellent people to be in command, thinking about the long term. In the centuries of middle class rule, the West has gone from greatness to mediocrity.

Leftism and National Socialism both come from the middle class tradition. They are short-sighted and focused on people, and convincing others to act in a mass like customers flocking to a new product, and so they miss both the natural and eternal in their thought process. For this reason, they are both things to be avoided. We must be extreme — so extreme that we avoid modernist thinking entirely — and escape this system of ideologies, rules and formal control. Instead, we desire unity through culture, with its roots in race and caste, which requires a denial of egalitarianism in all of its forms, no matter how surfactively nationalist they are.

Why There Is No “White Race”

Monday, June 19th, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nationalism For All Peoples Is A Failed Ideology

Saturday, June 17th, 2017

We could say that it is in the nature of the post-enlightenment age for thinkers and intellectuals of all colors to contemplate on the burning issues of our times in terms of what we could call “perfect ideas.”

A modern intellectual, being conditioned since birth through educational system and middle class upbringing, approaches all issues from tautological standpoint, where he considers it necessary not to reach the solution within the given circumstances and available means at hand, but to come up with an idea composed of mathematical truisms which cannot be beaten in debate, completely separated from all material realities

One of such approaches unavoidably — since we are still not mature enough to shake of the ideological burden of our times — smuggled itself within the narrative of the most world-changing idea of those loyal to The West and its values, the otherwise anti-egalitarian idea of the Alternative Right. The  idea basically states that given our past experiences and a dire condition in which White race finds itself, especially once culturally its most productive portion, the most sensible solution is to preserve White races by strict segregation of all nations in ethnically exclusive nation states.

This otherwise completely healthy outlook of nationalism is then immediately self-sabotaged and presented with an obstacle by the same thinkers with following amendment: ethno-states are the only natural and perfect form of government, as well as an instrument of propagation of the interests of a nation or a race, and that as such, nationalism is to be proselytized or imposed onto all other nations, even those who historically have never founded such states or even had any idea of the concept of a nation itself.

This idea itself fails to graduate from the most basic courses in anti-egalitarian thought, but before we proceed to explain them, we shall outline the two fundamental problems with such an outlook:

  1. It, without any foundation, claims that all peoples can form, understand, appreciate or even benefit from organizing around a formation that in the West and elsewhere has been known as a nation, or even worse, that all peoples can reach the most sacred goal of every nation building process, which is the formation of a civilization apart from all others.
  2. It then proceeds to claim, that such peoples, will have any rational basis to, in these most dynamic and conflicting times, coexist next to each other and share the globe in peace. Even worse, it lays a claim that such a ghettoization of these highly divergent populations is going to establish a basis for permanent peace and not completely the opposite, which is the basis for the most temporary kind of lull in unavoidable political processes, which would in fact benefit only the most fragile and weak portion of the globe, the one which was in the process of its final disappearance into obscurity.

In order to direct ourselves to a correct path, we have to finally establish what ideal our ideas aim to preserve and propagate in the first place. The position which enables us to avoid this trap of tautological thinking is the position which is defined not by that which is measurable in an abstract way, but that which is measurable only from the point of view of an “insider,” and that is the position of values. Only in this way are we finally able to reach a proper nationalist position, nationalism by itself and without any strings attack, in a sense that it is defined indeed by intuitive, therefore, “inner” interests, which are again in themselves, nothing but a striving for a said hierarchy of values.

If we come from this direction, we are perfectly able to sanely consider where our own standards apply, and where they are not only completely inapplicable, but undesirable. Western European peoples and Western Civilization, whose core lies in The West and its genetic roots, will finally be able to shake of its pathology of historical “burden” as that of a people whose purpose is to give others direction, serve as their intellectual, political and technological nanny, and take responsibility for successful application of it’s own ideas  elsewhere, the ideas whose success (or lack of) was solely founded in their own capacities and dispositions.

I believe it is unnecessary to waste words on explaining how it is completely delusional to expect that third world populations will be able to conceive nation states and enjoy prosperity within them. We have seen, even with the best will, support from The West, and the most favorable possible conditions, how these societies simply descended on their own, to their more natural states in the case of Liberia and now Venezuela.

But even more importantly, recognizing this truth gives us a proper starting point to contemplate on our relations with other peoples, specifically, those whose hierarchies of values are somewhat more approximate to that of our own. There and only there, can we reach a mutual understanding of “nationalists” which in no way necessarily implies friendliness and cooperation. But it allows us to speak a language of similar ideas without interpreting them radically differently, and while communicating that nationalism for us — Western Europeans — is probably incomprehensible to other peoples and fundamentally distinct from what it will mean for them.

Then, we can also consider the dichotomy of ethno-states and empires. Empire as a concept, represents nothing else but hierarchy of values embodied within a state structure, whose source of life is its natural Elite, the Aristocracy. Ethno-states on the other hand are more intimate state structures, whose viewpoint concerns primarily the founding group, and are limited to its capacities. None of the two concepts are fundamentally opposed to the goal of ethnic, racial or cultural preservation. However, both of these can fall victims to their own short comings.

The primary advantage of an empire is its ability to utilize more opportunities which lie undefined by ethnic borders, but by a detached sheer sense of expansion, exploration, conquest and grandeur. These empires are often the hotbeds of individual intellectual, military and cultural marvels, much thanks to their greater open-mindedness, allowing gifted individuals to flourish. On the other hand, nation-states posses the strength of greater sobriety, imposed on them by defensive instincts which often characterize intimate and cohesive groups.

The shortcomings of the empires lie in their susceptibility to cosmopolitanism, loss of a sense of purpose, and over-extension of their vital portions, their elites, while the shortcomings of ethno-states lie in the danger of inter-group degradation through the necessity to spend its most valuable people in bitter conflicts necessary for their fragile preservations, coupled with susceptibility to “patriotic” egalitarianism and status-unconscious breeding. Within highly cohesive nation-states, there persists a danger of the rise of folkish sentiments, which lead the people of each to embrace more primitive life styles, defined by elan vital in the most naturalistic base meaning. However, the possibility of the existence of a highly structured ethno-state is not to be dismissed.

The choice therefore, by our own people and our own movement, which by historical necessity and greater geo-political imperatives, currently has a Pan-European form, which means that it is inclusive of the entirety of the White race, but is by no means egalitarian or defined by desire to erase crucial and important differences, has to be made entirely based on our own ideas under development and permanent scrutiny, ideas which are conceivable and understandable by us, and which we will without sense of guilt consider exclusively our own, while entertaining the possibility that others will also fall under the influence of our political wave.

But it under no circumstances means that the goal of our movement should be to promote any global, cosmopolitan solutions; the more these solutions don’t correspond to promotion and cherishing of our values, the worse. We will not pretend that what other people have in mind for the 80% of the world, which will be left uninhabited by us, will necessarily be good news for our future, our posterity, and our as we see, very fragile conception of security which is so easily threatened by devices of our own too easily distracted and solipsist minds.

Nationalism means we keep to ourselves and exclude others. Extending it to a broader political movement is a mistake. The model for our societies, defined by ethnicity, race or caste, or all of these combined, that will be the best for establishing ourselves once again as a civilization, will depend upon many circumstances, and all must be carefully considered, not to mention that different groups might find different solutions more fitting to their needs and purposes.

Why The Alt Right Left White Nationalism Behind

Tuesday, May 30th, 2017

Never let your enemies define the narrative, or you will be reacting to their statements as if they were true. White Nationalism encountered many problems, but the worst of it was that it tried to be the Nazis it saw on TV, not the intellectually heterogeneous group that the Nazis were.

In addition, White Nationalism had many problems, the worst of which were ethno-bolshevism, class warfare and a negative outlook. But perhaps the biggest is that it will destroy Europeans genetically.

After all, Europeans are distinct ethnic groups that want to preserve themselves:

It’s also doubtful that Europeans lacked a strong ethnic consciousness until fairly recently. Frenchmen, Germans, Italians, Russians, etc. viewed themselves as being different from each other and preferred marrying and living in their own groups. Euro-Americans certainly considered blacks as being biologically different from themselves; and in the twentieth century European racial theorists even argued that Jews were inherently different from Aryans.

The attempt to present Euro-Americans as devoid of ethnocentric sentiments because of their commercial instincts is based on a very narrow historical perspective. It may reflect the effort to generalize over the centuries on the basis of the kinds of societies that Western Europeans (but not Eastern Europeans) have created in recent decades.

The idea of melding all Europeans together destroys that difference, and presents a bigger problem through trace admixture. When we smash together all of the Southern, Eastern and Western Europeans, we introduce a little bit of Asian here and a little bit of Semite there, ending up with something that is less “European” than European-related.

Despite media outlets parroting the term “white nationalism” around the Alt Right — apparently the word being used this year as “racist” was in the previous decade — the core of the Alt Right is old-fashioned nationalism, namely each group having its own space. This avoids the conflicts of diversity, which by making groups compete, forces them to hate one another.

Genetic results show that European ethnic groups remained distinct by selective breeding that favored their own, and there is no reason to oppose this natural pattern with social engineering. This way, each group develops to its full potential.

As far as the accusation that Europeans do not have a culture, it can be seen as one of those lies that is so blatant that it is not criticized because no one knows where to begin. Interestingly, both White Nationalism and globalist multiculture hope to erase the distinctions that give each group a specific culture, as if trying to obliterate European identity.

Interview With Paul Ramsey Of Ramzpaul

Monday, May 29th, 2017

For many years, Paul Ramsey has served as a voice for the nationalist Right, guiding us away from emotional reactions and toward practical policy with his informative, witty and thoughtful podcasts. Recently, he had a few moments free between attempts to save the West from itself, and sat down with us for a brief but intense interview.

At what point did you break away from the “everything will be OK” mentality of modernity? Was it a gradual awakening, or a moment of shock?
It was gradual. I have always been outside of the traditional Democrat / Republican paradigm. When I attended university, I was a libertarian greatly influenced by the writings of Ayn Rand. I figured that her description of civilization breaking down as described in Atlas Shrugged was correct.
After college, I spent many years working the tech industry. The culture of the tech industry in the 1980s and 1990s tended to be libertarian and I felt at home. As I spent most of my time working, I did not get involved with politics.
After 2001, I slowly came to realize that the libertarian model would not work as the USA transformed into a Third World population. The immigrants would not allow us to have our “Galt’s Gulch”. They would demand more and more until the country was just an empty shell.

When did you start doing your iconic videos, and originally, what was your intent? How did it expand?
My original video was for Liberty Forum. Liberty Forum was a libertarian message board. My user name was Nikolai9. (Nikolai was a character I liked in War and Peace.)
When I first posted my video, it was more of a lark. YouTube was new and I thought it would be interesting to do a video commentary. I think my first video was on Peak Oil (a subject I was later proven to be horribly misguided on). People in the forum seemed to like the video. And I was astonished I got a hundred views! I could not believe that so many people would watch a video from me.
I never had a master plan concerning my intentions. I just had fun making videos. My early videos were on a wide range of topics. For example, I once interviewed a zoo employee about chimpanzees.
As my political views became more nationalist, I started to attract a Stormfront type of audience. Such was a blessing and a curse. My videos became more popular, but I started to become pigeonholed as a “White Nationalist” which I never desired.

I think my audience expanded because I offered something new: a normal guy who advocated Nationalism without the Nazi baggage. Many people could relate to that. I was the start of what would later become known as the Alt Right.

You are an unusual thinker in that you affirm certain taboo principles, but shy away from the extremes of movements that usually endorse those. How did you arrive at this path, or more fully, how do you know when an idea is true and how to avoid misinterpretations of it?
One of my early videos was called “The Truth.” In that video, I struggled with what was the truth and how could one always advocate the truth. That is easier said than done as once you are part of a “group” you have pressure to conform to the ideology.

But my overriding goal in my videos was to always be honest with my videos. I think an audience can tell if you are faking. And, as a man, I am always re-evaluating my positions. I have learned that there is more that I don’t know that what I do know. As such, to be dogmatic on an issue can be dangerous and false.
I don’t have an answer as to how to avoid misrepresentations. The SPLC has misrepresented me. The media has misrepresented me. Many people on the Right have misrepresented me. All I can do is speak directly to my audience and hope they understand me.

It seems that we in the West are in the midst of some kind of massive cultural shift or “sea change.” What do you think this is?

Technology has changed everything.  No longer can ideas be contained by a few gatekeepers. People such as myself can influence millions of people, not just in America, but around the world. This is as revolutionary as the invention of the printing press.

And such technology has created a scale that humans have not evolved to cope with. For thousands of years people usually only had to relate to a few hundred people within a radius of maybe 100 miles. Now that scale is global and it creates anxiety and unhappiness.

For example, a pretty girl in Stillwater, Oklahoma 50 years ago only had to compete and gossip with other girls in the same local area. They shared the same race, religion, language and basic outlook on life. Now such a girl is in a global market that may include fighting other girls based in Moscow and London. And there is this huge clash of religion, languages and values. I don’t think people can cope well with this scale.

People are evolved to belong to a local tribe that shares the same basic values. But technology has created global competition and desires that can’t be met locally. So, people become unhappy.
The great tragedy is that people yearn for Nationalism, but they are tempted by the exciting fruit of globalism.

Are you against diversity and in favor of nationalism generally, or more concerned with specific groups?

I believe that nationalism provides the most happiness for humans. But people are also attracted by the exotic. Ideally this would be resolved with nationalist states that allow travel between cultures. For example, a Hungarian could live with his people in Hungary, but experience the diversity of other people through travel.

Following up on that, what do you think of the “JQ” or “Jewish question” and how relevant is it to the task of, say, restoring Western Civilization?

One of the reasons I am not a good fit for the new Alt Right is that I am ambivalent on the Jewish question.

As I have done many videos, I have recognized patterns. Most of the anti-White and harmful programs and ideas tend to be pushed by Jews. And when I see Jews tend to be involved with 80% of these harmful ideas (such as White Privilege) and yet they only compose 2% of the population, I know something is wrong.

And, yet, I have known many Jews that are just normal people that are not part of some malevolent conspiracy against our people.  Yes, I know that puts me in the “Not All X Are Like That” cliché. But I can’t help it. I can’t base my ideology on the hatred of other people.

As such, I really don’t have an answer to that question. Except for using the Jew’s example of having an ethnic homeland for our people. I advocate a “White Israel” for our people. A homeland for us.

In your view, if everything goes right according to what you would like to see for our future, what timeline of events will happen and what will society look like in the future?

Ideally, I would like to see the peaceful acceptance of Nationalism across the world. A world in which Germany is for the Germans and Japan is for the Japanese.

Realistically, the best I think we can hope for are a few countries that support the nationalist model.

I have no idea about timelines. When I was at university, I would have said you are crazy if you told me the Soviet Union would break apart is fewer than ten years. But it did.

I don’t think God gives us timelines, but He gives us tasks to perform faithfully.

We should now talk about the “CQ” or “Christian question.” Do you see Christianity having a role in the restored West? How necessary is it? What are the downsides?

Religion is like the skin of an orange. The skin of the orange is not that good. You can’t eat it. But the skin is necessary else the fruit rots. In the same way, religion helps to protect a people. We have lost our religion in the West, and we can see that our people have become corrupted and depraved. As humans, we need religion.

Christianity was the religion of Western Civilization. Paganism did not bind all of Europe, Christianity did.

Having said that, I am more of a Cultural Christian than advocating a specific theology. Holidays such as Christmas and Easter bind us as a people, even if some may not really believe the stories.  

Do you think there is common ground for the Alt Right, Neoreaction, White Nationalism, Nationalism, New Right and related movements? What do you think it is?

I think identity is the glue that can bind us together. Things fall apart when people start demanding purity tests concerning National Socialism, the Holocaust, the JQ, religion, the role of women, etc. We will never agree on those issues to form a critical mass. For example, if you should demand that a movement adopts “White Sharia”, good luck being anything beyond a tiny fringe. To be a viable political force, we need to attract normal people. And most normal people are not interested in trying to re-create the Third Reich or a White ISIS.

Can you tell us where you are currently active and how to stay in touch with what you are doing?
Ironically, I am Nationalist that lives a cosmopolitan lifestyle. I frequent Europe and the United States. I lack roots, and that makes me unhappy. Living in a small village away from everything is a goal of mine.
You can always stay in touch with me via e-mail or Twitter RAMZPAUL.

You can find his video channel on YouTube as well. Mr. Ramsey, thank you for taking the time to talk to us, and best wishes in the future!

Nationalists Defeat Antifa In Harrison, Arkansas

Sunday, May 28th, 2017

A few months ago, Leftists in Arkansas began forming groups for the purpose of stifling the rising nationalist, traditionalist and anti-communist sentiment in the area. These groups, including the Communist Mountain Home John Brown Gun Club Redneck Revolt and local antifa, planned a demonstration for May 27th in Harrison, Arkansas.

Upon hearing of this, nationalists set aside their differences and united on a general platform of nationalism with traditionalism, and showed up in numbers to counter-demonstrate and show the Leftist forces that they were not welcome to bully those who were not Leftist in the region. Several dozen Nationalists came together for this purpose, including R.G. Miller, the Arkansas state leader of the League of the South, the ShieldWall Network, The Knights Party and White Lives Matter.

These four different organizations and nationalist supporters fielded sixty-one men, women and children who stood together for the united purpose of resisting Leftist incursion into their communities at what was dubbed the “Anti-Antifa Rally.” In addition, the local community showed signs of support and police did not, as we have seen in many protests, show a preference for sheltering Leftists.

Obviously the protest worked, because the Leftists did not appear. Nationalists showed a public presence, flew the flag and held a prayer circle all while the promised Leftist presence did not manifest. Afterwards, over a hundred people enjoyed a private barbecue and worship service held offsite.

This type of activity shows what defeats the Left: local organization which sets aside differences to focus on the simple ideas of ethno-nationalism and tradition, and a strong public presence that warns the Left that they are not wanted in these communities, forcing them to retreat to the East Coast, California or other decadent Leftist preserves.

As Europe Struggles Under Diversity, Japan Thrives Through Homogeneity

Tuesday, May 23rd, 2017

While invited third world terrorists — brought in to pay for the social welfare benefits that European socialist states require, in theory — continue their rampage of car attacks, suicide bombs and violent sexual assaults across Europe, Japan is enjoy the benefits of being a homogeneous society:

Japan’s cluttered streets are not always pretty but they are remarkably safe. Crime rates have been falling for 13 years. The murder rate of 0.3 per 100,000 people is among the lowest in the world; in America it is almost 4 (see chart). A single gun slaying was recorded for the whole of 2015. Even yakuza gangsters, once a potent criminal force, have been weakened by tougher laws and old age.

…Rates of recidivism are low and a great deal of effort is made to keep young offenders out of the prison system; police work with parents to keep young people on the straight and narrow. Adults are incarcerated at a far lower rate than in most rich countries: 45 per 100,000, compared with 146 in Britain and 666 in the United States.

…Japan is almost crime-free not thanks to the police, says Yoshihiro Yasuda, a campaigning lawyer, but because people police themselves.

The Western press likes to talk up demographic decline in Japan, but never mentions the benefits of having a single culture genetically hard-coded into the population. Leftists fear nationalism because it establishes standards for behavior and social order, both of which impede the greedy anarchic individualism that the Leftist desires and forms into collectives to enforce.

A Morality Of Nationalism

Monday, May 8th, 2017

The standard Leftist response to nationalism is to claim that it is immoral because it excludes people. They do this through a stream of pidgin language including terms like “racist” and “classist.”

At the root of their view is the idea that humanity is universal, or that we can be treated like interchangeable parts in machines, made to do the will of whoever owns the machine.

That sentiment arises in egalitarianism, which seeks to eliminate differences between people as a way of producing “class pacifism,” or an end to hierarchy that ranks individuals by their actual utility in decision-making.

Pacifism however leaves problems unresolved so that people can get along; it is essentially an extension of compromise, committee thinking and “agree to disagree” mentalities. While “live and let live” sounds like an appealing vision when spoken in social circumstances, it produces the slow decay of indecision that erodes democratic societies from within.

Conclusions are reached by allowing different ideas to be tested against reality itself. This requires separating out the threads and seeing what succeeds and what fails, as happens during natural selection.

The morality of nationalism can be seen as a recognition of this fact. We cannot simply write laws and make educational propaganda that shapes every person on earth into an ideal citizen. People are different. Not only as groups, but as individuals. Each group must pursue its own goals, rule itself and history will judge what works and what does not.

For the West, we already know what works, because we have the histories of Athens and Rome. Obviously democracy does not work, but it is eternally popular, along with a host of other intellectual vices. Those among us who understand that have always sought the ability to break away from the herd and form our own nations where we can exclude them.

This presents a higher morality than including everyone because it allows each group to fail or succeed on its own merits. In the universe of Star Trek, this idea is expressed as the Prime Directive:

The Prime Directive (officially Starfleet Order 1) is a prohibition on interference with the other cultures and civilizations representatives of Starfleet encounter in their exploration of the universe. In particular, the Prime Directive is aimed at preventing interference with the internal development of civilizations that are less technologically advanced. The executive summary of the order given in the 1968 episode “Bread and Circuses” is:

no identification of self or mission; no interference with the social development of said planet; no references to space, other worlds, or advanced civilizations.

…The Prime Directive reflects both a consequentialist commitment to reducing harm and a Kantian commitment to respecting the autonomy of others. Built into the Prime Directive is an assumption that cultures are better off if left to their own devices (whether those “devices” are social practices or concrete technologies). Interference by Starfleet, even if well-intentioned, is judged likely to mess things up in unanticipated ways — and if the culture in question is to deal with unintended harms, it would be better if they result from the culture’s own free choices. This embodies a kind of anti-colonialist ethos, a commitment to respecting a civilization’s own values, beliefs, and practices rather than imposing “better” ones upon them.

At its most basic, the Prime Directive is a revolt against universalism, or that there is one standard that works for all people and that we can install it in them through a bureaucratic, managerial, administrative or industrial process. Universalism itself was a rebellion against the founding beliefs of ancient times, namely aristocracy and esotericism, which state that people are unequal and that knowledge is cumulative with each stage only revealing itself when the past has been mastered, and that not many are capable of getting past the basic stages of any discipline.

Others have noticed that, despite the somewhat “Communist lite” world of Star Trek that resembles modern liberal democracy with unlimited technology, the Prime Directive has Right-wing elements, in that it is essentially the primary idea of Nationalism: Germany for Germans, Israel for Jews, Japan for Japanese.

However, the Prime Directive is the Theodor Herzl style of nationalism, which recognizes that independence from other groups provides benefits for all. The minority group does not become a scapegoat under diversity, and racism only exists in diverse societies. The point is parallel evolution, where each group pursues its own destiny (as I wrote about in Parallelism).

In our modern time, the Prime Directive moves two ways. Colonialism — which brought organized government and technology to the third world more than “belief systems,” despite the best attempts by pathologically self-destructive Priests — would not fit within the Prime Directive, but neither would immigration. Both are disrupting autonomous societies.

Were we to extend the Prime Directive to recognize the innate biological differences between castes, the Prime Directive would also prohibit all social welfare systems and laws made for the good of the proles. This would be more like how the aristocracy ruled, which was by leading without adopting the functions of “government,” namely assuming responsibility for the care of its citizens and facilitation of their desires. Aristocrats did what was necessary for the organic nation and left responsibility for self-care to individuals, which strengthened the importance of family, church, friends and culture.

Taking it even further and we end up with Nietzschean social Darwinism: the Prime Directive prohibits charity, or even public institutions that attempt to educate and raise up the rest, because they must figure it out on their own in order to be in control of their destiny.

Given that we live in a world where many people have mastered mechanics of a task without understanding its relevance or how to do it so that the results are highly positive instead of just “competitive,” it seems this Nietzschean Prime Directive — the basis behind classical liberalism, which Plato described as an attempt for natural elites to escape the extortionate herd — proves itself to have been a better method than including everyone and subsidizing them as seems to happen in the Star Trek universe.

From this, we see not just a morality of Nationalism but of Traditional society: a natural hierarchy is maintained at all times, giving each person a place, but leaving the burden of survival with the individual, which avoids the dependency mentality that aging civilizations tend to create. In addition, it avoids the curse of civilization itself, which is a tendency to create an internal system to manage its population which then becomes a target in itself, and so gains so much inertia it cannot be stopped except for a Soviet-style crash. Through that, we can see how aristocracy forever provides a better way of life than “freedom” and democracy.

Star Trek of course is only fiction, albeit highly addictive television. But it asks a question for us that we should explore. If under our current system, everything goes not only right but seems to find an intermediate sanity, how will that shape future beliefs? The answer seems to be that allowing each individual and group to find its own balance, and live or die by its own hand alone, avoids the universalism that tries to shape us all into perfect citizens only to find out that it changed the surface, but not the substance, of these people, creating a surge of incompetence at decision-making that then destroys those societies.

For Nationalists, we see an echo of our morality in the Prime Directive. We want independence from other groups as a society and the ability to have internal hierarchy instead of equality, mostly so that we can maintain quality control. This is the philosophy of the future and not one belonging to the failed past, like egalitarianism and democracy.

Pat Buchanan — Like Most Mainstream Conservatives — Punts On Nationalism

Friday, April 28th, 2017

It is undoubtedly wonderful to see Pat Buchanan writing about the downfall of the Leftist world order. However, he skips out on a few crucial concepts.

“My concern has been that it hasn’t really come off as smoothly as one would have hoped. Quite frankly, there’s an awful lot of forces in this city of Washington, DC, where I was born and raised, that really want to cashier and dump the populist-nationalist agenda. Excuse me, but that’s the future of the world. You take a look at countries all over the world. Populism, ethno-nationalism, economic nationalism, sovereignty concerns, identity concerns – these are what is moving mankind. With all due respect, the European Union is yesterday,” Buchanan said.

Marlow invited Buchanan to define “nationalism,” one of the most contentious terms in contemporary political discourse.

…“Also that we are a country, a unique people with its own culture, with its own identity, with its own history, its own heroes, its own holidays, its own cuisine,” he continued. “We are a separate nation, a different nation from other nations, and in looking out for this, we look out for basically what is our own national family first.”

No, Pat, that is not what “nationalism” means.

The American and English governments fought WWII against the nationalist powers, who were those who believed that nation was defined by a single founding ethnic group and not a “melting pot” as the USA was.

Naturally the idea of “nationalism” therefore offended these groups, who were trying to integrate different ethnic groups into empires of their own. Their eyes glowed with the prospects of power enabled by having millions under their control, working together toward empire.

Eighty years later, we see that the melting pot model has failed. Diverse groups do not assimilate; they create a Balkanization where society divides into many different groups, and all of those have less investment in the future of the civilization. Thus, the civilization fails.

Nationalism was demonized because it was a remnant of the old order that the French Revolution had tried to smash. They broke monarchy, but then found that national populations remained resistant to the encroachment of Leftism. Therefore, world Leftism had to destroy national populations.

This became unfortunately easy because of the overlap between these Nationalist movements and denials of the types of freedoms, civil rights and human rights praised by democracies. For that reason, democracies found it easier to ally with fellow Leftists in the Communist states than Fascists and National Socialists.

Since that time, Nationalism has been demonized, and in America we extended our natural myth of being a society of frontierspeople into the idea that we accept all people, independent of race. This denies both (1) the natural abilities and inclinations of each race, (2) the failure of mixed-race societies, and (3) the necessity of race as a basis for culture and values.

A nationalist is an anti-racist; to accept nationalism, one accepts a place for each racial and ethnic group which is preserved by racial separation.

Buchanan, like other conservatives, wants to believe that we can form a society out of surface traits, or those which are taught, such as customs, history, values and religion. This inverts the truth of these things, which is that the understanding of them is — like every other trait — genetic, and therefore, tied to a group.

In the West, we are a people united by common heritage which split into national groups over time. The groups which make the West, and selected individuals from elsewhere who are Western in traits, can easily integrate into a national group as in England or the USA where the common Western European heritage unites them.

Heritage forms a way of locking in the traits of a group, which in turn allows that group to separate itself and develop further; the fear of some groups rising above the rest, like the fear of individual excellence, drives the Crowd impulse to demand “equality” or in other words, to erase those differences and bring everyone down to a standard of comfortable mediocrity.

This shows us why nationalism is necessary; groups must be able to exclude others say that they may maintain their own standards:

In short, the three laws lead us to recognize that the whole concept of community (barring defining community as “everything in existence”) depends upon exclusion. Being a community at all requires having a unique identity that excludes other potential identities, particularly when those other identities would be contradictory or imply a degree when the reality is either/or (like a pacifist in relation to war).

This is precisely the problem with “inclusiveness” if it is defined as a community’s highest value. No matter what specific community you have in mind, a totally inclusive community—that is, a community that defines itself by the standard of inclusion—is incoherent and self-defeating.

The three laws referred to are the laws of Aristotle, which establish the principles of identity, non-contradiction and the excluded middle. Identity states that a thing must be what it is; non-contradiction means it cannot be another thing that conflicts with the first; and the excluded middle refers to the need for things to branch, or be one thing to the elimination of all others.

When these are combined, we see the necessity of each group to define itself as something distinct from the rest, and with nationalism, we see that this takes the form of heritage passing along the traits that made that group distinct. In that view, diversity is a way of erasing this distinctiveness of the group and obliterating it.

Buchanan comes close to seeing this fundamental distinction, but by backing off of its core concept in biology, inverts the definition to mean shared indoctrination instead of shared heritage. He probably does this because he still must do so in our anti-nationalist times, but we benefit from reading between the lines and seeing what really must be done for Us to survive.

Recommended Reading