Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘nationalism’

Why Minority Groups Are Poor (Hint: It’s Not White People)

Monday, November 13th, 2017

On the nationalist side of politics, we frequently encounter a converse: if our people are thriving, and everyone else is starving, must this not be the result of our actions?

In the common human lexicon, if one group is thriving and another is not, because on a social level we assume them to be the same, this leaves only the conclusion that the thriving group victimized the less-thriving group.

We arrive at this conclusion because the notion of equality commands it. If we say that humans are equal, then we must explain the obvious contradiction of that statement by results in reality, and the only answers available to us involve those unequal people being victims.

The quest that is thus created, or the War on Inequality as we might dub it, also provides convenient cover for tyrannical power: it has an unlimited mandate to end a great evil which cannot be ended because humans are not equal, nor do they have equal desires, and so results will always vary.

For example, not every person wants to be a billionaire, or even to live in the upper middle class suburbs that we are shown as “normal” America in movies. Most people want to live in a relatively safe community, have some friends and a family, and something to do with their time where they can succeed and relatively enjoy what they do.

In the eyes of many, that requires only a city apartment or rural trailer, some alcohol and a local friend group, maybe a rotating series of significant others. The vast majority of humanity seem to live this way, going through life as a self alone, looking for whatever pleasures can come to them and not worrying themselves excessively about obligations to anything larger than the self.

The War on Inequality then mobilizes people toward discontent and avarice, telling them that their current lives are not enough and that there may be more free money around the corner. The average person, understanding nothing of economics, will see this as something like a lottery: there is a small chance of a big win, so go for it, and if it fails, just ignore the minor loss to them and move on.

When we apply this jihad against inequality toward a mixed-race society, we telegraph to different ethnic groups that they have the potential ability to exploit the richer group, thus making their group more powerful. Since any society not designed by their own group and run by it for its own purposes is effectively hostile to them, they see a winning strategy here: deplete the enemy, increase their own strength, and eventually dominate. Not surprisingly, this is what non Western European but European-descended white groups did for the first century and a half of American government, and now, non-European racial groups have taken up the same quest.

For this strategy to work, these non-founding groups must style themselves as victims and subsidies as the only possible solution. Empirical data suggests that this is not true:

If we wanted to be serious about evidence, we might compare where blacks stood a hundred years after the end of slavery with where they stood after 30 years of the liberal welfare state. In other words, we could compare hard evidence on “the legacy of slavery” with hard evidence on the legacy of liberals.

Despite the grand myth that black economic progress began or accelerated with the passage of the civil rights laws and “war on poverty” programs of the 1960s, the cold fact is that the poverty rate among blacks fell from 87 percent in 1940 to 47 percent by 1960. This was before any of those programs began.

Over the next 20 years, the poverty rate among blacks fell another 18 percentage points, compared to the 40-point drop in the previous 20 years. This was the continuation of a previous economic trend, at a slower rate of progress, not the economic grand deliverance proclaimed by liberals and self-serving black “leaders.”

…The murder rate among blacks in 1960 was one-half of what it became 20 years later, after a legacy of liberals’ law enforcement policies. Public housing projects in the first half of the 20th century were clean, safe places, where people slept outside on hot summer nights, when they were too poor to afford air conditioning. That was before admissions standards for public housing projects were lowered or abandoned, in the euphoria of liberal non-judgmental notions. And it was before the toxic message of victimhood was spread by liberals. We all know what hell holes public housing has become in our times. The same toxic message produced similar social results among lower-income people in England, despite an absence of a “legacy of slavery” there.

In other words, African-Americans have become a pawn of the Left, who are using them to justify programs that do not actually benefit them in the long term, despite delivering the promise of more money and power in the short term.

In a longer perspective view, African-Americans benefited mostly from the economic and technological growth of the United States which enabled them to have basic jobs, food, housing and some consumer goods in exchange for merely having some kind of employment. Public education allowed them to have a range of jobs beyond sharecropper, which was their replacement economic role after the end of slavery.

However, that development has been arrested, mostly by Leftist social programs, which induced a victimhood/scapegoat mentality and caused African-American expectations to fall, mostly by directing the argument away from economics and toward subsidy politics:

Ex-slave Booker T. Washington saw manual or domestic labor as the first step up the ladder of economic mobility and thus by no means degrading. “No race that has anything to contribute to the markets of the world is long in any degree ostracized,” declared the founder of Alabama’s Tuskegee Institute for teaching blacks skilled trades. But the economic advance that would lead to social acceptance required education and the spread of work skills, to allow blacks to “rise to the level of owning stores, operating factories, owning bank stocks, loaning white people money, and manufacturing goods that the white man needs,” Washington taught.

…Du Bois sensed the necessity of conventional morality for a people’s rise. He worried that, by his estimate, a quarter of black births in 1900 were out of wedlock, and only half of blacks observed “monogamic sex mores,” as opposed to whites’ 2 percent and 90 percent, respectively. He also worried that black preachers were too interested in making money to “adopt a new attitude toward rational amusement and sound moral habits.” He saw, in other words, that black cultural mores had a self-destructive streak, and that the one indigenous black institution that could preach a moral message was shirking its principal duty. As it later turned out, one of the tragedies of twentieth-century black American history is that those churches fell under the Du Bois spell, becoming political organizations—partly out of the self-interestedness that Du Bois scorned in their preachers—rather than agencies of personal improvement and self-discipline, soul by soul.

…We fought a Civil War that cost 620,000 lives, ratified the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution, had a civil rights movement, a Civil Rights Act, a Voting Rights Act, a War on Poverty, a massive affirmative-action program in education and employment. Now, says Dattel, it’s up to black Americans. “Before we can achieve any major, broad-based improvement in the social and economic status of blacks, they must develop a frank process of self-examination to replace the current unwillingness to look objectively at destructive behavioral norms. Otherwise, the myriad programs designed specifically to aid blacks will fail to achieve large-scale transformation. The particular burden—of facing themselves—lies squarely on the black community.”

Du Bois and Washington discovered two sides of nationalism: any group that wishes to prevail must be self-reliant, and it must adopt the cultural attitudes that allow it to succeed; these are generally of a natural selection variety that rewards good behavior and punishes bad, with good being the productive and non-destructive and bad being the irrelevant or destructive.

American politics, in its zeal for blaming the dominant ethnic group (Western Europeans) for the woes of all groups who came since to take advantage of what that founding group created, also generated a scapegoat rhetoric that removes agency and self-reliance from these minority groups, making them perpetually self-destructive.

On top of this, as Washington noted, there are attributes to the African-American community that make it prone to be self-destructive anyway. Others, perhaps more cynical than your author, will note the lower average IQs and lack of centuries spent in tight collaboration and manorial, honor-based societies. Either way: white people did not do this to you.

Those who understand nationalism will add another point, which is that diversity sabotages any group. To be part of a mixed-race nation is to be unstable, as an ethnic group, because other groups have their own self-interest lying elsewhere than an exact overlap with yours. Groups may be able to come together for economic and political reasons, but never on questions of their future or the very specific values, standards and principles that ethnic groups develop in order to keep themselves together and improving.

With the rise of victimhood/scapegoat policies, the Left targeted nationalism, because to be anything but universal — accessible to all humans — means that someone is kept our, or rather that everyone else is kept out. To someone who has an ethnic home in a country dedicated to that ethnic group, this is not threatening. But in mixed-ethnic and mixed-race states, this natural exclusion provokes a “fear of missing out” style resentment of the identity of others manifested in a desire to destroy that identity:

But racism and xenophobia don’t need to be physically violent to cause harm – they are underlying belief systems, hateful words, ignorant thoughts, a dismissal of one’s experiences of racism and xenophobia, and the alienation of those who do not ‘fit’ into the category of ‘Irish’. There are Irish people who actively avoid getting into taxis with black drivers; who ignorantly stereotype people of various races and ethnicities; who mock other people’s accents; who use slurs without shame; who talk degradingly about “foreign nationals” who are coming to Ireland and “taking our jobs”; who believe certain groups of people all look the same; and who tell people of colour, “You should just go back to your own country then,” lest they criticize Ireland.

…I reckon it’s time for us to open up the borders of Irishness, and change what it means to be Irish nowadays. Beginning to openly and understandingly discuss race, culture and the evolving nature of contemporary Ireland will only help us to enrich Irishness. I’ve always known Ireland to be multicultural, complex and varied, but I still often feel as if I’m a mismatch with the ‘traditional’ sense of Irishness; I’m the loner cousin that no one really likes talking about at family get-togethers, but is put up with in the corner all the same. It’s time that we discussed the changing nature of Irishness and shed light on the non-white Irish experience, letting the alienated cousin know that they’re part of the family after all.

Multicultural “Irishness” is not Irishness; it is an obliteration of Irishness. Much as victimhood/scapegoat politics led African-Americans to discard proper identity politics, in which they work toward a positive identity by curtailing the negative, multiculturalism causes people to focus on tearing down culture and replacing it with economics alone.

As The Age of Ideology winds down, we are leaving behind the notion of universality, or that we can set up one system that works for all groups. Instead, we are noticing that each group has its own needs, many of which are arbitrary, but that these are not aberrant but seek to give the group common symbols and practices to cement its identity.

With the realization that each ethnic group needs its own ability to determine its future, we are also leaving behind the old narrative that white people somehow victimized the world and forced them into poverty. Instead, we are seeing that diversity harms these groups, and obstructs them from what they need, which is rule over themselves and the ability to determine their own future.

Interview With Matt Forney

Friday, November 3rd, 2017

When you live under a control-based regime, your brain longs for accurate depictions of reality, because almost everything you encounter is propaganda, whether advertisers trying to trick you into buying useless products, chatty acquaintances pimping their bands and lifestyles, or outright ideological mental viruses beamed into your head by media, government and academia.

Back in the day, many of us encountered a site called In Mala Fide whose author was notoriously pseudonymous, and since that time those who thirst for pragmatic realism have followed the work of Matt Forney, an incredibly talented writer with whom we are pleased to present an interview that must have taken no short amount of time to complete. Please join me in extending a big thank you to Matt Forney, and reading his very deliberate words with a sense of intellectual curiosity.

You have been active for nearly twenty years as a writer, moving from a Men’s Rights direction to a more Alt Right perspective and now, sort of choosing your own path. How did you get into writing, and how did these different outlooks lead to one another and to where you are now?

I got into writing back in 2009 due to persistence and luck. At the time, I was graduating college and moving into an unrewarding civil service job, as well I was coming off a couple of crises in my personal life. I’d spent the past three years obsessively reading books on politics, sociology, and philosophy, and I also followed proto-manosphere/proto-alt-right sites such as Steve Sailer’s blog, Taki’s Magazine, Roissy in DC, CORRUPT.org and others.

I started a blog called In Mala Fide mainly to vent and talk about the ideas I’d learned about and thought up. I’d attempted to start blogging before several times but gave up because I wasn’t able to earn an audience. With In Mala Fide, I struck paydirt: I didn’t just earn a large audience (peaking at 50,000 unique visitors a month), but an intelligent one, one that was able to help me grow and mature as a thinker and a man. Some of the people I encountered online during that period have become close real-life friends of mine. The site has also been acknowledged by many as a formative influence on the manosphere and alt-right.

I transitioned to writing under my real name in 2012 after reading Jack Donovan’s The Way of Men and realizing that I would eventually have to stop being a pseudonymous shadow if I wanted any credibility. I was also tired of the “Ferdinand Bardamu” pen name and wanted to take my writing in a different direction. Since then, I’ve gone through several different focuses, from travel writing to sex to anti-feminism to political journalism to morality and ethics.

With regards to the different outlooks I’ve had over the course of my writing career, I’ve always been good at studying and synthesizing different viewpoints — men’s rights, white nationalism, etc. — to see the merit in them. In the In Mala Fide days, I had an excessive amount of free time at my job and spent it reading blogs and websites (because reading a book at my desk would get me in trouble), and would link to interesting stuff on my blog on a weekly basis. At NPI’s fall conference two years ago, a reader of mine told me that my weekly roundups of manosphere and white nationalist/alt-right articles were a big influence in driving the growth of the alt-right, because they helped connect segments of the Internet that had overlapping ideas but little contact.

Can you tell us what your worldview is comprised of today? What are your philosophy, religion, political direction and general existential outlook?

I describe myself as a nationalist, full stop. Labeling in the social media era is more about group identity and posing than actual belief: for example, see how “alt-lite” personalities like Paul Joseph Watson used to describe themselves as “alt-right” when it was fashionable, then dropped the branding after the Heilgate incident. The same can be said for anime-watching teenagers who claim to be “alt-right” despite also being Satanist furries or whatever (and claiming I’m not “truly” alt-right even though I started writing before they entered puberty). I describe myself as a nationalist (or more generically as “right-wing”) because it encapsulates my beliefs — white identity, ethnic pride, putting family and nation first — without the baggage that other labels such as “alt-right” have accumulated.

Economically, I have libertarian leanings, but libertarianism as a complete ideology is unworkable because it cannot address the fact that our world is already post-capitalist, as James Burnham described in The Managerial Revolution. It’s because of managerialism that corporations are now enforcers of leftist orthodoxy and Silicon Valley has done an end-run around the First Amendment: big business and government are essentially fused at the hip. At the same time, I’m utterly opposed to socialism, because socialism breeds weak people who are more focused on anal sex and smoking pot than being productive, which is obvious to anyone who’s spent time in a left-wing area.

I used to consider myself an agnostic or apatheist, but I’ve gradually warmed to Christianity for many reasons, one of which is its importance as a unifying force in European and American life. I’ve realized over the past year that a large amount of whites’ problems are self-inflicted, due to our fixation on pleasure and comfort above all else. It’s evident in the mass acceptance of homosexuality, transsexuality, and the 31 flavors of gender in white countries, evident in our cowardly rationales for mass immigration (we “need” immigrants because whites can’t be bothered to have children to prop up failing social welfare programs with their taxes), it’s evident in the way we stick our heads in the sand when the third-world immigrants we import openly hate us and try to kill us.

While the churches of the West have become deeply corrupted (as evidenced by an Argentine communist becoming pope), it’s also true that the only white countries that are actively resisting globalism — such as Poland and Hungary — are overly Christian ones. Atheism is a social experiment that has failed miserably. Ultimately, I believe that a shift towards right-wing and nationalist politics is insufficient on its own to preserve white and European societies; some sort of spiritual revival needs to occur in order to stem social decay. The events of the past two years have (depressingly) borne my predictions out.

As I’ve gotten older, I’ve also become more comfortable in admitting that I don’t know as much as I thought I did. Young people are always overconfident in their knowledge and abilities: I can’t look back on some of my In Mala Fide-era writing of mine without cringing a little. This overconfidence is driving a lot of dysfunction in the alt-media (my term for non-mainstream right-wing commentators, including the alt-right and alt-lite) landscape, as people make snap decisions based on incomplete information. For example, see Richard Spencer’s completely pointless and unnecessary anti-war protest in the wake of President Trump’s Syria strike in April. It’s because of this that I’ve pulled away from commenting on day-to-day politics.

Did you always want to be a writer, and how did you break into writing professionally? If you could do it again, would you do anything differently?

I’ve obsessively written privately since I was a kid — journal entries, short stories, the like — so expanding into blogging and online writing was a natural extension of what I was already doing. As Jim Goad put it, “If I don’t work, I’ll starve. If I don’t write, I’ll die.” I started out in college as a journalism major primarily because I wanted to write: a really dumb move, and I ended up transferring out of the program a year later after uncovering widespread plagiarism among my colleagues.

While I switched to majoring in English after that, most of my important writing experience and work came from studying and reading on my own and networking with like-minded people. I spent most of my teenage years reading books by the likes of Philip K. Dick, Hunter S. Thompson and Charles Bukowski; it didn’t help my sad social life, but it paid off as an adult because I knew what separated good writing from bad. I also owe a great debt to Mark Ames and John Dolan; as dumb and pathetic as they’ve become, they were my gateway to understanding the mechanics of good writing and honest journalism.

If I were to do anything differently, I’d have studied how to monetize my writing much earlier. I started In Mala Fide basically as a hobby, and had I figured out how to make money doing it sooner, I’d have been able to get my career going earlier. Alternately, I would have skipped going to college entirely, or majored in something useful like engineering.

You had quite a following as “Ferdinand Bardamu,” but changed direction to write under your real name. What encouraged you to go in that direction? Did it coincide with your desire to write about more than manosphere themes?

As I mentioned above, three years into In Mala Fide’s existence, it felt like I had outgrown the “Ferdinand Bardamu” pseudonym. I started the blog during a time of upheaval in my personal life and it felt like I was being forced to write in a voice that was no longer authentically mine. To paraphrase my friend Trevor Blake, when you need to cross a river, you build a bridge, but you don’t take the bridge with you when you get to the other side. I didn’t feel the need to keep using a name that was tied to a period in my life that was ancient history by that point.

Moreover, while I recognize the value of pen names (and encourage anyone who wants to write in this day and age to use one), the danger with them is that you can develop an unhealthy divide between your private and public lives. Internet anonymity has the side effect of encouraging defective personalities to develop elaborate fantasy lives in pursuit of narcissistic supply. See: all the manosphere dweebs who brag about “spinning plates” and having multiple LTRs, yet still have time to post on r/TheRedPill twenty times a day. When people like this get doxed, it usually ruins their lives, because the gulf between what they claim to be online and who they are in real life destroys their credibility.

Writing under my real name with my real face keeps me accountable. My friends and family know I’m a writer, and I can’t lie or pump myself up online without them calling me on it. While there are haters and critics who will try to attack me for my beliefs, I don’t care because almost none of them are actually reading what I write, but skimming it and filtering it through their own skewed perspectives. For example, I love it when people claim I’m not really an “alpha male” or a “PUA,” because I’ve never once claimed to be either of those things. I’m just a writer who observes the world and tells people what I think.

Do you think there is a particular style in which people have to write for the web, and does it dumb down content ever? It seems to me that you are frequently rebelling against this style… do you have any tips for people who want to push the envelope?

I’m not good at fitting into cliques, and past a certain point, to become more popular you need to join an online clique. That means adopting their look, their lingo, and their beliefs, even the dumb ones. This is plainly evident with what the alt-right has become, with Macklemore whoosh haircuts, gay electronic dance music, and speaking in terms like “normie” and “fashy” now required if you want to be one of the cool kids. Same thing happened with the manosphere years ago: it went from normal guys talking about how to get girls and trying to understand modern sexual dysfunction to nerds spazzing out over “N-counts” and the “feminine imperative,” making it impenetrable for mentally adjusted people.

I think a large part of this is due to the fact that when movements or subcultures become popular, they inevitably attract defective people who want to use the movement/subculture as a substitute for a normal life. While there’s nothing wrong with turning online relationships into real-life friendships — many of my closest real-life friends are people I’ve met online now — there’s something wrong with entirely substituting organic meatspace relationships. I blame social atomization.

The shift to social media as the primary form of online communication has also seriously dumbed down online discourse. When I was starting out eight years ago, Twitter was still relatively obscure and Facebook was basically for keeping in contact with friends. Smartphones were still relatively new. The primary means of spreading ideas back then was blogs and websites. Fast-forward to today and social media companies have a stranglehold on communication. This not only conditions people against deep thought — how much nuance can you put into a 140-character Tweet? — but also rewards mindless attention whoring, due to the Skinner box-like environment that social media provides.

This is evident in how the alt-right and the alt-media in general has melted down over the past year. The constant drive for social media re-Tweets, likes and one-ups drives people to do and say provocative things solely for attention. I’ve also noticed a disturbing trend among young alt-righters and alt-leftists: they’re utterly incapable of communicating in anything other than memes and one-liners. I think this is the result of exposure to social media and smartphones at a young age combined with a lack of meaningful real-world relationships. They’ve sustained brain damage from constantly repeating memes and quips from whatever clique they claim allegiance to. It’s so bad that teenagers aren’t even dating and having sex anymore, because they’d rather fish for attention on Instagram or whatever. The adults in the alt-right and these other movements aren’t providing them with any masculine guidance or leadership, either.

I’ve always strived to grow my audience — egomania is part of being a writer — but I’m not going to blatantly spread falsehoods just so I can fit in with an online community of people I’ll never meet and probably wouldn’t want to. While I’ve engaged in attention-getting stunts in the past, I’ve gradually realized that doing so is self-defeating, because I just end up attracting morons who I can’t stand and who don’t appreciate the nuances in my writing. As a friend put it, when you get together with dysfunctional people who have dysfunctional ideas, you end up with dysfunctional results.

As for people who want to push the envelope, I recommend you don’t get too invested in any online community or political movement. As Common Filth puts it, do not put your faith in man. Get off the computer and interact with people in real life. Hang out with your friends. Get laid. Take up a hobby, like playing the guitar or chess. Gain some perspective. Life isn’t as bad as mental defectives on Twitter claim it is. Stay out of online echo chambers and your view on life — and your mental state — will be much healthier.

How relevant do you think men’s rights is these days, or has it been eclipsed by the overall struggle against false equality?

Men’s Rights is dead and decomposing. I was a men’s rights sympathizer years ago due to the fact that they were one of the few groups that was bringing attention to divorce law, false rape accusations and other major injustices against men and families. However, feminists massively overplayed their hand during Obama’s second term, and the UVA rape hoax, Emma “Mattress Girl” Sulkowicz and other massive blunders have woken up much of the population to their perfidy. We now have a Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, who is basically implementing the men’s rights program by rolling back overzealous feminist rape policies and more.

Moreover, the men’s rights movement (as well as Men Going Their Own Way) was subverted by the left years ago. Stealth leftists such as Dean Esmay and Bar Bar infiltrated men’s rights organizations such as A Voice for Men and began pushing the lie that men’s rights’ was “beyond” politics and that there was “no difference” between the left and the right, despite feminism being part of the left’s political program. This lead to absurdities such as Esmay accusing the victims of Muslim-led rape attacks in Germany last year of being “liars” and Paul Elam declaring that he would vote for Hillary Clinton unless Trump pledged to legalize marijuana. Men’s rights was effectively blunted as a political force because of this.

Finally, feminism itself is receding in importance in white countries due to the rise of demographic-driven racial identity politics. Feminism is largely a preoccupation of upper middle-class white women: concerns over “manspreading,” “mansplaining,” and nonexistent rape epidemics on college campuses don’t register with black or brown women. As white countries become less white, feminists will gradually lose political power.

We’re already seeing this in Europe due to the migrant crisis: feminists have been ignoring the rapes that Muslim men commit against European women and attacking right-wingers who bring attention to the problem. In the Netherlands and Sweden, Muslim populations have formed their own ethnic interest political parties, like Michel Houellebecq predicted in Submission. Hillary Clinton was the last gasp of white feminism in American politics: future leftist leaders will be non-white and will exclusively engage in racial identity politics.

You have been critical of the Alt Right of late, and so it makes sense to ask: where did they lose the narrative, and what should they be doing instead?

The alt-right focuses on material problems and ignores the fundamental spiritual maladies that have led to whites’ current predicament. As I mentioned above, whites are fixated on pleasure and comfort above all else: to quote Common Filth again, they want to be “veal wrapped in cotton.” Virtually every problem that the alt-right lays at the feet of other groups stems from whites’ own spiritual emptiness, and even if the white ethnostate were to be established tomorrow, it’d tear itself apart in less than fifty years as the same problems reemerged.

For example, the alt-right is correct to criticize Jews for their disproportionate involvement in movements that erode public morality and social cohesiveness. Thing is, the Jews didn’t invade our countries and impose themselves on us at gunpoint: we invited them in. The first country to emancipate the Jews was France in 1791, in the throes of the French Revolution, the birth of leftism. Nobody forced the French to liberate the Jews: they did it on their own. In 1791, the French also legalized homosexuality, again without any prompting from the Jews. Filmic pornography was also invented by whites. Jews are merely exploiting character traits that whites have embraced on their own. The merchant cannot sell what the goyim will not buy.

Similarly, the whitest cities and countries in the U.S. and western Europe are degenerate fleshpits right now. Seattle, one of the whitest major cities in the U.S., elected a homosexual mayor who was forced to resign after he was caught molesting children. Portland, Oregon, is full of bluehairs, feminists, homeless junkies, and the biggest wastes of white skin on the planet. Iceland, which has no Jewish or non-white population to speak of, is the chlamydia capital of the world, is aborting babies in record numbers, has a culture revolving around having casual sex while blackout drunk, and elected a radical lesbian as prime minister.

The alt-right has done nothing to address these spiritual problems and is arguably making them worse. When Richard Spencer is enthusiastically endorsing universal healthcare, a furry is moderating AltRight.com’s Discord server, and so-called intellectuals are claiming that “intolerance of homosexuality is Jewish,” there’s a major problem going on. As I mentioned above, social media and smartphone addiction has also rendered many young people — including alt-righters — incapable of genuine thought. This is evidenced whenever any right-winger criticizes the alt-right, even if the criticism has nothing to do with politics: “Don’t punch right!” “Don’t counter-signal!” “Don’t purity spiral!” It’s no different than when SJWs whine about being “tone policed” whenever people accuse them of being histrionic.

If the alt-right wants to recover, they should stop acting like the white version of “WE WUZ KANGZ” and start addressing the spiritual maladies of white people. Cast out the homosexuals and other reprobates from their ranks and start encouraging spiritual and philosophical growth. Instead of staging big, ineffectual public events like Charlottesville, focus on building connections and affecting change in their local communities, which are supposed to be the most important part of any person’s life. Yes, the alt-right should bring attention to the problems caused by racial diversity, but they should do so with an eye to exorcise the demons in whites’ souls that led to these problems to begin with.

The alt-right also needs to accept the fact that Christianity will be an unavoidable part of social revival. I have sympathy for neopagans and I’m interested in Greek and Roman mythology, but the only faith traditions that work are ones that are already rooted in peoples’ traditions and communities. Most whites have some connection to Christianity through their families and communities, but vanishingly few have a real, organic connection to Odinism or pagan traditions. Christianity provides meaning to peoples’ lives, a moral framework that is time-tested, and a system of social organization that binds people without reliance on government. Moreover, religious Christians are by far the most receptive audience to identitarian and nationalist ideas (as shown by Trump’s popularity among evangelicals and Catholics and nationalist governments in eastern Europe), making the alt-right’s anti-Christian attitude self-defeating from a practical perspective.

America is changing, and so is Europe. Where do you think things are going? What should people do to encourage this change, and to shape it toward positive ends?

I believe we’re on the verge of a great shift in political perception: what Jim Donald calls a “left singularity,” a period when the leftward drift of politics ends. I don’t know what ultimate form that shift will take. However, it’s clear that the status quo of corporate liberalism cannot last much longer. The problems of diversity, sexual deviancy, social atomization and economic decay have made life for many whites intolerable, which is what fueled both Donald Trump’s election victory and the Brexit campaign. Similarly, non-whites in many Western countries have become belligerent and openly antagonistic towards whites.

We’re likely going to see major upheaval in countries such as Canada and France which are desperately trying to maintain the corporate liberal status quo. For example, Emmanuel Macron, who was feted as the “centrist” antidote to the evil racist Marine Le Pen, has seen his approval ratings collapse after implementing the austerity programs he’d been pledging to implement during the campaign. Islamist terror attacks will be met with vigilante responses and political violence between leftists and right-wingers will become commonplace. The latter is already happening in the U.S. Some countries will be able to stem the worst of it by electing nationalist governments, while others are doomed.

My advice to people who want to aid nationalism and fight leftism is to keep their heads down and work on improving their personal lives. As Jordan Peterson puts it, clean your room. Cultivate your friendships, find a wife or husband, consider having a family. Work on making your local community stronger. If you’re not in a white, right-leaning, Christian community, find one that you can integrate into. Disengage from social media and the 24/7 news cycle; it’s out of your control anyway, so focus on what you can control. If you must get politically involved, keep it on the local level (think city council or school board), where you can do the most good.

How do you think the Right — those on the Alt Right and other non-mainstream forms — can protect itself from the Great Erasure led by Google and other large companies?

I recommend that right-wingers stay away from pointless social media and real-life publicity stunts, such as Charlottesville or the umpteen million dramas that are playing out across the alt-media right now. All attention will accomplish now is earning you the ire of the left’s electric eye without any guarantee you’ll have a positive impact. Focus on cultivating clear thought, purity of soul and real-life networks: past a certain point, seeking fame is detrimental to the quality of your work.

In many ways, we should think of ourselves as living in the Soviet Union or any repressive police state, and adjust our behavior accordingly. Until such time as we can break the stranglehold the corporate left has on online discourse, we should avoid taking dumb risks that result in being deplatformed and unpersoned for little or no gain. The general population is moving in a rightward direction anyway, thanks to the left’s open contempt for whites and white men, so the gains of the past three years aren’t going to be erased simply because we aren’t trolling lefties on Twitter as vigorously as we used to.

You have a large body of work, and it is a bit hard to keep track of. What should people read that you have written, and how should they follow what you are up to now?

Everything I’ve ever written online is archived at MattForney.com, including articles I’ve written for other sites: you can find a chronological archive here. I haven’t been as active lately because I have another job that’s been taking up much of my time, but you can find everything I do there. I also host an infrequent podcast, which can be found on YouTube, SoundCloud, and my website. I’m also on Gab, though I try to avoid social media as much as possible these days. I write for Return of Kings occasionally, and I also recently joined Alternative Right as a co-editor. Along with co-editors Colin Liddell and Andy Nowicki, I’m hoping to bring the alt-right back to its original values.

I’ve written several books, but the most relevant for Amerika readers is Three Years of Hate, a compilation of the best writing from my In Mala Fide days. You can buy it direct from MattForneyBooks.com or from Amazon and other booksellers. I’m currently nearing completion of a book on the 2016 presidential election based on my first-hand coverage, as well as a compilation of my best articles from the past five years and a series of memoirs about my adventures when I was younger. Follow MattForney.com to find out more about those books when they’re ready for release.

We Predicted It: The New Generation Of Nationalists Support Israel

Wednesday, October 18th, 2017

PJ Media reports that the new generation of European Nationalists are proud supporters of Israel:

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.

As written about in the past here, Israel has been in the news demonstrating the necessity of nationalism, partially vindicating Hitler, showing us how to end diversity, repelling globalism, validating race science, restoring nationalism, innovating tactics for the New Right, and revealing the Leftist intent to use diversity as a weapon.

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.

Besides, the “JQ” is entirely off-base when it comes to actual causes and solutions, nationalists should stick together, “Jews” is often a proxy for “Leftist Jews” aka regular insane Leftists who are of Jewish origin, a perfect Holocaust™ 2.0 would not solve our problems, the Left hates Jews, Jews have a historical home in Israel, separation benefits both parties, Jews did not create Western Liberalism since it pre-dates Judaism, Jewish Leftists are attempting to exterminate Jews, and that anti-Semitism makes us into monsters and leads us away from our actual objectives toward symbolic ones.

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.

America Slowly Wakes Up To The Fact That It No Longer Exists

Friday, October 13th, 2017

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.

Any nation in which “minorities mingle and miscegenate” is a genocide factory. It takes in ethnic groups, and spits out people of no ethnicity. This fits with the Leftist ideal of removing inner traits — intelligence, moral character, race, intuition, faith — and replacing them with an external trait, namely the social ideal encoded as prescriptive philosophy that is ideology, and since this is based on human preference (“social”) rather than feedback from reality, it is always wholly individualistic and manifests as egalitarianism, or the rule that no individual can be seen as lesser than another for understanding less of reality.

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.

With diversity, Americans no longer had the mutuality necessary for civilization. Black people would look over at white people and wonder if those people were acting for the benefit of their own group, and not for the shared group created of political, economic and social boundaries. As it turns out, blood will out; people act not only for their own race, but for their own religion, ethnic group, political leaning, caste, region and class. They will, for a time, act together for so long as it is perceived that they share a common purpose. However, this does not last, and so diverse societies quickly fragment or self-destruct through endless caste warfare.

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.

How We Will Re-Segregate The World: Mitochondrial DNA Tests

Friday, October 6th, 2017

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.

Gaining Clarity On The Ethnic / Racial Question

Sunday, October 1st, 2017

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“American Nationalism” Is Civic Nationalism Rebranded

Saturday, September 30th, 2017

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.

Reminder: “Science” Is Often Fake, And Diversity Never Works

Sunday, September 3rd, 2017

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.”

As it turned out, we found out in 2011 that Gould was so wrong as to stretch credulity, causing us to think that as usual, “the Leftist cries out as he strikes you,” or accuses you of exactly what he is doing:

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.

That in turn threatens Leftism itself because the core of their ideology is based on the priestlike ability to grant redemption from “wrongs” that led to inequality, but if inequality is natural and equality is not, then there is no need for redemption:

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.

Israel Shows The Path To Ending Diversity

Sunday, September 3rd, 2017

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.

Binyamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, recently expressed nationalist ideals when he ejected migrants from a Tel Aviv suburb:

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.

Civilizational Engines

Saturday, September 2nd, 2017

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.

Recommended Reading