Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘nationalism’

How Is The Alt Right Different From “White Nationalism”?

Wednesday, August 16th, 2017

The mainstream press, deep state, Establishment, Cathedral, herd or whatever you want to call them — the agglomerate of human failure — wants to equate the Alt Right with Nazis, which as usual is a partial truth. Both Nazis and the Alt Right are nationalists who realize that democracy always tends Leftward, and so they want to junk the whole The Enlightenment™ agenda of equality and pluralism.

It is well and good enough to say that we are not Nazis, neo-Nazis or white supremacists, and while this is true, it still leaves the question of what the Alt Right believes:

I have been asked by multiple people what exactly the ideology of the alt-right is? The short answer is pragmatic nationalism. The alt-right does not really hold a set of conservative or liberal views on any one subject. The primary concern is that the policies chosen benefit America first. This means that on some issues we can side with the left and on others with the right.

The Alt Right does not have an ideology; ideologies are wishful thinking about how nature should operate according to a human-centric and reality-denying position. On the other hand, the Alt Right like conservatives are from the realist camp: we see how nature works, its patterns and the reasons why it does things the way it does, and we adapt to those and then improve ourselves so that we can attain excellence. Our goal is not to redefine reality through a human perspective, but to make humans understand reality.

However, any outlook consists of both beliefs and logical truths (I prefer the phrase “logical facts”) and the Alt Right has a few ideas of its own. These have been oversimplified by various for-profit entities like the Alt Lite, but really, we can boil the Alt Right down to a few realizations about the nature of reality:

  1. People are different. Races, ethnic groups (sometimes called ethnes), castes, social classes, sexes and even political alignments reflect differences that are genetic and inborn. You cannot make someone smarter or improve their character; people are born to a set of alignments in their soul that are expressed in outward characteristics. You can teach them to fake being intelligent or moral, but in the end, when they have power, it will reveal who they really are. Humanity succeeds when it engages in a sorting practice where the more competent rise above the rest, but egalitarianism is dedicated to the opposite idea, which is raising the less competent above the more competent so that everyone “feels” good, safe and pacifistic.
  2. Hubris versus order. In the Alt Right view, what is most important is that civilization have purpose and social order, so that the individual is appreciated for their inner traits instead of their outer traits like obedience, willingness to socialize and the pursuit of trends. We need order, which consists of a hierarchy of leadership, a caste system within society, an understanding of “natural law” or the logic and patterns of nature, and a willingness of each of us to fit within this order at the appropriate place, and not to attempt to rise above our station by pretending to be something we are not. The fundamental idea here is that external reality is more important than human intent, desires, judgments or feelings, and that we can learn from that external order and apply it to ourselves, mostly by understanding the nature of placing the best above the rest and creating hierarchy from that.
  3. Heritage. The formula goes like this: genetics is upstream of culture, and culture is upstream of politics, so for us to have a sensible political result, we need to preserve our heritage. You cannot have Western Civilization without Western European people, and no other population can “have” Western culture. The best they can do is uphold our legal and economic systems, but as we have seen in the third world already, these systems are “re-interpreted” differently by different genetic groups. And so, we reach the conclusion: we do not survive if we do not exist genetically, and if we mix with something else, that genetic profile is destroyed and we cease to exist, as the mixed-race states of the middle east show us.
  4. Entropy and Pathology. In the conventional view, there are two sides in politics, Left (egalitarian) and Right (order/hierarchy/realism/purpose). If we look more closely, however, there are only working behaviors and dysfunctional ones, and at this point we start realizing that many ideas that we have been told that we must accept like equality, pacifism, democracy, individualism, egoism, hubris, collectivism, tolerance, and equality are merely pathologies, or common mentally dysfunctional behaviors into which humans become ensnared. These mental pitfalls trap us because they are easy errors to make, but once we make the error, it is hard to admit it, and so we double down and rationalize the error as “a higher truth” instead of admitting that it was just another defective behavior like gluttony, envy, drug addiction, obesity, denial, obsession, and resentment. In this sense, our personal struggle as human beings is to use self-discipline to achieve sanity and stability, and as a society, our task is to avoid dysfunctional behaviors including Leftism, which may simply have occurred because as we became prosperous, deleterious mutations persisted instead of being filtered by Darwinism.
  5. Economics of reproduction. In order to produce good examples of our people, we need to emphasize the K-strategy of reproduction, which requires stable families. Stable families require an end to the sexual revolution, so not just chastity but an emphasis on family as the only healthy context for sexual activity. That in turn requires different but complementary sexual roles, where men and women have different duties, responsibilities and roles but work together to maintain the family and raise children to be the best that they can be.
  6. Hierarchy. Democracy, or mob rule, operates by the same mechanism as consumerism: whatever most people think is good in the moment is adopted, and then society absorbs the cost of that decision, despite the fact that most people are too far to the left on the Bell Curve to understand the implications of what they are doing, that even intelligent people can be baffled if fed bad information from an early age (GIGO), and that even good people when given the vote tend to select compromises, evasions and half-truths instead of tackling difficult problems. Like a hunting party or military group, we need a constant hierarchy, where the best people are on top and their decisions benefit everyone else. This even applies to social settings, where there need to be some people recognized as having better intelligence and moral character, and they make even seemingly trivial decisions, because those shape the behavior of the rest of us.
    1. These realizations manifest in certain desired outcomes which are designed to restore Western Civilization.

      Where the Alt Right and White Nationalism overlap is that both are nationalist, but the Alt Right has a different view: its nationalism is ethnic, works for all population groups, and is designed to let culture lead societies instead of politics. White Nationalism is more based on a defensive outlook. The outlook of the Alt Right, pan-nationalism, is based in a positive outlook, or creating a lasting, organic, resilient and durable social order.

      Pan-nationalism sees nationalism and homogeneity as a prerequisite for any society to be successful, and as a result does not target specific ethnic groups as “bad” but suggests that each ethnic group needs its own place:

      Pan-nationalism, or world nationalism, is the idea that each ethnic-cultural group (joined by language, heritage and culture) deserves its own nation. Pan-nationalism suggests that no nationalist can afford to work only for his or her own tribe, but must realize that all tribes are joined in the same quest: to bring about a nationalist order on earth. Our enemy is not each other. Our enemy is the system of “modern society” that exploits us. Our goal is to re-structure modern society to keep its good aspects (technology) and weed out its destructive aspects. This is achieved by putting culture before commerce in every nation on earth, and our method of reaching this is Pan-Nationalism.

      Nationalism is more than a political idea; it is a form of social order which bonds people to community, nature, history, heritage, customs and future:

      Nationalism develops from the idea that the nation, in contrast to the nation-state, is formed of the indigenous people to an area. It is the longest-lasting and most sensible form of government, for it groups together people who have culture, heritage and language in common. The modern nation-state imposes political boundaries on an area, moves people into it, and declares it a “nation,” but without this lack of inherent consensus such states become marketplaces instead of living cultural entities.

      Nationalism advocates a more meaningful life through a re-assertion of the organic bond between individual and society.

      In a world where human thoughtlessness in the name of enhancing personal wealth is ruining our environment and turning our lives into passages between grey concrete tunnels to fulfill ultimately meaningless tasks, nationalism is a re-assertion of the organic bond between individual and society. By placing culture before commerce, nationalism advocates a more meaningful daily life. It ends the bad judgment and ugly cities justified by someone somewhere being willing to buy something, regardless of its eventual utility or indirect, socialized costs. Nationalism makes the state serve the people, where nation-state systems make the people serve the state.

      White nationalism was an older form of pro-white activism. Its goal was to make all of the different white races equal, and within them to erase caste distinctions, much as the National Socialists aspired to in Germany. By doing this, it creates a type of “ethno-Bolshevism” that denies much of what makes people individuals, including their ethnic and regional background, family and individual traits.

      We have had enough of such modernist nonsense. The Alt Right is a movement to restore civilization in its organic form, not the managed mass culture nanny state that modernists prefer, and to do so, it reaches outside the narrow scope of white nationalism and applies nationalism in a positive form. For this reason, no matter what the media says, we are distinct and our audience prefers that.

Most People Do Not Understand Nationalism

Friday, August 11th, 2017

In one of life’s grand ironies, very few people understand nationalism, but the humorous part is that this apply especially to self-proclaimed nationalists.

We figured the “normies” — who are not actually normal people, only droid-like followers of every trend in an attempt at camouflage within the herd — would not get it right, and they have cooked up two Big Lies about nationalism which befuddle anyone clueless enough to still trust their television and newspaper:

  1. Patriotism. If you open up the average dictionary or newspaper, “nationalism” is presented to mean “strong patriotism,” or those who are really fond of their nation-state and its flag. This is a variant of the proposition nation and “magic dirt” theory which holds that anyone can be a member of a civilization if they swear the right oath to the flag, memorize the right stuff in school, obey its laws and participate in an economic system. We might call this the “shopping mall” view of citizenship: the citizens are shoppers, and as long as they do not offend the prevailing pretense, they are considered to be good people.
  2. Civic Nationalism. When analyzed, this term tends to mean the same thing as patriotism, except that there is a hint of exclusivity about it. “America First!” means “and everyone else second.” Civic nationalism has the idea of patriotism for those who are already here or doing the right thing, and everyone else can go suffer and die in whatever third world pocket of failure and Hell they can find to accept them. At the same time, it has the same basic idea as the shopping mall, only this time the cops crack down more, and they really do not care what happens at the other malls.

To that the “nationalists” — usually between HitLARPing and posting racial epithets to Reddit — add two more silly definitions:

  1. Race-Patriotism. When you replace the nation-state with race, you get race patriotism, or the idea of being loyal to your race above all else. This is unfortunate for two reasons: it offers no political concept of how society should be organized, and perhaps more dangerously, it ignores the fact that ethnic diversity is as destructive as racial diversity, both in terms of social impact and genetic effects.
  2. Culturism. In this viewpoint, culture is important but race and ethnicity are not. Those who decide to behave as part of a culture and adopt its values are accepted into that society. Some combine this with a minimal racial barrier, such as that they must be mostly of one race or ethnic group, but this seems like a formula for ethnic replacement of those groups through outbreeding. In addition, it carries overtones of “magic dirt” and patriotism, both of which impede the need for a different approach.

In the above, we have essentially race fanaticism and patriotism of varying forms. None of these address the root cause of racial displacement, which is that the civilization in question is defined not by its ethnic group, but by political constraints. This means that these are delaying tactics, not solutions, to the problems we face in our current civilization structure.

Nationalism on the other hand presents a simple idea which implicates other changes as well, although not the ones with which it is usually paired in the media. When we speak of nationalism as a philosophy or element of international politics, it takes on a meaning far from that which is reported in the press.

The meaning of the term “nationalism” is derived from “natio,” which refers to those born together from the same root. It has a singular idea: the nation is defined by the ethnic group and not politics, economic system or externally imposed “culture. Let us look into the definition of nationalism:

Nationalism, translated into world politics, implies the identification of the state or nation with the people—or at least the desirability of determining the extent of the state according to ethnographic principles.

Nationalism defines the state or civilization by ethnographic principles, which means that the group is limited to those from the founding ethnic group. This in turn implies a number of related ideas:

  1. Genetic health. If the core of the nation its its ethnic group, then that group must be kept healthy. This includes avoiding admixture with other groups, because that replaces the genetic profile — a mesh of related genetically-coded traits — with something else. It also implies some degree of eugenics, or trying to breed the best people possible, which does not mean so much “kill the bad” but “encourage the good to reproduce, and ensure they receive the power and wealth so that they do so more than others.”
  2. Culture arises from genetics. Instead of imposing culture by external means, nationalist societies are organic, which means from the simple principle of their founding, all other other necessary tenets arise, or are emergent properties of the core. For example, nationalism implies a need to put cultural sentiments first before “pragmatic” economics or political ideology. Nationalism indicates a need to provide not for individuals, but for the organic society as a whole. It also tends toward a belief in a single standard, and this is why the Left hates it, to which people adhere or they are seen as out-group. It imposes discipline, duty and responsibility on individuals through these implications. Nationalism is anti-individualistic.
  3. Traditional values are essential. Traditional values emphasize a K-strategy, or conferring social capital upon offspring and having fewer (2-7) so that they are able to be raised with this social capital. Nationalism raises the need for the family, of social order, culture, tradition, customs, education and faith as a means of providing an environment for children. Society is not oriented toward altruism and individualism under nationalism, but toward virtue and health.

The Left attacks nationalism by first demonizing it, and then corrupting it. The corruption takes the form of changing its definition such as through terms like “civic nationalism,” which is an oxymoron that means the exact opposite of what nationalism does. Nationalism is the opposite of the nation-state, which is a political and economic grouping of people instead of an ethnographic one.

The confusion arises because there is a difference between nationalism-the-theory, which has been part of civilization since the dawn of time, and nationalism-as-historic-entity, which is the first time the term was used in its modern context. The confusion can be debunked by reading the history of the rise of nationalism:

Nationalism was the most successful political force of the 19th century. It emerged from two main sources: the Romantic exaltation of “feeling” and “identity” [see Herder above all on this] and the Liberal requirement that a legitimate state be based on a “people” rather than, for example, a dynasty, God, or imperial domination. Both Romantic “identity nationalism” and Liberal “civic nationalism” were essentially middle class movements. There were two main ways of exemplification: the French method of “inclusion” – essentially that anyone who accepted loyalty to the civil French state was a “citizen”. In practice this meant the enforcement of a considerable degree of uniformity, for instance the destruction of regional languages. The US can be seen to have, eventually, adopted this ideal of civic inclusive nationalism. The German method, required by political circumstances, was to define the “nation” in ethnic terms. Ethnicity in practice came down to speaking German and (perhaps) having a German name. For the largely German-speaking Slavic middle classes of Prague, Agram etc. who took up the nationalist ideal, the ethnic aspect became even more important than it had been for the Germans. It is debateable whether, in practice, all nationalisms ended up as Chauvinistic and aggressive, but the very nature of nationalism requires that boundaries be drawn.

You can see the same divisions there that we still suffer under: the French “inclusion” and Liberal “civic nationalism” live on as patriotism and civic nationalism, and the Romantic “identity nationalism” is what actually present a challenge to the modern time. The German method of defining the nation in ethnic terms was not new to Germany, but an ancient tribalism that had protected Germany in the past.

In the 19th century, of course, these groups were cleaning up after the end of the 18th century, in which the French Revolution overthrew kings and made culture and ethnic group secondary to participation in the international cult of the worker. Nationalism did not arise as an idea in the 19th century, but was an old idea brought back to try to heal the wounds.

Interestingly enough, over time nationalism re-asserts its German roots:

At its inception, French nationalism was a more liberal form of nationalism; it advocated freedom, equality and individual rights. Then after the Franco-Prussian War (1870-1871), French nationalists took an anti-German tone, demanding the recovery of territories lost in the war.

By the late 19th century, French nationalism evolved further, with one branch becoming more ethnocentric and anti-Semitic — especially after the “Dreyfus affair,” when a French Jewish artillery officer was accused of treason. In the interwar period, this iteration of nationalism adopted fascist and anti-communist elements and came to resemble some of the nationalist ideologies of Spain, Italy and Germany.

Two things are going on here: first, anti-Semitism arises because it is a simple way of identifying the Other that is used to convey the concept to the wider middle classes. It is important not to confuse this method with its actual goal, but the more mercantile nationalists do this all the same. Establish nationalism, and the cultures separate, and there is no “Jewish question.”

Next, French nationalism is shifting from its inversion — the “liberal form of nationalism” which is basically Leftism plus patriotism — to its natural form, which is the German model, or understanding the nation as an ethnographic creation and not a democratic or mercantile one. This means that the original form was unstable and decayed to a clearer version.

As nationalists in the modern time, our only task is to understand nationalism. It means that the nation is defined by the ethnic group, and everyone else goes home. Ethnicity is more important than race. The genetic pattern that makes up an ethnicity is fragile and must be protected from all admixture, and everyone who cannot conform to this must go home.

Nationalism does not prescribe hatred of other ethnic groups, only a recognition that their interests are different. This can be maintained through mutual dislike of outbreeding and intermarriage, as was the case with European Jews up through the Dreyfuss affair, after which European Jewry demanded inclusion in order to avoid future events of this type, furthering distrust between Jews and their national hosts.

As Samuel Huntington predicted, the age of ideology has ended. People are returning to tangible, timeless, tried-and-true and most of all realistic types of social order, in which the order above the individual is more important than the individual, reversing The Enlightenment.™ For nationalism to thrive in this time, it must know what it is, not what is enemies claim it is.

What Keeps Us Back From Exploring the Stars?

Saturday, July 22nd, 2017

The path of species is clear: achieve a niche in an ecosystem, then solidify it, and at that point, seek new territory. When you have dominated the world, like flies or orchids, you know it is time for a new goal.

As it turns out, the night sky reveals one, an infinite space outside this planet. This is a convenient goal since our planet is vulnerable to comet strikes, sun implosion and other forms of instability that would terminate all life. We must take to space if we want to live for the long term.

The questions “why have we not taken to the stars?” and “why are there no aliens among us?” have the same answer. First, witness the framework to the question:

As the philosopher Nick Bostrom explains, this idea suggests there are several “evolutionary transitions or steps” that life on an Earth-like planet has to achieve before it can communicate with civilizations in other star systems. But an obstacle or barrier may make it impossible for an intelligent species like ours to get through all those steps. That would explain why we haven’t heard from or seen any other life.

In other words, there are pitfalls and thresholds that any species must overcome in order to take to the stars, and these may occur after the necessary technologies are developed.

The biggest pitfalls are on our planet: can we achieve a stable social order so that we can send people to the stars? And if we do, can we motivate them with something stronger than self-interest, so that they carry on in order that generations far removed from them are the ones who benefit? Do they have an identity strong enough to compel them to do so?

Our only hope lies in something that bonds us to past and future at a level higher than either the individual or the hive/collective. This requires a strong sense of identity and purpose, the type that only comes with national identity. Nothing else can bond us.

Most likely, civilizations all decay the same way, which is to lose site of their purpose, and therefore to include Others as a means to the ends of those in power. This keeps them from exploring the stars: they are not strongly bonded enough and fragment upon encountering the challenges of deep space.

If we wish to survive as a species, our hope lies within strongly bonded national groups who are ready to explore the stars without bringing everyone else along.

Nationalism Is Like Living On Separate Planets

Wednesday, July 5th, 2017

People (generally) have no idea what to make of Amerika. We accept racial differences, but are focused on bashing diversity itself, because in any form — with any different races — it fails. We do not really write much about black people or other groups. The term “nationalism is the opposite of racism” floats around a lot. How does all of this make any sense?

Some words from Dr. John Henrik Clarke, an early proponent of African studies, might help:

Anytime you turn on your own concept of God, you are no longer a free man. No one needs to put chains on your body, because the chains are on your mind.

Anytime someone say’s your God is ugly and you release your God and join their God, there is no hope for your freedom until you once more believe in your own concept of the “deity.”

…Where did we go wrong educationally? After the Civil War, the period called reconstruction, a period of pseudo-democracy, we began to have our own institutions, our own schools. We had no role model for a school… our own role model. So we began to imitate White schools.

Our church was an imitation of the White church. All we did is to modify the old trap. We didn’t change the images, we became more comfortable within the trap. We didn’t change the images, we changed some of the concepts of the images, but the images remained the same. So the mis-education that gave us a slave mentality had been altered. But it remained basically the same.

Nationalism is like living on separate planets. You are a supremacist for your own ethnic group, on your own continent (Europeans get two because Europe is so tiny). You do not care about other groups. Maybe you are friends with some of them, even like them and respect them; I have had this experience with many other ethnic groups. But you do not care about them, positively or negatively. Your future is your own.

You want your society to be designed by people who look like you, for people who look like you, and administered exclusively by such people. You want to see people like you in the movies, on advertisements, on the streets, and in positions of power. In fact, the only place you want to see anyone else is at hotels in coastal cities, where they visit and then depart.

This is more racist than racist, but without any of the cruelty of racism. Your people are supreme for your lands and your purposes, and everyone else has to go do their own thing according to their standards. These will vary and there is no way to compare them. What is apt in one land will be taboo or insufficient in another, but it does not matter as each group is master of itself alone.

Only through diversity does racism arise. Otherwise, healthy normal people do not really think about other countries. The general feeling is that everyone else except the founding group of the nation is incompatible with that nation, and it is best they stay away. This educated xenophobia makes sense for every group, and this is why the Left opposes it.

Civic Nationalism

Sunday, July 2nd, 2017

The term “civic nationalism” has become a popular synonym for Alt Lite or libertarian views. It means that if you have American citizenship, and behave according to our rough values system, you are an “American” just like anyone whose ancestors came over on the Mayflower.

What is hilarious about this is that it reverses the definition of nationalism, which is the exact opposite of citizenship-based inclusion. “Civic Nationalism” is not nationalism at all and in fact is an oxymoron.

Actual nationalism — despite what all Leftist sources want to tell you — means those who are of the same tribe, the ethnicity that founded a nation, are the only ones who should be considered citizens of that nation:

Ancient sources affirm a commonsense definition of nationalism which pre-dates the modern use of the term in combination with the nation state, and constitute the awareness of nationalism, through “nation” or “those born together,” since the dawn of civilization:

The kinship of all Greeks in blood and speech, and the shrines of gods and the sacrifices that we have in common, and the likeness of our way of life. – Herodotus, Histories, 8.144.2

Nationalism supports ethnic self-determination, meaning that any group which combines culture (customs, learning, art, oral histories) with heritage (ethnicity, race, tribal identity) is allowed to “define” its own borders, laws, and cultural change.

“Civic nationalism” was something cooked up by Steve Bannon to troll the bovine media. He recognized that these people have no classical education, are barely familiar with history and literature, and have almost no engagement with philosophy, so as long as he comes up with a new phrase, they will go away and leave him alone.

In addition, he got to punk every single source in the media and blogosphere that used the phrase “civic nationalism” and took it seriously. All of them have no idea what they are talking about. “Civic nationalism” is like flypaper for idiots, and they cannot resist its call.

If you translate it to its actual meaning, “civic nationalism” is a form of patriotism, which is the opposite of nationalism. Only in a country where people think the castes are equal, and depend on public education, could such comedy pass for knowledge.

No Place Nowhere

Thursday, June 29th, 2017

Where is home?

This simple question requires many answers: home may be a house, in a town or city, within a nation, as part of a civilization, during a certain time. All of those support structures are required before an individual can make a house into a “home,” a process too complex and nuanced to be trusted to men.

Civilization is important to humans because we depend on group collaboration to have more than the utter basics of life. And yet, we study it very little, in part because like most really big questions in life, it scares us into silence.

On the Right, we fight this battle to understand civilization through an issue that is currently shaping the discourse of the future. This battle is the conflict between nationalism, racialism and patriotism. These are easily understood:

  • Nationalism. Loyalty to tribe or ethnicity, and recognize that genetics produces culture and that produces political and social opinions, so keeping the tribe unadulterated is essential.
  • Racialism. This is like nationalism, but replaces “the tribe or ethnicity” with “the race.” At this point, one is defending the interests of one of the four root races, which since it is distant from origins becomes more like ideology.
  • Patriotism. Loyalty to the state, the flag, and the political interests of the nation-state — a country made of political and economic, not racial or ethnic, boundaries — with a focus on laws and ideology.

At this point, those on the Right are learned to disregard patriotism. Mainstream conservatives essentially lulled themselves into a compliant stupor by focusing more on the government than the organic nation which was responsible for its success. Now that this group is under attack, many more are looking more seriously at the idea that genetics, not laws or finances, are the root of our future.

Many know something has gone wrong and that their people are under attack, but have no idea how to define who their people are because they no longer share a culture or customs, so they default to race. This is a good start, but it ends up removing focus on the nation, or the organic group created together from the same root, such as “Germans.”

As a result, we are seeing the next wave of thinking appear: a focus on specific groups instead of whole races. For example, American Nativists — those who think America should be Western European — have been separating not just from other races, but from Southern and Eastern Europeans, causing clusters in the New World which resemble the geography of the old.

In addition, other racial and ethnic groups are realizing that they, too, need a home. Until they live in a society which is created by them for people like them, with their rules and standards, protecting their values and culture, they are never truly at home. While this is more existential than practical, it touches on some of the most vital concerns that people have, even more than wealth or safety.

The result is that balkanization of the USA and EU will likely involve repatriation more than anything else. Liberal democracy is dying, and with it will go the social welfare programs. At that point, there is nothing for other groups here but conflict, and their homelands — which may be less affluent — will become more appealing.

People do not understand DNA. They treat it like an Excel spreadsheet, where on each line one gene corresponds to many traits. It is more like computer code, where each bit describes how to build a human being with proteins, which act both as building materials and instigators of the chemical reactions that change them. When you hear about how some group is 99% or 97% similar to another, stop and think: would you let someone insert enough code to be 1% of your operating system, into your computer, especially if it — for example — controlled your heart monitor in a hospital? You would be insane to do so; the differences between us seem small, but are vaster than anyone can count.

For this reason, our minds turn toward the tangible and immediately discernible. It is a good thing to be from a tribe that does not look like any others, tied to a specific place, in a society made by your people for your people with an eye toward existing for all eternity. This is the only way to have a home.

Modernity failed Europeans in this way. Our lands were taken over by an ideology, egalitarianism, that made them not dedicated to us and the organic living thing called culture and civilization to which we belong, but instead directed them toward that ideology. This created a new priesthood of ideologues who, being concerned only with that ideology, quickly destroyed our sense of well-being by making society into a mechanistic, neurotic, perverse, greedy/selfish, paranoid and pathological mess. Technology is not modernity; “me first” is modernity, and it always leads to chaos and misery.

This is why Europeans stopped reproducing. We do not have a home, no place for ourselves, and no somewhere where we really belong from now until the end of time. We are adrift, surrounded by bad options and cruel manipulators, but our fellow citizens are so stupid that they keep selecting these people and then patting themselves on the back for having done so! Perhaps is true that as Alfred Einstein reputedly said, “There are only two infinite things, the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the former.”

Our stupidity has killed us. Our best, looking at this mess, checked out long ago and went to live lonely childless lives on meditative mountaintops or whatever equivalent they could find. Our sane and brilliant people abandoned technology, art and literature to glorified baristas who do not know how to use it without destroying good things. The talented fled leadership and official positions.

As it all spirals down into dust, we should ask ourselves whether we are ready to admit that life is made mostly of mystery, and what we can do best is to create a home for ourselves, and send other groups off to do the same, because this order is — existentially, spiritually, morally, mentally — best for everyone, and will result in a return of human thriving.

Family World Order

Tuesday, June 27th, 2017

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

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

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

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

  • Health risks
  • Security risks
  • System risks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, June 22nd, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why There Is No “White Race”

Monday, June 19th, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nationalism For All Peoples Is A Failed Ideology

Saturday, June 17th, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommended Reading