Posts Tagged ‘nationalism’
Wednesday, February 22nd, 2017
Based on past experiences with the biased and dogmatic lügenpresse, it made no sense to expect The Guardian to do any better, since it is well known as a Leftist mouthpiece that occasionally publishes useful environmental articles.
But The Guardian‘s recent attack on LD50 art gallery goes beyond even the usual flagrant violations of professional ethics and journalistic quality that are the hallmark of the lügenpresse:
This weekend, artists and campaigners will protest calling for the closure of LD50, in Dalston, east London, after accusations the gallery gave a platform to anti-immigrant, Islamophobic and “alt-right” figures and promoted “hate speech not free speech”.
Guests at LD50’s Neoreaction conference last summer included Brett Stevens, the white supremacist whose writing was an inspiration to Oslo far-right terrorist Anders Breivik, who murdered 77 people in 2011.
After Breivik’s attack, Stevens wrote: “I am honored to be so mentioned by someone who is clearly far braver than I, no comment on his methods, but he chose to act where many of us write, think and dream.”
The thing is, we need a term for what they are doing here. We understand what it means when Leftists virtue signal, which means to demonstrate their own goodwhite cred by acting symbolically, akin to politicians kissing babies or big business buying a herring snack for Shamu the whale so they can continue to pollute the other 364 days of the year.
But what they are doing here is something new, and it should be called taboo tagging, because you can tell that these journalists were typing away furiously to see how many terms that signal “socially unacceptable ideas” — a proxy for non-Leftist ideas, in our Leftist time — they can load into the article and associate with the gallery or this poor Brett Stevens guy.
Let us do a quick count:
- “Alt-right” (the quotes mean something dubious, fraudulent).
- Hate speech.
- White supremacist.
What a handy bundle of words to scare away the middle class and convince them that, whatever it is they are, they are not anything like these horrible people. A basket of deplorables, indeed. But that is not fact; it is innuendo. And if they had taken the time to review the data — cribbed mostly from articles by Leftist groups attacking art gallery LD50 (who responded magnificently) — they would have realized these are not facts at all, but politically biased defamation because their inaccuracy is so great.
Now, in their defense, much of this occurs because the news has been in a slow downward cycle over the past fifty years. When there were only magazines, newspapers and radio being a newsman was a pretty good gig. The money was not terrible and the respect was high. But then television, cable and the internet entered the picture and now the news is basically clickbait grasping for decreasing ad revenue. Somewhere in here the media opted to shift its focus to its most fervent consumers, who tend to be young and left-leaning, and drove the regular middle class away as a result, making its plight even worse. So an article like this was probably composed in under an hour with extensive borrowing because how else will The Guardian pump out enough clickbait to stay afloat for another quarter?
However, they get a few things wrong.
- I am not a white supremacist. Some say we should “own” Left-terms like racist, sexist, etc. but to me, language is based on accuracy and I dislike inaccuracy to a great degree. For that reason, it must be clarified here that I am not a racist or white supremacist, but a nationalist who argues for ethno-nationalism locally and race patriotism or favoritism toward others of the same race culturally, but who also wants the same for other groups. White supremacy would entail me thinking that other groups are inferior and need to be subjugated by whites, and would be a form of “ethno-bolshevism” for white people; I oppose this because it violates nationalism because it is a form of diversity, and diversity, as we all know, fails everywhere it is tried, even within the same racial group.
- I am fond of Anders Breivik for reasons other than what they surmised. Most Right-wingers who turn to violence and are aware of the white genocide issue tend to go out and shoot some of the Other; I praised Breivik because instead, he shot the members of Us who had turned to Leftism, and so raised the cost of being a Leftist and drove people away from participating in that pathological cultlike gang of civilization-wreckers. Breivik (read his manifesto including one of my writings) showed us humane anti-internationalist terrorism: he shot the people responsible — white liberals — rather than the symptoms and tools of their perfidy, the non-whites brought in by the white Leftists.
- This is part of a pattern on Amerika. It will never make me friends, but I attack the tendency of some on the Right to scapegoat when the actual enemy is within: we did this to ourselves, through an individualism which became collectivized, creating a solipsistic society, which has then engendered a number of symptoms of its failure, including Leftism, consumerism, mob rule, diversity and a rather disgusting attention whoring egoism. Black people, The Jew,™ African-Americans, Muslims, The Rich,™ and Freemasons did not “do this to us.” We did it to us. We have met the enemy, and he is us. We have to change ourselves, and stop being individualistic so that we can (instead) focus on eternal and transcendental truths, and use those to understand how to restore the fallen Western Civilization. This is too complicated for prime-time TV and is why this blog is not as popular as it could be on the Right.
- Even if I were a gay multiracial Communist, I would still support LD50 gallery. Although I have been writing about Right-wing issues for over two decades, my original crusade was back in the 1980s against censorship. My view is that no views should be taboo, but should be aired and explored with as close to a neutral and un-emotional mind as possible; some of this comes from my studies in Hinduism, which emphasizes this kind of egoless ultra-analytical viewpoint. LD50 is allowing ordinary people to explore an artistic vision of ideas that, because they are outside of the socially acceptable, are taboo but might offer solutions. After all, history is one big pattern of people finally turning to previously taboo ideas and finding new solutions, realizing belatedly that the taboos were mere herd conformity designed to hold them back.
Let us dig deeper into this lügenmess:
Alongside the conference, the gallery hosted an art exhibition titled Amerika, which explored far-right and Nazi imagery and featured video works of far-right and neoreactive texts being read out by avatars. A pink swastika was graffitied onto the gallery front door last week.
Writing on his ultra-conservative blog, Amerika.org – which is directly linked to on the gallery’s website – Stevens said the neoreaction conference had been held behind a “veil of secrecy to prevent the usual suspects (Leftists and other neurotics) from attacking”.
Ultra-conservative… oooh, I really like the sound of that. This part is probably accurate; it is ultra-conservative, but not for the sake of being extreme, cool, whatever, etc. This is where looking into human psychology for several decades gets you. You end up realizing that history is a shuttling between order/sanity and disorder/insanity, and that the good years come when we accept that humanity is a problem best tamed by aristocracy, caste, nationalism and transcendental goals and that nothing else — especially neurotic liberal democracy — is going to work. The rest of the world has actually realized this, at a gut level, but they are afraid to admit the fall of illusions so there is a massive global tantrum at the dying of this now-aged order.
Will someone please say “ultra-conservative” again, perhaps with a sneering cosmopolitan accent and soft hands that have never cut wood? Yes, yes, that is wonderful. If you can just keep doing that, it is like a backrub to my soul.
For several decades, I have been interested in one question: how do I restore Western Civilization? I started from a center-Left perspective, then went toward deep ecology, and influenced by black metal, Nietzsche and Houellebecq, drifted Rightward and finally found a center there. I describe myself as a “moderate extremist”: someone who wants extremely practical answers, but on a ten thousand year scale and applied with zeal and verve so that they are actually effective instead of being merely symbolic.
If you had asked me back at the start of this journey whether I wanted to end up on the far right, my answer would have been quick and profane. Of course not! But when one follows logical facts, instead of relying on observations of details that are partially correct and labeled “facts,” and reads a bit of history and philosophy, it becomes clear that the picture is bigger than what we are being told. This means that our society has failed, the fools are in charge, and everything they say is a lie, so we must look beyond the taboo, and that is what I have done.
I have zero regrets. The individual has no power in this world except to think, gain clarity on what is actually happening, and then act toward a restoration of sanity and a society that can exceed all of our experiences and expectations so far, even if that act is merely writing. I realize this puts me on the wrong side of the power structure that exists now, but clearly it is failing, and not because people disagree with it but — on the contrary — because enough people agreed with it that it could act out its ideology, and the results especially for the past seventy years have been terrible.
So, good luck to you over at The Guardian in attempting to understanding this web of thoughts and their derivation. But you should take away one thing, and that is that when you try to create a bogeyman, you miss what is actually there. I am a person just like you, concerned about the same things, and possibly gifted of some insights, I have taken a different path than everyone else who is following the illusion of modernity into the (now deep) grave of Western Civilization. Buy my book. Listen to our podcast. Thanks for reading, and toodles.
Wednesday, February 22nd, 2017
There is no reason to assume that just because you have chosen a sane position on an issue that you are sane in everything else you decide. In fact, most likely, the choice of a sane issue is the anomaly and you will become an agent of introducing the opposite viewpoint into your new point of view because you never understood why you took it on.
Even those who have learned that diversity is a path to doom usually miss the point: instead of blaming diversity, they target specific groups, which exonerates diversity itself.
The problem with this is that diversity has many effects that are independent of the groups involved:
- Loss of trust. Researchers found that diversity creates lowered social trust and destroys a sense of community even among people of the same ethnic group. When you cannot anticipate what another person values and intends as their purpose, all people become “super-anonymous” in that their motivation is entirely unknown, thus they are untrustworthy by definition, and so everyone hunkers down in their homes and ignores the world, which then decays in the resulting apathy.
- No standards. A society designed to be facilitative, or to fulfill the needs of individuals instead of the group or the principles of its culture, expands to fit the values of its people. When multiple groups are dumped into this population, it reduces its values to the lowest common denominator because that alone will enclose the many different values systems within it. This means it cannot set any standards, but is driven in the opposite direction, resulting in a condition where none of the groups in the society get the standards, values systems and moral baselines that they desire. Every group acts in self-interest, but with diversity, those self-interests clash and tear society apart.
- Egalitarianism/Tyranny. When a society becomes even a tiny bit diverse, cooperation falls apart because people are no longer working toward the same purpose using the same principles. Even more, they may have different abilities. This requires that the civilization enforce equality in order to avoid internal competition leading to social dissolution. This then removes the most promising people from that society because they, in reacting badly to both diversity and equality, are ideological enemies of the society even if they are the only ones noticing its fatal flaw.
- Loss of Identity. When a group of people can see that they have a common origin, are related like a big family, are ruled by leaders and ideas of their own creation, and share a common purpose, they have a sense of identity and can cooperate toward maintenance of a civilization and furtherance of its goals. Without this identity, the only option left is control, or forcing everyone to obey the same bureaucratic process so that government achieves its aims in the name of the citizens, because with nothing in common people are like most employees, not particularly committed to results as much as the appearance of conformity.
- Genocide. People choose partners when young and often make thoughtless choices unless guided by those around them toward the group of people most likely to provide good mates. Couple that with the lowered self-confidence of someone who grows up without identity in a distrustful society, and you have a formula for miscegenation, or racial hybridization. Instead of keeping the best traits of each race, this process erodes all unique traits and creates a generic beige-grey population, replacing the original. This is a form of “soft genocide.”
Throughout history, the most likely fate of white populations has been to have civilization collapse and then, in the ensuing diversity, to be hybridized with Asiatics. This is what happened in Southern Europe, Israel and Eastern Europe.
Having Asian immigrants among us is a joy on some levels because the high Asians (Chinese, Korean, Japanese) do not commit the crime we associate with brown groups. However, those are Asians too, or at least Arabs and Amerind indios are, having similar rates of crime to Vietnamese and Filipino communities.
But even if we had nothing but high-IQ Chinese, Korean and Japanese immigrants, over time the inevitable would happen. The races would mix a little, then a lot more, since there would be nothing left to conserve. And so we would become erased, in the process losing the traits that made each ethnic group powerful, leaving behind generic people with generic abilities.
Luckily, diversity can be easily reversed. Like any other failed government policy, we remove the laws and institutions that perpetuate it, clean up the mess as best as we can, and move forward instead of staying in holding pattern with a failed idea.
Monday, February 20th, 2017
Nationalism was restyled as “racism” by Leftists who wanted ideology to replace culture, family, religion, heritage and morality. This leaves us in a time where most people believe that nationalism is about one race being superior to others.
In reality, Nationalism means that each ethnic group needs command of itself so that it can direct its future, establish its own laws and cultural standards, and work for the benefit of its people. This contrasts the modern idea that sees people as a means to political and economic ends, and wants to standardize them for convenience of control.
One African-descended writer recently expressed Nationalism as independence from all other tribes, even in thought:
The day I know the black man is free, is when we can write and speak for ourselves without inciting unnecessary hate or love for that matter, for whiteness. The day we feel our words hold power all on their own without a single reference, positive or negative, about whiteness. Kind of like the same maturity required to go on a date without talking about your ex. You’ve written a lot of word to in essence say you don’t care about what white people think or say about whatever the show is going to be about. But in writing it at all you already show just the opposite.
…You are not doing us a favor by insisting that all of the black experience for over 1.5billion people all over the world who have a darker skin tone, can be reduced to one moment in our history 200 years ago. A moment that by perpetuating endlessly, you and others like yourself, imprison us to. You cant say you don’t care about something when it’s all you talk about. We don’t need you or shows like this attempting to defend us or claiming to speak or write on all our behalf. We are not a hive mind and we are not all stricken by this black slavery PTSD thing that leaves you triggered and shooting articles from the hip at every thing white people do or say about one arguable poorly conceived title.
No ethnic group really exists when it must define itself in terms of other groups, but diversity forces this on all groups because of the question of whether to accept assimilation into a beige-grey cultureless race and reap the benefits of the economic and political system, or resist it and be outsiders much like Black Panthers, La Raza, Kahanists and White Power groups have been in democratic societies.
In this sense Nationalism is independence for the group from the dominant trend toward entropy that occurs through miscegenation, cultural dissolution through ideology, and other “right” ideas that humans idealize because they emphasize individualism. Nationalism rejects individualism and replaces it with the idea of shared purpose and meaning, but it cannot do that in the presence of Others.
For this reason, all who are Nationalist are joined in the same fight, even if they are from groups that consider themselves enemies or if they are accepting of some groups (“model minorities”). The problem is not the other groups; the problem is diversity. Very few can wrap their head around that argument, but more can do it now that over two decades ago when I was first writing about it.
Saturday, February 18th, 2017
6 And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, who were weeping before the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
7 And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand;
8 And he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel.
9 And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand.
10 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
11 Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned my wrath away from the children of Israel, while he was zealous for my sake among them, that I consumed not the children of Israel in my jealousy.
12 Wherefore say, Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace:
13 And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel.
It is harder to find a clearer statement against miscegenation. When the tribes are mixed, they lose what makes them unique, and what replaces them is a beige-grey cultureless race that loses out on the specialized traits that made each tribe powerful. As a result, it reduces the beauty in the world and increases ugliness.
No wonder a just and genius God might be wrathful against that.
The Leftists changed the history books to claim that Nationalism arose in the 19th century, when in fact it has been the default state of humankind since the dawn of time. That occurs for a simple reason: tribalism works. It is more efficient to have similar people moving toward the same purpose according to the same principles, than to have to debate each detail of the process.
Even more, tribalism allows a group to break away and develop itself more than others, thus rise to greater heights. Without tribalism, the most productive human groups in all races would not exist. Violating that would incur the wrath of an intelligent god as well.
As the fog of equality is removed from our eyes, people are moving away from the thinking that the individual is the center of the universe, and moving closer to the idea that our success is determined as much by context as ourselves.
Saturday, February 11th, 2017
Nationalism has become confused because we live in an anti-nationalist age. With the advent of equality, any constraints on the individual — culture, race, heritage, ethnic group, religion, values, family — were rejected in favor of the ideology of equality.
But, as we try to rediscover the methods that work in any age, including nationalism, we must rediscover what it means to be of a tribe. This leads to confusion: is our tribe our national group, or European-descended peoples generally, or “whites”?
The answer is simple. We are many identities, and the one we use depends on how close the question at hand is to our heart. That is, we will be part of many groups at once, but those which are smallest or most specific will be the ones we go to in times of confusion.
Dr. Tomislav Sunic writes about ethnic confusion:
In this sense American nationalists, such as they are in their current historical and social context, deserve credit for attributing a lesser role, to say their German, Irish, or Italian heritage, and focus instead more intensely on the imperative to protect and preserve this common bio-cultural heritage. European small-time nationalisms, with a flurry of national identities of sorts, inherited from the 20th century, must no longer play a crucial role in our new identity building process.
…As witnessed in the artificial state of Yugoslavia, despite all the former academic paeans about the alleged romantic diversity of its former constituent peoples, this composite state made up of different peoples and religions ended in chaos and brutal civil war.
Here we see a duality: (1) national/tribal identity should surrender to racial identity, and (2) artificial states do not work. Another take might argue that the latter applies to the former, and as a result, we cannot create a binary decision tree regarding nationalism. Instead, we must accept that both are true.
Race alone is not enough to form unity; ethnic groups can fight for themselves, and fight for Europe, and in fact natively do this when not interrupted by democracy. This is why it makes sense to see a “cascading” identity, such that one can be first of a local group, next of an ethnic group, then of a type of European, then European, then white, then human and so on…
For example, someone from Southern France is first of his locality or tribe, then of his region, then of the ethnicity “French” which is also the nation, then of the Southern European meta-tribe, then finally of European heritage and more broadly, “white” or Caucasian, as the linguistic demands of the situation demand.
We cannot ask people to sacrifice any part of their identity, nor does it make sense to merge different groups instead the same identity. Work together without become a grey (but white!) mass.
Thursday, February 9th, 2017
Nationalists of all ethnic groups are finding out that they have a desire for ethnic self-rule in common:
Firstly, both sides represent the alpha traits of their respective races. Hoteps represent that for blacks and Alt-Right for whites. The Left is quite feminine in their approach whereas they like to cry, complain, and protest but never actually want to do anything for themselves. Hotep and Alt-right want to do for self. They want independence.
…The far-left blacks want to cry for white acceptance from so-called white supremacy. They want white awards at white award shows and white pity. Hotep wants nothing to do with these moral victories as you cannot build a nation upon a foundation of emotions.
…Blacks are the enablers of white supremacy. Power is the child of strong economics. White power is sustained by black economics. Until blacks reverse the economics back in their favor, they will be oblivious to their enslavement.
This argument provides an importance piece of the puzzle: until an ethnic group has command over itself and its own means of support, it is dependent on others, which even if racially benevolent, is a form of paternalism. This means that the group will never come into its own and direct its future.
Alert readers may note that Amerika has championed this view for two decades. Nationalism is the idea that a nation is defined by its founding ethnic group, and that it needs control of itself to keep the group healthy. All Nationalists want the same thing, which is nationalism for all groups. Diversity does not work, and fails everyone equally.
Nationalists have recognized this fundamental truth for decades and even for centuries. We are working for the same thing, which is a place for nationalism in the world, instead of a multicultural world order where all nations are of mixed heritage.
Monday, February 6th, 2017
“History repeats itself” and “history is cyclic” are nice ways of saying that the basics of adaptation are well-known, and humanity alternates between accepting reality and embarking on multi-century tantrums which end up making it weaker. In this sense, human survival is a struggle between the realist and the delusional, with the latter having much higher numbers.
If we look to an era that ours is repeating, we are tempted by many historical moments. The Left wants us to believe that we are in Weimar Germany, prepared for the rise of Adolf Hitler 2.0b. Many people think we might be somewhere in the last two centuries of Rome and Athens, but moving much faster. These may be true, but they will be filtered through a more proximate target.
The 1820s-1840s were a turbulent time for America. Having established itself, the new nation promptly re-created itself through the Constitution, and in rapid sequence lost its second revolution, then embarked on a disastrous plan of importing Southern/Irish Europeans to use as labor to shore up its wealthiest entities. The experts agreed this was good; the “common man” — who was really uncommon — revolted.
Brexit/Trumprise shows us the same phenomenon at work: in trouble, we are relying on immigration to keep our Ponzi economy and debt burden going. The experts all agree this is good because, well, their income and position depend on it. The uncommon men, or the small segment of those who have leadership capacity which comprises one-quarter of the one-fifth in our society who do 80% of everything, have united briefly on a cultural change: we no longer trust the ideology of the past.
These transitions have happened before:
Wilsonians, meanwhile, also believed that the creation of a global liberal order was a vital U.S. interest, but they conceived of it in terms of values rather than economics. Seeing corrupt and authoritarian regimes abroad as a leading cause of conflict and violence, Wilsonians sought peace through the promotion of human rights, democratic governance, and the rule of law. In the later stages of the Cold War, one branch of this camp, liberal institutionalists, focused on the promotion of international institutions and ever-closer global integration, while another branch, neoconservatives, believed that a liberal agenda could best be advanced through Washington’s unilateral efforts (or in voluntary conjunction with like-minded partners).
The disputes between and among these factions were intense and consequential, but they took place within a common commitment to a common project of global order. As that project came under increasing strain in recent decades, however, the unquestioned grip of the globalists on U.S. foreign policy thinking began to loosen. More nationalist, less globally minded voices began to be heard, and a public increasingly disenchanted with what it saw as the costly failures the global order-building project began to challenge what the foreign policy establishment was preaching.
…But Donald Trump sensed something that his political rivals failed to grasp: that the truly surging force in American politics wasn’t Jeffersonian minimalism. It was Jacksonian populist nationalism.
Even this article is wrong. Donald Trump has a Jacksonian approach, and is currently advocating “populist nationalism” in the way this article hopes to con you into using it, namely “civic nationalism,” but he and Steve Bannon are European-style nationalists: a nation is defined by its ethnic group, and that group unites itself through identity, culture, values, religion, customs and other organic institutions.
As usual, the voters go to sleep as soon as given an excuse to do so. Someone tells them pleasant lies, so they vote for them, and when everything turns out badly the monkeys split into bickering camps so that each person has someone to blame for his own poor decision-making. Instead of acknowledging this cycle, they pretend to “fix” it with increasing doses of dogma.
Once the voters have slept for some time, government unleashes the fact that it is a self-interested corporation, and that it makes profit by having the broadest possible mandate it can muster. Saving the poor? Good. Fostering equality between the classes? Better. Uniting all of the races into a single world based in consumerism and socialism? Best!
The powers-that-be-for-now do not understand that Trump is a rejection of politics itself and its replacement with strong leadership and social hierarchy:
Trump’s remarks suggest he is using the same tough and blunt talk with world leaders that he used to rally crowds on the campaign trail.
The people of the West have seen the face of ideology, finally, and they do not like it. As a result, a cultural wave has risen up against the experts in the city and their conjectural ideology. Instead of targeting the ideology directly, this wave targets the idea of ideology — altruism, equality, big government, the basic goodness of humankind — and subverts it with mockery and replaces it with minimalistic function.
In this way, it differs from the Jeffersonian desire for simplicity and replaces it with a Jacksonian functionalism. This is a realist revolution, much as Brexit is. The experts are simply wrong because they exist in an echo chamber and an ivory tower. It is time for those who work with their hands, whether metaphorically or not, to re-inherit the West and reform it away from an inertial path to certain suicide.
Wednesday, February 1st, 2017
In any debate, the party making the first move has the advantage because they define the terms and assumptions that will be used in the debate. They do this by introducing them first and “framing” them, or orienting them toward a certain goal and imposing specific boundaries, which then forces others to react to those terms instead of arguing for their own affirmative position. It forces others into passivity.
This is what the Left has done to the Right since the Great Division after the French Revolution. They define terms, and the Right reacts, trying to recapture the initiative while doing so only in the methods provided by Leftist terminology. No wonder they did not succeed.
We can see the Leftist term-framing attack — a passive-aggressive introduction to circular reasoning — in the wild with the book A Racial Program For The Twentieth Century, written by a Communist to urge others to attack:
We must realize that our Party’s most powerful weapon is racial tension. By propounding into the consciousness of the dark races, that for centuries have been oppressed by the whites, we can mold them to the program of the Communist Party … In America, we will aim for subtle victory.
While enflaming the Negro minority against the Whites, we will instill in the Whites a guilt complex for the exploitation of the Negroes. We will aid the Negroes to rise to prominence in every walk of life, in the professions, and in the world of sports and entertainment. With this prestige, the Negroes will be able to intermarry with the Whites, and begin a process which will deliver America to our cause.
The point of this move is classic Leftism: they are going to do something crazy so that non-Leftists will rush in to try to save the day, which will entrap them either as cucks (bipartisans, neoconservatives) or as spergs (reactionaries and other extremists) but either way, dominate the Right by forcing it to adopt a Leftist narrative.
A better way to view this is that we must redefine the narrative for ourselves. The Left says that this is Negroes-Versus-Whites, so by definition, that cannot be true. They will have defined the issue falsely narrowly so that we act to our disadvantage. This means that the issue is always wider than the Left portrays and so an instant losing move is to agree to their definitions.
This means that any variant of the Negroes-Versus-Whites narrative is by definition going to play into the hands of the Left, eventually.
Similarly, the Jews-Versus-Aryans narrative created a situation where whites could either be victims or victimizers, but not victors.
Our goal on the Alt Right is to throw away the rulebook and the Leftist definitions, framing and restrictions on our thought. We must look to the real issue: if nationalism makes thriving societies, why is it taboo in our own dwindling preserve?
Wednesday, February 1st, 2017
An article in Evolutionary Psychological Science signals that mainstream science is accepting Human Biological Diversity (HBD) including the ever-controversial subset of that field which recognizes that psychology is shaped by genetics like any other physical trait:
Humans migrated out of Africa at least 50,000 years ago and occupied many different ecological and climatological niches. Because of this, they evolved slightly different anatomical and physiological traits. For example, Tibetans evolved various traits that help them cope with the rigors of altitude; similarly, the Inuit evolved various traits that help them cope with the challenges of a very cold environment. It is likely that humans also evolved slightly different psychological traits as a response to different selection pressures in different environments and niches. One possible example is the high intelligence of the Ashkenazi Jewish people.
This is nothing short of revolutionary: a respected publication and mainstream writers are endorsing what HBD writers have said for years. HBD was only controversial because it violates the idea of equality, or that all people are basically the same and that they make choices not based on genetics but instead because of their all-powerful intent and “free will.”
Instead we are now back to recognizing the basics of Darwinism: that genetic coding positively defines our traits, or abilities that we can develop, where environmental influences mostly negatively define traits, such as fetal alcohol syndrome making people slow and slightly crazy. This rejects every thought derived from The Enlightenment,™ including that people are “equal” on some level other than “roughly the same size.”
Naturally, there is fear of the big un-democratic bad guys being imported into science as a result of this — eugenics, nationalism and caste systems — so the researchers make some disclaimers about ethics:
Frank discussions of such differences among human groups have provoked strong ethical concerns in the past. We understand those ethical concerns and believe that it is important to address them. However, we also believe that the benefits of discussing possible human population differences outweigh the costs.
These are not nonsense however. Medicine has reached a brick wall because the “average” patient, especially in a multi-ethnic caste-mixed democracy, does not exist. Instead, targeted medicine is the future, and this requires being genetically literate about who the patient is, including about the risks that patient faces.
However, there are also political implications. When our ideology requires us to consider people as “equal” in fact as well as in political access, then certain ideas become taboo. Even the possibility of genetic differences — between class, which is most taboo, and sex, and race — constitutes a threat to the ideological narrative of the ruling order, and must be punished. The last 20 years have shown us that idea in full flower.
With a recognition of biological differences, Leftists fear that people will desire freedom of association again. This means roughly that “birds of a feather [can] flock together” and they are not required to subsidize each other. With this, the diversity empire fragments.
The problem for Leftists is that nature is racist because tribalism is more efficient than trying to vet every other organism one encounters. Nature is rife with predators and worse, parasites, and so the organism that is able to recognize its own is able to save massively on its energy budget for self-defense.
As science moves toward recognizing the possibility of human biodiversity, it is also inching toward recognition of an important update to Darwinism: the organisms that thrive are those which conserve energy to dedicate toward improvement of offspring, improving quality instead of quantity, and these are by nature tribal to avoid wasting energy on potential threats.
Sunday, January 22nd, 2017
In the midst of an otherwise maudlin article about race and privilege, an African-descended writer discovers the joys of uniformity, which although admitted in a backhand way, speak favorably for the sanity of nationalism:
The crew of boys leaning against it and joshing each other were recognizable; different faces, similar stories. I was astonished at how safe the streets felt to me, once again one black body among many, no longer having to anticipate the many ways my presence might instill fear and how to offer some reassuring body language. Passing police cars were once again merely passing police cars. Jamaican police could be pretty brutal, but they didn’t notice me the way American police did. I could be invisible in Jamaica in a way I can’t be invisible in the United States.
Walking had returned to me a greater set of possibilities. And why walk, if not to create a new set of possibilities? Following serendipity, I added new routes to the mental maps I had made from constant walking in that city from childhood to young adulthood, traced variations on the old pathways. Serendipity, a mentor once told me, is a secular way of speaking of grace; it’s unearned favor. Seen theologically, then, walking is an act of faith. Walking is, after all, interrupted falling. We see, we listen, we speak, and we trust that each step we take won’t be our last, but will lead us into a richer understanding of the self and the world.
In Jamaica, I felt once again as if the only identity that mattered was my own, not the constricted one that others had constructed for me.
When among our own, identity is natural and evident. Even if the situation is less than ideal, the rules make sense and we can anticipate them. Under diversity, we are all kept in a cycle of distrust and uncertainty, which while it benefits government — which is strengthened as a result — creates existential misery in a population which over time, becomes a form of self-destruction.
The history of white people in America can be understood through this lens. Since its founding days, America has struggled with diversity, first of Amerinds and then of Africans, finally of the whole world coming through our doors. This has lessened social trust and forced white Americans into a custodial role where they serve longer and longer hours to subsidize and manage the rest.
An alternative view of this situation is that it shows a society which has lost purpose and so, is trying to make its citizens happy through increased wealth. Since that has failed, it is time for a different angle, starting with a sense of what is comfortable, natural and capable of bringing joy to our citizens. That cannot be found in diversity.