Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘pan-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.

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.

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.

They Cannot Assimilate

Tuesday, April 4th, 2017

Another terrorist attack, or three (one attempted). Another series of prayers, playing “Imagine” on out-of-tune pianos, piling up flowers and stuffed animals where the blood once pooled, and political speeches about how these terrorists will not damage our democracy and freedom. And then, nothing, except more reminders that we need to protect Muslims from racial animus in response to these attacks.

As in most times of confusion, people are focusing on what social groups reward them for instead of truth. Those who repeat the dominant ideology get ahead; those who do not, or oppose it, are pushed aside. It is thus logically correct to follow the herd. And so, all of our “facts,” news, politicians, experts, professors, scientists and writers are fake; their assumptions are lies and so all that follows must be.

This puts us in the unenviable position of having to wake up, make our way upstream against the current, and use unapproved methods — such as logic itself — to understand our world. Everything else resembles houses built on loose sand, falling down with the slightest shift, and so dedicated to stability even if it means affirming insanity as truth.

Let us apply logical fact to the question of class warfare, diversity, immigration and nationalism; contrary to what our wise leaders tell us, these are the same question.

Those who care for themselves will care for something greater than themselves because the individual does not exist without context. This context gives meaning: it shows that our inevitable sacrifices go toward something enduring, instead of vanishing in the moment, and by doing so, create a sense of poetry to existence, placing us in unison with our culture and world.

The context in which individuals exist could be described as a combination of civilization, nature and metaphysical or idealistic principles that guide our sense of what it is to be good, promote pleasure and beauty in life, and achieve improvement over our prior state. The opposite of this is individualism, where we take all of the above for granted as existing without our interference.

For this reason, civilization and its maintenance become important on par with our own lives. Without them, we are single creatures wandering alone, without any chance to build on what we create, and with no hope that it will have significance beyond us. At that level, everything we do is a ruin the instant it is created.

With stable civilization, we can pursue the other parts of our context — understanding nature, metaphysics and ideals — and know that we can build on what others have done and have others do the same. For this reason, our thoughts and actions endure and therefore, have a purpose. Without that endurance, they are pointless and mere fantasy beyond the basic needs for food, shelter and safety.

Civilization by that token serves as an extension of the individual that gives meaning to our striving. This then raises the question of how to make civilization last for as long as possible, such that it extends our work and gives it something approximating permanence. Possibly a civilization could become eternal, or self-renewing in perpetuity.

History shows us that most civilizations start out as nationalistic ones, or comprised of a group from similar ethnic backgrounds. By the time they collapse, these societies are beige, or of mixed ethnic background. Whether as a cause or consequence of civilization decline, the loss of nationalism heralds bad things for the future of that civilization.

In addition, nationalism makes sense because it eliminates internal conflict. A group of people of similar abilities and inclinations, sharing a culture, does not require much internal negotiation because people are all headed in roughly the same direction. There is a shared purpose and principles. Societies of this nature function more smoothly than those with high internal negotiation.

Further, having a common heritage means that not only is culture encoded in the genes of the population, but that people have a common identity which relates closely to the sense of purpose. Their civilization is not its government, money or victories, but both an end in itself and a means to an end of its purpose, which ties into itself. This seems elliptical at first but in fact reflects the ancient ideal of balance in that each part of the system works toward furthering other parts, so that none are divided from this core.

However, if nationalism is logical, then immigration — which adulterates nationalism — is not only foolish, but suicidal. It means the replacement of the civilization and its transition into the beige nation which will shortly thereafter fail, and become like all the other ruins of empires across the world.

The important thing to remember is that most people are self-destructive and groups doubly so because they avoid difficult thoughts, and therefore fail to address necessary questions, and leave themselves open to being blindsided by the reality that they deny. People view their survival as dependent on social cooperation with others, so they deny truth in favor of what pleases others to hear.

For this reason, most people will select insane ideas as a matter of course, and the more stress they feel, the more their social group will be stressed, encouraging them to retreat further from reality into a consensual hallucination of peer pressure.

Given that most people will, if not stopped, demand suicidal policies like immigration and its consequence, “diversity” or the existence of multiple ethnic groups in the same civilization, it becomes important to suppress the opinions of those who are prone to such thinking. At the upper end of human quality, in intelligence and character, are a rare few who can resist the self-destruction urge.

Class warfare arises when the rest, who are inherently self-destructive, decide that they are tired of being ruled by those who are competent. Those after all impede the will of those self-destructive people. As a result, they declare that all people are equal and none are more fit to rule than others, which then allows the self-destructive to implement their plans.

Diversity naturally arises from class warfare because importing foreign people allows the coalition of the self-destructive to have allies that they can use against the rest. Since people are equal, some system like democracy will result, and so having more warm bodies than the other side is how that coalition intends to win, and it imports those with an interest in destroying the culture.

This is the essence of diversity: despite its statements of all people being the same, it goal is to import those who are not similar to the rest of the population, so that this group can act against the interests of the majority. This is how all successful class warfare conflicts play out, even if they end in the collapse of the civilization.

In this way we can see how class warfare, diversity, immigration and nationalism comprise the same question.

Those who argue for diversity, especially conservatives, will argue that immigration is good if the groups “assimilate” or adopt the culture around them. This forgets that no group can assimilate because to do so is to self-destruct; every group has an interest in being itself, and individuals are willing to sacrifice themselves in order to make another group beige so it can be conquered.

No group can assimilate. Each group has a self-interest which includes its identity, and assimilation requires the destruction of that. Some individuals can assimilate, but they serve as an ethnic vanguard that dilutes the ethnic similarity of the population, making it ready for conquest by others.

For a group to assimilate, it must give up on itself, and so while “take only the immigrants that assimilate” makes for a handy sound bite, it has no relation to reality. No immigrants assimilate. They merely serve to unwittingly destroy the host population. Those who do give up their culture find themselves confused about purpose and values, and tend to act destructively.

The Americans know this from the contrasting experience of Indians and African-Americans. Indians were relocated to reservations where they kept their identity; African-Americans starting in the 1960s were “assimilated,” leading to ethnic conflict in the cities and crime spurred by resentment at the loss of identity.

Diversity does not work. It can never work because it demands that people either destroy their identity to be accepted, or become permanent outsiders. It makes enemies of all the groups involved, and eventually ethnically destroys the majority through outbreeding. This is why failed empires are “beige nations” filled with only those left over after the cataclysm.

Interview With Sondjata of Garvey’s Ghost Blog

Wednesday, November 30th, 2016

garveys_ghost

Those of us who prowl the web looking for interesting reading material will inevitably come across Garvey’s Ghost, a blog of informed and intelligent analysis from an African perspective. Its proprietor, Sondjata, was kind enough to give us the time for an interview.

How did you end up thinking radically differently from the mainstream? What was your introduction to more historically-aware politics, and how did it change over time?

I have always thought differently from the mainstream (even though according to multiple ‘political leaning” tests  I am apparently almost dead center in terms of left-right. However; I had earlier been attracted to more left wing and black liberal (liberational) ideologies.

I later moved into Pan-Africanism of the Garvey strain which put me on the political “right” of black left ideology (if that makes sense). Later on as I strove to maintain intellectual honesty and challenged my own beliefs by looking at data that  I previously dismissed as “racist” due to adhering to the “Thou shalt not read, watch or otherwise acknowledge information from non-left sources” religion, I moved in what would be considered by most a more rightward direction. Of course as mentioned earlier, by many measures I am a centrist which means, in my opinion, being honest with the facts ought make you a centrist.

If you were in control of the world, what would civilization look like, both locally and globally?

I don’t want to control the world. I actually came to the decision that I was unfit for that level of leadership a long time ago. I have “revenge” issues.  I think world control (globalism) is at the root of many problems. I have spent around 20 years simply trying to consider how to make Garveyite Pan-Africanism workable and no matter how I’ve thought it out it means upsetting (and possibly eliminating) a great deal of people.

While there may be technological means to overcome issues such as language, I don’t see how you can “control the globe” without seriously impacting local cultures and customs.  Personally I’m currently leaning to nations setting up themselves as they see fit and do whatever they see fit so long as they don’t negatively impact other nations (warfare, environmental damage). People should be able to leave a nation/culture they don’t care for but upon arriving in a nation they find more inviting must adopt the norms of that society.

Do you think there is an underlying psychological condition behind Leftism, or is it an informed choice, and if so, why do people choose it?

I think we have to define “leftism.” Leftism as we see it now (I refuse to call it “progressive”) and leftism as we saw it in say Barbara Jordan’s time was very different. Old style leftism as I understand it (which could be wrong) was concerned with abuse of power by the powerful. So we had unions that definitely helped the American worker. You had the issue of slavery, Jim Crow and other abridging of rights of certain citizens. I don’t think anyone with a conscience can honestly take issue with these things.This is where I think people get into liberalism. Who’s for discrimination? So it is an obvious logical and importantly emotional decision to be attracted to liberalism.

Modern day liberalism is quite different. Through my reading and watching I am convinced that current liberalism is Marxism/socialism in American garb  (or British, French what-have-you). Yes there were definitely communist influences in the early civil rights movement(s) with even communists in leadership positions but their power, in my opinion, was blunted by a sense of patriotism and cultural respect. Now those checks are all but gone. What happens now with liberals is that you take the emotional power of “are you for discrimination” and you then use that to widen your power grab or as others put it, move the goal post. It also allows those who see themselves as victims to blame an external party (which is human nature) rather than look at themselves.

Garvey’s Ghost has been high on my reading list since I found it. When did you start the blog, and why?

I started Garvey’s Ghost in Dec 2003.  Generally I was upset about G.W. Bush as well as what I considered extremely weak black writings on various subjects. Being a solutions-orientated person, I decided to do something other than complain. By the way it is the longest running, continuously updated black blog that is not a news aggregator.

What do you think Marcus and Amy Garvey offered that others have not, and why are they more obscure than some other thinkers who seem to get all the press?

Well it’s a good thing I reviewed my answer to this question because I totally did not answer the question posed. The reason that I believe Garvey (Marcus and Amy) and Garveyism is and has been ignored is because it generally does not appeal to the “white people owe us everything and all we need to do is make ’em pay” ideology that is rife on the black left.

Part of this again is human nature.  Imagine I came to you and gave you the following offer: I will give you a brand new car for your use right now or I’ll give you the parts to build a new car and all the tools to build it and maintain it and if you like build more. 99.9% of people would say “thanks for the keys.” Liberal ideology is taking the keys. Garveyism is taking the parts and tools. Garveyism is hard in the short term but pays in the long term. But you gotta build the car.

When The Black Star Line company was formed the NAACP went out against it. Think about that, the NAACP was against a black-run organization that would be employing black people. So this is why Garveyism isn’t accepted by left blacks. Oh they love the Red Black and Green. But symbolism is easy.

Speaking specifically about Amy Garvey I would point out that  she often wrote scathing indictments of black men not being husbands, fathers and leaders. Amy Garvey wouldn’t be out here talking about how “our babies are being shot by police.” She would be out there talking about why are your babies out robbing the stores and shooting each other? She’d be asking, what kind of fathers are letting their babies out in the street like that?  I found Amy’s huge contributions to Garveyism much later than discovering Garvey himself and once I discovered her huge impact on the Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA) I added her name to the masthead of the blog.

What do you think of white nationalists and the Alt Right? Is there any legitimacy in these belief systems, or are they compensatory pathologies?

Two different groups with some overlap. As Garveyite Pan-Africanist I cannot be opposed to White Nationalism as a principle. I cannot advocate for black people running their countries however they see fit and then turn around and say that white people cannot run their own nations as they see fit. As a matter of fact I think places like Germany, France and England need a good dose of white nationalism to get themselves back on track. That track being running the country for the benefit of its natives and citizens first! I want to make sure I point out that there is a difference between a “white nationalist” and a “white supremacist.” One can definitely be both but the two are not necessarily mutually inclusive.

That said I have to address America. Where I diverge from white nationalists or white nationalist leaning persons such as those who run Vdare is that America is not a white native country. While it was in fact founded by whites (in the collective sense) none of those whites have a “native” claim on the land as they do in England, France, etc., thus I disagree with those at Vdare that America is not a proposition nation. It most certainly is. Of course the proposition is that one accepts as the general culture that which came from the founders and particularly those of the founding documents.

So to be clear the US is a proposition republic formed on the governing principles of the English. English common law informs all US laws and are the only legitimate source for interpretation. However the US is culturally a mix of a variety of nations whose influences we can see in various states.  This is unlike any of the native West European nations.

The best white nationalists can claim about America is sweat equity.  This is a position you’ll see espoused by Ramzpaul. He points out (correctly) that there was no America as we know it, before Europeans got here and that since Europeans came, conquered and built, Europeans get to claim the nation (a similar argument is made about South Africa).

The problem with this idea is that Europeans were not the only group with “sweat equity” in America. The African population, property or not, was here just about as long as any founding family and given the history of slavery, no one can claim they did not work. So in reality Africans descended from the slave trade have just as much a claim (if not differently based) as whites do. I think many white nationalists have a problem processing that. Or to the extent they do, they simply don’t care.

With that said, let me be clear that I have a massive problem with the violent wing of white nationalists (as I do with violent black nationalists). Such violence in the “service” of ideology undermines rule of law be they polar bear hunts or running down a black man walking along a street.

Per the Alt-Right, this is coming to you after the Spencer “Hail Trump” thing.  I look at alt-right like I did Gamergate. It’s composed of way too many types of people to be easily defined. 

I believe that the MSM are using the same techniques it did on Gamergate on the Alt-Right. The way I see it, the Alt-Right is a “home” for those who are not attracted to “conservatism” or “Republicanism” but have no desire to be on the left because the left essentially lost their marbles at least eight years ago. Had the left not completely lost its mind, then the alt-right would have no need to even exist. 

When it is racist to say a country should enforce its borders, you have a serious problem. When the world is never to forget the Holocaust but I’m supposed to be against a fellow citizen who watched his or her loved ones and fellow citizen jump out of a burning building because that was preferable to burning alive, and now is not “fond” of Muslims?

So as long as the left double and quadruple downs on their agenda an Alt-something is going continue to exist. There will be “unsavory” people doing unsavory things. But that’s human nature.

Can you tell us about yourself: what was your early life and family like? What do you enjoy doing? How does being opposed to most of the political and social thinking around you, and probably the behavior of most others, affect your life?

I’m a first generation American. Family is from the Caribbean. Raised Seventh Day Adventists, left Christianity for what I would call “Reform” ATR (African Traditional Religion). I’ve been on the outside of “mainstream” thought on a lot of things for a very long time so I end up not interacting with folks socially that much.

Do you write or speak beyond the blog? Where can the rest of us find these creations?

I do not write for any other publication. No one has invited me to speak and for aforementioned reasons, I don’t expect to be asked. I briefly created a YouTube series. I won’t embarrass myself by pointing anyone to it, but if you search the blog you’ll likely find it.

What, in your view, does the term “nationalist” mean? Are you influenced by any nationalists from other tribes?

As discussed previously, a nationalist is a person who wants space for their people (however defined). They want to control it in whatever way they see fit. I’ve looked at the acts of various nationalists but I’ve been mostly influenced by Garvey. A lot of the anti-colonial struggles and leaders of that era were heavily influenced by Garveyism. That said, I like to think for myself and a lot of conclusions I’ve come to have come from study.

Does your viewpoint extend to other issues, like monarchism and environmentalism, and how do those fit into your existing worldview?

I have never paid any attention to monarchism. I know it’s a current in NRx circles. As a science-based person I am concerned about the Environment but I see that a lot of countries, leaders and the like have taken to politicizing it and making money off of it. Anyone who’s familiar with earth history knows that the earth’s climate is always changing and that our journey on this rock is a speck of dust in the time the earth has been here and we have been keeping records for not even 1/10 of that time. Whenever I hear people talk about global warming and how man will be devastated by it, I remind them that homo-sapiens-sapiens lived through an ice age with nothing close to the knowledge and technology we have today.

Also, I see a lot of hand wringing about people, usually those stuck in the stone age, who will be very negatively affected by climate change. Well. Sucks to be them. This is why you adapt. This is why you move. This is why you organize into larger national units. If the left wasn’t so intent on letting primitive people remain primitive so that they can virtue signal, they’d be preparing those folks for what’s coming. Like really you are still living in a desert? Why? And I’m supposed to help you stay like that? No thanks.

Where do you see human civilizations going in the future, and do you have hope for a better outcome than the present?

I’m not really much of a futurist so I’ll leave the whole “future of humanity” thing to others. But I will say that in the short term, in the first world, there are some big problems.

Automation is going to eat labor for lunch and dinner. Too many people think the rise of AI is just like the industrial revolution. They are very wrong.  There is going to be a decimation of the human labor market like never seen before. This is going to cause upheaval. Personally I think governments are going to have to get to a guaranteed income which of course means taxing companies.

Thank you for your time, and I hope our readers enjoy this informative interview!

Why The Alternative Right Will Absorb Neoreaction

Friday, May 20th, 2016

neoreaction_and_the_alternative-right

There seems to be some confusion in the media about Neoreaction and how it differs from the alternative right, as well as confusion by neoreactionaries about this is so.

Let us tackle these in reverse order. First, the media: they are cartoon makers. They make comics and call it news. They do this to fit the cognitive profile of their audience. Most people are not analytical and also, are not inclined to spend time researching and understanding political and social issues. As a result, they want bright simple colors and stories of good versus evil.

That means the media must invent “good” (human interest stories based in pity, irony and bittersweet eucatastrophe) and “evil” (anything which denies the good feelings of the audience, especially by failing to be egalitarian).

You can understand any media story in these terms. Your instinct is to believe the story is about its topic; that is wrong and dangerous to think that. What is actually true: the story is always about the audience, because newspapers are there to sell ads and never have done anything else. That is their profit model. What you pay for a newspaper is tiny compared to the cost of ads, and they mainly keep you paying for it so you do not realize that it is essentially an advertisement cloaked in the altruistic pretense of being fact-based.

As Fred says, “There are no facts, only interpretations.” This doubly applies when it comes to the news. They choose what stories to report on, and then, they choose which facts to mention, and what order to mention them in and how to present them. Hint: any activity, no matter how degenerate, can be made to seem innocent by portraying those involved as victims of some other superior force. People fear superior forces and demonize them.

Next, we move on to the question of Neoreaction and the Alternative Right: one and the same?

Perception of political theories is relative, although the theories themselves are not because they are based in method. Someone who is on the far-left will perceive the moderate left to be far-right, but it is still based in the Leftist theory, which is equality, and not the rightist theory, which is replicable results.

To your average modern citizen, because the West has been growing steadily more Leftist since the Peasant Revolts, anything to the right of a moderate Republican is “far-right,” and that area includes the following philosophies:

  • Neoreaction
  • Reaction
  • Traditionalism
  • White Nationalism
  • Pan-Nationalism
  • Alternative Right
  • New Right
  • Paleoconservative
  • Social Conservative
  • Monarchist
  • Identitarian

You will note that all of these overlap. For example, all favor Nationalism and strong hierarchy. Many favor aristocracy, such as monarchists, reactionaries and traditionalists. Some are nearly indistinguishable from one another, except for a fundamental idea or two, such as reactionaries and traditionalists. And so on. A complete definition of these is beyond this article.

What unites them is that they recognize that the “equality” method does not work and will lead — or has led — our society into ruin.

They then take different responses to this. The dissident right — you might use that as an umbrella term for the above, since “far right” implies the mix of neo-Nazi, paleoconservative, libertarian and liberal that comprises white nationalism — differs in degree and method only. Once we realize that Leftism is a dead evolutionary pathway, we must find (1) another way to take and (2) a method of getting there, which is complicated by the fact that Leftism is popular because it is illusion, especially during Leftist eras and the warm bath of their propaganda.

Within this realm, we might see Neoreaction as a response by the middle classes to the degeneration of their countries. The basic idea of Neoreaction is that we should treat government like a business, expect it to act like a business and limit it, and allow the dual forces of capitalism and free association to fix everything else. This is not far removed from the original American ideas of Thomas Jefferson, or even Jared Taylor’s notion that if we removed anti-discrimination law, this country might have a chance at survival.

These bourgeois roots of Neoreaction place it in the hybrid camp along with libertarians, which is fitting because Neoreaction is a discussion filter for getting to the next step, not the next step defined where it can then be attacked by stronger Leftist forces. I suggest re-reading that paragraph again, as it is essential to understand Neoreaction. It is a salon, not a revolution.

Your average Neoreactionary, like the middle class, wants to escape two things: the icky people who have now infested his society, and the government which has become so parasitic that it is difficult not to notice the daily blood drainage. He believes that a System can work, that the good bourgeois can form gated communities and get away from the icky people, and then the good life will return.

Your average Alt-Righter does not have this illusion. He knows that society has taken a wrong turn and that any steps down this path lead to the same place, which is a third world warlord-cum-socialist society of mixed-race people, low but “exotic” culture, and total dysfunction plus commerce. From this state, nothing important comes again as happened with the fallen Greek, Roman, Maya and Aztec empires.

The reason that Neoreaction will be absorbed into the Alt-Right, and not just by the media, is that Neoreaction is simply a discussion filter. It exists to make people feel justified in actual self-interest and saying, “No, I don’t want to go down the path to ignominious death with the rest of you fools.” Like Donald Trump, it is a pry-bar that separates those still capable of some thought from the rest who are lock-step trope-worshipers fully ensconced in the warm bath of the propaganda from the Left.

If you want a metaphor, imagine a city of utter chaos and dysfunction. On the very edge of the city, at the city wall, is a hotel. Neoreaction is the foyer; it is the reason that one steps inside. This shuts out the noise of the city and the constant propaganda broadcast by petit tyrants over its PA system. Once you are in the silence, you can start to think. Conservatism is the library; national socialism and neo-Nazism the gym; traditionalism the chapel; and paleoconservatism/social conservatism the bar area.

As you go deeper into the hotel, you will notice something: every room leads to a second hallway that connects them all. This leads to the garden beyond, which you can see through ornate glass doors… counting your steps, you realize that the garden is outside of the city. You only head down that path once you have been to all the rooms, taken the part of the puzzle from each, and assembled it in the hallway to realize that escape is the only option.

But the real journey, alas, is not in the feet but in the mind. “Escape” means that you are finally awakened from the Leftist dream. You realize that everything you have been taught since day one of your life has been tinged with a lie, and that lie is human equality. This lie is both a way of feeling better about having a civilization in decline, and a way of making you feel important for having nothing. It assuages your fears. Without it, you feel naked at first.

The basic idea of Neoreaction may be summarized as anti-ideologism. Neoreaction insists that our theory and reality be aligned, so that if some method is more successful than others, it gets the power instead of those others. This terrifies the ideology-minds, who know that their theories are not only unprovable, but not designed to be proven. They are social theories that make people feel good about themselves for believing them.

Beyond that, it is foolishness to take it literally, because it leads to more interesting places…

The Alt-Right is concerned with a singular task, possibly inherited from black metal: how to stop civilization decline and restore Europeans to greatness. Once you have separated from ideology, do you want an OK society or an A+ one?

Tradition shows us that there is a world beyond the physical and pragmatic. We need our spirits filled with transcendental beauty, and to believe in a good universe where the excellent can happen, in order to truly reach greatness. This is another step down the path.

Finally, there is monarchism: the realization that most people are obedient, foolish sheep who always choose whatever option flatters them, and that people in groups — even smart people — make infinitely stupid decisions. You either put the best in charge to rule over the rest, or the rest rule the best, and then social standards collapse to third world levels.

Beyond that, you can rediscover the wisdom that you were born having in your mind. That without someone intelligent and noble in charge, every venture from a lemonade stand to a civilization is prone to failure. That jails are not hospitals and that bad people do not go away, but need to be sent away or they destroy everything they can. That every day should be magic, filled with discovery and joy, not obedience and obsequy to those of lesser smarts.

The roots of Western decline go deep, and to really rip them out, we must go back to the founding assumptions in a cascade of bad decisions that cause us to live in illusion. Leftism is illusion like its parent philosophy Crowdism. That in turn is caused by human individualism, which legitimizes hubris and raises the idiotic above the genuine.

You will note that this decline even touches Neoreaction, the Alt-Right and traditionalism. There are those whose wisdom is authentic and those who are merely participating and attention whoring like everyone else in this society, just in a different field. “No enemies on the Right” is a tempting phrase, but really it means: no quality control. The war begins at home, first in your own mind as you figure all of this out.

This is why the Alternative Right will absorb Neoreaction: it is broader in scope and application. That suggests that something in turn will absorb the Alternative Right, which I suggest is conservatism itself, or the idea of using proven, organic methodology instead of ideology. From that point, all that is left to be decided are questions of degree, and at that point, they are evident.

White Nationalism Is Doomed To Failure

Monday, May 2nd, 2016

white_nationalism_is_ideological_confusion

White nationalism, a product of ideological confusion and emotional outbursts pretending to be political theory, is a degraded form of nationalism that is gaining in popularity because of the disaster of 0bama and EU immigration policy. Nydwracu points out another area where white nationalism fails:

There are perhaps other reasons to oppose white nationalism, but why worry about the weaker argument given the existence of the stronger? It simply wouldn’t accomplish its proponents’ goals. In a hypothetical white nationalist America, one side or the other would eventually realize both the possibility and the utility of ending white nationalism in order to advance its own interests against those of its traditional enemies. In other words: ‘white’ is not a nation.

In the name of nationalism, white nationalism is the opposite of nationalism: grouping together different nations on the basis of ideological comradeship, instead of natural ethnic interests. It imitates the dominant paradigm of the “proposition nation” but because it hides that behind what seems like the main idea of nationalism, or race in the sense of ethnic group, its proponents can claim it as an alternative to other methods of proposition nationism.

If you wonder why white people have not united behind white nationalism, one major reason is that they do not feel like being grouped into generic whiteness and having their ethnic identity destroyed. They also distrust the class- and caste-denying nature of white nationalism, as well as its anger and tendency to scapegoat other ethnic groups (most commonly: Africans and Jews) instead of looking at white problems, specifically the decay of Western Civilization through increasing Leftism (itself a subtype of Crowdism, or collectivized individualism).

Even more, it makes sense to separate Nationalism from “racism.” While any sane observer knows that diversity is the cause of racism, because when you put two or more ethnic groups in the same place they compete including for dominance of the values system, there is much to dislike about racism. Instead of recognizing that separation is necessary, as Nationalism does, white nationalism/racism blames specific groups for the failure of diversity, which fails no matter what groups are involved. This lets diversity, democracy and Leftism off the hook.

A more sensible viewpoint is pan-nationalism, or the idea of nationalism for every group. The first group to break away from the system of ideological nation-states will inspire others to do the same as a means of competing; Nationalism reduces the massive cost of enforcement required to keep people with nothing in common working together. It also breaks the power of Government, which relies on fruitless quests to justify its own expansion in order to rationalize increased taxation, and thus profit to those in government, a form of corruption.

This also allows cooperation between Nationalists of different races and ethnies because they share a common goal: a world defined by Nationalism, where each group works in self-interest and is beholden to no other group. This spares us from entropy-accelerating standardization and the kumbaya illusion enforced by UN troops showing up to make us all good Leftist internationalists.

White Nationalism is not an alternative to our current political order; it is another form of it. It perpetuates control of the center by the uncontrollable mass, which results in domination by the usual human failings which are sometimes called “the civilization disease”:

All human groups tend toward the same order. Whether it is Open Source, or “wisdom of the crowd,” or whatever: people need to work together, so there must be a power structure and rules. Alternatively, you find some very talented people and give them absolute power, but that upsets people. So, the audience defines the product, and the workers define the organization of the venture, whether it is pro-profit or not. You see the same thing in church groups, rock bands, PTAs and militias that you do in corporate America and Wikipedia.

Amerika offers instead radicalized conservatism: let us conserve what works in reality and that which produces excellent results instead of merely utilitarian ones. This is an odd form of thought, as if Republicans finally understood Nietzsche and turned all the dials up to eleven, demanding a functional social order instead of fighting a rearguard action on the economy, defense and certain social issues.

Pan-nationalism

Saturday, September 5th, 2015

mount_fuji

When writing about race, the tendency is to — as everything else in a democratic society — fall into the us vs. them approach, which justifies the interests of “us” by pointing out how “them” are violating one of our sacred myths, which at this point have dwindled to egalitarianism and altruism alone. In other words, to win an argument, you must show that the other guy is “bad” according to democratic principles.

In addition to strengthening the illusions behind democracy, such arguments miss the point: one should argue to results, or principles, that address the goal of the proposed action, instead of justifying the act by what may be mostly unrelated perceptions. When you justify, you are no longer acting toward a goal, but acting toward a compromise version of that goal as a subset of whatever is used to justify it.

Further, such arguments demonize groups that — while their behaviors are specific to the group — may simply be caught in the ugly trap of diversity. The policy of ethnic pluralism, known also as multiculturalism and diversity, forces each participating group into a terrible decision: retain identity and be alienated to the margins, or accept the non-identity of the merged group and be assimilated. In other words, conform or be destroyed, as modern society manages to phrase all of its edicts.

A better approach is nationalism: each nation is defined by its ethnic heritage. Democracy hates nationalism and replaces it with the idea of the “proposition nation” unified by ideology and economics alone. As we have seen in the decades subsequent to the invention of that subterfuge, those abstractions are not enough to unify a population. Groups need identity, or a sense of who they are and the reality of being in command of their own future. Nationalism however is not like what happens in pluralism, where each group acts in its self-interest and ends up fighting against all others in a bad stock market of justifications. It is a world order in which ethnic groups, by remaining separate, avoid the direct conflict — and ethnic resentment sometimes called “racism” — brought on by diversity.

The history of diversity shows us many failures. Mixed-European nations experienced greater instability; the Roman and Greek empires became more diverse as they approached failure through dissolution when their citizens had nothing in common. Colonialism attempted to rule over foreign nations, but quickly found that with nothing in common, those colonies required constant intervention by the host nation culminating in a series of national revolutions which left behind ruins and fertile ground for terrorism. Slavery itself was a form of diversity, although in its case certain groups were assigned different socio-economic strata. In modern America and Europe, the television tells us that we can all be happily different but come together on the non-culture monoculture of Hollywood movies, fast food, government pamphlets and comedians on YouTube.

What this shows us is that we must be both against diversity and also steadfastly supportive of nationalist efforts by other ethnic groups. When I first wrote “White Power = Black Power,” most people considered me touched in the head. But what nationalists — like Black Panthers and other Black Power groups — desire is separation of ethnic groups so that those groups can have self-rule, their own culture and identity, and most importantly, self-determination. They want to be in control of their future. No group can do that under rule by another ethnic group in the majority, or even rule by a mixed-ethnic majority. They will forever be caught in the horrible decision point of identity versus assimilation, and gradually — as it always does, being at least a kissing cousin to entropy — convenience will dictate the outcome. Their young will choose careers in the city and start acting like the majority, and because young people are inexperienced at the more crucial things in life, will marry outside the group and outbreed. In a few generations the group will dissolve and be completely assimilated. Every nationalist, no matter what his race and ethnic group, wants to avoid this outcome.

The democratic and Leftist types are terrified that nationalists will discover this. But if we realize “Germany for Germanys, Nigeria for Nigerians” and apply that principle to every ethnic group, we can collaborate — if only tacitly from a distance — in making this better world order replace the ruins left by diversity and democracy. Those who want nationalism for themselves must extend that courtesy to other groups, so that all work together to replace the principle of diversity with that of nationalism. We all want the same thing, but separately, in our own homelands. Sports style “us versus them” between ethnic groups will not achieve this, and in fact strengthens the democratic narrative that we need more laws to force everyone into conformity with the dominant ideology. Instead, we need to discard that dominant ideology and go with what works, which is nationalism for all. That is the principle behind pan-nationalism and the direction that — to the horror of Leftists — nationalist groups are starting to turn.

Bring back WASP rule

Wednesday, May 27th, 2015

the_pluralist_fallacy

At its founding, America was a WASP nation. This acronym, originally meaning “White Anglo-Saxon Protestants,” generally included those of indigenous Western European heritage regardless of religion. English, Scots, Dutch, Germans, Scandinavians, northern French and Austrians fell under this banner. Genetic outlier and admixed groups like Greeks, Italians, southern French, Slavs, Jews, Poles and Irish did not.

As industry boomed in the northeast, it needed more menial laborers: unskilled, repetitive task-doers who could be paid minimal wages which would, relativistically, be seen as a great step up in condition of life. The importation began with a flood of Irish, then Italians, Greeks and Poles. The WASP establishment disliked this process but rather than fight it, retreated behind a wall of money and exclusivity. The fuse was lit however, and during the Civil War it became clear how useful these “New Americans” were: they could be counted on to wage war on those more prosperous or simply more selective than themselves. With the advent of massed infantry charges and repeating rifles, the skill of warriors became less important than having a willing mass which would charge forward when the horn blew.

When the new century dawned, the world wars required that the West — ironically like both Napoleon and Genghis Khan — adopt a pose of being accepting of all as a means of differentiating itself from those nasty, exclusive nationalist and monarchist states. Each war increased the propaganda for acceptance and solidarity based on position, such as political stance or economic position as workers, and this enabled the West to produce the human wave it needed to win its wars. Unfortunately, in a pattern that would repeat time and again, most of the casualties were from the original WASP contingent. When you read the names in the old 13 colonies churches, you see mostly English, German and Scots names with a smattering of Dutch and French. When you read the casualties from the first two world wars, the same pattern prevails.

During the second world war American propaganda reached new intensity. Not only did it set the stage for the future of “perpetual war,” or constant definition of our purpose as struggle against impediments to ideological objectives such as democracy, but it also established egalitarian dogma as the basis of why we considered ourselves exceptional. No longer was America the “city on the hill” for its morality of doing the right thing, but for its morality of inclusivity. Not surprisingly, the so-called Greatest Generation — with non-WASPs more prevalent because of their lower casualties — voted for a series of disastrous immigration acts, first in 1958 and then in 1965, which guaranteed that the new population of the country would be mostly non-WASP.

Liberals rejoiced. Their line for years had been that the snooty WASPs, who retreated from the Irish/Italian/Polish immigration waves to gated communities, were the source of our misery and injustice. In their thinking, if the WASPs were removed, a new Utopia would reign. That event happened in the 1990s, when the work-ethic of the 1950s combined with the politics of 1968 as the Baby Boomers assumed positions of authority across the board, and the immigration that had been nascent even when Ronald Reagan made his 1987 compromise became a flood. The new rules had been posted: liberals are now in control, and everyone is welcome to come get a slice of the American pie. What occurred was predictable, since people act both in their own interests and through the path of least resistance. The third world fled its homelands and poured into the West, both America and Europe. Unable to attack the flood politically for fear of being seen as Hitler or the antiquated WASP establishment, conservatives retreated.

No one called the liberals on the failure of their plan. They promised a new land of peace, justice and equality with the demise of the WASPs. Instead what they produced was a faddish land where the new elites, generally of the former immigrant stock, chased after trends and clickbait statements to make to the press, while the newest immigrant groups joined in the civil rights experience by using the same justification that achieved affirmative action and federal benefits for African-Americans. This resulted in a society dedicated to taking from its founders and giving to new warm bodies, and no one could criticize it, or they would be branded as racist in the media and lose their jobs, homes, spouses, friends and legal protection.

Fast-forward twenty years from that point and the Rainbow Nation is in chaos. Race riots are a regular occurrence to which the only solution seems to be not to police non-white groups, who still have disproportionate rates of crime and victimization compared to WASP groups. Affirmative action has not resulted in widespread equality, but it has resulted in widespread expense, since the law does not recognize the difference between a qualified minority candidate and an unqualified one. Even more, as Robert Putnam discovered in his landmark study, diversity increases alienation and distrust even within ethnic groups. As our presidential candidates openly admit to treasonous scandals, our military is embroiled in corruption, and control by moneyed interests reaches a new peak, we might ask the role that our lack of cooperation with each other plays in those developments.

Our choice is clear: we either go back to what worked, which was a Western European only nation, or we continue down the path of diversity which is the policy that produced most third world nations. As Ann Coulter clarified for us all, this is not only a “clash of civilizations” but clash of civilization-models. In particular, our method works better; the third world method works less well; by merging our method with the third world method, we will end up with the third world method, and no one will benefit:

You fled that culture. Because it is a — there are a lot of problems with that culture. Hopefully, it can be changed. But we can share our culture with other nations without bringing all of their people here. When you bring the people here, you bring those cultures here. That includes honor killings, it includes uncles raping their nieces, it includes dumping litter all over, it includes not paying your taxes, it includes paying bribes to government officials. That isn’t our culture.

You can see the successful cultures in the world. They have been studied ad infinitum, America is about — it is the best in the world and we are about to lose it. And everyone who lives here is going to lose that. And the people who are going to suffer the most are the weakest ones. It’s the women. It’s the children. … No country has ever had the sort of respect for women that Anglo America does and that is going out the door.

Ann might as well have extrapolated to Western European culture in general: no society has had so much reverence for learning, for excellence instead of mere participation, for sacredness and sacred roles to the genders, for respect for nature, and for caring for children. Compared to us the rest of the world is a cold, dark and unforgiving place, and yet in our best of days, we were also the most warlike, vigorously squashing whatever offended our values. There is a connection: among other things, Western Europe is the culture of the hard rule. We know what we like, and what we do not, and we eject the bad and multiply the good, while being skeptical of the unknowns. At least, that is how we were during the best of our days. Since the rise of liberalism, these positive attributes have been attenuated.

The facts of this complex dilemma take two dimensions. Our society makes the first taboo, which is noticing that genetic differences result from societies which take the path we did not. The second is more complex, and relates more closely to Putnam’s revelations: homogenous societies, with a strong cultural and ethnic identity, provide the best basis for working together and therefore thrive in a lack of internal friction. Even more important is the notion of identity, and having pride in who you are and your history, so that you want to continue this beyond the threshold of personal convenience. Identity turns our method into a way of life and a tendency imbued deep within every soul. It means we do not need constant government to prevent third-world style chaos, but have high-trust societies where cooperation is more prevalent than coercion. We might call this the “first world method” because all first-world societies became that way under its rule.

In contrast, third world societies are the most individualistic, “free,” autonomous, cheerful, tolerant places on earth. There, you do whatever you want. In exchange, you have less social order and fewer functional institutions. In other words, they are closer to the state before civilization. This is why the vast majority of third-world societies are low on social standards; the focus is on the autonomy of the individual, and the unintended secondary consequences are the lack of social order, rule by warlords and gangs, corruption and high crime. But to a true individualist, this is a benefit not a curse. The individual is restrained by nothing and can do whatever he or she wants with no negative feedback from society and no enforcement of standards. These societies have more freedom than the first world, and their tolerance is such that they admit any newcomers, which is why almost all of them are mixed-race. They are also highly sexually liberated for the most part, with no tedious social standards forcing boys and girls to wait until long-term commitment for sex (even in countries with strong putative sexual morality, the reality is more liberated). The third world is the liberal ideal, although liberals want to hang on to first-world conveniences and will attempt to do so through totalitarianism, which as we see in the Russian, Venezuelan, Cuban and East German experiments, does not quite work out as expected.

In the West, the first-world method resulted in our meteoric rise to the top of the world. We then colonized it, bringing with us technology in exchange for what the left calls “oppression” but was more likely the grim process of beating radical individualists into conformity so they could actually achieve something. Where we have retreated, technology remains, but it has now become a tool of the corrupt warlords and gangs rather than a means of restraining them. In other words, the third-world method has absorbed the first-world one. The same is being attempted in the United States and European Union, but even now the writing on the wall suggests this will lead to more of what the rest of the world is doing. Nine out of ten humans live in third-world conditions or near to them, with the Western Europeans in the US and EU as the outliers. Naturally the rest of the group wants us to conform, and stop rising above their level, so that no one feels challenged by the possibility of life being better. Mediocrity loves company.

How can we pull out of this tailspin? The germ of it lies in accepting Western European exceptionalism: our method works better, but we cannot share it with others by inviting them here, only by succeeding and making them jealous and angry to the point where they implement it in their home countries. Diversity does not work. It cannot work because it is paradoxical. It assumes that all people are the same and that beating the same rules into them will achieve the same results. Yet the lesson that colonialism taught was that this approach does not work either. Each group must develop the “first-world method” on its own; it cannot be taught. Western Europeans must withdraw to our own spaces in America and Europe, and eject everyone else to take our lessons home to their countries, which badly need improvement. It is not our responsibility to fix them, because if we assume that, it takes the burden off of those countries to improve themselves. And then we would live in a WASP world with one vital change, which is that we will remove the “gated communities” plus cheap labor formula of the early WASP decline. That would look more like this promising vision from South Africa:

But in the midst of a sinking South Africa, there is one beacon of hope: the Afrikaner self-governed town of Orania.

Orania in today’s South Africa is a bit like Asterix’s village in conquered Gaul. The town is a private entity that has striven since its founding in 1991 to provide a self-determined homeland for Afrikaners. Here Afrikaans is the official language. All work, even manual labour, is done by Afrikaners. In that way, jobs for poor Afrikaners are created. There is no interference from government in how Oranians run their businesses, and there are many one-man enterprises. Apart from having to pay a low yearly registration tax, we are left alone.

Crime is virtually non-existent in Orania. Here is no violent crime, and rare incidents of theft, committed by fellow Afrikaners, are quickly resolved; in such cases, the transgressor has to do community work for minor offences, or otherwise has to leave town.

Notice the vital difference: this community requires affirmative and constructive participation, and it wields a great threat to those who do not conform, which is exile. Much as Europeans sent their unwanted to Tripoli and Americans sent them into Mexico, this population can eject those who commit crimes. The point is that being in this society is a privilege, not a “right,” and that only those who uphold the first-world method get to stay there. This makes it something to reach for by its citizens, and something to emulate by the third world. It also ends the tedious duality of importing third-worlders to do our cheap unskilled jobs, then a generation later noticing the vast social impact of creating a third world within the first. Send the Irish, Italians and Poles back; send the Mexicans, Chinese and Africans back. Restore America and Europe to their Western European roots, because that is when we were not just barely functional but great, and it gave us the pride to have the will to work together.

World Wide Pan Africanist Convention to be held in South Africa June 12-19, 2015

Friday, July 11th, 2014

world_wide_pan_africanist_convention

World Wide Pan Africanist Convention to be held in Azania (south africa), 2015, June 12 to 19.

AIMS AND GUIDELINES OF THE CONVENTION: HERE ARE THE FOLLOWING:

-We Aim to influence individuals in Africa and diaspora an open dialogue with and between their various REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENT to work for the good common and the advancement of African people at home and diaspora.

–To identify and mobilize all GENUINE AFRICAN PROGRESSIVE REVOLUTIONARY FORCES, PAN AFRICANIST MOVEMENT AND BLACK CONSCIOUSNESS MOVEMENT with the aim uniting and forming-up one giant World Wide Pan Africanist Revolutionary Movement that must UNITE, ADVANCE and DEFEND ALL AFRICANS/BLACKS AT HOME AND DIASPORA.

–To create ONE WORLD WIDE REVOLUTIONARY PROGRAM OF ACTION.

–To promote ONE AFRICA WITHOUT BORDERS.

–To inspire creation on a meaning-full partnership with the aim to identify and create SELF RELIANCE programs and projects that must support our struggle/organisation also must help to fight poverty.-eg: self-funding projects, news paper, TV, website, musicians, writers, recording studios, recording, photographers, designers and etc.

–To create one Pan Africanist Ideology College with the aim to stop political confusion and disunity among our organisation and our people at large with its research and development department.

FOR MORE INFO CONTACT:
Chris Sankara in Azania (PAC)”south africa”: Email chris.sankara7@gmail.com
Contact: +2784 627 5805 or Skype Chris Sankara

Dr Malik Zulu Shabazz in US (NBPP/BLACK LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE) : Email shabazz/awoffice@yahoo.com
Contact: +12023699986

Dr Hughie Rose in UK (NBPP): hughierose@gmail.com
Contact: +44774008151 or Skype Hughierose.

Mbarika Kazingizi in Zimbabwe (ZANU-PF): karenharley57@yahoo.co.uk

Dr Ngila Michael Muendane (PAC): Email mike@soultalk.co.za
Contact: +2774 8742245

Mafa Kwanisai Mafaa in Zimbabwe (ZANU-PF) : Email cdemafa@gmail.com
Contact +26377334750 or Skype Cde Kwanisai Mafa.

Great Great-King Adeleye /Nicholas Idemudia – in Nigeria (Loggers Confederacists). Email: leyito15@yahoo.co.uk
Contact: +2348146624374

Vusi Oldman Mahlangu Mahlangu in Azania (PAC): Email. vemahlangu@gmail.com
Number: +2772 500 1455

Ras Aviwe Chimurenga Tyumre Poqo in Azania (PAC/RUF)
Email-rasmenelikazania@gmail.com
Contact: 0781109292

IZWE LETHU/ BLACK POWER (LAND IS OURS)
WE THANK YOU IN ADVANCE WITH LOVE.

The Nationalism FAQ

Monday, January 20th, 2014

Introduction

Nationalism, or the idea that the nation is described by ethnic group and its culture, contrasts the dominant idea of the last 200 years which is that of the arbitrary geographical region united by belief in liberal ideology, cosmopolitanism and internationalism/globalism. As the organic alternative to ideological government, nationalism defends unique attributes of individual ethnic groups, and posits a world order in which culture enforced by communities, not ideological rules enforced by centralized government, be used to regulate local communities.

Contents

1. Definition
 1.1 What is Nationalism?
 1.2 What is not Nationalism?
 1.3 What is Pan-Nationalism?
 1.4 Is it a political system?
 1.5 List of famous nationalists
2. Advocacy
 2.1 Reasons for Nationalism
 2.2 Nationalism as alternative to enforcement
 2.3 Nationalism as alternative to big government
 2.4 Identitarian advantages
3. Implementation
 3.1 How does a state go Nationalist?
 3.2 Is violence required?
 3.3 What would happen to non-nationals?
 3.4 How would this happen worldwide?
4. About
 4.1 About this FAQ
 4.2 About the Author
 4.3 Contact

1. Definition

1.1 What is Nationalism?

Nationalism is the belief that political groups should be constructed around the idea of “nation,” or population group unified by culture, heritage and language.

As such, Nationalist is “rule by culture” where cultural values come before profit motive or popularity, which enables forward-thinking leadership instead. With profit motive, every object and idea and person is for sale, and society leads itself in circles. With leadership, society determines its goals and moves toward them.

The term “nationalism” comes from the term “nation,” which has a different meaning in current politics. Currently, the nations of the world are political constructions made of borders, legal systems and economies, called “nation-states.” These are not compatible with the view of nation that was common in history up until the last century:

The term “nationalism” is generally used to describe two phenomena: (1) the attitude that the members of a nation have when they care about their national identity and (2) the actions that the members of a nation take when seeking to achieve (or sustain) self-determination. (1) raises questions about the concept of nation (or national identity), which is often defined in terms of common origin, ethnicity, or cultural ties, and while an individual’s membership in a nation is often regarded as involuntary, it is sometimes regarded as voluntary. – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Nationalism”

Since the French Revolution in 1789, the majority of political forces in the West have been opposed to nationalism, which is the idea that the ethnic group defines the nation. The opposite is the “proposition nation” which is the idea that people can be united by ideology or finance alone.

The definition of nationalism is made clear by the Encyclopedia Britannica, which makes a distinction between the use of nationalism as a political token to mean patriotism to the nation-state, and its broader meaning as the idea of a nation as an ethnic and not political entity:

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. – Encyclopedia Britannica, “Nationalism”

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.

1.2 What is not Nationalism?

It’s just like when you’ve got some coffee that’s too black, which means it’s too strong. What you do? You integrate it with cream; you make it weak. If you pour too much cream in, you won’t even know you ever had coffee. It used to be hot, it becomes cool. It used to be strong, it becomes weak. It used to wake you up, now it’ll put you to sleep. This is what they did with the march on Washington. They joined it. They didn’t integrate it; they infiltrated it. They joined it, became a part of it, took it over. And as they took it over, it lost its militancy. – Malcolm X

Nationalism is neither the idea of racial supremacy nor its refutation. It is a context to racial aptitude, meaning that in each nation, those who are desired there are those from the nation only.

It leaves aside other questions in favor of this rule alone. Since nationalism focuses on the smallest natural division among human populations, the ethnic group or ethny, it is not racialism per se but a defense of a human variation on a finer scale.

Modern usage tends to like to conflate “nationalism” with “patriotism,” where one who has patriotism for his nation state and its proposition ideology is a “nationalist.” This is obviously the opposite of what nationalism actually is and is used this way to muddy the waters of perception on this important issue.

Nationalism is tied to identitarian politics and integralist social systems. Identitarian politics holds that a group requires strong identity as a prerequisite to having cultural consensus about moral values and behavior; integralist social systems advocate a unity between social institutions based upon a strong underlying values system such as the one delivered by culture.

For more questions on race, see The Race FAQ by John Goodrum.

1.3 What is Pan-Nationalism?

Pan-Nationalism is the idea of nationalism for every ethnic group on earth. Instead of dividing us, as politics does, this acknowledges that even ethnic groups in competition have the same ultimate goal, which is separation and self-determination.

Pan-Nationalism sees all nationalists as comrades in a struggle for a world order where ethnic groups can determine they want nationalism and thus exclude all others so that ethnic self-determination can take place.

In contrast to racism, which suggests that groups can co-exist and compete and one group will come out above the others by inherent superiority, Pan-Nationalism suggests that groups cannot co-exist because each needs the right to self-define, and that racism occurs only when this right is blocked.

1.4 Is it a political system?

Nationalism is a meta-political system in that it is a choice made by a society about how it shall be organized. Thus it is the container in which politics is decided.

There are essentially two forms of politics, “ideological” and “organic.” Organic and integralist beliefs like identitarian divide people into groups by heritage and shared values, and from those shared values, build a system of natural law. Ideological beliefs attract people to a quest to create “what should be” and then define the group by obedience to that standard. Organic systems tend to focus on things that are bigger than the individual; ideological systems tend to focus on the individual, and in uniting them into a “collective” which implements its ideology through strong institutions.

For this reason, while nationalism is not a political system, it tends to exclude non-organic political systems from its point of view.

1.5 List of famous nationalists

* Theodor Herzl – Conceptualizer of Israel. “Herzl concluded that anti-Semitism was a stable and immutable factor in human society, which assimilation did not solve…He declared that the Jews could gain acceptance in the world only if they ceased being a national anomaly.” – Jewish Virtual Library, “Theodor Herzl”

* Marcus Garvey – A nationalist who advocated a return to Africa for African people worldwide, Marcus Garvey encouraged identitarian pride among Africans in diaspora and founded several companies with the intent of settling in Liberia.

* Chiang Kai-Shek – The leader of the nationalist movement in China, Chiang Kai-Shek united his people and moved them toward modernity through education, national pride and a strong cultural identity.

* Osiris Akkebala – Contemporary African-American prophet and leader Osiris Akkebala writes on topics of nationalism, religion, culture and self-determination, urging Africans to adopt more stringent standards and live by cultural norms, rejecting the assimilationist norms of society around them.

* Oswald Moseley – Early English Nationalist leader Oswald Moseley saw that mass immigration would create a muddle of English culture, leading to a police state fractured by internal ethnic and class violence. Fifty years later, all of his predictions have come true.

2. Advocacy

2.1 Reasons for 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” 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. – Modern History Sourcebook,”Nationalism”

Nationalism provides an alternative to the type of modern government that, starting in moderate liberalism, inevitably drifts toward a powerful nanny state, a globalist reach, and the gradual replacement of all culture with crass materialism and control by financial interests.

By investing each group in pride in who it is, and encouraging the development of a cultural value system outside of government, nationalism provides localized resistance to global rule and cosmopolitan culture. Internationalism, and the desire for a common global culture, commerce and people, is destruction of our natural diversity in favor for a more machine-parsable humanity, in addition to being an inevitable path toward the type of society described in either (a) George Orwell’s “1984” and/or (b) Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World” and Vaclav Havel’s “Power of the Powerless.”

The Nationalist way of life has several advantages:

1. Parallelism

Each ethnic group becomes a laboratory of humanity. It is free to develop its own theories (stored in “culture” and through the resulting social selection, “heritage”) about the process of civilization. It then becomes the test case for those theories and values systems.

2. Contra-Assimilation

Groups do not need to dominate others to succeed, but triumph by achieving self-sustenance with no credibly-formed “enemies.” Nationalism has existed through all written history as the way by which tribes protect themselves against assimilation while refining their own abilities.

3. Recombination

Because ideas and their corresponding cultural and genetic ideals are kept important in localized ways in political units of medium size criteria, the multitude of details and arguments and histories that make up any idea are kept consolidated at their origin. Natural diversity and unique variation is preserved.

4. Deep ecology

Regulation as a means of protecting the environment has failed. Under the regulatory agenda, population has skyrocketed to over twice the maximum sensible carrying capacity. In addition, regulation has not been able to limit the reckless behavior of individuals and the profit-seeking motives of even small businesses that cause them to sacrifice the environment. We will never have enough police and laws to enforce these ideals. However, if we build them into each citizen with a strong link between identity, land, culture and heritage, society becomes self-enforcing with people defending the land and its flora/fauna as an extension of themselves.

2.2 Nationalism as alternative to enforcement

The model of the ideological state is based on elites interpreting ideology, then making rules, and then the centralized power of the state and its institutions enforcing these on the citizens. The weak point in this system is that it requires a certain number of infallible, incorruptible and omniscient police to enforce its rules.

In reality, rules make it easy to violate the law in spirit if not exactly, are hard to enforce, and generally catch only the clueless while those who intend to violate the laws take precautions and get away with it. By putting values into rule form, the ideological state makes the law and not the spirit of the law the target, and thus gradually separates people from having any agreement in common regarding values. Formalization literally breaks down the value system it in theory protects.

As a result, governments becoming increasingly militarized and intrusive as time goes on, not because government is evil, but because government unintentionally induces more violations of the law. This enforcement cycle finally culminates in a condition like tyranny, at which point corruption takes over and the lawbreakers find a way to act under color of law.

Nationalism offers a culture-based society which implements a decentralized values system enforced by fellow citizens on each other. Ideological government looks for transgressions of the letter of law; culture-based society looks for intent to evade the law and ostracizes people who have bad intent and are bad actors. The result is that there is a need for less regulation, and the freedom of people to associate with each other means that they exclude those who act badly and/or act against them with approval of their fellow citizens.

2.3 Nationalism as alternative to big government

Ideological government by its nature requires a centralized powerful government to enforce its rules. This government never shrinks in size, since once people are hired into it, they seek to protect their jobs by inventing new causes for their agencies and institutions.

The result is a constant state of mission creep which results in big government which, by needing to justify its own existence and continued growth, intrudes into areas where it cannot succeed so that it has permanent struggles (war is the metaphor most commonly used) which will always merit more government in the eyes of the public.

Much like a gold rush builds up an industry based on selling supplies and services to prospective miners, government is its own industry and finds ways to justify itself by inventing “necessary” services for citizens to purchase with their taxes.

Eventually, so many people are employed or indirectly paid by government that it becomes beyond criticism, and the resulting transfer of wealth to non-productive sectors both through entitlement programs and government hiring weakens the currency and prestige of the nation, signaling its imminent collapse.

2.4 Identitarian advantages

There are no Utopian governments and there are no ideal plans. Identitarian politics however has a massive advantage in that it does not attempt to “fix” things which cannot be fixed, and by binding together the people by cultural rules instead of enforced ideology, creates a sense of community and shared struggle toward the end of society’s health. This is different from the ideological goals of the modern state which seem to always be intensifying, yet never get resolved.

3. Implementation

3.1 How does a state go Nationalist?

A state converts to nationalism the same way it converts to any other form of government. There is either an election, or a revolution. A new party takes power and reshapes the society. Those who fit into the new order find it easy to thrive; those who do not tend to relocate to greener pastures.

3.2 Is violence required?

No, because most of the steps required for nationalism are easiest achieved through elections. This is because nationalism is the default state of humankind; people prefer to live, work, sell to, rent to, hire and socialize with people like them. If anti-discrimination laws and affirmative action are removed, nations inevitably drift back toward nationalism, which is why internationalists demanded those laws in the first place. Once some nationalist policies get adapted, they tend to be seen as more favorable than diversity, which creates social chaos no matter which selection of groups is chosen because the idea of diversity itself destroys the notion of shared cultural values, trust and goals. For these reasons, what is required is not violent overthrow, but selective removal of bad law, and society naturally goes nationalist.

3.3 What would happen to non-nationals?

One of the most frequently asked questions is phrased as, “If we go nationalist, where do non-majority people go?” The answer is that they will be happiest on their own home continents, surrounded by others like them, with ethnic self-determination. If they are already racially mixed, there are plenty of countries like Brazil, Russia, Iraq, and Mexico where this is encouraged and they will find a welcoming home.

3.4 How would this happen worldwide?

When one nation goes nationalist, and its population is able to enjoy actual self-determination, the illusion that ideological government is desirable is fractured and reveals that ideological government is not only unnatural but destructive. At that point, other nations will also seek nationalism out of a need to compete with the nationalist nation, which will enjoy a greater level of stability and thus be more productive and more competitive.

4. About

4.1 About this FAQ

This FAQ was written in January 2014 using fragments of text from the Pan-Nationalism.org website and texts from Amerika.org.

4.2 About the Author

Brett Stevens is a paleoconservative and deep ecologist who writes about conservatism, environmental issues, nationalism and values. He blogs at Amerika.org.

4.3 Contact

To make comments or suggestions, please write to:

media@amerika.org

Recommended Reading