Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘pluralism’

Catalonia Shows The “Clash Of Civilizations” Emerging After The Downfall of Liberal Democracy

Sunday, October 1st, 2017

We are in the midst of a vast change here on planet Earth, for all of humanity. An old order has fallen, and while most of us are scrambling to catch up, all that was based on this old order is falling silently at the same time. You can feel the muted panic in the streets.

That old order is named modernism, and it is the series of ideas which flowed from The Enlightenment™ concept of individualism, where natural law and social order take a back seat to what the individual desires. To make society subsidize that by refusing to enact Darwinistic sorting on those whose desires lead to bad or useless things, individualism became egalitarianism, and from that, collectives form.

For humanity in all ages, the problem is herd behavior, sometimes called peer pressure, which is the root of our trends, gangs, stampedes, cults, panics, cliques and other behaviors that are “dark organizations” which counteract our goals as civilizations, and the actual needs of individuals versus what they will say are their goals.

It is a paradox to most that individualism is a form of collectivism, but when you think about it, there is nothing more selfish than a crowd: a group of people united by lowest common denominator wants, desiring to enforce those on others, and to do so without accountability because they are in a faceless mob.

Caste revolt of this nature has destroyed every civilization to date. The faceless mob, unaware of what they cannot understand, tears down those above them and assumes that civilization will just keep on trucking as it has in the past. Instead, they quickly find that social order begins to decay.

The recent history of humanity shows us trying to find ways to make mob rule work, and failing. Parliaments, the Constitution, Communism, Socialism, Communitarianism, Distributism, Anarchism and all of these other “isms” are simply attempts to adapt to a new reality in which we have an ad hoc hierarchy based on who has the favor of the crowd at any moment.

As with most unstable things, and following in the path of the French Revolution which led to economic collapse and ideological warfare, global liberal democracy — the political philosophy of equality, itself a form of individualism — has died of its own success. Illogical plans, when put into action, “succeed” for some time, but then their unrealistic approach causes them to collapse.

Arising from that, we are entering the age of what political philosopher Samuel P. Huntington described as “The Clash of Civilizations” in which people move away from ideological and economic definitions of who they are, and instead turn to civilization, which is formed of the intersection of culture, heritage, religion and values:

World politics is entering a new phase, and intellectuals have not hesitated to proliferate visions of what it will be-the end of history, the return of traditional rivalries between nation states, and the decline of the nation state from the conflicting pulls of tribalism and globalism, among others. Each of these visions catches aspects of the emerging reality. Yet they all miss a crucial, indeed a central, aspect of what global politics is likely to be in the coming years.

It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.

What is happening in Catalonia now fits this pattern. The Spanish state has smashed, jailed, censored and disenfranchised its citizens in order to try to prevent the inevitable: the breakup of the nation-state, formed of many different ethnic groups united by ideology and economic system, into smaller civilizations based on innate identity.

In the United States, a similar sentiment has arisen with the election of Donald J. Trump; people want America “before the change” to return, and by that they mean the 1950s style Western European America. In the United Kingdom, voters opted to escape the economic and political cartel of the European Union. In Germany, the proto-nationalist party Alternative For Germany won record gains.

The pushback has become, and it is consists of people not just rejecting the mixed-racial modern state, but the mixed-ethnic one as well:

People are people; differences, even intraracial differences (as those between English and Irish, or Ukranians and Russians, for example) exist, and frictions, up to and including warfare, happen. We can’t wave a magic wand and make those things disappear.

Following this, other aspects of modernity are fading as well, including faith in democracy:

The next step will be a rejection of caste revolt itself. Cynicism toward equality is spreading. The sheer incompetence of our leaders has made us distrust the utilitarian premise of democracy, which is that whatever most people think is good, is actually good. The future includes hierarchy, both of leadership, and of social roles, with those who have the most prized traits rising above the rest.

Even more, recognition of the total failure of pluralism, or that we can coexist with those of other racial and ethnic groups, religions, philosophies and even political inclinations is collapsing on both Left and Right:

Obama was wrong when he said that we are not two countries, one blue and one red. Because, in fact, we are. Our job is to make sure that our country prevails.

As the fundamental ideas of democracy, equality, pluralism, and diversity unravel, something new is coming to take their place. It will be “new” in that, as history cycles, we will find ourselves back where we were before this disaster of modernism occurred, and when then start going the other way, toward the traditional forms of living that have protected us for millennia.

We will now be addressing the only question remaining which is that of whether, after this seemingly endless disaster, we can restore our civilization and ourselves to be something great again, as slumbers in our ancestral memory and imaginations:

I often wonder about this question: is the character or the spirit of a people genetic, and if so, is it passed down through generations — or can it be subverted by means of propaganda, dysgenics, and what amounts to psychological/spiritual warfare? Could the original character of these peoples re-assert itself, or can it be restored by conscious effort? Can decades, even centuries or manipulation be reversed?

It seems to me that we are entering a new dark age of terror as the old order falls. Most of our fellow citizens will not be coming with us into the future. Many of our most cherished beliefs are departing. But in this vast void, opportunity lurks for those who are brave and realistic. We finally have a chance to escape the disaster of modernism, and replace it with something better.

Courage!

Anti-Diversity Goes Mainstream In The Wall Street Journal

Monday, June 19th, 2017

In the pages of The Wall Street Journal, we find a welcome summary of the argument against diversity. Couched in analysis of the European immigration disaster, the article examines some of the points and issues I have been writing about since the early 1990s:

It is as though some great hole lies at the heart of the culture of Dante, Bach and Wren.

When people point out the downsides of this approach—not least that more immigration from Muslim countries produces many problems, including terrorism—we get the final explanation. It doesn’t matter, we are told: Because of globalization this is inevitable and we can’t stop it anyway.

All these instincts, when put together, are the stuff of suicide. They spell out the self-annihilation of a culture as well as a continent. Conversations with European policy makers and politicians have made this abundantly clear to me. They tell me with fury that it “must” work. I suggest that with population change of this kind, at this speed, it may not work at all.

Diversity is a way of engineering a permanent Leftist majority because the new group will always vote for more benefits, which are the province of the Left (and when conservatives embrace entitlements culture, they rapidly shift Leftward). It eventually means ethnic replacement of the population first through trace admixture, where your son or daughter marries someone who is 1/8 or 1/4 something else, and eventually everyone is a little bit newcomer, and the original racial group is erased. Genocided. Gone forever.

Diversity never works because each ethnic group wants to be in control so that it can set standards, values, customs, practices, procedures, aesthetics and cultural memes. This means that in a nation-state with multiple ethnic groups, they are subtly at war with one another as they compete for dominance. Even when one wins, the others struggle, at least until everyone is mixed into a grey cultureless nu-race.

The intellectually difficult point here is that we do not have an enemy. Our problem is not Muslims, but diversity itself; even “nice” other groups will invade us and genetically replace us. A Germany that is genetically 1/4 Japanese is no longer Germany, for example. They do not mean to do this, but it is the way of tribes that want to prevail, that they assert themselves and dominate others.

Diversity itself is a bad policy because it is paradoxical in this way, promising peace and freedom but delivering constant ethnic conflict. It cannot work because it is illogical given the innate needs of different populations. Every individual and every group acts in self-interest, and diversity makes those interests clash.

In America, people are fleeing diversity because it destroys social trust in their communities, causing them to distrust even people of their own ethnic group. Minority communities suffer because of diversity as well because it deprecates their own prospects and makes them subject to the same social distrust. The nation-state itself becomes corrupt with the introduction of diversity.

Healthy nations recognize homogeneity not as a fanatical goal, but a prerequisite for health and so are abandoning diversity just like the people in the West who are fleeing it. Energy is growing behind the idea of ending diversity without acrimony.

The WSJ article goes on to point out the core reason for diversity:

The reasons lie partly in our history, not least in the overwhelming German guilt, which has spread across the Continent and affected even our cultural cousins in America and Australia. Egged on by those who wish us ill, we have fallen for the idea that we are uniquely guilty, uniquely to be punished, and uniquely in need of having our societies changed as a result.

There is also, for Europe, the sense of what I call tiredness—the feeling that the story might have run out: that we have tried religion, all imaginable forms of politics, and that each has, one after another, led us to disaster. When we taint every idea we touch, perhaps a change is as good as a rest.

Modernity — equality, consumerism, individualism, democracy, social mobility, pluralism, class warfare — is the monkey on our back. No matter what we change, we bring our fundamental egalitarian assumptions with us, and so like an inverse King Midas we destroy everything we touch.

This “tiredness” was first chronicled by the generation of writers after World War One, who noted that “the war to end all wars” had convinced no one, and that people had become fatalistic because it was clear that society was heading down a path to doom and yet our pretense of equality prevented us from stepping off that path. Drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die, and life has no point.

This leads to a condition like the present day:

The migration policies of the political and other elites of Europe suggest that they are suicidal.

The West has to decide whether it wants to keep committing suicide for the pretense that every person is good, and that we all have equal potential and abilities and moral character, or whether it wants to admit that we need an external order above the human individual. Around here, I suggest the eternal social order that made Golden Ages in the past and can do so in the future, even as we prepare to take to space for the next phase of our great human adventure.

Leftists Disturbed By Pluralism, Demand Ideological Uniformity

Friday, May 26th, 2017

Let us revisit the idea of pluralism:

a state of society in which members of diverse ethnic, racial, religious, or social groups maintain and develop their traditional culture or special interest within the confines of a common civilization

It comes from the root of the word plural, as in “E Pluribus Unum,” or “out of many, one.” Except that pluralism does not involve that oneness. Instead, there is just the many, at least until we blend them all into a uniform brown with the exact same opinions, habits and preferences, but at that point individuality and culture are deader than Jimmy Hoffa.

In a debate, pluralism means “agree to disagree.” In a society, it means that many different groups coexist. In philosophy, it means among other things that many inconsistent things can be true at the same time. In a social group, it means that not everyone has the same opinion, and this is where the Left is suddenly freaking out about it:

Spencer sought to garner sympathy by arguing that he is a model gym user — he should be allowed to spread hate and stoke racist, misogynist, anti-Semitic, Islamophobic and other bigoted forms of violence, and organize torchlit nighttime rallies that conjure up images of similar rallies staged by the Klan — all without facing consequences for his actions when off the job, so to speak. Spencer wants us to believe that when he is not publicly exclaiming the superiority of the white, Christian male and asserting that this country belongs to such men, he should be allowed to mingle in polite, ethnically diverse society.

She clearly has no idea what pluralism — an ideal of the Left — means. In a pluralistic society, no opinions are taboo. Communists rub shoulders with Nazis, and Christians talk to atheists while Darwinists talk to Lamarckians. It is a nonsensical ideal because every belief system seeks to have a space for itself, which requires excluding others.

The Left used pluralism as a weapon against the majority in the West. They claimed that we could coexist with their views. Now that they have the upper hand, they want to exclude any views which are not Leftist. It is time that we simply called this farce for what it is, and admitted that both pluralism and egalitarianism (Leftism) are lies, and anyone who supports either has committed themselves to lying.

On Jewishness And The Alt Right

Tuesday, November 1st, 2016

diversity_irony

The messages started almost immediately.

As my piece went live, new Twitter accounts begun for this purpose began reaching out. “I’m a Jew, and I’ve always felt this way but I’m afraid to say it” was one common refrain. This was followed up by Facebook messages, invitations to shadowy right-wing Jewish forums, and furtive Kahane supporters verifying my right-wing credentials. Was I really a spy? The right wing Jew is such a rare breed in the wild, some simply didn’t believe it.

The comment section of my article attracted a not-so-rare breed: the “get in the oven” trolls, there to let me know they weren’t cutting me any slack and a Jew remains a Jew. Even here there were gems. One insightful commentator noted that I wasn’t a REAL racist like they were, I’d merely made the calculation that the modern right was less dangerous to Jews than the modern left. While this fellow underestimated my genuine support of the West qua West, he wasn’t totally wrong, and his next observation was keen: “Do you realize how incredibly neurotic your people are, including yourself?”

Well… yeah!

There are those in the alt-right who define their movement entirely in respect to White Nationalism. To them, the alt-right is the political vehicle in the battle for white “ethno-states” which will replace current democracies in Europe and possibly North America/Australia. Many self-consciously model these states on the example of Israel. The least extreme version of an “ethno-state” need not be racially homogeneous, but the political, economic, and cultural power in the state will remain in the hands of the dominant race/ethnicity, who will decide for themselves what will constitute citizenship. As some call this “white supremacy,” the alt-right points out that it’s simply how most of the world works:

weev

So what is an “ethno-state” and why would figures in the Alt-Right look to Israel for an example?

The idea has been around for some time, in different names and reiterations. For Alt-Right leaders such as Richard Spencer, (head of the National Policy Institute, a “pro white think tank”) defining European and North American states using racial criteria is necessary. Spencer, called the “Karl Marx of the Alt-Right” by Glenn Beck, has written at length about the situation facing American and European Whites. What situation? Minority status, loss of culture, and loss of identity in a multi-ethnic state where the standard of living has fallen for everyone. The solution? Make race or ethnic identity the core organizing principle of the state. Germany for the Germans, France for the French, Japan for the Japanese, etc. The policies of these states can vary, but the bedrock principle would be the maintenance of a majority for the dominant ethnic group.

Israel has chosen to extend certain rights to non-Jewish citizens, including the right to vote; there are Arabs in the Knesset. This is all true, yet between ethno-states, policies can differ greatly.

To the Alt-Right, this solves many problems at once. In his book The Ethnostate, Wilmot Robertson (deceased, 2005) talks about what such a state would look like and what policies it would have. The specifics are less important than the idea that race is a “shortcut” to fix other issues. Problems with Wall Street? Less of a problem in a White ethno-state, where high trust and cultural/ethnic pride lead to better behavior from executives. There’s less of a need for regulation in the first place. Where to put educational resources? Easier question when we aren’t dealing with issues of race and immigration, isn’t it? In an ethno-state, the focus of the government will be a more efficient affair. The time and effort put into bridging ethnic and racial divides in our public institutions will evaporate, leaving societies’ energy focused on more productive issues. The well-being of such a country could be more objectively measured. What’s the standard of living? What’s the pay gap? How’s inequality? These questions are easier to answer without issues of race.

Does any of this sound familiar? Do any states exist with policies intended to keep one ethnic/racial group as a majority? Policies that favor this group? The example given by many Alt-Right figures is Israel. Spencer claims to “respect Israel” as a “homogenous ethno-state.” Israeli policies discouraging non-Jewish immigration and encouraging Palestinians to move away from disputed areas are cited by alt-right leaders as examples for their own ethno-state.

Immigration/emigration are part of the story for Israel, but its commitment to the Jewish population is deeper than that. A good description comes from author Sammy Smooha, in the Journal “Nations and Nationalism”. Smooha writes:

Contrary to its self–image and international reputation as a Western liberal democracy, Israel is an ethnic democracy in which the Jews appropriate the state and make it a tool for advancing their national security, demography, public space, culture and interests.

This is what the Alt-Right theoretically wants. A state in which White people, however defined, have control over the public spaces, the culture, the politics, and the demographic future of their country.

What’s that you say? Israel’s not really an ethno-state? They have minorities? Well, of course. Israel has chosen to extend certain rights to non-Jewish citizens, including the right to vote; there are Arabs in the Knesset. This is all true, yet between ethno-states, policies can differ greatly. There’s no need for such a state to be free of minorities, as long as the state itself is defined around the majority. Israel, which encourages (and pays for) large orthodox Jewish families, and calls itself the “Jewish State” is certainly such a country.

So why isn’t the alt-right thrilled to have more Jews among its ranks? Surely we could provide the guidance they need to set up their ethno-states. If they are impressed with Israel, why not more engagement with sympathetic diaspora Jews?

Many in the Alt-Right fear Jewish influence on their movement, citing the Neoconservative “takeover” of traditional Conservatism, and the change in the movement’s character as a result. They fear that Jews may “dilute” the ethno-state they ultimately want to build.

Kevin McDonald, ex Cal State professor and Alt-Right theorist, has written a piece on Jews and the Alt-Right that mentions nineteenth century Austrian-Jewish politician Victor Adler. Adler’s Austria was the seat of the multinational Austro-Hungarian Empire, and was under strain from the repeated influx of “Slavic” immigrants and refugees.

Merely preserving German language and administrative customs wasn’t enough. Actual German people needed protection as well.

Difficult questions of identity revolved around German-speaking Austrians. Should “German” policies, German language, German culture, predominate? Should loyalty to the Emperor and the state trump ethnic loyalty? Adler was a “cultural” nationalist, part of the Linz Program of 1882, explicitly calling for the primacy of German culture, language, and policies in the Austrian State. One of Adler’s co-signers to the Linz Program was Georg Schönerer, who advocated for the inclusion of an “Aryan Paragraph” which would make explicit the connection between German culture and people of German ethnicity.

So what does this have to do with the ethno-state? Schönerer’s concerns are a model for the concerns of the Alt-Right today. As Austria took in more and more refugees from the east, the relative power of the German-speaking population was reduced. To Schönerer and even Adler, the Slavic “Hungarian” side of the Empire was distinctly inferior to the “German” side. To allow more Slavic influence at court, and to allow more Slavic people into the intuitions of the state would invariably weaken and degrade Austro-Hungary. The Linz Program signers made their feelings explicit:

We protest against all attempts to convert Austria into a Slavic state. We shall continue to agitate for the maintenance of German as the official language and to oppose the extension of federalism…[W]e are steadfast supporters of the alliance with Germany and the foreign policy now being followed by the empire.

Adler agreed with Schönerer regarding the “inferiority” of Slavic culture to German culture, but Schönerer took things a step further. Merely preserving German language and administrative customs wasn’t enough. Actual German people needed protection as well. His “Aryan Paragraph” provided that Germans would receive privileges in the empire including more access to government positions.

Schönerer also advocated for a breakup on the Empire along ethnic lines, and his ideas are said to have motivated Polish and Hungarian Nationalists, as well as providing a model for Zionism. Today’s Alt-Right also feels the need to go beyond “cultural nationalism” as well — which means that their ethno-state will not be welcome to any but those who are genetically of its founding ethnic group. To them, race and ethnicity are biological facts.

There’s something genetically distinct, for example, about a German person, and this genetic distinctiveness expresses itself in German culture, which then influences what will be the German state. A majority Black country in Africa could attempt to become a German “culturally nationalist” state, but in the eyes of the Alt-Right, this would end in failure. Only Jews can make a Jewish state, only Zulus a Zulu State. We can speak each other’s languages, eat each other’s food, but there will always be a deep distinction between us.

There’s something genetically distinct, for example, about a German person, and this genetic distinctiveness expresses itself in German culture, which then influences what will be the German state.

Adler broke with Schönerer over the Aryan Paragraph and soon ended up leading the Austrian Labour Movement and publishing an influential Marxist journal. MacDonald and other Alt-Eight commentators fear that Jews in the Alt-Right would exert a similar influence to that of Adler. It’s not the disagreement between cultural/ethnic nationalism in and of itself that bothers them, but the possibility that Jews will push the former and vilify the latter, all while taking on the mantle of the alt-right. Seems a bit farfetched? Perhaps, but who would have thought that Neoconservatives would take the mantle of American Conservatism from John Birch?

The Alt-Right is mixed on Jewish help, but nuanced. MacDonald is still open to the idea of Jews “allied” to the alt-right, assuming they are “vocal critics of the Jewish community and its role in the dispossession of European-Americans.” More nuance comes from a recent press conference given by top alt-right luminaries including Spencer and Jared Taylor. In Taylor’s own words:

“I tend to believe that European Jews are part of our movement,” Taylor said. “I think it is unquestionable there has been an overrepresentation by Jews [among] individuals that have tried to undermine white legitimacy.”

But, he said, the same is true of Episcopalians.

“Does that mean all Jews are enemies of the white race? I reject that,” Taylor said.

Taylor has long been a “white nationalist” writer, well known for being one of the “moderates” in the movement. His views were well-expressed in a recent NPR interview. What he wants is fairly simple: freedom of association on private property. If (non-Jewish) whites wish to have an all-white club, private school, or neighborhood, government shouldn’t intrude. Is this, in and of itself, anti-Semitic? Will I be on my way to the oven? Not sure, but I managed to avoid oppressing the Goyim on my way to Jewish Summer Camp, so who’s to say Whites couldn’t exhibit similar restraint? This really isn’t terribly different than current American policies. Taylor’s “ethno-state” would be far milder than Israel!

Israel has chosen to extend certain rights to non-Jewish citizens, including the right to vote; there are Arabs in the Knesset. This is all true, yet between ethno-states, policies can differ greatly.

Regardless of individual feelings on the Alt-Right, White People, or ethno-states, there is more nuance here than most will give credit for. Media accounts (Betsy Woodruff in Daily Beast) of the NPI Press Conference claim the participants “hate Jews”, despite Taylor’s clear stance to the contrary:

woodruff

Covering the NPI Press Conference for the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Ron Kampeas writes:

“I want my grandchildren to look like my grandparents,” Taylor said, “not like Fu Manchu or Whoopi Goldberg or Anwar Sadat.”

There were nods of agreement and more pledges to continue the conversation in the Willard bar.

As the room emptied, I prayed silently that Taylor would enjoy good health long enough to behold a grandchild with a pointed goatee, thick braids, foot-long fingernails and a prayer bump, and I recalled his opening remarks, and his overarching predicate for the existence of racial differences.

Most Jewish people would have a similar reaction to Woodruff and Kampeas. Hostility, referring to the Alt-Right leaders as “racist”, mocking their desire for racial and ethnic purity. But why? Are figures like Spencer racist for wanting a White ethno-state? Is Taylor to be condemned for wanting his grandchildren to look like him? (and, it could be assumed, wanting the same or better standard of living for them?) Why can’t we turn the lens around for a moment? What are we really quibbling over? Is it the location of Spencer’s hypothetical ethno-state? What if it was Norway? Is it a problem that White people want to be around other White people? Want their grandchildren to be like them?

I want my grandchildren to be Jewish, I want the Jewish state of Israel to retain its majority Jewish population and character. I want Israel to be there for me and my grandchildren. I want Judaism and the Jewish people to survive. Am I any different than Spencer? Are you?

((( = )))

Wednesday, September 14th, 2016

equality-or-zionism

The Alt Right struggles to define itself in the wake of being given massive media exposure by ill-advised candidate Hillary Clinton. As part of this, it returns to the “Jewish Question” or JQ which has troubled underground rightist movements for centuries.

Amerika has consistently taken the position that, whatever Jewish injuries to the European civilizations exist, the real problem is degeneracy within those European civilizations. We did this to ourselves, and we pursue it through ideas like equality, individualism, democracy and pluralism which are perennially popular human illusions.

This angers some people. For example, Counter-Currents ceased reprinting my articles after an attack by someone who thinks the Jews are the root of our problem. My response then as now is:

I don’t know for sure whether or not the Jewish people are spawn of Satan, or black people are Uruk-Hai, but I know this for certain: the root of our problem in the West is white liberalism and its corrupting influence on all issues.

Rather than try to fight out a highly polarizing issue by blaming the Other, I’d like to point out that our problems are all ideologies of the left: diversity, egalitarianism, tolerance, and pacifism.

This position has led to some fairly entertaining statements from the underground right, including ones of this nature:

Like Guillaume Faye and Jared Taylor, Stevens has a history of being coy on the Jewish issue and has even made pro-Israeli statements: this agenda is slyly pushed by members of the bourgeoise and WASPs in general within the alternative right and needs to be watched closely when considering who is suitable for leadership roles within the movement. Along with Scott McConnell of The American Conservative, he went full Zionist during the 2014 Gaza crisis, rushing to the defense of the Jews to kill Palestinian babies in the Gaza Holocaust.

What seems universal: the position that I have taken is not taken seriously enough to be analyzed for what is being said.

On the Alt Right, we face a number of existential threats. The biggest is assimilation by what is popular, which is always an illusion. There is a mainstream version of this, including the usual stuff Republican neocon cuckservatives pursue, and an underground version, which is the Hollywood neo-Nazi approach. If either becomes accepted, it will dominate the Alt Right and convert it into yet another variety of Leftism.

Why is anti-Semitism Leftism? Because it exonerates Leftism and individualism — the root of Leftism, when collectivized, since egalitarianism is individualism converted into policy — while simultaneously bashing a scapegoat whose demise will do nothing but strengthen Leftism.

In addition, it is appalling to our people, and morally appalling to me. White people dislike cruelty and pointless savagery. Many of us realize that too much “naming the Jew” is going to create a chain reaction that will rage out of control, as it allegedly did in Eastern Europe and Nazi Germany, and end in dead Jewish families.

We are however excited by the prospect of nationalism: Us, and only Us.

That means that all other groups exit. However, this is achieved through indirect means at first, and then outright deportation, usually with reparations to make the disunion a happy one for all parties. Indirect means include the ill-named “freedom of association,” at which point country clubs and law firms will go back to not hiring anyone but WASPs. Direct means include revocation of citizenship and arrest and deportation.

When we signal a (((coincidence))) we are missing the point, and doubly dangerous, focusing on the wrong thing. Take a look at a highly erudite and accurate criticism of Jews in America:

Neoconservatives have been staunch supporters of arguably the most destructive force associated with the left in the twentieth century — massive non-European immigration. Support for massive non-European immigration has spanned the Jewish political spectrum throughout the twentieth century to the present and, as noted below, Jewish organizations and activism were responsible for the sea change in immigration policy resulting from the 1965 immigration law. A principal motivation of the organized Jewish community for encouraging such immigration has involved a deeply felt animosity toward the people and culture responsible for the immigration restriction of 1924–1965 — “this notion of a Christian civilization” as Samuel Francis characterized it. The comment of neoconservative Ben Wattenberg indicates the emotional commitment that many Jews have to the ethnic transformation of America: “The non-Europeanization of America is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality.”

We have to look at this logically: many Jews have been involved in Leftist politics; all of those Jews were Leftists. While that is not all Jews, it is something close to the majority. However, what we are most likely seeing is a clash of cultures, and the effects of diversity itself. Any group that feels an outsider acts against the majority; this is why all minority groups exclusively vote Leftist.

The solution to that is to recognize that diversity, not Jews, is the problem. That does not detract at all from Dr. MacDonald’s excellent research, or from the Walt and Mearshimer writings on the influence of the Israeli lobby, or even the criticisms by Hemingway, Eliot, Fitzgerald, Faulkner, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Heidegger and other great writers on the character of Jews and the culture, religion and ethnicities of Judaism.

The real question is how relevant it is, and if there is something more relevant, which is reversing decay.

In a decay-reversed West, Jews would not want to be here. The place would be ragingly European and invested in its own agenda and image to the point that outsiders would feel alien and isolated. Any Jews who did want to come, then, would not be the mental health success stories of Judaism, but its failures, and on that basis alone would be turned away, in addition of course to the iron rule of Nationalism, which is “This land is for Us; if you are not Us, go away or face the sword.”

Naming the Jew puts us in the Leftist camp where scapegoating, guillotines, gulags and mass executions are the new normal. White Nationalism misses the point and drives itself insane by chasing Jews instead of looking at the obvious problem, Leftism. This absolves our people of responsibility when they should be looking at what caused our decline, specifically, underclass rebellion by white people. We have to solve that problem, and any scapegoating avoids mentioning this actual problem in order to chase symbolic/emotional issues instead.

Even the Nazis understood that anti-Semitism was a quest to remove a materialistic and impulsive spirit from within us, more as symbolism than literal execution. Our problem is intangible, and we cannot beat it by attacking groups; we must attack policies such as democracy, diversity, civil rights, pluralism, welfare and human rights instead, because these are the root of the ethnic problem.

Unfortunately, most people — even in the underground far-right — are afraid to do this. They support Leftist policies for the same reason nearly everyone else does: they want equality, freedom and a “safety net.” The price of being free of the racial problem is that we must give these up because they are destructive, in addition to being false framing of a more vital question, which is civilization health. This is why people desire to crush the Jews: because then the rest of the system can keep on keeping on and no one needs be inconvenienced.

Truth however is inconvenient by nature, which is why it is also elusive. Socialism makes people lazy and dependent; welfare states make them entitled; democracy makes them careless and inert; freedom makes them passive; equality destroys the best and promotes the mediocre. These are the true enemies. Everything else is a symptom of the infection with these horrible ideas that make even worse policy.

Equality equals human pretense that the individual is the supreme being who decides what is true and real. This forms a mental virus which eats away at sanity and individuality, leaving only a robotic person who pursues what will make them popular with others, therefore affirming the equality they assert but cannot truly believe. This is what eats our people, and is consuming our civilization.

If outsiders have a way of subverting us, it is through this vector and it alone. Until we fix it, we go down in flames. When we target intermediates, like the Jews or any other minority group, we miss the point: the error is ours, the solution is in our hands, and all we must do is start acting against these illusory assumptions and we can restore the greatness of Western Civilization.

This knowledge dovetails with the JQ in that a healthy society, for Jews or Gentiles, will involve only one ethnic group. Germany for Germans, Israel for Jews. As the founder of Zionism, Theodor Herzl, wrote:

The Jewish question persists wherever Jews live in appreciable numbers. Wherever it does not exist, it is brought in together with Jewish immigrants. We are naturally drawn into those places where we are not persecuted, and our appearance there gives rise to persecution. This is the case, and will inevitably be so, everywhere, even in highly civilised countries—see, for instance, France—so long as the Jewish question is not solved on the political level. The unfortunate Jews are now carrying the seeds of anti-Semitism into England; they have already introduced it into America.

Jews cannot assimilate because no group can assimilate, at least without genetically destroying the host group. The sane solution is separation, not enmity, and definitely not the kind of morally bankrupt and sadistic behavior that has happened when Eastern European and possibly German populations took revenge on Jewish people who were over-represented in the Communist Party and in industry. This type of “lashing out” does nothing but perpetuate our problem and turn us into monsters.

As a wise man wrote:

Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster… for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.

Whatever monstrosities we see in other groups, we do not want to adopt for ourselves. The abyss — sadism, small-mindedness, vengefulness, rage — will make us into a mirror image of everything we (rightfully) hate and fear. If we want to defeat materialistic thinking, we must destroy equality as an assumption. ((( = ))) has brought the downfall of the West, and no amount of killing will save us from it until we defeat the thing itself, and not merely destroy its proxies.

inequality-and-naturalism

The Alt Right Needs To Double Down

Wednesday, August 31st, 2016

city_ablaze

Within minutes of globalist candidate Hillary Clinton opening up both bores of her nagging grandma guilt shotgun on the alt right, dissent broke out like a rash as the alt right began the difficult task of finally formalizing itself.

Self-policing becomes inevitable in artistic movements, musical scenes, cults, gangs, religious sects and political shockwaves like the alt right. Any distinctive ideal which does not police its supporters will be taken over by those who want to use it for their own ends.

This “entryism” explains why so many once-promising movements become the opposite of what they started as. For example, most Leftist movements start as well-intentioned programs to help people. This can be seen most clearly with the Greens and Anarchists, who started out with unique ideas and ended up as wings of the Leftist parties.

In the case of the alt right, there are numerous people who are now trying to re-define the alt right as one of the following:

  1. A less PC version of the mainstream right.

  2. A more PC version of White Nationalism.

Those attempts ignores the fact that the alt right rose up in the first place because neither of those options — Republican or White Nationalist — fit the needs of the generations who grew up after the Leftists took over in 1968. In particular, the alt right attacks two trends:

  1. The current leftist takeover of our society through political correctness.

  2. The need to get Western Civilization out of a death spiral and back on a path toward greatness.

Conventional conservative movements have utterly failed to arrest either one of these trends. In fact, by pledging to be “bipartisan” and work within the System, conservatives have co-opted themselves by adopting the assumptions of Leftism within a conservative context, thus obliterating any “conservative” ideas.

On the other hand, White Nationalism has also failed, mainly because it is an outrage and not a plan. White Nationalists want a variety of things, usually centered around the idea of all white people hanging out together and being equal. This kind of “ethno-bolshevism” does not appeal to Europeans, who defend their specific national identities, nor Americans, who identify with various strata of whiteness (Western European, class, region).

That alt right does include something simpler: white self-interest. This is inherent in the term “nationalism,” which in its historical and correct use refers to ethnic nationalism, or the definition of a nation by its founding ethnic group and not political or economic systems.

White self-interest includes a desire to disconnect ourselves from political correctness by rejecting the stigma of the term “racist,” to cut ourselves free from immigration and the liberal welfare state, and to be able to freely associate — which requires abolishing anti-discrimination and civil rights laws — with our own without some Leftist politician shipping us inner city people, foreign refugees or deranged homeless people.

But on a broader scale, and in consideration of the second concern of the alt right, how did we get to this state?

Some blame individualism. This seems plausible, except when one wonders what the cause of individualism (placing concerns of the individual before nature, civilization and God) might be. There must be some root for this dysfunction.

One might plausibly blame diversity. Northern Europe encountered its own Siberian and Mongol immigrants early on, and the same people who populate Northern Europe once also wandered through China and India. When diversity is introduced, it destroys social trust, and so people become individualistic: the self against the world, including civilization.

Another view is that individualism arises when a society becomes fatalistic. This can come from several sources. First, by succeeding, it loses any inherent sense of purpose, which in early civilizations is to defeat threats in nature and establish consistent nutrition and safety. It could also be, as I argue in my book Parallelism (yet unpublished), that success as a society causes a ballooning of the population of people who could not survive without civilization, leading to the “idiots rule” situation of today because what is popular shifts from what is realistic to what is unrealistic.

Still another view comes to us from the writer Thomas Pynchon, building on what William S. Burroughs wrote: entropy. Over time, things decline. The more centralized they are, the more catastrophic that decline is. And so, when a society becomes efficient and orderly, it creates the seeds of its own destruction.

Knowing life, or the way things work out at a level of pattern and not material, it seems likely that a combination of these introduced a crisis. Against all odds, Western Europeans thrived; in turn, this brought parasites and attackers, and then created a society so focused on stability that it forgot to be Darwinistic and periodically clean house and re-order itself.

This could be the core dilemma that the alt right addresses, and the reason for the seemingly savage and chaotic nature of its activity. We do not need new policy, but a house-cleaning, where we send away the Other and then turn to the bad amongst us, which can no longer hide in the chaos of diversity, and exile it. Under this calculus, both Hillary Clinton and the fourth-generation welfare families would be headed to Brazil via cargo plane.

In this perspective, the alt right can fail only one way: by not being extreme enough.

Already it is under assault from special interest groups. Some want it to go National Socialist, and blame the Jews for the downfall of Western Civilization; others want “civic nationalism,” which is essentially the liberal State, instead of ethno-nationalism; still others want a religious basis to it. And then there are the many who want it be simply a restored form of GOP conservatism. All have missed the point.

In this way, they will reproduce the exact same thing that made Republicans and the White Nationalists both fail: they will destroy a comprehensive message and replace it with a special interest group that will leave the status quo mostly intact.

Mainstream conservatism and White Nationalism both failed. They attracted those who were fanatical about certain issues, which created groups which could not find agreement on the big issue: what type of society do we desire, and how do we get there?

White Nationalism for example tells us that we want the existing System but only for whites, ignoring the problems that groups of mixed-whites have had merging in the past. Look to Northern Ireland, or even Poles in the UK, or perhaps the fate of Sudeten Germans or even the veiled conflict between the mixed-white North and the WASP Confederate States of America.

Even more, it leaves the same system that produced this bad result — democracy, rule of law, individualism and personal liberation from social standards — intact. White Nationalism, like most revolutions, will reproduce the conditions before it, just in a worse form (a type of decay). Republicans will leave the decay intact in order to pursue symbolic issues and rake in money.

This leaves us with a problem in the West: we have been taken over by parasites, and nothing will drive those parasites away except to cut off their source of nutrition. That happens for the lower through the welfare state, and for the higher through the state itself, which hires them as politicians and bureaucrats.

For the alt right to succeed it must then oppose the root of the problem, so that people are guaranteed actual change to avoid the conditions they see today — and to obliterate the decay which has chased Western Civilization for centuries, eroding our faith in ourselves and our sense of our future having meaning and something good coming out of it.

This requires that we identify the actual enemy, which is both intangible and invisible. It is popularity. Put together a group of people, and they react socially, which means that they avoid difficult truths and instead focus on what keeps the group together. This leads to compromise on all important issues.

To tackle this, we must be both moderates and extremists. We must be moderates in that we do not scapegoat partially culpable groups (minorities, the rich, the elites) but focus on the policies that bring us into conflict. Diversity, for example, is a policy: the idea that a state can be comprised of people of different backgrounds.

It is not extremist to note that culture arises from genetic similarity, and that politics arises from that. Nor is it extreme to say that voting removes responsibility from both voters and leaders, and that it leads to bad decisions. Where we must be extremists is to say that enough is enough, and we need these dysfunctional policies — which produce parasites both high and low — removed.

Us extremist moderates have a difficult task. We must be cool-headed and realistic, but then knowing the nature of the human tendency toward entropy, must push hard for long-term solutions applied evenly and completely. This redefines the term “moderate” from meaning “bipartisan” to meaning “common sense,” and then gives it a strong authoritative push toward full implementation.

The grim truth of humanity is that we destroy ourselves. We try to find a theory that fits all the people in a group, instead of looking for a theory that fits all the data in the external world and history. In so doing, we end up choosing a crowd-pleaser that is a loser, every time.

With popularity, entryism occurs into every idea. It is watered down to what flatters individuals by making them think themselves magnanimous, and it makes the group have warm fuzzies because it feels that it is unified and cannot be divided, therefore each individual is safe in the protection of the crowd.

Most movements self-police the wrong way. They set boundaries, and look for those who overlap beyond that edge, and then declare the problem solved. This misses those who are subverting the definitions at the center of the movement, and cuts out people who are providing necessary challenges.

The only way to police is to look at the center. Is this person basically heading in the same direction toward solving the problem? If so, let them in. If they deny or subvert a central part of the argument, such as being pro-democracy or thinking that solving one aspect of the problem magically fixes the whole, you have an entryist: a zombie of the dominant paradigm who has found your movement and will, deliberately or not, subvert it.

The alt right needs to double down on its core appeal: modern society is insane. It is illogical, destructive and cannibalizes its best people to keep its worst voting for the Leftist ideals that it has endorsed. This is the end result of leadership by committee, or vote by popularity.

With that in mind, it makes sense to look at how the alt right can defend itself.

Entry Thresholds

These are minimum requirements for someone to participate in the alt right. They focus on goals, not boundaries, and serve to draw focus to what is actually being worked towards.

  1. Strong ethnic nationalism.

  2. Irreverent, extreme and nearly sadistically offensive humor.

  3. Resistance to centralization.

The average liberal convert will want to find a version of the alt right that avoids the great liberal no-no of ethnic nationalism. This person will start by saying that maybe all of those who can assimilate to our culture can be included, or that what we need is focus on a political and economic system.

Saying “Western European countries are for Western Europeans only,” and pointing out that France should be for the French, will alienate this person and drive them back into liberalism to see the contradictions in their own thinking for awhile.

Similarly, those who fear realistic humor are opposed to realism itself. If something is true, it forms the basis for humor, especially if it is absurd. The convert from liberalism will try to neuter this into a crowd-pleasing “we can all get along” sense of mild humor.

Finally, one must beware of those working within the liberal paradigm, which is that a universal value is established, everyone is forced to obey it, and then government enforces it. If you argue for free markets, localism or any other form of decentralization, this person will experience a freakout.

Acceptance Thresholds

These apply to those you are willing to give voice to, by repeating their memes or ideas or by advocating their inclusion in anything more exclusive than the general group. Here you are trying to filter out people who have understood the basics, but are unwilling to be moderate extremist in application.

  1. Rejection of democracy.

  2. Rejection of equality.

  3. Assertion of biological imperative.

We are in a democratic system. Therefore, most people will be coached in finding a democratic implementation of any solution they find attractive. The problem with this is that even limited democracy quickly leads to mob rule, and the mob always chooses flattering illusions over reality, just like committees always pick the solution that rocks the boat the least. Individuals fear for themselves and choose compromise over solutions.

Equality is the basis of democracy and the Left. Those who want to set up a white ethnostate and then implement equality have missed the point. We need hierarchy, or each person acting in a capacity suited to their abilities, which are innate and biologically determined and cannot be implemented by education or obedience.

Finally, the biological imperative will scare them senseless. This says that culture is not universal, and that its root can be found in the genetics of specific populations. Those populations create their culture wherever they go, as fits their abilities and inclinations, which they share as these are genetic traits.

Anyone who does not grasp the above has adopted only the surface of alt right theory and does not understand the alt right as something distinct from a slightly more extreme version of mainstream politics.

Inner Goals

When choosing leaders, it is important to look for those who share the ideals of a movement on the basis of goals. That is: what type of society do they want to create? What is their definition of civilization? Those who do not understand these are entryists who will, by compromise, re-create that which they claim to dislike.

  1. Restoration.

  2. Repatriation.

  3. Physical Removal.

Restoration means a removal of democracy and materialism and their replacement with a society in which inner values determine outcomes. This means an end to “systems” and an organic society where all institutions are in unison, collaborating on a spirit toward transcendentals, or the intersection of what is excellent, true and good.

Very few are willing to publicly endorse Repatration, and they usually hide behind the pragmatic argument that it is difficult. So what? — most change is difficult, but if it ends in a better condition, then it is worth doing. Even carrying on with the present ruin of a civilization is difficult.

As a side note, those who oppose repatriation with reparations may be reacting emotionally. The right way to heal a historical wound is with generosity and benevolence, but also an unwavering commitment to setting the problem aright. Diversity fails, so those who are diverse to the founding group must exit the host nation. No compromise.

Finally, we reach the controversial idea of Physical Removal. This states that a healthy society is not Leftist, and for that reason, those who are Leftist must be viewed as a fifth column and sent elsewhere. It does not (necessarily) mean killing them, but in its gentlest form, means exiling them to a Leftist wonderland like Brazil, where vibrant diversity, rampant sexuality, and few social rules means they will be at home.

At all times ask yourself: what is our goal? It is not measured in the issues of today, or of tomorrow, but those things which for 6,000 years of human history have separated the thriving and rising civilizations from those which are headed to third world status.

The alt right is not another wing of the failed ideological movements of the GOP and White Nationalism. It is the antidote to those: a historical shift where people are willing to undertake the difficult and do the unthinkable, and remove the layers of our current system as if we were peeling an onion, creating a functional and ascendant civilization instead.

At the end of analysis, there are two ways to create human civilizations. Either we develop a spirit toward the good in ourselves and promote those who exhibit the best of it, or we accept everyone and try to bribe and threaten them into being good. We have tried the latter, and it has failed, so no vestige of it can remain.

This is why the alt right must double down. All of the entryists will serve to dilute its message and appeal to those of us who recognize that not only is diversity Hell, but so are all aspects of modernity, including sacred cows like democracy, pluralism, government and equality. They must all burn or we end up in the same condition.

To a person from the present year, this will seem like ludicrous extremism. And yet it avoids what defines extremism, which is a special interest group which takes to violence for one issue. We want civilization change. We want it now. Our current path is a path to death, and the only solution is to get entirely off of that path.

Zionism 1.0 Versus Zionism 2.0

Monday, August 8th, 2016

zionist_poster

Since I am fortunate not to be a puritan or self-righteous person, I can say things as they really are, without any fear of social disapproval, because I have little — or nothing — to lose: I don’t like the Jews.

In my humble opinion derived from both real-world experience and extensive reading of history, they are a bunch of hustlers, charlatans, and parasites. They invent the most intricate theories and postulates in order to avoid picking up a shovel and working like ordinary people.

On the other hand, as a paleoconservative I see morality as an expression of the culture and society that produces it, and not as a universal and shared human value. When people tell me about how evil Zionism is, I shrug because Jews are not my tribe, and therefore Zionism is not my concern. No “I am not an anti-Semite, but an anti-Zionist” for me.

As I do not believe in magic, I won’t speak about of Judaism as if it were a religion of demons (what the hell?) and other nonsense which has been spoken over the centuries. Instead, I confine myself to the earthly things, since I’m not even sure to have a soul or a spirit chained to matter (I don’t think matter is pernicious in any way, but quite the opposite: I enjoy it and I hope a part of it will endure in time, as for instance, my genes, my pets, my books, and also my compact discs).

The Jews, just like any other people who feel that they have a common destiny and a cohesive force that transcends the merely territorial, have the right to have a homeland for their people, for their children, for their grandchildren, for their forthcoming generations and all those beautiful and honorable words we heard when they come from our mouths, but dangerous and virulent when they come out from theirs.

Despite my admiration for the Roman Empire, I think one of the larger challenges for Europe — as both blood and soil attest — was the expulsion of Jews from Judea after the Bar Kokhba revolt against the Roman Empire in 132 CE, consolidating the Diaspora we all know (Diaspora 1.0).

While other civilizations preferred the military occupation of territory, which required them to collect tribute but gave them the benefit of internal self-determination, Jews chose revolution and for that were exiled from the Roman realm. This was allowed because the Romans considered them useless — for example, the hysterical religious observance, the persecution of charlatans with messianic aspirations — which made it useless to even kidnap and enslave the population, common currency in ancient times. Instead the Jews were exiled as neurotics and petty criminals.

The expulsion of that bunch of troublemakers relieved the temporary tension and satisfied the Roman Empire: the desert territory was taken as spoils of war and a mockery against hordes of local fanatics. The Romans were admirable in their convictions, but also created headaches for European civilization.

We know well how the Roman Empire ended despite its greatness. Wwhen all has been conquered and pacified, and it is not possible to continue with the dynamics of the gang of Romulus and Remus1; imagine a yeast dying in their own alcohol, unable of eating more sugar. The sons of Zion took another path. Although they were not very skilled in buildings nor art (from the Western perspective, of course), they survived because their smallness, with a common element giving cohesion to hundreds of generations: to return to their homeland.

Over the centuries, the visually evident crossbreeding of Jews with Europeans made them more biologically white. They survived as an ethnic group by not forgetting their founding myths and the living memory of the moment in which the Diaspora 1.0 began. Despite the miscegenation, this idea of superiority and difference from the rest was never forgotten, but, even more, was emphasized, much as admixture with whites brought out the fundamentally Jewish character with greater intelligence.

Particularly, the idea of a bunch of Jews (from all races and colors) living together, happy and away from me not only does not bother me, but it pleases me. As a matter of common sense: isn’t better that they are all together at the same place, rather than dispersed around the world, being detrimental to the rest? If someone wants to accuse me of being a Zionist because of these thoughts, that person is probably accidentally correct. But, if so, I’d like to be accused of being a Zionist 1.0.

As a White Nationalist/Identitarian, how could I be against the idea above mentioned? The Jews are neither magical, and definitely they will not sublimate themselves, and as such, they will not disappear suddenly in the air. Indeed, a Holocaust to bring the final solution to the Jewish question (this time, a real one) won’t happen. Then, what is problem when boats, trains, omnibuses, airplanes and carts with Jews from all corners of the world leave their host lands, heading to Eretz Israel? For this reason, I am a Zionist 1.0 and not a Zionist 2.0, since I support the idea of a state for Israelis in Israel, and not in other place in the world. Or maybe somewhere else, but away from me. And away from my people. And away from the allies of my people.

Since the building of a Zionist state in the southern cone is my reality, honestly, I prefer a Jewish state in Palestine instead of a Jewish state in Patagonia disguised as communities with an increasing interest on ecological conservation2.

Being objective, to us, Zionism 2.0 is as dangerous as anti-Zionism: the first one wants an Aliyah of thousands and thousands of Jews going down to the Southern Cone, and the second one seeks the disappearance of the State of Israel, which leads to a Diaspora 2.0. In simple words, both Zionism 2.0 and anti-Zionism converge in the same result. When it comes to us, I’m against the State. When it comes to them (Jews), I am in favor to a State which keep them united, tight and within its current physical borders (sovereignty).

And what about the Palestinians?

Let’s be honest: no occupation is worthy; worthy men cannot live under occupation, but must be free and forge their own destiny, and it is logical that, being witness of the invasion of thousands and thousands of Jews, the Palestinians would react equally violently. Palestine is still in the third world, and while Diaspora 1.0 helped the Jews to acquire the successful methods of the First World3, it is consequently not possible that these two peoples coexist in a territorial overlap anymore. Israelis and Palestinians cannot co-exist side-by-side or comingled.

But Palestinians need a homeland, and that homeland should not be Chile; it should not be South America, nor should it be America. Currently, there is a diaspora of ten millions of Palestinians, and the place of those people should be Palestine, not any other place. From our position, we cannot and we should not advocate for any of the two sides, in fact, it is not our business. Being crude, it becomes our problem when one of them (anyone of the both sides of the coin), leaves its territory to get to ours.

Today, it is not an issue of being anti-Israeli or anti-Palestinian, is about being pro-Us and that leads necessarily to be anti-diaspora, Diaspora 1.0 as well Diaspora 2.0. As I am neither liberal nor self-righteous, I cannot base my argument in human rights, civil rights or the casualties of war. I can speak only common sense and logical reality.

I cannot tear my clothes upon seeing a lot of Israelis watching and cheering as military drops bombs on Gaza. We cannot pretend that they cry for those death toll. Palestinians are their enemies and it is normal to celebrate these bloody deeds. I expect that Palestinians celebrate the death of Israelis similarly and would be shocked if they did not. The world is cruel. Why should it be a wonderful place full of rainbows? We are animals. Aren’t we all?

Palestine needs a home and a State on its homeland. Israel needs a home and a State on its homeland. Probably, as Europeans, we are harvesting today what we sow yesterday, after the Bar Kokhba revolt, but it is time to end our sense of responsibility for the displacement of others and to look towards ourselves.

And with that, we realize that all diasporas must end, and only worldwide Nationalism can do this.


1 Jack Donovan. “Thug Life: The Story of Rome”. The Way of Men. 2012
2 “Chilean senator accuses IDF soldiers of mapping out country.” The Times of Israel.
3 Brett Stevens. “Gaza Everywhere”. American Renaissance, August 4, 2014

Stupid Trope Of The Day: “Elites, Not Democracy, Imposed Diversity”

Monday, July 25th, 2016

You will see this one floating around far-right circles as entryist cucks try to justify a demolition of hierarchy through egalitarianism:

The people never chose diversity. It was imposed on them by the elites. Time after time, polls showed that people did not want diversity. And the elites just went ahead and forced it on them.

This is nonsense and lies. In the way of all democracies, our democracy drifted Leftward. Our zeal for diversity is part of the Leftist compulsion toward class warfare, which arises from the founding ideal of the Left, which is egalitarianism (“everyone is accepted and included”).

Let us review history. The voters chose politicians based on speeches. Those politicians, starting early in the history of our nation, began talking about equality. This made people feel warm and fuzzy inside. Then they started talking about racial equality, under the guise of helping African-Americans. Same warm fuzzies.

Repeat that over generations. Each generation accepts what the past generation voted on as truth because it is popular, and so it must be true! Then the next generation took it further, since illogical ideas like equality always conflict with reality, and they expanded the franchise.

Each time, the candidates who spoke more of equality got ahead over the others. Each time new equality or diversity initiative was introduced, the people went into the next election and approved the people who did it for another term. The voters spoke, time and again.

Ten years ago, if you had surveyed a typical American suburb, even with anonymity almost every household would have approved diversity. They would phrase it in terms of fighting injustice, ensuring equality, opportunity for all and the like. They would talk about how it would reduce costs and improve “race relations.”

Now, maybe a few more households would — under anonymity, because we know how Leftists retaliate — speak up about their doubts. But these will get it wrong yet again by saying they are afraid of certain groups, like Muslims or Black Lives Matter. In the meantime, they want everyone else to participate. Warm fuzzies again.

The problem, as this blog reminds you tirelessly, is the voters. The problem is us. Democracy cannot work because it rewards illusion and then distributes the disaster as socialized cost, so the voters never directly feel the pain and connect the dots. Blaming our elites is just scapegoating; we created them, not the other way around.

Modern People Are Miserable Because We Have Nothing To Look Forward To

Sunday, April 17th, 2016

modern_life_is_a_walking_corpse_in_the_zombie_ritual

In everyday life, as I go through the world from post office to grocery store and work, I frequently experience moments of frisson when I feel I have peeked a secret of the universe. Often this comes when I step back from my everyday perspective of trying to work with what is available, and I realize that the people I encounter are behaving like jerks.

They are selfish, pushy, deliberately oblivious to the consequences of their actions, petty and thoughtless. It doesn’t matter if they are liberal or conservative; everyone seems to be acting up and being hateful. Like so many actions exhibited by the masses, this is a result of realizations that they can neither allow themselves to be aware of nor comprehend. No one can let themselves see the truth that stares them in the face every day: there’s nothing to look forward to.

We occupy a society that isn’t just dying, it’s already dead. We are living in a corpse world that is filled with jobs that have no point, which result in income we never see that goes to complete strangers that have nothing to do with us, so that we can live in neighborhoods that are full of people that we would normally never associate with. We come home to spouses and children who are alien to us because we are caught in a self-perpetuating cycle that kills our drive to change and our will to live.

With the impending election, the futility of our lives becomes even clearer with one salient point inescapable: It doesn’t matter who wins. The underlying issues destroying our society will never be dealt with under our current democratic system. Voting is pointless. The only possible utility voting possesses is the potential to vote for the worst possible candidate in order to hasten the demise of this broken society. There is nothing to preserve, conserve or improve. The only way forward is to destroy the corpse so something better can take its place.

As the world chortles along, seemingly unchanging, the futility and frustration of our current situation chokes the life from the sane. Those who benefit from the current regime are making more noise than ever in an attempt to keep the life-giving (read: tax-paying) native population guilted into continuing acquiescence lest we be seen as “bad” people. Most of them go along with it for the same reason we all do, which like my day-to-day struggles consists of trying to work with what is out there and make the best of what is.

Our greatest fear is not that it will all end in fire and horror, but that nothing will ever change, and that we will continue our slow descent into third world conditions, kill off all that remains of Western culture and genetics, slowly becoming a perpetual Mexico or Brazil. For those who can see clearly, it’s apparent we’re already basically there.

The protests at Trump rallies reveal the tension between keeping things the way they are to the benefit of the parasite, and the knowledge that the West not only doesn’t want the Other in its midst, but that we’d be better off without them. Our current society was taken over by a parasite that reprogrammed our brains to think that democracy, pluralism, diversity, tolerance of moral deviance and compassion for the stupid are positive values. Instead, they are death, and as long as we try to make them work, we will be like the living dead, walking zombie-like among the ruins and trying to pretend we don’t notice.

If we do not triumph in the war against our own tendency toward self-annihilation, we will never have anything to look forward to. We simply cease to exist, dead inside of ourselves, but go through the motions like the zombies we have become. Already the burden of denial has become nearly impossible. It will never get better until we escape this system and find something worth living for instead.

White Nationalism failed because it incorporates too much liberalism

Friday, February 12th, 2016

franz_ferdinand

If you grew up after 1789, when the French Revolution formalized liberalism as the Western doctrine, you have grown up indoctrinated in Leftist propaganda. Any idea with its root in egalitarianism, or the equality of all people, is leftist.

This includes democracy, freedom, equality, diversity, pluralism, consumerism and… White Nationalism. While Nationalism itself is an idea as old as time, namely that the ethnic tribe constitutes the nation, White Nationalism is like National Socialism a modern creation. In other words: a liberal version of an ancient conservative idea.

White Nationalism misses the point. This is not red team versus blue team; it is how to save the West from imploding thanks to the influence of democracy, and through that, individualism. We need culture, cooperation and purpose to return and to rule ourselves with kings, not votes, because votes and purchases are made by groups who demonstrate the salient trait of humans, which is vanity as individuals and mass delusion as groups.

Anything short of that is failure. Our current society is a disaster and an unpleasant existential experience because it is failing. All of our institutions are inferior substitutes, our leaders are all corrupt salesmen, the voters are delusional and oblivious, and our culture has become dumbed-down mass appeal madness. This cannot be fixed solely by driving out the ethnic Other. We must fix ourselves, too.

Over at the $PLC, Derek Black makes some interesting points in the midst of groveling and logical fallacies:

Promoting a victim complex for whites does not recognize the oppressed experiences of others not in the position of a white person in society

He may have taken another bad direction into liberalism, but he has a good point about victim complexes. We do not need a victim complex; we need a can-do “let’s fix this” culture. The two are opposites.

White nationalism supports the premise that multiculturalism is a failure, and that politicians trapped in a multicultural status quo are oppressing white people in “their own country.”

Here he is correct, but he misses the underlying point: white people voted for this. Voting transforms individuals into a scared, pretentious herd that always votes for easy lies instead of honest solutions. The solution is to end democracy.

On the other hand, white nationalists consider white people in the US to be ostensibly the victims of an ongoing genocide brought about by immigration and miscegenation, and feel that when they try to speak up about it, they are subjected to a vicious double standard.

No one sensible could argue that this is not true. But: who is enforcing the double standard? White governments, at the behest of white voters.

Most arguments that racial equity programs disadvantage whites who would otherwise be hired or accepted to academic programs mask underlying anxieties about the growth of non-white social status.

Here he is off-base. The problem is that our society is being destroyed, and the only healthy societies are homogeneous ones not heterogeneous ones. This is not about our personal inconvenience, except in that having a society collapse into Brazil 2.0 is highly inconvenient and fatal.

More importantly, white nationalism’s staunch opposition to the gains in numbers and in influence of non-whites makes it a movement by nature committed to suppressing these people.

I think he misses the point here, too. The goal is to have zero non-whites and in fact, zero non-Western Europeans. Western Europeans are the only group on earth that is truly a persecuted minority because of our small numbers and relative wealth. Everyone loves to beat up on the successful nerdy kid, and that’s us.

Though there are plenty of powerful Jewish activist groups pursuing their chosen agendas, it is inaccurate and outrageous to talk about people of Jewish descent as “the enemy” of anyone, as it is essentializing a large group into a fairy tale antagonist.

I agree with him here. Jews are another group under attack, as we can see daily when 90% of the world’s liberals are keen to blame Palestinian terrorism on Israeli “oppression” despite nothing of the sort occurring.

The small, smart and successful groups (3S) like Western Europeans, Jews and North Chinese are always under assault by the rest because we have achieved what others cannot and they resent us for that.

There is no way to advocate for white nationalism but by arguing that minorities pose a threat to our supremacy.

Spot the sleight of hand: is it “supremacy” to ask that we have our own countries? Of course not. He has shiftily conflated world domination with wanting, say, Germany for Germans or Israel for Jews.

Advocating for white nationalism means that we are opposed to minority attempts to elevate themselves to a position equal to our own.

Again he is wrong. We want them to do it in their own countries and to leave us alone. We have our own destiny to plan and work toward.

I believe that a healthy sense of identity and belonging are necessary, and I think being proud of where you came from is important regardless of race or class.

He’s right here. Every group should be nationalist and work in its own self-interest. That is Darwinian, moral and common sense.

I do not believe advocacy against “oppression of whites” exists in any form but an entrenched desire to preserve white power at the expense of others.

Here he is off-base again. We want our own countries and our own destiny, the same as anyone else. Why is this denied? It is white genocide by the resentful herd that gnashes its teeth at the fact that it has not made a successful life for itself as we did for ourselves, before liberalism at least.

The point that White Nationalists miss is that we are not fighting for the current system minus minorities. We are fighting to restore our civilization to a point of sanity, and while race is part of that, it is not the whole. Our society is existentially miserable as it is now and would still be without the presence of minorities. Nationalism is a means to an end, which is allowing ourselves to be ruled by our culture instead of an ideological government and its “proposition nation” united by politics, television, economics and a team identity of a jingoistic variety.

Conservatives “conserves” the behaviors of humanity that produce the best results. Those are four:

  1. Aristocracy: A hierarchy of our best people ruling as kings, instead of having a “System” of rules and laws to take the place of clear thinking. This includes a caste system so that people make decisions only at the level for which they are competent.
  2. Nationalism: Germany for Germans, Israel for Jews. This allows the group to have a shared culture which regulates behavior through reward and shame, instead of punishment and law enforcement.
  3. Free markets: Free markets require Nationalism and Aristocracy, but are the only way to do business that rewards performance instead of conformity.
  4. Transcendence: We need goals beyond the immediate material convenience of our society. We need purpose and to aspire to greatness, not merely react to “issues.”

There are no substitutes. Either you want the above, or you are happy with the status quo… if it would only favor you a bit more. That approach will land us back in the current position in no time because it is built on the same illusions.

Our society is dying. We are near the drop-off point. Our solution is to stop using methods that do not work, and to start using methods that do. These time-honored methods work. Democracy, diversity, equality, pluralism, tolerance and altruism do not. It is that simple.

Recommended Reading