Posts Tagged ‘race-culture theory’

Diversity Doesn’t Work

Saturday, November 20th, 2010

For 200 years, nearly the entire duration of the country, America has been wracked by race. We write more about it than any other single, consistent political topic.

For the last 50 years, Europe has joined us.

For 2500 years at least India has wrestled with this issue; it is known also in China, to a much lesser degree, and was known in ancient Greece and Rome, particularly shortly before they dropped off the radar of history.

Why? Diversity, or multiculturalism, is a subset of a larger issue: how to maintain social hierarchy not through government but through inherent acceptance and desiring of the same goals and values.

Of course this issue is intertwined with social class; lower classes in every nation are those who are more prone to put their desires before their obligations, usually as a result of low intelligence. (You’ll probably object to me saying such a blunt and impolitic truth, but you have no problem paying Juanita the maid $10 an hour or buying those Chinese goods made by workers getting $4/week. Hypocrite, heal thyself.)

And yet we cannot face the truth of this issue, which is that diversity in any form does not work.

The problem is not blacks, or whites, or any other ethnic groups — it’s that combining them destroys cultural consensus and shared values, which are genetically encoded in every population, by averaging two or more distinctive and different cultures.

Culture makes ethnicity; ethnicity makes culture. We cannot separate the two:

Cultural and genetic evolution are intertwined. The human capacity for culture — a strong tendency to learn from each other, to teach each other, and to build upon what we have learned — is itself a genetic evolution that happened in stages over the last few million years. But once our brains reached a critical threshold, perhaps 80,000 to 100,000 years ago, cultural innovation began to accelerate; a strong evolutionary pressure then shaped brains to take further advantage of culture. Individuals who could best learn from others were more successful than their less “cultured” brethren, and as brains became more cultural, cultures became more elaborate, further increasing the advantage of having a more cultural brain. All human beings today are the products of the co-evolution of a set of genes (which is almost identical across cultures) and a set of cultural elements (which is diverse across cultures, but still constrained by the capacities and predispositions of the human mind). For example, the genetic evolution of the emotion of disgust made it possible (but not inevitable) for cultures to develop caste systems based on occupation and strongly supported by disgust toward those who perform “polluting” activities. A caste system then restricts marriage to within-caste pairings, which in turn alters the course of genetic evolution. After a thousand years of inbreeding within castes, castes will diverge slightly on a few genetic traits — for example, shades of skin color — which might in turn lead to growing cultural association of caste with color rather than with occupation. (It only takes twenty generations of selective breeding to create large differences of appearance and behavior in other mammals.) In this way, genes and cultures co-evolve; they mutually affect each other, and neither process can be studied in isolation for human beings. – The Happiness Hypothesis: finding modern truth in ancient wisdom, by Jonathan Haidt, page 233

This is what paleoconservatives called “race-culture theory” for centuries before Dr. Haidt so helpfully recorded it. In the conservative view, societies splinter by ability, with the wisest going to the top (aristocrats) and the intermediate becoming a middle class, with the lowest classes and castes reserved for those with few skills, low native intellience and/or low conformity or awareness of the moral standards of the society.

Since 1789, the West has been moving from a conservative model to a new one based on the wealth of our industrial revolution, or rather the pre-industrial revolution and consequent Enlightenment:

“Behavioral scientists routinely publish broad claims about human psychology and behavior based on samples drawn entirely from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic societies.” The acronym there being WEIRD. “Our findings suggest that members of WEIRD societies are among the least representative populations one could find for generalizing about humans. Overall, these empirical patterns suggest that we need to be less cavalier in addressing questions of human nature, on the basis of data drawn from this particularly thin and rather unusual slice of humanity.”

As I read through the article, in terms of summarizing the content, in what way are WEIRD people different, my summary is this: The WEIRDer you are, the more you perceive a world full of separate objects, rather than relationships, and the more you use an analytical thinking style, focusing on categories and laws, rather than a holistic style, focusing on patterns and contexts.

Now, let me state clearly that these empirical facts about “WEIRD-ness”, they don’t in any way imply that our morality is wrong, only that it is unusual. – The New Science of Morality, a talk by Jonathan Haidt

Facts don’t judge morality as right or wrong; its effects, such as the rise or fall of empires, can be measured a thousand years later to gauge how effective that morality was.

But his point is interesting:

The WEIRDer you are, the more you perceive a world full of separate objects, rather than relationships, and the more you use an analytical thinking style, focusing on categories and laws, rather than a holistic style, focusing on patterns and contexts.

Cultural consensus is itself based on patterns and concepts, namely the idea that an “order” of adaptation to nature exists for that culture, and that we all fit within it and work toward it. Only in the rich industrialized liberal-democratic West are we working toward a tangible manifestation of that, the individual.

So we have race-culture theory, and what opposes it, the modern individualism.

In another lecture, Haidt expresses how this connects to race/ethnicity:

The ingroup/loyalty foundation supports virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice that can lead to dangerous nationalism, but in moderate doses a sense that “we are all one” is a recipe for high social capital and civic well-being. A recent study by Robert Putnam (titled E Pluribus Unum) found that ethnic diversity increases anomie and social isolation by decreasing people’s sense of belonging to a shared community. – What makes people vote Republican?, by Jonathan Haidt

This is why diversity doesn’t work: morality binds us together toward a goal, and ethnicity encodes that binding in our genes, so that we then recognize any appreciable divergence — Haidt puts it at 20% approximately — will fragment that consensus and cause our society to collapse, much as Plato intimated it would.

This is why diversity doesn’t work. As this young woman found out:

Neely Fuller, Jr. basically says that if you are white and you are romantically/sexually involved with a nonwhite person, you are guilty of being the worst kind of racist. He likens it to an adult being involved with a child, because of the power differential. He says that a white person who is romantically connected with a nonwhite person is contributing to that person’s confusion and self hatred , and that any children produced from that union will be hopelessly lost in terms of self identity.

In Trojan Horse, the anonymous authors say that interracial relationships, particularly between Black men and white women, are one of the tools of destruction used against the Black collective by the system of white supremacy. They believe that an increase in interracial relationships will destroy Black society, and lead to the eventual extinction of Black people because the child produced by such a union tends to identify more with white people, and will marry/bear children with white people, thus producing offspring that appear to be white.

Now, as most of you know, I do date Black men. There are two main reasons for this choice. First of all, I am not attracted to white men, physically, mentally, or emotionally. Secondly, I cannot see myself being in an intimate relationship with a white man (whether sexual or platonic) because the fact is that MOST WHITE PEOPLE ARE RACISTS, and I do not wish to spend time in the company of hate filled people. In fact, I do not really associate with white people in general, except for my own family, and even that is kept at a bare minimum. All of my male and female friends are people of color. – Am I Contributing to the Destruction of an entire race?, by Joanna

Two interesting things here:

  1. Diversity is destruction. When you mix races, you destroy those races. This is why diversity (and not black people or white people) is the cause of racism: no one wants to be destroyed. And this isn’t idle: as we show above, race/ethnicity is the biological vessel of culture and values, so it’s that which carries on all that we strive for. Very important.
  2. Self-hatred is neurotic. She doesn’t want to spend time around white people because “most of them” are hateful racists; she has no problem generalizing against her own group. Why is this? She feels this group has betrayed its own values. However, the only way for that to work is for those values to be corrupt, which makes her a critic of the W.E.I.R.D. nouveau consensus and a defender of the ancient, paleoconservative one.

This issue has never gone away because we have never found a way to solve it. That is because the way to solve it, a recognition of hierarchy, violates our post-Enlightenment notion of the equality of all people.

A solution does exist:

First, the races/ethnies evolved separately and have separate values systems; mashing those together destroys them. End diversity, as it cannot work without a cost so high we don’t want to consider it. Without inherent values, we are left with scientific management at the hands of a government strong enough to enforce values a thousand ways per person daily — a totalitarian surveillance state. 1984 doesn’t occur because the people are good, but because they can’t agree what’s good, so a power structure needs to step in, figure out a way of defining good, and then impose it with force. Separate the races.

Second, caste systems always will exist — and are gentler than class systems, as they do not force every single citizen into constant competition for money to buy their way into the higher levels of class. Caste separates us by ability; class separates us by ability and willingness to accumulate material wealth. Restore the aristocracy, and throw some people into the laborer group and disenfranchise them for having a lack of ability to make judgments correctly about factual and long-term concerns. We are genetically different in ability, moral character and intelligence, and caste preserves this, while ending the incessant class warfare that marks W.E.I.R.D. nations to this day.

These are difficult truths and I expect them to be ignored until it is too late, at which point they will become common knowledge, and we will embark on the exponentially more difficult process of reconstructing when we could have simply changed direction. C’est la vie.

Surviving Multiculturalism

Tuesday, January 11th, 2005


In the end stages of every great civilization, several things happen. First, impetus is lost: people no longer have an urge to create civilization as, heck, it’s already here, let’s enjoy it and not think too hard, because the people that made this place, they took life too seriously, man. Second, consensus is lost, in that people accustomed to appreciating the benefits of society no longer have the singular focus on maintaining it that comprises a healthy goal set. Once consensus is lost, what we commonly call “values” cannot exist, since there’s no agreement about what is valued. After this, the symptoms set in, namely internal division, loss of learning and culture, and of course, bad breeding, first within the bloodline and then miscegenation.

This is how great civilizations fall, and you can see their ruins today all over the earth. T.S. Eliot was correct to note that “it ends” with a whimper and not a bang, because by the time the ancient structures are falling, there are few left who can actually realize what’s happening. Most of the population have already transitioned to the idea of living among the ruins in a more primitive state, and lacking most qualities of discernment in themselves, aren’t much concerned about how all finer things are crumbling around them, because they still have their fast food and television and are content with that. There is rarely a sudden appearance by the forces of evil to sweep into the streets and crush a vibrant culture; rather, the collapse of a great civilization is as anticlimactic as the death of a terminal cancer patient.

As always, there is writing on the wall, for those who remember how to read it. Lacking a goal, people become obsessed by novelty and personal conceits, so instead of having hearty, strong people who can create, you have very trendy people who adorn themselves excessively and are neurotically obsessed with appearance. This is a natural consequence of having lost consensus, because since there is no longer a goal to the society as a whole and an agreement about how to reach it, people focus on living in a society of disorder. To gain power in such a society, one entertains and flatters, and this requires a decadent but “different” lifestyle in order to distinguish oneself in any way. Bread and circuses for the poor, trinkets and fads for the wealthy.

One can survive such a society, but it requires doing something most free-willed people find abhorrent: dedicating themselves in the largest part toward earning money, and sacrificing most of their time to this goal. Work six day weeks and bring home a fat paycheck, and you can get out into the suburbs where most people are gentler. You can afford the Alta Dena organic dairy milk, the no-pesticide vegetables, the finer clothes; you can drive a nice car, and buy memberships in places where the screaming rabble don’t congregate. However, ultimately, such a lifestyle requires increasing amounts of money as the rest of the economy collapses and thus such finer things become aberrations in a consumer environment rewarding goods that above all are cheap – quality becomes second to quantity.

In effect, this destroys the middle class, because it raises the bar on the cost of living outside of the undifferentiated mass. You’re either wealthy, and living in a gated community, or you’re with the rest living in a technological third-world environment. With the loss of the middle class comes a loss of the ordinary, hardworking decent people in the world, because they are turned into either whores for money or semi-impoverished scatterbrains like the rest. When that occurs, the base of support for the finer things in life – the arts, culture, and learning – falls entirely into the hands of the wealthy, who are not really concerned with getting it right; they’re concerned with finding a way to make millions so they escape the hoi polloi. Culture dies; art dies; learning dies.

Of course, the mutant corpses survive. There will be “art” – but it will be little more than decoration, “unique” patterns and styles designed to shock or amuse: the kind of stuff that Hitler, being an artist, had no problem ordered being destroyed. There will be “culture,” but it will consist of going to places where you buy things to participate in cultural events will all of the decorum and depth of a Nirvana concert. The institutes of higher learning will continue but will devote most of their time to teaching the ways of the new society, re-interpreting the older knowledge to fit the new rubric and, consequently, destroying it as a system of thought. It, too, will become aesthetics, and although it will exist in reference books (if not burned by the “progressive” newcomers) there will be on a handful who understand it, and none who can add to it.

This is the future that T.S. Eliot and other writers of his generation saw in the 1920s, when America first became obsessed with money and fads, and the first wave of “mostly-white” immigrants rode into the middle of a fair complexioned Northern European stock. Currents in thinking changed, then the population changed, and that cycle begat another. What T.S. Eliot was fortunate enough not to see is the dimension to which modern society has grown. Thanks to industrial technology and greater transportation, this is now a global society, with counterdependent economies and military alliances. It probably does not pay to wonder if the domino theory will apply in nations falling to decay, but it’s clear that most nations are on the same liberal democratic, global industrial society path, and thus will suffer similar fates.

You can’t mention any of this in the current time, of course. Since there’s no goal, people are concerned with making their own money and “rising above” the undifferentiated masses, thus they are mortified that you might offend someone by pointing out that there could be a consensus, because having agreement in values would make some people “better” and “others” worse for the purpose of having citizens who can enact those values. They are also socially concerned; they can’t speak out without losing friends and alienating potential mates. Where bravery is called for, sheeplike herdthink prevails instead simply because the immediate personal cost is too high, although the long-term personal cost of inaction will be much higher. Most can’t handle that so conclude that with personal death their interest in the world ends.

So what is someone concerned about having a civilization to do?

The first and most important task is to begin sorting the world into yes and no categories. This means finding out what you will support, and what you do not consider part of the fulfillment of your goals. In this, you are escaping some Absolute vision of what is “right,” as the conservatives do, and opting for the stronger assertion of will that is “I prefer.” It transcends subject and object classifications, and will occur to the degree of which the individual is capable, but this is a more flexible system than some knee-jerk Absolute which rapidly parodies itself and becomes reactionary and preservationist, which is an error because what is needed is not to save a society that exists – that one has already fallen, I’m afraid – but to create a new society according to the ancient tradition of the Indo-Europeans.

After Friedrich Nietzsche, who asserted a naturalistic and aristocratic social system and derided liberal democracy for its failings, there was Rene Guenon, who gave us a simple logical device for understanding resistance to modern society: all that we saw in the ancients that was functional is part of a set of values that are true in any age because of their fundamental recognition of the problems of reality for those who desire higher civilization, and that is called Tradition; what opposes it is Modernity, and the “progressive” society that believes we can reach some Utopic ideal through egalitarian and utilitarian government. Guenon was correct in dividing current history into these two threads, as Modernity takes many forms, including both Capitalism and Communism, conservatism and liberalism. There is no escape from Modernity once you begin using its divisions.

This split is important in that it allows us to group all aspects of traditional, pre-Christian Indo-European civilization – what is called “ascendant” civilization because it believes in evolving toward a higher state of an eternal ideal, in contrast to “progressive” civilization which advocates a constant change of ideal on a root of progress to Utopic liberalism – into something which can not only be upheld but developed. The only future for Indo-Europeans is to stop trying to finding Absolute reasons to “prove” we are right, and to start building this form of ascendant, Traditional civilization within the train wreck of ideas that is a modern time.

One aspect of Traditional civilization worldwide, regardless of race, is ethnoculture, which is the idea that no culture can exist without its traditional ethnicity to uphold it, because the tens of thousands of generations that produced that culture also shaped the population through selection for those who tended toward upholding its ideal values. Ethnoculture does not designate an Absolute “superior” or “inferior” race. Instead, it asserts an “I prefer”: for each culture to exist, it must prefer to have its own ethnic group isolated from all others. This is not inbreeding; there’s enough variation in even a small population to avoid inbreeding. It’s not “racism,” in the sense of wanting to keep others down, but it’s an honest statement of need and will to keep them out so that the culture can develop without becoming a mixed-race society like so many remnants of collapsed ancient civilizations.

The only workable way to create a Traditional civilization is to begin working with the declining ruin at hand. Yes, the basic values of society around us are defunct, but like a disciplined wrestler, we can use its oncoming weight against it and thus achieve our own means. For that reason, the first proposition of this article is that we accept “diversity,” and take it to its logical extremes.

Diversity means having different groups coexisting; however, in order for them to remain different groups, they can’t merge (our media and institutes of higher learning seem to have forgotten this part). As I once put it to a homosexual gentleman, diversity means that I don’t think much about what you do in your bedroom, but it also means that you don’t begrudge me the right to make gay jokes and be repelled by sodomy, because to a heterosexual, such behavior would be a disastrous submission and loss of masculinity. I respect his “difference,” but he has to respect mine. The same applies to different ethnic groups. To acknowledge their difference is to recognize that participation in that group is limited to members of that group, and now matter how “authentic African art” we buy at Wal-Mart, we’re still members of our own.

This requires formally defining diversity in the first place, and getting some public agreement on this fact. The definition proposed above benefits all groups, as it keeps them distinct from others and guarantees them the ability to govern themselves culturally. A change of this nature would reverse the current tendency for “diversity” to become an emotional value of a passive nature, translated into “accept everyone regardless of their behavior,” which is exactly the opposite mentality of every group that has ever created a civilization with more than mud huts and large rodents roasting on the open fire. Some might call this change “extremist diversity,” but every philosophy should be able to be extended to its extremes without becoming paradoxical.

Because after culture has fallen the task of restoring culture is an artificial one, meaning imposed externally instead of occurring “naturally” from within, it can’t be done with bureaucracy or rules. It has to be done by creating something and drawing those who can appreciate it into the fold, and this can only be done by eschewing alienated ideology for a commonsense belief system that does not require them to give up their membership in society or to adhere to any philosophies of a radical or violently emotional nature. The philosophies these people will find meaningful are ones based on “I prefer” which involve action toward a positive goal. They are not interested in bigotry, nor are they interested in Utopic silliness from liberals. They want a better way of life. This is the origin of all civilization-building, from the first caveman who decided having a permanent fire might be a good idea, onward.

We’ve all read the articles in National Geographic talking about the isolated tribe of Whatitsname “fighting hard to preserve their traditional culture and ways in the face of the onslaught of modernity.” You would never guess from public rhetoric in America that Indo-Europeans are fighting the same battle. We can win it by taking our society’s mechanisms and adapting them singularly to our own need in the type of scenario described above. If we begin building something new that is an option within the realistic spectrum of choices offered to people in our society, the hardiest among them will consider it and be likely to move. The others are too busy “just doing my thing, man” and we are fortunate for their voluntary exclusion.

This plan would require an Indo-European living space. To get started, it needs some kind of economic base, even if only a single corporation that is willing to hire local people. Once the character of the community is started, the laws of our society must be changed. Anti-discrimination legislation, including the Housing and Urban Development rules, no longer need apply in a modern society, so we can campaign to have them removed, not on the grounds that we “hate” other groups, but on the ethnocultural grounds described above – “white people” are no longer in charge of America, and this group of Indo-Europeans wants the right to preserve itself. Similarly, other affirmative action legislation needs to be repealed. It has served its purpose, and now isn’t needed; we want the right to hire only our own kind so we are not forced to alter the makeup of our community to fit racial quotas. This would be a quiet revolution in American law against “one size fits all” legislation to something that would allow actual diversity by giving localized groups the ability to rule themselves, as culturally appropriate, in ways different than those preferred by the undifferentiated masses.

A state such as this, whether located in one place or communities distributed across a continent, will require its own cultural conventions, much as neighborhoods of a longstanding ethnic mix have their own informal ways of governing themselves. It will require its own media: its own television, its own authors, its own artists. It will require its own economic structure that only hires members of that community. Much like successful cultural holdouts such as the Basque or Amish, it must be willing to isolate itself without falling into a passive and hopeless “reservation mentality.” In all likelihood, it would be a feudal state organized by breeding – much like National Socialism. With only a handful of legal changes, it can happen in modern America and Europe, and can separate those worth saving from those who oblivious go into the same doom that has afflicted all great civilizations.

It may seem like fanciful thinking now, and perhaps this article is only metaphor for the changes needed in society as a whole, but given that society has developed on its current path through 2,000 years of liberal democratic thought, it is unlikely to alter its course without violent collapse and revolution, things which historically have not afforded the birth of a new civilization but have cheerfully destroyed many remnants of the old. Civilizations die like stars, by collapsing inward, and the only way to reverse that is to birth a new star from the ashes of the old. We are in the end stages of what our ancestors built, and the time has passed where we could simply destroy alien elements and consider ourselves saved; we must create something new according to the values which engendered the great Indo-European civilizations. In this new birth is our only future.

Some useful reading resources to accompany this article:

Cultural Revival

Saturday, January 1st, 2005


To look at the topic of the political rights of Indo-Europeans in the current society is to dismay; we are viewed as those who control it, and thus those responsible for stewardship of others. In short, we are the oppressors and providers, and the nagging schoolteachers, over a horde that views us with distrust, as they should – for any population ruled by another is in an unstable and submissive state. Part of the goal of any Indo-European nationalist movement, then, is to escape this classification and to return to a phase where it is seen as acceptable and logical that we assert our right to be ourselves as a tribe.

For us to do this, we must first construct an ideal, next purge ourselves of counterproductive behaviors, and finally take action in a unified way. To miss any one of these steps is to give in to disorganized behavior, at which point we will undoubtedly commit the classic error of revolutionaries: to strike against the appearance of the system we wish to replace, without seeing the chain of ideas underlying the symptoms that make up the appearance we abhor; to do this is to literally repeat the same error under a new appearance. For this reason, most revolutions become power struggles that upon achieving their visible aims collapse from within, giving way to a form of government strikingly like the one they replaced.

As regards the first step, constructing an ideal, it seems to this writer that while the goal of many in the Indo-European nationalist movements may be to lash out at symptoms, what is meant by the broader sense of our goal is a cultural reconstruction and replacement of our current society with one that harmonizes with the goals of Indo-European culture. Although most “white nationalists” content themselves with merely saying nasty things about Africans, if they were to sit down and list the things they would change in our world, it would become clear the “race issue” does not exist in a vacuum: far from a cause, it is one of the final symptoms of a decline that grips our race and is manifested in many aspects of modern society.

This does not mean that we should soft-pedal the race issue, or be illusory about it, but that we should be honest. Regardless of whether other races are “superior” or “inferior,” our goal is preserve our own kind, which to a studied mind recalls that every population is defined by both ethnicity and culture; without either, that is, without both, no population exists independently of the broadest mass of humanity, who have seemingly always been of indeterminate racial origin. For this reason, there is nothing wrong with Africans, nor with Asians, nor with mixed-race people, unless they exist among us, in which case we must eject them because they threaten our existence. We do not have to judge them, or to insult them, or even to wage war upon them, but by making this clear when we redesign society, we will induce them to leave, as no person feels safe where they know they are not wanted – regardless of how much we like them as individuals.

When we reach this state of honesty, our desire for racial separation becomes natural alongside other good ideas, no matter how demonized, such the breeding of smarter, stronger people of better character in general, and developing our culture through art, learning, food and ideas. By seeing the “racial issue” as one component of a cultural revolution, we address the root problem of our racial decline, which is that our culture has been replaced by industry and social and religious morality. It is because of this lack of culture that few see the point in preserving themselves racially; they do not perceive they are part of a larger population group except that of international citizens, who are those who get ahead in commercial society and a generalized learning (science, sociology, economics) without having a specific cultural tradition.

In this mindset, people do not belong to population groups, but are atomized individuals attempting to advance in a single world order where money and popularity define success. Nationalism, by its very nature, is opposed to internationalism, because with the replacement of culture comes a loss of uniqueness and a lowest common denominator culture composed of media, politics, economics and generalized learning. When culture is lost, the population is lost, and all that its ancestors have done to make it powerful is dissipated. Astute observers of history will note that a mixed, cultureless population is what is left after the fall of every great empire; to most it seems inconceivable that an empire could fall by means other than warfare, but when one examines every great defeat, behind it is a lack of unity in the population.

Nationalists value unity in populations because it creates localization of power, and allows each tribe to define itself, meaning that specialization can occur as well as the only form of advancement which applies to populations: the creation of ascendant, or highly adapted and idealistic, civilization. Such civilization is the rarest thing on earth; the earth however is littered with the remnants of such civilizations, which when they decay do so through internal strife, usually a conflict between workers and elites, and end without any dramatic consequence in what we know today as third-world republics. One of the symptoms of such decline is race-mixing, which regardless of the excellence of the races mixed, produces a population without heritage which loses the uncountable specialized traits bred into a population by its distinct ideals, which regulate which traits breed most widely. Another symptom is democratic, or passive, government, and a transition made from traditional culture to abstract, quantitative entities such as commerce and science.

In this light, we see the goal of nationalism is not racial partisanism, but a distinction and separation between all races such that each tribe can retain its own culture and ethnic heritage as part of a broader revolution which, in contrast to the last two millennia, pits cultural revival against the utilitarian forces of industry and democracy, which together constitute the fundamental tenets of modern society. Although few take a broader historical view today, if we back up and view history through the lens of aeons, we see that since the middle ages Western civilization has been engaged in the process of replacing traditional civilization with such a modern society. While modern society brings many short-term benefits, as its shortcomings become visible, we see the long-term damage it creates and thus can realize that it is unfit for any form of enduring civilization.

This cultural revival is our goal, and it cannot take reactionary forms, e.g. solely aiming to restore something from the past, or it will collapse from our lack of direct knowledge about the past. Rather, like every diligent worker, we must take what we know of the past and join it with what we know to be sensible to the values of the past to create a society of the future. This society is the aim of our cultural revival; when viewed in this light, our movement is not a passive or reactionary one, but an assertive direction which replaces a fractured system with a better one. We do not make our demands in the context of the current society, but so that its successor can arise, and humanity can move forward lacking the widespread – but invisible to most people, by the very nature of their limited function and belief in their own political efficacy – failings of the current system.

Our keystone realization is that, as Indo-Europeans, despite our different tribes, there is more that unites us than divides us, and that except for those who are already of mixed Indo-European tribes, we can continue to divide into our traditional societies and will not have to live under a one-size-fits-all bureaucratic government administering a sterile “culture” to us all. On top of that, we can recognize that whatever religions or cultural traditions we wish to uphold, we can keep those by finding within them that which is compatible with our spirit, and rejecting the rest. Like society itself, beliefs must be remade in the context of our culture.

Most Indo-Europeans are not politically active as they see no culture, thus nothing worth preserving, and therefore are afraid to take on mass opinion (commerce/social/media/religious) in defense of something to which they have no immediate connection. When we realize that our preferences as a people unite us, and that we have more in common than in difference, we can begin to work on this culture, meaning the methods and ideals of our learning and art and lifestyles, and use it to unify our disparate opinions with those we have in common. It is important that we realize that without such unity, we are divided in the face of our real enemy, which is a values system that emphasizes modern society as the only rational future for humanity, and thus continues the death march toward ecocide, loss of culture and heritage, and loss of personal integrity as we find nothing of meaning except earning money and buying things; in that state, we are drones, and fodder for the machine of corporations and governments. In that state, we do not command, but we submit.

All peoples in the multiculturalist system have this type of identity, except those of Indo-European heritage, for the reasons mentioned: we are perceived as the guardians of this modern civilization, and not a culture within it. Giving our people a cultural identity – including their unique tribal identity, such as French, German, Italian, Irish and so on – is essential toward moving forward. Defensive and passive ideals such as conservatism and bigotry have failed, and there is no point repeating a failing attempt without changing method, as it will undoubtedly fail again. When we leave these reactionary and panicked emotions aside, we can achieve a cultural identity and begin working on ourselves to strengthen and develop a new society in the ashes of the old. This can be achieved by democratic means, and is the only revolution worth supporting.

Recommended Reading