In any task, you will find yourself asking who “da real MVP” is, meaning the person without whom it would not have happened. When we look at decisions made about our future as a civilization, we have to figure out what the bottom line is: what of the many factors involved will draw the line between victory and defeat?
Any sensible analysis will say that the MVP here is time. Ordinary citizens exist in a kind of time-loop where they make decisions about very similar things, day in and day out. For them, a missed opportunity means a need to correct it with the next very similar decision. Life however operates on higher stakes at the civilization level.
Think of it in terms of your birthdays as a child. You can have only one birthday per year, and only one party, and therefore, only one type of cake. You choose lemon, or vanilla, chocolate, or cherry, and that is it. You do not get repeats; you cannot go back and do-over your sixth birthday. The same is true of civilization.
This means that time is the most valuable player because our decisions are a zero-sum game. To choose one thing is to exclude all of the others; to fail to actively select an option is to choose entropy. This means that we are not choosing from a perspective of the present time, but from that of the future. We are choosing our future.
With that in mind, our matrix of decision-making changes. We are no longer looking for threats to what exists as we have it now, but choosing which elements available to us now that will make the future we desire. What we choose will become our future, even if it is not a threat now.
When discussing diversity, many people say things like, “I don’t mind having a Japanese neighbor, because they are high intelligence and considerate.” But do you want to be replaced by Japanese people? To be a society of half- or a quarter-Japanese people? We will no longer be Western Europeans, but a new hybrid group.
People tend to focus on what they see as negatives with other groups. They will talk about crime, average IQ, laziness, resentment, or welfare use. These are disadvantages to having people among us, but can be overcome. What cannot be overcome is that these people will then replace us, and that diversity never works because our group will be in conflict with any other group dwelling among us.
To talk about another group in terms of its bad impact on the status quo requires that we think in negative terms. When we say that a group “fits in” and “does not cause trouble,” we are not thinking of the future, but the present. Our failure to extrapolate to the next stage reflects a lack of faith, hope, and attention to the future.
On the other hand, if we think in positive terms, we will simply ask, “Are these the basis of the civilization we need to be?” Even after our lives, our children and those of our friends and family will live on. Do they want to live on as Japanese hybrids? Once the ancestral connection to a culture is lost, it quickly evaporates too.
Modern people cannot get their heads outside of the mental ghetto imposed by equality, so they assume that culture is like government regulations, a series of rules and procedures which are written down and whoever follows them is getting the job done. In this view, as long as we brainwash random warm bodies into doing things our way, our civilization in theory continues to exist.
In actuality, culture is genetic, as history shows us. Only the group that produces the culture can understand it. They are genetically shaped by it, and it was designed for who they instinctively are, and so they are the only ones who can produce it. Western Civilization requires Western European people.
You can see the negative analysis in the wild in statements of patriotism and loyalty to ideology like this vapidity:
Proudly, we are composed of all kinds of people. People who have different heritages and religions. Though at times we have a cause – like WWII – or a hate – terrorism – that can bind us, it is not something that can last forever.
There must be something deeper, and everlasting, something that all citizens can feel and touch in perpetuity.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is patriotism and nationalism. In other words, the love and affection for one’s country and one’s fellow citizens.
These people are as indoctrinated as any Communist, Fascist or National Socialist. To them, civilization is a means to an end, and that goal is these abstract ideas. They assume that every person who reads the same words on a piece of paper comes away with the same interpretation, and that therefore they live on through their obedience to the rules.
In reality, you only live on if you live on genetically. Anything else means that you pass along your notes for the kids in your class next year, and they fit them to their understanding. If this class consists of radically different people, they will have a different interpretation, and everything you do will fail.
Think about how many civilizations across the third world have adopted Western methods like democracy, constitutions, capitalism, Christianity, and suburban living. Those implementations never look quite like ours, and their results have not been as good. Each society has an order which fits it because genetics is the origin of behavior and values.
You can only make one choice for the future of your civilization. The question is not what fears you have about others, but whether they can be you and your ancestors. If they are from a different tribe, they cannot, and they will replace you, whether by you taking on a Japanese wife, your kids having families with people who are 1/32 Asian or Black, or by the gradual process of outbreeding.
Tyrants — leaders who are concerned only with their own power and view their civilization as a means to that end — bring foreigners here because they know that people are dumb when they are young, and whatever they are sexually attracted to, they marry. Those children no longer have the genetic profile of the original culture, and so it is erased and replaced by the ideology the tyrant uses to justify his continued power.
We know what it is like to be a hybrid. Look at South America, Eastern Europe, India, Southern Europe, or Ireland. The group never attains the greatness of the original Western Civilization, and it forms a civilization that is rather exotic and more like its admixture, even if only in traces.
Still think that Japanese, Korean, Jewish, Greek, Italian, Irish, or Polish wife is a good idea? You are breaking down your genetic profile and replacing it with something that can never be the original. You are genetically erasing yourself, and with that, destroying your culture, even if your laws and economic system live on.
As the old saying goes, “Which way, Western man?” If we deserve to live, we have to realize that time is a zero-sum game and that therefore, we can make only one choice: we must defend ourselves and exclude all others, even if they do not cause problems, or are nice and well-mannered and love our educational systems.
It does not matter whether you replace yourselves with Nigerians or Japanese. Any diversity is the end of your people. If you think your people deserve to live, and want Western Civilization to exist, you have to exclude all racial and ethnic diversity, and choose a future that is exclusively Western European.
Smarter groups of people are more susceptible to attack through social means. Being more focused on the world in our minds, we are less aware of the social world, and so to us it seems both mysterious and more important than it is. This leaves us with a self-confidence deficit when we encounter someone who is more socially adept, or at least better at attracting attention, than we are.
In the past, a hierarchy of ability and quality suppressed the urge to be merely social; socializing, it was believed, consisted of being polite and able to maintain conversation of quality with other quality people. Conversation of quality indicated quickness of mind, depth of knowledge, and most importantly, the ability to think, analyze, and make decisions.
Socializing in the present day consists of maintaining a happy group feeling by including everyone and reducing standards so that none feel risk for their erratic, self-centered, oblivious, delusional, or otherwise less than ideal behavior. If the modern time has a symbol, it will be the amusement park, where individuals can behave selfishly as a crowd.
Most of the world has always followed this pattern of socializing. It is easier to maintain than complex social order, makes it easy to get a group together for activities like harvesting tubers or stoning heretics, and is popular because each person is guaranteed that their defects will not lower their social status.
When Western Europeans encountered the rest of the world, this easy socialization seemed like a tempting path. Western Civilization rewarded those complex manners and conversational requirements, while in what we now call the third world, socializing had few requirements and seemed easy, accessible to everyone.
That tied into something that Western Leftists have long desired, which is the abolition of social hierarchy as expressed through caste and aristocracy. If you remove rule by the best, you can replace it with the reign of the mob, and then each individualistic Leftist can engage in whatever less than productive behaviors they want to without experiencing a loss in social status for doing so, where previously they would have been downgraded to “pleb” or exiled for their venal impulses, trend-following and carnal desires.
Since that time, the Left has been in love with the exotic and foreign so long as it represents lower standards than what we have in the West. At first, they chose groups nearer to us, like the Japanese, but over time, they wanted to go even further to the least-developed groups in the human species. To the Left, racial mixing is a way of achieving class warfare, and thus the mythological-mystical (really: social) ecstasy of “equality.”
Some suspected this was merely a clandestine attempt at “getting rid” of the monarchy, erasing their heritage through interracial marriages. Not so much revolution, as racial dilution.
…One of the problems with the discourse in Britain today is the tendency to downplay racial difference, and the temptation of so many well-meaning people who “don’t see race” to believe that if we can all just wilfully blind ourselves, it will hopefully go away.
…All this takes place within a context where it is the royal family we are talking about – the human manifestation of the class system.
The Left even admits it: they celebrate race-mixing because it destroys any kind of social order, which they see as a class system but is actually a hierarchy formed by the differences in natural ability between people.
Their goal is not to establish meritocracy, as conservatives always vainly hope, but to assert themselves as primary; if you cannot “not see race,” then those who are of “disadvantaged” races always come first.
Interestingly, they signal approval for “revolution [through] racial dilution” which shows the nature of the Left: anything which increases equality is good, and everything else is a means to that end. If you have to obliterate your people to do that, this is positive. “We had to destroy the village to save it” is a Leftist trope.
For bonus points, not only is Markle half-African, but she is also part-Jewish:
If it were only the name Rachel, dayeinu. If it were just the “Jewish chair dance”, dayeinu. But the greatest evidence in this biur chametz-like hunt for crumbs of Markle’s Jewish identity is that a spokesman for Westminster Abbey confirmed on behalf of the Church of England that, if they choose, Markle and Prince Harry will be able to marry within the church in an “interfaith” marriage, regardless of Markle’s “Jewish background”.
This brings us to the next booshah-turned-equality-milestone, which is that Markle has been married and divorced. And according to the Church of England, if that’s good enough for Henry the 8th, it should be good enough for his fellow ginger ladykiller (so to speak,) Prince Harry.
So, when Markle and Harry marry, Markle will be the first black, Jewish, divorcee, American princess in English history.
Not only is she a stab at the English race, but also a rebuke to any of those old theories from Old Europe which held that Europeans were different from Middle Eastern people. They want to erase every aspect of English identity, culture, heritage, and uniqueness, which we would call “soft genocide” except that in the mass Leftist trend of our time, this destruction is seen as a good thing because it increases equality.
They celebrated for similar reasons when the UK had a part-Jewish prime minister, although it was probably the remnants of Irish heritage that did him in. Trace admixture of the Irish in the English tends to produce hesitant, neurotic people.
Assuming that Prince Harry is not a committed Leftist ideologue, we might wonder, then, how he ended up in this position. An analysis of his body language tells us what we must know:
Body language expert Judi James tells MailOnline she believes ‘informal, confident’ Meghan is running the show while offering reassurance to camera-shy Harry, who can be seen to mimic his father’s ‘anxious’ hand gestures.
…’Harry has started to mimic his father’s hand rituals, which are self-comfort gestures,’ Judi says. ‘Charles often pats his pockets and touches his stomach, and now Harry is doing the same.
‘It shows a lot of admiration for his father, but also a feeling of being slightly nervous and under attack from the cameras.’
…’She also has this trait of putting her hands on top of this. The person who does this is normally the one in control – she’s leading the game.’
Like many Western European men, Harry and his brother William are alienated from their roots and lack self-confidence because they do not have a clear identity and sense of purpose. For starters, their mother Diana was an ill-behaved attention hog who solicited media attention, and had mixed heritage herself.
This separated the boys from an identity as purely 100% English, and instead made them feel like outsiders in a society which on the surface they belonged to, but underneath, they loathed. Neither son has married a woman from his caste or stepped enthusiastically into the role of leadership. Both seem to float on the surface, never fully accepting the duty to which they were born.
In addition, because their society has shifted Leftward progressively over the past thousand years, these boys know that as alpha males, they are the target of the caste revolutionaries. Caste revolution occurs when the mercantile and lower castes, who are related, overthrow the higher, and they do this by trying to erase all health, wisdom, intelligence, morality, and sanity above their level.
However, since their level is low — barely above third world levels — this means “dumbing down” everything in society, turning all pure things into the venal, making people neurotic, and replacing any functional social institution with chaos and dysfunction. Only then do the proles feel that their bad behavior will not be noticed and therefore, they will not lose social standing.
To achieve this dumbing down, the lower echelons mount a social war against the higher parts of the natural hierarchy. Their goal is to sabotage and then shatter the confidence of these people — a control tactic, a type of passive-aggression and gaslighting — which then leaves them wide open to be dominated through passive means.
The article noted that hipster racism is “a trend we noticed back in 2005, at the height of the Kill Whitey parties”. In case they mercifully passed you by, they were ironic dance parties in Williamsburg, a then rapidly gentrifying part of Brooklyn, at which white hipsters parodied black hip-hop culture in order to “kill the whiteness inside”.
…A mixed-race employee at Vice Media told me, for example, about a white executive in her office who routinely uses people of colour as props to make him seem “cool”. He often tries to banter with her about hip-hop, for example, assuming that she is obviously into hip-hop because she is half-black.
“There was one time,” she recalls, “when he wanted to have a business dinner for cool creative people and the invite list was all brown people. It made us feel like pets.”
The Left argues for the Evil White Person theory of this method of using the race of other people as a badge of coolness, but looking at it from a white perspective, it means that people have adopted the media trope that white people are not cool at all. In fact, white self-hatred forms a feedback loop with low self-confidence, erasing our faith in ourselves and using other groups as an “inverse scapegoat,” or people from whom we attempt to draw legitimacy and coolness.
That in turn creates the worst of all possible situations in that we are still “in charge” but are looking to others for guidance, refusing to realize that their interests and ours cannot intersect. They are not bad people for acting in their own self-interest, and if we are handing out money and power because of our low self-esteem, it is only natural to accept.
However, this situation creates a dependency relationship where there is a feedback between Us and the Other, each needing the opposite for some part of our self-regulation, but no one really feeling good about this situation. Among other things, our stewardship relationship makes us scapegoats, and their recipient role gives rise to a sense that they are ungrateful.
Take, for example, the “Magical Negro” trope featured in many Hollywood films:
The Magic Negro is a figure of postmodern folk culture, coined by snarky 20th century sociologists, to explain a cultural figure who emerged in the wake of Brown vs. Board of Education.
…He’s there to assuage white “guilt” (i.e., the minimal discomfort they feel) over the role of slavery and racial segregation in American history, while replacing stereotypes of a dangerous, highly sexualized black man with a benign figure for whom interracial sexual congress holds no interest.
In contemporary white culture, there is no profundity assigned to the white variant of species. Much as in previous generations, heroes went into the wild to receive wisdom from Amerinds, or even in Europe centuries ago went to gypsies for their magic or Lapps for their prophecy, the Magical Negro shows white recognition that our culture has lost something vital.
This shows in Harry and William. Born into a dying civilization which over two centuries ago gave up on real leadership for mob rule, with signs that the foundations have crumbled and we are merely living in a pocket of wealth before we become Brazil II, they have a shortage of things about themselves to believe in. Instead they look outward, figuring that they are obsolete and will be replaced.
White people see the lower standards of third world cultures — which are more individualistic than the hierarchical, orderly, standards-driven West of old — as more accepting and therefore, places in which you cannot lose social status for an action that shows you are unrealistic, selfish, or otherwise not up to the task. In the third world, chaos rules, and everyone is OK as a result.
When they attended playdates with white students in their class, they were always made to sit at the edge of the bed, to search for others in a room where they would never find anyone, to wait for the phone call on the following day saying their friend had a great time and would like to have them over again that never came. So their mothers would encourage their black friendships, which seemed to come easier. Their black friends would praise their hair for being silkier than theirs, call them funny even when their jokes were indulgent, and make room for them at the table even if it was full.
We have inverted this process now by, through low self-confidence, becoming more accepting because white culture sees no future for itself and wants to die.
A simple solution to this problem is to stop focusing on the Other at all, and to instead praise what is good about us, instead of trying to praise all of us. We will never regain our self-esteem if we do not create a hierarchy of excellence, not just in people but in ideas, actions, institutions, and creations like art and architecture.
In the meantime, the British royal family has exited stage Left. For some reason, Prince Charles married an unsuitable woman; she produced two kids with shattered self-esteem, and so both have married outside caste, one by hooking up with the daughter of a flight attendant, and the second besting the first by choosing an ethnically unsuitable actress.
There is only one solution for this. As happened in the past, the royals who outbreed should abdicate, and leave leadership to those with both self-esteem and a belief in their own people.
Next time you encounter a so-called “conservative,” you might ask them what goal conservatives aim to achieve. You will usually either get an answer about traditional values, or a short discourse on the Constitution (if in Europe, they will talk about social benefits instead).
Very few of them will point out that the word “conservative” comes from the Latin word for “to preserve,” and that this means they are preserving something. If you bring this up, they will probably answer something about the founding of the nation, or maybe a favorite decade like the 1980s or 1950s. Anything farther back is a mystery, except the founding, which since no one remembers it, is handy like a movie screen for projecting upon.
But preservation calls to mind a few ideas. We can only preserve that which is alive, so it implies a continuity with the society of the past. Since civilizations outlast governments, which are institutions tasked with preserving civilization, it means the civilization is the goal of the preservation, not government. And since fortunes vary, it brings to mind a normally forgotten dimension of thought, which is that composed of degree and quality. When were the best days, and what did they do differently? That is what we preserve, and by recognizing that there are ups and downs to civilization, we argue for a timelessness, meaning that there are some ways — folkways, customs, structures, patterns, principles — which are good no matter what the year number is. In this sense, conservatism is entirely different than ideology, which argues for what “should” be true; conservatism argues from what is real, and within that, thrusts the question back onto us of what is good, which is more complex than “right” because it combines function and morality into a single measurement.
If you make it to that point, you have found an exceptional conservative.
From there the ship departs to unknown and barely remembered lands. Most conservatives grew up with a knowledge of Western Civilization, the series of societies stretching forward from the Romans and Greeks to the present day Western nations — Britain, Germany, Scandinavia, the Netherlands, maybe parts of France, perhaps the money-addled Swiss — who shared a similar outlook on the world and notion of what civilization should be. This group is easily spotted because it is distinct not just from those in other parts of the world, but from the people and styles of society in Eastern Europe, Southern Europe and, of course, Ireland. It will not be hard to achieve agreement on the idea that we are attempting preserve Western Civilization, and that not just governments but nations are a means to that end.
At that point, you might even ask about what defines Western societies, and the answer after much batting about will converge on the notion of a “spirit” or “principles,” rarely mentioned as seeming to emerge as if autochthonous to a genetic group who not only look like those ancient Romans and Greeks — but not their modern descendants — but appreciate and act toward the same notion of “greatness” which means not just a prosperous society, but one geared toward beauty, virtue, and a transcendent appreciation of the wisdom of nature instead of attempting to replace it with an entirely anthropogenic substitute. They might mention Plato and his quest for the good, the beautiful and the true by doing good to the good, and bad to the bad, or they might look toward a semi-modern alternative like Fred Nietzsche:
Let us look each other in the face. We are Hyperboreans — we know well enough how remote our place is. “Neither by land nor by water will you find the road to the Hyperboreans”: even Pindar,in his day, knew that much about us. Beyond the North, beyond the ice, beyond death — our life, our happiness… We have discovered that happiness; we know the way; we got our knowledge of it from thousands of years in the labyrinth. Who else has found it? — The man of today?— “I don’t know either the way out or the way in; I am whatever doesn’t know either the way out or the way in” — so sighs the man of today…This is the sort of modernity that made us ill, — we sickened on lazy peace, cowardly compromise, the whole virtuous dirtiness of the modern Yea and Nay. This tolerance and largeur of the heart that “forgives” everything because it “understands” everything is a sirocco to us. Rather live amid the ice than among modern virtues and other such south-winds!… We were brave enough; we spared neither ourselves nor others; but we were a long time finding out where to direct our courage. We grew dismal; they called us fatalists. Our fate — it was the fullness, the tension, the storing up of powers. We thirsted for the lightnings and great deeds; we kept as far as possible from the happiness of the weakling, from “resignation”… There was thunder in our air; nature, as we embodied it, became overcast — for we had not yet found the way. The formula of our happiness: a Yea, a Nay, a straight line, a goal…
If we look deeply into the Western spirit, we see that it is not of this material world, but a desire for greatness and beauty which denies the lazy impulse of the human heart to lounge in the comfortable, familiar and unchallenging. This spirit demands conquest, but first of the self, and only then through the ways of the world.
Most of humanity, even most of our own people, will never understand this and so they will oppose it as if it were superfluous ornamentation. And yet, it is the core of who we are: we are that which is endlessly becoming, pushing farther, striving not for distance itself but for excellence, which is a combination of adaptation and grace, beauty, honor, pride, and all other good things. We aspire to the greatness of life itself amplified through our consciousness, instead of denied so that we can lurk in the seemingly impregnable castle of our bodily urges and self-importance.
With this in mind, “conservatives” have a full task indeed, because their cause forms a resistance not just toward the inevitable pull toward entropy of the universe, but to the natural human tendency of solipsism, or to pay more attention to our own thoughts and impulses than to the greatness that can be found in joining with the world and bringing forth all that is excellent about it.
With that in mind, we have to realize that our people — the genetic group that produces Western Civilization and has done so over the centuries — will be a target, simply because others will resent them. This means that any attempt at preservation starts with our people, who will always be a target no matter how nice they are, simply because others resent the heights to which we can climb:
The observations of liberal African-American journalist Keith Richburg are particularly pertinent here. Richburg believes that on the Dark Continent, tribal allegiance trumps political persuasion and envy carries the day. He cites the fate of the Tutsi—an alien, Nilotic African people, who formed a minority in Rwanda and Burundi—among the Hutu who are a Bantu people.
The Hutu have always resented the tall, imposing, attractive Tutsis, who had dominated them on-and-off since the 15th century. When Hutus picked up machetes to slash to bits nearly a million of their Tutsi neighbors in the 1994 Rwandan genocide, they were, on a deeper level, contends Richburg, “slashing at their own perceived ugliness, as if destroying this thing of beauty, this thing they could never really attain, removing it from the earth forever.”
To preserve an ethnic group, you must first preserve it from itself, because people are inherently chaotic and make personal decisions based on whims, convenience, finance, and simple proximity. For that reason, the group must isolate itself by removing itself to a territory where there are no others, and actively excluding those others with a strong sense of self and the need for its preservation. Every species that has come about on Earth broke off from others, went its own way, and by excluding its nearby relatives, became something different — often greater — than the larger, more varied group from which it originated.
However, this racial-ethnic preservation alone will not be enough because in itself, it is not the grand force of unification that we need. Jared Taylor convincingly argues that instead of mere racial preservation, we need civilizational preservation and nurturing, because race alone is not enough:
I agree with Rabbi Schiller (and for that matter with Father Ronald Tacelli in an earlier issue of AR) when he writes that “so much of our civilization’s crisis goes beyond race.” While race is necessary for an explanation of the civilization of European man, it is not sufficient. If race were sufficient, there would be no problem. If racial (biological, genetic) factors were sufficient to sustain a people, it would never experience a decline as long as its racial integrity endured.
Thus, whites did not descend to their present pitiable condition because their racial purity was somehow diluted but because they conceptually surrendered their will and identity — which they did well before they began to surrender their heritage politically and materially. If race were sufficient, that conceptual surrender would never have taken place. The conceptual surrender is leading to a situation where the biological survival of the race is threatened, and if that occurs, then — because race is necessary, because no other race or people seems able to replicate or adopt the concepts on which white civilization is based — the conceptual surrender will not be remedied, and white civilization, the whole conceptual corpus, will die with the race.”
Taylor goes on to argue that separatism is therefore also not sufficient, nor is white supremacy, but that our only future comes in understanding a racial hierarchy where we are in power in our lands and other races are seen in a negative light, such that cultural forces push back against miscegenation and any kind of power-sharing. Although his logic is good, a more sensible approach might involve separation on an ethnic level, where culture is strongest and not weak as on a racial level, and a pervasive sense of xenophobia that is both non-judgmental and absolute. The point of being racially-aware is not to focus on other races, but on our own, which requires separation and alienation from other groups no matter how good, friendly, nice, or intelligent they are.
He touches on the ethnic issue briefly:
To name only the obvious, would John Kenneth Galbraith, Bill Clinton, Earl Warren (were he still alive), George Bush, Bill Buckley, etc., be admitted into the white separatist enclave? All of them are undoubtedly white, but if you did admit people like these, you would soon have all the problems that made you want to separate in the first place. There would be other debates: How about Eastern and Southern Europeans? The Irish? How about Jews? Could Yankees come into a Southern white separatist state? If there were several white racial states, would one or some ally with non-white states against the white states? My point in bringing up all these questions is that it is idle to talk about racial separatism without (a) a widely shared and well defined concept of race to which virtually all whites would rigorously adhere and (b) equally widely shared and well defined concepts of other criteria in addition to race that would prevent replication of the same errors and flaws that caused the problems in the first place.
Perhaps, looking at this from the opposite angle, we can see another path. We experience life in terms of effects which we diagnose backward to their causes; in other words, by the nature of time itself, we experience life backward. For that reason, it makes sense to look at the threat to our existence from outbreeding — the real problem behind all racial strife — as an effect of the underlying cause mentioned above, which is lack of an understanding of the spirit of Western Civilization.
Our struggle in doing anything about this is The Human Problem, namely that every organization adapts to its members instead of its purpose, purely because humans are social animals because they fear the disapproval of others or worse, the lack of approval, which in a society with specialized roles, means an inability to gain what is needed in daily life from others. Evolution worked for humanity when each person started a farm and provided everything needed for the family, but with the rise of other organized civilizations — think of the Mongols here — it became clear that centralization would occur and with it, specialization of roles. That presents to us the challenge of civilization: how do we motivate people to work together without placing the focus on individuals, who will then make the group adapt to them and in doing so, change its purpose to an inward-looking and thus neurotic one?
Our civilization is suffering from a failure of coordination. We are no longer able to organize mass movement with an achievable purpose, and nowhere is that more evident than in the still birth of Right wing movements. This is because every attempt at a movement compromises its purpose for a lower common denominator that will attract more adherents.
In other words, popularity beats out rarer analytical ability. This is not surprising since humans tend toward solipsism, and this encourages them toward social thinking because others are controlled with the same tokens and words used in our thoughts.
We have tried many forms of collaboration. Modern states work by self-interest; citizens are rewarded with money and services for working together. This ended up being exploitative just like the notion of uniting citizens by ideology, as in Communism or fascism, or even uniting them by religion, as we see in theocracies. If there is a problem for the ages, it is this question.
A hint can perhaps be found in the idea of inequality in nature, namely that there must be potentials which people seek to transect. For us to avoid the apathy that comes when any decision leads to about the same result as any other, which is what crushes both Communist societies like the Soviet Union and large corporations with their bloated pointless jobs, we must have striving:
I have a friend named Bob Wyman; he was the founder of a startup company I worked for a few years ago. He’s a mighty smart guy. One of Bob’s pet ideas is that we can understand a great many things about the human and social world through the metaphor of thermodynamics. In particular he likes to say that everything that is good in the world tends to reduce entropy, while everything bad increases it. For example, war is bad. This makes sense, in Bob’s view, because wars take highly ordered systems — the social and physical infrastructures of nations — and reduces them to disordered rubble. Meanwhile, wars also kill people — and a living human body is a far more ordered arrangement of the substance of the world than a decomposing corpse. And so on.
It isn’t hard to apply Bob’s idea here. For any system to be capable of producing useful work, there needs to be disequilibrium, a difference in potential. For a mill-race to turn a water-wheel, the water must flow downhill over the wheel. If the water on one side of the wheel is at the same level as on the other — that is, the parts of the system are at equilibrium — then nothing will happen. When the potential gradient inside a flashlight battery reaches zero, the battery is dead.
We need not just inequality between people, but between our current situation and where we want to be. We need something to strive for, and it cannot be anything we can fully achieve; it must be an ongoing goal, with a transcendental component such as a quest for virtue, such that we can always strive no matter how far we climb.
Western Civilization once had such a goal, when it was new, at which time the goal was to survive, and then to become the type of place its inhabitants had always dreamed of, beating back nature and enemies. Once that was achieved, a trap awaited: at the same time society became becalmed by its lack of goal, its success also led to the breeding of many of the lower echelons, which caused a Dunning-Kruger trap in that the lower classes could not understand the utility of their leadership hierarchy, its principles and values, or the need for their own position as lower echelons. For that reason, overcome by resentment and scapegoating, they revolted.
Specifying a future plan involves both external elements of form, such as restorationism and the ult right, but also an inner sense of what we want our spirits to be like that is in concert with the traditional spirit of Western Civilization. Any scapegoating, focus on economic systems, trying to use race or strong power (fascism) to apply this, or appeal to what is popular to the group will defeat us. We must become what we once were, but in the context of the future, and this requires resurrecting that ancient spirit and then picking up where it left off, in the process restoring a purpose to the remnants of our civilization.
The Left wants to abolish race like any other hierarchy or standards so that it can achieve its true goal of becoming a vast mass of equal people with no purpose except the individualistic pursuit of their own desires, feelings and shopping. As part of this five-year plan, it first attacked the idea of race itself.
One of its common tropes takes the form of “everyone is mixed, so we might as well just be diverse,” ignoring that there are degrees of mixing, and that because some are mixed does not mean that all are. After that, they tried disingenuous claims that race was not represented in genetics, despite the obvious fallacy revealed by the same traits consistently appearing in different races.
In order to further push this agenda, the Left frequently likes to claim that all of us are racial hybrids, ignoring its own dogma that everyone has been “racist” since the dawn of time, which would make such mixing unlikely. Luckily, back in 2005, someone did a study on this, and found that 98.6% of people correctly identify their genetic racial group (full study):
Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity. On the other hand, we detected only modest genetic differentiation between different current geographic locales within each race/ethnicity group. Thus, ancient geographic ancestry, which is highly correlated with self-identified race/ethnicity—as opposed to current residence—is the major determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population.
The Left, which normally loves “studies,” somehow overlooked this one. It shows that people tend to identify their racial origins correctly, which contradicts the idea from the Left that somehow we are race-blind or color-blind. Common sense holds that most people identify race by their ancestors in near family, and tend to pursue that course of genetic destiny.
The dominant principal component, which explained 29% of the total variance in gene expression, was strongly associated with self-identified race (P<10−16). The impact of these racial differences was observed when we performed differential gene expression analysis of lung function.
Much of this research concerns advances in medicine that have allowed therapies to be designed for specific racial groups, since differences between those groups make it necessary to tailor treatment to the specifics of each group. In a broader sense, however, these studies reveal that race is important to human individuals, and their racial identity is consistent with genetic history.
As the Left regroups after experiencing political rejection in the UK, US and EU it has begun constructing the next wave of assumptions it will use in order to justify its arguments. Most of these are simply updated versions of the old; as part of this, the Left has moved from “race does not exist” to “everyone is mixed-race” as seen in this bit of silliness arguing for mass migration:
But one self-described neo-Nazi on the district council told The New York Times that by allowing the influx, the German people faced “the destruction of our genetic heritage” and risked becoming “a gray mishmash.”
In fact, the German people have no unique genetic heritage to protect. They—and all other Europeans—are already a mishmash, the children of repeated ancient migrations, according to scientists who study ancient human origins. New studies show that almost all indigenous Europeans descend from at least three major migrations in the past 15,000 years, including two from the Middle East. Those migrants swept across Europe, mingled with previous immigrants, and then remixed to create the peoples of today.
These maps also reveal where admixture has occurred, and it stands out in contrast to the native European.
Then, we should revisit history. Europeans were wandering tribes who colonized many areas throughout Europe, Asia and the middle east. These were fundamentally the same people, but at some point, they migrated back into Europe, probably related to changes in climate and politics.
We can tell the difference between a German and a Somali by looking, and now we can do so with genetic evidence. But this offends the Left, so they concocted an updated version of Lewontin’s fallacy, which argued that because there was no single gene for race, race did not exist.
Instead, they argue that because European groups may have come from multiple groups, even from the same root, race does not exist and therefore you might as well mix Germans with Somalis because you will have the same people. As always, the Left reveals a willingness to lie in addition to their multiple mental health issues.
The answer is to this new idiocy is that European groups are consistent, have been so for some time, and are more similar to each other than they are to foreigners. The Left wishes to conceal that truth so that they can invert the definition of race, and leave you helpless to object to their importation of many extremely foreign people into your lands. Laugh at it, because it is ludicrous.
You may have heard someone ask this one: “Is the Alt Right a whites-only movement, or can anyone take part?”
And naturally, like the waters of the Red Sea, the audience divides into two. On one side are those who want to argue for civic nationalism or patriotism to some ideology or flag or another, and on the other side, those who argue that this movement is strictly racially-based.
We know that the former group are not quite correct because The Age of Ideology is over, and so we are out of the time of proposition-nations, nation-states, patriotism, “civic nationalism,” “systems” and other comedic attempts to achieve both equality and order (you cannot: those are opposites). But is the second group fully correct, or merely not as wrong as the first group?
At the same time, it makes no sense to swing toward libertarianism, either, as many during the Trump years are attempting to do, because “everybody do whatever they wantthey can afford” is anathema to social order just as equality, communism, democracy, consumerism and anarchism are. Libertarians are right about the economy, but a civilization is more than its economy.
This leaves us in the position of wanting an organic movement, or one that is both based in populations as ethnic groups, and addresses society as a whole, meaning that it is more concerned with social order than individualism. All other systems — libertarianism, communism, democracy — are based in The Renaissance™ notion of individualism.
With that in mind, we face a difficult realization: while anything derived from Leftism, including “civic nationalism,” is the wrong side, white nationalism is not fully the right side either. In fact, it is an artifact of the past that we should leave behind:
A pretty good rule of life is that failure is assured if you follow in the footsteps of previous failures. It’s why adopting Nazi symbols is stupid. The Third Reich was most notable for being a disastrous failure. Associating your thing with failure is just bad marketing.
…Putting all of that aside, prior iterations of white nationalism always suffered from the fact they were reactionary. At their very best, they could only offer a critique of the prevailing order. They had nothing to offer as an alternative, beyond demands to wind the clock backwards. Reactionary movements always fail in the long run for the simple reason that yesterday can never follow tomorrow.
…Whatever comes to define white identity in the age of identity politics will have to appeal to and serve the interests of the vast majority of whites. That can’t just be a visceral hatred of non-whites. Whites in America are mostly from west of the Hajnal line, which means low clannishness. Old fashioned tribal signalling against the next tribe is not going to work. What comes next has to be an ideology that promotes a positive identity offering a promising future.
In other words, we have to present an alternate vision of history starting tomorrow where we do certain things that not only avoid our present problems, but add something better to inspire people. This is not optics; it is advertising. It also has to be true, because people have had it up to the neck with ideology and its promises that turned out to be lies.
From a practical perspective, it makes sense to start with the economy, and this is where Anarcho-Capitalists, Libertarians and Neoreactionaries have it 100% right: capitalism is the last man standing of the proposed economic systems; everything else destroys your economy and turns your people into zombies addicted to government, as in Europe.
That however is not enough, just like nationalism by itself is not enough.
We are planning a civilization here, not arguing for one economic system over another. We know we need nationalism and capitalism, but those are two items in a list because they address different needs. Nationalism means that culture replaces government as the force that orders our daily lives; capitalism means that reward occurs for practical reasons, not ideological ones.
The Alt Right proves itself unique among all political movements because it seeks not just a contemporary solution, but an epic one that spans the ages; the Alt Right seeks to restore Western Civilization to the greatness of the ancients, whose art and philosophy far surpass our own, with the technology of today. That means ending our corrupt modern age, and then aiming much, much higher.
Restorationists desire the four pillars of making civilization functional again:
Rule by culture. Government and police are inferior methods compared to citizens who view society as a cooperative endeavor toward a goal, according to principles held in common. These are a product of culture. To defend culture, all who are not of the ethnic group must be excluded; this is a principle called Nationalism. With nationalism, government is deprecated and day-to-day order is kept through use of shame, ostracism and exclusion to keep outsiders and saboteurs at bay.
Hierarchy and excellence. Society can either take its rich and powerful and assume they are good, or find those among its people who are excellent — superior in ability, leadership, intelligence and moral insight — and give them the wealth and power to use well. 99% of humanity will make these decisions wrong, and all people in groups will choose to avoid facing real issues. We need those who do the opposite to have power and wealth to ensure that it is used well, much as (in theory) we entrust nuclear weapons only to those of excellent character.
Positive reward systems. Again we face a primary division: we either force everyone to conform and look for anomalies to punish, or we diligently reward those who do well so that they ascend to positions of leadership. A heroic culture does some of this, but on a more practical level, so does capitalism: it rewards those who find opportunity and meet needs, as kept in check by culture and hierarchy.
A transcendental goal. No healthy society has merely material goals. It aims to achieve the impossible so that it can constantly improve, such as the motives of ancient societies to achieve balance, harmony, equilibrium and excellence. Religion is part of this, but not the whole. We must collaborate toward a goal again and have it be more than tangible, but eternal.
Each of these four pillars is so massively taboo in our society that mere mention of it sends the people who are vested in the system scurrying for cover. These are the poisons that un-do our current dysfunctional order, which makes them medicine for those who wish to escape certain doom as civilization collapses, including the destruction of all they have worked for.
On top of capitalism and nationalism, this list adds the notion of hierarchy to replace the idea of equality, and the thought that we must have a purpose which is not finite and material, but based in an appreciation of the wisdom of the order of the universe and a desire to be compatible with it and by acting in accord with it, improving ourselves naturally.
Add to that the idea of organicism itself, which is that civilization must be based in innate similarities between people — Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” shows this to be the future — and must address civilization as an organic whole, meaning that it looks for a meaningful social order instead of attempting to defend individualism against realistic obligations, as democracy does.
Stated from a slightly different angle, this looks like redesigning civilization around adaptation to nature, instead of isolating the individual from the need to adapt and confront the core of life, which is finding a reason to exist and pursue virtue:
The Ult Right consists of these basic beliefs:
Social order. Some people are good; “people” in general are not good. They may not be fully bad, but they are not pointed toward what is good. As a result we need a hierarchy of categories, known as castes, where we select people by intelligence and moral outlook so that the best are on the top, with layers beneath. This encourages upward motion and ensures that the upper castes, who have more wisdom, make the decisions that influence daily life, products, culture and art. This benefits everyone by improving the quality of these things.
Leadership. Politicians are actors presenting fairytales to fool an audience into voting for them so that they can deliver the same thing time and again. Their power comes from the illusion that they are taking care of us. Instead, dispense with this idea, and promote actual leaders with unlimited power to fix problems, and let people take care of themselves as they do in nature, according to self-interest. By recognizing this principle instead of demonizing it, we can accept people as they are, and have our best at the top showing the way. Since dictatorships are unstable, the best method here is hereditary aristocracy, in which we take our best people and breed them as a permanent group from which leaders are chosen.
Culture. The root of culture is the ethnic group; when that group is separated from others, it has the ability to make daily choices by a values system, instead of needing a maze of laws and regulations. Citizens enforce rules on each other through social approval for good behavior and fleeing in fear from bad. This enables cooperation because people are similar and moving in similar patterns, so there is no need for the neurotic internal chatter, excessive competition and debate that afflicts democratic societies.
Purpose. Early civilizations have a goal: become organized and survive. When civilizations become successful, this goal evaporates and is replaced by looking inward and backward in a quest for meaning. We need meaning through a desire to become not only successful, but to improve our quality and to rise to the point of wisdom and power where we can explore the stars, invent the greatest of arts and philosophies, make our cuisine inspirational, and live well in every sense of the word. At some point, this includes having a metaphysical direction, or a meaning beyond the physical, so that we can understand every aspect of the challenge of existence.
How could this happen? Unite the top 5% of society by natural ability around some form of these ideas, and start removing laws. Eventually replace them with others. These laws would form the basis of our transition. They will also entail the peaceful and generous repatriation of those outside the founding ethnic group, and the gentle removal of those whose values conflict with our own, such as neurotic Leftists and those who engage in destructive behaviors.
Who rules over us that we cannot criticize? It is us. We the people, enshrined by Enlightenment™ ideas of individualism, are the ones making the decisions. We are doing a bad job of it and there is no sense that we will improve in the future, even with momentary thrusts toward sanity like Brexit and Trumprise. Herds make poor decisions; we are dooming ourselves by demanding power.
People — especially those top 5%, who basically hold everything together by being able to make sane decisions — require some vision of the future that is distinctive enough from the present to be a path that delivers us from the evils of the present, but also presents a clear enough vision of something to aspire to, toward which they can push themselves and in which they can see themselves succeeding, where they end up with a good feeling about themselves because they are fighting back bad and replacing it with good.
For us to see this vision, we have to discard the artifacts of the past era. In the Age of Ideology, people “won” by finding whatever simplistic illusion pleased a herd enough for them to vote for it or watch it on television. People are more cynical now, since with the Obama years, we saw how ideology and reality are light years apart, and ended the second Obama term as a divided nation with a ruined economy, inept military, huge drug addiction problem and lost national prestige.
In the future, we will stop looking for one big simple unifying vision because we distrust such things after having seen that they are illusory. Instead, it is time to embrace the complexity: there is no one simple theory that explains everything. Instead, we have a short laundry list of things that work, and everything else we take on a case-by-case basis.
That includes simplistic ideas like “white nationalism.” It is not a whole philosophy; it attempts to use one simple idea, racial separation, to solve every problem, and that is unreasonable. It is contra-Darwinian in that it includes all whites and ignores differences in ethnicity, caste, quality, class and region. It fails to demand necessary things like cultural restoration, hierarchy, something like religion or transcendental philosophy that gives us intangible purpose, and the need for a more functional equality that leaves fewer good people in the dirt.
We know Leftism is dead; when given power, it realized its goals and produced a dystopia instead of Utopia. But we cannot repeat its mistakes or we will throw ourselves on the garbage bin of history.
All of this boils down to a simple idea: the Alt Right is not a white nationalist movement, but a shift in how we view human civilization. We are no longer looking for a universal human order that spans the globe, but every nation is starting to see itself as an ethnic group which needs to figure out what works for itself so it can command its future instead of relying on the globalist trend to take care of it in the way that a Communist government takes care of (maybe put that in scare quotation marks) its citizens.
You can join the Alt Right no matter what ethnic background you have, but if you are Alt Right, you are joining the Alt Right within your ethnic group. We are not a worldwide movement, but a movement of movements, one in each ethnic group, striving to find a responsible structure for their civilization after a few centuries of Leftist insanity.
That will not satisfy anyone whose thinking is locked into that of the previous era. They want a big Leftist-style movement where government seizes all the power and forces people into molds that make them turn out as a mass culture that does what the ideology says is right. But that age, The Age of Ideology, has ended.
Our new future consists of finding a path away from the combined failures of the past and present, choosing the people to implement that, and leading those who can work within that order to set up new forms of civilization that are not failing like our present one. Everyone could participate, but only those who understand it, can.
If you listen to the egalitarian narrative, you will believe that we are all the same and the only difference between us is that some groups were oppressed and others were not. The only possible reason for this, we are led to believe, is that some groups are mean and others are nice, so the former oppressed the latter.
This nonsense lasted for centuries and when it finally failed as the presidency of Barack Obama and the chancellorship of Andrea Merkel failed in unison, the backlash was intense: all of us of one race are supposed to join up together, fight off the others, and live in some kind of Utopia.
This is merely a restatement of the egalitarian narrative that controls for race, but it does not address ethnicity, or the ethnic groups within those races, including hybrids.
The above map expands upon traditional knowledge and a body of genetic knowledge which shows us that the different European ethnic groups are both highly distinctive, and less separated when placed in clusters like Northern/Western, Eastern and Southern/Irish Europeans.
Even more, notice how this corresponds to a European tribal map which shows the national identity of each regional entity:
It is not PC to notice this, nor is it “far-Right friendly” for most values of far-Right, but Europe is divided into many ethnic groups, although similar groups may cluster.
For this reason, “white nationalism” will never work, because we are not only divided into different ethnic groups, but are divided by caste, and people see no reason to engage in ethno-Bolshevism to make us all equal-within-a-race.
In the meantime, the mainstream press is reworking Lewontin’s Fallacy in order to deny the existence of race and presumably, ethnicity. To follow their narrative, they are always trying to deny race:
The researchers pinpointed eight genetic variants in four narrow regions of the human genome that strongly influence pigmentation — some making skin darker, and others making it lighter.
…The widespread distribution of these genes and their persistence over millenniums show that the old color lines are essentially meaningless, the scientists said. The research “dispels a biological concept of race,” Dr. Tishkoff said.
…A variant for light skin — found in both Europeans and the San hunter-gatherers of Botswana — arose roughly 900,000 years ago, for example.
However, unfortunately for them, race is not skin color; it involves clusters of traits which are coded for by multiple genes each. As a result, race consists of a genetic profile, as opposed to a single gene, as is argued in Lewontin’s Fallacy:
This conclusion, due to R.C. Lewontin in 1972, is unwarranted because the argument ignores the fact that most of the information that distinguishes populations is hidden in the correlation structure of the data and not simply in the variation of the individual factors.
Lewontin’s Fallacy argues that if race is not coded by a single gene, it does not exist. This constitutes a strawman, since the common sense definition of race is that different groups have different traits, which are measured as spectra based on an ideal that consists of a cluster of traits, rather than a single trait.
The same is true of ethnicity. We can say that we are all European, White, Caucasian, or otherwise similarly related, but the fact that we have identifiably different networks of traits means that race subdivides, and we have to look at ethnicity as well. This is complicated by the fact that the word “race” is used to refer to both root race (African, Asian, Caucasian, Australid) and ethnic group.
The new argument, advanced by The New York Times, is that because there are multiple genes for skin color, there is not a single gene for race, therefore — the “magic therefore” — race does not exist.
In actuality, race and ethnicity are terms that humans use to describe clusters of traits. The clusters exist, no matter how much we play around with the symbols we use for them. We can see continuity in ethnic groups that cross time, space and nation-state identity. For example, ancient Greeks and Romans, much like the Tarim basinmummies, resemble today’s Western Europeans.
The proof of this is that we can observe Europeans and discern different tribes because they have different collections of traits that go with each. While this is taboo for now, it means in the long term that people will organize themselves around not just race but ethnic group, looking for genetic commonality instead of hoping that ideology and profit motive unite us.
As usual, Israel is leading the way to ending the diaspora for all peoples by advocating a strong and sensible biological nationalism. In the latest, courts in the Jewish state have recognized mitochondrial DNA tests as a means of tracking the matrilineal Judaic heritage:
Mitochondrial DNA, the genetic material present in cellular bodies called mitochondria, is inherited exclusively from a person’s mother, and therefore genetic markers in this DNA can be traced back many generations to determine a person’s maternal ancestors with a high degree of certainty.
According to the rabbi, experts in Jewish genealogy and history have determined that fully 40% of all Ashkenazi Jews are descended from just four Jewish women who left the Middle East over 1,000 years ago and settled in Europe.
According to the scientific report commissioned by Eretz Hemdah for its ruling, there is a certainty of at least 90% and up to 99% that someone bearing specific genetic markers in their mitochondrial DNA is descended from one of these women.
This test is somewhat unique in that Jews have a strong link back to these four women, and so mitochondrial DNA, which tracks the maternal genetic line, can be used as positive proof of relation to that group. However, the broader issue of using DNA testing has been introduced and is now legally acceptable in a modern courtroom.
One possibility is that tests can be designed to look for networks of genes that code for certain traits which, in groups, frame a certain population. This gets us past simpler methods such as looking for blonde hair and blue eyes only, and instead toward looking for the group of clusters of genes that code for those traits in historically German people, for example.
With gene sequencing becoming ever cheaper and faster, it will soon be possible to easily separate a historical population — for example, Western Europeans (English, Germans, Scots, Dutch, Scandinavians, northern French) in America — from all others, and then to repatriate the others with reparations for their loss of citizenship and past lack of self-determination while they were stranded in a foreign society.
As liberal democracy falls worldwide and gives way to a “clash of civilizations,” this technological capability will allow us to unmake the “proposition nation” which has so liberally failed us:
Holland [Email her] claims that “in this country, citizenship is not about cultural identity; it is about constitutional principles. From the beginning, Americans embraced a new definition of citizenship and a new process of naturalization that set the nation apart from its European heritage.”
Bunk. This is simply a myth invented by anti-national liberal intellectuals in hysterical reaction to the trauma of World War II.
In contrast, back in the 18th century the founders explicitly said, in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, that their purpose was “to secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity”–their posterity, not the people of the world but the posterity of a specific, essentially British, community that–in the case of New England, for example–had grown rapidly through natural increase with essentially no immigration for nearly 200 years.
Similarly, John Jay’s first essay in The Federalist Papers, written as part of the campaign to get the Constitution ratified, explained that the federal experiment could work precisely because Americans were “one united people–a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs…a band of brethren.”
As it turned out, the federal experiment could not work, as we have seen with its determination to begin experiments in ethnic diversity in the 1800s and racial diversity in the 1960s. The Constitution has now been inverted for some time, or interpreted to mean the exact opposite of its original meaning. This means that our experiment in limited democracy — a.k.a. a “republic” — has failed.
It was not hard to see how this would happen because we had seen experiments in democracy before in the ancient world. When people are given the vote, they engage in herd behavior, which paradoxically is an expression of individualism, or the belief that the individual and its desires are more important than “invisible” networks like future prediction, natural law, social order and values systems.
Individualists seek to escape Darwinian consequences for doing the wrong thing in a society that has purpose. If there is a purpose, all acts either further that purpose or do not; those acts that do not can either be against the purpose, or merely neutral or irrelevant, but only those who advance the purpose or at least act in harmony with it experience the reward of an increase in social status.
That fear of external reality — including the invisible but real factor of cause/effect reasoning, which allows us to predict the outcomes of our actions over time — plays into the inherent solipsism of the human mind. Our big brains get strong signals from our internal impulses, and weaker ones from the more ambiguous interpretations of external objects, tendencies and events. We favor the internal signals.
Those are different from our inner selves, in which we have intuition and the ability to use logical analysis, because those faculties are not impulses but require deliberate, self-disciplined behavior to discover. However, inner selves are not uniform; as individuals we are all somewhere on a spectrum of intellectual ability and moral character.
When we declare equality, and its political counterpart democracy and philosophical counterpart pluralism or “agree to disagree,” we suspend the need for people to demonstrate ability to fulfill or harmonize with social purpose in their actions in reality. This cuts the solipsism free, and people indulge in emotional impulses, the first of which is pacifism or a refusal to find answers that upset other people.
At that point, unreality becomes the norm, and eventually insanity reigns as we descend deeper and deeper into the world of our mental signals. This manifests ultimately in a society where people have nothing in common and delusion is the norm, which causes the remaining sane people to pull back. However, they are atomized, or isolated by a lack of coherence to their civilization.
We find ourselves in such a situation now. Modern European and American civilization has disintegrated as a result of this atomization, and so we are returning to tribalism, rejecting the proposition nation and the idea that a union can be formed of ideology or economic system alone:
Europeans, like Trumpians, want their borders secured and closed to the masses of the Third World.
Germans are weary of 70 years of wearing sackcloth and ashes.
Race, tribe, borders, culture, history — issues of identity — are tearing at the seams of the EU and pulling apart nations.
We Americans may celebrate our multiracial, multiethnic, multilingual, multicultural diversity as our greatest attribute. But the acrimony and the divisions among us seem greater than ever before in our lifetimes.
Not many Americans are actually celebrating diversity. White Americans thought they were ending white guilt by electing Barack Obama. Instead, they merely emboldened the racial grievances of the past, leading to an identity politics where each person sought to find a victim group to join so they could win the “oppression Olympics” and no longer be seen as a guilty party.
From that came a situation where every time a black person was killed by police, riots burned the city. Ferguson was just the most notorious of these. This resulted in “de-policing,” where officers essentially ignored as many African-American suspects as possible and concealed the crimes, causing a wave of lawlessness in American cities.
At the same time, the Obama/Merkel globalist policy came crashing down. Higher social welfare benefits led to currency devaluation at the same time that the diverse populations seemed to explode in assault, rape, vandalism and theft. A new generation of Red Guards, called SJWs, took over campuses and corporations. The American way of life was threatened and people had trouble making ends meet.
The dawning suspicion emerged that no matter what white people did, the blood debt of race guilt could never be paid, and so diversity became a cross to die upon or something to fight. Polls showed shock at how America had changed since the 1980s, resentment of immigration and diversity, and increasing skepticism toward both Leftism and liberal democracy.
As this shakes out, the people of the West are divided into two camps: those who want the old order of the Obama/Merkel years, and those who are done with all of the modern nonsense that culminated in that ugly era, and wish to do away with all of it. These “awakened” people come from what has historically been known as The Remnant, or the approximately 5% of civilization who are intellectually alert and desire positive change:
Apparently, then, if the Lord’s word is good for anything — I do not offer any opinion about that, — the only element in Judean society that was particularly worth bothering about was the Remnant. Isaiah seems finally to have got it through his head that this was the case; that nothing was to be expected from the masses, but that if anything substantial were ever to be done in Judea, the Remnant would have to do it.
…The picture which Isaiah presents of the Judean masses is most unfavorable. In his view, the mass man — be he high or be he lowly, rich or poor, prince or pauper — gets off very badly. He appears as not only weak minded and weak willed, but as by consequence knavish, arrogant, grasping, dissipated, unprincipled, unscrupulous. The mass woman also gets off badly, as sharing all the mass man’s untoward qualities, and contributing a few of her own in the way of vanity and laziness, extravagance and foible. The list of luxury products that she patronized is interesting; it calls to mind the women’s page of a Sunday newspaper in 1928, or the display set forth in one of our professedly “smart” periodicals. In another place, Isaiah even recalls the affectations that we used to know by the name “flapper gait” and the “debutante slouch.” It may be fair to discount Isaiah’s vivacity a little for prophetic fervor; after all, since his real job was not to convert the masses but to brace and reassure the Remnant, he probably felt that he might lay it on indiscriminately and as thick as he liked — in fact, that he was expected to do so. But even so, the Judean mass man must have been a most objectionable individual, and the mass woman utterly odious.
If the modern spirit, whatever that may be, is disinclined towards taking the Lord’s word at its face value (as I hear is the case), we may observe that Isaiah’s testimony to the character of the masses has strong collateral support from respectable Gentile authority. Plato lived into the administration of Eubulus, when Athens was at the peak of its jazz-and-paper era, and he speaks of the Athenian masses with all Isaiah’s fervency, even comparing them to a herd of ravenous wild beasts. Curiously, too, he applies Isaiah’s own word remnant to the worthier portion of Athenian society; “there is but a very small remnant,” he says, of those who possess a saving force of intellect and force of character — too small, preciously as to Judea, to be of any avail against the ignorant and vicious preponderance of the masses.
The Remnant is the group that must be convinced for social change to occur. When that mental shift happens, momentum will gather behind changes previously thought too extreme under the old order, and this will roll over what had previously been considered “common knowledge” and the only legitimate way things could be done in a civilized society.
Among the Remnant, the sea change gripping the West is a foregone conclusion: they realize that the era of ideology, equality and liberal democracy is over and that it is being replaced with a pre-Enlightement™ “dark age” in which identity, values and hierarchy are prized over any of the stew of buzzwords — justice, liberty, equality, freedom, diversity, pluralism, tolerance — that define the modern era.
All of those reduce to individualism when thoroughly analyzed. Individualism can be seen as a rejection of the need to rise above ourselves, and thus a retreat into the natural human solipsism from which we broke out, initially, to make great civilization. With individualism necessarily comes the idea that the inner traits of the individual do not matter because everyone is equal, and this inevitably extends to class, other ethnic groups, and finally other races; however, with the fall of individualism, this belief in a society without an identity and without hierarchy will also die.
Already the momentum of this change has proven overwhelming for the forces that be. The elections in Germany and France, while they did not deliver wins, proved that enough people support the revocation of modernism that its days of unchallenged rule are over, and as all of its programs seem to fail at once — environmental, economic, social, overpopulation and military — it will fade away.
That moment brings us to where Israel is now. A nation dedicated to preserving an ethnic group, like Japanese or Germans, will need to exclude all others including any hybrids. To weed those out, in the twenty-first century nationalists will use genetic tests and other means, and send those who do not belong back to appropriate homelands.
For us in the present day, that seems unbelievable. But a hundred years ago, diversity seemed impossible, and a hundred years before that, a classless society did as well. As vast as those changes were, an even vaster change is coming: modernity is being deposed, and as part of that, a great population re-sorting will occur.
No discussion about politics can avoid mentioning race. This becomes further complicated, because “race” means not just the four root races but all of the ethnic groups formed from them, like Germans or Maori. It gets more complex because the races are genetically different and therefore have different average abilities and tendencies, which implicates class and caste as well as ethnic origin.
Politics in fact is inherently tribal. “Tribe” proves to be a complicated term, but to be trendy, we should use it as an intersectional term, meaning the overlap of race, ethnic group, caste, region, and political orientation. Your tribe are people like you. There are many levels at which that determination is made.
Competing with tribe is ideology, or the notion that life “should” be different than it is according to natural order, and that humans should force a human-only pattern onto the world. Ideology is a way of holding together a group of people and motivating them, and so it naturally competes with religion, culture, and heritage.
At the end of the day, political thinking divides into two camps: the ideologists and the naturalists. Naturalists think that we should use the mathematical and informational patterns of nature to guide us, and so tend to see race as a prerequisite — a necessary element, but not thecompleteset of necessary elements — for a healthy society, where ideologists want to abolish race and replace it with ideology.
This division means that we will discuss race from two angles. The Left (ideologists) will argue that we should not have a majority race, which fits their single philosophy, egalitarianism, or that all people should be equal, which requires reducing or removing inner traits like caste, race, class, ethnicity, sex, religion and family. The Right (naturalists) will argue that we should either preserve the majority or at least allow it to preserve itself.
Since America birthed itself with some degree of ideological direction toward egalitarianism, even if as a means of affirming it in order to limit it and avoid a situation like what destroyed Athens, a hybrid approach was adopted: classical liberalism, or the idea that individuals would have freedom and liberty to pursue their own course in life. This is a form of the pluralism inherent in equality, which means that people do not have to work together toward a goal, but each tries to survive as in nature, and we see what comes out on top, even though civilization is the opposite of nature in terms of order and what it rewards. The “freedom” approach of classical liberalism, now called libertarianism, seemed to work, but the ideas that take time to fail are the most deadly, and by the 1960s, a combination of wartime propaganda (Cultural Marxism) and American individualism led to an increasingly Leftward drift.
As this Leftward drift manifests, it demonstrates an increasingly Communist-like attitude toward race which it views as its primary method of smashing the majority and removing the religion, culture, heritage, caste, ethnic, class and sex distinctions which impede the imposition of total ideology:
We may call Trump dumb but he figured out this country while we never did, understanding as the black militant H. Rap Brown put it 50 years ago, when he said that “racism is as American as apple pie.” And 46 percent of Americans voted for him, not in spite of that racism but because of it.
The Aztec civilization was also highly developed socially, intellectually and artistically. It was a highly structured society with a strict caste system; at the top were nobles, while at the bottom were serfs, indentured servants and slaves.
Strong nationalism — the idea that every nation is composed of only one ethnic group — enabled the Aztecs and other ancient civilizations to remove themselves from the genetic chaos blowing around, and focus instead on refining their traits so that they preserved desired abilities, which they then distributed to the rest of the population by elevating those who bore those traits to the level of nobility, at which point others emulated them, and they were prosperous, causing gradual genetic influence in the direction toward which that society aspired. Caste and nationalism supported one another; for example, look at ancient India:
Under the caste system, Indian society was divided into four hereditary divisions. The highest is the Brahmans (priests and teachers). Second was the Kshatriyas (rulers and warriors). Followed by the Vaishyas (merchants and traders) and finally was the Sudras (workers and peasants). In additional to these four castes, there were the Harijans or Untouchables, which were not in the social order. The Indian caste was hereditary and marriage was only permitted within the same caste. Each caste had its own occupation and any contacts with another caste was strictly regulated and prohibited.
Researchers found that people from different genetic populations in India began mixing about 4,200 years ago, but the mingling stopped around 1,900 years ago, according to the analysis published today (Aug. 8) in the American Journal of Human Genetics.
…Moorjani’s past research revealed that all people in India trace their heritage to two genetic groups: An ancestral North Indian group originally from the Near East and the Caucasus region, and another South Indian group that was more closely related to people on the Andaman Islands.
Today, everyone in India has DNA from both groups. “It’s just the proportion of ancestry that you have that varies across India,” Moorjani told LiveScience.
…Archaeological evidence indicates that the groups began intermarrying during a time of great upheaval. The Indus Valley civilization, which spanned much of modern-day North India and Pakistan, was waning, and huge migrations were occurring across North India.
In fact, Western civilization famously had similar caste systems, designed to separate people by role and heritage, as was seen in the Nordic countries:
The jarls were the upper echelon of the freeman in ancient Norse society, either noblemen or wealthy landowners, merchants or traders.
…The karls were considered what is known as ‘freemen’, meaning they were free to own land, build property and start a family or business.
…Slaves in ancient Norse times were known as thralls, and they were the lowest rung on the Viking social ladder. Thralls had little to no rights in Norse times, they were not able to own land and they would perform jobs and chores for their owners. With all this considered however its important to note that the bad treatment of a slave was looked down on.
This paralleled the social order created in English society nearly a thousand years later, as remnants of caste were present during the Victorian era:
The Victorian Upper Class consisted of the Aristocrats, Nobles, Dukes, other wealthy families working in the Victorian courts…The Upper Class was by inheritance a Royal Class. Many Aristocrats did not work as for centuries together their families had been gathering enough money for each generation to live a luxurious life.
…The Middle class was the next in social ranking. The Victorian period was very prosperous for the middle class. Middle-class people also owned and managed vast business empires.
…The lowest among the social hierarchy were the working class. This class remained aloof to the political progress of the country and was hostile to the other two classes.
These castes were genetically different, and the pattern resembled that of India. Modern Europe was formed when nomadic hunters mingled with a farming population that was closely related to them, but the higher echelons of Europe came from the root of Western European society, the Nordic-Germanic element. These took up positions in the higher castes, and managed the darker, smaller people who worked for them.
Over time, every civilization succumbs to entropy which occurs when the more numerous lower echelons overpower those above them, who understand things they do not. These things are then lost, and the society loses a degree of internal complexity and becomes essentially an open-air shopping mall where some people have money and others do not.
This is why caste revolt is so important to the Left: their goal is to rationalize this decline and instead, view it as positive, and to make it come about by creating the conditions that cause the imposition of caste and then thwart those conditions, allowing the society to become totally “equal” by losing all structure and standards, including heritage.
By the converse, diversity causes racial conflict and in turn accelerates class conflict, because without a sense of shared unity that comes from being a homogeneous population, groups fragment into internally competing sub-groups. We can see how this process happened in American history:
Let’s back up to the early 1600s. This was a time where racism didn’t exist. People didn’t call themselves Black or White. Back then it was all regional. We’re Irish, we’re Greek, or we’re African and so on. Fast forward to the colonization of what would become the United States of America. This is about 1640. You basically had two groups of people. There were the rich and the workers. There were a few slaves but most people were indentured servants or free labor.
In this way, we can see how questions of race and caste are intermingled, and how the Left has used racial and ethnic diversity to force caste revolt, while the Right attempts to suppress caste revolt by preserving ethnic homogeneity, which confers a sense of shared identity and purpose.
Interestingly, the revolts against traditional social order are initiated by those who seek to expand their profit motive, giving in to the individualism that says they can take civilization for granted, and should be concerned only with the immediate effects on themselves and their profits when making decisions. This bourgeois mentality arises from those with enough mental power to be clever, but not smart, leading to a fragmentation of the power of the higher echelons:
Drawing with varying degrees of conviction and plausibility on Marx’s ideas and insights, the class-based account of modern British history begins with the social origins of the bourgeois revolution of the mid-seventeenth century–otherwise known as the Civil War or the Great Rebellion–that witnessed the transition from feudalism to capitalism and thus from late medieval to early modern times. The victims and beneficiaries of these changes were, respectively, the declining aristocracy and the rising bourgeoisie (or, in other versions, the rising gentry), and it was during the Civil War that these two classes, set on very different historical trajectories, first clashed directly. But although in the short term the bourgeoisie vanquished the monarchy, the peerage, and the established church, its revolutionary movement was curiously incomplete. By the late seventeenth century, after the Restoration and the “Glorious Revolution,” the traditional forces of authority were back in control, and for much of the eighteenth century the aristocracy, by now transformed into a quasi-bourgeois elite of agrarian capitalists, reasserted themselves.
If you wonder why so many celebrities, business leaders, professors, shopowners and union bosses lean Left, this is why: they want to destroy the power of anyone who is naturally superior to them in intellectual, morality or wealth. We are in the grips of the final parts of that process now, after it won the upper hand during the turbulent 1960s.
As a result, at this point, racial politics of the ideologist variety have won out, and since they are being used to shatter natural social order as manifested in caste, they are exclusively obsessed with race, to the point where the Right wants to have freedom of association — which would allow it all-white suburbs and offices — just to escape the vast horde of predator-parasites who hate our majority here in the United States and Europe, but want to be here for the socialist style welfare state benefits and also, to conquer us by outbreeding us.
They hate you. They always will hate you. Every group acts in self-interest, and theirs is to conquer you.
The grim fact of racial politics is that it is based in self-interest. Every group has a self-interest, which is in having control of its destiny and then becoming the best version of itself that it can. In order to act on that, it must not exist in the situation that produced the Indian caste system; any situation that is “diverse” threatens the ethnic group.
For that reason, it must win by beating down all other ethnic groups. This somewhat Machiavellian view is borne out by history. The groups that conquered others and drove them away lasted longer than those who attempted to co-exist, producing centuries of ethnic conflict until both groups, exhausted, were destroyed or hybridized.
This is not the fault of other groups, nor does it vary with the group. Any immigration above tiny levels, which is also a bad idea as it obliterates the original group through trace admixture, brings about a conflict between groups, no matter who they are. Simpler groups fight back with crime; smarter groups attempt to conquer by gaining education, wealth and power in law and business.
Ironically, the solution to this problem is for a majority group to double down on its identity and assert that identity positively in a stronger sense, which causes the groups that wish to overthrow it to reveal their nature as aggressors. The more that the majority group focuses on “racism,” instead of strengthening its culture and opposing diversity, the more it plays into the win scenario for its opposition.
Perhaps a greater step further is to oppose equality — the philosophy of lower caste revolt — itself, and by doing so, to assert a strong social order which in turn also broadcasts the importance and solidity of racial and ethnic identity.
Identity must be both racial and ethnic, as when it is racial alone, it allows itself to be adulterated by other ethnic groups from the same race, which ends up then creating a generic racial group which has no particular claim to any identity.
Already the signs are on the wall that this is happening. During the 1990s, “diversity” was a magic word for that bright cosmopolitan future where we ruled the world by inviting them here. Europeans, who both are less accustomed to diversity and are seeing its effects more immediately, have led the way in visualizing how destructive diversity is:
The most common view among the 10 European countries surveyed is that cultural diversity is neither a plus nor a minus in terms of quality of life. In no nation does a majority say increasing diversity is a positive for their country. At most, roughly a third in Sweden (36%), the UK (33%) and Spain (31%) describe growing racial, ethnic and national diversity in favorable terms.
It was the worst performance for her Christian Democrats (CDU) since 1949. They got less than a third of the vote and lost ground in all 16 of the country’s states—this for a party that used to dominate the right of German politics and was capable of winning absolute majorities. The old party of the left, the Social Democrats (SPD), did worse, barely scraping 20 percent. Coming in third with 13 percent of the vote was the brand-new Alternative for Germany (AfD), an anti-immigration party that will send 93 members to the 709-seat Bundestag, the parliament in Berlin.
Leftism is caste revolt. Racial and ethnic diversity are the weapon that Leftism uses to bring about caste revolt. When one part of this structure fails, the whole thing goes down in flames, and is replaced by sentiments of tribalist unity as the basis of nations, renewed identitarian awareness, greater trust in caste and tradition, and finally, a hearty cynicism for Leftism as it joins other ruins on the junkpile of history.
We are seeing a massive shift here. For the first time since the French Revolution in 1789, Leftism is actively losing ground; for the first time since The Enlightenment,™ the idea of human equality — a form of individualism — is also losing ground. But first, we are going to go through a period of great upheaval.
As with many bad ideas, Leftism seemed hip and refreshing when it was untried, but once it was applied, it made a mess of things. Multiple failures of Leftist programs — overpopulation, diversity, collapse of the family, debt, command economies, ignoring third world warlords, nuclear proliferation, pollution and widespread ineptitude — are now coming due. Liberal democracy and Leftism have fallen, and the furious activity we see of late is an attempt to hold on to the franchise granted to those who were allowed to succeed because they were good Leftists or fit the Leftist ideal.
What matters for us, then, is to understand race and caste so that we can reverse the process by which race became the dominant issue of our time, which is the Leftist agenda of caste revolt that is now shattering in ungraceful decay around us.
Participants with post-secondary education saw a 57% decrease in cardiovascular risk after following the diet, and those earning more than €40,000 (about $47,000) a year saw a 61% decrease. Those of lower socioeconomic status saw no benefits.
…The foods eaten by subjects of this study varied widely depending on their socioeconomic status. The more educated the participants, the more likely they were to report eating a broader variety of vegetables, plus more whole grains and organic vegetables. More educated participants had daily diets that contained higher proportions of monounsaturated fats like those found in olive oil and nutrients like calcium, vitamin D, and fiber. Meanwhile, higher-income study subjects ate more whole grain breads, fruits, nuts, and fish, and fewer meat products than subjects with lower incomes.
Those who are wealthy and educated are, on the whole, more intelligent than those who are not.
Most people exist in a simple world where if you take a peasant, “educate” him and give him an office job, he is suddenly equivalent to one of these people. He is not; he is still a peasant, albeit one with some skills. This means that he will find himself out of his depth on a regular basis, and make bad decisions because he is not competent at the level of critical thinking and analysis, which are higher IQ skills, nor is he morally oriented toward leadership, a trait which seems correlated with some in the higher IQ registers.
But as even dietary differences show, there is more to it than that. Those with higher intelligence know different things, and are generally healthier as a result. They can discern what they should do, and can interpret simple instructions such as the Mediterranean Diet in more accurate ways, much as they are better with law, philosophy, literature and art.
PSF: You mentioned previously that a lot of your influences happen to be working class rock and rollers like AC/DC. How do you reconcile that with your aristocratic bearings?
LB: Well, we’ve always said that rock and roll is just like anything else — it’s something that’s better done by the upper classes, as is almost every other enterprise of human endeavor.
That definitely applies to the Mediterranean Diet, and education at least.
Where this gets complicated is that caste has multiple layers. Looking at the IQ distribution charts that make up the basis of the book The Bell Curve, we can see that roughly 13% of our population is above 120 IQ points, which educators who are honest about this issue consider the minimum for a college education.
Among those, less than one percent are above 130 points, which is where people stop trying to earn money and start trying to change history through the battle of ideas. All of our great works of art and philosophy, and most of our innovations, come from people in this group. When these are also of high moral caliber, they provide our best leaders.
Those who have high moral caliber and high intelligence, as opposed to what we might call “medium-high” or “middlebrow” intelligence, are those who naturally should rule a society because they are more competent.
A survey published in this month’s Economic Journal proves the point perfectly. Two economists, Professor Gregory Clark and Dr Neil Cummins, have studied 634 upper-middle-class surnames – including Bazalgette, Bigge, Nottidge and Pepys – from 1850 until today. Their findings show how extremely sticky wealth is. Five generations apart, the descendants of the rich of 1850 remain rich today. They are more likely than others to live longer, attend Oxbridge, have nice houses and become professionals.
Naturally, this offends the middlebrow, who tend to be of the Vaisya caste and thus talented with mercantile concerns, but essentially morally oblivious and not capable of seeing through the long-term consequences of their actions. This is why every society dies the same way: the middlebrow merchants, who are accustomed to manipulating people and understand their hidden desires, unite with the proles to overthrow the upper castes.
As we see with every revolution, including the French and Russian revolutions, this initiates a cycle called the Napoleonic arc where the greater incompetence of the middlebrow and prole army leads to a less prosperous civilization, and then the only way to unite the failing nation-state is by perpetual warfare, which means ideological warfare to spread the People’s Revolution elsewhere. Naturally this too ends in disaster, and the states tend to collapse much like post-Revolutionary French government or the Soviet Union.
Ironically, the American Revolution succeeded because it overthrew a king, but not the natural upper-middle-class (high Kshatriya or low Brahmin) aristocracy in America. That was overthrown during the Civil War, when the industrial and as a result, prole-heavy, North invaded the agrarian South in order to plunder its riches and assert the lower-caste Northern “elites” as rulers instead of the natural elites of the South.
They used race as a justification in that war; to the North, the war was hyped for a Gulf of Tonkin type pretext based in the injustice of slavery. To the South, where slaves were prized and often loved, slavery was the natural extension of European feudalism, which since it had been made illegal and replaced with legal systems, could only live on through chattel slavery. In this case, the serfs were black because they could endure the heat of the fields where people whose ancestors came from near the Arctic Circle could not.
Caste relates to race because to the Left they are the same issue. The Left has one and only one idea, “equality,” and they seek places to demonstrate it. This means overthrowing upper castes, or racial or ethnic groups whose higher IQs make them de facto upper castes in a mixed-race or mixed-ethnic society. To the Left, miscegenation and diversity are weapons for overthrowing that upper caste.
Right-wing movements succeed when they emphasize putting society into order so that people are more prosperous, which includes having the invisible leadership of a caste hierarchy, such that the wealth and power belong to the most competent, instead of the actors, celebrities, athletes, politicians, scam artists, merchants and poseurs we have handed it to now, who are neither morally nor intellectually competent to wield it.
On the other hand, the Right fails when it accepts the Leftist proposition that caste is not important and must be inverted, with the lower in power and the naturally higher subjugated, which is the eternally emergent argument from the idea of “equality.” If the Alt Right wants to succeed, it will have to talk about caste and “huwhite” ethnic hierarchy as well as race.