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.
In the middle of the 1990s, when the lifestyle septic tank of popular culture had discovered there was such a thing as email and message boards, OJ Simpson crept back in the news for his blunt force method of wife disposal.
One message traveled around the world more times than the influenza virus. It had about a dozen OJ Simpson jokes that everyone just had to open and read immediately. Certainly the trial was a farce. Certainly OJ did it. Most of us would go to jail instantly and permanently if we had made matrimonial mulch the way the former football star did.
But OJ was special — politically special. Would a mob be primed to riot on our behalf if the verdict went the wrong way? Nope. It was obvious that a cheesy, has-been celebrity was getting away with murder on the basis of his wealth and race. But this was not what led the average, rational person to laugh at bad humor and forward it to their fifty bestest buddies at least fifty times.
The OJ Jokes were defeatist humor. People feel they are constrained and deliberately held back when they have to interact and compete with minorities. And what galls many people the most is that there are whole classes of people who can’t be criticized. So when OJ went for a ride in the Bronco, he went from a protected minority to a brutal man who hacked up women. Here was a minority who was now fair game.
So all the jokes about OJ became a steam valve. Those denied Freedom of Association by EEO rules or Affirmative Action policies now had a way to vent their rage. This worked around political correctness and ideological scene-policing. OJ jokes were euphemisms for what people really wanted to talk about: how diversity really sucks, and we cannot criticize it, so we are a beaten, frustrated population.
History may not repeat itself, but it can certainly rhyme. OJ Simpson was caught involved in a shady sports memorabilia deal in Vegas and got sent to the aforementioned can. Now, after several years of uneventful incarceration, The Juice is back. He’s 70 and on way too many no-fly lists to sprint through the airport, but he did ace the parole hearing.
Simpson appeared as inmate No. 1027820, dressed in blue jeans and a blue button-down shirt, in a stark hearing room. Displaying contrition, Simpson told the hearing: “I’ve done it as well and as respectfully as anybody can. I think if you talk to the wardens they’ll tell you. “I’ve not complained for nine years. All I’ve done is try to be helpful… and that’s the life I’ve tried to live because I want to get back to my kids and family.” Simpson’s daughter, Arnelle, 48, pleaded with the board to release him. “We just want him home”.
Now the (((Goldmans))) have won a huge civil judgement against him for the wrongful death of their son Jody,* oops, I mean Ronald, so at least we won’t see him spending his golden years strutting too much. Which is a blessed relief. It will spare us a 50-joke email featuring OJ Simpson’s misconceptions about Viagra and Rogaine.
* — Jody was the generic name given by soldiers to the guy attempting to nail their wives while they were away on deployment. You know, Joe the Guy… Joe D. Guy… Jody.
BART Police said witnesses reported 50 to 60 juveniles jumping the fare gates and going to the platform. After boarding the train, the juveniles “committed multiple strong-arm robberies of bags and cell phones,” according to a police report. At least two people were hurt and were treated by paramedics for facial and head injuries. BART said there had been similar robberies on trains in the days prior to this incident with juveniles running onto trains and quickly fleeing, but not with as many people as in Saturday’s robbery…
Now logic would dictate that naming, blaming and shaming these adorable little turd blossoms would work wonders in preventing these not-so-great train robberies. Initially, this was the preferred course of action for BART.
“We are basically getting all the surveillance images that we have, and we’re going to be sharing them with Oakland Police, the schools, Oakland Housing Authority to try to identify the suspects,” said Trost.
Meanwhile, the criminality continued unabated. A BART security guard had to serve and protect on some of the local teens to prevent further larceny on July 6.
A teen in a group of around a dozen allegedly snatched an iPhone from a woman as the train was approaching the Coliseum Station. They all ran from the train but an off-duty security guard witnessed the crime and followed them onto the platform, demanding the phone back. That’s when 62-year-old Leonard Brown was punched and kicked by several young people but did manage to get the phone back.
The BART is a totally unsafe way to get to work. It is being overrun by these “youths” and “teens.”
In the last three months, there have been at least three robberies on BART involving groups of teenagers. “I think people are genuinely concerned — they are fearful about the stories that have come out about the recent attacks, the assaults, the thefts,” said Debora Allen, who is a member of the BART Board of Directors.
So why not name them and shame them? It’s ¡RACISM! all the way down…
Allen told us the agency issued an explanation for why it is being tight-lipped about the thefts. “To release these videos would create a high level of racially insensitive commentary toward the district,” she was told. “And in addition it would create a racial bias in the riders against minorities on the trains.” According to a memo distributed to BART Directors, the agency won’t do a press release on the June 30 theft because it was a “petty crime” that would make BART look “crime ridden.” Furthermore, it would “unfairly affect and characterize riders of color, leading to sweeping generalizations in media reports.”
Poor San Fran. They face a Hobson’s Choice. Either (A) They can effectively use up-to-date technology to arrest these criminals, or (B) they can virtue-signal their concern over how riders of color and misunderstood youths are portrayed by the media. So clearly the passengers can just get used to this being a part of life in the modern city. It’s just how misunderstood youths from Oakland Housing Projects express their sadness and alienation from mainstream society. And let’s just face it. People text and play on their cell phones too darn often. We’ll just scare Whitey straight on this one.
No. Let’s just dump the trash on the table here. Black youths from Oakland have just been offered the opportunity to go on a Honkie Mofo Hunt with no bag limit. The BART cares more about “compassion” and “tolerance” than they do about delivering live and unmolested passengers. And that’s the thing about tolerant understanding. You get a hell of a lot more of whatever it is that you tolerate or understand. Crime is typically a shortcut to getting things you’d otherwise have to bust your butt and earn. Let people take a convenient shortcut, and you don’t have to be Enrico Fermi to puzzle out that it will soon become the new beaten path.
Crap like this is why Middle Class White People are fleeing California as rapidly as they can save up the down payment to elsewhere. It’s not bad enough that the Bay Area has unaffordable housing. Or that many of the city schools rank worse than 5 on a scale of 1 to 10 compared to similar schools. Or that the high-tech bubble that has been the backbone of The Bay Area Economy may well be breaking.
The BART has made a callous decision that innocent civilians riding metro rapid transit to work every day now matter less than their PR strategy. They will suffer in silence. They will suffer in government-enforced silence. There is at least one color of lives in California that do not matter. There will be a day when BART doesn’t have riders. There will be a day when there is nowhere along the BART lines that is a destination worth traveling to. These thugs on the train are hastening that day. The cuckery of The Tolerance Tyrants in the face of utter antinomian brigandage will hasten that day. This road to Hell will be paved with Dead White Taxpayers. It’s construction will not be televised.
Recognize that you’re still racist. No matter what.
Sometimes, anti-racist allies talk in an “us vs. them” framework when they discuss race, with the “us” being POC and anti-racist allies and the “them” being racist people. That’s an oversimplification of centuries of racism, and it also avoids one simple truth.White people always benefit from institutionalized racism, no matter how anti-racist your ideologies may be. You can’t disconnect yourself completely from the racism from which you benefit, and recognizing that is a large step in rejecting white privilege.
The woman who wrote this is more of a Leftist than she is African-American. Her message: anyone who rises above the level of mediocrity that is comfortable for the crowd will be destroyed, whether that is economic or political. You will not be forgiven for having won, which will be re-styled as oppression by those who did something silly and lost instead. Revenge, resentment and envy are your future.
Conservatives need to realize that no matter what we do, the Leftist response will be the same, which is to continue the charade of victimhood and self-assertion so they can help themselves to our money.
During the past decade, a theory was advanced on the Left to counter the rising observation that “equality” programs in fact enforce inequality by transferring money and power from the thriving to the rest.
To destabilize claims of reverse racism, the Left invented “intersectionality,” or the idea that discrimination is only important if done by those in power, and that power can be assessed through the intersection of race and social status. By this calculus, only whites — presumably in power, something called “privilege” — can be racist.
In the loftier precincts of progressive journalism, higher education, and the non-profit world, those hecklers tend to be proponents of “intersectionality,” a voguish theory purporting that power is inextricably linked to aspects of identity like race, gender, religion, and sexual orientation, and that an individual’s “marginalization” is thus determined by their accumulation of various traits.
To a conservative, equality is not a fundamental question; fairness, however, is important, and it states that those who engage in productive behavior toward the realization of shared goals should be rewarded while those who do not work toward those goals should either not be rewarded or experience negative consequences.
This forms an opposite to control, or the idea that everyone does the same thing as commanded, because it requires that individuals understand the goal and the methods used to reach it. In fairness, which is part of cooperation, the question is not who started behind — because people are unequal in ability and status by nature — but how well they were treated.
For this reason, a conservative sees reverse racism as just as bad as racism, even if it is intended as an over-compensation.
But what is white intersectionality? There are a collection of traits of Western Europeans that together provide a point for our position that fairness is needed not just at the individual level, but the civilizational level, which means we have the right to dwell alone separated from all others:
Uniqueness. Western Europeans have a culture like none other on Earth, and they have different ideas from the rest about how civilization should be organized and people should relate to one another.
Minority. Globally, Western Europeans are 2% of the population and occupy a relatively small area in Western Europe and North America. Compared to Africa, Asia and South America, we are tiny. We are also highly sociable and so unlikely to defend our minority position.
Perceptive. Our population is “sensitive” in the intersection of thoughtful, able to distinguish fine details, contemplative and reflective. We are easily distracted by new ideas and can be misled quickly.
A target. Any group which has achieved success on its own terms despite a lack of vast natural wealth will naturally be a target for the wealth it has produced, especially if it is also highly sociable.
Taking the intersection of these, we see a population which needs defending not from specific “racism” but from the desire of the rest of the world to be us, conquer us and occupy us. In that view, white racism is defensive, where reverse racism is punitive, and this suggests we need to throw out the entire “racism” debate and focus on nationalism, which works better than diversity.
Scientists have their method reversed: they look at details, and then draw conclusions about the whole, forgetting that a detail serving to represent the whole has only partial truth value and is inherently misleading.
If they were a bit more attentive, they would notice that genetic information contradicts this view entirely, because we can see how European groups pursued homogeneous breeding practices through the ages.
The paradox of group genetic interests and group selection is that, if natural selection picks traits that survive, why do people choose to breed within their tribe rather than without? The safe liberal conclusion is that they only did so because they were geographically isolated, but history shows us that this is not even true, since tribes contacted each other all the time.
A more sensible view is that people choose others like them for the health of the offspring and from the knowledge that, if people who share more of their DNA survive, they are closer to reproductive success than if they invest their DNA into people who do not have any of the common substructure that makes a group similar to one another.
How, for example, can I be 50% identical to my father if I’m 99.8% identical to all living humans? The answer is that I am not 50% identical to my father; rather, I am 50% identical to my father by comparison to the baseline level of relatedness of all living humans. If all living humans are 99.8% genetically identical then I’m 99.9% identical to my father. Jayman’s argument that two random co-ethnics aren’t related fails to factor this into account: a calculation of relation needs a baseline level of relatedness for comparison. So he’s correct in stating that two co-ethnics are not similar to one another- but only by comparison to the baseline level of relatedness of their entire population.
Since the ethnic kinship coefficient has been worked out to the equivalent of half siblings, it may be useful to frame the issue in those terms. If I am 25% identical to my half sibling by comparison to any other co-ethnic, it is because there is a quarter of my genome that I share with my half sibling due to our common descent. Specifically, our mutual descent from our mutual parent gives us a specific combination of genes that nobody else is likely to have. 25% of my genome is 100% identical to his alleles of the same genes and the other 75% is as similar to his as it is to any other co-ethnic, but taken as an average across my entire genome, any given allele is 25% more likely to be shared with him than it is everyone else in our race.
The ethnic kinship coefficient works in an uncannily similar way. Instead of inheriting those 25% identical genes from recent common ancestors, the two co-ethnics inherit the same genes due to the fact that people of their race usually have those genes (think melanin, keratin, microcephalin, EDAR, HERC2, or any other gene for which the frequency of alleles differs overpopulation).
All animals act in self-interest. People, as a type of animal, do the same. Human groups also do the same, and they identify themselves by the metric of “more similar than different.” This means that they share traits and pass them on together, which is why people choose to breed within a group if they are healthy and confident.
Because of this shared genetic heritage, your neighbors pass on your genes as well as their own. This allows the group to choose isolation, as advanced societies did over the ages, and then focus on selective breeding for the best of those traits. Smart observers will notice that this mirrors the conservative formula of realism plus transcendentalism, or a desire to improve quality in the way that nature does.
In addition, there is another factor. Social capital consists of all of the knowledge passed along by family, friends and society to the youngsters of the next generation. For this to work, the new generation must be roughly similar to the old and with the same inclinations, or the social capital will be incomprehensible or seem irrelevant to them.
Natural selection does not reward the person who wins the fistfight. It rewards the traits that are found in the individuals that reproduce the most. In groups, this means that shared traits are the ones that won out, and therefore, the traits that will continue to propagate.
Denial of ethnic group interest and group selection are motivated by a fundamentally egalitarian desire, which is to insist that all people are compatible and that race is an accident of history. Common sense, logic, history itself and the genetic data show that this is an illusory theory.
Where to draw the line on self-identification is an obvious question, and a fundamental one, Ms. Tuvel suggests in her paper. Think transracialism is tricky? It only gets more complicated from there. Her paper briefly considers other exotic forms of self-identification. How do progressives reckon with people who say they’re really “otherkins,” identifying as nonhuman animals? Are we morally required to accept “transabled” people, who are born physically normal but feel one of their limbs transgresses on their identity?
As with gender, Ms. Tuvel writes, “we need an account of race that does not collapse into a position according to which all forms of self-identification are socially recognized, such as one’s self-identification as a wolf.”
The Left insists that race is a golden ticket to permanent grievance politics; this advances the agenda of the Left, which is to break down organic civilization and replace it with artificial government, which defends the individual against the consequences of his actions by dissipating the damage as socialized cost.
The Right, in response, has claimed that noticing race at all is a form of “identity politics,” which is how mainstream conservatives slander identitarianism. The cost of their participation in democratic politics, which always lean Left, is that they deny any form of natural inequality and insist that we can all be made perfect through patriotism, religion and working hard.
In response to that rather silly gambit, the Left has doubled-down on race as Professor Tuvel did in her paper: they are insisting that it is, after all, biological and cannot be ignored. If the game is played as usual, the talking heads will be thankful for this misdirection and spend the next decade haranguing one another about it.
Reality as always hides behind the lies, partially overlapping each of them, which is what gives them believability to their audience. Identity is innate to each person much as sex, family, caste and natural abilities are. Those traits however are not equal, so egalitarians wage war against them in the most smug and passive manner possible.
Until the Right is pushed hard enough by the Alt Right, it will not publicly acknowledge that equality is a lie. Once we start saying that equality is a lie, as loudly and proudly as possible, the Left will be forced into a defensive position, and in so doing, will reveal further its actual agenda.