Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘racialism’

Why The Alt Right Is An International Movement

Thursday, November 9th, 2017

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?

Naturally it makes sense also to issue a warning about the second group, which is that “white nationalism” is not something we wish to embrace. As a form of ethno-bolshevism, it seeks to unite different ethnic groups on the basis of race alone and invent culture after that, which is why it has been unstable for years and alienated those with the power to implement it.

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.

The two biggest points here are that white nationalism lacks a plan that promises a better future and it needs something more than race to unite people.

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.

A starter list for those who wish to restore Western Civilization will likely include the following:

Restorationists desire the four pillars of making civilization functional again:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.

Gaining Clarity On The Ethnic / Racial Question

Sunday, October 1st, 2017

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 the complete set 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.

He misses the fact that throughout most of human history, “racism” has been what saves societies from dissolution. We know that diversity destroys formerly-thriving civilizations, but to our knowledge we can add the recognition that ethnic diversity just as toxic as racial diversity; the presence of diversity itself — and not the presence of specific racial or ethnic groups — is what causes civilizations to fall apart. Demography is destiny, and diversity destroys that, with ethnic diversity opening the door to racial diversity which then finishes the job of destruction, including ethnic erasure through miscegenation.

In fact, most traditional societies used “racism” and “classism” — based on caste, or inner traits, more than class, which is an intersection of caste, education and income — to create social order that avoided the problem which destroys all civilizations, namely revolt by the more numerous lower castes against the less numerous people of greater intellectual and moral competence. We can see how the Aztecs created social order using caste:

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.

We can only make sense of this by looking into the genetics of caste in ancient India:

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.

“Amerika” the nation, as we might describe the nu-America that manifested after the racial policies of the 1960s went into effect, replacing America, which was deliberately designed as a Western European nation, as the American Nativists argued, because ethnic diversity is as toxic as racial diversity and leads to a Leftist European-style total State where a Western European only society — as opposed to one including other “white” ethnic groups like Southern Europeans, the Irish who are Iberian/Mediterranean-infused, Eastern Europeans and Jews, who are at this point about at the same level of admixture as Italians or Irish — would be internally self-consistent, and therefore able to overcome the problems of social distrust, trace miscegenation, lack of social standards and caste revolt.

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.

This antipathy can be seen in events in Germany and Israel. In Israel, the victims of the nationalist powers in WW2 have now come around and are endorsing National Socialist levels of ethnic solidarity in order to deal with the third-world population (“Palestinians”) in their own homeland that threatens to take over at the ballot box; several years later, Germany has awoken as well, shattering the postwar political order:

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.

No Place Nowhere

Thursday, June 29th, 2017

Where is home?

This simple question requires many answers: home may be a house, in a town or city, within a nation, as part of a civilization, during a certain time. All of those support structures are required before an individual can make a house into a “home,” a process too complex and nuanced to be trusted to men.

Civilization is important to humans because we depend on group collaboration to have more than the utter basics of life. And yet, we study it very little, in part because like most really big questions in life, it scares us into silence.

On the Right, we fight this battle to understand civilization through an issue that is currently shaping the discourse of the future. This battle is the conflict between nationalism, racialism and patriotism. These are easily understood:

  • Nationalism. Loyalty to tribe or ethnicity, and recognize that genetics produces culture and that produces political and social opinions, so keeping the tribe unadulterated is essential.
  • Racialism. This is like nationalism, but replaces “the tribe or ethnicity” with “the race.” At this point, one is defending the interests of one of the four root races, which since it is distant from origins becomes more like ideology.
  • Patriotism. Loyalty to the state, the flag, and the political interests of the nation-state — a country made of political and economic, not racial or ethnic, boundaries — with a focus on laws and ideology.

At this point, those on the Right are learned to disregard patriotism. Mainstream conservatives essentially lulled themselves into a compliant stupor by focusing more on the government than the organic nation which was responsible for its success. Now that this group is under attack, many more are looking more seriously at the idea that genetics, not laws or finances, are the root of our future.

Many know something has gone wrong and that their people are under attack, but have no idea how to define who their people are because they no longer share a culture or customs, so they default to race. This is a good start, but it ends up removing focus on the nation, or the organic group created together from the same root, such as “Germans.”

As a result, we are seeing the next wave of thinking appear: a focus on specific groups instead of whole races. For example, American Nativists — those who think America should be Western European — have been separating not just from other races, but from Southern and Eastern Europeans, causing clusters in the New World which resemble the geography of the old.

In addition, other racial and ethnic groups are realizing that they, too, need a home. Until they live in a society which is created by them for people like them, with their rules and standards, protecting their values and culture, they are never truly at home. While this is more existential than practical, it touches on some of the most vital concerns that people have, even more than wealth or safety.

The result is that balkanization of the USA and EU will likely involve repatriation more than anything else. Liberal democracy is dying, and with it will go the social welfare programs. At that point, there is nothing for other groups here but conflict, and their homelands — which may be less affluent — will become more appealing.

People do not understand DNA. They treat it like an Excel spreadsheet, where on each line one gene corresponds to many traits. It is more like computer code, where each bit describes how to build a human being with proteins, which act both as building materials and instigators of the chemical reactions that change them. When you hear about how some group is 99% or 97% similar to another, stop and think: would you let someone insert enough code to be 1% of your operating system, into your computer, especially if it — for example — controlled your heart monitor in a hospital? You would be insane to do so; the differences between us seem small, but are vaster than anyone can count.

For this reason, our minds turn toward the tangible and immediately discernible. It is a good thing to be from a tribe that does not look like any others, tied to a specific place, in a society made by your people for your people with an eye toward existing for all eternity. This is the only way to have a home.

Modernity failed Europeans in this way. Our lands were taken over by an ideology, egalitarianism, that made them not dedicated to us and the organic living thing called culture and civilization to which we belong, but instead directed them toward that ideology. This created a new priesthood of ideologues who, being concerned only with that ideology, quickly destroyed our sense of well-being by making society into a mechanistic, neurotic, perverse, greedy/selfish, paranoid and pathological mess. Technology is not modernity; “me first” is modernity, and it always leads to chaos and misery.

This is why Europeans stopped reproducing. We do not have a home, no place for ourselves, and no somewhere where we really belong from now until the end of time. We are adrift, surrounded by bad options and cruel manipulators, but our fellow citizens are so stupid that they keep selecting these people and then patting themselves on the back for having done so! Perhaps is true that as Alfred Einstein reputedly said, “There are only two infinite things, the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the former.”

Our stupidity has killed us. Our best, looking at this mess, checked out long ago and went to live lonely childless lives on meditative mountaintops or whatever equivalent they could find. Our sane and brilliant people abandoned technology, art and literature to glorified baristas who do not know how to use it without destroying good things. The talented fled leadership and official positions.

As it all spirals down into dust, we should ask ourselves whether we are ready to admit that life is made mostly of mystery, and what we can do best is to create a home for ourselves, and send other groups off to do the same, because this order is — existentially, spiritually, morally, mentally — best for everyone, and will result in a return of human thriving.

On Jewishness And The Alt Right

Tuesday, November 1st, 2016

diversity_irony

The messages started almost immediately.

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

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

Well… yeah!

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

weev

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

woodruff

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

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

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

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

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

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

White Nationalism Is Doomed To Failure

Monday, May 2nd, 2016

white_nationalism_is_ideological_confusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The tyranny of democracy

Tuesday, November 24th, 2015

the_proposition_nation_smug_altruism

I would like to introduce you to a talented writer who, unlike most of his peers, correctly perceived and communicated the issues on a topic. In doing so, however, he was misled from the truth he should have been looking at.

This man is Michael Cardo, and he writes about the problem of “identity politics.” He understands this phenomenon well and describes it perfectly, but that requires accepting the idea that our purpose should be the sub-issue that identity politics types want to replace the bigger issue.

For the entrepreneurs of racial identity politics, identity is a fixed, ascriptive, collectivist way of being that determines what it means to be a “good” black or a “bad” white, and vice versa.

Here he correctly describes the control method of racial identity politics: it specifies what you must do to be considered good in your tribe, and this allows punishment of those who deviate.

The unasked question is “Why is group identity so important?”

A good white, on the other hand, is one who engages the world through a haze of guilt, regret and shame for the sins of her forefathers.

According to Samantha Vice – a critical race theorist who, astonishingly, claims to be a philosopher – whites in South Africa “ought to see themselves as a problem.”

He’s right, but so wrong. The problem with “good whites” is that they are liberals indoctrinated in liberalism. Liberalism, leftism, Communism, Socialism and collectivist anarchy are all different variations of the same idea, which is that of creating a State to support individuals instead of having us all work together toward an actual goal.

Listen to liberals: they will tell you that for them, racial politics are a subset of class politics. Class warfare is how they take over nations with revolutions, kill off the smart people and install a permanent moron majority that will keep voting leftist up until the day the vodka stops coming.

There is no point projecting the problem of white self-destruction into racial politics; it is part of liberal politics and explains why democracy becomes tyranny.

To justify democracy, we must believe that everyone is equal enough that they can make good decisions about our political future through voting. Daily we see massive evidence to the contrary. At that point, we are in “reality optional” world. Votes are a product. This product is produced through illusions. When most people prefer an illusion, who are we to tell them no? They’re equal, which means that they get included in society no matter how crazy their ideas are or how little they contribute, so that we can support our pretense of being moral altruists.

This egalitarian impulse makes our government seem like an ultimate moral good through its method of wealth redistribution, which means that those who do not support it become social outsiders. This is how democracies become tyrannies: the pretense of “good” + the need to censor, manipulate and hide the grim reality that is constantly clashing with the illusions that most people prefer.

Liberals therefore support anything which weakens society and strengthens government, which means destruction of culture, heritage, values, religion and even the sexes. All must be faceless equals who blindly carry out the ideology of absolute good, equality.

For this reason, every natural thing in our lives is replaced with an ideological substitute. Normally, we have self-esteem from our own acts and deeds; under democracy, we get self-esteem from having the right ideology. For whites and blacks alike, this means hating whites and supporting every minority group whose present helps destroy white society. This is the liberal way, and it is the root of the “identity politics” Cardo describes.

These Social Justice Warriors can barely complete a sentence without crowbarring “whiteness” and “white privilege” into it. Rampant, too, are the “microagressions”, “cultural appropriations” and “trigger warnings” that their counterparts on US campuses have popularised with such discourse-deadening success.

All of these terms are what the historian Robert Conquest would have called “brain blindfolds”, “mind blockers” and “thought extinguishers”. They obstruct understanding and stifle debate.

This means there is absolutely zero difference between them and every other leftist revolution in history. The point of ideology is to stop thinking. You find one concept that seems to explain everything else, and rally people behind it because it flatters them. Equality flatters us because it makes us sound like “good guys” to the chanting mob, so we all want to be egalitarians. Every good business is in favor of equality so it can flatter the pretense of its customers, much like they often give small amounts of money to charities so that people read the story and think, “That XYZ brain mulching business sure is run by a lot of nice guys! I’ll buy my brain mulching videos from them!”

Worse still, the identitarians have, as their articles of faith, a disregard for the Constitution, a contempt for non-racialism, and a vaguely articulated socialism that identifies “neoliberalism” (whatever that may be) as the root of all evil.

Ideology consumes all else. It is the absolute good, remember. Everything else can be sacrificed to it, including fellow leftists. They have no problem throwing each other under the bus if it tightens the Overton Window or radicalizes the base (the majority of people who support them). It is mass hypnosis.

Cardo’s article is brilliant. He writes better than I do — not that this is all that difficult! — and clearly articulates the problem in a way that all can understand. But in doing so, he becomes the bull rushing after the cape, and that cape is designed to lead him away from the obvious: all that we see now is part of the plan that always happens under leftism.

Diversity is part of the leftist agenda because it is (a) class warfare and (b) destroys society so it can be replaced with government. Leftists do not care if that group is black, Asian or mixed; they just want a group to use to fragment society, and they will invent whatever backstory of victimhood, oppression, cruelty, poverty and sadness needed to support that. As in courtrooms and divorces, there are never 100% innocent and 100% guilty parties.

Read between the lines, and you’ll see a simple message. Liberalism created identity politics to destroy us by replacing sane and natural ideas of heritage, culture, and self-esteem through upholding a values system or social standard. Liberalism is here to destroy those things and leave us with only totalitarian government.

We need to turn back now before we all become zombies rushing blindly to our fate.

Pan-nationalism

Saturday, September 5th, 2015

mount_fuji

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What motivates internet racists? An interview with the mods of Reddit’s notorious /r/CoonTown

Thursday, July 2nd, 2015

racial_guilt_training_for_white_youth

Democracy makes life feel like sitting in a movie theater: we, the audience, see others on stage and must then raise a thumb or lower it as if we were Roman imperators at the the gladiator stage. One of the actors, our media, simplifies and streamlines news into a series of simple categories, portrayed as caricatures. Among their favorites, the “racist” — especially on the internet — plays best.

But who are these internet racists? For the most part, like marginalized minority groups, they are muted in the mainstream media. We hear about them, and see that their comments have been deleted from blogs and newspapers, but few people ask them why they do what they do and why. To rectify this, I headed over to the notorious/infamous Reddit hive of racism /r/CoonTown and asked the moderators (or “mods”) there for a few words, which they were generous to oblige.

Did you have an “awakening”? Was it solely to race, or to other factors like environmental collapse, economic collapse, social collapse or leadership failure?

Suspook: Hi, we go back a long time from IRC [#anus].

When you say “awakening” I feel like that implies that someone that was once an SJW had their eyes suddenly [finally] open to how the world really works + the advantages of actually judging people in the real world. I suppose I always knew as a kid growing up in a major American city + seeing it for myself.

George_l_rockwell: I never had any huge awakening, I got to where I am now politically in a very gradual process. I used to be a left winger when I was younger, but even back then I was much more of a socially traditional left winger and I was against immigration and “black culture” at the time.

EugeneNix: Not sure if it really could be called an “awakening,” but I noticed during my teenage years the blacks acted far different than other races, and were usually the most irritating/annoying/criminal. Over time one pays attention and reads sources that our liberal overlords don’t want us to look at.

Of course, there are other issues facing us today, but that’s the most applicable one for CoonTown.

Baba_OReilly: No fork-in-the road “awakening” for me. Negroes have always turned me off. As time goes by, my distaste grows.

I understand /r/CoonTown emerged from the ruins of /r/Niggers. How were you able to keep and apparently double your audience since that time?

Suspook: The key is having your core userbase know exactly where to go once the shit hits the fan, almost like a fire drill. /r/niggers went down so they went to rniggers.com…when that was sabotaged /r/GreatApes was formed. Once the lead mod revealed his SJW leanings, EugeneNix + myself really led people to GreatApeNiggy’s new CoonTown through the use of redirects + other tactics. We have core guys like JewishNeoCon who made about 60 umbrella subs within one “Chimpire” + all the while we maintain a very active IRC channel that people know they can all come to whenever something happens so we can regroup very quickly. Reddit’s search feature can make finding us very easy also…/r/fatpeoplehate2 got about 5000 new members in a few hours before it was also banned.

George_l_rockwell: It’s been all about making sure that we obeyed the Reddit site rules. /r/niggers broke too many rules, and we had to make sure that we would give the admins no reason to ban us.

EugeneNix: Sharp presentation, savvy moderators, and competent advertising. All we have to do is have our enemies shout loudly about us, and more people come to see what the ruckus is about.

Baba_OReilly: The key to CTs popularity is that it’s “enlightened entertainment.” The facts and statistics are hugely important, but people aren’t going to hang around long without a little “Razz-a-ma-Tazz” to make them chuckle. Let’s face it, Reddit is diversion, nothing more. If the plug was pulled on the whole thing tonight, the Grand Scheme wouldn’t even notice.

What are your feelings on black people? What are your feelings on other minority groups? What about the idea of a mixed-race society, a.k.a. diversity or multiculturalism, at all? Can it ever work?

Suspook: Diversity is disharmony. Racism is just a cause of a larger problem [read: diversity]. Diversity even transcends race at times as you can have different gangs culture clash over colors + have African Americans be seen as problematic when they decide to move to African countries [Example: Ghana]. Diversity can also run amok among religions, not just race. A muslim population in a former all non-muslim neighborhood can put pressure on delis + even fast food [check how many Taco Bell’s are completely Halal in UK now] to become strictly Halal. Muslims also will not do business in non-muslim banks + fracture the economic system there as a lot of them will just keep their money in their own homeland muslim banks. It says a lot also that leftist culture will cater to these people that they should be against [muslims + feminists/gays coexisting?…african rape statistics in foreign countries..] then again these are the same types of people who use self-hatred as a means to an end.

George_l_rockwell: I really don’t mind minorities as long as they are away from me. It’s when we all interact together in which I see the obvious flaws of multiracial societies. I have found that some minorities typically tend to be easier to interact with compared to others.

EugeneNix: I think blacks are more likely to be criminal and have lower IQs, statistically speaking. I think racial differences do exist, but blacks are the most markedly different. I think some temporary forms of “diversity” can work if it is a mostly homogeneous entity and the members not of the majority seek to assimilate themselves.

DylannStormRoof: I won’t say it can’t work. I will say that I’m tired of being on ground zero for this multiculturalism experiment. If blacks grouped up and killed each other off except for the top ~3% smartest, maybe they’d have a high IQ enough to “act white” (nigger expression for the standards of decorum whites have set) and live among us as civilians. In an ideal world, they’d be deported back to Africa except for the outlier blacks who have a high enough IQ and and are existing contributors to society, have never committed a violent crime and possess a job. Also interracial breeding would be outlawed to reduce further degeneration of the races.

Baba_OReilly: My only bone to pick is with the toxic, dysfunctional plague called the Negro race. I have no problem with any other group of people. Multiculturalism is a crock. “Different” and “good” are not synonyms.

Are you associated with any racialist groups or ideas, like White Supremacy, White Nationalism, National Socialism (Nazism) or Nationalism?

Suspook: I was only very loosely associated with the National Vanguard for a year in 2004.

EugeneNix: No, I find most of that laughable, but I’m a sympathizer of the American Renaissance faction of white nationalism. The others, the HAIL HITLER 1488 RACE WAR NOW types are fucking annoying and childish.

I think nationalism has some good ideas in it. I think it needs not be taken uber-seriously to the point where weirdness comes out of it.

Baba_OReilly: Nope. I don’t care about flags, Nazis, Hitler, KKK, jews, Stormfront, none of it. The problem is niggers and their white enablers.

On the political spectrum, where do you fall?

Suspook: Neo-Luddite/Nationalist/Iconoclastic/Ecofascist/Race Realist

George_l_rockwell: Center, to center right. Funnily enough, I’ve been banned from /r/conservative.

EugeneNix: Right-Wing.

Baba_OReilly: I’m a William F. Buckley Conservative. I’ll leave it to you to find my absorption line on the spectrum.

Why do this on Reddit? Isn’t Reddit… uhm… rather liberal, for this sort of thing? How many of your members do you think are liberal?

Suspook: We get liberals daily claiming how they cannot take it anymore + tell their stories about finally being honest with themselves/see the narrative of equality shatter before their eyes. We engage anyone to debate/argue/etc against us + we don’t ban people for much. I think it’s telling that you don’t see people actively engage us at all in a hugely leftist place, but rather you see people use throwaway accounts to support us + tell us their own personal stories due to the fact they are worried they might be attacked by their own for being traitors of some kind.

George_l_rockwell: Reddit has one of the largest userbases on the entire Internet. It would be stupid to not expose our ideas to as many people as possible. Sites like Stormfront simply fail to do that.

EugeneNix: Because it is utterly hilarious to see some effeminate, over-educated privileged white kid salivate out at us over his Starbucks wifi connection, him living in a 99% white area just furiously freaking out at the fact we exist.

I think we have a few liberal members. I believe JediMasterMaceDindu considers himself a liberal, but he’d have to say.

Baba_OReilly: I am frankly very surprised at the number of liberals on CT. I can only attribute it to their age.

In your ideal world, what would be done about your native land and its African population? Would you deport them? Reparations? Repatriation? Exile? Genocide? Or just strict racial roles and “day of the rope” for miscegenators?

Suspook: I think the world itself has a huge overpopulation problem. Compare populations of countries like Ethiopia + Nigeria to Germany in 2050. It’s alarming to say the least. Now, scientists say, the Earth is on the brink of a sixth such “mass extinction event” + it is directly being caused by humans. College degrees are already completely watered down to how many are given out when college should only be studied by the elite not the common idiot. Sterilizing felons + having a global attitude of more kids = more waste should be promoted. I think Bill Gates is totally out of line fighting diseases like malaria. One should view such diseases as natural defenses that the Earth has had for millennia just to control overpopulation/wasting natural resources/preventing the extinction of other fauna/flora in the area. I think Nationalism has its pros + cons too as it can secure borders tighter, but countries could see themselves get into population arms races. I personally feel the less people the better it is for Earth in general.

George_l_rockwell: In my ideal world, black Americans would face the option of being sent to Africa, OR mandatory sterilization and segregation.

EugeneNix: Deport the criminal blacks for sure. Promote abortion. Promote non-blacks (preferably mostly white) to have children. Implement eugenic programs for everyone.

I don’t think miscegenation is all that bad if it’s not happening on Brazil levels, and the offspring identity with the majoritarian population. Clearly how to have a mostly homogenous USA and Europe seems to be a huge problem now, as the marxists are playing racial genocide against whites.

I think whites should remain a majority population, especially in their own ethnic homelands. It’d be crazy to implement whites only laws, but when an ethnicity is displaced by hostile foreigners, it is alarming.

Baba_OReilly: My ideal world would be that every Negro (if there were any at all) would live in Africa. Second best: utterly complete segregation.

Why do you think Reddit has not banned you yet? Do you think /r/CoonTown serves as a kind of “mascot” for Reddit’s claim of having semi-free speech, to the point where it allows them to say, “See, we’re a free society, after all we allow /r/CoonTown!”

Suspook: We are probably the best moderated subreddit on the website just because we all realize we have a huge target on us. We obey the site rules 100%. I’m only guessing on their standpoints why they don’t want to ban us, but it could be they don’t want even more negative press/negative free speech angles directed at them or they do not want 15,000 users running loose over the rest of their website. They might see CoonTown as basically a confined prison…like yeah we got all the racists on the site + we all know where they are + they only post in this one place instead of peppering comments thru their other subreddits.

George_l_rockwell: I think the admins view us as a containment subreddit. They know that if we were to be banned, literally thousands of racists would start posting their opinions on default subreddits, which would be disastrous for their public image.

EugeneNix: Your guess is as good as mine. Could be what you said, could be the feds have asked them to not ban us to “monitor” us to justify budgeting.

Baba_OReilly: CoonTown is still here because we don’t break the rules. r/fatpeoplehate did.

Why do you think white people are afraid to discuss race? Do you think this is changing? How does /r/CoonTown contribute to this situation?

Suspook: Online leftists get off to Doxxing/Calling your work to out people for it. Being taught the equality myth in school certainly doesn’t help. Honestly, I think it’s so easy for other people to scream racist/bigot/how dare you + just react emotionally to someone who can’t just respond with statistics or facts off the top of their head to actually say WHY they feel the way they do on the fly. You just don’t see responses like “13% of the population, 52% of the homicide offenders. Goodbye.”

Suspook: Technology pacifies white people more than anything too. You’ll never see them actively give a fuck about what is truly happening to America as long as they have an internet connection/phone works/check email/Netflix is up. A metaphor I use often is that it’s parallels the destruction of Rome. One Roman asks another, “Did you hear how far the Barbarians came this morning?”..The Roman replies, “Yeah, it’s looking really bad..we still on tonight for the orgy?”…”Of course!” says the first Roman. Newer + newer technology creates shorter + shorter attention spans for people that they will only care about immediate pleasure. Emotion trumps logic now especially for the Millennial generation.

When white people are accused of being a racist, even though the chances of this happening in real life are very slim, you should at least practice/rehearse exactly what you would do if suddenly confronted by journalists/media in real life so you don’t make a mistake or say something that could ruin your life/etc.

If someone gets right up to your face with a camera it can be a little intimidating, especially if you’re a naturally nonverbal type of a person. I advise everyone of you to do an exercise where you think what you would say beforehand if ever confronted to avoid becoming a deer in the headlights. Even though it’s unlikely, preparing yourself for how you would act in such a situation is key.

The best thing you could probably do is not to speak to them at all because they are gonna edit/cut the film the way so they come off looking the best.

If you DO decide to talk just use short, coherent sentences, + don’t use defensive body language. Don’t cross your arms, they WANT you on the defensive + are out to intimidate you so what you have to do is just adopt a serious look, keep your eyes straight forward [don’t look down] + intimidate them right back.

Body language is extremely important when dealing with these types. Putting your hand behind your head can work because it’s gives you an aura of control. Crossing your arms is no good because you come off as feeling intimidated or afraid.

I urge every middle class white male/female to take the short amount of time just to think about what you’d do in a confrontational situation about your views in a real life situation. Don’t be defensive about it + say what you have to say. Be prudent, but be aggressive, almost walking a line.

Either you’re gonna talk or you’re not gonna talk + 90% of the time not saying a thing is best. But, if some news reporter just ambushes you on the street trying to intimidate you, just respond by telling him something like “if you want to talk to me about my political views..make an appointment + we’ll discuss them at a more suitable setting…how would you like it if I came down to the TV station you work + ask you why you’re such an asshole liberal or why do you believe blacks + whites can get along in the complete absence of evidence?”

Every white activist should just be mentally prepared + ready no matter how little the chance is of some impromptu interview + just be ready for it + have something important to say if you say anything. Don’t ever backpedal + come off as a man not someone who is running away or weak.

You must condescend to the media + it’s actually not hard to do + it’s pretty fun. If a man is gonna come up to you + call you a “hater” or a “racist” or something then he clearly has no respect for you, so do not show any respect to him. You don’t treat people how you want to be treated, you treat people based on their behavior towards you.

EugeneNix: People are afraid to discuss race because they might have black friends they like and don’t want to hurt feelings. Mostly, however, is the indoctrination that begins in preschool, even from a young age kids are indoctrinated to be good leftists It will continue on for the rest of their life.

DylannStormRoof: Because Americans have been brainwashed, starting from the year they entered public schooling. Improving the population’s reasoning skills will be to our benefit, statistics and scientific evidence are on our side. CoonTown offers a no-holds-bar forum for racial discussion involving niggers, no matter how offensive. I could say something completely true in one of the subreddits where debate commonly takes place (such as /r/changemyview or /r/news), but I’d had to chip away at the truth of my post to make it less-offensive and less-inflammatory, where it’s no longer the truth but a politically correct bastardization, lest I be permanently exiled from participating in future discussions and my post be censored.

Baba_OReilly: Bingo! I hope CT loosens people up to the idea that you can criticize niggers as much as white people are criticized. I see CT as a tiny little catalyst for people to see the truth. That the Negro race is anathema to civilization everywhere they go.

What is “cuck” and why do people say that many mainstream white figures are cuck?

Suspook: Cuckolds are a very small minority of inadequate social lepers void of logic. There is clearly an agenda if the media is championing an individual that simply mutilated his genitals by referring Cucklyn Jenner as “her/she” while outraged that a white female had the audacity to try to pass as black. Shouldn’t actual females take offense that Cucklyn is getting called a female when he never had to deal with menstrual cycles/pressure of being a woman/etc? You can look at ESPN also for covering a 17 week sport [American Football..mostly blacks] all year round while giving minimal attention to professional hockey [mostly European + white] even while playoffs were on basketball would take priority when it comes to coverage. Bella and The Bulldogs [kid’s show] on Nick was created by someone who actually made a movie called The Cuckold and another about an interracial family. I think it’s more of a social perversion than anything because I really don’t know anyone who legitimately buys into it in real life. I could see pronouns being banned as hate speech in 20 years though.

George_l_rockwell: Traditionally, a cuck is someone who allows his significant other to fornicate with another man right in front of his very eyes. Many mainstream white figures know about non white crime and how it negatively affects normal white people, and their refusal to speak out about this is comparable to a cuck who gets off to watching his girlfriend have sex with other men.

EugeneNix: Cuck is a good term for people who bend over to the left’s narrative, especially ones who are supposed to be detractors of the left.

Baba_OReilly: Cuck is short for cuckold. A cuckold is a man who will pay someone else to watch him fuck his wife. The analogy is spot on.

What is the content on /r/CoonTown like? Do you remove material that does not fit within this model?

Suspook: Headlines/news stories about up to date daily black crime, former SJWs posting stories about their own awakenings, discussions about politics, pictures of statistics, amusing images peppered in from time. I have only banned users that make death threats against blacks simply because we as a subreddit risk being banned if we allow such posts. Cucks will also post interracial porn from time to time also that I’ll delete. If someone wishes to engage us we allow it, if someone says they are black no problem. We have whites here, asians, hispanics, italians, english, irish, jews, + blacks themselves that are all regulars.

George_l_rockwell: Usually pictures and news stories of blacks, with occasional videos as well. Many of the videos are often uploaded by black people themselves.

EugeneNix: Ranges from hysterical dissent, to agent provocateurs, “I just hate black culture,” race-realists who have a racist sense of humor, to tattooed skinhead-types giving the roman salute to a picture of the Führer on their wall.

We mostly remove topics that have nothing to do with blacks, black crime, or SJW cuckoldry. Anything that follows the rules within topic comment sections is fair game.

Baba_OReilly: The content on CT ranges from funny cartoons to the absolute worst demonstrations of nigger depravity that even Satan couldn’t imagine. Take your pick!

What are you guys like in real life? If I met you on the street, would I think, “There goes a normal guy/gal,” or would I be having associations with basements, neckbeards, cumboxes and fedoras?

Suspook: I cannot speak for everyone as I have not met them in real life, but I’m normal. I travel often + enjoy drinking at bars. I’ve met many like-minded people from the internet online + it was easy going most of the time + not awkward.

George_l_rockwell: I imagine coontown is pretty diverse. I’m sure we have our basement dwellers, autists, and fedoras, but most people on this subreddit are likely just average looking people who you’d see on the street. You definitely would not tell that I was a moderator of Coontown if you passed me on the street.

EugeneNix: Normal dude, though I wouldn’t open the shoe box I’m holding.

Baba_OReilly: In real life, I am a college educated, 64 year old retired business owner (Audi repair shop). Married with a daughter on the Dean’s list in college. Clean shaven with a full head of brownish (still) hair. I live in a 15 year old, one and a half story house in an all white section of town. I drive a 16 year old Audi (in perfect shape) and my hobby is my two late sixties muscle cars.

Your forum sidebar says, “Race realism, pragmatism, and a sense of agency: the foundation of a proper society that lacks the negro plague. We are The Lion.” What is The Lion? Is this related to Nietzsche’s concept of the blonde beast? Why mention only the African-Americans, and not Hispanics, Asians and other minorities?

Suspook: I didn’t put that up, you’d have to ask whomever put that up I suppose.

George_l_rockwell: The Lion is really up to interpretation.

EugeneNix: I have no idea, I saw that video and saw some happy “white people smiling” volkisch shit and immediately X’d out of it.

It’s easier to focus on one thing and do it well. I think this way works best because it doesn’t become a WN-only circle jerk.

Baba_OReilly: I’m curious as to the notion that if I hate Negroes, that I must also hate other peoples and minorities. Listen closely to me here… I don’t hate the Vietnamese and they were trying to kill me.

Why do you think multiculturalism/diversity is so popular? What do people gain from it? How is it relevant to their lives?

Suspook: This is an excellent questions just because how it’s so promoted in the media + other European countries right now. Maybe it’s just such self hatred that everyone being the same is the only means to an end they can foresee? What possible gains are there other than a warped personal emotional satisfaction that you think you’re doing good? Certainly isn’t healthy for the environment/crime/self identity/pride. I really do not know why, but I know there is $$ in hustling it. Look how much $ Sharpton has pimping out race. Soros gave millions to the organizers of the Ferguson protests if I remember right also. I think it could be because whites become so vilified if they ever speak up against diversity/multiculturalism that they just don’t risk it. White flight cannot last forever, the earth is only so big, but hopefully it doesn’t get to that point.

George_l_rockwell: The vast majority of people in this world are what we call “lemmings”. They mindlessly go about their days, and they let their televisions do their thinking for them. Allowing for mass media and democracy was a ridiculous mistake, as it allows for those who control the mass media to shape the opinions of the vast majority of people. Most people tend to support diversity because they’ve been brainwashed all their lives to believe it. If the media told them that blacks were inferior, they would believe that blacks are inferior.

EugeneNix: The (cultural) marxists of the 50’s used incrementalism to change the political zeitgeist, and mass media pushes a narrative. Most mainstream conservatives have to take very watered down positions because they don’t want to be labeled the “r word.”

For the most part it’s people repeating happy words and phrases to themselves so they feel better about having a very safe set of beliefs.

Baba_OReilly: People are stupid. I’m here to enlighten them.

What will you do if Reddit bans this sub?

Suspook: We have had over 140 unique users in my IRC channel at one time. As long as we have our main core of users a ban won’t hurt. Before CoonTown was even in existence I knew that one day it would be banned for probably no real reason so I’ve been telling important members they should join my IRC channel whenever the ban goes down so we can discuss where to go from there.

George_l_rockwell: I’ll join the Coontown IRC

EugeneNix: Will certainly be interesting for you guys to find out ;).

Baba_OReilly: CT gets banned? LOL! The World Wide Web wasn’t even invented until I was 40. I’ll survive somehow.

Critiquing racialism

Friday, June 26th, 2015

abandoned_desolation

Those who believe in the differences between human races and the importance of at least separation tend to call themselves racialists. This separates them from “racists,” who are people who dislike other races, and puts them into the camp of sane people who dislike diversity because it is inherently paradoxical and produces horrible results whenever and wherever it is tried, regardless of what racial groups make up the melting pot. In that perspective, history and logic — and looking outside the window — agree with the racialists.

Racialism however fails to adequately critique itself in part because it is trying to build up the largest following it can. That approach leads to greater numbers, but also produces a type of ideological entropy as each person re-interprets the belief in some unique way. That in turn erodes the group from having focused into being a generalized gripe session, which suits most people just fine as they do not want to actually do anything but would like to talk about what they would do, you know, if they could.

If racialism were able to focus itself on a single agenda, like liberals have done for years, it would have some power. Instead it dissipates its strength in as many perspectives as it has members. Naturally, hammering out an agenda will make many displeased as it will force some pet issues to the wayside, and by giving momentum to analysis, will also explode some much adored fantasies. And yet, it is the only path to anywhere, so it is the route we must follow.

A good starting question is: Why do racialists focus so much on other races? In a time when our media fawns over every possible story on homosexuals, transgenders, women, the impoverished and any ethnic or religious minority, it seems foolish to follow the blueprint set by the liberal media. Further, it is disspiriting as it removes focus from the object — a healthy white or WASP ethnic group — and turns it instead to a fetishism of what other groups do. More importantly, it shifts focus from the object to be conquered, which is the illogical and deceptive policy of diversity, and instead scapegoats minority groups for what ultimately are the actions of white liberals. White liberals passed anti-discrimination law, the Great Society welfare programs, Affirmative Action and the Hart-Cellar immigration act. White liberals enforce shaming of racists and lead the call for the removal of Confederate flags. The enemy is white liberals, or at least white liberalism.

Further, a philosophy comprised of race-isolation alone becomes a type of ethno-bolshevism (thanks to Nick Land for that formulation). It eliminates class distinctions within whites and turns them into an ideological force, as if emulating Communism. Perhaps it makes sense to emulate the political methods of leftists, but not their goals, since any student of history knows where those lead. Under white nationalism, for example, whites are united regardless of ability and exempted from having to demonstrate evolutionary fitness, much like the reward-before-performance ethos of socialism. This movement also creates white victim privilege which results in whites seeing themselves not as conquerors and innovators, but ghetto-dwellers held down by the man. It turns a once noble group into a parasitic, revengeful mob just like liberalism does.

Not only that, but race as an organizing principle tends to drown out anything else. It does not change the underlying conditions which were the causes that got us to this point in history, where their effects can be seen in the manic racial egalitarianism of the left. It does not address the decay in social order and mental ability of our people that began long before diversity. Even worse, it acts as a surrogate for dealing with these problems much as the left invented class warfare and diversity as substitutes for addressing the actual problem of civilization collapse.

No sane person should object to reasoned discussion of race, including leaving the option on the table that diversity is inherently flawed and a destroyer of empires and (thus) should be replaced. At the same time, to go about an issue the wrong way poisons the well and removes the ability to have useful future discussions on the topic, which then banishes the topic to the dustbin of history for future generations. It is time for racialists to mature and face the decision that has hovered over them for many decades: do they really want to restore civilization, or merely complain about it and bully some African-Americans to make themselves feel better?

“Racism” is a scapegoat for the failure of diversity

Monday, June 22nd, 2015

ussa_gothic

Witness our bold President, crossing a taboo line to deliver a socially important message:

“Racism, we are not cured of it. And it’s not just a matter of it not being polite to say ‘nigger’ in public,” Obama said in an interview for the podcast WTF with Marc Maron.

“That’s not the measure of whether racism still exists or not. It’s not just a matter of overt discrimination. Societies don’t, overnight, completely erase everything that happened 200 to 300 years prior.”

The usual sleight of hand here. Recall that most humans fear evolutionary pressures to improve themselves, and so make war on the idea of social standards which compel them to discipline or moral behavior. To that end, they attempt to abolish social standards. As a method of doing that, they distract from any important issue with an unimportant but emotionally simplistic one.

In this case, the real issue is the health of our civilization: it is in decline. The false issue is that our real problem is a lack of diversity. That creates the current issue, which is a tendency to (1) blame slavery for “racism” and (2) blame the failures of diversity on “racism.”

Why, you may ask, do I put “racism” in quotation marks? Simply put: “racism” does not exist. A desire to be among one’s own kind — this is defined by race, ethnicity, religion, class and values all together — is the natural state of humankind and exists for a simple reason. Similarity reduces the need for communication, negotiation and the endless rules, regulations and bureaucracy of which liberals are so enamored. Without difference, people are moving in roughly the same direction and much of the overhead that does not work well and more importantly, makes life frustrating and tedious, can be eliminated. Life becomes simpler, with less work and more play, and people are more at rest and trusting of each other.

Most of what we call “racism” consists of people like Dylann Roof who want to resist diversity, and have made the fatal mistake of confusing the visible symbol of diversity — African-Americans — with the program itself and the idea behind it. For liberals, diversity is a way to destroy national cultures and replace them with ideology. They want those rules, regulations and bureaucracy because those are inefficient and always favor anyone who can construe themselves a victim, which allows for successive abolishment of any social standards. That makes liberals happy: to them, civilization is the enemy. They will do whatever they can to subvert, hinder, sabotage, thwart, vandalize and restrain it.

A natural response might be to look at diversity through the only science that can address it, which is a combination of abstract logic and historical data. Diversity does not exist in nature; this implies that there is a reason for its non-existence, and that this must be addressed if we are to replace it. Much as we replaced rainfall with irrigation, and then learned to limit irrigation to avoid killing the plants, we have to get to the root reason for why diversity does not exist. Above we can see the most plausible reason, which is that diversity is inefficient and introduces internal conflict which then replaces actual living as the primary activity in society. Definitely our civilization over the past 200 years has seen a rise in pointless fighting over words on pages because we have no shared unity, purpose or even idea of what the good life would be. The latter is what conservatives generally idealize. With this analysis in hand, we can look to history and see that like many other evolved traits, a lack of diversity manifests itself in parallel across all successful human societies, and many if not all failed societies show a dangerous embrace of diversity. This makes diversity look like a symptom of civilization breakdown, which makes it both not wholly culpable, but also definitively not a solution. That makes it a distraction, beloved of liberals as mentioned above.

When opposition to diversity is criminalized, that act puts critics of diversity in a corner. And like all cornered animals, they lash out at the closest approaching hand, not the set of hands that cornered them and definitely not the metal spikes or rifles hemming them in. This is what Dylann Roof did: he murdered black people instead of doing something productive like killing off pro-diversity whites, or lashing out at the government which supports this program. Anders Breivik in Norway took a more practical approach and shot the children enrolled in liberal indoctrination camp, showing Norwegians that conformity indeed has a high cost and just following the herd to doom sometimes has consequences. While the great love-in after that event raged strong at first, it died down quickly, mostly because people realized that Breivik killed fundamentally unimportant people on a practical level. These were not future leaders, but future parasites. Had Roof gunned down nine teachers at a Mix It Up! conference, or simply chewed his way through a herd of good liberals watching Roots, he might have achieved something closer to his aim. Instead, he murdered people with whom he might have found a lot of common ground, namely that they wanted to associate with their own, too.

There are actual racists, of course. These are people who use African-Americans (or other ethnic, religious and gender minorities) as scapegoats for the failure of Western civilization. That approach ignores the fact that the failure of Western civilization began with egalitarianism, the same ideology that propelled the Soviets, which is a malignant form of individualism that demands an absence of social rules and standards that might compel individuals to self-discipline and hence, upward trajectory on the evolutionary curve instead of stagnation. But the herd wants stagnation because it fears challenging itself, both on a group and individual level. The perennially popular message is that everything is fine, there is no need to strive, and what we really should be doing is enjoying the quality donuts, beer and television (or circuses) that our ancestors have provided for us. Civilization reaches an evolutionary dead end when it succeeds because it loses all of its objectives, and what replaces it is the inherent venality, mental laziness and corrupt inertia of most people.

What racists should do is look to their own race. If, for sake of argument, an artificial intelligence was created which could reliably separate the sheep from the goats, it could strengthen any race by removing the 90% who are useless and keeping the 10% (approximately) who are capable of thought. These would span caste barriers, with those at the top capable of more thought covering more variables, but you would get a net of good people. Sending the 90% away, whether up a smokestack or on boats, would achieve a society of three very different groups that nonetheless acted toward a common goal: the bulk power laborers, the coordination based warriors and artisans, and the brainpower-driven priests and philosophers. If you think about what an ideal society would be like, this is the one, and if it had sufficient technology to defeat the remainder of humanity which would immediately see it as a golden land and want to plunder it (and destroy it in the process) it would thrive at a level hereto unknown by humanity. That goal, while it seems lofty, is more practical and useful than murdering the symptoms of diversity as they pray in church.

One of our long-time and well-respected readers here, crow, has requested an analysis of those who wish us to ban Confederate flags, remove Confederate monuments and erase the Confederacy from history. I consider his question prophetic in that it cuts to the core of the issue: those who wish to eradicate the Confederacy from memory are making the same mistake Roof did, which is to attack the visible symbol of a problem instead of cutting to the root. The problem for such people is that most people wish to live among their own and do not want diversity forced upon them. The more such people, who are indeed ‘butts’ in the sense of being numb and useless, pressure the rest of us to accept diversity, the more incidents like this occur. Not being able to critique their own behavior and see where they are wrong, such people turn those events to their own advantage by blaming mysterious “racists” instead of resistance to the insane program of diversity, and use that to justify even more incursion.

It is this kind of Soviet-style feedback loop that uses its self-confirming assumptions to force itself upon societies, promptly destroying all that allows them to function and entering a death spiral of enforcement and resistance. In the Soviet Union, the ideology jihad took the form of class warfare; here, Democrats insist that racism is a class warfare issue. Draw your own conclusions there, but yes, crow, these anti-Confederates are indeed “butts” or as the older terms had it, fools, blockheads, nitwits and ziggies. They are eternally zero the hero, born losers and back the classroom nerds because their own minds are disorganized and as a result, they are capable of nothing more than basic function, and this makes them miserable. Instead of owning up to that, they scapegoat those who lack the same problem, and find “meaning” in life through their attack on such people. Needless to say, they would be in the 90% who in any sane society would find themselves on a fast boat to Destination Elsewhere.

Chasing symbols and not reality is a side-effect of our need to scapegoat, which arises from the liberal need to distract. Liberals are defined by their denial of actual problems and their preference for illusive schemes that conceal the actual liberal objective of preventing oversight of the individual by social standards or anyone who knows more than the average liberal. For this reason, liberals prefer symbolically-significant acts like burning books, tearing down flags and erasing history. However, this backfires because it forces on a people an ideology that does not relate to their lives, and creates in consequence a distrust of all things related to ideology. This resistance eventually culminates, as it did in Soviet Russia, in a passive culture of futility and consequent national attitude of apathy except when facing threat of execution. That reveals the problem of strong power, which is that instead of as Machiavelli said was ideal being both hated and loved, government is merely avoided because, by the reflexive property of strong actions, anything important is a death penalty and everything else can be ignored. The West has reached the same point in its manic crusade for diversity.

A third option exists to forcing diversity on people and its opposite, allowing us to avoid the issue entirely. That was what Conservatives originally attempted with Affirmative Action, which allowed government to give preference to minorities. This however turned out to be a disaster because it spread far beyond its original intent to become a standard in all things government such that non-minorities were at a distinct disadvantage, and some people were hired or promoted for their racial status alone despite being incompetent. That, too, has been a disaster. I dislike advancing an argument which says “You should just let me do what I want to do, because you cannot do otherwise,” but when facts, history and truth are on the side of that argument, it is pointless to not advance it. Affirmative Action reveals a tendency of centralized government which is that it makes universal rules which, by the nature of universality, become too artificially abstract to help.

This leads us back to the original idea of the Confederacy which was that a centralized state was destructive because of its tendency to universalize from conditions in Massachusetts and New York and apply those in the South; while slavery (and opposition to diversity) were touchstone issues, they were not the underlying issue, which was the belief that local areas should have more power. In the South, slavery was already on its way out thanks to new technology and the general worldwide trend to reduce it; the wild profits had gone out of certain industries as well, which were what had driven the expansion of slavery in Latin, Central and North America because of the trade in these products with Europe. However, liquidating a large portion of its investment would have destroyed the economy, so the Confederate states resisted while behind the scenes quietly downsizing that institution. Many of us oppose the idea of chattel slavery for a number of reasons, including the idea of “chattel” as opposed to sacred role and the fundamental fact that it is a form of diversity. Many in the South did as well. But they wanted to handle the problem locally because the “Massachusetts solution” would not work for the South, and the North knew this but like drunken bullies kept on with their manic charade. We all know how well that turned out: a nation permanently divided.

More people are turning to the idea of local rule at the present time. Diversity enforced by a central government is clearly a disaster, as are the anti-poverty programs and other paperwork-creating wastes of time. As the United States sees its power fade, many are (slowly…slowly) making the connection between the increased regulatory state and its social justice mandate and the slowdown in efficiency, purpose and quality here in these neurotic States. Letting states decide their own diversity rules might have a positive effect. If Texas were to get rid of Affirmative Action, indemnify companies for equality lawsuits, and send to the dustbin whole realms of Federal legislation, Texas might find itself with a faster-moving economy, a more trusting society and an actual sense of purpose. It seems this is what the craven Yankees in Massachusetts and New York fear the most, and so whenever the failures of liberal programs pop out all over the place, they rally the hive-mind around some racist incident to re-fight the Civil War all over again, with ongoing disastrous consequences which they quickly conceal or refuse to acknowledge, treating “out of sight, out of mind” as the cardinal principle of democracy, which it well may be.

Recommended Reading