Posts Tagged ‘right-wing’

Unite the Right

Monday, October 26th, 2015
by Ashton Blackwell and Brett Stevens

by Ashton Blackwell and Brett Stevens

A singularity is coming: the mainstream right and the underground right are converging, but they need to do it faster. These groups share a worldview of realism which no other parts of the political spectrum possess. Both realize that Western Civilization is hurtling towards a catastrophe at the hands of the dictatorship of public opinion, and that this same force destroyed the great civilizations of the past. As Walt Kelley wrote long ago, “We have met the enemy and he is us”: public opinion denies common-sense realism because people prefer sugar-coated and flattering illusions. Gossip about the Speakership nomination, or Malia’s college party beer pong antics, dominates the headlines to hide the grim reality that we are literally fighting for our survival as a civilization.

When the Left took over through the French Revolution back in 1789, it separated politics into two groups: those who wanted to follow the “new” ideas, and those who wanted to conserve the fundamental principles and organizing behaviors that have produced the best results throughout human history. These tested precepts assume the mantle of “tradition” and history shows us that anything but this type of truth-based order will quickly devolve and collapse. Like writing code, or designing a house, you either get it right and over-engineer something to last a thousand years under all conditions, or you have created something feeble which will fail whenever Murphy’s Law comes knocking (as it does on a regular basis, that meddler!). Conservatives pursue tradition in two ways: first, they believe in reality-based common-sense engineering; second, they aim for “transcendentals” such as “the good, the beautiful and the true,” which are perpetually unattainable goals that nonetheless improve everything in quality, including life itself.

Currently, mainstream conservatives – the grassroots and the Tea Party, the smaller “conservatism lite” Establishment right-wing, and other Republican voters – define themselves as separate from what we might call the “underground right,” comprised of movements like the alternative right, Neoreaction, and the New Right. Establishment Republicans , who have adopted progressivism to fight progressivism, barely qualify as Right-wing at all, but groups with “anti-Establishment” sensibilities, such as patriot movement groups, “Middle American Radicals,” paleoconservatives, and perhaps “conservatarians” represent a rising niche of the Right. While the alternative right and Neoreaction appear to be totally different from the mainstream right, they share the overarching vision that they should live in a land that represents them. They also share some “idealistic realism”; their state vision is transcendental, but they believe that thinking about what “should” be true, is a worse way of making decisions that looking at what is true and adopting methods that have worked with that truth over time, then slowly improving the quality of results with methods specific to each local area. Both mainstream and underground right groups ally themselves with the idea of common sense: reality-based thinking. They see this as superior to progressive ideology, a vat of untested ideas advanced by conniving political opportunists as a means of seizing control through popular opinion and the chaos created through government meddling.

While important distinctions between mainstream right and underground right exist, similarities outnumber differences. Both groups advance common sense notions that intersect in the following areas:

  1. Freedom of belief. On the right, we recognize that societies are composed of individuals, and that those individuals receive their formative guidance outside of government, through their culture and religion. Individuals of higher moral character and abilities can improve the society around them by raising its standards, as we see from great people in history like George Washington, Socrates or even Ronald Reagan. Society should defend those who have higher standards, not force universal acceptance of all standards, which lowers the standard held in common. While this is inconvenient for commerce, as it means you may have to go to another store to get your gay wedding cake or birth control pills, it defends the right of people to live by their beliefs and to raise up the rest of us with higher moral standards. Moral order flows from the top down. The authors would argue that the classical liberal mandate, “don’t hurt people and don’t take their stuff,” proscribes too little and has been an easy target for subversion in an effort to destroy the moral fabric of our country.
  2. Freedom of association. Birds of a feather flock together, which means that collaborative groups can establish communities that succeed and inspire us to follow their example. Ideally, this happens at a national level, and obviates the problems posed by a “proposition nation” which praises as a social good, maximum social dysfunction, acrimony and competition. Dysfunction is created when the people in a community don’t want to work or live together; look at the artificially imposed state boundaries at the Middle East, or take divorce, for example. This is like a free market for ideas: people form small corporations called communities, and if their product – the lifestyle they offer – is superior, they thrive while others lag. A lack of freedom of association means that individuals are forced to live near, work with and interact with people with whom they disagree on a fundamental basis. That denies their human right to have a set of values, morals and standards to their community. Our Founding Fathers never intended equality to be more than individuals being treated fairly under the law without regard to their wealth or status. It was not designed to allow small groups to force conformity on the rest through mandatory tolerance of activities, lifestyles and individuals they find objectionable, or to privilege “oppressed” groups to pilfer and yoke “oppressor” groups. That is all tyranny, which the Founders intended to forbid in the Constitution.
  3. Small government. This term means both limiting the economic and personnel size of government, and more importantly, limiting its scope to practical and not ideological goals. When its only role is defense and putting up roads, government does not grow, so it must invent a reason – a rationalization, justification or excuse – to expand its power. This almost always takes the form of “Think of the children!” style ideological agendas based on guilt and pity, explained in public as altruism but like most public altruism, in private a cynical grab for power like the French Revolution itself. In political terms, small government means taking away from government the ability to act for any smaller group than society as a whole. This means an end to any payments to citizens, any socialized services, and any act which benefits a small group through money taken from the whole of the citizenry. Those types of subsidy-based actions, which resemble socialism in effect if not theory, are the hallmark of civilizations which will spend themselves to their own doom by sacrificing their productive citizens to the endless parade of those who are less willing or able to contribute.

Freedom of belief, freedom of association, and the principle of small government have been gradually encroached upon, and the right leaning coalition subsequently alienated. Yet, the American spirit of resistance is stirring. The rise of Donald Trump, whatever one may think of him, may show the future of conservatism: resistance to liberal social engineering, starting by attacking the liberal policy of multiculturalism for what it is – a social engineering program to replace normal Americans, who tend to be conservative, with third world populations which tend to vote liberal as they did in their home countries. The dividing line between mainstream conservatives, who will not mention race at all, and underground conservatives, who see diversity as creating internal division and distrust, is slowly eroding. Conservatives are seeing the liberal Plan for the first time: Politicians cultivate votes by giving away free things to citizens; the media drums up stories around unjust victimhood and horrors of poverty. The voters, prone to manipulation, fear voting against these things lest they be viewed as unsympathetic. These programs grow and can never be repealed because to do so is “political suicide,” or at least, so all the newspapers say. Elites form out of those in media, government and industry who realize they can help each other by reinforcing “The Narrative” which states that popular programs lead toward progress and anything else is primitive, selfish, cruel and ineffectual. This converts society into an echo chamber where people repeat the same views as fact and, by dint of a lack of opposing voices, confirm that bias and intensify adoption of the failed policies. With no way to change direction, society collapses, and this is what all conservatives hope to avoid.

So how does the space probe of the new right interlock with the docking collar of mainstream conservatism? The alliance begins in their common sentiment of anger at being dispossessed and their ideals and dignity made the subject of mockery, and graduates to their philosophical agreements. They two groups share an outlook in common sense, and both recognize that we are no longer in the age of “politics as usual,” but fighting for our very existence against the cancerous spread of liberalism. Both groups feel, and to a large extent, are, disenfranchised. This sense of disenfranchisement can be galvanized from despair to a renewing movement, as is plainly evident with The Make America Great Again campaign.

The underground right is the missing intellectual vanguard of grassroots America – and grassroots America is the missing power base of the underground right. The majority of grassroots America understands implicitly the dangers facing the country through immigration and out of control, criminal urban populations. The underground right doesn’t have to continue to be marginal if it can dialogue with people who are frustrated by their lack of representation, and the loss of their culture and way of life. Salt of the earth, normal American conservatives, that is those in flyover country or in the South who are cynical towards government, are looking for radical political integrity. The underground right, though merely agents of traditionalism, register in today’s political milieu as radical political truth-tellers, based on their frank acknowledgment of what is and is not sustainable. The goal of conservatism is to conserve civilization—and as its parapets crumble in the West, it is in grave need of our common defense.

Correcting confusion about the alternative right

Thursday, August 13th, 2015


Most of us know what a tree is: a large plant with woody branches. A tree is also an abstract form of data that resembles the outlines you did for papers in high school. There is a topic, and off of it, branches that support a thesis or interpretation of that topic.

Over at Alternative Right, the gang found some guy trying to explain the alternative right. He did an admirable job, but for the clarification mostly of right-wingers, I offer the following elucidation, using the form of the tree.

The ideologies espoused by “alt right” types can vary greatly, but broadly speaking includes certain sorts of extreme libertarians, immigration critics and “race realists” (basically intellectual racists and anti-semites), “neo-reactionaries” (who argue against democracy, human rights, and other manefestations of modernist philosophy), and anti-feminists, including some of the “Men’s Rights” crowd.

Stop: ask yourself: what is the topic? The answer is: people who think the modern world is screwed. What defines the modern world? Its egalitarian basis. Therefore, people who dislike the modern world are not egalitarians, or in other words do not believe people are equal, but valuable in proportion to what they contribute or their innate qualities.

All of those other definitions are branches off that topic. Race realists look at the differences between ethnic groups. “Racists” — the word “racist” is made up by leftists and has no meaning — are those who dislike other ethnic groups, or as liberals define it, simply notice ethnic differences and/or wish to live among their own. Nationalists are those who, like me, believe in self-rule and respect for every ethnic group and race (races get continents, ethnic groups get nations). Neoreactionaries get the best definition above, but he might add that modernist philosophy is defined by its egalitarian, utilitarian basis. Anti-feminists are opposed to a form of egalitarianism called feminism that focuses on equalizing the gap between males and females. When you view the above as branches of anti-egalitarian thought, the associations become clearer.

But there is also a more generic or moderate flavor of alt right thought that may not fully embrace any of the above agendas, but still be sympathic to their contrarian messages of skepticism towards prevailing conventional wisdom on matters like race, gender, and electoral politics.

Alternative right in my mind means two things: (1) right-wing (2) in ways that the mainstream will not acknowledge. This means actual conservatives, since mainstream conservatives have always been liberal apologists at least in part, and so have failed to achieve anything over their 200 year long slow retreat. Alternative right as a term is used like the phrase “alternative music” once was, meaning that which the mainstream is not yet ready for but will mine for ideas once its own get too stale.

Its main subjects of scorn tend to be out-of-touch, left-wing elites in politics, business, academia, and the mainstream media who they believe to be actively ruining society through their aggressive embrace of feminist, multicultural, and post-modernist ideas.

Not really. Our main source of scorn is mob rule, which is enabled by democracy, equality and altruism.

Our response to it is hierarchy, or having a social order where we put the most competent on top and exclude trends, fads and manias from dictating our policy.

The elites — who are not natural elites, or the most competent, but meritocratic elites or the most obedient to education, government and industry — are in power because of mob rule. People in committees or bigger groups always make bad decisions. What is popular is generally bad.

I would say the alt right is primarily about cultural issues, and less interested in economic policy or public policy in general.

We are primarily about change through culture, since change through government tends to be corrupted by the franchise that is government. Government has the aegis of public interest to protect it as it goes about activities that resemble those of profit-making corporations, except for government the profit is distributed in salaries to the elites and benefits to business entities. This includes regulation, which essentially provides a liability shield for companies that conform to the paperwork, which enables them to hide bigger transgressions that are not formally defined. Law is always “by the letter of the law” and not by intent, which enables regulated entities to get away with near-murder.

The alt right is an interesting, creative, growing intellectual movement within broader American conservatism. It appears to be led, and most enthusiastically supported by young white men, who could rise to become an important force within Republican politics and Republican-aligned media. Already we are seeing some “mainstream” conservative publications and institutions — particularly Brietbart and the American Enterprise Institute — coming under greater sway of the alt right, as a new generation of young, web-savvy conservatives begin to rise to prominance within them. Alt right fans are passionate and energized, and represent an attractive demographic of readers, activists, contributors, consumers, and voters for any savvy conservative leader to harness.

No disagreement. But it makes more sense to style it as a movement than his earlier comment:

The “alt right” exists mostly in the form of an archipelago of blogs, podcasts, and social media accounts, many of which center around a single pseudonymous commentator.

It exists as a group of people who agree on roughly the same thing: democracy and equality are lies; we chose a bad path at a fork in the road two centuries ago, and we need to go back and pick another route.

We are pseudonymous because opposing democracy and equality will get you fired from your job, have your business confiscated, your family taken, your friends abandoning you and your rental or owned home removed from your control. They will destroy you for failing to affirm the dominant illusion.

He makes a point for alt-righters that is very much worth attending to:

A lot of alt-right commentary tends to be more easily defined in terms of what it opposes than what it supports.

It is also a cheap shot. We are the resistance movement to liberalism; we want non-liberalism. In my mind, that means going back to the root and through cultural change, removing individualism and replacing it with self-interest in context of social role. It means nationalism, or one ethnic group per country (send all non Western Europeans back to their homelands). It means having an aristocracy, or people chosen by ability and character rather than obedience to industry, academia and popularity, instead of mob rule. It means a removal of millions of lines of law and their replacement with a few informal principles.

But, it is not a terrible thing to contemplate what our world would look like. We tend to do a fair amount of it here, but it is hard to visualize from abstractions. Nevertheless, that is too wide of a scope for this article.

“Civil Rights Fatigue” on Alternative Right

Wednesday, July 2nd, 2014


I am fortunate to be able to announce that a piece of mine, “Civil Rights Fatigue” has been accepted at anti-modernist blog Alternative Right.

While the right-wing underground divides itself on many issues, it agrees on more than it does not: mass democracy fails, ecocide is real, nationalism keeps a nation happy, and we do not need liberal ideological government at all.

Since we are in agreement on the big issues, I have been reaching out to notable right-wing blogs in an attempt to draw us all closer to the point of action. Alternative Right, on which I have been gratefully published for several years, has kindly printed me alongside other right-wing, new right, identitarian, neoreactionary, radical traditionalist and dark enlightenment luminaries.

Goodwill points

Monday, July 1st, 2013

republican_inversionAmerica (and Europe) really fell apart in the 1990s. The 1980s were tough and rapacious, but we knew that they would pass and we could get back on track. Then the hippies hit their forties and took over, and America went from the kind of place with a feeling that we were all in it together to a place where you look over your shoulder because you don’t trust anyone to share your values.

One reason why I attack diversity, instead of specific groups, is that it doesn’t matter what groups you mix into a society; when you dilute that fundamental sense of “us” and group feeling created by shared heritage, culture, values, language, customs and beliefs, you create a place without trust. A giant shopping mall, essentially, with cops to stop you from interrupting commerce with murder and mayhem, where every activity is a paid event, and where there’s no place to stop and rest because you constantly need to be either making money or shopping. It’s hell on earth.

The real reason conservatism is bouncing back is that people are noticing what they’ve lost. This isn’t an issue, like abortion or gay marriage, but a change in direction. The conspiracy of a million issues. A culture war in which the idiots, who always preach easy lies and try to bully you away from complex truths with guilt and shame, have won because it is always easier to be lazy than brave. But there’s something in the way.

Let me digress: In the 1970s and 1980s, people were mostly honest in the nice parts of town. If you went to a grocery store, and broke something, you’d tell the manager. They’d usually wave off the cost and send you on your way. But still, there was a basic honesty. If they forget to charge you for an item, you told someone and paid for it. There was a lot of goodwill. But things changed in the 1990s. Grocery stores got cynical because they could no longer count on the vast majority of their customers to have goodwill. They began to nickel ‘n dime their customers right and left. The result was that the assumptions of goodwill went away.

Fast forward to 2013. I’m in a grocery store, buying (among other things) onions. The white onions are clearly marked at $0.99 a pound, which is a good price. I get three pounds, pay for my purchases, and exit the store. Later on a whim I check the receipt; the total seemed approximately alright. But I’ve been charged $1.49 per pound for the onions. An irrelevant minor detail? That’s what the mall owners would like you to think, anyway. But to my mind, it’s one of many small aggressions against my person that make me lose goodwill. Next time I’m in that store, if they forget to ring up one of my items, I’ll be a smart shopper and keep my mouth shut. There’s a loss of goodwill there, and now I’ve accepted that as the norm and adapted to it.

Conservative parties have created a loss of goodwill. They did it to themselves, both by being the stupid party and now a corrupt party. For years, they could get by with simply being less crazy than the democrats, and they’d always win when it was time for a war. But their incompetence is breathtaking. There are too many chiefs and not enough braves, and that results in them tripping over each other and never getting anything done. But now they’ve done even worse.

With the endorsement of immigration amnesty by prominent “conservatives,” the Republican party have gone from incompetent to corrupt and unforgivably stupid. In the name of bipartisanship, they elected to replace mainstream middle class America — the only people who consistently vote Republican — with a third world majority, who always vote democratic and never vote more than 25% toward a conservative party. It was suicide, do you see? The Republicans just picked up a gun, pointed it at their own head, and pulled the trigger.

Now, there are many reasons for this, my dim-witted but socially-savvy friends say. Maybe it was just their opinion. If so, it was a denial of reality, and that’s stupid. Maybe they honestly thought they were doing something good. For whom? Not for their constituents, which makes them corrupt and stupid. Good, how? They missed out on how it’s also bad, which makes them droolingly stupid. This leaves us with only one direction to go: either they’re terminally stupid, or they’re terminally corrupt. I wish I were like the liberal teenagers who can assume that someone has reached high office through laziness, stupidity and background. That never really ever happened, since no one appoints the incompetent to an important position as it will reduce the appointer’s prospects as well. That leaves only one option: they are corrupt.

And when you think about it, applying Occam’s razor and all that, this explanation makes the most sense. There are interests with billions of dollars on the line here; what’s a few hundred million to scatter among Congresspeople? Each Congressperson needs, what, five million to retire? Done. We buy twenty of them per hundred million, which means we can buy two hundred before we even dent our budget. And we probably don’t even need five million for the ones from rural counties or of junior status. What a bargain!

What this means is that the Republicans have joined the erstwhile far-right in the dustbin of history. It’s not surprising that the same thing is happened in the UK, our sister nation, where the mainstream conservative party has become so liberal that conservatives are defecting in droves.

It used to be enough to wave the flag as a conservative. You got out there, talked about patriotism, abortion and free markets. That would keep the constituents, you thought. In the same way, if you were a far-righter, you got out there and talked smack about Jews and African-Americans, mentioned the far off ultimate race war which would set all wrongs right, and let the donations flow in. Both were lazy, both dysfunctional.

I have a simple solution to this problem: we have two things that don’t work. Combine them, kick out the incompetents, and rebuild from within by getting good people in the ranks. I see lots of people out there, but most of them won’t pick up a feather if it doesn’t contribute to their immediate pleasure, self-image or wealth. That’s a kind of corruption too, and I think such people should be kicked to the curb and replaced. The ones who aren’t so infected should invade these rotting carcasses of political parties and give them new life.

Racial Marxism

Saturday, September 3rd, 2005


To be involved in politics in the 21st century is to realize that there’s a double standard and a taboo in place that says you cannot talk about race. Such a taboo does not occur unless there is legitimacy to the fear; indeed, if we take the combined knowledge of history, credible science and philosophy, we will see that the races are each branches of the human tree with a different degree of evolution. It’s forbidden to say that, but if we care about finding a non-failing future for humanity, we must face all truths.

Having accepted the truth of race – that race designates rough position in an evolutionary hierarchy – we have to tread carefully and only apply this knowledge where it is useful. For example, there is variation within each race. However, despite that overlap, there’s still clearly a scale from oldest version of humanity (revision 1.0) to newest as we evolved before the modern time. Things got a bit more complicated in the modern time, as we assumed total control of our own factors of selection in evolution, with varied results. When we bring these facts to life, it becomes clear that even one gets past the public embargo on speaking about race, one has to tread very carefully if one wishes to be accurate.

In life, truthfulness is a liberating force. “Truth” does not exist; it is adjectival, as in “that statement has truth to it.” In older English, you would not be inclined to say “That is the truth,” but: “That is a a statement of truth.” There is a reason for this; our ancestors were more accurate intellectually in everything they did, and they abhorred ambiguity of a misleading type. To say the truth exists is to suggest that somewhere in this universe exists a quantity, truth, which is actually not a part of the world it describes; this is like suggesting there is a God in a Heaven, or other insanity (even the most erudite Christians have tended to find God in the world, as a property of its design and function instead of some bureaucratic, authoritarian entity).

Thus when we approach race, our only saving guidance is truthfulness, and in order to be described by that term we must explore race beyond the simplest recognition of its presence, which is that over the years different groups branched out and evolved differently. We say “differently” because there is no objective proof that, for example, the Western European way is superior to all others; in another ten thousand years, we may agree that the African model of civilization is superior because it endured in its original form, thus maintaining population stability although not personal consistency of its members. We also use the term differently because it is free of any absolute judgment; it is not only possible but likely that the best order for humanity consists of each race living according to its traditional model of civilization, as each serves a purpose in a larger schema.

Even further, we may elect for divisions within each race as well, probably focusing purely on whichever group to which we belong, as it is the only one of which we have in-depth experiential knowledge. It is evident to even the casual observer that not all people within a race have the same abilities, and it is evident that across all humanity, those who are less gifted in the areas of intelligence, strength/beauty and moral character are more prone toward “base” actions, or those with short-term rewards but long term disadvantages (hence their rejection by anything with the brains to see further than 48 hours into the future): rape (sex), theft (sustenance), predation (power). Smarter animals might resort to these behaviors when there is a loss of other options, or when acting against an enemy, but otherwise, they recognize social order as collaborative and thus see such acts as destructive to social order and thus personally disadvantageous.

A few tribes (subdivision of race, tribe: German, Zulu, Latvian, Scots, Malay) have opted for rigorous internal eugenics since pre-history, and it has generally benefitted them well, but most tribes are unwilling to take this step and almost none can do it so effectively that an elite strata of society is preserved for long. For this reason, every civilization that has ever existed has required some system for ranking its people into general layers, usually with the intent of preserving its highest rank for its most difficult functions: leadership, science, religion, art and war. Generally, people whose function is picking turnips fail as leaders because they opt for those “base” actions; races higher in the hierarchy will have higher base actions, but those will still produce long-term failures in leadership and thus the destruction of the civilization.

If we’re going to be honest about race, then, we have to admit that it has dual components. The first is that if any ethnic group wants to survive, it must sequester itself from all others; the second is that within both the human species and its races, there is a need for eugenics and aristocracy. Eugenics refers to the process of culling design failures (violent repeat criminals, child-molestor-class perverts, retards and gross physical defects) while fostering a system of natural selection that promotes the best. Aristocracy is the name given to the process of breeding a higher level of human beings and using them for difficult tasks. Therefore, the question of race is both ethnic uniqueness and hierarchical breeding. These two components are inseparable from any discussion of human population quality, which is in the modern time the underlying issue to all racial debate.

The first component is hardly touched on yet in this article. Two cultures cannot exist in the same space at the same time, therefore either one will become victor and ethnically cleanse the other, or the two will become merged and become a “new” third culture – with “new” being in quotation marks because of all things on this earth, cultures formed of a mixture between the three major races are not new. Anytime you mix the races in roughly equal proportions, you start to get similar-looking people, which is why some Russians resemble some Mexicans resemble some Southern Italians resemble some Indians resemble some Jews (in all cases, you have a mostly Caucasoid infused with large doses of Asiatic and small doses of Negroid, which is roughly what would occur if you threw all the races into the same location and had them compete in a natural context for survival). Culture is encoded in race, because aptitude for a certain culture is the primary factor of selection in the post-civilization evolutionary process; those who are naturally inclined to think, look and behave as is found desirable in that civilization outbreed the others, which over sixteen generations or so roughly standardizes the population to a cultural ideal. In turn, genetically-determined ability influences what sort of culture will be chosen by a population. If they are from the early stages of humankind, they favor loose familial tribalism, but the later versions tend to like civilizations organized around ideals or cultural values.

The second component requires less explanation. Every one of us, no matter how liberal or generally nice, has reflected that there sure are a lot of thickly stupid people around. Blockheads abound. While we might be too socially-conditioned or simply polite and well-meaning to notify these people that they are blockheads, we recognize that stupid people exist and when they are in any necessary position of power (even checking us when we make purchases) they will obstruct our progress by choosing “base” actions over simply getting the chore done. Idiots are more easily distracted; they consummately prefer immediate gratification to a sound solution; they take themselves too seriously to realize that they do better to just get the task done well. Idiots are destructive wherever they are doing something more involved than picking turnips. Many ancient civilizations created a class of people without liberty, “slaves,” for people too stupid to have any authority without being destructive including to themselves. Although sometimes it seems this way, not everyone is an idiot. Many people are quite smart but physically weak and ugly; others are highly intelligent but without moral character. Although they have great intelligence, they also commit “base” decisions, but in this case, because their will to do what is ultimately right is weaker than their desire for short-term gratification. Others are physically perfect specimens without brains, or morally perfect individuals without intelligence or looks. Clearly these groups fall somewhere between “idiots” and “leaders” (aristocrats), because they would be destructive in leadership roles but clearly have surpassed the fools. Among people in the middle there are divisions: some could fix a car, but not understand law; some could understand law, but not philosophy. This further subdivides them. The question is not the label with which they’re stamped, but where in the hierarchy of abilities that they fall, as no matter what others see them as, this alone determines their aptitude in relation to leadership. Aristocracy is a process of over many generations, building a society up from the lowest to the highest levels, with the knowledge that only a few will make this passage but that, owing to the greater competence of these few, they should lead the society as a whole for the benefit of all of its members, since the others cannot make such decisions without screwing them up. When we talk about “eugenics” in a modern context we think of sterile, bureaucratic eugenics whereby some weird old men in lab coats decide who must breed and who must become livestock feed. There is this aspect to any healthy society; if someone who is clearly broken (pervert, retard, physical defect) is born, they drown them in swamps or sacrifice them to pagan gods. This is an essential part of eugenics, but the smallest part: preventing the introduction of known failure-prone designs (individual genetic profiles and the traits they carry). Modern eugenics repulses most of us because it puts a great deal of power into the hands of centralized government, which is often unreliable, to put it mildly. It also only captures part of the problem, as in modern society, the only factor for natural selection is the ability to hold a job and buy food (you do not even have to be able to cook it).

We can see then that not just race, but “caste,” which is the term for distinctions within racial groups, form a competitive hierarchy designed to migrate the best specimens toward the top while suppressing those of less-desirable traits. Immediately some cry, “Oh no, their rights are being violated” – they forget that, because idiots impede us all, our rights are violated anytime we breed more idiots. Ancient societies recognized this by seeing each society as an organic whole, and therefore, not choosing to fixate on the individual; if the whole society was healthy, and had good leaders, this was seen as the greatest benefit for individuals of all castes. Caste is a measurement of the genetic ladder that forms the underpinnings of an aristocratic society, with leaders at the top and idiots at the bottom; caste systems can also include other races, but rarely in a simplistic sense where a level of caste “equalled” a specific race; more common was that all members of other races and some (idiots) members of one’s own ranked as the lowest caste of laborers.

Caste is not class. Class is a pseudo-caste measurement based on Social Darwinism, which is the idea that the best among us will roughly correspond to those who earn the most money; it’s a primitive substitute for natural selection. Those who value caste often find class distasteful, because it takes a measurement of several dimensions (intelligence, beauty, strength, moral character, personality) and replaces it with a single blockhead measurement, e.g. how much money this person has (a) been able to and (b) been motivated to earn. Class made some sense in a society where jobs were not as immersive and defining and time-consuming as they are now; back then, it was possible to have a reasonable living and not be a slave to one’s job. Starting around 1900, however, people have increasingly been fleeing wealth for a comfortable poverty in which free time and family overshadow the demands of a gluttonous industrial machine.

The traditional order of Western society, even until quite recently, has been a representation of the ancient orders of aristocracy and merit. This is why Westerners value competition of the individual type; they want to be able to see superior quality of athletes, thinkers, artists, warriors and leaders. They have historically been less disposed toward linear (“single blockhead measurement”) competition, as it tends to produce “winners” and “losers” without really showcasing rank or giving people a string of points representing degrees of success along which they or their descendants can advance to true excellence. Money, for example, gives you either riches, a middle class existence, or poverty; the divisions within those groups are more arbitrary than most would like to think. Western competition existed so that those who were going to display excellence could rise above and be recognized, and thus be rewarded and moved up the cycle; it was not considered terrible if none moved up, because such an advancement was reserved for those who were truly great. Unfortunately, this traditional order of Western society was swallowed up by a fierce beast: the economically-driven society.

Previous to that time, all societies had possessed economies, in that they transacted with money and both exported and imported products. They however had other motivations for existence: cultural values, religious values, or simply the pursuit of “the good life” in an area that required extensive work to support it. Social attitudes changed, and soon it was seen better to support the individual than an aristocracy which might rank some above others; in order to maintain order, the system insisted upon the “equality” of individuals but then proceeded to rank them via a single blockhead linear measurement called “economic competition,” by which those with the most devotion to their jobs and personal profit (thus the most predictable people in society, as there is a direct correspondence between their self-interest and their actions) were rewarded and outbred others. As this single linear system of measurement was arbitrary, and rewarded not ability but dedication, it was seen as “fair” and “equal” by the majority of the people in society, most notably the lower castes. As a result of this change, centralized bureaucratic governments boomed, since they could now rely on a surefire motivation for their population; people would do what rewarded them, and avoid what didn’t, and it was convenient that government often defined those boundaries. The previous system, which rewarded heroism and good behavior and nobility independent of political profit, was dead, as you cannot have selective heroism (“I’d save the day, but first, what’s in it for me?”).

When we look closely at what happened here, we are less likely to blame robber-barons or other captains of industry for what happened, as the movement was too widespread. What is more likely is described throughout history, and is obvious if one thinks about the problems of a specialized, stratified society: those of lower ranks, being only able to assess “base” actions, cannot appreciate the wisdom for their position and using their greater numbers overwhelm their leaders and take over. It is called mass revolt and it is the reward for leaders who make successful societies, as at that point the workers are prosperous and breed prodigiously, producing offspring who have never known want and thus are unaware of the wisdom of the aristocratic system (since they have always been fed, they see no need for a leader who can avoid the disaster of famine). To those who look at history on the ten-thousand year scale, it is obvious that mass revolt occurred twice, initially: first, in the assumption of economic competition as the basis of society, because economic competition is a dumbing-down and thus popularist interpretation of the factors that previously allowed people to ascend to aristocracy; second, in the response to the society economic competition created, which within a few generations became dominated by predatory industrial interests which had so much power they literally ruled the lives of the workers (yes, Virginia, mass revolt is a “base” action, and thus over time always creates a nightmare dominated by parsaites). Unfortunately, the divisions established by this time period have continued into the present day.

The most visible political response to the oppressive conditions of the worker was Marxism, which presupposed that if workers were made equal under the governing sight of a strong central government with “ethical” scientific aims, life would be made better for the worker. Discussion of its failing is a topic beyond the scope of this article, but for the sake of argument, consider that it is possible that two things doomed it: political thinking and population quality. First, because it created ideological regimes in which everyone was important, any one person could destroy another with accusations that they (a) were secretly opposed to the ideology or (b) had infringed on the rights or dignity of another worker. Second, in a “flat” hierarchy of society, there is no reward for achievement among the normal ranks of society; some great inventors and athletes get wealthy, as in Capitalist societies, but everyone else lumps it and is rewarded equally. Population quality decline meant that soon competence was hard to find; Communist societies, being extreme ideological revolutionaries, also tended to execute dissidents, the educated, the wealthy and others who might not agree with Communism, which is why Russia almost overnight went from a Eurasian country with a European ruling caste to a Eurasian country ruled by despots. Marxism created a world revolution of workers, but in doing so destroyed the possibility of anyone rising above that state.

In response to Marxism, far-thinking people in Europe attempted to resurrect the values of a time before the first mass revolt, which required something to motivate people other than economics. They settled on Nationalism, which had previously referred to government of people as an organic body united by language, heritage and culture. Nationalism was a motivation outside of money; it was ideologically inclined toward doing what was best for the whole, through aristocracy; it pointed out that workers had a greater connection to the health of their local society than to some global movement for workers – notorious for being horrible at governing themselves, much less each other – to rule the world. In order to establish this, they had to find clear allegiances for their kingdoms, and in doing so, they triggered the rearrangement of political boundaries to fit ethnic-cultural populations, and thus sparked the conflict that became World War I and, finding no resolution there, went overtime with World War II. During the latter, the most powerful Nationalist entity to ever be created rose in Germany, then the most educated nation on earth: National Socialism, or Nazism. It was a modern political system based on the values of the old, and rose far above the democracies of its time before their greater wealth in natural resources wore it down.

During the years since WWII, Western societies have become increasingly inclusive. Their doctrine now is that if one can earn the money to support it, one has the right to live whatever lifestyle one desires. The concepts of “racism” and “multiculturalism” are both postwar, the former referring to anyone who recognizes racial differences at all and the second to the concept of a society in which people of multiple races, cultures, castes and philosophical outlooks (“lifestyle”) share the same country and govern it through liberal democracy. The modern West, as led by the USA, seeks to portray itself as opposed to both Nazism and Communism, and therefore, argues for its own value on the basis of its “freedom,” multicultural fairness, and economic strength, all of which are flagging at the time of this writing. Unlike past societies, the United States is virtually unified in this outlook, and, although people adopt political views that seem at odds with one another, very few take on one that even opposes this basic outlook at all. This in turn leads us to the topic of this essay.

White Nationalists, or those who wish to apply Hitler’s theory of National Socialism to one entire race and not just the German people, spend a good deal of time making disparaging comments about normal people and how they are unwilling to simply see the truth and become White Nationalists. While the reason they commonly give, that most people are brain-dead television sheep who cannot envision and refuse to care for the future, is correct when applied to the majority of the people in our society, it fails to recognize that this majority have little or no impact over the running of the nation outside a few token votes and their tendency to buy products seen on television. There is a small group, probably about 40% of the white people in America, who actually get things done: start companies, fix things, write things, design things, teach functional classes like science, math, and history. This group are best referred to as a “Silent Majority” because, even though they do not have numerical majority, they constitute the majority of people who do anything effective. Their viewpoint is actually not unfriendly to the ideas that cause people to be White Nationalists, but the Silent Majority will never want to be White Nationalists.

In fact, while the press rails against White Nationalists, and the ADL cries out about them, the Silent Majority are harder to fool. They simply want no part of White Nationalists, and view them as ineffective losers whose movement blusters on without solutions, plans or anything except the same ranting propaganda and “hate rock.” Further, they recognize that in terms of applying the ideology of National Socialism, the White Nationalists are actually farther away from it than the Boy Scouts are. To a person who is accustomed to being effective, and working in the real world, the White Nationalist movement seems like a violent emotional outburst without any content. There is no answer to “How would a WN society work?” except that it would be exactly like our current society, except all-white. Silent Majority types laugh at this, because they recognize that our current society either needs to be entirely revamped, or shouldn’t be interfered with at all, because right now it allows those who are more competent to rise if they don’t mind fighting it out in the world of business which, while it sucks, is preferrable to fighting it out in a class war revolution.

Furthermore, Silent Majority types are used to working with people and diagnosing their motivations. To a savvy entrepreneur or problem solver, the clubhouse rhetoric about “saving the white race” seems to be hiding something else, and a quick look into the demographics and motivations of White Nationalists provides it. Those who claim they are saving the white race are by definition clearly identifying themselves as white, or “Aryan,” as the case may be, and therefore gain access to a group that was previously exclusive to them. Furthermore, by claiming they are doing the one right course of action, they suggest that the rest of us are in their debt, and therefore, that they’re not only equal to the rest of us, but should be leading us since they saw the problem first. This rhetoric is almost identical to that of revolutionaries worldwide, and it does not take into account the wide variations among human beings, but assumes that a one-size-fits-all wonderland is perfect for all.

Next, Silent Majority types look at the demographics of White Nationalism. While it has its share of Nordics, the movement has a majority of people in it who are from groups that, up until the early part of the last century, were considered far less preferable than North-Western Europeans, and in fact, many of these groups were not considered “white,” owing to their mixed racial nature and fractured cultural histories as well as quasi-third-world living conditions. Irish were excluded because the original denizens of that island were Semitic groups who became over time absorbed by Nordic and Anglo invaders; the Irish also felt the need to intake partially Moorish populations from the Southern part of the continent. For this reason, while many Irish have a mostly Northern European genetic heritage, throughout the population are Semitic elements. Something similar happened in Italy, which mixed extensively with Arabs and Asians especially in its Southern portions; Greek was inundated with Turks, and they make up a good part of the heritage there today. Slavs are Eurasians who have a fundamental Mongoloid influence in their bloodline, thus have never been seen as “European” in the same way Germans or the English are. Other groups that were accepted at the same time include Scots, Poles (mixed-Slav) and Jews.

What we have here, then, is a group of people claiming that all whites should be equal and should join together to commit racial holy war against non-whites, thus delivering us to a society that is a mirror image of our current one except that it is all “white,” including the mixed tribes mentioned above. Further, those who are involved in the quest wish to dominate this new society, and to exclude or execute those who have collaborated with the current society, much like revolutionaries have in the past. It is a revolutionary movement, not a constructive one; it wishes to tear down a hierarchy and replace it with a worker’s paradise, even if all the workers are ostensibly “white.” In short, it is racial Marxism, and it will prove as destructive to the Indo-European tribes as capitalist multiculturalism has. This is the reason it does not appeal to the Silent Majority: it would end their ability to separate themselves from the “base” rabble and achieve greater heights, therefore, White Nationalism is not the one roll of the dice we should take when reforming our society.

Among thinking people of course there is no question that our society should be reformed, and more radically than any White Nationalist has so far suggested. Our values became fundamentally rotted to the point where the first mass revolt could occur, and since then, we have been degenerating as a population even without the influence of other races. We are breeding people to have jobs, buy hot food, and then eat it watching television. Divorce rates are sky-high, drug abuse is rampant, STDs are skyrocketing, pollution increases yearly, our climate is shattered, we die of cancers at incredible rates, depression is on the rise in all industrialized countries, we spend increasing amounts of time manipulating a system that was supposed to be working for us, our leaders are cynical predators who use the image of truth to disguise a personal profit agenda; we are declining into a third-world state without the intervention of any other races, and while multiculturalism is a symbol of this and a failure of an ideology in itself, it is not the cause. The cause is within. We cannot blame others; we have to look within. And when we’ve found the cause, argue Silent Majority types, instead of screaming for vegeance we should find a long-term solution to the problem. Since that involves replacing economic-driven modern society with something that lives for values itself, and is a reversal of the steady decline of the last thousand years, it’s no small order. Not only is White Nationalism not up to task, Silent Majority types argue, but by the nature of its Marxist roots it will interrupt the healing process that is needed.

This reason alone among all is why normal, successful, intelligent people who are not sheep will not support White Nationalism. It does not solve the problem, and by claiming to, it forms a distraction from the more complicated and difficult work ahead. In a metaphysical sense, it is a form of procrastination. This is not to say that the Silent Majority disagree with Nationalism; most of them are from North-West European backgrounds for the most part, and would support a Nationalist party that defined America as a land of North-West Europeans and worked for the interests, cultural standards, and future of those people. This is because of all ethnic groups on earth, those in the nations of North-West Europe are the most similar, since all have an overwhelmingly Germanic background. Danes, Germans, Finns, Dutch, Swedes, Austrians, Norwegians, English and the like can produce a comfortable society here, because throughout history, they have represented the highest caste of Indo-Europeans and have the most in common culturally, ethnically, in values and in behavior. Within these groups there are now castes, and it would not make sense to mix these, but this does not happen for the same reason that fewer than 1% of all Americans have mixed ethnic blood: most people, unless they have become mentally unstable, prefer a partner from their same background, including ethnicity, caste, education and appearance. It is these stable types who tend to breed the most successfully.

Ethnic separation is second nature to Silent Majority folks, who have realized for years that multiculturalism is a failure which will saddle the richer people in this nation with the fortunes of those who cannot help themselves and never will. When people on television say “Multiculturalism,” the Silent Majority person usually thinks: stewardship. Us taking care of them. They do not bear ill will toward other races, nor think less of them, but have no desire to attempt to integrate societies with them. Silent Majority types know from experience that “helping others” is the proverbial road to hell paved with good intentions. If they cannot help themselves, what they need is a change of environment, not a handout. For this reason, Silent Majority people quietly view racial integration as a complete and utter failure like almost all programs of our well-meaning Federal Government, and would happily cut it free and let other races fend for themselves. Someone who is healthy never wants to see his or her children marry someone of another race; they want to see them succeed and produce more people of a healthy, consistent line. This changes somewhat when even effective people get brainwashed by television, but few of the ones who really do anything impressive have much time for television, and many more of them recognize it as the mindeater that it is.

While normal people will endorse ethnic separation, and those of all races might approve it if it appeared on a ballot tomorrow, it first needs to detach itself from racism. Ethnic separation says that we want to be free of other groups; racism implies that everyone of the favored race is magically better than all other races, and therefore, if it is of the favored race, it is automatically equal to all other members of that group. Racial pride is a natural and healthy thing, but trying to make everyone in the same race feel equal to one another is Marxism, and will ultimately accomplish what other races have been trying for years: by mixing in trace elements of Asian and Negroid genetics to the white population at large, it will turn it into a generic group which has lost its distinctiveness and genetic tendencies toward cultural values. The resulting lumpenproletariat have nothing in common, so will get their culture entirely from television.

It is important to remember that culture is something ingrained in heritage. Each individual carries within them a record of the decisions made by all of their ancestors, and in each generation, a branching occurs that creates a child specialized for a different way of tackling the world. Those that do not survive are no longer present in the bloodline, and therefore all future descendants specialize in a different direction. Germans prefer German culture not as much because they were brought up with it (the “nurture” hypothesis) but because it shaped their ancestors, and as a result, they have genetic tendencies to act in that manner (the “nature” hypothesis). Genetics do indeed rule our lives: identical twins, raised apart, live similar lives and pick similar mates. The children of genius parents are more likely to be genius. People raised in entirely alien cultures since birth revert to the behavior patterns in thought common to their original country. Genetics is our programming, and the programmer is natural selection, over many generations. When one mixes unrelated tribes or races or castes, one obliterates thousands of years of programming by forcing the recombination process to find compromises between many unrelated traits. This is why the sages of ancient Greece, Rome and India all cautioned against not only admitting foreigners (other races) but also warned against mixing castes; it produced people with the intellectual and physical abilities of the higher rank, but the “base” behavioral instincts of the lower, and thus most of those ended up being incredibly crafty criminals.

Some would even suggest that caste-mixing is the source of origin of the Middle Eastern peoples, who are known worldwide for their cunning in salesmanship and devious business practices, but are nowhere held up as paragons of social design or ethical virtue.

Racial Marxism would accomplish this caste-mixing and destroy our culture, thus giving us no reason to preserve ourselves against outsiders. At that point, nothing will unite us other than skin tone. We will have sacrificed what made us unique and distinctive for a political expediency that, despite appearances, will merge us all into one generic type of “white” human being. This is a common thread among class war revolutions, which wish to tear down hierarchies and replace them with equality on the presupposition that the human being educated in revolutionary ideology will be just as good as any other (“nurture”), while in reality, what happens is a decline in quality of humans and thus a collapse into infighting. Bad breeding plus class warfare creates massive downfalls.

The class war fanatics obliterated a healthy Eurasian nation in Russia and, after slaughtering as many of the elites as they could, bred its people into numb and dysfunctional individuals. Not surprisingly, despite emigrating to the United States and Canada, Russians have not shaken that outlook, because at this point, it is in their blood. Only genetic isolation and many generations of careful breeding will restore what they once were. The same is true of Italy, of Spain, or Ireland and of large parts of the USA where people have already become of mixed tribe and caste. One cannot undo a hybridization, so the only meaningful course of action left is to re-invoke natural selection and breed a highly refined version of that hybrid. Much as Nordics emerged from Negroes over thousands of highly selective generations, any tribe can breed itself back toward an aristocratic ideal, if it is patient enough. It may take more than another thousand years.

White Nationalists try to brush aside such suggestions by immediately claiming that all of America, and most of Europe, is already of mixed blood and thus lost, so we should just start over – with all whites being equal, of course! The truth seems to be that nature is more resilient than that, and has kept most of our genetics intact even until now, so what we must do first is not sacrifice that heritage toward some misbegotten political ideal. Our historical error has been to allow mass revolt, and thus to decide to forego quality in favor of quantity, and thus we have become a populist society united by a lowest common denominator agenda (money, television). As a result, the greatest threat to the future of whites is not race-mixing but internally poor breeding by which those who are content to have jobs and watch TV outbreed those of higher quality, and since higher quality is not recognized or rewarded, those people die out and are replaced with cynical, base behaving, crass opportunists. White Nationalism is working toward such a failure of a future; it is war by lower caste whites against all others, with the hope that if “we the righteous” seize power, they can dominate others who would naturally be ahead of them and thus achieve a worker’s paradise.

The proof of this can be found in the one-dimensional literature of White Nationalists. Where Hitler had an educated, complex worldview, the entirety of White Nationalist dogma can be summed up as “exclude the other races, they are inferior, but because we are white, we are superior.” It is a clubhouse. This is not philosophy, or even politics, but political manipulation (to be fair, it’s on the level of what these people see on their TVs from both major parties, who are as equally as inclined to doom). They do not have any long-term plan for changing society outside of this racial separation. It will still be a commercial nightmare breeding morons to work in slavish jobs, and it will still not be geared toward excellence, aristocracy or heroism; its goal will be, as in the current society, to please and not to rise above, a condition which produces a negative evolutionary influence.

Multiculturalism is without a question also racial Marxism, and it threatens disaster as well, because it is an insane concept based on the proposition that two things can exist in the same place at the same time and still be distinct. They cannot. Multiculturalism rewards employers by producing a massive proletariat who have nothing in common culturally, thus live entirely by what information they find on their televisions and computers; these people lack the time, experience and intelligence to develop or discover a philosophy beyond that which their corporate masters give to them, and therefore, will forever be in the thrall of modernity. Multiculturalism is crazy. No race should tolerate the presence of another among it, if that original race wishes to survive. While all humans can breed together, we are separated by thousands of generations of specialized evolution, which makes it a poor idea.

Further, if we are willing to tell the truth, we must acknowledge that no races or tribes are equal. Evolution branched, and now they are at different points, with different abilities and preferences. Home is where they understand you, and there’s no place like home, but most people will never experience home, because they have been transplanted into insane polyglot societies like the United States where the idea of agreeing to have a single set of cultural values has gone out the window, and thus all that remains is the lowest common denominator. That is the face of racial Marxism. First breed people into mush, then inundate them with whatever benefits industry and government, two parasites that like Marxism often enjoy pretending to be ideologues working “in your best interests.”

It makes the most sense to preserve individual cultures where we can, and in the mixed-tribal nations of America and England, to breed the best possible Northwestern European strain we can find. A horticulturalist would recognize the wisdom of this approach, as would an animal breeder, but not a Marxist: a racial Marxist will only feel safe when we are all equalized by the system, even if we had to separate the races to create that effect. Nationalism is the only intelligent starting point for our future, but it should be one of Nationalist groups for different tribes collaborating, not trying to create one generic “white” tribe for political convenience. German Nationalists can work with French Nationalists; America can divide itself into Nationalist parties for its unbroken ethnic lines, many of whom remain German- or Norwegian- or Swedish-pure for five generations or longer. Together, our Nationalist parties create a single front: a demand that we cease with economic-competitive governance and return to an aristocratic, tribal worldview.

Nationalist parties offer a shield to a number of ideas – aristocratism, environmentalism, racialism, eugenics, anti-consumerism, communitarianism – because these ideas are a part of the overall Nationalist worldview, which is that of an organic society motivated by an ongoing ideal; such a society decides what it will do, and then configures economics and politics to support it. Modern societies, on the other hand, are manipulated by their own economic and political systems and end up compensating for those and never achieving any clear vision or goals. While “White Nationalists” may enjoy delivering hateful ranting flyers to people who don’t want them, or repeating taboo ethnic phrases in public, Nationalists include race in part of a larger plan for society which will benefit the average person in more ways than simply making them part of a preferred racial group.

This approach is the only one that will handle the true crisis of humanity, including white people, which is our steady genetic decline under the influence of modern society. We have no cause except to work; we have no culture except our TVs; over generations, we are bred into pliant conformists who will never take a stand for something because it is “right,” even if it is not popular; they will always do what benefits them, regardless of its ultimate outcome. Our problem is the economic and political system that supports this. When we reverse it, we can again begin breeding quality people, and all of our racial problems will be footnotes to that fundamental question. When we change the way we govern ourselves, we can again begin breeding white people for quality, and all other issues will again make sense in that context. White Nationalism is an attempt to distract and find a cheap solution where one will not work; it is racial Marxism, and like all Marxism destined to destroy what makes us unique. Reject White Nationalism, but embrace Nationalism: it is the only solution that can undo the damages of the past and keep us moving toward a higher future.