Posts Tagged ‘western civilization’

Did Irish Immigration Shift America To The Left?

Thursday, June 15th, 2017

A consistent theme on Amerika has been the notion that diversity itself, and not the groups contained within, creates a loss of social order because standards in common are adulterated and social paranoia results. The resulting pervasive social distrust causes people to become atomized, alienated and to “hunker down” in their homes and adopt an apathetic attitude toward politics and society, which they view as lost causes.

If diversity is the problem, then diversity even among the same race is also a problem. American history shows us this is the case through the example of Irish immigration. We can observe this by watching through history for the process of Irish-American numbers rising as the integrity of the country fell:

35,523,082 Irish

Another group who joined the great story of the United States were the Irish and the great famine of the 1840s sparked mass migration from Ireland.

It is estimated that between 1820 and 1920, 4.5 million Irish moved to the United States and settled in the large cities like New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago and San Francisco.

Currently, almost 12 percent of the total population of the United States claim Irish ancestry – compared with a total population of six and a half million for the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland today.

Irish residents of note include John F. Kennedy, Derek Jeter and Neil Armstrong and 35,523,082 people call themselves Irish.

Irish immigration accelerated as the country liberalized in the years leading up to the Civil War:

Between 1820 and 1860, the Irish constituted over one third of all immigrants to the United States. In the 1840s, they comprised nearly half of all immigrants to this nation.

These Irish people were instrumental in sponsoring the Civil War, mainly because they disliked hierarchical Anglo-Saxon societies like the South and identified with “oppressed minorities,” with whom they shared a bond in slavery dating back to pre-colonial times, and also were distinctive because of Semitic and Asiatic trace admixture in the Irish bloodline. From The Daily Mail again:

Since laws already on the books prohibited people of any Asian origin from becoming citizens, they were barred entry. The law was revised in 1952, but kept the quota system based on country of origin in the U.S. population and only allowed low quotas to Asian nations.

The American children of Italian and other European immigrants saw that law “as a slur against their own status” and fought for the system to be changed, said Mae Ngai, professor of history and Asian American studies at Columbia University. In fighting for change, they looked to the civil rights movement.

…Speaking to the American Committee on Italian Migration in June 1963, President John F. Kennedy cited the “nearly intolerable” plight of those who had family members in other countries who wanted to come to the U.S. and could be useful citizens, but were being blocked by “the inequity and maldistribution of the quota numbers.”

In fact, the Irish had a long history of agitation against the Western European ruling classes who had made the country that Irish immigrants, whose fortunes at home had been grim long before the English intervened, now enjoyed:

Irish and Africans Americans had lots in common and lots of contact during this period; they lived side by side and shared work spaces. In the early years of immigration the poor Irish and blacks were thrown together, very much part of the same class competing for the same jobs. In the census of 1850, the term mulatto appears for the first time due primarily to inter-marriage between Irish and African Americans. The Irish were often referred to as “Negroes turned inside out and Negroes as smoked Irish.” A famous quip of the time attributed to a black man went something like this: “My master is a great tyrant, he treats me like a common Irishman.” Free blacks and Irish were viewed by the Nativists as related, somehow similar, performing the same tasks in society. It was felt that if amalgamation between the races was to happen, it would happen between Irish and blacks. But, ultimately, the Irish made the decision to embrace whiteness, thus becoming part of the system which dominated and oppressed blacks. Although it contradicted their experience back home, it meant freedom here since blackness meant slavery.

An article by a black writer in an 1860 edition of the Liberator explained how the Irish ultimately attained their objectives: “Fifteen or twenty years ago, a Catholic priest in Philadelphia said to the Irish people in that city, ‘You are all poor, and chiefly laborers, the blacks are poor laborers; many of the native whites are laborers; now, if you wish to succeed, you must do everything that they do, no matter how degrading, and do it for less than they can afford to do it for.’ The Irish adopted this plan; they lived on less than the Americans could live upon, and worked for less, and the result is, that nearly all the menial employments are monopolized by the Irish, who now get as good prices as anybody. There were other avenues open to American white men, and though they have suffered much, the chief support of the Irish has come from the places from which we have been crowded.”

This caused them to identify with the Other, even fighting against the Southern United States twelve years before the Civil War:

A little-known chapter in U.S.-Mexican history is that of El Batallón de los San Patricios or “St. Patrick’s Battalion.” In a nutshell, St. Patrick’s Battalion was a group of immigrants, mostly of Irish descent, who fought alongside the Mexican Army during the Mexican-American War (1846-1848). To provide further context: this took place during the height of Manifest Destiny.

The Civil War itself may have only been possible because of the shift in political attitudes brought by the Irish to the North, where they were a larger percentage of the population than in the South, which was more Anglo-Saxon and thus despised by the Irish. The political agenda of the North shifted as the Irish gained political power:

By this time, attitudes towards the Irish had begun to change. The Civil War was probably the turning point; so many thousands of Irish whole-heartedly participated in the war (they made up the majority of no less than 40 Union regiments), and gained a certain respect and acceptance from Americans as a result. And second or third generation Irish-Americans had moved up the social and managerial ladder from their early labouring work. Some were even entering the professions.

Of course, this was not the lot of the majority. In the 1900 census there were still hundreds of thousands of Irish immigrants living in poverty, mostly in urban slums. But economic circumstances were improving for a significant proportion, and the Irish, as a group, were gaining footholds in the workplace, especially in the labour or trade union movement, the police and the fire service.

Their numbers helped. The large Irish populations of cities such as Boston, Chicago and New York were able to get their candidates elected to power, so launching the Irish American political class.

This political landslide created a new form of politics based in opposition to the Western European majority. These new political entities emphasized strong government which handed out entitlements to its constituents, effectively buying votes, as had been the norm in places like Ireland and Italy.

In addition to the Civil War, Irish-American political leanings dominated the East Coast, which became a powerhouse for Leftist politics:

New York has the most concentrated Irish population; 12.9 percent of its residents claim Irish ancestry, which compares to a rate of 11.1 percent of the country overall. Boston, meanwhile, claims the most-concentrated Irish population for a city: 20.4 percent.

Trulia’s chief economist Jed Kulko put all this data on a map, which shows the heaviest concentration of Irish-American zip codes. He notes that “Irish-Americans are at least 5 percent of the population in most counties across the U.S., and 10 percent or more in most of New England, New York state, New Jersey, eastern Pennsylvania, and other smaller counties across the country.”

The Irish influence — along with fellow trace admixed groups such as Italians, Slavs and Jews — was so great that it created a backlash against the new Southern/Eastern/Irish European immigrants:

In 1845, a potato famine in Ireland, caused by a fungus that destroyed the country’s most important food source, killed a million people and left millions more hungry. Within a decade, nearly 2 million Irish had emigrated to the U.S.

Italians followed, beginning in the 1860s, in response to economic and political turmoil at home. Many were long-term migrants. Like many Mexicans today, they went home when they had made enough money and came back to the U.S. when they needed to make more.

Jews also began to arrive in significant numbers in the 1860s, first from Germany and then later from Eastern Europe, including Russia, fleeing anti-Semitism and deadly pogroms (government-sponsored attacks on Jewish towns). Between 1880 and 1924, a third of Eastern Europe’s Jews left for the U.S., with most settling in overcrowded tenement neighborhoods like New York’s Lower East Side.

As usual, the barn door was slammed only after the horse was long gone:

In the 1920s, Congress imposed quotas that sharply reduced the number of immigrants allowed in, and gave preference to Northern Europeans in an attempt to re-create the ethnic profile of 19th-century America.

Perhaps the greatest victory of the Irish, however, was in the 1960s with the election of John F. Kennedy, the first president of humble Irish origins as opposed to Scots-Irish or English aristocracy living in Ireland, who embarked upon a liberalization program that culminated after his death in the Hart-Celler Act which reversed the previous trend toward favoring Northern/Western European immigration.

This shows us a direct line between Irish immigration and the increasing liberalization of America. This makes sense because diversity causes an expansion in Leftism, mainly because minority groups must either accept that their origins were less fortunate, or blame the new majority and scapegoat them for the problems of the minority group. The latter is infinitely more popular.

Already balkanization is occurring, where individual groups retreat to small enclaves for their own ethnic and religious cohort, and like diversity, it starts within the white race as WASPs secede from the mixed-European herd as well as the mixed-race mass.

The lesson we can learn from all of this is that white diversity is as fatal as inter-racial diversity (sometimes also called multiculturalism, cosmopolitanism, internationalism or the “melting pot,” an extension of the “magic dirt” notion that we can make people into “Americans” through laws, economics and propaganda) and that as diversity fails, so will white nationalism as different European groups go their own way and separate from the others.

How Religion Shattered The Leadership Of The West And Let Leftism In

Monday, June 5th, 2017

It does not make sense to blame Christianity for the downfall of the West; the real story is more nuanced.

Christianity was taken up by the rising Left as a means of spreading individualism. Any religion where the choice of the individual to partake is considered a complete introduction to the depth of the faith will naturally become a vehicle for projection, which is why the Catholic church continued the Rabbinical tradition of isolating scholarship to those who had already demonstrated prowess.

This elitist viewpoint is called esotericism, meaning that it is based on mysteries and not memorization. Topics are seen through a qualitative lens that views them as having depth, such that their initial summary in language is a gateway to a series of cause-effect relationships and their implications. The more one learns, the more there is to learn.

Esotericism also relies on logical collisions to determine boundaries, instead of categories. The opposite of esotericism, exotericism, teaches through categories, where a single detail stands for the whole and is presumed to impart that characteristic uniformly to all objects within the category. This provides an easier method of thinking, thus a more popular one.

Logical boundaries on the other hand occur when the thinker looks into the depth of an idea through its extension to a logical extreme and the implications of that, in infinite cycle. This resembles the thinking of a chess player, looking ahead as many moves as possible by accounting for every potential move by the other player. In this view, objects have many details, and it is important to take the interaction of objects with other objects on a case-by-case basis, seeing how the details collide and coincide to determine the nature of those objects. This gives humans less perceived power through an easy method of thinking, but is more accurate.

Christianity suffered weakness because it was based on the Word. The Word first appears in the creation of the world, and then extends as a theme in the Bible through people accepting word tokens as literal truth, without having depth to work through, implying an equality of all people in understanding. This approach lends itself to propaganda.

At first this was an advantage to Christianity. It could induct and unite huge groups of people quickly, which is why the pagan faiths faded away; they simply could not compete. As a theology derived mostly from the Greeks, early Christianity conveyed a strong Indo-European philosophy. But its strengths were also its weaknesses, making it easy to take over from within.

Some claim the rise of Protestantism was part of this process, but it may have been resistance to the effect that having the Bible widely available in lay languages was having within Catholicism.

This upheaval resurrected an old conflict that had lain dormant throughout the middle ages. Before the preceding millennial turn, Throne and Alter had been in conflict as the monarchies of Europe found themselves needing allies during war, and in addition to domestic splintered politics, having to placate special interest groups. The Church too often played as a self-interested party.

With the middle ages, this condition was suspended as some parity was reached and Church and monarchy could work together. However, this was short-lived, as Christianity proliferated into different cults with the rise of mass distribution of the Bible, in part pre-dating the printing press as the supply of hand-copied Bibles accumulated over the years.

At that point, a new internal religious conflict began, one that would eventually give rise to the nascent Leftism of The Enlightenment™ and the Romantic period:

In Cavanaugh’s The Myth of Religious Violence, Cavanaugh presents a thesis which is radically at odds with received wisdom concerning the origin of the secular state. Citing the examples of Baruch Spinoza,Thomas Hobbes and John Locke who presented religious division[ii] as the cause of the conflicts of the period, he notes that this narrative provided:

…the backdrop for much of the Enlightenment’s critique of religion. There developed a grand narrative in Enlightenment historiography — typified by Edward Gibbon and Voltaire — that saw the wars of religion as the last gasp of medieval barbarism and fanaticism before the darkness was dispelled.

More modern liberal thinkers have subsequently traced the birth of liberalism to the so-called religious conflicts of this period, with Cavanaugh citing Quintin Skinner, Jeffrey Stout, Judith Shklar and John Rawls as exemplifying this narrative.

When a conflict of this sort arises, more likely what happens is that one party was neutralized, allowing some event to take place. The “fanaticism” of the medieval era was an attempt to retain balance between different power structures within civilization, because they remembered what happened to Athens, Rome and pre-medieval Europe.

If instead of viewing the religious wars as a conflict between religion and anti-religion, but a struggle for power within civilization, we see that an unnamed third force won: egalitarianism.

As Cavanaugh takes pains to point out, the institutional changes which were supposed to have been ushered in as a result of the religious conflicts actually presaged them. To bolster his argument he provides ample examples of conflict occurring between states with the same denominations, as well as collaboration between differing denominations. The most trenchant observation is provided by the example of Martin Luther:

As Richard Dunn points out, “Charles V’s soldiers sacked Rome, not Wittenberg, in 1527, and when the papacy belatedly sponsored a reform program, both the Habsburgs and the Valois refused to endorse much of it, rejecting especially those Trentine decrees which encroached on their sovereign authority.” The wars of the 1520s were part of the ongoing struggle between the pope and the emperor for control over Italy and over the church in German territories.

In other words, while the Church struggled against the kings, someone else took power. This became The Enlightenment,™ which had fortunate timing in that it caught the early years of the industrial revolution within a century and, because it perfectly justified unlimited growth and tragedy of the commons, replaced religion with the new mythos of the individual.

For this reason, “Christianity caused Leftism” is too simple of an analysis, just like “Christianity is the root of Western Civilization.” The root of Western Civilization is its people, but they depend on quality leadership from the aristocracy in order to be effective. We removed that, and now we are removing our own people so that it can never be reborn.

Remaking The West

Saturday, June 3rd, 2017

Born of a frontier, the West needs one yet again.

Europe was formed when the wandering northern tribes met up with their cousins who had been inhabiting central Europe and the Mediterranean, and since that time has continued with the northern tribes forming our elites. The seed of the northern tribes lives on in the Western European people.

They confronted a frontier in the founding of Europe: dark forests, wild animals, and predatory enemies all around. They survived not one but two great empires, numerous conflicts between religious forces and their kings, and invasions from hostile Mongols in addition to great epidemics that killed as many as a quarter of them.

In the New World, they faced a restless continent filled with threats large and small, as well as hostile tribes of Siberian-descended peoples with whom war, once hoped to be avoidable, soon become a necessity.

But with success comes failure, or at least, trouble. When the frontiers went away, society became complacent and focused inward on its citizens instead of directing its people toward purpose, and soon infighting erupted.

To quell that, societies adopted a policy of control, or political and social systems which effectively neutered its citizens and made them compliant and obedient. This weakened the stock.

Over the centuries, cruft built up in the form of assumptions, obligations, procedures and pretenses that were not in any way real but — because the most blatant nonsense is the hardest to argue against — were more enforced than demands of reality. Dead rules filled every book of law. Society took on many parasites, internal and external.

We need a frontier again, something to challenge ourselves with, and a purpose, or an ongoing but immutable goal. Now that we have hit rock bottom, it is time to dust ourselves off and rise again.

Civilization rebirth provides a frontier. It is rife with dangers, opposition and enemies. It stretches our minds beyond the relatively rote ways in which we live now, and gives us something to struggle for. It makes that struggle not frustrating and humiliating, like jobs or paying taxes, but inspiring and challenging.

It will make us better than we are now, and help us become to be again what we have always been.

How Donald Trump Is Emerging Victorious With An Alt Right Agenda

Wednesday, May 10th, 2017

Recently the controlled press foamed over the “leak” of an image of Steve Bannon standing in front of his “war board,” which contained a list of objectives for the Trump administration. As some commentators mention, it would be ludicrous to imagine that with his background in the military and business, Bannon would accidentally leak this material.

Then we consider that some months ago, the Leftist press was chump-championing the removal of Bannon from the National Security Council or possibly the White House, neither of which turned out to be actually true.

Trump is playing the media as he always has, by creating a non-event that they cannot resist, and then acting silently elsewhere. The media drones, realizing they have been played, save face as best they can by then under-reporting the real activity. This combination of trolling and action gives Trump the initiative with media and the Left — including most Republicans — playing catch-up.

Few people realize how extreme the Trump platform, which is like a Reaganite version of the Alt Right, actually is. He was elected on a combination of reverse identity politics, fiscal conservatism, and what most people are afraid to mention, social conservatism. While Trump is only nominally a conservative, he is a consequentialist, and respects results more than happy feelings and ideology.

As a result, it makes sense to place Trump as a moderate, meaning that he is not committed purely to one side or the other, but his realism controls the pragmatism of “compromise” and “bipartisanship,” which makes the goal to work with the System itself instead of focusing on objectives outside of the System, such as effects on citizens, civilization and the future of the nation.

He has found, however, that a deeply entrenched Establishment controls Washington, D.C., by forcing all participants to work first within the system, and secondarily only toward any kind of purpose. This is how government becomes, as our founding fathers and Plato both noted, a self-serving corporate parasite to the organic civilization beneath it in the power structure.

Populism, if it has any core idea, is based on real-world results for the purpose of strengthening the organic civilization instead of doing what works with the elaborate labyrinth of rules and influences set up by power structures themselves. In other words, power should have purpose, instead of serving itself.

This follows from the shift that Samuel Huntington noted, which is that civilization is moving away from formal orders based on the universality of human individualism, and instead is shifting to informal orders motivated toward organic goals like identity. Liberal democracy is fading away in a cloud of its bad decisions and failures to rectify the perceived problem of previous orders.

While he fascinates the fools in the entrenched politics and media industry with bafflement, Trump is working from the ground up, removing obstacles and establishing policy that will then be challenged, requiring its clarification at a higher level. Instead of trying to chip away at the top of the Obama house of cards, he is undermining its foundations.

In the meantime, he is generating headlines that are either misdirection of our attention like many of his Twitter messages, or show the US pushing back against bad guys who were emboldened by the weak Obama foreign policy. In doing so, Trump recognizes the truth of superpower politics: value of currency comes from strength not just in industry, but in international relations.

As his cover, he is using the Alt Lite style “cultural libertarianism” to provide defensive freedoms to the core of this country, which has always been its Western European descended stock, by enabling them to sidestep demands for more diversity, affirmative action and special interests like baking gay cakes.

Although the pundits both above and underground are shocked and appalled by some of his actions, like the cruise missile strike on Syria, it is slowly settling in that that act was a pushback against the imperial aspirations of other powers, and not an American policy of custodial intervention like the previous war.

Internally, he is focusing on the power he has to make lasting change. This will require not just administrative orders and firing people, but getting his policies set into law through the courts and eventually, legislative change. He knows this will be a long road.

So does the Left, which is why they are dusting off the Reagan-era script and embarking on a policy of sabotage and subversion at every turn. The captive Republicans are joining with them, because both Official Right and Official Left have much to lose if the goal becomes results in reality instead of “working with the System.”

Behind all of these actions lurks the motivation that the Alt Right shares: a sense, from Julius Evola, that the West has collapsed and we need to rebuild by defending both our people and the moral, intellectual and spiritual state of wanting to do first what works best, and to push aside those formal orders like Systems and ideologies that aim to thwart that goal.

While the hoped for wave of populist revolts seems stalled in Europe, this is mostly the result of central European addiction to social benefits states, and is caving as the many policies of the Left simultaneously groan into full failure across Europe. The Trump method, while slower and subtler, sets the stage for the next generation of renovation.

For this reason, the mission of the Alt Right — which currently seems to be languishing in political fatigue — becomes doubly important. The cultural wave must continue to clarify and simplify its message of removing formal and universal order, and replacing it with the organic nation and a focus on consequentialism.

Through these high level principles we can communicate a few general heuristics that people can apply at local and regional levels, seizing control of the ground more than the power structure, and creating upward pressure on that power structure while destabilizing it. In Europe as in the USA, many local and regional offices have gone to those who understand this imperative.

Our ultimate goal remains the same: restoration of Western Civilization through its people, the “remnant” who are not yet wrecked by our downfall. We will have to remove the bad while nurturing the good, and realize that all of the institutions we made have turned against us, and need to be reconquered and redirected.

With this in mind, we finally have the tangible path that most have craved for so long: a pincer attack, removing political obstacles while applying pressure — and incentive, to those who can work toward our goals — from below through a wave of cultural demand for a different type of society than the one in which we currently live.

Contrary to the negativity floating around out there, we live in great and dangerous times, and opportunity is all around us.

Conservatives Need To End Confusion About The Roots Of Western Civilization

Friday, April 28th, 2017

The big problem with living in a collapsing civilization is that by defending parts of that dying empire, you further its survival instead of allowing it to pass peacefully along and be restarted. This has been the flaw of conservatism all along.

For example, if your government has become corrupt, defending it in wars and paying taxes merely helps it achieve its evil aims. The more you try to fix it without scrapping it, the more it gains power to do more bad.

It becomes tempting to defend other things that, in a functional civilization, would be good. By doing that, you end up protecting parts of the decline simply because they are better than other parts.

In addition, people find inverse scapegoats, or “proxies,” that they cling to. These seem like good things, but by distracting from what actually must be done and absorbing the resources that need to go toward that, they become methods of self-defeat.

To clarify: it is not that these things are bad per se, but they are not the solution we need, and therefore are both a distraction and a fatal mistake.

For example, Fred Reed writes about the place of Christianity in the West:

Renegade Jews founded Christianity (most Jews soon wished they had not), as a sort of heresy that got out of control, lost all resemblance to Judaism, and eventually stretched across Europe, Russia, North and South America, Australia, and the Byzantine Empire. In all of these it shaped the culture, art, philosophy, literature, the very framework of mind. Much of this was superb and remains unsurpassed.

And what a magnificent thing it was! The traveler of today may have seen the gorgeous churches of Cuzco in the Peruvian Andes, Norman churches in Sicily, and Notre Dame, Salisbury, the wonderful cathedral of Barcelona, the Hagia Sophia, the ceremony of the Russian Orthodox. The artistry, the engineering needed to build many of them in times without structural steel are astonishing. Today in Mexico, in town after town one finds the churches on the central plaza, all different, many splendid, places of quiet and meditation. In any of these them, before Protestantism cast its drab cloak of half of the faith, a traveler could enter and understand everything he saw.

This is a typical conservative attitude — remember, they are the people of “patriotism, religion and working hard” (PRWH) — that ignores the fact that Western civilization was constructing great architecture and developing great art and philosophy for many years before Christ. Even if we ignore the Greeks and pre-Christian Romans, there are the Indo-Europeans who wandered through Asia and left behind many great civilizations, all of which display the things he writes about above, although most are lost to time.

Please do not mistake this for an anti-Christian rant. I love old churches, many of the Christian rituals, and the Christian sexual morality which was probably appropriated from the pagans but which modern-day pagans have not retained. Chastity and virginity are forces upon which one can build a great civilization by creating honest people and loving families. All those who want to destroy civilizations — I am thinking of Leftists here, and big business — oppose this type of self-discipline and honor.

As a traditionalist of the perennialist school, I view religion as literature. We live in one world, and reality has one truth, but it is described in many forms, most metaphorical because the metaphysical and eternal does not translate well into specific language. There are insights to be found in all of the great faiths.

However, Christianity has two big stumbling blocks. The first is that by being a religion of the Word, it makes itself accessible and exploitable in a way that esoteric faiths do not. The second is that, no matter how much of it was borrowed from European sources, Christianity ultimately has a foreign origin. This is not an anti-Semitic charge; it does not matter which foreign group did it, and we can even like and respect them as I do, but they remain foreign and so does Christianity despite centuries of Europeanization.

Instead this essay encourages those on the Right (realists who see a need for a qualitative approach to existence) to look at the Europeanization, and not Christianity. Everywhere our people have gone, we have made things that are both great and specific to us, capable of appreciation but not duplication elsewhere in the world, because they are an outpouring of our souls and genetics, two things that are linked because — like it or not — genetics determines much if not all of how we see the world.

Reed goes on to typical conservative “woe is all” thinking:

The future? Christianity seems to be dying out. A resurgence is hard to imagine. It simply isn’t suited to the modern world. The Old Testament in particular is ugly and immoral and its magical events I suspect are too much for the modern mind.

You might call this a victory for paganism. The pagans, believers in mystical events and an underlying order to all existence, have the same contemplative outlook that Schopenhauer praised in Christianity. This fits with how I define Western people, which is that we are reflective or prone to analysis not just of material but of meaning and pattern to existence.

Keep in mind that I write this as someone who finds great inspiration in many Christian writers and thinkers. In my view, they are speaking a different dialect of the same language we see in Greco-Roman, Nordic and Hindu paganism. However, paganism unlike Christianity is monistic, informal and idealistic or based in the idea of the world being composed of something that acts like thought or idea.

By targeting proxies instead of our actual goal, conservatives doom us to repetition. Christianity rode along with the West for some time, but its focus on personal morality caused people to turn their gaze from the future of civilization, and instead to focus on being moral for the sake of appearances. We cannot fix that; we need a more warlike, comprehensive, forward-looking faith.

Like the other parts of PRWH, religion is a proxy. We cannot save the West through religion. We need to simply restore Western Civilization, and while for now Christianity is a strong signal perceived to be Western-ness, focus on it obscures both our roots and the moral need to fix civilization at the same time we behave morally on a personal level.

Patriotism, the P of PRWH, also misleads us. It has us defending government and democracy with their inherent assumption of equality, which is contrary to the founding method of the West in hierarchy based on what is correct and good, not what avoids violating moral commandments. If you need a holy book to tell you not to murder, rape or steal, your civilization is already in freefall.

Working hard (WH) also misleads us by focusing on equality instead of results. Someone can utterly fail, but because he “worked hard,” he is praised. In addition, this retasks our brains away from the important question of what we should be doing toward the method of work itself, which quickly invents infinite avenues to distract us from reality.

What made the West great was its sense of social order plus our people. Our genetics are our roots. Our heritage is what makes us different from the rest of the world, and makes us alone capable of restoring the West. Any target other than saving our people, genetically, and restoring social order is a false target and thus, an enemy.

Individualism Destroyed Western Civilization

Wednesday, April 12th, 2017

For years, Amerika has identified the root of downfall in the West as individualism, or the idea that the intentions and desires of the individual take precedence over understanding and adaptation to natural order, logical fact and metaphysical reality. This form of hubris dooms societies to dissolution through lack of common purpose.

As the collectivized form of individualism rages on without noticing how destructive it is, others are starting to recognize how lack of internal solidarity destroys cooperation:

There’s no way the individually competitive white community would identify someone brainy and eloquent, then allow them sometimes to putter around into their 30s before there’s a payoff. That’s pretty much the life story of Bernie Sanders. He probably wouldn’t have become a US senator if he had to focus his energies on a 9-5 job instead.

…Extreme apex ventures like professional acting, writing, art, politics, academics, journalism are too risky and too expensive for atomized individuals to participate in. That just leaves an open field for a group that backs each other up and makes investments in developing their own human capital.

…The community support that Hamilton benefited from would be unthinkable in modern white culture. In fact, with jobs that pay even the simplest living now scarce, workers take perverse joy in someone like Hamilton falling through the cracks.

They love to waggle their fingers patronizingly and say “Look how I pulled myself up while that smart guy turned out to be a loser.”

Individualism engenders all of our worst behaviors, including the notion of linear history or “progress.” It is what happens when people no longer share ideals, and instead, each person uses the now-decaying civilization as a means to their own wealth, power and status alone, instead of making that objective consistent with the goals of the civilization.

When Western Civilization adopted individualism, probably as an artifact of a fragmented ruling caste, it took the path away from working toward an ideal, and instead went down the path of rationalizing human desires as the goal of the civilization. This facilitative and mercantile outlook removed the ability to do what is right and replaced it with an impulse toward convenience.

As we enter the final phase of collapse, we must dig deep to get to the root of our decay so that we can identify it and remove it. Otherwise, we will merely push it back a few steps, and it — being like all evils more fanatical than good — will inexorably advance until we arrive as the same state where we currently are, exhausting ourselves through repetition.

Focus On What Is Important

Tuesday, April 11th, 2017

Over at The Woodpile Report, the dominant theme for the future of Right-wing thinking emerges:

In the Middle East every step is a misstep. It can’t be any other way. Personally, it wouldn’t bother me overmuch if the whole place went code red and everyone with a trigger pulled same. Let the purists sob quietly in a corner, I care about America and western civilization, all else is either under suspicion or entertainment.

While the first part of this statement is rhetoric more than reality — nuclear war toxifies the rest of us with radiation, and the middle east must be managed or it becomes an even worse threat, either by itself or in the hands of other wannabe superpowers — the rest is pure gold, a distillation of what the Alt Right and other “original Rightist” types should be thinking.

Revisiting that statement:

I care about America and western civilization, all else is either under suspicion or entertainment.

Restoring Western Civilization is the name of the game. We know it has fallen because at the point where you get Angela Merkel and Barack Obama as leaders, your civilization has gone full retard and can no longer make intelligent decisions. Even more, we know that it has fallen because our people have stopped reproducing at replacement rates, a sure sign that they are miserable.

Even more, we can tell that it has failed because it no longer produces greatness. We have entertainment, not culture, and novelty and trends instead of profundity and continuous tradition in art, literature, philosophy, science and academia. Our governments are just beginning to encounter the pensions-and-benefits bomb that will end them, and our economies are reeling because we have imposed too many costs on them in order to drain money for our expensive social welfare states and diversity programs. There are no sane voices in public because too many things are taboo to say. It is over, and we knew this would happen, because democracy always goes out this way.

More disturbingly, something had to go wrong for us to get to the state where democracy seemed like a good idea. All of our great empires self-destructed, like the Romans and Greeks, and that alone tells us that people were thinking wrongly, maybe looking for what was convenient instead of what was right according to a natural order based on purpose and ability. We grew too fast, produced too many useless people, and then justified ourselves with The Enlightenment,™ after which point the individual was sacrosanct and any idea of cooperation, sacrifice, duty, familial loyalty, spiritual belief and culture was suspect.

In short, Western Civilization has died. This quote comes up every now and again, and seems to fit:

Someone once asked Mahatma Gandhi what he thought of Western civilization. “I think it would be a good idea,” he said.*

We can restore this civilization the way we restore anything else: trim out the dead wood and replace it, fix the structure so it is functional again, then clean it up and nurture it until works again. Like Bob Vila on This Old House, we might choose to tear down the ill-advised additions, put in the old pillars that kept the porch from leaning, and add some improvements if we can.

Forget America. As much as it pains me to say it, America has failed because it was based on a Leftist idea. You cannot have equality and a working society. You need a leadership hierarchy and a caste system. With democracy, you end up with internally divided leadership, which avoids the extremes of broken European rule at the time but compromises to the Left and dissolves in factionalism.

The Constitution is dead. It was a nifty idea that we could limit democracy. Forget it: democracy evolved and worked around it and now we have the exact type of state that our Founders loathed. Forget America as an idea, too; it made sense when it was a colony of Western Europeans, but once we let in other groups it turned into a non-culture, a giant shopping mall that will kill you for not being democratic enough.

This leaves us with Western Civilization. How do we restore it? Five percent of our society are “natural leaders,” or people whose innate competence leads others to rely on them. We need these people to understand what the goal is and then for others to emulate them. Then we need to take over and make changes. Any other methods can be ad hoc because they are not permanent.

When we get to the point where there is a cultural sense of Western European identity, a monarchic system with supporting aristocracy, a caste system whose higher echelons guide culture and consumer products, a resistance to socialism and equality of all kinds, and a sense of purpose again including that beyond this world, then we will be reborn. Until that time, we suffer.

Resurrecting A Western European America

Friday, March 17th, 2017

The media will never tackle this, but Donald Trump recently addressed the oldest problematic immigrant group to America: the Irish.

In doing so, he revealed the vast amount of of illegal Irish immigration to the United States:

Kenny congratulated Trump on his election in remarks, telling the American president who likes to talk about the victory, ‘You beat them all.’

But then in a coded message about the estimated 50,000 Irish living in the U.S. illegally, he raised the topic of illegals with Irish passports – carefully never using the phrase illegal or undocumented but talking about being able to ‘stand out in the light’.

…An estimated 50,000 of the United States’ illegal immigrant population is from Ireland. Another 34.5 million Americans say they have Irish blood.

Other than the obvious, which is putting the lie to the Leftist assertion that recent immigration enforcement is “racist,” this revelation evokes knowledge of how disastrous immigration by other than Western European groups has been for America. Irish immigration provoked corrupt politics, a mixed culture, increased instability and finally, a political revolution toward blockhead fundamentalism.

This reveals how much each type of European needs a different type of civilization. Western Europeans prefer the orderly and abstract, starchily dry WASP society that the United States was before it failed; Southern Europeans and the Irish like Catholic theocracies; Eastern Europeans prefer strongmen in charge, hopefully standing next to a church. None are wrong but none are compatible.

A sensible policy might be for America to re-assert a WASP identity as we set about rebuilding this failed state and replacing it with a working nation. We cannot do that with the “proposition nation” and “magic dirt,” including as applies to Southern/Irish and Eastern Europeans.

With the rise of a WASP America, 35 million ex-Irish would return home bearing new skills and attitudes, helping Ireland recover from the slump it has been in since prehistoric times. Southern and Eastern Europe, both struggling to replenish their populations, would similarly welcome those who have been living in America.

Right now most Western efforts involve hard denial of the fact that Western Civilization has failed. Once we accept that, we can clean up the mess, put everyone back in the right place, and reconstruct a functional civilization without the errors of the past thousand years. The next thousand years are ours!

Rise Of The WASP As Multicultural America Collapses

Tuesday, March 7th, 2017

We know that liberal democracy has failed and with it the notion of “one world,” or a single mass of humanity moving from primitivism to Utopia through egalitarianism. The endgame of Leftism was revealed, and the West has recoiled from the idea of going out like the former Soviet Union.

The thing about Leftism is that it is both seductive and addictive. People want a purpose in life, are drawn to it, and then use it to justify their life path. At that point, they cannot retreat without hitting rock bottom, confessing their addiction and taking affirmative steps to remove it from their lives. Alcoholism and heroin use are easier to cure.

As the notion of the human world order fades, and with it the positive reputation of Leftism and democracy dies a prolonged death, the West will face a time of balkanization, or breakdown into small tribes comprised of overlapping heritage, religion, values and region. Governments have been trying to hold back this process, but it is happening naturally as “birds of a feather flock together” and people move near people who are genetically and philosophically like them:

The concept of various Anglo-Saxon nations existing within the United States has been thoroughly studied by David Hackett Fischer in Albion’s Seed, and illuminated further by Colin Woodard’s American Nations, both of which have been the focus of prominent and further enlightening bloggers in the field of human biodiversity such as HBD Chick and Jayman.

…This concept is demonstrated in The Big Sort by Bill Bishop. Bishop argues that Americans are segregating themselves into like-minded geographic regions at increasing rates with the onset and ease of long-distance travel. Basically, the various Anglo-Saxon regions are more strongly becoming themselves.

…A recent (2017) study conducted by Han et al. divides the modern United States into genetic clusters of shared ancestry, revealing a map which is incredibly similar to the American nation as delineated by culture. Culture truly is a genetic construct.

The Old Inheritance clarifies the American meaning of Anglo-Saxon further as meaning those of Western European heritage who who folded themselves into the very similar — Western European cultures are more similar than different — English-style society:

The writer, Hengest, seems to be using the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ in a rather inclusive way, to describe British Isles people generally, a practice which I see is now becoming more widespread. However as I like to point out, most British people of Celtic origin (Welsh, Scots, and Irish), emphatically state they are not of English/Anglo-Saxon origin, so it seems dubious to use ‘Anglo-Saxon’ in such an inclusive way. There is such a thing as an English nationalist, and if you encountered one, he would also tell you that he is not ‘British’ by ethnicity, but English, or Anglo-Saxon.

…The sloppy usage of the term ‘Anglo’ in America is akin to the usage of the semi-slur term ‘WASP’, meaning ‘White Anglo-Saxon Protestant.’ Many people of mixed Northwest European ancestry think of themselves as more or less WASP as they grew up English-speaking and Protestant, and maybe even grew up in the older American culture which was heavily English-derived.

This indicates compatibility with what Amerika has argued for some time: the founding group of the United States was the Western European, also known as the genetic basis for Western Civilization, and it worked best under this group and should be returned to them. The point is to preserve the unique genetic strain that is Western so that our civilization can rebirth itself.

Restore Western Civilization

Tuesday, February 28th, 2017

Out there in mainstreamland, confusion arises as to what the Alt Right “is.” That verb becomes deceptive because a cultural movement is composed of one thing, and headed toward another. The Alt Right is an aspirational movement but not on an individualistic basis; it is people of this time who desire an entirely different time, one opposed to the illusions we hold sacred now.

In conventional politics, this makes no sense, mostly because the Alt Right opposes politics. A civilization is free of politics until its chain of command becomes broken and internal fighting over power and wealth takes over. At that point, whoever wins the crowd, wins the prize… and so politics becomes a fact of life, infesting even interpersonal relationships far removed from power.

Complicating things, the Alt Right does not state conventional goals because it is ruled by principles, not tangible goals. We want health and sanity, which is what everyone should want as part of that whole adaptation to your environment thing. Those who would deceive you will convince you to target an intermediate instead, like “freedom” or “socialized healthcare,” but that is not the goal itself. It is more of a symbol than an end result.

Even more confusingly, the Alt Right is fundamentally esoteric, which means that it realizes the innate inequality of people in ability and in level of learning. We are not like organized religion or political groups, where a few symbols are written down in such a simplified form that anyone can get enough meaning to participate, essentially erasing any deeper meaning and creating a surface-level understanding that displaces all others because it is simpler and thus more popular.

Let us go back to the simplest of ideas: the Alt Right is a conservative (Right) movement that says what others cannot (Alternative). It recognizes that conventional politics have failed to address the actual issues of consequence and so are a threat to the survival of our society.

That in turn provokes more digging, like a police investigator, to get to the root of this situation. Most track it back to the 1960s, some to the 1940s, even better to the 1920s… but then we see the French Revolution, the Magna Carta, the politics that divided the European monarchy even a thousand years ago. Then we read Plato writing about a golden age thousands of years before him, where society was motivated by an aspirational impetus that was not on an individualistic basis, either.

And so we realize: the collapse of Western Civilization, the strongest human civilization that we know of, has been ongoing for thousands of years. Every year is a little bit worse, but it adds up to a big kaboom at some point, and that kaboom is going to happen in our lifetimes. Either a new civilization is ready to spring up from the ashes, or the kaboom leaves behind only a third-world ruin where beige people speak a simplified version of a once-great language, languish in poverty among crumbling monuments, and otherwise serve as an epitaph and not a continuation for that society.

The Right recognizes a general truth: the problem we face is ourselves, in that without discipline and guidance, we revert to our unruly Simian origins. “Talking monkeys with car keys,” as Kam Lee says. The Right has always stood for Realism; the Left has always championed individualism, or life measured by the human individual. With The Enlightenment,™ the Left won in the West, but it took another few centuries for that to manifest in the Left’s final form, which is a soft totalitarian state — enforced by economics and social norms instead of guns — where non-Leftist opinion is viewed as witchcraft.

On the Right, we realize that “progress” is always an illusion. History is cyclic, meaning that there is a state of harmony and a series of states of increasing disharmony until order is restored. For humans in the West, there is one type of civilization that works and everything else is an ersatz and inferior substitute. The problem is that these failing civilizations go to war against the core of what we are: our People.

We might refer to bad civilization structural designs as “inverse Darwinism,” meaning that instead of encouraging adaptation to our environment, they discourage it entirely by replacing it with illusions which are necessary to climb the socioeconomic ladder. Human society rewards what is against nature and logic through the mechanism of social popularity, which is achieved through ironic and untrue statements that actively defy common sense, such as pacifism, equality, diversity and so on. But these encourage people to believe that what they feel and visualize in their heads alone is more true than reality, and so comfort them, and whoever tells these handy pleasant illusions — a.k.a. “lies” — gets ahead, while those who focus on understanding reality fail.

Through this, society acts like a cheese grater against its own people, shaving off the good and throwing them away while keeping those that are compliant, simplistic, solipsistic and ethically neutral.

Alt Right participants tend to have some views that disturb the person raised in this Leftist, consumerist society. They acknowledge the differences between peoples, groups, sexes, castes and individuals through the study of human differences known as “human biodiversity” (HBD). They realize that inequality of ability obliterates the question of equality of opportunity or outcome. They realize socialist economics fail, but that capitalism needs to be controlled by some kind of hierarchy or it, too, becomes a mechanism of mob rule, just as democracy does.

And yes, they acknowledge race. To concern oneself with civilization and its future means to consider issues like race. We can see that throughout history, healthy societies have been racially homogeneous, where dying societies tend to be racially heterogeneous, and as the degree of the latter increases the society draws closer to senescence. This means that we disdain diversity, or the multi-racial state, and encourage homogeneity for all societies, regardless of who their founding group is. Diversity is death, nationalism is at least a chance for life.

The core of the Alt Right can then be summarized this way: Restore Western Civilization. This once-great promise for all of humanity has been aging and crumbling for centuries or longer as it has deviated from the moral (aspirational non-individualistic) and structural (the four pillars) habits of successful Western civilizations. We cannot avoid this issue and there is only one path to victory. Either that, or we fade away, which is both boring and ugly, and we reject that.

Recommended Reading