Apr 27, 2015

The Case Against 'Assimilation'

via Counter-Currents

Julien Rochedy
Translator’s Note: Julien Rochedy is the former director of the Front National’s youth organization (FNJ). He wrote this article after he left the FNJ’s leadership, remaining on good terms with the party, which he felt allowed him to speak more freely and critique the FN’s official assimilationist stance. The text gives some idea, beyond Marine Le Pen’s electorally necessary but potentially dangerous formal compromises with political correctness, as to what brighter people in the party are thinking. The title is editorial.

For years, I convinced myself that the best message to spread was that of assimilation. Several reasons led me to this.

Firstly, this principle had been abandoned by the others, the left and the right, who defended integration or even “inclusion,” that is to say systems leaving people of immigrant origin the privilege of conserving, if not the entirety of their culture, at least the pride in their origins and everything that goes with it. Nature abhorring a vacuum, there was here a principle to recover that could not be more republican to stand up for politically.

Furthermore, I thought that this principle particularly corresponded to, let us say, the French soul. France being a uniquely cultural nation, and the French not having, by nature, almost any ethnic consciousness (unlike the Germans, the English, Italians or others), we could only ask France’s inhabitants to respect a majority culture. This message, it seemed to me, not only could be understood and appreciated by the French, but presented in addition the – considerable – advantage to not be vulnerable, or very little, to accusations of racism which have always fallen upon the national movement.

I supposed that the French tree was capable of bearing new branches, and that, being in a desperate impasse, the best that we could do was to transform a maximum of people of immigrant origin into “cultural” Frenchmen, that is to say to take in themselves, the most that they could, a part of our civilizational heritage in order that they too transmit it.

This discourse of “assimilation,” with all the advantages it had, became the one Marine Le Pen chose to talk about immigration. It is still today hers, and, as one of her spokesmen for years, I spread them with her as soon as a microphone or audience was offered to me.

Today, I have to say it, I want to do my communitarian “coming out.” Here too, several reasons are leading me to this.

Firstly, even if I was tempted to think about it the least possible, I knew very well that it is impossible to assimilate 10 to 15 million people. The argument is banal but valid: We can assimilate individuals but not peoples. At the scale of these numbers, we are dealing with peoples, not with individuals having been transferred in host families. This has never happened through history, and given that the latter is, for us, our only true political school, we do not see how such an achievement could be possible today, especially as the conditions, were we even to try, are currently the worst possible. Indeed, French culture and civilization’s power of attraction has strongly diminished. We are alas not in the 18th or 19th centuries. We have given way to the Anglo-Saxon cultures for too long already, and, even though a certain number of ethnic French [Français de souche] have already virtually no more attraction for their own civilization, we would want recent Frenchmen to become Jean Gabins or recite Corneille or Racine? This seems perfectly improbable. And as in any case we have not even begun, for 30 years, with assimilation, we find ourselves face to face with people already shaped by their own culture. In short, it is already too late. Add to this cultures profoundly different from European cultures, because African, Muslim, etc, and you find yourself in an impossible situation.

Bottom line, currently, assimilation is a dream or an exceptionally difficult challenge. The communities are already forming on our territory, perfectly naturally. One million resuscitated black hussard,[1] svelte and severe, could do nothing against this. And in any case, we don’t have them. Therefore, the die is cast.

But as we are talking of “political messages,” let us come to that. The wiliest in the Front National no more believe in the assimilation of 15 million people than I do, but skillfully respond that such a discourse is useful to have. It reassures the French on their old illusion of a social peace guaranteed by a strong common culture, and could even have people of immigrant origin join the movement who have made the personal choice of perfect assimilation.

Yes, it can work, and incidentally, to a certain degree, it does work.

Nonetheless, I believe that it is possible for the FN to have be ahead of the game by recognizing a fact which will be an incontestable reality of tomorrow. In truth, because communitarianism will act as the social system in France – and even in the West as a whole – of tomorrow, the question which remains to be decided is that of its implementation: Will it be a denied and conflictual communitarianism or on the contrary an ordered one?

The political advantages of such a discourse are the following:

Firstly, it would be closer to realities and to the possible. Certainly, in the terms of “political marketing,” this is no longer really essential, but for he who would want to prepare to, actually, wield power, integrating in its software the truth and elements of the possible is not something superfluous.

It would also accomplish the recognized equation of what is already the case, namely that the Front National is the party of the French, of those who feel and breathe to be as such, and who are mostly, whether we want this or not, not of immigrant origin.

In addition, this message would hardly repel the votes of immigrant origin. Let me explain: I have been struck at how such a discourse responsibilizes and reassures French Muslims or simply French of immigrant origin. It does not demand that they become “perfect Frenchmen,” which they do not want to be, with rare exceptions, but allows them to remain what they are, organized, respected, on the only condition that they respect the laws of the country while not being in charge of it. In short, it would raise again the banner of the state above the communities, which would all be, as much as possible, encouraged to bear allegiance to it. We would then have Frenchmen, all reassured in their way of life, but working together for their own good.

Now, certainly, I will be told that this model is that of the United States. Yes, it’s true. Over there, in the archetype, the communities exist and live more or less as they please, as long as they respect the laws of the state and are able to serve it, in the cultivated awareness of serving something higher than them and which guarantees their ways of life.

It is not ideal, of course. But we are not fifteen-year-olds anymore: The ideal is behind us. We must do the best we can with the social conditions which are ours, and too bad if these now resemble the multicultural Anglo-Saxon societies. It is not our fault, it is so. If it had been up to us, there would not have been any immigration and all these problems would never have arisen.

In any case, what is the alternative? If 15 million people, no doubt 20 million tomorrow, will never become, all of them, typical Auvergnians and Bretons, we will have to organize all this a bit, whether we like it or not. If only in order – because we are attached to this – to conserve the classic type of Auvergnian and of Breton. There remains solutions of civil war, of massive remigration, or of genocides, but nobody, in the current state of things, by reason or morality, can propose such solutions. Given this, organizing with France in mind communities which in any case exist and will exist more still tomorrow, seems to be the only at once peaceful and salutary future-oriented solution. The rest is but illusions, anarchy, and blood.

PS: I add, to those who dream of “remigration,” that this can only be possible in a context of clearly identified communities. All of the examples of population movements in history show this.


1. This refers to the so-called “black hussars of the Republic,” the public educators who under the Third Republic (1870-1940) are credited with spreading liberal, secular and bourgeois values, and assimilating the regional populations (Flemish, Breton, Provençal . . .) to a single French national culture.

The Orwellian Creeps

via BUGS

When it comes to really scaring you, the old movies like Teenage Werewolf were not even intended to.

I was about as naïve as kids came even in the 1950s.

But when I took a girl to a drive in movie, even I did not really believe the girl with me grabbed me entirely because she was so terrified by the makeup they put on Michael Landon to make him look like a werewolf.

And I admit it, I did not grab her back entirely because I felt the need to comfort her in her terror.

Real horror is produced by writers like Stephen King or movies like The Body Snatchers, where the hideous monster is trusted by the audience until he shows just the slightest hint that he is really one of the Aliens.

The same sort of thing happens when you go from movie goer to interrogator.

You get the chills as you realize that the person sitting there who sounds so normal is actually a true psychopath, a person who could slowly disembowel you without showing any emotion about it.

This chill of realization is what I call the Orwellian Chill.

When Orwell wrote Animal Farm and 1984, he made the most hideous villains use everyday language right up to and after the disemboweling.

He had heard his Marxist fellows use the same calm language and then seen what the Stalinists made of it.

Then read The Gulag Archipelago and see how this harmless and idealistic language turned into actions that would have made Himmler turn pale.

Never again will you mistake the horror monger for a run of the mill speaker. When you realize what his language can really mean, you get creeps that even Stephen King can‘t match.

Never again when you hear the word “extremist” will you think of the speaker as harmless. Every bloody handed tyrant routinely calls those he is killing “extremists.”

This alien in human form uses words like “productive discussion” to give you an idea what discussion he feels free to stamp out.

And, as in all really professional horror dramas, no one around you SEES THE MONSTER!

All they see is perfectly normal people using perfectly ordinary language.

I don’t need horror books.

I get the creeps damned near everywhere these days.

Francis Parker Yockey: The Destiny of America

via Age of Treason

Listen Now

Over the past year I’ve invested many hours reading and talking about Yockey, especially what he had to say about liberalism and race in Imperium, his magnum opus. I dove into the effort with the expectation of finding important insights. Long story short, I didn’t. Not to say it is a waste of time to read Yockey, but there are other authors a White man can and should read whose work in more concise and relevant. For instance, I would recommend any of Kevin MacDonald’s work before Imperium. Even better, read Revilo Oliver’s short book The Jewish Strategy.

In my opinion the flaw with the view of liberalism Yockey laid out in Imperium is that he largely ignored jewish influence on European thinking and history. Most every White historian and philosopher has. Most still do. They either ignore the jews, or regard them as fellow Europeans. In fact, this is proving to be a fatal mistake.

Whites did not stumble accidentally into the ideas of liberalism. Whites have long been infiltrated, manipulated and exploited by jews, who have all along been more fully conscious of themselves as a collective, distinct from and in fact hostile to Whites. Jews have directed the course of history, and their own destiny, exactly because they have organized and conspired to do that – to the long-term benefit of themselves and the detriment of Whites.

Though jew rule still isn’t overtly acknowledged as such, it is clear enough that the jews rode the values of liberalism – freedom, equality, tolerance – straight to the top. At this point in history it is jews who command the levers of financial, social and political power. Jews rule mainly in mind rather than body, by literally defining the very morals and terms by which the governing bodies of nearly the entire globe operate.

In this short essay titled The Destiny of America, published several years after Imperium, we can see that Yockey knew quite a bit about the difference between Whites and jews. I think it’s worth reading because in the sixty years since Yockey wrote, what he describes as the destiny of America has become the destiny of the world.

The version I’ll read is from archive.org, which carries this introduction:
The Destiny of America is a short essay by Francis Parker Yockey in which he discusses the American history and spirit, the Jewish history and spirit, and how Jews have manipulated Americans and took power over America. It is possible that this essay, as professor Revilo Oliver suggests, is an extract from the manuscript of The American Destiny, a book which Yockey wrote but was never published because the manuscript was taken and destroyed by authorities after Yockey’s arrest.
Though Yockey understood the jews as alien he still accepted the jewish narrative portraying them as historically persecuted and powerless. He misunderstood jewish parasitism and aggression as relatively recent and opportunistic behavior, as “revenge” for their “persecution”. As usual, Yockey is quite disdainful of White “liberals”, referring to them here as “sub-Americans with defective instincts”, essentially as useful idiots for the ruling jews. This is a strong distinction from Imperium, where Yockey presented European “liberals” as rational masterminds irrationally undoing themselves.

Why Do They Hate Us?

via Radix

Radix Editor's Note: This speech was delivered at the 2015 American Renaissance conference. 

Why do they hate us?

That’s a question that was famously asked by journalists, presidents, and average Joes in the aftermath of the September 11 terror bombings.

Judging by last 14 years of pointless and costly wars, of sending grandma through pat-down lines and x-ray machines, and “freedom fries,” it’s safe to say that we never answered that question with a great deal of honesty and self-awareness. Hopefully, we can do better here today.

Let’s first break the question down. When I say “Us,” I recognize that there are many different people in this room, with varying perspectives, hopes, and dreams. So I’ll define “Us” simply: We think race is biologically real, and that it has tremendous social, cultural, and historical consequences. More important, we have a passionate attachment to our extended family, and the cultures and civilization it birthed.

When I say “Hate,” I’m not referring to a passing emotion, nor a maniacal contempt, loathing, or resentment we might feel towards an individual enemy. I’m referring to something bigger. I’m referring to the total delegitimization of the White man and to what is often called White Guilt—this feeling, so pervasive, that the White race and White racism are uniquely responsible for suffering and injustice in the world and, moreover, that White consciousness and White power are uniquely wicked and immoral. These ideas could be best summed by Susan Sontag’s facile remark: “The white race is the cancer of human history.”[1]

Sontag was a literary poser, but the sentiment behind her words is very much a part of the imaginations of millions or people, and has become a kind of implicit slogan of the unified Left.

The other day, a friend sent me a photographic essay from the hugely popular website Buzzfeed. A journalist, Isaac Fitzgerald, met with attendees at the annual Association of Writers & Writing Programs, which sounds like dorky and conservative gathering to say the least. Fitzgerald asked them to send a message to the “Straight, White Male” publishing establishment (and apparently Straight, White Males in general). Here are the results.

And they all looked so sweet. . .

In thinking about the “They” in “Why Do They Hate Us?” it’s tempting to focus on the kinds of people in these images, or the kinds of people who are protesting outside this conference. (You know the type—a furry and foul-smelling species, even among the male varieties.[2])

In other words, it’s tempting to focus our inquiry on “leftists,” “social justice warriors,” and “granola communists,” because they personify in our minds what White Guilt is and means. We don’t quite understand what motivates them, but, whatever it is, it certainly can’t be reduced to money or career advancement. They are “true believes,” which, in a way, makes them interesting.

But in focusing solely on this low-hanging fruit, we miss the big picture. We radically underestimate just how widespread and seemingly “normal” White Guilt really is. We overlook the “banality of evil”: those little things that go on everyday—which millions take for granted and act in our unconscious—and which are slowly eating away at our future.

For when I say “They” in “Why do they hate us?” I’m actually referring to everyone—to the vast majority of the population of the industrialized world. They “hate” us. And we know it. It’s why even the brave ones among us are afraid to show their faces.

Being honest about this helps us understand the immensity of the problem lying before us. Before we have a Left problem or a Social Justice Warrior problem, or a Black or Jewish problem, we have a White problem. White Guilt is, indeed, so pervasive that it’s difficult to pinpoint, or say where it ends and begins. For millions, who don’t want to think about White Guilt, White Guilt is thinking for them.
How does something this diffuse—this unconscious and unexamined—take affect in the real world?

As likely everyone here remembers, last August, a major story emerged from Rotherham in South Yorkshire, England. A report revealed that between 1997 and 2013, some 1,400 children in the town—likely many more—experienced the worst kinds of sadistic rape, beating, and torture. In the words of the BBC, gang rape had become “a usual part of growing up in Rotherham,” this otherwise quaint town with Roman ruins and a Gothic cathedral.

Looking into the matter further, we discover that the vast majority (if not all) of the alleged rapists and child abusers were “Asian,” which, in British parlance, means Pakistani, Arab, or Semitic, and, for the most part, Muslim. Furthermore, the reason this grotesque situation was allowed to persist for so long was that the accusations, stories, and rumors that authorities heard always involving “Asian” men as the perpetrators. The Town Council constantly avoided the issue—as if they were trying to forget a bad memory—because they feared being called “racists.”

In a way, the Rotterham case would be much more reassuring if it had been revealed that the Town Council were secret Maoist revolutionaries or Muslim Power activists, or just Satan worshippers or perverts—that is, if they were part of some dark conspiracy to destroy the White race. What makes Rotherham truly horrifying is that they weren’t. The authorities in the town were, to the contrary, respectable White people, who took their positions and social responsibilities seriously.

This story offers us a glimpse of just how powerful White Guilt can be. In our society, being a labelled a “racist” is, arguably, more damaging than being convicted of murder, for even murderers get second chances. That said, I never imagined that White people might actually prefer that their children be raped and demeaned than they be pinned with the Scarlet R.

So what does this mean for us, who are taking part in a conference on matters that some find worse than unspeakable sex crimes?

Among other things, this phenomenon means that we occupy an exceedingly strange position in modern society.

As the writer Gregory Hood remarked, we “racists”—as our enemies call us—are utterly powerless . . . yet we’ve got all the power. In other words, we might very well feel powerless, not to mention impoverished and other things, but that is not how we are viewed.

We are what huge foundations—even sovereign governments—have dedicated billions to combat—unsuccessfully! We are what rival politicians accuse each other of being. We are able, somehow, to sow inter-racial hatred around world, disrupting mankind’s natural tendency towards multi-racial harmony.

Our situation reminds me of an old joke, one that involves ethnic humor but which is actually beloved by anti-racists and leftists. There are two Jews sitting on a park bench on a Sunday afternoon. One discovers that the other isn’t reading the New York Times as usual, but is instead reading, of all things, a neo-Nazi pamphlet. When asked how he could read such trash, the Jew remarked that he loves this magazine: “It says here that the Holocaust never happened and that you and me control the world!”

Such a joke is, of course, misleading with regard to the status of Jews in modern America and the power of some Jewish organizations. But is this joke not perfectly suited to us? Perhaps we should spend more therapeutic Sundays reading the latest in Critical Race Theory?

Are our institutions underfunded? Have some of us lost our jobs or become estranged from our wives for our views? Don’t let that get you down. For, apparently, we have hegemony over the known world!

What this situation tells us is that, however futile our efforts might feel, when we do what we do, we’re doing something powerful, something dangerous. We are dynamite. And we make the rest of the world hysteric.

In case you think I’m exaggerating, I would direct your attention to the recent travails of little old me. In the fall and winter of last year, I was dragged out of a bar in Budapest by the police, thrown into jail for three days, then shipped out of the country in handcuffs. When I arrived back home, a social movement had formed dedicated to making Richard Spencer illegal.

In phrasing things this way, I’m exaggerating only slightly. The story, if you haven’t heard it, goes like this.

My organization, The National Policy Institute, was to host an event similar to this one—an English-language conference—but it was to take place in the imperial city of Budapest, Hungary. Jared Taylor was to be a featured speaker, as were other Americans, a Croatian, a noted Russian philosopher, and French activist. The Budapest event was to be something rare: It was an attempt, by all involved, to be “good Europeans,” to think as Europeans and try to overcome the ethnic conflicts and hatreds that have informed the last century, to our great misfortune.

From one perspective, our gathering would have been entirely harmless. The event was “just talk” and would have been attended by journalists, academics, bohemians, and other dreamers. But we clearly struck a nerve. We became dangerous.

As I was increasingly aware, our conference was making headlines . . . it was becoming a political football . . . and even launched a sort of “constitutional crisis” over free speech in Hungary. The event happened to be scheduled just before a parliamentary election, and suddenly, politicians were forced to weigh in on the “hate” that was about to descend on them from abroad.

And strange things started to happen. All of our venues cancelled. Also, through colleagues, we had made contract with a man named Marton Gyongyosi and the ethno-nationalist Jobbik Party. But suddenly, these contacts were claiming that they had no idea what was going on, apparently suffering from a bad case of amnesia. (I hope they’ve recovered.)

Things started getting crazy when we were denounced by the Ministry of the Interior— then by no less than the Prime Minister, Viktor Orban, who claimed that he would use “all legal means” at his disposal to stop us.

I was taken aback by all this, and I certainly considered canceling everything. But there was something that didn’t feel right about that. First off, there were some 150 people coming to Budapest from around the world. Conferences are really about meeting people and making friends, so why shouldn’t we all come together in a private setting?

On another level, I felt that our movement needed to stand its ground. And we needed to force our enemies to play by their own rules and follow through with their threats. If Viktor Orban was determined to act like a liberal caricature of a “fascist”—and demonstrate our movement’s resolve at the same time—then why should I stop him?

I should add that I was confident of two things: first, that the attendees would not be endangered, which they weren’t, and second, that, I was challenging the Hungarian regime of Viktor Orban, and not Béla Kun.

The rest, as they, is a blur.

The government sent a detail of a couple dozen police officers, some undercover, to track us down at a local bar. I was arrested around midnight, and the next 15 hours were comprised of bright lights, hard benches, and being shuttled between various bureaucracies.

I was forced to sign my name to documents printed entirely in Magyar; we were in Hungary after all, but this gave the proceedings a Kafka-esque quality. I was then told that I had been declared a “National Security Threat,” which made everything even Kafka-esque-er.

Jail is the experience of having everything on your person, up to the lent in your pockets, inspected and catalogued . . . being under constant surveillance by guards, even while you sleep . . . being served substances that appear to be mix of sawdust and catfood . . .

I don’t say any of this to evoke pity. In a way, I’m deeply grateful for what happened, as funny as that might sound.

A little bit of prison goes a long way: It focuses the mind. It allowed me to better understand myself and learn how far I was willing to go. And also crises reveal character. In other words, you get to learn who your friends really are (and aren’t).
When I arrived back home in the resort town Whitefish, Montana, where I live half of the year, I spent the next few months fighting a local battle I previously didn’t think was even possible. I had been under the impression that Montana was immune to leftists (that all those people had moved to Oregon or someplace).

But, low and behold, after the town paper reported on my Hungarian adventure, a local rabbi and his band of self-righteous activists came out of the woodwork. The group called themselves “Love Lives Here” and, much like the SPLC, their lives are based on hating “hate.” In October, more than 100 mobbed the City Council meeting, telling various tales of patriarchal and racist oppression and demanding that the local government “ban” me.

These efforts, as you might imagine, didn’t go anywhere. America is still a “free country” (or sort of); at the least, you are not allowed to pass laws against people you don’t like.

My enemies then decided to pass a much tamer resolution declaring the goodness of “diversity.” In a chess move that still brings a smile to my face, I publicly endorsed their call for greater “inclusiveness,” writing for the local paper and even standing before them at the City Council.

I’m able to chuckle at this episode now, but living through it was quite painful. Being the subject of a witch hunt means alienation. It means not being at home in your home. It means the surreal feeling of being on everyone’s mind: the suspicious glances or stares . . . the polite requests not to return shops anymore . . . the knowledge that nothing will ever be the same.

But enough about me. The real question is how we should make sense of all these threads. In the case of Whitefish, we see something all-too familiar: An almost entirely White community reacts pathologically to a movement for White consciousness, even to the presence of an individual who is racially aware.

For me, this kind of antipathy and hatred towards us should never be understood as a mere misunderstanding. We should never think that they just don’t understand what we really stand for, or we haven’t given them the best argument or most convicning data set yet.

To the contrary, their hatred point us to the nature of guilt, morality, the foundation of religion, and the things that makes us social animals.

These are very uncomfortable topics for modern people, who like to believe that they are past all that—that they are post-moral, post-guilt, post-shame. For them, religion is just another lifestyle choice, like yoga or the paleo diet, something one can try out, or not. They close their eyes to the reality that morality, guilt, and shame are more than personal; they are as much social forces, which demarcate hierarchies, boundaries, and power.

Sam Francis was deftly perceptive when he observed that modern people have not really dispensed with morality and religiosity, like they think they have; they’ve just rearranged them and swapped out the parts—while maintaining the same intensity. Sam noted that for Victorians the “great taboo” was sex. And they were, from the perspective of the 21st century, profoundly “repressed.” Sexual acts and identities that are now commonplace on television were criminalized by Victorians; or seen as the signs of insanity, or denied altogether. On the other hand, the Victorians would speak about the biological reality of race—not to mention eugenics and breeding—in frank and carefree terms that utterly horrify the enlightened minds of today.

Seen in this light, modern people have become Victorians about race; they’ve become Puritans about race. Race has become the very center of their moral universe, so much so that the Rotherham Town Council was unwilling to protect children, lest it violates that unspeakable “great taboo.”

We must also recognize that this morality of White Guilt would not be nearly as powerful and successful as it is if Whites didn’t, at some level, really believe in it. Put another way, White Guilt could not have triumphed if Whites lacked a special capacity for becoming their own enemy. This is the the manner in which White Guilt functions as guilt, that is, as a personal moral experience.

Any animal can feel shame. My dog feels shame, whenever I’m capable of actually disciplining the lovable creature. Caught in the act, he will assume the prone and penitent posture of a devout monk. Shame, however it might appear, is based on fear.

Guilt, on the other, is shame when one is alone. Guilt is shame without fear of a master, tribal elder, or public disapproval. Guilt is disembodied shame, internalized shame. Guilt is our ability to punish ourselves. And that psyche violence we inflict is what we call our “conscience.”

In a notable book, Paul Gottfried understood modern White Guilt as a skewed form of Protestantism, with slavery or the Holocaust replacing Original Sin. But in fact, the White man’s ability to inflict guilt on himself goes back much further, well before Protestantism, to the dawn of Christianity in Europe; indeed, it points to something eternal in ourselves.

In the epic poem Beowulf (circa 950 AD), the first great piece of Old English literature we have, the narrator relates,
That was sorrow to the good man's soul, greatest of griefs to the heart. The wise man thought that, breaking established law, he had bitterly angered God, the Lord everlasting. His breast was troubled within by dark thoughts, as was not his wont.[3]
At this point in the poem, Beowulf is alone, isolated from any potential public disapproval; yet he is troubled by internal “dark thoughts.” Beowulf’s concerns are honor and his standing in the eyes of God; but such feelings are, no doubt, antecedents to the “dark thoughts” felt by modern men and women who mentally tread on race and power.

Looking past Beowulf, we might be able to glimpse, off in the distance, another version of ourselves with another morality—one that is utterly immune to White Guilt, in fact, to guilt in general. There was a time in our history when we practiced what Nietzsche called “Master Morality,” a morality that is self-contained in a way that only an aristocratic morality can be:

We are we. We are strong. We rule. We are good.
And, on the other hand: They are they. They are weak. They are bad.

The greatest revolution in morality occurred when these basic, natural, unthinking assumptions were brought into question, when we began doubting ourselves and giving legitimacy and honor to the “Other.” Some of us might long for a return to that older Master Morality, perhaps in the form of an unthinking, affirmative nationalism. But I doubt anything like that is possible or desirable.

For one thing, we should not underestimate how our conscience—our self-questioning, self-doubting, self-loathing mechanism—has made us deep and made us interesting. And we should not underestimate the degree to which we will need our conscience in the future, to confront the great challenge of the century— not any sexual hot button of the contemporary Right but the question of how we can become guardians of the natural world and the creatures that live in it, and restrict our unrelenting economic Will To Power.

That said, we should also never forget that the Jews and early Christians who, at the dawn of a new age, announced that the meek shall inherit the earth—that the first shall be last—that the most pitiable are the most righteous—were waging war against their masters—their “Other,” embodied by Rome—waging a psychic, unconscious war of doubt, guilt, and pity.

In turn, we should not forget that there is a fundamental asymmetry to the White Guilt phenomenon. There is a difference between being sick with guilt—as so many millions of White people are—and, on the other hand, promoting White Guilt as a means of making your enemy sick and decadent.

Why do they hate us?

Secretly—and gradually not-so-secretly—our enemies are giddy imagining a world without us, just as so many Whites embrace their own oblivion. White guilt is the foundational morality of the global transformation we are now experiencing, what could be called The Great Erasure. It is a transformation of a world created and once dominated by Europeans into a world that features many European shapes and forms—democracy, feminism, free love, iPhones—but which is a world without Europeans in it.

In other words, “Sit down and let us abolish you.”

Opposing this coming world—and offering alternatives to it—is the mission of our movement.

In order to achieve this—in order to learn to fight again—we must rise and greet the dawn with a clear conscience.


  1. Susan Sontag, “What’s Happening in America?” Partisan Review, 1966, accessed April 15, 2015, http://johnshaplin.blogspot.com/2012/11/whats-happening-in-america-1966-by_8613.html.
  2. There is the possibility that we’ve totally misunderstood the people outside the conference hall: in fact, they are groupies and rabid superfans, who’ve come all this way to shout our names, hold up signs, maybe get an autograph.
  3. R. K. Gordon (trans.), Beowulf (London: Dover, 1992), 42. Quoted in Peter Frost, “The Origins of Northwest European Guilt Culture,” Evo and Proud, accessed April 15, 2015, http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2013/12/the-origins-of-northwest-european-guilt.html.

Cultural Marxism Takes the Offensive

via traditionalRight

After a period of quiescence, cultural Marxism is again on the attack. It is advancing on at least three fronts: racial, sexual, and religious. In every case, its target is Marcuse’s hated “reality principle”, which is to say everything that enables society to function. As the cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt School repeatedly stated, their ideology’s goal is “negation”, i.e., bringing everything down. The farther society can be pushed away from reality, the greater the dimensions of its collapse.

On the racial front, the cultural Marxists are trying to make every instance in which a cop shoots a black a crime–with the police officer the criminal. Because the black rate of violent crime is twelve times the white rate, cops often finds themselves facing young black males who either are carrying a gun or, from the cop’s knowledge, are likely to have one. The cop’s life is on the line. But now, even if the black is both a criminal and armed, the cop’s job and maybe his freedom are at risk if he shoots. He is put in an impossible position, thereby bringing about the “negation” cultural Marxism seeks. The cops, who are both symbols and bringers of order, are paralyzed and disorder spreads. “Negative dialects” take another step forward.

On the sexual front, we see both on college campuses and in our military another push for “negation.” The feminists, who are now wholly subsumed in the cultural Marxists, first demand young men and young women be intimately mixed. Colleges have coed dorms and women will soon be serving on submarines. Any attempt to separate the sexes is labelled “discrimination”. Equality is falsely defined as interchangeability even as science finds more and more differences between the male and female brains. Then, having put young men and young women cheek by jowl, cultural Marxism says, “Now now, no bunga-bunga.” When hormones have their way, as they will, the man (never the woman) is guilty of “sexual assault” or even “rape”. Earlier generations know that if you want to prevent young people from having sex, you have to separate them. The cultural Marxists know that too, but if your goal is to destroy a society, you want to force actions that lead to dysfunction, i.e., “negation”.

On the religious front, a growing number of Christian business owners are being ordered to burn incense to the Emperor, on pain of death of their business. Cultural Marxism’s substitute for the Roman Emperor is gay “marriage”, which is impossible; it is simply not what the word means. But any Christian businessman or woman who refuses to sell products or services to gay “weddings” risks being hauled into court. If you are a believer and a business owner, you are now to be denied freedom of conscience. You must participate in a rite Christianity (and Judaism and Islam) say is sinful. When Indiana recently tried to offer Christians a very modest level of protection, the whole Establishment came down on it. The state’s Republican governor did what Republicans usually do and caved.

In all of this, we see cultural Marxism is the worst of all possible Puritanisms: it is Puritanism without God and without virtue. One might go so far as to call it Puritanism against God and against virtue, since its Frankfurt School founders were atheists (all good Marxists must be) and they embraced Nietzshe’s “transvaluation  of all values”, which means the old virtues become sins and the old sins become virtues. Christians who follow the commands of their faith are sinners and active homosexuals are paragons of virtue. Black is white and down is up.

How can we fight this? By reveling what is behind it, the little man behind the curtain. It is a variant of Marxism, not Marxism-Leninism, nor classical economic Marxism, but Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. Once the average American finds that out, learns about the Frankfurt School and understands its goal is “negation”, which means destroying everything, it will be in trouble. Cultural Marxism can only succeed so long as its real nature and goals are largely unknown. It’s time to turn on the light and make the roaches run.

My Kind of 'Big Tent' Approach

via Koinen's Corner

If you haven't already, please check out the previous post and the comment and question posed by Katana.

Good question.  Why don't writers like Jared Taylor and Fred Reed 'name the Jew'?  I don't know the answer(s).  About the best I could say would be '...well, we will just have to ask them.'  But wait a minute -- we have already done that, and their answers are what seem to bother Katana (and me, and a lot of other White Nationalists).  We have all noticed that when we do get some discussion of this issue from them, something just doesn't seem right.  At best, and giving them the benefit of the doubt, they seem to be giving us just part of the answer, and there does always seem to be some disingenuousness wafting through the air.

I agree that this apparent deceit, even possible subterfuge, is a little bothersome and worrisome.

I do think the answer is complicated, and most likely a combination of one or more of the following:

1) They are disinformation agents working for organized Jewry -- deliberately doing the work of the Jewish deceivers, in some cases by covering up the nefarious work of the Jews, or leading White readers away from the Jewish involvement in all the past and present anti-White goings-on.

2)  They realize that we Whites ourselves are largely to blame for our problems (subservience to the colored underclasses, cultural destruction, racial suicide and genocide, etc.) as a result of our naivety, greed, lust for political power, ignorance and/or stupidity, laziness/carelessness/callousness toward our fellow White people, or just general altruistic soft-headedness.  And understandably, in their minds, that awareness tends to absolve the Jews of much of the guilt they obviously deserve (so they refuse to give the proper credit, or weight, to the Jews' efforts).

3) Their having Jewish friends or associates that come across as being good, productive people; their having had positive experiences with Jews; their knowing of the good work of Jews that has benefited mankind.  Understandably, that clouds their judgement.

4) They have just been overwhelmed mentally, since they were little children, by pro-Jewish propaganda and lies of Jewish innocence, victimhood, and suffering (such as the holocaust-hoax nonsense); and they cannot escape that mentality that has been pounded into their heads by schools (teachers), churches, parents, etc.  All of which has driven them to form the wrong conclusions and opinions as regards this issue, in spite of the fact they are racially aware and generally savvy people socially and politically.

5) They simply don't recognize the concept of 'organized Jewry,' or understand the 'complicit and culpable Jew' concept:  Jewish financial power; influence over and even control of the press and entertainment media; control of finance and banking; disproportionate influence as regards elections/politics/government/foreign policy and in particular Neocon/Zionist warmongering; excessive influence in public education and higher academia; and intensely tribal networking and in-group cooperative skills.  They just don't 'get' the way nearly all Jews, if not personally and actively involved in nefarious anti-White activities, contribute to and financially support those activities with their money, labors, and networking skills.

6) That denial of Jewish guilt allows them to maintain a socially acceptable degree of respectability (as Jews define it and as people like Taylor and Reed seem to perceive it); and by doing that they avoid being lumped in with the anti-Semitic outcasts of contemporary society and becoming associated with the hard-core neo-Nazis and the like.  All of which is very important when it comes to their popularity and success as writers and in other endeavors.  Thus, their soft stances on Jewish culpability and their denials of Jewish anti-White lethality are most likely just strategic in nature.

I personally don't think reason No. 1 is the only, or even the main motivation for either Taylor or Reed when it comes to the Jewish question -- but I could be wrong about that -- it is certainly a possibility.  Their thinking might be tempered to some extent by suggested reasons No. 2-5, but it is hard for me to believe intelligent and sophisticated men such as Taylor and Reed genuinely and sincerely are overly influenced by those factors.  I would suggest that reason No. 6 is a major reason they have taken their questionable positions on this issue.

In any case, I have chosen to post links to some of their work from time to time, sometimes annotating my 'spintros' with a brief comment pointing out their 'errors of omission' as I see it (even though it might seem that these kinds of writers do run some defensive plays for the Jews on occasion).  And as the reader will note, I have even included Taylor's American Renaissance on my blogroll.

We need to keep in mind too that there are other good writers that for whatever reason avoid pointing to the elephant in the room -- people such as Pat Buchanan and Paul Craig Roberts come to mind.

Another consideration when deciding whether or not to use the work of certain writers, websites, and organizations in the effort to wake up more of our people -- we must remember that a reluctance to 'name the Jew' (or a deliberate, calculated intention not to do that) is not the only problematic trait we need to be aware of and keep our eye on.

A case in point -- we have some race mixers that write and publish some very good White Nationalist-oriented material -- writers such as Fred Reed (who would seem to have two strikes against him from the 'purist' standpoint -- yes, he is married to an 'Hispanic' lady, and lives in old Mexico) and John Derbyshire with his Chinese wife.

In Reed's case, it might even get worse -- his thinking and writing might possibly be even further compromised.  I have read (but have not attempted to verify) that his Latina wife has some Jewish heritage.  Some of his writing has, in my opinion, been a little disingenuous in extolling the supposed positive qualities of Mexicans and other Latin Americans, and failed to make an adequate distinction between the general character and abilities of the mestizo majority and the more European, less mongrelized upper classes of predominately Spanish and Portuguese extraction.  I can't help but wonder if he really thinks that the racially alien mestizo invaders from south of the border do not pose a potentially devastating threat to the future of our traditionally White society, culture, and nation?  While I really enjoy and appreciate most of his work, and have linked to some of his essays in the past, that may be why I have been reluctant to link to his 'Fred on Everything' blog in my blogroll.

Going even beyond that -- we do have some (guardedly) 'good Jews' (in my opinion, and if such a thing is possible) (or at least tolerable Jews who do some good work) -- men who produce some very enlightening and educational writings and who resist the agenda of organized Jewry -- men such as Benjamin Freedman (of years gone by), Brother Nathanael Kapner, Gilad Atzmon, Mordechai Vanunu, Norman Finkelstein, Henry Makow, and David Cole.  I have no problem linking to some of their posts from time to time, and have even included Kapner's and Makow's websites in my blogroll.

We even have some good writers who are at least borderline White Nationalists but are also reputed to be homosexuals.  I generally try not to spend too much time thinking or worrying about that, although I find the thought repugnant and kind of shudder-worthy.

The bottom line for me:  So long as these people provide good information that is generally enlightening for White people, both the hitherto unaware and the racially conscious and Jew-wise, and is helpful to the White Nationalist cause; and as long as I do not see any effort on their part to deliberately mislead or deceive their readers; I have no problem contributing in my small way to the propagation of their work when it is amenable to our cause -- helpful in waking up and informing our people.  That said, I do think we need to be constantly aware of their 'problems,' as it were, and we should not hesitate to point them out in introductory remarks when appropriate (we should always be sure that our readers are fully aware of the situation and any 'red flags' that might be fluttering in the breeze).

White Man: Why Are You Giving Away Your Country? -- An 'Hispanic' Student Wants to Know

via America Renaissance

As a child in public schools and now as a graduate student in history, I have learned one thing to be true about the United States: It is a white country. The founders were white, white men established its core principles and political system, and white men and women built the nation into what it is today.

Even before I became aware of the importance of race, I never thought this was “racist” or unfair; it was simply a fact. America has always been a white country and always should be. Why, then, are white people giving away their country?


Immigration and assimilation

My maternal great-great grandfather had a saying in Spanish about the immigrants who began coming to the United States after the 1960s. In English it would be: “Their stomachs are in America, but their hearts are in Mexico.” This perfectly sums up the attitudes of immigrants from most Third-World countries.
Immigrants are pouring into the United States, not for the American dream, as many politicians, both Democrat and Republican, like to say. They are coming to exploit our economy, with no intention of embracing the culture, adopting the language, or considering themselves American. When asked, most will say they are proud Hondurans or proud Nigerians–proud nationals of the country they came from.

American Dream

When I lived for a time in a border city, I saw how many American citizens were really nothing more than anchor babies, born in the U.S. but living in the neighboring Mexican city their wholes lives. They had American birth certificates, but they were wholly Mexican. They had no allegiance to this nation; their stomachs were in America, but their hearts were in Mexico.

Unchecked immigration should by far be white America’s most urgent concern, but for white politicians, getting elected to another term is more important than securing a future for whites. Both liberal and “conservative” white politicians and pundits take a soft stance on immigration, careful not to offend anyone or to appear “racist.”

Only whites are afraid of being called “racist.” The Japanese don’t care what non-Japanese think of their immigration policy, and Mexico does not hesitate to deport Central Americans. Only in white countries are people afraid of name-calling.


Whites continue to elect politicians who do not represent them. As a Hispanic, I cannot understand this. There is not one white congressman in Washington today who actually looks out for whites, at least not openly.

If I were a Hispanic activist or a member of La Raza, I could run as a pro-Hispanic candidate, exclusively on the issues and concerns of the Hispanic community. I would probably win, especially if I lived in a border city or border state. However, if a white wanted to fight for the issues and concerns of white people, he would be branded a “white supremacist.”

The double standard in American politics is obvious. White politicians have to represent everyone of every race, but non-white politicians can openly represent only their own people. No one seems to find this strange or unfair.

So I repeat my question to you, white people: Why do you continue to vote for moderate Republicans and “conservatives” when they do not care about you? The average American politician would much rather win an election with a million Hispanic or black votes and zero white votes rather than lose with ten million white votes and not a single non-white vote.

Some white Americans still hold the belief that mainstream conservatives will one day advocate for white interests, but the truth is that politicians will continue to pander to non-whites, particularly Hispanics. Politicians do not care about your vote; they care about my vote. Your vote will matter only if you start running pro-White politicians who are willing to fight the establishment.



Culture sets nations apart and gives its people an identity. The European-influenced culture of the United States is disappearing under the weight of immigration. Indeed, America is experiencing a rapid Hispanicization.

You white people now have two options: You can go along with Hispanicization and eventually become a minority whose ancestral culture is erased and replaced, or you can stop Hispanicization and help keep America the way it has been essentially since the days of the first permanent English settlement in Jamestown.


I have grown up around Hispanic culture, and as rich and vibrant as it can be, my ancestors left Mexico for a reason. I am at least a sixth-generation American, so I can be sure my ancestors did not leave Mexico to take advantage of American welfare. The system that can be so easily exploited did not exist then, and the American dream actually meant something. My ancestors understood that American culture was far superior and offered more than the culture of Mexico.
Today, even third- and fourth-generation Hispanics have not fully abandoned their ancestral ways. Spanish is the dominant language even for many who have been here for several generations.

Many expect society to learn Spanish, and it is clear that Spanish has become a second unofficial language in America.

Many Hispanics still do not value education. I am lucky to have a family that does value education, and I attribute that to both genetics and at least a century of assimilation. Half or more of the Hispanics I know don’t care about education, and many end up in gangs. This seems to be particularly true in Southern California.


There is no greater culture in the world than European culture. I can admit it because it’s true. I enjoy living in a First-World nation shaped by people of the same stock as George Washington, Ben Franklin, Beethoven, Picasso, and Galileo.
Have whites decided that their people and cultures are no longer worth fighting for? Is Guatemalan or Ethiopian or Vietnamese culture better for America? Whites must believe this, because why would they otherwise let a great nation’s culture be replaced with that of Third-World immigrants?


I cannot understand whites. Time and again, I see white university students who are happy to watch not only their nation but their genes disappear. They say they would be happy not to have children or to have children with non-whites.

When I try to talk about race with my white classmates or coworkers most are totally apathetic or sometimes even hostile. Blacks and Hispanics are much more race conscious. They know race exists, and that they have interests as a race. Whites are uncomfortable even talking about race and may try to scold me when I say something honest about it.

Sometimes I meet a white person who appreciates my understanding of white interests, and, even if he does not fully understand the implications of race, he is at least not ashamed to be white. This is a good sign for white people, but these people are rare.

America cannot survive without whites. It will not survive when whites are a minority. If any remnants of Western Civilization are to persist on the North American continent, white people will have to begin to care about the future of their people. My people cannot accomplish what yours have accomplished in the almost two and a half centuries that the United States has existed.

Only crazy or highly indoctrinated people would hand over to immigrants the nation their ancestors built. I don’t think you whites are crazy, nor do I think you can be so easily brainwashed.

So, why are you are giving away your country?

Comparing Neoreaction, New Right, and Tradition

via Amerika

When the historical background to a time changes, the beliefs held up by those within it adjust, and usually for the worse as they confuse what was with what is and adjust their idea of what should be accordingly. 226 years after the French Revolution, world liberalism has run into a brick wall, and rightists are re-adjusting orientation as a result.

Although it will not be reported in the media, or discussed by politicians, liberalism has reached a point of failure. Accelerating since the French Revolution, it has achieved all of its aims, and society remains in the grip of the problems the left identifies. “The rich” still have power, the people are still apathetic, the environment is still being ecocided and majorities in every indigenous nation are being genocided. “Equality” has not occurred in our lifetimes, social strife is getting worse as is animosity over “race relations” a.k.a. diversity failing. People are miserable because jobs are pointless, the opposite sex are dismal sluts with no ability to bond through love for anything approximating life, the air is polluted and the water unclean. And the kicker: every Western government is dead broke and spending itself into debt so huge it constitutes a punchline more than policy.

Right now, everything is OK, thanks to the technology, learning, wealth and power built up by pre-liberal Western civilization. We have rule by law, social order and the like. But these things are all in fatal decline because the force that maintains them is fading, and what replaces them will clearly be a third world style society with none of what made the West great. Immigrants will get ripped off by having emigrated to find the same mess they left back home, and the indigenous will be assimilated genetically and neutered culturally, leaving another mixed-race state with third world levels of social disorder, corruption, filth and disorganization. Liberalism is the tombstone of empires.

The mainstream right has avoided tackling this problem head-on mainly because it is composed of two elements, “mainstream” and “right.” Mainstream means that it cannot offend the dominant paradigm of this time, egalitarianism, and for that reason cannot be critical of this civilization as an outsider would, attacking obviously non-functional institutions like democracy, diversity, and equality. It is supported in this by fear of the underground far-right, which tends to be so extreme that it alienates normal people and drives them toward the imperfect but “safe” mainstream variety. As the far right harbors both genuine believers in National Socialism and volkisch philosophy as well as outright sociopaths, it creates what is effectively a border driving the audience back toward liberalism.

The New Right came about as an attempt to revitalize conservatism, both mainstream and underground, with a dose of realism. New Righters predict a collapse of industrial society from many factors both external and internal, and posit instead a strong identitarian community. In deference to the success of the left in the postwar period, the New Right avoids obvious fascist iconography and instead talks about existential issues like mass misery in the face of a society of drudgery, obedience and dysfunction. Unfortunately, however, the New Right also chooses to base itself in a derivation of leftist Social Democrat policies, and in doing so, alienates the anti-socialist right.

Neoreaction came about through the libertarian invention of freedom of association through economics. This idea attacks the liberal moral imperative to create a subsidy state by demanding instead freedom for the individual from the obligation to subsidize others. Once the ideological state is removed, however, there is no reason to avoid corporatism, or treating government like a public service instead of handling it with a quasi-religious reverence and identifying a national population with its government. Neoreaction consists of a number of thought experiments in the form of Socratic dialogues inverted from question to discussion as models, and serves as an introduction for the idea that there may be logical, engineering-style and real-world reasons for rightist policies. Neoreaction struggles however with being at the center of a number of divisive forces because its leftist origins in libertarianism result in an individualism that has its adherents choosing divergent paths, and incorporating outside influences, on the basis of personal desire. This creates the same problem as in mainstream conservatism and leftism which is fragmentation disrupting the idea of any coordinated action.

As the New Right developed, many began looking for a solution outside politics and turned to the writings of Rene Guenon and Julius Evola, who advocated a way of life based on “Tradition.” Although this is not an explicitly political system, it has consequences for all political decisions. The dominant idea of Tradition is that an ineffable truth exists to life itself which societies throughout history have discovered that allows them to rise. This “perennial” or recurring idea rejects the notion that history is linear or that there can be “new” ideas in governance. The truth is known, and we implement it to degrees rather than find new forms. For example, we might say that the present day government is 20% of the way to a traditional outlook, where in healthier times the percentage has been higher. This clashes with the modern idea that history has been a steady progression from a primitive past to a Utopian future, and that our ideas are untried and revolutionary. In fact, Tradition says, they are simply lesser versions of known ideas and will succeed proportionately. Traditionalists do not demand a specific political system but tend to favor pre-1789 ideas like nationalism (ethnic nationalism), monarchism and a union between government, religion and learning.

As Neoreaction obliterates itself by becoming a philosophy of a many interpretations but no centrality, people on the right look toward the next revolution. The issues in content remain how to choose government, which economic system to use, whether to be nationalist or not, and the role of religion. New Righters tend to favor a religious ethnostate, Traditionalists see religion as having to fall into line with an eternal truth descending through the line of kings, and Neoreactionaries favor a version of the modern state which removes the ideological in loco parentis of leftist government. Somewhere in the future a hybrid or compromise must be found if the alternative right is to mobilize itself and, as history suggests will work, influence the mainstream right to the point that it can actually effect change.

This goal in itself is not popular. Among Neoreactionaries, it is common to disclaim the possibility of fixing civilization and to look instead for personal “exit” or co-existence without being corrupted or obligated by the herd. History shows us how this will end, as it always does, in show trials and asset confiscation if not outright theft. New Righters tend to be the most politically-inclined, advocating the creation of separate political parties like Marine Le Pen’s Front National but more fundamentally changing society through a cultural revolution that prepares it for them. Traditionalists are the most far removed, believing in a cultural revolution originating in a type of spiritual awakening among the exceptional, but they are short on methods of achieving their ends.

What crushes these movements is that they are more similar than different. Each new movement struggles to differentiate itself, then runs into internal confusion, and then lapses and the cycle repeats itself. Often they are afraid to admit their fundamentally non-leftist outlook and hope for an appeal to leftists. So far this has created groups of dissident intellectuals and social critics who are influencing the mainstream, but never enough to do more than slowly shift its frame of reference to the right.

I propose a simple method of avoiding pitfalls and a new idea, Futurist Traditionalism, which combines the best of these systems with a new outlook that is both Nietzschean and of the oldest religious and philosophical traditions.

To avoid pitfalls, we must focus on a single word: “the.” The right is currently divided by these, with some seeing the solution as ethno-nationalism, making the basis of our society the church, strictly political methods, and strictly economic methods. None of these are “the” singular solution, but part of a solution, and if the right must purge itself of something it is the strong categorical reliance on one tool to fit all tasks. More likely our response will be a single tool comprised of others. It is also necessary to avoid team players, or those who view politics as a kind of sports event where one side must best the other. The point is to reach a certain design of civilization, and to implement that, regardless of what banner it is done under or what it is called. Politics itself disunites us by the need for teams, categories, issues and other symbols for what actually must be done. It is time to cut out the middleman, and look toward what we seek instead.

Futurist Traditionalism proposes a simple union of all that has worked: mercantile economics, or capitalism without usury, a focus on leadership and goals instead of the methods used to select leaders, a removal of criminal law and its replacement with an economic system of justice, and the creation of an aristocracy of wise elders who will represent the nation in religion, leadership and science/philosophy. In the Futurist Traditionalist view what is essential is balancing the different impulses with the goals of past and future, so that instead of compromise we enforce consistency on all parts of the system. Instead of letting “the system” run by itself, the institution of Futurist Traditionalism is the goals itself, enforced by culture and administered by aristocratic leaders, with otherwise a total lack of formal institutions. By de-formalizing, society would reduce red tape and frustration, but also shifts the burden of choice back onto the citizen. A law enable a citizen to say “I did not violate the law” but under Futurist Traditionalism, the only standard is the results that occurred. Thus if a citizen has no law to hide behind, and must compensate others or society as a whole for any ill effects brought about by his actions.

The “futurist” part of this belief system consists of a desire to use technology for positive ends, even when these are the same methods that make people recoil now. Mass production, gene splicing, giant grocery stores, the internet and other “modern” advances must not only be kept, but advanced using the principle of balance to goals. A Futurist Traditionalist moves forward into the future by advancing the quality of knowledge, and sees technology not as a system or institution in itself, but a series of tools for achieving the goals of the civilization.

To moderns, the primary difference in this society is that it has a military-style purpose at all times. The overall goal is to protect and nurture its people so the civilization as a whole continues rising in quality. This means that criminals, retards, shysters, etc. can be exiled and the community is healthier, and also that every action taken by a citizen can be looked at with the question, “Does this move us closer toward our goals or not?” Nothing exists in a vacuum. Toward that end, Futurist Traditionalism embraces power. Where moderns considered themselves witty to have said “Absolute power corrupts absolutely,” Futurist Traditionalism recognizes that most people are corrupt because evolution is in effect and we all fit somewhere on a bell curve not just in intelligence but in integrity. Power goes to those who can wield it and to no others. The ideas of democracy and managerial society are both rejected by this act.

A Futurist Traditionalist society might look a bit odd to us at first. For example, in our current society we have speed limits, police to enforce them and courts to judge them. None of these are necessary. A future society might simply make it a cultural standard to throw rotten vegetables at any vehicle that is traveling too fast for the road on which it is going. Liberals will scream, “But what about abuse?” to which future humans will affirm that yes, it sometimes happens, but it is the exception that proves the rule. Most of the time, drivers slow down because they want to avoid the spectacle of being pelted with rotten vegetables, because in a sane/future society, honor and integrity matter more than police fines. The rent-seeking police with their tickets, courts and endless laws could all go away and the problem would be solved at least as well as that extensive system has, without any of the overhead.

This thinking takes us past the conundrum not just of modernity but of the right trapped within modernity, liberating us to think truly “outside of the box.” That box, more than The CathedralTM, is what confines us in modernity because assumptions outside of its control are not tolerated. With the rise of future rightist movements, the nexus of attack will focus on this idea of settled science, known truths, and other fake history created by leftists in order to expand our scope not just to “exit” or participation in a political system, but reforming society and disenfranchising or exiling those who are incompatible so that they can go to the third-world societies that their leftist outlook inevitably produces, and we can not restore a past civilization but rise to new standards of excellence. That is futurism, and it is the basis of Futurist Traditionalism.

Sex and Races

via Gornahoor

Gornahoor Editor's Note:In this and in the following section, Julius Evola deals with the traditional view of the sexes. He will justify the notion that the division into sexes has a corporeal, psychic, and spiritual component. His opinion is quite “politically incorrect”. Oddly, he had to deal with PC in his own time: the German translation omits all references to Germany or Germanic people.

Future installments of this translation will likely appear here: gornahoor.wordpress.com.

On the bases of the above-mentioned ideas, it would also be necessary to return to the question of hybrids, bringing the sexes into the discussion. Even here we encounter a curious contradiction in race theory, that such questions are almost never posed. Contradicting this principle, claiming the differences of all human types as subjected in equal measure to the same biological laws that race theory considers in the same way, so it seems never to have been considered that normally the inheritance and the power of race can have a different weight according to whether it is about a man or a woman. Anyone who faced this problem had to resolve it directly in reverse, by supposing, again on the basis of simply biological considerations, a greater power of conservation of the race and the type in the woman.

From the point of view of traditional doctrine, it is exactly the opposite that is true in the case of normal humanity. This doctrine, if worthy of the rather minor attention of what today some of the most theatrical and insignificant grant to biological considerations, would furnish some rather useful suggestions for a problem of no small importance, which is the technique for the elevation of relatively inferior breeds through various cycles of heredity. Thus, in the most ancient Indo-European code, the Laws of Manu (Manava Dharmasastra), the transition of a non-Aryan into the caste of the Aryans is possible after seven generations of crosses maintained on the male line. This number seven also reappears in other traditions in analogous circumstances, while, in regard to the cycle of an individual human life, it is the number of years that are necessary for a periodic rejuvenation of all the elements of the body according to scientific research.

In this situation, the Laws of Manu stipulate what must be considered as a cornerstone for the question from the traditional point of view: male inheritance cannot be put on the same level as the female, because, in principle, the former has the “dominant” quality, as it is called in Mendelism, and the latter is “recessive”. Therefore, when the woman is of the higher race, her higher inheritance is overpowered in the mixture, while the superior male inheritance, in the opposite case, is not necessarily contaminated, except in limit-cases or exceptions, and except what we will say about being man. “Whatever are the qualities of a man with whom a woman is united by legitimate rite, she acquires them like the water of a river united to the ocean” (Laws of Manu IX, 22).

And again (IX, 33-36): “If one compares the creative power of the male with that of the female, the male must be declared superior because the ancestor of all beings is distinct from the male characteristics. Whatever type of seed that is thrown in a field prepared in the appropriate season, this seed is developed in a plant with particular qualities, which are those of the male seed.”
[By sacred tradition the woman is declared to be the soil, the man is declared to be the seed; the production of all corporeal beings takes place through the union of the soil with the seed. In some cases the seed is more distinguished, and in some the womb of the female; but when both are equal, the offspring is most highly esteemed. On comparing the seed and the receptacle, the seed is declared to be more important; the offspring of all created beings is marked by the characteristics of the seed. Whatever seed is sown in a field, prepared in due season, a plant of that same kind, marked with the peculiar qualities of the seed, springs up in it.]
Completing the image, all the more, we can concede that when the field is not prepared and the season is not suitable, the male quality will be obstructed in the descendants or will wilt, or certainly it will dry up, but it could never happen that the seed of a palm might come from a juniper plant through a miraculous power of the soil or season – i.e., by analogy, of the woman and the psychic conditions of a sexual union. As we have deliberately revealed, as long as we have the normal world in view, that is always presupposed by every traditional teaching.

Thus, in order to know what one must think today in this regard, rather than consulting the biologist, it is necessary to clarify the extent to which the modern world can indeed be called normal in regard to the condition of the sexes. The answer, unfortunately, can only be negative. The modern world no longer knows what it means to be a man or a woman in the higher sense. It is moving toward a lack of differentiation of types that is already very visible on the spiritual plane and, from it, here and there it seems to be translated onto the physical and biological plane giving rise to worrisome phenomena. In the West, masculinity and femininity are considered as things simply of the body, instead of qualities, above all, of the inner being of the soul and the spirit. In this respect, in the West, little more than nothing has been known about the polarity, the gap, the different function and dignity of the two sexes for some time. And so, very important problems regarding race are today considered in their exterior and consequential aspects, rather than in their internal and substantial aspects. For example, they are very concerned with the demographic problem and they create every type of institution for hygiene and social assistance and the increase of the race in the strict sense, but they ignore the fundamental point, which is the meaning of the relationship between the sexes and the precise imperative that whoever is born a man, is a man, and woman, a woman, in everything and for everything, in the spirit and in the body, without mixing and without attenuation. Only in this case the traditional teachings have validity and open up almost unlimited possibilities for the initiatives of selection and elevation of the races through adequate crosses and hereditary processes. Certainly not in the case in which, like today, we see in regard to being man or woman, a still more oblique mixing than in regard to being of one race or another: in which some beings are men in the body but feminine in the soul or in the spirit, and vice versa, while being silent about the spread of sexual and psychical inclinations of a really pathological character.

But at this point we have to remind the reader of what we already wrote about it in Revolt against the Modern World, while touching on the death of races. Since descendants are not formed through combinations of hereditary elements made in a laboratory or in appropriate state institutions, but derive from the unions of men and women, it would be logical that, as the premise to every active conception of race and every discrimination of one race or another, the race of the male and the race of the female be defined and separated, in the same corporeal, psychic, and spiritual completeness, by which we formulated the theory of the three levels of race theory.

Moreover, we note a unique circumstance which confirms the fact that races, which have biologically preserved more of the Nordic type, are sometimes found inwardly at a greater level of involution and degeneration than others of the same family: we mean that some of the Nordic peoples—Germans and Anglo-Saxons—are those in which the traditional relationships between the two sexes have been greatly subverted. So-called woman’s emancipation—which only means her mutilation and degradation in reality—has in fact begun from those peoples and has had the greatest hold in them, where in the Roman peoples, even if only due to bourgeois and conventional reflexes, something of the normal and traditional way of relating is still preserved, in this regard. The height then is reached when some foreign theorists exalt the triviality of terms like compagno and compagna and so-called “respect for woman” as an alleged characteristic of the Nordic race, not suspecting in the least that by doing so, they simply echo an abnormal state of a relatively recent date, while they assume every conception based on the proper distance, polarity, and different dignity of the two sexes as the Asiatic prejudices of the inferior races of the South. It is necessary to recognize that if such distortions are assumed as principles, the path taken would lead not to the reawakening and the reintegration of the pure Nordic type, but to a further involution—in the direction of a trivialization of an inner leveling of the types—of what still remains in the Germanic peoples.