Animate and Inanimate Beauty

There is a tendency among us humans, especially those who are ardent humanists to overlook beauty which is living because it is not in any way a product of something uniquely ‘human’. Herein lies the difference between the so-called ‘culturists’ and ‘racists’. A ‘culturist’ appreciates the beauty of non–living things created by man — art, music, architecture, literature. He, therefore, seeks the preservation of culture, often against iconoclasm, religious decline, and degeneracy. A ‘racist’ on the other hand appreciates the beauty of the animate, living thing, not created by man, and recognizes that this beauty is a product of some amount of genetic isolation and natural selection. He, therefore, seeks to preserve the beauty of a race from influences such as miscegenation which would necessarily end its unique beauty.

Regarding the word ‘racist’, I use it in this article to denote a puerile label placed upon individuals wishing to preserve human biodiversity, not the view that all members of the same biological race are identical — which is clearly not true.

Iconoclasm is not just manifested in the destruction of the icons, statues, and stained glass windows beloved by Christian traditionalists, it is also manifest in the destruction of a racial type, or even the corruption of the natural beauty of the earth itself — something the anti-environmentalist ‘right’ needs to get a grip on.

This has caused a great rift I observe in the broader right. Those who value inanimate beauty follow suit in the tradition of various popes and Christian monarchs and those who value animate beauty — of the biosphere and living things follow National Socialist thinkers like George Lincoln Rockwell and William Luther Pierce.

I am bold enough to think that both animate and inanimate beauty is worth preserving. In no aesthetic sense am I an iconoclast. I value the preservation of a ‘civilization’ as a culture just as much as the preservation of any human race, which is in fact living and will continue to reproduce its unique beauty (and further refine its beauty) given the right conditions.

So I do not call myself a National Socialist or a ‘Western Culturist’. The error of the National Socialist is his lack of respect for organic cultural tradition (edit: this is common but not universal among NS), and the error of the culturist being his iconoclasm of animate, living beauty. I call myself a national monarchist in that I value both the beauty of inanimate human culture and animate natural race. And there are precedents to national monarchism throughout the ages –pretty much any monarchy centered around one people (as a biological concept of common descent) counts — Anglo-Saxon England, pre-Norman Ireland, Mediaeval Scandinavia and Eastern Europe, modern post-WWII Japan, and there are probably many more examples. There is no reason to assume as a culturist or traditionalist one must disregard biological race or ethne as the solid foundation of a nation, and there is no reason for a biological ethnocentrist ‘racist’ to assume that cultural tradition should be smashed to create some utopian society.



Ethnic Nationalism vs. White Nationalism

From Colin Woodard’s American Nations

I have felt compelled to write this post because I feel that I have not made it sufficiently clear why I defend the political views that I do on this blog. In time I may amend, or modify this post to clarify my position. It boils down largely to the fact that a house divided cannot stand. If a political nation includes large factions of people who disagree on everything political and hate each other’s guts for it, there is no reason to keep the country in one piece. Doing so results in wasteful damage to persons, property, and culture. In addition to this, the human species is biologically diverse, and without a means of preserving this biodiversity, it would be impossible to continue in whatever evolutionary path our particular ancestors have been in for tens of thousands of years up to the present time. Melting everyone into the same genetic pot would make whatever evolutionary adaptations we possess different to other human populations to be thinly dispersed in the human species at best, and in the case of recently evolved recessive traits, it would practically eliminate them. It would be like reversing the evolutionary clock of Homo sapiens at least 70,000 years back to the time when modern humans first entered Eurasia from Africa, before branching out into all different parts of the world. This was when our relative genetic variation was very small compared to today. I think that my concern is especially relevant due to the fact that modernity has removed many selective pressures which got us where we are, and the large human population of the earth combined with the modern ease of mobility would inhibit recent (as in a few tens of thousands of years old) evolutionary specializations from re-emerging and becoming easily fixed (widespread through selective pressures) through reproduction within small, insular human populations.

I consider myself a universal ethnic nationalist in that I have no problem with any ethnic group establishing a nation-state unto itself. I also think that if people desire to create a multi-ethnic nation-state, that this is fine just so long as all the parties joining do so voluntarily. In fact, I envision that a mixture of mono-ethnic, and multi-ethnic nation-states is probably a fairly bright future mankind can hope for in the next half-millennium. Both types of nation-states are good for different reasons, have different advantages and disadvantages, and ultimately will play different, but important roles on a global scale. So there it is. I am not a true fascist, nor am I an imperialist. Those of you who might wish to accuse me of such positions lack the basis to do so.

I would also like to note that ethnic, rather than just white nationalism would be the most beneficial for European-Americans, namely because of our diverse ancestry. For instance, someone of Anglo-Germanic ancestry such as myself has a distinct biological and cultural heritage from someone of Italian or Slavic ancestry. If we wish to preserve what our ancestors brought over from Europe, I don’t think pouring everyone into a giant stew pot and seeing what comes out is the way to do so.


Trump’s Victory

Well, Trump won. Now those of use on the neoreaction need to have a balanced viewpoint of this. Trump’s presidency should provide a political climate more favorable to our movement, but as I have said before, and will repeat again: Trump is an American civic nationalist; ultimately it is the responsibility of the neoreaction and alt-right to encourage ethnonationalism. Trump may keep America alive for a few years longer, but the way demographics are, if persons of European ancestry wish to have a significant presence on the North American continent 200 years from now, an ethnostate of some sort is almost certainly necessary. Now for those of you excited by this victory, I pose the question: is Trump an avatar of the Indo-European 2nd-funtion deity? (from Dumezil’s trifunctional hypothesis) Some images for inspiration below:

Trump vs. Political Correctness
Thor vs. Jormungandr (by Kubeen on Deviant Art)
Indra vs Vritra
Heracles vs. Hydra

And finally:

Bard the Bowman vs Smaug





Hi Everyone. I am an individual who, after viewing  a large gamut of neoreaction, and HBD blogs, has decided to enter into the conversation anonymously. I am a white male largely descended from English and German people who immigrated to North America over 150 years ago. Religiously I consider myself an agnostic theist, and I categorically reject Christianity as a religion on account of both its anti-intellectualism and the slave morality which it has instilled in the Western mind. If you are a Christian, I am willing to have polite discourse with you, but this is not a place to attempt to convert me to a Christian theonomist position. As you can obviously see I have, and will continue to, derive creative inspiration from the works of the famous Christian author (who happened to incorporate many themes from pre-Christian European culture into his works) J.R.R. Tolkien.

Now to the meat of the discussion.

One of my intentions is to use this blog to comment on new findings related to human biodiversity, particularly as it relates to Caucasians, both in Europe and Western Asia.  Scientists such as Lazaridis, Haak and Allentoft have made major headway in informing us  about the ethnic origins of Europeans, and this information regarding is likely to become clearer and crystallize further in time with additional research.

Secondly I also would like to get to the bottom of the current demographic decline of ethnic Europeans the West. Theories espoused by those on the Alt-Right and Neoreaction range from the [OMITTED]s to feminism,  to out-of-control capitalism, to secularized Christianity (Liberalism). You can visit this website to see what I am talking about.

If you’re wondering about this whole elf thing …  the word elf has a possible origin in the PIE root *albho “white” (Latin cognate albus). Hence the pun elfnonationalist essentially translates to “white” nationalist (though impractical at the present, I think that a European-American ethnostate may be necessary before the close of this current century in order to curb our demographic decline).

I also chose the Sindar Elvenking Thranduil to appear in my blog, since, if you have seen The Hobbit movies, he is clearly an ethnonationalist, and an individual who does not feel a need to conform to anyone else’s ideological wishes; he makes decisions according to his own value judgments, not those of society … therefore he makes a good role model for alt-right and neoreactionary folks as we wade through (or hopefully ride) the Kali Yuga.

Lastly, I would like to say that this blog serves as a means for me to express intellectual insights as I conceive them. If you post a question and I do not directly reply, please do not take it as an insult, as it most likely means I am busy with day to day life.