Quotes from a very good article I found.
“The playbook of the establishment is very simple and very effective: claim that questioners of diversity are driven by plain hatred, that they are poorly-educated hicks who can’t stand losing their white privilege, and are too parochial to understand the progressive cosmopolitanism marvelously spreading through the West.”
“Through these major epochs, Europeans came to de-emphasize the martial virtues associated with feudalism, and as they turned to commerce, new virtues came to gain precedence: commodious living, orderly existence, and the Protestant emphasis on hard work (notwithstanding the excessive brutality of the religious wars and the interstate rivalries resulting from nation-building during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries). David Hume, in An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (1777), noted this transformation from the martial temper of medieval times to the “sociable, good-natured, humane, merciful, grateful, friendly, generous, beneficent” qualities of the moderns.”
Clearly, Hume understands the origins of cosmopolitan morality.
So yes, the excessive empowerment of the third estate through laissez-faire capitalism (edit: currently through Neoliberal Ayn Rand ideology) clearly has something to do with the pacification of Western nations to their own destruction, and it’s not just da Jooz, it’s the entire socio-economic phenomenon which has atomized and de-masculinized Western men.
Update 4/15/17: This is not to argue in favor of socialism, but for the recognition of how capitalism has changed the social structure of the West in such a way that previously masculine virtues like defending your own tribe have become de-facto sins simply because they are a hindrance or of no use in the marketplace. As far as I am concerned, economics is not something to fetishize and ‘muh free market’ is not an end in itself.
There are essentially three different ways in which modern states have kept their traditional identities intact: Islamofascism, Empire, and Insular Nationalism. The national IQ scores which I mention in this article are from this website (yes, it’s Lynn’s and Vanhanen’s data; if you have any criticisms of it, please cite an alternative source).
Islamofascism (bad idea)
Islam provides rules and virtues for people with limited intelligence to observe and daily rituals to enforce them – although this is a false promise since it achieves the opposite. – Curt Doolittle
Islamofascism is the strategy of the nations of the Middle East and Northern Africa who have an average IQ in the 80’s to retain their traditional identities in the present day. It usually involves persecution of religious minorities, polygamy, marrying women at an age most Westerners would find too young, either executing or imprisoning homosexuals (which even Christians should admit is excessive), as well as a general desire to violently conquer new territory by reason of a superstition (and then either execute, or heavily tax people who refuse to convert to the superstition).
This form of government today is favored in the West by the most unintelligent members of the extreme right and extreme left who often advise genocides of Jews, Whites, or the mass murder of gays, and so on. This is not a form of government which any intelligent person living in the present day can take seriously — there is a reason why it only exists in the present (information age) in nations with an average IQ below ~90. It is definitely not something to emulate; it is fundamentally non-Western, and though it has at times cropped up in the West (mostly in the Middle Ages), it is best left in the dustbin containing the more ugly bits of our history.
This form of government is not unique to the Middle East, however, I suspect that it likely originated there. Charlemagne seems to have emulated it when he butchered the pagan Saxons whom he conquered between 782 and 785 AD. Eventually, Charlemagne’s successors would realize that Islamofascism doesn’t work in the long run; this is where the next strategy comes into play: empire.
Empire is a very old form of government which was really first mastered by the Persians with their bureaucracy of satraps. It was later adopted by Alexander the Great of Macedon, then by the Romans. During the Middle Ages, it took shape in the Byzantine, Holy Roman and Angevin Empires. In the early modern period, there was, of course, the Hapsburg Empire, and the Spanish Empire, and in the later part of the modern era, the British Empire reached its peak. Today this form of government is roughly present in Russia and China, and perhaps to a certain degree the Trumpian United States. In all these empires, there is power granted to lower positions of authority underneath of the emperor or king who happens to manage the entire empire, thus various tribes and ethnic groups are usually allowed to have rulership from their own king or local vassal. Because of the multiethnic and multicultural nature of empire, there is a necessity for the emperor to tolerate the decisions of various kingdoms or tribes to adhere to their own religious opinions. The wisest imperial rulers understood this well, from Cyrus the Great of Persia to the Roman Emperors, and even the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V who tolerated the decision of some of his dependent states to turn Lutheran. It is also understood by the Eastern Orthodox leader of Russia, Vladimir Putin, who must tolerate the folk-ways of all the various tribes who inhabit their own individual republics within his large domain. Regarding the IQ of empires, in the present day, most of them fairly high such as in Russia (97) and China (105).
I have noticed that among reactionaries, it is usually the Catholics who favor empire. There is nothing wrong with this, but it must be accepted that any empire, due to its large territorial expanse, will inevitably include various religious groups who must be treated in a dignified manner. Failing to do this will place any such state closer to the realm of Islamofascism, and I sincerely think that you are all more decent people than to create an Islamofascist style state.
Another interesting note is that Nietzsche seemed to have favored a pan-European empire over nationalism. This, I think, may be due to his extensive study of the classics, and possibly a romantic idealism he possessed regarding the Roman Empire. Brett Stevens seems to have followed suit in his promotion of pan-nationalism.
The European Union is essentially a perversion of the Roman Empire. It has sought the ethnolysis of Europe. The lesson learned here: empires must have good leaders, or else they become death traps.
There are of course certain advantages to empire, it gives a way for small groups of people and kingdoms to unite for common defence, and it is a way of reconciling traditionalism and hierarchy with a multiethnic domain — that being said it can be hard to create and control — all of its members must be willing to live under one roof — something which I do not believe will ever happen in the US as long was we have a large population of angry leftists. I should also mention that it is usually, if not always, because of the conflicting interests of various ethnocultural groups that an empire falls apart; it is almost an inevitable part of the lifecycle of an empire as the ruled come to resent the rulers due to a lack of shared identity. In fact, a good analogy of an empire might be to compare it to a heavy, radioactive atomic nucleus which can fissure under the right conditions. So if one seeks a more internally stable model of government than empire, that of the insular nation state (which can be monarchical) should be examined.
Nationalism, contrary to what some would claim, did not originate with Hussites and is not an inherently left-wing form of government. In fact, the concept of an insular nation state is probably the first concept of a nation-state in the West, beginning with the Greek polis, and the early Roman state. It was for the sake of the independent nation, and against subjugation under an empire, that king Leonidas and the 300 Spartans bravely fought the Persians at Thermopylae. It is, in more modern times, what inspired Irish nationalists to break away from the British Empire and create a nation centered around their own culture and religion. The fundamental feature of this type of government is that it maintains the identity one ethnic group with a single culture, and usually rules only the territory in which this ethnic group lives. The culture and ethnic group of the state’s inhabitants are preserved through very strict immigration laws — cucking is rare compared to in the modern ‘West’.
Among reactionaries, I have observed that the insular nationalist approach is taken by Orthodox Christians and Protestants, as well as polytheists, Cosmotheists, and irreligious individuals. I think that the desire for an independent nation-state that was likely one of the main reasons behind the split of Eastern Europe away from the Catholic church in 1054, as well as the decision of many Northern-European countries to break with Rome during the reformation. These nations perceived (whether rightly or wrongly) the Catholic Church to be too internationalist; that it violated their national sovereignty, so they created their own national churches, which were usually in communion with each other through either an Eastern Orthodox communion or a Protestant communion of Anglican and/or Lutheran churches.
In the present day, there are some notable well-developed nations which follow the model of insular nationalism to keep their traditional ethnic and cultural identities afloat, and they are also nations with some of the highest average IQ’s in the world: Iceland (101), Japan (105), South Korea (106), and Hong Kong (108). Consequently, I am not inclined to believe that ethnocentric nationalism is simply an ideology of “stupid rednecks”. As the description insular nationalism implies, most of these nations are islands; some of them are areas of continental land close to the sea. This was also true of early insular nationalist states such as various Greek city-states, and the early Roman state.
Generally speaking, these states are quite technologically advanced. Their insular, mono-ethnic, monocultural status creates a sense of ethnocultural safety and stability which allows individuals to focus on the advancement of science and technology (which also increases IQ via the Flynn effect). In other words, people can pursue science because they aren’t spending all their time and energy desperately trying to keep their identity intact through culture wars; the state keeps the identity of the people intact for them through strict immigration laws, and sometimes a traditional national religion. There is an advantage over empire here indeed; there is a sense of unified identity, of power, of making one’s own rules as a people; this leads to a stronger sense of pride in one’s nation than an empire can probably ever have as a whole.
Individuals who wish to revive the West must do so in a sincerely Western manner. Islamofascism, an ideology of certain low-IQ non-Westerners will not due. Thus a decision needs to be made in various instances between the formation of a multi-national empire and an insular nation state. Different strategies will work for different people and will have different results. When considering realistic political objectives, I would rather live in an insular ethnic nation state than an empire, but I am also aware that some sort of pan-national empire may be necessary for defense purposes. In a romanticist mindset, I am also aware that empire may provide an important opportunity to politically reunite European-Americans living in the US and Latin America with their homelands in Europe, something I would be in favor of, but Europe has to get fixed though before this can happen.
Davidski, the author of the Eurogenes blog has recently brought up an interesting genetic study regarding the ancestral origins of non-native Americans (non-Amerindian peoples living in North America).
You can access the study here
You can read Davidski’s take on the data here
This type of research is important because it shows where in North America new nations (or kingdoms) could arise centered around various ethnic groups.
“The cowardly, the timid, the insignificant, and those thinking merely of narrow utility are despised; moreover, also, the distrustful, with their constrained glances, the self- abasing, the dog-like kind of men who let themselves be abused, the mendicant flatterers, and above all the liars:–it is a fundamental belief of all aristocrats that the common people are untruthful. “We truthful ones”–the nobility in ancient Greece called themselves” – Friedrich Nietzsche Beyond Good and Evil, Chapter IX, paragraph 260 (emphasis mine)
Following the reasoning of Nietzsche, it seems clear from the quote above that the red-pill mentality, the acceptance of the deep and unsettling truths which most of society likes to avoid, is clearly a viewpoint of aristocratic origin. We should therefore not be ashamed of our peculiar viewpoints such as race realism, and others which are inegalitarian, but empirically verifiable, as they are what set us apart, and above the ordinary man, the “normie”, who are usually little more than “the self- abasing, the dog-like kind of men who let themselves be abused, the mendicant flatterers, and above all the liars”. Considering these qualities which Nietzsche assigns to common people, the fact that the average well-educated white “normie” lets himself be abused by leftist immigration policy and lies about race, claiming it does not exist, should, therefore, be no surprise. We, then, as members of the broader neoreactionary movement already make up a natural aristocracy. Whereas the “normie” who wants nothing to do with red pills is merely mediocre.
We should consider the idea that this natural aristocracy, due to genetic reasons, may always be a minority and that we must, as Nietzsche says a little later in this paragraph, become creators of values. It is slightly depressing to think that not everyone is red-pillable, but it may just be the reality of the situation.
It is also important to pay attention to the fact that Nietzsche attributes the quality of “thinking merely of narrow utility” to the common people. This coincides with the behavior we observe from blue-pill types who think that immigration from the third world into Europe and North America is necessary to compensate for labor shortages etc. It is the globalist, neoliberal mentality which thinks of people as mere resource units to be utilized for profit in the marketplace, instead of as living, breathing organisms with a family, ethnicity, and culture. We “red-pilled” ones, however, know what chaos and destruction this mass immigration brings. Mammon is not our god, and we certainly aren’t willing to put the future existence of our people in jeopardy just for cold, dry, inhuman economic reasons. Thus it can be said that both the lefties and the globalist neoliberals (I’m kicking against Ayn Rand here) are both commoners alike, neither are true aristocrats. If they were true aristocrats they would cast off the ring of “narrow utility”, or “profit” in favor of their own people (as Frodo did in Mount Doom, and as Galadriel did when she passed “the test”, being offered the One Ring).
This is where the greedy “men”( the Alt-Light) get separated from the noble “elves”(the real Right). I don’t agree with everything these people put out on their channel, but this video is seriously hilarious and relevant.
As for red pilling normies with “gay faggoty cartoons” I think my commentary on the anime Free! has sufficed for this.
I think it is clear to everyone who is a neoreactionary in some way that our elites have placed us under an “iron dome”, under which our lives, thoughts, and financial transactions are bound. Our electronic transactions are under surveillance, especially with the new legislation which was recently been passed in the United Kingdom. Furthermore, we have new UN leader who is left-wing as ever, especially regarding the flood of migrants into Europe.
Yes, Trump and Brexit,
and hopefully the Austrian election very soon, have begun to crack this dome, but it is reluctant to shatter. Our political leaders, inasmuch as they bind us in political states which are unable to serve our interests as ethnic individuals make up this iron dome.
We ought to ask ourselves, would our ancestors, who fought the globalist empire of Rome in the Teutoburg forest, or the Spartans who defended a free Greece against the globalist empire of Persia at Thermopylae put up with this shit? Obviously not. We all know what they would have done, and what we will need to do if we cannot win this struggle for the dignity of our people through the electoral process.
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.