771 words
“Man developed in Africa. He has not continued to do so there.” — P. J. O’Rourke
Andrew Hamilton recently reviewed Lawrence H. Keeley’s anthropological treatise War Before Civilization. Keeley’s book delivers an excellent (and very accessible) debunking of the popular notion that precivilized humans were more pacific than civilized ones. They weren’t. But I don’t believe Keeley goes far enough. Warfare didn’t just happen throughout the course of human evolution. Warfare is human evolution. Distilled to its bare biological essence, the human is the martial ape, the war monkey.
The human populations which evolved in the most temperate and fertile habitats had the most surplus time and energy to invest in war, evolving larger and more fearsome instruments of male territorial aggression than their cousins who remained in the rainforest refuges. Male territorial aggression is a familiar template throughout the animal kingdom, with several species featuring tusks, horns, antlers, and other weapons. As with every other population, environmental abundance and overpopulation didn’t ease the struggle for survival, it merely shifted it from environmental selection to sexual selection. What’s unique about humanity is its instrument of male territorial aggression: the brain.
The warlords and tribes with the best weapons and strategies defeated the other tribes, kidnapping their women and children to exploit as concubines and child soldiers. The most gifted and creative men were the most likely to win, and the chronic gender disparity empowered them to gather the most fair and delightsome women into their harems. Eventually, this race condition wherein the tribes rapidly grew more gifted and fair was interrupted by their becoming so gifted that they began developing entirely novel artificial habitats with different selective conditions: civilizations.
Thanks to the recent marketing campaign, Joseph Kony is now the most vilified man in Africa. The 30 minute viral video describes in vivid detail and with gory images Kony’s decades-long campaign of terror. In addition to routine jungle warfare, he’s kidnapped an estimated 30,000 children from villages throughout Uganda and neighboring countries, unleashing them as child soldiers to terrorize the countryside. College students across the civilized West are uniting together in collective outrage at the horrors of this precivilized warfare. It’s indeed horrifying. I’m horrified by it, too.
Evolution’s not pleasant to watch. But unlike colonialism, imperialism, foreign aid, and charity missions, evolution actually works. The only hope for the future of the African people is to excuse ourselves from their midst and allow them to catch up. It’s not as if forcing them to avoid fighting then watching them all die of starvation and disease is any less inhumane.
It’s easier on us, but it’s harder on them. It’s worse than harder on them, as it removes the hope for progress. It condemns them to the their state of perpetual agony but deprives them of the opportunity to escape it. It was only a couple hundred miles from this region and only a few decades ago that similar conditions in Kenya resulted in one of the polygamist warlords becoming intelligent enough to attend Harvard, and for that man’s son to become the most powerful man in the world. Within a few months, he’ll face off against another product of the eugenic impact of polygyny.
Many conservatives and race realists will react to the Kony 2012 campaign with suspicion about the motives of the charities. They’ll despair at the improbability of being able to improve living conditions for the children of Uganda. These are fair points, but I believe not only that there is hope for Africa’s future, but that men like Joseph Kony are Africans’ source of that hope. Sure, it’s unbearable to witness human evolution up close, and I stand for the civilized standards of chivalry and decency that my European forefathers and I have developed. But the conundrum remains that a population must first evolve to the point where it’s intelligent and organized enough to sustain those standards.
Former British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan once quipped that “There should be a wall built around Africa and every 100 years or so remove a brick to see if there had been any progress.” The first couple times looking through the brick would assuredly take its toll on the moral sensibilities of the Westerner peeping through it. But our selfish preference that Africans deal with their overpopulation problem through starvation and disease rather than through warfare doesn’t make contemporary Africans one iota less desperate and miserable, and it guarantees that future Africans will remain in the current state of desperation and misery until our failure to reverse our own devolution weakens us to the point where we can no longer interfere with their evolution.
30 Comments
Unfortunately, you are right here. If the young are not targeted to uphold their race, who will? As a mother, it really does grieve me that it has come to this. I remember thinking, I did not birth boys to have them die in a foreign war. I would probably maim them to to prevent that. Yet, on the other hand, would I do that to uphold my and their ethnic place?
I remember my fierce protection of them as children. Yet, would I not hand them a gun, if they were threatened with annihilation? Would I not also pick up the gun to protect them and any grandchildren I had? You bet, I would and I would call upon all the pagan Goddesses of war to aid me and give me courage. There are not any Christian Goddesses of war. Pity that.
“There is a time to love and a time to hate. A time for war and a time for peace.”
Ecclesiasties 3:8
You’ve figured it out Rhondda.
The Virgin Mary appeared many times to great Men of War like Jan Sobieski, the Liberator of Vienna. She is like Athena who loved strong men like Ullyses.
Of blacks, [Menken] wrote in September, 1943, that ” . . . it is impossible to talk anything resembling discretion or judgment to a colored woman. They are all essentially child-like, and even hard experience does not teach them anything.”
Ah, Mr. Parrott fantasizing again. Lately he’s advised us to dump democracy as if that would stop Jewish destruction of our peoples psyche. It will damn sure stop dead in his tracks any normal white who wanders in here off the web. Do we remember it was a monarchy the Bolsheviks over threw? (Kerinsky’s republic only lasted 8 months. Any infant state is weak and vulnerable under any system.) Or the Jacobins? Do we remember is was a monarchy the Israelites corrupted in ancient Egypt?
Here he comes close to saying polygamy would be a good thing for us.
Again I’m sure any half way normal white person, if wondering in here off the web and so unfortunate as to first read these two ideas recently posted will reject white identity culture.
And Matt’s stellar education in anthropology and genetics qualifies him to posit that is was polygamist preference for light skinned lasses that created the white race.
I ain’t buying it Matt. Mostly because it’s suicidal as a political tactic.
If we want to win this political struggle for white survival, we need to read Goebbels and Alinsky and Whitaker.
There is more than hope. Our tea party meeting recently gave me a spontaneous round of applause when I told them we had to stop both illegal AND legal immigration or we would be flushing our grand children down the tube.
Lets not pose ourselves to the white masses as anti-democratic womanizing polygamist.
That is not the way to win American hearts.
Phil,
As I understand it, this site’s not a tea party-friendly gateway site. There are discursive spaces where White Advocates attempt in different ways to honor or abide the taboos and conventions of mainstream society. That’s great. Those spaces have my respect and support. This is not one of those spaces. This discursive space is dedicated to exploring the full spectrum of ideological counter-currents, including–but not limited to–white nationalism.
The democratic process can and should play a role, in my opinion. Iran, Russia, and China are developing systems of government which allow for the expression of the will of the people while an insular inner party ensures that the vulnerabilities inherent in the democratic process are not weaponized against the nation. I’m not advocating a quaint monarchy or asserting that any system is fully immune to Jewish and capitalist subversion.
Democracy isn’t the only thing sacred to typical American readers. Condemning racism is also sacred to them. A whole host of Enlightenment notions are sacred to typical American readers, and many of them are incompatible with our long-term survival. None of what we’re talking about will “Play in Peoria”, including the useless half-measure of simply putting a stop to further non-White immigration.
I respect that people differ on this point, but I believe the bare minimum we would need to ensure our survival is so far beyond the pale of contemporary discourse that our time is better invested in offering a radically different worldview in a coherent and systematic manner. People can and will radicalize, especially under the right conditions. And even if it’s impossible to reach the critical mass of White Americans needed to save our people, it may be enough to reach the bare minimum community of people necessary to result in a sustainable community of some kind.
The proposition that light skin, hair, and eyes were selected for via sexual selection is supported in mainstream anthropological discourse and respected journals. The disparities in sex-linked chromosomal diversity is available for even the neophyte to ponder, though it’s indeed speculation on my part that it was warfare and not some other cause which resulted in Eurasian males suffering such an acute selective bottleneck. It’s indeed speculation on my part to couple these two things into a model.
While I don’t bring any credentials to the table, I’ll happily submit my hypothesis for peer review and invite the experts to consider it if it generates enough positive or negative attention.
There’s a time for tactics and there’s a time for truths.
I wish you the best with what you’re doing. I hope it works. I reject the notion that radicals ruin it for mainstreamers and I also reject the notion that mainstreamers suck the momentum from radicals. If you wish to publicly distance yourself from what I am doing, then that’s fine with me, too.
I’m certainly not a womanizer and I didn’t advocate for womanizing, recruiting child soldiers, or becoming bloodthirsty syncretic Afro-Christian warlords.
Matt,
Another interesting essay. And I think it’s pretty clear you aren’t calling on us to become Konys. I don’t think civilization necessarily stopped human evolution in the past, nor need it stop our evolution now. Although it’s very non-pc, eugenics would be both humane, in preventing suffering by reducing births of people who would suffer from genetic problems, and perhaps even a faster way to improve than Kony’s method.
It’s interesting that you bring up China. I worked there for two years in the 1980s, and expected it to be completely lacking in freedom, with all power flowing from the top down. People were careful in what they said, and there were cases where higher-ups abused their power (like we don’t have such cases here, right? But here you may be able to get away from the abuser by changing jobs, for example) However it became apparent that there were limits on power. The Chinese have the concept of “the mandate of Heaven,” where an emperor rules only while approved by Heaven. If he makes things bad for the people, like famines or invasions, he loses the mandate, and a new emperor comes along. So generally the leadership do care about what is good for the people, and they seem to be going in the right direction, while we, with a democratic republic, certainly are not.
“…systems of government which allow for the expression of the will of the people while an insular inner party ensures that the vulnerabilities inherent in the democratic process are not weaponized against the nation…”
Yeah, and exactly who is going to be in the “insular inner party?”
You and your pals? And what advantages do you expect to get from being in the in-group? Nothing? No perks or privileges at all? Riiiight.
The funny thing about this “insular inner party” is that while it’s supposed to protect the people from the “vulnerabilities inherent in the democratic process” it actually betrays a not so subtly hidden contempt for the people themselves – our fellow white folk. And it’s also an even less subtle fantasy to appeal to those who would fancy themselves future Inner Party Leaders (with inner party vacation homes, no doubt). Let Iran, China, and Russia keep their inner parties. Forget them.
In my brand of racial reawakening, I want each and every member of my extended white racial family to have the right to vote because, once awakened, I will trust enough of them to vote correctly. No mullahs, commissars, council of elders, aristocrats, juntas, knights templars, or secret police will be needed to do our thinking for us, thank you.
White racial self-realization = white self-rule in the most radical, literal sense.
Anything less is to deny our nature as high IQ people capable of rational autonomy.
Vick,
Did I say there would be no perks or privileges? Once you accept that human societies can and must be run by elites, then it becomes apparent what hostility to the elites amounts to: hostility to the visible elites. Why should I care whether they’re rich or not, as long as they’re securing the long-term interests of our people?
It’s not a hidden contempt, it’s an honest appraisal of people I love. Running throughout the trailer parks and subdivisions of America and telling them that they’re perfectly capable of meeting and defeating the metaphysical and metapolitical challenges before them is mere flattery, the flattery necessary to pull off a con. It reminds me of how movies try to hammer home that mom and dad are a couple of foolish stooges, and that they’re too smart to mind them.
Of course, what the teens watching the television aren’t told is that there’s a sinister Jewish and capitalist machine awaiting them which is even more unfair and uncool than mom and dad.
I suppose you could dismiss my analysis as being the basis for a delusional plot to end up with a vacation home. You can’t ever really know what my real motives are, can you?
At the rate things are developing internationally, they’ll be the ones forgetting us.
That’s the impasse in a nutshell. I deny our nature as high IQ people capable of rational autonomy. In time, after repeated failures and humiliations, White families and individuals will come to the realization that they don’t have it all figured out. They don’t know the rules to the game and wouldn’t be able to win it if they did. They’ll abandon the flattering notion that they’re fit to lead and look for leadership.
Vick,
“Anything less is to deny our nature as high IQ people capable of rational autonomy.”
It is that rational autonomy precisely which has led to, or allowed for, white self-denial.
Something ‘white advocates’ will have to grapple with.
It occurs to me that the Jewish/Leftist forces arrayed against us seek our total destruction for what, from their perspective, is good reason: the fact that guys like Matt Parrott can pop up from out of the trailer park. That’s got to unsettle them quite a bit. Ergo, we all have to go.
In times past they might have focused on the kulaks, or simply anyone wearing spectacles. They would have tried to cut our head off. Problem is, that doesn’t really work in our case, at least not permanently. A new natural elite rises. The only permanent solution is that all whites go into the dark night.
Matt, and I don’t mean this as idle flattery, your writing has become truly top notch. Since you contribute in a variety of venues, I hope that not too much gets lost over time.
Skepticism has been expressed in this thread about a future white nationalist elite. I share this skepticism, and have explained some of my concerns fairly recently. But, given that every society is in effect ruled by an elite of some sort, it is of no use simply to condemn elites in general. One might as well pound one’s fist in anger that the tide is coming in, or that the sun will set in the west. Or fume over that damn gravity.
Given that there will be an elite, we need to do what we can to make certain that said elite serves the long term interests of our people. What shall the entrance requirements be? What standards? What costs? What checks against the elite, and what ability to clean the stables if the safety mechanisms fail?
Thus far, the only stab at this that I’m aware of comes from the often insightful Linder. In this case, unfortunately, insight failed him and he came up with the awful and laughably bad notion that the elites (he calls them Defenders) would have several of their members killed in a yearly festival. As I understand it, the sacrificial lambs would be drawn randomly from the entire elite class, and executed in a grand spectacle.
This ritualized human sacrifice of the elites, however out of tune with our Western ethos, is designed to serve a reasonable purpose: the elites must have some skin in the game. It’s not all vacation homes and hot interns, but some real risk as well.
Terrible, terrible idea. But a worthy purpose. Leaders should in fact have some skin in the game. It shouldn’t be all vacation homes and hot interns. Furthermore, the idea that our elites should have some skin in the game could in fact play in Peoria. How many times have we heard something to the effect that our politicians should be made to fight in the wars that they start, or the older but still very relevant idea of the “rich man’s war, poor man’s fight?”
These are sentiments that are already out there, just waiting to be tapped.
White Peoria senses that there is something a bit off about an elite, chosen largely on the basis of monetary riches, making life and death decisions for the nation. There is a basic non sequitur at work here, even for people who have no idea what a non sequitur is: why in the world should a guy who was really good at making money (or really good at inheriting it) be in a position to send my boy off to die? It just doesn’t follow, yet that is how our system works, at least in part.
I see the so called taboos of today as being something to work with, to turn in our favor. Sure, we’re not going to get anywhere if what we offer is a leadership that, instead of being based on money, is based instead upon how many times someone has screamed “heil hitler,” or his proven fetishization of 1930’s German costumery. But what if we offer something, I don’t know, better?
Couldn’t hurt.
And while I share some of the skepticism expressed by your debating partners here, I’m fairly confident that we can come up with a different system that, in fact, would be attractive to a significant portion of the white population.
99 percent of people over the age of 20, and certainly over the age of 30, know perfectly well that they are not and will not become members of the elite. Hell, by 30 most people understand that they are never even going to have a lot of money. They aspire to being able to pay their bills, and perhaps enjoy some entertainment or diversions here and there.
Liberals love to claim that Republican voters are willing to foolishly carry the water of “the rich” because they think that they are going to become rich themselves. I don’t see this. How many people over the age of 30 do you run into that give any real indication that they expect such an outcome? I’d wager not many. When people are in middle school, they all believe that they are going to be filthy rich. Then life happens. A few years as an adult in the real world has, shall we say, a definite chilling effect on such lofty aspiration.
Point is, even in the atomized and every man for himself United States, most people know quite well that there is in effect a leadership class, and that they are not part of it. If we can offer an alternative that holds the leadership class to high and meaningful standards, instead of our current “If you have enough money and are willing to bow down to the Jews” requirement, then we might well be onto something. Something that might actually play in Peoria, or at least enough of it to give us a real chance at a White Republic.
In any event, I appreciate your willingness to step out of the box and question contemporary taboos. We need to craft an alternative that meets two simple requirements: it must secure the long term existence of our people, and it must ultimately have enough street appeal to get us our ethnostate. Taboo or no taboo, unless what we come up with meets those two requirements, it’s all moot anyway.
Bottom line is that there is a big difference between costume clowns who intentionally offend, and revel in their offensiveness, and those who engage in the metapolitical search for a real alternative.
When it comes to White elites in general, history shows that they often cannot be trusted to be responsible stewards. Therefore, Whites would be extremely foolish to invest all or most political power into the hands of a small body of elites that is not accountable in any way to the wider society.
Such an arrangement would: 1) be very susceptible to subversion, and 2) make it all too easy for the elite class to rule in their own interests as opposed to the public interest — which is the exact situation we are in today.
The ideal system will need mechanisms for installing and removing people from the elite class. This means the system will need to have some democratic and republican elements.
Trainspotter: “They would have tried to cut our head off. Problem is, that doesn’t really work in our case, at least not permanently. A new natural elite rises.”
They have already cut our head off: our natural leaders have been displaced by phony elites.
Putting white nationalist leaders in a gulag would be easy to do and effective, if it doesn’t backfire. The risk is that it could help white people realize what is happening, and maybe there would be a backlash. The anti-white forces still rely on the cooperation of naive white people to continue their policy of soft genocide.
“Leaders should in fact have some skin in the game.”
Anders Breivik would agree with you!
“we need to do what we can to make certain that said elite serves the long term interests of our people”
That’s true, but that is not our immediate concern. First we need a revolution to stop the race-replacement. The danger is that our revolutionary leaders will not be harsh enough. We need complete racial separation, and we’ll need to fire millions of white people who betrayed us: practically all the media people, most judges, half the elected officials, half the teachers, and so on.
If such a revolution occurs, it will be fueled by our sense of racial and physical danger. It will rely on the pro-white ideological impetus and won’t need any particular system of rules to sustain itself. It’s only after the revolution has settled down that we will need to take security measures for the future.
THEIR GOAL IS GENOCIDE. OURS. WHAT’S YOURS?
It seems about half the comments in this thread deserve to placed in two new threads, entitled (1) What Is To Be Done, and (2) How Best To Go About It.
Some quick comments:
Vick in blockquote:
The larger issue is that is ALWAYS an “Elite,” of one form or another, one way or another. Pareto and analysts of the Italian School discussed this openly. Ludivici’s comments on the Aristocracy are worth reviewing.
If “sunlight is the best disinfectant,” then light for all offers all the Truth. Transparency, radical transparency, offers more opportunities for effective governance at all levels of society.
Trainspotter wrote:
The Hunger Games for rich people? I have a sense of humor, as well.
The Answer was given to us by Uncle Adolf:
Universal Service.
They will not be members of the Former Middle Class. Look at the tremendous effect Ron Paul has had on the under-twenty-five crowd. They don’t have a functional answer, but they KNOW they have been lied to, badly, and openly.
It’s like what Tyler Durden said in “Fight Club:
“We are the middle children of history, …and we have been lied to, and we aer very, very unhappy about that”
With nothing, they really have nothing to lose. By extension, they will have everything to gain with an acceptable metapolitical alternative.
Summed up: (1) The Fourteen Words as (2) the inspiration leading to an ethnostate, the temporal solution that builds the bridge to the metapolitical project.. Sounds great.
Lew wrote:
Transparency. Deep, honest, radical transparency.
Armor in blockquote:
All done in an “apple-pie, strictly legal, sort of way.” (HT: Jim Giles)
People who want to lay the foundation for a REAL revolution, and not just trite, foolish, attempts at playing “Rebellion,” will start by FIRST sending money to counter-currents. each and every month. Any money left over? Send it to the Northwest Front, each and every month? Any money left over? Split in half, and do what you just did, each and every month.
What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!
I had not heard of Kony until you mentioned it but a Chinese chap http://homosapienssaveyourearth.blogspot.com/2011/11/crimes-against-animals-around-world.html put together quite a collection of crimes against animals and I am sorry to say that when it comes to cruelty there is not much difference between the races. I had thought that the European was kinder than the rest but when a Frenchman can use a live dog as bait for sharks I am afraid that we have finally achieved equality – in all the wrong places. Where is our George Stimpson when you need him?
Where is Savitri Devi when you need her?
Amen, brother.
If you google “shark-baiting with live dogs”, you find websites that wonder about the practicality of fishing with live dogs. How do you keep the dog from drowning?
Besides, it’s supposed to have happened on the Reunion island (near Madagascar), where White people are a minority.
Wikipedia: “According to estimates, Europeans make up approximately one-quarter of the population, Indians make up roughly a quarter, and people of Chinese ancestry form roughly 3%.”
I don’t think Africa needs Kony; they need colonization and enforced population control by Western powers or maybe China. I think a gradual eugenics program would help them to achieve a tolerable state of civilization without destroying the wonderful flora and fauna of the African wilderness. James Watson’s message is the important puzzle piece that these college students lack.
I think the author’s mistake is that he believes Africa needs time to “catch up” in evolutionary terms with the powers of the northern hemisphere. They can’t, because they are not subjected to the same selection pressures. Presumably, Africa before its contact with Europeans was in evolutionary equilibrium with its environment. The introduction of European advanced technology will not speed their evolution, but only further enable them in the destruction of their own environment and one another.
Many factors contributed to European evolution, not just war. Philip Rushton points to the increased selection pressures of cold winters in the Northern hemisphere, for example–probably the most important point, as it correlates all across the Eurasian continent. The superiority of certain groups in warfare has been a result of, an expression of intellectual superiority rather than a causal factor.
And what is a war monkey but ultimately, the space monkey? Remember the opening scene of 2001: the monkey throws his stick-turned-club weapon up higher and higher until it become a space ship. What did Nietzsche say? Crooked is the path of eternity. Or Jung: What is the shortest distance between two points? The impasse.
The best Africans, the few that earn real degrees and become doctors and nurses, stay in the West after their education. As Schweitzer said, the spirit of service is almost non-existent with them. By allowing the loss of their genetic capital, we condemn them to eternal inferiority. The author is right: the test tube must be sealed to allow pressure to build up.
(Please delete my above post, it’s badly misspelled)
I have to laugh at these hipsters and their anti-Kony campaign. All they ever did was guilt-tripping other middle-class white people (like themselves) into buying their videos and “Kony 2012″ shirts. It’s a favorite hobby of the over-privileged white liberals to whine and cry about Ugandans or Amazonians or whatever trendy cause in the non-white world they’ve latched onto. Hey, maybe I’ll start a trendy campaign about the poor Africans too, and get all the attention I need. Actually sounds like too much work. I’ll buy a bracelet and like them on facebook.
Seriously, this is ridiculous. Joseph Kony is not likely to kidnap my children in the nearest future and I honestly have more urgent things to care about than some blacks on the Dark Continent. All of those African “states” are ruled by semi-illiterate, semi-cannibal freaks. What goes on in negroland doesn’t bother me.
Matt, I certainly don’t agree with a lot of your theories.
But your thinking is well reasoned and creative, be encouraged to continue! Its good to hear actual thinking as opposed to iteration of Evola, Nietzsche, and de Maistre all the time.
Actually, Joseph de Maistre has only been occasionally mentioned or discussed at Counter-Currents. Come to think of it, perhaps I should translate the essay on Maistre in Julius Evola’s Explorations, as I don’t believe it has been translated into English. As I recall, the essay focuses upon Maistre’s St. Petersburg Dialogues, which includes this exchange:
The Senator: This is an abyss into which it is better not to look.
The Count: My friend, we are not free not to look.
While Maistre’s counter-revolutionary politics may be of relatively little interest or appeal to contemporaries, his anthropology — i.e. his theory of human nature — may be another matter.
Trainspotter:
It occurs to me that the Jewish/Leftist forces arrayed against us seek our total destruction for what, from their perspective, is good reason: the fact that guys like Matt Parrott can pop up from out of the trailer park. That’s got to unsettle them quite a bit.
This is a major reason I don’t support gratuitous denigration of “the masses.” Capable White people can be found everywhere.
Lew: “This is a major reason I don’t support gratuitous denigration of “the masses.” Capable White people can be found everywhere.”
Very true, and it makes the destruction of the white working class a real tragedy. God only knows the talent that we have already lost in just the last twenty or thirty years. While my father’s side of the family is well to do, my own mother came from very much a working class background. But she was coming of age in the 50’s and was married by the early 60’s. It was a working class that had essentially middle class values. White, racially healthy, tidy homes, sound standards of behavior, and so forth. If someone like my mother were coming up today? Nothing like the neighborhood that she grew up in would be available to her, much less the all white public schools and the still more or less healthy popular culture (not particularly healthy compared to what we want, but you know what I mean). I shutter to think of the possibilities. I truly feel sorry for the working class kids of today, and what passes for parents in so many instances.
Lew: “The ideal system will need mechanisms for installing and removing people from the elite class. This means the system will need to have some democratic and republican elements.”
Absolutely. I’ve briefly addressed this issue in a past comment or two. More thought needs to be devoted to it. If our target market thinks that, by going with us, they are just going to exchange one illegitimate elite for another, that certainly doesn’t aid our cause. And even if our cause triumphs in spite of itself, will it be successful long term if there is no means of cleaning out the stables?
Armor: ” They have already cut our head off: our natural leaders have been displaced by phony elites.”
Yes, my comment assumed this. The point was that a new natural aristocracy arises, often from the most unlikely of places. Whether that natural aristocracy can achieve power is the question.
Armor: “Anders Breivik would agree with you!”
Breivik is like a guy who, let’s say, wants to remove all cats from a town. So what does he do? Find the most sympathetic, photogenic kittens that he can find…and publicly slaughters them. He really believes that this will build support for his campaign against cats. Somehow, amazingly, it doesn’t work that way. The mangiest, disgusting and guiltiest cats remain unscathed, and breeding new ones isn’t a problem. Nothing accomplished, except to paint anti-cat people as madmen. (note: I actually like cats, though I like dogs better; it was rather unfair using them in this example)
Thank god there is no armed revolution as of yet because, judging from the late and unlamented Breivik debate, far more people than I would have thought have zero appreciation for strategic targeting (either that or they were just trolls). Whatever some may think of him, Covington’s fiction has a pretty good take on this. Notice who his fictional NVA targets and why. Hint: they don’t do what Breivik did, certainly not as a starting point. Yes, they are often savagely brutal, but it is brutality with a purpose that the broader white population can understand.
Any revolutionary movement that pulled a Breivik as its signature opening would be stillborn, going absolutely nowhere. Anyone stupid enough not to understand this would be a liability to such a hypothetical force. That debate convinced me that there are way too many loons that are hangars on in this movement, who attempt to pose as “hard men.” Well, “hard men” don’t have to be stupid men. In any event, this is of course a purely hypothetical and fictional discussion, and not advocacy on my part. Maybe the mainstreamers are right, and we’ll get our nation delivered to us with a cherry on top.
Armor: “That’s true, but that is not our immediate concern. First we need a revolution to stop the race-replacement. The danger is that our revolutionary leaders will not be harsh enough. We need complete racial separation, and we’ll need to fire millions of white people who betrayed us: practically all the media people, most judges, half the elected officials, half the teachers, and so on.”
We do need complete racial separation. I am doubtful that such an extreme outcome is possible unless a firm philosophical foundation is in place. Without a deep understanding of why complete racial separation is necessary, it is almost certain that even an aggressive future movement won’t go far enough. Too many temptations, too many easy ways out. “But Tryone is such a nice guy. He won’t bother anybody if he stays!” “We need workers. What’s the harm if they know their place?” Ad infinitum.
Not to mention the fact that, without a firm philosophical foundation that not only demands complete racial separation, but also challenges the core poisons of liberal democracy and posits a definitive replacement, a revolutionary situation can be captured or coopted by other forces that know exactly what they want. Or, possibly even worse, just fall into a general conservative stumblebum posture, waving the American and Israeli flags together, as a zionist preacher officiates. There are more of them than us, and they have the money. On the other hand, they tend to be stupid and confused. Such types need not win out, but unless we are firm in our conviction and our aims it’s entirely possible.
No, for this movement to get anywhere, we’ve got to know as exactly as possible what we want and why. We need to develop a worldview so strong and so deep that it remains steadfast in the face of setbacks and treacherous luck. I expect plenty of both. The philosophical work has to be done now, not after the horses have run out from the barn. If history is any guide, once things start happening, things will move very fast.
Trainspotter: “The philosophical work has to be done now”
Once White people find themselves living in besieged communities, some of them will start to react, and I think it will be more a matter of strategy than philosophy. We must define broad principles now, but I think that, for example, Richard McCulloch’s work (Separate or Die), has more to do with strategy and common sense than with high-level philosophy.
“But Tyrone is such a nice guy. He won’t bother anybody if he stays!”
About people’s desire to be nice and to compromise, I read a good text called “A Warning From South Africa” (here). It ties up with Brett Stevens’ comment, and with white nationalist wisdom about why conservatives can’t win.
THEIR GOAL IS GENOCIDE. OURS. WHAT’S YOURS?
Trainspotter in blockquote:
After ONE HUNDRED YEARS someone finally gets it. We have to be able to state our goals in sentences of five words or less. We have to link our goals one to another, and we must link our goals to the manifestation of the temporal bridge to a metapolitical order, and a cohesive strategy to get us there.
I have long maintained that those defined as our “representatives” – the Klan, with their green satin bedsheets and pillow cases for uniforms, or the NSM, with its obese losers wearing very ununiform uniforms – could not have been manufactured by our Adversaries to place us in a worse light. Without casting aspersions on any single person, let me state that I strongly suspect This Is Not By Accident.
No wonder so many of “Yesterdays’ Men (and Women!)” hate someone like Harold Covington who, actually sees the depth of what we are facing, and has the ONLY Solution that solves all issues, and resolves all conflicts.
Let’s see. Write novels about capping mudsharks and their paramours, and the Army coming to our rescue, with atomic weapons, OR….
Send some money, each and every month, to counter-currents and the Northwest Front.
It must be so simply stated as to “remain steadfast” in the face of treachery, which can be defined, and manifest incompetence, which many times seems to be the same thing. One possible theme to bear in mind: It must be understood and taken to heart by the t-shirt people who, with nothing, and nothing to lose, will be seeking to join Something Better. We can offer this, as a philosophy, in an “apple-pie, strictly legal, sort of way.” (HT: Jim Giles)
For those who think clearly defined and articulated philosophies have nothing to offer in terms of effectiveness, I offer the works of Ayn Rand. These have grown to the point that a new political party can be built around them, as Ron Paul has demonstrated. For our purpose, every concept must be clearly expressed in sentences of no more than FIVE WORDS.
That’s what counter-current has been doing, as has Bob Whitaker, as has Harold Covington.
These are exemplary examples for the rest of us.
What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!
Fourmyle of Ceres,
Your proposal that “every concept must be clearly expressed in sentences of no more than five words” is silly. By this standard, even David Lane’s fourteen words is overly verbose — not to mention virtually every comment you post.
Communicating with clarity and brevity requires issuing words to measure rather than fixed lengths. Words which are not bespoke — i.e. tailored to a particular audience, time and place, and media — do not speak.
I recently noted this bright spot in a largely dubious work: “Yoritomo’s five-step method for creating simple and effective messages is easy to master and still viable today: (1) think deeply on what we want to say beforehand, (2) transform our thoughts into images. When crafting these images, (3) use incisive words that (4) draw mental images, we can easily (5) implant into the minds of others.” Gustave Le Bon would have agreed with this. Effective communication requires a certain skill in choosing effective words and images, however simple the latter may be.
Great article, Matt.
I think the point is this: without active effort toward evolving to a higher state, we devolve toward a lower one.
It’s good for us to see this state in its naked, witch-burning, child-enslaving, mass-raping, feces-on-food smearing (etc) condition.
It’s like swimming against a tide. You either keep pushing forward, even though it’s “two steps forward, one step back” or you give up and let the current take you toward the default.
The default is entropy, failure, and third world levels of corruption, filth and purposeless destructive behavior.
There’s a new book by Bernard Lugan, a prolific French author on Africa, titled Décolonisez l’Afrique! (Decolonize Africa! [Paris: Ellipses, 2011]). Lugan favours the true decolonization of Africa. The promotional blurb enumerates several ways in which Africa is subject to “economic, political, philosophical, and moral recolonization” today: the IMF and the World Bank impose impossible financial demands on African states; the countries of the North demand the application of individualist democracy; multinationals and Asian powers pillage its primary resources and colonize its arable lands; “selective immigration” is responsible for a “brain drain”; “humanitarian intervention,” the contemporary version of the “just war,” targets the few indocile leaders for “regime change,” as with Libya.
Africans should be left to their own devices. The primitiveness and savagery in Africa which leftists use to justify intervention actually justifies non-intervention. It’s an exercise in utter futility.
Incidentally, has anyone heard of leftists complaining about Chinese “neo-colonialism” in Africa? If leftists are silent on this issue, is this because they believe it would be “racist” to criticize the Chinese? Such behavior wouldn’t be unprecedented. In Australia, Abe David and Ted Wheelwright’s book The Third Wave, which criticized Japanese “investment” (i.e. economic imperialism) in Australia, was attacked as “racist” by Trotskyites. It didn’t matter that the authors were leftists, were careful to distance themselves from anti-Asian racism, and were no less critical of British and American investment than of Japanese investment.