Race: The First PrincipleGregory Hood
Spanish translation here
It’s a common dodge for opponents of white nationalism, even sympathetic opponents, to charge that “race isn’t enough” to build a society. This misses the point. Of course “whiteness” in and of itself doesn’t solve all problems – although a society solely composed of even the most degraded elements of our own people would be far preferable to the current embarrassment we call a country.
Race is superior to any other foundational principle, including religion, ideology, or economics as the basis of a society. A sophisticated understanding of race is in and of itself sufficient to ensure the survival and perpetuation of a society. In the end, this is the only test that really matters.
At the most basic level, the physical existence of the people has to be guaranteed before anything else can be considered. Economic recession, military occupation, disease, and political repression can pass with time – all are temporary if the folk remains intact. As the AWB of South Africa wrote in its founding principles, “As long as the race remains biologically pure, the possibility and probability of rebirth and resistance is always there.”
Race is the key building block of any real community and the farthest meaningful grouping to which we can give our loyalty. We know that genetic similarity and kinship patterns affect our behavior every day, even in ways we don’t expect. We know that children are race conscious as early as nine months. We know that people are mentally healthier in ethnically homogenous societies. We know diversity destroys social trust, eventually, even within members of the same ethnic group. The ancients knew this, and modern science confirms it.
Our society’s frantic efforts to escape these truths gives us the farce that passes for a public debate in a multiethnic democracy, when major magazines can publish breathless cover stories like “Is your baby racist?” without irony. We set up entire social systems and ideologies at odds with our most basic instincts and wonder why the world seems to have lost its mind.
Race is the hidden foundation of the supposed pillars of society and morality. Religion is the most obvious example. Haitian, French, and Chinese Catholics all submit to the Magisterium, but it would be foolish to speak of them as belong to the same “religion” in any meaningful sense or sharing the same experience of the divine. A people’s understanding of the gods, the relationship between faith and the state, and the practice of worship owe more to traditions ingrained deep within the folk than any defined creed. As James Russell described in The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity, “Conversion is as much a bargaining process as a conquest, with the indigenous people transforming creed even as it changes them.” These expressions may be rooted in the genes themselves, something even more primordial than thousands of years of history.
The problem is that absent race and a folk consciousness, the faith becomes an alienating, even hostile force against its own people.
Witness devout Muslims destroying priceless Islamic shrines on the grounds they are deviations from the “true” Islam, Cromwell’s Puritans banning the “pagan” festival of Christmas, or orthodox Jews refusing to defend Israel, preferring to study Torah all day and sponge off welfare. In the United States at the ground level, there is no force more powerful in the effort to dispossess white Americans through mass nonwhite immigration than the Christian churches, with the possible exception of the government itself. Of course, absent their core population and cultural ties, these same churches (especially the mainline Protestant denominations) shrivel up and die. After all, what real impact does Lutheranism as a creed have on America today, other than inflicting us with more Somalis?
This alienating process is all but inevitable as impulses that enable continued collective existence clash with suicidal moral principles. Insofar as a universalistic religion survives amongst a people, it survives through hypocrisy.
Political ideology is another red herring. A comparison between North and South Korea should be sufficient to prove that ideology matters. However, even in North Korea, it’s an ideology of thinly veiled racial nationalism that serves as the indispensable support for what would otherwise be a doomed system. In multicultural democracies, repeated studies show that voters are unwilling to support social welfare programs if they are perceived as supporting foreign groups. It’s no coincidence that American conservatism is characterized by marshaling white resentment against non-white welfare recipients – though conservatives will hasten to explain it has “nothing to do with race.” As Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore put it, “In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.”
Of course, the defining characteristic of the modern era is economism, the reduction of all human interaction to the purely monetary. It was Marx who first highlighted this reductionist aspect of capitalism, the destruction of the traditional social order. While Marx sneered that this was simply the stripping away of sentiment, today’s liberals (classical or otherwise) miss entirely the undercurrent of despair and tragedy. Instead, they proclaim they are sui generis, proudly renouncing any unchosen commitments to family, race, religion, nation, or morality. In the new world, only what a person can create in terms of currency matters.
Such a world rebuts itself. The modern consumerist America of drug-addicted depressed denizens frantically rutting and intoxicating themselves to avoid suicide is hardly a Galt’s Gulch of liberated supermen.
A degraded culture, broken families, and a flourishing marketplace that traffics in human misery are not worth defending. It’s a life of consummate meaninglessness.
However, the economist premise fails even on its own terms. Even a casual glance around the Western world reveals the massive financial fraud and manipulation required to keep the system limping along. In real economic terms, quality of life has not been increasing in decades, even in the midst of dramatic technological progress.
A true libertarian could object that all this is because we don’t have “true” capitalism, the unknown ideal. The absence of any “truly” free society in all of human history that meets their standards would seem to suggest that this fantastical ideology doesn’t have much basis in fact. One can’t simply beg the question by positing an abstract utopia and then wishing the real world out of existence.
But even if we dismiss the objection from practicality, libertarianism fails on its own terms. Large-scale investments in infrastructure, conscious efforts to ameliorate class divisions, productivity-based economics, and deliberate maintenance of high wage levels and a tight labor market to spur technological innovation are objectively superior policies from the standpoint of economic productivity.
Even if we dismiss this objection as well, a “perfect” libertarianism still requires preventing the lower classes from obtaining state power, presumably through some sort of hyperactive authoritarianism in the manner of Pinochet. Furthermore, the capitalist desire for short term cheap labor would inevitably lead to the replacement of skilled workers by low intelligence helots that would degrade overall economic performance while increasing social obligations. A society of pure “freedom” inevitably becomes a rigid hierarchy that requires denying vast sections of the population a political outlet in order to maintain the system. It’s no surprise that the open borders faction of the American conservative movement replies to this objection by just wishing it out of existence, simply positing that low-IQ Hispanic laborers will suddenly transform into WASPs over the course of a generation.
What happens is that race reasserts itself even in nominally economist societies. Even if you cut low-IQ nonwhites off from having a political voice, even if you strip any consideration of race or culture from policy, race will assert itself in housing patterns, business relationships, and consumer behavior below the surface even in a pure libertarianism. Without civil rights laws and the state-run egalitarian bureaucracy, a libertarian society would undoubtedly be a more openly racialist society, despite its individualist principles. The reason is simple – men are not economic inputs. They are not replaceable automatons, each equally capable of a certain level of economic output. Economic theories that do not consider culture, history, tradition, and the biological reality of race simply do not work. Let it be said plainly – even on purely economic terms, socialism in Sweden beats capitalism in Haiti, every single time.
Once any foundational principle relinquishes the explicit identification of race, it contains the seeds of its own destruction. Rootless religion, abstract civic creeds, or arrogant economism devour themselves within generations, actively dispossessing their own constituencies. Collective suicide is hardly an endorsement of any of these theories.
In contrast, race, by itself, provides sufficient guidance. The upward development of the race must be the organizational principle of the state because it contains a non-negotiable core of continuity with the necessary tactical flexibility to respond to changing circumstances. It gives coherence to long term state policy across a whole range of issues.
Take something as seemingly nonracial as transportation. Obviously, American transportation policy is hopelessly muddled because of the need to commute to avoid living in high crime black neighborhoods, the inability of nonwhites to refrain from causing chaos and crime on public transportation systems, and the multicultural requirement to give government jobs to incompetent minorities, resulting in deadly accidents.
However, in a White Republic, race could still guide policy even if we didn’t have to deal with racial aliens. A folkish transportation policies policy would seek to integrate transportation within the framework of an organic society. It would work to reduce stress and conflict between members of the racial community. It would prioritize state investment to reduce costs for workers who need to get to their jobs, thus increasing overall economic productivity for the benefit of everyone. It would incorporate aesthetic, environmental, and even psychological concerns, so that something as mundane as getting from point A to point B wouldn’t be a case for tension and rage, but something that creates white communal unity. Of course, Golden Dawn in Greece took a small step in this direction by occupying privately owned toll booths, forcefully rejecting the idea that the nation’s people are resources to be harvested for private benefit.
Race provides clarity. In health care, policies are intended to ensure quality of life and dignity for the racial community, rather than trying to ration care or protect the medical establishment. In population policy, the goal is to constantly improve the racial stock, creating healthier, more intelligent, more attractive people, creating a cascading series of benefits on a host of other issues. With family law, we break down the policies that set men against women and encourage legalistic arguments about property. Instead, we consciously pursue politics that enable strong, permanent, two-parent families that purposely set about to raise large numbers of legitimate children who are connected to their heritage and traditions. Instead of public policy guided by wishful thinking, irrelevant tangents, or competing claims of imaginary rights, there is utter consistency.
The goal of any policy in any field is the survival and improvement of the Volksgemeinschaft – the organic racial community that transcends class. At different times and under different circumstances the policies may change, and the purpose remains.
Today, public policy discussion, especially on the Right, is characterized by a bizarre helplessness. On immigration for example, even ideological conservatives with values above cheap labor seem resigned that their “principles” force them to approve their own dispossession. The North American New Right has to proclaim that any morality which mandates suicide, individual or collective, is to be destroyed. Morality exists to facilitate our development, not cripple us. Morality is a secondary development, a derivation, not a cause.
It is the upward development and survival that is the highest law, the law from which creeds, codes, and even gods must derive. Our people first – Eigen Volk Eerst as the Vlaams Belang says – is not just a populist political cry. It is a guide of policy, a framework of the state, the first moral commandment.
Anti-Racism Comes for the Church: The Case of Thomas Achord
What a Nation is Not
Nueva Derecha vs. Vieja Derecha Capítulo 2: Hegemonía
The Honorable Cause: A Review
Lord of the Fries
Liberal Anti-Democracy, Chapter 4, Part 1: The Post-War Consensus
Restoring White Homelands
Remembering Edward Gibbon
“The problem is that absent race and a folk consciousness, the faith becomes an alienating, even hostile force against its own people.”
It should be chiseled at the entry of any theological institute – and not only.
Another thinker, 7 thousands years old. Along with his wife.
Who are they? I can’t read this language. Looks like something from Rodin.
Evidently not the best resource…
The Thinker of Hamangia and his wife are two clay figurines discovered near Cernavoda, Romania in 1956, currently exposed at National History museum in Bucharest.
They were named “of Hamangia” somewhat improperly after another neolithic site at Hamangia few kilometers away, The first discoveries being made at Hamangia in 1953 (some exceptional pottery there), the historians already started to talk about Hamangia culture and its area of manifestation so the Thinker was named through extension.
I like them very much, and I couldn’t help not to mention them, given the modern thinker above.
What’s that great quote by Chomsky? Something like the New World Order is against Racism because Racism is human and they are against anything human.
The quotation you’re thinking of was in Gregory Hood’s last article, “The System Against Syria . . . and Russia.” Here it is:
Capitalism basically wants people to be interchangeable cogs, and differences among them, such as on the basis of race, usually are not functional. I mean, they may be functional for a period, like if you want a super-exploited workforce or something, but those situations are kind of anomalous. Over the long term, you can expect capitalism to be anti-racist — just because its anti-human. And race is in fact a human characteristic — there’s no reason why it should be a negative characteristic, but it is a human characteristic. So therefore identifications based on race interfere with the basic ideal that people should be available just as consumers and producers, interchangeable cogs who will purchase all the junk that’s produced — that’s their ultimate function, and any other properties they might have are kind of irrelevant, and usually a nuisance. (Noam Chomsky, Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky [New York: The New Press, 2002], pp. 88–89)
Thanks, that’s a great quote that might open a few Leftist minds. Any other gems from Chomsky?
Race is a hard sell as a unifier because of sub-ethnicity, cultural and other differences. The better critics of WNism that I have debated have challenged me to give evidence that race is any better a basis for nationhood in practice than civic nationalism. It’s not easy as it might seem because cultural differences are rightly important to people.
I’ve had many intelligent, well informed liberals tell me words to the effect of”why would I want to live with people I have nothing in common with even if they are white.”One critic (a good friend) told me “if you want to live in a white country move to Serbia or Estonia!” Intially, I thought “great idea,” but, on further reflection, I realized I have nothing with Serbians or Estonians and a lot in common with American blacks and second generation Indians, Iranians, and Hispanics. Because of my field, I’ve had a chance to work closely with all kinds of Americanized high IQ non-whites, and Russians, Germans, French, Poles and British straight from the old country.
I have consistently found the non-American Euros more stilted, alien and harder to get along with than the Americanized non-whites who are more genetically distant. I eventually became good friends with one of the Germans, but he is the exception. With the non-whites, it’s the exact opposite because we have a common frame. My personal experience doesn’t prove anything, but it does help me appreciate why a lot of white people don’t consider WNism workable.
WN-ism might be understood differently.
It might be living together or separately – but peacefully. Maybe a large framework to ensure the survival of the white race either as an all white empire or a collection of cooperating white national states.
It might be a stepping stone to a new American people (melting people from different stocks takes time maybe more than one thousand years – and not just few hundreds), in a large scale ethno-genetic process.
Due to my field I was in contact with different kind of supposedly high IQ people from different races too. Unfortunately many of our people have too many times some annoying prejudices and a misplaced superiority complex against things or men they don’t really know, or maybe even never cared about. But frankly the others were far worse in the end.
As anti-European attitudes are found among many Americans (like that folly with the freedom fries), imagine that in Europe, anti-Americanism is cultivated through Academia. Imagine it is not about what is wrong with the Americans, but usually with what is really good in America. In America I saw the reverse. The American left is cultivating what’s worse in Europe.
The problem is that a racial alien will mimic impeccably a certain American behavior because he has something to gain. A German or a French don’t really have that problem. They are not that pressured to behave differently, like an Indian will be. But you’ll never know what that Indian is really thinking, nor his real loyalty. Usually until it is too late.
Pretty much I know what to expect from a Romanian, a Hungarian, even from a German or a French. I don’t necessarily like them all, but what I’ve seen from Jews, Gypsies, Indians, and a few other was far worse. All high IQs.
Somehow I started to believe that the “minimum friction” theory is at least partially correct. I see WN-ism as a necessary lubricant between us. It is absolutely necessary, because otherwise, we will be at the mercy of a foreign Empire.
I’m sure they will show the compassion of the much celebrated humanitarian Genghis Han.
Maybe I am stilted and I use too many words. But at least I speak my mind.
I’m not making this case about non-white immigrants in general but a small subset, second-generation, educated, high IQ, Americanized. I know our writers and idea people are stretched thin, but I think WNism might need to be reformulated along the lines you suggest as a White Coalition. James O. proposed a reformulation as European Socialism. Whites are so heavily divided by politics and culture it does pose serious problems for using race in practice if not in theory.
Regarding the foreign high IQs. There only two possibilities.
They are mercenaries, selling everything like they did with their original people. Selling everything for a good life.
Second they have a loyalty for their people, behaving themselves while this will bring them knowledge, power and money. What will happen next? In a situation when there are no incentive to behave?
Regarding the high IQs.
Probably at a certain moment there was the idea that bringing all the brilliant brains in America, this will create a new race with a median IQ of let’s say 150. It was the idea that for every white genius there are another two in China and another two in India, and that bringing them in America or Europe it will finally serve everybody.
It doesn’t. It would brain drain both China and India while creating distrust in America and Europe. Remember the minimum friction.
The second generation Americanization is just a veneer. Being a people and a race supposes so much more. The tradition. The ancestors. The blood. The land. Even the sound of your place. Those things that create the loyalty and love.
Of course, in our times when to be loyal is a sign of stupidity, these things don’t count much. Because we are led toward superficiality and perishability, while the small economic calculus is poisoning our lives.
But, I don’t know if there are any high culture born from these. But a culture of despair and pusillanimity. We are afraid to love what’s deep inside us so we won’t offend some spiritual or biological mutt.
A high culture is born from loyalty and love. And from that desire to fight for your soul. It is supposed that these profound things make us what we really are. From these deep and ancient roots is WN-ism ultimately born.
Regarding the culture and politics dividing us.
It is natural according the minimum friction theory. (In the nineties it was a lot of friction between East Germans and West Germans – so it happens inside the same great people).
What needs a man more? More than love, loyalty, courage. Is a high IQ foreigner really needed in this equation.
What is dividing us is a superficial thing. What unites us is so much ample.
We love the same, yet we left the enemy to define how we should love. He uses very well our love to turn us against each other. The enemy defines it in America, Russia and Europe. Different methods, the same result.
This is what the enemy is using against us. WN-ism should be the lubricant antidote. It has to redefine everything. Hard to do but the prize is worth.
As I see it counter-currents is doing a tremendous job.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Edit your comment