Counter-Currents
Anna Hyatt Huntington, The Torch Bearers, 1953
500 words
The ‘Right to Life’ is up there as the most basic of Human Rights. Now, I don’t believe in ‘Rights’ as anything except ‘stuff people want the state to guarantee’, but let’s roll with it for a second. You get born, have parties, and die. Maybe you’re like the Batman, and your parents get killed, and life is generally weird and shitty. Maybe you get born as Donald Trump or some kind of muslim war hero and manage to create a legacy that outlives you. But even this limited amount of information is quickly snowed under by how much stuff happens historically. Your individual ‘Right to life’ quickly becomes immaterial. OK, the parties were fun, and you didn’t get killed in some horrific war. Is that it? What next? What then?
The ‘Right to Life’ doesn’t mean much without the right to raise a family. Or more broadly — the right of self-perpetuation, the next step after subsistence and survival. The right to be more than an individual. The right to ‘start something’ — but instead of some shitty kickstarter, something actual, factual and with tooth and bite — a little clan. A folk or people. A group of kith, kin, warriors and townsfolk that endures beyond a snowflake-like existence of tumblr gifs and facebook selfies. A genetic group that throughout time gradually evolves, perpetuates, and has the same types of faces and same types of personalities recur throughout history.
Most men dying in conflict did so because they cared less about their Right to life as an individual and more for the social order, structure and nation that gave them differentiation; that was their own clan and separate people with distinction and identity. The Right to Differentiation if we’re being fancy, or the Right to be a Separate people, the right to self-segregate from an amorphous “humanity” and be part of a group that endures.
Fully-abled people who want to kill themselves are neurotic or depressed; they lack so much self respect they see their mere existence as a blemish on this world. Those who sees even a scrap of value in themselves wants the Right to Life as a basic so they can chase their idea of goodness. The Right to a Group Territory is just the next step. Instead of being reduced to being ‘just an individual’, have the self-respect and bravery to acknowledge what you are and where you came from — a lineage, a nation; a collection of self-sacrificers who, on the whole, wanted the best for you and frequently fought for it. Those with a scrap of self respect, if they’re being honest, also have to admit respect for those that came before them and a respect for the families they can create and support.
That means having a degree of racial pride, in the genetic uniqueness that defines you, something paid for in blood. Self-respect means acknowledging you’re not ‘just an individual.’
Are you?
Source: http://mynationalistpony.tumblr.com/post/148418356089/racial-pride-is-self-respect
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
3 comments
“A folk or people. A group of kith, kin, warriors and townsfolk that endures beyond a snowflake-like existence of tumblr gifs and facebook selfies. A genetic group that throughout time gradually evolves, perpetuates, and has the same types of faces and same types of personalities recur throughout history.”
I am going to take this thought to promote a movie I think has been undeservedly ignored by white nationalists. The movie is called “The Town” starring Ben Affleck, this movie is about racial loyalty, and carving out, and defending an ethnic area. It is about a gang of Irish bank robbers who are extremely smart and successful. What is important about this film is that the gangsters have their own safe area in a major city. The Irish gang operates from an area which has identifiable boundaries, ie., it has limited access over a bridge, and is bordered on one side by a river. The FBI knows that if the gang makes it over the bridge into their neighborhood they will get away, which is what they do; on the other side a neighborhood cop watches them ditch their disguises, then ignores them. In the movie there is a bar scene in which Affleck holds a conversation with Blake Lively (they have a son). Affleck asks Blake why she beat-up a Nigerian immigrant; Blake’s reply, and I paraphrase, “Because, he was talking shit, and I did not want him to think that there were no serious white people anymore.” Blake’s answer, by its self, makes the film worth watching. There is only one appearance of a non-white, near the end, a black FBI agent crosses the screen. So if you have not watched “The Town,” go out and buy a copy today.
Blood (genes) and soil are the only things that endure and are worth fighting about. Too many worthy and fine men have died for worthless slogans like, “making the world safe for democracy”. How the globalist must laugh at our gullibility and misplaced nobility.
Whilst some may indeed have died in order to ‘make the world safe for democracy’, (or rather, ‘make the world safe for plutocracy’), I believe that many more fell in battle because they were led to believe that defending/promoting democracy was somehow related to the defence of their own blood and soil. War propaganda, which argued that ‘if we don’t fight them there, we’ll have to fight them here’, or that the enemy had plans for global conquest, and therefore had to be ‘contained’, played a most significant role.
F. J. P. Veale’s ‘Advance to Barbarism’ has an interesting section on ‘Emotional Engineering’ that’s worth quoting at length here:
‘Once hostilities had started [in 1914], two factors left out of account by everyone operated to bring about a quite unexpected result. In the first place, after a respite of 43 years, Europeans had become unaccustomed to war; consequently, the sufferings and loss inseparable from war, even when waged in accordance with the strictest rules, aroused quite genuine horror. In the second place, there had long been growing unnoticed the power of the popular press to which the gory details of any war, however petty, served as a welcome change from accounts of crime, accidents and earthquakes. A major war was an opportunity for sensational embellishments not to be missed. Reacting each upon the other, these factors created a frame of mind which was quickly turned to account by the belligerent governments – and in particular by the British Government – at first seriously embarrassed by the problem of supplying the man in the street with a plausible explanation of what the war was about. The answer to this problem lay ready to hand: “The enemy is committing atrocities: to commit atrocities is uncivilized: we are fighting the enemy: therefore we are fighting to save civilization!”
…
The method of presentation was an entirely novel departure in international politics but the principles upon which this presentation was based had long been partially understood. For many years before 1914, a mass of empirical knowledge concerning the reactions of the human mind to certain astutely applied stimuli had been gradually accumulating and had been frequently turned to account for personal gain by various gifted individuals…. The Tichborne case of 1872 and the equally remarkable Druce case of 1907, the two most celebrated English fraud cases, both promoted by publicity, demonstrated how limitless is the credulity of the general public and what an imposing structure can be erected from a scientific blending of distorted facts and skilful fabrications. It was not, however, until 1914, that it was realized that what could be achieved… on a far wider scale.’ (F. J. P. Veale, Advance to Barbarism, pages 106-107).
I’d like to think that the study of history might serve as an antidote to this sort of indoctrination, but I suspect that fables (be it Aesop’s or the Pancatantra) and their morals are the surest safeguard. A little laziness (“I don’t want to go and fight to bring ‘freedom’ to Iraq; it’s too much effort”) would probably have helped as well.
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.