Divisions among humans are common, but one enduring selection that will forever separate people is their view of the past. In essence, some revere the past and others consider it a horror, a bad memory, and congratulate themselves on being part of a superior time. This continues even to the ludicrous degree of denying that older societies had learning, were attractive or intelligent people, and knew things that are now dead to us. It is a form of religion, denying the past, and it is comforting because it makes us feel like the present is a road to a better future, even if many signs point in the opposite direction.
If one discounts the past entirely, or sees it as a primitive time of failure and filth, then by process of elimination the modern time seems a blessing and gift. This seems like a natural view based on our own lives, where we move from childhood to adulthood and in the process learn a great deal and become "fully aware" as people. Applying this personal metaphor to history, it seems plausible that the past would be childhood and, now that we are awake, we have the modern day environment as a testament to our maturity. Much as adults are more disciplined than children, and more inclined toward conflict avoidance, our current society is pacifistic and orderly compared to the past. They had wars, we have courts and laws.
However, there are flaws with this vision of society as an analog for personal mortality. If the past was childhood, and present adulthood, then old age and death come soon, and while that might not matter to someone exclusively obsessed with the individual, it does signify the destruction of civilization as a whole. As a civilization should outlast its citizens, this form of apocalyptic thinking is too passive and accepting of self-destruction for the tastes of this author. Further, it seems to legitimize a projection of individual psychology onto society as a whole, an arrangement that produces neurosis if nothing else.
Even more disturbing, it is a theory based entirely on the appearance of the modern time as more civilized than the past, when there's no clear indication this is the case. The ancients did not struggle with an internal lack of meaning, as we do; they had clear values systems and a culture that was more than a marketplace, as all of the modern West at least seems to be. They had a purpose, where we have no purpose but our own wealth and through that, "happiness." Some are satisfied, and many are resigned, but who is "happy"? The modern time may appear more mature, but it is questionable as to whether this is so.
From the opposite perspective, those who venerate the past are happy people. They bypass the external - our technology, our wealth, our morality and our all-powerful death-denying governments - and look instead to what makes the soul grow and develop. Their outlook is one of internal quality, and of striving against themselves to become better through achievement and struggle; it is heroic, and it is ideological, but it is also the purest and most commonsense view of life. Be good at being you and take on the vast struggle - is there a more profound statement that includes not only the individual, and not only the collective of all individuals, but also the collective of individual and individuals and earth, sky, water and animals? We are one part of the vast ecosystem, and by balancing our own needs with it, we fully adapt in a way that those motivated only the individual or the collective cannot.
The goal of recent articles on this site has been to break up bandwagon tendencies. No, we do not blame our readers for this, nor do we particularly notice a rise in it. It has been observed however that in the modern time, especially after television and the internet, any good idea is converted to a bandwagon-friendly marketable concept, and then it is mobbed and devalued by reduction to lowest-common denominator. The bandwagon will assimilate any idea, even apparently elitist and other anti-populist ideas; the bandwagon knows no sense, since its only goal is social and self-esteem driven. Our goal here is to present ideas for independent action, not foster a bandwagon.
We could easily have converted this into a "movement" whereby people can buy into it and become active in it, but this is to our minds a case of becoming part of the problem, not its solution. There are in this society about 2% of its members who are capable of independent thought and action, and we want to reach them, and offer them thoughts. Beyond that, we simply must trust in nature to convey our ideas and others toward a sensible conclusion. Those who need to "join" something should pay attention to our variant of that concept, which is independent action that contributes to the collective.
So far, this approach has worked reasonably well. Even further, we have avoided assimilation by the various bandwagons - anarchist, racist, leftist, Linux, anti-Christian - and continue to present a site that baffles all but those who are of a natural inclination toward this method of doing things. Our goal is not allegiance to a symbol, or to a doctrine. It is an awareness of what is needed to create a post-modern Traditional empire on earth. When we say traditional, what we mean is a society like that of the ancients, with heroes, kings, warriors, thinkers, etc. all in constant struggle for the dominion of neverending light (improved design) over earth, which as a means of self-regulation has tendencies toward a telluric, inward-focused, passive and death-embracing side to all of its creatures.
Everyone wants a bandwagon, but bandwagon-jumping destroys any ideology.
The Mathematics of Time
In each generation, the question of evolution arises and people find themselves baffled by it. This is because for the most part they live in a world of intent: things are created by mental will. How is it, then, that nature can simply "arise" by the product of some detached, invisible hand? The answer is simple when we consider time, which is generally absent from human consciousness not owing in the least part to its reminder of Death. Evolution is the mathematics of time, meaning that what survives over a particular period is compounded by the same process being repeated infinitely, each time contributing a tiny amount of what some might call "intelligent design" and others might call "prevalence" or survival of the fittest.
Fittest according to what? -- adaptation to the whole: the entire environment of nature around the organism, including its internal environment and mindset. Survival of the fittest is more emphasis on survival, and healthy survival, than on "fittest" in the modern sense of best football player, guy who wins a single fistfight. Yes, the people who clean rifles by looking down the barrels, cross freeways without checking both directions, and steal gasoline by torchlight are eliminated from the gene pool. But they are a small subsection of what natural selection does, because in life, the obvious cases are few and the questionable cases are many. For the most part, "survival" means prevalence of traits achieved by greater breeding - and greater adaptation of those ensuing organisms to life. In other words, even if one is a higher degree of ability, if one abuses or ill-prepares one's offspring, they will probably not survive.
We, the moderns, like to think that we're past all that icky stuff like evolution where we are mortally judged as inferior or superior and there is a "plan" to life itself. We're not. But evolution is not a contest. It is a simple matter of seeing what is left after years of testing the design against its environment. Instead of thinking of gladiators at war, imagine a tomato garden. If five plants produce the biggest and healthiest tomatoes, they get replanted in greater abundance the next season. And the next. And so on, until they have outbred every other plant, and thus have introduced their traits - biggest and healthiest tomatoes - into all other plants. Evolution is both removal of that which does not work, and promotion of that which does, and in a balanced view, it is the latter that takes up the largest part of the equation.
Plenty has been written about the recent hurricanes, but what is needed is less ink and more words on the actual topics of importance. These are the scope of the disaster in New Orleans, and the role of global warming in producing super-hurricanes. Outside of the blizzard of "evidence" and commentary, what has been forgotten here is common sense.
First, superstorms hit all over the world, and not every population reacts as did those in New Orleans. Despite their poor wisdom in building a city below sea level right next to the sea, New Orleans would have had a better time of things had there not been rampant criminal behavior throughout the entire ordeal. Even the normally reserved people of Indonesia and Britain were driven to comment on the rapes, murders, drug use, theft of televisions, etc. that occurred in New Orleans. It was a subtle form of comedy for those who could observe it. Snipers firing on their rescuers? Armed gangs patrolling at night? The media now says reports were exaggerated, but what's to embellish about a city ruled by the lawless and predatory?
This is not a racial comment, necessarily, although someone else will undoubtedly want to weigh in on that (although they should remember that the majority of New Orleans' African-Americans left town in advance, along with its white and Asian populations). It is a comment about delusion. You can outwalk a hurricane by getting on a road and going north at a normal, walk-around-the-mall pace. Hurricanes move at 10-15 miles an hour and start out over 500 miles away. If one is marginally attentive to the news, it's easy to outwalk one even as it is very close at hand. Should one decide to stay in a city marked for destruction by its proximity and reduced stature to the sea, it is common sense to find high ground of any kind and to stay there. And while no one misunderstands "looting" of perishables and other necessities such as food, spending one's time raiding electronics stores is clearly not very rational.
A city hit by a storm is one thing. A city hit by a storm where the residents use the lack of deterrent by force as an excuse to begin criminal activity is another. We saw the latter in Louisiana, and whether these people were white or black or otherwise, it is clear from their behavior that they are destructive and pointless people without whom we would be better off. A society that lasts is not founded upon people who, if unsupervised, turn to self-destructive behavior. It is not founded upon people who are so helpless that they need the care of others to survive relatively mundane traumas. Yes, it was a diaster, but let's not go too far: it would not have been as much of a disaster had it been a better population of people who were affected.
On top of this comes the global warming debate. One side suggests that global warming is a hoax, and the other insists that not only is global warming a problem, but that it was directly responsible for Katrina's excessive wrath. Interestingly, the first side can often be spotted attempting to conflate "global warming" with all of humanity's effect on its environment, which is far from the truth (there are many more forms of pollution and environmental effect than the excess of CO2 that produces the global warming effect). We should not bicker over these trivialities. Regardless of global warming, having an ever-increasing human population means that we will eventually deplete natural resources and consume all the land on earth, if unchecked. Since we know that some acres of trees are needed to offset the effect of even a single human being, it is clear that we should perhaps use no more than a quarter of earth's usable land for ourselves and leave the rest in its natural state. Without that, we have no guarantee of the quality of life of our ancestors.
Looking at the problem from this angle, it becomes unimportant whether Katrina was the direct product of global warming or not. Most likely, there is a natural cycle which has made temperatures rise and storms proliferate, but there is also an added global warming modifier that makes the process worse. However, to dwell on these issues is to lose sight of the common sense mathematics here: for every added human being, there is less land and more pollution and fewer spaces for unbroken natural habitats. We must regulate our own population, and we are already overpopulated. Whether we're feeling the effects of this now, or will in fifty years, does not matter; an insane plan always produces destructive consequences. The media and robber barons of industry want you to fight over "global warming" as if it's the whole of our effect on the environment. It's not. You don't need facts and figures, but you do need simple math. Ever-increasing human populations in a finite world will poison and deplete that world. That alone is the issue, and almost no one will say so.
When Nietzsche says we must get beyond good and evil, what he means is that we must not look to good and evil as existing, external forces. Rather, they are ways we describe our own behavior. Evil is not some force that exists in the world, but a state of mind, and that state of mind is selfishness. This self-centeredness arises from an inability to see the world as a great and beautiful continuity, and thus a mortal fear for oneself, as if all one knows of the world is the self, mortality is a terrifying End of the World scenario. Therefore, if we must assign evil to anything, it is a pervasive form of ignorance by which one denies the continuity of existence and simultaneously does oneself harm by acting selfishly, which results in short-term reward (free hubcaps) but long-term, holistic disaster (everyone in neighborhood now fears for their hubcaps).
Evil does not exist, but evil can exist within us, just as our thoughts exist only as electrochemical impulses until we act on them and make their concept part of life's grand, infinite design. Just as not every thought is correct - "I thought I left that pen on the desk, but here it is in the hallway" - thoughts which do not take into account continuity of existence are blind to time, and thus to long-term consequences, and therefore, wall the individual into a Hell formed by the boundaries of the individual itself. Life solely for yourself, and soon you are confined to the self, and then there is nothing to live for but gratification, physicality and wealth, and over time, none of these are as comforting as one might expect. Evil is the absence of continuity in our thinking, and thus, a death of our belief in the infinity and goodness of our world.
Taking out the Trash
As modern neurotics, we look to fill our lives, because we fear those spaces on nights without plans when we are alone in the house and have to listen to the ticking of the clock and wonder if we are truly on a sensible path or not. If we have families, we fear their absence and long for its return, as that distracts us from the inevitable narrowing of our time and worse, of our ability: we become frail and old, we sag or go bald, we must not venture too far from a toilet. Consequently, we see before us the void of death opening like a flower of misery, and realize that there is no holding it back, and nothing that can be done to delay its inevitability. Worst, it invades our thoughts, so that we are aware of it when it would be more pleasant to be, like animals, unaware of its approach until its victory is certain.
In those silent moments, we resolve to stuff more things and experiences into that void, in the hope of balancing death with our lives. "I had a good life," said the relaxing old man, "and therefore, I do not mind dying now." We all hope for this sort of spiritual calm (which is often as not brought about by endorfins in the bloodstream). We all hope to act for it. But what plagues us in response is a proliferation of semi-meaningful things. Most people run to jobs to be around others, but then find they are surrounded by mostly fools, and thus feel sinkingly within the pit of their stomachs a fear that their time is wasted. Activities are fun and wonderful, yes, but they also have their downside, including the knowledge that most of the people involved view this as something little more advanced than television watching. We even like being so busy we're distracted, running in thousands of directions, but in the end this only fragments our consciousness for enjoying the moments of peace and satisfaction that we do have.
To these busy moderns, a Traditional thinker would say: just throw out the trash. Do not try to fill your mind, as there is no escape from the inner awareness, but instead, pick the things in life that are meaningful and pursue them, and do not fear those sleepless late-night hours of isolation when death steals upon you. There is nothing to be done about this awareness. You cannot fill a void, as it is infinite. What you can do is construct a world around that which you value. In the experience of this author, that is found in friends, family, serving a holistic cause (nation + nature) and the joys of the mind. Everything else - going to bars, table hockey, jobs, etc - are a means to an end, and that end is meeting the people who share your values. Trying to put significance into your life on the basis of these activities alone is like trying to find spiritual divinity by eating more sugar: hollow, and ill-advised.
Why White Nationalism Fails
This article will need a disclaimer to offend all of those readers who are still unclear on the issue of race: race is heritage, and heritage is how nature passes along the important traits, and thus race is one of the more important considerations in one's life. Race is not just "white" or "black," but what tribe - what mixture of racial subgroups later shaped into something unique by geography and culture - comprises one's origin. Race is the measure of empires, and the only continuation of a people (German-speaking people of mixed-race aren't Germans, but German-speakers). Race is the only way that memory and values are preserved through the ravages of time. Race is also taboo in the modern society.
Why is it taboo? Briefly: we are in the final days of a mass revolt, by which the crowd of laborers rose up against the aristocracy and replaced their quality-based system of rule with a quantity-based system that focused not on the holiness of the task as a whole, but the holiness of the individual as an atom. It was a switch from top-down to bottom-up rule, and while it resulted in some positive things, it has also created the greatest disaster in human history, which is our overpopulation and a massive decrease in the quality of our population. Race is one aspect of this crowd revolt, as the crowd likes to use race and any other tool possible to break up bloodliness and force us all to be "equal," which is the natural state of people in a crowd since few of them are good at anything but being a member of a group.
Before one approaches this issue, it's important to see with clarity its framing. There is not a conspiracy on the basis of race against races; rather, there is an underlying tendency toward the type of society in which we live to crush those who are different and possibly better at something or another, and to value linear quantities - money, popularity, power - more than internal qualities, such as those which permit selective breeding to produce better humans in every race. Because we are ruled by the crowd through implements such as democracy and economic competition and product popularity, every idea that is publically advanced to us will be a solicitation for the popularity of the crowd. For this reason our politicians and social leaders are exclusively in denial about race, because to deny someone anything on the basis of inherent traits is to deny the primacy of quantity over quality.
It is the belief of this writer than Traditional nationalism is the best system of government for any race, and for all races together. It allows the individual to live among similar people who share values systems and therefore intuitively get along and can work toward shared, higher goals. It gives an identity to land, and gives people a reason to believe in things larger than their own lives, including the surrounding ecosystem and the culture as a whole. It is the most positive system of government that exists, in contrast to the selfish modern governments that indulge the whims of the individual while attempting to shape him according to a centralized program of "good" intentions. Nationalism is also localism, as it means that smaller communities police themselves and handle their own trade, shying away from large corporations and central governments. Nationalism is diversity; Nationalism is flexibility; Nationalism is natural.
However, "white nationalism" is a populist (crowd revolt) interpretation of nationalism, and it needs to be destroyed for two reasons. First, it takes the place of a meaningful nationalist movement, and sucks people up into its vortex, burns them out, and then spits them out, at which point they will normally have nothing further to do with nationalist ideas. Second, it is ineffective and because of the cycle of cognitive dissonance entered by those in the grips of its ineffectiveness, tends toward violent and destabilizing acts that achieve nothing. White Nationalism is pro-white crowd revolt, and it will increase and not decrease the underlying problem that has caused our racial problem in the West to date. In place of white nationalist movements, it makes sense to have groups based around national ethnicities in monocultural (Germany, France, Zimbabwe) areas and to have nativist movements - based on the identity, culture and heritage of the original settlers of these lands - in mixed countries (USA, Canada, UK, Latin America).
The essence of nationalism is that each race be distinct from all others, and each tribe as well, and that together they form an order which is opposed to internationalism, or the cosmpolitan mixing of races and cultures for the purposes of commerce. Nationalism is a higher value than mindless self-indulgence, or profit, or any of the other ways in which we gratify the individual at the expense of nature, humankind and the soul of the individual. Nationalism is not a modern function, although it can adapt to modernity and indeed be a vector of changing modernity from soul-killing function toward a qualitative, spiritual existence. Unlike modern political systems, it is not an excuse to unify disparate people under some banner of "self interest" based on sketchy, spacy, academic concepts in politics. It is a blood and soil, practical as a good shovel, both-feet-on-the-ground view of politics as an agent to serve civilization, as seen in the unbroken heritage of the local population.
"White Nationalism" is a modernist solution to the situation nationalism addresses. Its goal is to round up all whites, form a single population unified by being white, and then to wage race war and violent, bigoted exclusion against other groups. This author has no problems with violent exclusion, as any population that does not practice violent exclusion will be bred out within a few generations, unless it is so impoverished that no immigrants are attracted. However, White Nationalism does not solve the problems it identifies, and will bring about many more problems owing to its delusional and modernist nature.
And this brings us back to:
Despite claims to the contrary, White Nationalism will not make life better for whites. It will force them through another insane revolution and class conflict. It will destroy their culture and replace it with commerce. It will cause untold carnage, destruction of learning, and will probably result in the killing off of our upper castes, slaughtering good along with bad and thus weakening us overall. White people do not support White Nationalism in droves not because they disagree with the idea of "white nations for white people," but because they disagree with the idea of bigotry, the idea of generic white people, the Marxist racial agenda and the utter lack of plan beyond race war inherent to White Nationalism. White Nationalism is a device of our enemies; it replaces political success with clubhouse-mentalitied, backroom resentment and plotting paranoid revolutionaries. This will never succeed among the healthy and normal whites. For whites to succeed in politics, and for them to get national independence and freedom from the intrusion of other races and cultures, White Nationalism must be obsoleted.
September 28, 2005