To be involved in politics in the 21st century is to realize that there's a double standard and a taboo in place that says you cannot talk about race. Such a taboo does not occur unless there is legitimacy to the fear; indeed, if we take the combined knowledge of history, credible science and philosophy, we will see that the races are each branches of the human tree with a different degree of evolution. It's forbidden to say that, but if we care about finding a non-failing future for humanity, we must face all truths.
Having accepted the truth of race - that race designates rough position in an evolutionary hierarchy - we have to tread carefully and only apply this knowledge where it is useful. For example, there is variation within each race. However, despite that overlap, there's still clearly a scale from oldest version of humanity (revision 1.0) to newest as we evolved before the modern time. Things got a bit more complicated in the modern time, as we assumed total control of our own factors of selection in evolution, with varied results. When we bring these facts to life, it becomes clear that even one gets past the public embargo on speaking about race, one has to tread very carefully if one wishes to be accurate.
In life, truthfulness is a liberating force. "Truth" does not exist; it is adjectival, as in "that statement has truth to it." In older English, you would not be inclined to say "That is the truth," but: "That is a a statement of truth." There is a reason for this; our ancestors were more accurate intellectually in everything they did, and they abhorred ambiguity of a misleading type. To say the truth exists is to suggest that somewhere in this universe exists a quantity, truth, which is actually not a part of the world it describes; this is like suggesting there is a God in a Heaven, or other insanity (even the most erudite Christians have tended to find God in the world, as a property of its design and function instead of some bureaucratic, authoritarian entity).
Thus when we approach race, our only saving guidance is truthfulness, and in order to be described by that term we must explore race beyond the simplest recognition of its presence, which is that over the years different groups branched out and evolved differently. We say "differently" because there is no objective proof that, for example, the Western European way is superior to all others; in another ten thousand years, we may agree that the African model of civilization is superior because it endured in its original form, thus maintaining population stability although not personal consistency of its members. We also use the term differently because it is free of any absolute judgment; it is not only possible but likely that the best order for humanity consists of each race living according to its traditional model of civilization, as each serves a purpose in a larger schema.
Even further, we may elect for divisions within each race as well, probably focusing purely on whichever group to which we belong, as it is the only one of which we have in-depth experiential knowledge. It is evident to even the casual observer that not all people within a race have the same abilities, and it is evident that across all humanity, those who are less gifted in the areas of intelligence, strength/beauty and moral character are more prone toward "base" actions, or those with short-term rewards but long term disadvantages (hence their rejection by anything with the brains to see further than 48 hours into the future): rape (sex), theft (sustenance), predation (power). Smarter animals might resort to these behaviors when there is a loss of other options, or when acting against an enemy, but otherwise, they recognize social order as collaborative and thus see such acts as destructive to social order and thus personally disadvantageous.
A few tribes (subdivision of race, tribe: German, Zulu, Latvian, Scots, Malay) have opted for rigorous internal eugenics since pre-history, and it has generally benefitted them well, but most tribes are unwilling to take this step and almost none can do it so effectively that an elite strata of society is preserved for long. For this reason, every civilization that has ever existed has required some system for ranking its people into general layers, usually with the intent of preserving its highest rank for its most difficult functions: leadership, science, religion, art and war. Generally, people whose function is picking turnips fail as leaders because they opt for those "base" actions; races higher in the hierarchy will have higher base actions, but those will still produce long-term failures in leadership and thus the destruction of the civilization.
If we're going to be honest about race, then, we have to admit that it has dual components. The first is that if any ethnic group wants to survive, it must sequester itself from all others; the second is that within both the human species and its races, there is a need for eugenics and aristocracy. Eugenics refers to the process of culling design failures (violent repeat criminals, child-molestor-class perverts, retards and gross physical defects) while fostering a system of natural selection that promotes the best. Aristocracy is the name given to the process of breeding a higher level of human beings and using them for difficult tasks. Therefore, the question of race is both ethnic uniqueness and hierarchical breeding. These two components are inseparable from any discussion of human population quality, which is in the modern time the underlying issue to all racial debate.
The first component is hardly touched on yet in this article. Two cultures cannot exist in the same space at the same time, therefore either one will become victor and ethnically cleanse the other, or the two will become merged and become a "new" third culture - with "new" being in quotation marks because of all things on this earth, cultures formed of a mixture between the three major races are not new. Anytime you mix the races in roughly equal proportions, you start to get similar-looking people, which is why some Russians resemble some Mexicans resemble some Southern Italians resemble some Indians resemble some Jews (in all cases, you have a mostly Caucasoid infused with large doses of Asiatic and small doses of Negroid, which is roughly what would occur if you threw all the races into the same location and had them compete in a natural context for survival). Culture is encoded in race, because aptitude for a certain culture is the primary factor of selection in the post-civilization evolutionary process; those who are naturally inclined to think, look and behave as is found desirable in that civilization outbreed the others, which over sixteen generations or so roughly standardizes the population to a cultural ideal. In turn, genetically-determined ability influences what sort of culture will be chosen by a population. If they are from the early stages of humankind, they favor loose familial tribalism, but the later versions tend to like civilizations organized around ideals or cultural values.
The second component requires less explanation. Every one of us, no matter how liberal or generally nice, has reflected that there sure are a lot of thickly stupid people around. Blockheads abound. While we might be too socially-conditioned or simply polite and well-meaning to notify these people that they are blockheads, we recognize that stupid people exist and when they are in any necessary position of power (even checking us when we make purchases) they will obstruct our progress by choosing "base" actions over simply getting the chore done. Idiots are more easily distracted; they consummately prefer immediate gratification to a sound solution; they take themselves too seriously to realize that they do better to just get the task done well. Idiots are destructive wherever they are doing something more involved than picking turnips. Many ancient civilizations created a class of people without liberty, "slaves," for people too stupid to have any authority without being destructive including to themselves. Although sometimes it seems this way, not everyone is an idiot. Many people are quite smart but physically weak and ugly; others are highly intelligent but without moral character. Although they have great intelligence, they also commit "base" decisions, but in this case, because their will to do what is ultimately right is weaker than their desire for short-term gratification. Others are physically perfect specimens without brains, or morally perfect individuals without intelligence or looks. Clearly these groups fall somewhere between "idiots" and "leaders" (aristocrats), because they would be destructive in leadership roles but clearly have surpassed the fools. Among people in the middle there are divisions: some could fix a car, but not understand law; some could understand law, but not philosophy. This further subdivides them. The question is not the label with which they're stamped, but where in the hierarchy of abilities that they fall, as no matter what others see them as, this alone determines their aptitude in relation to leadership. Aristocracy is a process of over many generations, building a society up from the lowest to the highest levels, with the knowledge that only a few will make this passage but that, owing to the greater competence of these few, they should lead the society as a whole for the benefit of all of its members, since the others cannot make such decisions without screwing them up. When we talk about "eugenics" in a modern context we think of sterile, bureaucratic eugenics whereby some weird old men in lab coats decide who must breed and who must become livestock feed. There is this aspect to any healthy society; if someone who is clearly broken (pervert, retard, physical defect) is born, they drown them in swamps or sacrifice them to pagan gods. This is an essential part of eugenics, but the smallest part: preventing the introduction of known failure-prone designs (individual genetic profiles and the traits they carry). Modern eugenics repulses most of us because it puts a great deal of power into the hands of centralized government, which is often unreliable, to put it mildly. It also only captures part of the problem, as in modern society, the only factor for natural selection is the ability to hold a job and buy food (you do not even have to be able to cook it).
We can see then that not just race, but "caste," which is the term for distinctions within racial groups, form a competitive hierarchy designed to migrate the best specimens toward the top while suppressing those of less-desirable traits. Immediately some cry, "Oh no, their rights are being violated" - they forget that, because idiots impede us all, our rights are violated anytime we breed more idiots. Ancient societies recognized this by seeing each society as an organic whole, and therefore, not choosing to fixate on the individual; if the whole society was healthy, and had good leaders, this was seen as the greatest benefit for individuals of all castes. Caste is a measurement of the genetic ladder that forms the underpinnings of an aristocratic society, with leaders at the top and idiots at the bottom; caste systems can also include other races, but rarely in a simplistic sense where a level of caste "equalled" a specific race; more common was that all members of other races and some (idiots) members of one's own ranked as the lowest caste of laborers.
Caste is not class. Class is a pseudo-caste measurement based on Social Darwinism, which is the idea that the best among us will roughly correspond to those who earn the most money; it's a primitive substitute for natural selection. Those who value caste often find class distasteful, because it takes a measurement of several dimensions (intelligence, beauty, strength, moral character, personality) and replaces it with a single blockhead measurement, e.g. how much money this person has (a) been able to and (b) been motivated to earn. Class made some sense in a society where jobs were not as immersive and defining and time-consuming as they are now; back then, it was possible to have a reasonable living and not be a slave to one's job. Starting around 1900, however, people have increasingly been fleeing wealth for a comfortable poverty in which free time and family overshadow the demands of a gluttonous industrial machine.
The traditional order of Western society, even until quite recently, has been a representation of the ancient orders of aristocracy and merit. This is why Westerners value competition of the individual type; they want to be able to see superior quality of athletes, thinkers, artists, warriors and leaders. They have historically been less disposed toward linear ("single blockhead measurement") competition, as it tends to produce "winners" and "losers" without really showcasing rank or giving people a string of points representing degrees of success along which they or their descendants can advance to true excellence. Money, for example, gives you either riches, a middle class existence, or poverty; the divisions within those groups are more arbitrary than most would like to think. Western competition existed so that those who were going to display excellence could rise above and be recognized, and thus be rewarded and moved up the cycle; it was not considered terrible if none moved up, because such an advancement was reserved for those who were truly great. Unfortunately, this traditional order of Western society was swallowed up by a fierce beast: the economically-driven society.
Previous to that time, all societies had possessed economies, in that they transacted with money and both exported and imported products. They however had other motivations for existence: cultural values, religious values, or simply the pursuit of "the good life" in an area that required extensive work to support it. Social attitudes changed, and soon it was seen better to support the individual than an aristocracy which might rank some above others; in order to maintain order, the system insisted upon the "equality" of individuals but then proceeded to rank them via a single blockhead linear measurement called "economic competition," by which those with the most devotion to their jobs and personal profit (thus the most predictable people in society, as there is a direct correspondence between their self-interest and their actions) were rewarded and outbred others. As this single linear system of measurement was arbitrary, and rewarded not ability but dedication, it was seen as "fair" and "equal" by the majority of the people in society, most notably the lower castes. As a result of this change, centralized bureaucratic governments boomed, since they could now rely on a surefire motivation for their population; people would do what rewarded them, and avoid what didn't, and it was convenient that government often defined those boundaries. The previous system, which rewarded heroism and good behavior and nobility independent of political profit, was dead, as you cannot have selective heroism ("I'd save the day, but first, what's in it for me?").
When we look closely at what happened here, we are less likely to blame robber-barons or other captains of industry for what happened, as the movement was too widespread. What is more likely is described throughout history, and is obvious if one thinks about the problems of a specialized, stratified society: those of lower ranks, being only able to assess "base" actions, cannot appreciate the wisdom for their position and using their greater numbers overwhelm their leaders and take over. It is called mass revolt and it is the reward for leaders who make successful societies, as at that point the workers are prosperous and breed prodigiously, producing offspring who have never known want and thus are unaware of the wisdom of the aristocratic system (since they have always been fed, they see no need for a leader who can avoid the disaster of famine). To those who look at history on the ten-thousand year scale, it is obvious that mass revolt occurred twice, initially: first, in the assumption of economic competition as the basis of society, because economic competition is a dumbing-down and thus popularist interpretation of the factors that previously allowed people to ascend to aristocracy; second, in the response to the society economic competition created, which within a few generations became dominated by predatory industrial interests which had so much power they literally ruled the lives of the workers (yes, Virginia, mass revolt is a "base" action, and thus over time always creates a nightmare dominated by parsaites). Unfortunately, the divisions established by this time period have continued into the present day.
The most visible political response to the oppressive conditions of the worker was Marxism, which presupposed that if workers were made equal under the governing sight of a strong central government with "ethical" scientific aims, life would be made better for the worker. Discussion of its failing is a topic beyond the scope of this article, but for the sake of argument, consider that it is possible that two things doomed it: political thinking and population quality. First, because it created ideological regimes in which everyone was important, any one person could destroy another with accusations that they (a) were secretly opposed to the ideology or (b) had infringed on the rights or dignity of another worker. Second, in a "flat" hierarchy of society, there is no reward for achievement among the normal ranks of society; some great inventors and athletes get wealthy, as in Capitalist societies, but everyone else lumps it and is rewarded equally. Population quality decline meant that soon competence was hard to find; Communist societies, being extreme ideological revolutionaries, also tended to execute dissidents, the educated, the wealthy and others who might not agree with Communism, which is why Russia almost overnight went from a Eurasian country with a European ruling caste to a Eurasian country ruled by despots. Marxism created a world revolution of workers, but in doing so destroyed the possibility of anyone rising above that state.
In response to Marxism, far-thinking people in Europe attempted to resurrect the values of a time before the first mass revolt, which required something to motivate people other than economics. They settled on Nationalism, which had previously referred to government of people as an organic body united by language, heritage and culture. Nationalism was a motivation outside of money; it was ideologically inclined toward doing what was best for the whole, through aristocracy; it pointed out that workers had a greater connection to the health of their local society than to some global movement for workers - notorious for being horrible at governing themselves, much less each other - to rule the world. In order to establish this, they had to find clear allegiances for their kingdoms, and in doing so, they triggered the rearrangement of political boundaries to fit ethnic-cultural populations, and thus sparked the conflict that became World War I and, finding no resolution there, went overtime with World War II. During the latter, the most powerful Nationalist entity to ever be created rose in Germany, then the most educated nation on earth: National Socialism, or Nazism. It was a modern political system based on the values of the old, and rose far above the democracies of its time before their greater wealth in natural resources wore it down.
During the years since WWII, Western societies have become increasingly inclusive. Their doctrine now is that if one can earn the money to support it, one has the right to live whatever lifestyle one desires. The concepts of "racism" and "multiculturalism" are both postwar, the former referring to anyone who recognizes racial differences at all and the second to the concept of a society in which people of multiple races, cultures, castes and philosophical outlooks ("lifestyle") share the same country and govern it through liberal democracy. The modern West, as led by the USA, seeks to portray itself as opposed to both Nazism and Communism, and therefore, argues for its own value on the basis of its "freedom," multicultural fairness, and economic strength, all of which are flagging at the time of this writing. Unlike past societies, the United States is virtually unified in this outlook, and, although people adopt political views that seem at odds with one another, very few take on one that even opposes this basic outlook at all. This in turn leads us to the topic of this essay.
White Nationalists, or those who wish to apply Hitler's theory of National Socialism to one entire race and not just the German people, spend a good deal of time making disparaging comments about normal people and how they are unwilling to simply see the truth and become White Nationalists. While the reason they commonly give, that most people are brain-dead television sheep who cannot envision and refuse to care for the future, is correct when applied to the majority of the people in our society, it fails to recognize that this majority have little or no impact over the running of the nation outside a few token votes and their tendency to buy products seen on television. There is a small group, probably about 40% of the white people in America, who actually get things done: start companies, fix things, write things, design things, teach functional classes like science, math, and history. This group are best referred to as a "Silent Majority" because, even though they do not have numerical majority, they constitute the majority of people who do anything effective. Their viewpoint is actually not unfriendly to the ideas that cause people to be White Nationalists, but the Silent Majority will never want to be White Nationalists.
In fact, while the press rails against White Nationalists, and the ADL cries out about them, the Silent Majority are harder to fool. They simply want no part of White Nationalists, and view them as ineffective losers whose movement blusters on without solutions, plans or anything except the same ranting propaganda and "hate rock." Further, they recognize that in terms of applying the ideology of National Socialism, the White Nationalists are actually farther away from it than the Boy Scouts are. To a person who is accustomed to being effective, and working in the real world, the White Nationalist movement seems like a violent emotional outburst without any content. There is no answer to "How would a WN society work?" except that it would be exactly like our current society, except all-white. Silent Majority types laugh at this, because they recognize that our current society either needs to be entirely revamped, or shouldn't be interfered with at all, because right now it allows those who are more competent to rise if they don't mind fighting it out in the world of business which, while it sucks, is preferrable to fighting it out in a class war revolution.
Furthermore, Silent Majority types are used to working with people and diagnosing their motivations. To a savvy entrepreneur or problem solver, the clubhouse rhetoric about "saving the white race" seems to be hiding something else, and a quick look into the demographics and motivations of White Nationalists provides it. Those who claim they are saving the white race are by definition clearly identifying themselves as white, or "Aryan," as the case may be, and therefore gain access to a group that was previously exclusive to them. Furthermore, by claiming they are doing the one right course of action, they suggest that the rest of us are in their debt, and therefore, that they're not only equal to the rest of us, but should be leading us since they saw the problem first. This rhetoric is almost identical to that of revolutionaries worldwide, and it does not take into account the wide variations among human beings, but assumes that a one-size-fits-all wonderland is perfect for all.
Next, Silent Majority types look at the demographics of White Nationalism. While it has its share of Nordics, the movement has a majority of people in it who are from groups that, up until the early part of the last century, were considered far less preferable than North-Western Europeans, and in fact, many of these groups were not considered "white," owing to their mixed racial nature and fractured cultural histories as well as quasi-third-world living conditions. Irish were excluded because the original denizens of that island were Semitic groups who became over time absorbed by Nordic and Anglo invaders; the Irish also felt the need to intake partially Moorish populations from the Southern part of the continent. For this reason, while many Irish have a mostly Northern European genetic heritage, throughout the population are Semitic elements. Something similar happened in Italy, which mixed extensively with Arabs and Asians especially in its Southern portions; Greek was inundated with Turks, and they make up a good part of the heritage there today. Slavs are Eurasians who have a fundamental Mongoloid influence in their bloodline, thus have never been seen as "European" in the same way Germans or the English are. Other groups that were accepted at the same time include Scots, Poles (mixed-Slav) and Jews.
What we have here, then, is a group of people claiming that all whites should be equal and should join together to commit racial holy war against non-whites, thus delivering us to a society that is a mirror image of our current one except that it is all "white," including the mixed tribes mentioned above. Further, those who are involved in the quest wish to dominate this new society, and to exclude or execute those who have collaborated with the current society, much like revolutionaries have in the past. It is a revolutionary movement, not a constructive one; it wishes to tear down a hierarchy and replace it with a worker's paradise, even if all the workers are ostensibly "white." In short, it is racial Marxism, and it will prove as destructive to the Indo-European tribes as capitalist multiculturalism has. This is the reason it does not appeal to the Silent Majority: it would end their ability to separate themselves from the "base" rabble and achieve greater heights, therefore, White Nationalism is not the one roll of the dice we should take when reforming our society.
Among thinking people of course there is no question that our society should be reformed, and more radically than any White Nationalist has so far suggested. Our values became fundamentally rotted to the point where the first mass revolt could occur, and since then, we have been degenerating as a population even without the influence of other races. We are breeding people to have jobs, buy hot food, and then eat it watching television. Divorce rates are sky-high, drug abuse is rampant, STDs are skyrocketing, pollution increases yearly, our climate is shattered, we die of cancers at incredible rates, depression is on the rise in all industrialized countries, we spend increasing amounts of time manipulating a system that was supposed to be working for us, our leaders are cynical predators who use the image of truth to disguise a personal profit agenda; we are declining into a third-world state without the intervention of any other races, and while multiculturalism is a symbol of this and a failure of an ideology in itself, it is not the cause. The cause is within. We cannot blame others; we have to look within. And when we've found the cause, argue Silent Majority types, instead of screaming for vegeance we should find a long-term solution to the problem. Since that involves replacing economic-driven modern society with something that lives for values itself, and is a reversal of the steady decline of the last thousand years, it's no small order. Not only is White Nationalism not up to task, Silent Majority types argue, but by the nature of its Marxist roots it will interrupt the healing process that is needed.
This reason alone among all is why normal, successful, intelligent people who are not sheep will not support White Nationalism. It does not solve the problem, and by claiming to, it forms a distraction from the more complicated and difficult work ahead. In a metaphysical sense, it is a form of procrastination. This is not to say that the Silent Majority disagree with Nationalism; most of them are from North-West European backgrounds for the most part, and would support a Nationalist party that defined America as a land of North-West Europeans and worked for the interests, cultural standards, and future of those people. This is because of all ethnic groups on earth, those in the nations of North-West Europe are the most similar, since all have an overwhelmingly Germanic background. Danes, Germans, Finns, Dutch, Swedes, Austrians, Norwegians, English and the like can produce a comfortable society here, because throughout history, they have represented the highest caste of Indo-Europeans and have the most in common culturally, ethnically, in values and in behavior. Within these groups there are now castes, and it would not make sense to mix these, but this does not happen for the same reason that fewer than 1% of all Americans have mixed ethnic blood: most people, unless they have become mentally unstable, prefer a partner from their same background, including ethnicity, caste, education and appearance. It is these stable types who tend to breed the most successfully.
Ethnic separation is second nature to Silent Majority folks, who have realized for years that multiculturalism is a failure which will saddle the richer people in this nation with the fortunes of those who cannot help themselves and never will. When people on television say "Multiculturalism," the Silent Majority person usually thinks: stewardship. Us taking care of them. They do not bear ill will toward other races, nor think less of them, but have no desire to attempt to integrate societies with them. Silent Majority types know from experience that "helping others" is the proverbial road to hell paved with good intentions. If they cannot help themselves, what they need is a change of environment, not a handout. For this reason, Silent Majority people quietly view racial integration as a complete and utter failure like almost all programs of our well-meaning Federal Government, and would happily cut it free and let other races fend for themselves. Someone who is healthy never wants to see his or her children marry someone of another race; they want to see them succeed and produce more people of a healthy, consistent line. This changes somewhat when even effective people get brainwashed by television, but few of the ones who really do anything impressive have much time for television, and many more of them recognize it as the mindeater that it is.
While normal people will endorse ethnic separation, and those of all races might approve it if it appeared on a ballot tomorrow, it first needs to detach itself from racism. Ethnic separation says that we want to be free of other groups; racism implies that everyone of the favored race is magically better than all other races, and therefore, if it is of the favored race, it is automatically equal to all other members of that group. Racial pride is a natural and healthy thing, but trying to make everyone in the same race feel equal to one another is Marxism, and will ultimately accomplish what other races have been trying for years: by mixing in trace elements of Asian and Negroid genetics to the white population at large, it will turn it into a generic group which has lost its distinctiveness and genetic tendencies toward cultural values. The resulting lumpenproletariat have nothing in common, so will get their culture entirely from television.
It is important to remember that culture is something ingrained in heritage. Each individual carries within them a record of the decisions made by all of their ancestors, and in each generation, a branching occurs that creates a child specialized for a different way of tackling the world. Those that do not survive are no longer present in the bloodline, and therefore all future descendants specialize in a different direction. Germans prefer German culture not as much because they were brought up with it (the "nurture" hypothesis) but because it shaped their ancestors, and as a result, they have genetic tendencies to act in that manner (the "nature" hypothesis). Genetics do indeed rule our lives: identical twins, raised apart, live similar lives and pick similar mates. The children of genius parents are more likely to be genius. People raised in entirely alien cultures since birth revert to the behavior patterns in thought common to their original country. Genetics is our programming, and the programmer is natural selection, over many generations. When one mixes unrelated tribes or races or castes, one obliterates thousands of years of programming by forcing the recombination process to find compromises between many unrelated traits. This is why the sages of ancient Greece, Rome and India all cautioned against not only admitting foreigners (other races) but also warned against mixing castes; it produced people with the intellectual and physical abilities of the higher rank, but the "base" behavioral instincts of the lower, and thus most of those ended up being incredibly crafty criminals.
Some would even suggest that caste-mixing is the source of origin of the Middle Eastern peoples, who are known worldwide for their cunning in salesmanship and devious business practices, but are nowhere held up as paragons of social design or ethical virtue.
Racial Marxism would accomplish this caste-mixing and destroy our culture, thus giving us no reason to preserve ourselves against outsiders. At that point, nothing will unite us other than skin tone. We will have sacrificed what made us unique and distinctive for a political expediency that, despite appearances, will merge us all into one generic type of "white" human being. This is a common thread among class war revolutions, which wish to tear down hierarchies and replace them with equality on the presupposition that the human being educated in revolutionary ideology will be just as good as any other ("nurture"), while in reality, what happens is a decline in quality of humans and thus a collapse into infighting. Bad breeding plus class warfare creates massive downfalls.
The class war fanatics obliterated a healthy Eurasian nation in Russia and, after slaughtering as many of the elites as they could, bred its people into numb and dysfunctional individuals. Not surprisingly, despite emigrating to the United States and Canada, Russians have not shaken that outlook, because at this point, it is in their blood. Only genetic isolation and many generations of careful breeding will restore what they once were. The same is true of Italy, of Spain, or Ireland and of large parts of the USA where people have already become of mixed tribe and caste. One cannot undo a hybridization, so the only meaningful course of action left is to re-invoke natural selection and breed a highly refined version of that hybrid. Much as Nordics emerged from Negroes over thousands of highly selective generations, any tribe can breed itself back toward an aristocratic ideal, if it is patient enough. It may take more than another thousand years.
White Nationalists try to brush aside such suggestions by immediately claiming that all of America, and most of Europe, is already of mixed blood and thus lost, so we should just start over - with all whites being equal, of course! The truth seems to be that nature is more resilient than that, and has kept most of our genetics intact even until now, so what we must do first is not sacrifice that heritage toward some misbegotten political ideal. Our historical error has been to allow mass revolt, and thus to decide to forego quality in favor of quantity, and thus we have become a populist society united by a lowest common denominator agenda (money, television). As a result, the greatest threat to the future of whites is not race-mixing but internally poor breeding by which those who are content to have jobs and watch TV outbreed those of higher quality, and since higher quality is not recognized or rewarded, those people die out and are replaced with cynical, base behaving, crass opportunists. White Nationalism is working toward such a failure of a future; it is war by lower caste whites against all others, with the hope that if "we the righteous" seize power, they can dominate others who would naturally be ahead of them and thus achieve a worker's paradise.
The proof of this can be found in the one-dimensional literature of White Nationalists. Where Hitler had an educated, complex worldview, the entirety of White Nationalist dogma can be summed up as "exclude the other races, they are inferior, but because we are white, we are superior." It is a clubhouse. This is not philosophy, or even politics, but political manipulation (to be fair, it's on the level of what these people see on their TVs from both major parties, who are as equally as inclined to doom). They do not have any long-term plan for changing society outside of this racial separation. It will still be a commercial nightmare breeding morons to work in slavish jobs, and it will still not be geared toward excellence, aristocracy or heroism; its goal will be, as in the current society, to please and not to rise above, a condition which produces a negative evolutionary influence.
Multiculturalism is without a question also racial Marxism, and it threatens disaster as well, because it is an insane concept based on the proposition that two things can exist in the same place at the same time and still be distinct. They cannot. Multiculturalism rewards employers by producing a massive proletariat who have nothing in common culturally, thus live entirely by what information they find on their televisions and computers; these people lack the time, experience and intelligence to develop or discover a philosophy beyond that which their corporate masters give to them, and therefore, will forever be in the thrall of modernity. Multiculturalism is crazy. No race should tolerate the presence of another among it, if that original race wishes to survive. While all humans can breed together, we are separated by thousands of generations of specialized evolution, which makes it a poor idea.
Further, if we are willing to tell the truth, we must acknowledge that no races or tribes are equal. Evolution branched, and now they are at different points, with different abilities and preferences. Home is where they understand you, and there's no place like home, but most people will never experience home, because they have been transplanted into insane polyglot societies like the United States where the idea of agreeing to have a single set of cultural values has gone out the window, and thus all that remains is the lowest common denominator. That is the face of racial Marxism. First breed people into mush, then inundate them with whatever benefits industry and government, two parasites that like Marxism often enjoy pretending to be ideologues working "in your best interests."
It makes the most sense to preserve individual cultures where we can, and in the mixed-tribal nations of America and England, to breed the best possible Northwestern European strain we can find. A horticulturalist would recognize the wisdom of this approach, as would an animal breeder, but not a Marxist: a racial Marxist will only feel safe when we are all equalized by the system, even if we had to separate the races to create that effect. Nationalism is the only intelligent starting point for our future, but it should be one of Nationalist groups for different tribes collaborating, not trying to create one generic "white" tribe for political convenience. German Nationalists can work with French Nationalists; America can divide itself into Nationalist parties for its unbroken ethnic lines, many of whom remain German- or Norwegian- or Swedish-pure for five generations or longer. Together, our Nationalist parties create a single front: a demand that we cease with economic-competitive governance and return to an aristocratic, tribal worldview.
Nationalist parties offer a shield to a number of ideas - aristocratism, environmentalism, racialism, eugenics, anti-consumerism, communitarianism - because these ideas are a part of the overall Nationalist worldview, which is that of an organic society motivated by an ongoing ideal; such a society decides what it will do, and then configures economics and politics to support it. Modern societies, on the other hand, are manipulated by their own economic and political systems and end up compensating for those and never achieving any clear vision or goals. While "White Nationalists" may enjoy delivering hateful ranting flyers to people who don't want them, or repeating taboo ethnic phrases in public, Nationalists include race in part of a larger plan for society which will benefit the average person in more ways than simply making them part of a preferred racial group.
This approach is the only one that will handle the true crisis of humanity, including white people, which is our steady genetic decline under the influence of modern society. We have no cause except to work; we have no culture except our TVs; over generations, we are bred into pliant conformists who will never take a stand for something because it is "right," even if it is not popular; they will always do what benefits them, regardless of its ultimate outcome. Our problem is the economic and political system that supports this. When we reverse it, we can again begin breeding quality people, and all of our racial problems will be footnotes to that fundamental question. When we change the way we govern ourselves, we can again begin breeding white people for quality, and all other issues will again make sense in that context. White Nationalism is an attempt to distract and find a cheap solution where one will not work; it is racial Marxism, and like all Marxism destined to destroy what makes us unique. Reject White Nationalism, but embrace Nationalism: it is the only solution that can undo the damages of the past and keep us moving toward a higher future.
September 3, 2005