Putting Race in Context
Our modern world is a form of hell. It is hell because it does not reward any kind of fine or beautiful behavior, only a gutless functionalism. If it makes money, or pleases the masses, it's great; if not, it is forgotten and cast aside. All of what our ancestors worked for, and indeed any intelligent person through history would work for, is disregarded. Intelligence and accuracy come secondary to popularity and marketability. Simplify, simplify. Everyone in the room must get the joke. The result is that intelligent people are prisoners of a time out of control.
Further, it is a death march. I am not referring to some specific "disaster" like global warming or cancer or class warfare. I am referring to the tendency of this entire system to dumb itself down, and then, having killed meaning, to lament meaning. It is a suicidal, morose and neurotic existence, and these always self-destruct. Unfortunately for the good people among us, it is also creeping up on us like aging does. It did not make a single brave assault. It has gradually increased over the years to the point where we are used to it, and then it gains another dimension. It makes us live like servants and deny any of the most meaningful things - fidelity, achievement, heroism, spirit - in favor of the most mundane, namely not offending others.
This death march may take a long time to wind down into total destruction. It will be as T.S. Eliot suggested a whimper and not a bang. However, that it is the wrong path is beyond doubt, if we look at all the factors (and if we are from the fortunate 1/2 of 1% who can actually consider all of that at once, and the elite group of even fewer who have done the necessary groundwork in reading and thought to understand at what they look). An insane path will have negative consequences, such as global warming and industrial cancer and widespread misery, but those are disadvantages; its primary terror is that it leads away from success toward something mediocre, and living through that experience is not pleasant. The happiest people are the ones in a society that is rising toward a higher goal, as it has a reason for existence that is more abstract and more positive than the downside to existence itself, namely mortality and defecation.
Paradoxically, the modern death march is one that is excessively sweetened. All of our rhetoric sounds good: modernity empowers us with economic competition, gives us rights, helps us with medicine and technology, u.s.w. We are lifting up the downtrodden and granting to them equality, and we are making sure that everyone has a place in our big happy family. All of our intentions are good. However, the world does not work on intentions; it works by design, and our positive intentions obscure the fact that our plan - the design we propose - is unworkable. Not according to nature. Not according to human psychology. But, according to mathematics, our design is unworkable: we propose a system that is omnipotent and molds people into identically functional shapes and motivates them toward some kind of "right" that applies evenly to all lives. It is like an average, but one shaped by heavenly good intentions. However, it is still an average person-form into which we are shuffled, and we feel the corresponding loss of meaning.
Modernity cannot work because it denies the qualitative inside of us. It cannot work because it denies our need for achievement, and for experience outside of jobs, purchase-a-product social situations like bars and churches, and the material comfort that our functionalist society considers the only measure of happiness. We need more, and we need less. It denies our humanity as means of denying reality. Modernity fears death more than it desires heroics, and therefore, we cannot discuss death and we must consider every death a tragedy, but, suspended in this state, we are unable to do anything of significant meaning to stave off death (there are exceptions, but they are tempered by a need to either live as a pauper or have a job, and those - no matter who says otherwise - are never fulfilling to the intelligent). We are served by all of technology and theology, yet we serve society most of all, because the price of its stewardship of us is absolute allegiance to its model.
That model is function.
So why start an article on race with all of this? To put it in context. Race is the premier issue of our time that is denied, and it is taboo to speak about, which is why this and every other honest article on the topic is anonymous. Race is the biggest story of our time. It is a powerful issue because for some, racial separation is a matter of preserving their communities and traditions. For others, racial dissolution is a chance for the greatest class war victory ever, a final smashing of those who rise above the level of the average and thus are more gifted and prosperous. These two sides play tug of war with race as an issue. It is a highly important issue because it alone regulates the survival of certain populations. However, it's also important to see it as part of a larger pattern, or one fixates on race and goes insane contemplating the negative future of one's own tribe.
We cannot view race in modern terms, as function. In functional terms, we need people to do the menial jobs, and we like economic competition as it gets us cheaper products and thus empowers us to comfort at a greater level. When one thinks functionally, race is not part of the equation (functionalist thinkers are limited to the present tense, and cannot project themselves ahead several generations, to the point where one must begin looking to see why race is important). In functional terms, any person is as good as any other, because they will be indoctrinated with laminated cards covered in pictures of idealized workers doing idealized tasks, and the tasks will be broken down into such simple fragments that even an idiot could do them. Culture, heritage, community, etc. are impediments to profit, not its enablers, and profit is what allows even the lowest among us to enjoy comfort and, if they are wise enough to generate greater profit, to rise to the heights of our society and become "elite" for their wealth.
Putting race back into this view shows us how it is part of a larger motion, and one that has gripped the West for a long time: the rebellion of the working classes and their desire to overwhelm elites and replace those elites with members of the working castes. Since workers do not have the fineness of mind, of beauty, and of moral character that traditionally have been the glories of the aristocracy (who in Europe, incidentally, were almost exclusively blonde and blue-eyed), workers do not elect elites on that basis. Instead, they create simple linear scales such as profit or social approval, and use those. These scales reflect function. They do not measure fineness of intellect or character, and in fact, they deliberately ignore such things. The masses wish to crush the aristocracy, as that is the last earned elite in history. The new elites get there simply by being vicious, shrewd, clever and determined enough to gain wealth, and we consider this "fair." Do we consider it fair for the sake of the older elites, the blondes and the geniuses? No. - we consider it fair for the worker who algeresque hopes to rise from bolt-tightener to CEO and later, neue royal.
Crowd revolt is the biggest news story of the last five thousand years in the West, and few will report on it. As Nietzsche noted, the founders of Europe as an organized entity were blondes who came from the North - some refer to these as hyperboreans. Within them, he noted a "blonde beast" tendency, which was a form of nobility, much as the word "Aryan" meant noble; he realized this could be found in any race, but that a racial evolutionary hierarchy existed, and the blonde rulers of Europe were closer to the top. One might view it as a scale between crass opportunism and Zen master style enlightenment; all of us are somewhere on the scale, but the original European Aryans were very close to the far end and removed from the crass end. Every race has a position on this scale, and the closer one is to the Zen end, the farther one moves along toward being of the highest tribe; since this happens over generations, this process literally describes the evolution of humans from crass chimplike creatures to Zen nobles of fair features emerging from the North. We are one race. But that race is a giant hierarchy.
The "blonde beast" tendency, if discovered and used as a basis of shaping one's life and habits, is what advances the individual in the next generation. "Science" has not yet weighed in on this one, but it's likely that they will find small changes occurring in the DNA of human beings throughout their lives; these changes reflect the responses of the individual to challenges and the state of mind of the individual. A more noble state of mind is passed along to the offspring. This is how the blonde beast tendency has worked for uncountable aeons, slowly moving primitive human beings toward a more noble state and in the process changing their appearance and ability. It is an exact analogue of how responding to physical challenges, and facing natural selection, makes any species increase its physical adaptation to its world and overall population quality. Why would we consider spiritual-mental qualities to be any different from physical ones, since they do originate in the brain? (Answer: to see the brain as mind is to deny a dualistic soul, and thus to bring us closer to ugly thoughts of mortality. C'est la vie.)
The Bhagavad-Gita alludes to this both literally and figuratively. The book opens with a massive battle and in response to Arjuna's prayer, Krishna reveals the secret of life: if we strive for ideals over physical comfort, we rise up this scale (opportunism <-> nobility) and make ourselves better in the only way that matters, which is in terms of the actual design of our bodies. It is praise of both evolution and idealism at once, a joining of soul and body, and a more heroic religious statement than has been heard in the West for some time. It also warns against not just racial mixing, but caste-mixing (castes are internal divisions to a race which reflect degree of moral character and thus ideal social position and responsibility; the aristocracy are the highest caste, followed by the warriors, and then the artists and artisans, and finally, the semi-skilled laborers). It condemns class warfare and multiculturalism as they interrupt evolution of both mind and body, and does so without cruelty, but without diluting realism, either.
George Santayana wrote of "race patriotism" that it was acceptable to understand that evolution had gifted the races differently. After all, he said, this is common sense, and to deny it is pretense. There is some truth to this. The races did not occur simultaneously, but probably represent a series of evolutionary stages into which later variants were bred at different rates. This does not mean there is a lack of overlap in ability; however, it does mean that, generally speaking, each race exists at a different stratum of development. Further, it suggests that since each race has localized itself as a population (a phenomenon well-known in nature which allows different variants of the same species to avoid breeding despite the viability of offspring) it is impossible to compare behavior on a linear scale. Each race is literally adapted to its own purposes, as shaped by its environment and the cultural values that have held its society together for aeons. Clearly race patriotism makes some sense. However, it is only one part of the picture which we need experience.
If we look at race as it is defined for us in the media, we see only conflicts between discernible but broad racial-ethnic groups. If, however, we look at it as the ancients did, we see race as a subset of the issue of breeding, and breeding as a question of maintaining a scale between animal and superhuman (noble) with which we can always orient ourselves. Translated into a modern time, this leaves us with two dimensions of race:
1) Racial-ethnic preservation. This means preservation of race, and within it ethnicity, such that someone who is ethnically French is both "white" and "French" (or a designation of a local ethnic group, such as Breton). We preserve racial and ethnic groups for the same reasons we preserve local communities: to create diversity, and to allow humanity to act in parallel, so that for any question different groups find their own solutions, allowing these solutions to then be compared.
2) Eugenic breeding. This is separate from state-sponsored eugenics, which requires a bureaucratic government - which can barely even get the trains to run on time - to make life or death decisions in order to pick the best breeding material from a population. Entrusting the modern state with this responsibility would be a disaster unless truly enlightened leaders with highly intelligent staffs were present (unlikely). It makes more sense for our society to set up its own factors of natural selection, and make them more complex than the ability to earn money, thus enforcing an evolution on ourselves to produce people of higher physical strength, mental strength, and holistic moral capacity.
While most views of race are either a class-denying bigotry (Right) or an agenda for class warfare and mass revenge using race as a mechanism (Left), the above is a practical view. It recognizes that diversity only exists when different ethnic groups are allowed to live apart according to their traditional culture without attempting to make it a subset of an extant culture, as occurs in multiculturalism and other assimilationist doctrines. It recognizes that when our only standard of breeding is money, it is no surprise we produce uglier, weaker people of less subtlety or depth in intelligence. It expands the energy we expend dealing with "race" into a general policy based on breeding for quality, not quantity, and recognizes this degree of quality as an indicator of the survivability of our civilization. Although it is not "racist," it inherently contradicts the class war agenda that has gripped the West for so long, and is thus an even greater taboo-breaker than "racism."
Possibly the most encouraging sign to emerge from mainstream politics is that at the edges of both left and right, there is agreement that the future must involve localization of politics, or a transfer of power from distant centralized authorities of specialized function to local community governance of broad function. This eliminates many of the corruption problems of central authority, as well as its norming influence on diverse local communities.
If we had to divide "Nationalism" from "Racialism," a sensible distinction would be that Nationalism supports localization in that it is heritage-based, not exclusively race-based. It includes race - there is no way around this - but as a subset of race, it preserves the local variant of that race. While the French, for example, may have a mixture of different racial subtypes and histories, they also have many traits in common that over time will resolve themselves into a single, clear ethnic group if segregated from mass breeding (greater than 1/2 of 1%) with other groups within the same race. Nationalism preserves what it is to be French, or of any other Nationality. It is distinct from racialism, which is often apocalyptic to the degree that its advocates demand the mixture of all racial subgroups into one superrace. This denies crucial differences between the subdivisions of a race.
Much as races are on an evolutionary curve stretching from most primitive to most adapted/evolved, so are ethnic groups within a race. The older groups are usually the simpler variants from which, through selective breeding, more capable groups emerged. It is this stratification within races that produces castes, although the caste system is reinforced by natural selection for ability appropriate to caste role. When ethnic groups live apart for any meaningful duration of time, they gradually breed their own caste levels, and as such, become unfit for re-integration.
For this reason, if it is our goal to increase the quality of human beings, it makes the most sense to breed within subgroups so that the best traits of each can be maximized; this avoids losing the many generations of breeding that already separates that group from other members of the same race. By retaining this effect of natural selection, it develops individuals toward a higher standard without corrupting the influences so far retained. It also avoids the consequences of trace admixture, which is present in many ethnic subgroups to the degree that integrating a race into a single ethnic group would introduce more impurities than it would eliminate.
All of these ideas taken together suggest a single logical truth: local groupings designate not only a generalized status in the process of evolution, but a series of unique adaptations which constitute parallel evolution, in addition to a balance of traits and disciplines already specialized to local conditions. Nationalism exists in defense of diversity, and localization.
For these reasons, it is clear that a Nationalist government transfers power from a central authority to a series of local ones, and rather than decreasing diversity, increases it by allowing the constituent parts of a diverse system to remain unique. Further, by associating people by culture and not political or geographical abstraction, Nationalism provides a firm basis for justification of rule by society as a whole, limiting the influence of bureaucratic government. Any pragmatic future civilization will take into account Nationalist principles, even if it is not by nature "Nationalist" itself.
The recommendation of this author is that the racial issue not be ignored. There are solutions to its quandaries, and inspirations toward better forms of rule, that can be found by reading the whole of the ethnic-racial issue. A practical government needs not adopt an explicit racial platform, but should not construct itself so as to exclude race patriotism and Nationalism from public discourse. Groups such as Black Panthers, Aztlan, and Nazis can be understood as different flavors of the Nationalist idea, and as capable of coexistence, since although they represent different constituencies they argue for the same type of social order. If a future government does not explicitly outlaw them, it facilitates the creation of local communities according to these principles among others, and thus gives its citizens the greatest degree of flexibility on the issue.
September 26, 2005