Understanding Cuckasoids

Why are Europeans so prone to individualism? Why are they less concerned about kinship? Professor MacDonald explained last month the complex issues of population genetics. “This is the toughest intellectual problem there is; psychology, studying Jews is easy by comparison.”

Fortunately, there’s now a huge amount of research to crack the annoying cipher:

Postscript of November 19:

Population genetics is an important piece of the jigsaw puzzle but it doesn’t explain everything. Always keep in mind Frost’s response to MacDonald about the “Christian axiology” piece in the puzzle.

Liberalism, 15

Major themes

The objectives of liberal theorists and philosophers have differed across various times, cultures, and continents. The diversity of liberalism can be gleaned from the numerous adjectives that liberal thinkers and movements have attached to the very term liberalism, including classical, egalitarian, economic, social, welfare-state, ethical, humanist, deontological, perfectionist, democratic, and institutional, to name a few.

Despite these variations, liberal thought does exhibit a few definite and fundamental conceptions. At its very root, liberalism is a philosophy about the meaning of humanity and society. Political philosopher John Gray identified the common strands in liberal thought as being individualist, egalitarian, meliorist, and universalist. The individualist element avers the ethical primacy of the human being against the pressures of social collectivism; the egalitarian element assigns the same moral worth and status to all individuals; the meliorist element asserts that successive generations can improve their sociopolitical arrangements, and the universalist element affirms the moral unity of the human species and marginalizes local cultural differences.

The meliorist element has been the subject of much controversy, defended by thinkers such as Immanuel Kant, who believed in human progress, while suffering from attacks by thinkers such as Rousseau, who believed that human attempts to improve themselves through social cooperation would fail. Describing the liberal temperament, Gray claimed that it “has been inspired by skepticism and by a fideistic certainty of divine revelation… it has exalted the power of reason even as, in other contexts, it has sought to humble reason’s claims.”

The liberal philosophical tradition has searched for validation and justification through several intellectual projects. The moral and political suppositions of liberalism have been based on traditions such as natural rights and utilitarian theory, although sometimes liberals even requested support from scientific and religious circles. Through all these strands and traditions, scholars have identified the following major common facets of liberal thought: believing in equality and individual liberty, supporting private property and individual rights, supporting the idea of limited constitutional government, and recognizing the importance of related values such as pluralism, toleration, autonomy, bodily integrity, and consent.

Published in: on September 9, 2015 at 3:35 pm  Leave a Comment  

Liberalism, 9

Classical liberalism

The development into maturity of classical liberalism took place before and after the French Revolution in Britain, and was based on the following core concepts: classical economics, free trade, laissez-faire government with minimal intervention and taxation and a balanced budget. Classical liberals were committed to individualism, liberty and equal rights. The primary intellectual influences on 19th century liberal trends were those of Adam Smith and the classical economists, and Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.


Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, was to provide most of the ideas of economics, at least until the publication of J. S. Mill’s Principles in 1848. Smith addressed the motivation for economic activity, the causes of prices and the distribution of wealth, and the policies the state should follow in order to maximize wealth.

Smith wrote that as long as supply, demand, prices, and competition were left free of government regulation, the pursuit of material self-interest, rather than altruism, would maximize the wealth of a society through profit-driven production of goods and services. An “invisible hand” directed individuals and firms to work toward the nation’s good as an unintended consequence of efforts to maximize their own gain. This provided a moral justification for the accumulation of wealth, which had previously been viewed by some as sinful.

His main emphasis was on the benefit of free internal and international trade, which he thought could increase wealth through specialization in production. He also opposed restrictive trade preferences, state grants of monopolies, and employers’ organizations and trade unions. Government should be limited to defense, public works and the administration of justice, financed by taxes based on income. Smith was one of the progenitors of the idea, which was long central to classical liberalism and has resurfaced in the globalization literature of the later 20th and early 21st centuries, that free trade promotes peace.


Utilitarianism provided the political justification for the implementation of economic liberalism by British governments, which was to dominate economic policy from the 1830s. Although utilitarianism prompted legislative and administrative reform and John Stuart Mill’s later writings on the subject foreshadowed the welfare state, it was mainly used as a justification for laissez-faire. The central concept of utilitarianism, which was developed by Jeremy Bentham, was that public policy should seek to provide “the greatest happiness of the greatest number”. While this could be interpreted as a justification for state action to reduce poverty, it was used by classical liberals to justify inaction with the argument that the net benefit to all individuals would be higher. His philosophy proved to be extremely influential on government policy and led to increased Benthamite attempts at government social control, including Robert Peel’s Metropolitan Police, prison reforms, the workhouses and asylums for the mentally ill.

The repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 was a watershed moment and encapsulated the triumph of free trade and liberal economics. The Anti-Corn Law League brought together a coalition of liberal and radical groups in support of free trade under the leadership of Richard Cobden and John Bright, who opposed militarism and public expenditure. Their policies of low public expenditure and low taxation were later adopted by the liberal chancellor of the exchequer and later prime minister, William Ewart Gladstone. Although British classical liberals aspired to a minimum of state activity, the passage of the Factory Acts in the early 19th century which involved government interference in the economy met with their approval.

Truth, heresy, and heroes

by Christian Miller

White identity politics is a form of heresy, and heresy has grave consequences. Advocating White nationalism or merely defending White interests often results in a loss of social standing. Moral cowards, amoral sycophants, and racial traitors are rewarded while heroes and righteous guardians are demonized. Pretending that Whites are social constructs or have no legitimate interests to defend is accepted, even celebrated, in a society infested with anti-White multiculturalism. White racialists realize that the cornucopia of cultures is designed to exclude any White culture, and the future rainbow of races is actually a muddled mess of miscegenation. It is therefore a tremendous challenge to remain in steadfast support of the White extended genotype. The anti-White opposition is well-funded, well-organized, malicious, and persistent.

White advocacy is beset on all sides. Campaigning against White genocide attracts derision and scorn from anti-Whites. Lamenting the decline of the White population into minority status is attacked as intolerance. Merely calling attention to, let alone denouncing, the maliciously disproportionate amounts of violent interracial crime committed against White people is paradoxically described as hate. Protecting the continuity of family lineage by expecting exclusively White marriages and White procreation is seen as backwards, provincial, or outdated. Suggesting that many trends or ideas that harm White interests have been disproportionately created, organized, disseminated, or financed by Jewish interests can lead to accusations of insanity or mental instability.

This derision, scorn, and accusations of intolerance, hate, and insanity are reactions that require White nationalists to have a thick skin in order to maintain their viewpoints. It is hard to be a heretic. But the requisite resilience to carry forward is about more than insensitivity to insults or threats. It is inspired by the love of truth. White racialists know that race is real and that it has important consequences for civilization and ethnic genetic interests. White nationalists realize they are being systematically dispossessed and ethnically cleansed from their homelands. Defenders of White identity understand that there is nothing hateful or unhealthy about wanting to continue their heritage by having White babies in White societies.

The steely resolution that guides a White nationalist is a personality trait or perhaps a spiritual constitution that values eternal truth more than ephemeral social standing. A patriotic White man understands that truth can be directly opposed to popular opinion, and that such a situation is not without historical precedent. An exemplary White man is willing to act in accordance with that wisdom. A heroic White man can marshal these convictions into effective action and change the dynamics of society. The White race is in desperate need of more heroes.

White people are known to be more individualistic than other races. In a White-dominant society, free from ethnic or racial competition from non-White groups, this individualism helped propel White people beyond the established limits of science, technology, philosophy, and religion. The individualist refusal to conform to the “popular consensus”—which always opposes scientific breakthroughs or heretical ideas—is precisely why so many White historical figures persist within the collective memory as titans of Western civilization. Nobody remembers a conformist, but everybody remembers a successful catalyst of righteous revolution. The reward for success in such a struggle is immortal fame. How could it be any other way?

Why would anyone remember Galileo Galilee if he were not individualistic and self-assured enough to confront the ruling dogma of a geocentric universe? Whose bookshelf would carry the works of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn if he decided to bow his head to Soviet oppression because speaking out was not worth going to the gulag? Who could call themselves Protestant if Martin Luther lacked the courage and conviction to stand before the Catholic Church and criticize it without fear? All of these White men had radical ideas that stood directly against the ruling orthodoxies of their societies. These men would be scattered to the winds of time had they not found everlasting fame by tenaciously promoting important ideas despite intense societal opposition. These were all rebels with a cause, and that cause was truth. Truth is heresy before it is accepted as truth, so all of these men were once called heretics.

White nationalists face similar pressures because being pro-White is heresy in modern America. Professors will express hostility to ideas about White interests, and this may translate to lowered grades or a denial of tenure in the academic world. Employers often terminate workers who openly defend the civil rights of Whites in their private lives. Former friends may cut ties when they sense the imminent risks to social standing that follow from associating with a racially-conscious White person. Sometimes even immediate family members will choose material security and peer-group acceptance rather than support a relative who is protecting the entire extended family. Heresy has social consequences, as Galileo, Solzhenitsyn, and Luther knew all too well.

“Racist!” is the modern equivalent of “heretic!” Words like “intolerance” and “hate” are used as shibboleths to shout down dissension and preclude debate. The words have changed, but the methods of social ostracism remain the same. Cry “heretic!” or its equivalent, and let the crowd take care of the rest.

History is replete with examples of entrenched orthodoxy stultifying new ways of thinking in an oppressive manner. In more primitive times, the mystical shamans or oracles consulted with the gods in order to divine wisdom for tribal consumption. To deny the oracle’s wisdom, or to suggest the shaman was merely influenced by psychotropic drugs, was grounds for ostracism from the tribe. Only a heretic would oppose the dominant spiritual class because it was social suicide.

Skip forward thousands of years. Oracles and shamans became priests. The mystical priests consulted with God and the Bible in order to divine wisdom for public consumption. To deny the priests’ monopoly on the word of God, or to suggest they were power-hungry sycophants, was grounds for excommunication from the Church and society—a lesson Martin Luther learned the hard way. The charge of heresy was used to preclude reasonable debate, just as racism or anti-Semite is used today.

The modern ruling orthodoxy follows political correctness—the anti-White bastard child of Cultural Marxism. Nietzsche declared the death of God, but nature abhors a vacuum. In His place, the elite cabals in academia, finance, media, and politics erected a new totem pole to worship and venerate. Whether it is called liberalism, egalitarianism, Cultural Marxism, multiculturalism, or diversity, the dynamics of enforcing this untenable, genocidal, and anti-White worldview remain the same: ridicule, isolation, defamation, prosecution, ostracism, or humiliation— but never open debate. Heresy is not to be debated.

While most of humanity has evolved beyond burning heretics at the stake or performing ritual human sacrifice, the same procedural thought control remains, consistently corrupting and subverting impressionable White minds. Anyone who denies the existence of ritual sacrifice is not looking closely enough. If an influential figure violates the dogma of multiculturalism, the gatekeepers will quickly close ranks. Instead of ominous tribal drumbeats, the background music will be cries of “racist!” or “hater!” or “anti-Semite!” as the eager executioners prepare the sacrificial altar. Instead of carving out the heretic’s heart, the mainstream media and its supporters will try to ruin the heretic’s reputation as he is defamed as an intolerant, hateful, and bigoted person.

Public persecution of heretics persists in the modern age. Remember that the public sacrifice is also a warning. It is a powerful message to the rest of the group: heresy has serious consequences.

Unfortunately, the heretical path of White nationalism, White identity, and White interests is a narrow one. The trailblazers of the movement must deal with the prickly thorns, rough terrain, and back-breaking labor needed to clear the brush so others may be enticed to follow. At this stage, it is inevitable that some people will sever social connections with a pro-White person once the nationalist motivations are made clear. It seems strange that these same people would gladly continue the friendship, or express glowing admiration, if the cause at issue concerned the rights of any other racial group except for White people. This promiscuous out-group altruism is at the height of absurdity when an ostensibly White person rejects the company of another White person who advances both of their shared interests. But this is the reality of anti-White multiculturalism. The perverted ideas that have poisoned American discourse are designed to marginalize, ostracize, and demonize any remaining White person who dares to stand against the rolling tide of White dispossession.

What keeps a White nationalist from throwing in the towel? Why trudge on, when the road ahead is uphill and laden with obstacles at every turn? Beyond an undying love for one’s people, it is the same determination that drove Henry Ford to publicize Jewish subversion in the Dearborn Independent despite the imminent threat it posed to his financial interests. It is the same zeal for truth and liberty that compelled Thomas Jefferson to pen the Declaration of Independence.

The same love for truth burns in the heart of every White nationalist, and no amount of social pressure, slander, or temporary isolation is enough to extinguish the flame. The fuel source is the righteous indignation that arises when one man recognizes a cosmic injustice and is willing to fight through Hell to rectify it. The temptation of capitulation is great, the course of retreat is enticing, and the punishment for having the gall to continue is severe, but the footprints of so many great men of the past are enough to inspire forward progress. Spiritual man values virtue infinitely more so than material comfort or fleeting adoration from those not worthy to provide it. Patrick Henry confirmed his status as a spiritual man when he thundered his revolutionary call-to-arms to the Virginia House of Burgesses: “give me Liberty or give me Death!”

The movement for White identity and White interests needs more spiritual men. This is not intended to be a criticism of capitalism, profits, or material success. White nationalism needs donors, financiers, talented businessmen, and creative capitalists. But it is an inescapable conclusion that defending White people is not a get-rich-quick scheme, and it is not guaranteed to win more friends than enemies in the short term. Arthur Schopenhauer said “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as being self-evident.” White identity politics is somewhere between ridicule and violent opposition. The goal is to move towards Schopenhauer’s third stage. It will not be easy.

White nationalism is not for the weak, the timid, the gullible, or the emotionally dependent—instead, these attributes describe the demoralized and deracinated White person. The strong have always helped the weak; right now, the White race is in a position of weakness. Those who have not fallen under the spell of White guilt must reawaken their White brothers and sisters. Those who have looked beyond the horizon and gazed upon the possibility of White extinction must warn the unenlightened about the reality of White genocide. Those who value truth and who retain a healthy sense of White pride and White identity must shoulder the burden for the rest of the group who have been robbed of their heritage.

Leadership, integrity, persuasive ability, organizational skills, and inspirational ideas are sorely needed in the White nationalist movement. The genetic capacity to express these skills and traits has not been lost—yet. The potential remains within the White genotype, whether expressed or dormant, waiting to be expressed in the next familial iteration. Preserve that potential as an irreplaceable treasure. Remember that the spirit of conquest, scientific discovery, opposition to tyranny, bravery in the face of adversity, and most importantly, unshakeable determination in the pursuit of truth are all fundamental aspects of White genetic and historical heritage. The same individualism that has been cruelly exploited to disenfranchise Whites in the midst of hostile minorities can be redirected to fight against the injustice of White dispossession.

The inherently White characteristic of Western individualism can be rescued from its current subversion and redirected towards the improvement of White society. There was a time, not so long ago, when protecting the White race, the White nation, the White village, or the White family was a heroic and virtuous act to be celebrated, rather than a reason to be called a “racist.” This spirit of brotherhood, kin, and race has not been completely extinguished from the White population.

The task ahead is to awaken the yearning for truth, focused determination, sense of justice, ethnic identity, and iron will that resides within the White race. Part of the struggle is to destroy taboos and transform heresy to accepted truth. When that day comes, the titans will stand up, yawn, and throw off the shackles of anti-White multiculturalism with an effortless shrug of the shoulders. Charges of heresy will be ignored and fade away. Unencumbered and emancipated, the White race will continue its eternal march throughout history, breaking philosophical barriers, reaching higher plateaus of health and virility, discovering profound scientific truths, inventing exciting new technologies, and achieving greater zeniths of civilization. Who will lead the charge?

Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 116

11th April 1942, at dinner

If men were given complete liberty of action, they would immediately behave like apes. Slacken the reins of authority, give more liberty to the individual, and you are driving the people along the road to decadence.

Published in: on August 10, 2015 at 10:00 pm  Leave a Comment  

Where are the Syssitias?

“You can’t fight jewish tribalism with white individualism.”

—Alex Linder

In ancient Greece, notably among peoples of Dorian blood, i.e., pure white Aryans, and especially among the Spartans and Cretans, the custom that full citizens should eat the chief meal of the day in a public mess was called Syssitia. I first read about the Syssitias, or mandatory dining club of fifteen or less men, in the online book Esparta y su Ley published in the Spanish site Evropa Soberana (that I translated to English here).

Last year I was shocked to learn, after a street meeting of the British National Party that I attended right outside London, that the BNP had no headquarters or a house for its members. Unlike Greece’s Golden Dawn, there are no “Syssitias,” or guilds, for the most dedicated Briton combatants. (About a dozen of those who attended the meeting, myself including, had no choice but going to a pub after the event.) I later learned that the National Front used to have a house in England; not anymore.

Well, well… Wouldn’t you agree with me that, after a few years of working like atomized individuals who don’t even know each other’s faces or voices, and often with international distances separating us, the internet is utterly demoralizing? Wouldn’t our moral skyrocket if we could count with a safe place for the proper Männerbund such as those in the rigorously heterosexual Spartan army guilds? (again, cf. the translated book about Sparta).


We need a home for the most energetic and fanatic soldiers of the 14 words. It would suit the perfect candidate: the “lost kid” that the anti-white System had destroyed. (Unlike this kind of adolescents, bourgeois people are unsuitable: Mussolini, Hitler and now Golden Dawn figured that out. In the words of Commander Rockwell, “A National Socialist is someone who wants to save his race. A conservative is someone who wants to save his money.”) Isn’t it objectionable that the old guard, potentially capable of saving such lost Aryans, are not doing their best? Shouldn’t we try to get a shelter for potential soldiers recruiting among the working classes, or at the very least try to live within a maximum driving distance of fifteen minutes between each other? Who among my visitors is willing to move to form such a guild?

Any white country could serve this purpose, although there are special restrictions in occupied nations like Germany. Unlike most white nationalists, who are mere reactionaries, revolutionary Harold Covington has urged whites to move to the American Northwest and join what he calls the Northwest Front. Unfortunately, before Covington became known as a novelist he was known as a defamer of nationalist leaders. His character disqualifies him for a commander of future guerrilla warfare, after the dollar crashes. The Northwest Front discarded, this is my second question: Which wealthy white might be willing to sponsor the project (renting or purchasing a house)?

What shocked me last year in a bus with the dozen or so nationalist Britons after the meeting was, as I said, that they told me the BNP had not even one house in the whole UK. My guess is that in this darkest hour for the fair race, unlike the sponsoring that Mussolini and Hitler obtained (and apparently the embryonic National Front) there is no sponsor willing to fund a new political party based on racial preservation. If I am wrong—if you believe there’s indeed such a wealthy person—please contact me:

cesartort (at) yahoo.com

I have no illusions. But where there is a will there is a way—even if it is the will of only two or three fanatically committed priests of the 14 words with no sponsor at all!

It is a pity that Rockwell and Pierce could not find a legitimate inheritor for their respective groups, although in the case of Rockwell it is understandable for his premature death. Regarding Pierce, in and English restaurant-pub Arthur Kemp told me that the most serious error in Pierce’s career was rejecting the formation of a political party to fight in the real world (something that Rockwell so hard tried to do).

Let me put it this way: Unlike those who presently fly the Confederate flag throughout Dixie—again: reactionaries, not revolutionaries—, following Rockwell’s methods would place a new NS party immediately in the spotlight of the most vicious Western media. I know that such group would be forbidden in Germany, but when was the last time that uniformed fascists marched in the US? And in the UK?

I also met Jez Turner last year, the director of the London Forum. OK: he was not in uniform during the street demonstration earlier this month. Originally they were going to, provocatively, hold it in the Jewish area of London, Golders Green, but the MP for the area notified the Prime Minister David Cameron about the “neonazi” demonstration and pressure was brought on the police to deny the “Nazis” their right to demonstrate. So they moved the demo to outside Downing Street, where David Cameron lives.

On the other hand, and with Nazi uniforms, decades ago Rockwell did the same in the very heart of the anti-white regime, Washington D.C., also complaining about Jewish power. He got immediate TV attention—negative of course, but his purpose was recruiting adepts. William Pierce wrote:

The first step was general recognition. His earlier conviction that that goal must be attained at the expense of every other consideration was now stronger than ever. Thus, instead of following the natural urge to dissociate National Socialism from the Hollywood image that Jewry had been building for it for more than three decades, he temporarily threw all hopes of “respectability”—even among other National Socialists—aside and set about turning to his own advantage all the Jews’ previous efforts.

Toward this end he deliberately pinned on himself the label “Nazi” rather than “National Socialist,” using this bit of journalistic jargon which had been coined by the enemy during the early days of struggle in Germany, a term looked upon by National Socialists with about the same feeling that convinced Marxists must look upon the designation “commie” or “pinko”. Behind this step—one which was to cause much misunderstanding and suspicion in days to come—was the cold-blooded realization that a strutting, shouting uniform-wearing, Hollywood-style “Nazi” was vastly more newsworthy, had vastly more “shock value,” than any mere National Socialist.

Pierce’s tribute to Rockwell is a must-read to understand what I have in mind. After a couple of paragraphs, Pierce added:

Despite the news quarantine imposed on him, despite beatings and jailings, despite a chronic lack of funds, despite serious personnel problems, and despite a thousand other troubles and difficulties, his campaign to gain public recognition made steady progress. Newspapers found it impossible to completely avoid mentioning his brash and daring exploits; editors and columnists found irresistible the temptation to denounce or “expose” him. Even radio and television emcees, ever on the prowl for sensation, yielded to temptation and defied the ban on publicity for Rockwell.

The image of George Lincoln Rockwell and the America Nazi Party created by the mass media for public consumption was, of course, a grossly distorted one. Rockwell had succeeded in forcing the media, more or less against their will, to give him publicity.

And a few paragraphs later:

Rockwell’s original program was divided into three phases. The first phase, beginning in March, 1959, was to be a phase of provocative but essentially non-constructive activity, intended to generate publicity and build a public image, no matter how distorted. The second phase was to be a cadre-building phase, during which a strong, disciplined, effective, professional National Socialist organization was to be built and capabilities in propaganda and organizing developed to a high degree. The third phase was to be one of mass organization.

Phase one was masterfully executed. Rockwell proved himself an outstanding tactician in the rough-and-tumble game of smashing through the Jewish blackout barrier.

Phase two, attracting a few idealists to constitute the skeleton of an organizational structure started to be successful, and—who knows?—, hadn’t Rockwell been murdered phase three might have become reality…

Alas, since the fire in Rockwell’s torch was extinguished after the assassination, presently we would have to walk all the way through phase one—as Mussolini and Hitler also did. I imagine myself with a uniformed group picketing during this phase, reciting well-planned slogans about the Hellstorm Holocaust or the Holodomor that the typical man of the street has never, ever heard of. Wouldn’t this risky business be more fun, and heroic, than staying at your mom’s basement in the vain hope that the Luftwaffe key-commandos of your computer will make a difference?

Fact is, whether we follow Rockwell’s tactics or not, would-be soldiers badly need Boys-only, Syssitia-like guilds in every major city of the West.


P.S.: Since this entry is mostly about the two questions in bold-type, please post off-topic comments elsewhere.

Mens arya in corpore arya

A translated passage from
Manu Rodríguez’s latest essay

Now we live in chaos, in disorder, in the non-being, in falsehood. We now live death, decay, evil—our death, our decline, our ill. We live in an evil world (impure). Our world (our purity) has been desecrated, ethnically and culturally polluted, disturbed, upset—our order, our cosmos, our good, our truth, our being.

I remind my countrymen that our decline and our downfall began with the Christianization (Judaization) of our peoples. There we lost not only our world, thereby also lost our identity, our truth, our good, and our being.

The world of our ancestors was both a shield and a weapon. It provided to each and every one of its members a spiritual identity. It brought firmness, safety, strength… It also brought the symbolic being (collective and spiritual, psychic if you will).

PindarSo Pindar could say, “Become who you are,” i.e., become a Spartan, a Greek… He did not talk about a hidden individual being which should be revealed by introspection, but “become the one you were educated,” fulfill your upbringing, your instruction (your paideia): what is expected from you. Caught up with your stature; don’t become unworthy of your ancestors; answer to your race, your temper, your lineage.

Christianity introduced execrable principles: personal salvation, the personal god, altruism, pacifism, universal brotherhood… All these concepts were (and are) the germ of dissolution of the white peoples (and of any ancestral people). They separate, isolate individuals from their own people, their own traditions, their own social personality. They disintegrate the peoples, disintegrate them; destroy ancient ethnic traditions.

Universal ideologies create societies of racially and culturally heterogeneous (the uprooted masses) elements, but never a people. A people require ethnic and cultural homogeneity (and is the work of millennia).

Individualism is what is preached and sold in exchange for life, as there is no destiny; no future for those societies based on individualism.

Personal salvation on earth or in heaven is the recurring theme of universal ideologies, whether religious (Christianity, Buddhism) or political (liberal democracy).

A society based on individual principles (spiritual, political, economic) is a contradictory society, in conflict with itself. The union sought is false, ghostly. So, no matter how those societies can last, they carry within themselves the seeds of their own destruction, of their own impossibility.

The Jewish intelligentsia spreads, among the peoples, universal trans-ethnic creeds while jealously guarding its own ethnic and cultural heritage. Such is its preferred domain strategy. Our idea is to establish an organization or identitarian group in Europe, a European-wide “identitarian movement.”

We absolutely accept the Nazi legacy. Not to follow it to the letter, of course. The circumstances are different. But we should consider the affirmation of Nazism as an indispensable prerequisite, and as one of our most fundamental identity markers, for many reasons. We must honor the first Aryan nation (the men and women, their deeds, their accomplishments, their tragic story…); recapture her spirit, rescuing her memory, regain her honor.

Whoever denies or disowns Nazism is not worthy of belonging to the future Aryan nation.

Liberal axiology

by Alex Kurtagic

Editor’s note: What happened the last week in the US Supreme Court can only be understood considering that the West had long embraced liberalism, the most destructive ideology of history. (Kurtagic’s complete piece can be read: here.)

The dominant moral system in the West is liberal morality. To understand this system we need to understand the structure of liberalism.

In liberalism, the historical subject is the individual. The individual is the measure of all things. The idea behind liberalism is to “liberate” the individual from anything that is external or transcendent to him, such as faith, tradition, and authority. The transcendent implies hierarchy: subordination of the individual to something higher. Absent this higher something, one is left only with the individual, and without faith, tradition, or higher authority, an individual becomes like any other individual. Thus, equality.

When individuals are equal, they have an equal claim to a slice of the pie. Thus the ideal type of government becomes democracy, in its most radical form. Concurrently, where there is equality, what applies to one individual applies to all equally, everywhere and always. This means universalism.

The abandonment of the transcendent leads to a worldview that is entirely secular, rational, and material. The way to happiness then becomes material increase, pursued by rational means. This results in production, consumption, and economics. It becomes necessary to produce and to find ways to maximize production. Individualism, equality, democracy, universalism, secularism, rationalism, materialism, and economism constitute the foundations of liberal morality.

Not all of these values have equal importance. Two of them—liberty and equality—are privileged above the others, and have produced two strands of liberalism in modern times. The strand that favors equality incorporates the Marxist critiques of liberalism formulated during the 19th and 20th centuries; this is the dominant strand of liberalism today.

The strand that favors liberty is closer to Classical Liberalism, and its purest expression is libertarianism; this represents an important oppositional view within liberalism. It is important to note, however, that both strands regard equality as an absolute moral good. In liberalism, in both its dominant form and its main oppositional form, the moral goodness of equality is taken for granted and stands beyond discussion or criticism. Liberal morality considers the questioning of the goodness of equality a serious moral defect.

Liberal morality therefore deems race realism an evil because race realism asserts the essential inequality of man. In this way liberal morality puts race realism outside the realm of acceptable discourse, and race realists outside the realm of civilized society.

Liberalism, 2

Imperium Eagle

This piece has been moved
to a single entry: here.

Liberalism, 1

Imperium Eagle

This piece has been moved
to a single entry: here.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 304 other followers