Guillaume Faye Is One Of Few Right-Wing Writers Worth Reading

Although there exist several interesting writers who are linked to the right – Oswald Spengler, Vilfredo Pareto, Carl Schmitt, and Julius Evola to name a few – many of them lived many decades ago. Their contemporaries are mainly academic types and some of them not even particularly right-wing.

One exception, though, is the French New Right (Nouvelle Droite) thinker, Guillaume Faye, known for his writings that have been translated into English as Archeofuturism, Why We Fight, and The Convergence Of Catastrophes, with help of the transnational publishing house Arktos Media. Also his latest book, A Global Coup (2017), which concerns the relationships between Europe and America, is sound.

There are a number of points to criticize Faye for, such as his penchant for biological engineering and that he somewhat misguidedly bases his argument on Samuel Huntington’s book The Clash Of Civilizations. Yet the strengths are predominant.

I consider Why We Fight to be his most important book. It was originally written in 2001 and show how correct Faye was and that his ideas largely overlap neomasculinity and a general masculine thought program. Since the book is largely structured as a dictionary which discusses multiple keywords, I have selected some of them and quoted Faye. All of them are relevant to a broad male audience.

1. Aesthetics

Contemporary egalitarian ideology abhors and implicitly domonises aesthetics. (…) With the plastic arts, architecture, cinema, literature, theatre, even fashion, the ugly, the unachieved, the unformed, the most far-fetched nonsense, the shady and the watered down are now preferred to the aesthetic, which is made synonymous with a menacing ‘order’. Since the mid-Twentieth century, contemporary arts, encouraged by the dominant ideology, have rejected any notion of aesthetics. Instead of harmony, the power of forms, the exaltation and elevation of sensation of beauty – notions of abstract ‘conceptual art’ are preferred, which becomes a pretext for degeneracy, wilful ugliness, and subsidied incompetence.

2. Consumerism

Consumerism is a form of slavery, to which the mass men of our civilisation have succumbed, these mass men who are neither citizens, nor actors, nor responsible individuals, but rather passive domesticated beings.

3. Devirilisation

The declining values of courage and virility for the sake of feminist, xenophile, homophile, and humanitarian values. (…) In no case the notion of ‘virility’ ought to be confused with ‘machismo’ or with the stupid demand for some sort of ‘masculine social privilege’.

4. Discipline

Discipline is the basis of all education and every civilisation. Permissive ‘pedagogical’ theories cannot but lead to the failure to transmit knowledge, as is so evident today.

5. Domestication

Its symptoms are innumerable: susceptibility to ideological conditioning, dependence on consumerist ways of life, loss of independent judgment in respect to propaganda and culpability, the banishment of all spirituality (replaced by the media gnosis) etc.

6. Elite

Contemporary elites are ‘recruited’ according to criteria that have nothing to do with excellence or character. These criteria are now nepotism, connection, membership in a lobby, a clique, a mafia, a clan (sociological or ethnic); or else the ability to make money.

7. Homophilia

After having long sought recognition as a marginal social element, the homosexual lobby now demands a sort of superiority, with heterosexuality treated as something inferior or mutilated. First equal rights, then privileges.

8. Human rights

As a synthesis of Eighteenth-century political philosophy (often badly understood), human rights is the inescapable horizon of the dominant ideology. (…) Profoundly hypocritical, human rights ideology accomodates every form of social misery and justifies every form of oppression. It functions as a veritable secular religion. The ‘human’ in human rights is nothing but an abstraction, a consumer-client, an atom. (…) ‘Humans’ (already a vague notion) possess no fixed or universal rights, only those bequethed by their civilisation, their tradition.

9. Neo-primitivism

The signs of this new primitivism are multiple: the rise of illiteracy in the schools, the explosion of drug use, the Afro-Americanisation of popular music, the collapse of social codes, the decline of general culture, knowledge, and historical memory among the young, dissolution of contemporary art into a brutal, vacuous nihilism, the mass coarsening and deculturation fostered by audio/visual media (the ‘cathodic religion’), the increase of criminality and uncivil behavior, the decline of civic duty, the accelerated crumbling of social norms and collective disciplines, the deterioration of the language, etc.

10. Populism

This presently pejorative word must be made positive. The prevailing version to populism actually expresses a covert contempt for authentic democracy. Like its corollary anti-demagoguery, anti-populism is a semantic ruse of politicians and bourgeois intellectuals – to deflect the people’s will, especially that of the modest social strata, reputedly dangerous, because they are the most nationalist.

11. Presentism

Presentism fosters contempt for the survival of one’s people. It’s a consequence of a narcissistic individualism and the bourgeois spirit. (…) Presentism is the infantile demand for everything right now…

In closing

As has been demonstrated above, Faye is a straightforward writer who points out important aspects of our present Western societies and how we can try to fix some of them. While many of his works are worth reading in full, these eleven aspects point out some of the core ideas which are particularly important.

For more of William Adams’ material, check out his website Syncretic politics.

How the Jews Ruined Halloween

Azzmador
Daily Stormer
October 21, 2017

I’ve always loved Halloween. When I was a kid, it was my favorite holiday of the year. The opportunity to dress up like your favorite superhero or scary monster, and go out trick-or-treating with the other kids was something we all looked forward to way in advance of October 31st.

It was the 1970’s, and although the country had been force-integrated by the courts, there had not yet been time for actual neighborhoods and large sections of towns to become “diverse.” There was still high trust, and everybody knew everybody else. It was safe enough that if you  were eleven or twelve years old, your parents didn’t mind letting you go out yourself.

Cute kid dressed as Your Friendly Neighborhood Azzmador

There were already urban myths being reported in the media advising parents not to let their kids keep anything but prepackaged candies, due to the rumor that some fiend somewhere had poisoned homemade treats, and for parents to closely inspect said candy for signs of needles, as there was also a rumor that someone, somewhere, had given out candy filled with needles and/or razor blades. I’m told that by the mid-eighties this rumor had morphed into them being AIDS needles.

But it was still a safe environment,  and when my sister and I would come home with candy apples and popcorn balls, my mother would ask who gave them to us and we’d say “Mrs. Jones over on Alamo Drive,” and Mom would say, “okay, well she’s a nice lady, you  can keep them.”

She did examine the candy as suggested by the local news, and not one needle or razor was ever found.

By the early 1980’s I was too old to  go trick or treating anymore, but I still had a couple of years where I got to escort my sister and her friends as they went door to door, and that was just as enjoyable, in a different way.

Then I grew up, and moved to DFW for work. Living in highly diverse apartment complexes, I never saw anyone trick-or-treating, and being a busy and self-absorbed young adult, I really didn’t think about it.

Fast forward to The Current Year™️, and we have this sorry tale:

CBS Boston:

WALPOLE (CBS) – The decorations are out and Halloween is two weeks away but there’s controversy at Boyden Elementary School in Walpole. The school will not be having its annual Halloween costume parade this year.

“I think it’s a lot of political correctness,” a Walpole woman said. “I think it’s a shame because Halloween is the funnest day of the year next to Christmas for children.”

In a message to parents the school principal says, “…the costume parade is out of our ordinary routine and can be difficult for many students. Also, the parade is not inclusive of all the students and it is our goal each and every day to ensure all student’s individual differences are respected.”

On Friday the school will have a Halloween party after school hours, but the school says Halloween itself will be “Black and Orange” spirit day.

Parents WBZ-TV spoke with are not happy about the decision to cancel the parade.

“We have grand-kids going to Boyden School. Wonderful school,” a grandmother of a student said. “The Halloween party should happen on Friday cause all the kids are excited.”

“Put a costume on. Parade down the street. Let them have their little time,” a Walpole man said. “Why do you have to turn it into something political?”

Everything is political in The Current Year™️. Our public education institutions have run amok with this PC garbage because they have been run by Cultural Marxist filth who view the schools as indoctrination laboratories where they work their dirty business on our kids for generations.

I did a lot of research trying to find out who precisely it was who was not being included, which kids this was allegedly protecting from being ostracized, and I came up with a big zero. Why am I not surprised?

This was covered by countless local news outlets and not one “journalist” thought to ask that question?

I could only come up with a couple of answers myself.

  1. Most likely, Muslims. They hate everything Western, and seem to have a religious rule against anything fun, and these shitlibs pander to their every whim, often without even being asked.
  2. Welfare blacks. I’m sure many single mammies are too busy getting they hair did and banging every Tyrone and Jamal in da hood to worry about sheeit like getting their kids a Halloween costume, so it could be that too.

It could be something else as well. The country is so dysfunctional with multiculturalism at this point, that for all I know it could offend Samoans, or atheists, or Hottentot tribesmen. And we all must bow to anything not straight, White, Christian, or male.

But this is just a nail in the coffin really. About 12 years ago, when I moved back to East Texas, I began decorating the yard early in October every year. Ghosts, lights, the whole nine yards. I even made real jack o’ lanterns. I really enjoyed it, and I looked  forward to seeing the parents bring their little ones in their costumes and giving out candy.

The first year, 2005, I had maybe half a dozen people come. I still remember a young family who brought their little toddler, and they had her dressed up as a little angel. It was very cute, and made the whole thing worthwhile.

As the years passed less and less kids came by. The last few years no White children at all.

Mexicans have begun moving into our neighborhood and so we would get a few of those.

Last year, I decorated again, bought plenty of candy, and had a P.A. outside playing spooky music.

Not one person came.

This year, I decided not to bother. It’s very depressing on many levels.

I hate that the generations that followed me have not had the pleasure of a Halloween night out trick-or-treating, which was one of the most fun and wholesome things a kid could do. And I hate that they won’t have the fond memories of having done so.

But most of all, I hate the Jews  for this. It is their program of forcing diversity on us by any means necessary that is the obvious culprit at the bottom of this.

I hope I live to see the day when we have restored our nation and stopped these kikes.

Then we can decorate our yards with ornamental gas chambers and ovens,  and the scariest costume available will be the Happy Merchant.

Regarding the Three Arrested for Discharging a Weapon Near the Spencer Rally

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
October 21, 2017

Although the overall scene was a win, there was one thing that went wrong at the Spencer talk (other than the Swastika shirt guy).

Unlike the Swastika shirt guy, no one really thinks this was a planned hoax. This is a result of not following the rules, plain and simple.

LA Times:

Three supporters of the prominent white nationalist Richard Spencer have been charged with attempted murder after police said one of the men, egged on by his friends, shot at protesters “with the intent to kill” following Spencer’s speech at the University of Florida on Thursday.

It was the most serious instance of violence reported in connection to Spencer’s appearance at the university.

The event was heavily protested but mostly went off without violence, until three men in a silver Jeep pulled up to a bus stop around 5:20 p.m. Thursday after Spencer had ended his speech. They had just come from the speech and were recorded on video giving interviews to media outlets, defending Spencer’s appearance.

“One of the passengers began yelling Hail Hitler and other chants” at the people at the bus stop, according to arrest reports released by the Gainesville Police Department. “An argument ensued,” and one of the people at the bus stop, whose name was redacted, “used a baton to hit the rear window of [the] vehicle.”

Tyler Eugene Tenbrink, 28, of Richmond, Texas, got out of the Jeep and pulled out a gun, police said.

Colton Gene Fears, 28, and William Henry Fears, 30, brothers who live in Pasadena, Texas, told Tenbrink to “kill them” and “shoot them,” according to the arrest reports. At one point William Fears got out of the vehicle too, according to one witness.

Tenbrink fired one shot, which missed a person at the bus stop and hit a business behind the person, and the men then got back in the Jeep and drove away, police said. The person took down the Jeep’s license plate number and the men were arrested 20 miles north of Gainesville, with a gun found in the car, police said. Tenbrink then confessed to being the gunman, they said.

“I am amazed that immediately after being shot at, a victim had the forethought to get the vehicle’s license number,” Gainesville police spokesman Ben Tobias said in a statement. “That key piece of information allowed officials from every level of multiple agencies to quickly identify and arrest these persons.”

Under Florida law, accomplices to an attempted murder can be charged as if they had fired the shots. Police said Tenbrink is a convicted felon and could face more charges because he was in possession of a gun.

It was not immediately clear if the men had lawyers. Tenbrink was ordered held in lieu of $3-million bond and the Fears brothers were ordered held in lieu of $1-million bond, according to police.

Tenbrink came from Texas to hear Spencer speak, and he told the Gainesville Sun in an interview before the shooting: “This is a mess. I’m disappointed in the course of things. It appears that the only answer left is violence, and nobody wants that.” He appears to be the same man who leapt over a police fence after being chased away from the event by protesters.

Before the shooting, William Fears told one journalist that he supported Spencer’s message, and he also told a Miami CBS news affiliate that the “only people who think we’re the violent ones, causing violence, are people who watch CNN.”

William Fears also told the Gainesville Sun: “It’s always been socially acceptable to punch a Nazi, to attack people if they have right-wing political leanings. Us coming in and saying we’re taking over your town, we’re starting to push back, we’re starting to want to intimidate back. We want to show our teeth a little bit because, you know, we’re not to be taken lightly. We don’t want violence; we don’t want harm. But at the end of the day, we’re not opposed to defending ourselves.

I’m not going to condemn these guys totally – they’re going to jail for a long time and that is enough punishment without me throwing them under the bus – but I will condemn the lack of rule-following.

And before anything else: this isn’t attempted murder.

What apparently happened – which most media is skipping or distorting – is that the antifa attacked the car, they got out to confront them, antifa moved in to assault them, something happened involving a gun where a shot was fired, then the antifa waited 5 hours – no doubt talking to lawyers and getting a story straight – before calling the cops. The only reason you would wait five hours, with a group of people, before simply dial “911” after shots were fired is if you were putting together a story to protect yourself and harm the other guys as much as possible.

And I fully believe that the claims that these guys said “shoot them” and “kill them” are made up. That just sounds dumb, and if they were planning to do that they would have at least shot someone, instead of firing a single shot into a building.

So, I’m not sure any crime was committed.

That said, these three guys screwed up a bunch of very basic stuff.

And this is bad for not just them, but us as well – we don’t need to be tied to this type of thing.

Most Basic Protocol Violated Here

Look – we have a full guide on security at right-wing events, written by an internationally renowned security expert. And in that guide, we make it very clear: no guns, under any circumstances.

Being a felon carrying a gun is that much worse (that seems to be the only actual crime here).

I can, of course, see how the gun would have been pulled in self-defense, how the shot fired – a single shot – was presumably a warning shot, and this was all basically innocent.

But you see what happened – they’re getting charged with attempted murder. Whether those charges will stick, I don’t know, but in all likelihood, it’s going to be up to a public defender. Unless these guys have family money. Because I’m telling you right now – I’m not going to promote the legal fund of someone who violated basic rules above someone like Christopher Cantwell, who didn’t do anything wrong and is being held as a political prisoner. If these were the only guys in jail, okay – but they’re not, and the only reason they are in jail is because of knowingly violating security protocol which we’ve laid down very clearly.

Talking to Cops

Apparently – this is what is being reported – these guys all talked to the cops and admitted to something.

You are never, ever, ever supposed to do that. Under any circumstances.

Okay, so they were thinking “we just fired a warning shot in self-defense, there was no crime, we can just explain this to the cops and then only be dealing with the single felony in possession of a firearm charge” – and now they’re charged with attempted murder.

That is the way this works.

You can’t just “explain yourself” to the cops.

You don’t ever say anything to cops except “let me talk to a lawyer.”

Period.

Nothing more than that, ever, under any circumstances. No matter how long they hold you in a cell. That is all you say.

EVERYONE WATCH THIS:

Big Deal

This isn’t a joke or a game.

This is a big deal.

We aren’t joking with you when we say “do not bring fucking guns.”

And you should all not only be doing that for yourself, but you should be self-enforcing this among anyone you’re with.

These guys are going to prison. Furthermore, it is being reported that they have “connections to extremist groups,” so other people are going to get hassled over this by the feds.

You people need to take this stuff we say seriously. We are not just talking out of our asses here. This could have been a lot worse – if a warning shot in self-defense is “attempted murder,” imagine if someone had been shot and killed in self-defense? They would call that a “terrorist attack.”

Okay?

That’s what they would call you shooting someone who attacked you – a terrorist attack.

That is the situation we are in here.

And it makes me extremely angry that these guys were so reckless as to put us all in a situation by refusing to follow simple rules, thinking they know better.

Entering The Age Of White Civil Rights, The New Counterculture Has To Decide If The Medium Is The Message

It is no secret that the tables have turned, and former counterculture is now the Establishment, opposed by those who understood what the prior Establishment claimed to represent but never could quite achieve. The real question now is whether the new counterculture aims to become the next Establishment, which is any type of old dogma weakly defending itself, or to be something better.

This cycle of home team versus away team creates the sportsball nature of politics. Everyone sticks with their team because it fits their individual identities. Home team argues that they are winners, where away team portrays themselves as underdogs gunning for an upset. The people who think life is good “as is” join the home team, and people who are dissatisfied join the away team.

More than Left-versus-Right, this creates the seesaw nature of modern politics. When one side gets in power, it begins dismantling what the other side did, and then the process repeats again. Every few decades there is a fundamental power shift, usually provoked by an enemy which seems allied with either the Establishment or counterculture, and that puts the corresponding party out of favor.

In our case, the most recent enemy after the Soviets has been the globalists, who take a toxic mixture of Leftist ambitions and capitalist funding, amplify it through Keynesian tax-borrow-and-spend policies, and enforce it with the notions of “freedom,” “justice” and “equality” that sound like they should be good things, and so people are afraid to oppose them.

Domestic parties that support similar ideas, mainly the mating of egalitarian sentiments with culture-destroying international business, have suffered a bit of a hit as a result. When they were the counterculture, they promised the opposite of what now that they are finally fully in power, they have delivered.

In addition, their approach has taken on a decidedly Soviet character. Their neo-Communism consists of the same drive toward mass equality, similar attitudes toward censorship and declaring dissidents to be unperson, and a strikingly similar result: a mass culture of workers, living in small apartments, owning little and with no future prospect of escape, in this case because they are taxed to provide for a growing and hostile underclass.

Enter the Alt Right, which could be described as “traditional conservatism” in that it embraces aspects of the Right that were discarded by the mainstream Right in order to be able to compromise with the Left as it won the culture war and consequently, political dominance only occasionally interrupted by a moderate conservative like Ronald Reagan.

In particular, the Alt Right endorses nationalism, which is the recognition that diverse or multicultural nation-states lead to the destruction of the founding group, which in the case of Western Civilization is Western European people. Without this group, there cannot be Western Civilization, although mainstream conservatives would be happy with a mixed-race group upholding its Constitution, capitalism and Christianity.

The Alt Right also endorses a strong social conservatism, in defiance of the trend of the mainstream Right to be more libertarian or “classical liberal,” in response to the disaster of sexual liberation and divorce that has blighted the family and ruined the chances for happiness for many young men. It also seeks to differentiate itself from white nationalism, a movement which focused too much on race alone and ignored the bigger problem which is the real target of the Alt Right, namely the collapse of Western Civilization and our need to restore Western Civilization in order to survive.

Recognizing the success of the Left, the Alt Right sought a simpler goal than the political intrigues of the mainstream Right or underground Right like white nationalism. It sought to create a cultural wave of cynicism toward equality, and in the void created by that doubt, insert the idea of a redesigned and revitalized Western Civilization which would end white genocide and the ongoing consumption of our natural world.

Now that the Alt Right is the new counterculture, or the underdog confronting a calcified Establishment with new ideas that it claims will lead to a better way of life, it has to decide whether it will continue the cycle of in-power versus out-of-power, or if it will entirely upend the paradigm.

Upending the paradigm looks like this: we escape ideology entirely, and instead of imposing human order on the world, we study its order and learn to impose it on ourselves. Darwinistic adaptation instead of humanism. Tradition instead of individualism. In other words, we get over ourselves, transcend our fears, and accept life as not just logical but beautiful, optimal and glorious.

The Alt Right is coming to this place. It is not a political revolution, and not just a cultural one, but a philosophical upending of all that we have considered sacred for the 228 years since the French Revolution. It is the end of mass culture, mass politics and utilitarianism; it is the rise of realism, futurism and sanity.

Only one question remains: what path does the Alt Right choose toward cultural dominance?

Two options exist. First, we could follow the usual pattern and try to get as many warm bodies as possible. Second, we could aim instead for the head, and target the one-in-twenty people who are the natural leaders of humanity. These are the people in any office who always know what to do, understand the core of their tasks more than anyone else, or just can find a path where everyone else falters.

The warm bodies option appeals most to us because it was the way to succeed in the era we have just come out of, The Age of Ideology. In that time — defined by the individualism that says what a person wants is more important than culture, nature or reality — whoever accumulated the largest mass culture movement won. But faith in democracy has shifted; people want results, not the warm feeling of participation.

In our new era, The Age of Organicism, hierarchy and standards have returned. These two go hand-in-hand because standards mean that each individual meets those to a differing degree, which creates rank not based on money and popularity, but ability to fulfill the needs and goals of culture. Organicism refers to the preference for innate tendencies like ethnic, cultural and religious identity as a replacement for the ideology, or motivation of the masses, preferred during The Age of Ideology.

If the Alt Right is the new counterculture but does not want to end up being the new Establishment, it must break free from the methods of the past entirely, which corresponds to an understanding of what the famous utterance by Marshall McLuhan that “the medium is the message” means; much like understanding that demography is destiny, it apprehends that changing behavior is more important than ideology:

McLuhan tells us that a “message” is, “the change of scale or pace or pattern” that a new invention or innovation “introduces into human affairs.” (McLuhan 8) Note that it is not the content or use of the innovation, but the change in inter-personal dynamics that the innovation brings with it. Thus, the message of theatrical production is not the musical or the play being produced, but perhaps the change in tourism that the production may encourage. In the case of a specific theatrical production, its message may be a change in attitude or action on the part of the audience that results from the medium of the play itself, which is quite distinct from the medium of theatrical production in general. Similarly, the message of a newscast are not the news stories themselves, but a change in the public attitude towards crime, or the creation of a climate of fear. A McLuhan message always tells us to look beyond the obvious and seek the non-obvious changes or effects that are enabled, enhanced, accelerated or extended by the new thing.

McLuhan defines medium for us as well. Right at the beginning of Understanding Media, he tells us that a medium is “any extension of ourselves.” Classically, he suggests that a hammer extends our arm and that the wheel extends our legs and feet. Each enables us to do more than our bodies could do on their own. Similarly, the medium of language extends our thoughts from within our mind out to others. Indeed, since our thoughts are the result of our individual sensory experience, speech is an “outering” of our senses – we could consider it as a form of reversing senses – whereas usually our senses bring the world into our minds, speech takes our sensorially-shaped minds out to the world.

But McLuhan always thought of a medium in the sense of a growing medium, like the fertile potting soil into which a seed is planted, or the agar in a Petri dish. In other words, a medium – this extension of our body or senses or mind – is anything from which a change emerges. And since some sort of change emerges from everything we conceive or create, all of our inventions, innovations, ideas and ideals are McLuhan media.

In other words, message is change and medium is what changes behavior, usually as a labor-saving device.

For the Alt Right, the medium is politics as an expression of hierarchy; that is, we listen to what is the most accurate depiction of reality, recognizing that only the top 2-5% of our population will “get it.” This conveys the message of traditional society: social order, above all else, represented by values, customs, ethnic identity, standards, hierarchy, principles, caste and norms.

We want social order back. We want to restore Western Civilization. But we cannot do that through the medium of mass politics because mass politics inverts signal and noise by choosing popular semi-truths over unpopular complex ones, which most people cannot understand and consequently, discard because they consider it insane or stupid.

The medium distorts the message, and this was the longstanding contribution of The Age of Ideology. By translating an idea into something that a mass culture can understand, we are forced to twist it until it no longer resembles itself, but is most like everything else, because everything else is attuned to the simple fact of what the crowd can understand and what it likes to think is true (once called “pretense”).

This fits with an ancient idea, derived from Plato and represented in the Bible, that only a small number of people make all the important changes in our world, while everyone else basically creates chaos through their individualistic behavior:

As the word masses is commonly used, it suggests agglomerations of poor and underprivileged people, laboring people, proletarians, and it means nothing like that; it means simply the majority. The mass man is one who has neither the force of intellect to apprehend the principles issuing in what we know as the humane life, nor the force of character to adhere to those principles steadily and strictly as laws of conduct; and because such people make up the great and overwhelming majority of mankind, they are called collectively the masses. The line of differentiation between the masses and the Remnant is set invariably by quality, not by circumstance. The Remnant are those who by force of intellect are able to apprehend these principles, and by force of character are able, at least measurably, to cleave to them. The masses are those who are unable to do either.

…Plato lived into the administration of Eubulus, when Athens was at the peak of its jazz-and-paper era, and he speaks of the Athenian masses with all Isaiah’s fervency, even comparing them to a herd of ravenous wild beasts. Curiously, too, he applies Isaiah’s own word remnant to the worthier portion of Athenian society; “there is but a very small remnant,” he says, of those who possess a saving force of intellect and force of character — too small, preciously as to Judea, to be of any avail against the ignorant and vicious preponderance of the masses.

…In the 18th century, however, certain European philosophers spread the notion that the mass man, in his natural state, is not at all the kind of person that earlier authorities made him out to be, but on the contrary, that he is a worthy object of interest. His untowardness is the effect of environment, an effect for which “society” is somehow responsible. If only his environment permitted him to live according to his lights, he would undoubtedly show himself to be quite a fellow; and the best way to secure a more favorable environment for him would be to let him arrange it for himself. The French Revolution acted powerfully as a springboard for this idea, projecting its influence in all directions throughout Europe.

The Age of Ideology was the age of domination by the masses; The Age of Organicism will be dominated again by the Remnant through the principle of hierarchy, by which we place those who have “force of intellect” and in parallel also “force of character” above the rest, and entrust them with wealth and power, because they will conserve it — keep it out of the hands of the insane — and use it well.

From elsewhere in The Republic:

When discord arose, then the two races were drawn different ways: the iron and brass fell to acquiring money and land and houses and gold and silver; but the gold and silver races, not wanting money but having the true riches in their own nature, inclined towards virtue and the ancient order of things. There was a battle between them, and at last they agreed to distribute their land and houses among individual owners; and they enslaved their friends and maintainers, whom they had formerly protected in the condition of freemen, and made of them subjects and servants; and they themselves were engaged in war and in keeping a watch against them.

The “true riches in their own nature, inclined towards virtue and the ancient order of things” is what we need. Mass culture has ruined Western Civilization, even though this decline had its origins far earlier when corrupt merchants began using lesser aristocrats and fallen churchmen as a weapon against the kings. The goal was always to seize wealth and power from those who would not abuse it.

The Florida demonstration constitutes a victory for the Alt Right. The Alt Right went in saying that the masses are delusional, that they hate any ideas they cannot control, and that they are violent Communists who use diversity as a weapon to destroy white people. Antifa and other Leftists promptly showed up and proved the Alt Right correct, for the third or fourth time in a row.

America and Europe are looking at this and thinking, “Holy mackerel. We let these people — the Left — rule us?” Not surprisingly, a wave of populist victories in Britain, America, Hungary, Germany, Austria, Poland and The Czech Republic are showing us that people are in fact rejecting the Leftist idea in its ultimate form as globalism.

Globalism expresses the single idea that the Left really has — human equality, which is the individualism legitimized during The Enlightenment™ — by removing any borders and standards imposed on human behavior. It creates the one worldwide mass culture, unified by consumerism and socialism, which like the French Revolutionaries which are its ideological ancestor, demands more for the individual from society and in the name of equality.

Most people find it hard to reject the idea of equality. Like pacifism, it seems to make sense when you take it for granted that civilization will always be there, and that your immediate need to transact business and socialize is more important than goals above the individual, like values, philosophy, heritage and purpose. But when “equality” reveals itself to be a path to neo-Communism, censorship, third world levels of disorder, constant ethnic violence, corrupt governments, and racial replacement by foreign populations, people oppose it; even more, they have realized that the roots of globalism were formed of democracy and equality and proceeded inexorably from that seed, eventually flowering into its final form, which suspicious resembled Communism with consumerism.

But to the Alt Right, equality is a false god that replaces the need to strive for virtue. Egalitarians of course will insist that equality is the only virtue, which is a popular message because it is easier to be politically correct in one area than to be morally upright in every area of life.

How a message of virtue became contorted into a message of upholding only one presumed virtue shows us the medium as the message. When we simplify for the herd, corruption and inversion of the message occurs, and that always reverts to the most base instincts of humanity. Those boil down to a desire for “anarchy with grocery stores” and free stuff paid for by other people, as propelled the French Revolution.

In Florida, the Alt Right triumphed. It has revealed its enemies to be the Establishment. Its strength is rising, and at this point, the only enemy that can defeat it is the Alt Right itself, if it does not heed the lessons of history and focuses on pandering to the lowest common denominator instead of looking toward informing, inspiring and revitalizing the Remnant.

Instead Of Accusing Leftists Of Racism, Point Out Their Agenda: Vampiric Parasitism

Every now and then, the Left accidentally tell you exactly what they are thinking and what their motives are. Although the University of Pennsylvania has not actually fired her, Stephanie McKellop got in some hot water for speaking the pure Leftist reality-doctrine:

In the Leftist view, equality is the goal, and so anyone who is doing better than mediocre needs to have their wealth and power transferred to those below the mediocre line. That way, everyone will be the same, and each person’s ego will be satisfied that no one has gotten ahead of them.

Through that lens, it is acceptable to — as McKellop argues — discriminate against whites. But, from a conservative perspective, no one is discriminating; they are self-sorting. Conservatives do not concern themselves with racism, classism, sexism, homophoia and other Left-terms at all because we know that people sort themselves out by flocking like to like, and so every group will exclude someone else.

This is why DR3 is a loser strategy for conservatives; any conservative who uses the term “racism” to express a concern for forcing everyone to like one another is in fact a cordycepted crypto-Leftist (including neoconservatives, lolberts, classical liberals, RINOs, cucks, SWPLs and Buckley conservatives).

To McKellop, non-whites can never be racist because whites are above-mediocre, therefore should perpetually be punished by taking the fruits of their labors to redistribute. In her mind, this can and should go on indefinitely. That shows us her real motivation: while she speaks about ending racism, what she really wants is to keep the benefits chain going.

An honest person concerned about, say, African-American issues will argue for African independence. Same with an honest feminist, homosexual, transgender, other minority group or minority religion. Instead they want to maintain the wealth transfer, which means they must simultaneously try to subjugate us and demand funding from us.

Even if they simply wanted to conquer us and wipe us out, that would be more honest. After all, every ethnic group has its own self-interest, and that includes displacing any possible competition. But for SWPL Leftists like Stephanie McKellop, they want something else entirely: vampiric parasitism. They want to make us into livestock for them to milk and fleece forevermore.

Many people disagree with the assessment that the core of Leftism is individualism, but demands for parasitism always are individualistic, favoring the needs of the individual over the group, nature and society as an organic whole. However, this individualism only makes sense to people who secretly suspect that they are weak, since anyone strong simply goes out and makes something better for themselves.

This means that the agenda of Leftism has been to leech off of us all along. They are merely parasites. All of their high-minded talk about morality and justice is just the cover story for a bunch of common grifters who want to find a sucker, get their hooks into him good, and drain just enough of his lifeblood every day that he will never wake up and be a threat to them again.

Parasites:

European Genetics Reveal The Differences Between European Ethnic Groups

If you listen to the egalitarian narrative, you will believe that we are all the same and the only difference between us is that some groups were oppressed and others were not. The only possible reason for this, we are led to believe, is that some groups are mean and others are nice, so the former oppressed the latter.

This nonsense lasted for centuries and when it finally failed as the presidency of Barack Obama and the chancellorship of Andrea Merkel failed in unison, the backlash was intense: all of us of one race are supposed to join up together, fight off the others, and live in some kind of Utopia.

This is merely a restatement of the egalitarian narrative that controls for race, but it does not address ethnicity, or the ethnic groups within those races, including hybrids.

The above map expands upon traditional knowledge and a body of genetic knowledge which shows us that the different European ethnic groups are both highly distinctive, and less separated when placed in clusters like Northern/Western, Eastern and Southern/Irish Europeans.

Here is another map, from GNXP in 2008:

Even more, notice how this corresponds to a European tribal map which shows the national identity of each regional entity:

It is not PC to notice this, nor is it “far-Right friendly” for most values of far-Right, but Europe is divided into many ethnic groups, although similar groups may cluster.

For this reason, “white nationalism” will never work, because we are not only divided into different ethnic groups, but are divided by caste, and people see no reason to engage in ethno-Bolshevism to make us all equal-within-a-race.

In the meantime, the mainstream press is reworking Lewontin’s Fallacy in order to deny the existence of race and presumably, ethnicity. To follow their narrative, they are always trying to deny race:

The researchers pinpointed eight genetic variants in four narrow regions of the human genome that strongly influence pigmentation — some making skin darker, and others making it lighter.

…The widespread distribution of these genes and their persistence over millenniums show that the old color lines are essentially meaningless, the scientists said. The research “dispels a biological concept of race,” Dr. Tishkoff said.

…A variant for light skin — found in both Europeans and the San hunter-gatherers of Botswana — arose roughly 900,000 years ago, for example.

However, unfortunately for them, race is not skin color; it involves clusters of traits which are coded for by multiple genes each. As a result, race consists of a genetic profile, as opposed to a single gene, as is argued in Lewontin’s Fallacy:

This conclusion, due to R.C. Lewontin in 1972, is unwarranted because the argument ignores the fact that most of the information that distinguishes populations is hidden in the correlation structure of the data and not simply in the variation of the individual factors.

Lewontin’s Fallacy argues that if race is not coded by a single gene, it does not exist. This constitutes a strawman, since the common sense definition of race is that different groups have different traits, which are measured as spectra based on an ideal that consists of a cluster of traits, rather than a single trait.

The same is true of ethnicity. We can say that we are all European, White, Caucasian, or otherwise similarly related, but the fact that we have identifiably different networks of traits means that race subdivides, and we have to look at ethnicity as well. This is complicated by the fact that the word “race” is used to refer to both root race (African, Asian, Caucasian, Australid) and ethnic group.

The new argument, advanced by The New York Times, is that because there are multiple genes for skin color, there is not a single gene for race, therefore — the “magic therefore” — race does not exist.

In actuality, race and ethnicity are terms that humans use to describe clusters of traits. The clusters exist, no matter how much we play around with the symbols we use for them. We can see continuity in ethnic groups that cross time, space and nation-state identity. For example, ancient Greeks and Romans, much like the Tarim basin mummies, resemble today’s Western Europeans.

In modern Europe, we can see how not just race is important, but also ethnicity, because ethnic groups are not just divisions of a race, but also hybrids between races and cases of trace admixture:

The proof of this is that we can observe Europeans and discern different tribes because they have different collections of traits that go with each. While this is taboo for now, it means in the long term that people will organize themselves around not just race but ethnic group, looking for genetic commonality instead of hoping that ideology and profit motive unite us.