No single issue can be more divisive and taboo in our current society than that of race. The global world order fronted by the United States in the power vacuum after World War II has spearheaded the concept that there is no more sacred belief than that of the sanctity and socioeconomic mobility of invidividual human lives. Any form of preference based on race, heritage or "lifestyle choices" violates this sacrament utterly.

This postmodern point of view, which began during the 1950s and spread to a world dependent on the American economy, created a polarity between "progressive" nations and "oppressive" ones. The dogma at first targetted the Communist nations, but later was used to handily dispatch Balkan conflicts, Middle Eastern empires, and South American juntas. This moral superiority is essential to the doctrine of power in the postwar West.

Dovetailing with centuries of religious and popular liturgy that portrayed "progressive" society as rising from a primitive state of nature to a man-made utopian ideal, this belief culminated the last thousand years of evolution in Indo-European societies toward a primacy of individualistic, humanistic and egalitarian philosophies, which assert the moral necessity of placing the human form, and individual desires, before any other aspect of reality.

Egalitarianism is thus as much a foundation of our modern social machine as the internal combustion engine, or the assembly line, or the interchangeable part. It is a superior motivator for employees within business, causing them to set aside all questions except their personal wealth and advancement; each person is judged only by how much they earn ("success") and thus caste and race are replaced with a highly-flexible class system that rewards those who are willing to dedicate the greatest part of their energy to working within industry.

In this context it becomes clear that, while racial bigotry and discrimination are repugnant, we run the risk in our self-congratulatory modern society of broadly identifying all enemies of industrial society as racist, and thus missing out on the actual diversity of humankind, which requires that different ethnicities, and thus cultures, exist in order for there to be variation between humans who would otherwise be bred into a lumpenproletariat of indeterminate ancestry.


That race exists biologically is beyond doubt; however, currently, politically-motivated people find it popular to "debunk" it by setting up artificial measurements of race. These fit within the following common types:

  1. Race is not natural, because there is no single inherent indicator of race. Naturally, this is false, since race is defined by a collection of traits, not a single trait such as skin color, alone.
  2. Everyone is equal inside or equal in thought. This is false because our thoughts and personalities are determined by (a) brain design, which is genetic, and (b) behavioral tendencies, which are also genetic.
  3. People everywhere are the same and have the same motivations, therefore race is irrelevant. This makes no sense given the wide disparity of behaviors among even successful nations.
  4. The only reason people appear different is economics or oppression. This argument has little relevance, since economic systems have changed radically over the past two thousand years while the behaviors and fortunes of different populations have not.

For example, Stephen Jay Gould, the emminent Jewish-atheist biologist, wrote a lengthy critique of race called "The Mismeasure of Man," which essentially amounts to a dressed up and "entertainment-oriented" version of tactic #1. Most people in the United States follow the official party line, which is essentially a removal of scientific valuation of race and replacing it with a skin color division of "minorities" versus "whites," a gross oversimplification of both groups.

Another example comes to us from state-funded public television, or PBS, whose series on race is introduced with the following premise: "Race has no genetic basis. Not one characteristic, trait, or gene distinguishes members of one so-called race from all members of another so-called race." SOURCE This is like saying that there is not one single characteristic that distinguishes any human from any other; we are collections of characteristics, and that is what makes us unique as individuals and as tribes.

When one examines these claims against race as a scientific measurement, one finds that each one has had to either modify the definition of race or to assume race automatically invokes a single type of judgment, actions which are unscientific and move from the doctrine of objectivity to that of religious mythos.

Luckily, there are still those who engage in meaningful scientific practice despite the ecclesiastical quaking of most when approaching these issues; however, these scientists and philosophers wisely eschew bigotry in favor of commonsense, logical inferences about race and its application in society and culture.

  1. "The Great Human Diasporas: The History of Diversity and Evolution" by Luigi Cavalli-Sforza, et al, describes how the differences between human populations drove the creation of diversity; in this view, diversity only exists where difference does. His exhaustively researched and non-political work details the migrations and evolutionary progress of each major strain of humanity worldwide. Also of interest will be The History and Geography of Human Genes and Genes, Peoples, and Languages.
  2. "The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life" by Richard J. Herrnstein is a view of how caste and class are defined in the American social structure. This book remains violently confrontational for its impeccable research on race, heredity and intelligence.
  3. "The Histories" by Cornelius Tacitus is an account of the world during the time of the Roman Empire, and shows how traditional cultures treated race and caste as inseparable extensions of the natural ideal of hierarchy and evolutionary pressure. Almost all of these ideas were condemned by Christianity and edited, tabooed or bookburned out of existence, but luckily Tacitus survives.
  4. "Bhagavad-Gita: The Song of God by by Swami Prabhavananda has an introduction by Aldous Huxley that helps context this book in a postmodern time. This book covers the reasons for caste differences, a mystical view of evolution in a Gnostic/Hindu/Buddhist context, and shows us some of the original religious beliefs of the Indo-Europeans in epic verse form (similar to the Odyssey).
  5. For explanation of caste and eugenics in a traditional society, there is no better resource than "The Doctrine of Awakening: The Attainment of Self-Mastery According to the Earliest Buddhist Texts" by Julius Evola. This demystifies the beliefs in evolution and idealism of the past, and does so in a non-judgmental, non-cruel way. Further, it reveals information about the true meaning of the word "Ariya" and the Indo-European roots of Hinduism and Buddhism.
  6. Like the works of Luigi Cavalli-Sforza, the writings of Steven Pinker are not geared toward racialism in any way, shape or form. However, what they do achieve is to point out evidence for the idea that it is evolution, and not social conditioning that, shapes how we behave. "During the past century the doctrine of the blank slate (nurture) has set the agenda for much of the social sciences and humanities...Psychology has sought to explain all thought, feeling, and behavior with a few simple mechanisms of learning." His important books are "The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature," "How the Mind Works" and probably his most interesting book, "The Language Instinct : How the Mind Creates Language".
  7. Finally, for those who like facts and figures in the modern way, here is a study that despite its bias reflects racial differences in adhering to the legal codes of a modern society. Because of recent hues and cries about the greater number of arrests of African-Americans and Hispanics, the American legal system has now essentially decided to forge this data by forcing artificially equalized arrest rates. This is poor science on their part, but it makes for a handy political soundbite. However, back when they were taking in unpoliticized crime data, this study was made and remains superior to data published today.

The above resources are alternatingly controversial, and purely detached in scientific study of detail, but one thing is abundantly clear: they have no unifying ideology between them, and are as such some of the many examples of reasonable scholarship on race that does not leap to either extreme.


"Racism" is a word created in the popular lexicon to sound like a historical part of language which shows our ancestors felt racial politics to be a choice, not inherent to their belief systems. The most popular dictionaries in the United States, Merriam-Webster and The American Heritage Dictionary, say:

  1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
  2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
  3. The prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races.
  4. HERE

In contrast, the Oxford English Dictionary defines racism as "The theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race," and notes that its first published usage was in 1935, when the policies of Nazi Germany were already under critical fire from the immigrant republics of the "West," the United States and the United Kingdom. However, the word noted as a synonym, "racialism," has even more interesting origins, first usage occurring in 1907, five years after the British Empire concluded her war against the white separatist Boers in Africa.

The word "racism" initially indicated differentiation between those who use race to measure the boundaries between political entities, or nations, and those who use economic common interest to do the same. However, in the current time, the definition has slid almost exclusively in the popular usage to the third group above, meaning the worldwide supremacy of one race. It accomplishes this definitional sleight-of-hand by removing the word from its initial context and placing it in a falsely universal one.


Admixture of the races and castes is a symptom, but not the cause, of social degeneration; it is also not the sole symptom, nor is its reversal the sole cure. Healthy cultures do not undergo ethnocultural mixing; they must become unhealthy before it occurs. It is therefore bigotry to blame the intruders, as they are the symptom and not the cause.

Humanity is in the process of removing older values and replacing them with modern ones; this has taken a thousand years. Since the second world war, which was fought against three explicitly nationalist powers, the West has divided itself between moral, "open" societies of an international nature like the US and UK, and those who adhere to older standards such as nationalism, which is distinct from patriotism by its insistence that a nation is defined by ethnic-cultural alliance and not political boundaries.

Just as nationalism is not racism, racism is not nationalism. For this reason, falling into a monolithic system of belief by which society's error is defined solely as racial mixing, which if corrected would restore a healthy society, is the gravest error possible, as it confuses part of a solution with the whole and thus, for most people, handily discredits the whole solution. It is an illogical and mystical approach that does not belong in the mind of a person of noble nature.

Bigotry is this type of error taken to an emotional level, such to a point where the bigot feels paranoid and lashes out with violent sentiment but, lacking any real plan, knows nothing except cruelty and hatred toward the intruding group, which is the symptom and not the cause of his problems. Bigots invariably do more damage to their own cause than any other, as their rage provokes sympathy for those against whom they rage.

It is insensible to inveigh against the intruders and not the system of change in values as a whole. Fallen empires first undergo a perceptual shift in which admixture is viewed as favorable. The invaders, seeking better economic opportunity, take advantage of the situation. It is no more unnatural to pluck fruit from a tree than to attempt an advantageous residency or pairing, in a wealthier society. Bigots are those who enact futile rage upon this sign of degeneracy; leaders are those who take on the degeneracy itself.

Usually cultures are destroyed from within by prosperity. Lack of challenge causes an involution, in which self-image becomes more important than achievement on a collective or individual level. From this comes the tendency to compare individuals based on the degree of egalitarian pity they show toward others; guilty, humility and self-deprecation all belong in this category of values. These are regressive values, as they no longer have an objective to accomplish, but seek to avoid an internal evil which, being presupposed to exist, is found in an increasingly smaller circles of behaviors as the nation morally digests itself.

Racism alone is not the answer to social and cultural breakdown in the West. The greatest thinkers in history knew this; Nietzsche saw through the change of language during centuries that empires rise and fall with the quality of their bloodlines, but also saw how such collapses began with the gradual loss of belief that culminated in miscegenation. Thus when he attacked the degeneracy of his parent culture, he assaulted the root of the problem: the psychology of personal pretense which destabilizes individuals with neurosis and makes them prone to symbolic, emotional acts.

It is bigotry to assume that racism is a singular cure, and with that form of cornered, emotionally defensive racism comes a host of psychological problems, including a primitive dualism that matches that of the degeneracy itself. Bigots mainly succeed in harming other people who do not understand why they are targetted, and in alienating potential allies from their side. Bigotry is pointless, self-defeating, and destructive.


It is also bigotry to blame "racism" for the ethnic strife that is inevitable until we breed all people into a uniform cultureless mass: race is a necessary division of humanity, and to attempt to obliterate race through admixture is bigotry by those without racial identity against those fortunate enough to have it.

Racial differences exist according to a scientific basis, and race remains a legitimate means of analyzing politics and culture, no matter how disfashionable it seems to be with priests and politicians (whose goal seems to be to make impossible any discourse with honesty on the issue). Taboos of the sort that prevent racial realities from being discussed today exist to banish from society ideas that threaten its foundation; this begs the question, "What sort of society is threatened by race?"

Falling back on our ethnocultural learning, we can see that the only society which would not wish to enforce ethnicity through culture (and necessarily, vice versa) would be one of already mixed racial character. These cultures are rightly referred to as "internationalist," as they have no land or culture of origin, and originate in the cosmopolitan centers created by commerce. Without culture, the roles that await their citizens are purely functional, comprised of jobs and financial successes and social power.

In this context, "anti-racism" is seen as the form of bigotry that it is, in which the mixed-race mob is opposed to all who retain their racial origin; it is also an error of blaming the symptom for the cause. Those in mixed-race cultures will never know what they lack, having never had it, but will fear what it gives to others and thus, as a means of advancing themselves, seek to destroy whatever power it has. This revenge motivation if unchecked serves to consume ethnocultural societies and transform their population into a lumpenproletariat with no common cultural background except commerce.

Regardless of how clearly we see this encroaching norming as destruction, it is important to recognize the impotent nature of bigotry of all forms. Bigotry transfers all of the energy of the individual toward fighting an external symptom, when that energy would be more effective strengthening the ethnocultural society from within. Further, bigotry takes the complex task of restoring traditional ethnocultural values and hierachy to a fallen society and distills it into one of its component parts, thus missing the largest portion of its essential structure, that being the inseparability and architectonic necessity of its parts.


Although few will admit it as such, this is a subsection of racial politics. Jews are both followers of Judaism, a religion and culture, and ethnically Jewish, originating in multiple generations of an ethnicity shaped by the same culture.

In the view of this author, anti-Semitism is bigotry.

To universally disclaim the rights of the Jewish people to exist is to blame them for problems they did not create, although clearly as opportunists they took advantage of the weakness those problems generated and used it against the native populations.

However, by the same token, anti-non-Semitism, or the belief that Jewish mythos and moral theory is superior to that of other cultures, is also bigotry, and as such the Jewish nation as a whole has been guilty of bigotry for some time. This is nowhere clearer than in Israel, where one law for Jews and one for everyone else is the expected norm.

Instead of taking umbrage at this, however, we as non-Jews should take heed of the wisdom and excellent example of Judaism. In Jewish society, Jews are given preference above all others, and no other cultures are allowed to intrude. On the basis of ethnocultural identity alone Jews take care of each other; if each culture were to follow this example for their own people, racial problems would be non-existent.


Racial separatism as a principle belongs to the class of eternal values in which one finds commonality between all tasks in life, as specialized for the differing strengths of groups and individuals. It cannot be considered alone, as by their nature values of this type exist as part of a comprehensive system of thought, but together as a holistic belief they comprise nationalist, and integralist, forms of belief.

Differences in racial makeup exist because each group has evolved separately from all others, past some initial point of divergence. If one group takes more chances, and lives in areas in which it is more difficult to survive, it will probably be adapted for a range of abilities specific to the new place; if that place is a more challenging area of survival, those who evolve there will have different abilities than those who remain isolated in areas of easier survival.

Nationalism can only be understood by those who do not automatically equate "older" with "inferior." As our current society considers itself progressive, it has imposed a linear view of history upon a more varied past, and insists that a straight line of progress from primal chaos to utopian liberal democracy has brought us to a time from which we can see the past as a succession of lesser attempts to achieve what we now have. Perhaps a broader view of history might help, as it would show that every empire moves from a formative state to a more organized one, and then as its internal burdens increase its complexity, heads toward collapse and dissolution. In this view, there is no longer a competition between past and present, but between types of social structure by which we hope to find the better design for society itself.

As understood from the present time, nationalism is at a disadvantage. Not only does it disagree with many of the values of the modern time, but it uses a contrary definition of the political unit, viewing "nations" as groups of an inseparable ethnic and cultural distinct nature, in contrast to the "nation states" of the present time which are organized according to what territory they control and what political systems they implement. Nationalism first considers the people of any territory as a nation, and considers social and political systems as a means to an end, that of maintaining the distinctiveness and health of the culture/race, in contrast to modern worldviews in which the sociopolitical organization is an end in itself.

The last time in which nationalist powers had any appreciable political sway was before the second world war, in which nationalist Chinese, Germans, Italians and Japanese were overwhelmed by masses of newly enfranchised internationalists who, possessing greater numbers and material wealth, overthrew nationalist governments and replaced them with populist democracies. It has taken almost sixty years for the consequences of these actions to become visible, but for all the public rhetoric about the moral and ethical and cultural superiority of internationalist states like the United States and United Kingdom, the fundamental degeneracy of those cultures and the imminence of their internal collapse is beginning to show.

As a consequence, bigots of the internationalist variety like to attempt to equate nationalism with racial bigotry, entirely ignoring two fundamental facts: first, that nationalism is not solely racial separatism, although racial separatism is a necessary part of an indivisible whole, and second, that nationalism applies racial separatism to the national territories only, and not to the world as a whole; internationalism, on the other hand, would apply its order to the world as a whole, depriving humanity of its unique ethnicities and cultures. We know this phenomenon in the current time by the name "globalism."

Above it has been shown how "racism" by itself is a form of bigotry, or transferring the onus of action to a group outside the group in whose power it is to change the root situation and thus, its symptoms, but in the following part of this article its main thesis will be presented: that both "racism" and "anti-racism" result from a morality unique to the power-demands of globalist industrial society, and that the only way to cure the cause and not the symptoms is to think above the neurotic mental programming of this morality. In this, two forms of bigotry are debunked, and a solution suggested.


Individualism is the basis of a modern society. The individual is the most important factor of decision; it is not as important to consider the consequences of your action, as an individual, for the whole, as much as it is important to think of what needs and urges you have, and how to gratify them immediately (if the whole is reality, and the individual is expressed only in the binary mode of urges, one can quickly see the comparison to drug addiction as discussed above). In other words, the human endeavor is not measured in goals and values but in the influences on the form of humanity itself, expressed in its smallest atom, the individual.

This formalism creates an irrefutable selfishness:

Q: Why are you pouring toxic waste into the river?
A: I'm getting a million dollars. It's good for me.

Q: Why are you cutting down the forest that has been here for aeons?
A: I want to have a large house here.

Q: How is it that you can each ignore the vast problems with our society?
A: It doesn't bother me - I have my (TV, possessions, drugs, social status).

In this context, it is comical to argue for any value that requires an attention span outside of paychecks and purchases. This consumer economy is the ideological foundation of industrial society, but its philosophical form is best expressed as individualism. This individualism leads to collective outrage at the actions of a fascist society: how can you tell him he can't move to Germany, even though he is Nigerian? How can you tell him he can't work eight hours and then watch rape porn all evening? She wants to be a drug dealer, and why do you think you know better and should tell her to be better?


Moral judgments divide the world into two categories, that of which is symbolically "right" and "wrong" according to a mental order imposed by the human being upon the world; extending this thought further, it could be also known as "cognitive dissonance," or the process by which a human compensates for disturbing facets of reality with a fantasy world, or dualistic valuation, in which things are more favorable to the individual's self-identity. In this world, the individual and its preferences are more important than reality itself.

This mental condition was summarized in the fable of the sour grapes; a fox, upon finding it could not reach some low-hanging grapes, and upon watching another creature enjoy them, declared that it did not in fact desire the grapes, as they were sour and therefore unfit for a fox to eat. In effect, the fox created a meta-reality in which avoiding the perceived sourness is more important than the reality of addressing its own hunger. As seen in this children's story, when one compensates for reality one is forced into a position of considering reality horrible and beyond redemption; this is similar to the behavior of drug addicts who cannot exist without their dosage, which is another way of saying reality is unbearable and requires the drug to make it palatable.

Individualism exists in a similar mental space. Nature knows no rule that says the individual is more important than any other chunk of organic matter, thus humans, threatened by this as they know no greater significance than the individual, invent a morality of the individual to impose upon reality. The moralism of the West during the past thousand years fits snugly into this category, including all of the humanist movements, both secular (liberalism) and liturgical (Christianity). However, this belief system would not exist in such a dominant form if it were not also convenient for something else, namely commerce.


In this light, one could group both moral doctrines such as egalitarianism and practical concerns such as industry under the same heading: anthropocentricism, or a focus solely on human concerns being imposed on a natural world. Contiguous to theories of a "progressive" society arising from crude beginnings, the moral concept is one of applying a sorting mechanism to nature itself, in human form. This processing of reality not coincidentally resembles the actions of industry itself, which takes natural raw materials and turns them into uniform objects of worth only to humans.

Any philosophies which espouse biological determinism, or the theory that it is predominantly innate biological traits which influence our potential accomplishments and behavior, or any other naturalist idea are thus anathema to modern society, which is composed of two elements: an egalitarian social belief, and a market-competitive industrial base, both of which depend heavily on the socioeconomic flexibility of the individual as a motivating factor. Without this stimulant personal goal, these theories would vanish; they are thus wholly dependent on anthropocentric underpinnings to society itself.

This threat to industrial society, and globalist power, is why ultimately fascism, racism, and eugenics are lumped together as a form of ultimate taboo, the antithesis (and a "regressive" one which returns to a more primitive state of humanity) of the modern society which is both its own goal and justification. Nationalism, as a system which espouses the limits of individual power (fascism) and racial uniqueness ("racism") as well as positive breeding practices (eugenics), is an end to the facilitative, individualistic liberal democratic society, mainly because it is willing to choose goals for society as a whole; these goals in turn can limit the profit factor of business and the social mobility of the individual.


A less biased word for intelligent observation of racial differences (as separate from bigotry, noted below) is ethnoculturalism. Ethnoculturalism states that for the purposes of any given population, those who are ethnically members of that population are superior choices as members of that society as a political entity; this applies only to that given population and not to the world as whole. Internationalists would like us to think of the world as one human population, and thus make ethnoculturalism into "racism," or a fanatical desire to enforce a single genotype on all of humanity.

If one wished to slander ethnoculturalism, one would literally take it out of context, and imagine that ethnic policies, instead of applying within each group, would apply to the whole. Thus when a German says "Germany for Germans!" he would be interpreted as suggesting that Germans only should populate the entire world. This conflicts with the reality of the situation, which is that every ethnic group faces two options:

  1. Maintain their distinctive culture through bloodline (via ethnoculturalism, race).
  2. Be assimilated into internationalist culture and thus become a permanent mixed-race republic like the UK or the USA.

Being a lover of diversity, this author prefers (I) and is baffled by the common use of "diversity" to suggest (II) as a moral course of action. This seems a paradoxical viewpoint motivated more by a fear of some being superior than others, than it seems a logical or moral judgment. A slight deception, but a strategic one.

Another way of summarizing the previous principle is to say: within any ethnic group, members of that ethnic group are superior for the purpose of being part of that society, in that heritage and culture and beliefs are inseparable. Countries form when one group becomes distinct from all others and isolates itself so that it may continue to evolve along the path it has already taken; if it does not isolate itself, it becomes inundated with contradictory impulses and thus loses its original culture.

Much as natural selection causes species to adapt to local environments, social selection promotes those who exhibit traits favorable to each local culture and ethnicity. For this reason, each local group can be seen as a unique set of adaptations shaped by its cultural assumptions. Through natural selection over the years, the population is filtered to promote only those who genetically have come to match these assumptions; thus culture and ethnicity are inseparable. (A corollary is that degenerative cultures select for degenerate values, over generations programming their gene pools in what we refer to here as "involution").

For this reason, ethnoculturalism is necessary for any evolution of human society; in transcending our emphasis on the formalism of the individual, we can again focus on collective goals. From this perspective, other things fall into line: it is more important to have a healthy natural environment than it is to have shiny new plastic objects, and it is more important to preserve the diversity of different ethnicities than it is to have everyone feel welcome in every nation. This difference in context shows how nationalism differs for racism; while nationalist policies of race apply within the nation only and give each nation the freedom to select its own ideal, internationalist policies apply worldwide, forcing all nations to conform to a single ideal.


The issue of race has been polarized into sides, left and right, which advocate internationalist uniformity and racial separation, respectively. These false divisions prevent us from seeing the actuality of the role of the race issue in the moral and philosophical dogma which will empower industrial society to dominate human events.

Our suggestions for racial issues follow here:

  1. Ethnocultural nationalism shall be used to divide all peoples by (a) race and (b) tribe, and each tribe and nation (race) shall have its own national space which it may rule as it sees fit, except in issues which directly influence the fortunes of other tribes (WMD, epidemics, wars).
  2. Globalism and internationalism must be recognized as a form of bigotry against nationalist and ethnocultural societies, and thus internationalists must be isolated to Israel.
  3. Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, and Europe and North America for Europeans. South America and the Middle East/India are for people of mixed-race, and the UK and parts of the USA are reserved for people of mixed Indo-European descent.
  4. In the interest of preserving only the best of each tribe, and in reducing the human population which is consuming the earth's ecosystems at insane paces, we recommend eugenic principles be applied to each tribe, with the top 5% of each population surviving and the rest being quietly sterilized.
  5. Each nation will trade with no one but those on its adjoining borders.
  6. To invade another nation/race, even if through an invasion wholly passive in nature, is grounds for war and genocide.
  7. The introductions of religions, dogmas or cultures other than that of each local nation shall be considered genocidal and an act of war; clearly, members of each nation are allowed to borrow ideas from elsewhere as they see fit, but not to import supplanting cultural and ethnic ideas.

Ethnoculturalism, or the belief that ethnicity is the vehicle for culture, is common to every different group of people on earth, whether tribesmen living in a distant jungle or Swedes in northern Scandinavia. It is simple common sense (those that have no historical culture to a culture have no reason to fulfill its values) as well as a meta-historical view of genetics (if a certain tribe is isolated enough by behavior that it evolutionarily selects for behaviors that resemble that ideal, eventually those who are not genetically inclined to that ideal will be bred out of the society).


When one applies nationalism to the Indo-European tribes, a difficult passage is immediately created which navigates between on one side a Marxist anti-specialist impulse, and on the other, a dysfunctionally paranoid religious approach to "the White race." Neither of these extremes will achieve anything but an oversimplification of a complex issue to a simple one, and the consequent destruction of the intricate mechanism of a natural system as a result.

The concept of "white" is a political term for describing those of Caucasian heritage with lighter skin, but it does not take into account the diversity, caste differences, and divergent genetic-historical courses of white people. Traditionally, the English and Irish have considered themselves white, but it is important to know that they, like Mediterraneans and Slavs, are in part products of admixture with Semitic and Asiatic people. Further, political origin does not reveal what one's ancestors did for their nation, since many were later immigrants or hangers-on. All of these factors influence the value of the individual as ethnocultural stock for the nation.

This revelation underscores a point made more forcefully elsewhere in this article: nationalism is effective when each group stands up for itself. The Indo-European tribes share a common origin, but different pathways through history, and it is important to preserve each one. Slavs for Slavs, Nordics for Nordics, Celts for Celts and Germans for Germans; while they may fight with each other, they should not generalize themselves as "white" and thus further encourage the destruction of their genetic histories. An astute observer will note here that the mixed-white-races empires, the United States and United Kingdom, have been instrumental in advancing Marxist and anti-Nationalist sentiment throughout Indo-European lands.

While it should not be taboo, "White Pride" organizations are rejected rightfully by most thinkers as an emotional-political solution to a question of breeding. Accepting any takers who show some Indo-European heritage, and encouraging them to produce offspring with no question of national origin, is as much destroying those national origins as any other form of genocide. In nationalist thought, it is insane to breed one's nation with exogenous genetic histories, and this, by the ethnocultural principle, will dilute the nation and cause it to lose its culture and the connection of its people to something larger than themselves: land, heritage, values. Even if this blood is also "white," the effect is the same.

Indo-Europeans have existed worldwide for at least the past 15,000 years, as newer archeological evidence indicates. In the Tocharian basin in China, in the Andes mountains of South America, in the pre-Mayan civilizations of the Yucatan and Mexico City, and wandering through the wilds of North America; in India and spread throughout the near East, the Middle East, and North Africa; these are all places where Indo-Europeans have been long enough to leave traces of civilization, culture and religious/philosophical systems which are unique to the Indo-European culture. In all of these places, the original civilizations died out over time, mostly due to admixture of the blood and consequent loss of culture, but in part through loss of respect to caste and the abilities of individuals, resulting in the breeding of less-specialized people into specialized positions, including those of leadership.

Consider this: genetic traits, including details as explicit as strong facial resemblance to an ancestor, can be transmitted through as many as twenty generations after initial mixture. One can see no stronger proof of this than in the Jewish people, who alternately resemble Europeans, Middle Easterners, Asians and African hybrids. Years of existence without a homeland has taken its toll through admixture, mostly along the patrilineal side, which causes different generations to appear radically different; this same confusion of bloodlines awaits all races who do not manage their breeding according to rigorous standards. No outsiders, and be careful of "insiders" who may bear with them blood that although seemingly similar, comes from a different history of evolution; it is not skin color, or appearance that matters, but the choices and strengths of their ancestors encoded into their DNA, as that is what will manifest itself in them and their offspring for numerous generations.

This is not the only threat to Indo-European culture, however. Worlwide, Indo-Europeans are a minority, and thanks to their work in cultivating Europe and North America, they are a comparatively wealthy minority. As anyone who has observed humans for long knows, those who are impoverished will, as a group (not necessarily each individual, but as a statistical and historical occurrence), attempt to take from those who are wealthier. Some gifting from the wealthier is to be expected, but if the wealthier attempt to support those who have less, either (a) the poorer will become dependent on the wealthier, and thus learn to hate them unless wealth is equalized or (b) the wealthier will become enamored of their self-image in giving to the poor, and will become subject to bad mental hygiene as well as imposing passive demands on the poorer. Neither is a worthwhile outcome, and at a time when Europe is literally besieged by potential immigrants, it is necessary to consider these two options as something worth avoiding.

Europe and North America do not "need" non-European immigration, as many leaders allege; what they mean is that the economies which benefit a select few will benefit from cheap labor, but they do not as usual think of the future, and forget that merging cultures and genetics will result in either Europeans ejecting their immigrants, or attempting to "assimilate" them and thus destroying their own European culture. Smaller economies benefit the people because, in the shrinking of speculative investment and the fortunes it conveys, income is distributed more appropriately among those who live in each land. Foreign investors and worldwide sales mainly bring benefit to the internationalist class of people who own things without regard for the land on which they sit, and whose only goal is profit; any sensible society will have goals outside of profit singularly, and will not trade away history and culture for wealth that mostly flows to people from other lands. Economies that do not attempt to compete on a global level translate into less wealth on paper, but more wealth staying within the nations themselves, and thus, self-sufficiency (which becomes doubly important in times of political instability).

Similarly, unlike those of the rest of the world, the populations of Europe and North America were self-limiting, which is a logical thing to do in a time of seven billion people worldwide. Falling birthrates in one or two generations means that the population eventually stabilizes at a manageable level; importing immigrants not only ruins that cycle, but also encourages the home countries of the immigrants to breed out of control, creating more suffering and loss of life than would occur were the populations to also self-manage. As mentioned earlier in this document, however, it is important not to resort to bigotry against immigrant populations, but only to point out that it is mutually destructive that they exist in Europe and North America; the "enemy," if one exists, is in our own values and methods.

The immediate crisis of Indo-Europeans is dysgenic breeding and bad values in the Indo-European population, and none other. If you stay out late, don't wear a jacket in winter, and fail to wash your hands, it makes no sense to blame the flu for infecting you; you gave it an opportunity, and it, wanting food and warmth much as you do, took advantage of it. Likewise, immigrants are in Europe and North America because they have been invited there by the moneyed classes of internationalists whose concerns do not include the local populations; their concerns are solely motivated by the profit factor, which through delusion the majority of people in society somehow consider a good form of guidance, in the form of the "invisible hand" which like Darwinian evolution balances and orders our society. These beliefs are clearly insane, and they originate in the same impulse.

It is necessary at this point to draw the distinction between philosophical liberalism and the use of the term that is familiar to most readers, meaning the left-wing half of the political spectrum. In its philosophical use, the term liberalism applies to any belief system that places the importance of the individual above (a) the ideal, composed of both overall goal and values, and (b) the whole of society. It is referred to as "liberalism" because historically it represents a relaxing of standards from group-survival and group-values to individual survival, convenience, and whatever values one can have in a system based on facilitating personal gratification. Both major parties in the United States are liberal, as are most Nationalist parties since 1900. There is no way to vote against liberalism; one undoes it by changing the values of people in society so that they, in turn, reject motivation solely by economy and individual gratification, leading to a system based more on collective values, culture and goals. This shift may require a worldwide catastrophe, perhaps loss of energy or disease or climate change, to release the lurking energy of discontent.

However, as long as people can live well without changing it, they will not; very few are of the mindset and character to become leaders, and even fewer are inclined to take any kind of broader view. Most people at this point in time exist entirely within the boundaries of the individual and find it offensive and manipulative to think beyond that, so they are morally disturbed by any concept that will save them and society as a whole from its ongoing fate. Despite this, among those who think the realization is slowly dawning that none of the methods available in our current society reach deep enough to address the root problem; we are striking at the symptoms, the manifestations, and the symbols of the decay, but have not located its sustaining cause, much as a man who hunts prairie dogs will inflict attrition upon them but not remove them until he floods their underground network of tunnels. The origin of our infestation is in our ideas and values, and it has many faces - liberalism, Christianity, internationalism, monetarism - but ultimately its inception occurs because we have lost any goals outside of our society itself, and thus have evolved inward, disconnected from our natural reality.

The problem with most solutions to this problem so far is that they have been absolutist. They have proposed courses of action which would, as in the style of revolutions, leave most people without a way to earn a living, such as by immediately obliterating the economy and replacing it, Communist-style, with a system of political redistribution. Others can see the world only in terms of immediate violence, or bigotry, and thus would plunge us into chaos without fixing the whole of the problem. Still others are either fanatically populist or fanatically elitist in response, and as both of these border on religious sentiment and not analysis, correspondingly distant from reality. Who can blame our own population from shying away from these, especially after the mass murders and social degeneration caused by leftist Communist governments - who embrace similar solutions - over the last century? A new course is needed; this is addressed further in the document "Integralism."

Rational courses of action begin by turning our focus from inward, in which we produce an ideal and enforce it uniformly upon our people, to outward, in which there is no uniformity but there is potential for growth and difference; when tackling the outside world, one does not make a proclamation in human terms and force it on the world, but one must manipulate the world from within, by using its own terms and conventions: this is more psychological controversial inside of our own minds, as it is a path in which we are actually challenged by doubt and possible cataclysmic failure. However, the type of heroic thought that this passage provokes is more valuable to us then more of the stuffy, oversocialized and convenient but ineffective posturing and solution-proclaiming that has gone on so far. Humanity must once again turn to nature as a contiguous force, and work for external goals from within, so that it does not involute and cannibalize itself, as is currently the course of "progress."

An essential part of this, but not the whole of it, is that each nation conserves itself racially, both in protection from outsiders and in allowing individuals within to stay to the specialized roles for which they have over many generations evolved; race is a mechanism by which culture and values are expressed, in a way that a proclamation cannot express them, namely that of being upheld against adversity over so many years that the individual lifetime is miniscule in comparison. Race is a subset of good breeding, with caste divisions and eugenics through external adversity being two other essential components. When collectively we realize that our "human mindset only" view of reality has failed us, and reconnect with our world once again, the truths of nationalism and racial separation will again be recognized, if anyone is left awake to do so. For right now, however, race remains a censored concept that people circumnavigate in order to avoid being ejected from the socioeconomic system, and the bully that enforces this view is the mob who fear that some will be shown to be more apt for certain tasks than others, insulting the personal pretense of those for whom there is less chance of ascending to a privileged, specialized task such as leadership or combat.

However, their fears are insane, because in life there will never be uniformity of individual capacity; we may enforce political equality, whereby we determine that the life of a serf is no less sacred than that of a prince, but we cannot make people into the same form factor unless we make them machines. Uniformity would also carry with it a high price, namely that like primitive species, the crowd would tear down those who dared rise above it, thus crushing any evolutionary process and damning the whole to mediocrity. Let one thing be clear: the mob enforces the censorship of race not because it fears something external, but because it fears something internal. Those who are followers and not leaders cringe from self-image, as somewhere within they know themselves to be not leaders, and their envy of those who are drives them to revengeful and hateful bigotry against those who lead, even if the leaders do not consider themselves "superior" to those who are led, and in fact consider themselves to be serving the crowd.

While bigotry and anti-Semitism are illogical, accusations thereof are increasingly not accurate, extending to the point where privileged groups that cannot be criticized are created. This occurs because some people in the mob derive their power from being able to accuse others of ill behavior, and find victory for themselves when they can censor another for thoughts the mob finds inappropriate. One cannot even approach these topics scientifically, such as asking if the propensity of certain groups to violent crime both as immigrants and in their native lands is culturally and genetically innate; another taboo topic is criticism of Jews, or Israel. Without abandoning a strong stance against anti-Semitism, it is possible to note that Semitic beliefs are inappropriate for any culture but one that is Semitic. Semites, formed in the middle east by the cross-pollination of trade which created great cosmopolitan cities in Jerusalem and North Africa, are formed of Asian, African and Caucasian blood and, other than their identification with the relatively recent Jewish and Arab cultures, have no roots in geography and breeding, at least not in the same way that Asians, Africans and Caucasians do.

It is important, in this context, to remember that Jewish genetics and culture are alien to our own, and that while we do not engage in anti-Semitism, or blanket hatred and condemnation of Jews, neither do we need to have them or their value systems in our midst. Like most immigrant groups, they will be happiest with their own homeland, which will enable them to over time develop a unique heritage and ethnicity. Theirs is a newer tribe. As noted, even a person of one-twentieth admixture may retain traits of the mixed blood; this would be one-millionth of their heritage in the same way that one is 1/4 of whatever a grandparent was. While no hostility toward Jews is sensible, excluding them and other immigrants from our breeding pool is essential, if we are to remain a people and not to become mixed as the internationalists and cosmopolitans are.

What is most important regarding this issue is for every Indo-European to remember this: the greatest intrusion of alien culture in our lands is Christianity. While it has been Europeanized for the past thousand years, it retains its Semitic character in the form of its passive aggressive morality, its absolutist monotheism, and its universalist appeal to human formalism, and all of these are alien and destructive to our culture. It is best that we not steal culture from the Jews, as the changes we make to it could in turn infest the original, causing cultural intrusion of European culture into Jewish culture, which would be disrespectful and dishonorable behavior on our part. Further, Christianity is fundamentally destructive to our people since it encourages actions that are contrary to the values that made us what we are, and thus serve to remove what makes us distinct; what makes us, us.

One thinker who has famously stated this, and in doing so pointed out the connection between revenge of the internationalists, Christianity and liberalism, is F.W. Nietzsche:

[8.1] But you do not comprehend this? You are incapable of seeing something that required two thousand years to achieve victory? -- There is nothing to wonder at in that: all protracted things are hard to see, to see whole. That, however, is what has happened: from the trunk of that tree of vengefulness and hatred, Jewish hatred -- the profoundest and sublimest kind of hatred, capable of creating ideals and reversing values, the like of which has never existed on earth before -- there grew something equally incomparable, a new love, the profoundest and sublimest kind of love - and from what other trunk could it have grown? [8.2] One should not imagine it grew up as the denial of that thirst for revenge, as the opposite of Jewish hatred! No, the reverse is true! That love grew out of it as its crown, as its triumphant crown spreading itself farther and farther into the purest brightness and sunlight, driven as it were into the domain of light and the heights in pursuit of the goals of that hatred -- victory, spoil, and seduction -- by the same impulse that drove the roots of that hatred deeper and deeper and more and more covetously into all that was profound and evil. This Jesus of Nazareth, the incarnate gospel of love, this "Redeemer" who brought blessedness and victory to the poor, the sick, and the sinners -- was he not this seduction in its most uncanny and irresistible form, a seduction and bypath to precisely those Jewish values and new ideals? Did Israel not attain the ultimate goal of its sublime vengefulness precisely through the bypath of this "Redeemer," this ostensible opponent and disintegrator of Israel? Was it not part of the secret black art of truly grand politics of revenge, of a farseeing, subterranean, slowly advancing, and premeditated revenge, that Israel must itself deny the real instrument of its revenge before all the world as a mortal enemy and nail it to the cross, so that "all the world," namely all the opponents of Israel, could unhesitatingly swallow just this bait? And could spiritual subtlety imagine any more dangerous bait than this? Anything to equal the enticing, intoxicating, overwhelming, and undermining power of that symbol of the "holy cross," that ghastly paradox of a "God on the cross," that mystery of an unimaginable ultimate cruelty and self-crucifixion of God for the salvation of man?

[8.3] What is certain, at least, is that sub hoc signo' Israel, with its vengefulness and revaluation of all values, has hitherto triumphed again and again over all other ideals, over all nobler ideals.


[9.1] "But why are you talking about nobler ideals! Let us stick to the facts: the people have won -- or 'the slaves' or 'the mob' or 'the herd' or whatever you like to call them -- if this has happened through the Jews, very well! in that case no people ever had a more world-historic mission. 'The masters' have been disposed of; the morality of the common man has won. One may conceive of this victory as at the same time a blood-poisoning (it has mixed the races together) -- I shan't contradict; but this in-toxication has undoubtedly been successful. The 'redemption' of the human race (from 'the masters,' that is) is going forward; everything is visibly becoming Judaised, Christianised, mob-ised (what do the words matter!). The progress of this poison through the entire body of mankind seems irresistible, its pace and tempo may from now on even grow slower, subtler, less audible, more cautious -- there is plenty of time. -- To this end, does the church today still have any necessary role to play? Does it still have the right to exist? Or could one do without it? Quaeritur. It seems to hinder rather than hasten this progress. But perhaps that is its usefulness. -- Certainly it has, over the years, become something crude and boorish, something repellent to a more delicate intellect, to a truly modern taste. Ought it not to become at least a little more refined. -- Today it alienates rather than seduces. -- Which of us would be a free spirit if the church did not exist? It is the church, and not its poison, that repels us. -- Apart from the church, we, too, love the poison. -- "

[9.2] This is the epilogue of a "free spirit" to my speech; an honest animal, as he has abundantly revealed, and a democrat, moreover; he had been listening to me till then and could not endure to listen to my silence. For at this point I have much to be silent about.


[10.1] The slave revolt in morality begins when ressentiment itself becomes creative and gives birth to values: the ressentiment of natures that are denied the true reaction, that of deeds, and compensate themselves with an imaginary revenge. While every noble morality develops from a triumphant affirmation of itself, slave morality from the outset says No to what is "outside," what is "different," what is "not itself"; and this No is its creative deed. This inversion of the value-positing eye -- this need to direct one's view outward instead of back to oneself -- is of the essence of ressentiment: in order to exist, slave morality always first needs a hostile external world; it needs, physiologically speaking, external stimuli in order to act at all -- its action is fundamentally reaction.

[10.2] The reverse is the case with the noble mode of valuation: it acts and grows spontaneously, it seeks its opposite only so as to affirm itself more gratefully and triumphantly -- its negative concept "low," "common," "bad" is only a subsequently-invented pale, contrasting image in relation to its positive basic concept -- filled with life and passion through and through -- "we noble ones, we good, beautiful, happy ones!" When the noble mode of valuation blunders and sins against reality, it does so in respect to the sphere with which it is not sufficiently familiar, against a real knowledge of which it has indeed inflexibly guarded itself: in some circumstances it misunderstands the sphere it despises, that of the common man, of the lower orders; on the other hand, one should remember that, even supposing that the affect of contempt, of looking down from a superior height, falsifies the image of that which it despises, it will at any rate still be a much less serious falsification than that perpetrated on its opponent -- in effigy of course -- by the submerged hatred, the vengefulness of the impotent. There is indeed too much carelessness, too much taking lightly, too much looking away and impatience involved in contempt, even too much joyfulness, for it to be able to transform its object into a real caricature and monster. -- The Geneaology of Morals by F.W. Nietzsche (sections 8-10)

Although he articulates the impetus of Christianity as revenge, in an integralist view, it is more sensible to ascribe their motivation to simple opportunism: seeing a chance at something they would otherwise not have, they take it, regardless of whatever means must be employed. Christians were originally those who lacked power in the Roman empire, and while many initially were Jewish, their character was defined more by being dispossessed of culture than by possessing it, or having any original alignment or belief. Similarly, Judaism as a culture was formed from the cosmopolitan cities of the Middle East, in which those from the merchant classes of three nations mixed, taking people who had specialized in selling things instead of manual labor, war or leadership, and through miscegenation depriving them of any geographic, cultural or racial origin. This new mixed race would naturally be bigoted against those who have what it lacks, namely a history and culture joined to their ethnic stock. For this reason, the conflict between Indo-Europeans and Judeo-Christianity can be summarized as the wealthy conquerors attempting to shake off their parasites, but should be viewed in this form of historical and psychological view, not with the blind eyes of bigotry.


To look at racism through this filter is to see a struggle between conformist internationalism and a form of more realistic diversity, in which each nation has its space and its ethnic heritage.

Ethnocultural reality has existed for more years than our current society, which outside of technology has brought us neurotic, self-obsessed agony arising from the loss of the larger social order, e.g. something to live for that is larger than the individual and also of a real-world basis, unlike the supernaturalist religions. This natural idealism gives meaning to each and every locality on earth, and gives us as individuals the ability to find significance in the larger order.

Bigotry is blaming other races for problems, including their presence among us, and is a form of cowardice, as is pro-internationalist bigotry where one does not recognize the differences in heritage, culture and abilities that come with racial difference.What is needed is a compassionate, clear-minded, logical and honorable way of separating the races by demonstrating that it is in our common interests to retain our unique genetics and cultures.

We must realize that race alone does not solve all problems. Without a philosophical re-education of our highest castes, a placement of tasks as appropriate to castes, a change in overall social motivation, a renovation of our commitment to nature, a more sensible use of technology, eugenics and a purging of those of lesser tripartite value of intelligence, strength and character, race alone is useless and will lead only to greater fractionalism.

If we purge from ourselves this weakness, all other problems will follow. Through accepting responsibility for what we must do, we shatter the symbolic dualism that has gripped the world since the onset of Pax Judaica, and by changing these attitudes internally to our race, can begin the healing process.