Violent Aesthetics

One of the main tools in our enemy's repertoire, used to effectively displace Europeans from their own lands and influence, is the outright effeminization of our culture.

Historically, civilization has always bred a weaker and delicate type of man, simply because the comfort of organized society naturally halts the process of culling the freaks and cowards who would have otherwise been killed (or at the very least would have been unable to compete for resources and healthy females).

According to most researchers of human development, femininity itself is a result of a sedentary and protected lifestyle, more akin to the rightful place of a mother, daughter, and/or wife, but less convenient for the responsibility entrusted by nature to males for the feeding, guarding and leading of their family.

It is inherent in the very arduous job of carrying, birthing, and nursing a child (itself a biological imperative only entrusted to the female gender) a need for a passive, submissive and overly compassionate disposition. Chemically, when a mother hears her own child crying, her anxiety is purposefully triggered, oxytocin levels rise dramatically and milk rushes to her breasts so she can then nurture the child and quench his hunger. In said example, her emotional nature is in harmony with her natural responsibility, and thus it is healthy and productive. 

Men, on the other hand, serve a different natural and biological purpose (which is the reason they don't posses these hormonal responses to children crying, among other examples). These biochemical realities have been reflected in the spiritual/cultural manifestations of our European forebears. The feminine was thus associated with nurturing, moonlight, dancing, festive seasons and the overarching theme of fertility and birth. The masculine was associated with protection, sunlight, war, and the eternal struggle for order and authority above and beyond the seasons. These archetypical reflections, as can be well observed, are connected to the biological/chemical reality of how our species functions and interacts with the natural world. As I have mentioned before, the separation/duality between the natural and the metaphysical is alien to the European soul.

In our current predicament, were we find ourselves attacked from all possible flanks and in which we fight for our very existence on this planet, our coherent understanding of natural reality is crucial to our victory. We must understand that nature has a set of laws that overrule any of our pedantic attempts to bypass them, no matter how creative we are or continue to become. The inherent evil of liberal ideology (a disruptive mishmash of individualism, universalism, and consumerism) is that it purposefully divorces humans from their natural essence and attempts to promulgate the false idea that we have the capacity and/or duty to overcome reality for the sake of "freedom". They teach our children that they shouldn't be "limited" by anything that nature may throw their way and instead that they should overcome reality itself with dreams and desires. Unlike the heroic ethic of our ancestors, whose gods fought against the giants (an analogy of the chaotic forces of nature) within the confines of the natural universe, the liberal ethic distances itself from nature for the sake of a disturbed desire to annihilate the world for their own selfish sake.

If we are to revive our true character as Native Europeans, we must stay close to nature and understand that we are subjects to higher laws and not to our own petty attempts at defining and controlling the universe. We must never forget that reality (ancestry and environment) has already given us an identity  and we are therefore not 'in the market' for a new one. This fact is, in a true sense, real transcendentalism because true spirituality, in the European sense of the term, is not supernatural (outside of nature) but natural (within nature).

Understanding racial reality, gender reality, and 'quality' reality is inherently revolutionary in today's world because it breaks the agonizing fantasy matrix in which we have been imprisoned and begins to open the figurative window shades in expectation of nature's true disinfectant light.

Those of us who have the honor to call ourselves Europeans (all the children of Europa's racial and spiritual womb fall into this category) and those who also bear the responsibility of being males, must dedicate our energy to exalt and preserve the characteristics that such identifiers entail. A strong warrior ethic, embraced by the dignity of duty, and emboldened by the will to power through affirmative aggression (physical or symbolic depending on the context) is indeed the key value that will sustain our blood's drive to survive this onslaught.

The Goddess Europa and Zeus

Our tradition in Europe, no matter from which particular ethnic group you hail from, has always been defined by martial valor and the beauty of strength. This has been true, even when religions that preached 'peace and love' had already overwhelmed our realms. Europeans have willfully ignored the tenets of philosophies that preach weakness and passivity in favor of creative interpretations that teach power and beauty; the legitimate children of true aristocracy. It is fair to say that our entire artistic expression has mostly been lopsided in favor of the apotheosis of war, it's heroes, and the beauty which inspire their creation. It has been only very recently that our enemies have successfully turned our people (men in particular) into consumer friendly, passive, effeminate, and deranged masochists.

I have previously discussed the process of how this weakness consumes the very essence of a people and how this eventually destroys our very awareness of being, so my intention here is to particularly address whether or not we are capable as a movement to reverse the process effectively.

Is it possible to sustain healthy levels of aggression, masculinity and heroic values within a civilized society? We need only to look at countless past cultures of Europe and elsewhere to see examples of the possibility of doing just that (Rome, Medieval Japan, NS Germany, Soviet Union, etc). Even the study of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and other martially obsessed cultures, serve us as interesting contemporary case studies for the formulation of our own methods. Without a doubt, a 'comfort society' reflects a passive/weak culture and thus it dooms any people who accept it to death. In other words, for the sake of our survival, it would be preferable to live in a "North Korea for Europeans" type of society than live in our current demoralized culture of individualism and perversion.

A 'violent culture' can therefore sustain levels of healthy aggressiveness within the confines of an alien and degenerate society. Arabs do this while in diaspora by hashing out violent imagery in the form of historiographies of great mujaheddin and other related cultural products aimed at their young men. Their cult of martyrdom is a good example of a self sustaining system that advocates sacrifice for the sake of their community (not really for the personal benefit of the martyr, as the capitalist obsessed Americans wish to interpret it). This methodology also shields them from the effects of consumerism and superficial mass culture thus protecting their social cohesiveness.

Therefore, sustaining high levels of violent aesthetics and dialectics can slowly turn our males thirsty for violent solutions to complex problems, a factor that will slowly revive their ancient spirit. The desire to revolutionize and destroy corruption in a quick and dramatic fashion is the renowned characteristic of youth. Shaping this into our favor is not only in our benefit but in theirs.

For the sake of European survival, the eulogizing of ancient warrior tribes, military heroes, and savage warlords will particularly engage our youth into the dynamic exaltation of their natural desire for glory and conquest. Most of our young love violent video games and movies for the same instinctive reasons, but their energy is being purposefully directed towards a passive/corrupt method of expression by our enemies. In the same way, a lot of contemporary music aimed at white children encourages lurid sexuality and passive entertainment/enjoyment while non-whites are encouraged to advocate hardcore violence and ghetto gun culture. Where is our violent sub-culture?

For a while in the 1980's and 1990's, Europeans had some forms of rock music (and their ancillary art movements) that provided exactly this violent aesthetic so needed in our contemporary culture. Bands formed whose main goal was to speak about the dangerous lifestyle of the white working class in the decaying cities of the world. Their appearance was aggressive, the music was loud and threatening. Unfortunately, since their basic premise was predicated on hyper individuality, their collective effect on our culture was limited. Another example was punk rock, a genre that slowly became politicized and slowly led towards a nihilistic fervor that cascaded into liberal politics and inevitably lost its masculine edge for the sake of political correctness and record contracts. So called skinhead music also started developing wildly, up to the point in which a branch went off into a queer-like reggae dreamland and the other went into an aggressive reactionary chauvinism that amazingly enough inspired many people in our movement today. To be fair, the basic premise of the Rock Against Communism movement was very good, but the implementation was many more times than not counter productive. Ironically, with a few exceptions, it simply devolved into what characterizes most popular culture; it facilitated passive resistance in lieu of actual political work.

Another music/culture genre example that is now becoming quite popular in Europe is National Socialist Black Metal. The aesthetics of this movement is quite interesting because they mix modern politics with almost medieval heathen theatrics (black/death metal being the root of this art movement). Interestingly enough, a lot of young kids like this style because the visual presentation is quite violent and anti-christian. Aesthetically speaking, the darker forms of cultural expressions lure in a large swath of Europeans that are simply tired of the modern flamboyancy of mainstream culture and simply wish to rip it apart. Some even argue that the heathen soul of the European is still dormant and thus is attracted achetypically to the "darker and colder" symbols of this type of art. Of course, the down side of this movement is that it focuses too much on the reverse-christian cliches and identity swapping ridiculousness that will unfortunately turn off too many other revolutionary prospects.

Let me be very clear though. I have always supported most artistic and ideological methods that promote our aims because slowly but surely the strong ones will overcome the weaker ones and our cause can then go forward without so many divisions. It is basic Social Darwinism and it has been proven to work historically. Nonetheless, it is important to honestly asses how effective a cultural proposal/phenomenon is so that we can better organize ourselves for the final victory. That being said, music and visual art is just one aspect of the culture war, and usually the one most people choose because of how easy and personally isolated it is. This makes it the inferior approach to the current war, albeit a part of it all the same.

So, a lot of times brothers ask me the important question: "What can I start doing right now for the European racialist cause?". My answer is very specific and I believe easy for most to begin starting today:

All of our men must start a family and serve in the role of guide, protector, and provider.

All of our men must make war (in all of its cultural forms) their core cultural value.

All of our men must physically train in a gym and/or engage in some form of exercise/sport.

All of our men must only purchase products that enhance their vitality, power, and strength.

All of our men must legally purchase weapons and practice with them regularly. 

All of our men must dress in a manner that expresses stoic masculinity (never softness). 

All of our men must study history, philosophy, and literature which actively elevates the values of duty, honor, and valor.

All of our men must reject individualist values for the sake of collectivist ones (all Europeans are part of a community/organism).

Real European men respect women and defend them because they indeed view their own role as protectors and theirs as the protected (equality is a sham thus we unequally treat women in their favor). In the same fashion, real European men despise abuse and cowardly acts because their strength entails honor. Our enemies have no spine because their ancestry is one of low caste slaves who automatically abuse their power when given the reins of authority. Europeans have always been a master race in the true sense of the term, thus instinctively shunning most displays of real tyranny. Therefore, European men never confuse aggressiveness with abusiveness because they are aware that only pathetic weaklings over-compensate.

Basically, we must get our house in order before we can begin the actual work of destroying the current system to build a healthier one. Quoting that lunatic capitalist freak Donald Trump; "you should dress for the job you want and not the one you have". In the same vein, we cannot expect to build something that we haven't exemplified in ourselves. If we dream of a healthy and natural society, we must start building it within our own personality and social surrounding. Our demeanor, attire, attitude and actions must logically conform with our expectations of the world.

Family and Militarism

I have no doubt that we will be victorious at the end of this journey, but I nonetheless try my best to help as much as I can in the process of making it happen sooner rather than later. Therefore, I work the hardest I can, every single day, to apply the strictest expectations of myself and of those over whom I am responsible. This is the only way I can honestly feel good as a European, as a man, as a father, and as a fighter for our collective cause.

Transcending Materialism

When we think of all of the amazing things our race has collectively accomplished throughout the ages, it is quite clear that 'materialism' was far from their hearts and minds. Instead, it is obvious that transcendence itself (as an objective) was by far the most important focus of our creative genius. So what is the difference between these two conceptions of the world?

If this were the appropriate space for a discussion on the intricacies and complexities of all the divergent types and definitions of materialism I would simply take too much space and divert the reader from the main point of this small article. For the sake of clarification, I will define materialism in the following manner: The belief/understanding that all that exists, either physically perceived or not, stems from matter and thus consciousness is simply the result of matter's interaction with itself. To be fair, materialism is arguably open to the possibility that some of the things that we can't easily perceive are nonetheless material, but inherent in this material phenomenology is the understanding that if it can't be measured it doesn't exist. Many scientists today find this type of materialism difficult to justify thanks to 'quantum mechanics' and 'chaos theory', but because most common people are usually behind said scientific trends by a few decades they constantly regurgitate old theories as if they have always been dogmatically set in stone.

Transcendence, on the other hand (and also overly simplified), is the understanding/belief that certain things exist beyond material perception and/or have an existence apart from its perceived limits.

To the materialists, most aspects of religiosity (rituals in particular) and mysticism are perceived, at best, as obscenely emotional fancies or, at worse, psychotic delusions. It is quite clear that the latter interpretation stems from the Judaic art of psychoanalysis and its degenerate creator Sigmund Freud (for a more precise study of this fact I suggest everyone to read Kevin MacDonald's works, in particular the Culture of Critique). Materialists unfortunately tend to use psychological and sociological jargon to hide their true intentions; pushing their particular brand of interpretations of "the truth" and "reality". Ironically, materialists condemn the so-called absolutism of their religiously minded enemies, while simultaneously claiming that their views are the only ones based on "objective reality". Go figure the integral logic of this first class oxymoron!

Is there any inherent problem with allowing materialism to thrive within the Pan-European Nationalist movement? Yes!

Let me provide a few basic logical reasons why materialism is actually hurting the prospects of our own collective survival on this earth:

1. There is plenty of evidence that those who believe that only matter exists tend to have a limited understanding of what is "real" and "unreal". In other words, those who actually limit what fits within "reality" are in fact blocking their ability to explore those things that may seem impossible at first glance but may in fact not be (alternate realities, black holes, and the bending of time and space all come to mind). A good scientist will consider any possibility, even the most outrageous one, as a fair ground for experimentation and consideration. A bad scientists will ab-initio proclaim that only X is the accepted framework of study and nothing else can or should be considered.

The social consequence of accepting this type of approach to the world is that we not only stifle creativity, we also become much more prone to despair and defeatism.

This "openness" doesn't mean that we simply accept any crazy theory on "hope" nor that we are necessarily open to anything beyond the pale of common sense, it simply means that we are interested in creative ways of approaching problems and arriving at functioning solutions without placing restrictive notions that may block our path. A great example of this way of seeing things put into action can be observed in the scientific breakthroughs of the Third Reich. I strongly suggest that readers follow up and study this period in history so that you discover all of the amazing things that were achieved at the time, all thanks to a less restrictive/dogmatic approach to scientific thinking.

2. Materialism is utilitarian. In other words, materialists view matter itself as either a vessel or as a piece of a puzzle. Things are either constructed for the sake of servicing a mechanism or to literally function for the benefit of another material entity. Almost all architecture that has been inspired or developed by materialists is horrendously functional. All you have to do is drive around your town and most structures will fit this description. They either function as a place to sell things, store things, or store yourself. They express no true passion because these buildings are seen as simple utilities. On the other hand, every single wonder of the world, and almost every single achievement done in the realms of art, literature and architecture, was done for the sake of a transcendental objective.

In other words, most of our ancestors were expressing a sense of mystical awe at the universe, at the forces animating it, and our place within said cosmos. It wasn't ignorance, it was a true expansive and healthy awe at the magnitude of the universe. All of it was done holding the perspective that we are part of a larger drama, or at the very least that our consciousness can transcend what appears to be our own material existence.

3. Matter appears to be finite. Those who believe that they are themselves only tangible matter have no real reason to accept death as only a 'transition' into a different existence (or at the very least as simply another experience within a larger scheme of things). Death is final as far as consciousness is concerned and therefore "life is the greatest indulgence and death the greatest abstinence" (as the circumcised founder of the Church of Satan would say). It is then an obvious incongruity to fight wholeheartedly for others (or an idea) since realistically this fight will have no true personal benefit in the grand scheme of things. Preferring "death before dishonor" when you are holding unto this psycho-dynamic makes absolutely no sense. The only logical thing to do, if life is simply a personal playground in which death is a horrific "game over", is to enjoy the most of it without any real concern for anything but yourself and those that entertain you. Only those things that annoy or disturb your pleasure (or that can distract you away from sloth) are worth fighting for, but only so far as it doesn't really involve your own personal discomfort or threaten your life. This is the reason why most American soldiers can't be a match for dedicated and fanatical Muslim warriors, unless they have robots and computers doing some advance killing on their behalf. Is it really that difficult to figure out why Crusaders, Legionaries, Vikings, Mujaheddin, SS Men, and Samurais (all of different spiritual paths) were superior than all modern materialist soldiers combined?

4. Nation, Race, and Tradition become transitory concepts that can easily be manhandled in any direction for the sake of personal convenience. There is simply no real reason why I can't act in a way that would dishonor my forebears, since they are all dead and have simply no true sense of "shame". The whole idea of tradition is simply ridiculous within this materialistic conception of life because biologically speaking the influence of the past is already here, in our bodies, and it simply has no relation to their so-called "moral constructs". Basically, the past is literally dead and the future as well. A person who thinks in this very limited way is an easy target for environmental arguments on interpersonal relationships, psychoanalysis, and the progressive view of history (a type of evolutionary secular eschatology) that so many of our enemies love to preach. On the other hand, ancestral worship has always been the raison d'tre of our whole traditional culture.  We felt compelled to appease and honor our forebears because they had never actually left us.

This list can easily continue to expand, but I think the four reasons above are enough to make a clear point.

In stark contrast to the perspective above, those who view their life as an expression of something that, although part of perceived reality also goes beyond it, will have enormous reservoirs of courage to fight without fear of ending their personal existence. Transcendental men fight because they wish to express the inner yearning of an eternal consciousness who chooses to act without the limiting fear of believing that only what is perceived by his senses is real. The art of the transcendentalist (called Magicians/Wizards/Brahmanas/WarriorPriests and many other names in olden days) is to manipulate matter to his will, and not let matter subjugate him. This is what truly differentiates Aryankind from most other breeds in the hominid world. It is the "Triumph of the Will" and the "Will to Power" of Western man that has made our people beautiful and worthy of universal recognition. Almost all of our founding 'mythos' relate how it was the will (word) to subjugate matter to our race's desires that distinguishes us from most other creatures in the universe. Even our understanding of courage and heroism has always been predicated on the premise of true transcendence and not on crude materialism. It is the desire to go beyond death, beyond the elements, that has placed us in a position in which we have defined what is actually plausible or not.

Deeply immersed in materialism, and without this crucial spark of transcendence, we are nothing but a culture-less, petty, underachieving tribe of cunning tradesmen, who will forever depend on others for our creative subsistence while simultaneously harboring a deep resentment against our hosts. Our only desire will be to rob others of their "silly hopes and dreams" for the sake of justifying our own miserable and limited existence. Sound familiar?

I am purposefully choosing not to enter the mined field of pointing to a specific structure of transcendentalism, because said issue is far too complex for this small article. Needless to say, I am of the opinion that having a theology/mysticism is better than having none. Can it be argued that there are better "formulas" for our people than others? I believe so, but this issue will have to be resolved with time and patience. On the other hand, I am fully convinced that loosing our transcendental view of existence foretells our ultimate demise.

There are of course those who will claim to have no transcendental view whatsoever but nonetheless affirm that they are still willing to sacrifice themselves for our people. The truth of the matter is that they are either overestimating their enthusiasm or are in truth more religious than they think. People in this category may simply be dishonest to themselves on this matter, possibly because they have believed the mainstream propaganda that being "secular" and "non theistic" is somehow an intellectually superior position to take. Accepting this false dichotomy is, in my humble opinion, the best proof that said people are not very educated to begin with. Just like "there ain't no atheists in fox-holes", I don't think there are any so-called atheists in the martyr pantheons of any nation, and thus none to fully trust in our movement.

The truth of the matter is that those who view themselves as random interactions with atoms, or who honestly believe that their relationship to their race and nation is purely material, will eventually awake in the dark pit of logic's slippery slopes to realize that he/she will either have to actually risk life and limb for the sake of others (i.e. sacrifice for the sake of something they will probably never accrue a tangible benefit from) or be obliged to put themselves above all else. If the choice is self, then materialism won, if the choice is anything beyond self, transcendence is victorious.

The Prefab Republic

Many within the White Racialist movement today talk about their hopes for a future White Republic, a concept state in which White people live in almost absolute separation from Jewish cultural imperialism and non-White decadence. A nation in which Whites can finally regroup, augment their numbers, and finally continue through the path of civilization from which we have distractedly deviated from in the last few decades (some would argue centuries). How feasible is this idea?

Before answering the question, we must first be transparent about the fact that this White Nation notion is a wholly American ideal. Most European nationalists don't see the creation of such a state as an imperative need because to them their own particular countries are the future White Republics to which they all aspire to. All issues discussed here, relating to the hypothetical White Nation, are thus irrelevant to the European experience because most of the elemental characteristics of a state are already present. White Racialist of non-American extraction who actually entertain the idea of a White Republic are mostly those who have given up on their dream of actually achieving anything of value in their own continent and are thus looking for a radical and fresh alternative (some would say, an escape route).

It can't be denied that the idea of starting a nation from scratch is something much more akin to the American multi-ethnic and frontier-like mentality than to the rigidly traditional and history-obsessed Europeans. After all, American Whites stem from a variety of European ethnic groups (for the most part) and are also mostly descendants of refugees and/or adventurers. Expecting from said context any other conception of how a nation should be started and ruled is somewhat unreasonable. Nonetheless, the legitimate inquiry is whether or not the modernist perversions of American culture are also infecting this lofty goal of a new country.

Needless to say, my intent is not to dictate the "right answer" but instead point out a few logical problems with how some of us are approaching the 'construction' of this future nation and hopefully persuade some readers to my views and incline them to adopt some of my suggestions.

Pointing the finger at any particular White Independence advocacy group is unnecessary for this study since most of them share the same characteristics. Any superficial analysis of these movements will reveal that they all, for the most part, predicate the establishment of a non-authoritarian, environmentally friendly, Euro-centric racialist republic within the continental United States. On the surface, these basic ideals sound fairly reasonable. The problem is that they don't stop there and begin to clearly show examples of their fallibility as a proposal when they actually advocate an already defined territory for their new nation (some going as far as setting specific territorial boundaries), they present already drafted and "ratified" constitutions, designed flags, approved anthems, printed state emblems, organized territorial and military administration structures (even defining how their navy functions in relation to their army!), tax collecting systems (or Tax blocking constitutional provisions), and many other similar elements. One of these groups even has an official government website and offers certificates of birth. Apparently, and conveniently, all the actual work of getting these nations founded has been practically done for us before we even considered picking up a rifle.

To be perfectly clear, the above criticism does not mean that we may not entertain flags, ideal types of government, nor other basic suggestions of how to begin a new nation project. These aspects of an outline can definitely help inspire us to 'fight the good fight', but once we cross the line into the actual prefabrication of a country by a few activists (designers), without having any real world justification for it, then we have surrendered ourselves to the influence of market capitalism and consumer culture.

Typical of American 'fast-food' society, these nations offer us the ability to simply choose, after analyzing the different proposals (products), the new mythological country we would like to live in after a superficial analysis of their regional viability for revolution (as astute political scientists and military strategists that we all believe we are). Then, we just need to take the last "great" step of moving there, somewhere in the near future, to ride the waves of destiny into glorious victory. Many, I can deduce, even imagine themselves at the head of troops, being posthumously glorified with statues and poems.

Of course, reality doesn't quite work that way. To actually start a new nation from scratch requires not only military/violent action, but also the organic growth of popular sentiment for it. It requires a historical and contextual development of events that leads particular regions to acquire a character that justifies a founding myth. Territorial demarcations are almost always determined by very specific skirmishes/battles and never by a magic-marker on a map a hundred years before the war for independence actually began. Yes, we can dream, plan, and strategize from the comfort of our niches, specially if the objective is to get a preparatory idea of what we have coming our way when 'reality hits the fan', but to actually pretend to know how things will work out far in advance is ludicrous, delusional and wasteful.

Euryanist Flag Option? (designed by a poster at SF)

Again, I agree with most of those who proclaim that the 'White Republic' is a much needed entity which will help us "secure the existence of our people and a future for white children". I will even dare to participate in the designing part of this game and call our ideal EURYANISM, a name I recently came up with that combines the classifiers European and Aryan, which in combination can express who we are (and aspire to be) without the baggage of our dozen other terms.

On the other hand, I indeed strongly disagree that said White Republic is itself a solution to our problems when in reality it can only be one of our ultimate goals. I too wish to live in such a place, but the million dollar question is: How do we get there?

Our solution must involve the preparation for this goal instead of shamefully play-acting as future "founding fathers". This new nation will require professionals, laborers, intellectuals, scientists, artists, writers, warriors (of all ranks) and trained leadership.

It should be quite apparent that getting the job done and amassing the necessary people is a very large task at this point because many of us are not only ill prepared to legitimately fit into said categories but are also infected with a deep seated dislike for those who possess the qualities we actually need to become successful with our nation building exploit. Most White Racialists view doctors, lawyers, architects, economists, scientists, and all of their assorted brethren as drones of a "corrupt and evil system". Like a pack of angry lepers, looking out of their colony upon the rest of the world with spite and resentment, many in our movement view these "successful" types (i.e. those who have been able to function within the dark and evil world of Iudea) with distrust. Legitimately, in many cases, our assessment of them isn't all together wrong, considering the amount of filth that permeates all facets of the system, but this same measuring stick must be applied to every single person who lives within a modern nation-state. Just because a trucker doesn't appear to share the same responsibilities and power of a sales broker doesn't mean that he isn't still working within the "evil system" (moving products around so that consumers can intoxicate themselves with them isn't "evil"?). We all are, without exception and in one way or another, limbs of this disturbed monster we call the modern world. None of us are true hermits and none of us can claim a respectable level of sanctity when it comes to participating in the dynamics of our own destruction.

The remaining question then is a very practical one, specially after we begrudgingly accept responsibility for the parts we all play in this problem: Do we actually need these highly socialized and successful types within our movement? Of course we do!

Not only do we need them for our program of founding a new nation, we also need them to remain functional and successful before and after we build it. Their skills of adaptation, manipulation, and competition are the main reason we need them in this particular moment in our history. The great founders of most civilizations in our past understood this principle very well, but for an almost mystifying reason most of our activists don't seem to value quality over quantity anymore. Importantly, these skilled racialists must not be valued for their 'propaganda' appeal only. Too many quasi intellectual White Nationalist today want them as tokens, so they can tell the media how many "winners" actually agree with us, but seem to ignore their practical use. Outing successful racialists is one of the most popular pastimes of our enemies because they understand the basic need of any functional movement to have them as active members, unfortunately many of our "leaders" make their jobs easier and sometimes even do it themselves, thus barring themselves from those who would be of immense help to our movement.

A great example of ascribing value to quality people is Adolf Hitler's entourage. After the initial stage of his movement's formation was survived, he filled the NSDAP with all professions and classes (many of them financed the movement itself), and when he took power, these men were ready to take command of a complex state without engendering chaos and dysfunction.

The organically grown republic, the one that most of us aspire to, requires a lot of technical work that most of us aren't ready for. Since this republic will only come about through the fragmentation of our current governments and not through a magical awakening, we must be ready to take command of almost every single primal industry and profession (the basic ones needed to continue functionality, at the very least) when the vacuum arrives. If we don't, we will never get even near the upper echelons of power within an already established state, never mind forging our own. Those out there who are actually ready, those people who some of us currently abhor and call "slaves to the matrix", will be the only ones capable to take over and build a new state when all falls apart. These men and women, no matter their "ideology", will receive the cheers and accolades of the masses and the blasting guns of the military. These are the same masses who in their classic irrational fits of hysteria will be very tempted to fetch ropes and get rid of us "brutish" and "violent racist losers".

What to do?

Become yourself an expert in a practical area of administering a nation and advancing an economy. Knowledge of commerce/economics, military crafts (everybody forgets the most important and least fashionable: logistics), law, medicine, management, construction (all levels), engineering, biology, agriculture (all levels), pharmacology, policing, forensics, irrigation, etc. are all crucial to our objectives. We must be ready to legitimately fill that vacuum with people who are not only capable but actually good at these tasks. Without men and women that know how to efficiently run a company, house, store, family, work crew, or any other complex social group, we are doomed. Leadership is not about handing out orders and pontificating about 'endgames', it is about the practical knowledge involved in running things and influencing people. Some of these skills are naturally inherent in some of us, while other leaders are made by experience and circumstances (not all great generals were charismatic). Acquiring these skills is an absolute necessity.

Unfortunately, almost in every single case, we can't get the knowledge and skill required for these areas of expertise from online courses or via self-education. Most of these professions require us to actually forgo some of our personal pride (codeword for stubbornness most of the time) and actually go through the systems needed to get educated. This requires sacrificing our personal comfort zone to reach the educational level we need to be of any use to our people. If using the enemy's system and educational tools is what it takes, then this is what we have to do. Doing things we don't like for the sake of the 'bigger picture' is what means to be an adult.

I believe studying the story of the famous Visigoth king Alaric will give people some perspective on this issue.

Alaric I

Alaric I, a Visigothic king (crowned in 395ad), served as a Roman general for many years before utilizing those same skills against Rome and eventually invading/sacking it. This is exactly the same strategy I am suggesting here, in a more extended fashion. I am obviously not the only one to ever suggest it. Alaric's victories were not achieved overnight, and ours won't either. Patience is the most important characteristic of a true White man, while immediate gratification is the typical refuge of the primitive and inferior non-Whites.

If we really desire and require this new nation for the sake of our progeny, if we must have a new country in which our people can live free of the constant barrage of depraved cultural influences and the criminality engendered by multi-racialism, then we must actually prepare ourselves for founding it in the real world. We must have founding fathers that are actually worthy of the name. We require a foundation worthy of our past civilizations and not indicative of modern consumer culture in which everything is pre-arranged for us without any work nor bloodshed.

Hooked on Weakness

American Indians lost their lands when they got hooked on the White Man's goods. This incontrovertible fact is key to understanding the dynamics involved in colonialism, no matter what type or in which historical context. Today, the White/European people of the world are under attack with diverse forms of colonialism, from the reverse kind, involving the wretched NonWhite world moving into our territories, to the cultural Judeo-Marxist one that sells us toys. Both types, in their deadly combination, will result in the almost absolute ethnic cleansing of the White/European people throughout the world. The reason for our quick displacement (speedy if you consider that our grandparents lived in primarily homogenous territories) is almost identical to the American Indian story, at least when it comes to what enticed them into their willful abandonment of territory and their outright sale of their lands.

Some people today don't realize that almost every single initial contact between Europeans and the mongolian tribes that lived in the American continent were amazingly friendly (naively so for both sides). Delving into a full exposition of the story is unnecessary, the simple truth is that these 'natives' became addicted to European technology and power to the point of selling off entire swaths of land, lakes and rivers, all for the sake of owning our items and also in the hopes that these tough and advanced Whites would kill off their own indigenous competition. At the end of their maddening sale, they came to realize that almost all of their ancestral hunting/fishing grounds were theirs no more. Eventually changing their minds, and deciding to take it all back by force, they got butchered. The term "Indian giver" reflects the sentiment of our ancestors at the time.

In other words, their petty desire for "cool stuff" and their belief that utilizing the might of others for their 'strategic' purposes would be beneficial, backfired to the point of their almost complete extinction. Consumerism, albeit a very rudimentary kind, killed the 'indians' and robbed them of their land. 

Today, most Whites live in a maze of gadgets and entertainment that would make any red skinned savage gasp in mesmerized stupor. Because of our advanced stage of intellectual and developmental evolution, our race has invented almost every single type of technology imaginable and has founded almost every single worthwhile culture this earth has ever seen. Science and literature are both our almost entire and exclusive domain, not only at its genesis but also in the effective practice of it. As with all success, there is a darker side which, unfortunately in our case, is killing us in record numbers. Let us look at the basic and practical causes of our amazing superiority and clearly identify what made us great.

All of these inventions, which stem specifically from a particular genetic and historic context, sprang forth because of our identifiably war-like, ethnocentric, and competitive nature. Other races, of which the Black (Sub-Saharan African) is the most contrasting, lived in far too temperate climes and bountiful regions to merit the development of an intelligence capable of producing even the most rudimentary forms of culture (East-Asians are a separate phenomenon worthy of discussion at another time). As most educated people know, most Blacks (in their native land), even to this very day, are still devoid of a written language (their verbal communication can't convey a sophisticated concept aside from 'hunger', 'anger', 'sex' and 'awe'), music (that isn't primarily devoted to percussion), navigation (without simply siting on a log and pushing it), nor any advanced form of weaponry (aside from their sticks and stones). In short, irrespective of the evolutionary conditions which kept them that way, or whether we like it or not, most NonWhites have been in such primitive levels of development that even Neanderthals seem sophisticated in comparison. This obvious underdevelopment of the NonWhite world has enticed plenty of White/Europeans, for centuries, to give their time and treasure to aggressively civilize (dress them up, give them a language to speak and write, teach them how to build, explain to them the basics of government, etc), all to no avail. We have attempted this either by outright conquest or by "charity" (both being divergent forms of imperialism). Of course, this attempt to "civilize" is not only paternalistic and arrogant, it is also an obvious waste of time. Said colonial sentiments are transparently wasteful and even "immoral" (from an egalitarian perspective) because they admit a sense of superior obligation to impose our concept of morality and civilization on those who simply are not built for it.

These feelings of 'guilty power' only spring from cultures who have too much free time to interpret their existence as a "magical gift" somehow detached from the struggle that brought it forth. In other words, those who feel guilty over their racial success do so because they are dramatically disconnected from the laborious and risky business of building anything worthwhile.

To the poor simpleton Blacks, our mirrors and shiny buckles were enough to encourage thousands of them to metaphorically jump into our ships and abandon their natural habitat. As we can all tell, this act by Blacks has absolutely destroyed their identity and tarnished whatever dignity they originally may have had in their primal state.

Roman Warrior

As history teaches us, once the founding culture of a civilization forgets the reasons why it began and thrived, it will die.

What is the basic reality of all great civilizations?

It isn't an "ideal" nor a "principle" per se. Founding principles can theoretically remain within a civilization and still fail when the true founding elements are gone. What truly matters is both the specific race of people who founded said culture and the bellicose nature which gave them the vitality to create it. In very simple terms, it is the sword and he who wields it that defines a civilization. The moment the sword is sheathed and he who must wield it disappears (via miscegenation, integration, or any other ethnic displacement) then said culture can be declared dead. 

Norse Warrior

It is therefore the willingness to continuously fight, to see reality as a constant struggle to exist, dominate, and extend your presence beyond the grave, through your particular progeny (racism/racialism), which in turn is the only possible element that can sustain a culture and keep it healthy. White people, in perpetual awareness of the discomforts of natural reality, are the only ones that can create civilizations (at least how they are defined historically).

What role does "morality" or "values" play in all of this? 

Morality and values are clearly dependent on the people, culture, and historic placement of those who advocate them. Sometimes, values and morality can be suicidal (which I would thus call bad) or they can be a method to extend and protect the founding culture (which I would thus call good). Some cultures, when founding a new civilization, may already hold that certain types of killing are acceptable, or that certain types of sexual behavior are counterproductive to their scheme of things, or that certain foods are good or bad, or certain music (or no music!), the list is quite endless. But, like I mentioned, even when some of these moral boundaries may end up helping or hurting the particular culture in question, as long as the people remain homogenous and continue to hold the sword of power and violence against all of their enemies, they will be successful until a stronger group finds a way to destroy them (in any way possible). This is why plenty of "degenerate" or "barbarian" cultures in the past survived for a long time irrespective of how their values are judged by modern standards. If their main value was war and racism, they survived longer than any other culture we may deem to be highly moralistic. If their morality is meant to impose racial cohesiveness, or respect the leadership principle for the sake of martial strength, then said morality will function for survival. 

Slavic Warrior

If a savvy culture wishes to keep their civilization alive for a very long time, they will merge their morality, myths, and every single ancillary element within their society into the racial and warlike objectives of their ancestors. They will be xenophobic (distrustful of strangers), desirous of conquest and power, obsessive in their martial culture, and ritualistic in their power structure (primitive monarchy being a good example). They will basically use morality as a tool to convert a small people into a civilization that will pierce the veil of history into eternity. Rome, Sparta, Ancient Egypt, and many others after them, exemplify this dynamic very well. Their morality varied, their gods as well, but their core thrust was almost identical, at least in their golden years, before they lost this particular energy and died very shameful deaths. We are not talking here about a sanitized conceptual death, or an impersonal historic death, this is literally the physical end of the people and their progeny.

How do you convince a racist warrior to give up his weapons, earned privileges, and hand over their civilization to usurping and pathetically inferior strangers?

You offer them the illusion of comfort. 

Spartan Warrior

Spartan civilization has always been utilized as a great example of an austere, courageous, and powerful culture. I have always believed that high levels of laconophilia are necessary for a healthy White/European advocate today, as most philosophers of ancient times were also influenced by their culture and hierarchical system. Cultures of this type can be either conquered directly or slowly with the introduction of mercantilistic values like  relaxation, entertainment, and the sedentary lifestyle that unfortunately always grows out of success. If a culture doesn't advocate a certain level of social discomfort and pressure on the younger generation, they will grow soft and weak, eventually leading them to breed more of their pathetic kind, creating an nation of wimpy men who only desire merriment, and women who must assume masculine roles to somehow make up the deficiency. These type of men have always given over the keys of their city to invaders in the naive hopes of getting spared (though justly finding their family's tortured bodies in a ditch for their "service").

Spartans were notorious for throwing their deformed and/or weak looking infants from a cliff to die (old school eugenics), today we treat deformed freaks as "special". Spartans used to take young males away into harsh military training, today we send them to "fat camp" (if they allow it). Spartan mothers and wives used to tell their men "either with your shield or on your shield" (i.e. either victory or death), today they will sue anybody who hurts their feelings at work. 

Celtic Warrior

This process of slowly weakening our culture, a clever and patient strategem by our most successful racial enemies (today called Jews), has been going on for centuries and its whole aim is to have the offspring of every single worthwhile EuroAryan civilization on this earth give up their swords and then give up their genes. You are witnessing our conquest by a parasitical and cowardly people, who utilize our own success and technology against us. Entertainment is the key to their strategy, which explains why they choose to monopolize it in every single country they inhabit. The whole aim of these locusts is to swarm us with movies, shows, comics, fiction paperbacks, websites, games, gadgets, clothing, sexuality, music, concerts, sports, and every other distracting element possible to keep us away from realizing how weak we have become. They have achieved separating us so much from our ancestors, that if they saw us today they would probably behead us and spit on our graves. We have shamed our ancestors and we are now shaming our progeny. The reason most White people feel lost in this world is because we are not the same race anymore and we all know it. Basically, most of us today are the weak babies they should have thrown down the cliff. 

Do we still have it in us?

Iberian Warrior

In all honesty, most don't. This is where those who at the very least believe should own up to our past must take command of the situation and clean up this mess on behalf of our dignity. The truth is that deep in our hearts the strength of our ancestors is beaming a dim but consistent light. Deep down, we are embarrassed by our love for the 'mirrors' and 'buckles' that they are selling us today to displace us out of existence. C.G. Jung discussed this fact in many of his works, including the famous Wotan essay, and his objective was to proclaim the rebirth of our ancient warrior archetypes. Within us, the spark of the strong, stoic, Spartan, Roman, Celt, Saxon, Goth, Iberian/Hispanic, Slavic, Norse, Teutonic, Macedonian warrior culture wishes to break free of consumerism and the stupefying sleep it has enslaved us with. We MUST step away from any cultural product that does not enhance our martial virtue, our racial exclusiveness and our violent discipline. If we must entertain ourselves, it must involve racialism, militancy, and the shunning of weakness.

Batavian/German Warrior

The EuroAryan people of this planet have to rediscover their inner barbarian. We need to abandon our pastoral passivity and banish any ideology which encourages us to relinquish ourselves to the will of an external/internal immovable force who will either save us or doom us. Our survival is in our grasp and there is simply no other reality than the will to power. We have to study our past civilizations and seek to recapture their founding spirit, before they betrayed themselves with comforting fantasies. Once we have firmly inspired ourselves and captured said impulse within our hearts, we must aim to surpass them in every way. We must advocate the aggressive acquisition of a new martial spirit which won't simply emulate our past but that will be held in awe by the world to come. Only then will we survive and conquer our destiny.

Spawning a Few Demons

Demonization has been a very common practice in human history. Almost every single person on this planet, who has the basic capacity to communicate with others, has been both the object and promoter of its impressive legacy. The origin of the term 'demon' is somewhat unknown to most people so I think it is crucial to at least have some context before we delve into the rhetorical aspect of this article.

A demon, in its original conception, had nothing to do with evil or 'unclean' spirits. The daimon in the ancient world, as the term was defined at the time (and thus utilized by the likes of Plato), was simply an 'alter ego' of sorts which found expression in human endeavors related to art and creativity. As a matter of fact, the term genius is the Latin version of this exact concept/term and sustains today the same connotation demon had in the pre-christian world (it is no coincidence that genius is related to the famous genie of Islamic tradition). Ironically, the term demon itself has been the object of 'demonization' to the point were culturally most people today apply the much later definition of it. 

With the advent of a new and radical theological narrative, the demon became a symbol of everything that is chaotic, vile, and unclean. Countless nightmares were attributed to their influence and many a powerful presence in Nature received the accusation. By medieval times in Europe, almost anything unknown, ugly or mysterious was automatically perceived as either being demonic or at least influenced by a host of them. Thousands of people, animals and even inanimate objects were subjected to exorcisms to somehow remove the dark influence of these entities. It is from this somewhat silly episode in our past history that we begin to also see the utilization of the demonic accusation against those we disagreed with in almost any subject. Catholics saw Protestants as demonic and the same was true in the reverse. Of course, during this time many of the accusers (and the objects of it) took these threats seriously and literally, thus the term wasn't simply a style of argument but a dramatic conclusion that could hold terminal consequences.

By the time of the Enlightenment, and later on the industrial revolution, the term itself may have lost its 'edginess' but it most definitely continued to describe those out-groups we rejected. To be clear, this tendency to reject ideas and people via language (with all the ancillary elements that come with it) is absolutely normal and healthy. It serves the basic animal need to mark clear boundaries between 'friend and foe'. Whether or not the supernatural element to this survival tendency is healthy or even useful is irrelevant to the point of this discussion, albeit a very interesting one for another time. Also, the reasons for this term's transmutation from a positive (or at least neutral) meaning to a clearly caricaturesque version of itself is quite interesting as well but not the object of this article. Nonetheless, it is important to understand the fact of this change to the idea of demonization itself because it exemplifies that language is a dynamic and morphing mechanism of communication that must be seen by our movement as a tool and not as a virgin in need of shielding.

How does demonization work in the political field? It serves the purpose of easily disposing of entire ideas and the groups that espouse them in a quick manner without having to enter into the complex field of explanation and deconstruction. Most people who engage in practical politics are not educated enough to battle with anyone regarding their own sincerely held beliefs (since it would require rhetorical skills that most people do not develop in their regular lives), never mind getting into the cobwebs of argument. The average man/woman can justify their own views quite easily to themselves and those who respect them enough to listen without disagreement, but when these same folks attempt to enter into the combative field of debate, their own feeling of inadequacy on the practice will usually place them at a disadvantage. A good case in point is the huge amount of people who have attempted to explain themselves on talk shows to no avail, even when very educated on the matter. The pressure to simplify a complex message in front of a battering ram of insults is almost impossible to even the most sophisticated interlocutor.

Therefore, demonizing your opponent 'ab initio' (from the start) allows you the flexibility of communicating, to those you wish to persuade, a generalized view of the opposition well encapsulated within easy phrases that exploit their preconceived notions of said group/idea. As we all know, radical egalitarians (what people call Marxists, Liberals, etc) and all of their capitalist advocates in the powerful corporate media, have used this strategy very effectively against all White people who profess any type of ethnically aware political identity. Terms like nazi, racist, fascist, hater, ignorant, and a myriad of others have been thrown at us without any expectation of having to explain them. Most of these system worshiping egalitarian hippie freaks (see where I'm going with this?) would be stunned into a partially retarded stupor if they were forced to explain what any of these demonizing terms actually mean. It is almost guaranteed that they will define these terms with additional adjectives (i.e. "racist means you are a hater", "fascist means you are a racist", etc). Their incapacity to explain these epithets is in fact obvious proof that they are indeed brainwashed imbeciles who only parrot their masters narrative. But as any science fiction fan can confirm, robots make awesome warriors in most stories, and in this war we are waging they have done an excellent job repeating their Anti-White programming to the point of pushing us into the defensive. This must end today and we must play their game. 

Why do these techniques work? 

The truth is that most demonizing strategies are predicated on some collective perception of the group or idea that has already become part of popular culture (how is another subject entirely!). As an example, most "fascist" believe in discipline and order, thus they can easily be described negatively by their enemies as "square" or "up-tight". Racists are exclusivists (i.e. they like their own people and wish to exclude those that are dissimilar to protect them), on the same vein this can be seen by those excluded as "hating", just like a cockroaches consider it "hating" when you clean your house and deprive them of trash to lay their eggs in. Always remember that demonizing can only work if it is founded on stereotypical premises, which are themselves based on some level of truth, even if superficial. 

In the same vein, it is fair to say that most 'liberals' are generally viewed as under-showered hippie types who do drugs, are cowardly wimps, live with their parents (or are supported by them), are foolishly utopian, advocate degenerate sexual lifestyles, and are world class hypocrites (i.e. anarchists that force the general population to keep in step with the values of the system). These perceptions are thus ripe for us to point out, simplify and exaggerate. Hippie degenerate bums, like the ones in the antifa crowd, who, after their protesting, go back to their privileged university dorms and boast about their fight against "the system", are pathetic losers and everybody feels it. We simply must point it out with dramatic language. Terms like "communist", "hippie", "degenerate", "freak", "wimp", "fag", "hypocrite", "bum", "junkie", "liberal", "tree-huger", "free-loader" and many others, will highlight the popularly held perceptions of their weaknesses. Also, underlining or amplifying the faults of most of the followers of these ideologies is effective because most people are simple minded enough to asses the value of an idea on the quality of the representative of it (even though this is actually irrelevant, specially in a culture where anybody feels free to proclaim themselves anything they wish without the shame of actually being quizzed on it). 

So, if you see a fat lesbian advocating for equal rights, point out that sexual deviants with eating disorders tend to say such things. It may sound "rude" to your bourgeois sensibilities but it must be done. This must not be directed at the portly dyke directly but instead directed at the audience who is consuming the information. Always remember the purpose of this. Don't ever feel any remorse on indirectly causing any "psychological" harm on these robots, they do exactly the same thing to our less attractive brethren when they appear on TV or on newspapers. Understand that our enemies have never felt any compassion whatsoever when it comes to ridiculing a White Racialist, his family, his children, his eating habits, his tastes in clothing, hygiene, and/or anything else to which they can latch on and directly associate with our views. Again, we must play the same game, always being watchful to never cross into the bully category (or we will be thus demonized in that fashion later). Remember, a skinny mongrelized coke whore with a lisp, who screams against racism in a political rally, will never be effectively demonized as a "bully" (she is a 'certified victim' after all) but a tough looking "skinhead" type (or a "redneck") will. We therefore use this technique intelligently and not absurdly. Remember always that our demonization is aimed at the White masses and not at the scum who oppose us openly. They are lost cases for the most part and engaging them in any way will only devolve into an insult match to no avail.

When you inject these derisive descriptors regarding our opposition into your daily conversations (about politics or any related matter), most people will not argue against them but instead store the 'demon seed' as a nugget of truth or as an opinionated description of the views alluded to. Next thing you know this seed will grow into a full demon and the natural tendency of people to simplify and categorize will do the rest of the job for you to the point in which our enemies' views will become grown monsters of cataclysmic proportions. Their views will slowly become anathematized to the point of open ridicule, which is exactly what we seek. 

I strongly believe that our demonization can and will be more effective than theirs in the end. After all, it is way cooler to be a "hater" than a "hippie wimp". Their demonization involves the critique of all that is virile, strong, masculine, and natural. Ours degrade values which advocate sickness, weakness, effeminacy, and unnatural views of the world.

The time is now to slowly engage ourselves in the process of devaluing this corrupt system's narrative. The egalitarian mob who fight us are in fact the drones/slaves of the system they purport to despise. They openly police and enforce the politically correct values of the corporate elites who rule this country and the entire world. They advocate a mono-culture without differences (an impossibility) because the system has brainwashed them into thinking that this will somehow eliminate "injustice", "prejudice" and "violence" (natural aspects of life). Meanwhile, their corporate overlords utilize all the resources possible to continue feeding the Idiot Cultural Factories we call the mainstream media and Hollywood. Together in their unholy marriage, they continue eroding borders, races, cultures, and languages (the foundations of healthy identity and true diversity), making it easier for them to sell their crappy disease laden products to a uniform population. If we wish to save our race and every single species on this Earth, we must fight these lunatics with all of our energy. They are definitely true modern day demons and we must banish them from our lands with all of our righteous might. 

In war, almost anything is fair game, and besmirching the character of our enemies is more than just. We must thus proclaim loudly like Ramiro Ledesma, a hero and martyr of the Spanish Civil War and founder of National-Sindicalist philosophy: ¡No Parar Hasta Conquistar! (Never Stop Until We Conquer)

Join! At Least for a While...

I have often said that our current struggle for survival as a race is closer to the Greco-Persian Wars than to the Peloponnesian war. The significance of the comparison should be obvious at the end of this writing, since the latter was an internal war whereas the former was perceived as a war against aliens. Never mind the fact that the Persians of the time would be seen, more than likely, as White people if put into contrast with the vast amount of mongrels that populate that same region today. But, for the sake of this piece, let us view them as significantly foreign to the 'Greeks' of the time.

The war that the White Race is facing today is one where our disparate territories are being attacked by a massive foreign onslaught, directed by an enemy who wishes to eradicate us and transmute us into something closer to themselves. Unlike the Second World War, this fight is not about European hegemony, nor about the triumph of socio/economic ideologies, nor about securing particular living space for a nationality. This fight is about survival. 

In any war where the issues involved are mere territorial abstractions or proposed sociological ideas, the primal elements that define said conflict arise from orthodoxies and/or variant heresies within it. In other words, maintaining strong convictions and being immovable from rigid perspectives is in fact the very nature of the struggle being waged. Most European wars have been basically of this kind. Europe has been enmeshed for millennia in fratricidal affairs in which different ethnic sub-groups fight amongst each other for either land, leadership or basic conceptions about the supernatural or the social. These wars were not about survival 'per se' but about definition. Most wars in Europe were thus similar to the Peloponnesian War referenced above. 

To be clear, this is not to say that I adhere to the egalitarian or pacifist view that these conflicts were inherently wrong or destructive. Without practicing with each other for all this time, Native Europeans wouldn't be the strongest, smartest, and most technologically sound people (i.e. warriors) this solar system has ever seen. We are in fact the 'master race' because of our tendency to conflict, compete, and fight for what we consider right. The issue at hand is not the morality of this natural tendency but the practicality of applying it right now, in this specific moment in our history. I am basically suggesting a suspension of our inner quibbling for the sake of directing our energies to a more important fight.

As precedent, I have thus referenced at the start of this article one of the many wars in which our very existence as a racial group was threatened by a foreign entity and itself being a great example of how we pulled it together to get things done. These wars have held an almost mystic fascination throughout our history, from the 300 Spartans (of the famous Greco-Persian war) to the Crusades and the culture of knighthood which came to fruition because of it. The motivations behind these wars could be argued in multiple ways (knowing our people, we could probably end up warring about this very issue!), but in the end, most nation/states in Europe, when faced with similar threats involving clearly foreign enemies, pulled it together to fight as one. The reason for this lies in the clear understanding that fighting each other over 'ideas', while our entire population is threatened from without, is suicidal and counterproductive. Basic survival supersedes any sport, including killing each other over concepts. During the Greco-Persian wars there were plenty of different nations and countless ideological differences amongst them (differences of both organization and cultural perspective). But in the end, Athenians and Spartans fought together as best they could against the common enemy, and because of it, they survived. Ideological and political mores aside, when it comes down to the wire, most Athenians wanted those "crazy Spartans" knocking heads and standing their ground while most Spartans were similarly glad to see Athenian triremes hunting down the enemy.

We are now in the unfortunate situation where most White Racialists treat this fight as if it were a continuation of continental European history. As if we are still back there in the 1700's, 1800's, or 1900's, fighting each other for mere specs of ideological and/or metaphysical dignity. Some of us even fight as if we are still in the middle of both World Wars in Europe (uniforms and all). Nevertheless, we are not living in those days. We are, right now, looking down the barrel of a loaded gun and the trigger is half-way squeezed.

What could possibly explain this sordid attitude apparently inherent in our people? The truth is that White people (in general) have an obsessive affinity for universalism. We somehow always proclaim that our perspective is not only correct for us personally, but for every single person we meet, every race, the flora/fauna, and even any possible alien we may encounter in the universe. This tendency may do wonders for philosophy, science, architecture, theology, and the rest of our intellectual pastimes, but it does horrible things when our practical biological imperative to survive is put to the test. This 'universalist' tendency is also at fault for bringing into our habitat millions of Non-White undesirables after our attempts at domestication go sour. We do this simply because, so goes the narrative, if clothing, democracy, justice, apple pie, and Jesus are good for us, they must be awesome for them too. In truth, it is our arrogant and implicit acknowledgement of our superiority that makes us complicit in our own destruction. 

So, for the sake of continuing to exist in this planet, we must become a bit more flexible when it comes to our views on 'strategy' and begin to collectively get our act together in front of the wave of Non-White competitors whose sole aim is to displace us. We must put a hold on our desire to share our achievements with others and begin to set our defenses straight. It is high time we 'circle the wagons'.

At this point, getting too particular about "who and why" in the latest White advocacy group this year is illogical, and it turns us away from focusing on our main objective. This doesn't mean that we sacrifice our honor and values nor that we don't join up with any particular group, it simply means that we assume a smarter perspective on what our fight is and engage all White Racialists with at least the basic respect that they all deserve for being active fighters for the cause of White European existence. It basically serves no purpose to join the "Persians" in insulting the "Athenians" for the sake of convincing them that we are not as bad as those "barbarian" Spartans. The proverbial Persians of today are our declared enemies, their approval or adulation is irrelevant and harmful to us. It is in fact a sign of weakness to seek their favor. 

A good example of how distorted our approach to this fight has become can be underscored with how many within our movement view our own racial qualities and the way we approve those who are allowed to fight on our side. 

Many in the movement hold a 'nordicist' view of race, in which only those with a very specific set of physical traits are approved for participation (specific height of forehead, jaw definition, eye/hair coloration, etc.). This is a remnant of the healthy period of scientific racism that our people went through in the late 19th Century. This is not inherently a bad thing, but at this point, we really can't afford to pull out the skull measuring tools every time we want to decide who can fight for our cause. Some in our movement hold a more geographic sense of race, in which you are White only if you reside within "traditional" White regions of the world, and if you do not, then you are at least suspect of possibly being mixed with some local Non-White. Again, this may be an interesting debate in our libraries, but at this point, we can take all the manpower we can muster as long as the people involved are easily categorized as White by most rational standards. Usually, our own enemies can easily categorize Whites for us, specially in 'do or die' situations like the L.A. race riots.

I, for instance, take a more practical view of "Whiteness". Irrespective of being categorized as an Alpine, Nordic, or a Mediterranean (or any sub category we can add to the list), if the person is clearly White, seems to care for his race, and doesn't claim to be a Jew, then said person should be good enough at this point in our war. {Jews are generally easily recognized RACIALLY/physically but by rejecting those who identify themselves as Jewish, it gives us an additional 'fail safe'}

After all, the whole point of us advocating Eugenics is to slowly but surely help Nature out in the process of advancing our gene pool and building a better progeny. After we secure a safe haven for our people, and only at that point, can we have the luxury of arguing the details of what true purity entails and/or should look like, but at this point it is simply mental masturbation.

In other words, when faced with all of these issues, we have to accept a 'trench' mentality. We must ask: Will this person next to me hold fast in the middle of a fire fight (this is meant both symbolically and literally)? Has he proven himself to be consistently on our side? If the answer is yes, then whether or not he/she is from Madagascar, is a Christian Evangelical, and listens to Satanic Black Metal is absolutely secondary to the task at hand. I personally may not like any of the characteristics listed, but I can argue the issues later if need be...after we win.

Again, I do have clear and definite convictions, I do have a core set of values, and I even have structured views on what strategy is best and which movement is the most effective, but I try hard not to confuse orthodoxy with stubbornness. Many of our own views might be perceived as anathema to some groups, but we should do our very best to communicate our particular perspective only when constructive, while simultaneously holding an open door policy on all White Racialist who with honesty and courage fight for the future of our children. If the issue is contentious and irrelevant to the final goal, doing our best to side step it is in all of our interests.

Why? Because we must win...we have no other alternative. 

Judging What?

Most of us have, at some point in our lives, been encouraged to 'judge' only individuals and ignore the group to which they belong to. Never mind the fact that these same people usually ignore their own advice when it concerns "racists", "bigots", "sexists" or any other Trotskyite descriptive catch phrase they have become accustomed to hurling at those they don't agree with. Usually, their arguments seem reasonable to the uncritical thinker because most of us tend to visualize "groups" as a collection of disparate people who willfully come together for some practical or ideological objective.  Simply put, we have transmuted the real meaning of what group means, to now include chess clubs and video game crews online, ignoring that the natural groups to which we actually belong are inherently part of who we are and choice is usually not involved. 

As an example, if a White Liberal, who freely chooses to only associate with like minded White and/or mixed race hippies at the local coffee house ends up in prison, his race will become the only defining factor of how he will be classified and thus how he will have to classify himself to survive. He won't be able to go over to the 'Black Guerrilla Family' or to the 'Mexican Mafia' and tell them about the countless internet battles he waged on behalf of their people. He either quickly goes over to the dominant White gang and proves himself worthy of inclusion, or he will be stabbed, raped or a combination of the two by all the groups involved.  I am aware that this may appear to be an extreme example, especially to those who live within the confines of a world were "heterosexual men" choose to shave their chests, wear low-cut jeans, and put highlights on their hair, but the reality is that men in prison are in constant contact with the most fundamental truth of life: survival is above all else.

It is unnecessary to possess a sophisticated intellect like Kevin MacDonalds' (professor of Evolutionary Psychology) to comprehend that 'judging' (making determinations) based on how groups of people behave is crucial for survival. Natural selection  prefers functionality and shuns complex systems, specially when an organism needs to determine danger versus benefit. If every time I encountered a scorpion, I was required to interview it before I determined the feasibility of having his entire family share a bedroom with my child, it wouldn't be long before my entire family winds up dead. Judging scorpions as a group is simple, effective and natural. This mechanism not only applies to group identity and behavior (in-group/out-group for all you psych majors), it is also helpful on individual case scenarios. A woman walking down the street who observes a man approaching her holding a baseball bat and wearing a t-shirt that reads "Rape is Great!" should safely cross the street, turn around, and/or take a series of careful measures to defend herself if need be. If society teaches her that she needs to first get to know the guy and not judge him for his questionable taste in t-shirts, or worse, force her to assume the best (i.e. he is a baseball enthusiasts who likes making social criticisms with impolite shirts), then said society has doomed her to be victimized and abused. Simply put, judging books by their cover (the basic premise of almost every marketing firm in the world) and judging groups by their usual actions is a requirement to be a normal and healthy creature.

Of course, Lattegalitarians (how I like to brand the offspring of rich White Liberals) continuously utilize non-sequitur arguments to disarm the well meaning and completely natural self defense mechanisms developed for billions of years by all species on mother Earth. The most common stylized argument is to point out some highly improvable/uncommon exception to any statement you could fathom, assuming that by finding this glorious rarity, we are thus obliged to change all the basic rules of life because of it. 

Yes, you could argue that some snakes may be docile and great pets. Some rats don't spread disease. Some roaches are quite agile and friendly. But in general, these creatures are not good for the health of their hosts. To seriously consider every exception as a general rule (anybody see the irony in this?), these bleeding heart wimps will require you to judge each individual pest you encounter. As can be well imagined, it will only take a few decades of this strategy for any species to lose their ability to discriminate between benefit and detriment. Of course, this attitude presupposes that said friendly creatures will reproduce only similar offspring and not plenty of normally unfriendly types (i.e. exceptions don't breed exceptions, or they would be in actuality the norm). Therefore, if generally having any snake sleeping with your child is dangerous, it is more than correct to banish, expel and/or eliminate said creature from your midst, just in case.  

Everyday in America there is a "holocaust" of types via the war we wage against bacteria, parasites, pests, and other undesirables who may indeed have some exceptions in their populations. Nonetheless, healthy and normal people agree that if a few nice snakes must suffer marginalization for the sake of protecting their family from the majority of them, the benefits outweigh the importance of their possible feelings about it. After all, at the end of the day, snakes will only care about their own benefit, we must care for our own above all else as well. This is what natural reality expects and what survival is all about.

The above issue is more than relevant with hominid groups (i.e. different racial groups). Diversity in nature is obviously typical, and the most common competition for land and resources occurs among sub-species (races). Even though certain vermin, like many of the creatures referenced in the previous paragraphs, sometimes conflict with us and even kill us (i.e. "strong" is the group that better propagates itself not necessarily the most "muscular"), they are not as dangerous as our closer primate cousins who indeed desire the fruits of our labor. Certain other species are of no competitive worth to us at all and can live within the same territory (dogs, certain birds, etc). But complications always arrives when similarly inclined creatures (sub-species of the same genus in particular) compete for the same resources, since they both require similar things to sustain themselves, albeit in differing degrees. Interestingly enough, different types of apes (and even the same types) actually massacre and cannibalize each other to discourage competition (read more by googling chimpanzees and war).

Non-Whites are clearly a competition for resources and territory for all White people of this Earth, and vice-versa. Each racial group must not only make sure that they reproduce and survive the every day struggle against the elements and viruses that accost them, but must also watch against racial competitors. Clearly, subsidizing, educating, clothing, embracing, inviting, sharing, or defending our competitors is, in every way analyzed, completely suicidal and unnatural. No matter how much a White hippie thinks that he can change/modify the natural dichotomy just presented above, and thus decides instead to walk the Earth as a 'free human entity', his competitors will still instinctively displace and push him to the side so they can put their own offspring on top. This dynamic can be clearly seen throughout today's world in almost every single news event.

White men in this age spend countless hours intimidated by the nasty names some random pinko geek can come up with for him instead of simply accepting their natural self preserving instincts. While he aggressively collaborates with his racial competition and hands them over his people's territories and even his females (without which he can't produce more people like himself), these "victims" of his actively organize and ruthlessly continue to consume all possible advantages they can muster to despoil his  progeny and win the competitive fight. In every example we can find in history, from White ancient Egypt (now a haven for their mixed blood offspring who live in the ruins of a civilization they could never reproduce nor sustain) to modern cities in the U.S. like Detroit (where these dark skinned bipeds also live in the ruins of a once proud White civilization), it is clear that Non-Whites will do their best, as Nature dictates they should, to overcrowd, populate, consume, and posses everything in their path that belongs to their competition and which they can't produce themselves.

Unlike the pipe dreams taught by libertarians, liberals, egalitarians, and all the other assorted idealists that populate our cultural landscape, reality demonstrates that these groups think and mobilize for the sake of their collective benefit and not as 'individuals'. The shooting incident of Black Trayvon Martin by a Mestizo Peruvian-Jew named George Zimmerman, is the perfect recent example of group identity politics. His death was not an "individual" issue, but a collective racial issue. It was a horrible offense to Blacks because it involved the death of one of their own by a person of a different race (it didn't help that the media incorrectly labeled the Brown skinned, flat-nosed Zimmerman as "White"). Group action was immediately taken, and no matter the financial or social status of the Black people involved, they all came to his defense no matter what the kid may have been guilty of himself. If we study this from a purely naturalistic perspective, Black people demonstrated a very healthy and instinctive conception of what it means to survive as a sub-species. Instead of Whites realizing how obvious this is and embracing the truth, many choose to criticize their healthy group identity, as if it were "bad" and/or "reverse racism". White people need more of this group identity for themselves and less dictating on how others should defend their kind.

Of course, all of the above doesn't mean that individual effort and personality are not worthy of attention. As most of history teaches us, great personalities push races forward into the future with zeal and creativity. And although these personalities do come from a context immersed in group identity, the individual achievement of each member allows people to distinguish themselves within it and raise up to the level of leadership required to change history.

Most members of the quasi-intellectual "elite" (commercial prostitutes of the system whose claim to fame is the reduction of culture to the consumption of cheap goods and services), love to turn every natural endeavor into drastic opposites in which no combination of factors can coexist. In this case, it means that you either support absolute collectivism and the absence of personal will, or you embrace absolute individualism and reject any expression of group identity. Reality is clearly a combination of the two. The key to finding the answer to most issues lies in Nature and all we have to do is study her diligently and without an expectation of finding what we would like. Instead, accepting what we find and doing our best to follow suit for the sake of our species is the right course to take. In the case of the White race, it is high time that we reject fantasy for the sake of natural reality. It is time we embrace instincts and utilize this genetic wisdom, accumulated for thousands of years, to survive in this unfortunate and disturbed era we find ourselves in.