Foundations of The State: Folk Community
Word count: 2,289
The foundation of every real and organic folk-community, or ‘state’, is the evolution of ‘passing its own principle’ (or original cause); this is the principle of sovereignty. Sovereignty implies authority, which in turn, becomes legitimacy; anything less is to distort the conception of authority, legitimacy, and sovereignty.
As said in Rise of The West, “…nation is more than idea…” Yet implicit in this whole discussion is that, as a constant, idea must be present in all our undertakings; it stands alone, even from ‘natural law’, as ‘idea’ is the interdiction of our own manifest destiny, it is uniquely our own ‘will to power’, and may stand outside the preconceived notions of the present day. Moreover, any contrast, opposition, or hostility existing within groups among the organism may become political in its nature, if there is sufficient will-to-power, and if it reaches the point where a group or a folk-community feels another group, class or stratum to be a real enemy. For such a presence to arise within an organism is for the possibility of civil war to be present, or a severe crisis within the natural organism, or folk-community, which surrenders the organism to disorder or extinction from without. Therefore, every organism, by its very existence, has the characteristic that it assumes power over the determination of all issues. This does not mean that it plans the total life of the population — economic, social, religious, educational, legal, technical, or recreational. It means merely that all of these things are subject to political determination. Moreover, all organisms with a feeling of sovereignty and autonomous authority, will intervene when an inner grouping may possibly become the focus of a probable conflict of interest.
White Nationalism, as a political unit, places the life of every man and woman, within the political unit, squarely in the balance. It demands, by its very existence, the readiness of all individuals in the service of its fulfillment to risk their normal everyday lives (for certainly this a possibility); this is the difference between a conservative and a white nationalist. Conservative groups may demand dues, intermittent attendance at meetings, or investment of personal attendance in ‘group projects’, but if they demand that the member pledge his life, not just the political, to the group, they become at once, political in the truest sense of the word. There is no half-stepping this matter. One group demands lip-service, the other demands the entirety of the individual. Therefore, to give an oath, is the water-mark of the true political unit.
The days of the passive onlooker are behind us. We see this beginning across the spectrum of political thought and action, as labour unions begin the inexorable climb, once again, in demanding rights for those clustered members of their fraternity held, womb-like, within the major cosmopolis. The ‘socialist democrats’ see themselves as the servants of the people, yet are the first to demand drastic changes in moral as well as economic areas which, when the fog has cleared, was simply another attempt at yet another ‘will-to-power’ against cultural traditionalism – against white-ethnic traditionalism.
The question of Traditionalism or Conservatism is being answered on a daily basis; it remains to be seen which one will radicalize, and to whose banner will the folk-community adhere.
The White Nationalist seeks the peaceful path in both his political and personal life, and so the majority of the human specie. One should consider our modern state of affairs, and in the West, at least, there should be no reason that this folk-community should not be busy with their daily routines on the farm, ranch, business center, local retailer, gas station attendant, sales clerk, symphony member, play actor, writer, photographer, tradesman, or any number viable components which make up the larger body of any organism which, in turn, becomes the recognized State into which culture is maintained for the betterment of the community, whichever community. Why, then, do we not see the seamless integration of these various parts? One answer, perhaps, is the lack of certainty, of stability within the folk-community, nor its disparate and well-meaning counterparts.
Of course, all who have eyes and ears know what has transpired, perhaps unable to articulate and quite put their finger on exactly what has happened, but all know that change, rapid and broad, has entered their lives. The white nationalist has waxed eloquently over the years in both polemic and prose, in public venues and private, in which he has pointed out the disintegration of his local townships, the loss of traditional families and the land once possessed by these familiar faces and names, to be replaced by foreign faces, names, and economic prosperity; yes, this is what we have always been warned about, but this was the deceivers attempt at first blood, that remonstration from time immemorial, which ever prepares the victim with soft words, assurances, that all is well, if not for economic security, if not for universal sufferage – if not for difference. One thinks, for instance, of the emperor with no clothes (what, another western analogy, oh my!), and a wry smile builds, yet one understands the seriousness of this anecdote, yet passing it on to others is seems always to be difficult and, recently, is counted as not ideological or well-intended, but is taken as opposition, enmity, and small-minded. But what of it? The White Nationalist sees the truth for what it is; after all, the ears are to hear with, and the eyes are to see with, the rest is simple obfuscation. The difference, as stated above, is that there remain two types of persons in the world.
How do we change this?
As is always the intent, of works of this kind, is to encourage and promote to those with eyes and ears, the idea that that political, personal, and spiritual change is always a necessary deterrent to stagnation and death; therefore, to become active and positive in our daily lives is mandatory for us to continue, and extend ourselves. White Nationalism promotes the obligation we all owe our ancestors – this is the pivotal difference amongst ourselves – the lazy, the democratic (those who are part of the herd and exist to simply go along), the cowardly, and finally those who simply do not care what happens who remain amongst we, ourselves – and white nationalism, first and foremost, seeks to reach out and convince these firstly, before our views are watered down, and become the source for even more misdirection.
Remembering that political power may come from the barrel of a gun, as all power, ultimately, rests on the power to persuade, no matter how this is done, we have plenty of opportunities to work within the confines of our present presence.
The opportunities to fund political ventures are virtually unlimited, and the young and vibrant minds and bodies exist in untold millions who will willingly donate time and monies to the right cause, leaders or organizations who are not afraid to ask, and produce for this largess and dedication. Fear of the unknown has played a major part in the defeats of the past – time to get our into the world and participate – before there is little room left in which to mobilize. Clauswitz was right, after all, as was Napoleon; both democrats in the true sense, each content with a sense of world-destiny, the great yea-sayers of their age. Moreover, if a particular ‘political unit’ represents and, more importantly, interdicts itself within the confines of the ‘spirit of an age’, revolution or counter-revolution will not stand long against it. An organism, such as a political unit, which remains constant, true to itself, cannot be unwell from within, or in crisis but, rather, healthy and aggressive, ready for the struggle.
Leadership and organization is, at first blush, an obvious fact. Choose your Leaders and Institutions wisely.
In Rise of The West, was made a cursory study of what ‘democracy’ meant in the spirit of our modern age, and what it means, or has become to mean, in our own day. For the new reader who would shy away from any criticism of what has become a ‘way of life’, seemingly the raison d’etre of our human existence, I wanted to pass along a thought for consideration, in light of what has been previously presented throughout this present work. It is advised that the reader contemplate this presentation below with the utmost seriousness and personal introspection. If we are to achieve a sense of our own time, of our own sovereignty, then one must, of necessity, come to grips with the various nomenclature and theorems which have moulded us for generations, and choose which is to benefit us and our future, for the longest duration. This is no small task, and this whole idea of political unity is fraught with pitfalls and misdirection, from quarters both friendly and antagonistic.
Below you will find, in its brief summation, a concise and, perhaps, unfamiliar world-outlook from one who, as with many others, sacrificed everything in the search for truth and justice; for that harmony of purpose and an intrinsic belief in the ability of men and women to overcome what was described as freedom, but which had become a cage of confinement and paupery.
History is cataclysmic; but it is also continuous. The superficial events are often extremely violent and surprising, but beneath them the adjustment of one Age into the next is gradual. Thus Democracy was not atall understood by its early protagonists as the lowering of everything human to the level of the least valuable human beings. Its first propagators came from the higher strata of the Culture, in the main, and those who did not, sought to give the impression they did: “de” Robespierre, “de” Kalb, “de” Voltaire, “de” Beaumarchais. The original idea was to make everyone, so tospeak, into a nobleman. Naturally in the blind hatred and passionate jealousy of the Terror of ’93 this was obscured, but Tradition does not perish in one onslaught, and on the social side, the battle of Democracy versus Tradition was long and hard.
The authoritarian political tendency of Democracy was, as seen, strangled at birth by the power of Money in an Economic Age. But the word then became a slogan in the social battle, and in the economic battle. It always meant mass, quantity, numbers as opposed to quality and tradition. The first version of the idea was to make everything higher into common property, and as this was shown to be unfeasible, the next idea was to destroy all quality and superiority by merging it into the mass. The weaker Tradition was, the greater was the success of the mass-spirit. Thus in America, its victory was complete, and the principle of mass was applied even to the field of education. America with less than half the population of the home soil of Western Culture had in the 20th century ten times as many institutions of higher learning, so-called. For, in everything, Democracy must fail, even in success. The practice of giving everyone a diploma meant quite simply that the diploma became meaningless.
The ultimate in this direction was reached by an American writer who branded higher chemistry, physics, technics and mathematics as “undemocratic,” because they were the possession of a few, and were thus tending to create some sort of aristocracy. It never occurred to this person that the theory of Democracy is also the possession of a few: these masses did not mobilize themselves; the Spirit of the Age, acting on certain individuals of the population, spread abroad the feeling that everything should be set in motion, everything should be externalized, de-spiritualized, rendered into “mass,” numbered and counted.
And thus, with the coming of the 20th century, “Democracy” has a different meaning from its original one. Its original two poles of Ability and Mass have become merged for the purposes of the powers of Economics, who own the word “democracy” in this century. They place upon it solely the meaning of mass, and use it to combat the new resurgent Authority-Idea. The economic lords of the earth mobilized the masses against the authority of the State, and miscalled it “democracy.” The Age of Absolute Politics begins by mobilizing the masses against the power of Money and Economics, and will end Napoleon-wise in the restoration of Authority. But there will at last be no more plebiscites, no more elections, no more propaganda, no more mass audience attending the political drama. The two centuries of democracy end in Empire. With the natural death of the idea of mass counting for something, Authority makes no intellectual appeal whatever to justify itself. It is simply there, and it is not a problem.1
The only question, the only honest caveat is: Whose authority? It can ever only be the one, or the other.
This may not be the liberal social-democratic way of looking at the world, indeed, we must admit, that this doctrine will find little support today; and yet. It will behoove each of us, individually and collectively, to ascertain the truth of the matter, whichever way it falls, and account for ourselves. To do any less, is to fail in our obligation at correcting what has befallen us, to ascertain and synthesize all that has gone before, both ancient and present, and come to grips with what we truly believe in the deep recesses of our hearts and minds; the rest will follow. Do not fear the lightening, as it is, also, a part of the world in which we live and exist.
1 Imperium – Ulick Varange (Francis Parker Yockey), Noontide Press, 1948. pg. 228-30.