What is the core of the American Experiment?
To progress again, man must remake himself. And he cannot remake himself without suffering. For he is both the marble and the sculptor. In order to uncover his true visage, he must shatter his own substance with heavy blows of his hammer.
It is chiefly the intellectual and moral deficiencies of the political leaders, and their ignorance, which endanger modern nations.
Word Count: 3,868
[Author’s Note: This was penned many years ago. The discussion is still valid, yet the sum of its parts have, to be sure, become an interesting mix of politics, evolution, and the reaffirmation of certain Traditonal values, as seen in Western terms.
The Election of Donald J. Trump has certainly brought in sharp relief, the absolute destruction of those nay-sayers who always seek to prove to the masses that the ‘impossible’ must be worshiped, rather than the view that all things can be addressed with the idea that all is possible, until proven otherwise.
This includes this Work.
The previous material is intended to familiarize those who are new to White Nationalism and, at the same time, to reaffirm those positions held by those who have seen their adult lives enveloped by these concepts. Many have raised their children on these concepts, and over the years it has become crystal clear that these beliefs have bourne themselves out while, at the same time, have seen an exponential increase in opposition to these systems of belief, as well as an overbearing and aggressive impetus by institutional leaders to complete, as we see it, the final destruction of what once was, a proud and noble Republic – a noble and proud experiment, destined to greater achievements and an even greater people and culture.
The future holds many untold challenges and dangers, and the White Nationalist will be at the forefront.
What, exactly, does the Future hold?
The original tenets and philosophical underpinnings, along with a cursory appraisal of the concepts of what white nationalists foresaw as a trustworthy, and healthy government, have been presented; since this inception, many years and differing conceptions and deviations of these original ideas have been brought to bear upon the American racial milieu and, specifically, the burgeoning White Nationalist political mobilization. As with all nascent movements, there is bound to be a myriad of these dissemblings, and what begins to make itself apparent is, to the novice, a very disorganized and unprofessional public picture.
To date, the lack of organized public presentation has made it difficult to bring, as well, a comprehensive and cogent theorem to the adherents of white nationalism, making the realization of a powerful core almost impossible; with this lack of a central core, it then becomes difficult, at best, for this core to proceed down the road of political activism. The aspects of a ‘movement’, which seeks to overcome the entrenched political machine of any existing regime is, of necessity, a pro-active and assertive mobilization meaning, of course, that the public must see this group or individuals making their way through the various land-mines of group demonstrations and tactical choices of just who will receive the brunt of such a movement – this means that those perceived opposition forces must be publicly addressed, in their own backyard – while, at the same time, posing our own legal attacks on the very existence of some of these so-called ‘not for profit’ organizations, those racial ambulance chasers who have destroyed so many good and potential organizations through the art of the ‘smear’ while, at the same time, have lined their pockets with the largess of fear mongering, and tactics of public humiliation trials and community agitation. The original tactics of white nationalism comprised these tactics, and a strong sense of Security, and was successful. Unfortunately, this was not imitated by conservative groups.
Today, this is changing.
It is now recognized by most activists, that pro-active public introductions are the necessary meat by which our people must dine, as an empty table will draw none but the sycophant and hangers-on of any ‘movement’. This means, of course, that ‘leaders’ must be prepared to ‘be seen’ in public, engage both friendly and opposition forces, and be prepared to defend their rights to assemble, both in the streets as well as to defend these rights in the Courts; fundraising is part and parcel to these efforts, and even though it appears that systematically the ability to engage the public and raise funds has been made all but impossible, it remains true, nevertheless, that in this country, we still have ample freedoms to engage in these mainstream opportunities. Moreover, if it be realized that a unified effort, through a unified Party is what is needed, then, these very opportunities become unlimited themselves. Courage is all that is needed to support the intrinsic beliefs of any dedicated supporters of a given cause.
There are many rumblings and sporadic attempts at producing high-quality video presentations, script writers are voicing their willingness to present material for theatrical productions and movie rights, paving the way for documentaries and feature-length visual productions, recounting the exploits of past events and individuals who have helped to make up the broad base of racial, patriotic, and nationalistic movements and philosophies, which have made the last fifty years so full of drama, sacrifice, passion, and struggle. Whether or not this proves out, it is warming to know that a certain synthesis has taken place and that, rather than disappearing, the discussion of ethno-nationalism, of race and culture, has not waned, but has succeeded in making a statement which will neither go away, nor will it be forced to be submerged in the abyss of ignominy, public disdain, and otherwise marginalized as in the past.
To realize all of this, however, there will have to be a more realistic and pro-active appreciation of the intellectual, revolutionary, philosophical and youthful leadership in a more functional coalition, that is, in the public arena and private tactical planning sessions. This will make the audience of some importance. The modern patriotic and racial nationalist movements seem reluctant to embrace the larger public venues, as they are circumvented from gaining permits and facilitating the myriad of local ‘ordinances’ which make it burdensome for not only white nationalists, but all groups who are not seen as the baby of the moment; the mainstream agitators like the homosexual lobby, abortion advocates, anti-gun restrictionists, ‘human rights commissions’ and the like, have little problem in gaining public venues and permits, as their ‘form’ of agitation seems to fit the regimes social agenda in restricting the broad-base of traditional cultural nationalists. Political groups, if they are to succeed, must understand that there is no longer any room for ‘paper presentations’, that is, by being a force on paper only.
There is always much talk about ‘going slow’, about ‘gauging’ the heart-beat of their supporters, and making tactical ‘retreats’ to come back another day. This is so much tripe, and has guaranteed failure for the past several generations. This has begun to change, as well. In the South, for instance, as well as certain north-east cities, the remnants of our ‘memorials’ and historic battlegrounds and parks, remain to this day. However, this is not enough, as the presentations of new memorials, statues, or historical reproductions are, if at all, slow in the making; certainly, funding for such public displays are non-existent, as the opportunities for ‘tax deductions’ exist only for those accepted exhibits which inculcate today’s passing political fads or political agendas. Therefore, it is incumbent upon those patriotic and nationalist groups to sponsor, fund, and create those public exhibits so necessary for the life and extension of our folk-community.
Moreover, since it has become commonplace for public education to reach the broadest scope of those seeking public education, and in so doing, has replaced specific historical incidents, relative to the ethnic origins of the Republic, and replaced many of these references with a disparate and ever-increasing voluminous library of ‘new history’ seeking, as is natural, to welcome the ever-increasing citizenry from around the world, and thereby creating an ethos of commonality with each disparate part. This seems, at first blush, to be quite fair and equitable for all concerned for, after all, this is democratic and egalitarian in nature; and all which have come to the table must be fed. Yet, as is seen by the white nationalist, it is also fair and equitable to compliment this system by creating ‘charter schools’ for the interests of our own ethnic-community, just have other ethnic-communities have done such as jewish, mestizo, and muslim communities.
It is to be expected that this will raise the full support of these other communities, as they would certainly not restrict others from what they, themselves, enjoy, and to further create that instructive education not always available through the public school system; if, on the other hand, either the state or federal government restrict the one over the other, it would then be necessary for a community response, as the restriction of one, would pave the way for restriction of the other. The White Nationalist supports the right of all ethnic-communities to teach and instruct their own future adult population in both the history of their own culture, as well as to inculcate a knowledge of their host nation. This seems only natural and should be agreeable to all.
Why, then, you ask, is this chapter predicated upon ‘radical traditionalism and constitutionalism’?
In the process of ‘education’, it is part and parcel for any community standards, history, mores, and cultural norms to be present, as a prerequisite to the fundamental increase in civility and obligations necessary to a citizenry; in the recent past (1940-to present), the white nationalist has seen the instruction of their peers, as well as their children, restricted and lessened to the point of abstractions which, as we all know, increases one part, while diminishing the other – hardly an equitable nor fair formula for all the parties involved – and which can only be rectified by a certain amount of a radical reinsertion of a white-ethnic perspective and world outlook of the Republic, as well as the guidance and future direction of their nation. Moreover, radical is not a negative connotation when denoting the worthy task of looking out for one’s own blood, for one’s own children. The white nationalist sees his part in this ‘reinsertion’ as a necessary component in the future health and security of both our political nation as well as our ethno-state.
In the recent past, due to the much lessened leadership and philosophical direction in which white nationalism has succumbed, certain criticisms have been levied against what ‘white nationalism’ has become, and intrinsic in these criticisms is a grain of truth. For instance, the accusation that White Nationalism does not address the whole question of our struggle, nor does acknowledge the criticism of ‘ psychotic and ineffective behaviors’, nor that it ‘encourages a cult-like mindset’. Really?
These criticisms, although exhibiting a small grain of truth, does not mitigate the fact that, outside of the mainstream, white nationalism has functioned and survived despite the failures and self-aggrandizement of individuals who have attempted to replace white nationalism in its prime origins, with that of their own making, without benefit of previous propaganda and political investments. Moreover, if the body-politic of white nationalists generally is disjointed, I submit that this is more a matter of perception, than one in which white nationalism is to rise or fall; the direction of any political movement is not conditional upon those who criticize, but upon those who hold the tenets of that movement close to themselves, and who work tirelessly to instill these qualities to those who come after – those that only see today’s shade of what once was, should remember that accusations are best left for the uninitiated, or those that have no real working knowledge of political and cultural necessities, not those who see themselves as philosophers, teachers, or leaders of tomorrow.
Radical Traditionalism or Conservatism?
In this vein of ‘criticism’, there comes a more common thread: that to succeed, we must re-admit a proper ‘conservative class’, the meaning of which, like the gospel itself, means different things to differing agendas.
The White Nationalist knows, through years of experience, that while our brethren in the ranks of the conservative milieu are well-meaning and influential in their own right, that it was from this very class, which we owe our present condition: set adrift in a sea of change, devoid of purpose or singular direction, other than some ambiguous desire to achieve some social relevancy in an otherwise drifting social evolution – in other words, that sense of identity, which can only come from inside one’s spiritual essence, shared with those who see the world in similar ways, with similar inclinations and ethnic norms, however much it has declined in popular nomenclature – in short, conservatism, as has been stated before in other works, seeks only to preserve what once was, whereas the white nationalist seeks ever to reaffirm the past while, at the same time, strives ever to reintroduce those traditions to the folk-community as a brighter and greater future than we have at present.
Recently, various forces have attempted to set up a defense and a resistance in the socio-political domain against the extreme forms in which the chaos of our age manifests itself. It is necessary to realize that this is a useless effort, even if for the sake of merely demonstrative purposes, unless the disease, this change of our traditional ideals, is dealt with at its very roots. Thus, the main task of the white nationalist is to ascertain if there are still men willing to reject all their ideologies, political movements, and parties that, directly or indirectly, derive from those revolutionary ideas and tenets of liberal-democracy (i.e., everything ranging from the extremes of liberalism and democracy to Marxism and communism). The White Nationalist sees, as a positive counterpoint, a class of future men and women, be given a solid foundation consisting of a broad view of life and a uncompromising doctrine of the State (such as white nationalism proposes).
Strictly speaking, the watchword could then be counter-revolution, since the changes in our moral and cultural norms have been revolutionized (as we see it, a negative) in the past three generations; however, the revolutionary origins of these modern changes are by now remote and almost forgotten. The subversion of our folk-traditions has long since taken root, so much so as to appear obvious and natural in the majority of existing institutions. Thus, for all practical purposes, the formula of ‘counter-revolution’ would make sense only if people were able to see clearly the last stages of what truly is a world subversion, which is trying to cover up its subversion through revolutionary liberalism. The conservative sees another aspect to this, one in which he fears: reaction. This is a word, which conjures up so many dark and unknown definitions, not otherwise utilized on civilized society. To adopt it and call oneself ‘reactionary’ is a true test of courage, yet the White Nationalist sees not reaction in the stupendous blunders of the past, but simply in the reorganization and reaffirmation of what has worked before, albeit with certain changes and radical traditionalism which, perforce, may now be seen as revolutionary. For quite some time, left-wing movements have made the term ‘reaction’ synonymous with all kinds of iniquity and shame; they never miss an opportunity to thereby stigmatize all those who are not helpful to their cause and who do not go with the flow, or do not follow what, according to their doctrine, is the course of progressive History as they envision it. While it is very natural for the Left to employ this tactic, the white nationalist finds unnatural the sense of anguish that the term often induces in people, due to their lack of political, intellectual, and even physical courage; this lack of courage plagues even the representatives of the so-called ‘white nationalist’ or ‘national conservative bodies’ who, as soon as they are labeled ‘reactionaries,’ or ‘revolutionary,’ protest, exculpate themselves, and try to show that they do not deserve that label.
What is the white ethnic-nationalist expected to do? While activists of the social/liberal Left are acting out, and carrying forward the process of liberal democracy, in extremis, why is a conservative supposed to refrain from reacting and to look on, cheer them on, and even help them along the way? Only the White Nationalist seems to say NO, with more than a passing wave of the hand, as his conservative counterparts seem to do. Historically speaking, it is deplorable that a reaction has been absent, inadequate, or only half-hearted, lacking people, means, and adequate doctrines, right at the time when the disease was still at an embryonic stage and thus susceptible to be eliminated by immediate amputation of its infected parts; had this been the case of Europe in the first part of the last century, the European nations would have been spared untold tragedy. What is needed, as the White Nationalist sees it, is a new front, positive radical traditionalist ideologies, coupled with new ideas for the future, but also with clear boundaries drawn between friends and foes alike, if not, then what was done to Europe, will surely happen here, but even harsher in its application.
The future, our future, does not belong to those who have compromised, and created a ‘new’ and improved ‘republic’, replete with a new and improved way of looking at a nation, moulded with ‘iron and clay’, ready to crumble, as all idols must; this outlook belongs not only to those liberal democrats, or to the social left, but to all those who find in compromise, a sense of safety, and belonging to a larger mechanism, rather than suffering the slings and arrows of saying ‘no’, or who would seek their own path, based upon what was intrinsically good for themselves and their children. The future, if there is to be one where we as a folk-community are to remain strong and intact, must have the courage to speak of radicalism, if that truly be what it is – that is, to speak of ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, to see negation as an absolute, or that of affirmation, and reaffirmation as an absolute, also.
Lest the conservative shout the White Nationalist down with accusations of ‘reactionary’, let us be clear on this point: the White Nationalist seeks, and has ever has sought, to simply defend against actions, which seek to misalign, or redirect with aspirations (such is deceit) such as ‘justice’, especially when presented with ‘global concerns’, but who also see this ‘concern’ as affecting ‘local change’ which, if looked at rationally, seeks ever to promote that insidious cultural change and destruction of our, if not all, ethnic communities, excepting their own version of the cosmopolis, that ‘city state’ which offers the sweet smell of equality, at the expense of more national and traditional fares; the internationalist has always feared those who cling too tightly to tradition, leaving the interloper unable to work his ‘magic’ at the local level which, in turn, would maintain a national discipline – something which must pass, before the magic of infection might achieve it end.
If, for instance, conservatives were truly ‘conservative revolutionaries’ more, for instance, than the so-called ‘economic’ variety, then the perceived chasm of political and moral difference between them and white nationalism, would not be too wide to cross; this revolution does not necessarily have to negate any present ‘order’ but, rather, to negate the present disorder, by a full-scale political assault on what has destroyed our native traditions and folk-community. What is needed is a positive action inspired by the original, a returning to the origins and tenets, which were intended as a guiding principle for the future, and politically looked at in terms of renewal.
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.