[by GuessedWorker, proprietor of MR]

Cosmic ants and a few fragmentary thoughts in answer to maguire

In the thread to the recent JW post on immigration and the GOP, I rashly asserted that, “My belief is that for the next couple of decades a genuine Conservatism is absolutely capable of providing a serviceable vehicle for a survivalist ethos, informed by European sociobiological needs and leavened by a light touch in the areas of personal and economic freedom.”

Even more rashly, I then invited all-comers to attack this assertion. The invitation was accepted by the sturdy maguire who demanded, “a serviceable definition of this at this point in history.”

As luck would have it, I am too intellectually challenged to do serviceable. But here’s an unserviceable one for all sufferers of insomnia.

The political change required to address the crisis in the West lies on the scale of the revolutionary.

There is nothing new in this statement, extraordinary and disconcerting though it might at first seem to the conventional mind. The long journey out of thinking that our persecutor is “the left” or “the state” - or, indeed, “Islam” or “immigration” - undoes all faith in electoral solutions and inevitably lead to this conclusion. It is the putting away of causal simplicities and the beginning of political adulthood, of thinking in terms of scale.

At the same time, the purposive side of the equation - the “Great Question” of what we are to do - simplifies and tends in one of two broad directions, either:-

a) A collective spiritual renewal centred on a sacralisation of the folk,

or

b) a materialist approach serving the birthright of our sons and daughters.

It would be fair to say that the Revolutionary Conservatives or Traditionalists and the philosophers of the European New Right are grouped in the first category, and with them the Fascists and National Socialists of 20th Century Europe – notwithstanding the Nazis’ somewhat self-justifying ventures into racial science.

It would be entirely fair to say that present-day European political nationalism and American White Nationalism are grouped in the second category, albeit sometimes with longing sideways glances at the Speeresque glories of Nuremberg.

Of course, a cynical observer might conclude that the first group deals in ideas without too many facts, and the second in facts without any ideas. I am a such a cynic, but also a member of the second group. As such, for me the Great Materialist Question is: how can the gold standard of our children’s birthright be restored to its place at the centre of our collective life? Back comes the revolutionary answer, totally unambiguous: only by dissolving and washing away the corrupted liberalism, the universalism, internationalism, Jewish ethnocentric aggression and naked elitist power-mongering that are the authors of our fate.

At this point, of course, the scale of the challenge rises out of the mists like the most precipitous and brooding Alpine peak, upon whose glassy cliff-faces our purchase is perilous. Or worse.

It spites the obvious, then, to say that as a political contest this is a mismatch. So what are we to do, powerless, maligned and marginalised as we are? The only thing we can do, of course, since retreat back into twilight, to abandoning our children’s birthright, is not an option:-

We develop an appropriate strategy.

We materialists are not without strengths that the placemen and priesthood of liberalism don’t possess. It is difficult to say which is the greatest of these. For one is Truth, another Nature and the third Justice. A man who is in possession of the truth and who speaks justly to his brother’s nature, to common loves and loyalties, is not without strength. Somewhere in the privacy of his own heart he might even fancy that nothing, no worldly authority, can withstand such primal power indefinitely. And he might be right.

At least, this is the basis of my faith, if that’s what it is, that for now it is enough to speak. And here, of course, I mean “discourse” of a type calculated to attract the attention of intellectuals - not the sort of knockabout stuff required to motivate an army of activists.

Not that I decry populism and activism, and not that it isn’t time for them. Far from it. Popularising practical means by which our people can live in their own skins and recover some racial autonomy - even wriggle out a little from under the machinery of state - is essential and an unalloyed good. Were such methods to wind up hitting tax receipts and electoral legitimation, that would be even better.

But the Men of the West are not going to take down their rifles from the hook behind the farmstead door and march, hearts filled with righteousness, up the steps of the Capital Building. Their struggle is local and immediate to each individual. Even in the aggregate it does not amount to anything like a philosophically literate reply to liberalism. In this respect, the highest to which activism can ever aspire is to be part of some wider, distinct political philosophy – actually an expression of that philosophy. And that is the way forward. That is the way to replace traitorous government and the bestial system of political, cultural, business and financial elites which it serves.

The Beast itself is a symbiosis of power and ideas. The lower parts of its body, the musculature and bone of its legs and feet, are composed of earnest little believers in the nostrums of economic and egalitarian liberalism. In their tens and hundreds of thousands they struggle and squirm in their chosen directions, sometimes cancelling out one another’s efforts.

The upper portions of the body are quite free of such boorish concern. No arguments for Gay Rights, no encouragements to snout-in-the-trough capitalism circulate among its golden paternalists and superannuated geopoliticians without, somewhere, a superior smile, a dismissive wave affirming the order of things. For these are the addicts and dealers in the purest grades of power, and no drug is more prized there. The higher one raises up oneself to observe the Beast, the more raw and uncut with ideology is the power one encounters.

One need not raise oneself to especially dizzy heights for that, by the way:-

We are in a period of considerable social change. There will be unrest, but we can cope with the Toxteths … but if we have a highly educated and idle population we may possibly anticipate more serious conflict. People must be educated once more to know their place.

Department of Education official in a leaked secret report, 1983

And he’s only a civil servant high on Actonite. But he’s talking in the Beast’s native tongue. Further up – near, say, the cerebellum – the view seems to be not of “people”at all, even little ones, but of distant, scurrying worker ants. But ... these are ants with a cosmic purpose. Every four or five years they are needed to vote. And in any structure where power is, nominally at least, legitimised by democratic consent rather than naked force, they are not possible to entirely ignore. They have to be humoured, cultivated, kept sedated with shiny gewgaws and deep in debt.

Among them are ants of good, even high intellect whom, for one reason or another, the system did not see fit to co-opt. Some, it’s true, just couldn’t be co-opted at all. A matter of constitution

The beautiful, ironic thing is that the rigid system of political interpretation and information control out of which consent is manufactured drives more and more of these six-legged creatures into dissidence everyday. The best and most independent-minded, most original thinkers do not desire to have their opinions prescribed for them by a self-interested Establishment. Much less do they desire their sensibilities to be prescribed by a vile, anti-racist commissariat. They are perfectly capable of finding in the moral boo-words the need to construct a simplified rhetoric to evade complex discussion. They are perfectly capable of finding in the political trials and imprisonments a need to repress and terrorise those who, nonetheless, insist on complexity. They are perfectly entitled to follow Kant’s definition of Enlightenment as freedom “from self-incurred tutelage” and the goal of any modern society as the educated mind. And in that we can be of some assistance.

These dissidents, be they present or future, are our highest-value audience. Here we stand, equipped with our three argumentational virtues: Truth, Nature and Justice. We have to communicate them in the hope that we will be heard by as many good men as possible.

As I noted earlier, there are really only two philosophical models that we can speak about, each of them revolutionary in action. One begins in the quest for the spiritual race. But it ends in binding the people firmly to the mast of ethnic interest, for which purpose the supremacy of party or state over the individual serves.

During his early involvement with the party he would lead, Adolf Hitler sought to rename it the Social Revolutionary Party. It was an apt if unexciting name. All revolutions require crisis, and Germany had crisis in abundance - ethnic, political, social and economic. Crisis legitimates, necessitates, precipitates. All the emergency provisions, radical transformations and, usually, stern legal sanctions against members of the former regime which typify sudden and absolute political change are justified by crisis. Thus, after the Reichstag fire in 1933 the Nazis succeeded to government and embarked with formidable decisiveness upon the legislative process of Gleichschaltung. By summer 1934 one as good as lived or died by the will of the Party.

Now, the debate as to whether the “German Heavy Model”, as Alex Linder has called it, can be applied in some form in the 21st Century liberal West is legitimate. The crisis is here and now, and deepening every day. Even a National Socialism in its militarised, bouncing-into-Vienna, Final-Solution form is preferable to me than the loss of Europeans from Western Europe. If those were the only two options I would leap into the fray with a will, with all the consequences that might entail. But they are not, and the recoil from 1945 is such that the crisis will need to be very extreme and civil war probably inevitable before the German Heavy Model could be brought back to the centre of political life. I prefer to try to look for a kinder and more bearable future for our children.

So we come to the only alternative: one or other variation on the “Light English Model”, materialist in its view of Man and race, practical and anti-ideological in its political application, but still revolutionary.

The “light” in the English Model consists in a rare tolerance of the individual. But this is not the unfettered will deifed in the religion of liberalism, and not the atomised, purely self-interested actor of the “Conservative right” (which is also liberalism). No, the implicit understanding is that Man, if left free to pursue his own interests, will devotedly pursue his ethnic genetic interests. He does not need to be “educated” as to what they are or how to do it. He is the best judge of that already, as a fish is the best judge of how to swim and a bird to fly. To reconnect with his ethnic genetic interests he only needs the blinding light of liberalism to be switched OFF.

In that event also, he would quickly prove able to protect all the secondary interests he holds in common with his people: their territory, traditions, culture. The normal, healthy bonds of life that satisfied his forefathers would delight and satisfy him also. Human beings are cast from that mold, and the mold does not decay. For all its power and longevity and all the damage to organic society it has wrought, liberalism has not changed European Man so much that the only thing he can do is to destroy his own life and loves. He is like a compass needle beside which a magnet was once placed (by whom is not the subject of this essay). Take it away and he will re-centre himself on his ethnic genetic interests with the same certainty that the needle, freed of local distortion, returns faithfully to magnetic north. It may take some time. But it will be.

It should be obvious from the above that the individualism of the Light English Model is oriented towards the collective. Ethnic genetic interests are collective. Accordingly, it is necessary to understand the Model as every bit as much a social movement as any other. The collective ties are Nature’s binding. No National Socialist hands bind Man to the mast here. There is no need for the militarisation of society, no need for the mythification of a golden age, no need for torchlight, no need for a confected aryan “honour” nor lives of “glory”. The spiritual race is only an idea, an invention - exciting perhaps, inspiring even. But it does not exist in the material sense. Ethnic genetic interests do. They will express themselves, given the clearing away of any obstructions. And that’s what the Light English Model does.

As you may have guessed, it has another name that seems to offend nationalist sensibilities in America:-

By conservative, of course, I mean: acting from and for what is good in us. Its political partner is Conservatism with a capital “C”. In my odd little meaning, that’s not only the name of a British political party ... but of an alternative zeitgeist that should allow us to live as we must - as stable, self-loving, free and loyal European peoples sovereign in our lands. As I understand it here, Conservatism ... is the singular political expression of our particular nature.

Names don’t really matter. Nature matters, and Truth and Justice ... and any cosmic ants that happen across this, even for me, odd little article. I wonder what maguire will think.
Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, June 23, 2007 at 08:26 PM in Political Philosophy
Comments (2) | Tell-a-Friend
The trackback URL for this entry is: Trackbacks are disabled for this entry
Trackbacks:
No trackbacks yet.
Comments:

Page 1 of 1 pages

In America, conservatism =

coulter.jpg

. . . but as you say, substance, not words, is what ultimately matters. I’m afraid the term “conservatism” is lost on this side of the Atlantic, at least for several generations. The “conservative movement” over here is currently imploding before our eyes. Millions of people who feel cheated are dropping out of it.
Posted by Scimitar on Saturday, June 23, 2007 at 10:45 PM | #

Nazism was good for kids. All kinds of children were born under Hitler, more than before or after his time. Same thing at VNN, many of our people are having babies. It comes down to confidence.

I’d like to call myself conservative, usually have, but the problem is that the top cons are either sellouts or cowards. The lower-level ones are either patriotards or debaters. The left did not take power by persuading people but by threatening them with violence. Look at Brown vs. Board of Education. The jews responsible knew full well they were breaking the law. They had the power to do so, they used it. They will never treat us fairly. They treated me as unfairly when I was a race-free individualist conservative in college as they do now when they call me a nazi.

We don’t need a philosophy to counter liberalism. Liberalism isn’t a philosophy. It’s a maniacal cult that will brook no evidence. Our job is to take power from it any way we can, and since it never allows itself to be voted out or argued out, that seems to mean violence. I really don’t see how anybody who has dealt with liberals can believe otherwise.

Like I say 500x, we “nazis” represent the people. The people are against affirmative action, against open borders, against crazy foreign wars. But it never matters. No matter what the people vote for, the jewed courts and papers thwart their will.

You know, I was going to propose a joint MR-VNN action at Harvard during the spring semester 2008, before someone told me you wouldn’t go for it. My idea, which would raise a real and effective stink, is to protest the fact that at Harvard, and the ivies generally, jews occupy 50% of the law-school teaching positions. I may do it or I may not, alone. But I can’t think of a better way to put the focus on the jewing of our sick society. We’d be dealing with the cause, not the results.

Point is, liberals, which is a fancy word for jews, as jews are the driving power (Churchill’s term for the jew-Bolsheviks who gang-raped Russia) are a minority of whites. They, like jews and homos, can only win where they control the high points. There simply aren’t enough of them otherwise, and their views are so freaky that they can’t get honest support. They are anti-democratic because they have to be. The unchanging fact of the matter is that if they played by the rules they claim to support, they’d lose. So anyone who opposes them continues to be defined out of existence: ie, I’m an extremist-hater-nazi-supremist (sic), whereas Al Sharpton’s a respected black civil rights leader.

If any of you haven’t, and I’m sure 90% of you have, go to the calvin.edu German Propaganda Archive, put together and translated by a leftist professor, and read through the material. The hair will stand up on your [removed] as you see that the nazis were fighting precisely the same battle we are. They didn’t mince words like cowardly respectable WASPs. Where a Paul Craig Roberts calls jews nazis, the nazis called jews jews. That’s why I respect the nazis and that’s why I goad to PCR and his ilk to do better - and that goading actually works.

There is no clever way to beat the jews, and there is no way to turn the debate in our favor since the jews will continue to control tv and the newspapers. We must simply make the best use we can of the Internet media, as MR is doing, and continue to draw in the marginal man. In terms of public discourse, the way we have whatever affect we can have is to call things by their proper names. That is, no syncopated arguments or nomenclature. A jew is a jew. We don’t pretend we’re being respectable or clever or cunning or nice or wise by calling it something else.

WN and cons tend to argue this approach vs the other when in fact most can be carried out at the same time. We must fight the system while withdrawing from it. Reject their media and build our own while drawing from their sicko content the examples we need to reach new ‘investigators’ where they are, and lead them back onto the path of righteous Whiteness, so to speak.

I’ve said for a long time that the proper charismatic could indeed make a religion of race. Using Creativity or devising his own. It would work. It would not be granted tax status, but a genuine charismatic, a powerful, young, determined Brigham Young could very definitely build a large following. Look at Warren Jeffs, a rather unattractive man, skinny and intense. He created flocks of beautiful Nordic White teens, when all is said and done.

Well, enough said. My main point is the judeo-left controls the high points. They have every chance, and have had for decades, to treat us fairly, whether in the courts or the realm of discussed ideas. They never have and it is clear to me they never will. They will have to be forced to relinquish power. They will not be won over or argued out of their spoils, which after all they worked for long decades to obtain. If we are unhappy with the status quo, we must develop a combination powerful enough to upset it. They will never allow fair debate because they know as well as we do they’d lose.
Posted by Alex Linder on Sunday, June 24, 2007 at 02:54 AM | #

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/cosmic_ants_and_a_few_fragmentary_thoughts_in_answer_to_maguire/