All ruling classes act in defense of their own self-interest, not those of whom they rule. Sometimes, the two interests are linked. Sometimes, as in the modern post-Western world, they are not. The ruling class sees the historic population of the West, whites, as its main enemy.
Why? The same reason kings would often hire foreign mercenaries. Other populations have no reason to identify with the nation, its history, heroes, or culture. They are thus dependent on the Regime and the anti-white orthodoxy it defends. We don't need the Regime. They do.
Patriotic whites aren't model citizens from the perspective of the rulers. They want governments to respect their traditional liberties. They want their countries to be safe and prosperous. Their nation isn't just the Regime. These impose certain demands and restraints on rulers.
In contrast, the "marginalized" populations (i.e. the ones who get government privileges) are entirely dependent for their wealth and status on handouts and Regime protections. They don't even exist without Regime, media, and legal support. They are ideal clients, and loyal.
This is a remarkably stable and effective system of control. Its main weakness is that it leaves the country vulnerable to external, militarily powerful rivals. But do any of those even exist? Russia is struggling with Ukraine; China is contained by numerous alliances.
Throughout most of history, rulers saw their interest in creating a strong and united realm that could effectively defend itself from outsiders. Absent that threat, the best way to rule is to build your regime upon the weaknesses, depravity, and resentment that lurk in men.
George Washington said "let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest will repair." Such people have no place in the modern West - no more than Washington himself. We live under a regime that consciously seeks to produce dependents governed by their base appetites.
The problem is not that America is "weak" and will be crushed by "based Russia" or someone else with tough-guy recruitment ads. The problem is that appealing to the lowest instincts in people is probably most stable and successful than trying to make people better.
BRICS is a non-starter. The West is united under the "progress" flag. The Left - those who historically question power and hierarchy - are now the militant wing of the system. There are no external threats, and populations have been resigned to decline and incompetence.
If there is to be change, it will need to come from within the West itself. And it will be brutally, unfathomably hard because we are challenging not just a hostile power structure, but our own worst impulses and instincts that give our economic and political rulers power.
The one thing we have is that if you are a normal white person, you have nothing to gain from this system. Even if you "win" by signaling loyalty to the regime with whatever LGBTAQ nonsense or just skillfully sociopathy (the Gavin Newsom strategy), you just preside over Ruin.
If there's hope, it's in the small voice within ordinary whites that things weren't always this way, that there is something more than what we are offered, and that there are pockets of resistance and community that are flatly superior to what the Regime offers us to sell out.
Will be gone for a while. Going to the Continent for a debate. My case is that ethnonationalism - a homeland for every nation - is not the way forward anymore. I argue that we are targeted not as members of our separate countries, but as whites.
That is becoming the only thing that really matters in terms of how we deal with power and ultimately understand ourselves. But this gives us a goal. It's not just we're attacked as whites and should defend ourselves as whites. Despite ourselves, we're gaining a positive identity
If we're going to go through a hard fight, and ask other people to follow us, it should be worth it. That means a homeland for whites, a people coming into its own, specifically dedicated to our physical and cultural survival and upward development.
When the entire political and cultural order is built quite explicitly upon the promotion and even worship of degeneracy, and weaponizing the worst impulses as a means of power, we should be thankful that our purpose is so simple as to just fight for the opposite.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
All right, I'll bite. One big reason anyone is Christian at all is because it was a religion of empire imposed and defended by emperors and kings in a hierarchical civilizational order that derived not just from the faith, but from Western folkways and traditions. That's good.
Now you can argue that wasn't "true Christianity" or that Christianity should never be imposed by power or whatever you want. You're entitled to your beliefs. But that's not what happened. And as that civilizational order faded, Christianity is fading too.
If you think that Constantine, medieval kings, Crusaders, colonial empires etc were distortions of the Faith and what we have now is more authentic, Christianity on its own terms doesn't seem compelling to most people. Even its clergy believe in media orthodoxy more than God.
Since 2016, the “intelligence community,” journos, NGOs, politicians and other managerial elites decided that free speech cannot be tolerated. If left unchecked, discussion leads to “far right” outcomes. This threatens what we call democracy, i.e. rule by media.
Top down control was successfully established over the Internet. Every “content” creator is at the mercy of a platform’s content moderation services. The ability to attract an audience is secondary to spreading a message supported by the managerial class.
The premise behind all of this is that through brute force, people can simply be made to obey and jettison even their most deeply held beliefs. Of course, this is far more offensive to democracy. Self-government is pointless if public opinion is just a product dictated by power.
There are no clear terms of service on any social media sites because that would defeat the purpose. If people had clear rules to obey, they would be obeyed. But subjective rules give maximum power to companies, so that is what exists.
In this sense, it's similar to civil rights law, which is now entirely subjective. Is something racist? Well, it depends on someone's feelings. Is a system legitimate? Well, not if it creates a "disparate impact." Your intent doesn't matter, just whether it creates "equality."
Well, what if groups just don't perform equally? That doesn't matter. Egalitarianism is mandated as a premise under American law. That law governs every social interaction, business, and regulation in America. The fact that it's a lie is completely irrelevant.
The powers that be talk about democracy like it's the end stage of political development or some new thing that people were too stupid to know about. Yet the Founders discussed it extensively - as a danger to be avoided. John Adams described it as something that "murders itself."
It's said that Franklin told a citizen that we have a republic, "if you can keep it." Obviously, we did not. It's not that our government is just bigger than what the Founders intended. It's a tyranny almost comically worse than the most paranoid delusions about King George III.
Literally every social interaction is a potential federal case. Everything you do on your property is up for grabs. Now, "trans" issues provide a new way for the government to take your kids. What legal protections once existed for self-defense are openly abandoned by Soros DA's.
Rhodesia is a great example of how being right means nothing by itself. Zimbabwe's collapse is exactly what Rhodesians predicted. It's not even about black rule - they said don't hand it to Mugabe specifically. UK insisted. Utter collapse - but no change. No lessons learned.
It's difficult to imagine a country worse off than Zimbabwe. It was better off under white rule. But is there any possibility of "going back?" No. The UK didn't even get anything from forcing its destruction. Zimbabwe now in Chinese camp. Yet no British rulers learned anything.
You can't count on a reaction except in extreme, short-term circumstances. You have to build the alternative, insist upon it without compromise, and fight for it ferociously. Being right or predicting the future accurately doesn't even matter to historians.
I've written a lot about the paradox of race relations. Nonwhites who hate whites are also dependent on them. If whites actually did what progressives suggest and "go back to Europe," nonwhites would follow, alternately begging and threatening. This applies to ideology too.
All progressivism even offers is the thrill of punching down on the rural white chuds. Now totally liberated from tradition, what magnificent culture has been produced by the so-called "elite"? Gay men putting dresses on, homeless camps, and complaints about racism. Wow, amazing.
The reason National Divorce will be resisted is because the struggle against the reactionary other provides the very meaning of life for the wealthiest, most educated, and most powerful sector of our society. They have nothing else. It's an entirely parasitic, hostile "elite."