Defend Europa
Culture » Nationalist Movements » Seeing Beyond Limits: The Alt-Right as Anti-Myopia
Culture Nationalist Movements

Seeing Beyond Limits: The Alt-Right as Anti-Myopia


Gordian Knots of Denial

The ideas of the Alt-Right concern truths, and therefore priorities, belonging to the bigger picture. To refute or be blind to such matters requires myopia, either intentional, self-deluding, or via genuine confusion. “Can’t see the forest for the trees.” The world is comprised of particles. Knowing each particle should lead to absolute clarity. Of course it doesn’t. There a limit to the processing power of the human mind, and the world isn’t static, adding to its apparent chaos. To focus on the minute is to be caught in tunnel vision. In intellectual dishonesty, deliberate myopia is used to give the appearance of being truthful and thorough, in-depth knowledge and analysis on one area, while ignoring unwelcome facts and subject matter, no matter how pertinent these may be to place an issue in its proper context. To distort reality, to argue for a narrative without outright fabrication, requires omitting what does not fit. To circumvent forbidden territories of inquiry, you must play dumb, you must pretend to not see it at all. If a finger points to a forbidden place, rather than looking, you will demand exact coordinates, logical necessity and verified accounts of what is pointed at, rather than looking in the direction the finger points. With no “acceptable” inquiry, this ties a Gordian Knot of myopia: we may not see anything until an official account is given, which is made impossible by the demand to not see or notice. This works, up to the point where the wilful blindness of the sanitised sources has led too many into the forbidden territory itself, by direct experience, or by independent inquiry. “You can ignore reality, but you can’t ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.” The ideas and ideals of the Alt-Right, race-realism, identity, tradition, and morality, are in the realm of the greater whole, unrestricted by the taboos of orthodoxy. As such, they allow themselves scope, depth, and perspective. They are shaped by the bigger picture. They are anti-myopic in nature.

The vast, complex logic of the greater reality exceeds human intellectual limitations. You can’t account for everything. Flip this around, and something may be said to be an illusion, simply because it is not fully understood, or cannot easily be accounted for. The pretence something doesn’t exist by the pretence something isn’t understood, or even seen. When presented as a counter argument, the rhetoric employed might be laden with personal attacks and diversions, but the underlying structure is to try and enforce over-simplification, either by invoking the minute or by zooming out to remove all meaning and distinction from a given subject, while irrelevant and trivial matters are amplified. Though this is a staple of mediocrity, it is a clever mind that needs myopia to delude itself, if it seeks to avoid threading on the more severe taboos. Myopia is to not see the larger reality by definition. And a clever mind can think in very myopic terms, precisely because it believes it can achieve absolute clarity. Myopia is a trap for pure intellect.

“Listen to your gut” urged murdered Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn, on the presence of Islam in the West. When your instincts tell you something is wrong, it is wise to reflect on what it is telling you, to investigate the reality in which it detects a threat. “There is more wisdom in your body than in your deepest philosophy.” – Your instincts and intuitions have been shaped by the logic of reality over millennia. Your intuition performs tasks of logic that translate the uncertain, overall form made up by the minute into manageable impressions and collective meanings. Of course it is not flawless. Reflect, sieve out assumption and false certainty. But don’t deny yourself the wealth of information and insight that starts at the intuitive level. Don’t demand perfection before the first step is even taken. In the realm of politics and social matters, neglecting to do so has led us to the peril we find ourselves in today. The threats of diversity, Islam, and subversion, were hidden by taboo. But the taboo is simply an expression and demand of the false certainty of ideology and overall wishful thinking. The origin of the taboo lies in dogma and ideology, and therefor ultimately needs to draw on a type of morality to make it palpable. Even if an ideology is a tool for conspiracy, the conspiracy needs to work with and within the social environment of human nature on a grand scale. The dominant morality dictates which trends, conspiracies and subversions are allowed to progress unnoticed and unchallenged. Once the morality fades, this will require more direct oppression. Justification for the political correct taboos are easily observed in what has been hidden and omitted, as are its consequences. The grooming gangs, the increase in crime, the rape-epidemic and mass-sexual attacks; the brutal treatment, rapes, and murders of whites in former Rhodesia and South Africa. “Source needed”. Well, we finally have the sources after decades of unnecessary misery. For decades, the lack of investigation was presented as a reason to have no investigation at all. Refusal to acknowledge the possibility of a problem, because the problem was not confirmed by socially acceptable sources. The very media platforms which perpetuated the idea that to even consider the problem was evil.

All the same, Islam-denial has all but faded; race-denial, or its pretense, is set to fade as well. Taboos can only rely on denial, mental gymnastics and oversimplification for so long once people notice. The cognitive dissonance that emerges from a narrative that is not supported by the senses, and its obvious conclusions, will wear down the narrative. With free exchange of information, the intellectual scaffolding that props up the taboo is torn down. With anonymity, the power of social stigma is done for. What follows when taboo is broken, when information is free to pain the larger picture? Scope, vision and perspective. Simply admitting the relation between race, IQ and behaviour allows a Copernican Revolution on society. Admitting whites are a race, a group of tribes, allows people to rediscover the appropriate perspective on their place in society, their place in time, their place and future in the world. To view society through the lens of race is to suddenly see with clarity. But the Alt-Right breaks more taboos: acknowledging the importance of tradition, the need for dignity and honour, for intimacy and home. And most importantly, understanding that survival of the group is the greatest moral need. In this, the Alt-Right is nothing short of a Copernican Revolution in morality. The Alt-Right wins where it goes beyond the orthodox, where it considers important distinctions, while keeping sight of the whole. Ideas which consider long time-frames. Worldviews beyond the personal sphere. Mapping out our needs within the greater reality.



A morality, in short, whether it is enshrined in religious or ideological doctrine, or held together by a common understanding of purpose, steers human nature in order to create a society according to human needs. This leads to a few considerations. For a morality to be applicable in this world, it must abide by human nature, in order to steer it. Morality is a societal control mechanism. Human nature is the environmental and genetic, thus practical, factor for both. In any society, a vast myriad of actions occur on a daily basis, which is its true moral form. It might follow its moral code to the letter, yet fail to create the society the moral code is meant to create. This would indicate that the morality is either false, or deeply flawed. If a society fails to adhere to its own moral code, it is simply an amoral society. This could mean the morality is not fit for human nature, but it could just as easily mean that the morality is not taught and encouraged, or even enforced. Equally, the level of enforcement necessary is a measure of a morality’s incompatibility with human nature. There is no perfection.

To a morality, intended actions are its atoms. Human intellect cannot possibly envision the full scope of action and consequence to be determined moral or amoral. Attempting to do so might lead to judging the morality of behaviour, judged on the absolute application of a specific type of action alone. “What would society look like if every person lied all the time?” It’s a myopic perspective, from the perspective of the action, rather than the whole. The action creates an environment, true, but also exists in an environment greater than the action alone. Absolute rules, and their application in a hypothetical society, are bound to lead to specific situations, in which the greater moral need of the circumstances supersede the moral importance of the action. It’s the myriad of behaviours that forms the whole, and as such, all actions are of moral importance, but similarly, within the whole there is a moral hierarchy; moral priorities. Moralities are to create intended societies; in the very least, we can divine a few universal moral priorities from this understanding alone. Wellbeing of the group, which requires survival of the group by definition. Actions are atoms to these effects, and moralities will steer these with rules-of-thumb; it allows man to be a fast acting agent to the benefit of his society, without being caught in analytical paralysis. A common understanding or myth is needed for a cohesive society; for a society, people, or civilisation to survive, it must by a myth which inspires confidence and love for ones own. These simple large lines allow for moral priorities to be discerned with ease, to which the minute must bend. Human intellect is not up to the task of conjuring up a gargantuan behavioral system to determine our every action to this effect. Courteous and civil behaviour allows for cohesion, and cohesion is a measure of social health. But it is the circumstances which determine whether civility is of importance, even within the personal sphere. The minute rules of behaviour form a myriad of social interactions and spheres, which in turn forms the whole. They matter. Yet, it is preposterous to suggest that good manners should prevent us from speaking out against existential threats.

We can discern required actions to secure the survival of our people. So how do we inspire the will to make them reality? How do we deal with questions of what makes survival worth fighting for, life worth living? How do we structure a society that fulfills all these needs? This is what makes tradition and romance a “true” guide for any morality which hopes to stand the test of time. It has been shaped by the vast, complex logic of man’s place and needs in the world. Time and reality can chip away the false edges of any notion. This is not to say tradition should be adhered to mindlessly. Traditions shaped by needs and demands of times long gone can very well become impractical. Or even a burden. Yet still there must be the consideration that human needs go beyond the practical; these needs are still there, even if the environment that shaped these needs is no more. There is no perfection. Reality forces us to make approximations. We cannot move if we demand absolute certainty. Nor can we move forward in chaos, without thought or aim, without something to shape our sense of purpose. We need something to enshrine morality, something strong and flexible enough to differentiate between its minor rules and greater goals. If it is in alignment with the world at large, with the constants in human nature, the common themes of human nature, a collective moral understanding can be the destination and navigational tool to steer us through uncharted territory. Societies, nations, peoples and civilisations are large entities, and unlike its borders, their precise nature can be hard to define. Our minds paint these with a broad stroke of the brush, it is both a definite shape and an impression. If we acknowledge our limitations, if we aim for precision, but allow ourselves approximation, if we don’t shackle ourselves to demands of absolute clarity and epistemological naval-gazing, we can see and reach much further. Uncalculated risks? It is the illusion of perfection, of absolute certainty, that blinds us to all our limited minds have not considered. Be open to reality as you move forward, don’t demand reality fits your preconceptions.



It is worth considering the myopic perspective of individualism, or hyper-individualism, and how it informs morality. Hyper-individualism is inherently at odds with morality, which is a thing of the whole, of the group. Individuals exist in society, hence they do not exist in a moral vacuum. From the perspective of a hyper-individualist, morality is an oppressive force. Moral rules as “thou shall not steal” are easy enough to discern, and adhere to, from a practical perspective. Moral demands of action become an unwelcome burden. The demand to protect your society, your group, is nonsense to a hyper-individual, who is the antithesis of any collective. And so, hyper-individualism makes the group an easy target, a collective of easy prey. No retaliation or retribution but what the law deems necessary. Law and individual, without fang or claw; insert any collective or tribal group to this state of affairs, and wait for the feeding frenzy. And hyper-individualism as a intellectual and moral perspective weakens the society without any external or subversive threats. Beyond the call to action, “Thou shall not” morals are also easily framed as an attack on personal liberty. In modernity, morals concerning promiscuity require a closer look. The tempting, practical example to counter promiscuity would be venereal disease. However, more prudent to morality, and the structural role in society, is the erosive effect promiscuity has on the family unit. The cornerstone of civilisation. Monogamy. Masculine men are far less likely to put time and effort into supporting a family with children that might not be his own, not to mention the human needs of intimacy and love. It’s not a difficult idea, unless it is deemed politically incorrect, unless a myopic blind spot is demanded. “It is possible for an open relationship to have love and intimacy”, “Why does it matter today whether a child grows up in a single parent home; we’re no longer an agricultural society.” And so, ignoring intuition, the possibility of individual exception and lack of clarity is invoked to silence the general truth. Myopic fixation on the practical circumstances of sustenance, which formed the need for the family unit, is invoked to be blind to the human needs of the family unit beyond sustenance, and its greater cohesive function in society. Willful blindness lets such matters as modernity progress, until the consequences force us to see us the greater practical needs which are fulfilled by traditional norms. As we always sensed, always knew. Morality is the fluid social control that allows for some freedom and exception. To allow amorality to progress to the point of social breakdown, is to create the need of ideological absolutism, the need for politically enforced morality.

When an attempt is made to construct a society according to a single, over-arching ideology, it is worth noting the role nihilism plays in destroying the existing order by removing moral obstacles. It is inherently myopic. In the destruction of our own moral certainty, the intellectual tool is moral relativism. Rather than considering what drives different moralities and moral notions, considering the needs it follows, it observes: “There are different moral notions, ergo it’s all subjective and of equal value, discussion closed.” It presents its own lack of understanding and curiosity as a refutation. It’s little more than a trick, taught to, and employed by, the mediocre, betting on the opposing side to have a hard time explaining the truth or importance of their moral claim. Curious though, that this mode of reasoning is propelled by a moral drive or agenda. The convulsion when a practice of the “other” is addressed, is to enforce the moral of taboo, by painting the moral judgement as irrational. When the morality of the “own” society is asserted, moral relativism is employed to refute all moral claims, betraying its moral engine to be the slave morality. Its application is nothing more than a vehicle by which to assert the own morality, ramming its nihilistic front into the opposition. And as it appeals to the mediocre, any follow-up discussion on the nature of morality is fruitless. The mantra has been said, end of story. Presenting lack of certainty, lack of reflection and lack of curiosity on the part of its adherent, to be blind to what shapes morality, and the environments in which moralities operate. It’s feel-good nihilism.

As for nihilism, the same underlying flaws, the myopic blind spots, are apparent. False reductions are invoked to make our intuitions, the impressions by which we navigate the vast complexity of reality, seem absurd. It is its counter-intuitive nature itself which lends it the illusion of rationality. To boil it down: “We’re just atoms, ergo morality and meaning are false.” A scientific description of reality, reductive by necessity, and intended to describe the material and natural phenomenon within a specific context, is used to disprove the experience of and within the natural world. “We cannot find our sense of experience in the scientific description of these atoms, ergo our sense of experience is an illusion”. Or “we can find the material origin of this emotion, hence the emotion is meaningless.” A similar confusion emerges on the topic of free will. “All our drives, desires and thoughts emerge from the natural world, ergo our will is false”. A chicken-or-egg philosophical approach. How can this be aligned with a materialist world-view? If our experience, the drives, desires, and thoughts that make it, are matter acting, does this not mean our experience is true on a material level? We ARE matter, and matter is at the origin of our will. Proof of this material origin, an objective explanation, merely tells us that our will ultimately follows the laws of nature. Taken one step further, Will to Power, as the origin of our will. Thoughts, desires, drives, emerging from a struggle of will, power, within our very matter. We, as individuals, are collectives of a struggle of forces and will. Amazing what those atoms get up to, isn’t it?

But confused as it may be, the false clarity of a false reduction can be a powerful political weapon. Morality, a functional social force that emerges from the collective of individuals, has its function obscured by invoking a lack of objective description. By “showing” morality to be untrue, it removes moral obstacles to action. In practice, this translates to all moral objections to the “Greater Good” do not just become of secondary importance, they will be thought to be false. So safely ignored. Revolutionary Nihilism. In dismissing “minor” moral objections for the sake of the Greater Good, the Greater Good becomes a conquering moral, both philosophically, and ultimately in practice. It is fitting, then, to view it as an expression of Will to Power within morality. Its appeal is one of devotion. With its counter-intuitive nature, the “greater good” asserts itself over “lesser” good. Its emotional reward is one of machismo. “I won’t be hampered by petty concerns, I am pragmatic and rational.” Yet this rationality looks all the world like an ego-boost. It hollows out its adherent, reduces him to a narcissistic, adolescent, and over-simplified mode of thinking. It blinds the adherent to the vast logic of the world at large. Any action is justified for the greater good; this justifies the intention, what merit does it lend to its practical certainty? It limits the scope of consequence to the limits of intellect, further compromised by frustration and zealotry. The reductionist, myopic reasoning blinds the adherent to the practical objections not considered. Intention and consequence are conflated. For the revolutionary nihilist, out to destroy, this is of little concern. But what did the success of their destruction achieve, what replaced the order they did away with? An economy run by the Just State, which cannot micromanage at the complex level of on-the-ground business. The stated intention of justice for the poor and downtrodden, created starvation and misery for those very people. The attempt to bring justice, via equality, to each particle of the society lost sight of the whole in its oversimplification. The restructuring of society via the petty logic of abstract theories, bringing nothing but the destruction of the underlying order and organic machinery that keeps a society going. The utopia proves to be a vicious cycle of myopia. Herein lie the flaws of an absolute ideology, which may tell us how to with deal the world as it should be. Within the bounds of the system of thought, everything becomes a neat a priori solution with absolute clarity. A world becomes framed within the limited logic of the mind, a mind itself limited to its own taboos and preconceptions. Clever as a mind may be, what it conjures up by thought alone, through sheer limitation, will ignore what is. And if it doesn’t, a well intentioned ideology, dictated by the needs of its time, seeks its own undoing by addressing the needs of its time. Will this even be allowed?

Reflecting on morality, and the needs it serves, opens the mind to anti-myopic thinking itself. It allows us to see beyond the stasis of nihilistic nothingness, it allows us to move from the analytical paralysis of the moral atom of the action, to the general society this would form, and on to the environment to which these understandings are subsequent. The perspective of need and moral agency allows us to conclude that survival of the group is the most essential core of any true morality; any morality fit for reality. No matter how diverse these survival strategies may be in practice, this is the universal commonality of any morality that wishes to survive and be an active force in the world. It is the needs of time and place which define moral priority. The moral impulse of a single action can be reconsidered, viewing what informs or shapes it. Without relying on nihilism, this allows us to keep the cohesive functions of secondary morals, such as civil behaviour, while effortlessly recognising when civility is a trivial matter. Understanding these larger lines, the Copernican Revolution in morality that follows White identity becomes apparent. By rediscovering our racial identity, considering demographic projections, whites learn to view morality not from a solipsistic, individual perspective, but by perspective of the group. Demographic projections lend the scope of time. Which societies form according to demographics leads to the moral question: “What type of society do we want, and what do we want life to be for our people?” Morality, like our identity, requires internal incentives, the sense of “good” to be practical. It requires child-rearing, in turn framed in history and tradition. It needs romanticism to be more than mere dictated rules. It might be impossible to instil this moral awakening in all of our people, but there are already commonalities in the present by which we can show the way.


Morality as Persuasion; Common Cause and Moral Priorities

In practice, the Alt-Right is currently a vehicle for informing and persuading. “Pilling the normies”. We have mass-information shared with a small number of people, while we need a a few key points and insights for the masses. Once the average person realises the significance of the MSM silence on South Africa, the downplaying of grooming gangs and migrant-crime, they will begin the journey, even if they shirk away from the Alt-Right label. As they express their honest notions, the reaction of liberals and lefties will only aid in awakening them to the state of affairs. But how to get there?

The Gordian Knot is formed by the orthodox morality blocking the very information that brings the orthodox morality into question. On matters of non-white demographic growth and forced diversity, the burden of self-sacrifice is delegated to the group at large, specifically the younger generations, while the reward of self-satisfaction is reaped by those who are divorced from the reality. A fitting morality for a consumer society. In itself, the hollow nature of such a morality makes it fragile, a wafer thin notion which would be blown away by the nearest contradicting facts; morality ultimately requires effort, and it is the effort of denial, that gives it moral weight. Denial is the measurement of their morality. The morality asserts itself, each time it urges denial and mental gymnastics. Doctrine is given victory over reality. At least, for the time being. How do these moral objections and impulses for taboo stack up against the moral of survival?

On Islam, extreme levels of denial led to the pretence of jihad having nothing to do with Islam. Such is, or was, the power of the label ‘racist’. Enter the myopia of well-meaning, often intelligent and courageous Islam-critics: “Islam is not a race”. Well, Islam was deemed off-limits by virtue of being non-white. It’s no use to score a single point in a game designed to make you lose. All the easy arguments to disprove claims of racism and far-right never amounted to anything but a permanent defensive battle. Tunnel-vision on the reality of Islam becomes used to ignore the larger reality, in which ethnicity plays a central role. With nothing to the right, Islam-realism was always the de facto far-right to the public. The enemies of Islam-critics did not only get to choose the terrain, Islam-critics ended up doing the landscaping in their enemy’s favour. Islam is not truly a civic-nationalist issue. Islam is a crowbar for white awakening. Liberals and the left have defended Islam, the very anti-thesis to their stated moral ideals, by screaming “racist” and “bigot”. The antithesis to their morality was beyond reproach, by virtue of being non-white. Doing so, liberals and left-wingers have been implicitly proving to the public for decades, that their most treasured moral, their great moral priority, is anti-whiteness. The Slave Morality seeking to destroy the own order by destroying its own ethnicity. The anti-white manifestation of the Slave-Morality has given the liberal left a moral need, or moral pretext, to kowtow to Islam. To kowtow to that which has shown its most extreme face in ISIS, and continues to do so in Europe. The racial dynamics need not be articulated, nor does the Slave Morality need to be understood intellectually, for the public to sense and observe its form in action. What the public is made aware of, is one of the more horrendous consequences and outcomes of white replacement. It shows the horror and destruction open-border advocates are truly pushing for. “Islam is not a race!” is just the easy, won argument for those who still fear being branded as a racist. As people find out the left uses the racism label with the most vigor where it does not apply, where the label still exerts power of someone, the need to kowtow to the label will fade. Most important, the anti-Islam movement teaches people to break the cultural taboo on defending the own group. Jaws get their first taste for biting on a squeaky toy. True, anti-Islam seems addicted to its antisemitism cudgel. Keep in mind that these people do not have the information you have, and do not yet sense the moral need to look into it. They are acting on a sense of loyalty, and a need to protect what they believe are vulnerable people. Besides, the majority of European Jews do seem to have been designated the role of cannon-fodder; this is the perspective and definition of Jews to the Islam-critic. Don’t let a point of disagreement cloud your view of the power of common cause. People are more open to the ideas of those who take their side on certain issues.

It is slightly harder for white identity. The intellectual opposition is easy enough. To refute the significance of our racial replacement, there is the total denial of race itself. “We are told ‘Don’t worry, you are being replaced with yourselves.'” “We’re all Africans”, not to forget “We all bleed red.” Zoom out to remove all difference. Skin-colour: present a single detail as if it is the whole. If race isn’t denied, zoom out in respect of time. “We’ve always had genetic change occurring”, so never mind the incredible pace at which it occurs today. The oversimplification can just as easily focus on the minute. Individual exceptions to the rule, or differences between individuals of the same race. It confuses a general observation about a group, and it’s influence on society, with a judgment on each individual. An obvious attempt to build a strawman-argument, but employed specifically to be blind to the bigger picture. The kind, peaceful, non-observing individuals within Islam do not alter the reality of jihadists within Islam. The intelligent and patriotic non-white individuals do not alter the reality of human tribalism, or the societies that are created if lower IQ demographics become the majority. When it comes to racial definitions, we’ve seen cartoonish extremes. Demands an account of genetics is given down to the molecular level, down to the last genome, in order to be blind to its observable effects. It ultimately relies on the practical impossibility of attaining the demanded data. An excuse, and demand, to be blind to the larger emerging reality by invoking the myopia of the minute, given credence by scientific posturing.

Morally, once the group becomes defined beyond religion, by race, the moral confusion of individualism needs to be untangled. There is also the assumption someone will be judged for what race they were born into, irrespective of their character. Islam-criticism can hide behind attacking scripture. “I’m criticising Islam, not Muslims”. Of course, the acting agents of Islam will still be Muslim, but this still has the more comfortable setting of judging people for what they believe. Islamic scripture, besides Islam’s hostility towards the West, can also be argued against withing much of the framework of dominant morality. With a caveat of “Not all”, Islam-critics can address the reality of the group without “generalising” about all individuals in the group. Generalising is exactly what it does: it acknowledges that non-observing Muslims within Islam do not alter the societal and political effect of Islam. The Islam-critic circumvents the personal sphere, including kind, individual Muslims, and gains some clarity on moral priorities: do the feelings of a moderate Muslim outweigh the irreversible effect Islam will have on society? People with a strong sense to protect the integrity of innocent individuals are thus allowed to deal with the bigger picture. We should pay heed to the persuasive capabilities of the simple caveat “not all”.

Without such a sense of perspective, the moral impulse of fairness, and to consider the wellbeing of the deserving individual, urges to cut off any line of reasoning that might contradict it. A potential negative impact on a deserving non-white individual is detected, and deemed “amoral”. It’s not betrayal, it’s simply moral confusion and myopia. The moral impulse is, by its nature, assumed to be “good”. As such, the moral cause for reflecting on the moral notion itself is being denied. Another Gordian knot. This denial of the reality of tribes allows diversity to increase, up to the point it becomes tribal violence. A great deal of individuals will contemplate the weight of virtue race-denial has, as races kill, rape, and torture each other. The well-intentioned focus on the individual exception is blindly steering us to such a future. Even if we were to ignore differences in IQ and behaviour, groups vie for power. Even if two groups were to exist with similar IQ, behaviour and success, it is the group that asserts itself the most that will determine the form of a society. A group that refuses to acknowledge its identity cannot resist dispossession. Group interests will differ, at some point in time, even if no group feels hostility. Human history indicates we’re not that nice. “You might not believe in tribalism, but tribalism believes in you”. Like pacifism, hyper-individualism only works in a scenario where everyone adheres to it. It imagines a world in which everyone is judged as an atomised individual. From this perspective, it reasons , that everyone should be an atomised individual to prevent collectivism. But people aren’t purely individuals; in order for it to work, it is a value that can reach everyone, except for those it needs to. It is destined to fail by its own blind spot. All the same, whites don’t like the idea of excluding anyone. Such a cooperative and almost naive nature has built strong and pleasant societies. But it has been exploited to erode the very setting in which it is an asset. The perspective of an individualist is not the reality of the group, it is the reality of an individual. It is the myopia of the minute. The atoms of a society are judged on their own merit, from this perspective. Not on the society in which these atoms act.

Accepting the reality of IQ and genetics alone does not complete the picture. Nor does the reality of tribalism. The moral priority being made, when the future of slaughter and pain is ignored, is “fairness”. If it’s at the expense of the native population, out-competed and devalued as workers by the sheer surplus of labour force, is that fair? Does “fairness” supersede group-survival as a moral cause? All the same, with “fairness” being made a moral priority, meritocracy is the vehicle to apply it to society as a whole. If race could be ignored, would it not be fair for the most skilled, and hardest working individuals to define society? To acknowledge differences between non-white demographics, we will observe that East-Asians are, on general, more law-abiding, less aggressive, and have a higher IQ on average. Is it a wild guess that personal interactions with East-Asians lend a sympathetic view in addition? Meritocracy does not even need this racial distinction; if you were to make IQ a universal standard to determine who to allow into your nations, its racial make-up will simply follow suit. The strengths of this argument must be acknowledged. A multi-racial society comprised of high-IQ individuals could very well be a tremendously pleasant and prosperous society. Even its most glaringly myopic aspect, ignoring the reality of tribalism, is somewhat mitigated: high-IQ individuals might be capable of the abstraction it requires to be race-blind. However, this capability would still need a strong incentive. All these individuals would have to be subjected to the same indoctrination of non-identity whites have been. Considering the scale and depth at which this has been done to whites; spanning a relentless push in education, culture and entertainment, the length of time it has gone on, and the claim it has still not succeeded, the pragmatic argument for meritocracy becomes somewhat less pragmatic. And, again, herein lies the greatest difference between the myopia of the rational mind, and the reality of experience. The difference between a Brave New World of productive consumers, and the texture of tradition. Tradition is formed by human existence within the vast, complex logic of reality. It’s social function is cohesion, but we sense, even if we cannot always explain, a spiritual need it fulfills as well. It ties us to the history of our people, to our lands, beyond the abstract. It needs, and gives us, romanticism. Here, the Alt-Right is at odds with the myopia of illusionary clarity. The “perfect” explanation within the limits of human intellect, which finds itself at home in the sterile, single consideration meritocracy provides. What is not understood easily is deemed trivial, or an illusion. The nature of identity might seem irrational; we sense its importance not via intellect, but via intuition and emotion. But the irrationality of human needs is itself a reality. To dismiss reality as irrational, is to rationalise a false world view. There is no “fairness” in peoples being replaced in their native lands. Group-survival, the right to exist, trumps fairness in any case. All that stands in the way of this simple, moral understanding is the myopic perspective, which is blind to the group, blind to identity, blind to tradition and romance, and blind to morality as a greater thing beyond their own, immediate surroundings. Always blind to the bigger picture. If the motivation for such confusion is simply fear of taboo, that person is not yet capable of reaching any moral priorities; their motivation is not moral. They are yet to become worthy. The confusion might also be genuine; people are shaped within a culture that discourages such considerations. Either case will take time, few people can instantly throw the rudder around on their internal sense of right and wrong.

This does not mean the individualists have no concerns that shouldn’t be put at ease. Again, we should pay heed to the persuasive capabilities of the simple phrasing “not all”. “Not All” is a caveat to put the outsider at ease. This might appear antithetical to the Alt-Right, a movement which opposes dogmatic objections in the PC and general conventional sphere. And it has been asserted from the very beginning; “not all” is implicit in the use of statistical data, and observing generalities. It feels like a cop-out, like cucking to the wishes of the outsider, to stress the point any further. It’s also tedious. But the reality in perception we are facing, is that even white identity itself is conflated with images of gas chambers and ovens, no amount of wooden doors will alter this perception. What people need to hear, what they want to be sure of, is that no one will be killed on the basis of their race. If only they knew they themselves are being targeted? If only these people would see arguments for incentivising white birthrates. This would convey it is about life, not death. It even appeals to their sense of fairness: most White Western nations have bent over backwards to bring in and please non-white immigrants. All at enormous expense to their own, white natives. “Why are these people upset that we’re suggesting helping white people, and want the continued existence of our people, after all we’ve done and suffered for them?” Positive messages and ideas create an environment in which the onlooker can easily observe where the racial hostility emerges. The idea of deportation on race alone has genuine moral objections, and will become confused about the differences between non-white demographics and action required. Deportation of proven, racially hostile or conflicting-interest groups does not encounter these difficulties. A bold statement for the push, and nuanced statement for the pull. See the bigger picture of the environment in which are ideas are presented, and how to create it.


Results of Taboo

The consequences of taboo and denial are apparent in the rape and grooming scandals. Sweden’s politically correct-dictated course into a nightmare. The Rotherham-phenomenon. The Cologne-phenomenon. “There’s nothing to investigate. Why? Because there are no official reports.” How many lives have been ruined on this pseudo-intellectual pretext? It is hardly reasoning at all; it is merely a mantra shared by those who cling to the taboo itself. The real myopia lies not in the feeble justification and the denial itself, but in what is not being considered at all. When a cultural phenomenon is actively ignored, what is to stop said phenomenon from increasing exponentially? Be it doctrine, instinct, subversion or mere coincidence, if it exists, there must be a drive, if there’s a drive, it will likely increase until it meets an opposing force. The problems were always going to become too colossal to ignore at some stage. Not for lack of effort. The Rotherham-phenomenon has now shown that investigation has been actively sabotaged, the Cologne phenomenon has shown that the mainstream media wilfully tries to bury these issues where it can. We can point to the consequences of taboo, and its continued application by parties who are aware of its consequences. Corruption and subversion. At best, an immense lack of responsibility. All allowed by the greater environment of the moral of not rocking the boat. Of asserting the orthodoxy. Desperate to stay asleep, the cowardly and comfortable lash out at warnings as if they were the snooze button. Cohesion demands a binding moral, dominance demands there to be only one shared myth. All centred on guilt and self-hatred. We’ve seen the results, and can see what nightmares it will continue to allow, to enforce, even. The importance of revisiting these matters, for nationalists, is not just a moral cudgel to beat the multi-cult with. It is also a proven, and easy to understand, instance of the subversion that follows politically enforced taboo, how farcical reasoning is a red flag, and that morality without reflection is not fit for reality.

Similarly, the crimes against whites in South Africa are finally being acknowledged. While this proves, again, that there have been decades of media-silence on gruesome violence when whites are the victim, the general public still shows few signs of alarm. People don’t know how dire the situation has already become, so they don’t look into it; they don’t look into it, so they don’t know. And then there is the apathy, impotence and defeatism: people don’t want to know if there is nothing they can do, and people can’t do anything, because there are so few who see. How can you urge people to risk social stigma and violence for a lost cause? Hiding in a bubble of entertainment and consumerism, they are waiting for their Brave New World to go up in flames. Do they still not understand the significance of a media and political class ignoring crimes against whites, and white replacement? “As long as my family is safe.” How will they defend their family on their own? How will they defend their family 24/7? What is needed is a safe environment. For this end, what is needed is the extended family. It is plain and simple enough. Yet its need seems outlandish to someone who’s life consists of work, family time, Netflix, games and general consumerism. Working hard and living decently according to the social demands of the machinery that is propelling them and their children to the meat-grinder of the future. The very people should care the most, if only they knew. It’s easy enough to see how the information could be acceptable for this target audience. Mainstream news sources, TV-personalities. Contemporary myths, fiction in entertainment, to inspire love for our own people. Of course, these are major hurdles at this point in time. Decades of movies and TV have presented whites the image of the evil racially-aware white, and the noble, kind, heroic, race-denying white. A pre-packaged moral role for whites to consume and adorn. “On the right side of history”: assuming anti-white stances will have eternal rewards of praise in the future. All the factual and moral blind-spots leading to the myopia of the single narrative.


The Moral Hurdle of the Holocaust

The crux on the issue of white identity and its supposed moral objections does lie in the Holocaust. However, arguing against the Holocaust, even without the numerous legal and life-destroying circumstances, might be the longest route possible to white survival. The facts are obscured, and it is a subject people are not willing to research to begin with. It’s a negative message that focuses on an outsider group, the very setting of which sits firmly in the public mind as the epitome of persecution of the innocent and powerless. Even contemporary Jewish power goes unnoticed to all but those already aware of it. It lies outside of the lived experience of the main public, and as such, is entirely abstract even when you present facts. Compare this to the moral argument for white survival and white wellbeing. This moral argument has the emotional feeding ground of family and friends, for animal wellbeing, and nature. Protecting our group is equal to secure one part of the world where kindness triumphs over sadistic savagery. This is a moral that supersedes all other objections. As with “It’s okay to be white”, those opposed to it will be forced to reveal their genocidal hostility to whites, whoever they may be. Survival of the group is such a primal moral, that it took over half a century of indoctrination and deception to blind our peoples to it, and still the unfolding realities are hidden wherever possible. It looks all the world as if it is feared whites will wake up and snap into action, were they to realise they are truly being targeted, and are in danger of being wiped out. A focus on the moral argument is a sure win. No historical event can justify dooming your young to torture, rape, and murder. Nor can it justify a mandate for your culture to become a cesspool of conflict and sadism. Even if the mandated view of WW2 and the Holocaust is used as a perspective. Consider both scenarios. One is a period in which 17.000.000 people were exterminated, 6000.000 of which consisted of Jews. A period of great suffering and death. Now compare this to a genocide on a White-world scale. Not only will a far greater amount of people be murdered. Nor will is it just the exceptionally cruel manners, as ISIS, Rhodesia and South Africa indicate. Add the scope of time. All the potential whites had for greatness and happiness in centuries to come, will instead become what we see in the Islamic World and sub-saharan Africa. Perpetual misery. Perpetual sadism. Perpetual hunger. Unending tribal violence. Perpetual animal torture. The destruction of what was our nature. No more European art and philosophy, certainly not if militant Islam gets a say. There won’t even be a Europe left to be used by financial powers. What has been set in motion is worse than the scenario of the Holocaust, even to an individualist who doesn’t care about whites as a group, if it is allowed to carry on to its conclusion. The sheer number of individuals suffering. The sheer number of individuals plunged into a life we would not consider worth living. The sheer number of individuals who could have lived a prosperous, kind, and pleasant life. Instead, we are told the moral thing to aim for is the eternal misery that will take its place. Endless darkness. “We have the right to exist”, can only be refuted by those revealing a genocidal hatred.

All the same, we are dealing with the reality of the public mind. White-identity is still conflated with genocidal hatred. Even the end-result of white-replacement is hardly considered. The conspiratorial nature of the JQ; how it concerns political power, corporate power, influence in media, and of course legally enforced taboos, makes it tempting to explain it in terms of conspiracy theory. There are several problems with this in terms of accuracy and persuasion. First is that conspiracy theories make truth claims where the sources are hard to verify. The logical argument ultimately has to rely on conjecture. An argument of logical necessity is weak when it concerns hidden action or motivation. “Muh coincidence” is the least persuading answer to this; it is the equivalent of a 8 year old repeating something in retard-voice. One slip of the tongue, one single point of presenting a likelihood as a given fact, and the onlooker or conversation partner will make their own assumption: “this person thinks they can prove a fact by arguing it is possible”. And even if the hypothesis is presented carefully: “OK, so it COULD be. Would you like to hear about a extra-terrestrial tea pot?” The tipping point takes a lot of coincidences and “fellow-whites” to be noticed. Information is not enough to overcome the indoctrinated convulsion people have on the topic, unless they already want to believe. In other words, it convinces those who need little convincing to begin with. Always note: the JQ is a truth question, yet it is treated as a moral question.

If there ever was a subject in need of the “not all” caveat, this is it. “Jewish influence” does not equal “every Jew”. It is moronic to assume it does, but this is just the reality of the convulsive-conclusion jumping that is ingrained in the very topic. Why not use this convulsion to illustrate the taboo itself?

We live in a reality where the moral cudgel of antisemitism and the Holocaust is an enormous force. Furthermore, we have legally enforced historical views to that effect in 22 nations. Could this not be easily exploited? Is it not human nature to abuse the power any given situation presents? And if the very question whether it is being exploited is met with outrage, is this not a red flag? Remember, people might not have the time to spend hours discerning which sources are reliable and which aren’t, but everyone can spare a few moments to think. Could they forgive themselves for blind denial? After we’ve seen what denial and taboo has done to allow grooming gangs, rape epidemics, terror, and crime? Now we know of the fate of whites in South Africa, the advent of which was praised by our media, and self-indulgent, traitorous whites all over the West. While Rhodesia was conveniently forgotten? While we see today what is happening in Western Europe?

And again, we arrive at the Holocaust. While Sweden might be the prime example of political correct disaster, Germany indicates how a culture of self-hatred via guilt results in ethnic and cultural suicide. Germany, through self-hatred and guilt, has been robbed of the natural instinct of self-preservation, of the moral core of group survival. All White Western nations have suffered from similar indoctrination, but none have been equated with what became the greatest evil in the new collective-myth, in the religion of guilt. Never to the extent Germany has suffered. This has been stated many times already. And it has already been pointed out how we can observe the difference the iron curtain meant to preserve, perhaps even strengthen, the importance of tradition, romance, and national pride. Put these together, and then look at the hate-campaigns directed at Hungary and Poland for for opposing globalism. While focus on the history of the Holocaust is fruitless, its contemporary use as a political weapon is easier to explain. Poland, banning the phrase “Polish deathcamps” as it was being used to distort history, was characterised as Holocaust denial, despite Poland having the same laws against Holocaust denial as 21 other nations. While it has become absolutely evident how important pride, tradition and identity are, and how mandated guilt severs a people from these things. While we can see the practical role it plays in ethnic survival, as we can see what guilt is doing to Germany. Suddenly it is insisted Poland must also feel guilt. What did Jews get after WW2? Their own Jewish state. What did Poles get? Poland was handed over to be a communist Soviet proxy-state. Polish legislation, in Poland, for Poles, leads to condemnation by the US. That’s some power at work. The moral cudgel of the Holocaust, despite what it has done to Germany, it wielded at more whites. Refusal to give it credence within the own nations leads to international condemnation by elites.

Take note of the social environment the Holocaust creates for Jews: if a people are taught they were always persecuted, murdered and exterminated, if this becomes a cornerstone of their identity, should we not be worried it will lead to fear and hatred among some? There is the possibility of “soft”, cultural influence to lean towards liberalism, like white liberals, assuming this is simply moral. And the reality of anti-white Jews does not mean every single Jew is anti-white. It is not about the actions or intentions of every single Jew. Islamisation is not about every single Muslim. Demographic replacement is not about every non-white person. People don’t need to accept the JQ as a given. But considering the damage taboo-driven denial has done on Islam and racial replacement already, it will take a fair amount of cognitive dissonance to condemn the mere suggestion there is a possibility some Jewish groups are harmful. The objections are predictable, all the same. It seems hardly likely that European “little Jews” insist on mass Islamic immigration, now it’s been revealed to bring in Islamic antisemitism. Almost as if the non-powerful, who are forced to live among diversity, are not the point of focus. As the kind, non-observing Muslims have suffered from Western Islamophillia, and the increase of Islam, so may powerless Jews suffer the consequences of powerful Jews. The denial of black failure in America, which leads to false solutions. How have the taboos even helped the people they are said to protect? Everyone loses in the diversity game. Everyone without special interest, at least.

These are some fairly obvious, yet avoided, mental steps which allow people to consider the natural possibility Jews who do hate whites, and organise against whites, exist. As with the taboo on all tribalism, the inevitable circumstances of conflicting interests just aren’t considered. Maybe the moral-impulse of this denial itself can be used to persuade. Why do whites feel uneasy about excluding anyone by identifying as white? Because any form of group-identification is exclusionary by necessity. We know what it really means when non-whites are explicit in their group identity. Indeed, whites are hesitant to point this out, as whites assume this type of accusation touches a ontological moral. It does not occur to many whites their moral notion of non-identity is a mere construction. Jewish individuals might be pro-white, some Jews identify as white, some oppose anti-white racism with admirable candour. Indeed, there are Alt-Right Jews. But is it not likely Jewish organisations are more attractive to collective-minded Jews? Not every Jewish organisation will be as overtly anti-White as the SPLC; this does not alter the problem of the organisations and forces which are. Which would be a far easier distinction to make, were it not for the taboo on the topic. If the antisemitism cudgel is wielded in defence of the likes of Soros, this is a cudgel wielded in favour of enemies of the West, no matter what the initial intention behind the taboo has been. The group which refuses to collectivise is the group that will suffer. In this case, the group that has nowhere else to go. Without these basic considerations and realisations, information will find little fruitful soil.

Lack of Union, Lack of Direction, Lack of Priority

The Alt-Right, with it edginess, has done much to shift the Overton window. Edginess, depending on the circumstances, can be a great tool. And even if people will never associate with the Alt-Right, the Alt-Right can serve as an icebreaker, allowing a more mainstream white-survival movements to follow in its wake. However, there is the issue of a limited time-window, and thus the need to convince as many people as quickly as possible. So consider the environment we make, and the wider environment of society as a whole. We are the particles of our social environment. The larger environment, in turn, has created the need to refute, to exempt ourselves, from the main public. This attracts people who are vehement about stating disagreement. Add the double edged sword of anonymity. It allows to say the forbidden. It also allows to say what would be hard to defend in real life. What pushes people away. Optics does not have to mean “cucking to demands of the outsider.” It does mean your true position should not be degraded into reveling in being untenable. Do not let the opposition’s nature dictate your own. Similarly, this tendency to focus on points of disagreement, combined with proximity, leads to infighting and targeting those closest to making the final steps. How will you convince someone to care about the survival of the peoples of the white race, if you present the white race as a hostile entity? If you try to bully people into joining your side, all you will recruit are those with a tendency to cave in. Instances of counter-signaling are the opportunity to confront them with their willful blind spots, to show their audience they are not completely serious. Thot-gate. “No political movement was ever founded by women” – about women acting as… journalists and internet news-anchors. As has been pointed out, the ideas must be normalised, and visible nationalist women are a great asset. This takes priority over personal frustration. If we don’t persuade outsiders to consider our ideas, we force a situation where the ideas have to prove themselves through personal experience. In other words, people will not see the truth until whites are a minority in their own nations and surroundings, when we’re already on the brink of losing.

There is a need for us to grow fangs and claws, and there is great justification to be angry. To a point. Don’t waste energy on vice-signalling on unrelated topics. To be mean for the sake of being mean on separate issues does not appear strong to the onlooker; it looks like a petty use of anonymity to vent your frustrations with the world. It looks like an attempt to ward off predators. Consider what our enemies are trying to do. It is impossible to be more ruthless or evil. This will force us to be ruthless at times, but out of a sense of priority, keeping the state of affairs in mind. We are up against people who care nothing for the truth, who do use empty rhetoric to win. Should we then play the media-game against the MSM with a “Lie for a Lie” approach? It is justified by our goal, and by the disregard our opponents have for the truth. Given that our goal is aligned with the most essential moral of group-survival, it becomes a question of practicality. Consider how untruth is driving the public away from the MSM, and that truth, revealed in need, draws people to the ideas of the Alt-Right. If we fight the MSM, with its enormous funding and platforms, in a game the MSM has perfected over the course of a century or more, can we win? It fails to consider the terrain of the battlefield. The moral justification, with its sense of machismo, conquering the perceived minor-moral of honesty, might just prove to be a tactical error in the complexity of the real world. Outright lies are easily found out and debunked. They are only accepted by those who don’t need more convincing, and those who do need convincing now associate the Alt-Right and its ideas with dishonesty and falsehood. Instead, people referring to a foundation of truth, even if they themselves don’t understand it, draw attention to the core truths. If they haven’t been permanently driven off by bad-faith arguments. Draw the outsider to the truthful foundations.

Consider the environmental factors of the battle, and the scope of time. Comprised of a great deal of younger people, the Alt-Right, as a cultural force, creates content that attracts the young. This is of great importance to the future, but there is a risk it could shape the Alt-Right into something that becomes less appealing to the ego as people mature. Don’t underestimate ego. The ideas remain true, the goal remains essential for survival, yet someone grows older, finds a career, enters social circles where they need status, and they might consider it something they’re “past”. The petty need to feel better; “Are you still into that? I left that behind when I was 20.” Good riddance? The reality is our society is one of petty ego, we need to survive in order to change that. These are the oars we have to row with. The other reality, is that within our own demographics, boomers are a huge entity. We can put all our hopes into gen Z, but for the moment, the older generations are shaping the future in which gen Z will have to operate. Common cause; boomers and gen X might find it too difficult to get completely on board. But just getting them to oppose mass-migration and islamisation will greatly aid our odds in the future. This does not mean to abandon our ideals, even if they are untenable to many, but to use common cause for persuasion, and to set up a more advantageous terrain for the future. Gen Z is set to play a game in which the odds are stacked against them, we should do what we can to level the playing field in their favour.

The moral priority of taboo over our survival is hard to forgive. What, then, of those who are awake, yet prioritise in-group signaling at the expense of our survival? The survival of all our specific white ethnicities, cultural norms and aims, are lost without the greater collective of the white race. Your specific wishes will never come to fruition without survival. Save it for the future. We are about to be wiped out. Eyes on the prize.





Related posts

The Visegrád Group Rises


The False Song of Multiculturalism


Prepare Yourself: Tips for Nationalist Self-Improvement

Defend Europa

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More