Consider this hypothetical proposal regarding a switch: ‘If flicked left, it will kill all Israelis. If flicked right, it will kill all Palestinians. However, if you leave it in the centre, half of each population will die indiscriminately.’
Most people in the West who have no political axe to grind, would eventually decide upon leaving it in the centre, surely be the fairest thing to do? However if you asked people in Israel and Palestine you would expect a different answer. The very simple and obvious explanation for this is, that an individuals identity often precedes their opinion.
That is to say, some individuals are so aware of their identity, as being the member of a particular group and how that is separate to other groups, that they simply cannot perform the mental function required to re-establish the egotistical neural networks to think in individual terms.
Indeed, it has been scientifically observed that before we can mentally and intellectually justify something in our heads, we first get an emotive reaction. Our feelings dictate our thoughts, our thoughts do not proceed our feelings.
It is for this reason that most homosexuals, or at least a disproportionate amount relative to the rest of the population, support gay marriage. It is why most Muslims oppose ‘Islamophobia’ and why most White nationalists are White.
It seems to be, unfortunately to behavioural studies, rather simple, chronological and linear psychology; People are who they are, and because of who they are, they think what they think.
In our political climate, and across the whole of the Western world, a new culture is emerging of Identity Politics, which demonstrates this phenomenon, increasingly we develop identity determinism. To some extent this is obvious, people have always voted for their self interests, however now we are seeing this tendency exponentially exacerbating, and it could be a red flag for society.
As referenced by Douglas Murray; societies are like organic organisms, which grow, flourish, deteriorate and ultimately diminish. Like flowers, societies are delicate and temporary, ethereal and ephemeral. We must not be complacent in thinking, we will forever blossom. Only with the benefit of historical perspective is it apparent where the infection began that would eventually cause the terminal rot and eventually decay, or if indeed if new buds will flourish. Nationalism is about loving the nation, the people, and protecting them.
It was a prophecy foretold by Aristotle more than 2000 years ago when considering the merits of opposing structures of governance. He saw a distinction between Democracy (Greek dēmos ‘ people’ + -kratia ‘power’) which he identified as rule, in the power of the many, for the interests of the many. This he distinguished from Polity (Greek politēs ‘citizen’.) which he defined as rule, in the power of the many, for the common interest, opposed to the sectarian selfish ones. Citizens you could distinguish from people because they are concerned with acting in a selfless manner for the greater good of society.
‘Civilization is a pact between the dead, the living and the ones that are yet to be born. It’s up to you, me and everybody else on this continent to carry on with it, or else it might disappear as many others did. Without identity, there is no continuity and without continuity, there is no identity’
The relative harmony we have previously enjoyed must, to some extent, be dependent on the unity that was present in the cultures that developed it. Faithfully and inseparably connected to the geographical landmass of the British Isles with all its particular geography and all its physical forms, the natural barricades of Dover’s white cliffs, proudly saluting out to Europe across the channel. All the subtle platonic values, particular courtesies and mannerisms. The people connected together through a thick interconnecting mesh of all the common things they liked and those they didn’t: Tea and Marmite. United by a common language, industries, sounds, smells, places, religions and colloquialisms. A shared history, shared ancestors and a common story they all play important characters within. Foundations of a strong civilisation must be constructed from a deep recognition of the cultural heritage and indigenous people who built it, and only on such a solid base is it possible to expand into a future carefully drafted onto a blueprint and mapped out by surveyors.
But now we notice that cracks are beginning to appear in our society, an emerging sense of uncertainty over the future and what direction to turn. We don’t know where we’re going and increasingly it feels like we don’t even have a map or compass and are also locked up and blindfolded.
If we ignore the principles that form our foundations, can we really expect the tower of civilisation not to collapse? If we abandon the particular culture that made our civilisation, will it still perform well? I suspect as with other great civilisations that have proceeded our own, expansion of citizens who have split loyalties eventually leads to issues as they identify more with their local parochial cultures than they do with Western culture. A barbarian can be a citizen, only if he chooses to identify with society.
The detrimental effect demographic changes have had amongst native populations are obvious to anyone who does not have a political prejudice to deny them. As well in some places replacing populations, they denigrate the indigenous host culture, too.
Interestingly we can establish a microcosm of each culture’s illicit tendencies by geo-profiling London, particular crimes, and the areas where they are disproportionately committed. Then we can determine a correlation to corresponding diverse ethnic areas. In other words, each ethnicity has its own nefarious trade, the Asian community are too busy human trafficking to farm cannabis, Vietnamese gangs occupy that black-market…
In 2001, the Asian population of Birmingham was 20% according to official census figures. By 2011 this demographic had increased to 28%. If this trend increases in three years time it will be 36%. The difference of a small degree at the beginning of a fraction over time becomes vast. Demographics, at least their trajectories, are our destiny.
In the Islamic community homophobic prejudice, as well an intolerance of free speech are more common than in society at large. As the Islamic population in Britain increases, can we not predict the views held disproportionately amongst this population to become more prevalent, in reflection of the increase in this demographic?
Will the tenants of Western liberalism such as freedom of expression and freedom of sexuality be permitted to the extent they previously were? If not, then why are we so quick and willing to submit the freedoms it took our ancestors so long to gain? For the sake of what is this justified? Diversity is a euphemism for compromise and should not be celebrated. People who come to the West and fail to assimilate, often do so because who they are is a more important part of their identity, then where they are. Even if marinated in our culture over decades. A dog born in a stable is not a horse, it will still bark and bite.
‘In Russia live Russians. Any minority, from anywhere, if it wants to live in Russia, to work and eat in Russia, should speak Russian, and should respect the Russian laws. If they prefer Sharia Law, then we advise them to go to those places where that’s the state law. Russia does not need minorities. Minorities need Russia, and we will not grant them special privileges, or try to change our laws to fit their desires, no matter how loud they yell ‘discrimination’.
Given ‘conservatism’ has failed to conserve anything. From the overwhelming demographic change to tax rates, increasingly it cannot even conserve its own brand of politics. As noted by Peter Hitchings, ‘I could carve a better conservative than Mrs May out of a banana.’
As the conservative representatives in Western democracies continue to capitulate to the Left, as we become progressively secular and with it hedonistic, nihilistic and focussed on consumerism. As Political Correctness inhibits freedom of speech, and makes the climate for being conservative, inhospitable, as we march towards dystopia under the banner of progressivism, it is worth considering what we are progressing towards, what are we digressing from, and whether this progression isn’t actually the regression some of us are desperately trying to warn people about. As referenced in the Homeland quote above, ‘Something bold must be done.’ and if conservatism fails to conserve the principles that built our nation, we need something else that will.
Without threat there is no need for defence, any so called ‘divisive’ politics are a reflection of the perceived threat. Without this ability to recognise the threat of ‘the other’ and organise ourselves along a tribal cause, our ancestors would have been eliminated by those who did have a collective sense of unity.
“Above all war brings it home to the individual that he is not altogether an individual. It is only because they are aware of this men will die on the field of battle”
Not believing in collectivism is like not believing in maths. It is to say that if you are not fighting whilst another man beats you, you will get knocked out.
Our simplistic diagnosis of all the complex contemporary problems, our simple proposal to light up a beacon of order in a thrashing sea of chaos, is simply to collectivise for the common good of the group, of our group for our people. We have tried to be too good for our own sake. Like a mother who in the pursuit of comforting other children, has neglected her own. We claim to stand for everyone and so we stand for no one, we claim to stand for everything and so stand for nothing, multiculturalism, is no culture.
The early symbology of the fascist movement was a depiction of a bundle of sticks with an axe head. The etymology of the term derives from the Italian word ‘fascio’ meaning bundle. This icon was chosen because of its symbolic representation; a single stick will snap under pressure, but together as a group, as a collective, they are strong and can form an appropriate handle for an axe head capable of both construction and destruction.
Fascism is a rejection of all liberalism, anarchism, globalism, feminism and is the antidote for ever-encroaching Marxism. It is a recognition of the presence of moral decay and degeneracy in our pop culture. It is the recognition of the need for order to manifest. It does not seek to establish itself strictly in line with either liberalism or conservatism because not everything is worth conserving, and not every practice should be permitted just to follow a rule. Economically, it accepts the undeniable effectiveness of a free market economy but demands that corporations serve the state and not the other way around. They simply reserve ultimate autonomy as they should.
Should society not actually aim to be more unified than diverse to encourage harmony? We do not intend to make the same mistakes of previous nationalist movements. Instead, we’ll adapt our ideologies to find contemporary solutions to our ever-increasing problems. Just as people proudly march displaying the Hammer and Sickle while detaching communism from Soviet crimes, so too must we remove National Socialism from World War 2 stereotypes, recognising that murder was conducted in spite of the ideology and not because of it. This century is repeating the last battle for ideological supremacy. The ideas have not gone away but have reemerged in new forms and it’s complacent to think we will forever balance between these two ideologies. Increasingly, bifurcation is ripping us apart to opposing poles and as the centre stretches it won’t hold for long.
National Socialism recognises the primacy of race and is aware of whom it has an obligation towards. It recognises the merit of teamwork to achieve, and encourages its citizenship to act in the remit of their definition, to selflessly serve the common good. If more wealth is created by the state than is consumed, and if the nation-state is defined by a public that is unified on ethnic, religious and historical grounds, you can achieve equal outcomes on behalf of this group, and the creation of a classless state is possible. Because it won’t be a net benefactor or contributor to any other group, it will not always succumb to the inevitable compromise and discontentment of diversity. People want to pay tax to the old indigenous lady next door who is freezing and lonely and has been neglected by the country she served all her life, as her ancestors did before her, at the expense of foreign people who have not.
It encourages the propensity to become a good citizen and does not compromise it, because people know they are helping other citizens who are like themselves, they can identify with them because as members of a collective, they share a strong sense of empathy that is engendered by this similarity. When you resonate with a common citizen and share a culture you also find them more credible on a subconscious level, because you can relate more with someone the more you identify with them, this fosters trust and reliability on the social level.
It recognises that solving the problems of the world is simply unachievable and unrealistic, however within the nation-state, within the geographical landmass defined by borders, amongst a clearly defined citizenship, it is possible. It recognises that order can be achieved if we establish these foundations from which to build upon, like a mother who embraces the obligation she has to prioritise her own child.
Fundamentally it recognises that laws are best suited to particular people. Law for all men is Law for no man. It should be specific to its people, otherwise why has a global law not been established? We can achieve, and we can afford to, like we previously did without the monkey of multiculturalism on our backs.
There was once a time for the hippie movement to manifest, for all the rejections, of the conventions of older generations that the movement diagnosed. For flower power to blossom into the advocate for progressivism and liberties that it was. But that time has passed. Now we need something else to emerge as a cultural identity, one that advocates for a different set of values and critiques. It is time to get a neat haircut, to do up your top button and go out in the world to establish order on the monopoly liberalism has over the 21st century. It is time to be with the majority not the minority and if hate gives us legitimacy, you can make us incredible with love.