I get my best ideas when I’m boxing.
It’s almost as if the pipes that are the neural pathways in my head get clogged from time to time. Getting smacked in the head helps clear them up like nothing else. I liken it to banging a pre-plasma era TV with a fist to make it work again. It works like a charm, even if you don’t quite know why it works.
(And hey, if you think that’s weird, you should look up how Martin Luther experienced his Eureka moment and how Protestantism was born.)
The Alt-Right places itself as a cutting-edge new movement with revolutionary ideas. These have yet to be codified, but it seems that the most cutting-edge ideas are the Archeo-Futurist and HBD ones. Everything else is an appeal to older systems, values, and traditions.
So does the Alt-Right really have something to constitute a new political theory? We actually might, if we stop and think about it.
To review, the first political theory was Liberal-Bourgeouis Democracy. The second rose as a reaction and critique of the first. We know it as Communism. And of course, the third was the most controversial of all, and it too rose in opposition to the first and second. Strangely enough, it seemed like a synthesis. Regardless, we know it as NatSoc.
I’m throwing some Dugin at you right now if you haven’t noticed:
According to Dugin, National Socialist Germany and Fascist Italy were not just militarily, but ideologically defeated in the Second European Civil War (1939–45)—victims of “‘homicide’, or perhaps ‘suicide’.” Thereafter, these two national anti-liberal ideologies allegedly “overcome by history” ceased to address the great challenges facing European man. Then, with Communism’s fall in 1989/91, the second major anti-liberal “theory” opposing the Judeo-financial forces of Anglo-American liberalism collapsed. Today’s anti-liberal struggle, Dugin concludes, requires an ideology that has not “been destroyed and disappeared off the face of the earth.”
Dugin claims that he has synthesized a fourth political theory. Or at least that he has laid the groundwork for it. But you wouldn’t really understand that from reading his book, the Fourth Political Theory. It’s a slog and extremely difficult to read. There is no clear explanation of what the fourth political theory is, nothing quotable to tell your right-wing friends over brunch.
Don’t get me wrong, Dugin’s got some interesting things to say that are more easily understood. For example, he alleges that all of history has an enduring conflict between land and sea powers. Think Athens vs Sparta to Carthage vs Rome, all the way to America vs USSR.
In general, Dugin’s beliefs are categorized as Eurasianist. He talks about a Continental empire based on tradition and hierarchy to rival the Oceanic empire based on commerce and democracy. We’ve…adapted his ideas on the Alt-Right to describe a continental White Empire stretching from Vladivostok to San Francisco. Or at least the nuclear crater where San Fran used to be. There’s a bit more to his theories, but his belief that Russian civilization should merge with non-White civilizations on Russia’s borders because of shared values has a bit more to do with geopolitical realities than revolutionary political theory. It’s also NOT something that the Alt-Right can get behind.
In short, despite the title of his book, Dugin has failed to truly synthesize a fourth political theory, which by my reckoning means that the title is still up for grabs.
(By the way, there is a 5th political theory out there already though. It can also be called the Diaspora theory.)
As for a fourth political theory, I’ll do the opposite of what Dugin did. I won’t use obfuscating language and meandering sentence structure to hide the fact that I don’t have an idea yet.
I’ll just tell you what I had in mind.
The fourth political theory can start with the following underlying assumption:
Each peoples is unique and any political system that arises has to take into account the diversity of these societies. There is no universal theory or set of rules that will apply to each and every society. Adopting the French constition will not make India just like France. You need Frenchmen for that. Human biodiversity is real and societies should be tailor-structured to fit each people’s idiosyncracies.
I’ll give you an example of what I mean.
If you ever study world energy markets, you’ll notice that Norway is always referenced as the gold-standard for natural resource management and re-distribution. The Norwegian model is well thought out. It redistributes wealth fairly and there is practically no corruption to speak of. The money goes into sovereign wealth-funds or is re-invested in the company and the country. The natural resource wealth of the North Sea has been a boon to Norway, not a curse. Contrast that with Nigeria. In Nigeria and in other 3rd world countries, we talk about the “resource curse” instead of a “resource gift.” These countries are mired in poverty, corruption, and mismanagement of their natural wealth.
How can there be such a difference?
Well, that’s what many international bodies spend countless hours and resources figuring out. They hire experts and professional idiots to come up with complicated methods, incentive structures and bogus development plans for these countries to get themselves up to the Norwegian gold standard. They would be better off studying what makes Norwegians so Norwegian instead.
Nigerians can’t run an oil or gas field Norwegian-style.
Now, these experts obviously can’t admit that Diversity really does exist because it is a modern-day heresy and because it would put them out of a job.
But we can learn from these real world examples to learn that people are really really different and that it is impossible to make them all into carbon copies of Norwegians. Why? It might simply be culture. But we on the Alt-Right believe that culture is the bud and race is the root.
So if we were to apply the Norwegian example to political theory, and spread the word far and wide, no one would be able to sell the American public on the idea of spreading Liberal Democracy to Iraqis. We would say that it was impossible. They have a different culture and are a different race. There is no way that we can spread American-style democracy to non-Americans. If we truly have the Iraqi’s best interests in mind, we would encourage a political system that caters to their cultural and racial idiosyncrasies. We would take into account that they are far more inbred than Core Europeans and far more clannish and nepotistic. We would dip into HBD theories to synthesize a political system that is compatible with the Iraqi people.
So really, we can call the fourth political theory the Burger King Political Theory.
Because you can have it your own way. Each peoples need to think about a system that highlights its racial predispositions, curbs its natural deficiencies and plays to its peoples’ strengths.
One of my favorite reference points are the Russians. For so long, they have suffered a massive complex over not being European enough. Every time that Russians have occasion to visit Europe (either as an invading force or as part of a guided tour) they always remark on how clean and orderly Europe is. This still applies now, despite the worsening conditions of Europe.
More than that, Russians always comment on how law-abiding the Germans are. They don’t even jaywalk. It floors Russians to see them in their natural environment, even if it leads to no real change in their behavior. Russians are wilder and have a completely different attitude towards authority and the law. Every Russian thinks of the law in antagonistic terms. There is no respect for it because every Russian thinks that he has a better understanding of true Justice than some middle-level bureaucrat. Unsurprisingly, Russia is more corrupt than Germany now and always has been.
And it’s not just Germans, but Core European-descended peoples as well.
I used to date a girl who was descended from the Mayflower settlers. A White Anglo Saxon Protestant. She had an ancestral home in Cape Cod and all. One day we were going to the movies, but we had bought a bottle of water beforehand. This was a problem as they don’t allow outside snacks in movie theaters. Naturally, I told her to stuff it in her bag so we could sneak it in.
But she stiffened and refused.
“Why?” I asked. “It’s like 7 bucks to buy a water at the counter here and I’m thirsty.”
She started to freak out and whine that it was against the rules.
“So what!?” I said.
But there was no convincing her. She looked like she was physically ill at the idea.
Later, I told one of my American friends about it. To my surprise, he took the girl’s side.
“You know that movie theaters don’t make money off tickets and need to sell those snacks to stay in business, right? You have to buy their water or they’ll go out of business.”
Amazing. These people were following the rules even though there was no policeman watching over them and forcing them to. They had internalized the rules and now they followed them even when no one was watching or they would just feel bad.
Me, being the half-wild Slav barbarian that I was didn’t care. I even took it as a personal affront. You have to side with your friends and family over the rules, even when they do stupid shit. It’s about loyalty to your in-group above all else. That’s the way I always saw things.
Unsurprisingly, in Russia, I had no trouble getting a girl to sneak some hard lemonade into the movie theater. Looking around at the crowd, it was clear that we weren’t the only ones that had done so. She was a nice girl, but she simply hated the rules and took great pleasure in subverting them. Just like me. This attitude towards authority and the rules makes Russia what it is: a disorderly, but fun place.
And Communism isn’t to blame. Russia has always been more disorderly compared to Germany for example. There are many explanations for this phenomenon that are plausible, and part of the development of the fourth political theory has to be to suss out these answers through genetic study.
I’ve also found that Italians are similar in their attitudes toward the law and authority. There’s a funny Italian quote that I can only paraphrase as the exact wording eludes me:
“With this sort of government, the only patriotic thing one can do is not pay one’s taxes.”
Funny enough, both Italians and Russians are more inbred than Core Europeans. They didn’t out-marry as much as say, the Dutch. Therefore, they have stronger familial ties and similar attitudes towards living with an extended family. They also have both historically been on the fringe of Europe and not safely nestled in the core.
Unsurprisingly, these societies are more corrupt than their Core European counterparts. Why? Because more outbred people have an easier time thinking in terms of laws and universal concepts. They aren’t as prone to tossing some dollars their son’s way, they’d rather toss him to the curb at 18 and tell him to build his own life. So holding a Russian or Italian to German standards is ridiculous and shouldn’t be attempted. Germans act the way that they do because of years of genetic development that has become reflected in their society. These genetic idiosyncrasies should be studied and codified.
So far so good, nothing too controversial if you are woke to the race question.
But let’s not stop there. Perhaps a fourth political theory should be proactive in its program as well.
Perhaps some peoples’ should be nudged in a different direction if they are to survive the 21st century. There isn’t a government out there that isn’t hostile to White’s interests as the situation now stands. So really, it begs the question: if your entire political system is hostile to you and your people, does it help to be naturally law-abiding or naturally rebellious? Who has a better shot at resisting their government and its machinations?
Perhaps we will have to change as a people to make it out of the 21st century intact.
I’ll pick up where I left off in Part Two.
The fourth political theory sounds like the Apartheid system. A system of separate development for people of different groups. All groups needs their own type system for everything.
Dugin calls it the era of “Great Civilizational spaces”. “Sovereignty” will be something limited to a few large regional actors, but they will bear the responsibility of maintaining the integrity of the peoples subject to their “großraumland”
What is that word you all use a lot…”Pseudo-intellectual’? Describes most of Law’s articles.
“There isn’t a government out there that isn’t hostile to White’s interests as the situation now stands.” –
Apparently you never experienced Iceland, other than the Golden Triangle.
Where are your Articles??
He’s written plenty of Interesting and Intellectually Robust pieces……
This one had a Good Thesis but it veered off track after contrasting the Nigerians and Norwegians…
I still enjoyed reading it…..
Why the snarkiness? If you don’t have something good to say about someone on our side, don’t say anything. Law’s articles are fine.
Interesting Article, Vincent….
But, you veered A LOT into Pseudoscience……
We need to be careful with Oversimplification……….
Which is worst for white cultural homosexuality or usury ?
*not Gay – gay is a political movement term
Very well written, especially the interesting examples on Russians, Germans, Italians, and the American girl.
All of this is entirely dependent upon Hegelian and Marxian dialectic. As I mentioned to another poster, these dialectics are just fancy philosophical forms of Current Yearism. They’re a sort of variant of the Just World fallacy. That because A happens, B must come next. When you look at history, that seems to be the case. But this is just a case of hindsight being 20/20. It’s an illusion created by your mind to rationalize events as orderly, because that is just how the human brain works.
In reality, history is just our written memory of a clusterfuck of causes and apparent effects. Did the Fall of Rome necessitate a Germanic feudal order? Not really. It just happened that way.
I’m perfectly fine with a mish-mash of stuff like traditionalist social elements coupled with some futurism. There’s really no need to over-think it.
It can’t have ‘just happened’ because the possibilities of what could have happened are finite. Sure we are wired to rationalize but to suggest there is no cause and effect isn’t jettisoning Hegel and Marx, it’s positing a chaos of infinite possibilities where effects are truly random.
In The Fourth Political Theory, Dugin did not actually set forth what that theory was. He explained that the three existing theories were insufficient to our situation, and he invoked some Heidegger (“Dasein!!”) that indicated the direction things would need to go. But he never actually sets forth what the new theory would or could be. He now has a second volume out from Arktos — The Rise of the Fourth Political Theory — which, I fear, does little more to elucidate what the 4th political theory is… Dugin is a very frustrating thinker.
We don’t need a “fourth political theory.
Just insert proper nation’name were needed
The 25 Points of Hitler’s Nazi Party
1. We demand the union of all Germans in a Great Germany on the basis of the principle of self-determination of all peoples.
2. We demand that the German people have rights equal to those of other nations; and that the Peace Treaties of Versailles and St. Germain shall be abrogated.
3. We demand land and territory (colonies) for the maintenance of our people and the settlement of our surplus population.
4. Only those who are our fellow countrymen can become citizens. Only those who have German blood, regardless of creed, can be our countrymen. Hence no Jew can be a countryman.
5. Those who are not citizens must live in Germany as foreigners and must be subject to the law of aliens.
6. The right to choose the government and determine the laws of the State shall belong only to citizens. We therefore demand that no public office, of whatever nature, whether in the central government, the province, or the municipality, shall be held by anyone who is not a citizen.
We wage war against the corrupt parliamentary administration whereby men are appointed to posts by favor of the party without regard to character and fitness.
7. We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood. If it should not be possible to feed the whole population, then aliens (non-citizens) must be expelled from the Reich.
8. Any further immigration of non-Germans must be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who have entered Germany since August 2, 1914, shall be compelled to leave the Reich immediately.
9. All citizens must possess equal rights and duties.
10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. No individual shall do any work that offends against the interest of the community to the benefit of all.
Therefore we demand:
11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.
12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts.
14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.
15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.
16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.
17. We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.
18. We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race.
19. We demand that Roman law, which serves a materialist ordering of the world, be replaced by German common law.
20. In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State.
21. The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor, by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young.
22. We demand the abolition of the regular army and the creation of a national (folk) army.
23. We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press. In order to make possible the creation of a German press, we demand:
(a) All editors and their assistants on newspapers published in the German language shall be German citizens.
(b) Non-German newspapers shall only be published with the express permission of the State. They must not be published in the German language.
(c) All financial interests in or in any way affecting German newspapers shall be forbidden to non-Germans by law, and we demand that the punishment for transgressing this law be the immediate suppression of the newspaper and the expulsion of the non-Germans from the Reich.
Newspapers transgressing against the common welfare shall be suppressed. We demand legal action against those tendencies in art and literature that have a disruptive influence upon the life of our folk, and that any organizations that offend against the foregoing demands shall be dissolved.
24. We demand freedom for all religious faiths in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or offend the moral and ethical sense of the Germanic race.
The party as such represents the point of view of a positive Christianity without binding itself to any one particular confession. It fights against the Jewish materialist spirit within and without, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our folk can only come about from within on the pinciple:
COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD
25. In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations.
The formation of professional committees and of committees representing the several estates of the realm, to ensure that the laws promulgated by the central authority shall be carried out by the federal states.
The leaders of the party undertake to promote the execution of the foregoing points at all costs, if necessary at the sacrifice of their own lives.
Dugin shows what an above avg IQ can assemble without possessing all the pieces. Philosophy and history (somewhat redundant in my mind) only get you so far without the science of the mind.
It is clear to me that Vincent Law understand this.
We don’t need a “fourth political theory.” We already have a third one which worked miracles and it’s called National Socialism. AltRight.com should really break ties with that “Socialist Nationalist” (Communist) faggot Dugin…
No. National Socialism was a sui generis movement specific to Germany in the 1920s and 1930s.
What comes next is the Hegelian synthesis after liberalism is rejected. We are witnessing the beginnings of a new paradigm rejecting classical liberalism. Both Communism and Fascism attempted to defeat liberalism and represented a pendulum swing away from the ideas of Smith and Ricardo, but Communism and Facsism were ultimately defeated.
National Socialism did not fail, unlike the Soviet Union’s communism failed, or like Communism is failing in every part of the world where it still exists, or just like liberalism is failing. National Socialism was defeated by foreign powers that ultimately invaded Germany and committed regime change. National Socialism, in the short period in which it existed, was a complete success in representing an alternative to the Global Elite and to it’s financial system and it’s World Bank. Not only was it an alternative for the sake of being just an alternative – it was an alternative which worker MIRACLES!
Yes National Socialism and Fascism was murdered in the crib
The USSR didnt just fail.
It was brought down.
A significant difference indeed, Vincent. Alas, very few are insightful enough to realise that the “liberty and peace loving” powers were deeply involved in the failure of USSR.
Loans were cut off to the USSR.
But the USSR is not Communism. It had to abandon Communism in order to enjoy what success it did, as China has done now as well.
What are you talking about? Gorbachev’s reforms were disastrous.
Even if it was “brought down”, the living conditions in the USSR were NEVER as good as they were in the Third Reich or even in the United States. It was an oppressive and deeply corrupt Empire.
Forgive me for interjecting in your conversation but Hegel was the originator of the Current Year meme. For the same reasons Leftards are mocked for current yearism, so should Hegelian dialectic.
There is no logical end point of human history.
Hegelian dialectic is a tool, it does not explsin
Of course these ideologies are related. That isn’t the point. The trap you are falling into is believing that, because one came after another in history, that somehow the one that came after was necessarily better or more advanced, or somehow resolved some dilemma. This is false. It’s an illusion and the same fallacy as CURRENT YEAR.
The very fact that we are having this discussion is proof that dialectic is bullshit. Otherwise we would agree that current year, with all its dildos, furfags, and trannies is better than nuclear families and decency.
Not really. I never use the label, and some of the specific policy is suited to the German’s particularities as a people and to their temporal circumstances but the broader philosophical sweeps are broadly applicable, and in point of fact were already applied in places like the United States before they were in Germany.
The whole problem with this rejection of “fascism” for having been “defeated” is that the whole civilized world was “fascist” prior to WWII. Basically the entire idea of having a civilized society at all is “fascist” in nature. No political theory which allows for the creation and fostering of a virtuous, productive people will ever be anything but “fascist” in essence. ‘The Fascists’ (which should be read as the leadership cohort of gentile societies) were defeated, while ‘The Communists’ (which should be read as The Jews) won and conquered most of the world. This says a lot more about both groups respective views of the conflict and stakes than it does about merits of the ideology. By the same token we can take the same critique of the whole of western history which must have inevitably culminated in Europeans being ruled by Jews and so all ‘systems’ must be discarded in their ‘defeat’. We must apparently rail hard against Christians and Pagans for their ‘defeat’ to the superior Judaism which must necessarily discredit them for all time and cause us to adopt something wholly original, or perhaps convert to Judaism. It’s far too simplistic of an analysis.
Communism isn’t a real ideology and so can’t be judged as such. It’s an expression of Jewish neurosis and self-loathing. Jewish awareness of their own nature, and the historical origins of their people requires the transformation of the world into one in which a Jew and the essence of Jewishness is morally righteous in the abstract. Wherein the distinctly Jewish way of being is universally ‘Good’.
The essence of all civilizations, rather they are self-aware of the concept or not, is Natural Law (for lack of a better term as our civilization is one which is not self-aware). This is just the acceptance of some semblance of reality which causes most people in society to act in accord with nature rather than reject it and as a group become evolutionarily adaptive through cooperation. This can manifest in many different ways but overall the society will have a set of rules which will benefit cooperators and demerit defectors, and this schema will make the group more ‘fit’. Any society which has such a schema is “fascist” and the flourishing of civilization is a sign of the presence of “fascism”.
Communism is a rejection of Natural Law. It necessarily must morally sanction Jews historically and an overall Jewish type. Which is a free-rider, a parasite, a scammer, a bandit. One whose presence in civilization causes it to be less ‘fit’ and one who would be either pitied as a lesser being or removed completely if society were aware of their mode of being, and would be justified in doing so. Communism (but not only communism) is the idea that a whole society made up of this essential Jewish type would prosper because the cosmic order, the nature of reality itself is an arbitrary creation of ‘The Fascists’. The idea exists so that these parasites can be psychologically soothed and not have to face the falsity of their supposed “chosenness”, and envision a scenario in which they achieve victory from the frame of ‘Fascism’ (reality), which would presage a permanent diminishment of mankind’s potential. The ideal Jew is a kind of criminal and the cohort which provides him succor an albatross around the neck of a host group of actually morally good people capable collectively of physical manifestations of their own goodness. The goal of Communism is disproving the reality of the inherent malignancy of ‘The Communists’ whose presence reduces the amount of ‘good’ capable of being produced.
As such the essence of Communism is a schema which will cause human society to be free from evolutionary forces. A sign of the flourishing of Communism would be the emergence of supernatural phenomena altering the mechanisms of life and other facets of material reality. This psychological model has been exported to cohorts of broken people on the basis of a shared element of their existence with Jews, in the harm they cause to ‘Fascists’ by merely existing. New cohorts of people are constantly being broken to be proselytized into this cult of “I can do everything wrong and harmful and inefficient and if we change the world the net result of all of our malice and incompetency will be the as of yet unrealized and unjustly withheld Utopia”. Nothing any Communist has ever said or written or ever will say or write alters this, and any example of Communism producing weal is just an example of invasive “Fascistic” elements.
When anyone denounces “fascism” among us it’s basically the same phenomena of cuckservatives denouncing “racism”. “Racism” actually means what the Left says it does and when those ostensibly on the Right deny their “racism” they are attempting to redefine the term so that their brand of racism is morally permissible. When you say “Fascism” is somehow defunct you are simply creating some kind of imaginary middle ground where none has ever existed. Whatever you might come up with which is imagined to be original, if it disallows the possibility of people who are objectively detrimental to the flourishing of civilization to be an idealized type of person then its’ still “Fascism”. If it can actually be brought about its’ “Fascism”, and if removing free-riders creates more prosperity its’ “Fascism”.
If the telelogical end point of facsism was Hitler blowing his brains out, Mussolini being strung up on a meat hook, and Szalazi and Ionescu hanged by the Communists, then I think it’s fair to say Fascism failed.
We have to create something new. Of course, we can use elements of facsism.
We don’t have any ties with Dugin.
What are your thoughts on the 5th Political Theory?
It’s fascinating but seems a little black pilled to me
Oh, the aside about Matin Luther was really great – comparing Protestant Christianity to feces and constipation. (((Toilet humor))) to attack some faction of White people is always great.
Of course it was actually likely Luther’s visit to the Sistine Chapel that really provoked the Reformation. Even the German pope refused to hold services there because it was a “bathhouse full of nudes” – male nudes, of course. Beautiful artwork but it’s about the gayest thing in Italy. Of course that German pope died – poisoned – after only a few years of trying to drive the “sodomites” out of the Vatican, and was replaced by another Pope that ended that homophobic chapter in the Vatican’s history and returned to gay-business-as-usual.
Luther, tired of trying to reform Sodom-on-the-Tiber, decided to promote nationalism, established a national church, and made sure that all the religious leaders were normal married men – you know, the kind that have sex with women and have children – German children, in that particular case.
500 years later and he’s never been forgiven for breaking up the gay disco in Rome.
It was a joke.
I take it you’re not going to the fünfhundert 95 Thesen Jubiläum in Wittenberg this year?
No fun allowed.
What’s the punchline?
Luther was literally full of shit.
No wonder the kiddie-rapers in the Vatican hated Luther so much.
The more things change …
Its those damn Catholicks.
“Gay” is a modern political movement word
Thankfully nudity isn’t the issue, nor is whatever word you want to use for homosexuality. The issue is the author couldn’t just keep his anti-Luther, anti-Protestant German attacks in the comment section – where he usually puts them – but had to stick a passive aggressive attack on German history – from some Australian newspaper article from THIRTEEN YEARS AGO that has absolutely nothing at all to do with the post – right in his first paragraph.
A complete non-sequitur, just to troll, just to pick a fight, just to slander half of Europeans and Christians – in a really jewey way too.
Just think how great it would be if we could just have a pro-white site and not have people drag their 500 year old butthurt based on ridiculous nonsense they learned in parochial school that they themselves don’t even believe anymore.
You may say I’m a dreamer but I’m not the only one!
Thank you Sir,
I agree whole heartily “just to pick a fight” is boring -I post to test my options in a public forum – I might be right or wrong
“With a government like this the only honest thing to do is to cheat on your taxes” My grandfather said this every tax session – I think it is from the pre Mussolini era – he was a young fascista fought in North Africa – taken as a POW sent England – despised Jews – “Una razza di maiale di maiale” never knew why till now
What we have now in the West is oligarchy/cryptocracy pretending to be liberal democracy. Nothing can be taken at face value. Political systems like Communism and National Socialism do not simply arise organically. They are engineered by people at the top, generally to serve Jewish interests. These people create political systems and use them as if they were game pieces.
The important thing for us now, as white racial advocates, is to recognize what is in the interests of our people and to advocate for that, not to figure out a new political system.
There is an ingrained moral code in some Whites that is helping keep our population down.
This ingrained moral code can be seen small in the girl who thought if wrong to sneak a bottle of water into the theater and it is seen in a larger sense in Whites who refuse to have White children unless they can afford them because they think it is immoral to take welfare.
What is going on is that the Whites are putting our present day mixed society before White interests. In a pure White society, where society and individual Whites are one and the same, this non-sneaking of the water or the not wanting to take welfare would be a good moral choice, but in a mixed society it can be harmful to Whites.
It is similar to those Whites who say there are too many people on the planet, so they’re not going to have any children, and who then live out their lives and die childless and thus do not multiply themselves or the White genome that they are blessed to carry..
And, welfare or at least state welfare comes from our White taxes so it should benefit us and the greatest benefit to us in a survival as Whites sense is for us to make more White babies.
Yep, between myself and 4 siblings we had 14 “babies”. All done at this stage, BUT the eldest 2 of the nieces/nephews are getting married, so the following generation is about to begin! Lastly, we’re NOT moochers, we can afford all and work hard as heck!
If you are White, GREAT! But, you can have even more if you get over your dislike of what you call mooching. It is mostly White tax money that is being used to fund non-White babies, and Whites need to take advantage of it and have more White babies.
Ref your 1st point/question, YES! I get the rest of it too, but I’m a God fearing conservative Christian too, so while I get your point, want to do it mostly the right way…. Self-sufficiency is something libturds hate, so that’s another reason why.
I’m on the same path. One of the fittest.
Reply # 2: Your family is judged by nature as among the fittest simply because your particular version of your genome is going into the next generations.
By contrast, those who do not breed are judged by nature as unfit as their genome does not go into the next generation.
But, I guess you already know this.
The only moral code keeping whites down is the abomination known as Calvinism. It is ubiquitous and effects even those who have never even heard of it.
That has nothing to do with what is keeping Whites down – how absurd. I mean, truly stupid. The nations that adopted Calvinism became some of the most powerful on earth, and when they abandoned their Calvinism, they began a decline.
Kevin MacDonald has pointed out that Whites really need to have some sort of overarching moral structure in order to cooperate, otherwise Whites break down into their cognitive default, egalitarian individualism. All the various permutations of Christianity and other ideologies are the same thing.
Then again, MacDonald is an atheist, not religious (although he was raised Catholic) and is a scientist – so he believes in reality – truth – science. Which is why you don’t see him dragging up religious bullshit constantly.
If only we had more like him.
I don’t think you understand the pervasiveness of the psychology rooted in calvinism. The so called pathological altruism is an extension of the belief that the Saved are identified by their good deeds – Calvinism.
That’s the first time I’ve ever encountered someone suggesting that “pathological altruism” is based on Calvinism. 99% of the critiques of Calvinism say the exact opposite.
One guy here was complaining that Calvinism is bad because it’s “amoral tribalism” – and now you are saying the exact opposite, that Calvinism is bad because it’s “pathological altruism.”
Both critiques are essentially wrong. It’s kind of moot anyway, isn’t it? Calvinism hasn’t been particularly relevant for hundreds of years. It was a theological trend among a minority of Europeans for a few hundreds years then died off.
“All of history has an enduring conflict between land and sea powers.”
All of history (nay, all of the existence of life going back to the first molecules of RNA and DNA)* has an enduring conflict between different genomes for dominance. And, the genome conflict when put in human terms is often seen in wars.
Brother wars are nature’s way of fine tuning the type when there is no external threat. Sports contests are genome conflicts by proxy.
These genome wars are automatic and usually not in the conscious minds of people, but they are ever ongoing.
In our present day, Whites face an existential threat from miscegenation. Whites lose if our White genome is turned non-White.
*Actually, you can start even earlier than that and talk about the conflict between vibrations, forces, energies, subatomic particles, etc. but for us as humans it may make more sense to start with the leap of so-called non-living minerals into the program for life that we see in RNA and DNA and then into the living minerals that we call life itself.
In 17 years Social Security will be bankrupt – but “Civil Servants” get huge pensions – but wait SSI is 1/20th of the nation debts – so where goes the shekels – Oh, $221 billion per month paid to interest —- which reminded of this;
Dharma as is: Fascism’s seeks for the Path of Righteousness includes duties,
rights, laws, conduct, virtue, honor, and right way of living
Adharma: means immoral, sinful, wrong, wicked,
unjust, unbalanced or unnatural.
Example of Adharma is the Jewish Kol Nidre prayer
-“All vows, obligations, oaths, and anathemas,
whether called ‘ḳonam,’ ‘ḳonas,’ or by any other
name, which we may vow, or swear, or pledge, or
whereby we may be bound, from this Day of
Atonement until the next (whose happy coming we
await), we do repent. May they be deemed absolved,
forgiven, annulled, and void, and made of no effect;
they shall not bind us nor have power over us. The
vows shall not be reckoned vows; the obligations
shall not be obligatory; nor the oaths be oaths.”
Dugin, to me, is a charlatan who just blatantly rips off Heidegger in the same fashion as French philosophers like Sartre, Derrida, and Foucault.
Dugin is just Putin’s Brezensky.
he has practically no influence in Russia and tries to adjust his opinions to become relevant.
When I first heard of him, via Radix, years ago I thought some of the ideas sounded interesting – and lots of people I thought were smart and relevant were quoting him.
Then I read his essay about David Bowie being some sort of “initiated” “Freemasonic agent” and just assumed something was lost in translation.
Now his ideas just seem like post-hoc justifications for Russian imperialism – Brezensky for Russia – but I guess he doesn’t even amount to that.
FWIW, I find the development of the SCO and a Russian-China axis to be very important and relevant but I don’t really see Dugin having anything original to say about that.
“Dugin’s got some interesting things to say that are more easily
understood. For example, he alleges that all of history has an enduring
conflict between land and sea powers. Think Athens vs Sparta to Carthage
vs Rome, all the way to America vs USSR.”
Where do these civilizational struggles fall into his model?
Mongols vs. Chinese
Mongols vs. Persians
Persians vs. Arabs
Greeks vs. Persians
Europeans vs. Arabs
Germans vs. Bolsheviks
Russians are notoriously terrible at thinking.
National Socialism was defeated militarily, it didn’t die the natural death of communism, which was not an ideology to begin with, but merely a jewish strategy of nation-wrecking. Communism is not supposed to work, it’s meant to annihilate.
We don’t need a fourth political theory. Everything the National Socialists said was true is just as relevant today. If you think the alt right is just going to come up with some idea that will unite everyone, you’re mistaken.
Go to the beating heart of the alt right, the chans, and you’ll find that Adolf Hitler is still the defining figure of the movement.
However, that’s mostly moot, because we’re approaching a state of war. There’s not going to be any political theories involved, probably not even NS, as there’s no room for them in tribal struggles. What was the political theory of the Spanish Reconquista?
It’s Whites vs. non-Whites and White traitors.
Dugin BTW is no different from any liberal or commie in the west.
Yes, FASCISM was murdered in the crib
If Germany and Italy were the only examples, I suppose your argument would be plausible, but they’re not. And in those other cases, when the strong man died, the gig was up. Pinochet didn’t even last that long. Fascism was a reactionary backlash, and it suffered the fate of all reactionary movements, which is to peter-out after a generation or two.
Around here, we mock conservatives for failing to conserve anything, but the reason for their failure is that conservatism is impossible. Things will change, and the only credible ideological response to that change is more change. This is why reactionary movements always fail—a reactionary is just a stubborn and more determined conservative.
The National Socialists in Germany were brought down by military defeat, that’s true, but it was also inevitable. Paranoia and militarism are a deadly combination, and these attributes were fundamental to Nazism. When you see enemies all around you, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. To the paranoid militarist, the only solution is to conquer, conquer, conquer (sound familiar? this is the mantra of far too many around here). Naturally, this freaks out everybody else, and pretty soon most of the world is part of a military alliance against you.
As for Law’s fourth political theory, it seems like he is getting at something similar to Particularism. https://alternative-right.blogspot.com/2017/01/becoming-who-we-were.html
This whole post is completely mendacious and ahistorical. If we weren’t talking about “Nazism” no analysis would ever sink to this level of idiocy.
“Pinochet didn’t even last that long”
Pinochet wasn’t a Fascist. He was more of an Authoritarian Capitalist. Big difference.
When a systems fails (whatever the cause) you have to be honest with yourself that the system was a failure. You keep looking for a system that doesn’t fail.
You sound like the communists who insist it just hasn’t been done correctly yet.
The system of National Socialism did not fail, it was destroyed from the outside.
There’s a difference between a sickly person who doesn’t care for himself and eventually dies early, and a perfectly healthy man who is murdered by other people.
“When a systems fails (whatever the cause) you have to be honest with yourself that the system was a failure.”
Riopel was being honest. You’re not.
Let’s say you’re a restaurant owner and your small business is booming because you hired good, honest, hard-working White people instead of POCs, Muslims, and Jews. Then some Negro kills you and robs your restaurant. You’re the kind of goy who says, “Ha! Your restaurant was a failure!” when your family is forced to close shop and move out of town.
Very rich of him to blame the fruits of Judaism and multi-culti on White People. What an asshole.
Its not about uniting the west, it is about the nation, each doing it their way, that fits their culture, we are one race as a whole, but broken down into nations and cultures.
From here we can trade and treat each other equally, even if different.
Should we all buuld bases on the moon? Well, it would helo to work together. So why not say what has to be done, each nation takes a chunk section the goal, and crafts it, for the maun soecifications but does it, their way, business wise. While trading the teck and informatiin equally with everyone else.
All get enriched by the new science learned, and benefit, but each approached their section, their way. No one was forced.
Makes sense to me. Equality and trade.
I’m not Slavic or Italian that I know of, but I always sneak water into the theater. I thought everybody did that…
Well, adherence to social norms in the Anglo diaspora falls on a spectrum. My people, generally Scots-Irish, would probably sneak beverages and snacks into the movie theater as well because we have a tradition of living in poverty, and we look for shortcuts to save money. My hillbilly mother also taught me how to take advantages of coupons and sales at the supermarket to save money.
But we wouldn’t steal, because the Scots-Irish also have a tradition of fearing God and shaming kinfolk who bring dishonor on the family.
Its not about the money, its about not following the rules.
Well, these days I avoid movie theaters like the plague, which is what the libturd movies are these days. However, when I went to see last “worthy” movie and that being Clint Eastwood’s “American Sniper”, I snuck in a mixed drink and my own snacks 😉
I’m also E. European, so I can relate with the “screw the rules” attitude. Before coming and immigrating legally to the USA, I was siphoning gas from a relative’s car to drive around, and get around rationing and population behavior control in what used to be commie Poland in the late 70’s/80’s. While I’m a very assimilated Deplorable now, and live in a rural area, EVERY night I go out walking the dog with an open drink and a gun or rifle on me.
Even though I was born and bred in the communist Poland, that actually hadn’t stopped being communist yet, my “screw the rules” attitude is merely about more essential things than such trivia as bringing my own snacks or liquid. Since I moved in Sweden at the age of 22, the nowadays rapidly vanishing Swedish honesty might have influenced me after all.
This was a good read. Looking forward to Part 2.
I have yet to read any Dugin, but I agree with the premise that a Fourth Political Theory is needed to defeat Western Liberalism once and for all. Fascism is just the Political structure that I find most desirable that has been tried and showed some success and stability before being pushed into a wartime economy. That being said, I’m a realist and you can’t revive things from the past. Take the positive aspects and apply them to the present, and discard the aspects that proved destructive. I’m open to pretty much any third positionist ideas at this point (collectivist economics/cultural conservatism.)