Toward a New Barbarism, Part VI

Pathological Conservatives:

Winning politically requires making a coalition of interests. One does this by forming an elite who agree willingly to work together despite some lack of obvious shared material interest. Ideology has the same effect as willing agreement on elites except on managers and rump supporters, often unwittingly. By the dictum of Clausewitz – war as continuation of politics and vice versa – we see that war functions similarly. We use symbols, myth, and the like to stir the broad mass of supporters in war while the leaders are usually more focused on their interests. One tries to build a coalition before going to war and keep it strong or, if need be, strengthen it in the course of the war.

Whichever side in a struggle has the best coalition, be it political struggle or overtly material in nature, will probably win. If this strength is relative, then that is fine; if one is strong by virtue of the fact that the enemy’s coalition has been undermined by skullduggery and backstabbing, then so be it. Strength is measured not by big muscles or aesthetics but who can viably win. Who deals the killing blow is ‘strong’ and who falls is ‘weaker’ and that really is the ontology of strength in political struggle.

Thus we come to the first problem that we see among pathological conservatives: they are unified by their utter inability to gather into working coalitions. They find winning anathema just as they find forming broader groups with greater resources and power antithetical to their being. The conservative ethos for our time (and possibly all time) prizes being a graceful loser. This is an ethic that should be carted to a high cliff in a wheelchair and shoved off. God willing, along with its greatest proponents. We see this as a theme among various religious conservatives, especially Catholic reactionaries. As I have said in the past, I don’t really care about delusion and so Catholic delusion doesn’t particularly bother me except for the fact that they are particularly aggressive and provincial.

We also see this as a theme among people overly attached to a certain tactic or form of branding (‘optics’ types). The branding or tactic is seen as an end in itself after a time, rather than a tool. It makes some sense to divide propaganda by focus as well as by target. Propaganda for initiates long in the struggle is probably different from propaganda for people new to dissent to globohomo (or whatever the relevant struggle is). It doesn’t make sense to turn this natural branching out into something crystallized, where each refuses to work with the other party engaged in the struggle out in the murky depths of the future and disavows the erstwhile friend or ally for small minded nonsense.

The gulf between the future vision of Catholic reactionaries and many other dissidents is rather small. Despite this, they will often ghettoize to the point of refusing to work with others. The same is true of ‘optics’ types. The same is true of various others in or adjacent to dissident spheres. This is puzzling behavior on the surface. There seem to be two conflicting aims: 1) the desire to affect real and lasting change, and 2) the desire to engage provincially, to ghettoize, and to concentrate among very like folk. These are completely contradictory and can in no way compliment or coexist. (Note: there are praiseworthy exceptions to what I’ve said here, for instance Tim Kelly at Our Interesting Times and some more lucid reactionaries, and I genuinely like a lot of these guys.)

CIA asset Billiam Fuckley, co-founder of the National Review, did exactly what we see above. He was interested in provincial bullshit, in coopting people with conservative sentiments with empty honey and succor which would ultimately achieve naught, and he was himself undermined by his extensive intelligence contacts as well as his penchant for bribes and being a shill for Jews. He would also progressively narrow the ‘conservative’ coalition window over time, cutting off those he deemed too close to newfangled “third rails” around making reasoned observation, speaking truth, and collecting and stating information (to include statistics). He was also a Catholic. With a name like Buckley and his Ivy League and CIA past, I’m not really sure his family back in Britain were Catholic non-conformists though it’s possible, but at the least he (or his family) converted with the wholesale collapse of American high church Protestant social and political power which occurred roughly around 1920-1950.

One can spend most of one’s time and efforts, say, as a Catholic trying to work with other Catholics and getting them away from the Post-War International Order’s consensus, from Americanism and –isms tied to it, and from American economic and cultural poison. At the same time, one could reach out to other, slightly differing dissidents on occasion to feel for how a coalition can be built in the future. These are complimentary acts which build toward more power. This is, in fact, the way the average dissident should probably act. That which is nearer to the hearth is more ready-at-hand. Most of us have no power over the great wizards of finance or the goblins and devils of the intelligence-security apparatus or the other substantive nodes of power. We do have some power in our small spheres, though, and can dialogue with others in a similar way.

            A non-trivial portion of my work is analyzing the way in which the Post-War International Order has operated in realpolitik terms and broken upstart dissident movements since the 1930s. One can refer to that if necessary, and I will take it for granted going forward.

Anyone who shouts down others as “Jews”, “Feds”, “Russian agents”, or similar words used to cast suspicion especially without good evidence should be seen themselves with suspicion. Anyone who uses the term ‘wignat’ should be seen with suspicion. Andy Nowicki and Colin Liddell, for instance, began engaging in the above (use of ‘wignat’, liberal accusations of ‘fed’, ‘Russian agents’ and so on), as did numerous people tied with Anglin’s Daily Stormer. Personalities may conflict. Fallings out happen. I don’t see a problem with this or with distance between quibbling parties. All the same, most of the venom should be kept BEHIND THE SCENES. This is a drum I have beat for years – a desire to increase movement discipline first by keeping major issues in back channels. If they cannot be resolved, a split without public drama and minimal comment is best. Most of the time, there is no good reason for a dramatic split if it does not involve some type of great personal betrayal – usually involving someone revealing things they should not have, stealing things they should not have, or fucking someone they should not have or things of that ilk.

All of that isn’t to say feds do not appear in dissident circles, or informants are not a problem, or Jews and people using Jewish lies or Jewish narratives are not a problem – all of these things are problems but leveling a charge requires at least good circumstantial evidence. With one like Patrick Casey, for instance, we have a man who has repeatedly doxed intentionally or inadvertently members of Identity Europa and then its abortive successor American Identity Movement, who was media coordinator for Red Ice on the ground during Charlottesville when they had an outage (and they were our only media in town), and in the successive years since 2018 he has worked mostly with ‘civnat’ ‘groyper’ types like Nick Fuentes in dividing and subverting the online dissident movement. From a pattern of behavior like this, it is apparent that Patrick Casey is highly suspicious and probably a federal asset or informant, or perhaps on the payroll of an organization like the ADL or SPLC. The JDL and other Kahanist groups have been known to take similar tactics in the past as well in paying oddballs in dissident movements to stir shit, sling mud, and spew bile and retarded ideas. The SPLC has paid for dox and private membership lists before. Basically all of these orgs have done illegal intelligence gathering shit that is winked at by the courts because they’re Jewish orgs.

‘Wignat’ is an obvious portmanteau of ‘wigger’ and ‘nationalist.’ It privileges civic or faith based identity over racial identity. We see that with identity understood as concentric spheres, it does not do to put a cosmopolitan and value-centric identity which can then be swiftly coopted as it has been in fact into a market and money-centric identity over blood and kin. The term above is a way of demoting the status of racial identity for our group within or among nominal dissidents while the enemy continues to moralize ethnic Others and encourage their bonding along those self-same lines. In other words, the cocksucking moron using this term is doing the same job as Tim Wise and other Jewish cultural operatives, but with a stab in the back rather than a frontal barrage. This is not to mention the fact that the portmanteau on its face really makes no sense because far fewer ‘wignats’ are in fact white niggers than civic nationalists or adherents to the plutocratic left.

Nick Fuentes has received many high dollar donations to the tunes of thousands, recurring, and one very large bitcoin donation. These in concert with his sudden change of heart on certain issues, almost coinciding with large payments rendered, indicate that we should be suspicious of him like Casey. Fuentes is possibly an informant or asset of some type, having felt pressured after Charlottesville, but more likely he was simply coopted with bribes. We also have good circumstantial evidence that he is a homosexual or at least has very strong homosexual tendencies, in the ‘Catboy Kami’ ‘dates’ and in his verbal harassment of other ‘groypers.’

In short, anyone doing the enemy’s work needs to call themselves a foe and be done with it. Dispatch with the illusion of friendship or allegiance. Doxing or otherwise pointing out someone who is a probable or known fed or informant is one thing. Doxing someone whom one has a tiff with is quite another and is again work of the enemy. Our people need foremost: 1) leadership and guidance; 2) community and support; 3) MORALIZATION AND AFFIRMATION. We can often trace the rise in our people killing themselves through alcohol, drugs, and more extreme means to a lack in their lives of one or more of those three things. Anyone working against those is again doing work of the enemy.

While we will be stronger, those of us who make it to the end of this harrowing of history, we do not need to worsen things. Anyone who makes things worse on their people without just cause, without due compassion, and without good reason betrays themselves as doing the work of the enemy. If your instinctive reaction to kith and kin is not to reach out with kindness first, or to help them up through the struggle, YOU ARE WRONG AND NEED TO FIX YOURSELF.

Anyone who is antagonizing small differences at the moment when we have essentially a grinding campaign of siege warfare to conduct (READ SIEGE), we have a fucking problem. This is one of the reason I bring up Catholic reactionaries so much, as emblematic of this; I have heard Catholics, primarily Irish American Catholics, who are always spitting venom at Protestants or dissenters of any stripe. This despite the fact that WE ARE IN A LONG TERM WAR FOR OUR SURVIVAL THAT TRANSCENDS YOUR ROTTING CHURCH. This is a mostly American phenomenon. The Irish in America seem to be a lower sort, given to civic corruption and superstition and very homosexual provincialism, as the Irish in Ireland seem to not suffer these things to nearly the same degree. The Irish in Ireland indeed seem to be more physically attractive as well as more psychologically normal; I venture to say that a large portion of those Irish who were shunted to the New World were some cancerous, mutant growth on the underbelly of Ireland, and the modern Irish are the better for having lost these twats. Indeed, setting the Emerald Isle aside, for the rest of Catholic Europe you hardly ever hear similar things as in American Catholic circles, certainly not to the rate that you do in America.

Perhaps that above is too harsh a condemnation of white Americans of Irish descent. If so, forgive me but I believe that Americans are somewhat more given to pathology than Europeans or even other colonials man for man.

Then again, Europeans in general (on or near our side of dissent) for all of their problems are less intellectually provincial and in many ways less psychologically sick than Americans. Americans have their Constitutional cope, their great expanse cope, and their ‘muh freedom’ liberal delusion copes, but in the final analysis all of these copes (like most before them) have failed to materialize into anything thus far. The great expanse of America buys more space for the wreckage and trash to spread out in, and more time for delusional white Americans to flit away. Obviously some Europeans are caught in petty nationalism in an age where the nation is maladapted, being too small for big problems and too big for small problems (I believe de Benoist said this). We are fundamentally in an imperial age and you are dealing with imperium going forward, no bones about it. We see that many in the dissident sphere have even raised the reductio of pan-nationalism – it would require some international order to assert it.

Others have criticized empire as being a necessarily cosmopolitan force. This is not necessarily the case, but nationalism actually was used to homogenize the kingdoms and republics of Europe before and then along with mass media and communications. Nationalism and empire are both tools, and right now I see small nationalisms like Irish nationalism as embodied by Sinn Fein and the PIRA or various would-be breakaway republics in Europe as a failure. Irish nationalism is not a hypothetical failure but a real failure, Ireland having gone and passed from British ownership to now pawn of global plutocratic capital, and subject to the same forces of multiculturalism, mass migration, and cultural GRIDS as the rest of Western or European civilization has. Both nationalism and empire and be used for good or ill, and that entirely depends on who is at the helm and what their aims are.

Imperialism and nationalism both have problems depending on who wields them. Power has problems depending on who wields it. This is the great quandary of our age. I am agnostic on forms and structures of power. I no longer believe that structures dictate very much what happens, except to a small degree. I believe people are far more important in seeing things through. If you fill the most perfectly structured court with human scum, that court will turn into a den of villainy. On the one hand, I think that kings have better aesthetics and cool factor than democracies and republics; on the other, I think that any system with our people can work depending on who is actually running things. In terms of ‘who’ is actually running things, we see it is a tiny oligarchy, perhaps 800,000 in all including the core power elites and their very senior most officers and managers, who centrally plan and order things for about 4.5 billion people. Democracy means ‘rule of the people’ and republic comes from res publica which means essentially ‘shared space’ or ‘our commons.’ We see that these terms are both inadequate to describe the system of hypermodern centralization and consolidation we live under.

 

White world supremacy was at the time of Lothrop Stoddard essentially a fact, although there were alien influences largely in the form of negro slaves in America and other colonies and Jewish financiers basically all over the white world. It is at this point not a fact in any way. The modern white West is not supreme vis-à-vis social status, or economic power, or military strength, or by any metric except fossils of cultural and technological legacies from the distant past a hundred or more years ago.

Dysgenics has taken a toll of at least 7-10 IQ points by the Woodley effect since 1880. The East Asian lead in IQ is likely a result of less time under dysgenic conditions. The Jew of today is no longer as sharp as he once was – but neither is the white man. The question is who has dulled faster, and for whom has the toll been worse? The white man is also subject to cultural and physical poison, with the cultural and physical poison both coming from basically all angles. The decline in the white man is apparent even since the 1960s. The footage Adam Curtis includes in his documentaries from that rough era, 1955-1970ish, is enough to show the decline in dress and looks vis-à-vis physiognomy of white Western folk.

When a mixed race brood looks a white man in the eye, he looks down. When a Jew threatens his pay cheque, he bends. When a negro asks, he kneels. Tell me: is this something a “superior” man does? Is this something a “supreme” man does? The answer to both is obvious. White world supremacy, a fact in 1870 or 1910, when a European could travel most of the world in relative safety, has fallen by the wayside. That European’s great grandchild can no longer travel the world in that degree of relative safety, and in fact the relative safety of the homelands has declined as has its prospects for long term security.

Many labor under the delusion that the world of “white supremacy” exists or is a short stroll away. America in its current stage is probably less white than Argentina and several other South American states. By the youth demographics, it is already at the point of Brazil and will reach that in the total population by 2040 at latest. Most of these people arrived in the scam/shopping mall known as the US since 1990, and as they arrived quickly they could be thrown back the other way quickly. Nonetheless, for the moment they are here and must be dealt with and counted.

Even if the majority of those arrivals since 1990 were stripped of citizenship or legal status and sent packing, that would resurrect the US to about year 2000 demographics for a rough stasis period of 20-30 years. That would be a trivial resurrection and could be accomplished by fairly mild incentives, and the remainder of the repair would need more drastic action after that in order to restore an 80%+ white majority in North America. Brazil is not set in forever, but it is substantially more likely that it is fixed than that the lumbering white buffalo will realize its fate as it approaches the looming cliff.

Those who accuse the dissident side of being purists are fools. I extend my hand to those of mixed race, who have at least two European grandparents (except for those with black ancestry who I think need three European grandparents). I extend my hand to anyone willing to work against the Jews on behalf of civilization. Some people would not be welcome into an organization or brotherhood with me based on the fact that they are not Aryan, but I would not bar them from resisting the same global anti-human project and would be happy to work with them. Just the same, this project must be led by Aryan Europeans without much care for the wants or needs of the Other. Those wants and needs may be bargained for in future negotiations, but we will not casually cater to their whims if it is not in our interest.

“White supremacy” is something perhaps to aspire to, but it is not a condition in the world at any level. The lowly white cows grazing at the supermarket are not superior to dogs let alone Indios or niggers. While I like dogs a great deal more than Indios and niggers, the dogs are less handy for making waves on the great stage at least as far as humans are concerned. Thus Aryan futurism becomes a matter of life and death. Ours is a future-oriented task concerned with the uplift of our people tomorrow, and the lightening of their burdens today. As the white animal is sick in body and mind, many of our erstwhile people will fight us. These WERE our people, but do not belong to the Aryans of tomorrow. To that group of men and women, the Aryans of tomorrow, belongs the world.

I shall rehash as above. Do not think I wish to spit or kick at this people (‘the white animal’), but this is the state of things and we must at least accept it before we move on. I bristle at everyone who callously speaks of those who kill themselves by whatever means as though they deserved their fate, but they are where they are. (In this instance I point at both mainstream journalists and conservative faggots at places like NRO.) ‘Twas not I who put them there but a Jewish system, and its mobs of hypocrites, liars, and frauds. I merely point out what is happening and do not relish what has befallen these people. I even sympathize, understanding that at times any white American down on their luck has probably felt a very strong impulse toward willful harm of self if not outright self-destruction. This is not empty but comes from sharing the pain as the word sympathy implies and myself being pained by their suffering. Who in good conscience could stare idly by as this indignity was done to their people? Even if scrawling curses on a wall is the only recourse – to do nothing?

           

The idea is not to engage in a peasant revolt. As many others have pointed out, peasant revolts do not work historically. This is because peasants are not good at violence, they are retarded, and they lack coherent class consciousness. Even if you had peasants who weren’t retarded and were good at violence, you would have too many traitors or onlookers to have a serious shot. The idea is to form a counter-elite. There is no counter-elite at present unless one buys something along the lines of Jorjani’s occulted fascist elite hypothesis, which rings of Q style coping (as I’ve pointed out recently).

So what is an elite? An elite is someone, or multiple somebodies, at the top of something. An academic elite are those who publish scholarly work that commands the most respect, or at least they sit in chairs at institutions that people respect. A literary elite reads and writes the most and best books of their time, or at least they are supposed to. In hypermodernity, the elite does not necessarily have to be good, they just have to be. Being on top is what defines the elite – in the case of the power elite, they are not defined by good looks, good taste, good manners, good faith, or good grace. They have in fact none of those things. They also lack humility and humanity – so many of them being Jews or mischlinge or utterly slavish cosmopolitan junior partner devotees to the senior Jewish leadership. So what defines them is that they run things. In particular, they run things that matter, things in the past associated with sovereigns – money, violence (police, military, intel-security, etc.), and institutions of social control like education and media.

If we fail to build a counter-elite or the counter-elite fails to displace the present elites, then the hopes of dissidents are dashed and we are well and truly fucked. The only thing, then, is to watch the world turn to shit from the sidelines and hope that there are enough men of decent European stock in the next civilization cycle to bring something good together. Thankfully, I think our enemy is in many ways on more tenuous footing than we like to think and we will win in the end.

Another side of pathological conservative especially among neoreaction types is concerned with “auditioning” or, in less gay terms, sucking up to and probably sucking off extant power. They believe this is the main way of gaining power. It is a way of getting a hold of power, but for most lackeys and lickspittles, it won’t work. You will suck cocks and juggle balls for the ability to glimpse but not handle power. This, for anyone who is not a faggot or nebbish Jew, is not worth the cost of admission. The power elite have most of the personnel they need, and they probably don’t need two pence nrx bloggers to fill the gaps. Most likely, this group is nrx intellectuals begging to be co-opted by some small time Mr. Moneybags. Curtis Yarvin has his own series of grifts, which he admits with surprising candor. These people are not interested in making real change in the world but in writing fan fiction and pretending to be elites, ideally with some fat paypigs.

Flipping over pathological conservatives again shows those who believe in false dialectics. Those who believe, for instance, in the ‘left vs. right’ split as real and lasting and substantial; those who believe, for instance, in the Cold War dialectic and ‘communism (bad)’ vs. ‘capitalism (good)’; those who believe, for instance, in the dialectic of progress. More seasoned operators are less likely to believe in the last as it is the most patently absurd of all of these notions. There are videos which show the world in the years just before the Great War. Things have clearly gotten worse on any number of grounds and I don’t really care to list them. If you can’t see how, just shut the fuck up and listen.

Many of those same people believe that ‘left vs. right’ hold water on some deep psychological or policy ground when it’s clear simply by tracking partisan politics over the past 150 years that they do not. In some cases, America 1800 for instance, assigning one party as ‘right wing’ and one as ‘left wing’ does not make a whole lot of sense based on the understanding we take from France in the First or Second Republic, because basically all parties in America were liberal republicans and most of their differences were on questions like trade and monetary policy. Most of the founders who signed onto the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were Freemasons. It doesn’t get more liberal than English or Scottish Rite Freemasonry. Nearly everyone on the modern ‘left’ and ‘right’ are liberals whose arguments are about who is the proper scapegoat, with the ‘right’ offering a feckless rejoinder of plutocratic leftism which in every case results in adopting and cementing the enemy values and failing to deliver the white working and middle class from the crosshairs.

The Cold War dialectic was basically false in its time and it’s even more laughable now. If the USSR was worse than the US then it was by a thin margin – and at this point it’s difficult to say whether killing 20-25 million of their own citizens outside warfare by high estimates is worse than white genocide (a more realistic estimate for the same is about 11-13 million, or less than half of the Robert Conquest numbers). On that account, I'm inclined to say it's not - the folk can bounce back from horrific losses even to the tune of five or ten per hundred. The USSR was smeared by means of propaganda and PR campaigns to undermine a geopolitical rival and did not amount to shit practically, with respect to maintaining the rights and customs white Americans had known for over 150 years (in say 1980). The best you could say is that the American system in the midst of the Cold War dialectic was forced to moderate, and after 1991 went into a highly accelerated mode. Both systems operated under very similar premises in terms of planning and management. Both systems are centrally planned. America relies on intermediaries like business cartels and monopolies in concert with government action. (The Federal Reserve is a banking cartel, and Standard Oil was an old monopoly and Amazon is a new monopoly.) The Soviet system cut out business for the most part and consolidated most planning under the state.

Both systems rely on systems of social control ranging from education and propaganda to police and intelligence. Both systems would target dissidents materially and financially, and the modern West can actually be worse than the USSR in this respect, as one was often merely demoted unless one was sufficiently problematic that one had to be exiled or shot. Both engaged in assassinations against people who were problems for the system, with the Soviet system generally disappearing them or being forthright and the American system relying on falsified cause of death (‘it was an accident’ or ‘it was a suicide’). Billionaires in the US or other Western countries are oligarchs who are allowed to have massive assets because they are paragons of the system and have demonstrated loyalty which includes interests tangled with other oligarchs. The overt nature of Western central planning and the clear overlap between all modern highly centralized technocratic systems in the world today is so obvious that anyone in denial is either delusional, ill-informed, or pretty retarded (read Tragedy and Hope). Power is power nominally public or private, as I’ve said in past essays, and relying on a notion from the past which was wrong in its time but is even more absurd now, is astoundingly stupid. The problem is not whether ZOG lords over us in the guise of a business or the state, but the ‘who,’ ‘why,’ and ‘what.’ We know the ‘who,’ we know the ‘why,’ and arguing whether the tyranny of a corporation created by state power is worse than tyranny from the state is completely beside the point. The pathological conservative loves nothing more than getting bogged down in shit that ultimately does not matter.

Yet another side of pathological conservative is worried about a backlash. Should we actually gain steam and strike against Jewish power in the coming years, they are worried about the economic or, worse yet, the physical impact, especially as a result of the set of daggers likely rigged at our throats called “the Samson option.” The result of independence, they say, would be utter ruin, as the Jews cut off finances and raw materials, as they sabotage international trade and relations, and lastly as they unleash attacks on infrastructure to include computer networks and potentially nuclear exchanges.

The response to the above is to tell these clowns to GROW A SPINE. You live under Jewish occupation, more insufferable by the day. These mealy mouthed faggots need to read some William Pierce to get a sense of what the mindset needs to be. If the cost of our independence is 100 cities full of fag clubs, Holocaust museums, monuments to usury, and modernist architecture, then the toll is worth it. If 600 million of our people must die that the remainder can fulfill their true destiny, then that is worth it. Remember that some of these people will fight us to the grave openly or not.

We CANNOT save everyone. I do not relish the thought of millions of our people dying in the coming years in horrible ways, in violence, war and struggle. Yet that is exactly what will happen. It has happened before over the past 200 years, in the grist mills designed to chew up many of the warriors and noble-minded men of our stock. I doubt it should be nearly as many as two-thirds of our people, which 600 million would almost be. Just the same some believe that they can dodge the karmic debt which America and by extension THE WORLD owes as a result of foisting this Jewish anti-human debt slavery system to the top.

I would save all of our people were it possible from the many bad things that the Other brings upon them. It is not possible to do that now, nor will it be possible in the course of a genuine liberation struggle when we are casting off the Jewish yoke. I would, if I could, insure that all of our people were hurt as little as possible. Alas, I also cannot in good faith give that promise or insurance, as it would be a lie. I see no way that we are getting out of this, as I’ve alluded in the past, WITHOUT A STRUGGLE AND BLOODSHED. Our foes will not give up power without a fight. This is not a fedpost and I do not endorse anything - I simply state facts as they are and leave the reader to draw their own conclusions.