Feb 23, 2016

Folk-Ecology

via Inglinga

Tribe, Nation and Folk

We promote a return to a form of Tribalism based upon local initiatives with the Shires  as the backbone of the English Folk-Nation. Only through breaking free of the European Union, the New World Order and all other forms of the rampant Globalism can we return to a healthy nation and a healthy world-order. But we see the need for a European Imperium where the Free Nations of Europe and the White World would work together towards a healthy and ordered world without the problems we face today. 

The English Folk-Nation would have as its basis the ancient Shires, which are regions that would work on their own initiative on local issues. Once the right issues are tackled, without interference from the greed of profit and gain, then sanity will reign once more in this land. Food must be produced locally for local people (English Folk) and the simple means of life tackled locally too, thus getting rid of pollution through carting goods for hundreds or thousands of miles - goods which can be produced at a local level. 

Natural Farming -

Farming should return to small-scale local farming on smaller farms, reviving the healthy English hedgerows, where locally produced goods are sold and distributed to local people as far as possible. The mentality of thus providing a service to one's Folk-Community would replace the unhealthy mental attitude that seeks profit and gain from everything. Smaller farms and smaller pieces of growing land would mean the return to organic growing without the need for chemicals to get rid of pests - the hedgerows would encourage predators again. The land would be 'rotated' to minimise disease, which cannot always be done with mass-farming. The creation of crop-growing farms and livestock farms as part of a whole gives the chance to have manure from the farm to use on the farm. 

Factory-farming would be a thing of the past - a bad memory - and all livestock would be farmed with the welfare of all animals in mind. Crop-growing would also be done in a different manner, with the point in mind that crops - as well as animals - are living things. We oppose the use of battery hens, of the factory-farming of pigs, cows and all livestock; all animals should live as natural a life as they can be allowed to. They should be respected in life and respected in death, since they are our source of life - just as foodstuffs are our source of life. If people wish to be vegetarians, then let them, if people wish to be meat-eaters, then again they should have their choice. Both meat and veg are living beings and this has to be taken into account; if 'Meat is Murder!' then 'Veg is Murder!' for they are both living, breathing beings but at different levels - and who is to say that plants do not have a consciousness?

The one great problem today is that a wedge has been driven between the farmer and the environmentalist, a wedge that makes each one unable to see the views of the other. This is where things are going nowhere, and more often than not the environmentalists are listened to even when they come up with some idiotic ideas that have nothing to do with Natural Law. In any case, since the EU decided decades ago the Britain should be a 'services nation' farming here has been under the threat of destruction. This suicidal policy could mean mass starvation in the future - not unlike that of the Russian Communists, the Chinese Communists, and Communists of every ilk who have come up with similar ideas of a 'utopian' world which hides the process of mass destruction. 

There are signs that some farmers are now turning their backs on the mass-produced supermarkets in favour of selling their goods locally at local farm-shops or local markets. This is a good sign that things may well change for the better. We should - as Folkish Wodenists - support as far as we can local initiative; this may mean dearer food but since the quality will be far better this need not really mean an great increase in our outlay - especially if we grow some of our own, which some are already doing. I can see no reason why English Farmers do not return to local supplying, and use their land more wisely in some areas of the country - indeed, there is every reason to do so. 

An example of this is an English Farmer who stopped supplying the supermarkets with milk and started to produce cheese and butter of his own, supplying locals directly from the farm and through local markets - and it seemed to work for him. Stopping supplies to supermarkets means the abolition of mass-farming and a return to sanity.

Animal Welfare -

This has nothing to do with 'Animal Rights' which are as unreal as 'Human Rights' and merely a means to distort the truth. Animal welfare is not a 'right' given to animals, it is the duty and responsibility of every one of us humans, given the means to see what is right and what is wrong. Factory-farming of animals, battery hens, and the totally inhumane killing of animals by Kosher and Halal methods are things that must change here in England - they were never known to our Anglo-Saxon Ancestors. 

This goes for animal experiments of any kind, and for the treatment of animals as 'fashion accessories' which to them is unnatural (this seems to be because pets are now used to replace having children, and thus treated like children - which they are not!). The breeding of animals for 'show' such as done by Cruffs, whose ill-treatment in the breeding processes was shown up by the BBC recently. This is another matter of concern, since animals were bred for their work and as companions (pets or work) to man, but today they are bred (like Cruffs) for show or bred for profit (more widespread), or they are bought as 'pets' and then discarded when they get by the 'nice' puppy stage. 

Breeding for the 'looks' of a dog has meant dogs being produced who suffer for their whole life through the breeding process. This cannot in any way be seen as right. Man has always bred dogs, originally from the wolf, for working and as companions, and in some cases the breeding has caused problems, but never in the scale of today's breeding.

It is also inhumane to breed working dogs and then discard them when their work is done - I do know of people who have had working dogs and kept them afterwards even when they cannot do their job, kept them and looked after them until the end of their lives. The working dog gives its all to us, and it deserves to be given our care and respect when its work is done. 

Hunting with Animals -

This is always a difficult subject since it is so complex a subject to tackle. I am not in favour of hunting for sports, even if I was opposed to the 'Fox-Hunting Ban'. This was not because I would encourage hunting for sport, but the ban was put in as yet another means to destroy Rural England, and really did not have the true welfare of animals as its aim. Some of those involved, no doubt, had these convictions, but it is clear that it was seen as an 'aristocratic sport' and thus a no-no in the 'Age of the People'. (Today it is certainly not an 'aristocratic sport' and most of those involved with it were the Common Folk of England.)

I do not like the idea of using animals to make money, like betting on racing and the like, but I do accept that this is an ancient thing and not a modern invention. Certainly, so long as the animals are not mistreated, they may indeed like racing around a track, and greyhounds, whippets etc. have been especially bred to race around and love doing so. The same goes for racehorses who most likely relish racing around since they have always been used by mankind for riding and working. 

Using dogs for hunting (for food) is a precarious subject nowadays, but those who promote 'animal welfare' and 'animal rights' are invariably those who suggest that all animals should be allowed to do what is natural. This being so, since these dogs have the wolf as their ancestor they are natural hunters since the wolf is a born pack-hunter. So if animals have the 'right' to live as naturally as possible then they would have to hunt! In any case hunting for food is another thing from hunting for sport. 

One of the things that 'animal welfare' and 'animal rights' do not consider is that man is also a part of Nature, and like animals we have a duty and responsibility to ensure a balanced and stable world, and this is done through killing as well as creating. The balance is held by each species acting within its own sphere, and not acting outside the Natural Law. Nature is not all sweet and light.

The argument that humans are the only ones that kill for 'sport' is a fallacy, since some animals do exactly the same - cats will often play with a prey, even torture it before killing it. And there are species that hunt and kill for sport without eating their prey. Cruelty is all around us, and not just subject to human intervention - though we are no doubt the worst.

If we lived in a Golden Age of Perfection things would be far different, but we do not live in such an age; indeed, we live in a Dark Age, the darkest age of the cycle, so we cannot act as if we do live in a Golden Age - if we did we would become like the Marxist Socialist Utopians who have caused the death of millions through their 'utopian ideas'. We have to live and act in this Dark Age, but as Men Against Time.

Self-Sufficiency -

Every Englishman should own his own piece of land here in our sacred land - England - One Man on One Acre. This cannot be done whilst profit and gain turns our homes into 'property' to be sold at will for a profit (and this is not restricted to large companies since more and more people are buying and selling for gain and getting on the 'property ladder'). 'An Englishman's home is his castle' was the saying, and every Englishman should have his own piece of land without mortgage debt. Yes, this would need safeguards, but since we are talking about a Tribal Society the land would be eked out through the tribe, given on the firm basis that the land is Odal-Land and passed on to the next generation within the Folk-Community. Where new land is needed for the next generation it would be eked out on the same basis, so that the land is owned by the Folk-Community and given to its members for their own use. The land would never be used for speculation and never leave the hands of the tribe, i.e. never sold off to outsiders or speculators.

Every man and woman of the English Folk should be able to grow food and sustain their families from the land, or to undertake some skilled workmanship that benefits the community as a whole, and thus need a place to work from. In such a society the interests of the whole would come before the interests of the individual, and a new and healthy mental attitude must arise from such a change. 

The Environment -

Without the idea of an area being a 'tourist attraction' and thus outside the interests of those living in an area there would return a sense of being part of a Folk-Community, being an integral part of a whole. The attitude that the environment is there for man to exploit (an Old Testament concept) would fade away and be replaced by the need for the local community to look after its own area because it is in their own interests to do so. It would never be in its interest to harm the environment or harm life within that environment. The need for constant change (in an Age of Chaos) would be replaced by the need to maintain the environment around the Folk-Community.

Owning one's own land, and returning to the hamlets, villages and small towns which are the heart of the Anglo-Saxon world, would mean a return to Nature and people working together with Nature, understanding Nature again - being one with Nature. 

Transport would be minimal with local food being produced locally and local goods produced locally. The need for 'tourism' would also be minimised since in times gone by only essential travel was necessary such as explorers or people travelling to gain knowledge - not 'holidays' which is again a rather strange concept since they have nothing to do with what is 'holy'. There is no reason why people cannot travel, but every reason to minimise this and stop the pollution of the planet. 

The shipment of live animals would also be a thing of the past since locally bred, grown and slaughtered animals would be produced for local people to eat. There would be minimal need for transporting food, and certainly not live animals which with today's technology can be slaughtered and moved just as easily.

With people being within smaller communities, owning their own piece of land, and working that land, there would arise a new 'Nature Consciousness' and thus everyone would take part in looking after their own area, their own 'environment'. Life would become slower since there is no more rush for profits, everyone would have time to socialise and not be like they are today. The old English 'pub' could return as a meeting-point for social activities, as well as the local shops. And the old people would be far less isolated and alone as they are today - and a consciousness of Folk-Community (Blood-Kinship) would make everyone become aware of helping the old and infirm and making lives as best they can for their own parents. In today's world it is often forgotten (through the 'generation gap' created by the Great Liar) that parents give their lives for their children (or should do so) and should expect a return when they get old.

Kosher and Halal Slaughter -

Since supermarkets today can use the meat from such inhumane slaughter it would be wise to use local outlets for meat, and also for many other foods we use. Cost is the problem, but bought in bulk from a meat-supplier this can sometimes cost less than the supermarket. One of the illusions that we all no doubt have is that all supermarkets are cheaper; indeed this is not always the case. And bear in mind that the dazzling array of goods on the shelves sometimes encourages buying a lot more than we actually need! This is done deliberately as I am going to show. 

The slaughter of animals without stunning is barbaric and totally inhumane and this has no part of an Anglo-Saxon Society. Those who deny this are liars and deceivers. You only need to watch a human slaughter when the animal is stunned by an electric current and compare this with the animal who has its throat cut without stunning - this applies not only to Halal (which is usually attacked) but to kosher killing too. This is an alien concept an we should all seek to enlighten our Folk on this.

Supermarket Sales -

Supermarket selling is designed to tell people what they want and not to sell people what they want. This cannot be denied and this concept, like advertising, was never a part of English life. Today advertising is everywhere and designed not to sell us what we need, but to tell us what we should have. This is all part of the mass-consumerism and mass-production of today's world, an idea that is totally destroying everything. 

It is perhaps not well known that supermarkets and large manufacturers used psychologists as a means to sell people their goods in mass. I became aware of this when reading a book written by a psychologist who started out by building his own business which was used by the Rowntree company some decades ago. This type of psychology was used to assess what people would buy, not what they would need to buy, but how they could be sold the product through careful packaging. It was the packaging that was important in the selling, not the product itself, which means that no concern for the consumer was ever envisaged - and this is decades ago, the process has no doubt been honed to perfection today. 

The 'Global' aspect of today's supermarket is obvious by the array of goods from around the world, all types of goods that have ultimately driven out our own English Tradition of food-consumption. This has certainly not been something for the better, since all we have today is shoddy mass-produced food that has little goodness and certainly has little health values. But the masses have been conned into thinking they are eating some kind of exotic foreign foods from all over the world - some scam! 

Many of you are not old enough to remember when the local butcher hung up his meat in the shop for all to see. This was not done for show, it was done to drain out the blood and allow the meat to mature. Today's packaged meat is dripping with its own blood which ensures that what we eat is tasteless and really worthless in terms of nourishment. The meat goes straight from the slaughter into the packet to the consumer and is not matured or drained. This is why the meat is a different colour than it is on the butcher's shelf.

We are told not to wash chickens because this increases the chances of spreading harmful bacteria which tells us that battery-hens are actually filled with bacteria! And they know this! No properly bred chicken would be diseased but we are sold diseased goods through mass-production. Many of the goods containing meat but not being the whole meat-product and merely cast-off from the production of meat, the bits they cannot sell us so they make them into 'burgers' or other meat-contained goods. 

All in all we can safely say that supermarket goods and very often of inferior quality and although cheaper do not give the same nourishment as the goods bought directly from the farmer. This is no doubt not the case in every supermarket, nor the case for every farmer, for even in small outlets there are the odd rogue there to gain for himself. 

The great problem today is that many people are so used to eating the mass-produced food of the supermarket that they have actually forgotten (or never known) what real food tastes like. This is certainly true of battery hens which can be bought very cheaply but which are inferior in health-giving properties to a true free-range chicken. Chickens used to be full of Omega 3 but today they are full of fat. 

It is also a fact that food cut from the garden and eaten within a few hours is full of goodness, and loses its goodness the longer it is left to eat. Imagine what the vegetables are like when they have to be cut and then transported over the country, or even from foreign lands. An end to the 'Global Order' will bring us back to sanity and local growing and rearing. 


The New Order -

What I have said here can come about through a National Government coming to power, so long as that National Government is fully aware of the socialistic aspect of the New Order. At this time it is unlikely that such a government would come to power. The more likely scenario would be a total collapse of society coupled with catastrophic change which would break everything down into chaos, disorder and widespread destruction, from out of which would naturally arise a new form of Tribalism out of which again the Folk-Nation would arise organically. 

It is very likely that if changes started to happen oppressive laws would be brought in to halt these changes. This may also happen if too many farmers started to move away from the supermarkets into local production for local sales. We can see today how, when the Alternative Medicine scene started to grow there are more and more voices arising in opposition, not only ridicule (one method to stop people listening) but also in time no doubt through laws to protect the 'Drug-Industry'. And this is all in face of a National Health Service that is deteriorating rapidly. (*) Of course, this would be very hard to do with individual use of alternative medicine - Folk-Medicine. The System will have to tolerate some small alternatives, but when their whole consumer system is threatened there is no doubt they will act against any opposition. 

(*) There is an alternative 'Health Food Industry' but when closely considered this is no more than another arm of the Global Order, and in some cases sells alternative goods which are supplied from abroad in place of natural products that can be made here in England. 

These are things that need to be considered and it would be wise to consider them rather than dismiss them. At this present time, as individuals, there is much that we can do to change ourselves rather than wasting time on building 'pressure-groups' that are merely a stop-valve. When we have changed ourselves it will be time to preach to others! We need to lead by our own example in all aspects of life.

The Stormer Report: The Tide IS Turning

via Radio Aryan

Listen Now

Lee Rogers from InfoStormer drops by again to discuss the most important news stories from around the world in The Daily Stormer.

 This week there has been a lot of good news, starting with Trump’s glorious win at the South Carolina primary and the inglorious defeat of Jeb Bush.

 Lee explains the complicated American electoral system and Sven congratulates the voters on not being swayed by the Jewish media, who have taken things to a new low by wheeling the Pope out and calling The Donald ‘The Antichrist’.

 Winning the last two primaries has meant all previous contenders winning the Republican election, so Trump is now the favoured contender to be the GOP candidate.

 In Britain Cameron has finally returned from Brussels with his new deal, which is pretty much the same as the old deal. A referendum on leaving the EU will be held in June and already the Conservative party have started a mutiny against Cameron. Boris Johnson and Michael Gove will both be supporting the leave the EU campaign and they may just take all the Conservative party supporters with them, leaving Cameron with egg on his face and having to step down as leader if the majority then vote to leave.

 The Conservative party in Britain no longer represent the wishes of their supporters, just like the Republican party in America and this referendum could be the catalyst to start a similar process to the one Trump has begun, raising the forces of the silent majority to make its presence felt at last.

 All over Europe the discontent is palpable, you cannot just shut down all the comment sections and then expect the problem to go away. The majority of those people venting were not nationalists, but just your ordinary man on the street, who is now getting a rude awkening to the fact we no longer have ‘free speech’ anywhere in Europe. France has even started arresting prominent public figures who dare to speak up about the White replacement agenda, along with Germany and Holland. This will just make people even more frustrated, if we are denied a voice and what we do say gets ignored, then there is really only one way left for us to express our disapproval.

 At the moment the street patrols are just making a show of being there to reassure the public, but if the police keep being overwhelmed by the hordes and are unable to keep order, then it will not be long before direct action becomes necessary just to protect our people and once that happens, it wont be long before the traitors themselves are tried in a court of law and hanged until dead.

Just a Piece of Paper

via The Right Stuff

The death of Antonin Scalia has led to quite a bit of hyperbole, from claiming that his successor could determine the fate of the planet, to God taking Scalia in order to help Rafael "Refito" Edward "Ted" Cruz win the election. The inference from #cuckservatives is that the American electorate needs to select a "constitutional conservative" for POTUS in order to keep the Supreme Court from tilting too #libshit, and oh, by the way, Trump is NOT a "constitutional conservative."

The entire discussion is retarded.

The #cuckservatives at AmCon had claimed a few years back that this idea of "constitutional conservativism" was fairly new and seemed to be aimed at differentiating themselves from Shrub's brand of "compassionate conservatism." You see, even in 2010, the GOP was aware that Dubya had been the worst President since Carter, and it took a while before President Butt Naked would surpass him on that account.

We can see that this isn't really true if we compare it to some other, similar terms, which are hundreds of times more commonly used.

It’s become apparent that what these #cuckservatives want to do is invoke the warm fuzzies by having their electorate believe that “constitutional conservatives” will select for the Supreme Court only judges who use originalism as their guiding principle when interpreting the Constitution of the United States.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s at least marginally worthwhile to have the discussion about originalism, because without some form of reference to the Founders' intent, the Constitution means merely whatever some group of old Jewish lesbians says it means, and Oy Vey!, nobody wants THAT.

Take a look at the wiki for originalism, it's actually quite funny. Original intent is quite clearly the only logical means of interpretation, despite all the kvetching about its difficulties in practice, but here they are at Wikipedia spending much larger amounts of text on original meaning, semantic originalism, framework originalism, and methodology. It’s almost as if there’s a fifth column at work at that site. I can pretty clearly see the hand of the Frankfurt School's Critical Theory doctrine at work in these later interpretation methods, and this Dworkin guy referenced, where have I heard that last name before?

Any intellectually honest student of American history knows, however, that the original intent of the Founders in several matters is very clear, and that in today's political environment, their original intent is also publicly inexpressible. The intent of the Founders was to have a State comprising a nation of WASPs with some number of Negro slaves tolerated, and to build said State for the purpose of handing it down to their children, with immigration being tolerated only for Northwestern Europeans from outside.

The Preamble clearly states the purpose of the document is to provide certain benefits “to ourselves and our posterity". While posterity can have a couple of different meanings, the word “our” suggests the preferred meaning wasn't a general future, but rather, a specific group of related and/or descended persons.

The early voting rights laws of the English Colonies make it clear that it most of the Founders intended to live in a Republic of WASPs, barring the vote to Catholics, Jews, and even some of the Radical Reformation groups such as Quakers. It was only those damnable unlicensed Baptist preachers and James Madison who pushed for Article 6 of the Constitution to disavow any religious tests for office, but, again, intent was clearly WASPish and not to allow Jews, Catholics, or even Christian Orthodox or Muslims to vote or hold office. Maryland kept those fucking kikes out of office until 1828! And all of the above is over and beyond the non-rights of non-Huwhytes to the vote for many more decades.

A look at the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795 is instructive; the United States was for Huwhytes. Even the Indian Citizen Act of 1924 makes it clear that the Negroes were only tolerated and allowed to vote as punishment for the conquered Confederacy under Reconstruction, and that the 14th Amendment was not intended in any way to confer “birthright citizenship” to “anchor babies.”

The USA was unquestionably founded by WASPs, for WASPs, based on English common law, and intended to tolerate immigration only from those compatible with the above. THIS was the Founders’ ORIGINAL INTENT. And, clearly, it’s probably no longer feasible to cleave to this intent, at least, not without an awful lot of rope and a whole lot of hard work. Indeed, it would be impossible in the current year to find a sitting judge, attorney, or even someone in law school or considering same to come out and say that the Emperor isn’t wearing any clothes with respect to the real founding intent, as anybody cleaving to such a plain historical meaning would either be shamed out of a job or flunked out of college.

Therefore, anybody speaking non-ironically about originalism or a constitutionalist appointee to the Supreme Court is really just fucking LARPing.

Which brings one to face another concept, that of constitutionalism itself, the idea of a social contract State which derives its authority from its founding documents. One of the greatest political thinkers of the last century dealt with this in chapter two of volume two of that book about his struggle, and the bottom line point of the matter is this: the only valid conception of the State is that it exists for the furtherance of the Nation, the people from whom its founding originated. The words of the Preamble make it clear that the Fathers agreed with Adolf on these points, that the authority rests in the people themselves, who are a distinct group which does not consist of all peoples (“We the People of the United States”), and that they create and establish the State (“do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”) in order to serve (“in order to ... “)those people and their descendants (“to ourselves and our Posterity”). The people are what’s important, not the State, and certainly not its apparatus or its founding documents.

Ergo, calls to the Constitution as the “supreme law of the land,” the Constitution Party, LOLbertarianism, appeals to “natural law,” etc., have always been merely the misinformed and misguided children of the so-called “Enlightenment.” As the people inhabiting the country became more and more heterogeneous, the above references became more and more misguided.

The initial situation of the thirteen original colonies was not too untenable, even though Alexis de Tocqueville famously pointed out the differences in culture between north and south and stressed the Puritan founding of the State. But with the Louisiana Purchase, things got worse, as it was feared that all of those Papist French and Spanish bastards, along with free Negroes and Mulattos, would fail to integrate (little did they know that the post-revolution flood of French-speaking Haitians into New Orleans would add to the problem, intentionally so on the part of the French Creole community), and it was correctly thought by some that the Western people’s interests would conflict with that of the (((merchants and bankers))) of New England (the real cause of the War of Northern Aggression). Giving the dindus a vote didn’t help matters, and neither did letting all of those kikes in at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century. The increasing heterogeneity of the State has contributed to its death, and arguably the worst of the additions was that of the Jew, who furthered and accelerated the process through being behind the largest change in immigration laws in USA history.

The Constitution of the United States of America.

It’s just a piece of paper, goyim.

Fuggitaboudit.

Instead of worrying about MUH CONSTITUTION, shouldn't the Right really be considering only true rightist ideologues for appointments, or stacking the court, or some form of Caesarism a.k.a. Presidential rule by decree? Because ironically enough, it seems the only way to return to the Founding Fathers’ original intent of the Constitution is to take steps in the interim that totally fucking ignore the actual words written in the Constitution.

Or is that just LARPing on my part?

Why Conservatives Conserve Nothing

via Counter-Currents

Listen Now

The White Nationalist critique of conservatives is simple: they conserve nothing. Therefore, we need to stop wasting our political time, energy, and money on conservatives and invest them in White Nationalism instead. And we need to do it immediately, while there is still something left to conserve.

Why do conservatives conserve nothing? Because to conserve anything, they have to win political power. Winning requires a conservative majority. Conservative voters tend to identify with their nation and its history, whereas Leftists tend to be alienated from it. In the United States and other white countries, it is natural that conservative voters are overwhelmingly white, whereas the Left tends to be a coalition of Jews, non-whites, and alienated whites (e.g., liberal ideologues, feminists, and sexual deviants).

White birthrates are below replacement levels in every country around the globe. If this trend continues, white countries will cease to exist. White populations will be replaced by growing non-white populations, whether through legal and illegal immigration or simply through the increase of non-white populations already within their borders. Even if a white country has secure borders and no non-whites, if its population declines enough, eventually burgeoning non-white populations will simply march in and make themselves at home. (While white populations decline worldwide, the population of black Africa is expected to double between now and 2050.)

As whites become minorities in our own homelands, it will be impossible for conservative politicians to win election. Therefore, it will be impossible to implement conservative policies. Therefore, the things that conservatives love will disappear. In the United States, that means limited constitutional government, fiscal responsibility, private enterprise, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, gun rights, etc. These values have tenuous enough footholds even in white countries and are almost non-existent in non-white countries.

In the short run, it might be possible for conservatives to hold onto power in certain localities and even to gain national office from time to time, due to unpredictable factors like wars, famines, scandals, and electoral whims. But in the long run, conservative policies will become politically impossible because the Left will have elected a new people with solidly Leftist preferences.

In short, conservatives will conserve nothing, because they will do nothing to preserve the white majorities needed to elect them.

At this point, conservatives will take another hit on the crack pipe of “minority outreach.” They’ll tell themselves that non-whites are “natural conservatives,” even though there is precious little constitutionally limited government, fiscal responsibility, or individual freedom south of the Rio Grande, in Africa, or anywhere else where non-whites are the majority. They’ll pander and cuck a little harder for the brown people. They’ll put forward more black and Hispanic affirmative action candidates (Cain, Carson, Cruz, Rubio). They’ll blubber and hope and pray that Jesus will miracle their asses into power for just once more election cycle. Anything, really, to avoid facing up to the slow, unrelenting countdown to white demographic Armageddon.

Of course white liberals are in the same boat. Both groups are aware that they are dying out. Neither group will lift a finger to stop the process. And when both groups contemplate the future of their values in a brown world, both of them pin everything on somehow converting their replacements, a kind of ideological transmigration from their enfeebled wraith-like bodies into the fecund, swarming colored masses. They never ask themselves why healthy races would want to adopt the values of a race that created the greatest political and economic orders in history, then consumed itself in self-indulgence, opened its borders, and gave everything away to peoples they should have held in contempt.

The only way for conservatives to conserve anything is first to conserve the white majority of natural conservatives. It can be done. White demographic decline is not a cosmic mystery. It is the predictable consequence of bad political decisions: affirmative action, feminism, desegregation, open borders, and economic globalization, for starters. It can be fixed by better decisions, starting with closing the borders; cutting illegal aliens off from employment, education, and social benefits; and then deporting the ones that do not self-deport.

Saving the white majority will be difficult. It becomes more difficult with each passing day. But it can be done, as I outline in my essay “The Slow Cleanse.” All we lack is political will. Why, then, are conservatives so opposed to doing the one thing that can save them and their values from long-term extinction? Why are they willing to gamble everything on the far more dubious and difficult path of converting a rising non-white majority to conservatism?

The answer is simple: like a herd of elephants being stampeded off a cliff by a tiny mouse, conservatives are destroying themselves, their values, and their nations out of fear of a single word: “racism.” Under the present dispensation, it is regarded as perfectly moral for Jews, blacks, Asians, Hispanics — everyone, really, except whites — to think of themselves as ethnic groups and to fight for their group interests in the political realm. For whites, however, that would be the sin of racism. And conservatives are willing to sin quite a lot — to lie, to break oaths, to betray their constituencies and their nations — but they’d rather die than be racist. They’d rather us die too, a decision that our enemies applaud.

Whites are allowed to think of ourselves only as human beings with generic human interests that by definition cannot conflict with those of other human beings. We can benefit as a group only by benefiting all humanity. This is the basis of the desperate conservative attempt to convert blacks and browns to the virtues of constitutional government and free enterprise, as if these are a race-neutral, universal ideology rather than specifically European cultural practices, which cannot be transplanted everywhere on the globe and cannot be sustained in our own homelands once we are replaced by non-whites.

Of course, conservatives are not above making crass appeals to the ethnic interests of non-whites. It is only white ethnic interests that are taboo. As I put it in my article, “The Conscience of a Cuckservative“:

By treating appeals to white ethnic interests as simply immoral, Republicans are . . . playing by rules dictated by the Democrats. And of course the Democrats have rigged the rules in their favor.

Imagine American politics as a poker game. Each ethnic group has a place at the table and a certain number of chips, representing its collective wealth and power. Whites have the largest stack. But every group gets to play a wild card, “the race card,” except for whites. No matter how big our initial advantage might be, if we play by those rules, we will lose hand after hand, until we have surrendered our wealth, our power, our country, and any control we might have over our destiny — or we kick over the table and refuse to play a game rigged against us.

I used to think conservatives were unprincipled. But they are highly principled. The problem is that their principles are provided by their enemies, and if we act upon them, we will be destroyed.

In America, however, the conservatives are getting worried. They were stung by the cuckservative barb; they are nervous about the rise of the Alt Right; and they are terrified of Donald Trump, who merely stands for a moderate, non-racial form of nationalism. But like their cousins the Social Justice Warriors, when their bullshit is called, conservatives just double down. A case in point is David French’s National Review article, “The Race-Obsessed Left has Released a Monster it Can’t Control,” which correctly argues that Left-wing, anti-white identity politics is giving rise to Right-wing, white identity politics (the “monster” in French’s title).

French, however, is primarily concerned with keeping his hands clean of the taint of “racism.” So he recommends that we ignore the fact that we are being attacked as whites and focus instead on “universal human dignity, with each of us created in the image of God.” The trouble with such high-minded religious universalism is that it does not stop the onslaught of anti-white identity politics. It only numbs whites to the organized ethnic interest groups gnawing at our entrails.

Theodoor Rombouts, Prometheus
Theodoor Rombouts, Prometheus

As F. Roger Devlin argues so brilliantly in his essay “Why I Write“:

Those traditional conservatives who continue to admonish us against the dangers of “biological determinism” are increasingly condemning themselves to irrelevance. The plea that “race isn’t everything” is valid per se, but not especially germane to the situation in which we find ourselves. For we are not the aggressors in the battle now being fought. And in any battle, it is the aggressors’ prerogative to choose the point of attack: if they come at you by land, you do not have the option of fighting them at sea.

Race is everything to our enemies, and it is the angle from which they have chosen to attack our entire civilization. It is also where they have achieved their greatest victories: you can see this from the way “conservative” groups feel they must parrot the language of the egalitarians just to get a hearing. Such well-meaning but naive friends of our civilization are in effect consenting to occupy the status of a “kept” opposition.

The more we try to avoid confronting race directly, the more our enemies will press their advantage at precisely this point. Tactically, they are correct to do so. And they will continue until we abandon our defensive posture and turn to attack them on their own chosen ground.

The great political battle of our time is over race and identity. Our enemies know it, but our friends don’t. Conservatives conserve nothing because they won’t fight. Whites are being attacked as a race. The conservative response, however, is to mumble something about universal human dignity and change the topic to ethanol subsidies. Whites can only defend ourselves as a race. We can only secure conservative values by conserving our race. We must embrace the politics of white racial identity. The only true conservatism is White Nationalism.

On Seizing the Moral High Ground

via Transudationism

It is an honor to be here with you today, to be able to speak with you about an issue that is of utmost importance: the survival of the European peoples of mankind. I thank Mr. Tony O’Neil, the Chairman of the Celtic Peoples Party of Ireland, for graciously granting me this opportunity. And I thank all of you here today, as well as those who in the future will be viewing and/or hearing this conference, via whatever medium.

Let me begin by saying that I do not mean to be presumptuous. I am an American. It is not my place to come to your country and speak to you as if I am some kind of an official authority. All I offer you is my opinion.

I shall begin by asking a question: “Who currently possesses the ‘moral high-ground?’”

I submit to you that the “Cultural Marxists” currently possess the moral high-ground. I use the term “Cultural Marxists” as a term of art; that is to say, when I use the phrase “Cultural Marxists”, I want you to please think of the following five groupings:

1. International plutocrats
2. Bought politicians
3. Militant non-Whites
4. Zionists
5. Social Justice Warrior Christians

Before proceeding further, it is necessary to flesh out and discuss these five groups, to define them, at least in part, so you will know precisely what I mean, because if we are going to win this war for the survival of our People, we need to say exactly and precisely what we mean. We must choose our words carefully.

These five groups are on the same team. They function as one unit, very much like a tag-team in a professional wrestling match: when one of them is tired or in danger, he high-fives the other, and then he steps out of the ring and the other steps into the ring, and carries on the fight.

(1): The International plutocrats. The international plutocrats only care about one thing, and only one thing: money. The plutocrats have an insatiable desire for cheap labor. The plutocrats want policies in place that will give them an endless supply of cheap labor.

A concrete example of a plutocrat is Peter Sutherland. Sutherland has a curriculum vitae that Satan would envy. Here’s a bit about his background:
  • He was the chairman of British Petroleum
  • He was non-executive Chairman of Goldman Sachs International until June 2015
  • He served on the steering committee of the Bilderberg Group until May 2014
  • He currently is an Honorary Chairman of the Trilateral Commission (from 2010 to the present), and he was the Chairman of the European region of the Trilateral Commission from 2001 to 2010
  • He was vice chairman of the European Round Table of Industrialists from 2006–2009
  • He’s been a financial advisor to the Vatican
This guy’s got all the bases covered.

On June 21, 2012, the BBC news published an online article with the following title:

“The European Union should 'undermine national homogeneity' says UN migration chief”

The BBC article refers to Peter Sutherland. Here is the sum and substance of what Sutherland says in the BBC article:
  • “…the European Union…should be doing its best to undermine” any “sense of [Europeans’] homogeneity and difference from others”.
This was in 2012, and now, here we are, in 2015. Europe is being invaded by waves of people that will undermine the homogeneity of her constituent nations, and provide abundant cheap labor to the plutocrats.

And how is it possible that Europe would permit itself to be invaded by cheap labor, by a massive influx of people that threatens its very existence – as Hungary’s Viktor Orb├ín has so rightfully pointed out. The answer to this question is the second grouping mentioned previously – the bought politicians.

(2): The bought politicians. The bought politicians open the borders to cheap labor on behalf of the plutocrats, because it’s cheaper to open the borders to cheap labor than it is to pay a decent wage to native Europeans so they can afford to have children.

The communist Alexis Tsipras and his cronies in Greece are well-fed, well clothed, and well-housed, but it is the Greek people who suffer from the plutocratic policy of so-called “austerity”. As an aside, “austerity” is a scam to benefit the 1% at the expense of common women and men. The banksters rake in fortunes while the people starve and freeze.

When the international plutocrats want cheap labor, they look to their tag-team partners: the bought politicians. So when the traitorous cast of collaborators, creatures like Merkel, Hollande, Cameron, and Tsipras, talk about the humanitarian welcoming of refugees into Europe, what they really are doing is the bidding of the plutocrats, i.e., they are flooding Europe with cheap labor, for the benefit of their plutocratic bosses.

This relationship between the plutocrats and the bought politicians is an example of “political symbiosis” – specifically “mutualism”: the plutocrats gain by the importation of refugee cheap labor, and the bought politicians gain by the importation of refugee cheap votes.

It was recently in the news how, as the influxes of people poured into Germany, one of the first things Merkel did was to get the newly arrived “refugees” registered for employment. That however, will not work out, because these “refugees” have no skills, not by European standards at any rate.

Yet “Mama” Merkel, or as Der Spiegel recently referred to her on its front cover – “Mutter Angela” – has the gall to pose as a humanitarian. Let me ask you: What kind of “humanitarian” adopts a policy that will do nothing but exacerbate the suffering of people? Because this influx will never end.

The people who remain behind in their native lands will continue to suffer, and those who come to Europe will not integrate, and Germany, and all of Europe, will be destroyed.

But Merkel doesn’t care. As long as Merkel gets good press, cheap votes, and well-greased palms, and the plutocrats get cheap labor, Merkel is happy. She wins. The plutocrats win. But the European peoples lose.

Putin has said as much when he laid the blame for the refugee crisis squarely on the foreign policy of the United States, and Kaddafi, before the U.S. took him out, predicted the “refugee” crisis.

But here’s the essential point: Peter Sutherland and his ilk want the refugee crisis. They actually want the suffering and the disruption and the dislocation and the human tragedy, because it furthers their Agenda of a one-world plutocratic police state.

The plutocrats, in their sick, pathological, ravenous lust for profit, desire the elimination of borders, the destruction of human diversity, the annihilation of nation-states, and the creation of a planetary plantation populated by soulless serfs and deracinated wage slaves.

Let me tell you: Merkel and the rest of the criminal Overlords occupying Europe don’t give a damn about the Black man, the Yellow man, the Red man, the Brown man, or the White man: the bought politicians only care about the Green man: i.e., they only care about the plutocrats, because it’s the plutocrats who call shots: the bought politicians are just there to act as buffers and to cash-in on the perks of office, to give the common person the illusion that she or he has a choice. But rest assured: you have no choice.

It’s also interesting how the plutocrats and their bought politicians abuse language. Their Orwellian abuse of words dovetails beautifully with their anti-White agenda. Here a just a few colorful examples:
  • “Diversity” = balkanization
  • "Multiculturalism" = divide-and-conquer
  • "Immigration" = genocide of the target people, for our purposes, the genocide of the European peoples
  • "Globalization" = planetary slave state
  • "Democracy" = plutocratic tyranny
  • “Austerity” = whatever is good for the 1%
  • "Human rights" = dehumanization
  • "Justice" = anything the plutocrats want
  • "Freedom" = wage slavery
  • "Economy" = post-modern serfs toiling on behalf of their plutocratic puppet masters
  • "Peace" = perpetual war
  • "Independence" = the wholesale bondage and enslavement of ALL the Peoples of mankind to the money-power
  • "Tolerance" = celebrating the demise of one's own culture, nation, and People
This twisted abuse of language brings us to the third grouping mentioned previously – the militant non-Whites.

(3): The militant non-Whites. At the outset, let me state, for the record: Most non-White people are innocent bystanders to all the things that are being discussed here today. They want to go to work, raise their families, go about their lives, and live in peace. They are innocent people.

They have done nothing wrong. It is immoral to hate, harm, or persecute any person on account of any indelible characteristic whatsoever. Recall the title of this speech: “On Seizing the Moral High Ground.”

I believe it is self-evidently true that it is morally wrong to hate, harm, or persecute anyone simply because of what a person is. Along with my belief, there is a secondary, far less important reason not to do so: the second you advocate hating, harming, or persecuting anyone simply because of what a person is – poof! – you cede the moral high ground.

I’ll take it even a step further; I believe that it is always wrong to harm any sentient being, with two possible exceptions: (1) self-defense, and (2) defense-of-others.

With this understanding firmly in mind, we can briefly discuss the militant non-Whites. But there’s really not much to say, because the militant non-Whites are simply riding the coattails of the plutocrats and the plutocrats’ bought politicians. The militant non-Whites are able to do what they do because they are funded, promoted, protected, and encouraged by the nation-wreckers.

They’re the tools, the shock troops, that the plutocrats use to breakdown a People, to turn a homogeneous nation-state into a fractured, divided, defenseless mass of wage slaves and uprooted serfs, with no identity or meaning, with no ability to resist their dispossession and their enslavement to the global plutocracy.

The mentioning of dispossession and enslavement to the global plutocracy is an opportune segue to address the fourth grouping mentioned previously – the Zionists.

(4): The Zionists. Let this fact be noted: No group of people that has, for decades, supported a cruel occupation, that has, for decades, made excuses justifying an ongoing campaign of genocide, no such group of people has the moral standing to lecture anyone about anything. Quite the contrary, it is our place to lecture them.

(5): The SJW Christians. I use the term “social justice warrior Christians” as a euphemism for Western Christianity. The current pope, Pope Francis, is the epitome of the SJW Christian. Just a few weeks ago, Pope Francis was in the United States, preaching open borders and encouraging the ongoing invasion of North America.

And I think we all know Pope Francis advocates the ongoing “refugee” invasion of Europe. But rather than critique the Pope, and lambaste him for being a fellow-traveler with the plutocrats and their bought politicians, I will instead recite to you the words of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, taken from his 1970 Nobel Lecture in Literature:
“In recent times it has been fashionable to talk of the leveling of nations, of the disappearance of different races in the melting-pot of contemporary civilization. I do not agree with this opinion, but its discussion remains another question. Here it is merely fitting to say that the disappearance of nations would have impoverished us no less than if all men had become alike, with one personality and one face. Nations are the wealth of mankind, its collective personalities; the very least of them wears its own special colours and bears within itself a special facet of divine intention.”
Whereas, Solzhenitsyn speaks the simple truth – however unpopular it might be with the plutocrats, their bought politicians, the militant non-Whites, the Zionists, and the Christian Social Justice Warriors – Pope Francis openly advocates the destruction of ALL the Peoples of mankind, because the annihilation of human diversity is exactly what the Pope’s logic leads to.

Pope Francis calls for the death of human diversity, and does it with a smile on his face and a gleam in his eyes. And he gets away with it. No one calls him on it? And why?

Because the SJW Christians possess the moral high ground.

Netanyahu, along with perpetuating the ongoing brutal occupation of the Palestinians, has announced that Israel will accept no refugees. And he gets away with it. And why?

Because the Zionists possess the moral high ground.

The plutocrats are destroying this planet with their greed and their avarice, but they mask their lust for cheap labor and environmental devastation in the rhetoric of “humanitarianism”. They export their industries to nations devoid of environmental regulations, and they turn peasants stripped of their lands into wage slaves. And they get away with it. And why?

Because the plutocrats possess the moral high ground.

The militant non-Whites call for policies that can only end in the genocide of the European peoples of the world. And as they advocate for the death of our People, they have the unmitigated audacity to pose as paragons of morality. And they get away with it. And why?

Because the militant non-Whites possess the moral high ground.

Bought politicians such as “Mama” Merkel and her fellow plutocratic Whoremasters sell out the blood of our ancestors, and the future of our children, our Destiny in the stars, for good press, cheap votes, and a few pieces of silver. And they get away with it. And why?

Because the bought politicians possess the moral high ground.

So, I hope that you now have a clear understanding of my opinion as to who currently possesses the moral high ground.

Shortly, I will address a second question, equally important: “How did the SJW Christians, the Zionists, the plutocrats, the militant non-whites, and the bought politicians come to possess the ‘moral high ground?’”

But before I proceed to address this question, please allow me to first provide some necessary background information required to understand the answer I will offer.

How is it that we have come to this point in history, where the fate of life on this planet lies in the hands of a coterie of utterly corrupt, degenerate plutocrats and their bought politicians?

Ladies and gentlemen, we are in a war not only for the survival of our People, but for the survival of life itself. These are the stakes. But this war is unlike that of any other. In this war, there are no bombs or bullets, no missiles or armies, no guns or guillotines.

This is the ultimate war, the final war: it is the War on Spirit. We have the good fortune of representing Spirit, and I will explain why later in this speech. But the fact that we represent Spirit is why we have no choice but to take the high road, because only the high road leads to the moral high ground, which is what we must seize.

The War on Spirit is today raging everywhere on this planet, and it is a war the outcome of which will determine the fate of mankind and, indeed, of ALL life on Earth; it is a war that touches upon every aspect and dimension of what it means to be a human being, to be a living, sentient, conscious being, having a past, a present, and a future.

You might not have heard of this war, or thought much about it if at all – and there is a reason for this: the mass media function like a planetary Platonic cave, and as Noam Chomsky has noted, the mass media have been morphed into mechanisms for manufacturing consent – and the controlled-corporate plutocratic media have a vested interest in not publicizing the War on Spirit.

The War on Spirit is an organized, elite-driven assault on the ALL Peoples of mankind - their respective freedoms, environments, homelands, cultures, belief systems, dignity, and independence. Economistic mechanism-materialism is at war with organic vitalism-spiritualism: Mammon is at war with Beauty; every other struggle is a subset of this existential battle.

This conflict rages and grows more severe and pronounced, even as ever more elite-engineered divide-and-conquer balkanization (i.e., "multiculturalism" and "diversity") is promoted by the international tyrants in the global plutocracy.

The War on Spirit has been with us for a very long time. Indeed, once the medium of exchange became fungible (e.g., in the form of money), it was inevitable that economic materialism would embark on a quest to transform the world in its image: humans must become fungible; religions must become universal; everything must succumb to and be subsumed by Mammon – and anything standing in the way of commerce must be plowed under and remade in the image of a rootless, anomic, race-less, ahistorical consumer society.

Ancient conceptions of the sacred and mystical have indeed atrophied, and this process of atrophic decay has been a tragedy for ALL the Peoples of mankind: the conception that mankind are composed of tribes and races, within a harmonic, organic, holonic totality, is infinitely preferable to post-modern ennui and soullessness.

Abstract concepts can be deadly, particularly if they divorce consciousness from reality. Mankind need a new paradigm, a fresh, life-affirming perspective to perceive the cosmos – i.e., visible Creation. The old dogmas and blinders must crumble and give way: it is necessary to rethink the meaning of the sacred.

Once the medium of exchange became liberated from use-value, i.e., when the medium of exchange became fungible in the form of money, economic materialism declared war on spirituality, organic life- harmony, and the old values of Truth, Goodness, and Beauty.

The money-power of economic materialism would, slowly but surely, expand, grow, and consolidate itself. Gradually it would eat away at the organic orders, the aristocratic values, and the supernal systems of thought – the very consciousness – of Western man, as well as the respective consciousnesses of ALL the Peoples of mankind.

Eventually, ideologies and paradigms such as Darwinism, Marxism, Freudianism, etc., were developed and promoted, and these new "isms," all these new paradigms and worldviews, all seemed somehow to always have as their as their target the conception of mankind as composed of organic, holonic Peoples and ethno-cultures.

The development of fungible, abstract, detached exchange-value (e.g., consider Aristotle's discussion of commodities, money, barter, usury, exchange-value, and use-value) helped to unleash the forces of economic materialism, and as we witness the course of history, we can see an ongoing world historical struggle taking place, and this titanic clash – which is not yet over – is being waged between Vitalism and Mechanism, between spiritualism and materialism, between particularism and universalism, between soil and profit, between blood and commerce – in short, between Beauty and Mammon.

Marxism fetishizes the economic dimension of this struggle and transforms it into the struggle: the struggle to end all struggles. Yet, Marxism is built on lies – lies about everything, from the nature of man to the meaning and purpose of human existence. In this struggle, Mammon-capitalism is allied with radical egalitarianism, i.e., it has institutionalized the lie of human fungibility – and to disagree with totalitarian human fungibility is to be a heretic.

Step by step – as we see with Peter Sutherland, the global plutocracy, and the so-called “refugee crisis” – the international plutocracy has moved to transform homogeneous, sovereign nation-states into globalized, neo-feudal, balkanized, standing-reserve cash cows, to better service the needs and hegemonic objectives of Zionism and plutocratic international finance.

Today, materialistic Mammon-capitalism is destroying our planet; indeed, the inner depravity and disharmony of Mammon-capitalism is manifesting itself in the ultimate System crisis: the end of growth, i.e., the point at which the pathologies of Mammon-capitalism, commodification and mass consumption, smash into the wall of reality.

Let us now return to the question: “How did the SJW Christians, the Zionists, the plutocrats, the militant non-whites, and the bought politicians come to possess the ‘moral high ground?’”

One reason is the work of Karl Marx. Another reason is the thought of Charles Darwin.

Marx employed noble sentiment, revolutionary ideas, beautifully crafted rhetoric, a seductive ideology, and synthesized his creation into an enormous yet cohesive body of work that appealed to a vast number of disenfranchised or otherwise dissatisfied people. These disenfranchised people evolved into today’s Cultural Marxists. They are the children of Marx.

Among the most well-known lines from the Communist Manifesto is the following:

"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”

With this one sentence, Marx sets the tone for his materialist conception of history. And when you take Marx’s agenda and strip away any sense of the transcendent, and instead perceive reality through the prism of materialism, you get modernity – the world in which we today exist.

Our science, much of our culture, our economics, our values, and the very air we breathe: we are immersed in a reality in which the doctrine of materialism is accepted as unquestionable fact. This is no accident. This is Marx’s true, lasting revolution.

This materialist outlook extends to every conceivable thing, from the subatomic to the cosmic. Materialist science tells us that ultimately existence is merely matter in motion, that there is no profound reason, deeper purpose, numinous meaning, and no supernal causation – to anything.

The universe is according to materialism the result of an unguided expansion called the “Big Bang”. We are as so many billiard balls colliding into so many other billiard balls. There is material causation, and that is all there is – period.

This materialist paradigm has dire consequences for ALL the peoples of mankind. Take the case of the European peoples; consider for example the ongoing “refugee” crisis. Peter Sutherland, Satan’s right-hand man, looks at a human being and sees fungible cheap labor, equally interchangeable economic units of production and consumption.

Identity, soul, Spirit, Blood, soil: Sutherland is blind to these qualities. And if Sutherland is right, then, yes: Why not open the borders? Why not eliminate nation-states? Why not transform the world into one giant market place, where the highest aspiration is profit maximization? Why not wipe out the diversity of the peoples of mankind?

But what if Marx‘s materialist conception of history is wrong? What if Aristotle’s position regarding formal, efficient, and final causes is correct? What if Plato is correct about the soul surviving the death of the body?

Another exemplar of materialism, Charles Darwin, wrote On the Origin of Species. But what Darwin did not do, however, is copyright reality. Darwin recognized that change occurs over time, and he saw nature's incrementalism from the perspective of methodological naturalism.

But is methodological naturalism the only perspective from which to view nature's incrementalism? The emergence of life, sentience, and consciousness, the bio-friendly laws and forces of nature – as well as the progression of the cosmos from the Big Bang’s seed-like singularity to today's visible universe – suggest that perhaps nature's incrementalism actually is goal-based teleology, i.e., Aristotle’s notion of final causation, specifically Consciousness/Spirit. This would help explain why, in Aristotle's teleology, thinking is godlike: abstract contemplation is the highest end.

Materialists view the cosmos as a mechanical device, e.g., as a watch or a machine. But it is possible the cosmos is more akin to a living organism (or perhaps a living "multiverse" super-organism). After all, what is the multiverse – if it exists – but self-replication on the grandest scale?

Again, what if materialism is wrong? What if the Big Bang was not an unguided expansion of space-time matter-energy? What if, instead, the Big Bang was an ordered expansion of space-time matter-energy: i.e., what if the Big Bang was an event analogous to a "seed" "sprouting". And as to who or what is ultimately responsible for this “Big Seed”, there is of course no way for us to know, but Aristotle's notion of the unmoved Mover is nevertheless certainly a sound hypothesis.

The materialists, that is to say, the Cultural Marxists, are free to continue adhering to an atheistic-materialistic-evolutionist paradigm.

But we are equally free to begin adhering to a theistic-spiritualistic-teleological paradigm. And by so doing, we take possession of the moral high ground. And not because adhering to a theistic-spiritualistic-teleological paradigm is thereby expedient, but because it is the soundest position to which to adhere.

And it is important to note the following distinction: evolution, understood as change over time and common ancestry, is of course is true, scientific, and undeniable. Evolutionism, on the other hand, is the philosophy of nihilism, that the material is all there is: evolutionism is therefore nothing more than atheist metaphysics.

It is undeniable that the cosmos has gradually, incrementally, spontaneously self-organized – from the very small to the very large – and that the peoples of mankind are teleologically unfolding parts of this gradual, spontaneous, incremental, self-organized expansion.

Ladies and gentlemen, fellow patriots:

The old world is dying.

A new world is being born. But what kind of world will it be?

To answer this question, we must comprehend that we stand today at a critical juncture in history – at a world historical fork-in-the-road.

It is our decision to make. It is up to our generation to choose in which direction the world goes. The path our generation chooses, right now, today, will determine the kind of planet our children will live on, and whether the blood of our ancestors has been spilt in vain.

And what are these two paths?

One of them leads ineluctably to a hellhole characterized by ecological devastation, the eradication of national borders, overpopulation, scarcity, perpetual internecine warfare, exploitation, tyranny, species extinction, and the death of Beauty. It is a world in which Mammon is victorious. This is the world of global plutocracy, in which we are all – ALL of us - regardless of race, creed, ethnicity, or religion, reduced to wage slaves: neo-feudal serfs imprisoned on a planetary plutocratic plantation.

The other path leads to the stars, to immortality.

To truly explain the choice that lies before us, I turn again to the words of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, taken from his lecture entitled “A World Split Apart”, delivered at Harvard Class Day Afternoon Exercises on Thursday, June 8, 1978:
“Even if we are spared destruction by war, our lives will have to change if we want to save life from self-destruction. We cannot avoid revising the fundamental definitions of human life and human society. Is it true that man is above everything? Is there no Superior Spirit above him? Is it right that man's life and society's activities have to be determined by material expansion in the first place? Is it permissible to promote such expansion to the detriment of our spiritual integrity?
“If the world has not come to its end, it has approached a major turn in history, equal in importance to the turn from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance. It will exact from us a spiritual upsurge, we shall have to rise to a new height of vision, to a new level of life where our physical nature will not be cursed as in the Middle Ages, but, even more importantly, our spiritual being will not be trampled upon as in the Modern era.
“This ascension will be similar to climbing onto the next anthropologic stage. No one on earth has any other way left but – upward.”

So I say to you, my fellow patriots – and to ALL people of good will, regardless of race, creed, ethnicity, or religion – now is the opportune moment for decisive action. This is the world historical moment for the European Peoples, and ALL the peoples of mankind, at long last, to lift our heads and proclaim to the forces of international plutocratic tyranny: enough is enough. Freedom!

Thank you very much.