Our Struggle

Many people dream of a life of tranquillity and plenty. For them nothing could be better than to be a ‘lotus eater’ in some idyllic Shangri-la, where life is free from stress, or worry, or conflict.

I often tell people about my encounters with religious zealots who have knocked at my door in the past to tell me about the coming paradise foretold in ancient scriptures: of a time when there will be no wars and no crime; no-one will argue; everyone will love everyone else; our every need will be provided for; peace and tranquillity will reign; and we will be able spend our days in joyous thanksgiving to the Lord. These religious zealots are good people in the main and their intentions are good, however their approach to life and their whole belief system is based upon an unrealistic, childlike premise.

I used to disabuse such people of their foolishness when I was younger and found it a great source of amusement to see them walking away, crestfallen, and disillusioned once the realities of the universe and the contradiction within the scriptures had been pointed out to them, but I recognise now that their belief is not based in logic, but in an emotional desire to feel secure. Their security comes from the belief that a benevolent, paternal God is looking down and will watch over them and care for them, provided they ‘believe’ hard enough.

This approach to life is, as I have said, childishness of the sort that causes young children to link hands in a circle, close their eyes, cross their fingers and toes, and wish really hard for something they want. It is in effect an admission that they have no conception of how to get what they want and so they place their hopes in ‘magic’, and the super-natural. However as life shows us with the news every day: with the wars; the murders; the raping and the looting; the disease; the famine; and the natural disasters that occur, ‘magic’ and the super-natural play no part in reality.

Parents may encourage small children to believe in Father Christmas, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy, but we all know such things don’t really exist and for adult human beings to rely upon divine intervention for their future wellbeing is wholly unrealistic and dangerous in the extreme.

Some people with a socialist world view have hoped that where divine intervention falls short of their needs, the state can step in, in the form of social services and provide the safety net that will carry them from the cradle to the grave, but Marxism, Anarchism, Syndicalism and all of the other utopian socialisms also fall short and turn sour due to the same fatal flaw, that of aiming to create a utopia, which is a synonym for paradise, or Shangri-la, in short, a world based upon ‘love’, in which there are no wars; no crime; no-one argues; everyone will love everyone else; our every need will be provided for; peace and tranquillity will reign; and we will be able spend our days in joyous thanksgiving for the boundless wisdom of the Central Committee of the semi-autonomous collective/all-powerful state.

The fatal flaw in these infantile political and religious belief systems is an ignorance of entropy and the significance of the struggle or striving against entropy as central to existence.

The universe, or the Cosmos as I prefer to call it, has been shown by science to be a vast entity that facilitates evolution.

The dawning of the Cosmo saw an explosion of energy particles rushing out in all directions from a central point, and as the eons passed, mere chance caused many of these particles to collide, and sometimes these collisions caused the particles involved to become fused together to form atoms, and some atoms collided and sometimes the atoms became fused creating molecules, and so on. This is how matter came to exist and how eventually large balls of matter came to exist creating the planets and the solar systems that we can see today.

On our particular solar system, and on our particular planet, the conditions that evolved eventually enabled living matter to form and the very simple single celled forms of living matter eventually evolved into higher forms of life and gave birth to mankind and to us.

Despite the evolution of our planet with life on it; the evolution of our solar system and the vast galaxies beyond, we should be cognisant of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the phenomenon of ‘entropy’, which put simply, in the absence of effort to the contrary, causes energy to dissipate and matter to break down into its constituent parts over time.

Viewing the Cosmos in large scale terms, we see the planets, the solar systems and the galaxies continually moving away from each other, spreading themselves more thinly in order to fill the limitless void around us.

Viewing the Cosmos in smaller scale terms, we see the energy of our Sun radiating outwards, warming our planet, but causing what we know to be unsustainable heat-loss for the Sun, such that it will eventually be extinguished, its energy having been dissipated throughout our solar system and beyond.

Viewing our planet alone, we are conscious that matter and heat bubbles to the surface through volcanic activity, causing mountains to form. The heat dissipates due to the cooling effect of our atmosphere and those mountains are eroded, breaking down into rock fragments, gravel, sand and eventually dust, much of which is blown away by the wind.

If we look at our homes, we see that the constant action of the elements causes bricks and cement to eventually crack and crumble; causes wood to eventually rot; and causes metals to eventually corrode, breaking them down into their constituent parts as the energy that originally bound these materials dissipates out into the wider environment and eventually out into space.

If we did not take action, that is expend effort and energy to maintain our homes, they would eventually become dilapidated and collapse in ruins, and eventually those ruins would crumble away, until after thousands of years, nothing is left.

In the same way, if we clear a path through a wood, unless we expend effort and energy to maintain that path, it will become overgrown and it will eventually be reclaimed by the woods.

Wherever we look there is entropy and the only thing that reverses the effect of entropy is effort and the expending of energy. This is why there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine, because in the absence of effort and the expending of further energy, the energy driving the machine will always run out. Nothing can be in a state of stasis in which it never changes and this is why there is no such thing as ‘the balance of nature’. Nature is inevitably in a constant state of change as a result of entropy and the dissipation of energy.

For a paradise to exist, a Shangri-la in which everything the inhabitants want is provided without effort, so that no-one goes without, no-one is stressed, or worried, or ever in conflict over finite resources, a situation of stasis would be required, in which nothing ever changes.

We Europeans are often criticised because of our striving for more and our striving to push forward frontiers and advance civilisation, and our critics point to peoples in a less advanced state of development and ask, why we cannot live as they do, ‘in balance’ with nature – in harmony with their environment?

The answer of course is that even where it appears there is a ‘balance of nature’ or that someone is living ‘in balance with their environment’, the process of entropy will continue and that temporary appearance of ‘harmony’ will come to an end. Furthermore, in the attempt to live in ‘harmony’, the people of this temporary ‘paradise’ will need to live their lives in a state of stasis, in which their lives never change. They will not be able to change, because the moment they change, the ‘balance’ and the ‘harmony’ of their lives and of their existence will be disturbed.

Such people, the natives of the Amazonian jungle for example, have therefore paid a heavy price for their millennia spent in paradise. They have lived each day exactly as they lived the day before, they have limited their families so that their numbers remain in harmony with their environment and they have lived their lives exactly as their forebears lived their lives, and they have remained trapped in a stone age existence, with stone age technology.

Despite not seeking contact with the outside world, the outside world has relentlessly come to meet them and disturb their idyllic way of life, and the peoples of the Amazon are unable to compete and are powerless to stop the destruction of their paradise.

The price we pay for utopia is the loss of progress, and the price we pay for the loss of progress is that we are unable to compete with others who have progressed and who have vastly more advanced technology.

Some may say, but if all mankind lived in harmony with our environment, there would be no-one to disturb and destroy and we could all live in bliss, as children of the world! However, if mankind did attempt this, there will be advanced life forms evolving on other planets in other solar system and other galaxies, and sooner or later, it is inevitable that they would come knocking on our door and they would be the ones with the vastly more advanced technology and we would be the hapless victims of their inevitable colonisation of our planet.

Another essential element of our struggle and our striving, is the struggle to overcome those who compete with us for the finite resources of this planet. In the absence of effort in this respect, we will simply be displaced, marginalised and driven into extinction by those who do strive and who strive to overcome us and have what we have for themselves.

Life is the process of striving to overcome entropy. In the absence of striving we will eventually suffer the fate of the Amazonian natives and find that our paradise is short lived.

Each one of us must strive to provide, so that we and our kind can live and can advance. We must strive to overcome competition for scarce resources; we must strive to overcome competition for work; we must strive to earn enough so that we can marry and reproduce; we must strive to feed and clothe our children; we must strive to maintain the fabric of our homes; we must strive to protect our land; and to advance our civilisation, and so on.

There is an old saying, ‘when we arrive at our goal, we arrive at our grave’, and therefore we must strive and when we achieve what we have striven for in the past, we must strive to achieve more.

We can never look forward to a time in which there will be no struggle and no striving. Entropy is relentless and so our struggle and our striving must also be relentless, and we should embrace this and learn to enjoy the struggle, for it is the essence of life, it is the engine of creation and without it we face decline and inevitable extinction at the hands of a superior foe.

If we succeed in our struggle however, if we increase our numbers, improve our technology; advance our civilisation and colonise, first our solar system and then the Cosmos beyond, our children and descendants beyond them will have a wonderful future the like of which we can only imagine.

Let us look to the future with steely determination, with confidence and with hope in our hearts!

By Max Musson © 2016

# # # #

JOIN WESTERN SPRING

Western Spring is not just a website. We are a community of people dedicated to achieving the Six Prerequisites and thereby acquiring the wherewithal needed to win political power and through that secure the future survival, proliferation and advancement of the British people and other White peoples of European descent, wherever they may live. Please join us:

# # # #

 

 

 

13 thoughts on “Our Struggle

  1. There is an old saying, ‘when we arrive at our goal, we arrive at our grave’,
    A lot of what we are up against has been done on a long term, more than a lifetime basis, we live with what started before we were even born.

  2. I agree there is no balance of nature, somebody once said to me that you might have a chaotic situation but eventually a new equilibrium will settle in until another upset or change in circumstances & then that will settle down to a new equilibrium but it’s different to what went before.
    Like in the aftermath of WW2 a new Europe emerged, people were gone or moved.
    Another one is emerging but that too can be changed.

  3. Earth was a predator planet long before we ever arrived. I will always wonder why the Creator did not make us able to renew our energy from the energy that is all around us all the time instead of pitting us against nature and one another.

    You have perfectly described Jehovah’s Witnesses, the only exception being that they don’t like Christmas and Easter and don’t give Christmas presents. Otherwise they are happy to believe that the good and wise Benefactor/Creator who has not intervened for people in dire circumstances in 6000 years is somehow going to step in and intervene. They are so kind-hearted and lovely people but it is all so unrealistic! and so with the cuckoos and cowbirds pushing our native species out of their nests and left to die on the ground, these childish believers wouldn’t dream of raising a finger to help themselves b/c God is gonna fix it all. they remind me of the workers at city hall who won’t join a union but will accept the raises negotiated by the firefighters’ union and the policemen’s union.

    Very well explained, Max–thank you for sharing your excellent insights. I would bet that when the SHTF, people like you will be standing shoulder to shoulder and those child-like people will be nowhere to be found; and when it is all done, they will quietly stand back from the destruction and think “it’s okay–God loves me and it is in his hands.”

    Knights of the new crusade – Ain´t no monkeys in my family tree

  4. Europe is facing an existentialist threat through mass immigration and globalisation, and our distinct racial identity is being imperiled through miscegenation, so there is little possibility of enjoying earthly paradise. The struggles we are facing as Europeans in multicultural paradises like Sweden and Germany are unprecedented and will involve a desperate struggle for survival. Should we survive this considerable challenge then anything will be possible but the odds are not in our favour.

  5. I don’t think any mainstream Christian denomination would believe in the Paradise on Earth scenario this side of the Second Coming of Jesus. The Old Testament prophesies the ‘lion lying with the lamb’ as being a sign of the Messianic era which might be an inspiration for some of the illustrations in the article. But this is not to be taken literally. This verse is speaking about secular (lion) and religious authority (lamb) working in harmony for the general good.

    The Book of Genesis after the Fall calls it correctly. It has God telling Adam (and his descendants). ‘By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you return to the ground’, meaning you are going to have to work hard to survive and it will not come easy to you.

  6. Although it may not be exactly the thrust of this article, I often think about the trappings of being thankful for what we currently have – and the associated arguments that stem from this premise.

    For example, I, we, all of us are extremely fortunate to be living the way that we do. That we have technology, computers, sat in our warm homes reading these articles, with electricity, often with loved ones nearby, after finishing a job of work, where we can rely, albeit ever more desperately, on a national health system, medicines, ambulances, fire engines, running water, sanitation, cars, roads, and all sorts of things that others do not have in this world.

    It is hard not be humbled and grateful for what has been bequeathed to us, for what we ourselves may have helped support or continue, and for generally how well we are able to live life compared to those less fortunate, whether that be in other nations or whether it is within our own nations (such as those with devastating illnesses, lost limbs, blindness, homelessness and so on). “Things could always be worse”, as they say.

    It is often very tempting to take only this view and no other, not only because of its inherent truth, but also because it can seem somewhat obnoxious or arrogant how we can often complain over things which would be utterly trivial (and still extremely luxurious) for some peoples of this Earth.

    Yet, although we should be thankful for these things, I still tend to think that we should not, as a civilisation, rest on our laurels.

    I often hear how grateful we should be that, for example, we have hospitals and ambulances at all, never mind that it may take a fortnight to see a doctor, or that it may take two hours for an ambulance to arrive when it used to be around 20 minutes. Sure, there may be roadworks disrupting the road for months at a time – but at least we have water pipes and systems that give us instant clean water!

    I think they are right, but I also think that they are wrong. They are right that we have it good, but wrong in an endless comparison to how we are not as bad as somewhere else. By taking such an attitude, I think there is risk of continual putting up with lowering conditions, chasing things down the bottom levels of standards (and expectations) instead of ensuring that we are even greater than we have been before.

    I think Europeans have had that drive, the striving for more and for greater things as part of the evolutionary approach more widely discussed in this article. It made us pioneers, healthier, expanding ourselves and our (then) sense of righteous dominance over those who could not match us and our capacities for furthering humanity.

    I am truly thankful for the benefits I have been given in life, and yet, whilst I take humble note of this, I also think we ought to be a lot firmer in pressing that things improve – rather than decline. Liberalism, for the reasons explained in this article, is pushing things in a particular way which creates a decline and removes the opportunities for greatness and the advancement of our people and indeed the world.

    It would be quite hard, in my estimation, to sell the idea of struggle and striving to a wider audience of childish hedonists we can see in our society.

    However, much like the example I am trying to express, maybe there is a way to try and find a balance between the idiotic utopia expressed by many unwitting international socialists (dreaming of a John Lennon world of peace and easy-living) – and that of finding our place again in this world, in this country, where by carving something out in a struggle, we can ensure we survive as winners in the evolutionary stakes, even at this micro-level.

    We seem to be in a system where the most degenerate and degenerative traits are held aloft. (Higher birthrates from those who are not high in IQ and who cannot sustain themselves. Praise for those with the most destructive lifestyle choices, be it their choices in life or matters such as drug taking, or both). The examples are many, all the while people dream of reaching this end goal of global harmony…and yet all the while, things appear to be breaking down, falling apart, being overwhelmed…yet simultaneously we are encouraged to be thankful for what we may have left for us to rest upon.

    In such an environment of degeneration, these are the ones who could grow and thrive. They could be the evolutionary winners, essentially being made “fit-for-purpose” for the kind of world they will bring around. We do not share their interests, their views, their idea of what is good. But ‘mother nature’ may not care what is advancement, it may only care who dominates and who prevails.

    If we do not have a sense of purpose, something to strive for, something to overcome the rot for, then I think the article is correct…..we will stagnate along with the rest of them, and, at some point, be overwhelmed by events that could usher in a giant step backwards for life on Earth.

    1. Very good points. It’s important in my view to bear in mind how recent and precarious many of these things are. My collection of books includes statistics on many aspects of the world. It’s interesting to reflect that in 1945 many houses in Britain had no internal bathrooms. Main drainage was only introduced in the 19th century. Electricity is barely 150 years old. Personal car ownership is quite recent. Computers even more so. It’s painful to hear (e.g.) moronic black ‘sports’ ‘personalities’ saying their homelands have ‘no infrastructure’, apparently without understanding someone had to work on it. It’s painful too, to hear whites with no idea of what their ancestors achieved, and also how they were manipulated. Intellectual progress is pitifully slow, and there are innumerable whites deluded into praising people who have damaged them. At least we now have Internet, and must hope that it cannot be snuffed out. In informational terms, I’d say we are better equipped than ever before in human history. We have a lot of catching up to do, but t least it seems possible now.

  7. Hello Max,

    I wrote an (even longer) post on one of your other threads but it didn’t appear, so here is an abbreviated version:

    The reason why we are in our current position is that a tiny minority of very powerful people constantly manipulate the majority. They do this by creating religions and ideolgies which cause normal people to fight each other. They foster religious or ideolgical extremism of different kinds and then use that to gain their ends.

    It now appears that they created the religious ideology of Nazism, which took natural racism to extremes, in order to sway public opinion and allow the imposition of the current cultural Marxist regime with its need for mass immigration to implement the Coudenhove-Kalergi plan.

    Most normal decent people today will not support any openly extreme ideology such as Nazism, however these same people WILL support extreme ideology if it is dressed up as something moderate and normal, which of course is why so many support cultural Marxism.

    I’m confident that the reason for the consistent failure of British nationalism is the constant association with Neo-Nazis.

    Most British people found Nazism abhorrent in the 1940s and they still find it abhorrent today. This dislike of openly extreme politics seems to be a racial characteristic of white people in general and British people in particular.

    The main reason why UKIP has achieved its limited success, is that it distanced itself as much as possible from the Neo-Nazi image of previous nationalist groups, and focused on an issue which drew mass support.
    Even then, UKIP is still smeared by Neo-Nazi extremism because people recognise it as nationalistic and connect that with the NF etc.

    This means that success or failure in this area comes down to good understanding and use of relevant psychology, something which British nationalists have consistently failed to do.

    I think the type of psychology most relevant to our current problems is the depth psychology of Wilhelm Reich.

    The good news is that while the media constantly uses psychology to further its ends, it does so in a fairly crude way. They can’t access the full power available in depth psycholgy because being cultural Marxists their thinking is too unnatural, British nationalists on the other hand, not having this handicap, are free to do it properly.

    By better understanding the human condition, we can play our enemy at their own game, play it better, and be the victors in this struggle.

      1. I’m sorry Max, I may have over-stated it a bit.
        By application of psychology, I’ve come to the conclusion that ideology, no matter whether religious or atheistic is the problem.
        Your enemy manipulates people by getting them to believe in this stuff.
        Your enemy is very powerful, but has the weakness that it relies upon mass support for these ideological tools.
        In principle “all” we need to do is to get people to see that these beliefs are extreme and unnatural (Reich’s term) and return to their more natural state.
        Once this unnatural psychic state is gone, most people will no longer want multiculturalism or the quasi-totalitarian multiculturalist state which goes along with that.
        This is already starting to happen, but I don’t think it’s happening quickly enough, and I thought you might like to help it along.

    1. When I was involved with and a member of the British National Party, I used to be convinced of the “if only” lines of thought. “If only” we could present that killer piece of prose, leaflet, brochure or article. “If only” we could fine tune things to make people aware of our true intentions and not believe the lies or stereotypes. “If only” we all wore smart suits and refrained from certain language, they would flock to us as the common sense people we see ourselves as being.

      I think you correctly assert that psychology is both important AND used a tool against us. But therein lays our bind, does it not? The very tiny minority of powerful people are more than deft in their craft. They are experienced throughout centuries, embedded into all avenues of life that shape society and societal attitudes, with vast network of common interests and outlooks ready to tap into, well funded, well oiled.

      It is not even a networked conspiracy in the hard sense of the description, I see it more as a ‘trend’ or an ‘occupational hazard’ that they are drawn into and share the values of. Others, the ‘useful idiots’, just go along with it because they have bought into it and have, in most cases, never even comprehended another point of view – not least because society is saturated with messaging against doing so.

      As you say yourself, even the United Kingdom Independence Party are touted as being “far right” and even ‘extreme’ in some newspaper outlets and social commentary. Of course, it is completely absurd. It does not stand up to any scrutiny at all. They have been, and by nature are, the kind of ‘presentable’ party platform. It is not a mask, or a front – it is what their members and policies genuinely subscribe in – and they still get the “Nazi” treatment.

      The constant association of them, and us nationalists, with Neo-Nazis is therefore something that will happen no matter what we do, no matter how we approach things, no matter how we tailor our message, no matter what group it is or what the policies are actually there for. Those opposed to us and our viewpoints know us more than we often know ourselves. They know what to look for, what to squash and how to handle any kind of threat to their own agendas and outlooks for how this nation and this world is arranged.

      I still believe that if you approached ‘normal’ middle of the road people with some of the core messages of National Socialism – but did not tell them where they stemmed from – they would generally be in agreement. Most of it seems common sense, wholesome, natural and in the interests of the nation of people. I would say a vast majority of people have no comprehension at all what “Nazi” politics really are – and I think the people at the top of the chain would like to ensure it stays that way.

      I think you’re right that open displays of cartoonist ‘neo-nazism’ are harmful to our movement in our current environment. At the same time, I am kind of open to the idea of using those kinds of antics on the fringes for the purpose of de-legitimatising it as a battering stick.

      The Daily Stormer is taking this kind of approach of being so outlandish that it no longer gets taken seriously, or that, at the least, they become so “out there” that it shifts the acceptability of more moderate nationalist parties our way. I am not sure where I sit with that. I can see the point, but I can also see why it can be detrimental. There seems to be some degree of psychology behind it, but it is not something I feel able to comment upon.

      In an ideal world, an “if only” world, we would be free to express the virtues and values of our positions in a free market place of ideas and see whether they were taken up by the wider public or not. “If only” there weren’t those people linking us to cartoon Neo-Nazi types, if only we didn’t receive the bad press, if only we were smarter about psychologically tuning our messages into peoples wishes and desires…..but we are never going to be given that platform – it has to be wrestled away from them.

      I think there is a lot that could be done to sow the seeds of or values and virtues in society. A lot that could be done to make ourselves examples of society that are admired more than scorned. A lot that could be done psychologically – both within ourselves and the wider public.

      As you allude to, our opponents buildings are often built on the most shakiest of foundations. They are getting more crude and more desperate the more challenged they are. It is based upon unnatural assumptions about the human condition, which is why it leads to mental disorders, decay, degeneration, unhappiness, fragility, mistrust, and other such blights we see in this country and in others like ours.

      It would be interesting to see how psychology could play a role in addressing these observable failures in their world views and finding ways to assert our own solutions. But one thing I know for sure is that, whatever we do, our opponents will be there to stick a ‘neo-nazi’ label on it. They are already attempting to undermine the Alt-Right by inserting “white supremacist” in brackets after every mention of it.

      They are not going to stop doing so. The question, I suppose in part to your reply, is whether we can do anything to shift public opinion enough that they come to laugh at such accusations and come to support what our messages really are. Once that happens, they can say what they like to no effect. They are already a bit weaker than they used to be on this front, through over use, but they are not finished yet.

      1. On seconds thoughts I think my psychology effort above is a dead end, at least for the time being.
        When I took it to its logical conclusion, it caused me to become so furiously angry at our political situation that I became dangerously irrational and careless in my internet posting.
        Luckily Max deleted the part that did that.
        I don’t think it’s constructive to get that angry about a situation that one can’t immediately change.
        Thanks for sharing your experiences.

      2. Now that I’ve calmed down I have a proposal.
        I forgot that the problem isn’t just ideology, it’s the fact that people believe too much what they’re told by the media. They take things too much at face value. They accept the double-talk.

        As I see it the current establishment ethos is roughly the opposite of nationalism, so I think that if you get people to turn against that, they should become nationalists by default, therefore I think that any nationalistic people who want to support the cause but don’t want to publicly identify themselves as nationalists for various reasons, should become establishment debunkers.

        I think the main thing is to make people realise the extent to which they are being lied to, but there also other ways of getting people to see that what they believe is wrong.

        David Icke has already had a lot of success in this area I think, but I think that his new-age association has limited his audience.

        I’ve seen today that politicians are starting to claim that “non-violent conspiracy theorists” are “extremists” and and as bad as terrorists. That’s how effective this strategy is. It has got the establishment worried.
        It looks as if David Icke and others may get forced underground, so I wish that those who don’t want to wear the “nationalist” badge would continue his good work, but by leaving out the new-age part, they should reach the people that he has missed.
        That’s what I’ll be doing anyway.

        I admit that I can’t guarantee that anti-anti-nationalism is actually nationalism, but I think Wilhelm Reich’s natural vs unnatural psychology concept tends to support this view.

Comments are closed.