By Michael Woodbridge:
Many Racial Loyalists have come to the conclusion that racial diversity is not such a bad thing; if only it really meant diversity, or “Separate Development”! The purpose of this brief essay is to point out the short comings of such a concept.
The Apartheid system of racial segregation in South Africa was founded on the notion of “Separate but Equal”. Before the oppressive days of “Political Correctness” even the one time Archbishop of Canterbury said that Apartheid could be morally justified if it meant a complete separation of the races. Of course, despite such idealistic hopes, what destroyed South Africa eventually was when the Whiteman came to rely ever more heavily on Negro labour for his economic survival. Negro labour therefore became a crutch upon which the Whiteman had to rely. Once the crutch was taken away of course it was found that the muscles had atrophied and the whole system broke down into the murder and chaos we have today. So the question remains, could a system be sustained whereby the different races of the world live in mutual respect and cooperation, whilst retaining their separate identities?
Unfortunately, despite its obvious attractions, the idea of a perfect racially harmonious world overlooks the fundamental condition of mankind which is one of struggle. The ideal of universal racial peace is reminiscent of the cover pictures we see on the front of Jehovah Witness publications like ‘Watchtower’ or ‘Awake’. It suggests that all we have to do in life is to be accommodating and love one another unconditionally and we’ll be rewarded with a glorious picnic in the sky. However, just as cheap Negro labour became a crutch and eventually a weakness for the Apartheid system, so does a pie in the sky belief in the possibility of universal harmony, between self-identifying races, pose a threat to our own position.
Although such a conclusion may seem bleak it actually provides the only framework upon which true love can exist. Life is constantly changing, no two experiences, no two feelings, no two moments are ever the same. It is our God defying theft from the ‘Tree of Knowledge’, the impulse to peer round the next corner which gives our lives significance. This Faustian, Promethean hunger is fundamental to White/Aryan man. It is the pinnacle of our blind evolutionary purpose. It defies the liberal notion of inclusivity and seeks exclusivity. It is through our evolutionary quest for the ever elusive perfection that we discover, bond and love one another.
When Rudyard Kipling wrote ‘The Stranger’ he was describing what our struggle is about. It’s about our constant need to eliminate that which is alien, poison, toxic to our blood and racial being. Thus we free our essence for the next evolutionary step.
‘The Stranger’
The Stranger within my gate,
He may be true or kind,
But he does not talk my talk..
I cannot feel his mind.
I see the face and the eyes and the mouth,
But not the soul behind.
The men of my own stock,
They may do ill or well,
But they tell the lies I am wanted to,
They are used to the lies I tell;
And we do not need interpreters
When we go to buy or sell.
The stranger within my gates,
He may be evil or good,
But I cannot tell what powers control..
What reasons sway his mood;
Nor when the gods of his far off land
Shall repossess his blood.
The men of my own stock,
Bitter bad they may be,
But, at least, they hear the things I hear,
And see the things I see;
And whatever I think of them and their likes,
They think the likes of me.
This was my father’s belief
And this is also mine:
Let the corn be all of one sheaf..
And the grapes all of one vine,
Ere our children’s teeth are set on edge
By bitter bread and wine.
[Poem by Rudyard Kipling]
By Michael Woodbridge © 2015
# # # #
K.L.Anderson
- Edit
One step you seem to underplay is altruism in general, which has been a powerful force in our evolution, and not merely altruism toward our own kind. History has showed us time and again that when one race or imperial power seeks sole dominance, the others gang up on it and destroy it—empires have always broken apart into smaller ethnostates. We might prefer to have no competition or no variety on earth but that is not the case (in any case variety is good for evolution), and so we need to somehow get along with other ethnic groups as best we can. Separation into ethnostates with some sort of protecting federalism is the long term way to survive, given ethnocentric human nature, and so ethnopluralism seems to be the most rational, emotionally appealing, and survivable political structure over time, not one-race-imperialism. The imperative is to survive and evolve far into the future.
Richard James
- Edit
Altruism towards our White Aryan kinsmen has , in our distant past , served us well . Our paleolithic ancestors who inhabited a Europe made of thick ice sheets evolved along a trajectory where in-group altruism was more beneficial to their survival than was in-group or out-group hostility. The need to plan for periods of anywhere up to seven perhaps eight months in advance with regards to food storage , shelter , pregnancies and births and these sorts of things , exerted tremendous pressures that forced change or evolution to occur within their neurobiological make-up . However in the present day , to a large extent , those pressures have been mitigated against due to the evolutionary changes themselves on the one hand , ie the ability to invent, to problem solve , the ability to use natural resources and adapt that environment into something we call civilization and all that goes with it in terms of infrastructure and of course global temperature rises which melted the ice sheets on the other . Altruism may well have served our ancestors well in the Europe made of ice sheets , but in the Europe made of internationalist politicians it is killing us .
.
If the History of races , empires and nations has taught us anything besides that history is told by the victors , it is that might makes right . Historians , after the fact then attempt to justify the preceedings using moral arguments and appeals to emotion . The lion does not care about the gazelle at the dwindling waterhole and this is where we are poised .Unless we begin to view our destiny in terms of ours alone , we will exit the stage of history before this century is out .
.
We do not need to get along with other ethnic groups . That kind of thinking is what has brought us to the precipice of the abyss where we teeter presently . Other ethnic groups are in our ancestral homelands and they are here because it is advantageous to their racial longevity , they care not for ours .
.
Even seperating into ethnostates and adopting a pluralistic attitude towards other races with regards their territory can only come about following a tumultuous period of great suffering , following which , would see White Aryans once again being the gaurdians or the ‘ great White mother/father figure , especially with regards to Negroes in Africa . The future that we Whites would evolve far into would create a distance in development between us , especially techologically speaking , so vast that we would be leaving the planet in ships whilst they were still dancing in the dust .
The future belongs to us . We must cultivate this attitude to ensure our survival. The other races are not our concern.
K.L.Anderson
- Edit
Urging, or fomenting, your people to fight with the outmoded method of one-race imperialism is dangerous. A good general knows when its time to adapt or perish. Ethnopluralism fits group-selecting human nature better, especially in the modern world—it will be difficult enough to bring about.
Max Musson
- Edit
On the contrary Mr Anderson, ethnopluralism is multiracialism and will lead mankind to an evolutionary dead end.
Folkvar
- Edit
At the heart of the downfall and destruction of our people is our own white women, this is the elephant in the room that racial nationalists do not like to admit for some reason.
Whether it be the constant feminist attacks or miscegenation it is white women doing this to our race. I despair at what they’re so willingly doing to destroy their own people and bloodline without a care in the world, it’s become endemic, almost fashionable. Although there are those that will point to the merciless propaganda being pushed at white women from all corners as the cause surely this can only work on simpletons, surely there comes a point when even the dumbest amongst our people can see the glaringly obvious agenda? I’m aware of the ‘Sarkozy White Genocide’ speech and it’s clear that is the agenda but I still can’t grasp just how stupid our women have become and how low they’ve been so happy to drag themselves down to, they degrade themselves, obliterate their bloodlines in one generation, and don’t care or even seem to notice, it makes no sense to me.
Short of some cataclysmic event I believe we’ve already lost (and even then I wouldn’t bet on such an event helping us), sorry if I seem a bit defeatist but when you see what I see constantly every single day that’s really the only conclusion I can draw, it’s tragic. Our own women have become our worst enemy. I wish I could get out of this place.
Max Musson
- Edit
Folkvar, you don’t say where you are, but if living where you do is making you feel so negative I would advise that you make a big effort to move somewhere less multiracial.
.
It is quite common for White men to believe that White women are massively more inclined to miscegenate than White men, but I believe this is an illusion.
.
Clearly, vastly more White men are prepared to actively opposed the spread of multiculturalism and multiracialism than White women, but in my experience White women are only marginally more inclined to miscegenate than White men. If you look out for it, there are almost as many White men to be seen with a non-White (often Thai or Malaysian) woman on their arm, as there are White women to be seen with non-White male partners. As men however, we tend to notice the women that miscegenate more than we do the men, and we need to be aware of this tendency so that it does not give us a false impression and lead to the kind of despair that you feel.
.
Hoping for a cataclysmic event in the hope that it will trigger a change in our favour is a mistake. We Whites must embrace strategies that will enable us to win whatever the circumstances, and I would suggest that you look at the ‘About us’ page on this website and read some of the key articles listed there. These should enable you to focus productively on what we need to do if we are to win.
AAA
- Edit
In my experience –and I’ll wager that of the majority of the Movement– miscegenation is overwhelmingly the preserve of White women and Black men. In addition, one needs only look to the media for evidence of this: the ubiquitous White Woman, Black man, and the lost kid torn between the two.
.
Whatever the case, the question is: how might we combat it? I’ve seen nothing from the British Nationalist movement and have seen only gratuitous and counter-productive material from the U.S. (although the National Alliance did some good work in this regard).
.
I’ve put out a call for those wishing to remedy this unfortunate predicament through the mechanism of agitprop. https://www.westernspring.co.uk/a-potential-win-win/
.
To date, I’ve had no response. Much easier to sit back and blame the “Jew” rather than address our own failings and misgivings?
Max Musson
- Edit
It is the effect of genetic dominance and recessiveness that creates the illusion.
.
The product of a mating between a White woman and a non-White man is a non-White child, and when we survey our streets and see some White women with non-White children the product of such miscegenation is highly visible. However the product of a mating between a White man and a non-White woman is a non-White child. Therefore when we see some non-White women with the product of their miscegenation, all we see is non-White women with non-White children. The product of such miscegenation is invisible to us.
Tom
- Edit
The impact of overt feminism is vastly exaggerated. There are certainly subtle effects but the worst things that effects White Woman are not some man hating feminist but trash media and celebrity culture. It’s no different to too many White men who week in week out embrace football; a sport that aggressively promotes multiracialism and the anti-White ‘kick it out’ campaign. One side is one side is better than the other.
Race mixing between White women and non-White men is exaggerated. Liberal media projects it constantly to deliberately give the impression that it is common place & normal when it is rare.
To give a narrow example from my own experience, which may defy those who believe it is White women engaging in multiracial relationships, at University the White girls/ladies formed their close knit social groups just with other White girls/ladies. Meanwhile it was the White guys falling over themselves to form close knit social relations with non-White guys. This extends itself into relationships into adulthood.
The seeds of our current decline were sewed in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s, long before women gained real positions of power within the nations institutions. White Men who were in positions of power to halt or reverse it were men of inaction, willingly ignorant of the long term implications, traitors or deluded Liberals.
Liam Kernaghan
- Edit
Tom, you are right. The real problem is the degradation of popular culture. You correctly point out that the issue of feminism is exaggerated. Most women are not “Wimmin” of the dungaree-wearing, fist-clenching variety. The majority of women have socially conservative instincts, preferring to engage in matters that are of direct and immediate relevance to themselves as individuals. This would probably explain the long-standing popularity of TV “soaps” which seek to portray images of everyday life. However, quite often those televised images are subject to media distortion, giving the impression that different groups of people who would not normally in real life associate with one another, do so quite freely.
The same can be said of popular culture aimed at males. The current state of commercial sport – particularly professional soccer, the mass following of which is arguably a form of highly sanitized and thoroughly distorted tribalism, explains why white men cheer on coloured sportsmen with whom they have no racial and little cultural connection. Thereby has the natural conservatism and insularity of both women and men been gradually infiltrated, overpowered and manipulated to give the impression that multi-racialism and multi-culturalism have been accepted as the norm.
Your second point also is, I think correct. Race-mixing between white women and non-white men is not as common as some may think. I live in a “White-Flight” area in West Yorkshire which incorporates a large part of Southern Bradford and the surrounding small towns and villages. These neighbourhoods are clean, orderly and attractive. The people; men and women; young and old are focused, purposeful, polite and socially-behaved. There is very little evidence of the inter-racial sexual relationships that are frequent in the deprived inner-city areas. Generally speaking, people like people that are like themselves. Only a few years ago, perhaps 2005/6, I read somewhere that for every university-educated white woman with a non-white partner, there are 11 white women in inter-racial relationships who come from what can be best described as the white urban underclass, with it’s corresponding level of educational under attainment. The most common inter-racial pairing in the UK is of course the poorly educated white woman with an Afro-Caribbean male, who generally, aside from race, have more in common with each other – socially, educationally and culturally than they do with the majority host population. Quite interestingly, the white male/non-white female mix is often a middle-class white male (frequently a high-earning technocrat with an education in the natural sciences) and a far Eastern Oriental female.
In your third point about your experiences at university, you mention white male students trying to form bonds with non-white males, while white female students formed bonds with other white females. This maybe explained by a subliminal desire on the part of the white male to impress and attract the white female with an ostentatious display of out group-directed altruism – “HEY, LOOK AT ME – LOOK AT HOW INCLUSIVE, LIBERAL, TOLERANT AND RIGHT-ON I AM!” This is of course, just another form of plumage preening of the type that takes place everywhere in the natural world.
It could be argued that the willingness to accept others who are radically different in terms of physical appearance and cultural background facilitates greater opportunities for individual self-advancement. Amoral, self-interested co-operation between non-related individuals over-rides the restrictions of the parent ethno-tribal group. Unfortunately, this could be viewed positively by SOME females who are looking for a dynamic, individualistic and perhaps ruthless male – thus explaining why some girls like a bad boy! The end result however is a breakdown of loyalty towards the parent ethno-tribal group and the gradual growth of a low trust and high social conflict society as exists in much of modern day Brazil.
Michael Woodbridge
- Edit
I think K.L.Anderson raises two potent objections to my article which deserve an answer. Firstly, he asks, where is the place of altruism in my philosophy? After all altruism is a fundamental human need. My answer to this is that altruism isn’t promiscuous, it was developed to its finest level by the Nordic countries with their advanced Welfare States largely because of the homogeneity of their population. Altruism is closely akin to patriotism; it is a group feeling that can only comfortably exist in a homogeneous society. For example, the racially disparate United States, despite the pressure from its “Liberals”, prefers a money orientated system of private insurance. With the advent of multi-racialism the whole system breaks down and as we know from the experience of our own country the National Health Service has become the World Health Service and is no longer sustainable.
The second point that Mr.Anderson makes is that if we accept ethnopluralism we can have the best of both worlds. We can retain our racial and cultural identity and at the same time co-exist happily with other races intent on doing the same thing. I for one find this a very attractive proposition: the only problem is that it’s not how the world works. Our nature is to be competitive whether we like it or not. But, thinking about it a static society would soon become a stagnant society, The most ruthlessly competitive race on this planet is in many ways also the most successful, and we find that unlike ourselves its altruism is exclusively directed to help its own people.
K.L.Anderson
- Edit
A few points: Ethnopluralism with ethnostates is how the world works, it is what empires break down into, time and again, throughout human history. The ethnopluralism hypothesis today just wants to do it consciously and rationally if possible rather than by way of civil war which usually brings ethnostates about with much death and destruction all around.
Altruism is on a continuum, with kin coming first and working out toward ones own ethnic group, and finally, less often, to the larger world. If the whole world was threatened, say, by an alien power from outside of our solar system, we might see all of us working together altruistically, at least until the threat was gone.
As to our continued evolution, we can’t advance very well if we have radicals always coming along and upsetting the chess table of evolutionary strategy, so we need to find a way for ethnic groups to exists together in the world—humans are capable of this with good leadership—since it is not realistic or moral to think we can have one imperial ethnic group wiping out everyone else.
Max Musson
- Edit
I think you need to read my latest article in which all of your points are answered: https://www.westernspring.co.uk/moral-particularism-and-the-imbalance-of-nature/
frederickdixon
- Edit
re. Apartheid. Contrast the position in southern Africa with that in North America. In both cases the native inhabitants occupied the land only sparsely, their numbers limited both by primitive or, in some cases, non-existent agricultural techniques and by constant warfare between the tribes.
In North America, where the white settlers were capable of occupying the land to a far greater density than the red men, they had no use for the reds nor any sense of obligation towards them, so they were swept aside and their remnants confined to reservations.
In Southern Africa exactly the same conditions applied except that the Dutch settlers were persuaded by their Calvinist beliefs that, not only had the land been given to them by God, but so had the natives for their use. Thus the blacks were put to work on white farms and there, sheltered, protected and fed they multiplied, and multiplied, and multiplied until they vastly outnumbered the whites whose forebears had come into a boundless and almost empty land.
Once that had happened, the end for White rule was inevitable – demography being destiny – and the only hope for long term White survival is total separation and the creation of their own self governing state. God bless Orania.
Stefan
- Edit
Surely if SA continues to spiral downwards, then Orania won’t be left alone, it will be looted by those who covet the riches there & be destroyed?
A bit like those White owned farms in Zimbabwe?
Max Musson
- Edit
I think the Community of Orania will be advised to make preparations for their defence.