Homelessness

WIN-Home_Inart

“You do not owe anything to “society,” or “civilization,” or a “nation.”  You only owe something to yourself and your DNA Code” ~ H. Millard, author of Homeless Jack, and other essays (v.: http://www.newnation.org/Millard).

A concentration of individuals in the absence of a cohesive social matrix is comparable to a painstaking pointillist painting viewed through a magnifying lens: it has no aesthetic value, no allegorical interpretation, no profundity; the isolated flecks lacking any inherent singular significance. It is only when the onlooker gives himself some distance that the purpose of the piece is revealed – a landscape or portrait, as it was first conceived in the lucid mind of its composer, before being smashed to atoms. Thus, to the appropriately positioned observer, the picture is permitted to swell and breath until the true merit of every component can be fully realised.

Without the holistic conceptions of the artist, the painting becomes a triumph of chaos: an ocean of convulsing pixels, unrelated, and in a state of infinite disarray. The fertile canvas thus daubed comes to represent existence for the sake of existence and not, as was its original purpose, a genial cradle for creativity or erudition. Particles pugnaciously swarm at random, fulminating against their neighbours, and concocting a pandemonic milieu in which they must reside. Whether viewed in close proximity or more remotely, the picture – as a visual act of communication – is meaningless.

The rudimentary driving force behind all living matter is the compulsion to survive and proliferate. If this were not the case, then life would be conspicuous by its absence on earth; this statement is apodictic – it is an indisputable fact.

A rank amateur in the field of ethology (of which I am to be counted) can confidently posit that not all of the planet’s fauna is essentially alike. Even among comparable mammalians, divergent survival strategies have, by degrees, developed over the course of millennia. Many subspecies of lion, for example, live in prides (small interdependent social units) while a member of the same genus, the jaguar, is widely recognised to be a solitary felid, and, apart from the rearing of young, of which the male Jaguar plays no parental role, these “big cats” are primarily reclusive creatures.

It is generally accepted that modern humans – based on their contemporary social behaviour, as well as partial genetic mapping – are the descendants of a communal species of primate, as opposed to a solitary dwelling ancestor. This speculation is provided additional substance given the notable amount of archeological evidence calling attention to the tribal habits of Cro-Magnons (now classified as European early modern humans, or EEMH). Early human settlements expanded to form more complex conurbations, then, over aeons, states, countries, nations, and empires. In every instance, a governing code of behavioural ethics was – whether they were emphatically expressed or not – crucial to the stabilisation, maintenance, and perpetuation of these aggregations.

Without communities, which are, quintessentially, extended families; the incontestable nexus of which is biological similarity, it is imaginable that lone individuals who extricated themselves from a commonality, could not sustain their isolation for long periods and would eventually be obliged to return to the group, or perish because of some ailment or accident; exposure to unfavourable climatic conditions; predation by wild animals; or at the hands of transient brigands or competing tribes. Fraternity was, therefore, a decisive ingredient in the continued existence of the integrant members of primitive civic assemblages.

Because our present society has been thousands of years in the making, human mass-tendencies are now influenced by a congenital ‘herd instinct,’ a quantifiable curiosity that pre-dates our present corporeal form. The french sociologist, Gustave Le Bon, in his 1895 treatise, The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, ably elucidates the concretionary nature of human psychology. But not only does Le Bon catalogue the dynamics of mob behaviour, its causes and effects, and how such knowledge might be rendered to members of the leadership stratum, he also suggests the requirement for interconnected group conduct as a means by which progression is provoked.

“…the individual forming part of a group acquires, solely from numerical considerations, a sentiment of invincible power which allows him to yield to instincts which, had he been alone, he would perforce have kept under restraint. He will be the less disposed to check himself; from the consideration that, a group being anonymous and in consequence irresponsible, the sentiment of responsibility which always controls individuals disappears entirely.”

A “crowd,” which is, in many instances, merely a reduction of a national entity, can be judged to possess the ability to engender within its constituents the capacity to function – consciously or not – beyond the multitudinous desires, impulses, and prohibitions that govern quotidian affairs. This phenomenon is, when brought into the context of extra-tribal conflict, for example, indispensable for the continuation of the group per se; it facilitates the underpinning (and augmentation) of the presiding societal fabric and, moreover, contributes to the preservation of the lives and liberties of the group’s adherents.

The intangible edifice that is a community, nation, or empire, transcends its mass of living components and endows them with a quality – a sense of purpose – which is absent when the aforementioned synthesising superorganism is not (or is no longer) present. This super-social construct, represented by a collective mission, not only accords a people with the aphoristic “safety in numbers,” it furthermore establishes an environment into which the second element of our existence, viz.: proliferation, can transpire without encumbrance. And, because a viable habitat has been responsibly procured, the third element of our existence can be orchestrated: development.

The survival of you (including your/our “DNA Code”) is, in opposition to Millard’s declaration, unquestionably dependent upon a “society,” or “civilization,” or a “nation.” Due to our present tenuous position, i.e., a protracted and suffocating enemy occupation, mere proliferation can no longer guarantee our survival. The prevailing environment is not conducive to the rearing of young, irrespective of our fecundity. Our racial enemies continue to unravel the natural, legitimate social fabric of the Occident while, remorselessly weaving into it terrible strands of malignancy, depravity, and confusion. Conditional to our survival, proliferation, and development, is the formulation of racial intentional communities. Until this pivotal plan is implemented, our offspring, no matter how abundant they may be, are destined for abject slavery or the slaughterhouse.

Our task is to secure the future of our posterity, hand in hand with its material production. We require White communities and a White nation. Our home-less folk must have a sanctuary, a land to call their own: a White homeland, one that is independent, tribal, and exclusive. Such a place can exist and it is our duty to nurture it to maturity.

Long live the new tribe!

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s