The New Tribe: Concrete Clouds


Mould­ing Ideas into Action

We sub­sist on imma­te­r­ial abstrac­tion and, like the cold, soli­tary effigy of Nel­son stand­ing atop his tow­er­ing col­umn, con­tem­plate with great dis­dain the social pan­de­mo­nium that has for­ever altered our home­lands with­out – we often decry – a fea­si­ble means by which to reori­ent our for­tunes. Yet, unlike Nel­son, we live, and life is a pre­cious gift and presents us with a splen­did oppor­tu­nity to exer­cise our atro­phy­ing sword arm.

The gra­tu­itous prat­tle of modern-​day meta­physi­cians of metapol­i­tics, who appear to rel­ish talk­ing them­selves in cir­cles (or have mis­laid their fac­ul­ties within dialec­ti­cal labyrinths), whip up daz­zling dust clouds of pre­co­cious twad­dle so that even the cognoscenti of the the­o­ret­i­cally moti­vated New Right are beguiled by the relent­less ver­bosity. In addi­tion, RACE IS NOT A CON­STRUCT! No mat­ter how elo­quently the sophis­tic meta-​men dress up with shiny baubles and tin­sel – and with erro­neous rati­o­ci­na­tion – this warm, fuzzy, and entirely fatu­ous fraud.

The term ‘race,’ and prin­ci­pally the dubi­ous denom­i­na­tion ‘human race,’ is some­thing of a mis­nomer. Humans are essen­tially a species: Homo sapi­ens; inca­pable of suc­cess­fully mat­ing with any other species presently tra­vers­ing our copi­ous planet. Races, as we accept them con­tem­porar­ily, are akin to sub­species, with instances of habit­ual genetic homogeni­sa­tion com­mon — pro­vided pro­tracted contact.

In 1946, Dr. Ray­mond Hall, chair­man of the Depart­ment of Zool­ogy and Direc­tor of the Museum of Nat­ural His­tory at the Uni­ver­sity of Kansas, stated:

“In man, the races and geo­graphic vari­ants are divis­i­ble into approx­i­mately five zoo­log­i­cal sub-​species:”

Homo sapi­ens sapi­ens (Cau­ca­soid); Homo sapi­ens afer (Negroid); Homo sapi­ens amer­i­canus (Amerind); Homo sapi­ens asi­ati­cus (Mon­goloid); and Homo sapi­ens tas­ma­ni­anus (Australoid).[1]

Given the above descrip­tions, it could be argued that due to the notable absence of some human races (e.g., Arabs, who pre­sum­ably are grouped with Homo sapi­ens sapi­ens), race could there­fore be explained as the fur­ther dis­til­la­tion of a process of seman­tic clas­si­fi­ca­tion. From Homo sapi­ens asi­ati­cus, as an exam­ple, we retrieve dis­tinct sub­sidiary groups – or ‘eth­nic­i­ties’ – such as the citrine-​skinned Chi­nese, the paler Japan­ese, and the darker-​hued South East Asians. Within each racial clus­ter there are var­i­ous anthro­po­log­i­cally less dis­crete eth­nic tribes, in the case of the Chi­nese; the Han, Manchu, and Zhuang peo­ples. It fol­lows that our own sub­species and race is sub­ject to com­pa­ra­ble tax­o­nomic grading.

In the broader eco­log­i­cal per­spec­tive, we can draw upon instances in the ani­mal king­dom where the des­ig­na­tion of an exclu­sive species is applied, where in the human realm the appel­la­tion of an inclu­sive sub­species or ‘race’ is non­cha­lantly accorded by our befud­dled, if not overtly ide­o­log­i­cally biased, anthro­pol­o­gists. Lions are a species (viz. King­dom: Ani­malia; Phy­lum: Chor­data; Class: Mam­malia; Order: Car­nivora; Fam­ily: Fel­i­dae; Sub­fam­ily: Pan­theri­nae; Genus: Pan­thera; Species: Pan­tera leo) and a dozen or so extant sub­species have been offi­cially iden­ti­fied intercontinentally.

Lions rou­tinely form prides of between six to thirty indi­vid­u­als, a fig­ure lim­ited osten­si­bly by envi­ron­men­tal fac­tors, such as size of ter­ri­tory, avail­abil­ity of prey ani­mals, etc. Nat­u­ral­ists do not even attempt to infer that the lion’s imme­di­ate social entity – its pride – is a race or a ‘gene-​tribe,’ although it would appear to be the log­i­cal zoo­log­i­cal step. The rea­son for not mak­ing this dis­tinc­tion is the struc­tural insta­bil­ity of lion prides: their tran­si­tory geo­graphic and genetic nature. In con­trast, human races tend to set­tle in loca­tions marked by explicit phys­i­cal bound­aries and, in doing so, form more expan­sive prox­i­mate social enti­ties. These com­pos­ite organ­isms are mod­elled into what we iden­tify today as ‘races;’ com­mu­ni­ties of indi­vid­u­als, derived from a com­mon sub­species, form­ing an exclu­sive aggre­gate of social, cul­tural, and moral same­ness. In the full­ness of time, these races become eas­ily dis­tin­guish­able from oth­ers, even those descended from a shared ances­tral sub­species. The clas­si­fi­ca­tion of a sub­species, race, or tribe, is more or less depen­dent upon the length of time a spe­cific group exists in seclu­sion from its, often com­pet­ing, genetic relatives.

There are evi­dently other means in which to deter­mine and describe race, but the idea that human ‘prides’ grad­u­ally develop into tribes, races, sub­species, and per­haps even con­trast­ing species, is one of the most fascinating.

It is because of our con­flict­ing vis­tas on the fun­da­men­tals that delu­sive schol­ars of ontol­ogy and racial ‘con­structs’ – those who enthu­si­as­ti­cally employ wads of sema­si­o­log­i­cal padding to induce men­tal paral­y­sis in their vic­tims – can­not be con­sid­ered as friendly, much less comrades-​in-​arms, though we must nat­u­rally glean from their abstrac­tions what­ever morsels of ver­ity might fur­ther our own cause, assum­ing there are any.

Dis­count­ing the grand wiz­ards of metapol­i­tics, our legit­i­mate intel­lec­tual paragons tend to resem­ble Rodin’s pati­nated Thinker: immove­able, inef­fec­tual, iso­lated. The White man most assuredly thinks too much, neglect­ing the sub­stan­tial, ter­res­trial spheres of endeav­our in favour of enig­matic pos­tu­la­tion. It is a coarse and uncom­fort­able irony that while the Mob anx­iously read­ies itself for the com­ing of an arche­typal hero on a white charger, the Thinker sub­mits to reverie and eagerly day-​dreams about a dynamised and recal­ci­trant mob finally mor­ph­ing itself into a war­rior caste!

Our hypothe­ses spill fran­ti­cally from our heads and spread, umbrella-​like, across the tro­pos­phere of human under­stand­ing. These aerosols of pure thought jos­tle gen­tly for promi­nence on an over­pop­u­lated plateau, unno­ticed by the team­ing, neu­rotic hordes far below. Our clouds are intan­gi­ble anom­alies and have no bear­ing on the cor­po­ral world. Cre­at­ing col­loids of our ideas by inun­dat­ing them with con­cepts the pub­lic are able to advo­cate merely gen­er­ates a damp and effete polit­i­cal fog. We have required action for quite some time and yet copi­ous and elu­sive obser­va­tions and insub­stan­tial pro­nounce­ments are what we have been offered and our­selves sim­i­larly offer.

The moment our dire plight was recog­nised, the ele­men­tary tech­nique of self-​preservation should have been insti­gated: iden­tify the prob­lem; trace its root cause; sep­a­rate enemy activ­ity from self-​imposed fatu­ity; pin­point weak­nesses in the enemy; pin­point the nucleus of the fatu­ity; for­mu­late a strat­egy to tackle or mit­i­gate both.

Should the enemy be imper­vi­ous to the weapons presently at our dis­posal then he should be cir­cum­vented until an effec­tive tac­tic is devised. By the same token, if our peo­ple suf­fer from an incur­able case of stu­pid­ity, then we must sum­mon the for­ti­tude to redi­rect our atten­tion to those less affected (in other words: racial nation­al­ists) and apply our­selves accord­ingly. Even­tu­ally, and if we plump for the ratio­nal cause of action, three sep­a­rate sce­nar­ios are likely to materialise:

1) We become a force to be reck­oned with and our ene­mies attempt to destroy us;
2) We become a force to be reck­oned with and our ene­mies attempt to nego­ti­ate with us;
3) We become a force to be reck­oned with and our ene­mies con­tinue to ignore us.

In any case, we have come to be a force to be reck­oned with. Fur­ther­more, and whichever poten­tial future tran­spires, esca­lat­ing num­bers of our folk will veer towards us as our pres­ence is increas­ing felt and our influ­ence inten­si­fies. This will not tran­spire, how­ever, should we select a the­o­ret­i­cal option 4), and per­sist in rein­forc­ing our sta­tus as impo­tent thinkers, or option 5), whereby we accom­pany the herded human crea­tures to the abat­toir, politely hag­gling, appeas­ing, and com­pro­mis­ing until it is our turn to be hung by the ankles and bled.

The peo­ple, after tak­ing sev­eral deep draughts of a scrupu­lously con­cocted and despotic poi­son, laced with a sug­ary liq­uid soon to be so dilute that it can no longer dis­guise the revolt­ing and acrid taste, will rad­i­calise and require true lead­er­ship and gov­er­nance. Those that do not, who are inca­pable of heuris­tic growth, will inex­orably embrace extinc­tion (the astute reader will by now have detected an aus­tere leitmotif).

In an instant, the bil­low­ing cumu­lonimbi (our con­vic­tions given form) must be pet­ri­fied so that they plum­met to earth as titanic bod­ies, impact­ing upon terra firma with thun­der­ous rever­ber­a­tions and goug­ing into its man­tle cav­ernous hol­lows. Until our ideas are trans­formed into pal­pa­ble man­i­fes­ta­tions of our intent, they will remain lofty, neb­u­lous bilge. Fur­ther­more, unless the pro­po­nents of the intel­lect com­bine with the apos­tles of the somatic, there will be no lead­er­ship or gov­er­nance for our freshly bap­tised rad­i­cals, and this stub­born schism will surely per­sist ad mortem.

The Idea – in the form of an authen­tic liv­ing faith – is thus of car­di­nal impor­tance. It must invari­ably tran­scend any one man and any sin­gle life­time; the con­fines of class and acu­ity; and the dun­geons of polit­i­cal and con­tem­po­rary belief appa­ra­tuses. The Idea is ele­men­tary and primeval, and it can be sub­li­mated into the fol­low­ing laconic apho­rism: we must ensure the sur­vival, pro­lif­er­a­tion, and devel­op­ment of our kind, no mat­ter the cost. All fur­ther con­cepts must be sub­or­di­nated to this irre­proach­able credo.

Together, united in belief, the Thinker and the War­rior will march towards the break­ing of a new dawn. We must con­struct strong­holds on enemy soil. We must muster the dis­pos­sessed and the alien­ated. We must under­mine the preva­lent social order with our very pres­ence, with our thoughts, and with our deeds. We must become the scourge of our ene­mies and the sav­iours of those endowed with the will to survive.


[8] Ray­mond Hill, Zoo­log­i­cal sub­species of man at the peace table. Mam­mal­ogy, v. 27, pp. 372378

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s