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).
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.