Welcome to the Evolution
As White tribalists our immediate commission is the creation of a nation within a terminal nation. Our vision of a neoteric, organic, and racially-conscious nation is as different from the present assemblage of pernicious European states as is imaginable. True nations, comprised of roughly homogenous people of European descent, no longer exist, while societal unions composed of deracinated individuals of divergent racial stock cannot, as has become unavoidably apparent, be sculpted uncannily into functioning nations – it is simply ridiculous.
The spiritual epoxy, which is vital for the conception and cultivation of a nation, is entirely absent in a multiracial population. In their futile attempts to impose ‘multiculturalism’ on the West, our present masters are committing nothing less than an act of ethnic terrorism. Whether this destructive process is a conscious act of will or not is relatively unimportant, what is critical is how we thwart the finale. But first, a quick explanation of a pair of fallacies currently permeating the mainstream of political thought.
The prefix ‘multi-’ is derived from the latin multus, which is generally interpreted as ‘much’ or ‘many.’ Multiculturalism could therefore be described as a nation of people who do not share a common culture but who exist instead as separate cultural entities. This does not presume violence, but it does preclude cultural integration — it is not mono-culturalism after all.
The preconceived consequences of a multicultural society are twofold: 1) that all cultures remain distinct and unadulterated, and 2) the indigenous culture enjoys the same respect as the traditions, languages, and customs brought by immigration. However, because we appreciate the staple truth that humans are fundamentally unequal and those of competing races are different (in countless ways) to those comprised of the same race, the actual prognosis for a multicultural society is either cultural balkanisation – in other words, extreme multiculturalism – or assimilation by the most imposing culture or race. The concept of multiculturalism, as a happy medium between the two, is unsustainable.
The fact that British culture, for instance, has been all but destroyed — likely as a direct result of that unforgivable conflict known as World War Two — means that if divergent cultures are forced to adopt ‘British values’ then whatever residual culture the British possess will be eradicated by the absorption of radically dissimilar peoples into our national collective. This process not only launders the remaining vestiges of genuine and persistent European culture, but it also ensures that large numbers of non-Whites are introduced into the gene pool, forever altering it to the detriment of our kind. As such, multiculturalism is merely the vanguard of a genocidal movement tailored, initially, to generate chaos — the inevitable balkanisation and ethnic strife — before conveniently offering a pre-planned solution: complete cultural (meaning, in essence, genetic) integration. It is a shrewd ploy, one so shrewd in fact that generations of our folk have lived out their lives in blissfully obliviousness to its long lasting ramifications.
In the same respect, multiracialism is another naked misnomer. The repercussion of importing millions of non-Whites into Europe and emphatically promoting them as our equals (our superior in many cases) through the controlled media, etc., is the development of normalised and rationalised miscegenation. Multiracialism, without some underlying policy of racial segregation, concludes in mono-racialism and the destruction of race itself — both from the perspective of the non-White immigrant, and the native White population. So again, multiracialism is another forerunner; a doctrine which either belies its true purpose or gives scant consideration to the logical consequences of its logistics.
In 1921, the father of the Occidental social rebellion of the 1960s, Franz Uri Boas, stated:
“It would seem that, man being what he is, the Negro problem will not disappear in America until the Negro blood has been so diluted that it will no longer be recognised.”
Boas offered the world the credo of cultural relativism, upon the sophistic foundations of which was built the superstructure of modern egalitarian liberalism and our self-imposed moral inability to ‘hurt the feelings’ of competing human races and subspecies — traditionally regarded as inferior in comparison to Europeans — or to criticise their obscure cultural outpourings.
Before Boas, the Jewish poet and contemporary of Karl Marx, Heinrich Heine, become an augury of communism – and its spiritual derivatives and vassals, such as universalism, internationalism, and liberalism – when, in 1842, he penned the following disquieting prediction of things to come:
“…The second act is the European and the World Revolution, the great duel between the destitute and the aristocracy of wealth; and in that there will be no mention of either nationality or religion; there will be only one fatherland, the globe, and only one faith, that in happiness on earth … How could the drama end? I do not know; but I think that eventually the great sea-serpent (Britain) will have its head crushed and the skin of the Northern Bear (Russia) will be pulled over its ears. There may be only one flock and one shepherd — the one free shepherd with an iron staff, and a shorn-alike, bleating-alike human herd!
“The Gods are veiling their faces in pity on the children of man, their long-time charges, and perhaps over their own fate. The future smells of Russian leather, blood, godlessness, and many whippings. I should advise our grandchildren to be born with very thick skins on their backs.”
Heine was of course echoing the words of the Christian bible and the alleged declaration of Jesus Christ:
“And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.”
The biblical manifesto infers a human universalism, later to be echoed in modern liberalism, whereas Heine, who delineates a similar theme, concerns himself with exploring the finer details: causation, context, and consequence. Boas, clearly a man ahead of his time in terms of genocide, recommends a suitable panacea in fulfilment of the ancient utopian prophecy, namely unmitigated miscegenation.
The notion of ‘ineluctability,’ in relation to the psychological or physical evolution of Man, and the ‘cyclical nature of civilisations,’ doused with the petroleum of ‘destiny,’ are erroneous and unnatural; Man’s reckless attempt to interpret his world and rationally categorise complex concepts and historical anomalies. When undertaking a study of Man and his spiritual emanations, of which civilisation is the most conspicuous manifestation, it is impossible to ascribe comprehensible mathematical formulae.
Providence determines nothing, it is merely the result of external pressure. It was not inevitable or predetermined that the crocodile would develop a second ventricle (unlike other reptiles) or that proto-humans would become ever more sentient. Both these phenomena were brought into being by changes in environment, successful adaptation to these variations, and via natural selection. Similar is true in the case of human consolidated societal expression, e.g., culture and civilisation.
Nothing in nature is particularly cyclical. Certainly historical trends and complimentary customs rise to the surface of our species while disastrous mistakes are repeated, but special tendencies and customs exist because they become beneficial to social cohesion and existence — such as the herding instinct, which is a survival strategy for group animals — while serious mistakes eventually lead to the extinction of the perpetrators. These processes cannot be periodical if lifeforms of the same biological type did not survive to repeat them.
In his sequel to Imperium, The Enemy of Europe, Francis Parker Yockey pinpoints the essence of a nation:
“A nation is simply an idea, not a mass of people, not even the form of into which that mass is shaped. This form is the expression of the Idea, and the Idea is primary. Before the Idea there is no nation; when the Idea has fulfilled itself, the nation has disappeared forever. It matters not whether custom, form, nomenclature, diplomacy, and the material apparatus of power remain to convince the yesterday-romantics that the nation survives.”
The decline of nationhood and the jaded and helpless nature of cultural revolutionaries – the self-proclaimed conservatives – is accurately expressed by Yockey:
“A nation shows that it is dying when it ceases to believe in its mission and its superiority. It begins to hate everything new and everything that would drive it forward. It looks about, and seeks to make defensive preparations in every direction. No longer does it strive to enlarge, but is content merely to maintain, its power-position. To preserve power, however, one must continually increase it. A nation need no die tumultuously in a great military defeat. As a rule, nations die quite peacefully, sinking deeper and deeper into sterile conservatism and shrinking back more and more from great decisions.”
The present political social order is dominated by a curious ideological duality:
The Revolutionary – the conservative enforcer – exemplifying the past.
The Nationalist – of which the Revolutionary is merely a derivative – represents a political base point for the majority; the intuitive connection to one’s homeland and kinsfolk being basically genetic. As discussed previously, the revolutionary represents a ‘rolling back’ of collective cognition and progress.
The Hebephrenic – the liberal reformer – exemplifying chaos and annihilation.
The Internationalist – of which the Hebephrenic is an aberration – represents the arrant supremacy of the Aryan Morality, often supplemented or guided by Judaic theories and personalities. Internationalism is a curious synergy of an Aryan ‘underdog’ ethic and the lust for personal wealth — both impulses have been dilated by nefarious Jewish influences at some point or another.
Circling the herd-mind is the new philosophy; the doctrine of the liberator:
The Evolutionary – the neo-tribal progressive – exemplifying the future.
Since the second global fratricidal war amongst Europeans, the revolutionary and the hebephrenic have combined in syncretic union. The fiendish synthesis of these apparently opposing dogmas has delivered the unbalanced desideratum that the spiritual, moral, and cultural attrition of Man (into deracinated and ethnically hybridised slave commodities) is of paramount urgency. Against this synthesis, the nationalist is incapable of mounting a successful defence or of launching a counter strike; the internationalist is swept into a whirlwind of universalised rhetoric; whereas the evolutionary is ostensibly immune. The reason is the protean nature of the composite socio-political force (the hebephrenic-revolutionary tyranny), and its confounding ability to usurp and wield both ‘nationalist’ (conservative) and ‘socialist’ (liberal) paradigms. The evolutionary deflects the deleterious effects of this tyranny by employing his understanding of racial difference and a strict adherence to the implacable Idea: we must ensure the survival, proliferation, and development of our kind, no matter the cost.
However, the application of a tribal consensus (the national Idea or Mission) is impossible while we continue to exist within the schema of the prevailing social order, which is a symptom of hostile occupation. We must therefore engender a new social order; its life force our Idea and its constitutional stimulant the struggle to implement our Idea. We cannot permit the weight of the past to drown us and we must not allow our rampant morality to suffocate the future.
Resurrection (as espoused by the revolutionary) or elimination (by the hebephrenic) are not means by which our new social order can be conceived or promoted. We are simply not yet sufficiently formidable to decimate the existing order and, by the same token, regression will not prepare us for the future. Furthermore, the abovementioned carcinomatous ideologies are extensively, if not congenitally, implanted in our psyche, institutions, and societies, meaning that an impractical restoration, or impossible extrication, will resolve nothing. We are thus presented with three arenas in which to construct in our own new image: the superpersonal psyche, the imperative institution, and the nātiō (or true nation). In unison, this triumvirate represents an enveloping Social Order.
There is but a single inevitability in life: the death of the individual. The survival, proliferation, and development of the superorganism (whether it be organisation, ideology, civilisation, or tribe) is resolved by the constituents of the superorganism; their ability to endure and prosper, and their capacity to resist damaging external stimuli, such as invasion by abnormal philosophies and practices, competing human subgroups, or the spread of disease. There are no supernatural forces at play, although the astute observer of history can, in numerous instances, accurately predict the outcome of reiterated trends and heinous blunders. The historian is just that, an observer and describer of events past, he is not a philosopher, much less a clairvoyant or the possessor of otherworldly extrasensory powers.
It is therefore the task of the evolutionary not to surrender to the presumptions of impotence or inevitability, but instead to create a new order in his own image. This nascent organism will surpass the temporal plane of its creator; existing beyond him, above him, and reconnecting his past with his future. Standing against the destructive might of the established social order — as appears to be the fate of the Revolutionary fringes — cannot bring about change, these gestures instead lead only to the expenditure of vital energy and, as is often the case with the dynamic, an untimely death; achieving nothing more than to retard the realisation of a vision and asphyxiate potential. The choking influences of the existing order must be deflected rather than openly countered and opposed. In this manner, the evolutionary remains free to tend his garden.
This is evolutionary. We are evolutionaries. Welcome to the evolution!