The New Tribe: The Evolution

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.”[1]

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[2] — 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!

–S.P.D.

[1] John 10:16; 1611 King James Bible (lex­i­cal anachro­nisms removed)
[2] When these two fac­tors are emul­si­fied, the Inter­na­tion­al­ism of the Aryan results in a redis­tri­b­u­tion of the accrued wealth.
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