Tuesday, 18 August 2015


A wise man – presumably one sitting on a rock in a lotus position – once said, "Nothing is as difficult to predict as the future."

Indeed, it is usually pointless to attempt it, except at the highest "macro" level, where we can confidently say sweeping things like "The Earth will eventually be swallowed by the Sun," "Empires collapse," or "Democracy is unworkable in the (not so) long term."

But despite the poor returns in terms of marketable facts, predicting the future is still worth attempting because it helps develop a certain kind of engaged consciousness that might one day manifest as willed control of our destiny, rather than passive acquiescence – the difference between being truly human and being an animal.

One of the things that distinguishes the alternative right from all other political and ideological movements is our readiness to contemplate this ever unreliable future. This is one of the reasons why we are the most humanistic of ideologies.

Marxism, of course, had – via Hegel – a weird form of secularized millenarianism – essentially a passive faith – and a belief in a future economic utopia. In its present, New Leftist incarnations, however, this outlandish futurology has dwindled to a nebulous state of mild optimism dependent upon ever-increasing intellectual ghettoization and reality denial.

As for Conservatism’s futurology, this is simply an inversion of the past filtered through "cuckservative" White dispossession – the 1950s with Mexicans and jetpacks, if you like.

As likely as specific predictions are to be wrong, only the alt-right is capable of seriously addressing the future. So what does our crystal ball say?

Identitarian Future

First of all, we, as a movement, are ourselves a macro-prediction: the alternative right is predicated on the belief that politics (and thus history) will return to an identitarian basis, and that the conflict inherent in this will give rise to various forms of competitive hierarchy that will overthrow the lie of egalitarianism in most of its forms.

In this general anticipation, the alt-Right, even in its short life, has not been proved wrong. Far from it! Things have moved – and continue to move – in an increasingly identitarian direction. The more that identity is denied by the mechanisms of the modern globalist West, the more it is seen to reassert itself at the grass roots level.

But this is not even a conflict between ideologies. In its essence, it is a struggle between humanity and economics, between man and mechanism. Outside of certain manipulative elites, nobody but a minority of mentally diseased Whites actually want the mass, multicultural, universalist, egalitarian world enshrined in Western globalism.

Rather than a vision, this is simply a materialistic compromise that comes from the limitations of mankind's first post-Malthusian economic system. It is driven by the diminishing returns of an over-extended capitalist system, seeking the near impossible profits and expansion of its glory days, and in the process being forced to consume itself.

In short, the modern Left are merely hangers-on of several economic factors: feminism, anti-natalism, monetary laxness, foreign interventionism, welfarism, over-regulation, mass immigration, etc. – all phenomena that serve the function of artificial, short-termist economic stimulus and the temporary maintenance of profits at the cost of severe long-term socio-economic damage.

With our superior foresight and readiness to at least contemplate the future beyond the election cycle, we in the alt-right see the lay of the land, and perceive the dim outlines of the cliff edge our societies are collectively heading for.

Already, the mere fact of growing multiculturalism on the social and cultural levels has already created a marked upswing in identitarian politics across Europe and even America, the two centres of the "globalist empire," not to mention a plethora of anti-globalist movements elsewhere in the World.

Geert Wilders, a Dutch nationalist of partly Indonesian heritage.

What else is UKIP and France's Front National, the ethnic sifting of US voting patterns on the extremely low gradient provided by the marginal differences between Republican and Democratic Parties, and the Trump phenomenon – not to mention ISIS, Boko Haram, the Bolivarian movements in South America, and the dominance of the BJP in India?

The truth is the globalist West was predicated on a core of secure White societies that did not need to question too closely their own ethnic identities, backed up by a margin of semi-colonial and petty dictatorial African and Latin American states, as well as the comparative weakness – through command economy communism – of competing systems (the Soviet Bloc & China). In other words the world circa 1970. Those conditions have long since lapsed.

The Benefits of Suicide

With regard to mass immigration and multiculturalism, there is, of course, some truth in the Leftist case that it "benefits" those economies subjected to it. This is effected by increasing the population while decreasing the dependency ratio, increasing consumption and demand, pushing up property prices, creating non-productive (and therefore economically unfalsifiable) jobs via the service economy (education, social work, police, and prisons, etc.), and through strengthening central government’s moral and political imperative to expand credit and spending.

Assimilation gone wrong, 410 AD.
But such economic effects can rightly be compared to Rome deciding to employ barbarian hordes to defend its frontiers in the Later Empire Period. Any benefits are extremely temporary, with massive long-term destructive consequences – merely the first course in a cannibal feast of self consumption.

But what will happen as those short-term benefits dissipate and the long term disadvantages set in?

At the macro level, the trajectory is clear, as is the fact that we are locked onto our present course. The rather drastic measures needed to alter course and rectify the situation cannot be made through our present social democratic political systems, awkwardly balanced coalitions of divergent interests, and a post-Christian morality cossetted by affluence.

The best proof of this is the situation on the South coast of Europe, where migrant hordes are not only not resisted but are actively assisted in invading Europe, with the various navies of the EU nations effectively serving as ferry services, because stopping these migrants would involve a little bit of brutality and unpleasantness.

A similar example is seen in America's so-called "amnesty cities" and the ridiculous farce being played out at Calais, where those illegals who have made it to Europe are seeking out  the yet lusher pastures of the UK.

As much as the popular will favours clamping down on "immivasion," both in Europe and America, it is alas not ready to countenance the little bit of skull cracking and the occasional drip-drip of tragic deaths that results from defending one's borders and disincentivizing invasion. The consequence of this is that thousands of "tragic deaths" are already happening in the Mediterranean, every time an overloaded rust bucket sinks before the EU's dedicated "ferry service" can reach it.
Micro-prediction: as long as the phrase "tragic deaths" is widely used every time migrants die trying to invade the West, the West will continue to be invaded.
But "drastic measures" not only require a more callous attitude to the migrants outside our societies, but also to those already here, who represent an unassimilated fast-breeding demographic time bomb. Even if the borders are secured, which is clearly unlikely for some time, the fundamental problems of dysgenia and growing ethnic and racial divisions will remain.

The questions, then, are:

  1. What degree of immivasion will be required to provoke a significant countervailing force?
  2. How socially disruptive will that countervailing force be, and will this inhibit its manifestation?
  3. What form will that force take?

The Countervailing Force

Every society, even the most decadent and depraved, can be counted on to make some attempt at self preservation.

The Roman Empire and its rump successor state, the Byzantine Empire, exhibited a resilient statist life force. Both struggled long and hard, through centuries of decline, to maintain their power, before finally collapsing.

Even in its decline, the West can be expected exhibit similar tendencies, and so vast is the superiority of the West that there is even the possibility that it could revive itself through these processes and even retain its global dominance in a changed form.

There are two main possibilities of how the decline will be halted: White Revolution or "Argentinization," both terms that need explication. Outside of these two possibilities, lie only increasing decline, colonization, and extinction.

White Revolution: This is the idea most familiar to those on the alternative right. This means a mass racial awakening and the political definition and pursuit of White interests.

The main problem with this option is that, under present conditions, it requires White countries to become saturated with large numbers of non-Whites to take effect. In the case of America, due to various factors – the power of Jews, the universalist influence of Christianity, White guilt, the comparative ease of racial self-segregation, American affluence, the relative limits on central government, etc. – it may require Whites to in fact become a minority before it occurs.

In Europe, the possibility of a White Revolution is heightened by the comparative weakness of Jewish and Christian influence, the stronger and more rooted ethnic identities of the countries threatened, as well as the inherent incompatibility and hostility of the Muslims who form the bulk of the incomers, not to mention various economic factors. This suggests that a viable White Revolution is possible at a much earlier stage in Europe than it is in America.

This is important because a White Revolution at a later stage faces additional obstacles. For example, in the hypothetical case of a future America, where Whites were reduced to a minority and their power threatened, a White awakening and revolution would not go uncontested. It would thus raise the spectre of significant instability, chaos, and economic collapse, which would act as a deterrent for people supporting this course, especially cosy, middle-class Whites.

The middle-class family: the enemy of history.
The main problem that the West has is that it is the centre of a globalist economic system that radically inhibits the degree to which it can assert its own identitarian interests. The UK is perhaps the best example.

Britain's post-industrial economy is now centred on the financial services (banking, insurance, commodities, money laundering, etc.) of the City of London. The UK therefore relies on good relations with Middle Eastern oil sheikdoms and Commonwealth countries, amongst others. A White Revolution that impacted adversely on its large and growing non-White population would threaten to severely damage the UK's web of economic relationships. The sudden economic damage this would create therefore incentivizes Britons to resist identitarianism and prolong multiculturalism, despite ever increasing dissatisfaction with it.

Countries like Germany, which produce quality exports, would be less susceptible to these negative pressures. For this reason, we can expect Britain to lag behind any identitarian awakening in Europe.

Argentinization: There is a relatively common idea that the future of America (and other parts of the West) will roughly follow that of Brazil, hence the term "Brazilification," which is often heard. This essentially means that racial divisions will be replaced by subtle and imperceptible racial gradations, enabling the nation to avoid group polarization and retain a sense of loose unity. Even though the idea of "Brazilification" exists, it is, at least to some degree, mythical, serving to hide Brazil's very real ethnic divisions.

America attaining the idealized state of non-divisive racial gradation denoted by the word, seems unlikely, because America’s racial divisions are deeply ingrained and heavily politicized. The main racial division – Black vs. White – has also become a template for further anti-White racial divisions: Hispanic vs. White, Jewish vs. White, and Asians vs. White.

These divisions are likely to remain, but rather than Whites becoming a impotent minority, and losing power, a more likely outcome is that White identity will retain its dominance and high status, while losing some of its purity. This is more or less what happened in Argentina, and the reason why the "Argentina is White" meme has such power to amuse.

In the case of the USA, some Whites already are partially mixed, with elements of non-White races, such as Jews, Hispanics, Red Indians, etc. In the future, White or Whitish Hispanics, Jews, some Middle Easterners, very pale mulattoes and mestizos, as well as some other groups, could, under the right circumstances, start to identify as "White," thus bolstering the numbers of the dominant, highest status group. As many Hispanics and Middle Easterners in the USA are Christian, Christianity also provides a cultural catalyst that can further this process. Transracialism, which usually involves "special snowflake" Whites identifying as other races, could even start to flow the other way.

The maintenance of a less pure – some would say "polluted" – White identity would provide a relatively stable dialectical solution to the contradictions of American identity politics that would not involve direct White disempowerment, severe racial rupture, or a series of partitions and civil wars that would rob America of its power.

Given the intense economic problems and sheer suffering that a "purist" racial rupture would involve, it must be conjectured that American state power will have a tendency to avoid this, and instead flow towards the retention and conscious recognition of America's dominant historical "White" identity, combined with a certain degree of dilution and miscegenation of that identity.

The America of the future is likely to be a largely "White mongrel" nation, in the same way that Argentina is. While there will continue to be genuine Whites, there may also be a looser "White" identity that hides within it considerable mulatto and mestizo strains.

In colonial Argentina, the proportion of Africans hovered around 50% in half the country's provinces. Also, due to the relative absence of women immigrants, there was considerable interbreeding with native Indian women, yet Argentina sees itself as 97% White!

This pattern is much more likely to provide a useful template for America than "Brazilification."

The most important precondition of such a stabilization will be to establish tight borders of the sort currently being advocated by Donald Trump. An additional precondition would be to revert to something like America's old immigration policy, favouring immigration overwhelmingly from White countries, even though White demographics elsewhere in the World do not, at present, support this.

No comments:

Post a Comment