Saturday, 30 January 2016


An important vector of human difference is that between the Nomadic and the Sedentary. It allows us to interpret a host of related issues, ranging from the uprooting of Europeans to the celebration of Nomadism itself, and the unequal toleration for certain groups.

What do the terms mean? Nomad comes from the Greek νομάς, designating shepherds who moved with their flocks from pasture to pasture. Sedentary comes from the Latin sedentarius, which can be interpreted as designating a state of sitting, but also a state of stability or rest.

The Biblical story of Cain and Abel presents two embodiments of each lifestyle: Cain is a farmer, hence a Sedentary, to the point of being the alleged founder of the first city, while Abel, as a shepherd, is the archetypal Nomad. Interestingly, the Bible shows that despite their common origin, the relationship between Nomad and Sedent is fraught with tragedy.

From the viewpoint of the sedentary, nomads have often been perceived of as a threat. At best, nomadic peoples can be merchants and produce economic dynamism; at worst, they come to steal what the sedentary have produced. An abundant historical record backs up this common perception. Antique texts from the Sumerians, Hittites, and other farming peoples speak of the Habiru, a group of nomadic invaders who sometimes played the roles of mercenaries or thieves. The Habiru are thought by some to have been the ancient Hebrews.

The Hebrews finally settled in their “promised land” when the God who ordered them to slaughter the various indigenous peoples after they arrived there, ordered them to build the Temple of Solomon. Despite this transition to sedentary life, they still retained something of the nomadic in their natures. Jews became wealthy by acting as intermediaries and money-lenders, which meant thriving at the expense of whoever produced goods or needed money.[1]

Nomads pass a fallen civilization.
Other nomadic peoples, less cunning in behavior, have also been known for their hostile behaviour. The Mongol tribes were fierce warriors. Once united by Genghis Khan, the Mongols broke through the Great Wall and stormed sedentary Asia. They destroyed whole cities in order to turn them into pastures – something only a Nomad would see as "progress." Since then, the Mongols and other steppe tribes have been more or less pacified.

The Gypsies, or Romany, are another nomadic people that Europeans have known for long.[2] They have a long record of making their living at the expense of the non-Romany, i.e. the sedentary White European peoples. During the fifteenth century, Romany posed as pilgrims in order to benefit from inter-Christian solidarity. They were quickly noticed for repeatedly stealing from non-Romany. Over the centuries, their behaviour has remained the same all over Europe: stealing, telling "fortunes," and other dubious trades.

As we see with Gypsies, the life of the Nomad has been much romanticised, but, contrary to popular belief, nomads are often neither "free" nor egalitarian. Romany communities have complex internal organization, with families or clans having a monopoly over a given territory. Romany are painfully aware that, given their ways, too many of them in a specific area would backfire. Romany are very hierarchical, with chiefs enjoying privileged positions. They are tribalistic: they consider the non-Romany as gadje, "unclean," and take pride in extracting goods or money from them. One can observe the same pattern in Jews considering themselves cleverer than the goyim.[3]

Sometimes sedentary peoples move too. Yet their relationship with movement and traveling is quite different. Craftsmen and musicians may travel to a fair; youngsters and explorers travel to discover the world; pilgrims and ascetics travel for spiritual reasons. In every case, traveling is considered as temporary. Individuals originating from sedentary cultures often feel uprooted when they find themselves in a state of constant flux or wandering.

Also – and this is something we tend to forget because of our urban life – our ancestors had many cultural features related to agriculture, which is a typical sedentary activity, from a simple expression like "He who sows the wind reaps the whirlwind" to the word "culture" being derived from the cultivation of the land. In other words, being a nomad or a sedentary leaves an indelible print on a people's culture and character.

Given the hostile behavior of nomads from the sedentary point of view, sedentary peoples have often struggled against the wandering invaders. In the case of the Jews, Christians often tried to convert them, which meant integrating them into the common sedentary culture. One example of this is the Good Friday Prayer for the Jews. In fifteenth century Spain, the former collaboration of Jews with Muslims against Europeans, led to the Inquisition, which insisted on them converting or leaving. Even when Jews settled into their own ghettos, they still considered themselves as "wandering" and far away from the Promised Land.

During the seventeenth century, various attempts were made at assimilating Romany by forcing them to settle and stop engaging in hostile behavior. Some of them settled and turned into craftsmen or musicians. Yet, these attempts had limited success and most Romany have kept their own social organization and lifestyle up to the present day. In North America, the Canadian and US governments tried to settle down Red Indians by granting them Indian reservations. Since then, many Red Indians have turned into alcoholics, while others just passively wait for their monthly welfare check. Forcing them to abandon their nomadic lifestyle led them into degeneracy, a rather tragic outcome given the fact that their nomadism was more linked to hunting and scavenging than stealing from strangers.

Expulsion of the Gypsies from Spain.
Nomadic peoples were alienated by the dominance of Sedentary Europeans in the period from the seventeenth to the nineteenth century, but today it is Europeans who are facing alienation at the hands of a hostile elite with strong Jewish elements. As the infamous French Jewish economist and civil servant Jacques Attali admitted, this elite has a core "nomad identity."[4]

Since their emancipation, the Jews have hugely contributed to increasing the power of the market and especially the money-lending sector. Their upward social mobility, as well as the increased reliance of nation-States on public credit, has allowed them to displace the traditional landlord class. From an economy based on land, an immobile asset, we have shifted to an economy based on money and fluid, tradable products.

Through a process of beguilement with the big city and increasingly harsh conditions in the rural economy, peasants were led to abandon their independence and become factory workers. In France, Jacobin statism enabled an increasing number of them to become small state officers. In both these cases, they were effectively Nomadized: a factory worker can be uprooted and moved around by economic flux, while a small State officer can be transferred here or there at will. Both are Nomadized by their dependence on the economy or the State. While global bankers ride the tiger of speculation, the masses find themselves trodden down by it.

Capitalist globalization is not much different from Leftist globalization with its belief in a one-world government. Both systems oppose independence and multipolarity, and advocate an elite to dominate the world, a situation that has its winners and losers. At the beginning of the 90’s, Attali wrote the following:
"A majority in the comparatively wealthier North, inundated by the stupefying flood of information and entertainment, will be reduced to weak and poor pawns, consigned to helplessly gaze with envy at the power and pleasure enjoyed by a minority. Ordinary people will gape with awe and resentment from their modest suburbs and homeless streets at the high rises of wealth and skyscrapers of power that will loom above their reach."[5]
The same Attali said on TV that France was becoming “a hotel.” In his vision of the near future, a large majority of people will be reduced to uprooted sub-proles, pulled this way and that for a bit of money or chance of employment, not unlike the Pakistani slave-workers building towers in the United Arab Emirates or the pseudo-refugees swarming over Europe for free stuff.

Above this group, there will be the middle class, a little better off but still uprooted and Nomadized. Then, at the top, one will find bankers, financiers, technocrats and other globalists. Those people will own everything, either directly or indirectly, via global companies, uncharitable charities, or the Managerial State; they will be Nomadic "world citizens" reigning over a world of uprooted sedentaries forced into a state of dependent nomadism.
"By exacerbating the unhampered circulation of goods, money, ideas, and individuals, the market will break the very borders needed by democracy for defining where it institutes the right to vote and the Republic. Thanks to the pressure of global corporations, international law will force nation states to standardize their tax and employment laws to the lowest level. They will create a world fit for nomads, even though democracy, as always understood, was conceived to represent the interests of the sedentary… The Market will absorb entire fields where the layman could not accept trade yet: education, health care, justice, police, citizenship, air, water, and blood & organ transplants will have a price tag."[6]
Many Nomadists, either Jewish or gentile, treat anything nomadic, such as the current wave of "rape-u-gees" with exaggerated reverence, while condemning the sedentary mind-set as narrow-minded and retarded. The French Jewish philosopher Emmanuel Lévinas wrote that:
"Faith in the emancipation of man is identical to the shaking of sedentary civilizations, the crumbling of the old certainties… one must be underdeveloped to claim them as a raison d’être and struggle in their name for a place in the modern world."[7]
The post-modern, uprooted, Nomadic man must pride himself on being “a cosmopolite going to war against parochial spirit."

The Nomadic elite has a sharp consciousness of its own identity. It despises the sedentary and tries to forbid them any pride in their ways and traditions, in spite of the fact that the Nomadic elite is intrinsically parasitic and needs its "inferiors" in order to sustain itself.

Being conscious of who they are and who they are not, the Nomadic elite promotes other nomads as a gesture of contempt against the Sedentary. I remember a late-night transmission on the Franco-German TV network Arte, showing a contest between acrobats. Among them was a group of Gypsies who didn’t perform any acrobatics at all: they merely ran around the stage in an agitated state in their colorful clothes, pulling wooden caravans. After they finished their show, the commenters cheered them in the exaggerated manner of political correctness and affirmative action, much more than the Russian acrobat who did back flips with stilts on. The commenters gushed over the Romany as a "free people" with a "living culture."

Being much younger at the time, I was merely surprised that a non-performance could receive such applause. Knowing today who invites whom on stage, and who gives the applause and prizes, the significance of this is much clearer. Nomads recognize each other. By pretending the Romany to be good, the Nomadic elite, who own the TV channels, promotes its own identity in a way that is at odds with the interests of the Sedentary.

Lessons from the Desert

The day when those of a Sedentary disposition could force others to settle is long gone. We now live in an epoch of dissolution, where we have space only because we suffer from rootlessness. But, precisely because of this, nomads survive better and endure less exploitation. In such an environment, the Sedentary may have a lot to learn from the Nomadic.

Some of the boundaries of our sedentary world are clearly decaying. Many European cities have become sad and soulless places, with schools, offices, and factories turned into debilitating straitjackets. The children of the sedentary turn into fragile youngsters – or, as the non-White French have come to say, babtous fragiles – mindless consumers but also nice guys, weaklings, and exploitable "soft touches."

One of the first steps in "game," as many former nice guys know, consists in getting out of one's comfort zone and daring to go into new places. To escape fragility it is necessary to navigate an increasingly complex (not to say chaotic) world, and, clearly, navigating is not a sedentary activity. The need for boundaries is normal and healthy, and it is undoubtedly more so for sedentary peoples, but modernity has turned it into a source of fragility and alienation. Bureaucracy makes life dry and dull, especially for the public sector class, whose lives consist of shuffling forms and whose surrogate religion consists of trade-union demonstrations.

The Managerial State breaks through organic social life in order to impose its own interests, thus dismantling traditional institutions in favour of more bureaucracy and state institutions. Along with this dismantling, which reduces individuals to dependency on both market and state, great cities also undergo a "museum syndrome": they become vast tourist complexes, full of museums, "patrimonial" monuments & architecture, restaurants, and hotels.

The inauthentic existence of the museum city.
The "museum syndrome" adopts an architectural conservatism, but this is a mere affectation as it allies itself with global capital. Paris is a prime example: it shows monuments and Haussmanian buildings, which are quite beautiful per se, while it hosts clothes shops and hip events, where the French eke out an existence as salesmen of their past or hotel keepers for a never-ending flux of tourists. We can envy the Romany, who, low-IQ and parasitic as they are, nevertheless live their culture and traditions.

Chaos is coming but chaos should not be feared. We may need some chaos in order to break through the alienating system that is called "the West." As we need to navigate the increasingly chaotic world of the future, Nomadism, as an idea rather than an option, may have much to teach us.

From Nomadism, we can learn what we are, what we are not, and how some of their ways can be used for "riding the tiger" instead of being a cog in the machine. Of course, learning from others does not mean discarding one's own identity: on the contrary, the awareness of difference inherent in the Nomadic mindset strengthens our sense of who we are. We may be losing our national and geographical roots, and it is hard to bear, but perhaps it is also an opportunity for rediscovering our genetic and spiritual roots.

The time has come for a revolt of the Sedentary: Europeans, first and foremost, but also the other peoples who get exploited by the tiny 1% which has chosen to betray us all. The Sedentary must be made aware of the possible symbiosis that Guénon pointed to:
"Nomadism, when it has degenerated into a malevolent and deviant character, exerts a dissolving influence on everything it meets, whereas the sedentary version of degeneracy can only lead to the grossest forms of a dead-end materialism."[8]
Some of us shall be able to "root again" geographically, especially those whose vocations incline them towards agriculture or craftsmanship. For those of us who incline more towards "the message" and metapolitics in general, we shall strive to transcend our geographical and national uprooting in a new White diaspora, composed of ethnically-conscious Whites breathing life into a renewed Aryan spirituality.

Also, as we renew our strength, we may find alliance with other non-White traditionalists and find common ground with other sedentary producers against both the high-profile parasite – the 1% – and the low, the marauders whom that 1% smiles upon. When I see Leftists who genuinely care about small peasantry, to the point of actually helping them break even, I detect an innate solidarity between sedentary producers. Perhaps the famed horseshoe theory is real, and through the concept of the eternal struggle between the Sedentary and the Nomadic we can bridge the gap between Left and Right.

Translation: One builds a city as one feeds the land, tools at hand and clogs on feet, one builds a city by grain and iron, by bread on the table when one has harvested.


[1] The "French" Sephardic Jew Jacques Attali, in his book The Economic History of the Jewish People (Paris: Fayard, 2002. Republished in English by Eska Publishing, foreword by Alan Dershowitz), attributes the wealth of the Jewish merchants to their invention of banking operations, such as the promissory note, exchange letter, and checking. This narrative may be true, but it is quite incomplete and only mentions inventions so as to make Jews appear exceptionally intelligent. It forgets that no financial product creates wealth per se and that whatever the formal technique, the wealth of those Jews has been taken from people’s real productive work. Forgetting such an important "detail" is typical of Jewish self-complacency.
[2] See Kevin Macdonald, “Diaspora Peoples”, preface to A People that Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, Second Edition, available at
[3] See Jewish Tribal Review, “Money Changers in the Temple: Jews and the Sacred,” Counter-Currents, November 2015. The Jewish expressions goyische Kopf (“goyhead”) and “thinking like a goy” are proverbial. Popular epistemology has recorded Jews’ recurring exploitative behavior into the verb “to jew someone,” meaning either “to renege on or break a deal based upon previously unexpressed or recently invented fine print, often due to unforeseen negative consequences” or “to promote one's own self interest to the detriment of someone else to whom you have some type of loyalty or obligation.” See Urban Dictionary.
[4] See Attali’s interview in L’express (01/10/2002, pp.56-65), available at
[5] Jacques Attali, Millennium: Winners and Losers in the Coming World Order (New York: Time Books, 1991), chapter 1, p.12.
[6] Jacques Attali, quoted by Hervé Ryssen, Les espérances planétariennes (Levallois-Perret: Baskerville, 2005), part 1, chapter 2, p.67.
[7] Emmanuel Lévinas, Difficile liberté (Paris: Albin Michel, 1963; 1995 edition), p.299. Quoted by Ryssen, Les espérances planétariennes, p.83.
[8] René Guénon, Le règne de la quantité et les signes des temps (Paris: Gallimard, 1945. Republished 2015), chapter 21, note 12.


No comments:

Post a Comment