The human condition is unalterable. Unless mankind in its totality is profoundly altered by some artificial or supernatural means, the fundamentals; his motivations, instincts and behaviours will remain set. There is no linear line of progress and there is no ‘right side of history’. Civilisations can only ever progress to a peak point of stability and material prosperity. In order to survive any great test of time, efforts must be made to preserve the foundations, limitations must be placed on further developments, and unnecessary experimental alterations must be avoided. As with any important piece of architecture, structural integrity, stability and longevity should be treated as paramount. If not, boundlessness will give way to ruin, paradise is lost, and the once lofty civilisation will plunge itself back into the primordial swamp from which it sprung. Unfortunately, a conservative attitude is no guarantee of a continued existence. Civilisation is the product of exceptional individuals, and exceptional individuals are rather few and far between.
As man is neither perfect or indestructible by design, a perfect or indestructible man-made system or civilisation is not possible. A stable and orderly system, built upon man’s immutable nature and functioning in accordance with it, is.
Sweden has become rather notorious in right-wing circles of late. Their quest to become the progressive jewel in the crown of the EU has led them to become a joke in the eyes of many, with the ‘Captain Sweden‘ and ‘Sweden Yes’ memes being good examples. It is a shame that a country which could produce men like Gustav II Adolf could become a nation ruled by people who become upset when they realise they can only play host so many Somali and Arab migrants. Sweden is much like Canada or Germany in this regard. Although, in all fairness, the dynamics are quite different. Germany is in a stranglehold, supposedly indebted, endlessly apologetic, and crumbling under the weight the greatest guilt complex in Europe. Canada, meanwhile, anxious to atone for its own colonial origins, finds solace in PR campaigns designed to promote itself as niceness and humility incarnate. Indeed, Justin Trudeau, a man with maple syrup for blood, makes the job a fair bit easier. Sweden carries a much lighter load. Pure as its own driven snow, this is a nation at the bottom of the list for finger pointers, and yet it insists on outdoing everyone else in the competition of self-destructive tolerance.
In Norway, another nation subject to only a small measure historical grievances, constitutional monarch Harald V recently decided to (perhaps, under duress) declare his support for the usual policies of multiculturalism, endless mass immigration, feminism, LGBT pandering, so on and so forth.
However, not everything is so bleak in Scandinavia, as Sweden’s historical rival and Norway’s former master, Denmark, appear to have taken some positive steps forward.
23andMe, a personal genomics and biotechnology company, has been much discussed since its launch in 2006. In 2008, when the company was offering estimates of “predisposition for more than 90 traits and conditions ranging from baldness to blindness”, Time magazine named the saliva-based personal genome test ‘Invention of the Year’. By 2012, the company had doubled its existing capital. In 2015, that capital hit $241 million.
When I first saw the adverts for 23andMe, it seemed that the primary purpose was to assess the customer’s predisposition to certain diseases and health problems, such as certain cancers, coronary heart disease, possible drug responses, and the possibility of various inherited conditions. This is the first advertisement that I ever saw from them. One of the last lines is “learn more about your health” as if to imply that medical testing is the primary function of their product and services. However, the company’s marketing has since changed with a greater focus being on ancestry and ethnicity. The latest version of the website now features two major services; one is for ‘health and ancestry’, while the other simply concerns ‘ancestry’.
As all true nationalists know, and indeed anyone left with any common sense, different races create different cultures because the races of men are intrinsically different. This means that wherever one goes in Europe, one finds cultures that, while having regional differences caused by historical distance between groups and national differences caused by political boundaries, are nonetheless similar in character. In contrast, if one travels further to the Middle East or Africa, the cultures there are utterly alien.
This is why Oktoberfest has attracted people from all over the world and yet its clientele has remained 99% White European despite attempts at “diversification” (see above). In Islamic societies, of course, the consumption of alcohol is either frowned upon or forbidden. This contrasts quite starkly with the White European tradition where alcohol has always been consumed, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse. Sensible drinking enhances a pleasurable evening, but one ought never to make an important decision after a few pints: “When the beer is in, the wits are out,” as we say in Yorkshire.
For many years in American and European politics, the left has utilised a political strategy to gain influence and win elections which involved uniting the minorities (the coalition of the fringes) and diving the majority (Whites). This is a kind of revamped Marxism (Cultural Marxism) which sees the heterosexual White majority as an oppressor class vis-à-vis the various “minority” groups; “liberated” women, Jews, Blacks, Muslims, Latinos, homosexuals, the poor, atheists, disaffected youth, disabled people etc. who must be united under an “oppressed” proletarian banner (with heavy organisational input from leftist “intellectuals”) to overthrow the “oppressive”, White neo-bourgeoisie. The New Left has been relentless in its opposition to White Western civilisation and it has largely been successful, and it will gradually become more successful in the future as demographics shift in their favour due to the mass third world immigration that they have instigated. The left, blinded by its hatred of traditional White people (especially straight White men) largely does not realise that its efforts to reconstitute society in an egalitarian, anti-White direction will not bring about a new era of liberty and equality but the destruction of European civilisation. Nevertheless, the ultimate consequences of the New Leftists actions whether intentional or not, are irrelevant to whether they will be successful in bringing about these changes.
“There’s no avoiding the looming presence of U.S. culture on Canada, but our differences are substantive, concrete and homegrown. Our universal health care. Our social welfare system and collective sensibilities concerning the role of government, taxation and property rights. Our official bilingualism and take on multiculturalism. Our accommodations of Quebec’s cultural aspirations and of aboriginal rights and governance. Our rejection of gun culture — no constitutional right to bear arms here — and our liberal take on issues like abortion, capital punishment, drug enforcement and gay rights.”
“But English Canada, at least, never really found its footing as one of those nations [with a strong sense of identity]. (French Canada did, an essential point of difference.) Lucky for us, it is now too late, and we have no choice but to establish ourselves as something different – a culture that is many cultures, many stories, in a place that stretches across a continent and is richly occupied… ere we are in 2016, when few dispute any longer the unseemly length of English Canada’s colonial hangover. For the first century of nationhood, we didn’t bother moving away from imported and inherited customs and thinking, a stark disavowal of lived history and geography. Canada in the 21st century is certainly an energized place by comparison… we must get past one easy misconception – the outdated nation-state model – and one harder reality: the historic comfort level among Canadians with conceiving of themselves as parts of smaller, cozier self-definitions, as well an attendant incuriosity about who else lives reasonably nearby. The launching point for this project is obvious. Indigenous Canada is where we all live, in terms of geography, spirit, and history. In order for that to be real and meaningful, we must start with the stark: that a cultural genocide occurred, and most of us were unaware or, perhaps, just not concerned enough. Artistic expressions of these truths are necessary, and can only help. Overall, Canada as an experimental cultural space requires the right spirit in order to take shape. That spirit, simply, is an openness to having your history unsettled and your mind changed. As well, a certain comfort level with complexity and irresolution is probably good.”
“There is no core identity, no mainstream Canada… There are shared values – openness, respect, compassion, willingness to work hard, to be there for each other, to search for equality and justice. Those qualities are what make us the first postnational state.”
The above are quotes from a journalist, the CEO of a pro-immigrant cabal, and the current prime minister of Canada. My country is being destroyed from within and I know this is true of a great many White countries, but to an outsider, at least, it appears as if most of them have a greater chance of resistance than Canada. This seems especially true in Europe, where the inhabitants can look back to thousands of years of historical inheritance.
One of the most pernicious facts of politics is that the left has every incentive to encourage the spread of mediocrity, degeneracy and failure. The essence of the political left is egalitarianism; the view that all humans are “equal”. It is vital then to ask then, who favours egalitarianism? Aside from the leftist political and cultural elite who directly stand to increase their power from it, the people who most benefit from egalitarianism are those who are resentful or failing. People who are doing well don’t want to be dragged down to the level of equality, but those doing badly gain from being elevated to a position of equality. Therefore, the political left has an extremely strong incentive to increase the number of people who are failing in society or who perceive themselves as such. If we examine the political platform of the left, this pattern occurs time and time again.