This website's featured article has garnered both positive and negative feedback, and understandably so! Its subject matter is an unpopular, or perhaps widely thought but less spoken, opinion to hold. A young woman recently contacted me to discuss the article, and not surprisingly, because women tend to be more 'liberal' than racially conscious, she disagreed with the content. A debate then ensued and she used the line of reasoning that politicians are "racist for the money". This article's topic will revolve around racial wellbeing and socio-economic cultural domination. I will focus my argument on the stance of blood over gold, her argument will be examined and insight will be offered into the merit behind these arguments.
Buzzwords and catchphrases are simplifying terms that don't carry any intellectual ballast around complex ideas and worldviews and don't fully allow their point to be conveyed. It's a lazy but helpful way for people to simplify the arguments being made to the point where they don't bother to discuss the central point. They mentally categorise the person using this method so they can think if they agree or disagree with the argument and then stamp a positive or negative character assessment onto them. It is a better use of time to discuss goals rather than the merits of labels. For example, saying "White people should be allowed homogeneous countries" is a more complex line of reasoning than "that's racist!"
Labels are largely irrelevant now anyways because our current political situation has changed so drastically to when the labels were originally founded. The significance of saying something is right or left-wing doesn't cover any familiar territory as to what they meant during the French Revolution. When discussing complex ideas, I would suggest pausing to think for a moment any time someone says something you disagree with, consider the wider worldview or stance they are coming from and refrain from using simplifying labels to mentally categorise them.
The foundational dichotomy for the argument I will now make is that the quest for money is less important than the necessity of the preservation of the race, and that the two can't be mixed. Race is more important because money comes and goes, but once a race is bred out of existence, this is a permanent end. We can call this dichotomy the aristocracy of blood and the empire of the dollar. The aristocracy of blood dictates that the noblest of the people should dominate, not the richest. This is a minoritarian stance that dictates that merit should be the decisive factor in choosing who power is entrusted with. A ruling class of noblemen that are racially-focussed would naturally be collectivist and seek out the greatest good for their people. Contrasting this to the empire of the dollar and we see a very self-interested, individualist outlook where everyone is out to get the largest slice of the pie at the expense of each other.
I'm not a proponent of monarchism, but it is historically evident that royal families would mainly intermarry with other families of similar European ethnic groups, allowing them to maintain their racial identity. Banking families of differing races didn't have this concern, as the money and status they could get by 'upbreeding' was naturally their central concern. Blood purity (biology) preserves racial instincts (psychology), which allows higher culture and religion to flourish (artistry); race must come first!
The Third Reich is the most glaring example in recent history of a state that held these concerns near and dear. By eradicating the rule of money, they founded a new order based on the ideals of a strong, racially-centred worldview. They told the world they are free German men and women that aren't slaves to international finance, and that their culture and people are worth defending, advancing and increasing. Despite the current state of affairs in Syria, I believe Assad is another example of a leader who holds these ideals at heart. This is a refreshing comparison to what we are stuck with in liberal democracies.
Politicians in liberal democracies often don't have a solid worldview of their own as they look at the world through the lens of the advancement of the economy; this is reflected in the career experience most of them have. The most common career backgrounds of Australian politicians are either political consultants, lawyers or are business-related. A political consultant brings voter attention to their candidate so their candidate can win (basically marketing), lawyers make the perfect career politicians (only there for their own benefit) because of the corporate, business-focussed culture that is cultivated among them from the outset, and the business-related politicians are much the same as the others, viewing the economy as their God.
“Money degrades all the gods of man – and turns them into commodities. Money is the universal self-established value of all things. It has, therefore, robbed the whole world – both the world of men and nature – of its specific value. Money is the estranged essence of man’s work and man’s existence, and this alien essence dominates him, and he worships it.” - Karl Marx
If a politician did have a racially-focussed worldview, they wouldn't hold a seat very long in parliament or they would have their reputations disgraced. Although they didn't have an explicit view of advancing our race, recent examples are Fraser Anning and Pauline Hanson. Their 'controversial' Australian Nationalist rhetoric, which was only pseudo-racial in nature, saw them gaining a drubbing in the eyes of the Nine/Fairfax-Murdoch media monopoly and denigration from the neoliberal upper class. Although this sentiment wasn't totally shared among the lower classes, it signals what is forbidden in contemporary politics. Politicians that have a worldview of their own never present it as racially-focused because the issue of race is too much of a shocking 'third rail' to reach for. As will be discussed later, these worldviews are centred around pseudo-'people over profit' rhetoric, instead of having an explicitly pro-big business focus.
When examining the merits of a worldview, the focus should be placed on what the end is. If money is the end goal, the pursuit of capital can't be racial, as race is the means (the method being used) to accomplish that end. If the advancement of the race is the end, the economy is the tool that is used to facilitate this end. A comparison of an ethical economic system like Italian corporatism to capitalism allows us the observation that the pursuit of capital often has many unethical aspects to it. Corporatism has an ethical philosophy behind it, with the addition of environmental concerns, worker's rights and the focus of racial uplifting. Mixing a racially-focussed worldview to a monetary worldview is thus incompatible.
'People over profit' is a hypocritical term that been hijacked by 'centre-left progressives' but been spun into an anti-racist web of falsehoods that is safe to market. If the race isn't a central concern, the result is an economic and social order that imports a third world slave-like working class that is only just well-paid enough, and given enough concessions like social welfare programs, to stay apathetic because the economic conditions are better here than in their home country. Cheap foreign labour and exploitation is a staple of capitalism, and as the media are often in the business of working with the rich or are owned by them, the framing of this exploitation is never in a negative light, or even discussed.
The Australian Labor Party in its outset championed the idea of ending the program of cheap foreign labour, protecting the White working class and promoting a homogeneous White population that was dubbed the White "working man's paradise". Labor was more racially-focussed than it was economically because it was the party that was the strongest supporters of the White Australia Policy. After World War Two, Arthur Calwell of the Labor Party wanted to rebuild Australia's national defence and development and give our displaced brothers and sisters in Europe of varying ethnicities a chance at a better life here. This was a unique situation where there was a racially-centred 'populate or perish' effort for rebuilding the national defence and economy, while still using the economy as a tool to protect White Australia. The issue of race and culture was of central concern, as they knew that non-British migrants would retain their customs from their home countries and not assimilate as well, which in hindsight was an unfortunate but unavoidable catalyst for later events surrounding the White Australia Policy. Under the White Australia Policy, it was well understood that blood is what turns the wheels of history, not the contemporary view of money making the world go round.
We have been tricked and belittled into thinking that a future of mixed races can still create a higher civilisation. After the inversion and perishing of the higher castes (often based on racial lines) in ancient civilisations, what had been accomplished wasn't able to recover. Their identities and culture were forever lost to the pages of history or falsified. What is happening today has the potential to follow the same course as what has happened previously, but I believe this won't happen due to a larger awareness of race, aided and promoted by racial mass media. The empire of the dollar tells us that it doesn't matter if races eternally mix with each other so long as the economy remains stable and growing at its 4% rate each year.
Although Bella Poarch's new song 'Build a Bitch' comes from a neoliberal cultural persuasion, it summarises the point I'm about to make perfectly, both visually and lyrically. When the economy starts to dominate, the state become subservient to capital and uses it for its own ends, the culture then becomes redisembedded (uncontrolled by the state, church or culture) and moves towards what we see today with neoliberal pop culture. There is a strong corporate influence over what is trendy and cool, where natural, fit and folkish aesthetics transform into artificial aesthetics that can be profited from. Combining the neoliberal cultural revolution and the coming neo-feudal economic revolution gives us what is better called cultural capitalism, not cultural Marxism. In our lifetime we should fight to dethrone the billionaires and reinstate the importance of racial wellbeing, taking an oath to our people and renouncing any other loyalties. The state must set race at the centre of all life, treat the race like an extended family and act as a guardian of a 'millennial future', fighting for the necessary security for the existence and increase of our race and people. This standpoint must be the base that everything must be examined from and turned into practical use or be discarded.