Print this post Print this post

Taking Our Own Side

1,475 words

German translation here

This is the title essay of Michael Polignano’s book Taking Our Own Side, available for pre-order here.

We all have natural partialities: for family over non-kin, friends over strangers, fellow countrymen over foreigners, racial brethren over members of other races. Philosophers from Aristotle to Carl Schmitt have recognized that these partialities are the heart of political life.

But most moralists eye these partialities with suspicion. Moral laws, they claim, apply to everyone, regardless of his relationship to us. Murder is wrong, whether we kill a stranger or a friend. Fairness requires that we judge a stranger by the same standards by which we judge a friend. Moral laws are universal, and universality means that we must be impartial in all our moral judgments and dealings.

For the sake of argument I am willing to grant that moral laws are universal. But I don’t think that implies that all of our judgments and dealings must be impartial. Yes, when we have a case before a judge or arbitrator, we want him to be impartial. But do you want your parents to be impartial when deciding whether to send you or the class valedictorian to college? The most impartial judges are strangers to us. But we do not spend all our time with strangers, and kinship, friendship, and other natural bonds of affection do matter.

I grant that it is wrong to murder both strangers and friends, but surely it is worse to murder a friend. We are saddened to hear of the murder of a child. But we are horrified when we learn that the killer was the mother. We react this way, because we think that mothers should be partial to their children, and a crime that violates such natural partialities seems particularly bad. A moral philosophy that holds all murders equally heinous, regardless of these partialities, is simply absurd.

I look at ethics through a biological lens. A proposed moral principle cannot conflict with the survival of the race. Principles incompatible with survival die out along with their adherents. But there is another consideration beyond survival. There are plenty of bad ideas, foolish principles, and destructive lifestyles whose harm falls far short of killing their practitioners, or impeding their reproductive success. The only way to weed these out is to adopt as one’s standard not mere racial survival, but racial perfection. And from the point of view of racial survival and perfection, impartiality is folly.

Why is my standard the survival and flourishing of the race, not the individual? I am not an individualist, because individualism ignores the fact that we are all parts and products of biological groups: breeding populations. A race is simply a breeding population that has taken on a distinct identity because it has been geographically isolated, endogamous, and subject to unique environmental conditions for a sufficient length of time.

If the individual, not the group, is the highest value, then under no condition is it right for him to risk or sacrifice his life for the group. This means that the Spartans who fought to the last man at Thermopylae were suckers, but the man who would buy a few more years for himself by condemning the whole race to extinction is a paragon of virtue. The individual who lives only for himself, oblivious to the race that produced him and endowed him with the talents he cultivates or squanders, is a mean little creature, ungrateful to those who came before, improvident of those who will come after, if any. The isolated individual has but one life and one death. But the racially conscious individual realizes that countless forebears live on in him, and he seeks a kind of immortality for himself and them in his own posterity.

But why is the standard the survival of one’s own race and not the human race in general? If the races of man lived in harmony and had no conflicts of interest, then of course we should think of the interests of the whole human race. But we are a long way from that point, and haven’t gotten any closer during the past 50 years, despite the claims of the mass media.

The reality is: the races are at war with one another. The different human races are distinct subspecies, with distinct temperaments and talents, some of which conflict dramatically. It is an iron biological law that when two distinct subspecies try to occupy the same ecological niche in the same geographical region, there will be group conflict.

This conflict can be terminated in three ways. First, through interbreeding, which homogenizes the two subspecies into a new, distinct breed. Second, through the extermination of one group by other. Third, through the domination of one group by another.

In the case of humans, all three natural options are highly undesirable. The first two involve the destruction of one or more unique races shaped over hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. The last results in a system prone to instability over the long run, as history repeatedly demonstrates.

But since we’re rational creatures, humans also have a fourth option: voluntary separation. This last option preserves racial uniqueness and eliminates interracial competition, allowing each race to shape the course of its own future.

No matter what the outcome, to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson about Blacks and Whites in America: “two races, free and equal, cannot share the same country.” This biological law dooms all experiments in multiracial egalitarianism. The only practicable multiracial societies have been hierarchical segregated ones like Vedic India, South Africa, and the American South. But in the end, even these proved unworkable. The Indian caste system did not prevent racial admixture, while Apartheid and Southern slavery and segregation are long gone.

Everything we have seen since desegregation indicates the futility of multiracialism. Desegregation has not created the harmonious mixing of the races in freedom and equality. It has simply robbed Whites of the ability to legally protect our living spaces from the incursions of other races. When these incursions occur, there is racial tension and conflict, which terminates only when Whites flee and the neighborhood becomes predominantly Black, or Mexican, or Asian. Those Whites who remain are slowly destroyed by miscegenation or outright murder—both forms of genocide. Racial warfare will end only when groups separate from one another, or when the groups self-destruct due to miscegenation, or one group exterminates the others, or one group dominates and segregates itself from the others.

And make no mistake: America is in a state of racial war. It is no less a race war because, so far, Whites are not fighting back but are in full retreat. They retreat from neighborhood to neighborhood, as one after another reaches the “tipping point” and becomes unlivable for Whites. They retreat from cities to suburbs, from suburbs to exurbs, from states like California to states like Idaho and Montana. But at a certain point, there will be no place left to hide. The whole nation will reach the tipping point, and Whites will finally have to stand and fight for our survival.

I hope that we stand and fight while we are still more than 60% of the population. Our odds of winning would be a lot higher than if we wait until our numbers slip below 50%.

In the midst of a race war, there can be no greater folly than impartiality, than the pious rot that “there is only one race, the human race.” Robert Frost once brilliantly described a liberal as a man who will not take his own side in a fight. In a fight to the death, such a policy is suicide.

In every transaction between a partial man and an impartial man, the impartial man is at a disadvantage. When the impartial man has a benefit to confer, the partial man appeals to the other’s impartiality and often walks off with the prize. But when the impartial man needs something from the partial man, his appeals to impartiality fall on deaf ears. As social interactions multiply, so do the partial man’s advantages at the expense of the impartial man. (The essence of the Jewish strategy of dominance is to practice ruthless partiality while urging their victims to be free of prejudice and partiality.)

Once the impartial man has nothing left to bargain with, once he has been reduced to powerlessness and penury, to what will he appeal to preserve his life and freedom? Impartiality? Universal notions of freedom and justice and rights? These are just pleading words unless one has the power to force others to respect them. But the impartial man has bargained all his power away. Pleading alone will not prevent him from being reduced to a slave or a corpse, and that is what we Whites will become unless we start taking our own side, and quickly.

 

If you enjoyed this piece, and wish to encourage more like it, give a tip through Paypal. You can earmark your tip directly to the author or translator, or you can put it in a general fund. (Be sure to specify which in the "Add special instructions to seller" box at Paypal.)
This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

3 Comments

  1. Onomat AE
    Posted September 2, 2010 at 6:29 pm | Permalink

    Thomas Carlyle took our side, per his essays on Negroes. But the Transcendentalists liked him, but later fell out. Does anyone know if Carlyle was properly in Order at the end?

    • White Republican
      Posted September 4, 2010 at 3:02 am | Permalink

      Was Thomas Carlyle on our side? I think he was. He had pronounced elitist, racialist, anti-Jewish, anti-democratic, and ethical socialist views. Francis Parker Yockey made these references to Carlyle in Imperium (Costa Mesa, CA: Noontide Press, 1992 [1948]):

      “There is a whole tradition of political thinking in the Western Culture, of which some of the leading representatives are Montaigne, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Leibnitz, Bossuet, Fichte, de Maistre, Donoso Cortés, Hippolyte Taine, Hegel, Carlyle. While Herbert Spencer was describing history as the ‘progress’ from military-feudal to commercial-industrial organization, Carlyle was showing to England the Prussian spirit of Ethical Socialism, whose inner superiority would exert on the whole Western Civilization in the coming Political Age an equally fundamental transformation as had Capitalism in the Economic Age. This was creative political thinking, but was unfortunately not understood, and the resulting ignorance allowed distorting influences to fling England into two senseless World Wars from which it emerged with almost everything lost.” (pp. 219-220)

      “The step from Culture to Civilization is a fall; it is the onset of senility. For this reason, leaders whose center of gravity was on the side of culture resisted the Revolution of Democracy with all their power—Burke, Goethe, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Metternich, Wellington, Carlyle, Nietzsche.” (p. 256)

      “Carlyle voiced the instinctive demand of this age when the idea of authority and monarchy has once again a good conscience: find the Ablest Man, and let him be king.” (p. 271)

      “The beginning of this resurgence of synthesis and creation after the long orgy of Intellect-run-wild manifests itself in diverse phenomena. Nietzsche and Carlyle were symbols of the resurgence. Characteristically both were Europeans, and despised the petty-statism of their times. Their lives and ideas were an expression of organic necessity. Both were heralds of the next Age.” (p. 327)

      “Europe always had resistance against Rationalism—based on tradition until the middle of the 19th century, and after that based on anticipation of the coming anti-rationalist spirit of the 20th century—as exemplified in Carlyle and Nietzsche.” (p. 396)

      “America, as the country most completely disintegrated by Rationalism, exhibited the least understanding of the nature of the Jew, while there were always some people in Europe—for instance, Carlyle—even during the 19th century who realized the total, and not merely political, alienness of the Jew. But in America, with its complete lack of tradition, there were no Carlyles, no de Lagardes.” (p. 397)

      “Even in the 19th century, after this sanctification of greed had been firmly established, Carlyle, a high representative of the Western soul, cried out in horror at the spectacle of universal thievery and throat-cutting with cunning economico-legal weapons, at the utter lack of social conscience which sacrificed whole strata of nations to want and misery.” (p. 423)

      Not surprisingly, Carlyle has been viewed as a proto-fascist.

  2. Onomat AE
    Posted September 4, 2010 at 7:28 pm | Permalink

    Very well, then, and thanks to White Republican (for how much longer will there be such a thing?)

    Why is wanting the Best Man to rule considered anti-rationalist? What were the rules of rationalism that are against us? We define rationalism as akin to realism- i.e. self interested survival is rational, as is Race Realism.

    I guess the danger of rationalism is that it seeks knowledge even from abstractions and propositions, which are both deadly to White Humanity.

    Does anyone remember the “Garbage Eaters” cult? They would recruit by saying just a few words to the right kind of person, who would then join immediately. We need those kinds of words for the Cause of White Humanity.

    Imagine walking up to someone, saying a few words, and suddenly you’ve just created a new Race Realist. We must be smart enough, so where to start? Devi, Oliver, and Simpson are huge tomes, requiring a large investment in time and effort. We have the appetite for them, but how to turn the typical brain washed, mush headed American into one who will take their own side in an argument?

    Maybe something along the lines of immigration:

    “These illegals are dropping babies in America and created new citizens with all the same rights and privileges as your children. These anchor babies will be running our cities one day, and your White children will be ruled by them. Do you think a baby born of criminality will ever care about your White child’s right to life, liberty, property, and happiness? Can’t you already predict what will happen to your progeny? Is that what America was founded for, to give itself away to those who create third world conditions in their home countries and criminality in ours? Who let this happen, and how are they benefitting from our degradation? How can we hold them accountable and force them to surrender their ill gotten gains that were stolen from us?”

  • Video of the Day:

  • Kindle Subscription
  • Our Titles

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    The Lightning and the Sun

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Forever and Ever

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles

    Fascism viewed from the Right

    Notes on the Third Reich

    Morning Crafts

    New Culture, New Right

    An eagle with a shield soaring upwards

    A Life in the Political Wilderness

    The Fourth Political Theory

    The Passing of the Great Race

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Fighting for the Essence

    The Arctic Home in the Vedas

    The Prison Notes

    It Cannot Be Stormed

    Revolution from Above

    The Proclamation of London

    Beyond Human Rights

    The WASP Question

    Can Life Prevail?

    The Jewish Strategy

    The Metaphysics of War

    A Handbook of Traditional Living

    The French Revolution in San Domingo

    The Revolt Against Civilization

    Why We Fight

    The Problem of Democracy

    The Path of Cinnabar

    Archeofuturism

    Tyr

    Siege

    On Being a Pagan

    The Lost Philosopher

    The Dispossessed Majority

    Might is Right

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance