based on an article by "Lenny" Edits and additions made by Armed with Knowledge.
A. Introduction: While the Obama presidency is an interesting development, it is absurd to believe that this turn of events "marks the beginning of the 21st century" as some have suggested it does. After all, Obama's victory is not a deviation from the current spirit of the age, but rather, an affirmation of its continuations. Simply put, Obama symbolizes free-market America in a global age, and the "Capitalist-Liberal-Democracy" ideology in its raw, de-nationalized, de-racialized, economic-minded form. The animating socio-political impulse and considerations derived from this ideology are a part of our current socialization, schooling and daily lives, and have ruled supreme across most of the globe since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Thus, 1991 is probably the best place to mark the beginning of the 21st century and end the 20th, because 1991 also marks the end of the conflict triggered by the fall of the last world order. Here are some important dates to help us understand what happened:
B. Notes: the concepts of the "left wing", "right wing", "liberal" and "conservative" are EXTREMELY subjective, and differ depending on which # the society is; in the USA, the Left and Right are both well within the bounds of #1, hence the oft-heard criticism that the parties are "the same". Conversely, any society with powerful wings of authentically varied Weltanschauungs tends towards being highly unstable (for example, 1918-1930s Europe, the chaos of 1930s Spain and Afghanistan, 1970s-Present).
Each Weltanschauung has certain propensities; #1 and #2 tend to believe in equality, #2 and #3 tend toward authoritarianism, #1 seems to favor personal-freedom and individualism (things rejected by #2 and #3), #3 believes in group-integrity above all (something downplayed by #1 the most), #2 believes in inherent economic-leveling to provide for everyone's needs. To some extent, the three can be synthesized, but only to a certain point. There are irreconcilable differences between the three main Weltanschauungs, which is why the 20th Century was so geopolitically turbulent. #1, #2, and #3 all have good aspects and bad aspects to them. All three have plenty of positive qualities. None is inherently better or worse than the rest, and all three can be bad or administered badly/evilly. Likewise, no one ideology has a monopoly on "evil", and it is childish to think that one does. The question of genocide is a bludgeon used against #3, but history shows us that 1, 2, and 3 have all committed genocides. Ironically, an enlightened #3 is perhaps the least 'genocidal' of the three, since its "animating sociopolitical impulse" is the continuity of the various timeless groupings and emphasis on inclusive ethnic community and pride rather than tossing everyone into a hardline #1 dog-eat-dog "common market", or demanding that man conform to a new-age unisex mold as part of a man-against-nature movement to build sameness. One interesting thing about the collapse Old Order is it opened sociopolitics up to the widest they have ever been, allowing the raw essence of human idealism and the mortal soul to pour out, the good and the bad. Those with real sympathies today for #2 or #3 (or #4) will tend towards fatalism and a reactionary mentality, when faced with the reality of #1 supremacy. Since the bearers of the #1 standards now have near-total control of the process of information-dissemination and socialization across the European-derived world, they have convinced all but the hardliner holdouts that not only will #1 always be as omnipotent as it is today, but that any alternatives to #1 range from miserable failures at best to inhuman nightmares at worst.
C. Our Struggle: Viewed from a long-term perspective, it is clear that European and European-derived nations and people(s) are presently on the sharp decline worldwide. While globalization may end up melting away all nations and all ethnocultural groups on Earth in the long run, we can say that--at very least--it does seem destined to "melt away" the European racial stock as a cohesive unit, and all the nations thereof. Given sufficient time. Just when the "alea iacta est" point precisely will be, no one can know for sure. But not more than several more generations now. The only way to stop this would be to have a semblance of #3 re-arise among Europeans. #3 is laughably weak in the European-derived world today for reasons already explained in detail. Even opposition to the genuine, long-term threat of #4 (Islamic 'radicals'/theocrats) within the European-derived world is usually of the universalist "let's preserve liberal values using force" variety (i.e., a hawkish #1). Rarely does one see anti-#4ism with an obvious and starkly European-revivalist (#3) message. If anything, the postmodern anti-#4s actually try to conflate past #3s and today's #4, using tenuous ties like the "Muslim SS battalion from Bosnia". Being that #3 is effectively non-existent in the acceptable-mainstream of the European-derived world today, there is no hope for grand European revival or - pardon me being dramatic - "White salvation" anytime soon. The "World Order" and the animating Weltanschauung in the European-derived world must fundamentally realign if long-term European survival is to occur. This is not necessarily to say that "#1 must be replaced by #3", but rather that some semblance of #3 must rearise within society, somehow.
D. Our Survival: ultimately there are only two developments, broadly defined, that realistically allow for European survival. I will outline them here. ("Survival" meaning secure nationhood(s) and secure future(s); Fourth World Amerindian-status - i.e. very low pure numbers and in isolated spots, reservations - qualifies as "barely clinging to life", and not really "survival"):
A. Introduction: While the Obama presidency is an interesting development, it is absurd to believe that this turn of events "marks the beginning of the 21st century" as some have suggested it does. After all, Obama's victory is not a deviation from the current spirit of the age, but rather, an affirmation of its continuations. Simply put, Obama symbolizes free-market America in a global age, and the "Capitalist-Liberal-Democracy" ideology in its raw, de-nationalized, de-racialized, economic-minded form. The animating socio-political impulse and considerations derived from this ideology are a part of our current socialization, schooling and daily lives, and have ruled supreme across most of the globe since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Thus, 1991 is probably the best place to mark the beginning of the 21st century and end the 20th, because 1991 also marks the end of the conflict triggered by the fall of the last world order. Here are some important dates to help us understand what happened:
1815-1914: the era began with the ruling aristocrats meeting in 1815 to set up a system to secure their power and keep Europe in balance. The period that followed consisted of Old Order social conservatism, colonialism and imperialism; the structure was challenged by various philosophers and theorists and briefly rocked by the revolutions of 1848, but was never replaced.
1914-1918: European countries engage in a tremendously stupid war that winds up killing most of the governments that began it and throwing all of Europe into disarray. The war and its millions of dead shook the foundations of the European World, creating a broad socio-political "Zero Hour". Revolutionary movements - previously constrained, ineffectual, and rather weak, at least in terms of power politics – burst forth and were ready to seize the day. All saw themselves as destined to remake the world and were highly idealistic. Contending for power were:
1916-1991: all European-settled countries saw contending forces of #1, #2, and #3 present in their populations, pulling their countries in various directions. For example, after proponents of #2 came to power in the former Russian Empire, they simply killed or imprisoned most open advocates of #1 and #3. Even Britain had a #3 presence (as in Oswald Mosley; whose men had regular streetfights with #2 Britons), and even Germany had a strong #2, in the KPD and radical left, until 1933. The 1924 Immigration Law represented a temporary triumph of #3 in the USA, but the USA remained firmly #1 (hence the 'Invisible Empire' of White Protestantism in America, rather than a visible one). The Spanish Civil War was very clearly a microcosm of it all, with proponents of #1, #2 and #3, as well as representatives of each from abroad, slugging it out militarily in Spain. The Germans became the primary representatives supporting Spain's #3 in the conflict, and American #2's even formed the "John Brown brigade", which went across the ocean to fight for Spain's #2's. Proponents of #3, under Franco, finally defeated the Republicans (#1) and Communists (#2) in Spain.
- Capitalist-liberal-democracy...self-explanatory
- Soviet-Communism/Socialism...self-explanatory
- Nationalism/"Blood-and-Honor-ism"...the defining and animating socio-political impulse of a society is national survival and health, rather than personal-freedom, equality, or pure economic theories. Traditional morality/community-spirit are seen to be the impulse for a healthy society.
While all this was going on, the collapse of the Old Order power structure - and disillusionment with the Old Order system and its socio-political considerations - brought about bizarre and cynical art movements like Dada, which reflected the uncertainty and social disarray of a "beheaded king" society. Dada and "degenerate art" was not really aligned to any ideology, but #3 certainly positioned itself against it. By 1939, #3's had displaced most of the weak post-1918 #1 governments in Europe, except in the United Kingdom and France. A clear exception to the rule was the former Russian Empire, where the #2s had come to power after the collapse of the Old Order. For the most part, however, most states in Europe had governments that embraced #3 to varying degrees, most conspicuously Germany.
During the war between 1939-1945, #3 was killed in battle by the Allied forces of #1 and #2. To prevent its re-arising, #1 and #2 have perpetually demonized the corpse of #3 ever since, with a strong level of hysterical paranoia. After #3's throat was slit on the battlefields of eastern Europe, the two men left standing (#1 and #2) continued the fight, glad to be rid of their erstwhile competitor. Early in this era, the "Kultukampf" started spilling over globally. #2 was clearly losing by the 1970s, and finally died a natural death by the late 1980s, with the Soviet Union officially dissolving around the Christmas of 1991.
1991-????: by the beginning of this era, #1 was the uncontested victor, prompting "the end of history" to be proclaimed. Thus began the so-called "End Of History" era, in which #1 was the last man standing, with no serious competition from any other ideology. Socialist/Far-left parties and nationalist-patriotic parties (the remnants of the defeated #2 and #3, respectively) had no real prospects for power in any European or European-derived country, with the latter even being banned in some countries, its advocates jailed. To the extent that post-1991 European statesmen or even regular people had any sympathies in the directions of either #2 or #3, they had to subordinate those views to the reality of #1-supremacy. In the 1960s, countries within the #1 world began to drive forward in earnest towards globalization of the capitalist-liberal-democracy variety, partly to compete against and stop the spread of the feared #2, but mostly because globalization is the logical endgame of a pure #1 society. Markets, economies of scale and the push for free trade and cheap labor drive us in this direction.
This is why all #1s in Europe became pro-immigrant and pro-one-world-ism. THIS IS WHERE OBAMA FITS IN. Obama represents nothing new at all, he is rather the logical continuation of the victorious #1 ideology. Everything about him represents that sort of globalization. Obama represents the continued forward-march of #1, NO DIFFERENT from any of the real trends within the USA (and its fellow #1s) for the past 40 years at least.
That the main racial stock of the USA, a country of the Euro-Christian tradition, is afraid to mouth their opposition to Non-White Rule in their own country, in the form of Obama, shows just how successfully the demonization of #3 has been since 1945.
There is another "Weltanschauung" - an all-encompassing world perspective with socio-political motivations - that did not get much play during the 20th Century: the Theocracy. Typically, each European nation had been subject to a socio-cultural course that had pushed the nation to the "#1, #2 or #3 camp" in the early 20th century. By contrast, what had belonged to said nation through the colonization of their Old Order rulers became host to "#1, #2, or #3" by default or puppets who received enough support to rule top-down. Nowhere was this more apparent than in Africa, Western Asia and the Middle East. Underneath it all, however, were masses of people who vastly outnumber the Europeans in kind and, thanks to a unique history, are religious on a scale that Europe can no longer understand. In this legacy is the making of #4 - socio-cultural-political Islam. A nascent #4 contributed somewhat to the fall of #2, with its bitter resistance to the USSR in 1980s Afghanistan. The beginning of #4 as a force on the world stage can be said to be 1979 with the toppling of the Shah of Iran.
Afghanistan is an interesting case study, because it saw rule by all four Weltanschauungs during the past 40 years - 'the Shah' (who was basically a primitive #1 with Old Order flair) was deposed in the mid-1970s by the Communists (#2). In 1992, #2 was swept aside and replaced nationally by tribalism (a ultra-primitive version of #3); then, in 1996, Kabul fell to the Taliban (#4), which proceeded to conquer 90% of the country; in late 2001, in the aftermath of 9/11, it went full-circle to #1, with the U.S. appointing Karzai.
In the past twenty years, #4 has gained ground in the Islamic world by establishing connections to oil resources and achieving the behind-the-scenes support of various state actors. In addition, there are the changing global demographics that work in its favour, as well as the dogma of #1's in European-settled world, which holds that all religions are integratible into the #1 model and tolerance and understanding are the best policy in regards to Islam. In the #1 world, some who hail from the Christian tradition are panicking at various trends favorable to #4's long-term prospects. The "Clash of Civilizations"-esque conflict between #1 (led by the USA along with representatives of the globalizing world in tow) and #4 Islamism is very real, but trying to connect it to the 1,400-year-old Islamic-Christian conflict is tenuous at best.
B. Notes: the concepts of the "left wing", "right wing", "liberal" and "conservative" are EXTREMELY subjective, and differ depending on which # the society is; in the USA, the Left and Right are both well within the bounds of #1, hence the oft-heard criticism that the parties are "the same". Conversely, any society with powerful wings of authentically varied Weltanschauungs tends towards being highly unstable (for example, 1918-1930s Europe, the chaos of 1930s Spain and Afghanistan, 1970s-Present).
Each Weltanschauung has certain propensities; #1 and #2 tend to believe in equality, #2 and #3 tend toward authoritarianism, #1 seems to favor personal-freedom and individualism (things rejected by #2 and #3), #3 believes in group-integrity above all (something downplayed by #1 the most), #2 believes in inherent economic-leveling to provide for everyone's needs. To some extent, the three can be synthesized, but only to a certain point. There are irreconcilable differences between the three main Weltanschauungs, which is why the 20th Century was so geopolitically turbulent. #1, #2, and #3 all have good aspects and bad aspects to them. All three have plenty of positive qualities. None is inherently better or worse than the rest, and all three can be bad or administered badly/evilly. Likewise, no one ideology has a monopoly on "evil", and it is childish to think that one does. The question of genocide is a bludgeon used against #3, but history shows us that 1, 2, and 3 have all committed genocides. Ironically, an enlightened #3 is perhaps the least 'genocidal' of the three, since its "animating sociopolitical impulse" is the continuity of the various timeless groupings and emphasis on inclusive ethnic community and pride rather than tossing everyone into a hardline #1 dog-eat-dog "common market", or demanding that man conform to a new-age unisex mold as part of a man-against-nature movement to build sameness. One interesting thing about the collapse Old Order is it opened sociopolitics up to the widest they have ever been, allowing the raw essence of human idealism and the mortal soul to pour out, the good and the bad. Those with real sympathies today for #2 or #3 (or #4) will tend towards fatalism and a reactionary mentality, when faced with the reality of #1 supremacy. Since the bearers of the #1 standards now have near-total control of the process of information-dissemination and socialization across the European-derived world, they have convinced all but the hardliner holdouts that not only will #1 always be as omnipotent as it is today, but that any alternatives to #1 range from miserable failures at best to inhuman nightmares at worst.
C. Our Struggle: Viewed from a long-term perspective, it is clear that European and European-derived nations and people(s) are presently on the sharp decline worldwide. While globalization may end up melting away all nations and all ethnocultural groups on Earth in the long run, we can say that--at very least--it does seem destined to "melt away" the European racial stock as a cohesive unit, and all the nations thereof. Given sufficient time. Just when the "alea iacta est" point precisely will be, no one can know for sure. But not more than several more generations now. The only way to stop this would be to have a semblance of #3 re-arise among Europeans. #3 is laughably weak in the European-derived world today for reasons already explained in detail. Even opposition to the genuine, long-term threat of #4 (Islamic 'radicals'/theocrats) within the European-derived world is usually of the universalist "let's preserve liberal values using force" variety (i.e., a hawkish #1). Rarely does one see anti-#4ism with an obvious and starkly European-revivalist (#3) message. If anything, the postmodern anti-#4s actually try to conflate past #3s and today's #4, using tenuous ties like the "Muslim SS battalion from Bosnia". Being that #3 is effectively non-existent in the acceptable-mainstream of the European-derived world today, there is no hope for grand European revival or - pardon me being dramatic - "White salvation" anytime soon. The "World Order" and the animating Weltanschauung in the European-derived world must fundamentally realign if long-term European survival is to occur. This is not necessarily to say that "#1 must be replaced by #3", but rather that some semblance of #3 must rearise within society, somehow.
D. Our Survival: ultimately there are only two developments, broadly defined, that realistically allow for European survival. I will outline them here. ("Survival" meaning secure nationhood(s) and secure future(s); Fourth World Amerindian-status - i.e. very low pure numbers and in isolated spots, reservations - qualifies as "barely clinging to life", and not really "survival"):
- SLOW, SOFT REVIVAL. For any number of reasons, #1's grotesquely-inflated and total demonization of #3 begins to fade away on its own, slowly. Over a period of years, #3 is thus "allowed" to rearise among European-derived persons, at least to USA-pre-1960 levels. Successful #3 movements then arise, and secure European survival peacefully and magnanimously. This seems likely to happen to a small extent during the present century, but very unlikely to happen before the damage done to our communities can be reversed. Keep in mind that many demoralized-#3s in 1990s Europe were predicting imminent #3-ish revivals after the fall of #2 occurred in 1989. Needless to say, this did not happen; if anything, the demonization of #3 has increased since 1989. This is a curious phenomenon that is hard to explain; possible explanations will have to wait for another time.
- FAST, HARD REVIVAL. The fall of the United States of America, by which I mean the fall of #1. The USA is to #1 what the Soviet Union was to #2. So, if #1's flagship, the USA, hits early-1930s levels economically, it is possible that the dominance of #1 in the European-derived world would fall as well. Theoretically, then, a quick and blatant eclipse of #1 in the USA would create a new, November 1918-esque 'Zero Hour', allowing for a brand-new reemergence of #3, similar to that which occurred after 1918, across the European-derived world. The problem with this scenario is that #3 is so laughably weak and has been so totally demonized, that European-derived persons have mostly lost the sense that they are part of any ethnocultural unit(s) at all, leading to nihilism and cynicism in the past two or three generations of Western Whites, and further descent towards #1's considerations. With Europe and the USA lacking actual ethno-cultural feeling, it is hard to imagine even the chaos of another socio-political Zero Hour causing a serious reemergence of #3 in the European-derived world before a re-emergence of #2 would occur.
The blunt problem with both possible scenarios sketched out above is well known to all by now; frankly, by the time either seems likely to occur, demographic realities may simply preclude success. When Non-Whites are over 50% of a formerly-racially-European nation-state (as in the USA in 30 years' time), it may be too late. On the other hand, secessionist solutions are possible, but that would probably entail ugly ethno-religious civil wars along the lines of the Yugoslav or Lebanese models. In the event that even 35% of a European-founded state's voters are of foreign origin, #3 would have to win nearly four-fifths of the native vote, which seems impossible. It is for this reason that a solution at the ballot box is highly unlikely. Incidentally, studying the developments over the last two hundred years, it seems voting patterns change after the Weltanschauung changes, NOT before; control socialization, and you control the ballot box - or, at least you set the bounds for the range of possible outcomes therein.
