Monday, May 8, 2017

what do we do when we realise that our civilisation cannot be saved?

So what do we do when we realise that our civilisation cannot be saved through the ballot box? And when we realise that things are not going to improve within the foreseeable future. At what point do we decide to concentrate on our own survival and the survival of our own families?

And when we reach that point, what exactly are our options?

The trouble with the religion of secular liberalism is that opting out is not permitted. Everyone must conform. That of course is the nature of totalitarianism, and totalitarianism is what we’re going to be dealing with.

One option would be to conform outwardly with sufficient enthusiasm to convince the Thought Police of one’s orthodoxy. The big problem with that option, in fact the big problem with any of the possible options, is that it’s OK if you’re childless but absolutely out of the question if you have kids. The system will insist that your children attend school for their regular indoctrination sessions. Which means your children are swallowed by the Moloch of the system. They will not only be brainwashed into conformity, they will also be exposed to the moral degeneracy that is increasingly part and parcel of the education system.

If you refuse to send your children to school the state will simply take them away from you.

In the short term in some countries there’s still the option of home schooling. Do you really believe that liberals intend to allow that option to be available in the long term?

If outward conformity isn’t viable what does that leave? Forming our own communities and hoping the state will allow us the freedom to run those communities without interference? It does seem very unlikely doesn’t it?

A commenter at a recent thread on Diversity or community? at Oz Conservative made the point that some ethnic communities, even white ethnic communities, have managed to maintain a certain degree of autonomy. The example given was of Italian and Greek communities in the UK. It may be that such communities have enough ethnic solidarity, enough economic muscle and perhaps enough political influence to persuade a hostile state that it would be preferable to leave them alone. You would need, apart from a very strong sense of ethnic identity, a willingness to vote as a disciplined bloc. This might give you just enough political clout, at a local level at least.

Displaying that degree of political bloody-mindedness and discipline and that degree of in-group solidarity does not come naturally to Anglo-Saxons. It may be something we will have to learn. The Irish managed to do it in the United States for several generations. You don’t necessarily need to be a political majority. Being a quite small political minority can be enough in certain circumstances. If you have the capability of swinging the vote in a number of marginal constituencies then you can exercise a surprising amount of political power.

This would mean giving up on society as a whole but trying to protect the interests of one’s own immediate community.

Of course it would not be possible for Anglo-Saxons to pursue this strategy by forming an ethnic bloc. We’re too hopelessly divided. Most Anglos are liberals and are therefore, by definition, the enemy. I personally have no interest in playing the identity politics game on the basis of white identity alone. I do not feel the slightest degree of kinship with white liberals.

But would it be possible to form small, self-contained highly disciplined blocs organised along ideological or religious lines? Could we play the identity politics game by focusing on a shared identity as Christians, or social conservatives? Or perhaps a combination of ethnicity and ideology/religion. Could we form a coherent white Christian identity group? 

Perhaps that’s what’s really happening with the alt-right and similar groups. The alt-right has little chance of ever gaining actual power at a national level. They might still be able to achieve something as a pressure group. Lobby groups that represent very small numbers of people can exert a remarkable amount of influence, if they’re prepared to be focused and ruthless and to put their own interests ahead of everyone else’s. It’s a dirty game but it may be the only game in town for us.


  1. Replies
    1. Russia is starting to sound better and better.

    2. I wonder, by the way, what you think of it. And of Putin. Any chance you might write a post about it?

    3. Putin seems to me to be the only actual statesman in Europe.

    4. I remember your thoughts concerning Ukrainian crisis in one of your book reviews. Quite an unusual opinion for a Westerner, I must say. I wish more people in the West could realize that it's not really about Ukraine and that Russia is simply trying to defend itself, not "restore the Empire to its former glory".

  2. I lot of guys in the US are investigating Hungary or other Eastern European countries for Western Men to mass migrate too.

    1. lot of guys in the US are investigating Hungary or other Eastern European countries for Western Men to mass migrate too.

      My feeling is that any eastern European country that has joined the EU is doomed. They're going to get diversity whether they want it or not. If necessary the western Europeans would be quite prepared to resort to war to enforce their globalist agenda. The only eastern European countries with a chance for survival are those that have remained within the Russian orbit and outside the EU.

      Parts of Latin America might be a safer bet. I've heard good things about Uruguay.