No people is morally and spiritually healthy unless it is imbued with a strong sense of its own identity.
Essential to that sense of identity are an awareness and an understanding of all the qualities which the members of the people share in common.
It is doubly imperative that every man and woman who claims the privilege of membership in a community based on the bonds of common race and common culture knows and takes pride in his racial and cultural history, for in this history are all the elements which give his community its unique character and differentiate its members from all those who are not members.
When such knowledge and pride are lacking, a community is subject to a host of ills and cannot long endure. Solidarity and a sense of responsibility to the community give place to special-interest factionalism and alienation. A lack of a sense of identity blurs the distinction between compatriot and stranger, between friend and foe, and leaves the community prey to the greed or malice of aliens as well as of its own pathological members, who will grow mightily in numbers as loss of identity proceeds. [Who We Are #1 — Introduction]
* * *
Eventually, however, I was able to synthesize an overview of history which yielded several fundamental insights, the most important of which concerned the biological basis of history and of human culture. I began to understand that history is not just a succession of political events and cultural developments; it is the record of various human groups in their struggle to survive and evolve, of their interactions and conflicts.
The course which the history of any one human group follows is influenced by many factors, but the most important and basic of these factors is the specific racial character of the groups. Thus, the histories of Negroes, of Chinamen, and of Whites, though subject to the effects of differing environments and differing cultural preconditions, are profoundly different primarily because the groups these historians describe are profoundly different biologically. And the differences in cultural preconditions themselves are, in most cases, primarily a product of biological differences also.
Such a conclusion may seem self-evident once it is recognized, but, like many other things which, perhaps, ought to be self-evident, it has managed to escape the attention of a great many people — including many who write history textbooks. For me it was a great revelation which changed the way in which I saw the world around me thenceforth. [The Radicalizing of an American]
* * *
The four centuries between the Dorian invasion and the flowering of the literate Classical civilization are referred to by most historians as “the Dark Age,” for much the same reasons that the period between the fall of Rome, more than 15 centuries later, and the flowering of Mediaeval civilization is also called “the Dark Ages.”
In both cases a people of an older civilization, who had begun to succumb to racial mixing and decadence, was overwhelmed by a more vigorous and racially healthier but culturally less advanced people from the north. And in both cases a period of gestation took place over a dozen generations or so, during which a synthesis of old and new elements, racial and cultural, occurred, before a new and different civilization arose from the ruins of the old.
Unfortunately, most historians tacitly assume that the records of political and cultural activity which have come down to us from periods of civilized literacy provide all the data needed to yield an understanding of the historical process. The state of development and degree of organization and complexity of city life are taken as a yardstick by which to evaluate the significance or historical importance of a particular period. And if one’s standards of value are geared to such things as the volume of commerce, the gross national product, or even the intensity of scientific, literary, and artistic activity, such a yardstick may seem, at first glance, to be proper.
But there are other standards of value, such as those of the National Alliance, which differ somewhat from the customary ones. For it is not in the external forms of organization and activity of a people that we see the most important criteria for making a judgment as to the significance of a particular period, but rather in the actual racial constitution of a people and in the dynamic processes which, for better or worse, are influencing that racial constitution.
Although the basic racial constitution of a people is always intimately related to that people’s achievements in commerce, science, industry, art, politics, and warfare, still the two sets of criteria can lead to fundamentally different evaluations of a given historical period.
This is a consequence of the fact that race building and decay are usually strongly out of phase with civilization building and decay.
Thus, the long ages between the periods of maximum civil activity — ages which the historian customarily ignores as being of only slight importance — may very well be periods of the greatest interest from a standpoint of racial dynamics.
It is, of course, true that the periods of maximum civil activity are precisely those which yield a maximum of written records, artifacts, and the other raw materials from which the historian builds his tale. But relative abundance of evidence should not be interpreted as equivalent to relative historical significance, regardless of the historian’s value criteria.
The record of the rise and fall of pure races constitutes the primary history of mankind, and the rise and fall of civilizations occupy a place of secondary importance. This statement may seem self-evident to those already accustomed to looking at history from a racial viewpoint, but it is by no means generally accepted by historians today. Until it is, much historical writing will continue to be flawed in a fundamental way. [Who We Are #10 — Hellenes and Dorians]
* * *
How are liberals and conservatives different from one another? I believe that their most fundamental difference is that liberals enjoy destroying things, smashing up existing structures and institutions, while conservatives are much more inclined to hang onto what already exists: not only to hang on, but to support it, so long as it has an aura of authority, whether that makes sense or not. Conservatives respect authority and crave respectability for themselves; liberals respect nothing and desire above all else to be fashionable.
The conservative and the liberal are similar in that neither is a systematic thinker — at least, not with regard to the ideas and policies which define his conservative or liberal nature. He does not derive his ideas on specific matters from general principles, but rather from attitudes or psychological tendencies. [Tribal Thinking]
* * *
I’ll tell you who the systematic thinkers are: the Jews. The Jews not only think systematically, they think tribally. Jews aren’t afraid of hard work when it is necessary, but they don’t really work harder than conservatives or liberals — at least, it’s not just hard work and education which are responsible for their wealth and power; it’s their systematic approach to things, their tribal approach. That is the secret of their success. They’re not distracted by things such as conservatism or liberalism. They know what they want, and they go after it in a rational way.
Back during the early part of this century conservatives used to scratch their heads and try to figure out whether Jews were basically capitalists or communists. Jews had become very successful as capitalists in America and had amassed huge fortunes. But in Europe the Jews were leading the communist movement, and Jewish capitalists in America were giving them financial aid. The conservatives couldn’t figure it out. It was too much of a puzzle for them. As I said earlier, conservatives are not very bright.
The answer to the puzzle, of course, is that Jews are basically neither communists nor capitalists. But they also are both when it suits their purpose. I’ll repeat to you an anecdote told by Lazar Kaganovich, the bloodiest and most powerful of the Jewish Bolsheviks during the height of communist power in the Soviet Union. Kaganovich was known as the Butcher of Ukraine and the Wolf of the Kremlin and was personally responsible for the murder of millions of Ukrainian and Russian farmers and workers. In 1957 Nikita Khruschev himself publicly accused Kaganovich of murdering 20 million Russians.
Kaganovich told the anecdote to his American nephew, Stuart Kahan, who wrote the official biography of his uncle, which was published in this country in 1987 by William Morrow and Company. Kaganovich’s own uncle, Levick, had told the young Kaganovich as a boy in Ukraine the basic rule by which he expected the young Jew to guide his life. I quote: “Whatever is good for the Jews,” Uncle Levick had said to him. “Follow only that line of reasoning.” Actually, Kaganovich mentions several other occasions on which his Uncle Levick impressed him with the same rule of conduct, the same rule to guide his thinking, during the time when the young Jew, who was a yeshiva boy, was attending his first communist meetings in the synagogue in Kiev.
The interesting thing about that in this connection is that wealthy capitalist Jews have written about the same rule being pounded into their own heads by their elders when they were boys: “Always base your decisions on what is good for the Jews. Always choose the policy which benefits the Jews. That must be the rule which guides your life, my boy.” That is tribal thinking. And it is successful thinking. And neither conservatives nor liberals understand it.
In the 1970s, after it was apparent to astute observers that communism was bankrupt and would not last much longer in eastern Europe, thousands of Jewish intellectuals in America who formerly had supported Marxism, began changing their tune and announcing that henceforth they would be conservatives. Today they are called “neoconservatives” or “neocons.” And Gentile liberals felt betrayed. They believed that their Jewish fellow travelers had let them down, had betrayed the cause of liberalism. They didn’t understand that the Jews had no more been genuine Marxists or genuine liberals in the past than the neocons are genuine conservatives today. They were just doing what was good for the Jews, paying lip service to whatever ideology was best for the Jews at the time, and as the times changed, so did the ideology. [Tribal Thinking]
* * *
Today, despite the abandonment of Marxism and the large number of Jewish neocons around, Jews generally are still regarded as “liberals” by most people. That’s because, regardless of whether they support Al Gore or Bill Bradley or George Bush, Jr., for President — regardless of their economic policies or their party affiliation — they virtually all are for gun control, for open borders, for multiculturalism and more “diversity,” for racial mixing, for permitting homosexuals to be Boy Scout leaders, and so on. But the essential point, which both conservatives and liberals fail to understand, is that the Jews don’t base their policies on any inherently “liberal” tendency. They base their policies on what’s good for the Jews. And that also means, in nearly every case, on what’s bad for the Gentiles, on what weakens the Gentiles, on what makes easier prey of the Gentiles. Tribal thinking.
… It’s time to stop being spectators, to stop listening to the hypocritical cant of the liberals and the mindless ramblings of the conservatives. It’s time to base everything — everything — on the proposition that we must survive, our people must survive. If a policy strengthens our people, if it increases the survivability of our people, it is a good policy. If it weakens us or puts us at a disadvantage in the struggle for survival it is a bad policy. That’s all that matters. That’s all that we should consider. Racial survival, racial victory in the struggle for life and dominance, must be the goal of every plan, of every policy, of every thought and action. Tribal thinking.
We used to understand that, back before television. Everyone understood it who survived. The Jews still understand it. We’d better learn it again — soon. [Tribal Thinking]
Source: National Vanguard