Introduction:

Many of the world’s contemporary ills are a direct result of the philosophies, actions and policies of the mainstream establishment, its elites, and their bizarre ideology-cum-religion of liberalism, more recently dubbed “neoliberalism” in its most extreme incarnation. Figuratively speaking, it’s more than fair to posit that the dangerously interconnected and interdependent neoliberalized world is like a giant network server, ever perilously teetering on the verge of a cataclysmic failure. When writing of the excesses of the liberal system, and most notably the dangerous interconnectivity of the globalized world Guillaume Faye acutely summarizes our current predicament when he writes:

A series of ‘dramatic lines’ are approaching one another and converging like a river’s tributaries with perfect accord (between 2010 and 2020) towards a breaking point and a descent into chaos (Faye 2012, 12)

Continuing Faye then offers a glimmer of hope when he writes:

From this chaos — which will be extremely painful on the global scale — can emerge the new order of the post-catastrophe era and therefore a new civilization born in pain (Faye 2012, 12)

The accelerationists among our ranks will chortle that collapse is a good thing. They believe that civilizational collapse will pave the way for a “new world order,” images of valiant last stands reminiscent of those envisioned by William Luther Pierce’s The Turner Diaries or James Mason’s Siege first and foremost in their minds. While the more grounded elements of our movement—those interested in gradual, and realistic metapolitical, and eventual political change—tend to take another view. Realistically speaking, collapse would be a nightmare, wrought with unimaginable suffering and death. Moreover, presumably many of the victims would be our fellow Whites. Political disintegration is a recurring theme throughout world history, and as the study of history has taught, its seldom a pleasant phenomenon.

Bringing matters to a head, and intensifying the instability of the Western world, is the Chinese coronavirus. In true Huxleyan dystopian fashion, with each passing day the fate of the liberalized world rests atop “a pale tenuous membrane,” veering ever closer towards systemic planetary collapse. I cannot help but liken the current crisis to a near-death experience and like any near-death experience, I am cautiously optimistic that some good may arise from our collective veering so close to the proverbial edge. More precisely, I’m hoping that all the fear, misery and uncertainty engendered by the Wuhan pestilence elicits a bona fide existential crisis in whatever’s left of the dwindling soul of the European variant of homo economicus. Let’s hope that with what is tantamount to a national quarantine here in America and most of Europe, that the racially unenlightened kindred among us begin to contemplate just how we got here. The current litany of crises afflicting the West appeared long before the emergence of the Chinese coronavirus, but the virus has managed to bring many of the systems weaknesses to the world’s attention.

War is peace / freedom is slavery / ignorance is strength

In The Collapse of Complex Societies, Joseph A. Tainter argues that societies become unsustainable when the their problem-solving structures diminish (Tainter 1988). Liberalism as a way of life, has precipitated a number of calamities, on a global scale, many of which remain unresolved, and in fact, are growing to monstrous proportions, immigration chief among them.

Related to the above, the true severity underpinning the coronavirus crisis is a direct result of the extreme uncertainty as to how or when it will end. This uncertainty in turn endows the virus with a potency much more immediately felt than, say, mass immigration or overpopulation, both of which take years for their effects to be realized by the mainstream. Generally speaking, risk can be quantified, in fact, there’s a whole science of risk quantification present within the field of project management devoted solely to the evaluation of risk. Uncertainty, however, isn’t quantifiable, and by its nature is completely unpredictable, and it is this unpredictability which imbues the Chinese virus with so much psychological stress. From this the question arises, how will European man, and ultimately European civilization react to the uncertainty of the Chinese scourge? Will this crisis be the springboard which propels European man towards real ontological, and by extension, civilizational transformation? Or will the retracting empire of European civilization drift closer to the precipice of total racial annihilation? Only time will tell what the future will bring, but some optimism is warranted.

Regardless of outcome, it’s obvious to even the dimmest among us that tangible civilizational change is necessary, at least if the European race is to persevere beyond the twenty-first century. At present, the Chinese scourge is doing a fantastic job of illuminating the real contagion infecting the atrophied West, that of neoliberalism. From atop their echo chambers, a number of mainstream pundits have parroted the statement that the Chinese virus is a global problem. The Chinese virus is a global issue, but presumably much to their chagrin, it is a problem directly caused by neoliberal ideology, and more specifically by its intrinsic preference for and reliance upon globalism. It is the global reach and totalitarian nature of liberalism that has endowed its ideology with such pernicious virulence. It’s probably more than safe to say that if the West wasn’t enthralled by the deranged ideology that is liberalism, that there would be no coronavirus ravaging our homelands and endangering the lives of our folk.

Liberalism isn’t a precise ideology, unlike nationalism which is based on a simple, and fundamental truth, like the love for one’s nation, or an all-encompassing, consensual worldview, like National Socialism. Neoliberalism, unlike its more tolerant ancestor, is more akin to a Rabelaisian salmagundi of rigidly intolerant dogmas and precepts, which are slowly assuming all the accoutrements of a secularized mystery religion. For all practical purposes, liberalism is a loose-knit, ideology-cum-religion, premised upon an axiomatic dogma dedicated to fulfilling individual human wants and desires. Liberalism seeks to satiate these wants and desires, the so-called “happiness” of those under its sway, via the specious “freedoms” diffused by the market-economy.

Like all things en-vogue in contemporary in the West, there is a degree of utopian millenarianism present within neoliberal thought, which promises salvation from the cruel sufferings of this world via its fetish for free-market economics. Like all successful swindles, the unconscious pull of neoliberal thought comes from its ability to present and manipulate half-truths. The long and varied successes of the European race are derived from both the individualism and the competitive nature of our civilization, and it is this truth which neoliberalism insidiously exploits. To the neoliberal order, competition is the defining characteristic of human relations. However, competition is framed not as the conquest, or attainment of individual glory or achievement, but primarily as an economic process, of buying and selling, and thus of a hypertrophied free-market. Liberalism has apotheosized the free-market system by portraying it as the most effective, the most rational, and the most natural of social institutions, capable of producing the most “happiness,” and by extension arousing the most “freedoms” for the greatest number of people. These statements aren’t meant to say that free-market capitalism isn’t a profoundly powerful economic system, but rather to illustrate the point that as a concept, it is just a system of production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services, and not the totality of a civilization. As Alain de Benoist has correctly pointed out over the years, a society is not a market, and this notion has been twisted by liberalism for decades.

Adding to and intensifying the already perplexing liberal ideological milieu is the establishment’s confusion over the very real differences that exist between a capitalist system and a free-market system. A capitalist system focuses on the creation of wealth and the ownership of capital. In the traditional capitalist system of America, the economy was an industrially oriented economy, as opposed to the so-called “knowledge-economy” of present times in which growth is seen as dependent on the quantity, quality, and accessibility of the information available, rather than the means of production. The industrial orientation of the American economy ensured that economic growth occurred largely in the sectors of farming, mining, construction and manufacturing. Moreover, it was during the industrial period of American economic history, and by extension European economic history, that the middle-class was ascendant, and the private ownership of capital (i.e., small businesses) was disbursed among a much larger percentage of the population.

The liberalization of trade, and the expansion of globalism as an ideology rather than just as a byproduct of technological advancement, acted to deindustrialize large swathes of America, resulting in the mass economic dislocation of workers, specifically within import-competing economic sectors. The decades long process of the deindustrialization of America resulted in an economic restructuring of the economy, which precipitated a shift of the locus of American economic output from the generative (e.g., manufacturing) to the parasitic (e.g., financialization). The resulting postindustrial, “knowledge-based” economies of both contemporary America and the West, are focused on the services, finance, and technology, and as such are parasitic in nature, focusing on the exchange of wealth, rather than its creation. Obviously, creation does occur in the knowledge economy—say, for example, a new technology, but the actual production of the new technology will likely end up going to low-wage countries. This outsourcing of manufacturing has resulted in what one might term the intangibleization of the economies of the West, which has in turn led to stagnant wages for the working class and increasing economic inequality. This ongoing economic process has transformed Western civilization, with the its ancestral European peoples being gradually turned into a postmodern servile class dominated by a globalist elite that recognizes no borders. To wit, the current incarnation of the parasitic, free-market economy is a system most vehemently embraced by a Judaized “Western” elite, who profit off of the labor of others, and who have little in common with the new servile class that they now lord over.

The Eschewal of Inequality and the Perversion of the Natural Order:

Central to the noxious confusion of liberalism is its denunciation of inequality. European civilizational agency—the capacity to act in accordance with one’s own will rather than being a victim of some immutable external force or circumstance—is one of the hallmarks of Western civilization. However, the liberal conceptualization of “agency” ignores the fact that there are differences between individuals in the capacity for agency. These differences reliably produce different economic outcomes, and liberalism, despite decades of trying one panacea after another, has been unable to eradicate these differences at the group level: Blacks, e.g., are still underperforming academically as a group despite decades of interventions aimed at “closing the gap.”

From Jean Bodin to John Stuart Mills to Friedrich Hayek and beyond, classical liberal thought posits that freedom stems from the impartiality of economic markets and its role as the great equalizer, which in turn allows people to reach their maximum potential. In an attempt to reconcile the reality of inequality with their ideology, liberal elites have taken to a program of elevating those individuals, and groups, whole racial groups in fact, whose outcomes don’t coalesce with the egalitarian, and thus utopian aspirations of liberal ideology. In terms of general intelligence (the g factor) for example, numerous studies have shown that Sub-Saharan Blacks on average score a whole standard deviation (or more) below that of Whites. IQ is correlated highly to measures of academic achievement, and better academic achievement, more often than not, results in better life outcomes, in terms of social status. Objectively speaking, the higher an individual’s (or groups) status, the more socially valuable they are. This is an empirical fact, which is rooted primarily in genetics and phenotypic expression, and thus a facet of the inequality of the natural world. Liberalism has elevated hordes of the worthless in a confusing attempt to artificially improve their social status, despite their actual lack of tangible societal value. The relatively new concept of “human rights” is a product of this delusional logic.

To the typical liberal, the Black-White IQ gap is a matter of material inequality, an economic problem, and thus completely unrelated to genes or biology. Charles Murray summed up not only the differences in racial intelligence, but also the futility of the utopian neoliberal project perfectly when he wrote: There is this notion that if traits are genetically determined, that’s bad, and if traits are environmentally determined, that’s good, because we can do something about them if they are environmental. And if there is one lesson that we have learned from the last 70 years of social policy, it is that changing environments in ways that produce measurable results is really, really hard and we actually don’t know how to do it, no matter how much money we spend (Harris 2017). Thus, the neoliberal perspective is immanently flawed as it conceptualizes reality in a way which posits that all negative outcomes are a result of material or economic inequality—which is routinely glossed as the result of White racism—and not an issue of ability or capacity, and by extension a facet of objective reality. Liberalism as the reigning ideology has blurred the lines between the real and unreal, between subjectivism and objectivism. Our current age is characterized by a radical subjectivism, where any notion of absolute, objective truth has been deliberately disregarded and replaced by a facetious tapestry of plural “my truths.”

As the oft-used adage goes, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results. It is the philosophical inadequacy of liberalism that reduces all things to the level of material and underlies the multitudes of fallacies present within the many “truths” which make up its pseudo-ideology. As Martin Heidegger posited throughout the entirety of his works, the factual world is perfectly real; it is the human, and by extension, the hyper-liberal propensity to base reality on “projection” (ideal) rather than on “facticity,” (fact) which corrupts the liberal mind and wreaks havoc upon the world.

It is neoliberalism’s adherence to the alleged agency of man, achieved solely by possessing economic and thus political rights, which limits its ability to successfully cope with actual real-world issues. Bridging the gaps in wealth and achievement and abolishing inequality is always just another trillion dollars away. Or it is just a matter of refining our laws to enforce equal outcomes between groups in areas such as income and academic achievement.

And because purely economic adjustments have proved ineffective, political solutions must be found. Policies like quota systems must be enacted and if they are threatened by public opinion—as they most assuredly are— liberalism necessarily morphs into a totalitarian ideology. Bertrand de Jouvenel described the liberal paradox as the cause of what he called “totalitarian democracy.” In the totalitarian democracies of the West, individual decision making, and the explicit “democratic” political processes, maintain the guise of political representation, while in reality decision making is a process done largely by groups of unelected donors—the oligarchs—and their politician minions who really run the system. This is a system which seeks only to maintain and enrich itself. And because its fundamental ideology conflicts with the realities of human nature, such as race differences in IQ, it must necessarily seek total hegemony because that is the only way it can attempt to exempt itself from the realities of nature. It must crush all dissent. Religion, the nation-state, and the family, are all obstacles to the smooth operating of the economy and are ground to dust beneath the machine of market economy. Race is useful only as a means of subverting the traditional power of White majorities, so that only the traditional White majorities are prohibited to have a racial identity or pursue racial interests.

Freedom as an ideal is so ambiguous in orientation that as an abstract notion it can be manipulated to represent anything. It is the economic determinism intrinsic to liberalism which endows it with the myopia of its reductionist tendencies and which, by extension, degrades all things which are real, true and beautiful. In The Society of the Spectacle, Guy Debord asserts that just as industrial capitalism moved the focus of existence from being to having, post-industrial culture has moved that focus from having to appearing (Debord 1995). Postmodern neoliberalism isn’t about reality, it’s about the maintaining of appearances to perpetuate the farce of reality—lies, injustice and ugliness masquerading as truth, justice and beauty.

In the degeneration that is the liberal age, presentism is the rule of the day. The generally low-IQ, high-time preference “men without chests” of the postmodern world sacrifice all future gains, whether they be economic, political, racial or otherwise, in favor of high-risk, and often fleeting, short-term gains. As GOP Senator Ron Johnson recently phrased it, we have to reopen portions of the American economy post-haste because “death is an unavoidable part of life.” This train of thought is exemplary of the philosophical weaknesses of liberalism, particularly as it relates to its overreliance on presentism. The behavior of individuals currently living will generally have long-term consequences that affect the well-being of those who will come to live in the future. In this age of dissolution, many people pay lip service to future generations, but act as if it’s not necessary to treat the interests of future generations as equivalent to those of their own. Again, this lack of future-mindedness, and overall lack of care for others beyond oneself, specifically for one’s racial kin, is baked into the giant shit cake which is the liberal establishment.

Conclusion:

The money-grubbing elites of the West have willfully, and quite deliberately forgotten that the purpose of the economy is to serve a people, and not vice-versa. It is this inversion, Nietzschean in its transvaluation of reality, that has led to the series of crises and conflicts destabilizing the West. However, in America, and throughout Europe, people of European descent are gradually awakening to the hostility of these elites. Each new crisis spurred by neoliberalism both edges our people one step closer to the proverbial edge and potentially one step closer to civilizational transformation. In fact, over the past several weeks many legacy media outlets have been publishing stories about the need to suppress the natural, “nationalistic instinct” which has arisen in response to the China plague. Like the farce of multiculturalism, the pervasiveness and popularity of this “nationalistic instinct” is rendered self-evident by the obvious fact that the talking heads in the media are actively working to suppress it. If the works of George Orwell have taught us anything, the more preposterous an untruth, the more vigorously it must be defended.

In times of turmoil like these, it’s important to remember that the disease of liberalism, and those who perpetuate it, are the true enemy of all European people. If America and the West weren’t dominated by the perversion that is money-power, then the coronavirus wouldn’t have happened. If the hostile elites hadn’t sold out the American people and gleefully deindustrialized America, then the coronavirus wouldn’t have happened. If we weren’t dominated by a ruthless and rootless, predominantly Semitic, transnational elite whose only interest is the “almighty dollar,” then the coronavirus wouldn’t have happened. If the borders of America were closed and if immigration was biased toward Europeans, as it was before 1965, then the coronavirus wouldn’t have happened. If we lived in a racially homogenous nation-state, populated by people of European descent, then the coronavirus wouldn’t have happened. In other words, if neoliberalism wasn’t the rule of the day, then the coronavirus wouldn’t have happened. Regardless of what emerges from these times of trouble, let’s hope that the loss of life isn’t great, and that the Wuhan scourge is one more nail in the coffin which is the absurdity of postmodern neoliberalism.

Debord, Guy. 1995. The Society of the Spectacle. Cambridge: Zone Books.

Faye, Guillaume. 2012. Convergence of Catastrophes. Budapest: Arktos Media Ltd.

Harris, Sam. 2017. Forbidden Knowledge – A Conversation with Charles Murray. https://samharris.org/podcasts/forbidden-knowledge/.

Tainter, Joseph A. 1988. The Collapse of Complex Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.