Ethnofuturism? A Review of “Rebirth of Europe”

Ruuben Kaalep and August Meister
Rebirth of Europe: The Ethnofuturist Manifesto
Arktos, 2020

There are many ways I could describe the times we currently live in, and none of them are remotely optimistic. I therefore regard it as no small achievement that Ruuben Kaalep and August Meister, two young ethnonationalists from the Baltic states, have managed to craft an overwhelmingly positive, and even celebratory, manifesto out of the stinking refuse and imbecilic infatuations of the present age. H.L. Mencken once suggested that “all government, in its essence, is a conspiracy against the superior man.” Modern government in the West is a conspiracy against the White man alone, and the question of how to overturn this conspiracy is the single greatest challenge of our time. It has resulted in a proliferation of manifestos and ways of describing our politics, all with the aim of turning the political tide and bringing the majority of Europeans, wherever they may live in the world, to their senses.

This proliferation of ideas and methods has, however, probably added to our woes rather than alleviated them. Today we have a confusion of self-descriptions which only seem to exacerbate factionalism. And we have developed a veritable stew of manifestos that contradict each other or suggest different points of emphasis. Underpinning much of what now passes for contemporary ethnonationalist philosophy, particularly in the Anglosphere, is a kind of apathetic paralysis, and an expectancy of something undefined but nevertheless earnestly yearned for. I believe that the thing we yearn for most is clarity and confidence. Clarity of where we stand. Clarity of what’s happening to us. Clarity of our options. And the confidence to see these options through. Kaalep and Meister succeed where others fail because Rebirth of Europe is a masterwork of confidence and clarity.

Ruuben Kaalep is an Estonian nationalist and self-described ethnofuturist. He is a founder of the youth movement Blue Awakening (Sinine Äratus) and of the Conservative People’s Party of Estonia (EKRE). He’s also been a member of the Parliament of Estonia since 2019, where he belongs to the Committee of Foreign Affairs and chairs the Freedom of Speech Group. Other than this, I don’t know much at all about him, which says more about my ignorance of the affairs of Eastern European nationalism than it does about the scope of his activity. Images of the man depict a cheerful young fellow exuding the air of an eccentric artist, a sensibility that is carried through into this book in the form of a quirky and irrepressible rhetorical confidence. Kaalep wrote Rebirth of Europe with August Meister, who appears to be a pseudonymous Baltic writer with expertise in history and politics, between 2015 and 2017. Both are clearly talented, cultured, and well-educated. Although we are now almost four years on from completion of the text, it hasn’t aged at all since it refrains from discussion of the minutiae of contemporary politics (there are only one or two fleeting references to Trump, for example) in favor of a much grander and broader vision of the global political scene.

Rebirth of Europe is a short but incredibly subtle text of one hundred pages, divided into three chapters. The first chapter, “The Struggle of Our Time,” is a succinct description of the fundamental causes and manifestations of European decline. The second chapter, “Ethnofuturism,” is an appeal for an ethnonationalist politics prepared to embrace technology and move forward in history. The third chapter, “The Geopolitical Aspects of Ethnofuturism,” offers a wide-ranging view of the future prospects for European ethnonationalism on the international stage.

The book opens in a grand philosophical style that, in its appeal to “the organic principle,” reminded me somewhat of the opening of Yockey’s Imperium. What the first chapter essentially enunciates is the spiritual and cultural-political state of a civilization in crisis. The European crisis, as we are only too aware, unfolds on multiple levels, with Europeans confronted by runaway technology, by renegade concepts of individualism, by mass migration, by calculated subversion, by internal treason and corruption, and by loss of connection with the past. The last of these is a foremost concern of Kaalep and Meister, with the proposed solution being an attempt to embrace the future while simultaneously integrating elements of the past, avoiding mere nostalgic lapses.

In a broad sense, this is an unoriginal idea, and I mean that by way of complimenting the authors rather than disparaging them. What I am stressing is that such a proposal should not be regarded as quackery, or even niche thinking emanating from the political fringe. One of the most impressive and profound exponents of such an approach is Keiji Nishitani (1900–1990), a Japanese student of Martin Heidegger and one of the foremost twentieth-century philosophers of religion[1], who embraced and deeply respected European philosophy while questioning what Western modernism and technology would ultimately mean for his own civilization. This questioning ultimately led Nishitani into fierce opposition to nihilistic trends in European/Western modernity (see, for example, his The Self-Overcoming of Nihilism), and his proposal of something that sounds remarkably similar to the Archeofuturism later advocated by the late Guillaume Faye and, indeed, by Kaalep and Meister in the volume presently under discussion. In a series of lectures delivered to the Shin Buddhist Association in Kyoto between 1971 and 1974, Nishitani elaborated on the meaning of the confrontation between Japanese culture and those elements of Western modernism that we would now describe simply as globalism.[2] Nishitani rejected extreme individualism, which regards the Self as both singular and self-standing—as opposed to singular yet integrated into a community and heritage. Combined with science and technology, and rampant materialism, the extreme individualist view of the Self would, Nishitani insisted, lead to the eventual breakdown of all meaningful interpersonal human relationships. Materialistic atheism, unable to place the individual in the wider context of the universe as a divine place and creative source, would lead to the wholesale atrophy of culture and the regression of humanity. Professor Robert Carter, a Nishitani scholar, points out that

[Nishitani’s] strategy is not to advocate a return to the past, for he is adamant that the past is forever frozen and out of reach. Nevertheless, as human beings we carry the past with us in so many ways, and it is our task to breathe new life and significance into tradition, as it is shaped and reshaped by science, technology, and the cultures of the West. He is an advocate of change, but of a change that does not forget to carry its past into the future as an ingredient in the “mix of meaning” that quality living always demands. The authentic person is one who lives in the present with one eye on the past and the other on the future, on hope and possibility. Nishitani believes that what is required of us in the modern and postmodern world is that we simultaneously destroy and rebuild our traditional way of life in the light of the changes brought about by the secular age in which we find ourselves. Yet we must not simply join the secularists who have abandoned religion and much of tradition. They live blindly, being buffeted by the trends and fads of the moment. Moreover, they have accepted an ever-present nihilism as the preferred and rational understanding of the truth of the human condition, and in doing so have lost all awareness of a sustaining metaphysical and spiritual background to our impoverished materialistic and nihilistic foreground.

Nishitami with Heidegger

Nishitani, who today draws extreme caution from contemporary scholars due to his frequent use of the German for ‘Blood and Soil’ and his claim that only the European and East Asian civilizations can be regarded as globally pre-eminent,[3] elaborates a kind of ethnofuturism in poetic form, using the analogy of the kite:

It concretises what has just been said about the importance of tradition in moving forward into a new future, and encountering new circumstances, and yet remaining true to the past. … Like a kite, Japan has been able to steer a stable course, because of the ‘tail’ of tradition that has served to stabilise her flight into the winds of change, while being rooted or anchored by the ‘string’ of its deep culture. A kite without the weight of tradition and rootedness simply dances wildly, becoming entangled in tree branches, or is dashed to the ground, or breaks away altogether and loses its distinctive past. What here made Japan a country able to adapt to its own high-level modernisation are its deep-rooted traditions. The result has been a more balanced and stable form of progress [compared with that seen in the West]. When a strong wind blows, the power of tradition must be put to work. But … we cannot fly a kite if its tail is too heavy. It is of the utmost importance to strike a balance between these two inclinations; toward modernisation and change, and toward tradition.

The Struggle of Our Time

In Rebirth of Europe, Kaalep and Meister echo Nishitani’s sentiments almost exactly, and begin their text by advancing the argument that the European ‘kite’ has had its string and tail cut off, leaving it spiraling into chaos. This chaos is being cultivated by globalist elements who want to sever the ties of all nations to their histories and traditions and attempt to overwhelm the unique genetic heritages of different peoples by papering them over with a common totalitarian culture of conformity. Kaalep and Meister insist that “in the 21st century the fundamental conflict is between globalism and nationalism. … The struggle of our time does not so much manifest itself as a war with rows of poppies and cavalry charges, but as a cultural struggle. The world is either to become one, led by a totalitarian mass culture, or regrow into many—a diversity of unique ethnostates.” The pair claim that “the true ethnonationalist cares for all nations, and the principle of ethnonationalism seeks to provide every nation with a homeland. Therefore ours is a rebellion against the principles of liberalism, which see every country as belonging to everyone—and thus to no one. Nationalism seeks to save the world.”

Central to their manifesto is something Kaalep and Meister call “the Organic Principle,” which involves—once more echoing the East Asian philosophies of Nishitani and the Kyoto school of philosophy with which he was associated (though with Nietzschean and pre-modern European inflections), “a non-dual basic principle of existence—the highest possible unity, beyond good and evil, that integrates both spiritual and physical reality.” While some of this rhetoric is a bit head-in-the-clouds for my own taste, it is interspersed with enough clear language to enable to reader unfamiliar with some of the philosophy under discussion to take away the major message. In brief, Kaalep and Meister are arguing that

Ours is a world of constant battle between spiritual and physical forces, between identities, religions, cultures, between ‘us’ and ‘them.’ As life expands, it overcomes resistance, it becomes more complex and unequal, therefore conflict and struggle are counterparts of life itself. … This dialectic could very well be called the ‘circle of life.’ Life exists in movement, in differentiation, and inequality. … Universal inequality is a factor that allows the world to be dynamic and to evolve, giving everyone a chance to find his place in the organic whole. This is the non-discrimination principle of the organic state, and it is opposed to mechanistic humanism, according to which the individual is considered ‘a cog in the machine,’ replaceable according to the needs of some project of a superstate or the needs of the market.

Kaalep and Meister have an interesting section on hierarchy within historical European societies, reflecting on the fact that, while older caste systems are now much maligned, they were in fact transparent and socially satisfying. By contrast, our elites today thrive on the fact that,

The modern mechanistic hierarchies are secretive and based on a purely material ‘merit.’ … They are not accountable to anyone, but the influence of the upper levels towards the lower levels are totalitarian and without any sense of ethical responsibility. A vertical hierarchy of power is established; horizontal ties are made weaker by internal conflicts and an ideology of mutual hate, competition and individualism, which strengthens the power of the upper levels. The paradox today is this: in the conditions of the ideology of total ‘equality,’ a historically unprecedented amount of power belongs to those ‘above’ in relation to those ‘below.’ The historical uniqueness of this fact is related to the fact that today modern technologies and means of mass communication allow a maximum degree of manipulation of the cosmopolitan masses of men.

Kaalep and Meister, however, reject pessimism or despair, seeing in the acceleration of globalist liberalism merely the necessary hastening of civilizational collapse—a prerequisite of rebirth. For the authors, “the rebirth of civilization is an ever-present possibility that has to be comprehended and realised.” They insist that “the metaphysical core of our civilization and its integral tradition, which is profoundly ethnic, lies beneath, waiting for the right time to break through the artificial structures of postmodern civilization.” This rebirth will not be characterized by a wholesale rejection of modernity, but by subjugating its mechanistic elements to the organic principle: “the task of the future is to tame these awakened forces and to make them serve a higher purpose—the creation of a new culture and a new man with his roots still deep in the European soil and his eyes once again focused on the sky.” The book proceeds to a detailed examination of liberalism as a mechanistic ideology. We are told that “liberalism as a theory is inseparable from globalism as a power,” and that it is characterized by ‘permanent revolution’ against traditions, cultural norms and life itself. The text then moves to a thorough, and quite excellent, denunciation of conservatism, while incorporating and critiquing the ideas of Edmund Burke, Joseph de Maistre, and Nietzsche. The stress that mere conservatism is a losing strategy since its final demand of keeping things ‘as they are’ will always lead back to decadence and nihilism. The only true, natural path forward is to engage in a counter-revolution that synthesizes “the best elements of modernity and tradition.”

It goes without saying that Kaalep and Meister are very much pro-technology, which runs against the grain for those in our circles who tend more towards the kind of thinking laid out by Ted Kaczynski and Pentti Linkola, or the critiques of technological thinking that can be found in the writings of Martin Heidegger or Jacques Ellul. I count myself among those who could be described, at minimum, as being suspicious of technological progress, or at least doubtful of its prospects for unceasing progress given the eventual limitation of natural resources and the increasing environmental and social cost of technological expansion, particularly in the hands of a globalist elite intent on imposing a surveillance state and enforcing mass conformity. Even aside from certain ethical questions arising from, for example, the genetic editing of human beings, the mass contamination of our water supplies from toxic industrial chemicals, which has in turn led to decreasing fertility and mutations worldwide, should provide any reasonable person with enough reason to think carefully about the issues at hand.

That being said, geopolitical considerations demand that Europe/the West remain at least competitive in the technological sphere, meaning we are probably, for the foreseeable future, locked into the technological arms race. Since we cannot extricate ourselves from it, we may as well attempt to take the lead in it. In that case, the problem that presents itself is the potential impact on the nature of our civilization. Here, Kaalep and Meister suggest that we explore ways to “connect modern technology with the ancient way of being most inherent to man.” This certainly sounds like an ideal, but what does it look like in practical terms? Our authors don’t offer any answers, but I suppose the important thing is that they push the issue into the spotlight.

The book’s first chapter closes with a look at “New Left Totalitarianism and the Decline of the West.” None of the ‘meat’ in this chapter will be especially novel to readers of The Occidental Observer, but there are some memorable turns of phrase that encapsulate very well the situation we find ourselves in:

For this new totalitarianism, nations and peoples are considered obstacles that have to be removed and replaced with a new global order. … The most advantageous world for the global elite is one where the highest value is the individual, but the individual himself is freed with the help of postmodernism from any meaning, significance and wider context, and finds himself isolated and vulnerable.

After World War II, the Western populations were “fooled by the promises of economic prosperity and countless freedoms, rarely noticing that the freedom to remain who you are was not on the table.” Masterfully, our authors write

Governments and businesses have become gigantic and inhuman, but democracy in the essential questions just does not work. Indeed, where it is attempted, this sort of democracy only serves to alienate man further. The overall consequence is a universal sense of emptiness and stress for humans who have already lost any connection to nature and control over the technological process. Humans who now fill only the role of workers-employers are searching for their identities in the one-day fashion trends offered by consumer culture. This culture creates humans that are unable to react to each other as mature personalities. An illusion of constant ‘youthful revolution’ is created, while the youth just passively recreate models of behavior that are offered by the globalist elites; they, in turn, are part of the overall trends of the system.


We have even lost track of who we are, as no true identities can exist in a consumer society. On the surface, anyone can be special, free from all shackles of tradition; everyone can identify as whomever he likes. Thus, one is not born with any particular identity. If anyone can be a Frenchman, then no one is really a Frenchman. Where liberalism talks of diversity, it really aims at erasing all distinctions. Where it talks of multiculturalism, it aims are creating a global melting pot where no cultures survive.

In its last attack on the culture of Europe, liberalism is arranging the physical replacement of Europeans with people from other cultures. “It is mass immigration in catastrophic numbers.” But with this gambit, liberalism “is close to its grand finale.” Our authors insist that liberalism will consume itself in the process, and is “about to become an absurd notion, where even the values it itself has held begin to be reconstructed by its shape-shifter ideology.” At that moment, we will find “our chance to start a new European cultural cycle that shapes its history for many centuries to come. The liberals will be powerless to stop it. Then they will become conservatives, stubbornly refusing to accept the new reality that the nationalists will embark on.” This nationalism will have to be of a completely new type—Ethnofuturism.


Ethnofuturism is a kind of nationalism that transcends national egoism. It does not seek merely to ‘conserve,’ because that entails a static defense while “life exists only in movement.” It has its roots, however, in the Conservative Revolution proposed in early twentieth-century Germany, and seeks to promote a rebirth of “the archetypes of Western civilization and forgotten forms of life that formed our civilization in the first place.” Disastrous immigration policies, which have become a unifying element for all European nationalists, mean that Europe as a whole will “be forced to return to traditional values and nationalism to survive.” America will be increasingly burdened by ethnic conflict, bringing to an end the “American Dream” of building a society in which ancestral heritage plays no role—“but this is inevitable, as a civilization that denies those fundamental truths will always be doomed to collapse.” Kaalep and Meister continue,

The fundamental basis for a new Europe must be ethnic nationalism. This means the importance of a nation as an organic whole has to be maintained. … In addition, the nature and landscapes of Europe have to be preserved, as those are vital to the cultural heritage and differences between people. The demographic survival of every nation has to be secured by governmental policies.

With Western Europe potentially catastrophically damaged by mass immigration and civil war, “this new Europe—and the new West—might have the centers of its culture in Budapest, Warsaw, and Tallinn. Mastering its demographic processes and not leaving them in the hands of liberalism, the new Europe will actually be able to economically and culturally compete with the rest of the world … After securing its ethnē, Europe’s fate in the 21st century will be decided by national eugenics, and presently only China seems to have an appropriate mindset.” Hungary is praised for its recent program of building a network of narrow-gauge railways that emphasize life in the countryside, and from which no multinational corporation has anything to gain. Our authors highlight this as “a sign of one of the most Ethnofuturistic tasks ever developed by a country in the 21st century. Modern technology and speed allow the combination of the advantages of the city and the countryside.”

Kaalep and Meister concur with my contention that we are more or less locked into a technological arms race. They point out that advancements in biotechnology and nano materials have “the potential to change economics and warfare by the end of this century beyond all recognition. … To fight against such technology would be self-defeating and even dangerous. The first government, corporation or group that masters biotechnology will inevitably have a huge advantage over all its rivals.” European nationalists must work together because, by the end of the century, “control over technology has to be in the hands of ethnonationalists, and not the globalists, supposing they have survived so long.”

From here, the text moves to elaborating upon reasons for rejecting any alliance with the Buckley-style economic conservativism dominant in the United States among Republicans, and for rejecting the New Right associated with Alain de Benoist that formed in 1960s’ France. The authors critique the latter for advancing “abstract ideas about organic communes and the rights of people to maintain their identity” because this “can lead to the approval of multiculturalism.” The New Right is also attacked for spending “much of its energy on fighting against Christianity,” thus alienating significant parts of its support base. The New Right is also criticized heavily for its support for the USSR and its strident anti-Americanism, and for neglecting to develop a clear political theory and corresponding practice. Kaalep and Meister reject the idea that we can focus our efforts on gaining cultural hegemony without bringing any practical results, producing only endless publications and conferences that contribute rich intellectual material without bringing about real changes in the lives of Europeans.

What Kaalep and Meister propose is a strategy that is both metapolitical and political, with radical and moderate wings. Of primary importance is the attack on, or infiltration of, anthropology, which has been in the “hands of liberals and Marxists” since the early twentieth century, and from which they marched through the institutions of the social sciences and the media. There are lengthy and very interesting statements of what should be demonstrated by activists and leaders, the most memorable of which are those relating to the need to cultivate the notion of a hierarchical and self-sacrificial elite: “The leader of the highest grade … must also be ready to be condemned for his activity and to take the risk of being slandered and accused by smaller men, because this is part of the price for his [spiritually] high lifestyle.”

Like some of the other writings contained in the book, this reminded me of Japanese parallels, notably some reminiscences relating to the Kyoto school founder Kitaro Nishida, who came under sustained attack from Marxists for his appeal to tradition, and steeled himself with the attitude of the samurai. Nishida once crafted a piece of calligraphy with the motto: “To risk everything, win or lose,” and a poem:

Let others do as they will,
I am who I am,
At any rate I will walk the way,
That I make my own.

Nishitani remarks that he once observed Nishida pick up a leftist magazine that contained an essay attacking Nishida and his philosophy. Nishitani recalls “I sat quietly nearby, watching with a mixture of curiosity and apprehension. Turning the pages, he came to the essay in question, read a little of it and threw it aside. His face showed no expression whatsoever.” This is surely the attitude called for by Kaalep and Meister.

The text then moves to fascinating proposals for the future State, the most important of which concern measures to raise birth rates and control the ethnic composition of the population. Following this, there is a substantial discussion of “Nationalism and Nature,” in which environmental protections are outlined.

The Geopolitical Aspects of Ethnofuturism

My favourite section of Rebirth of Europe is the final chapter, which offers a fascinating outline of informed speculation about our unfolding future. The section opens with the claim that

we are returning to the situation preceding the Industrial Revolution, in which economic strength will be determined by natural and demographical resources, because technological development will be basically the same for all of the nations of the world. This implies the inevitability of multipolarity and the return to superpower status for civilizations like China and India.

Kaalep and Meister see, in the end of American hegemony, an end to the Western mechanistic materialism it has come to symbolize. Similarly, they denounce the Eurasianist idea of Alexander Dugin because it “cannot function.” Russia is only capable to fighting Cultural Marxism in slogans, but not in practice. Russia “surpasses Western decadence, with impressive rates of abortions, alcoholism and drug addiction, which its political regime has not been able, or has not wanted, to stop. … Children of Russian politicians are living in the West, and the culture of Russia itself is overloaded with reality TV shows and vulgar mass culture.”

Kaalep and Meister add,

It will be neither Russia nor the US that will lead the future; rather we can expect a new Pacific era with China and India regaining their influence. These countries at least will not be liberal, pacifistic, or humanistic—they will use the scientific breakthroughs in service of their political greatness. Therefore, the European peoples will have to change their worldview in order to survive in this new competition, where are losing with each moment that we remain part of a liberal, self-hating and self-defeating system.

There is a very interesting section concerning the nationalist experience in the Baltic states, which is highlighted by a very strong sense of European brotherhood. When Kaalep and Meister claim the Baltic nationalists will do their utmost if called upon to defend Europe’s southern borders, or the demographic integrity of the Western European nations, one detects the deepest sincerity.

The book’s rather moving closing remarks concern duty and death, the conclusion of all spiritual journeys. “In the end, waging a struggle that seems already lost from the start is the only thing to do, precisely because nothing else matters. Nothing matters more than this.” Our authors finish by arguing that,

In the present situation of Western civilization, which appears to be going through an irreversible downfall, halting is not an option. This is more than just a matter of political ideologies; this is the inner logic of a culture. The only thing remaining to our nations is to survive this downfall. Most importantly, our genes and the traditions that carry our full potential have to survive. For the death and destruction of the West, brought about by liberalism, is ever approaching its singularity. When it reaches a certain point, this will be our opportunity. This will be the moment of a true returning to our roots, a returning without ever turning. When the Western world was celebrating diversity and multiculturalism, we foresaw its catastrophic destruction at its own hand. Moreover, when it begins to panic in the catastrophe that it was unable to avoid, then it will be our time to build a new European civilization. The circle will be complete.

Concluding Remarks

Rebirth of Europe is a refreshing and optimistic document that punches well above its weight for a book of such modest length. It has a depth, breadth, and clarity of philosophical understanding that is often rare in texts of this nature, and it is thought-provoking to say the least. The issues that it raises demand attention, and further action, by anyone concerned with the ethnonationalist cause.

Whether ethnofuturism is a reliable path in the longer term, however, remains to be seen. Other than China perhaps, do we really see any examples in the world today of a country that has managed to maintain significant elements of traditional culture while plunging headlong into technological development? For my part, I am sure that had Keiji Nishitani delivered his lectures today, some 50 years after he addressed the Shin Buddhist Association, he may have been more cautious in his advocacy for letting the national ‘kite’ take flight in the winds of change. The Japan of today may be superficially stable and technologically advanced, but has been plagued for decades by low fertility and high suicide rates, as well as the increasing marginalization of its traditions and religions.

Can the runaway train of industrial modernity ever be truly tamed enough to be marshalled by tradition? This remains to be seen. In addition to this problem, of course, is the question of those foreign elements embedded in the West who are dedicated to ensuring both that the ‘string and tail’ of the European ‘kite’ remain forever severed. How does a national movement reconnect a people with their history and traditions while harboring factions that want these same traditions and histories to disappear forever or to be permanently tarnished with shame? Perhaps the only comfort we can draw is, as Kaalep and Meister point out, the fact that even in catastrophe there may lie opportunity.

[1] See, for example, his monumental Religion and Nothingness.

[2] For the complete lectures, see K. Nishitani, On Buddhism (New York: State University of New York Press, 2006), 18.

[3] G. Parkes, “The Putative Fascism of the Kyoto School and the Political Correctness of the Modern Academy,” Philosophy East and West 47, no. 3 (1997): 305–36. For a more biographical exploration of anti-Marxism and Traditionalism within the Kyoto school see K. Nishitani, Nishida Kitaro: The Man and His Thought (Nagoya: Chisokudo Publications, 2016).

46 replies
    • Tim Folke
      Tim Folke says:

      Yes, it is like they cannot see past the old USSR.

      Russia does have different ethnic groups but it is not a melting post; Russia understands that mixing destroys diversity. They are the only nation to welcome on a large scale White South African farmers.

      Russia has come a long way morally and spiritually. It could not have happened except that they passed a very important law in 2013 that prohibited more than 20% ownership – directly or indirectly – in any Russian corporation, partnership, etc… What gives this law backbone is that ‘foreign’ is defined to include those with dual citizenship. (!!!)

      Since that time Russia has been able to make great progress against pornography, abortion (they even have a national conception day!), and perversion. And, just several months ago they wrote into their constitution that marriage is one man and one woman. Russia defines ‘man’ and ‘woman’ according to natural law, BTW.

      Largely due to the foregoing it is easy to see how the Western Zionist forces (either left or right) continue with the anti-Russia spin.

      • Jack McArthur
        Jack McArthur says:

        Where have we read before a star rising in the East and which country is now playing the part of Herod the Jew?

      • Al Ross
        Al Ross says:

        “Mixing destroys diversity” ? Visit Haiti and observe the skin tone gradations which govern who is in charge of that failed state.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      Thank you for this comment. Even the outline of the authors’ attitudes toward Russia that is sketched out by Andrew Joyce hints at this surely excessive hostility.

      As for China, I am still waiting to see hard evidence that its much-bruited course toward a newly hyperactive geopolitical role and presence in tomorrow’s world will actually pan out. The easygoing contempt for contact with anything non-Chinese that has been part and parcel of China’s multimillennial view of itself as the omphalos of the world doesn’t strike me as being at proximate risk of getting sidelined at any time soon.

  1. John
    John says:

    “Modern government in the West is a conspiracy against the White man alone, and the question of how to overturn this conspiracy is the single greatest challenge of our time.”
    No problem: Mexico is the homeland of Mexicans, England is the homeland of The English, Nigeria is the homeland of Nigerians, Pakistan is the homeland of Pakistanis, China is the homeland of The Chinese, France is the homeland of The French, etc. etc.

  2. crank
    crank says:

    Interesting review.
    I am waiting to read a body of work that incorporates dissident right concerns with the concepts of biophysical economics and peak oil theory. The arguments of people like Charles Hall, Dmitry Orlov, John Michael Greer or Richard Heinberg, claim that a large proportion of what we understand as ‘technological advancement’ is, in truth, a consequence of the complexity afforded by the huge excess of energy derived from fossil fuels. Once this energy surplus starts to decline (and decline will be accelerated by a feedback loop of sorts) then the promises of futurism – be they globalist, socialist or nationalist, start to look uninformed. As energy declines, complexity follows, and technology with it (except perhaps for a remnant elite).
    The Spenglerian cycle of decline of the West then can be thought of as compounded by the realities of thermodynamics. Whatever vision of revival must be tempered by the equations of energy transformation, such that natural processes might soon become better bets energetically speaking than most of our current understandings of technology, and this would obviously have huge consequences for social relations and the role of tradition.
    I agree with Andrew Joyce’s opening note of pessimism. Maybe we should be Hari Seldon’s, trying to preserve seeds for the re-emergence of civilisation centuries later ? I wondered about writing a testimony, and physically burying it in the earth. So much history is being re-written or has become digitally vulnerable at present, maybe lots of us should be doing that ?
    I guess all efforts to bring forward the fast erased past are worthy of our time, whether that is some form of back to the land, or grabbing the reins on the ‘last ride of oil’ and its attendant tech.

    • Emicho
      Emicho says:

      Aren’t ‘Peak Oil’, and presumably ‘Peak Coal’ & ‘Peak Gas’, simply Hostile Elite lies?
      I know nothing of these things, but if they are being promoted by the mainstream, then aren’t they definitely lies?
      I’ve come across official bits and pieces, published pre-WWII(and therefore almost certainly true) that stated there was enough coal under the UK to power us for the next 500 years.
      Work on Didcot A, a coal plant designed to power Britain for a century was begun in the early 1960’s. It was still working perfectly when, due to ‘Green’ mania it was demolished, quite recently. A madness that ranks alongside the opening of our borders in stupidity, and more evidence for the argument that this isn’t really simply do-gooder, mad idealists, this is deliberate sabotage.
      We now cannot even power our own island, we rely on nuclear plants in France(& I think Holland).
      But no one who is switched on in the UK has any doubts that rolling black-outs are going to be an amusing part of our Diverse future.

      • crank
        crank says:

        ‘Aren’t ‘Peak Oil’, and presumably ‘Peak Coal’ & ‘Peak Gas’, simply Hostile Elite lies?’

        In a word ‘no’, I don’t think they are. It’s a matter of physics and how it relates to economics. Look up Gail Tverberg or those others mentioned if you are interested.

        The rise of usurers’ power co-incides with the biting realities of this irreversable decline in surplus energy constraining growth in the real economy. We now collectively borrow money to pay off debts. Money flows away from people who produce things toward those who merely lend money. Social and moral degredation follow the rise of usury. The ancients understood this.

        We are caught in a bind and all talk of revival or rebirth is misplaced unless someone can harness Vril or some such (i.e. re-write physics). Even writing off the debts would not give us back the huge energy surplus ratios of the mid 20th century. An ever tightening world…

        • Emicho
          Emicho says:

          I’ll be 100% truthful with you, I ain’t that interested in the subject, so won’t be studying it, there so many other pressing issues.
          But I do thank you most kindly for your reply.
          You have now changed my mind from believing all this ‘limited energy’ stuff is a hoax, to being more open-minded about it.
          It just seems incredible to me that all that carbon that thrived on planet earth for all those billions of years, and that are all now underground & compressed by time into usable fuel, could possibly run out anytime soon.
          But if you say so, I’ll take your word for it.
          I just hope you can also see it from my point, the above, plus EVERYTHING we have been told since WWII is basically lies.
          You’re a good lad educating us plebs.
          We millennial peasants who went to bog-standard comps(as we say in Britain), simply weren’t educated at all, by anyone.
          Plus we were deliberately dumbed down by the anti-culture.
          We come to places like this because we have a thirst for knowledge & Truth.
          At least you respond & help us, most here seem to be above such things, either that or they are terrified of getting into any discussion, lest what they believe in gets challenged in any way & instantly collapses.

          • crank
            crank says:

            Yes, I agree about the fictional world we live in, and thank you for your honesty.
            All arguments (especially ones of great consequence) should be regarded skeptically. I have not read any strong argument against the case of energy decline, but I would not be completely surprised if it were another case of people being misled in one way or another.

  3. Angelicus
    Angelicus says:

    Very interesting article, as is always the case with Andrew Joyce’s. Two things caught my eye and I think they deserve further elaboration:

    A) The authors’ very important and healthy rejection of Dugin and his nefarious “Fourth Political Theory” that promotes a multicultural/multiracial world of mongrels whose only point in common is hatred for what he calls “Americanism” or “the decadent West”. Dugin explicitly denies the existence of a Jewish question (or, even better, a Jewish problem) and, of course, heaps scorn and mud over Adolf Hitler and National Socialism. Deep down Dugin is just a national bolshevik, which means a dangerous, nasty creature who is full of hot air, promoting a ridiculous idea that leads to nowhere. Unfortunately, this cunning bastard has managed to get a considerable number of supporters among what I would describe loosely as “nationalists”. These uneducated fools think that Dugin (like his idol Putin) is “one of us”.

    B) Christianity. A very difficult subject to tackle. I will clearly say I never liked it, never believed in it and I loath it because of what it has done to us, Western men. This Jewish heresy, because that is what it is, has poisoned us and divided us. It is an alien, hateful Semitic cult that thrives on ignorance, fanaticism and intolerance. The horrendous religious wars of the XVI and XVII century that bled Europe white were its consequence. OK, having said that, let’s move forward to nowadays.

    Christianity has been losing followers steadily since let’s say the 1960s. Is no longer the powerful force that could mobilize millions to fight for her. Since the 1960s, Christianity has become more and more openly anti-White and pro-Jewish with innumerable (and almost daily) calls for open borders, tolerance and love towards our refugee “brothers” who we should welcome with open arms, concern about “racism” and “White supremacism”, etc, etc, etc. So, what can/should we do about it? Well, attacking Christianity “per se” would alienate potential followers/comrades. I know people who hate the Jewish World Order and happen to be Christians (weird, I know). Therefore, I think we should avoid a theological dispute and concentrate on everyday life. If a man or a woman happens to be a Christian and, for some rare reason, shares our ideas (basically, defence of the White race, defence of Western civilization). We should stress the coincidences we may have, putting the emphasis on the political/cultural sphere and pointing out, by the way, the harmful/treacherous policies of the Protestant/Catholic clergy towards Whites. Let’s be practical!

    • Tim Folke
      Tim Folke says:

      I agree with you with respect to White Christian Separatists (yes, there is such a thing). We Whites need to put aside our differences and unite to defeat our common enemy before we even think of internecine squabbling.

    • Bart Wilson Ford
      Bart Wilson Ford says:

      You don’t really understand Christianity at all….it’s not “jewish.”
      In fact, Christ came to overthrow jewish tribalism and that is why He was rejected.
      True Christianity is anti-jewish, and was anti-jewish until the jews were able to subvert the religion
      with the Scofield Bible (and also infiltration of the Catholic church with homos, etc.)
      KMAC has stated that Christianity was our only cohesive group strategy and that is why the jews
      subverted and destroyed the religion.
      You’re right that marxism has taken over the churches and this is heresy. In point of fact, the church should
      be fighting marxism to the death, as marxism seeks to wreck the religion. But Christian pastors are stupid
      low IQ nitwits for the most part, and they have sold out their God and their people. Only Chuck Baldwin and Steve Anderson speak the truth regarding the jews…..but they refuse to deal with race in an honest manner. Same with E. Michael Jones.
      It’s stupid to think that because Christianity is universal, you can’t have borders. There is nothing biblical about such an idiotic POV. In fact God made the nations and the different people speaking different languages.

      • Angelicus
        Angelicus says:

        Good afternoon Mr Ford: Well, I have been there and, for a time I shared your ideas. However, further reading and a lot of thinking modified my views. I agree with you and KMCD about the good/healthy role played by the Catholic church with regard to the enemies of Mankind, BUT we must not forget that the Church never broke/severed its links with Judaism by retaining the accursed Old Testament. Therefore the cancer was there, deep into the bowels of the White race. It was just a time bomb.

        Anyway, let’s move forward and let’s not waste time arguing because we will never agree. I don’t believe in God, I am only concerned with the welfare and survival of our people. I am a practical fellow and, as I said, we should put aside the theological arguments and work for the future of our people as the National-Socialists did in Germany. I wish there were more Christians like you. Regards

        • Eric
          Eric says:

          The Old Testament is not about Jews, it’s about Israelites — of which the Jews were but a fraction.

          From Genesis onward, It anticipates the coming of Christ/God and his rejection of and by the Jews.

          The church is in a bad way. Much of it is Judaized. And it needs reform.

          But the fact remains: Christianity is the only thing that has ever united White people.

          It is the only thing that will unite them in the future.

    • Emicho
      Emicho says:

      I’m a hater of the Jew World Order and a Christian as well.
      I suppose we shouldn’t really get into an argument that’s so off topic, but Western Civilisation IS Christendom.
      Not the pathetic gay thing of today, which I hate just as much as the JWO.
      Real Christendom died in the Flanders mud. But before that, as much as you say it divided us ect. it also united us as well.
      I don’t blame you for being traumatised by the 30 years war, if that is what you meant, I found them pretty traumatic as well. But they also proved, like the Hundred Years War, The Crusades, and so many more, what manly, honourable, fighting, warrior men we once were.
      If you look at it this way, when asked at the start of the 20th century, what Germany’s foreign policy was, the Ambassador to England replied “the same as it has been for 300 years, avoid another 30 years war”. So it surely taught our ancestors they ways of peace.
      Also, the Revolutionary then Napoleonic Wars make the 30 Years War look like a garden party.
      And that was an extremely anti-Christian mix of revolutionary & masonic garbage(& Jew Gold) that fuelled that disaster.
      Just like it was scheming politicians, for all obvious purposes atheist, that caused WWI & WWII.
      I don’t want to get into Christian apologetics, or we will be here all day, I get where you are coming from, but if you still think Christianity is a Jewish curse on us, my advice would be to seek out Martin Luther’s opinion on that.

      I do thank you for your info on Dugin though. I’d been hoping to come across such a succinct summing up of this person for ages. I really enjoyed what you wrote.

      • Angelicus
        Angelicus says:

        Hello Emico: Thank you for your comments. I tend to get carried away and sometimes I use very strong language, but that is me, I am what you can call “a hothead” (LOL)

        Yes, I agree with you, we must put religious feelings aside, in fact, I have several friends who are staunch Catholics who share my political views and we go along fine. The religious wars that bled Europe were horrendous but they pale into insignificance when we compare them with those provoked by narrow-minded, idiotic nationalism. It is very infuriating to see White nationalists arguing or insulting each other because of what happened 100 or 300 years ago. We must move forward!

        Just an observation, England had instigated most of the European wars over the last 300 years to keep what she called (with typical English hypocrisy) “the balance of power”.

        Passing on to current affairs here is a good article about that sinister impostor called Dugin:

        Have a nice weekend!!!

        • Emicho
          Emicho says:

          I know what you mean by “narrow-minded, idiotic nationalism”, I just personally haven’t seen much of this. Perhaps you have, whatever.
          Always remember, Nationalism was the main fuel of the 1848 liberal revolutions, so Nationalism was originally liberal. This doesn’t mean it’s bad, personal freedom is also ‘liberal’ and that ain’t bad. It’s only when these ideas are taken to absurd utopian extremes they become a problem.
          As for England’s centuries long foreign policy of a balance of power in Europe, you can’t blame England for looking out for her own interests. Plus, this policy was also supported by ALL the major powers in Europe, *at all times*. No-one wanted single domination, why do think they all underwent such slaughter to defeat Napoleon? They all understood the necessity of the balance.
          Hence the way they lifted defeated/occupied France right back to great power status after Wellington led Scots, German, Italian & Russian soldiers through Paris at the Treaty of Vienna. To uphold the balance, which was in everyone’s interests.
          Unlike the sadistic crap they pulled on a defeated but unoccupied Germany, a century later, but by then, it was blood-less politicians in control, not chivalrous gentlemen, from an aristocracy that led Europe to world pre-eminence, something these same gutless positions destroyed.
          I like you admit your a “hothead”, I’m a sucker for argument, which means I simply cannot resist pointing out that Jesus did especially say he came to continue the Abrahamic faith, not start something brand new. There is no doubt about this.
          You have a good day too, I hope my contrary opinions don’t disturb your peace too much!

          • Kris
            Kris says:

            We can indeed ‘blame England’s for fomenting discord and needless conflict on The Continent for centuries.

          • Emicho
            Emicho says:

            Kris: “We can indeed ‘blame England’s for fomenting discord and needless conflict on The Continent for centuries.”

            Because without England doing this, all the Europeans would have laid down their swords and got on like brothers? You think this?

            England only had the ability to fund the different sides against each other for a relatively short time, when the green from India & Jamaica started rolling in after the 7 Years’ War, up to the Napoleonic Wars. Half a century or so. She was in effect isolationist after that, building her empire, for another century, until the disaster of WWI.

            For most of European history England was a backwater, either annoying France(which she had legitimate claims to), or being left alone to it’s own squabbles.

            Surely a fair person would understand the Holy Roman Empire or the Pope’s have much greater form in this form of activity that so displeases you, but is totally normal and will always exist.

            Don’t let your Anglophobia get the better of your thinking.

  4. Trenchant
    Trenchant says:

    Interesting review, thank you. I do, however, doubt that China has “managed to maintain significant elements of traditional culture while plunging headlong into technological development.” Rather, I think the Party is, and always has been, in firm control of the history and culture and has expunged elements that predate its hegemony.

  5. Cassandro
    Cassandro says:

    There is no one making any preparations in the UK. I can tell you that.

    Frankly, there should be a truly spectacular economic and demographic crash by the end of this decade in Western Europe. Whether the powers that be will postpone it remains to be seen. When it does happen, though, (because it’s inevitable at this point) we must have some kind of leadership. At present, I see no one to believe in.

    We need to create a single demos. If it can be done country by country, then great. But if it has to be forged from Poles, Danes, Englishmen, Latvians, etc., all coming together to create a “new man” then sign me up. I want to slough off this old identity.

    • TJ
      TJ says:

      “. . .all coming together to create a “new man” then sign me up. . .”

      I have been looking forward to Alfred E. New-Man for decades. No more worries!

    • Emicho
      Emicho says:

      That’s what I think we need, an actual movement, not a political party, a Movement to defend & represent us.
      Something along the lines of any resistance movement of history, there are literally hundreds to choose from, but without the terrorism & killing.
      Even what Golden Dawn were doing in Greece, we should be learning from what the elite are obviously scared of, and they obviously were rattled by GD that’s why they destroyed them.
      It should just be a simple declaration that Organised Jewry is preparing us for genocide, so we are organising to defend ourselves. Internationally. Put them on the back foot, make them defend what *they* are doing.
      There are literally MILLIONS of millennials all over the Western World who are totally atomised but desperate to be organised & to do SOMETHING, but our elders just sit all day with their damn thumbs up their arses.
      Our people are crying out for leadership and if there is no one in a position of power, with the influence & access to resources who could do this, then they should all come together and come out as one to start this thing.

  6. John
    John says:

    “Modern government in the West is a conspiracy against the White man alone, and the question of how to overturn this conspiracy is the single greatest challenge of our time.”
    This is fixable by acknowledging the right of every ethnicity in having their own homeland. Mexico is the homeland of Mexicans, England is the homeland of The English, Nigeria is the homeland of Nigerians, Pakistan is the homeland of Pakistanis, China is the homeland of The Chinese, France is the homeland of The French, etc. etc. Upon this acknowledgment, any conspiracy against any ethnicity will cease to exist.

    • Smith Mitchell
      Smith Mitchell says:

      I would like to know what you think of Russians? After all, the whole world is watching the imposition of the so-called “Russian peace” in different countries.

      • Kris
        Kris says:

        Communities or ‘ethnostates’ are not going to be built by the kooks and ‘white nationalism’ intellectual mental masturbators on this thread, that’s for sure. Such communities or ethnostates, and there will likely be several, not one big one, will be built by ordinary people aka the ‘normies’ many here disdain and look down on.

  7. Edward Harris
    Edward Harris says:

    The biggest enemy of the white man are the ( convert descended fake jew) controlled people of the northern parts of the USA aka Yankees.
    They invaded the south to rob it and not to stop slavery, slavery was already stopping.
    Mr. Elsworthy (Elsworth? I forget) as a young boy saw the yankees invade the south. They had killed his father and 4 of his uncles. The family were blue bloods from england. He was very kind to my family
    and very unkind to yankees and the germans, who were supplied by the yankees in WW1, which was caused by german militarism and has destroyed christian civilisation for ever.
    At the end of WW2 the Russsians wanted to maintain a european presence in africa but the Yankees made them leave.
    The president was not the cripple who married his ugly cousin who was commiting adultery with a short sighted negro sergeant who was sent to be killed by the japs, it was the shopkeeper.
    The white man was made to leave africa, I believe, to keep the congress uncle toms happy.
    The Yankees helped start WW2, the oil embargo on japan meant that the japs had to go south and destroy the european empires and save communism which the yankee has always supported.
    The yankee gave the jap weapons to the chinese communists so that they could overun china and defeat the nationalists.
    The yankee since WW2 has been a trouble making bully but the jew press lies about him and a few countries still like him, apparently, but I fail to see why.

    • Emicho
      Emicho says:

      I thought that was a great little alternative history. I was going to argue with you about German Militarism starting WWI, when the German Empire hadn’t fought a proper war since it’s formation after the Franco-Prussian War, while the British Empire hadn’t ever actually stopped being at war with someone for like, the entirety of Germany’s existence.
      It’s amazing folks still swallow this German Militarism garbage, being as it is the actual opposite of the truth.
      But I liked your summery so much I don’t actually want to argue it.

  8. Eric Kunnap
    Eric Kunnap says:

    “ Kaalep and Meister are very much pro-technology, which runs against the grain for those in our circles who tend more towards the kind of thinking laid out by Ted Kaczynski and Pentti Linkola, or the critiques of technological thinking that can be found in the writings of Martin Heidegger or Jacques Ellul.” – please consider reading The Metaphysics of Technology by Dr. David Skrbina to get a deeper, more thorough and comprehensive take on where technology is leading us. In fact, given our keen awareness of who largely owns and controls our technology, could a smart retrenchment in technology serve our people’s interests? Could this become a grassroots strategy in light of our current predicament?

  9. Eric Sieger
    Eric Sieger says:

    “How does a national movement reconnect a people with their history and traditions while harboring factions that want these same traditions and histories to disappear forever or to be permanently tarnished with shame?” –

    Start with your diet and build connected resources from scratch. It works for the Jews, and many of their strict proscriptions are post-Torah, i.e. man-made by rabbis to enforce segregation (see for details).

    Our ancestors were not kosher-keepers, so why support The System that incrementally serves kosher agencies and their interests more and more every day, exceedingly obfuscated and secretive in practice.

    Just as ko$her certification has extended to much of our population’s inedible products (nearly anything found in a kitchen plus appliances), a movement and network supporting NKC goods & services (NOT Ko$her Certified) would make an excellent start to activism in support of European identity, Occidental au Naturel. If only a benefactor would read this, agree, and act.

  10. Diarmúid Mulqueen
    Diarmúid Mulqueen says:

    Andrew is right to caution against despair amongst Nationalists. Clarity and confidence are badly needed.

    We should caution against providing gloomy predictions (or any predictions) because they can become self-fulfilling, and therefore only assist the Kikes and their puppets.

    Areas that Nationalists can make progress on are

    1/ that bone marrow and stem cells are not transferable between the different human races which indicates that racial interbreeding and the Kalergi Plan is against the Laws of Nature.

    2/ The crazy system of Sovereign Debt accumulation:

    So advocating a complete Sovereign Debt write off day eg the 2nd of January, 2022.

    3/ The promotion of the 147 Delphic Maxims as common ground for co-operation amongst indigenous Europeans to protect our civilizations as best we can.

    4/ The promotion of ‘Race Memory’ and Race Memory literature amongst the indigenous European Youth – to assist them develop a strong sense of identity.

    5/ Educate the European youth about the various isms that the Kikes have created to control the discourse and promote their proxy warriors.

    6/ Highlight the geographic and environmental absurdity of moving Africans, Asians and South Americans into Europe, when their own continents are far more spacious and warmer.

    7/ The hypocrisy of human rights organisations not taking a stand in support of Free Speech with regards to the bogus Holocaust Religion.

    8/ The disastrous Butterfly 🦋 Effect of Darwin and the Kalergi Plan.

    Other areas we can explore are:

    Ezra Pound and the Byzantium Solution to prevent Kike Control.

    Churchill’s admission in his book published in 1960 that WW2 was caused by Germany setting up its own System of Exchange that International Finance couldn’t profit from, and that Churchill was bribed by the Focus Kikes to wage war on Germany.

    That the Kikes are Luciferians at war with Nature and the Natural Law, whereas Nationalists are supporters of Nature and the Natural Law, hence the Kikes always push the Inversion Agenda to destroy the Natural Order.

    That 4 Kike Controlled Advertising Agencies control 80% of mainstream advertising which results in the race mixing adverts to drive the Kalergi Plan.
    Knut Hamsun support for Nationalism.

    That the Kikes stole the wisdom of Stalin and Goethe to build their bogus Holocaust Religion.

    John Lennon, David Bowie and Phil Lynott as Illuminati poster boys for the Kalergi Plan.

    Louis-Ferdinand Céline

    As the Kikes are Edomites and not God’s Chosen People we should reinforce the mantra no more #Wars4Edomites instead of no more #Wars4Israhell

    Spread the term Loxism far and wide, and highlight that the mass migration, population replacement genocide of indigenous Europeans is in breach of Article II of the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide.

    Hitler’s 2,000 year old European salute ‘Sieg Heil’ (Hail Victory) as a psychological method of raising a downtrodden people who had to endure the Weimar Republic.

  11. Mister Blaine
    Mister Blaine says:

    Europe attempted suicide on July 28, 1914. However, it botched the job so tried again, successfully, on September 1, 1939. It’s just taking awhile to bleed out . . .

  12. moneytalks
    moneytalks says:

    ” The only true, natural path forward is to engage in a counter-revolution that synthesizes “the best elements of modernity and tradition.” ”

    That is a believable assertion . However , it begs the question of [ forward to what/where ?]. The notion of “forward” involves moving toward an objective and is more than just moving “away” from something/someplace .

    Fortunately , the new religion of

    {{{ The PRIME DIRECTIVE }}}

    answers the implied question of “forward to what/where ?”.

    Generally it is any normally lawful/moral/ethical direction “forward” to a technological capability for humanity to thrive-n-survive beyond any

    one and only immediately next specified and guaranteed

    TOTAL Extinction Event

    such as currently now at this time

    {{ The Solar Extinction Event }}

    when Helios the Sun burns-out and
    can no longer support any form of life here on this planet earth .

    In particular it is any normally humane activity that contributes to the development of a technological path “forward” to eventually attain the capability to colonize some other planet similar to our earth

    in order to escape an otherwise certain

    DOOM of OBLIVION via

    any TOTAL Extinction Event

    at any future anywhere in the Universe .

    The USA has at least temporarily taken the lead in developing space technologies and defenses . However , the religio-political status quo here in the USA seems to be reluctant , or perhaps even in opposition , to establishing a religion dedicated to providing spiritual guidance to support fulfillment of the directive which manifests the potential for Eternal Life of an evolving humanity to thrive-n-survive FOREVER .

    It is very difficult to imagine that humanity could sustain a prolonged effort
    to seek out enough of the “laws of the creation”

    ( that must discovered/revealed in order to attain the technologies that will be needed by future generations to thrive-n-survive beyond any TOTAL Extinction Event )

    without the assistance/support of a religion .

    Therefore , any small group of the high-intellect people of Estonia are as good as any in the world and perhaps even the best of all to seize the moment and establish

    [ The First Earthly Institute of the Religion of {{{ The PRIME DIRECTIVE }}} ]

    or any other appropriate name

    to eventually provide any and all needful adherents with spiritual guidance to help keep freewill volunteers on the path to fulfillment of The Directive ; and to eventually be able to provide loyal and faithful members of the institute and all other adherents on earth with a complete panoply of vital social services that are crucial for maintaining a high-technology standard of living that is required in order to have the capacity to attain the technologies needed to fulfill The Directive .

    Establishing the institute is as simple as obtaining any good flat piece of wood , or metal , or even a good piece of paper ( only to get started ) , with the agreed upon institute name inscribed on the piece , and then hang it up in any appropriately conspicuous place in any home of any member of the group ; and then agree to communicate and meet regularly ( at least once a month ) ; and build the institute any way you see fit to do provided you remain generally true and faithful to the deity called

    {{ The God of Empirical Reality }}

    by which humanity could via sufficiently prolonged adherence to

    {{{ The PRIME DIRECTIVE }}}

    be “saved” from an otherwise Guaranteed DOOM of OBLIVION pursuant to

    any TOTAL Extinction Event

    and is the deity whom established that the Ultimate Purpose of Life

    is to have FUN

    which is understood by most normal people of this world to mean

    enjoyments/happiness/pleasures/thrills/satisfactions .

    Then as soon as possible establish at least one english language website that will be accessible to the most people around the world whom would be interested in joining the institute as an associate . Be mindful of security concerns and try to find the safest location for the institute and websites .

    Also keep in mind that in the world of the satanic Illuminati —
    “the good die young”
    as a matter of ritual slaughter ( if nothing else ) ;
    {{{ The PRIME DIRECTIVE }}} is about survival and
    is not about killing the young to gain evil powers .

  13. Leon Haller
    Leon Haller says:

    {The text then moves to a thorough, and quite excellent, denunciation of conservatism, while incorporating and critiquing the ideas of Edmund Burke, Joseph de Maistre, and Nietzsche. The[y] stress that mere conservatism is a losing strategy since its final demand of keeping things ‘as they are’ will always lead back to decadence and nihilism. The only true, natural path forward is to engage in a counter-revolution that synthesizes “the best elements of modernity and tradition.” }

    That’s not really an accurate description of conservatism. Conservatives, at least philosophical ones, have always been so much more than mere defenders of some status quo. Burke himself noted that “a state without the means of change is without the means of its conservation.” Real conservatism defends the claims of the particular against the encroachments and subversions of the universal. As Russell Kirk once averred, conservatives frequently change their front, but never their ground. In addition to the conserving of particular ethnocultures (“peoples”), they believe in the defense of “the permanent things”, elements of society rooted in permanent features of the human psyche and existential condition which entail specific social forms and habits: traditional family relations, sexual division of labor, private property, respect for elders and betters, intergenerational memory, the rule of law, peace through strength, etc. Conservatism embodies much truth, and is highly compatible with ethnonationalism.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      I congratulate you for this necessary and excellent statement of home truths, whether or not the authors of “Ethnofuturism” or indeed the “cooler” and “hipper” among this site’s commenters can stomach them. Whatever could have led Kaalep and Meister (or was it Andrew Joyce?) to include the blowhard Nietzsche with the proudly reactionary de Maistre and the hardly less crucial Burke is a mystery to me, however.

      Though perhaps what follows might be merely an obiter dictum, one of the seldom-sung joys of reading and gaining instruction from de Maistre, Burke, Samuel Johnson, Kirk, Richard Weaver, Joseph Sobran, and Sam Francis—to name just a few truly meaningful contributors to authentic conservatism—is that one is never compelled to endure “ethnocultures” in place of “peoples” or indeed endure any other terms that cannot escape the charge of empty portentousness. And why wasn’t “ethnofuturism” strangled in its cradle?

    • Eric
      Eric says:

      Good point.

      Liberals live in a mental fog of abstractions that are only remotely connected to their personal lives:

      Example: White people in super-White Portland, Oregon, worrying about the plight of brown people far far away.

      It allows them to “invest” themselves in “doing good” without any sacrifices on their part or negative consequences that affect them personally.

    • Emicho
      Emicho says:

      That’s a good point. Maybe if conservatism was run last century by a true visionary gentleman like Burke, and not a complete sell-out like Buckley, it wouldn’t have so disgraced itself to the point that it is now just a metaphor for loser.
      I doubt Burke would have welcomed Jacobins in to change his philosophy, no matter how much money they offered, or how they wailed “bigot!, Racist!” when Burke refused.
      Buckley sold out even before Jewish penetration did he not? The Civil Rights Act was a direct attack on the freedom of association in the Bill of Rights. The damn Jews bewitched him from outside his movement while leading the blacks, how they must have laughed at the damage they could do once firmly ensconced inside.
      It is truly tragic how idiotic the boomer generation was/is. Sold their souls for gold, now they’re hated in their graves.
      I won’t be surprised if I live to see these traitors dug out their graves and hung, Cromwell style, another sucker for Jewish gold.

  14. Heartland Separatist.
    Heartland Separatist. says:

    If the revolution could be won by books, websites, and provocative videos we already would have won because we have those in abundance now. What we do not have is any street activity or any presence in the real world or rooted communities. I can’t help but see a lot of potential in red-state America if, and only if, they can separate from the United States and form their own nation. That would mean they would need to politically mature and quit being reactionary rednecks. In other words, they would need to racialize and radicalize! Upwards of 74 million people believe the election was stolen. In the long run, it won’t matter whether this is correct or not because in politics what people believe to be true is often more powerful than actual truth! If we only had 10% of those people that would be 7.4 million activists. Or even one percent would still leave 740,000 activists more than enough to create a movement for red-state secession culminating in a United White Heartland Republic encompassing most of what is now the United States. We could then seal the border, enact policies to raise the white birthrate, and assist European nationalists in transforming the European Union into a United Europa. It may take a strong and militant White Ethno-State in the heart of North America in order to create a more natural order for the ages and eventually Occidental unification. However, this is metapolitics we are talking about here and historically politics among White Americans has been a mile long and an inch deep.

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      ” If we only had 10% of those people that would be 7.4 million activists.”

      Wishful thinking . The exact percentage depends on the issue . In this case of establishing a WN ethnostate , the minimum starting percentage would likely be about 20% of the 74 million since the ((( USA ruling oligarchy ))) is not going to act like passive sheeple in the face of a real movement against their precious interests .

Comments are closed.