In this vale of tears, there is an almost Newtonian nature to life and events not only in their physical aspects but in their moral ones as well: that is, any action by individuals or groups that pushes their society down a particular path in any direction—whether one leading to freedom, stability, wealth, thrift, and power, or tyranny, chaos, poverty, and degeneracy—tends to contain within it reactive elements that make future pushes in the opposite direction easier in some way.
For example, take the interrelated elements of intelligence, thrift, wealth, and power. And furthermore, take the example of Victorian England. As Edward Dutton has argued, from at least the early modern period into the late nineteenth century, average intelligence was increasing and that, combined with the generally English and particularly Victorian ideals of thrift, honor, hard work, etc., made the English elites masters of technology and wealth such as the world had never seen and allowed them to project their power to all corners of the globe. But the path beyond that was by no means a straight line in the same direction, and as H. G. Wells showed in The Time Machine, it could easily take the elites that travelled it in an opposite or at least ironic direction. As Wells showed in rather extreme fashion, the wealth and power that intelligence and thrift built bred led to complacency, decadence, and (through dysgenic laziness and sensualism) stupidity, to the point that by the end (at least in terms of the story) the brilliant elites who once conquered the world ultimately ended up as frivolous dunces, preyed upon by the descendants of their workers.
And quite some time after the Victorian age, a very similar dynamic is playing out in the US in particular and in the West in general, thanks in large part to another peculiar trait that makes nations within the Occident powerful and weak: individualism and high trust individualism.
As Dr. Kevin MacDonald showed in Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: Evolutionary Origins, History, and Prospects for the Future, white Europeans, especially northern Europeans, lack tribalism and nepotism due to their evolution in a climate too harshly cold and in an area without a major resource (such as a fertile river basin) that was controllable on a year-around basis by an extended kinship group. They instead developed a high-trust society based on oaths and honor and reputation rather than unquestioned bonds of blood. That in turn led to an extremely flexible social structure in which talent could rise and individuals were freer to pursue scientific truth for its own sake.
But every strength is usually linked to a weakness of some sort, so this high-trust individualism becomes a liability to the nations it helped raise when those nations come under assault by a parasitic elite determined to destroy them or at least enrich themselves at the expense of all others.
The standard composition of this elite appears to be led in almost every case by a mix of international, globalist bankers and financiers—with a large representation of Ashkenazi Jews (high enough to punish people and institutions with views they don’t like), with some non-Jewish Whites and non-Whites, and including a political class of Whites (with an ever-increasing percentage of non-Whites), often with ties to elite financial corporations: France’s Emmanual Macron is a former Rothschild employee; England’s Rishi Sunak had been a prominent Goldman Sachs employee; and in the US both parties swear fealty to Israel and to George Soros or his GOP counterparts.
As the elites of the European Middle Ages (a far better crowd than our own, in my opinion) gained their wealth and power through control of the land, the court systems, and the military, so our elites ensure their wealth and domination through control of central banking and opinion-making institutions (the media, academia), the buying or rigging of elections (think especially Soros’ criminal-coddling DAs), and the vicious and deadly, if in many ways inefficient, killing machine that is the military-industrial complex—though few of those involved ever get near a battlefield and none is killed on it (I told you the medieval ones were better).
While all this is a sweet deal to our elites who are increasingly disconnected from the people they rule, the corruption and inefficiency they produce amount to a raw deal for everyone else, especially Whites. But it’s a deal that threatens to awaken their wrath against the parasites who then face the paradox: unless they find within themselves the restraint to parasitize their host society only to a non-lethal degree (as almost no parasite can), their activities will soon degrade the wealth, social capital, and order built up prior to the parasitism, which had kept the host population content and fairly indifferent to the parasitism in its early stages. If, on the other hand, they continue to increase their parasitic machinations, their only chance of doing so lies in increasing their power by complete authoritarian control guaranteed to increasingly enrage the host population against them and thereby render the retribution against them all the more ferocious when it comes.
The particular means of maintaining repressive control can vary through time and geography, and in our time and in the West, it has taken the form of ever-increasing censorship, accelerating demographic replacement, and an increasingly incestuous relationship between big business and big government: in other words, muzzle, fire, or outright replace those who object to what’s being done to them and their nation. The last tactic is by far the deadliest, as it ultimately prevents the cohesion that would allow heritage Americans to throw off the parasites’ yoke and take back their nation—and the same goes for the nations of Europe. Ultimately, even with miscegenation and replacement, the parasites cannot escape their own paradox, as even very disparate people do not need perfect union to rebel against and destroy their masters; but it does guarantee that what will emerge from the rubble will be a polyglot patchwork of feuding tribes and regions rather than a nation in the true sense that has regained its freedom. The dissident’s challenge, then, is a race against time to take back or salvage part of his true nation, using the parasites’ paradox against them.
His first task in that is to take measure of the nature and composition of the TWASH (those whom the American system hurts): while most people who aren’t benefitting from our elites’ crooked endeavors are hurt by it to some extent, there are those who are especially, massively affected by it, with the owners of small businesses destroyed by the lock-downs and Whites stuck in the increasingly dark and always dysfunctional public school systems coming readily to mind; these are the people so blatantly punched in the face by the current order that the current platitudes and social taboos on race and gender, etc., are nothing but outrages to them. One of the things making it difficult for dissidents to correctly see and act on the parasites’ paradox is the love those dissidents feel toward their particular group and their desire to appeal to that group as a whole, be it Whites in general, Southerners, etc.— asking them to focus on subgroups makes them feel vaguely disloyal or dishonest. The problem with this ‘everyone in the group’ focus is that only a limited percentage of each group is TWASH (and some TWASH is outside of the group) and the rest still have a comfortable enough existence, at least materially, that the elites can usually threaten them by holding over their heads the prospects of getting them fired, making them unemployable, etc. They make an example of small numbers of them to keep the rest in line.
Thus it is critical to begin with the TWASH, giving unique focus and appeal to each subgroup of them and uniting them to leverage their power to influence, one after the other, the critical groups above them. For immediately above the TWASH lies a larger group of those who still have their jobs and reputations but are hurt enough by the parasitism (in the form of inflation, insults against them with antiwhite propaganda, etc.) that they’d be glad to oppose the regime—nonviolently, I mean, as with everything I say here—if only the effort were not futile. Above them lies an even larger group that would oppose the regime if opposition is either easy or likely to be successful. Together these three groups constitute a critical mass capable of imparting to our ideas legitimacy and respectability in the eyes of the gray men of the world: that is, those who hold no strong beliefs but will swing one way or another based on what everyone else, or at least the respectable majority of them, seems to favor. And once you get the gray men—who at this late stage of the infection are feeling pain from the parasites’ activities as well—on the side of your ideas and plans, you have the means to overwhelm those who yet support the regime either for profit or ideology, allowing you to expel the parasites from the halls of power and take back your old nation or create a new one for your people within your part of the ruins of America’s former imperium.