Dugin explores the importance of Trump’s re-election as signaling a turning point in Western history.

The decline of liberalism signals the emergence of an alternative ideology, a new world order, and a different set of values. Liberalism has proven not to be destiny, not the end of history, nor an irreversible and universal paradigm, but merely an episode — an era with clear temporal and spatial boundaries. Liberalism is intrinsically tied to the Western model of modernity. While it won ideological battles against other forms of modernity — nationalism and communism — it has ultimately reached its conclusion. …

Humanity is now entering a post-liberal era. However, this era diverges sharply from the Marxist-communist expectations of the past. First, the global socialist movement has largely faded, and its primary strongholds — the Soviet Union and China — abandoned their orthodox forms, adopting aspects of the liberal model to varying degrees. Second, the primary forces responsible for liberalism’s collapse are traditional values and deep civilizational identities.

Liberalism did indeed win the battle with a particular example of nationalism in 1945—an explicitly stated racial nationalism. But racial nationalism lives on in many countries, at least implicitly, and often with an ideology that the territory belongs to a particular people. Hungary’s Viktor Orban:

A recent speech outside Parliament epitomised his approach. On March 15th [2018]—a national holiday commemorating the failed 1848 uprising against the Habsburgs who ruled Hungary for centuries—Mr Orban … issued a rousing battle-cry to defend the Magyar homeland from waves of migrants; militant Islam; plans in Brussels for enforced migrant quotas; and a United States of Europe. In today’s Europe, thundered Mr Orban, “it is forbidden to speak the truth”: that immigration brings crime and terrorism and “endangers our way of life, our culture, our customs and our Christian traditions”.

Indeed, I would argue that racial nationalism, at least implicit racial nationalism, is the rule around the world except for the West, with its individualist tradition and beset as it is with a substantially Jewish elite that is hostile to the people and culture they rule.

[In his Unguarded Gates: A History of  America’s Immigration Crisis, Otis] Graham notes that the Jewish lobby on immigration “was aimed not just at open doors for Jews, but also for a diversification of the immigration stream sufficient to eliminate the majority status of western Europeans so that a fascist regime in America would be more unlikely.” The motivating role of fear and insecurity on the part of the activist Jewish community was thus unique and differed from other groups and individuals promoting an end to the national origins’ provisions of the 1924 and 1952 laws; such a view entailed changing the ethnic balance of the U.S. (Quoted here, p. 37)

Nevertheless, I think Dugin is right: the non-Western peoples and cultures that are invading the West are ultimately incompatible with the West, as we are seeing throughout the West as the attempt to integrate different races and religions into Western countries is widely acknowledged to be a complete failure, leading to the rise of “far right” parties, political hyperpolarization, increased crime, no-go zones, and increasing hatred toward and marginalization of the founding White populations. I propose that the “deep civilizational identities” referred to by Dugin ultimately come down to different evolutionary trajectories. The idea that one ideology will ultimately fit all of humanity — much beloved by globalists — is a non-starter to an evolutionist. For example, Muslim peoples and cultures from the Middle East will never assimilate into Western societies in any meaningful sense any more than Jews as a group have assimilated to the West over the last two millennia (as indicated, among other things, by the simple fact that the United States and really the rest of the West are now client states of Israel as a result of Jewish activism on behalf of Israel). Instead, while maintaining their own brand of genocidal, ethnic cleansing ethnonationalism in Israel, Jews have assumed an adversarial stance toward the West and its traditional Christian culture, as indicated by their outsize role in promoting multiculturalism and non-European, non-Christian immigration to the West. Some Jews, Muslims and Africans can indeed assimilate to the West and truly identify with its founding people and its traditional culture and values, but that is simply not the case for the great majority. And, taking the example of Jews,

These civilizational fissures are deep and unbridgeable; ultimately they are based on very different genetic substrates. Despite the current elite hostility to the idea that genetics has anything to do with the proclivities and talents of different peoples, the West is finally waking up to that reality.

The idea that Trump with his considerably multiethnic coalition — which is absolutely necessary in the  American political context where the traditional White majority is too splintered to win a national electoral majority — could be a pivotal figure in this transformation is problematic but not completely without any basis.  He has often expressed the right ideas (“Paris isn’t Paris any more”) and some of his top officials are certainly willing to move things in the right direction (mass deportation would be a great start). But we are a very long way from a Reconquista.

The collapse of the liberal-globalist ideal seems inevitable. And when it happens, a racially and culturally divided and hyperpolarized West will look out at other more genetically homogeneous civilizations and find that are more unified and free of strife. The West would then realize that multiethnic multiculturalism — the ideology promoted by our hostile, Jewish-dominated elite since the 1960s — must be replaced. Then things will get truly interesting. As noted previously, it is conceivable that a non-Jewish elite is forming around Trump. The money is there. The only question is whether enough wealthy, politically based non-Jews will get on board.

*   *   *

The Liberal Moment – by Alexander Dugin – Arktos Journal:

[Long Intro] …

Trump as a Factor in World History

The very possibility of applying the term “moment” to the era of the global triumph of capitalism, even from within the Western intellectual sphere (as Krauthammer did), opens up a unique perspective that has yet to be fully explored and understood. Could the current, evident collapse of Western leadership and the inability of the West to serve as a universal arbiter of legitimate authority also carry an ideological dimension? Could the end of unipolarity and Western hegemony signal the end of liberalism itself?

This idea is supported by a critical political event: the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States for two terms. Trump’s presidency represented a striking repudiation of globalism and liberalism, reflecting the emergence of a critical mass of dissatisfaction with the ideological and geopolitical direction of the liberal elites, even at the heart of unipolarity. Moreover, Trump’s chosen Vice President for his second term, JD Vance, openly identifies as a proponent of “post-liberal conservatism.” During Trump’s campaigns, liberalism was consistently invoked as a negative term, specifically targeting the “left-wing liberalism” of the Democratic Party. However, among broader circles of Trump supporters, liberalism became a byword for degeneration, decay, and the moral corruption of the ruling elite.

For the second time in recent history, a political figure overtly critical of liberalism triumphed in the very citadel of liberal ideology, the United States. Among Trump’s supporters, liberalism has come to be demonized outright, reflecting its association with moral and political decline. Thus, it is increasingly plausible to speak of the end of the “liberal moment.” Liberalism, once thought to be the ultimate victor in historical progression, now appears as merely one stage in the broader course of history, a phase with a beginning and an end, constrained by its geographic and historical context.

The decline of liberalism signals the emergence of an alternative ideology, a new world order, and a different set of values. Liberalism has proven not to be destiny, not the end of history, nor an irreversible and universal paradigm, but merely an episode — an era with clear temporal and spatial boundaries. Liberalism is intrinsically tied to the Western model of modernity. While it won ideological battles against other forms of modernity — nationalism and communism — it has ultimately reached its conclusion. Along with it, the “unipolar moment” described by Krauthammer and the broader cycle of singular Western colonial domination over the globe, which began with the age of great geographical discoveries, has also ended.

The Post-Liberal Era

Humanity is now entering a post-liberal era. However, this era diverges sharply from the Marxist-communist expectations of the past. First, the global socialist movement has largely faded, and its primary strongholds — the Soviet Union and China — abandoned their orthodox forms, adopting aspects of the liberal model to varying degrees. Second, the primary forces responsible for liberalism’s collapse are traditional values and deep civilizational identities.

Humanity is overcoming liberalism not through a socialist, materialist, or technological phase but by reviving cultural and civilizational layers that Western modernity deemed obsolete and eradicated. This return to the pre-modern, rather than a continuation of the postmodern trajectory rooted in Western modernity, defines the essence of post-liberalism. Contrary to the expectations of left-wing progressive thought, post-liberalism is emerging as a rejection of the universal claims of the Western modern order. Instead, it views the modern era as a temporary phenomenon, an episode driven by one specific culture’s reliance on brute force and aggressive technological exploitation.

The post-liberal world envisions not a continuation of Western hegemony but a return to civilizational diversity, akin to the era before the West’s sharp rise. Liberalism, as the last form of Western global imperialism, absorbed all the key principles of European modernity and pushed them to their logical extremes: gender politics, woke culture, cancel culture, critical race theory, transhumanism, and postmodernist frameworks. The end of the liberal moment marks not only the collapse of liberalism but also the conclusion of the West’s singular dominance in world history. It is the end of the West.

The Liberal Moment in Hegel

The concept of the “end of history” has surfaced repeatedly in this discussion. It is now necessary to revisit the theory itself. The term originated with Hegel, and its meaning is rooted in Hegel’s philosophy. Both Marx and Fukuyama adopted this concept (via the Russo-French Hegelian Alexander Kojève), but they stripped it of its theological and metaphysical foundations.

In Hegel’s model, the end of history is inseparable from its beginning. At history’s start lies God, hidden within Himself. Through self-negation, God transitions into Nature. In Nature, God’s presence is latent but active, and this latent presence drives the emergence of history. History, in turn, represents the unfolding of the Spirit. Societies of different types emerge over time: traditional monarchies, democracies, and civil societies. Finally, history culminates in the great Empire of Spirit, where God becomes most fully manifest in the State — not just any state, but a philosophical state guided by Spirit.

In this framework, liberalism is but a moment. It follows the dissolution of older states and precedes the establishment of a new, true state that marks the culmination of history. Both Marxists and liberals, rejecting Hegel’s theological basis, reduced his theory to materialist terms. They began with Nature, disregarding Hegel’s conception of God, and ended with civil society — liberalism — as the culmination of history. For liberals like Fukuyama, history ends when all of humanity becomes a global civil society. Marxists, meanwhile, envisioned history ending with a classless communist society, although it remained within the framework of civil society.

By restoring Hegel’s full philosophical model, it becomes evident that liberalism is only a transitional phase — what Hegel would term a “moment.” Its conclusion paves the way for the ultimate realization of Spirit, which Hegel envisioned as an Empire of Spirit.

Postmodernism and Monarchy

In this context, the idea of monarchy acquires renewed significance — not as a relic of the past but as a potential model for the future. The global era of liberal democracy and republicanism has exhausted itself. Efforts to establish a global republic have failed. By January 2025, this failure will be definitively acknowledged.

What comes next? The parameters of the post-liberal epoch remain undefined. Yet the recognition that all of European modernity — its science, culture, politics, technology, society, and values — was merely an episode, culminating in a dismal and inglorious conclusion, suggests that the post-liberal future will be radically unexpected.

Hegel offers a clue: the post-liberal era will be an era of monarchies. Contemporary Russia, while still formally a liberal democracy, already exhibits the characteristics of a monarchy: a popular leader, the permanence of supreme authority, and an emphasis on spiritual values, identity, and tradition. These are the foundations for a monarchical transition — not in form, but in essence.

Other civilizations are moving in a similar direction. India under Narendra Modi increasingly reflects the archetype of a sacred monarch, a chakravartin, akin to the tenth avatar Kalkin, who ushers in the end of a dark age. China under Xi Jinping demonstrates the traits of a Confucian Empire, with Xi embodying the archetype of the Yellow Emperor. Even the Islamic world may find integration through a modernized Caliphate.

In this post-liberal world, even the United States could see a monarchical turn. Influential thinkers like Curtis Yarvin have long advocated monarchy in America. Figures like Donald Trump, with his dynastic connections, might symbolize this shift.

An Open Future

The term “liberal moment” holds revolutionary implications for political thought. What was once considered an inevitable destiny is revealed as merely a fleeting pattern in history’s broader tapestry. This realization opens the door to boundless political imagination. The post-liberal world is one of infinite possibility — where past, future, and even forgotten traditions may be rediscovered or reimagined.

Thus, the deterministic dictates of history are overturned, heralding an era of plural timeframes. Beyond the liberal moment lies a new freedom, with diverse civilizations charting their paths toward the unknown horizons of a post-liberal future.

(Translated from the Russian)

This comment originally appeared on Unz Review. I can’t say that I entirely agree with it — I tend to be more hopeful that something positive can be worked out, that a new, non-Jewish, politically based elite can arise, but it certainly deserves wider circulation. [I added the link to Horus’s article on The Focus, the group organized by Jews that lobbied for war with the Germans in prior to World War II.]

Comment on “What Ails America — and How to Fix It,” Jeffrey D. Sachs, Unz Review, November 25, 2024

https://www.unz.com/article/what-ails-america-and-how-to-fix-it/#comment-6877674

Anon[427]

November 26, 2024 at 6:41 am GMT • 1,900 Words

What “ails” America is Jews. Not “right-wing” Jews or “left-wing” Jews. Not Republican Jews or Democrat Jews. Not “globalist” Jews or “nationalist” Jews. Not Zionist Jews or Communist Jews. Not religious Jews or atheist Jews. Not George Soros/MSNBC/NYTimes/big-media-monopolizing Jews nor Gad Saad/David Sacks Jews. Just Jews. Jews are the problem. Jews are what ail us.

And it’s been this way in literally every nation they’ve ever resided in — in every time and place in history. Their own bad behavior has served as the root cause of their expulsion from some 109 countries some 1030(+) times, but Jews (with zero sense irony or self-awareness) tell us that this is because everyone else is bigoted and hateful and jealous of their superior intellect, morality and status as G-d’s Chosen.

(Unfortunately, the gentiles buy this argument with apparently little thought or reflection. Why? Because the Jews control the media and therefore their minds? Yes … but also because questioning the Jews’ self-serving narratives will destroy your career. Thus many choose to stay quiet — or just not ponder such thoughtcrimes: I.e., their crimestop instinct kicks in. “Who are you going to believe, Goy? What we Jews tell you about your wicked ancestors or what your wicked ancestors tell you about us Jews?”)

There’s a phenomenon — a classic blunder — where some people (such as, apparently, Elon Musk) mistakenly believe that there are “good Jews” and “bad Jews” and that by allying oneself with the “good Jews” (the Zionist/”right-wing” Jews to whom Elon ingratiates himself) one can defeat the bad Jews (like Soros) and thereby save the West. History and experience, however, show that this doesn’t work.[1]

You cannot “wield” Jews. Jews wield you. Jews are like the One Ring in Tolkien’s The Lord of The Rings. It’s tempting to think that you can “ally” with them and use them for your own purposes, but you really can’t — not, at least, for long and certainly not against themselves. (The One Ring itself is an apt metaphor for the corrupting influence of power and bribery.[2])

In the books, the One Ring is ultimately one with Sauron. You cannot wield it against him. And so too are “right-wing” Jews one in spirit and will with “left-wing” Jews (Soros/Sauron). They’re all one Jewish collective — though they will often pretend otherwise: “We’re not some hivemind goy! As we Jews like to say: Two Jews, three opinions on how best to fleece the Goyim! — Wait. Hehe. I meant, just, ‘three opinions.’ Not that ‘fleece the Goyim’ part. Hehe. Oops.”

Allying with Jews to further authentic right-wing, nativist nationalist ends has been tried and it’s always failed. Churchill tried it. Rupert Murdoch tried it. Trump’s tried it. It doesn’t work. Trying to separate Jewish factions and play one against the other (the “right” against the “left” or the “left” against the “right”) doesn’t work. It’s a classic trap, akin to … invading Russia.

Give the “right-wing Zionist” Jews everything in the world that they want — more money for Israel, the West Bank, more endless wars (against Germany or Iraq or Assad or Gaddafi), total support at the UN., total fealty at their wailing wall, etc. — it will never be enough. And they will never reciprocate

Jews always endeavor to control both sides. This is why explicitly anti-Jewish movements are the only kind that have shown any success against them and their agendas. It’s why movements which don’t see Jews as Jews, but as supposedly belonging to the separate camps or categories which they invent or infiltrate and pretend to belong to (and to which their allegiances are secondary or tactical anyways) always fail. Jews are Jews regardless of what they call themselves or dress up as. Every movement which buys into their wolf-in-sheepskin lies ends up inevitably being subverted by and destroyed by them.

Of course, being explicitly anti-Jewish isn’t sufficient and it doesn’t guarantee success. After all, Hitler didn’t ultimately prevail despite his initial successes due to the Jews arraying a coalition of useful idiots (the “Allies) against him — but it’s the only approach that has ever worked (109 expulsions).

If you try to wield “right-wing” Jews against “left-wing” Jews, or, conversely, “left-wing” Jews against “right-wing” Jews, you will find that you get very little utility out of your Jewish “allies” whereas they get tremendous utility out of you.

They spy on you — as does the One Ring. They influence you — as does the One Ring. They promise you powers and riches which they will never ultimately grant — as does the One Ring. And, in the end, whatever power or riches you may acquire you still end up a slave to them — a ringwraith — as did the kings of Middle Earth.

What did Britain’s — or Churchill’s — alliance with Jews in WWII (see: The Focus) do for Britain? Sure, they defeated Germany — in a largely unnecessary war which the British establishment (under Jewish influence) themselves provoked — and then what? What happened post-War? What happened to the British Empire? What’s happened to their country since? Did the Jews show their gratitude by helping ensure that Britain retained strong borders and the demographic integrity of its isles (as the Jews jealously guard Israel’s demographic integrity)? Or have the Jews worked, at every turn, to undermine the ethnic integrity and demographic continuity of Britain? Or, have the Jews worked to undermine the sense of ethnic pride of the British people? Much of Britain is unrecognizable today. London is minority White British. By virtually every conceivable metric Britain would be vastly better off if the Germans had won, even if (as the fever dream hysterics claim) “we’d all be speaking German today.” So? At least Britain would still be White and British. What would Churchill think if he could see Britain today? What would the men who stormed Normandy beach think? Unfortunately, Churchill, in the end, let himself become a ringwraith for ZOG.

(To illustrate Churchill’s thinking, he, in 1920, wrote an article called Zionism versus Bolshevism,[3] where he argued that there were two groups of Jews. The “good” Zionist Jews and the “bad” Bolshevik Jews. Churchill then goes on to argue that “good” Zionist Jews should enter into an alliance with the British against the “bad” Bolsheviks. Well … how’d that all work out in retrospect? The Zionists got basically everything they ever wanted (and so did the Bolsheviks for a time) and where are the British today?)

What did Roosevelt’s alliance with the Jews (through his heavily Jewish cabinet) do for his nation — America? What does it look like today? Demographically, it shares the fate of Britain and it looks like, increasingly, its empire is going the same way, and in large part due to interminable Middle East wars which serve just one interest: Israel. In Roosevelt, again, we find a ringwraith: a man who sold out his soul (and his nation) for power … or perhaps a Denethor-like character who was under the control of Wormtongue Morgenthau and Harry Dexter White.

What of Rupert Murdoch and his business empire? Steve Sailer has related a story wherein an acquaintance of his mentioned Murdoch saying privately that in order to do business in America (paraphrasing) “one needn’t befriend all the Jews, but one must befriend at least one of two factions of Jews.” Meaning, essentially, one must either submit to the Zionist “right-wing” faction or the anti-white/anti-American “left-wing” faction (which controls most of the balance of traditional that Murdoch doesn’t). Clearly, Rupert chose to ally with the “right-wing” Zionist faction. And what has that done for the American right? In what way has the “right” in the U.S. actually been served by Fox? All it does is lose on every domestic social issue year after year. It’s in constant retreat.

Thanks to Fox News, all of the healthy, natural, nativist, ethnocentric and patriotic energy of an authentic right-wing which might actually serve core white Christian America is being parasitically channeled away from protecting its own borders and demographic majority to protecting Israel’s borders and … not just their demographic majority … but their project of erecting a supremacist expansionist land-hungry apartheid state.

White Christian America has gotten nothing from Fox News — or any “right-wing” media, be it Breitbart or The Daily Wire, etc. (all of which are just Zionist fronts), but Israel, on the other hand, has gotten everything it could ever dream of.

Murdoch has become another ringwraith. A king reduced to a ghostly Zionist pawn.

What of Donald Trump? Did he actually close the border and build the wall in his first term as he promised in every campaign rally he’d do for eighteen months straight? No. Did he deport illegals in appreciable numbers? No. Actually, he carried out very little in his populist agenda to serve the interests of the core demographic which voted for him. Instead he basically carried out Jared Kushner’s agenda which served primarily to benefit Israel — oh, and he pardoned a bunch of Jewish fraudsters and black felons.

Trump was, and probably still is, just another ringwraith pawn of the Jews.

Now what about Elon? Is he another ringwraith? Destined to become one? Judging by virtually everything he’s written (and retweeted) on X since he had his little oopsie last year and told the truth about the malign influence of Jews on Whites, and then had to be led around Auschwitz like a dog and go kiss Bibi’s ring, Elon now shows all the signs of someone who’s turning into yet another ringwraith. Elon also presumably believes (falsely) that by “allying” (or bowing) to one group of Jews (“right-wing” Zionist Jews) he can fight against and defeat the other group of Jews who are destroying the West. He’s wrong. At least that’s what all precedent says. You can’t wield “right-wing” Jews any more than you can wield the One Ring. It wields you, and it will turn you into its slave just as it has done to so many others. The only solution is to destroy the Ring — to destroy Jewish power. That’s how you save the West.

I still hold out hope that Elon will change his mind on this or that he, in some sense, secretly already knows or understands what I’ve written here and what a problem Jews are and that, perhaps, he’s just playing the long-game — perhaps hoping to “out-Jew the Jew” or something, but even that being the case, there are only so many time one can put the Ring on before it fundamentally compromises and corrupts you and you end up just another slave to ZOG.

[1] One also sees this with the “anti-Zionist Jews” like Finkelstein and Blumenthal. Their true function — whether conscious or unconscious — is to subordinate and lead the “anti-Zionist” movement thereby neutering it. See, for example, how in Finkelstein’s case, he attacks Zionism’s most effective critics, like John Mearsheimer, as an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist who propounds Protocols-like conspiracy theories of Jewish subversion of the American political system through the “Israel Lobby.”

(There’s various names for when Jews employ false dialectics where they seem, superficially, to oppose each other, but they’re actually furtively on the same side: E.g., The Kosher Sandwich, or the Esau Gambit, etc.)

[2] More on the LOTR analogy:
https://www.unz.com/isteve/1945-the-year-zero-of-american-architecture/#comment-6474944

[3] https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Zionism_versus_Bolshevism

Much of right-wing thought (e.g. politics, literature, arguments, etc.) is rooted in pessimism. To be more  precise, most of modern right-wing thought can be philosophically diagnosed as slave morality. In other words, it’s a reactionary rebellion to the status quo with the acknowledgment that the position is powerless. As the Left has successfully demonstrated, slave morality (within the dynamics of Western Civilization, where the moral high ground swings the pendulum of power) can be revolutionary if its adherents are of the revolutionary personality type (right-wingers typically aren’t). Due to the success the Left has had subverting power via victimhood (i.e., slave morality), the Right has essentially morphed into late-90s liberalism (e.g. “democrats are the real racists who invented the KKK,” “anyone can come in as long as they do it legally,” “happy holidays,” “undocumented migrants,” “diversity is our strength”) as a way of trying to stay politically competitive.

The defining component of slave morality (which I like to call the “hate-me blame game”) is ressentiment, or hostility directed at those deemed oppressive and therefore the source of their frustration. The intent here isn’t to critique the power structure in order to justify who can harness the power of slave morality, rather the intent is to incite self-reflection and pose the following question: Are you a master or a slave?

The antithesis of slave morality is obviously master morality. The essence of master morality is nobility. Common behavioral traits for those who exhibit master morality are strong will, courage, trustworthiness, high self-esteem, physical and mental health, masculinity, and unconcerned to receive validation for their feelings. They lead by example, and set their own rules. Ultimately, they are the arbitrators of morality and have an innate understanding of right and wrong.

Contrarily, the essence of slave morality is utility. The common traits of people afflicted with slave morality are pessimism, cynicism, physical and mental ill health, femininity, deceptiveness, fearfulness, low self-esteem; perhaps most importantly, they seek validation for their feelings above all else. Their morality is based on their feelings, and they view most things as a malleable social construct. They are followers who have no desires to become masters, but instead want everyone to become a slave.

A simple societal observation reveals the power of slave morality when implemented effectively. The emphasis is placed on “implemented,” as slave morality is an irrelevant mindset in and of itself. However, this mindset becomes relevant once it comes under the perview of social engineers with an agenda. Nonetheless, the path to power has become who can claim to be the biggest slave (victim). Consequently, the Right have become slaves to slave morality.

The refutation to the master/slave morality dichotomy is to reclaim one’s individual will. Liberation of the will isn’t a choice between the binary options of bad or worse; it’s emotional indifference and rejection of anything that isn’t representative of your values. Don’t compromise your integrity. Instead, focus all of your energy on you (and your loved ones) and on being the best version of yourself that you can be. Let the slaves grovel for the title of most oppressed while you influence others by radiating good moral character. And how do you do that?

Be positive: The first thing one must do is to stop being pessimistic and approach life from a positive perspective in all things you do. Leave the whining to the slaves. Become a master of your emotions and thoughts. Wake up every day grateful that you’re alive. Every morning ask yourself how you can be a better person, and enact it. Do a daily good deed. Create a life you can’t wait to wake up to. Never take life for granted, or underestimate how short it is (on the topic of time, the cosmic calendar – the chronological scaling of 13.8 billion years of the universe to a single year – puts modern history at December 31, 11:59:59.

Establish good habits: habits are the driving force behind many of our daily actions. In fact, 40% of what we do is habit. Understanding the rule of habits (cue, routine, reward) and its ability to shape our behavior can have a dramatic impact on our self-improvement. One of the favorable things about the digital age is the amount of information we have at our disposal. There is a plethora of information on the study of habit modification. One of the better books I’ve read recently is a book titled, The Power of Habit. If you’re looking for a book that can be influential in the improvement of your routine, I highly recommend it.

Reject modernity: When liars control the information systems, you’re going to be lied to. Western societies have devolved into a low-trust cesspool of misinformation. Nothing exacerbated this phenomenon more than the Covid pandemic. There is no reason to expose yourself to lies and manipulation. The information systems aren’t just deceptive, they’re explicitly anti-White (they don’t even try to hide it anymore). Why would any White person get their information from a source that hates them? Turn the TV off.

Embrace struggle: One of the main reasons we find ourselves in the situation we are in is the desire for struggle. Throughout all of humanity, the struggle to overcome and survive has been what has defined us. Although we have overcome the struggle to survive, we have not overcome the desire to struggle. We are victims of our own success. White supremacy gave us Western Civilization, which in turn begot the epidemic of problems-of-luxury that have temporarily solved the existential crisis for the slave. Make no mistake about it, slave morality is a byproduct of White supremacy. The “onward and upward” innovative drive of the White consciousness is the conundrum that creates the very chaos it seeks to conquer. Such is the ebb and flow of struggle.

There are several ways in which we can embrace struggle on an individual level that doesn’t result in collective White saviorism (e.g. curing world hunger, climate change, open borders for White nations, etc.). In other words, create your own struggle by making yourself uncomfortable on a daily basis, as opposed to trying to save the planet. This alone will stimulate personal growth. Some of these things are:

• Digital minimalism – minimize or eliminate screen time. Studies have shown that our brains are just not evolved to handle the amount of information we overload it with. The average person spends 5 hours per day staring at a screen. That’s almost half the time you are awake. Not too mention, there are a ton of negative side effects that come with excessive screen time. Long term this might not seem like struggle, but initially digital withdrawal will be tough.
• Cold showers – take a cold shower every morning. This is something I can’t recommend enough. To force yourself to take a cold shower first thing in the morning not only has a lot of health benefits, but it provides a sense of accomplishment to start the day. It’s make your bed everyday with an exhilarating endorphin rush and spike of testosterone.
• Nature resets – implement the 20-5-3 rule for spending time in nature. Nothing gets us closer to our primitive state like spending time in nature. And considering the average American spends 97% of their time inside, this is a no-brainer. The 20-5-3 rule was formulated by Dr Hopman when he studied the neurological changes after people spent multiple days in nature. The 20 is for 20 minutes of green space 3 times per week. This has shown to lower cortisol levels, boost cognition and improve mental health. To ramp up those benefits, you should spend 5 hours in semi-wild nature once a month. And perhaps most importantly, the 3 is the actual nature reset, where one spends 3 days isolated in nature at least once a year. On day 3, studies have shown that brainwaves mimic that of a meditative state and creativity is boosted by as much as 50%.
• Fasting – Until recently, if one word were to be used to describe the human condition, hunger could very well be that word. Nowadays, only about 30% of the time we eat is because of hunger, the rest is from routine, boredom or gluttony. Fasting puts us in touch with the struggles hardwired in our genetic memory. There are several health benefits of fasting, including autophagy (your body recycling damaged cells as food) and the generation of new stem cells. A simple way to incorporate fasting into your daily routine is via intermittent fasting (12-16 hours without food). This would be my recommended method, as 8 of those hours can be spent sleeping. Plus, once the body enters into a state of ketosis (24-48 hours) it can suck pretty bad. Furthermore, starvation isn’t fun. Just putting yourself into a situation in which you are voluntarily struggling with hunger is a sign of mastering self-discipline. It should be noted, that while starvation is most certainly in your DNA, obesity is not. If you’re overweight, you’re not a master, you’re a slave. Eat to live, don’t live to eat.
• Misogi – a misogi is the concept of doing something so hard one day out of the year that the other 364 days seem easy. It can help overcome fear and redefine what’s possible. While anything can technically be a misogi, it should be something that you only have a 50/50 chance of accomplishing. There are only 2 rules for misogi: 1) it has to be really, really hard, 2) you can’t die. Even if you don’t do a misogi, you should always challenge yourself in some way. Always have goals. Eliminate the word “can’t” from your vocabulary. Nothing rewarding in life is going to come easy.
• Avoid escapism – stop numbing your way through life. Whether it’s alcohol, drugs, porn, gambling, food or whatever else it is that helps you escape the monotony of life, stop! Force yourself to face the rigors of life head on. Grab life by the proverbial horns and make it your bitch. For many, this alone might be the hardest struggle of all; just living life.

The idea here is to be positive. To present a positive message that can resonate with those who don’t need to be reminded for the thousandth time how bad it is for White people. It’s easy to obsess and become cynical over things that are not in our control. The important thing is to focus on what you do have control over. And what do you have control over? Your actions and behaviors. Keep in mind, you can do anything you want to do. If you don’t like what you’re doing, do something else. If you don’t like your life, change it. Don’t like your neighbors, move. Adopt the mindset that there’s no such thing as problems (or excuses), there’s only solutions.

As White people, our elites have failed us. But so what? You can still wake up everyday and be the best person you can possibly be. That includes having self-respect, dignity, honor, gratitude, humility, impulse control, kindness and accountability. It’s easy to be a slave; anyone can do that. But only the noble can be a master.

Are you a master or a slave?