In a way I agree with you. The 'melting pot' idea is too strong in the US. But it seems that a free-enterprise American influence is all that keeps Europe from committing suicide by socialism, if the Muslims don't completely conquer it first.
I feel one of Marx's predictions will come true - Capitalism will eventually transition into communist ideals anyway. The Free Market is precisely what got us into this situation. America is an anti-traditional project, unfortunately. Unless it radically overturns core elements of its very own essence, it will always have a negative net influence
You may be right. It was predicted, long ago, of course.
"…all those things in the true Socialist’s demand which are compatible with the Servile State can certainly be achieved. The first steps towards them are already achieved. They are of such a nature that upon them can be based a further advance in the same direction, and the whole Capitalist State can be rapidly and easily transformed into the Servile State."
Hilaire Belloc, The Servile State (1912)
If you mean by "The Free Market is precisely what got us into this situation" that we have a standard of living fabulously better than that enjoyed by people in the past, that's true.
Communism is both totalitarianism and slavery. So I pray that you are wrong.
The Free Market is unfortunately inextricably linked with modern secular individualist ideals: it is culture and race-blind, enables free trade to an extent which eventually overflows into free movement of peoples and dissolution of cultural barriers inconvenient to the market's inherently expansive nature. Yes, in the short term, it has given us an abundance of material prosperity. And we will reap due Karma if we persist in making that our metaphysical idol. We are where we are not "in spite of", but precisely "because of".
"...tall and muscular, horse-riding, and kefir-drinking Yamnaya people from the Caucasus steppes in the East. Some of us picked up blonde hair and blue eyes along the way..."
Another acquisition was lactose tolerance. The Germanic warriors were indeed tall, about a foot taller than the Roman legionnaires, because the former had a diet including lots of protein from milk and cheese.
Well written. But to win, we need use language that allows us to win, rather than the poison terminology given to us by our victimizers. Call it what it is: White Erasure.
(i.e. Replacement is associated with changing out something failing with something newer and better. White Erasure immediately makes what they are doing clear to our bothers and sisters, no?)
Almost the whole of the Continent of Europe is inhabited at the present time by groups of which the basis is white, but in which the non-Aryan elements are the most numerous. There is no true civilization, among the European peoples, where the Aryan branch is not predominant. - Arthur de Gobineau
How do you define "race"? Europeans themselves are very racially heterogeneous.
Ethnically heterogeneous, but not so much racially.
De Gobineau’s reference to the Aryan “branch” is no accident; in order to understand the nuances of race and ethnicity we need look no further than plant life. A tree has many leaves and branches, but only one trunk and one type of seed.
There are many other parallels: certain trees will only grow in certain environments; you can even transport a tree to a new environment, or create a hybrid, but the resulting tree would be different from the original depending on the conditions of the new environment. Yet, the seed contained within the original tree would remain unchanged, or at least latent within the new hybrids.
I hope that makes sense, I know it’s a shot from the hip.
De Gobineau's view of race is different. It has very little do to with ethnicity.
Evola wrote Synthesis of the Doctrine of Race and The Myth of the Blood where he wrote about tripartite view of race where body is only the lowest part. There is also soul and spirit.
The fact that Europeans were (and are) racially heterogeneous can be "proved" by the feudal system of old Europe and that modern Europe is the antithesis of old Europe. Those two Europes are dominated by men of very different white races.
I agree with Evola’s ideas about race, but it doesn’t negate the biological realities on the ground. If by heterogeneous, you mean more than just one race, then yes I would agree with that. But on a long enough timeline, and recent biological evidence only confirms this, modern Europeans can trace their roots to a singular race that originated on the Eurasian steppes over 4000 years ago.
Dugin in Noomachia talks about pre-Indo-European (non-Aryan) and Indo-European (Aryan) existential horizons in European peoples.
This makes sense to me because feudal system worked so well which suggests that it reflected racial differences and because modernity is the negation of premodernity which also shows that pre-Indo-European element prevailed.
I did not study this topic in detail, but I would say that what happened is mixing of races each of which had completely different roots. This mixing resulted in what we have today in Europe with huge domination of pre-Indo-European race(s). Evola also mentions mixing in his works.
European nobility was only few percent of the population over many centuries and population since then doubled or tripled, while nobility basically disappeared, so today we have huge percentage of non-Aryan racial elements in Europeans, and that can be noticed in all aspects of life.
My understanding was that the pre-Indo-European peoples of Europe were almost entirely subsumed and replaced by the Indo-European populations. There was some mixture of course, but it has been proven that most Western and Northern Europeans today are genetically descended from the Indo-Europeans and not the previous inhabitants of Europe.
Dugin writes that pre-Indo-European element survived primarily in peasantry and later bourgeoisie, and that it appeared again in modernity. He uses the term "revenge of the Cybele against the Gods".
There was a reason why nobility did not mix with peasantry. Those were generally two different kinds of people.
No doubt anymore that replacement is taking place all over the West
This will inevitably entail disentangling ourselves from the USA alliance, the ultimate modern project - difficult, but a worthy goal is a worthy goal
In a way I agree with you. The 'melting pot' idea is too strong in the US. But it seems that a free-enterprise American influence is all that keeps Europe from committing suicide by socialism, if the Muslims don't completely conquer it first.
I feel one of Marx's predictions will come true - Capitalism will eventually transition into communist ideals anyway. The Free Market is precisely what got us into this situation. America is an anti-traditional project, unfortunately. Unless it radically overturns core elements of its very own essence, it will always have a negative net influence
https://youtu.be/cfrjPtc5NwI?si=c5JC3rVSoDQbvdii
You may be right. It was predicted, long ago, of course.
"…all those things in the true Socialist’s demand which are compatible with the Servile State can certainly be achieved. The first steps towards them are already achieved. They are of such a nature that upon them can be based a further advance in the same direction, and the whole Capitalist State can be rapidly and easily transformed into the Servile State."
Hilaire Belloc, The Servile State (1912)
If you mean by "The Free Market is precisely what got us into this situation" that we have a standard of living fabulously better than that enjoyed by people in the past, that's true.
Communism is both totalitarianism and slavery. So I pray that you are wrong.
The Free Market is unfortunately inextricably linked with modern secular individualist ideals: it is culture and race-blind, enables free trade to an extent which eventually overflows into free movement of peoples and dissolution of cultural barriers inconvenient to the market's inherently expansive nature. Yes, in the short term, it has given us an abundance of material prosperity. And we will reap due Karma if we persist in making that our metaphysical idol. We are where we are not "in spite of", but precisely "because of".
"...tall and muscular, horse-riding, and kefir-drinking Yamnaya people from the Caucasus steppes in the East. Some of us picked up blonde hair and blue eyes along the way..."
Another acquisition was lactose tolerance. The Germanic warriors were indeed tall, about a foot taller than the Roman legionnaires, because the former had a diet including lots of protein from milk and cheese.
Well written. But to win, we need use language that allows us to win, rather than the poison terminology given to us by our victimizers. Call it what it is: White Erasure.
(i.e. Replacement is associated with changing out something failing with something newer and better. White Erasure immediately makes what they are doing clear to our bothers and sisters, no?)
Almost the whole of the Continent of Europe is inhabited at the present time by groups of which the basis is white, but in which the non-Aryan elements are the most numerous. There is no true civilization, among the European peoples, where the Aryan branch is not predominant. - Arthur de Gobineau
How do you define "race"? Europeans themselves are very racially heterogeneous.
Ethnically heterogeneous, but not so much racially.
De Gobineau’s reference to the Aryan “branch” is no accident; in order to understand the nuances of race and ethnicity we need look no further than plant life. A tree has many leaves and branches, but only one trunk and one type of seed.
There are many other parallels: certain trees will only grow in certain environments; you can even transport a tree to a new environment, or create a hybrid, but the resulting tree would be different from the original depending on the conditions of the new environment. Yet, the seed contained within the original tree would remain unchanged, or at least latent within the new hybrids.
I hope that makes sense, I know it’s a shot from the hip.
I think your analogy with plants is wrong.
De Gobineau's view of race is different. It has very little do to with ethnicity.
Evola wrote Synthesis of the Doctrine of Race and The Myth of the Blood where he wrote about tripartite view of race where body is only the lowest part. There is also soul and spirit.
The fact that Europeans were (and are) racially heterogeneous can be "proved" by the feudal system of old Europe and that modern Europe is the antithesis of old Europe. Those two Europes are dominated by men of very different white races.
Dugin also wrote about that in Noomachia: https://paideuma.tv/en/video/noomachia-serbia-2018-lecture-8-noological-analysis-modernity#/?playlistId=0&videoId=0
How is it wrong?
I agree with Evola’s ideas about race, but it doesn’t negate the biological realities on the ground. If by heterogeneous, you mean more than just one race, then yes I would agree with that. But on a long enough timeline, and recent biological evidence only confirms this, modern Europeans can trace their roots to a singular race that originated on the Eurasian steppes over 4000 years ago.
Dugin in Noomachia talks about pre-Indo-European (non-Aryan) and Indo-European (Aryan) existential horizons in European peoples.
This makes sense to me because feudal system worked so well which suggests that it reflected racial differences and because modernity is the negation of premodernity which also shows that pre-Indo-European element prevailed.
I did not study this topic in detail, but I would say that what happened is mixing of races each of which had completely different roots. This mixing resulted in what we have today in Europe with huge domination of pre-Indo-European race(s). Evola also mentions mixing in his works.
European nobility was only few percent of the population over many centuries and population since then doubled or tripled, while nobility basically disappeared, so today we have huge percentage of non-Aryan racial elements in Europeans, and that can be noticed in all aspects of life.
My understanding was that the pre-Indo-European peoples of Europe were almost entirely subsumed and replaced by the Indo-European populations. There was some mixture of course, but it has been proven that most Western and Northern Europeans today are genetically descended from the Indo-Europeans and not the previous inhabitants of Europe.
It could be that this is the case.
Dugin writes that pre-Indo-European element survived primarily in peasantry and later bourgeoisie, and that it appeared again in modernity. He uses the term "revenge of the Cybele against the Gods".
There was a reason why nobility did not mix with peasantry. Those were generally two different kinds of people.
The Jews play the leading role in this censorship and replacement