Natural Resources
by Vijay Prozak
www.nationalistpartyusa.com
In the last years of the nineteenth century, a writer named Max Nordgau
put forth a series of propositions that indicated the quality of human
beings was declining. Citing a range of examples and measurements, he
pointed out that greatness had left us shortly after the industrial
revolution took us out of daily competition for survival within nature.
What was required in this new age was to hold a job, not offend anyone,
and to specialize rather than being a self-sustaining organism which
could adapt to any environment.
Nordgau wrote after industrialization had been in process for a scant
two and a half centuries; now, a hundred plus years later, we find his
concepts enduring even if we place new language to them. Thanks to the
influence of industrialization on our language, we tend to refer to
things not yet shaped into products as "natural resources," and it
makes sense that we consider our first natural resource ourselves.
Intelligence is not bestowed after birth, but before; someone born with
a median intelligence will never be one of the intellectual greats of
his or her society, and someone born without a tendency toward healthy
acts will never be a good leader. What happens after birth can destroy
this fragile potential, as is the case with the rampant child abuse
that seems to plague the industrialized west, but even the best
education cannot compensate for a lack of sufficient raw material.
The century before Nordgau's pronouncement was one of great invention,
great art and influential philosophy; it was a golden age, like the
last few moments of rich sunlight before the sun submerges beneath the
horizon. While some took this to be a culmination of humanity up to
that point, others saw it as a desperate attempt to put into tangible
form all of what was being lost. Since in the years following, we have
seen many creations but far fewer great ones, it makes sense to
consider the latter supposition realistic.
What fundamentally changed during the time leading up to this golden
age was the rise of what we call "modernity," or modern society:
individual economic mobility, vast industry funding commerce,
government by representation in the name of self-interest. Modernity
changed one massive aspect of our original natural resource, which is
that it inverted our breeding. Where once we bred for the best of all
characteristics, now we breed for a single one - the ability to earn
money.
"Conservatives," those being the captives of liberalism who pretend to
hold up the flag of tradition, often argue for something called "Social
Darwinism," which suggests that economics like nature is competition,
and therefore the best rise. However, observation alone
counter-indicates this, as the sheer number of people who have made
money through questionable practices and the massive instability of
wealthy people suggests. Do we really think our wealthiest are our most
intelligent, healthiest and most moral people?
Of course, if we do not agree with that popular recitation, we keep
quiet about it, because to overthrow Social Darwinism is to destroy the
underpinnings of our society, which prides itself on being a place
where even the poorest among us can work up to being the richest.
Doesn't that sound good? It sounds wholesome. Hard work, etc. In
reality, by contrast, it is depraved, in that alongside some good
people who want a comfortable life, it promotes degenerates whose
vision includes nothing but wealth.
Money, as a motivator, is a lowest common denominator. It does not
adhere to any specific cultural or spiritual values, and it does not
reward long-term thinking or nobler thinking, as survival in nature
does. It rewards greed, aggression, and an impulse to disregard the
needs of others. For this reason, the declining stock of quality people
in the West tend to find careers they can tolerate and earn enough to
be comfortable, but rarely desire to go further, even if they say they
might. Their actions speak louder than anything else, and their
tendency is to provide for their families and think less about money
rather than more.
On the other hand, the wealthy in this country - those who control the
media, the defense industry, our manufacturing and service segments -
are obsessed by money. It has shaped them over the generations, if it's
old money; where their original family members pursued conquest of
industry, their recent generations obsess over wealth for its own sake.
For someone to become wealthy, they must think like this, and for that
reason, since these people are highly influential, they shape the minds
of others according to their own.
The result is a culture whose founding value has modulated, over the
years, to become not independence but wealth, which we equate to a kind
of primitive freedom from having to worry about anything but one's own
desires. People breed for money; they pick the best provider, and thus
the ugly, immoral and narrow of intelligence outbreed the attractive,
moral and broadly intelligent. People socialize for money, and thus the
same defective and boring personalities show up everywhere and are
assumed to be "important," even if they are only fitting role models
for a rioting cell block.
In turn, this culture of the money disease attenuates the quality of
our breeding, destroying our most precious natural resource. Mix a
woman of quality - good intelligence, health/appearance, and moral
character - with some guy who is ugly and immoral but earns good money,
and you get children that are half-ugly, half-immoral, and
half-healthy. However, in the binary wisdom of nature, something that
is half-immoral might as well be immoral, since half the time it is
making immoral decisions, or is always making half-immoral and thus not
quite moral decisions. It's a downward slope.
There are quality people left in the West, and you can find them
everywhere, but they survive against odds that National Geographic
would write about, were that a magazine of honest anthropology. These
people have to educate their children to be outcasts, meaning that they
behave differently and cannot trust what they hear from others or see
on TV. They learn to be a society within a society, holding out against
the inevitable tide that vastly out-populates them. And because this
society rarely addresses their values or concerns, their existences are
often lonely and isolated.
As a result, their population has been declining, slowly but steadily
for every year since industrialization began. Our society simply no
longer values what they are, these well-rounded and adaptive humans;
all our society values is people who adapt to a single linear means of
survival, which is the earning and spending of money. The brave, genius
and beautiful are underpaid and slighted by a resentful crowd who do
not possess what they do, and in exchange, the mediocre and neurotic
and immoral and ugly are shaped through plastic surgery and education
and function as substitute elites.
This ongoing tragedy of our breeding explains many of the problems of
modernity, and why nationalism is currently demonized. A nationalist
values the eternal powers of humanity, including intelligence and
health and moral character, and places the ability to earn money as
secondary to being a person of quality. Furthermore, the nationalist
believes that ethnic groups should work together to preserve
themselves, so that a value higher than money can always exist.
Nationalism is in short opposed to modernity as a values system,
although it is not opposed to moral use of technology.
Although most have not yet seen this, nationalism is the only possible
solution to the overall decline of humanity in modernity. It is clear
something is needed to replace money as the primary value of our
society; nationalism does this on several levels, all of which relate
not to another abstraction like money, but the pragmatics of survival.
Where modern systems tend to be deconstructive, nationalism is a
unifier, helping people work together on several levels:
- Culture/Tradition. Behaviors that pass along the knowledge of the
past, and a way of doing things that has always worked best, eventually
become ornamented into the sayings, rituals, celebrations and art of a
specific culture. As each culture is unique, it is a powerful bond to
something which can never be bought or sold, and transcends any kind of
linear valuation. If you are of the culture, it's the best in the
world; if you're not, it's not relevant.
- Language. When population groups are united by heritage and culture,
they share a language, and thus are not susceptible to having key terms
redefined to in turn change values. The language grows organically,
with the population, and provides yet another way to call a specific
cultural group home, in that its language is adapted to describing the
preferences of that group.
- Heritage. Able to point to many generations of achievement, the
citizen of a nationalist country knows how their lot in life came
about, and has a permanent place as part of that civilization in that
role - unless they do something exceptional, and thus rise higher.
While there is less social mobility, what flexibility exists promotes
only the best, so the society breeds better people. Further, since each
heritage is unique and carries inherent genetic preferences with it, a
community unified by heritage (nationalism) is one that adapts most to
the citizen, gives them a cultural identity and surrounds them with
people of similar values and abilities.
- Values. Each local society has its own values system, worked through
the ages, which both defines it and is defined by it. When this grows
in a natural process, values remain constant as long as the population
is breeding well, but as soon as the population becomes mixed or
degenerate, values as well plummet.
- Land. Bonding each community to a part of the earth inhabited by
ancestors and hopefully, descendants, provides a further dimension to
identity and loyalty among people. Those who know a land is their best
future option are less inclined to pollute it, denude it, or otherwise
mangle its environment; they are also more inclined to portion it out
responsibly, reducing the amount of waste and destruction.
As one can see from the above, nationalism is the only possible
political system which can replace the money motivation of the current
time. Our "conservatives," who tried to replace breeding with class, or
ranking by money, rapidly found themselves bred into a motley lot of
corrupt people. We should not make that mistake again. There is no way
around this issue, as to acknowledge that we are physical beings, and
to overcome the mind/body duality that baffles our recent philosophers,
is to mature and to acknowledge our own genetics as our first natural
resource.
Nordgau saw the first crest of a lengthy, wavelike process of turning
us from a species of quality people into a horde of undistinguished,
valueless, corrupt lumpenproletariat, who might well be the "last man"
mentioned in horrifying simplicity in the writings of F.W. Nietzsche.
Humanity has been degenerating, partially through bad breeding, and
nationalism is the only way to end this lugubrious history and restore
our direction toward a higher civilization.
http://www.nationalistpartyusa.com/VP.htm#natural
.
|
