Society And Its Discontents:
How Do We Prepare Ourselves and Our Children?
Word count: 6,218
It is obvious that society is, decidedly, different from what most of us remember, just a generation ago.
I do not bemoan the fact by whining and preaching that the ‘sky is falling’, or that the ‘economic breakdown’ is inevitable, or that it is just around the corner; time will tell, of course, but the avenue, which I have always tried to take, is to describe the symptom, and then offer a cure. This is a herculean task because, like religion, or religious ‘fervor, it takes more than simple individuals to carry the momentum of change forward – it takes a spontaneous and significant response to a given issue, which then provides for a change. The slow and ineluctable ‘educational process’ is just that, a slow and, perhaps ineluctable, change in perception; then comes a real change.
Such a change in society has already happened: those of us who believe in Tradition, and rational authority based on ethno-centric cultural norms are, like no other time in the history of this nation, on the outside looking in. As men and women, our cultural norms have been corrected, no doubt due to the fact that our premises have been ‘incorrect’, namely, that gender and roles are a construct of Patriarchal dominance, and chauvinistic nearsightedness. This also lends itself to the area of ‘child development’, and just what, or whose role it is, to rear a viable human being – and not only that, but a human being more like us – an extension of the better part of us, more intelligent and industrious (don’t all generations wish this), but more importantly, to extend ourselves, and the essence, which makes us what we truly are, a unique and precious quantity of spirit, of aspirations of self, and of genius, those elements, which have taken the Western Peoples of this earth to conquer its environs, at least to bring a certain harmony between ourselves and Nature, It has been a struggle.
What we, as a folk-community, a Race-Culture, have brought to bear in the last three hundred years, has been a constant evolution, an organism in flux, and we have made mistakes; but we have also made great advances. These advances, however, seem mitigated by the legacy of our present, and the tragedies, which often beset us, with our children paying a price to an alien god of refutation, not the god of our Fathers and Mothers of another time, the god of affirmation. White Nationalists, as a world-view, as our own volksgeist, which we affirm our identity, as well as we affirm our codes of conduct, won through years of trial and error; we affirm the right of dissent, and of restraint, for this marks the higher man and woman – it is maturity in the general understanding, and this is passed on to our children, which will make them, in their turn, capable of raising another generation in their likeness, and with a general consensus of what is good for their parents is, also, good for themselves.This is Tradition in its most positive form.
Children’s Loss of Identity
If our children seem bereft of identity, of self-control, or of any circumstantial relationship with reality, there must be an answer to this deep, and melancholy separation between themselves and their environment. Moreover, the element of extension, that of genius, must needs be sacrificed on the altar of mediocrity; the separation and its discontents, which come from broken homes, and the aloneness which, more often than not, accompanies it, leaves us all paying a price, a price which is often beyond our reach. Our children suffer from lack of knowledge, but more than this, is the loss of security, of strength, which was afforded many of us in another era. The end product, what we are leaving our children, is ever weakening, first from our lack of healthy and fertile marriagable couples, denying themselves the fruits of their loins and, secondly, the complete disconnect between the burgeoning young mind, and just what we are prepared to do with this gift.
In due course, if we seriously consider it, genius is also a product of heredity. The Family, as ‘unit’, being a prerequisite to a sound environment, and strong constitution, is attached with still more importance in this context. A sound family unit will, in accordance with the laws of heredity, be well suited in type and disposition, if they are to produce a more well-proportioned and higher individual who is physically and mentally superior to both their parents. In the country of the origin of this work, America, we have seen a steady an ineluctable decline in those intelligent and well proportioned matings (i.e. conformation, height, weight, hair and eye colour) which will assure a more vital and vigorous people, of higher intellectual capacities, and nobility of ‘spirit’. Their inevitable progeny, likewise, have suffered. Since the ‘sixties’, this deceleration of intellectual momentum, as a trend, has manifested itself in almost every stratum of American Education and I.Q. levels:
When people die, they are not replaced one for one by babies who will develop identical IQ’s. If the new babies grow up to have systematically higher or lower IQ than the people who die, the national distribution of intelligence changes. Mounting evidence indicates that demographic trends are exerting downward pressure on the distribution of cognitive ability in the United States and that the pressures are strong enough to have social consequences.
Throughout the West, modernization has brought falling birth rates. The rates fall faster for educated women than the uneducated. Because education is so closely linked with cognitive ability, this tends to produce a dysgenic effect, or a downward shift in the ability distribution. Further more, education leads women to have their babies later – which alone also produces additional dysgenic pressures. 
The above statement does not shed new light on the subject, many before these authors have given their lives in the pursuit of truth, and paid very dearly for making them known, once again, to their fellows. The two authors quoted above, have suffered in their own right for speaking what studious research has told them. This subject, lest we forego our train of thought, is based more on a ‘demographic’ model, and we will attach more interest to it later on. We find, essentially, the same ‘trend’ wherever we turn among the professional and intellectual classes. Lawyers, professors, engineers, ministers, inventors, bankers, artists, educators, military men [who the nation depends upon for national protection], writers, all represent ‘stock’ which make up the masses of our nation.
Professor Dublin, writing long before the above-mentioned authors, stated clearly that this ‘stock’ as a trend was marching downward, because of a lack of fecundity. For the moment, let us add:
There is only one conclusion to be drawn: these groups are not reproducing themselves. These people and their stocks are quickly dying out and their place is being taken by a new generation who are the offspring of our fertile immigrants… We are now making the stock out of which the new America will arise… Whether we like it or not, the people of America will look different, act differently, and be different from those who made our country great. And all this because of the facts of reproduction and heredity. 
Let the reader make up his or her mind on the above-mentioned statements. Look around; see with your own eyes what is true and what is not.
American ‘education’ is the laughing-stock of the Western world. At best, our educational system, taken as a whole, is a fraud – we have allowed a system to evolve which is 180 degrees from barely a hundred years ago. The ‘development’ of pre-school and elementary level children shows a distinct and dramatic indication of just where, or how low we have become. The tremendous emphasis placed upon ‘behavior’ in the classroom, such as the typical sign-post found on many a classroom wall, exhorts each and every student to be mindful of the diversity, and equality of each and every student, keeping the students ever suspicious of those who stand out, who are marked by their high-level of achievement in mathematics, English or the lineal and abstract studies, thereby marking them different. This applies pressure in the ‘downward’ momentum; there is no excellence. There is no genius.
This is pure Indoctrination.
The indoctrination of these youths at such tender ages [6-13] with mental attitudes and perceptions such as ‘telling’, ‘saving oneself’, ‘siding with the teacher’ against his fellows and the like, has changed the pattern of individualism to that of the ‘collective’, something that most of us were taught was a ‘communistic’ or ‘fascistic’ principle, and that, at all costs, we should avoid. This is nothing short of ‘authoritarianism’ based on political correctness. This social modification has affected untold millions of young people who trust, implicitly, those in adulthood and authority with which they interact.
The concept of individualism, like any ‘ism’, is fraught with an extremist inclination; the concept of ‘family or tribe’ was always a priori when faced with an outside threat – this did not disallow an individual from having an ‘I’ associated with who he was; he was protected in many cases by laws and religious concerns which shared equanimity with the secular state. It may not have been perfect; we are far from being perfect. To ‘stress’ the importance of ‘i’ over that of the group however, is more than just passing interest. American schools are putting our children at risk. This risk is the lack of integrity, will power, self-esteem, and, most importantly, loyalty to oneself and his peers, and makes for a cowardly and sheepish population. What will we think if put to war, if a foreign force, much larger than could have been conceived, attacked our shores, and our mettle tried, our ‘national’ soul put to the test? Will captives [even our soldiers are not immune] become broken because of the ‘timid’ conditioning received at American schools? What, exactly, would be the national reaction to a conquering force, deprived of food, shelter, and family – who would capitulate, and who would defy the conqueror? This is, of course, the most extreme of circumstances, but a nation and people are known as ‘great’ only in adversity, or in the pure genius of a Golden Age.
The answer to these questions lie at the root of the race-culture: our offspring. It is not only to a sound environment, replete with the regimens of self-discipline, but to those elements we, as parents, leave in our children.
Self Discipline is Essential
Self-discipline, as spoken of here, is not that ‘castration’ sought or promoted by those pundits who preach and encourage ‘paranoia’, ‘gang warfare’, or just ‘fear’ in general for the purpose of ‘controlling’ a population. Our children, any child, should follow leadership, this is the job of parent and teacher alike; but when those certain children or child show a tendency to be rebellious, curiosity/inquisitive, or drawn to areas of interest far and above the other children (e.g. those who seem ‘predisposed’ to show only interest in mathematics, vocational trades, literature or science, etc.) then these selfsame children should be molded and directed in these ‘specific’ areas of interests at a higher state of indoctrination. This point assumes that either the parents or the teacher is aware of these proclivities, and acts upon them. If Americans continue to remain apathetic, bordering on stupidity, then this awareness is suspect; but if we are to demand meritocracy rather than mediocrity, we must become aware and aid our young if they are to develop a balanced psychology. If we are to encourage achievement, then we must encourage these young minds to reach out, not randomly, and become directed with that disciplined reasoning which all young people require to become adults.
Here then, is the crux of the matter: lack of self-discipline, integrity, and the devolution of academics in our educational and national political levels, is directly related to the heterogeneous mixture of our American social/political attitudes. This has become the legacy of the ‘egalitarian’, of the Modern.
Egalitarianism Harmful to Future White Generations
It has been the Modern, that crowned prince of equality, the egalitarian, while striving to maintain some personal vision of the ‘world-to-be’, has shown little regard for the essence of Western man’s race-culture, and has opted for one of the biggest frauds, yes, criminal conspiracies ever wrought against a people: for once the homogeneous population becomes fused with that of admixture, with heterogeneous importations of very diverse kinds, the Western element loses, with time, all its natural affinity and knowledge of its original stock. With this loss, so also, the various proclivities and ‘tendencies’ which mark us as ‘unique’. Racial ‘hybridity’ is the ultimate end of these diverse crossings. With time, after several generations of constant amalgamations with diverse racial types, the Western stock as has been known historically, becomes immersed with, and becomes a completely heterogeneous – or mixed-race – grouping. Light complexion will defer to dark and, with time, the complexion of the host race will change demonstrably. Put bluntly, ‘white’ will lose to ‘black’ and with time, all traces of the original stock will be lost. Mental attitudes diminish in direct proportions to the racial admixture of any parent stock. It is imperative, therefore, that all future parents decide on a mate best suited to themselves in temperament, looks, and corresponding mental outlook, if they are to produce superior human beings better than themselves. This, of course, is mandatory for all races.
It is not education, alone, which will overcome our crime and juvenile problems. Education cannot turn a feeble-minded child into an honor-student; conversely, it is apparent that a bad school system can destroy even gifted students with their mediocre curriculums. It must be both good genes, as well as good basic scholastic education.
What a child inherits from his mother and father is extremely important. This cannot be overly stressed. The son receives more from his father than from his mother; the daughter, in like fashion, receives the best of her mother. If the son is to receive more, not less, from the mother then, the mother should be as close to the equivalent of the father as possible. According to Francis Galton’s law of antecedent heredity, an individual receives on the ‘average’, one-quarter of his attributes from any one parent; the other three-quarters is received from the other parent and the immediate/remote ancestors. The study of the genealogy of ‘great men’ [see Galton] has afforded as ample evidence that the higher the frequency of intelligent mothers, the higher the rate of superior men of genius. Applied to females, it must of necessity bring to bear similar results. A legacy of this kind stays with such a child for life.
The intelligence or feeble-mindedness of any child remains fairly constant through life. “If a child is [feeble-minded] stupid it almost always remains stupid.” Science and observation have given us this information – not just scientists of the past – in our present state of information, it is a demonstrable fact. The Modern however, not to be outdone, has started his schools of ‘psycho-analysis’, ‘psychiatry’, and most recently, the ‘science’ of ‘psychophysics’ to prove that the above observation is not the case. The dim light of ‘fact’ however, is appearing once again. A well-known ‘psychophysicist’, Dr. David Lykken, for instance, maintains that criminal behavior as such, is not inherited; but that ‘certain’ kinds of temperament are. Dr. Lykken:
“A child who is relatively fearless, adventurous and insensitive to punishment is likely to seek excitement in the kinds of places that get him into trouble.”
Dr. Lykken’s position seems to be ‘outside’ the purview of the Modern in terms of ‘equality’ – yet he does, and so many of his peers – do indeed, support ‘inequality’ in some cases. Unique, or individual predispositions by definition, amounts to an ‘un-equal’ relationship between individuals. Let us, then, look closer to what the good doctor has to say.
In the first stated observation, that of feeble-mindedness, we are speaking of genetic dysfunction; in the case of temperament, we are now speaking of a combination of genetic influences and predispositions, which, in fact, create a temperament. In the first case, feeble-mindedness can be discerned at birth, even before, and should be corrected. In the case of temperament, environment does play an important role; crime can be enhanced by squalid living conditions, and the arbitrary and unfeeling power of the State – such as the British – have shown us. What Dr. Lykken has pointed out however, is that of the developing ‘psychosis’ of environmental conditions over that of what is inherited, in terms of temperament [a pre-condition in any event, and genetic in nature]. In other words, even though genetics is implicit in human growth, the Modern still would have us determined, ultimately, by our environment.
But let us carry his point further:
Dr. Lykken’s school of thought indicates that it is the ‘temperament’, that is, those traits of fearlessness, adventure (i.e. courage, curiosity, bravery, loyalty and the like), and insensitivity which make one, more likely than not, to become involved with the undercurrents in modern society – that is to say, with Crime.
In point of fact however, when we analyze this position more closely and carefully, the very traits which are pointed out as ‘bad’, are those very peculiar traits or ‘temperaments’ described by Dr. Lykken and his particular school of thought, are those very traits so absolutely essential for a people to excel in a world where fearlessness, adventure, and insensitivity are diminishing before our very eyes; and even more importantly, without which our ancient fathers and mothers would never, could never, have achieved what they have to this point in time: mastery of the oceans, space travel, astronomy, a reasonable control over his environment, and has continued to develop these things ‘peculiar’ to the West, up to this very generation. But let us not forget the last, and most important trait/temperament, which the modern ever seeks to deny us hoping, it would seem, for us to lose this trait entire: Courage.
Are such traits/trends ‘unworthy’ or ‘unqualified’ to exist? What does this mean to us, as a western race-culture? Do we, as a sensible and decent population really want or need drugs used to ‘tame’ our children? Have we really lost touch with the excitement, the vitality, to be young? Do we ever seek, nay, demand, that we possess a sense of ‘serenity’ and that if we cannot have it, we will then ‘force’ it upon our young because we, ourselves, are unable to achieve it in our own lives? Is ‘childhood’ then, doomed to extinction? Have we become so ‘civilized’ that Jim, upon returning from Treasure Island, be treated as an overly aggressive youth, having allowed his temperament, his traits, to evolve which, in turn allowed him to survive his travails and hardships, allowing him to live and be scrutinized by these psycho-pundits and told that he is now a menace to society; must he now be drugged, or at the very least kept from civilized company? This is, essentially, what is being done; if this school of thought is allowed to continue, our progeny will be persons not worthy to survive or receive our admiration.
Now, in consequence, the observable facts are that environment and predisposition does indicate the direction of individuals and groups. So, it is, that we must not throw the baby out with the bath-water as it were. A caveat however; since temperament can be very illuminating as to the direction of young people, so it is that racial groups can, and does show predispositions that are liable to be seen as criminal or anti-social. The implications here are manifest, and supported historically by Science, namely, that as a culture of long-standing, Western culture has a right and a duty to preserve what is good for its future. This means that if the race-culture feels threatened, or if in fact is under assault, then it is only fitting and proper to develop behavior that will provide that protection needed to fulfill the requirements of its longevity. What those temperaments and behavior are to become, remains the key element in the Rise of the West.
Here again we face the premise of equality, equality across the board. How do we, or more precisely, the Modern, rationalize the tremendous expense exercised annually to educate the feeble-minded, the retarded, the imbecile? Worse, to attempt to ‘educate’ these poor souls within the public school system (!). This ‘form’ of educating, not entirely without merit, for who would deny a sense of compassion to these individuals, is done at enormous cost, and requires countless numbers of well intended teachers, therapists, and doctors, and is consistent with Western man’s feeling of kindness to those who ‘have not’, and will attend to those of the West until, and when those trends/traits are no longer present in our population. Many, however, want to know more than this; what do we do with the normal, intelligent, and gifted children who inhabit the same space as these others? In fact, a healthy, normal, or superior child has very little spent on them relative to the cost of ‘un-healthy/abnormal’ children per capita. Where then, is the doctrine of equality considering the effort put into the one group, altruistic though it is, and that of the effort, or lack of same, put into the other categories?
If it be accepted that lower intelligence be entitled to a higher rate of education, at least a more intensive education, should not the gifted, also, be given the same and equal market share, relative to the same ‘share’ given to the abnormal? We must, as a distinct race-culture, answer these questions if we are to survive and excel.
It is generally true that great men do not come from dull-spirited boys. The Modern, in his typically nefarious way, tries to respond to the supposed unequal treatment of these less fortunate individuals by claiming the ‘rule’ of higher education to impress upon those of his fellows the need to create normal from the abnormal. But, I.Q. potential does not increase with the higher gradation of education – it only enhances the raw material present. There is no “art by which an individual with an I.Q. of 80 can be converted into one with an I.Q. of 140.” This necessarily brings up the question of ‘testing for intelligence’ since it is common in today’s academia to challenged ‘testing’ as being culturally biased and unfair to those non-Western elements amongst us.
Intelligence testing means many things to different people, yet one thing is certain and unassailable, and that is that testing gives us a means of detecting and measuring the differences and inequalities in men. Not only schools and colleges, but also the Armed forces and government agencies, coupled with Industry use intelligence and aptitude tests to ‘grade’ and ‘sort’ human beings in order to discover the approximate limits of their capacities. It is argued now, as before, that the capability an individual manifests may be less that his inborn potential, which may have been suppressed by an unfavorable environment or obscured by other factors. This is conceded as fair.
Intelligence testing is objective, as contrasted to subjective, measuring devices. They [tests] yield quantitative results. Like all scientific experiments, the intelligence test provides answers that can be verified or refuted by ‘re-testing’. I.Q., which stands for ‘intelligence quotients’, is the ratio of a subjects test score to the average test score to the average test score at his age-level expressed as a percentage.
White [western] Nationalism is at its highest incident rate since just prior to the Second War of Fratricide. In that case, Americans of European descent, denounced the aggressive ‘alien’ position of involvement in a foreign theatre against a Nation that was, and is, very close in make-up as our own. The feelings of the associated numbers of present day White-Nationalists is of a different sort. His present day ‘spirit’ is imbued with a feeling of consciousness that transcends the ‘old form’ nationalism, that is, Conservatism. The Nationalist, unlike the conservative, sees his position as having deteriorated to a point that is unacceptable. The conservative still believes he may battle and win a duel with the Modern in the political technics of the great leveler. He has been deceived.
The Nationalist, however, does not choose to take the bait, no matter how beautiful the lure. The Nationalist is, and will always be, a part of that ‘working class’ which, on a daily basis, sees for himself, in the street as it were, just where the Modern is trying, and in most cases, already has, taken him. He is not part of the monied aristocracy. It is he, and he is aware of this, that must shoulder the responsibility of fighting for his race, with his very hands, if necessary, for the future of his family, his children, and his culture. The Modern, always prepared for this eventuality, declares War.
It was the Prussian tactical Officer, Carl von Clauswitz, who declared a “defensive war,” a “winning war.” The Nationalist, as always, has started from behind, from a position of defense – a legacy of his fathers who had not the stomach for utilizing those means necessary to stop this change in his environment. The Modern has declared war; the Nationalist is defending himself. Even the ‘conservative’ has felt the brunt of the Modern in his [the Modern] reaction to the growing elements of resistance. From every corner, the conservative feels betrayed, his ox has now been gored, the wound too apparent, too deep, to reject the obvious. From his timid exploitation of religion, to his childish belief in democracy and liberty [as is portrayed by the Modern] – it cuts across his whole field of vision. The conservative now denounces the Modern. They have, as significant elements of the conservative apparatus, begun to question the Modern’s ‘legitimacy’ to demand such extremes of judicial process as confiscation of [all] weapons, especially the small concealable handgun, which is designed to eliminate intruders of all types, including the Modern if necessary. The Nationalist, as well as the Conservative, questions the Modern’s sanity.
To the issue of ‘gun control’, the elements of the nationalist and conservative come closer than on any issue. In both cases, they recognize that guns, ultimately, are for one purpose, and one purpose only – that weapons, in general, as well as specifically, are designed with one purpose in mind: weapons are designed to kill people; and is clearly defined for all to see. Sporting, as such, is a smoke screen by the conservatives, to ameliorate the Modern, to keep him at bay. Since our primal epoch of development, man has sought various means by which to defend and attack; without this ability, Western man, perhaps, would have ceased to exist many aeons ago. Man is martial by inclination, and remains peaceful at least half the time – the other half, is either actively pursuing “war by other means” or pursuing war, period. Any use of weapons after that primary use [listed above] is, purely an individual choice, such as hunting in a purely ‘sports’ sense. The right to ‘keep and bear arms’ is shared by both the nationalist and the conservative – the only real telling difference between the two is that the nationalist knows, already, just who the enemy [of these rights] really is; who the enemy of his traditional freedoms are, and to where they gravitate. The conservative does not want to see, or admit, these enemies exist at all – for he is afraid, and rightly so – that these same enemies are a part of his own ranks. The Conservative is content in watching from the sidelines as the nationalist carries on the fight for his [the conservative’s] liberties, while, at the same time, this self-same conservative helps himself to the victories and spoils, while at the same time, distancing himself from any losses – ‘conservatives’ are well known to ‘leave their wounded on the field of honour’. But, in recent days, a few stout-hearted conservatives have ventured out beyond the ‘traditional’ norms of conservatism.
No longer is the conservative of one mind concerning his belief in the Modern and his governmental technics. A concerted effort, having been traditionally relegated to small nationalist ‘factions’, once considered outside the Western race-cultural mainstream, have now designed a ‘national’ programme to ‘educate’ the mass as to its loss of power and legitimacy. The Nationalist forms a wry smile as to this approach; he nevertheless accepts the conservative’s coming of age.
As stated before, the common ground between nationalist and conservative has been, and is, for the most part, the issue of ‘bearing arms’, but for different reasons. The Conservative believes in the documents of the past to maintain this ‘right’; the Nationalist believes that there is no ‘right’, other than the right to choose for himself the ‘right’ to self-determine his role in relation to his surroundings. If the reader will take, good naturedly, another reminder, let it be this, and ever this: If there is anything such as a ‘god-given right’, it is up to man to enforce it (!). Man has made his political State what it is, not god. The Conservative awakens from his slumber – his attacks against the positions of the Modern multiply daily. But nothing has reached the crescendo of battle cries, as has the issue of ‘the right to keep and bear arms’. This whole position was ably penned by two separate [conservative] authors in two separate conservative periodicals. Their positions, frankly, were revolutionary in scope – something that, as of late, have been relegated to nationalist publications (usually very small, well written, but not read widely) and not part of the mainstream.
The first, author Roger Koopman, spoke directly to the Western race-culture when he stated: “The people, not the government, possess an absolute right in the area of gun ownership” This statement transcends all political boundaries of both the conservatives and nationalist. What is new in this area of political maneuvers, implied or stated, is the attack on the technics of the Modern – the Modern’s perception of Order has run afoul of the mainstream. Mr. Koopman goes even further by stating these rather provocative words:
What these folks [government technics] stand for is a total reversal of our Constitutional system, where rights and powers become vested not in the people [race-culture], but in government. They promote an alien…mentality that turns the citizenry against itself by convincing us that we should trust the government and distrust out neighbors. [emph. mine]
What a statement from a Conservative!
It is that ‘alien’ mentality with which the nationalist is very much at odds. That of the Modern. The Nationalist is, by far, more vociferous in its attack against the Modern than is the conservative – but without the larger media aid of the conservative it is apparent who still holds the upper hand. While the childish argument continues, the Modern closes his grips upon both; his governmental technics continue to reserve for himself the right ‘to maintain weapons in the hands of his militancy, his police force, his national security services. This, above and beyond, the majority of those Western people’s who demand the same right, also, but who, as of this writing, have not the power to enforce their will.
The issue is not, nor ever has been, over ‘gun ownership’, this was simply the clarion call of the Conservative, the ‘sound-bite’ for the masses. The issue is Freedom, pure and simple. Freedom to maintain a race-cultural imperative; to protect Family; one’s Home, self, and ultimately, the freedom to defend oneself from the tyranny of a technic, individually or collectively, of any infringement of one’s Liberty by a foreign or domestic power. Period.
The Nationalist realizes that defense against all predators is a law cognizant with nature. The nationalist knew, and has always known, that the issue of gun ownership was his first line of defense – that the issue of ‘sporting arms’ was the pleading of the conservative to the traditional governmental technic, like a son pleading with his father for favor, for his ‘inalienable rights’ when, actually, the basis of his pleadings were based upon documents of the past, which at the outset, granted no rights, it simply verified, as a device of communication, recognized and battle-won, yes, those hard-won rights decided in struggle and contest; decided by blood and sacrifice. Through Blood and Iron; through the contest, of culture and civilization.
Lessons like these are designed to instill a certain value intrinsic in the very learning. The conservative has forgotten “…that this nation was born in a revolt against the legitimate authority of a long-standing government that had gone progressively sour until violent revolution was the only escape possible.” But the conservative will not hear of such a thing – he is loyal. But, to what? What loyalty does he owe anyone that would take his most treasured and important necessities? What will he do? Here is yet another conservative answer:
The thought that there might come a time when peaceable gun ownership (and even members of the NRA) must take arms against the U.S. Military and their own local police is anathema to nearly everyone. The possibility, however, must be faced.”
Ponder the above statements – carefully. Americans preparing for possible armed conflict? This must be the ranting of a paranoid nationalist. But is it? Do we not, rather, see a rising, a reawakening of a spirit long dormant? What is it, this rising amidst the ‘kinder and gentler’ America? Do we, both conservative and nationalist alike, feel the soft rustling of a midsummer breeze, or is it the whisper of the growing hurricane? Does culture begin to resist its technics? The Modern considers the entire issue of guns, and their ‘destructiveness’ as being just a part of the reactionary elements incumbent in the ignorant, uncivilized mass. He promises, as only a snake can, to prohibit only assault-orientated weapons – since this ‘type’ weapon only serves the purpose of murder. This type of prohibition is always the Modern’s way.
The ‘prohibition’ movement created criminals. So also the ‘drug dealer’ of today; so also the ‘gun owner’ of tomorrow. Crime is, as has been stated before, created by definition, not necessarily by the simple act. There must, of necessity, be a value prior to the consignment of any criminal stigma. Value, in its pure form, is subjective – the course of its development is mapped by its proponents – might is right. The weaker elements must accept the consequences of a loss of power – he accepts the privilege of power. The ‘gun owner’, ‘nationalist’, ‘modernist’, etc., is also facing the same classification – whoever is the fittest, or most capable, will survive. The reality of judicial conduct in any major city in America, which, as is widely known, already classifies gun owners as criminals, is utilized daily by the Modern. Innocents are now, ipso facto, criminals. What will the Conservative do then, when the security forces come to his home, demanding the receipt of any and all weapons in his possession? The Conservative cannot face this inevitable reality (or, in the opposite, will gladly allow members of the ‘state’ to pilfer, search, and confiscate any weapon which the state may deem unacceptable as a matter of course!). One can sense the furrowing of the broad brow of the native White Nationalist.
 R.J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray – The Bell Curve, Free Press [Simon & Schuster] 1996, pg.341.
 Dublin, Luis I. – Birth Control – reprinted in Social Hygiene, 1920, cf., pg. 8.
 Holmes, S.J. – The Eugenic Predicament – Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1928, pg. 70.