The racial question is a hot topic, as it were, in online circles — especially in the past couple of years corresponding to the growth of the Alternative Right, et cetera. The racial or ethnic side of our crisis in the West is not difficult to observe, whether it is the tension between whites, blacks and latinos in America, or whites and Arabs or Africans in Europe, there are distinct racial dimensions which underpin or even define issues and debates which have arisen in Western countries alongside mass-immigration and forced state multiculturalism/multi-ethnicism.
Different groups with their different cultures, outlooks and biological constitutions behave, shockingly enough to the liberal-bourgeois mind, differently. Group-averages are observable enough, and pattern recognition which corresponds to certain groups and how they behave can and does inform one’s actions and views. If I am walking home late at night and I spot a group of dark-skinned men in front of me, I will cross the street. Would I cross the street if it was a group of light-skinned men loitering or walking towards me? Probably.
The trouble with the generally biologically-based view of race and so forth which permeates the Alternative Right and beyond is that it only deals with a metapolitical or metacultural perspective as it pertains to the present sociopolitical context. Yes, a white England is preferable to a brown England — in fact “brown England” is an oxymoron — but how do we deal with exceptions to this modern view, or even encounter a more traditional view of race which actually supersedes present definitions? The most astute point one can find in the more sceptical side of the conversation is that; alright, a white country, but for what? More specifically, of what quality? A focus upon biological race does not answer moral, existential or questions higher still. I have made this point many times, but the fact of that matter is that darkies are only a “threat” because of liberalism, because of white or European weakness and the failure to self-assert. Immigrants only risk demographically replacing native populations the West all-over because the Western zeitgeist is fundamentally rotten — “cucked,” to use the trendy term.
Adopting the ideal that white countries should be for white people is not a fault in and of itself, but it is an incomplete idea. “Whiteness” is only one half of the equation — in fact it is the secondary half; morality comes first, and racial purity second as a consequence. One must begin with the idea of rightness, of properness, of what is good. If one (and one should) come to the view that one must uphold loyalty to one’s family, community and land as the basis of honour, then the potential for racial miscegenation is mitigated by the fact that it is inherently an act which is antagonistic to the form and harmony of one’s family — especially one’s children. One does not avoid miscegenation “just because”; there is a reason which removes its moral justification.
This is another important point. Acts must have justification. The modern, liberal-bourgeois mentality is the mentality of “why not?” which is merely consequential of the implicit formlessness inherent to the modern world: there are no genuine rules or standards. One must begin to ask “why?” to even start upon the route back to order both on the individual plane and the collective, and to sidestep the inevitable nihilism modernity facilitates.
This is not something the race question focusses upon overmuch. On the modern Occidental Right, there is a sort of “if it is white it is alright” attitude which permeates spheres of thought and discussion embroiled with race. I must inform the reader, however, that belonging to one racial group or another does not necessarily determine individual morality. A degenerate, morally weak, nasty, materialistic Polish man is less my friend than an upright, virtuous, traditionally-minded Filipino. In fact I would have much more in common with the latter and would have a much easier time understanding him and vice versa than I would the former. Hence my present status regarding a neighbour in contrast to a friend and fellow student of the esoteric. An anecdotal point, I know, but we must consider the relationship between ideal principles and real possibilities if we are to actually meet our synthesis.
To understand race, we must understand man. What is man? What dimensions does he hold? Traditionally, “race,” as many other words, had a three-dimensional character which designated more than some merely material construct; it in fact referred to being “of” a race, not “belonging to” one. Race was seen as an active sort of thing which was found manifest in the person, not the other way around, in their actions and intent. To be a Roman, for example, meant more than being born in first-century anno Domini Italy; it meant to uphold the Imperial ideal, to be of the Romaīoi:
The subjects of the empire are the “Romans,” no[t] … in an ethical or juridical sense, but in the sense of the superior dignity and chrism, since they live in the pax guaranteed by a law that is a reflection of the divine law. ~ Julius Evola
A people are defined by more than their mere biological characteristics. I as an Englishman share significant ancestry with a German, yet there are clear differences in our respective make-ups at higher levels. We are similar physical expressions of different destinies. To claim some “brotherhood” between us could only happen in our modern context with the looming threat of multiculturalism over the coming decades. Aside from this exceptional circumstance, however, what bond is there?
One’s conception of race, of what a man is in his essence, should therefore accommodate such differences. Thus we turn to everyone’s favourite Baron once again.
Julius Evola famously differentiated himself, as did other Traditionalists, from the biological determinism, which consumed much of the dialogue on race in the middle-twentieth century, with his notion of “spiritual race” explained fully in his work, Synthesis of the Doctrine of Race. In fact this consideration, which took into account race of the body, soul and spirit, won over the racial debate in Italy. As he stated in a French interview in the seventies:
It is obvious that, as any other conception, even that of race depends on the idea one has of the nature of man. A materialist idea is obviously projected in conceptions that are founded in materialistic assumptions and that are different depending on the basis we refer to. Therefore, I do not agree with the biological conception of the human being but rather a Traditional conception, in which a man is composed by spirit, soul and body, and this is why I approached the issue of race by all of these three categories:
· I formulated a theory of race of the body, which more or less corresponds to common anthropology.
· A theory of the race of the soul, which studies the typology, the habits, reactions, feelings, aspirations; all of this can a have a particular “style” that can be typical of some human groups.
· And finally there exists a race of the spirit which corresponds to the typical forms existent in the studies that refer to the spiritual domain, to life and death in general, the supernatural, et cetera.
If by race we mean to define what constitutes differentiated “flavours” of man, then, in my view, there is no better substitute than Evola’s racial triad. Here we can work-through not only the common view of race, but also its context, its consequences and its direction. Race once again becomes a three-dimensional word which implies more than simple biology.
Another very important thing to consider is the reality of caste, which, going by Evola’s racial triad, corresponds more to the race of the soul and spirit than to strict biology. An English warrior has more in common with a Filipino warrior than he does with a Polish worker, as has been noted. In Kali Yuga, caste is awry and there are no pure, by-the-blood brahmins or kshatriyas — everyone is technically a sudra; though one can occasionally glance the sun through the clouds, so to speak, and notice who leans in which direction.
Make no mistake, I know where my group-loyalty lies, and I am not suggesting some sort of “tolerance” of multiculturalism with the pretext of spirituality. What I am suggesting is that on the individual plane, on the level of the person, one cannot simply ignore anything beyond ancestry. Indeed it would be foolish to do so. In an ordered age there would not exist the bourgeois mentality, with its market-driven politics and disloyal sons; there would not exist the all-or-nothing individualism which pits the person against any guiding hands; and there would not exist the fetish for nothingness which not only tears apart the social order but also the inner order of the person.
Quality over quantity, folks, is all I am asking you to consider.
NOTE: For more on Evola’s racial triad, see Mark Citadel‘s recent piece at Social Matter.