The Rubicon of Revolution

It is time for the white nationalist movement in its various forms to stop calling ourselves “conservatives“.

We are fundamentally a right wing movement, but despite some philosophical capital being invested in the pro-traditionalist message, we must accept that traditional values and culture are no longer sacred institutions in western societies. The Rubicon was crossed when sodomy was legally equated with legitimate heterosexual marriage. Once our society codified this degeneracy it ceased to be counter-cultural and had become, in fact, the status quo. Indeed, every other cultural institution was surrendered long ago. So what exactly are we “conserving” at this point?

Let’s go over a list of American and European institutions (that matter) and determine which ones, if any, have retained their traditional values or seek to uphold such values.

1. Media
2. Educational Institutions
3. Military
4. Business
5. Science
6. Christianity

Since the six institutions I’ve listed are all (more or less) subordinate to the state, I won’t go into detail about how the state no longer exists as a traditional institution. After all, the dismantling of these institutions is, in fact, symptomatic of our rule of law being usurped by (((Marxists/Globalists))).

Also, we must define what the term “traditional values” means in a logical and consistent way. For the sake of discussion, we will define traditional values as those values that serve to protect, foster, and preserve the spiritual, social, and economic needs of the families, the communities, and the people from which those traditions are derived. By this definition, our Eurocentric institutions were derived from white people and are meant to serve white people. They are meant to serve the interests of our people’s children – today, tomorrow, and for their posterity. If our institutions fail at this, they are no longer worthy of conservation. In fact, they are institutions to be revolted against, dismantled, and replaced.

Perhaps the most obviously subverted institution is the mass media or MSM. Our newspaper, television, film, music, and other entertainment industries are mechanisms of leftist propaganda. Sometimes the indoctrination is subtle. Sometimes, not so much. And sometimes, such as is the case with Fox News Network, the message is just palatable enough for those who think of themselves as “conservative” that they are subdued and lulled into a sense of complacency. One thing is clear; in western societies there are no media platforms granted to right wing philosophy or activism. This is true even in the United States where “free speech” is constitutionally protected. While not explicitly criminal under the law, most true right wing concerns are labeled as “hate speech” and disallowed by the globalist corporate establishment that owns the MSM. (There is plenty of evidence of Jewish nepotism and tribalism in the media as evidenced by who owns and works for these conglomerates.) But we must come to terms with the fact that leftists within our own tribe are willing enablers and subverters as well.

If a successful revolution is to be undertaken, the dismantlement and retaking of media institutions must be the first priority. It is no coincidence that the nationalist consciousness has been awakened in recent years by the proliferation of social and alternative media on the internet. The right to communicate freely through that medium must be protected at all costs.

Much has been written about leftist subversion of Academia. Clearly, cultural Marxists such as (((Max Horkheimer))) and (((Theodor Adorno))) in the post-war era were successful in instigating a counter-cultural revolution that infiltrated our educational institutions. While they focused their efforts on college campuses, the product of their efforts has carried on through subsequent generations in our primary and secondary public schools. Any parent with a school aged child in the “current year” can attest that subtle subversive ideas are forced on our children – even in the most homogeneous white middle class school districts. Feminism, multiculturalism, hyper-individualism and sexual liberalism: these values are taught, even if indirectly and unwittingly, by the well meaning, mostly white, middle class, suburbanite, and more often than not, Christian, women of our society.

Image result for Liberal Academia

The teaching profession, as it applies to the formative years of our children’s lives, attracts the nurturing instincts of women. This is only natural in a homogeneous and high trust society, but it is catastrophic in liberal democratic societies that have adopted multiculturalism. Young boys and girls have a frightfully anemic level of exposure to men outside of their immediate family. Masculine virtues are not adequately nurtured among young boys (through mentoring and example) and young girls are woefully lacking in male figures to hold in esteem. Yet, it is in their nature to seek out heroes and, in their stead, the media creates pop cultural surrogates to fill the vacuum. This is a toxic condition that our academic and media institutions have created, be it concerted or not. The halls of academia must be retaken, again at all costs.

One might be fooled into believing that our military is a sacred institution that is impervious to subversion. In a sense, it is the last bastion of masculine honor and virtue, but in that way it serves as a useful tool of subversion, instead of a barrier against it. Foolhardy men who call themselves “patriots” sign up for military service, but they know not who they really serve. Western militaries are no longer defenders of people or conquerors of lands. They are enforcers of globalist initiatives designed to deracinate all peoples, including the people they purportedly serve. For the sake of discussion we can include all agencies of domestic law enforcement as well. A cycle of destabilization of 3rd world dissenters to the globalist schemes, a crisis created, hostile refugees, migrations into western lands, and domestic enforcement of peaceable assimilation and acceptance of the “new world order.”

Again, like our primary and secondary educators, I do not believe that most of our military personnel are willingly participating in the machinery of their own displacement. They are simply employees of the state and their economic interests dictate subservience to the state. They, in much the same way as educators, have been convinced of the virtue of their work. Indeed, they would willingly guard the gates of Hell if they could be convinced that Hell was, in fact, Heaven and if the pay was good enough. Simply put, in a high trust society of common interests and common goals, a strong, patriotic military is among the most noble of institutions. But in a multicultural capitalist oligarchy overseeing a deracinated society of interchangeable economic units, instead of a nation of homogeneous people, the military is a tool of destruction and must be revolted against and made subordinate to nationalists at all costs.

Business. Free markets, free trade, consumerism, capitalism, corporatism. It is difficult to criticize these institutions. Capitalism has been overwhelmingly successful at maintaining a high standard of living for westerners. The counter-intuitiveness of this problem is difficult to resolve in even the most analytical of minds. Yet, prosperity has become our Achilles heel. It is the veil behind which our subversion is easily carried out. If quality of life were only measured by how much food is in the refrigerator and the number of consumer gadgets one possesses, then certainly western society could be seen as a utopia. I’m afraid, sadly, that this is precisely the yardstick by which people measure their happiness and with little regard for other concerns.

Image result for Corporations for LGBT Pride Month
Cookies your children eat.

Western society is a soulless culture of meaningless economic transactions. Even our love lives have been reduced to what amounts to a produce or meat market. Relationships are disposable. Divorce rates are obscene. Dating has become an exercise in checklist validation. Look at online dating profiles. They more closely resemble an advertisement for a used car with a list of “standard features and accessories” for the “buyer” to compare and consider than they do a genuine appeal at finding companionship. It’s quite disgusting, really. It has become clear that while no society can function without cooperative economic institutions, our capitalist system has become decadent, bloated, and obscene, and must be retooled to serve our people and families, instead of the globalist oligarchy that has alienated and forsaken us.

Science was never meant to be an institution, but it has certainly become one. Science is supposed to simply be a method by which empirical evidence is obtained, studied, and conclusions are drawn, an ongoing process by which conclusions can be revised or abandoned based on new empirical evidence. There is no morality to science and rarely should conclusions be categorized as “facts” or “truth”. The job of science is not to become a moral authority or hold political power. Its purpose is singular. To provide useful and objective data by which conclusions can be drawn and decisions made – sometimes by those who hold the power and authority in society. That is a necessary but extremely dangerous evil. For in our time, power is held by globalists, and science has been politicized to serve their agenda.

Science has never been untainted by human nature. However, when western society was homogeneous, our institutions had little motivation to bend or manipulate science, and scientists were by-an-large free to pursue their inquiries without bias or interference. Great progress was made, particularly in the 19th century, which set the foundation for the engineering marvels of the 20th century. The 21st century has seen science, globalism, and capitalism merge into one symbiotic system that is driven by political correctness and profit margins, instead of pure non-ideological pursuits. Science must be liberated, and this can only occur through a radical revolution.

(Note: science as an empirical method transcends cultures, nations, and peoples and can, and should, serve all of humanity. Nationalism is an ideology just as globalism. Science should be indifferent to political bias. If this were in practice the case, the sciences of IQ, race, gender, sexuality, and genetics would not be swept under the rug and would be open to rigorous debate and discussion. Instead, because multiculturalism is the guiding principle of western society, all factual discussion of such topics is labeled as “hate speech”).

Discussion of religion in the context of subverted institutions is bound to cause conflict, even within a movement such as ours. I will not go deeply into criticisms of Christianity here. I myself have walked away from the religion of my upbringing because I feel that it has failed my people. Outside of science, the other four institutions that I have discussed, and many other institutions that a long tome could be written about, were supposed to be nurtured, guided, and at least on a spiritual level, led by our common religious traditions. In my opinion, it was a severe error of history that our forefathers sought to separate religion from government. It was a severe error of history that our religious institutions did not assert themselves to prevent their ultimate subversion. Honestly however, I’m not sure that this flaw isn’t inherent in the Christian religion. It is a religion of altruism and universalism, and those weaknesses are in part responsible for the multicultural mess we are in.

Image result for Churches for LGBT Pride Month
A dying church.

Believe me, my heart and mind are conflicted at their core on the current crisis we face and the role that our religious institutions played in creating it. One thing is certain, however. A religion that fails at defending its own core tenants in the face of modernity needs to be evaluated and overhauled by men of integrity. And, if the fatal flaws which undermine it can be fixed, then perhaps Christianity has a future beyond the coming revolution. I’m hopeful, but on a personal note, I’m prepared to move forward with radical change, with or without Christianity.

From the outset of this entry, I stated that we, as white and southern nationalists, and indeed Eurocentric nationalists of all stripes, must abandon the idea that we are attempting to “conserve” our institutions. I’m reminded of great ancient cities such as Troy that was excavated in Turkey by the German father of archaeology, Heinrich Schliemann, in the 1870’s. Many distinct layers of Troy were excavated, each one built upon the ruins of the other. The Trojans did not conserve their rubble when their citadel was destroyed. They simple built upon it anew. We must face the reality that western civilization is already compromised beyond repair. Our future is revolution and our tactics must be radical if we are to succeed. The Left won the culture war because it was dangerous and bold, not conservative and humble (this is why hardly anyone reads the tepid and milquetoast National Review).

There are fragments of our institutions that can be salvaged. We must not allow our history to be forgotten, or worse, rewritten by our enemies. Enough damage has already been done in that regard. We must have a vision for the future. Solutions. Answers. We must be prepared to do this at all costs. At this point, it isn’t just our civilization that we are fighting for. It is the very existence of our people.

We have just begun to fight. Hail Victory.

 

 

 

 

15 thoughts on “The Rubicon of Revolution

  1. A well written piece Spencer.
    I thought your observations on the military was very well said. “Foolhardy men who call themselves “patriots” sign up for military service, but they know not who they really serve. Western militaries are no longer defenders of people or conquerors of lands. They are enforcers of globalist initiatives designed to deracinate all peoples, including the people they purportedly serve”. I agree. If only young white men would wake up to who they are serving!
    I have a more optimistic view on Christianity than you do, as I hold that at least a small part will persevere on without accepting liberalism, sexual perversion, or Neo-Babelism. But that is currently a small number, and they are often not in fellowship with a corporate church.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I very well written article. I agree with all points except Christianity. It is not Christianity that failed us, it is we who have failed it. The Bible, for a Christian, is God’s infallible word. In the Bible, God not only encourages nationalism, tribalism, and racial purity, but often commands it. Miscegenation and homosexuality have always been forbidden. True, altruism, was part of the teachings of Christ in the New Testament, but it was reserved only for those deserving of charity and compassion. It was not an “umbrella of tolerance” for all the wicked actions and thoughts of mankind.

    For generations, both in the North and South, Preachers gave fire and brimstone, Heaven and Hell, Bible-based sermons from the pulpit. Immorality, idolatry, worldliness, and Godlessness was not tolerated. These actions were often punishable, not only in God’s eyes, but within secular law, as well.

    Born-again believers of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries knew explicitly what God expected of them because they were taught by the Church what God, through the Bible, commanded to be right and wrong. There was no such things as inclusiveness, racism, or political correctness.

    It is the modern man of the 20th and 21st centuries who has twisted the Bible to suit his perverse, wicked, globalist world view. However, Christianity will continue to be diminished in modern society until the Church stops conforming to the values of modern man, and resumes preaching the word of God.

    Like

  3. Guys I’m not against Christians.
    The problem isn’t that I don’t like Christians. The problem is that Christians don’t like doubters or no /believers, and in fact the entire history of the Churh shows that Christian identity trumps ethnic, racial, or other cultural identity. I’ve loved my entire life being a person who was raised Christian and self identifies as a Christian in the cultural sense, despite not going to church regularly. Admitting that I don’t attend church to most Christians will more quickly have me looked down upon and ostracized from the churchian “clique” than being a drug dealing negro. I hate to say it, but in a sense you guys are proving a point in a round about way by knee-jerk defense of Christianity. I can criticize or point out flaws in just about everything other the son outside the Good Book: having said that, you guys as white identitarians at least sort of understand this concern and don’t go full out in arguments. The problem is when you step outside the 1-2% of this country that is awake in the JQ and multicuralism. Step outside of our circles into the normie narrative, and their Christian identitarianism is sooo absolute and be-all to their existence that nothing you or I could ever say will convince them otherwise. Knowing this as I do, and I **know it, I cannot agree that Christianity itself isn’t fundamentally flawed to prevent itself from being a tool for its **own destruction as well as the white race. Christianity is anything it wants to be for anyone who wants it. It’s universalistic. It allows for everyone to be children of God and COMPELS the believer to take Christianity and push it into non-believer cultures. Most of the earliest new world settlers were here, bible in hand, Ro civilize the heathens instead of vanquish them. The purpose of our wars of conquest was not to simply take land, it was also to civilize the vanquished and make them “one of us” so to speak. Am I the only one who realizes that American exceptionalism and the push to globalize everyone is simply an extension of “spreading the good news”?
    I love Christians. I consider Christianity to be part of white identity and part of what I stand to protect. But to ignore the flaws that got us into this situation, to downplay them or avoid them in our rhetoric is to set ourselves up for the same problems and failures sooner or later. That’s my point.

    Like

  4. Let me offer a suggestion as to the fundamental flaw of Christianity:

    You can only use “because God Says So” as a tool for subordinating people to something for so long. Look at the US constitution. It was written only about 250 years ago instead of 2-3000 years ago, and it’s already losing its moral authority and falling apart. In a sense, progress of some sorts and the consequences of modernity have always been inevitable. The Bible as a document at the very least has to be able to adapt to that fact and stay relevant by maintaining its doctrines and at the same time having the flexibility to adapt to progress.

    For instance, I believe that the Bible doesn’t contradict the theory of evolution. I can rationalize that evolution is the mechanism by which God fashioned man. But for 100 years, those same fire and brimstone preachers stood in front of schools that were teaching about evolution, bible in hand, claiming that dinosaur fossils were tricks put in the ground by Satan, or that they weren’t millions of years old and that they lived in the garden of eden with Adam and Eve. All kinds of nonsense that I do believe had good intentions behind it, because they understood the consequences of a godless society, but nonsense that nonetheless was catastrophically ignorant, counter-intellectual, and gave truly wicked people the power to deligitimize Christianity. Nothing in the Bible could stop that from happening. Leftists have ALWAYS weaponized Christianity against itself…many unwittingly. Again, my criticism is based on facts and evidence (ie here’ we are, this is what happened, this is why we are here in a crisis). I can’t cling to an idealism about Christianity being perfect when it hasn’t proven itself to be perfect enough to defend against its own demise.

    Like

  5. I hope that my replies to this concern aren’t overly obsessive, but I do think this kind of thing needs to be intellectually discussed free of our religious biases and prejudices. I say this because if I had never been able to question my own religious biases, I would have never become a white nationalist or identitarian, and in fact, I’d probably be a Bernie Bro social justice warrior.

    This is a made up story, kind of a joke that I thought of on the fly that I think makes my point fairly well:

    People have always said that the North beat the South in the civil war because it had more bullets. In other words, the industrial might of the North was too much for the South to match and our ammunition was inferior and in shorter supply.

    Southerners have always been more devout Christians than Northerners. I think most people agree with that. Wouldn’t it be an ironic twist of fate that the South failed to match the North in armament and ammunition production because Southerners observed the Sabbath and kept it holy by not working that day, while the North pumped out weapons and ammo 7 days a week? I’m not making that statement as a factual claim. It’s a thought experiment that I think shows how literal religious unwavering dedication to faith, even facing annhilation by not bending, is not in any way commendable or honorable. Yet, that’s precisely why we are having this discussion, because strict reverence to faith is a tenant of Christianity and you’ll be hard pressed to find many who would say otherwise.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. For whatever it is worth, and with all due respect – we, Traditional Southerners, can’t stop calling ourselves, ‘Conservatives’, anymore than we could stop calling ourselves ‘Christians’.

    Just because someone, or groups of the same, has been endeavouring to hijack the titles that aptly and honestlydescribe our values and motivations, does not mean we are to abandon them.

    Again, with all due respect – a person such as myself, is the very notion of ‘A Conservative’, for my every political motion is guided at preserving not only the traditional culture and heritage of my country, North Carolina, but, it’s version of The Southern White Race.

    I am a conservative – in the most time-honoured sense of the word, and I won’t give it up to New England Yankees who seek to take everything from us, even every semantick we use.

    No more retreat.

    Let the fight be engaged, over every single issue, for it all must be contended : until those would would subjugate us, grow tired of their energy, time, and blood flowing vainly into the gutters on the streets.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I understand your position but words have meaning. They have power. They also carry weaknesses and burdens.

      To be “consevative” is to go to your grave with a tombstone that reads, “Here lies Mr Conserve Ative, may he Rest In Peace. He carried his beliefs with dignity and was always a gentleman and a scholar. He upheld every virtue he held dear right up until his dying breath, when Tyrone the Town Nigger stabbed him with a 12 inch knife and all Mr Conserve Ative had to defend himself with was his trusty Bible and his polite manner. His last words were, “excuse me Tyrone, I do apologize, but next time would you please mind stabbing me in the heart? I’m afraid you got me in the bladder and this will be a rather painful slow death. Ok then carry on”

      I’m very passionate about this movement and we have a lot of loyal readers who voice agreement with most of what we say, but I’m afraid scant few have the fortitude to question their own biases and the failures in our tactics that left us in this mess, and will die with their principles and nothing else. I shall not go that way. But thanks for reading and commenting.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Spencer, Thank you for your reply.

        I have questioned my biases, without a doubt, and I will continue to. If this were not so, then I would still be waving Old Glory, and worshipping at the altar of FDR and JFK, which is exactly what my time in history, and my Southern Society, in Raleigh N.C. many years ago, taught me to do.

        No, Sir. It was perhaps in 2005 I said to a friend, on a walk through the woods, ‘this ‘union’ is not a success’.

        And, as I continued on my painful avenue of evaluation, I eventually happened upon Michael Cushman interviewing Dr. Hill, and knew that I had found home.

        Now, concerning, ‘failures in our tacticks’, I would say this : I am a ‘Conservative’, because I seek to ‘conserve Dixie.’

        I am not, however, a part of ‘The Conservative movement of the U.S. and have never been. To be clear, I have commonalities with them, but, in the end, I am not with them anymore than they are with me, because what they seek to ‘conserve’ is The Yankee Empire, something which anathema to all my would-be ‘conservations’.

        Also, with regards to ‘our tacticks which have failed’, they have not been ‘my tacticks’, nor yours, for that matter.

        So, I really don’t think your reply applies to me, at all, though, i appreciate that you took the time to write it.

        All the best from Nowheresville, Northeastern North Carolina…

        Liked by 2 people

      • We are basically on the same page.
        In other words, you’re a REBEL, through and through, and I don’t think the words conservative and rebel are particularly equatable.
        I do understand though. If this was 1950, everything we stand for would be conservative. At least then, there was a modicum of decent Americanism and remnants of Dixie culture worth conserving. I’m just writing articles such as this to stay true to my earlier article Entitled “Rhetorical Rehabilitation of the Rebel Spirit”, which was more or less the same message as this article. Words are powerful. Effective use of language is powerful, and has a psychological effect on both our enemies and ourselves. Disassociating ourselves with Republicans and realizing that we are never going to accomplish our goals without revolution is a part of that equation.

        Liked by 2 people

    • @SPENCER…

      ‘We are basically on the same page. In other words, you’re a REBEL, through and through, and I don’t think the words conservative and rebel are particularly equatable.
      I do understand though. If this was 1950, everything we stand for would be conservative. At least then, there was a modicum of decent Americanism and remnants of Dixie culture worth conserving. I’m just writing articles such as this to stay true to my earlier article Entitled “Rhetorical Rehabilitation of the Rebel Spirit”, which was more or less the same message as this article. Words are powerful. Effective use of language is powerful, and has a psychological effect on both our enemies and ourselves. Disassociating ourselves with Republicans and realizing that we are never going to accomplish our goals without revolution is a part of that equation. ‘

      //////////////////////////////////////////////////////

      Yes, Sir, we are two who would stand shoulder to shoulder, come what may.

      That said, being individuals, we think in different lights and varied semanticks.
      In your case, you cannot see a reconciliation between the terms ‘conservative’ & ‘Rebel’. In my case, I do. I AM a Rebel, because I AM a Conservative, and, again, what I seek to conserve is The Southern White Race, right here in the swamps of Nowheresville, Northeastern North Carolina.

      I agree : Words ARE powerful, and DISASSOCIATION, is important.

      Now, being long into middle age, and approaching my twilight years, I am going to say something to you which, if you are not as old as I am, may hit you by surprise.

      When I was a kid, our daddies and granddaddies chose to submit to the tyrannical usurpations of Southern State Sovereignty and NOT raise the Confederate flag.
      They prioritized the securing of their ranch houses, furniture within, and social
      security payments, to that of our Dixie.

      Yet, to the new laws of integration and godless schools, they chose to withdraw to newly founded private schools; and from the spectre of niggers all over the place, those who were downtown moved out to the suburbs.

      After those disassociations, we then gradually withdrew from party (The Democrat Party – The White Southern Man’s Working Party) and fled to the Party of Lincoln.

      Now we are contemplating flight from the Southern Baptist Denomination, as well as other Southern Christian bulwarks.

      In light of all that, my reaction is thus : it’s time to stop running, time to stop equivocating; time to stop ‘disassociating’ and fight where we stand.

      If that means bloodshed, then so be it. Time to stop running off like a bunch of dogs which, having had their bluff called, are no longer willing to face the intruder(s).

      So, no, I ain’t ‘disassociating’ myself from one dadburn more thing.That may not be you, but, ’tis I.

      No more Appomattox for this boy.

      All the best to you and yours!

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Spencer, I apologize to you for any perceived accusation. Your articles are what I first read here at Identity Dixie, and held my attention enough to keep me coming back. That is not easy to do because I bore very quickly.

    That being said, my reply earlier was not directed at you personally, but rather a statement on today’s Christianity itself. I am the last person to criticize anyone for belief or non-belief. I do not regularly attend a church either, and I generally find them to be watered down do-good clubs.

    I struggle with faith and trust in anything these days because I feel that we have been lied to by everyone, intentionally or not, our entire lives. Unfortunately, it took me until I was 43 years old ( I am 46 now) to really start questioning everything I have been taught.

    Just as a side note, I am finding through the course of three years of study, that I look to generations long past for what I desire the future to be for my pre-teen child.

    Liked by 2 people

    • I appreciate the comments and the continued support of our articles! I didn’t take any comments personally and likewise my reply wasn’t personal. Our Christian heritage is among our most precious institutions, tattered and besmirched as it currently is, and it’s a topic that brings out emotion. I just wanted to be as clear as humanly possible that I’m not an uppity atheist who obsesses over some twisted hatred of Christianity. I’m not a sexual degenerate who hates Christianity because it has been “mean” to sexual degenerates in the past. My criticism comes from a far more right-wing perspective than that. Us westerners like to criticize Muslims for blowing themselves up because of their religion, but are we any less shitty for being the exact opposite by being so lacking in dedication to our people and our faith that we would literally never offer up our lives for what we consider a greater good? My Civil War ancestors died defending blood and soil while most among our generations can’t even be bothered with speaking up for the white race on social media.

      I think that’s basically where I was going with my replies. If Christianity is part of what holds white people back from defending their self interests, perhaps it is time to put it on the back shelf until the dirty business of survival is done. Thanks again for reading and comments!

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s