A common thread across Western intellectual thought, no matter where one finds themselves looking on the political or philosophical spectrum, is to establish an abstract imaginary idealization of some desired end state one would like to work towards and then work backwards from this ideal state taking note of what’s feasible and what’s not. At some point, whether this exercise is done alone or in a group, a salient starting point is found and it’s then that one goes about trying to take this hypothetical exercise and make it actual in reverse order. We do this on the alt right, Jews do this when they try and figure out the best way to undermine White society, and leftists do this whenever they talk about anything. What separates the alt right from everyone else is two-fold: our ideas are extremely ambitious and radical and our idealization don’t generally fall so far outside the bounds of practicality they resemble something of a leftist utopia. Certainly, many of our dreams, wants, and end-desires regarding our nation seem utopian but this is only because within our specific Western context things are simply so far gone. Japan and Israel stand out as examples of ethnic nation-states where the former uses immigration to limit their demographic displacement and the latter have it codified into their actual legal system. There are many more, I’m sure, but these two stand out most readily.
As a White Nationalists and a Fascist – both culturally and philosophically – when I think of the three most important areas we would need to attack head on if we had the ability I would put our educational system, legal system, and demographics up at the top. I would put demographics first but make this a first principle on the condition that our education and legal system stand as the pillars which provide the solid support for our specific demographic aims. To that end, in the first one hundred days of a Trump presidency, what follows below is what I would recommend to Trump personally if I were presented with the question as to what I would do to right this rapidly imploding country so that when the rubble settles reconstruction could begin immediately and efficiently.
It should be transparent at this point to anyone who’s in this movement and has been for some time that the most effective weapon used against us has been our educational infrastructure. The ways in which this weapon has been wielded are diverse, complex, and, at times, not obviously clear but it can be said of education that what it has been weaponized into is a cultural death ray aimed right at our historical, philosophical, scientific, and legal systems. The mandate was clear: if it had any trace of European thought, or explicitly favored Whites, kill it by inverting the values these systems upheld. European history is now a series of courses indoctrinating Whites into thinking their legacy has been one of savage barbarism against helpless noble non-Whites/Europeans. Science is a tool of Western privilege and obscures the multi-faceted reality of gravity or fluid dynamics where studies of fluid dynamics is really just a Freudian psycho-sexual obsession with female menstrual blood and gravity is simply the European imposing it’s need to oppress onto the rest of the world. Logic is sexist and misogynistic because it indoctrinates the feminist inside all Women trying to get out into thinking the principle of explosion (if one assumes both ‘P’ and ‘not-P’ then it follows that women ought to vote!) is an actual fact of the natural world and denies women their ability to think illogically. All philosophy is a footnote to Plato but since Plato was a Greek and Greeks were all Nazis all Western philosophy is a footnote to Nazism. Western systems of law only serve to oppress women and blacks and justify the holocaust against Jews so that needs to go too.
Many times, when thinking things through as thought experiments, one will hear the phrase ‘follow it to its necessary conclusions’. This is meant to be a push for one doing a thought experiment to see the undesirable or incoherent implications of a theory or line of argument one’s currently considering. It’s meant to keep bad things from ever becoming reality. Sadly, we are witnessing a very bad thing – our educational system freed from patriarchal rule and embedded with the assumption that our traditional systems of thought were the best systems for us – unfolding and we’re letting it follow through to its necessary conclusion. It is an educational system rife with logical contradictions and false beliefs about the nature of the world and it will explode soon enough.
Naturally, the question is asked as to what we can do about it? First, women need to be completely removed from this system. Classrooms, for now, need to be segregated along the biological sexes (hint: there’s only two). Physical education would be a mandatory requirement for every student from kindergarten all the way up to and including their senior year in high school. Basic arithmetic, Latin and English, predicate logic, basic biology and physics, and classical literature would be taught starting in kindergarten and by their first year of middle school all children would be required to take an evaluative test gauging their progress in these areas. Anyone who falls below a 75% would be given another opportunity to take the exam after an intensive year-long mandatory re-education course. Those who fail this second exam would be required to take a state administered IQ test. Those who are deemed to be intellectually stunted would be taken in as a ward of the state and trained in manual labor for when they turn eighteen and put to work doing the tasks and duties which fit their class. Those who score the evaluation at 75% or above would then be placed into a tiered program ranging from slow to accelerated with those in the slow and intermediate programs being afforded the opportunity to advance into the next tier program should they prove able.
From middle school through high school an intensive program of physical and scholastic curricula would prepare students for the challenges of a modern world. Grades 6 through 8 would see students begin their study in advanced Latin, basic Greek, algebra I/II and linear algebra, modal and Boolean logic, beginning level chemistry, advanced biology, and probability theory. Every student would be required to choose a classical instrument and would thus begin learning both music theory and how to play their specific instrument – saxophones would be strictly prohibited. Courses in ancient military strategy for the young men would be mandatory as well as beginning courses in Greek philosophy starting with the pre-Socratics and Pythagoras. Intensive courses in Homer through Shakespeare would begin and by the end of grade 8 students would have been required to have chosen two famous works of literature from either antiquity or classical Europe and must be able to recite them verbatim.
A second evaluative exam would be administered at the end of each grade to determine student’s progress and take the appropriate action. This would continue up to and including grade 11.
Starting at grade 9 students would be required to begin study in advanced physics, and begin studying engineering, depending on their scores in the biological sciences advanced courses in biology can be pursued, fuzzy logic and Bayesian probability would begin, a ‘senior’ project where students would be coached and mentored in composing their own score of music would begin, introduction into network systems and computer languages would begin, advanced Greek and a European language of their choice would be mandatory, physical training for military service would begin for young men, education into the role of women in society as the gatekeepers of our race would begin, Roman and medieval philosophy up to Bacon would be mandatory, and a thirty page thesis (topic of choice with advisor oversight) written entirely in Latin and defended in spoken Latin would begin. By the time graduation from grade twelve occurred young men and women should be proficient and thoroughly educated in Latin, Greek, Physics, Literature, Biology, Chemistry, Music theory, Philosophy, computer science and network security, have an intermediate understanding and use of a European language, men would have completed a successful 25 mile forced march with a certain weight in under 9 hours along with a standard Marine/Army APFT, and only the top 1/100th percent of women would be eligible for advanced collegiate study.
As you can see this sort of educational system is highly advanced, rigorous, and the standard is set extremely high. This is an idealization but it serves to give us some insight into where we could go within the first hundred days of a Trump presidency as to what would need to be stricken from the educational system to implement such a rigorous and aggressively ambitious educational infrastructure. Keep in mind that this is only a rough draft of a blueprint. I’m sure there are things I’ve overlooked but I think this basic system is good for a starting point. The most crucial aspect of this blueprint, which I’ve omitted until now, is that the power to plan, create, implement, and enforce this system would rest solely within the authority and boundaries of municipal governments. The only federal oversight here would be to ensure the process was moving along nicely. The state would be wholly abdicated from this procedure. In fact, if it were me I would dissolve state governments entirely and invest power within local municipal governments to do as they please under some specific conditions such as the educational ones laid out above. One other area of study I’ve left out on purpose was history. This was intentional and I did so because everyone on the alt right is widely in agreement that any history education ought to be grounded in study from the Greeks to the Victorian era with further historical education highlight the Jewish influence and subversion of modern European governments and the cultural and classical Marxist influence from the 1850’s onward.
When it comes to cultural and political weapons the legal system is a close second and sometimes tied with the educational system. Judgments as to which holds over the other depends on the individual and the context of analysis. However, it is my general opinion that legal systems are generally ineffective if the culture (affected by the educational system which produced it) is extremely hostile to those decisions. After all, legal systems of code are merely the codified and established tacitly understood cultural and moral systems which precede them. When we make something explicit we make a statement to others both internal and external that those things we codify are among the most important and sacred cultural and moral systems we value. Such statements reinforce their authority and importance to a legacy we wish to pass on to our posterity so that they may be the wardens of what we bestow upon them and one day them to theirs.
To that end, there are a few exceptions to this general rule I laid out above. The most prominent one I am reminded of is a specific Supreme Court case – Griswold v. Connecticut [381 U.S. 479 (1965)]. Robert Bork has some excellent analysis of this specific case which I’ll quote below – it’s a little long, but I assure you well worth the read:
“Connecticut had an ancient statue making it criminal to use contraceptives. The state also had a general accessory statute allowing the punishment of any person who aided another in committing an offense. On its face, the statue criminalizing the use of contraceptives made no distinction between married couples and others. But the Statue also had never been enforced against anyone who used contraceptives… Indeed, some Yale law professors had gotten the statue all the way to the Supreme Court a few years previously, and the Court had refused to decide it precisely because there was no showing that the law was ever enforced. The professors had some difficulty arranging a test case but finally managed to have two doctors who gave birth control information fined $100 apiece as accessories.”
“There is a problem with laws like these. They are kept in the codebooks as precatory statements, affirmations of a moral principle. It is quite arguable that this is an improper use of law, that statues should not be on the books if no one intends to enforce them… But these were not the issues in Griswold. Indeed, getting off on such grounds was the last thing the defendants and their lawyers wanted… Griswold is more plausibly viewed as an attempt to enlist the Court on one side of one issue in a cultural struggle… The case against the law was worked up by members of the Yale law school faculty and was supported by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., the Catholic Council on Civil Liberties, and the American Civil Liberties Union… The upshot was a new constitutional doctrine perfectly suited, and later used, to enlist the Court on the side of moral relativism in sexual matters…The creation of a new device for judicial power to remake the Constitution was the point.”
The claimed issue before the court regarding Griswold v. Connecticut? Privacy.
Any amount of time spent reading amicus briefs, legal theory, or debates about what it is that law constitutes is something I highly recommend. If you want to know what law is study the culture which produces the legal text. If you want to know a specific culture and evaluate its worth, study its system of laws. I cannot drive this point home enough. As much as legal positivists would have you believe and insist against this, culture and law are inextricably linked and study of one cannot ignore, and certainly cannot fail to consider, the other. Not surprisingly, most prevailing legal theory in the last 200 years, and especially the last 60 to 80 years has been legal theory produced by Jews. In a landmark debate between Lon Fuller and H.L.A. Hart, Hart demanded a system of laws is legally binding simply by the fact that they are produced by men and this is what makes laws, law. The motive behind his reasoning? He wanted to be able to say the Nuremburg laws were directly responsible for producing the Holocaust. Fuller argued against the holocaust specifically, but bad laws generally, by saying what makes them bad laws is that they violate some natural law i.e. they’re morally defunct. Fuller disputed the legitimacy of the holocaust on the basis that it was immoral. Hart disputed the holocaust on the basis that it was legal, produced by Germans, and therefore bad law (prevailing positions on the holocaust within the alt right aside).
The point of all this is to make it expressly clear that our legal system is also a weapon used against us – no profound insight there. However, given the opportunity, I would recommend a total stripping of legal power from both the federal and state courts. This would have massive implications but the main purpose would be to cause a soft-balkanization of the United States via legal means. Removing the power of the federal and state courts through executive mandate and seating all legal power and authority within the municipal governments across the country would force a soft-migration of Whites to those municipal precincts with the now-granted power to reform their legal code and do so in a way amenable to Whites. This would have to be done concurrently with another executive order which struck down Article IV section 4 of the U.S. Constitution which requires State governments be guaranteed a republican government. Removing this limitation on State governments, and de facto reducing State governments to a mere platitude, municipal governments would be free to modify their charters, legal codes, and regulations per their own immediate community standards. As such, it would be much easier for those of us in the alt right to move into positions of municipal influence and start crafting our own system of rule which cohered with our specific ideology. Certainly, we would have to convince many in our communities to adopt these positions but with the current state of affairs, such that they are, I have a hard time believing this would be a tough sell. Obviously, we would avoid areas like Jew York City and Commiefornia.
Again, this is a radical and ambitious goal but stating it clearly allows us the ability to look objectively at the current state of our government and political system to remove roadblocks which exist now to achieve this ambitious goal later down the road. The issue which remains is demographics. How would what I’ve presented above help assuage current demographic trends eventually reversing the demographic decline of Whites in the ‘United’ States? The outline I sketched of a possible educational system should be clear enough how that would affect demographics – we would create a system which produced new generations of children not hostile to their own future and that of their children. The legal system, however, would make it statutorily possible to limit individual hostile demographic and ethnic groups from specific communities thereby creating green zones for Whites and European descendants in America. This would be a step towards reconstructing the once lively ‘church’ community where many traditional towns centered largely around the town church. Though religion is in decline currently there is no reason we cannot try to emulate this church community structure or even reboot some sort of spiritual culture in the now-empowered municipalities.
These are the three issues I see as the most pressing which need to be addressed. Demographic solutions can be motivated through legal and educational initiatives which, at first, stop, and then reverse, the demographic suicide of our race in America. Many on the alt right have observed the same phenomena I have; that the educational and legal system has been used to destroy the cultural and historical legacy of Whites in America. Many advocate a wholesale destruction of these insituti0ns. Indeed, up until recently, I shared that opinion. But why destroy something if it works? It’s just that right now these systems are working against us instead of their traditional function which worked for us. What we can take away from this reflection is that where our ancestors failed was in not explicitly codifying these principles into our government and our system of laws.