(the most esoteric possible explanation for) why white nationalism fails.
America isn't Germany or Russia: it's Ancient Egypt.
White people around the world are disturbed, perturbed, and just straight-up turbed about the fact that whites are becoming a minority in their own countries. African countries remain majority black; Asian countries remain majority Asian; but for some reason, whites are expected to tolerate their own replacement.
This process isnât organic or natural. White replacement isnât a product of low fertility. Rich Asian countries like Japan, China, and Korea have low birth rates, but they donât allow infinite Somalis into their country - - nor do they subsidize those Somalis with refugee programs.
Immigration isnât the problem either. Gulf Arab states allow in a large percentage of guest workers into their countries, but these guest workers are guests. They have visas which expire. They do not get to retire, they do not get to vote, they do not get to build houses and own property and raise families. When they hit 65 and canât work anymore, they are kicked out of the country.
The reason for white demographic decline isnât biological, sexual, or economic. Mass non-white immigration is a deliberate policy of white replacement, morally justified by the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust, slavery, colonialism, and even the actions of Israel.
At the root of these moral justifications is a suspicion of and competition with the white warrior class on the part of a white priest class.
Among whites, the following professions are all right-leaning: cops, firefighters, soldiers, blue-collar factory workers, and MMA fighters. These professions are male dominated and involve some level of physical hardship or risk.
In Marxism, classes are divided up according to the ownership of the means of production. Marxism claims that society is divided into two parts: the haves, and the have-nots; the bourgeoisie, and the proletariat. To the extent that Marxism gets any more detailed than this, it is to describe various levels of intensity. The poorest of the proletariat are lumpenproles; the poorest bourgeois are petit bourgeois; the richest bourgeois are oligarchs.
The problem with this binary between the powerless and the powerful is that it fails to distinguish between types, manners, and methods of power.
There are three paths to power: money, military, and media. The first two are self-explanatory, while media power is deeper. In pre-modern times, media was synonymous with religion. It is only in modernity that media has secularized and separated itself from religion, and assumed various forms.
Ideologies, moralities, political theories, sub-cultures, and fandoms are all the result of media power. The popularity of Marxism, Freudianism, and Boasian anthropology are all products of media power. Media refers to any form of communication, including oral communication, print media, television, and the internet.
When I write Substack essays, and you like, comment, or re-stack, that represents a modicum of media power, in the same way that a middle class American has a modicum of money power, and a gun-owner has a modicum of military power.
history of media power
5,000 years ago, media power was supreme. Neolithic states operated as absolute theocracies, slave societies, with a ruling priest class at that top. The Bible provides a clear and (in this case) reliable picture of a world in which human sacrifice was the rule, not the exception.
Priests would dress up as women, tie up a child, mutilate their bodies, cannibalize them, burn them alive, and bury them in a pile of corpses. This spectacle formed the basis of the first rock concerts.
The Dionysian frenzy which resulted created a strong collective trauma bond between the priest and the masses. In some cases, the human sacrifice was made abstract and symbolic, or in the case of Judaism, the human was replaced with an animal. But whether we are speaking of the Celtic wicker man, the Dravidian God Agni, or the ancient Chinese practice of laying the foundation of buildings with hundreds of human corpses, the effect was the same.
The terms fascism and fascination both parallel the term religio, meaning to bind. Society was not bound together by brute force, individual property rights, or a military aristocracy. Neolithic states were bound together by mass traumatization, humiliation, and the ecstatic rage of the mob.
For 4,000 years (from 10k BC to 6k BC) Anatolian and Levantine states practiced these cults, continuously, without much interruption. Then, in 5,600 BC, a series of climatological events resulted in the flooding of the Black Sea and the desertification of northern Africa (the Green Sahara). These two events resulted in mass migrations of nomadic pastoralists, which brought them into contact with âcivilization.â
There are three main language families associated with these nomadic and pastoral peoples:
Afro-Asiatic (Semitic)
Indo-European (Japhetic)
Altaic (Turkic, Tungusic/Manchu, Mongolic)
A brief history of Egyptian religion
Today, it assumed that the Semites invented civilization in Egypt, Phoenicia, Anatolia, and Mesopotamia. But these areas were first civilized by non-Semitic peoples, like the Hurrians, Urartians, Elamites, and Dravidians. Civilization was already well established for thousands of years before Semites invaded from out of desertified regions.1
In Egypt, the main contribution of the Afro-Asiatic invasion was to eliminate human sacrifice and to sublimate the old ritual of burying sacrificial victims in piles of corpses into a new ritual of building pyramids and burying kings inside them. The re-founding of Egypt under the Coptic culture was carried out by a warrior aristocracy, who reformed the caste system.
Prior to the Afro-Asiatic invasion, the religion of Egypt involved the worship of the dragon Gods Ammit or Apep, identified with crocodiles and serpents, who required the blood of children to maintain the fertility of the soil.
During the post-desertification period of 5,600 BC, Afro-Asiatics (Copts) invaded Egypt and set up their own religion, which included worship of the sun and the storm. Their chief God was Ra, the sun, followed by Setesh, the nomadic warrior.
Between 5,600 BC and 5,200 BC, these two religions existed in an uneasy relationship. Over 400 years, they eventually syncretized during the rule of two particular mythologized kings, Osiris and Horus.
Osiris represented a tendency to look backward toward the pre-Coptic period. He wanted to return Egypt to the worship of Ammit and Apep. In response to this religious revival, the Coptic warrior aristocracy assassinated Osiris, and installed his son, Horus. Horus, unlike his father, was able to outmaneuver the Coptic warriors by creating new myths to reconcile the tension between the pre-Coptic and post-Coptic religions.
Calling Osiris and Horus âkingsâ is an oversimplification. More likely, they each represented tendencies, factions, or cults within Egyptian society. There are many parallels I could mention here, including the contrast between King James, Oliver Cromwell, and William the Conqueror. Christians who are less familiar with English history might find it helpful to thing of the differences between Herod (the Roman king), the Pharisees, Sadducees, the disciples of Christ, and later, the followers of Mohammed. Islam was a reconciliation of previous religious conflicts at both a granular (Pharisee vs Sadducee) and civilizational (pagan vs Abrahamic) level. Jews can contrast Esau and Jacob as representative of two separate tendencies within the early Abrahamic cult.
In the same way that Islam fractured into multiple sects, the post-5200 BC religion of Egypt also had multiple tendencies and heresies within it, including the monolatric worship of Ra.
what does this have to do with class?
The history of civilization reveals the foundations of class structure: the priest class (media class) is descended from a strategy of theatrical performance surrounding human sacrifice; the warrior class (right-wingers) are descended from nomadic pastoralists who invaded and hijacked civilizations from the top-down.
The leftist fear of January 6th is the same sort of fear that the cult of Osiris felt when the Coptic warriors started massacring non-Coptic priests.2
Leftist priests endeavor to reduce the population to submission and cuckoldry before the Fear of God. In Christianity, human sacrifice and cannibalism are abstracted to the level of communion, but the psychological elements are still there. Jesus is the perfect innocent baby who you killed, you are guilty, you participated, and you should become like a baby who allows himself to be spit on, trampled, and killed. Nietzsche calls this slave morality, but since all early agricultural states were based on slavery, we could just as easily call it farm morality.
The arch of history is long, but it tends toward the emasculation, pacification, and domestication of mankind. The perfect man is the Christ child: androgynous, neotenous, infantile, celibate, asexual, non-violent, submissive, masochistic, cucked.
Against this tendency is the Sun-Storm culture, represented prominently by Setesh-Ra, Indra-Surya, Zeus-Apollo, Odin-Baldr. These nomadic pastoral Gods inspired men toward the opposite ideal, that of a conniving hunter, a werewolf, a berserker, a pirate, and a raider. Herakles, Odysseus, Perseus, and Achilles all defy the dragon-worship cult with violence.
As priestly societies become more pacifistic, they become less able to resist warrior violence. As warriors raid, they undermine the state to a breaking point, where the state collapses and the warriors install themselves as kings over the rubble. Eventually, society rebuilds, and the warriors find themselves comfortably positioned at the top of a hierarchy. This new society finds itself subject to a new period of bureaucratic bloat. Priests once again take over, until the society becomes weak and pacifistic enough to be taken over by yet another class of warriors.
The terms I am using here are relative, and not absolute. For example, when the Christian conquistadors met with Aztec warriors, the Christians came from a relatively âcivilizedâ culture, while the Aztec warriors were strong, powerful, and fierce. Yet ultimately, the Aztec civilization practiced much more slavery than the Conquistadors, and was thus fragile to external pressure. Most of the fighting done was not between Conquistadors and Aztecs, but between Aztecs and their slaves, with the Conquistadors merely being instigators of a long-standing conflict.