“Selfishness is manifested in many different ways. It can find expression in that mere lust for personal enjoyment, which characterises the shameless voluptuary; or in the miser’s insatiable greed for gold; or in the individual ambition of the seeker of honours and position; or in the family ambition of the man who is ready to sacrifice every interest in the world to the welfare and happiness of his wife and children. But it can also be brought out in the exaltation of a man’s tribe or country above all others … just because it happens to be the tribe or country of that particular man. … Men “in Time” only know what is “their own” and what is not.” – Savitri Devi
Few individuals throughout history have lived up to the ideal of universal compassion, but at least the ideal itself used to be outwardly admirable in ideological discourse. A clear sign of collapsing civilization and descent to barbarism is when tribalism is not only practiced (as it has always been by the vast majority), but actually promoted by reactionary movements as more admirable than universalism.
Judaism has always preached tribalism against non-Jews, hence our certainty that Jews are a morally inferior group. And all humanist philosophies, of Gentile as well as Jewish origin, have preached tribalism against non-humans, leaving us no honest option but to consider most historical humans morally inferior also. But whereas Jews tried in the past to prevent non-Jews from reading the Talmud, fearing non-Jews would find the content abhorrent, today more and more organized Gentiles are reading the Talmud and applying its principles to benefit their own tribes. Whereas some past humanists were at least willing to admit their moral callousness compared to universalists, the present trend is for universalists (or even anti-racist humanists) to be ridiculed as oversensitive “bleeding hearts”.
Jews for their part are all too happy to encourage the rise of Gentile tribes via promotion of Zionist Correctness (ZC). The more non-Jews openly and shamelessly behave as Jews themselves behave – and indeed we see emboldened Gentiles now asking such questions as “What is wrong with racism?” - the more difficult it becomes for us to criticize Jewish tribalism as a specifically Jewish phenomenon.
It is crucial that tribalism, including but not limited to racism, be put back in its place as an attitude of inferiority if revolution is to be positive. As Hitler said: “Whoever doesn’t become sickened and nauseated upon making a closer acquaintance with the Talmud can put himself on display in a circus side show.” This is the foremost spiritual challenge of our time, and of our movement in particular: to defend and promote universalism more strongly than ever even as our enemies attempt to remove it from social consciousness.
Jewish tribal manual
Gentile tribal manuals
“It may seem surprising that such a small minority possesses such great power. … The Jews do not enjoy economic success because they are more intelligent than non-Jews, but rather because they follow a different moral code.” – Joseph Goebbels
The argument in favour of tribalism proposes that the practical function of altruism (and hence the reason it evolved under natural selection in the first place) is to enable cooperation, which results in a cooperating in-group gaining survival advantages over a non-cooperating out-group. According to this argument, it follows that any altruism involving no out-group at all betrays the very gainfulness of altruism and becomes, in their words, ”pathological”. In order to upkeep this gainfulness, the tribalists tell us, some group must always fill the role of Goy.
Yet merely knowing that tribalism is a product of natural selection does not give it moral validity in Aryan eyes, but only stresses the need for National Socialism to replace natural selection as the primary evolutionary mechanism. We are not Jews or Gentiles; we will never accept ignoble fitness. As Savitri Devi put it, “If man really wishes to be a “superior species,” he has to give up the habit of acting as the “inferior” ones do.”
Tribalism, when it occurs among a numerically smaller in-group, is known and intuitively despised as nepotism or simply favouritism. This same mode of behaviour does not become less despicable when practiced by a numerically larger in-group, regardless of Jews and Gentiles who describe it as “assertion of group interests” as if that makes it sound better. In order to emphasize this point, we encourage use of the terms ethnotribalism, ethnonepotism or ethnofavouritism when concise clarification on the meaning of racism is demanded.
“Nepotism, in fact, is the most formidable protection imaginable: the protection of the ego.” – Adolf Hitler
Tribalists living among universalists in society will indeed - sooner or later - end up in all the positions of control, as they will ensure that every such position acquired by a member of their own tribe never leaves the hands of the tribe thereafter. This is conventionally known as the Jewish problem. Of course such a situation cannot and should not be tolerated. But does this mean that therefore everyone else should also form tribes and see who is best at being tribal? No, it means that the universalists need to identify the tribalists and get rid of them. This is the true message of National Socialism: that tribalism is an inferior mode of behaviour, and its adherents inferior people, not to be imitated but to be thoroughly removed from society by all countries who wish to cultivate nobility of blood. To imitate tribalism would inevitably mean introducing selective pressure against universalism, which in turn would mean eliminating the last traces of the already rare Aryan blood that still remains in non-Jewish gene pools.
“German history is not rich in great statesmen. But where one has appeared, he mostly had something to say and give not only to his own people, but to the world.” – Joseph Goebbels
If a few people cheat in an exam to gain an advantage over non-cheaters, should we all start cheating, or should we get rid of the cheaters? Tribalism is cheating, nothing more and nothing less. Imagine how ridiculous it would be if Jesus instructed his disciples to become money-changers in order to compete with the Jewish money-changers at usury and hopefully outperform them. It is fortunate for the world that he did nothing of the sort, but rather did the morally correct thing by storming the temple with a whip and driving the money-changers out.
Aryans need no manual for universalism; it is in our blood.
Many tribalists reveal their inferiority in their utter inability to so much as comprehend the universalist spirit, never mind live it. It is common for racists to accuse non-racists of being afraid to be called “racist” by others. In their primitive tribalist minds, the only possible motivation for not being racist is social stigma. They fail to see that what the more advanced universalist mind fears is not being called “racist”, but being racist in itself, for we consider what it would feel like to be on the receiving end of racism as someone from the outgroup, and we would not do to others what we would not want others to do to us. In the same vein, racists using their primitive tribalist minds accuse non-racists of “loving the outsider”, failing to see that the more advanced universalist mind never considered people of different ethnic backgrounds to be “outsiders” in the first place. We see only people, to be treated as we ourselves under the same circumstances would hope to be treated.
“Personal honour directs us to treat people with manners, and respect, and as we ourselves would like to be treated. That is, personal honour disposes us toward both dignity and fairness, and, in a quite simple way, honour is a practical manifestation of empathy: of how we can relate to other people, and other life, in an empathic and compassionate way.” – David Myatt
The Big Lie
“They should have recognized and followed the profound truth that the lack of the necessities of life has always been a source of conflict between peoples.” – Adolf Hitler
A key lie concering tribalism told by present-day racists seeking respectability is: “We can be for our own people without being against other people.” In a world of finite (never mind diminishing!) resources, it should be obvious why this is absolute nonsense.
Ethnoseparatists would have us believe that geographical separatism is the answer. Yet their stance on foreign policy after separation is to make decisions based on ”whatever is good for our own people”. So what happens when resources become insufficient? Proceeding logically from their stance, they will plunder whatever they need from whomever they can overpower, because they have already defined their own people as automatically more important than everyone else, who are – as far as they are concerned – fair game as victims. To see ethnoseparatists foreign policy in action, we need look no further than Israeli treatment of Palestinians, or the words of Yaacov Perrin (Jew): “One million Arabs are not worth one Jewish fingernail.”
“We’re doing what’s good for Israel! What’s the problem?”
External link: Raid Gaza
It would be delusional to believe that only Jews are capable of such attitudes, as history is replete with non-Jews behaving in exactly the same way. The oppression of countless Native American societies by Anglo, Spanish and other colonial era settlers, for example, was no less brutal than that of the Palestinians by Israeli settlers. (Incidentally, the popular ethnoseparatist lie that “good fences make good neighbours” is best refuted by pointing out that even a fence as good as the Atlantic Ocean did not prevent the Native Americans from being colonized.) Similarly, the worst massacres committed by Jews against the Ukrainians and the Armenians or the worst tortures masterminded by Jews in communist gulags cannot even begin to compare in either scale or cruelty with the daily routines of abbatoirs, dairy/egg/fur/silk factories and vivisection labs worldwide, all economically supported by ordinary humans. The very moment one decides to view others as Goys rather than as fellow victims of existence, no cruelty is off-limits.
“Animals are seen as mere things. They can therefore be used for vivisection, hunting, coarsing, bull-fights and horse-races and can be whipped to death as they struggle along with their heavy carts of stone. Shame on such a morality that fails to recognise the eternal essence that exists in every living thing and shines forth with inscrutable significance from all eyes that see the sun.” – Arthur Schopenhauer
The only reliable way to prevent one group from oppressing another in a world of finite and diminishing resources is if every group agrees to decrease its own population so as to reduce its demand for resources faster than the rate at which resources are running out. All groups which refuse to enter into such an agreement are implicit tribes, and must be treated as such. Mere absence of a premeditated plan to oppress others in the process of collective self-preservation is not good enough. As long as collective self-preservation is valued as an end in itself – which is the essence of tribalism - rather than purely as the temporary means to a noble purpose, a group will end up oppressing others sooner or later, whether it planned to do so or not. So now when a Jew or Gentile asks ”What is so bad about just wanting to survive?” in response to their disgusting behaviour, you know how to answer them.
“And if you don’t shut up, we will call you anti-Semite! Jews can treat non-Jews any way we want as long as it is good for Jewish survival, and non-Jews should not complain!”
Selfishness is the root of tribalism, not ”hate” (a misdirection deliberately created by PC propaganda in order to facilitate the ZC backlash). The meat-eater or the medical researcher experimenting on animals hardly “hate” their victims, yet they do what they do, simply because they are indifferent to the plight of their victims in face of their own interests. Similarly, the Anglo settlers did not necessarily “hate” the Native Americans, and the Israeli settlers did not necessarily “hate” the Palestinians, yet they did what they did, again out of self-interest in favour of their own. Neglibly few of the most horrific oppressive deeds throughout history were motivated by hatred; virtually all were motivated by self-interest in favour of one’s own taken to its logical conclusion. A genuine anti-tribalist movement, therefore, must be built on attacking the true problem of self-interest, not the PC red herring of ”hate”.
In fact, it takes no hatred to be cruel, but it takes much hatred towards cruelty to become seriously motivated to fight it. In the words of Joseph Goebbels: “He who cannot hate the Devil cannot love God.”
Opposition to tribalism is not apathetic pacifism. We understand that conflict is likely in the near future; our concern is that the conflict involves morally meaningful sides rather than a bunch of tribes all fighting for the same thing and for the same reason, namely for their own tribe because it is their own tribe. We recommend that the universalists, and hence Aryans by definition, of every ethnicity, religion and location oppose the tribalists – all tribalists, Gentiles as well as Jews – within all our denominations. While universalists may be outnumbered by tribalists in each separate denomination, we can unite as a folk across denominations in a way that tribalists (by definition) cannot, and as such are not nearly as powerless as we may seem at first glance.
“In the times of Zarathustra this War also existed; the enemies were the Turanians. … In our time the so-called ‘Jews.’” – Miguel Serrano
The evolutionary claim that universalists will be eliminated in favour of tribalists over time only applies if the universalists are also pacifists. We defy this claim because, by rejecting pacifism, we can choose to eliminate the tribalists first.
“Final solution can be effected only by means of a warm-hearted resolve on the part of those who once faced each other as opponents, but whose mutual esteem, based on a recognition of each other’s bravery, could become a bridge leading to the future – a future which must never see any repetition of past sufferings.” – Adolf Hitler
The Aryan attitude is not universal altruism, but universal compassion. The two are not the same.
Fundamentally, altruism views others as assets from which additional gain can be derived, be it increasing one’s own gain at their expense (the zero-sum game, played with Goys) or increasing collective gain even at individual expense (the non-zero sum game, played with collaborators). Thus underneath all altruism - including supposedly universal altruism - is ultimately greed. Compassion, on the other hand, views everyone as slaves to the game itself, regardless of whether they are gaining or losing. Compassion does not, therefore, attempt to help anyone increase their gain (which ultimately further increases their thrall by the game), but instead attempts to provide an alternative to the game in its entirety. When Jesus threw out the money-changers, he was not altruistically trying to give everyone else a better chance to become wealthy, but was compassionately exposing the enslaving nature of money itself.
“From compassion arises the desire to cease to cause suffering, the desire to alleviate suffering – and honour is one ethical way by which, and how, we can do this, for honour disposes us to restrain ourselves and so do the right, the moral, the empathic, thing. Thus, compassion and honour are how we can develop, and extend, our innate – but often underused or ignored – human faculty of empathy. Empathy is thus, for The Numinous Way, the source of ethics, for what is good is considered to be that which manifests empathy and compassion and honour, and thus what alleviates, or what ceases to cause, suffering: for ourselves, for other human beings, and for the other life with which we share this planet. Hence, what is unethical, or wrong, is what causes or what contributes to or which continues such suffering.” – David Myatt
Universal compassion cannot be taught. A tribalist can understand the reasoning behind universal compassion, but merely in the way that a deaf person can understand musical notation. The tribalist will not feel what the universalist feels. Conversely, a universalist need never learn to feel this way; it is impossible for him to feel otherwise. It is, however, possible for each to feign the outward behaviour of the other depending on social trends. If we are now seeing a trend towards tribalism in the world, it is perfectly understandable that we feel disheartened, but we can also take hope, as the decreasing fashionability of universalism must mean that only the most ideologically dedicated universalists will heed our message and join our movement. Such tribulations will ultimately make our side stronger and more ready to face our tribalist enemies.