The Purity Ring
We interrupt our regularly-scheduled programming to consider the issue of purity. There are four more “The Way Life Should Be?” pieces forthcoming, but I wanted to take this opportunity to discuss the pervasive issue of purity in its various dimensions for it has heretofore not been given an adequate treatment in the context of the Dissident Right to the best of my knowledge. This piece will be far from comprehensive, but aims rather to shed some light on various actual and possible fracture points from where I sit as a “free agent” of sorts.
We live in a deeply corrupted world, one which in a very real sense many of us endeavor to redeem. The project is less utopian than it is a restoration of order and the desire to structure life as a reflection of divinity. Where the forest is charred or clear-cut, plant those trees you’ll never get to sit under. Imagine the vibrant forest restored in all its life and evergreen glory, then imagine a synchronous harmony of realized potential far beyond anything yet obtained. For those with real agency, this is the time to shape the world of the future.
I’m sorry to say that your podcast is not going to save the white race, nor is your blog. I say this perhaps more to myself than anyone, so why bother? Because I am but one mortal man with a finite amount of time, why not extract as much pleasure from this life as I can? In short: I do.
I genuinely love to write and to speak with intelligent interesting people. I do so with the promise of future returns not for myself but for my progeny—and yours. I do so with the knowledge that there are many like me doing the same, and that our efforts synergize with and amplify each other’s, even if they are superficially dis-connected, for as long as we are not working against each other, we are creating a current that grows ever stronger. And as these efforts increasingly translate into concrete action, we lay the foundation for what is to come. Maybe there will be a seminal victory in our lifetimes, more likely not—but we look to the horizon and we will the monuments to achievement into being. We cast the accursed to the hell of their own design and we demolish that which would stand in our way. We tear down the altars to false gods and we set them alight, and in their stead testaments to the triumphs of yesterday, today, and tomorrow. What could possibly be more pleasurable than this? A hook-up? Please. Every affair in the world couldn’t equal the joy of pressing one’s hand against Roman marble just once, or reading Shakespeare, or watching those first rays of sunlight explode over the horizon and chase away the darkness for another day. That is sublime. That is pure.
But to touch or to witness or to reflect the divine is and always will be fleeting. It is in the struggle that we find true meaning, for the crowning of the peak is where we behold the glory, where the enormity of it all comes sharply into focus, where we find absolute peace and serenity, and where we draw strength for the next climb, and the next, and the next. This is what drives us onward. Eventually we become the mountain. To ascend is to ascend, until we are all and nothing. What lives on lives in a way we no longer do, but lives far greater than we ever could individually: a legacy.
In order to realize that most intangible potential we must restrain our worst impulses and master our baser instincts. In-fighting is asinine and accomplishes nothing—unless there are very legitimate concerns being voiced. These need not—should not—be done in bad faith, although there are certain personality types that will inevitably take pleasure in discovering compromising information and watching the public destruction of a foe. Should the person or organization prove to be a bad actor, this is a perfectly reasonable initial reaction, although it should call for restraint and self-reflection. To delight in suffering—much as our enemies deserve it—proves corrosive to soul, spirit, and purpose. Their hell will be their own. We need not share it. Their demise thus deserved, we move on to crush our next foe until the road is unobstructed. The rage and the agony burn in a furnace of purpose. Fuel, nothing more. Forward.
Vindictive and weak personality types will delight in the destruction of perceived foes or, indeed, competition. These instincts lie dormant to some degree in most of us, but petty jealousies are the province of the forgettable and the contemptible. The gleeful delight in what amounts to a circular firing squad born of inadequacy is oft apparent in the “revelation.” This is to be distinguished from vindication, but even that should be less a cause for glee and more for reflection. Why didn’t we listen in the first place?
We also have that instinct where something doesn’t seem quite right or doesn’t pass the smell test, so to speak. We should heed that instinct because it is usually right. It doesn’t mean we should publicly condemn people in the absence of concrete evidence for what is essentially baseless in an empirical sense, but there may well be questions that should be raised and demand clarification, especially if it concerns personal information, identities, and security. If at all possible, the matter should be dealt with privately, but there are instances where this may not be possible. What we all must grasp is that as dissidents “transparency” in the traditional sense is off the table; for most of us, protecting our identities is essential. The message is ultimately what matters, not the messenger.
To be fundamentally dishonest is another matter entirely, however. An established pattern of behavior should be enough for you to decide whether you regard an organization trustworthy enough to join or an individual credible enough to listen to and/or engage with. The risks are enormous. Proceed with caution, but don’t use this as an excuse for inaction. One need not sacrifice their principles nor use them as a cop-out. Unfortunately given the times in which we live we must do most of our work in secrecy. This is not at odds with living forthrightly or being honest in one’s message. There may occasion a time where one must lie in order to protect their identity, their family, or some greater ideal, and this is unfortunate but a reality. Such a decision is not made lightly for every lie imperils our soul. As with most things in dissident movements, often in life as it were, this is discretionary. Writing, podcasting, and the like pseudonymously isn’t a green light to live dishonestly nor is it an excuse for moral cowardice. True men rise to the occasion in adversity, they don’t hide behind irony, sell their compatriots out, or shrink from duty. We all, unfortunately, have abundant examples of such behavior. But we all have sterling examples of the opposite. I don’t need to name names—you know.
Along the same lines, no one is above criticism and scrutiny, but this is to be done in service of the cause or a higher ideal as opposed to personal axes to grind. If there are legitimate concerns, these must be addressed, not ignored. To be a public—insofar as one may be public under an assumed name—is to accept a certain amount of responsibility and accountability. Not necessarily leadership, though the time and place may call for the right man for the job, but great care, especially when livelihoods are at stake. Financial transactions are particularly troublesome for a host of reasons ranging from perceived obligation to names and addresses. This is why I use Bitcoin and only Bitcoin. When one transforms their purpose into that more resembling a business as opposed to a means to support oneself while doing crucial work, the latter often by necessity post-dox, our criteria and expectations must also necessarily change. As we can see with neo-liberalism, business decisions are often at odds with what is right. To support oneself from profits raised by doing honest work is another matter entirely.
Trust me, this is not pot calling the kettle black. I try to be as understanding as possible because we are all in this together and our fates are inextricably tied whether we even like each other or not. Furthermore, I’m far from perfect, and I have my “priors,” so to speak. Many of us do, and it would be a shame to elbow out valuable allies because they don’t quite match the model, or didn’t at one time.
One of the central tensions that arises in the current cultural milieu is that of purity. It is a tandem weapon wielded by the Talmudic string-pullers—they luxuriate in and profit from degradation and corruption, while framing it as liberation and empowerment. Mass genocide first masquerades as “diversity” before it morphs into a punishment for historical wrongs real but greatly-exaggerated, totally fabricated, or committed by Jews and falsely attributed to whites. They disingenuously apply a “purity filter” to all who would object to the normalization of the most extreme kinds of depravity and turpitude and to their own replacement, and use sophistry such “hate” and “mental illness” to explain why Germans or Swedes or Canadians would like to keep the only home they have.
When people arrive in this initially-foreign territory of reality, it is quite rare and exceptionally difficult for one to have emerged “red-pilled” squeaky-clean in this cultural bath of filth—and yet in typical Jewish fashion the double standard (for whites) is the only standard. Born-again Christians get a lot of grief for their often cringe-worthy manner, but in some ways waking up to the reality around us and becoming a dissident is very similar. Some things are obviously unforgiveable, and a “conversion” or “re-birth” does not excuse future behavior and indiscretions, but there is something of a new lease on life that comes with recognizing the error of one’s ways and making a change, especially if that involves helping others emerge from the fetid swamp that passes for a culture.
In moments of weakness, because we are all human, our enemies will use our professed values as weapons against us in their egregious double-standard. They will hold “priors” against us. Does this mean we simply abandon wholesome living, active community engagement, racial- and cultural-advocacy, and our positions which we know to be factually and morally correct? Of course not. What it means is that we need to be cognizant that most of us have taken a circuitous route to understanding the world as it is, and within reason we should not penalize or be penalized for decisions made before we got here. It also means when we slip, we need to support each other and be ready to forgive, minus that which is clearly beyond the pale, for we offer what they never can: redemption.