
A nation is a collective which claims a piece of land and uses force to enforce that claim.

In 1945, the European nations were at the peak of our success. We used force to conquer many lands, and we sent men far and wide to settle them. 

Today, other nations are rapidly approaching our power. They are invading us through our open borders, and putting their culture, customs and language on our land.

But why? 

We never fought these nations; never lost a battle. World War II was a civil war in Europe. So why, now, is everyone else invading?

There is only one answer. We never lost a conflict against any outside countries: Therefore, we were subverted from *within*.

Our leaders asked - 
“What’s the harm if some foreigners come in?”
“Why do we need make children at all?”
“What is a nation, really?” 

And, all the while, we were plied and tempted with the greatest pleasures mankind could offer. We embraced drugs, free sex, and easy corporate jobs. 

As it turns out, none of these produce life. Life is found in GOD, and God is found in children, hard work, and strong community. None of these things are easy; and we want to believe we can escape them.

We want to believe that we can escape God’s demands for Life while also keeping our position in the world. We want to believe that all we need is individualism or xenophobia; globalism or barbarism; All we need is these *ideologies* that will allow us to elect a good leader and live our lives passively.

But, the truth is, the only ideology will save us is the one that demands us to leave our comforts, and demands a lower quality of life, and demands a willingness to die. God demands communities that aren’t replaceable. 


The purpose of a government is to use force for the interests of the nation.

The nation of white Europeans have no government.

We cannot use force for our own sake.

We have decided this is wrong.

Therefore, we insist on economic competition and "colorblind meritocracy".

But other populations are homogenous; other nations use force for their interest.

And, because humans are social creatures, those nations will always win.




The purpose of a government is to use force for the interests of the nation.

The nation is an organism, made up of people and defined by their relationship to each other and to the land.

Everyone here who is honest must admit that white Europeans are observable organisms and populations.

We can be distinguished from others by both culture and biology.

Therefore, white Europeans have observable nations.

However, our nations have no government. Our organisms are not represented.

We cannot use force for our own sake.

We have decided this is wrong.

Therefore, we insist on economic competition and "colorblind meritocracy".

But other populations are homogenous; other nations use force for their interest.

And, because humans are social creatures, those nations will win.




There are many in the West who don’t believe we are shrinking at all. This is because they consider immigrants to be a part of the nation, as long as they work for the system.

This means we now have two definitions of a nation. So, we need to know:

When we talk about our nation, what are we actually talking about?

And, when we think of our nation, how much should we care? Should we die for it? 

**What is a Nation?**

Today, there are two competing definitions:

1: A system which reigns over a certain piece of land

2: A group of people who are related by culture, religion, or race

Usually, and for most of history, the two definitions go together. Men formed governments based on shared characteristics, and used these governments to rule a certain territory.

But now, in the West, something curious has happened. These definitions have diverged. European governments, which were formed to advance our people and culture, are now opposed to our growth. They are opposed to our culture and tradition.

In America, we can see these two definitions fighting each other aggressively. For four years, we close the border and build a wall. Then, we open the border completely and fly migrants in with taxpayer money. We are spinning between two ideas of what it means to be a nation: tradition and people, or values and system.

The reason for this is because we have been presented with a paradox. Since the Enlightenment, Britain and its former colonies increasingly defined ourselves by open-mindedness and tolerance. During the time of the American Revolution, it seemed that tolerance was a virtue. It seemed that tolerance provided growth. At first, it did. We abolished slavery, built up other colonies, and worked to define universal human values. The British Empire became the greatest empire of all time, and then America took the mantle in 1945.

But, now, we are shrinking. We have been shrinking since 1960. We are receiving large amounts of outward pressure from other races and nationalities. These races and nationalities are broadly less tolerant than we are. So, we tolerant people - what do we do? Do we compete for the sake of tolerance? Or do we tolerate intolerant immigrants, allowing them to increase intolerance in our societies?

So far, nobody has figured it out. Muslims in England are dragging it downhill every day. America is struggling to define what America even is. Clearly, the current values are not working.

So, we need to ask a deeper question: is tolerance a virtue at all?

Tolerance is not what got us to the Enlightenment in the first place. For 1600 years, Britain and Europe were aggressively nationalistic and protective of culture. This competitiveness culminated in European world domination, with each country attempting to snatch up the rest of the Earth.






This is quite dangerous. If “nation” is rewritten to mean the system, Westerners have no outlet for collective expression.

It is something we are all aware of, in the West: groups like blacks form clubs and alliances all the time. Every university, every big corporation has explicit groups for black people. It is also often true for gays, Mexicans, Muslims, and others.

At first, nobody minded, because these were all minorities. It was accepted that they had little power, and therefore the extra power they received from forming collectives was not a problem. However, as we now know, there is something deeper going on.

White people were 35% of the world in 1960, and 90% of America. Before the war, we had explicit collectives. Only Northern Europeans were allowed to come to America; Britain was 99.9% British.

After the war, we have no explicit collectives. All Western nations based on shared characteristics of race and culture have vanished. They have been replaced by pluralistic systems which promote other races and cultures above the natives. 

The truth about humans is that we always operate in collectives. From the most primitive tribesmen to the modern office worker - there are no individuals in nature. Human collectives are the source of our life, and a coherent society is always necessary for achieving some goal. 

It should be clear, then, the issue: there are no coherent societies for growing European cultures and peoples. And if there are no collectives which seek a goal, it simply will not happen. The birth rate can be discussed as much as anyone wants; the value of other races and cultures can be lauded; it does not matter. Even if society is pluralistic, Europeans can never grow within that society unless there is a collective which sought that end. 

Therefore, all white people in European nations will have to make a choice. 

It is important to note that not everyone has to be a part of such a collective. Just as every black man is not part of a black-focused group, not every white man would need to be either. The groups must, however, exist.

The less Western collectives there are, the less powerful Westerners are. This means, of course, not people who subscribe to vague ideas like “freedom” but people who are are of European culture and blood. 

These people exist. They are discernible. I am one. And it should be obvious that if we have no collectives which explicitly fight for us or our culture, we will shrink.

So why don’t we? 

Because of Hitler, of course.

Hitler has delivered this great question - if Westerners form groups based on race and culture, won’t we kill and enslave everyone around us like he did? 

The idea is flattering. It implies that if we are able to collectivize, we will automatically dominate and enslave all other races.

But then, of course - why didn’t that happen? Why did the white and racist United States seek to destroy European domination? The country was, after all, 90 percent European.

Many have begun to ask today: did we really benefit from fighting Germany? On one hand, it put America on top. On the other, it caused a rapid decline of the European tradition, which is what defined America in the first place.

Prior to 1945, only Northern Europeans were allowed to immigrate to America. It was an accepted fact that if a large group of Mexicans, Arabs, or Africans tried to enter and settle, they would have been immediately thrown out. There would have been no question.

This is the way things were for most of history. Humans are naturally xenophobic. We establish territory, and we use it to grow. Since there are only so many resources on Earth, this creates competition.

America was born from an Anglo-Saxon tradition; a melding of British and German peoples. To this day, white Americans are nearly all either British or German, and the two groups are the same size. 

These races and traditions are thousands of years old. Therefore, when we broke that tradition in 1945, it was an enormous move. In less than a generation, we filled up to more than a third of America with radically different peoples and cultures.  The implications of this were not merely definitive for the century; they were definitive for the millennium. 



Another observation is that the first category, the system, is far more temporary than the second. Races, cultures, and ethnicities usually span several millennia or more. 

When a nation becomes based on the system, as ours has, there is **always** a temporary sentiment towards human affairs. In America, it is strange to care about old tradition. In communist China, they *destroyed* old tradition. In fascist Germany, they yearned for old tradition - but they used as much technology as possible to push it.

Of the big three 20th-century ideologies, communism is the most rabidly system-based ideology ever. Capitalism, supposedly so different, is the second most system-based ideology. Fascism, the losing ideology of 1945, is third.





For all of history, there has been a pattern of binding and separation. Talented men arise, and inspire others to form nations. 

Over time, these nations have become larger. This increased scale changes the characteristics of the individual humans within. 

As the nations become larger, men become more civilized. Typically, this means a reduction of aggression and competition in the life of the individual. Instead, the individual spends time on endeavors which diffuse across all of society, usually involving communications of some sort.

Verbal communications are the obvious example: the civilized man has a skilled tongue. Mathematics are also a large-scale form of communication, meaning they can transfer concepts rapidly over a large area. Another example is scientific experiments: they are conducted in such a way as to be “reproducible”, which actually means that they must be simple and segmented enough that they can be conducted with only verbal instructions as a guide. 

The trend here is the replacement of colorful personal experiences with greyer, larger-scale collective experiences.

If all men simply hunt animals, their experiences will be very individually visceral. However, the diffusion of energy across any sort of society will be very small. It will be limited to discussions of shared experiences within the tribe.  

To achieve larger scale, the tribe would need writing: at the minimum, they would need tools for writing and scribes. Therefore, the tribe will have to add jobs which are inherently less colorful and visceral. 


Elite
A government which rules over a certain land area and a certain people. 



Would you die for your nation? 

To the elites, it is simply the land itself. The people and the culture are interchangeable, so long as they produce economic value. 

Hitler was the last Western leader to campaign for territorial and population expansion. His definition of Germany was the German race and the land they occupy.





Hitler defined a nation by the race of the people. For him, to be a patriot meant to fight for the German race. 

First, to understand why the West is shrinking, we must know what the West is.

What is the West? What is a nation?

A nation is a large group of people who work together for Life.

I say "for Life" because many people can work together, but if they are not aligned in questions of Life (law, religion, and culture) then they cannot be considered a nation. The question when understanding any nation, then, is which questions of Life require alignment for people to be included.

The lines and measures of human alignment are vague, of course. Humans are too complicated for any discussion of large groups to be logically complete and self-contained. But we can still label these groups based on general patterns and trends which we observe. The difference is that these labels will not be as powerful as labels which are smaller in scope.

With that being said, let us examine which elements define a nation:


**Government**
One of the most obvious alignments of traditional nations is law. If there is a large group of people who do not follow the law of the nation, then they are probably not a part of that nation.

**Culture**


**Race**
Many nations are easy to group by race. This is particularly true for European nations, which have more variation than normal. The Irish look very different from the Italians. They both have a general look and gene pool which we are aware of.


**Religion**
Religion does not need much explanation. Most nations are aligned on questions of religion - but, in recent times, this has changed.


We know that Nations have two key things: government and culture. Some nations also define themselves by their race.

We know that Western nations are shrinking, because they have a birthrate which is lower than replacement. Therefore, the only way to keep the nation the same is to import foreigners.

Now, this is the question: if we import foreigners from other nations, do we still have the same nation? Can it still be said to be intact?

The answer to this question is the answer to the question that is at the heart of most political disputes today:

How important is race for the identity of a nation? 

The answer to this question betrays whether someone is for or against European peoples. 

If a man believes that European peoples are an inherent part of Western nations, then any amount of immigration weakens the character of this identity. Particularly if those immigrants bring other cultures with them.

Liberalism is the opposite of collectivism: it pushes for each piece of the organism (each person) to go in their own direction. Obviously, for it to be a nation of some kind, there are still some collective actions, such as paying taxes or fighting in the military.

Java / Swift
Racism




At any point in time, a group is either gaining land or losing it.

The Western nations are shrinking because World War II has destroyed our spirit.

We must seek growth instead of stasis.