
**Life is a river --**

**Life may grow;** 

**Life may shrink;**

**but Life will never stay the same.**


~


**The study of Life is the study of populations.**

This is especially true for organisms who live in groups - such as ants, chimpanzees, and humans.

All life forms are moving; all life forms are changing. 

Cells grow; cells die; cells change. Life is never still. 

Compared to a moment before, a man is never the same age, health, size, weight, intelligence, or skill.

The same can be said for a people.

At any moment, a people is growing or shrinking.

At any moment, a people is improving or declining.

Humans are populations; groups of the greatest species on Earth.

The greatness of a life form can be measured by quality and quantity of Life. 

Any population can be measured by these metrics.

Because human populations have spread across the whole Earth, and have formed the strongest reality-connection of any species, we are the greatest animal.

To maximize the size of population and strength of connection to reality are the highest callings of any Life form.

**Therefore, it is the duty of any population to maximize quality and quantity of Life.**

This is what it means to be Godly: Good for Life.

Humans have always been limited, first and foremost, by our survival needs: food, water, and shelter.

Humans have always formed collectives to obtain these needs.

**Humans have always needed collectives to survive.** 

We began with the smallest collective: the tribe.

Over time, collectives have increased in size.

**As we grow a collective, we increase our supply of resources**

**As we increase our supply of resources, we grow the collective.**

**This is the cycle of civilization.**

Civilizations are great spikes in both the quality and quantity of Life.

They are examples of populations which become very successful.

But collectives do not always increase.

Every civilization has fallen. 

At some point, Persia, Greece, and Rome all began to shrink.

Their populations began shrinking, and so did the land they controlled.

Their resources became reduced, and their standards of living decreased.

There are many sub-populations within humanity. 

The result is families, races and nations.

As with any other animal population, human sub-populations are observable groupings of genes and customs.

A certain set of families takes over a certain piece of land, and forms customs based on their interaction with the land.

These customs are known as culture.

Over time, the families are shaped genetically by the land and by circumstance.

This shaping is known as race.

The genes of a population shape its customs,
the customs shape the genes,
the land shapes both,
And God shapes the land.

Human collectives are usually formed based on genes and customs.

The Tower of Babel explains how this came to be.

However, there are two great exceptions:

Rome and America.

Rome and America adopted universalist principles - a reversal of the Tower of Babel.

Under these collectives, any person from another collective could join.

The promise of both collectives is success.

Rome and America were both the best in the world.

They were willing to accept anyone for material success.

They nullified competition by posturing themselves to accept anyone who showed loyalty

They were not inherently opposed to any man

They quit the competition of populations and genes to collaborate instead

**They lauded the Individual**

For Rome, this process began after defeating Carthage

For America, it began after defeating Hitler

And shortly after the individual began to reign supreme, the nations began to fall

Why?

The tribe, not the individual, is the atomic unit of humanity.

Individualism doesn't exist in nature.

Collectives are required for success

By embracing individualism, men forget where success comes from

As Cicero said at the fall of the Republic, they “retreat to their ponds”

When the men of the collective forget its importance, they open its doors to other men who are harder workers

They open its doors to men from worse circumstances

Individualism is an anti-competitive philosophy

By extending the collective to all humans, the collective becomes anti-competitive

And since Life comes from collectives, not from individuals, this precedes the fall of the Civilization

If no man will die for his nation, can it remain alive?

After the Republic fell, Rome could not effectively recruit soldiers

If the point of Rome is success and comfort,
If the point of Rome is a good lifestyle,
If the point of Rome is to be a good for the individual: *why would that individual die for it*?

Today, this is becoming the point of America too.

And, sure enough, the military recruitment is falling

Why would a man choose to die?

A man will only die for something greater than himself

A greater collective, a greater cause

But our cause has been weakened

It has been opened up wide

All humanity is in our scope

And unlimited comfort and freedom

So why would we fight?

The men don't fight, and the collective shrinks

They say that we should judge people as individuals, not populations.

But when we see immigration to our countries, are these newcomers judged as individuals?

When a man steps onto our land, does anyone in our country know him? His attributes, his origin, or his values?

The purveyors of immigration do not.

They ask us to judge as individuals, but only after these men have stepped across.

We are told to accept these new men first, and ask questions later.

But if these men are not known by anyone as individuals, and they enter the land as a vast group, the only natural response is to judge them as such.

The only natural response is for us to judge the Muslims on our thoughts of the Muslims; the blacks on our thoughts about the blacks; and the Mexicans on our impressions of their race.

Unless we learn their individual merits, there is no way to decide.

But we cannot learn their individual merits, because there are millions.

And the truth is that they do not want us to decide.

Anyone who supports mass immigration and who resists mass deportation is not an individualist, but a collectivist of the worst kind.

They are a collectivist against our people. 

And the one, single, coherent way to respond is in kind:

To be for our people.

Not just our culture, our laws, or institutions. But our very soul.

Foreigners can be judged as such from outside the border: but they were not. 

They invaded, and took this land for their own. 

Not as individuals, but as their people. 

And so: we are ours.

And this is our land.

And they will say that anyone who says this is a racist

And I would have to agree

They would say it is xenophobic

And I would agree

Because these are the only options in the collectivist life of a human being

Today we compete as a group

Or one day, not too long from now, this all falls apart.

And one generation of our descendants bears the full brunt of the price

Paid in blood,

And they will ask: why?

Because we would not play the game.

We would not compete.

Man has always been groups

Man needs groups to survive

The health of the nation is the health of the man

If man seeks himself, the nation will wither and die.

So do not go gentle;

but FIGHT

FIGHT 

FIGHT

Fight for the Light of the West.











The medieval Briton, for example, has much more freedom to choose his life than the prehistoric tribesman, who is bound to rigid tribal customs and the ever-present danger of starvation

To summarize: 
human collectives have always been necessary, 
human collectives exist primarily to manage and obtain resources,
and successfully obtaining resources results in higher individual freedom.

In the 18th century, amidst the rise of the British Empire - the greatest collective the world has ever seen - the philosophy of "individualism" began to appear

America is a beacon of individualism because our ancestors found themselves on a vast, untapped land with an effective society and supply chain

Therefore, because there were so many resources and so much open land available, the obvious philosophy was to maximize freedom

But in a society with overpopulation and resource scarcity, individualism becomes much less attractive

The health and prosperity of the collective determines individual freedom, not the other way around



We live in the most large-scale collectives that the world has ever seen

When someone refers to an "individualist" system, what they mean is a humanity-scale, technological collective which works to maximize "individual freedom"

Because the study of humanity is the study of collectives, and because these systems desire to "individualize" all humanity, they are fundamentally anti-competitive systems

They wish to eliminate conflict between human collectives, such that they are the only one

The origin of humanist collectives is non-humanist collectives which achieve great prosperity

This prosperity allows the leaders and thinkers to expand their mind's eye far past the immediate concerns of the nation, towards the corners of the Earth

It is impossible to have a humanist collective unless the society is **already** large-scale and prosperous

Freedom comes from prosperity, not the other way around



Individualists are the greatest collectivists of all

They are collectivists on the scale of all humanity

They are the first in history to draw a political framework which includes every human being

They believe humans are fundamentally similar, and can each be compared individually

They believe in a government so all-knowing that it can adjudicate cases based on individual merits

This is the Civil Rights Act

They eye of government is so powerful that it is watching every decision in the workplace, every hour of the day, and will judge whether an individual is deserving of certain treatment



"Woke" is the desire for a less powerful humanist government, and more powerful governments based on other collectives

Therefore, the "woke right" suggests either getting rid of laws like the Civil Rights Act, or making the federal government less humanist

The truth is that the humanist sector cannot allow this, because in lieu of the Civil Rights Act, new governments would form and supplant it as the greatest power

The humanist government must break up all other collectives which could be a threat to its power



Traditionalists have correctly identified that anti-competitive and monopolistic behavior is not sustainable

We have identified this because we see humanism destroying our own populations

The birth rates are down, and we are being supplanted by other gene pools

We are in a state of stagnation and shrinking, signs typical of a bureaucratic monopoly

Our governments have begun to recognize this, and now they must choose between one of two options:

1. Double down on the humanist monopoly, and take as many foreigners as possible to stimulate growth and perpetuate the system
2. Dismantle the humanist monopoly, rebuild exclusionary collectives around the native population, and attempt to achieve previous levels of success

The humanist monopoly will bring short-term satisfaction but will erode long-term prospects

There is no country in history which has retained power for long after hollowing out its culture

Currently, in 2024, the incoming Trump administration has not decided which route it will take

They have made statements across the spectrum

These are the signs of each:

**Monopolism**
Donald Trump and his campaign have consistently disavowed racism
Donald Trump has suggested giving citizenship to students who study in America
Elon Musk is a global businessman who lauds "human values"
Elon Musk has suggested more high-skilled immigration
Vivek Ramaswamy, a Hindu Indian, seeks a humanist monopoly
J.D. Vance has an Indian wife

**Traditionalism**
Donald Trump wants to deport illegal immigrants
J.D. Vance has suggested that America is not just a system, but a people
J.D. Vance and his staffers are interested in traditionalist thinkers
Elon and Vance are concerned about Western birth rates
Elon and Vance have increasingly warmed to Christianity

**Overall**:
The administration is biased towards Westerners, but is not ideologically committed to us
They would prefer that we are the engine for growth, but they will seek others if we do not provide it
This is an opportunity to become a driver for growth, while eroding the standards of humanism
This is the only way to achieve lasting success
If we fail, immigrants and outward pressure will further erode Western people and culture
This erosion will collapse the civilization with two or three centuries.

So how do we become a driver for growth?


1.
***Each man in nature, according to his ability***

2.
***Community***