The Unreconstructed Social Construction

While I have a lot of disagreements with both Spencer and Colin, they’re always informative and help me better understand my own position (even if only in reaction to what they’ve provided).

Listen to their “Wandering Scot” podcast here.

Colin gives a helpful rundown of UK politics, putting the referendum vote into context for us non Scotsmen. But, perhaps surprisingly for many in the dissident right, Spencer goes on to explicitly reject “ethnic nationalism” as outdated. We need a “new political theory” moving forward; perhaps, suggests Spencer, some sort of pan-European cosmopolitan-esque multiculturalism(?!).

Whatever we might say about Spencer’s suggestion here (and whatever merits it might have), I feel like there’s a glaringly-obvious answer to managing “empires” that wasn’t even mentioned – in fact, it may be too taboo to mention, even among dissident rightists…

Slavery! Or, if slavery is too harsh for delicate modern palates, why not at least  a re-organization of the social stratum bringing back to life the old ideas of European hierarchical relationships? I can understand this not being a knee-jerk position, but in the dissident right, shouldn’t it at least be an option?

God created the world to reflect His hierarchical nature. This “great chain of being” model of social interaction seems to fit best with medieval “feudalism”. Why stick with modernism and all its inherent satanism by creating a new multicultural order, when our ancestors had a perfectly workable social system already enacted?

This entry was posted in Defending Dixie and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to The Unreconstructed Social Construction

  1. rogerunited says:

    “some sort of pan-European cosmopolitan-esque multiculturalism(?!). ”
    The UN?

    Could slavery really work today? Farms don’t need them, they’re run by almost nobody as it is. I wouldn’t trust them as domestic servants for fear I would end up like Eugene Terre’Blanche. The only place I can see slavery being useful is in factories, but they’ve all been shipped to the third world and, if they came back, we need those jobs for freemen.

    Reorganising the hierarchical relationships of old Europe would take generations, though I suppose it is possible. I have no idea how you’d begin that process, though.

    • Slavery in some form is part of every society, even ours. There will always be a peasant class.

      On another note – it makes no sense to conquer a people then let them live among you as equals. That’s a recipe for disaster. You can either wipe out the entire populace (which isn’t honorable or Godly), or you can subjugate them and maintain clear and rigid class divisions. If the cultures mesh well, they may (overtime) merge into one and a new ethnos will emerge (think of the Normans and the Saxons).

      • rogerunited says:

        I don’t really have anything to add, but I was reading Don Colacho and few jumped out at me:
        “Society tends to be unjust, but not in the way the conceited imagine.
        There are always more masters who do not deserve their position than servants who do not deserve theirs.”

        “Every non-conformist knows, in the depths of his soul, that the place his vanity rejects is the exact same place his nature has assigned him.”

        “Loyalty to a doctrine ends in adherence to the interpretation we give it.
        Only loyalty to a person frees us from all self-complacency.”

        “Authority is not delegating men, but procuring values.”

        “Values, like souls for the Christian, are born in history but are immortal.”
        “Good manners, in the end, are nothing but the way in which respect is expressed.
        Since respect, in its turn, is a feeling inspired by the presence of an admitted superior, wherever hierarchies are absent—real or fictitious, but revered—good manners die out.
        Rudeness is a democratic product.”

        I could go on posting them, they’re great thought provokers.

  2. It’s too fantastic and takes away from the much more important political goal of bringing awareness to the ongoing White Genocide.

    • Spencer’s model, or mine?

      As an aside – I’m beginning to think “whiteness” is to white nationalism what “the people” are to democrats…convenient and non-existent abstractions.

      • Mr. Spencer’s rejection of ethno-nationalism. Where there is linguistic connection, there will be closer allegiance and states naturally forming from it. Polyglot societies will seek independence unless there is an organised administrative class such as in colonialism. I don’t believe white people speaking one language can rule other white people speaking a different language.

        “White nationalism” seems to have a lot of issues, pro-white is the better term. Who knows what “White Nationalists” want? But pro-whites are against anti-whites. That is a big difference. Pro-mantra pro-whites are the best however… Speak out against White Genocide and have the talking points to back it up. Glory be to God.



Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s