a new future for the west

Everyone today is familiar with the theory of evolution, the idea that all life on Earth slowly evolved from a universal common ancestor around 3 billion years ago. Life evolved for billions of years, slowly yielding higher and higher forms until mammals, primates, and, eventually, humans appeared. According to this theory, humans separated from chimpanzees about 5 million years ago, and anatomically modern humans emerged in Africa approximately 300,000 years ago. Contemporary evolution theory tends to overlook the fact that we are still evolving. According to the “out of Africa” theory, 300,000 years ago, we were a uniform group of cavemen living in Africa. Since that time, we have evolved into many distinct racial types. Yes, we are still evolving, and race is the evolutionary unit. Each race is a subspecies; if this process is not interrupted, each race type will eventually evolve into a separate species. The current trend, of course, is racial convergence instead of racial divergence, so the future here is a little murky.

In addition to biological evolution, many people today believe humans are evolving spiritually. The idea is that the evolution of life is the evolution of consciousness itself and that it evolves from a simple form to higher and higher forms. This line of thought has a long history with philosophers, from Plato in ancient Greece to Hegel to today’s “new age“ philosophers. Modern thinkers such as Claire Graves or Ken Wilber describe many different levels used to gauge human consciousness or awareness. There are many different models and levels of development, but these levels boil down to three groups: self, group, and above group.

Humans at the self-level are concerned with – well – themselves. Power and success for themselves is their primary motivation in life. The well-being of other people does not generally concern them. Groups of people at the self-level do not form solid states or strongly organized religions. Small tribes are the best they can muster.

To be considered at a higher level, one must include the levels below and, in addition, do something else they can’t. So, people at the group consciousness level are concerned with themselves as individuals plus the well-being of what they consider their group. They can form solid nationalities or religious groups. The group they identify with might be their country, race, religion, or almost anything else. They are not typically concerned with anything outside what they perceive as their group. An example of a people at this level might be the Chinese. The Chinese are concerned with the well-being of China, but this concern ends at the Chinese border.

At the above group level, people are concerned with themselves as individuals, whatever group(s) they identify with, and in addition, show consciousness of and sympathy for things outside of their group. Individuals at this level might show concern for ethnicities not their own, the treatment of domesticated animals, saving endangered species, or even the health of the Earth itself. This attitude has not been around long and is new in history. That’s what makes it so unique. So what type of states do people at the “above group“ level form? That’s a good question. Since this attitude is so new, we have yet to find a functioning model. Western countries where this view is common are currently webs of confusion. They have no clear view of what they are doing or their direction. Individuals at the higher levels are sacrificing themselves for and replacing themselves with people at the lower levels. So unless we find a solution, this higher consciousness will self-extinguish and amount to a brief aberration in history. The point of this essay is to suggest a proper direction for people at the above group level to follow.

So here we have two ideas. The first is biological evolution, and the second is spiritual evolution. Are they both correct? What if we agree that man is evolving spiritually and that race is the evolutionary unit? What would the spiritual evolution of different races look like? The answer is unknown because no one has ever studied this – at least not comprehensively. One way to address this problem might be to view history from the consciousness perspective. If we could identify the first occurrence of this above group thinking, then we might be able to trace it through history. Looking at history with this view in mind, we see that humanity has been at the group level for a long time. Since the advent of states around 4000 years ago, man has thought at the group level. Today, the vast majority of humans are probably at this level.

The first occurrence of above-group thinking appears to be the beginning of natural science. Natural science began in the 13th century with Roger Bacon. Once this science gained a modicum of popularity, the catholic church quickly forbade it. It took three whole centuries before the church finally lessened its grip. Once this happened, science promptly took off, resulting in the modern technological world. Before this, there was Greek natural philosophy, which was different. With this philosophy, the Greeks would observe nature for – maybe five minutes – then immediately launch into theory. It was all theory and speculation and no investigation or discovery. No patience was needed for natural philosophy, while enormous patience was needed for natural science. Natural philosophy and all other pursuits in previous civilizations – architecture, religion, philosophy, mathematics – were all human-centered.

Natural science was different in that it was the wholesale investigation of nature. It was the first large-scale occurrence of above-group thinking. Many of the first scientists devoted their entire lives to studying nature. There was no imaginable benefit for themselves or their group that could come from their experiments. It was the opposite; many paid a terrible price for their efforts. They could not foresee in their wildest dreams the results of their investigations. Their only possible motivation was the desire for knowledge. They had just become obsessed with understanding nature and could not help themselves. It is essential to realize that all experiments were accessible at the beginning of natural science as no special equipment or knowledge was needed. The scientists invented their apparatus as they moved along. Anyone could have carried out these experiments. Any clever Greek, Arab, Chinaman, or even African could have pursued these experiments, but none of them did. They didn’t because there was no perceivable benefit from studying nature – it made no sense. All questions could be answered by reading the bible, koran, etc. To look at nature for answers was just blasphemy. Pursuing this line of study took a fascination with nature – a fascination these people lacked. Unlike today’s scientists, the early natural scientists were thinking at the above group level. There is no other explanation for their behavior.

What was the race type of these individuals who devoted their lives to investigating nature? If we look at their background, we see they all, with apparently no exceptions, come from a culture that was created by and dominated by the Nordic race type.[1] Looking at their racial features, we see that most of them conform to the Nordic racial type. If we look at the few who don’t (southern and eastern European types), we see they always came from the most Nordic part of the country they were living in. This fact strongly suggests their Nordic neighbors influenced their behavior.

To demonstrate this, let’s briefly examine one of the least Nordic countries that participated in the beginnings of science – Italy. From the 6th to the 10th centuries, Italy was invaded/populated by Germanic tribes from the north. These tribes settled in northern and central Italy but never reached as far south as Rome in any numbers. One exceptionally gifted tribe, the Lombards, originated in Scandinavia and settled most thickly around Florence in Tuscany. At their peak, these German tribes probably comprised no more than 20 percent of Italy’s population. In upper Italy and Tuscany, they may have reached 50 percent of the population.

In his 1905 book “The Germans in the Italian Renaissance,“ Ludwig Woltmann examines the racial characteristics of 200 historical “geniuses“ of the Italian Renaissance. Of the 150 where he had enough evidence, he determined 130 were Nordic or mostly Nordic in racial type. The other 20 he describes as Nordic hybrids. He did not find a single pure Mediterranean type in the group. He also examined the racial characteristics of each region in Italy and compared that to the number of geniuses produced. He found a direct correlation between Nordic racial traits and the number of geniuses produced in the area. In his label “geniuses,“ Woltmann includes everything from painters to explorers, so admittedly, “genius“ does not equal scientist, but the ratio should be the same.

In its article on Italian scientists, Wikipedia lists 31 notable scientists from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance period. Of these, 27 were from upper Italy, where the Nordic tribes comprised the aristocracy and a good percent of the population, and only four were from southern Italy. These scientists, whatever their race type, were influenced by the Nordic element in northern Italy rather than the Mediterranean element in south Italy. So, if we look at the first natural scientists, we find they had at least three things in common. First, they came from a culture created and dominated by the Nordic race type; second, we see the vast majority conformed to this type; and third, we see a disproportionate share of them came from the nobility or upper class. This was true for Italy as well as the rest of Europe. Woltmann also investigated 250 historical “geniuses“ in France. His findings were the same as those of Italy: the vast majority were of a Nordic type, and almost all were from the areas in France where the Nordics were most populous. He also found that 34 percent were from the French nobility, while the nobility comprised less than 1 percent of the population. Again, “genius“ here does not equal natural scientist, but the ratio should be the same.

In summary, as soon as the large migrations – with their endless wars – settled down, and as soon as the church would permit it – as soon as circumstances would allow it – Europe became obsessed with studying nature. It was not all Europeans that did this, however, but specifically the Nordic element. All other elements played a supplementary role. There was no self or group interest in their actions but simply a desire to know what made nature tick. The result of this is the modern technological world we all live in today. The beginning of natural science is probably the first large-scale occurrence of above-group thinking in history. This fascination with nature – the driving force behind the beginning of science – can even be seen today in the Nordic peoples. Outdoor recreation, in which the only reward is the observation of nature, such as hiking, camping, bird-watching, or scuba diving, is mainly pursued by Nordic types in cultures dominated by the Nordic type.

It was also the Nordic type who – for better or worse – developed the ideas of modern liberalism. Liberal ideas began in European countries where the Nordic element was dominant – particularly England. The motivation of these liberal pioneers is somewhat murky, though. The aim of these individuals might be construed as self-interest, group interest, or above group – just depending on the circumstances. One subject that should clarify motivations is the history of slavery and its abolition. Almost all human groups practiced slavery at some time in their history. From Asia to Africa and America, slavery has been widely practiced. While virtually all human groups have been equally guilty of practicing it, not everyone has been equally responsible for ending it. The abolition of slavery appears to be the distinct accomplishment of the Nordic race. The first movement to end slavery started in Great Britain and the United States in the late 1700s. (It goes without saying that the Nordic element was dominant in these two countries at the time).

Great Britain passed The first law making slavery illegal in 1772. Great Britain and the US outlawed the international slave trade in 1807. Most of the Nordic-dominated countries where slavery was practiced had ended it by the early 1800s. South America followed suit in the mid-1800s. The rest of the world generally ended slavery from the late 1800s to the early 1900s. At the time, many of these nonwhite countries were envious of Western progress and devised plans to modernize(read – catch up to the West). Since Britain and France preferred not to trade with countries that practiced slavery, ending it necessarily became part of these countries’ plans for modernization.

In other words, most countries only ended slavery under pressure from the West. If you look at the race type of the leading abolitionists, you’ll find two types – Nordic and African. The motivation of the ex-slaves was self or group interest. The motivation of the Nordics was mostly above-group interest. While some of the first abolitionists might have had self or group interests, the majority of them were concerned with the fate of the enslaved people themselves. There was no financial or social reward for them to do this. None of them ever made a penny by agitating for the end of slavery. Nor did they consider the enslaved Africans as part of their group. They had no intention of socializing with, acting like, or mating with formerly enslaved Africans. Such was unthinkable at the time. They simply wanted to end the slaves suffering. The behavior of the first abolitionists (namely Quakers and Puritans in Great Britain and the United States) was altruism directed towards people outside their group. It was clearly above group thinking and the race type doing it was Northern European as opposed to Southern or Eastern European. So if we examine the beginnings of the end of slavery we find that:

• Everyone involved was from a country founded and dominated by the Nordic element.
• Most abolitionists were of the Nordic racial type and those who weren’t had self or group interests.
• A large percentage of them came from a wealthy or upper-class background.

Of course, the Nordic type is also responsible for the modern environmental or “green“ movement. Just subscribing to green politics does not mean one is practicing above group thinking though. Many people worldwide have realized that a community that has clean water or clean air and lives closer to nature will be happier. Hence, their motivation to pursue these policies is a group interest. The field of conservation offers the greatest clarity as to motive. Since if some obscure animal – the Perdido Key beach mouse, for example – were to become extinct, almost no one would ever know – and its extinction would not affect any human in any way – the people trying to save these animals must be concerned with the fate of the animal itself, rather than some human-centric motive. So, a brief examination of conservation history – the protection of endangered species – is necessary here. The first appearance of conservation practices occurred in British India in the mid-1800s. The idea was that human practices could damage the environment, and humans had a moral duty to preserve forests for future generations(group interest).

So, the British in India set up forest departments and started managing them according to scientific principles. These ideas soon spread to other British colonies and North America. Many of the first conservationists were sport hunters who realized that if they killed enough game, some species could disappear or go extinct. So they sought to manage wildlife with the idea of having something to hunt in the future. (group interest) Once the concept of extinction became widely accepted a new wave of conservationists appeared who were more concerned with the fate of the animals themselves rather than some self-interest. The website conservationhistory.org lists about 60 people they describe as “conservation heroes .”The vast majority of them are Nordics, and their thinking is above-group. A few nonwhites make the list. Reading through their stories, though, it becomes clear their motivation was self or group interest. After almost a century of work, the efforts of these conservationists paid off when the United States government passed the Endangered Species Act of 1973. This act was the first legislation of its kind worldwide and served as a model for subsequent legislation passed worldwide. Let’s look at the leading conservationists themselves. We find the same thing as with science and slavery abolition – mostly Nordic individuals, all from Nordic countries, and many from upper-class backgrounds(though the ratio here is probably not as high as with science or slavery abolition). If we examine the history of animal welfare we get the same picture. In the not-too-distant past, animals were considered dumb brutes, and cruelty towards them was inconsequential. No one had anything to say about it the world over. In the West, everything is different today, where we recognize animals as sentient beings, and animal cruelty laws are commonplace. It was the Nordic element that changed this. It’s almost the exact same story as the ones above.

With this brief look at history through the lens of consciousness, it should be obvious the Nordic racial type is the only race at the above group level. The Nordic race has increased awareness of and ability to feel sympathy for life outside its group. No other racial group appears to have this ability. Non nordics that think this way do so because of Nordic cultural influence. The personality traits that led him to investigate nature in the 16th century(and thus develop Western science)were the same traits that led him to explore the Earth in the following centuries and are the same traits that today lead him to pursue charitable causes such as protecting endangered species or helping less gifted peoples. It is essential to realize that not all members of the Nordic race think this way. Most of them probably don’t. This trait is related to giftedness. The more a man has going for him the greater his capacity for altruism and above group thinking he has. The peasant class did not start the above group-level pursuits in Western history. They weren’t involved then, and they aren’t involved now. All they can manage is to take care of their own needs. At the end of the day, they don’t have anything left over to give. This suggests that taking the most gifted members of the Nordic race and putting them in positions of authority is the path to a more humane society. This path is what the noble republic leadership structure aims to achieve.

If we agree that the evolution of life is the evolution of consciousness and race is nature’s unit of division among humanity, can we conclude the long-term goal of any national or global political philosophy should be to increase the level of consciousness among humanity by forming policies that procreate the race with the highest consciousness at a rate higher than the other races? Even if this means lowering the birthrate of the non-Nordic races? Would this policy be noble or ignoble? If this seems unjustified, consider the world’s population and how it got to its current level. In 1800, the world’s population stood at around 1 billion. Today it stands at just over 8 billion. Almost all of this growth is among the non-Nordic races, and nearly all of it is due to the adaption of Western technology.

Two technologies, disease control and hybrid food crop production – and, to a lesser extent, other technologies like electricity and the internal combustion engine – are what led to the world’s population growth over the past 200 years. These technologies are a product of Western science and science was developed by Nordic man not because he has a higher IQ or some unique “civilization-building ability“ but because he has a higher consciousness. If IQ were the main factor behind the development of science, then the Japanese would have developed it a long, long time ago. Today, 90% or so of the world’s citizens owe the fact they’re alive to the Nordic man and his science. We could go even further and say their lives are also a result of the fact Nordic men had an aristocracy in the past. Recall the catholic church forbade studying nature under the penalty of death. It took 300 years for the nobility to finally throw off the yoke of the catholic church and earn the freedom to study nature. Had a modern democracy been in its place, it’s doubtful it could have accomplished this(or even wanted to), and the world and the world’s population would be in the same state it was 500 years ago. With these thoughts in mind, we can ask the question again – since Nordic man inadvertently created the world’s burgeoning population with his science and technology, would it be moral for him to uncreate that population? While I’ll let the reader answer that question for themselves, I’ll say he has the right to remove the life support tube. He has the right to dictate to the rest of the world what Western technologies they can or cannot use, even if this is done with the goal of lowering their populations.

Today nordic man and the countries he inhabits are in sharp decline. His birthrate has been below the replacement rate since the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Admittedly, extinction is a long way off, but the point of no return is not. At some point in the not-too-distant future, he will lose control of his destiny – even if his members could agree on that destiny. His fate will then be in the hands of those he sacrificed himself for and the upward consciousness trend of humanity will be reversed. We can assume the kinder, gentler, more humane Western world he created will also be reversed. Writers who realize this and propose solutions always suggest going backward. Back to this, back to that, back to some state of group interest in the past where whites cared about other whites and not much else. It’s hard to convince society to go backward. It’s like pulling teeth. They won’t do it. That is why all such proposals have been brushed aside. But there is a way forward: for the Nordic man to realize his biggest flaw – his willingness to show altruism towards life outside his group – is actually his greatest gift. This ‘flaw’ gives him the right – the duty even – to govern the entire planet from pole to pole.

If he leveled up and realized his place in the world, he could create a new sense of manifest destiny, the result of which would be to see him installed as the Earth’s parent race. It would be a hierarchy formed to empower altruism. It would start with the unlikely marriage of the white liberal and the white nationalist. Both sides would have to make concessions. White nationalists would have to admit that “above-group“ thinking is at a higher level than standard group interest conservatism. White liberals would have to agree that altruism – the willingness of an individual to sacrifice his self-interest for that of another – has a genetic and racial basis, and if this basis disappears, then so does altruism. However, once both sides make these concessions, everything changes. The rift that currently divides Nordic man disappears. Old enemies become friends. What was once impossible becomes possible, and a new phase in civilization appears. Yes, this is a plan for global conquest, but it is not born of ill will or lust for power. It would be born of the fact that our global community desperately needs leadership, and the Nordic race, having the highest consciousness and the ability to show altruism to life outside its group, is best qualified to provide that leadership. Let’s hope the West chooses this route – it would undoubtedly be a better direction than our current one.