I’ve spoken before about the necessity of contending with multiracialism, as it has proven itself a cornerstone of this new era. There is no meaningful way to uproot all non-whites from this country at this point. Even if we were to end all pathways to naturalization and deport all foreign-born residents, we would still be left with a roughly 60% white country. If we assume that at any given time the white population is split roughly 50/50 across this political divide, then it is impossible for any form of orthodox white nationalism to win. Need I remind everyone that our opposition seeks not only the domination of white nationalism but the wholesale slaughter of white nationalists? Yet there is no sympathy for the white nationalist because of the exclusionary nature of his politics.

This dilemma is the birthplace of future ideology and of my proposal for the conventions of Theodorianism as we continue its development. There must be a reconciliation with multiracialism in the pursuit of patriotism, as the left has stationed itself as fundamentally anti-patriotic. The vast majority of soil-born non-whites in this country possess a deep patriotism. Yet if they are excluded from the nationalist cause (which innately runs downstream as a logical successor to patriotic sentiment), they will be forced into the arms of the unpatriotic. I ask the white nationalist: why should they love you more than they love themselves? Policy in this multicultural democracy is first and foremost a matter of self-preservation. If you, the assumed contrarian, pose a threat to the presence of these patriotic non-whites, they will gladly choose their un-American co-ethnic over you.

The issue of civil standards in America is one derived from culture. While it is true that one’s natural culture is derived from race and largely runs downstream from race itself, there is great power in the expression and persuasion of superior culture. I’ve used the example of the Romans before to explain the process by which inferior cultures like the Germans were dominated by the superior culture of the Romans through a forceful process of assimilation—so much so that a mere hundred years later the same Germans were proclaiming themselves to be Romans. Clearly, as evidenced by Fuentes himself, there exists an ability to Americanize (which really means to Anglicize) other populations. This is a crucial tenet of Theodorianism: the idea that we must stake ourselves culturally in this new era and draw a firm distinction between the patriot and the parasite. If we can abandon the 20th-century notion of race versus race, then we open ourselves up to absorbing the desiring patriots that exist among the other races (of which there are many).

The struggle against the natural world is the history of man’s struggle against himself.

Identity is the construction and development surrounding this grander competition between human and man. I ask simply: what defines “man” if not his identity? Where simple nature dictates the previously defined law of existence, our capacity for abstract thought and greater sapience has enabled us to reach toward something greater. For the struggle against the natural world is a war waged for civilization through the will of men.

The Theodorian pursuit of civilizational development is rooted in the understanding of this dichotomy—human and man. The human represents not only the carnal instincts and dispositions of our species but the material conditions he is born into. These conventions of development (his natural disposition and his material conditions) will act as the crucible from which he will create his expression of self—the man. The man represents our expression of identity, something that has changed and developed over time. Where the Assyrians knew themselves as great Aramaic warriors who worshipped the gods of old and cultivated vast fields of rye situated in the Fertile Crescent beneath a harsh sun, the Iraqis today still live beneath that sun, situated in the same crescent, and yet their identity has shifted dramatically when compared to the “Iraqis” of old.

They are the same people, admittedly with some peninsular Arab admixture, but ultimately they are really no different from their ancient counterparts in form. Yet their function is so vastly different. The racialist would argue that all of a people’s attributes are hard-coded into their genetic clustering, and yet we see numerous examples of people groups changing entirely; developing and regressing, prospering and starving, all across the expanse of history. This is where the Theodorian understands that there exists no greater expression of civilizational “self” than that of culture, and that culture is an exportable construct.

While it may seem like a concession of orthodox ideology, I would ask simply: what is ideology if it cannot stand against questioning as a lens through which to see these questions? This era is entirely defined by the great questions of our age: what is to be done, and who must undertake this struggle for America? If we cannot answer every question through a lens of ideology, then we simply have no ideology. The communists can perceive the world and its material realities through the lens of Marxism. Their opposition concerns whether or not Marxism is a viable alternative to our governing doctrine, not whether or not they have a coherent argument. Currently, we lack a coherent argument, as every probe into our ideology leaves glaring holes.

How can the largest white-oriented movement be led by someone who isn’t conventionally white?

Who exactly will be excluded from America—anyone who isn’t white?

What is the metric for that, and what about those we admire who are definitively not white?

How can we propose this to the White American who largely enjoys our diversity and greatly reveres non-whites when he outnumbers us?

These are glaring holes in the ideological basis of these politics and make them little more than reactionary desires. Instead, there is a profound need for an adoption of cultural nationalism, which is the ultimate pursuit of Theodorianism. The dichotomy of what does and does not belong on our shores can only be defined at this point by patriotism and Western culture. America has become definitively multiracial, yet in that changing identity there remains the core Western culture of our founding. Why is it that multiracialism must necessitate multiculturalism? To be Americanized, as I’m sure we’ve all seen in our own lives, is simply the Anglicizing of everyone else. We Anglicized the Mediterraneans and the Slavs; there is little reason to think that we lack the capacity to Anglicize non-whites. If we genuinely cannot do so, then how can we ever claim that our identity was superior in the first place?

For those who would decry my propositions as concessions to leftism or mere civic nationalism, I would say that Europe is there for you. It is not that expensive to move there if you have no intention of returning, and remigration is a deeply popular position there, especially among the youth. In the next twenty years we will likely see a mass adoption of remigration, and if you seriously desire to live in such a state I would recommend that you go there. If anything, your presence could help, as you would exemplify the perceived failings of the multiracial experiment. For those with a deeper love of America—for her soul and soil—there must be a reconciliation with her new identity and the pursuit of Theodorianism: cultural nationalism, the conventions of this new civic fascism. The struggle of our existence today is the struggle of Western identity versus the East and the South. The East can never be beaten into submission, as they have proven themselves our identitarian equal; meanwhile the South has an objectively inferior culture. The mere existence of Fuentes proves that yes, our culture issuperior to that of the Amerindians and the Hispanics. If it were not, he would not exist as a personified victory of Anglicization.

The struggle of our nation moving forward will be the struggle of the national versus the international. If the left can absorb the least of our whites, then we can absorb the best of their non-whites. We have far more in common with the patriotic Hispanics, Blacks, and others who live among us than we do with the unpatriotic and Western-rejecting whites that fester in our cities and strongholds of self-hating liberalism. If we exclude the patriots in an attempt to “wake up” the parasites, we will lose both and lose ourselves completely. I truly believe that it has become nothing less than vital to the health of our nation to put down the shield of white nationalism and instead wield the fiery sword of cultural nationalism. If we can do so, I believe that America will have a chance at surviving the new age.

If we cannot, then there is nothing for us, and we will go the way of forgotten peoples from the Old World.

Ideology in any era, but especially the post-Trump world, needs to be able to answer any foundational question it’s present with. If the it fails to answer these questions, then it’s not ideology but merely a list of desires. The white nationalists cannot contend with the reality of age because their beliefs are just that; a series of desires crafted from a fantasy. If America were to finally engage in the mass deportation of illegals, terminate all foreign visas, remove the foreign born, and stop immigration entirely—we’re still left with a merely 60% white population. That’s a definitively multiracial country that will be felt across the nation, therefore it is impossible to propose anything else.

There exists the strain of orthodox white nationalists who insist upon the idea that anyone born of anything but strictly European blood must be removed; to those I’d ask simply, to what end do you plan to achieve that? The American ethos is the first place where we depart from our formerly European roots. This is to say, Americans tend to enjoy a certain level of diversity in their lives. The average white American likes their black or brown friends, and even more so enjoys the notion of “legal immigration”. Mind you, to the mind of the average American, I myself would be deemed a psychopathic fascist—when you, the dissenter reading this, would consider me a civic liberal. The truth is sobering, but it remains the truth despite your desires.

However, make no mistake, the opposition that faces us at this time has a far more plausible plan; as destruction is far more achievable than creation. The left has clearly been infiltrated by foreign actors of the east who seek the destruction and desecration of our union in advancement of their own aims. Why else would the leftists of America hold no criticism of China while actively promoting ideas that would earn the proposer a brutal, state-mandated death in their country. They clearly seek to undermine us by pushing for degenerative policy that will instill weakness in us. Yet, they have tuned their messaging to a post-woke leftism that sounds inclusive to the masses of disillusioned white Americans who believe that the other races share their desire for a more equitable world.

This is the necessity of Theodorianism, as it addresses the simple fact that this hatred and irreverence of whites found within the brown population comes from a culture of prejudice and permitted anti-Americanism. If we are to survive this shift, we must contend with the reality of race and culture through the re-education and reprogramming of the nonwhite population to restore the social notion of western reverence and American patriotism. To childishly throw our hands up and demand unrealistic and noninclusive politics, all we are doing is furthering the goals of our adversaries who will inevitably crush us.

I’d ask of you all, what is the value of your orthodox white nationalism when the race communists take over? When you’ve failed to achieve anything meaningful and have made a natural enemy of half the country. There is no reality where the nonwhites of America ever accept the notion that America isn’t for them and doesn’t include their presence. Furthermore, the whites of America that have accepted this notion (which presumably makes up the majority of whites to begin with) will never agree with the notion of white nationalism. Perhaps in the past this was our identity, but times have changed. If the right is to refrain from going the way of the Know Nothings and the gilded age native-americans, we must contend with these realities rather than reject them. The collective cultural mind of the masses can be influenced, as we’ve seen across recent history. Especially considering that today, most people derive their opinions from short form content posted on foreign-crafted algorithms.

Sure, we can note the objective fact that the origins of American multiracialism are rooted in a foreign subversion, but the cultural perception of America as a great “melting pot” is one that exists because of a white desire for its existence. It’s a uniquely white perspective to desire pluralism and a multiracial meritocracy; after all, this was the origin of liberalism in the colonial age. This idea would not have taken hold in the American cultural mind if it weren’t at least somewhat appealing to the public; something that remains true for the vast majority of the public today.

When the masses demanded mass deportation during the 2024 election, they meant illegal immigrants. When you, the white nationalist, fail to accept the notion that every single non white would need to go, you yourself agree with the desire for a more civic nationalism. Even if you desire the presence of one nonwhite, you have betrayed the foundational doctrines of your espoused ideology and therefore cannot be considered an ideological actor. If I were to call myself a carnivore, yet allowed myself to eat lettuce alone, I simply would not be a carnivore. Even if the overwhelming majority of my diet was meat, I would not be able to present myself as a carnivore. This is the same dynamic of ideology in its more rudimentary form, as politics and the construction of civilization requires a far greater adherence to doctrine in order to sway the opinion of the masses. Every answer must be prepared for every question. It is only the conventions of Theodorianism, pragmatic cultural nationalism, that holds the ability to contend with these questions.

“Who remains in America?”

Everyone born and naturalized here

“What is an American?”

A cultural WASP

“What do we do about white hatred?”

Reeducate their children, just as they did to ours

“What do we do about crime?

Strict policing and an enforcement of better development for the children and early families of problem communities

“How do we fix jobs?”

It’s nationalism, we return production to the states

“How do we stop foreign influence?

Electoral reform, remittance bans, and the establishment of a more federalist form of democracy

“How do we assimilate the non-Europeans?”

By meeting them where their cultures are. A dictatorship of culture that enforces itself, as these are people coming from lands that have never known self-reliant social liberalism

All of these are popular and pragmatic policies that the average American would not only accept but would actively support, as the desire for assimilation and civic responsibility is still an accepted doctrine of social order. Anything beyond this would cross into an exclusionary territory that the vast majority of Americans would not accept.

Anything less would grant amnesty to the enemies of our society.

Truthfully, I’m sick of it.

I’ve been asked many times about my criticism of the jews. I’d argue that I’ve never made a criticism of “the jews” but rather the conventions of jewish identity. It’s the same criticism I possess for all identities outside of the American identity and anyone who insists upon retaining an eternal otherness. See, my gripe with Jewry comes from their obsession with blood. They truly believe themselves to be the hebrews of old and insist that we, this loose category of white people, be their Roman enemy. It’s an objectively racist worldview derived from a primitive way of thinking and yet I find the idea that we would stoop to their level as a counter to their antagonism, frankly, appalling.

I understand why the reaction from young white men today would be to desire tribalism just as they do—but what does that say of us as men? I see figures like Nick Fuentes, who I admire and pay my respects to without any doubt, promote the narrative that we are the “inheritors of Rome” and a continuation of Europe. I’ve mentioned several times across my content that I disagree with Fuentes on certain things and this is really the root of my disagreement.

I am not a Roman. How low must I think of myself and my forefathers to be as such? I wish not to be a Roman but rather to ASCEND past Roman. To evolve beyond Greek, beyond Roman, beyond English, beyond Europe as it stands. This is because I am American. It’s known that I’m a heritage American, my forefather Benjamin Spaulding fought in the revolutionary war throughout what would become New Hampshire. Is that really the reward for his sacrifice? To merely be European? For the nation he helped found to be nothing more than a colony of Europe? We cast off the shackles of the old world in our pursuit of liberty and formed ourselves independently of their crowns, and their tribes, and their civilizations. We brought with us the best of their achievements and grew past them, willing the American identity into existence through our strength and resilience.  The Revolution was not a simple struggle against one polity pursuant to the reign of another; it was the struggle of the cultural mind against the natural world. Nature would dictate that I live on the British Isles, yet the strength of my forefathers willed into reality their destiny and prosperity upon the American continent. So I say no, I will not be a Roman and I will not be a European. How barbaric and shameful it is to call ourselves the Romans. Are we the Arabs? The Africans? The petty tribalism of an old world defined by holy war, rape, murder, and slavery? Lorded over by decadent tyrants and noble thieves? America is the rejection of these ills because America is our collective struggle against mankind’s animal nature. It is the minds of our great men who willed our nation into existence!

Of course, we were built upon foundations derived from Europe, but would we say that great statues represent the concrete they’re carved from? Is a portrait emblematic of the oil used to paint it?  Is an American merely the roots of a great tree, or is he the fruit of our prosperity and our philosophy? The soil of a field or the will of the man who plows it? The Europeans didn’t put a man on the moon or endow themselves with self evident truths of liberty, Americans did. It’s from this very notion of American identity that I know myself. This rhetoric from Fuentes, like others, says that we must know ourselves by our ancestors land. I ask, how is that any better than the Jew who insists upon his supposed Hebrew identity? The African who beats his chest and displays the savagery of the Zulus? How am I to say that America is mine if I insist upon knowing my very existence as somewhere and something else? There’s a reason you wouldn’t call me an Anglo-American or a British-American. I’m an American, the greatest of Europe that broke the chain of history in pursuit of something greater. Something my ancestors insisted upon across their lives. The very essence of American identity is to claim a unique right to the American continent.

In my view, what plagues American society today isn’t race, nor religion, nor affiliation—but rather this insistence upon tribalism and the presence of foreign identity. We are plagued by this feckless death-grip we have welded onto the old world.  This great reverence for our past achievements and constant justification of our sins. If we are to solve the question of American multiracialism as a material reality we will inevitably be forced to contend with, why would we stoop to the level of these invaders and newcomers? We are Americans and they should be made to enjoin themselves to the American identity through a great erasing of their tribalism.

Only so much of a man can remain when the rest is so mercilessly beaten out of him, and I see it as a great triumph of American culture to wield this power of cultural ascension and exorcise the tribalism of old out of those who resist us. I look at the Hispanics who serve ICE, God bless them in their work—Men who are willing to violently remove their ethnic-kin in support and defense of their cultural-kin, their spiritual-kin. American futurism, to me, is the eternal boot of Joe Padilla brutalizing Jose Padilla for his crimes against our sovereignty. Only America could produce such a thing, and it’s only America that can take humanity to its highest stage. This is the solution in my mind to the greatest question of our age as the public debates the very meaning of American identity. To reduce this question to a difference of blood is the behavior of the old world. An old world that would dictate violence and conflict between Fuentes and I on account of our blood differences, our faith differences. An old world that would insist I see so many patriotic Americans as my eternal opposition and enjoin myself to unpatriotic others as my co-ethnic brothers. Where is the superiority of this mindset?  It’s no better than that of petty civilizations who stutter before our achievements. It wasn’t the Europeans who created this nation, nor was it the British, but rather the Americans. If we were to remain in this old world mind, America would be a British nation and the Catholics would be foreign enemies. It’s not like our great cities were planned or designed by the ethnics, they were merely laborers who lived in tenements and welded steel where we told them to. Is that the goal of my philosophy? No, because even now as I write these words I feel appalled by such an arrogance I could display had I been another man with no fear of God and love for this country.

And yet, by that logic, would I not then consider the black American nothing more than the remnants of a farm tool? How could I look upon the face of the black child, the righteous and God fearing black family and think as such? Did the sacrificial blood of their forefathers not also fertilize the soil of this land that the fruits of our prosperity grow from? Sure his ilk cause many, many problems that need to be addressed but to say that he does not belong or must be relegated to an existence as an eternal foreigner is simply ridiculous to me. I am an American, we are Americans, I will die an American, and I will spend my blessed life upon the American continent rejecting the vices of the old world in pursuit of a more perfect union. A struggle against the eternal tyranny of the old world, in the righteous pursuit of our everlasting sovereignty. If history demands that war between my blood and the blood of others, then I wish to betray that history in favor of the beatitudes; to be called a son of God as a peacemaker.

However, make no mistake, I am not a fool in my beliefs. In opposition to the old world calls of the white nationalist, the race communist insists upon a borderless world and the praising of paper Americans. There is no room in this great country for the paper American who derives his claim to her from merely a stamp given to him by bureaucrats and internationalists. Rather, I believe that immigration must be stopped for the foreseeable future, the illegally reside must be removed, and those that remain must undergo this Americanization by the brutal force of the state. English, individualism, meritocracy, a reverence for the western canon we derive our foundations from and a singular patriotism that pursues only the ascendancy of America. The strong arm of the state ruling over this new Union as a great warden of peace and prosperity. I believe that this is the only reasonable way forward for us, and the only one that does not necessitate the violence my forefathers sought elevation past.

This is where I depart from the Groypers, and it’s where I make my claim towards the eternal struggle of civilization. Yet, my admiration and adherence continues elsewhere in their doctrine, and this really only serves as a diary of my personal beliefs.

God bless you, and God bless America.

The Great Washing Machine

I’ve been accused many times of being a mere civic nationalist, a liberal subversive in the face of real political potential that my presence somehow stifles. Yet, the same who would label me as such seemingly do not understand the conditions we’ve found ourselves in and the pragmatism of my beliefs. The rootedness of my values and ideology against the backdrop of American history as it meets modernity.

Its become clear to anyone of a political mind that our nation has entered unprecedented times; truly, a new world, one not defined by the values of old but the innovations of tomorrow as they arrive more and more today. It’s from this that I seek real political change, that I seek real solutions to our material conditions and the great threats before us in the coming decades. It’s far too easy to profess hatred, and understandable more than anything. The white American has been beaten and ground into dust by the twin grindstones of DEI and racial discrimination. I, like many of you, could recount the same stories of this great shift in power that occurred right under our noses that we, the American people, really had no say over.

Yet, we’re here, it’s 2026 and the world is a fundamentally different place. The average American finds the notion of white nationalism egregiously inhumane and, at best, a very stupid fantasy. While many believe in mass deportation, this alone cannot achieve the aims of true white nationalism. How could we possibly achieve a truly white-only America in the face of bioleninism and its grip over our institutions? The desire for functioning diversity so implanted into our people via a century of indoctrination? It’s this question that drives me to my ideological conclusions.

I believe that an America of many bloods is possible, truthfully I do. Surely not as peaceful as the genetic homogeneity of yesteryear but in a world of war and decay, survival is a luxury. It’s fully possible that we achieve a white supermajority in this country, something I think all people would benefit from, but the way by which we move forward into that dream must be established by more than just ourselves. I believe that culture, more than anything, is the true test of human existence. While yes, culture runs downstream from race, it’s been made clear that people can be socialized into culture if only by the strong and brutal arm of the state.

In my ideal America, we could welcome some of our non European neighbors. But in doing so, I reject the civic nationalist model of the great melting pot in favor of state power. Something like a great washing machine, a state that wields the power of both violence and incentive to ensure that the foreignness within our borders is scrubbed clean from our people and cleansed by a culture of loyalty, reverence, and honor for what we truly are. We are a European society, a Christian society, and it is within our power to beat this sentiment into every man who dwells amongst us. Where the civic nationalist seeks self-assimilation, I seek state mandated socialization.

When the “based” Hispanic you know expresses his views, it’s not because he chose to adopt them. It was beaten into him by the power of culture in modernity. This phenomenon occurs every so often, but what I propose is the weaponization of that dynamic. A whole generation of Hispanics pushed into the fold of our people through the power of the state with no tolerance for dissent.

A day where officer padilla (puh-dill-uh) brutalizes the illegal Mr. Padilla (pah-dee-yah) as an extension of the state’s monopoly on violence. It’s possible, as any implication of its impossibility implies that we aren’t truly superior as a nation.

If we can be so easily consumed by the Amerindian savagery around us, then perhaps we didn’t deserve to exist at all. We are the collective arbiters of Europe’s greatest successes and in crossing the Atlantic we were meant to leave behind our worst failings. The tribalism and conflict, the disease and distastefulness of the old world should remain on the Eurasian soil and here we must cultivate, in the face of our new material conditions, a better European society. A more perfect union, one that can invite foreign blood and cleanse it of the old world’s fecklessness.

In many ways I support the Monroe doctrine but believe it to be far too lenient. The Amerindian aspects of our neighbors must never be reconciled with, and instead it must be eradicated in its entirety. Look at Bukele and his regime in El Salvador. He has, in nearly every capacity, uprooted the Amerindian culture (as represented by the cartels) and only uplifted the European heritage of his people. In doing so, they have forged a better society despite their lack of homogeneity and ethnic cohesiveness. I believe that we are capable of the same and so much more.

Truthfully, I would consider myself something of a cultural-nationalist.

Yet If our people, our progeny, have been erased from this world—who will raise their flag?

Lenin’s pursuit of ideology was, to be fair, revolutionary. Really when we say “Leninism” we mean more aptly a sense of  “Vanguardism”. The idea that the great hypothetical “revolution” of the masses must be led by a select few, a vanguard, of ideological purists who can steer the unwashed masses of idiots to where they should be going. It’s a justification of power like child rearing; the responsible vanguard of “adults” must lead the proletarian “children” to the goals of the “revolution” as a grander ideal because the children don’t know what’s best for themselves. If given the reigns of the state, they’ll inevitably hurt themselves. This is, essentially, the argument of Lenin.

I imagine it was only a coincidence that seemingly all of the vanguard was jewish and all of the “children” were proud Orthodox Christians. Surely the promises of free luxury and a classless society were genuine, and not merely a means by which Zionist political actors could further their internationalist power in the early 20th century. Who knows? Maybe they were being genuine; I’m willing to argue on that premise. Crazier things have happened.

Today we’ve entered into a new era. An angrier and faster world of machines unfathomable to the workers of Lenin’s world. See, Lenin’s vision only works in the world Lenin resided in. How can the factories be owned by the “righteous proletarian” if the factories have long since gone away? How can the farms be collectively owned by the dignified worker if the soil is no longer tilled by human hands? I ask you now, but these are the questions of our detractors asked amongst themselves in their pursuit of victory over us once more.

The answer, or at least their best attempt, rests on the premise of “bioleninism”. Whether a vulgar mockery of left-wing ideology or a real strain of political thought;

our opposition’s new approach is the same vanguardism of Lenin’s work rooting itself not in the relationship of workers and owners, but rather today the vanguard establishes power in the vessel of race.

The dynamics of bioleninism are simple. The relationship of proletariat and bourgeois is reformed into a dichotomy of race. White and colored become their stand-ins, and the revolution is not an overthrowing of wealth and productive forces, but an uprooting of race. Rather than striking the wallet or the furnace of western society, the bioleninist wishes to strike the people, the race, of western society. It appears almost as if they’ve learned something about our people; that even when stripped of our flags and our faith, we find a way to remain ourselves. The bioleninist doesn’t want to change us, it‘s proven itself impossible to do so, rather he wishes only to erase us.

A vanguard of conscious political actors, aware of the world and their grievance against whites, lead forth a mass of colored groups who otherwise would know nothing of politics and have little care for its ongoings. They promise them fantasies of free resources and dignity for their inferior cultures to gain their favor. These masses, who I’ve come to call the “bloodteriat”, will their political power through sheer presence and number without a need for ideological education or guidance. Whether that be through voting or simply imposing themselves as a stated force, the goal is the same. The bioleninist wishes for the bloodteriat to outweigh and outnumber us as a means to enact his revolution. He’s aware that this colored mass lacks the capacity for revolutionary thought, whether by education or genuine intellectual capacity, and so he cares very little for their actual best interests or their ideological conventions. To him, they are a weapon of flesh meant to debase us. To them he is a wise political guide who wields a righteous hand against us, the west, the white race as an enemy.

This pursuit reveals to us that the interests and goals of Leninism were never really about equity or the “dignity” of the international worker. Rather, they were about the obliteration of their perceived enemies and the destruction of western civilization. A blood feud, held between Rome and Jerusalem, with communism as the ultimate weapon to be wielded against us. Now, in modern times, we’re presented with this innate paradox of leftism that defines the very political action of the left as a whole. How can one claiming to be an advocate for the working man be so in favor of his replacement and his debasement? How can the union advocate support importing that which objectively disempowers the union?

It’s simple really; the goal was never money. The goal was our destruction, and money was just an easy target. When the economics of the west were based on steel and blue jeans, it made sense to strike our productive capacities. Today, in the financier world, it’s not as simple to destroy our nations as burning down a few buildings. No, the systems will remain as load bearing columns but rather people, her children, must be erased to ensure that the bioleninist can assume control. It is not the grand pursuit of equity and common ownership, but rather the great struggle of coloreds and whites. Their ideology is centered around primal, colored reactionary grievances against the west from seemingly every direction.

This is what makes bioleninism so uniquely dangerous.  Marxist-Leninism as state ideology was all encompassing, it necessitated the erasure of Marx’s “superstructure” to be replaced by a new “revolutionary culture”. State atheism, a new Mythos, a complete upheaval of pre-industrial societal structures. Yet, Bioleninism completely curtails these necessities because its ideology is innate rather than abstract. The socialist African Muslim and the Indian Hindutva can both support the efforts of bioleninism because their existence is their contribution. The bioleninist knows this, and subsequently plays to their values. It’s not that they’re useful idiots, no, they’re useful animals. They take up space and therefore the bioleninist aim is not to sway them or educate them—he seeks to merely bring them in.

See, the bioleninists and our supporters, we both understand the same material realities of race and its relationship to the west. The west is white, it’s European, without this essential piece of our existence there is no west. While to us, that means we need to preserve our existence—the bioleninist sees that as the cornerstone that he must destroy in order to collapse our entire western structure. Essentially, we both understand that the west and white sovereignty is superior to the global south…

The question is whether or not we’re happy about that.

In this intimate world, we have democratized the functions of the jester. What we created as a means for widespread communication and the dissemination of previously unattainable knowledge has become a means by which we can further prove to ourselves our own idiocy. If all are allowed to express dissenting opinions, what is left for us to agree upon? This phenomenon is only exacerbated by our current position as a supposedly cosmopolitan society, all at the behest of our internationalist keepers of power and influence. The only way we could ever possibly wish to achieve unity is by the swift eradication of that which sows dissent.

Our adversaries have seemingly mastered this issue and have truly tamed the culture of their nation. Xi Jinping, arguably our greatest cultural adversary, has spent trillions of dollars and decades of people’s time pouring support into programs and legislation to uplift and center the Han identity as the de facto state synonym for “Chinese”. So much so that the people of China refer to this proposition as “漢服”, literally “in the style of the Hans”. Despite the presence of many minority groups China’s borders, the state has chosen to construct it’s canon from the Han perspective. In doing so, they have managed to sideline that which is lesser as inferior, and create a national cohesion.

This is only natural, seeing as China is a truly collectivist society by virtue of its far eastern ethos. We are, inversely, an individualist society by birth. It would be impossible, and in many ways unnatural, to attempt some great redefining of our people into this eastern form of living. Rather, what we must do is construct this American Identity from the state downwards into the public consciousness. The state must operate, in a way, as a great cultural mind by which the party adheres to without wavering. The people, in turn, will take part in this great glorification of the nation as the foundation of its identity. Our understanding of culture and form must be greater than a national afterthought or a natural occurrence. Instead, the maintaining of our culture must become the duty of the state. In this proposed governance must be a clearly defined mechanism by which the state not only expresses the culture, the sheer identity of the nation; it must maintain an iron grip upon this expression through all aspects of governance. Every building, every power structure, every line and detail of the state’s inventions—from legislation to daily living must be informed completely by the cultural origins, the canon, of the nation.

The high speed content-driven world is one that is defined by aesthetic considerations. Media is not only a means by which we pass the time; it is the greatest weapon we possess in the face of dissidence and discontent among the populace. Freedom of speech is a must for the American people, an undeniable truth, yet this need not be an obstacle if the power of speech is harnessed by the state as a means to uplift the nation. Culture. The great marble from which we have shaped our canon.

Culture is ultimately an expression of man’s invented identity and how it has responded to the natural world. This in turn means that we possess some means by which we can shape it, cultivate it as a great tool of the state’s power.

The canon of any nation can be defined simply:

The People define The Culture

The Culture defines The Works

The Works define The People

The canon of the nation operates, ideally, in perfect symbiosis between all aspects of this trinity. The spirit of our people flows between these aspects as our daily existence. To exist within our society is to move between these aspects in all directions. This, simply put, is the human experience of civilization. The American people define American culture, which defines American prosperity, which defines the American people. Together, all three co-construct what we know of as the canon and the works that it produces. The internal mechanisms of the state’s dichotomy.

This perfect rhythm has, thus far, been largely unregulated. Operating in a capacity seemingly unsupervised by any governing body. At best, we have allowed culture to exist as a natural and untamed organism that we sometimes pay close mind to in moments of great desperation. This must never again be the case in order for us to achieve the unity we require for the nation to operate at full velocity. The state must act as the sole arbitrator of culture, informing decisions around it’s maintenance from the zeitgeist of the people of course, but overall the end result must be litigated by the state—by the party.

We must look at the construction of monuments and great expressions of our people as far more than simple displays of entertainment. They are, essentially, the great blood of our people. The essence of our nation. The Catholics of the world bow in great reverence to the Vatican because the papacy arbitrates its presentation to the tightest of letter. They could achieve the same actions and size of power through unfiltered and undefined means but this is, to them, not the glorification of God and the reinforcement of his dominion over all people.

The nation, a construction of man, must be understood as all things created by humanity; a crude imitation of God’s perfect ability. Where God can create and destroy with perfection, both making and condemning all things to and from nothing; we possess a unique gift in creating, but require materials. We possess a unique ability in destruction, but will always leave behind remains. If God is the perfect ruler of all things, then the nation must be a crude imitation of his dominion and power in its position as our imperfect worldly ruler. Therefore, the nation must be glorified by the people to the best of our ability. This glorification by the people can only be achieved in the one way we have always known how to express collective action—the state.

America, as it were, is a pan-European entity. Not a continuation of any one society but an inheritor of a greater commonality found amongst the white race, the Europeans. It’s from this that we have constructed great wonders and witnessed the history of Europe ultimately culminate into America. Even today, it’s America that sets the precedent and pace of the western world as its main arbitrator.

What most do not seem to understand about fascism is the sheer reality of it. We have this kosher and cosmopolitan mindset that fascism is an immutable evil that can never be pondered or thought through as even the slightest growth of its very roots will cause the unjust death of millions. This is a child’s understanding of ideology, clearly, and we as postmodern minded men  can and should look beyond that. Where communism can be simplified to the notion of class divisions; fascism can be explained as class cooperation. 

See, what fascism workss is the notion of national unity rather than a borderless identity. To the communist, the factory workers of Mumbai and Milan alike are one and the same. Sure, they differ in culture, but Marx describes culture (the superstructure) as dependent upon the material structure beneath it (the base). In their minds, the culture is irrelevant, its bourgeois filth that can be scrubbed clean by the proletariat and shaped into whatever they please. I doubt I need to tell you that this is a ridiculous notion, and is one that serves only to benefit the cosmopolitan and his cadre of other jews. They remain unified, while the nation is ideologically abstracted into oblivion. 

I say no, the workers of India and Milan are fundamentally different. They have no meaningful connection to one another and even if they work the same machines; they must pull its levers with different intentions. Rather, it is the Italian workers and the Italian owners that share between them this nation. From the new fascist perspective, the superstructure is not dependent upon base but truly is the base itself. I call it the canon—the grander history and identity of the nation. The ever expanding collection of our achievements, values, and vision. An immovable structure that binds the nation together across all other lines. Those loyal to the canon, who identify with the canon, can find commonality and comfort in others who follow suit. What plagues America today are those who are against the canon. Who sees this canon as a monument to evil and barbarity. What they value is what rests atop this structure—the works. The material world, the comfort and safety of our society, the economic opportunity they see within our borders. The works of our canon are our productive capacity, our labor force, the gears that make our society function. In their minds, they believe that the works can not only exist without the canon, but that the works can be TAKEN from our canon and placed atop theirs with no issue. Yet, time and time again we see that this is wrong. 

I say this as a means to explain the disparity between our nations and theirs. Anytime the defiant have taken the works from our canons, they’ve ended up in the same position they started at. When Rhodesia was usurped by the poor and backwards pan-afrikans, they managed to seize the means of production and yet they did not see prosperity. What’s more, they have completely destroyed those means of production and now face starvation in what was once the breadbasket of their entire continent. This is because they lacked the canons, they did not build up their culture and society to a point wherein they could place such a heavy weight on their canon. The result? Collapse. 

America’s unique beauty is that our canon was not only cultivated by man but was not cultivated by the age of necessity. We did not discover fire or bronze upon this great land and yet we gathered onto its soil to express our grander identity. No innate conflicts of borders, no issues of population transfers, one identity that has persisted for our existence. What we created here is the greatest and grandest canon known to our civilizational bloc since the Roman’s, and it’s from this canon that we can truly achieve anything we set out to do. 

This is why the war for our culture is so imperative and must be understood by all of our angry young men. Without our canons as a European and Christian nation, the works will quickly crumble into dust. We can lose our works, Lord knows we already have, and this will mean very little in the grander portrait of history as we can simply build it back up again. Our canon, our uniquely and innately European, western identity; this cannot be forgotten or forgone. 

The state must act as an apparatus and a grand arbitrator that rests atop our canon. The issue we face in America is this cosmopolitan and liberal notion that the state can act as a stopping force against our canon and its values. This is intentional, as they intend only to destroy us. In the ideal America of tomorrow, the state must act not only as a bulwark against foreign influence but must act as a grand guardian and proselytizer of our canon. Our culture, our faith, our identity—these must be protected and projected upon the world and throughout our nation to enshrine our national unity. The worker and the owner, the proletarian and the owner, must know one another in this great canon to ensure that the works of our society and the productive forces we possess are oriented towards the benefit of our people before anything else. Exploitation, wage slavery, these are foreign and indescribable ideas to the new fascist mind; symptoms of a rotten and cosmopolitan society that possesses no sense of self or pride in its identity. Those who would mistreat their brother are not truly brothers, and those who are not our brothers must be uprooted and purged from our people. Ask yourself, would you exploit your family? Your people? For mere profit? No one would, and yet we see no issue in harming the other because he does not belong to us. The cosmopolitan seeks an individualist and other-ized world that fosters no commonality amongst people other than their own. With no canon to share, there are no works for our benefit—our society becomes little more than a series of oxen for their burden. This is the goal of the communist, the goal of the Hebrews. 

The state must protect and uphold the canon by way of 3 fatal acts: 

1. Ensure homogeneity  

Ensuring our homogeneity means we must protect our identity as a European nation. While we have welcomed others, and they do possess their place, they must ultimately be recognized as secondary to the character of our people. I see no issue with minority populations, but they must never be held as equal in the eyes of the state. Before God we are one, as it says that we truly are in Christ, yet oneness of value is not the same as oneness of identity. Beyond this, we must seek to purge our nation of foreign influence and enshrine our western identity as the grand aspiration of our nation. All that do not kneel, must be made to bow.

2. Honor our ancestors 

The canon must be understood as sacred to the art of statecraft. Without our history and the legacy left by our predecessors, we cannot fully and truly understand ourselves as a people. Ensuring that our children are raised in a worldly devotion to our canon is critical to us achieving our sovereignty. Our birthright.

3. Orient towards the people 

The now cooperating productive forces and logistics of our society must orient their labor and innovation towards the needs of the people. What good is bread if not baked to feed our starving kin? What good is profit if not spent amongst us in furtherance of our common prosperity? Nothing. The answer will always be nothing. We must prioritize feeding our people, ensuring their procreation, and strengthen our collective power as a nation. While I don’t consider myself a capitalist or a free-market advocate by any means; I diverge from the Marxists by two simple words. 

“For who?”

The Marxist notion that each should provide to and for others by their ability towards their needs is a noble one. But again I ask, for who? Let us orient the means of production towards the people…for who? 

I, as well as my countrymen to a reasonable assumption, would be more than willing to break off a piece of our fill to ensure that our brothers and sisters could enjoin us in our bounty. Yet, who are my brothers and sisters? Is it the foreigner who dwells amongst his own and spits on the grave of my forefathers? Is it the cosmopolitan wanderer who stomps across our people in pursuit of his endless desire to make profits and eradicate our kind? No, he is the blood of my blood and the people of my people. To him, his brothers should give over the world in labor and devotion because between us is the sheer living power of the nation. Together we are joined eternally in the canon of our nation and must build our works collectively. This is human nature, the regular desires of regular people. Only the foreign or the deranged seek something different and yet they have taken the reins of our society; it only follows naturally that our people would suffer under the hand of those who wish to steal our people’s works. 

The state must espouse a benevolent tyranny upon our nation through a dominant monoculture because only WE make this nation. Beyond race is the bigger picture of our foundation, an unwinding story that has brought into its fold an amalgam of races. Our economics and productive capacity (the works) must be oriented towards the canon (our people and their story) and seek to eradicate that which does not fit within it. See, this dichotomy of canon and works is the basis of a people at our greatest extent. Blood of blood, while important, is little more than an animalistic way of understanding true state power and the influence of it’s might. The dichotomy, the pair, this is what defines us. Our canon of experience and the works it has produced. As our cousins from other bloodlines have joined our story, we have failed them by allowing their inferior ways to fester within their minds. It is an unacceptable way of ascending into our empire as we would create nothing more than the great cosmopolitan’s shopping mall from this labor. We must uproot the cultures and identities of old from our blacks, from our Asians, from our Hispanics, and instill within them our superior way of life. The American way of life. The western and Eurocentric way of statecraft and societal navigation. Only then could we hope to achieve peace as we will finally grant our canon the nation it is due. Together, under this benevolent tyranny, the state can shape itself into the compass that guides our nation as we build our way unto our birthright. 

The western hemisphere, imperium. 

This “filtering down” is not a mechanical process in which ideas of intellectuals just happen to come to the attention of the general public. It is instead a conscious effort on the part of intellectuals to alter Americans’ perceptions of the world and of themselves, an effort, among other things, to weaken or destroy Americans’ attachment to their country and to Western civilization.

Robert Bork, Slouching Towards Gomorrah, 1996

I. Prose as power

Our perceptions around the death of Caesar largely comes from Shakespeare’s telling. The reality of his assassination was far less dramatic and far more complex, with several political intrigues and interests all revolving around the same event. See, at the time of its writing, Elizabeth I was aging and had no clear heir. Anxiety spread surrounding her succession, and the tragedy was seen as a way for Shakespeare to convey to Elizabeth I at the behest of her court the dangers of a strong leader falling without a continuation of power. The tragedy reads as a story about Rome, and yet it presents a story about England.

Messaging is the end-place of a medium; the ideas and interests presented by media not as the direct depiction it gives us but the subtextual nature of its claims. To understand this is difficult, and yet to “get it” comes naturally to us. Messaging is the sharpened bronze wielded by the state’s apparatus. The intention of such a weapon is only as benevolent as its intrigue.

II. Exclusions and Exploits

When the youth of the right exclaim “Christ is King”, the words seem simple on their face. Christianity believes that Jesus Christ is truly the King of kings, and therefore the claim “Christ is King” is a showing of Christian faith. Yet, what it conveys to us is far more complex, as there exists a world of rhetoric beneath these simple words. To say “Christ is King” implies directly that the jewish religion is false, and that its claims to truth are rooted in heresy. This is because a jew cannot join these young men in their expression of faith because to do so would be against jewish belief. Even more so, an atheist or a polytheist cannot join them either, as such a claim would be antithetical to their world view. The phrase weeds out the alien, it excludes that which does not fit into true nationalism and exposes where one’s loyalties lie. This is the essence of messaging—the words and acts found within a narrative that are innate, yet unspoken.

III. The Consumer Public

I wouldn’t find messaging so fascinating if it were merely as simple as the inconvenience to some that comes from truth. No, what I find so pressing is when such a concept is weaponized against us as the consumer public. Take for example the “Frat Bro Uprising” of 2023.

GOP partisan media, an arm of the state, attempted to present us with a story. In opposition to an anti-American protest, a group of brave red blooded patriots took a stance against the woke agenda. It plays nice, and draws from the average baseline patriotism of the American public and their desire for normalcy to triumph over the radical. Yet, the story was nonsense.

The protest was for Palestine, and the “all American frat bros” were jews. They railed against the protesters because they’re jews who support Israel. It didn’t matter what the ideology or political background of these protesters was, all that mattered was their distaste for Israel. Without it, these jews wouldn’t have done anything at all. Yet, this was kept out of the story because its omission creates messaging. See, to the consumer, he’s supposed to see these young men, believe them to be white, and believe that their actions were solely based in their deep patriotism and that the protesters took issue with there men because they hate America. They hate Americans and that which hates Americans hates him. It’s an attempt to associate support for Israel with American patriotism and opposition to Israel as anti-American.

Do you see how none of this exegesis was present in their media, and yet the effect took hold on so many? This is because to understand their messaging, you require an innate distrust in their honesty and some shred of critical thought. The vast majority of Americans lack this, which is to be expected, and so they’ve become easy to rule through messaging. As media has evolved, this phenomenon has only been growing within everything we see. Gone are the days of honest words and arrived is this grand moment of bribery and court intrigue.

IV. Convenient Trust

Even now you fall for it, as this whole article has been a condemnation of jews and a claim that they hold a disproportionate amount of influence in media which allows them to utilize these insidious practices. My words throughout this have painted them as bad faith actors who would willingly engage in such practices by virtue of their historic behavior and interests.

And yet, ask yourself, did I really say any of that?

What is to be done?

I. Rome becomes Roman.

The Roman Republic didn’t fall, it was murdered. Not by the hands of the envious or the barbaric, but by the will of the people as they aspired to something greater—something cleaner and sharper. By the time Caesar had crossed the rubicon, the senate itself had been well beyond its own proverbial rubicon. The republic had grown too vast, too multicultural, as the senate became more and more detached from the Roman people (if we could even call such a patchwork of regional loyalties a “people”). Our memory of the republic’s fall is one distorted by the works of Shakespeare, funny enough. There was no tragedy in the story of Brutus, nor did he act in some grand service for the good of Rome. Hermes acted at the behest of a political class that had grown fat with greed against the Roman populace. The people saw the senate for what it was, another world that the commoner did not belong to. A series of intrigues and interests dedicated to serving itself, not the will or the mandate of the people. When Caesar passed, so did the republic, as he had become the final straw that broke the chains of a bound beast. What was released was not chaos but truly the opposite—a new order.

In a grand display of history’s desire for irony, America has found itself on the same brink as the very republic that inspired our founding. With it, a question becomes apparent; will we accept our birthright? Will we shed off the yoke of the political class and embrace our new imperium, or will we simply allow ourselves to fall into anarchy? These are the questions that plague the mind of the angry young man and fill him with radical ideas to mend this hemorrhaging state of corruption and bureaucracy.

My argument is simple. This new order must be our New American Fascism. The material reality of a looming ideological war is one that requires us to understand not only our opposition but ourselves. Anger, frustration, our disaffected state of affairs—these are what drive the Angry Young Man in his struggle for something better. Amongst our hands is a great raging fire, and yet we will assure ourselves of a grave loss unless we tame this fire into the precise and concentrated shot of a radical bullet.

These are the conventions of a New American Fascism.

II. A Great Death

Let’s face it. America will never become a white ethnostate. While I consider myself pro-white and largely pro-European; it’s simply become nothing more than an angered fantasy. Even if we could somehow garner the full support of the American white population, the logistics alone would be nothing short a nightmare. No, there exists a better way. It’s our common understanding that multiracialism must equate multiracialism. So much so that many of us would consider them one and the same. Yet, this has shown itself to be a misunderstanding of man’s own power. The destiny that we share against the grain of our animal nature.

Multiculturalism is an impossibility. It’s only ever failed us, and not for lack of trying. Tribal loyalties and affiliations will always form and the state will always become eroded into a shallow and pointless race of fertility. This is only worsened by democracy, as these same loyalties will always form into political blocs. We see it today in voting trends and new rhetoric surrounding the dually loyal parasites of our state. And yet, multiculturalism, this dreadful affliction we’ve riddled our society with need not be the status quo of a “diverse” populace.

Multiracialism can be a powerful tool if supremacy is understood not as a sin, but rather as a weapon against disorder. The Romans were a multiracial people, covering most of the Mediterranean, and yet they managed to maintain their identity as a nation because they understand a simple ideological premise.

Rome is better, and all will bow.

New American Fascism can drive us to our birthright, the defining of our nation as a true people only if we are to eradicate the cosmopolitan and the foreign from our culture. We must think of America’s power not as a rebirth but an all encompassing death. Inferior and foreign cultures must be pulled from our people and replaced by a superior western, Christian, and militaristic ethos that espouses a single loyalty. What I desire most for this New American Fascism is not a cadre of black Americans or white Americans, but a sharpened and radicalized nation of Americans. The very word itself must mean this death of former identity and an acceptance of our motherland’s higher ideals.

The internationalist, the Zionist, the cosmopolitan; he fears this New American Fascism in the way it exemplifies the true power of the human spirit. Our base and primal urges tell us to stick with the animals closest to us, yet it is our God given ability to look beyond this “animalism”. What we must construct in this new era is a monument to this blessing. A complex and ornate colossus, whose very construction embodies the strength of our people. The sticks and muds of the depraved and the inferior will be flattened by our creations, and to their people we will offer the embrace of the state in service of this higher calling. The New Imperium.

III. Our Monument

Truly I ask you, what is the nature of a monument? Is it as simple as stone, beaten and broken by crude tools into a meaningless shape? Does it stand alike to the rubble it leaves behind? We know that this monument is far greater than that, and speaks to a higher order. While its foundations, the material, are of simple stone—the ideal of the monument is what it depicts, what it symbolizes, the meaning behind its form. Our nation must be a monument carved from the material flesh of our people. In the material, it would be nothing more than arbitrary lines on a map of the world and a gathering of bloodlines unfamiliar to one another. Yet, this monument, our colossus, will be so much more. A strong and dominating presence, the synthesis of western supremacy into the perfect force of identity. All will serve this autocracy as children of this nation, and bow to its power as our motherland.

The Angry Young men of all bloodlines must burn the dying fields of this weakened state and surely we will fertilize its remains with our blood. We must take the formless and untamed stone that is foreign culture and carve our own effigy into it by any means necessary. The future of our motherland will be monocultural, and care very little about being multiracial. We will be a western people, a European people, and in this great purging of the East and the south from our lands could we graft onto our nation the blood that once belonged to them. While the children of Europe will lead this charge, soon the others will succumb to its power.

IV. Carving the stone

As grand as these words are, where is the action? How do we carve this proverbial monument that is to be our nation? It’s from my observations that I see a clear pathway towards our ascendancy to imperium, and what exactly it is that has prohibited us from achieving this aspiration of our people. The internationalist, the Zionist. He stops us because he desires us to be weakened. He burglarizes our nation to his gain because his ilk have already collectivized and cemented their sense of self. He can hide amidst our society and influence its future only because he blends into this chaos so seamlessly. He must be exposed for what he is, and expressed from our motherland, for he is not loyal to her and never intends to be. He cowers behind this multiculturalism as he fears the strength and capacity of our sleeping potential. It is only through these ideological conventions and dedicated acts of national ascension that he will be made not to bow to this new order but be removed from our shores.

Only then can we truly complete our monument, and rid ourselves of this great affliction. The means to do so exist solely in the hands of the Angry Young Men, and together we will reshape our people and embrace our imperium.