By Sepp Mannsberger
Whenever there is talk of race, the need to preserve it, or even the desire to be part of an organic, homogeneous community one often finds the accusation of being a supremacist. The popular tactic these days when being confronted with this accusation is to outright deny any hint of a desire for supremacy. Both the accusation and the denial are an absurdity, because both of these consider supremacy to be an inherent evil or something that is against nature. I suppose one cannot fault most people for responding in this way, especially when they play by the rules of the accuser, according to the accuser’s understanding of the word. It is believed by the egalitarian that supremacism is an “evil belief” that one is superior to another race, religion, etc. and not a natural human predisposition. It may be true that egalitarians do not perceive themselves as superior in this context, but this belief is not borne from a rational position or a clear understanding of the world and the manner in which it operates. For even if they do not perceive themselves as supreme, they all work inextricably toward being supreme. It is with this view in mind that I’ve decided to write a small piece on supremacism and its place in human nature.
On Supremacism and Its Relation to Man
Supremacy is the end goal of all manner of organic life; each and every organism strives to attain this goal. Each one adapts not just for the purpose of survival, but for the function of being supreme over that which previously endangered its existence. The process of self-perfecting will always lead to the result of one being becoming supreme over another, even if just momentarily. We see this example with numerous viruses: the moment man finds a solution to this problem, it gradually adapts itself into a new strain, ensuring its chances of survival against this solution, thus making it supreme above the solution itself.
Considering this, whenever accused of being a supremacist, one must always affirm that they are, for it is nature’s law that they should be. We see ample examples of what failure to adhere to this principle does. Civilizations, which are in themselves designed by organic lifeforms for the purpose of fulfilling this goal, have both risen and fallen. The minute they ceased to have any interest in supremacy they stagnated, withered and died. For it is a constant truth throughout history that each civilization was forged out of the need to survive, the need to defend or to obtain land. The men who forged these civilizations all had the desire to be supreme above those who endangered them and those who stood in the way of materials necessary for their survival. One such example is the British Empire, which grew out of its industrialization and subsequent collapse in agricultural land mass. However, it was not just the need for land that pushed the English into colonialism. It was also a desire to be supreme, to enforce its will wherever it desired, often at the cost of others. It was the same for Rome, as it was for Egypt, and many other empires that have existed in the past. Each one perceived itself supreme in relation to its enemies, each one concerned itself primarily with its own will and not that of others. We today perceive this past (colonialism) to be an “evil” but, as I already mentioned in my article “On the Issues of Abortion,” nature has no capacity for evil: It only has a capacity for what is necessary. And the need to survive necessitates doing whatever is necessary. This much is true of all organisms: When it comes to the point where survival necessitates certain adaptations there are no organisms, upon becoming aware their own survival is at stake, who would hesitate to put them to use.
There are many today who love to delude themselves into thinking that we can give up this desire for supremacy. But this sentiment is borne from emotion, which bears little merit on the rule of life. It is necessary though to address some arguments for my position in order to better illuminate it.
There is frequent talk among egalitarian minds that “co-operation” between the different sub-species is a far more desirable option than that of supremacy and struggle. This, however, is just wishful thinking because even today, when we not only “co-operate” but endanger our own existence for the benefit of others, we come to find that life is filled with discriminatory practices, as well as the desire for supremacy. For instance, we find that governments do discriminate in the sharing of information or technology, which invariably equate to power. There exists no nation on earth that would share armaments among other nations on an equal footing, because doing so would immediately remove their superiority over what may be a potential enemy in the future. What is exported or traded with foreign nations is only that which would ensure that the stronger nation maintains its position of strength. We also come to find that the importing and exporting of goods other than weaponry contains within itself a struggle for power and superiority over others. It certainly is often argued that this co-operation in terms of imports and exports of goods is done for mutual benefit. But this is not the case - trading by its nature is an act which expresses supremacy over another: There is no fair trade, since there is competition among both the buyer and seller regarding the pricing of these goods. One will always try to extract the maximum while the other party tries to pay as little as is possible, with each party viewing their product as better than the one offered in exchange. What effects the outcome is power in the form of demand: There is nothing fair about it. One will always leave having given out more than was actually necessary; one will always have the power over the other. Outsourcing and globalism will be perceived as indications that it is shifting toward mutual benefit, but is this really the case? Can there be a strain of this inherent superiority found within these modern trends?
Outsourcing, they say, provides jobs in underdeveloped regions, thus creating a viable economy within these nations and uplifting everyone gradually toward a common economic stability. This however, is another false claim. Since outsourcing by its nature is the exploitation of cheaper regions to maximize profits, it does little in terms of economic development in the undeveloped regions. It also does damage to the nation it abandons, since it is causes severe unemployment in an already existing market and weakens its loyal and secure market base. Furthermore, the education, financial injections and support from G8 nations toward Africa is not done for the sake of mutual benefit, but because of a desire on the part of the ruling nations to reinvigorate its former colonies into a viable export market for produce and goods. At the moment the relationship is not even reciprocal since Africa is a beggar and offers nothing even remotely close to mutually beneficial. I am sure there are some who’d say that it is in fact for mutual benefit because the African would have what he didn’t have before: a constant supply of food, which is beneficial to them as well. If only life were so simple - we seem to forget that we all feel that those we aid are in debt to us when they’ve found their feet.
There is also another ugly aspect to “trade” which most people tend to forget: It is often used as a weapon to enforce the will of the Democratic West upon others. This is currently being done in Zimbabwe and has been done in the past against Apartheid South Africa and many other nations both past and present. There is an element of constant power in it, and this perhaps is an idea to consider in and of itself: Ideologies themselves have the desire for supremacy, and use whatever is at their disposal to enforce their will upon others. But it is not something I wish to elaborate on here as it will detract from this particular essay, which deals with supremacy in a different context.
That aside, we must explore the “globalism” aspect of the claim to mutual benefit. It is true that the current establishment desires to create an international “one world” that it calls globalism, and it uses the notion that all people of all walks of life will be “brought together” as though this is a longed for occurrence. But life shows that this can never be; it is inevitable that different races will ultimately seek to obtain the advantage over others. In multiracial society today we see ample indications of this fact. In European nations, the Arab, Jew and Negro, among many others, all see to their own interests. Each one has a group that represents their interests and theirs alone, not the interest of some “higher purpose” or some “higher goal”. “But they stand against racism which is a factor that divides humanity:” That they stand against “racism” is no indication of their desire to “breach the gap between the different peoples” as is commonly believed, but is more an indication of their desire to maintain their survival and the positions they obtained through anti-racial laws, which serve only to curtail and shackle the European man.
If they truly were against racism, would they not stand against all forms of it and not, as they do today, only target the European and label him a racist whenever he desires to see to his own interests? Anti-racism is a means to defend themselves and maintain the status quo, which entails working toward the displacement of the European and the empowerment of their own kind. It is not, as is popularly believed, an actual indication of their desire to do away with racism. Displacement? You may wonder “how precisely are they working toward the displacement of the European”? Affirmative action is a policy not designed to “right previous wrongs”, or to “do justice to those whom injustice was done to” as is commonly believed, but is a policy that places all manner of non-Whites at the top of the preference list for jobs, which provide the means with which to secure ones existence and to provide for one’s family. It is a policy that shifts the balance of power gradually away from the European, nullifying his influence in society.
Co-operation can only truly exist in a mutually beneficial form among those who share similar hereditary traits, not with those who compete against you so that they may increase the reproductivity and influence of their own. In other words, true co-operation can only exist between the Europeans, for they all share similar hereditary traits; they are not in competition with one another to perpetuate their own racial hereditary traits. The same cannot be said for the non-European.
All manner of life is a battle for supremacy, a battle to either get to the top or to maintain that position. This is the way the world functions, and while we may live in a world where humanity today denies any notion of “color” or of “race” the reality of the matter, as is demonstrated, is vastly different. The only one foolish enough to adhere to “tolerance” and forsake the natural endeavor for supremacy is the European, and it is costing him his very existence.