In our postmodern time, the number one impiety is probably racism. Racism, of course, has many definitions. Originally, it referred to someone who wished to bestow upon individuals different rights according to their race. In this case, racism was understood to be different from bigotry as well as interpersonal discrimination, and was directly connected to state activity. Today, under postmodernity, racism is conflated with any sort of racial evaluation whatsoever, even by civil society, as well as with the very existence of white, Anglo-Saxon culture.
The idea is that WASPs have dominated the globe, and that any support toward normalizing WASP culture is racist, colonialist, and imperialist. This idea, in successfully displacing WASP elites, but nonetheless utilizing their public image in politics, has allowed Zionist Jews, in league with an Oriental suzerainty, to establish a vassalage over the West, merchandising cheap products from Chinese sweatshops to industrially idling Americans while being overrepresented– even in proportion to their wild IQ claims– in media, entertainment, academia, banking, and politics.
Anti-racism in the postmodern sense is used as an excuse by synarchic cultural Marxists to take from hardworking white people in order to give to mediocre people of color in the name of Jews and other influential minorities (Asians, such as Chinese and Indians), who, along with declasse and race-traitoring Anglo-Saxons acting out of noblesse oblige, compose the new Bobo elites of the kakistocracy. The a priori and academically-affirmed dogma is that all races must be equal, and therefore any inequality between white, brown, and black people must inevitably be due to injustice (meanwhile, Jews and Asians, it is agreed, do better than whites in their own nations because of their superior intellectual and cultural endowments). Anti-racism is justified on the grounds that elite WASPs owned slaves (largely sold to them by Jewish slavers) and displaced Stone and Copper Age peoples– many of them cannibals– in the Americas and elsewhere.
Anti-racism ends up being the taking of offense to evolution by natural selection (an idea anticipated by the radical Robert Chambers and developed by the mutualist Herbert Spencer in his evolutionary sociology) and by extension to cultural evolution (such as was documented by Edward Burnett Tylor), and especially to the now unheard of American school of anthropology (such as the polygenic evolutionary views of Ephraim Squier). Taken together, these views paint a picture whereby, from plausibly different sources, humans emerge higher levels of racial and cultural development and cooperation through parallel natural selection. It is no surprise that all of these WASPs are disparaged by our Jewish vassals and Asian suzerains, as well as the black and Hispanic welfare recipients in league with them against the WASPs, particularly when considering that the joint project of these groups, as both naves and dupes, is to topple the West and instate a synarchic New World Order, and that a major aspect of this is the strategy of using the naturally strong moral compass of the shame-signaling, socially-blushing race to dominate it internally through white guilt and to prey on its hero cultures by turning it against itself.
Of course, it must be mentioned that the Zionist Jews are not alone in this effort, and that it takes place within the larger arrangement of the Great White Brotherhood, to which Jew and Gentile together belong, perhaps with lighter-skinned elements of Asia (especially peoples such as the Drokpa, Manchu, Uygher, Hakka, Han, and others, perhaps). In displacing the Anglo-Saxon middle class, the Jews have nonetheless preserved the elite WASP elements and have intermarried with them, such as in a moiety-like arrangement. As such, the elite WASPs might consider the displacement of the white middle class as a necessary cull brought on by the Saturn-day worshippers of the Adversary, and one that makes their own race, which is intermingled with Jews, that much stronger. Some evidence of this might be gleaned by the fact of tolerance toward the proto-Anglo-Saxons, such as the Druze and Samaritans, in Israel, and the intermarriage between these groups. The Druze, of course, represent a Celtic (Galatian) and Phoenician presence in Canaan from long ago, and the Samaritans a Sumerian one. These groups once held the stronghold of Canaan in the Levant, which, like Troy in Anatolia and Babylon in Mesopotamia, was an important location for road and sea pirates who would block transport of goods along the terrestrial and maritime Silk Roads into and out of Europe, including its connections with the Amber Road, and so on, becoming a source of important political-economic rent. That the Druze and Samaritans are tolerated and even embraced in the Holy Land by the new claimants is suggestive of acknowledgement or tolerance of their traditional and historical value and presence. In short, the Druze are the remaining (Islamicized) Druids of Canaan, leftover from the Celtic-Phoenician populations, whereas the Samaritans are the remaining Saxons, as the Samaritans, after their original expulsion from Israel, moved into Samara in Ukraine where they diverged into the Sarmatians and the Saka, later conquering into Europe with groups such as the Alans and the Huns, and becoming its Northwestern portion’s ruling class, the Anglo-Saxons. To this end, WASP elites may consider the Samaritan presence in Israel, and the intermarriage between Jews and Samaritans, as a safeguard and symbolic representation of their own preservability in the minds of Jewish elites.
Mutualism is the default condition of an evolved human society, and progress is its inevitable result. The antagonistic, adversarial state, in contrast, is a distortion from the natural, objective understanding of human flourishing. As such, mala prohibita crime— crime by prohibition, by statute— is distinguished from mala in se crime— crime as a natural fact—, and rightly so. But state and government are prohibitions established outside of voluntary agreement and without mutual benefit, and all mala prohibita outside these conditions is mala in se from the anarchist perspective. The state, a monopoly on legitimate violence established through illegitimate aggression, is a crime by fact of nature. It is an absurdity, because injurious to its own kind.
Only mutualism, civil society, functions according to the Logos. Mutualism demands that statutory, mala prohibita jurisdiction be limited to the property boundaries of voluntary associations and their participants.
Crime is something that occurs between men, which, traditionally, did not have the universalistic meaning it does today. Primitive tribal groups referred only to their own and kinly populations as their special variants of “man.” As such, all others, outside the tribal group or its slaves, if not themselves treated by customary law, were outlaws to whom the law was not applicable, and to whom it did not afford protection, as with animals who can be hunted or fended off without concern for their preservation. “Crime,” then, did not apply to detrimental acts done to them, nor to acts done by them. This was true even of Anglo-Saxon law.
Our emerging multiethnic societies are also coalescing multiethnic societies, coming from people who did not originate from the same species, but who evolved convergently, reticulately, polyphyletically, multiregionally, and in parallel from out of polygenic origins on different continents, and who did not recognize humanity in one another while hybdridizing into a chronospecies across troops, bands, and tribes. From their origin, they did not recognize one another as human.
The concept of a human, which includes Homo sapiens from all races and ethnicities, a relatively new conception for most human races, probably spread as early sentiments along the terrestrial and maritime trading routes of peoples such as the proto-Indo-Europeans and Semites, such as the Scythians and Phoenicians, and in Ancient Greece and Rome, and was revived during the Renaissance’s humanism. The Enlightenment, however, really saw this modernizing principle of the Rights of Man take effect. And it is one that has become and is becoming quickly embraced by people of all identities, particularly as they came and come to see one another as capable of a shared humanity.
All of this is to say that the mala in se claim against statism applies only within a society, whereas tribal or ethnic displacement or assimilation is not mala in se because a common conception of rights, a customary social contract, has not been born (though it must one day emerge, and so default falls to the Law of the Jungle as a selective pressure to produce such an end). Thus, racial, ethnic, or tribal displacement or assimilation, functioning between societies, is not necessarily criminal, but the state, functioning within a society, is always criminal, because involuntary, nonconsensual, and unreciprocal imposition of mala prohibita within a society is mala in se.
However, it must be understood that upon assimilation of a tribal, ethnic, or racial group by the society, the ethnic composition of the assimilating society often changes so as to include them. For instance, a Frenchman is likely to be a Frank, but could also be a negro or mulatto native of France and speaker of French, and so while racially Congoid is ethnically (or, at very least, culturally) French. This state of affairs has occurred for such a long period of time that the Berberization of France has become apparent through the sometime appearance of features such as frizzly, kinky, or tightly curled hair and big lips among some Frenchmen.
Assimilated peoples may rightfully recognize the state as crime in se, because they have been recognized as members of the society whose wellbeing and flourishing is protected by customary and common law. So while a Congoid or Berberized Frenchman might have a claim against the state, certain Polynesians did not have such a claim upon being conquered, but only after assimilation, which has not fully occurred even today. However, those who had already had persistent civil relations with the French, particularly those who had treaties or ritually and mutually accepted the French as human and vice versa, arguably have some claim to civil treatment as an extension of French relations of civil society, even if not French by ethnicity. And to this extent, and to that extent not negated by ill will or bad faith, they, like French citizens, have rightful mala in se claims against the French state, as sustained exchange is an act of humanity mutually recognized. Note that this is not a claim against French claims to use of Polynesian territory by French civil society, or against French economic outcompetition of Polynesian ways and peaceful or defensive assimilation of Polynesians into French culture and society. Nobody has claim to any piece of the Earth, without that offer being accepted, mutually maintained, and upheld through effective occupancy, use, and defense. It is also not an argument against extending goodwill widely, at least not those deserving of it.
The background of human evolution being what it is— polygenic—, there are inevitably natural inequalities, though these are not always clear or absolute. As such, utilizing differences in racial economic performance is not an objective metric for whether terms of fairness are being met or not. Instead, the rules must be considered objectively and universally, the derived principles of nature applied impartially, unbiasedly, non-bigotedly, even-handedly, fairly, and justly. This leaves no room for affirmative action or forced combinations of racial composition in associations. There is only room for fair competition and voluntary cooperation.
The races and ethnicities, as with their individuals, may perform with different metrics, produce different results, and may differ qualitatively as well as quantitatively, and their rates of success and measures of outcomes may differ, but so long as this speaks to their actual worth, and so long as each can admit as much, a magnanimous society can be maintained. While equality of outcome may be unattainable, equality of treatment can be ensured, such that every one survives at their own cost and by their own use of social ingenuity.
Every effort by the monogenist cult, however, to set the lower and middle classes— the lower and upper working class, the blacks/Hispanics and whites—, at odds, to paint successful groups as “racially privileged” and praise chiefly redistribution, is an act that serves to detriment mutualism, to desecrate the natural social order, and to transgress against humanity.
Mutualism is a class reductionist philosophy, and has been since the onset. Any concerns about sexual or racial equality from mutualists has not been particularist, but universalist, in nature, seeing the plight of women and colored people as a matter of class, not of race. For the anarchist, class is not about income, but about the relation one has to the decision-making mechanisms at work and in society. True sexism and racism serve to pervert these relations, while anti-sexism and anti-racism have been turned by postmodernism to pervert them from another angle. Mutualists addressed these concerns in terms of individual liberty, not in terms of identarianism.
Ambiarchy acknowledges that there is an evolutionary (rather, volutionary, sorry Chambers and Spencer) henosis that society undergoes as it progresses toward unity with the Source, and that this process has included state control in the past. It acknowledges that Homo sapiens is still in a process of becoming, and that competition between the races is an inevitable part of our intraspecific, but parallel evolution. It sees that there are ebbs and flows of relative success, and differences in evolutionary velocities, but that we are nonetheless destined to return to our common Source. While our physical, deterministic origins are not monogenic, the Source is nonetheless able to be considered so from a retrodeterministic or teleological standpoint instead. As such, ambiarchy supports henocentric law and henosyndicalism simultaneously as an alternative to, and as an umbrella for, both cultural Marxism and white nationalism. It provides the agonistic and pluralistic foundation of panarchy as a playground for assimilating the whole circus of synarchy-encouraged postmodern psychological dissociations (statisms, non-mutualist sub-varieties of “anarchism,” neo-“mutualism”, etc.)– all freaks aboard!–, while providing those grounded in common sense the mutualistic freedom of true anarchy. This is in the spirit of Proudhon’s own evolutionary sociology of war, which is consistent with Chambers’s, Spencer’s, Tylor’s, and Squier’s outlooks, as well as the more recent Patrick Nolan and Gerhard Lenski’s views on intersocietal selection in their ecological-evolutionary theory.
From out of class war must develop the conditions for a new human race to emerge, likely led by Anglo-Saxon and similarly admixed elements, but incorporating the virtuous of all races through miscegeny, a new breed of “German” (German meaning “many men”). Such a hybrid race, having genetic admixture and cultural influences from the elite workers of all races and ethnicities, would wage war against the old automaton races, stuck in their subselves, their fetishes, and dissociations of all kinds—those who compose the banking, landlord, boss, complacent worker, and welfare classes, the vicious multitude. This must ultimatelty put an end to their putrid perspectivisms, subjectivisms, and particularisms and the sophistry and weaseling that comes with them. Differences in standard of living and quality of life, as well as in merit, are to be expected between the racial inputs into the new mutualist race, especially early on before an equilibrium sets in, but class differences should never be tolerated as a matter of anarchist principle, and no race in the society should be hindered by the mala in se crimes of state and government. Still, those actions that are not strictly mutualistic must be at the most sympatrically commensalistic or inquilinistic, never being allowed to become parasitic again, or else calling for allopatry (degrees of allopatry are accounted for already in henocentric law).
By acknowledging racial realities, such as convergent, polygenic, polyphyletic, and multiregional, reticulate, and parallel evolution among our hybridized, miscegenistic chronospecies, we can stop compromising on Western values and mutualist principles, such as freedom of conscience, speech, association, and composition, the Non-Aggression Axiom, the Law of Equal Liberty, the Cost Principle, the Principle of Fair Regard, and etc. We can drop the neo-mutualist bullshit and get back to paleomutualist foundations from which geo-mutualism can develop as an anarchic progression, and ambiarchy as a federal, panarchic assimilation of the Eastern-subsidized madness infecting the West. Every effort toward compulsory diversity, equity, and inclusion must be opposed as an encroachment by the monogenic cult behind the kakistocracy at the face of the synarchy that forwards the polarizing forces of both cultural Marxism and white nationalism.