That all the members of an ethnicity could possibly be equal is a grave fiction. Racialist conservatives and reactionaries, often eager to disparage the Enlightenment, fall headlong into Enlightenment values the instant it benefits them by calling one's attention to those moments in history when our humble patriarchs only considered 'man' something entirely provincial and within reach. The 'caste system' they want to return to in word is equally fictitious, as they hope for the day that they might, perhaps through legislation, perhaps by force, achieve a position of equanimity by which such a caste system could be determined with modern tools, modern political implimentation and fit this neatly into a bag of various social models reconstructed after some far gone traditional world. But by what mechanism is such a place of equanimity to be reached? This linear thinking is ultimately progressive in nature, as is the contention that state-enforced IQ tests could replace or pave the way for the divine right of kings. As if the right people simply needed to be in the right place at the right time; as if we could now emulate those rare formulas responsible for the self-perpetuation of strong peoples throughout man's history... The idea that 'people are equal' is no more ridiculous than the notion that some people are more equal than others. The ethno-state is as modern as its proselytizers claim it is ancient. The whole of human history is dependent, rather, on those rare characters who had no scruples with their rule but simply ruled whom they were fit to rule, concerned only for the quality that constituted whatever localized principle defined 'my' people. Within nations, caste systems arose on multiple levels, and it was in sovereignty's nature to secure the quality of its power within and against them, if needed. That one could simply put up a fence and say that all of those who have such and such features are welcome speaks for the insecure place that sovereignty has in such a community, as well as its utter confusion concerning quality, its naivety, its inability to read nuance; its impotence parading as pragmatism. The tautology of the 'volk' differs from internationalist communism and globalism only in degree. They are both secularizations of divine election; in the one case, all are free, while in the next, all of the same type are respectively free in association with one another. We lack now the very essence of the unity responsible for a people; namely, the seat of sovereignty by which history itself is judged. We are unified now, not by our parliaments, nor by our race, nor by our representatives, but by our neurosis, by our transactional use values of one another, our need for self affirmation; the result of a wholly atomized world. The ethno-state is only another political solution to an apolitical problem, as all political solutions are on the Right. We lack the very space in which a unity of such proportions could even be cultivated. Now as ever, such a cultivation will have to occur by chance, with sovereignty accumulating its will, not because of but in spite of, 'the people.' If one's solution to social friction is to turn the world into a zoo full of different animal exhibits, such a world would get precisely the kind of leadership this situation would call for; its leaders would merely be glorified zoo keepers.