Why the "Irrational" is Necessary

Fighting back.

Read this.

It is an important lesson to learn from the failure of the American Right, in their 20th century fight with the Left. They lost because they never understood the enemy. They invested all of their time conjuring an enemy they could beat with facts and reason, while the Left went about destroying the enemies they had in their path. It’s not a mistake that a new alternative can afford to make. You don’t beat a moral order with reason. You defeat it by attacking it on moral grounds, while offering an alternative moral framework.

Which is why I wrote this, years ago:

….a call to “preserve our distinctive genetic information” is unlikely to motivate most Western individuals to defend their genetic interests against the titanic forces arrayed against them. It almost certainly will not motivate the masses, who, as Michael O’Meara rightfully points out, are always induced to act by “myths” that encompass a cohesive worldview. Even rational activists can often become more motivated by these “myths” (which may of course constitute objective facts to a considerable degree) than to a pure empiricism. Thus, the “myth” of Yockeyan “High Culture” may be needed to motivate the defense of rational Salterian EGI.

I’m as big of a supporter of EGI and Salterian empiricism as you will find online, and have stated that Salter should win a Nobel Prize for his work on this subject, but I realize that it, solely by itself, is not enough.  EGI is the absolutely necessary foundation, but the actual structure that motivates action must be something that goes beyond facts and pure rationality.

Now, how do I square this with my critiques of “movement” fantasy and pseudoscience?  Two ways.  First, being “irrational” (note the scare quotes) in this context merely means having additional motivations that transcend a pure rationality that is based on unimpeachable objective facts; it does NOT mean abrogating facts and reason by peddling lies and nonsense. Instead, the facts and reason are accepted and incorporated as the foundation and then you build upon it. You do not make outrageous nonsense and proven lies as your foundation and then build a crazed structure upon that foundation of sand. My definition of “irrational” is such that it is built on a foundation of rationality, not that it rejects rationality and delves into the sweaty fantasies of demented fever dreams. Second, the dogma of the “movement” is divisive and destructive and has failed for endless decades, so it does not pass the utilitarian test of “does it work?” even above and beyond the more abstract criticisms of its mendacity, stupidity, and immaturity.

Again, a proper understanding of what I am saying here is crucial.  In essence, by "irrational" I mean certain beliefs that are not 100% absolutely objective and grounded in verifiable fact, but beliefs that incorporate certain subjective values that, while they should certainly be compatible with rationality, go beyond it. An example is as follows. Once you accept the rational, objective reality of EGI, there are a number of possible systems that could in theory actualize EGI for your people. I promote the ideal of a Yockeyian Imperium. Others support petty nationalist ethnonationalism. Others would support a form of an Anglo-conservative predominantly White "American Republic" (for the USA). We can attempt to argue objectively as to which of these is best to actualize EGI, but, of course, a purely objective and empirical controlled experiment is not possible. This is about ideology, vision, aesthetics, faith, and belief in principles that cannot be empirically quantified. Thus, the motivating vision for the future obviously has certain "irrational" aspects that cannot be "proven" in the same manner one can prove genetic differences and hence the adaptive value of preserving those differences.  

Ideology is not a mathematical proof; the former lacks the empirical rigor of the latter. But, regardless of how elegant a mathematical proof may be, it will not motivate people to self-sacrifice; it is not a rallying cry for battle.  Therefore, the "irrational" is necessary.