The Old New Right

The other major problem with the System’s Jew-led New Right.

Consider this Counter-Currents article on what the System is terming The New Right, a heavily Jewish (and NW European-descended conservative “junior partners”) bunch of ideologically aracial reactionaries. Counter-Currents identifies the major problem of this New Right in that it ignores the issue of race. Very well, I agree. But there’s another problem, which in my opinion is of equal importance .Let’s look at the quote, reproduced in the Counter-Currents article, from the original Vanity Fair piece that describes this New Right:

The podcasters, bro-ish anonymous Twitter posters, online philosophers, artists, and amorphous scenesters in this world are variously known as “dissidents,” “neo-reactionaries,” “post-leftists,” or the “heterodox” fringe — though they’re all often grouped for convenience under the heading of America’s New Right. They have a wildly diverse set of political backgrounds, with influences ranging from 17th-century Jacobite royalists to Marxist cultural critics to so-called reactionary feminists to the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski, whom they sometimes refer to with semi-ironic affection as Uncle Ted. Which is to say that this New Right is not a part of the conservative movement as most people in America would understand it. It’s better described as a tangled set of frameworks for critiquing the systems of power and propaganda that most people reading this probably think of as “the way the world is.” And one point shapes all of it: It is a project to overthrow the thrust of progress, at least such as liberals understand the word.

So, putting aside the ethnoracial provenance of some of these New Right adherents, and putting aside the race issue, what do we see? They are a grouping of “neo-reactionary” conservatives, some of whom admire Ted Kaczynski of all people (“whom they sometimes refer to with semi-ironic affection as Uncle Ted”) and who, to paraphrase Buckley, they are a gaggle of backward-looking “traditionalists” who want to stand athwart history yelling STOP! – to “overthrow the thrust of progress.” To summarize – they are reactionary conservative traditionalists – all of which the Sallis Groupuscule despises and opposes.

I have said it before and I’ will say it again – you are not going to attract quality people and inspire them to fight, inspire them to self-sacrifice, with a vision of “standing athwart history yelling STOP!”  The Left is successful for many reasons, but certainly one major reason is that it is progressive, forward-looking, it inspires its followers with an utopian vision of a better tomorrow, it doesn’t look backward to some mythical Golden Age, harkening to a return to a dead past, promoting a Bring Out Your Dead ethnostate with people living at a 14th century level of existence, a feudal hierarchy with the masses cowering “snug in their hobbit holes.” You are not going to defeat leftist progressive ideals with right-wing reactionary defeatism. An idea can only be effectively countered by a better idea, and returning to the dead past, turning back the clock of progress, is not a better idea; it is hardly a serious idea at all. It is juvenile, unrealistic, romantic nonsense; it is an “ideal” doomed to defeat and death at birth.

Successful popular support for Far Right movements historically manifested in European fascism of the first half of the 20th century. According to Marxist historical interpretation, and System dogma (really the same thing), fascism is “reactionary,” but that is not supported by an objective analysis. If a core characteristic of fascism is palingenesis, then that is hardly reactionary. Italian Fascism may have talked about the Roman Empire, but it was strongly influenced by the Futurist Movement and was likely the most ideologically and culturally futurist of all of the major European fascisms. German National Socialism may have been somewhat more reactionary than Italian Fascism in certain ways, but we cannot forget that at its core, National Socialism was a revolutionary movement, eschewing conservatism and monarchy, and building a racial state that combined political hierarchy with relative class egalitarianism.  Note that the successful mass movement in Germany was National Socialism, not the so-called “conservative revolutionaries (sic).” The Legionary Movement’s New Man looked forward, not backward. Neo-reaction is a cul-de-sac, dead-end defeatist nonsense. Is it an intentional diversion? The fundamentals of any New Movement must include a futurist mentality. We must oppose reactionary traditionalism.

The racial state is not enough. The racial-cultural state is better, but is still not enough.  We need the racial-cultural-ethical state, a moral state as I discussed at Western Destiny, a forward-looking entity based on a reimagining of Man, as exemplified by the Legionary movements focus on developing The New Man as the basis of a Romanian Legionary state.

The racial-cultural-ethical state, the moral state, based upon The New Man and new ethical-moral-philosophical standards, overturning the established order, is a revolutionary entity, and it is not going to come about from “neo-reaction” or “traditionalism” or from freaks reading Savitri Devi “snug in their hobbit holes.” Being focused on race is necessary but not sufficient. The System’s New Right fails in that regard, but the “movement” equally fails by being equally reactionary, an amoral, if not immoral, and unethical entity ill-suited to bring about radical change and ill-suited to defeat the Revolutionary Left by countering with a Revolutionary Right.  Thus, a complete criticism of The New Right also, by necessity, brings with it a criticism of the “movement.”  A pox on both their houses.

A New Movement for Post-America

Looking ahead.

I have previously mentioned the lineup of the forthcoming American Renaissance conference - Jews, Filipinas, civic nationalists…what is this?  WN?

In that context, I commented on the current status of the “movement” as well as its future, and quoted from some commentators from Counter-Currents, including this excerpt:

There is a broad trend on the Right now to move ever more towards meta; film reviews, music, analysis of other people in the movement (which was mentioned critically in a comment on the podcast article about America First), philosophy, based Christianity and paganism, while some of our people are even saying that race and the JQ are passé, old news, WN 1.5 or something. I’ve even heard people apparently in our circles say we need to be less ‘about race’.

That is consistent with my critiques of the current “movement” as being more about HBD “race realism” or “traditionalism” or “America First” civic nationalist Trumpian right-wing populism and the “big tent” as well as focusing on narrower intra-racial distinctions such as Nordicism and/or ethnonationalism, instead of being about broad-based White nationalism. MacDonald’s turn to HBD-Nordicism, and away from the JQ, is part of this, and the whole abandonment of hardcore racial nationalism and the emphasis on “meta” and “mainstreaming” makes the remains of the “movement” ever more congenial for the likes of Filipina (married to a Jew) Malkin and former illegal alien (HBDer married to a Chinatrix) Derbyshire.

The snob effect plays into this as well. The “crude” rank-and-file obsesses about race, sniff the elitist and effete “leaders” of the “movement.”  We, the more sophisticated, they aver, focus on more refined fare, such as James Bond movies, analyses of Heidegger, gibbering about Guenon and Savitri Devi, the “right-wing themes” of various cultural artifacts (even those created by hardcore leftists), the Red-Brown Alliance and the intricacies of the “Dirtbag Left,” religion, why voting for Biden will lead to a White Imperium, esoteric conspiracies, etc. – anything and everything except the “meat and potatoes” WN concerns about biological race, Western civilization, and the Jews.  After all, our sophisticated intellectuals have to distinguish themselves from the lowbrow “movement” lumpenproletariat; how better to do this than livestreams about the traditionalist connections between Savitri Devi’s sari and Nietzsche’s Turin toiletry? Of course, abandonment of core racial nationalist values doesn’t always have to be highbrow; the lowbrow “Beavis-and-Butthead” Alt Right, and the equally juvenile America First “brand,” subvert the Far Right from the lowest common denominator end of the spectrum.

But the problem is much deeper than that, much more fundamental, because the older “movement” that these types disavow – whether they call it WN 1.0 or WN 1.5 or whatever – was also a flawed, moronic catastrophe, which I have long criticized for its irrational and counter-productive non-factual dogmas, its empty strategy and incompetent tactics, and its endless decades of unremitting failure. One could in one sense sympathize with the newer "activists" for disavowing that legacy, but they truly do not disavow anything of substance or they disavow the wrong things. They either merely alter the surface veneer while keeping the same failed dogmas and approaches (e.g., as did the Alt Right) or they “throw the baby out with the bathwater” and not only disavow the failed vehicle for racial nationalism but racial nationalism itself (e.g., as do HBD and America First). The "movement" then becomes something else entirely, something that is still attached to, and dependent upon, the decaying corpse of a traditional America that has already died but whose death has not yet been recognized and whose autopsy has not yet been performed.

And that last point needs to be extended further – for while White racial nationalism itself, as an ideology, is independent of the idea of a traditional American nation, the American vehicle of that ideology, the Old Movement, WN 1.0, was and is (to the extent remnants of WN 1.0 still exist today – is that what they call WN 1.5?) as dependent on “traditional America” as is America First or any other Alt Lite “big tent” manifestation of the mainstreaming of the Far Right.

After all, WN 1.0 had its origins in the ethnic and racial history of traditional America – nativism, the KKK (especially the anti-White ethnic KKK of the 1920s), Grant and Stoddard, Anglocentric Nordicism, WASP vs. White ethnic tensions and distinctions, the American Civil War and the Negro problem in the context of the Negro-founding stock American relationship, the list can go on, but there’s a clear link between the Know Nothings and Madison Grant on one side and WN 1.0 and William Pierce on the other.

My point is that not only is America First civic nationalism dependent on the historical continuity of traditional America, but Der Movement – in all of its manifestations, from Pierce to Unite the Right – is as well. The first premise – that Amnats are dependent on America – is obvious to everyone, but the second premise – that Der Movement is dependent as well – is perhaps not so obvious. If I am correct, and this dependence exists, what does it all mean?

Once White Americans realize that the old, traditional America is dead, Amnatism and civic nationalism will lose their luster and people will look toward novel national identities and more radical solutions. Hopefully, the Old Movement, tied as it is in its origins to traditional America and America's ethnic and racial history, will also lose its appeal, and people will look for something more relevant to a post-American White identity in what used to be the USA. At that time, a viable alternative needs to be ready. The Fundamentals of a New Movement I have previously described must be the foundation of that viable alternative.

Indeed, once the historical thread to what came before is broken, and racial and cultural chaos ensues, then we are in terra incognita, and the future of racial activism in the land mass that used to be America will be a blank slate upon which those with vision can write the future.

This of course applies to the entire White world. In Imperium, Yockey wrote:

The touching of this racial-frontier case of the Negro, however, shows to Europe a very important fact—that race-difference between White men, which means Western men, is vanishingly small in view of their common mission of actualizing a High Culture. In Europe, where hitherto the race difference between, say, Frenchman and Italian has been magnified to great dimensions, there has been no sufficient reminder of the race-differences outside the Western Civilization.

As Whites become increasingly dispossessed in their ancestral homelands of Europe, the distinctions that have fueled the petty nationalism of the ethnonationalists will become ever less salient. In America, for the masses, race has already replaced ethnicity as the major dividing line; however, unfortunately, many so-called "White racial activists" behave as if they are living in the year 1910 as regards issues of race and ethnicity. They still focus on divisions between Whites.

See this as well for related arguments. At some point, every person of Old World European stock ancestry – whatever their derivation, from Lisbon to Moscow, from Stockholm to Palermo, from Edinburgh to Athens, from Helsinki to Valletta, from Madrid to Bucharest – will be, in the global context, a relatively rare specimen of high value, and we had better learn to value each other, starting now, so we are prepared for the hard times to come. This has nothing to do with “ignoring differences” or “thinking that all Europeans are fungible” but has everything to do with distinguishing differences that are important but not existential (i.e., intra-European) and those that are truly existential (“the West against the Rest”).

The Death of America will also mean The Death of Delusion. It will be unpleasant, indeed traumatic, but it will end illusions.  “Activists” will be forced to see reality as it really is, instead of their solipsist fantasies. The foundations upon which the Old Movement - never mind America First civic nationalism - was built will have vanished, and the whole edifice of the traditional American Far Right, that whole rotten facade, will crumble into the dust - or it should crumble if "activists" want to have any relevancy whatsoever in the new reality that is to come.

And as regards critics who will answer that I casually dismiss America because I’m not of founding stock origin – that’s ad hominem.  The analysis remains regardless of who makes it. If America is not already dead, then it is irreversibly terminally ill.  That’s not my doing, nor the doing of the White ethnics. If the founding stock are upset, they should blame themselves for letting grasping Jews and their Colored shock troops wreck America.  For those who lament that none of these groups – including the White ethnics – should have been let into America in the first place, there is some justice in that, but, again, who was at fault?  Did your identity and idea that “we own America and everyone else is just visiting” (what the “movement” gets from The Good Shepherd) prevent the loss of America?  And with America already “dead man walking” what’s the point of all of that?  Lament in private; in public, deal with the facts-on-the-ground with respect to practical politics and policy.

Toward a New Movement, Part V

Biological racial advancement.

See this.

Preservationism plus eugenics replaces static preservationism.  We are not interested in preserving a racial stasis, which is biologically impossible in any case.  In contrast, we avoid genetically damaging mass changes, preserving the core of racial genetic essence.  We wish to promote eugenics to improve the stock and, also, allow for the creation of new stabilized blends of European stocks – while also at the same type preserving the original stocks – to increase the diversity of European Man. Ethnic genetic interests are compatible with (gradual) genetic change within the race, eschewing miscegenation, particularly when that change can enhance fitness, and when it is in magnitude no greater than the genetic changes that have always been part of human existence; for example; those due to selective pressures or random genetic drift.

Again, the Fundamentals are very straightforward. Contrary to what some critics of EGI have written - and what I have made clear over the years - the pursuit of genetic interests are wholly compatible with a prudent and reasonable program of eugenics and racial improvement. With respect to preservation of European ethnies and inter-marriage between these, both are possible and desirable. The nations of Europe are well suited for preservation of original stocks, while Diaspora regions can be the sites of mome mixture of ethnies and creation of "new stabilized blends of European stocks" - essentially creating new European ethnies. Of course,preservation of original stocks can occur in the Diaspora regions as well - the major difference is that the nations of Europe should be absolutely reserved for the original stocks (that of course can be subject to eugenic improvement), while the Diaspora regions have the greater flexibility to allow for some judicious admixture in addition to preservation and eugenics.  Throughout all of these processes, genetic interests will be always considered.

Toward a New Movement, Part IV

Against Traditionalism.

More on this.

Biopolitics will replace the old fraud of Right vs. Left.  We care not if any specific policy of ours, or our entire program, is deemed “rightist” or “leftist” or whatever outdated label.  We are not conservatives, reactionaries, not in any way beholden to “right-wing” thought.  We are revolutionaries, striving to create a new order.

That is straightforward enough, but the point about “revolutionaries” is of particular relevance for the following:

Futurism, not Traditionalism. Unlike some of the more reckless statements in support of Futurism, we do not call for the abolition of museums, the disregarding of our past and the great deeds of our ancestors.  Past, Present, and Future are all linked.  However, we look to the Future, our real Golden Age is that which we will make in the Future, it is not some sort of delusional Traditionalist fantasy set in the Past.  We will not reject the deeds of our ancestors, but these are not the sum of our being, we do not settle for them – we must surpass them.  We remember the Past, but for the purpose of spurring us to achieve greater deeds in the Future. 

My preference for Futurism over Traditionalism will be dismissed by traditionalists as a mere preference on my part. Well, it is my preference, but it is far more than just that. I have often written abbot the difference between Left and Right, the constant progress and victory of the Left vs. the constant surrender and humiliation of the Right, and how the Left often induces its followers to heroic self-sacrifice, while the Right cannot even induce its followers to write a letter to the editor. There are of course many reasons for these differences, but one major cause is that the fundamental paradigm of leftism is revolutionary progress, looking to the future, a utopian impulse that inspires idealistic people to the self-sacrificial heroism I just mentioned. The Right, on the other hand, with its paradigm of backward-looking, reactionary “Traditionalism,” a conservative harkening to the past, “standing athwart history, yelling stop!,” is not going to inspire much of anything other than sitting on a couch, drinking beer, and watching sportsball.

Looking back to the 1950s or 1920s or Jeffersonian America or medieval feudalism or “de facto anarchy in the provinces” or any similar nonsense is not going to inspire the revolutionary activism we need.  We cannot compete with the Left with a vision of “woman in a wheat field White nationalism” – looking backward is not going to inspire anyone to do anything useful. Traditionalism is another battle cry of do nothing conservatism.

Then of course there is the underlying argument about which vision is a better one for the future of our people. Are we better off “snug in our hobbit hole” at a medieval level of technology and a feudal political system, being left behind by advanced Asiatics, or are we better off marching to the future and not trying to stop inevitable progress?  I know what my answer is.

More:

Rational realism and empiricism is for facts, values and objectives can be irrational. Thus, we reject the old, timeworn, factually incorrect knee-jerk beliefs, memes, and paradigms that have defined to so-called “racialist movement,” particularly in America. With respect to facts, history, knowledge – the age of “movement” dogma is over. We reject the misanthropic freakishness and lies of the old movement. With respect to facts, we depend on rationality, on realism, on empiricism – on real Science. But these things cannot provide us with our values and our objectives – they are merely tools. Our values and objectives can be irrational as they spring forth from our vision of the reality we want to come into being. But we cannot confuse what we want with what actually is – nor can be settle for what is instead of what we actually want. What is – that is the current reality, which must be discerned with empiricism. What we want is derived from our values, irrational as they may (or may not) be, and for these objectives, empiricism is only a tool, a means, not an end to itself. As part of this, the fantasies of Traditionalism – which invents false facts – must be put aside in favor of empirical facts and the irrational objectives of an enlightened Futurism.

Traditionalism has the added burden of being to a large part composed of crazed fantasies. Normal people, particularly educated, scientifically informed people - STEM people most of all - are not going to take seriously gibbering about Atlantis, Lemuria, or Ultima Thule, and who wants to hear about "Kali Yuga" or "The Men Above Time?" Further, traditionalists are opposed to real science and technics, and seem to aim toward the scientific/technical level of the 14th century. This sort of nonsense must be unalterably opposed.

Toward a New Movement, Part III

Part III: Identity, and the convergence of the genetic and the cultural-civilizational.

Let's consider:

Genetic kinship will replace racial “purity.”  As per Salter, ultimate interests are genetic interests, and genetic interests are based upon genetic kinship.  Only genetic kinship is relevant for biopolitics. This contrasts to the unscientific strawman of racial “purity” which is usually derived from some a priori comparison to a picked parental population.  Since all genetic differences, regardless of their derivation (e.g., “admixture” [real or an artifact], selective pressures, genetic drift, etc.) influence genetic kinship, measurement of such kinship is the most inclusive and definitive approach for understanding our ultimate interests.  We accept the European genepool for what it is now and strive to improve it in the future.  To use Yockey’s terminology in a new way, we completely replace outdated and unscientific “vertical” concerns with “purity/admixture” with “horizontal” concerns with genetic kinship and genetic interests.

That is fairly straightforward and I have written about this before to a great extent, multiple times, and there is no need to get into it again here. However, there is a related issue. Fetishists comb through population genetics studies to cherry pick data that they breathlessly present to show that some European ethnies may be ever-so-slightly closer to some NEC ethny by Fst than they are to some other European ethny from which they are the most genetically distant from. So, as a hypothetical example, two European ethnies that are at the absolute farthest ends of the European genetic spectrum may have a Fst of, say, 0.0043, and one of those European ethnies may have a Fst to some NEC group of, say, 0.0042. A 0.0001 difference!  Take that, you pan-Europeanists!

Now, Fst is not the best measure of genetic distance or kinship, as it is a relative measure of genetic variation between vs. genetic variation within, so the latter can affect the latter. But, let’s put methodological problems aside, and assume for the moment that the interpretation of the values is valid – the most genetically distant European ethnies, at the absolute extremes of the spectrum, may be very slightly more distant than is some European ethny and some NEC group that is relatively similar to Europeans (e.g., Berbers or Levantines). What about this?

I have written about Identity before being a synergistic interaction between genetic, phenotypic, cultural-civilizational, and historical identities and characteristics. It is not purely based on genetics and genetic distances. Even further, the correlation between genetics and culture means that genetic similarity within the European family can be relatively increased, compared to others, over time, as described below.

Total biocultural Identity will replace as narrower biological and cultural identities as the major focus of European Being.  The narrower identities will still exist, but as part of Identity, and the narrower identities will become increasingly aligned with that of Identity. Biological and cultural classifications by themselves are not disjunctive, only total Identity is disjunctive. The ultimate solution to any discordance between Identity and biological identities is this: we will align our biological/genetic interests with Identity by closing the borders and stopping non-European gene flow into European territories. Thus, over time the genetic boundaries between Europe and the Others will become ever larger and more distinct; the genetic commonalities between Europeans, compared to the Others, will become larger and more integrated.  The same applies to any potential cultural overlaps between The West and The Rest.  Examples of this possibility, as exemplified by the Levant and by China, are shown here.

See the following for the examples of this:

See this.

And this.

Thus, pan-Europeanism is, in a way, self-fulfilling, since actualizing pan-Europeanism will, over time, increase the relative genetic similarity of Europeans to each other, compared to their genetic distance to non-European groups, tracking with the cultural-civilizational divide.

Toward a New Movement, Part II

Part II.

See this.

Pan-Europeanism as the major focus will replace other more narrow “isms” – be they national, ethnic, subracial, etc.  The narrower “isms” will not disappear, they can continue to exist, but at a lower level than the overarching pan-European unity.  The two fratricidal world wars of the 20th century wrecked Europe, the West, and the White race, and those who continue to promote division even now, are, whether they know it or not, working for the enemy, working for the Death of Europe and for the destruction of the worldwide fraternity of the European Peoples.  Therefore, all those who preach division within the European family – be that division genetic, phenotype, cultural, historical, religious – are the enemies of European Man and enemies of the West and enemies of our Identity and our Future.

Pan-Europeanism means that all European peoples are valued and the interests of all European peoples are pursued. Pan-Europeanism stresses cooperation and comity between European peoples worldwide, and rejects the “petty nationalism” promoted by the ethnonationalists, who are enemies of the pan-European perspective. Ironically, Sallisian pan-Europeanism is more respectful of the need for European peoples to preserve their uniqueness, and more respectful of their rights to local sovereignty and homogeneity, than are the ethnonationalist ethnoimperalists, who believe that only their favored groups have the right to sovereignty and homogeneity, while those favored groups colonize the lands of less favored peoples. 

Pan-Europeanism is unalterably opposed to the ideology of Nordicism, which has haunted modern racialism from its very beginning. We pan-Europeanists reject the idea that the borders of Europe end at Berlin in the East and at Vienna in the South. We reject the Nordicist idea that only Northwest Europeans have value, and we reject their contempt and loathing for Southern and Eastern Europeans. We also reject dishonest frauds who pretend to be pan-European or pan-Aryan while actually being Nordicists. It goes without saying that we also reject Medicism or any other divisive ideology among Europeans, including the HBD cult, and we declare the proponents of all such divisive ideologies to be Culture Retarders: The Enemy of Europe.

Pan-Europeanism is the fundamental core of The New Movement. Unfortunately, most people - including "leaders" - in the current American "movement" do not understand what pan-Europeanism is, and they seem inherently incapable of understanding. To them, "Pan-European" means the United Kingdom, Germany, Scandinavia, etc.; in general, only the nations and peoples of Northwest Europe. That is Nordicism; that is not pan-Europeanism.

Apart from the Sallis Groupuscule, let us list:

The American “movement” groups, organizations, and blogs/websites that are genuinely pan-European:

The American “movement” “leaders” who are genuinely pan-European: 

You will notice the blank spaces next to each.

There are no genuinely pan-European entities in the American “movement” (apart from Sallis, who is not really part of the “movement” in any case), and what’s more, there never has been any (well, there was Yockey, but his major focus of activity was Europe).

The closest we have had were the European American Student Union and the European American Issues Forum. Unfortunately, both of those excellent groups no longer exist; otherwise, in the fullness of time, they may have achieved full pan-European status.

There have been genuinely pan-European groups in Europe; for example, today, Norman Lowell’s Imperium Europa certainly meets the criteria.

But the American “scene” was always too much characterized by Nordicism and other forms of ethnic fetishism and hatred toward White ethnics, and then there is the HBD cult.

This needs to change.

Toward a New Movement, Part I

A new series. 

I am going to start a series of posts, presented from time to time when they are available, concerning approaches to reform – better still, deconstruct and then reconstruct – the “movement.” Thus - the steps toward a New Movement.

The broad, overarching, basic underlying principles of a New Movement are listed here. Posts on this series can take many forms.  For example, the “fundamentals” linked to above can be examined in more detail. New ideas, strategies, and tactics can be addressed. Past and present failures (that occur often) and successes (that are rare) of the “movement” can be critically examined to assist in determining what should, or should not, be done next. Past installments of this series can be commented on, and expanded, and any possible comments by others about these posts can be addressed. And, of course, other types of posts may be utilized.

In the first installment of this series, I (once again) take a look at Dr. David Duke’s New Orleans Protocol.

The protocol pledges adherents to a pan-European outlook, recognizing national and ethnic allegiance, but stressing the value of all European peoples. The three provisions of the protocols are:

1. Zero tolerance for violence.

2. Honourable and ethical behaviour in relations with other signatory groups. This includes not denouncing others who have signed this protocol. In other words, no enemies on the right.

3. Maintaining a high tone in our arguments and public presentations.

Let’s dissect this from both the prescriptive (what should be done) and descriptive (what currently actually exists) standpoints.

The protocol pledges adherents to a pan-European outlook, recognizing national and ethnic allegiance, but stressing the value of all European peoples.

Obviously, anyone familiar with my work knows that I fully agree with that from a prescriptive standpoint. I put pan-Europeanism as the fundamental key, the foundation, of my work; while I do accept “national and ethnic allegiance,” the pan-European perspective has priority. And my work stresses, absolutely fundamentally, “the value of all European peoples” – with the emphasis on ALL.

From a descriptive standpoint, this part of the protocol is the most unrealistic part, that part most unlike the actual reality of the “movement.” The “movement” is instead based upon a foundation of extreme Nordicism, hatred and contempt toward “White ethnics” (particularly Southern [most of all] and Eastern Europeans), and the inherent, innate supposition that only Northwest Europeans have any value.

Zero tolerance for violence.

I agree prescriptively. Descriptively, it does mirror what the highest levels of the “movement” promote, the “leaders” are overtly against violence. However, lower level “movement” “activists” sometimes “act out” and engage in violence, in some cases because the people in question become desperate due to the unending failures of the organized "higher level" “movement.”

Honourable and ethical behaviour in relations with other signatory groups. This includes not denouncing others who have signed this protocol. In other words, no enemies on the right.

Descriptively, that is a mixed bag. With respect to the people who actually signed the protocol, it seems that they have followed this provision and have not attacked each other. With respect to the “movement” as a whole, this is of course descriptively false – all we see is constant feuding, constant attacks, and constant hostility, e.g., represented by Greg Johnson’s promotion of “punching right.”

As far as prescription goes – I believe that there is a place for criticism, for attacking those who deserve to be attacked, mocked, critiqued, and ridiculed. I agree that activists should be honorable and ethical – but that does not define the current “movement," which is instead defined by dishonorable and unethical behavior, grifting, etc. Please note that one can “punch right” but do so in an honorable and ethical manner, if there are genuine areas of significant disagreement. 

That said, it is optimal if people who agree with the basic tenets of Duke's protocol refrain from attacking each other too vigorously; if the criticism is honorable and ethical, then it should not be personal and it should be disinterested (not attacking “movement” rivals for reasons of power, ego, and/or money).

Maintaining a high tone in our arguments and public presentations.

In general, I agree with this, re: prescription, making allowances for humor, mocking, and ridicule, when and where appropriate. Descriptively, much of the “movement” openly violates this tenet, as should be obvious to anyone with any experience with the "movement" whatsoever.

So, you see in this analysis the prescription of what I see the “movement” should be and what needs to be changed from the current “movement” to achieve the optimal situation.

We need a thoroughly and authentically pan-European movement – not Nordicists pretending to be pan-European – valuing ALL European peoples, with ethical and honorable activists, non-violent, who criticize each other when necessary but do not do so for selfish reasons.

This is a start, the beginning of my analysis.

Call to the Ethnics

A call to action (and inaction).

Some readers here at EGI Notes are White ethnics who are part of Der Movement; some may be readers/commentators at anti-White ethnic sites like Counter-Currents, Amren, etc. This post is for you.

This is a call to action (and selected inaction) to so-called White ethnics - particularly Southern and Eastern Europeans - heretofore involved in Der Movement but who are waking up to the fact that Der Movement is inherently hostile to them, will never truly accept them, will never take their interests seriously, and is free-riding on their support with zero reciprocity for that support.

Inaction - stop supporting Der Movement.  Stop sending in "D'Nations" to people who despise you. Stop leaving comments on their blogs, stop praising them, stop feeding their egos, their bank accounts, their reputations, and their comments threads. Stop buying their books, stop supporting them in any way whatsoever.

Action - stand up for your ethnoracial rights and your interests as part of the community of European peoples. Support radical and uncompromising pan-Europeanism - supporting the rights and interests of ALL peoples of European descent worldwide, not just those who hail from north of Vienna and west of Berlin. Be readers and supporters of the Sallis Groupuscule (I don't ask for money, just be readers and spread the word about my work to other people to build up a community of readers and supporters). Start your own blogs and groups, supporting pan-Europeanism and opposing Nordicism, ethnonationalism, HBD, and Der Movement as a whole. Support these principles - or come up with something better. Support whatever authentic pan-Europeanism that exists, Imperium Europa in Malta, for example.

Hold racial nationalist leaders accountable, don't sell yourselves and your support cheap. Support and respect is a two-way street - you've been giving it out freely for decades and receiving nothing in return. The situation will not change unless you force change.

Related:

See this.

Like other Nordic countries, Finland has a strong conformist mentality. The Law of Jante is in force to keep too headstrong or conflict-seeking individuals leashed.

See this.  And this.

Honest disagreement is one thing, but one reason why I so loathe Der Movement is its fundamental dishonesty, and its cheerfully insouciant inconsistency.

The same “movement” sites that ecstatically hyperventilate over MacDonald’s theories about “the origins of Western individualism” that focus on the alleged hyper-individualism of Northwest Europeans, with Scandinavians as the archetype, will, with no cognitive dissonance whatsoever, also talk about the mind-numbing collectivist conformity in Scandinavia, the “janteiac” Chinese-like “cut the tall poppies” radical anti-individualism extant there.

Inconsistency?  Inconsistency is for lesser beings!  The Herrenvolk don’t recognize no stinkin’ inconsistency! 

And they keep on lying.

Indeed, Sweden is “the least family-dependent and the most individualized society on the face of the earth”...

Jante alert!  "Like other Nordic countries, Finland has a strong conformist mentality. The Law of Jante is in force to keep too headstrong or conflict-seeking individuals leashed."

Finally, while Schulz et al. note that southern Italy was incorporated into the Western Church relatively late, thus purporting to explain their relatively intensive kinship relations, my treatment emphasizes the ethnic difference between northern and southern Italy, with Germanic peoples predominant in the north.

See this. In reality, genetically speaking, North Italians are wedged in between Iberians and Southern French on one side and Central and Southern Italians on the other. See this - more genetic similarity of historically modern (medieval) Northern Italy with Southern Italy than with Northern Europe. In a relative sense (only), Northern Italy is "more Germanic" than Southern Italy along a cline of gene frequencies.  But being shifted more in that direction is in no way, shape, or form the same as saying "Germanic peoples predominant in the north" - which is an outright falsehood. Northern Italians are not "Germanic," they do not cluster with Germanic Europeans in European PCA; the statement by MacDonald is simply not true. By analogy, if, e.g., Finns are closer to Asians than are Sardinians along a cline of gene frequencies, that does not mean that "North Asians/Siberians predominate in Finland."  Absurdity.

The "movement" is fundamentally dishonest about race.

And if you think that statement is too harsh, consider that the population genetics data for modern Italy are well known, the data for Ancient Rome (Ancient Rome being mentioned in the absurd Mankind Quarterly piece) are also now published, and data on the relative individualism vs. collectivism of European nations are also well known. These data are not obscure or hidden, they are publicly available at the click of a mouse. There is therefore no excuse whatsoever for any genuine scholarship to keep on peddling these - I'll be charitable here - misrepresentations of known facts.

And it these HBDers really believed their nonsense, then, logically, they should promote more ethnocentric and collectivist Whites in racial nationalism, particularly in leadership positions, and de-emphasize the exclusive focus on more egalitarian and individualistic Whites. This they do not do; they in fact do the opposite. Is that because the egalitarian and individualistic types are really...ethnocentric and collectivist?

Don't expect any sense or consistency from any of them. It is not science and it is not scholarship; it is a religion. Any deviation from their dogma they consider akin to blasphemy.

Let's propose some actual tests for MacDonald's thesis. If these intra-European differences in behavior are genetic-cultural rather than historical-cultural, then one would expect them to be stable over time in novel environments. Thus, "Outer Hajnal" Southern and Eastern Europeans should display the same behavior after three or four (or more) generations living in places like the USA, Canada, Australia, etc. (considering unmixed examples of such peoples). Further, twin studies ("Outer Hajnal" identical twins raised apart, in this case adopted out to "Inner Hajnal" families) as well as general adoption studies ("Outer Hajnal" individuals adopted into "Inner Hajnal" families, regardless of whether the "Outer Hajnals" are identical twins or not), should show that these behaviors are reproduced independently of a purely environmental context. One can propose the opposite as well. Swedes should be hyper-individualistic wherever they are...or, should they be Law of Jante conformist collectivists?  We can propose those latter studies once Der Movement decides on a consistent dogma to describe the behavior of the Herrenvolk.

Historically, there are problems as well. The "openness" of the Roman Republic is over-stated by the HBDers. The Social War was fought because Rome didn't want to grant citizenship to the Italian allies. The patrician-plebian conflict was due to patrician exclusiveness. On the other hand, at the height of its power, Afro-Asiatic Ancient Egypt allowed foreign blood into its ruling dynasties. Islam never had a strict color line.  With respect to Europeans, the Spanish and Portuguese had a more lax attitude toward miscegenation in the New World than the Anglo-Saxons (or French).

I suppose I will be accused of having a "collectivist agenda" to "obscure the truth,"  But, I'm not the one who is obscuring the truth here; the other side is. And I have no agenda; if MacDonald's thesis is correct, then it is correct and should be accepted, but so far the "evidence" presented in its support has been full of falsehoods and misrepresentations. If others want to worship "movement" "rock stars" and "drink the Kool-Aid" that's their decision, but I'm not doing that.

This entire issue is of relevance for more than just the "White Ethnic Problem." This is just another example of Der Movement's lack of critical thinking and of an inability to question dogma.

Behold the female: White women doing what they do best.

Another victory!  MAGA! Pepe! Kek! Trust the plan! Something must be done!

Dissecting the Fundamentals, Part I

Another look at “the fundamentals.”

Read the original post here.

Pan-Europeanism as the major focus will replace other more narrow “isms” – be they national, ethnic, subracial, etc.  The narrower “isms” will not disappear, they can continue to exist, but at a lower level than the overarching pan-European unity.  The two fratricidal world wars of the 20th century wrecked Europe, the West, and the White race, and those who continue to promote division even now, are, whether they know it or not, working for the enemy, working for the Death of Europe and for the destruction of the worldwide fraternity of the European Peoples.  Therefore, all those who preach division within the European family – be that division genetic, phenotype, cultural, historical, religious – are the enemies of European Man and enemies of the West and enemies of our Identity and our Future.

Pan-Europeanism is the First Principle, the non-negotiable, the underlying thesis, the Idea of Yockey (opposed by those ethnonationalists who make pretense of being some sort of Yockey acolytes, presumably for fundraising purposes), the organic evolution of the West. Now, as Yockey stated, and I certainly agree (as does Lowell and others), narrower forms of Identity can and will exist within the context of pan-Europeanism, but these will be local and secondary.  The European, the Western (in the broadest sense, not equivalent to the modern decadent West nor even to the current Faustian High Culture, which we must overcome and supersede, as it is dying, if not already dead) Identity must be primary and existential.

Let’s quote Yockey here:

Our European Mission is to create the Culture-State-Nation-Imperium of the West, and thereby we shall perform such deeds, accomplish such works, and so transform our world that our distant posterity, when they behold the remains of our buildings and ramparts, will tell their grandchildren that on the soil of Europe once dwelt a tribe of gods.

That’s what is important, that’s the inspiring vision for the future, not a dismal future of squabbling ethnonationalists ready to “ethnically cleanse” each other over disagreements about “sovereignty.”

Now, I must stress: to a large extent this Yockeyian vision is for elites.  Nietzsche was willing to grant the masses their Christianity, their religion of resssentiment, if they so required, but the elites, the Overmen must eschew such childish crutches.  Similarly, the masses can have their ethnonationalism for the time being, as they are slowly weaned off of it; better ethnonationalism than globalist universalism.  But the nationalist elites have to be true acolytes of the pan-European Ideal, and eventually lead the masses in the correct direction as those masses become improved and enlightened over time.

Genetic kinship will replace racial “purity.”  As per Salter, ultimate interests are genetic interests, and genetic interests are based upon genetic kinship.  Only genetic kinship is relevant for biopolitics.  This contrasts to the unscientific strawman of racial “purity” which is usually derived from some a priori comparison to a picked parental population.  Since all genetic differences, regardless of their derivation (e.g., “admixture” [real or an artifact], selective pressures, genetic drift, etc.) influence genetic kinship, measurement of such kinship is the most inclusive and definitive approach for understanding our ultimate interests.  We accept the European genepool for what it is now and strive to improve it in the future.  To use Yockey’s terminology in a new way, we completely replace outdated and unscientific “vertical” concerns with “purity/admixture” with “horizontal” concerns with genetic kinship and genetic interests.

The “movement” will resist this, no doubt.  Some precincts of the “movement” play lip service to this idea, but as always look at that they do more than what they say.  Look what posts they present, what authors they promote, what memes they spread, what their commentators are saying – it doesn’t match their ostensible “position” on this matter.  Remember Horace: “You may drive out Nature with a pitchfork, yet she still will hurry back.”  Unscientific fetishistic fantasies will collapse under the edifying light of science, the reality of facts, and no “movement” flim-flam and sweaty fossilized dogma will stand up to truth in the long term.

How to fuse these horizontal concerns with genetic interests with Yockey’s vision, which was flawed by its blithe dismissal of “materialistic” race concepts?  See this.

Total biocultural Identity will replace as narrower biological and cultural identities as the major focus of European Being.  The narrower identities will still exist, but as part of Identity, and the narrower identities will become increasingly aligned with that of Identity.  Biological and cultural classifications by themselves are not disjunctive, only total Identity is disjunctive. The ultimate solution to any discordance between Identity and biological identities is this: we will align our biological/genetic interests with Identity by closing the borders and stopping non-European gene flow into European territories.  Thus, over time the genetic boundaries between Europe and the Others will become ever larger and more distinct; the genetic commonalities between Europeans, compared to the Others, will become larger and more integrated.  The same applies to any potential cultural overlaps between The West and The Rest.  Examples of this possibility, as exemplified by the Levant and by China, are shown here.

This is an important point, and an answer to sweaty fetishists using minute difference in Fst values – ignoring that Fst is a flawed metric for measuring genetic differentiation – to make asinine comments about negligible levels of relative ethnic genetic distances.

Biopolitics will replace the old fraud of Right vs. Left.  We care not if any specific policy of ours, or our entire program, is deemed “rightist” or “leftist” or whatever outdated label.  We are not conservatives, reactionaries, not in any way beholden to “right-wing” thought.  We are revolutionaries, striving to create a new order.

This should be self-evident.  We are not conservatives, reactionaries, or traditionalists.  We look to the future, not to the dead past.  This leads to:

Futurism, not Traditionalism.  Unlike some of the more reckless statements in support of Futurism, we do not call for the abolition of museums, the disregarding of our past and the great deeds of our ancestors.  Past, Present, and Future are all linked.  However, we look to the Future, our real Golden Age is that which we will make in the Future, it is not some sort of delusional Traditionalist fantasy set in the Past.  We will not reject the deeds of our ancestors, but these are not the sum of our being, we do not settle for them – we must surpass them.  We remember the Past, but for the purpose of spurring us to achieve greater deeds in the Future. 

One of the most unpleasant aspects of the “movement” is its obsession with gnostic esoteric “traditionalism” and with a Lord of the Rings style romanticization of feudal values.

Rational realism and empiricism is for facts, values and objectives can be irrational.  Thus, we reject the old, timeworn, factually incorrect knee-jerk beliefs, memes, and paradigms that have defined to so-called “racialist movement,” particularly in America.  With respect to facts, history, knowledge – the age of “movement” dogma is over.  We reject the misanthropic freakishness and lies of the old movement.  With respect to facts, we depend on rationality, on realism, on empiricism – on real Science.  But these things cannot provide us with our values and our objectives – they are merely tools.  Our values and objectives can be irrational as they spring forth from our vision of the reality we want to come into being.  But we cannot confuse what we want with what actually is – nor can be settle for what is instead of what we actually want.  What is – that is the current reality, which must be discerned with empiricism.  What we want is derived from our values, irrational as they may (or may not) be, and for these objectives, empiricism is only a tool, a means, not an end to itself.  As part of this, the fantasies of Traditionalism – which invents false facts – must be put aside in favor of empirical facts and the irrational objectives of an enlightened Futurism.

This gets to the core – one core at least – of my criticism of the “movement,” and why “movement” “leaders” have made me persona non grata in their circles.  My message is blasphemy and, what’s more, gets in the way of “business as usual,” and the concomitant tin cup panhandling that is facilitated by giving “movement” “activists” the dogmatic “red meat” they crave.  The “movement” wants to continue dwelling in its little cul-de-sac of crazed religious fervor with its fossilized memes; but this is an dead end, a recipe for failure, and anyone who actually wants to win, and actualize their ideology into reality needs to understand – truly understand – what that reality is all about.

Preservationism plus eugenics replaces static preservationism.  We are not interested in preserving a racial stasis…We wish to promote eugenics to improve the stock and, also, allow for the creation of new stabilized blends of European stocks – while also at the same type preserving the original stocks – to increase the diversity of European Man. Ethnic genetic interests are compatible with (gradual) genetic change within the race…

There are a number of important points here, all of which focus on a forward-looking, palingenetic view of race (i.e., futurism, not traditionalism).  Contra to misinformed complaints that a concern for EGI leads to “genetic stasis,” here we see an overt call for eugenics (albeit a prudent form of eugenics that seeks to avoid both unnecessary loses of genetic interest and unforeseen negative consequences to designating traits – and the alleles that code for them – as worthy of replacement or increase without understanding possible consequences of such changes), and the call for “the creation of new stabilized blends of European stocks…increase the diversity of European Man.”  As long as original stocks are maintained, there’s nothing wrong with creating new variants of European man, in diaspora regions such as America.  When such crossing create excellent new strains, such can be cultivated as new ethnies to be preserved and improved; if negative strains (however defined) are produced, they can be selected against.  The creation and selection of new dog breeds can be a model for this process. Gradual genetic change that eschews mixing across continental population groups (broadly: races) and that preserves the vast bulk of genetic interests is a natural part of the lifecycle of evolved organisms, is part and parcel of genetic interests, and is wholly compatible with a prudent and well-informed eugenic scheme.