The Sallis Vision
Endgame.
All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. - T. E. Lawrence
My critics may aver that I am always negative and do not do anything other than criticize the “movement.” Long time readers of my work know that is not true. Regardless, in this post, I will stress the positive, the constructive, and sketch an outline of what my endgame is. In other words, what is the Sallis vision? What kind of state do I want to see come into being? What kind of future do I envision for the White race?
A starting point would be to read this.
Let us proceed.
Pan-Europeanism, Political structure
Unlike the “movement” I support genuine pan-Europeanism, focusing on the interests of ALL peoples of European descent worldwide, not just some fraction thereof (i.e., Northwest Europeans only - typical “movement” Nordicism). ALL means ALL, not just the “movement’s” favorite groups. There will be no intra-European castes, no “borderline” cases or grudging acceptances, no second or third (or worse) class status. There needs to be a clearly defined ingroup, and then the ingroup is the ingroup. All for one and one for all. If the fetishists cannot accept that, then we will not accept them. On the other hand, the “movement’s” embrace of non-Whites (that they do while at the same time rejecting White ethnics) is not acceptable. Ourselves alone. Non-Whites have their own lands.
There will be an integrated Imperium structure, optimally consisting of all of Europe (including European Russia), as well as most or all (depending on what occurs) of Diaspora lands (USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand – perhaps parts of South Africa as well). Similar to Lowell’s Imperium vs. Dominion distinction, there will be a balance between those issues dealt with at the higher level of Imperium (high politics and grand strategy, foreign policy, military policy, large scale science and technics [including space exploration], racial policy [including immigration control as well as eugenics], pan-European cultural projects [including civilizational/High Culture issues], and whatever economic [in the broadest sense) issues arise). On the other hand, there will be local sovereignty (Dominion) on most day-to-day issues, without the nitpicking micromanagement of the EU. National boundaries will be maintained and the demographics of nations and peoples also maintained – there will be no panmixia among the nations of Europe; local national ethnic and cultural identities will be maintained (although of course there will be some intra-European mixing in the Diaspora, as has been already occurring).
Interestingly, a Sallisian Imperium would exhibit more national sovereignty and homogeneity than the behavior of so-called ethnonationalists. My Imperium would not have non-Hungarians using Budapest as a flophouse and crash pad and would not have anti-Romanian aliens living in Romania, bedding Romanian women while attacking the Romanian people and culture. There will be none of the ethnomimperialist hypocrisy of "ethnonationalist sovereignty and homogeneity for me but not for thee." The Imperium would be a Confederation of European peoples and nations.
The underlying political structure will be of a National Socialist/fascist type, but with a sane and flexible manifestation (see below). Aspects of “totalitarian democracy” can be useful here.
Sanity and flexibility
National Socialism and fascism are linked in the popular mind to war, concentration camps, secret police, cults of personality, etc. I propose a “sane” form of National Socialist fascism in which war is restricted to self-defense (or some other type of defense of vital interests), order is maintained as reasonably as possible, freedom is maximized to the extent possible while maintaining collective action, and the Imperium is managed by a leadership cadre rather than some personality cult "Fuhrer.”
This form of government needs to be flexible enough to conform to the particularities of specific national cultures and mores. For example, Russian national socialism, or that of many continental European nations, could be somewhat more authoritarian that that of Anglophone countries, where the populations and political culture has always been characterized by a greater degree of personal freedom and balance of power within the government. The former nations would also tend to be more amenable to a highly centralized national government, while the latter may be more comfortable with a degree of decentralization. In all cases, the same basic ideology and the same political foundation would apply, all ultimately overseen by the Imperium’s elite, but in the degree of local sovereignty there would be the aforementioned flexibility in precisely how the political control would manifest.
Race and eugenics
The state would be for people of European descent only; in Europe in ethnically homogeneous states, and in the Diaspora in the mixed European states that exist, but with all non-Whites removed. Eugenics would be practiced, but in a sane and responsible way, preserving national identities and genetic interests to the extent possible, and rejecting rapid “transhumanist” changes. Populations do change over time due to a variety of reasons even in the absence of mass migration (e.g., from selection and/or genetic drift) and these mechanisms are wholly compatible with genetic interests in evolved populations (indeed, such interests are tied to adaptive fitness, which at times requires some changes in genotypes/phenotypes). Thus, a prudent eugenics policy that is also broadly preservationist is reasonable. See this on Yockeyian Genetics. I agree with Strom, racial purity is something to strive for in the future, it is not something that existed in a mythical past.
Ethics and morality
And it is even more salient today. If there is ONE single thing I would advise White racial activists to do today, it would be to emphasize, to focus on, character and moral rebirth, to focus on The New Man. With that, anything is possible. Without that, nothing is possible. Although ideology, science, intelligence, strategy, et al. are all crucially important, they take a back seat to character and moral integrity. You cannot build a worldwide revolutionary movement on a foundation of quicksand; you cannot build a victorious movement on a foundation of freaks, grifters, phonies, frauds, the morally defective, perverts, liars, gaslighters, deranged fetishists, tin-foil-hat conspiracy theorists, individuals with all sorts of completely superfluous hang-ups and bizarre theories, weaklings, traitors, and all the rest. We have to remake ourselves before we try and remake the world.
The New Man will be the foundation of the moral and ethical state:
There needs to be a moral structure to the state, independent of pure adaptive utilitarianism. Now, that moral structure can (and should) be used instrumentally to favor adaptive, EGI-focused ends. But the moral structure should exist not only for the purpose of promoting a racial state and for making the pursuit of EGI, of adaptive fitness, more palatable to the population – keeping in mind that humans are apparently evolved to benefit from some sort of religious/spiritual beliefs – but has benefits in its own right. Indeed, there needs to be a balance between a "pure ethic" of unrestrained pursuit of genetic interests, and morality that constrains the unrestrained pursuit of absolute EGI, a pursuit that can lead to “maladaptive genetic atomization.”....
…What can we say about this sense of morality?
Morality can be independent of religion, although, historically, in the Western civilization (and in Late Antiquity), The Moral State was associated with Christianity. Readers of this blog know that I am hostile to Christianity. However, there are certain elements in (Europeanized) Christianity that can be of benefit to society if – and only if – these ideals are limited to one’s own people, rather than to all of humanity (in other words, particularism vs. universalism), and are tempered by adaptive interests and pragmatic prudence.
Science and Technics, Futurism, anti-Traditionalism, but with maintenance of Humanity
Readers know I strongly support science and technics, embrace Futurism, and loathe “Traditionalism.” The Sallisian state would look to the future, not to the past, and would enthusiastically support advances in science and technics and indeed all in forms of knowledge. The stupid embrace of “Traditionalism” by the “movement,” if manifested in a state system, would result in Luddite backwardness, the destruction of the hope for a brighter tomorrow, eliminate the possibility of a higher humanity, and leave us at the mercy of enemies, like the Asians, who have no scruples in using whatever techniques to achieve power and domination. Thus, “Traditionalism” is a deadly danger.
But there is another danger – that of hyper-rationality, of becoming so obsessed with science and, especially, technics, that we lose our humanity, confusing means with ends. And here I do not only mean "transhumanism” or “AI takes over and kills off humanity” scenarios, but also Last Man” outcomes such as in The Machine Stops, or the cost of hyper-rationality in the “tale of the machines” in Gene Wolfe’s The Book of The New Sun -see here:
To paraphrase and summarize – humanity reached the stars by giving away the wild part of themselves – essentially becoming emotionless technocrats – and then the thinking machines (AI), who hated their human creators, decided to ruin those human creators by re-introducing to humanity paradigms that would rekindle humanity’s interest in those “wild things.” Thus, humanity became distracted away from pure science and technics and the galactic empire collapsed. The lesson here is that – besides not trusting AI – humanity should not give up its “wild” side, its human soul, for the sake of technology; instead, humans need to achieve their objectives – “reach the stars” – while remaining fundamentally human. Thus, in relation of Heidegger’s whining, we need not become entrapped into a technological spiritual mindset – pure instrumentality – in order to “be scientific.” On the other hand, we cannot evade the price that must be paid for science and technology – while science is a tool, it is an expensive tool, and what has to invest in a degree of rationality and empiricism to achieve science and technics. One must strike a balance – the mind must be scientific while the soul remains human. But we cannot hide in the hobbit hole, while others reach the stars. The White Man cannot give up his Faustian birthright because of fearful, backwards-looking traditionalists.
We must remember that science and technics are tools. And, we must also remember that we cannot derived values from tools. Our values must derive from our humanity, our reality as evolved organisms, and our sense of morals and ethics. Science and technics must be used to achieve those values, but they are not the values themselves.
High Culture
One of the major components of the confederation-wide activity is constructing new cultural artifacts, particularly those of a pan-European civilizational High Culture nature. And, consistent with my Overman High Culture essay, one key component of this is to transition through the Spenglerian cycle, from the (probably, but not definitely) exhausted Western Faustian High Culture to a new High Culture, one suitable for the tasks at hand for European Man.
The rigid, dogmatic Spenglerians will screech and cry that the birth and direction of a High Culture is a purely innate, organic process that cannot be planned and directed by human effort. That will be doomed to failure, they aver, and they would gibber about pseudomporphosis and the like, claiming that any attempt to guide the creation of a High Culture would distort its expression. Needless to say, I disagree with that view.
It would seem that an examination of the beginnings of the West calls the rigid Spenglerian view into question. It was not inevitable that Christianity would come into being and, once it did, that it would eventually become the faith of the Roman Empire of Late Antiquity. If that did not occur, then the history of the West would have been radically different. Even if the Western Roman Empire still fell, which likely it would have done eventually, and even if a new “Faustian” Western High Culture came into being, that new High Culture would have been significantly different had Christianity not been an integral part of it. Indeed, was Christianity a Magian pseudomorphosis of the Western High Culture? In any case, the fact that the West has been Christian was not an inevitable part of its organic growth, but a characteristic contingent upon certain specific historical events – accidents of history one might say – and decisions made by specific individuals, such as Roman emperors. So, if something as fundamental to the Western High Culture as European Christianity was a result of human decision and historical events, then why can’t the direction of a future European High Culture also be similarly modulated by human decision and historical events (events themselves of course affected by human decision)? This is particularly so given that we today are conscious of the Spenglerian paradigm, a situation that obviously did not exist in the past.
I would like to believe that the sort of state that would come into being would manifest thus:
…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. - Francis Parker Yockey
Comments
Post a Comment