Stupidities of the Old Movement

Discussed here.

Some Tactical Points

Several more “tactical” points.

The ethnic/subracial “affirmative action” program in the “movement” – in which individuals are raised to positions of leadership based upon their membership in a favored ethny – needs to be replaced by a focus on merit, accomplishment and responsibility.  If a precinct of racialism asserts that its ingroup is “X” then any member of X should be able to rise or fall in power, influence, and authority based upon merit, or the lack thereof.  If such opportunity does not exist, this is evidence that this movement precinct does not represent ingroup X, but only represents that fraction of X from which favored individuals derive.  Hence, if any movement entity claims to be “Pan-European” then a person of any European ancestry should have equal opportunity for “upward mobility” and any person of like ancestry should equally be held to account for failure.  This has unfortunately not been the way things have been done in the “movement.”

It cannot be stressed enough that the knee-jerk, boringly predictable “movement” dogmas need to be replaced.  If an article is about, say, immigration, or a political crisis, in Spain or Italy, one can always depend on “movement” “activists” to chime in with superfluous and tiresomely predictable comments about “admixture,” “Moors” or what have you.  An article on Greece’s Golden Dawn will lead to similar comments and “observations” such as “the head of Golden Dawn doesn’t look very white to me.”  Something about Russia may lead to comments about Russia “not being Western” and about “Mongols” and “Asian admixture.”  Something about Ancient Rome?  The original Romans were “Nordic” and the Empire collapsed because of “racial mixing.” However, articles on, say, Iceland or Scandinavia will not lead to commentaries about why Bjork and Bromstad look half-Asian – that’s not part of the “movement” dogma, that’s instead “blasphemy.”  The “movement” has its very carefully crafted, rigid “talking points” from which we are never supposed to deviate.  When a point is reached in which even Ancient Egypt (of all things) is called a “Nordic Desert Empire” then this is a level of ludicrousness that can put even Afrocentrists to shame.  The Old Movement can continue to play in their fantasy sandbox if they wish, but the New Movement has to completely eschew such nonsense.

The same applies to “activists” who bring superfluous and tangential issues to their activism, tainting racialism with their stupidity.  For example: moon landing hoax, “smoking doesn’t increase the risk for cancer,” weird dietary advice, all sorts of conspiracy theories (e.g., space aliens, Federal Reserve, Illuminati, etc.) – even if these idea are true, what do they have to do with racialism?  And the fact that most of these ideas are utter nonsense – and is justifiably viewed as such by many on the right side of the bell curve – merely adds yet another self-inflicted wound to how racial nationalism is viewed, how it is perceived.  The fundamental tenets of racial nationalism themselves are considered “crazy” by many people – as we try to present our case to we need to complicate things by bringing up things that further raise the “crazy alarm?”

Misanthropy, personal freakishness, and flaws do nothing but taint activism with the personal failings of activists.  The same goes for poor judgment, an enduring failure of “movement” “leadership” and a particularly dangerous trait given the power and resources of our opponents.  We need thoughtful strategizing, shrewd tactics, and the proper caution, not the reckless stupidity, and the “if they say they agree with us, give them the keys to the kingdom” naïveté, that leads to infiltrators and agent provocateurs and online trolls doing their usual damage.  This ties in with the need for a merit-based leadership, rather than the “affirmative action” program which puts unqualified individuals into leadership positions because they, so to speak, “look the part.”

By its very nature, dissident positions attract marginal personalities.  However, there must be standards.  Allowing “the inmates to run the asylum” results in a negative spiral, in which quality people are repelled by “movement” freakishness, increasing the proportion of misfits, and further alienating potential recruits and disgusting what few good people remain.  On the other hand, an insistence on standards, on activist quality, on responsible and thoughtful leadership, on ostensible “normalcy” – without in any way compromising beliefs – will attract more good people and lead to positive reinforcement.  The higher the initial quality, the better people will be attracted, which will in turn maintain and raise the quality, attracting even more good people.  Again, no beliefs need to be compromised.  Radical, revolutionary, and dissident ideas can be coupled to the positive personal traits listed here; radicalism does not require marginal misfits.  It’s a matter of insisting on standards. 

Better support an inch wide and a mile deep, rather than the reverse.  Strong, narrow support can be expanded, slowly, and in depth, maintaining and expanding the strength of commitment.  Broad and shallow support will evaporate when a crisis hits.  Strong support on the other hand provides the firm foundation to withstand shocks.

It is crucially important that a solution be found to the problem of social pricing.  Having a high quality membership, that avoids embarrassing and compromising associations, is a start.  Investing resources in providing “professional” activists with the means for good standard-of-living support (financial, social, etc.) is a must.  Effective leadership is required.

Salter on YouTube

Important talk on the costs of multiculturalism and diversity.

See here.

New Salter Work on GST

See here.

The Fundamentals

Fundamentals of a New Movement

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 20^th 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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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 the 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 we 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.

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.

On Ballot Access

Another Counter-Currents article on electoral politics and illegal immigrant amnesty.

Read here.

Waking Up From The American Dream

Another essay on American politics.

Read here.

Balkanizing America

New Counter-Currents Essay, Nov. 8, 2012

Read here.

Pan-European Preservationism

Counter-Currents article, from the North American New Right, Vol. 1 book.

Read here.

The "I Don't Care After I Die" Argument

A flawed argument.

I’m amused that on some racialist websites, anti-racist commentators show up to promote the individualist idea that since you are going to die anyway, why care about the future racial make-up of the USA or any other country?  Why should it concern you?

First, most people who are not hyper-individualistic narcissistic sociopaths do care about posterity.  People recycle, people care about the environment, people worry about global warming – even if these issues involve events that will take place after the concerned individuals die.  It is normal human nature to at least care about the future of our familial lineages, and Salter’s work makes clear the analogy between family and ethny.  It is responsible stewardship of one’s biological and cultural patrimony to care about the future of one’s people.  Of course, some feel differently.  Salter mentioned that “who cares?” will always be an essentially unanswerable riposte to claims about group interests.  However, others do care – which raises another flaw in the “I don’t care what happens after I die" argument.

The flaw in the “I don’t care after I die” argument is – why then does pro-White advocacy bother the person making the comment?  After all, if the hyper-individualists do not care what the racial situation is after they die, and at the same time we do care, then why don’t the individualists leave us alone to promote what we perceive to be our (group) interests while they can go off and pursue whatever individual interests strike their fancy?

In other words, if Mr. Individualist really doesn’t care about the racial future, then that person should have no objection whatsoever to a future scenario in which White nationalists are victorious and the European peoples thrive in homogeneous homelands.  Correct?  Indeed, such an individualist really should not object to a “Turner Diaries” scenario in which all non-Whites are exterminated and only Whites are left to populate the Earth.  Correct?  After all, if it happens after they die, and they won’t know about it, no problem.  Correct?  A pro-White future should leave them as unmoved and uncaring as an anti-White one.  Correct?

Actually – incorrect, because these self-proclaimed individualists really do care about the racial future – they want to see Whites disposed, mongrelized, and driven to extinction.  This is why they become so hysterical about pro-White activism even when they really shouldn’t care one way or the other what the racial outcome is.  Indeed, some of these so-called “White individualists” may indeed be non-White themselves, or married to a non-White, and therefore have a self-interested objective in attacking White nationalist activism.  In other words, when they say “I don’t care” – they are lying.  If not, I’d invite them to spend time explaining to Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians why those groups should not care about their group survival.  After all, Whites in general seem not to care and are going extinct.  If the hyper-individualists care so much about promoting their individualism, why focus on Whites?  That’s essentially preaching to the choir – after all, the White nationalists are a tiny and powerless fraction of the White population.  Collectivist racialism is prominent among non-White groups, so it is there that the individualists should concentrate their proselytizing efforts.  If they are sincere.

Which they’re not.

Yockey and Biological Race

A flaw in Yockey's work - likely the biggest flaw - is his denial of the importance of biological race, his attacks on "racial materialism" and "Darwinism" and his focus on "horizontal" (i.e., "spiritual") race as opposed to "vertical" (i.e., heriditary, biological) race.

Yockey is somewhat inconsistent, in that he makes clear that Negroes and Chinamen can never be Westerners, and although he cites "culture" for the Chinaman, he does mention physical differences for the Negro.

While some speculate that Yockey's opinions on this topic were formed by his ancestry (Jewish blood?) or the influence of Spengler, another, probably more likely, explanation that  is compatible with the above mentioned inconsistencies, is that Yockey was focused on intra-European racial differences.

One must remember when Yockey was writing, and that, while today, most people use "race" to mean the major continental population groups, in the past, there was much talk about the "Nordic" and "Alpine" and "Mediterranean" "races" of Europe.  Indeed, it was sometimes customary to talk of the "English race" or other "races" constituting what most today would call ethnic groups (of course "race" boundaries can be somewhat subjective - race or subrace? - and one can use "ethny" to denote various levels of biological differentiation).

Further, the "Nordicism" or "Germanism" or "Aryanism" of the National Socialist regime was fresh in everyone's mind when Yockey wrote Imperium, and Yockey directly critiques "materialist" National Socialist race theory.  The following quote from Imperium is instructive as to Yockey's probable motivation:

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. Adequate instruction along this line would apparently have to take the form of occupation of all Europe, instead of only part of it, by Negroes from America and Africa, by Mongols and Turkestani from the Russian Empire.

Thus, I suspect that Yockey was primarily focused on "race" in its narrower aspects, and took for granted that people would understand the physical differences between Europeans, Africans, and Asians.  On the other hand, Yockey was concerned that an emphasis on "racial materialism" would damage the Western unity he so desperately wished to foster.

Perhaps Yockey could be excused given he wrote Imperium before the discovery of DNA and didn't have access to today's knowledge, especially the Salterian idea of Ethnic Genetic Interests.  The Yockey "problem" can be 'solved" by acknowledging  the biological differences that exist within Europe, and that these need to be preserved, but that these differences are small in the global context, and need not impede the Western Unity that Yockey recognized is all-important.