Further Development of Avant Garde Memes Required

Avant garde politics, racialism, and science?

An introduction.

Crude ethnic stereotyping may lead one to conclude that an emphasis on art, culture, and aesthetics in the creation of fascist ideology was (and is) a particularly “French” phenomenon. Of course, other fascist movements were concerned with these issues, sometimes to a significant extent, but none of them incorporated such memes into the core of the political thinking as did French fascist thinkers. Indeed, the cultural-aesthetic emphasis of the French strain of fascism is a breath of fresh air after immersion in the more focused political thought of the Italian Fascists and the racialist ideals of the German National Socialists.  

In fact, all three areas of focus – cultural-aesthetic, political, and racialist – are required for a complete memetic complex to promote fascistic ideals. As a biological reductionist, I would emphasize the racialist first of all, but doing so with respect to modern genetic science rather than the sort of quackery that passed as “racial science” under the Nazis. However, biological racialism by itself is not enough. Without an edifice of political and cultural-aesthetic memes, the foundation of ultimate interests will go nowhere.

Advocating avant garde memes should not be construed as some sort of pretentious, pseudo-intellectual, “artsy wine-and-cheese” mindset, but rather a fundamental appreciation of the need to break with old ways – ways that are proven failures – and experiment with fresh approaches to the problems of race and civilization.  Therefore, we should advocate avant garde approaches not only for art/culture, but, equally so, in politics, for our view if race, and, to the extent possible, in science.  It is too easy to fall back into bad habits, whether these be artistic, political, racial, or scientific. True enough, new doesn’t always mean best or right (this is where I disagree with the dogmatic futurists – extreme dogmatism should be viewed skeptically*), but we won’t know unless it is tried. We are all familiar with avant garde art (which means, perhaps, that now even newer forms require experimentation), but the precise manner in which avant garde politics, racialism, and science will be actualized remains to be determined.

 *I don’t say that dogmatically.

Remembering Marinetti

Western Destiny endorses Futurism (without eschewing our traditional culture).

Read here.

My essay on Avante-Garde Fascism. 

This is the type of art I'd like to see more of. 

Comments on Religion and Suprahumanism

Replying to comment.

Read here.

I thank the commentator for his input. I must respectfully disagree on Christianity.  A minor point: contrasting the Duggar family with Nietzsche is cherry picking at is finest, not a proper argument.  I will agree however that Christian believers likely have higher fertility than non-believers.  But, have all confounding factors been taken into account?  I truly mean no offense, but what if believers are, on average, less educated, more gullible, and with a lower IQ than non-believers? We know that fertility tends to be inversely related to intelligence and educational attainment.  Is the higher fertility due to Belief or are both Belief and fertility both correlated to other factors?  A similar argument can be made about "happiness."  In our current age of degeneration and decline, can we not make the argument that "higher levels of happiness" (physically healthy, no doubt), may be indicative of ignorance? What informed White person should be "happy" in the Winter of the West?

A more important point: Faith and Belief cannot be turned on and off like a faucet.  The commentator notes that the Duggars are "true believers."  Good for them.  IF - as the commentator wants to argue - fertility and all the other "good stuff" is caused by Belief, then the Duggars' fertility is due to their strong Christian faith.  But - most educated Whites are not believers.  The Faustian Whites are not believers.  I am not. I'm sure Forrest is not, nor is Greg Johnson. Most Science/Technics folks are not. What Nietzsche meant by "God is dead," is that modern science and rationalism "killed God" by eliminating belief.  If all the good stuff of spiritual fulfillment and fertility depends on Faith and Belief, then we have a problem, because, on average, it is the less educated and intelligent who are using this "power" and reproducing their kind.  

I really don't understand the Christian argument here. Do they think that Faith and Belief can be used instrumentally?  That non-believers should pretend belief?  That fake, pretended, forced "belief" and "faith" (an oxymoron, indeed!) would have the same effects as genuine Faith?  Of course it would not.  Any person who spent their life pretending like that would waste their mental energies and be filled with self-loathing - hardly conducive to "happiness" or fertility.  And, are Christian believers so desperate for more support that they would actually want folks who are fake believers?  They really want such folks sitting in church, secretly filled with contempt and loathing for the proceedings?  Do Christians hold their own beliefs so cheaply that they would see those beliefs tarnished by having them peddled about like some sort of "self-help" cult of "happiness and fertility?" One can argue - as I did - that Christianity can in theory serve for the masses now, as a stop-gap (albeit at the risk of having genetically hard-wired, less Faustian and intelligent believers demographically swamp elite non-believers - a dysgenic outcome).  In the long term, if we want to achieve our goals, that's going to fail. Again, no offense, but a population hard-wired to "believe" religion is also hard-wired to "believe" multiculturalism - as we see today.

On top of all that - as Forrest (and I) argue - Christianity is anti-Faustian, anti-Suprahumanist, opposed to all the aristocratic values of strength folks like us admire and believe (note: Belief!) is necessary for the Future. In the long run, do we really want to promote a hostile creed, even instrumentally?  Can we avoid the fact that Christianity - stripped of Faith and Belief - has a secular core of egalitarianism?

Again: it is up to Christians to demonstrate a pro-White Christianity TODAY, not cite the past.  And, even if they do, they have to accept that a large fraction of the educated White elites will not be believers.

That the Duggars are reproducing is good for them, and, in a very general sense, good for Whites. If survival is the ultimate good, better more Duggars than less Duggars (or no Duggars). But still, do we really want a society full of Duggars?  Full of Christian true believers?  Full of evangelicals?  Full of folks who think the Earth is 6000 years old and that advanced Science/Technics is some sort of "sin?" Folks who would think that Suprahumanism is some sort of "prideful blasphemy?"  I don't.

And given how easily Christianity has been corrupted by the Left, given the egalitarian foundation that underlies the creed, how general is the Duggar case anyway?  Christians may have somewhat higher fertility than non-believers, but, among Whites, that's still less than non-White fertility.  After all, the Duggar family is an extreme case.  I can assure you that the vast majority of Christian families are not having 19 children. If a slighter higher fertility rate is correlated to a belief system that embraces egalitarianism, that has no stronger foundational defense against race replacement, then it is a net negative. After all, even if Christianity says "marry and multiply," it doesn't specify who exactly you should marry and reproduce with.  I know some folks get all excited over the Duggars as a large White family of "good racial stock" (as defined by the folks getting excited).  But - that's one family. What stops a good Christian White man from marrying a good Christian Korean female?  A good Christian White woman from marrying an upstanding, religious, Christian Negro male?  Citing practices from the past doesn't tell us what is happening today. Can racialism be somehow fused to the anti-racist, egalitarian, diversity-loving Christianity of the 21st century?  Sure, one can argue that atheism is no barrier to miscegenation either.  But, if we need to begin to put together a racialist philosophy for the 21st century, I see it as better to start fresh, with an untainted foundation, than to try to push a square peg into a round hole, and convince people to be racialist while all their priests and reverends are telling them the exact opposite - when the bible that forms the basis of their Belief can be cited to promote multiculturalism.  When tolerance and meekness are celebrated.

I can't shake the feeling that there are folks associated with the "movement" for whom Christianity, Faith, and Belief are more important than Race and Culture.  I'm obviously not one of them.

Suprahumanism Book Review

Book Review: Suprahumanism, by Daniel Forrest

Given my interests in topics covered in my Nietzsche’s Coming God book review, as well as my Overman High Culture essay, I thought it useful to take a look at Daniel Forrest’s new book, Suprahumanism.

The concept of Suprahumanism is defined by the author based on the following tenets: aristocratic conception of human individuals, the importance of honor, a heroic attitude toward the challenges of life, exalting this world and not some mystical afterlife or “world beyond,” strength and beauty and health, and the fusion of morality and aesthetics. The author notes that the European mind and soul is Faustian, it wants to know everything, is interested in everything, and wants to grasp the reality of everything.  This contrasts to the Church’s “thou shalt not know,” the promotion of ignorance and weakness, the “lesson” that man was ejected from “paradise” for “eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge.”  Thus one contrasts Suprahumanist ethics with those of Christianity. The author’s negative view of Christianity is, in my opinion, a positive.  He contrasts ethnocentric Judaism and universalist Christianity:

Judaism is a religion for survival in a multicultural society. It is a religion governing the behavior of a Jewish minority in the presence of a non-Jewish majority. Christianity, on the other hand, is a religion for governing the behavior of Christians in a homogenous society. In a multicultural society it becomes suicidal.

Perhaps, the paradigm suggested here is better explained as the attempt by Jews to construct Diaspora societal niches that they are comfortable in – multiracial, multicultural societies – that, at the same time, are destructive to White Gentiles.

The author does a good job explaining the self-sacrificial guilt complex exhibited by Whites, in that it is considered a moral good, and an alleviation of guilt, to favor alien interests over their own, while sin and guilt is exemplified by the “horror” of Whites actively pursuing White interests.  The author also summarizes the Suprahumanist indictment of basic Christian doctrine: Christianity exalts weakness and abhors strength, and would advocate against the weak becoming strong: after all, the meek and weak “shall inherit the earth.”  Suprahumanism, on the other hand, exalts strength and overcoming and is thus incompatible with Christianity.

There are those who insist that Christianity was not a problem for the White man until very recently, and in fact, traditional Christianity served Whites well as a foundation for Western civilization. Forrest, in contrast, argues that “traditional Christianity” was an amalgam of the original Paulian Christianity mixed with elements of paganism and infused with Germanic dynamism after the conversion of Northern Europe. This chimeric memetic construct was held together by Faith and Belief, but with the “death of God” due to Science and Rationalism, all that is left of Christianity is its secular core of egalitarianism and universalist (pathological) altruism.  Thus, the West today is morally and spiritually bankrupt, the Pope promotes and celebrates the Third World invasion of the West, and Whites have no moral, memetic defenses against multiculturalism and degeneracy.  Ironically, many modern trends opposed by the Church – for example, gay marriage – derive from the very egalitarianism and tolerance that forms the basis of the fundamental Christian doctrine. After all, if we are all really the same before God, then why is a male-female pair any more or less legitimate than male-male or female-female?  Or we can dispense with such classifications altogether, claim that “gender is a social construct,” and celebrate ever more bizarre forms of sexual debauchery.

My view is, and has been, that those who believe that traditional Christianity can be revived and serve as a pro-White foundation need to show us that it can be done.  They need to do it, they themselves.  It is always curious when they assert that non-believers – secular atheists or Asatru pagans – must renounce their own beliefs to help “rebuild the faith of our forefathers.”  No, my friends, if you think it is a good idea to reverse history and revive a dead Middle Eastern religion, then you, and only you, must be the ones to do it, and then demonstrate to the rest of us how so very important it all is for White survival. The rest of us have better things to do, thank you very much.

A la Krebs, the author makes a distinction between a bad “Western” civilization and a proper “European” civilization, classifying today’s degenerate multiracial globalism as the end product of the West. I’ve never particularly liked that meme, which conflates the Faustian High Culture of the West with the Judaized multiracial nightmare of today.  I see those as two very different things.  However, I’ve never advocated making the same error as the Christo-Racialists and demanding a return to the dead past.  Acknowledging that the West has been buried under a deluge of yarmulkes (metaphorically speaking), it’s time to look to the future, the Overman High Culture, which can be viewed as being consistent with the Suprahumanist worldview.  Indeed, Forrest believes that European Man is at a crossroads, the old world that began with the Neolithic Revolution and the rise of the Indo-Europeans (however defined), and lasted until Nietzsche’s proclamation of the “death of God,” is at its end.  How we deal with this “new World” will decide whether we move in the direction of the Last Man or the Overman.

Forrest views Wagner and Nietzsche as the twin pillars of Suprahumanism, these two 19th century Germans who started as friends and allies and ended as enemies.  Wagner, according to Forrest, represents the artistic pillar of Suprahumanism, and, Nietzsche, the philosophical pillar of that doctrine.  The current System, according to Forrest, has no inner meaning, no overarching goal, other than its own maintenance and expansion.  In this he is undoubtedly correct: the System has no positive outlook, no “Faustian goal,” no “shining city on a hill” to which is strives, but instead generates chaos, filth, and degeneracy. With respect to what should be a proper goal, the author presents a synthesis of speeches by George Bernard Shaw (1) on the ascent to Godhood by humanity, promoting the organizing essence of the universe to fulfill a higher purpose, to dedicate oneself to this higher purpose in a truly disinterested fashion, independent of self-centered personal needs and objectives. This idea Shaw – and by extension the author – conceives as true religion, not worshipping a manufactured sky-god, but obeying the will of the universe, so to speak, by humans becoming gods themselves.  This is consistent with William Pierce’s “cosmotheism” and is also consistent with my proposed Overman High Culture. Thus, the author defines history as:

…a battlefield on which groups of men confront one another and fight under the colours of an image/ideal they have themselves assumed, and to which they intend to conform – thus realising and overcoming themselves. 

Another point: importantly, from my perspective, the author has a pan-European focus, which I approve of.  For example, toward the beginning of the book, we read:

The one great goal toward which European foreign policy should strive is the development of a worldwide community – transcending present geographical nationalism – in which all men and women of European blood and culture will be part. The replacement of a parochial outlook with European world solidarity and a final elimination of fratricidal war, would count among the enormous benefits of such a development.

Quite right. I have discussed this issue many times in many different fora, and need not get into it again, other than say there are two types of activists who have problems with this ideal. The first are well-meaning folks who are well disposed to other Europeans, but fear that pan-European solidarity would somehow damage the narrow particularisms they value, and dilute the uniqueness of their specific ingroup, perhaps even leading to a destructive panmixia.  These types can be reasoned with; they need to be reassured that the type of pan-Europeanism we advocate includes preservation of the ethnic and subracial types that make up the European family of peoples. The other type of activist, however, is one who either simply does not care about other Europeans in any way whatsoever, or is actually hostile to them. This latter type is part of the problem and not part of the solution, they are “them” and not “us,” and they are no more “on our side” than is the most deranged multiracialist. Forrest summarizes his views on this topic by writing a defense of a pan-European “higher patriotism” which proclaims:

“I am a European and therefore the heir of an ancient culture which has civilized the entire world.” Only then will a united Europe dominate the world, as is its birthright.

I also am glad to see that the author embraces technology and the role of science and technics, properly harnessed to European Man’s will, in helping us achieve Godhood.  The author rejects the neoprimitive advocates, from both Right and Left, of “degrowth” – what I would call the cult of “living in the woods eating twigs and branches.”  In this sense, the author is Futurist, rather than exhibiting the more traditionalist tendencies inherent in other parts of the book. The author also correctly notes that economic–obsessed capitalism and the free market will never properly invest in the sort of paradigm-shifting, cutting-edge basic research and “breakthrough technologies” required for “civilizational projects.”  The free market is short-sighted, it is “structurally incapable” of making the grand decisions necessary to advance the human species.  It cares for nothing except to increase the yield for the shareholders and enhance profits regardless of the cost to human progress.  The author also pokes a hole in environmentalism and ecologicalism, for failing to accept that humans – as evolved animals – have as much right to interact with the environment as do “seals and penguins.”  The author does note, however, that with our rights come responsibilities – we have the power to harm the environment; thus, we must protect it for our patrimony.  Here, a properly harnessed technology will be a benefit; thus, in the long run, the solution to environmental problems is more, not less, technology; more, not less, human interaction with the natural ecology.  We are, after all, a legitimate part of that ecology.

The author also notes that Europeans have traditionally struck a proper balance between an individualism that allows creativity to flourish and avoids Oriental “ant-heap societies” while, at the same time, avoiding the atomization of hyper-individualism, which destroys societies, and which does not allow the full flowering of human expression possible through economies of scale and group cooperation.  However, under the current System, we have the worst of both aspects – a sort of atomized conformist collectivism, in which people are “free” to indulge in any (conformist, popular, mass culture) perversion or other destructive vice, but are not free to pursue objectives - particularly racial group objectives - outside of System-approved agendas, agendas all bound together by a mercantilist economic focus. Likewise, the author contrasts the concepts of Imperium and Empire – the former, of Roman derivation, fuses imperial rule with the maintenance of ethnic particularisms and is consistent with the maintenance of aristocratic values (as Forrest suggests, true Imperium was most evident in the Roman Republic as opposed to the Empire), and the latter, more characteristic of globalist and universalist imperial societies that tend to erase important divisions that separate humans along horizontal and vertical axes of distinctiveness.  The author also takes the opportunity to contrast the Roman style to the authoritarian technical dystopia of the USSR, which he equates to Egypt under the Pharaohs, and suggests a similarity between a mercantilist America and ancient Carthage.  All sounds about right.

The subject of art is touched upon, including a picture of this painting (which I’m sure all the “dark enlightenment” “game” crowd will just love) representative of negative current trends in “Western” art, and, perhaps, representative of negative current trends in “Western” female phenotypes. On a more positive note, the author presents Christopher Conte’s Chronos Version 2, which I have a high opinion of.  I suspect that this, like Bowden’s art, will be better appreciated by those with a Futurist temperament, as opposed to the more Traditionalist school, who would more likely admire Classical/Gothic/Renaissance art forms. Nevertheless, I advocate looking forward, not backwards, and Conte’s art represents that in its artistic essence.  I’m not suggesting that my opinion that the Chronos image represents a positive human future be taken literally in the sense that we should become skull-faced cyborgs.  By essence, I mean that the image represents a Futurist humanity, fully embracing Science and Technics, leaving behind childish invented gods, and becoming the godlike center of their own universal experience, for both “good” and “evil.”

A far as the author’s artistic discourse on “melodic” vs. “harmonic” music – that’s beyond my expertise or understanding.”  The author repeatedly asserts the grand importance of Richard Wagner in the scheme of Suprahumanism; I admit to not being very familiar with the full totality of Wagner’s work, so maybe I’m missing something here.  The author, echoing the thoughts of Giorgio Locchi, argues that Wagner’s The Ring of the Nibeling, together with Nietzsche’s Thus Spake Zarathustra, ushered in a new phase in European history, representing a “discontinuity” to the past historical tendency that led us through the Christian era. Building on Wagner/Nietzsche, the author contrasts irrationality with irrationalism.  Critics of Suprahumanism accuse it of irrationality, of rejecting rationality and reason. However, Suprahumanism does not reject the instrumental use of rationality and reason to achieve objectives (2); after all, the author embraces Science and Technics.  The point is that rationality and reason, by themselves, cannot offer the objectives to follow, and cannot serve as the foundation for goals.  For that, a degree of irrationalism, “myth”-making, is required. After all, what is rational?  Is Yockey’s Imperium idea purely rational? If rationality is king, maybe we should all embrace the System, become investment bankers, and reject racial nationalism (although there is the matter of genetic interest to consider). Thus, Nietzsche’s “existentialist” viewpoint does not derive historical outcomes deterministically from rationality and reason, but, rather, via irrationalism and myth, determined and actualized by human agency.  And the choices that lie before humanity, to be determined by human choice, are the Overman or the Last Man, between the soul of the Master morality and that of the Slave morality.  

The author then focuses on the meaning of Wagner’s Ring, the “music of the eternal recurrence” and here, I will admit, he sort of loses me; I understand the general meaning here, but it doesn’t have the same impact, for me, as does Nietzsche’s philosophy. That may be a specific issue for me – a person interested in books and ideas, not particularly interested in music, opera, etc. I’m sure others, with a more refined aesthetic taste, would find the author’s arguments in regard to Wagner more compelling.  The author then ties together Wagner and Nietzsche, attempting to explain Nietzsche’s apostasy toward Wagner, and, even more to the point, dissecting the ways that Wagner and Nietzsche’s worldviews are similar, and the ways – important but perhaps not decisive – that they differ. Wagner was in the end perhaps not ready for the final break with Christianity and the old ways, believing they were salvageable if de-Judaized and re-Germanized. In contrast, Nietzsche traced the rot back to Christianity itself and not merely to a more recent Judaization of Christianity; importantly, Nietzsche believed that the current European civilization, based as it is (ultimately) on a slave morality, was beyond salvage.  It must go down in ruins, we must help it go down in ruins, so that the new order can be built on the ruins of the old, the phoenix of the Overman rising from the ashes of the West.  This latter idea is consistent with the views discussed in my Overman High Culture essay; the old High Culture of the West may have run out its course.  In the Winter of the West, we need to look forward to the Spring of the Overman.

The author does not dwell too much on what some of us may consider the failed attempts to institute a Suprahumanist regime by the various fascist movements of the first half of the twentieth century.  Forrest asserts that fascism was a “precise and concluded historical phenomenon” that was a “premature and immature” attempt to actualize the Suprahumanist ethos.  The author suggests that “anti-fascism” has become a core of the egalitarian post-WII System, so much so that hysterical “anti-fascism” is one major source of legitimacy for the System, a form of “negative legitimacy” – fascism playing a role for the System as anti-matter does for matter. The System’s obsession with fascism and the ethos of Suprahumanism creates a situation in which Suprahumanism is continuously “reborn” as “potentiality” – it is a “ghost” haunting the System, which realizes that Suprahumanism is the only real alternative to the egalitarian multiracialist nightmare.

One criticism of this book that may have as much to do with my worldview as it does about the book itself, is that Suprahumanism is too much into “traditionalism” – although the author may not himself classify it in that manner - and makes too many assertions without a solid empirical foundation.  The metaphysical rambling in the “Chronospheres” section did not particularly impress me. The author did not, in my opinion, effectively explain the “three-dimensionality” of historical time and human perception, which is a key point of the book – or, to put it more accurately, he did not explain it in a manner readily digestible and understandable for those with a more directly empiricist mindset. And that is not an isolated instance; in other parts of the book, there are entire pages where I really don’t grasp what the author is trying to say, or, if the point is clear, it seems that paragraphs or pages are spent explaining ideas that could be more effectively summarized in several sentences. This is a familiar problem; when I tried to read some of Evola’s works, I just couldn’t get past one or two chapters.  Opinion masquerading as fact, wild subjectivity, a lack of grounding in any materialist and empirical foundation whatsoever – I’m convinced that the gnostic-spiritual-traditionalist crowd is neurologically hard-wired differently from empiricist, scientific types, and, perhaps, traditionalists and futurists also have incompatible mentalities.  While reading the book, I got the sense that Forrest was more of a “them” than an “us” with respect to these distinctive and disjunctive ways of looking at the world.  Therefore, the world of racial nationalist activism can be divided up into separate mental modules, including the “traditionalist- spiritual-existentialist-gnostic-golden age to kali yuga” module (patron saint, e.g., Julius Evola) and the “empiricist-materialist-scientific-(sometimes futurist)” model (patron saint, e.g., Frank Salter).  Communication between these two modules is difficult and fraught with misunderstandings.  Yockey was definitely in the “spiritual-Evola” camp, but since he was essentially a man of action, a political activist with a defined ultimate objective (Western Imperium) rather than a vague “return to tradition,” Yockey has been able to appeal to the materialist camp to the extent some in that camp ignore Yockey’s pathetic ramblings on science and similar topics.  As a member of the Salterian module, I am perhaps not the best judge of the value of this book, but nevertheless I did find value in it. It is possible that I have done a disservice to this book (and to Taha’s) based on this mental incompatibility; on the other hand, one can argue that the fundamental utility of a work can be judged by its broad applicability to all relevant situations, and so a top-level traditionalist work should be accessible to the materialists (and vice versa).

Another more specific problem is that as a (in my opinion) traditionalist type, the author doesn’t have an up-to-date grasp on science and population genetics.  While the overall thrust of the “History and Genes” section of the book is sound, and the statements about the overall genetic homogeneity of Europeans essentially accurate, NRY haplotypes really have nothing to do with it, and the idea that 90% of Europeans are, essentially, directly derived (unmixed) from Paleolithic Hunter-Gatherers is inaccurate.  Just like I am not the best person to evaluate the work of, say, Evola, traditionalist types sometimes have the tendency to muck up the science, or, at least, be 10 years behind the times. The author’s invocation of the China-worshipping HBDer Richard Lynn is also not viewed favorably at this blog, there are others who can speak better in favor of eugenics. Also disappointing was no mention of Salter’s work, which is essential. The author does productively quote Will Durant, in that the three major biological lessons of history are: competition, selection, and the requirement for breeding (i.e., fertility) - today’s European world seems bereft of all three. And while the author dwells to an extreme degree on Nietzsche and, especially, Richard Wagner, Francis Parker Yockey is only mentioned in passing, a regrettable omission for a book with a focus on the future of European Man.  The author does however have some favorable words to say about Norman Lowell’s Imperium ideas.

I would now like to take this opportunity to promote some of my own ideas on down-to-earth strategy.  I very strongly argue that the future we want will never be actualized with the “movement” as it exists, and that something radically different is required.  I have outlined the fundamental principles of what I believe a new Movement should exhibit. This is of course mostly directly at elites.  Eventually, the masses need to be brought on board, to the extent that they are capable of understanding (or to the extent that they care).  Presently, the masses may need to go through stages of enlightenment: race realism, ethnonationalism, traditional Christianity.  But, even so, we need to absolutely insist that the race realism be based on genetic kinship, and not a Jew/Asian friendly HBD-Asperger obsession with IQ; the ethnonationalism needs to be defensive in nature and open to collaboration with other Euro-ethnonationalisms, and the “traditional” Christianity needs to be, at minimum, race-neutral, if not in fact actually race-aware. In the long run, however, the fundamentals listed in the link must be lived by the elites and preached to the masses.  The old days have been tried and have failed, repeatedly, for decades. It’s time for a change. Suprahumanism will not be possible otherwise.  After all, let us not forget Revilo Oliver, a member of the Old Movement, recognized its record of unremitting failure, speaking about 50 years of failure in a speech given nearly 50 years ago!

Getting close to the end of this review, I would like to cite a Jose Ortega y Gasset quote reproduced in this book:

Europeans do not know how to live unless they are engaged in some great enterprise. When this is lacking, they grow petty and feeble and their souls disintegrate.

Indeed.  Look around you.

In summary, yes, one can find some faults in this work, just as one can in the writings of Salter and Yockey.  It’s more important, however, to look at the big picture, to have a “large canvas” view of the issue. In this light, this book is vitally important, and is one of the first significant steps along the path to the Overman High Culture.  We need more works such as this, and less obsessive nitpicking over gene frequencies, cephalic indices, and dueling interpretations of racial history.  This work walks along the path to the Overman from the aesthetic-artistic-philosophical perspective; in addition to more such works, we also need the Overman pathway to be illuminated by works focused on the scientific-empiricist-political perspective as well.

We have to move forward, if we attempt to “stop and rest” or, worse, move backward, we’re finished.  It’s time to grow up as a people (and a “movement”) and face the future.  Better yet: make the future.

It is at this point appropriate to end this review by quoting Forrest’s end of his book:

Nietzsche prophesied that the Earth will eventually belong to either the last man or the superman. There will be no other alternatives. 

Magna Europa est Patria Nostra. 

Footnotes:

1. Of course, Shaw was a nitwit about certain thing; e.g., see this.

2. For another take on issue, see the sixth paragraph here. 

Fascism and Codreanu

Legionary Movement and Fascism.

Read this.

This author has  a better grasp of what fascism is about, its "protean nature," than a certain plagiarizing writer for the same blog who previously defined fascism in the most pitifully ignorant and biased fashion.  The key to understanding fascism is not to dwell on the highly specific characteristics exhibited by whatever form of fascism is actualized in a particular nation.  Instead, the key is Griffin's "palingenetic ultra-nationalism" and a Faustian revolutionary ethos of "self-overcoming" for the entire nation/ethny.  Such things as "corporate state structure" and "state worship" and "marching around in black leather boots" are just the surface manifestations of highly specific, particular species of fascism.

Franco's Spain and other "para-fascist" states - reactionary, anti-revolutionary, with absolutely no palingenetic ethos - were in no way "fascist."  Also, the type of "ultra-nationalism" differed in real fascist states: in Italy, Nation-State; in Germany, Nation-Race; in Romania, Nation-Religion.

And, speaking of Romania...

The author is correct to state that the specifics of the Legionary Movement would "not fly" today, and as much as I admire that movement (the epitome of a true movement) and admire Codreanu, I disapprove of the Christianity which was at that movement's specific core.  But, to me, the Legionary movement was not really about is specifics, its outward form, but its real inner core: the highly focused Faustian palingenetic drive for a New Man, a form of Nietzsche's overman, better than the "human, all too human," a new type of character, a Homo fascistus.

That is what we should remember.

ENR vs. the West, 9/21/14

Duchesne takes on the "European New Right."

Read here.

Civilizational Treason?

Why do they do it?

Why do Whites convert to Islam and try to join militant groups?  Each individual has their own purported reasons I guess, but one searches for a more general explanation. Consider that humans - at least the more advanced Caucasian and Mongoloid races - are mental/spiritual beings as much as they are biological. People search for meaning, something to give their life purpose. Now, when one's native culture has become sick, pathetic, disgusting, and degenerate, then one may search elsewhere for spiritual fulfillment, for life's purpose.

The West is sick.  The West is weak.  The West is losing the clash of civilizations, if for no other reason than it is not fighting. The West is a morass of ethnomasochism, led by the slave religion of Christianity, the creed of ressentiment, the rebellion of the weak and botched against the strong and healthy - essentially, Nietzsche's argument.  Christianity is a spent force, it inspires no one, it is a meme of surrender.  Look at it! Catholic priests, pedophiles in dresses, preaching White surrender to the colored hordes, turning the other cheek: weak, soft, and contemptible.  Protestants with their altruistic punishment against themselves and other Whites, enforcing political correctness with the fervor of the Salem witch trials.  Orthodox "traditionalists" behaving as the running dogs for Putin's Eurasianism, to submerge Russia and Eastern Europe under a Brown and Yellow Tide.  Weak!  Soft! Pathetic!  Who wants to follow that?  Who would fight for that?  Who would be inspired by that?

In contrast to the weak and sterile West, Islam is strong, it is vibrant, it is dynamic, vigorous, and fertile. Muslims conquer, Christians are conquered.  The militants fight for a higher goal, while corrupt and bloated Western leaders play the fiddle as their civilization crashes and burns.  Is it any wonder that some Whites disgusted by the West will be attracted to the strength, focus, and vision of militant Islam?

Now, Islam is well suited for many peoples: Middle Eastern and North African Arabs, Iranians,Turks, Central Asians, South Asians, Indonesians, Sub-Saharan Africans, and others.  That's great, we should not interfere with them, and I sincerely wish them well and respect their beliefs. Indeed, Islam is a great and noble religion well suited for these various Afro-Asiatic peoples. But it is not suitable for Europeans; as is clear from history, it is not suited for the Western, Faustian European soul. That's fine: to each his own. One hopes that one day a resurgent West and a resurgent Islam can carve out spheres of influence in which each civilization can proceed along its own path free and unmolested.

The problem is that Christianity, in the last analysis, is also foreign to the European soul. Yes, for centuries, Christianity was "Aryanized" and served as the basis for a Western civilization, but the underlying rot was always there, the positive driving force was always the natural European creative impulses grafted onto the foreign Christian creed. It served its purpose, but once the West moved from "culture" to "civilization" Christianity became worse than redundant: it became destructive. Note that during the Ottoman era Islam went into decline, but is now once again resurgent and militant, and this resurgence and vibrancy is due to the fact that Islam is well suited to the Arab soul, to the Iranian soul, etc. That's their natural religion and culture, so they embrace it with enthusiasm. Christianity, on the other hand, remains in terminal decline in the West, and is growing only among non-Whites: Latin America, certain areas of Asia (e.g., South Korea), and Africa.  One cannot imagine a resurgent Christianity in Europe because it never really belonged there in the first place.

With Christianity exhausted, with "God is Dead" in the European heart, with Christianity now transformed into a political creed of politically correct Neo-Marxist ethnomasochistic self-abasement: Whites have no where else to turn.  They have nothing.  They are spiritually empty.  So, some turn to the religions and civilizations of other peoples, alien as they may be, because at least those creeds exhibit: Strength!  Traditional sex roles!  Decisive action!  Conquest! A Higher Objective! And what does the "Christian West" offer?  Homosexual marriage?  Feminism? Genocidal mass immigration? Tax cuts?  Libertarianism?  Hedonism?   The Emperor has no clothes: the West is spiritually bankrupt, culturally defective, and deficient in honor, glory, and vision.

What we need is a new creed to lead Western Man to the path of greatness, and give Whites some inspiring vision to follow, one compatible with the European soul.  Thus: A White Imperium, based upon a new High Culture - The Overman High Culture, and held together by a creed of iron: Pan-European National Socialism.  Radicalism without compromise, revolution without reaction, Futurism not moldy "tradition," manly values not effete "Christian compassion."  

Age of Treason Yockey Archives

Some useful analyses.

See here.

This is Important: Yockey Writings

Appeal for information.

Read here.

Very Important Comments by Duchesne

Worth reading and considering.

Read here.

Duchesne is a very important thinker who is focused on pro-European and pro-Western politics - politics in the highest sense, including theory.  Excerpt, emphasis added:

We must develop new ideas by reading pro-European thinkers. Lenin famously said: “Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement.” We too must realize that without our own counter revolutionary ideas we will not be able to create a movement to overturn the cultural Marxist establishment and thus revive and re-energize the European spirit, the Faustian Soul of Western Man.

As we develop these ideas, we must do everything to make our views available to a wider public. It is not that we need a majority of the public to agree with us; changes are always initiated and brought about by an active minority and then the rest of the population is socialized into accepting these changes. The majority of humans tend to be politically inactive. But we are currently a very small group, and we do need eventually a solid 10 to 15 percent of the population to create the democratic conditions for the overthrow of the existing regime. I believe that our ideas would be welcomed by many if only we were able to create and find more media opportunities. The ideas of the current regime are false, historically invalid, and inconsistent with the way we are naturally as human beings. For example, every ethnic group is ethnocentric and interested in advancing the interests of their own members. Only Europeans have accepted a non-centric Universalist ideology, and only they have prohibited themselves from thinking in ethnocentric terms; but with the right opportunity to present our ideas we can persuade a high number of Europeans to feel comfortable with promoting their own ethnic interests. Once we persuade 10-15 percent of them, and gain access to key media sources and work ourselves through the institutions, enough tension will have been created exposing the imposed harmony currently in place; then we can take it to larger numbers. As our ideas spread, the current regime will start to break apart; conflicts will mount, resentments will grow, more will gain the courage to speak out; the lies, repressions, and injustices will be exposed.

Nietzsche's Coming God: Book Review

Review of Taha's book.

Abir Taha, a Lebanese women described as a “career diplomat,” and who has a philosophy degree from the Sorbonne, has written an interesting book, Nietzsche's Coming God or the Redemption of the Divine.  As the author of the polemic essay on The Overman High Culture, I thought a careful reading of Taha’s book would be useful.  My overall opinion of the book is that it is very good; however, I do have one major problem with it, which is discussed below. But before I get to the negatives, I would like to first praise the book for what it gets right. With respect to the core of Nietzsche’s ideas, Taha’s book focuses on his doctrine of the Superman (what I would term “Overman”) and the concepts of “will to power” and “self-overcoming” – the need to reject the fairy tales of Christianity to live for this world, the real (not “apparent”) world, to till the soil from which will spring the Superman/Overman, who will be the “meaning of the earth.”  This is, essentially, the message of my essay; humans need to stop worshiping imaginary gods and become godlike themselves.  It’s time to grow up and accept responsibility for our future development as a higher form of humanity.

Thus, from Taha’s book:

Indeed, man must choose between the glory of God and his own glory, and man’s glory is embodied by the Superman. 

And:

…a new dawn that enables men to live life to the fullest, to invent a new meaning, to create their own god, and even to become gods. Or rather God-Men, Supermen.

And, Taha quotes Nietzsche, himself imaging what the Superman would say:

I have for the first time united in myself the just, the hero, the poet, the savant, the soothsayer, the leader; I have extended my vault over all the peoples, I have built columns over which a sky stands – strong enough to carry a sky.

That is excellent, and sums up, in a few words, the underlying ethos of The Overman High Culture. So, I would recommend Taha’s book as a short and reasonably well-reasoned primer on the core of Nietzsche’s philosophy – a core that informs the type of new High Culture that I envisioned in my essay.  So far so good.  Now on to the negatives.

Perhaps the biggest problem I have with the book is the section describing Nietzsche’s aracial, non-biological notion of a “master race” being purely spiritual in nature, racially heterogeneous people linked together by their “superiority,” a racial individualism opposed to a “bovine nationalism” based on biological race.  It is true that much of Nietzsche’s work is consistent with this characterization, so I have no problem with Taha stating the facts on this matter.  The problem instead is that this attitude of Nietzsche is presented without critique or a racialist interpretation; in fact, Taha seems to approve of Nietzsche’s “spiritual racism” and his opposition to any sort of ancestry-based, collectivist “bovine nationalism.”

For example:

The concept of “race” according to Nietzsche is in fact, as we have seen, a universal and spiritual concept, transcending….the biological determinism of racial theorists…a world dominated by the master race…which transcends…biological racism.

And so on and so forth…putting forth a trans-national, aracial “spiritual” race of “superior” individuals, who together form a new “race,” eschewing their own “inferior” co-ethnics.  To which I answer: NO.  This is – what? – a variant of cognitive elitism, in that we rank individuals by some criteria on an aracial basis, and convince them they have no allegiance to their ethny, their genes, their culture, their history.  Another maladaptive, racially destructive meme.

I am a racial nationalist and a supporter of a more collectivist national socialism as an organizing principle for White societies.  Further, I’m a “biological materialist.”  This may pose some problems to someone who supports some of the ideals of a Nietzschean ethos.  Thus, the question is: how can Nietzschean ethics be compatible with a more collectivist “bovine nationalism?”   This can be viewed from the issue of the context of Nietzsche’s writings in their own time, and, more importantly, how we today can interpret these writings.  The first is more of a side-issue, which will be dealt with here with a rather lengthy footnote (1). The second issue - that of interpretation - is more important.

How then should be interpret the more individualist and aracial aspects of Nietzsche’s ethos?  Contrary to what some racialists, and, particularly, subracialists, believe - the idea that some groups are favored merely by dint of ancestry as automatically superior - Nietzsche rejected the belief that superiority is some sort of racial birthright bestowed upon individuals due to their racial background.  Instead, superiority must be earned, on a personal level, by personal deeds and beliefs, and there can be such superior individuals in any ethny. 

So far I agree with that, and I have always argued that racialism should not be based on ideas of the superiority/inferiority of entire groups, and their ranking on some sort of phenotypic scale of appearance, ability, or what have you.  Instead, racialism should be based upon genetic kinship: one supports their group precisely because it is their group; they should not feel the need to justify their ethnoracial activism by any other criteria.  Further, contrary to what the “spiritual racists” may believe, race does have a biological basis and this is vitally important; ultimate interests are genetic interests, and humans, as evolved organisms, do have this ultimate interest in biologically adaptive behavior.  Where does this lead us?  Well, I see nothing in Nietzsche’s ideals that would prevent the “Superman” from exhibiting his superiority by advancing the interests of his ethny.  That would seem to be a perfectly acceptable vehicle for proving superiority; indeed, I would argue that any “Superman” who is indifferent – much less supportive! – of his own ethny’s decline, disempowerment, and displacement, is not much of a “Superman” at all.  Those who would stand by and see their own kinship group diminished are, instead, Last Men.

With respect to biological race there needs not be any contradiction with the core of Nietzsche’s basic philosophy.  Individual striving and overcoming can take place within a racial community.  A collectivist national socialist state can provide the organic solidarity a people needs in its competition with others, and provide the required stability for the masses, while allowing – no, promoting! – the unleashed creativity and self-overcoming of superior individuals on the path to greatness.  A superior European should have a custodial responsibility for his less fortunate co-ethnics, and not make common cause with “superior” Chinamen or Negroes (an oxymoron?). One should strive to uplift the ethny as a whole, as Nietzsche states, occasionally entire peoples represent a “bull’s-eye” of greatness, not just individuals.  It’s entirely possible to fuse collectivist racialism with elitism and hierarchical leadership: the Third Reich did just that.  

Further, contrary to the conformism and “hero worship” of the “movement,” it is not necessary to take the totality of a thinker’s work – one can choose what is useful and discard the rest.  That goes for Yockey, Salter, anyone – including Nietzsche.  Indeed, a careful reading of Zarathustra and other works makes clear that Nietzsche didn’t want to be any sort of blindly followed guru.  Remember he wrote that if want to multiply yourself, to seek followers, you should seek zeroes. Thus, one can view Nietzsche as a generator of ideas, some of which are useful building blocks for a superior philosophy for today.  One need not dispense with the crucially important concept of biological race in order to realize the Overman.  On the contrary, true superiority must take into account natural reality and account for ultimate interests.  If we are going to “live for the earth” then we had better take into account worldly realities. Ignoring real race in favor of “spiritualism” is as big a fantasy as the Christian theology of transcendence that Nietzsche so justifiably criticizes.

Some other points: there is the question as to what extent the book Will to Power (cited liberally throughout Taha's work) actually describes Nietzsche’s refined thoughts, and how much it is his sister and admirer Gast’s attempt to cobble together Nietzsche’s notes to create a picture - admittedly a picture that I mostly approve of – which really doesn’t reflect the nuances of his thoughts.  A somewhat bigger problem is Tahas’s emphasis on Nietzsche’s “spirituality” and that he thought we need a new god - a Dionysian one – to replace the monotheistic Christian god whose “death” Nietzsche has reported.  Even if this new god is simply a conceptual one – a spiritualized archetype for the Superman – I wouldn’t go in that direction.  No more gods!

Curiously, Taha then quotes Nietzsche expressing an opinion similar to my own view:

Dead are all the gods: now we want the Superman to Live! – let this be one day, at the great noontide, our ultimate will…That precisely is godliness, that there are gods but no God!

It’s clear (to me at least) that these “gods” are the Overmen, the Supermen, not “real gods,” or “conceptual entities,” or anything else of that sort.  I realize that Nietzsche was not always the clearest writer, but, then again, I’m not the one with a degree in philosophy.  And, then a criticism of Nietzsche himself: allegedly, he was “horrified” (according to those biographers who wished to “rescue” Nietzsche from accusations of proto-Nazism) that the rightist nationalist parties were using his work, and “quoting him out of context.”  Well, if you are afraid of being misquoted an mis-used, it may be a good idea to write with sufficient clarity so that folks don’t need philosophy degrees in order to attempt an understanding of your meaning.

All these criticisms aside, Nietzsche was a great and revolutionary thinker, with an ethos for a new world.  I agree with Taha that Nietzsche was far more than a nihilist.  That’s what his camel-lion-child analogy was about: the camel as the beast of burden the traditional paradigms, the defiant lion – a nihilist – smashing the tablets and the idols and saying NO!, and the child building afresh and saying YES! (2). And Taha has written a fine book (albeit with the caveats listed), recommended reading for anyone who believes that The Overman High Culture should be the future of the West. Although be warned that the last one-third of the book is somewhat repetitive.  Even though it is a slim volume, it could have profited by some further editing.  It gets to the point that the author is hammering the reader with the same ideas over and over again. Yes, I know, Nietzsche believed in the “eternal recurrence” but that meme doesn’t need to be demonstrated on a page-by-page basis in this book, by eternally recurring memes repeated over and over again.

In summary: a biologically aware Nietzschean ethos is as important as a biologically aware Yockeyism.  Conversely, biological materialism bereft of High Culture and self-overcoming is sterile zoology.  We need all these components in order to build a better tomorrow.

Footnotes:

1. The negative aspects of Nietzsche’s writings I believe to be in large part determined by historic context.  By negative, I mean his hyper-individualism, hostility to the state, hostility to anti-Semitism, and a hostility to his German ethny, a hostility manifested in a (somewhat ludicrous) attempt to deny his own German ancestry in favor of a Polish ethnic background.

Nietzsche was a man of the latter half of the 19th century, a period of Civilization for the West, a period before the bloodletting of World Wars and the collapse of Western power.  Hence, individualist attacks on the state, on mass movements, etc. was, at that time, not the same as what one would consider today, where the hedonistic and atomized White man is at the mercy of more collectivist opponents.  The somewhat vulgar German jingoism of his time, and the perhaps (prematurely) extreme anti-Semitism of some of his contemporaries, no doubt informed some of Nietzsche’s philosemitism and his Teutonophobia.  One is hard-pressed to believe that Nietzsche would view today’s situation and state his opinions in quite the same way.  After all, today we see: European man on the road to extinction, individualism merging with conformity to bring us to the Last Man, an obviously Jewish element in Western decline, Germany infested with Turks and other aliens, Germans and other Europeans being displaced and replaced within their own homelands. 

Now, some things that have occurred since Nietzsche’s death would have led him to reinforce certain beliefs.  Hostility to Christianity would be emphasized, as that death cult leads White men to open their nations’ borders to invasion.  His call to be a “Good European” and a reasonable opposition to extreme narrow nationalism would be underscored by the tragedy of the World Wars and the self-immolation of Western Man.  The numbing conformity of political correctness would refocus the importance on a defiant individualism, BUT now this individualism would be harnessed in the service of People, Nation, and a new raciocultural State.  And I think his animus toward anti-Semitism would shift more in the direction of an animus toward those responsible for many of the problems faced by the West today. Those who mindlessly quote Nietzsche on anti-Semitism and the State, without considering that he wrote at a time when the West essentially ruled the world – those people are short-sighted to the point of mendacity.  And, any case, as stated above in the main text, one is not obligated to accept ALL facets of a writer’s views simply because one agrees with certain main points.  Indeed, there are things in On Genetic Interests and in Imperium that I find myself in significant disagreement with, but that does not in any way diminish the important of the work of Salter and Yockey for my own worldview, and, I think, the importance for the future of our race and civilization.

That said, the opposite is true as well in that one should not distort the views of Nietzsche even as we understand the context in which those views were expressed.  He was NOT an anti-Semitic Germanophile, NOT a fascist, and NOT an embryonic Nazi.  Even my hypothetical opinions of what Nietzsche possibly would think today should not be misconstrued as an assertion of certainty.  While I believe that his opinions on certain subjects would have changed, in the end the only certainty is what he believed and wrote during his own time.  And for us that must suffice.

2. One wishes the same can occur in the “movement" - a “movement” full of camels, regurgitating the same flotsam and jetsam for decades, the warmed over Guntherism, the predictable memes and historical fictions, the obsessions and ethnic fetishes, the fixations and conspiracy theories, the hero worship and shallow thinking, the sour stench of endless failure.  We need some lions to smash “movement” stupidity, followed by fresh-thinking children to create something better.

Revisiting an Important Point

Refining a pan-European genetic identity.

Previous post on this subject.

The Chinese case is instructive: in the past, certain areas of China had more genetic similarities to Japan than to other areas of China.  More recently, the different Chinese areas have become genetically more similar. given the creation of a more coherent Chinese state.

Thus, over time, genetic boundaries can become ever-more-aligned to political and cultural boundaries, particularly when those boundaries are fairly impermeable, distinguishing quite distinct national, political and socio-cultural entities.

Panmixia is NOT required for a better alignment of European genetic interests with actualization of a High Culture.  Given a strict "in/out" barrier, over time, given natural processes of low-level gene flow within both "in" and "out" coupled with drift and selection increasing distances between "in" and "out," the relative genetic distinctiveness between "in" and "out" will increase, and any potential areas of genetic overlap between "in" and "out" will no longer exist.

We have gene-culture evolution becoming gene-High Culture evolution as well as gene-political system evolution.

Hence, the association between genes and political boundaries goes in both directions.  That can be both good and bad.  Bad in the sense that the current multicultural project draws boundaries that include multiracial states in which panmixia is encouraged.  Good in the sense outlined above, in which a confederation of already-similar peoples, without panmixia, can ensure a more disjunctive "us vs. them" genetic boundary as long as the political and cultural boundaries are strictly enforced.

Coevolution of the ultimate and the proximate can be either beneficial or destructive of long term net genetic interests, depending on how this coevolution is directed.

Remembering Yockey

Gannon remembers.

Read here.

Yoxkey's rejection of "vertical race" is unfortunate, since it is not necessary in light of his major objectives. As I have written before, the Guntherite-Nordicist faction may well be to blame for this, by transforming the reasonable recognition of racial and subracial differences into a disjunctive superior/inferior classification scheme that Yockey saw as a barrier to the European Western Imperium.

At that time, there was no one promoting the more Salterian view of statistical differences between groups, that necessitated recognition of, and preservation of differences, without implication of superior/inferior, or any requirement of intra-European hostility.

Modern day supporters of Yockey need to understand that the situation today, with respect to theories of race are not the same as existed in Yockey's day, even if the Guntherite faction is still dominant in American racialism.

After Fifty Years

To think  we've had nearly another fifty years of constant "movement" failure.

Revilo Oliver speech.  That was from 1969.  What excuse do you have, ye paladins and paragons of "movement" leadership?

Pan-Europeanism and the American Movement

Not there.

If anyone has any delusions that the old American "movement" has any genuine pan-Europeanism, this should be a helpful curative.

It does not exist.  It has never been tried.  One can not say whether or not pan-Europeanism is a viable meme for American racial nationalism because it has never been tried.  Every "movement" leader or thinker in the USA is or was a Nordicist of one type or another.

It's time for something new.

Color Revolution Cook Book

Good essay on strategy and tactics.

Read here.

What Happened to Yockey's Empire of the West?

Some speculation on history.

Read here.

The 2014 EU Elections

TOO article.

Read here.

New Yockey Biography Planned

Bolton book planned.

Read here.

GOP Primaries: Immigration Politics

Sallis article.

Read here.