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.