The Fundamentals

Fundamentals of a New Movement

The overarching, basic fundamentals of a New Movement are listed here. The link leads to the relevant post below. Also see "The Fundamentals" post list to the lower right. This is our new path. If you agree with this direction, then join with us.

The Old Movement is dead. Let us instead build something that works, a New Movement, a fresh start.

Sunday, December 23, 2018

Whither Judaism and the West?

An analysis.

I would like to analyze selected excerpts (emphasis added) from KMacD’s excellent concluding chapter from CofC. Go to the link above to read the whole thing (recommended).
Lipset and Raab (1995) note that Jews contribute between one-quarter and one-third of all political contributions in the United States, including one-half of Democratic Party contributions and one-fourth of Republican contributions.
These facts are an effective riposte to apologia that asserts that “Jews are only 2% of the American population, therefore it is impossible for them to exert the widescale pernicious influence that critics ascribe to them. What is more important than numbers is power and influence – exactly those characteristics overrepresented for Jews. An analysis can estimate this overrepresentation. Thus:
Salter (1998b) provides a theoretically based assessment of Jewish influence relative to African Americans and gentile European Americans based on Blalock’s (1967, 1989) model of group power as a function of resources multiplied by mobilization.
I would be great if this work was finally published in book form, or even just a publicly accessible journal article or website article.
Jews are far more mobilized than these other ethnic populations (one hesitates calling gentile European Americans a “group”). For example, while specifically ethnic organizations devoted to the ethnic interests of gentile European Americans are essentially political fringe groups with meager funding and little influence on the mainstream political process, Salter notes that the America-Israel Public Affairs Committee ranked second out the 120 most powerful lobbies as rated by members of Congress and professional lobbyists, with no other ethnic organization rated in the top 25. 
Power and influence. Masses of dimwits do not influence policy; highly mobilized and intelligent minorities are fully capable of dong do…and have done so.
Furthermore, AIPAC is one of the few lobbies that relies heavily on campaign contributions to win allies. As indicated above, Jews contribute between one-third and one-half of all campaign money in federal elections, the donations motivated by “Israel and the broader Jewish agenda” (Goldberg 1996, 275). Jews are thus overrepresented in campaign contributions by a factor of at least 13 based on their percentage of the population and are overrepresented by a factor of approximately 6.5 if adjustment is made for their higher average income. 
This, with respect to campaign contributions, the influence of Jews is equivalent to a group constituting between one-third and two-fifths of the US population.
In overseas donations, the Jewish lead is even greater…Salter has adopted a preliminary conservative estimate of Jewish ethnic mobilization as four times that of white gentiles, based on comparison of per capita donations to non-religious ethnic causes.
Four times greater mobilization!  That is consistent with findings that “elites and organized groups” control the US political system.  What group is more elite and organized than the “American” Jewish community?
In the Blalock equation influence is affected not only by mobilization but also by the resources held by the group. Salter estimates that Jews control approximately 26 percent of the “cybernetic resources” of the United States (i.e., resources as measured by representation in key areas such as government, media, finance, academia, corporations, and entertainment)…Substitution of these resource and mobilization values into the Blalock equation yields an estimate that Jewish influence on ethnic policy (immigration, race policy, foreign policy) is approximately three times the influence of gentile European Americans. 
Thus, that “2% of the population” has a three-fold higher effect on public policy than does the majority group.  Anyone who indulges in the standards “numbers” apologia is misleading you; the mendacity is at the level of gaslighting.
All of the major Jewish organizations were intensively involved in the battle over restrictive immigration for a period lasting an entire century despite what must have seemed devastating setbacks. This effort continues into the contemporary era. As discussed in Chapter 7, opposition to large-scale immigration of all racial and ethnic groups by large majorities of the European-derived population as well as the relative apathy of other groups—even groups such as Italian Americans and Polish Americans that might be expected to support the immigration of their own peoples—were prominent features of the history of immigration policy.
It was the Jews.  White ethnic groups were relatively unconcerned with the Reed Johnson Act and continued on the road to assimilation.  It were the non-European Jews, ethnocentric and hostile, who were hell-bent on utilizing their influence to overturn America’s ethnic and racial status quo.
This “rise of the Jews”—to use Albert Lindemann’s (1997) phrase—has undoubtedly had important effects on contemporary Western societies. A major theme of the previous chapter is that high levels of immigration into Western societies conforms to a perceived Jewish interest in developing nonhomogeneous, culturally and ethnically pluralistic societies. It is of interest to consider the possible consequences of such a policy in the long term.
That summarizes the key difference of interest between Jews and White Gentiles – while the White Gentiles would have an interest in homogeneity, the Jews – as a minority group that has a distinct biocultural identity that differs from that of Europeans have an “interest in developing nonhomogeneous, culturally and ethnically pluralistic societies.”  In such societies they are no longer the sole major minority group (and thus potentially targeted as such); further, they fragment the demographic, political, social, cultural, and economic power of the hated Euro-American majority, which they see as strengthening their own Jewish position. 
Indeed, my review of the research on contact between more or less impermeable groups in historical societies strongly suggests a general rule that between-group competition and monitoring of ingroup and outgroup success are the norm. These results are highly consistent with psychological research on social identity processes reviewed in SAID (Ch. 1). From an evolutionary perspective, these results confirm the expectation that ethnic self-interest is indeed important in human affairs, and obviously ethnicity remains a common source of group identity in the contemporary world. People appear to be aware of group membership and have a general tendency to devalue and compete with outgroups. Individuals are also keenly aware of the relative standing of their own group in terms of resource control and relative reproductive success. They are also willing to take extraordinary steps to achieve and retain economic and political power in defense of these group imperatives.
Unfortunately, this imperative for the defense of ethnic self-interest seems to fail when put to the test for European-derived peoples; as MacDonald writes above: one hesitates calling gentile European Americans a “group”…
Assuming that ethnic differences in talents and abilities exist, the supposition that ethnic separatism could be a stable situation without ethnic animosity requires either a balance of power situation maintained with intense social controls, as described above, or it requires that at least some ethnic groups be unconcerned that they are losing in the competition.
The past part currently accurately describes European-derive peoples: feckless, atomized, and evolutionarily maladaptive.
I regard this last possibility as unlikely in the long run. That an ethnic group would be unconcerned with its own eclipse and domination is certainly not expected by an evolutionist or, indeed, by advocates of social justice whatever their ideology.
The expectation is that Whites as a group – a majority – will wake up?  When?
Nevertheless, this is in fact the implicit morality of the criticism by several historians of the behavior of the Spanish toward the Jews and Marranos during the Inquisition and the Expulsion, as, for example, in the writings of Benzion Netanyahu (1995), who at times seems openly contemptuous of the inability of the Spaniards to compete with the New Christians without resorting to the violence of the Inquisition. From this perspective, the Spaniards should have realized their inferiority and acquiesced in being economically, socially, and politically dominated by another ethnic group. Such a “morality” is unlikely to appeal to the group losing the competition, and from an evolutionary perspective, this is not in the least surprising. Gold-win Smith (1894/1972, 261) made a similar point a century ago:

A community has a right to defend its territory and its national integrity against an invader whether his weapon be the sword or foreclosure. In the territories of the Italian Republics the Jews might so far as we see, have bought land and taken to farming had they pleased. But before this they had thoroughly taken to trade. Under the falling Empire they were the great slave-traders, buying captives from barbarian invaders and probably acting as general brokers of spoils at the same time. They entered England in the train of the Norman conqueror. There was, no doubt, a perpetual struggle between their craft and the brute force of the feudal populations. But what moral prerogative has craft over force? Mr. Arnold White tells the Russians that, if they would let Jewish intelligence have free course, Jews would soon fill all high employments and places of power to the exclusion of the natives, who now hold them. Russians are bidden to acquiesce and rather to rejoice in this by philosophers, who would perhaps not relish the cup if it were commended to their own lips. The law of evolution, it is said, prescribes the survival of the fittest. To which the Russian boor may reply, that if his force beats the fine intelligence of the Jew the fittest will survive and the law of evolution will be fulfilled. It was force rather than fine intelligence which decided on the field of Zama that the Latin, not the Semite, should rule the ancient and mould the modern world.
Let’s review this again:
But what moral prerogative has craft over force? Mr. Arnold White tells the Russians that, if they would let Jewish intelligence have free course, Jews would soon fill all high employments and places of power to the exclusion of the natives, who now hold them. Russians are bidden to acquiesce and rather to rejoice in this by philosophers, who would perhaps not relish the cup if it were commended to their own lips. The law of evolution, it is said, prescribes the survival of the fittest. To which the Russian boor may reply, that if his force beats the fine intelligence of the Jew the fittest will survive and the law of evolution will be fulfilled. It was force rather than fine intelligence which decided on the field of Zama that the Latin, not the Semite, should rule the ancient and mould the modern world.
Very well.  Ultimately, ethnoracial survival will come down to force, some of it (likely most of it) physical, some of it mental and memetic.
Ironically, many intellectuals who absolutely reject evolutionary thinking and any imputation that genetic self-interest might be important in human affairs…
John Derbyshire pretending that he doesn’t know what group evolutionary strategies are?  HBDers rejecting “Salterism.”
…also favor policies that are rather obviously self-interestedly ethnocentric…
HBDers, including Derbyshire, promoting ethnocentric policies in favor of Jews and Asians.  In Derbyshire’s case, his personal individual and familial genetic interests are intertwined with that of East Asian; hence, he has projected ethnocentrism to favor Asian interests.
…and they often condemn the self-interested ethnocentric behavior of other groups, particularly any indication that the European-derived majority in the United States is developing a cohesive group strategy and high levels of ethnocentrism in reaction to the group strategies of others. 
Isn’t that exactly what the HBDers do?  Hello, GNXP!  Hello, Jayman!
There is thus a significant possibility that individualistic societies are unlikely to survive the intra-societal group-based competition that has become increasingly common and intellectually respectable in the United States. I believe that in the United States we are presently heading down a volatile path—a path that leads to ethnic warfare and to the development of collectivist, authoritarian, and racialist enclaves. Although ethnocentric beliefs and behavior are viewed as morally and intellectually legitimate only among ethnic minorities in the United States, the theory and the data presented in SAID indicate that the development of greater ethnocentrism among European-derived peoples is a likely result of present trends.
We can only hope.  So, MacDonald believes that Euro-Americans will eventually exhibit “the development of greater ethnocentrism” despite the fact that a majority of them derives from “high trust northern hunter gatherers?”  Yes. After all, Germans exhibited “the development of greater ethnocentrism” in between the two World Wars; given sufficient stimulus, one can invoke ethnocentrism even in peoples predisposed to universalism. The election of Trump may be viewed as the beginning of stirring in that direction.  But it all seems too little, too late. Hard reality. Johnson and McCulloch are delusional.
One way of analyzing the Frankfurt School and psychoanalysis is that they have attempted with some success to erect, in the terminology of Paul Gottfried (1998) and Christopher Lasch (1991), a “therapeutic state” that pathologizes the ethnocentrism of European-derived peoples as well as their attempts to retain cultural and demographic dominance. 
This is true and interestingly enough, becoming even more true in the age of the “God Emperor” Trump.  But there’s another complication here, a very ironic one.  The same “movement” that complains about having their views pathologized by the System engages in exactly the same Frankfurt School-like rent-seeking pathology-mongering against those who have the temerity to critique Der Movement, Inc.  Just look how my criticisms have been met over the years, most recently by Greg Johnson. In a real sense, how does the Der Movement’s reaction to criticism from the Far Right differ from that of the System?  Der Movement and the System are mirror images of reach other, distorted funhouse mirror images. Neither can honestly engage with criticism.  Dissidents are all “crazy.”  Just like the Soviet Union as well.
However, ethnocentrism on the part of the European-derived majority in the United States is a likely outcome of the increasingly group-structured contemporary social and political landscape—likely because evolved psychological mechanisms in humans appear to function by making ingroup and outgroup membership more salient in situations of group-based resource competition (see SAID, Ch. 1). 
How can we accelerate this process since it is glacially slow given the enormity of the problem and the massive stimulus being applied that should in theory have provoked a massive White ethnocentric response already?
The effort to overcome these inclinations thus necessitates applying to Western societies a massive “therapeutic” intervention in which manifestations of majoritarian ethnocentrism are combated at several levels, but first and foremost by promoting the ideology that such manifestations are an indication of psychopathology and a cause for ostracism, shame, psychiatric intervention, and counseling. 
And as we know, this has been occurring, leftist psychologists want to classify Whites – and only Whites – defending their group interests as a form of “mental illness,” and we’ve long had to contend directly (e.g., Europe) and indirectly (USA) with the criminalization of White identity politics.  But, again, how is Der Movement better than the System in this regard?  Far Right critics of “movement” dogma and “leadership” are shamed, ostracized, called “crazy,” etc.  Same dishonesty. Same difference.
One may expect that as ethnic conflict continues to escalate in the United States, increasingly desperate attempts will be made to prop up the ideology of multiculturalism with sophisticated theories of the psychopathology of majority group ethnocentrism, as well as with the erection of police state controls on nonconforming thought and behavior.
As noted this is exactly what is happening. And the same, on a smaller sale, is happening within the ranks of racial nationalism.
Jews thus come into conflict with other ethnically identified minority groups who use multiculturalism for their own purposes. (Nevertheless, because of their competitive advantage within the white, European-derived group with which they are currently classified, Jews may perceive themselves as benefiting from policies designed to dilute the power of the European-derived group as a whole on the assumption that they would not suffer any appreciable effect. Indeed, despite the official opposition to group-based preferences among Jewish organizations, Jews voted for an anti-affirmative action ballot measure in California in markedly lower percentages than did other European-derived groups.)
This has been one of MacDonald’s most profound insights.  Jews promote policies that – on the surface – would seem to harm Jewish interests as well as those of Whites (e.g., affirmative action, and the overall decay of the culture and of the major cities in which most “American” Jews dwell). That leads apologists for the Jews to use that behavior as “evidence” that Jews are not promoting a group-serving strategy; instead, they claim (as if it is that much better) that Jews are just hysterically leftist and will promote policies that harm even themselves.  MacDonald’s insight is that Jews are to a large degree “immunized” against the effects of these polices, so that the policies end up harming Whites, who are the main rivals of the Jews.  Thus, the position of Jews in positions of power the top of the humane energy pyramid makes them immune to many of the ravages of affirmative action, which typically effect people on the lower rungs (even White collar rungs) of the economic ladder.  Jewish culture, Jewish organizations, Jewish segregation, high investment parenting, etc. allow Jews to survive and thrive in the conditions of cultural decay they produce, and allow them to form communities that survive and thrive even in crime-ridden cities.  Previously on this blog we examined the story of Jewish-led desegregation of a school system in which there was a Jewish school with no Blacks and an Italian-American school with a few Blacks.  The Jews “desegregated” the local school system by busing in more Blacks specifically for the Italian school, leaving the Jewish school unscathed.  That’s a more direct and crude manifestation of this concept, as were the shenanigans of Leonard Sand.  But in it is most full application, MacDonald’s concept is much more subtle than this.  The Jews simply unleash social and cultural chaos on a nation – memes that apparently would equally harm Jew s- but emerge unharmed by the chaos because of peculiarities of Jewish family and social structures, and Jewish mental modules.  It’s sort of like the paradigm of Whites who were mostly resistant to smallpox (most of them already having had it earlier in life) giving infested blankets to Amerindians.
There has been a powerful Western tendency to develop such societies, beginning at least in the Middle Ages, but also present, I believe, in the classical Roman civilization of the Republic. The ideal of hierarchic harmony is central to the social program of the Catholic Church beginning during the late Roman Empire and reaching its pinnacle during the High Middle Ages (MacDonald 1995c; SAID, Ch. 5). This ideal is apparent also in a powerful strand of German intellectual history beginning with Herder in the eighteenth century. A very central feature of this prototypical Western hierarchical harmony has been the social imposition of monogamy as a form of reproductive leveling that dampens the association between wealth and reproductive success. From an evolutionary perspective, Western societies achieve their cohesion because hierarchical social relationships are significantly divorced from reproductive consequences.

Such a world is threatened from above by the domination of an individualistic elite without commitment to responsible lower-status individuals who may have lesser intellectual ability, talent, or financial resources. It is threatened from within by the development of a society constituted by a set of ethnically divided, chronically competing, highly impermeable groups as represented historically by Judaism and currently envisioned as the model for society by the proponents of multiculturalism. 
What we have today, for both counts.
And it is threatened from below by an increasing underclass of people with the attributes described by Herrnstein and Murray: intellectually incompetent and insufficiently conscientious to hold most kinds of job; irresponsible and incompetent as parents; prone to requiring public assistance; prone to criminal behavior, psychiatric disorders, and substance abuse; and prone to rapid demographic increase. Such people are incapable of contributing economically, socially, or culturally to a late-twentieth-century society or, indeed, to any human civilization characterized by a substantial degree of reciprocity, voluntarism and democracy.
We have this as well.  So, in summary: free-riding White globalist elite traitors, “high-IQ” Jews and Asian sat the top of the human energy pyramid, and a Black-Brown underclass.
Given that the continued existence of Judaism implies that the society will be composed of competing, more or less impermeable groups, the neoconservative condemnation of multiculturalism must be viewed as lacking in intellectual consistency. The neoconservative prescription for society embraces a particular brand of multiculturalism in which the society as a whole will be culturally fragmented and socially atomistic. These social attributes not only allow Jewish upward mobility, but also are incompatible with the development of highly cohesive, anti-Semitic groups of gentiles; they are also incompatible with group-based entitlements and affirmative action programs that would necessarily discriminate against Jews. As Horowitz (1993, 86) notes, “High levels of cultural fragmentation coupled with religious options are likely to find relatively benign forms of anti-Semitism coupled with a stable Jewish condition. Presumed Jewish cleverness or brilliance readily emerges under such pluralistic conditions, and such cleverness readily dissolves with equal suddenness under politically monistic or totalitarian conditions.”
So, the Jewish-Neocon prescription for society combines what was just described above – Jews promoting ideas corrosive of Gentile sociality but infectious memes that the Jews are relatively immune to – but that also directly target “social attributes” that would be directly harmful to Jews while promoting those directly beneficial.  Ethnic rent-seeking behavior in a societal scale.
From the standpoint of these leftist critics, the Western ideal of hierarchic harmony and assimilation is perceived as an irrational, romantic, and mystical ideal. Western civility is nothing more than a thin veneer masking a reality of exploitation and conflict…Historically, this conflict conception of social structure has typically been combined with the idea that the inevitable struggle between social classes can be remedied only by the complete leveling of economic and social outcomes. This latter ideal can then be attained only by adopting a radical environmentalist perspective on the origins of individual differences in economic success and other cultural attainments and by blaming any individual shortcomings on unequal environments. Because this radical environmentalism is scientifically unfounded, the social policies based on this ideology tend to result in high levels of social conflict as well as an increase in the prevalence of intellectual incompetence and social pathology.
“…the prevalence of intellectual incompetence and social pathology.”  Does any of the sound familiar to keen observers of the current scene?
From an evolutionary perspective, the prototypical Western social organization of hierarchic harmony and muted individualism is inherently unstable, a situation that undoubtedly contributes to the intensely dynamic nature of Western history. It has often been remarked that in the history of China nothing ever really changed. Dynasties characterized by intensive polygyny and moderate to extreme political despotism came and went, but there were no fundamental social changes over a very long period of historical time. The data reviewed by Betzig (1986) indicate that much the same can be said about the history of political organization in other stratified human societies.

In the West, however, the prototypical state of social harmony described above is chronically unstable. The unique initiating conditions involving a significant degree of reproductive leveling have resulted in a highly dynamic historical record (see MacDonald 1995c). 
This is a very interesting analysis that deserves further evaluation. One could imagine MacDonald and Duchesne productively collaborating to further develop these ideas.  That would be a lot better than the current direction of TOO.

Getting back to the main point – the thesis here is that there is something inherent about Western civilization, a combination of hierarchy and moderate individualism not observed in other cultures that creates sufficient chaos, ferment, and instability to produce the creativity and Faustian impulses historically characteristic of Western man.  This would seem to be an emergent property of the crosstalk between genetic and cultural/historical factors, as well as the ethnic/cultural diversity within Europe.  It would therefore seem that any future High Culture would need to contain within it some inherent “cognitive dissonance” to create the contractions that promote creativity and inhibit Asian-line passivity and stagnation.

It would be useful to have an analysis that focuses on the mechanisms whereby the inherent contradictions of Western civilization results in cultural dynamism, historical examples of this, and suggestions of how this can be leveraged in the future to promote such dynamism.
The most common threat to hierarchic harmony has been the individualistic behavior of elites—a tendency that hardly surprises an evolutionist. Thus the early phases of industrialization were characterized by the unraveling of the social fabric and high levels of exploitation and conflict among the social classes. As another example, the slavery of Africans was a short-term benefit to an individualistic elite of southern aristocrats in the United States, but it also resulted in exploitation of the slaves and has been a long-term calamity for the society as a whole. 
That latter point cannot be forgotten.  It’s easy – as some in Der Movement like to do – to blame everything on “the Jews” – or if not solely the Jews then to throw in blame to the “White ethnics”- but these groups (despite lots of talk about the Jewish role in the slave trade that may have some factual basis but folks don’t have to buy what others are selling) cannot ultimately be blamed for the "long-term calamity” of having Negroes in America.  What were the “individualistic elite of southern aristocrats” and their northern co-ethnics who either also benefited or acquiesced, thinking?  One constant in history is that slavery is never permanent; slaves are always, inevitably, freed.  The “individualistic elite of southern aristocrats” were for the most part reasonably well-educated (for that time) men; this could not have been unknown to them.  Even if it was not known, just plain common sense and logistics, combined with reasonable and prudent foresight, would make one wonder how a large Negro slave population would be kept under control in perpetuity.  But they just didn’t care.  Just like they sold out their patrimony by allowing mass immigration (including of that of the micks, wops, hunkies, krauts, and squareheads) and, even worse, unleashing the Jewish plague on America by allowing that group to immigrate to America.  There has to be accountability for such world-historical errors.

Of course, the French, Spanish, and Portuguese were also guilty of the world-historical error of bringing the Negro to the New World; although for the specific case of the USA, MacDonald’s point holds.  Breaking the quarantine of Africa, and letting the other “Black Plague” spread to other continents was indeed a calamity for all humanity, made worse today by mass migration of African overpopulation.  What should have been done is simply exploit the natural resources of Africa while leaving the Negro alone to stew in its mindless savagery.
We have also seen that Western elites in traditional societies have often actively encouraged Jewish economic interests to the detriment of other sectors of the native population, and in several historical eras Jews have been the instruments of individualistic behavior among gentile elites thus facilitating such individualistic behavior. 
That includes Jewish “pro-White” HBDers and their calls for a multiracial “White separatist state” that would not only include Jews but also “Asians and others” – a free trade, individualistic dystopian nightmare.  Or how about GNXP South Asians, as well as triracial HBD bloggers with their attacks on White ethnic nepotism?
I have suggested that there is a fundamental and irresolvable friction be-tween Judaism and prototypical Western political and social structure. The present political situation in the United States (and several other Western countries) is so dangerous because of the very real possibility that the Western European tendency toward hierarchic harmony has a biological basis. The greatest mistake of the Jewish-dominated intellectual movements described in this volume is that they have attempted to establish the moral superiority of societies that embody a preconceived moral ideal (compatible with the continuation of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy) rather than advocate social structures based on the ethical possibilities of naturally occurring types.
Hence, the gross instability of what passes for the “West” today, and attempts at race replacement.  However, the new racial class of the dead West will not necessarily be pro-Jewish.  In that case, the parasite will flee the dead host and attempt to re-attach elsewhere.
As an evolutionist, one must ask what the likely genetic consequences of this sea change in American culture are likely to be. An important consequence—and one likely to have been an underlying motivating factor in the countercultural revolution—may well be to facilitate the continued genetic distinctiveness of the Jewish gene pool in the United States. 
While European racial distinctiveness is lost.
The ideology of multiculturalism may be expected to increasingly compartmentalize groups in American society, with long-term beneficial consequences on continuation of the essential features of traditional Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy. There is increasing consensus among Jewish activists that traditional forms of Judaism are far more effective in ensuring long-term group continuity than semi-assimilationist, semi-cryptic strategies such as Reform Judaism or secular Judaism. Reform Judaism is becoming steadily more conservative, and there is a major effort within all segments of the Jewish community to prevent intermarriage (e.g., Abrams 1997; Dershowitz 1997; see pp. 244–245). Moreover, as discussed in several parts of this book, Jews typically perceive them-selves to benefit from a nonhomogeneous culture in which they appear as only one among many ethnic groups where there is no possibility of the development of a homogeneous national culture that might exclude Jews.
That last point is essential to the whole Jewish project that is destroying America and the West – besides just plain animus, they also want to destroy a homogeneity that they perceive as threatening.
In addition, there may well be negative genetic consequences for the European-derived peoples of the United States and especially for the “common people of the South and West” (Higham 1984, 49)—that is, for lower-middle-class Caucasians derived from Northern and Western Europe—whose representatives desperately battled against the present immigration policy. 
Err…excuse me, Southern and Eastern Europeans are threatened as well.  And it has been the Upper-class Caucasians derived from Northern and Western Europe who have been collaborating with the Jews to undermine their own nation.
Indeed, we have seen that a prominent theme of the New York Intellectuals as well as the Authoritarian Personality studies was the intellectual and moral inferiority of traditional American culture, particularly rural American culture. James Webb (1995) notes that it is the descendants of the WASPS who settled the West and South who “by and large did the most to lay out the infrastructure of this country, quite often suffering educational and professional regression as they tamed the wilderness, built the towns, roads and schools, and initiated a democratic way of life that later white cultures were able to take advantage of without paying the price of pioneering. Today they have the least, socio-economically, to show for these contributions. And if one would care to check a map, they are from the areas now evincing the greatest resistance to government practices.” The war goes on, but it is easy to see who is losing.
That is true.
The demographic rise of the underclass resulting from the triumph of the 1960s counter-cultural revolution implies that European-derived genes and gene frequencies will become less common compared to those derived from the African and the Latin American gene pools. On the other end of the IQ-reproductive strategy distribution, immigrants from East Asian countries are outcompeting whites in gaining admission to universities and in prestigious, high-income jobs. The long-term result will be that the entire white population (not including Jews) is likely to suffer a social status decline as these new immigrants become more numerous. (Jews are unlikely to suffer a decline in social status not only because their mean IQ is well above that of the East Asians but, more importantly, because Jewish IQ is skewed toward excelling in verbal skills. The high IQ of East Asians is skewed toward performance IQ, which makes them powerful competitors in engineering and technology. See PTSDA, [Ch. 7] and Lynn [1987]. Jews and East Asians are thus likely to occupy different niches in contemporary societies.) Presently white gentiles are the most underrepresented group at Harvard, accounting for approximately 25 percent of the students, while Asians and Jews constitute at least half of the student body while constituting no more than five percent of the population (Unz 1998). The United States is well on the road to being dominated by an Asian technocratic elite and a Jewish business, professional, and media elite.
Thus: HBD.  Jews and Asians are natural allies in the War against Whites, as they full different niche spaces at the top of the human energy pyramid.  Both groups are high-IQ Asiatic populations that have an intense hatred of European-derived peoples, and the burgeoning relationships of Israel to both China and India demonstrate that the Jewish-Asian alliance exists not only in the USA, but in international relations.  HBD is simply race treason for White HBDers.
Moreover, the shift to multiculturalism has coincided with an enormous growth of immigration from non-European-derived peoples beginning with the Immigration Act of 1965, which favored immigrants from non-European countries (see Auster 1990; Brimelow 1995). Many of these immigrants come from non-Western countries where cultural and genetic segregation are the norm, and within the context of multicultural America, they are encouraged to retain their own languages and religions and encouraged to marry within the group. As indicated above, the expected result will be between-group resource and reproductive competition and increased vulnerability of democratic and republican political institutions in a context in which long-term projections indicate that European-derived peoples will no longer be a majority of the United States by the middle of the next century.
The result has been a remarkable degree of ethnic assimilation in the United States among those whose ancestry derives from Europe (Alba 1985). This is particularly noteworthy because ethnic conflict and violence are on the rise in Eastern Europe, yet European-derived groups in the United States have an overwhelming sense of commonality. The long-term result of such processes is genetic homogenization, a sense of common interest, and the absence of a powerful source of intrasocietal division.
All the fetishists and other dividers should re-read the preceding paragraph. A Euro-American community has been formed in America and this can be, and should be, a source of fundamental strength.  This should be treasured, not criticized and deconstructed.
At present the interests of non-European-derived peoples to expand demographically and politically in the United States are widely perceived as a moral imperative, whereas the attempts of the European-derived peoples to retain demographic, political, and cultural control is represented as “racist,” immoral, and an indication of psychiatric disorder. From the perspective of these European-derived peoples, the prevailing ethnic morality is altruistic and self-sacrificial. It is unlikely to be viable in the long run, even in an individualistic society. As we have seen, the viability of a morality of self-sacrifice is especially problematic in the context of a multicultural society in which everyone is conscious of group membership and there is between-group competition for resources.
So, here we see why critics of Salterism who invoke “free riding” are so hypocritical.  They always complain about free riding and the maladaptiveness of altruism with respect to intra-ethny relations, but never have a problem with inter-ethny relations.  So, self-sacrificial behavior and altruism of Whites for other Whites is “bad,” while the same for genetically more distant non-Whites is, of course, good (or no problem).  One wonders if this is just special pleading for Whites to be self-sacrificial to the person making the argument (if they are non-White, which they often are) or for the argument-makers preferred out-group (e.g., White HBDers whose entire worldview revolves around their enslavement to Jews and Asians).
Consider from an evolutionary perspective the status of the argument that all peoples should be allowed to immigrate to the United States. One might assert that any opposition to such a principle should not interest an evolutionist because human group genetic differences are trivial, so any psychological adaptations that make one resist such a principle are anachronisms without function in the contemporary world (much like one’s appendix). A Jew maintaining this argument should, to retain intellectual consistency, agree that the traditional Jewish concern with endogamy and consanguinity has been irrational. Moreover, such a person should also believe that Jews ought not attempt to retain political power in Israel because there is no rational reason to suppose that any particular group should have power anywhere. Nor should Jews attempt to influence the political process in the United States in such a manner as to disadvantage another group or benefit their own. And to be logically consistent, one should also apply this argument to all those who promote immigration of their own ethnic groups, the mirror image of group-based opposition to such immigration.

Indeed, if this chain of logic is pursued to its conclusion, it is irrational for anyone to claim any group interests at all. 
Indeed.  But as we know, the rejection of group interests is supposed to apply only to Whites.  Others are very cognizant of, and solicitous of, their own group interests.  If this inconsistently is pointed put, they’ll call you a “racist” and defend the difference by asserting that Whites have “all the power and privilege” (except of course that of being allowed to defend their own group interests, eh?) or some other self-serving rationale to explain why Whites do not require, ordo not deserve, the same rights of group defense as others.  Or, perhaps, they’ll pull out the “who is White?” card, that question never being a problem when Whites are targeted for attack.
And if one also rejects the notion of individual genetic differences, it is also irrational to attempt to further individual interests, for example, by seeking to immigrate as an individual. Indeed, if one accepts these assumptions, the notion of genetic consequences and thus of the possibility of human evolution past and present becomes irrational; the idea that it is rational is merely an illusion produced perhaps by psychological adaptations that are without any meaningful evolutionary function in the contemporary world. One might note that this ideology is the final conclusion of the anti-evolutionary ideologies reviewed in this volume. These intellectual movements have asserted that scientific research shows that any important ethnic differences or individual differences are the result of environmental variation, and that genetic differences are trivial.
Of course, they really don’t believe that.  It is for White consumption only – pure memetic poison.
But there is an enormous irony in all of this: If life is truly without any evolutionary meaning, why have advocates propagated these ideologies so intensely and with such self-consciously political methods? Why have many of these same people strongly identified with their own ethnic group and its interests, and why have many of them insisted on cultural pluralism and its validation of minority group ethnocentrism as moral absolutes? By their own assumptions, it is just a meaningless game. Nobody should care who wins or loses. Of course, deception and self-deception may be involved. I have noted (p. 195) that a fundamental agenda has been to make the European-derived peoples of the United States view concern about their own demographic and cultural eclipse as irrational and as an indication of psychopathology.
This is a point I’ve raised in my defense of Salterism, particularly in response to the “who cares?” argument – the absurd idea that EGI is only an individual preference and that the anti-Salterian is completely uninterested in racial group considerations.  Very well.  But if they really don’t care one way or another, and I do care, intensely care in fact, then their indifference should make way for, and accommodate, my strongly held preferences.  Why not?  They don’t care one way or the other and I do care to promote one way and not the other – so why not just let me have my way?  Why the strong opposition if you really don’t care?  The same people who say they don’t care if Whites become extinct suddenly become hysterical when Whites defend group interests.  Why?  What’s the problem? You see, they “don’t care” just as long as Whites are losing and becoming displaced and replaced.  If Whites start winning, then they suddenly care enough to oppose it.  If race doesn’t matter to them, they should have no objection if, say, Whites outcompete all other groups, and the entire Earth becomes populated only with White people.  Who cares, right?  But for some reason if such a scenario was in the works, they’d suddenly care enough to do everything in their power to prevent it.  Simply put – they are anti-White.  All else is just a pose.
If one accepts that both within-group and between-group genetic variation remains and is non-trivial (i.e., if evolution is an ongoing process), then the principle of relatively unrestricted immigration, at least under the conditions obtaining in late twentieth-century Western societies, clearly involves altruism by some individuals and established groups. Nevertheless, although the success of the intellectual movements reviewed in this volume is an indication that people can be induced to be altruistic toward other groups, I rather doubt such altruism will continue if there are obvious signs that the status and political power of European-derived groups is decreasing while the power of other groups increases. 
Perhaps.  But Whites seem to have an almost unlimited capacity for abuse and humiliation.
The prediction, both on theoretical grounds and on the basis of social identity research, is that as other groups become increasingly powerful and salient in a multicultural society, the European-derived peoples of the United States will become increasingly unified; among these peoples, contemporary divisive influences, such as issues related to gender and sexual orientation, social class differences, or religious differences, will be increasingly perceived as unimportant. 
Would this hold for Der Movement as well?
Eventually these groups will develop a united front and a collectivist political orientation vis-à-vis the other ethnic groups. Other groups will be expelled if possible or partitions will be created, and Western societies will undergo another period of medievalism.
If survival requires this, so be it.
From the present perspective no fundamental conflict exists between the latter two sources of American identity; social homogeneity and hierarchic harmony may well be best and most easily achieved with an ethnically homogeneous society of peoples derived from the European cultural area. Indeed, in upholding Chinese exclusion in the nineteenth century, Justice Stephen A. Field noted that the Chinese were unassimilable and would destroy the republican ideal of social homogeneity. As indicated above, the incorporation of non-European peoples, and especially peoples derived from Africa, into peculiarly Western cultural forms is profoundly problematic.
Chinese (and other Asians)…Africans – same thing. Colored is as colored does.
…the United States represents a non-Western form of social organization that conforms to Jewish interests and compromises the interests of the European-derived peoples of the United States. It is a social form that guarantees the continued existence of Judaism as a social category and as a cohesive ethnic group while at the same time, given the characteristics of Jews, guarantees Jews economic and cultural preeminence.
This is what HBD is all about.
Public policy based on this conceptualization is having the predictable long-term effect of marginalizing both culturally and demographically the European-derived peoples of the United States. Because the European-derived groups are less organized and less cohesive than Jews and because a therapeutic state has been erected to counter expressions of European-American ethnocentrism, it raises the distinct possibility that in the long run European Americans will be fragmented, politically powerless, and without an effective group identity at all.
This contradicts the earlier statements that unified European-Americans will come together and defend group interests. I myself am pessimistic and see this latter outcome as more likely.  Whites – the race of pathetic losers.
The conflict of interest between Jews and gentiles in the construction of culture goes well beyond advocacy of the multicultural ideal. Because they are much more genetically inclined to a high-investment reproductive strategy than are gentiles, Jews are able to maintain their high-investment reproductive strategy even in the absence of traditional Western cultural supports for high-investment parenting (Ch. 4). Compared to gentiles, Jews are therefore much better able to expand their economic and cultural success without these traditional Western cultural supports. As Higham (1984, 173) notes, the cultural idealization of an essentially Jewish personal ethic of hedonism, anxiety, and intellectuality came at the expense of the older rural ethic of asceticism and sexual restraint.
Again, we see what was mentioned above – Jews are more resistant to the cultural pathogens they unleash.  Thus, Jewish-promoted cultural and societal degeneration mostly affects White gentiles.
Indeed, there is considerable reason to suppose that Western tendencies toward individualism are unique and based on evolved psychological adaptations (see PTSDA, Ch. 8). This genetic perspective proposes that individualism, like many other phenotypes of interest to evolutionists (MacDonald 1991), shows genetic variation. In PTSDA (Ch. 8) I speculated that the progenitors of Western populations evolved in isolated groups with low population density. Such groups would have been common in northern areas characterized by harsh ecological conditions, such as those that occurred during the ice age (see Lenz 1931, 657). 
Back to the “northern hunter gatherer” meme.
We have seen that Western individualism is intimately entwined with scientific thinking and social structures based on hierarchic harmony, sexual egalitarianism, and democratic and republican forms of government. These uniquely Western tendencies suggest that reciprocity is a deeply ingrained Western tendency. Western political forms from the democratic and republican traditions of ancient Greece and Rome to the hierarchic harmony of the Western Middle Ages and to modern democratic and republican governments assume the legitimacy of a pluralism of individual interests. Within these social forms is a tendency to assume the legitimacy of others’ interests and perspectives in a manner that is foreign to collectivist, despotic social structures characteristic of much of the rest of the world.

The implication is that Western societies are subject to invasion by non-Western cultures able to manipulate Western tendencies toward reciprocity, egalitarianism, and close affectional relationships in a manner that results in maladaptive behavior for the European-derived peoples who remain at the core of all Western societies. Because others’ interests and perspectives are viewed as legitimate, Western societies have uniquely developed a highly principled moral and religious discourse, as in the arguments against slavery characteristic of the nineteenth-century abolitionists and in the contemporary discourse on animal rights. Such discourse is directed toward universal moral principles—that is, principles that would be viewed as fair for any rational, disinterested observer. Thus in his highly influential volume, Theory of Justice, John Rawls (1971) argues that justice as objective morality can only occur behind a “veil of ignorance” in which the ethnic status of the contending parties is irrelevant to considerations of justice or morality.
Remember Jobling wanted to build a pro-Jewish “pro-White” “movement” around Rawlsian ethics.  It is interesting that “ignorance” is at the heart of Rawls’ thesis because it is indeed ignorance to abrogate your genetic interest during decision making, especially since this will be in effect unilateral disarmament in the light of extreme non-White ethnocentrism.  The ever-so-enlightened (and ignorant) Universalist individualists will always get out-competed by ethnocentric collectivists.
Indeed, one might note that despite the fact that a prominent theme of anti-Semitism has been to stress negative personality traits of Jews and their willingness to exploit gentiles (SAID, Ch. 2), a consistent theme of Jewish intellectual activity since the Enlightenment has been to cast Jewish ethnic interests and Judaism itself as embodying a unique and irreplaceable moral vision (SAID, Chs. 6–8)—terms that emphasize the unique appeal of the rhetoric of the morality of the disinterested observer among Western audiences.

The result is that whether Western individualistic societies are able to defend the legitimate interests of the European-derived peoples remains questionable. A prominent theme appearing in several places in this volume and in PTSDA (Ch. 8) and SAID (Chs. 3–5) is that individualistic societies are uniquely vulnerable to invasion by cohesive groups such as has been historically represented by Judaism. 
Again, this contradicts the assertions made above about the “inevitability” of a European and European-American reaction, leading to a new Western “medievalism.”  In my first reading of this book I never realized the internal contradictions of this chapter, which are now apparent during the current analysis.
Significantly, the problem of immigration of non-European peoples is not at all confined to the United States but represents a severe and increasingly contentious problem in the entire Western world and nowhere else: Only European-derived peoples have opened their doors to the other peoples of the world and now stand in danger of losing control of territory occupied for hundreds of years. 
Because only European-derived peoples listen to flim-flam artists like Rawls.
Western societies have traditions of individualistic humanism, which make immigration restriction difficult. In the nineteenth century, for example, the Supreme Court twice turned down Chinese exclusion acts on the basis that they legislated against a group, not an individual (Petersen 1955, 78). 
That’s sick.  The Chinese need to be excluded.  All of them.  Attention, Derbyshire.
The present tendencies lead one to predict that unless the ideology of individualism is abandoned not only by the multicultural minorities (who have been encouraged to pursue their group interests by a generation of American intellectuals) but also by the European-derived peoples of Europe, North America, New Zealand, and Australia, the end result will be a substantial diminution of the genetic, political, and cultural influence of these peoples. It would be an unprecedented unilateral abdication of such power and certainly an evolutionist would expect no such abdication without at least a phase of resistance by a significant segment of the population. As indicated above, European-derived peoples are expected to ultimately exhibit some of the great flexibility that Jews have shown throughout the ages in advocating particular political forms that best suit their current interests. 
“Are expected…?”  We are back to this again.  Which is it?  Are Europeans doomed to passive acceptance of their fate or will they rebel?
The prediction is that segments of the European-derived peoples of the world will eventually realize that they have been ill-served and are being ill-served both by the ideology of multiculturalism and by the ideology of de-ethnicized individualism.
Back and forth in this chapter.  At one turn, Europeans will realize what is happening and react, at another turn, Europeans are too Universalist and easily-manipulated to survive.  This chapter requires careful editing for intellectual consistency.
If the analysis of anti-Semitism presented in SAID is correct, the expected reaction will emulate aspects of Judaism by adopting group-serving, collectivist ideologies and social organizations. 
If the “expected reaction” actually occurs, which this chapter is apparently on two minds about.
The theoretically underdetermined nature of human group processes (PTSDA, Ch. 1; MacDonald 1995b) disallows detailed prediction of whether the reactive strategy will be sufficient to stabilize or reverse the present decline of European peoples in the New World and, indeed, in their ancestral homelands; whether the process will degenerate into a self-destructive reactionary movement as occurred with the Spanish Inquisition…
Instead of blaming the degeneration of Spanish culture on some inherent racial blemish, as the fetishists like to do, it may have been a runaway autoimmune reaction to the Jewish presence.  Is the USA doing better?  Right now we are not even fighting the infection.  The Spaniards have us beat on that.
…or whether it will initiate a moderate and permanent turning away from radical individualism toward a sustainable group strategy. What is certain is that the ancient dialectic between Judaism and the West will continue into the foreseeable future. It will be ironic that, whatever anti-Semitic rhetoric may be adopted by the leaders of these defensive movements, they will be constrained to emulate key elements of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy. Such strategic mimicry will, once again, lead to a “Judaization” of Western societies not only in the sense that their social organization will become more group-oriented but also in the sense that they will be more aware of themselves as a positively evaluated ingroup and more aware of other human groups as competing, negatively evaluated outgroups. In this sense, whether the decline of the European peoples continues unabated or is arrested, it will constitute a profound impact of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy on the development of Western societies.
Survival is paramount.  If we have to alter certain aspects of the West, then so be it…I view the West as in the Winter phase anyway, and it is time for a new High Culture.  We must survive first before we can actualize that.

Saturday, April 28, 2018

Yockey’s Fascist Odyssey

A review of Bolton’s book.

Book here.

Where is the interest in Der Movement about this book? Why wasn’t is publicized and advertised once it was published? Well, perhaps we’ll start to see reviews coming out in Der Movement in the weeks and months to come, and that’s fine, but why not posts now telling the reader that the book is out? Why the “news blackout” about it? I guess in the case of Counter-Currents it’s due to their petty feud with Friberg/Arktos, and the rest of the Alt Right could care less about Yockey; after all, their heroes and role models are Beavis and Butthead. Yes, there is this, but that’s it. And what happened to all the newly discovered Yockey photographs (apart from the Notre Dame photo)? Wasn’t Counter-Currents bragging about the important haul of new Yockey material? The “movement” (non)reaction to this book further justifies and underscores my disgust at Der Movement, Inc., and my determination to be a groupuscule independent of Der Movement.

The Bolton biography could have used more pictures, other than the cover art and the one internal (albeit new) picture of Yockey’s Notre Dame Photo; this is a minor point however.  Another minor point is the presence of spelling errors, most often “form” instead of “from.”

Easily the worst part of the book is about biological race and Bolton’s clumsy attempt to justify Yockey’s (and by extension Spengler’s) wrongheaded views on race by conflating racial distinctions to “cephalic index” (cue “movement” heavy breathing) and all of the outdated (and sometimes silly) views of “traditional physical anthropology” and “phenotypism.” We are breathlessly told that, for example, Boas’ work on changing cephalic indices in different environments may have some validity – so what?  Phenotype = genotype + environment; the phenotypic expression of the underlying genetic instructions is influenced by the environment (sometimes via epigenetic modifications).  A classic example is height: this is a trait definitely and obviously genetically inherited, which runs in families and differs on average among ethnies, but it is strongly influenced by environmental conditions such as nutrition.  You can have identical twins, one suffering from malnutrition as a child and ending up, say, 5’ 9” and another twin given the normal Western excess of calories and nutrients and growing up to be, say 6’ 2”.  Another person with a different genetic background can benefit from the same surplus of nutrients as the second twin but only grow to 5’ 6”, if that is their genetic limit.  Likewise, cephalic index is genetically coded, but can be influenced by nutrition and other factors.  In any case, cephalic index is not a major indicator of race in its modern sense as a group with shared ancestry, so what’s the point?  Alleged similarities of Ethiopians to Europeans as per cephalic index or other individual phenotypic traits are completely irrelevant.

This is the trouble when you have people with no scientific background talking about issues that overlap science: they have no idea – not the slightest - what they are talking about.  If the point is that Yockey and the anthropology crowd didn’t have access to the genetic data of today, fine, but again, one does not have to justify their views just because they were made out of ignorance (and even then I do not excuse them – even without genetic data, how difficult is it to understand that some sort of realistic shared ancestry has to be a core determinant of race, and phenotype must include many traits taken in tandem, and not just one or a few?). Cherry-picking some scientific work, coupled with complete misunderstanding, in order to justify the Spengler/Yockey race idiocy also does not convince.  Jung’s subjective impressions about White Americans are completely irrelevant to the reality of biological race, and the less said about (internally inconsistent) National Socialist race theories, the better. 

My contention has been that Yockey’s embrace of “spiritual” (“horizontal”) race had the same genesis as Evola’s: a misguided response to Nordicism.  Ironically, Yockey discussed how a Culture can react to Cultural Pathology in ways ultimately harmful to the Culture (akin to a destructive fever resulting from an infection in a person), but he lacked the self-awareness to understand that his own destructive ideas about biological race were also an over-reaction to Nordicist theory.  Yockey wanted European unity, and Nordicism was (and is) an obstacle to that.  Yockey equated Nordicism with biological race theory and so biological race had to be discredited (although it still holds for White-Negro differences in his eyes, clearly demonstrating that Yockey was really specifically concerned about arguing against intra-European racial differences). Evola was likely distressed by theories that attributed all positive qualities only to Nordics; therefore, Evola thought – “hey, I’m honorable and noble, but I’m not Nordic, so I must be a spiritual Nordic.”  Neither Yockey nor Evola had the scientific understanding or the moral courage to just state that Guntherite Nordicism was wrong; instead they had to invent fantasies to go around it. As regards Spengler, I will not attempt to hypothesize about the origins of his racial theories apart from noting that he had Jewish ancestry through his maternal line and, hence, a possible motivation to de-emphasize the biological aspects of racial identification.

Bolton actually supports my contention that Yockey’s opposition to “vertical race” was due to his concerns about intra-European division; here I cite Bolton’s section chronicling the dispute between Yockey and the British Nordicist Leese (hater of “Dagoes and Wops”); Bolton declares that it was precisely the type of intra-European racial division promoted by the likes of Leese that Yockey opposed.  Thus, the “vertical race” idea opposed by Yockey was that of the extreme Nordicism that has been the foundation of Der Movement since its beginning.  Gannon’s comments underscores this when he cites the ludicrousness of assuming that every blonde/blue person is a friend while every darker White is assumed to be an enemy.  Also, see the comments about “Wilmot Robertson” below. But that’s Der Movement Nutzism, not actual scientific biological race.  One cannot “throw the baby out with the bathwater” and reject racial reality because of its misuse by sweaty obsessives and fetishists.  Gannon asserts that vertical race theorists have come around to support the ideas of the book Imperium precisely because they never read it or they do not understand it and they do not understand Yockey.  If we, for the moment, assume that “vertical race theorists” include people who understand the importance of biological race, and not just those who fetishize particular European ethnies as “superior,” then Gannon is being unreasonable. No, Mr. Gannon, some of us have read Imperium, and understand it and Yockey perfectly well.  We accept Yockey’s general idea, while acknowledging disagreement on certain matters; thus, my views on race and “pessimism” do not mean that I cannot appreciate the MAIN thesis of Imperium: Western Unity.  After all, Imperium was meant as a polemic, not a scholarly thesis. It’s mainly a call to action, not a study of race differences or even of the procession of High Cultures. Consistent with this, Gannon is quoted as saying that Yockey himself believed that Imperium needed to be “felt” rather than “understood.”  If the key to Imperium, and thus, to Yockey’s worldview, is one of “feeling” rather than “understanding” then it is clear that one can be a general supporter of that worldview even if one disagrees with particular details of  ideas Yockey espoused.  And Gannon here is a bit inconsistent, first criticizing those who didn’t “understand” Yockey’s views and then telling us that Yockey himself believed his work, and the views it promoted, need to be “felt” rather than “understood.”  Apparently then, Carto and other “verticalists” “felt” the work well enough, even if they didn’t “understand” it.

Both biological (“vertical”) and spiritual (“horizontal”) race theory have validity and both should be complementary to the other.  One first restricts the ingroup to the biological race, broadly defined, and then within that looks for those people whose behavior and accomplishment exemplify the racial ideal.  That said, if Yockey’s opposition to “vertical race” was due to his opposition to Nordicist ideas, then his heart was in the right place, although it should have been formulated better with his head.  More broadly, if “Verticalism” implies a top to bottom (vertical) hierarchical ranking of groups based on superiority/inferiority, etc. then that is nonsense  and rightly opposed (and criticized, for example, on a “materialist” basis in On Genetic Interests).

I note that many of the wonderful “horizontalists” were supportive of the idea of letting “colonial” non-Whites into the “Imperium.”  That’s great.  And how would the racial situation in, say, London, or the suburbs of Paris differ in that case from how it is now?  Biological race is important.  Racial preservation is important.  Culture without race is an empty vessel.  “We don’t need no stinkin’ colonials,” thank you very much.

The acceptance of Spenglerian pessimism is another point of contention; Bolton agrees with Spengler/Yockey that novel aesthetic/cultural possibilities for the (Faustian) West are exhausted.  Maybe so; my riposte is this.  Also see this.

I also tire of the analogy with a human lifespan; the idea that “everyone is destined to die, but people still live their lives; the same can apply to a High Culture.” Why not make an analogy with a familial line instead: in which individual members die (just like particular epochs, empires, or even nations with a Culture can cease to exist), but you hope and plan for the family to continue for as long as humanity exists (similarly, you can hope and plan for the High Culture to continue).  While many family lines do become extinct, obviously others do not, which is why humans are still around today (in great numbers in fact).  Someone’s familial lines have survived.

Then there is the typical blithe assumption that the next High Culture will be from Russia; this is pure conjecture and means nothing.  History tells us that two High Cultures have come into being in Europe (if you consider the Classical and Western as separate); why not a third (this begs the question as to whether Russia is European; while it is racially, the Spengler-Yockey school would differ as per culture and history).  The bottom line is that assuming inevitability is both presumptuous and also self-fulfilling if one believes it.  And smug mocking of “optimists” – “there they go again” – does not an argument make.  Although one point is made in Bolton’s book that I agree with; how a High Culture – for example, the Western (or Faustian) - goes to “completion” will to some extend determine the character of the High Culture that succeeds it (Russian or Overman).  For example, how the Classical High Culture ended definitely affected the manner in which the Western successor culture developed.

I also point out that if the Russian ethny becomes a minority in their own state, and if Russia becomes Muslim, they are hardly going to be the seed of a new High Culture.  Talk of “inevitability” in human history is nonsense, Spengler’s dogmatism notwithstanding.  The future is still open from our perspective; it will be what we make it (or not).  More of this below.

I like that Bolton clearly defines what Spengler mean by “Prussian Socialism” and Yockey by “Ethical Socialism”.   This is duty to the State, for a State that does its own duty to the High Culture it represents.  This is not economic socialism, and is in fact opposed to a mere economic interpretation of the socialist ideal. I also appreciate Bolton’s explanation of, and defense of, Yockey’s militant pan-Europeanism and his opposition to “petty statism.”  Bolton makes clear that Yockey’s views are completely compatible with local sovereignty and that sub-national local sovereignty may actually be enhanced in a situation in which (sometimes artificial) national states are de-emphasized with an Imperium (e.g., Flemish sovereignty may increase in an Imperium in which the status of “Belgium” as a nation state has less meaning than it does today).  Bolton also meaningfully contrasts Yockey’s views on these matters to the somewhat similar, but not identical, views of Mosely and, especially, Evola (who supported national identity within the “European bloc” more than did Yockey).  Mosely’s point that “petty-statism” caused the West to lose WWII is well-taken, as the fascist movements of that time were too narrowly nationalistic and prompted nationalist responses against them, while hampering international European fascist/nationalist cooperation.  Bolton also suggests that American ethnonationalists do not properly appreciate, or even fully understand, Yockey’s views on this matter (another reason for them to ignore Bolton’s book?).

The sections on Weiss, Madole, and H. Keith Thompson, and Yockey’s interactions with these individuals were good, and superior (and more concise) than some of the rambling of Coogan’s work.  I note that there was massive infiltration (sound familiar?) of the “movement” as least as far back as the 1950s, with Madole’s NRP being particularly infected (seemingly a majority of his funding and staff may have been derived from infiltration) and the ADL, according to Bolton, may have been providing a significant amount of Far Right funding, possibly to monitor and control the Far Right, to create a ‘bogey-man” to induce scared Jews to provide donations and other support for the ADL, to run “false flag” operations, and to generally misdirect and derail any authentic nationalist resistance.  We are also reminded that Rockwell was borderline retarded/autistic with respect to his naïve trusting and lickspittle worship of the FBI, “opening the books” of the ANP for FBI scrutiny, in a baffling display of imbecility. On the other hand, considering that the ANP was likely as heavily infiltrated as any other rightist group, Rockwell’s “open book policy” probably didn’t give the FBI any information that they already didn’t know.  As you can see, Der Movement’s affirmative action policy was well entrenched at least as far back as the Eisenhower era; a big surprise then that we’ve had decades of unremitting failure.  What Der Movement never grasps, a concept often mentioned at my blogs, is that superiority is not a birthright some people have as a result of their ancestry; instead, superiority is something that needs to be earned.  The leadership of the “movement” is far from earning any microscopic whiff of superiority; on the other hand, any claim to inferiority is well established in their case.

On a side note, one can notice how easily, and frequently, the Left infiltrates the Right, but the reverse rarely, if ever, happens.  Is it because the Left is more cunning, more devious, more intelligent, more unscrupulous, less naïve, more disciplined, and more professional that is the Right?  Is it because rightist views are more natural, and leftist views are more unnatural, so that it is easier to pass oneself off as believing healthy and normal rightist natural values, than it is to pretend to believe the unnatural and sick memetic sewer stench emanating from the Left?

Bolton discusses Yockey’s formulation of the dual nature of the Jews.  On the one hand, since they hate the West, they sided with Bolshevism and supported the USSR, including spying for the Soviets even when the USSR was acting against Jewish interests.  On the other hand, the seat of Jewish power was, and is, in the USA, so they must preserve, and utilize Western technics and expertise to maintain their power and safeguard their infestation of the West.  So, they act for and against Western power at the same time, leaving a ruined mess in their wake.

There was also extensive discussion and analysis of Yockey’s “pro-Soviet” attitudes, and his formulation that the USA was a larger threat to Europe than the USSR.  I have mixed opinions about the validity of Yockey’s opinion; I believe he underestimated the damage of a Soviet takeover of Europe, and overestimated the positive possibilities inherent in that scenario.  But as respect to Bolton’s analysis of Yockey’s views, it was reasonable.  I’d like to point out though that there is a difference between saying that the USA was a bigger threat than the USSR (arguable, although I do not necessarily agree), and saying that the USSR was actually good in itself, some Russofascist state.  Even after eschewing Trotskyism, the USSR still had its fill of Marxist ideologues, supported anti-White Third World Marxist movements, agitated against White interests in the USA, and denigrated genuine science in the name of Lysenkoism (although I guess that last part is viewed positively by some Yockeyites).  Nonalignment was a better choice than siding with the USSR.

In general, Der Movement has a hard time grasping the reality that people and institutions (including nations, ideologies, and movements) can simultaneously hold contrasting ideas. The USSR was both Marxist and nationalistic (in an imperial sense).  Stalin was both an autocrat obsessed with power for power’s sake and a Marxist who never really forgot the ideological fixations of his youth.  Nazis both really believed in the Jewish threat and also instrumentally used anti-Semitism to come into power.  People can be “true believers” and “skeptical cynics” at the same time.  The human mind is extremely flexible, and rationalizations abound for every type of behavior.  People can very well suppress cognitive dissonance and hold opposing views at the same time.  After all, isn’t this exactly what Yockey said about the Jews, that they were anti-Western at the same time they needed to use, and enhance, Western power?  Why can’t we say that the USSR was both an anti-White, anti-Western Marxist state and, at the same time, used Marxism as a tool to promote a more power-oriented, imperial, national agenda?  The two are not completely orthogonal.

I appreciated Bolton’s mention of the Yockeyian youth journal TRUD, which a commentator at Counter-Currents (Proofreader) once mentioned as being akin to my own style; that comparison is supported by TRUD’s own self-description as being animated by the spirit of "cynicism, sarcasm and ridicule.”  Crazy and bitter they all were!  In any case, TRUD is something that should be revived today – IF done right.  Trouble is, TRUD was essentially a Type II journal, and the Type Is extant today would make a mockery of it.  So, better to leave it dead than revived in Type I “zombie” form.

I also note Dr. Revilo Oliver’s high opinion of Yockey and of Imperium (a book Oliver thought could serve as the foundation of a winning movement; Oliver was also enthusiastic about TRUD, by the way); also, I note Oliver’s idea that one has to promote memes at all levels of understanding, for the masses as well as for the intelligent elite (which I have been advocating for the EGI concept).  Oliver’s enthusiasm for Yockeyism is in contrast to the ignoring of Yockey by the Pierce/Strom/NA faction, but we know the reason for that (see comments about “Robertson” below); apparently, Pierce never read Imperium (I’m shocked, shocked).  Dr. Oliver is a perfect example of how someone who is a gene-centric “race materialist” can nevertheless be a strong proponent of Yockey and Imperium.  In fact I can argue that modern population genetics, assaying the autosomal genome, actually supports some of Yockey’s ideas; for example, this from Imperium:
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.
So, the genetic data tell us that while, yes, there are differences between Frenchmen and Italians, that degree of genetic differentiation is “vanishingly small” when one considers the genetic kinship differences with populations “outside the Western Civilization” – particularly when one considers the large genetic gulfs between the major continental population groups (races).  There is more to biological race than just the fetishists measuring cephalic indices with their calipers.

The other parts about the various interpretations and “resurrections” of Yockey and his ideas…well, some of the “problems” may be due to the stupidity of the people Bolton is talking about, rather than (I hope) any of Bolton’s own views.  Bolton cites some of the anti-“Med” ramblings of the King of Ethnic Fetishism, “Wilmot Robertson,” and also quotes Stimely’s correct verdict on Robertson’s self-defeating rambling obsessions.  “Robertson” and his legacy remain a highly destructive force within (mostly American) racial nationalism, one major infection point for the obsessive fixations that still remain extant today.  But, let us give some credit to “Robertson” and his followers: at least they are honest about their disgust and contempt for Europeans deriving from the south of Vienna (or Munich) and to the east of Berlin. Worse perhaps are those types who actually believe the same as “Robertson” but make a pretense of being “pan-European” or “pan-Aryan.”  Note to those latter individuals: Europeans – Westerners - are not Hindu Indians, we do not have, or want, a caste system (with Eastern Europeans being lower caste and Southern Europeans being “untouchables”).  Pick your ingroup and that’s your ingroup - if you despise a group, then don’t include them; if you include them then don’t despise them. The basic definition of any group is “in/out” and if Der Movement can’t even get that straight, after decades of discussion and debate, then what good is it?  If that is “vertical race” then Yockey was right to oppose it, but not at the cost of disavowing biological reality. 

While “Robertson” was relatively positive about Yockey the man, he disparaged Yockey’s pan-Europeanism, and it must be said that the major focus of hostility (or at least indifference, as, for example, Pierce completely ignored Yockey and his legacy) to Yockey in Der Movement came from Nordicists, who could never forgive Yockey for considering Italians and Spaniards as part of the West.  We certainly can’t have that!

Then we read about Lauck’s fetishism, and the nonsense about Rome collapsing because the “Roman stock” interbred with “non-White slaves” is typical Kempian retardation and is laughable from the perspective of serious historical discourse. And there are the fantasies about the “Nordic rulers of ancient India.”  You can take typical “movement” discourse and random samplings from the book The Iron Dream, and you’ll find little difference.  It is a shame that genuine truths about biological race are always tainted by "movement" dogma.

The problem is that Bolton goes too far in the other direction.  I agree with him that miscegenation is not the real reason civilizations collapse, and have collapsed, throughout history.  Bolton then implies that this “miscegenation causes collapse” meme is due to a feeling among Rightists that their race is genetically endangered. That may be true; it may be that today’s racial activists are “retconning” past history to match today’s racial concerns.  Fair enough. But Bolton then seems to suggest that the current fear of genetic endangerment is just a “rationalization” of “an instinctive dislike or suspicion of ‘the other.”  Here Bolton goes too far if he is suggesting that the fear of genetic endangerment is somehow irrational.  The changing demographics of the West are a fact.  Race replacement is a fact (one that even the Left accepts and enthusiastically praises as “being on the right side of history”).  Dysgenics are a fact.  Increasing race-mixing is a fact.  These are all quantifiable phenomena.  Culture is important, but Culture is not enough, we must speak of, and support, a Race-Culture.  If “Verticalism” is Nordicism and the related various types of ethnic fetishism and retconning of history, then Bolton’s criticisms have validity, but racial preservationism in and of itself is vital and it is legitimate.  Concern for Race need not be divided into Horizontal vs. Vertical, but instead should be Integral, a holistic unit of concern that need not divide Europeans against one another. Worries about genetic endangerment are not rationalizations of anything, they are simply normal and healthy reactions to established fact. We need to deal with objective reality.  The White Race IS genetically endangered.

As regards the relationship of Carto with Yockeyism, that has is covered well by Bolton, and discussed by others elsewhere, so I need not dwell on it here, although I believe that Gannon was much too critical of Carto (of course Gannon’s criticism of Carto would also apply to my own views, so I am not objective here).  Bolton describes other interpretations of Yockey, including that of Odinists; I need not discuss all of those for the sake of time.

I was intrigued by the views of pro-Yockey writer and activist Alexander Raven Thomson, and his “social pathology” ideas, an extension of Yockey’s “culture pathology,” and contrasted to Spenglerian “morphology.”  Thomson viewed the importance of the social organism as paramount, and pathology that disrupted the organic solidarity of the society as akin to an aberrant cell, e.g., cancer.  Fascism is a “collective or social will-to-power” to overcome the decay consequent to pathology.  Importantly, Thomson, similar to my own views, rejected Spenglerian inevitability, and asserted that a High Culture than can purge itself of pathology could therefore regenerate and potentially go on indefinitely. I would extend and alter Thomson’s ideas to introduce the concepts of Culture Evolution and Culture Adaption.  It may not be that a High Culture goes on indefinitely in its original form, it may in fact go through the various Spenglerian stages. But if a people – such as Europeans – have a high cultural potential, then the dying High Culture can evolve and be reborn as something new.  Europeans have created two High Cultures – the Classical and the Western, and the interregnum between those two may have been shorter, and the link between them more of an Evolution, if the Western Roman Empire had evolved into a European confederation instead of collapsing and leading to the Dark Ages.  In any case, the Winter of the West need not lead to an indefinite “Fellah” period, with the hope that a new civilization will be born elsewhere; the remnants of the West may evolve and be reborn as a new High Culture, this being then the third High Culture on European soil.  That is Cultural Evolution.  As far as Cultural Adaption goes, one facet of this evolution may be the adaption of the Culture to the pathogens it faces, adaption leading to evolution, as a new Culture, adapted to be resistant to the pathogens emerges.  After all, if the Spenglerians insist on classifying a Culture as an organism, we can go further and classify it as a species of organism, one that, instead of dying as a single organism does, can adapt and evolve as a species does, in some cases undergoing further speciation and formation of a new species.  Of course, species can become extinct, and European culture will become extinct if the European race suffers that fate.

Interestingly, in the last section of his book, Bolton makes suggests certain possibilities that are in accord with some of the views I have expressed previously.  Here I mean the fact that the West is not headed for “empire” – we are in fact already in Winter, already a “dead” “Fellah” civilization.  What happened?  Where was the empire?  Bolton makes the cogent point that if we are going to say a High Culture is an organism, then we need to realize that not all organisms live out their full allotted span.  Some die early, because of disease or accident or being preyed upon (in human terms, murdered) by others.  The Destiny of the West was aborted by its defeat in WWII and the subsequent out-of-control infection by rampant cultural pathogens.  If the West is dead, or dying, Bolton suggests that a seed can be planted for its successor. Bolton suggests the possibility of a Western-Russian symbiosis; the idea is again promoted that the next culture to be fulfilled will be Russian.  I am frankly skeptical; in any case, I propose the birth of a new (the third) European High Culture, which can of course include Russia.

One can criticize Bolton for not writing about other, more recent analyses and critiques of Yockey and his ideas.  Perhaps Bolton is unaware of these (although these have been posted at leading “movement blogs and journals), or else he thinks them unimportant.  I would think that some of these commentaries on Yockey are more informative than “Robertson” agonizing (as he did in his Instauration essay on Yockey) over the horrific threat of five foot tall olive-skinned superstitious Sicilians, but perhaps I am mistaken.

As regards terminology, a more comprehensive analysis of Yockeyism will require more precise definitions of terms such as “horizontal race” and “vertical race” and “verticalism” and all the rest, including “Spenglerian pessimism” as well as Yockey’s various culture diseases.  Speaking of terminology, Yockey was perhaps slightly delusional to think “Imperialism” is more palatable than “Fascism” but, then again, in the immediate post-war period maybe it was.  Certainly not now, however.

Overall, Bolton’s effort is superior to that of Coogan in the all-important categories of content and organization; further, from my Nutzi perspective, Bolton’s rightist bias is infinitely more palatable than Coogan’s leftist bias. The major advantage of Coogan’s work is the physical aesthetics, as presumably he had more resources at his disposable than Bolton, but the “look” of a book is a minor point compared to content, organization, and tone, so Bolton’s work is judged here as the overall superior effort (although Yockey fans would do well to read both).  Also, while Coogan’s book seemed more about Yockey’s collaborators (and enemies) rather than about Yockey himself, Bolton’s “Ecce Homo” chapter sheds some light on Yockey the man, Yockey as an interesting, albeit flawed, human being, and this analysis is another reason for the superiority of Bolton’s work over Coogan’s.  Bolton has regard for Yockey the man, while Coogan – although he compiled many facts about Yockey’s “fascist milieu” – used Yockey it seems as a symbol to make points about the international Far Right. 

It says much (nothing good) about the “American scene” that Yockey is essentially ignored, while the likes of Pierce, Rockwell, and “Robertson” are lionized.  Some would justify this by pointing out flaws in Yockey’s worldview, such controversies about the importance of strictly “zoological” biological race or “Spenglerian pessimism.”  However, as outlined above, it is possible for someone to disagree with Yockey on some of these points and still be a Yockeyian due to support for his most fundamental thesis (the Imperium idea of Western Unity and Resurgence) as well as having the “feeling” for the meaning of his work Imperium. The real reason for the disrespect for Yockey in Der Movement I suspect is the distaste of Type I activists for Yockey’s idea of Western Unity and his belief that race differences between Westerners are, in the context of global racial differences and in the context of “actualizing a High Culture," negligible. It is Yockey’s pan-Europeanism (at least for Western Europeans in Imperium) that so disturbs the Type I Nutzi brigade, as acceptance of the fundamentals of Yockeyism would mean an end to ethnic fetishism and affirmative action in Der Movement.  And Der Movement without ethnic fetishism and affirmative action would cease to exist, making way for the New Movement that would fill the resulting open niche space. 

The Old Movement, Der Movement Inc., will not go without a struggle, it will sacrifice White racial survival so as to temporarily hold on to its own prerogatives and so as to continue to indulge in its cherished dogma.

Perhaps Yockey was too good for us, after all.