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, February 10, 2019

Zoological Race

"Zoological race" and a balanced perspective.

This is another installment in my evaluation of what I believe is the proper place for Yockeyian race concepts in scientifically enlightened racial activism. These installments will be relatively short; rather than put the reader to sleep with overly complex and lengthy essays, it is better to focus on one or two major points at a time.

In analogy to the “only Nixon could go to China” meme, perhaps someone like myself, with a long history of promoting, and writing about, genetics-based race concepts and the importance of genetic interests, is best suited to critique the hyper-fetishization of what Yockey would call “zoological race” among many in the “movement.”

“Zoological race” here means the concept of race as a (purely) materialist and biological concept, which in Yockey’s day dealt with traditional physical anthropology, cephalic indices, overall physical appearance and so forth, and which today would of course include various genetic components of ancestry.  Thus, Yockey derided this racial concept as being akin to classifying animal species in zoological terms, and the proponents of the “spiritual race” view object to viewing human races as rigid categories as one would view different animals in a zoo, how a taxonomist would view animal morphology, or how a college course in Zoology would bin animal species in various Orders and Genera.

Now, I stand by my previous assertions that “spiritual race” concepts are nonsense, and that race, at its fundamental basis, is a materialist and “zoological” concept.  However, that said, a more sober and measured consideration of Yockeyian criticism is called for. While the foundation of race is biological materialism, there is more to it than just that.  Further, even when considering facts about “zoological race,” there is a danger of going too far, obsessing over racial classification, of missing the forest for the trees.

Let us consider what I wrote in the past, comparing the extremes of Yockeyism vs. the extremes of Salterism:
Yockey’s major weakness is that he not only ignores the importance of biological race, but actually attacks the materialist basis of race itself. Stripped of a firm foundation of biology, Yockeyian culturalism could, in theory, degenerate into a nationalist version of “constitutional patriotism/citizenism,” in which commitment to a “High Culture” trumps biological preservationism, and genetic extinction is acceptable as long as “the High Culture” remains. This in clearly unacceptable.
Hence, the EGI Firewall idea. There has to be, at the very least, a minimal “floor” of basic consideration of genetic interests. Thus, no matter what decisions are made, no matter what political constructs are actualized, no matter what group definitions are accepted, there will be a line drawn against significantly maladaptive outcomes.  Only those Yockeyian memes consistent with preservation of fundamental EGI are acceptable.

If there is a choice between several political options, each with different costs and benefits to genetic interests, it is obvious that we need to know what those genetic interests are, so that the different possible outcomes can be calculated and evaluated. There may well be circumstances in which an option that incurs a greater cost is chosen over one that incurs a lesser cost, and for reasons that may well be justified, but how can we know what the costs are until we actually calculate the genetic interests involved?

Further, perhaps more realistically, there may be scenarios in which choices that incur a greater gross cost in genetic interests are chosen because these may have a net benefit of genetic interests, particularly in the long term.  Again, the only way for us to evaluate this is to actually know the genetic interests involved.  Otherwise, we are “flying blind” and making decisions without a full understanding of the actual costs of one choice vs. another.
On the other hand, Salterism has two weaknesses. First, a call to “preserve our distinctive genetic information” is unlikely to motivate most Western individuals to defend their genetic interests against the titanic forces arrayed against them. It almost certainly will not motivate the masses, who, as Michael O’Meara rightfully points out, are always induced to act by “myths” that encompass a cohesive worldview. Even rational activists can often become more motivated by these “myths” (which may of course constitute objective facts to a considerable degree) than to a pure empiricism. Thus, the “myth” of Yockeyan “High Culture” may be needed to motivate the defense of rational Salterian EGI.
That is one reason why Revilo Oliver, despite some reservations about Yockey’s race ideas, endorsed Imperium as “the book” of the National Youth Alliance.  The core ideals of that book are independent of “spiritual race” or even of “Spenglerian pessimism” (or the stark dichotomy between the Classical and Western High Cultures) that Yockey promoted and that Oliver disagreed with to one degree or another.  The core ideals of Imperium are more uplifting than navel-gazing obsessions over cephalic indices or admixture percentages. There is a cultural, civilizational component to racial and ethnic identity; such a component may be secondary to the underlying biological component, but it is important, crucial, and necessary all the same .In addition, the biological and cultural components are inter-related and cannot truly be separated – genes determine culture and cultures select for genes, thus affecting the consequent phenotypes, which in turn influence culture to continue the feedback loop.  Ignoring High Culture just because Yockey went too far with it is (almost) as bad as completely ignoring racial materialism.
Second, genetic interests are based upon differences and distinctions, and all individuals (except identical twins, if we ignore certain subtleties) differ in their genetic information. Therefore, the potential exists for an unrestrained focus on genetic interests to itself degenerate into a maladaptive genetic atomization—with the natural organic solidarity of particular ethnies, and of the West as a whole, disintegrating under an ever more fine series of biological divisions.
This is an important point, and one that many in the “movement” – with their ethnonationalism, subracial and ethnic fetishism and other Nutzi traits – do not accept.  There’s a difference between gross genetic interests and net genetic interests.  Attempts to maximize genetic interests in the gross sense, to maximize every possible quanta of genetic interests regardless of the consequences, is likely to backfire and cause problems that in the long term reduce group competitiveness and adaptive fitness, reducing the final outcome of net genetic interests.  Tempering Salterism with a bit of Yockeyian skepticism about “zoological race” may assist in preventing us from lurching too hard in the other direction of excessive racial obsession.

Note that even something as reasonable as a consideration of EGI can go too far when untempered by other considerations.  Now consider that the “movement’s” racial obsessions are typically far less rational and scientific than Salterian EGI. Given the undercurrent of irrationality of much of the “movement’s disjunctive “thinking” about race, it is very easy for such irrational “thought” to go too far – as it so often does.

So if even Salterism needs to be balanced by Yockeyism, the unhinged dark corners of “movement” racial ranting needs to be replaced by a Yockeyism balanced by Salterism.  Thus, Salterian Yockeyism – the Salter-Yockey synthesis - replaces Nutzi race fetishism and replaces the sort of Evolian “spiritual race” nonsense championed by Yockey.

Thus, we do away with a purely zoological consideration of racial conception in favor of a more nuanced approach that of course has a materialist foundation but adds to that.

We free our people from the hyper-materialist zoo and take a broader view of who we are, a more rational sense of Identity.

Saturday, February 2, 2019

Rethinking Yockey and Horizontal Race

An informed horizontal race.

Previous discussion.  Excerpts:
Bolton actually supports my contention that Yockey’s opposition to “vertical race” was due to his concerns about intra-European division…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…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).
In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with horizontal race as a political concept, as a guiding principle for racial nationalist politics, as long as it is scientifically informed and scientifically literate.  Basing horizontal race on a rejection of scientific materialism is counter-productive nonsense, as is a Boasian rejection of racial heredity.  But we must remember that Yockey meant horizontal race as applying to Westerners – who he considered to be the Celtic, Germanic, and Latin peoples of Western (North and South) Europe.  We can extend that to include Eastern Europe as well; the point remains that Yockey did not mean to assert that Nigerians or Chinamen should be included as Westerners, with all racial differences flattened out in a horizontal race aspect. True, he used non-materialist language – “Culture Aliens” – to justify the exclusion of such peoples, but the practical end result is the same. 

On the broad scale, the scale of continental racial groups, Yockey’s horizontal race, practically applied, tracks well with EGI that is based on biological materialism. True enough, one cannot depend on pure instrumentality to ensure EGI.  After all, without a proper theoretical grounding, maladaptive paradigms can come into existence.  Thus, it is not enough to trust that future activists will interpret non-materialist horizontal race in the proper manner.  One must understand EGI, which is based on genetic kinship. The ability to constructively use horizontal race in the political sense, in a manner that stably preserves EGI, ironically absolutely requires an acceptance of, and understanding of, biological scientific materialism about race, contra Yockey.  But, again, assuming that EGI is “baked into the cake” of horizontal race concepts, there really isn’t a problem at the level of continental racial groups that crudely track along with civilizational/cultural divides.

Where things get a bit more problematic is when considering intra-European and intra-Western racial differences. Opponents of horizontal race would argue that at this level, acceptance of Yockey’s ideas means that all Europeans are fungible and differences between these will be erased. But if we include EGI – based on accurate measures of genetic kinship and not testing flim-flam that would tell us that James Watson is 16% Negro, that identical twins have different ancestral percentages, and that 13% of someone’s ancestral components can appear or disappear depending on the company doing the analysis – then this problem is obviated. This is the EGI Firewall I have previously discussed – an important topic.  Thus, we have an absolute requirement for at least some fundamental consideration of genetic interests, so that acceptance of horizontal race would by necessity include an acceptance of maintaining intra-European diversity, and the genetic interests that derives from this diversity and its constituent genetic differences. In this way, horizontal race can be safely utilized politically, without fear of damaging genetic interests.

All these caveats aside, we get back to the main point that there is value in Yockey’s basic idea about horizontal race, even if we reject the anti-scientific and anti-materialist mindset that informed much of Yockey’s thinking. In this manner the thinking of Yockey and Salter can be productively linked, to synergistically form a product greater than the sum of its parts.  Part of this synthesis is a rejection of the anti-materialist school of “spiritual race.”

But just as we oppose that anti-materialism, we should also oppose politically basing Principle and Identity on non-existent “racial purity” or to depend upon mendacious SJW frauds producing shifting ancestry data that are inaccurate, imprecise, non-reproducible, and based upon subjective choices of parental populations, algorithms, and nomenclature. I admit error; I myself was guilty of such dependence, and that was an example of bad judgment on my part.  Instead, the science underlying an informed horizontal race concept should be that of genetic kinship that can be calculated from raw genetic data.  All the other nonsense is a waste of time and is more or else politically irrelevant.  Ironically enough, extant commercially available ancestry testing may not be scientifically informed and scientifically literate either, given the errors, inconsistently, lack of statistical rigor and reproducibility,

Identity has a variety of components and Yockey’s horizontal race concept incorporates all of them, IF the concept is properly linked to genetic kinship and EGI.

I expect that there will be more discussion of this topic here and at my other blog.  This is fundamental for the formation of a scientifically-informed Yockeyian movement.