Yockeyian Genetics

Constructing a more cohesive pan-European genetic identity.  Emphasis added.

We all know Yockey’s somewhat questionable views on the issue of biological race, which I have written about multiple times (one example here).  Instead of focusing on that, here I look at another issue – the possible genetic (biological racial) consequences of a Yockeyian Imperium, a subject that I term “Yockeyian Genetics.”

In some ways, this is related to my essay on the convergence of the Yockeyian and Salterian perspectives, but here I consider it from the more specific perspective of how a Yockeyian Imperium could affect the genetics of the European peoples constituting such a geopolitical entity.

Let us consider this post, which is based on this paper, from which the following is extracted:

Population stratification caused by nonrandom mating between groups of the same species is often due to geographical distances leading to physical separation followed by genetic drift of allele frequencies in each group. In humans, population structures are also often driven by geographical barriers or distances; however, humans might also be structured by abstract factors such as culture, a consequence of their reasoning and self-awareness. Religion in particular, is one of the unusual conceptual factors that can drive human population structures. This study explores the Levant, a region flanked by the Middle East and Europe, where individual and population relationships are still strongly influenced by religion. We show that religious affiliation had a strong impact on the genomes of the Levantines. In particular, conversion of the region's populations to Islam appears to have introduced major rearrangements in populations' relations through admixture with culturally similar but geographically remote populations, leading to genetic similarities between remarkably distant populations like Jordanians, Moroccans, and Yemenis. Conversely, other populations, like Christians and Druze, became genetically isolated in the new cultural environment. We reconstructed the genetic structure of the Levantines and found that a pre-Islamic expansion Levant was more genetically similar to Europeans than to Middle Easterners.

The last part – “a pre-Islamic expansion Levant was more genetically similar to Europeans than to Middle Easterners” – has some relevance with respect to putative “Levantine immigrants and slaves” in Ancient Rome, who may have been much more “genetically similar to Europeans” than are Middle Easterners today. Note also that post-Islamic expansion Muslin influx into Southern Europe may have been mostly Berber types (and that, with a net effect of only a few percentage points of ancestry, at the greatest). But those are details.  

The main point is that cultural similarity can influence genetics to bring culturally similar people to become more genetically similar, and more genetically distant and distinct from culturally alien peoples, even if the cultural aliens are geographically close and not much genetically different to begin with. The same principle can extend to the realm of politics and High Culture-Politics as that of a Yockeyian Imperium. Thus, we can understand how cultural-civilizational-political boundaries can influence genetic boundaries between peoples.

See this, which is based on this.

…during the last 1,000 generations there are more coalescences between Beijing Chinese and Japanese rather than Beijing Chinese and southern Chinese; in more recent times, there are more coalescences between Chinese groups. This makes some sense, if we suppose that -as seems likely- Mongoloids spread north-to-south across China during prehistory; the Japanese are thus linked -in older times- with northern Chinese, both of which are mostly descended from the northern Mongoloids; in more recent times, especially after the emergence of a uniquely Chinese polity and culture, the Chinese tend to marry other Chinese, hence they share more recent common ancestors within the country itself.

The take home point of this:

The same can apply to Europe and any (relatively small) potential kinship overlap that may currently exist between Europeans and non-Europeans.  Once a “Western Imperium” is established, and gene flow from outside is stopped, over time, genetic distance between those groups within the Imperium and those outside will increase.  Thus, even if there is no increase in gene flow within the Imperium, the fact that a genetic division will be established with the “outer groups” will ensure that Europeans will, over time, form an ever more cohesive genetic grouping, more clearly separated from non-Europeans.  Thus, proximate influences ultimate, and genetic boundaries can become increasingly well matched with political-cultural-civilizational boundaries once gene flow between civilizational groups is stopped.  And there is more than enough genetic diversity within each civilizational bloc to satisfy biological requirements in the absence of any inter-continental and inter-civilizational gene flow.

Genetic drift, selection, and other such processes would take place, with the within vs. without distinction further pushing Europeans and non-Europeans farther apart. There would also be, to an extent, increasing cultural distinctiveness to mirror that of the genes/biology. The last part about "biological requirements" refers to an adequate amount of genetic diversity to enhance fitness, avoid inbreeding depression, and to provide the genetic variation to deal with changes in the environment (broadly defined).

So, we see that a political-cultural entity, the Yockeyian Imperium, would affect the genetics of its constituent peoples in such a manner as to support the underlying foundation of the Imperium entity itself, the organic solidarity of the European peoples.

Consider this PCA figure.  By tightly restricting any possible gene flow strictly to the European Imperium, one would expect, over time, the European and non-European areas to be more distinct and segregated than they are presently, with the European PCA likely becoming more concentrated within a space of the two major axes (PC1 and PC2).  Certainly, any tendency of greater intra-European dispersion and European/non-European convergence – the latter of which is no doubt being facilitated by alien immigration into Europe – would be repressed, and the aforementioned opposing trends promoted.  Any possibility that a given European and non-European ethny would be genetically closer than two European ethnies would also be eliminated over time by the processes inherent in restricting gene flow strictly within the European family of nations. Thus any such kinship overlap, if such exist, between, say, Europeans and non-European Caucasians, would be eliminated, as discussed above.

Cypriots are found in between Southern Italians and Near Easterners, thus, between Southern Europeans and non-European Caucasians. If Greek Cypriots are included in the Imperium while Turkish Cypriots are excluded, then the former group will, over time, converge with Southern Europeans in PCA while the latter will drift in the direction of Turks – as a result of restricting any (low level, see below) gene flow to the proper categories.

Now, one could speculate that the EU, and freedom of movement within it, would promote an increasing convergence and concentration of European PCA, but then the introduction of alien elements, not always evenly distributed among EU members) would counter-act that to an extent (e.g., a large number of Turks in Germany would, in the event of admixture, move Germans away from other Europeans infested with alien types other than Turks - with the alien invaders being less interested in moving away from their favorite host nations than are natives willing to move elsewhere).  So, the current EU, which combines both freedom of movement within and porous borders without, is not optimal for the proposed “Yockeyian Genetics.”

Now, one can argue that from the strict perspective of so-called Yockeyian genetics, the optimal situation would be an internal European-only panmixia, with complete internal freedom of movement and significant inter-marriage, coupled to a complete lack of movement and admixture with non-Europeans.  While true, that would have the negative effect of erasing established European ethnic identities, and creating a generalized European type, which is not the objective of pan-Europeanism (regardless of what its opponents claim). Thus, the objective of Yockeyian genetics is not the optimal, and most rapid, creation of a generalized pan-European genetic type (with a highly concentrated PCA). Indeed, the type of Imperium I have in mind would have less internal movement than the current EU, in order to safeguard the uniqueness of specific European types. Instead, I propose to completely shut off outside influences, while allowing for, over time, low level intra-European gene flow to result in an increased European/non-European separation, and a degree of concentration of the European PCA, while still preserving the overall PCA (genes correlated with geography) structure and the uniqueness of the European types. A slow and modest “tightening” of the PCA over time with respect to Europeans, coupled to increased distance to non-Europeans is the objective, with the concomitant, desired elimination of any possible European/non-European kinship overlap. Thus, in every case, genetic distances between any chosen European ethnies would always be less than genetic distances between any European and non-European ethnies (in most cases, this is true today, but there may be some breakdown of that between the farthest ends of the genetic spectrum).

Thus, this would NOT be any panmixia, but the normal low level gene flow that has always occurred in history between distinct peoples, but in this case, restricted in the manner described above. Of course, if some European ethny wants to follow its own evolutionary path, and be completely genetically isolated from all other groups, in order to promote divergence, that’s fine; freedom of association would be respected (but the opposite, bringing in racial and cultural aliens from outside the European sphere, would not be tolerated).  But, given the behavior of people within the EU today, I suspect the opposite would be more of an issue – people clamoring for free movement between Imperium nations, a movement that would need to be restricted (to some significant degree) in order to preserve ethnic distinctiveness. These are details that would need to be worked out.

The consequences with respect to Salterian EGI would be supportive of the Imperium idea.  Eliminating potential kinship overlap with groups outside the Imperium, and concentrating (to a natural extent over time, again, not a panmixia that would harm the more local specific EGI of individual ethnies) the European genepool, the EGI cost/benefit ratio would ever increasingly move into the direction of maximizing benefits and minimizing costs of the Imperium idea.  Genetic distance to groups outside the Imperium would increase, making it more and more beneficial to exclude such groups and minimizing costs that would have obtained if kinship overlap across the Imperium boundaries existed.  Genetic distances within the Imperium would in all cases be less than any case of cross-boundary genetic distance, again maximizing benefits and minimizing costs.  Not only would net EGI benefit from the Imperium arrangement (in that any significant EGI costs would be more than compensated by counterbalancing benefits), but by eliminating much of the costs, gross EGI would be maximized as well.  This would particularly be the case if the uniqueness of individual ethnies is maintained, so the best of both worlds occur – individual ethnic group EGI is preserved, while pan-European EGI is maximized as well.

To summarize, in outline form:

• 1. A pan-European state (Imperium) would be set up that would have the effect of an enhancement of net EGI, by advancing the interests of the group of peoples and thus the interest of each constituting group.
• 2. In order to safeguard the uniqueness of the constituent groups, movement and mixture between these groups would be restricted, preventing any panmxia and loss of biological and cultural ethnic distinctiveness. Of course, there would be some (limited) movement and gene flow, consistent with what has occurred throughout European history.
• 3. At the same time, movement and mixture from without the Imperium, from biologically and culturally alien non-European peoples, would be strictly forbidden and absolutely restricted.
• 4. Thus, what would obtain over historical, evolutionary time is a complete absence of gene flow from the outside, coupled with continuous, low level, internal gene flow. Genetic drift, selection, and other such processes would take place, with the within vs. without distinction further pushing Europeans and non-Europeans farther apart.
• 5. These processes would have the effect, over time, of increasing the genetic distance of groups within vs. without the Imperium (European vs. non-European), while genetic distances within the Imperium would be maintained and/or slowly decreased (to an extent) over time.
• 6. Kinship overlap within/without would be eliminated due to these processes (particularly the strict isolation from outside gene flow).  Thus, in every possible case, any European ethnies chosen for comparison would be genetically closer (measured with genetic kinship/gene sharing, Fst, or whatever) than would be any European ethny compared to a non-European one. In PCA, European groups would be more separated from non-Europeans, and the European groups may be expected to slowly concentrate around a narrower core grouping along the major axes of genetic variation – Europeans less spread out among themselves, but more isolated from others.
• 7. These processes would take place naturally over long time frames, with ethnic distinctiveness being maintained, preserving local EGI while enhancing group EGI, leading to not only an increase in net EGI but gross EGI as well, a more optimal profile of genetic interests with costs minimized.

Would this process take centuries and millennia? Yes. An enduring structure is required, with an elite caste whose mission is to monitor and guide the process of directing European genetics. One would expect sampling of genetic metrics over time to evaluate the process, make sure all is going as planned, and to make adjustments as necessary. Some formula needs to be designed to make sure the process is politically and evolutionarily stable over time, that it is not hijacked or discarded, and does not become subject to elite free riding.  Considerations of “freedom” need to be put into context – the ultimate freedom is the freedom to exist and to pursue genetic interests. Further, as an elite project, this would not interfere with the day-to-day life of most people, with the exception of restrictions on movement between nations (and more so, in/out of the Imperium). But how many people actually relocate to other nations?  And if one’s nation is an orderly nationalist state, as would be under this scheme, why would they want to?

The New Man

“Corneliu, make out of our country a country as beautiful as the sun, powerful and obedient to God.”

- Ion Mota

Readers of my work know that I have a long-standing interest in the Romanian Legionary Movement, its leader Codreanu, as well as prominent followers such as Ion Mota.  I have long understood that the Legionaries hit upon a core fundamental idea that escapes today’s activists – that there is something more important than ideologies, political programs, memes, and dogma. This fundamental idea is improving the human material upon which you will build your movement. Renewal of self, renewal of the moral capital of the individual, creation of The New Man, all of this is essential to ultimate victory. Trying to establish a movement on a foundation of human detritus will quickly lead to complete collapse, as we see today.

I have read the following interesting article:

Valentin Sandulescu - „Fascism and its Quest for the 'New Man:' The Case of the Romanian Legionary Movement,” Studia Hebraica, No. 4, (2004), pp. 349 - 361.

Let’s consider relevant excerpts from that article, and see how these can be interpreted in light of the current situation. In all cases, emphasis added.

An innovative development in fascist studies, based on the works of historians such as George L. Mosse, Stanley Payne and Roger Griffin, offers one of the most in-depth understandings of fascism as a political phenomenon of the twentieth century. This approach focuses on the revolutionary and positive programmatic claims of fascism. It asserts that fascism developed an ideology and not just a reactionary movement, and identifies the goals of that ideology with the revolutionary will for a complete regeneration aimed at creating a new order and a “new man.” 

This is the key to understanding what fascism really is.

It thus attempts to explain fascism’s success and makes it easier to distinguish it from other forms of authoritarian rule.

This is an important point I’ve stressed in my writing, contra to some Type Is, writing for alleged “metapolitical” blogs, who foolishly asserted (a la the Left) that any and all authoritarian rightist regimes and movements are “fascist.”  True fascism has a revolutionary palingenetic core.  Franco’s Spain was not “fascist.”

The aim of the Legion was to educate this “new man” – omul nou – the only one capable of building the new, regenerated Romania. 

Likewise, I am convinced that only a higher quality activist, The New Man of today, will be capable of achieving racial nationalist goals, through a new, regenerated Movement.

Not control over the means of production was important, but the ‘new man’ about whom all fascists talked. He was man made whole once more, aware of his archetype and of those with whom he shared it, and activist in that he was not afraid to join in a revolution which would make society correspond to the longings of his soul.

Well said.

One may consider that the creation of what fascists termed the “new man” was the final goal of their cultural revolution. This final, revolutionary and utopian goal was seen as a necessity, because it was presented as a cure for a deep state of societal crisis. Therefore, the fascist project was based on a palingenetic myth, the idea of the nation’s rebirth through the creation of a “new man.” Historians such as Roger Griffin see the palingenetic myth as the core myth of fascist ideology, and the driving force behind the movement. 

Indeed, The New Man should be at the absolute core of any palingenetic movement.  Without the correct human material, all endeavors will ultimately fail.

In this regard, taming the feelings of revolt manifested by the young generation since the end of the war, became a major goal for Codreanu. In his desire to avoid “classical” forms of political action, Codreanu envisaged a revolutionary platform for his movement, proposing a radical transformation of the country by reforming its human component.

First you reform the people, starting with the activists, then you use that human material to build a new society.  Today’s “movement” believes it can build a new society with human trash, and then “fix things” later on.  Delusion.

The first stage (1927 – 1933) was one of inner clarifications. Still indebted intellectually to their former mentor, A.C. Cuza, Codreanu and his followers were more preoccupied with the survival of their organization. Their main concern was not the doctrine of their group, but rather assuring a basic infrastructure for it to survive and grow. 

Yes, obviously a basic infrastructure is required, and the Legionaries started to accomplish this, with limited resources, in a short time. This contrasts to the “movement,” which believes that they can accomplish their goals with zero infrastructure, have no idea how to build such an infrastructure even if they decided they needed it, and who have squandered decades of time and millions of dollars.

The end of the year, however, brought one of the most difficult moments for the Legion. After being banned from the parliamentary elections in December, towards the end of the month a criminal squad of three legionnaires killed the acting Prime Minister, liberal I.G. Duca. Therefore, the Legion remained banned, along with its newspapers, and its leaders were tried as the moral perpetrators of the crime.

Does this sound familiar?  Today, foolish activists commit acts of violence, causing White nationalists to be banned, deplatformed, legally persecuted, and considered by the System and by the general society to be the “moral perpetrators” of these crimes.  How did the Legionaries respond?  Let's read on.

The beginning of the third stage in the Legion’s “quest for the new man” was marked by the criminal act of December 1933. Between 1934 and 1937, the Legion had no access to conventional means of political expression. However, this was the most fruitful stage for the development of the legionary project. The idea of building a “new country” through a “new type of man” was not a conventional one and did not need exclusively conventional methods to be put into practice.

This is what I advocate. I have suggested for today's "movement" a period of strategic withdrawal, a retrenchment, a rebuilding phase, a period of renewal - for racial activists to straighten out their acts, build real infrastructures, and become worthy, before putting themselves forth loudly and publicly.  This can be done right now, with limited resources.  It is an internal, not external, project.  It can be done "under the radar." Certainly, some subset of activists can get involved in electoral politics - at this time NOT directly associated with the “movement" - and, certainly, behind-the-scenes community building can take place.  But this is NOT the time for rallies, confrontations, and feckless “leaders” (grifters) making bombastic public proclamations.

After coming under severe public condemnation due to its violent and destructive actions, the Legion wanted to cast itself as a constructive movement. Thus, the rhetoric of the “new man” served the Legion very well.  

The similarities to today’s situation are obvious.

To this end, Codreanu published The nest’s leader booklet which served as a textbook that encoded the doctrinaire and organizational principles of the Legion. The strict, paramilitary organisation and cult rituals performed in the nest were part of the taming process, so eloquently described by George L. Mosse, as the key to fascism’s successes. 

I believe that the same could be successful today, helping to establish an esprit de corps. Yes, I know that the infantile Millennial crowd, with their snark, will ridicule that as “LARPING” and “old-fashioned WN 1.0.”  That’s coming from folks who have humiliated themselves since the 2016 election, who have wrecked racial nationalism, and have brought the “movement” to new lows.  Why should anyone listen to them?  What rituals do they perform?  Chugging gallons of milk and screaming about “Kek?”

What is even more important is that in this work, Codreanu drew the profile of the “new men,” an ideal construction to serve as model for the young legionaries. For him, the Legion’s regenerative project, what he called a “spiritual revolution,” could not be fulfilled by ordinary man but by new, “spiritualised” human beings

Hence, it is not sufficient to try to push through your political program, promote your ideology, with the degenerate filth passing themselves off as “activists.” You need the highest quality people to actualize your ideology into reality.  That is why the attitude of “you work with who is available” is so wrong-headed, so destructive, and why it has led to constant failure.

What you do is work to make available people of quality, rather than work with who is available.

The longing for a spiritual revolution was clearly stated by Codreanu: The new man or the renewed nation presupposes a great spiritual renewal, a great spiritual revolution of the whole people, a revolution that is opposed to the Spiritual direction of our day and an explicit offensive against this direction. Given the importance of the “new man” to the awaited revolution, Codreanu underscored the qualities that he should possess. The task of the “new man,” to solve the current crisis and guide the nation to a rebirth, asked for supreme qualities, qualities only available to super-humans, as other fascist movements implied. Therefore, Codreanu did not shy away from describing the “new man” as a modern hero, who had to show magnificent strengths in a plurality of fields…

Contrast this attitude of Codreanu with “you work with who is available.” The difference of viewpoint is so stark that there is no overlap whatsoever. Please note that the correct attitude was generated from those "no good" “Outer Hajnal” Romanians, while the obviously incorrect attitude derives from ethnies worshipped by the “movement.”

The nest is the basic organisational structure of the Legion, containing at least 3 people and no more than 13. The nest is led by a chief, conducts weekly meetings, and plays an educational role for future legionaries.

I believe the basic “nest” structure – essentially a cell structure – is sound. It is of a manageable size, breeds camaraderie, and, in theory, if compromised, the damage would not contaminate the organization as a whole.  I say in theory, because the System’s legal structures would attempt to hold the whole responsible for the actions of an isolated part. Here we see the need – the absolute requirement – for not only the highest quality of activists with iron discipline, and not only proper vetting to try to prevent infiltration (“are you Swedish” or “are you a film critic” does not constitute proper vetting, by the way), you also need a proper legal defense infrastructure and “friends” in the political apparatus.  All of which the “movement” doesn’t have, after decades of “activism" and after squandering millions of dollars of followers’ money.

The young legionary leader Mihail Stelescu…

Further comment about that individual is superfluous.

The legionary school had the mission to create a special “atmosphere” of moral cleanliness for the young legionaries who were destined to become the “new men” of tomorrow. After the young legionaries were educated in this school (the nests and the work camps) and became the awaited “new men,” their mission was to conquer the real world, and to serve as examples of what the Legion could do. To quote Codreanu: After the legionary has developed in this kind of atmosphere, in the Nest, the work camp, in the organization and the legionary family itself, he will be sent into the world: to live, in order to learn how to behave properly; to fight, in order to learn how to be brave and strong; to work, in order to learn the habit of working and the love of all those who labor; to suffer, in order to steel himself; to sacrifice, in order to get used to transcending his own person in the service of his people.

Now that is what should be done today.  Please once again note that these hora-dancing Romanians, so despised by the Amren crowd, had the correct idea of what to do, yet all our wonderfully superior big-brained "Inner Hajnal" heroes leading the American “movement” are so comically inept they couldn’t do more damage than if they were actively trying to do so.  Compare the behavior of the typical “movement” leader of today and the typical “movement” activist of today to what the Legionary movement was doing and the differences are crystal clear.

The image of the Legion as a spiritual school designing a “new man” was appealing for many young people, especially students. They joined the Legion with the genuine belief that they could be part of something historic. 

That is how you attract idealistic youth. Not with drunken podcasts, homosexual flirtation, obsessions over a cartoon frog, screams of “Kek,” and the constant call for “D’Nations.”

The legion is not only a school for intellectual education, in which man is taught to judge in a correct manner, by doing, it is not only a favorable environment for a development of political thought and the sense of tactics, but it is also a school for characters and for the moral rebirth of the Romanian people.

Character and moral rebirth – these are the essential ingredients sorely lacking in today’s “movement.”  Without them, victory is impossible. Without them, defeat is assured.  With them, victory is possible.

The “new man” remained an ideal only partially fulfilled, and the Legion ended in violence without putting its regenerative project into practice. Nevertheless, its impact on Romanian interwar political life was a salient one.

And it is even more salient today. If there is ONE single thing I would advise White racial activists to do today, it would be to emphasize, to focus on, character and moral rebirth, to focus on The New Man.  With that, anything is possible.  Without that, nothing is possible. Although ideology, science, intelligence, strategy, et al. are all crucially important, they take a back seat to character and moral integrity.  You cannot build a worldwide revolutionary movement on a foundation of quicksand; you cannot build a victorious movement on a foundation of freaks, grifters, phonies, frauds, the morally defective, perverts, liars, gaslighters, deranged fetishists, tin-foil-hat conspiracy theorists, individuals with all sorts of completely superfluous hang-ups and bizarre theories, weaklings, traitors, and all the rest. We have to remake ourselves before we try and remake the world.

See this.  Emphasis added:

"It is not enough to reassert the ideals of the students; a student conference cannot be reduced to a mere show of ideology; a conference must be an occasion to study the interior capacity of students to achieve their ends. It is pointless to talk of ideals if, at the same time, one does look to the means by which these ideals will be achieved. 

What is the capacity for sacrifice of the youth united at this conference? It is only by a fusion of the student's personal life with his ideal that the latter's achievement can be assured. 

The essential thing is the spirit of sacrifice. 

We all of us have the most formidable dynamite, the most advanced weapon of war, more powerful than tanks and machine guns: it is our own ashes! Every power in the world is destined to collapse, whilst it remains with the ashes of brave fighters, fallen for Justice and for God."   - Ion Mota

After the Deluge: A Post-National Future for the White Race

Assume the White Man has lost.  What next?

Introduction:  Hard times are upon us. The type of invasion of Europe predicted in The Camp of the Saints is occurring today, not in some distant future, and the pathologically altruistic response of weak, deracinated Europeans is exactly as outlined in that novel.  In Germany, the monstrous harridan Merkel is behaving as an inverted anti-Hitler, presiding over the genocide of her own people. In the UK, the sight of one dead Syrian child invokes an outpouring of compassionate action that hundreds of sexually molested English children in Rotherham failed to elicit. The navies of Italy and Greece are dedicated to saving the invaders instead of repelling them, to facilitating the invasion instead of stopping it. Mainstreaming nationalist Orban of Hungary makes bombastic statements, while migrants riot in the streets of Budapest, and as invaders make a mockery of his pathetically porous cheap chicken wire “razor fence.”  In France, mainstreaming heroine Marine Le Pen is more concerned with denouncing her own father than in standing as a new Joan of Arc against the invading hordes. Everywhere in Europe are the sights and sounds of surrender, of a people so fecklessly reckless (or is it recklessly feckless?) that they sacrifice their patrimony without the slightest hint of resistance whatsoever. In America, the System has long ago given up any pretense of guarding the border, and floods of illegal aliens join the unending stream of “legal” immigrants.  And the only leading Presidential candidate who says otherwise is an abrasive buffoon whose main concern is showing he does not wear a toupee, and who wants a “big fat open door for legal immigrants.”  Facts are facts: majority-White nation states are doomed if the present trends continue. What could come next?  What should come next?  What is the post-national future for a stateless White race that will not have any majority-White nations to call their own?  What to do?  How to survive?  Is there a contingency plan?

There are those who will not be happy with a discussion of such a scenario. The “hard-core” “SuperHitler1488” types, sitting in front of their computers, with a toothbrush moustache crudely hand drawn on their upper lips with black marker, will rail against this “defeatism” and will proudly proclaim their “willingness to fight” (after they watch the latest movie or football game); the concern trolls will tell us all we need to do is follow Amren-style mainstreaming for another quarter-century and all will be well; the “hate the messenger” sweaty obsessives will object to the message primarily because I am the one delivering it.

Nevertheless, this must be discussed. Contingency plans need to exist.  A race considered “superior” by some, with much commentary about “future time orientation” and “planning and discipline” – you would expect the nationalist leadership of such a race to be very seriously considering alternative future scenarios and how to strategically prepare for, and deal with, each. Perhaps such planning is occurring, somewhere hidden from the view of “small-fry” such as myself, who dares not intrude upon the majestic thoughts of the mighty titans striding across the racial nationalist landscape of today. If such planning is indeed taking place, I applaud the initiative and wish it all the best. The problem is that I really do not believe anything of the sort is taking place. The inept “quota queens” of the “movement” are, I’m sure, mired in their foolishness and fantasies, which is why, in fact, we are in the trouble that we face today.  Decades of complete uselessness does indeed incur a price on the inability of Whites to deal with the racial crisis.

Discussion: Therefore, imagine a scenario in which the USA is majority non-White, many of the major nations of Western Europe are majority non-White, other European nations are rapidly headed for similar status, Whites are a subaltern minority in what used to be their nations and homelands, a minority ruled by sneering aliens and step-and-fetchit White traitors. The grand dream of a White resistance to “turn the tide before it is too late” has failed to come to pass. The mainstreaming nationalists have failed to cash in on their groveling slithering toward the political center. The game is up and the White Man has lost. What then?

This is hard to answer without knowing the details of the situation. Are Whites still a plurality if not a majority?  Are all the non-White populations allied against the Whites?  Do law and custom still allow some degree of White resistance?  Are there any majority-White nations still in existence and what is their level of power and their commitment to a racial resistance?  These questions, and many others, need to be considered as possibilities. And, given how pathetically masochistic and delusional Whites are, we need to ask if, even at that late date, with the failures of multiculturalism on display for all to see, is there yet a significant fraction of Whites who “buy into” racial nationalism and finally realize the folly of pathological altruism?

Some may invoke the ethnocentric model of cohesive Jewish Diaspora group evolutionary strategies, as outlined in Kevin MacDonald’s works, as one possible model to follow for Whites who find themselves effectively equivalent to a stateless, diaspora people. There is much to say in favor of this, to an extent, although I note that the large amount of admixture which occurred with Jews at the beginning of their diaspora would be unacceptable for European preservationism, although the later stress on endogamy of course is exemplary.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I will suggest an approach based at least in part on Codreanu’s Legionary movement. One could envision a pan-European, trans-national movement, highly elite, comradely and collectivist in orientation, with an emphasis on productive action, creating a higher form of man, with a defined style of living.  In a sense, this legion would be analogous to some of the trans-national and pan-European crusading orders of the past as well as recreating the best aspects of Codreanu’s movement, adjusted for modern times (e.g., pan-European, rejecting universalist ethos, etc.). All of the differences between Codreanu’s movement and the failed racial nationalist “movement” of today (particularly the American variant) that I discussed in my book review (linked to above) would be relevant here: all the best of Codreanu’s movement would be embraced and all the flotsam and jetsam of contemporary racial and ethnic nationalism would be absolutely eschewed. Such a movement would provide the elite leadership to the stateless masses of the world-wide White minority, guiding Whites through the dangers inherent in their status as a people without any nation states of their own. Such a movement would help to bind Whites worldwide in a brotherhood of solidarity – while of course absolutely rejecting White traitors – and will draw a hard line against any miscegenation between ethnic Europeans and those newcomers who have invaded White lands. With this Legion at the head, Whites – or at least racially conscious Whites – would be bound to each other through ties of race and culture and of a shared history, as well as of shared problems and the shared sacrifices necessary for survival. While respecting and preserving the distinctiveness that exists between different European groups, and honoring the histories of the lost nations of Europe, this Legion and the masses it leads will absolutely reject the intra-European divisiveness that led the race and civilization to their sorry state (and the sorry state we are in right now, already, even before the final defeat).  Faced with existential threats to race and civilization, promotion of retrograde blood feuds among Europeans would be considered treason or madness, and treated as such (I would argue this should be applied today as well, and if it was, perhaps the scenario discussed here would not have to occur at all).  Just as Codreanu’s movement aimed at creating a new type of Romanian, the movement described here would aim at creation of a new type of European, a change in mind, a change in attitude, a change of spirit.  In the fires of defeat, a new type of White Man will be forged to deal with the dangers of new realities, realities created by behavior that would be, finally, recognized as defective and rejected. No more pathological altruism, no more surrender, no more universalist ethos, no more groveling to the world of color while fighting fellow Whites – no more stupidity and no more error. It will take a special kind of elite to do these things, and that is what is proposed here.

Now, of course, I believe we should be doing off of this this now, to prevent the fate of dispossession from occurring in the first place. Indeed, I believe we should do this even in the event of a total White racial victory, not only to prevent the racial crisis from ever happening again, but also simply because it is the right thing to do, especially after World Wars I and II.  In the end, this was the over-riding objective of the currently defunct Legion Europa project – a project which, in the last analysis, ran afoul of the “movement’s” affirmative action program. Thanks, “movement.”

An aside: I must say this to those who champion petty nationalism, who believe that narrow ethnic nationalism is the key to survival: now is as good as time as any to see your thesis demonstrated. Various European ethnies still have control of their nation states, they are still the majority, and in certain European nations, ethnic nationalist political parties exist. I suggest, I urge, I implore for these ethnic nationalists to use the power of narrow ethnic appeal to stop the invasion of Europe.  While that would not prove that ethnic nationalism is the way of the future, and would not prove it superior to racial nationalism, it would at least prove that ethnic nationalism has some utility, that is has sufficient power to at least temporarily arrest the demographic eclipse, the outright invasion, of the relevant narrow ethnies such nationalisms are concerned with. The time to do that is now. If you cannot even do that, if narrow petty nationalism cannot even motivate an ethny in the midst of an existential crisis, then what good does it have at all?

Summary: If and when Europeans become effectively stateless, when they loss control of all the institutions they have built, then the only thing they will be able to depend upon will be each other. The only thing that will ensure survival is each other. The only thing that can hold out the promise of taking back, or creating, nation states for themselves, is each other. It would be optimal to learn that lesson now, before the final Fall of the West, but if the only way to learn is through the bitter experience of total dispossession, so be it. If World Wars I and II were not sufficient lessons, and apparently they were not, more painful and humiliating lessons are just around the corner.

Conclusion: This essay is in no way meant as any sort of comprehensive analysis of this question; it is instead merely meant to “wake up” relevant individuals and groups to the necessity to ask the question and come up with some answers.  However, in the process of doing so, I outline, in very broad terms, one possible approach – the Legionary elite leadership approach - to consider as a possibility in dealing with a post-national White future.

Comments on Religion and Suprahumanism

Replying to comment.

Read here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Very Important Comments by Duchesne

Worth reading and considering.

Read here.

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

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

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

Color Revolution Cook Book

Good essay on strategy and tactics.

Read here.

GOP Primaries: Immigration Politics

Sallis article.

Read here.

White Advocacy and Conversion

Aspects of the conversion process.

Important Kevin MacDonald essay.

Ruthless Intolerance

It's time to say "NO" to the defectives.

Identifying defectives is an important first step.  What's next?

Ironically, a key flaw in the racialist "movement" is an excess of tolerance.  Tolerance for defectives. Tolerance for Internet trolls.  Tolerance for agent provocateurs.  Tolerance for every type of stupidity and abnormality possible.  Some activists are so desperate for "followers," so desperate for someone who will (pretend to) agree with them, so eager for "members," so desperate for any illusory progress, that they will accept - nay, embrace! - all of the aforementioned defective and infiltrator types, and then wonder why progress comes to a halt and why the normal and productive become alienated.

Thus, the "vicious circle" begins: the defectives are embraced and populate the "movement," followed by an exodus of the positive and productive elements, reinforcing the defectiveness, alienating more of the normal and creating such an unattractive environment that most who join are themselves ranked among the defective.

It is - or should be - clear that the only way to break this negative cycle is a policy of ruthless intolerance toward defectives, toward trolls, toward backwards memes, toward all the nonsense that has been "business as usual" in the "movement" for decades.

Oh, yes, "movement" "leaders" play lip service to the idea of "eschew the defectives" but they never follow up on it.  They don't want to lose any of their precious "followers" or "members" - funny how a "movement" that values an "elite" and "quality over quantity" is so afraid to sacrifice numbers for progress - and they never want to take a stand on issues that may reduce the possible range of their support.  In fact, the same "leaders" who promote "elitism" and complain about defectives are often the same who tell us we need to accept "eccentric personalities" among the overt racialists, since we must accept that only the eccentric will populate the upper echelons of "open and public" racialist leadership.  Do they ever wonder why that is? Why after decades of racialist activism we've never built up the sort of socioeconomic support structures that would allow overt activists to resist social pricing?  Which would allow more of the non-eccentric to rise to leadership? Is it perhaps because of the decades-long acceptance of "eccentrics" who are unable to accomplish anything, and who dwell upon cephalic indices or Kali Yuga instead of the practical work of building a sustainable, long-term real Movement?

No, we should be less tolerant of eccentric behavior in our overt leaders, not more.  With the power and prestige (such as it is in the "movement") of leadership must come responsibility.  If one cannot restrain their "eccentric" behavior for the common good, what kind of leadership is that?

It is time to say "NO" to "movement" freakishness.  It is time for a ruthless intolerance for "movement" stupidity.  Enough is enough.  No more of the eccentrics.  No more about Kali Yuga, esoteric gnostic nonsense, narrow ethnoracial nitpicking.  Enough with those who promote juvenile cartoon histories of race and culture. We should stop tolerating those who use racial activism for a platform for their narrow obsessions - moon landing hoax, smoking doesn't cause cancer, animal rights, the USA has a carrying capacity of three billion people at a First World standard of living, Asiaphilic HBDism, Hindu spiritualism, extreme lowbrow vulgarism, comic book versions of history repeating the same predictable ethnoracial fantasies from "year one" - we need to say, finally, no. No. No more.  If some want to indulge in that, we need to separate ourselves from them - after all, isn't separatism a good thing? - and go our own way.  

What we need to do is take all the endless talk about elitism and quality and the problem with defectives and actualize it into strategy and policy.  We must have the sort of ruthless intolerance toward stupidity and failure that history shows us wins battles and wins wars.  If "movement" "leaders" cannot clean out the insane asylum - perhaps because they themselves are inmates - it's time to start over with something new. Something new in which intolerance toward the failure of the past is integrated from the start.

Step one is to say "NO" and break with the Past.  Then we can begin to shape the Future.

Identifying Defectives

Defectives : who are they?

Many in the "movement" play lip service to "excluding defectives" - but of course they never do it, giving said defectives pride of place within organizations, blogs, websites, comments threads, etc. One can define "defective" in such a way as to exclude even the worst "movement" misfits, and it is always "someone else" at "some other blog" or in "some other organization" who is the defective, never one of your own.

How then to effectively define "defective" in the context of racial nationalism?

A defective is someone whose ideas and/or behavior will repulse, alienate, and turn-off most White people independent of racial nationalism.

The last four words of the definition are crucially important.  We acknowledge that just being pro-White is itself often enough to repulse many Whites and is enough to have one be considered "defective" by the mainstream.  What I'm saying is let's eliminate that variable.  Let's look at the person above and beyond their racial nationalism.  Forget all about their pro-White activism.  Is there anything else - anything independent of pro-White attitudes - that would make the person truly defective?  That's the key.  If we are pro-White, then that's a given and whether or not pro-White attitudes are considered "defective" by the mainstream is irrelevant, since we still need to promote pro-White memes.  But that should not, and must not, be complicated by truly defective ideas and behaviors that have nothing directly to do with being pro-White.

The Pareto Principle

Sallis essay about racial nationalism.

Read here.

Masters of the Universe Speech

Kurtagic speech.

See here.

Lessons of Michael Collins

Lessons for revolutionaries.

Read here.

Some Tactical Points

Several more “tactical” points.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Slime Mould to Rhizome

Counter-Currents article on Griffin's interesting piece on the "groupuscular right."

Here.

Learning from Codreanu's Mistakes

A coherent ideology and a plan for governing are required.

Here.

The 10% Rule?

Is 10% enough?

See here.

This was reviewed in Science magazine, and the "take home message" seems to be as follows (assuming this theory is correct): if at least 10% of a populations holds a belief with an "unshakable conviction" then this belief will eventually win out against competitors and become the dominant meme in that population.

This seems consistent with the idea that history is made by an elite minority - an example given is the American "Civil Rights" movement, which "took off" once 10% of the Negro population became absolutely committed to the idea.

The implications for ethnic and racial nationalism are obvious since this suggests that if a minority (10+ %) of the target population can be convinced to become "true believers" in the nationalist cause, then eventual victory could be achieved.

The "catch" is "unshakable conviction." We are not talking about folks who are displeased by things, but then go and vote for an "electable conservative." We are not talking about "implicit whiteness," "Tea Party," or any other watered down substitute for nationalist fervor. Nor are we talking about the typical "movement activist" - usually only "unshakable" in their stupidity. But, 1 in 10 people who espouse intelligent, rational, disciplined, focused, hardcore "militant" nationalism - may that be enough?

The Politics of Resentment

Excellent Greg Johnson piece.

Here.

Race Traitors, "Good Blood," and the Ethnostate

Punishment required to dissuade free-riding.

There is some disagreement in the "movement" with respect to the question of what to do with "race traitors" after the establishment of a "white ethnostate" - particularly, what to do if such traitors have "good blood" (i.e., good genes, presumably established via phenotype and/or ancestry).

The "Turner Diaries" school of thought is that all such traitors must be punished, "good blood" or not. Other milder perspectives would eschew the bloodthirsty revenge aspects of the "Diaries" but would still insist on expulsion of all traitors, who would be free to live amongst the "diversity" they profess to desire and admire.

However, another school of thought says that "good blood" trumps all, and that we need to have and use the good genes of such traitors even if we dislike the actions of the person. This is said to be the truly "National Socialist" way of thinking. After all, it's all about the "blood," no? This view of course disregards the possibility that (treasonous) behavior, hyper-individualist selfishness and lack of racial altruism, and tendencies toward "liberal" political views, may themselves be genetically encoded and, hence, perhaps signs that the "blood" is not as good as presumed. We'll put that aside for now and concentrate on the main question of whether "good blood" (so defined) should trump actual behavior.

I myself am on the side of the punishment meme, for the reason that free-riding on racial nationalism needs to be repressed if racial nationalism is going to become an adaptive and evolutionarily stable strategy.

Free-riding is essentially taking advantage of a collective good (e.g., group continuity, racial nationalism, the ethnostate) without contributing anything to producing, maintaining, and/or defending that good. Actually, free-riding can be subdivided into "lazy-riding" and "cross-riding" - in the former, the free-rider neither helps nor harms the collective good, in the latter the free-rider actively opposes and harms the good in question. When talking about race treason we focus on this latter group of free-riders: the "cross-riders" who actively harm the race and its needs and objectives. After all, "lazy riders" make up the bulk of the population, who will go in whatever direction they are led; like it or not, we need that herd. Therefore, henceforth in this essay, "free-riding" will refer to treasonous "cross-riding."

Now, the top elite of racial nationalists can be said to be idealistic racial altruists (for the most part), but the bulk of the people - those "lazy-riders" - need some incentive to join racial nationalism. We want them to join us and not the "cross-riders." If we are willing to forgive the race traitors as long as they have "good blood" then we are enabling the worst form of free-riding, and we encourage those in the general population who believe that they may also have "good blood" to also behave badly. Why not? They can "have their cake and eat it too." By being race traitors they can enjoy advantages in the current multiculturalist regime and, if by chance the "racists" win, nothing to worry about, their "good blood" will protect them! Those who ("good blood" or not) make sacrifices for the race and support racial nationalism when it is an unpopular dissident creed have no advantage whatsoever compared to the vilest traitor openly promoting white racial genocide.

This is not an evolutionarily stable strategy - without serious detection and punishment of free-riding, the free-riders will out-compete and crowd out altruists, altruistic strategies and behaviors, altruistic memes, and, eventually, altruistic genes.

Race treason must have serious consequences - even if it is limited to expulsion from a white ethnostate - if such extreme forms of free-riding are to be successfully defeated. Otherwise, many people will just defect to the multiculturalists secure in the knowledge that they will win either way.

Some may invoke a "technological" solution - punish the traitors but after harvesting sperm, eggs, DNA, etc. This "sci-fi" approach is unlikely to be practical in the circumstances inherent in the formation of a new society and the unrest and upheaval (and hard feelings) involved. Even if it were practical, the consequences would need to be considered. Who will bear and raise the offspring of the traitors? Who will keep the secret? And in an ethnostate that values genetic continuity, genetic interests, and adaptive behavior - isn't allowing this genetic continuity of the traitors in the ethnostate still a form of free riding? Even if the traitors do not perceive it as an advantage, others will, and thus encourage more free-riding among those who may otherwise act differently.

What about letting the traitors themselves stay, but in a degraded, lowly position? Is this really practical? What kind of "quality" offspring will be produced - even with "good blood" - from such a degraded position? Will the children be taken from them and raised elsewhere? Is this desirable? Feasible? It raises many of the objections as the "sci-fi" alternative broached above.

In summary, the best, most desirable, and feasible approach is punishment for the traitors, sacrificing a bit of "good blood" for the greater good of the racial community, protecting the collective good inherent in that community by suppressing free-riding.

Johnson on Why Conservatives Can't Win

Insightful.

Here.

The core of Pierce’s argument is that conservatives can’t win because they aren’t really trying. The left plays for keeps. They have an overriding goal. They have a world to win. Conservatives are just trying to hold on to the 1950s or the 1980s. Conservatives may fight ferociously from time to time, but they are always playing defense. They think the election of a Nixon or a Reagan is a great victory, then lapse into complacency, only to awaken a few years later to find that the left has been on the march the whole time.

Other things being equal, the side that fights to win will defeat the side that fights for a draw. Fortune favors the bold, those who launch offenses, not those who merely play defense.

Conservatives also make a virtual cult out of being good sports, graceful losers, and ready compromisers.