Universal Nationalism vs. National Socialism: Know Your Investments

Arguments for NS.

In On Genetic Interests, Salter’s charts of genetic investment options has Universal Nationalism (UN) as Self>Offspring>Ethny>Humanity (although things may shift dependent upon context) and National Socialism (NS) as Self=Ethny>Offspring>Humanity=0 (no investment in humanity at all).

I’m not sure that the relatively depressed Offspring investment compared to Self for NS is accurate, as that ideology was pro-natalist, although I would agree that the relative depression of Self, Offspring, and Humanity compared to Ethny is accurate, at least for NS as practiced in Hitler’s Germany. Although the heightened emphasis on Ethny is a fundamental feature of NS, one may consider that this is context-dependent as is UN’s investments. Would the high degree of ethnic mobilization in NS Germany have continued if they had won the war? Or, more fundamentally, is extreme ethnic mobilization (and absence of any investment in humanity whatsoever) an invariant feature of NS, or particular to one regime at one period of time?

I could envision a stabilized NS regime whose genetic investment profile is typically Self=Offspring=Ethny>Humanity, where Humanity is very low, but greater than zero.  And of course, this investment profile could be flexible, morphing into a more Salterian NS profile in times of ethnic crisis.

The question then is: is my modified “peacetime” NS investment profile better or worse than that typical of UN?  Or, perhaps better: can my NS profile serve as a form of UN that is more ethnocentric than the Self>Offspring>Ethny>Humanity  variety?

This is, I guess, a matter of taste.  One could argue that in the absence of ethnic crisis, even a Self=Offspring=Ethny>Humanity regime exhibits excessive and superfluous ethnic mobilization, that such levels may not be sustainable over time, and/or that having multiple ethnies with such profiles increases the risk of conflict.

Those are reasonable arguments, and food for thought for future discussion.  I would argue in favor of the more moderate NS profile based on my ‘take” that UN may be dangerous for less ethnocentric ethnies that are prone to altruistic humanism (i.e., Whites) and in the absence of sufficient ethnic mobilization, the slide from UN to Humanism may be too easy to occur.  Of course, too much ethnic mobilization may “burn out” less ethnocentric groups, so that some oscillation over time may be required (which would necessitate a managerial regime with long-term strategic vision and social planning on a wide scale, over historical time).  However, knowing how “weak” Whites tend to be, I’m more comfortable erring on the side of more ethnic mobilization, rather than less – for Whites this mobilization could be tempered by humanist impulses (which, admittedly, did not occur in the Hitlerian regime). Bur we are currently dying out due to a complete lack of ethnic mobilization, so I would say, at least for now, worrying about too much mobilization should not be a concern until such time (if ever) that the racial situation is so stabilized over time that a more traditional UN profile can come into being.

Starting with NS and ending up stabilized at UN is better than starting at UN prematurely, when racial dangers abound, and sliding back into Humanism.  If UN is flexible, then flexibility toward the NS direction may be prudent for as long as legitimate racial danger exist (note: it is possible that they may always exist).
Advertisements