O’Meara’s Introduction to Yockey’s The Proclamation of London

One critique.

Reading O’ Meara’s Introduction to the latest edition of Yockey’s The Proclamation of London, one unfortunately sees the anti-biological race problem rearing its head again.  The strawman argument is made that so-called biological racial materialism (the adherents of which – like myself – O’Meara doesn’t want to waste his breath on) is all about looking at humanity from the perspective of superiority/inferiority or of a strict genetic determinism.  That is true of Der Movement certainly, and, from a Judeophilic and Asian-worshiping perspective, also true of the HBDers.  But it is not true of a kinship-based racialism that takes the reasonable view that it is adaptive to pursue the promotion of interests of those most closely related to you (genetic kinship), modulated by the numbers involved. That is a core component of my ideology – the Salterian EGI component – of which that there can be no compromise.  Race exists, it is real, population groups differ, genetic kinship differs, and adaptive behavior is tied into the relative levels of that kinship.  Culture is of course extremely important – High Culture/Civilization (using the broad definition, not the strictly Spenglerian distinctions) that includes science/technics – is indeed the most important proximate interest, but genetic kinship is ultimate. I don’t care about, or care for, racial aliens who ape aspects of White Western Culture.  I care about racial Europeans.  When talking about a Race-Culture both aspects are important, and in the order shown: race, then culture.
O’Meara also makes the bizarre argument that racial classifications are arbitrary because Victorian Englishmen saw themselves as more racially similar to Jews than to the Irish.  But here O’Meara is confused, and points the finger of blame in the wrong direction.  What biological science actually says is that indeed the English and Irish are more similar, racially, than either are to Jews (or even to many other European – including NW European – groups).  This belief of Victorian Englishmen was cultural – more akin to the Yockey/Evola “spiritual race” concept than to anything else.  Therefore, O’Meara uses this example of cultural race stupidity to indict biological racial materialism – even though biological racial materialism gives the right answer, and cultural race gives the wrong answer.  The example given is actually supportive of the importance of genetic kinship.  One can also state that total Identity is composed of both biological and cultural characteristics, and that today any racially aware Englishmen would consider himself more similar to the Irish either biologically or culturally than to Jews.
To be fair, apart from this issue, O’Meara’s Introduction is quite good.  This nevertheless is important and the critique, in my opinion, justified.
Advertisements