Category: fascism

The Alt Yellow

Exposing the racial sexual fetishism underlying “movement” and HBD politics.

Sallis right again…and, no, I don’t get tired of writing that.

Readers of this blog are aware that I have been very critical of the pro-Asian precincts of the “movement.”

Thus I have continuously asserted:

1. Certain precincts of Der Movement – including but not limited to Alt Wrong HBD/race realists, certain Alt Righters, Type I activists, some Nutzis, and the Silk Roaders – are pro-Asian (mostly East Asian), are obsessed with Asians (particularly Asian females), and value Asians over either all Whites or over some subset of Whites (White ethnics).  Some actually call themselves “yellow supremacists.”

2. Pro-Asian “White racial activists” tend to be derived from ethnic groups associated with “high trust hunter gatherer” ancestry.

3. As suggested above, these tend to be people who are Type I activists ideologically, Type I activists as regards character (the Beavis-and-Butthead brigade) or the most pure Type I activist that combines both ideological and character components.  In fact, I would like to make an important modification of my typology scheme here.  Only people who are Type II in both ideology and character should be classified as Type II activists.  Everyone else are Type I.  Even though I believe ideology trumps character, the “taint” of Type I character is so strong that an activist with a Type II ideology and a Type I character is effectively, functionally, Type I.  

4. As suggested above, there is an underlying Yellow Fever sexual fetishism here; the pro-Asian attitudes are tied to a history of sexual interest in East Asian females.

5. Indeed, many of these types have a documented history of dating and/or marrying East Asian females.

How do the facts square with Sallistrian assertion?

Read this.  Emphasis added:

The white supremacists on the far right have “yellow fever” — an Asian woman fetish. It’s a confusing mix.

Andrew Anglin, the founder of the neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer, once posted a video of himself with a Filipina he called “my jailbait girlfriend,” the young couple flirting as they sauntered through a megamall in the Philippines. Richard Spencer, a white nationalist, has dated a series of Asian-American women, according to one of his ex-girlfriends. (Mr. Spencer insists that it was before he embraced white nationalism.)

The right-wing agitator Mike Cernovich, the writer John Derbyshire and an alt-right figure named Kyle Chapman (so notorious for swinging a lead-filled stick at Trump opponents at a protest in Berkeley, Calif., that he is now a meme) are all married to women of Asian descent. As a commenter wrote on an alt-right forum, “exclusively” dating Asian women is practically a “white-nationalist rite of passage.”

Saint Adolf:

“I have never regarded the Chinese or the Japanese as being inferior to ourselves,” Adolf Hitler said in 1945. “They belong to ancient civilizations, and I admit freely that their past history is superior to our own.”

Of course, Slavs are “subhuman” but Chinese and Japanese are ever-so-superior.  Hitler: Type I Nutzi.

Then we have that “high trust hunter gatherer” Charles Murray (emphasis added):

Murray left for the Peace Corps in Thailand in 1965, staying abroad for a formative six years.] At the beginning of this period, the young Murray kindled a romance with his Thai Buddhist language instructor (in Hawaii), Suchart Dej-Udom, the daughter of a wealthy Thai businessman, who was “born with one hand and a mind sharp enough to outscore the rest of the country on the college entrance exam.” Murray subsequently proposed by mail from Thailand, and their marriage began the following year, a move that Murray now considers youthful rebellion. “I’m getting married to a one-handed Thai Buddhist,” he said. “This was not the daughter-in-law that would have normally presented itself to an Iowa couple.”
Murray credits his time in the Peace Corps in Thailand with his lifelong interest in Asia. “There are aspects of Asian culture as it is lived that I still prefer to Western culture, 30 years after I last lived in Thailand,” says Murray. “Two of my children are half-Asian. Apart from those personal aspects, I have always thought that the Chinese and Japanese civilizations had elements that represented the apex of human accomplishment in certain domains.

Of course, Murray’s own book on “human accomplishment” – despite his attempt to “cook the books” – tells a different story, does it not?  The apex of human accomplishment in almost all domains is a bit further west than China and Japan, no?

And…”youthful rebellion?”  Yeah, it produced two mixed-race children and a pro-Asian attitude “30 years after.” Murray: the Type I political scientist.  “Youthful rebellion”  – with consequences that last a lifetime.  How about some responsibility and accountability, Chuck? What a turd.

And will you all deny that HBD is a pro-Asian (and pro-Jewish) political movement in large part fueled by Yellow Fever enthusiasts (Murray, Derbyshire, Brand) and their associates (Sailer – who once claimed to be part-Jewish, the penis sized-obsessed Rushton, and pseudoscientist joke Lynn, never mind the “I come from an inbred group” HBD Chick and the triracial and part-Asian mongrel Jayman).

By the way, I’ve personally known quite a few White males (not men), all in STEM, married to Orientals.  Not a single one is “normal;” they are all – ALL – what Derbyshire self-labels as “awkward squad.”  All of them are socially awkward weaklings whose wives “wear the pants” in the family.  Yes, yes, I know: anecdotal evidence.  But how much do you want to bet that a quantitative psychometric study will demonstrate clear personality differences between Yellow Fever race-mixers and the rest of us?

Also read this, emphasis added:

But Spencer’s evolution into a hardcore ethno-nationalist was perhaps not as seamless as he makes it seem. In late 2007, he dated a woman who is Asian American. The two met when she was working for Ron Paul’s presidential campaign.

“I am not the only Asian girl he has dated,” says Spencer’s ex, who spoke to me on the condition that her name not be disclosed. She said she’d initially been turned off by his talk of race-based behavioral differences, but she eventually softened to the idea. They dated for four months, including a trip she took with him to Texas to attend his high school reunion. She says she eventually broke up with him, but not because he was too politically radical. “We all have inconsistencies,” she said. “Especially with love. How can you control your heart?”

I asked Spencer about his Asian ex as he was digging into a bowl of Thai noodles at an eclectic restaurant in the quaint downtown of Whitefish. He seemed shocked that I’d brought it up, and peppered me with questions about how I’d found out. “I would rather you didn’t write about that,” he said, adding later: “You are probably going to nail me with this…I think some people in the movement would probably find that terrible.” He confirmed that she was not the only Asian woman he’d been with, but he said the relationships predated his evolution into a white nationalist.

Though Spencer now opposes interracial relationships, white nationalists have long looked east for inspiration—Hitler regarded Chinese and Japanese history as “superior to our own.” Jared Taylor and William Johnson, the leader of the white nationalist American Freedom Party, both speak fluent Japanese. “There is something about the Asian girls,” Spencer said. “They are cute. They are smart. They have a kind of thing going on. If I am looking at my own life objectively, it really doesn’t surprise me that much.”

Let me explain the problem, what is “terrible.” The real problem here is not that Spencer dated some Asians before he became a WN.  After all, he dated them, not married them, and he did not procreate with them. OK, fine. But please Richard, be a man, admit your error. You would get more respect from the “movement” if you would just say “look, I was young, I was not a WN, I used poor judgment, and I made some mistakes.  It was wrong, I regret it, and it certainly will never happen again.”  Instead, we get justifications: “There is something about the Asian girls,” Spencer said. “They are cute. They are smart. They have a kind of thing going on. If I am looking at my own life objectively, it really doesn’t surprise me that much.”

So…what?  If some female mudshark makes similar excuses for dating Tyrone Carjacker, should we just blithely accept that as well?  Yes, Negroes are worse than Asians, and, yes, female miscegenation can be considered worse since females are the bottleneck for reproduction.  But, as regards principle, it’s the same thing.  ADMIT YOUR MISTAKE.  DO NOT ATTEMPT TO JUSTIFY IT.  Do you guys really need to be told that?

I mean, if Spencer “now opposes interracial relationships,” then obviously he has to consider those past relationships of his a mistake.  Therefore, it’s obvious that one must take responsibility for it.  But, alas, responsibility and accountability is not what the “movement” is about now, is it? And the Asian claims she broke up with him, not the other way around.  Accountability?

These are your “leaders” and heroes, by the way.  Good luck with a “pro-White” “movement” that values Yellow over White, and that consists of activists who think dating Orientals is a “rite of passage.”

Type I activists have dominated American racial nationalism and has led it down into the toilet.  Keep on supporting them though, that’ll do wonders to “advance the cause.”



Straight From the Horse’s Mouth

A tacit admission.

Greg Johnson writes the following, emphasis added:

“I am in fact a Hobbit.”—J. R. R. Tolkien 

John Ronald Reuel Tolkien is a favorite author of New Left “hippies” and New Right nationalists, and for pretty much the same reasons. Tolkien deeply distrusted modernization and industrialization, which replace organic reciprocity between man and nature with technological dominion of man over nature, a relationship that deforms and devalues both poles. 

But philosophically and politically, Tolkien was much closer to the New Right than the New Left. Tolkien was a conservative and a race realist. His preferences ran toward non-constitutional monarchy in the capital and de facto anarchy in the provinces, but he recognized that state control can be minimized only in a society with a deep reverence for tradition and a high regard for individual honor and self-restraint. 

Many of Tolkien’s most fervent New Right admirers are neo-pagans...The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, with their many themes from Norse and Celtic mythology, resonate especially with pagans… 

…For those who need no introduction, there is no better commemoration than to spend a winter evening snug in one’s own Hobbit hole reading the works of the man himself (or watching Peter Jackson’s masterly and inspiring movies of The Lord of the Rings).

That is of course the equivalent of Johnson saying: “I am in fact a Type I activist.”  And that’s a designation I already made, did I not?

Certain Alt Right ethnonationalists mimic Hitler to the extent that they are ideologically Type I but have the “bookish” and intellect-oriented Type II character.  

It is clear who I was talking about there.  Ideologically Type I indeed, and ideology trumps “character” every time.  It’s ideology that determines the direction of the “movement.”  Personality and character set a tone, but the actual content, the actual meaning, the actual outcomes – that’s all directly derived from ideology.

Some tell-tale signs to distinguish Type I from Type II fascists:

Serious sci/fi fantasy:

Type I: Lord of the Rings

Type II: Book of the New Sun

They who control Der Movement.

More I vs. II

Informative side-by-side comparisons.

Some tell-tale signs to distinguish Type I from Type II fascists:

Serious sci/fi fantasy:

Type I: Lord of the Rings

Type II: Book of the New Sun

General sci/fi fantasy:

Type I: Harry Potter

Type II: Dying Earth (Jack Vance), Voyage of the Space Beagle

Literary trickster/rogue:

Type I: Loki

Type II: Cugel

Favorite Fascist:

Type I: Adolf Hitler

Type II: Francis Parker Yockey


Type I: Roissy


Favorite historical weapon:

Type I: Viking axe

Type II: Nuclear tipped missile

Outdated yet technically intriguing weapon system that needs to be updated with more modern technology:

Type I: trebuchet

Type II: SLAM missile

Favorite “movement” books:

Type I: The Dispossessed Majority, March of the Titans, The Turner Diaries, Mein Kampf

Type II: Imperium, On Genetic Interests

Genotype vs. Phenotype:

Type I: Phenotype

Type II: Genotype 


Type I: Thinks it’s great; all hail the God Emperor

Type II: The most stupidly juvenile nonsense imaginable

How Trump won PA and the election in 2016:

Type I: Caravans of Amish horse and buggies descended on the voting stations

Type II: Actually studied voting patterns and notes that Trump gained the required votes in “coal country” that is full of working class White ethnics

Type of Fascism:

Type I: Feudal Traditionalism

Type II: Avant-Garde Futurism

American Literature:

Type I: Tom Buchanan in The Great Gatsby

Type II: Captain Ahab in Moby Dick

The Watchmen:

Type I: The Comedian

Type II: Rorschach

Marvel Comics:

Type I: Deadpool

Type II: The Mad Thinker

DC Comics:

Type I: Superman

Type II: Batman


Type I: Babe Ruth

Type II: Ty Cobb

Afrowop Philosopher:

Type I: Julius Evola

Type II: Giovanni Gentile

Ancient “ius”:

Type I: Arminius

Type II: Marius

Favorite East Asian export:

Type I: women

Type II: Gigantor

Mafia moves:

Type I: Goodfellas

Type II: Godfather

Corleone family:

Type I: Sonny

Type II: Michael

Upper arm exercises:

Type I: biceps curl

Type II: triceps extension

Christmas cartoon characters:

Type I: Yukon Cornelius

Type II: Grinch


Type I: 300

Type II: Gates of Fire

Psychological aberration:

Type I: Psychopathy

Type II: Moralpathy

Serial killers:

Type I: Ted Bundy

Type II: Zodiac

Animal protein:

Type I: red meat

Type II: chicken and fish

Typical dessert:

Type I: candy bar

Type II: fruit

Cake vs. Pie:

Type I: cake

Type II: pie


Type I: rat

Type II: beaver or porcupine

Venomous snake:

Type I: rattlesnake

Type II: cobra

Twin Peaks:

Type I: Sheriff Truman

Type II: Agent Cooper

Mighty Max:

Type I: Norman

Type II: Virgil

Body form: 

Type I: mesomorph

Type II: ectomorph


Type I: contacts, Lasik

Type II: eyeglasses


Type I: Aryan uberfrau

Type II: genocidal lunatic


Type I: science

Type II: pseudoscience


Type I: Land of the Gods

Type II: Yellow Peril

Fictional English spy/secret agent:

Type I: James Bond

Type II: George Smiley


Type I: Low IQ, Gypsyized, non-Westerners

Type II: A European people that produced Codreanu and Mota


Type I: Low IQ, mongrel, Arab Afrowops

Type II: A European people that are an integral part of the West

Fascist Typology

Bardeche’s Type I and Type II

Coogan’s Dreamer of the Day includes a quote from Bardeche’s Suzanne et le Tandis (Suzanne and the Slums), in the chapter: “Le Fascisme International” that seems more complete and accurate (and free from spelling and grammar errors) than the version popping up on the Alt Right.  This quote includes:

I have known, after Clarence, very many “fascists,” for the race is not dead. Some of them had boots, they were familiar with the runes, and they camped out on the night of the solstice in order to sing under the stars the beautiful solemn songs of their ancestors. The others did not have boots, they held up their skinny reformers’ heads severely, they wore glasses, they collected cards, and they made furious speeches. All were poor, they believed, they fought, they detested lying and injustice.

The precise translation is less important than the general point being made; an important distinction between different fascist archetypes, even though it is made in a bemused fashion, in jest, and even though I’m sure Bardeche didn’t mean to focus on that distinction in his  quote.  Nevertheless, regardless of intention and style, there is food for thought here.

Thus, Bardeche correct identifies two archetypes of fascists; thus:

Type I: Some of them had boots, they were familiar with the runes, and they camped out on the night of the solstice in order to sing under the stars the beautiful solemn songs of their ancestors.

Type II: The others did not have boots, they held up their skinny reformers’ heads severely, they wore glasses, they collected cards, and they made furious speeches.

To translate into a context more familiar to the racial nationalist “movement” of today: Type I would be a pure representation of a type that would tend to include: ethnonationalists, Nordicists, Traditionalists, ethnic fetishists, and Hitler worshippers; while Type II would be a pure representation of a type that would tend to include: pan-Europeanists, Futurists, and Imperium-oriented Yockeyites.

Type I, in its purest representation, would tend to be an extroverted, action-oriented mesomorph; Type II would be an introverted, intellect-oriented ectomorph (not sure where endomorphs would fit in, as so many of them tend to be leftists to begin with).

That is not to say that Type I activists are never intellectual, nor that Type II activists are devoid of action, simply that on a spectrum, Type I are relatively action > intellect and Type II are relatively intellect > action.

Bardeche classified both types as: All were poor, they believed, they fought, they detested lying and injustice.  That may be true, although I think the “they detested lying and injustice” part applies mostly to Type II.  It are the Type II activists who would tend to be more of the Moralpath type.  Type I activists would tend to be more pragmatists, being as they are more action-oriented in any case.  While both types include Vangaurdists, Mainstreamers are almost exclusively Type I.  Type II activists, with their severe affect and furious speeches (or, today, blog posts – “crazed and bitter,” eh?), are hardly the Mainstreamer type.

While most activists would tend to have some traits of both types, they would be skewed in one direction or another.  

Some more or less “pure” types exist.  Your host, Ted Sallis, is a more or less a pure Type II. Francis Parker Yockey himself was a Type II.  Most Anglosphere activists in Der Movement are definitely Type I, certainly in the USA. The Alt Right, with all its intellectual pretensions, is actually heavily represented by Type I activists, at least among the rank-and-file.  In general, Type I’s will outnumber Type IIs, the latter being a distinct minority.

Leaders are a mixed bag, and historical fascist leaders have shown mixed characteristics of both types.  Most interesting is when there is a distinct mismatch between ideology and personality; the person has the ideology of one fascist type, but the personality of another.  This is a crucially important point.  While Bardeche’s quote delves mostly into personality, it bleeds into ideology: those boot-wearing activists obsessed with runes, ancestral songs, and the solstice (as well as Viking horns and mead, eh?) would tend to gravitate toward ethnonationalist and/or Nordicist ideologies, and be enamored of “traditionalism,” while those idealists with their skinny severe reformer heads, furious speeches, glasses and other introvert tendencies (card-collecting being a metaphor for introverted intellectualism) would tend to gravitate toward pan-Europeanism, Futurism and other manifestations of avant-garde politics, and visions of Imperium.  

Personality and ideology are often linked, but when the linkage breaks down, all sorts of strange fascistic hybrids are observed.  For example, Hitler politically was Type I, but his personality was more Type II.  Certain Alt Right ethnonationalists mimic Hitler to the extent that they are ideologically Type I but have the “bookish” and Intellect-oriented Type II character.  Conversely, some pan-European Alt Righters are the opposite: politically Type II but with Type I personalities. 

On the other hand, when personality and ideology more or less perfectly coincide, then from that synergy you get the “impossible” extreme Moralpath types – a Ted Sallis or a Francis Parker Yockey.

There is no doubt more to analyze on this topic but this is a useful beginning.

EGI and National Socialism, Part II

Further analysis of this issue.

In On Genetic Interests, Salter makes some comments about National Socialism, and fascism more generally, from the standpoint of EGI.  It’s worth looking at those.

Salter has some positive things to say about National Socialism: “…a revitalized social policy, full employment, rapid economic growth, an egalitarian class structure, and the salvaging of national pride…” as well as “economic and health benefits” that flowed from its “biological orientation.” But the “crimes” of National Socialism are such that OGI suggests that “an ethnicised constitution” should be abandoned if it necessarily led to such “crimes.”

National Socialism is criticized by Salter for having a sort of “mystical” conception of ethnic and racial differences, a non-scientific and non-statistical belief of completely disjunctive ethnic distinctions – considering (closely related) groups akin to different species.  Thus, Germans are Aryan supermen while Poles are subhumans, even though, particularly on the global scale, these two groups are actually quite similar (albeit not identical, there are differences at the group level – albeit with individual overlap).  Salter instead suggests a “demystified set of propositions based on objective truths revealed by science, truths concerning group identity and group interests, equally valid for all ethnies”  While I essentially agree with Salter, three points: (1) the “movement” as it currently exists really does not care much for such scientific “objective truths;” (2) related to point one, people are often motivated to act – including in their genetic interest  by more irrational ideals; and (3) noting stops an enlightened fascism from incorporating scientific objective truths, if it has the right leadership (although irrational emotion may also be used to motivate the masses…and perhaps the elites as well).

Salter criticizes fascism in general had having defective political institutions, which failed to prevent elite free-riding or constrained ethnic mobilization.  Thus, fascist elites used the escalation of ethnic and national tensions to consolidate their own power, selfishly putting the long-term genetic continuity and social stability of their people at risk for personal gain – or so Salter asserts. That fascist – especially National Socialist – regimes perhaps went too far with ethnic mobilization, overshooting the mark and starting wars with genetically similar neighboring ethnies, is a historical fact.  Salter considers fascism to be a “mass strategic blunder” – a “misdirected and overblown investment by citizens in their ethnies that forced other nations to unite against them.”  There’s some truth to that, but it’s really particularly rue only of Hitler’s Germany, not of fascist movements in general. Salter criticizes Hitler’s quixotic and destructive military adventures, to steal land from others to recreate some sort of Aryan medieval peasant society; without, as Salter asserts, democratic restraints, Hitler was able to force through his vision to the long-term detriment of his own people (and closely related European ethnies).

Essentially, Hitler’s regime was, according to Salter, a genetic interest over-inflated “bubble” (just like an over-heated stock market “bubble”) that burst, leaving Germans (and all other Europeans) worse off than before.  Salter writes: “an economic analogy is the speculative bubble, which can occur anywhere in the fitness portfolio, though risk rises steeply as fitness concentration declines.”  Salter identifies the historic manifestations of fascism in Germany and Italy as such bubbles: “Fascism is an over-investment in national interests at the cost of individual and foreign group interests.”

Salter’s graphs of alternative fitness portfolios shows National Socialism as sacrificing individual and human interests for an inflated investment in ethny; radial Christianity and communism sacrifice all for “humanity” – while of course we know that multiculturalism sacrifices the majority for minority interests.

Thus, while Salter criticizes fascism, he of course has perhaps even more harsh words for Marxism, which sacrificed the blood of its peoples not even to pursue group ethnic interests, but in the service of an anti-biological crazed humanism gone beyond any sane and reasonable limits.  It’s that same impulse that is destroying the West and tis peoples today.  And of course Salter would disapprove of a radical Christianity that ignores EGI; his opposition to multiculturalism as it is practiced by the System is of course well known.

There is some truth to Salter’s criticisms.  However, there is more to “fascism” than the bellicose policies of a Hitler or Mussolini. Other fascisms were more concentrated on improving native interests on the home front, without grant military adventuress abroad.  One could cite Codreanu’s movement in Romania, or fascist manifestations in, say, Spain, Ireland, Hungary, Norway, and the Baltic States.  Even the fascist movements of France and Britain more, at most, concerned with preserving already existing empire built by non-fascist (and even democratic) regimes; those fascisms had no grand schemes of fresh foreign conquests, particularly not against closely related European ethnies.  Thus, one need not correlate fascism with any speculative bubble defined by over-investment in narrow ethny resulting in individual sacrifices in wars to despoil other peoples.  I also note that democracies are not shy about mobilizing individuals to fight for the greater glory of both “principles” (typically humanistic) as well as the class interests of the wealthy.  One can find speculative bubbles in many ideologies, and, indeed as Salter states, throughout the fitness portfolio.

One could easily envision “fascism” that is scientifically accurate, based on objective truths (perhaps spiced up with some mass-mobilizing “irrationality”), so that’s not a major impediment to actualizing such regimes in a manner consistent with long term stability of genetic interests.  More to the point is the problem of defective political institutions, manifested in elite free-riding and runaway ethnic mobilization unrestrained by so-called “democratic checks and balances.”

Democratic institutions, which are favored in OGI, are hardly immune to some of the other defects attributed to fascist regimes.  Elite free-riding is a permanent fixture in liberal democracies, and is in fact one major driving force for the dispossession of Western peoples.  The elite Right globalists want cheap labor at the expense of the majority ethny, while the Left globalists essentially want to “elect a new people” based on mass immigration, so as to consolidate their own hold on power. In multicultural democracies, minority groups free ride on the majority; in more homogenous democratic nations, elite free-riding is both political and socioeconomic.  Runaway ethnic mobilization?  Certainly for minorities in multicultural states.  When the same elites – both native and alien – control all major political parties and control all the major levers of power, then “democratic institutions” are useless.  One could speculate that an “ethnic constitution” could obviate some of these difficulties – but good luck getting that done in the current “democratic” System.  Even so, if there is something fundamentally corrupt about democracy that causes elite free-riding (mendaciously masked as “free elections”), then perhaps an “ethnic constitution” or an “ethnic culture” (another option in OGI) would not be sufficient.

Getting back to national socialist-style fascist regimes, one can ask: can the problem of defective political institutions be solved?  I think yes, if we presume that the “fuhrer principle” is not an essential feature of such regimes.  One could them consider authoritarian/totalitarian political structures that can have checks and balances (e.g. the Soviet regime had power split between Party, KGB, and Army –with Stalin being an aberration) and be responsive to the (properly informed) will of the people.  I have always been intrigued by Fest’s talk of “totalitarian democracy” in his book on Hitler; point is, we can consider “fascism” broadly conceived as a flexible, living ideology and not as a fossilized, history artifact.  In this way, national socialist political structures can be envisioned that can control elite free-riders and constrain ethnic mobilization within reasonable limits. One need not resort to democracy – which has been discredited with the destructive evil of multiculturalism and mass migration – to ensure the stability of any future EGI-based regime.

EGI and National Socialism, Part I

Several definitions and an analysis.

Defining national socialism (small “n” small “s”): A collectivist authoritarian system centered on a race-based palingenetic ultranationalism.

In other words: racial fascism.

A more modern definition: An authoritarian political system that utilizes collectivist organization to promote the ethnic genetic interests of the population, in the context of palingenetic ultranationalism.

Note that, contrary to those who misread Salter’s work, a pursuit of genetic interests is wholly compatible with eugenics (which is traditionally important in national socialism), since a population’s fitness can be enhanced by replacing maladaptive, or even merely less adaptive, alleles with those more optimal. They key in preserving genetic interests in a manner compatible with eugenics is to avoid unnecessarily large and rapid genetic changes; when directed (eugenic) change occurs it should be “just enough” to get achieve the desired goal (and no further)  Superfluous changes and, certainly, large-scale genetic replacement, must be avoided.

In On Genetic Interests, Salter is critical of historical National Socialism and Fascism as vehicles for genetic interests, and his criticisms have some validity.  In particular, Hitler was a reckless gambler with the genetic interests of the German people, endangering long-term stability in a quixotic quest to colonize Eastern Europe and set up a Germanic archaeo-futurist peasant society on the lands of Russia and Ukraine.

However, the historical actualization , in a given place in a given time, by flawed leadership, of particular political philosophies does not logically lead one to conclude that the underlying political philosophy itself is either good or bad for a specific purpose. What political philosophy extant since WWII has proven itself capable of preserving Western genetic interests?  None.  One can also point out that certain inter-war fascisms, such as Condreanu’s Legionary movement, were not based in a foundation of hegemonic militarism, but were rather focused on internal renewal and thus did not characterize reckless gambling with national genetic interests.  So to my mind national socialism/fascism, correctly implemented, are still “in the running” as political systems capable of promoting EGI.

What about the argument that these “extreme” political philosophies are unrealistic, that “the average White person won’t accept them.”   Let’s be realistic, and not the crazed dreamers mocked by Roger Griffin in his works on fascism.  The most minimal objectives of racial nationalism – even stringent ethnonationalism – are today completely unrealistic and would be rejected by the large majority of Whites.  However, if – and that is a big if – these objectives could ever be realized, it would be during and after a period of extreme crisis, a collapse (slow or fast, partial or complete) of the System, a situation in which Whites driven to the wall by dispossession and the hostility of the now-decaying System, would be willing to listen to reason.  At this time, the sheeple will be considerably less picky about what forms of government they would, or would not, be willing to accept.  Also keep in mind Shakespeare’s “a rose by any other name” admonition – if the tenets of national socialism are actualized under some other name, fine, if it’s called Futurist Collectivism or Western Patriotism or Klassen’s Racial Socialism, or something else entirely, all well and good.  And if the lemmings are at such a condition they would not care if they rallied behind overtly named national socialism, all well and good as well.

This discussion will most likely continue in future posts.

Bowden: Never Apologize

Mostly wise words.

There’s some good material here.  First, a concise and useful contrast between Right and Left – not based on “economics” – but based on the (true) Right’s belief in inequality and hierarchy, while the Left is obsessed with a false egalitarian equality.

Bowden rightly advises to never apologize, not to “say sorry” to justify forceful action. He includes not apologizing when being called “fascist” – indeed, he tells us that there nothing is wrong with fascism, a point certain elements in the “movement” cannot accept.  True, there are activists who truly are not in any way fascist, and that should be respected; in addition, no doubt there are tactical reasons why, at specific times (and those times only), true fascists should be prudent in displaying their ardent fascism.  But in general, many people in the “movement” (whether they know it or not or accept it or not) are fascists (broadly defined) of one sort or another (including national socialists; national socialism being – dissenters to the contrary – a race-based form of fascism).  These activists should accept the label and, as Bowden suggests, never apologize.

The only discordant chord for me is the part about resentment.  After all, resentment over real victimhood can be a powerful force, and, if used tactically via democratic multiculturalism, can be utilized as an approach to increase power.  There is a difference between mobilizing resentment (and hatred) for actualizing power, and wallowing in victimhood and beseeching for pity.