Category: natalism

Light From the East?

A little bit too naive.

Read this. I support most of the points of the article, but the author is perhaps a bit naive about Der Movement in “the West” so some mild fisking is required.

So what is Eastern Europe? In short, it is the last refuge of a living European tradition. It is the place where the unbroken, centuries-long line of a healthy national development has been able to survive in the consciousness of the people. If there is a place in Europe where all the golden eras of our civilization still can be felt, even merging with the current technological age and giving ground for a hope that new achievements — new European achievements — can be made, untainted by destructive impulses of Leftist liberalism, it is Eastern Europe, having survived the Communist years and showing promise of surviving even more vicious strains of the same ideology.

Kaalep perhaps is not aware that Der Movement, especially in the Anglosphere, generally has a low opinion of Eastern Europeans. Sure, they are considered better than Southern Europeans, but that’s a “left-handed compliment” if ever there was one. Native Southern Europeans are, after all, quite obviously the lowest form of racial stock on Earth, far inferior than even sub-Saharan Africans, Australian aboriginals, and Papuans. Anything is better than that. That doesn’t mean Eastern Europeans are actually taken seriously as being of true worth by the majestic heroes of Der Movement.

Low birth rates can be tackled and ultimately reversed by nationalist demographic policies. For example, there are the policies proposed by the Conservative People’s Party of Estonia (EKRE) that I helped to draft. First, parents would be rewarded with exemptions from income tax and extra retirement pay, which would increase with every child they raise. Second, if a young family is stuck in debt buying a home, the state would pay off one fourth of their mortgage for each child born. Third, the state must guarantee a place in kindergarten and school for each child, partly covering the educational costs. If young European children start to be valued on the governmental level, the continuation of our people will no longer be under a question mark.

Those are actually all great ideas. I wonder if Der Movement in the Anglosphere, and in non-Anglo Western European nations, is paying attention. Note to Der Heroes: eventually you need to stop agonizing over your calipers and racial histories, your Kali Yugas and Men Who can’t Tell Time, your “admixture percentages” and esoteric Evola-ism, and start paying attention to the real needs of real people, particularly when those needs overlap with real racial interests, such as pro-natal policies.

While our frontline against non-European invasion and liberal brainwashing runs across the border of Hungary…

Hungary? Will Mainstreaming Orban stop throwing WNs over his chicken-wire fence?

But we can also build a safe hub for Alt Right ideas to be freely exchanged, polished, and mirrored back to the West.

Like in Hungary, under Durocher’s Great God of Mainstreaming, Chicken-Wire Vik, who cancelled the NPI conference and unceremoniously booted Spencer out of the country? The same Hungary that is pressing charges against a poor native woman defending herself against migrant scum (“don’t kick at the brown darlings”)?

Ethnonationalism does not mean revisiting the historical conflicts between different European nations. On the contrary, facing a civilizational threat from outside Europe, nationalists can unite under their common European identity and find peaceful ways to solve those conflicts of the past. If there is a place in the world where this is possible, it must be Eastern Europe. There are already signs of relaxation between historical enemies such as Hungarian and Romanian, Polish and Lithuanian nationalists.

Any concrete evidence of said relaxation?

On Gay Marriage

Some points in response to Counter-Currents.

Greg Johnson has posted two essays (one a re-post of an older piece) on gay marriage. I have one disagreement, followed by general agreement.

Why not call it “marriage”? Because of a deep conviction that marriage is a more serious institution, because it provides the best framework for begetting and nurturing the next generation. Therefore, marriage should enjoy a higher dignity and status than mere domestic partnership. Gay marriage advocates have a ready reply to this: straight people who cannot have children, or who choose not to have children, are allowed to marry. So marriage is not about reproduction. There is no real reply to this argument. Yes, some anti-natal couples may change their minds and choose to have children. But that is not possible for sterile couples, who still can marry. Gay marriage advocates also point out that sterile straight couples can still have families by adopting children or using surrogate parenting — and so can homosexual couples, which opens a whole new can of worms. 

I disagree. I will argue that a sterile heterosexual marriage is qualitatively different from a homosexual one.  I argue thus. Any population group has a vested interest in promoting heterosexual relations, since those lead to reproduction. Societal stability is enhanced when that reproduction takes place in a monogamous marriage.  Thus, heterosexual marriage should be promoted and celebrated in a society.  People who are intentionally childless should be frowned on, since they set a bad example and degrade the biological value of marriage; they promote the wrong image. But, if young enough, they can always change their mind, the potential for reproduction is there. What about the sterile?  While they cannot have children, by marrying they are participating in the societal norm of heterosexual marriage. They help reinforce and legitimize that norm through their own choice and commitment to be married. They enhance the social conformity in favor of heterosexual marriage. Further, if we want to encourage such marriage to the masses, we need to market it as having benefits other than reproduction (even if, as racialists, that is our real intent). We need to celebrate the various benefits both husband and wife derive from marriage (easier to do of course in more traditional times than today, but the argument still holds). A sterile heterosexual married couple, by their marriage, affirm to all who see them, their belief that this form of marriage has benefits, it is good, it is desirable, it is special, it is something that all (heterosexual) adults should aspire to.  By marrying, such people help promote the institution of heterosexual marriage and hence promote the reproduction of their race by contributing to the societal “common good” of stable man-woman pair bonds.  So-called gay marriage does not of this, it cheapens the institution of marriage, it further divorces it (no pun intended) from children and family. A childless (especially not by choice) heterosexual marriage still   supports a pro-natalist institution. At best, gay marriage is neutral to that, if not destructive.
The decline in heterosexual marriage has little to do with homosexuals, and more to do with overall degeneration, the Judaification of our culture, and feminism.  Johnson’s prescriptions for improving heterosexual marriage are for the most part sound.  I also agree that when considering homosexuality (a subject that in general I have little interest in), a “give and take” attitude can be constructive.  A degree of tolerance can be given to gays, in exchange for them to stop allying with the Left to wreck race and civilization, and an admission from their part that they are abnormal, analogous to a disability.  For example, I don’t hate people who are deaf, but if they attempt to declare deafness as normal, desirable, the same as hearing, if they also declare a “deaf culture” (and some do) and refuse treatments for themselves and (especially) their children (if deaf as well), then I do have a problem. The same goes for the blind, and also considers that accommodation can only go so far: we cannot have blind brain surgeons, taxi drivers, or airplane pilots, regardless of how “unfair” that is. Homosexuals need to accommodate the needs of the larger society in exchange for tolerance. They are abnormal regardless of how one wants to define that – either based on frequency or biological fitness.  But if they defend their family and ethnic genetic interests, that is all to the good. One can argue that homosexuals (and anyone who does not personally reproduce) have a relatively greater interest in their race’s genetic continuity (as well as that of their family), because that is all they have to work with to improve their inclusive fitness.  They also need to understand that many heterosexuals find the idea of homosexual relations repugnant and would – especially if they value genetic continuity – be greatly displeased if their children were homosexual and did not find some way to reproduce (as opposed to adopt). Of course, childlessness of heterosexual children  would have the same negative effect on their parents’ fitness, but without the aesthetic disgust toward homosexual acts.

Having said all of that, better a homosexual racist than a heterosexual liberal.  Better gay than a race mixer.  I’ll take Ernst Rohm as a comrade over John Derbyshire any day.