Category: national socialism

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.

Advertisements

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.

In Der News: 9/10/17

News, news, news.

Also see this.

And then we have this.

The pivot could also be reflective of the new environment Trump created in the West Wing after dismissing divisive, nationalist figures like former chief strategist Steve Bannon. With Bannon gone, the more moderate faction of the West Wing, consisting of New Yorkers like economic adviser Gary Cohn and senior adviser Jared Kushner, will likely hold more sway over the president’s decisions. 

Jewish liberalism in control.  “4-D chess,” indeed!

 

First, I was warning about “Vox Day” on my blog long ago.  Right again.

If opposition to the mixed economy and the welfare state is not an essential trait of the Right, then what is? On this matter, I follow Jonathan Bowden, who argued that the essence of the Right is the rejection of egalitarianism as the highest political value.

Agreed.  That’s good sense and any reasonable interpretation of political history.

I also think there is something slightly absurd about debating whether a world-historical phenomenon like National Socialism merits being included in a contrived, ephemeral, marginal, and increasingly ridiculous category like the Alt Right. It is like debating whether King Lear merits being classed among Saturday morning cartoons.

Well said.

My view is that we should abandon the Alt Right “brand” entirely.

Of course, I agree, but for different reasons than Greg, and this is something often discussed here and need not be gotten into with this post.

The RFR Strikes Back

Strom speaks some truths about the Alt Right.

RFR = Radical Far-Right; that is, the racial nationalist Far-Right that is not connected to the “Alt Right” and that which also rejects “mainstreaming” and other centrist ploys.

I identify as a national socialist (*), and I suspect that Strom identifies similarly.  I also have strong sympathy for non-national socialist fascist movements such as the Romanian Legion, the early and late Italian Fascists (not the middle era of reactionary authoritarianism), and also the very interesting variants of French fascism (typically ignored by a Germanocentric “movement”). I do not know how Strom views these various non-German fascist movements.  I do disagree with Strom on certain things – e.g., I am not fond of the Pierce legacy, I am ambivalent about the Germanocentric Hitler, I looked askance on Strom’s “Man on White Horse” infatuation of Putin, and was disillusioned about Strom’s self-declared involvement with the Who We Are fiasco (although Strom asserts that the extant version is not the “final version”) – however, in general, I suspect that Strom and I agree on the basics (**).  We certainly agree about the Alt Right. Now, remember that that nasty old crank Ted Sallis was always skeptical of the Alt Right, noted that their “fifteen minutes of fame” were over, viewed them as another “movement” passing fad, and noted that unless Alt Right leaders became serious and actually did real work, the advantage resulting from the Trump campaign would be lost.  

THE AMORPHOUS disunited non-group dubbed the “alt right” and defined mainly by a rejection of Political Correctness and a wish that Donald Trump would be elected instead of the War Hag, seems to be dissolving before our eyes. On the one hand, you have the “alt light” who are either horrified — or pretending to be horrified — by the racially loyal and Jew-aware elements in their own ranks, and who are falling back into line within the boundaries of the corpse called Conservatism, Inc., where they will quickly be forgotten no matter how many book deals they sign. On the other hand, you have the rest, who are beginning to realize they have been played by Trump and/or Trump’s keepers; but who also realize that they have tapped into something real — something authentic — something of deep world-historical importance and biological and cosmic significance — by becoming aware of the primacy of race and the fact that the Jewish power structure is out to kill us. It’s only the second group that’s interesting. There’s real hope for them — and, if we can help them to full awareness and commitment, there’s real hope for all of us in them.

Quite right. Just as Trump has – as Alt Righter Spencer has noted – squandered his political capital on jackass tweets and non-essential issues, the Alt Right, in typical quota queen fashion, squandered its fifteen minutes of fame with Pepe-Kek nonsense and any lack of real accomplishment. “Dissolving before our eyes” – that’s not from the crazy crank and ethnic outsider Ted Sallis but from the Norwegian-American and “Establishment Movement Figure” Strom, “one of the boys.”  I’m shocked, shocked!  Strom, like me, mocks the Alt Right’s fetishistic obsession with Trump and – while he unfortunately declines to mention the Alt Wrong – he makes the distinction between the Alt Lite and the more hardcore Alt Right, the latter which should have never had anything to do with the former.  Strom suggests that the more hardcore faction has some “real hope” – but let us acknowledge that an awakened Alt Right that rejects the Alt Lite (and Alt Wrong) is really nothing more or less than White nationalism.  Yes, there may be differences in style, but in the end, shorn of all the Beavis-and-Butthead trolling and lulzing and shorn of the Alt Lite and Alt Wrong, the Alt Right is just White nationalism with a snazzy “dust jacket” packaged for millennial consumption.  Strom, like me months ago, has seen through all the sound and fury of the Alt Right, has seen through the Alt Right bluster, has seen through the “we’ve arrived” self-congratulation of Alt Right figures, and asks that the Alt Right grow up.

Maybe where I was ignored, Strom will be listed to.  More likely though, we’ll just see more Pepe images and cries of “Hail Kek” and discussions by Roissy about his Black girlfriend’s “gravity-defying ass” or about his Asian girlfriends sticking their fingers up his anus. Hail Kek, indeed.

The Alt Right is failing; it is – as Strom says – it is dissolving.  The “mainstreamers” are failing in Europe and in Australia.  Trump is squandering is political capital.  All of the Alt Right-Mainstream-Trump “heroism” is falling apart, and it is high time that the RFR stops being on the defensive and seizes the high ground; it is time for the RFR to end its marginalization by the Alt Right.  The RFR must strike back against the losers driving the ‘movement” into the ground.  We do not need Pepe-Kek stupidity, a “movement” infiltrated by Jews, Iranians, and East Asians, we do not need Trump worship, miscegenating “game,” or any of the rest of it.

The passing fads fade away, and the racial nationalist hardcore will soldier on.

*I can imagine being accused of “LARPING” as a “Nazi” that will turn off “normies.”  I have two objections to that.  The more immediate objection is that there is a difference between being a national socialist and a Hitlerian Nazi; the former is an ideology and a worldview and the latter is a highly specific historical party and movement that was based on the aforementioned ideology/worldview.  And let’s be honest: “normies” are turned off by the ideology of the more mainstream racialists who accuse others of “LARPING” so it really doesn’t make a difference what flavor of racial nationalism one espouses.

I have a deeper objection. While I have used Alt Right-adopted slang terms like “LARPING” and “normies” myself when appropriate, I’m beginning to tire of them – particularly “LARPING” – because they are being over-used and mis-used.  There are people who believe they can win arguments simply by accusing their opponents of “LARPING” – a sloppy form of ad hominem that fails to address substantive arguments.  It is one thing to point at Nutzi types marching around with swastika banners and cry LARPING and it is quite another to label as LARPING any ideology or meme that you disagree with.  For the sake of consistency, if I’m going to reject the Alt Right, I should reject their shallow and juvenile memes as well, so I’ll try and refrain from using these phrases and I’m not going to tolerate them being used in place of actual argument.

**But how can this be?  Strom is a “virulent anti-Semite” but the Silkers accuse me (someone also accused of being a “virulent anti-Semite”) of being a “tool of the Jews” and of “sucking Jewish cock.”  How can Strom and I be in agreement?  Cognitive dissonance!  Can it be?  Can someone be both anti-Jewish and anti-Asian? Who would have ever thought it? Hmmm…one wonders how vehemently Strom would object to Asian colonization of White lands, “British Asians,” and the borders of the West guarded by black-booted Chinese girls with guns.  Is Strom a “tool of the Jews” as well? Oy vey!

A Rose By Any Other Name

Labels are not as important as that which is labeled.

A while back, I read this in pamphlet form.

Now, I don’t agree with how the author defines “Right” and “Left” (more about that shortly) and I don’t agree with some of the ideology espoused there. This latter point is – or should be – more important; ideology is more important than the labels used to describe it.  On the one hand, the author is correct in opposing activists who are so obsessed with being considered “right-wing” that they make common cause with viewpoints that are anathema to their own racialist ideology.  On the other hand, he is wrong with trying to obsessively create a similarly false “left-wing” identity for national socialism; he is equally guilty of being overly concerned with labels, with style over substance.

There is a weakness among Whites – most likely due to long being denied the right to embrace their racial and cultural identities – in being so overly emotionally invested in superficial (sometimes “implicitly White”) identities so that this emotionality blinds them to the maladaptive aspects of their behavior.  Whites obsess over sports teams full of arrogant Negro athletes (usually with White wives/girlfriends) and, more to the point, Whites engage in politics as if It was sports, with identification with “our team” and “their team” often independent of real and meaningful ideological content.  Being so concerned with labels that one supports racially destructive memes is an example of maladaptive behavior.  Even being obsessed with labels of constructive memes can be maladaptive if one spends more energy defending the labels than defending the memes.

The mendacious know how to exploit this weakness.  Thus, cuckservatives love to accuse opponents of “not being true conservatives” or “not being Ronald Reagan conservatives” or they accuse the Alt Right of being – gasp! – “leftists” – with the presumable objective of wounding the right-wing self-conception of these opponents, so those people, desperate to recapture their “rightist identity,” will recant their “blasphemy” and plead to be readmitted to the “conservative fold.”  Those accusations are likely even more targeted to third party observers, with the implicit threat of “if you support those populists-racialists-nationalists then you too will be considered as ‘leftists’ and ‘not true conservatives” – a fate worse than death for those whose existential meaning is wrapped up with identification with being “conservative” and “right-wing.”  Similarly, on a blog I was involved with 10-12 years ago, a conservative “social scientist” would try to win arguments (typically against me) by labeling opponents’ opinions as “leftist.”  My response, if I recall, was to simply state: “OK, I’m a leftist, now address the issues.”

True, I typically label my views as “Far-Right” and I do so for two reasons. First, it is for the sake of clarity and convenience when summarizing these views – national socialist, fascist, racial nationalist – in a “political shorthand” that is commonly accepted by most people on the both the “Right” and the “Left.”  This is analogous to using “White” as shorthand for “peoples of European descent.”  Second, and in contrast to the author of the work linked above, I do not define “Right/Left” in terms of reactionary vs. revolutionary, nor do I accept purely economic or political definitions.  A more metapolitical definition that I support – and that is more economical with facts and aligned with how the terms are actualized in reality – is to associate the Right with hierarchy and difference and inequality and the Left with egalitarianism and obsessive equality at any cost and a leveling universalism.  Hence, my ideology is at the far extreme of the “Right” despite the fact that some of my views – on economics for example – are more “leftist.”  But, and this is the key point, I have no emotional investment in my labeling of my views.  It is merely a tool, merely shorthand, merely a consequence of the definitions I use, and if others want to label my views as “leftist” then, fine, I’m a “leftist.” There is a difference between labeling as a tool and labeling as an identity.  The former is a normal part of everyday life; the latter is foolish and childish. In the end, I care about the actual ideology and its consequences with respect to my biocentric view of racial life, not about the labels used to identify the ideology.

I also realize that in the end my definition of “Right/Left” is as subjective as all the others.  I believe my definition is more reflective of reality, but there is no hardcore objectivity in political labels.  More important, it shouldn’t really matter.  There are those who – perhaps because of their Asiaphilia – are likely more familiar with Confucius than with Shakespeare and who are not in tune with the attitude behind “a rose by any other name….”   To observe individuals spill gallons of “digital ink” analyzing the use of “Right” vs. “Left” labels, to see ideologically similar individuals engage in acrimonious debate over such labels, to read rambling theses about “White Leftism” – this reflects ideological immaturity.  If one is brought down to the level of endlessly debating the labels to be given to views, it is high time to put the labels aside and concentrate on actual differences in views, ideologies, and proposals – and not in highly abstract theoretical terms but in how these views would be, or should be, actualized into reality.

These people like labels?  Let’s use labels – by wasting time with labels and with academic abstractions, those on the “Right” (a label as defined by me) are constantly outcompeted by those on the “Left” (another label as defined by me), the latter group being more concerned with winning and achieving their objectives than with a juvenile concern with how others label them.  You can label a rose as a sewer and label a sewer as a rose, but that is not going to change how each smells.  There is of course a need for clarity of definition and a need to avoid dangerous mislabeling – if one wants a rose then they don’t want a sewer – but defining terms should be a direct and efficient process for reasonable people.  If there is a need to spend months – or years! – debating definitions and labels then something is wrong.  The people involved are being stupid, stubborn, mendacious, maladaptive, or are engaging in avoidance behavior – engaging in fruitless and sterile argument over abstractions because of an inability or unwillingness to come to grips with harsh reality. When leading troops into battle, one needs to make sure there is agreement over the meaning of labels and definitions, and then one does what they need to do.  Soldiers who endlessly debate the meaning of a “flanking movement” will quickly find themselves outflanked by an enemy who ended their debate long before.  In the end, actualized reality trumps abstract defining and labeling every time, without fail.

Stability of Collective Welfare Systems

HBDers weep.

I have previously written about computational analyses that support the stability of ethnocentric cooperative strategies and the instability of atomized individualistic free-riding strategies.

In doing further online searches on the topic of collectivism vs. individualism as group strategies, I came across this interesting theoretical paper (emphasis added):

We propose quantization relationships which would let us describe and solution problems originated by conflicting or cooperative behaviors among the members of a system from the point of view of quantum mechanical interactions. The quantum analogue of the replicator dynamics is the equation of evolution of mixed states from quantum statistical mechanics. A system and all its members will cooperate and rearrange its states to improve their present condition. They strive to reach the best possible state for each of them which is also the best possible state for the whole system. This led us to propose a quantum equilibrium in which a system is stable only if it maximizes the welfare of the collective above the welfare of the individual. If it is maximized the welfare of the individual above the welfare of the collective the system gets unstable and eventually it collapses.

“…maximizes the welfare of the collective above the welfare of the individual. “  Sounds rather National Socialist, doesn’t it?

Now, this paper describes theoretical proposals and not “evidence” per se, but it is still thought-provoking, and the fact that collective well-being ends up as more stable than individualism is consistent with the more biologically-relevant computer modeling linked to above.  Of course, in this latter paper, one could define “collective” in leftist (any aracial group) as well as rightist (a defined biocultural group) terms.  However, when one combines the proposals of the latter paper with the stability of kinship-based ethnocentrism in the computational study, the conclusion must be that inherently rightist collectives based on race, ethnicity, and culture will be those that are most stable.

This is another blow to the anti-White/anti-racist/anti-Salterian/HBD school of thought and their “ethnocentrism for me but not for thee” self-interested memetic flim-flam.

On a more general basis, I have been unaware of lines of study that attempt to describe biological phenomena using the language of physics (and vice versa?), but this would seem to be a fruitful area of analysis that I need to look more into.  Viewing the major areas of science as disjunctive/orthogonal is, it seems, short-sighted and in error.