Category: pan-European

Against the Derbyshire Apologists

The defenders of evil are themselves evil.  And “paranoid style” is just mendacious and dishonorable Frankfurt School-style pathologization of people defending White interests against Yellow Supremacism.

Look at this absolute trash – apologia for White-hating Yellow Supremacism, with both the author and one commentator defending the traitor Derbyshire.

Let me state the EGI Notes view: Derbyshire is a bitter enemy of the White race.  The ultimate outcome of his agenda, whatever his motivations, is the subjugation and humiliation of Whites to Asians (whether this reflects his personal life I do not know, but never forget his self-admitted “measured groveling”), with miscegenating Jeurasian mongrelization in play.  From the perspective of this blog and from the viewpoint just stated, supporters of Derbyshire are, de facto if not by motivation,  radical White-hating genocidal lunatics.  Derbyshire’s own personal genetic interests are intertwined with that of East Asia, and that is well known to everyone dealing with this topic, including the author of the Counter-Currents piece discussed here. Anyone who supports and enables Derbyshire is an enemy of the White race and is considered such by this blog.  For godssakes, the man OPENLY agreed with the characterization of Amren attendees (who are by and large more moderate than most WNs) as “latrine flies,” the man OPENLY defended miscegenation, the man OPENLY called “race purists” “slightly nuts.” That was all in writing at VDARE. I don’t know – maybe with the new Counter-Currents-Amren-VDAREUnz Review Jeurasian alliance it is true that the ideological difference between Derbyshire and Counter-Currents is “negligible.” Johnson can answer to that. I do know that the ideological difference between Derbyshire and EGI Notes is a chasm that can never be bridged; I have more respect for an out-and-out Black nationalist than I do for race traitors like Derbyshire.

I am unalterably opposed to ANY scenario – a nightmare scenario – in which Asians live in a White polity: That is anathema.  Any real WN would absolutely refuse such a disaster, they would oppose that horror with every fiber of their being, and they would reject such an unacceptable and atrocious outcome.  Indeed, it would be better to deal with a Farrakhan than a “Rosie,” but, truth be told, it is far better to deal with a “Rosie” than with a Derbyshire.  Better to deal with an honest enemy than with a treasonous one, better a foe who is an easily identifiable racial alien than someone who can slip easily in among the “latrine flies” of a (ostensibly) White racialist conference.  And we must reject the idea that we have anything in common with Asian-loving Judeophilic “cognitive elitists,” “HBD race realists,” and “IQ fetishists.”  We should be looking to Yockey with a Salterian foundation, not looking to Derbyshire with a Lynnian foundation.  Our goal should be an Imperium, not “let’s try something marginally better than the racial status quo.”

This blog has been too mild, too soft, too tolerant, and too accommodating to the likes of Derbyshire and the whole Yellow Supremacist crowd. Traitors who sell out to Asian Supremacism can talk all they want about “paranoid styles” and other shaming memes, but those of us who value White over Yellow will be even more firm and unyielding in out fervent opposition to Derbyshirianism.

Thankfully, I am not alone in this.  I just found a positively sublime contribution from a more sane Counter-Currents commentator, posted after I had written all of the above.  I actually cannot do “emphasis added” for the following, because the entire comment is absolutely on-target, I would have to emphasize the entire thing – it’s one of the best blog comments I have ever read:

LQ Jones

Posted May 30, 2019 at 8:11 am 

More excuses for race-mixer John Derbyshire. A negro married to another negro who otherwise supported our WN objectives would be more palatable and honest than making justifications for Derbyshire, a white man who willfully destroyed his genetic heritage and then has the gall to come to a WN event and promote his “Arctic Alliance” – in the hope that he could convince racially-conscious whites to say, “Hey, right on Derbyshire! Let’s unite mass populations of whites and Asiatics (like you did in your marriage) until they too interbreed (like you also did) and then we’ll all be one big, happy, mixed-race family!” How sickening.

The reality is this: John Derbyshire is far worse than any same-race black couple who supports our movement. For one thing, he has race-mixed and yet he’s met with warm and welcoming arms by the likes of Jared Taylor and others, clearly telegraphing the message at AR conferences that even if you race-mix (at least with Asians) you can still be embraced by the advocates of a white ethnostate – even rise above the average white at such gatherings as you’re showered with effusive praise by WN leaders like Taylor and others for being such “a really great guy!” What disheartening insanity.

In a world of justice, John Derbyshire should not enjoy white nationalist camaraderie. No, Virginia, he should not. Instead, he should be shunned and condemned for his racial betrayal. That those at AR conferences are not doing so only serves to expose just how deep the rot actually is….

Yes, sir.  The rot is indeed deep.  Any sane and reasonable “White advocate” should shun the likes of Derbyshire.  But the rot actually goes deeper than what even this commentator says.  Not only is race-mixer and miscegenation-promoter Derbyshire celebrated and given a forum, but he’s placed above activists of Southern and Eastern European descent.  In other words, a race-mixing Englishman who is on record openly insulting attendees of the conference he himself now attends (because National Review shunned him in a manner that WNs refuse to do) is placed at a higher level than, say, those horribly admixed low-IQ Eyetalians and those horrifically non-Western hora-dancing Romanians.  The pecking order is well established.  Derbyshire above Codreanu!  And as regards Traditionalist Hero Julius Evola?  Come on!  Don’t you know his ancestry?  He couldn’t hold Derbyshire’s chopsticks!

Getting back to Derbyshire…he made his choices in life.  He openly admitted, in writing, to be a socially awkward male – quoting his own mother in that regard (”awkward squad”) – implicitly admitting to the stereotype that it’s the “can’t get a White woman semi-autistic White omega males” who race-mix with Asiatic “females.” So how does that place an obligation on the rest of us to accept “exotics,” to accept “some spice in the stew?”  Why does race-mixing have to be acceptable?  Because Derbyshire is a “really great guy” who invited Taylor to his home to eat food Derbyshire’s Chinese wife made “with her own hands” as Taylor wrote (As opposed to what – with her own feet?  Or that it wasn’t just some cheap Chinese takeout?)?  Why do we have to accept nonsense like “the Arctic Alliance” at an allegedly pro-White conference just because Der Movement’s affirmative action policy is so well established that “one of the boys” is put forth as a “leader” despite committing what Strom rightfully calls genocide?

What a subpar debate about the EU. Spencer’s heart is in the right place (his brain is another matter entirely), while the smirking Frog-Canadian is absolutely stupid and juvenile. And the incoherent woman intermittently intruding like a deranged troll…my god. One would expect better from a podcast put together by middle school students

Look, the question is not if the EU as it currently exists is good. It is obviously not, and I supported Brexit for the same reason I supported Trump – as a protest, as a disruption, as a destabilizing force.  But the idea of a greater European state – one that is run by our side, NOT by Merkel and Macron – is sound (with federalism, as Spencer indicated).

All Spencer had to say – clearly and directly – was that he was NOT talking about an EU and a European army led by the likes of Merkel and Macron, but led by racial nationalists.

The fact that neither of these heroes – experienced podcasters – can just clearly and simply differentiate between the EU as is and a future nationalist European federation is astonishing.  All that blather could have been cleared up by one simple sentence.  Pathetic.

Advertisements

Buchanan, Autism, and Counter-Currents

In der news.

Dumb Buchanan practically ignores that the Greens are to the far left on migration and have a radical political agenda independent of the “environment.”  And they outperformed the fading AfD in Germany.

Speaking of Germans:

“Whoever speaks of Europe is wrong,” said Bismarck. Europe is but “a geographical expression.”

Yes, indeed, because a militaristic Kraut said it, it must be true.  Then:

Identity politics, people identifying themselves by their ethnicity, nationality, race, culture and faith, appears to be the world’s future.

Race?  Individual European ethnic groups are not a “race,” you stupid bastard Buchanan.  If you are going to talk about “race” and a Western culture, then that is Europe, which is not merely “a geographical expression.” Another retarded ethnonationalist, and a Catholic conservative reactionary as well.

Well, well, well…maybe autism is not about those “scary needles” injecting children with “Big Pharma products,” after all. Perhaps autism is due to a genetic predisposition, possibly triggered by environmental factors – and there is NO evidence that vaccines are among such factors. Bizarre-looking NECs and other racially intermediate non-European phenotypes may indeed be such factors instead.

But, I suppose it’s easier to blame vaccination than to blame one’s own genes – or in some cases, the genes of one’s mentally unstable, neurotic ex-wife – or to dig deeper into the topic, and consider that perhaps it was not the MMR vaccine that gave your child autism, but the hideous appearance of that NEC doctor administering the vaccine.

Welcome to Trump’s America.

The worst writer in the history of Counter-Currents is at it again.  Don’t work!  Be a parasite!  Be downwardly mobile!  I mean, that’s a perfect inversion of the advice I give here.  But, alas, there’s a flaw in the argument from the Tin Cup perspective, as a commentator realizes; see below.

First, a laughable bit from the actual post.

Any attempts to get a Männerbund going will be met with snickers of “lol, fags.” Funny how similar gangs formed by blacks and other troglodytes will never get accused of fomenting homosexualism, innit? 

Funny how so many “rightists” who try to get a “Mannerbund” going are actually overt, in-your-face homosexuals, innit?  Perhaps O’Meara and Donovan can shed some light on the topic?

And to the comments:

Felix Krull
Posted May 28, 2019 at 9:40 pm | Permalink

we take a massive sledgehammer to pretty lies

The corpse of Chateau Heartiste isn’t even cold yet, and you’re already stealing his lines.

With the legacy of Andrew Hamilton, plagiarism and Counter-Currents go together like peanut butter and jelly.

ReplyNormie
Posted May 28, 2019 at 11:32 am | Permalink
YANG GANG!
Reply
Nicholas R. Jeelvy
Posted May 28, 2019 at 11:28 pm | Permalink
This guy gets it.

Yes, we must have Whites being handout slaves to a Chinaman.

A commentator gets it partly right:

To encourage people not to strive for financial security is self-destructive. Staying a broke Doomer for your entire life is not something to be proud of, no matter how much you can justify it with historical facts about the caste system, or philosophical arguments from Guenon or Evola. 

Traditionalism!

We live, sadly, in a world that’s run by the merchant class. They have completely restructured Western civilization to serve the ends of that class and to force people to play by the merchant class’s rules. This system does not appear ready to collapse in the near future…

What?  Der Tag is not around the corner?

…so for those of you who think you will be going on warrior raids for sex slaves and serfs within the next 10 years, you are going to be sorely disappointed.

Type I’s sulk.

As much as we may hate it, we White men (and women) need jobs. We need jobs that afford us the chance to pay for living expenses and accumulate capital. That capital can then be funneled into our Movement…

Ah, there’s the rub, isn’t it?  Who’s going to shell out the “D’Nations?”  Where’s Greg going to get the shekels to travel to Europe or to go to movies so he can write reviews for Unz? Nose to the grindstone, goys, your “leaders” need their moolah.  Who’s gonna pay for this?

A Prospective Imperium

Broad comments, not fine details.

With some of the hysterical nonsense coming from some folks over the ocean regarding “Imperium,” I would like to make a few comments concerning this, and how an Imperium does not necessarily mean that local sovereignty is completely lost and historic nations are eliminated.

I am not going to get into fine details – falling into the trap of “fascist delusion” that Roger Grifffin (with some justification) mocked in his work.  I will just outline the broad details to demonstrate that an Imperium need not entail complete loss of local sovereignty and the erasure of Europe’s ethnic and cultural distinctions. 

Consider an Imperium roughly analogous to the early American Republic – the USA in the decades in between 1783 and 1861.  There is an overarching federal structure, composed of individual states that retain considerable local sovereignty and which each have their unique histories, cultures, and economies (compare, for example, antebellum Massachusetts or New York to Virginia or South Carolina).  The federal structure was responsible for foreign affairs, national defense, and those domestic issues of a scale that involved multiple (or all) states together.  But there was a strong “states rights” principle. The federal government had a legislature composed of representatives from the member states – Senators representing the states and Representatives representing the states and more specifically representing districts (“regions”) within those states.

The Imperium in some respects would be more integrated than the early USA, in other aspects less, and in some aspects, the level of integration may fluctuate over time given circumstances.  There may be somewhat less integration with respect to military – one could envision individual nation states within the Imperium having their own military forces, which are then contributed to the Imperium as needed (e.g., like NATO).  Or there could be separate individual and joint forces, with the individual forces contributing to the joint force in times of crisis (the joint force could have the everyday job of guarding continental borders).  Economic integration is another point where it may be less in the Imperium, at least at first, than in the USA.  A fundamental problem with EU economics is the distinction between the more productive economies of the Northwest of Europe and the less productive economies of the South and East – the example of the German Ants vs .the Greek Grasshoppers.  Until such time that the South and East can pull their own weight economically, a less integrated continental economy – sans any common currency – would be prudent at first.  Although some degree of oversight and continental autarky would be encouraged.  More integration?  The old paradigm of a “states’ rights” USA fell apart primarily because of slavery and the US Civil War.  There are some things that an individual nation within the Imperium could not do – like importing alien peoples for whatever reason, including cheap (or slave) labor.  There has to be fundamental understandings – one cannot have a federal structure containing states whose entire fundamental existence is so different, and potentially incompatible, as what occurred in the early USA.  An objection to my analogy would be that the early USA system was not stable, evolving into a situation of greater federal power, and loss of basic sovereignty to the constituent states.  The instability – and eventual devolution to conflict and loss of local sovereignty – can be avoided by preventing states moving in directions that are so divergent from that of others that continued co-existence along these lines would be impossible.  So, yes, different cultures and economies are fine, but fundamentally aliens systems are not.  An Imperium based on racial nationalism simply cannot allow its states to become multiracial, to import aliens, to go back to the bad old days.  Needless to say, foreign policy would be an Imperium-wide effort.  There would also be voluntary pan-European projects, in culture, science and technics, space exploration, etc.

One area where the Imperium would be less integrated than the early USA and the current EU would be regarding the flow of people.  Internal borders would be maintained. .Just because different nations are part of the same broad general federal structure, does not mean that peoples from these different nations would have the right to freely immigrate to other nations within the Imperium. To safeguard the uniqueness of Europe’s peoples and cultures, in general, people would live within their own nation states.  Internal migration would be limited – the exception, not the rule. This point would need to be one of the absolute fundamental principles of any Imperium.  The underlying objectives are not economic, or, broadly, “standard of living, “or “freedom.”  It is the preservation and advancement of the Race and Culture, and the individual ethnic groups and cultures that form that greater Race-Culture.  The free flow of people within the Imperium would threaten that project and cannot be allowed.

I would also advise the reader to consider the distinctions between Imperium and Dominion broad vs. local sovereignty) inherent in Norman Lowell’s Imperium Europa idea.  Those ideas are in some ways similar to the general view here, and we cannot forget that even Yockey was willing to allow for local sovereignty and freedom for the regions making up his Imperium.

Through a Glass, Darkly

Against both The System and The Movement.

To see “through a glass” — a mirror — “darkly” is to have an obscure or imperfect vision of reality.

New readers to this blog may be confused about its purpose, its underlying objective.  Is it just to heap mocking ridicule on the “movement?”  Of course, there is other material discussed here – including important material directly related to EGI, population genetics, political strategies, etc. – but the quota queens like to pretend that this blog is simply the “bitter” and “crazy” rants of some nutcase constantly attacking the “movement” for no good reason.  So, let us back up a bit and reconsider what the fundamental approach of EGI Notes is.

The purpose of this blog is promote a certain metapolitical worldview.  This blog engages in mocking ridicule not for its own sake, but for the specific purpose of deconstruction.  If you consider Nietzsche’s camel, lion, and child paradigm, then my previous pre-EGI Notes work for the “movement” (with the exception of Legion Europa) was the camel phase, EGI Notes is the lion phase of defiance and deconstruction, and the creative child phase is represented by Western Destiny.  Legion Europa can be viewed as having been a mix of both lion and child, both destructive and creative.

It is my judgment – and long-time readers of this blog know that my judgment is sound and I am usually correct – that on its current course Der Movement will utterly fail to achieve its objectives.  Even worse: It will may impede or even prevent those objectives from being achieved through the actions of others or even through spontaneous currents of human history.  Der Movement constitutes one of the biggest threats to White survival extant today. Therefore, it must be analyzed, ridiculed, and deconstructed.  The weeds need to be cleared away before anything useful can grow on long-neglected activist soil.

One fundamental premise of the Sallis Groupuscule is that BOTH the System and the Movement exhibit a defective perception of reality; as the title of this post suggests, both System and Movement see through a glass, darkly – they “have an obscure or imperfect vision of reality.” They are mirror images of each other, distorted funhouse mirrors; their inability to perceive reality without distortion causes both to become distorted themselves, and not only do they see through a glass, darkly; but, we, without a proper understanding of both System and Movement, see those entities through a glass, darkly, and hence fail to comprehend their respective realities.

The Movement attempts deconstruction of The System, with varying degrees of success, while The System profoundly misunderstands The Movement; however, in neither case do we observe a principled, consistent, and rationale understanding of either, nor do we observe any much needed Far Right deconstruction of Der Movement – until now.  What the dimwits and the rent-seekers of the “movement” see, or proclaim, as “crazy and bitter” mocking ridicule is actually the deconstruction of Der Movement Inc.  This blog makes no claim to be a comprehensive deconstruction; indeed, I hope that others will join in and together we can create a comprehensive and lasting deconstruction that finally finises off the grotesque monstrosity of Der Movement.  At the current time, this blog is the only outpost of such an effort; EGI Notes is the icebreaker, leading the way.  Whether or not others follow, this blog will continue in its efforts to expose the intellectual, moral, ethical, and spiritual bankruptcy of Der Movement, Inc.

I typically criticize “movement” dogma, starting from the earliest days of racial activism up to today.  This naturally includes what the current crowed sneeringly dismisses as “WN 1.0.” Casual readers may confuse my position with that of Greg Johnson, based on the following misunderstanding.  I assert that the Alt Right – essentially “WN 2.0” – was nothing more than the same old, tired, fossilized dogma of the “movement” – all of the memes originating with “WN 1.0”- dressed up with a veneer of “youth culture.”   Johnson claims that WN 2.0 was corrupted and ruined by the “attitudes” of WN 1.0.  Isn’t that the same thing?  No, it is not.  

First, we have the difference between the dogma, the fundamental beliefs, of a “movement” and what Johnson terms as “attitudes.” These are not the same thing – the former is that of content and the latter is more that of presentation and behavior. Second, even if were to grant that by “attitudes” Johnson was in fact specifically referring to the actual content and dogma of Der Movement, our positions are still fundamentally different, since I assert that WN 2.0 reflected WN 1.0 dogma from the very start, but added to that all of the Millennial juvenile jackassery. Johnson, on the other hand, asserts that WN 2.0 started out well and was later corrupted by WN 1.0. In my case, I suggest that the failure of WN 2.0 was due to its own inherent nature of being nothing more than Pierce/Kemp with Pepe/Kek/Trump added on, while Johnson believes that WN 2.0 was fundamentally sound at its origin and then became ruined by later adopting the worst aspects of WN 1.0.

We can then extend this to Taylor’s assertion that while the young activists of today are wonderful, the activists of the past were, in contrast, weird and undesirable.  My objection to that is not with the characterization of the older activists, but the assertion that the Pepe/Kek/drunken podcasts crowd of today are in some way superior.  I also object in that the “youth” of today are essentially recapitulating the content of the past, so why should they pose as being superior to that past?  Is obsessing over a cartoon frog, screaming “Kek,” or drinking gallons of milk as a racial statement, somehow better than the poses of past “movement” retardates?  No, it is not.  And if the dogma is essentially the same, and if that dogma originated, as Taylor suggests, with the weird and undesirable, what does that imply about the dogma?  Now, we do not want to descend into ad hominem; just because the original promoters of the dogma were in some way socially undesirable does not logically imply that the dogma is wrong.  However, at the very least, it would suggest to us we had better at least subject that dogma to review, to rigorous proofing, to ascertain whether or not it is sound.  Such review is wise even if its originators were socially adept paragons of civic virtue; that its originators were in large part (according to today’s “movement leaders” themselves!) the weird and the botched is even reason to consider that extensive review and revision of the dogma is required.

Thus, the Sallis Groupuscule is opposed to: the Alt Right, Millennial “youth culture” taking over (American) racial activism, mainstreaming, the “Big Tent,” Nordicism, narrow ethnonationalism, traditionalism, fossilized dogma and solipsist fantasies, HBD pseudoscience, race-denial, invented racial histories and sweaty ethnic fetishism; while it is for: pan-Europeanism, empiricism, futurism, vanguardism, science and technics, genuine racial science, authenticity, prudent analysis, and seriousness and long-term planning.  The latter list is the positive aspect of my work, the sort of growth that can occur once the “movement” weeds are uprooted and cleared away.

I would like to point out that an opposition to the aforementioned “isms” and fetishes does not mean that this blog is afraid to document difficult topics concerning intra-European relations.  Nor does it (unlike Der Movement) “play favorites” among European ethnies.  This blog is as critical – if not more so – about “White ethnic” types such as “swarthoids” and “hunkies” as it is about NW European Celto-Germanics.  Everyone is fair game for criticism if that criticism is justified; unlike Der Movement, we do not label ethnies as either Gods or Devils (or “angels” with a destiny, eh?), but instead look at all with a critical eye, the cold eye of hard realism.  Stereotypes exist for a reason; stereotypes contain a kernel of truth, and that maxim applies as much for intra-White comparisons as it does to comparisons between Whites and non-Whites, or between different non-White groups themselves.

Stereotypes can be extended into the past of our race’s history, and analogies can be made to the present day.  Thus, in the Classical civilization, particularly in its later stages, and in the interregnum of the Dark Ages, the stereotype was that of the peoples of the Mediterranean basin being effete and over-civilized, while the Germanic barbarians of the north were healthy and vigorous, albeit loutish. Today, in the Winter of the West, by analogy, it are the Celto-Germanic peoples of NW Europe who are stereotypically effete and over-civilized with their xenophilia and pathological universalist altruism, while the peoples of Eastern Europe now play the role of the more vigorous and healthy barbarian louts.  Southern Europeans of today I suppose are analogous to the peoples of the Near East in the later Classical civilization – decayed and degenerate fellah peoples.

It is not necessary to indulge in Lynnian pseudoscience in order to study real differences between European types, differences that have important functional consequences and significance.

This puts the lie to the mendacious flim-flam of the fundamentally dishonest “Desmond Jones,” who asserted that my commitment to pan-Europeanism means I believe all Europeans are fungible – an outright falsehood, as such sentiments have never been present in any of my work.  However, I do assert that, despite differences, all Europeans should be preserved and promoted, and Europeans as a whole constitute a broad racial-cultural group.  Familial relations do not equate to fungibility; I make no apologies for my militant pan-Europeanism, which also seeks to preserve ethnic and sub-racial differences that exist among the European peoples.

Let’s look through the glass clearly and with plenty of light.  Der Movement, Inc. needs to be utterly destroyed in order for us to show this clarity, this light, to others.  That’s what this blog is all about.

The Direction of Evolution

Diversification, integration, and cooperation. 

Read here. Excerpts, emphasis added:

Abstract

Two great trends are evident in the evolution of life on Earth: towards increasing diversification and towards increasing integration. Diversification has spread living processes across the planet, progressively increasing the range of environments and free energy sources exploited by life. Integration has proceeded through a stepwise process in which living entities at one level are integrated into cooperative groups that become larger-scale entities at the next level, and so on, producing cooperative organizations of increasing scale (for example, cooperative groups of simple cells gave rise to the more complex eukaryote cells, groups of these gave rise to multi-cellular organisms, and cooperative groups of these organisms produced animal societies). The trend towards increasing integration has continued during human evolution with the progressive increase in the scale of human groups and societies. The trends towards increasing diversification and integration are both driven by selection. An understanding of the trajectory and causal drivers of the trends suggests that they are likely to culminate in the emergence of a global entity. This entity would emerge from the integration of the living processes, matter, energy and technology of the planet into a global cooperative organization. Such an integration of the results of previous diversifications would enable the global entity to exploit the widest possible range of resources across the varied circumstances of the planet. This paper demonstrates that it’s case for directionality meets the tests and criticisms that have proven fatal to previous claims for directionality in evolution.

Diversification – consistent with this essay about racial differentiation and the evolutionary benefit of prejudice.

Integration – consistent with the pan-European perspective, which itself is compatible with diversification, since it by no means supports or implies any sort of European panmixia.

As far as any “global entity” goes – even with cooperation, there are differences of interests within the components of that cooperation (yes, even among Europeans) – there needs to be balance.  There is nothing per se wrong with global cooperation – as long as White interests – fundamentally and foremost White survival and genetic continuity – are part of the equation.  Otherwise, no global cooperation should occur, and without Whites – the glue that would hold it all together – such cooperation will not be possible.  Why should Whites participate in a process that leads to their own extinction?  That’s a prescriptive question, because descriptively, that is precisely what Whites are currently doing.

This paper presents a case for directionality in evolution that does not suffer from the deficiencies that have undermined other claims.

I’m not convinced by the mechanistic arguments (or even the main thesis of directionality) – but neither do I reject them – but there are other points of interest here.

It should be emphasized from the outset that the claim outlined here is made in relation to the evolution of all living processes on Earth, including humans and human organizations. As the paper will demonstrate, the trajectory of evolution can only be properly understood if the evolution of all living processes is taken into account, ultimately as a whole. In particular, the full nature of the trajectory cannot be identified and understood by focusing on, for example, only biological evolution. As we shall see, human cultural evolution and the evolution of human organisations and technology (including artificial intelligence) play a critically important role in driving the trajectory beyond a certain point. 

That is all consistent with MacDonald’s “group evolutionary strategies” (which Derbyshire pretended not to understand – after all, we can’t get “Rosie” upset now, can we?).

The nature of the evolutionary mechanisms that explore possibility space prove to be far less important in driving the trajectory than is the structure of the possibility space. In particular, the trajectory is shaped primarily by the nature and location of evolutionary attractors in possibility space.

Thus, by altering the environment, we can change the “possibility space” and the “evolutionary attractors” to shift “directionality” where we wish it to go, no?  More racist Whites, please.

Other parts of paper:

Section 2 of the paper begins to outline the case for a particular form of overall directionality. It identifies a large-scale pattern that is evident in the evolution of life on Earth.

Section 3 provides the pattern with micro-foundations by presenting a model which demonstrates that this pattern is driven by natural selection and other accepted evolutionary processes.

Section 4 subjects the model and its key predictions to appropriate tests, including those that have been failed by other claims for overall directionality.

Section 5 concludes the paper by providing an overview of the trajectory of evolution and discussing some of its key implications.2. A large-scale pattern

If we stand back from the evolution of life on Earth and view it as a whole, a number of patterns are apparent.

An obvious trend is that living processes have diversified as evolution proceeded. When life first began on Earth, it was limited to exploiting only a tiny proportion of available free energy sources under a very restricted range of environmental conditions. From there living processes have diversified progressively as evolution unfolded, spreading across the planet, adapting to an ever-widening range of environmental conditions and exploiting more and more sources of free energy. This trend towards increasing diversification has continued up until the present with the emergence of humans, albeit now mainly through the processes of cultural evolution, rather than through gene-based adaptation and speciation.

Racial differentiation.  The cultural part is consistent with MacDonald’s theses.  However, while change today may be mainly cultural, it is not exclusively so.  Genetic adaption continues.

But a less obvious trend that moves in a very different direction is also apparent. As well as the trajectory towards increasing diversification, there is also a trend towards increasing integration. As the evolution of life on Earth has unfolded, living processes have increasingly come to be integrated into cooperative organizations of larger and larger scale.

Imperium Europa.

This progressive integration of organisms into cooperative organizations of increasing scale is not limited to evolution driven by gene-based natural selection. The trend has continued in human evolution where cultural evolutionary processes now predominate: small kin groups were integrated into bands, bands were integrated into tribes, these formed the constituents of kingdoms and city states, and these in turn have been integrated into nation states (Stewart, 2000, Turchin, 1977).

And Imperiums?

At each step in this process of integration, smaller-scale entities are integrated into cooperative organizations that become larger-scale entities at the next level of organization. Typically the larger-scale entities undergo a relatively rapid diversification and adaptive radiation (e.g. see Knoll and Bambach, 2000). As evolution unfolds, this step-wise process repeats itself, producing cooperative organizations of living processes of greater and greater scale. At each step, a new level of nesting of entities within larger-scale entities arises. And as evolution proceeds, entities with greater levels of nestedness emerge. The result is the familiar nested-hierarchical structure of living processes.

If the idea of nested, hierarchical structures sounds familiar with respect to EGI, then you have been paying attention; for example, read this.  There are concentric circles of racial and ethnic interests, which ultimately conflate to nested circles of genetic interest.  Race-based levels of interest and ethnic-based circles can be compatible.

Like the trend towards diversification, the trend towards integration seems to be continuing apace at present. Humans are increasingly integrating other living processes into its organizations through activities such as farming, aquaculture and broader ecosystem management. And human organization itself seems likely to continue to increase in scale. Although rudimentary, the League of Nations and the United Nations were early attempts to build supra-national organizations on a global scale. 

And they have been gross failures, for not taking into account those nested interests; with the UN today waging war against the most fundamental interests of the European peoples.

Some forms of economic organization are already global, and regional cooperatives of nation states such as the European Union have emerged. Global crises such as human-induced climate change seem to be increasingly evoking coordinated responses across nation states. 

Yes, Whites will do the solving, while China will continue to pollute.  A coordinated response?

The idea that some form of global governance is essential for human survival and flourishing is now strongly supported by many leading international relations researchers (e.g. see Craig, 2008) and economists (e.g. see Walker et al., 2009).

Shilling for globalism. The nationalist-populist response extant today suggests that the lower levels of nested interests are not being properly cared for by global managers, and in the absence of such care, and in the absence of a mechanism to fairly adjudicate competing interests, you cannot expect lower level nests to stick with the program. Global solutions are not meant to be a White racial suicide pact.

That cooperation can produce significant fitness advantages is not controversial (e.g. see Corning, 1983, Dugatkin, 1999, Miller, 1978, Ridley, 1996, Stewart, 2000). Cooperative organizations have the potential to be more successful than isolated individuals. Whatever the evolutionary challenges, living processes can respond to them more effectively if they form cooperative organizations and if their actions are coordinated. In part this is because cooperation enables the exploitation of synergies, including through specialization and division of labour (Corning, 1983). Furthermore, the larger the scale of any cooperative organization, the more resources are commanded by it, the greater its power, the larger the impact and scale of its actions, the greater the potential for collective adaptation and intelligence, and therefore the wider the range of environmental challenges that it can meet. 

Pan-European cooperation.  Group selection.

But cooperation does not evolve easily (e.g. see Boyd and Richerson, 2005, Buss, 1987, Olson, 1965, Williams, 1966). The reasons for this are well understood. Consider a population of living entities that compete for limited resources. Entities that invest resources in beneficial cooperation but fail to capture sufficient benefits of that cooperation, will tend to be out-competed. Other entities that take the benefits of cooperation without investing in the cooperation (free riders) will tend to do better than co-operators. Free riders undermine the capacity of co-operators to capture the benefits created by their cooperation.

So, free riders constitute the “cooperation problem.”  This has been discussed in detail at this blog, reflecting the large amount of analysis of the free rider problem by Salter and MacDonald.  The author continues:

If co-operators within a group of entities were able to capture all the benefits of their cooperation, cooperative organization would self-organize (in more general terms, the cooperation problem would be solved comprehensively if all the entities in a group capture the impacts of their actions on the group as a whole, whether the impacts are beneficial or harmful) (Stewart, 2000). Cooperation in which the benefits to the individual exceed the costs to the individual would be selected at the individual level (unless some alternative, more effective cooperation emerged). If this fundamental condition for cooperative self-organization were met, individual entities that engage in cooperation would out-compete non-co-operators. It would be in the evolutionary/adaptive interests of individuals to cooperate. As a consequence, the group would be able to explore the possibility space for cooperative organization, and any form of cooperation that was discovered and which was more advantageous would be able to persist in the population. 

One has to suppress free riding and ensure that cooperation benefits the cooperator more than it harms.  This has all been discussed here in great detail, and studies have shown that ethnocentric cooperation can outcompete free riding.  Leftists and HBDers may not want to hear that, but that is the reality, nevertheless.  Also see this.

…are there circumstances in which co-operators can capture sufficient of the benefits of cooperation to enable some simpler forms of cooperation to persist?

Yes.

Co-operators will capture proportionately more of the benefits of cooperation if they interact cooperatively with other co-operators more often than if all cooperative interactions are random. This will ensure that the benefits of cooperation are more likely to be shared amongst co-operators than leak to free-riders. If this condition is met, co-operators will capture a disproportionate share of the benefits of cooperation, and may capture sufficient to outweigh the costs of cooperation and the benefits that ‘leak’ to free riders. To the extent that this condition is met, co-operators will be collectively autocatalytic (they will collectively facilitate each other’s success), and cooperative organization will be able to persist and be a target of selection (Ulanowicz, 2009).

And the aforementioned analysis has determined that, yes, properly constructed cooperative structures can defeat and outcompete free riding.  The next time an HBDer engages in rants about “free riding makes ethnic nepotism impossible” – they are lying to you, and they have an agenda.  They want to convince Whites not to engage in ethnic nepotism, so that Jews and Asians can have the whole field to themselves, sans competition.

It is conceivable that this condition could be met stochastically at times in a population. But it is likely to be met far more reliably if the cooperative interactions within the population are biased in some way. 

Two main ways in which this bias can occur are:

1) Population structure: cooperative interactions may be biased because the population of entities is structured in ways that increase the likelihood that co-operators interact with other co-operators…Or the population may be formed into groups that tend to concentrate co-operators and restrict invasion by free-riders (e.g. Okasha, 2006).

Exclude parasitic ethnies.

2) Active selection: interactions may also be biased because co-operators selectively choose to interact with other entities that are more likely to be co-operators (conversely, they may also selectively exclude or punish entities that are more likely to be non-co-operators). 

Punish White traitors.  No ethnostate for you!

If the cooperation problem is to be overcome comprehensively, free-riding must be prevented, and as far as possible, the benefits of cooperation must go to the co-operators that create them. If this is to be achieved consistently and comprehensively in relation to a group of entities, special arrangements that have three key characteristics need to be in place (Stewart, 2000): 

1) Power: the arrangements must have power over the entities in the group (including over co-operators and free riders), and the power to re-distribute the benefits of cooperation amongst members of the group in favour of co-operators. Power means the ability to influence or constrain without being influenced in return. If the arrangements could be influenced in return by those they need to control, control would break down. For example, free riders would be able to escape effective suppression by the arrangements.

We must have the technology of the state, and impose social controls against free riding.  Libertarianism is poison.  Hyper-individualism is poison.  There must be the power to enforce reciprocity in cooperation for genetic interests.

2) Evolvability: the arrangements must be evolvable/adaptable. This enables the arrangements to explore the space of possibilities for supressing free-riders and for supporting beneficial cooperation. It gives the arrangements the capacity to optimize their use of power over entities, and to adapt their control as free-riders and other non-co-operators evolve and adapt to escape their control.

Fossilized dogma is no good.  The power structures – the “arrangements” for suppressing free riding and facilitating cooperation – must evolve.  No doubt free riding will evolve in an attempt to evade detection and suppression.  There will be an ‘arms race.”

3) Alignment of interests: the evolutionary/adaptive interests of the arrangements must be aligned with the overall evolutionary/adaptive interests of the group of entities that it manages. Evolvability/adaptability per se is not enough. Unless interests are aligned in this way, the arrangements will not necessarily evolve/adapt in the direction needed to solve the cooperation problem. They will not necessarily use their power and evolvability to suppress free-riders and to support cooperation.

This is crucial. The “arrangements” must have the same interests as the managed entities, or else the “arrangements” themselves will be free riders. Consider the global elites of today who have – or at least perceive themselves to have – a different set of interests as the populations they manage.  This is a dystopian scenario for genetic interests.  The system must be set up so it is reinforcing a common set of interests between manager and the managed, so that the evolvability of managers is in the direction of more effective management and away from exploitive free-riding.  We want symbiosis, not parasitism.

The problem is how to achieve this, and there are no easy answers.  Throughout human history, managerial elites – even when they started out as sincere and authentic representatives of group interests – have become isolated from the managed group and have descended into rent-seeking, exploitative, free-riding behavior. This is virtually a law of human nature, an inevitability – in the absence of some sort of powerful counter-balance this trend.  One can say – “make the arrangements, the managers, answerable “to the people” via “democratic processes.”  But, of course, the managers have the power to subvert those “democratic processes” to their advantage, which is happening in the West today. This post is not the place to delve into this problem, but it is a problem that needs to be solved.

It is useful to classify the constraints applied by management processes into two categories, although the categories represent extremes on a continuum: 

1) Prescriptive constraints: these specify more or less precisely the particular outcomes that occur in the managed group. For example, DNA determines the specific proteins that are produced in a cell, including the quantities. And in a human command economy, the central authority prescribes specific economic outcomes, such as the nature and volume of the consumer goods that are to be produced. Where constraints are prescriptive, evolvability resides primarily in the manager, not in the other entities in the group.

Note the last part – “evolvability resides primarily in the manager” – in this case DNA.  Anyone remember the insanity of J Richards and his claim that selection works ultimately at the level of the phenotype, not the genotype?  More “movement” madness.  Of course, it’s DNA, the genotype, not the phenotype.

2) Enabling constraints: these achieve outcomes that are best for the group without specifying what those outcomes are. They accomplish this by aligning the interests of group members with the interests of the group as a whole, and then letting the entities adapt freely in pursuit of those aligned interests. 

Problem: large numbers of Whites today do not perceive that their individual interests align with group – racial – interests.  That perception is incorrect, but how can it be corrected?  Certainly not by the stupidity of Der Movement, Inc.

Of course, enabling constraints became more effective once evolution produced entities that were highly evolvable and capable of pursuing their own interests adaptively. The potential advantages of having evolvable entities managed by enabling rather than prescriptive constraints were demonstrated by the competitive superiority of free market economies over command economies in the 20th century. 

Well, maybe.  But given how the “free market economies” have become subverted by globalist elites and middleman minorities, I’m not sanguine for the long term future of the alleged superiority of the “free market” in an age of increasingly militant populism.

It is not difficult to identify scenarios in which selection would favour entities that develop power over others. For example, their power may enable them to monopolize resources (including access to reproductive opportunities), or to predate others. But exercising power in these ways does not necessarily align their evolutionary/adaptive interests with those they have power over.

Right, but they may not care.  Jews have been successful – at least in the short-term in any given locale, but possibly long-term for their entire evolutionary history being predators on their host societies.

However, interests begin to be aligned to some extent if the powerful entities discover ways in which they can harvest an on-going stream of benefits from those they control. Once this occurs, they may do better if they use their power to help the group survive and thrive, and thereby produce a larger stream of harvestable benefits, not just a once-off dividend.

OK, agreed, but this requires (a) that the managing entities have innate interests aligned with the managed, and (b) the managers are capable of rational long-term thinking and strategizing.

In some circumstances, proto-managers that solve the cooperation problem and harvest an on-going stream of benefits may be able to do better than if they move between groups, exploiting them as they go. 

Bowery’s concept of Jewish virulence.

Where this is the case, selection operating at the level of individual proto-managers will tend to favour those that remain with a group and use their power to increase the stream of benefits that they harvest from it (Stewart, 1995, Stewart, 1997a, Stewart, 2000).

Jewish virulence is decreased when they are forced to stay local and suffer the same fate as the host population.

Salthe (1985) demonstrates that constraints that can control a dynamic of interacting entities may arise in either of two ways: 

1) Upper-level constraints: these arise external to the dynamic of entities. They can influence the dynamic without being influenced in return. This is often because they are larger in scale than the entities they constrain, and are constituted by processes that operate significantly more slowly than the interactions in the dynamic. Examples of abiotic upper-level constraints that act on a population of entities include features of the environment that are relatively unchanging from the perspective of the interacting entities, such as large-scale physical structure in the environment. The external managers referred to in this paper are evolvable systems of upper-level constraints. It is worth emphasizing here that they are often constituted by processes rather than entities.

In human affairs, processes and entities become intertwined.  Can we separate out the human factor?  You have the “process” of “democracy”- and this process becomes subverted by human entities with conflicting interests.

2)  Lower-level constraints: these arise within the entities themselves. These constraints are relatively fixed, internal features of the interacting entities that can influence how entities behave in interactions, but are not influenced in return. In effect, they hardwire entities. Examples of lower level constraints in living entities include genetic elements, and internalized norms, customs and beliefs.

In humans, the genes and the “customs and beliefs” are related via cross-talk.

Importantly, the evolutionary interests of a distributed internal manager tend to be aligned with the interests of the group that it manages. The manager will capture the benefits of any cooperative activities within the group, because it exists in each of the members of the group. Selection will therefore favour any variant internal manager that constrains the members of the group in ways that promote beneficial cooperation. 

Group selection theory.  But this has to be proofed against free riders, particularly against either native or alien elites who have – or believe they have – interests that are in conflict with that of the broader group.  Note that “because it exists in each of the members of the group” directly implies that the managerial processes are inherent in all the members of the group.  That sounds nice in theory, but managerial elites always form in practice. You will need the “upper-level constraints” to control their behavior, and dependable constrains have not yet been devised.

But the potential of cooperation can be realized only to the extent that the cooperation problem is overcome. Unless the cooperation problem is solved, complex cooperative organization will not arise. It will not come into existence while individual entities fail to capture sufficient of the benefits of their cooperation. Selection at the group level, no matter how powerful, cannot call it into existence.

Free riding is the deadly enemy of group selection, ethnoracial nepotism, and inclusive fitness in defense of genetic interests.  Free riding must be fought at all costs.

We have seen that evolvable management, whether external or internal, can overcome the cooperation problem. It can manage a group of entities to ensure that beneficial cooperation can be sustained within the group and can therefore be the target of selection. This massively expands the possibility space that can be explored as the group evolves.

This is straightforward evolutionary biology, but applied to – in the case of humans – political, social, and cultural organization. An objective is to build a managerial structure that is characterized by an inherent trait of evolvability.  Just like devising methods to prevent rent-seeking free riding, devising processes and constraints that ensure that the management can evolve is no easy task (and this ability to evolve will, as the author suggests above, help solve the free riding problem- the cooperation problem).  I suggest that the management will resist such evolvability, or hijack it for selfish interests – to evolve (or devolve) toward parasitism.  Making positive pro-group evolvability “baked into the cake” of managerial entities and processes is a task of fundamental importance. There are no easy answers.  Somehow, there has to be self-perpetuating upper-level and lower-level constraints that exhibit positive feedback and self-reinforcement. It may be prudent to have “separation of powers” with multiple entities and/or processes so that competition between them is channeled in the direction, paradoxically, of increasing cooperation in defense of the broader group’s interests.

Where a powerful manager is able to harvest an on-going stream of benefits from the group it manages, it will be able to capture the benefits of any management that increases the productivity of the group. 

This assumes a congruence between interests of manager and group, and also assumes a long-term strategy and vision. This is because it is very possible for alien parasitical managers to “harvest an in-going stream of benefits” through destructive exploitation of the managed group. One has only to look at the globalist capitalist elites and/or Jewish control of White societies for examples of this.

It will therefore be able to advance its own evolutionary/adaptive interests by promoting cooperation within the managed group. 

Again, only when manager and managed have similar or identical interests, if the manager knows this, and acts long-term.  The managers of the West today, with their own selfish interests, act to advance non-cooperation, atomization, and hyper-individualism among the managed White populations.

If managed groups compete with each other, and if a manager is less successful if it lives independently of its group, the most effective way in which it will be able to advance its interests will be to advance those of the managed group. In these circumstances the manager’s evolutionary/adaptive interests will tend to be aligned with those of the managed group as a whole (Stewart, 1997a, Stewart, 2000).

Not necessarily.  Parasitical managers can wreck a group and then move elsewhere – e.g., Bowery’s Jewish virulence thesis.

Because the manager’s evolutionary/adaptive interests will tend to be aligned with those of the group, selection acting on the manager will favour management which aligns the interests of the entities it manages with the interests of the group. As a result, all the members of the group, manager and managed entities alike, will adapt cooperatively to serve the group as a whole. Members of the group will be favoured by selection only insofar as they serve the adaptive interests of the group as a whole. As a consequence, the group will increasingly come to be organized and adapted to function as an entity in its own right. 

So, manager and group really need to be more or less genetically similar so that interests will correctly align. A Jewish-Asian overclass and a White underclass is not going to work out, HBDers.  Then, once biological homogeneity is established, cultural and social alignment must follow – we cannot have a managerial class that is a free riding parasite, even if it is composed of the co-ethnics of those managed.  We need to have social, political, and economic controls on managerial behavior, to suppress free riding and rent seeking behaviors.  Wealth disparity definitely needs to be suppressed soaps to eliminate the possibility of an exploitative plutocracy.

However, while ever cooperative organizations of the largest-scale are smaller than the planet, they will constitute a population of organizations that compete with each other. This will produce the cooperation problem. Organizations that act cooperatively towards others will tend to be out-competed. This dynamic is currently evident at the level of nation states. Global warming and international war are both manifestations of the cooperation problem. The existence of the cooperation problem at this level means that potential benefits can be realized through the emergence of global management (including global governance). Global management has the potential to overcome the cooperation problem at the level of nation states.

Effective global management would not only suppress destructive competition between nations. 

If genuine differences of interests exist, competition is inevitable.  What is “destructive?”  Yes, mutually annihilating war should be avoided, and, yes, I generally support Salter’s “universal nationalism.”  But the recent history of “global management” suggests that the ONLY competition that will be suppressed is that of Whites competing against Coloreds in order to secure legitimate White interests.

Ultimately it would also have the potential to realize the benefits of integrating all lower level entities into the global organization, including by supporting entities that contribute positively to the global organization. A global manager that is sufficiently powerful and evolvable has the potential to control a hierarchy of management that integrates the living and non-living processes of the planet into a cooperative and unified global entity(for more detailed discussion, see Stewart, 2000).

And this global manager is acceptable only insofar as it respect the rights and interests of lower levels of nested interests.  

When we stand back from the evolutionary process on this planet and consider it as a coherent whole, we see that there are two great trends within evolution. One is towards diversification. The other is towards integration and cooperation. As we have seen in some detail, both trends are driven by selection processes that are consistent with mainstream evolutionary theory.

And both are consistent with pan-European racial nationalism that preserves ethnic differences.

As the global entity emerges, it can be expected to increasingly manage the living processes, energy, matter and technology of the entire planet into a coordinated whole. As it develops, it will optimize all the processes on which it depends (including large-scale ecological systems) in order to create the most effective platform for its future evolution. 

“Future evolution: will be compromised by a racial panmixia that frustrates the evolutionary path toward increasing diversification by erasing all the evolved differences of population groups that contribute to human genetic and phenotypic diversity.

Of course, this is not likely to be the end of the evolutionary trajectory. The trajectory is likely to have unfolded elsewhere…

Endless Debunking

Taking out the trash is good, no doubt, but there’s more to life than trash.

Let’s see now – a HBD “race realist” is opposed to pan-Europeanism and is hostile to White ethnics.  Will wonders never cease?  New breaking news: the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.  Shocking! Unprecedented!

Seriously though, see this.  That goes into the whole problem of confusing descriptive and prescriptive memes, as well as the problem in getting descriptives wrong in the first place.

And it goes deeper than this, to the very heart of the issue: EGI vs. HBD; Salter stressing genetic kinship (i.e., EGI) over some sort of hierarchical ranking of phenotypic traits (i.e., HBD).

Not surprisingly, HBDers are typically hostile to “Salterism.”  HBD is a political movement dedicated to destroying White nationalism, with a long term goal of establishing polities ruled by Jews and Asians, with “First World White strains” as a subaltern stepandfetchit caste (and their woman as concubines for Jews and Asians).  Now, that’s not what the HBDers overtly preach of course, and many of them would genuinely reject that proposition – but it doesn’t matter if the outcome is intentional or not; regardless, the eventual outcome of HBD politics will be the same whether it is from mendacity or just plain stupidity.

Interestingly, despite the fact that HBD is incompatible with WN, the “movement” has a strong HBD faction.  Why so?  Well, first, Der Movement activists are not too bright.  Second, HBDers try to appeal to “First World strain” WNs by, essentially, patting them on the head and telling them how very, very Hajnal they all are.  You’re part of the cogelite crowd, my friends!  Ego-stroking is a powerful tool of memetic seduction.  Third, many so-called WNs are not really racial nationalists at all, not in the way it is properly defined.  These people support Whites only because they view Whites as the embodiment of certain traits; one can remember Jobling being a “pro-White activist” because Whites actualize Rawlsian liberalism.

So, there’s a lot of confusion and ideological incoherence in Der Movement (expected given the predominance of brain-addled Type I activists). Further, given the presence of a strong HBD faction along with a strong Nordicist faction (with some overlap between those groups), we have a situation that Der Movement really has not much of anything to offer to White ethnics.  Racial nationalism however does indeed have much to offer to those groups; indeed, everything to offer, if survival is the ultimate interest (i.e., genetic continuity).

It is important not to confuse Der Movement with the concept of racial nationalism.  An analogy would be the error of confusing the Republican Party has being the same as conservatism.  No, the former is merely a vehicle for the latter, and a poor vehicle at that.  Similarly, Der Movement is a pitifully pathetic vehicle for genuine racial nationalism, and a new vehicle is desperately required.

And, really, the amount of digital ink spilled over this tragicomic freak Faulk is disturbing.  There are so any other things of importance to discuss and analyze that to waste time and effort on someone who is essentially speaking a different language, with a different and incompatible worldview is, frankly, disgusting.  Why not tackle some of Salter’s more recent writings and analyses, for example?

Or, formulate your own worldview, instead of constantly “debunking” every memetic trash spewed forth from every and piece of flotsam and jetsam with an Internet connection.

There comes a time to advance and defend a strongly held position, a concrete and substantial worldview, instead of merely critiquing strawman misrepresentations of what others misconstrue what your position is (or should be).  I’m guilty of this as well, to be honest.  Certainly, this blog can benefit from more “what should be done” posts instead of “don’t do this.”

One final point for this post.  It is a strawman representation of White nationalism to assert that WNs consider all Whites as part of their ingroup, they want every single White person as part of their erthnostate.  No, every White person is potentially a part of the ingroup, but that depends on the people themselves as well. I’m not interested in SJW Whites, and am certainly not interested in White HBDers and other trash.  Yes, we can try and convince, but in the end, why should we want to accept enemies?  The idea is ludicrous.

Labor Day Follies

In all cases, emphasis added.

In March of 2017, Gregory Conte joined the National Policy Institute as Director of Operations. Before and since, he has proven to be indispensable in terms of planning our demonstrations and events, coordinating them as they happen, and keeping our supporters and staff–especially our President, Richard Spencer–safe. He also undertakes any and every chore-like duty that arises in the course of operating a tiny organization like the National Policy Institute. In short, he is fine employee.

He’s a fine employee…until he’s gone.  Seriously though, this is a common paradigm in Der Movement…one day someone is great, a fine employee, part of the team, a valuable asset, and the next day they’re anathema, it all falls apart.  That’s being going on in the Alt Right for quite some time – Jorjani being another prime example.

Spencer comments on the rumors (reproduced at the Luke Ford site):

Richard Spencer says August 29, 2018 on JF Gariepy’s show: “Greg Conte’s not the person spreading this rumor. The origin of this whole thing is a basic misunderstanding and Greg and my growing apart the past three months. It was very frustrating for me… I know exactly the people who started promoting this, the Irony Bros first and then Luke Ford… The people who were there including Mike Enoch, who was literally right there, have disabused these people.”

In the last analysis, what’s important is that the Alt Right/Altright.com/NPI has fallen apart – totally predictable and I did predict it (but didn’t think it would happen quite so fast) – and the anti-Whites get another Far Right defeat and humiliation to crow about.  However, the details as to why it happened are important from a moral and leadership standpoint; the whole thing is bizarre.  If Spencer’s “take” is correct, then why isn’t Conte putting the rumors (which publicly humiliate him) to rest?  Why the reference to July 22 in his resignation letter?  

How about sharing with us at least the bare bones general reason for the “misunderstanding” and the “growing apart.”  If it is not personal, then what?  Ideological?  Strategy and tactics?  What?  When I’ve had differences with “movement leaders” I’ve always explained what these differences are – and they fall in the category of ideology, strategy, or both.

Why not here in this case?

Whatever the story in this case, many “movement” schisms occur because a “leader” or group doesn’t have a clear ideology or strategy to begin with.  Der Movement is strange.  On the one hand, there IS a fossilized, rigid dogma that I often criticize here.  The problem is that the dogma is often implicit, not explicit, and is sometimes at odds with “official policy” – meaning there is no real official policy at all – or the dogma is not consistently applied, or there is open conflict between factions following alternative dogmas (real and implicit vs superficial and explicit).  One can think of Rockwell trying to appease both the pan-Aryan and Nordicist factions leading to the Patler incident (in large part initiated by Pierce), then Pierce’s National Alliance, which was officially pan-European but with a hardcore Nordicist foundation.  All recipes for dissension.  Then there is Amren, whose position on the Jews is unclear between an official pro-Jewish position and having writers that have previously criticized Jewry – and are they a White advocacy group or HBD Yellow Supremacists?

There needs to be a rock-solid EXPLICIT ideology, with a clearly defined ingroup, with the actual working of the group always consistent with that ideology.  And if something changes it needs to be EXPLICIT, so people always know what is going on, without uncertainty and confusion.

More stupidity from Zman (note how these types gravitate toward ethnonationalism and have an allergic reaction to the pan-European ideal):

Now, as far as the concept of a white ethno-state that Richard Spencer promotes, well, I’m skeptical. There is a reason Europeans fought thousands of wars. 

Yes, because until recently, national politics and great power rivalries were for the most part local/continental.  Today, in the era of the Clash of Civilizations and global grand politics, the battles are racial, civilizational, and existential.  If the ethnonationalists want to stay stuck in the past, then leave them there to rot, and the rest of us can deal with the present and the future.

Historically, race is not a great unifier. It is useful as a short hand when starting to sort human populations geographically. It’s not the primary identity people have, even in America which has a small former slave population that is entirely of African origin. Caribbean and African immigrants refuse to see themselves as in the same tribe as the former slave population.

Yes, which is why Black radical organizations separate out these groups from typical African-Americans…except that they don’t.  Which is why Black radical leaders in America have never come from the Caribbean…but they have.  What an idiot.  It’s about race, race, and again race.

Ethnicity is a much stronger bond, especially when it is combined with geography. It’s why, despite the efforts of successive conquerors, Europe is a land of many people with many identities.

And why the wars of ethnonationalists wrecked the White world – as Stoddard predicted (you know, Stoddard, one of you guys, a Type I) – and why Europe is now being colonized by the Global South.

Even America, a land of white mutts, breaks down regionally. Southern whites see themselves as distinct from the Northern whites. That said, the rest of the world sees American whites as a unique ethnicity. It’s also becoming clear to whites all over America that we are a new identity group within America.

So, this idiot ends up contradicting his original thesis.

In summary, I think what will happen in Europe is the evolution of a national populism that is rooted in local ethnicity. Poles will work with Italians to oppose globalist and Eurocrats, but will see themselves as primarily Poles and Italians. Localism will make a comeback in a big way in Europe. In the US, the Cold Civil War will eventually give way to an acceptance of demographic reality. America will become a majority-minority country and stop being America, at least the version sold to us at patriotic events.

In summary, Europe and the White race are doomed, unless the West accepts that narrow ethnonationalism died in the ruins of Berlin in 1945.  Comically, narrow jingoistic ethnonationalism died being defended by pan-Europeanism, as some of the last defenders of Berlin were the French SS of the Charlemagne division.  The nations and peoples of Europe can survive only by making common cause with each other, not as some sort of brief alliance of convenience, but as an Imperium which – as Yockey repeatedly stated – retains local autonomy and preserves local identities.

If this Zman wants to do the usual tin cup panhandling, he’d better start putting out a better product.