Category: Proofreader

Der Movement in Der News, 5/5/17

Der Movement’s ups and downs.

Here is an example of why I really dislike the alt Right: the smug navel-gazing attitude of memetic imperialism; that the Alt Right constitutes all of the sane/reasonable faction of the “movement.”

So, anything to the right of the Alt Right is just “White supremacy,” eh? There are no White nationalists – people who do not play the game of “supremacy” – outside of the Alt Right? Is that the idea?  We all have to scream Hail Kek, pontificate about a stupid frog, worship King Cuck Trump, engage in millennial juvenile jackassery, and value style over substance.

To be honest, I can’t wait until this Alt Right fad peters out.  How long is it going to take? Until then, we’ll have to endure all of these millennial types breathlessly rediscovering things the rest of us knew 20 years ago.  Oh, but they’ll tell us that all we old farts failed and didn’t get the job done.  Very well, but if you’re going to focus on failure, then why doesn’t the Alt Right have the moral courage to admit that the entire “movement” is a failure, and needs to be rebuilt from the ground up?

Europe is the motherland of our race. Until the aftermath of World War II, it was the exclusive homeland of our race. No other race has any legitimate claim on it. Thus there is absolutely no reason why the nations of Europe should not remove all non-whites.

Yes, indeed, including and especially “British Asians.”  Out, out, out.  And, no, we will not accept “Chinatown” colonies in Western lands, and no black-booted Chinese girls with guns to give some cheap masochistic thrills to basement-dwelling omega males and their yellow fever fetishes.


Posted May 4, 2017 at 5:29 am | Permalink

“Instead, they use euphemisms like ‘diversity’ and ‘multiculturalism.’ Whenever a business, a church, a school, or a neighborhood becomes more ‘diverse’ or ‘multicultural,’ that simply means fewer whites and more non-whites.”

“Vibrancy” and “vibrant” are similar euphemisms. These are words I cannot use without irony or hear without feeling scorn.

I presume that a corpse riddled with maggots can be characterized as “vibrant.” Is it not teeming with life?

Spencer is right about this.  If car insurance covered oil changes, garages would be billing hundreds of dollars just to change the oil and filter.

Doesn’t the Right have people with military training and other relevant skills? Because of a profound lack of leadership, the Right always fails to use, to leverage, the resources it has. Fail.  Fail.  Fail. 

The review of other research in the paper notes northern Europe is low in “racism” (meaning: not wanting foreigners) and high in generalized trust. In southern Europe this is completely reversed. In Greece, nobody trusts anybody and nobody likes foreigners.

The obvious problem with that is that – like virtually everything associated with Tricky Dick’s pseudoscience – it is completely divorced from real world reality.  The on-the-ground reality is that Italy, Greece, Spain, etc. are being overrun with foreigners, saturated with migrants both legal and illegal, and that the governments of those nations do nothing except to welcome more aliens, and the general populations of those nations aren’t actually doing much of anything about it. Actually, in Western Europe (if we count Greece as being politically as “Western Europe” although it is not so geographically and not really culturally either), nationalist reactions against foreigners have been generally more pronounced in the north, with the exception of Golden Dawn in Greece, and they are nowhere near the levers of power.  Where’s the wop equivalent of Brexit?  Where’s the dago equivalent of Le Pen or even Wilders?  Or even an Eastern European like Orban? With all the alleged dislike of foreigners, you’d think that Southern Europe would be swarming with Le Pens, and Brexits, and Orbans, and Wilders, and that’s not the case.

And, indeed, the world sighs with relief that, say, Germany is so non-ethnocentric that Germans never displayed in their history any militant ethnocentrism, militarism, nationalism, or distrust of foreigners whatsoever. With their noted efficiency, imagine if they did!  It could, like you know, start a world war or two – wars that could have wrecked the White world instead of the bright shining utopia of absolute homogeneity and security we all enjoy today! Whew!  We all sure dodged that bullet!

Word of warning: anything linked to Lynn has to be taken with a grain of salt the size of the iceberg that sunk the Titanic.

Watchmen review.  Individuals’ opinions of the characters in that work likely reflect underlying philosophical and personality differences. For example, while I found the Comedian amusing I also found his unrelenting cynicism to be, ultimately, boringly predictable and somewhat pretentious. And while Rorschach rigid moral certitude may have a bit too inflexible for optimum outcomes, it was somewhat bracing and Faustian in its impulses. If I’m criticized for being too bitter and negative, why is it a good thing for Eddie Blake?  Because he knows how to crack a few good one-liners?  Then again, like Rorschach, I’m a moralpath.

And there’s a big difference between my cynicism and that of the Comedian. Unlike the Comedian, who just made a show of his negativism and never offered any constructive suggestions, I have put forth ideas on how to rebuild the “movement” from the ground up. If my ideas and suggestions are ignored does not mean that those ideas and suggestions are not out there, for the “taking.” Eddie Blake, by comparison, was just a drama queen trying to impress with his “bad attitude.”

Since we have anti-vaxx scum numbered among the “movement” I’d like to point out that have a lot to talk about with their Somali buddies, sitting in a doctor’s office among the infected simians.


Something Wicked This Way Comes

Dealing with the “wicked” problems.

Please read this insightful comment by “Proofreader” here.

I’ll reproduce an excerpt from that comment below, but first some definitions of what a “wicked problem” is and how it applies to White nationalism.  I’ll say first that a rational-mined and linear person such as myself, with a fondness for direct solutions, is not comfortable with the wicked problem paradigm, but that’s too just too bad on me, since, to be honest, the wicked problem paradigm has more explanatory power to describe the current state of radial nationalism that does the more linear and binary approach.  Second, those familiar with the writings of van Vogt may detect a whiff of “null-A” (non-Aristotelian) thinking behind the wicked paradigm (van Vogt must be frowning in his grave over that). Third, this is familiar with Salter’s assertion in On Genetic Interests that there is no one, perfectly optimal approach to pursue EGI, and that there is never an endpoint – there can never be a stable “end” in which we can be satisfied that genetic interests are complexity safe, it is instead an endless iterative process of problems and interventions and complexity and consequences – the very definition of a wicked problem.

You can read this and also study Wikipedia’s definition, which includes the following checklists:

Rittel and Webber’s 1973 formulation of wicked problems in social policy planning specified ten characteristics:[3][4]

There is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem.

Wicked problems have no stopping rule.

Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but good or bad.

There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem.

Every solution to a wicked problem is a “one-shot operation”; because there is no opportunity to learn by trial and error, every attempt counts significantly.

Wicked problems do not have an enumerable (or an exhaustively describable) set of potential solutions, nor is there a well-described set of permissible operations that may be incorporated into the plan.

Every wicked problem is essentially unique.

Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another problem.

The existence of a discrepancy representing a wicked problem can be explained in numerous ways. The choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem’s resolution.

The social planner has no right to be wrong (i.e., planners are liable for the consequences of the actions they generate).

Conklin later generalized the concept of problem wickedness to areas other than planning and policy.

The defining characteristics are:[5]

The problem is not understood until after the formulation of a solution.

Wicked problems have no stopping rule.

Solutions to wicked problems are not right or wrong.

Every wicked problem is essentially novel and unique.

Every solution to a wicked problem is a ‘one shot operation.’

Wicked problems have no given alternative solutions.

Parallels to Der Movement are many.  Racial nationalism consists of many unique problems that have no concrete definitive formulation – indeed, activists often cannot even agree what the problems are, and the language to describe the situation, much less on how to solve the problems.  There is no “stopping rule” – when do we know when these problems (that we cannot precisely define) end?  When do we stop?  The “one shot” characteristic sometimes applies, as significant failure usually leads to collapse, so there is no “do over.”  This: “The choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem’s resolution” is relevant since there is an issue in the “movement” of semantics and of interpretations.  For example, what I term “pan-European” and “ethnonationalism” is not the same as how others define those terms.  The “movement” likes to explain the failure of American racial nationalism by saying it is due to the multi-ethnic nature of White America, while my explanations are quite different (e.g., stupid fossilized dogma, bizarre theories, wasting time on peripheral issues, ethnic fetishism, and piss-poor quota queen affirmative action leadership).  So, how one proposes resolution is going to be based upon the different definitions and explanations. One can of course think of many other ways in which the “movement’s” problems fulfill the wicked paradigm – to make a comprehensive list would make this article ten times its actual length, so I’ll let the reader consider those examples themselves.

The Wikipedia article proposes three basic approaches to deal with such problems: authoritative, competitive, and collaborative.  Note that Proofreader cites some approaches (design, loose-fit) that can be used for each of the three major Wikipedia approaches; those three are described thus:

These strategies seek to tame wicked problems by vesting the responsibility for solving the problems in the hands of a few people. The reduction in the number of stakeholders reduces problem complexity, as many competing points of view are eliminated at the start. The disadvantage is that authorities and experts charged with solving the problem may not have an appreciation of all the perspectives needed to tackle the problem.
CompetitiveThese strategies attempt to solve wicked problems by pitting opposing points of view against each other, requiring parties that hold these views to come up with their preferred solutions. The advantage of this approach is that different solutions can be weighed up against each other and the best one chosen. The disadvantage is that this adversarial approach creates a confrontational environment in which knowledge sharing is discouraged. Consequently, the parties involved may not have an incentive to come up with their best possible solution.
CollaborativeThese strategies aim to engage all stakeholders in order to find the best possible solution for all stakeholders. Typically these approaches involve meetings in which issues and ideas are discussed and a common, agreed approach is formulated.

The Authoritative approach is the default for Der Movement – some leader, some fuhrer will decide everything and tell us what to believe: a Hitler, a Pierce, or whoever.  That has failed; not only is there no one with the moral authority to do so, especially in the Internet age where everyone has a “voice” and an opinion – and getting all these people to agree is like herding (rabid) cats, but this approach failed in the past, with all the eggs being put into failed baskets.  Some wish to do this today, they think their leader or their group has all the answers – actually they usually are not even asking the right questions – but not everyone is buying their nonsense, and the activist rank and file, with their debased currency of stupidity, couldn’t buy even wise ideas.  Note: “that authorities and experts charged with solving the problem may not have an appreciation of all the perspectives needed to tackle the problem.” Indeed.  Narrow-minded folks sitting on the mountaintop with their fossilized dogma and serial monogamy cannot have any idea of how to deal with problems – they cannot really understand what the problems are.  The same applies to groups that are stuck in freakishness and narrow fossilized dogma and do not grasp all the perspectives required to deal with problems.  And the authoritative “movement” – which in America sometimes makes the pretense of being “pan-European” – certainly does not engage all of the “stakeholders” in their alleged pan-European effort (unless they define Europe specifically as that land area to the north of Vienna and the west of Berlin).  In my early days in Der Movement I bought into (with my debased currency of that time) the Authoritative mindset, until seeing the (gross) error of my ways.

I have more recently favored the competitive approach, after having given up trying to get most (forget about all) of the “movement” to see reason as I define it.  Therefore, let the various stakeholders or groups of like-minded stakeholders form their various groups and groupuscules, maintaining ideological diversity, and competing for influence among racial nationalists. Having more and more ideologically (and ethnically) diverse White involved increases the chances that someone will have the perspectives required to deal with the problems at hand.  Over time, some groups can become more influential, not by self-declared authoritative fuhrership, but by a process of memetic natural selection, an iterative process (well-suited for wicked problems) in which those memes and meme-promoting groups/groupuscules prosper (or not) depending upon how well they approach the problems in a given context and environment.  Indeed, by “approach” I mean not only offered solutions (or, per the wicked paradigm interventions rather than solutions) but the explanations, definitions, and identification of problems that underlie what interventions/solutions are offered.  Of course, the process of natural selection can be thrown off the correct path by “movement” freakishness and the quota system as per “movement” leadership, ethnic fetishism, and memetic success (or lack thereof).  The competitive approach also has the problems cited in the Wikipedia article: for example, knowledge sharing and productive collaboration is disincentivized by the competitive aspect of this approach.

The collaborative method – the truly collaborative approach – has never been tried in the American “movement.”  If it is done truly and sincerely, this may be the best approach, getting all the relevant stakeholders involved and attempting to find the best iteration for the current situation.  This leverages the ideas and abilities of a greater pool of people and memetic diversity, and by sharing knowledge enhances the possibility of building infrastructures and making the correct interventions.  Of course, this is a double-edged sword. More people involved makes it more difficult to find agreement, may cause compromises that dilute optimized interventions, and increases the possibility of defective malefactors getting involved.  The natural selection process that is optimized in the competitive mode is not going to be as powerful in the purely collaborative model.  Another danger – one that is likely given “movement” history – is that the collaborations will become narrow, exclude a more diverse set of stakeholders, and morph into an Authoritative model that descends into rigid dogma.

Here is an excerpt from Proofreader’s comment:

I think one should define problems and solutions in more iterative, dynamic terms, “to shift the goal of action on significant problems from solution to intervention. Instead of seeking just the right moves to eliminate a problem once and for all, one should recognize that any actions occur in an ongoing process, in which further actions will be needed later.” Carl von Clausewitz’s discussion of “fog” and “friction” in warfare, and Maurice Bardèche’s remark that fascism is “an empirical medicine born of crisis,” are pertinent here.

Of course, admitting “significant actors to the design process,” as Schuler recommends in some situations, should not mean admitting “significant malefactors to the design process.”

I would suggest that a major source of wicked problems among White nationalists is the “toxic triangle” of destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments briefly discussed in Adrian Furnham’s book, The Elephant in the Boardroom: The Causes of Leadership Derailment (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010). For want of a sound political culture, “followers ‘conspire’ with bad leaders and particular situations. They encourage, allow, and even require, destructive leadership styles rather than prevent them” (p. 22). This might help to explain the rise of destructive leaders like Nick Griffin and Gianfranco Fini. Although such “postfascists” should have their heads stuck on posts for their betrayals, such exemplary punishment is unlikely to solve the problem of bad leadership. The role of susceptible followers (who can be divided into “colluders” and “conformers”) in enabling destructive leaders needs to be addressed. Some means of breaking the toxic triangle needs to be found.

The combination of destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments may be likened to the combination of heat, fuel, and oxygen needed to sustain a fire. Some political cultures are prone to spontaneous combustion.

Another source of wicked problems is widespread disregard for sensible and adaptive priorities, methods, and metrics — something you have discussed repeatedly, notably with reference to the Pareto principle.

Most “activists” are “conformers” who go along with “movement” dogma and enable the affirmative action program and most of the rest are “colluders” who constitute the secondary “leadership” who enable and amplify the flaws of the top “leadership.”  On the one hand, we don’t want malefactors involved in the “design process” but, on the other hand, most “activists” tend to be malefactors of one sort or another.

I would like to make clear that consideration of the wicked paradigm by no means implies that we should not strive for resolution of issues, attempt concrete declarations on fundamental points, or pursue goals, with defined endpoints.  Therefore, we need to address “movement” problems, we need to define what our ingroup is (after all, the very definition of any group is “in/out” – anyone who cannot answer that is useless for organizing) and what our goals are, and we need not lose sight of the ethnostate as an endpoint.  

We need, however, to be cognizant of the fact that some of these objectives may not be reached in a neat “over and done with” manner.  It is possible that the manner in which “wickedness” manifests itself is by a lack of broad-based agreement through the “movement” on these issues.  In other words, it may be possible, within each group or groupuscule, to come to final and definitive conclusions on some fundamental issues, but that there will be continued disagreements between groups and groupuscules in these issues. This implies a lack of a current authoritarian consensus; therefore, intervention on these issues would imply the competition model (which may or may not eventually lead to an authoritarian winner) and/or the collaboration model (which may or may not lead to a soft-authoritarian consensus on these issues).  But one should not throw up their hands in despair and say “we shouldn’t attempt resolution.”  Just accept that one cannot accept blanket agreement (at this point in time at least) within the “movement” on these issues. The intervention therefore should be to at least get your corner of the “movement” resolved on certain issues so you know how you are moving forward in competition and/or collaboration with other “movement” corners and precincts.

So what do I recommend?  This is going to require more thought and give-and-take among sane and reasonable racial nationalists.

I would reject the Authoritative model and go for some combination of the Competitive and Collaborative models – strike a balance that conserves ideological diversity and healthy competition and memetic selection while also having collaboration, including a wide array of stakeholders, between at least groups and groupuscles with broadly similar ideas.  As stated above, I think we should strive for real solutions even though the wicked paradigm suggests that such solutions are not strictly achievable.  If you strive for a real solution and fall short, at least you may have a solid intervention that can be adjusted through iteration; if you give up and only go for ad hoc adjustments, you may not even achieve a reasonable intervention. Of course, one must be realistic and not rigidly demand the One and Only Solution, but there does need to be some set of fundamental principles that underlie activism.  If everything is questioned, if everything is in flux, if everything is always unstable, then nothing can be achieved.

That’s all for now, likely more to come.  This should be a topic for discussion and analysis for people other than me.

More on Salter/Proofreader, 10/26/15

A few more comments.

A major advantage of Salterism, and one that can help bridge the gap between racial nationalists and more healthy elements of immigration-skeptic mainstream paleoconservatives is the ability to identify ultimate interests and cut through the morass of self-defeating arguments on immigration (or any other issue).
For example see this, which is informed by my understanding of, and acceptance of, the EGI concept.  Even vocal immigration skeptics, such as Saint Viktor Orban or Pat Buchanan put the issue in cultural and civilizational terms. That’s fine as far as it goes, but that’s not the underlying problem. If you concentrate on that, you get the likes of Richard Lynn proclaiming the death of Europe with his calm confidence that, why it’ll be all right, since East Asians will carry on our culture for us (actually, they won’t, but that’s not really the point, is it?). Then we also have the likes of Lynn with the IQ fetish, others who talk about “law abiding and productive immigrants,” leading to arguments that put immigration in starkly economic terms, viewing peoples as fungible economic units.  We have American conservatives who care only about “legality,” painting themselves in a corner since, if the only issue is legality, then genocidal race replacement can be made A-OK simply by the stroke of  a pen, signing a new law into existence (see 1965 for an example).  Even people in the “movement” get confused, and get all hot and bothered over some rare fair-complexioned Kalash or Iranian or Turk or Hapa and believe that genetic extinction is fine as long as their replacements sort of “look like us.”
Putting the issue in the context of kinship goes beyond all of that.  Putting a Salterian argument forward absolutelyforces ethnicity, race, and racial preservation to be at the forefront of any argument. You cannot preserve genetic kinship, genetic interests, through any sort of aracial scheme. Civic nationalism and a “shared culture” does not work. Economics are irrelevant. Phenotype has no meaning without a genetic foundation to back it up. Surely, all these other things are important and must be considered, after the genetic foundation is taken care of.
A real Movement based on a reasonable Salterism (and not the idiots who use chants of “EGI” as a talisman to explain everything from bad weather to the price of milk) can promote memes that have real explanatory power, and satisfy the deep yearnings of people for demographic preservation without mealy-mouthed “implicit” “dog-whistling” on race. 
Weaponizing discourse empowers our side. Salterism gives racial activists a form of discourse lacking in other areas on the Right, on a subject which reaches deep into peoples’ sense of identity, and a half-realized, dimly acknowledged sense of ethny=extended family. The “movement’s” blithe dismissal of Salter’s work is highly destructive, as an important memetic weapon is discarded without a proper consideration of its potential. Never mind that Salterism has fundamental importance beyond its instrumental use in politics: how can we understand how different sociopolitical options affect our ultimate interests if we have no idea that these ultimate interests even exist, much less be able to (at least approximately) quantify them?
A real Movement needs to distinguish itself from the aracial Right while, at the same time, offering those on the aracial Right some insights that they obviously lack. Salterism has vast potential for clarifying issues and focusing attention in the right direction. Espousing Salterism also “separates the men from the boys” and allows healthy-minded but as-of-yet ill-informed Whites to see exactly who it is who has the answers to the deep questions that these Whites didn’t even know they were supposed to be asking.

Initial Answers to Proofreader

A cursory and somewhat superficial initial answer.

A few comments answering Proofreader’s original comments/questions. This is by no means a comprehensive response or the final word.  Just a few thoughts to open up the discussion of these issues.
Proofreader in italics, my comments in plain font.
I think the following items might be key considerations with regard to promoting and popularizing Frank Salter’s work:
1. A detailed stocktake or study of Salter’s work as it now exists and of its reception among White nationalists.
This can be useful. Most analyses of Salter’s work have been relatively brief positive reviews (mostly written by myself at American Renaissance, The Occidental Quarterly, etc.), some positive reviews that get things drastically wrong (asserting that Salter promotes a “genetic stasis” and is against eugenics), and the negative reviews, which are all ideologically motivated and that exhibit misunderstandings, distortions, subjective “pointing and sputtering,” as well as straw man arguments.
I don’t want to get into the situation of simply repeating what I have already written, so if others want to tackle this, please go ahead.  I certainly can help, if needed.
 2. Summarizing Everett M. Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations, Scott Berkun observes that “new ideas spread at speeds determined by psychology and sociology, not the abstract merits of those new ideas.” (Scott Berkun, The Myths of Innovation [Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly, 2010], p. 65.) Berkun also notes that Rogers identifies five factors that influence the diffusion of innovations: relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability. He comments (p. 66): “While there’s a lot to be said for raising bars and pushing envelopes, breakthroughs happen for societies when innovations diffuse, not when they remain forever ‘ahead of their time.’”
Berkun is likely correct. My experience has been that appeal to logic, re: EGI has failed to make a significant impact. On the one hand, I will continue to try and diffuse Salter’s ideas; on the other hand, it is not clear to me what sociological change will trigger greater receptivity to his ideas. Certainly, most clear thinking on race seems to be triggered so far by proximate proxies of genetic interest – for example, the behavior of alien immigrants, crime, cultural incompatibility, triggers native backlash that supports native genetic interests. But the genetic interests are always in the background. Perhaps, as has been suggested by some, a greater interest in genetics, including the popularity of personal genetic analyses, would trigger a greater acceptance of the political value of understanding genetic interests and biological fitness in human interactions.  I wish that genetic testing companies, as well as population geneticists, would focus more on measurements of kinship/relative gene sharing, rather than on the less biopolitically relevant metrics heretofore evaluated.  Perhaps they avoid measuring kinship for ideological reasons, because they understand its potential to alert people of their relatedness to different peoples and hence the relative assimilability of peoples in a polity?  In other words, the “guardians” of genetic information understand what needs to be hidden from people to prevent their acknowledgment of their genetic interests.
3. What factors might advance or retard the spread of Salter’s ideas among White nationalists?
Salter’s ideas would be advanced among WNs by them having a more empirical mindset, valuing kinship and biological fitness, etc. A general increase in interest in genetics among the population will “trickle down” (or up) to WNs. Conversely, Salter’s ideas are impeded by “old school” emphases on “traditional physical anthropology” or an anti-scientific neo-Ludditism. Activists adopt an attitude of not caring about theory or ideology, they think science is irrelevant, or above and beyond them. They shut their minds to new ideas, even when these are worded in ways understandable to the layman. European nationalists think all they need is their narrow ethnic particularisms, and see no need to invoke deeper interests.  These latter issues are all impediments.
What does Salter’s work mean for White nationalism and White nationalists?
It is a quantitative evaluation and identification of ultimate interests. It demonstrates that ethnocentric behavior is adaptive, including at the individual level. It presents a method to determine costs and benefits of different political scenarios by identifying the benefits and costs to society or to any individual actor, based for example on “child equivalents” of genetic interest gained or foregone based on one choice or another. It clarifies thinking on interests, and why ultimate genetic interests are more fundamental than the proximate interests most people – including WNs – value instead. It provides a clear path to racial solutions to problems. Thus, a person who bases policy on culture or IQ or economics or even physical appearance runs the risk of having a “solution” foisted upon them that will lead to their dispossession. But since Salter’s work is based on genetic kinship, on relatedness, following Salter’s prescriptions will necessarily lead to solutions consistent with ethnic and racial preservationism. You can’t sidestep genetic interests by invoking the “high IQ’ of an alien group, or that group’s “economic value” or their cultural assimilability or even appearance (“I saw a fair Kalash, so let’s let them all in, they’re ‘White”).  The genetic data are what they are. You can use the resulting child equivalents as a form of “currency” to determine the relative worth of any decision. Is that Chinaman’s ‘high IQ’ worth the damage he does to your genetic interests?  Salter’s work allows you to ask the question. HBD merely says IQ trumps all and kinship is worthless. Traditional physical anthropology measures kinship indirectly, and often inaccurately, based on traits that show overlap between genetically distinct populations. Salter’s work directly attacks the race problem at its most fundamental level – who is more related to who?
What can it contribute to White nationalism, by itself and in combination with other things?
See answer above. It can complement other activist memes, such as Yockeyian High Culture or traditional phenotypism, by identifying and quantifying ultimate interests, and allowing for a comparison as to how these other proximate issues affect and/or overlap with ultimate interests. Also, Salter’s work can help identify – what needs to be done to ensure a general pursuit of ultimate interests so that, once this is satisfied, we can move on to other issues (such as actualizing a High Culture).
Salter’s work helps us cut through “movement” bullshit and focus on what’s most important – genetic kinship, NOT Kali Yuga or cephalic measurements or admixture percentages or Ostara-like racial histories or any form of civic nationalism.  It is instead – how similar or different are individuals and groups based on the relative sharing of distinctive genetic information, and how does that affect their biological fitness, which is based on gene sharing and genetic continuity. Salter’s work allows us to determine if and when we have at least minimally satisfied our adaptive fitness, after which we may concentrate on the bullshit, or, better still, on proximate issues that are not bullshit, such as those things that concerned Yockey.
What is the scope of Salter’s work, and to what degree is it compatible and interoperable, so to speak, with that of others? What would be its proper place in White nationalism? What does it challenge and what resistance (in the largest sense of the term) might it generate?
The scope of the work is that it is a universally applicable (for all people, actually for all evolved organisms, but of course acting upon it requires sentience) description and prescription to how to act adaptively in a complex world.  The work covers science, politics, and ethics, and while by no means the comprehensive final word (as Salter himself admits at the end), it is a comprehensive first word on the subject.  What are our ultimate interests?  What scientifically objective and quantifiable argument can be made in favor of racial preservation (the argument is objective, whether or not anyone values acting adaptively is subjective, a matter of values).  It is compatible with works that utilize empiricism to answer racially relevant questions. It could even be compatible with ostensibly unrelated “cultural” works such as that of Yockey, who eschews or even dies the significant value of “zoological” biological racism – if one is willing to take a critical view of Yockey’s flaws and agree that the Yockeyian view needs modification by biological realities. Salter’s work is not consistent with race denial, with those who concentrate solely on proximate biological issues such as IQ, and/or the mendacious who deny the existence of genetic interests for political reasons. Salter’s work challenges the mindset that empirical science is not important for activism, it challenges the existential/spiritual description of “race” as independent of “zoological” considerations, and it challenges and opposes viewpoints that exalt proximate interests and ignore the primacy of the ultimate.  Salter’s work has definitely generated resistance in those who oppose Whites defending their interests. It has also generated mild resistance from pro-White activists who mistakenly believe Salter rejects eugenics in favor of a racial-genetic stasis, and among those uninterested in genetic kinship because it distracts from their obsessive fetishes.
I have the impression that you see the work of Salter and Yockey as having an architectonic function and value (i.e., “of or pertaining to construction; directive, controlling; pertaining to the systematization of knowledge”).
Not sure what this means exactly. I view Salter as describing what our ultimate interests are (genetic continuity), while Yockey describes our primary proximate interests (actualizing a High Culture and engaging in High Politics [the Empire of the West – Imperium]).  Salter provides the fundamental foundation, the essentials that need to be taken care of first. Yockey describes to us what we should be doing after we have secured our genetic interests. The two are synergistic: without racial survival (Salter), there will be no one to build Yockey’s Imperium.  In turn, that Imperium will help secure, maintain, and advance our genetic interests.
Are we dealing with C. P. Snow’s “two cultures” here (i.e., a split between the humanities and the sciences)? You referred above to a split between “the more scientific and empirical Anglosphere tradition and the more existentialist and ‘spiritual’ continental European tradition.”
In a sense, yes. Salter represents an empirical, objective, materialist, rational, and scientific quantitative perspective well developed in the Anglosphere. Yockey represents a more subjective, irrational, spiritual-cultural-political “existential” viewpoint (“humanities” oriented) more at home in continental Europe. Although usually antagonistic, I believe the two worldviews should be compatible and cooperative.
I think the ideal would be to create a tradition that can draw upon both traditions you refer to, and that would have a thoroughly political teleology and teleonomy. (By the way, both Lothrop Stoddard and Dominique Venner advocated a humanism informed by the life sciences, which they respectively dubbed “scientific humanism” and “virile humanism.” Their humanism was secular, civilizational, and racial, rather than religious or universalist.)
I agree.
This is off-topic, but I wonder to what degree the prestige accorded to Thomas S. Kuhn’s celebrated work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, is attributable to (1) the merits of Kuhn’s works; (2) the fact that Kuhn was a Jew and could therefore benefit from Jewish ethnic networking; and (3) the utility of Kuhn’s thesis for rewriting the narrative (one might say that the narrative is rewritten from right to left, just like Hebrew).
All three, I think.
4. What changes does Salter’s work call for with regard to White nationalist ideology and discourse?
I believe I have discussed this above. The “movement” needs to drop all the fossilized dogma, all the old obsessions and fetishes, all the fake “racial histories,” all the old connections to HBD and other proximate measures, and adopt a more empirical and kinship-based view toward ultimate interests.  Of course, genetic interests are not everything. They are necessary, but not sufficient. First, we take care of EGI. Then we can move on to the objectives of Yockey.

What work does it call for?
Besides the obvious: how to popularize his ideas, I see the following follow-on projects:

1. An update/revision of the work to account for genetic structure.
2. A comprehensive defense of the work from critics.
3. A more detailed analysis of the practical consequences: how would a real-world polity incorporate Salterism in its policy?
4. How is Salterism compatible with Yockeyism?
5. Long range future of Salterism through the projected future of human existence/evolution/advanced technology.
Some of these things I  have already commented on in different forums; that material, added by new work, can be integrated and expanded.
By what means could and should Salter’s work be developed and popularized among White nationalists, inside and outside the English-speaking world?
I’m at a loss here. I have so far failed in my attempts. Anyone else have ideas?
What does it call for with regard to theoretical development, doctrinal articulation, and cultural diffusion? How might Salter’s work be adapted to discourse (which can range from complex theoretical systems to simple slogans and soundbites)?
I’ve commented on some of this above; but to a large extent these are questions that I do not have the answer to, since my attempts so far have failed to excite interest. Fresh ideas, anyone?
The distinctions between theory, doctrine, and discourse are worth noting. At present, Salter’s work is effectively a theory, not a doctrine or a discourse that one can readily encounter and easily assimilate, and On Genetic Interests is just one book among many.
True in a sense, but Salter’s position on universal nationalism forms the basis of a doctrine, and we cannot forget that the last third of OGI was on ethics.
5. What exactly do you mean when you refer to “the nationalist leadership”? Adapting Salter’s work is more metapolitical than political, which means that the relevant leaders and cadres will consist more of thinkers, writers, translators, editors, and publishers than the leaders of nationalist political organizations.
It might be better to focus more on the receivers and amplifiers, so to speak, than the loudspeakers.
Perhaps. My meaning is that it would be helpful if, for example, the leadership of European nationalist parties became acquainted with Salter’s thesis, and began to formulate policy, and utilize rhetoric, to promote racial interests in ultimate terms (genetic interests).  Putting ethnic and racial interests in proximate terms risks being manipulated in aracial ways.
6. What does it mean to weaponize doctrines and discourse? I should outline my considerations on this matter later, addressing discourse in static and dynamic terms.
I hope to see this analysis. I would think that one meaning is that one designs memes to achieve specific policy objectives. For example, discussion of EGI is not for polite academic interest, but to promote the idea that ethnic and racial interests are important, are fundamental to each individual’s interests, and can be (approximately) quantified in a genetic sense to represent a “biological currency” that constitutes value for individuals and groups.

In the end, other people need to step up to defend and extend Salter’s work, as well as to popularize it. If it is just me, along with a few other people here and there, that won’t do, and exposes a problem – a problem either in the work itself or in the “movement.”  The methodological and scientific aspect of the work is sound, the only “problem” it would have is that it may be too “dry,” too academic, not inspiring enough to interest the broad range of relevant activists. The problems of the ‘movement” are all to well known.