Typical “movement” stupidity.
“The universal nationalist believes that one can make a case for White Nationalism that would be compelling enough, “reasonable” enough, “fair” enough to garner support from each of these biologically distinct groups.”
This is absolute, unfettered nonsense. Universal nationalism is meant as a meme for Whites, not an attempt to plead with others for our right to exist. That many – most? – Whites are so Universalist in their natural mindset that they require universalism to intrude into nationalism is a fact that needs to be dealt with. Blame all those “high trust hunter gatherers” that the HBD faction is so fond of babbling about. But don’t blame those who understand that the rhetoric of universal nationalism has an appeal to the innate fair mindedness of White folks.
Universal nationalism is fully compatible with “doing what it takes” to secure racial survival. There is nothing in Salter’s book that suggests we need to care what happens to Burma or invest any energy in fighting their battles. Salterism says we need to invest in OURSELVES, while, at the same time, granting the Burmese the same right to do so. We are under no obligation to help them. Of course, “universal nationalism” would tell us that attempts to genocide the Burmese, to colonize them, etc. is morally wrong, so, yes, On Genetic Interests is not compatible with The Turner Diaries – but I thought that the “American New Right” eschewed Pierce’s genocidal fantasies, even independent of Salter?
If the author of this piece (did he actually read Salter’s book?) is so exercised over WNs wasting their time worrying about others, then go over to the Alt Right and chastise them about their obsession with Assad of Syria. I for one – a “universal nationalist” – really could care less about Syrians – apart from that they do not belong in White nations and that the West should not interfere with whatever civil war goes on there. They can all kill each other off, for all I care. That’s my version of “universal nationalism.”
See the sensible comments by “Leon” in the comments thread as well.
I can’t speak for Salter, but he has every right to be annoyed at the typically doltish reception his work has received from the imbecilic “movement.” Also interesting is that when self-styled “racial preservationists” make (in my opinion transparently disingenuous) appeals for a Universalist approach for “preserving all peoples’ no one bats an eye or utters a word of criticism. Let an academic write a book on genetic interests in which “universal nationalism” is suggested as a broad operating principle, and then it is all some sort of big problem. In reality, “universal nationalism” is merely giving others the opportunity to defend their interests, whether they successfully do so or not is their problem. Now, if helping others can be done without harming your own interests, fine, we can all afford to be generous, but there is no obligation to help others at your own expense.
Troubling dysgenic decline.
This video is a very interesting podcast from 2016 between Drs. Salter and Woodley concerning the real trends in changing population IQ. While IQ is not a topic I often discuss, it is important, and is a topic that is tainted by pseudoscience from both the Left as well as the Right. I do not know much about Woodley, but he sounds like a solid and honest academic from this podcast, so let’s consider some major points (as an aside – I wish more such excellent podcasts like this would be made by Salter).
First, we are in the midst of a troubling dysgenic decline in real IQ – perhaps as much as approximately one IQ point per decade.
Second, it is interesting that some of the more “culture-loaded” IQ tests are the most heritable, suggesting gene-culture ties.
Third, the Flynn effect mantra of the Left is put into its proper perspective, as something not measuring raw heritable g-loaded IQ, and in fact obscuring the reality of a dysgenic loss of IQ that is causing a relative decline in the production of geniuses, scientific/technical innovations, and important cultural artifacts.
Fourth, allegedly “fair” IQ tests like Raven’s are not so “fair” at all, and not as g-loaded as presumed. Although not mentioned in this podcast, if Raven’s is not “fair” do you suppose PISA test scores are? The pseudoscience is, as mentioned above, from the Right as well as the Left.
Fifth, although I’m not much interested in sports, the fact that reaction times have been slowing over the past century provides food for thought – thought indirectly linked to racial activism since the “bread and circuses” masses love sports, and thus sports, as part of mass pop culture, affects the race-culture problem.
I note there is a rough correlation between sociopolitical views and ideas about athletic performance over time. Those on the Left are more prone to “overrate the present” and lionize (mostly Colored) modern athletes as far superior to the (mostly White) athletes of the past. Those on the Right are less likely to casually dismiss the “traditional sports heroes” of the past.
Now, if reaction times are really slowing, then what can we say about athletic performance in sports in which reaction time is important – hitting a baseball for example (or boxing or hockey)? It puts into question leftist assumptions rooted in jock sniffing the Negro athlete. The components of performance related to reaction time – fundamental for some sports – would seem to be declining, not improving, over time.
Indeed, reaction times differ by race, with Negroes being the slowest, which again makes one question whether the Negro athlete of today is superior to the White athlete of the past (and, of course, intra-racial White-White cross-era comparisons of declining reaction time question leftist assumptions about sports as well). One can make counter-arguments that athletes do not represent the overall population, and that Victorian England was one specific sample, and that of course other factors than reaction time are important in athletic performance, etc. but still, the idea is provocative. The Caste Football pro-White sports types probably need to look into the implications of declining reaction times in making cross-era sports comparisons, implications favorable to a narrative of a Golden Age of White American sports.
In any case, getting back to the main topic, the loss of IQ, coupled with the worsening racial situation (increases in the population of the dumbest races) means that dark (in all meanings of that word) times are ahead for humanity, unless these trends can be arrested and then reversed.
While I had some disagreements with Polignano in the past about his interpretations of On Genetic Interests and Salter’s EGI theory, in general I see him as a positive influence, and his return to Counter-Currents constitutes one of the best pieces of “movement” news I’ve read in quite some time.
That doesn’t mean I may not disagree with him on issues in the future, and if I do it will be outlined here in my typically discreet and humble style.
But those are details. Hopefully now Counter-Currents will move forward away from Alt Right feuding and start to concentrate on producing quality intellectual material.
No White racial solidarity.
Let’s again consider Putnam’s oft-discussed findings about diversity eroding societal trust and repressing social engagement and investment in public goods (similar to findings by others and a topic often brought up by Salter).
Putnam not only found that diversity decreased trust between groups but within groups as well. That latter finding is somewhat counter intuitive, since one could reasonably assume that increased diversity, and the consequent increased distrust between groups, would strengthen a tribal “us against them” mentality and therefore increase trust within groups. But the opposite occurred, at least with those examples Putnam studied.
How can we interpret the counter intuitive finding that diversity erodes trust and societal cohesion within groups as well as between groups? This depends on whether this “within group” problem applies to all groups, or only to Whites. Perhaps those more familiar with the nuances of Putnam’s work – which I read some time ago and have no interest in revisiting as Putnam is a disgusting excuse for an academic who hid his findings for years and only published it with an accompanying screed promoting social engineering to grease the wheels of White dispossession (*) and my hypothesis here will require more data in any case for a fair evaluation – know more of this.
My hypothesis is as follows.
If within group trust is eroded by diversity for all groups, then this phenomenon reflects a general human (or should I say “hominid”) trend to withdraw and “hunker down” when faced with diversity,
If the effect is restricted to Whites (which I believe will be the case if a careful quantitative study is done), then this is a strictly White mental phenomenon. And how does this happen? The hypothesis suggest the following.
One could speculate various mechanisms if this was the case, but consider – a la Ignatiev’s “Race Traitor” paradigm – that Whites are the only group in which large numbers of the group – including a majority of influential elites – act overtly against group interests. Thus, there is no racial solidarity among Whites, no one you can racially trust unless you really know them – hence, when faced with diversity, Whites will mistrust other Whites because – given the omega cuckiness of many Whites – one can never be sure whether a given White is “on our side” or “on their side.” In a homogeneous White community this isn’t so much of a problem (of course political disagreements – including whether or not to import diversity – can precipitate such mistrust, but even so, in a homogeneous community such conflicts would be muted). However, in the presence of diversity, Whites must tread carefully. Is your White coworker someone you can trust to share your disgust over multiculturalism, or will they “report you to HR” because of your “bigotry?”
On the other hand, non-Whites (including Jews) can reliably depend on their co-ethnics showing ethic/racial solidarity, and siding with them against “the other” (and particularly against Whites). For Whites, a given fellow White is just as likely to be a Universalist cuck as they are to be someone sharing your beliefs.
Thus, diversity erodes within group trust among Whites (and likely only among Whites) because Whites are ideologically split on this race-diversity issue, and many Whites are SJW “altruistic punishers, so that in diverse environments fellow Whites may pose a threat since they would identify with “the other side.”
Ignatiev would be proud.
*Salter rightly claimed in On Genetic Interests that for a majority being replaced, the only thing worse than a multiculturalism that does not work is one that does work, since the workable multiculturalism will make race replacement more agreeable to those being replaced, while the pain of a failed multiculturalism may wake the majority up to prevent their dispossession. Putnam is clearly on the side of those who want multiculturalism to succeed.
Not properly using the resources at hand.
This analysis is from a left, hostile perspective, but is nevertheless troubling. Thus we read:
It remains to be seen what influence, if any, Salter may have on the further evolution of One Nation thinking on Islam and immigration. This may become more evident in 2017. To date, however, his contribution appears to have been quite modest. One Nation co-founder David Oldfield, once a close confidant to Hanson but now estranged, recently observed that ”She just doesn’t really read. She doesn’t read serious material.” Oldfield went on to claim that “it’s hard enough to get Pauline to read a single paragraph let alone documentation that’s research or scientifically based.”
Salter’s academic style is not obviously evident in Senator Hanson’s statements or One Nation policy documents published so far. Instead the core elements of One Nation policies, especially the claim that Islam is not a religion, appear to be largely lifted from American far-right writings which have their origins in conservative Christian evangelist attacks on Islam and the intellectual contributions of a handful of far-right ideologues. Although One Nation is stridently in favour of “Buy Australian” policies, its core policy on Islam is a foreign import.
I do not argue that a political leader needs to be a learned academic, nor a “layman” expert on the work of academics (although that would be helpful). But at least the leader must be conversant in the fundamentals of key material that should – no, must – inform their worldview. If an academic is available, “on site” so to speak, ready to help, and the leader does not take advantage of that help, you have a very serious problem. How can the Right compete with the Left Leviathan if the Right refuses to take advantage of even those meager resources it has available at hand?
Some new leadership cadres are required, I think.
Latest anti-racist lunacy.
The latest anti-White poisonous meme being promoted (in a recent issue of Science, for example) is that of the “myth of origins” in defense of mass migration. In other words, peoples (i.e., White people) have the “erroneous” idea that they have a single point of origin, which leads to “bias” against “migrants.” Instead, we are told, peoples are the product of “multiple migrations” with no single origin, hence – and this is really a non-sequitur – there is no rational justification to oppose migrants.
Now, my first response to this “argument” was – “hey, does that mean we don’t have to worry about all the oppressed indigenous peoples anymore?” You know what I mean here – all of those (carefully defined so as to exclude Europeans) indigenous peoples that we – and the United Nations! – need to worry so much about. Amerindians, native Hawaiians, Australian aboriginals, etc. – no need to “feel bad” about their displacement by the White man! After all, all those peoples are merely the product of “multiple migrations” and so the arrival of Europeans should have been met with great joy and welcoming.
A second response would be to ask whether this leftist logic applies to non-Whites: so that Africans, Asians, etc. all should welcome displacement and race replacement. Good luck with that.
With respect to actually answering the “argument” itself, I state that:
1. Any reasonable definition of “indigenous” – including and especially my own definition – should be based upon the act of ethnogenesis, which itself takes into account those migrations that are part of the history of virtually all peoples (some more than others, of course). It simply does not matter in the last analysis how a people came to be – they exist, and if their ethnogenesis is tied to a particular territory, and if they are the oldest extant people on that territory, then they are indigenous to that territory, and their origin there is a reality, not a myth,
2. Regardless of how different peoples came to be, they differ genetically and culturally, and they have an inherent right to safeguard their uniqueness, an inherent right to their own territory, and an inherent right to resist displacement and race replacement.
3. It follows then that the actual mechanisms of origin, and the actual mechanisms generating a people’s genetic and cultural uniqueness, are irrelevant to their Identity, and to their self-conception tied to a territory and to an origin in that territory. Group interests are inherent to group existence, and anyone who attempts to delegitimize those interests – for example by delegitimizing a sense of origin and a sense of identity – are threatening the group’s existence and are thus promoting genocide.
White racial activists like to bring up the United Nations Genocide Convention and how it applies to White displacement. They need to get more serious about it. As part of Political EGI, nationalist politicians should openly accuse their opponents of promoting genocide, and assert that those opponents need to be hauled into court for crimes against humanity. Not that this “hauling into court” will occur (for now, only nationalists are so “hauled”), but it is excellent political rhetoric and sets the tone for the future.
Part V will continue this discussion.