Category: Salter

EGI Video

Please disseminate far and wide.

Gee, I wonder who wrote the text that video is reading from (*)?  It’s brilliant, brilliant I say; indeed, I couldn’t have done a better job myself!

Seriously though, this is extremely excellent – someone has created a YouTube video summarizing the main arguments of EGI.  If only nationalist politicians would watch and understand, and try incorporating the basic logic into their worldview and making the principles accessible to the masses, utilizing the correct language for that approach.

And the same applies to civic nationalist cucks, who might learn a thing or two.  I mean, this video only requires listening and looking at pictures – even a dullard like Trump probably could handle it.  I realize it is about 12 minutes too long for his attention span, but, still.

*With the slight alteration of the years passed since Salter’s article.  And of course Salter has written On Genetic Interests since that article.


Salter Trad Addendum

More comments.

Salter and I agree on most (albeit not all) of the fundamentals, as readers of this blog have long known.  Focusing specifically on the Trad analysis pieces, I agree with the general pro-White, pro-Majoritarian, EGI-oriented basis.  I agree that reactive nationalism is a failure, stupid Bunkerism that is counter-productive. The recent Barr-Planet of the Apes fiasco was instructive.  Forgetting for a moment Barr’s history and ancestry, what do we see?  A crude “acting out,” spewing forth racially-charged insults lacking in any productive content (not much balkanization ensued, given Barr’s subsequent lickspittle apologetic spin), followed by the usual groveling apologies and pathology-related excuses (“it was the Ambien”).  So, “racists” are seen to be merely crude bigots, the focus of public humiliation and social pricing, followed by apologetic groveling and implications that negative comments about Coloreds must be due to medication side-effects or some other mental-medical pathology.  In summary, we would all have been better served if Barr had kept her reactive comments to herself.

One difference in our positions is that Salter seems to support liberal nationalism, at least as an option that may appeal to the largest mass of the native population, while still maintaining some degree of concern for ethnic interests.  This seems to me a sort of mainstreaming, making ethnic nationalism more palatable by moving toward the center and justifying greater ethnic homogeneity based upon an appeal to “liberal democratic values” (sort of Jobling’s argument when he was running his website).

However, just like the “Amren Gateway Hypothesis,” mainstreaming has zero empirical evidence supporting it.  Actually, it has a remarkable record of failure, most notably and recently with Ms. Le Pen.

Mainstreaming is based on the idea that the bulk of voters are toward the center, so any Far Right party that wants to win needs to move toward that center and become more palatable to those voters.

There are a number of problems with that.  First, do we know for sure that the target voters are always in the (relative) center, politically speaking?  The genius of the Trump campaign was to realize that a winnable fraction of Republican voters were significantly to the right of the GOP political establishment. In America, in the GOP, it has been the voters who have been mainstreaming toward the Establishment candidates (the Bush family, Dole, McCain, and Romney) rather than the other way around.  Trump moved toward those voters (farstreaming), rather than asking the voters to move politically to accommodate him.  Orban in Hungary is the same.  Of course, the WN position is still much farther to the right than those voters, but, still, the general principle holds.

Second, let us assume that from a Far Right perspective, most of the voters are more towards the center.  So, should the Far Right move toward them?  No, that’s a losing proposition.  Mainstream conservatives always like to feint right come election time.  If you as a Far Right candidate are moving left, toward the center, at some point your position and that of the mainstream conservatives will appear to converge.  Right-of-center voters will always prefer the “safe” and “electable” mainstream conservatives over mainstreaming Far Rightists “tainted” with a past history of “extremism.”  If there is little difference between your position and that of the right-feinting Establishment Right, why would anyone vote for you?  Even those voters skeptical of the Establishment Right’s credibility regards their right-feint won’t be tempted to look in a more radical direction if you’ve watered down your views so as to become another “conservative.”  You will lose respect and credibility, and “turn off” your own more radical base.

What about the young?  What about the need to be more moderate to gain a following among the youth?  Aren’t they all liberals anyway? What about the crowing of the likes of Matt Bai that the bigoted faction of the Trump base is disappearing?  The demographic end of the pincer, the decrease in the White population fraction and the concomitant increase in the Coloreds, well, yes, we all know that is occurring.  But, isn’t that a reason so many Whites, upset at those changes, voted for Trump in the first place?  It’s the other end of the pincer that is less convincing – that the liberalism of young Whites is an immutable characteristic that they will carry with them in the years and decades to come.

There is a stereotype, with some preliminary empirical support, that people tend to get more “conservative” with age.  Let’s say, more generally, they shift to the right.  We can only expect that trend to become even sharper as the racial situation for Whites worldwide continues to degenerate, and tribalism becomes a more dominant force in politics.  Also keep in mind that young Whites have been subjected to an unrelenting barrage of leftist propaganda, which is exponentially been made more potent via the Internet: schools, the news and entertainment media, social media, etc. At the same time, severe social pricing (and the leftist thuggery Trump and Sessions benignly enable) silences rightist voices.  No wonder then that the youth are leftist (besides typical youthful naive faux-idealism); indeed, it is a surprise that any young Whites have healthy ideas at all.  

As these young people age, and encounter the harsh realities of life, and get less dependent upon social media and snarky comedians to form their sociopolitical worldview, they will inevitably jettison, bit by bit, their leftist politics.  They will learn that regardless of their “tolerance” that they are still low-caste subaltern Whites, hated by everyone else and targeted by the System.  Heterosexual White men will find themselves the worst of all, untouchables, the Dalits of the Earth.  Will their leftist social conditioning (i.e. brainwashing) still hold under those conditions?

The likes of Bai should not get overconfident.

In the end, the Far Right needs to get the masses to farstream to us, rather than we mainstreaming to them.

Getting back to the main point: I see no need for liberal nationalism or any other approach that does not give primacy of place to EGI.  Ethnoracial nationalism needs to be sane and balanced for sure, the “mixed ethic” cited by Salter in the third section of On Genetic Interests, and some fundamental, basic human rights can be included (dependent of course on how we define “human”).  Nevertheless, we should not “mainstream” and compromise in order to appeal to fickle, lemming-like masses of sheeple.

If we believe we are the future, the masses eventually must come to us.  “Must” does not imply inevitability; we will need to work for it.  “Must” does imply that this is the only way to achieve long-lasting goals.

The necessity for “culture warriors” I also agree with.  The Right has always been weak in this regard, amplified by the Right’s “declare (premature) victory and go home” pathology, unlike the ever-striving, never-satisfied, always-fighting Left.  It is no coincidence that aggressive leftist SJW political correctness is soaring now under the Presidency of Donald “Alt Right God Emperor” Trump just as it did under Ronald “KKK groups disband because we won in November 1980” Reagan.  Instead of long culture wars of attrition and the long slog through the institutions, the Right gives us the false idols of Men on White Horse frauds.

Three practical problems with “cultural warfare” – 

1. The Right (particularly in the Anglosphere) has been notoriously weak with respect to cultural warfare (I’m talking about the real nationalist Right here, not the “Religious Right”), metapolitics, and serious ideology.  I’m not sure that many on the Right even understand why any of that is important, much less that they would know how to effectively engage in such activities.

2. To the extent that “cultural warriors” exist on the Right, there is poor integration with the more explicitly political arm of the “movement.”  Now, in America, there really isn’t a political arm either (Trump is a civic nationalist cuck and fraud); so in America, in the mess over here, there really isn’t any effective political or any metapolitical/cultural activism.  However, elsewhere – in Europe and Australia for example – there is very weak integration, as the nationalist politicians (or what passes for them) engage in reactive nationalism, in mainstreaming to civic nationalism, or try and dabble in metapolitics themselves, generally with poor results (see point 3).  And in America, whatever embryonic metapolitical and even more nebulous political activism exists is either non-integrated, or you have the ineffective “jack of all trades” problem discussed next.

3. As Salter asserts, for the most part there will need to be specialization of the political and metapolitical spheres, following by cooperative integration of these activities and efforts.  A truly effective “jack of all trades” – someone skilled at politics who is also well versed in ideology and who is a metapolitical master and culture warrior – is very rare (and should be treasured if identified).

A problem therefore is when people engage in activity for which they are ill-suited.  There are people on the American scene (no names, but you can figure out who fits where) with this problem.  There are some people who would have been best suited for electoral politics – either directly as candidates themselves or indirectly as advisers and campaign managers for candidates – and these people instead ineffectively flounder as faux-intellectuals, website managers, ideologists, culture warriors, etc.  On the other hand, there are people suited for intellectual pursuits (even though I may disagree with their views) who put themselves forward in “movement” politics (not even electoral politics), and fail miserably in any leadership capacity whatsoever.

Probably we need even more sub-specialization – for example, some people may be good at organizing meetings and conferences at the level of attracting speakers and attendees, but are completely incompetent at security.  Others may be good at security, but too introverted to do the broad organizing.  Some people are skilled at the more cultural aspects of metapolitics, others at ideology, or are science experts.  We don’t have a critical mass of specialists yet, and the ones we do have can’t work together because of ideological disagreements, personality clashes, and feuding.

One omission in Salter’s work is a lack of analysis on how to defeat social pricing, and I would like to see Salter tackle that problem.

Like Salter, I support the idea of “democratic multiculturalism,” both as part of a main Plan A to defeat the System as well as a fallback Plan B position in case the System will continue going strong for the foreseeable future.  I’ve written a lot about this in the past and there is no need to rehash it now again.

In summary, Salter and I are in agreement with, say, 80% with 20% of difference (a Pareto distribution) on certain specific areas of importance.

I may have more to say on these topics in the future.

Salter Trad Analysis, II


Once again, a summary and an analysis of excerpts; follow the link to read the whole thing.


Ethnic nationalism

Ethnic nationalism treats the nation as an extended family. More than other nationalisms it most directly identifies and protects ethnic interests because it seeks to establish a relatively homogeneous, cohesive and independent society.

These motives have evolutionary origins in kinship. Cultural similarity mimics kinship, especially shared religion and historical memories and belief in descent from common ancestors. In racially diverse regions, ethnic genetic kinship is typically equivalent to that between first cousins. This makes the ethnic group a large store of each member’s distinctive genes.1 Ethnic kinship facilitates the spread and maintenance of ethnic nepotism, a weak but pervasive social tie.

That is the entire ethnic genetic interests paradigm in a nutshell.

Ethnic sentiment was hinted at and stated outright in early decisions to ban non-European immigration to Australia. Arthur Phillip, the first governor of the Sydney colony, refused the British Home Secretary’s proposal to obtain wives for the convicts by taking women from South Pacific islands. Instead he requested more female convicts be sent from England. Other early governors such as Sir Richard Bourke and Sir George Gipps took a similar stand against the importation of cheap Indian labour. This time the proposal came from squatters facing labour shortages. The Colonial Office concurred with the governors, citing the adverse effect on the wages of white labourers of introducing migrants of “an inferior and servile description”. Notice the concern with the working conditions of people of European descent in particular, not citizens in general. The first is an ethnic category, the second a civic.

Very good, No Asians.  As opposed to Silk Road White nationalism that wants to see the West colonized by Asians and Whites as an enslaved subaltern caste.

…references to the blood of patriots, security of the homeland, portraying the nation as a family (“fatherland”, “motherland”), and so on. As already discussed, “nation” connotes ethnicity and as such is a biological, tribal concept. Such rhetoric has been shown to release patriotic motivation.3 The effect is so pronounced politicians use releaser ideas in order to gain legitimacy. They use terms such as “nation” and “community” and “sovereignty” and “borders” and “homeland defence” incessantly. But the rhetoric is out of kilter with their policies, and the discrepancy is becoming evident to a growingly cynical, distrustful electorate. A competent media or an aroused citizenry would make it difficult for mainstream politicians to use this rhetoric.

Because releaser ideas fit naturally with people’s evolved predispositions, they have greater effect with less effort. They are efficient. Ideas that fit less naturally do not release instinctive fixed action patterns but must be inculcated through repetition, which is costly. Unnatural ideas rely more on power, on monopoly of the media and education curricula. Perhaps that explains the globalist left’s intolerance – they do not tolerate any opposition because their ideas are unpalatable.

The question is how the globalist left obtained all that power to begin with. If their ideas are so unpalatable that they have to be maintained by force, but these ideas did not come into power by force…it is obvious we need some sort of explanatory analysis here.

Ethnic nationalism – and we can place racial nationalism here – is the purest of the forms of nationalism Salter discusses.  It is explicit.  It has as its ends the well-being of the ethny.  This can be contrasted to liberal nationalism:


Liberal Nationalism

The notion of liberal nationalism might seem oxymoronic, especially to Americans, in an age when ‘liberal’ has come to mean leftist or socialist. Here the term’s original meaning is adopted, namely rational approaches to policy that emphasise individual rights and individual conscience.

Liberal philosophers inherited cultural leadership from traditionalists. Philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill were reformers and patriots at the same time. They did not question the continuity of their people or civilisation. They were not afflicted with group guilt. Despite being reformers, by modern standards they were conservative in outlook. They represented continuity with traditional patriotism.

Mill posited a connection between national identity, homogeneity and democratic values. He concluded:

Where the sentiment of nationality exists in any force, there is a prima facie case for uniting all the members of the nationality under the same government, and a government to themselves apart […] One hardly knows what any division of the human race should be free to do if not to determine with which of the various collective bodies they choose to associate themselves.6

In Considerations Mill argued that representative institutions are “next to impossible in a country made up of different nationalities”. Democracy depends on society being educated and cohesive. As Mill thought that ethnic diversity reduced social cohesion, he concluded that diversity should be minimised. His argument concerned ethnicity, of which race is only one component. “The sympathies available for the purpose are those of race, language, religion, and, above all, of political institutions, as conducing most to a feeling of identity of political interest.”7

So, in liberal nationalism defense of the ethny is means , not ends.  It is the means toward constructing a polity in which “liberal” values, such as individual rights, can be most effectively actualized.  However:

Strictly speaking, liberal nationalism need contain no national sentiment at all, only policies for making society cohere within the frame of representative democracy and individual liberty. Policy might be ethnically selective but not necessarily the motives for advancing those policies. The starting point of Mill’s analysis of nationality (immigration, domestic affairs) is not loyalty to a particular tribe but universals of social behaviour, conflict avoidance, and civil liberties, especially freedom of speech and association. 

Thus, we see the seeds of a problem in relying on liberal nationalism: it van be subverted toward policies hostile to the ethny in such policies can be formulated so as to ostensibly preserve the universal values prized by traditional liberal thinkers.

An example is Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s recent enunciation of libertarianism, which overlaps classical liberalism in emphasing the need for freedom from coercion and conflict. Hoppe concludes that immigration to Western societies should mainly consist of people descended from ethnic Europeans – “Western, white candidate immigrants” – not because of any ethnic preference but in the interests of social harmony, neighbourliness, and economic equity.16 He criticised the goal of white solidarity on the ground that many globalist elites are white.17

That last part is retarded on Hoppe’s part, and indicative of the weak analysis of libertarianism.  Whites have genetic (and proximate) interests in the well-being of Whites, and hence White solidarity is useful.  Are there free riders to such solidarity?  Yes.  Are there what I termed in the past “cross riders” to such solidarity – people who not only utilize the public good of solidarity without contributing to t but actually actively harm it?  Yes, there are.  But such types can be identified and they can be punished by withholding the benefits of such solidarity from them.  White solidarity does not mean solidarity to every single White person on Earth, irrespective of their behavior.  It instead implies solidarity to the group, in general, and those defectors from group solidarity of course should not derive benefits from it.

Genuine liberal nationalism is open to the idea that nationhood is beneficial for all peoples. This is another advantage over unregulated ethnic nationalism, which is prone to chauvinism, resulting in needless conflict. Universal nationalism has the potential to facilitate cooperation among parochialists against global centrists.

It is not clear to me why universal nationalism is not ethnic nationalism.  Well, Salter uses the modifier “unregulated.”  Very well.  But regulated ethnic nationalism is not the same as liberal nationalism. One can directly and explicitly defend ethnic interests without descending into genocidal Hitlerism.

Universalism risks drifting too far from local interests. Stability of liberal nationalism as an ethnic strategy probably depends on more than perceived fairness, privacy and equality before the law. Hoppe’s rejection of ethnic solidarity misses the fact of ethnic kinship. Social divisions do not eliminate the interest we have in the welfare of our peoples. Genetically and civilisationally, class is false consciousness.

Well said.

For these reasons it is rational for ethnic nationalists to join in discussions of liberal nationalism, clarifying matters of fact and reasoning to yield outcomes more amenable to ethnic interests.

Or we can reject liberal nationalism and promote a regulated ethnoracial nationalism.

Salter then discusses the dead ends of economic, republican and civil forms of nationalism.  You can read the details in his original ext.  On civic nationalism (read: Trump), Salter states:

One problem with basing cohesion on values is that the process of political compromise inevitably reduces values to shallow slogans. As the conservative educationalist Kevin Donnelly explained, “even when there is agreement on what constitutes Australian or Western values, […] the list is so vacuous and all-embracing that it’s impossible to identify what makes such values special or unique”.26 Australians are meant to be united by such values as tolerance and inclusion and respecting different points of view. Particular religious and ethnic origins are not even named on the assumption that all cultures are equal.

The tenets of civic nationalism are not altogether new. Empires have universalised the head of state and expanded citizenship to win the loyalty of far-flung provinces. This was an innovation of the Romans, emulated by the British. In neither case did the patrician class believe that provincials were their equals but in both cases they used citizenship to gain loyalty based on equal treatment under the law. Equality included the legal right to migrate around the empire. Omnivorous citizenship in the Roman and British empires resulted in the mass migrations towards the metropolitan society.

Cynicism and shortsightedness are apparent in these imperial ideologies. Of relevance to Australia is the use of the equality doctrine by Joseph Chamberlain, Colonial Secretary in Whitehall, to block the colonies and the new Commonwealth from explicitly selecting ethnically European immigrants. The experience of Chinese immigration during the gold rushes showed that a European country situated beside the large populations of Asia could only retain its identity by systematically favouring European immigrants. But the British government wished to sign a naval agreement with Japan, for which purpose they needed to secure Japan’s favour. Chamberlain wrote to warn Australian leaders that the British government would advise the monarch to refuse the royal assent to any explicitly racial provision.

Note how the reverse is never true; for example, Japan never felt required to make racial concessions to Whites.


Reactive Nationalism

The reactive type has been influential. It will be briefly discussed, though it is not animated by a consistent ideology. Instead it is a manifestation of anxiety with rapid change and resulting frustration with and suspicion of the authorities.

Reactive nationalism carries bits and pieces of ideologies and policies propelled by emotion. Common denominators of national identity remain largely implicit and unanalyzed.

These are negative features because emotionally-driven politics tends to be inchoate, leaderless, episodic as it reacts to overreach by elites, including oppressive social controls.

In other words, Bunkerism and to a large extent some of the more lowbrow Type I “activists” one finds on ‘movement” comments threads in online forums.

The Trump and Brexit revolts were based on passionate rejection of globalist social transformation and stifling social controls. The same reactions have propelled Pauline Hanson’s electoral success.

And without analysis, without Type II activists preaching reason and rational strategizing, all of that has come to naught.

Comparing Types of Nationalism

The six types of Australian nationalism have been combined in various ways over two centuries, concluding in the 1970s with a relatively disjunctive break with the ethnic-liberal combination that had shaped the nation from the First Fleet.

All types of nationalism have encompassed bad decisions and unrealistic assumptions. But overall, ethnic and liberal nationalisms have proven less susceptible to elite free riding. The liberal type has the added advantage of retaining political forms developed over centuries that help the formation of public goods.

There is no reason why a regulated and rational ethnic nationalism cannot utilize the political and social technologies of liberal nationalism without going “full liberal” and making ethnic preservation merely proximate means rather than ultimate ends.

Australia’s current mix of civic nationalism and multiculturalism constitutes a top-down elite agenda. It co-exists in antagonistic tension with latent ethnic nationalism, as demonstrated by the recent success of minor parties. The antagonism is caused by the multicultural establishment seeking to transform the original nation. Their dominance of the culture industries has not eliminated popular nationalism, which remains a sleeping giant.

Elites are traitors who will one day need to be held accountable.

Liberal nationalism has the advantage of self-criticism. We all operate with imperfect knowledge. By opening our beliefs to rational inspection we increase the chance of avoiding ill-informed ingrained assumptions, including those concerning goals and methods. A moderate culture of self-criticism allows a movement to adapt to changing conditions, including new tactics and strategy by opponents and potential allies. This nimbleness will be indispensible in defeating more powerful opponents.

I fail to see why a sane and reasonable ethnic nationalism cannot have self-criticism.  I realize that Der Movement is congenitally resistant to self-criticism and accountability; however, liberal nationalism has been equally so, which is why it has collapsed into globalist multiculturalism.

Liberal nationalism’s main weakness compared to ethnic nationalism is its tendency to collapse into the civic kind. The weakness lies in its reliance on ideas transmitted by higher education, at a time when universities have been captured by the West-hating left. Ethnic nationalism is less vulnerable in this respect because it has a stronger emotional basis in ethnic nepotism. It would remain loyal to the nation even if diversity were found not to have multiple negative impacts, because ethnic nationalists are willing to pay a price to live among their people in a relatively homogeneous self-governing society. The weakness of this doctrine is cultural, leading to rigidity of policy and ideas. The end result is compromise of the representative democratic system.

That system SHOULD be compromised.  Bring it on!

Ethnic nationalism, and certainly the reactive type, are insufficient credentials for an individual or party to assume government, unless ethnic identity is taken to include the political traditions inherited from England. One way or another, nationalist voters are advised to elect only those politicians who have demonstrated competence, character and tradition in the broad sweep of government duties in the tradition of representative democracy. 

Err…these latter things we need to get rid of.

One marked weakness of unqualified ethnic politics is that it risks emulating multiculturalism’s effect of fragmenting society along ethnic and religious lines. 

But this is precisely what we need!  The road to freedom passes through racial balkanization and chaos, there is likely no other way.  We NEED to be fragmented.

This has a direct human cost in social conflict and an indirect economic cost due to policy being diverted from serving public goods to serving particular group interests. 

We have sacrificed ethnic interests for “the economy” long enough.  That smacks of economic nationalism.  And public goods SHOULD serve majority interests.

Given its mixed history, liberal nationalism might appear to be unreliable. One sign that it could be reclaimed is that every instance of it serving hostile goals has entailed fraud, the compromise of Enlightenment values of rationality and liberty. 

I would say its inability to recognize and combat such fraud indicates a fatal weakness of liberal nationalism.

Australia’s historical experience – of liberal nationalism giving way to globalism – indicates that liberal nationalism is sustainable only when it respects majority ethnic and religious identity as legitimate values. Liberal nationalism’s divorce from ethnic identity in the decades before 1970 opened it to intellectual corruption and left-authoritarianism. 

I suggest that liberal nationalism always has within it this inherent trend toward anti-majoritarian multiculturalism. Therefore it cannot be trusted and should be replaced by a sane and balanced ethnic nationalism (which includes racial nationalism).

Ethnic and liberal nationalism have different strengths in relation to multiculturalism. The growth of an ethnic nationalist movement would be accelerated by the strategy of democratic multiculturalism described earlier, due to rising Anglo consciousness. However, the doctrine does not provide a political framework for accommodating other identities when the state is retaken. At that point a liberal frame would make an emerging ethnic state more governable, more stable, by providing political processes for managing diversity.

Err…we should not have to “manage diversity” – we need to end it. I suppose there can be an intermediate period as the ethnic state is “emerging” in which the remnants of diversity would need to be managed, but a regulated and sane ethnic nationalism can handle that, and “keep the eyes on the prize.”  I simply do not trust liberal nationalism or any other approach that dose not have ethnic interests and the endpoint of analysis.

Informed liberal nationalism can be an effective, though partial, defence of majority ethnicity against globalists and multiculturalists. That is because it converges on ethnic nationalism at the policy level. Historically, liberal nationalism respected ethnic sentiment. Together the liberal and ethnic types encompassed motives rational and civic on the one hand, and nepotistic on the other. Together they promoted the national bio-culture.

The fusion of liberal and ethnic nationalism that shaped Australia for two centuries is better equipped with releaser memes than competing doctrines. On the liberal side, that is because institutions such as representative democracy and rule of law are part of Anglo identity, and therefore add another cultural layer to markers of descent.

This fusion is akin to the “mixed ethic” that Salter promotes in On Genetic Interests.  The pure ethic would be analogous to unregulated ethnic nationalism and then we have all the ethics that treat ethnic interests as secondary or irrelevant.  The mixed ethic fuses primacy of ethnic interests with a doctrine of rights, similar to what is suggested here.

The main disadvantage of this approach is when its identitarianism is implicit. Only an explicit appeal to the historic nation can establish a nationalist rhetoric able to fully mobilise Anglo Australians.

Yes, this is the case. Unfortunately, the next paragraph promotes the alleged positives of the failed implicit approach.

Implicit ethnicity also has advantages. Decades of indoctrination by media and education bureaucracies have made Anglo ethnic nepotism taboo. Liberal nationalism advances ethnic interests indirectly. Indirect ethnic preservation has the additional attraction of conforming more with the non-ideological tradition of Anglophone cultures. English-derived politics is famously divorced from theory compared to the Continental tradition. People distrust theory in politics, as much as they do theory in art. They perceive both as pretentious. Like conceptual art, a political position won’t appeal to the common-sense public if it relies on abstruse theory. But everyone understands and desires social peace, stability and prosperity, which true liberal nationalism would protect better than bogus civic nationalism.

Implicit politics have ALWAYS failed.  Mainstreaming has failed in Europe again and again.  Even Orban, under EU constraints to modify his language, sometimes drifts from more implicit culturalist talk to that of ethny.  Now, Salter here talks about Australia, and contrasts “English-derived politics” from that of “the Continental tradition.”  But even in “English-derived” traditions, implicit politics and mainstreaming has failed.  Has One Nation succeeded?  No.  Brexit has led to a current UK where Polish immigrants are driven out by racist anti-White Negroes and South Asians; native Britons are a non-factor in their own nation.  Thatcher co-opted anti-immigration angst to end up being a fraud.  Then in America there is a long tradition of Republican dog whistling on race that leads nowhere: Nixon-Reagan-Trump. I most strongly disagree with Salter here.  “But everyone understands and desires social peace, stability and prosperity, which true liberal nationalism would protect better than bogus civic nationalism.”  The other side will construe “true liberal nationalism” as akin to fascism and social strife.

To put this another way, the choice of types of nationalism is not only an intellectual exercise. It is also one of self-examination. The choice must feel right to the majority now or in the foreseeable future. And that depends on who we are psychologically, who we are in terms of shared memories, and who we could feasibly become as new memories slowly accumulate and the culture changes. Multicultural critics portray Anglo-Australians as uniquely driven by racial identity. In fact Anglo Australians are among the least collectivist of peoples, much less so than multicultural activists. They are so tolerant of foreigners to have retained their composure while being inundated by immigrants.

I do not fully agree here. We should not let the herd, with their psychological comfort level, define for us the limits of our choice of nationalism.  They need to be led by the nose, ultimately.  The sheeple are a herd of lemmings (if I may mix metaphors and analogies) and the vanguard need to set the tone.

In reality ethnic activism by and for the majority is awkward in the present political climate. That does not make it inappropriate. In a healthy political culture, one not distorted by a hostile culture industry, positive majority ethnocentrism would seem natural. And it is important that it be so again, because individuals with heightened ethnocentrism are their peoples’ natural guardians, the passionate counterpoint to cold utilitarianism. Like a mother alert to her baby’s cry, ethnocentric individuals of all backgrounds are the first to feel estranged and besieged by social trends that are adverse for their people. 

But how do we protect these protectors?  How do we defeat social pricing?  There is a number of references and implications in these two essays to feed forward positive feedback loops favoring activism on behalf of the ethny.  I agree, but with one caveat – how to get it started?  We are at a sticking point.  It is like a biochemical reaction with an enormous energy of activation to overcome to get it started.  We need an enzymatic catalyst.  From where?  What will it be?

Majority ethnocentrists’ expression of concern for their people makes them prime targets of the “human rights” apparatus, part-and-parcel of big-state globalism. Those who chant “all love is equal” excoriate anyone who loves the wrong race. Beginning with the Bolshevik coup in Russia in 1917, a powerful strand of left ideology has sought to suppress human nature to create a communist utopia. The civilised response is the liberal one: society should respect ethnic activists of all stripes, including the red white and blue of the founding people. Attacks on ethnic nepotism are unacceptable in a liberal society.

Ethnic nepotism is also strongly attacked by the Alt Wrong/HBD/race realists.  Actually, it is only White ethnic nepotism that is, in practice, attacked.  Always remember that the Alt Wrong is a vehicle to promote Jewish-Asian ethnic interests.

In particular liberal nationalists worthy of the name should accept individuals who profess the interests of the nation. They should accept as comrades those who do so in liberal terms, something civic nationalists and minority chauvinists can never allow. In practical terms that does not mean allowing national activists to make policy in general, because they represent one interest among many. But it does mean protecting the right to free speech and party membership of those who stand up for the historic nation. Liberal nationalists should do that not only as an expression of civil liberties but as a means of ensuring the multiple public goods that flow from a secure national identity and sovereignty.

OK, but as a racial nationalist I don’t view my position as “one interest among many” – maybe liberal nationalism itself should be so viewed.

This paper has argued that Anglo patriots should use a dual political-cultural strategy to defend the historic Australian nation and reestablish the liberal nationalist state built by the founders. The recent success of nationalist protest parties in many Western societies, including Australia, indicates that voters are ready to confer significant political and cultural niches on leaders who are willing to challenge the dominant culture. There are ways forward.

There are ways forward but apparently no one available (and ethnically acceptable to the “movement” rank-and-file) to step and perform those steps.

In summary, Salter’s two-part essay is interesting and useful, but readers can observe key differences between his positions and mine.  We agree on the fundamentals, and on the weaknesses of reactive nationalism and of nationalism lacking in proper analysis.  I understand why he in his position advocates more moderate positions.  But I will continue to assert the primacy of explicit racial nationalism and the irrefutable fact that mainstreaming has failed.

Salter Essay Analysis, Part I

Salter on Australian nationalism and what to do.

I would urge the reader to study Salter’s original essays either before or after reading my comments on them.

Salter has a two part essay about identitarian politics and nationalism from an Australian perspective, but what he writes is broadly applicable throughout the White world.  I’ll examine in part in turn, commenting on particular excerpts of relevance.  Again, these are only excerpts.  You should follow the link and read the whole thing.

The heights of Australian politics and culture have been hijacked by the leftist multicultural establishment. Anglo identitarians – those who think of themselves as part of Australia’s historic identity originating in British settlement or more broadly as part of European civilization – have been marginalized by the anti-Western left. The trend has been apparent for decades in politics and the culture industries. The process began in the universities and mass media. As a result Australia’s Western identity is ever more obscured by hostile news, commentary and curricula. It is being drowned by indiscriminate immigration and oppressed by globalist elites. The historic Australian nation is assailed from all sides at a time when it is leaderless, not protected by the sinews of government but tied up and gagged by them.

And the same applies to the entire Western world.

To fight back, people need a vision of the Australia they want. For what should they fight? The second half of this chapter compares types of nationalism that have been pursued through Australia’s history. For present purposes, nationalists and conservatives will know the fight is won or at least going in a winning direction when assimilation is once again winning over ethno-cultural diversity as a guiding principle for choosing immigrants; in particular when the refugee intake is ended and the migrant intake is greatly reduced and limited mainly to people of European descent; when the Chinese and Indian nations are no longer colonizing Australia and relations with these rising powers are stabilized…

Salter’s wisdom contrasts to Silker lunatics and Asian imperialists, who, under the guise of “White nationalism,” propose Asian colonization of Euro ethnostates and the “borders of the West” guarded by Chinese girls with guns. Indeed, Silk Road White nationalism would consider “Asian Australians” as more authentic representatives of that nation than the Anglo founding stock.

…when schools desist from radical indoctrination and teach children the truth about their nation’s and civilisation’s glorious history; when our sons and daughters are not pitted against each other in a fabricated gender war; when civil liberties are secured largely by keeping the state out of the private realm; when UN mandates are lifted to restore freedom of association, allowing citizens to choose among whom they live and do business; when core institutions are reformed to become more compatible with human nature instead of socially engineering and herding citizens; when the multicultural apparatus is dismantled as a system designed to oppress the nation and is replaced with a democratic multiculturalism that includes fair representation for Anglo Australians; when foreign ownership is once again regulated to protect Australian industry and home owners; in short when the historic nation throws off its shackles and reasserts its prerogatives.

Well said.

These policies will be enacted only when Anglo-Australians become sufficiently mobilised and organised to vote for their ethnic interests and build lobby, media, and educational organizations so powerful that wise politicians avoid offending national sensibilities or appearing less than eager to preserve national identity.

What Salter is talking about is building an infrastructure to leverage against the System in order to pursue ethnic interests.  Note to the Alt Right: Salter does not mention rallies in which “activists” come dressed up like Captain America and Batman, while at the same time denouncing the use of “uniforms.”

Because information is usually incomplete, especially concerning complex matters of policy, it is prudent in choosing goals to start with the most securely known interests. The most certain interests are biological, including personal health and a family that is safe and prosperous. That is why it is vital to have a robust diversified economy, secure borders and safe neighbourhoods. At the next layer of biological interests, one should invest in social cohesion and the secure identities upon which it relies. School curricula should induct children into their culture and history. Without such knowledge it is impossible for young adults to know themselves and Australia’s place in world history.

That is all prudent.

How to achieve those goals? I propose a dual strategy of political and cultural activism, with the two linked so as to mutually reinforce. I also discuss how individuals can contribute.


Political Activism

The successes of the Brexit and Trump campaigns point to the feasibility of advancing Western identitarian goals through electoral politics. 

Unfortunately, while Brexit and Trump represented a populist, if not nationalist, resistance, both campaigns (predictably for those who understand sociopolitical realities) have failed to accomplish what their supporters really wanted.  Brexit basically eschews Polish plumbers while welcoming Pakistani sex groomers and child rapists and Jamaican gang-bangers.  Trump’s Presidency has devolved into endless scandals, including sex scandals, and pardons for physically abusive race-mixing Negro boxers.

In Australia the same indication is provided by the success of parties that, together, are breaking the political duopoly that has dominated government since the Second World War…The electoral base of these minor parties consisted mainly of Anglo-Australians, defined broadly to mean individuals who have assimilated and identify with the British-derived nation…The European share of One Nation voters was greater than their 80% of the population.

Racial politics.

In a subsequent analysis, Black observed that the Turnbull government was attempting to win back One Nation voters by tough talk about citizenship and refugees.2 He argued that Turnbull was mindful of Senator Hanson’s wide support from “English-speaking Anzacs”, “English-speakers”, “Kiwis”, “disaffected and angry, white, Australian-born English speakers”, and “Poms”, the great majority being immigration conservatives.

The same old trick: mainstream conservatives shift right to poach ethnic patriotic voters, only to shill for more immigration and more anti-White policies once elected.  And the voters fall for the trick every time.  This also shows why “mainstreaming” is a recipe for failure. When “Far Right” parties “mainstream” and move toward the center, they get politically close enough to mainstream conservatism so as to allow the mainstream conservatives to plausibly position themselves as the “more acceptable and electable version of the same basic policies.”  Time and time again, mainstream conservatives outcompete mainstreaming patriots and time and time again, mainstreaming fails.  In Hungary, we instead see the success of what I call “farstreaming” – Orban, originally a more mainstream conservative, has gone from success to success the farther to the right he has moved; while his rightist competitors at Jobbik, originally on Orban’s right and a credible threat, have experienced political disappointment after they have mainstreamed so far they are now on Orban’s left.  Orban and Jobbik have essentially exchanged places on the Hungarian political spectrum, with greater success being observed with more radical rightist positions.  Even Trump’s election can be viewed as a form of farstreaming success, as Trump’s campaign (as opposed to the man himself and how he has governed) was the most “far right,” politically speaking of any since Reagan, and in some ways even more so.  Mainstreaming is a fraud.  Even if staying true to “extremist” principles results in electoral defeat, that’s better than ditching your principles and still being defeated.  At least in the first case, you stake out a position and gradually normalize it through participation in the political process; in the second case, you lose you vacate your ideological high ground and become just another vaguely “conservative” politician, albeit one unelectable compared to your more tame conservative colleagues because of your past “extremist” positions.  Mainstreaming gives you the worst of both electability and ideological promotion: you are still unelectable while weakening your ability to promote an ideology and educate the public.

One Nation’s appeal to Anglo Australians has profound implications. A party could dominate Australian politics if it became identified in the public mind as representing mainstream Australia. At the same time, the census reveals the nation is splitting into ethnic zones, accelerating the rise of identity politics, including among Anglo Australians. The makeup of One Nation’s supporters shows that the nation is not as far gone as its enemies hope, that survival is possible. For many journalists and commentators it is a bitter fact that the original Australian nation is not dead.

One Nation is showing the honesty and courage necessary to represent mainstream Australians and thus the national interest, especially on the issues of Islamic immigration, foreign ownership, and leftist bias in public broadcasting. The party would be allocating resources efficiently if it invested in appealing to its Anglo base, because Anglos are most likely to respond positively and because they are a majority of the population.

As a nationalist party that represents the majority population, One Nation or its successors could become a major political force. However there are obstacles to achieving this, the greatest being that the party’s ethnic appeal is due to the intuitions of the leadership. Party leaders care about Australia and are courageous but like the mainstream parties are not versed in the sociology or history of ethnicity and nationalism. Their ethnic vision of society is implicit. Beyond Pauline Hanson’s wish that Australia return to a relatively united culture, her party has not described the Australia they want in realistic demographic terms. This places One Nation among conventional political parties, not at the cutting edge of reform and renewal.

This is a key, important, fundamental observation, and it is good that Salter objectively identifies weaknesses in One Nation here.  This is particularly important since the same weaknesses are inherent in much of right-wing populist and “mild” nationalist parties and even in some “movement” groups, such as the Alt Right and certainly the Alt Lite.  No doubt Trump goes by “intuition” and “feeling” rather than by thoughtful analysis, ideology, and an explicit ethnoracial focus. We need cutting edge parties and leaders.

Pauline Hanson’s biographer, Anna Broinowski, summarises her nationalism as a deep nostalgia for the monocultural Anglo society of her childhood.7 The left and minority chauvinists disparage nostalgia for any European society. In reality it is noble to be nostalgic for the sense of belonging and community that Australia is losing. There is nothing wrong with such emotion as part of a social vision. But nostalgia can only serve that function if it is attached to analysis. That requires cultural expertise and vision. Politicians cannot be expected to cover all bases. They rely on intellectuals in the humanities and social sciences. The anti-national left’s domination of the universities helps explain why nationalist social analysis is weak.

That last sentence is important.  The suggestion, the implication is that the Right is weak intellectually, analytically, and academically.  The Left’s domination of academia is, as Salter asserts, one key reason for this.  But the Right itself is to blame, for its anti-intellectual tendencies, its reliance on irrational impulses to the exclusion of rational analysis, its eager grasping onto bizarre memes, fossilized dogmas, and crackpot conspiracy theories as well as crackpot pseudoscience.  What passes for “rightist academic analysis” these days is HBD nonsense and “traditionalist” rambling about “the pyramids of Atlantis” being built by “psychokinesis.”  The Right is an unfriendly place for rational, empirical academics, and until that changes, don’t expect the problems identified by Salter to be soon rectified.

Political leaders could exploit cultural capital by the following:

1. Talking about how cultural and racial diversity undermines social cohesion;

2. Introducing the public to the meaning and benefits of nationhood and its reliance on a dominant and confident core ethnic identity;

3. Explaining that multiculturalism is an ethnic hierarchy that subordinates Anglo Australians;

4. Linking indigenous identity to Australia’s historic Anglo identity;

5. Maintaining a rational rage against the corruption of the universities and proposing remedial policies;

6. Working with responsible protest groups to defend the right to public assembly;

7. Explaining how the ANZACs have been betrayed by abrogating the social contract between generations. They did not fight and die for open borders or multiculturalism or foreign ownership;

8. Formulating and transmitting these messages would be made possible by working with nationalist think tanks to obtain analysis and personnel. The identitarian political front cannot advance far without drawing on advances in the culture war.

Who is actually doing this?  


Cultural Activism

Identitarian goals can also be advanced by cultural and social work. This overlaps the idea of metapolitics, though that term has obscure post-modernist meanings. Raising ethnic and national consciousness is the prime goal of identitarian cultural activism, a necessary condition for national liberation.

At present patriotic ideas are marginal in academe but have the huge advantage of being largely true or at least open to scientific findings on history and ethnicity. Cosmopolitans, whether motivated by corporate or leftist or minority-chauvinist values, have become anti-scientific in order to construct an ideology that justifies attacking natural parochialisms, from families to nations. Long ago they expelled biological theories of human nature from the social sciences.8 The result has been intellectual chaos. Radical academics have maintained dominance only by non-intellectual means. Research by psychologist Jonathan Haidt9 confirm what many academics have experienced for decades, that conservatives and nationalist are driven out of university careers by hostile work environments and career-limiting bias.

This is all true.  But it is also true that the “movement” is all a “hostile work environment” for activists with an academic/intellectual bent.  The overall disinterest in EGI and, in general all of Salter’s work, is troubling.  In Salter and his work, activists have a rich resource that can be mined for ideas and for guidance, and most of them would rather dress up like Captain America at rallies, make drunken podcasts, or sniff about “spectral psychokinesis,” “orcs,” or “Kali Yuga.”  

Cultural warfare is more fundamental than electoral politics and has objectives broader than those of any political party, even one with a cultural string to its bow. A full cultural strategy cannot be managed by the political leadership; it must be conducted by cultural warriors. That is why the political and cultural strategies will often be separate specialisations, which nevertheless depend upon one another. Just as smart parties invest in culture, wise cultural warriors reach out to help political campaigns. Though neither side can be well managed by the other, both depend on the other; simultaneously self-managing and interdependent.

This is important, and I concur that such cooperation is crucial. Unfortunately, it rarely occurs.  Politicians, who pride themselves on their “pragmatism” and attention to “the real word,” often look with disdain on culture warriors, viewed as “pie in the sky theorists.” For their part, the culture warriors sniff disdainfully at “crude politics” and claim “the time is not right” and we should exclusively concentrate on “metapolitics” (ill-defined).

Those engaged in cultural advocacy for their people also need theory if they are to compete with opponents who for generations have been beating them hands down. The starting point is to understand how cosmopolitans and globalists have been winning. A key source is Canadian sociologist Eric Kaufmann’s 2004 text, The Rise and Fall of Anglo America. Kaufmann traces the rise of radical cosmopolitanism from its beginnings in the late nineteenth century to its victory over America’s traditional culture leaders in the 1950s and 1960s. Instrumental for that victory was the left’s capture of much of the centralised mass media and elite university culture by the post-Second World War years. This wrested the heights of culture production and distribution from the hands of traditionalist Anglo-Americans. Since then radicals have been mopping up Anglo resistance. They put down the Old South’s resistance to desegregation in the 1950s and 1960s. In 1965 they opened the borders to Third World immigration despite lack of popular support.

A missing word here: Jews.

When America lost the cultural cold war so did Australia because we depend on U.S. military and economic power and are net importers of American culture. Academic disciplines and markets for culture are international, especially within language zones such as the Anglosphere. Now the U.S. and Australia are being mopped up through replacement-level immigration, the final irreversible cultural-genocidal stage of the conflict.

Kaufmann’s analysis provides lessons in cultural warfare. Cosmopolitans invested in mobilizing intellectuals and professionals, and through them winning the hearts and minds of up-and-coming leaders. They:

1. Maintained their objectives but used flexible methods. Kaufmann traces the cosmopolitan movement back to 1876. Through all the ideological and organisational changes they retained their hostility to Anglo-Christian America. The New York Intellectuals, who brought cosmopolitanism to victory in the U.S., began in the 1930s as Stalinists, converted to Trotskyism before dividing into nihilistic radicals and pseudo-conservatives (‘neo-conservatives’). Persistence paid off in the 1950s and 1960s, almost a century later, when radicals found places in the universities and the federal government.


2. Pursued objectives strategically. Cosmopolitans prioritised ethnic goals over other radical policies. This meant that the goal of liberal immigration trumped most other policies. For example, feminists and gay rights activists have not oppose the immigration of Muslims who hold them in contempt, and environmentalists did not oppose large scale immigration that increased the number of consumers and polluters.

Unlike Der Movement, which is incapable of thinking strategically, is always asserting an imminent System “collapse” and whose “long-term” planning is typically in the realm of weeks or months,

3. Funded their intellectuals with generous philanthropy.

Salter should be funded. The failed Tin Cup Fuhrers of Der Movement should not.

4. Established parallel institutions, social and educational, from which they sallied forth to participate in mainstream politics and culture.

Precisely the type of infrastructure building I’ve been promoting and that the “movement” ignores.

5. Developed tribe-like solidarity and hatreds. Kaufmann describes the pseudo ethnic character of the New York Intellectuals. One aspect of the tribal spirit of the radicals was their unwritten rule against public criticism of other leftists and their intolerance of those whose views they rejected. They showed a racist-like loathing and contempt for conservatives and small town Anglos.


6. Found psychological substitutes for religion in ideology and organisations. Their cohesion and ultimate triumph were achieved despite them rejecting traditional religion, not because of it. Put differently, their militant atheism was costly, driven not by cost-benefit logic but by some non-rational impulse to attack Christendom. One lesson for universal nationalists, those who want everyone to enjoy the benefits of identity and community, is that their fight back will be easier because they support religious freedom.

7. Prioritised gaining positions in universities, government departments and the media.

8. Showed disdain and intolerance for opponents, which marginalised conservatives and nationalists, yielding an effective radical monopoly in the universities. This intolerance continues as a hallmark of culture industries across the West.

Unfortunately, the Right is often also intolerant of their own intellectuals.  “The future is in the forest,” don’t you know.

9. Strove to secure career paths for members. Junior recruits were mentored and defectors ostracised.

Compare that to Der Movement, where “leaders” have pontificated that such activities are useless since “the System will collapse within five years.”  Head to the hills!  Grab your musket and pemmican!

10. Put great effort into acquiring or starting journals of analysis and opinion, such as Ramparts and The New York Review of Books, mainstays of the New York Intellectuals. These magazines gave the network some aspects of an academy. They emphasised intellectual achievement, not electoral politics. They adopted the cultural warfare objective of influencing the culture industries, which construct and distribute information, including entertainment, news and commentary. By the 1950s the New York Intellectuals were being hired by the universities and government agencies, which accelerated the march of cultural Marxism.


A deeper unstated implication of Kaufmann’s analysis is that these radical cosmopolitans…


Religion has been a major front in the culture wars for at least a century. It should give pause that radicals and multiculturalists strive to separate the nation from Christianity and turn the secular state against that religion. Andrew Fraser has studied the role of Christianity in forging the English and Australian nations.12 Other theorists have studied religion as a “group evolutionary strategy” that forges cohesion and cooperation.13 Still other analysts observe that religions provide identity markers.14

According to evolutionary biologists D. S. Wilson and K. MacDonald, Christianity has underpinned European cultural group strategies, which release and direct intense altruism. These group strategies defend bio-cultures by clarifying identity and intensifying altruism. Andrew Fraser includes Australia in his observation that the Christian religion, through myth and ritual, has provided motivation essential for ethnic and national defence. England and Australia originated as Christian nations.

I’m no fan of Christianity and certainly no fan of Fraser, but I understand where the Anglo-Australian Salter is coming from here.

Both Christians and secular patriots need to understand the importance of religion in the culture wars. For Christianity has been a historic identity marker uniting European nations and Europe as a whole against existential and internal threats.

That’s fine as far as it goes.  It goes too far when people make Christianity the litmus test for the West, put religion ahead of race, and start ranting that atheists and agnostics (and pagans too I suppose) should make a pretense of Christian belief so as to “fit in.”  No, sorry, not going to do that. By the way, it is the responsibility of Christian racialists and nationalists to show us how their religion can be reformed and is currently compatible with EGI.  It is not the responsibility, and certainly not the obligation, of non-Christian atheists to help Christians reform their cuck-religion.

These great deeds could not have been accomplished without a Church which saw its pastoral duty as extending to defence of the people, their nations and civilisation. De-Christianisation has been a successful strategy for breaking down ethnic and national solidarity of Western peoples. 

The Christian churches themselves have been in the forefront of this.  Can they be reformed?  Christians need to show the way.  Not me.

Countering this is an important part of an identitarian cultural strategy. 

I really do not agree with that.

The concept of “political warfare” was adopted by Rich Higgins, a security analyst who worked for the National Security Council during the early Trump presidency. Higgins described the unprecedented institutional attacks on Trump and noted that:

Political warfare operates as one of the activities of the “counter-state” and is primarily focused on the resourcing and mobilization of the counter state or the exhaustion and demobilization of the targeted political movement. Political warfare methods can be implemented at strategic, operational, or tactical levels of operation.16

Higgins also described the larger goals of political warfare:

Attacks on President Trump are not just about destroying him, but also about destroying the vision of America that lead to his election. Those individuals and groups seeking the destruction of President Trump actually seek to suffocate the vision of America that made him president. Hence, the end state is not just a delegitimized, destabilized, immobilized and possibly destroyed presidency; but also a demoralized movement composed of a large enough bloc to elect a president that subsequently become[s] self-aware of its own disenfranchisement.17

Trump has been busy destroying himself and shunning his White base.

It is relevant that Higgins knew, as did every political analyst in the U.S., that Trump’s implicit constituency was white America. The deep state’s goal is not only to bring down the Trump presidency but to break the political will of the historic American nation. A similar situation exists in Australia, with the difference that the political leadership is still in the hands of the multicultural establishment.

The only reason to support Trump.

It is significant that Higgins, a staffer loyal to Trump’s original policies, was fired by a more senior staffer. Training competent and loyal staff is one obvious benefit of cultural activism, which will be discussed further.

Are we surprised that Higgins is gone?  Trump has shifted left upon election, as do ALL Republican “conservatives.”


Feedback: the Virtuous Cycle

So far I have discussed political and cultural strategies for protecting national identity and thus cohesion. Also important is the relationship between them. Electoral and cultural successes need to feed on one another to produce positive feedback. That salutary process should be facilitated where possible because only exponential growth can allow national movements to acquire the numbers and commitment they need to stand against globalist forces.

Very true.  But as I stated above, both sides of the rightist Political-Cultural divide disdain the other.

The cultural front can also help the political front by providing able and loyal staffers. Incompetent or subversive staff are a frequent reason minor parties fail. Patriotic parties must be able to draw on a pool of speech writers, policy analysts and media people who not only support conservative and nationalist values but are able to defend them with social and economic arguments. Promising politicians are too often hobbled, diverted, or hijacked by opportunists.

Or, in many cases, the opportunists are the politicians themselves. Hello Trump!

By constructing parallel institutions in education, media and welfare – all cultural projects – the movement would be better placed to retain its core values as it grows, resisting the temptation to compromise with “big tent” politics. The goal should be to roll back the subversive aspects of the cultural revolution that began in the 1960s while accepting change that is benign or harmless.

Parallel cultural institution should be of sufficiently high quality to be worthy of large investments and philanthropic bequests. Projects should be positive, not reactive. Wealthy individuals will only support groups whose operations are scalable, i.e. whose output rises with investment. Thus they will look for talented individuals and organisations whose performances can be broadcast on radio, television or internet. In the early phase the key ingredient is quality, not quantity.

Who will do this infrastructure building?  The current “movement” has proven itself incapable of doing so.

Two obvious examples are a news service and, more importantly, an online academy. The latter would teach what the universities refuse to teach. Subjects would include social science that incorporates biosocial theories of human nature. Students would be introduced to research on ethnicity, nationality, social cohesion, political and cultural history, reproductive strategies, gender and race, and comparative civilisation.

The dual culture-politics strategy makes sense only if it includes a reformist critique of the universities’ anti-Western bias. The social sciences and humanities are the jewels in the globalist crown. They must be won back to serve truth. Only by fixing the corruption in higher education will political victories be sustainable.

How to fight social pricing?  Theorists like Salter should tackle this problem.  I have no ideas myself other than that of building a sufficient infrastructure so as to “defang” the power of social pricing.  But this is a classic “chicken-and-egg” scenario since social pricing stands in the way of the initial steps of infrastructure building required to defang social pricing.

Political and cultural strategies should be aimed at carving out a constituency. In asymmetrical conflicts the little guy does not have many victories, and when he does, the resulting political and cultural capital is fleeting. So victories should be maximally exploited. The goal should be to complete the feedback loop. Political victories yield platforms, windows of publicity. These should be used to draw people’s attention to important values. Identity comes first, because interests so often depend on who we are.

No greater victory has been won by the enemies of the Australian nation and the West than the obscuring of traditional identities. Those the gods would destroy they first make mad, and loss of identity is madness. Nationalist advocates should expend their limited political capital on clarifying and reaffirming the nation’s core Anglo European identity. That is best achieved through two-way feedback between political and cultural activities.

Good sense, no doubt.  How to actually go about doing it is another story. The “movement” as it exists today is a poor vehicle for getting us there.



An arena in which feedback should be effective is multiculturalism. This is an important doctrine used to legitimate mass non-European immigration and suppress majority resistance.

Identitarians need a Plan B in situations where (and while) nationalism has failed to produce a homogeneous nation state. They need a strategy that protects ethnic and civilisational interests in the face of hostile multicultural regimes. In particular, the strategy needs to be workable in a situation where the majority or original nation has been subordinated by the aggressive type of multiculturalism practised in the West. This type consists of an alliance between minority ethnics and big coercive governments, promoted by the left cultural establishment.

And that Plan B is democratic multiculturalism, which I endorse, and which actually can form a component of Plan A as well.

A promising strategy is to advocate “democratic multiculturalism”, in which the subaltern majority mobilises to demand group rights in the same way that minorities do. The majority is disadvantaged because, far from being treated as a client by the cosmopolitan elite, it is viewed as the main enemy. Nevertheless, agitating for democratic multiculturalism should yield positive results because the identity politics used to mobilise minorities will also work to some extent with Anglos, more so when their level of discomfort rises…Democratic multiculturalism promises to be a powerful strategy if feedback is successfully channeled between electoral and cultural activists. Electoral success can provide resources and growing legislative power. Cultural products can arouse identity and thus prime a growing constituency to vote for identitarian parties. By raising national identity and mobilisation the strategy stands to provide a rear-guard. New parties and activist groups are slowing and blunting multicultural policies such as open borders and the criminalisation of Anglo resistance. 

“Movement” retards say all of that is “dishonoring our ancestors.”  Instead we all need to “grab dem muskets” and head off into the woods.

The doctrine of democratic multiculturalism provides a Plan B that can grow alongside and support the Plan A of liberal and ethnic nationalist strategies while giving people a workable way of life in coping with the diversity inflicted by a hostile political class.

Exactly, do both at the same time; thus Plan B can be a part of Plan A, as well as being a fallback position in case Plan A fails.


Risks of Feedback

Cultural activists should remain autonomous, speaking truth to power. To do so they should not be wedded to any politician or party. They should throw their support behind politicians who are good for Australia and punish those who are not. 

In a word: Trump.  The lickspittle worship of the “God Emperor” by factions of the Right is juvenile and pathetic. That’s America; as Salter suggests, the same principle applies to Australia (and throughout the Western world).

Likewise, politicians should support promising cultural projects. They need to gather constituents able to diffuse ideas into the community. There is no ironclad solution. The relationship between political and cultural activism will sometimes need to be explicitly managed. What is certain is that a national revival will be unattainable without positive feedback between them.

“Explicitly managed.”  I agree, because as I suggested above, if left to their own devices, the political and cultural spheres will disdain each other and achieve nothing…for the Right.  Of course, the more politically mature Left has had a seamless cooperation between Politics and Culture for many decades. Question: Who will be these explicit managers?

A fundamental challenge is weak leadership caused by political expediency. 

In a word: Mainstreaming.


Personal Activism

Finally, I want to discuss personal strategy. What can one isolated person do with few resources and an imperfect grasp of the situation? Those engaged in asymmetric conflict must think hard about this question. First and always, citizens should strive to learn more about society, human nature, and the political process, circumventing establishment censorship.

Individual activism can be political and cultural. On the political front, join or support a party or special interest group that represents our people directly or indirectly. Choose one that is capable of making a difference. That is usually not a single-issue or tiny party. Whichever party or group you do join, agitate to have it accept members who are open national activists.

Cultural activism is broader and more varied, including individual artistic expression. On the joining side, get involved with or if necessary establish a group performing useful or needed work. Examples include supporting patriotic events such as Australia Day and Anzac Day; celebrating cultural events, such as Anglo-Celtic and European ethnic festivals and local community events. Become involved in community associations such as historical societies and local suburban groups, such as those resisting high-rise property development. Look for ways to help old people and families trapped in hostile immigrant suburbs. Friendly contact can reduce the sense of isolation and threat. Do chores, help with shopping. Alert the local council and police about local crime and anti-social behaviour. Provide information about welfare rights.

These are exactly the sorts of things I have been advocating for a long time, even as far back as my interview for Robert Griffin’s book.  The “movement” has not listened; the Type I activists have neither the desire nor the aptitude for these types of activities.

As already noted, religion is an important front in the culture war. There are things individuals can do. The religious should get involved in their local churches. Have a presence. Express yourself sincerely while listening to others. Urge ministers, priests and lay people to respect Anglo Australians’ multicultural rights and return the church to its pastoral duty of uniting all communities. Oppose those who seek to hijack religion to harm the nation. The latter point applies to those who are not religious, who can legitimately claim and defend Christianity’s cultural heritage. They can also defend their (and others) ancestral religions against vilification. They can teach children about the religion of their ancestors, the heroes of their faith, their music, art and literature. Cultural Christians can encourage clerics who speak up for the nation and for wholesome values.

For an atheist like me, this: “The latter point applies to those who are not religious, who can legitimately claim and defend Christianity’s cultural heritage. They can also defend their (and others) ancestral religions against vilification” seems like good sense.

Stand up for your beliefs at work and among colleagues and friends. Use common sense. There are often opportunities to express viewpoints in workplaces. That includes responses to workplace surveys and electing union representatives. Communicate your views in a non-aggressive manner that maintains social norms.

This is an extremely important paragraph of suggestions.  The last sentence is the sort of it-should-be-obvious advice that escapes many “activists.”  Crude Bunkerism is counter-productive.  Set a good example, and, as Salter suggests “use common sense.”  Make use of the opportunities that present themselves to get pro-White views aired, normalizing such views, engaging in “democratic multiculturalism,” and heightening the contradictions while promoting racial balkanization.

Elites have greater responsibility. Individuals influential in politics, economy or culture should examine their consciences. They have a duty of care, especially to their own nations.

Elites are traitors and at some time in the future need to be held accountable for their treason.


Choosing an Adaptive Nationalism

A big decision individuals need to make concerns political goals. What are the most adaptive policies relating to the national question?

Our starting position is nationalist, meaning that the nation is something worth preserving. But what is a nation and why is it valuable? At the start of this essay I described some nationalist policy objectives, without defining nationalism. For present purposes it can be defined as a form of social cohesion or solidarity derived from national identity. At its simplest and most cohesive a nation is an ethnic group living in its homeland, the latter being a named and demarcated territory. An ethnic group is a population with a proper name that believes itself to be descended from common ancestors.

Politicians refer to the nation while perpetuating mass indiscriminate immigration and approving a coercive multicultural apparatus that subordinates the founding historic nation. Are such politicians nationalists and can their policies produce social cohesion?


To decide that, we need to examine doctrines that have attracted the nationalist label.

I will next proceed to an analysis of Part II, when time allows.

Jordan Peterson: Man of the West

Gravel-voiced hypocrite and fool.

Read this.

Dr. Peterson cautioned, however, that we have no right to take pride in European cities just because you “happen to have the same skin color as some of the people,” who built them. Of course, race is not just a matter of skin color. [iv] Dr. Peterson even briefly acknowledged group differences in IQ—but said he is “hesitant” about discussing implications and then ignored them. [v] Needless to say, they have enormous consequences, and low-IQ groups could not possibly have built our civilization. East Asians are the only other race with a high enough average IQ to build something approaching Western civilization, but racial differences go beyond IQ. Asians appear to be more sensitive to criticism in a way that reinforces conformity, [vi] which may explain why they are underrepresented in scientific innovation. [vii] These differences predict a Martin Luther as opposed to a Confucius. Asians may be predisposed to hierarchy [viii] and to see wholes while whites see details. [ix] It is unlikely that East Asians, would have developed the individual rights that Dr. Peterson sees as a world miracle. 

Dr. Peterson continued: “It’s not even so clear to what extent [Western civilization is] European. I mean, it came out of the Middle East, you know?” Even if this absurd statement were true and something essential to our civilization came out of the Middle East, Europeans built our civilization, not Middle-Easterners. If Dr. Peterson was talking about Christianity, it has been Europe’s religion for more than 1,000 years and has received a thick overlay that is distinctly Western. Moreover, as Dr. Peterson noted, Islam—a truly Middle Eastern religion—may not be compatible with Western civilization. [x] 

Dr. Peterson concluded on a smug note: “There we go, dispensed with the radical right wingers in four minutes,” adding that any racial argument is “so muddleheaded that you hardly know where to start.”

So, after making superficial “arguments” against peripheral (*) aspects of Far Right views, Peterson concludes that he has dispensed with the “radical right wing” despite never addressing any of the core tenets of the Real Far Right, and he asserts that racial arguments – you know, the ones he never actually gets around to really addressing – are “so muddleheaded” (pot calling the kettle black?) that “you hardly know where to start.”  Well, that last bit is actually an accurate bit of self-description on Peterson’s part, as he truly doesn’t know where to start, and hasn’t actually done so.

The key tenets of Real Far Right though are: (1) racial preservation (and advancement), genetic continuity, and ethnic genetic interests – what we can call the Salterian view; and (2) what we can call the Yockeyian view – actualizing a High Culture, not merely “being proud of it,” but going forward as members of that Culture and building upon it (in Yockey’s view, the fine points of which we can debate, that means creating the Imperium).

Now, in order to argue against those tenets, one needs to basically take the view that all peoples are interchangeable, all ethnies are fungible, that there are no essential differences between any human groups.  One can take that view literally – race-denying, science-denying absurdity (which Peterson actually tips his toe into by making the imbecilic implication that racial differences merely conflate to skin color) – or you can take the view functionally – that differences may exist but these are of no import and nothing any individual should be concerned about (e.g., the “who cares” argument about EGI).  These are, of course, the views of the Left as applied specifically to Whites (Coloreds are allowed to recognize and celebrate difference) and, as we know, Peterson’s real target audience is Whites (particularly all those young White men he is “saving” from the Alt Right).

On the other hand, a view from the Right – not necessarily “radical” Right but the Right in its fundamental essence – recognizes human difference and human hierarchy, and if you recognize difference, an intellectually honest person will also recognize the legitimacy of the Salterian view, and, whether or not they agree or disagree with Yockey’s prescription for the West, must also at least recognize that the Yockeyian view is one possible and fully legitimate option for Western Man.

So, either Peterson must agree that the fundamental tenets of the Far Right have validity, based on the concept of fundamental human difference, or else he is a Man of the Left (and it is on the Left, by the way, that one properly classifies the Neocons, the civic nationalists, and all else who delegitimize racial arguments and White racial interests).

The clear evidence that Peterson is a Man of the Left is shown here as follows:

However, Dr. Peterson has explicitly denounced white consciousness. At a recent talk at Lafayette College, a member of the audience asked what he thought about taking pride in European ethnic identity. He replied, in part, “The West has got some things right, we got the sovereignty of the individual right,” and he noted that this has resulted in worldwide wealth. But, he continued, “Am I proud of that? It’s like, I didn’t do that. What the hell? Pride! What’s that? That’s not the right response.” [i] 

“Pride! What’s that?” It is odd that Dr. Peterson should ask. In the first chapter of 12 Rules For Life, he explains that pride helps lobsters and birds guard their territory and determines which survive disease and reproduce. [ii] He also notes that self-respect helps people resist oppression. [iii] Therefore, according to his own logic, European pride is vital to the West’s survival.

The most fundamental tenet of the Modern Left is hostility to White interests.  Race has replaced Class as the focal point of Leftist struggle, and here we see Peterson make a classic unprincipled exception in order to attack the legitimacy of White interests.  Pride and self-respect is vital and important to all things – EXCEPT when it applies to Whites and White racial interests.  Pride is important for lobsters and birds, but NOT for White folks.  Self-respect helps people resist oppression, but obviously that cannot apply to dastardly Whites who may want to, for example, resist the oppression of mass migration, race replacement, political correctness, speech restriction, racial double standards, Jewish dual morality, and the despicably hypocritical cant of leftists like Peterson himself. 

The key to the Left is that anything that benefits Whites as Whites, as a race, is BAD, even if in any and every other circumstance it is good (hence, for example, the United Nations definition of “indigenous peoples” mysteriously does not include the native populations of Europe, since that inclusion would benefit White interests, and White interests go against the Fundamental Premise of the System).  It is therefore clear that Peterson is as far to the Left, once you clear away superficial rambling, as is any blue-haired SJW hysteric.

Therefore, according to his own logic, European pride is vital to the West’s survival.

That’s true, but Peterson is a leftist.  His ultimate logic is that any “racial argument” that benefits Whites must be “muddleheaded” and hence “dispensed” with.  Consistency goes out the window if it specifically is applied to benefiting Whites as a race.

Peterson is a typical System apparatchik posing as a free-thinking dissident in order to fool gullible Whites and steer White men away from the racial thinking they need to defend their interests.

Peterson is the enemy.  And any morons, like some idiot writing at VDARE, who believe that Peterson is somehow useful and “on our side” are either stupid or deluded or are enemies themselves.

*Granted, for the Alt Wrong, and much of the Alt Right, the points Peterson attacks actually are the core.  But, the Alt Wrong are a bunch of pro-Jewish self-described “yellow supremacists” and the Alt Right (to the extent it still even exists) is essentially Beavis-and-Butthead White nationalism.  So, if Peterson wants to tilt at windmills by going after the laughingstocks of the “radical right wing” then that only proves he is both an idiot and a coward (as well as being a hysterical SJW leftist).

Ethnonationalist (Non) Responses to Salterism

Three examples.

I sometimes contact activists – usually ethnonationalist types since they are in the vast majority in the “movement” – in the White world to “proselytize” the EGI concept (“Salterism”); and the “response” typically falls into one of three categories:

1. Completely ignore the contact email.

2. “I’ll take a look at it” – afterwards no further response and of course no indication that the EGI concept was understood or incorporated into nationalist activity.

3. One activist, from a White nation whose name I won’t mention (although you may be able to figure out for yourself what it is, or at least what part of the world it is), answered: “this doesn’t apply to us; all our enemies are White.”

That last comment deserves a brief counter-commentary.  Even if the claim “all our enemies are White” was true (which it is not, I can assure you), it is still irrelevant as far as the basics of EGI go, since genetic interests exist at every level of genetic differentiation, and EGI applies to intra-racial group differences as well as inter-racial. Of course, the intra-racial differences are shallower, and one must be careful of kinship overlap when distinguishing genetic (and other) interests of very closely related groups; however, the basic principles of EGI still hold.  So, the casual dismissal of EGI in point #3 reflects typical ethnonationalist knee-jerk reflexive closemindedness and anti-Whiteism, an automatic rejection of anything which even “smells” as having something to do with White solidarity (whether it actually does or not), and it also reflects typical Type I activist anti-intellectualism and superficial “thinking.”

True enough, I haven’t really found pan-Europeanists who take EGI seriously either, but there are so few genuine pan-Europeanists that the small sample size makes the lack of interest virtually meaningless to form any conclusion.  However, the lack of interest among ethnonationalists is meaningful, and tells us all we need to know about ethnonationalist quality (or the lack thereof).

Fundamental Basics of Salterism

Truth so basic and obvious that only politically motivated mendacious anti-Whiters would try to “refute” it.

Previously, I wrote a lengthy “Defense of Salterism” against particularly mendacious and/or retarded “critiques” of the EGI concept.

This post will be more fundamental: essentially to demonstrate that “Salterism” is based on four basic principles, all of which are not only true, but obviously true, even trivially true. While science should be defined by skepticism and rigorous hypothesis testing (which is why HBD is not science), it is also true that at some point, certain facts and ideas have been so well established that one can accept them as, to the extent we can perceive them, reality.  Although one can of course keep an open mind toward future findings in astronomy, planetary geography, etc. it is still reasonable to accept that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and not vice versa, and that the Earth is essentially spherical and definitely not flat or “Frisbee-shaped.” Arguing about such established facts does not advance science or human progress. Salterism is based on principles which begin to approach that of “the Earth revolves around the Sun,” which should tell you something about the (political) motivations of those who deny such obvious facts and established ideas.  Thus:

1. Population groups differ genetically; there are differences of genetic kinship between groups (with some groups being more or less similar or distant than others).  This is true; there isn’t the slightest doubt on this obvious fact, apart from the mendacious or the mad.

2. On average, members of groups are more genetically similar to their group than to members of other groups. I say “on average” because this depends on how similar the two groups are.  For very dissimilar groups, like the major continental population groups (races), the greater within group similarity is virtually always true, for more closely related groups (say, Germans vs. French) there will be some overlap, but even there, on average, it holds.  In summary; with sufficient markers, when considering the major population groups, there is always greater intragroup vs. intergroup genetic similarity.

3. From a pure fitness standpoint, identical by state is the same as identical by descent; identical = identical.  For ethnies, identical by state vs. identical by descent is sort of a distinction without difference – or a difference without distinction – because in that case identical by state is identical by (relatively) distant descent (when talking about the distinctive genome). This is obviously – basically, trivially – true, although I guess you can always find politically motivated con artists who claim that identical does not mean identical, that a DNA sequence of GCTAGG is not the same as GCTAGG.

4. Genetic continuity (and expansion) is adaptive.  This is basic biology, the basic definition of biological fitness.  This is at the core of the Darwinian (or Neo-Darwinian) perspective.  That’s what life is about.

The basics of Salterism can be boiled down to one sentence:

“True enough, it is an evolutionarily better strategy to spend beneficial behavior towards fellow ethnics than towards outsiders, because you are more closely related to them.”

Who wrote that?  Frank Salter?  Ted Sallis?  No.  It was written by liberal academic Ingo Brigandt, a critic of the idea of ethnic nepotism.  You may be confused: why would someone critical of ethnic nepotism write an admission of the adaptive value of ethnocentric behavior?  You see (to make a long story short), the Brigandt types promote the bizarre idea that if a specific behavior could not, and therefore did not, “evolve,” then actualizing that behavior is impossible. So, by analogy, since humans did not evolve with computers, obviously you are not reading this post on your computer screen.  Impossible!  The riposte to that would be to argue that evolutionarily novel behaviors, such as computer use, are possible courtesy of evolved general behavioral and cognitive suites, such as intelligence and problem solving.  Indeed.  Therefore, even IF ethnocentrism is not an evolved behavioral trait, humans can (and do!) behave in an ethnocentric manner if they perceive that to do so is to their advantage.  Why would they perceive that advantage?  See the four points listed above.  Now, I would argue that ethnocentrism could and did evolve (the amygdala response to racially alien faces is evidence for this, and see the next link below), but even if it is not an “evolved behavior” it can still occur, and be adaptive, derived from more general behavioral and cognitive mechanisms, which, we all agree, are evolved. 

You may argue that Brigandt talked about the “costs and benefits” of ethnocentric behavior evolving, but those calculations have been done (the aforementioned link), and support the dominance of ethnocentrism over alternative competing behaviors; further, the “laboratory of human reality” demonstrates ethnocentric behavior being a longstanding reality of the human experience, and one cannot help but notice that ethnocentric groups like Jews and Chinese are doing very well for themselves, with the Jews surviving as a group through all sorts of tribulations (if Brigandt wants to argue that those tribulations are due to the Jews’ ethnocentric behavior itself, let him do so, which would admit that ethnocentric behavior has been evolutionarily stable in that ethny over a period of many centuries).

Now, why do these types promote anti-Salterian memes that are, to an objective viewpoint, patently absurd?  Because their objections are, in my opinion, not objective but subjective.


1. If Salterism is correct, then Whites (*) have the absolute right to pursue ethnocentrism in pursuit of their adaptive fitness.

2. If Whites behave in an ethnocentric manner, then “Western” multiculturalism will collapse.

3. They do not want multiculturalism to collapse; therefore, Salterism must be incorrect and refuted.

You, dear reader, are under no obligation to accept that con game.

That Whites are so detached from any perception of their own self-interest that the Salterian analysis is even necessary – do you really need to be told and taught something so trivially true that the genetic continuity of your group is adaptive? – is disturbing.  That Whites actually try to delegitimize these obvious facts, or buy into the ethnically self-interested critiques of non-Whites, does nothing but confirm the objective worthlessness of the White race from the standpoint if adaptive fitness.  Time to wake up, guys (or should that be goys).

In addition, there has also been some controversy over the term “race” with the politically-motivated race-deniers picking apart some of the (in some cases, admittedly deficient) definitions put forth by some on the Right.  I would propose that:

A race is a population group consisting of smaller population groups and the individuals therein that are, on average and in toto, more similar to each other with respect to genotype and phenotype than to other groups; members of a race tend to share more most recent common ancestors with each other than with members of other races, and racial groups tend to be indigenous to particular continents or sub-continents in which they came into being (“ethnogenesis”).

*This holds for all groups, but for some strange reason ethnocentrism becomes a problem only when Whites practice it.