Category: universal nationalism

Defending Universal Nationalism

Typical “movement” stupidity.

“The universal nationalist believes that one can make a case for White Nationalism that would be compelling enough, “reasonable” enough, “fair” enough to garner support from each of these biologically distinct groups.

This is absolute, unfettered nonsense.  Universal nationalism is meant as a meme for Whites, not an attempt to plead with others for our right to exist. That many – most? – Whites are so Universalist in their natural mindset that they require universalism to intrude into nationalism is a fact that needs to be dealt with.  Blame all those “high trust hunter gatherers” that the HBD faction is so fond of babbling about.  But don’t blame those who understand that the rhetoric of universal nationalism has an appeal to the innate fair mindedness of White folks.

Universal nationalism is fully compatible with “doing what it takes” to secure racial survival.  There is nothing in Salter’s book that suggests we need to care what happens to Burma or invest any energy in fighting their battles. Salterism says we need to invest in OURSELVES, while, at the same time, granting the Burmese the same right to do so. We are under no obligation to help them.  Of course, “universal nationalism” would tell us that attempts to genocide the Burmese, to colonize them, etc. is morally wrong, so, yes, On Genetic Interests is not compatible with The Turner Diaries – but I thought that the “American New Right” eschewed Pierce’s genocidal fantasies, even independent of Salter?

If the author of this piece (did he actually read Salter’s book?) is so exercised over WNs wasting their time worrying about others, then go over to the Alt Right and chastise them about their obsession with Assad of Syria.  I for one – a “universal nationalist” – really could care less about Syrians – apart from that they do not belong in White nations and that the West should not interfere with whatever civil war goes on there.  They can all kill each other off, for all I care. That’s my version of “universal nationalism.”

See the sensible comments by “Leon” in the comments thread as well.

I can’t speak for Salter, but he has every right to be annoyed at the typically doltish reception his work has received from the imbecilic “movement.”  Also interesting is that when self-styled “racial preservationists” make (in my opinion transparently disingenuous) appeals for a Universalist approach for “preserving all peoples’ no one bats an eye or utters a word of criticism. Let an academic write a book on genetic interests in which “universal nationalism” is suggested as a broad operating principle, and then it is all some sort of big problem.  In reality, “universal nationalism” is merely giving others the opportunity to defend their interests, whether they successfully do so or not is their problem.  Now, if helping others can be done without harming your own interests, fine, we can all afford to be generous, but there is no obligation to help others at your own expense.


Political EGI, Part II

Political EGI, Part II.

Let’s follow up a bit on this previous discussion.

Nationalist politicians of the so-called “Far Right” have consistently failed to incorporate forthright discussion of ultimate interests in their rhetoric, and I suspect that almost all of them never heard of ethnic genetic interests and have zero awareness of, much less understating of, Salter’s On Genetic Interests book. As we are getting close to the 15 year mark since the original publication of that work, this ignorance, and lack of utility, has no excuse, and underscores the intellectual vacuity of much of the Far Right.

Excuses about “hate speech laws” (for those nations where such exist) fail for two reasons: first, it should be possible to formulate EGI memes using language moderate enough to evade such laws (in many, albeit likely not all, cases), and, second, the right for free speech, the battle against such laws, should be a foundational plank in any Far Right political platform, but for the most part, nationalist politicians and activists do not take the issue, so they can hardly be justified in using in for an excuse for their failures.

Indeed, I would say this: any White nationalist politician that neglects the free speech issue is simply not serious.  In places like Europe, with “hate speech laws,” nationalist politicians worth anything will make free speech, and the repudiation of speech restrictions, a core fundamental plank of their worldview and their campaign; in America, the focus should be on (1) preventing any such laws here; and (2) fighting against de facto speech restrictions such as political correctness, private policing of speech, and leftist thuggery.  That’s all essential and one good test of the legitimacy of any nationalist political campaign: anyone who neglects these issues is not serious about significant change and lacks understanding of basic sociopolitical dynamics (it’s real hard to battle issues that are illegal to criticize, for example)

Getting back to EGI itself: the Far Right simply hasn’t made the slightest attempt to use EGI/Universal Nationalism and similar concepts as the foundational basis of nationalist politics.

True enough Le Pen and her supporters did skirt the issue with talk of “replacement.”  That’s a start, no doubt.  However, a few phrases uttered in the heat of a political campaign, designed to (cynically?) appeal to a base of supporters, is hardly any sort of fundamental statement of principle.

In the Netherlands and Austria there has been similar “dog whistling” regarding race and ethnicity, but the language can always be interpreted more in cultural/civilizational terms. Certainly there hasn’t been any talk that even remotely touches on the EGI argument.

“Preserving ethnic homogeneity” is important to Hungary’s economy, according to the prime minister, who said “life has proven that too much mixing causes trouble”.

He insisted the government “cannot risk changing the fundamental ethnic character of the country.

“That would not enhance the value of the country but downgrade it instead, and toss it into chaos.”

That’s good as far as it goes, but doesn’t go far enough.  “Hungary’s economy?”  Well, yes, I’m sure that importing Third Worlders and other aliens into Hungary isn’t going to help their “economy,” but that’s hardly the core of the problem.  Ultimately, from the standpoint of political EGI, Orban fails.

Hanson in Australia is similar to Western Europe with the “swamping” “dog whistling” that can be ascribed to culture but resonates ethnically with at least some supporters.

Brexit in the UK was also completely devoid of any direct racial basis. Alternative for Germany also does the same moderating “dog whistling.”  I guess something is better than nothing, but it’s not a huge degree better than nothing.

Moving in the more Far Right direction, I’m sure groups like Golden Dawn and other more “extreme” organizations take a more direct racial view, but insofar as I know they lack the solid empirical foundation given by an understanding of EGI.

But, look, even allegedly openly racialist groups and blogs in America and the rest of the Anglosphere do not understand EGI.  Even those blogs that pontificate about “European EGI” promote policies that would directly and irreparably harm that EGI, such as Asian colonization of White nations (not only destructive from a gross EGI standpoint but also from a net EGI standpoint – there is absolutely no need to have any Asians around whatsoever [apart from exciting the masochistic instincts of White omega males]).

What about the “God Emperor” and other outspoken mainstream “conservative” politicians in America?

Well, as regards Trump, we know that, besides some of his bombastic campaign rhetoric on immigration, and questioning Europe’s suicidal migration policy, his basic worldview has always been aracial civic nationalism, The idea that Trump would ever understand EGI, would be willing to even attempt understanding it (he may lack the intelligence to even understand the relevance of it), or would act upon EGI if he was aware of it and understood it, is absurd.

And we see Steve King’s ultimate disavowal of an ethnic-racial-genetic component, even though “culture and civilization” really is a proxy for biological demographics. King, like Trump, categorically fails with respect to the explicitly White EGI-focused worldview that is absolutely essential.

However, King clarified his original tweet, saying he made no mention of race and did not intend for his message to be taken in a racial way.

He said he meant to and only did mention “culture and civilization.”

“We are all God’s children. We are all created in his image,” King said, adding that the political left is the group who often characterizes situations by race.

Fail, fail, and fail. No one – repeat no one – on the rightist/nationalist spectrum anywhere in the White world promotes EGI/Universal Nationalism in the slightest degree, for the most part I’m sure they’ve never heard of it, and they wouldn’t understand it or agree with it even if they did understand it. And those elements foaming at the mouth about “European EGI” actually want Europeans to be subaltern cringing serfs to their Asian overlords.  

Again: Fail, fail, and fail.

Part III will continue this discussion when relevant information comes forth that sheds more light on this issue.

We’re White Nationalists, Not White Supremacists

Setting the record straight.

As part of her moronic speech attacking the Alt-Right, Hillary Clinton – as well as all the “experts” and “watchdogs” who piled on after the speech – asserted the oft-told lie that White nationalism is the same as White supremacy, that White nationalism is just a euphemism for White supremacy, and that White nationalists are just White supremacists trying to use clever language to hide the truth about what they are and what they really believe.

Others have previously outlined the clear difference between White nationalism and White supremacy, between the idea of separatism and that of supremacism.
I would like to make some statements about my beliefs, and why I find the comments of Clinton and the watchdogs and other racial liberals and anti-racist nitwits so offensive.
I would hope that even some of my “movement” opponents – who have criticized me vociferously over the years on a number of matters – would at least agree with the premise that I am not dishonest. “Wrong, misguided, crazy, paranoid retard, etc. etc. etc.” – all these and other negative comments have been made – but at least admit that I believe what I write. So, now, believe me when I say this, as someone who prizes honesty and despises “mainstreaming” – I am a White nationalist, but NOT a White supremacist, and there is a very clear distinction between those two descriptions, clear to anyone who is not some sort of dishonest mendacious toad themselves.
I am someone who self-describes as a (radical) national socialist; I have no interest in using clever euphemisms to disguise my beliefs. Therefore, rejection of “White supremacist” has nothing whatsoever to do with an attempt to evade the truth; on the contrary, it is born out of a desire to be as truthful and as accurate and precise as possible. If I am not a White supremacist, then why should I accept that label? To do so would be dishonest and would obfuscate the facts and impede a truthful and frank discussion of the issues at hand. Indeed, one would think it obvious that someone who writes about White inferiority, about the “objective worthlessness of the White race” (from an adaptive fitness standpoint), that such a person is not, and could not be, a “White supremacist.”
Some would argue that a desire for separation implies a belief in supremacy. That is strange: I assume that those making that argument prefer to live on their own in a home or apartment rather in a communal dwelling; are they supremacists? Another analogy would be ecological. Ecologists and environmentalists are interested in preserving endangered species and subspecies. Some of the dangers facing such organisms are similar to those facing Whites – for example, competition from invading species and subspecies and/or hybridization with those invading competitors (note: contrary to popular belief, there does not have to be reproductive isolation between closely related species of the same genus, and sub-species are typically completely reproductively compatible). Insofar as I know, these ecologists and environmentalists do not express their concern in the language of supremacy, but rather stress the preservation of the diversity of life. One here is interested in difference, in distinction, not with superiority or inferiority. How much more urgent then should be the preservationist impulse if one is talking about danger facing one’s own group! There is obviously no logical connection between preservation and supremacy.
Further, even in the absence of an immediate danger to your group, it is perfectly natural and healthy to prefer those genetically closer to you; that is adaptive fitness, and is exemplified by family ties and familial interests. Parents, for example, do not typically express their interest in their children in terms of supremacy (despite the fact that they may sometimes brag about their children’s accomplishments). Concern for kin, at either the familial or ethnoracial level, is not “supremacy.”
Now, to be honest, there are of course some White nationalists who really are White supremacists – but a significant fraction of these are more concerned with supremacy of certain types of Whites over other types of Whites than with Whites compared to non-Whites. And, yes, it is certainly true that White nationalists like myself do believe Whites are superior by certain criteria, just as we believe Whites are inferior by other criteria. But this fact-based weighing of racial strengths and weaknesses does not constitute the foundation of our racial nationalism, which is based instead on genetic and cultural kinship, and a desire to promote the preservation and advancement of our race, without necessarily doing harm to other groups. Indeed, many of us promote Salter’s idea of “Universal Nationalism” and grant other peoples the same rights of existence and self-determination that we claim for our own people. Therefore, in the last analysis, for our type of White nationalism, the idea of some sort of general and fundamental “supremacy” simply does not exist.
So, I have no desire to use euphemisms for my beliefs. I am a White nationalist, a fascist, a national socialist, whose overall ideology can be called pan-European national socialism. I object to the label of “White supremacist” for the very simple reason that it is not true, it is a fundamentally dishonest distortion of my beliefs, and to support truth and honesty, I want a clear accounting of what it is I believe or do not believe. It is not for political opponents to impose labels on others as part of a strategy of emotional button-pushing. They say “White supremacist” in order to conjure up images of White plantation owners and Black slaves, of the alleged indignities of the Jim Crow South and of apartheid-era South Africa, of violence against civil rights protesters, of “good old boys” with their Confederate flags and juvenile acting out. They want to avoid people thinking about nationalism, about separation, about folks just wanting to be left alone to pursue their own destiny in their own nations.
So: White nationalism, yes; White supremacism, no. Not any sort of euphemism or covering up of the truth, but a reflection of the truth itself.

It’s How You Say It

Mainstreaming speech, not ideals.

I’ve been critical of Trump, but I’ll give him credit for not wanting to “pivot” for the general election (at least so far), not behaving like a mainstream politician by disavowing all his previous positions.

There are some who think that is an error; others will say I’m hypocritical because I’ve also criticized Trump for his continued buffoonery.

But there’s a difference – a big difference – between what you say and how you say it.  This is something that Der Movement in general, and the mainstreamers in particular, fail to understand.  It is not a choice between foaming-at-the-mouth radical speech on the one hand and mainstreaming of your ideals on the other.  Instead, you absolutely keep all your original ideals, as radical as they are, and express those ideals in language that makes them appear more reasonable to your target audience (*).

I have previously discussed how Trump could have addressed that obnoxious NEC waving a copy of the Constitution around at the DNC, an approach that could have coupled a strong anti-immigration message with the appearance of rational Presidential behavior.

For another example, consider Salter’s masterpiece, On Genetic Interests. In that book, Salter argues for a race- and ethnic-based nationalism, and against mainstreaming civic nationalism, and does so in the context of reasonable universalist themes (“Universal Nationalism”).  That can be favorably compared to Pierce’s The Turner Diaries, in which, ultimately, Whites exterminate all other races.  In both cases, an advocacy of biological/genetic-based nationalism is made, which is considered radical by the System’s standards.  But what a difference in tone and style!  No one can reasonably accuse Universal Nationalism of being mainstreaming, as it would result in racial nationalism and ethnostates, yet it is a completely different species of argument from Piercian wild screeds. Hopefully, the point is made.

*Oh yes, I’m a “hypocrite” for the intemperate language at this blog – despite repeated comments on how such language has been an intentional parody of Der Movement and of certain activists beloved of the same critics who term my parody writing as “insane” (who’s really the hypocrite here?). Nevertheless, since retarded trolls are too dim to understand this, I’ll try and keep tongue out of cheek and refrain from open mocking of “movement” language (although some of it will still appear for the sake of comic relief).

The Ethnotype

Introducing a new genetic concept.

The following I see as extremely important.
This paper discusses the “beanbag” approach to population genetics.

In a sexual population, each genotype is unique, never to recur. The life expectancy of a genotype is a single generation. In contrast, the population of genes endures. The quantities that are followed, in mathematical theories or in observations, are allele frequencies. The geneticist knows that at any desired time, the genotype frequencies can be obtained by the simple binomial rule.

Now, herein lies a problem I see with mainstream population geneticists (and other, related scientists) blinded perhaps by anti-racist political correctness.  It’s true than an exact, specific genotype is unique (except for identical twins) and does not recur.  The error – the fundamentalerror – these people make is not admitting that some genotypes are more similar than to others.  It’s not just a comparison between a genepool and a genotype, at opposite ends of the genetic integration scales.  There are levels in between the general population of genes at one end and the unique, never-to-be-reproduced genotype at the other end.
I therefore name one such level, which is of importance to the preservationist viewpoint: the ethnotype. 
An ethnotype is a range of possible genotypes that characterizes populations that have specific genepools.  An ethnotype is not as specific as a genotype, and ethnotype can be found in the many millions, and is stable across evolutionary time.  Otzi the Iceman and contemporary Europeans can be said to belong to the same broad ethnotype.  Ethnotypes can be considered to total set of possible genotypes produced by a genepool, the total set of possible allele combinations, and that will be different from that produced by another genepool.
Ethnotypes can be broader or narrower.  Europeans vs. East Asians are examples of two ethnotypes, each consisting of specific combinations of alleles from their respective genepools (ethnotypes, like genotypes, are emergent properties of genepools, and the frequencies of ethnotypes should be calculable from genepool allele frequencies as are genotypes).  One can go narrower: different types of Europeans (North, South, East, West, Central, etc.) can be thought of as being represented by a specific ethnotype or set of ethnotypes, the same for East Asians or any other population group.
Thus, while the forces of independent assortment and recombination at meiosis, combined with genetic drift and various forms of selection, insure that exact genotypes will never again be reproduced, ethnotypes will continue to be reproduced.  The European genepool may produce Isaac Newton or Michelangelo or Tesla only once, but can produce allele combinations reasonably similar to those individuals and similar to Europeans worldwide over and over again, as long as the genepool says intact.  Of course, over time, with drift and selection, the genepool changes, so that the possible ranges of ethnotypes and genotypes produced from the genepool will be altered, but these ranges will be more similar than to alien peoples. 
Therefore, the European genepool of 1016 AD had the potential to produce a different set of ethnotypes and genotypes than the European genepool of 2016; nevertheless, both are much more similar to each other than to, say, East Asian genepools of any date picked.  Again, genotypes are one-shot affairs, while ethnotypes are more stable over time, since they are a less specific, and more generalized, arrangement of genepool alleles.
The advantages of considering comparisons at the ethnotype level are that (a) this is the level that has the most practical significance (including selection) at the population level, as populations are collections of genotypes, not a soup of randomized alleles floating around; (b) given that genetic distance increases with increasing genetic integration and that the ethnotype is at a higher level than at the genepool, then considering the genetic structure inherent in the ethnotype will increase the level of genetic interests; and (c) while not as unique as the genotype, the ethnotype is unique in cross-population comparisons AND has the advantage of being preservable.  Thus, while genotype can be preserved only by cloning, ethnotypes can be preserved, to a reasonable degree over time, by following the precepts of Salterian Universal Nationalism.  Preserving the ethnotype can be done today, via acts of political will and social convention, no new technology needs be implemented.  Further, while “beanbag” genetics will tell you that miscegenation in some cases (at least at the parental level) can be compensated by increased reproduction and replication of the individual alleles, ethnotypes are specific to particular ethny genepool – no number of hybrids could reproduce the genetic structure of ethnotypes; hence, the ethnotype concept better represents the preservationist imperative.  I may add that ethnotypes better represent an ethny’s phenotypes as well, since phenotype is produced not by individual alleles working alone, but by the interaction of the whole genome with the environment.

Further, the ethnotype concept is compatible with eugenics, since, unlike the genotype, we are not talking about a fixed, perfectly unique set of genetics, but a more flexible range of genetic types that can still exhibit similarity over time even with some degree of substitution if alleles (again, consider the similarity of Otzi to today’s Europeans).

Universal Nationalism vs. National Socialism: Know Your Investments

Arguments for NS.

In On Genetic Interests, Salter’s charts of genetic investment options has Universal Nationalism (UN) as Self>Offspring>Ethny>Humanity (although things may shift dependent upon context) and National Socialism (NS) as Self=Ethny>Offspring>Humanity=0 (no investment in humanity at all).

I’m not sure that the relatively depressed Offspring investment compared to Self for NS is accurate, as that ideology was pro-natalist, although I would agree that the relative depression of Self, Offspring, and Humanity compared to Ethny is accurate, at least for NS as practiced in Hitler’s Germany. Although the heightened emphasis on Ethny is a fundamental feature of NS, one may consider that this is context-dependent as is UN’s investments. Would the high degree of ethnic mobilization in NS Germany have continued if they had won the war? Or, more fundamentally, is extreme ethnic mobilization (and absence of any investment in humanity whatsoever) an invariant feature of NS, or particular to one regime at one period of time?

I could envision a stabilized NS regime whose genetic investment profile is typically Self=Offspring=Ethny>Humanity, where Humanity is very low, but greater than zero.  And of course, this investment profile could be flexible, morphing into a more Salterian NS profile in times of ethnic crisis.

The question then is: is my modified “peacetime” NS investment profile better or worse than that typical of UN?  Or, perhaps better: can my NS profile serve as a form of UN that is more ethnocentric than the Self>Offspring>Ethny>Humanity  variety?

This is, I guess, a matter of taste.  One could argue that in the absence of ethnic crisis, even a Self=Offspring=Ethny>Humanity regime exhibits excessive and superfluous ethnic mobilization, that such levels may not be sustainable over time, and/or that having multiple ethnies with such profiles increases the risk of conflict.

Those are reasonable arguments, and food for thought for future discussion.  I would argue in favor of the more moderate NS profile based on my ‘take” that UN may be dangerous for less ethnocentric ethnies that are prone to altruistic humanism (i.e., Whites) and in the absence of sufficient ethnic mobilization, the slide from UN to Humanism may be too easy to occur.  Of course, too much ethnic mobilization may “burn out” less ethnocentric groups, so that some oscillation over time may be required (which would necessitate a managerial regime with long-term strategic vision and social planning on a wide scale, over historical time).  However, knowing how “weak” Whites tend to be, I’m more comfortable erring on the side of more ethnic mobilization, rather than less – for Whites this mobilization could be tempered by humanist impulses (which, admittedly, did not occur in the Hitlerian regime). Bur we are currently dying out due to a complete lack of ethnic mobilization, so I would say, at least for now, worrying about too much mobilization should not be a concern until such time (if ever) that the racial situation is so stabilized over time that a more traditional UN profile can come into being.

Starting with NS and ending up stabilized at UN is better than starting at UN prematurely, when racial dangers abound, and sliding back into Humanism.  If UN is flexible, then flexibility toward the NS direction may be prudent for as long as legitimate racial danger exist (note: it is possible that they may always exist).

Diversity Paradox

Actually, fraud and paradox

Even if true, who cares about some narrow economic application?  It certainly doesn’t broadly apply, as the West’s decline is in direct relation to increasing diversity – never mind the costs in genocidal reduction in majority EGI and Putnam’s findings on societal distrust. And of course, “diversity” never seems to include a true diversity of ideas and opinions.

But, aside from all of that, for all these types of studies, if you scratch the surface, you find they are fraudulent. For example, one of Breezy’s readers comments:

The homogeneous groups were Latino. 

The article says:

“To ascertain that we were measuring the effects of diversity, not culture or history, we examined a variety of ethnic and racial groups. In Texas, we included the expected mix of whites, Latinos and African-Americans.” 

In the appendix of the study:

“In Texas, we created homogeneous markets by including only participants

that were Latinos. In diverse markets, we included at least one participant of a numerical minority ethnicity.”

So, adding Whites to groups of coloreds can improve performance.  Who knew?

But there is a paradox here. Liberals are universalist humanists. They view “all humanity” as their ingroup.  Very well.  If diversity really enhanced performance, how can this be leveraged to help all humanity?  What is diversity from the perspective of humanity?

Answer: the benefits of diversity to humanity would be maximized by having distinct, ethnically/racially homogeneous states, all interacting with each other as  part of a diverse tapestry of nations and peoples. Diversity among humanity is maintained by Salterian Universal Nationalism. The type of “diversity” favored by liberals – multiculturalism – leads to a long-term reduction of diversity through biological and cultural panmixia,

Therefore, I look forward to liberals safeguarding diversity by promoting the work of Salter.