Category: Yockey

Hood vs. Metapolitics

Let’s consider.

Look at this again.  Emphasis added:

Obviously, public opinion affects what’s politically possible. Yet the Overton Window model is flawed because power can shape public opinion. There’s no neutral “marketplace of ideas.” It takes resources and platforms to spread a message.

Without strong political leaders, the government doesn’t govern. Policies are irrelevant. The media rule.

It’s time to rethink the Overton Window. The truth is already on our side. Many people already agree with us on most issues. If that were enough, we’d have already won.

Instead of trying to shock public opinion, we should focus on demanding platform access, creating financial networks, and building institutions and communities the media can’t destroy. Instead of focusing on ideology, we should focus on logistics. We need to change conditions on the ground and make it easier for white advocates to organize. Otherwise, we risk ending up like Georgia Clark, pleading for help from leaders who have already abandoned us.

If we consider Yockey’s definition of politics as “activity in relation to power,” then what Hood is talking about here is an emphasis on politics, broadly defined, as opposed to so-called “metapolitics.”

Is Hood correct?  It depends on what he means by “the truth is already on our side” and that people already agree with us. If he’s referring to the general idea that Whites have rights, Whites are under attack, Whites have legitimate interests and should be able to pursue those interests, and that Whites have to fight for racial preservation and a future for themselves and their civilization then, yes, the truth is “on our side” (putting aside the issue of who “our” is). How many White people already agree with us is questionable but, in broad terms, Hood is correct from this perspective.

However, if by “truth” Hood means the totality of Der Movement’s lies, half-truths, obsessions, dogmas, fetishism, and freakishness, then he’s 100% wrong.

Keep in mind though that the Left has been very successful in leveraging politics to achieve their goals, even though the Left is famous for its internal ideological squabbles.  They have been capable of doing both at the same time – power politics rallying around foundational paradigms while still struggling internally to sort out the deeper meaning underlying their paradigms.

Thus, the Far Right can and should engage in politics based on broad paradigms while the struggle for the mind, heart, and soul of racial activism continues. The two things are of course linked, in both directions.  First, the more powerful the Far Right becomes, the more familiar the masses will become to the deeper paradigms, and the more disgusted and repulsed they will become by Der Movement’s retarded dogmas, thus ending and reversing progress.  Long term progress will be attainable only if the correct paradigms underlie political activism.  Second, initial success in the political sphere will give more power for activists in the internal struggle to influence the paradigms; hence, political success by fetishists will backfire and doom long term success.

The main point I believe that Hood is making is that metapolitics is not sufficient; politics, activity in relation to power, is essential.  Anyone who is claiming that “changing the culture” – independent of politics – can lead to victory is either delusional or are openly lying to you.

I’m not a mind-reader and I am hesitant to ascribe secret agendas to any person; thus, I will not mention anyone by name.  In general, however, I suspect that, in some cases, what happened is that some of these people were genuine and sincere in their initial activism, but became disillusioned over time, and realized that they sacrificed the opportunity for a real career for a losing proposition. They then decided to grift and cynically extract a living from the “movement,” focusing on activities that will achieve nothing, all the time citing the inevitability of victory – just as long as people keep on sending them donations.

Regardless of those people, and regardless of the specifics of what Hood actually meant by “truth,” I endorse the main thesis of the last part of his essay.  Power is important; without power, all of the “truth” in the world won’t save you.  To get power, you need politics.

The grifters will, in response, invoke the example of the implosion of the Soviet Union and of communism in Eastern Europe. They’ll clam that it collapsed under the weight of its own lies, ineptness, and contradictions (will the same happen to Der Movement?). In actuality, that was only half the story, the internal problems of the Soviet bloc became fatal because that bloc was being pressured from the outside, primarily by the USA under Reagan, and, more generally, by decades of Cold War competition from the “West.”

There is no similar pressure being put against the System from the outside.  Oh, people will invoke ”Russia and China” – as if the civic nationalist Putin regime is itself not part of the System, and likewise for the White hating regime of China (*).  You can say that, well, even if the struggle is between competing factions of the same System that can still result in a useful collapse of part of the System.  But rather than collapse we’ll just get an internal power re-alignment of the System; Whites will continue to be enslaved, but the big bosses will have epicanthic folds rather than yarmulkes. There is no real “outside” here to exert pressure on the System as a whole.  Hopes about “peak oil” and “environmental collapse” are equally misguided, and “The Green New Deal” demonstrates how the System will leverage its own problems to bolster its own power and the anti-White paradigm at the foundation of its worldview. So, no my dear grifters, without the hard practical work of politics, broadly defined, there will be no change.  All of your “metapolitics” can be shut down by brute force; “truth” is meaningless when you are silenced and deplatformed, with no real outside power pressuring your enemies to force them to make concessions to you. Suvorov’s Law came into force in the USSR because the combination of internal problems and external pressure forced Gorbachev’s hand in implementing reforms. The “external” and “outside” pressure against the System is going to have to come from dissident forces within the System itself.

Hood is correct.  Johnson and all of the “we just need to change the culture” people are wrong. You can’t “change the culture” in the midst of severe repression. Only Suvorov’s Law can save us – the System has to be pressured into making concessions that begins the process of inevitable collapse. In the absence of a viable outside pressure source to “heighten the contradictions,” the “outside” source has to come from within – leveraging the System’s power against itself in a form of sociopolitical ju-jitsu – electoral politics and the holding of some of the levers of authority no matter how small (initially), democratic multiculturalism, community building and activism – practical, real world activity in relation to power.  In a word – politics.

*Speaking of the Chinese, the recent episode of Chinese illegal alien human smuggling exposes as a lie all of Derbyshire’s self-serving nonsense about an “Arctic Alliance” between Whites and East Asians. Asians are part of the problem, they are invaders the same as any other colored people.  How in the world is Chinese illegal immigration and human trafficking any different from that of, say, Hispanics invading the US? How is the Chinese invasion of Europe, legal and illegal, different from any of the other Global South influxes? There is no difference, except that “Rosie” is Chinese and not Hispanic, Black, or Muslim.  

All Part of the West, Even Though Different

Important Western Destiny essay.

That is a clarification of my pan-European focus, inspired by a nine word phrase found near the end of Yockey’s masterpiece Imperium.

The power of Yockey’s writing is such that he conveyed in only nine words an idea that it typically takes me an entire essay to articulate. 

Odds and Ends, 9/20/19

More of the same.

Yes, he’s an “abiding influence” and all, but you’ll reject, and constantly attack, the central theme of his work.

Ah…but Gottfried “gets it wrong” only from your perspective.  Gottfried is a Jew, so from that perspective, it’s business as usual.

Note:

Exile
Good point to remember. Trump’s jailing & even executing Whites to please his handlers & pander to muh Browns. It’s going to be just as bad or worse until at least 2024. Brandish or use a weapon only if the situation demands risking serious jail time (ie if your life or others lives are in immediate danger).. We’re the enemy to the Feds & most local LEO’s – don’t kid yourselves.

But…Trump is a man of genuine greatness, and don’t you forget it!

I’m not sure why Spencer is re-tweeting this.  Who was the “leader of the Alt Right” when this window of opportunity was lost?  Who was doing the Beavis-and-Butthead podcasts during this time?  

Never forget – we need more men like Hubert Humphrey!  He was, like, “valorous” and all that.

Oppose the Movement Caste System for Europeans

No hypocrisy.

Let’s consider the following, emphasis added:

Bolton cites some of the anti-“Med” ramblings of the King of Ethnic Fetishism, “Wilmot Robertson,” and also quotes Stimely’s correct verdict on Robertson’s self-defeating rambling obsessions.  “Robertson” and his legacy remain a highly destructive force within (mostly American) racial nationalism, one major infection point for the obsessive fixations that still remain extant today.  But, let us give some credit to “Robertson” and his followers: at least they are honest about their disgust and contempt for Europeans deriving from the south of Vienna (or Munich) and to the east of Berlin. Worse perhaps are those types who actually believe the same as “Robertson” but make a pretense of being “pan-European” or “pan-Aryan.”  Note to those latter individuals: Europeans – Westerners – are not Hindu Indians, we do not have, or want, a caste system (with Eastern Europeans being lower caste and Southern Europeans being “untouchables”).  Pick your ingroup and that’s your ingroup – if you despise a group, then don’t include them; if you include them then don’t despise them. The basic definition of any group is “in/out” and if Der Movement can’t even get that straight, after decades of discussion and debate, then what good is it?  If that is “vertical race” then Yockey was right to oppose it, but not at the cost of disavowing biological reality

This is an important point I’ve made time and again. Pick your ingroup and then accept the consequences of that choice without being a hypocrite. If you despise certain European types, all well and good, but then please do not pretend that they are part of your ingroup for reasons of self-interest (to maximize followers and “D’Nations” and/or to appeal to members of your real chosen ingroup who have more pan-European ideals than you do yourself). If, on the other hand, you accept X,Y,Z in your ingroup, then there should be no caste system that says that X,Y,Z are inferior to, and subordinate to, A,B,C and that only A,B,C can be leaders and not X,Y,Z.  And don’t accept X,Y,Z with condescending contempt, use them for what they are worth, and then later state that “we need to re-evaluate the ingroup,” after which you exclude those who’ve already invested time, effort, and money for your cause. This latter type of behavior is particularly distasteful, despicable, and dishonorable (and has occurred in Der Movement).

Where Things Stand Indeed

Critiquing Strom’s piece.

Dr. Oliver made his assessment as part of a promotional film, After Fifty Years, for the National Youth Alliance — the predecessor of today’s National Alliance. The book the Youth Alliance chose to inspire young people was Francis Parker Yockey’s flawed but powerful Imperium — which is today still available from our Cosmotheist book store.

That’s a pleasant surprise, since Pierce was not selling Imperium back when I perused his book catalog.  He did sell books by McCulloch, as does your book store today. Don’t expect much support from so-called “White ethnics” by the way.  Why should they support you if you do not support them?  Why should they support people who despise them?  Good luck achieving your objectives while writing off a significant fraction of the American and world-wide European-derived population.

As we approach 2020, much has changed.

Has it?  Really?

Today, we have much more than Imperium.

Quantity wise, yes. Quality wise, hardly.

We have the great example of what Yockey, in that book, called The Hero of the Second World War — Adolf Hitler — and his titanic, even mythic, struggle — not yet finished, despite his martyrdom — against the Enemies of Life. We have that great example shining in front of us, and shining before the new generations of our Folk, more than ever now, as the tired myths promoted by our enemies deservedly and inevitably expire.

Sigh. Hitler worship is not going to get us anywhere.  Yes, I’m sympathetic to Saint Adolf’s struggles against “the Enemies of Life,” but we also need to be cognizant of the man’s majestic flaws.  Hitler stained his legacy by his propensity for hegemonic war against other European peoples.  An honest reading of history – including by authors like Irving who can hardly be labeled as biased against Hitler – will demonstrate that Hitler’s foreign policy was always aimed at territorial expansion to be achieved by dispossessing the Slavs.  His racial views were Nordicist and Germanocentric. I realize that none of that will trouble Der Movement, but the question goes back to whether you honestly want to achieve your ostensible objectives.  If you do, a more balanced appraisal of Saint Adolf would be helpful.

We have the life’s work of Revilo Oliver, the greatest of which he created after 1970 — after the age of 62 — when he renounced conservatism and Christianity, fully endorsed racial-nationalism, and promoted the National Alliance and National Socialism.

Oliver had some good points, but bad points as well – in the end, descending into Type I fetishism and dogma.

We have one of the greatest books of the 20th century, Which Way, Western Man? by the thinker and philosopher — and National Alliance member — William Gayley Simpson.

Another dogmatic and limited fetishist.

We have the life’s work of the founder of the National Alliance, Dr. William Luther Pierce, whose leadership had just barely begun in 1970. Dr. Pierce relentlessly wrote and organized and broadcast his works to the world until his death in 2002…

Ditto.

… — and Will Williams, the current chairman of the Alliance, has dedicated his life to not only preserving those works, but to vividly and repeatedly promoting them and making them available — again and again, week after week, year after year — to new generations of our people.

I’m not sure promoting all of those works is a positive.

Today, unlike in 1920 and in 1970, we have the ability to propagate our message to millions of our people via nationalvanguard.org and our other outlets. It’s been a long time since our pages were visited fewer than a million times per month. 

The Internet shall save us!  We’ve been hearing that tired old tune for about two decades now.  The Alt Right was real prominent on the Internet…where are they now?  How is the NA translating that online success to analog activism?

We — and other racial-nationalists, many of them awakened and inspired by our work — have been so successful in doing this that the Jewish power structure is desperate to shut down our media operations by any means, fair or foul. 

Are you prepared for that contingency?

The hundreds of thousands of young White people who read our words are making themselves known. They have been censored, delisted, banned, and shadowbanned again and again and again — yet, on Twitter alone, they still number in six figures by my estimate and are growing by the day — young people who know that Pierce and Rockwell and Simpson and Oliver and Hitler will be the saints of the future — and its architects. As one wag put it, the only question is: “How tall will their statues be?”

Oh dear god…can you believe this?  Can we stop with this “we will win in the end” optimism that is backed up by 100 years of complete failure HOW are you going to achieve that future?

It is true that the hundreds of thousands who read our words have mostly been free riders. Most have not joined us, or sent donations. Some are doubtlessly intimidated by what the Jews have done to ruin the lives of conscious Whites.

How about a bit more self-awareness as well?  It’s also that these “free riders” have absolute zero confidence in the “movement” and its affirmative action leadership.  They see humiliation after humiliation, defeat after defeat, infiltration after infiltration, endless failure after endless failure. Why should they get involved?  Has the NA in its more recent incarnation been free of this? “Smoky Mountain SS” (or whatever he called himself) delivering NA files to the enemy, and then the DeCourcy fiasco.  Even putting the best face on all of that, it shows questionable judgment regarding the types of people in the organization.  That’s the same type of bad judgment that led to the Hermansson infiltration and the Disqus exposures for other groups.  Can you blame prudent people for not trusting “movement leadership?”  I won’t even get into the Gliebe and Walker era with respect to the NA, etc. – but you have to realize that anyone looking into the group online – the vaunted Internet! – can see (and smell) all the dirty laundry. Thus, people may agree with your writings and broadcasts but they do not believe that anyone involved has the character and competence to be effective leaders. Are they wrong?  Then prove it.  

To those of you who are in that category, let me say two things: 1) There is great safety in numbers. When 250,000 people are supporting the National Alliance instead of just reading our words, we will be strong enough to be a social force that few will want to tangle with, legally or otherwise. 

How are you going to achieve this?  How are you going to straighten your own activist core out, win victories, and be palatable enough to attract 250,000 people? Or 25,000?  Or 2,500?  Or even 250?

Then the fence-sitters will leave the fence in droves — and a quarter million will be just the beginning. They won’t have enough corrupt US Attorneys or jails to make a much of a dent in our numbers or our morale then. In fact, by then, we might have more than a few prosecutors on our side, as well as leaders in every field of our society — when these people see that someone’s finally doing something. 

Ah, the key is – “someone’s finally doing something.”  The problem is that this is not happening. Ball in your court.  Clean up your own operation first.  Can your group go several years in a row without some new scandal, infighting, arrests, embarrassments, etc.?

2) It is, using cryptocurrency — which is not hard to use, quite possible to support our efforts with perfect anonymity. Even we won’t be able to know who you are unless you want us to.

For people to go to the trouble of doing that, they need to have the confidence to know it’ll be put to good use.  NONE of the “movement leaders” have presented us with evidence to build that confidence.

Another reason for the free riders is, I think, a psychological peculiarity of White people: Despite our great propensity for free thought and individual innovation, we are deeply law-abiding people who respect authority and hierarchy. We need psychological permission from a leader before engaging in warlike acts, or going against convention, or going against powerful interest groups. But once that psychological “permission” is obtained, no one is a stronger or better fighter — and conqueror — and destroyer of his enemies — than the awakened White man.

That leader has to be someone respected – not a laughingstock.  Not someone who has more skeletons in their closet than a graveyard.

We need to position ourselves as worthy — and actually be worthy — of leadership. We need to be excellent in everything we do. We need flawless logic and sterling character. We need authenticity and honor. We need the authority that comes from knowledge and truthfulness. We need the moral authority that comes from wisdom — and from right living that will be an example to all who see it. We need to be unforgiving — and totally dedicated to stamping out each and every threat to our people’s existence, forever. We need relentless effort that never tires, never quits. We need to engage the “authorities” of our society and publicly challenge their corruption. Most of all, we need to be strong —for no one and nothing in Nature respects the weak.

Very good.  Get started.  You haven’t even taken the first step yet.

As William Pierce said, the National Alliance needs to embody a society in the making — embody, with excellence, every function needed to assume societal leadership when the time is ripe.

Too bad he failed utterly in achieving any of that when he was alive.

Have we done that yet? No. 

Honesty.

Are we ready to take on such in-depth leadership of our society now? No. No one is. But when the hundreds of thousands see that we are serious about doing exactly that, our cause, in the words of Dr. Oliver, “will move forward with the gathering momentum of an avalanche.”

Doubtful. Wishful thinking.

No offense Kevin, but there’s nothing here.  Granted, of course, I don’t expect you to publicly reveal your plans in any detail (but given the reality of infiltration and System surveillance, it would probably be known anyway), but how about some discussion of strategic direction, at least in general terms?  Again, there’s nothing here, except the usual praise for Hitler, Pierce, and other Type Is, obvious statements on how you need more supporters, calls for more effective leadership, and of course the type of overly optimistic “fascist” thinking mocked by Roger Griffin, exemplified by:

…young people who know that Pierce and Rockwell and Simpson and Oliver and Hitler will be the saints of the future — and its architects. As one wag put it, the only question is: “How tall will their statues be?”

Great.  And how is that future going to be achieved?  How are ANY of the steps required to even make the initial moves to get to that future going to be achieved?  Again, I’m not asking for details, I’m not asking for secrets or anything that can be leveraged against your plans, but just the broadest outlines of a winning strategy.  

But there’s nothing.  There’s always nothing. This is my point.  In 1969 Oliver talked about 50 years of failure and here we are after 50 more years of failure and all we can point to is how popular certain websites are on the Internet.  And when those get deplatformed, then what?

This Strom piece is a gross disappointment. It’s not enough to say that “you should all support the NA.”  It’s not enough to dream about a future in which we debate how tall the William Pierce Memorial Statue should be.  And it’s not enough to talk about what is needed about quality leadership.  You have to DO.  And the first step in DOING – and what you can do right now with the limited resources you have – is to run a professional, sane, disciplined organization that does not provide SPLC gossip every few months via some embarrassment, infiltration, scandal, infighting, or other incident.  Start by stop making avoidable errors. You need to have a different attitude toward the people you hire, the people you accept as leading activists. Warm bodies willing to live on a mountaintop somewhere are not enough. The attitude of “well, these are the only people willing to come out in the middle of nowhere and work for us” is not helpful.  Maybe that’s the problem? It’s a self-perpetuating cycle where the low quality of the operation attracts low quality people who lower the quality of the organization even more.  And this all repels quality people. Quality people are not going to be attracted by some micro-group, living out in the woods somewhere, with employees whose major attribute is a willingness to endure those conditions. [Note – I’ve repeatedly written that Pierce’s move out of the DC area and into the WV mountains was a gross error].

The first step is to break this negative cycle.  It would be better to take one step back in order to move forward than continuing down a wrong path.  Better to have three quality people to start with than to have 30 defectives. Better to take the time to build an infrastructure that inspires confidence than to push forward under current conditions with an infrastructure that gives the impression (rightly or wrongly) that you’re trying to lead a worldwide revolutionary movement out of a trailer park. I’m not trying to be overly harsh, just brutally honest.  It’s not like the NA under Pierce wasn’t pulling in money – it was.  It was just all squandered.  It’s not the fault of the “free riders” that that happened.

It’s not enough to “be strong.” You have to look strong as well. You need to project strength, integrity, and competence in order to inspire the confidence required to attract the supporters you want.  People are not going to come to you just because you say you need them.  People will not sacrifice for a leader or for an organization that produces nothing but embarrassment and failure. Again, the very first step is relatively easy and eminently achievable – stop making mistakes, stop the scandals, stop the bad judgment, stop hiring questionable people, stop with the attitude that anyone is better than no one (is a negative number higher than zero?). You need to build a record that inspires confidence. You need to stop all the “facepalm” episodes.  At this point, an absence of embarrassment and disaster can count as a victory.  Be prudent.  Yes, I know – “no risk, no reward”- but this is not what we are talking about here.  Foolishness and bad judgment is not reasonable risk-taking. Endless failure is not a reward.

Rethink your strategy and tactics.

The Salterian Ethics of Imperium

Analyzing the worldview of Francis Parker Yockey through the prism of Salterian ethics.

Previously, I discussed the ethics of EGI and of genetic interests in general (“Salterian ethics”) and would now like to discuss how those ethics can be utilized to judge a proposed biopolitical project – Francis Parker Yockey’s  idea of Imperium (a pan-European empire), as outlined in his book by that name. I had, some years ago, attempted to synthesize the world views of Salter and Yockey with respect to the genetic/biological and political considerations – essentially tracking with the first two sections of Salter’s On Genetic Interests, and now I will focus on ethical considerations, which was the topic of the last third of Salter’s book.

In my previous TOQ essay focusing on Salter and Yockey, I explained the difference between gross and net genetic interests, although I did not use those terms:

Alternatively, consider the possibility that a future, very finely grained, autosomal genetic analysis would show a clear distinctiveness between East and West England. A very narrow pursuit of ethnic genetic interest may suggest that the East and West English separate to form new ethnostates and that members of those groups should consider themselves distinct ethnies, not intermarry, etc. However, the costs of such a scenario need to be balanced against the relatively small extra gain in raw genetic interest obtained. This pursuit of narrow regional intra-national genetic interest would result in a disruption of the organic solidarity of the English nation and people; if this disruption makes the English—all of them, East and West—more vulnerable to foreign interests and intrusive demographic expansions, then the costs would outweigh the benefits. Likewise, the legitimate pursuit of intra-Western genetic interests and particularisms needs to be balanced against the possible costs incurred by not presenting a united front against other civilizational concentrations of genetic interest.

The “…very narrow pursuit of ethnic genetic interest” that “may suggest that the East and West English separate to form new ethnostates” would be an example of a pursuit of gross genetic interests – a naïve attempt to maximize EGI without consideration of costs vs. benefits. Taking a broader view, and considering that larger entities may be able to better defend the genetic interests of the populace can lead to optimization of net genetic interests – maximization of EGI when costs and benefits are balanced out.

Yockey’s words…in Imperium are relevant here:

The touching of this racial-frontier case of the Negro, however, shows to Europe a very important fact—that race-difference between White men, which means Western men, is vanishingly small in view of their common mission of actualizing a High Culture. In Europe, where hitherto the race difference between, say, Frenchman and Italian has been magnified to great dimensions, there has been no sufficient reminder of the race-differences outside the Western Civilization. Adequate instruction along this line would apparently have to take the form of occupation of all Europe, instead of only part of it, by Negroes from America and Africa, by Mongols and Turkestan! from the Russian Empire . . .

If any Westerner thinks that the barbarian makes nice distinctions between the former nations of the West, he is incapable of understanding the feelings of populations outside a High Culture toward that culture . . .

. . . But the greatest opposition of all has not yet been named, the conflict which will take up all the others into itself. This is the battle of the Idea of the Unity of the West against the nationalism of the 19th century. Here stand opposed the ideas of Empire and petty-stateism, large-space thinking and political provincialism. Here find themselves opposed the miserable collection of yesterday-patriots and the custodians of the Future. The yesterdaynationalists are nothing but the puppets of the extra-European forces who conquer Europe by dividing it. To the enemies of Europe, there must be no rapprochement, no understanding, no union of the old units of Europe into a new unit, capable of carrying on 20th century politics . . .

. . . Against a united Europe, they could never have made their way in, and only against a divided Europe can they maintain themselves. Split! divide! distinguish!—this is the technique of conquest. Resurrect old ideas, old slogans, now quite dead, in the battle to turn European against European.

Yockey argues that dividing Europeans against themselves, which in the context of an EGI perspective would be an unfettered pursuit of gross genetic interests regardless of the costs, would benefit only the enemies of Europe (and of Europeans) – hence, again from an EGI perspective, net genetic interests would be damaged. Thus, even though Yockey was arguing form a High Culture (and geopolitical) perspective, his comments can be reinterpreted as being consistent with a concern for net EGI as opposed to a blind pursuit of gross EGI.  From the standpoint of Salterian ethics, a focus on net EGI is reasonable, particularly from a “mixed ethic” perspective that also includes concerns for proximate interests (e.g., actualizing a High Culture).

See this for more on Yockey’s racial views, a topic that is relevant to the current analysis. Yockey’s views on race, taken at literal face value, are not very compatible with EGI. If, however, we interpret Yockey as being concerned with eschewing overly disjunctive divisions among (Western) Europeans, and if we view that in the context of preservation of net generic interests by fostering pan-European solidarity vs. outside threats, the seemingly stark incompatibility between Yockey and EGI essentially vanishes.  

My concept of “The EGI Firewall” is useful in these discussions. The firewall establishes the “floor” – the minimum acceptable EGI (or genetic interests more generally) consideration that absolutely must be incorporated into any sociopolitical scenario.  Thus, there is an absolute boundary beyond which one cannot cross without so seriously compromising EGI that the relevant proposal must be rejected.  For example, any scheme that would flood Europe with large numbers of non-Europeans would be completely unacceptable from any reasonable scenario that considers EGI as important and that incorporates Salterian ethics.  There has to be some foundation of EGI for any political project. The question is – where should this boundary be? There is of course no purely objective answer to that question, although the scenario just given does provide an example where most adaptively-minded Europeans would agree that the boundary has clearly been crossed. Of course, the scenario given is precisely the situation being actualized into reality today with the globalist EU and mass migration; it is certainly not merely some theoretical exercise.

From my essay on Salterian ethics:

Salter compares three ethics – pure adaptive utilitarianism (PAU), mixed adaptive utilitarianism (MAU), and the rights-centered ethic (RCE).

Obviously, the RCE would reject both Yockeyism and a biopolitical system based on EGI as damaging “individual rights.”  But the focus of this essay is to evaluate how Yockeyism can be incorporated into Salterian ethics (and vice versa), so the RCE, which is incompatible with Salterian ethics, is irrelevant. We are therefore left with the PAU and MAU ethics.

We can now consider the PAU and MAU.  From the perspective of gross genetic interests, one may question the appropriateness of Yockeyism for the PAU, as the PAU would lead one to favor “smaller is better” micro-states, independent of the effects of that choice on the long term stability of the genetic continuity of the peoples involved.  However, from the perspective of net genetic interests, if Yockeyism maximizes the power of the peoples involved through the establishment of a European Imperium, thus protecting these peoples from outside threats, then Yockeyism could be compatible with PAU. That would hold IF the system set up can safeguard the uniqueness of its constituent peoples. This safeguarding could be accomplished via the acceptance of a degree of local sovereignty (that Yockey agreed with) and the preservation of borders, with the Imperium being a confederation of nations and regions, each preserving their particular biological and cultural characteristics. One would in this case reject a single borderless state in which national and regional identities are erased and in which ethnic distinctiveness is lost via panmixia.  In order for this scenario to be stable long term, this characteristic of the Imperium – the preservation of the unique characteristics of its constituent parts – would need to be considered an absolutely fundamental and unalterable keystone of the state’s raison d’etre.  This is the EGI Firewall discussed above – a minimum absolute requirement for preservation of EGI, even at “lower” levels, as part of any political and social projects that are actualized.  I note that civilizational blocs are proposed by Salter in his book as one approach for protecting EGI, so the idea is not by its nature incompatible with EGI; it is a question of implementation.

Thus, Yockeyism could be compatible with PAU ethics under conditions such as described above, and with a firm understanding of net vs. gross genetic interests.

If Yockeyism could be compatible with the PAU, then it certainly can be compatible with the MAU, since the latter allows for other (proximate) interests, besides the ultimate interests of genetic interests, to be considered and actualized into policy, as long as the fundamental rights of genetic continuity are not abrogated. Here we see that an enlightened PAU that considers net genetic interests begins to converge onto the MAU, if the proximate interests under consideration are such that could actually contribute to EGI in some manner (e.g., actualizing a High Culture, as opposed to a mere concern for “individual rights).

So Yockeyism, with the proper caveats, and from the net genetic interests respective, could indeed be compatible with Salterian ethics.

El Paso and Other News

In der news.

It is too early to know for sure what the facts are from the El Paso incident.
A few points can be made at this early stage.  First, that a “movement” connection is a possibility tells you much about the Type I domination of Der Movement, Inc.  That possibility may turn out to be true or it may turn out to be false, but the plausibility of the possibility is itself an indictment of a pathetic, failed “movement” and its affirmative action “leadership.”

Second, one can one say about an anti-White homosexual pervert, running for President, denouncing the idea of White people defending their interests?

Third, it is also an indictment of the “movement” that a President whose apparent sole concerns are Israel, A$AP Rocky, Big Macs, and releasing Back criminals from prison is publicly labeled as a “White nationalist” or a “White supremacist.”

Now, as far as the second point goes, the System’s anti-White animus is “baked into the cake,” but as regards points one and three, that’s on the head of the Quota Queens who have made a mockery of White racial nationalism.

Read or listen to this.

I look forward to Strom’s forthcoming “After 100 Years” piece that may be – perhaps by coincidence – an answer to my recent challenge to him to tell us how his organization is planning to reverse the disasters not only described by Oliver in 1969, but all that has occurred in the 50 years since then.

One point for right now.  Strom is fond of repeating that the National Youth Alliance was the predecessor of the National Alliance.  Historically yes, but ideologically no.  The NYA was founded, as Oliver alludes, with Yockey’s Imperium as its ideological foundation; the NA has completely ignored Yockey and Imperium in favor of typical Type I Nordicist dogma.  Now, I understand, and have often critiqued, Yockey’s errors about biological race.  Oliver had done the same yet that didn’t stop Oliver from praising Imperium for its strong points despite its known weaknesses.

Strom needs to realize that we need to step beyond Pierce’s Hitler-worshipping Nutzi Nordicism, his warmed over doctrinaire Germanic national socialism, and implement fresh approaches more in line with sanity and reality (and, no, “Cosmotheism” – essentially Pierce’s political views given a religions veneer – doesn’t fulfill that role).

Good to see our “White supremacist President” is accomplishing something.

MAGA! Pepe!  Kek!

The atrociously disgusting subhuman Durocher, the subject of a fascinating stylometric comparative study I performed, is back with his usual hyper-Nordicist “interpretations” of population genetics

Of course, that is at the site of a White-hating HBD Jew who supports Hispanic immigration into America.  In any case, one should always note the fundamental dishonesty of Durocher from the perspective of both commission and omission.  Commission is the lies he peddles in his pieces; omission is his refusal to discuss the reality and implications of East Asian/Siberian admixture in Northern Europe.  Omission can also be applied to the findings of my stylometric analysis (that is also apparent to anyone who has normal hearing when listening to podcasts).

My low opinion of Durocher is confirmed once again.