That’s a reasonable essay. My only major source of disagreement is the assertion that Europeans are all descended from Paleolithic hunter-gatherers. My understanding (and the evidence is always changing) is that the overall European genepool as three major components – Paleolithic hunter gatherers, Neolithic farmers, and Steppe peoples. These are not evenly distributed in Europe. While Northern Europeans are heavily Paleolithic with significant Neolithic and Steppe ancestry (or so some say, as I said, it’s always changing), Southern Europeans tend to be mostly Neolithic farmer, with smaller inputs from the other sources.
A minor point I disagree with is the implication that only Nordics can productively contribute to high-trust societies. I think Scalia contributed more to trying to make America into such a society than, say, Bill Clinton. There are of course differences between European groups, but also considerable overlap.
This is one key to Johnson’s essay (emphasis added):
Imagine, for instance, the feelings of a Greek or Italian American toward William Pierce’s National Alliance if he read Pierce’s Who We Are, in which he laments that the Nordic invaders of Greece mongrelized themselves with the indigenous European populations rather than exterminating them to keep their blood pure — an exterminationist agenda that he envisioned for the future in The Turner Diaries. Such attitudes follow logically from the premise that Nordics are the only authentic Europeans, which implies that non-Nordics are lesser men. The National Alliance accepted non-Nordics as members, but such people could legitimately ask if the organization could really take their money and represent their interests in good faith.
Bingo! Someone gets it! If Pierce wanted to be an extreme Nordicist (and he was, choice of wives notwithstanding), that’s great. No problem. Pierce was a Nordic of British Isles descent and he had every right to promote his subrace. What he did NOT have the right to do was misrepresent himself and his organization to non-Nordic people of European descent, taking their money and not – repeat not – representing their interests in good faith. That’s fraud. That’s not something an honorable high-trust Nordic Aryan should do. In fact, it seems – do we dare say it? – rather Jewish in character. In other words, Pierce as an overt Nordicist – all well and good, that’s wonderful. Pierce as a covert Nordicist peddling a cheap veneer of pan-Europeanism to pad his bank account – fraud. In fact, I would have absolutely no problem with Pierce expressing the opinion that all non-Nordics should be exterminated (although I would disagree with the opinion), IF he were honest and open about it, and didn’t try to hoodwink non-Nordics into thinking he was representing the interests of non-Nordic as well as Nordic Europeans (or if he did not hypocritically present himself as a preservationist while preaching extermination). And let’s not just pick on Pierce – others in the American “movement” – while not promoting extermination per se – are just as guilty is misleading supporters as was Pierce. No names, I’m not interested in specifically discussing anyone not mentioned in Johnson’s essay. But suffice to say Pierce has not been the only one with a phony “pan-Aryan” superficiality. Indeed, there are some it seems who prefer Jews and Chinamen to non-Nordic Europeans. And they are perfectly within their rights to have that preference, if they had been open about it. Which they have been not.