Tuesday, September 26, 2017

EGI and National Socialism, Part I

Several definitions and an analysis.

Defining national socialism (small “n” small “s”): A collectivist authoritarian system centered on a race-based palingenetic ultranationalism.

In other words: racial fascism.

A more modern definition: An authoritarian political system that utilizes collectivist organization to promote the ethnic genetic interests of the population, in the context of palingenetic ultranationalism.

Note that, contrary to those who misread Salter's work, a pursuit of genetic interests is wholly compatible with eugenics (which is traditionally important in national socialism), since a population's fitness can be enhanced by replacing maladaptive, or even merely less adaptive, alleles with those more optimal. They key in preserving genetic interests in a manner compatible with eugenics is to avoid unnecessarily large and rapid genetic changes; when directed (eugenic) change occurs it should be "just enough" to get achieve the desired goal (and no further)  Superfluous changes and, certainly, large-scale genetic replacement, must be avoided.

In On Genetic Interests, Salter is critical of historical National Socialism and Fascism as vehicles for genetic interests, and his criticisms have some validity.  In particular, Hitler was a reckless gambler with the genetic interests of the German people, endangering long-term stability in a quixotic quest to colonize Eastern Europe and set up a Germanic archaeo-futurist peasant society on the lands of Russia and Ukraine.

However, the historical actualization , in a given place in a given time, by flawed leadership, of particular political philosophies does not logically lead one to conclude that the underlying political philosophy itself is either good or bad for a specific purpose. What political philosophy extant since WWII has proven itself capable of preserving Western genetic interests?  None.  One can also point out that certain inter-war fascisms, such as Condreanu's Legionary movement, were not based in a foundation of hegemonic militarism, but were rather focused on internal renewal and thus did not characterize reckless gambling with national genetic interests.  So to my mind national socialism/fascism, correctly implemented, are still "in the running" as political systems capable of promoting EGI.

What about the argument that these “extreme” political philosophies are unrealistic, that “the average White person won’t accept them.”   Let’s be realistic, and not the crazed dreamers mocked by Roger Griffin in his works on fascism.  The most minimal objectives of racial nationalism – even stringent ethnonationalism – are today completely unrealistic and would be rejected by the large majority of Whites.  However, if – and that is a big if – these objectives could ever be realized, it would be during and after a period of extreme crisis, a collapse (slow or fast, partial or complete) of the System, a situation in which Whites driven to the wall by dispossession and the hostility of the now-decaying System, would be willing to listen to reason.  At this time, the sheeple will be considerably less picky about what forms of government they would, or would not, be willing to accept.  Also keep in mind Shakespeare’s “a rose by any other name” admonition – if the tenets of national socialism are actualized under some other name, fine, if it’s called Futurist Collectivism or Western Patriotism or Klassen’s Racial Socialism, or something else entirely, all well and good.  And if the lemmings are at such a condition they would not care if they rallied behind overtly named national socialism, all well and good as well.

This discussion will most likely continue in future posts.