Another look at “the fundamentals.”
Pan-Europeanism as the major focus will replace other more narrow “isms” – be they national, ethnic, subracial, etc. The narrower “isms” will not disappear, they can continue to exist, but at a lower level than the overarching pan-European unity. The two fratricidal world wars of the 20th century wrecked Europe, the West, and the White race, and those who continue to promote division even now, are, whether they know it or not, working for the enemy, working for the Death of Europe and for the destruction of the worldwide fraternity of the European Peoples. Therefore, all those who preach division within the European family – be that division genetic, phenotype, cultural, historical, religious – are the enemies of European Man and enemies of the West and enemies of our Identity and our Future.
Pan-Europeanism is the First Principle, the non-negotiable, the underlying thesis, the Idea of Yockey (opposed by those ethnonationalists who make pretense of being some sort of Yockey acolytes, presumably for fundraising purposes), the organic evolution of the West. Now, as Yockey stated, and I certainly agree (as does Lowell and others), narrower forms of Identity can and will exist within the context of pan-Europeanism, but these will be local and secondary. The European, the Western (in the broadest sense, not equivalent to the modern decadent West nor even to the current Faustian High Culture, which we must overcome and supersede, as it is dying, if not already dead) Identity must be primary and existential.
Let’s quote Yockey here:
Our European Mission is to create the Culture-State-Nation-Imperium of the West, and thereby we shall perform such deeds, accomplish such works, and so transform our world that our distant posterity, when they behold the remains of our buildings and ramparts, will tell their grandchildren that on the soil of Europe once dwelt a tribe of gods.
That’s what is important, that’s the inspiring vision for the future, not a dismal future of squabbling ethnonationalists ready to “ethnically cleanse” each other over disagreements about “sovereignty.”
Now, I must stress: to a large extent this Yockeyian vision is for elites. Nietzsche was willing to grant the masses their Christianity, their religion of resssentiment, if they so required, but the elites, the Overmen must eschew such childish crutches. Similarly, the masses can have their ethnonationalism for the time being, as they are slowly weaned off of it; better ethnonationalism than globalist universalism. But the nationalist elites have to be true acolytes of the pan-European Ideal, and eventually lead the masses in the correct direction as those masses become improved and enlightened over time.
Genetic kinship will replace racial “purity.” As per Salter, ultimate interests are genetic interests, and genetic interests are based upon genetic kinship. Only genetic kinship is relevant for biopolitics. This contrasts to the unscientific strawman of racial “purity” which is usually derived from some a priori comparison to a picked parental population. Since all genetic differences, regardless of their derivation (e.g., “admixture” [real or an artifact], selective pressures, genetic drift, etc.) influence genetic kinship, measurement of such kinship is the most inclusive and definitive approach for understanding our ultimate interests. We accept the European genepool for what it is now and strive to improve it in the future. To use Yockey’s terminology in a new way, we completely replace outdated and unscientific “vertical” concerns with “purity/admixture” with “horizontal” concerns with genetic kinship and genetic interests.
The “movement” will resist this, no doubt. Some precincts of the “movement” play lip service to this idea, but as always look at that they do more than what they say. Look what posts they present, what authors they promote, what memes they spread, what their commentators are saying – it doesn’t match their ostensible “position” on this matter. Remember Horace: “You may drive out Nature with a pitchfork, yet she still will hurry back.” Unscientific fetishistic fantasies will collapse under the edifying light of science, the reality of facts, and no “movement” flim-flam and sweaty fossilized dogma will stand up to truth in the long term.
How to fuse these horizontal concerns with genetic interests with Yockey’s vision, which was flawed by its blithe dismissal of “materialistic” race concepts? See this.
Total biocultural Identity will replace as narrower biological and cultural identities as the major focus of European Being. The narrower identities will still exist, but as part of Identity, and the narrower identities will become increasingly aligned with that of Identity. Biological and cultural classifications by themselves are not disjunctive, only total Identity is disjunctive. The ultimate solution to any discordance between Identity and biological identities is this: we will align our biological/genetic interests with Identity by closing the borders and stopping non-European gene flow into European territories. Thus, over time the genetic boundaries between Europe and the Others will become ever larger and more distinct; the genetic commonalities between Europeans, compared to the Others, will become larger and more integrated. The same applies to any potential cultural overlaps between The West and The Rest. Examples of this possibility, as exemplified by the Levant and by China, are shown here.
This is an important point, and an answer to sweaty fetishists using minute difference in Fst values – ignoring that Fst is a flawed metric for measuring genetic differentiation – to make asinine comments about negligible levels of relative ethnic genetic distances.
Biopolitics will replace the old fraud of Right vs. Left. We care not if any specific policy of ours, or our entire program, is deemed “rightist” or “leftist” or whatever outdated label. We are not conservatives, reactionaries, not in any way beholden to “right-wing” thought. We are revolutionaries, striving to create a new order.
This should be self-evident. We are not conservatives, reactionaries, or traditionalists. We look to the future, not to the dead past. This leads to:
Futurism, not Traditionalism. Unlike some of the more reckless statements in support of Futurism, we do not call for the abolition of museums, the disregarding of our past and the great deeds of our ancestors. Past, Present, and Future are all linked. However, we look to the Future, our real Golden Age is that which we will make in the Future, it is not some sort of delusional Traditionalist fantasy set in the Past. We will not reject the deeds of our ancestors, but these are not the sum of our being, we do not settle for them – we must surpass them. We remember the Past, but for the purpose of spurring us to achieve greater deeds in the Future.
One of the most unpleasant aspects of the “movement” is its obsession with gnostic esoteric “traditionalism” and with a Lord of the Rings style romanticization of feudal values.
Rational realism and empiricism is for facts, values and objectives can be irrational. Thus, we reject the old, timeworn, factually incorrect knee-jerk beliefs, memes, and paradigms that have defined to so-called “racialist movement,” particularly in America. With respect to facts, history, knowledge – the age of “movement” dogma is over. We reject the misanthropic freakishness and lies of the old movement. With respect to facts, we depend on rationality, on realism, on empiricism – on real Science. But these things cannot provide us with our values and our objectives – they are merely tools. Our values and objectives can be irrational as they spring forth from our vision of the reality we want to come into being. But we cannot confuse what we want with what actually is – nor can be settle for what is instead of what we actually want. What is – that is the current reality, which must be discerned with empiricism. What we want is derived from our values, irrational as they may (or may not) be, and for these objectives, empiricism is only a tool, a means, not an end to itself. As part of this, the fantasies of Traditionalism – which invents false facts – must be put aside in favor of empirical facts and the irrational objectives of an enlightened Futurism.
This gets to the core – one core at least – of my criticism of the “movement,” and why “movement” “leaders” have made me persona non grata in their circles. My message is blasphemy and, what’s more, gets in the way of “business as usual,” and the concomitant tin cup panhandling that is facilitated by giving “movement” “activists” the dogmatic “red meat” they crave. The “movement” wants to continue dwelling in its little cul-de-sac of crazed religious fervor with its fossilized memes; but this is an dead end, a recipe for failure, and anyone who actually wants to win, and actualize their ideology into reality needs to understand – truly understand – what that reality is all about.
Preservationism plus eugenics replaces static preservationism. We are not interested in preserving a racial stasis…We wish to promote eugenics to improve the stock and, also, allow for the creation of new stabilized blends of European stocks – while also at the same type preserving the original stocks – to increase the diversity of European Man. Ethnic genetic interests are compatible with (gradual) genetic change within the race…
There are a number of important points here, all of which focus on a forward-looking, palingenetic view of race (i.e., futurism, not traditionalism). Contra to misinformed complaints that a concern for EGI leads to “genetic stasis,” here we see an overt call for eugenics (albeit a prudent form of eugenics that seeks to avoid both unnecessary loses of genetic interest and unforeseen negative consequences to designating traits – and the alleles that code for them – as worthy of replacement or increase without understanding possible consequences of such changes), and the call for “the creation of new stabilized blends of European stocks…increase the diversity of European Man.” As long as original stocks are maintained, there’s nothing wrong with creating new variants of European man, in diaspora regions such as America. When such crossing create excellent new strains, such can be cultivated as new ethnies to be preserved and improved; if negative strains (however defined) are produced, they can be selected against. The creation and selection of new dog breeds can be a model for this process. Gradual genetic change that eschews mixing across continental population groups (broadly: races) and that preserves the vast bulk of genetic interests is a natural part of the lifecycle of evolved organisms, is part and parcel of genetic interests, and is wholly compatible with a prudent and well-informed eugenic scheme.