Tuesday, August 16, 2022

Rational vs. Irrational Fascism

Another look at fascist ideology.

Previously, I objected to Quigley’s description of fascism as “irrational" - 

[Side note – I do not like Quigley’s correlating fascist states and movements to irrationality in the sense he does – while such movements were opposed to hyper-rationalism of modernity, they were not irrational in the sense of what was best for the nation and ethny and the organization of society had many positive rational aspects. I would argue that modern liberal democracy is truly irrational].

There are two basic issues here.  First, the definition of irrational.  Second, what do we mean by fascism?

Let’s consider this definition of irrationality:

Irrationality is cognition, thinking, talking, or acting without inclusion of rationality. It is more specifically described as an action or opinion given through inadequate use of reason, or through emotional distress or cognitive deficiency. The term is used, usually pejoratively, to describe thinking and actions that are, or appear to be, less useful, or more illogical than other more rational alternatives.

Irrational behaviors of individuals include taking offense or becoming angry about a situation that has not yet occurred, expressing emotions exaggeratedly (such as crying hysterically), maintaining unrealistic expectations, engaging in irresponsible conduct such as problem intoxication, disorganization, and falling victim to confidence tricks. People with a mental illness like schizophrenia may exhibit irrational paranoia.

These more contemporary normative conceptions of what constitutes a manifestation of irrationality are difficult to demonstrate empirically because it is not clear by whose standards we are to judge the behavior rational or irrational.

The last part is in my opinion crucial to this discussion – it is difficult to definitively define political behavior as irrational given the problem of “whose standards” and the intense nature of political identification. Hence, it is just very easy to simply label your opposition as “irrational” as contrasted to your own “rationality.”

What about:

Irrationality is cognition, thinking, talking, or acting without inclusion of rationality.

What’s “rationality?”  Thus, we see controversy and subjectivity there as well, so defining “irrationality” as the absence of “rationality” is not helpful if we are unable to clearly define “rationality.”

One (somewhat vague) definition of “rationality” that conforms to the manner most people use the term is beliefs and/or behavior (e.g., a decision-making process) based (predominantly or completely) on the use of (verifiable) facts, logic, and consideration of consequences in pursuit of some objective(s) that is (theoretically) achievable and that would enhance the status and/or well-being of some (verifiably) real entity or entities (or useful mental constructs of such). “Irrationality” would therefore be beliefs and/or behavior that does not conform to that described above.

This then comes back to the issue of subjective standards, since I am sure most fascists would consider their beliefs and behavior as conforming to ethnic, racial, social, political, and historical realities and that the objectives pursued would enhance the status and well-being of the group or groups involved. Anti-fascists would disagree, and then one would have to do a “deep dive” into fascist ideology and its consequences, and each step of that analysis would, no doubt, be steeped in controversy. I suppose that the “irrationality” of fascism would be ascribed to, e.g., the emotionality inherent in many of its manifestations, including a “mystical” (sic) tie to blood and soil, as well as the alleged “irrationality” of certain palingenetic objectives, which would not always correlate to the types of issues (e.g., economic growth, peace, human rights) of interest to classical liberalism.  One could also ascribe “irrationality” to certain fascist critiques of modernism, materialism, and, not surprisingly, to a purely rational approach to life, even though there may well be – from the fascist perspective – rational reasons for such beliefs.

From a pro-fascist standpoint, given ethnic genetic interests, one could aver that fascism is more adaptive than are Universalist ideologies, although Salter did criticize fascism for an ultimately self-defeating over-investment in ethny (perhaps an example of “irrational” behavior).  Thus, the hyper-nationalism of fascism led to expansionist militarism, destructive warfare, and the mobilization of other states to crush fascism, leaving the fascist states arguably worse off than before. But does the fact that this over-investment took place stand as evidence of fascist irrationality? Note that it is unlikely that Mussolini would have conducted aggression within Europe in the absence of Hitler’s influence; further, the other fascist movements in Europe did not have expansionist militarism has part of their ideology.  Indeed, “fascist militarism” essentially was a Nazi legacy, and had as much, or more, to do with Hitler’s fixations, and to historical German militarism, than to any inherent characteristic (“irrational” or otherwise) of fundamental fascism.

Perhaps it would help to look at definitions of fascism itself. Griffin’s description of fascism as palingenetic ultra-nationalism is a good starting point.  We can then tackle some of the ideas of Maurice Bardeche on this topic.

See this.

The characteristics of fascism, we have seen, are disputable, and only a small number of those we have examined have been retained in a logical definition of fascism. The single party, police methods, propaganda, Caesarism, the very presence of a Führer are not necessarily attributes of fascism; still less an alliance with reactionary politics, the refusal of control and open membership to the masses, the inevitability of prestige operations and military raids.

A firm and stable direction of the nation, the primacy of the national interest over private interests, the necessity of a discipline loyally accepted by the country, are the true political foundations of fascism, those that emerge from its very definition. 

That seems reasonably rational to me, from the standpoint of the well-being of nation-state and ethny.

Power may be exercised in a fascist state by a central committee, a council, or a junta as well as by a designated leader; such rule need not be brutal and abusive. It can also be tolerant and supple. The essential political instrument of fascism is the role that it grants to a minority of disinterested and committed militants capable of leading by the example of their own lives and to bear the message of a just, loyal, and honesty polity. The famous fascist methods are thus constantly and ceaselessly reevaluated. What is more important than mechanisms is the idea that fascism has of man and freedom.

So far, that all can be consistent with rationality.

See this.

Democracy puts no limits on freedom beyond prohibiting harm to others. Democrats are quick to discover that one might harm the government without harming others, and their codes are filled with political offenses. But they have never admitted that without harming others individually, one can still harm the nation as a whole through the abuse of freedom.

Such harm from democracy would be irrational, no?

Fascism opposes this anarchic concept of freedom with a social conception of freedom. It does not permit that which harms the nation. It permits everything else. It is wrong to believe that it is in the spirit of fascism to limit individual freedom or freedom of thought. Nothing has changes in the everyday life of a country when it becomes fascist: contrary to the famous saying, when someone rings the doorbell at seven o’clock, it must be the milkman…

…Fascism recognizes this irreplaceable mystique of achievement. It is a sign of degeneration when the worship of a man is substituted for the task to be accomplished and when the nation nourished with nothing more than words, authority without a program, portraits disguised as principles: it is nothing more than a donkey with a policeman trailing behind him.

Thus, fascism leads to a different social morality than democracy, and it seeks to develop a human type that the democracies ignore or combat. Just because fascism nurtures different values than does liberal democracy does not mean that the former is “irrational” (an idea that assumes liberal democracy is “rational”).

The democrats believe in the natural goodness of man, in progress as the course of history. They think that all parts of the personality merit equal development. For them, the state does not make men moral, it merely teaches them to read; education is a panacea that can work miracles. Democracy does not intervene to establish its own image of man. Its fine ideal exists nowhere. One cannot even say that the men in charge choose subjects to suit their agenda, like leaders of seminars. Democracy is only concerned with diplomas. Democracy distributes awards for excellence. She places her best pupils in the Pantheon. But in 100 years, she has not produced a single hero.

Fascists do not believe in the natural goodness of man; they do not believe that progress is the irreversible direction of history. They have this ambitious idea that man has the power to create, at least in part, his own destiny.

I suppose that the strict materialists and liberal democrats believe that talk of “destiny” is “irrational” – but it seems to me that creating destiny through an act of will is more rational than a fatalistic attitude of passively accepting whatever comes and/or merely pursuing short-term hedonistic materialism or trusting in “Fate” or “God."

See this.

The purpose of the fascist state is to shape men according to a particular model. Unlike democratic states, fascist states do not hesitate to teach morals. Fascists think that the will and energy available to the nation are its most precious capital. They make it their highest priority to encourage the collective qualities that shape and preserve the national energy. They seek to develop such national qualities as discipline, a taste for order, love of work, the sense of duty and honor. In the practice of everyday tasks, these national moral principles are expressed in a sense of responsibility, a sense of solidarity, awareness of duties of command, the feeling of being at home in an accepted order and in an important task.

That also sounds quite rational.   

Is developing The New Man to build The Moral State rational or irrational?  I would say that regardless of your subjective opinion on that, The New Man and The Moral State can be harnessed to achieve rational objectives; hence, they are ultimately rational with respect to ends (even if not always with respect to means).

It would seem therefore that fascism, in its essence, and apart from the particular manifestation of Nazism, was not especially irrational. Indeed, how is fascism any more irrational than its main competitors?  Liberal democracy disguises the power of an oligarchic plutocracy behind the veneer of popular sovereignty, and is currently undergoing self-immolation due to a tidal wave of demographic and cultural destruction.  Communism resulted in millions of dead, gulag states, economic depression, and pseudoscientific ideas like Lysenkoism.

One wonders if the particular focus on fascism being “irrational” has more to do with its underlying mythos than with its actual real-world manifestation. In contrast, both liberal democracy and communism are perceived as being (ostensibly) based on “rational” materialistic considerations, such as economics, happiness for the greatest numbers, etc. derived from “Enlightenment values,” while fascism with its focus on primal values of “caveman nationalism" (blood and soil) and with non-quantifiable, non-materialistic considerations of palingenesis, national glory, and The New Man, sounds ever-so-irrational  After all, one can have a quantifiable “rational” Five Year Plan for socialist production but not a similarly materialistic Five Year Plan for palingenetic overcoming and national glory. Unlike liberal democracy and communism, fascism is not an ideology for the bean-counters of a managerial elite, hence it is seemingly based upon non-quantifiable “irrational” urges.

But some in the mainstream have defended the irrational as part of existentialist authenticity, a concept that can be extended to the race question.  And can’t irrational urges be harnessed to achieve rational objectives?

See this:

…a call to “preserve our distinctive genetic information” is unlikely to motivate most Western individuals to defend their genetic interests against the titanic forces arrayed against them. It almost certainly will not motivate the masses, who, as Michael O’Meara rightfully points out, are always induced to act by “myths” that encompass a cohesive worldview. Even rational activists can often become more motivated by these “myths” (which may of course constitute objective facts to a considerable degree) than to a pure empiricism. Thus, the “myth” of Yockeyan “High Culture” may be needed to motivate the defense of rational Salterian EGI.

In summary, whether or not a political ideology is rational or irrational is to a large part subjective, and in a day and age in which the word “fascist” is used a pejorative, stripped of most of its informational value, it is difficult to arrive at an objective reckoning of fascist rationality vs. irrationality.

Given the definitions given by me here, fascism is not particularly irrational, and to the extent that is does have irrational aspects, those are not necessarily bad, and, further, can be leveraged in the service of rational goals.

The main threat is if the irrational aspects of fascism inflate to a level akin to Salter’s criticism; thus, controlling fascism’s primal urges and keeping those urges within reasonable limits would be key in avoiding irrationality overload.

Sunday, August 14, 2022

Odds and Ends, 8/14/22

In der news.

See this. While I agree with all said there, Jew Maher is like a fat slob who doesn’t understand why they have Type II Diabetes.  He doesn’t understand that the “old school” liberalism he espouses led inexorably to all of the hysterical SJWism he mocks on his show. Liberalism is like cancer, it spreads; you can’t just have “a little bit of healthy cancer.” Maher’s liberal positivity is as delusional as the fat positivity he rightly ridicules. Or maybe he does know all of this, but is just a typical mendacious Levantine.

Someone left a comment at Counter-Currents labeling Bowery's GOD hypothesis as the Cuck hypothesis, "refuted" by the original idiot – the one asking Counter-Currents to promote GOD - quoting from Bowery.  Merely quoting from a work is not a refutation of criticism of it.

Unfortunately, I don't have access to my old Legion Europa materials, but I once did a thorough counter-analysis of Bowery’s claims that Meds were routinely cuckolding Nords and stealing their women (via marriage, etc.). The former (re: cuckoldry) analysis was a logical examination based on Salter's "blank slate hypothesis"- that recessive traits were a cuckoldry detection mechanism. So, if Humphrey and McCulloch are correct and wops and other swarthoids are so dark and alien-looking, with dominant traits, then cuckoldry of Nords should be easily detected in the greasy and dark infants produced. On the other hand, if cuckoldry went undetected, then how phenotypically different could Nords and Meds really be? The second part (re: “stealing women” in general) was an analysis of ethnic intermarriage data.

Interesting that the Boweryites mention Oz - a show that was not only relentlessly anti-White but anti-Italian as well. The fact that Fontana was writing actually supports rather than refutes my contention, as (American) wops typically have acted the buffoon for the amusement of others, being court jesters for WASPs and Jews. What was The Sopranos other than a wopish minstrel show? And Jersey Shore (half the cast not even being Italian) was even worse. Then one reads Italian-American magazines and interspersed among the endless inane articles about "My Nanna's (*) meatball recipe" are commentaries about how Italians are not White and that the wops should make common cause with Negroes and other minorities. Wops are their own worst enemy and Oz fits into that pattern and proves nothing except that the minstrel show plays on.

*What the hell is this "nanna" shit? I knew lots of wops as a youth and no one ever muttered that word. In fact, I never heard the word "nanna" until I was in my 40s and some ethnic hybrid used it to describe his Italian-American grandmother and I didn't know what he was talking about.

Similar to Todd Grande, I'll say that I'm not diagnosing anyone, just explaining what could be happening in a situation like this. Let's consider three hypothetical - hypothetical I say! - examples of how a desire for personal vengeance can inform anti-White policies.

  • 1. Imagine a navy pilot, with a military bigwig father, who becomes a POW in Vietnam and experiences torture and has to refuse early release from that torment because of the political ramifications. Might not such a person secretly blame America and the American people for his plight and thus develop a deep, secret, festering hatred for America and for the White American population? Such a person might, say, become a US Senator, and push for endless wars and for race replacement immigration as methods to punish America and the American people.
  • 2. Consider a "Hungarian" Jew, who experiences and survives WWII and the Nazi occupation of Hungary. This Jew then becomes an extremely wealthy financier. Might he not use his money to push policies to cause untold suffering and misery for the European-derived White Gentiles that he's learned to hate? Might such a person do more damage to White interests than saturation bombing with thermonuclear weapons?
  • 3. Consider young females "of Color" who are embittered that they are not White and are not as attractive as are White women. Image such enraged female hominids getting elected to Congress and pushing policies to "stick it to Whitey," to revenge themselves against the Whites they wish they could be but never can be, and to gain some relief from the anguished rage they feel every time they look at themselves in the mirror.

Taylor:

They are without shame, without honor, without decency, without a shred of gratitude. Because we let them get away with it.

I agree, Jared, "movement" "leaders" fit that description exactly.

[Spoilers ahead]

The choice facing Whites is akin to that faced by Severian (and humanity) in Gene Wolfe’s New Sun series – a choice between a slow but inevitable slide into oblivion that is somewhat unpleasant but bearable in the slow-boiling-frog sense so most people around at the time of the choice could live out their lives; OR choose a radical change solution that will ensure the future, but at the cost of mass destruction and suffering for those in the present.

In the books, the choice was between accepting a slowly dying dim red sun being eaten away by a black hole at its core – prematurely reducing the Earth ("Urth") to a frozen dead world; OR restoring the sun with a white hole, but at the cost of a cataclysm that would sink existing continents, raise new ones, and wipe out almost all (but not all) of humanity. The second scenario occurs; seemingly, that was Wolfe’s moral choice.

For Whites – the choice to accept The Great Replacement and make the best of their inevitable decline and try to live in the moment the best you can and put up with the abuse and humiliations and try to hold onto a First World lifestyle for as long as it lasts; OR induce radical change that would destabilize the System, possibly leading to mass upheaval and an end to whatever comfortable life – or for many, any life at all – for most Whites, but solving the race crisis and ensuring a bright future for surviving Whites going forward.

Thursday, August 11, 2022

Ask Ted: The Christian Question Revisited

Let us consider together. In all cases, emphasis added.

I’ve been asked some questions about Christianity (see below). So, let us consider together.

See the debate about Christianity here; my interest is focused on the following excerpts from comments from the pro-Christian side, which I consider typical of the aggressive nature of Christians in pro-White activism:

A Challenge to Non-believers

I would go farther and say that not only should Christianity not render a man suspect, Christians might even be justified in doubting the conviction of racialists who explicitly reject the faith. I know that among some non-believers there can be a tendency to mock those who believe, to think of us as somehow not intellectually complete. With all due respect, let me offer the view that perhaps no man of the West can be complete if he is not a Christian.

I do not here intend to issue a challenge to believe…Instead I appeal to tradition, history, and the beauty of what is uniquely European.

Our culture is so saturated with Christianity that the two simply cannot be separated…To strip Christianity from Western Civilization is to tear out its heart. Christianity is so characteristic of Western man that for centuries Europe was known as “Christendom.”

How can whites claim to be defenders of a people and of a race and yet scoff at the deepest convictions of their ancestors? How can they speak of “preservation” when they oppose the faith that has for so long defined and guided our race?...

And now comes the worst part, one of the most outrageous things I have ever read in all my time in pro-White activism:

To be sure, it is not given to all men — not even to all good men — to believe. To those men I would say: If you love your race and its heritage, do not mock the Church. Respect it, honor it, and even — yes —  join it. As a duty to your ancestors, in solidarity with the ancient traditions of your people, as an act of participation in the faith that suffuses our culture, stand with the believers even if, in your hearts, you do not believe…

…if you join the assault on Christianity you league yourself with those who hate Western man. It is precisely now, when the crisis is worst, that men of the West must march together and be guided by the same light.

Rather than turn their backs on the faith of their fathers, non-believers should ask themselves whether our people can be saved if our faith is not restored…Those who think of Christianity as an obstacle and a stumbling block should ask themselves whether it may be that Christianity must be cured of liberalism before the West can be cured.

Europe is the faith and the faith is Europe. Those who would be faithful to Europe but not to the faith will find that Europe cannot be Europe without the faith. Even if some biologically authentic remnant of the race succeeds in securing a material corner of the earth, it will have established a nation without an identity and a body without a soul.

Obviously, I disagree with all of that.  That aggressively offensive screed is so absolutely disgusting that my outrage knows no bounds. Note as well that that should be highly offensive to authentic devout Christians. Is that what they want? Churches full of people feigning belief?  Is that what their God would want? What their Jesus would want?  Do they really want to share their Sunday services with people who absolutely loathe Christianity and who are, in their hearts, sneering with contempt at the proceedings that they pretend to follow?  What kind of Christianity is that?  And why can’t Christianity attract sufficient numbers of genuinely devout believers who are pro-White?  Why must they supplement their numbers with non-believers “LARPING” as Christians?  Why can’t pro-White Christians fight and win the battle for the hearts and minds of other White Christians without the support of people who really dislike Christianity and who do not believe in it?  What kind of religious belief is this if it can be spoofed by non-believers? And what point will the membrane separating believers from the LARPERS break down so that no one really knows who really believes or not?  Given that, isn’t it be possible that eventually the LARPERS will outnumber the authentic Christians without the latter realizing it is happening?  Doesn’t that weaken Christianity?  Doesn’t it create the scenario of a hollow church that could collapse if a significant number of the LARPERS realize they are now the majority and decide that there is no point continuing the farce?  And what does it say about the intellectual and moral integrity of the LARPERS if they agree with this deception to begin with?  How is it different from people in the USSR and elsewhere in Eastern Europe pretending to be believers in Marxism, or today’s Whites paying homage to diversity, equity, and inclusion?  And how many Christians think the same way as the moral monster who wrote the screed reproduced above?

Some discussion between a Gab correspondent and I is of relevance here (the questions I mentioned above).

Gab correspondent:

Would you say that the Nordicist treatment of Southern/Eastern Europeans is similar to how many secular White Nationalists treat Christians? I mean, if we really do think that race-first Christians should be accepted into the movement, wouldn't it be best to tone down the hostile rhetoric so they feel more welcome? Unless it can be shown that Christianity is inherently incompatible with White Nationalism, I think I'm starting to come around to the Griffin position that the most viable way forward is to, at the very least, not alienate White Christians since they are 70% of the White population in America.

Ted Sallis:

I have no problem working with Christians, but I loathe the religion. But there is a difference between religious belief that can change and someone's genetic ancestry, which is an innate character. A Negro can be a Christian, but Europeans are Europeans. But, again, sure, we can work with Christians who put race first.

Gab correspondent:

Yes, but why would they want to when so many White Nationalists are hostile to Christianity? Calling them Christcucks, "Jew on a stick", questioning their loyalty, etc. Why would they want to take that kind of abuse when it's so easy for them to fall back into "Christian Nationalism"? And while it is technically true that religious belief can change, most Christians aren't ever going to give up Christianity. A lot of them have a deep psychological need for it. We are basically stuck with huge swathes of Whites that are Christian. If they are in, shouldn't we act like it? If they are out, then we need to target the ~24% of Whites in America that are non-religious, the majority of whom are Democrats. There is the theory that Hitler was secretly against Christianity and planned to do something about it after some time in power. But in order to get to that point in the first place they had to play ball.

Ted Sallis:

There needs to be compromise. Some Christians are beyond help. Those that insist that we all must be Christian believers - unacceptable. I can have a live and let live attitude. I won't attack Christians who put race first and who accept non-Christians. It is true that many WNs are hostile to Christianity. On the other hand, there are many Christians who are aggressors. If the Sallis Groupuscule can broker a "peace treaty" between the two camps - great. It would be helpful to identify reasonable Christian WNs to work out a deal with.

And here is something I wrote earlier in response to similar concerns from this same Gab correspondent:

I make no secret of being anti-Christianity, as my blog posts and Gabs make clear. However, while I would like to see Christianity eventually disappear, I can work with Christians and tolerate the existence of a muscular nationalist Christianity IF Christians would stop pushing religion and insisting that we all have to be Christian and that Christianity is central to the West. In my experience, the intolerance comes from the Christian side.

In my opinion, what are consistent with Whites, Europe, and the West, with respect to religion, are Christianity, Deism, paganism, atheism, and agnosticism. Religions associated with Afro-Asiatic peoples, or “New Age” nonsense, should be eschewed.

Among those White consistent religious entities there should be tolerance. Thus, Christians who are pro-White and who prioritize Whites should be accepted, but they need to stop pushing their religion on the rest of us and stop making it some sort of prerequisite for being pro-White.  And “stop pushing their religion” incudes not only in pro-White activism, but the idea of forcing Christian beliefs onto society-wide political and social questions (e.g., abortion, euthanasia, eugenics, scientific questions, relations between groups with and between nations, etc.). And the screed commented on above is absolute anathema; I expect Christians who are sincerely pro-White and who agree with the idea of tolerance on this issue to denounce that “non-believers need to pretend to be Christian” trash as it deserves.  Further, Christians need to get their own house in order; if Christianity is compatible with pro-White activism and if problems in that regard can be solved, then it is up to pro-White Christians to do it.  The rest of us are under no obligation to assist. We should not impede their efforts of course, but it is their battle to fight.

So, in summary, this “peace treaty,” this agreement, within the ranks of pro-White activism is that non-Christians would stop attacking Christianity in general (but attacking anti-White liberal Christianity is absolutely necessary by both Christians and non-Christians alike) and accept that Christians can be good White nationalists; while the Christians need to prioritize race over religion, and stop pushing their religion on others and on society and general, and certainly stop equating Whites, Europe, and the West exclusively with Christianity (and whatever battles they need to fight over Christian beliefs and race is their battle alone). 

Are there are any reasonable pro-White Christians with whom such discussions can be had?

Tuesday, August 9, 2022

Thiriart’s European Empire

Book review - Europe: An Empire of 400 Million.

Some thoughts on this book.  

Note that one of the negatives of the book is its extremely disjointed and disorganized structure; thus, even though my view itself seems disjointed it actually is organized in a more coherent manner than the book it evaluates, a book that could have benefitted for extreme editing.  In any case, let us proceed.

About the author.  (Spain was never “Fascist,” stop the lies).

I’m no fan of “National Bolshevism” (a pseudo-ideology for those afraid to call themselves National Socialists) of the Dugin connection.  But, anyway, let us consider the book.

There is stupidity in the Introduction about “Indo-European heritage” in India.  I for one am tired of hearing about “Aryan” nonsense, re: India and other Asian areas.  It doesn’t matter what ancient ancestral sources were present, what matters for today’s biopolitics is how closely extant populations are related.  South Asians and other such peoples are genetically distant from Europeans and are a distinct race. But then, this is the author of the Introduction. 

Now, the anti-Americanism of Thiriart is understandable from a Yockeyian political perspective, but hostility to the White American people and particularly to the American racialist Far Right is stupid and destructive, and the Introduction indeed promotes such hostility, e.g., footnote #5. And what’s this insanity of advising the USA to integrate with Latin America?  Forget Jacob; I expect nothing there, but was Thiriart crazy or was it just anti-American hatred percolating through? Obviously, I’m no fan of the idea, expressed in the book, of Europe leveraging China or Africa or Latin America against the USA and/or the USSR; I consider that race treason. Madness, madness.

I’ll agree that a “European Party” needs to be composed of cool-headed elites, not reckless hot-heads, and Thiriart makes clear in his book that a real revolutionary cadre (that needs to be carefully recruited during the calm before the storm) needs to absolutely eschew defectives (a point that I have been making for years); this will be a problem for Der Movement because despite all of the lip service the Quota Queens give to this, their “movement” is primarily composed of defective freaks. He also asserts that infiltration of the System is important, as is having some sort of protective force to defend the elite from attack.  

Thiriart had an attitude that was entirely consistent with what I have been saying for years – that you need to decide on an ideology and then move and get to work, instead of endlessly debating issues, the favorite being “Who is White?” (if you cannot even decide who is in your group, then how does your group exist?).  Thiriart had this attitude for many good reasons, one of which is to avoid wasting time in endless ideological debates and to prevent challenges to leadership that are really based on personal ambition to use the pretext of “ideological disagreements.” Thiriart wrote:

In political organisations that are disciplined and destined to action, there is no place for endless debates, for petty bourgeois scruples, for personal moral torment, for aesthetic hesitation. Either one accepts the menu or one does not eat. There is no choice of dishes…In our age, which is lacking everywhere, and that to which the true youth, from which the combatants will emerge, aspire is a clear, simple, monolithic faith.

It is interesting that things that I say and get accused of being an ethnically-interested advocate for was also said by the self-described Nordic Thiriart decades earlier – and not only about this; a large amount of Thiriart’s work (e.g., attacks on Nordicism) was foreseeing Sallisisan ideas.

One gives credit to Thiriart for his strident pan-Europeanism that includes Eastern Europeans (how far this goes seems to change from page to page – Bucharest or Vladivostok?).  He was an integrative “Europe as nation” person, more than I (or even Yockey perhaps), but within this I still see scope for maintenance of particularities and national uniqueness, so this is not any sort of deal-breaker, far from it. Indeed, Thiriart’s “take” here is a refreshing contrast to the petty nationalism espoused by many of today’s ethnonationalist hypocrites (who have no problem living in other people’s nations for the sake of convenience and/or to have access to their women).

Thiriart, who self-identified as a Nordic, is quite adamant in being radically pan-European and critiquing Nordicism, Germanocentrism, and other manifestations of “internal racism” in Europe. The fact that he repeatedly mentions Sicilians in this regard (and Poles, etc.) suggests that he was very much aware of the specific nature of Nordicist sweaty obsessions and also suggests that not much has changed in Der Movement over the last 60 years or so. I do note that he also avers that he would in theory have no problem with Nordic Germanics dominating Europe, but notes that it is not realistic and that Europe needs all Europeans (including those dastardly Afrowops) in the struggles ahead. Very well, but I’d prefer an ideological pan-Europeanism as opposed to what appears to be a utilitarian one (Latins are Slavs are needed, so….).  Although, at one point he seems to imply that Turkey is part of Europe; this is not the case and must never be so, for biological, cultural/civilizational, and historical reasons (never mind that the vast majority of Turkey is in Asia, where it is people belong bioculturally). And then at one point he seems think that the French should have assimilated North African Berbers - in Thirart's words "...of whom it was tolerably easy to make authentic Frenchmen."  Things like that tend to delegitimize Thiriart's pan-Europeanism and anti-Nordicism and gives credence to Nordicist critiques that a more inclusive attitude toward Europe inevitably (sic) leads to acceptance of real aliens, which is not the case.

The Nordic Belgian Jean Thiriart critiqued Nordicism in his Europe an Empire book, including:

...German racists of the extreme right who frown at the mention of Andalusians but swoon before the Arabs...

Racial Proximity Theory, anyone?  Sallis right again – MacDonald and his TOO supporters wrong, Racial Proximity Theory is a historical reality; but then Thiriart himself has to answer for his own (mild) swooning before the Turks and the Berbers.  

Thiriart:

A racism of the North, under the hypocritical mask of a certain 'Europeanism' has already been mortal once for Europe from 39 to 45. It cannot at any cost arise again. Its reactivation would only cause all of Slavic Europe to be thrown to Moscow and would, as a reaction, render all of Mediterranean Europe distrustful.

If I wrote that, the hysteria would be deafening. But thank you to Thiriart for stating common sense. He also stated that mating between different parts of Europe is not "race mixing." Indeed, the Nordic Thiriart was more open to intra-European mixing than I am.  The author believes that all Europeans – Germanics, Latins, and Slavs – have value, a view that contrasts to the typical “movement” Germanocentric view. Thiriart condemned "the anti-Neapolitan racism of certain Englishmen," and mocked "young Germans who think that they are combatants for Europe but tremble at the idea that a Sicilian could marry their sister."

The author promotes a strongly integrated “Unitarian” Europe as Nation scenario that is opposed to federalism (except as a temporary stop-gap on the road to full unity) as he is to petty nationalism. Although I have championed the federalism approach, I have to agree that most of his arguments are sound. The basic problem with s approach is how to preserve ethnic and cultural uniqueness within Europe. The author seems not to care about this and seems to accept a panmixia on both the biological and cultural level in Europe.  I’m essentially conservative on this issue, since a unique bioculture, once lost, cannot really ever be recovered or reconstituted (at least not exactly as it was originally) and I do not want to see any European characteristics forever lost (which would affect EGI at the ethnic-national level as well).  Such a scenario would no doubt provoke a negative reaction from enemies of the pan-European approach.  There needs to be a balance – like Lowell’s Imperium-Dominion duality – that would allow sufficient local control as to preserve important particularities.

A Unitarian Europe can work – and would have the advantages that Thiriart indicated – but it needs to solve the problems of preserving the biological and cultural uniqueness of the various European peoples.  In addition, it is understandable that people want to be led by people in the locality and not be micro-managed from some Imperial capital; some degree of local sovereignty needs to be incorporated in the government structure. More on this below.

As part of this, Thiriart condemned petty nationalism in all of its aspects.  One could only image what he would think of an outlet like Counter-Currents, which proudly defends the concept.

Thus, he rejects the idea of a confederation of nationalist groups or parties working together or one powerful nation serving as a nucleus to build an integrated Europe, as these are inimical to his integrated Europe ideal and would provoke petty nationalist reaction also inimical to his ideal. He also states that the creation of the European nation will be a top-down elite project; one should not depend on the masses for anything – they’ll go along with a fait accompli as long as they believe that their selfish material desires will be met.  He wrote:

The utilisation of ‘existing nationalisms’ to create the European nationalism is a myth cherished by the timid, the backward-looking, or opportunists, who look for an easy clientele.  European nationalism will arise only after having dissolved or crushed the old nationalisms. Within the integrated European Party it will be easier to make a young socialist militant a good European nationalist than to transform a French petty nationalist into a European nationalist…Within this party, no more question of feeling oneself French or Portuguese, other than in one’s origin or language…Every militant, no matter where he comes from or who he might be, participates in all of Europe, and not only in one ‘party’ of this Europe…A European militant will owe fidelity, loyalty and dedication to Europe, and not to his country of origin.

Take that, petty nationalism!  Greg Johnson weeps.

One crucial point of Thiriart’s book is his point, repeated several times, that revolutionary action such as nation-creating is the work of a pre-existing leader and revolutionary cadre who will this new reality into being, typically against the consent of the masses. Thus, revolutionary change is imposed from top-down; it does not percolate up from the masses (and we note how our society’s leftward drift is essentially being imposed from above).  From our perspective, the prescriptive approach of radical pan-Europeanism should not depend on descriptive current realities or “the consent of the people,” nor achieved by “hat-in-hand” negotiation with petty nationalist culture retarders. If Nation Europa is to be it has to be created by an act of revolutionary will that is not dependent on ephemeral “public opinion” of the moment, the short-term electoral needs to petty nationalist political parties, or the huffing and puffing of navel-gazing ethnonationalists who achieve nothing but division.

Thiriart denounces those who mimic the Fascist and National Socialists of yesterday; in a telling comment he writes:

It is remarkable to note that, at all times, the people who are nostalgic have not preserved of the past any of its qualities, they have only conserved its RITES.

That describes Der Movement and rightist “traditionalists” as well as specifically those who “LARP" as Fascists and Nazis – and I believe it clear that Thiriart is condemning the “LARPING” rather than the basic principles of fascism and national socialism that seem to me to underlie his own basic ideology. Thiriart also condemns the decadents who always find an excuse to do nothing – that sounds much like contemporary “movement” hobbyists who can’t even be motivated to exercise the slightest and safest amount of effort to (legally and non-violently) combat what they claim is “White genocide.”  Even writing a blog or a post is too much for them. Thiriart’s ideas mesh with mine with his opposition to “big tent” coalitions that are fragile and that collapse under pressure (see the Alt Right and Alt Lite); he favored smaller homogeneous entities with a fixed ideology and avant-garde leaders with their “valiant” followers. He also, like me, promoted the idea of infiltration of the System (“termites”) rather than the Turner Diaries Der Tag fantasies of Type I “runes and boots” “twigs and branches” morons.

Thiriart distinguishes a society, with its moral codes, and a state, with its laws.  A strong society can be stable in prosperity and exhibit resiliency in crisis and can survive even in the absence of a strong state; in contrast, a weak society requires a strong, often tyrannical state, for survival. Look at the decaying America of today, with a weak society and degenerate morals, dependent upon an anarcho-tyranny repressive system to manage the decline. Further, Thiriart, like the Romanian Legionaries before him, realized that the values and structures of a society are directly related to the quality of men, particularly leadership.  High quality men lead to high quality values and to an effective societal structure.

The strength of a nation state is related to its size. Thiriart points out, quite rightly, that the smaller a nation is the more likely it is to be a satellite.  And that underscores another weakness of the “we can just have (temporary) alliances” paradigm of the petty nationalists. What does a small nation really have to offer in an alliance with a larger, more powerful one, other than being a satellite, a de facto colony, of the larger, stronger power, a nation-sized military base for the “ally?”  What “sovereignty” then?  And if the smaller nation wants to leave the “temporary” alliance and the larger nation refuses, what then?  Bring in a third power for an intra-European war?  Ethnonationalist madness.

Thiriart suggests Europe needs it sown nuclear deterrent (Europe-wide, not only national as with the UK or France) and that even if America was to become a true friend and ally to Europe, a sovereign Europe could not depend on America’s “nuclear umbrella” particularly since America’ is going to be focused on its own issues (like the “insoluble” Black problem) and so would eventually need to leave Europe, voluntarily or not.

The author advocates a “society of solidarity” that avoids the pitfalls of a naïve collectivism and destructive selfishness. Like me, Thiriart values the efficiencies of competition and the free market but without the abuses of capitalism; the proper balance is required.

Some of the quotes from Thiriart (“France did not exist because people spoke French but people speak French because French was decreed”) and others (e.g., Jose Ortega Y Gasset) as well as the overall text echo the Yockeyite idea that it is the nation-state that forges a people, not necessarily the other way around; thus, a European nation-state can help forge a European people, akin to the ideas expressed in this post on Yockeyian Genetics. This of course does not mean – or have to mean – any sort of European panmixia (even though Thiriart was open and accepting to intra-European mixture), but instead bringing Europeans more tightly coalesced together biologically (and culturally) as distinguished from other groups.

Amusingly, Thiriart was very prescient in the idea that the Negro problem is insoluble for America and that this problem was going to lead to the eventual decline of America as a world power, as the nation becomes obsessed with dealing with internal racial conflicts. His idea that Eastern Europe was a weak link in Soviet communism proved correct as well. His timetable for European independence and victory was “off” of course.  He couldn’t realize that as Europe shed Soviet control in the East and became more independent of America in the West it would degenerate into a “woke” dystopia overseeing White genocide race replacement immigration. But even in his time, there were signs of trouble to come. The author notes examples of pro-Black and anti-White attitudes, news reporting, and double standard law enforcement of the Europe of the 1960s, all of which sound remarkably similar to the SJW hysteria of today’s America. This puts into question anti-American narratives of today’s European petty nationalists who avert that SJWism is an American invention that is currently “infecting Europe.” If Thiriart’s description of 1960s (Western) European behavior is correct, one can genuinely wonder precisely who “infected” who with the virus of lunatic progressivism. Related to this, in his section on the "Anti-Elite," Thiriart foresees the emergence of bioleninism, the alliance of the botched and the defective, who in their resentment against their superiors join every leftist entity in order to overthrow the natural order and revenge themselves against a reality that focuses attention on their manifest deficiencies. In Thiriart's day, such rabble existed and were found in the Communist parties of Western nations; today, they make up the refuse of our SJW progressive-Rising Tide of Color alliance.

One of my favorite parts of the book are the quotes at the start of each section, thought-provoking snippets from (typically) well-known figures; the comments are relevant to the subject of each section.  The rampant and over-the-top anti-Americanism of Thiriart can be off-putting to American readers, particularly those who are Far Right racial nationalists who look askance at the somewhat hysterical negative portrayal of (White) Americans that do nothing that divide the Whites of the New World from that of the Old.  But these are, in reflection, relatively minor points. 

All in all, a good book; it is recommended. After reading this, I am rethinking my previous emphasis on a confederated Europe of nations – as long as the non-negotiable baseline of the preservation of the unique European ethnies (and their EGI) is assured, an integrated European Nation is preferable (although, unlike Thiriart, I see this as including the overseas Diaspora). Why should we continue to cater to the petty nationalists, Nordicists, and other Culture Retarders who themselves never compromise and simply “double down” on their nonsense? Thiriart, in the broad sense, details aside, was essentially correct. Thus, I'm moving toward a more explicit pan-Europeanism.

In a properly integrated European Nation, ethnic integrity, ethnocultural uniqueness, and ethnic genetic interests would be carefully managed and preserved, like the precious “natural resources” that they are.  That would allow the benefits of unity while avoiding some of the more fundamental costs.

But, eventually, with all those caveats duly noted, the European Nation should and must be a reality.

Addendum

Note to the hobbyists:

One who does not wish to prepare himself because it would interrupt his pleasure will soon see that very pleasure taken from him on account of which he did not wish to prepare himself. – Thucydides

On leadership:

The leader is one who believes when everybody is still sceptical, the one who sees farter and sooner, who dares when nobody dares. The leader is also a creative genius, he is an initiator, a founder of religions, ideologies, or nations. - Thiriart

On freedom:

There only exists the freedom of the strong. One who wishes to be free must want to be powerful. One who wishes to be free must be capable of arresting other freedoms, for freedom is invasive and has a tendency to encroach on that of weak neighbors...Whether as an individual or as a nation, we know the source of freedom and it is power. If we wish to conserve the former, we must cultivate the latter. They are inseparable. - Thiriart. 

On happiness:

One must teach men - or at least those who claim to lead them - that 'happiness' does not exist, that it is an intellectual construct offered to the simple to dupe them. - Thiriart

Saturday, August 6, 2022

Odds and Ends, 8/7/22

In der news.

Counter-Currents madness:

Let’s cut straight to the chase: germs don’t cause disease; disease causes germs.

Der Movement MUST be unalterably opposed. If Der Movement wins, the Dark Ages will look like a futurist paradise by comparison.

A possibility to consider: Der Movement is a greater threat to White interests than is the System. I'm really coming around to that view. We should all ponder this.

Gaston:

Der movement" is simply put a mass of dysfunctional individuals that are so for reasons transcending their political views, since I can see how any fringe movement/subculture will attract dysfunctional types that didn't fit in normal society anyway so they see in the fringe movement/subculture an opportunity to find a place where "they belong"; it was so in early far left circles (and it is today as well in radical antifa), but with the societal norms shifting left at a neck-snapping speed it is now the far right experiencing this phenomenon.

Der movement's leaders are just smarter (compared to the average type I activist, at least) guys that figured out a way to exploit financially a mass of low IQ individuals.

Sallis:

Exactly. Note that this clearly demonstrates that the "movement" leaders are frauds. Any real, sensible leader would of course have nothing at all to do with ultra-freaks, the type who say viruses don't exist, reject the germ theory of disease and who say that nuclear weapons are a hoax. Such an authentic leader would realize that not only are such people useless by themselves but that they taint the group and cause high IQ educated people to stay far away. But, no. The leaders exploit the freaks as supporters and sources of money.

More TOO: 

John Samuelssays:

July 30, 2022 at 6:46 pm

Since Sallis has linked to my comment, I’d like to elaborate on something he just wrote with some speculation on my part. Sallis wrote: “How is it possible that the same person who wrote The Trilogy now agrees that an ‘individualist’ is defined as someone who never calls their mother? Am I the only one who thinks that is absolutely ludicrous?”

Someone emotionally distant from his family in the way described is more appropriately referred to as “schizoid.” While some might argue that such emotionally cold individuals simply exhibit a unique cognitive or emotional profile that should not be maligned or pathologized, it’s worth noting that on the whole, even though schizoid individuals may not see themselves as problematic (given that they rarely seek treatment), they tend to have poorer than average social and professional outcomes.

The schizoid personality is not, in my view, one to idealize in any way, as aberrant as it is. Yes, some geniuses, perhaps Tesla among them, were arguably schizoid, but for every Tesla among schizoids there are hundreds or more with very subpar and socially dysfunctional lives (this emotional coldness is not more widespread precisely because there were – and continue to be – selective pressures against it). It’s worth noting that brain scans appear to show schizoid and autistic brains as basically the same (showing a relationship).

My speculation, given the subculture of HBD, is that the autistic or schizoid personality is pedestalized, which is an inversion of sorts with normie society given the penalties associated with such an aberrant personality type (the proliferation of autistic/schizoid incels and the increasingly competitive nature of our society has really brought their frustrations to the fore among very young adults today).

HBD is really a form of projection on the part of men high in schizoid/autistic traits. Ironically, the normies are too smart to fall for this (yeah, they are smarter). Schizoid traits, in my view, should be culled, not idealized.

What about the idea promoted by TOO that I am some sort of ethnic advocate (pot calling the kettle black, perhaps) for Italians? Really? Here's some "Italian advocacy" I suppose:

See this.

Therefore, as a theoretical example, if it were necessary to exterminate 10-20% of the population of, say, Italy, in order to improve the national stock through eugenics, then that would be a quite appropriate price to pay in order to have a population that is more intelligent, disciplined, productive, and creative. 

See this.

If there are Italian readers who are upset with these negative opinions, and who are now gesticulating in outrage, they should consider the following hard truths.

If you behave in a contemptible manner, others will treat you with contempt. If you allow yourself to be the anvil of history, others will be the hammer. If you want respect, you must earn it.

If the Italian people, as currently constituted, have it within themselves to overcome their deficiencies then they need to do so as soon as possible. If they lack the racial character for such an undertaking, then they must submit to an absolutely ruthless regimen of eugenics, to reverse millennia of dysgenic influences. A willingness to continue as an inferior species will do nothing except prove Kesselring correct.

That's my work. That's what TOO asserts is me being an ethnic advocate for Italians with an envious grudge against Nords. It's there in digital black and white - PROOF that TOO is absolutely wrong about what they write about me.

The real "crime" of Ted Swarthis - adhering to truth and facts and logic and refusing to kowtow to "movement" dogma or to "movement" "rock star" gurus. Individualist independence of mind always results in a negative reaction from collectivist conformists. Indeed, ironically enough, given proper definitions of individualism and collectivism, it is Ted Swarthis who is being the individualist and the TOO crowd who are the ostracizing collectivists.

Kevin MacDonald – wrong, wrong, wrong.  According to that, Hungary and Italy are more individualistic than any Scandinavian country, much less Germany. Looking at the differences between Italy and Greece in that table, or between Hungary and Poland (never mind Croatia and Slovenia), it is clear that the differences are most likely due to historical-cultural mechanisms instead of "primordial" evolutionary-ancestry mechanisms - how different are the ancestries in those comparisons? And how do the outcomes differ anyway? Both Italy and Greece are subject to migrant invasion. Hungary and Poland both attempt to resist the EU. Meanwhile, Denmark is less "woke" than Sweden; on other hand, MacDonald talks about Denmark being more "German" than are other Scandinavians yet the Danes are both more individualist and less "woke" than Germans and Scandinavians. Primordial evolutionary explanations? MacDonald's thesis seems not supporting by the facts - unless one accepts his peculiar definitions of individualism.

More:

Low individualism traits include:

  • sacrifice for others
  • dependence on social unit
  • external loss of control
  • moral relationship
  • external locus of control

ALL of those are attributes of Law of Jante Scandinavian conformist collectivism and enforcing social norms through external social control and ostracism.

Further, it is amusing that MacDonald both defends the validity of HBD and says he is a bit of fan of Salter's EGI, since many HBDers have been attacking "Salterism" from day one, while dastardly Ted Swarthis has been defending it. Indeed, hostility to the idea of EGI and of kinship-based interests is a hallmark of pro-Jewish and pro-Asian HBD, which generally promotes the idea of aracial cognitive elitism instead.

Of related interest: If racial diversity decreases social trust, then it stands to reason that monoethnic populations that have greater genetic heterogeneity will manifest less social trust than more genetically homogeneous populations - relative genetic homogeneity likely being detected at the "street level" by the (crude) proxy of physical appearance phenotype. Although this scenario may manifest only in populations that are overall more individualistic on the global level - like Europe as a whole. Other populations that are very highly collectivist, like the Chinese, can dispense with social trust per se, and they all look alike anyway.

The elites must know that diversity is a devastating weakness and that a multiracial society is a catastrophe. But they have made the (in my opinion incorrect) calculation that fixing the problem is either impossible or too painful (at least for them) and that the solution is worse than the problem. They prefer a slow rot, the frog slowly boiling, with the hope that they and their descendants (if they have any) have enough security to "ride the tiger" of the decline. To them, slowly dying of a cancer is better than a curative painful radical surgery and extreme radiation and chemotherapy. Meanwhile, they'll make the best of it, getting rich and exploiting non-White support and racial conflict for political, social, and economic power. At least they can be the big fish in a polluted small pond, eh?

It is not only the racial and cultural conflict, inflation and other macroeconomic problems, lack of law and order, decaying international standing, etc. that demonstrates a declining America correlating with increased diversity. There's also the general decline in standards and services, crumbling infrastructure with potholes like moon craters, empty supermarket shelves, wildly inconsistent mail delivery, wild animals like coyotes and pumas roaming busy urban areas, and 1001 other signs of a decrepit, dying America. Presciently, in the early 1960s, Thiriart predicted that America's racial problems, particularly with Blacks, would spell the end of America as a major world power.

Listen to this.  Now, I don’t endorse the “Afro Sephardic” host and his opinions, or Monoxide’s conspirtardism, but that’s not relevant here. What is relevant is the content.  I’ve been content the juvenile jackassery of the Alt Right, as is exemplified by TRS, from the start.  But others took TRS seriously – Greg Johnson before he and TRS apparently had a falling out (surprise!) and see thisAnd note the comments about TRS' anti-Italianism, Nordicism, and Anglomania in that podcast.

Der Movement is a complete catastrophe as I have been saying for years. It is all silly hobbyism.

As a thought experiment, imagine that covid-19 originated in (Southern) Italy. What would be the Der Movement attitude toward the pandemic then? The virus (viruses now, of course, exist) would be a medical public health catastrophe, its origin reflects on the innate deficiencies of the population where it originated, Nutzis would be walking around with masks glued to their faces like the original Baron Zemo, and they'd get so many covid vaccinations that they'd look like Pinhead from HellraiserStrip away the facetious hyperbole (not much, truth be told) and there are underlying realities about Der Movement and its obsessions revealed.

Wednesday, August 3, 2022

Whither the pan-European Perspective?

A re-evaluation?

For background, see this.  Also see thisSee this about the TOO controversy.  And see this. Then see my interpretation of Yockey’s comments on these issues, particularly in the last chapter of Imperium.

In the wake of the TOO dust-up, a Gab correspondent recently asked me if I still subscribe to pan-Europeanism. The answer is yes (but obviously not with the likes of the TOO crowd), but I am somewhat more pessimistic – I believe that the road to authentic pan-Europeanism will be longer, and far more bumpy, than I had heretofore imagined. I do not share Yockey’s optimism that the importance of differences between Europeans are no longer salient.

In theory, from a prescriptive level, Yockey was certainly correct. Today, with the worldwide racial crisis, with the clash of civilizations, with the threat of mass migration, with the Sword of Damocles of White Genocide hanging over our heads, how is it possible that intra-European feuding and hostility, and subracial conflict, is actually still consuming our thoughts and our energy? How is it possible that what Yockey called Culture Retardation (and indeed it is literally retardation) is an important factor in intra-European relations?  Is it any wonder Whites always lose?

In the “movement,” particularly in America, Nordicism has made a comeback, with the assistance of HBD and the juvenile jackasses of the Alt Right.  In Europe, economic frictions due to the EU and its policies, as well as problems over migration and, overall, the dominance of the union by Germany, has increased irritation between North and South, East and West.  We have therefore moved backward with respect to the pan-European perspective and people are “digging in their heels” and refusing to be reasonable, falling back on narrow identities, much to the delight of Culture Retarding ethnonationalists who exult in their “petty nationalism” as well to the delight of the ever-divisive Nordicists.  And, of course, since every action breeds a reaction, one observes some angry pushback from rightists of Southern (especially) and Eastern European extraction.

There is plenty of blame to go around on all sides. It is useless to try and put specific percentages of blame for particular groups; let us just say that no one is completely innocent and no one is completely guilty, although I believe one side is more guilty than the other. Putting aside the issue of ethnonationalism here (addressed in many other of my posts), let us concentrate on Nordicism (and related ethnic fetishisms).

As evidence that the Nordicists are more to blame, I can not only point out the history of White racial nationalism since WWII and the history of constant Nordicist aggression against non-Nordics, particularly in the American scene (the latest TOO nonsense being just the latest example), but we can also consider the opinions of others. For example, in the early 1960s, the Nordic Belgian Jean Thiriart was castigating Nordicists and Germanocentric intra-European racism for creating destructive division among Europeans. And, of course, fifteen years earlier, Yockey was criticizing the "vertical racism" of the Nordicists for the same reason in his book Imperium. Further, one can certainly find other examples of Northern European Far Rightists critiquing Nordicism; it certainly isn't only Southern and Eastern Europeans who do so. However, while one can of course denounce Nordicism, one can still be objective enough try to understand Nordicist stereotypes of Europe’s South and East, and the degree to which those stereotypes have some basis in reality.

The Nord looks at the different peoples of Europe and sees different levels of accomplishment and productivity (at least over the last several centuries), as well as differences in phenotypic aesthetics that they correlate with accomplishment and productivity.  More fundamentally, the Nord sees differences in character and behavior. Thus, the Nord sees Southern Europeans (particularly Italians) as the Eternal Schettino – an inept clown; a superficial and lazy “wine, women, and song” hedonist who is always hysterical and cowardly in a crisis. The Nord sees Eastern Europeans as the Eternal Putin – a corrupt thug; a crude, brutal Asiatic with an ill-disguised inferiority complex, and ill-disguised envious hostility, toward the West.

Are those stereotypes precisely accurate?  Do they covey the full measure of those European peoples?  Of course not.  But, as do all stereotypes, do they contain some basic elements of truth? Of course they do – just like negative stereotypes of Northwest Europeans also contain some basic elements of truth.

Southern and Eastern Europeans must absolutely demand an end to Nordicist attitudes, BUT, at the same time, they must act in such a way to dispel the negative stereotypes and thus make Nordicism superfluous and ridiculous. Northwest Europeans absolutely have a right to demand that Southern and Eastern Europeans stop being the Eternal Schettino and the Eternal Putin, but they themselves must stop being the Eternal Merkel – forever arrogantly lecturing and scolding Europe’s South and East, while at the exact same time endlessly pathetically surrendering and groveling to The World of Color.  All Europeans have some significant room for improvement.

I am not optimistic. As I said, people are “digging in their heels,” digging their memetic trenches; they are not open to reason, compromise, and conciliation. Far from being the lunatic “Medicist” my critics claim I am, I try to see all sides of this issue.  But the aim of that reasonableness MUST be to eventually solve the problem.  I am not interesting in discussing these issues as a theoretical exercise, or to justify culture retarding attitudes, or to throw my hands up and say the problem is insoluble and that Europe (broadly defined as all peoples of European ancestry worldwide) is a house divided, and will remain so until it inevitably collapses.

I truthfully at the current time do not know the answer to this problem.  I have tried many different approaches; the problem only gets worse. The problem needs to be resolved in the direction of a pan-European solution; if not, Europe dies and the worldwide community of European peoples dies, and race and civilization fade away into oblivion. However that solution is not going to be possible until sufficient numbers of reasonable people on all sides of this problem decide that it must be so. Likely what is necessary as a start is for all sides to state what it is they want as the ultimate outcome of the process of dealing with this issue, and what are the possible areas where wants overlap and where they may conflict.

Those who agree with me and who want to work with me on this know where to find me, politically speaking.  I have my blogs and a Gab account.  The Sallis Groupuscle blog is open to others to contribute.

That is all I will say on this issue for today.

Tuesday, August 2, 2022

From Here to Eternity

Race and the universe.

See this.

And this.

If humans are the only intelligent life in the universe, then we are the pinnacle of creation, and everything involving humans, particularly racial differentiation and the struggle between races for survival and prominence, takes on cosmic significance. After all, if Whites become extinct, that may forever erase progress toward higher forms of intelligence and the ultimate progression of evolved organisms in the entire universe.

On the other hand, if there are other intelligent species out there somewhere, then human race retains cosmic significance because we then must consider who will represent the Earth and represent humanity (or, more broadly the genus Homo) in possible eventual contact with these other sentient beings. Will this be Whites (among others) or will we have Negroes spray painting graffiti on the aliens’ flying saucers, mugging ET, and attempting to “carjack” the UFO?  If these aliens are more advanced in technology and pose a possible threat, this is no joke.  Who will represent the Earth is a question of cosmic significance; it is an existential issue.

Regardless of the alien issue, race and the question of White survival are questions of universal significance.