The author asked me to include a note with this indicating that although his central positions as stated below are unaltered, his opinions of certain individuals, e.g., “Prozium,” have changed.
I have been asked to contribute to the “Why We Write ” series. I have both the fortune and the misfortune to follow three very good and comprehensive contributions which have left to me not much to add. However, I have some comments to make, first, by quoting my predecessors in this endeavor, and then by outlining several issues I see as important.
Dr. Kevin MacDonald  is a brilliant man whom I admire and whom I agree with on almost everything. Dr. MacDonald states:
But what I take away from this is that the greatest danger to the cultural establishment is the existence of intelligent, well-written, well-documented, and fundamentally honest articles arguing for the importance of white identity and white interests.
Certainly, I am motivated to contribute such articles, to TOQ and to other forums, to assist in the process of promoting white interests.
I may agree with Prozium and Michael O’Meara considerably less than 100% of the time; however, I find no fault in their contributions to this series. Prozium, who recently soundly thrashed Lee John Barnes of the British National Party and Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com, writes:
I had a rare personality type (one that I suspect many intelligent racialists share) that inclined me to care far more about truth than social status.
I believe the same applies to my case. For example, in a debate between, say, Jared Taylor and Peter March or Tim Wise, the “socially acceptable” position is to agree with March/Wise and mindlessly denounce Taylor as a “hater.” But, which positions represents truth? Represents logic? Whose position in these debates, if followed through on, would lead to adaptive behavior for persons of European descent? And whose positions would lead to maladaptive behaviors leading to the destruction of the West and its peoples? Taylor speaks for truth and for adaptive behavior, thus it is Taylor, and not the establishment mouthpieces, who should hold our attention and support.
The usually insightful O’Meara submits:
At this hopefully not-too-distant point, when white Americans awake to their fate as a people in the grips of an ethnocidal regime, I expect TOQ to become the metapolitical organ NOT of a revitalized, racially conscious right, but of a revolutionary nationalism assertive of the white man’s unique identity. It is for this that I write.
The key point there is “revolutionary.” I am not at all interested in any form of “conservatism” whether it is of the “traditional,” “paleo,” or, especially, “neo” varieties. What I am interested in, politically, is palingenetic themes and an avant-garde and Futurist orientation. If this sounds much like the textbook definition of “fascism” then, very well, I am a “fascist” in the true sense of the word — not in any way associated with the layman’s use of the word as some sort of pejorative against reactionary rightists who are, in no way, shape, or form, truly fascist.
Revolutionary, palingenetic, avant-garde, and Futurist politics — while of some importance in and of themselves — are, more fundamentally, the means to achieve certain ends. What are those ends? They are the preservation of our ultimate interests — the continuity and/or expansion of our unique genetic information (i.e., our genetic interests) — in the context of a sociopolitical system that will both ensure the long-term stability of those interests while providing the environment for Western man to express his true nature and reach for the stars. To the stars should be our goal — literally as well as figuratively — instead of to the gutter which is to where we are presently descending in this era of globalist multiracialism and multiculturalism.
An important part of my work is promoting, defending, extending, and integrating the fundamentally important work of Dr. Frank Salter on genetic interests, particularly ethnic genetic interests. Promoting is important since an unfortunate reality is that this work has been ignored by the people — including nationalist politicians and racialist activists — who need it the most. The scant attention Salter’s work has heretofore received has been in inverse relation to its world-historical importance. Defending the work is important because a mendacious group of individuals hostile to the ideals of TOQ have unfairly maligned Salter and his work; e.g., leftist “academics” (with “beautiful” mixed race relatives), Asian supremacists and their white puppets, etc. Extension is important because I, and others, see Salter’s work as incomplete without the inclusion of genetic structure into the equation. Finally, the work of Salter must be integrated into the philosophy of nationalism and ethnoracial identity. Here is where the whole Empiricism (e.g., Guessedworker) vs. Myth (e.g., O’Meara and Prozium) debate went off the tracks. This is a topic to be dealt with later; however, there is a misunderstanding perhaps between means and ends.
The ENDS in question are those described above, the preservation of European genotypes and the creation of environments where those genotypes, and the phenotypes resulting from those genotypes, can flourish. The MEANS to achieve those ends can be flexible and dependent upon context. For some individuals, rational empiricism will suffice. For many (most?) others, some sort of overarching “myth”– some type of inspiring, not purely materialistic worldview — is required to motivate to engage in the battle to achieve the ends in question. As long as a given type of “mean” does not harm the ultimate “ends” then whatever works is good. One must be careful — very careful — to ensure that means do not conflict with ends; thorough analysis is necessary. Any means, no matter how effective, that ultimately impair the achievement of the ends, are means that must be eschewed. But as long as the means truly do help achieve the ends, does it matter whether these means are “myth” or empiricism? It would be great if empirical rationalism could directly motivate; but the struggles to get people to digest the work of Salter suggests that the medicine of genetic interests must be sweetened with a healthy dose of “myth.” These two perspectives need not be incompatible.
I also promote a form of pan-European nationalism which is wholly compatible with narrower focused interests in nation and/or subrace. Here is where Barnes of the BNP is totally wrong. Barnes completely misrepresents what “white nationalism” is about. To him a Briton has the choice between either (1) being interested only in the British peoples without caring one whit about any other Europeans, or (2) being interested in all Europeans exactly equally and not caring if native Brits are replaced by Poles. That is absolute stupidity; nothing prevents a British “white nationalist” from having as his primary allegiance his own national ethny, but also having a strong interest in the well being of the European peoples as a whole. I certainly do not expect a BNP member to spend his time agonizing over ethnic competition between Russians and Chinamen in the Russian Far East; this activist has more pressing concerns in London, Liverpool, and Edinburgh. On the other hand, why should this activist be completely indifferent about whether Slavs or Mongolids prevail on the Amur? Why can’t a British activist invest his energies along a sliding scale of ethnoracial identity and genetic relatedness, with the most invested for his core ethny, but reserving a healthy portion for the greater race and civilization? And can’t guys like Barnes understand that enlightened self-interest mandates a less purely provincial attitude? How will the long term survival of the British peoples be better maintained — as part of a greater, white, European West, or as an isolated white island in a brown, black and yellow ex-”European” sea? Doesn’t it matter whether the nation across the channel is a white, western, French France, or if it is a non-white Third World Islamic Republic? There are none so blind and those who will not see — time for Barnes and cohorts to get Seeing Eye dogs.
Pan-European cooperation and solidarity need not be at odds with more restricted particularisms. Both the whole and all constituent parts of that whole need to be preserved and defended. This can, and should, be synergistic and not antagonistic.
I have other interests as well, but the major point here is that I wish to make the contributions that I am capable of, focusing on certain key issues such as genetic interests, nationalism, and politics, joining with others (e.g., MacDonald, Prozium, O’Meara) to create an intellectual Western nationalist vanguard to help save both race and civilization.
Source: TOQ Online, Sept. 21, 2009