Counter-Currents
Foreword to Greg Johnson’s New Right vs. Old Right
Kevin MacDonald
2,942 words
French translation here, Spanish translation here
Perhaps it’s best to start off with what New Right vs. Old Right is not. Greg Johnson does not assail his readers with statistics to prove the Jewish role in the decline and impending fall of whites in America and elsewhere. He does not discuss the corruption of the media and the academic world and how they got that way. He does not discuss data on race differences in IQ and criminality to explain the behavior of non-white America. He doesn’t aim to refute the current mantra that race is nothing more than a social construct designed to provide white people with unearned privilege.
Those intellectual battles are over, and we have won, although the mainstream media and academic world continue to promulgate cultural Marxist blather as if it were a set of truths set in stone. The starting point for NRvOR is that the media, the academic world, and the political process are hopelessly corrupt. So where do we go from here?
Greg Johnson’s basic point is that we must work to create a metapolitics of explicit white identity—that is, a movement that will develop “the intellectual and cultural foundations for effective White Nationalist politics in North America, so that we can ultimately create a white homeland or homelands on this continent.”
Greg is one of the reasons why I think this is a feasible project. A very great reason for optimism is that there are so many intelligent, well-spoken people who “get it”—who understand that whites around the world are in decline and that there will be dire consequences if whites are unable to establish white homelands. People like Greg Johnson are part of a hugely important trend. I have recently met a great many young, intelligent, well-educated, and well-spoken people at conferences dedicated to activism on behalf of the interests of white America—the exact opposite of the image of uneducated, violent males sporting swastikas and missing a couple of teeth that has been so carefully crafted by our hostile elites.
Despite growing up with a constant barrage of multicultural, anti-white propaganda beginning in elementary school, these individuals understand that at this point America is an unfolding disaster as whites are increasingly displaced throughout the economic and political spectrum. They are acutely aware that whites are a minority of births in America and that whites will be a minority within their lifetimes—a minority with diminished prospects and increasingly victimized by the non-white majority, many of whom retain historical grudges against white America. It is very likely that the America of the future will be beset with chronic conflict among different racial/ethnic groups. The idea that America or the West can avoid such conflicts as their societies become ever more factionalized is magical and utopian.
The goal, therefore, is not, a “supremacism” that is in any way invidious. Rather, “the best way to ensure peace and good will among peoples and preserve human racial, cultural, and religious diversity is to give each distinct group a homeland where it can live and develop according to its own distinct nature and destiny.”
This is an attitude that seems to me to be pervasive in the white advocacy movement. It at once defuses a very effective bit of rhetoric of the Left—repeated with predictable regularity by organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center. We are white advocates, people who, as Greg phrases it in several places following Michael Polignano, “take our own side” in issues of racial/ethnic conflict. And in taking our own side, we are doing exactly what racial/ethnic groups have done from time immemorial. No one accuses the Koreans of “Korean supremacism” for adopting policies aimed at retaining Korean demographic and cultural predominance. And imagine the horror by Western elites at a proposal to flood African countries with whites so that native Africans cease to be a political majority.
Make no mistake about it. The policies that are making whites minorities in lands they have dominated for hundreds or (in the case of Europe) thousands of years are not driven by utopian dreams of a raceless future, except among gullible, intimidated whites. The non-whites who are so enthusiastically embracing the decline of white political and cultural power are driven by hatred toward whites as a people and as a culture. This is a major theme of my writing on Jewish influence, and apparent as well in a host of non-white intellectuals and activists.
Greg Johnson received his Ph.D. in philosophy, and it shows. His forte is the well-developed argument presented in a lucid, easily understood style. There will be no complaints about this book being filled with turgid prose. And I can’t find any major disagreements.
I was particularly struck by several points. For example, unlike the European New Right, Greg is an advocate of white racial nationalism:
insofar as the breakdown of European national identities and the blending of European stocks in our North American context forces us (1) to give greater place to biological race and other deep roots of common European identity, and (2) to put greater emphasis on the Jewish question, given the role of American Jewry in promoting anti-white policies both in the United States and in white countries worldwide.
Right. As a biologist, there is always the tendency to see matters like race as a decontextualized matter. DNA, after all, is DNA. But American whites are indeed a very intermixed lot—a successful example of a European melting pot. In effect, we have created a new biological reality not present in any European country.
Nevertheless, we must remember that Europeans are in general closely related biologically, particularly in the north and east of Europe, as recent data continue to show. Indeed,
typical pairs of individuals drawn from across Europe have a good chance of sharing long stretches of [identical genes] by descent, even when they are separated by thousands of kilometers. We can furthermore conclude that pairs of individuals across Europe are reasonably likely to share common genetic ancestors within the last 1,000 years, and are certain to share many within the last 2,500 years.[1]
The white race is indeed a biological as well as a cultural reality. This biological reality forms a powerful basis for a scientifically based understanding of a commonality of interests wherever whites are living, whether in Europe or in the European diaspora.
And, yes, although the organized Jewish community has pursued the same set of policies favoring displacement-level immigration and multiculturalism throughout the West, Jewish influence varies in different Western societies. This brings up the need for developing a good model of cultural diffusion within the West. For example, academic culture is self-consciously international. If indeed the main impetus for the leftward shift is Jewish involvement in the Left beginning in the United States with the movements described in The Culture of Critique, it is not at all surprising that this culture spread to other areas with less Jewish influence given the pre-eminence of the U.S. in the post-World War II Western world. An aspiring academic in, say, Norway or Finland, who subscribes to a White Nationalist worldview would find himself ostracized from international academic societies, while countrymen who subscribed to the reigning cultural Marxism would find international recognition.
The same phenomenon occurs in the political realm, as, for example, when Austrian politician Jörg Haider joined a coalition government in 2000. This resulted in huge international pressure, with EU member states refusing to cooperate with the Austrian government and Israel withdrawing its ambassador. The assault on the Golden Dawn party in Greece is a more recent example. Any Western government that opposed continued immigration and multiculturalism would be subjected to similar pressures.
The culture of Western suicide exists throughout the white world, and dominating the most powerful country in the West goes a very long way to dominating the entire Western world, particularly given the fact that Jews often control media even in countries with very tiny Jewish populations, as with the Bonnier family in Norway and Sweden.
Greg does not shy away from discussing difficult issues having to do with National Socialism, supporting the ideal of an organic, hierarchical, meritocratic society dedicated to advancing the interests of whites and rejecting “party politics, totalitarianism, terrorism, imperialism, and genocide.”
I agree entirely. It’s a very good strategy to confront such issues head-on rather than to leave them to be discussed solely by our enemies. It’s the same with the holocaust. The holocaust is simply not important for white advocacy, and whatever happened is not the responsibility of any living whites; it’s something that must be simply “stepped over,” to use Jonathan Bowden’s felicitous phrase. Even if the holocaust were proved to have never occurred to the satisfaction of one and all, there is more than enough resentment by Jews about their past in Europe and the United States to fuel the hostility toward the West that has been such a prominent feature of the organized Jewish community and so many influential Jewish individuals. The reality of Jews as a hostile elite aiming to displace white elites throughout the West would not change at all.
I should think that it would be uncontroversial that the white advocacy movement must be metapolitical, since there is a crying need to build up a self-confident, prideful culture than can eventually become mainstream. Greg’s argument that it is premature to pursue nationalist party politics—that at this point the money can be better used in education and organizing—will be more controversial. The question is whether these are really incompatible goals and, as Greg rightly notes, “We share the same broad aims, but we differ as to the best means of achieving them. We need to acknowledge these differences frankly, then divide our camp and pursue our common aims by the various paths that seem best to us.” Different ways should be attempted in the hope that eventually something will work. In the meantime, we must be as inclusive as possible.
In fact, nationalist parties have made substantial headway in Europe, and many observers are expecting a significant representation of nationalist parties to result from the 2014 European Parliament elections. With increasing success, the messages of these parties have inevitably become more widely known. Significantly, these parties have not developed with an explicitly pro-white or pro-ethnic nationalism agenda, but have rather attempted to stay under the radar of political correctness on race and on Jewish influence, basing themselves on an implicit ethnic nationalism that opposes immigration and multiculturalism for a whole host of reasons apart from the danger of ethnic swamping that is in fact lurking in the background. Not surprisingly, these messages are often most effective with the white working class, the group that has suffered the most from the immigration tsunami.
Indeed, I believe that model of change that I think most probable is that the revolution will begin in Europe with the success of one of these parties, particularly if it occurs in a pivotal country like France where there is a clear possibility that the Front National will obtain power, and in a context where other nationalist parties have substantial representation in other areas of Europe so that an effective countermovement of isolation and ostracism cannot develop. I think we are rapidly approaching such a situation now. Compared to America, Europe has the advantage of very ancient cultures and identities that are mortally endangered by this new dispensation. Once such a party gains power, then more explicit messages of ethnic and racial interests may become more acceptable, paving the way for more the dissemination of a theoretical framework based explicitly on ethnic interests.
I worry that in the absence of near-term political goals, a purely metapolitical movement is in danger of being a detached inward-looking, even self-serving elite. For one thing, the Left is completely in control of the academic scene and very actively— indeed passionately—polices any deviation from political correctness. This is quite unlike the situation in American universities where Franz Boas was able to control academic anthropology by the early 20th century, and several of the New York Intellectuals obtained positions at elite universities well before 1960. This is a very formidable barrier to the spread of an elite culture of white identity given the close relationship between universities and intellectual life in the West. There was no complaint from the academic world when the 1965 immigration law opened up immigration to the United States to all peoples of the world. Indeed, in several Western countries, Australia comes to mind, the movement to open up immigration to non-whites originated in the universities.
Even in America, with so many barriers against us, political action inside or outside the context of the electoral process could be a positive force for change. Americans need to see noisy, intelligent, attractive, committed white people marching in the street with signs opposed to immigration, multiculturalism, and the strident ethnic politics of other groups; there is a need for a steady drumbeat of political advertising where pro-white themes, whether explicitly white or not, are repeated over and over to the point that they become part of the furniture of life even if winning elections remains a distant goal.
Such movements may be particularly important for whites with less education who may be turned off by an elite culture of white identity. The white working class in fact has been the prime loser in the cultural changes promoted by our hostile elites. A great many of them are angry and, with less to lose than so many well-educated whites, they are an important natural constituency.
In any case, I wholeheartedly agree that we have to be open to a diversity of approaches.
Greg’s essay, “The Moral Factor,” raises the important issue of moral motivation which I think is an aspect of Western uniqueness. One does not see Chinese people agonizing over the fact that the Han Chinese greatly expanded their territory at the expense of other peoples. Nor does one see the Bantu peoples of Africa worrying about the ethics of displacing other African peoples as they spread far and wide from their homeland in Central Africa, including into South Africa where their treatment at the hands of white South Africans became Exhibit A for white evil during the apartheid era; nor do the Bantu-speaking peoples agonize about the widespread practice of slavery in Africa. Arabs do not apologize about their conquests in the name of Islam or their centuries-old role in slavery and the slave trade. As Greg notes, the Spaniards have apologized for the Reconquista that expelled the Muslims from Spain, but there are no apologies from the Muslims for the Conquista.
Whites are the only people to abolish slavery, and a great many of the activists and the fundamental popular sentiments so crucial in the ultimate victory over slavery were motivated by moral idealism, including especially empathy for slaves.[2] They did so despite very real costs to many individuals and to society as a whole, and all this occurred before the rise of the Jewish hostile elite. Indeed, this unique characteristic of whites is exploited by Jewish intellectuals for their own hateful ends. My basic theory is that this is a holdover of Northern European hunter-gatherer culture, where one’s status in a group is based on reputation for moral behavior (honesty, fair dealing) rather than on kinship relations—an aspect of Western individualism.
So I agree that “even if White Nationalism is politically meaningful, people will resist it if they think it is immoral. But they will move heaven and earth to establish white homelands if they think it is the right thing to do.” We must win the moral battle. The problem is that “our people overwhelmingly believe that our cause is unjust.” And yet, the moral argument for white survival is obvious and compelling. Fundamentally, our basic survival as a people and as a culture are threatened. As Greg notes, “the present system is not merely anti-white, it is genocidally anti-white.”
That’s enough for me to mark the present system as utterly depraved morally. It is profoundly immoral to inflict multiculturalism upon the white populations of the West, given that ethnic conflict is absolutely predictable, based upon everything we know of the bloody history of ethnically divided societies. This is especially the case given that support for multiculturalism and support for their own demographic and political eclipse have never been majority views among whites. Whether in Australia or New Zealand, North America or Europe—in every case throughout the West, immigration and multi-culturalism have been projects of media, academic, and political elites. These changes have been top-down, not at all bottom-up.
We must pay more attention to the morality of infringing upon the legitimate rights and interests of the white majority. Everyone has rights and everyone has interests. The interests and rights of whites as a majority are no less morally legitimate than those of any other group. Whites must jettison the ideal of moral universalism and ask what is good for the future of whites.
On the basis of this collection of essays, Greg Johnson has a compelling vision of the impending disaster facing the people and culture of the West and what we can do about it right now. It is presented in a highly readable, well-argued manner that at once shows the power and confidence of the developing metapolitical culture of a Western renaissance. I wholeheartedly recommend it.
January 15, 2014
Note: Greg Johnson’s New Right vs. Old Right is available for purchase here.
Notes
1. Ralph Peter and Graham Coop, “The Geography of Recent Genetic Ancestry across Europe,” PLOS Biology, vol. 11, no. 5 (May 7, 2013): e1001555. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.100155
2. Kevin MacDonald, “Empathy and Moral Universalism as Components of White Pathology: The Movement to Abolish Slavery in England,” The Occidental Quarterly, vol. 13, no. 2 (Summer 2013), pp. 39–63.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
11 comments
In the above, Kevin MacDonald wrote that “unlike the European New Right, Greg is an advocate of white racial nationalism.” With all due respect, this seems to indicate a sort of misinterpretation of the nature of the European New Right in regards to the issue of race. The ENR – in its most important thinkers, at least – does in fact give a significant focus to the matter of race and to the racial inter-relatedness of the various European and European-derived peoples, and thus also to the racial (not solely the ethnic and cultural) basis of seperatism. Likewise, they have a very pan-European perspective and are opposed to narrow ethnic nationalism because they recognize the importance of the fact that Europeans as a whole are not only racially but also culturally related (although simultaneously value is to be placed on smaller regional and ethnic identities, which are not to be ignored). The only real difference between the Europeans and the Americans on this matter is that the latter tend to ignore the significance of smaller ethnic differences and think more in terms of being simply white (in the sense that European also think about being white, but they simultaneously think in terms of their cultural identity as well).
The solidarity of European nationalistic movements, of which you speak, is real (to some extent- how about that between Serbs and Croats or Romanians and Hungarians ? no such thing) it is real but it does not comes from racial solidarity. It comes from the recognition that these European ethnic mono-cultures have to set aside their old grudges and attempts to dominate each other so as to face the present “external threat” of being individually/each of them/ erased by the forces of economic globalization and the wave of immigration in Europe.
It is a solidarity between national cultures/ethnic groups not between individuals.It is based on the self-interest of each European ethnic-national group to survive as such (as an ethnic-cultural group) not based on racial solidarity.
In US the goal is different : to create a ethnic-national group out of the white-racial group.A group formed from people which have lost their original ethnic-european identities and don’t have much of a distinct ethnic culture; or history, apart of the civil war when they fought each other for the freedom of the blacks (?!).You want to start the process which happened during the 19th century Europe with all ethnic groups: “”national awakening”.
It does not mean that race doesn’t matter for the Europeans.What happens now is driven as it is driven but may very well end up as white-racial pan-european because as the global context becomes more and more pressing the differences between them will appear to be less important when compared to those between any of them and the non-whites.
First of all, most of what people think of generally as the European nationalist movements do not compose the European New Right; they are two distinct groups. Do people here understand what the “New Right” actually is? That term is a reference to a particular movement (mainly intellectual and metapolitical, although with certain political branches as well), not to old-fashioned nationalist movements, which are what Greg Johnson calls “Old Right” (when we say “New Right”, you’re supposed to think of, say, GRECE or Terre et Peuple, not something like the Croatian “Ustase”). Concerning the negative qualities which these nationalist movements possess, it is true that many of them were and still are chauvinistic and based on hostility to other European nations and ethnicities (although we should always keep in mind that there are some exceptions). However, the European New Right recognizes these problems in nationalism and correctly denounces them. Their key thinkers also strongly stress the racial and cultural connections and solidarity between Europeans and reject all forms of narrow nationalism, as I have said before; they recognize the importance of smaller cultural and ethnic identities simultaneously with the importance of a greater pan-European identity. Do I really need to quote somebody or have you read nothing of the works of Alain de Benoist, Guillaume Faye, Pierre Krebs, Tomislav Sunic, or Dominique Venner (the key thinkers of the New Right)?
In its latter part this foreword touches one of the topics I find more important. One that is often neglected: the complex and deep relationship of mutual influence between culture and genetic interests, what is sometimes called the dual-inheritance theory or, better yet, coevolution. In particular, the importance of the implicit collective morals to the genetic interests of a given population.
What is culture? A phenotypic device that provides the phenotype with a boost in behavioral plasticity. That boost makes the individual organism much more adaptive.
Culture can be maladaptive in the short term (it’s not rare to find instances of such situations) but, in the long term, it always tends to align with the genetic interests of its carriers.
As it was predicted by several great theorists, modern culture is so fragmented and changes so fast, that there appear great gaps of alignment between memes and genes, culture and genetic interests.
In particular, in any given group the collective morals are the kernel of the cultural system: what is allowed and what not. What is to be rewarded and how. What is to be repressed and by which mechanisms, or penalties. Social shame. Social pressure. Social rewards. Status. The human primate is the status-seeking machine par excellence.
Our current morals, which can be basically described as universalist egalitarian individualism, are profoundly maladaptive for the novel environments we’re currently living in. They might be adaptive in past environments, but they are not positive anymore.
Our current morals repress any kind of ethnocentrism, even the milder forms. Our current morals state the higher social status of those that show support for the most self-damaging policies, like massive foreign colonizations, because it is the highest form of self-negation. Our current morals actively induce the individuals to extreme forms of exogamy that dissolve the populations they’re part of -ethnocide- and leave them alone and powerless as atomized and uprooted individuals, deprived of any defined identity.
Outbreeding depression? Parental kinship? What’s that?
Thus, it’s been my opinion for the last years that we should be specially focused on the transformation of the implicit collective morals. We have to denounce as repulsive and inmoral any self-damaging case of moral universalism, egalitarianism or individualism. We have to change the direction of the social shaming mechanisms. Economic or political treason, mongrelization or excessive individualism should be socially shamed and considered repulsive behaviors, something beyond the pale.
I would really like to see the informed use of the wealth of information that Anthropology, in particular Evolutionary Anthropology (and Evolutionary Biology as a whole), has been providing for the last five decades or so. Mainly in the area of the evolution of human moral systems and the different cultural strategies followed by different ethnic groups worldwide, through History, to survive and thrive. Who’s part of the group and who is not. Ethnic solidarity (rewards) and retaliation (costs of departure). Etc.
I’m really looking forward to getting a print edition of this book. And who knows, maybe Dr Johnson could go on a speaking tour to promote it…?
Thanks so much, but I think a speaking tour is impossible given lack of the necessary time or funds.
Greg, I would come see you on a speaking tour. I’m sure you’d love to do an engagement in the Detroit area. Just kidding. I hope you’re doing well Greg.
Lucian Tudor: “the European nationalist movements do not compose the European New Right”
You can choose to say that such or such European organization is new right or old hat, but I don’t suppose there is an official organization that calls itself “the European New Right”.
“when we say “New Right”, you’re supposed to think of, say, GRECE or Terre et Peuple”
But they are not so much European as French. And also, the GRECE organization was founded 50 years ago, so, it is no longer new. I wonder what was new about them in the first place. Maybe they had fresh views by comparison to the phony conservatives?
“the works of Alain de Benoist, Guillaume Faye, Pierre Krebs, Tomislav Sunic, or Dominique Venner (the key thinkers of the New Right)”
But all of them have different views. Guillaume Faye is a racialist who seems to say there is no problem with the Jews. Dominique Venner seemed to have a problem with Christianity, more than with the Jews. The other day, I read a recent text by Pierre Krebs (Le sens de notre combat), published at TerreEtPeuple.com. He is on our side. He is a racialist who knows about the Jews. The same can be said about Sunic.
The main problem is Alain de Benoist, because he is the most famous representative of the French new right. I know little about the GRECE organization, but I guess there are two main elements to it: the high-brow attitude, and the racialist attitude. We find the two same things in Greg Johnson’s Counter-Currents. Of course, there are many ways to go about it. The intellectual approach has some good sides. It is more prestigious, more civilized, and it is intellectually satisfying in itself. Maybe it is more conducive to debate than the Stormfront forum approach. It may be better to convince some kinds of people. In some circles, it can be used as a stealth approach. But you don’t need to be an intellectual to resist race-replacement.
I guess people like to read Alain de Benoist because he is an entertaining intellectual with a free mind. But in the end, he seems more interested in having intellectual discussions than in saving the White race. He is known for his put-downs directed at anti-replacist activists. He has been criticized for that by Hervé Ryssen. Ryssen is very useful because he has common sense and has done a lot of reading. So you only need to read his reviews of other people’s books, and you can skip the books themselves. The problem is that you have to quickly make a copy of every new article he writes on a blog before Jewish activists manage to get the blog shut down. Anyway, I found a text in French where he quotes A.de Benoist. For example: “Même si l’on parvient à freiner l’immigration, la vaste majorité des immigrés qui vivent aujourd’hui dans les pays occidentaux y demeureront. Ceux qui soutiennent le contraire se bercent d’illusions”. (Even if we manage to slow down immigration, the vast majority of immigrants who live today in Western countries will stay there). In that article, Ryssen describes A.de Benoist as the guru of French Nationalists of the pagan persuasion, largely steeped in national-socialist ideology.
If A.de Benoist thinks the aliens can never be sent back home, that makes him a kind of French cousin to the citizenist Steve Sailer, who is similarly known for his ability to “discuss our global disaster as if it were entomology.”
Armor: “You can choose to say that such or such European organization is new right or old hat, but I don’t suppose there is an official organization that calls itself “the European New Right”.”
That is irrelevant. What we call the “European New Right” (ENR) is not an organization, it’s a general movement across the whole continent (which actually has spread to the Americas and Australia as well) that involves multiple organizations and people.
Armor: “But they are not so much European as French. And also, the GRECE organization was founded 50 years ago, so, it is no longer new. I wonder what was new about them in the first place. Maybe they had fresh views by comparison to the phony conservatives?”
No, they began in France, but they now have influence and branches in other European nations, and they are all inter-connected and communicate with each other too. The works of GRECE authors are translated into numerous European languages and published by local “New Right” types of publishers and organizations. And I thought it was obvious that Terre et Peuple has a branch in Spain called Tierra y Pueblo (although it has some influence in other countries too), but I guess I shouldn’t assume that is obvious for people who don’t do their research. I have no intention of discussing organizations and influences in-depth because there is too much data to list out. The term “New Right” is something we use out of convenience, but it designates a movement which has a clear set of common ideas and principles that can be distinguished from other Right-wing ideological groups (this has been clearly explained not only by myself in past comments, but also by Sunic, O’Meara, and certain ENR authors).
Armor: “But all of them have different views. Guillaume Faye is a racialist who seems to say there is no problem with the Jews. Dominique Venner seemed to have a problem with Christianity, more than with the Jews. The other day, I read a recent text by Pierre Krebs (Le sens de notre combat), published at TerreEtPeuple.com. He is on our side. He is a racialist who knows about the Jews. The same can be said about Sunic. The main problem is Alain de Benoist, because he is the most famous representative of the French new right.”
They have different views on certain matters, yes, but this is all very superficial. Oftentimes, even people within the same ideological group have differing views, including groups that one imagines are relatively uniform; White Nationalists, for example, sometimes have more disagreements with each other than any of the ENR authors listed above. Furthermore, as I have pointed out before, despite their disagreements, all have very similar and closely related essential ideas and values on the matters of ethnicity, race, political organization, democracy, and “organic economy”.
For example, you say that Krebs and Sunic are on “our side”, but you would realize that Alain de Benoist is actually very similar to Sunic and Krebs if you read more of his works and reflected on them. Anyone who can read or research Benoist’s works in more depth than is available in English (i.e. you would have to resort to looking at German, Italian, Spanish, or French books) will see that Krebs draws nearly his entire philosophy from Benoist, including the racialist portion. It is actually also very similar with Faye as well, even though Faye diverges on some matters (like his rather ridiculous vision of a “two-tier economy”). It may seem like Benoist downplays the importance of race – and he does to an certain extent, I will not deny that – but if you research more you will see that he is still a racialist who cares very much about the white race just like the others. As for the matter of Jews, I have no intention to discuss that with you because although I have no love for Jews, we have diverging views on the matter, but I will also remind you that there are even some American White Nationalists who even argue that Jews are white and should be accepted entirely.
Concerning the matter of the “intellectual approach”, you do not realize that that is only a fraction of the total activity to change the present social and political order. All ENR organizations engage in intellectual activity of some sort because it is necessary to create the proper philosophical foundations and support for a world-view and also necessary to convince certain people. However, the ENR does not reduce itself to pure “intellectualism”; metapolitics involves, by definition, not only intellectual activity to spread values and ideas but also speeches, journalism, and various propaganda to reach common people. Also, it is absurd to separate racialism from intellect, when in our times racialism relies on intellectuals for its own philosophical and scientific justification.
Finally, as for Alain de Benoist and the issue of immigration, I have heard of this problem very often. I agree that the notion of leaving non-white immigrants on European land permanently is absurd, even if they live separated/segregated in their own territories, which is what you might think Benoist is advocating (and it does seem like that superficially). However, knowing his thought well enough I believe that that is in reality not the case. He argues that at the moment we cannot simply deport all the immigrants out of our nations, but I believe this only addresses his view of our situation based on our current political conditions. In other words, I am sure that for the future, when Right-wing Identitarian states are more prevalent, Benoist would whole-heartedly support the complete removal of non-white immigrants to Africa and Asia. Under our current conditions, of course, I can understand why someone would think that it is too difficult economically and politically to do a complete and rapid deportation, but pointing this out does not necessarily mean that a person is satisfied with leaving European land occupied forever.
Surely any White Nationalists who think Jews are White are an Enemy within – to be isolated and outed.
Off-topic: there is something funny about that PLOS study. I know I’m not the first one to point it out, but anyway I couldn’t resist the temptation…
Please, take a look at the “I” grouping (Iberia plus Italy). In particular, take a look at the Table 2.
If you lump together Spain and Portugal, the “other” coefficient is aproximately of 0.5. It is, indeed, similar to the one of Italy, but also to the figures for France or Switzerland (as a whole) and close to Belgium, or Ireland.
On the other hand, the “self” coefficient is roughly 1.6. That’s a big departure from the 0.6 for the italian península.
Elsewhere in the study the authors acknowledge this reality. For example, they explicitly note that while Italy shows a significant inner substructure, Hispania doesn’t. The common ancestry within the Iberian Peninsula is far higher than within Italy.
Why did they, then, lump together in the group I both areas?
It is not a big deal in itself, but this spurious cluster diminishes the usefulness of other tables and graphs.
Besides that, it shows some amount of intellectual laziness. It almost feels like the authors didn’t want to create too many groups, forcing the graphs and tables to get more complex in the process, so they just decided to lump together two zones in a pretty much arbitrary way.
“They’re southern. They’re peninsulas. They talk similar. The first letter is “I”. Enough. Let’s group them up.”
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment