Victory Conditions

I would like to propose victory conditions for our movement. For me, it's essentially this: a cultural revolution whereby genetic quality and homogeneity are recognized as self-evident social goods and goals in all of our countries.

Our views on history, political systems, and international relations essentially derive from this more fundamental postulate. The European is a creative breed: set the goal posts and he will do his darnedest. Even when, as in the case of Equality, the goal is actually impossible. How much more satisfied he will be when his unquenchable ambition is set upon something which is both achievable and elevating!

That genetic quality should be a goal should be self-evident for every person who claims to believe – as liberals do – in Darwinian evolution. In general, scientists have found that human physical and mental traits are about 50% heritable. This means there are limits on what can be achieved solely through education and upbringing. Whether we meet our potential is determined by one’s life trajectory, but that potential is genetically predetermined.

The liberal, especially the vulgar “I fucking love science” type, will typically be the most hysterical in claiming heredity has no public policy implications. That is intellectual incoherence and moral cowardice. If you have concerns about the consequences of eugenics, then tell us how best to move forward, but not deny that heredity has massive public policy implications.

Two-thousand-five-hundred years ago, the great Greek philosopher Plato argued that the composition of the gene pool was an obvious matter of public interest and that, in his ideal Republic, the ruling elite and people would breed themselves better over time, just as we have bred innumerable strains of plants and animals according to our goals and interests.

The value of genetic homogeneity is evident in the degree of cohesion in nations like Japan or Denmark, as opposed to the conflict and tensions evident in multiethnic societies.

This is a question of blood: if peoples can form one ethnic group, then their tribal instinct becomes a positive force, as they identify and are solidarity with one another. But, with genetic diversity, they cluster into different racial categories with different temperaments, different preferences, and no inter-ethnic solidarity.

Scientists recently showed that Denmark – Bernie Sanders’ favorite country – has (or had) “remarkable” genetic homogeneity. This homogeneity and the fact that a Jewish social democrat would cite such a Nordic country as his model, would not have surprised the world’s most famous Viennese café-conspirator.

Of course, I do not advise being more homogeneous than native Danes, as that would mean inbreeding depression. Systematic cousin-banging is a traditional Judaic and Islamic custom but certainly not a European one. As in everything, one must aim for the Aristotelian mean.

It goes without saying that in cultivating our genetic quality and homogeneity, our European identity must be preserved at all costs. As a rapidly-shrinking global minority, who ultimately face extinction, we Europeans must take our own side.

I also believe that our existence can be justified in universalist or Kantian terms. The Ancients believed that morality is in harmony with the laws of universal nature. And that nature does not stop at the borders of race and nation, even though, by their genetic and cultural specificities, these laws express themselves somewhat differently.

Practically, the fact is that the European peoples, from ancient times to today, have contributed more to civilization, culture, and science than all of the other peoples put together. I am not denying others’ contributions, particularly of the Chinese and Japanese, but it obviously follows that the preservation of European peoples is a supreme moral objective even from a universalist point of view.

Following the Kantian moral imperative, we ask: would the world be better off if all peoples cultivated their genetic quality and homogeneity?

The answer is obviously yes: the world would be smarter, there would be less civil conflict, and the chances of mankind escaping the surly bonds of Earth would be maximized.

In evolutionary terms, we can maximize European, and also mankind’s, survivability by pursuing genetic quality and genuine diversity. Species are best adapted when they have the best traits for their environment but also have, as a bonus, a wide variety of subspecies with various traits which might be useful for survival if circumstances change. Where we know what the best is, we pursue that, when we do not know, we allow for variety.

The “U.N.-World” proposed by the globalists would be an evil monoculture: one global economic and cultural space, the same socio-political norms, all nations (or at least ours) semi-blended into an ethnic mush with the usual stratification: Jews, East Asians, Whites, browns, and blacks. This system would be dominated by ethno-plutocratic elites – whoever has the perfect combination of social intelligence and hypocritical clannishness – all the while paying lip service to an impossible Equality. Hillary Clinton already embodies this today: owned by Wall Street banks, largely funded by Jewish oligarchs, and race-baiting blacks and Mestizos against the traditional majority.

Who is foolish enough to believe that Paul Krugman and his ilk consider White gentiles, let alone blacks and Mestizos, their “equals”?

The globalists’ world would be one without identity or solidarity, it would be a global favela, governed by nothing but envy, lies, and hypocrisy. And, actually, I believe that whatever the technological gains, this world would be bad for mankind’s survivability and ultimately unsustainable.

I propose Eurocentric Hereditarianism. Today, we chase after G.D.P. and Equality, tomorrow: the genetic and cultural cultivation of our people.

Even if we manage to impose genetic quality and homogeneity as fundamental goals of our society, that will not be enough. We must also vanquish individualism and egalitarianism, fancy words for personal selfishness and vanity. Hereditarian norms must be culturally hegemonic to such an extent that people care more about the well-being of future generations, especially genetic well-being, than about their empty caprices and their personal ego.

This will be the hardest part. With the free debate on the Internet, a very substantial subculture recognizing genetic realities is emerging. But will it have the will to really affirm these principles in the real world?

That will be much more difficult: we are talking about deciding, as a society, who has babies and how they have babies. One hundred years ago, life was still tough, and people were willing to countenance the ruthless imposition of their racial interests over both other races and their own community. Today, we have grown very soft and sentimental indeed.

In truth, the idea that the individual is more important than the whole is a modern piece of solipsism with no basis in tradition. Without the community, the individual dies, and that is that. Thus, when the public good and the individual good clash, the public must prevail. Even the men of the Enlightenment recognized this. Article I of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen states: “Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions can be founded only on the common good.” It is obvious that advocates of Jim Crow or the Nuremberg Laws believed their “social distinctions” were “founded on the common good.”

Or another example; the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights reads:

“Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.”

Well, suppose you were on a rough island able to support 100 people of reasonable intelligence. Would the State not be justified in regulating reproduction to prevent overpopulation and stultification? Or would, as today, individuals be “free” to mate blindly according to their instincts even if it means the destruction of the entire society?

I used to be very, very pessimistic about demographic developments in the sense that I believed them to be more-or-less irreversible and I could not countenance putting millions of people on boats. Today, I affirm two things:

1) The survival of our people must be pursued by whatever means necessary.

2) These means, with new technology, would not necessarily be “inhumane.”

William Shockley proposed voluntary sterilization of those with an IQ of less than 100 in exchange for cash. Steve Sailer has proposed a very humane “one-and-done” policy whereby people with bad genes can have only one child.

Recently, I have thought about the possibilities of embryo selection. Suppose you required all prospective parents to fertilize 10 or 20 embryos and then had them (actually, I don’t think they would need much prodding) choose the genetically most desirable one. William Pierce once said: “from mongrelization, there is no recovery.” But actually, I am not so sure. (A Dutch comrade, with perfectly northern Europe pallor, tells me he is one-sixteenth Indonesian.)

With such measures, and others I am sure, we can improve the gene pool generation by generation. And, rather than an essayist telling you that, we should have the best scientific minds of the entire European world working on this, so as to address the problems that would occur (e.g. excessive spread of harmful recessive genes). In any case, I doubt the Jews or the Chinese will wait for us.

In principle, non-Europeans also have some genes which it would be desirable for us to acquire, but I’ll not speculate on that.

Today, humans are increasingly coming to resemble a vast swarm of billions of hamster-locusts. Hamsters in the sense that we live in little boxes and are very comfortable, feeling very entitled to lodging, food, running water, flat-screen TVs, laptops, WiFi, etc. This logically ends in Bern Victims’ “Stoner Communism.” Locusts in the sense that, to maintain this basically subhuman lifestyle for every featherless biped on the planet – as is the goal of the United Nations – we are ravenously consuming our Earth’s natural resources with a downright Tanakhian contempt for the natural world of which we are a part.

This planet, mankind, and European man would all be better off with less and better humans. Even Africa would do OK if, instead of spawning to 4 billion, they were limited to their Talented Tenth.

The point is, that we need to both have the right ideas and be strong enough to impose these ideas in the face of individualism and egalitarianism. Once we get the trajectory right, we can proclaim victory, so long as we ensure that the European garden will be steadily cultivated and perfected from generation to generation. We would again have a home and a future. We would be psychologically healthier and more alive because our in-born emotional longing for tribe and spirit will be met by this Eurocentric civil-religion. Our people’s existence will be secure and we will again look to the future with hope. If this is done, we will work with eternity.