Among the central principles of neoreaction – one of the top two, I’d say – is that long-separated human populations differ, innately, in significant ways, and that human cultures, when correctly understood to be part of our extended phenotype, reflect this underlying biological variation.
If culture is phenotype, then it’s reasonable to expect that the well-being of any culture is affected, positively and negatively, by changes in the aggregate genotype of its host population. This was, not so long ago, perfectly uncontroversial among intelligent people, but it is a great heresy today.
Eppur si muove, however: heresy or no, this is indeed the way things are, and some of us still have eyes to see. One of them is Richard Lynn, who in this hour-long video gives an explanation of eugenics and dysgenics that you won’t be shown on PBS.
In the wake of the Swiss referendum on immigration, Patrick Buchanan comments on the awakening, now spreading like a brushfire throughout Europe, of an anti-universalist reaction that seeks to defend Europe’s ancient homelands from demographic and cultural extinction.
Foseti begins a long review of UR. Read the first installment here.
From Theden, a translation of a speech given last year by German center-right political activist Manfred Kleine-Hartlage.
It is not automatic, and it does not happen by chance, that people indeed manage to live together peacefully and orderly; it is an astonishing wonder that they do. Every culture is a fine network of thousands and thousands of largely unwritten rules, values, shared memories, shared beliefs. Every culture is a unique, specific answer to the question of how people do it, and when I say “unique”, then that means inevitably these answers vary: there are cultures in which the family clan and its unconditional cohesion is the basis of society, which protects individuals, and there are on the other hand individualistically-influenced cultures like ours, in which you trust the state and the laws to provide this protection, and which relies on everyone else doing the same. There are cultures in which the ability and willingness to use force has prestige value, and there are cultures like ours in which violence is outlawed. There are cultures in which yielding is considered a sign of weakness, and there are cultures like ours, in which conflicts are regarded as mere differences of opinion, which are at best discharged discursively and at worst in court.
Yet these other cultures do not necessarily work worse than ours, but just differently. Islam, for example, does what is needed to provide a cultural system: it organizes the society. But it organizes it differently than our Christian or Western system. The problem only begins where one locks together two, three, four or more different and incompatible cultures in the same country, so they are crammed together, but do not belong together.
In wanting and introducing a multi-ethnic state, society is put in the state of an (at least) latent civil war. In running this, the society falls into a permanent structural crisis that is constantly reinforced with progressive mass immigration, which stirs up conflicts, encourages vigilantism, destroys the social consensus of values, and destroys the conditions of social peace. He who teaches his own children peacefulness does so because of ethical values ultimately rooted in Christianity. Then forcing the thus peacefully behaved people to live together with others who come from cultures married to violence—such as that Nigerian—makes them specifically and systematically victimized. This invites an endless liability.
The 7500 Germans since 1990 who have become victims of immigrant violence are victims of a policy daring enough to destroy society: out of ideological blindness; out of greed for cheap, easily exploitable labor, whose situation is precarious at the same time, for the welfare state will collapse at the point of exhaustion (this one also a quite desirable result of mass immigration for certain circles); out of hatred for his own people, those damn Germans they want nothing to do with; and—not the least—out of lust for power. There is a reason why there are elites in all Western countries who carry out the destruction of peoples and their transformation into mere splintered “populations”: peoples are in fact solidarities that can also kick their rulers out. The battle cry with which the rule of the SED [the Soviet-installed Socialist ruling party of East Germany] was overthrown 23 years ago did not read “We are the population.” It read: “We are the people!” A mere population, consisting of dozens of warring ethnicities, will never overthrow the ruler. They cannot. A democracy needs its demos. A despotism on the other hand, a dictatorship, a totalitarian regime—yes, such a thing needs a population.
The destruction of the people is one side of the same coin, to which the other side is the transfer of their rights to supranational institutions: to the EU, the WTO, the IWF, the NATO, the UN and dozens else—all institutions that cannot be controlled from below, but that determine our lives: that dictate to us the rules by which we live, and dictate to us which foods we should eat, which people we have to live together with in our country, against whom we must go to war, and into what inscrutable bank-conglomerate our tax dollars disappear.
What is here in the making as understood is a global despotism of elites who resist any responsibility and any control. And the systematically induced mass migration, this largest mass migration in 1500 years—when this migration of peoples led to the collapse of Roman civilization—is part of this process.
Against today’s events it has been argued, the People’s Mourning Day is dedicated to the mourning of German war victims, and crime victims were indeed not war victims. And I say: They are just that! They are victims of a war that is being waged against all the peoples of Europe, not only against the Germans.
Read the rest here.
Scott Alexander’s Anti-Reactionary FAQ — which, by actually attempting a serious critique of neoreaction, distinguishes itself from the usual point-and-sputter responses and cries of ‘Racist!’ — deserves, and has begun to get, some thoughtful replies from reactionary bloggers. Nick Steves of The Reactivity Place has aggregated some links, here, and Scharlach, of Habitable Worlds, has responded also, here.
A particularly focused response came from Michael Anissimov, here, in which he addresses Scott Alexander’s depiction of the Austrian monarchy as unstable. See also his preliminary response, here.
Visitors are invited to post additional links in the comment thread. Mr. Alexander’s post is substantial enough that it behooves us to collect our responses somewhere for the benefit of curious readers.
Apologies to all. Conflicting obligations have delayed us. We will begin shortly, first with links to relevant posts, then with original content.
A subterranean convocation, beneath the foundations of the Cathedral.