The Trump Aesthetic

“Or are there multiple white nations?”

Yes of course.

“How many?”

Consult a map.

“Where do you draw the lines?”

Consult a map.

“The easiest way to smoke out a white leftist is to talk about white racial consciousness for the sake of physically removing non-whites.”

Following that metric is what led white vaishyas to put progressives in power in the first place. Nobody yelled later about white racial superiority in the late 1800s than progressives. How’d that work out for you guys? Enjoying that $15,000 house?

What you are trying to do here is yelling at your master, hoping he’ll stop letting the other slaves beat you and go back to the arrangement where you beat them. But in your heart you still love and revere your master. It’s pretty pathetic the lengths you’re going to here to defend white leftists.

>Not everything, but most things.

This is not what WNists believe. Rank-and-file, maybe, but certainly not the intellectuals. A white society where you needn’t worry about outside racial influence is a “step towards” solving all the problems – it’s not a panacea and it’s misleading to present it as such.

>If Russians are white and the Portuguese are white, then “white nationalists” believe them to belong to the “white nation”. Or are there multiple white nations?

Personally, I dislike the term white-“nationalist” exactly for this reason. To answer your question and dispel the ambiguities, there is one white race, divided into several clusters (sub-races) of proximate-ethnicities, made-up of distinct ethnicities. For instance: white –> Slav –> Belorussian. I’ve no desire to split-hairs autistically about definitions and categories, but this is generally a useful division. We can say that, if the white race means indigenous Europeans, broadly speaking, then Sardinians and Don Cossacks are the same race. Obviously, not the same ethnicity or nation.

At this point the interlocutor usually pulls out a dumb strawman in the likeness of “well then, you support having Cossacks in Sardinia, ergo you’re a retard”. No, I don’t support having Cossacks in Sardinia. Globalism is abhorrent. Because I’m such a big fan of diversity, which is not only “good”, but is also a “strength”, I believe that different European ethnicities should have their own separated territories free of foreigners. That’s real diversity.

However, let’s not go full-retard in the other direction. While Spaniards belong in Spain and *not* in Britain, it’s not Spaniards who pose the greatest racial-genetic threat to Britain. It’s the non-white darkies. Therefore, we’re treading a thin line between European inter-ethnic solidarity (against muds) and local ethno-nationalist patriotism.

>Where do you draw the lines? Where do the other white nationalists draw the lines? Is everybody drawing the same lines? (lol)

I won’t give you clearly-delineated demarcations; if you can’t live with a certain degree of arbitrariness, if not murkiness, then you should check your autism levels, which are so high, that shouldn’t even be possible. Or to put it with less bombast: the Portuguese knows that he isn’t a Greek, but whether or not both belong to “the Mediterranean race” is not something either of them are particularly interested in debating, until something happens which awakens them to this reality. When they see a tall blond Scandinavian, the Portuguese and the Greek sense that they have something in common. And when the 3 of them see a feral nigger – likewise.

>The right reasons are that the genetic components of “whiteness”, the “whiteness quotient”, if you will, of a person or people, is the cumulative result of strong natural selection for the suite of traits that make societies great.

Okay. Well, the selection has already occurred, right? I mean, it’s still happening, evolution never ceases, but the European race, the white race, has already acquired its distinct features and aspects, having been shaped by millennia of glaciation and glacial retreat in Europe, so this “suite of traits that make societies great” is already engraved into the DNA of whites. Logically, then, what has accumulated for so long, eventually allowing whites to build great societies, should not be disposed-of nonchalantly. Thus, whiteness must not be compromised, because whiteness has endured 50,000 years so it could become truly great, which it did.

>No, if you’re an eugenicist whose epistemic foundation really is natural selection, “good” genes are defined as those genes you have and “bad” genes are defined as those genes you don’t have, and your “favor” of the people around you goes down in accordance with your genetic interrelatedness.

Peppermind is more hardcore than I am. He sees whiteness as intrinsically holy. I see whiteness as matter-of-factly superior. Hence, I want to locate and delete the gay genes, while he doesn’t.

Anyway, when you climb down to the local scale, interrelatedness-based-favor makes sense, and a German, for instance, is perfectly justified in his ethno-nationalist patriotism, not because Germans are objectively superior, but because “that’s what I am, so that’s what I like” (just as you don’t need to believe that your own family is objectively superior in order to always side with it vis-a-vis other families – you see it as intrinsically dearer than other families, and that’s that).

You can apply the same thinking to the entire race, and love, even worship, whiteness for whiteness’ sake – not due to civilizational supremacy. There is some merit to this approach, but as you say, I am “a carrier of liberal, universalistic principles”, so, to borrow from Nick Land’s twitter: I’d rather admire England for having produced Shakespeare, than admire Shakespeare because he was English. Tribe-wide collective narcissism makes sense, to a certain degree. Race-wide collective narcissism is “too much” for my tastes. In practice, the differences between the two approaches herein outlined aren’t that great. Both agree that whiteness is essential, but for different reasons.

My “mild” approach is close to Jim’s, though he is obviously much more of “a carrier of liberal, universalistic principles”, see his pronouncements regarding Asians and Jews. Okay, you want autistic hair-splitting, got it:

-Peppe: whiteness for whiteness’ sake. Period.
-Me: whiteness, because it’s matter-of-factly superior in terms of civilization-building.
-Jim: whiteness isn’t all that important, Asians too are great civilization builders, and Ashkenazim are also fine.

It’s good to put in print our differences.

>On the other hand, if you’re an “idealist” eugenicist (which you are) you just define whatever ideals you want and then select based on those criteria.

See the above paragraphs. I take an intermediate approach between Jim’s almost pure “idealistic” conception of the “whiteness quotient” and peppermint’s pure interrelatedness-based-epistemology, to use your terminology. Or perhaps I’m just a more white-supremacist version of Jim – dunno.

>Natural selection is all against all, each individual and group at each wavelength of the full-spectrum existential struggle taking on its nearest competitor, the greatest threat to its continued existence…
>a pregnant mother is waging a full-on battle against her unborn child

You can’t discount shared genes and genetic proximity. Yes, the mother and the fetus are in a temporary state of struggle – but ending it by a successful parturition is in the interest of both parties. Or, I may want to receive a larger share of the lunch meal than my dear brother, but it’s still in my interest, genetically and otherwise, that there’s enough fare for both of us. Hobbesianism will only get you so far.

Taken to its logical extreme, everyone must die of atomization – literal partition of everyone’s bodies into atoms, because otherwise the cells of your hand are compelled to compete with the cells of your leg for blood-supply in a vicious winner-takes-all zero-sum game. Yeah, no. Competition is set aside when there’s a shared interest of cooperation. Mother and baby, my brother and I, your hand and your leg – none of those relations is a zero-sum game; to succeed, all of them require setting aside, at least to some degree, the “ruthless competition”, and adopting instead a modus-operandi of cooperation.

>For example, there are some Jews who are more stereotypically “German” in all of your enumerated 20th-century criteria than the stereotypical German, so by your standard they would become part of the German community.

It could’ve been my standard if you were right. You’re wrong – these German Jews were overcompensating for not actually being Germans by LARPing too hard. Actual Germans could, and did, instantly recognize this crypsis for what it was.

Furthermore, on the local level I don’t mind ethno-narcissism, so if the Germans want to cleanse themselves of Jewish blood “just because they are different from us”, they have every right to do so. In fact, I don’t even consider Jews to be white, so not only Germans acting locally, but all whites, the white race as a collective, acting across the entire white-dominated continents, have a justification to shun them, just as other groups of non-whites should be shunned.

This is not a question of strong principle, but of particulars – some people think that Jews are assimilable, others don’t. But it’s also a question of principle – Jews aren’t Germans or Englishmen or Frenchmen (or, if you accept my position, Jews aren’t even whites at all), so a purely “universalistic principle” — you may call it “European Exclusivism” — can be applied in order to not accept them. If I see whites as the only race capable of creating a civilization that I can admire, and I see Jews as non-whites, it logically follows that I want Jews excluded from white lands.

Bad example you’ve given here.

>Not where it matters.

No. Exactly where it matters. Viewed through the empirical ladder of racially-informed hierarchy, Scots are indisputably superior to Albanians. Applying this assessment to eugenics, in a country like America where, regardless of historical background, you may have both the Scots and the Albanians, you’d want the former to out-reproduce the latter.

>Different white races are “on top” in different fields.

By Nordics, did not mean Scandinavians, but everyone from the Russian nobility to some 1/3 of ethnic Frenchmen and even blue-blooded Spaniards. Using the Nordic/Alpine/Mediterranean classification. No doubt, the artistic genius of Italians can hardly be surpassed, and they are very substantially Mediterranean. I agree with your point.

>Basically, your racial hierarchy is retarded. Natural selection selects (from above) based on _performance_, the actual manifestation of the actual genes. We select (from the side) based on relatedness.

You can go full-Peppermint and select entirely based on relatedness. I take into account *both* performance as measured according to what seems to be pretty objective — relatively free from particularist bias, non-ethnocentric — metrics (inb4 “everything is fundamentally subjective, blah blah blah”) *and* the relatedness quotient. Violent crimes rates seem like a pretty objective metric – you’ve got to be a dumb nigger to argue that perhaps a lil’ bit more violent crime is actually a good thing. Yeah, well, I’m no nigger.

If Poles and Swiss agree that violent crime rates are “objectively” bad and should be as low as possible, then, if they can emotionally-detach themselves from the data, they can measure which group is superior/inferior in this regard. Of course, that rarely happens, because y’know, normies gonna normie. Anyway, it’s an objective fact that whites build the best civilization (“selection from above”), and it’s also an objective fact that gooks and muds aren’t white (“selection from the side”), so taken together, these two facts perforce lead to gook- and mud-exclusion.

I take both views into account, relatedness _and_ performance according to my ideal. To ignore relatedness (whiteness), or to ignore the ideal (civilizational performance) – now *that’s* pretty unwise, TBH fam. But I can understand the respective views of both Peppe — whose position you share — and Jim. Both positions have merit, and you’ve gotta be slightly autistic to disregard one or the other completely. But then, aren’t we all?

If after G generations, 2^G is approximately the starting population size, everyone will more or less share ancestors. In the nations of Europe, where low aristocracy would marry top peasant daughters and high aristocracy would marry low aristocracy, there would still be enough blanda upp.

The settler nations of North America were founded by small populations. The immigrants will take longer to amalgamate.

It is clear that White populations can stay White-behaving even with several generations of not having White sharia, for example the communists and the Mormon polygamists. Any substantial mud admixture ruins White behavior.

The Aryans who took over India (whose existence is now officially doubted by Indian nationalists) set up a caste system to prevent mixing so everyone would eventually have the same ancestors, only permitting the most “eugenic” pairings of Aryan and non-Aryan. How did that work out for them?

The exact specifics of how White genes lead to White behavior and how it is superior are as yet unknown. Consequently, do not fuck with it.

>I’m not aware of any White Nationalist intellectuals.

“Nationalist” here is a misnomer. The intellectuals I admire were not “white nationalists”, just scientific racists: Lothrop Stoddard, Madison Grant. Today, there are intellectuals, or at least pseudo-intellectuals, who are sorta-kinda “White Nationalists”, such as Guillaume Durocher and yes, Kevin MacDonald.

>You advocate nationalism, so you should necessarily desire a homogenized genetic polity.

What I desire is for a thousand flowers to actually bloom. That means diversity-through-separation, where the greatest white ethnicities, and heck, even the lesser white ethnicities, get to do their own thing, as was the case (broadly speaking) during the Renaissance, minus the bloody wars.

The bloody wars may be prevented by a World Power telling the Europeans to behave “or else”, or if the European elites themselves become, in a sense, “white nationalists”, and opt to end the fratricidal bloodbaths for good, because it’s bad for the white race to have incessant wars amongst itself. That means that either this World Power or the European elites stop being anti-white and anti-civilization and become pro-white and pro-civilization.

Homogenity? Of course – England should be English, Germany German, etc. But continent-wide: Europe, the US, and Australia, should all be “white”, that is, no darkies. Some places can be generic nondescript mutt-white, whereas others should belong to a specific ethnicity that has historical-territorial claim to such places.

>Your desire for “diversity” gives away the uncomfortable truth that you subscribe to an earlier incarnation of liberalism.

The issue isn’t liberalism of the dogma, but the practicality in realizing that different white ethnicities doing their own thing in their own country is better than some retarded strawman-y globalism which calls for Cossacks to settle in Spain “because both are white”. If this practicality makes me a liberal, fine, brownie points go to you, you’ve successfully purity-signaled your reactionaryism.

Intra-white diversity means that either we (or, as you’d have it, “power”) decide which white ethnicity is better than the rest of them, and let the best white ethnicity exterminate all the rest, or we recognize that while a hierarchy definitely exists, if the Latvians aren’t bothering you, no reason why you should bother them. And I don’t care if you think this argument is “moralist” or “utilitarian”, all that matters here is that white civilization grows.

>What is Britain? Who are its elite?

What’s the purpose of these rhetorical questions? To tell me that the Brits are PWNED by the Americans? That’s not the issue. My perspective as someone-who-wants-civilization-to-prosper is that, in general, Spaniards belong in Spain, and Britons in Britain. Different whites in different white countries.

>Not all whites equally.

Right, some whites are better than others. Hence, diversity-through-separation. As Land says: resolution through space, not through time.

>All whites are great relative to nonwhites, but that isn’t exactly a high bar.

Right…. now you get it. It’s not a high-bar. It’s the most minimal and preliminary bar. Thus, darkies out as “first step” towards civilizational revival, not as a panacea for everything. Once the darkies are out of the way, then higher bars could be passed. If Sweden becomes Somalia, this very low bar won’t be passed.

>“I’m the REAL progressive.”

Tongue-in-cheek, but yeah, different white cultures are beautiful in their own unique ways, and should IMO all be preserved, therefore different white races should be preserved.

>Some whites are more civilized than others.

Yes, we’ve been over this already. It sounds like you’re trying to exclude someone, indirectly. If you hate some white ethnicity, we can discuss its merits and demerits, but otherwise, not clear why you think we’re in disagreement.

>but if you select for whiteness, are you going to be overwhelmingly selecting for matter-of-fact-superiority?

Yes. And of course, shouldn’t select *only* for whiteness. As I explained, select for whiteness, also select for civilizational competence. The best whites should be in charge, and out-reproduce the others. But that is primarily true in a multi-white-ethnic society like the US; in Europe, let a thousand flowers boom. Now, whether or not Europe should become an imperium is a question for another day; currently, need to get the darkies out.

>If _you’re_ hiring, and you know he’s going to be a useless layabout, do you hire him? If you have more than enough food for both of you, you share. If you have to choose between your brother and your children, or even your wife…?

Strawman. I said that “shared genes matter”, not that shared genes matter to the exclusion of all other considerations. Of course other considerations exist. Still, generosity towards genetic kin makes perfect evolutionary sense, and even today, when we’re not subject to the same life-conditions as those of our ancestral environment, it’s usually quite beneficial.

>LARPing so hard that Hitler’s army and staff were overflowing with mischlings, apparently.

Mischlings are not identical to full Jews. Also, it’s indeed very possible that Hitler was not hardcore enough!

>Assimilation is biological. For the past decade or so roughly three-quarters of marriages involving Jews were between a Jew and a non-Jew. Presto, assimilation.

I meant “assimilable” as in: we squint our eyes, and a full Jew, 85%+ Ashkenazi-DNA Jew, becomes “white”. Which AFAIC isn’t happening, hence, in my opinion, Jews — full biological Jews — are not assimilable. Again, others don’t necessarily share my view, and when those others squint their eyes, Ashkenazim look white to them, thus assimilable.

>If you had the power to do this you would also have the power to further YOUR OWN genes at the expense of either Scots or Albanians, regardless of their “idealistic” superiority or inferiority.

To put it absurdly: the Monarch ain’t gonna replace all his subjects with clones of himself. General eugenics are good, regardless of one’s vested interest in the game.

>You keep attaching these moral principles to your ideas. I posit that “violent crime” is neither objectively (“rationally”) good nor objectively (“rationally”) bad — such a statement is inherently Christian with Society serving a reified God.

My “moral principle” is the desire for society (my actual society, not some galaxy-far-away society) to function well, for me personally to function well within it, and for civilization to bloom. With these aims in mind, and assuming most other people can at least grasp these notions mentally, if not sympathize with them wholeheartedly, the “moral” imperatives I espouse become clear.

>Rather, “violent crime” is good for the perpetrator and bad for the victim.

Violent crime is immoral in my view because my subjective sense of morality tells me so, obviously I’m far from the only person who feels this way, that is, it’s pretty “normal” to feel this way, and it’s inborn. And not-unrelatedly, my family and myself are statistically considerably more likely to fall victims to violent crime, than to become its perpetrators. So, even from a strictly amoral stance, violent-crime is still objectively bad. I’m not a nigger.

>If the 20th century taught us anything, is it not that relying on the General Will is a Very Bad Thing?

I meant one random Pole and one random Swiss, agreeing upon definitions of the positive and the negative, and proceeding to categorize one another accordingly. The “General Will” of some collective is impertinent to the issue I have posed, since in this thought-experiment, the collective is the object (of inquiry), not the subject (it’s not a decision-maker).

>Which you want to select for is dependent on the specific power dynamic — whether you’re selecting “from above” or “from the side”.

Not power dynamics, but aims. My aim is the progress of civilization along healthy lines. A king may have his own reasons to align his policies with my aim, but be that as it may, the issue is not who selects and how he selects, but *what* is being selected. That’s the real issue.

Predators want to be where the prey is. Which is countries with low crime rates and high social trust.

what I meant by there is one or maybe two White nations in America is the recognition of others as “us”, and willingness to marry. Every White pretty much recognizes every other White and considers Whites marrying into the family acceptable, including Whites who claim not to know what White means.

It is possible to require people to claim to recognize others. It is impossible to know what Whites really think about their friends and family marrying Jews in the US.

Canada has Canadians and Quebecois.

In the future, if marrying out isn’t strongly restricted in Europe, the Aryn nations will eventually merge. By that time, space colonies of individual nationalities will be Abe to preserve the distinctiveness of the nations with the high cost of travel.

>“War is EVIL and WRONG. One minute I’m a Nietschean Nazi on the warpath and the next I’m a Quaker pacifist!”

It is evil and wrong for a lieutenant to shoot his privates, or for a private to shoot his lieutenant. It is meet and right for privates and lieutenants to shoot privates and lieutenants in the enemy army.

Also holding to the idea you can’t get oughts’ from is’s is just shooting yourself in the foot ultimately since you’d have no basis for saying why [people you don’t like] are actually doing anything wrong or to have any basis for informing why what you believe in is meet and right and adaptive.

There are lengths and layers of abstraction in the connexion of one thing to another certainly; that simply means they are not readily apparent to vulgar mundanes, and hence require the magisterium to divine the voice of god for them.