It’s not as if the question of where HBD and racial issues factor into Reactionary thought had only just arisen in the last couple of months, but certainly in the wake of Trump’s victory and the subsequent events within the AltRight and outside of it, there is something of a compelling case to be made that we should shine a light on any areas of vagueness.
The argument I want to put across is that many on the radical right have unintentionally hampered their own success by treating the racial question in a way that is inappropriate due to a confusion between urgency and centrality. They have correctly adopted the assumption that the speed of demographic change in most Occidental countries, especially when weighted to take into account aging populations, makes it the most pressing issue of our time. It is not merely statistics that tell this tale, but also the daily news. The torture suffered by a mentally handicapped white teen at the hands of a band of savage animals in Chicago is just the latest escalation of affairs in America for example. However, the response to this urgency often falls into the short-sighted, shallow view of ‘Alt-Leftism‘, something sadly promoted by even a few supposedly trusted outlets. This view typically boils all problems down to the point of urgency. If a problem does not seem, on the surface, to be urgent, then it is dismissed as not worth addressing with any formal political critique. Thus, when used in the racial paradigm, all problems facing society are placed squarely on the shoulder of the racial question and the solution is simply ‘A Nice White Country‘. If we were all ‘white’, then what other niggling problems we had could be worked through in a peacable manner. Necessarily attached to this view is that problems have their root in mass migration, which begins around the middle of the last century for most places (part of the reason Paleoconservatism falls into this trap).
A percular expression of this view can be found in the desire to alter the overton window so that all political actors are ‘racially consciouss’, regardless of party affiliation. If they are at least able to fill this criteria, then the conditions for a positive state of affairs are present.
Now, imagine for a moment that your daughter begins to take narcotics, and becomes addicted to routinely poisoning herself to the detriment of all those around her. And let us also suppose that this sudden change in your daughter had been brought on by her hanging around with a new group of friends; shifty, dirty types. The urgency in this scenario is represented by the drug addiction, while the centrality is located in the group of degenerate peers. The peers aren’t killing your daughter, the drugs are, and yet the line of causality is clear, and one should safely assume that even if you did manage to solve the drug problem, the nightmare would likely recur until the root cause was removed from the equation. Notice here that I am proposing no order by which the problems be addressed. That would depend on your discretion, and the resources you had at your disposal. Anyone can see that it would be ill-advised to think that just getting your daughter to a rehab clinic would ultimately fix the situation.
A one thing leads to another implication can of course be taken too far, which is why one has to provide strong evidence as to how a set of principles being completely overturned (typically with violent implications) can correlate precisely with the rise of some negative phenomena. I do not believe this can be done with the era of mass migration. Not only is there lacking a positive case for revolutionary change during this period (either in the spheres of religion or core political dogma), but there is an abundance of ties between a general trend of Enlightenment emancipation. While Feudal structures in Europe had begun to decay in the 1500s particularly for economic reasons, its remnant was formally abolished in England in 1574 and Russia in 1861. There had been ‘peasant revolts’ throughout history, but during this period their gains were made permanent, and were not hemmed in by the next effective ruler. It is in this period that we judge the faultline between Modernity and Tradition to fall (though this is disputed, even among the leading scholars). It matters not of course, since the abolition of serfdom rarely took such ideologically-driven forms as later emancipations. Democracy, the granting of franchise to non-landed gentlemen, the informal abolition of Patriarchy, and the abolition of not just chattel slavery but all forms of slavery; these can be seen as precursors to a world in which the situational value and place of man transcends race entirely. It is a natural outworking, as is its younger brother, the emancipation of deviants.
If these streams feed into one another, then it is not enough to say that you declare one iteration of this general principle to be evil, and the others preceding it to be virtuous. The latter cry for the former! (and before anyone says it, no, this is not an argument for chattel slavery). All of these emancipations from restriction, including the restrictions placed upon us by national borders and inborn kin preference, derive from the same underlying belief in egalitarianism and a leveling of positive and negative aspects of man. If one man is retarded and the other a genius, who is to say who would better lead? If one class is black and the other white, who is to say which will more capably solve a complex math problem? If one man is a man, and the other is in fact a woman, who is to say which will make a superior father?
This slippery bastardization of belief in a salvific grace offered to all is precisely the heresy of our time. And not unexpectedly, it is not just Christianity which it has managed to bastardize for its own purposes, for there are members of all religions who will justify the ‘mother religion’ of Liberalism using holy texts if it so suits them. Feminist pagans, gay Buddhists, etc. are not hard to find, however these religious practices are a minority in the West.
Call it the ‘EQ’ (Enlightenment Question), or the ‘MQ’ (Modernity Question), but whatever its name, this is the central question posed by the Crisis of the Modern World, and from these questions all others that we find ourselves intently focused on are emenating forth at varying speeds, rippling out from a crack in time.
Not only is making this the central question a logically sound move, but also from a tactical standpoint it makes sense. In no way do I advocate hiding our views on race, but when these views are ensconced within a broader outlook they tend not to trigger the most overtly hostile reaction from the enemy who has been conditioned to respond to racial dissent with greater ferocity than all other forms of dissent. I think this was partly responsible for the gut-punching trial that my friend Millennial Woes has been going through due to the despicable antics of antifa faggots and failed journalists. Woes has a particular style of discourse, and I believe this was the reason that his channel became arguably the second largest AltRight outlet on Youtube, even though his meteoric rise certainly coincided with a turn towards a laser-focus on questions of race. The frankness with which he is willing to treat subjects as diverse as monarchy, culture, sex relations, and perhaps my favorite, the various types of Liberal one encounters, make him incredibly easy to listen to. But even if one were to approach from a leftist background, I don’t think his earlier videos (which weren’t shy about the racial question either) appear as incendiary as later ones, where the specter of some of the long-standing problems of the AltRight looms large (some of these Woes acknowledged I, II, III).
There is an argument that we shouldn’t care how we are perceived, and it is certainly one that some have embraced. Although I would say that the tragic situation of Millennial Woes stands as a warning not to be too comfortable with such a stance, acknowledging of course that there was a host of other factors which led up to the present condition. It is good that we have particularists who focus on one issue and become very familiar with it. Steve Sailer is much celebrated for his work on HBD, but because of its very scientific nature, it is less of an ideological consideration and more of a tool offered up by Sailer for our usage within our broader theory. It is to bolster our already existing arguments, the groundwork of which I laid out above.
While race is an urgent question, and one whose potential for ‘redpilling’ normies who can see its terrible truth with their own eyes somewhat justifies a pole position, it cannot be central to our worldview, any more than a very coherent argument as to why men with ‘no skin in the game’ ought not be allowed to vote can be. The solution to putting a permanent end to the racial anarchy we live in is to be found through a purer, older understanding of the world and man’s relationship to it. While this might not factor in when drawing up a recruitment list for your deportation force, it is what you need to ensure that such activities are grounded in intelligible and moral premises rather than simple emotion, understandable as it may be in light of what is going on around us.