I have often thought about the JQ since I first tumbled down the rabbit hole of dark enlightenment several years ago. One practical resolution to the JQ would be for ashkenazim to completely interbreed with gentile whites, convert to christianity, and dispense with any sense of separate identity. Get in the same boat and completely align racial interests through blood mingling. In fact, as recent Pew surveys demonstrate this is what the majority of American Jews are doing. It’s what I intend to do myself.

This is a win for Ashkenazim, obviously, because another holocaust is surely coming this century, and depending on the details of the Furher figure who rises up, getting to 1/8 or 1/16th jew could probably be enough to escape. Meanwhile, it’s not all fear-motivated. Whites are a noble race, spiritually pure, physically brave, and mentally sound, with kinder and more loving women, and anyone should be proud to be a part of that race. But please forgive me the chutzpah to suggest that this turn of events might also be good for gentile whites.

First of all, it removes the political irredenta that would otherwise be resolved by a spiritually polluting “hard genocide” that white gentiles would inevitably find it necessary to inflict on the Ashkenazim neighbors that they’ve been living in peace with for many generations. You can speak of ideal societies and following the logic of identity to its logical conclusion in speech, but in practice it just feels bad to implement that final solution, and leaves a hangover that won’t quit. (This has been referred to as Hitler’s Revenge).

Importantly, through the magic of genetic hybridization, mixing with the Ashkenazim will quickly (within only a few generations) result in the most adaptive Ashkenazi genes spreading throughout Christendom, while their least adaptive won’t get very far. Ashkenazim have been under selection pressure for a modern world far longer than gentiles. Ashkenazim are, pound for pound, the most adaptive of all human sub-species to the world we live in today. It’s not just intelligence. Jews have the right amount of in group preference, and again, that chutzpah that the “jew-aware” are constantly referring to with grudging respect.

Irrevocably uniting the fortunes of Ashkenazim and gentiles is an excellent strategic move to counter the very real threat of Chinese supremacy. In truth, I don’t see another way for whites to compete in the middle future, in particular as humanity starts to claim significant extraterrestrial resources. (And if you think gentiles are really in the game right now, take a walk through the engineering offices at one of the big tech firms that are single-handedly keeping the American economy in the black. Each of those offices will be more than half Chinese and Jewish, and it’s the more important half).

—

By the way, the interview was excellent, and I will certainly be reading more about white Identitarianism in the near future. Which book of de Maistre should I start with?

This is why I define ‘white’ as ‘a race whose elites can hack Athenian philosophy.’ If you in fact adopt philosophy, you become white. Most believe that you can adopt Europeanism because it’s true, and it’s one of the reasons Europe keeps winning.

We’re against slavery of the body (warrior) because we can enslave your mind (scholar).

“Well, culture comes from race.”

Not exactly, but you will find that most outside the Hajnal line find philosophy to be an uncomfortable suit. They can become European, but probably won’t.

“I have no patience and no time for people acting rude or self-righteous based on race.”

Indeed, I don’t recall ‘skin color’ being among Aristotle’s list of virtues.

—

The two interviewed have some factual inadequacies, but overall present as civil, eloquent and careful thinkers. The only response to their supporting commentators is: oh dear. And you wonder why identitarians find NRx elitist…

One might go as far as to say that the right-wing ideal is a racially clean warrior aristocracy ruling over a racially clean rural peasantry.

In addition, Monarchism has historically been linked with Blood and Soil sentiments. It was Joseph de Maistre who wrote, against the abstraction of universal citizenship: “There is no such thing as man in the world. In my lifetime I have seen Frenchmen, Italians, Russians, etc.; thanks to Montesquieu, I even know that one can be Persian. But as for man, I declare that I have never in my life met him; if he exists, he is unknown to me.”

Men such as Paul de Lagarde, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Charles Maurras, and movements such as the Black Hundreds in Russia combined monarchism with identitarianism. A royalist like T.S. Eliot could declare that “The population should be homogeneous; where two or more cultures exist in the same place they are likely either to be fiercely self-conscious or both to become adulterate. What is still more important is unity of religious background, and reasons of race and religion combine to make any large number of free-thinking Jews undesirable.”

Lastly, on the matter of the Jews and interlopers such as Mencius Moldbug, I will state that no one can consistently oppose the principles of 1789 without also opposing the emancipation of the Jews. This was obvious from the start. The great monarchist Louis de Bonald noted that the Jewish Question and Counter-Revolution were intertwined at an early date in his article Sur les Juifs. Bonald identified Jews and Negroes as inherently alien people, both detrimental to native traditions, and he predicted exactly what would happen if Jews were granted equal rights:

If the Jews were able to disperse throughout the national territory, while remaining united among themselves like those who act for the same cause, they would surely have put their wealth to good use in order to acquire great influence in the elections and then they would have used that same influence to gain new riches.

Julius Evola reiterated the centrality of the Jewish Question to the reactionary project a century later. But I’ll give the last word to Corneliu Codreanu, leader of the Iron Guard. Replace “Rumanian” with “American” and his statements remain just as pertinent as they were back then:

Democracy destroys the unity of the Rumanian nation, dividing it among political parties, making Rumanians hate one another, and thus exposing a divided people to the united congregation of Jewish power at a difficult time in the nation’s history.

This argument alone is so persuasive as to warrant the discarding of democracy in favor of anything that would ensure our unity–or life itself. For disunity means death.

Democracy makes Rumanian citizens out of millions of Jews by making them the Rumanians’ equals. By giving them the same legal rights. Equality? What for? We have been here for thousands of years. Plow and weapon in hand. With our labors and blood. Why equality with those who have been here for only one hundred, ten, or even five years? Let’s look at the past: We created this state. Let’s look at the future: We Rumanians are fully responsible for Greater Rumania. They have nothing to do with it. What could be the responsibility of Jews, in the history books, for the disappearance of the Rumanian state?

Thus: no equality in labor, sacrifice, and struggle for the creation of the state and no equal responsibility for its future. Equality? According to an old maxim: Equality is to treat unequally the unequal. What are the reasons for the Jews’ demanding equal treatment, equal political rights with the Rumanians?

If Jews like Moldbug are truly reactionaries, they’ll understand why their kind can never be granted equal rights in our ideal state.

I’m not going to put up with any shilling, here. This is a warning notice.

Neoreaction is based on the writings of some computer programmer named Moldbug. Granted, Moldbug might be clever. But it’s insulting even to put him in the same category as people like Nietzsche or Aristotle.

Nonetheless, Neoreaction might serve as a nice gateway for people to come to identitarianism — at least the more elitist and smarter ones.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have anything against neoreaction. Overall, they are performing a good service. But it’s not very deep and it won’t have any staying power.

It seems to me that “neoreaction” in some ways is just élitism. It seems to be a result of the frustration of a portion of the cognitive élite with “democracy” (concentrated in tech, a sector which does not require Talmudic virtues as do law, marketing or politics, etc, but indeed benefits from honest, straightforward coding) and a rationalization of the interests of the emerging transnational “Jeurasian” super-élite.

That seems to be (the half-Jewish) Moldbug’s agenda: the creation of inegalitarian City-States catering to the interests of rootless élites: “Moving on: to the Jews. Obviously this is a favorite subject here at UR, which is a pro-Jew blog and always has been. (Jabotinsky is my nigga.) The road to the New State is long, long, long, and we have barely started down it. But we know one thing: the New State will be a Jew State. Or at least, it will be chock-full of Jews. (And of Tamil Brahmins, for the same reason.)” http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.de/2009/05/preston-brooks-palestine-lobby-and.html

However, Whites with a feeling of responsibility and kinship for their people or nation will not be attracted to this vision of apatride City-States à la Singapore. Such entities ultimately depend, at best as useful intermediaries at worst as parasites, on actually productive nations. Hence why ethno-nationalism, with its concern for production and the people, is inherently moral, while rootless élitism is is not (but is very much in line with Talmudic morality). Thus neoreaction may split into two wings: the (cognitive) elitist and the ethno-nationalist (the latter epitomized by Michael Anissimov, who has gone full White Nationalist and Jew-wise in recent weeks (?)).

But that does seem to be the decision we will all face: Join the parasitic, lying globalist super-class or defend your people?

The average NRX person probably comes from high tech but is fed up with political correctness. The average neoreactionary, however, is often historically illiterate and usually does not speak a second language.

The average identitarian is very historically literate and most of them can speak multiple languages. One identitarian I know knows German, French, Dutch, English, Greek and Latin. They are very knowledgeable of history.

In some ways, I see NRx as a more watered-down, dumbed-down version of identitarianism, suitable for the confines of American political correctness .

Both identitarianism and NRx are interested in HBD and generally disgusted by egalitarianism.

I actually see the two camps agreeing more than disagreeing. I suspect they can compliment each other.