Ivy League White Nationalism?

Since the 1960s, overt white nationalism has been a mostly lower class and even prison gang sort of thing, at least in public. You have your Jared Taylor, William Luther Pierce, and Richard Spencer types attempting and occasionally succeeding at a genteel air, but they mostly serve as adjuncts to the lower class main phenomenon. However, behind closed doors it seems different.

At least recently, I have noticed an interesting concentration of private white nationalism, extending to outright hitlerism, among gentile ivy leaguers (and similar). Wealthy prestigious families explicitly having as many white children as possible and actively looking for opportunities to associate with others like them, men from nth generation Eton families telling me their plans to enact remigration, Goldman Sachs guys with treasured relics of the fuhrer, young men fresh out of Harvard with well developed national socialist views, etc. This is on top of a much larger crowd with generally right wing views. Now some of this is just the kind of people I happen to run into and get interested in, but I think some of it is "real" so to speak; there's too many chance meetings turning up such people to explain as a few outliers.

Whether it is new I cannot say for sure. The last time there was significant *open* white nationalism in the elite was probably around the time of the war. Before that it was once a dominant position within the American elite, before the split between continental Nietzschean racism and American "progressive" anti-racism. What happened in between is largely obscured by suppression downstream of the 1933 regimes and the war.

If I can speculate about recent causes, the general overton-smashing since the opening of the Internet frontier in the late 2000s and early 2010s, the Trump phenomenon, the exhaustion of leftist totalitarian control hubris with COVID and the 2020 woke hysteria, October 7th 2023 losing the anti-white left a lot of their jewish support, escalation of mass immigration to obviously existential conditions, and Elon buying twitter and opening up some of these things have all contributed to the political discourse among relatively young white men going in quite a hard direction.

I don't know what to make of this exactly. On one hand it's nice to see the bad taboos of our enemies dissolve at least on the margin. On the other hand, much of this is just a general escalation of political extremism as the current order breaks down. Explicitly anti-white politics has also gotten much more bold and mainstream. Or maybe this is just a temporary consolidation period between bouts of super-woke decay-escalation. Maybe it's not even as real as it seems. Maybe it's the start of a new era of overt racial politics. Is that good or bad?

In any case I've got my eye on it and I'm intrigued. Will it amount to anything good or bad? What do you guys think?

I would distinguish between three clusters. These can overlap, but it's worth distinguishing them.

1) Race realism, which is just frank acknowledgement of group differences with significant genetic bases. The popular form of this is Steve Sailer and Charles Murray. How it plays out in terms of advocacy can vary greatly.

2) Ethnic advocacy among people of European descent. I use this broad phrasing because it doesn't always take the form of "white" advocacy. Some would strongly distinguish Anglos from non-Anglo whites and advocate only for Anglos. Some would specifically advocate for non-Anglo Euro traditions. What gets called "white nationalism" in the U.S. is only one tendency.

3) Particular ideological tendencies, whether anti-Jewish, national socialist, or something new and legacy-free.

I'd guess that many here on Sophiechan are sympathetic to bits of all three, but especially something new and legacy-free.

>>5580
If western people's are to develop some form of ingroup preference again they will need some more firm standing and ways to maintain their alliances, as seafaring peoples they often come in contact with foreigners and will need to be able to recruit their abilities. The race realism stuff particularly lacks much fertility for blossoming into more novel and useful forms, even the HBD stuff is mostly a flop. If anything in the vein of that ideology for ingroup preference is to return, whether it be called white nationalism, race realism, various ideological tendencies and or ethnic advocacy, it will have to dress itself in the language of modern psychology, psychometrics, and international politics(try winning without Chinese Ai researchers, their main issue is disloyalty). For the the standout scholars on how to do this would be Emmanuel Todd's stuff on family structures, CTC theory, merging this with evolutionary biology that allow much firmer lines to be drawn, and would not cut out basically anyone who can positively contribute to the western world.

I have some pretty solid ideas on how precisely to do this and have found it to be persuasive even among foreign elite aspirates from east asia, south asia, latin america etc, since its rather well reasoned, and easy to self-discover into that exemption or "broadly aligned" group. There is basically no ability to get it done unless we make some concessions, there is a lot of talent from a lot of the world we have to draw from, but it is a substantially smaller pool than western immigration systems are capable or built to select yet. I'll get started on a writeup, since it's the sort of thing that could actually be formally adopted and isn't too hard to back up scientifically. Please reach out if you guys want access to a writeup or further details/ conversation on how to express this.

basically, we need ideas that can be formalized with academic evidence to be able to communicate them to the vanguard in charge of these sorts of political movements, EA has it, we will need a Neo-EA take on some of the biggest pitfalls. For ones EAs treating people as interchangeable and treating the future and the effects of practices as certain, EAs practically do not adjust their actions for the weight of the uncertainty of the effect(the things baout X will affect T future humans falls apart if the T can be discounted by the contingency of a bunch of components reducing the weight down to 0, most of these EA mind virus things are basically Pascals mugging)

lets get started on the obvious, the first way is DEI, many white people are against it, but the biggest losers many argue are not white people but Asians, but let's look to this. It really does appear that the East Asians do better on the rests, but not meaningfully on creativity, except one will notice, from the regions of east Asia that have been ancestrally nuclear family. so yes, quite literally, high GPA, and test scores do mean less if the applicant is from a historically Confucian society.
https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/sub-issues/creative-thinking/pisa-2022-creative-thinking.html

Theres also a fair bit of evidence that these are a bit culture sensitive, particularly studying for many of them is rather distortionary, and so yes, cultures that study more should be graded on a curve.

if we talk about some of this with respect for the justification of a separation of the west in any unique aspect from the rest of the world. To me what stands out is that the west was not completely dominated by one or 2 social classes which then led to the society spec'ing hard into those skills. East Asians largely got controlled by the Confucian bureaucracy, India's Gangetic plain largely brahmin. So, the CTC stuff finds the Asians tend to be high in VSIQ at the expense of GFIQ, which have more predictable impacts on the job market. GFIQ/ inductive reasoning is super useful for research taste/ entrepreneurship and predicting the future in general. In other words many things which previously would be the proper selection criteria normed on western populations, per unit of "dev skills" it would predict weaker for Asians management skills. The rest reliability can vary a fair bit by background for a reason, these two i think are sufficient as a more intellectual justification for limiting immigration to this middle to upper middle-class professions important for most in the western service based economies.

>>5580
Yeah I think formally many of us are waiting for something new that solves these legacy problems with race politics. But speaking empirically, the level of actual outright ideological white nationalism (eg VDare, Hitler, remigration, fuentes, etc) among the crowd described in OP is what has been somewhat surprising to me and which I considered worthy of discussion.

I look forward to >>5581's scientific theory of who we want in our countries, but I wonder if it misses the point. We want people who we know how to get along with, who are in the same boat as us, who make good neighbors, colleagues, leaders. I think historically what's going on right now is a transition from the growth phase of our civilization to the "fighting over a fixed pie" phase, during which people are just going to tribe up along the salient dimensions, invent new constructs that amount to them and their friends getting power, and so on. Race is one extremely salient dimension these days. It has very little to do with any particular cognitive traits.

>>5585

CANDIDATE CULTURES
Ive encountered these reservations before, and largely the criteria you have selected lines up along these dimensions very very saliently, In fact a charitable interpretation might go as far as cutting out of these basically only the communists, spiteful mutants and race hustlers that may be difficult to seperate.

Id argue its fundamentally a couple major components.

For one family structure, https://gwern.net/doc/history/2013-willy-emmanueltoddlinventiondeleurope.html

one will notice that largely in the english speaking world the Authoritarian nuclear family types have similar enough social structures that they are often really harmonious at being colleagues or neighbors, and for the primogeniture inheritance tend to have robust institutions, long cultural memories, and adeptness at industry. (back in the day scotland has fantastic industry producing much of the worl'd tonnage, the Germanic world speaks for itself, scandinavia was rich in its iron industry which it used to supply something like 2/3rd of the demand in the British isles up unti lthe great northern war(about 1715 when the British become involved with the Prussians) today the Koreans, Japanese, and others have extremely robust industry/exports.

Egalitarian nuclear seems your like basic christian one, ethiopia, latin america, much of southern Europe. less advantageous, dividing landplots hurts industry, they do love a welfare state they cannot afford, less developed financial system, but not far enough off to really be all that troublesome when there aren't massive differences elsewhere, (we will get to it) they seem competent at building societies, seem to enjoy life more as they dont grind it away in industry(notice that northern italy is the most industrious and auth nuclear as opposed to egalitarian nuclear) eldest siblings are a bit more mature and handing them the estate is usually better for cultivating growth.

I MUST ADD CAVEATS communitarian exogamous and authoritarian nuclear are often similar in climate but different due to other pressures, communitarian exogamous was the family system of the ancient romans (live in a clan, marry outside of it) the Chinese and Russians retained it, but historically both have regions which were nuclear family, particularly their most urbanized/competitive? regions, those being the north of China on the yellow, river, and the Russians with Muscovy, where Novgorod and such had more familiar institutions to western sensibilities, but it seems the pressures of steppe raiders tend to select for more autocratic systems/family structure preferences. One will find that of the people of these countries typically these are the ones that are most agreeable to foreign sensibilities (when the aren't overtly patriotic about their homeland that is)

CANDIDATE People
Those are important, but now for more granular individuated selection, for this we need to talk about psychometrics, class and adaptation. The west is unique for many reasons but one of the most salient here is no one class dominated it completely. Now, i will talk about the orthodox world, and the Islamic world, as both od have a fair bit of dynamism, although the Islamic one seemed to have a pretty even triangle keep recurring, the military elite, ulama, and urban bureaucracy kept coming up as a caliphate requires all of them. The orthodox world did have the boyars early, then the Mongols, then absolutism, similar toe Europe, and for such reasons they do seem similarly even in therir cognitivep rofiles(sorta) The bureaucrats won in China, the brahmin in India. Resultantly they specialize much more towards them, and you get these wacky intelligence and cultural profiles that massively value basically seeking that "golden rice bowl" or such, profound study/schooling etc, but also much more frozen. These societies being much more communitarian, the communitarian stuff seems to be in large part the stability of the value of capital, land on the was valuable 5k years ago, and probably 5k from now..

will continue later, must sleep