Setting the Stage:
Much of what is discussed and of grave concern among the members and prominent speakers among the alternative right (or New Right given the events of the 2016 US presidential election) center around philosophical and theoretical implications and interests of Whites and traditional Europeans having a right to our own communities, bodies of literature, and collective destiny as the globalized world moves into a future fraught with destructive cultural and social change. A prominent theme among our movement is to peer into our recent and distant past to find some anchoring point so as to act as a bulwark against the disorienting and sometimes outright insane attitudes of non-Whites against Whites.
From this reflection and analysis, we arrive at positions and conclusions which seek to give our own ideologies and interests legitimacy in the eyes of other members of our community as well as a solid platform which we may pivot from when reaching out to members of our communities who may not have cause to consider our positions as ones which they themselves ought to adopt. Much of my own effort, along with my co-hosts on KulturKampf aim at doing just this. We endeavored to give back to our own community some of the most influential and illustrious thinkers from Western civilization's past in the hope that listeners, inspired and intrigued by what we were presenting, would seek them out themselves and dive into them more thoroughly than a two-hour long podcast could ever do.
However, though I constantly find myself deeply engaged with ancient works by men like Aristotle, Plato, and Cicero or more recent philosophers like Hobbes and Nietzsche, I am also plugged in to current cutting edge research in areas like gene editing. The reason being is because, not only given I'm incredibly interested in human behavioral and social interaction, I am also extremely interested in how our advancements in science, technology, and increased understanding of biomolecular processes will guide, modify, or even possibly render obsolete current and traditional discussions regarding racial groups and our own legitimate concerns regarding our own racial group.
One of the problems with areas like gene editing – specifically techniques like CRISPR (more on that in a moment) – is that given the nature of the globalized research much of the advances and breakthroughs occur in tandem and sometimes simultaneously across the globe. The speed with which information travels is near instant these days but this relies on the prior knowledge of a need to send the information in the first place. An unfortunate side effect of this is that many times papers will be published (as is the case with the previous link to the April 22, 2015 publication in Nature of Liang et al. findings which appeared in the journal Protein & Cell) concurrently with science conferences and other papers. This in turn produces literature which doesn't reflect the most up-to-date representation of just where exactly the frontier of this research is currently located.
This may not be as large an issue for someone like myself who is familiar with certain keywords, publications, and authors which aid in quickly finding new research but for those either not specifically focusing on this field or those who are the 'normies' of the alt right this presents a really terrible problem: If we're to be a movement for a new century and need to appeal to others not yet within our movement how are we supposed to offer them anything novel with regards to current events and near-future events if a large and very important foundational component of our movement has no idea where to start looking or what to start looking for? Ultimately this is a failure of people like myself with the requisite knowledge but the lack of agency or recognition of the imminent need to present the information in a way that is both non-technical and at the same time interesting.
In the context of this article I'll focus on the CRISPR/Cas9 (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeat/CRISPR Associate 9) technology with the intention of bringing alt right members up to snuff on the most current status of the technology and various application aspects presently being researched as well as possible future applications. To give you an idea of just how much information exists on this topic and the technology as a whole I currently have thirty (30) browser tabs open with articles and discussion on related areas of research and literature. All of these are important to understanding the implications of this technology and how we must actively be apprised of such fields of study if we're going to move into the future as a coherent movement able to address future issues and current trends within our own societies and political institutions as they relate to each other and the larger global competition.
CRISPR & Epigenetics:
First the necessary technical stuff and then we can get into the interesting discussions about where this technology is going and what its applications are. Broadly there are two areas of study when it comes to genetics; one which strictly focuses on molecular components of biology as that which ultimately matters ('Watsonians') and the other which sees biological study as a 'top-down' enterprise ('Wilsonians'). It would be disingenuous to claim these are distinct fields of genetic research as a whole but rather comprise two distinct fields within the entirety of genetics. When people think of genetics or gene research they probably imagine something along the lines of a Watsonian perspective whereas that's only half the puzzle.
Wilsonian perspectives of genetic and biological study consider the other side of this puzzle and it's only when you synthesize both views that you get the genetic/epigenetic distinction – the latter of which has recently been resurrected from the dead in discussions of inheritance now known as 'transgenerational inheritance' where it once was pejoratively referred to as soft-evolution. Wilson did not come up with the term. Instead, epigenetics was first coined by an English scientist in 1942 named Conrad Waddington. Epigenetics is a pet-passion of mine and it is an important area of research that I feel can weigh heavily in support of our own positions within the alt right and I will discuss some of these later in this article.
Epigenetics essentially refers to phenomena and factors which modify the genome but do not involve a change in the nucleotide sequence. In layman's terms external non-genetic events within our environments can and do have a direct impact on our own genetic make-up and the future genetic composition and gene expression of our descendants. That last bit is extremely important and should not be taken lightly. The technical process of how this works deals with DNA methylation impacting gene expression which produces what's called a gene product (proteins are one type of gene product RNA being the other) which in turn allow for cell signaling – or a response to stimuli (among other things). The actual technical stuff underlying these terms isn't important unless you're an autist like me but essentially your DNA produces chemicals which tell your genes to express themselves which in turn creates a protein that allows for cell signaling or the ability to 'communicate' and respond to their surrounding microenvironment. The ultimate result of this process is numerous but one of them is going on right now – you're reading this sentence and your body's cells are doing a whole bunch of things on a very small level.
Nucleotide sequences, which I referred to earlier as that thing which epigenetics have an effect on, represent information, and in the context of human life these sequences are referred to as DNA which direct our functions as living things. This is the technical definition behind the common 'nature versus nurture' phase. Because of recent research and the resurrection of Lamarckian concepts regarding evolution an ever-growing body of research and data are pointing to the fact that external environmental phenomena can, and do, have dramatic effects on biomolecular events within the body which translate into distinct genetic differences. (See also Dias and Ressler "Parental Olfactory Experience Influences Behavior and Neural Structure in Subsequent Generations," Nature Neuroscience 17 (2014): 86-96).
An interesting indication from animal studies cited in the Heijmans research above was that fleeting environmental events can produce "life-long phenotypic consequences'. Much of this research has been the result of investigations into bacteria. Results of this research and the observed phenomena could not be explained under traditional Darwinian notions of evolution. Waddington's term epigenetics was revived and in doing so a massive amount of data has been poured in. From the results it was concluded that rapid adaptation could not be the product of random beneficial mutations and because of the speed with which traits such as antibiotic resistance spread within and across species of microbes 'there had to be some real-time evolutionary reset mechanism'. Epigenetics was back.
The important takeaway from this is that the nucleotide sequences – those things which direct our functions as living creatures – can be modified by environmental pressures to fundamentally change our genetic make-up. More importantly, coercive and forced environmentally selective pressures which result from hostile social and cultural events can and will have rippling effects on our children's genetic make-up, and thus on their ability to function, conceive, and navigate the world with which they're born into – either for better or worse. Upon reading this it should be immediately clear just how important epigenetics, our current political and cultural events, and emerging biological technologies are to the alt right. Much of what we rely on from the past is outdated in the context of our current situation (though not wrong – an important distinction). Knowledge of material and events of this sort is crucial for us if we're to have any hope of success in the future.
Now the cool stuff. CRISPR belongs to a group of more modern genetic engineering techniques which include things like homologous recombination and artificial restriction enzymes. The latter of these two includes techniques such as Zinc-Finger Nuclease (ZFN) and Transcription Activator-Like Effector Nuclease (TALEN). However, these techniques are complex in their design and suffer from the problem of having a high prevalence rate of 'off-target' effects. Off-target effects essentially are negative or unintended side-effects not part of the original set of effects built into a technology.
CRISPR, or Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeat, stands apart from the other techniques in that it has been a kind of 'wonder' tool of the genetic engineering field. It was discovered accidentally in research being done on another issue and it has shown a low rate of prevalence in off-target effects (up to 90% success rate) and is an extremely effective mechanism of transport for specific desired genetic sequence one wishes to replace an undesired sequence within the human genome. Essentially, CRISPR works by using a vector (a virus) to bring the CRISPR/Cas9 protein in contact with genomic DNA (a nucleotide sequence), cleave out the target genetic segment, and replace it with the desired genetic segment brought along with the CRISPR/Cas9 protein. The initial results reported by Liang et al. showed worrisome rates of off-target effects but it was speculated this was the result of the type of embryonic stem cell being used for the research. These were 'non-viable' embryos which cannot result in a live birth. Given the ability to test on viable embryos it is believed these off-target effects would be considerably lower.
More recently a paper from Gladstone Institutes republished in Science Daily highlighted some advancements in the CRISPR field with a new technique called CRISPRi (the 'I' stands for interference). Whereas the 60-70% off-target effects of the CRISPR technique leaves much to be desire CRISPRi works by silencing the targeted gene segment (meaning the gene is not allowed to express itself – essentially the gene is 'turned off') without actually splicing it out of the gene sequence. The success rate without off-target effects was 'more than 95%' in cells created using this new CRISPR method.
However, the rapid advancements and successes of the CRISPR techniques are not without their criticism and concerns. Most of these criticisms fall within the realm of long-term ethical implications and the ability in which 'CRISPR is used to control populations of organisms in the wild', says Erik Sontheimer of University of Massachusetts Medical school. Human beings are organisms and the use of this technology by opposed nations on their enemy's civilian population is an incredibly troubling possibility. Think Pakistan with a nuclear weapon is bad? Imagine a group like the Islamic State getting their hands on a biomolecular weapon that modifies genetic code – say for instance the specific gene sequence responsible for producing white blood cells. Or imagine one's own government covertly spreading an aerosolized genetic bioweapon that reduced fertility rates of a specific racial group to 1/1000.
Regardless, countries are going ahead with this research despite the very real concerns it entails. It isn't just countries either. Private institutes are being funded by governmental organizations such as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and private businesses like genepeeks, BGI (a Chinese based company), and Editas Medicine are all pushing the frontier of this research while snagging massive amounts of governmental funding and patenting everything they do as fast as they can. Here's BGI's patent for the 'Method and system for generating a virtual progeny genome' or more commonly known as 'designer' babies. The Chinese are especially concerning in this field despite their massive contribution to the field (mostly because they don't have the regulatory blocks like many Western countries do). Most notably the Chinese are gathering up as much genetic information as they can in order to map out the genetic sequence tied to high IQ. DARPA will be focusing on 'areas of research [which] include diagnostics for infectious diseases, synthetic biology, biological clocks, systems biology and a program to establish the lineage of genetic modifications to living organisms'. The US government is so scared of this technology in the hands of others that they're not messing around when it comes to gene drive.
Gene drive is the practice of artificially stimulating genetic inheritance of specific genes 'to alter entire populations of organisms'. This can be used to render a population immune to a specific disease or to crash their reproduction rate. The latter of which is how most of the research and application has been used to combat mosquitoes which carry the malaria virus. Essentially scientists, by identifying and targeting a specific gene, have been able to take a recessive female sterility phenotype in mosquito populations and achieve '91.4 to 99.6%' transmission rates to offspring which would 'expedite the development of gene drives to suppress mosquito populations to levels that do not support malaria transmission'.
White Nationalism, Ethnostates, and the Future:
Where does all this information leave the alt right, and larger racially conscious movements, in the context of the discussion of race? To be honest, I'm not quite sure but I do have some ideas. Regarding gene drive and genetic editing I am torn. On the one hand this technology has the possibility to unlock and achieve great heights in human advancement (imagine this technology being available to Western society prior to its subversion by Jewish communists and intellectuals starting with the psychoanalytic and Frankfurt school) but on the other hand this technology can, and will, be used for some very nefarious and disgusting applications both in war and society. The question we must ask ourselves regarding this is whether the potential good outweighs the almost assured potential harm. I don't have the answer and even if I did I wouldn't speak it here. That's up to each individual. However, in the context of race and specifically our White race my answer to the question for now is unequivocally no. This technology must be opposed until such a time exists where we are not at the mercy of another racial group's ire.
Simply put, I do not trust anyone not within my own group to have access to this technology and not use it against me or my own. I don't trust Jews, Blacks, Chinese, Arabs, and even other Whites not part of the alt right. And I definitely wouldn't expect other groups to trust ours. This is a rational and natural response to such a devastatingly dangerous weapon – and it is a weapon. Whether it's applied in warfare or peacetime as a therapy it is a weapon that attacks and changes genetic sequences of human beings. Viewing it as anything else is foolish.
I've already mentioned the use of CRISPR as a way to crash a population's numbers through sterility but there are many other applications. Take the neuropeptide/hormone Oxytocin, for example. Oxytocin is linked to higher degrees of ethnocentrism which is the belief and desire to support one's own group at the expense of other out-groups. From a cultural perspective high levels of oxytocin facilitate and encourage high trust among one's own in-group and high levels of cooperation towards common tasks. On an individual level high amounts of oxytocin increase a mother's identification and care for her newborn child as well as show a relationship between oxytocin and 'subsequent maternal and social behaviors' in animals. Children who grow up away from their biological parents, due to the lack of higher levels of oxytocin in the adoptive parents, are far likely to have trouble forming meaningful relationships further suggesting the strong link between oxytocin and social behavior later on in life.
In environment where stress is high or there is some kind of separation taking effect between an individual and either another individual or a group which the individual identifies oxytocin is also seen to be at high levels. Stressful relationships or 'more gaps' in relationships reveal higher levels in oxytocin as well. When this stress of separation is prominent and widespread high levels of 'behavioral anxiety and depression' can be expected and indeed this is what the research concludes. This would seem to indicate that where these phenomena occur the body is producing a hormone derived from a specific gene in the hypothalamus which would drive the individual to seek a remedy to the separation from one's group which they identify with or to find some satisfaction through a relationship which offers some degree and kind of closeness.
Imagine a gene sequence synthesized in a lab which would reverse this process. That is, imagine modifying one's genetic make-up in which oxytocin was released when one sought the comfort and company of groups which were not like them and which they originally didn't identify with. In the context of our own movement this would be akin to the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Or imagine you want a new face. This is to say nothing about the genes tied to the human capacity for shared intentionality otherwise known as social cognition. While epigenetics presents strong evidence for a case that environment plays a large role in shaping behavior, shaping allele expression, and the modification of future generations of unborn children none of these are possible without the basic structure's existence. I can't push over a fence or paint a car a different color if they don't exist to be pushed over or painted in the first place.
The baseline, or pre-existing genetic framework, which those on the alt right wish to preserve and make better through their choices and actions would come under direct threat from a technology like gene editing which employs gene drive. To return to the quip about pushing fences over, those who would want to alter the Caucasian genetic lineage should stop and think about why it exists in the first place. When you come up to a fence, to not know the reason it was built, and not see any apparent use for it as you approach it is not a sufficient reason to knock it down. Europeans adopted relatively bilateral kinship lines and monogamy with less emphasis on extended kinship relations because that is what the environment selected for and those with the genes necessary for survival went on to produce generations. The descendants of whom are subsequently responsible for the greatest number of human accomplishments in the modern age. All of our European heritage can be traced back to those first humans who established themselves in the European continent and those who survived to produce offspring.
Race, in-groups, collectivism towards our own, and all other concepts of human interaction which drive behavior over the course of human evolutionary history would quite literally be wiped out over a generation – two at the most. I can't begin to conceive of the effects this would have but I can't imagine they would be healthy or productive. This brings up another point which is the focus of rigorous study and heavy criticism in MacDonald's Culture of Critique. Namely, that one group pushes one belief system and set of principles which gives it an advantage and weakens the group being demanded accept this system. In the same way this has been the standard operating procedure of Jewish intellectuals and critics so too does it stand to reason that this same framework would be applied to something like CRISPR or any gene editing technology which could modify behavior. Imagine modifying a population to be extremely individualistic while further strengthening one's own group to be more collectivist. You don't need to. All you have to do is look at Israel and Jews.
This brings me to the last subject of discussion and the one which I spent the first portion of this article presenting. Because epigenetics deals with the external environmental factors which modify the genome without modifying the actual nucleotide sequence itself, and because social and cultural environments place pressures and modify behaviors through concepts like mores, guilt, shame, praise, and structure institutions like law it stands to reason that society and culture themselves are external environmental pressures which can cause specific genes to express themselves or select groups of people who are more capable of surviving and passing on their genetic legacy to future generations. I do not know what the effect in its totality has been on the different human populations over the last 100 years but if our current evidence on social media, print and digital 'media' publications, and organized political and social groups are any indication it is reasonable to surmise many reactions to concepts like racism, anti-Semitism, and 'bigotry' have a genetic basis created through social engineering. For those who react in viscerally violent ways with a revulsion to these concepts and ideas it may be for them as natural as their heartbeat.
The idea that human beings are blank slates, or tabula rasa, doesn't hold any merit anymore but the moderate position of the cultural Marxists doesn't seem to be as far off as previously denied. Certainly culture isn't the one and only phenomena but if we examine the almost total success with which our traditional institutions have been taken over in hostile fashion there can be no doubt that if you're taught and constantly reminded the only proper culture is a multicultural one it shouldn't be perplexing when one looks around and wonders why so many people feel the need to signal in favor of a religion and its adherents that have an explosive identity problem.
Social epigenetics offers the alt right and future White nationalists a scientific basis for putting forward our positions, one which doesn't rely on purely phenomenological positions deriving from philosophy that lack any convincing material evidence. CRISPR forces a society that wants to adopt it as a tool for genetic change to recognize the legitimacy of inherent genetic traits in peoples and over time this will erode the cultural and social brainwashing which has claimed the contrary is true. Unless we and our children are to be slaves to someone else, and their ideology, then we ought to be able to choose the society, culture, and people we wish to live amongst otherwise we are being forcibly genetically modified by those who would seek to deny us this freedom. Fighting against an ideology or system of belief isn't just about fighting against those specific beliefs anymore – not if you take into consideration the research on epigenetics. It also means considering the culture created by that ideology and the downstream effects it will have on your children and even their grandchildren.
Gene editing and epigenetics offer White nationalists a solid basis for reasserting topics of eugenics and a desire for specific genetic traits because these are implicitly affirmed and brought to the forefront as legitimate and desirable by technologies like CRISPR, the companies seeking to profit from them, and increasing research into the epigenetic effects on the human genome by our external environments (assuming a society adopts them which all evidence points to this becoming more likely). Keeping ourselves abreast of these advances and the current state of scientific research so as to be capable of crafting a message to our own as well as others will go a long way to maintaining the coherence of our movement among so many incoherent ideologies and will reflect a solid grasp on the future as a major incentive for those seeking stability and security in an increasing chaotic and unstable society.
Culture of Critique
Evolving Ourselves: How Unnatural Selection and Nonrandom Mutation are Changing Life on Earth
A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race, and Human History
Originally published on KulturKampf