The Big Picture

Consider these arguments.

“Not see the forest for the trees.”

…to be unable to get a general understanding of a situation because you are too worried about the details…

This is something that I notice about Der Movement – the tendency to get bogged down by details in an ineffective autistic manner instead of focusing on the “big picture” and investing your time and energy on that big picture.

We can consider Yockey and Yockeyism. I have made clear my various areas of disagreement with Yockey (e.g., ideas about biological race and science/technics, innate Spenglerian automatic pessimism [as opposed to a realistic context-dependent pessimism], adopting a Third-Worldist pro-Soviet position, etc.). However, I am still strongly pro-Yockey because I recognize that those issues are mere details, the “trees.” In contrast, the big picture with Yockey, the “forest,” is the idea of Imperium, the Empire of the West, and more fundamentally, Pan-European (racial-cultural) Nationalism. It is an error to obsess over the details in this case instead of focusing on the big picture and working to promote the basic Yockeyian objective. See this and also see this about Yockeyism from a broad perspective.

We can next consider “Salterism” – Salter’s work on ethnic genetic interests (EGI). Certainly, there are many details to discuss about this work, but those details – that in some cases involving Der Movement devolve into imbecilic retard spiraling – should not distract us from the foundational principles of EGI: that we have an interest in promoting the interests of those genetically more similar to us. That interest should be based on (autosomal) genetic kinship – not supervised admixture modeling, PCA-based distances, certainly not single locus haplotypes (!); even autosomal Fst is only an indirect measure of kinship.

Unfortunately, the anthropologist who calculated my genetic kinship metrics (based on 547389 SNPs from genetic testing raw data) is dead so I don’t know exactly how he did it – I didn’t ask for details at the time. Most likely it was via measuring gene sharing greater than (positive values) or lesser than (negative values) a global average.

Genetic kinship is the “forest;” the other metrics are the “trees.” Also see this.

In any case, we should focus on the core issue of determining what actions promote our EGI and then going about doing it, without obsessing over the fine details and obsessing small genetic differences to an extent that it actually harms EGI. This is why I champion the concept of Net EGI.

Also see this that illustrates the concept:

….consider the possibility that a future, very finely grained, autosomal genetic analysis would show a clear distinctiveness between East and West England. A very narrow pursuit of ethnic genetic interest may suggest that the East and West English separate to form new ethnostates and that members of those groups should consider themselves distinct ethnies, not intermarry, etc. However, the costs of such a scenario need to be balanced against the relatively small extra gain in raw genetic interest obtained. This pursuit of narrow regional intra-national genetic interest would result in a disruption of the organic solidarity of the English nation and people; if this disruption makes the English—all of them, East and West—more vulnerable to foreign interests and intrusive demographic expansions, then the costs would outweigh the benefits. Likewise, the legitimate pursuit of intra-Western genetic interests and particularisms needs to be balanced against the possible costs incurred by not presenting a united front against other civilizational concentrations of genetic interest.

Obsessing over that East-West difference would be the “trees” – Gross EGI. Promoting English EGI that would help all the English would be the “forest” – Net EGI.

Even more fundamentally, we can consider the “Who is White?” question that Der Movement is obsessed with to the point of nitwits writing posts of thousands of words “proving” that they themselves are “White” (according to their own definition) while someone else they disapprove of is “not White.” Of course, we need a definition of our ingroup (this is in fact one of my criticisms of Der Movement) but this can be persons of (indigenous) European descent without the typical purity spiraling and obsessive nuttiness on this subject that characterize the “movement.” All of those breathless obsessions do not materially effectively advance White interests in the real world; instead, it is navel-gazing dissident onanism. At some point you need to define your ingroup in basic terms and then defend that group. At some point you need to identify what it is fundamentally you want to achieve and have a Pareto Principle attitude of concentrating your energies on those few main points that provide the bulk of the “pay off” for your desired outcome.

The point is not that you should completely disregard details but instead to realize that details are just that, details, and you should focus most of your attention on the big picture items that form the foundation of your dissident activity.