A Response to Pilleater: the Failure of Eurasian Futurism

A Response to Pilleater: the Failure of Eurasian Futurism

. 24 min read

On March 8th of this year, I received a message from a mutual on Facebook who sent me a link to an article that was published on Francis Nally's (nom de plume Pilleater) Substack page. The article, linked here, appears to be a diatribe by Nally in which I, and few other of my friends and colleagues, are mentioned by name and are painted as the subject of criticism along with Brent Cooper and Hanzi Freinacht of Metamodern fame.

To be honest, I was shocked to see myself mentioned directly in Nally's article, along with fellow Metanaissance contributors Adam James Davis and Justin Carmien, as I had generally assumed that we were on good terms. Francis was, at one point, even an author for Metanaissance, although it seems he has now since decided to remove everything he published for this webzine to publish exclusively on Substack.

Much of the article struck me as incredibly vague if I'm being honest. But from what I could gather, Nally's main gripe seems to be with the ability of liberalism to reify critical theory and anti-liberal sentiment and repackage it as trendy counter-cultural movements that ultimately benefit the existing liberal elites.

Nally writes,

The subject of “Critical Theory” has been pinnacle to understanding Western Marxism, late 20th century philosophy, and what is considered trendy in creative writing markets. It has been assumed that “the alternative right” began as a pet project from Richard Spencer (as the “evil Huffington Post”) to incorporate his influences from Paul Gottfried and the works of Alain de Benoist (especially from Telos journal). Now called “the alt right” as a subculture rather than a web magazine is peculiar, in that it’s original focus was to use Trotskyism to push an intersectionality of self-proclaimed “right wing” causes against the mainstream Republican establishment and as well to depart from paleoconservatism.
Past Trotskyists, like Irving Kristol and James Burnham, suddenly became conservative and attempted to use their Trotskyist strategies to make the Republican establishment accept values of egalitarianism accepted in a liberal democratic capitalist framework. They were successful. And today, what is known as the “Dissident Right” is not a variant of John Derbyshire’s paleoconservatism use of the term, but a farfetched intersectionality of what’s left of right-leaning subcultures in a liberal framework. What is “dissident” is only allowed to be so for liberals critiquing one another.

The old AltRight in particular is mentioned as having been one of the first attempts by supposed Right-leaning "liberals" and "Malthusians" to cash in on the collective disdain for liberalism of various dissident movements by selling them an alternative that ultimately operates under the auspices of liberalism for the benefit of the liberal establishment.

While not solely a grift used by bad actors within the Dissident Right at large, (Nally makes the point that Leftists also fall into this same trap) Nally sees in the Conservative backlash that began as a reaction to the political excesses of the Great Awokening (2011-12) an insidious germ that would eventually sprout to cash in on the anger and frustration felt by White Americans during the Obama years. Granted, the above is my personal interpretation of what I believe Nally is fundamentally getting at, as he himself says, "To follow these breadcrumbs back to the original source is a hard task. Under modernity, only “culture” matters according to the whims of the fleeting supply and demand market."

In the following paragraph, Nally lays out a list of what he seems to claim are bad faith liberals bent on profiting from the anti-liberal tendencies that have gripped the internet since 2012.

Nally writes,

To cash in on the anti-liberal anger, liberals have dressed themselves in academic and ivory tower language to conceal themselves as original art movements, when in fact they are out for free content creators for their pyramid schemes of capital. Such groups include Kashif Vikaas’ “Meta Right,” Brett Cooper’s “Metamodernism,” and Charles Haywood’s “Foundationalism.” All play with Republican anger and fuse it together with intersectional liberalism and ambiguity as if all of it belongs to a new and highly eclectic “third” position. Other agents like Jay Dyer or Justin Murphy also play into this religious to right-leaning anger and reinvent the terms to mean intellectual hipsterism. The huge player in this Silicon Valley Republic game of “dark intellectualism” influence is Palladium Magazine. While Palladium Magazine is quite aware of these agents I have mentioned, the purpose of this tentacle web is to instill Trotskyism and to continue the Malthusian state against the common people. Their influence is one of many.

I was genuinely surprised to see the Meta-Right as a target for Nally's criticism, as the Meta-Right is mostly confined to the Internet and social media forums and is still attempting to figure itself out and become what it is meant to be. Even more so since I also assumed that Metanaissance co-founder Kashif Vikaas and Nally were in frequent communication with one another. Perhaps I assumed wrongly. What I found odd is that Nally indiscriminately lumps both Kashif and the Meta-Right into the same punching bag along with names such as Brent (who he incorrectly calls "Brett") Cooper and Hanzi Freinacht of the metamodern Left. Odd, because both Cooper and Daniel Gortz (who makes up one half of the Hanzi character) almost certainly see Kashif and I as crypto-fascist agitators looking to hijack metamodernism for our own nefarious purposes. But apparently, according to Nally, both the Meta-Right and Left-metamodernism exist, as Nally puts it, as "pyramid schemes of capital."

Finally, what follows next is Nally's own critique of me as well as my publication. Nally continues, writing,

A great example of this hostile ideology is found within the Vikaas blog, “Metanaissance.com.” Writers like Lukas Eidolon use “theory fiction” to construct a word salad of Christian esoteric mixed with overpopulation paranoia. Adam James Davis talks about why esoteric Hinduism is good without context to any political interest. Justin Carmien will write about “authenticity” while tying it into comic book superheroes. The tiny farm Vikaas has is about pleasing big-tech trends that orbit the Republican club of Elon Musk. A previous project known as “The Warden Post” was also about pandering to nationalist interest in race and tradition while pretending it’s critical theory.

I'm assuming that Nally is referring to my most recent articles in which I attempt to construct hypothetical futures after postmodernism. That being said, I have always made it an effort to write about my thoughts on current political events, cultural issues, metamodernism as seen from the Right and, occasionally, Christianity and religion. However, I have since backed away from writing about theology or Church politics because 1). I'm just a layman, not a priest, religious scholar or theologian and 2). because I feel like the Orthosphere is already saturated to the gills with Internet crusaders trying to make it as the next Jay Dyer. Nally is correct to say that I am indeed an Orthodox Christian, and I have never shied away from saying that I am one.

What caught my eye is the statement that all of my writing apparently boils down to "Christian esoterica mixed with overpopulation paranoia." This comes as surprise to me as I am of the opinion that it is underpopulation, not overpopulation, that poses the greatest societal threat for the continuation of both Occidental civilization and the post-industrial world economy. Maybe Nally's criticisms ring true when scrutinizing some my older articles, when my writing was much more focused on demographic realism, identitarianism and a political bent could have been called "AltRight" in character. Maybe. However, that still doesn't characterize either the substance or the tone of any of my articles from 2020 onward, which are far more focused on meta-aesthetics and, as Nally has already implied, possible futures after postmodernism.

I also find it interesting that Nally also chose to single out Adam Davis and Justin Carmien, two of the most pleasant and inoffensive content creators on the Web. The article that Nally seems to be referring to is an interview that Davis did with Suffering Abolitionist and philosophical hedonist David Pierce. The article in question, "What is High-Tech Jainism?" (which Nally confuses with Hinduism) is meant to be a reference to the philosophy of non-violent transhumanism that Pierce personally subscribes too, as Pierce, who is a vegan, maintains that Suffering Abolitionists have an obligation to bring no harm to any living creature, no matter how small or seemingly insignificant; a system of ethics that is also found in Jainism. Had Nally even bothered to read the interview, I'm sure this would have been obvious to him.

Nally's criticism of Justin Carmien is even more opaque, as I cannot even find a single reference to what article or video in which Justin even mentions superheroes of any kind, be they DC, Marvel or otherwise. Also, Justin writes about authenticity because, like many of us on the Meta-Right and those adjacent to it, we are ultimately attempting to get to the essence of things. If Nally were to really launch any kind of sincere criticism at Justin, it should have been over his almost obnoxious use of throwing untranslated Attic Greek terminology into his writing that leaves the reader having to constantly backtrack and re-read the meaning of the original word as it applies to the context of his opuscules. Oh well.

Lastly, Nally brings attention to my previous involvement with The Warden Post, a now defunct Revolutionary Conservative publication of which I was both a co-founder, frequent contributor and managing editor for. Nally alleges that both I and chief editor Alexander von Marstall were "pandering" to an audience of nationalists and Traditionalists. If we did, it was only because the audience was there. The 2010s were a boom-time for anyone involved in reactionary politics. The works of Julius Evola, the French New Right and the Revolutionary Conservative movement of the Interwar Period were just starting to make rounds in the Anglosphere due to their recent translations into English by way of Arktos.

However, this begs the question: were von Marstall and myself "pandering" to a base of fellow Revolutionary Conservatives, archeofuturists, and Radical Traditionalists any more than analogous publications and publishers like CounterPunch or Zero Books were for the Left? No. The audience was simply there, and it was our goal to provide as much meaningful and inspiring content for our followers and subscribers. Far from being guilty of duping "free content creators" into working for our "pyramid schemes of capital," we put nothing behind a paywall, and, in many cases, I paid out of my own pocket to promote our publication on social media and paid for the streaming subscriptions that kept our podcast active. It was even our intention, had we acquired the funds to do so, to pay our authors for every original article they published based on its length.

We pulled the wool over nobody's eyes. Our publication had the best writers from every corner of the Dissident Right, from Rik Storey to Matthew Raphael Johnson, to Michael Michailides, to Richard D. Wolstencroft, to Alderon Tyran who later ascended to Youtube music fame, to Adam James Davis and Justin Carmien who I am still pleased to work with to this day. The Warden Post embodied the optimistic spirit of the early 2010s as the Right waxed ascendant before the Great Doom and nihilism ushered in by the 2020s. While I cannot speak for von Marstall, who has since left this plane to rest in the great temple-cities of polar Hyperborea, I can speak for myself when I say that at no point was it my intention to make a profit from my involvement with that project. My only goal, as it is with Metanaissance today, is to speak truth to power and to promote the writing of authors from across the spectrum of dissident politics.

I can work with my own hands to provide for myself. I don't need to take my pound of flesh from the product of other authors' brains. That Nally is so cynical as to assume that this was my ultimate goal is insulting, especially since he himself chooses to publish his writing on Substack of all places. But what really gets my goat is that Nally could have approached me at any time if he truly wanted a quick rundown on either the overlapping philosophies of the Meta-Right or my own opinions on political issues rather than just have gone and made all of these ridiculous and egregious assumptions. Anyone who knows me knows that I am not a difficult person to work with and I have always kept my DMs open in all of my social media accounts. Why he didn't just choose to come to me in the first place is just so incredibly disappointing because, again, I had naturally assumed that the two of us were on good terms.

Truthfully, this isn't even the first time Nally has made these kinds of accusations about The Warden Post or me. In a video he put up on Youtube he describes me as a, "e-Christian but totally not E. Michael Jones e-Christian who loves Blank Banshee." Truth be told, this is honestly one of the most accurate characterizations of myself. However, if I might just add a slight revision, let me just come out and say that I love all kinds of vaporwave artists, not just Blank Banshee.

But with all of this said, I'm still left with one lingering question: why? I don't know why myself or Kashif, Justin or Adam James Davis or the Meta-Right are specifically made out to be targets for Pilleater's ire, other than we're all just supposedly "liberals" trying to capitalize on the anger and alienation of vulnerable White Western men. However, maybe Pilleater is right. Kashif is a minarchist, Justin Carmien always struck me as a civic nationalist and Adam Davis appears to be just a regular Briton with no strong political opinions on anything. Maybe I am the odd man out here.

To be honest, I stopped investing in politics around 2018. My only sincere political opinions are anything that just so happens to upset the people I don't like, regardless of the political geopolitical fallout such policies might have. At this point I'm non-ideological; post-ideological even. What's the point of having sincere convictions anyway? We're living in a post-Truth society. Everything is fake and gay, and nothing ever happens.

However, if I were drum up a list of the beliefs that I believe define me, my world-outlook and my relationship to life, they would be these:

God is real, and prayer is the unit by which He is measured. Hierarchy and natural inequality are immutable facts of naturalistic existence; whether this came to be by the evolutionary development of dominance hierarchies or were preordained prior to manifestation does not negate this fact. Lastly, the sole function of human society is the production and reproduction of power.

It is for these reasons listed above why I firmly consider myself as belonging to the Right. Any arguments about theological esoterica, or religionism, political theory, sociological assumptions and economics are just dross and window dressing to these three immutable facts as far as I'm concerned.

And while we're on the subject of politics, it's hard to even pinpoint where on the political spectrum Pilleater is grounding these criticisms of the Meta-Right, Brent Cooper and Hanzi Freinacht in aside from vague "anti-liberalism" that he appears to subscribe to. Even after reading some of what he's published on Substack, I'm still unable to place his exact political orientation. He appears at sometimes to be something of a psuedo-Marxian critical theorist, or a post-Left counter-culturalist and at other times a kind of post-AltRight polemicist. Afterall, Pilleater had a working relationship with one of the OGs of the Alternative Right, Collin Liddell, so it wouldn't be surprising if it was with the early AltRight that Pilleater had his political awakening. Still, all of this is purely conjecture on my part, and I am not going to make assumptions about his political positions; a courtesy that he did not extend to me.

What is certain is that Nally is the founder, and likely the sole adherent, of a movement he calls "Asian-Aryanism" (often abbreviated as "AxA") or "Eurasian Futurism." Indeed, Asian-Aryanism seems to inform every aspect of his metapolitical thought, likely due to Nally himself being of mixed Euromerican and Asian heritage. Pilleater defines Asian-Aryanism as,

AxA is a youth movement, ages 18-29, that seeks agitation and destruction in spaces of liberal influences that deny their Eurasian identity. China will rule over the West, and white people will be in denial of the transition. Future Leftism will care only about the transhumanist push to make anime real, while future Rightism will contemplate the Eurasian tradition and how anime is constructed as a spiritual conquest of the stars. All popular art in the future will be anime-influenced to some degree.

Doubtless you are just as equally at a loss over what you just read as I am, dear reader. However, there appears to be a kind of hidden method to the aforementioned madness. Asian-Aryanism, or "AxA," seems to be primarily an aesthetic movement and, aspirationally, a political movement against the liberalizing, universalist values of Western Globalism and international finance-capitalism. Pilleater continues,

If the perfected soul belongs to one destiny, like “saving the white race” or “saving the Asian race,” isn’t this “Aryan” by design? “Aryan” could refer to the Indo-Aryan people of the beginning of human civilization, but also as the idealized and perfected emulation of the superhuman. What was once mocked and hated by liberals as “white supremacy” changes its definition by becoming “Asian supremacy,” as consented, duped, and advocated by the very liberals who hate themselves. White liberals always wanted Aryan idealism, but it wasn’t supposed to be anti-American, anti-capitalist, anti-liberal, German, or any manifestation of the Axis party. The perfected man is not Jesus Christ, but a cartooney, anime-realist escapism against a world of blind egalitarianism.

It's almost a bad cliché at this point to even type the words "there's a lot to unpack here" without projecting oneself as some kind of hypercritical bugperson who defends liberal narratives and GloboHomo psyops. But in this case, there really is a lot to unpack here. The main jist of what I'm getting is that Asian-Aryanism is intended to be a politico-aesthetic movement that transmogrifies the self-hating, race-denialist tendencies of postmodern White liberal cosmopolitans and, through some kind of weird alchemy, distills the self-hatred and race-guilt of the White Western man by rearranging and ordering them into the Confucian virtue ethics and anime aesthetics of contemporary East Asian societies of the Sinosphere. The European man, neutered by liberalism, bureaucratism, and Christian universalism, recovers his "Aryan" spirit by passing it on through his Eurasian offspring who, by being half European, embody the masculine impulse, and are studiously raised and natured under the care of their dainty and submissive East Asian mothers who naturally embody the essence of the feminine.

But let's cut through the bullshit, this entire project of Asian-Aryanism is an attempt by Pilleater to cope with and attempt to understand his identity as a mixed-race person. I bare no ill will towards Nally by saying this. Everyone, whether they're of a pure Bavarian phenotype or a triracial Brazilian, is entitled to be proud of and embrace who they are. I am not a supremacist in that regard, but I am a race realist. A Dominican is fundamentally different from a neighboring Haitian and an African Bantu is both physiognomically and genetically different from the Khoisanid whose ancestors they displaced. I have already written about this in the past so I will not be touching on this topic here more at length.

Pilleater seems to have an obsession with the words "Malthusian" and "Christian" which he liberally peppers throughout his writing to immediately dismiss anything he finds disagreeable, much in the same way that Leftists use the word "reactionary" or Dissident Rightists and Trads use the word "degenerate." If someone is a demographic or race realist, he is immediate flagged by Nally as a "Malthusian." If someone is a professing Christian, he's a superstitious rube and a willing stooge for promoting liberal, universalist values. However, the problem is that in doing so Nally falls into a kind of intellectual dishonesty.

Race, despite its obviousness, has, in the Postmodern era onward, been a problem for sociologically minded people. After all, we wear our races on our faces. But race is more than just skin deep. There are many aspects to race, a genetic or hereditarian aspect, a physionomical and, especially in our times, a sociological aspect. The first two are zoe (ζωή), the latter is bios (βιος). The hereditarian aspect of race deals with genetics while the physiognomic aspect deals with a specific phenotype shared by certain "races." These are the aspects of race that we tend to immediately think about when we are prone to thinking about race.

We could wax heavily about how the "Germanic" race is different than the "Slavic" race. This is the physionomic aspect of race, race as appearance. We could also discuss how the Europid race differs from the Mongolid or Asian race. This is both race as appearance and race as zoe, something belonging to naturalistic life. The aspect of race that concerns us is the sociological aspect of race, race as a certain type. Race as a something that is felt inwardly, race as something belonging to a mode of life. This aspect of race is bios.

Asian-Aryanism, as outlined by Pilleater, takes as its subject the "Eurasian," the offspring of either a European father and Asian mother or an Asian father and a European mother. This feeling of "Eurasianness," of not belonging to either the Occidental or Oriental worlds, but straddling, and aspiring to being a bridge between, both. The problem with this is that the "Eurasian" can never be a whole, he is always the sum, not only of his own parts, but the parts of his dimorphic parents.

Everything from this point onward is going to deal with generalizations and perhaps, even crudely, with stereotypes. But however, crude, generalizing or stereotypical I make the following statements out to be, I do so to make a point. We are dealing with the existence of mixed-race peoples as a fact, as the natural consequence of greater human interactivity since the Age of Discovery to our present day where globalization has become inevitable. With this in mind, I think we can categorize mixed-race peoples into at least four distinct groups. These are:

  1. The castizo.
  2. The mestizo.
  3. The hapa.
  4. The mulatto.

For the sake of the point that I am trying to make, I won't be going into depth about the where mulattoes fit into this argument, as the existence of the mulatto fundamentally ties into issues surrounding "Blackness" as a concept in post-colonial ideology, especially in the United States, and to a lesser extent, the rest of the Anglosphere. What does interest us is the first three categories, starting with the castizo.

In the above, I had mentioned that the third aspect of race is race as bios, race as something that is felt in the blood or as a mode of life. It is this aspect of race that the castizo most closely embodies. The word "castizo" was a racial category used by the Spanish conquerors of the New World to refer to anyone who was three-quarters peninsulare (i.e., as having originated from the Iberian Peninsula) and one-quarter indio, or aboriginal native. It should be no surprise then that castizos made up the majority of people who occupied the top rungs of the casta system imposed on the pre-Colombian peoples of the Americas by the conquistadors.

Under this category, a foreign people, almost always a conqueror, arrives on the shores of a newfound land and forcibly subjugates the native population, taking their women and wealth as booty. The existence of the castizo is always the result of a conquest, typically the descendant of a conqueror who took a native woman to wife. As a result, racial admixture from the native population can be noticeable, but is usually scant. At any rate, the bloodline from the original class of conquerors or colonists is, for the most part, preserved and castizos maintain a social majority in the upper echelons of the societies that their warrior ancestors established. This is the model that has proliferated throughout Latin America and was the common model established by the conquering warrior tribes of the ancient world.

The second grouping is the mestizo who, like the castizo, is the result of foreign conquest or forced occupation. In this case, the mestizo finds his genesis as being the off scouring of the conquerors. While he may have a portion of the blood of the conquerors in his veins, he fundamentally does not belong to the same privileged class that was established by the conquerors or colonizers and simultaneously reserved for their castizo children. As such, the mestizo most closely resembles the aboriginal population of his immediate ancestors and is generally consigned to a fellaheen or peasant existence. This mixed-race grouping is most common throughout Latin America and the Philippines.

Finally, and for our purposes, the mixed-race grouping that concerns us most the hapa. Hapa is a Hawaiian word that originally described anyone of mixed Hawaiian ancestry regardless of racial background. The term has since become appropriated to refer to anyone of partial Asian heritage. Unlike the castizo, the mestizo or even the mulatto, the hapa is a far more recent creation. The hapa ultimately owes his existence to the growth of international trade networks and the Western desire for new markets. Notable events that led to the ethnogenesis of the hapa include the Dutch colonization of the East Indies (1600s-1949), the First Opium War (1839-42) and the Treaty of Nanking, the opening of Japan (1853), and the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii by the United States (1893). These events would open up the Orient to further interconnectivity with the West. Even from the beginning, the origin of the hapa had for its conception the European drive for economic expansionism. Unlike, the castizo or the mestizo, whose birth pains began at the point of a sword and with the volley of guns, the hapa has a purely mercantile point of origin, and this legacy would continue define the hapa for as long as he has existed.

In another article, Pilleater puts forth a scenario where,

Suppose a half-white, half-Asian child is born or exists. Both the white and Asian ethnonationalists cannot comprehend the Eurasian child’s existence and succumb back to the argument that “all of existence is painful.” If the child is neither white or Asian, he belongs on neither team, and his existence causes pain! The answer must mean there has to be a “Eurasian ethnonationalist” party that he must belong to. But what if there is none or the party is as small as the state of Delaware? Established institutions of being “white” or “Asian” are more appealing over what better goods are offered. If someone is Chinese-American, and had to choose between representing America or China in a international competitive sport, the choice is between what offers a superior good. One is better off with good or without pain. A third position cannot be realized because both America and China want to maximize their people over the alien. And so both want the alien to not exist.

This scenario is a response to racial nationalism, advocated either by Whites or Asians. Nally takes issue with the idea that natalism is only a positive if it is advocated by one tribe over the other, because such racial natalism does not take into the account the existence of mixed-race people. What, then, become of them? Nally is without a doubt a natalist. Anything else is a Malthusian de-population scheme. However, even he comes to the realization that "natalism can only maximize more over nothing." With this in mind, he reaches a sort of paradox where,

We are asking “If the Eurasian exists, verse if the Eurasian never exists.” The same logic can apply to any mixed-race person as well. We come to a conclusion that Eurasianism (or any biracial party) must exist because the absence of them is a deprivation. However, it must also assume that any alien force is indeed, bad. The Eurasian (or mixed person) is currently an alien if it is denied an institution. The contradiction means that the alien must have more people like themselves and obtain the same status as the natalist. The race conscious natalist, ironically, cannot accept this coexistence, as the alien has always been bad and negates their people for others. What would happen if all natalists become ethnonationalist? Then the absence of the alien is good because it is enjoyed by no one. Therefore, a white nationalist cannot enjoy anything that is alien, and thus the absence of the non-white is good. An Asian nationalist cannot enjoy anything that is alien, and thus the absence of the non-Asian is good. The Eurasian is an alien, and is constantly negated!

The problem with this conclusion by Nally is that it seems to gloss over cultural diffusion. Cultures and races can influence and be influenced by one another through certain foods, forms of music or visual entertainment without ever co-mingling with one another. Or, as Richard Spencer would often say, quoting from Monty Python when asked by his detractors what would happen to all of the exotic ethnic food if we repatriate all non-Whites, "Well, now that we have the recipes..."

For all his criticism of liberalism, universalism and Christianity, it's shocking that Nally cannot see for the life of him that the hapa owes his very existence to the search for new markets, greater interconnectivity between the nations of Europe and the Orient, and missionary efforts on the part of Europeans. The hapa, more than any other mixed-race person, is a creation of the modern world.

Pilleater can wax poetic all he wants about how Asian-Aryanism is inevitable as more White men (let's be honest, the majority of hapa children are born from relationships are between White males and Asian females) rush towards the awaiting arms of Oriental comfort women, driven unconsciously by the need to fulfil some kind of post-Kantian idealism by bringing Western intellectualism and conceptions of freedom to be synthesized by Far Eastern wombs whose natural disposition is toward filial piety, collective order and anime aesthetics.

Even this is a product of liberal modernist tendencies. As much as Pilleater might go on about how Asian-Aryanism acts as a subversive counter-cultural movement to undermine liberalism, the majority of White male Asian female relationships begin, as even Pilleater notes in his other writings, on college campuses, through dating apps, and in the corporate workplace. All products of Western modernity.

What is really damaging is that this whole Asian-Aryan experiment is an attempt by Pilleater to make sense of his own identity as a hapa, as I've already said. But by encouraging further mixture between European or Euromerican men and Asian women, it only further creates a new generation of young people who feel trapped between two cultures and two identities. Nally will almost certainly accuse me of having called for "Eurasian erasure" by what I have just written. But that it fundamentally not true. I am a complete believer in freedom of association. If a White man and Asian woman, or an Asian man and a White woman, want to be in a relationship or get married they should have the absolute freedom to do so. What is problematic in my opinion is that if such a couple chooses to have children, they are setting them up for a future identity crisis. Oh, but Pilleater says, that's just me advocating for more Malthusianism and depopulation! Ridiculous.

With all this being said, let me say that I am not, at least in theory, opposed to the idea of a coherent Asian-Aryanism that acts for the interests of hapa or mixed-Asian peoples. The problem with this, though, is that races exist as wholes. At a base level, race exists as zoe, as appearance or phenotype and later as bios, which is an ordering of race-feeling, usually in response to the presence of other races.

This can be shown by long history over what constitutes "Whiteness" in America. In the beginning, Whiteness was inseparable from Anglo-Saxondom and only later began to make concessions to immigrants of continental Germanic stock and later Irish emigres escaping both famine and political unrest back home. Over time, "Whiteness" has come to include nearly anyone of full or partial European ancestry (at least as a legalistic formality) so broad that even castizos like Nick Fuentes have been declared supporters of "White supremacy" despite their obvious Amerindian ancestry.

The problem for Pilleater is that life operates by prison rules. A person like Fuentes can't be both on the same team as the Aryan Brotherhood and the Latin Kings simultaneously. Eventually, the "one-drop" rule wins out and a mixed-race person is forced to make a choice. A mixed-race person living in the United States must eventually decide between "White supremacy" (i.e., historic America) or Hispanicity, Asianity, Blackness or some other racial category. This idea is anathema to Pilleater because to him, "Eurasianism (or any biracial party) must exist because the absence of them is a deprivation." The problem is that Pilleater sees hapas, or Eurasians, as potential wholes when they are, in fact, mixtures. The development of ideological praxes such as Asian-Aryanism, and finally Eurasian Futurism, are meant to rectify this problem; by turning a mixture into a whole, by turning what exists as zoe into bios.

Again, I am not against these ideas as a matter of principle, but I see in them something that flies in the face of everything we know and feel about race. We can pretend that race doesn't matter (the liberal position) or that race is everything (the racialist position) or simply acknowledge that race is how we experience life, our place in the world, and how we identify and find meaning with our place in it. Could a potential homeland for hapas be carved out somewhere on the Eurasian continent? Perhaps. And, as a believer in freedom of association, I would give my full moral support to such a project. Is such a project potentially realizable at this point or somewhere in the near future? If we're being honest with ourselves, I think the answer would be a resounding: not even close.

This is fundamentally why Asian-Aryanism, and its end goal in the form of Eurasian Futurism, can only exist, as Nally himself maintains, as a "youth movement" that "seeks agitation and destruction in spaces of liberal influences that deny their Eurasian identity." In short, Asian-Aryanism can only exist as a subversive counter-cultural movement, not against liberalism as Nally maintains, but against the natural and unique homogeneity of races, nations and peoples.

What would be the end goal of Asian-Aryanism and, by extension, Eurasian Futurism? Let us look for an example in the real-life case of the Philippines. Filipinos are unique in that, on the one hand, they represent a former Spanish possession and are thus, through colonization, are racially mestizos. But because of the proximity of the Philippine islands to the mainland, they are also, both geographically and ethnically, Asians. The Philippines has become, very recently, a prime destination for what have been termed "passport bros." No longer are the Philippines, and by extension, the rest of Southeast Asia a destination for Boomers and forty-somethings looking for a tropical getaway and a potential foreign bride. But now millennial men, and even some aspiring Zoomers, view the Philippines, as well as Thailand and Vietnam (not even to mention Japan or Korea) as a place to go bride shopping. This should be, according to Nally, a net positive, something good even. But in reality, it just creates and enables a system where a few wealthy pensioners, as well as nouveau riche crypto millionaires, tech bros and social media influencers to engage in what effectively verges on human trafficking.

Eurasia will always be, primarily, first, a geographic expression; with Eurasians being foremost the inhabitants of that continent and, secondarily, referring to the offspring between its Atlantic and Pacific halves. The end goal of Asian-Aryanism, and thus Eurasian Futurism, far from achieving fully automated luxury anime, where a union between European men and Asian women create a hybrid race where women are cute, submissive and moe, and where men resemble something from bishojo manga, would inevitably lead to the Fillipinization of the entire Eurasian landmass.

For Pilleater, Eurasian Futurism is his attempt to construct a bios, a kind of race-feeling for hapa people. This is, however, impossible as races exist as wholes and must, like castizos, seek to maintain their homogeneity to the best of their ability or else, like the Polish mercenaries of Haiti, be absorbed into the native population. A historical example of this would be the blanching of the Finno-Ugric Magyar ruling class of the Hungarian state and its absorption into the native European population of Pannonia and the Carpathian basin. So much for Asian-Aryanism in that case.

This response to Pilleater hasn't been attempt on my part to "call him out" or to start e-drama between us. I still like Nally personally and I think he absolutely shines as a cultural critic, especially when it comes to his music reviews. However, to accuse me of being an author of "theory fiction" while he simultaneously constructs interracial, futurist fantasies is quite honestly just a step too far. Far from attempting to stir the proverbial pot between us, this response has been more of an attempt to clear the air and set the record straight. Pilleater is more than welcome to reach out to me if he so desires, and I sincerely hope we can clear up any remaining misunderstandings between us.