Nietzsche and the Jewish Group Evostrat

Evostrat = evolutionary strategy.

Nietzsche was correct when he suggested that the uncanniness of Jews derives from their dedication to survive at any price.  

The Jews are the most remarkable people in the history of the world, for when they were confronted with the question, to be or not to be, they chose, with perfectly unearthly deliberation, to be at any price: this price involved a radical falsification of all nature, of all naturalness, of all reality, of the whole inner world, as well as of the outer. They put themselves against all those conditions under which, hitherto, a people had been able to live, or had even been permitted to live; out of themselves they evolved an idea which stood in direct opposition to natural conditions—one by one they distorted religion, civilization, morality, history and psychology until each became a contradiction of its natural significance.

That summarizes what the Jewish group evostrat essentially is: A dedication to survive as an identifiable group at any price, including loss of genetic integrity (“racial purity”), loss of group dignity, endless conflict, a history of group and individual suffering both for themselves and for the unfortunate peoples they live amongst, and compromises in culture and tradition (as long as the basic Jewish cultural core is maintained). The Jewish group evostrat objective is the long term survival of a population group that identifies as Jewish, contains a significant amount of Jewish genetic ancestry even if it is by no means “racially pure” even by modern historical standards – although they contain a more “pure” Orthodox/Hasidic core that maintains the integrity of modern Jewish ethnogenesis even if the original stock population of ancient times has essentially been irreversibly modified by admixture – and that maintains a basic core of Jewish religious, cultural, and historical, rites, identities, and narratives, and emphasizes an “us vs. them” extreme ethnocentric attitude, even if compromises and secularization, as well as significant inter-marriage, occur. Even if this strategy results in hatred, war, conflict, expulsion, and genocide, it is considered a success as long as some type of Jewish population survives. In the end, success is that the group survives, even if in a bastardized form, and even in the face of hatred of, and conflict with, others. Judaism is revealed as being essentially a self-obsessed biocultural cult. Other groups may have thrown up their hands and said the prize of survival is not worth the cost, particularly the cost of accepting genetic admixture, as well as the cost of never-ending conflict with others. But the Jews persevere - survival at any price. 

The preceding paragraph basically summarizes the essence of Jewishness, and their long term group strategy, as well, or better, as any other description. Of course, all of the other peoples of the Earth are under no obligation to tolerate the destructive behavior of Jews as they pursue the Jewish group strategy.

Taking an Academic Stand

Do not cede intellectualism to the Left.

Contra the reactionary Right, I do not agree that we should abandon academia, I do not agree that we should cede the bastions of current intellectual development and higher education to the Left.  We certainly should not abandon the field of STEM to the Left.  

In fact, the Right have so far ceded academia to the Left; note the political views of American academia.  Note this nonsense, which very neatly summarizes the views of most of not only American, but “Western,” STEM. That piece is full of the most shocking lies about the biological basis of race, clustering of genetics and of phenotypic traits, differences in brain size and intelligence among extant hominid groups, confusion about the meaning of past admixture (not relevant for present and future EGI except that it defines what the present genepool is – but what the present genepool is stands on its own regardless of how it came about), and mendacious implications about human genetic variation (see this for truth).

As STEM become ever more colonized by radical leftists, outright lies, perpetuated by despicable lairs (such as the authors of that The Scientist screed), will become more commonplace, and unchallenged.  Why the “movement” hates and sabotages STEM people who are in the ranks of pro-White activists is yet another profound example of how the anti-scientific mindset of the Right creates its self-destruction.

As I have written multiple times before, the Right has historically been a reactionary anti-scientific irrational bastion of anti-intellectualism.  There are a number of reasons for this; prime among them the association of the Right with “traditionalism,” particularly with religion.  And we know the hostility of traditionalism/religion to science (and the technics derived from science), since science, and anti-intellectualism in general, threatens the traditionalist and religious worldview.

Nietzsche was right (see his The Antichrist for the concept most fully fleshed out in his though) – science caused the "Death of God” – 

What happened? The old God was seized by mortal terror. Man himself had been his greatest blunder; he had created a rival to himself; science makes men godlike—it is all up with priests and gods when man becomes scientific!—Moral: science is the forbidden per se; it alone is forbidden. Science is the first of sins, the germ of all sins, the original sin. This is all there is of morality.—“Thou shall not know”:—the rest follows from that.—God’s mortal terror, however, did not hinder him from being shrewd. How is one to protect one’s self against science? For a long while this was the capital problem. Answer: Out of paradise with man! Happiness, leisure, foster thought—and all thoughts are bad thoughts!—Man must not think.—And so the priest invents distress, death, the mortal dangers of childbirth, all sorts of misery, old age, decrepitude, above all, sickness—nothing but devices for making war on science! The troubles of man don’t allow him to think.... Nevertheless—how terrible!—, the edifice of knowledge begins to tower aloft, invading heaven, shadowing the gods—what is to be done?—The old God invents war; he separates the peoples; he makes men destroy one another (—the priests have always had need of war....). War—among other things, a great disturber of science!—Incredible! Knowledge, deliverance from the priests, prospers in spite of war.—So the old God comes to his final resolution: “Man has become scientific—there is no help for it: he must be drowned!”... The priest knows of only one great danger: that is science—the sound comprehension of cause and effect. But science flourishes, on the whole, only under favourable conditions—a man must have time, he must have an overflowing intellect, in order to “know.”... “Therefore, man must be made unhappy,”—this has been, in all ages, the logic of the priest.—It is easy to see just what, by this logic, was the first thing to come into the world:—“sin.”... The concept of guilt and punishment, the whole “moral order of the world,” was set up against science—against the deliverance of man from priests.

Religion will never forgive science for the Death of God. Hence, the Reactionary Right, fundamentally based on Religion and Tradition, will equally never forgive science. But science need not ask for forgiveness from representatives of a dead past.

For a Revolutionary Right to win, it needs intellectualism, it needs an academic presence, and it needs STEM, it needs science and technics.

We must not cede academia, intellectualism, and STEM to the Left.  That has gone on for far too long. We need to turn our backs on “traditionalism” and on the religious “Jesus is King of Kings” freaks who would bring us back to the Dark Ages.

The world of the mind should be our territory, not the sole possession of the enemy.

Odds and Ends, 12/16/21

In der news.

See this.  OK, but I have already made most of these points previously, including in the "racial purity" essay at Counter-Currents.

In the end, it doesn't really matter how current populations came to be. It matters what they are today and what they will be tomorrow. EGI is forward looking. The EGI of ancient peoples were their concern, not ours.

Following up on this, look at this astonishing lack of self-awareness:

See this.

And this.

Much of what Johnson says about Spencer can apply to Johnson himself. And, again, if Spencer was and is such an obvious "tool" why did Taylor, Johnson, Brimelow, Derbyshire, Regnery et al. take him seriously and associate with him at one point?

Johnson can't and won't answer that. He is a fraud...in his own words, a "tool."

The deeper question is this. Why talk about Spencer? If it is just to "pile on" Spencer as an individual, then that shows how petty Greggy is. However, if one criticizes Spencer has representative of the fundamental problems of Der Movement, then much of the Counter-Currents criticism of Spencer applies to Johnson himself. My criticism of these people is not personal; I could care less about them personally. But, to paraphrase Nietzsche, they are a lens through which I focus on "movement" defects.

And if you want to see what an outrageous hypocrite Johnson is, here is a comment excerpt by Johnson from that Spencer article comment thread:

The very idea that people might have principled disagreements is foreign to people who think entirely in terms of personalities.

Remember: That is from a person who "bans" people from his blog who disagree with him or criticize him in the slightest, followed by defamation of those people as suffering from "insanity."

I keep on beating the drum about covid and the vaccine in response to the insanity of Der Movement on those subjects.  The “movement” apparently doesn’t realize the damage it is doing with this.  From the standpoint of practical issues and optics, Der Movement’s attitude alienates both normies – the majority of whom are vaccinated – and, especially, educated STEM people, who mostly would be aghast at the “movement” “take” on these issues. On a more basic standpoint, the “movement’s” attitude reflects deeper problems – irrational, ignorant, crazed behavior that demonstrates poor judgment and cognitive and behavioral deficiencies. “Movement” “leaders” either actually believe that viruses don’t exist and that the vaccine (a “toxin”) is more dangerous than covid itself, or, possibly worse, they know better, but cater to the worst stupidities of their followers so as to build the “brand” of the “leaders” so as to maximize “D’Nations.” So, “movement” “leaders” either are crazed and ignorant or they are mendacious grifters of zero character who sacrifice intellectual and moral integrity to make a buck.

Questions for Greggy

No answers are expected to be delivered.

See this.

Let’s start with the whole “keeping Richard Spencer’s coke dealer away from an Amren conference” thing.

First, Johnson deftly ignores the point about the homosexual cabal within Der Movement and instead concentrates on his alleged role vetting for Amren, and on Pilleater’s accusations of cocaine use at Amren conferences by the Spencer faction.

By the way, Pilleater’s accusations are either true or false. For the sake of argument, in this post I will assume that they are true (I do not know if this is really the case), but if they are false, then that was slander on the part of Pilleater, a defamation repeated in writing by Johnson.

Is Johnson really vetting people for Amren meetings? Some people claimed in livestreams/podcasts that Amren staff denied that and that Johnson has to apologize to Taylor for stating that, but I do not know if that is true.

What makes Johnson, a victim of the Hermansson and Lewis infiltrations, in any way qualified to vet for anyone about anything?

If Pilleater’s accusations were true, what does that say about Amren conferences and their vetting and about a “movement” that elevated Spencer to positions of leadership, including that of The National Policy Institute (NPI)?

If the cocaine thing is true, given that the System allegedly is hostile to Spencer, Amren, Der Movement, etc., was the whole “illegal drug use at Amren conferences” accusation ever investigated?  If yes, why no charges?  If not, why not? The whole thing seems rather strange. It reminds me of an incident I am aware of (the details of which I will not disclose) in which a past inept Grand Poobah did something wrong that was adjudicated through the legal system in some manner, but was not known to the rank-and-file at large (being a more local incident), and there can be no doubt that the watchdog groups had to know about it, and yet the watchdogs never reported it, and thus protected that “leader” from having his status diminished. It’s almost as if the System doesn’t want to eliminate incompetent Quota Queens filling the leadership niche space of pro-White activism.

Now, let’s turn to Johnson’s characterization of Pilleater’s sexual harassment complaints as “Gay guy meets other gay and flirtation occurs.”  Putting aside the question as to why flirtation of any kind, much less homosexual flirtation, is appropriate for a pro-White meeting, we can ask the following. Doesn’t Pilleater identify as bisexual rather than gay (after all, Johnson thinks it funny that Pilleater brought an Asiatrix girlfriend to a pro-White meeting)?  Didn’t Pilleater complain about actual harassment, rather than just “flirtation?” And what’s Johnson’s comment about “BelieveAllWomen” about? Is he equating bisexual man Pilleater with a woman?  And if Johnson mocks “BelieveAllWomen” why does he believe Spencer’s ex-wife (see below)?

The “LOL. Your absence will not be noted for missed” is juvenile.  Moving on:

Johnson then says “I am sure you witnessed several lifetimes worth of degeneracy at the loft in Alexandria.”

I wonder what Polignano witnessed in a San Francisco apartment, but that’s another story. If Spencer is all that Johnson believes he is then what does it say about Der Movement, Regnery, CMS, and NPI for elevating Spencer to positions of authority?  Affirmative action, anyone?

Johnson nitpicks that he “never used the phrase ‘handsome, blossoming guy.”  OK, but does he deny using the word “blossoming” to describe Pilleater’s brother?  Does he understand why some people would think it strange that a middle-aged man would describe a younger man as “blossoming?”

Johnson then talks about a “psychopath who beat his wife during both of her pregnancies,” which, given the context of the comment, is certainly about Spencer. Johnson then says he believes Nina – BelieveAllWomen?

If Johnson believes this, then please tell us - what qualifications Spencer had to be made the head of NPI?

Johnson then mocks people concerned about “poor Pilleater” (what about “poor Nina?”), who are, he avers, actually interested in smearing poor Greg. But if there is nothing wrong in the Pilleater recording, re: Johnson, then how could he be smeared by it?  What is false about the recording? Johnson then asks if a “Forney livestream” is “the appropriate forum” for people to deal with Pilleater’s complaints. Very well.  What should they do instead?  Perhaps support Pilleater filing a legal complaint about being sexually harassed?  Would that be an appropriate forum?

Some may respond to this by asserting that this focus on people (and events) rather than ideas is indicative of “low thinking.” But, alas, in the end, this is about ideas: That Der Movement is a disaster because of failed leadership (and their poor judgment) and because of the low quality of its personnel, and this is tied to Der Movement’s ethnic affirmative action policy. As Nietzsche said, people can be used as lenses through which ideas can be focused upon.

Nietzsche vs. Melville

Western Destiny essay.

See here.

Factual Truth vs. Practical Truth

Live not by lies – Aleksander Solzhenitsyn.

In the last section (“ethics”) of On Genetic Interests, Salter discusses the distinction made by David Sloan Wilson (in reference to religion, but the concept is generally applicable to varied memes, paradigms, and beliefs) of factual truth vs. practical truth. Factual truth is what is in accordance (to the best of our ability to determine) with objective reality, it represents the results of empirical materialist inquiry. Practical truth is what people may believe, often regardless of facts and of objective reality, which may be adaptive to believe even if false. Thus, the relevant quotes from Wilson, in more detail than what was quoted by Salter, can be found reproduced here:

Rational thought is treated as the gold standard against which religious belief is found so wanting that it becomes well-nigh inexplicable. Evolution causes us to think about the subject in a completely different way. Adaptation becomes the gold standard against which rational thought must be measured alongside other modes of thought. In a single stroke, rational thought becomes necessary but not sufficient to explain the length and breadth of human mentality, and the so-called irrational features of religion can be studied respectfully as potential adaptations in their own right rather than as idiot relatives of rational thought…If there is a trade-off between the two forms of realism, such that our beliefs can become more adaptive only by becoming factually less true, then factual realism will be the loser every time...Factual realists detached from practical reality were not among our ancestors. It is the person who elevates factual truth above practical truth who must be accused of mental weakness from an evolutionary perspective.

At first glance, Wilson seems correct. This, of course, as stated above, doesn’t only apply to religion. Yockey’s Imperium is inspiring to many, including myself, and promotes some Whites to act in an adaptive fashion in defense of their Race-Culture, despite the reality that much of the book can be considered “”irrational” practical truth rather than empirical factual truth.  See more here.

Myths about the history of a people, nation, race, etc. may fall into this category, beliefs in the goodness and superiority of your people, even if not based on reality, may fall into this category – indeed, many memes, paradigms, and beliefs could in theory be adaptive even if false and nonsensical.

But if you look at this issue more closely, if you consider net effects, costs vs. benefits, the situation in modern society, and the pitfalls of basing adaptive fitness on irrational beliefs and falsehoods, one begins to see flaws in Wilson’s argument. The initial superficial acceptance of Wilson’s assertion falls into question once one more fully considers its implications.

Consider the following:

• Assume that the adaptive fitness of your people is dependent on practical truth X.
• Practical truth X is false; it is contrary to factual truth.
• Enemies of your people’s adaptive fitness expose this falseness to your people, destroying their faith in X.
• Therefore, with X delegitimized, adaptive fitness suffers and your people are endangered.

Nietzsche’s “God is dead” essentially dealt with the collapse of hardcore Christian religious faith in the West under the concentrating light of science and free intellectual inquiry. The resulting nihilism has in part led to a crisis of confidence in the West, depressed birthrates, and promoting surrender in the face of militant Islam. Some say we need a revival of the Christian faith to battle this, but that is like trying to put the toothpaste back into the tube.  And there are other problems with Wilson's approach, particularly with respect to religion, as the next section of my essay will illustrate.

Alternatively, an enemy of your adaptive fitness and that of your people may twist practical truth X into a meme that is now openly destructive of that adaptive fitness, a distortion of X made easier by the reality that X is false and has no objective grounding in factual truth. Another possibility is that X was originally based on something truly maladaptive, but was modified by your people to become adaptive, but now is leveraged by enemies of your people's adaptive fitness to be maladaptive once again. Think of how (Christian) religion can be used to promote mass immigration and other maladaptive choices to White populations, even if religion has been in the past adaptive at a national level, and may still influence fitness on the individual and familial levels.

Yet another scenario could be as follows. Imagine that rejection of science leads to short term enhanced fitness; a people that rejects science, and embraces the most irrational religious beliefs, reproduces better than others (there are data supporting higher fecundity for the religious and/or for those less educated and/or for those with lower IQs). Very well. That may work in the short term. But what if the population is faced with some sort of existential catastrophe that could have been prevented, or could be effectively dealt with, by science, and the rejection of science results in the population’s diminishment or possibly even their extinction? What if they are conquered and enslaved, possibly exterminated, by a competing people who accept science and are skilled at technics? 

It would seem therefore best to have practical truth that significantly overlaps with factual truth; it is best for your practical truth to have a firm grounding in objective reality, or at least to be at least minimally defensible based on some degree of concordance with facts. 

Let us again consider Imperium and other work from Yockey. Actually, much of the most “irrational” and nonsensical aspects of that work have minimal effect on the work’s main message; further, the most key aspects of the work could be viewed as defensible in light of objective reality and/or are issues that are independent of truth vs. falsehood and are a matter of choice and will. Thus, I do not believe that support for Yockey’s work necessarily invalidates the points made in this essay. The importance of factual truth remains even with Yockey's work.

Attempting to build an infrastructure of adaptive practical truth on the weak foundation of irrational, objectively untrue, and/or unproven memes leads to an instability that puts adaptive fitness in potential future peril. The danger that discovery of the falsehood of the practical truth can be used to delegitimize the adaptive fitness, the genetic (and other) interests, based on that practical truth, will always exist. That does not seem to be an evolutionarily stable situation.

But what about arguments that a reliance on practical truth has indeed evolved, proving its evolutionary stability and effectiveness? 

We no longer live in the same environment that our ancestors evolved in. Practical truth independent of factual truth becomes more and more unstable in a world full of flexible strategizers, hostile to you adaptive fitness, who have access to the Internet, with facts available instantly and instant global communication to spread those facts and to invalidate your practical truth. Even before the Internet, there were other forms of mass communication and even before that, books, schools, and intellectuals, all of which were targeting the falsehoods possibly inherent in practical truth. 

A major objective of the Sallis Groupuscule is a the formation of a Far Right with a firm basis in objective reality, embracing science and technics, compatible with intellectual inquiry, and striving to get practical truth to converge on factual truth to the extent possible.  I object to rigid dogmas of the Far Right and, in general, the equally rigid identities we have of Right vs. Left (e.g., if you are of the Right, you have to be a “Flubro” hostile to public health measures against covid-19) and of the fixed identity of the "movement" (you have to believe in HBD “race realism” or Nordicism or whatever). I want to promote flexible thinking, evaluating ideas on their own merits, while at the same time still being adaptive.

Thus, the issue of factual truth vs. practical truth is of great importance to my political work in all of these endeavors.

An Unsurprising Catastrophe

In der news.

See this.

The concept of envy — the hatred of the superior — has dropped out of our moral vocabulary. The idea that white Christian civilization is hated more for its virtues than its sins doesn’t occur to us, because it’s not a nice idea. Western man towers over the rest of the world in ways so large as to be almost inexpressible. It’s Western exploration, science, and conquest that have revealed the world to itself. Other races feel like subjects of western power long after colonialism, imperialism and slavery have disappeared. The charge of racism puzzles whites who feel not hostility, but only baffled good will, because they don’t grasp what it really means: humiliation. The white man presents an image of superiority even when he isn’t conscious of it. Superiority excites envy. Destroying white civilization is the inmost desire of the league of designated victims we call “minorities.”

Those White-hating “minorities” include Asians by the way.

See this for a related analysis..

Shh…don’t tell the Tolkien fanatics…get out of your hobbit hole!

See this. Well, yes, Colin, that is certainly true.

A defective is someone whose ideas and/or behavior will repulse, alienate, and turn-off most White people independent of racial nationalism.

The last four words of the definition are crucially important.  We acknowledge that just being pro-White is itself often enough to repulse many Whites and is enough to have one be considered "defective" by the mainstream.  What I'm saying is let's eliminate that variable.  Let's look at the person above and beyond their racial nationalism.  Forget all about their pro-White activism.  Is there anything else - anything independent of pro-White attitudes - that would make the person truly defective?  That's the key.  If we are pro-White, then that's a given and whether or not pro-White attitudes are considered "defective" by the mainstream is irrelevant, since we still need to promote pro-White memes.  But that should not, and must not, be complicated by truly defective ideas and behaviors that have nothing directly to do with being pro-White

Don’t over-complicate with extraneous matters. I’ve been writing recently about the paranoid retards of Der Right and their conspiracy theories, including covid-19 and vaccination. I’ve previously written about the other three factors Liddell mentioned, particularly factor two.

There’s yet another factor as well. Even though Der Right is full of freaks, rightists are still more normal than leftists. People on the Right are typically folks with jobs, families, more to lose, and less time and energy for activism. Leftists are typically bioleninist mattoids with little or nothing to lose, people with plenty of time and energy, plenty of rage to fuel their radicalism, and nothing else to do but engage with their activist beliefs. Coupled with the fact that the Right tends to be reactionary and the Left revolutionary, we can see that the motive force is on the side of the Left. And then there’s the JQ…

Heavy breathing now heard coming from Der Movement.

Prudent with money?  When are any of these guys going to address millions of dollars going to “an online publication?” How about $180,000 per year compensation for managing that publication?  And how is Counter-Currents itself making good use of its “D’Nations?”

To be fair, most of what Johnson says in that livestream was sound, but there’s always the usual lies, distortions, fetishism, and omissions. His sycophants can suggest all the debates that they like, but if Johnson believes he’ll be beaten, I doubt he’d agree. Forget about the dastardly "insane" untermensch Sallis, what about some sane Herrenvolk? I nominate Andrew Joyce as someone having the intellectual firepower and aggressiveness to battle Johnson. Topics could include the homosexual question and/or Mishima. Other people like Friberg, Liddell, von Hoffmeister, etc. could be interesting, but Joyce is my first choice. I suppose Taylor could be a friendly debate about the JQ, or Derbyshire can be an option, but, on the other hand, a Johnson-Derbyshire conversation would be too vomit-inducing.

I note that Johnson mentioned Eric Kaufmann and Whiteshift – sound familiar? – but of greater interest is Johnson equating Sicilians with Cubans (and other Hispanics).  If Johnson doesn’t realize that comments like that completely alienate wops and other White ethnics, then he’s even more stupid than I ever imagined. The man is a catastrophe. Certainly not surprising though. I do wonder when all of the shabbos suds and shabbos osts in Der Movement will realize that White ethnics are utterly despised by that "movement" and that they are wasting their time there, instead of helping to build a New Movement, which is desperately needed.

More Counter-Currents:

This brings us to another feature of our new site. On April 10th, Counter-Currents will be extending special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.

Anything for more “D’Nations.” After all, apparently the only thing Der Movement does well is rattle the tin cup.

First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)

An interesting test would be Ted Sallis as a donor, but I’m not interested in giving them any money. What about other “banned” individuals as well?  Weren’t Daniel S (for saying Mark Dyal was a mulatto, if I recall what Daniel wrote about the “banning”) and Captain Chaos also “banned?” Theoretically, if Johnson doesn’t openly declare a list of “proscribed” individuals, and then if he refuses to allow their unmoderated comments, from the start, after a donation from them, then he could be guilty of fraud. I would advise Herrenvolk Greg to be publicly clear on this. And there are other considerations. What does Gaslighting Greg precisely mean by "abuse this privilege?" He had better be reasonably explicit about what such abuse consists of, for if people donate money with the expectation of immediate commenting, and this privilege is taken away arbitrarily, that's a problem. Twitter can get away with that. Counter-Currents is not Twitter. Finally, is this a good idea to begin with? The System's targeting of the Far Right is not simply just "taking them offline," but also "cognitive infiltration" of activist forums. For the System, $120 is a good deal to get open access to Counter-Currents comments threads, and then, an arbitrary removal of that access can lead to the issues alluded to above. Are these guys so hard up for "D'Nations" that they lose whatever little judgment that they have?

Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.

Don’t want to miss out on immediate access to all of that great content! Will Fullmoon Ancestry write a melancholy essay about the night spent in his mother’s basemen picking lint out of his navel?

This year, our goal is $200,000, up from last year for two reasons. 

More movies? More expulsions from Norway?

First, we have a lot more readers. 

The rank-and-file are absolutely hopeless, unless they are reading for cheap laughs (as I do).

Second, last year’s goal was set before we took on Jim Goad as a featured writer. We need the extra money not only to pay his salary…

A salary? Goad should pay Johnson for allowing Goad’s retarded drivel to appear online. Imagine someone paying a salary for the absolute crap spewing from Goad’s vulgar “brain.”

…but also to take on other “names,” i.e., established professional writers who will bring us new audiences.

More page views! More readers!  More “D’Nations!” 

No matter how much the HBDers “shuck and jive," the truth cannot be evaded. The incompetent yellow monsters created this plague. Nigerians would have handled the virus better. Are the Chinese behaviorally the most tropical of all of the global south colored sun peoples? 

The HBDers need to be thoroughly investigated. As usual, I make no accusations against anyone; I merely point out that such an investigation would be prudent and if the HBDers have nothing to hide then they should welcome it.

Thoughts on Bronson

A touch of chaos.

The movie.  Based on a true story. See this. Modern society fails to provide to chaotic individuals such as “Bronson” a more socially acceptable outlet for their aggression so as to allow them to use their talents (such as they are) for the benefit of their people, instead of merely being a purely nihilistic force of destruction. “Bronson” embodies the pure opposite of genetic pacification – he represents the sort of violent warrior that has been purged out of White ethnies through selective pressure for “civilization” over “barbarism.” This pacification has gone too far, and in our feminized, risk-averse society that gives men no ability to physically express their mastery over others, such individuals appear as brutal atavisms. “Bronson” is a flawed individual no doubt and he is too Dionysian and not at all Apollonian, where a balance is required. But society itself has gone too far as well, too far in the other direction, too far in the Apollonian direction. Nietzsche said you need to have some chaos to give birth to a dancing star. The antithesis to “Bronson” is the Last Man. A balance is required.

Of Boomers and Covids and Other News

In der news.

Following up on this, I want to once again express my distaste for all of the intergenerational warfare anti-Boomer memes coming from the Millennial and Zoomer retards of the Alt Right.

Can Boomers be justifiably critiqued? Of course, but the same goes for Millennials and Zoomers and whatever other (artificial, pop culture-created) generational cohort you wish to discuss. But what makes the anti-Boomer complaints particularly distasteful is the paranoid ideation of the youth that the selfish Boomers are "conspiring to rob the youth of their future” and the snide “OK Boomer” and hostile “fluff the pillow” memes. This is misdirected anger – instead of focusing anger on hard targets, such as the Left, the globalists, the Coloreds, the Jews, the youth instead vent their anger at easy, safe, and soft targets, such as White Boomers. That’s not only stupid and counter-productive, but cowardly as well.

I remember asking my father once why his generation didn’t fight back against the madness that erupted in America in the 1960s. His answer was honest if rather unflattering to himself and his generational peers – “we were afraid.” In the case of the Boomers, the problem wasn’t so much fear but naiveté. They really thought that voting for Reagan (twice) would make a difference, just like they thought that Trump and his MAGA agenda would make a difference. Stupid, yes, naïve, yes, but not malicious or selfish. And not necessarily fearful either.  There’s certainly no agenda to “get the youth” or “stick it to the Millennials.”  Similarly, when the “youth” wrecked American White racial activism with their Pepe Kek Alt Right nonsense, that wasn’t intentional, just bad judgment and stupidity. There’s plenty of bad judgment and stupidity to go around. To blame Boomers for the state of current day America is to grant them too much agency. They were simply hoodwinked like White Americans have been, endlessly, for more than a century.  They were the conned, not the con men.  

Laugh at this.  So, essentially, anonymous activists should just sit down and shut up, while we watch childish Millennials and Zoomers worship Nick Fuentes as if he were a god. Well, I suppose, being disappointed by the Boomer God Emperor Trump, the MAGA Pepe Kek crowd now have to turn to younger material.

Here is one of my easier and least insightful predictions: Groyperism is going to crash and burn in some sort of tragicomic collapse, as did the Alt Right.  The kids are not alright, and the inevitable outcome is, well...inevitable.

I do not want readers to misconstrue my previous comments about a covid-19 vaccine.  While I am generally pro-vaccination, I acknowledge that concerns about the safety profile of these covid-19 vaccines may be, generally speaking, valid, since these are new vaccines, being rushed through, with insufficient safety testing and profiling. My point is, and remains however, that comments about “microchips" and “humans are going to become genetically modified” are nonsense; the real problems would stem from unforeseen negative reactions to vaccine components and/or reactions to a (two-time) “bolus” exposure to the viral antigen in otherwise healthy individuals. However, if people want the crisis to end as quickly as possible, I’m not sure what the alternative is.

Likewise, I do not want my overall position on covid-19 to be misconstrued.  I maintain that the virus is serious and that the flubro attitude of “who cares” is rationally untenable.  However, even though I maintain that something needed and needs to be done, I never advocated for specific measures (precise lockdown procedures, for example). Most likely, the best option would have been either a more stringent Chinese approach or a more relaxed Swedish approach; the half-assed “in-between” American approach hasn’t done much good and has indeed damaged the economy.  

But, ultimately, my biggest objection to those who complain about covid-19, from both the covid alarmist and flubro directions, is that they refuse to hold the Chinese accountable for this crisis. And that is not just some abstract principle. The Chinese need to pay reparations to humans for what they have done and if they refuse they should be ostracized from the family of nations; as step one, cutting back the trade imbalances with China would be the functional equivalent of reparations.  Further, without holding the Chinese accountable, we just set the stage for the next plague they will unleash upon us, which may be far worse than the current one.  But, no, the Chinese are akin to gods, and criticizing gods is blasphemy and cannot be allowed.

The Lind hypothesis strikes again.  Those same types dominate Der Movement, and are now pushing a form of “woke” HBD multiculturalism, as exemplified by the multiracialist blog Counter-Currents.

To get a better understanding of the anti-White, pro-multiculturalist HBD Hapa site Counter-Currents, see the following comments:

See this.

Please see this comment (emphasis added).

Jud Jackson

Posted November 21, 2020 at 2:51 am | Permalink

Before Loving, were whites and yellows allowed to marry? I certainly think whites should not marry blacks and browns. Look how the Spanish screwed up all of Latin America. However, I don’t have a problem with whites marrying yellows. I know this is only anecdotal evidence but look at John Derbyshire and his wife and children. It seems to me that when a group with Average IQ of 100 marry into a group with Average IQ 105, the IQs of the offspring will be greater than 100 and this is a good thing. The same is true of crime rates. Yellows have lower crime rates than whites and so the offspring will have lower crime rates than whites. And that is a good thing.

This comment.

Sallis is always, ALWAYS right. I warned you all about the HBD-Nordicist-ethnonationalist alliance, I warned you all that Counter-Currents was going to throw its lot in with “Rosie and the kids.” And there you go.  Greg Johnson argues for "White ethnostates" where up to one in ten citizens will be racial or ethnic aliens. Counter-Currents commentators openly shill for White-Asian mongrelization, using HBD arguments, and openly praising the Derbyshire clan. 

Still support Counter-Currents, rank-and-file?  Whither affirmative action?

Readers of EGI Notes understand what this is all about. Everyone, of both sexes, understands the reality of male superiority. This causes ressentiment among many women who then attempt to destroy masculinity wherever they find it – even in their own sons.

The Nietzschean “discovery” of ressentiment is one of the most useful and pragmatically accurate products of 19th century philosophy.

See this.

In philosophy and psychology, ressentiment (French pronunciation: [rəsɑ̃timɑ̃]) is one of the forms of resentment or hostility. The concept was of particular interest to some 19th century thinkers, most notably Friedrich Nietzsche. According to their use, ressentiment is a sense of hostility directed toward an object that one identifies as the cause of one's frustration, that is, an assignment of blame for one's frustration.[1] The sense of weakness or inferiority complex and perhaps even jealousy in the face of the "cause" generates a rejecting/justifying value system, or morality, which attacks or denies the perceived source of one's frustration. This value system is then used as a means of justifying one's own weaknesses by identifying the source of envy as objectively inferior, serving as a defense mechanism that prevents the resentful individual from addressing and overcoming their insecurities and flaws.

Book Reviews: Griffin and Lowell

Books by Roger Griffin and Norman Lowell.

First:

Roger Griffin, Fascism: A Quick Immersion, Tibidabo Publishing, Inc., 2020

This book is an unoriginal rehash, a dumbed down version, of his previous “scholarly” work defining fascism and a fascist minimum, as well as of his work on the groupuscule concept; this new book is likely intended as sort of a handbook about fascism for hygiene-challenged Antifa and lard-enhanced blue-haired SJW fatties.

Griffin’s definition of fascism – centered on palingenetic ultra-nationalism – remains sound. Anyone who believes that Franco was a fascist or that Trump is a fascist is an idiot.  In this sense, Griffin remains correct.

However, the fact remains that the Left is congenitally unable to understand fascism and fascists and they ignore or misinterpret the lessons of Griffin’s work. Not for them are analyses of “palingenetic ultra-nationalism” or understanding of the revolutionary and dynamic nature of fascism. No, for them, fascism is simply reactionary oppression; thus, Franco was a fascist, Trump is a fascist, Wall Street stockbrokers are fascists – any White person to the right of Karl Marx is a fascist. They understand nothing, learn nothing, and their approach to the Far Right is simply bashing heads and censoring dissident voices.  Griffin’s beloved Left is intellectually and morally bankrupt, depends upon brute force, and has no use for his work.

Roger Griffin in this latest book expresses his usual tiresome shtick – he always dedicates his books to “the victims of fascism” and/or piously pontificates how the “real readers” of his books are so-called anti-fascists who can use his work to “diagnose and treat” the “disease” of fascism. His attitude toward fascism and fascists is one of snide contempt. However, in reality, the true readers of his works on fascism are fascists themselves - the proponents of the “Universal Nazism” that he decries as a major player in post-WWII fascist metapolitics - the Far Right being the only area of the political spectrum today where actual intellectual ferment occurs. Thanks, Griffin. Although no thanks are required for the volume under review here, as it breaks no new ground and is a rather pallid effort, with zero utility.

In this remarkably unoriginal book, Griffin once again repeats one of this constant tropes – fascists (i.e., the real Far Right) are impotent, desperate, powerless, and because of the “structural” nature of modern sociopolitical reality, fascists have absolutely zero chance of achieving any of their goals.  So, besides the obvious question as to why Griffin has dedicated his entire career to fixate on this useless, impotent, and powerless creed (*), we are left with another question – why is the Left/System always screeching about “the rise of fascism, the threat of fascism, the resurgence of fascism” if the Far Right is such a powerless joke with no chance whatsoever of achieving power?  Griffin argues – and I agree with him here since the facts are incontrovertible – that the whole leftist spectrum (from Marxist Antifa to Marxist university professors to the mass media to the political class to the typical blue-haired fatty) mistakes right-wing populism, paleoconservatism, identitarianism, and rightist reactionary authoritarianism as “fascism.” So, yes, if everyone to the right of John McCain and Mitt Romney is “fascist” then there is a resurgence of “fascism,” but that is just the stupidity and the paranoid fantasy of the Left. Those individuals and entities are not fascist, and so Griffin can continue to assert that not only is the Far Right completely powerless today (a fair assessment, but one lacking in context) but will always be so, regardless of context (not a fair assessment).

What Griffin terms the real existential threat – worse than Nazism and Stalinism – are ecocatastrophes and other such threats to human existence, which he claims will become more likely if the (non-fascist, but still bigoted and hateful) anti-liberal Right comes to power. All humanity will perish in a cataclysm because of, say, Trump or Le Pen or Bolsonaro or Brexit or Salvini.  Any deviation from SJW multiculturalism, any deviation from a pathological altruism that embraces every "other," any deviation from crazed xenophilia – that is going to threaten humanity.  All those intolerant White bigots will not and cannot effectively address the looming ecocatastrophe.

Thus, Griffin in this book has jumped the shark – or, more precisely, jumped the pachyderm – to write what may be the most juvenile and cringeworthy sentence in the history of childish leftist polemics:

Meanwhile, as Trumpism and the Brexit debate illustrate, the looming ecocatastrophe is still the elephant in the room, a metaphor that before long may have a tragic ring to it when the only elephants are left in zoos.

Jumbo weeps.

Well, after all, as we know, Negro transsexual lesbians and obese blue-haired neo-Marxist SJW feminists, who cry about microaggressions and about the patriarchy, and who “deconstruct” science and technics as the White Man’s ju-ju, are going to save us all from ecocatastrophe. Yes, the descendants of people who never invented the wheel are going to lead us to the stars, as long as we don’t reject “democratic pluralism” and as long as we blindly and self-destructively accept “otherness.”

Of course, the very opposite is the case. Griffin’s tolerant liberal democracy leads to a complete rejection of science; we’ve reached the point where university professors are disciplined for saying that men cannot become pregnant.  These are the people who are going to save us from an ecocatastrophe?  Is Black Lives Matter going to solve global warming?  Are critical theory advocates going to stop an asteroid strike? Is a ghetto gangbanger going to divert a comet? The only people who have demonstrated the scientific and technical capability to prevent an ecocatastrophe are those who Griffin’s work is intended to dispossess and, eventually, displace and replace. Griffin’s own ideology will help to bring about the ecological, physical, and cultural destruction he allegedly fears. It is multiculturalism, and the wages of diversity, that result in the hemorrhage of material resources, the loss of collective social goods, and the decline of community engagement (hello Putnam!  does Griffin “bowl alone?”) that will truly contribute to ecocatastrophe and human extinction.

I would like to end with two examples of why I hold Griffin in contempt. As part of his constant refrain of how modern fascists are a pathetic and powerless group with zero chance of achieving their goals, losers who cannot compete with the structural advantages of the victorious liberal democracy that the masses love and support, he demonstrates that he is either extremely stupid, so ideologically committed that he his blinded by a complete lack of self-awareness, or a mendacious and hypocritical gaslighting liar.

Griffin mocks Greece’s Golden Dawn as a “spent force” whose activists are on trial for being members of a “criminal organization.” That Griffin sees this as a victory for liberal democracy is simply astonishing.  WHY is Golden Dawn a “spent force?”  Was it defeated by liberal democracy in the marketplace of ideas?  No.  Golden Dawn was a potent force, increasing in popularity, and was attacked through political persecution by a liberal democratic state using “fascist” tactics of criminalizing political dissent. Thus, Golden Dawn is now a “criminal organization” – after all, it opposes liberal democracy and any dissent from liberal “tolerance” is unacceptable and must be criminalized – and its members are put “on trial” in a manner no different from the show trials of Stalinism. This, according to Griffin, is proof of the pathetic weakness of the Far Right - that it becomes so popular to the people, and so threatening to the liberal democratic state, that tolerant liberal democrats are forced to criminalize political dissent, jail political opponents, ban political parties, and censor political speech.  Griffin sees no problem with that.  He simply uses the criminalization of Golden Dawn as evidence of their ineptness without questioning whether criminalizing political dissent is compatible with the liberal democracy he so strongly espouses.

Then he mocks Britain First for having a large online presence but being unable to attract more than a handful of people to show up for a live rally, where they were out-numbered by antifascist protestors. Griffin neglects to note that the “anti-fascist protestors” are violent thugs who are protected by the State; in essence, Griffin's liberal democratic system uses criminal Antifa as stormtroopers to break up legal Far Right public events with brutal violence. The Antifa terrorists work hand-in-glove with the police and with the state security apparatus; if rightists defend themselves, it is they who are arrested and prosecuted.  No wonder that the Far Right doesn’t manifest many activists in street rallies these days.  In the context of the brutal repression by the liberal democratic state – and I haven’t even mentioned “hate speech” prosecutions and convictions in Britain that are used to suppress dissent (as they are throughout Europe) - any Far Right presence is impressive and should be applauded.

At no point whatsoever has Griffin’s liberal democracy engaged with the Far Right on a level playing field. At every point, liberal democracy uses authoritarian – and sometimes totalitarian – techniques of political violence, political repression and subversion, criminalization of speech and of dissent, to prop up their system.  Liberal democracy – and the Left in general – is intellectually, politically, and morally bankrupt. The fact that a so-called champion of liberal democracy such as Griffin blithely accepts political suppression of his opponents as “business as usual” demonstrates that the real “leakage” of “fascist ideas” into the mainstream has been the adoption of intolerant “fascist” techniques of political repression by the liberal democratic system.  Indeed, Griffin himself has been “tainted by fascism” since he accepts and applauds “fascist” techniques that are used to stifle ideas that displease him.

Further, even though the American “movement” is pitifully inept, “led” by affirmative action incompetents, it is still true that it has NOT been defeated in a free marketplace of ideas, but instead has been met with a combination of political persecution, street violence, selective prosecution, deplatforming, social pricing including termination of employment, and other assorted methods of authoritarian coercion that has nothing to do with classical liberalism or democratic procedures. The American Far Right has been suppressed by political thuggery and by criminal conspiracies to deprive activists of their basic constitutional civil rights.  This is essentially a tacit admission by Griffin’s vaunted liberal democracy that it had lost the battlefield of ideas. All that it has left is trying to win the battlefield of force and coercion.

This is true historically as well. Hitler was defeated by war; Mussolini was overthrown because of the war; Codreanu was murdered by the State. Fascism has never been defeated by liberal democracy in a free marketplace of ideas; it has only been defeated by brute force, by the “tolerant liberal state” using the tools of ruthless coercion, political persecution, and total war. Again, liberal democracy always adopts the tactics of “fascism” in order to defeat fascism; it is unable to do so on its own terms.

Griffin is a laughable turd indeed, the very incarnation of Nietzsche’s Last Man, the very embodiment of the sissified White Cuck.

What a buffoon.

*I suppose Griffin would argue that even though the Far Right is pathetic and powerless, certain of its illiberal and bigoted ideas can seep into the mainstream, through the filter of right-wing populism, and so must be studied and opposed for that reason; further, he asserts that pitiful and desperate fascists will conduct lone wolf terrorism and so are a limited threat in that sense. Even with all of that, the amount of his life energy put into the study and opposition to fascism is orders of magnitude out of proportion to the reality if he really believes the aforementioned are the only real long term threats to the liberal order from the Far Right.

Second:

Norman Lowell, Jesus the Usurper: Murderer of Christ, Norman Lowell, 2020.

This is the third in Lowell’s series of books, after Credo and Imperium Europa; this one stresses “spiritual” issues.

Now, at first glance I may be ill-suited to handle the task of reviewing such a work, since I am relatively uninterested in spiritual issues, focusing instead on the political and science/technics sides of racial and cultural issues. Needless to say, I am hostile to religion, organized or otherwise. However, these characteristics may in fact make me particularly well suited to tackle this task, for it may well be useful to have someone approach a spiritual work from an “outsider” position, purely objective without a “dog in the fight” so to speak.  In this sense I can examine Lowell’s arguments without being biased due to a pre-existing strong religious belief on the subject.  As a “third party observer” to spiritual and religious disputes, I can render a verdict based purely on the arguments made.  Of course, the book also needs to be critically examined by those who have more expertise (and “skin the in the game”) on this subject; nevertheless, my own viewpoint may be a useful supplement.

The foreword to this rather slender volume was written by an acquaintance of Lowell’s, a Kevin Ellul-Bonici, described as a “former police investigator and prosecutor specializing in fraud and economic crime," as well as someone involved in “Eurosceptic” politics. This individual claims to disagree with aspects of Lowell’s book and this is clear from the tenor of the foreword, particularly in its pro-Christian ending.  This individual, interestingly, claims that the Jews are not actually the prime movers in the conspiracy against the truth, which he instead avers are…the Jesuits.  Now, I do not wish to be close-minded, and I certainly am no expert on these affairs. I do not doubt the pernicious influence of the Jesuits throughout history, but I am – let us say – skeptical that they are the high point, the very top, of the global conspiracy. Indeed, I doubt that any single group is, but instead several powerful groups with interlocking interests – Jews, Jesuits, global capitalism, the Left, the rising tide of color, among others, are responsible.  Things get worse in the foreword with a dive into anti-materialism in the sense that the ultimate cause of our troubles is assigned to “extra-dimensional beings and the Luciferian agenda.” The author, unlike Lowell, takes a pro-Paul view in the midst of Christian apologia, and states that “The Man of Reason can never grasp how Christ redeemed us by paying the price on our behalf as descendants of the fallen Adam. Reason would rather have us believe the lies of this world then in His second coming.”

With all due respect, this is, in my opinion – as a “Man of Reason” – ridiculous nonsense, and completely against the message of Lowell’s book. On the one hand, one can admire Lowell’s open-mindedness and confidence in his own arguments as to invite a contradictory foreword; however, as a “Man of Reason” my overall reaction to the foreword was a loud sigh followed by a face-palm.  That is exactly the anti-reality, anti-the-real-world attitude, rejected by Lowell (and Nietzsche), which has contributed to our current demise. Oh, what damage two thousand years of Christian lies have wrought!  Crush the infamy!

Lowell himself in this book takes the view of Nietzsche that the traditional, "official" Jesus of Christianity was an invention by the Jew Paul to undermine the Roman Imperium, spreading a doctrine of weakness and surrender, making people disregard the heroic work required in the real world in favor of some (mythical) otherworldly paradise suited for the weak and the botched.  Lowell instead sees Christ as being Caesar, who was valued by Nietzsche as a form of superior human being.

This type of “Christianity,” focused on the higher values of Life, coupled to an Aryan Cosmotheism, is what Lowell sees as the spiritual way forward for European Man. A Nietzschean religion, allied with Cosmotheism, that elevates Caesar as an ubermensch to model ourselves after, is fine by me (although I would prefer no religion at all). But, surely, such a religion – Caesar as Christ – is far from any traditional understanding of Christianity and cannot be termed as such, nor would it be accepted by the public (or even by most elite activists) as such.  It is something completely different, and requires its own terminology.

All in all, Lowell’s contribution is interesting and thought-provoking. One thing though is that I’m not very fond of references to “Atlantis” and such.  A minor point. 

Overall, a good and useful book.

Nietzsche, Napoleon, and the Overman

Western Destiny essay.

An important Western Destiny essay can be read at this link.  That essay analyzes real scholarship on Napoleon and Nietzsche’s views on Napoleon, which contrasts to the “movement” nonsense previously discussed here.

Through a Glass, Darkly

Against both The System and The Movement.

See this.

To see “through a glass” — a mirror — “darkly” is to have an obscure or imperfect vision of reality.

New readers to this blog may be confused about its purpose, its underlying objective.  Is it just to heap mocking ridicule on the “movement?”  Of course, there is other material discussed here – including important material directly related to EGI, population genetics, political strategies, etc. – but the quota queens like to pretend that this blog is simply the “bitter” and “crazy” rants of some nutcase constantly attacking the “movement” for no good reason.  So, let us back up a bit and reconsider what the fundamental approach of EGI Notes is.

The purpose of this blog is promote a certain metapolitical worldview.  This blog engages in mocking ridicule not for its own sake, but for the specific purpose of deconstruction.  If you consider Nietzsche’s camel, lion, and child paradigm, then my previous pre-EGI Notes work for the “movement” (with the exception of Legion Europa) was the camel phase, EGI Notes is the lion phase of defiance and deconstruction, and the creative child phase is represented by Western Destiny.  Legion Europa can be viewed as having been a mix of both lion and child, both destructive and creative.

It is my judgment – and long-time readers of this blog know that my judgment is sound and I am usually correct – that on its current course Der Movement will utterly fail to achieve its objectives.  Even worse: It will may impede or even prevent those objectives from being achieved through the actions of others or even through spontaneous currents of human history.  Der Movement constitutes one of the biggest threats to White survival extant today. Therefore, it must be analyzed, ridiculed, and deconstructed.  The weeds need to be cleared away before anything useful can grow on long-neglected activist soil.

One fundamental premise of the Sallis Groupuscule is that BOTH the System and the Movement exhibit a defective perception of reality; as the title of this post suggests, both System and Movement see through a glass, darkly – they “have an obscure or imperfect vision of reality.” They are mirror images of each other, distorted funhouse mirrors; their inability to perceive reality without distortion causes both to become distorted themselves, and not only do they see through a glass, darkly; but, we, without a proper understanding of both System and Movement, see those entities through a glass, darkly, and hence fail to comprehend their respective realities.

The Movement attempts deconstruction of The System, with varying degrees of success, while The System profoundly misunderstands The Movement; however, in neither case do we observe a principled, consistent, and rationale understanding of either, nor do we observe any much needed Far Right deconstruction of Der Movement – until now.  What the dimwits and the rent-seekers of the "movement" see, or proclaim, as “crazy and bitter” mocking ridicule is actually the deconstruction of Der Movement Inc.  This blog makes no claim to be a comprehensive deconstruction; indeed, I hope that others will join in and together we can create a comprehensive and lasting deconstruction that finally finises off the grotesque monstrosity of Der Movement.  At the current time, this blog is the only outpost of such an effort; EGI Notes is the icebreaker, leading the way.  Whether or not others follow, this blog will continue in its efforts to expose the intellectual, moral, ethical, and spiritual bankruptcy of Der Movement, Inc.

I typically criticize “movement” dogma, starting from the earliest days of racial activism up to today.  This naturally includes what the current crowed sneeringly dismisses as “WN 1.0.” Casual readers may confuse my position with that of Greg Johnson, based on the following misunderstanding.  I assert that the Alt Right – essentially “WN 2.0” – was nothing more than the same old, tired, fossilized dogma of the “movement” – all of the memes originating with “WN 1.0”- dressed up with a veneer of “youth culture.”   Johnson claims that WN 2.0 was corrupted and ruined by the “attitudes” of WN 1.0.  Isn’t that the same thing?  No, it is not.  

First, we have the difference between the dogma, the fundamental beliefs, of a “movement” and what Johnson terms as “attitudes.” These are not the same thing – the former is that of content and the latter is more that of presentation and behavior. Second, even if were to grant that by “attitudes” Johnson was in fact specifically referring to the actual content and dogma of Der Movement, our positions are still fundamentally different, since I assert that WN 2.0 reflected WN 1.0 dogma from the very start, but added to that all of the Millennial juvenile jackassery. Johnson, on the other hand, asserts that WN 2.0 started out well and was later corrupted by WN 1.0. In my case, I suggest that the failure of WN 2.0 was due to its own inherent nature of being nothing more than Pierce/Kemp with Pepe/Kek/Trump added on, while Johnson believes that WN 2.0 was fundamentally sound at its origin and then became ruined by later adopting the worst aspects of WN 1.0.

We can then extend this to Taylor’s assertion that while the young activists of today are wonderful, the activists of the past were, in contrast, weird and undesirable.  My objection to that is not with the characterization of the older activists, but the assertion that the Pepe/Kek/drunken podcasts crowd of today are in some way superior.  I also object in that the “youth” of today are essentially recapitulating the content of the past, so why should they pose as being superior to that past?  Is obsessing over a cartoon frog, screaming “Kek,” or drinking gallons of milk as a racial statement, somehow better than the poses of past “movement” retardates?  No, it is not.  And if the dogma is essentially the same, and if that dogma originated, as Taylor suggests, with the weird and undesirable, what does that imply about the dogma?  Now, we do not want to descend into ad hominem; just because the original promoters of the dogma were in some way socially undesirable does not logically imply that the dogma is wrong.  However, at the very least, it would suggest to us we had better at least subject that dogma to review, to rigorous proofing, to ascertain whether or not it is sound.  Such review is wise even if its originators were socially adept paragons of civic virtue; that its originators were in large part (according to today’s “movement leaders” themselves!) the weird and the botched is even reason to consider that extensive review and revision of the dogma is required.

Thus, the Sallis Groupuscule is opposed to: the Alt Right, Millennial “youth culture” taking over (American) racial activism, mainstreaming, the “Big Tent,” Nordicism, narrow ethnonationalism, traditionalism, fossilized dogma and solipsist fantasies, HBD pseudoscience, race-denial, invented racial histories and sweaty ethnic fetishism; while it is for: pan-Europeanism, empiricism, futurism, vanguardism, science and technics, genuine racial science, authenticity, prudent analysis, and seriousness and long-term planning.  The latter list is the positive aspect of my work, the sort of growth that can occur once the “movement” weeds are uprooted and cleared away.

I would like to point out that an opposition to the aforementioned “isms” and fetishes does not mean that this blog is afraid to document difficult topics concerning intra-European relations.  Nor does it (unlike Der Movement) “play favorites” among European ethnies.  This blog is as critical – if not more so – about “White ethnic” types such as “swarthoids” and “hunkies” as it is about NW European Celto-Germanics.  Everyone is fair game for criticism if that criticism is justified; unlike Der Movement, we do not label ethnies as either Gods or Devils (or “angels” with a destiny, eh?), but instead look at all with a critical eye, the cold eye of hard realism.  Stereotypes exist for a reason; stereotypes contain a kernel of truth, and that maxim applies as much for intra-White comparisons as it does to comparisons between Whites and non-Whites, or between different non-White groups themselves.

Stereotypes can be extended into the past of our race’s history, and analogies can be made to the present day.  Thus, in the Classical civilization, particularly in its later stages, and in the interregnum of the Dark Ages, the stereotype was that of the peoples of the Mediterranean basin being effete and over-civilized, while the Germanic barbarians of the north were healthy and vigorous, albeit loutish. Today, in the Winter of the West, by analogy, it are the Celto-Germanic peoples of NW Europe who are stereotypically effete and over-civilized with their xenophilia and pathological universalist altruism, while the peoples of Eastern Europe now play the role of the more vigorous and healthy barbarian louts.  Southern Europeans of today I suppose are analogous to the peoples of the Near East in the later Classical civilization – decayed and degenerate fellah peoples.

It is not necessary to indulge in Lynnian pseudoscience in order to study real differences between European types, differences that have important functional consequences and significance.

This puts the lie to the mendacious flim-flam of the fundamentally dishonest “Desmond Jones,” who asserted that my commitment to pan-Europeanism means I believe all Europeans are fungible – an outright falsehood, as such sentiments have never been present in any of my work.  However, I do assert that, despite differences, all Europeans should be preserved and promoted, and Europeans as a whole constitute a broad racial-cultural group.  Familial relations do not equate to fungibility; I make no apologies for my militant pan-Europeanism, which also seeks to preserve ethnic and sub-racial differences that exist among the European peoples.

Let’s look through the glass clearly and with plenty of light.  Der Movement, Inc. needs to be utterly destroyed in order for us to show this clarity, this light, to others.  That’s what this blog is all about.

Playing Out the String: The Late Western Roman Empire

The last century (or so) of the Western Roman Empire.

I will consider two relevant books, building on previous discussion at this blog on the subject of the Fall of Rome.

The first book: Theodosius: The Empire at Bay, by Williams and Friell

This book begins with the battle of Adrianople and its outcome (disastrous for Rome, good for the Goths and, hence, for Der Movement), focuses its major sections on Theodosius and his reign and its implications, and then finishes with a brief epilogue of the post-Theodosius Roman world and the question as to the inevitability of the collapse of the Western Roman Empire.

The historical background for the reign of Theodosius, and its influence on European history, which are covered in this book, are a matter of record, can be read (in summarized form) online, and we need not repeat all of that here.

Instead, we can address certain issues of interest to this blog.

This book makes some good points, which usually escape the obsessives and fetishists.  The Fall of Rome, the Western Empire at any fate, can be effectively explained without resort to sweaty rambling about “racial degeneration through admixture.”  

What about the Decline of Rome, as opposed to its Fall, if we agree that a “decline” took place?   

That Rome changed is without a doubt, but what do you expect?  The Theodosius book makes (what should be) the obvious point that the gigantic land empire of Rome could be maintained over time, and against the constant barrage of threats, only by co-opting and assimilating the subject peoples.  This process invariably would erode the specifically Roman – as in the original Romans – nature of the state. By state I mean the empire as a whole, as well as the nature of its rulers, as emperors eventually came from non-Roman and then non-Italian origins. This does not imply a mass panmixia of the population.  In other words, the Roman state, its citizenship, and its leadership, eventually came to include all the various ethnies found within it, so that any specific and exclusive character to the state was lost.  That is not the same as postulating "racial degeneration through admixture" - cultural and political degeneration may be more accurate, if one holds the narrow character of the early Roman Republic as the ideal.. But again, these changes are the price of establishing an empire - an integrated land empire especially - through conquest.

Other obvious points made is that as peoples become more civilized, their willingness and effectiveness as warriors diminishes to some extent (genetic pacification, along with cultural and social changes), and so the need exists to expand the pool of prospective soldiers; for Rome, from Italy to Gaul and Spain to the Danubian provinces and then, ultimately to Germanic and Asiatic barbarians (the latter of which contributed to the Fall).

So, yes, we observe the inevitable changes in the nature of the Roman state, the elevation of Emperors of non-Roman (in the strictest sense) and non-Italian heritage, and the creation of a multiethnic civil service and military force.

None of this should come as a surprise – was it possible for Rome itself, alone or in conjunction with local Italian allies, to administer and defend this vast territory against constant threats (Germans, Persians, Huns, Alans, etc.) for century after century?

The choice was between a Roman Rome or a multiethnic Empire.  A strictly ethnically Roman empire was an impossibility. Note that the European colonial empires of the last few centuries were for the most part overseas empires, local elites were co-opted even then, and these empires lasted not very long before collapsing and resulting in a backflow of colonized peoples into Europe itself.  One could argue that the overseas colonial model ended up being a worse disaster than Rome’s.

Another point made is that conquest of the empire, which brought with it all the goodies initially extracted from the conquered lands, was economically, politically, and organizationally easier than maintenance of its vast holdings over the centuries.

It is true that there was a lot of political corruption in the Later Western Roman Empire, but that had nothing to do with racial degeneration, as the Theodosius book clearly demonstrates. The chapter “The Topheavy Empire” discusses in detail the causes, types of, and consequences of, the excessive levels of political corruption that grew over time in the Roman Empire, particularly in the West.

So, yes, lots of political corruption. But then there was always corruption in Rome, including in the Republic period, also including Pierce’s favorite, Sulla.

Indeed, corruption throughout the Classical period was a problem, and it is also important to distinguish political corruption from moral.  Political corruption is always a problem for bureaucracies, and the larger the bureaucracy grows – as one would expect from a large, established empire over time – the more political corruption grows.  Moral corruption has some overlap with political corruption, but the two are not the same.  One could have political corruption without a large amount of moral corruption spread throughout society; on the other hand, political corruption is usually found whenever moral corruption is widespread.  So, it does not follow that political corruption in the Late Western Roman Empire necessarily means that that moral corruption was growing; one can argue that the Christian Late Western Roman Empire was significantly less morally corrupt than the Rome of Sulla, Caesar, Tiberius, Caligula, or Nero. Likewise, the America of Tammany Hall, the Grant administration, and the Harding administration, had enormous amounts of political corruption, but was far less morally corrupt than the America of today.

So, it is understandable that growing powers and established empires will have political corruption and such corruption is bad and it is destructive, but it is not the same as moral corruption, and there is no clear connection of corruption to “racial degeneration” as Der Movement typically asserts.

The racial degeneration theory raises the question as to why the more racially degenerate Eastern Roman Empire lasted a thousand years longer than the West.  Perhaps because the Fall of the West was due in large part to military reasons and not racial degeneracy, and that the East had the wealth to “buy off threats.” This the West could not effectively do. Of course, Der Movement will assert that unlike the degenerate later empire, the noble, Aryan, Dolph Lundgren-like original Romans would never stoop to buy off their enemies. Yeah, sure.

Indeed, the Roman accommodation of the Goths under Theodosius, and their treatment as equals and settlement in Roman lands as an integrated unassimilated group – that would later prove disastrous – was done because of serious Roman manpower shortages and the realization of other threats over the horizon – Huns and Alans.  Manpower shortages, coupled perhaps to Frost’s “genetic pacification” of the shrunken population, and, most importantly, the constant hammering from “barbarian” threats – Goth, Huns, Alans, etc. - were too much for the Empire to bear, especially when coupled to strategic idiocy and infighting from the leadership of the state.

Under those circumstances, one wonders how the Western Empire lasted as long as it did, not that it collapsed.

On another point, if the Romans had been in a better positon in the West, and had the Goths (and Vandals and other Germanics) been more reasonable and far-sighted, the initial steps of Roman and Germanic cooperation (e.g., Frankish generals and Gothic soldiers serving in the Western Roman military, as well as the cooperation at Chalons), could have led to the evolution to a more modern Europe without the interregnum of the Dark Ages.

As an amusing aside, as part of moral posturing on the part of the authors of this book about 'racism and xenophobia," they note the anti-barbarian sentiments of Synesius of Cerene who proposed that “Let all fair-haired men be banished from positions of power.”  Cue fainting fits from Der Movement. (Jordanes’ Getica is more in Der Movement style).

The authors suggest that Synesius’ opinions were unrealistic, before telling us all about the disintegration of the Western Roman empire under the onslaught of the selfsame barbarians critiqued by Synesius, including “allies” of one emperor or another (or of their behind the scenes handlers).  Does the name “Alaric” ring a bell?  So, the authors need to do a better job of refuting Synesius than SJW hysteria about “racism and xenophobia.”

The other book: Patricians and Emperors: The Last Rulers of the Western Roman Empire, by Hughes.

This book is the mirror image of the Theodosius biography; it gives a brief summary of what went on before the main subject of this volume, including a brief history of the reign of Theodosius himself, and then concentrates on the last decades of the Western Roman Empire, including an analysis of what went wrong.

The Vandal conquest of Rome’s African province was devastating for the Western Empire, cutting off a significant source of revenue, leading to bankruptcy and the inability to maintain an effective independent military force.  Grain shipments were disrupted, as was trade in the Mediterranean.  The Roman aristocracy selfishly refused to contribute to the empire’s defense, with either men or money, and the provinces began losing loyalty to Rome (itself obsessed with palace intrigue and civil wars), with an increased emphasis on local loyalties and dissension due to religious conflicts.  Superimposed on this was the constant barbarian threat, and the split of the empire between West and East, with the wealthier areas in the East – an East that increasingly thought of itself as a self-contained entity superior to the West. Therefore, the Western Empire spun increasingly out of control.  “Racial degeneration through admixture” need not play a part in any of this.

The author points out that Romans, and then Italians in general, soured on the idea of military service quite early, and were content to let border provincials carry the brunt of the duty, leading to a situation that made the peoples of Italy increasingly unfit as effective soldiers (20th century Italian military disasters can be considered in this light, perhaps - a too-long period of genetic pacification?).  This is more a function of genetic pacification, overcivilized softening with prosperity, and altered social mores, as it is any “racial degeneration through admixture.” The last “Conclusion” chapter of this book sums up the many inter-related problems faced by the Late Western Roman Empire and the (postulated by the author) “inevitability” of its collapse.  

In any case, empires built through conquest (of one form or another) are inherently unstable, and this has nothing to do with “racial admixture.”  The very maintenance of such an empire over time drains its vitality and resources, and degenerates the population (in ways not dependent upon “admixture” but of course admixture may in theory also occur). For example, would anyone seriously expect the Assyrian Empire to still exist today even if we assume the Assyrians maintained strict racial purity?

As regards the various leaders of the late Western Roman Empire, I am sure at least some of them had an at least an implicit understanding that they were just “playing out the string” – doing the best they could under circumstances in which a bad ending was more or less inevitable, doing their duty as long as they could, delaying that inevitable bad ending for as long as possible, going through the motions of empire even when a point was reached that the “Western Roman Empire” was reduced to mainland Italy and Sicily and really not much else. 

There were opportunities to (temporarily, if we assume collapse was “inevitable”) reverse the degeneration before things reached that point; it was unlikely to have saved the empire on a permanent basis, but it could have lasted longer with better decisions, better luck, and less infighting.  By the way, my judgment is that the division of the Roman Empire into Western and Eastern halves was the beginning of the end for the West; even though that grand strategy may have been useful as an expedient when initially devised, ultimately it led to a situation in which the richer and more secure Eastern Roman Empire viewed itself as an independent (and superior) entity, bent on its own preservation at the cost of the Fall of the West.  An integrated empire would have been able to draw on its total strength for defense, and could have lasted longer to ensure a more gradual change to the sort of federated European union that could have been possible between the remnants of the Empire and the more “Romanized” of the “barbarians” – eventually integrating the West as a whole, and letting the more alien parts of the East go its own way.

Let’s consider Nietzsche as the coda here, contrasting his views to Der Movement dogma, emphasis added.

That which stood there aere perennis, the imperium Romanum, the most magnificent form of organization under difficult conditions that has ever been achieved, and compared to which everything before it and after it appears as patchwork, bungling, dilletantism those holy anarchists made it a matter of "piety" to destroy "the world," which is to say, the imperium Romanum, so that in the end not a stone stood upon another and even Germans and other such louts were able to become its masters.  The Christian and the anarchist: both are decadents; both are incapable of any act that is not disintegrating, poisonous, degenerating, blood sucking ; both have an instinct of mortal hatred of everything that stands up, and is great, and has durability, and promises life a future.  Christianity was the vampire of the imperium Romanum, overnight it destroyed the vast achievement of the Romans: the conquest of the soil for a great culture that could await its time.  Can it be that this fact is not yet understood?  The imperium Romanum that we know, and that the history of the Roman provinces teaches us to know better and better, this most admirable of all works of art in the grand manner was merely the beginning, and the structure to follow was not to prove its worth for thousands of years.  To this day, nothing on a like scale sub specie aeterni has been brought into being, or even dreamed of!  This organization was strong enough to withstand bad emperors: the accident of personality has nothing to do with such things the first principle of all genuinely great architecture.  But it was not strong enough to stand up against the corruptest of all forms of corruption against Christians.  These stealthy worms, which under the cover of night, mist and duplicity, crept upon every individual, sucking him dry of all earnest interest in real things, of all instinct for reality this cowardly, effeminate and sugar coated gang gradually alienated all "souls," step by step, from that colossal edifice, turning against it all the meritorious, manly and noble natures that had found in the cause of Rome their own cause, their own serious purpose, their own pride.

Also this:

The whole labour of the ancient world gone for naught: I have no word to describe the feelings that such an enormity arouses in me.  And, considering the fact that its labour was merely preparatory, that with adamantine self consciousness it laid only the foundations for a work to go on for thousands of years, the whole meaning of antiquity disappears!  To what end the Greeks?  To what end the Romans?  All the prerequisites to a learned culture, all the methods of science, were already there; man had already perfected the great and incomparable art of reading profitably that first necessity to the tradition of culture, the unity of the sciences; the natural sciences, in alliance with mathematics and mechanics, were on the right road, the sense of fact, the last and more valuable of all the senses, had its schools, and its traditions were already centuries old!  Is all this properly understood?  Every essential to the beginning of the work was ready: and the most essential, it cannot be said too often, are methods, and also the most difficult to develop, and the longest opposed by habit and laziness.  What we have today reconquered, with unspeakable self discipline, for ourselves for certain bad instincts, certain Christian instincts, still lurk in our bodies that is to say, the keen eye for reality, the cautious hand, patience and seriousness in the smallest things, the whole integrity of knowledge all these things were already there, and had been there for two thousand years!  More, there was also a refined and excellent tact and taste!  Not as mere brain drilling!  Not as "German" culture, with its loutish manners!  But as body, as bearing, as instinct in short, as reality.  All gone for naught!  Overnight it became merely a memory!  The Greeks!  The Romans!  Instinctive nobility, taste, methodical inquiry, genius for organization and administration, faith in and the will to secure the future of man, a great yes to everything entering into the imperium Romanum and palpable to all the senses, a grand style that was beyond mere art, but had become reality, truth, life.  All overwhelmed in a night, but not by a convulsion of nature!  Not trampled to death by Teutons and others of heavy hoof!  But brought to shame by crafty, sneaking, invisible, anaemic vampires!  Not conquered, only sucked dry!  Hidden vengefulness, petty envy, became master!  Everything wretched, intrinsically ailing, and invaded by bad feelings, the whole ghetto world of the soul, was at once on top!