Category: book review

Sallis’ Law Confirmed Once Again

And other news.

Johnson writes this, so….

Was Italy unified? It’s still racially, and thus IQ-wise, and thus everything else wise, split in 2 as it ever was.Southerners who emigrate to the North still frequent each other, and there’s very little mixing between the two real Italies even at the “acquaintance” level. Then of course everyone in the “classes that matter” pretends to things being other, and it makes all quite happy. (Including the beneficiaries of the billions spent to “bridge the gap”, along the same lines of USA’s gap-bridging, and with equal outcome).

The Bossi family testifies to the lack of mixing between the two. Hail Padania!

The northern Italians have a saying, which translated into English is that Garibaldi didn’t unite Italy so much as he divided Africa.

You have none of those Africans in leadership positions in Der Movement.  Thus, you must be enjoying unprecedented success.  Hail Victory!

I couldn’t get past the first half hour of this film, probably due to its tedious pace and attention to the extreme decadence of the Italian Aristocracy. If you’re going to glorify aristocracy, I’ll accept the British, but the Italians can’t figure out how to practice self-control.

As long as you don’t bend over to pick up the soap in a shower stall at Oxford or Cambridge.

S Italy was a mess under the Bourbons. It got much worse after Italy was unified. It got so bad that by 1880 the S Italians fled to America and brought their mafia government here. Wretched refuse indeed.

Indeed!  What we need instead are more Aryan Barbarians dancing around cemeteries in swastika-soled boots.  Hail Victory!

Sallis’ Law confirmed once again. It’s a law of nature more definitive than that of, say, gravity or electro-magnetism. As well, my open call for White ethnics to abandon Der Movement is also further legitimized. Just leave it to the swastika-soled boots, drunken podcasts, Pepe, homosexual flirting at meetings, etc. crowd and sit back and watch it fail, as it has for the last 50-100 years.

The following is perhaps not unrelated to the preceding – Zman:

Another reason co-called conservatives were happy to call Koch a right-winger is the Left was happy to call him a right-winger. The best maneuver in the Progressive playbook is to select the leaders of their opponents. They focus their attention on one soft target, making that person the symbol of their cause. That person then becomes the easily mocked and ridiculed leader of the opposition. For example, they turned the alt-right into a joke by cultivating Richard Spencer as the face of the movement.

Yes, he’s right about Spencer, but Zman’s buddy, Gaslighting Greg, is no better.  And ALL the rest of them. Blaming Spencer alone – or even predominantly – for the collapse of the Alt Right is ludicrously naive or dishonest to the point of breathtaking mendacity. I for one was denouncing the Alt Right, and predicting (and hoping for) its downfall, even at its peak in 2016 and early 2017. The only thing that surprised me is how quickly it collapsed; even I couldn’t predict the astonishing levels of stupidity and ineptness coming from that distortion of racial activism.

The racially superior hero expresses himself.  Yes, at which point they’ll just ban you anyway, and invent ever more narrow speech codes to justify it.  Anyone with an ounce of sense understands that the free speech issue is discrete not continuous.  You either have it or you do not. Trying to parse different levels of censorship means that you’ll always be at the mercy of the censor and their changing standards.  Why does Spencer believe that any “defined” YouTube policy will last a second longer than the start of SPLC/ADL screeching about “White supremacists taking advantage of loopholes” and Huffpost/Guardian articles asking (i.e., ordering) YouTube to “do something about it?”

It is one thing to recognize the reality of censorship and try to do something about it, both short term (adjusting to the reality) and long term (fighting for pure free speech rights).  Yes, it is one thing to deal with the reality while vigorously denouncing it, making arguments against it, and, perhaps, getting involved in the political process to deal with it.  It is another thing entirely to be so naive and simple-minded that you actually believe that Internet/social media entities would establish a definitive and permanent set of rules and guidelines. They are not playing by a set of idealistic rules; their rules and guidelines are, and will remain, purely utilitarian.  If it shuts down Far Right speech, then that’s the rule. If it doesn’t, then the rule will be changed until it does.  You do not embrace speech codes and call for a “clearer statement” of them.  While dealing with the reality, you oppose the reality, and, realistically point out what I’m saying here – that there can be no compromises on free speech, because once the precedent is set, the “line” dividing acceptable from non-acceptable will always be redrawn for political purposes.  And as I’ve written about before, let no one believe that the over-rated “successes” in Europe (with their own speech codes) in any way argues against this.  Those “successes” are for the most part small wins in minor skirmishes, confined within narrow guidelines of acceptability, and whenever any leader or spokesmen steps out of line, it’s prison or fines for them. Why should Americans so blithely give up on free speech, then?  And I don’t want to hear about “free speech is the government, and private entities can do what they want.”  First, these social media giants are essentially utilities and borderline monopolies and should be regulated as such. Second, it is NOT TRUE that private entities can “do what they want” with their property.  Let’s see a White homeowner publicly advertise selling or renting only to Whites, let them state that, for example, they refuse to sell or rent to Blacks, Hispanics, or Muslims (of any race).  You’ll see then how quickly “private property rights” evaporate.

In summary, again, Zman has a point.  Spencer is so shallow that he makes a piece of tissue sliced by a microtome look as deep as the Grand Canyon by comparison.

Speaking of shallow: “The devastation is the most important thing,” after all.  A man of genuine greatness!

I laugh at how articles about “super commuting” completely  ignore a major reason – perhaps the major reason – for such commuting, and for long commutes in general – RACE.  That is, White workers cannot, or will not, live in or around those urban areas that have the jobs because those same urban areas and their surroundings are infested with “vibrant” Color.

Granted, long commutes in more rural regions have other causes, some alluded to in the article, but the fact is that long commutes are still overwhelmingly a blue state coastal and Rust Belt phenomenon.  It is something found wherever you have large numbers of Blacks and Hispanics and the flight of Whites away from them.  It is another symptom of White Flight, and another indication that the Contamination of Color is metastasizing away from the urban cores into surrounding suburbs, and into smaller cities as well.  Whites need to keep on moving farther and farther away to escape the rising tide of Color, but the jobs stay where they are. Hence, the long commutes.


Salterian Ethics

“We charge you in the name of God, take heed.”

This essay is about the oft-ignored and much-neglected final third of Dr. Frank Salter’s classic work On Genetic Interests, a book that, in my opinion, is of such import that Salter should win a Nobel Prize for this work.

The book is divided into three major sections. The first described what genetic interests and ethnic genetic interests (EGI) are, how they can be measured, and what their import is, and how some objections to these concepts can be answered. The second section studies the political and social ramifications of genetic interests and the EGI concept, and how these concepts could be incorporated into practical biopolitics. The last third of the book deals with the ethics of pursuing genetic interests in opposition to the genetic interests of others and in opposition to the proximate interests (genetic interests being ultimate interests for evolved organisms) of others.

The ethical component of Salter’s work has been ignored by a Left that presents a defamatory strawman representation of EGI as promoting “genocide and rape.”  Obviously then, Salter’s careful arguments, and his advocacy of a “mixed ethic” that incorporates individual rights, is anathema to mendacious trash who wish to misrepresent the contents of Salter’s book. Some on the Far Right either ignore or mock this section of Salter’s book because these people actually do advocate genocide and rape (or at least the former) and they characterize the ethical section of the book as an unnecessary politically correct add-on, something purely subjective, and in some cases they engage in some defamation of their own by characterizing Salter’s ethical concerns as “squid ink” to hide the true “nature red in tooth and claw” agenda of On Genetic Interests (projection, perhaps).

I myself have not paid enough attention to this section of the book.  As a STEM person with an interest in population genetics and in empirical determinations of ethnic and racial interests, obviously I found the first part of the book riveting; as a White nationalist who wants to achieve certain political objectives based on EGI, it is equally obvious that the second part of the book was also of extreme interest to me.  Philosophy and ethics are not my strong suit and although I agree with most of what Salter wrote in that section of the book (unlike some of his foaming-at-the-mouth Nutzi critics), I have heretofore not given that section sufficient attention.  I hope to begin the process of rectifying that error here.

As Salter emphasizes, morality is basically an approach for adjudicating conflicts of interests. E.O. Wilson described human behavior as “…the circuitous technique by which human genetic material has been and will be kept intact.” In relation to that goal, he asserted: “Morality has no other demonstrable ultimate function.”  This is in accord with the view – promoted by Salter and myself – that genetic interests are ultimate interests. How could it be otherwise for evolved organisms whose reproduction – indeed, whose representation among the informational content of reality – is essentially dependent upon and constituted by “genetic material?”  Or more basically by the information encoded in that “genetic material?”

At this point, a brief detour is in order to distinguish “factual truth” from practical truth.” According to D.S. Wilson: “It is the person who elevates factual truth above practical truth who must be accused of mental weakness from an evolutionary perspective.”  As a man of science, I have been trained to value factual truth, and that is part of the Western tradition; indeed, it has antecedents in the Classical Civilization of Europe.  However, there is truth (both factual and practical!) in D.S. Wilson’s comment.  If we merge the assertions of the two Wilsons together, we can say that practical truth is evolutionarily paramount if and when it acts to promote the ultimate interest of genetic continuity.  

An example from “movement activism” can clarify how an example of hypocritical racial cant confuses factual and practical truth, and further, how adherence to the genetic interests of racial aliens uses a denial of factual truth to also impede practical truth. A certain “activist” (*) wrote: “Individual and ethnic amour-propre is a powerful motivator in the face of emotionally hurtful facts and hypotheses.”  But that criticism falls flat if the motivation in question reflects the practical truths that promote ultimate interests.  This individual himself is proof of this, given his reticence to extend his alleged interest in “emotionally hurtful facts and hypotheses” to those ethnies he values and identifies with.  As a Nordicist HBDer who distorts racial science and racial history for his transparent agendas, he is as guilty as anyone else in utilizing practical truth and dismissing factual truth. However, any European-derived person who promotes HBD is acting against, not for, their ultimate interests, as they instead promote the ultimate interests of Jews and Asians. In this case, practical truth is used in the service of someone else’s ultimate interests. Why such genetic treason is practiced is for the traitor to explain. Whatever the reason, this agenda is the denial of factual truth (i.e., dishonesty) in the service of the denial of practical truth for Europeans (i.e., race treason).  

Now we will begin to consider the main points of Salter’s arguments about the ethics of EGI. Salter wrote:

…we make moral judgements of great consequence, and must do so if we are to decide conflicts of interests.  Choices are also forced in the game of life, every day genetic interests being won or squandered. A commentator who fails to advise people on how to defend their most precious assets is, by default, advocating the status quo, with its winner and losers.

One can contrast teleological or consequentialist ethics such as utilitarianism with deontological ethics.  In the former, an act is morally right dependent upon its outcome; thus we ask – are its effects desirable?  In the later, acts are moral based on some defined rules or traditions; here the act is considered good or bad in and of itself, independent of its effects.  Teleological ethics are best suited for consideration of EGI, since we need to judge the consequences of various outcomes derived from conflicts involving genetic interests (e.g., competing genetic interests, genetic interests vs. proximate interests, or the specialized case of the latter of genetic interests vs. individual rights).

Obviously, and as Salter rightly points out, teleological ethnics have to have at some point a deontological component; after all, to label an outcome as “desirable” means that this consequence, this effect, has to be judged as morally right, as morally good, on its own merits.  Here we are evaluating the merits of the consequence itself, not the act that led to the consequence.  Thus, at some point in the analysis, a value judgement has to be made. Salter discusses various options for what this morally good consequence should be, including Mill’s idea of the morally optimal act being one that maximizes happiness for the greatest number.  However, “happiness” is a proximate interest that may not be in the best interests of an individual, group, or society; thus, maladaptive acts such as drug use leading to addiction may result in (at least short-term) happiness. Is that morally good?  Genetic interests are ultimate interests, and fitness can be an objective measure of a consequence that an evolutionarily informed individual (or society) can consider morally good.  

Obviously, this is a matter of values, and Salter has always admitted that “who cares?” is a riposte to genetic interests that cannot be refuted without addressing values. I’d like to point out though that those interested in promoting their genetic interests will outcompete and replace those who are not. In the long-term, disinterest in genetic interests is not evolutionarily stable. So, such a disinterest would be a quite strange “morally good ethic” in that it dooms itself to extinction. If someone has a value system in which self-destructive values are prized then that is their prerogative; others who value continuity of both their bioculture and their values would be well served to promote their genetic interests.  Salter also notes that proximate interests are best optimized rather than maximized; for example, a person who is “too happy” may become less prudent, jeopardizing well-being.  On the other hand, ultimate interests are different; these interests are adaptive when maximized (note: maximized in the net sense).  Thus, Salter states: “One cannot be too well adapted.” 

Careful readers may believe that quote is inconsistent with my distinction between gross and net genetic interests, and my comments (here and previously) that a too-aggressive pursuit of ever-diminishing returns of genetic interest can be counter-productive.  But there is no inconsistency because Salter’s quote makes being adapted the primary issue, not the mechanisms used to pursue that goal. Adaptiveness here is in terms of net genetic interests. In other words, maximizing adaptiveness is good, but attempting to maximize the pursuit of genetic interests, in every circumstance and regardless of context, can result in sub-optimal adaptiveness if that attempt backfires.  Note that in his book Salter describes certain ultra-nationalist states, like Nazi Germany, as being over-investments in genetic interests that ended up harming the adaptive interests of those states’ ethnies.  Hitler’s attempt to maximize German EGI backfired; look at Germany in 1945, and, worse, look at Germany today. German adaptiveness, their net EGI, would have been maximized by a more prudent, and less aggressive, pursuit of genetic interests. While in many – likely most – cases, maximizing genetic interests would maximize adaptiveness, that is not always the case. 

Note also that a person’s conscious preferences may not lead to adaptive outcomes; this can be from a hyper-investment in genetic interests as with Hitler or, more likely today, in globalist “anonymous mass societies,” people do not understand their genetic interests and thus under-invest in them.  While we cannot force values on people, we can educate them about genetic interests so that their choice of values will be an informed choice.

However, a pure utilitarian ethic – promoting adaptive fitness for the greatest number as the only consideration – has some problems.

Salter rightfully criticizes the pure utilitarian ethic from the standpoint of justice.  He provides a theoretical example that I can paraphrase here. Imagine a murder committed in a town, and the local vagrant is suspected.  The police chief then discovers the vagrant is innocent and that the murder was committed by the mayor, who has been an upstanding citizen and a long-standing important member of the town community.  The crime was one of passion and will be unlikely to ever be repeated, while the vagrant is a constant troublemaker. Convicting the vagrant on the basis of partial or invented evidence would be best for the long-term well-being of the town, while arresting and convicting the mayor would cause social upheaval in the town, damage the town’s nascent tourist industry, and cause widespread economic dislocation and hardship for residents.  A purely utilitarian reading of the situation is to let the vagrant hang and let the mayor off Scott-free, but, as Salter notes, this offends our sense of justice (for most of us anyway).  That being so, the utilitarian ethic needs to be balanced by individual rights, and by certain normative values. Pure utility is not sufficient for a truly just ethic.

Salter notes that “bounded rationality” – our inability to ever know everything necessary about a problem or issue – is a good reason not to advocate for the pure ethic of unbridled pursuit of genetic interests. This is because we may be in error about what those genetic interests actually are and about how best to achieve them.  In the absence of unbounded rationality, in the absence of absolute certainty, a degree of prudence and restraint is called for, and is likely to be more adaptive in the long run. I have always distinguished gross genetic interests from net – the former being a naïve attempt to maximize a perceived set of genetic interests to the ultimate degree possible, while the latter takes into account costs and benefits and attempts to ascertain what the long-term genetic interest net benefit will be after all the varied costs are accounted for.  It may be that a less radical pursuit of (ever-diminishing) genetic interest returns would be most beneficial; the marginal gains of genetic interests inherent in an “all or nothing” approach toward adaptive behavior may not be worth the costs incurred. For example, dividing a larger nation into smaller micro-states of more concentrated kinship may be seen as maximizing EGI, but if this division weakens the ability of the populations involved to defend their interests against aggressors (or achieve some other beneficial goal that requires a certain size threshold), then net adaptive interests would suffer. Maximizing EGI, trying to squeeze every last drop of genetic interest from a situation, may backfire. In addition, the possibility of kinship overlap between populations is another reason not to be too radical in the pursuit of EGI, particularly within continents, since some people on “their side” may be more genetically similar to you than those on “your side.”  Even if that degree of kinship overlap is not the case, if the two sides are relatively genetically similar to each other, then he costs of conflict may outweigh the benefits.  The bounded rationality problem, coupled to the possibility of kinship overlap, therefore suggests that a degree of flexibility in the pursuit of EGI is optimal, since errors in interpreting kinship and the best methods for pursuing adaptiveness may result in serious, perhaps irreversible, damage to adaptive interests. Prudence and restraint are therefore warranted to constrain reckless behavior in support of (assumed) genetic interests.

Thus, Salter asserts that is prudent to eschew the pure ethic – where maximizing genetic interests would always take precedence in every circumstance – in favor of a “mixed ethic” where the pursuit of adaptiveness is tempered by a concern for individual rights and minority group rights – or even the rights of other majority groups of other nations that your group may be in conflict with. 

Salter pre-emptively answers some of his Far Right critics by asking whether adding a concern for such rights “threatens incoherence” of an adaptive ethic. Thus, those critics complained that a concern for rights was a subjective “add-on” to EGI that does not logically derive from Salter’s arguments. However, the comments about bounded rationality and kinship overlap, as well as the possibility of maladaptive over-investment in EGI, point in the direction of a mixed ethic actually being coherent and probably more adaptive in the net sense. In addition, given the reality of White behavior, getting large numbers of Whites to agree with the value of EGI would necessitate flexibility about adaptive behavior, so as to include appropriate consideration of (potentially) non-adaptive values such as individual rights.

Note that in my view, proximate interests that temper the pursuit of genetic interests need not be limited to individual (or minority group) rights, but can (and should) include such things as a Yockeyian interest in “actualizing a High Culture” and other civilizational and political pursuits that may not always be perfectly congruent with a single-minded pursuit of genetic interests. But even here, I can argue that such a tempering may have long-term adaptive value.  The groups constituting the Yockeyian view are all European; hence, there will be at least some kinship overlap (at least at the global level).  

Salter compares three ethics – pure adaptive utilitarianism (PAU), mixed adaptive utilitarianism (MAU), and the rights-centered ethic (RCE).  The PAU holds EGI as morally good and also holds that adaptive interests must be maximized regardless of means. MAU also holds that EGI is morally good, but that the pursuit of adaptive interests must be constrained by rights.  The RCE does not assert that EGI is either morally good or bad, but this ethic is not teleological like the preceding two, but is deontological; thus, in the RCE the “rightness of means [are] unrelated to consequences.”  Then Salter asks certain questions for each of these ethics. First, can it moral for EGI to frustrate other interests? The PAU says yes, unconditionally; while the MAU also says yes, but only in defense of ethnic interests or in (limited) expansion that preserves the existence of the (defeated) competitor. Since Salter supports the MAU, it puts to lie the accusation that he supports genocide. What about the RCE? This ethic says that it is not moral for EGI to frustrate other interests, because such frustration of other interests causes harm. Should genetic interests have absolute priority?  The PAU says yes, the MAU says no when such interests “conflict with individual rights,” and the RCE says no, “since only means matter” – and only means consistent with individual rights are allowed in RCE.  What to do when genetic interests conflict?  The PAU says “compete within adaptive limits” (I suppose this means net genetic interests), the MAU says “compete but respect rights,” and the RCE says “stop competing, since it entails harm.”

I’d like to say at this point that the RCE is, practical terms, not really followed by anyone in the multicultural ex-West. Those who claim to support the RCE essentially support it only for Whites, while non-Whites are allowed to essentially follow a PAU ethics.  Consider – do supporters of the RCE really take an agnostic view of EGI independent of rights?  Or is the very idea of White EGI anathema?  I suppose the argument would be that any expression of White genetic interests harms the rights of non-Whites, so consideration of White EGI independent of rights is not possible.  That being so, the fact that non-White PAU harms White EGI is a feature, not a bug, of modern RCE hypocrisy.

Salter further discusses the ethics of the PAU and MAU approaches, making analogies between ethny and family.  If we allow people to favor their families, then why shouldn’t ethnocentrism be tolerated, or even celebrated (I’m talking about Whites here; as we all know, non-White ethnocentrism is already strongly promoted by the System)?  Salter goes further – if parents have a duty to care for their children, then perhaps people “have a similar duty to nurture” their ethnies.  Indeed, perhaps one rationale for race-denial propaganda is to prevent (White) people from making these “dangerous” (but accurate) analogies between ethny and family. Salter states that tribal feelings and ethnic identification are both necessary to produce “feelings of ethnic obligation” – so it should be no surprise to us that those two elements are attacked by the System with respect to Whites (but promoted for non-Whites).  

Salter discusses methods used to undermine these components of ethnic obligations, including “fictive ethnicity” (e.g., civic nationalism) and/or fictive non-ethnicity (e.g., race-denial).  Thus, Whites in America, for example, are told that their racial group does not exist, and that they should simply identify as “Americans,” considering any featherless biped infesting American territory as their civic “kin.” If protecting one’s genetic survival is a fundamental right (and it should be so for evolved organisms like humans), then these methods are immoral and unethical. Further, holding that genetic continuity is a fundamental right brings the MAU closer to the PAU, thus undermining Salter’s critics on the Far Right. Indeed, further undermining those rightist critics, Salter puts forth that advancement, and not merely defense, of genetic interests can be moral and ethical. The idea, consistent with the MAU, is to allow for the continued existence of the (defeated) competitor, albeit with reduced (but not fatally diminished) resources.

Salter then briefly discusses altruism and morality, citing one so-called “leading evolutionary theorist” who claims “that only non-fitness-enhancing behavior can be moral.”  Amusingly, Salter then mentions that a healthier theorist made the comment that these types of ideas are such “that this is an unconsciously self-serving moral sentiment that, when expressed, influences some susceptible individuals to show indiscriminate altruism that benefits the moralist.” Indeed, calls for universalism and pathological altruism can be a competitive tactic; thus, non-Whites manipulate White behavior so that Whites sacrifice their own interests to promote those of others. This is of course maladaptive for Whites; indeed, evolved organisms are not expected to be, and should not be, purely disinterested in their morals and ethics (including altruism).  And, sometimes, ultimate and proximate interests converge and the distinctions are blurred (as I often state)l however, when distinctions between the two sets of interests are clear, the ultimate should usually be given precedence over the proximate (note: a precedence constrained by a concern for rights).

Salter notes that people “who do not consider peaceful genetic replacement to be a moral issue will have no moral objection to their own painless genetic extinction.” Well, there are Whites with pathological altruism who do not personally reproduce as as to “save the planet” (and who advocate the same to other Whites, but typically not to non-Whites), but typically the situation is that of a targeted attack against White interests. Especially, non-White activists will be among those who attempt to convince Whites to accept genetic extinction, while these non-Whites themselves continue their own genetic lines.  

And if people genuinely do not care about genetic interests, then why do many of them so strenuously argue against those who do so care?  I wrote about this previously:

The only real critique possible is one of values – i.e., genetic interests are real, but, who cares?  However, I find the values argument hypocritical and mendacious as well. Imagine two co-ethnics, Jim and Mark. Jim highly values his genetic interests, genetic continuity, and racial survival. Mark is indifferent to all of that, he “doesn’t care” about it. Very well. But if Jim cares deeply and Mark not at all, then common sense and fundamental ethics tell us that Mark, who asserts he doesn’t care one way or the other, should let Jim have his way. Why not?  If one believes Mark then he’s fine either way – the race prospers or it does not. Mark’s indifference should then make way for Jim’s deep concern and concentrated activism. Of course, Mark may be a liar, he may have other interests which conflict with Jim’s concerns with race and EGI; if so, Mark should be honest about these interests. If Jim and Mark are of different ethnies, and if Mark opposes Jim’s pursuit of EGI, Jim should be wary of Mark’s claims to be a disinterested commentator.  Mark’s interests do not bestow upon him the right to delegitimize Jim’s pursuit of his ultimate interests through the misuse of pseudoscientific sophistry.  

Getting back to the issue of values, it is indeed amusing when people who claim “they do not care” about race get so upset with scenarios in which Europeans survive and prosper. If race is “irrelevant” then it should be “irrelevant” if non-Europeans become extinct and an expanding European population colonizes the entire Earth. Why not?  “Nothing matters.”  Except of course, in reality, it all matters. Attacks against “Salterism” are not disinterested science, but hyper-interested ethnic activism and/or political ideology.

A few concluding comments are appropriate at this point.  Salter believes that “evolved organisms” will not for long accept a “social order that weeds out their lineages.” Well, so far, Whites have been generally accepting of such a social order; we shall see how things evolve (no pun intended).  It is part of the proper ethics of EGI to educate people on the important of adaptive behavior; one can view Salter’s book, and my current post, as part of such efforts.

Salter also discusses “socially imposed monogamy” as an effective method for resolving conflicting genetic interests in societies, and this leads us to the idea that atomized individuals are unlikely to be able to effectively strategize and act on behalf of their genetic interests; collective action, including state power, is necessary. Salter mentions the ethical implications of having a state that is an interested promoter of national interests in the global arena, but “a disinterested arbiter of family interests within the nation.”  [Note that socially imposed monogamy may be an exception to the latter, depending upon your point of view]. There are different levels of genetic interests that would need to be handled in different manners.  Just solutions to conflicts of genetic interests, those that appeal to the universal human interest in genetic continuity and adaptiveness (whether consciously recognized or not), would be more stable than unjust and unreasonable approaches.  It is in the interests of any adaptively-minded state to promote such just solutions to conflicts of genetic interests,

Finally, while the MAU puts limits on the degree to which genetic interests can be pursued, people and ethnies must still have the freedom to advance (not merely defend) their interests within reasonable bounds. We cannot expect equal fitness outcomes as enforced equalized fitness would lead to an increased mutation load and would be so totalitarian in its application as to be unpalatable to reasonable people. Salter argues that the ultimate freedom is the freedom to defend (and advance) one’s genetic interests, which are ultimate interests. That this can be done via the MAU has been argued in Salter’s book and also in my comments above; I would promote a rather aggressive version of the MAU, but one that still incorporates limits and which respects certain proximate interests. However, in my case, I would value society-wide proximate interests, such as Yockey’s call to actualize a High Culture, over mere individual rights, although, certainly, individual rights are important and should be respected.

Let us finish with the following Shakespearean quote that Salter includes in this section of his book, with respect to conflicts between sets of genetic interests:


Therefore take heed how you impawn our person,

How you awake our sleeping sword of war.

We charge you in the name of God, take heed,

For never two such kingdoms did contend

Without much fall of blood, whose guiltless drops

Are every one a woe, a sore complaint

‘Gainst him whose wrong gives edge unto the swords

That make such waste in brief mortality.

May I with right and conscience make this claim?

Shakespeare, Henry V, 1500, Act I, Scene I


*I want this post to emphasize ideas and theory, not personal feuding, so I’m not going to mention such people by name here.

Ethnocentrism, Chinese Nationalist Maiden, Sex Strike

In der news.

Read this.

Prof. Dutton tries to explain the relatively low ethnocentrism of whites. One theory is that we have an evolutionary strategy based on producing geniuses. Exceptional people make breakthroughs that advance the interests of the group, but the type of environment that produces and supports such people is one of low conformity. This would decrease ethnocentrism. 

As he does in his earlier book, At Our Wits’ End, Prof. Dutton also argues that social changes connected with the Industrial Revolution have meant far less natural selection in industrialized populations since then. For most of history, children with maladaptive traits usually died, but now they often survive. This means harmful mutations stay in the gene pool. 

Prof. Dutton argues that ethnocentrism benefits groups in the struggle for survival, so natural selection has generally promoted it, whereas maladaptive attitudes such as very low ethnocentrism are the product of mutations. Mental and physical abnormalities due to genetic mutations are often found together, so that as the population is increasingly burdened with mutations affecting physical health, it may also be afflicted with reduced ethnocentrism, which reduces a population’s chances for long-term survival.

Is there an inverse relationship between degrees of ethnocentrism and the levels of such deleterious mutations?  This could be assayed. I avoid making comments about intra-European possibilities here, but the failures of Der Movement’s affirmative action “leadership” raises possibilities.

By the way, will Amren review Dutton’s book on Rushton?  Inquiring minds want to know.

Me so horny, me ruv you rong rong time:

Chinese Nationalist Maiden • 20 hours ago

I have witnessed for a long time that Whites are less ethnocentric than other races…

Is that why Whites let the likes of you live in their nations and infest their “pro-White” websites?

…and that is why I consistently try to increase White ethnocentrism.

By living in their nations.

I am not scared of White ethnocentrism. 

Really?  Even when your yellow rear end is kicked back to Hepatitis Land?

I agree with Kevin Macdonald’s view that Whites are unusually altruistic, which explains their weirdly low ethnocentrism. 

Exemplified by your presence at Amren.

However, I really hope Whites wake up soon because it is not good for the future of humanity if this planet becomes flooded with low-IQ peoples as low-fertility, high-IQ races, namely Whites and East Asians, decline. 

IQ, IQ, Asians have high, high IQ!  Asians are really declining, eh?  There are hundreds of millions more Chinese alone (a single Asian ethnic group) than there are all Whites combined, worldwide. Asians are in such “decline” that their excess population floods into White nations.

Currently, the East Asian demographic decline is inevitable due to low fertility. 

And if China loses half-a-billion people they’ll be down to where the entire White race is right now.

Together with Whites, we will be a dwindling minority in centuries to come…


…and therefore we need a strategy for high-IQ peoples.

Whites enslaved to Asian interests.

However, idiots like Xi Jinping make sound racial thinking nigh to impossible in China…

Which is why the Chinese are fiercely nationalistic and are practicing eugenics.

…whilst the West is not being helped either by the liberals and (((rulers))) who wish for White genocide.

If the subtle sexual bait is not enough, there’s a (((little pretense))) of anti-Jewishness to whet Nutzi appetites.  Just like that Japatrix from Majority Rights.  It’s as if they are reading off the same script…which is probably the case.

Retarded wopess just confirmed to the world that all women are basically whores who use sex to control men.

MGTOW, my friends, MGTOW.

Those deceptive yeastbuckets.


The Year in Review: 2018

The year that was.

A brief outline of 2018, with an emphasis on Der Movement and the Sallis Groupuscule.

1. Sallis contra Lewontin. I finally got around to formally (preliminary) demonstrate that “Lewontin’s Fallacy” applies to any form of human population grouping, including random grouping, mixed-race grouping, etc.  That is, any human population, however chosen, will demonstrate “more variation within than between” – and this has nothing to do specifically with race, and retarded leftist “arguments” that assert that “within/between” somehow invalidates race, or worse, demonstrates that “Whites and Blacks are more genetically similar to each other than to members of their own racial group”, are absurd, and objectively and quantitatively absolutely wrong.

This was, in my opinion, by far my most important contribution in 2018 and, predictably, it was completely ignored by Der Movement.  Indeed, even among readers of this blog, based on page views, I notice that criticisms of Der Movement get much more attention than any of my genetics-based posts, or book reviews (here or at Western Destiny), or any other such analysis.

Whether that is because activists are “hungry” for alternative and critical viewpoints of the “movement,” or simply because people prefer to read about “movement gossip” and infighting, I do not know.

However, the fact that groups ostensibly interested in these genetics-based matters – racialists, HBDers, etc. – studiously ignored this (and other similar material produced here) should tell you something.  It’s “Who” and not “What.”  Material of utility for White racial interests, material of interest to “race realists”- all of that is ignored if it is produced by the “wrong” people.  Values get thrown out the window when personal and narrow ideological interests are at stake.  Remember that when all those types protest about how much they prioritize ethical activism and White racial interests and “the pursuit of the truth.”

2. Reviews. Speaking of things that have been ignored, Bolton’s important biography of Yockey was available, so I got a e-copy, read it, and reviewed it found here. I also did a review of the “Whither Judaism and the West?” book chapter, found here.

3. Alt Blight.  2018 is the year that the Alt Right definitely and obviously collapsed, the bubble burst, the Alt Right fever broke, much to my relief – and just as I predicted as far back as 2016 (when all the heroic “movement leaders” were jumping on the Alt Right bandwagon).  This has to be by far the single biggest “movement”-related story of 2018, at least on the American scene.  And both proponents and opponents (Left and Right) of the Alt Right admit and acknowledge the collapse.  Indeed, post mortems have been written from both sides of the political spectrum. It’s that obvious.

The problem is that the niche space of “movement” stupidity must be filled, like air rushing into a vacuum, and we are now seeing a resurgence of the Alt Wrong (see the Counter-Currents ethics issue below).

4.  They’re not proud, boys.  Concomitant with the collapse of the Alt Right, the Alt Lite has also degenerated, exemplified by the “Proud Boys” being chased out of LA bars by noodle-armed soyboys, and then essentially disowned by their creator.  Are these the types you want to get under the “big tent” with?

5. Deplatformimg, persecution, and the rule of Antifa.  One reason for the decline of the “Alts” and the “movement” as a whole, has been the inability to deal with a concerted effort by the System to target Far Right activists at various points of vulnerability.  Rightists have been deplatformed from social media and various online financial entities, they’ve been targeted by lawfare and social pricing, and the Far Left Trump administration has let Antifa essentially conquer the American Street, so we have scraggly wanna-be leftists acting as the running dog enforcers of the globalist-big business-anti-White alliance. Antifa is now the de facto police force of the government and of globalist big business interests.

6. The Turd Emperor.  This blog correctly and presciently identified Trump as a fraud and a vulgar ignorant buffoon back in 2015. Three years later, and after two years of a failed Presidency, most (but not all) of the Trump cheerleaders have realized that they’ve been “had, “and the intra-“movement” consensus is that Trump is a pathetic failure.  However, the Quota Queens by and large take no personal responsibility for this fiasco of misplaced trust and enthusiasm; there will of course be NO accountability for the latest Man on White Horse Syndrome episode.  Expect it to happen again.

7.  Going counter to the ethical current. The ethical collapse of Counter-Currents is another story of 2018. That site has been in decline for several years, and the gaslighting of trying to blame the failures of WN 2.0 on WN 1.0 was one low point this year.  But, as bad as that was, it was merely an appetizer to the two shoes dropping

First, we observed Counter-Currents embracing Derbyshire, doubling down on the good old boys network, despite the fact that Johnson in the past strongly denounced Derbyshire as an anti-WN, race-mixing opportunist, and also denounced WNs who embraced Derbyshire.  Second, Johnson wrote that “Trevor Lynch” is going to be featured at the Jew Unz site.  That’s astonishing, and not in a good way.  It seems that with the death of the Alt Right, Counter-Currents is pivoting to the Alt Wrong.  

More evidence of the Counter-Currents shift is this excerpt of a recent Johnson comment:

The mature thing for the American movement is to invest in individuals and organizations that are changing minds and bringing people over to our side, as opposed to failures who only bring shame upon us. Here’s my short list:

1. Counter-Currents and me

2. American Renaissance and Jared Taylor

3. VDare and the Brimelows

4. The Occidental Observer and Kevin MacDonald

5. Identity Europa and Patrick Casey

6. Red Ice

Of the five non-CC entities listed, three (60%) are HBD/Alt Wrong, with two (40%) – Amren and VDARE – being the fundamental pillars of the Alt Wrong.  Johnson and Counter-Currents have thrown in their lot in with the Alt Wrong, and one can reasonably predict that  in the long term Counter-Currents as a vehicle for White racial nationalism is finished.  Also note that Johnson’s list is enriched in people and entities who “threw Spencer under the bus” after Hailgate.  Also note that there is solidarity there for both the affirmative action program as well as for tin cup panhandling.  This is the “movement” “amen corner” reinforcing each other’s biases and errors.

By the way, here is my comprehensive list of “individuals and organizations” that are of any use:

1. Ted Sallis and the Sallis Groupuscule (EGI Notes and Western Destiny)

List complete.

I have had my disagreements with the WN 1.0 folks, but at least those people are of a more sound character when it comes to not selling out.  I can’t imagine the likes of Duke, Strom, Roper, Linder (or Pierce when he was alive) writing for Unz, groveling to a race-mixer like Derbyshire, or anything else of that nature.  Leave that to all the WN 2.0 and 3.0 heroes. Despite ideological disagreements, as well as disagreements on strategy and “optics,” I’m much closer in basic character to WN 1.0 than I am to any of the later permutations.  All these guys keep on trying to reinvent the wheel, and they haven’t yet figured out that this won’t work.

Here’s Roissy on Unz:

Ron Unz lies a lot in an article about the Alt-Right which he penned last year but reposted yesterday. I think the strawman-per-word ratio in his id-shaped rant is higher than anything I’ve read outside of a feminist tumblrrhea screed.

His main contention is that the “alt-right” are being deplatformed and de-personed because representatives (whoever they are) exaggerate the criminal threat of latino immigration, and the Soylicunt Valley nerdos who have been thrust into the role of Speech Police can’t tolerate the lies.

This is an utter inversion of the reality, which is that the Big Tech Poindexters can’t tolerate the truths which dissident outposts daily level against the corrupt Globohomo worldview and nation-dissolving agenda.

The “alt-right” (really, a constellation of realtalkers who refuse to parrot neolibogisms) is silenced because they write truths that the masturbators of the universe don’t want to read.

Simple as that.

Censorship has historically been used as a tool by the powerful to suppress the views of the powerless who threaten the former’s hold on power. That Unz can’t or won’t grasp this ineluctable fact of no-holds-barred status jockeying between antagonistic groups says a lot about what kind of resentful agenda motivates him.

How about all Unz contributors being upfront as to whether they are being paid by Unz and if so how much?  And can any of us believe we’d see the day when Roissy makes more sense than Johnson?

8. Randy Phil. Rushton was exposed as a hypocrite, a race traitor, and a fraud – and by a fellow HBDer no less.  Rushton fathered a child with a Negress.  What’s next?  Pierce having had a secret love child with a Jewess?

And of course all the Rushton fanboys either ignored the revelations or started with ad hominem attacks against the messenger Dutton, as if those personal attacks could in any way alter the pathetic and disturbing facts of the case.  That’s HBD for you.  But let’s give Dutton credit for some honesty here.   Twilight of the Idols indeed.

9. Out of Africa. The Spencer and Johnson 23andMe results – emphasizing the absurdity of that test’s minor admixture estimates.

10. Wrong, wrong, they’re always wrong. Typically wrong – Jack Nicholson as a prospective “alpha shitlord” – while any 30 second Google search can demonstrate that he’s a life-long liberal Democrat.  A “jacked” Bezos making a “hard turn right” politically – except he didn’t. Good going there, Roissy, on both counts.  “Shakin’ Stevens” and his Odinist perspectives – that is, when he’s not being a Red.  Good going, Rowsell.  Not to mention the “movement’s” humiliation about Trump, mentioned above.  In Trump We Trust – until “we” don’t.

11. Can’t keep it in the pants.  There was the Heimbach-Parrott and Spencer-Conte dramas. The lack of moral fiber and sexual self-control demonstrates a failure of leadership character.  To be fair, the Spencer-Conte issue is murky, and has not been definitively established.  The other incident is more definitive.

And, gee, Heimbach’s latest comeback attempt was short-lived.  Try, try again.  It must be great to have a “free pass” from Der Movement for having the appropriate ethnic ancestry.  After all, even Baby Daddy Rushton is still worshipped in some circles. 

Delenda Est Der Movement

The White race will be free only AFTER Der Movement, Inc. is destroyed.

Der Marching Movement

Some points.

Read this.

What is Populism? is a truly terrible, even contemptible performance. Müller is Professor of Politics at Princeton University, so he’s not totally stupid. What’s stupid is the Left-liberal democratic ideology and system that he defends. One gets the impression that he has lived so long in the echo chamber of academia and the middle-brow press that he has never really articulated and challenged his own political convictions. You’d think that would come with the territory as Professor of Politics at Princeton. But they don’t make Princeton professors like they used to. I think Müller stumbles so badly because, for perhaps the first time in his life, he has blundered out of the cave into the sunlight.

But take heart: an establishment this out of touch is truly doomed.

That was a reasonably good analysis by Johnson.  As he is a full time activist – living off donations – he certainly has the time to read, and review, all these books.  One problem is that he’s preaching to the choir here. How to get these analyses out to a broader population?  After all, I thought Counter-Currents was all for the “big tent” and wants to normalize WN?

Johnson should challenge Muller to a debate on the subject of populism. There’s not much of a chance that Muller would accept, but what do you have to lose (assuming Johnson believes he could win such a debate)?  In the off chance Muller accepts, that would be a major promotion of Johnson’s views; if Muller objects, or ignores the invite, he can be publicly accused of intellectual cowardice.

This is a relevant point to my concerns about funding – I don’t begrudge anyone living off donations as long as they earn it. The question is whether anyone is earning it, according to my standards. Giving a forum to scum like Derbyshire is not a step in the right direction in that regard.  Breaking through the System’s cordon sanitaire to promote positive memes would be step in the right direction. Activists should only contribute donations to those people doing positive things. But, alas, the walking wallets disagree with my assessment and will continue to fund retrograde destructiveness.  Such is life.

As regards this: “But take heart: an establishment this out of touch is truly doomed.”

Does that apply to Der Movement, Inc. as well? We can only hope.  And the fate of the Alt Right give us good reason to hope.  The good old boy network is not invincible, even with the narrow confines of racial activism itself (and it is that context I am talking about, as the network is absolutely inept – far from invincible – in tackling the System).

Whites as a defeated and despairing race.

Why not?  They thought they were electing a pro-White right-wing populist as President, and instead they got a radically left-wing Antifa supporter.

Interesting how Sailer talks about Whites as a race.  Hey, Breezy Steve, I thought that White nationalism is “impossible” because we can’t figure out who is, or is not, “White?’  But you seem to do so in every other column.  Of course you include Jews as “White”- what was your ancestry again?  And does Unz pay you?

An excellent gamester comment below.  Note how Asians are included in the non-White hordes.  Colored is as colored does.  They are all the same.

For reasons that are a mystery to me, I like to put myself into the shoes – or more accurately, into ‘da haid’ — of a nonWhite in America or any White country. What I feel on these jaunts into their skulls is their simple and unbridled joy, their unshaken belief in a bright future that rests on this one, single foundation: wypipo will continue to play by the rules.
Those rules being, that we (I’m back to me now, a White) will continue to be the inanimate backdrop of social capital that lays a nice habitat for blacks, browns and yellows though our competence, niceness, our imbecilic good cheer. One-man-one-vote and the browning of America mean that we’ll resign ourselves to the shifting electoral reality just like individual trees continue to stand around and cast shade and look pretty no matter how many trees around them are cut down.
Whether we’re talking about a 70-IQ black or the 110-IQ Asian, they lack the flexibility of imagination that would let them envision a dynamic system within which, when pressure is turned up on Whites, Whites stop playing by the rules of present-day’s strange, unstable moment of transition between the old complacent America of plenty and the new America whose myths of plurality are becoming Boomer-relics.

While Roissy writes about “pasta naggers,” I write about BOTH the Italian question and about “cuck naggers.” This blog attempts to be honest about, and critical about, all ethnies, while the quota queens are ever-so-selective.

This is interesting.  Fascinating that they didn’t prioritize a particular Borreby individual, but, what can you say?

I was listening to a Radio Europa podcast which was going well until the commentators started critiquing the idea of a European Imperium, using all sorts of retarded straw man arguments.  It doesn’t matter how often one points out that even an extreme integrationist like Yockey supported local sovereignty.  No sir!  Those horrific “Greek Orthodox” people are going to torment you mercilessly by their very existence, so no Imperium for you!  Of course, having nice “Commonwealth” West Indians and South Asians around is all fine and dandy, eh?.  In other words – Rotherham good, Brittas Bay bad.

Ahhh…cuck naggers.  Shakin’ mah haid…amirite?  [Gamesters weep]

OK, to be fair, they don’t want the Blacksters and Brownsters around either. But their hysterical reaction to the Imperium idea, without discussing the nuances, is despicable, and deserves to be mocked.

Der Movement Marches On

More wreckage.

Whatever you want to say about Taleb, he’s at least forcing the Alt Wrong HBD fetishists to defend their premises – for the first time, in, well, forever.

Apparently, those 23ndMe results have real world consequences.

A bit behind the times:

December 2018.

August 2017.

Never fear – given enough time, Der Movement belatedly realizes, promotes, or understands many of the points raised here months or years earlier.

Does the taint of Arktos prevent book reviews?

Vincere Arkadin
Posted December 26, 2018 at 5:27 am | Permalink
What about Bolton’s Yockey bio? Did you read it by chance?

Greg Johnson

Posted December 26, 2018 at 5:37 am | Permalink
I have not been able to read it.

A Type II review is here.

Meanwhile, Johnson is now a writer for the Jewish-HBD Unz site.  Zman would be proud. Is this a paid position?  After all, moneybags Ron usually pays his writers.  Does Greg believe that Unz should be “driven out of White society” as he has stated for Jews in general?  Pay close attention, goys, pay close attention.

The young Pirandello.

The young Mussolini.

More examples for the “movement” cherry pickers:

Giovanni Gentile.

In phenotypic contrast, Lega Nord politician Maroni, born in Varese, Lombardy.  Undoubtedly, a Celt-Germanic Nordic.  As Roissy commentators assert – “geography matters in Italy, like a lot.”

For Greg Conte – an Italian politician of Calabrian ancestry.  Another purebred mountain wop, no doubt. Arya…arya….

Go away, Parrott.

This is the future you choose for your children when you mumble on with your excuses and reservations.
Yes, it’s worth some people getting doxxed, fired, and arrested over. It’s a real struggle, not an internet hobby.


This is the future you choose for your children when you tolerate outrageously incompetent quota queens, freakshows, and online grifters.
Yes, it’s worth some “movement leaders” being mocked and ridiculed. It’s a real struggle, not a panhandling scheme for people who want to live off of follower’s donations.

Der movement marches on.  The voices of WN 3.0?  Say it aint’ so!  Let’s see now.  Trolling, “shitposting,” and generalized juvenile jackassery: all WN 2.0 activities.  Another fail.  Is Greg going to try and blame this fiasco on WN 1.0 as well?

And this is another example why Parrott and all the other quota queens are so wrong in their “suggestions” and “advice.”  Rallies, trolling, beer bellies with their muskets, and all the rest mean nothing, absolutely nothing, when there is no infrastructure, no one embedded in the System, not a single lawyer on call ready to defend, absolutely nothing, nada, zip, zero – nothing except drunken podcasting, Pepe and Kek, trailer park cuckolding, “Proud Boys” chased out of LA boys and then abandoned by their founder, and “leaders” constantly with their hands out demanding “D’Nations.”  There’s nothing.  Absolutely nothing.  And if anyone asserts that we need something, then the good old boys emerge out of the woodwork and – aping their retarded God Emperor – lash out with tweets.  Pathetic.

We’re stuck in an eternal negative feedback loop.  The freakshows of Der Movement repel high quality people.  The lack of high quality people leads to a “movement” dominated by freaks, incompetents, and jackasses. This in turn further repels high quality people.

Only when the rank-and-file activists rebel against their “leaders” will this ever change.

Delenda Est Traditionalism

Excerpts from a Morganian diatribe.  Emphasis added.

Of the major (and even several of the minor) European languages, the Traditionalist school of philosophy – that articulated by René Guénon and Julius Evola…

One of the most fascinating things about Type I nitwits is the juxtaposition of their fervent man-crush on Evola – which equals if not exceeds that which Roissy has for Trump – and their visceral disdain for Evola’s ethny.  The cognitive dissonance must be extreme.

…and their offshoots – was a latecomer in the Anglophone world. After the better part of a century of near-total obscurity, it was only thanks to the hard work of publishers such as Sophia Perennis, Inner Traditions, and World Wisdom (not to mention Counter-Currents!) that most of the writings of the Traditionalist school finally appeared in English and became known – in certain circles, at least – in recent decades.

To our detriment.

While this has been a major step forward…

Off a cliff.

…there is still a dearth of original, secondary works pertaining to the Traditionalist perspective in English. And most of what has been produced in English has focused exclusively on esotericism (particularly of the Islamic variety). What has been conspicuously absent have been works dealing with history, social issues, and politics from a Traditionalist point of view.

Compared to Rightist works dealing with those issues from a Futurist point of view, the mass of Traditionalist scribblings are akin to the grains of sands on a beach.

It’s not difficult to understand why, however, given that for a long time, Traditionalists have been operating under the guise of being purely concerned with religion and mysticism, remaining silent about the fact that Traditionalism in its complete form is one of the most – if not the most – reactionary current of thought that exists in the postmodern world. 

So, we want to promote and identify with a “reactionary current of thought?’’  You think you are going to inspire revolutionary activism and a reordering of society to your liking based upon backwards-gazing reactionary “traditionalism?”

This is of course a consequence of the fact that most Traditionalist thinkers today have opted for the safety of academic careers (something which Evola noted already in the 1950s and for which he expressed his contempt)…

A contempt not quite as intense as that of Der Movement for Evola’s ancestry.

…and thus want to avoid being called fascists. Their cover has been somewhat blown, however, as a result of Steve Bannon’s claim that Guénon was a crucial influence on him…

The anti-racist, anti-WN, civic nationalist Bannon.

…which has in turn led to some superficial and ill-informed propaganda from journalists using Traditionalism as a branding iron with which to mark both Bannon and Trump (by association) as fascists, by bringing attention to the connection between Evola and Guénon. (And Evola had the audacity to call himself a “superfascist,” so by the logic of the average half-witted journalist of today…

As opposed to the average quarter-witted “movement activist” of today.

…that makes Bannon and Trump really fascist!) It remains to be seen what the long-term consequences of this will be in terms of Traditionalism’s reception in the mainstream, although I’ve noticed that it’s become harder to find Evola and Guénon’s books on bookstore shelves these days. It may have the beneficial effect of forcing Traditionalists out of the realm of pure scholasticism and into putting their beliefs into practice, if academia ultimately becomes a hostile environment for them – which it inevitably will, if present trends continue. Time will tell.

Put your beliefs into practice!  Snug in your hobbit hole!

Dr. Wolfheze is not content to merely sit on the sidelines while his civilization is destroyed, justifying it by whining about “muh Kali Yuga.” 

Like Greg Johnson?

The book’s Preface is titled “Childhood’s End,” and in it Dr. Wolfheze briefly discusses the Arthur C. Clarke science fiction novel of the same name as being symptomatic of the post-war (in this case meaning the Second World War) mentality: namely, that the rapid and dramatic progression of science and technology are leading us towards an apocalypse that we cannot yet identify, but which still fills us with a sense of dread. 

Science and technology – BAD, BAD, BAD!  Being snug in your hobbit hole – with de facto anarchy in the provinces of course – GOOD, GOOD, GOOD!  Let’s leave dat dere scientific mumbo jumbo to the Chinese, we’ll get out in dem dere woods and munch on some twigs and branches. That’ll work out well – about as well as Evola “pondering his fate” during a Soviet artillery barrage and ending up in a wheelchair for the rest of his life.  Traditionalism!

Spoilers ahead; if you haven’t yet read the book but think that you might, skip to the next paragraph.) In that book, a near-future humanity is visited by an extraterrestrial civilization which helps to solve all of humanity’s problems, bringing about Utopia. The problem, as humanity soon learns, is that it turns out that it was the struggle to deal with those problems that gave their lives meaning, and having everything handed to them eventually leads to stagnation. It turns out that all of human history was merely a process leading us towards humanity’s real end, for which the aliens have come to act as midwives: evolving into a species of plain, anonymous children, all identical and part of a collective with no more distinguishing features than ants, but endowed with what we would consider to be superpowers. Ultimately, these children combine their forces and transform themselves into a non-corporeal being, destroying the Earth in the process and incidentally all of those unevolved humans such as ourselves – those who haven’t already committed suicide, that is.

This is a science fiction book – and one that promotes race-mixing by the way – not a reflection of reality.  But I suppose that to those who believe that The Lord of the Rings constitutes a viable blueprint for a future society, the membrane separating fact from fiction is thin indeed.

As an allegory of the modern world, the parallels to the Right-wing and Traditionalist view of the modern world is clear, even if Traditionalists would deny that “progress” is leading us towards anything higher, collectively or otherwise. 

OK – you’ll have your hobbit hole and the Chinese will have their nuclear-tipped ICBMs and we’ll see which vision is triumphant.

We, too, are fighting against the transformation of the world into a giant supermarket, where everyone is identical and meaning is to be found solely through the acquisition of material possessions.

Lack of self-awareness alert: How about raging against a “movement” in which everyone is ideologically “identical” and “meaning” is found solely through the mindless chanting of retarded dogma?

In the second decade of the 21st Century it is clear, even to the most simple-minded…

Thus, even to Type I “activists.”

But one thing about this new audience is certain: it will not include the old audience. The old audience will cling to its complementary comforts of infotainment consumption and academic snobbery…

Counter-Currents complaining about “academic snobbery?”  The pot calling the kettle black, indeed.

For Dr. Wolfheze, the end of the Traditional world should not be seen as a cause for mourning, but rather the mark of a need for a new maturity, a desire to be a “man among the ruins,” to use Evola’s phrase…

Or, to be, like Evola himself, a swarthoid subhuman among the supermen?

And indeed, this book, while extremely interesting, is certainly not for everyone – but then Traditionalism has always been an elitist doctrine. 

No “academic snobbery” there!

Engagement with history has always been a weak point in Traditionalism; the Traditionalist authors will make occasional reference to certain historical events as being indicative of the metaphysical trends they see at work in the world, but to my knowledge there has never before been a sustained analysis of modern history from a sacred, Traditional perspective, which has always seemed to me to be a major flaw in their work since it neglects to show how the forces which have produced the modern world have been at work in material and tangible ways. 

Congratulations to Morgan for writing a champion run-on sentence.

I intend to write a more in-depth review of The Sunset of Tradition at a later time – my primary purpose in writing this brief announcement…

More than 2000 words is a “brief announcement.”  More run-on sentences to come, have no fear!

Speaking of “traditionalism,” we see Der Movement is obsessed with The Lord of the Rings once again. Someone needs do an ethnological study of that work’s relationship to Der Movement.  Is the obsessive appeal biological – to Celto-Germanic NW European-derived people – or more ideological – to Type I traditionalists independent of ethnic origin?  That would be a productive analysis to better understand the traditionalist memetic virus infecting the “movement” – to better understand it and how to combat it.

Delenda Est Traditionalism!