Category: books

Bottle of Asians

Asians: Shockingly, profoundly alien.

So, I have finished reading the shocking book account of Asiatic pharmaceutical fraud, Bottle of Lies.

The amount of fraud discussed is astounding, the level of Asiatic perfidy astonishing – but not surprising to anti-HBD Asia-skeptics such as myself – and the damage done to global health incalculable. In addition to everything else, there is evidence that substandard Asian drugs contribute to the emergence of antibiotic resistance in bacteria.  Asia is a threat to all humanity.

Behold completely, utterly corrupt peoples, with a mentality as alien to the European mind as that of a snake or spider.  There can be no alliance here, no similarity, and no overlap. The gulf is unbridgeable. Some sort of tentacled life form from a planet circling a star in the Andromeda galaxy would be less alien to us than these Asiatics, whose mind-numbing levels of criminal corruption and amoral mental monstrosity are breathtaking.  And lest you think this is hyperbole – read the book.  What are all the HBDers afraid of?  If they are so confident that their Asian Gods are all high-IQ, law-abiding supermen, then the truth should not be feared, right?

Rather than have me just repeat the book’s content with myriad tales of Indian and Chinese incompetence and corruption – just read the book.  If there’s one book that I recommend my readers to read in 2020 it is Bottle of Lies – the perfect, unanswerable riposte to the monstrous lie of HBD.  The Indian cognitive elitists exposed.  The high, high-IQ Holy Orientals from The Land of the Gods exposed.  Read it and weep  – we will weep because of how not only are we in the USA dependent upon Indian and Chinese poisonous fraud but we have all of these “cognitive elitists” invading the American academic world, displacing Whites, and destroying the American (and Western) scientific enterprise with Oriental fraud and Asiatic incompetence.  The HBDers will weep as the facts take a hammer to their fallen Yellow and Brown (*) idols.

*The reality of jugaad is that is a clever euphemism for corruption and fraud.

HBD is a monstrous lie.

Ward-Perkins: The Fall of Rome

Who killed civilization and what happened next?

Quote from Amazon review:

Why did Rome fall?

Vicious barbarian invasions during the fifth century resulted in the cataclysmic end of the world’s most powerful civilization, and a ‘dark age’ for its conquered peoples. Or did it? The dominant view of this period today is that the ‘fall of Rome’ was a largely peaceful transition to Germanic rule, and the start of a positive cultural transformation.

Bryan Ward-Perkins encourages every reader to think again by reclaiming the drama and violence of the last days of the Roman world, and reminding us of the very real horrors of barbarian occupation. Attacking new sources with relish and making use of a range of contemporary archaeological evidence, he looks at both the wider explanations for the disintegration of the Roman world and also the consequences for the lives of everyday Romans, in a world of economic collapse, marauding barbarians, and the rise of a new religious orthodoxy. He also looks at how and why successive generations have understood this period differently, and why the story is still so significant today

That very well summarizes the book; having read it, I strongly recommend it (you should be reading on this subject other than retarded “movement” propaganda), and would like to make some points about it here. The book is broadly divided into three parts. First, a historical overview, with the author’s opinions and interpretations as to what happened and why, and also insights into the cross-assimilation process between the defeated Romans and their new German masters. Second, a detailed analysis of the physical evidence for an actual catastrophic Fall, an end to civilization, and the suffering that spread in its wake. Third, a brief summary, with a final warning that what happened to the Romans in their complacency could happen to “our” current civilization (I put “our” in scare quotes because it has already been subverted by aliens – we are already in the process of a Fall).

The author is a self-described “Englishman,” and, although “he was born and raised in Rome and spoke Italian from childhood,” he explicitly states in his book that, personally, he dislikes the Ancient Romans. That is an odd thing for a historian to state about a people he is writing about, but, if he is sincere in that statement, and there is no reason to believe otherwise, then that demonstrates that he is not a shabbos nord stepandfetchit pandering to swarthoids. He is merely writing what he believes is the truth, based on his research. 

One negative about the book to get out of the way – the author writes: “There is no reason to believe, as people once did, that ethnic behavior and identity are genetically transmitted, and therefore immutable.” There is actually every reason to believe that, at least in the sense that a significant portion of identity is determined by biological affiliation and that much of behavior is genetically transmitted; where I part with Der Movement (apart from its constantly disproved dogma on such subjects) is with the idea that this is completely deterministic at the level of being 100% genetic. Phenotype is the combination of both genes and the environment; both are important (genes being more so), and the relative contributions of each inform as to whether the phenotype is mutable or immutable.

Another interesting and amusing part of the book is when the author describes how perceptions of the Fall of Rome have been shaped by ethnic and political considerations.  Thus, Italians and other “Latin” peoples tend to view the Fall of the Western Empire as a catastrophe, with savage and ignorant Germanic barbarians toppling civilization and ushering in a Dark Age. On the other hand, Northern Europeans, particularly Germanics, including the Anglosphere, propose the idea of “a largely peaceful transition to Germanic rule, and the start of a positive cultural transformation.”  And when, in the past, Germanics agreed that the Fall was traumatic, they asserted that it was all for the good, with one German philosopher quoted, with all the sweatiness of a typical Type I Nutzi, about how vigorous northerners rejuvenated Italy by toppling the enervated dwarfish Roman stock (one can imagine Humphrey Ireland as a Goth warrior, furiously attempting to stomp two foot tall scurrying Roman swarthoids, or Greg Johnson envisioning manlet Tom Cruise as an enervated Roman dwarf). On the other hand, the Scottish historian William Robertson lamented the destruction of civilization that resulted from the barbarian destruction of the Western Empire, and then there is Gibbon.

Politically, the view of modern Germans informs opinions on this matter; when WWI and WWII was fresh in people’s minds, the idea of rampaging barbarians was at the forefront, but with today’s more peaceful and influential (and cucked) Germany, the “peaceful transition” idea has more adherents. The author quotes harsh evaluations of the Germanic invaders by English and French scholars during the 1930s and in the immediate post-WWII period. 

More interestingly, the author claims that today’s pro-Germanic paradigms about the “peaceful transformation of the Roman world,” with the consequent prioritization of Late Antiquity, is being used by European Union elites to legitimize their German-dominated globalist construct.  Further, the de-emphasis of Greco-Roman culture is part and parcel of modern anti-Western politically correct “scholarship.” This is all consistent with my longstanding thesis that the System leverages Nordicism to prop up the anti-White multicultural system, not only by dividing Whites but, perhaps more importantly, pandering to Northern European sensibilities by making anti-White constructs such as the EU, and the equation (or dominance) of other cultures – including non-White ones – with that of the Classical Civilization (thus undermining the foundations of the West [regardless of Spengler and Yockey]), more palatable. Similarly, I have argued that HBD occasionally panders to Nordicism in order to make palatable memes that have as their objective raising Jews and Asians to dominance over Whites. The HBD-Nordicism (combination of both paradigms) peddled by MacDonald – with its lies about Rome – is part of this (even though that’s not his intention, the outcome is the same).

The authors’ idea is that modeling the EU on the Roman Empire would leave out much of Northern Europe, but a German-dominated Late Antiquity period serves as an effective model for today’s German-dominated EU. Perhaps in a sense the EU elites are correct given Ward-Perkins’ thesis of Late Antiquity being associated with “the end of civilization.” This time it is the Western Civilization that is ending, with the same ethnic drivers of this catastrophe as with the end of the Classical Civilization. The first time as tragedy; the second time as farce.  In any case, the author of this book looks at the evidence and concludes that the catastrophe scenario is more accurate; the “peaceful transition” hypothesis is effectively falsified.

The author claims that the Eastern Empire survived while the West collapsed because of better geographical protections – the thin band of sea separated Europe from Asia, which allowed for the protection of Constantinople and the richer areas of Asia Minor and the Levant.  In any case, as I have written before, if Der Movement wants to blame biology for the Fall, and not other reasons and circumstances, how would they explain the survival of the  more “racially degenerate” (from a European standpoint) East?  If they invoke non-biological considerations, such as that put forth by the author, is it possible that such considerations apply to the West as well?  It is of course theoretically possible that the West collapsed for biological reasons (but remember that genetically the Western Empire was becoming more “northern” and “western” at that time) and the East survived for non-biological reasons, but it is more likely, and less cherry picking of explanations, to consider all of the practical reasons for the Fall without imposing “movement” dogma on it, and a desire to make self-serving racial analogies between then and now.  I also point out that the author is of the school that claims that the Western Empire was not in terminal decline when it fell, and was still powerful, albeit troubled. 

The author makes an interesting conclusion about Roman-German cross-assimilation after the Fall.  Thus, he writes: “…both groups moved ‘upwards’: the Romans into the political identity of their German masters; the Germanic peoples into the more sophisticated cultural framework of their Roman subjects.” Thus, the “Roman” population of various regions eventually (politically, and eventually ethnically, as those boundaries dissipated) identified as “Visigoths” or “Franks” (and in Italy, became “Italian” or identified with more local identities, so that only the inhabitants of Rome itself identified as “Roman”); meanwhile, the Germans attempted to adopt much of the “sophisticated cultural framework” of the civilization that they destroyed. Thus, the Romans politically became German and the Germans culturally tried to become Roman. This of course contrasts with much of “movement” propaganda of culturally pure noble Germanics sweeping aside all traces of degenerate Roman culture and civilization.  

However, despite the eagerness of some of the Germans – at least the rulers – to co-opt aspects of Roman civilization, they were not did not have the capability to sustain any of it long term, and the physical destruction (material, economy, contacts, the broader aspects of the Roman network) of the Western Empire by the Germans, which the author chronicles in great detail in the second half of the book, meant that no continuance of the Classical Civilization, of Roman culture, was possible.  Indeed, Der Movement likes to tell us that only the people who create a culture and a civilization can maintain it; thus, the descent into the interregnum of the Dark Ages after the German conquest of Rome was inevitable by the Der Movement’s own dogma. Of course, that suggests that, whatever demographic changes took place among the urban masses of the city of Rome itself, the overall Empire, and its leadership, was sufficiently stable, demographically speaking, in a broad sense, to maintain Roman culture until that culture and its civilization was killed, in the West, by the invading Germans. So, while the political assimilation of Romans into the Germanic identity was successful at least in some areas of Western Europe (for as long as those Germanic identities existed in those regions, before becoming superseded by more modern national identities), the cultural assimilation of Germans to Roman culture failed, at least initially. Only after the full cross-assimilation between the two groups (that took many centuries) did a rebirth of civilization become possible.

Indeed, one (most palatable for Der Movement, eh?) of the possible alternative histories broached by the authors, was of a continuance of the Western Roman Empire (in perhaps shrunken form). but under Germanic leadership, rather than of a collapse of that Empire. But that didn’t happen, did it?  The closest thing to a (very brief) revival was the Byzantine (the “degenerate” East) reconquest of Italy during the sixth century Gothic war – and the natives of Italy were so obviously pro-Byzantine that the embittered Goths massacred Italian civilians, including 300 aristocratic Roman children that were held hostage. Goths and Romans as “natural friends,” eh Jordanes?  (Apparently, “movement” lies existed as early as the sixth century AD).

Later of course, the synthesis between the contributions of the North and the South of (Western) Europe led to the creation of the Western Civilization (as Yockey recognized), although of course some in the “movement” believe otherwise.

The author contrasts the paradigm of “Romans politically becoming Germans and the Germans culturally becoming Romans” to that of the Arab conquest of MENA areas, in which the conquered peoples not only adopted the political identity of “Arab” but also adopted the Islamic culture of their conquerors.  The difference, as the author asserts, is that the Arabs conquered in the name of the militant new faith, while the “culturally flexible” Germans came with no cultural agenda; instead, they wanted to partake of the riches of Rome.  The author makes clear that the Germans did not intend to destroy the Empire but to exploit it, but destroy it they did; as the author puts it, they were guilty of manslaughter, not murder (lack of homicidal intention).

The second part of the book is an impressive, albeit somewhat dry (unless you are very interested in potsherds and such things), accounting of the physical evidence of the collapse of civilization, and the resulting drastic drop in living standards consequent to that. The physical structure of the Western Roman Empire was wrecked by the German conquest – and that applies to the entire Empire, even to those areas abandoned before the final Fall, Britain for example.  The author writes: “It may be hard to believe, but post-Roman Britain in fact sank to a level of economic complexity well below that of the pre-Roman Iron Age.” The author states that the (relatively) sophisticated economy of the Roman world destroyed small-scale autarkic local economies, and made everyone dependent on highly specialized interacting large-scale networks, which were very vulnerable to disruption. Hence, we observe the collapse of this highly integrated and specialized economy and the long period (many centuries) of rebuilding required to get back to least partly to what was present before. The author makes the obvious analogies to the highly specialized “Western” economies of today, which are equally vulnerable to disruption.

Of relevance to that, let us remember what the odious scum Zman wrote about Rome, accompanied by my replies:

Zman: …started to think about those people living in the Roman Empire wondering why the water no longer comes from the big stone thingy anymore. 

Sallis: Because invading Germans wrecked them?

Zman: Some may have remembered their ancestors working on them for some reason, but they no longer recall why. 

Sallis: What bullshit.  When the water stopped running, it was because the city was sacked by, and later mismanaged by, the Holy Ones.

Zman: The people who knew how and why those aqueducts worked were long gone. No one was around who could figure out how to make them work again, because they lacked the capacity to do it.

Sallis: Absolute, raging bullshit.  The water stopped flowing after the fall of the empire. Who was running the show then?  Maybe folks who never built aqueducts in the first place. Odoacer: “What’s that big stone thingy?  Can my horse drink out of it?” Hey, Zman, take your Kempian lies back to “Lagos.” By the way, the “Lagos” joke is so stale by now it’s starting to stink like one of Zman’s South Asians.

Of course – surprise! – Sallis is right and Der Movement is wrong.  If one mantra, one paradigm, one meme can summarize Der Movement, Inc. it would be this – wrong, wrong, they’re ALWAYS wrong.

If anyone is to blame for the “big stone thingies” not working any more, it were the Holy Germans. Put that in your pipe and smoke it in “Lagos,” Zman, you insufferable idiot.  Indeed, the author specifically states a lack of evidence that in post-Roman Italy that rural and urban homes lacked the “under-floor heating and piped water” present in Roman times.  Piped water, Zman, which disappeared after your Holy Ones wrecked the Empire.

Whatever the faults of the later Roman Empire – and it had faults aplenty (as did the Roman Republic by the way, as did NS Germany, as did colonial America, as did, or does, every polity in history, albeit in different manners and to different extents – one cannot compare 1950s America to Idi Amin’s Uganda), it still was working, it still had civilization, it was still a working state with a higher standard of living, and technics, than the surrounding peoples. No, Zman, they didn’t forget how those “big stone thingies” worked.  No, the “big stone thingies” didn’t just stop running water.  Yes, it was your Germanic tribal heroes who wrecked everything, as Ward-Perkins – no swarthoid he – has pointed out in exquisite detail.

The genetics of Rome in the late periods – decline, fall, post-fall – when all those “big stone thingies” stopped working according to Zman, was moving in the “western” and “northern” directions.  Indeed, the settlement of Germans in Italy and the abovementioned assimilation no doubt explains much of these genetic shifts during this period, as well as pre-Fall immigration and political and military participation, and some assimilation even then (The Vandal-Roman hybrid Stilicho as an example).

The last part of the book summarizes the evidence and gives the warning described near the beginning of this essay, with the author saying that we can experience the same collapse in our complacency as the Romans did in theirs.  It’s already happening.

To summarize the main thesis of this book: There was no “gradual evolution” of the Western Roman Empire after the fall. It was crushed, ended, and there was an interregnum of the Dark Ages. You may say, hey, it ended one tired civilization and brought forth a newer, more vibrant Western civilization (Spengler saying that the Classical and the Western are two separate entities – let’s assume that for now, although one can argue both ways). True, but the same outcome could have been achieved, with less horror and without the long interregnum of backwardness, if the “gradual evolution” actually occurred, as I wrote:

Was the destruction of the Western Roman Empire by the Germans good or bad?  If we take the traditional (and “movement”) view that the (later) empire was completely degenerate, then it was undoubtedly good; however, if we take the view, discussed above, that the later Western Empire was actually more morally sound than it ever was, then the question becomes more interesting.

Rather than frame it in the form of “good” vs. “bad” perhaps a counterfactual analysis would be useful.  What if the Roman Empire, the Western Empire, was able to act from a position of strength in the fourth and fifth centuries AD to reform the European situation to one of a power-sharing confederation mode? What if Rome has won the Battle of Adrianople, and had corrected certain deficiencies and regained some degree of vigor.  What if a wise Emperor had realized that maintenance of a far-flung centralized Empire was no longer feasible (note that the division into Western and Eastern halves was the beginning of this realization) and had reformed the Empire into a Confederation of Peoples – Romans, Germans, Gauls – with cooperation, considerable local autonomy and various common objectives (e.g., eastward expansion, defense against the Huns [Chalons as a crude example of what was possible], etc.).  That may have been unworkable given the attitudes of people of that time; on the other hand, the Gauls were Romanized after exhibiting such resistance centuries before; and, and, at this time, the Germans were no longer the same “barbarians” as in the past, some degree of “Romanization” had taken place, at least to an indirect degree. 

Rome could have at some point attempted to cut its losses, preserve itself as an independent “Mediterranean” power, and come to an accommodation with other European peoples.

Would that have hastened the development of the West, bypassing the Dark Ages?  Or would it have inhibited the development of the West by preserving the fossilized remnants of the Classical past its expiration date?  These are all interesting questions, ones that are never asked by a (itself fossilized) “movement” steeped in inflexible dogma.”

And then we have this:

We can consider the 1942 classic The Roman Commonwealth by English historian Ralph Westwood Moore. With respect to the idea that Rome went from a virtuous city-state to a degenerate empire, Moore classified that as a “pious myth” and further stated: “Morality in the large sense was a thing which Rome achieved as she grew, not a Garden of Eden from which her destiny expelled her or a state of innocence from which she fell.”  Blasphemy!  That doesn’t accord with “movement” dogma so it must be wrong, wrong, wrong – or Moore was secretly Moori, a swarthoid with a Medish agenda!

The point of this essay is not to mimic the “movement” (in the opposite direction) and take sides in ancient conflicts. The Goths and other Germans may have wrecked the Classical Civilization but they were instrumental in founding the modern “Faustian” Western High Culture – Western Civilization.  The point of the essay is merely to demonstrate to readers that there is genuine scholarship on these subjects and you do have to depend on the “movement’s” retarded dogma. The “movement’s” cartoonish view of noble godlike Germans and degenerate devilish Romans needs to be eschewed. The lies about the “degeneracy” of the Roman Empire and the changing demographics need to be interpreted in the light of facts, including that the maximal corruption of Late Antiquity and the subsequent Fall of the Western Empire took place at precisely the same time that the genetics of Rome were moving more in the “high trust northern hunter-gatherer” direction. We need to consider serious scholarship.  Shameless liars like Kemp and MacDonald peddle falsehoods about Rome to push their radical Nordicism, but you are not obligated to digest that nonsense as long as real scholarship exists to set the record straight.

The Great Nation


The Great Nation, by  Jean Thiriart, a few quotes:

For us a nation is, above all, a community of destiny.

Originally, a nation is not an ethnic or linguistic entity. What constitutes the reality and vitality of the nation is the unity of its historic destiny.

When men, peoples have arrived at almost identical levels of maturity, when a culture is common to them, when geography makes immediate neighbors of them, and the same dangers and the same enemies threaten them, the conditions are given for making a nation.

For us nationalism is the identity of destiny desired in light of a great shared plan.

We state that the smaller a nation is the more it is subject to foreign influences.

Freedom is power. Power is dimension. It is true of nations as of men: only the big ones are really free (*).

It is a good book, very pan-European in outlook and also very much opposed to petty nationalism. There is also the issue of anti-Americanism, a common trait of continental European (particularly French or Belgian like Thiriart) nationalists (or those like Yockey who were similar in outlook). These types typically do not distinguish the American state from the (White) American people, or, at least for the latter, do not distinguish culturally European Whites from the booby masses.

He also notes – back two generations ago – the folly of importing migrant workers when automation will make their labor superfluous. Even if one were to accept the priority of economics (which we should not) and the idea that aging populations will have a shortage of younger workers, all of that is moot with sufficient automaton. 

Ultimately, the economy is based on productivity as well as the balance between production and consumption, between supply and demand.  Productivity can just as easily be achieved, and typically more efficiently, with automaton than with human labor (hence, the entire economic history of industrialization), and demand does not require ever larger masses of people, as per capita consumption can increase with higher and higher standards of living. Excess production – if a “problem” – can be siphoned off into mass projects such as space exploration and the creation of technical and cultural artifacts.

As an aside, I note the utter hypocrisy of filthy scum like Greta Thunberg who agonize over “the environment” while not opposing mass immigration and unrestricted Third World population growth. both of which are having, and will increasingly have, negative effects on environmental stability. You would think that a person really suffering from “the disability of Asperger’s Syndrome” wouldn’t care about the social sensitivities of political correctness and would just blurt out the truth.  But, alas,the Holy Ladogan does not do so.

*Then towering and statuesque heroes such as Johnson and Spencer are more free than manlets like Anglin or any of the scurrying two foot tall swarthoids old Humphrey was trying frantically to stamp out.

Skorzeny and Jeelvy

Two idiots.

This book, and this one is also on the same subject, about a minor but very interesting episode of WWII, deconstructs the Skorzeny myth. These books persuasively argue that Skorzeny was an inept blowhard, a publicity hound who got credit for a successful raid to which he contributed little and actually almost ruined. General Student and others deserve the real credit.

Skorzeny, worshipped by some in Der Movement, is a clear example of Der Movement’s obsessions and fetishes.  An Austrian Nazi – and ostensibly a politically dedicated Nazi – Skorzeny also I presume wins points because of his negative views of Italians, as chronicled in Irving’s Hitler’s War. But, alas, the Aryan Superman Skorzeny was not only an incompetent fraud, but also a traitor who worked for Jews.

I mean, too bad he’s not alive today, he’s got what it takes to be a WN 2.0 hero!  Maybe Unz would give him a column at The Unz Review.

Nicholas R. Jeelvy

Posted October 24, 2019 at 12:35 am | Permalink

The establishment has to pretend like we don’t exist and prop up alt-lite grifters and milquetoasts. It’s called “unthinging”.

At the same time, another wing of the establishment is censoring those grifters, who are more fragile to censorship than us, because they depend on numbers rather than truth.

The beast is scratching at itself, folks. The beginnings of victory are visible.

Victory is coming!  All you gotta do is send in dem dere “D’Nations!”  Remember those who give live in the golden age today!  This guy writes for Counter-Currents and has the nerve to talk about “grifters.”  These guys got balls the size of Jupiter.

The Salterian Ethics of Imperium

Analyzing the worldview of Francis Parker Yockey through the prism of Salterian ethics.

Previously, I discussed the ethics of EGI and of genetic interests in general (“Salterian ethics”) and would now like to discuss how those ethics can be utilized to judge a proposed biopolitical project – Francis Parker Yockey’s  idea of Imperium (a pan-European empire), as outlined in his book by that name. I had, some years ago, attempted to synthesize the world views of Salter and Yockey with respect to the genetic/biological and political considerations – essentially tracking with the first two sections of Salter’s On Genetic Interests, and now I will focus on ethical considerations, which was the topic of the last third of Salter’s book.

In my previous TOQ essay focusing on Salter and Yockey, I explained the difference between gross and net genetic interests, although I did not use those terms:

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

The “…very narrow pursuit of ethnic genetic interest” that “may suggest that the East and West English separate to form new ethnostates” would be an example of a pursuit of gross genetic interests – a naïve attempt to maximize EGI without consideration of costs vs. benefits. Taking a broader view, and considering that larger entities may be able to better defend the genetic interests of the populace can lead to optimization of net genetic interests – maximization of EGI when costs and benefits are balanced out.

Yockey’s words…in Imperium are relevant here:

The touching of this racial-frontier case of the Negro, however, shows to Europe a very important fact—that race-difference between White men, which means Western men, is vanishingly small in view of their common mission of actualizing a High Culture. In Europe, where hitherto the race difference between, say, Frenchman and Italian has been magnified to great dimensions, there has been no sufficient reminder of the race-differences outside the Western Civilization. Adequate instruction along this line would apparently have to take the form of occupation of all Europe, instead of only part of it, by Negroes from America and Africa, by Mongols and Turkestan! from the Russian Empire . . .

If any Westerner thinks that the barbarian makes nice distinctions between the former nations of the West, he is incapable of understanding the feelings of populations outside a High Culture toward that culture . . .

. . . But the greatest opposition of all has not yet been named, the conflict which will take up all the others into itself. This is the battle of the Idea of the Unity of the West against the nationalism of the 19th century. Here stand opposed the ideas of Empire and petty-stateism, large-space thinking and political provincialism. Here find themselves opposed the miserable collection of yesterday-patriots and the custodians of the Future. The yesterdaynationalists are nothing but the puppets of the extra-European forces who conquer Europe by dividing it. To the enemies of Europe, there must be no rapprochement, no understanding, no union of the old units of Europe into a new unit, capable of carrying on 20th century politics . . .

. . . Against a united Europe, they could never have made their way in, and only against a divided Europe can they maintain themselves. Split! divide! distinguish!—this is the technique of conquest. Resurrect old ideas, old slogans, now quite dead, in the battle to turn European against European.

Yockey argues that dividing Europeans against themselves, which in the context of an EGI perspective would be an unfettered pursuit of gross genetic interests regardless of the costs, would benefit only the enemies of Europe (and of Europeans) – hence, again from an EGI perspective, net genetic interests would be damaged. Thus, even though Yockey was arguing form a High Culture (and geopolitical) perspective, his comments can be reinterpreted as being consistent with a concern for net EGI as opposed to a blind pursuit of gross EGI.  From the standpoint of Salterian ethics, a focus on net EGI is reasonable, particularly from a “mixed ethic” perspective that also includes concerns for proximate interests (e.g., actualizing a High Culture).

See this for more on Yockey’s racial views, a topic that is relevant to the current analysis. Yockey’s views on race, taken at literal face value, are not very compatible with EGI. If, however, we interpret Yockey as being concerned with eschewing overly disjunctive divisions among (Western) Europeans, and if we view that in the context of preservation of net generic interests by fostering pan-European solidarity vs. outside threats, the seemingly stark incompatibility between Yockey and EGI essentially vanishes.  

My concept of “The EGI Firewall” is useful in these discussions. The firewall establishes the “floor” – the minimum acceptable EGI (or genetic interests more generally) consideration that absolutely must be incorporated into any sociopolitical scenario.  Thus, there is an absolute boundary beyond which one cannot cross without so seriously compromising EGI that the relevant proposal must be rejected.  For example, any scheme that would flood Europe with large numbers of non-Europeans would be completely unacceptable from any reasonable scenario that considers EGI as important and that incorporates Salterian ethics.  There has to be some foundation of EGI for any political project. The question is – where should this boundary be? There is of course no purely objective answer to that question, although the scenario just given does provide an example where most adaptively-minded Europeans would agree that the boundary has clearly been crossed. Of course, the scenario given is precisely the situation being actualized into reality today with the globalist EU and mass migration; it is certainly not merely some theoretical exercise.

From my essay on Salterian ethics:

Salter compares three ethics – pure adaptive utilitarianism (PAU), mixed adaptive utilitarianism (MAU), and the rights-centered ethic (RCE).

Obviously, the RCE would reject both Yockeyism and a biopolitical system based on EGI as damaging “individual rights.”  But the focus of this essay is to evaluate how Yockeyism can be incorporated into Salterian ethics (and vice versa), so the RCE, which is incompatible with Salterian ethics, is irrelevant. We are therefore left with the PAU and MAU ethics.

We can now consider the PAU and MAU.  From the perspective of gross genetic interests, one may question the appropriateness of Yockeyism for the PAU, as the PAU would lead one to favor “smaller is better” micro-states, independent of the effects of that choice on the long term stability of the genetic continuity of the peoples involved.  However, from the perspective of net genetic interests, if Yockeyism maximizes the power of the peoples involved through the establishment of a European Imperium, thus protecting these peoples from outside threats, then Yockeyism could be compatible with PAU. That would hold IF the system set up can safeguard the uniqueness of its constituent peoples. This safeguarding could be accomplished via the acceptance of a degree of local sovereignty (that Yockey agreed with) and the preservation of borders, with the Imperium being a confederation of nations and regions, each preserving their particular biological and cultural characteristics. One would in this case reject a single borderless state in which national and regional identities are erased and in which ethnic distinctiveness is lost via panmixia.  In order for this scenario to be stable long term, this characteristic of the Imperium – the preservation of the unique characteristics of its constituent parts – would need to be considered an absolutely fundamental and unalterable keystone of the state’s raison d’etre.  This is the EGI Firewall discussed above – a minimum absolute requirement for preservation of EGI, even at “lower” levels, as part of any political and social projects that are actualized.  I note that civilizational blocs are proposed by Salter in his book as one approach for protecting EGI, so the idea is not by its nature incompatible with EGI; it is a question of implementation.

Thus, Yockeyism could be compatible with PAU ethics under conditions such as described above, and with a firm understanding of net vs. gross genetic interests.

If Yockeyism could be compatible with the PAU, then it certainly can be compatible with the MAU, since the latter allows for other (proximate) interests, besides the ultimate interests of genetic interests, to be considered and actualized into policy, as long as the fundamental rights of genetic continuity are not abrogated. Here we see that an enlightened PAU that considers net genetic interests begins to converge onto the MAU, if the proximate interests under consideration are such that could actually contribute to EGI in some manner (e.g., actualizing a High Culture, as opposed to a mere concern for “individual rights).

So Yockeyism, with the proper caveats, and from the net genetic interests respective, could indeed be compatible with Salterian ethics.

Burr, Wild Bunch, Vance

Odds and ends.

Recommended reading.

I’m no fan of Burr’s proto-SJW views – including and particularly his ridiculously positive views about women – but he nevertheless was the most Faustian of the Founding Fathers.If you read the book, you’ll also see he had “big balls,” as the phrase goes.  His downfall was due to two facts – one, that all his energies went to his own personal self-aggrandizement with no underlying greater objective; and, two, he wasn’t very detail-oriented. or realistic about the motivations and limitations of others.

Nevertheless, the type of dynamism of this Faustian and ambitious individual is something we could use in the “movement” today if – and only if – it is put into the service of higher goals (racial interests) and not purely selfish objectives, and if Burr’s other flaws also did not manifest in whatever modern heir he would have among racial activists.

If the White race is doomed, then at least let us go out like this.

“They struggle to defy their destinies” – the essence of Jack Vance summarized in 54 seconds here.

Of course, Mazirian the Magician is only one tale of several that make up The Dying Earth, the latter being the more modern title for the collection of short stories (Spoiler alert below*).  But the Type Is prefer hobbit holes, orcs, and “the battle for Middle Earth.” There really should be a study done on preferences regarding sci-fi/fantasy – is it personal psychology, ideology (e.g., Traditionalism vs. Futurism), or ethnoracial (e.g., Nords vs. Meds)?

*Spoiler alert!   The highwayman doesn’t end well, the hopeless quest does end reasonably well, the “lovers” (who are at the time not “lovers” at all but presumably become so after the story ends) end up victorious, and the woman is cured of her curse.

Ted Sallis Interviews Mike Rienzi!

A Memorial Day special.

Millennials and Generation Zers like to pontificate about how very much superior they are to “Boomers” and to Generation Xers, and yet, in reality, the absolutely laughable cluelessness of these younger types is matched only by their overweening attitude of self-importance.

As an example of such cluelessness:

Cornelius • 6 hours ago
I am 25. Can we all just stop and think about how Thomas Jackson, the author of this article, has been writing for American Renaissance…for 20 YEARS. He has been writing articles like this since before AmRen went online. That is very cool. And let me just applaud Thomas Jackson for his persistent work for our people, for laying the groundwork for future generations of Europeans. Bravo!

Yes, indeed, that is “very cool.”  Just like the fine work of Trevor Lynch at Counter-Currents and The Unz Review. Jackson and Lynch are so impressive – so very, very cool – that I’m sure “Cornelius” would like both Thomas Jackson and Trevor Lynch to be interviewed on podcasts about their work and how they got involved with Amren and Counter-Currents, respectively. Bravo!  Hip Hip Hooray!

In like manner, I present here an online interview I conducted with Mike Rienzi of the late lamented Legion Europa site, and who used to write for Amren and TOQ as well.

Sallis: Welcome Mr. Rienzi.  I just want to say how honored I am to be interviewing you; you are a giant among activists, a veritable genius!

Rienzi: I wish I could say the same about you, Ted, but you’re just crazy and bitter, a low information moralizer if I ever saw one.  And are you even White?

Sallis:  Off-White, then.  More of a Beige, I suppose. Now, sir, let’s discuss the failure of Legion Europa.

Rienzi: What is there to discuss? You just can’t compete with affirmative action.  Is there any difference with EGI Notes?

Sallis: It is all one.

Rienzi: Thus and so.

Sallis: And I know that you were interviewed by Robert Griffin for One Sheaf One Vine.  I must say, sir, that your experiences were remarkably similar to mine.

Rienzi: We have much in common, no doubt.

Sallis:  Didn’t you once meet William Pierce, just like I did?

Rienzi:  Yes, indeed, I did meet Pierce.  In fact, I met you there as well.  We met with Pierce together, don’t you remember?

Sallis: Yes, quite right.  You are correct. I think we both made a mighty fine impression on Pierce, although possibly he thought that both of us were full-blooded Negroes, Nigerians straight off the plane.

Rienzi: Is that why he offered both of us bananas to eat?

Sallis: And then Hadley grabbed one and ran off with it.  I didn’t know cats ate bananas.

Rienzi: We are getting off topic here.

Sallis: Well, I guess that means we are at the end of our interview. Perhaps we can follow up in a podcast?

Rienzi: Yes, but only as long as you invite JW Holliday who used to write for Majority Rights.

Sallis: I’ll get right on it. He may be a bit hard to find though.  I’ll ask “Cornelius” for some advice on that.