Category: books

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.

Advertisements

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.

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…

Lie.

…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.

More MGTOW.

Questions for Eric Kaufmann

Questions.

Read here.

…the second meaning of whiteshift is this longer-term one. You’re going to get this very rapidly rising mixed-race population that will become the majority and will take over the consciousness, memories, and myths of that current ethnic majority.

Questions: What if Whites do not want to be replaced by “this very rapidly rising mixed-race population that will become the majority?”  What if they do not want to “expand Whiteness” to include people who are, by definition as “mixed-race,” not White?  What if they want to preserve themselves, and their genetic interests, as they are today?  What is wrong with that?  Other than your own preferences, of course.

Like the Jews, for example, have different DNA in them.

Questions: Why do you lie about this?  Yes, there are minor groups like Ethiopian, South Asian, and Chinese Jews that do indeed “have different DNA in them.”  But the major Jewish groups are quite similar, genetically, with similar lineages.  What’s your lineage, by the way?

There’s no question whites are advantaged economically, politically.

Questions: If Whites are so “advantaged” economically, what about Jews and Asians? You agree that Whites are being demographically replaced. You agree that Whites, unlike other groups, are not being allowed to express and defend their racial interests.  Thus, how are they really “advantaged” politically?

For example, a lot of those individual measures, like I don’t want my kid marrying an African-American, or I’m against interracial marriage, or I don’t want a black boss, in the survey data, it’s very low now. It’s not perfect. It will take a little bit more time before we get rid of it entirely.

Questions: Why do you define perfection by getting rid of these attitudes?  Aren’t you displaying your hidden anti-White biases by defining perfection in terms of White dispossession and White liberalism?

However, I don’t say that in every case the mainstream parties should go there. Like George Wallace, for example, on segregation.

Question: Why?

General question: Isn’t your book all about just slowing down White dispossession so as to make it more palatable to Whites, to accommodate them to their own demise?

Secondary question: Given Suvorov’s Law of History, don’t you understand that your “throw them a bone” strategy may backfire against your leftist interests? 

Another issue:

Ron Unz?

Anatomy of Error

A brief analysis.

I read this book long ago, when it first came out; it is very good, is recommended.  

What are some major errors in Der Movement?  What is the “anatomy of error” in (American) White racial activism?

Among many – reversing the strategic order of how things should be done.  Prudence dictates that you first thoroughly prepare for an action, build the required infrastructure, prepare for the enemy’s response and for other contingencies, and then you proceed.

Thus, first, you build an infrastructure, and then you go public with your rallies, protests, actions, and so forth.  If you want to provoke the System, you had better be prepared for the System’s reaction. What the “movement” does instead is have their rallies and protests and public meetings and violent outbursts with zero infrastructure there for support – zero legal teams, zero media structures, zero elected officials who are true fellow travelers, zero integration in the local community, zero economic self-sufficiency, zero strategy, and zero planning.

Ironically, all the representatives of big-brained European ethnies that are celebrated in the “movement” for their foresight and discipline behave worse than the most incompetent, undisciplined, and hare-brained gesticulating swarthoid.  Superiority is not a birthright, it has to be earned. And Der Movement and its failed leaders have earned nothing.

Let’s move on.  What can be done for young White men frustrated with the System, despairing of a pathetically failed “movement,” and tempted to ruin their lives by lashing out with sporadic violence against an entrenched overpowering System?

Besides taking my advice to concentrate on their own selves and well-being over all else – we need quality men, not broken boys – they need to be able to fit into a real movement that can give them a sense of purpose in an atmosphere of competence and manly collegiality (the latter of which is not effete Bronyism or homosexuals “flirting” with “cute” activists at “extreme vetted” meetings). I’ve long been an advocate of a Legionary-type structure, which would of course necessitate a real leadership and a real competence beyond that currently available in Der Movement.

For such an activity, real vetting and security are required.  Now, I’m not going to discuss what could and should constitute such vetting on a public forum, but I will give two examples of what such vetting should not be.  “Are you Swedish?” is insufficient as “extreme vetting.”  Having a Skype conversation in which you congratulate a candidate (in reality, an infiltrator) on their Northwest European heritage, while mocking Brooklyn Italian-Americans, also does not meet the standards of effective vetting and security.

It’s interesting, but in my analog, meat-space, IRL WN 1.0 days, there were zero instances (insofar as I am aware) of private meetings being infiltrated.  Now, public meetings were another story, operational security there was sub-standard, but at least the physical security was sound, so the outcome of public meeting infiltration was a bit of snooping (which admittedly was bad) and not violence.  But the private meetings were sound – thus, the WN 1.0 crowd, for all their faults, were a step ahead of WN 2.0. Thus, the lack of proper operational security is a major error of Der Movement today, and is in fact part of the infrastructure problem cited at the beginning of this post, since “opsec” is one of the most fundamental pillars upon which to build everything that follows.

Let’s consider the problem of freakishness and silliness. There are of course many divisions within the “movement.” Pan-Europeanism vs. ethnonationalism, pan-Europeanism vs. Nordicism, vanguardism vs .mainstreaming, Christianity vs. anti-Christians, ethnic fetishists and those who oppose them, etc. Readers know I have strong views on these topics that often clash with established “movement” dogma. But even when I oppose that dogma, at least I can understand it, I can see the points of the other side, and it is something within the realm of rational possibility.  It can be in some ways defensible through reasoned argument, even if I disagree ad make my own reasoned arguments against the memes I oppose.

However, when observing the current WN 2.0 fiasco, things occur that are so outlandish that I simply cannot understand how any ostensibly intelligent, sane, and rational activist can promote any of it. Yang Gang? Tulsi Coconut? The years of slavish Trump worship? Bronyism – My Little Pony, for godssakes!  I’m at a loss, completely at a loss.  WN 1.0 was a disaster, sure, but it was a disaster mitigated at least by an aura of seriousness, or at least semi-seriousness.  What we have now is like a bad comedy routine.

Thus, another constant error of the “movement” is the promotion of freakishness that has no direct connection whatsoever to racialism. For example, it is because of anti-science raving retards like this that we have a growing measles problem in the US. Some microbes are indeed just waiting for you.  Measles has a very high infectivity rate; if you are exposed and not immune, your probability of illness is close to 100%.  You can of course argue that filthy scum not getting their children vaccinated – and many of these in the current outbreak are Ultra-Orthodox Jews – is a sign of weakness (in this case mental), and I’ll agree with that. Leave it up to morons like “Stronza” and we would still have smallpox epidemics and folks in iron lungs from polio.  Pepe!  Kek!  Traditionalism!  We can bury those dead five year olds snug in our hobbit holes!

This completely superfluous stupidity damages the image of racialism to both the general public and to the science and technics types that we need as one component of our arsenal of human material. I’m not surprised that the affirmative action “leadership” doesn’t know any better. 

Coming full circle, we can mention another fundamental flaw of Der Movement, on par with reversing the order of organization (which should come first) and action (which should come after) – the inability to clearly and decisively define an ingroup. This is something I’ve written about often. The defining characteristic of any group is the decision of who is in and who is out.  Without a clearly defined and stable boundary of membership, there is no group.  That boundary needs to be decided BEFORE the group is formed, before people are recruited and action is taken. If there are going to be any changes in the composition of the group (changes which should be rare in any case), it always should be in the direction of greater inclusion – and if current members of the group object to that inclusion then they can voluntarily leave – freedom of association – and form their own groups with their own boundaries. But you cannot start redefining your ingroup for the purposes of exclusion after the fact, after people have been members for months or years (or even decades), investing their time, effort, money – their blood, sweat, and tears – their lives, for the group.  That’s not the time to tell them – “hey, we’ve reconsidered, you’re not part of the ingroup after all.”  

You’d think things like that should be obvious to the high born honorable superior big-brained heroic figures of Der Movement, but apparently not.

(Jewish) Crime and (White) Punishment

Food for thought.

Fyodor Dostoevsky was very prescient. When reading the excerpt below consider that the plague in question could be thought of as Marxism broadly defined – not only traditional Marxism, but Cultural Marxism, Psychological Marxism (Freud, Frankfurt School),  Racial Marxism, every social infection and perversion that has been propagated by a certain Levantine (Asia) tribe (microbes, and the memes are microbes as well) infecting the White race (Europe and then the world). Fyodor the Christian would no doubt be offended by my considering Christianity as one of the egalitarian Marxian creeds emanating from Asia to infect European Man.

Excerpt from the epilogue of Crime and Punishment.  Emphasis added:

He dreamt that the whole world was condemned to a terrible new strange plague that had come to Europe from the depths of Asia. All were to be destroyed except a very few chosen. Some new sorts of microbes were attacking the bodies of men, but these microbes were endowed with intelligence and will. Men attacked by them became at once mad and furious. But never had men considered themselves so intellectual and so completely in possession of the truth as these sufferers, never had they considered their decisions, their scientific conclusions, their moral convictions so infallible. Whole villages, whole towns and peoples went mad from the infection. All were excited and did not understand one another. Each thought that he alone had the truth and was wretched looking at the others, beat himself on the breast, wept, and wrung his hands. They did not know how to judge and could not agree what to consider evil and what good; they did not know whom to blame, whom to justify. Men killed each other in a sort of senseless spite. They gathered together in armies against one another, but even on the march the armies would begin attacking each other, the ranks would be broken and the soldiers would fall on each other, stabbing and cutting, biting and devouring each other. The alarm bell was ringing all day long in the towns; men rushed together, but why they were summoned and who was summoning them no one knew. The most ordinary trades were abandoned, because everyone proposed his own ideas, his own improvements, and they could not agree. The land too was abandoned. Men met in groups, agreed on something, swore to keep together, but at once began on something quite different from what they had proposed. They accused one another, fought and killed each other. There were conflagrations and famine. All men and all things were involved in destruction. The plague spread and moved further and further. Only a few men could be saved in the whole world. They were a pure chosen people, destined to found a new race and a new life, to renew and purify the earth, but no one had seen these men, no one had heard their words and their voices.

The new pure chosen people – ethnocentric White nationalists?

.. but no one had seen these men, no one had heard their words and their voices.

Maybe because they were censored and deplatformed?