Category: history

Spencer and Bowden on Nietzsche

An interesting analysis.

The point Spencer made at the end is important.  Pan-European nationalism is indeed the avant-garde of nationalist thought today, while ethnonationalism, the petty nationalism of the past, is the old and tired creaky remnants of entrenched failure.


Fascist Typology

Bardeche’s Type I and Type II

Coogan’s Dreamer of the Day includes a quote from Bardeche’s Suzanne et le Tandis (Suzanne and the Slums), in the chapter: “Le Fascisme International” that seems more complete and accurate (and free from spelling and grammar errors) than the version popping up on the Alt Right.  This quote includes:

I have known, after Clarence, very many “fascists,” for the race is not dead. Some of them had boots, they were familiar with the runes, and they camped out on the night of the solstice in order to sing under the stars the beautiful solemn songs of their ancestors. The others did not have boots, they held up their skinny reformers’ heads severely, they wore glasses, they collected cards, and they made furious speeches. All were poor, they believed, they fought, they detested lying and injustice.

The precise translation is less important than the general point being made; an important distinction between different fascist archetypes, even though it is made in a bemused fashion, in jest, and even though I’m sure Bardeche didn’t mean to focus on that distinction in his  quote.  Nevertheless, regardless of intention and style, there is food for thought here.

Thus, Bardeche correct identifies two archetypes of fascists; thus:

Type I: Some of them had boots, they were familiar with the runes, and they camped out on the night of the solstice in order to sing under the stars the beautiful solemn songs of their ancestors.

Type II: The others did not have boots, they held up their skinny reformers’ heads severely, they wore glasses, they collected cards, and they made furious speeches.

To translate into a context more familiar to the racial nationalist “movement” of today: Type I would be a pure representation of a type that would tend to include: ethnonationalists, Nordicists, Traditionalists, ethnic fetishists, and Hitler worshippers; while Type II would be a pure representation of a type that would tend to include: pan-Europeanists, Futurists, and Imperium-oriented Yockeyites.

Type I, in its purest representation, would tend to be an extroverted, action-oriented mesomorph; Type II would be an introverted, intellect-oriented ectomorph (not sure where endomorphs would fit in, as so many of them tend to be leftists to begin with).

That is not to say that Type I activists are never intellectual, nor that Type II activists are devoid of action, simply that on a spectrum, Type I are relatively action > intellect and Type II are relatively intellect > action.

Bardeche classified both types as: All were poor, they believed, they fought, they detested lying and injustice.  That may be true, although I think the “they detested lying and injustice” part applies mostly to Type II.  It are the Type II activists who would tend to be more of the Moralpath type.  Type I activists would tend to be more pragmatists, being as they are more action-oriented in any case.  While both types include Vangaurdists, Mainstreamers are almost exclusively Type I.  Type II activists, with their severe affect and furious speeches (or, today, blog posts – “crazed and bitter,” eh?), are hardly the Mainstreamer type.

While most activists would tend to have some traits of both types, they would be skewed in one direction or another.  

Some more or less “pure” types exist.  Your host, Ted Sallis, is a more or less a pure Type II. Francis Parker Yockey himself was a Type II.  Most Anglosphere activists in Der Movement are definitely Type I, certainly in the USA. The Alt Right, with all its intellectual pretensions, is actually heavily represented by Type I activists, at least among the rank-and-file.  In general, Type I’s will outnumber Type IIs, the latter being a distinct minority.

Leaders are a mixed bag, and historical fascist leaders have shown mixed characteristics of both types.  Most interesting is when there is a distinct mismatch between ideology and personality; the person has the ideology of one fascist type, but the personality of another.  This is a crucially important point.  While Bardeche’s quote delves mostly into personality, it bleeds into ideology: those boot-wearing activists obsessed with runes, ancestral songs, and the solstice (as well as Viking horns and mead, eh?) would tend to gravitate toward ethnonationalist and/or Nordicist ideologies, and be enamored of “traditionalism,” while those idealists with their skinny severe reformer heads, furious speeches, glasses and other introvert tendencies (card-collecting being a metaphor for introverted intellectualism) would tend to gravitate toward pan-Europeanism, Futurism and other manifestations of avant-garde politics, and visions of Imperium.  

Personality and ideology are often linked, but when the linkage breaks down, all sorts of strange fascistic hybrids are observed.  For example, Hitler politically was Type I, but his personality was more Type II.  Certain Alt Right ethnonationalists mimic Hitler to the extent that they are ideologically Type I but have the “bookish” and Intellect-oriented Type II character.  Conversely, some pan-European Alt Righters are the opposite: politically Type II but with Type I personalities. 

On the other hand, when personality and ideology more or less perfectly coincide, then from that synergy you get the “impossible” extreme Moralpath types – a Ted Sallis or a Francis Parker Yockey.

There is no doubt more to analyze on this topic but this is a useful beginning.

EGI and National Socialism, Part II

Further analysis of this issue.

In On Genetic Interests, Salter makes some comments about National Socialism, and fascism more generally, from the standpoint of EGI.  It’s worth looking at those.

Salter has some positive things to say about National Socialism: “…a revitalized social policy, full employment, rapid economic growth, an egalitarian class structure, and the salvaging of national pride…” as well as “economic and health benefits” that flowed from its “biological orientation.” But the “crimes” of National Socialism are such that OGI suggests that “an ethnicised constitution” should be abandoned if it necessarily led to such “crimes.”

National Socialism is criticized by Salter for having a sort of “mystical” conception of ethnic and racial differences, a non-scientific and non-statistical belief of completely disjunctive ethnic distinctions – considering (closely related) groups akin to different species.  Thus, Germans are Aryan supermen while Poles are subhumans, even though, particularly on the global scale, these two groups are actually quite similar (albeit not identical, there are differences at the group level – albeit with individual overlap).  Salter instead suggests a “demystified set of propositions based on objective truths revealed by science, truths concerning group identity and group interests, equally valid for all ethnies”  While I essentially agree with Salter, three points: (1) the “movement” as it currently exists really does not care much for such scientific “objective truths;” (2) related to point one, people are often motivated to act – including in their genetic interest  by more irrational ideals; and (3) noting stops an enlightened fascism from incorporating scientific objective truths, if it has the right leadership (although irrational emotion may also be used to motivate the masses…and perhaps the elites as well).

Salter criticizes fascism in general had having defective political institutions, which failed to prevent elite free-riding or constrained ethnic mobilization.  Thus, fascist elites used the escalation of ethnic and national tensions to consolidate their own power, selfishly putting the long-term genetic continuity and social stability of their people at risk for personal gain – or so Salter asserts. That fascist – especially National Socialist – regimes perhaps went too far with ethnic mobilization, overshooting the mark and starting wars with genetically similar neighboring ethnies, is a historical fact.  Salter considers fascism to be a “mass strategic blunder” – a “misdirected and overblown investment by citizens in their ethnies that forced other nations to unite against them.”  There’s some truth to that, but it’s really particularly rue only of Hitler’s Germany, not of fascist movements in general. Salter criticizes Hitler’s quixotic and destructive military adventures, to steal land from others to recreate some sort of Aryan medieval peasant society; without, as Salter asserts, democratic restraints, Hitler was able to force through his vision to the long-term detriment of his own people (and closely related European ethnies).

Essentially, Hitler’s regime was, according to Salter, a genetic interest over-inflated “bubble” (just like an over-heated stock market “bubble”) that burst, leaving Germans (and all other Europeans) worse off than before.  Salter writes: “an economic analogy is the speculative bubble, which can occur anywhere in the fitness portfolio, though risk rises steeply as fitness concentration declines.”  Salter identifies the historic manifestations of fascism in Germany and Italy as such bubbles: “Fascism is an over-investment in national interests at the cost of individual and foreign group interests.”

Salter’s graphs of alternative fitness portfolios shows National Socialism as sacrificing individual and human interests for an inflated investment in ethny; radial Christianity and communism sacrifice all for “humanity” – while of course we know that multiculturalism sacrifices the majority for minority interests.

Thus, while Salter criticizes fascism, he of course has perhaps even more harsh words for Marxism, which sacrificed the blood of its peoples not even to pursue group ethnic interests, but in the service of an anti-biological crazed humanism gone beyond any sane and reasonable limits.  It’s that same impulse that is destroying the West and tis peoples today.  And of course Salter would disapprove of a radical Christianity that ignores EGI; his opposition to multiculturalism as it is practiced by the System is of course well known.

There is some truth to Salter’s criticisms.  However, there is more to “fascism” than the bellicose policies of a Hitler or Mussolini. Other fascisms were more concentrated on improving native interests on the home front, without grant military adventuress abroad.  One could cite Codreanu’s movement in Romania, or fascist manifestations in, say, Spain, Ireland, Hungary, Norway, and the Baltic States.  Even the fascist movements of France and Britain more, at most, concerned with preserving already existing empire built by non-fascist (and even democratic) regimes; those fascisms had no grand schemes of fresh foreign conquests, particularly not against closely related European ethnies.  Thus, one need not correlate fascism with any speculative bubble defined by over-investment in narrow ethny resulting in individual sacrifices in wars to despoil other peoples.  I also note that democracies are not shy about mobilizing individuals to fight for the greater glory of both “principles” (typically humanistic) as well as the class interests of the wealthy.  One can find speculative bubbles in many ideologies, and, indeed as Salter states, throughout the fitness portfolio.

One could easily envision “fascism” that is scientifically accurate, based on objective truths (perhaps spiced up with some mass-mobilizing “irrationality”), so that’s not a major impediment to actualizing such regimes in a manner consistent with long term stability of genetic interests.  More to the point is the problem of defective political institutions, manifested in elite free-riding and runaway ethnic mobilization unrestrained by so-called “democratic checks and balances.”

Democratic institutions, which are favored in OGI, are hardly immune to some of the other defects attributed to fascist regimes.  Elite free-riding is a permanent fixture in liberal democracies, and is in fact one major driving force for the dispossession of Western peoples.  The elite Right globalists want cheap labor at the expense of the majority ethny, while the Left globalists essentially want to “elect a new people” based on mass immigration, so as to consolidate their own hold on power. In multicultural democracies, minority groups free ride on the majority; in more homogenous democratic nations, elite free-riding is both political and socioeconomic.  Runaway ethnic mobilization?  Certainly for minorities in multicultural states.  When the same elites – both native and alien – control all major political parties and control all the major levers of power, then “democratic institutions” are useless.  One could speculate that an “ethnic constitution” could obviate some of these difficulties – but good luck getting that done in the current “democratic” System.  Even so, if there is something fundamentally corrupt about democracy that causes elite free-riding (mendaciously masked as “free elections”), then perhaps an “ethnic constitution” or an “ethnic culture” (another option in OGI) would not be sufficient.

Getting back to national socialist-style fascist regimes, one can ask: can the problem of defective political institutions be solved?  I think yes, if we presume that the “fuhrer principle” is not an essential feature of such regimes.  One could them consider authoritarian/totalitarian political structures that can have checks and balances (e.g. the Soviet regime had power split between Party, KGB, and Army –with Stalin being an aberration) and be responsive to the (properly informed) will of the people.  I have always been intrigued by Fest’s talk of “totalitarian democracy” in his book on Hitler; point is, we can consider “fascism” broadly conceived as a flexible, living ideology and not as a fossilized, history artifact.  In this way, national socialist political structures can be envisioned that can control elite free-riders and constrain ethnic mobilization within reasonable limits. One need not resort to democracy – which has been discredited with the destructive evil of multiculturalism and mass migration – to ensure the stability of any future EGI-based regime.

Genetic Continuity in the Levant

Extant Canaanites.

The Canaanites inhabited the Levant region during the Bronze Age and established a culture that became influential in the Near East and beyond. However, the Canaanites, unlike most other ancient Near Easterners of this period, left few surviving textual records and thus their origin and relationship to ancient and present-day populations remain unclear. In this study, we sequenced five whole genomes from ∼3,700-year-old individuals from the city of Sidon, a major Canaanite city-state on the Eastern Mediterranean coast. We also sequenced the genomes of 99 individuals from present-day Lebanon to catalog modern Levantine genetic diversity. We find that a Bronze Age Canaanite-related ancestry was widespread in the region, shared among urban populations inhabiting the coast (Sidon) and inland populations (Jordan) who likely lived in farming societies or were pastoral nomads. This Canaanite-related ancestry derived from mixture between local Neolithic populations and eastern migrants genetically related to Chalcolithic Iranians. We estimate, using linkage-disequilibrium decay patterns, that admixture occurred 6,600–3,550 years ago, coinciding with recorded massive population movements in Mesopotamia during the mid-Holocene. We show that present-day Lebanese derive most of their ancestry from a Canaanite-related population, which therefore implies substantial genetic continuity in the Levant since at least the Bronze Age. In addition, we find Eurasian ancestry in the Lebanese not present in Bronze Age or earlier Levantines. We estimate that this Eurasian ancestry arrived in the Levant around 3,750–2,170 years ago during a period of successive conquests by distant populations.

So, essentially, modern-day indigenous Lebanese demonstrate highly significant – the large majority of their ancestry – genetic continuity with ancient Canaanites, with some more minor “Eurasian” admixture, tied to historical events, which mostly took place during the “ancient” Classical era.

Likely, most indigenous peoples would represent significant genetic continuity with ancient peoples that occupied the same territories, with of course some degree of subsequent admixture, some of which would be “ancient” and some “modern.”  There would be exceptions, there are always exceptions, and the degree of admixture would vary from case to case. But one suspects that continuity is greater than what Der Movement typically postulates, with its breathless accounts of retconned population changes to explain whatever ethnic fetishism is in style at any particular time. Changes in population character are more likely to be due to dysgenic degeneration of native stocks than it is wholesale population replacement, or admixture of such an extent that it is practically equivalent to population replacement. No doubt such extreme cases have occurred in human history, but those are the (relatively rare) exceptions, not the rule.

The problem of course is that today, European-derived peoples are actually faced with real population replacement, dealing with a catastrophic combination of extremely low birthrates, mass migration of far more fecund alien peoples, and treasonous native elites (coupled to clever anti-White aliens) dedicated to facilitating native race replacement.  However, one cannot always project current trends to past eras. Sometimes, perhaps. Always, no.

Ignorant Buffoon Jr

Touchback Jr. 

I essentially agree with Spencer’s analysis.  Did Jr do anything illegal?  I don’t see it. Treason?  Absurd (*).  On the other hand, let’s not let him off the hook that easily.

The bottom line is that Trump Jr is as stupid and politically clumsy as his father. Do you go personally to this meeting?  Ever hear of plausible deniability?  How about using cut-outs? Or…whatever – if you are the son of a Presidential candidate who is vehemently opposed by the media and the entire Establishment, you had better at least superficially keep up appearances. Let others, several layers removed, do the “dirty work.”  It doesn’t matter that he did nothing wrong; in politics, appearance means as much (or more) than reality. Come on, Donnie Jr was on Celebrity Apprentice with dear old dad, doesn’t he know the power of appearance?

One thing Spencer could have mentioned – of all of Trump’s children, Don Jr seems the most right-wing and the most in tune with an at least Alt Lite right-wing populism, another reason to be targeted by the Deep State.

A side note: I’m certainly no phenotypist, but on the other hand, unlike what some of my detractors believe, I certainly do acknowledge the importance of racial phenotype (it just has to take a back seat to the genotype). This “Russian lawyer” – is she actually an ethnic Russian?  She looks like she could be ¼ or even ½ Chinese.  Raciology alert!  Maybe – hopefully – she is a non-Russian “Russian citizen.”

When all is said and done, Trump is an embarrassment.  Relevance to EGI? Thanks to the Alt Right, Trump’s civic nationalist phony right-wing populism has been connected in the public mind with Der Movement, so, like it or not, the outcome of the Trump Presidency will, in some manner, influence the direction of American activism.  Hopefully, we can all survive the damage being done by this lumbering buffoon.

In all honesty, the “crazy and bitter” Ted Sallis could do a better job as President.  Sallis in 2020!  Who should be my VP choice – Durocher or Silver?

*In the early 19th century, the US government was unable to convict Aaron Burr of treason, despite Burr’s plans (and activities) in attempting to establish an empire out of the USA’s western territories and Mexico (both to be seized by force).  Now, in the early 21st century, we are told that Don Jr’s meeting with Suzie Chopsticks to get “dirt” on Hillary Clinton (certainly low-hanging fruit if there ever was) is “treason.”  Yeah…who was levying war against the United States?  Who are the two witnesses to Don Jr levying war or assisting in such levying?  As Spencer points out, the USA and Russia are not at war.

Durocher in Der News, 7/10/17

Der Movement marches on.

An analysis of race, nation, and culture in the writings of Herodotus could in theory be an interesting exercise, albeit one not directly relevant to actualizing our goals in our present (and future) reality.  Durocher’s Part I didn’t set off any alarm bells, but I knew it would just be a matter of time. Here we have Part II.  Let’s look at this self-contradictory paragraph, with the offending sections highlighted:

I would argue that Herodotus’ observations are eminently compatible with a scientific and evolutionary perspective on race/genetics and ethnicity. Race is, especially in geographically contiguous land masses, typically a clinal phenomenon, with gradual change in genetic characteristics (i.e. allele frequencies) as one moves, for instance, from northern Europe to central Africa. While intermarriage tends to spread genes, gene flow is slowed by geographical and ethno-cultural boundaries, leading to significant racial-genetic clumping and differentiation.

First, “northern Europe to central Africa” is not a “geographically contiguous land mass” – being interrupted by that thing usually called “the Mediterranean Sea.”  Further, while Africa itself is “contiguous” the Sahara Desert can impede gene flow.  So, “northern Europe to central Africa” is hardly the best choice for any discussion of clinal changes in gene frequencies.  Then he shifts gears and talks about factors causing “clumping and differentiation” including “geographical…boundaries” – which would actually be something to cite Europe-Africa about, rather than for clinal differences.  So: clinal or clumpy?

Which is it?  Answer: genetic differentiation tends to be more clinal within continental populations and more “clumpy” between such populations, although in some cases there could be some “somewhat clinal” clumpy differences within continental population groups and “somewhat clumpy” clinal differences at the edges separating some such groups.

Consider this from Durocher:

The birth of a nation, ethnogenesis, occurs when linguistic, cultural, and possibly genetic drift leads a particular population to acquire an ethnic identity distinct from its neighbors. Cultural chauvinism and ethnic sentiment work together in this, magnifying one another: cultural traits such as language and customs become more and more similar within the in-group, while differences with out-groups become more and more marked. Thus, a point on the genetic cline is hardened into a more-or-less discrete ethno-cultural node and genetic cluster: a nation. The degree of nationhood is defined precisely by the population’s level of genetic and cultural commonality.

Where did we ever read that before?  Oh, here:

Thus, over time, genetic boundaries can become ever-more-aligned to political and cultural boundaries, particularly when those boundaries are fairly impermeable, distinguishing quite distinct national, political and socio-cultural entities. 

Panmixia is NOT required for a better alignment of European genetic interests with actualization of a High Culture.  Given a strict “in/out” barrier, over time, given natural processes of low-level gene flow within both “in” and “out” coupled with drift and selection increasing distances between “in” and “out,” the relative genetic distinctiveness between “in” and “out” will increase, and any potential areas of genetic overlap between “in” and “out” will no longer exist. 

We have gene-culture evolution becoming gene-High Culture evolution as well as gene-political system evolution. 

Hence, the association between genes and political boundaries goes in both directions.

How about this from Durocher:

One does not need a population with an absolutely “pure” lineage for ethnocentrism to be evolutionarily adaptive. On the contrary, one needs only sufficient genetic and cultural similarity for the members of the community to form a common identity and become a solidary in-group, and there must be greater average genetic similarity among individual in-group members than there is between individual in-group members and the members of out-groups they come into conflict with.

That sounds familiar as well:

However, regardless of how modern gene pools came to be, people are not genetically identical – there are differences in genetic kinship and hence in genetic interests, and it is there that we need to focus our attention. 

Premise 1 is false. Race does not depend on “purity.” Race can be defined different ways, but is essentially a genetically distinct subpopulation that is characterized by a suite of heritable (i.e., genetic) phenotypic traits distinguished from other such groups. There’s nothing in any reasonable definition of race that includes the idea that a race has to be a hermetically sealed group, absolutely isolated from all other groups from the beginning of time. Thus, racial preservation deals with races and their gene pools as they actually exist today, “warts” and all. The possible existence of past admixture does not in any way suggest that future admixture is inevitable, necessary, or desirable. The ethnic and genetic interests of any group are forward-looking, based on the present and looking toward the future. How the group came into existence – including via admixture – does not change the interests that group has in its continuity and preservation today. 

Of course, the concept of ethnic genetic interests (EGI) represents an argument against future admixture, particularly against admixture across wide racial lines; i.e., across a large genetic differentiation. EGI is forward-looking. Genetic interests are considered in the present, to influence decisions that affect the future. Admixture in the past affected the genetic interests of the people at that time. We cannot go back in time and alter decisions made by past peoples that created the ethnies and individuals that exist today. 

Today’s peoples are what they are, with genomes that are what they are. We cannot change that. We can only change what future generations will be like, what their genomes, and consequent phenotypes, will be. Genetic interests always look forward. So, again, any individual or ethny today, with whatever ancestral mix, has genetic interests, regardless of how their genomes came to be.

I could cite more, but sifting through my old writings to find either:

1) Ideas generated later regurgitated by the “movement” or

2) Any of the endless series of predictions I’ve made that have come true

Is a tiresome exercise.  Not as tiresome – predictably tiresome – as Der Movement, Inc. is though.