Category: military

In Der News

Odds and ends in der news.

Some old news, but still relevant.

The USA continues to follow the insane directives, promoted especially by the Obama administration, to continue to decrease yields of US nuclear weapons.  Last I read, they wanted to get rid of all the low megaton range B83s – which themselves can’t destroy deep targets – and replace them with low yield “dial-a-yield” weapons.  I have nothing against the “dial-a-yield” concept, as long as megaton range yields are included in the spectrum, which was NOT the case for the leftist Obama-pansy military planning.  Meanwhile, Russia continues to have high-yield weapons, and with improving accuracy.  They’ll be able to take out fortified targets, while US bombs would be hard=pressed to mimic Hiroshima.  Another example of Western weakness and degeneracy – but let’s put ‘Western” in scare quotes.

“Even nuclear weapons have limited effectiveness at destroying the deepest or widely separated underground bunkers,” reads a 2005 report from the Union of Concerned Scientists. “For example, an earth penetrating weapon using the 1.2 megaton B83 warhead—the highest yield weapon in the U.S. nuclear stockpile—could crush underground bunkers to a depth of about 1000 feet. Deeper bunkers can be constructed with modern tunneling equipment, and are essentially invulnerable to nuclear attack.”

Pan-Europeanists = early Rome.
Ethnonationalists – Greek city states. Didn’t Stoddard compare WWI with the Peloponnesian War?
Excerpt of comment from AltRight.com:

I prefer Spencer’s speeches to Jared Taylor citing stats about how Jews and Asians are smarter than Huwhites.

Advertisements

Happy Saint Adolf Day 2018

SLC News.

“World Brotherhood of Europeans” – excluding Afrowops and Romanohorians of course.

Did you ever notice that:

***When Americans fight wars that benefit Jews (e.g., WWII, any of the Middle Eastern wars that benefit Israel), then veterans are good and noble, and popular culture fetishizes veteran worship; however, when Americans fight wars that Jews disapprove of (e.g., Vietnam or even the entire “Cold War” military endeavor), then veterans are despicable “baby killers” to be scorned, while anti-war protesters and draft dodgers are lionized.  Funny, that.  It’s almost as if the entire American culture is modulated to reflect Jewish concerns and Jewish views. 

***In a typical modern American classroom, half the students have attention deficit disorder and the other half have a peanut allergy.  And most are overweight.

More SLC News:

The Alt Right’s “generational warfare” is ludicrous from my perspective for many reasons, foremost among them is that virtually every White Millennial I have known (many in fact) is not only an extreme leftist, but they all are hysterically ultra-SJW extreme leftists, oozing with the most virulent anti-White attitudes imaginable.  Boomers may be cucked cowards, but many (most?) Millennials are open enemies.

Read this.

The roots of what we now call the Alt-Right lay in the Ron Paul movement.

And that is why the Alt Right is doomed to fail.  It was tainted by libertardism from the very beginning.

Read this, emphasis added (from the original book):

….the degree of genetic differentiation among Indian jati groups living side by side in the same village is typically two to three times higher than the genetic differentiation between northern and southern Europeans.

Let’s unpack that for a moment.  Typically, population genetics tells us that the greatest genetic differentiation in Europe is along the north/south axis, being a bit larger than east/west; the first axis in PCA is north/south, the second is east/west.  However, that differentiation, the north/south, in Europe is two to three times smaller than that between Indian brownster “micro-castes” who live “side by side in the same village.”  

Chuck the gamester pussy pedestalizer.

Playing Out The String: Rome

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SLC News, 3/30/18

Yet more stupidity, lies, and cowardice.

Quota Queen Alert!

Hmmm…who was it who predicted the downfall of the Alt Right – that the Alt Right fever would eventually burn itself out?

“Movement” failure can be chalked up to three inter-related reasons:

1. A defective ideology; the same old tired fossilized memes, sweaty racial fantasies, obsessive ethnic fetishism, rigid dogma, all with a healthy helping of solipsism, self-delusion, and pseudoscience.

2. A failed leadership.  Affirmative action leads to incompetence, and this holds true not only for “women and minorities” in the broader society, but also for “cuck naggers” in Der Movement.

3. A significant fraction, possibly a majority, of rank-and-file activists are Type I Nutzi defectives.

So, the defective ideology justifies the affirmative action policy and attracts the Nutzis. The failed leaders grasp onto the ideology that props up their own “leadership,” while the Nutzis support and enable the tragicomic failures of their leaders.

Neither the leaders nor the followers will condemn themselves and break the cycle, and they certainly will not denounce the ideology that forms the center of (what passes for) their identity.

A New Movement needs to arise to displace the crumbling ruin of the Old.  Do I believe that will happen?  No, but I will continue being a “voice in the wilderness” and hold out hope.

Roissy endorses this comment:

One thing that beta male white knight faggots don’t want to hear about is the obsession that bitches have with wanting to fuck mass murderers. […]
If you want to live in some fantasy dreamworld where “they’re not all like that” then go ahead, but if you don’t accept the truth you’re just going to go through your entire life getting fucked over by these skanks.
Conversely, if you look at them as what they are – stupid, wild animals – they you might have a chance to make a relationship with one work. Just always remember that as a boyfriend/husband you are basically a zookeeper, trying to keep control over a twisted amoral beast.

I endorse the comment as well, the description is 100% correct.  It goes off the rails with its subsequent prescription: we need “game” you see, which is, in essence, pure pussy pedestalization; men need to modulate their every word and action, down to the most minute detail, to appeal to these “twisted amoral beasts.”

How about this: NO.

Sir MGTOW vs. the Yeastbuckets!

Yeah, and there’s no god either, but Frannie boy won’t tell you that.

The Sallistrian religious paradox: The higher one goes up the religious hierarchy the less likely one is to actually believe in god or all the other religious nonsense.

Some old hag fumbling with her rosaries in church believes unconditionally, a priest has his doubts, a bishop understands the value of religion for social control, and the college of cardinals, and the pope derived from then, knows full well the truth and its ideological utility.

Surprise, surprise.  “America’s Senator” fails again.

Hey Jeff, just do what you do best: stand around helplessly, looking like a Howdy Doody doll without the ventriloquist.

I don’t think so, Donnie.

Dem Russkis are already ahead of us and pulling away fast.  Hint: having a nuclear deterrent that dates from the 1960s and 70s, with some sprinkling from the 80s, is not going to scare Russia or China.  Another hint: the constant US trend to downscale its nuclear bomb arsenal in both numbers and yield per weapon is not going to scare anyone either.  I realize, Donnie, that your Presidency, nay your entire existence, is all about empty blustering, but the hard men of Russia and China are not going to be deterred by your windbag exhortations.  No, only true force will do the job, and true force includes missiles than are not older than the fathers of the men whose fingers are on the button, and true force includes nuclear bombs than actually have yields greater than the early atom bombs of the late 40s.

Chinese Nationalist Whore writes:

As a Chinese, I come from a highly collectivistic society and I find it deeply naïve to think that Jews as a group will not have a major advantage over individuals who do not network in the same ethnocentric way.

Yes, indeed, and one good reason (besides of course their alien genotypes and phenotypes) Chinese should not be allowed into Western nations and should not be allowed on Western blogs.

As a kind Japanese writer named Riki Rei at Counter Currents points out, the Chinese elite is in bed with the Jewish elite.

Of course, the MR Silkers who say that any criticism of China is due to the critic being “a Jew or someone who sucks Jewish cock” (their words, not mine, in case you the reader are offended by the vulgarity).

Of course the Chinese are “in bed” with the Jews – the problem is that the Silkers want the Chinese to be in bed with them, literally, preferably all those Chinese girls with guns who are going to the “border guards of the West.”  Among White manlets, Silk Road White nationalism is nothing more or less than masochistic yellow fever fetishism.

Two Levels of Insurgency

Outer and inner.

Any student of insurgency, of warfare against a stronger power, of guerrilla tactics, of dissent opposition, understands that the fundamental strategic objective of the insurgency is to maintain its existence.

Insurgent armies will often avoid full frontal assault against the entrenched power, will engage in hit-and-run tactics that weaken that enemy while preserving the existence of the insurgent force.  The mere continued existence of the insurgency, in the face of a more powerful enemy, is itself a victory, it undermines the power of the enemy and the confidence of the people in that power, and it allows the insurgency to exist to fight another day.  As long as the insurgency exists, it has the potential for overcoming the enemy, if by attrition if by no other mechanism.  The continued existence of the insurgency will attract followers, it will allow for growth and adaption, it may attract the support of other powers; this is why the enemy state prioritizes the complete elimination of the insurgency – “containment” is not good enough, it is an admission of defeat – and why the insurgency itself puts a premium on existence.  Thus, the brilliant strategy of George Washington in the American Revolution, the Fabian Strategy (despite the negatives that strategy can bring and Washington’s own frustration at his critics), that allowed the Colonial army to survive in the field long enough so that important foreign support, and eventual victory, was achieved.

In this context, the Outer Insurgency is that of racial nationalists/nationalists/Far Right against the System, against the globalists.  Priority number one has to be continued existence of the Far Right opposition; after all, if you do not exist, you will be unable to eventually come to power yourself.  At the current time, the power imbalance between the Far Right and the System requires the former to engage in a Fabian strategy and guerilla tactics against the latter, a form of memetic/political/metapolitical ju-jitsu to use the clumsy bulk power of the System against itself.  A wonderful example of this is the “It’s OK to be White” meme, which puts the System in a lose-lose situation. If the System ignores the meme, ignores the posters and leaflets, then it displays weakness and emboldens imitators and others to push the memetic envelope further; if the System acts against the meme, then it “heightens the contradictions” and makes people wonder: “why isn’t it OK to be White?”  The System is forced to choose between being weak and being openly anti-White in a ham-fisted manner; the System cannot simply say, “Yes, it is OK to be White,” since the System’s entire foundational ideology is anti-Whiteness.  That’s a form of ideological guerilla warfare, a memetic insurgency, which attacks the System at its ideological core without putting the existence of the still-weak insurgency at risk.  Priority one: existence.  Priority two: attack and undermine the opposition. Leading to priority three: systematically replace the opposition and achieve power.

The second form of insurgency – the Inner Insurgency?  That’s the insurgency within the “movement” itself; relatively weak dissidents, presented by EGI Notes for example, staking out a niche in opposition to the (in relative terms) clumsy ham-fisted “movement,” which needs to be critiqued and undermined. Thus, it is the first priority for the Inner Insurgency to survive, to have a continued existence, to engage in a Fabian Strategy when necessary, to mimic on a smaller internal scale the same struggle that is taking place on a larger scale at the level of the Outer Insurgency of Der Movement vs. The System.

The “movement” has made this Inner Insurgency necessary by not engaging in the necessary reforms and by not giving dissidents “a place at the table” to bring their legitimate grievances to be aired without being summarily dismissed or labeled “crazy.”

Indeed, this “craziness” derives from the same source as consistently being correct about things, recognizing problems at an early stage, and realizing trends before they become apparent (if they ever do) to the “sane” among us.

I attempt to view things as they are, without sentimentality, or pity, or self-delusion, or moral posturing, or dogma, to get to the core of an issue, understand it, and project trends going forward.

This of course gets me into trouble both in Der Movement and in “real life,” as I come up against people (the vast majority of people fit into this category) who view things through one prism or another of the aforementioned characteristics that distorts their vision, often giving them whatever picture they want to see, or one that comfortably fits into moral conformity and social acceptability.  To them, I’m “crazy” or “bitter” or “impossible” or “autistic” or “cruel” or “cold” or whatever other ad hominem critiques of my character (some of which may have a kernel of truth) that enables the people in question to disregard my message and feel good about their own delusions.  Also, by disparaging my character, these people don’t have to engage with the unpleasant reality that I’m right in my prognostications 99+% of the time.  Rather than dealing with the hard realities inherent in a truthful message, the weak-minded turn their fear and frustration against the messenger.

I am of course not infallible and do make error; this is usually when I am relatively uninterested in an issue or outcome and do not dissect too deeply into it.  For example, I was wrong about Trump’s chances of being elected in 2016; however, while that was important, it wasn’t an issue of deep existential concern for me.  My real interest was how the Trump campaign was affecting the political, social, cultural, and moral climate in America, its potential to promote racial balkanization and sociopolitical chaos, and the long-term effects of Trump on future populist/racialist “demagogues.”  Much of my predictions in this regard have come true, and we’ve seen the spectacle of System hacks like Frank Rich repeating certain points of my The Nazi Next Time essay two years after I wrote it.  So it goes….

The Inner Insurgency continues.

Crush the Infamy!

Sallis Right Again: Its the Dolt Right

How the Alt Right (Dolt Right) defames racial nationalism.

Long time readers of this blog are aware that one of my major warnings against the Alt Right is that by promoting themselves as encompassing the totality of racial nationalism, the Alt Right will taint the entire “movement” with their stupidity and mendacity.  Thus, whatever the Alt Right says and does will be construed as representing and reflecting all racial nationalists, even those of us who despise and oppose the Alt Right fad.

Read this, emphasis added:

Eli was in his mid-20s, from a middle-class suburban home, and he had led an unremarkable life, up until the Charlottesville rally launched him forward within the ranks of the loosely organized white-nationalist movement. He rose from a self-described “anonymous Twitter troll” to head of one of the largest groups in the so-called alt-right.

“I came to the realization around the inauguration that we must take this from an online activist movement to a real-life activist movement,” he told me. “I decided that was my calling.”

After a few phone calls, Eli agreed to give me an on-camera interview, at Richard Spencer’s apartment in Alexandria, Va. Spencer, 39, plays the big brother to many teenagers and 20-somethings drawn to the alt-right, and his one-bedroom apartment has become a frat house for white nationalists passing through the D.C. area. When I was there, a steady stream of young men (and an occasional woman) flowed in and out. Although Eli lives less than an hour away, he often crashes there on late nights spent drinking and planning the next event. He proudly told me he always gets the couch, while others sleep on the floor.

And then all the “blah, blah” about the military record.  And so the mainstream conclusion based on this latest Alt Right fiasco is, emphasis added:

The movement itself also relies on falsehoods. It includes Holocaust deniers and pseudo-intellectuals who spout unsubstantiated theories about the science behind racial difference. In order to reach mainstream Americans, white supremacists have learned to cloak their racism in disorienting terms like “white identity politics.”

Thanks a lot, you goddamn idiots.  

The mainstream’s deductive reasoning:

Premise (that you promote): The Alt Right IS White racial nationalism

Premise (based on facts): The Alt Right are a bunch of stupid, lying, incompetent, panhandling, drunken lulzers

Conclusion: White racial nationalism as a whole is composed of stupid, lying, incompetent, panhandling, drunken lulzers

Or:

Premise (that you promote): The Alt Right IS White racial nationalism

Premise: The Alt Right is based on lies, is full of liars, and peddles HBD pseudoscience

Conclusion: ALL the science asserted by White racial nationalists is pseudoscience

In other words, because Alt Righters are drunken liars, EGI is pseudoscience.

Irrational on the part of the mainstream? Perhaps?  But isn’t it YOU, dear Alt Righters, who preach that people – the “normies” – are inherently irrational, so that instead of constantly burying them with logic and rational scientific facts, we need to project strength and fine character to appeal to their irrational instincts?

How’s that working out for you?  The rest of us know how it is working out for us.  Exactly as I warned, the Alt Right is wrecking racial nationalism.

Time for another half-drunk Alt Right podcast.  Cue the Beavis-and-Buttthead sniggering.

And some advice: If you are a bunch of babbling imbeciles who can’t get your stories straight in the midst of your alcoholic haze, then please don’t give interviews to the mainstream media. Thank you.

Romans and Germans

Some notes about Ancient Rome.

We all know the “movement” dogma on Rome: originally a moral city state, founded by Dolph Lundgren look-a-likes, it became a morally corrupt, decadent, and degenerate Empire, as “racial mixing” destroyed the “original Nordic population” and repopulated the area with cringing swarthoid subhumans (i.e., modern Italians), to see the degenerate Empire crumble before the moral purity of those stalwart Germans.

Contra to “movement” dogma, it is difficult for normal people, informed historians, and the non-dogmatized educated, to consider the austere Christian Roman Empire of, say, Theodosius I (the last emperor of an undivided empire) as more “decadent” and “degenerate” than the early empire of the patrician emperors Nero and Caligula (Caligula!), or Tiberius, or of the later Republic of Catiline, Crassus, and Caesar, or the earlier Republic dictatorship of the bisexual Sulla (a favorite of William Pierce because of Sulla’s fair complexion- Pierce being nothing if not sophisticated in his historical tastes, Metrobius be damned [or sodomized]), or any of the earlier examples of corruption and rent-seeking avarice.

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!

And of course, there is Ferrill’s military explanation of the fall of Rome, which ironically enough, pins blame on the “barbarization” of the Roman military, as well as dubious strategic choices, as being primarily responsible, along with the obvious difficulty of maintaining such a far-flung empire for centuries against repeated assaults by determined and numerous foes.

Now, from an EGI standpoint, Rome would have been better off not building an empire and becoming a cosmopolitan city to begin with, but the storyline of moral degeneration and fall due to “racial admixture” is hogwash. 

In the battles between Romans and Germans (and Gauls) Der Movement of course historically sides with the latter against the former. There are a number of reasons for this: the typical Nord/Med divide (even though the original Romans are said to have been “Nordic”), that most activists are ethnically derived from stocks akin to Germans/Gauls rather than Romans, the whole dogma of a racially degenerate Empire trying to take the freedom aware from racially pure and noble Germanic “barbarians.” The Type I preference for barbarism over civilization, the knee-jerk Teutonophilia in all things.

We can ask though more objectively what’s going on there.

A more insightful pro-German view is to say that the existence of the Germans as an independent people is what was necessary for the creation of the Faustian Western High Culture after the Fall of Rome, that the Germans racially and morally revitalized a feeble and degenerate empire population, and that the racial integrity of Europe was endangered if Rome conquered Germania, since they would have populated those racially untouched regions with the degenerate cosmopolitan populations drawn from throughout the Empire.

Those arguments are not without merit, but they may be overblown. The Roman conquest of Gaul did not racially destroy the region, although a counter-argument is that France was later racially revitalized by settlement of Germanic peoples. Certainly, a non-ethnic fetishist view is that the demographic impact of Roman cosmopolitanism has been exaggerated.

Nevertheless, if we take seriously the argument that the future of the West as we know it was preserved trough the continued independence of the Germans, then we can reasonably view the Germanic victory of the Battle of Teutoburg Forest as being a positive outcome for the future of the West.  However, later military successes against the Germans in the early Empire period suggests that conquering and administering the region was considered negative from a cost/benefit ration; in other words, practical considerations, rather than the outcome of a single battle, is what led to the Rhine being set as the northeast boundary of the Empire.  Regardless of the reasons, again it can be stressed that the preservation of the Germans as an independent entity was important for the future development of the West.

But there is a difference between that and other battles.  In the earlier wars between Rome and the Germans, for example, the victories of Marius (and colleagues) in the Late Republic Period, it would take an extreme Germanocentric view to argue that the Germans were then on the side of the right, on the side of the West. This was not the case of peoples trying to preserve their freedom, but of barbarians attempting to conquer (and destroy) a civilization that was just them embarking on an imperialistic expansion.  The destruction of Rome at that point could well have short-circuited the progress of culture and civilization in Europe, lost to Europe the fruits of the Classical High Culture, and perhaps have prevented the West from ever coming into being.  It is perhaps not surprising that Der Movement typically forgets Roman-German warfare before Arminius.

What about later wars?  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.

That last point is the present relevance of this analysis.  Whether or not ancient historical events meant “this” or “that” are not directly issues of importance.  Getting the “movement” to break free of its blind adherence to fossilized dogma, and develop an increased flexibility of thinking – that is important.  And if at least questioning dogma on the ancient past – mere questioning, not necessarily even any profound change in opinion, but at least an honest consideration of the possibilities – can effect such increased flexibility, then such ruminations are all for the good.