Category: Nietzsche

Camel, Lion, Child Redux

Nietzsche’s three metamorphoses.

I believe I already wrote about this, but for the benefit of new readers (and for cognitively deficient Type I established readers) I will repeat this concept, and its relevance to what the long-term objectives here are.

Read Zarathustra.

A reasonable explanation.

These are a metaphor for the three stages men have to go through, in their path towards moral self-sufficiency.The camel is a “beast of burden”, that is, it carries a weight someone else has put on it. When the person is the “camel”, they don’t follow their own moral judgement, but have instead a set of external rules they’ve been told are right. “Thou shalt” and the dragon refer to the Ten Commandments and the Church.

Someone becomes the lion when they realise those rules they’ve been taught through their lives aren’t necessarily immutable truths. The lion looks at the conventions and morals he thought were the only possibility and tears them apart. “There is no Good, there is no Evil”… This is that “sacred no”; the realisation that these are man-made concepts and the choice to reject them.
However, the lion can only destroy, it’s just an act of nihilism. After the lion has done away with those morals imposed from outside, the child will be the one creating new values. Not out of duty to an external force or out of rebellion against it, but for itself. The child is pure creativity. That is his “sacred yes” to life.

The camel accepts established dogma and bears the burden of working within a constrained tradition. The lion rebels against that dogma and tradition, realizing that there is no reason to accept those dogmas and traditions as “immutable truths.”  The lion deconstructs, rejects, destroys.  Finally, the child enters the scene and creates new values, new traditions – “pure creativity.”  Over time, this process can repeat itself, if necessary.  The child’s creation may fossilize into a dogma, burdening camels, and leading to lions.

So, I spent many years as a “movement” camel, accepting dogma and following flawed “leaders.”  Much of the work of EGI Notes is the lion phase – what fossilized Type I activists call my “crazed bitterness” – deconstructing, rejecting, and opposing the “movement,” with the objective of destroying the Old Movement, to make way for the New.  And, finally, some of my work at both EGI Notes and Western Destiny is the child creative phase – creating a New Movement based on a fresh set of values – the Fundamentals.


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.

The Adaptive Value of Truth

Truth is required for memes promoting long-term effective adaptive behavior.

I have been very critical of the “movement” – an activity itself criticized by certain racialists – which I believe is necessary; only through legitimate criticism can real improvement be achieved.

Now some of my critics would deny my negative comments are legitimate, but for this post, for the sake of argument, let us assume another riposte against my comments is made: “your criticisms of the “movement may be correct, but they are irrelevant; what ultimately matters is not ‘truth’ but whether a given set of memes is adaptive or not adaptive – ‘movement’ dogma is (in our opinion) adaptive, promoting adaptive behavior, so that is all that matters.”

A similar argument can be made – and has been made – in favor of religion; that is, it doesn’t matter if faith is based on objective fact; it only matters if religious faith promotes adaptive behavior.  Subjectivity, not objectivity, of reality is paramount if such subjectivity promotes the objective fact of genetic continuity.

Very well.  My counter-argument is this: even if “movement” dogma (or any other sort of dogma) seems to be adaptive at the current time, it is highly dangerous to base adaptive behavior on untruthful, non-factual, objectively unproven or disproved, and/or illogical memes. In the long run, the truth will out, particularly if you have determined enemies ready to utilize objective truth to undermine your subjective adaptive behavior.  If you tie your adaptive behavior on the weak foundation of fantasy, bizarre dogma, and refuted ideas then your adaptive behavior can collapse along with the failed memes.

It may sometimes be inconvenient, time-consuming, uncomfortable, etc. to get to the truth, and discard failed memes, to jettison refuted ideas; it may seem more efficient to take a “hey, it’s still working, even if it is wrong,” approach.  But in the long run, you’ll suffer like the grasshopper compared to the ant in that fable about the value of planning and sacrifice. Long-term stability of adaptive interests is best ensured by basing adaptive behavior on the best, the strongest, the most truthful memes possible; it is optimal to utilize those ideas that have been proofed, as best as currently possible, against critical analysis.  Better your own analysis than that of your enemies, better to voluntarily discard failed ideas than be forced to do so after memetic attack by your foes, attacks which, if successful, will leave your followers disillusioned, and weaken their resolve to defend their interests.

Getting back to religion, one can argue that Western Man tied adaptive behavior to Christianity; thus, after the “Death of God” (as explained by Nietzsche), due to illumination by the light of science, and rationalism Christianity as it existed collapsed, taking Western Man’s adaptive behavior down with it. Today, with a globalized society and the instantaneous dissemination of information by the Internet, the collapse of failed ideas can occur very quickly.  One could argue that the System’s memes are based on lies and refuted ideas – that is true, but note that the System is much more powerful than we dissidents and more able to slow the dissemination of the truth and note more fundamentally that the System’s edifice is beginning to collapse, there are cracks in the facade, and some “movement” activists talk of the inevitable collapse of the System due to it being based on a foundation of lies.

Should we not then wish to build our own adaptive system on a foundation of truth?  Isn’t that the best insurance against memetic shocks?  Isn’t that the safest long-term bet?

Observations, 10/11/16

Observing der “movement” scene.
Sallis: Pan-Europeanism is in one way similar to Christianity: many people claim to practice it, but very few actually do.
Sallis: On the second debate: the fly incident requires more analysis.  Any normal person would react immediately, instinctively, by reflect, to swat away a fly that landed on their face.  That Clinton did not suggests to me some sort of physical explanation: neurological illness and/or being drugged up in some manner, so that an artificially heightened focus can resist normal human reflex actions.
The Left’s mendaciousness about Trump’s “you’d be in jail” comment is astounding.  It is OBVIOUS that he did NOT mean it as the media turds are suggesting: “as soon as I get elected, I’ll send some goons over to throw you in jail, like this is a banana republic” (Clinton on the other hand may be tempted to do so), but rather: “I would appoint a special prosecutor who would actually investigate this mess honestly, and since I am convinced of your guilt, I believe that the most likely outcome would be you in jail.”  But with Trump Derangement Syndrome – a constellation of symptoms reflective of hatred for Trump being a proxy for hatred for Whites – every single thing Trump says or does is twisted, so that, on a daily basis, the top articles on Yahoo are some sort of hysterical attack on the man.

In other words, if you are going to be a degenerate, you will lose to these people. One cannot be a narrow-minded materialist either. I left the theater realizing that we essentially need some form of fascism. We can’t be atomized, profit-maximizing materialists like the slaveholders were. The Southern planters—for a time—had the government on their side. But today, those of us who live among the ruins cannot afford to be so degenerate, lazy, and narrow-minded (Sallis note: Trump?). We are surrounded by people intent on conquering what we have and they have all the (((moral justification))) they need to do it, the product of decades of anti-white evangelizing.


The Trumpening is the unstoppable riptide of proud, competent, clear-eyed and heart-swelled White men pulling diseased leprous America underwater and baptizing Her in the reinvigorated blood of White patriots. It is White America taking back what is rightfully theirs, from the grubby paws of the clockboys and the bomb brothers and the BLMers and the bluehairs and the parenthetically privileged and the slut walkers and the fat acceptors and the sneering academics and the vapid celebrities and the cheating chinese and the tim wises and the kardashians and the mudsharks and the cucks and the mexican drug lords and the gay mullatos and the oligarchs and the ethnic dining autist aficionados and the hypocritical virtue signalers most of all who imagine their wealthy retreats will forever shield them from the inevitable consequences of their self-abolishing moralism.
It is a sight to behold, and don’t doubt for a minute that the anti-White globalist whoremongers know the cleansing tidal wave is coming for them.

Sallis: This guy Roissy had better really, really, really hope that his “God Emperor” wins – ditto for all the quota queens stupidly saying: “Donald Trump is the last chance for White America.”
In actuality, Donald Trump was be the last chance for Der Movement’s quota queens, for perhaps, just perhaps (I know it is unlikely) their enablers will get fed up with the latest horrendous lack of judgment and insist on much needed reform, changing Der Movement into The Movement (no scare quotes either).  Unlikely, but one can hope.  One can also do their part, by NEVER letting the quota queens live down their errors.
Some may ask: “why do you criticize “movement” personages, like Roissy, when you say you are more interested in ideas than in people?”
Answer: Nietzsche wrote that he used criticism of certain individuals as a way of criticizing ideas those people represented; to use those individuals like a “lens” to focus attention on particular pernicious ideas.  I do the same. I care not one way or the other about Roissy the individual, but he represents a number of ideas I despise, such as:
– Blind, delusional, uncritical hero worship
– Pussy pedestalizing, race-mixing, navel-gazing, hedonistic “game” and associated juvenile jackassery
– The superficial stupidities of HBD
Thus, criticism of Roissy.

Behold the Movement: Civil War?

Salon shitlibs laughing.

On the one hand, excessive feuding is not good. On the other hand, this blog (as well as “Richard Lynn’s Pseudoscience”) does critique certain individuals, and thus could be seen as part of the problem. On the other hand as well, a degree of healthy disagreement is useful; one would not want the “movement” to prematurely coalesce around wrong memes.

A balance needs to be found. Nietzsche wrote that his critiques of individuals were not personal (*), but that he intended to use the person in question as a lens of sort, to focus attention on that individual’s ideas, which is what Nietzsche really wanted to attack.

So, there are memes I see as worthy of criticism, including but not limited to: HBD cognitive elitism, mainstreaming, “game” as an end and not as a means, ethnonationalism and subracialism elevated to the top of the activist priority list, economics over race, affirmative action in the “movement,” esoteric traditionalism, pseudoscience, cocksure incompetence, anti-White trolling, hypocrisy and mendacity, data cherry picking, invented racial histories, straw man attacks on Salterism, proximate interests elevated over ultimate interests, non-Whites (including Jews) and race-mixers infiltrating the “movement” and distorting it.

Individuals promoting those destructive memes I see as fair game for criticism, as long as the criticism is motivated by those ideas, and not by personal animus.  “Personal” critiques are either tongue-in-cheek and not meant to be taken seriously (**), or merely quoting the person in question (***).  Or, for example, the Sen-Vallone question is directly relevant to motivations in dividing Europeans against each other.

Purely personal criticisms should be avoided. Whether one person is (actually, not jokingly) homosexual (as long as that doesn’t significantly influence their ideology in a negative fashion), or ugly, or sickly, or merely with a personality that you may like or dislike – that should not be a relevant issue. Public feuding over personal, private disagreements accomplishes nothing except giving the Salonites grist for their mill.

*He may have been deluded about that, re: Wagner, but let us take him at his word for the moment.

**For example, obviously the heterosexual womanizer Roissy does not have a “homoerotic fixation” on Trump; that’s a joke meant to illustrate a point about the “man on white horse” syndrome.

***Derbyshire himself admitted that his relationship with his wife is characterized by his “measured groveling.”  That is a self-admission that illustrates his – in my opinion – attitudes toward White-Asian relations.

Lunatic Raging With Frenzy

As Nietzsche would say: you need some chaos within you if you want to be a dancing star.

In Flood’s book, Hitler: The Path to Power, there is an amusing quote from a Professor von Muller, describing the reaction of 54-year old Dietrich Eckart to a speech by Hitler in the early 1920s:

After one of Hitler’s orgiastic cascades he jumped onto the table with a fiery red face screaming his song “Deutschland Erwache!” frantically…while a brass band performed the music roaringly: it was the picture of a lunatic raging with frenzy.”

I wholeheartedly approve of Eckart’s reaction.  What we need are more White men acting like a “lunatic raging with frenzy” and fewer of them being passionless, over-rational, effete pansies.
Now, my critics will accuse me of hypocrisy, not understanding my point.  They will say, “Hey, you routinely criticize ‘Nutzis’ and other ‘movement’ extremists and their reckless actions and stupid atomized violence, and now you are promoting ‘lunacy’ and ‘raging with frenzy.”
My response is that you cannot conflate Eckart’s reaction with some Nutzi or neckbeard doing something foolish.  After all, when Eckart was finished singing like a lunatic, what did he do?  Did he shoot up a beer hall?  No – he used whatever abilities and influence he had to support Hitler politically (up until their falling out, but that’s an irrelevant matter). 
One can be a “lunatic raging with frenzy” while, at the same, time being disciplined and focused, and channeling all that “raging frenzy” into political activism, like Eckart did.  The approval of “lunatic raging frenzy” is an approval of an attitude, not promotion of any specific activity.

It is a call to White men to sometimes heed the call of the blood, to follow irrational impulses to achieve rational goals, to unleash chaos in the service of ultimate order.