Category: Rome

SLC News, 7/14/18

More stupidity.

Antifa Jeff rides again. Sessions bestirs himself to action.

The federal government has quietly revived its investigation into the murder of Emmett Till, the 14-year-old African-American boy whose abduction and killing remains, almost 63 years later, among the starkest and most searing examples of racial violence in the South.

The Justice Department said that its renewed inquiry, which it described in a report submitted to Congress in late March, was “based upon the discovery of new information.” 

MAGA!  Pepe!  Kek!  Roissy: “Sessions as Attorney General alone justifies the entire Trump Presidency.”

Question: Is it possible Sessions is a mole, a radical leftist who spent a lifetime posing as a hardcore conservative so as to burrow deep into the mainstream Right, and to then ascend to a position of power and authority in which he can enact leftist tactics to subvert America?  Or is he just another over-rated quota queen cuck?  The end result is the same.  Of course, Der Movement will once again be silent about Sessions; after all, he’s “one of the boys.”

The despicable Durocher lies once again, this time about Ancient Roman demographics. By the way, that essay proves once again that lies about Ancient Rome are made in large part to make parallels to the modern situation; being dimwitted, Type Is cannot understand today’s peril without being shown historical cartoon comparisons, as if they were mentally retarded five year-olds (which they are the mental equivalent of).  Notice what blog Durocher chooses for this trash – the ultra-Nordicist, anti-White ethnic TOO.

About Rome, see this.  And this.

Copy, copy, steal, steal, steal.  Have Orientals invented anything in the last 1000 years?

Spencer expresses himself:

@RichardBSpencer

Anglo-Saxons were once the American ruling class. We are now a dispossessed elite–symbolized by the fact that the establishment’s inner sanctum, #SCOTUS, is Jewish and Catholic.

Don’t worry Richie.  You are still the ruling class in the American “movement.”  We can all sigh with relief over the great competence demonstrated by, say, yourself and your buddy Greg “open borders meeting vetting” Johnson.  

Then we have:

‏ @RichardBSpencer

Just in case there was any misunderstanding–though I, of course, recognize ethnic differences, I do seek broader European unity; though I do lament my people’s decline, I take responsibility for it. The WASP death was both suicide and murder.

More suicide than murder.  Let’s consider the 1965 immigration act.  Let’s blame it on the Jews (and Irish).  Very well.  Who let the Jews (and Irish) into the country in the first place?  Who let in the ultra-leftist Scalias and Alitos to displace the red-blooded patriotic White Americans like Earl Warren?  Who let in the Polacks, five of whom are needed to screw in a light bulb?  Forget about Negro slavery, we won’t even mention that.  The Anglo-Saxons should not have let in any other peoples after the Revolution. They can’t blame “the Jews” for that.

Roissy fantasizes:

If an arm of the Deep State was involved with the Rich murder and two government employees were the hired hit men, don’t wake up the next day after the news drops expecting life in America to be the same. It will change everything.

Let’s say the story is correct and Rich was killed by “Deep State” operatives and not by feral Negroes.  That’s a big IF, but let’s assume it is true.  Let’s further assume that the truth comes out and is not buried by the same Deep State.  Very well.  What does it change?  Nothing.  Trump will just post some jackass tweets, demanding that Sessions “do something.”  Antifa Jeff will ignore those pleas and instead focus his (very limited) energies on more “hate crimes” prosecutions of Unite the Right attendees for the “crime” of defending themselves, or on dredging up 60 year-old murders of little Negroes. The media will ignore/scoff/mock and the Alt Right will babble on about Kali Yuga and “the Moops.”  The Right is inept, Trump is a buffoon, Sessions is a far-left cuck, and the media are corrupt.

How’s that mainstreaming working out for you?  Once again, Sallis is right, and Der Movement wrong.

Advertisements

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.

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!  

The Face of the Duce

Also: Introducing Racial Recapitulation Theory.

What can the phenotype of the young Mussolini tell us?

Let’s take a look at the physical appearance phenotype of the Northern Italian (from Predappio in Romagna) Benito Mussolini, as a young man, to dissect certain aspects of “movement” dogma about Italians.

Let’s be honest. If you showed someone those pictures, and if they didn’t know who it was other than being told “it’s an Italian,” you know very well they would immediately say “must be a Southern Italian,” “It’s a Sicilian,” etc. – the extreme non-gracile swarthoid qualities would give the impression that reflects popular stereotypes.  However, Mussolini was, as stated above, a Northern Italian.  I also note that General von Rundstedt once deeply offended Hitler by questioning Der Fuhrer’s friendship and alliance with the “Negroid Asshole” Mussolini.  Did the good general see ll Duce’s Swiss mugshots?

What conclusions can we make based on these photos?

I want to first reply to potential objections to this brief analysis:

1. “This is just anecdotal evidence, a single-point piece of data.”  That’s correct, but Der Movement does the same with all groups (especially S. Italians), using pictures of single individuals as representative of an entire group, so we can do the same here.  There are indeed N. Italians who look like the young Mussolini, so there’s some general utility in the analysis.

2. “I thought you value genotype over phenotype.”  That’s true.  But we do not have access to Mussolini’s autosomal genome.  We do have access to his physical appearance; I’ll use the data at hand.

3. “I thought you wrote that phenotype is an imprecise reflection of the underlying genotype, of the underlying ancestry.”  That’s true as well; however, that is most true for phenotype analyzed as a stand-alone evaluation, and when one ignores available genetic data in favor of a purely phenotypic analysis. In the absence of genetic information, combining phenotype with other pieces of information – such as an individual’s ethnic affiliation – can give some useful information.  It’s flawed and subjective, but insofar as I know, no one has genotyped Mussolini’s remains, so we use what we have.

So, what can we say?

Two major points.

First, it is almost certain that Mussolini could not have been of exclusive Celto-Germanic ancestry (remember that one of Der Movement’s memes is that Northern Italians are Celto-Germanic).

Second, even if Mussolini did have some Celto-Germanic ancestry, it is likely in the extreme that such ancestry was only a minority of his ancestry.  The majority of his ancestry likely derived from other sources.

So, we can ask: what were those other sources?

According to another school of “movement” “thought” (Duke/My Awakening, etc.) Northern Italians reflect ancestry from the original Romans (or at least the original peoples of Italy).  If so, Il Duce suggests that at least some of those original Romans/Italians were quite swarthy and non-gracile indeed.  That goes against that precinct of “movement” “thought” that asserts that the original Romans/Italians were all akin to Dolph Lundgren walking around in a toga.

On the other hand, if you deny that the original peoples of Rome and Italy – or at least some of them – looked like Mussolini, and instead assert that his Swiss mugshots reflect “the racial degeneration due to Roman slavery” then you have to admit that such degeneration spread to Northern Italy, and that the ancestral remains of such degeneration is still present there in modern times.

So, it would seem that Der Movement dogma is at an impasse. Il Duce suggests that either there were real swarthoids among the original Romans/Italians or that Northern Italians are not purebred Romans or not purebred Celto-Germanics, or not merely a mix of the two.  Is it one or the other? Swarthy original Roman populations or racial degeneration in Northern Italy?

The point is for Der Movement to get beyond kneejerk dogma and at least think and consider the implications of their mutually exclusive memes coming into contact with facts and logic.

I doubt that will occur though.

By the way, Mussolini’s phenotype through his life reflects an observation I have made in that European-derived swarthoids tend to be swarthiest and most non-gracile in young adulthood and become lighter and more gracile as they age.  Hormones?  Some sort of racial version of recapitulation theory – “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” – at different stages of their life individuals reflect, to a greater or lesser degree, different aspects of their ancestry (*)?  Thus, for individuals of multi-component ancestry, they would look more like different components of that ancestry at different ages, at different phases of their life.  Would that be from actual differences in gene expression from various ancestrally-different gene segments that affect phenotype?  If so, what is the trigger for the switch – the aforementioned differences in hormone levels?  Some other age-related changes, possibly including epigenetics?  Or is it simply that phenotypic changes in physical appearance that normally accompany aging mimic the effects of looking more like various ethnic types?  This would require further consideration and study.  The former possibility is much more interesting than the latter, and more in keeping with “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.”  Perhaps both possibilities operate.  Again, this would seem to be a potentially fruitful area of inquiry.

Finally, the purpose of this post is to critique Der Movement’s rigid, unquestioning dogma, certainly not to cast any dispersion at a historical leader I admire – Il Duce.  Indeed, with respect to Mussolini, my opinion of him is the same as Yockey’s – Il Duce was a great man, one of the great leaders of history, a flawed man of course, but a man of vision and force.  He was ultimately betrayed by Italian laziness, ineptitude, and hedonism – and he knew it, given his comments about Italians with an analogy of Michelangelo being forced to work with clay.  Mussolini’s phenotype is simply Italian – a reality that Der Movement misses with its view of Northern Italians all looking like actor Dolph Lundgren and Southern Italians all looking like boxer Mike Tyson.


Here is another picture. A Celto-Germanic Nordic on the left, a Nigerian Negro on the right.

*Racial recapitulation theory!  You read it at EGI Notes first.

More Brief Comments on Crowley

Type I follies.

Fetishist:

Concerning the Etruscans and their origins, I’ve found the works of Prof. Cavalli-Sforza to be the most convincing. Specifically, he posits that the Etruscans developed in an autochthonous fashion from the earlier Iron Age Villanovan culture.

…support the hypothesis that the genetic structure of Italy still reflects the ethnic stratification of pre-Roman times.

And these are those autochthonous Etruscans – who portrayed themselves as darker than even modern day S. Italians.

There’s a very good possibility that the original peoples of Italy were swarthier, and more dissimilar to Crowley, than are the Italians of today.

Since Crowley is so obsessed with “Viking Supermen” he can reflect on the absence of such men in contemporary Scandinavian populations, which are generally characterized by racial liberalism, pacifism, feminism, openness to invasion, and sociopolitical conformity.  Changes in culture and behavior can occur without Kempian fantasies.  

Frost’s genetic pacification is a more realistic possibility:

Over the last 10,000 years, the human genome has changed at an accelerating rate. The change seems to reflect adaptations to new social environments, including the rise of the State and its monopoly on violence. State societies punish young men who act violently on their own initiative. In contrast, non-State societies usually reward such behavior with success, including reproductive success. Thus, given the moderate to high heritability of male aggressiveness, the State tends to remove violent predispositions from the gene pool while favoring tendencies toward peacefulness and submission. This perspective is applied here to the Roman state, specifically its long-term effort to pacify the general population. By imperial times, this effort had succeeded so well that the Romans saw themselves as being inherently less violent than the “barbarians” beyond their borders. By creating a pacified and submissive population, the empire also became conducive to the spread of Christianity–a religion of peace and submission. In sum, the Roman state imposed a behavioral change that would over time alter the mix of genotypes, thus facilitating a subsequent ideological change.

So, pacified Romans of the 5th century passively watched as Germanic barbarians sacked Rome; today, pacified Scandinavians watch as non-White barbarians sack Stockholm. 

How does that square with the idea that the “high trust hunter gatherers” evolved to be egalitarian altruists from the very start?  No fear, Der Movement Spindoctors will get out Occam’s Butterknife and spread around some more pseudoscientific speculation and it’ll all work out just fine.

How immigration destroyed Rome.  No, not all the “slaves” and consequent “racial degeneration.”  Instead it was the acceptance of unassimilable hordes of German tribes.  The Merkelization of Rome. 


And with that, enough with Crowley and the TOO disaster.

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.

Meet Chad Crowley: Anti-White Activist

Another Type I fetishist.

I am postponing the post originally scheduled for today, to make some brief comments about Chad Crowley, the latest Type I Alt Righter who regurgitates warmed over Kempism, deluded that some novel insights are being made.

Crowley’s all-too-familiar, and, from a general “movement” standpoint, boringly repetitive and grossly unimaginative, ramblings on Rome are both non-historical as well as anti-scientific (*).

I know I’ve seen the name “Chad Crowley” before, and a cursory search brings up sweaty mumblings about “Indo-Europeans” that laughably accepts Gunther as some sort of serious scholar, instead of the embarrassing crank that he was, at Beavis-and-Butthead.com, and we can also observe more juvenile Alt Right nonsense at Counter-Currents.  Let’s examine a piece about “Viking Superman” (of course).  Emphasis added:

Viking — the word itself still conjures up the stereotypical image of bloodthirsty blonde barbarians, whose rage can only be sated by acts of pillage and rapine. Fortunately, this dated historical perspective has been somewhat revised, and establishment historians now tacitly acknowledge that Norse civilization was much more complex than previously thought, and a lot less one-dimensional. 

If only Der Movement could consider the history of Rome and the rest of the Classical World, as well as that of “modern” Southern Europe, in a manner that is “much more complex” and “a lot less one-dimensional.” Alas, that would entail some original thinking and a break with fossilized dogma (blasphemy) so such revised “historical perspective” will not be forthcoming from the babbling zombies of “movement” discourse.

If you are familiar with any of my writings, you’ll know that I firmly advocate the study and superimposition of past historical experiences onto present circumstances. Julius Evola

Who was of course a non-Indo-European, non-White, subhuman mongrel (which doesn’t prevent the Type I crowd from being fascinated with Evola and his insipid ramblings)

…presents my view of the usefulness of history succinctly when he posits that exploration of the past isn’t done for the ghoulish resurrection of long-dead peoples or cultures, but rather for the perennial spirit that animates and gives life to both. 

Or to engage in the usual “movement” ethnic fetishism.

The Vikings were many things — warriors, poets, explorers, statesmen — and in the dark days to come, I can think of no better “spirit” to invoke and study than that of our intrepid and oft-misunderstood Norse brethren. Like White Nationalism, Norse culture and the ‘Viking Age’ are still a sadly misunderstood phenomena, and this makes their examination all the more relevant.

The Roman period, particularly the Later Western Roman Empire, is still “a sadly misunderstood” period (misunderstood by Nutzi nitwits); I plan to read up on that period and eventually share my insights here (which you should not read if disagreement with “movement” dogma gives you fainting fits).

Furthermore, for centuries the Vikings were feared and hated by their non-Norse contemporaries, and later despised by generations of the anti-White academic establishment. All of this has only changed within the past several decades. What does this tell us? It illustrates that like our Viking kin, we White Nationalists will too someday be vindicated retrospectively, because nature favors the victorious, and our cause is glorious.

Please don’t say “we White nationalists.” I neither consider you a White nationalist nor part of “we.”

The White/European predisposition for heterodox thinking

Oh, the irony!  Someone who parrots decades of rigidly fossilized “movement” dogma with nary an original thought anywhere to be found talks about the “White/European predisposition for heterodox thinking.”

… is rooted in our people’s unique ethno- and evolutionary history. The great prophet of decline Oswald Spengler

Who would vehemently disagree with the bulk of your writing, including the confusion of Apollonian with Faustian.

 speculated that the Nordic (Aryan/Indo-European/European) soul was forged in the “harder struggling” environs of the “Nordic steppe,” and though I am not an environmental determinist, I would hold that this is partially true.[4] In the early Indo-European world, and even later in the Norse world of the Viking Age, the love of competition, permeated by the struggle of low-intensity conflict and in conjunction with the extreme climes of Northern Europe, gave birth to an inegalitarian and hierarchical society of aristocratic-warriors and heroic individuals. 

At the same time, the HBD-Nordicists tell us that Germanic Northwest Europeans are egalitarian altruistic universalists, uniquely helpless against immigration, being descended from “high trust hunter gatherers” who evolved in “the extreme climes of Northern Europe.”  The fact that these internally inconsistent views cause no cognitive dissonance is clear evidence that we are not dealing with rational analysis, but with a form of secularized religious faith.

These individuals favored deed and action over the pettiness of mere physical existence and material comfort. The cumulative tempering effect of all of these forces gave shape to the White/European man, whose desire to transcend the biological and the material…

That coming from someone who is a biological-minded materialist, albeit one peddling pseudoscience.

…whose penchant for a grounded abstract, became a proclivity for transcendence through self-overcoming. The White race’s ability to think clearly and creatively, harnessing our inner ‘Faustian’ nature has always been our people’s greatest strength, and we would be wise to continue to harness that which has always made us strong.
As White Nationalists…

Crowley is an anti-White activist, not a White nationalist (see below).

..we’ve dedicated ourselves to representing the highest, most transcendent attributes of our race, and the utilization of our ‘Faustian’ spirit in the service of a cause greater than our individual egos should be one of our greatest ideals. Ernst Jünger proclaimed that the underlying principle of the modern world is the centrality of pain. By experiencing and embracing hardship we have much in common with our Viking and Indo-European ancestors, and as such possess the potential for yet-undreamed-of greatness. 

Such greatness not manifested by the likes of Crowley.

Adolf Hitler once said that the Aryan “is the Prometheus of mankind” and I can conjure up no better epithet to describe the collective awesomeness intrinsic to our blood.

“Collective awesomeness.”  Cue cries of Pepe!  And Hail Kek!

Crowley is just another run-of-the mill, dime-a-dozen ethnic fetishist; same old, same old. By peddling distortions and untruths to divide Whites against themselves, Crowley does the dirty work of the System, and therefore can be considered a dedicated anti-White activist, not a White nationalist.

Sadly, The Occidental Observer has degenerated into a highbrow version of Chateau Heartiste, being a mix of Trump fanboyism, HBD pseudoscience, Nordicism, and juvenile AltRightism. More evidence that Der Movement, Inc. corrupts everything it comes in contact with, including otherwise intelligent and well individuals (TOO blog founders, not necessarily all of the contributors).

*Further, looking at Novembre’s “genes mirror geography” study, we can see that Italian samples, derived from various parts of that nation, fall exactly where one would expect given the geographic cline of gene frequencies.  There is no significant shift, as one would expect if the population base of the nation had been significantly replaced by others from origins outside the European genetic cline.