Yockey Sallis Scorecard

Agree and disagree.

I would like to briefly outline the major areas of agreement and disagreement I have with Yockey.  Note the word “major” – I will not dwell on more minor details such as the possible ways that a Sallis Imperium would differ from a Yockey Imperium. These differences would include the degree of integration, Yockey’s (in my opinion, stupid) use of the word “Imperialism” to describe his views, and the (in my opinion, equally stupid) idea that his Imperium should and would dominate other groups and peoples (in this sense, literally imperialistic). More important is the general agreement on the Imperium principle. A more detailed discussion of some of these issues can be found in my Western Destiny essays on Yockey and related topics.

Agreement

1. I agree with the general Imperium idea, which can be considered the one defining characteristic of Yockey’s ideology. Thus, with respect to Imperium, Unity of the West, and pan-Europeanism, there is strong agreement.

2. I agree with Yockey’s general ideas of the history of the West and its trajectory, although I disagree with the specifically Spenglerian pessimism of Yockey’s work (see below).

3. I agree with Yockey’s rejection of intra-European “vertical racism” (e.g., Nordicism) and his commitment to an equitable pan-Europeanism. As discussed below, I disagree with other aspects of Yockey’s ideas on race.

4. I in general agree with his writing on Culture Pathology, and agree with his vehement opposition to the petty nationalists, a group he regarded as treasonous Culture Retarders.

Disagreement

1. I disagree with Yockey’s relatively rigid adherence to the Spenglerian cyclical thesis, in particular his acceptance of Spenglerian pessimism (to which he dedicated a favorable chapter in Imperium). Even if the Faustian Western Culture is ossifying and declining in its Winter, as seems to be the case, I hold out hope for a revival that sets the stage for a move to the next civilizational cycle for European Man.

2. I disagree with Yockey’s views on biological race, which I suspect was his clumsy way to oppose intra-European “vertical racism.” Related to this, I also disagree with his general views on science and technics (his critiques of Darwinism as one example).

3. Yockey in Imperium made clear that his focus was specifically on Western Europe and Western Europeans. Although he did state that individuals from other groups, like Slavs, could be assimilated to the West, he also had the same idea about Jews and others, and he considered the peoples of Eastern Europe (especially Russia but all of the others as well) to be alien to the West and not assimilable as complete national entities. Later, he somewhat softened his views on Russia (likely as a result of his pro-Soviet focus), mentioning the possibilities of Western-oriented elements among Russians that can be viewed as part of the West. However, I note that he didn’t mention Eastern Europe as a whole and his later idea of Western possibilities in Russia was never fully fleshed out. While the differences between various areas of Europe (East vs. West as well as North vs. South) should not be ignored or minimized, I reject Yockey’s views on this topic and instead support the full integration of all European peoples into the Imperium project.

4. Yockey went from asserting that America was the main enemy of Europe (arguably true) to evolving to a pro-Soviet attitude, even to the point of allegedly acting as a courier for Eastern bloc (most likely Czech as a proxy for the Soviets) intelligence, and may have spent considerable time in the East. I instead agree with Thiriart’s original view that both the Americans and Soviets were enemies of Europe and that the Imperium idea should oppose both sides. Today, that same criticism applies to the Russia worship extant in certain factions of the “movement.” There are no “men on white horses” for us – “men” representing both individuals as well as nations. Both America and Russia are today authoritarian multicultural states and both are therefore opposed to our objectives.

5. I disagree that Hitler was the “Hero of the Second World War” or that Germany was or is a special repository for the “Spirit of the Age.”

6. I disagree with Yockey’s implication that the victory of his ideas is inevitable (or even likely) or that the leading minds in what used to be the West have any sympathy for his vision.

7. I disagree with Yockey’s nonsensical Nordicist comments about the value of “Northern Barbarians.”

But do all those points of disagreement diminish my enthusiasm and support for Yockey’s work?  No, and I will explain why.

In Bolton’s Yockey biography one can find an interesting quote from Yockey’s friend and collaborator Gannon. The claim is made that Yockey believed that it was more important for a reader to FEEL the book Imperium as opposed to engaging with that work, analyzing it and accepting it, from a purely rational standpoint. Indeed, Yockey believed that the real readers of his book were those who FEEL its message. Based on my own experiences with Imperium, I can understand Yockey’s point. There are many things in Imperium that, from a rational standpoint, I disagree with, some of which I consider absurd. I also fault Yockey with certain logical problems, such as confusing prescriptive and descriptive messages, sometimes getting close to committing the moralistic fallacy. Nevertheless, I rank Imperium coupled to Salter’s On Genetic Interests as the two most important books I have read. Rational criticism, aside, I FEEL Imperium and its IDEA and this fundamental reality supersedes any issues about minor details. Do not misunderstand me; I also support much of what is in the book from a rational standpoint, the point being is that my acceptance of the work is a combination of “irrational” feeling as well as rational analysis and the former allows one to put problems identified by the latter in their proper perspective. And the same holds for the entirely of Yockey’s work and his ideas, not only Imperium. I do not believe that values should be derived from a strictly rational thought process; that would lead to a sterile utilitarianism that is deficient in motivating power. Rational thought processes can and should be used as the means to actualize one’s values, but those values are the ends and those ends can derive from things felt and intuited, not only from those things rationally derived. I believe that Yockey’s critics on the Far Right tend to be individuals who look at his work only from a strictly rational standpoint. They do not FEEL it; the IDEA does not resonate in their souls (if they have any) and they therefore miss what Yockey was trying to get across – not a program, not a set of rationally-derived premises and platforms, but an IDEA.

Whither High Culture?

What direction?

I previously harshly commented on Steuben’s Counter-Currents essay about a “Spenglerian High Culture,” which I considered inferior to my own essay on a Overman High Culture (links to both essays contained in the EGI Notes post link provided). Others have critiqued the Steuben piece; for example, see this.

If you are a planning a book I have another objection which might interest you. It is that Spengler himself is the ultimate Faustian man, and his work is essentially Faustian – Spengler himself stands outside of all history, making repeated pronouncements on how nobody before him had understood history as well as he, for he has to rise above all cultural cycles to be able see their forms. In many ways he is a 20th century Faust. And therefore a new cultural epoch, if it was truly new in the Spenglerian sense, could only look with incredulity and probably contempt at Faustian spirit of The Decline of the West. They would certainly consign such a book to the flames, for any non-Faustian people would find the idea of stepping outside of history incomprehensible, hubristic, and absurd. Whatever their world feeling, it will not permit Spengler’s foray into a space outside of all peoples, all cultures and all of history. To do this is essentially Faustian. Rather, they will be fully rooted within a world view and a world picture, as all peoples and cultures are except one, the Faustian one. Indeed this is also the proof that we ourselves are still Faustian people, for we too could hardly comprehend adopting such a world view, and certainly could never be at home in it. For good or ill we belong to this Faustian world and only a truly Faustian person can take seriously a project like The Decline of the West.

If one looks at my criticisms of the Steuben piece, as well as criticism from others, such as that quoted above, it is clear that my own Overman essay suffers from some of the same problems. It is certainly prescriptive, not descriptive. More to the point, it is obviously derived from someone with a Faustian mindset; indeed, one can certainly critique my essay as advocating a “new” High Culture that is nothing more or less than a “super-Faustian” one: Faustianism without limits, without inevitable failure, the road to godhood. What could be more Faustian than that?

That is all true. However, I have two ripostes to that argument.  First, as I have suggested over the years, we should not be so deeply wedded to Spengler’s thesis in its absolute form. Yes, it does have some explanatory power. Yes, in its broad outlines, it may well be true. That doesn’t mean one needs to accept all of it, in every detail, particularly with respect to some of Spengler’s more dogmatic assertions and predictions. A dedicated Spenglerian would deny any upward trend in human history; it is merely cyclical, with each High Culture, and component of each High Culture, being (objectively) no better or worse than all of the others. Yockey – certainly a “dedicated Spenglerian” – classified both the Egyptian and Western/Faustian High Cultures as having “mighty technics,” as if there is no real difference between several large pyramids and a modern city with its plethora of towering skyscrapers, or between a chariot and an atom bomb.  At the very least, science and technics, together with the standard of living, has shown an upward trend. Is that subjective from a Faustian perspective? Well, if you say so. However, if you really believe that there have been no objective scientific/technical advances in human history then who is being objective and who is being subjective? The assertion of improvement in things such as ethics is, I will admit, more subjective, but strong arguments can be made here as well that ethical standards, at least among those on the Right, have become more refined, and here among European Man if among no other group.  I would argue that if history is “cyclical” then it is manifested by an upward spiral of cycles, but, perhaps, that it is only true of European Man. Certainly, all of the advancements in the human condition – or nearly “all” of them – both material and otherwise, have sprung from the minds and efforts of only one of the various extant hominid races (or species). That of course means that future advancement would be dependent on the continued existence of that people; and their demise would doom “humanity” (more, properly, hominidity) to a true futile cycle of “high cultures.” Here is some objective analysis – if the Earth were threatened by an extinction event, such as an asteroid or comet strike, only one of the Earth’s High Cultures up to this point in time would have the will and the capability to recognize the threat and do something about it, and that is the Western/Faustian High Culture.  None of the others have had the will or the capability, and Steuben’s Bring Out Your Dead hobbit hole “high culture” certainly would not. Isn’t the ability to potentially save humanity, and save the existence of “high culture” itself, at the very least a manifestation of objectively superior science and technics?  And, objectively speaking, the ability to destroy humanity, also characteristic of the same high culture, is a negative objective manifestation of that same innate superior advancement in science and technics.

If Spengler is incorrect in that, then one does not need to consider him and his thesis as infallible. Perhaps other things Spenglerian can also be re-considered. Can a certain High Culture, particularly one defined by constant upward striving and over-coming, experience repeated rebirth rather than permanent death?  Is the act of Spenglerian self-awareness of historical cycles, made possible by a Faustian “standing outside history,” which itself is a manifestation of the Western/Faustian High Culture, the spark that would allow the Western/Faustian High Culture to escape the fate of others?

Second, I have to say (and this may be ascribed to me being embedded in a Faustian mindset), if the death of the Faustian High Culture, and its replacement by something new, means a devolution of the human condition, if it means the triumph of backwardness, ignorance, of Counter-Currents’ dream of cowering Whites hiding from life “snug in their hobbit holes,” then please count me as a Culture Retarder who will fight for the old Faustian High Culture and would reject the new. Or, count me as someone who rejects Spenglerian inevitability, and rejects that the development if a new high culture is a purely undirected organic process, and count me as someone who wants to intentionally guide the development of a new culture (i.e., to the Overman direction). That may be “pseudomorphosis” – but who cares?  The higher development of humanity is more important than Spenglerian dogma.

It is important for people on the Right to move away from blind dogma and simplistic explanations and accept the complexity of reality, of life, and of the human condition in general.  It is better to try and fail than not to try at all.  At least the former approach contains the possibility of victory while the latter dooms you to defeat.  If one is to go on a doomed Faustian quest to influence the future of High Culture, then at least make the attempt to be reaching for something higher, rather than hastening a collapse into a hobbit hole of backwardness and of endless despair for humanity.

The Coming Bring Out Your Dead High Culture

I am right…again.

I have often mocked Der Movement’s irrational, anti-scientific, traditionalist Luddite attitudes as eventually leading to a Bring Out Your Dead ethnostate.

Once again, I have been proven correct, as you can see in this pathetic rip-off of a previous superior analysis.  Look at this crap:

However, it is likely that at least some technologies will be lost or regress in sophistication, as they do not correspond to the Spenglerian world feeling and thus will not be as intuitive to future scientists. Take how the US Air Force today has to reverse engineer some of its B-2 stealth bomber parts. While diversity and dumbing down probably has something to do with it, a subtler reason contributing in the background might be how the desire to propel forward into infinite space has finally burnt out in the modern Western scientist, even among the white and German ones.

After all, things like bombers will be left to Chinamen. Whites can cower in their hobbit holes as their “nations” are nuked by Orientals, and then the rag-clad Whites can crawl out into the radioactive rubble and watch the Yellow Man rocket off into space. But, hey, who cares?  As long as your sacred Savitri Devi texts are still intact, it’s all good!

One technology that will probably be lost is that of modern health care. This profane mix of mad science experiments aiming to prolong the body’s existence for as long as possible is inherently Faustian and the antithesis of a Spenglerian sense that all things, even death, have their appointed time and place. 

Just like with the Black Death.  Bring out your dead!

This rejection of modern health care will be even further exacerbated by memories of the transgender industrial complex and COVID hysteria. 

Let’s not admit that The Holy Oriental created a pandemic (one of many).  It’s just hysteria.  

Future medicine will likely be holistic and focused on a healthy diet and exercise…

Eating twigs and branches and digging your snug hobbit hole.

…with medical procedures reserved for broken bones and the like. Strong taboos will likely arise against progressing further in these matters beyond basic surgery and natural medicines.

Bring out your dead!

The new culture will also have little interest in designing complex legal and political systems, even in its latter stages of development.

After all, Lord of the Rings contains within it the answers to all questions. Leave abstractions to other races.  Just read Tolkien in your hobbit hole and die of a curable disease by age 40.

Guess what, retards?  The Chinese won’t buy into your hobbit hole civilization and will become the masters of the Earth…and of space.

Obviously, this Counter-Currents essay is prescriptive, not descriptive (just like mine was essentially prescriptive).  The author is telling you what kind of new High Culture he wants, not one he knows will come into being.  And what he wants is precisely the sort of backward, reactionary, dead-end, traditionalist hell-hole I have longed warned you is the inevitable outcome of a (unlikely) victory by Der Movement.

I oppose this pathetic and disgusting vision of a White “future” – a future that would hand over the keys to the kingdom to the Yellow Man, which is probably intentional in Asian-worshipping WN 3.0. 

Counter-Currents is the deadly enemy of the White race and of a real White future.

Delenda est traditionalism!

Delenda est Counter-Currents!

Delenda est Der Movement!

Autism, Spengler, Lewontin, Der Movement, and Moobs

In der news.

First, about autism, emphasis added:

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) manifests as alterations in complex human behaviors including social communication and stereotypies. In addition to genetic risks, the gut microbiome differs between typically developing (TD) and ASD individuals, though it remains unclear whether the microbiome contributes to symptoms. We transplanted gut microbiota from human donors with ASD or TD controls into germ-free mice and reveal that colonization with ASD microbiota is sufficient to induce hallmark autistic behaviors. The brains of mice colonized with ASD microbiota display alternative splicing of ASD-relevant genes. Microbiome and metabolome profiles of mice harboring human microbiota predict that specific bacterial taxa and their metabolites modulate ASD behaviors. Indeed, treatment of an ASD mouse model with candidate microbial metabolites improves behavioral abnormalities and modulates neuronal excitability in the brain. We propose that the gut microbiota regulates behaviors in mice via production of neuroactive metabolites, suggesting that gut-brain connections contribute to the pathophysiology of ASD.

So, instead of giving mice MMR vaccinations to induce autism, the “gut microbiota” of autistic humans was sufficient to do the job, including alterations of “alternative splicing of ASD-relevant genes” in the mouse brains.

What could affect the “gut microbiota?”  There’s the initial colonization during gestation, birth, and early years of life. There is diet. And there is antibiotic use.  Conspicuously missing from that list are the “Big Pharma” vaccines injected by dastardly “Jew doctors.” But alas, the festering microbial environment of “Mama,” the lousy diets, and those tasty pink-colored antibiotic spoonfuls (given liberally, even for viral infections against which they are useless) are not “scary needles,” so it’s all A-OK!  After all, those scary injections are violating our bodily integrity and contaminating our precious bodily fluids, so we can’t have that!  Just take dem dere pills and spoonfuls, eat dat dere junk food, and it’ll all be fine!  Also, make sure to expose your child’s amygdala to bizarre NEC phenotypes as well.  What could go wrong?

Lewontin’s Fallacy and “genetic variation within vs. between” mentioned here.  Of course, several months ago, EGI Notes posted a comprehensive refutation of Lewontin, demonstrating, using genetic data and calculations, that ANY human group, no matter how randomly chosen, will always exhibit more genetic variation within than between.  Indeed, random groupings of Whites and Blacks mixed together will also demonstrate the same pattern – conclusively showing that the pattern is due to random distribution of genetic variation among all humans, with no relevance to racial classification whatsoever.  A comparison of human racial Fst to that of dog breeds was also discussed.

That post got ZERO attention from Der Movement; after all, the Quota Queens have circled the wagons and have established a cordon sanitaire around the Sallis Groupuscule, lest I threaten their tin cup panhandling and their by-birthright-affirmative-action-positions.

Comment about Spengler from Counter-Currents:

BroncoColorado

Posted June 5, 2019 at 2:16 pm | Permalink

Spengler deserves, but does not receive, more criticism from rightist sources. As has been mentioned in other posts two other philosophers of history, Piritim Sorokin and Lawrence Brown have both ably demonstrated the inaccuracy and danger in using biological metaphors to describe the development of a culture.

Although Spengler was a teacher of mathematics his literary style is not precise or particularly clear, he writes more as a poet than as a scientist. A scientist with desire to explain history should use his training to identify the causes for a culture taking a particular development path, and not ascribe that path to a destiny that is chosen for it. Such a description is too mystical. In some ways Spengler’s outlook has parallels with his near contemporary Hans Driesch and his thoughts related to biological determinism as observed in embryos.

We need to distance ourselves from Spengler’s brand of determinism. History is open-ended, and it is imperative that we change roads at the next off-ramp, if one isn’t in sight then prepare for some off road driving.

Revilo Oliver, many years ago, critiqued Spengler; I have done so more recently.  Of course, my critique was ignored by Der Movement as well.  Surprise!

Spencer is right.  But he’s not calling out the appropriate people.  David French?  Pshaw!  As Derb would say.  Let’s see. I can think of two prominent racialist types who have, in recent months, publicly stated that we are winning and that our victory is inevitable.  One of these is someone Spencer despises (and vice versa). Then we had this:

Jared Taylor’s short answer to “why we are winning” was “because we’re right and our opponents are wrong.”

Ball in your court, Mr. Spencer.

Der Movement likes to talk about “soyboys,” but based on recent findings, we had better talk about “beer bros” instead.  Is this the reason why the Type I Nutzis are so inept?  Is it that all of the “Sieg Heil and pass the beer” crowd are drenched in estrogen?  Adjust those bra straps, fellas!