Category: strategy and tactics

The Salterian Ethics of Imperium

Analyzing the worldview of Francis Parker Yockey through the prism of Salterian ethics.

Previously, I discussed the ethics of EGI and of genetic interests in general (“Salterian ethics”) and would now like to discuss how those ethics can be utilized to judge a proposed biopolitical project – Francis Parker Yockey’s  idea of Imperium (a pan-European empire), as outlined in his book by that name. I had, some years ago, attempted to synthesize the world views of Salter and Yockey with respect to the genetic/biological and political considerations – essentially tracking with the first two sections of Salter’s On Genetic Interests, and now I will focus on ethical considerations, which was the topic of the last third of Salter’s book.

In my previous TOQ essay focusing on Salter and Yockey, I explained the difference between gross and net genetic interests, although I did not use those terms:

Alternatively, consider the possibility that a future, very finely grained, autosomal genetic analysis would show a clear distinctiveness between East and West England. A very narrow pursuit of ethnic genetic interest may suggest that the East and West English separate to form new ethnostates and that members of those groups should consider themselves distinct ethnies, not intermarry, etc. However, the costs of such a scenario need to be balanced against the relatively small extra gain in raw genetic interest obtained. This pursuit of narrow regional intra-national genetic interest would result in a disruption of the organic solidarity of the English nation and people; if this disruption makes the English—all of them, East and West—more vulnerable to foreign interests and intrusive demographic expansions, then the costs would outweigh the benefits. Likewise, the legitimate pursuit of intra-Western genetic interests and particularisms needs to be balanced against the possible costs incurred by not presenting a united front against other civilizational concentrations of genetic interest.

The “…very narrow pursuit of ethnic genetic interest” that “may suggest that the East and West English separate to form new ethnostates” would be an example of a pursuit of gross genetic interests – a naïve attempt to maximize EGI without consideration of costs vs. benefits. Taking a broader view, and considering that larger entities may be able to better defend the genetic interests of the populace can lead to optimization of net genetic interests – maximization of EGI when costs and benefits are balanced out.

Yockey’s words…in Imperium are relevant here:

The touching of this racial-frontier case of the Negro, however, shows to Europe a very important fact—that race-difference between White men, which means Western men, is vanishingly small in view of their common mission of actualizing a High Culture. In Europe, where hitherto the race difference between, say, Frenchman and Italian has been magnified to great dimensions, there has been no sufficient reminder of the race-differences outside the Western Civilization. Adequate instruction along this line would apparently have to take the form of occupation of all Europe, instead of only part of it, by Negroes from America and Africa, by Mongols and Turkestan! from the Russian Empire . . .

If any Westerner thinks that the barbarian makes nice distinctions between the former nations of the West, he is incapable of understanding the feelings of populations outside a High Culture toward that culture . . .

. . . But the greatest opposition of all has not yet been named, the conflict which will take up all the others into itself. This is the battle of the Idea of the Unity of the West against the nationalism of the 19th century. Here stand opposed the ideas of Empire and petty-stateism, large-space thinking and political provincialism. Here find themselves opposed the miserable collection of yesterday-patriots and the custodians of the Future. The yesterdaynationalists are nothing but the puppets of the extra-European forces who conquer Europe by dividing it. To the enemies of Europe, there must be no rapprochement, no understanding, no union of the old units of Europe into a new unit, capable of carrying on 20th century politics . . .

. . . Against a united Europe, they could never have made their way in, and only against a divided Europe can they maintain themselves. Split! divide! distinguish!—this is the technique of conquest. Resurrect old ideas, old slogans, now quite dead, in the battle to turn European against European.

Yockey argues that dividing Europeans against themselves, which in the context of an EGI perspective would be an unfettered pursuit of gross genetic interests regardless of the costs, would benefit only the enemies of Europe (and of Europeans) – hence, again from an EGI perspective, net genetic interests would be damaged. Thus, even though Yockey was arguing form a High Culture (and geopolitical) perspective, his comments can be reinterpreted as being consistent with a concern for net EGI as opposed to a blind pursuit of gross EGI.  From the standpoint of Salterian ethics, a focus on net EGI is reasonable, particularly from a “mixed ethic” perspective that also includes concerns for proximate interests (e.g., actualizing a High Culture).

See this for more on Yockey’s racial views, a topic that is relevant to the current analysis. Yockey’s views on race, taken at literal face value, are not very compatible with EGI. If, however, we interpret Yockey as being concerned with eschewing overly disjunctive divisions among (Western) Europeans, and if we view that in the context of preservation of net generic interests by fostering pan-European solidarity vs. outside threats, the seemingly stark incompatibility between Yockey and EGI essentially vanishes.  

My concept of “The EGI Firewall” is useful in these discussions. The firewall establishes the “floor” – the minimum acceptable EGI (or genetic interests more generally) consideration that absolutely must be incorporated into any sociopolitical scenario.  Thus, there is an absolute boundary beyond which one cannot cross without so seriously compromising EGI that the relevant proposal must be rejected.  For example, any scheme that would flood Europe with large numbers of non-Europeans would be completely unacceptable from any reasonable scenario that considers EGI as important and that incorporates Salterian ethics.  There has to be some foundation of EGI for any political project. The question is – where should this boundary be? There is of course no purely objective answer to that question, although the scenario just given does provide an example where most adaptively-minded Europeans would agree that the boundary has clearly been crossed. Of course, the scenario given is precisely the situation being actualized into reality today with the globalist EU and mass migration; it is certainly not merely some theoretical exercise.

From my essay on Salterian ethics:

Salter compares three ethics – pure adaptive utilitarianism (PAU), mixed adaptive utilitarianism (MAU), and the rights-centered ethic (RCE).

Obviously, the RCE would reject both Yockeyism and a biopolitical system based on EGI as damaging “individual rights.”  But the focus of this essay is to evaluate how Yockeyism can be incorporated into Salterian ethics (and vice versa), so the RCE, which is incompatible with Salterian ethics, is irrelevant. We are therefore left with the PAU and MAU ethics.

We can now consider the PAU and MAU.  From the perspective of gross genetic interests, one may question the appropriateness of Yockeyism for the PAU, as the PAU would lead one to favor “smaller is better” micro-states, independent of the effects of that choice on the long term stability of the genetic continuity of the peoples involved.  However, from the perspective of net genetic interests, if Yockeyism maximizes the power of the peoples involved through the establishment of a European Imperium, thus protecting these peoples from outside threats, then Yockeyism could be compatible with PAU. That would hold IF the system set up can safeguard the uniqueness of its constituent peoples. This safeguarding could be accomplished via the acceptance of a degree of local sovereignty (that Yockey agreed with) and the preservation of borders, with the Imperium being a confederation of nations and regions, each preserving their particular biological and cultural characteristics. One would in this case reject a single borderless state in which national and regional identities are erased and in which ethnic distinctiveness is lost via panmixia.  In order for this scenario to be stable long term, this characteristic of the Imperium – the preservation of the unique characteristics of its constituent parts – would need to be considered an absolutely fundamental and unalterable keystone of the state’s raison d’etre.  This is the EGI Firewall discussed above – a minimum absolute requirement for preservation of EGI, even at “lower” levels, as part of any political and social projects that are actualized.  I note that civilizational blocs are proposed by Salter in his book as one approach for protecting EGI, so the idea is not by its nature incompatible with EGI; it is a question of implementation.

Thus, Yockeyism could be compatible with PAU ethics under conditions such as described above, and with a firm understanding of net vs. gross genetic interests.

If Yockeyism could be compatible with the PAU, then it certainly can be compatible with the MAU, since the latter allows for other (proximate) interests, besides the ultimate interests of genetic interests, to be considered and actualized into policy, as long as the fundamental rights of genetic continuity are not abrogated. Here we see that an enlightened PAU that considers net genetic interests begins to converge onto the MAU, if the proximate interests under consideration are such that could actually contribute to EGI in some manner (e.g., actualizing a High Culture, as opposed to a mere concern for “individual rights).

So Yockeyism, with the proper caveats, and from the net genetic interests respective, could indeed be compatible with Salterian ethics.

Advertisements

Salterian Ethics

“We charge you in the name of God, take heed.”

This essay is about the oft-ignored and much-neglected final third of Dr. Frank Salter’s classic work On Genetic Interests, a book that, in my opinion, is of such import that Salter should win a Nobel Prize for this work.

The book is divided into three major sections. The first described what genetic interests and ethnic genetic interests (EGI) are, how they can be measured, and what their import is, and how some objections to these concepts can be answered. The second section studies the political and social ramifications of genetic interests and the EGI concept, and how these concepts could be incorporated into practical biopolitics. The last third of the book deals with the ethics of pursuing genetic interests in opposition to the genetic interests of others and in opposition to the proximate interests (genetic interests being ultimate interests for evolved organisms) of others.

The ethical component of Salter’s work has been ignored by a Left that presents a defamatory strawman representation of EGI as promoting “genocide and rape.”  Obviously then, Salter’s careful arguments, and his advocacy of a “mixed ethic” that incorporates individual rights, is anathema to mendacious trash who wish to misrepresent the contents of Salter’s book. Some on the Far Right either ignore or mock this section of Salter’s book because these people actually do advocate genocide and rape (or at least the former) and they characterize the ethical section of the book as an unnecessary politically correct add-on, something purely subjective, and in some cases they engage in some defamation of their own by characterizing Salter’s ethical concerns as “squid ink” to hide the true “nature red in tooth and claw” agenda of On Genetic Interests (projection, perhaps).

I myself have not paid enough attention to this section of the book.  As a STEM person with an interest in population genetics and in empirical determinations of ethnic and racial interests, obviously I found the first part of the book riveting; as a White nationalist who wants to achieve certain political objectives based on EGI, it is equally obvious that the second part of the book was also of extreme interest to me.  Philosophy and ethics are not my strong suit and although I agree with most of what Salter wrote in that section of the book (unlike some of his foaming-at-the-mouth Nutzi critics), I have heretofore not given that section sufficient attention.  I hope to begin the process of rectifying that error here.

As Salter emphasizes, morality is basically an approach for adjudicating conflicts of interests. E.O. Wilson described human behavior as “…the circuitous technique by which human genetic material has been and will be kept intact.” In relation to that goal, he asserted: “Morality has no other demonstrable ultimate function.”  This is in accord with the view – promoted by Salter and myself – that genetic interests are ultimate interests. How could it be otherwise for evolved organisms whose reproduction – indeed, whose representation among the informational content of reality – is essentially dependent upon and constituted by “genetic material?”  Or more basically by the information encoded in that “genetic material?”

At this point, a brief detour is in order to distinguish “factual truth” from practical truth.” According to D.S. Wilson: “It is the person who elevates factual truth above practical truth who must be accused of mental weakness from an evolutionary perspective.”  As a man of science, I have been trained to value factual truth, and that is part of the Western tradition; indeed, it has antecedents in the Classical Civilization of Europe.  However, there is truth (both factual and practical!) in D.S. Wilson’s comment.  If we merge the assertions of the two Wilsons together, we can say that practical truth is evolutionarily paramount if and when it acts to promote the ultimate interest of genetic continuity.  

An example from “movement activism” can clarify how an example of hypocritical racial cant confuses factual and practical truth, and further, how adherence to the genetic interests of racial aliens uses a denial of factual truth to also impede practical truth. A certain “activist” (*) wrote: “Individual and ethnic amour-propre is a powerful motivator in the face of emotionally hurtful facts and hypotheses.”  But that criticism falls flat if the motivation in question reflects the practical truths that promote ultimate interests.  This individual himself is proof of this, given his reticence to extend his alleged interest in “emotionally hurtful facts and hypotheses” to those ethnies he values and identifies with.  As a Nordicist HBDer who distorts racial science and racial history for his transparent agendas, he is as guilty as anyone else in utilizing practical truth and dismissing factual truth. However, any European-derived person who promotes HBD is acting against, not for, their ultimate interests, as they instead promote the ultimate interests of Jews and Asians. In this case, practical truth is used in the service of someone else’s ultimate interests. Why such genetic treason is practiced is for the traitor to explain. Whatever the reason, this agenda is the denial of factual truth (i.e., dishonesty) in the service of the denial of practical truth for Europeans (i.e., race treason).  

Now we will begin to consider the main points of Salter’s arguments about the ethics of EGI. Salter wrote:

…we make moral judgements of great consequence, and must do so if we are to decide conflicts of interests.  Choices are also forced in the game of life, every day genetic interests being won or squandered. A commentator who fails to advise people on how to defend their most precious assets is, by default, advocating the status quo, with its winner and losers.

One can contrast teleological or consequentialist ethics such as utilitarianism with deontological ethics.  In the former, an act is morally right dependent upon its outcome; thus we ask – are its effects desirable?  In the later, acts are moral based on some defined rules or traditions; here the act is considered good or bad in and of itself, independent of its effects.  Teleological ethics are best suited for consideration of EGI, since we need to judge the consequences of various outcomes derived from conflicts involving genetic interests (e.g., competing genetic interests, genetic interests vs. proximate interests, or the specialized case of the latter of genetic interests vs. individual rights).

Obviously, and as Salter rightly points out, teleological ethnics have to have at some point a deontological component; after all, to label an outcome as “desirable” means that this consequence, this effect, has to be judged as morally right, as morally good, on its own merits.  Here we are evaluating the merits of the consequence itself, not the act that led to the consequence.  Thus, at some point in the analysis, a value judgement has to be made. Salter discusses various options for what this morally good consequence should be, including Mill’s idea of the morally optimal act being one that maximizes happiness for the greatest number.  However, “happiness” is a proximate interest that may not be in the best interests of an individual, group, or society; thus, maladaptive acts such as drug use leading to addiction may result in (at least short-term) happiness. Is that morally good?  Genetic interests are ultimate interests, and fitness can be an objective measure of a consequence that an evolutionarily informed individual (or society) can consider morally good.  

Obviously, this is a matter of values, and Salter has always admitted that “who cares?” is a riposte to genetic interests that cannot be refuted without addressing values. I’d like to point out though that those interested in promoting their genetic interests will outcompete and replace those who are not. In the long-term, disinterest in genetic interests is not evolutionarily stable. So, such a disinterest would be a quite strange “morally good ethic” in that it dooms itself to extinction. If someone has a value system in which self-destructive values are prized then that is their prerogative; others who value continuity of both their bioculture and their values would be well served to promote their genetic interests.  Salter also notes that proximate interests are best optimized rather than maximized; for example, a person who is “too happy” may become less prudent, jeopardizing well-being.  On the other hand, ultimate interests are different; these interests are adaptive when maximized (note: maximized in the net sense).  Thus, Salter states: “One cannot be too well adapted.” 

Careful readers may believe that quote is inconsistent with my distinction between gross and net genetic interests, and my comments (here and previously) that a too-aggressive pursuit of ever-diminishing returns of genetic interest can be counter-productive.  But there is no inconsistency because Salter’s quote makes being adapted the primary issue, not the mechanisms used to pursue that goal. Adaptiveness here is in terms of net genetic interests. In other words, maximizing adaptiveness is good, but attempting to maximize the pursuit of genetic interests, in every circumstance and regardless of context, can result in sub-optimal adaptiveness if that attempt backfires.  Note that in his book Salter describes certain ultra-nationalist states, like Nazi Germany, as being over-investments in genetic interests that ended up harming the adaptive interests of those states’ ethnies.  Hitler’s attempt to maximize German EGI backfired; look at Germany in 1945, and, worse, look at Germany today. German adaptiveness, their net EGI, would have been maximized by a more prudent, and less aggressive, pursuit of genetic interests. While in many – likely most – cases, maximizing genetic interests would maximize adaptiveness, that is not always the case. 

Note also that a person’s conscious preferences may not lead to adaptive outcomes; this can be from a hyper-investment in genetic interests as with Hitler or, more likely today, in globalist “anonymous mass societies,” people do not understand their genetic interests and thus under-invest in them.  While we cannot force values on people, we can educate them about genetic interests so that their choice of values will be an informed choice.

However, a pure utilitarian ethic – promoting adaptive fitness for the greatest number as the only consideration – has some problems.

Salter rightfully criticizes the pure utilitarian ethic from the standpoint of justice.  He provides a theoretical example that I can paraphrase here. Imagine a murder committed in a town, and the local vagrant is suspected.  The police chief then discovers the vagrant is innocent and that the murder was committed by the mayor, who has been an upstanding citizen and a long-standing important member of the town community.  The crime was one of passion and will be unlikely to ever be repeated, while the vagrant is a constant troublemaker. Convicting the vagrant on the basis of partial or invented evidence would be best for the long-term well-being of the town, while arresting and convicting the mayor would cause social upheaval in the town, damage the town’s nascent tourist industry, and cause widespread economic dislocation and hardship for residents.  A purely utilitarian reading of the situation is to let the vagrant hang and let the mayor off Scott-free, but, as Salter notes, this offends our sense of justice (for most of us anyway).  That being so, the utilitarian ethic needs to be balanced by individual rights, and by certain normative values. Pure utility is not sufficient for a truly just ethic.

Salter notes that “bounded rationality” – our inability to ever know everything necessary about a problem or issue – is a good reason not to advocate for the pure ethic of unbridled pursuit of genetic interests. This is because we may be in error about what those genetic interests actually are and about how best to achieve them.  In the absence of unbounded rationality, in the absence of absolute certainty, a degree of prudence and restraint is called for, and is likely to be more adaptive in the long run. I have always distinguished gross genetic interests from net – the former being a naïve attempt to maximize a perceived set of genetic interests to the ultimate degree possible, while the latter takes into account costs and benefits and attempts to ascertain what the long-term genetic interest net benefit will be after all the varied costs are accounted for.  It may be that a less radical pursuit of (ever-diminishing) genetic interest returns would be most beneficial; the marginal gains of genetic interests inherent in an “all or nothing” approach toward adaptive behavior may not be worth the costs incurred. For example, dividing a larger nation into smaller micro-states of more concentrated kinship may be seen as maximizing EGI, but if this division weakens the ability of the populations involved to defend their interests against aggressors (or achieve some other beneficial goal that requires a certain size threshold), then net adaptive interests would suffer. Maximizing EGI, trying to squeeze every last drop of genetic interest from a situation, may backfire. In addition, the possibility of kinship overlap between populations is another reason not to be too radical in the pursuit of EGI, particularly within continents, since some people on “their side” may be more genetically similar to you than those on “your side.”  Even if that degree of kinship overlap is not the case, if the two sides are relatively genetically similar to each other, then he costs of conflict may outweigh the benefits.  The bounded rationality problem, coupled to the possibility of kinship overlap, therefore suggests that a degree of flexibility in the pursuit of EGI is optimal, since errors in interpreting kinship and the best methods for pursuing adaptiveness may result in serious, perhaps irreversible, damage to adaptive interests. Prudence and restraint are therefore warranted to constrain reckless behavior in support of (assumed) genetic interests.

Thus, Salter asserts that is prudent to eschew the pure ethic – where maximizing genetic interests would always take precedence in every circumstance – in favor of a “mixed ethic” where the pursuit of adaptiveness is tempered by a concern for individual rights and minority group rights – or even the rights of other majority groups of other nations that your group may be in conflict with. 

Salter pre-emptively answers some of his Far Right critics by asking whether adding a concern for such rights “threatens incoherence” of an adaptive ethic. Thus, those critics complained that a concern for rights was a subjective “add-on” to EGI that does not logically derive from Salter’s arguments. However, the comments about bounded rationality and kinship overlap, as well as the possibility of maladaptive over-investment in EGI, point in the direction of a mixed ethic actually being coherent and probably more adaptive in the net sense. In addition, given the reality of White behavior, getting large numbers of Whites to agree with the value of EGI would necessitate flexibility about adaptive behavior, so as to include appropriate consideration of (potentially) non-adaptive values such as individual rights.

Note that in my view, proximate interests that temper the pursuit of genetic interests need not be limited to individual (or minority group) rights, but can (and should) include such things as a Yockeyian interest in “actualizing a High Culture” and other civilizational and political pursuits that may not always be perfectly congruent with a single-minded pursuit of genetic interests. But even here, I can argue that such a tempering may have long-term adaptive value.  The groups constituting the Yockeyian view are all European; hence, there will be at least some kinship overlap (at least at the global level).  

Salter compares three ethics – pure adaptive utilitarianism (PAU), mixed adaptive utilitarianism (MAU), and the rights-centered ethic (RCE).  The PAU holds EGI as morally good and also holds that adaptive interests must be maximized regardless of means. MAU also holds that EGI is morally good, but that the pursuit of adaptive interests must be constrained by rights.  The RCE does not assert that EGI is either morally good or bad, but this ethic is not teleological like the preceding two, but is deontological; thus, in the RCE the “rightness of means [are] unrelated to consequences.”  Then Salter asks certain questions for each of these ethics. First, can it moral for EGI to frustrate other interests? The PAU says yes, unconditionally; while the MAU also says yes, but only in defense of ethnic interests or in (limited) expansion that preserves the existence of the (defeated) competitor. Since Salter supports the MAU, it puts to lie the accusation that he supports genocide. What about the RCE? This ethic says that it is not moral for EGI to frustrate other interests, because such frustration of other interests causes harm. Should genetic interests have absolute priority?  The PAU says yes, the MAU says no when such interests “conflict with individual rights,” and the RCE says no, “since only means matter” – and only means consistent with individual rights are allowed in RCE.  What to do when genetic interests conflict?  The PAU says “compete within adaptive limits” (I suppose this means net genetic interests), the MAU says “compete but respect rights,” and the RCE says “stop competing, since it entails harm.”

I’d like to say at this point that the RCE is, practical terms, not really followed by anyone in the multicultural ex-West. Those who claim to support the RCE essentially support it only for Whites, while non-Whites are allowed to essentially follow a PAU ethics.  Consider – do supporters of the RCE really take an agnostic view of EGI independent of rights?  Or is the very idea of White EGI anathema?  I suppose the argument would be that any expression of White genetic interests harms the rights of non-Whites, so consideration of White EGI independent of rights is not possible.  That being so, the fact that non-White PAU harms White EGI is a feature, not a bug, of modern RCE hypocrisy.

Salter further discusses the ethics of the PAU and MAU approaches, making analogies between ethny and family.  If we allow people to favor their families, then why shouldn’t ethnocentrism be tolerated, or even celebrated (I’m talking about Whites here; as we all know, non-White ethnocentrism is already strongly promoted by the System)?  Salter goes further – if parents have a duty to care for their children, then perhaps people “have a similar duty to nurture” their ethnies.  Indeed, perhaps one rationale for race-denial propaganda is to prevent (White) people from making these “dangerous” (but accurate) analogies between ethny and family. Salter states that tribal feelings and ethnic identification are both necessary to produce “feelings of ethnic obligation” – so it should be no surprise to us that those two elements are attacked by the System with respect to Whites (but promoted for non-Whites).  

Salter discusses methods used to undermine these components of ethnic obligations, including “fictive ethnicity” (e.g., civic nationalism) and/or fictive non-ethnicity (e.g., race-denial).  Thus, Whites in America, for example, are told that their racial group does not exist, and that they should simply identify as “Americans,” considering any featherless biped infesting American territory as their civic “kin.” If protecting one’s genetic survival is a fundamental right (and it should be so for evolved organisms like humans), then these methods are immoral and unethical. Further, holding that genetic continuity is a fundamental right brings the MAU closer to the PAU, thus undermining Salter’s critics on the Far Right. Indeed, further undermining those rightist critics, Salter puts forth that advancement, and not merely defense, of genetic interests can be moral and ethical. The idea, consistent with the MAU, is to allow for the continued existence of the (defeated) competitor, albeit with reduced (but not fatally diminished) resources.

Salter then briefly discusses altruism and morality, citing one so-called “leading evolutionary theorist” who claims “that only non-fitness-enhancing behavior can be moral.”  Amusingly, Salter then mentions that a healthier theorist made the comment that these types of ideas are such “that this is an unconsciously self-serving moral sentiment that, when expressed, influences some susceptible individuals to show indiscriminate altruism that benefits the moralist.” Indeed, calls for universalism and pathological altruism can be a competitive tactic; thus, non-Whites manipulate White behavior so that Whites sacrifice their own interests to promote those of others. This is of course maladaptive for Whites; indeed, evolved organisms are not expected to be, and should not be, purely disinterested in their morals and ethics (including altruism).  And, sometimes, ultimate and proximate interests converge and the distinctions are blurred (as I often state)l however, when distinctions between the two sets of interests are clear, the ultimate should usually be given precedence over the proximate (note: a precedence constrained by a concern for rights).

Salter notes that people “who do not consider peaceful genetic replacement to be a moral issue will have no moral objection to their own painless genetic extinction.” Well, there are Whites with pathological altruism who do not personally reproduce as as to “save the planet” (and who advocate the same to other Whites, but typically not to non-Whites), but typically the situation is that of a targeted attack against White interests. Especially, non-White activists will be among those who attempt to convince Whites to accept genetic extinction, while these non-Whites themselves continue their own genetic lines.  

And if people genuinely do not care about genetic interests, then why do many of them so strenuously argue against those who do so care?  I wrote about this previously:

The only real critique possible is one of values – i.e., genetic interests are real, but, who cares?  However, I find the values argument hypocritical and mendacious as well. Imagine two co-ethnics, Jim and Mark. Jim highly values his genetic interests, genetic continuity, and racial survival. Mark is indifferent to all of that, he “doesn’t care” about it. Very well. But if Jim cares deeply and Mark not at all, then common sense and fundamental ethics tell us that Mark, who asserts he doesn’t care one way or the other, should let Jim have his way. Why not?  If one believes Mark then he’s fine either way – the race prospers or it does not. Mark’s indifference should then make way for Jim’s deep concern and concentrated activism. Of course, Mark may be a liar, he may have other interests which conflict with Jim’s concerns with race and EGI; if so, Mark should be honest about these interests. If Jim and Mark are of different ethnies, and if Mark opposes Jim’s pursuit of EGI, Jim should be wary of Mark’s claims to be a disinterested commentator.  Mark’s interests do not bestow upon him the right to delegitimize Jim’s pursuit of his ultimate interests through the misuse of pseudoscientific sophistry.  

Getting back to the issue of values, it is indeed amusing when people who claim “they do not care” about race get so upset with scenarios in which Europeans survive and prosper. If race is “irrelevant” then it should be “irrelevant” if non-Europeans become extinct and an expanding European population colonizes the entire Earth. Why not?  “Nothing matters.”  Except of course, in reality, it all matters. Attacks against “Salterism” are not disinterested science, but hyper-interested ethnic activism and/or political ideology.

A few concluding comments are appropriate at this point.  Salter believes that “evolved organisms” will not for long accept a “social order that weeds out their lineages.” Well, so far, Whites have been generally accepting of such a social order; we shall see how things evolve (no pun intended).  It is part of the proper ethics of EGI to educate people on the important of adaptive behavior; one can view Salter’s book, and my current post, as part of such efforts.

Salter also discusses “socially imposed monogamy” as an effective method for resolving conflicting genetic interests in societies, and this leads us to the idea that atomized individuals are unlikely to be able to effectively strategize and act on behalf of their genetic interests; collective action, including state power, is necessary. Salter mentions the ethical implications of having a state that is an interested promoter of national interests in the global arena, but “a disinterested arbiter of family interests within the nation.”  [Note that socially imposed monogamy may be an exception to the latter, depending upon your point of view]. There are different levels of genetic interests that would need to be handled in different manners.  Just solutions to conflicts of genetic interests, those that appeal to the universal human interest in genetic continuity and adaptiveness (whether consciously recognized or not), would be more stable than unjust and unreasonable approaches.  It is in the interests of any adaptively-minded state to promote such just solutions to conflicts of genetic interests,

Finally, while the MAU puts limits on the degree to which genetic interests can be pursued, people and ethnies must still have the freedom to advance (not merely defend) their interests within reasonable bounds. We cannot expect equal fitness outcomes as enforced equalized fitness would lead to an increased mutation load and would be so totalitarian in its application as to be unpalatable to reasonable people. Salter argues that the ultimate freedom is the freedom to defend (and advance) one’s genetic interests, which are ultimate interests. That this can be done via the MAU has been argued in Salter’s book and also in my comments above; I would promote a rather aggressive version of the MAU, but one that still incorporates limits and which respects certain proximate interests. However, in my case, I would value society-wide proximate interests, such as Yockey’s call to actualize a High Culture, over mere individual rights, although, certainly, individual rights are important and should be respected.

Let us finish with the following Shakespearean quote that Salter includes in this section of his book, with respect to conflicts between sets of genetic interests:

KING HARRY

Therefore take heed how you impawn our person,

How you awake our sleeping sword of war.

We charge you in the name of God, take heed,

For never two such kingdoms did contend

Without much fall of blood, whose guiltless drops

Are every one a woe, a sore complaint

‘Gainst him whose wrong gives edge unto the swords

That make such waste in brief mortality.

May I with right and conscience make this claim?

Shakespeare, Henry V, 1500, Act I, Scene I

Note:

*I want this post to emphasize ideas and theory, not personal feuding, so I’m not going to mention such people by name here.

Dark Tweets

When given lemons, make lemonade.

Those on the (Far) Right complain, with justification, about the hypocrisy of being deplatformed from Twitter and other social media platforms, while those on the (Far) Left are kept on, despite outrageously radical, racially inflammatory, and cheerleading-about-leftist-violence tweets and posts.

Has it occurred to anyone on the Right to create “sock puppet” accounts on these platforms, pretending to be anti-White Colored racists, Antifa supporters, foaming-at-the-mouth SJWs, laughably ignorant race-deniers, etc.?  Push the envelope of leftist insanity (as long as you do not promote violence or any other type of illegality, of course, which goes against the stern pacifism of EGI Notes), have fun, create chaos and balkanization, sow discord and confusion, provoke leftist feuds on the basis of race-ethnicity-sex-sexual preferences- ideology-tactics, etc. Perhaps at some point, the Left will start to become paranoid, accusing each other of being sock puppet trolls. Outrage the Mainstream Right. Stimulate White race consciousness. See how far you can go without getting banned; I’m sure you can go quite far indeed, as authentic leftists prove every day.

The possibilities are virtually unlimited.  This is a form of metapolitical ju-jitsu, turning the hypocrisy of the System against itself. The only question is whether rightist sock puppets can mimic genuine leftist insanity; likely at the beginning, attempts by rightist sock puppets to be intentionally inflammatory will fall short of what actual leftists are posting on a daily basis.  But, practice makes perfect, after all.

 

Maybe someone Der Movement heroes are already doing this; if so, very good – do more, and better.  If not, then this displays, once again, the total lack of imagination of the Far Right.

Other items:

There are some who may question why I am always so harsh to Derbyshire, more so than to other ideological opponents. The answer is that his outrageous hypocrisy grates on me. He has the tiresome shtick of being a “humble working class English lad who longs for the days when England was England,” yet he is proudly married to a Chinese woman, has mixed-race children, and defends miscegenation. He brings his Chinese wife to America, a country in which he was an illegal alien, and then he writes for an American-based immigration restriction website (itself founded by an immigrant, but insofar as I know a legal one).  He calls Amren attendees “latrine flies” and heaps scorn on their beliefs, but then eagerly latches on to Amren and speaks at Amren conferences after he’s kicked out from National Review.  We are supposed to feel bad for Derbyshire over his defenestration from National Review, but he had no problem causing trouble for MacDonald at CSULB with his scurrilous The Marx of the Anti-Semites hit piece on MacDonald (that I vigorously criticized at that time). He always pushes his family in the faces of his readers while calling “race purists” “nuts” – and then when he gets the inevitable email response from outraged readers he threatens them to come to his home so he can greet them “in the proper manner.” I suppose we should give the old boy credit; he has balls the size of Jupiter and Saturn and more chutzpah than all the Jews in Israel combined. However, I still find him annoying.

He’s monitoring the situation!

As regards Spencer on CNN, I have no strong objection in this instance, although generally I am opposed to talking to the press.  It was no great victory either, more or less a “wash.” Interesting that they chose Spencer instead of Taylor, though.  The Far Right needs its own media. Oh, that’s right – “there’s no money.” After all, Derb and Pete have priority, do they not?

It’s laughable when the fetishists undermine their own arguments.   The last WASP on the Supreme Court!  Followed by about how much of a “turncoat” he was.  Bring back Earl Warren!  Actually, Warren was of Scandinavian stock – even better for Der Movement!  Of course, Warren’s name is synonymous with anti-White betrayal – are we surprised?

I don’t know.  If we are going to have a civil war in America over race, another one that is, and it is becoming increasingly likely that in some point in the future we will, then maybe we need to get as many Whites on our side as possible?  In that case, pan-Europeanism is a good idea, and the Nordicist-Fetishist types like Ash Donaldson should be eschewed.  We also need educated Whites on our side; perhaps Der Movement can tone down the anti-scientific “traditionalism,” get out of their “snug hobbit holes,” and put together a mature, future-oriented ideology?

Der Movement: July 9, 2019

In all cases, emphasis added.

Heddi
Replying to @RichardBSpencer
1) Richard, risk involvement reduces the influx of quality people to exactly ZERO. People who have lives/families to shatter by social ostracism or job loss will not ever involve themselves visibly, thus alt right was anonymous online phenomenon.‏

2) The condition to attract quality people – those who do not come from a “nothing to lose anyway” position – is the erasure of risk. How to do it? Marry risk erasure with incentives of heightened prospects of living conditions. Immerse immediate benefits into joining. Think.

Point number one is fairly obvious but very important, and perhaps not obvious to the grand poohbahs who represent themselves as “movement leadership.”  And this is something I’ve written about before, more than once.  

As far as point two goes, I essentially agree, except that “erasure of risk” is unrealistic. There is risk in everything, even driving a car or walking down a flight of stairs. Obviously, involvement in dissident political/metapolitical activity that is opposed by the entire System, by virtually the entire political spectrum, is going to have inherent risk.  Instead, we should talk of “risk management” and “risk minimization” – far more realistic objectives.  That is opposed to the typical “risk maximization” of Der Movement.  As an example of reasonable minimization, see the 2019 Amren meeting; while Unite the Right, the fate of Ricky Vaughn, Hermansson and Lewis infiltrations, IE Discord, and similar antics exemplify risk maximization.

And as far as incentives go – there are none.  Community building? Resistance to social pricing? Alternative infrastructures and economic viability for low-to-medium scale activists (as opposed to the “Happy Penguins” soaking up the “D’Nations”)?  Camaraderie?  Normalcy?  None of that. Instead we see sour defectiveness, bizarre freakishness, and endless failure.

A comparison between the Type I-style and Type II-style “alpha males” is shown in this short clip from Twin Peaks Season 3. Ray Monroe exemplifies the style of alpha maleness prized by the Type I defectives of “game” such as Roissy – a snide, smirking, sneering, joking, obnoxious jackass.  Mr. C, on the other hand, displays a more Type II-style sense of alpha maleness – aggressive, driven, serious, threatening, focused, with the “alphaness” focused with the “want” vs. “need” distinction.  Note how the two interact – Mr C putting Monroe in his place but the latter refusing to acknowledge it other than a begrudging slight nod and semi-grunt, followed by more of the same annoying jerkboy behavior.

This is a useful contrast because it is the Type I behavior that has led to the downfall of the Alt Right and damaged (American) racial nationalism.  All you need to do is listen to (drunken) “movement” podcasts and read “movement” blog posts and comments threads and you’ll observe Ray Monroes aplenty.  Unfortunately, Mr Cs are few and far between, so the snark to seriousness ratio approaches infinity.

The paradigm of “Sallis is always right” extends to my opinion of Durocher, whose latest inane screed can be found here.  Note the Bliss vs. Malla insanity in the comments thread, which is a direct result of Durocher’s constant shilling of an unscientific, ahistorical, cartoonish Ostara-style version of racial history.  Note then the Nutzi Germanic lunatics, the raging defectives, sweaty fetishists, and all the rest.  It’s no coincidence that such freaks come out of the woodwork with a Durocher post.  As they say – garbage in, garbage out.

Once again Sallis is right – remember this:

Some will object – what about Europe?  They have repressive speech codes and aren’t the national governments there considered legitimate by the people?  First, I can’t speak for rightist Europeans – it is very possible that the growth of populism there is indicative of a growing element that does indeed consider the System illegitimate. And, second, the USA, with its particular history of, and alleged commitment to, free speech, is expected to exhibit a much stronger association between free expression and political legitimacy than do nations that have histories of kings, dictators, strongmen, and laws against lese majeste. What about the argument that European nationalists have had success despite the speech codes there?  What success?  In some nations, there has been a temporary slowdown in the degeneration, which can be quickly reversed by any subsequent leftist government; at best, there have been victories by civic nationalists and moderate petty nationalists. The “grand success” in Europe is a figment of the Nutzi imagination. And I can turn the argument around – imagine how much more successful the European Right could be if they could actually express their real views without fear of being fined or jailed?

So, no, the pathetically flimsy “successes” in Europe – which in any case have limited relevance to the American situation – in no way disprove the thesis put forth here.  Given the concerns of White nationalists, the situation in Europe remains dire. Demographic replacement is still “baked into the cake” there. Can European nationalists freely and frankly discuss these concerns?

So, yeah, I’m sure the vaunted Swedish ethnonationalists will go from victory to victory when it is considered a crime to merely state the desire to deport criminal migrants.  

Laugh at this.  Soporific blog posts?

After a hard day of writing inspirational articles for Counter-Currents (under various pennames)

Multiple pennames? If true, that would help explain the devastating decline of quality at that site.

…I mix myself a drink that consists of vodka, soda water, lots of lime juice, and lots of ice.

What is it with Type I Alt Right and drinking alcohol?

A Lack of Competition

A car analogy.

I’m old enough to remember the days when foreign cars were relatively rare on American roads; most people drove vehicles produced by the big Detroit auto companies.  The quality of those products were horrendous.  Looking back to my childhood, it seems like my father’s cars were having major breakdowns every few months, necessitating costly repairs.  Cars lasted only several years before requiring replacement with another shoddy, shambling half-wreck (and these shoddy replacements were mostly new cars, not used). Everyone else was in a similar situation; a major topic of conversation was what problem your car had today.  My own first car was a used American model, of like kind, which died within several years of low-level use, with complete transmission collapse (literally).

Things changed with the Japanese car invasion.  Not only were the Japanese products themselves of a much higher quality, but the competition forced the American companies to produce cars that didn’t have a planned obsolescence period of three-to-six months.

Now, the alert reader may question my commitment to economic protectionism after these comments (by the way, I seem to remember the protectionist Buchanan being criticized for driving foreign cars), but that is not the point of this post. However, before moving on to the main topic, I will say this – protectionism should not be about preventing all foreign products from having access to the domestic market. High quality foreign products, which exhibit characteristics not typical of native production, should be welcome, if for no other reason as to spur native economic efficiency through the pressure of competition. No, the reason to be protectionist is to protect the domestic market from “competition” of cheap products made by Colored coolie labor, products of no better quality than the native brands (and often of lower quality), but so cheap that they undercut the native producers and drive them out of business.  The only competition there is merely to lower labor costs, not to improve quality, and that undercutting of cost and of a Western standard of living (and hollowing out of the native productive economy) should be targeted by protectionist policies.

And now the main point. I make an analogy between the car situation and “movement” “leadership.”  Just like the old days when there was little to no competition and the American automakers produced absolute trash, Der Movement’s affirmative action policy, and its concomitant lack of accountability, leaves us with “leaders” of the most abysmal character and ability.

All that is required of a Der Movement “leader” is to be of an Anglo-Germanic “Nordish” type, to spout fossilized “movement” dogma, and to seamlessly integrate into the good old boys network. Actual accomplishment, judgment, responsibility, and accountability mean nothing. Quality competition is artificially forced out of the marketplace, leaving the “leaders” no incentive whatsoever for quality control and improvement. They can be wrong about almost everything, make one terrible error after another, be exposed as to have done one unpleasant act after another, be shown to be inept and with questionable  judgment – and there are no consequences. The absolute worst that can happen is that they will be eclipsed by someone else exactly the same as them, who will behave just as badly, making the same errors over and over again.  Fungible incompetence.  Different face, same disgrace.

Obviously, competition is required to spur “movement” “leaders” toward quality control. Someone may ask: Why can’t all the parameters for the Nutzi crowd be met and the competition only come from “movement”-approved ethnicities?  In theory, that is possible; however, in reality, the number of Whites, of any ethnicity, who are of high quality and interested in racial activism is very low.  Most high quality Whites, people of accomplishment and ability, have thrown in their lot with the System and are concerned with their personal interests and status. This is why the “movement’s” affirmative action policy is so pernicious – it artificially constrains an already very limited pool of potential leadership candidates. There is only a handful of such people to start with, and eliminating a significant fraction of these due to affirmative action leaves too few to be sustainable. In the absence of the required sustainable pool of able candidates, we instead get the incompetents, freaks, and grifters. Sure, by making the “movement” more acceptable, weeding out the defectives, you’d create a positive feedback loop moving forward, possibly attracting quality potential leaders of any White ancestral background, including and especially the upper caste ethnicities. But, unfortunately, it seems like you will first need some competent leadership in order to get the virtuous cycle going. So, if competent leadership is the first step, then the whole process is stuck at the present status quo. The logjam must be broken in order to achieve success.

So, if you want the competition required to promote merit, quality, and ability in real leadership for racial activism, you have to open up leadership possibilities for everyone ostensibly part of the ingroup.  Ostensibly is the word, because it seems that some types of folks are around only to provide “D’Nations” or to provide some intellectual heft missing in the “leadership.” These lower-caste individuals are not taken seriously and would never actually be considered as potential leaders, never given that chance in any meaningful way.  

There’s no reason for anyone to get offended by this analysis; it is what it is. I am just reporting the reality. It is doubtful it will change any time soon; the rank-and-file are too invested in maintaining the status quo.  They like it, they support and enable the affirmative action program, so there’s no point trying to do anything about it. Just sit back, watch the Quota Queens ruin all they touch and run the “movement” into the ground, and just shake your head sadly and move on.

Enjoy the endless failure.  Imagine what cars in America would be like if the Japanese invasion never took place. Broken down jalopies spending more time in the repair shop than on the road. Back to the 70s!  The same for a “movement” where real competition for leadership positions is not allowed.

Race, Primer, and Der Movement

Welcome to July.

Primer movie – with subtitles that will get the HBDers and the Silkers all hot and bothered.

How the movie was made; note budget and crew size.

Filming

Principal photography took place over five weeks, on the outskirts of Dallas, Texas. The film was produced on a budget of only USD$7,000, and a skeleton crew of five. Carruth acted as writer, director, producer, cinematographer, editor, and music composer. He also stars in the film as Aaron, and many of the other characters are played by his friends and family. The small budget required conservative use of the Super 16mm filmstock: the carefully limited number of takes resulted in an extremely low shooting ratio of 2:1. Every shot in the film was meticulously storyboarded on 35mm stills. Carruth created a distinctive flat, overexposed look for the film by using fluorescent lighting, non-neutral color temperatures, high-speed film stock, and filters

Director/actor commentary on how the film was made.

What’s the point of this for Der Movement? A critically acclaimed and thoughtful independent film was produced with $7,000 – a drop in the bucket with respect to “movement” “D’Nations” – with a small film crew and many characters played by friends and family.  It would seem that the heroic “movement” should have the resources – certainly the money – to produce low budget quality films that have race-oriented storylines. After all, with all the big-brained, high-trust, superior ubermenschen leading the way, certainly we have the visionaries and drivers in charge to accomplish such goals, right?  We have been told that “movement” organizations are “getting things done,” so certainly $7,000 films are just waiting to be released, right?  You all just need to spend a bit less on this and you’ll have all the shekels you need to produce a steady stream of quality productions.

And now more general comments on race and Der Movement:

An Asian I can support.  Note that the Dalai Lama has also previously made remarks in favor of European preservationism.  Is that yet another reason (apart from the Tibet issue) that he is opposed by China (the favorite nation of the HBDers and the Silkers)?  After all, White has to decline so Yellow can rise, correct? The Occident must wane so that the Orient can wax.  Hail HBD!  Hail Silk Road White nationalism!  Hail China!  Hail!

Quota Queen promotes a fraud.  What else is new in Der Movement?

RT, and comment, if you are tired of mendacious Quota Queens who never admit they were wrong about Trump.

Note for the Queenies: Your God Emperor, the “last chance for White America,” is the President, the head of federal law enforcement.  It is only a slight exaggeration to say he can end the reign of terror overnight; most accurate to say he can, overnight, take steps definitely leading to ending the terror.  Same difference.  He does nothing.  He either doesn’t care that his own supporters are being attacked in the streets, and sent to the hospital, with impunity; or he actually approves of it.

Can you imagine what Trump’s DOJ would do to any American “Neo-Nazis” that did anything even remotely similar to this?  Antifa Don Trump: America’s first Antifa President.  The fact that the pathetic losers who have supported Trump in lickspittle fashion for years have not been held to account proves the truth of all I’ve written about Der Movement’s affirmative action policy.

By the way, my question to Kevin Strom yesterday about Der Movement’s affirmative action program still stands.  Come on, Kevin, you were on of the few people, like me, who called out Trump as a fraud before the election.  You can now have the moral courage to call out the “movement’s” quota system – the sooner you do it, the better for the cause you have dedicated your life to.

Der Questions for Der Movement

In all cases, emphasis added.

See this excellent and powerful Strom piece.  One part particularly caught my attention:

We need a strong, organized, racially conscious White community in every state, in every city. When we are much stronger, much larger, and much better organized, then even the most venal of politicians will be afraid to cross us. We will have businesses that bring in hundreds of millions per year, not just hundreds of thousands. We will have our own media providing not just racially-oriented news and commentary, but every kind of information and entertainment and advice and anything you can think of, in depth and with an implicit (and often explicit) pro-White perspective. That’s where we need to be. That’s what we need to do. In the words of the old union men who stood for White labor against Gilded Age leaders who betrayed their own Folk, we need to organize, organize, organize.

And National Alliance members are doing exactly that, all over North America.

I have some questions for Kevin Strom. These questions are coming from someone who has been involved in pro-White activism for a quarter-century, who has met your mentor Pierce, and who has praised you for the positive effect that your 1990s ADV broadcasts had on my activist development.  So this is not coming from a direction of hostility.

1. I understand that there may be things the National Alliance is currently doing that you cannot talk about publicly and – who knows? – maybe your group is really making the headway you claim.  But based on my experience with Der Movement, color me skeptical (no offense).  Do you really believe that your group is “doing exactly that” – all the things that you have described?  Really? Or that there is even the slightest possibility in the reasonable future that even the smallest fraction of these goals will be achieved?

2. With endless decades of “movement activism,” utilizing millions of dollars of donations and membership dues, and millions of man hours of effort, why hasn’t ANY of the above mentioned goals been even partially accomplished?  And that includes the efforts of Pierce and his incarnation of the National Alliance.  Are you aware that your other mentor, and friend, Revilo Oliver made a video discussing 50 years of “movement” failure…said video being made 50 years ago?

3. Why should we expect anything to be different now?

4. Do you admit that there is an ethnic affirmative action policy in the “movement,” particularly with respect to leadership, favoring individuals deriving from Northwest European (especially Anglo-Germanic) ethnic groups?

5. What has the National Alliance learned (if anything) from past failures?

Ethnonationalist filth attacking Spencer:

The majority of European nations, including the entire Schengen Area, and nations with nationalist governments, have banned Spencer and condemned his “racial European” message and his call for a “white racial empire”. While promoting his message in a controversial speaking tour in Hungary, Spencer was mocked by the Hungarian newspaper Népszabadság for his call for “a white Imperium” through a revival of the Roman Empire, and for his claim to be a “racial European”, ideas that the newspaper called contrived and without any basis in European history. In the aftermath of the controversy, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán pressed through legislative measures which banned his entry and condemned Spencer. The government of Poland has also banned him from entering the country and condemned Spencer, citing Spencer’s Nazi rhetoric, the anti-Polish and anti-Slavic racism of the Nazis, and the Nazis’ genocide of Slavic Untermenschen during World War II. In July 2018, Spencer was detained at Keflavík Airport in Reykjavík, Iceland en route to Sweden and was ordered by Polish officials to return to the United States; the successful effort of the Poles to ban Spencer from other parts of Europe arises from the Schengen Agreement.

The Hungarian newspaper was a leftist one, but Orban has no excuse, nor has the Polish government.  And remember what happened to Taylor. Has anyone noticed that, interestingly, divisive American ethnonationalists so far have had no problems traveling to Europe?

The Unz Review reader comment about Taylor and CNN:

Alfa158 says:

June 29, 2019 at 6:47 am GMT • 100 Words

Mr. Taylor is a gentleman and prone to the altruistic sentiments that plague Whites. Consider that Miss McGuirk started out by by making the implausible claim that although she is executive producer, she has no influence on the even the title of her own production.

It is entirely possible that she is another Lucy imploring Mr. Taylor to go ahead and kick the football because she won’t pull it away. Her role was to sweet talk him into walking into the abattoir.

I could be wrong, but consider this rather telling bit of evidence: if she was genuinely what she presented herself to, be a fair, impartial seeker of truth and discourse why would she be working for a cesspool like CNN? And why would the denizens of such a pit retain someone like her?

Then we have this, also from The Unz Review comments:

Anon[388] • Disclaimer says:

June 29, 2019 at 3:36 pm GMT • 100 Words

White supremacism has been a tool of those who seek to subvert Christianity. Any greatness of Europe and the West is due to Christianity and to think otherwise is an abominable blasphemy. Had Christianity taken root in the heart of Africa or India rather than Europe and the West we would have had a flourishing of Africa and India for the past 1500 years and Europe and the West would still be barbarian.

Now, initially I thought this was just sarcasm or amusing trolling.  However, considering how deranged devout Christians are, it may be for real.  Who knows?