Category: Western Destiny

Oppose the Movement Caste System for Europeans

No hypocrisy.

Let’s consider the following, emphasis added:

Bolton cites some of the anti-“Med” ramblings of the King of Ethnic Fetishism, “Wilmot Robertson,” and also quotes Stimely’s correct verdict on Robertson’s self-defeating rambling obsessions.  “Robertson” and his legacy remain a highly destructive force within (mostly American) racial nationalism, one major infection point for the obsessive fixations that still remain extant today.  But, let us give some credit to “Robertson” and his followers: at least they are honest about their disgust and contempt for Europeans deriving from the south of Vienna (or Munich) and to the east of Berlin. Worse perhaps are those types who actually believe the same as “Robertson” but make a pretense of being “pan-European” or “pan-Aryan.”  Note to those latter individuals: Europeans – Westerners – are not Hindu Indians, we do not have, or want, a caste system (with Eastern Europeans being lower caste and Southern Europeans being “untouchables”).  Pick your ingroup and that’s your ingroup – if you despise a group, then don’t include them; if you include them then don’t despise them. The basic definition of any group is “in/out” and if Der Movement can’t even get that straight, after decades of discussion and debate, then what good is it?  If that is “vertical race” then Yockey was right to oppose it, but not at the cost of disavowing biological reality

This is an important point I’ve made time and again. Pick your ingroup and then accept the consequences of that choice without being a hypocrite. If you despise certain European types, all well and good, but then please do not pretend that they are part of your ingroup for reasons of self-interest (to maximize followers and “D’Nations” and/or to appeal to members of your real chosen ingroup who have more pan-European ideals than you do yourself). If, on the other hand, you accept X,Y,Z in your ingroup, then there should be no caste system that says that X,Y,Z are inferior to, and subordinate to, A,B,C and that only A,B,C can be leaders and not X,Y,Z.  And don’t accept X,Y,Z with condescending contempt, use them for what they are worth, and then later state that “we need to re-evaluate the ingroup,” after which you exclude those who’ve already invested time, effort, and money for your cause. This latter type of behavior is particularly distasteful, despicable, and dishonorable (and has occurred in Der Movement).

Advertisements

Codreanu’s New Man

Western Destiny essay.

The essay is a commentary on a short scholarly paper analyzing the role of The New Man in the worldview of the Legionary Movement. I comment on certain excerpts from the paper, particularly in light of the current situation of (American) racial nationalism.

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.

I’m an Indigenous Swarthoid

A riposte.  Red font emphasis added.

This is what the “movement’s” fetish with “racial purity” has given us.

I warned all of you fetishists:

The concept of (absolute) racial purity was originally a racialist meme, one which had particular relevance in the New World environment of the intermingling of highly distinct racial groups (European, Amerindian, and Negro), Negro slavery, and fears of miscegenation. However, today, in the age of genetics, racial purity has become an “anti-racist” concept, a meme of the anti-White Left, a weapon to be wielded against the concept of racial preservation. The leftist argument goes like this:

Premise 1: The reality of race and the legitimacy of racial preservation depends upon absolute racial purity.

Premise 2: Absolute racial purity does not exist (as scientific studies tell us).

Conclusion: Therefore, there is no such thing as race, and racial preservation is illegitimate and irrelevant.

So, this is a logical argument that comes to a false conclusion because of a faulty premise: Premise 1. Premise 2 is however correct. Genetic studies tell us that groups heretofore thought “pure” are likely the result of ancient mixes of other groups.

But, hey, don’t listen to me. Instead follow the great and good Durocher and Ash Donaldson. Victory awaits!

It is also funny how “there is no such thing as indigenous peoples” applies to Europeans, but not to, say, Amerindians or Australian Aboriginals. Curious, that.

 “There’s no such thing as a Dane or a Swede or a German.” 

Hmmm, how about: “There’s no such thing as a Jew or a Nigerian or a Chinamen.” Mr. Netanyahu, tear down that wall!  Nigeria, hand over your land to Bushmen and Hottentots!  China, hand over your territory to all who wish to invade; after all, your national existence is an illusion!

I have, of course, dealt with the question of “what is indigenous?”  See here.

A simple one sentence definition: A group is indigenous when it is the oldest extant group inhabiting a territory in which the group underwent ethnogenesis.

Of course such groups are not “pure” – why should they be?  And why should fast talking Jews and their Goyishe kop puppet liars stop the analysis at “Africans and Russians?” Why not Homo erectus?  Why not self-replicating RNA molecules floating around in the primordial soup?

And by the way, you stupid bastard, ancient steppe peoples were not genetically equivalent to modern Russians.  They were not “Russian” any more than a Cro-Magnon from Provence was “French.”

In my case, I’m an indigenous swarthoid and damn proud of it!  Skin darker than a Nigerian and nostrils wider than an Angolan!

Derb the racial hypocrite.

Twenty years ago, my mother was bedridden and near death. It was one of the last times I was with her, perhaps the very last time—I’m not sure. She was drifting in and out of awareness, sometimes just saying things out loud—random things, clear and coherent but not connected to each other.

So I was sitting there by the bed and heard her say: “I don’t mind dying. At least I knew England when she was England.”

Yeah, Derb, if your mother was still alive, would she see England in the faces of her grandchildren?

Trump will monitor the situation!

There is no truth to the rumor that Greg Johnson, being taller than Richard Spencer, scorns Spencer as an incompetent manlet.  No truth at all!  But, hey, focusing on a bagel dwarf and “incels” helps distract from things like this.  At this point, I think these guys are just trolling us. They can’t still be serious about racialism, can they? I mean, it’s a joke, right?

Yet, Taylor can’t be there because he’s banned from the EU.  The whole thing is curious.

Ted Sallis News

And other news.

Given recent events and trends, followers and general readers of my blogs should bookmark or otherwise make note of Ted Sallis News:

https://tedsallisnews.blogspot.com/

Thus, if EGI Notes and/or Western Destiny were to suddenly vanish, then the situation and contingency plans would be discussed at the Ted Sallis News site. In the unlikely event that anything happens to the completely innocuous Ted Sallis News site, then try tedsallisnews2, etc., following the general pattern.

The whole situation is ludicrous, but that is the state of America 2019. And for the morons and the mendacious who argue that “private property rights” mean that service can be denied for political reasons (does that apply for food, electricity, heat, etc. as well?), we can explore the issue of “the sanctity of private property.”

If a person’s “private property” includes real estate, then can a home owner refuse to rent or sell to Blacks or Muslims?  No. Somehow, the “sanctity of private property” dissipates in that instance. What happens if a wealthy person wants to leave their estate to, say, the National Alliance in their will? What if the will instead includes using the estate to set up a college scholarship available only to White students? You can use Google and look up the results of such attempts.

So, it seems like “private property rights” can be abrogated in favor of a perception of “the public good.”  And guess who decides what “the public good” is (and is not) – members of the Jerry NadlerRuth Bader GinsburgAnthony Weiner physical beauty crowd.

Freedom!  Democracy!  The Rights of Man!  The Sanctity of Private Property!  Leering Levantines Laughing in Your Face!

Another horrifically bad Counter-Currents essay, this time by the juvenile retard Jef Costello. Victory!  Victory!  Send in those “D’Nations!” Victory!  What the William Blake-Great Red Dragon-Francis Dolarhyde imagery has to do with any of it is anyone’s guess.

Looks like prime Antifa recruitment material right here.

Michael Polignano’s name is currently (as of today) not up as the webzine editor (or any other major player) at the Counter-Currents site.

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!

New Fst and Kinship Estimators

And a statement on Identity.

In all cases, emphasis added.

The abstract:

Kinship coefficients and FST, which measure genetic relatedness and the overall population structure, respectively, have important biomedical applications. However, existing estimators are only accurate under restrictive conditions that most natural population structures do not satisfy. We recently derived new kinship and FST estimators for arbitrary population structures [1, 2]. Our estimates on human datasets reveal a complex population structure driven by founder effects due to dispersal from Africa and admixture. Notably, our new approach estimates larger FST values of 26% for native worldwide human populations and 23% for admixed Hispanic individuals, whereas the existing approach estimates 9.8% and 2.6%, respectively. While previous work correctly measured FST between subpopulation pairs, our generalized FST measures genetic distances among all individuals and their most recent common ancestor (MRCA) population, revealing that genetic differentiation is greater than previously appreciated. This analysis demonstrates that estimating kinship and FST under more realistic assumptions is important for modern population genetic analysis.

I’m not a fan of Fst for genetic distance estimates for reasons discussed at this blog, and based on peer-reviewed literature, but it is used for that by many, so let’s see what this paper says.

From the main text:

However, the most commonly-used standard kinship estimator [9, 10, 13–19] is accurate only in the absence of population structure [2, 20]. Likewise, current FST estimators assume that individuals are partitioned into statistically-independent subpopulations [4, 5, 21–23], which does not hold for human and other complex population structures.

About Hispanics:

In particular, since differentiation increases from AFR to EUR to AMR (Fig. 3), the greatest kinship is between individuals with higher AMR ancestry, and the lowest kinship is between individuals with higher AFR ancestry (Fig. 4B and C).

So, it would seem that Hispanics like Mexicans and Peruvians have greater kinship among them than do the Caribbean-type Hispanics who stress Negro admixture to a greater extent.  Genetic differentiation (and kinship) seems highest among Amerindians and Pacific Islanders.

Fst between populations may be “substantially larger” than previously determined:

Remarkably, our estimated FST of 0.260 is substantially larger than estimates around 0.098 from existing approaches (Fig. 3) and previous measurements based on FST [30, 45] or related variance component models [31, 46, 47] — except for some AMOVA  ST estimates [48] (pairwise FST estimates [23, 49– 52] are not generally comparable to our estimate). Existing approaches underestimate FST because they assume zero kinship between subpopulations, clearly incorrect as seen in Fig. 1C, whereas our new approach models arbitrary kinship between individuals and leverages kinship to estimate FST.

Consistent with the “genes follow geography” paradigm, with genetic variation being both clinal and discontinuous.

We typically see that each ancestry cluster is concentrated in a certain geographical region, and this ancestry is also present to a lesser extent in neighboring regions and diminishes with geographical distance from its point of greatest concentration. This again argues for a complex population structure where relatedness at the population level falls on a continuum rather than taking on discrete values. The most notable geographic discontinuities in ancestry were observed for cluster 3, which is roughly West Eurasian ancestry.

And within West Eurasians?

Among West Eurasians, kinship is higher within Europe, reflecting another bottleneck.

So much for those that have denied any differences among West Eurasians.

It would be useful to use the new kinship estimator to get quantitative data for groups and transform those into child equivalents as well. That would be important for biopolitical considerations, an important component, but not the only component, of biopolitical identity. Identity – particularly from the general Yockeyian perspective I espouse – has multiple components.

Interestingly, he authors of this paper take a similar perspective; thus:

This partition into subpopulation is based on geography, history, language families, and our kinship estimates.

If “history” includes cultural/civilizational components, which are the major proximate interests, then this tracks well with my idea of Identity, composed both from the key ultimate interest (genetic kinship) and the major proximate interests. These different sets of interests synergize to form sharp discontinuities which are not present when only one interest is considered in isolation.

Now, I do not agree with the authors including the Ashkenazim in the European subpopulation, but that does not mean their approach is wrong – they are simply following the same simplistic mindset reflected by the testing companies that “they are found in Europe so they are European,” ignoring the history of the Ashkenazim as a Diaspora group akin to the Roma.

But, that’s a minor detail. The major approach of synergistic Identity is sound.