Monday, April 30, 2018

More Sweaty Fetishism Debunked

Der Movement, Der Movement, Der Movement marches on.

The Viking travels to the New World are well documented, and should be acknowledged and celebrated.  However, after that, the essay goes off the rails in typically demented “movement” fashion.

Nordic Amerindians.  Nordic Polynesians.  Nordics from Atlantis.  Nordic Martians.  Nordics from the Andromeda Galaxy.

By the way, blond hair in Pacific Islanders is due to a native gene variant that differs from that of Europeans, and thus once again “movement” fantasies are disproved by objective scientific facts.
The common occurrence of blond hair among the dark-skinned indigenous people of the Solomon Islands is due to a homegrown genetic variant distinct from the gene that leads to blond hair in Europeans, according to a new study from the Stanford University School of Medicine.
Hmmm…it seems that refined French “intellectuals” are no better than the American “burgers” they so despise.

Summary: Der Movement Inc. LIES to you about race and racial history, it lies over and over again.  As to the excuse "it's just ignorance, not dishonesty," I respond that the facts about Polynesian hair color genetics can be found with about 10 seconds of online searching; instead AltRight.com runs an article quoting some crazed babbling from 1953.

They are fundamentally dishonest.

Sunday, April 29, 2018

Some Enlightening Interviews

Der Movement, Der Movement, Der Movement marches on.

I think the Alt-Right may be on its way out. It seems deeply divided within its own ranks and in trying to assert itself it used shock tactics that have backfired. Another one of its multiple problems has been its largely futile attempt to substitute shocking interviews and dramatic demonstrations for the work of gathering resources.
I also worked with Wilmot Robertson in support of Instauration.
Wilmot Robertson is the noblest person I have met in this cause.
Careful there, Sam, careful, hordes of greasy, five foot tall, hysterically Catholic, superstitious olive-skinned Afrowops will be swarming all over like roaches!  Have no fear though.  “Wilmot” will scare them off by brandishing a magic rune, analogous to a vampires and a cross.  
The presenter was a young fellow a few years younger than I was…Politically, he came from the Left. He had had ties to the SDS and had cut sugar cane in Cuba in support of Fidel Castro.
This youngster’s name was Jared Taylor.
The rest is history, indeed.

Saturday, April 28, 2018

Yockey’s Fascist Odyssey

Critical review of Bolton’s new Yockey biography.


While the Type I trash of Der Movement continue to ignore Bolton’s book, you’ll get the Sallis “take” on it for your edification.

I strongly recommend you buy the book – Kindle or hardcopy – and read it carefully.

Friday, April 27, 2018

Data Replication and Sociocultural Change

In the gray area between science and pseudoscience.

By continuing to focus on the necessity for replication, psychological science misses an important and all-pervasive psychological phenomenon: the impact of social and cultural change on behavior. Or put otherwise, our discipline misinterprets failure to replicate behavioral results if we do not consider that social and cultural change can produce systematic shifts in behavior. Data on the connection between social change and behavioral change point to a new role for "replication": not to show that results can be duplicated, but to reveal behavioral effects of sociodemographic and cultural change in the intervening years between original and replicated procedure, whether those be surveys, standardized behavioral procedures, or intelligence tests.
The argument is fine as far as it goes, but it begs several questions.  If psychometric data cannot be effectively replicated because of “social and cultural change,” what are we to do then?  Accept single point data as definitive for a given period of time, and accept that changes in findings are definitely associated with changes in society and culture?  How do we distinguish sociocultural-driven data change from experimental error, or faulty design, or fraud, or whatever?  And if “social and cultural change” is really that pervasive and rapid as to make replication of results (replication attempts are typically, but not always, performed not very long after the initial study), then what is that telling us?  Is this change good?  Dangerous?  Do we know what the long-term impact is going to be?  And why view such change as some sort of inevitable “force of nature” (very subtly implied, intentionally or not, in Greenfield’s comments), when much of this change is being forced upon us by (typically self-interested) group agendas?

Thursday, April 26, 2018

Wednesday, April 25, 2018

In Der News

Odds and ends in der news.

Some old news, but still relevant.

The USA continues to follow the insane directives, promoted especially by the Obama administration, to continue to decrease yields of US nuclear weapons.  Last I read, they wanted to get rid of all the low megaton range B83s – which themselves can’t destroy deep targets – and replace them with low yield “dial-a-yield” weapons.  I have nothing against the “dial-a-yield” concept, as long as megaton range yields are included in the spectrum, which was NOT the case for the leftist Obama-pansy military planning.  Meanwhile, Russia continues to have high-yield weapons, and with improving accuracy.  They’ll be able to take out fortified targets, while US bombs would be hard-pressed to mimic Hiroshima.  Another example of Western weakness and degeneracy – but let’s put ‘Western” in scare quotes.
“Even nuclear weapons have limited effectiveness at destroying the deepest or widely separated underground bunkers,” reads a 2005 report from the Union of Concerned Scientists. “For example, an earth penetrating weapon using the 1.2 megaton B83 warhead—the highest yield weapon in the U.S. nuclear stockpile—could crush underground bunkers to a depth of about 1000 feet. Deeper bunkers can be constructed with modern tunneling equipment, and are essentially invulnerable to nuclear attack.”



Pan-Europeanists = early Rome.

Ethnonationalists – Greek city states. Didn’t Stoddard compare WWI with the Peloponnesian War?

Excerpt of comment from AltRight.com:

I prefer Spencer's speeches to Jared Taylor citing stats about how Jews and Asians are smarter than Huwhites.

Tuesday, April 24, 2018

Der Movement’s Dangerous “Minds”

SLC News.

In an otherwise fine book review and analysis by Johnson, we find two disturbing bits.

First:
This is why I don’t regard Alexander Dugin and Richard Spencer as contributing anything to White Nationalism, which is the advocacy of ethnic self-determination for all white peoples. 
That’s an incredibly misleading, actually mendacious, description of what White Nationalism is, essentially equating White Nationalism as the sum of all the various intra-White ethnonationalisms added together.  Instead, what most honest people in the “movement” consider by “White Nationalism” is exactly what the term literally implies – a form of nationalism centered on race rather than ethnicity; the ORION principle: Our Race Is Our Nation.  Thus, for White Nationalists, the ultimate form of nationhood, and the highest form of national allegiance, is to the race as a whole; individual ethnic allegiances are secondary.  In this sense, White Nationalism is the antithesis of narrow ethnonationalism.
Instead, they are simply apologists for Russian imperial revanchism. 
Dugin yes.  But Spencer?  That’s going too far.  By the way, who has it been promoting the work of Dugin over the years?  All the Type Is out there, all the “traditionalists,: certainly not me.
Spencer regards ethnonationalism as “petty”….
He’s right about that. 
…siding with the UK against Scottish independence, the EU against Brexit, and Spain against Catalan independence. 
I disagree with Spencer here and go along with Yockey: In an Imperium there can be whatever local autonomy people wish, and if Scots and Catalans (or whoever) want such autonomy, fine, as long as all these regions and micro-nations are confederated into the Imperium.
But although he opposes the UK leaving the EU, he opposes Ukraine joining it. He praises the EU as a transnational, imperial organization — but not NATO. 
Spencer can explain his UK vs. Ukraine views himself.  The EU in principle is not a bad idea; its execution is globalist and anti-White, so I oppose it.
Clearly, he is more interested in shilling for Russian geopolitical interests than in setting forth a coherent moral and political framework for white survival.
Is White survival instead advanced by setting forth coherent moral and political frameworks of White nations ethnically cleansing each other?

Then we have this:
Beiner then quotes Spencer denouncing “fucking middle class” values and proclaiming “I love empire, I love power, I love achievement.” We even learn from a Jewish female reporter that Spencer will sometimes “get a boner” from reading about Napoleon.
If any of that is true, what can I say that I haven’t said before?  All you Type I Nutzis and heavy breathing fetishists out there are responsible for that, you are the ones who enable the affirmative action program.  You made your bed so now lie in it (albeit not along with Spencer reading about Napoleon).



Monday, April 23, 2018

A Person of Tallness

About height.


Preferences for height were and are certainly not just due to an association between height and social status (and health and good nutrition).  It is likely that height was selected for, and appreciated, at least for men, because increased size gave men an advantage in combat, both for mate competition and also in warfare (this during pre-technic periods of human evolution).  Selection for height also includes extreme sexual selection by women for male height (which continues to this day); this preference is no doubt an evolved one, given the superiority of larger males in combat, providing protection for the women and offspring, and the ability to pass on these genes for tallness to the woman’s male offspring.  Further, as has been noted in a recent book review at VDARE, given that women select (or at least used to) for male intelligence as well as height, there seems to be a general trend for height and intelligence to correlate, although of course the bell curves overlap to a considerable degree.

There are of course costs to height, which may explain why, despite advantages to being taller, some ethnies are shorter than others, on average.  For example, looking at the well-known difference between taller Northern Europeans and shorter Southern Europeans (the latter, as Der Movement tells us, are low-IQ cringing subhumans), we can consider some selective pressures against height.  Larger people tend to do better in cooler climates rather than in the warmer clines of the south. Further, larger people require a greater caloric intake to maintain their mass, which necessitates more calorie-dense foods.  Northern Europe’s generally cool and wet climate allowed for agriculture that provided a diet rich in calorie-dense foods, such as (red) meat and dairy.  In the warmer and drier south, a more plant-based diet would have been insufficient to maintain a significant fraction of the population of larger size; in this latter scenario, smaller people would have had a long term survival advantage that more than balanced out the advantages (combat and mate competition) of height. Thus, the advantages of male height are a net evolutionary gain only in circumstances in which the environment can maintain a sizable fraction of the population being larger and with greater caloric requirements.

As Sailer suggests, cancer rates are higher in the tall; it may be in part cell number as he mentions; in addition, the increased caloric needs of the tall may help fuel cancer growth through diet (there are associations between diet/energy consumption and cancer, particularly between caloric-dense foods and cancer), and increased growth signaling, particularly in the young growing stage, may prime the body for later cancer, not only by increasing cell numbers, but, possibly, by epigenetic and other changes in the cells themselves.

However, this cancer link is generally not counter-selective against height, at least not in human evolutionary history, as cancer typically is a disease in the older (Sailer’s case being one exception, as are childhood cancers and some of those due to inherited mutations), past prime reproductive age, individuals.  It is a cost of height, though, at the individual and public health levels.

As to Sailer’s main thesis, why “heightism” is not a SJW issue, we must consider that Female Privilege plays a role.  Milady always gets her way (Roissy being correct about the “Fundamental Premise” – females being considered more valuable, and catered to, because eggs are more valuable than sperm).  Male height is a female preference, so discrimination against short men is socially acceptable.  Female thinness is a male preference, so that is socially unacceptable “fat shaming” – instead we must celebrate “curvy women” – an euphemism for disgusting piles of sweaty lard, with the BMI of a neutron star, rolling around the landscape, each consuming more calories in  a day than the entire world population of blue whales does in a year.  When you consider that men really can’t do anything about their height, while women can certainly lose weight, the fact that an immutable characteristic is “shamed” while a changeable one is not tells you all you need to know of the raw dominant power of Female Privilege (aka, the Yeastbucket Advantage).


Sunday, April 22, 2018

Ethnonationalist (Non) Responses to Salterism

Three examples.

I sometimes contact activists – usually ethnonationalist types since they are in the vast majority in the "movement" – in the White world to “proselytize” the EGI concept (“Salterism”); and the “response” typically falls into one of three categories:

1. Completely ignore the contact email.

2. “I’ll take a look at it” – afterwards no further response and of course no indication that the EGI concept was understood or incorporated into nationalist activity.

3. One activist, from a White nation whose name I won’t mention (although you may be able to figure out for yourself what it is, or at least what part of the world it is), answered: “this doesn’t apply to us; all our enemies are White.”

That last comment deserves a brief counter-commentary.  Even if the claim “all our enemies are White” was true (which it is not, I can assure you), it is still irrelevant as far as the basics of EGI go, since genetic interests exist at every level of genetic differentiation, and EGI applies to intra-racial group differences as well as inter-racial. Of course, the intra-racial differences are shallower, and one must be careful of kinship overlap when distinguishing genetic (and other) interests of very closely related groups; however, the basic principles of EGI still hold.  So, the casual dismissal of EGI in point #3 reflects typical ethnonationalist knee-jerk reflexive closemindedness and anti-Whiteism, an automatic rejection of anything which even “smells” as having something to do with White solidarity (whether it actually does or not), and it also reflects typical Type I activist anti-intellectualism and superficial “thinking.”

True enough, I haven’t really found pan-Europeanists who take EGI seriously either, but there are so few genuine pan-Europeanists that the small sample size makes the lack of interest virtually meaningless to form any conclusion.  However, the lack of interest among ethnonationalists is meaningful, and tells us all we need to know about ethnonationalist quality (or the lack thereof).

Saturday, April 21, 2018

Griffin Reviews Hawley

A better book review.

Robert Griffin, who phone interviewed me a long time ago for one of his books, seems to me to be a good man and an honest academic.  I am pleased he has written a critical analysis of Hawley’s Alt Right book, a review that is perhaps more objective than the more positive reviews given by (ego-driven?) individuals interviewed by Hawley and featured in the book and who no doubt are positive about the publicity (good for panhandling drives, I guess).

As per Hawley, Griffin notes his obsession about “racism” and “supremacy” and, indeed, anyone who, like Hawley, would write the following is intellectually suspect:
Throughout this text, I use the term ‘white nationalist’ largely because that is the term used by many on the Alt-Right to describe themselves.  But I acknowledge the critique that white nationalism was a term invented to make white-supremacist views more palatable.
True enough, Hawley uses weasel words such as “I acknowledge the critique” without openly saying whether he agrees or disagrees with it (although his fulminations against “racism” is a possible clue here). The bottom line is that the “critique” in question is politically-motivated libel and slander, and is objectively false.  An honest academic would have pointed out the emptiness of the critique and the clear differences between nationalism and "supremacy," but, as Griffin suggests, Hawley may have been more concerned about his upcoming tenure application as he is about White “racism” and “supremacy.”

I give Griffin’s review a 10 out of 10.





Friday, April 20, 2018

Happy Saint Adolf Day 2018

SLC News.

“World Brotherhood of Europeans” - excluding Afrowops and Romanohorians of course.

Did you ever notice that:

***When Americans fight wars that benefit Jews (e.g., WWII, any of the Middle Eastern wars that benefit Israel), then veterans are good and noble, and popular culture fetishizes veteran worship; however, when Americans fight wars that Jews disapprove of (e.g., Vietnam or even the entire “Cold War” military endeavor), then veterans are despicable “baby killers” to be scorned, while anti-war protesters and draft dodgers are lionized.  Funny, that.  It’s almost as if the entire American culture is modulated to reflect Jewish concerns and Jewish views. 

***In a typical modern American classroom, half the students have attention deficit disorder and the other half have a peanut allergy.  And most are overweight.

More SLC News:

The Alt Right’s “generational warfare” is ludicrous from my perspective for many reasons, foremost among them is that virtually every White Millennial I have known (many in fact) is not only an extreme leftist, but they all are hysterically ultra-SJW extreme leftists, oozing with the most virulent anti-White attitudes imaginable.  Boomers may be cucked cowards, but many (most?) Millennials are open enemies.

The roots of what we now call the Alt-Right lay in the Ron Paul movement.
And that is why the Alt Right is doomed to fail.  It was tainted by libertardism from the very beginning.

Read this, emphasis added (from the original book):
….the degree of genetic differentiation among Indian jati groups living side by side in the same village is typically two to three times higher than the genetic differentiation between northern and southern Europeans.
Let’s unpack that for a moment.  Typically, population genetics tells us that the greatest genetic differentiation in Europe is along the north/south axis, being a bit larger than east/west; the first axis in PCA is north/south, the second is east/west.  However, that differentiation, the north/south, in Europe is two to three times smaller than that between Indian brownster “micro-castes” who live “side by side in the same village.”  

Chuck the gamester pussy pedestalizer.


Thursday, April 19, 2018

Internal Refugees?

The next liberal cause celebre?

The more rational of White leftist “progressives” should be wary of their enthusiastic defense of the “international law” assertion of the (virtually unlimited) rights of refugees to migrate and the equally expansive obligations of (White) nations to host them.

How about applying the same standards to internal refugees, officially called “internally displaced persons?”

Such people are not currently “legally” considered refugees, but, like anything else, properly applied SJW hysteria, Jewish activism, pressure groups, media campaigns, etc. – the whole System acting in concert – can change that.  

Imagine if “internally displaced persons” are given all the rights of international refugees.  Why, perhaps, White liberals in their gated communities and in their leafy blue state suburbs will be legally obligated to take in some ghetto Negro refugees from the inner city, Negro migrants fleeing the “urban warfare” of, say, Detroit and Chicago.  Open your doors wide!

Even more painful for the liberals would be if White bigots fleeing urban colored violence would be considered refugees, and the homes of White liberals had to be opened to take in the great unwashed of bad-White racists.  Not to worry, though, no chance of that scenario, just like, for example, White South Africans are mysteriously not accorded the same rights, and welcomed as refugees, as are Middle Easterners or Africans.

But the first scenario?  Forced racial integration and abrogation of White property rights, and the even more pernicious abrogation of private freedom of association (public being lost long ago), under the guise of “refugee rights?”  Not only possible, but increasingly likely, given continued and unabated SJW hysteria, Colored Privilege, and White cowardice.

You read it here first!

This is the lesson of the schoolyard: If someone is bullied and refuse to stand up for themselves and refuse to fight back, then they WILL be bullied continuously, without end.  However, if they do stand up for themselves and do fight back, get their licks in, do some damage to their opponent, then, even if they lose, it is unlikely that they will be bullied again.  Bullies tend to be cowards and look for easy prey, they look for those will won’t fight back. In other words, cowardly bullies target cowardly victims.

Whites as a race are akin to a cowardly bullied pansy who doesn’t fight back, won’t stand up for himself, and is therefore marked as easy pickings.  Whites being bullied to now accept feral coloreds as obligatory internal refugees would be just another example of White uselessness and cowardice.

But, perhaps, just perhaps, the Trump election was just the tip of the iceberg, and at some point, especially after being disappointed and betrayed by the globohomo milksop cuck Trump, there will be a growing White backlash that will make Trumpism seem like a mild political hiccup.

Who knows?  

Only time will tell.





Wednesday, April 18, 2018

SLC News, 4/18/18

Three brief items.

But, but, but…they are HuWhyte.

The Alt Right has literature because…Rudyard Kipling!  I don’t know if that is back far enough.  What about Homer?  He did some real “shitposting” about the Trojan War.  Hail Kek!



Tuesday, April 17, 2018

SLC News, 4/17/18

More rightist news and commentary.


One picture is worth a thousand words.

Left to its own devices, science tends ever downward.
Hmmm. What tends ever upward?  I know…gnostic esoteric traditionalism and theosophical scifi/fantasy!

The pyramids of Atlantis were built with psychokinesis!  The Titans are Marching! Ostara!  Ostara!  Kali Yuga!  Guenon!  The men who can’t tell time!  The Age of Tungsten!  HBD!  French Army Surgeon!  The Spectral!  The Spectral! 

The anti-scientific bent of the Right was, is, and remains, an embarrassment.

Yes, science is a tool and is not “on anyone’s side.”  That said, the totality of the current evidence derived from science does in fact strongly support the general viewpoint of White racialism (which is not the same as the specific viewpoints of Der Movement, Inc.).

Why then isn’t science being effectively utilized to support the Far Right position?

1. The Right traditionally (no pun intended) has been hostile to science, derived from reactionary/religious/traditionalist tendencies tied to Rightist thought, tendencies that frown upon the ability of science to trash long-established myths and traditions; the Right hates the transgressive ability of science to cut through established, fossilized memes and get to the facts of the matter. The Right is a socially hostile environment for scientists and the science-minded in general; the Right has been, and continues to be, hostile to empiricism and scientific materialism.  The Far Right has always been more interested in theosophical nonsense, esoteric fantasies, and pseudoscience (e.g., of the HBD or ethnic fetishist varieties) than in genuine hard science.

2. When scientists do (rarely) speak the truth, they get subject to social pricing from the System; there is a reason why “Watsoned” is a verb (originally coined by me and not Sailer).

So, the Left has a monopoly on the scientific enterprise, which they twist for political purposes, while the Right is left gibbering in a corner about Atlantis, Kali Yuga, and Ancient Egypt as a “Nordic Desert Empire.”

Who on the Far Right has a “hard science” background?  Yes, there are academics, but I’m talking about the core STEM fields, at the level of, say, MD or PhD or MD/PhD. Today, insofar as I know, only the “crazy and bitter” Ted Sallis.  In the past, Pierce.  I did know of one STEM college professor in the 90s who was a NA member, and there are possibly some today, but no one I know of who is active, even under a pseudonym.  This absence of STEM in the Far Right is more of an indictment of the Right than it is of STEM.  A “movement” that takes seriously the likes of Jorjani and Kemp, and rants about “the pyramids of Atlantis,” cannot reasonably expect to be an attractive destination for the science-minded. And regards science, I’m talking the authentic variety, not HBD pseudoscience (most of which is peddled by “social science” types anyway).


But if Indians aren’t the right choice for merit-based immigration, then who—Chinese? A Chinese friend of mine who recently visited Taiwan told me that Taiwanese are increasingly siding with Mainland China because they want to be on the side of a country growing in wealth and power. This person said trying to talk to them about human rights, freedom, and democracy was like trying to upload a new brain to a robot.
This friend agreed that the combination of an ancient culture and new wealth tends to give both Indians and Chinese an arrogant feeling of superiority—that they have nothing to learn from Americans about individual freedom and democracy. They are here to make money. They don’t want to assimilate and become real Americans.
Never forget: when all is said and done, and one looks at the core consequences of ideas, then HBD is simply a political movement to advantage Asians (including Jews) over Whites.  It is Asian Supremacism.

Donate to the Happy Penguins because of…Venner. Is this a new low in tin cup panhandling?

Laugh at this (by the way, more Sailer real estate posting).

What kind of name is “Zasloff?”  

What kind of idiot thinks that Whites – Whites with children at any rate – will “integrate” “vibrant” areas for $10,000?  How about some of these Jewboys show the way?



Sunday, April 15, 2018

In Der News, 4/15/18

Some news.


Are the homoerotic fanboys off the Trump Train yet?

I’m sure cuck nagger Roissy will regale us with all sorts of evidence of how Trump is striking against the “Globohomo” regime, by doing such world historical activities such as spewing forth insulting tweets or “negging” an old French cradle-robbing hag. Are all you guys “tired of winning yet?”  More concern about the borders of Syria than the borders of America – did we elect John McAmnesty?

In a fundamental sense, these programs are equivalent to the cuckolding of all tax-paying men. Cuckolding is when a woman has a child by one man but convinces a second that it is his in order to deceptively gain access to his accumulated resources. Men with self-respect and dignity do not pay for the children of other men. Welfare programs are similar except deception is not required because the state acts as the coercive middle man who makes the cuckolding mandatory. It is also less obvious than the personal case because the costs are dispersed among all productive men and they generally never interact with the single mothers directly to see their money being wasted. This wealth, which would be better spent by productive men providing for their own biological children, is forcibly taken from them to pay for women who have made extremely poor personal decisions in their lives and produced children statistically much more likely to be involved in criminal and disorderly behavior. The increased criminality of children of single mothers is a large externality which costs a society a great deal in terms of increasing police and prison spending on top of the direct wealth transfer programs. 
The recent introduction of the “affordable” health care act also acts as a wealth transfer from working-age men to women. Men go to the doctor and need medical care much less frequently than women. Before the new health care law, insurers were able to adjust prices based on gender to reflect actual costs. No more. Now men and women cannot be charged differently based on actual medical care use and single men are even required to pay for personal coverage which can only benefit women, such as maternity coverage. The result is that healthcare costs for young men have increased substantially more than for women of all ages. The average increase was 56% for men compared to 4% for women though in specific areas the average increase for young men has been as high as 200%.[vii]  Car insurance shows the opposite pattern where men are made to pay more due to their greater likelihood of getting into catastrophic crashes (women are more likely to have an accident, but those are usually minor). Unsurprisingly, there has been no attempt to enforce “equality” in this situation.

Listen to this. What was the ethnicity of Justice Frankfurter?  HuWhyte.

Brown vs. Board of Education: A Jewish-Negro alliance against White interests.  Curiously, greasy low–IQ Afrowops and hora-dancing Romanians were not players in that fiasco.

How Darwin differed from HBD.  The relevant parts are highlighted:
There is a contradiction between Darwin's methodology and how he described it for public consumption. Darwin claimed that he proceeded "on true Baconian [inductive] principles and without any theory collected facts on a wholesale scale." He also wrote, "How odd it is that anyone should not see that all observation must be for or against some view if it is to be of any service!" The scientific method includes 2 episodes. The first consists of formulating hypotheses; the second consists of experimentally testing them. What differentiates science from other knowledge is the second episode: subjecting hypotheses to empirical testing by observing whether or not predictions derived from a hypothesis are the case in relevant observations and experiments. A hypothesis is scientific only if it is consistent with some but not other possible states of affairs not yet observed, so that it is subject to the possibility of falsification by reference to experience. Darwin occupies an exalted place in the history of Western thought, deservedly receiving credit for the theory of evolution. In The Origin of Species, he laid out the evidence demonstrating the evolution of organisms. More important yet is that he discovered natural selection, the process that accounts for the adaptations of organisms and their complexity and diversification. Natural selection and other causal processes of evolution are investigated by formulating and testing hypotheses. Darwin advanced hypotheses in multiple fields, including geology, plant morphology and physiology, psychology, and evolution, and subjected them to severe empirical tests.

Saturday, April 14, 2018

Playing Out the String: The Late Western Roman Empire

The last century (or so) of the Western Roman Empire.

I will consider two relevant books, building on previous discussion at this blog on the subject of the Fall of Rome.

The first book: Theodosius: The Empire at Bay, by Williams and Friell

This book begins with the battle of Adrianople and its outcome (disastrous for Rome, good for the Goths and, hence, for Der Movement), focuses its major sections on Theodosius and his reign and its implications, and then finishes with a brief epilogue of the post-Theodosius Roman world and the question as to the inevitability of the collapse of the Western Roman Empire.

The historical background for the reign of Theodosius, and its influence on European history, which are covered in this book, are a matter of record, can be read (in summarized form) online, and we need not repeat all of that here.

Instead, we can address certain issues of interest to this blog.

This book makes some good points, which usually escape the obsessives and fetishists.  The Fall of Rome, the Western Empire at any fate, can be effectively explained without resort to sweaty rambling about “racial degeneration through admixture.”  

What about the Decline of Rome, as opposed to its Fall, if we agree that a “decline” took place?   

That Rome changed is without a doubt, but what do you expect?  The Theodosius book makes (what should be) the obvious point that the gigantic land empire of Rome could be maintained over time, and against the constant barrage of threats, only by co-opting and assimilating the subject peoples.  This process invariably would erode the specifically Roman – as in the original Romans – nature of the state. By state I mean the empire as a whole, as well as the nature of its rulers, as emperors eventually came from non-Roman and then non-Italian origins. This does not imply a mass panmixia of the population.  In other words, the Roman state, its citizenship, and its leadership, eventually came to include all the various ethnies found within it, so that any specific and exclusive character to the state was lost.  That is not the same as postulating "racial degeneration through admixture" - cultural and political degeneration may be more accurate, if one holds the narrow character of the early Roman Republic as the ideal.. But again, these changes are the price of establishing an empire - an integrated land empire especially - through conquest.

Other obvious points made is that as peoples become more civilized, their willingness and effectiveness as warriors diminishes to some extent (genetic pacification, along with cultural and social changes), and so the need exists to expand the pool of prospective soldiers; for Rome, from Italy to Gaul and Spain to the Danubian provinces and then, ultimately to Germanic and Asiatic barbarians (the latter of which contributed to the Fall).

So, yes, we observe the inevitable changes in the nature of the Roman state, the elevation of Emperors of non-Roman (in the strictest sense) and non-Italian heritage, and the creation of a multiethnic civil service and military force.

None of this should come as a surprise – was it possible for Rome itself, alone or in conjunction with local Italian allies, to administer and defend this vast territory against constant threats (Germans, Persians, Huns, Alans, etc.) for century after century?

The choice was between a Roman Rome or a multiethnic Empire.  A strictly ethnically Roman empire was an impossibility. Note that the European colonial empires of the last few centuries were for the most part overseas empires, local elites were co-opted even then, and these empires lasted not very long before collapsing and resulting in a backflow of colonized peoples into Europe itself.  One could argue that the overseas colonial model ended up being a worse disaster than Rome’s.

Another point made is that conquest of the empire, which brought with it all the goodies initially extracted from the conquered lands, was economically, politically, and organizationally easier than maintenance of its vast holdings over the centuries.

It is true that there was a lot of political corruption in the Later Western Roman Empire, but that had nothing to do with racial degeneration, as the Theodosius book clearly demonstrates. The chapter “The Topheavy Empire” discusses in detail the causes, types of, and consequences of, the excessive levels of political corruption that grew over time in the Roman Empire, particularly in the West.

So, yes, lots of political corruption. But then there was always corruption in Rome, including in the Republic period, also including Pierce’s favorite, Sulla.

Indeed, corruption throughout the Classical period was a problem, and it is also important to distinguish political corruption from moral.  Political corruption is always a problem for bureaucracies, and the larger the bureaucracy grows – as one would expect from a large, established empire over time – the more political corruption grows.  Moral corruption has some overlap with political corruption, but the two are not the same.  One could have political corruption without a large amount of moral corruption spread throughout society; on the other hand, political corruption is usually found whenever moral corruption is widespread.  So, it does not follow that political corruption in the Late Western Roman Empire necessarily means that that moral corruption was growing; one can argue that the Christian Late Western Roman Empire was significantly less morally corrupt than the Rome of Sulla, Caesar, Tiberius, Caligula, or Nero. Likewise, the America of Tammany Hall, the Grant administration, and the Harding administration, had enormous amounts of political corruption, but was far less morally corrupt than the America of today.

So, it is understandable that growing powers and established empires will have political corruption and such corruption is bad and it is destructive, but it is not the same as moral corruption, and there is no clear connection of corruption to “racial degeneration” as Der Movement typically asserts.

The racial degeneration theory raises the question as to why the more racially degenerate Eastern Roman Empire lasted a thousand years longer than the West.  Perhaps because the Fall of the West was due in large part to military reasons and not racial degeneracy, and that the East had the wealth to “buy off threats.” This the West could not effectively do. Of course, Der Movement will assert that unlike the degenerate later empire, the noble, Aryan, Dolph Lundgren-like original Romans would never stoop to buy off their enemies. Yeah, sure.

Indeed, the Roman accommodation of the Goths under Theodosius, and their treatment as equals and settlement in Roman lands as an integrated unassimilated group – that would later prove disastrous – was done because of serious Roman manpower shortages and the realization of other threats over the horizon – Huns and Alans.  Manpower shortages, coupled perhaps to Frost’s “genetic pacification” of the shrunken population, and, most importantly, the constant hammering from “barbarian” threats – Goth, Huns, Alans, etc. - were too much for the Empire to bear, especially when coupled to strategic idiocy and infighting from the leadership of the state.

Under those circumstances, one wonders how the Western Empire lasted as long as it did, not that it collapsed.

On another point, if the Romans had been in a better positon in the West, and had the Goths (and Vandals and other Germanics) been more reasonable and far-sighted, the initial steps of Roman and Germanic cooperation (e.g., Frankish generals and Gothic soldiers serving in the Western Roman military, as well as the cooperation at Chalons), could have led to the evolution to a more modern Europe without the interregnum of the Dark Ages.

As an amusing aside, as part of moral posturing on the part of the authors of this book about 'racism and xenophobia," they note the anti-barbarian sentiments of Synesius of Cerene who proposed that “Let all fair-haired men be banished from positions of power.”  Cue fainting fits from Der Movement. (Jordanes’ Getica is more in Der Movement style).

The authors suggest that Synesius’ opinions were unrealistic, before telling us all about the disintegration of the Western Roman empire under the onslaught of the selfsame barbarians critiqued by Synesius, including “allies” of one emperor or another (or of their behind the scenes handlers).  Does the name “Alaric” ring a bell?  So, the authors need to do a better job of refuting Synesius than SJW hysteria about “racism and xenophobia.”


This book is the mirror image of the Theodosius biography; it gives a brief summary of what went on before the main subject of this volume, including a brief history of the reign of Theodosius himself, and then concentrates on the last decades of the Western Roman Empire, including an analysis of what went wrong.

The Vandal conquest of Rome’s African province was devastating for the Western Empire, cutting off a significant source of revenue, leading to bankruptcy and the inability to maintain an effective independent military force.  Grain shipments were disrupted, as was trade in the Mediterranean.  The Roman aristocracy selfishly refused to contribute to the empire’s defense, with either men or money, and the provinces began losing loyalty to Rome (itself obsessed with palace intrigue and civil wars), with an increased emphasis on local loyalties and dissension due to religious conflicts.  Superimposed on this was the constant barbarian threat, and the split of the empire between West and East, with the wealthier areas in the East – an East that increasingly thought of itself as a self-contained entity superior to the West. Therefore, the Western Empire spun increasingly out of control.  “Racial degeneration through admixture” need not play a part in any of this.

The author points out that Romans, and then Italians in general, soured on the idea of military service quite early, and were content to let border provincials carry the brunt of the duty, leading to a situation that made the peoples of Italy increasingly unfit as effective soldiers (20th century Italian military disasters can be considered in this light, perhaps - a too-long period of genetic pacification?).  This is more a function of genetic pacification, overcivilized softening with prosperity, and altered social mores, as it is any “racial degeneration through admixture.” The last “Conclusion” chapter of this book sums up the many inter-related problems faced by the Late Western Roman Empire and the (postulated by the author) “inevitability” of its collapse.  

In any case, empires built through conquest (of one form or another) are inherently unstable, and this has nothing to do with “racial admixture.”  The very maintenance of such an empire over time drains its vitality and resources, and degenerates the population (in ways not dependent upon “admixture” but of course admixture may in theory also occur). For example, would anyone seriously expect the Assyrian Empire to still exist today even if we assume the Assyrians maintained strict racial purity?

As regards the various leaders of the late Western Roman Empire, I am sure at least some of them had an at least an implicit understanding that they were just “playing out the string” – doing the best they could under circumstances in which a bad ending was more or less inevitable, doing their duty as long as they could, delaying that inevitable bad ending for as long as possible, going through the motions of empire even when a point was reached that the “Western Roman Empire” was reduced to mainland Italy and Sicily and really not much else. 

There were opportunities to (temporarily, if we assume collapse was “inevitable”) reverse the degeneration before things reached that point; it was unlikely to have saved the empire on a permanent basis, but it could have lasted longer with better decisions, better luck, and less infighting.  By the way, my judgment is that the division of the Roman Empire into Western and Eastern halves was the beginning of the end for the West; even though that grand strategy may have been useful as an expedient when initially devised, ultimately it led to a situation in which the richer and more secure Eastern Roman Empire viewed itself as an independent (and superior) entity, bent on its own preservation at the cost of the Fall of the West.  An integrated empire would have been able to draw on its total strength for defense, and could have lasted longer to ensure a more gradual change to the sort of federated European union that could have been possible between the remnants of the Empire and the more “Romanized” of the “barbarians” – eventually integrating the West as a whole, and letting the more alien parts of the East go its own way.

Let’s consider Nietzsche as the coda here, contrasting his views to Der Movement dogma, emphasis added.
That which stood there aere perennis, the imperium Romanum, the most magnificent form of organization under difficult conditions that has ever been achieved, and compared to which everything before it and after it appears as patchwork, bungling, dilletantism those holy anarchists made it a matter of "piety" to destroy "the world," which is to say, the imperium Romanum, so that in the end not a stone stood upon another and even Germans and other such louts were able to become its masters.  The Christian and the anarchist: both are decadents; both are incapable of any act that is not disintegrating, poisonous, degenerating, blood sucking ; both have an instinct of mortal hatred of everything that stands up, and is great, and has durability, and promises life a future.  Christianity was the vampire of the imperium Romanum, overnight it destroyed the vast achievement of the Romans: the conquest of the soil for a great culture that could await its time.  Can it be that this fact is not yet understood?  The imperium Romanum that we know, and that the history of the Roman provinces teaches us to know better and better, this most admirable of all works of art in the grand manner was merely the beginning, and the structure to follow was not to prove its worth for thousands of years.  To this day, nothing on a like scale sub specie aeterni has been brought into being, or even dreamed of!  This organization was strong enough to withstand bad emperors: the accident of personality has nothing to do with such things the first principle of all genuinely great architecture.  But it was not strong enough to stand up against the corruptest of all forms of corruption against Christians.  These stealthy worms, which under the cover of night, mist and duplicity, crept upon every individual, sucking him dry of all earnest interest in real things, of all instinct for reality this cowardly, effeminate and sugar coated gang gradually alienated all "souls," step by step, from that colossal edifice, turning against it all the meritorious, manly and noble natures that had found in the cause of Rome their own cause, their own serious purpose, their own pride.
The whole labour of the ancient world gone for naught: I have no word to describe the feelings that such an enormity arouses in me.  And, considering the fact that its labour was merely preparatory, that with adamantine self consciousness it laid only the foundations for a work to go on for thousands of years, the whole meaning of antiquity disappears!  To what end the Greeks?  To what end the Romans?  All the prerequisites to a learned culture, all the methods of science, were already there; man had already perfected the great and incomparable art of reading profitably that first necessity to the tradition of culture, the unity of the sciences; the natural sciences, in alliance with mathematics and mechanics, were on the right road, the sense of fact, the last and more valuable of all the senses, had its schools, and its traditions were already centuries old!  Is all this properly understood?  Every essential to the beginning of the work was ready: and the most essential, it cannot be said too often, are methods, and also the most difficult to develop, and the longest opposed by habit and laziness.  What we have today reconquered, with unspeakable self discipline, for ourselves for certain bad instincts, certain Christian instincts, still lurk in our bodies that is to say, the keen eye for reality, the cautious hand, patience and seriousness in the smallest things, the whole integrity of knowledge all these things were already there, and had been there for two thousand years!  More, there was also a refined and excellent tact and taste!  Not as mere brain drilling!  Not as "German" culture, with its loutish manners!  But as body, as bearing, as instinct in short, as reality.  All gone for naught!  Overnight it became merely a memory!  The Greeks!  The Romans!  Instinctive nobility, taste, methodical inquiry, genius for organization and administration, faith in and the will to secure the future of man, a great yes to everything entering into the imperium Romanum and palpable to all the senses, a grand style that was beyond mere art, but had become reality, truth, life.  All overwhelmed in a night, but not by a convulsion of nature!  Not trampled to death by Teutons and others of heavy hoof!  But brought to shame by crafty, sneaking, invisible, anaemic vampires!  Not conquered, only sucked dry!  Hidden vengefulness, petty envy, became master!  Everything wretched, intrinsically ailing, and invaded by bad feelings, the whole ghetto world of the soul, was at once on top!  

Thursday, April 12, 2018

A Fresh Start for Marvel Comics?

Diversity apparently hurt the bottom line.

As I have previously written about Marvel comics and race (also see here), I will comment on a recent development on that subject – Marvel’s "Fresh Start."

See this. Then read this hysterical and disgusting anti-White SJW diatribe.  

The real problem is not the introduction of new “vibrant” characters (which Marvel intends to keep), but the replacement of the original White male characters with the “vibrants.”  That is what offended the base – the (maliciously?) intentional replacement (using incredibly clumsy and stupid storylines) of the one for the other.  You see, White males (not men) will meekly accept demographic replacement in real life, but if that replacement occurs in the pages of their favorite comic books, then, by golly, they certainly won’t stand for that!  That’s just going too far!

Marvel’s thoughts on the matter:
What we heard was that people didn't want any more diversity.  They didn't want female characters out there.  That's what we heard, whether we believe that or not.  I don't know that that's really true, but that's what we saw in sales. 
We saw the sales of any character that was diverse, any character that was new, our female characters, anything that was not a core Marvel character, people were turning their nose up against.  That was difficult for us because we had a lot of fresh, new, exciting ideas that we were trying to get out and nothing new really worked.
Forget the subsequent spin added after this individual realized he went too far with the truth – the truth is in the original statement reproduced above.

So, what I read from this is that after Marvel doubled down on their SJW tendencies, with a Negro Captain America, a Negress Iron Man, Thor as a woman, a high-IQ Korean cogelite as the Hulk, Iceman as a homosexual, etc., the core Marvel costumer base – White heterosexual male nerds – rebelled, complained, stopped buying those titles, and sales sagged.  Meanwhile, DC comics, which refrained from transforming Batman into a transgender Black lesbian, did not have these troubles. Hence, Marvel’s “Fresh Start” reboot, returning some of the iconic White male characters; hence as well, the SJW hysteria about Marvel’s “old clich├ęs” – you see, comics need to be “progressive” and “transgressive.”  According to the leftist hysterics, Marvel needs to eschew their fan base in favor of a more “vibrant” clientele which, even after they were pandered to with all the “diversity,” still didn’t flock to the comics to make up for the declining White male core readership.  

Alas, comics are a business and they need to make money.  Marvel can of course take the SJW advice, give the middle finger to their fan base, and be all “progressive” and “transgressive,” but the White male readership are under no obligation to buy that product.  Replacing the core readership with “vibrants” hasn’t worked and will likely never work, as human nature cannot be changed, and Coloreds, Yeastbuckets, Queers, etc. are not the natural constituency for comic books.  Straight White males are the core readership, and a business that disrespects its core base is going to run into problems (similarly in politics the GOP’s contempt for the base led to Trumpism).

Marvel of course is continuing with its demented and offensive Ta-Nehisi Coates experiment, and actually spreading it to the Captain America series.  The mind boggles.  Imagine!  The Alt Right a creation of the Red Skull!  Captain America punches out a Richard Spencer-like character!  Steve Rogers speaks out in favor of White demographic replacement!  A Trumpite President is uncovered as a Nazi plot!  Sales of Captain America comics lag behind other brands as White fans get disgusted!

So, while the “Fresh Start” is a step in the right direction, Marvel will not – apparently, cannot – change course completely and ditch the SJW hysteria and diversity nonsense.  They have to make concessions to the religion of multiculturalism and genuflect to diversity, trading the return of some iconic characters for contaminating Captain America with Negro militancy.  So it goes.

By the way, Marvel would not have to continuously “reboot” their comic franchises if they would simply stick to what comics are supposed to be about – entertainment.  Although, Marvel comics were always tainted by Jewish liberalism, and always foisted leftist and anti-White narratives on the reader, during Marvel’s peak – the Silver (1960s) and Bronze (1970s into at least part of the 1980s)  ages of comics – the primary focus was on entertainment, on imaginative superhero vs. supervillain tales of science fiction, fantasy, and drama.  Over the last twenty years, especially, the shift has been to “progressive” and “transgressive” leftist militancy, and the company has never recovered; without Marvel characters getting on TV and film, and the money and attention brought in from that, Marvel would have been in bigger trouble than it already has been (apparently there is little carry-over between the short-attention-span masses who watch the TV shows and the films and the dedicated readers who stick with the comics over the long haul; in addition, the comics have drifted even more to the SJW direction than the other media).

On a more general note, the “Fresh Start” suggests the strength of White, particularly White male, purchasing power.  White male comic readers became disenchanted with Marvel’s demographic replacement of iconic characters, and this displeasure has forced a change in direction.  The change is not enough, to be sure, but contrasted to what goes on in the general society, any change for the better has to be noted.  If only Whites would leverage their economic power to enforce societal change in more substantial aspects, then maybe some progress can be made.  The lesson of the “Fresh Start” is that Whites, particularly White males, are unaware of their own power, they are a sleeping giant and even something as simple as expressing displeasure through the power of the purchase can “put the scare” into sanctimonious elites and force them in other directions.  By the way, this increases racial balkanization, as things even as small as this trigger SJW hysteria, uncover racial, sexual, and social fault lines, and create hatred and distrust.  Using White economic power to alter anti-White narratives is not going to be any “safety valve,” in case the “worse is better” crowd is worried about that.  Instead, it will embitter the Left and the Coloreds, and in the long run create even more tension.  The whole System is based on White (male) dispossession, altering course on that, however minor, weakens the System, not strengthens it,

Finally, there’s niche space for the Far Right to get involved in the comics business. One can imagine a Der Movement Inc. superhero series: Faster than a speeding Goth!  More powerful than a Viking warrior!  Able to leap greasy swarthoids in a single bound!  Its…Nordic Man!

Seriously though, Far Right comics is a niche space worth looking into.  Pop culture is influential, which is why the Left wants a monopoly in that space.  The Right needs to colonize this niche space, although I would think that comics is a more Type II interest and authentic Type IIs in the “movement” are few and far between.