Domine, Quo Vadis?

“There is no obligation upon any man to passive obedience, when his life, his liberty and his property are threatened by footpad, assassin or statesman.”

- Ragnar Redbeard.

Ragnar Redbeard was the nom de guerre of a mysterious Social Darwinist who, some 110 years ago, authored “Might is Right.” Described in its day as “a vitriolic, racist hymn to the doctrine of force," and "... surely one of the most incendiary works ever to be published anywhere," Ragnar’s screed retains its power to induce menstrual and rectal haemorrhaging in all but the hardiest of men. In our hyper-individualistic, post-modern day, the words of this self-styled Viking reaver are about as welcome as the jaws of Fenris. I’d suggest the religious avoid Ragnar’s words as they would anything endorsed by Anton Szandor LaVey - much less plagiarised for his Satanic Bible.

Ming the Merciless and Anton LaVey...)
Ragnar’s philosophy is brutally pragmatic. The world belongs to the powerful, who draft laws to keep the herd servile and craft lies to enslave their weak minds. Through strength, a man might rise from the herd to dominance, his ambition rewarded with wealth, women and power. Life is struggle and those who reject this principle will themselves be rejected by life.

As his berserker rage wanes, Ragnar makes way for Darwin’s charge: "Inferior organisms succumb and perish or are enslaved. Superior organisms survive, propagate and possess." Undeniably, this is the way of nature. Only the naïve or deluded will deny it to be the way of the world. The only question is whether it should be.

I’d say the answer, inevitably bound in slave-morality when negative, makes little difference. Whether a Christian king, Marxist dictator or egalitarian president rules, the laws of nature remain unchanged. The only worthwhile measure of governance is the degree to which it adheres to reality. Even the most noble, or apparently noble, deviation therefrom leads only to greater suffering. The oft-cruel ways of Mother Nature, that occasional cackling crone, must be acknowledged just as her fairer aspects are admired.

But we have forgotten such lore. Modern technology has partially repealed the “red in tooth and claw” tyranny of the natural world, particularly in Western societies where even slaves possess slave-machines. Advancing beyond machinery, genetic science might soon provide us all manner of crudely-illustrated marvels:

Q: What do you get if you cross an octopus with a gentleman of Negroid extraction?
A: Dunno, but it sure picks cotton like a motherfucker!

However, all such present and future technologies, and by extension the “liberated” societies thereby enabled, are predicated on a single thing: cheap oil. One 42 gallon barrel of crude oil contains the equivalent of 25000 man-hours of hard, physical labour. Really. When the oil runs out, as all finite resources do, we’ll have to start putting the man back into man-hour. It remains to be seen exactly when the oil dries up, and whether we can develop a replacement energy source.

Anyone who believes existing energy “alternatives” can prevent the energy crisis, likely also believes alternative medicine can cure epidemical AIDS. Thus the tenets on which modern urban, industrial civilization is based, infinite progress and limitless growth, are revealed as mere assumptions, not reality. This is heartening to those of us who value our EGI; our ancestors, contemporaries and descendents, above pleasure-seeking.

The easy life is a product, often literally, of an unsustainable system based on consumption. Ultimately, self-indulgence is the morality of this order, hyper-individualism the philosophy. No longer needing slaves to live as sybaritic lordlings, the elites spread the lie of equality and invite dysgenics. No longer needing to band together to survive a hostile world, the elites outlaw our ties of blood and invite race-replacement. The inferior “survive, propagate and possess” in defiance of Darwinian law, as the elites conspire to breed an ever more docile, domesticated herd.

Already showing warning-signs of instability, if not outright collapse, this disintegrating, Leviathanesque superstructure can’t endure indefinitely. Whether through dysgenics, immigration or both, an increasingly idiotic and immoral population are its rotting shorings. To say nothing of the changing environment and depleting resources which are its foundations; a system built by intelligent, altruistic whites cannot be maintained in their abscence. The hideous hag will have the last laugh on all of us. In the words of Ayn Rand, “One can evade reality, but one cannot evade the consequences of evading reality.”

I expect these consequences to be tumultuous, likely a resurgence of tyrannical, autocratic rule. According to Oswald Spengler’s Decline of the West, capital replaces faith, and Caesar follows capital. Interestingly, South Africa has seen an extremely accelerated version of this model: from the multi-cult of Mandela, to the capitalism of Mbeki to... Well, I’ll reserve my Ave to the coming Imperator, who hardly deserves to be spoken of in the same paragraph, or indeed article, as Julius Caesar.

Violent totalitarian regimes, when led by a charismatic, strategic genius, have much to recommend them. They inevitably unify the populace, usually by emphasising racial solidarity. Racial struggle always supersedes class struggle, according to Spengler. Next, the nation is enriched through cannibalisation of foreign elements. Yay for power, loot and expansion! Boo for inherently unstable, hyper-masculine, aggressively-thrusting Rapocracies though. The weakness of such tyrannies is that they tend to die when the tyrant does, and depend largely on his character. Brilliant leaders who can achieve lasting victory are rare, almost invariable is the power-mad tinpot,

overreaching himself to brings ruin and humiliation upon his people. From such ashes, the nation eventually arises anew on the wings of faith: the only strength to which the poor and powerless can lay claim, and no less a strength for that.

Returning to the greater Western context before I trigger a mass exodus of whites from South Africa;

democracy’s fatal flaw is it’s susceptibility to corruption. This inevitably brings down the prosperity its earlier purity creates, the ensuing poverty and power vacuum giving rise to authoritarian rule. If Western economies crash, we’ll likely see a resurgence of Fascism, or even Nazism... Which, like a particularly tacky prostitute who fails to swallow her chewing gum before fellatio, would only half-suck. While such systems provide in abundance for love of people, they’re poison to love of freedom. A notional Axis victory might be heaven for German, Italian and Japanese EGI but it’d be hell for free speech, free association, free market values, scientific freedom... And, yes, the freedom to (occasionally) indulge in illicit sex, harmful drugs or decadent rock ‘n’ roll - preferably all three at once with some donkey-on-midget porn thrown in for good measure. In other words, a victorious Axis would usher in an era as imbalanced as the one resulting from the Allied and, more specifically, Soviet victory.

Now, why have I raised such matters of Social Darwinism and Fascism? Well, because they relate to the quote so kindly provided by our esteemed, shield-biting


Mr. Redbeard. And why did I choose such an inflammatory emcee to introduce me? Well, because his particular words:

“There is no obligation upon any man to passive obedience, when his life, his liberty and his property are threatened by footpad, assassin or statesman.”

are not only sound common sense but the unassailable moral high-ground, Satanist associations be damned. Why then, when I repeat them to the more pallid of my white brethren, perhaps accompanied by a call to resistance against such threatening menaces, am I denounced as an evil Fascist or devilish Social Darwinist? Because fuck them, perhaps? Quite likely, but let’s examine the causes more thoughtfully.

The Social Darwinist charge is easiest to answer, with a simple admission: I am a Social Darwinist. Not exclusively in the manner prescribed by old Red Rag though. After all, his views were based, among other things, on a version of Darwinian theory since greatly improved by such luminaries as Watson-Crick, Hamilton, the Wilsons, Dawkins and Salter, to name but several. R.R.’s teachings extend to the singular, competitive alpha male and little further. For example, cooperation is just as crucial as competition to survival. Admittedly it doesn’t make for the same high drama as war for survival, waged by all on all. The point is - “Biopolitics” being taken - my “Politics of Science,” complete with a more evolved species of ethics than dog-eat-dog, represents a practical, workable framework for human society. How can humanity organise without knowledge of humanity?

Of course, there’s no shortage of idealistic, unrealistic frameworks out there. I consider all such, from Feminist penis-envy to Marxist success-envy, to be contemptible denials of reality. Their proponents get butt-hurt by their inferiority in some regard, then ascribe the associated aspect of the universe to some great evil, be it Chauvinism or Capitalism. And just so no one thinks I’m cheating, I’ll include ze Juden as another “great evil.” But don’t take my word for it. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If anyone can mention a consistently successful matriarchal or Marxist society, I’ll accept them as solid ideologies. The converse applies. Feel free to reject Social Darwinism if largely homogenous societies which organise themselves meritocratically, in accordance with human nature, are shown to be consistent failures.

I stress homogeneity as it is vital to social cooperation, as liberal scholar Scott Putnam was dismayed to discover, officially. I can’t resist adding that Putnam was a political science professor at Harvard, whose “diversity dean” has just flounced off in an indignant huff over lack of diversity. Apparently academic racism and chauvinism, in the form of entrance exams and the like, were restricting the influx of ethnic exotica.

And I stress a “may the best man win” ethos of economic competition, with perennial losers provided social welfare in the form of exile, as the only way to regain the strength and virtue of my people. Ahem. Our people... So, any takers? One Communist utopia or one “Realist” dystopia and I’ll pack it all in.

At this point, some clever dick will likely shoot up his hand for Nazi Germany. Nice try. The Nazis didn’t come close to organising themselves meritocratically - or else why were Jews, who have the positive stereotype of being smart businessmen, excluded from commerce? Why did Hitler make refugees of top-notch Jewish scientists, not least of whom Einstein, who denounced relativism and offered relativity? Put your hand down, Rabbi Lapin, I’m speaking rhetorically.

As for Nazi compliance to race-realism and that bone I just won’t drop, Salterian EGI, well... Hard to know where to begin. Aryan Superman’s nemesis was the black athlete, Jesse Owens, who egged his face at the Berlin Olympics. Aryan Superman’s Kryptonite the IQ test, which Hitler banned as clearly biased toward the sinister Jewish intellect in some diabolically subtle way.

The truth is that Aryanman wasn’t a serendipitous scientific superhero like Spiderman or Hulk but rather a mythical superhero, like Thor or Conan. Aryanman’s implausible origin story concerns Jungian racial archetypes, occultism, the lost lands of Hyperborea and Ultima Thule, folklore and so on, ad nauseum. He was a social construct just as transparent as post-modernity’s Egalitarian Social Justice League. If Aryan pride were grounded in science, its claim wouldn’t be absolute superiority but rather a healthy balance of intellect and athleticism, aggression and caution. Unparalleled martial prowess and a history of cultural achievement represent similarly factual claims.

Sadly, Nazi Germany understood Darwinian evolution little better than many today. They based their claim to racial superiority on anything but scientific fact, then applied scientific theory, crudely, to their society as an excuse for genocide. In so doing, they set evolutionary thought further back than any amount of blatantly manipulative, anti-science propaganda. The indiscriminate backlash to all things Hitler served as a kind of Heimlich (Himmler?) manoeuvre to the egalitarianism which so beguiles us with its charms today, even as we choke on the masticated remnants of Stalinism.

And don’t even get me started - too late! - on the effects of violent hostility between Teutons, Slavs, Anglo-Saxons to Caucasian EGI... What a tragic fucking loss for Europe. And I’m not sure how close native Germans and German Jews are genetically, but I’m betting on “quite.” As Hitler’s positive reforms drastically increased Germany’s carrying capacity, the Holocaust was definitely overkill. And yes, that was flippant but what of it? I’m disrespectful on matters of race, religion, politics, sex and death. The Holocaust gets no special treatment from me, at least until the Jewish lobby start clicking my Amazon book links.

Finally, does anyone believe the Nazis were in favour of a free-market economy? I’ll give the clueless a nudge: “Nazi” is an abbreviation of National Socialist. Socialist, whether it suffixes nationalism or prefixes democracy, defines the kind of bloated, meddling government which constipates trade.

All this ranting about Nazism and I still haven’t addressed the Fascist charge. Well, this is perhaps left to Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning. (2) This book is a godsend for anyone even remotely conservative and weary of being labelled a Fascist or Nazi as a result. His discussion of the book, available in 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 parts on Youtube, is well-worth watching - if only for his dismissal of common liberal arguments as “bone-snapping stupidity.”

Modern liberals, by and large a green, sticky bunch aloof to mere fact, have no clue that Fascism is a form of revolutionary Socialism (indeed, Hitler wanted to call his party the Social Revolutionary Party) which ends in Totalitarianism. Frequently, modern liberals have no clue that their own ideology is increasingly influenced by and tending towards Socialism, not to mention “totalitarian” oppression of free speech and free market principles in the furtherance of its broken ideals.

Let’s take a few notable points from the book, and elsewhere:

- The archetypal Fascist, Benito Mussolini, was a card-carrying Socialist from at least the age of 18. As an amusing aside, Mussolini had this to say in 1933: “Race! It is a feeling, not a reality: ninety-five percent, at least, is a feeling. Nothing will ever make me believe that biologically pure races can be shown to exist today.”

- Mussolini remained a member of the Socialist Party until 1914, when pro-war sympathies led him to left-wing militarism. Along with other revolutionary syndicalists and former Marxists, Mussolini founded the synthesis of these ideals in 1919 as Fascism. Fascist policy was a mixture of radical left, moderate left, democratic, and liberal measures.

- Stalin famously said: “Fascism and social democracy are not opposites, but twins.” Of course, that was before the end of the war... During which, Stalin and Hitler were allies, at least until syphilitic madness perhaps took hold of Hitler's mind. Sorry about the syphilis thing, Neo-Nazis! And before I offend any modern liberals, by “social democracy” Stalin meant “reformed socialism,” which... Well, which is modern social democracy, so be offended equally to the goose-steppers, I guess.

- Long before allying with him, Hitler was inspired by Mussolini. Fascism dovetailed nicely with Hitler’s Aryanism, giving us National Socialism. It’s even said Hitler stole the Nazi salute from Mussolini, who in turn lifted it from the Romans.

- Hitler’s rival, Gregor Strasser, spelled out the Nazi position quite plainly: “We National Socialists are socialists, genuine national, German socialists.” Gregor gave his name to the Strasserism, the leftist, mass-action, arbeiter-based strain of German National Socialism. Which was Socialism... Socialist fucking Socialism, capiche?

A limited rundown of some of the things Nazis believed in:

- abortion
- euthanasia
- gun control
- free health care
- guaranteed jobs
- banning smoking
- alternative medicine
- organic farming
- vegetarianism (Hitler)
- animal rights activism (Himmler)
- pagan spirituality
- purging the church from public policy
- generous pensions for the elderly
- confiscation of inherited wealth
- spending vast sums on public education
- strict racial quota systems in universities
- campus speech codes
- government authority infiltrating every orifice of daily life
- the undesirability of free markets

Now, the above is not to claim that modern liberals are Nazis. We can’t rightly call them Fascists either, even though they’re closer to Mussolini ideologically than are modern conservatives. And they’re certainly not Socialists - in contrast to Socialism, Liberalism upholds private ownership. The divergence from Conservatism is that Classical Liberalism believed government should intervene to relieve market externalities, as described by The Tragedy of the Commons.

The classic example is a lighthouse, from which many benefit, but for which few have to pay. According to Classical Liberalism, the government would need to take over operation of the lighthouse in order to ensure an important service continues to be provided. Not unreasonable, at least when you put it like that. President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal (over-)extended this idea of liberalism however, and Jonah Goldberg has much to say on the Fascist tendencies of Roosevelt, as well as the past and present institution of smiley, friendly American Fascism.

But never mind Jonah, here’s what Ronald Reagan had to say: “Fascism was really the basis for the New Deal.” Indeed, and later, “Anyone who wants to look at the writings of the Brain Trust of the New Deal will find that President Roosevelt's advisers admired the Fascist system... They thought that private ownership with government management and control à la the Italian system [of Mussolini] was the way to go, and that has been evident in all their writings.”

The New Deal types believed that governmental power could alleviate not only economic but social problems. To understand how this widely-criticised ideological jump to Fascism was made, consider that poverty could be misconstrued as a failure of the market by those who don’t understand economics. And so arose the Beast; what we now see as Modern Liberalism, characterised by: State intervention in industry, price controls, wage controls, welfare and social security, affirmative action and so on, perpetually... The Modern Liberal State soon grows into Leviathan, creating more problems as it does so - which then become reasons for further growth.

Still, bloated and oppressive government is no reason to call even Modern Liberals Fascists or Nazis. All political systems share certain aspects and handpicking the commonalities to conflate your opposition with history’s despised non-victors is, quite simply, a cheap tactic. Next time someone throws such a thought-blocking slur at you, humiliate them for their historical ignorance and underhanded tactics accordingly.

We’ll get to ignorance and thought blocks in a minute, but first some pictures. Besides Mussolini and the Romans, here’s another possible source of Hitler’s “White Power” salute:


The American Pledge of Allegiance, circa the early 1900s. Kein Witz, Mein Herr.


And of course there’s the American eagle, I trust everyone who’s read their Asterix knows the origin of that particular bird.



And hey, brother, can you spare a dime (or a Senate Seal)? Yeah, that’s the Fasces on there, the Roman symbol for which Mussolini named his party... Confused, disturbed, shaken?

Fret not. “Blak” paranoid schizophrenic, Suzar, is here to explain everything, with some comforting, ignorant thought-blocking. Marvel at her divers alarums and wise pronouncements on everything up to and including “What Cosmic Principle causes hair (antennae) to be Nappy?” Feel your antennae stand on end as Suzar's trenchant philosophy defines slave morality. "Slave" in the Nietzschean sense, that is.

Of course, Stalin dealt in similarly deluded, or at least underhanded, tactics when he conflated Capitalism with Fascism, which has led to all manner of modern confusion. As we’ve seen, Marxism and Fascism are far from diametrically opposed. They’re bedfellows, if miscegenating ones. Following the Axis defeat, anyone with an even slightly Socialist bent set to putting the maximum spin on this ideological relationship. Further, even the left-wing / right-wing dichotomy in conventional political understanding is a false one, borne of Marxist propaganda and prophesying (faith, remember?). Though far from ideal, a better representation might be:

with Hitler and Stalin firmly in place at the lower left. And in case you failed Propaganda 101, this diagram was drawn up by a Libertarian; David Nolan. He founded the American Libertarian Party, whose key tenets I enthusiastically approve... Perhaps with the exception of abortion and sexual freedom as it applies to non-reproduction. These tenets I approve only grudgingly as, in my opinion, the ideal representation of a political system has a third, ahem, axis for EGI. A system that promotes freedom, wealth and folk, that’s my winning ticket.

Which brings me to Norman Lowell and Imperium Europa, after this quick word from our sponsor:

“There is no obligation upon any man to passive obedience, when his life, his liberty and his property are threatened by footpad, assassin or statesman.”

So, does my directing that statement particularly to white South Africans constitute racism, Fascism or Social Darwinism in the Nazi sense? Of course not. With the quick assertion that EGI is “genetic property,” it constitutes: libertarian race-realism. With that assertion made, we’re good to go:

Imperium Europa is the charismatic Norman Lowell’s vision of an alliance of White nations. As expressed in the aims of his local, "Dominion side" party, Viva Malta, individual countries govern their own economies and societies in accordance with libertarian principles. This has clear advantages over centralised governance, as in a dictatorial Brussels handing down procrustean, one-size-fits-all policies. We might extend the idea to America’s states and the federal government in Washington. The continental, "Imperium side," defender of allied white interests, protects the EGI, spirituality, high culture, high politics and territory of all.

I consider this a pretty damn good idea, though I disagree with much else Lowell has to say. His thinking is largely informed by philosophers such as Julius Evola and Friedrich Nietzsche, and he slips from race-realism into racial supremacy on occasion. Now Evola and Nietzsche, master-moralists both, are great as far as they go:

“The Americans' 'open-mindedness', which is
sometimes cited in their favour, is the other side
of their interior formlessness. The same goes for
their 'individualism'. Individualism and personality
are not the same: the one belongs to the formless
world of quantity, the other to the world of quality
and hierarchy. The Americans are the living refutation
of the Cartesian axiom,

"I think, therefore I am":

Americans do not think, yet they are. The American 'mind', puerile and primitive, lacks characteristic form and is
therefore open to every kind of standardisation.”

“We "conserve" nothing; neither do we want to return to any past periods; we are not by any means "liberal"; we do not work for "progress"; we do not need to plug up our ears against the sirens who in the market place sing of the future: their song about "equal rights," "a free society," "no more masters and no servants" has no allure for us. We are delighted with all who love, as we do, danger, war, and adventures, who refuse to compromise, to be captured, reconciled, and castrated; we count ourselves among conquerors; we think about the necessity for new orders… Is it not clear that with all this we are bound to feel ill at ease in an age that likes to claim the distinction of being the most humane, the mildest, and the most righteous age that the sun has ever seen? We are too open-minded, too malicious, also too well informed, too well travelled…”

but I don’t buy into all Lowell’s talk of pagan spirituality and aristocracy. Or anti-Zionism for that matter. Scientific scepticism, meritocracy and bringing the Jews onboard are where it’s at, baby. No disrespect to Lowell though, as a martial artist and expressionist painter, he’s a man of strength and conviction. He thinks big and doesn’t back down, even from his President, and I salute that. I don’t raise him just for an “Ave!”* or high five though, but rather because the idea of Imperium he proposes has the potential of uniting freedom, prosperity and people-loving Whites around the world. And also because of his ideas on food.

Lowell believes food production to be the key weapon at the Imperium’s disposal. Far from threatening sanctions or deploying troops in fractious Third World nations, Lowell suggests that Whites should simply withhold their surplus food from the Mugabes of the world. As an “old-hand in Africa,” Lowell rather cheekily suggests while outlining the geography of the Imperium, from around 4:50, that taking control of Southern Africa, from the Zambesi downwards, would be “easy.” He also slips in the K-word so, for those of you who haven't been BEE-you-double-tee-fucked yet, don’t watch it at work.

According to Lowell, it’s simply a matter of controlling agriculture: handing out free food (and bottles of gin) to encourage Bantu emigration northwards. Of course, that’s all terribly racist and naughty and I would never publically condone such a thing. Lowell might suggest however, that those Boers who can’t leave the country take careful note of his strategy. If they’ve no other recourse, they might consider, ahem, banding together in solidarity and threatening a farmer’s strike. Starvation is quite the bargaining chip - no more puns, Lowell promises - when it comes to convincing people... Particularly in times of economic instability and rising food prices. And government transition. Of course, such active disobedience could only occur if Whites in general, and Boers in particular, harbour some objection to their ethnic and cultural genocide.

“There is no obligation upon any man to passive obedience, when his life, his liberty and his property are threatened by footpad, assassin or statesman.”

You know, if they feel morally obliged to defy the footpads, assassins and statesmen in defence of their life, liberty and property. Not to mention their family's life, liberty and property. Of course, defending their own interests would be quite a moral leap for some Whites. But never mind such types right now...

Lowell continues: if a worst-case scenario unfolds in South Africa with regard to farm murders, land expropriation and (Black National) Socialism, perhaps the Boers will remember they’re far from powerless slaves. Their position as the food producers makes them, in fact, a masterful power-elite. And should a threatened strike not produce a desired result, reinstating the Commando perhaps, then a few accidental chemical spills might. He who can destroy a thing, can control a thing.

* Believe it or not, my blog’s name and art direction were conceived before my introduction to Imperium Europa. Morphic resonance and racial archetypes, man.

Self, Kin, Group and Race, Part 2

"There can be no bystanders in the battle for survival. Anyone who will not fight by your side is an enemy you must crush."

- Scriptoris Munificantus.

If there’s one thing that pisses on my battery, it’s this spineless, flop-wristed notion that no objective truth exists, only opinion. Snivelry! I consider such postmodern relativism to be sheer intellectual cowardice, and a symptom of the egalitarian pathology. Not only are we to accept all men as equal, but also their relative levels of understanding? Sewerage!

Liberal individualism propounds that every human conciousness is a precious snowflake, and to impose thereupon a meta-conciousness, say God, morality or Fatherland, is oppressive. Thus, we have no acceptable criteria by which to judge humanity, apart from their acceptance of... What is itself is a meta-narrative. A brutally oppressive one at that as, in the name of human freedom, it stamps on the face of human nature. There is to be no tolerance for European solidarity, no right granted them to live as their ancestors. Where in this tyrannical hypocrisy is all its vaunted freedom, the individual liberation it claims? Its freedom is slavery, for freedom without love for others is but self-indulgent degeneracy... But we’ll get to love, and others, later. For now, the tirade continues.

Just as moral relativism seeks to corrupt justice by replacing good and evil with cause and effect, thereby divorcing action from responsibility, so cultural relativism seeks to dilute national pride. We are to believe all cultures equivalent, that rational Western thinkers, from Thales of Miletus on, were no more enlightened than African witchdoctors and “fractal mathematicians.”

That one approach should be based on logical reasoning and the other superstition and mimicry is irrelevant; we’re to accept all viewpoints as comparatively valid. That one such “viewpoint” can put men on the moon whereas the other can’t explain gravity is - what? Perhaps a quirk of fate that such ideas landed where they did when culture first fell from the sky... Here’s a reality check for blind adherents of cultural relativism and egalitarians alike: we can judge a culture by its effects and a people by the culture they create.

Of course, such logic is unlikely to sway those whose thinking eschews the modelling of reality for the protection of vested interest. To that end, they wage war on truth, be it scientific, historic or journalistic. Such truths become merest opinion, to be dismissed as easily. If natural law is infinitely malleable and events endlessly interpretive, if no fixed reality exists, then nothing can be empirically proven or refuted. Even the most blatantly false and destructive ideologies are safe in such an environment, for as long as they retain popular support.

Barring great upheaval, we can expect the persistence of such support into the foreseeable future. Setting aside the declared allegiances of the body politic, the sensory organs of media are teeming with ideological infestation, to say nothing of the malignancy riddling the learning centres. Hence the farcical situation whereby politically-motivated laymen sit in judgement on the great minds of our age. These shapers of idiot opinion are given a veneer of authority by their sheer ubiquity. Feel-good appeals to equality and progress, those perennial buzzwords of Communism, are repeated unceasingly to condition the productive to their cannibalisation by the useless.

The cycle is perpetuated as each new generation is indoctrinated into the civic religion of soft, sanitised thought. A liberal arts degree might propel a career in media or education with the requisite degree of topspin, but it provides little in the way of real-world knowledge. How ironic when such types accuse the informed truth-seekers of ignorant bias. And how desperate the accusations when emotional outrage must serve as substantiation!

Adherents of “dangerous” truths too apparent or well-established to be refuted by shallow sophistry and philosophical razzle-dazzle, soon find themselves subject to vicious ad hominem attacks. Their words are labelled with the relevant ‘ism, be it racism, sexism or, my personal favourite, scientism. Espousing a provable position is apparently the latest discrimination, and those who put forward such positions are demonised as claiming meaning can only be derived from science. As science claims no such thing, the term itself is laughably self-defeating.

Ultimately, Western rational thought, with its implicit assertion of the superiority of right over wrong and the desirability of advancement, is offensive to the politically correct incorrect. Quickly, a moratorium on critical thought lest feelings, those all-important guiding principles, be hurt...

Sensing the weakness of their position, knowing they cannot defend the egalitarian fiction in a fair public debate, our opponents devote themselves to cultural hegemony. Gramsci’s long march through the institutions has brought us here, to the precipice of racial extinction. It is our duty to dig in our heels, shout the demographic cliff and push back with all our power against the driving force.

If that means institutions, society itself, must be smashed to prevent our soft genocide, then so be it. We who have no future left to lose might laugh as we open the very gates of Hell.



Having temporarily soothed my savage breast of its rage at the insidious campaign against reality and logic, let me turn to a more specific source of irritation: over 50% of Americans dispute the theory of evolution. Whatever their motivation for doing so, be it religious, political or simple mortification over their mammalian mortality, the figure suggests no amount of logical argument or real-world evidence can displace the irrationality of a large majority of our population. This presents a bleak prospect to those of us who would purge egalitarianism from the collective mindset. Or does it? To reframe religion within the scientific context, it has existed since the dawn of man and so might hold significant survival value. We can take heart in the fact that egalitarianism is an extremely recent experiment in social organisation, a shallow concept of only dubious survival value both as a meme and for those who entertain it.

Let’s tour the evolutionary psychology of religion, before taking the scenic route back to political thought via way of human evolution.

Upon closer examination, the psychological core of religious belief is revealed to be deeply rooted in human neurology. While I mentioned its survival value, I doubt the existence of genes for religion per se. Far more likely, faith in the supernatural arises from the interplay of the following adaptive cognitive processes:

1) Agent detection, which evolved primarily for self-preservation. If you’ve ever been menaced by a half-glimpsed shadow or green mamba that turned out to be a hosepipe, you’ll have an intuitive grasp of this faculty. It was selected for because our more paranoid ancestors had a higher survival rate than the laidback ones. Those who reacted to every snapping twig as if broken by a tiger tended to lead longer lives. This faculty led to imaginative power and symbolic understanding.

2) Theory of mind, which is the recognition that others possess a mind alike to one’s own, with comparable motivations and knowledge. Without this feature, we would be incapable of social interaction on all but the most basic level. Of course, recognition of external mentation opens the door to dualism. If we can gauge minds as a separate entities, the frequent conclusion is that minds are separate entities. Hence the belief they survive death in some disembodied, essential form. That contemplating non-existence presents an insoluble paradox to our minds certainly has a finger in this same pie.

Theory of mind develops in late infancy, prior to which we are unaware of the separation between our and other minds. As tiddlers, we swim in a sea of boundless information, and if that harkens back to omniscient deities or collective conciousness we are of one mind.

3) Causal attribution, to which we are particularly prone. Our curiosity demands an explanation for events. This is a “design feature” in the human model simply because learning promotes survival. Events without apparent cause represent a great source of anxiety to the human brain. This uncertainty serves as a negative motivator for the invention of notional best-fits, or what we today call myths and superstitions. Thus, a javelin-throwing god soothed the ancient’s fear of lightning-bolts.

Today we have practical understanding of such natural processes, so deities are usually only invoked to explain the “why” questions. Of course, those whose deities are bound by doctrine to “how” questions, do tend to come into conflict with proponents of practicality. Inevitably, they will use the unanswerable nature of the “why” question to attack the established “how” or, acceptably, to defend their faith.

My personal philosophy is that the existential “why” necessitates detachment from the very process of life from which flows the answer. That is to say: who fucking cares, the show must go on... But I’ll save such profound insights for my acolytes.

4) Pattern-recognition, towards which our brain is primarily geared. Correlating the above modular functions to each other and the cultural environment leads many to religious belief... And of course, I’ve only rimmed the rabbit-hole by stating triggers above conscious awareness. Mental complexity is a multi-dimensional fractal labyrinth.

For the religious: the above is not an arrogant dismissal of religion as a by-product of intellectual evolution. Certainly (he says magnanimously, if rather patronisingly), God could have designed the human mind in precisely such a fashion so as to comprehend His superlative Godliness. I trust we are in agreement that any such design took place through evolutionary processes however? If not, it’s best we part company for what follows is intensely “evolutionist.” I would say, however, that I value religion insofar as it is adaptive to racial survival. Conservative religious morality is excellent for this purpose and, as the Jews will attest, religious faith is excellent for in-group cohesion. It is only the substance of religion I reject, not the form. Specific to Christianity, I repudiate its universalist and masochistic elements.

Time to play God by meddling with the engine of creation. Isn’t braving such mysteries incredibly satisfying? Intellectual pride has ever been our emotional reward for solving problems of survival. In evolutionary terms, promoting survival is the only purpose of emotion. Don’t despair though, ladies, there’s room for romance in such an outlook. After all, romance results in reproductive behaviour and genetic replication - but enough meandering off-topic.

I pray at least half of you are familiar with Darwinian natural selection. This is the simple process by which random changes are purposefully selected, either for or against. Slight variations occur which affect the lives of organisms and, provided these changes are heritable, a difference with positive effect becomes the norm. As an illustration, a caveman population varies in intelligence. Dumb ones are inept farmers so they frequently starve, whereas smart ones do better at securing food resources. The really smart ones realise they can withhold the fruit of their labours from the feckless idiocracy and so gain dominion over them, but here I stray from science into politics. To resume, the intelligent have better odds of surviving, of having more children like themselves. Thus, over time the entire population gradually becomes infused with the trait of higher intelligence unless of course they exist in a disgusting, degraded, dysgenic dystopia. But again, let me constrain myself to the immediate point: evolution. This blind, mechanistic process, iterated over countless aeons, is largely responsible for the profuse biodiversity we see around us, if your imagination can but stretch to encompass it.

Evolution is an absolutely huge idea, delineating the process by which Life achieves its high purpose of transmitting itself through time. Darwin’s genius was to reveal how, in a very real sense, Life passes as genetic baton from generation to generation in an eternal process of change and rebirth. Life, so fragile yet so tenacious, charts a course so sublime in its subtle harmony that it deserves no lower description than sacred. Though inspiring, it is perhaps more helpful to precise understanding to consider how natural selection applies to us as individuals. It is only through the self that we connect to the greater whole that is Life, and more importantly, it is through the self that Life connects to us. To look within is to note this systematic organisation of adaptations, which sifts organic matter so finely that it can produce such a wonder as a sentient being.

In ourselves, we note the survival instincts, the passion, the identity, all that gives rise to self-awareness and self-respect. I see no shame in proclaiming this love of self. I actively secure my own survival that I may spread my ideas, my passion and yes, my unique genetic identity, through Life. Further, I delight to find this spirit in those I call brothers, for it brings strength and integrity. It is truly the only healthy, natural attitude an individual can take. Those without love for themselves are those who wish no part of Life, but wretched, pitiful suicides. To truly live as men is to be Promethean in the fight for all that we love, to defy all obstacles and by force of will, project ourselves into the world. Finally, through command of the evolutionary programming that defines us as men, we give ourselves the gift of honour.

There is far more to Life however than the self and the challenge of its victorious expression, that we might be rewarded by natural selection. There are finer, nobler even, processes happening within evolution that have direct consequence for racial survival:

That right there is Hamilton’s Rule. And to my right, is W. D. Hamilton (1936 08 01 - 2000 03 07) himself. Looking like a better choice for Indy’s dad than Sean Connery, Hamilton was not just a jungle explorer, AIDS researcher and iconoclast. He also revolutionised the way we think about Life today, winning ten international awards, by my count, for his contributions to biology. In the words of Richard Dawkins, who conducted Hamilton’s eulogy, “a good candidate for the title of most distinguished Darwinian since Darwin.” We have Hamilton to thank for our best explanation of why sexual reproduction evolved, the less than erotically titillating answer being: parasites.

Not only that, Hamilton’s theory of gene selection revolutionised our understanding of evolution by neatly solving Darwin’s difficulty of animal altruism. Concisely stated as: “what matters in evolution is not the survival of an individual but the survival of its genes,” this solution led to terms like “the selfish gene,” brought to public attention in the eponymous book.

Though widely accepted as a cornerstone of evolution, Hamilton’s theory remains less than obvious to many. Let’s shed some light on it through an exploration of his rule for the evolution of social behaviours. These are actions viewed from the perspective of their fitness cost, measured in terms of reproductive success, which they entail for their actor(s) and recipient(s). Such behaviours can be mutually beneficial if actor and recipient benefit, or selfish if actor benefits and recipient suffers a loss. It’s apparent how mutualistic or selfish behaviour advantages one or both parties, and hence why such behaviour evolved. However, the rule also explains the following, formerly perplexing behaviours: the altruistic, in which the fitness of the actor is reduced to the recipient’s benefit, and the spiteful, in which actor and the recipient both suffer a loss.

Formally, Hamilton’s rule states altruistic behaviour is adaptive if:

where

C = the reproductive cost to the individual of performing the act.R = the genetic relatedness of actor and recipient, often defined as the probability that a gene picked randomly from each at the same locus is identical by descent.
R = the genetic relatedness of actor and recipient, often defined as the probability that a gene picked randomly from each at the same locus is identical by descent.
B = the additional reproductive benefit gained by the recipient of the altruistic act.

The average percentage of shared DNA, R, is calculated in the following manner:

1/2 for siblings and offspring, 1/4 for grandchildren and nephews or nieces, 1/8 for cousins. Not pictured are the values: 1/32 for second cousins, 1/128 for third cousins, and so on. The benefits of kin-altruism, that is sacrificing for family, should be abudantly clear. A gene mediating for the lowering of “personal” fitness to raise that of relatives can become widespread as such relatives are likely to carry the gene themselves.

Geneticist J.B.S. Haldane, among many such amusing quips, famously remarked that he’d lay down his life for two brothers or eight cousins. He neglected to mention that two children or four nephews represent an even better “exchange rate” for the genes, at least in scenarios where infant / child mortality is low. As an interesting aside, and one with obvious parallels to current society, Haldane was a card-carrying Communist - at least until the advent of Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union in which geneticists and other scientists got it in the neck from the ideologues. For more about Lysenkoism, see the post on my blog in which I indulge my raging hate boner for Marixsm to its fullest extent.

Right. Before Communism triggered such tumescence, I was considering a Wikipedia article on egalitarianism, and its ignorant mention of a primitive band of hunters who share meat without obvious benefit. I intended discussion of Hamilton’s rule as it applied to this group of hippy, happy hunters, as a means to explain the likely still-opaque C(ost) and B(enfit) ratio.

It would be fascinating to know exactly which tribe of “modern hunter-gatherers” the Triki Wiki passage references, though I project their numbers will likely range below one hundred. This is because the net benefits of altruism returned by Hamilton’s rule drop off precipitously when applied beyond close relatives.

Now, as mentioned, I’d planned to do a little mathematic song and dance at this point, encouraged by the relative ease by which J.B.S. Haldane, who so distracted me by flashing his Party Card, could calculate the suitability of self-sacrifice. It turns out that determining the cost / benefit ratio conveyed to reproductive fitness by meat-gifting is a little more complex. Self-sacrifice returns a simple maximum value for C(ost), where loss of food does not. Still, given several evenings of caffeine-fuelled skullbreaking, an estimate value is achievable.

More tricky is calculating the average R of a tribe of 100 individuals. This can nonetheless be accomplished over the course of several hours, albeit with much head-scratching. Despair creeps in when the fact emerges that a significant degree of in-group breeding will have occurred within such a tiny popultation. Such “inbreeding” completely skews the R figure, placing it beyond the reckoning of decidely amateurish mathematics. As the B(enefit) values likewise continue to shimmer tauntingly out of reach like a desert mirage, the complexites becomes overwheliming. Pens, paper and toys are thrown a great distance, many oaths and imprecations are bellowed and a passage from The Selfish Gene is plagiarised, sans formal apology to the ingenious Mr. Dawkins:

"I am an animal [and here Mrs. Dawkins smiles knowingly] who has found a clump of eight mushrooms. After taking account of their nutritional value, and subtracting something for the slight risk that they might be poisonous, I estimate that they are worth +6 units each (the units are arbitrary pay-offs...). The mushrooms are so big I could eat only three of them. Should I inform anybody else about my find, by giving a 'food call'? Who is within earshot? Brother B (his relatedness to me is 1/2), cousin C (relatedness to me = 1/8), and D (no particular relation: his relatedness to me is some small number which can be treated as zero for practical purposes). The net benefit score to me if I keep quiet about my find will be +6 for each of the three mushrooms I eat, that is +18 in all. My net benefit score if I give the food call needs a bit of figuring. The eight mushrooms will be shared equally between the four of us. The pay-off to me from the two that I eat myself will be the full +6 units each, that is +12 in all. But I shall also get some pay-off when my brother and cousin eat their two mushrooms each, because of our shared genes. The actual score comes to (1 x 12) + (1/2 x 12) +(1/8 X 12) + (0 x 12) = +19 1/2. The corresponding net benefit for the selfish behaviour was +18: it is a close-run thing, but the verdict is clear. I should give the food call; altruism on my part would in this case pay my selfish genes.”

Dawkins goes on (brilliantly, up until his own acquisition of a hate-boner for religion, and corresponding fall from pure science to earthly demagogy) that animals do not actually cogitate their various behavioural options in accord with Hamilton’s rule. Instead, their genes have evolved in such a way that they act as if they had made such calculations. Dawkins does not further explore this mechanism but, to my relatively pedestrian thinking, that type of processing occurs within the complex neural circuitry which we call emotion.

Love, for instance, is arguably the strongest of emotions, and I fully expect it’s what motivates animal pair-bonding, rearing and protective behaviour. For us to assume animals act only on “instinct” is to ignore the obvious fact that we do too - or can you remember the last time you consciously decided to fall in love? When you calculated that you should nurture your children, protect your brother or care for your parents? By the end of this article, I hope you will rediscover love for your race...

Feelings simply well up unbidden from within, every conceivable emotion fulfilling an evolutionary purpose, as selfish, little molecules compell you to big, selfless actions conducive to their replication. As an all-too familiar example of this, consider how the autopilot light blinks on when a pleasing bosom-to-waist-hip ratio, suggestive of fecundity, crosses one’s path. The reaction ideally leads to offspring, towards whom our protective, nurturing behaviour is just as pre-programmed. That those who ignore such powerful instincts towards the young, to the extent of neglecting or even harming them, are considered by society to be the very worst kinds of scoundrels and deviants serves to underline how core these feelings of kin altruism are to most humans.

And that’s all very well but, as we’ve established (or at least as I’ve told you, go do the bloody calculations yourself if you don’t believe me), kin altruism generally only goes so far as nepotism towards nephews when it comes to costly behaviour. How then does it apply to my racist, fascist, ultra-rightwing, Nazi, Satanic, una-bombing, puppy-killing agenda that causes me to agitate for a meritocratic society in which freedom of speech, association and the press are mandated, ethnicity is protected and immigration is restricted to the useful? Well. This is where multi-level selection comes in.

Multi-level selection comes to us largely courtesy of David Sloan Wilson, who seems intent on courting controversy by thumbing his nose at the more popular science nerds. I won’t be saying too much about this theory, recently resurrected from the grave of “group selection.” Its previous incarnation was derided during the 60’s and the recurrent form remains a matter of heated debate. Which is great really, as science flourishes and evolves when ideas compete.

Briefly, Wilson’s theory, insofar as I understand it, explains the evolution of altruistic behaviour by examining the effect of natural selection on not only an individual genetic but also a group level. We would expect, given the diminishing returns of Hamilton’s rule in orbits further from nuclear family, that altruism to greater tribe would be maladaptive. All altruism comes at the cost of immediate fitness measured in terms of reproductive potential after all.

Looking at evolution as a multi-level process, with higher-level selection often taking precedence over lower-level selection, makes things profoundly messy for certain Neo-Darwinists. The gene-centred view of evolution has been common currency since the 70’s. Is viewing evolution from Wilson’s multiple angles a retrograde, “devolutionary” theory, a throwback to Darwin’s earliest notions? After all, how could such a process reliably serve those tyrannical replicators, our selfish genes? Given that traits opposed to genetic interests fade from existence, isn’t it logical to ascribe the further reaches of altruism to such as reciprocal altruism?

Wilson’s response is along the following lines. Say we have two competing tribes, violently contesting the same territory and resources. Selection, under the pre-mentioned guidelines, would continue to play out within each group - but selection would also take place between them. If the collective fitness of one group was raised by altruistic behaviour, it would come to outperform the more selfish one, the one in which individual and kin selection held greater sway. Genes which promote such altruism, so the theory goes, would increase their frequency.

As an example, which I hope does not stray too far from his argument, we might think of a group which forms its strong, healthy men into a military machine. Diverting such men from breeding, rearing and business appears to be contrary to the group’s immediate interests. Not only that, but there is grave potential cost to those husbands, fathers, sons and brothers. All are placed in danger, tasked to dutifully perform the highest level of altruistic service, if need be sacrificing their lives for strangers.

However, the benefits to the group’s collective fitness are frequently high enough make it a risk worth taking. Any group that defeats its enemies and comes to claim their territory and control their resources has benefitted tremendously in the long term, even if in the short-term it suffers reduced fitness. The genes for cooperative aggression will experience a geometric increase in replicative fitness, as competing genes for selfish pacifism are removed from the symphonic struggle for survival we call life.

Frequently in the modern world, we see such group selection struggles played out not between nations but between competing groups within the same nation. Conquest need not take place only through war; demographic trends decide the issue with as much finality as total nuclear obliteration. In this our 21st century, former imperial superpowers face their imminent demise not from the armed warriors of lesser nations, but from their helpless, squalling babies.

This grim national perspective brings me finally to Dr. Frank Salter’s Ethnic Genetic Interests. The famous biologist Edward O. Wilson (no relation to David Sloan), a Humanist Laureate of the International Academy of Humanism and the originator of the entire field of sociobiology, hailed Salter’s work as a “fresh and deep contribution to the sociobiology of humans.”

E. O. Wilson is particularly significant in this context as his work Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, opened the door to the application of evolutionary theory to the behaviour of creatures diverse as ants and apes. A scholarly tour de force, it was only the final chapter, inspecting humanity in the same light, which drew heavy fire. Genetic determinism is apparently perfectly acceptable for all other species, though some delightful, rainbow-farting elf prevents its application to humanity. More specifically, political prejudice deems it anathema in relation to cultural anthropology, psychology, economics, political science, sociology, literature, history, religion, music, art history and so on, ad nauseum.

Let me return from what was E.O. Wilson’s blurb and became my own burbling. Frank Salter’s book

expounds the grand concept, ripe for Western reification, of the scientific legitimacy of promoting and preserving our biological race. Far too long, such issues have pivoted on subjective values. As a Westerner, I’m naturally inclined to the assertion that Western culture and people deserve to maintain their own territory and identity. Many disagree however, citing my vested interest as inherently discriminatory towards other races (who, strikingly, are encouraged in the brazen pursuit of their interests). To lay this thorny issue to rest, Dr. Salter’s Ethnic Genetic Interests (EGI) offers objective vindication for the natural desire of a people to cleave together, and so ensure their genetic continuation.

Salter shows that, in just the same way adaptive behaviour by an individual or altruism between kin boosts fitness, so it is raised by such behaviour towards one’s race. This is because the racial gene pool is a repository for the distinctive genes of all its members. While direct family represents a concentrated cache of such genes, racial family represent a diluted, but enormous, reserve. Given the size of racial groups, even shrinking ones such as ours, protecting them can convey an even greater benefit than protecting one’s own children. Put another way, successfully raising children benefits the group as its genetic nature is perpetuated through pureblood offspring. When the ethnic group successfully defends its interests, your children also succeed as the genetic material they share with the group is assured a better chance of survival. Not only cultural, but genetic success is predicated on your group’s success. The disappearance of your group, however, would represent a far greater loss to your EGI than even the loss of your entire family. Even if your children survive to miscegenate, your unique genes will be watered out of existence.

Of course, all the above only applies in the presence of competing ethnic groups. If we were a single race with an equal proportion of shared DNA, nothing short of the complete destruction of life on earth could permanently compromise our EGI. As it however, our EGI becomes increasingly important to the degree of variation between ours and other ethnic groups. This difference can be as great as the degree of kinship between grandparent and grandchild. The following table from an Italian study illustrates this degree of difference, not in terms of kinship (R) but of genetic variance (FST):

About what we’d expect, with the possible exception of the largest degrees of difference existing between Australian aborigines and African tribes like the Bantu and Mbuti pygmies. Though unfamiliar with such prehistoric events, I assume the reason is in aborigines and negroes having the earliest common ancestor.

Genetic kinship is not only measured positively, as between relations or groups who share more genetic material than is typical of a population, but also negatively. If groups share less genetic material than is typical, their kinship is measured negatively. This kinship figure can be derived mathematically from the variation table shown above. I’m not about to put all those numbers into Excel and average them, but correcting for my laziness factor (Z), one might arrive at an average around 1000. Taking that as our base-level, we can see that anything below it, eg. the variance figure of 21 separating the English and Danes, represents a very high degree of positive kinship, about as high as between grandparent and grandchild. The 4287 between Mbutis and Aborigines represents a massive proportion of negative kinship however. So much so that all Mbutis are almost identical clones in comparison with all Aborigines. If a member from each group “hooked up,” as the trendier evolutionary biologists say, they would be less related to their own child than to a random member of their race!

Indeed, Salter puts the impact of immigration into units of lost “child-equivalents” as a way of calculating its harmful effect on native EGI. As each nation on earth has a carrying capacity, or maximum amount of people it can support, there inevitably comes a tipping point at which every immigrant means one less baby the native populace can support. Anyone who's paid a visit to Japan or England would likely agree that such nations have reached their carrying capacity. In fact, my view is that a nation which must import food has exceeded it.

Salter explains it thus: if 10 000 Danish immigrants replaced 10 000 English natives, the English gene pool, or collective EGI, would suffer a small loss, equivalent to removing 167 children from England. This loss is relatively minor as a result of the genetic similarity between the two ethnic groups or “ethnies,” as Salter insists on calling them.

The loss in "children" is far greater if the English are replaced by more distant ethnies. If, instead of Danes, the infernal-powers-that-be invite 10 000 Bantus to replace 10 000 Englishmen, it would be the genetic equivalent of the loss of 10,854 children. Dr. Salter explains, “Some ethnies are so different genetically that they amount to negative stores of those distinctive genes.”

Dr. Salter concludes:

“[A]n act of charity or heroism by an Englishman that prevented 10,000 Danes from replacing 10,000 English would be adaptive even if the act cost the altruist his or her life and with it all prospects of raising a family (at least a family of less than 167 children), since this would save the equivalent of 167 of the altruist’s children. Preventing replacement by 10,000 Bantu would warrant a much larger sacrifice because the genetic benefit is about 65 times larger; random Englishmen are almost as related as parent and child compared to the relationship between Englishmen and Bantu.

The genetic distance between English and Bantus is so great that, on the face of it, competition between them would make within-group altruism among random English (or among random Bantu) almost as adaptive as parent-child altruism… Thus it would appear to be more adaptive for an Englishman to risk life or property resisting the immigration of two Bantu immigrants to England than his taking the same risk to rescue one of his own children from drowning…”

Self, Kin, Group and Race, Part 1

"Where there is uncertainty, I shall bring light.
Where there is doubt, I shall sow faith.
Where there is shame, I shall point atonement.
Where there is rage, I shall show its course.
My word in the soul shall be as my bolter in the field."

- Litany of Devotion.

I know. It's taken ages and I trust that, in the meantime, you "enjoyed" the vid, which I shall now remove. I do so because it was created by an American political party whose policies are unknown to me, and potentially at cross-purposes to my own.

That I take it down shouldn't be taken as a disavowal of the facts stated in the vid; farmers are being slaughtered wholesale in the most vicious fashion imaginable, with the tacit approval of government. The gutless media, both local and international, continue to ignore the magnitude of this evil as well as its future implications. I spit on those who turn their eyes from this carnage, and call for vengeance. Blood for blood.

-

This is about the genetic basis of human behaviour, particularly as it applies to racial success and survival.

Again, it's taken ages. Progress will likely continue in that vein as I'm having to delve very deeply into night-impenetrable territory, with what is admittedly not the keenest of instruments. Evolutionary biology is, like, hard.

In the course of researching this article, I came across the Wikipedia entry for egalitarianism. Ignorant and inconsistent, it makes a fitting springboard for a dive into the murky waters of liberal theory. Hold your nose!

The entry starts with the derivation of the term, from the French word égalité so favoured during the head-chopping days of bloody Revolution. Next, the doctrine’s assertion that all people should be treated equally by law and society. A noble sentiment. I agree wholeheartedly that justice should be blind; a king or a serf who murder in cold blood deserve the same strokes of the headsman’s axe.

Equivalent treatment by society is a more complex issue however. People differ and, like most higher animals, order themselves into hierarchies as a result. Short of genetically engineering or selectively breeding this tendency out of humanity, the best we can do is ensure individuals rise or fall purely on merit. Denigrating the strong and lauding the weak creates an inverted social pyramid or, more accurately, an arrow denoting a so-ordered society’s direction. As for providing a safety net to ensure nobody falls too low, I believe this to be the domain of voluntary charity. At the very least, a line must be drawn between uplifting and instilling dependency.

Reading on, the Declaration of Independence is unfurled the exact length of its “all men are created equal” clause, as some sort of moral justification for egalitarianism. This vexed line, penned by a slave-owner, has since been bent, folded and mutilated to fit every set of principles from Capitalism to Marxism. In regards the last, sic: if one man achieves wealth, it‘s an injustice to all who don’t. Clearly, this absolute equality was not the Declaration’s intended meaning, which could be more accurately expressed as, “an end to this Divine Right of Kings nonsense, you snaggly-toothed, English poltroons!”

And how precisely does an excerpted catch-all, from a document a quarter millennium old no less, apply to issues of race in our DNA era? Well... Let’s examine the complete statement:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

Now, there are a couple of obvious problems with this. I don’t think it sensible for whites to further divide themselves along (ir)religious lines however, so I’ll deal with each point from its relevant perspective:

1) For atheists, such as myself, the statement is rendered irrelevant by the absence of a Creator. While I can’t disprove a supernatural First Cause, the Fossil Record and much other evidence suggests man was not created at all, but rather evolved through entirely natural processes. It is wildly unlikely this process could have led to biological equality for populations separated by vast distances and hundreds of thousands of years, and indeed any objective examination will reveal that it hasn’t. In the withering words of Richard Lynn;

“The IQ differences between the races explain the differences in achievement in making the Neolithic transition from hunter-gathering to settled agriculture, the building of early civilizations, and the development of mature civilizations during the last two thousand years. The position of environmentalists that over the course of some 100,000 years peoples separated by geographical barriers in different parts of the world evolved into ten different races with pronounced genetic differences in morphology, blood groups, and the incidence of genetic diseases, and yet have identical genotypes for intelligence, is so improbable that those who advance it must either be totally ignorant of the basic principles of evolutionary biology or else have a political agenda to deny the importance of race. Or both.”

2) For theists, the “equally” obvious problem is that the God of the Old Testament can’t be said to have created all men as equals if He then favoured a “chosen people,” to the exclusion of others. In Exodus, the Lord Jehovah speaks of the Israelites as "my treasured possession out of all the peoples. Indeed, the whole earth is mine, but you shall be for me a priestly kingdom and a holy nation" (Exodus 19: 5-6).

As an example; God’s relative treatment of the Jews and Egyptians. The former he blessed with a prophet and multitudinous miracles, to the order of parting the seas and dispensing manna from heaven. The latter He plagued onerously each time their Pharaoh refused to release his treasured Jews. Yet in ten places throughout Exodus, God “hardened Pharaoh’s heart” to elicit just such refusals. The Almighty can of course do as He pleases, though such actions hardly stand as glowing testament to even-handed omnipotence.

Nor does this favouritism change with the advent of the New Testament, in which Christ commands His disciples to "go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 10:5-6). He is not above referring to Gentiles as “dogs” either, dogs who may be so lucky as to eat the crumbs which fall from their Jewish masters’ table (Matthew 15:26-27).

No doubt “progressive” Christians, with their endless denial of the more awkward Biblical passages regarding women, slaves, homosexuals, genocide, etc. will defend these and other, similarly taboo, passages on race. In response, I need only raise the Tower of Babel story, in which God’s own antipathy to multicult shenanigans is laid bare. Let no man join together what God hath put asunder. Too glib? Try Romans 9:21. “Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?”

Appearances to the contrary, I’m not even going to bother mentioning that it was only with Lincoln that the Declaration was applied to slaves, or that his solution was of the ship-‘em-all-back variety. Right. So. We can dismiss any Biblical or constitutional basis for egalitarianism. How about a biological basis? After all, the Wiki article goes on to say of egalitarianism in (modern) hunter-gatherer groups:

There have been many instances of egalitarianism found in modern hunter-gatherer groups, in several parts of the world. Even when it is within an individual's favour, or has no obvious benefit, many returning hunters will share meat with the rest of the group.

The truth of egalitarianism is apparently so self-evident as to require nothing in the way of citation of references. Irrespective of such dog-chewed homework, is the matter of tribal hunters sharing meat with their group. Some of you may remember how, in my previous article, I went on (and on) about meat as wealth in primitive societies. And lo, this fact of huntsman generosity appears, as if to mockingly disprove all I had to say about brains, bucks and bolshevism. Lawks! I am surely undone - even when it “has no obvious benefit,” hunters will share... Well, there you have it. Genetically homogenous, stone-age bands do perfectly well with egalitarianism, why shouldn’t it work in genetically diverse, information-age nations with citizenry numbering hundreds of millions, if not billions?

Why indeed. As the answer to that stupid question would likely fill a book, I will instead address the issue of “no obvious benefit.” That whoever wrote this piece (of shit) sees no “obvious benefit” to aiding tribal survival speaks volumes of the state of postmodern, Western society. Many individuals are so detached from others, no less their very human nature, that appeals to decency or honour are met with sneering derision. That’s as may be. I’ll leave the emotional stone-wringing to others and instead focus on the facts of the matter:

Communism sucks.

That wasn't the original point, of course. Some heavy-handed work with the editing shears has been necessary. We now cut disjointedly, in true Lynchian fashion, to a rant about Lysenkoism. Enjoy!

That less-wholesome Dracula, Trofim Lysenko, perhaps caught in the act
of denouncing geneticists as “wreckers” or “people haters.”
Joseph Stalin, history’s greatest butcher second only to Mao, looks on.

Lysenko was a keen proponent of the fallacious biology of Lamarckism, long since overturned by Darwin and multitudes since. The Frenchman Lamarck’s theory, published during the Revolution, deserves little attention beyond explaining it as “becoming a body-builder will lead to muscular offspring.” This flawed version of evolution, a precursor to the environmentalism of Gould, Rose and Diamond (the amalgamation of which three, coincidentally Jewish surnames, results in a decidely pinkish hue), found great favour in the Socialist Republics. It was a message of hope when Stalin needed miracle crops to offset the “teething problems” of land-collectivisation. To wit: mass starvation.

Lysenko’s fervent pseudoscience fit the Soviet Weltanschauung to its procrustean tee, suggesting that legislating against human nature would produce a generation of utopianists, just as surely as growing wheat in the right conditions would produce rye or barley, and vice versa. Let me now call a roll of some of the more eminent geneticists stripped of their lives and liberty for conducting what was stigmatised as “bourgeois” or “fascist” science: Nikolai Vavilov, Georgii Karpechenko, Georgii Nadson, Isaak Agol, Solomon Levit, Grigorii Levitskii...

All men of science damned for their politically incorrect, dissident “views” by that fat, obstreperous thug, Stalin, and all at the lunatic Lysenko’s behest. Ultimately, Lysenko succeeded in having all genetic science banned until the 60’s, establishing a taboo around the subject which one violated at the risk of one’s career, reputation, “freedom” and life. Nor were other scientists, with the exception of the physicists necessary for nuclear weaponry, exempt from this anti-scientific, ideological crackdown. Cyberneticists, for example, were likewise castigated and persecuted, “machines can’t think,” being the cry. Apparently under Socialism the role of non-thinking automaton is strictly reserved for humans.

As a result of such enlightened policies, applying Engels to agronomy for instance, Soviet agriculture suffered 30 years of blight. Not to be outdone, the Democratic nations inflicted 50 years (and counting!) of epic failure upon themselves. Adopting Lysenkoist doctrine in regards human capacity in jaunty defiance of all empirical science and Darwinian principle, we wait optimistically for rye and barley to produce wheat flour...