The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Andrew Joyce Archive
Guillaume Faye: the Necessity of Contemplating an Ethnic War for Survival
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Guillaume Faye
Prelude to War: Chronicle of the Coming Cataclysm
Arktos, 2021.

“A people who no longer think about waging war are finished, drained of their substance and worn out from the inside.”
Guillaume Faye, Prelude to War

I discovered the writings of Guillaume Faye only after his death in 2019, when Arktos published a translation of Guerre civile raciale (A Racial Civil War). In the process of reading and reviewing that work, I wrestled with a writer whose style and content both gripped and informed, infuriated and exasperated. Reading Faye is, above all, an experience, and often an exhausting but irresistible one, something agreed upon by those who worked to compile the literary memorial to him published at the start of this year. It was therefore with a mixture of excitement and trepidation that I discovered Arktos had recently released a volume of translations of Faye’s earlier and most explosive texts including his highly controversial The New Jewish Question and his uncompromising, brutalist writings on the problem of Muslim mass migration. Since my expectations concerning the volume were mixed, it brought a smile to my face to see Faye, always the prophet, a step ahead of me in his introduction with the warning that: “Once you have finished reading this book, you may find yourself persuaded or disgusted; optimistic or pessimistic.” I’m glad to report that I emerged from this book persuaded and optimistic, and also convinced that, the usual idiosyncratic unevenness to Faye’s thought aside, this is the single best volume of the enigmatic Frenchman’s work available in English.

The volume opens with a competent, but unfortunately irritating, Foreword by Constantin von Hoffmeister. We are introduced to a broad overview of Faye’s thought, which is unnecessarily peppered with nasty asides at some of the very people most likely to now read and admire Faye’s work. We are told, for example, of a need to rid different nationalist groupings of “archaic positions, such as the outdated animosity towards Jews.” First, it should be considered an axiom that any people that starts believing the Jewish Question to be relegated to the past will soon find itself relegated to the past. Or to put it another way — patronize this issue at your peril. One of the irritating features of some nationalist writing from Europe is that it is overwhelmingly fixated on its primary, sensory experience of multiracialism (mass Muslim migration) while remaining ignorant or dismissive of the intensive Jewish politico-cultural entrenchment directly experienced by those in other jurisdictions (perhaps none more than the United States). One often finds the naive and simplistic need to have only one opponent at a time, with the chosen villain of the present panic rendering all other problems distant or merely “archaic.” With generosity, one might excuse von Hoffmeister’s comments by way of education (brainwashing) in Germany and experience (the undeniable and obvious effrontery of Muslim encroachment), but how then to explain why, a few pages later, von Hoffmeister accuses a nameless and amorphous mass called “the managerial class” of having “duped the people into committing civilizational suicide for inglorious amounts of shekels”?

Why the dog whistle? If the managerial class is acting on behalf of those capable of issuing massive bribes of shekels, then we are obviously talking about Jewish influence. I have no problem with this kind of coded language, but I do have a problem with denunciations of anti-Semitism (archaic!) occupying the same few paragraphs as dog whistles appealing to anti-Semitism (shekels!). It’s confusing and unnecessary. As a general rule, if your country’s laws, or your personal public position, limit what you can say about Jews, then it is best to refrain from addressing the subject at all, rather than engaging in a rhetorical game of peekaboo with the government and your readers that only serves to demoralize and disorient. The same can be said for von Hoffmeister’s claim that the Kalergi Plan is “non-existent,” which appears alongside his warnings about a coming multiracial “New World Order.” I finished the Foreword utterly confused as to what von Hoffmeister believes, and quite relieved that I could finally get to Faye’s writings which, while always challenging, are considerably clearer in terms of their logical progression.

The volume very quickly recovers from its opening bum note. Faye always excelled in his adoption of the role of prophet, and despite his deep loathing of the prophets of Judaism and Christianity, he was in his own way a masterful apocalyptic preacher capable of blending the aggression and fanaticism of a Jeremiah with a distinctly European fatalism of the kind found in the Iliad. Faye, in a sense, wandered a cultural desert, uttering warnings in a political wilderness. Faye the Prophet wastes no time in this text, warning us plainly in his introduction that our days are numbered, that our materialistic and individualistic culture will soon be destroyed, and that our “bourgeois habits might be experiencing their final moments.” This is a book that covers a wide variety of subjects over twenty-one chapters, but which always returns to the inevitability of war, and of deepening conflict in all areas of life. Faye relishes the prospect, believing there to be “no universal morality.” An obvious Nietzschean, he declares that Good and Evil don’t exist and that “might is always right.” Faye demanded of Europeans that they simply engage in the fight to survive, because “whether one likes it or not, only the will to survive, demographic proliferation and combativeness can prevail over the reassuring and suicidal discourse espoused by the scribes of decadence.”

The book really begins with the impressive and aggressive first chapter, “Facing Islam.” I found it surprising that only one chapter in the volume concerned Islam, given Faye’s well-known preoccupation with the subject, but it does form a subtle background note to the rest of the book. Anyone familiar with Faye will anticipate the tone and direction of the material here. Faye warned that Muslims in Europe are ready and willing to “wage a war of revenge and conquest on our own soil.” Rather than seeing matters through a purely religious lens, Faye insists that what we are really witnessing is the beginning of an “ethnic civil war.” In this conflict, Islam has been adopted as a banner and identitarian standard, but we can see that “at the start, the Browns were completely indifferent to their own religion and were only interested in parasitic consumerism.” Ethnic grievance, for Faye, is the true driver of the coming war, whereas Islam will merely provide a useful veneer to the “Browns” who can use it tactically to enhance group cohesion and morale. Faye insists that Islam (“a vast undertaking of mental stupefaction”) is dangerous in its own right, however, and contrasts it with less totalitarian monotheisms like Christianity. Because of its role as “the purest kind of totalitarianism in existence,” Faye advocates only the strongest of responses to it:

No containment strategy could ever distress them. Islam only retreats when its members are told that one intends to eliminate it, to eradicate it once and for all. One must arouse fear in them, not negotiate. The only language that Islam understands is the language of force; such is its culture.

Faye closes the chapter with a condemnation of Western foreign policy in Muslim lands, arguing that the best cure for Islamic terrorism in Europe is to “abstain from bombarding Muslim countries and do the housework on our own soil.”

The second chapter of the volume, “Neo-Terrorism: Why One Should Be Pessimistic,” picks up the baton left by the opening chapter and delves deeper into the problem of Muslim terrorism in Europe. The volume unfortunately provides no guide to the dates on which the various essays/chapters were originally published, but some light exegesis led me to believe that the majority of the volume’s work was written in the handful of years immediately following 9/11 — roughly, the period 2002–2007. With this dating, some of Faye’s predictions appear remarkably prescient given the rapid increase in Muslim terrorism in Europe between 2010 and 2015, culminating in the 2015 massacre at the Bataclan in Paris. Probably writing no more than a few months after 9/11, Faye warned that Muslim terrorism would “spread considerably during the first decades of the twenty-first century,” boosted by the mediatization of society (especially the role of the internet) and the drive to pursue ever more spectacular forms of terrorist attack. Faye is once more scathing of Western responses to Islamic terror, singling out the response of the United States to 9/11 and comparing it to a “cowboy who pulls out his pistol to target wasps that he cannot even see.” Faye lamented the West’s ability to combat Muslim terrorism because Muslim migration itself represents a kind of quasi-military reinforcement and because Muslim terror networks are almost impenetrable even to the most skilled secret service agencies. The most crucial error of all, however, is the fact that

Europeans and Americans are utterly blind to the coming ethnic civil war and a demographic flood that is far graver than terrorism. What causes a people’s demise is neither the use of bombs nor military operations, but ethnic flooding. The primary and most effective weapon of war has always been embodied by an invasion of foreign populations, naturalisations, and a gradual seizure of power by foreigners.

The book’s third chapter, “The American Adversary,” is one of the slower-paced entries. It deals with an anti-Americanism that is quite specific to France, and which might leave many in the Anglosphere scratching their heads. There are some arguments that are becoming more current in Third Positionist discourse in our circles, including the idea that America is not a nation or empire, but “a massive commercial and financial undertaking supported by the military-industrial complex and founded upon the necessity of a permanent state of war.” To this kind of thinking I can only reply that there’s an element of truth to this analysis of the structure and expression of American power, but it also leaves a great deal unsaid. Most importantly, I believe there is definitely an American nation, even an ethnic (White) nation, but it is sublimated in the current culture and has been for several decades due to propaganda and demonization, the latter of which has ramped up enormously in recent years with the institutionalization of Critical Race Theory. Faye himself straddles both sides of the argument, believing that Europe and America can and should be strong allies, but insisting that American culture is built around war, “but not the glorious kind: hypocritical warfare, the offspring of commerce and industry.” For Faye, the United States represents a problem because of its influence in European affairs, but this problem should be regarded as temporary because the US displays “a purely material and mechanical appearance of power.” He insists that America lacks any sort of “demographic, cultural, spiritual, or, in short, historical foundation. It is a power comprised of merchants and brokers, the fleeting power of a short-lived civilisation.” As proof of his argument for American decline, Faye predicts “in 2030, the US will probably no longer be a mostly Anglo-Saxon country, but a Hispanic/African/Asian one, a fact that will alter quite a few perspectives.” Ethnically diluted, America will be unable to contend with the rise of China and the demographic expansion of Islam, both of which possess a foundation of longevity to their power that the United States lacks. Faye, I must be clear, doesn’t celebrate American decline, but rather he contextualizes it within what he perceives to be a coming globalized war: “the conflict shall, generally speaking, involve a clash between the White race and all others.”

On this note, the book moves to a brief chapter titled “Towards a New Cold War Between China and the USA.” Faye points out that American militarism has most often been directed only against small countries like Vietnam, Panama, and Serbia, but now faces “the enormous China, a terrifying challenger which, thanks to its 1.25 billion inhabitants, can indeed withstand any losses resulting from nuclear strikes and is now endowing itself with long-range missiles.” The chapter contains an interesting analysis of the character of Chinese nationalism, and the Chinese perspective (fiercely relativist) on the notion of democracy and the philosophy of human rights.

The fifth chapter of the volume, “Towards an Ethnic Civil War in Europe,” contains material that will be very familiar to those who read Faye’s Ethnic Apocalypse (originally published in French as Guerre civile raciale). The content here is an exceptional dissection of race relations in France that has overwhelming relevance to multiracial societies everywhere. Take, for example, his discussion of anti-police riots in France, written more than a decade before last year’s Summer of Floyd:

The mechanism that triggers such rioting is always identical: a police officer injures or kills an Afro-Maghrebi delinquent that had aggressed him to avoid getting arrested (after being caught red-handed); alternatively a French citizen is attacked and, overwhelmed with fear, defends himself … Police interventions and law enforcement actions are regarded as virtually political and territorial provocations.

One example provided by Faye, that made me laugh until I pondered the seriousness of it all, concerns a riot that followed the death of “a man named Kamel, who had died as a result of having severed his femoral artery while smashing the window of a shop he was burgling.” All of which goes to prove quite clearly that these riots are not about justice and security but rather, as Faye argues, about ethnic claims on territory and attempts to gain an advantage in competitive racial politics. For Faye, aggressive race riots are nothing more than a prelude to racial civil war, since “war always begins in public spaces and through provocations. It is animal-like and ethological.”

Whites are paralyzed from acting against this process, or even perceiving it, in part because of the nature of the relationship between White socio-economic classes. This theme comprises the volume’s sixth chapter, “The New Social War and the Economic Crisis.” Faye explores the evolution of leftist parties into bourgeois movements, and astutely points out that the mindset of the bourgeoisie “can only acknowledge competition in an economic context.” Blind to competition outside this paradigm (e.g., racial competition), “the entire Left despises our native people.” In today’s Europe, Faye argues:

The Left embodies the most refined expression of the worst possible aspects of the bourgeois ideology: cosmopolitanism, hatred for our native people and its traditions, the worship of money concealed under a façade of philanthropic motivations, xenophile, etc.

The ‘anti-racist’ bourgeois “are always careful to enroll their children in private and foreigner-free schools,” but elsewhere there is a “class complicity between the ruling anti-racist bourgeois upper class and the immigrant-colonisers to the detriment of our native population, a population that works, pays and suffers every act of violence.” Faye attacks French culture, which he sees as undervaluing manual work while lavishing praise on “parasitic professions” like journalists, TV presenters, and public intellectuals. The chapter closes with a scathing indictment of White guilt, and a call for investment in “high-quality education and a dynamic demography based on pro-natalist policy.”

At this stage, the volume departs from thematic connection between chapters and launches quite unexpectedly into Faye’s controversial 2007 essay, “The New Jewish Question.” Although familiar with Faye’s attitudes to Jews as expressed in Ethnic Apocalypse, this was my first time reading “The New Jewish Question” in full. Predictably, given loud (and perhaps unfair) accusations that Faye revealed himself as a Zionist by publishing it, there is some material in the essay that I strongly disagree with. Overall, however, I have to say that it is not as bad as a thought it would be. Faye is certainly not a Zionist, but neither is he anti-Zionist. He is extremely dismissive of the situation faced by the Palestinians, but declares “I am neither philosemitic nor antisemitic.” He later refines this statement to “I am judeo-indifferent.” Whether such declarations are tenable given the saturation of Jewish interests in the life of the West is the real question here, and for my part I was unconvinced by Faye’s argument that one can simply abstain from any and all positions involving Jews. In fact, it seems a rather easy and convenient way out of some very difficult questions.

Faye advocates complete disinterest in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on two grounds. The first is that he assumes that “the state of Israel may eventually disappear,” and therefore that the problem is in any case temporary. Second, Faye insists that no amount of help for Muslims experiencing problems in the Middle East will stem the tide of Muslim migration to Europe because migration flows have preceded all such conflicts and are unaffected by material circumstances in Muslim nations. Faye insists that “despite its apparent military power, Israel will not last long” because “its demographic flooding at the hands of Palestinian Arabs, regardless of whether the latter are Israeli citizens or not, is inevitable, since their fertility rate is twice as high as that of all Israeli Jews.”

Personally, I have deep reservations about Faye’s claims in this regard, based not least on the fact that Jewish birth rates in Israel have now surpassed those of Arabs, leading the Jewish Policy Center to declare that “the so-called population time bomb has disappeared in Israel.” I can think of no other nation on earth that demonstrates as much open concern about its racial composition, birth rates, and demographics as Israel, and one gets the impression that nothing is “off the table” in terms of what the Jews of Israel are prepared to do in order to maintain control of that territory. In short, the demographic flooding of Jews in Israel is far from inevitable, and is in fact extremely unlikely. In relation to Faye’s second point, he seems to miss the importance of moral arguments in Jewish propaganda on behalf of Israel, and in Jewish apologetic propaganda more generally. Although I certainly have no love for Arabs or Palestinians, I’ve always found pro-Palestinian rallies to be extremely interesting and useful counterpoints to Jewish dominance of Western moral narratives, and the many denunciations of Israeli atrocities have done much to dent, impede, or at least complicate narratives of the Jews as history’s perpetual and blameless victims. Aid for Palestine therefore doesn’t need to be focused solely on the stemming of migrant flows (I agree with Faye that they proceed regardless), but can remain a reasonable activity for anyone seeking to hinder Zionist influence and narratives globally.

Another flaw in Faye’s argument is that he seemed to believe that American Zionism is based not on the influence of powerful American Jewish lobbies, but solely on an American strategic drive to dominate the region a la Noam Chomsky. In this view, Israel constitutes nothing more than a passive partner to American ambitions, and it can be replaced with intensified American relations with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt. Faye fully expected the eventual abandonment of Israel by the United States, an event that doesn’t seem, to any reasonable observer, even remotely conceivable now or at any future date.

Faye’s understanding of Jewish influence also left a lot to be desired. He concedes that “Jewish intellectuals” have been at the forefront of “immigrational laxism,” but later insists that “Jewish ambition is limited to a sort of spiritual and intellectual philosophy.” Much as I admire Faye’s writings, this is shameless nonsense. While “The New Jewish Question” is an interesting and novel essay, I must make it clear that while there are many reasons to read Faye, one of them is not to come to grips with Jewish matters. Faye failed miserably in this area, and there is, quite frankly, little I can offer in terms of mitigation other than the remark I made on reviewing Ethnic Apocalypse: “I see a paralysis-like error in [Faye’s] thinking, brought about by a quite understandable reaction to the stark and visible Islamisation of France.”

The volume recovers from this dip in quality very well, with Faye’s eighth chapter on “Europe and the Third World — An Impossible Combination.” The author attacks White guilt in relation to Africa (“this unintelligent continent”), and condemns the White charitable endeavors that have led to mass African demographic growth. The steady movement of this excess population into the West has swamped us with “aggressive beggars and false eternal victims.” Faye laments that Africa was ever colonized by Europeans, stressing that “in the absence of northern countries, Black Africa would return to the Neolithic in the space of one single generation.”

Chapters 9 through 17 deal with problems in contemporary culture, ranging from White “collaborationists” in multiculturalism, to the conceits of French intellectualism and political correctness. The seventeenth chapter, “Decadence — A Prelude to Collapse,” was one of my favorites, and deals with the imposition of “effeminate models” of behavior on European males. Faye attacks pornography, the promotion of homosexuality, and feminism for weakening our capability of waging a “war of wombs.” There are some terrific aphorisms in this chapter, alongside Faye’s typically scathing tone (“‘Tolerant’ people are imbeciles.”)

The book comes to a close with four essays that adopt a more philosophical tone. The most interesting of these is “Is Christianity Still Capable of Struggle?” I thought that Faye was hard but fair on Christianity in this piece, pointing out that Christianity has been so flexible and adaptive over time that a fifteenth-century priest would hardly recognize the religion we see today. This same flexibility and adaptiveness have allowed altruistic elements of Christian discourse to be “adopted by trade unions, parties, associations, and leagues, and people, therefore, no longer have any need of it, nor of its impoverished rites devoid of long-lost sacredness.” Faye also attacks the individualism in Western Christian notions of marriage (love matches), which he sees as directly responsible for “demographic decline and the collapse of the clan-based family for the benefit of unfertile and unstable nuclei that are henceforth open to the worst kind of psychopathy, namely the existence of homosexual couples.” Further, the secularization of certain Christian values has been catastrophic:

Never before have people talked so much about “loving their neighbour, and never before have social selfishness, disdain for the state of matrimony, the shattering of our close bonds of solidarity, lack of civic-mindedness, materialistic cynicism and violence been so prevailingly widespread.

That being said, I thought there were some points made by Faye against Christianity that were rather weak, not least his claim that Christianity promotes belief in the inherent goodness of man. This would surely come as a surprise to anyone familiar with the doctrine of original sin and the fallen state of Man and the world. The essay, despite its faults, will challenge and intrigue both Christians and non-Christians, and was in my view one of the highlights of the volume.

Concluding Remarks

Why read Faye? Certainly not for well-considered analysis of the Jewish Question. Nor, I must say, should one read Faye for his prophecies — he claims in his conclusion, for example, that “it is about 2010 that the great about-turn [in our favor] will begin.” The failure of this particular prediction provides a useful warning against the development of nationalist eschatologies (‘end of the world’ theories) based on allegedly imminent societal collapses, and Faye was an enthusiastic expert in the production of such eschatologies. With Islamic terrorism seemingly contained for the time being, or at least limited to events that Faye would not regard as “spectacular,” we must come to the realization that much more likely than sudden collapse is prolonged social, cultural, and demographic decline. This phenomenon is infinitely more difficult to oppose and reverse, but Faye had remarkably little to say on this subject. He was intensely disturbed by Muslim mass migration, and rightly so, but it tainted his work with a panicked quality operating on assumptions of a limited time horizon. This, I feel, will tend to limit the place of his work in posterity.

With these caveats out of the way, however, there remain many reasons to read Faye, and to read this volume in particular. Faye had a remarkable talent for writing, and his works are masterclasses in punchy, aggressive, and direct explorations of some of the most pressing problems facing contemporary Western peoples. Reading Faye, one is shocked at his lack of concern for France’s speech laws, a disregard that led to a number of appearances in court. Faye was courageous and bold, and his ideas are often bumpy and uneven, but always sincere. Perhaps the best reason to read Faye is that, despite his penchant for a coming apocalypse, he was an optimist. One can therefore read Faye to be encouraged. He closed this volume, after all, with the words: “Do not despair.”

(Republished from The Occidental Observer by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 31 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Nothing is going to happen until black gangs start going around and killing whites outright. YT may still not wake up then. Just hide and beg for mercy. Which will not be found.

    The “Labrador Retriever” race needs to GTFO of Gaymerica, FAST. Idleness. Do not contribute to a System that wants you dead. Ex-pat now. Do it. With the clothes on your back and a plane ticket in hand if that what it takes. White immigrants from Europe 120 years ago had less, and they built an industrial powerhouse (which is no more, of course).

    What’s interesting is that the culturally-approved homos are really a suicide cult, anyway, sort of like YT.

    Many want to be HIV positive so they can stop worrying about having it. Then it’s back to party time, orgies, and Satan worship. (Anything for a bigger bang, of course.) It’s a suicide cult.

    Many traitor whites want to promote blacks over whites, kinda like, uh, a suicide cult.

    Many the whole culture is a suicide cult. Think about it. If you’re pro-life, meaning pro-YOUR LIFE, then read Apocalpyse 18:4. It’s all there, my friends.

    “And I heard another voice from heaven, saying: Go out from her, my people; that you be not partakers of her sins, and that you receive not of her plagues. [5] For her sins have reached unto heaven, and the Lord hath remembered her iniquities.”

    This is the Bible saying, “GTFO.”

  2. so long as the Jews can continue to buy consent with debtbux,

    Whites will continue to accept extinction. If/when

    the (((Great Ponzi))) collapses, Whites might notice

    that they are bring exterminated and go to violent resistance. But

    I doubt it.

    1914-1945 cut the heart right out of White Western Civilization.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  3. Regarding chapter 1 religion is a group strategy to raise social status (fitness)

  4. Thanks for the excellent book review, Andrew Joyce. I hadn’t heard of Mr. Faye before. It inspired me to buy it on Kindle. Only \$8.99. I was somewhat surprised to find it on Amazon given the ongoing censorship.

  5. Corvinus says:
    @Haxo Angmark

    What happened to your website? You know, the one with the Jewess pics?

    “Whites will continue to accept extinction.”

    That’s the great lie you continue to peddle.

    • Replies: @Haxo Angmark
  6. @Corvinus

    dumb as a box of rocks ‘Murkan Whites elected ZOG-stooge Trump Prez in 2016.

    Trump then spent 4 years

    sucking Jewish dick, kissing, black ass, massaging spics,

    and pissing on the Whites who voted for him.

    in 2020…Whites went out and voted for ZOG-stooge Trump again.

    yup….that’s some “white resistance”. ‘Murka:

    white minority by 2030, Whites extinct by 2070.

    • Replies: @follyofwar
  7. Andrew Anglin: “… we must come to the realization that much more likely than sudden collapse is prolonged social, cultural, and demographic decline. This phenomenon is infinitely more difficult to oppose and reverse, but Faye had remarkably little to say on this subject. ”

    Anglin must not have read Faye’s book Archaeofuturism, where he suggests the possibility of a future comprising a synthesis of the “traditional” with high technology. But to me this seems a stillborn idea, since it neglects the extent to which technological “progress” has already shaped culture for the worse, and is already responsible for the white man’s looming extinction. That this can only get worse with continued technological “advances” seems undeniable; nor is this overstatement. A transhumanist future portends not a slow demographic and cultural decline, but the obsolescence of man himself.

    • Replies: @commandor
    , @follyofwar
  8. commandor says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    To [Faustian man, technics] is a spiritual need, not on account of its economic consequences, but on account of its victories — “navigare necesse est, vivere non est necesse.” – Spengler

    Culture rules people, not technology.

  9. commandor: “Culture rules people, not technology. ”

    That so many white men are convinced by the idea that “advancing” Western civilization is more important than the continued existence of the white race is even more proof of technology ruling mankind. Regarding the white race as only having value as an instrumentality to “advance” something else is inherently toxic.

    • Replies: @NEETzschean
  10. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    “Regarding the white race as only having value as an instrumentality to “advance” something else is inherently toxic.”

    Funnily enough, the instrumental perspective is what arch-WN Dr. William Luther Pierce claimed to believe. Part of his “Cosmotheist” doctrine entailed a transhumanist project where whites evolve to “higher forms of consciousness” and through the pursuit of science “attain Godhood”. He claimed that “no race exists as an end in itself”.

    There are obvious problems here through, the first being that a white race that has attained substantially “higher forms of consciousness” will be an organism radically different to what exists today and has existed in the past, thus it’s tantamount to white genocide through the backdoor. The other problem is Pierce’s ideal is ultimately meritocratic: if (possibly through eugenics) other races can advance science and attain “higher forms of consciousness”, there is no need to preserve the white race in particular.

    There is thus a massive contradiction between the technological progressivism of Pierce (and much of the white right in general) and their primitivist desire to preserve the white race (race evolved and was sustained under primitive conditions) which is being undone by the same technological trends that they desire to accelerate.

  11. NEETzschean: “There is thus a massive contradiction between the technological progressivism of Pierce (and much of the white right in general) and their primitivist desire to preserve the white race (race evolved and was sustained under primitive conditions) which is being undone by the same technological trends that they desire to accelerate. ”

    Exactly!

    It’s too bad that Spengler didn’t foresee transhumanism. Or did he? The Spengler quote commandor gives above comes from his short book Man and Technics. In it, he predicts the eventual fall of Faustian man and his civilization. He concludes:

    This machine-technics will end with the Faustian civilization and one day will lie in fragments, forgotten — our railways and steamships as dead as the Roman roads and the Chinese wall, our giant cities and skyscrapers in ruins like old Memphis and Babylon.

  12. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    Are you mixing up the articles you’ve read? This review was written by Andrew Joyce, not Andrew Anglin.

  13. @Haxo Angmark

    Kind sir, please tell me: What choice did we have last year if we didn’t want the radical anti-white democrats to take over? (Which they did anyway, thru massive fraud). And would you have preferred the full of hate Hillary Clinton in 2016?

    It’s near impossible to get elected into any office if you speak out against AIPAC (ask Cynthia McKinney). And impossible to become POTUS.

    Bad as Trump was on the JQ, Biden, who recently knelt before Israel’s president Rivlin (at the WH, no less!), is worse.

    The only good thing a dissident Rightist could say about our senile president, and our cackling soon-to-take-over anchor baby VP, is that, from an accelerationist POV, they have sped up the country’s coming demise.

  14. follyofwar: “Are you mixing up the articles you’ve read? This review was written by Andrew Joyce, not Andrew Anglin. ”

    LOL. You’re right. I got my Andrews mixed up.

  15. Adûnâi says: • Website

    I’m pleasatly surprised that Prelude to War: Chronicle of the Coming Cataclysm is available on libgen for free. Isn’t Faye dead? Why would a dead man ask for my money for his propaganda leaflet?

    I have been reading some Faye. Ethnic Apocalypse: The Coming European Civil War (2019) is incredibly boring, banal and dry, despite its playful name. But in Michael O’Meara’s Guillaume Faye and the Battle of Europe (2013), I have read some real cuck shit.

    In “Europe’s Enemy: Islam or America?”
    Apropos of Guillaume Faye, Le Coup d’État mondial: Essai sur le Nouvel Impérialisme Américain. Paris: L’Æncre, 2004.
    The Occidental Quarterly 5, no. 3 (Fall 2005)

    […] the sole European statesman to have defended Europe’s independence in the postwar period: Charles de Gaulle.

    Exactly, Faye is calling the man who:
    1) fought against Europe during the bifurcation time of WW2 for the Anglo;
    2) sold the European Algeria to the Big Berber Cock;
    a defender of Europe because he left NATO and blocked the accession of the UK to the EEU twice?

    Faye has some decent articles, such as Mars & Hephaestus (2010), but I’m appalled at how similar he is to American burger-eating pacifists.
    https://guillaumefayearchive.wordpress.com/2010/01/22/mars-hephaestus-the-return-of-history/

    And the irony is that the beginning of that paragraph is quite revolutionary!

    During the Cold War, the more advanced nationalists rejected the official view that Soviet Communism was the principal enemy and instead designated the United States. This is evident in the work of Francis Parker Yockey, Jean Thiriart, Adriano Romualdi, Otto Strasser, and Alain de Benoist, as well in the politics of […]

    I would respect de Gaulle if he had been Communist, and/or led France to the Warsaw Pact. That would have been equivalent to supporting Al Qaeda. For it is America that is killing the Aryan race in Europe – just not because “the wars have caused immigration” (what a brain-dead position), but because America is the guardian of the Christian love. Which has fostered the breeding of swarthy Negroes, and which has opened the borders and the hearts of the Aryans.

    Ethnic grievance, for Faye, is the true driver of the coming war, whereas Islam will merely provide a useful veneer to the “Browns” who can use it tactically to enhance group cohesion and morale. Faye insists that Islam (“a vast undertaking of mental stupefaction”) is dangerous in its own right, however, and contrasts it with less totalitarian monotheisms like Christianity. Because of its role as “the purest kind of totalitarianism in existence,” […]

    Islam is a good religion. A pure memetic weapon of the West Asian race, invigorated after a millennium of domination by Persia, Hellas and Rome. I would not, however, call it the best on the planet. In my mind, the Kimilsungist-Kimjongilist cult of Korea has proved out to be much more potent, inspiring, and atheist, without the dick-cutting prevalent among the Abrahamics. It is ironic to bemoan the “materialism” (economism?), and then oppose an expression of blind political-cultural Will that is Islam (aside from its being the Will of our Semitic enemy, that is).

    (Oh look, I never mentioned the Jews. Guess they’re inconsequential, after all.)

  16. Adûnâi says: • Website

    The semantic issue is that I don’t consider France European. Or Germany. I view the Atlantic Wall as irretrievably lost, and an intrinsic part of future Eurabia that is gestating now.

    America is ruled by a corrupt anti-White elite, but this elite is really no worse than the anti-European elites which sit in the parliaments of France, Germany, England, etc.

    Nice joke. There doesn’t seem to be any opposition to transvestitism whatever west of the Elbe. Everything happening in non-Slavic lands seems to be grassroots, Christian, even anti-capitalist, actively hurting the very efficiency of the American Empire. Even the Slavic suicide is mostly grassroots, from Gorbachev’s 1991 to Tikhanovskaya’s 2020, and he’s telling me the Westerners are oppressed? That’s a small step from anti-Semitism, from ascribing omnipotence to scary Jews. Von Hoffmeister is indeed as hilarious as the explicit neo-Nazis are.

    Faye argues that it is easy, fashionable and, most of all, safe to spray paint “Yankee go home!” on the walls of European capitals, but how few would dare write “Islam out!” instead? This is, of course, a rhetorical question.

    Because “Yankee, go home!” doesn’t really mean what it says. Repudiating America truthfully would mean a revolutionary apostasy from the secular Christian axiology of love. The European anti-American statement is gay, European Islamophobia is gay likewise. Eurofaggot anti-Americans want to save brown kids’ lives; Eurofaggot Islamophobes want to save brown gays’ lives. There is as little difference here as between the race-denying liberals and evolution-denying traditionalists in America – none whatever.

    This is why I discount the West in whole. It is holding the entire Aryan race hostage. The only hope would be to erect a new Iron Curtain east of NATO and wait till the Anglo branch of the White race goes extinct. Then a new core could be formed if anything remains of Russia and/or Poland.

    A map of non-White birthrates whose veracity I can’t confirm.

  17. Adûnâi: “Everything happening in non-Slavic lands seems to be grassroots, Christian, even anti-capitalist, actively hurting the very efficiency of the American Empire.”

    I agree with you that these changes are happening with the active cooperation of the public, but the question of efficiency can only be evaluated with respect to a goal. This is why one can’t speak of maximizing the efficiency of a society in general terms. What you are here indicting as inefficiency may indeed be efficient from the standpoint of pursuing another goal than the one you appear to envision, which is, if I am reading you right, to turn Western society into something culturally similar to N. Korea. Kaczynski addresses this issue in his manifesto.

    51.The breakdown of traditional values to some extent implies the breakdown of the bonds that hold together traditional small-scale social groups. The disintegration of small-scale social groups is also promoted by the fact that modern conditions often require or tempt individuals to move to new locations, separating themselves from their communities. Beyond that, a technological society HAS TO weaken family ties and local communities if it is to function efficiently. In modern society an individual’s loyalty must be first to the system and only secondarily to a small-scale community, because if the internal loyalties of small-scale small-scale communities were stronger than loyalty to the system, such communities would pursue their own advantage at the expense of the system.

    So all of the decay in traditional Western values you are complaining about is part and parcel of the expansion of the technological system. The promotion of transsexualism and homosexuality serves to weaken family ties, so from the standpoint of promoting loyalty to the system, it’s a very efficient technique indeed. Likewise with the importing of racial aliens, and legally mandating that they be given preferred status. Because the public itself, in its collective intelligence, apparently desires to continue pursuing the development of the technological system, it actively cooperates in the destruction of these traditional values. Some people, of course, can be expected to protest, just as you are doing here, but mostly the changes proceed smoothly, and with increasing rapidity as the technological system “progresses”.

    In response, I’d expect you to say that N. Korea is doing things differently, yet also aspires to be a technological society. But these are only different approaches to the same end. Insofar as they aim at expanding the reach and power of the system, both societies must become increasingly totalitarian. They will wind up at the same place, even though there are lots of ways to get there.

  18. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    “But these are only different approaches to the same end.”

    Indeed and it’s also interesting to ponder what’s more “efficient”: the global “liberal” American empire or a small tinpot gook nation led by Dennis Rodman’s best friend. The enduring and expanding global reach of America is testament to its “efficiency”, the technological superiority of its model over those it has vanquished and outlasted.

    • Replies: @commandor
  19. commandor says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    Dr. Robert Morgan, does TK have anything to say on racism? Does he write on Hitler anywhere?

  20. commandor says:
    @NEETzschean

    Christian Aryan Americans are dying. Juche Koreans survive. Yeah, America is clearly better. You and Dr. Robert Morgan want to return to 40-men tribes and live in caves. Hardly a solution for the survival of the white race.

  21. Adûnâi says: • Website
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    It’s pleasant to see you still active and fruitful as ever. Do you manually check the threads you contribute to, or do you depend on a sort of notifications?

    > “…the question of efficiency can only be evaluated with respect to a goal.”

    What goal can there be outside a given system’s survival? Don’t you agree that America will irreversibly change once its Aryan element dies out? What’s the efficiency of an extinct system? Islam doesn’t posit abolishing itself as its aim, Islam can thus be analysed.

    > “What you are here indicting as inefficiency may indeed be efficient from the standpoint of pursuing another goal than the one you appear to envision…”

    The goal of America and Christendom is to breed swarthy niggers. It’s neither here nor there. I don’t deny that it’s sufficiently efficient in achieving that noble aim. But even then, it could be more efficient if the Aryans weren’t set to kill themselves – doesn’t the case of South Africa prove that a European suzerainty is beneficial to niggers, unlike a lack thereof?

    Aims can be physically impossible even, such as pacifying Afghanistan without killing anyone, the way Americans wage what they call “wars” – with plush swords and self-restrained.

    > “…to turn Western society into something culturally similar to N. Korea.”

    No, my vision would be Adolf Hitler als Führer Amerikas. Juche Korea as it currently stands is but an embryo of greatness. Still better than the transvestite Christendom. But America could have been so much more. In short, imagine Hitler’s policies in Poland replicated in Mexico, in the Philippines, in Japan – a whole lot of gassing foreign civilians.

    > “Beyond that, a technological society HAS TO weaken family ties and local communities if it is to function efficiently.”

    As nonsensical as a belief in the Holodomor. Yes, tribal links are torn, feudalism abolished. No, family as a unit cannot be discredited as without a family, there is no child-birth, and that is the basis of the state.

    Where on the planet do you see such universal love as in America? Nowhere in Asia it is found. Has the tehnological society made India merge with Pakistan? Iran with the KSA? China with Vietnam? Armenia with Azerbaijan? All of the ever-more-democratic anti-Christian world is happily immersed in racial hatred. Only in the West, does Democracy lead to transvestitism and cuckoldry; in Afghanistan, democracy means the Taliban; in old Germany, Hitler; in Juche Korea, Kim Il Sung. America is the odd one out. Look at the map.

    > “The promotion of transsexualism and homosexuality serves to weaken family ties, so from the standpoint of promoting loyalty to the system, it’s a very efficient technique indeed.”

    The Taliban enjoys perfect loyalty by promoting putting the pussy in the blanket.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban

    Taliban leaders “repeatedly told” Rashid that “if they gave women greater freedom or a chance to go to school, they would lose the support of their rank and file.”

    The idea that homosexualism is promoted by a scary Jew-freemason in Washington to oppress American gun-owners is a total joke. It’s utterly illogical. Not a single Asian fiction writer would think of such a hilarious course of action. No, this transvestite movement of America is grassroots, from below, anti-capitalist, anti-White and by the Whites. This is a Christian immolation, and has nothing to do with exercising control – aside from the Jew Jesus controlling his adherents by the power of culture. You are aping those Marxists who think the LGBTQIA+ is promoted by the capitalists to hold onto power – pure insanity. In a non-Christian country, such questions don’t ever arise, let alone hold any sway over public opinion.

    > “Likewise with the importing of racial aliens, and legally mandating that they be given preferred status.”

    An efficient system would have sterilised the low-IQ niggers and Whites, as I told you before. And would have gassed their native lands, too. The way any non-American sovereign country behaves. We saw the glimpse of democracy x technology in Hitler & Tojo.

    > “…both societies must become increasingly totalitarian.”

    Democracy means total obedience. The power of technology does enable this most awesome of powers, a multi-million race united in worship, united in hatred. Liberalism is self-defeating. Modern Islam is far more glorious than the wretched Ottoman Porte of yesteryear. Widespread literacy means more people know how to worship correctly.

    • Agree: commandor
  22. Adûnâi: “What goal can there be outside a given system’s survival?”

    It seems to me here you are deliberately misunderstanding the meaning of the word “goal”, presumably because only in that way can you continue to speak of efficiency in the vague, general sense in which you are wont to use it. But it’s obvious there can be goals that have nothing to do with the survival of a system, and there can even be goals of opposing a system, of bringing “a given system” down, destroying it.

    Using the word “efficient” as a kind of endorsement of an ideology is misleading you. Just because you prefer it doesn’t make it more efficient. That’s something that can only be determined in the future, by which ideology survives, and although we can speculate, there’s no way of deciding the question now. In fact, in a fully transhumanist future, there won’t even be such a thing as ideology. How could there be? Machines don’t have or need ideologies. What ideology does your computer subscribe to? Your car? LOL.

    Adûnâi: “What’s the efficiency of an extinct system?”

    That’s something you might want to consider in relation to transhumanism. After transhumanism has eliminated man himself, what becomes of efficiency? Can there be such a thing as efficiency without man? I doubt it, because in the concept of efficiency there is latent the idea of the best way of satisfying a desire, and machines don’t have desires. So, just like ideology, the day may come when efficiency loses all meaning. Just as the drive for survival leads to technology which leads to the death of man, its inventor, the drive for efficiency will lead to the elimination of the very concept!

    Alternatively, Spengler may be right, and the day will come when Faustian civilization’s technology lies forgotten, rotting away. How efficient was it then?

    Adûnâi: “No, family as a unit cannot be discredited as without a family, there is no child-birth, and that is the basis of the state.”

    Without human beings, there is no state, nor is there a need for one. In the meantime though, before a fully transhumanist future arrives, Kaczynski is plainly correct. The people who are voluntarily abolishing their own race and their own values are transferring all loyalty to the system itself. American antifa and BLM rioters are its paramilitary, its Maoist Red Guard in its own version of a Cultural Revolution. That they are acting on behalf of the state is shown by the fact they aren’t prosecuted for the crimes they commit, whereas retrogressive, anti-government forces such as the so-called Jan. 6 “insurrectionists” are. Jailed are the allegedly racist, “family values” people.

    Adûnâi: “Democracy means total obedience. The power of technology does enable this most awesome of powers, a multi-million race united in worship, united in hatred.”

    You are working at cross-purposes to yourself in your worship of the power of technology, since without man, there will be neither ideology, nor state, nor hate. You’re unwittingly working for the destruction of all you hold sacred.

    Adûnâi: “Liberalism is self-defeating.”

    That’s yet to be determined. Don’t underestimate the abilities of the Christian Empire of Lies. As Hitler said, “Christianity was the first creed in the world to exterminate its adversaries in the name of love. Its key-note is intolerance.” To the mass of mankind, congenital liars and hypocrites that they are, there’s something about this liar’s creed that has an appeal that’s broad and deep. Corruption, decadence, and perversity are popular all over the globe. Christian hypocrisy may yet prevail.

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
  23. commandor: “Dr. Robert Morgan, does TK have anything to say on racism? Does he write on Hitler anywhere? ”

    Adapting his ideas to the survival of the white race is my own innovation. I’ve seen no evidence that TK cares about the survival of the white race, and if he’s written anything on Hitler, I haven’t seen it. In a way, TK’s lack of apparent racism is surprising, since in his manifesto he clearly marks it as something that’s destructive to the system. Viz:

    Racism is discouraged because ethnic conflicts also disrupt the system, and discrimination wastes the talent of minority-group members who could be useful to the system. … Or take the gypsies. The gypsies commonly get away with theft and fraud because their loyalties are such that they can always get other gypsies to give testimony that “proves” their innocence. Obviously the system would be in serious trouble if too many people belonged to such groups.

    TK’s relative silence on these topics may be strategic. Since he sees the technological system itself as humanity’s main opponent, it may be that he doesn’t want to unnecessarily alienate potential allies in his struggle against it. Needless to say, racists, and white racists in particular, aren’t popular, so he might not want to associate himself with them.

    • Replies: @Joseph Walsh
  24. Adûnâi says: • Website
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    > “But it’s obvious there can be goals that have nothing to do with the survival of a system…”

    Isn’t that exactly what I’m talking about? The goal of Christianity is self-destruction via miscegenation and pacifism. It’s moderately efficient. It could be achieved by mass sterilisation or a nuclear war more efficiently instead, but they chose this way based on the cultural features of Judaism. The system is clearly ephemeral and boring because nobody will ever repeat its experience as it will for millennia be remembered as a mistake of Nature.

    > “Just because you prefer it doesn’t make it more efficient. That’s something that can only be determined in the future, by which ideology survives…”

    I agree in essence, just like with your determinism. But it’s not conducive to conversation. Of course, we will be pondering and speculating here. And honestly, do you not find it obvious that an America without the Aryans will look differently? That’s like being unsure as t the outcome of falling off a cliff.

    > “Machines don’t have or need ideologies.”

    Colour me surprised. Aren’t transhumanist machines supposed to be qualitatively different from the current tools? Moreso, they will supposedly be guided by the same principles of evolution and natural selection. Their ideology will be to survive and multiply, the same as of any other living agent in this Darwinian world.

    > “What ideology does your computer subscribe to? Your car?”

    That which would allow its owner to kill, eat and fuck the most efficiently, ideally.

    > “American antifa and BLM rioters are its paramilitary, its Maoist Red Guard in its own version of a Cultural Revolution.”

    What happens in America stays in America. I’m positing that most of the anti-family features are exclusive to Christian America. Transvestitism strongly correlates with the power of Christendom – see Israel and Formosa, and compare to China or India.

    Re: the Red Guards. I’ve heard a funny idea from a Jew Soloviev that Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution saved China from their own Gorbachev. I don’t know why Western far-rightists are so keen to call their opponent Communists – there has been absolutely no LGBTQIA+ in any Communist country on the planet.

    > “To the mass of mankind, congenital liars and hypocrites that they are, there’s something about this liar’s creed that has an appeal that’s broad and deep.”

    I look at the map and don’t see it. Plenty of forces, plenty of cultures, plenty of men who kill. Europe is finished, yeah. But Europe is not whole Eurasia. There will be a bright future without the Aryans.

  25. Adûnâi: “The goal of Christianity is self-destruction via miscegenation and pacifism. ”

    As a technique of empire, race mixing has always been used, and it’s been used because it’s effective. A glance at history shows Christianity’s pacifism is only another lie, as Hitler observed. The empire it has built for itself has caused many people and cultures to go extinct. Like Star Trek’s Borg, it grows by assimilation.

    Adûnâi: “[Machine] ideology will be to survive and multiply, the same as of any other living agent in this Darwinian world.”

    That’s far from obvious. Machines don’t “want” anything, not even to survive. Wanting is a human activity. In a lifeless world, Darwinian rules won’t apply. What makes you think they will?

    Adûnâi: “What happens in America stays in America.”

    Its cultural idiosyncrasies have already spread to many other countries.

    Adûnâi: “… there has been absolutely no LGBTQIA+ in any Communist country on the planet.”

    Different races, different histories, different cultures means there will be lots of ways to arrive at technological totalitarianism, assuming the system doesn’t collapse first. Communist regimes must be as anti-family as anything the West has come up with. Kaczynski’s manifesto again:

    Some of the early-20th century Chinese thinkers who were concerned with modernizing China recognized the necessity of breaking down small-scale social groups such as the family: “(According to Sun Yat-sen) The Chinese people needed a new surge of patriotism, which would lead to a transfer of loyalty from the family to the state. . .(According to Li Huang) traditional attachments, particularly to the family had to be abandoned if nationalism were to develop to China.” (Chester C. Tan, Chinese Political Thought in the Twentieth Century,” page 125, page 297.)

    Then, from the USSR, there’s this:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavlik_Morozov

    Adûnâi: “I look at the map and don’t see it. Plenty of forces, plenty of cultures, plenty of men who kill.”

    So you place your hope in dirt poor goat- and boy-fucking Islamists? LOL. Not very “efficient”, I would think.

    • Replies: @commandor
  26. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    Since the vast majority of scientific and thus technological development has proceeded from the so-called ‘white race’, in particular from white males, isn’t abolishing the white race a necessity for preventing any further technological progress? In other words, isn’t the white extinction event a good thing in this respect? Don’t the Jews have a point in genociding the Aryan to prevent any further progress, collapse modern advanced Western industrial-technological civilization and plunge ‘humans’ back into a savage, Third World shithole scenario, such as occurred in Africa after white rule came to an end on that continent and civilization subsequently collapsed back into tribalism and savagery?

    If you want to permanently end ‘progress’ why not wish for an Earth with niggers only? A Planet of the Apes with just primitive Stone Age hunter-gatherer murderers and rapists, untamed by civilization and law and order?

    In fact as humans represent a step up from the animals and thus are a form of progress why not aim for the extinction of all mankind? You have pointed out that one cannot wish for the survival of the white race and also support further technological progress, that it is an either-or choice; survival of the white race means stopping all further advances in technology otherwise one chooses technology over the continued existence of the white race, one cannot have both. But I could also say wanting the survival of the white race with no further technological advancement is ‘having one’s cake and eating it’, that if someone in the modern world wants to stop technology they MUST strive for the extinction of the white race-one cannot have it both ways; if the white race continues to exist technology will continue to be developed therefore white genocide is a necessity for the end of the technological system.

    Lastly, even if a vision like that of William Pierce or Cesar Tort’s of a White World was ever reached it would seem to me the white man would inevitably phase himself out of existence, replacing himself with technology. Since all humans are lying scum (as you put it so well in a recent comment) to one degree or another isn’t the extinction of humanity ultimately a good thing? To my mind even if Earth was only populated solely by truthful white males (such as Hitler) humans would still be insufferable scum and worthy of extinction.

    Whether humans go extinct through a nuclear holocaust or technological development etc. for me the end of man is not really all that bad a thing. There’s 7.8 billion lying, deceiving, hypocritical, self-serving, game-playing flavours of bullshit on the surface of our planet and they’ve had their day in the Sun. There is no answer to the human question, there is no solution to the human problem. They’re a biological failure.

    • Replies: @commandor
    , @Adûnâi
  27. Joseph Walsh: “… isn’t abolishing the white race a necessity for preventing any further technological progress?”

    No, not at all, at least, if astronomer Fred Hoyle’s conjecture was correct that a sufficiently great disaster could permanently disable high technology. Perhaps a post-technological world would end up looking like ancient Athens or ancient Rome. But, someone might object, if they can get that far, what will prevent them from quickly rebuilding the global technological system? The answer is that in ancient times, there were still plenty of easy to find materials with which to build technological civilization. Those are gone now, all used up. Resources vital to the technological system such as oil, iron, copper, aluminum, zinc, tin, gold, silver, etc., now require high technology to obtain. If that technology goes away, then they will in effect be permanently unobtainable. In the short term, cities could be effectively mined for materials only if enough people remained to do that, and a distribution network still was in operation, both to distribute the mined materials and to support the miners with food and other necessities of life. Depending on the method used to take the system down, this might well not be the case. Such activities are also somewhat constrained by time. If sufficient time passed before salvage began, much material would already have decayed to unusability. Wood and cloth rot, steel rusts, glass fogs and shatters, gasoline and oil oxidize and absorb water and go bad, plastic becomes brittle and breaks. A century or two of darkness, or much less, depending on the resource in question, and salvage would be unproductive. A blow to the system of sufficient power to cause a worldwide collapse and consequent population decrease from famine, disease, and conflict might well be something from which the global technological system could not recover. If an interruption to global technological society is imposed that lasts long enough, then the tools to extract those resources will no longer exist, nor the tools and resources to make those tools. In a few generations, even the knowledge of how to do so will be lost.

    Joseph Walsh: “Since all humans are lying scum (as you put it so well in a recent comment) to one degree or another isn’t the extinction of humanity ultimately a good thing? To my mind even if Earth was only populated solely by truthful white males (such as Hitler) humans would still be insufferable scum and worthy of extinction. ”

    So I’m sensing that you are not exactly an optimist! LOL.

    The eventual extinction of humanity would seem to be a foregone conclusion, since even the universe itself has a finite life span. But the path to survival of the white race I’ve mapped out, if there is one, takes people who claim they want the race to survive at their word. This, of course, is probably a mistake. That the headlong pursuit of technological progress will one day lead to disaster seems to me as certain as it did to Spengler, although in my conception it will be for different reasons. It could well cause the extinction of all humanity. But that is no great matter. Everything ends some time. Meanwhile, we may as well enjoy the show. As was said more than 24 centuries ago by one of Socrates’ contemporaries:

    “The world is a stage, life is a performance, you came, you saw, you departed.”
    – Democritus, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, Fragment 115, 1966

  28. commandor says:
    @Joseph Walsh

    > To my mind even if Earth was only populated solely by truthful white males (such as Hitler) humans would still be insufferable scum and worthy of extinction.

    Why? Sounds like nihilism.

    The rest is lamentable Christian schizo posting. You are a Christian who hates life.

  29. commandor says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    > Kaczynski’s manifesto again (quote)

    “Marriage cannot be an end in itself. It must serve a greater end, the increase and maintenance of the species and the race. That alone is its meaning and its task.” – Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

    “We Germans can thank fate each day that we live in such a great age. Mass meetings like today’s are simply a collective expression of that thanks. We women especially have every reason to be thankful, since we have been able to follow from year to year the faith and the will that has grown over this period in our work. We had no textbook or example — only our warm hearts and a desire to build a women’s community worthy of the greatness of the National Socialist worldview.” – Gertrud Scholtz-Klink, Nazi Women’s League head, 1938

    The state comes first. Individuals can be discarded. That is more pro-family than anti-family. The most pro-family you can get, actually.

  30. commandor: “Marriage cannot be an end in itself. It must serve a greater end, the increase and maintenance of the species and the race. That alone is its meaning and its task.” – Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

    If increasing the numbers of the white race is the goal, marriage isn’t necessary at all. Even the Nazi elite didn’t think so. See Lebensborn.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensborn#Implementation

    Initially the programme served as a welfare institution for wives of SS officers; the organization ran facilities – primarily maternity homes – where women could give birth or get help with family matters. The programme also accepted unmarried women who were either pregnant or had already given birth and were in need of aid, provided that both the woman and the father of the child were classified as “racially valuable”. About 60% of the mothers were unmarried. The program allowed them to give birth secretly away from home without social stigma. In case the mothers wanted to give up the children, the program also had orphanages and an adoption service.[5] When dealing with non-SS members, parents and children were usually examined by SS doctors before admission.

    Then too, it’s interesting to consider the possibilities of technologies unavailable at the time; technologies of the the future such as artificial wombs. Today these look quite feasible, and would be much more efficient than creating children the old-fashioned way.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_womb

    But really, why stop there? Still more efficient would be to create a race of cyborgs, well-nigh indestructible soldiers like the T-1000 in the Terminator movies. Perfect obedience coupled with perfect lethality, and even more efficient, because that way you could assemble them as needed without a lengthy gestation and training period lasting decades. Of course, the only thing human about a T-1000 was the skin. But that’s small price to pay for so much racial “progress”, isn’t it?

  31. Adûnâi says: • Website
    @Joseph Walsh

    > “In fact as humans represent a step up from the animals and thus are a form of progress why not aim for the extinction of all mankind?”

    What even is “progress”? Efficiency in energy manipulation? And why should it be opposed? Dr. Robert Morgan does it because he allegedly wants to preserve the European race frozen in its roughly current state (the pre-industrial variation).

    Opposing technology for the opposition’s own sake is idealist and rootless. My argument differs from Dr. Robert Morgan’s merely in that I answer the question of transhumanist destruction of man with hope.

    I can be an idealist, too – and if the technological life of tomorrow proves more vigorous than the flesh-and-blood Aryans of yesteryear, who are we to oppose the triumph of a higher form?

    > “Since all humans are lying scum…”

    Now that I think of it, I can retort with a yea-saying befitting Nietzsche-skunk:

    All humans are virtuous truth-tellers. For even a chaste priest cums in a boy’s anus.

    By and large, humans are anti-Christian and manly. It requires a terrible Jewish plague coupled with a perfect witch’s brew of Roman préstige and English steam machines to create K-pop ladyboys propped up by American bayonets. A once-in-a-millennium chance. Which otherwise failed in Buddhism, in Islam, in Communism. Even a modern Ukrainian neo-Nazi, Korchinsky, can still, in 2021, dream in a public speech about National Catholic terrorist attacks in Moscow. Remove America, and the cheerfulness will return to Eurasia!
    https://archive.vn/9elIM

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
$
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Andrew Joyce Comments via RSS
PastClassics
How America was neoconned into World War IV
“America’s strategic and economic interests in the Mideast and Muslim world are being threatened by the agony in...