His 'America is for everyone' line isn't consistent with his AmRen and NPI speeches. A lot of the book seems like rhetoric for Continential readers.

Faye conflates geopolitics and ideology quite a bit. One of my serious problems with him is the antiamericanism throughout the book. The geopolitical criticism is sound, but projecting that onto a cultural critique of America is very irresponsible.

The problem here is the assumption that US foreign policy is guided by rational self-interest, instead of ideology.

There's an interesting divide between the Old and New Left concerning population-control. A socialist organizer who lives in my building and I found a lot of common ground when I chatted with him recently about overpopulation. And yet, similar conversations that I have had with younger leftists usually derail into Third Worldist rhetoric.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/

This article is eleven years old, but it is too good not to share. The authors reevaluate Lewontin’s claim that individuals between populations (i.e, “races”) are more similar than within them. They find that is only true for 20 percent of a population measuring genetic distance by loci and distribution of traits themselves overlap even less. These are in other words genetic outliers. They conclude that Lewontin was wrong and that individuals within a population can be shown to be distinct from out-group populations given enough genetic material.

SNPs might be a better measure of diversity between human populations because they are attached to genes, so they can represent genetic expression more acutely. Looking at SNPs, almost all human populations genetically cluster into one of five racial groups (European, African, Amerindian, East Asian, or South Asian). One of the authors gave a presentation that touched on this. Here’s his graphic.

Thanks.

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2018/01/22/authentic-heidegger-vs-inauthentic-fake-news-part-1/

If anyone is looking for an introductory text to Heidegger, this essay series is a good place to start.

Excellent passage. Is that Schmitt?

https://digest.bps.org.uk/2018/01/31/sex-differences-in-brain-structure-are-already-apparent-at-one-month-of-age/

I highly recommend this book, although it's hard to find. It is an old text book that fell out of use circa 1960 due to its explicit celebration of the white race's conquering of this continent.

I had to have my copy shipped to me from Britain. I doubt that there's a PDF.

Evola's Platonic metaphysics are problematic for me and should be as such for anyone else who calls themselves a "race realist." Evola rejects biological race for a more metaphysical idea. And yet, my problem with Neo-Platonism expands further. Nietzsche's critique (in *Beyond Good and Evil*) of Platonism is spot on. Everything for them is about rejecting the material world; this becomes masturbatory and delusional if taken to its extreme conclusion, in which the person is alienated from his/her body and all realpolitik.

Also, Faye is absolutely right that Evola constructs a false dilemma between tradition and modernity. Tradition is a principle and out of time, but modernity is a historical period. It behooves us, then, to synthesize these concepts as Faye does in Archeofuturism.

All that said, Evola is still useful. His emphasis on tradition, order, and transcendence is the start of an important discourse for modern minds. And yet, like Plato, you should read him with a healthy degree of criticism.

You should, assuming you have a mic, be able to get in the chat by clicking on the *General* with the volume signal beside it below this section.

@Deleted User If you unmute yourself, you should be able to speak in the next chat.

I love this passage from Jack London's*Call of the Wild*

A very important passage from Aristotle.

@here an academic who I trust has asked for my ethical defense of Identitarianism. I have written the following draft. Please review and critique my work.

The human species is clearly divisible into subspecies or “races” by geography, breeding patterns, phenotypical differences, and genetic distance. For rational beings, the material implies the metaphysical as matter by its forms is conceptualized in the mind. This biological fact of race, then, represents an a priori extended family within the human species that includes moral and aesthetic traditions that reveal a collective self; or, in other words, race is a universal-particular of human nature. As such, the different races develop different ideas about the good. It follows that societies should be as racially homogenous as possible to flourish. The moral laws applying to this extended family are much like those applying a person’s immediate family, specifically concerning love and duty. A mother loves her child more than other children, so also should people within a certain ethno-cultural community (expressed within a race) feel a special filial love (or “identity”) between them and act in accordance to actualize their collective self.

https://www.amazon.com/World-Without-Jews-Karl-Marx/dp/0806529539

@CarletonJ I have edited my draft to appeal to race as an instrument for community and establishing virtue, rather than as an a priori concept. Although the latter is closer to my position, I feel that my new draft will be more persuasive as it appeals to the Thomist ethics to which my friend adheres.

Communities arise within a specific people whom share history, language, and customs; that almost always means within a race. These communities allows us to comprehend the telos of being human, although expressed differently; consider the aesthetic in black and white churches. As such, we must be aware of our race to establish the virtues that lead to our flourishing. In this way, we may think of a community as a family and a race as an extended family. The moral laws applying to this extended family are much like those applying a person’s biological family, specifically concerning love and duty. A mother loves her child more than other children, so also should people within a certain ethno-cultural community (expressed within a race) feel a special filial love between them and act in accordance to actualize their virtues.

I used to write occasional articles under my pseudonym ("Cultural Heresy"), but I deleted everything after Cville. I would like to do that again in future.

Yes, that's me haha

Thanks, dude.

https://2kpcwh2r7phz1nq4jj237m22-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/06-14-2018-Taylor-v-Twitter.pdf

If anyone want to read it, these are the oral arguments in Jared Taylor's lawsuit against Twitter.

https://cis.org/Use-and-Abuse-Bible-Immigration-Debate

A very important article for Christians to read for the current illegal alien debate.

Thanks!

@everyone 6PM (EST) next Sunday the 25th, the voice chat will host Chris Robertson, a noted essayist for Counter Currents. I will conduct a 30-60 minute interview with him about his two books—*In Defense of Hatred* and *Letters to Anwei*—and then the voice chat will open to a general question format between members and Chris Robertson. My interview will be critical because I have several disagreements with Chris, but remember to be respectful; do not interrupt the guest, keep on topic, and mute your microphones when not speaking.

@here Everyone jump in the #MeetTheAuthor voice chat and mute your mics. We will start the interview at 6:00 (EST) on the dot.

I will ask him when he finishes this his thought

So sorry, my mic has died

Likewise, I hope everyone is taking this to heart.

This is a common Marxist critique of social democracy. They argue that social democracy a tool of the bourgeoisie to preserve power by accommodating class consciousness. I always cringe whenever people in our community use the term “cultural Marxist”; no one should use the term because it is a contradiction in terms. Marxism is a purely materialist ideology and considers categories of race, culture, and the like to be constructions of bourgeois false consciousness. In this way, a classical Marxist would argue that racial grievance politics (e.g., BLM) are bourgeois constructions that exist in order to prevent class solidarity.

We haven't settled on one title in particular yet. You should feel free to give suggestions. The criteria is a non-political text that pertains to American history, culture, and heritage; think Lewis and Clark-type stuff.

Non-fiction.

Mearsheimer is masterful. You should also, if you can, read his *Tragedy of Great Power Politics*.

We will decide scheduling after Sunday 3/3, when members are required have it purchased and possessed.