Genetically Tamed?

John Engelman, American Renaissance, August 27, 2013

Tamed
Are we declining for the same reason as the Romans?

In “The Roman State and Genetic Pacification,” published in 2010 in Evolutionary Psychology, Canadian anthropologist Peter Frost presents a fascinating new explanation for the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the rise of Christianity. This explanation provides insight into why the different races have different crime rates. It can also explain why most whites have come to accept the immigration of less civilized races, and why they are willing to make excuses for blacks. Finally, it offers a way to understand some of the ways white Americans differ from Europeans.

Evangelical Christians blame the fall of the Roman Empire on Roman paganism and decadence. In Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon blamed Christianity. People often blame public misfortunes on what they privately dislike. Dr. Frost offers a biological explanation.

In Paleolithic and Neolithic societies all men participated in war. The best warriors had several wives and more sons, who inherited their aggressiveness. With civilization, the military becomes a professional specialty, and most men have no experience of combat. As governments increase in power, those who are submissive to authority have more children than those who defy it.

Dr. Frost’s argument is that by crushing rebellions and by executing criminals, the Roman government removed physically aggressive men from the gene pool. He points out that variation in physical aggressiveness is heritable, and cites figures of 40 to 69 percent, depending on the study. Over a period of centuries, as aggression was weeded out, rebellions became rare in the Roman Empire, the crime rate fell, and a genetically pacified population became receptive to Christianity, with its emphasis on gentleness and submission.

Dr. Frost does not mention this, but while the Roman Army killed some aggressive men, it also attracted others into service, thereby reducing the number of descendents they would have. Enlistments in the Roman Army were usually for 20 years. When soldiers were discharged they were often given land to farm, but many were too old to begin families, and it was next to impossible for an enlisted man to raise a family. The children some of them may have had with prostitutes, bar maids, or an occasional rape victim probably had a high infant mortality rate and a short life expectancy

Too busy for families.

Too busy for families?

Meanwhile, the same male population that became less inclined to revolt and commit crimes became less willing to join the Roman Army in order to defend the Empire from external enemies, especially the Germanic and Hun barbarians to the north. These enemies had not been genetically tamed, and the Roman Army became increasingly dependent on barbarian mercenaries, whose loyalty could not be taken for granted.

Eventually, marauding barbarians crossed the borders of the Roman Empire. They looted, raped, and killed a population that lacked the ability to resist effectively.

Destruction by Thomas Cole (1836).

Destruction by Thomas Cole (1836).

Does that sound familiar? Whites in Europe, the British Commonwealth, and the United States increasingly lack the will to exclude, or even control more violent alien populations. Whites have been genetically tamed by centuries of capital punishment and long prison sentences, which also prevent aggressive men from having children. The two world wars also killed off millions of the more aggressive Europeans before they had a chance to reproduce. Whites have become innately civilized, and no longer need a draconian criminal justice system. Unfortunately, many of them lack the ability to understand the mentalities of other races. They keep trying to rehabilitate criminals from races that are only a few generations removed from an environment where the most skilled killers had the most children.

When the Roman government acquired a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, the kind of men who had previously been most prolific were bred out of the population. Selective fitness was achieved instead by those who were more peaceful. Some violent men joined the military or became rebels, while those with less integrity became bandits or pirates. In each case they had fewer children.

Dr. Frost does not point this out, but the Roman Empire also selected for superior intelligence. Intelligent men became merchants, money lenders, government officials, artists and so on. These men were more prosperous than peaceful but less intelligent men, and more likely to pass on their genes to future generations. During most of history, prosperous people have tended to be more prolific than poor people. It was an empire-wide case of “revenge of the nerds.”

As time went on, literate Roman citizens noticed they were different from barbarians—both those beyond the borders of the empire, and barbarian immigrants. The barbarians were seen as having such traits as “crudelitas (cruelty), feritas (wildness), immanitas (savagery), inhumanitas (inhumanity), impietas (impiety), ferocitas (ferocity), furor (fury), and discordia (discord).”

Soft Romans

Too soft to fight?

Although the Romans generally attributed barbarian characteristics to living in a colder climate, we can see that these characteristics had survival value in an areas with no government and no law enforcement. We can also see that the same characteristics could create problems in a state where rebellion and criminal behavior were severely punished.

Dr. Frost’s explanation for the fall of the Western Roman Empire can also explain why whites in the United States have lower crime rates than blacks and Hispanics, but have higher crime rates than whites in Europe.

Americans tend to be more individualistic than Europeans, more suspicious of government, more insistent on the right to own firearms, more willing to defend themselves from criminals rather than to rely on government law enforcement, and more willing to fund and join an expensive military.

Benjamin Franklin wrote in a letter, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” A poll on this statement would almost certainly find that a higher percentage of whites in the United States agree with it than whites in Europe.

Europeans who crossed the Atlantic tended to be poor, and were sometimes economically desperate. They wanted better economic opportunities. It is also likely that most were by nature more adventuresome, and less willing to submit to traditional authority, especially absolute monarchs and hereditary aristocracies. Aristocrats would not have tolerated physical aggressiveness, whereas it paid off on the frontier, where the government was weak or nonexistent, and a man had to defend himself and his family against Indians and outlaws.

TheRescue

Horatio Greenough’s The Rescue flanked the steps of the US Capitol from 1853 to 1958.

During the 20th century it became fashionable to attribute character, personality, and even intelligence to childhood upbringing, and to factors governments could improve through social reform and welfare. The Nazi movement increased this tendency. After World War II, fewer people wanted to believe that innate individual and racial characteristics were important, or that they even existed.

More recently there has been a tendency to give genetic factors more credence. The civil rights legislation and the war on poverty did not cause most blacks to behave and perform as well as most whites. Increased spending on public schools has not improved academic performance. No Child Left Behind left millions of children behind, especially blacks and Hispanics.

The fall of the Soviet Union represented the failure of an ambitious effort to create a “new Soviet man,” who would be motivated by altruism rather than self interest.

Coal miner Alexey Stakhanov was held as an example of the "New Soviet Man" after setting mining records. He was featured on a December 1935 cover of TIME.

Coal miner Alexey Stakhanov was promoted as an example of the “New Soviet Man” after setting mining records. This is the December 1935 issue of Time.

There are still taboos against recognizing the biological contribution to ability, personality, and character. However, the taboos are weakening as World War II fades from memory, and as the evidence for biological influences increases.

In “The Roman State and Genetic Pacification,” Dr. Frost provides a plausible explanation of what happened 2,000 years ago and of what we see today on the six o’clock news.

Topics: , , , ,

Share This

John Engelman
John Engelman has been an American Renaissance poster since reading "The Color of Crime."
We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • ravitchn

    These arguments draw one close to anti-Christian ideology. We need to stop ruminating on the genetic inferiority of negroes. They probably are inferior. But we must believe in free will. Blacks have chosen uncivilized behavior. Unless and until they shape up they will be despised by the rest of us. I know how hard it is to believe the biblical view that ALL OF US are descended from Adam and Eve. But to abandon the Bible leads us to fascistic paganism. Blacks once behaved under the influence of religion. They need to be encouraged to return to religion — and NOT the religion of Jesse Jackson. Al Sharpton or Jeremiah Wright..

  • http://twitter.com/AgentAxis D.B. Cooper

    This altruism is relatively recent, as in during most of our lifetimes. Wait until we have a total economic collapse, and I’m sure people will not be embracing diversity.

    • mgs166

      You are correct. Also, a great deal of that altruism was both born out of and misdirected due to propaganda and outright, blatant lies through the re-writing of history in which the media and academia were and still are in competition with each other in pursuit of the answer to the following question: “Just how dirty can a person’s hands get?”

      • YngveKlezmer

        Absolutely on the money. Shows like All in The Family were a good example of this propaganda. The older adults of the 1970’s knew that shows like this were propaganda, but impressionable young adults did not. Mike and Gloria were good examples of impressionable young Baby Boomers, with stupid ideas on non-Whites fed to them by the media. As is true of most twenty-somethings, rebelling against their elders was a thrill, and a corrupt media was right there to encourage them to rebel by thinking the racial realism of their elders was not only wrong, but, worst of all, stupid. The notion of their elders being short-sighted bigots with stupid prejudices, not seasoned elders with intelligent conceptions of the essential temperament differences between the different races of humans, was made “cool” by a media with no pride. Making youth think their elders are “out of touch” has always been an easy way for those with an immoral agenda to sell ridiculous ideas to a new generation. The thing that amazes me, these days, is how many Boomers and Silents still cling to the naïve altruism of their youth, and still think that their parents were bigots, instead of recognizing the naivete of their youth.

        • JohnEngelman

          When All in the Family was current I identified with Mike, as I was supposed to. When I watch reruns I see Mike as an example of shallow intellectual arrogance. I think that instead of shouting at Archie, he should try to understand why Archie has the opinions he does. I think Mike is a guest in Archie’s home, and should show respect.

    • NorthernWind

      We don’t even need a total economic collapse, a simple further deterioration of living standards will erase silly notions of diversity and equality. Great economic well-being leads to a lack of worry which leads people to be less cautions and pay less attention to the negative effects of holding false ideas.

      • Carney3

        If you were right, why haven’t South African whites woken up yet? They’ve suffered greatly economically and in other ways (loss of security), yet they have not embraced racial realism or a pro-white program.

    • Spartacus

      Weak ideals make weak people . But when life gets too hard, many of the weak are gonna suddenly get tough again, while those who were naturally weak will die off .

      • JohnEngelman

        Looking into the future I see an environment in which it will not the the case that only the strong will survive. I do see an environment in which only the intellectually gifted will have descendants.

        Since human evolution began about six million years ago the tendency has been toward the development of less strength and more intelligence.

        • David Ashton

          Assuming you are right, the process was not unilinear (as Morgan, Tylor and Engels might have supposed); there was geographical variation and painful selection. The process is to say the least a bumpy ride, with downturns as well as upswings, war, disease and overcrowding taking their roll en route. The previous decisive role of intelligence over brute strength has been to create superior weapons. We could now be trapped in a prolonged downturn, which will affect generations to come, but one means of escape could be through a revival of eugenics. Any “solution” for WESTERN civilization is not its replacement internally and/or externally an ORIENTAL one.

        • David Ashton

          The assertion in your first paragraph is the triumph of hope over the current demographic projections.

        • Spartacus

          Why would you think one excludes the other ? Someone can be both violent and intelligent at the same time .

          Besides, you’re forgetting that there are plenty of opportunities for violent people to thrive in today’s world – sports, private security, the military(which has a much lower death rate than it did back in Roman times) .

          • JohnEngelman

            There are not many opportunities in professional athletics. Careers there usually last only a few years. When they are over the athlete is usually out of money.

            Also, I am not thinking of the present so much as of hundreds and thousands of years.

            The richest people in the world today are not the most violent. They include the most intelligent. Bill Gates has an IQ of 160. I doubt he has ever been in a fight in his life.

          • Spartacus

            But you don’t need Bill Gates’ IQ or wealth to reproduce , hence those violent people remain in the gene pool .

          • JohnEngelman

            A point of my review is that over a period of many centuries civilization increases the likelihood that intelligent men will have descendants, while it reduces the likelihood that physically aggressive men will.

            That is why whites and Orientals have higher IQ’s and lower crime rates than blacks and Hispanics.

          • Spartacus

            It is obvious that the intelligence of one group increases after it becomes civilized, but it does not imply a breeding out of “violent” people, for the reasons that :

            1.One can be both violent and intelligent at the same time.

            2.The likelihood of violent people reproducing is not as reduced as you make it sound.

          • JohnEngelman

            One can of course be violent and intelligent. However, in the long run physical aggressiveness is a genetic liability in a civilized country, while intelligence is a genetic asset.

          • David Ashton

            Aggressiveness towards fellow-citizens is a liability, but not towards invaders.

          • YngveKlezmer

            Being told to shoot and kill as a soldier, or being required to shoot and kill in self defense, are different animals from the person who enjoys being violent. Negroes have a proclivity for violence without a sensible motive. We Whites tend to only be violent when we are defending ourselves, or fighting for something we believe in. Negroes are not like this. Random violence, which is rare with us, and always has been, is the norm with Negroes. They don’t need a war to fight in, or a cause to fight for, as we do.

          • M&S

            Blacks are actually very intelligent in picking fights. They live for dominance because they have nothing else to give. And having achieved that dominance, they use the capabilities of those they cow for their own good.
            What seems ‘random’ is in fact a highly evolved system of one upmanship, constantly looking for a reason to pick a fight and insert oneself into a position of power.
            Where they are outclassed, they shadow the herd. This is why blacks don’t leave us, however clearly we make that we despise them. This is why ‘equality’ and ‘opportunity’ are about _exploitation_ of intimidation to them.

          • Carney3

            Reminds me of Chris Rock, who said of whites trying to get away from blacks, “we’ll follow you to the Moon!”

          • Carney3

            Indeed. I have been struck repeatedly by how strongly race realist the fictional universes of the British company Games Workshop are in this way (and they have been criticized for this). Their Orcs/Orks are stupid, undisciplined, and extremely violent. So much so that any player controlling an Ork army has to roll his dice to see if his own Ork unit obeys his orders, or is out of action that turn because a pointless internal fight breaks out within it.

          • M&S

            Cunning. The word you are looking for is _cunning_. Those who deliberately go beyond ‘living their own lives’ to actively trip up and lock out opposition groups are those who win.
            Hunters have cunning because their constant access to meat gives them a higher IQ and more opportunities to gain added meat through wisdom (‘Where is the herd today? Where is the nearest cliff to drive them over?’) rather than brute force.
            Those people have huge amounts of DNA leverage because they bring home meat _to share with whom they will_.
            Whereas those who simply leverage the slave labor of their reproductive partners in subsistence agro gain only added mouths as strong backs but not necessarily any understanding of when to let a field lie fallow or what crops will survive the best in muddy ground after a wet spring.
            Because agro is about calories, not protein and thus ‘the more (bratlings as bread) you have, the more you stay the same’
            The big question then becomes why we haven’t seen a speciation point long before now. A point where the heritability of hunters outruns the harder life of the peasant farmer.
            And the answer may lie with population pressure as herd depletion over limited ranges of easy living.
            In any case, aggression never gains one half as much as cunning.

          • proudwhitegirl

            “Orientals” have a much higher estrogen level than whites do, which is probably a large contributing factor to their lower crime rates. They also have slightly larger brains, which appear to be primarily adept at taking white ideas and inventions and making them more efficient. They do not have the genius of creating and implementing vision, the way whites do. So the white “men” that mate with ornamentals are actually not only feminizing their offspring to the nth degree, but they are also gleefully contributing to white genocide as the race-traitors they are.

          • Stan D Mute

            I’m not one of the white men “that mate with ornamentals,” but I can see the attraction. White women, far too many for it to be happenstance, have a tendency to become loud, obnoxious, grossly obese man-hating socialists. White women, far too many of them, fail utterly in their duty to support their men and their sons, instead voting with their dollars and their ballots for emasculating and deracinating policies intended to destroy their fathers, mates, and sons. Every political study shows women are far more consistently “liberal” than men. Women have unquestionably led the effort to drug male children into submission.

            Your “ornamental” woman are, in general, more feminine and more supportive of their husbands and sons. I find Latino women also, generally speaking, more feminine and supportive.

            The white race has some massive problems that call into question our ability to survive another thousand years. Many of those problems can be laid directly at the feet of our women. Perhaps all of our problems can be so attributed. When I think about the most emasculated and deracinated men I know, they are all “mama’s boys who have been taught/encouraged/allowed to become nothing but women with external reproductive organs.

          • AndrewInterrupted

            Yes, western civilization has reached an imbalance, to say the least. I would like to think that the equilibrium process will be peaceful, but that might be overly optimistic.

          • proudwhitegirl

            White meat too tough, is it? Listen, your delusional belief systems are exactly what the miscegenists want. They want us to be at each other’s throats and blaming each other instead of the actual enemies of our people. They want you to marry little miss love you long time, because that means our race will die out. I’m sorry that you can’t see that, because if the white men on a supposedly pro-white site can only resort to bashing white women and justifying their appetites for mongoloids, I don’t think there is any hope for our people.

          • Stan D Mute

            Or maybe it’s time white women came to their senses and honored their vows to “love, honor, and OBEY” their white husbands? Maybe there is a reason those vows were created by our ancestors? Maybe they knew that women are more inclined to emote and nurture while men are more inclined to think logically?

            Maybe “white nationalist” or just “race realist” women would be wise to admit that just as whites and Africans are *very* different, men and women are *very* different? If you cannot see that we (white people) have lost our way in the world and if you cannot see that women have had a seminal role in this then perhaps a misplaced pride is obscuring your vision.

            White women are exclusively able to provide the world with the single greatest achievement on this planet: bearing white babies. There is no greater than a pair of brand new blue eyes and rosy flushed skin of a white infant. And yet white women lead the cause to convince other white women to leave their wombs barren and focus on some meaningless “career” as a “professional” (fill_the_blank). Would the 1965 Immigration Act have passed without white women’s vote? Would the Great Society welfare state have come to pass? All the while there are fewer and fewer white babies.

            Make no mistake! White men are not failing to reproduce here. White women are failing to do the single thing nature intended of them. And since enticing white men to deposit their seed is no longer important to white women, likewise it is no longer important to please white men with sexual attractiveness and femininity. Go ahead and have a couple more donuts, if there is a husband at all, the goal is to avoid pregnancy anyway so being obese and obnoxious are steps in the right direction yes?

            How can you defend this? Maybe it doesn’t describe you personally, but I am certain it describes most of the women you know or we wouldn’t have a shortage of white babies, a surplus of black ones, and an entire government/media/culture organized to ensure it continues.

          • YngveKlezmer

            I suspect that there is some truth in this hypothesis, but not enough to override the main reason Negroes, as a race, have a lower IQ than Whites and Asians. To me, the theory that the Negroid race is simply a less evolved sub-species of Homo-Sapien makes the most sense. After all, the Negroes kill off huge numbers of other Negroes in any given year, and they are certainly not killing off their best and brightest anymore than we Whites are. If anything, one would think that the huge number of homicides in Black areas would be thinning the herd, so to speak, and improving the gene pool. While this certainly may be happening, it doesn’t shed any light on why Negroes are so pre-disposed to violence.

          • Stan D Mute

            This does shed light on the question of negro violence. It does so by extrapolation. If whites are less violent due to several thousand years of living under the heel of government monopoly on violence, then we might assume that negroes, lacking any civilization for more than a generation or two, are the control group for the experiment. It’s really cause for great celebration if you think about it. Just imagine, after several thousand more years of forcing the negro to live in a civilized world, he might (“might!”) become less violent and more intelligent.

          • Carney3

            I think a strict eugenic program might have real potential to uplift that race a significant degree. But it would be impossible to implement and would only make them more effective rivals for resources, unless they become similarly altruistic and self-sacrificial.

          • David Ashton

            There was a theory that in African the communalism of village life led to notably bright or original-minded individuals being excluded from the gene-pool by ostracism or murder because they seemed aberrant. Possibly some of these became witch-doctors to control the superstitions of the warrior masses in their own interest – an analogy perhaps with our medieval clerics.

          • JohnEngelman

            Human evolutionary pressures have always favored superior intelligence. However, civilization places even greater evolutionary pressures on superior intelligence.

          • David Ashton

            Which “came first” – intelligence or civilization?

          • JohnEngelman

            First came the intelligence necessary to create a primitive civilization. Once civilization developed those who could best learn the arts of civilization prospered and had descendants.

            Every technological advance, from the use of the most simple stone weapons, to agriculture, to the earliest civilizations, to computer technology benefits those with the intelligence to use it. They have descendants, The others do not.

          • David Ashton

            Why do our intellectual elites rather than lower class whites provide reproductive aid to blacks? IQ is not enough.

            Of course intelligent people need to have generations of intelligent descendants. How can one guarantee that? Computer technology is not enough.

          • JohnEngelman

            Those who have the intelligence to master computer technology will have descendants thousands of years from now. The rest will not.

            The same thing happened with agriculture.

            The human species is entering a genetic shakeout.

          • David Ashton

            There are certainly different, well-informed opinions about this “genetic shakeout”. Those who can master computer technology will have to have relatively more descendants than the populations of black Africa and south-east Asia. Of course, there are those who think that in “thousands of years from now” computers will have largely replaced humans, but “in the long run we are all dead”. Meanwhile, I want my grandchildren, and theirs, and others like them, to live in a relatively peaceful world where science is combined with the finest traditions and values of western civilization.

          • Carney3

            But contraception did not exist in the transition from hunter-gatherer to farmer (or for that matter farmer to industrial age). It does now, and higher IQ people are dramatically more likely to use it and use it consistently and effectively.

          • M&S

            You mistake the fact that it is not the blacks we need to stop but the whites who enable them.
            Greeks served as slaves to Romans, educating -their- children, despite having much higher statistical IQs.
            Boers serve as backroom boys to South African blacks who gain honor and prestige as managers for nothing more than an ingratiating personality for which the actual problem solving is done by whites paid half as much. Where whites refuse or are killed out of hand for this mute effort, they are replaced by Indians.
            The ex-Roman colonies did not stand long against the Germanic tribes, partly because they depended on each other for trade as an early form of distributionist-centrist capitalism theory.
            Blacks who cannot gain toys from the dead and defeated whites who have lost the population majority to succeed on their own, will have no reason to offer any mercy to whites and will instead take society back to what their own genes know as a world of tribalism where king of the dunhill is still better than rolling bleep uphill.
            Sub-90 IQ tropical populations who form the largest percentage threat to our Western Tradition _do not_ have to ‘take over’ our world to wreck it for us. They have no concept of what they are destroying and so, when it is gone (and they are _here_) they will simply revert to a social norm they can understand and accept.
            We are the ones who will destroy ourselves, by letting that alternative possibility exist. A possibility which we would not think of as being back-to-spears.

          • M&S

            Intelligence which expends and optimizes itself towards creating the open societal conditions where interchange of ideas is the highest value for personal wealth and status achievement can also create exclusionary systems which actively deny anything that threatens to inhibit that system, simply because their minds are focused towards all or nothing defeat of prior, conservative, control systems.
            Where brilliance refuses to see danger in hostile outside populations and denies the power of protection to denial-capable personalities, it sets itself up to be the victim of those it sought to ‘save’.
            It is incredibly dangerous to see blacks as fellow victims and yet, even today, liberals espouse that view as a means to climb over the irascible and inconvenient doomsayers who tell them to stick with their own.
            In this, intelligence doesn’t recognize itself or it’s polar twin: wisdom, well enough to tell the difference between what is innocent and what is enlightened along a different path.

          • M&S

            Africa is a P3 hole sir. Predation, Population Pressure, Pathogens. The principle justification for which is that Africa is one third desert and 50% ‘trying real hard’ with perhaps 10% impassable jungles and mountains.
            What this means is that every man and beast comes to one of the five major rivers or their tributaries which provide year-round water and their they fight over access with each other, get killed in huge numbers by _herbivores_ and drink the combined urine and excreta of every other living thing that also want’s a drink.
            There by providing cross-species vectors for every microbial or viral killer there is, in a constant stew of evolving traits to bypass the immune system.
            African evolution is not about primitivism, it’s about selection. You select for rapid maturation so that you can stay one recombinant step ahead of the next disease which made you dog sick as a human, killed your father and left you head-man in charge of a village that hasn’t seen a prey animal in months.
            Early breeding gives you six kids before you go off to kill dinner for two-three weeks and if it doesn’t eat you first, you come home and do it again.
            What’s the principle driver on puberty? Testosterone.
            Testosterone makes you aggressive and, over time, epigenetically, it makes you stupid.
            Add in things like smaller brain case volumes to provide a better thermal margin in the heat (your brain runs at basal levels on 250 calories per day, on higher learning as fight or flight modalities, it consumes 500 calories, all of which leads to high heat dissipation issues. Five hundred calories per day is 1/3rd of your body’s total) and you have massive evolutionary specializations towards specific, linearized, want-to-get brain behaviors.
            It is important to acknowledge this because blacks are not necessarily more primitive than any other modern humanoid. They are simply refined in ways that make them supremely dangerous to our own way of life.

          • Carney3

            Your use of the term “less evolved” shows a lack of understanding of evolution. Evolution is not automatically about advancing in the way you as I would understand it, into more complex and intelligent forms. It’s simply about responding to selection pressures. Blacks are highly evolved at survival and spreading their genetic footprint in an environment in which social cooperation to survive harsh winters or a civilized society is not necessary and is an inferior genetic strategy compared to brutalizing others, spreading your seed far and wide, and not bothering to plan ahead.

          • M&S

            Yet we still set up societies based on strength of arms as ‘securing’ vital resources. We still depend on superior warriors to go to places like Iraq and AfG where day temps can reach 120` and altitudes over a mile high, respectively.
            We worship the physical male icon of perfection as much as that of the female, even when we don’t want to expend the effort to become them.
            This alone tends to despoil any attempt to move towards a rational folllowon system because it maintains the class-privilege system whereby you are never forbidden from breeding as many ratlings as you wish. But you may never give them more than the most elemental of enhanced living conditions which in turn encourages them to have children under similar circumstances.
            You either absorb the dregs into a higher living condition. Or you separate yourself from them, utterly, not just by access to wealth but by access to the subsistence lifestyle which encourages large families with low infant mortality.
            Softs never have the will to do what is needed to create that total separation. And so they are overwhelmed and bred-to-dumbness by the Hards as Malthusianism takes over.
            The only thing which has prevented this in the past has been geographic isolation behind weather, desert and ocean. And the frequent spread of multiple pathogenic diseases which create open space as added separation.
            That won’t happen today. Even if everything collapses, we have no place to run to.

          • Claudius_II

            Actually my house was once owned by a professional (NBA?) basketball player.

          • YngveKlezmer

            Exactly. People of his IQ know how to either avoid fights, or to reduce their opponent to a flailing rube by purely verbal/intellectual means. Such a person avoids Black neighborhoods, and easily intellectually overpowers Black co-workers in a White Collar environment, as most White collar Negroes are nothing other than “affirmative action babies” who are no smarter than their ghetto cousins.

          • AndrewInterrupted

            Gates and his type benefit from another genetic area: ASD. He is somewhere on the Asperger’s scale. He isn’t intelligent so much as he retains and regurgitates well.

            And as that part of his brain heightened, the morality part diminished, given his sociopathic tendencies (i.e. betrayal, etc.).

            Gates is certainly rich, but not balanced.

          • M&S

            Loyalty Fractions.
            People will stick by what keeps them closest to their standard mean of known living. That means trusting government rather than overthrowing it and instituting a for-us-alone prejudicial favoritism, at least until it’s clear that the government has no miracle cure.
            A strong man who promises only protection and privation is a man who walks alone until things are so bad that loss is a guarantee regardless.
            By the time ‘we’ (the softies) realize that the intelligently violent stocks are our only hope for survival, the majority of what was saveable will have already been lost and the ability of the aggressive to provide _solutions_, short of reimposition of arbitrary class aristocracy as food and shelter divisions, will be gone.
            It’s not enough to save the stock because, in a nation of 300 million, a couple bad years of harvests can create conditions where the resulting starvation doesn’t save enough _whites from whites_ to be a strong force against the residual OPs.

        • Sick of it

          You’re being very positive, considering how many high intelligence bloodlines have been bred out with low intelligence bloodlines. This ‘it doesn’t matter who you marry’ culture has no standards.

          • JohnEngelman

            Charles Murray has pointed out that successful men increasingly marry successful women. In the past they were more likely to marry down, while successful women tended not to get married at all.

        • Talltrees

          How do you come up with that conclusion when the most intelligent have less than 2 children, Whites, Jews, Chinese, and Japanese. I’ll agree about the less strength and intelligence to a point. The point when intelligent Whites didn’t want to have more than one or two kids, if any at all. It’s on a downward slope, now.

          It’s those with lower IQ’s that have the most children, Hispanics, Muslims, and Blacks.

        • AndrewInterrupted

          You should watch a movie called Idiocracy. That comedy sums up the scene a little better.

          The highly intelligent have fewer children because they only have as many as they can afford. People who depend on the state have as many children that is physically possible, because they aren’t responsible.

          That has certainly been the trend for the last 50 years in America. The highly intelligent are being sent into extinction. The meek are inheriting the earth.

          • David Ashton

            Meek – or muck?

    • JohnEngelman

      In order to attract “higher class females” a man usually needs financial success, rather than a tendency to start and win street fights and bar room brawls. Financial success more frequently depends on superior intelligence than physical aggressiveness. Indeed, belligerence is more frequently a liability in a professional environment than an asset. That is the point of Peter Frost’s essay, and my review of it.

    • Erasmus

      I am not losing my altruism. I am now directing it carefully to mine and my own: my family, my friends and then to my community I do not consider people unlike myself to be part of my community.

      • JohnEngelman

        Friendships are based on common interests and shared values. People who share my interests and values belong to all races.

    • 48224

      This story fits perfectly with my theory that we have simply become too civilized for our own damn good. And we will pay a heavy price for that.

    • YngveKlezmer

      Very recent indeed. Racial realists was commonplace amongst Whites until at least the Generation that was in their 20’s during the 1960’s. Until recent years, when Silents and Boomers have become Grandparents, most of us had racial realist Grandparents at the very least.

    • Formerly_Known_as_Whiteplight

      Sorry, but you are wrong. Modern altruism began with the rise of the Franciscan monks in early 13th century as a reaction to the monastic wealth and indolence that the Church had come to be. The Christian directive has always been toward diversity in order for the Church to witness to the world and convert it. Since outright war of Christian militaristic conquest has long been ruled out, they reverted to the early Christian method of altruism, providing in the most basic of the principles of collectivism, for converts. Catholic churches all over the U.S. have harbored illegal immigrants and provided for them for decades now. Protestant churches send missions abroad and eventually attain asylum for new converts.

      But you are right about inborn aggression. Just look at the complaints about soccer thuggery in England, by Brown a few years back. He actually said that these white Britons were beyond redemption and needed to be bred out of existence. Engelman has laid another intellectual egg.

    • http://www.occidentalenclave.org/ Occidental Enclave Forum

      White westerners, as a people, have a pathological inclination to altruism, empathy, and guilt.

  • Enar_Larsson

    —Peter Frost presents a fascinating new explanation for the fall of the
    Western Roman Empire and the rise of Christianity. This explanation
    provides insight into why the different races have different crime
    rates. It can also explain why most whites have come to accept the
    immigration of less civilized races, and why they are willing to make
    excuses for blacks. Finally, it offers a way to understand some of the
    ways white Americans differ from Europeans.—

    I guess I missed each one of these explanations but I’ll guess at them. The Roman Empire fell because it punished crime and rebellion and thereby bred out the aggressiveness necessary to defend itself from invaders? And whites have lower crime rates than other races because they are more civilized (i.e. fury, impiety, cruelty, wildness, etc. have been bred out of them)? And now they allow less civilized immigrants because, what, they are passive and Christian? But American whites are a little better off than Europeans because the breeding out process wasn’t quite successful so a handful of rebellious adventurers who refused to be ruled by aristocrats sailed across the ocean and fought Indians? Is all of that right? So all the characteristics that Amreners usually attribute to non-whites are actually necessary for survival? And if we want to survive we must stop punishing our criminals? I think I must be missing something really important because this all sounds wildly implausible and at least mildly incoherent. Civilization and effective government doomed the Roman Empire to fall and are having the same effect on whites today…What I am supposed to make of that?

    • sbuffalonative

      I can see your point. Let’s suppose that aggressiveness, to some degree, had been bred out through various means, what was likely rewarded was intelligence. Intelligence would mean building better, more efficient weapons of war and the advancement civilization.
      Rome, like every civilization, eventually fell for a myriad of reasons.

      • Romulus

        Usually a good answer is the simplest. Rome collapsed under it’s own weight. By building a huge empire by military conquest and concentrating wealth ( all roads lead to Rome) at the exclusion of the conquered,Rome lost much of it’s males through attrition, while poor people always have more children and are needed as labor to keep the empire working and growing. Combine that with filth(sexual deviance) and the usual trappings of rich societies and you simply get replaced demographically while running out of soldiers to fight, resources to grow your empire and labor to work.

        That is a short answer, true, but IMO , J.E. reminds me of a few pseudo intellects I’ve encountered round the beltway.

        • JohnEngelman

          Like others who have commented on my review you assume that conditions of the present have always existed. During most of history rich people were more likely to have descendants than poor people.

          • Romulus

            Really? How many descendants does the royal family of Britain Norway have? Perhaps you missed the comments earlier on another article of the African man who had 54? Children. Baloney!. Prior to the industrial revolution in America, it was commonplace for the lower middle to rural class to have well over 5 children per breeding pair, as America was mostly agrarian. My maternal grandmother is one of 15. The top ends of society always reproduce less than the bottom. The easiest explanation is labor economics. The modern parallel is the amnesty about to be rolled out for the latinos. Im baffled with your conclusions.

          • JohnEngelman

            It was only in the United States and before that the thirteen colonies that people who were not rich had large numbers of children who survived to adulthood, and had children of their own.

            In most countries during most of history the rich were more prolific than the rest of the population because they ate better and lived in healthier environments.

          • David Ashton

            Contraception and welfare have made a modern difference at either end of the social pyramid.

          • Stan D Mute

            And yet I’ve read much positing that the reason for the British Empire was the explosion in population of the lower classes resulting from improved hygiene and health.

            I agree with the others here that the rich have always tended to have fewer offspring although their survival rate to maturity was much much higher than that of the poor. Nevertheless, there appears to have always been a surplus of poor and the most popular method of population control has always been exporting them either as warriors to invade another area or settlers to build colonies. Meanwhile the rich stay in the comforts of home.

          • JohnEngelman

            What matters to human evolution is not having children, but having descendants. During most of recorded history the children of the poor had a high infant mortality rate, and low life expectancy. The children of the rich were much more likely to live to adulthood and have children of their own.

        • sbuffalonative

          I agree. Fighting wars on the farthest edges of their empire, taxing the people to pay for wars, fewer men to sustain Rome, etc. Rome lasted a long time but like many western nations throughout history, they began to lose sight of their core purpose; maintaining the civilization of Rome itself.

          The parallels to America are obvious and prophetic. We’re fighting wars on the farthest edges of our empire while failing to maintain our civilization. The proposed solution, make foreigners citizens, is a questionable short-term gamble with devastating long-term consequences.

          We have yet to solve our problems and settle our grievances with blacks and now we want to bring in other minorities with their own grievances.

          But who are you and I to learn from history.

          • Romulus

            Im floored that he’s been given writing space. His conclusions are disjointed and pose a monocular view. I’d like to add to my initial assessment and say attrition in ancient times does play a factor towards collapse but is not the singular cause. Example; estimated of dead Romans during the punic wars is around 90,000 males. Running an empire on land,slave and resource/gold acquisition eventually runs out of steam when the ruling class becomes immoral,cozy (rich) and complacent.

          • David Ashton

            Many similarities with ancient Rome – see my post with quotes on this from most historians who have written on it.

    • BonusGift

      Agreed; I would say more incoherent than even wildly implausible. This article seems to me to be prima facie silly. I have read historical books and articles that rewrite history and improve the accuracy of that history, and then there are pieces like this that are fanciful and often ideologically motivated pieces of false propaganda. It seems to me that the Romans didn’t die off in some dramatic way by a single barbarian horde overwhelming them one day, they mostly faded away because they simply had too few children, had too many slaves, and became dependent on gibsmedat/bread & circuses, etc.. Let’s think of two counter examples: (1) the Spartans, and (2) Asians. Did the Spartans die off because they were not aggressive enough, and altruistic? No, they were arguably the best soldiers ever and mean mofos (i.e., hardly altruistic), and they likely died off because they were too aggressive and didn’t have enough children to replace their ranks. Given their inherent lack of aggressiveness (at least physically), why are they any Asians? It is not because they lack altruism (which they do relative to whites), it’s simply because they had more children and the tribe hasn’t targeted them for extinction. Talking about the genocide of YT without mentioning the role of those who control mass media, especially in white Christian countries, is a bit like talking about how to make fresh orange juice without talking about oranges. These kinds of silly distractions are beyond intelligent discussion. I can see some parallel between the Roman importation of slaves and the weakening of the Roman Republic (demographically, ethically, etc.) but I cannot fathom how one refuses, or purposely ignores, the role of brainwashing through the mass media (which, BTW, dumb aggressive people are more likely to fall prey to) and especially those that control that media play in the genocide of Christian whites. This arguments used in the article are silly, and trying to apply them to our situation today is flat out stupid.

      • Romulus

        That is why I enjoy your posts!!!. Clearly Informant needs a brush up on ancient Rome.

      • Stan D Mute

        Speaking of silliness…

        The tribe is out to genocide whites? Really? And chiefly targeting English, American, and Australian whites?

        If “the tribe” has it in for anybody, I’d think the Germans would top the list. And yet at least half of “the tribe” members I know personally drive German cars and covet German kitchen appliances. And Germany is in far better condition than England, America, Australia, or Canada where the governments and people have expended blood and treasure on “the tribe’s” behalf.

        And why do I see so many of “the tribe’s” members providing life saving medical care to your Christians? That’s sort of the opposite of “genocide” isn’t it? “You there! I’m going to genocide you, but only after I first save your life five times..”

        Meanwhile, it’s your Christian leaders pounding the pulpit each Sunday demanding that Jesus would welcome thirty million Mexicans into his home and feed them all fish. Or is that pastor “Cohen” up there instead of “Falwell”?

        It’s stupidity like this that makes me wonder if we have any chance at all. Wasn’t there some parable, I think I recall from Sunday school as a boy, about serpents in the garden? Unless and until we can recognize the true serpents, OUR OWN serpents, absolutely NOTHING will change. Blaming 2% of the population for this, a 2% we all know has its own self-interests at heart, claiming we are so stupid we are “brainwashed” will help nothing. The evil is in OUR “leadership” and that alone will begin any chance at a future.

    • Mike Lane

      Yes. This article, while correct about the “pussification” (in the words of George Carlin) of Western Europe, is loaded with inconsistencies. Since when were the wealthy having more kids than the poor? or as you put it: Since when were traits associated with criminals beneficial for civilization?

      • JohnEngelman

        Peter Frost’s essay points out that during most of history the wealthy had more children who survived and reproduced than poor people. During much of history starvation and malnutrition were significant limiting factors on population growth. During famines rich people could buy food. Poor people could not. Also, in the past birth control was difficult to use, and reduced the pleasure of the sex act.

        When thinking of human evolution since the beginning of civilization five thousand years, do not think of our present era when many Vassar graduates decide that having children would interfere with their life styles, while many high school dropouts with low IQ’s have many illegitimate children that they support with AFDC.

        The dysgenitics of the past several generations has been a temporary detour that is being corrected as AFDC is being phased out, as more poor women have abortions, and as it becomes necessary to have a higher IQ in order to earn a good living.

        • Mike Lane

          The problem is the dwindling of the middle class. We’re going back to feudalism.

    • Stan D Mute

      The simplest thing to make of it is to STOP all “immigration” or settlement of ALIENS within our borders. Then REVERSE the definition of “citizenship” to include only those whose ancestors actually pioneered the nation. Those excluded from the definition need not be expelled, think of them simply as “Class B Shareholders” who have no voting rights.

      I am certain this would have the same effect as an equally audacious concept of eliminating voting rights for everyone who receives more from government in direct pay or benefits than he pays in taxes.

      At the end of the day, all our problems can be boiled down to a very simple analogy: just as no successful family may be governed by the children, the nanny, nor the housewife, no successful society or nation may be governed by any but those who built it and who fund it with their continued labors. Allowing a new “immigrant” (or welfare recipient or tax collector or cop) to vote makes all the sense of allowing your three year old to decide your family’s investment strategy.

  • http://countenance.wordpress.com/ Question Diversity

    I think all these things are characteristics of decline, but not the cause of decline. I don’t think it’s any more simple than the fact that empires are self-defeating entities.

    • Sick of it

      Empires lead to decadence, widespread injustice and crime, profligate (and unsustainable) spending, multiculturalism…sounds familiar, eh? See, we haven’t become too weak in this country, but we do have an empire where once stood a republic. We do have corrupt pieces of human garbage ruling over us. We do have criminals roaming the streets without opposition. We do have a collapsing economy. We are currently living in a modern Babylon. Empires bring out the worst in people.

  • sbuffalonative

    I had a similar theory about prisons and aggressiveness.

    In Europe, they developed prisons to deal with criminals. I would be surprised if they had anything equivalent in Africa during the same period.

    Criminals, generally aggressive types, would either be imprisoned during their fertile years or executed and therefore not have offspring. In Africa, this wasn’t happening.

    One can see how aggressiveness could be bred out of the European population.

    Also, European wars would have decimated the most aggressive males trying to prove themselves in battle.

    Today, feminist ideology has worked to defang male aggressiveness as well.

  • WmarkW

    Yes, monogamy definitely reduced the number of genetically superior offspring.

    Whites have defeated evolution — there is no correlation between genetic superiority and fecundity among men, and the relationship is negative among women. But the reason for today’s is more basic — feminism. The more choices women have about how to spend their lives, the fewer will elect to raise multiple children. Every advanced society (America, Europe, East Asia) is failing to reproduce itself, and some are trying to make up for it by importing people from pre-feminist places like Latin America and the Middle East.

    In a society that doesn’t believe in wifely duties, the wives don’t cooperate in keeping it going. The question we need address is what we can do that’s consistent with our value system.

    • Galt

      They say that the reduction in IQ is dysgenic, but it would have to be operationalized. What exactly is it dysgenic toward if women with lower IQs and a higher birth rate end up reproducing themselves while maintaining a high fitness level. A high fitness level seems to be the opposite of being dysgenic.

      • David Ashton

        Evolutionary fitness entails reproductive survival in a given environment.

        Intelligence is an all-round advantage to foresight, civilization and progressively eugenic control of future reproduction, human civilization and possible environmental change.

    • kjh64

      “Yes, monogamy definitely reduced the number of genetically superior offspring.”

      No it didn’t. People who go around producing kids at random and are not monogamist are usually stupid and produce stupid kids.

      “But the reason for today’s is more basic — feminism. The more choices women have about how to spend their lives, the fewer will elect to raise multiple children. Every advanced society (America, Europe, East Asia) is failing to reproduce itself, and some are trying to make up for it by importing people from pre-feminist places like Latin America and the Middle East.”

      It gets really tiresome wrongly blaming women and feminism. Women just like men have every right to decide how they want to spend their lives. People don’t have as many kids, both men and women equally, in developed countries because society is no longer agricultural and kids are a financial liability, not a gain. Let’s stop acting like men want to go out and have large families because they do NOT.

      “In a society that doesn’t believe in wifely duties, the wives don’t cooperate in keeping it going.”

      It’s not the women that are the problem here. It’s the men that don’t cooperate in keeping it going. They don’t want to commit and get married and have kids. Women are much more likely to want kids but guys just want to play around and run at the thought of marriage and kids.

      The truth is that White people today are soft because they have had it too good .

    • gemjunior

      It’s all true. In order to stop our devolution and extinction, the women must get hold of themselves and drop the feminist bs. Or be forced to. It’s an abnormal state for a women not to have children and the primary reason that women are all on anti-depressants. It’s the main disease of our culture although there are many others.

    • 1RW

      It depends on “Genetically Fit”. Europe with its monogamous culture is hyper-advanced in science, engineering, warfare, etc… compared to the polygamous middle east. Why?

      In monogamous environments, the man who can work hard and or intelligently, or invent things is fit. In a polygamous society, only men who are good at acquisition of wealth are “fit”. So one society rewards and produces artists, scientists, engineers, doctors, etc… The other society rewards and produces fat ugly human slugs that sit around and plot while their slaves do all the work. Of course, when the two cross swords, it doesn’t go well for human slugs in robes.

  • Eagle_Eyed

    It is interesting that a docile Japan (one that was imperialistic no less than seventy years ago) can still remain a civilized ethnostate when the West has gone the opposite direction. Nations can be isolationist while still strongly defending themselves and keeping out unwanted visitors.
    Of course this still leaves us with the theory that Christianity is to blame for the West’s recent demise. But then how did the West ever ascend? And why is it that the recent decline of Christianity in the West is simultaneous with the recent decline of white hegemony? If Christianity is to blame, what about the Crusades? It was actually one of the causes; it gave the different European tribes a transcedent and unifying cause to rally around.
    As tough as it may seem for some to grasp, this is an ideological battle. People are more than what their genes dictate; we can think, be pressured into conformity, and be distracted by comfort and technology. When a society keeps Christ’s teachings on moral guilt but rejects transcedence, it can be persuaded to turn its guilt collectively on itself.

    • JohnEngelman

      But then how did the West ever ascend?

      – Eagle_Eyed

      While breeding for obedience to the law, civilization also breeds for superior intelligence. Western civilization emerged from the middle ages and achieved dominance over other civilizations during the Renaissance when the scientific method was developed.

      The scientific discoveries made during the Renaissance, and which accelerated from then on often had military utility and led to the development of better weapons.

      While Europe experienced the Renaissance, China became xenophobic after expelling the Mongolian conquers. Entry into the Scholar Gentry in China depended not on an understanding of the natural sciences and new scientific discoveries and inventions, but rather on an understanding of Confucian classics written nearly two thousand years earlier.

      • Sick of it

        China was xenophobic prior to the Mongol conquest, as evidenced by the slaughter of Christians in T’ang China. But good point re: Chinese learning.

    • John R

      Thank you! I was going to reply to this article, but you pretty much hit all the important objections I have to it: Asians are, individually, very meek and passive people. They were civilized longer than White people from Europe. Yet they sure as heck defend their own interests better than us Whites. (examples: The immigration policies of Japan, and the armed Koreans defending their community during the LA Riots.) And, of course, the decline of Western Civilization came right about the same time that Christianity declined in the West as well. And the very regions of the country that are the most religious (like the South) are the very areas where the White people are the LEAST passive toward non-white aggression, and are most likely to be supportive of a strong military. No, at first this book seems to make sense, but after careful analysis, it falls apart. A little like the very ideal of “racial equality.” (I know, it looks like I DID reply to this article, after all!)

      • guest

        Whites, generally, have more charity, more empathy, than Asians. And this difference may help explain why we are more open-doored than they.
        Even extending to animals, we are more empathetic. The Chinese see dogs as tasty meat; we see them as furry companions.

    • Enar_Larsson

      —we can think, be pressured into conformity, and be distracted by comfort and technology.— Eagle_Eyed

      Comfort, technology, and entertainment are spot on. The biggest reason whites won’t defend themselves is that they aren’t convinced they’re losing anything valuable, mostly because they’re too distracted. I’ve posted about it before so I won’t get into the details again but Plato predicted this situation 2, 400 years in book VIII of his Republic. Regimes deteriorate from being guided by the Good, to be guided by honor (John’s aggressive, violent societies), to be guided by love of money, to being guided by love of entertainment (understand by the masses as “freedom”, which is only the freedom to consume what they see fit when they see fit). The deterioration of regimes is made possible by corresponding deterioration of individual souls–from being ruled by reason, to honor, to lust for wealth, to lust for pleasure. Those who are ruled by a lust for pleasure are ripe for taking advantage of and literally conquered by a tyrant. We are now in the stage where most of us (and I don’t except myself) care much more about pleasure and comfort than anything else.

  • Galt

    Interesting theory.

    I’ve always enjoyed these topics from AmRen and it is a major reason why I come back to read for more.

    I’m Canadian, but I always felt that the American Europeans were more aggressive and driven by ambition than the more passive-aggressive and collectivist Canadian Europeans, which may have to deal with the fact that the ones who decided to remain loyal to the British Empire and submit to their authority had stayed in the Dominion up north while those who were more rebellious and wanted to remain autonomous stayed in the United States. But, a mixture of creativity, intelligence, and controlled aggression drives culture, language, music, art, and technological change.

    That’s why Canadians have always tuned in carefully to what (white) Americans were doing in decades past, but I see that happening a lot less often with Obama in the White House now. Wherever the European Americans went, European Canadians followed. It seems like the pacification of American whites is happening now and it is troubling because I’ve felt that America is the last bastion of the highest population of Western whites who wouldn’t be pushed around domestically or globally.

    I think the term that can be used in this instance is neoteny or the retaining of youthful traits, including dependency and submission, in whites through self-domestication. It’s been studied before and has been implicated in the reduction of our skull size and mandible width. Beyond that, I’m unaware of much in this topic and have a keen interest in reading more about it to get a better understanding.

  • D. K.

    Christianity was imposed upon the Roman populace, from above, by Constantine and his successors. Prior to that imposition, it had been decidedly a minority religion– perhaps ten percent of the subject population, and most prevalent among the lower classes and the massive slave population (for obvious reasons). Constantine then essentially gutted the West, politically and economically, by relocating the Roman capital from Rome itself to a Nova Roma– Byzantium, soon renamed Constantinople (and, since 1930, officially known as Istanbul). If one wants to draw comparisons between the decline and fall of Rome, and the Western Roman Empire, on the one hand, and of the United States, and its worldwide hegemony, on the other, that dual blow, at the hands of the Roman Empire’s own rulers, is akin to what left-wing ideology, enforced by political correctness, and economic globalism now have combined to do to us, also at the hands of our own rulers. There is more to both stories, of course, as singular causes are rare in historical changes of such enormity; but, the notion of an evolutionary change so quick and widespread as to explain what now is happening to the West, since just the end of the Second World War, and especially since the mid-1960s, is patently ridiculous. I do believe that Nature trumps Nurture, overall; but, Nurture is not a mere bagatelle. Ideas and culture have consequences! Just ask any Russian centenarian who is old (but still lucid) enough to recall what happened in the fall of 1917 [double entendre intended!]….

  • Randall Ward

    The study is the opposite of the truth. Good article by John Engelman though.
    The white race has developed, evolved, whatever caused it to the point that it is the ideal race for the modern world, where working together in peace is the way forward. We are fully capable of defending ourselves with modern weapons, which is why the libs want to disarm us, on the personal level and on the national level we are fully capable of defending ourselves against foreign countries. No one has developed winning armies like the white nations
    If we are weak it is because the tinker bell fairy tail pied pipers have taken over the government. Even that shows the superiority of the white race, as most liberals are white and are very capable of brainwashing.
    To say the white race is weak and not agressive is laughable. Most of the world thinks the white race is a race of demons that rape the world. They hate us.
    The things the article mentions are not weaknesses but strengths.

    • Galt

      That’s also true. The American military is still mostly run by whites and is arguably the best military in the world. The EU militaries when combined are also some of the best. The American special forces community, which maintains some of the most highly trained and qualified counterinsurgency operators, are mostly white.

      • watling

        Anecdotal military evidence from here in the UK suggests that men are gradually becoming less hardy and less fit over time – almost certainly because kids are becoming less active and less adventurous – making it more difficult for the army to recruit, particularly for the special forces.

        • Galt

          I think you may be right.

          I remember reading about how recruits for the U.S military have been decreasing in ability in terms of the declining results of the physical and mental tests they administer. This also applies to white males who join it, but I think it may be that way around the globe (at least, in most western nations) because white males who are in poverty or lack a certain degree of scholastic aptitude mostly enter as infantry or any other kind of basic recruit.

    • BonusGift

      I agree; yet … You critically mention “brainwashing” which I agree is a big part of our demise (because it is directly addressed at Christian whites and no one else – e.g., blacks countries for blacks, Asian countries for Asians, white countries except for Israel for everybody). Why is it that we cannot mention the group that has its hands and fingerprints all over the media that 24/7 trying to brainwash us to accept our own genocide? I’ve mention it above and I’ll state it again: talking about our genocide without mentioning the group that largely controls mainstream media (and politics, finance, and academia) is a bit like talking about how to make freshly squeezed orange juice without mentioning oranges.

    • David Ashton

      Better to be respected than hated.

  • El_Baga_Doucha_Libtard

    Good job, Engelman.

  • Luca

    I agree with much of this. I have seen the evolution and takeover of liberalism having worked in government for 30 years.

    The first Europeans to come here were Christians, pioneers, soldiers of fortune and self sufficient risk-takers. They were not afraid of adventures, dangers, exploration, war and hard work.

    The Great Immigration wave contained much the same type of individuals from all reaches of Europe. People not afraid of hard work as long as it provided rewards and prosperity. Those immigrants had no safety nets, no government programs to fall back on, only themselves and their hard work.

    Since 1965, the new immigrants have come seeking government assistance. They come from third-world countries where such handouts could not be dreamed of. They demand to be pampered in their own language and require gifts in exchange for their votes. They also refuse to assimilate. They are not the Americans are father fought for.

    The country is now overloaded with Leftist leaders who will stay in power because of the weakened, indoctrinated, current generation and the ready supply of low information, gift-seeking immigrants and their offspring.

    If there is not a revolutionary act taking place soon that will purge political correctness from government, media, academia and society, we will fall, as did Rome.

  • Spartacus

    “Whites have been genetically tamed by centuries of capital punishment
    and long prison sentences, which also prevent aggressive men from having
    children. The two world wars also killed off millions of the more
    aggressive Europeans before they had a chance to reproduce. Whites have
    become innately civilized, and no longer need a draconian criminal
    justice system.”

    ———————————————————————————————————————

    I agree with the basic premise, but see some flaws in the article .

    For example, how do you explain that countries that had relatively few deaths in WWII (like Britain or Norway) or that didn’t participate in the War at all (like Sweden) have far fewer of these aggressive men than countries that had devastating losses – like Poland, Russia, Ukraine or Germany ?

  • MikeofAges

    Except that, even within the lifetime of people alive today, many peoples have gone through the same transitions in a time too brief for natural selection to play a role. Evident among North American and European whites, but even noticeable in some cases in Third World populations. Not saying selection cannot be a factor, but these successions of types have clear cut psychosocial foundations as well. Looks to me like more of Mr. Engleman’s familiar synthesis of universalism and the Cartesian grid. He like that, you know. But it is a “take” on the issue.

    • JohnEngelman

      Peter Frost’s argument does not explain everything. In particular, it does not explain why the Eastern Roman Empire, which became known as the Byzantine Empire, outlived the Western Roman Empire by one thousand years.

      Nevertheless, Frost’s theories are important, and worthy of consideration. For too long in the West it has been dangerous to even mention genetic factors in human behavior and performance.

      The civil rights movement was based on the assumption that the Negro race was innately equivalent to the white race. The War on Poverty was based on the assumption that the poor are the same as everyone else, only less fortunate.

      The results of the civil rights movement, and the War on Poverty have been disappointing.

      Peter Frost’s argument is most valuable in explaining why whites and Asians have much lower crime rates than Negroes everywhere in the world where these races live.

  • kjh64

    “Men don’t want to get married anymore because it is 50% likely to end in total financial ruin for them. Until the divorce rate declines (fat chance) or the laws become less biased toward women, this sorry state of affairs is destined to continue. Divorce is a rich man’s sport.”

    What do you think it does to women? Most women are far worse off financially after a divorce than men are. The only women who are well off after divorce are those married to wealthy men and most women aren’t. . After divorce, they are single moms who have to support kids and their former husbands are usually much better off.

    I think more men don’t want to get married because women have spoiled them rotten today. Today, too many women will do everything a wife does without a man having to marry them. If men are not willing to commit, then you can’t blame women for the lower birthrates.

    • Sick of it

      You may not want to hear this, but men routinely complain to one another about lack of loyalty among modern women, the attitude situation, and the fact that many simply don’t want to have kids. It leaves regular guys in a bad place, but it’s great for the ‘players’ (the spoiled brats if you will). I’ve found more men who wanted to commit for life (not 2-3 years) than women.

      • jane johnson

        What is the “attitude situation”?

        • Sick of it

          We’re not allowed to be men because the women want to wear the pants. I’m not interested in men with breasts. Call me old fashioned. As a matter of fact, I consider pro-feminist men homosexuals as they obviously have a sexual attraction to masculinity.

    • Galt

      “What do you think it does to women?”

      For most, not much.

      85-90% of custody cases are won by women. More than 90% of child support and alimony payments go from men to women. Women initiate 75% divorce cases and some experts have outlined that 25% initiated by men (for some) may be due to horrible conditions in the relationship that push the man to initiate the divorce, which isn’t totally off the mark since the punishment for divorce is heavily skewed toward men.

      “The only women who are well off after divorce are those married to wealthy men and most women aren’t.”

      Many divorces that end early are benign, but the 10 year mark is when men are in real trouble and are often looted by wives who file for divorce. Most women are better off than men since most women are also economically independent these days while also looting men of their wealth simultaneously. Single mothers then get the benefits of the welfare state like food stamps and so on.

      “Their former husbands are usually much better off.”

      So, why would they ask for child custody in a VAST majority of cases if they are that much worse off? Clearly, the husband would be better off taking care of his kids because he has more money, but there’s more to it than that as I mentioned.

      “If men are not willing to commit, then you can’t blame women for the lower birthrates.”

      It’s not bidirectional. Look at the system. It’s rotten to the core. Even Charles Murray stated that when the state becomes the father and provides for all single mothers and women everywhere, there is no longer any incentive for a man to marry or sire offspring.

      Certainty of paternity is also another huge issue that affects men today. There was a statistic in the UK showing that 20% of men are suspected of not being the biological father of their child.

      Suzanne Venker wrote an article on Fox news showing that 22% or so of young men want to get married, which has declined from decades ago. However, 33-34% or so of young women now want to get married, which increased from decades ago.

      You have to look at the system, the divorce industry, family law, the Duluthe Model of domestic violence, and feminism’s influence over all of these things before pointing the finger at men and calling them “uncommitted”. It’s economics 101: incentives.

  • David Ashton

    An important contribution to the causes (plural) of the “decline and fall” of the western Roman Empire. Maybe some reconsideration of the relevant dysgenic themes of Sieck, Frank, Nillson, Guenther and others is overdue? Constantine VII (according to Gibbon) thought “the mixture of foreign blood is a fruitful source of disorder”.

    “The history of Greece and Rome and other decayed nations shows that once a stock has disappeared…it is gone for ever. An obvious duty rests upon the most highly endowed members in all ranks of society to perpetuate their kind” (R. R. Gates, “Heredity and Eugenics” [London 1923] p.245).

  • Funruffian

    The USA is currently in an economic position similar to the Roman Empire of the 3rd Century AD where their infrastructure and code of loyalty and honor was being compromised due to emigration. We have a military that is overextended, we are bankrupt and we are forced to pay taxes to inhabitants who provide no benefit to anyone. Socialism didn’t exist in antiquity, but the parallels certainly took effect.

    • Gertruden

      Peter Frost article is total rubbish…John needs to read more of Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn and less of Peter Frost….speaking of parallels one needs only to study the parallels of pre-Hitler ‘Weimar’ Germany(1918-1933) with that of the U.S. today to understand why the U.S. is experiencing corruption,cultural decadence,communities in economic ruin,mass unemployment and humiliating treatment by foreign powers…John also needs to read more of Giles MacDonogh–his new book After The Reich: The Brutal History of Allied Occupation.

      Pre-Hitler Weimar Republic Parallels With U.S. Today…

      ihr dot org slash news dash comment slash august dash 8 dash 201

      Rodney Martin and Mark Weber Podcast

      • David Ashton

        Not “total rubbish” as a contribution to a prolonged event of ancient history.

        The parallels of Weimar and the USA are closer in some respects than they both are to declining Rome. The simplistic judeocratic single-cause of all three is another issue. But certainly Solzhenitsyn and MacDonogh should be read by anyone objectively looking at modern history.

        • Gertruden

          “As a contribution to a prolonged event of ancient History,” it is total rubbish.As you well know establishment consensus school of history is the height of academic and media fraud and serves the interest of the official controllers of education and mass communications.Anything that is not the truth is rubbish and should be called out as such.Much rubbish can be found by simply reviewing J.E.’s 6000+ “contributions” to a White racialist website.Bad judgement on AR’s part to put J.E.’s name on top right alongside with Thomas Jefferson…and i am being too kind.

        • Gertruden

          Reply to your comment was removed even though it was quite civil.Am re-posting part of it…

          As a “contribution” to a prolonged event of ancient history it is total rubbish. Will not defer again to accepted “House Scholars or Establishment historians…lest my post gets removed again.

        • David Ashton

          Further reply to comment deleted which I have seen on the D

          • Gertruden

            Peter Frost’s article is not “total rubbish” at all–that’s your opinion.

            Peter Frost’s article is “total rubbish”—that’s my opinion.

            Why should i offer to give points with evidence when this article itself is mere opinion…besides,after plowing through a forest using a feather to give my reasoning only to see my thoughts censored is one i have no intention of foolishly doing…too bad we are no longer able to post links of greater minds who have done that work for us,which i did when i posted the Institute for Historical Review Site…

            For someone who reads “revisionists” may i drop another name on you whom you might appreciate–Michael A. Hoffman II…an excellent read on the Untold History of the Enslavement of Whites in Early America–They Were White & They Were Slaves…he uses many court records giving proof that even blacks owned White slaves…complete with notes,illustrations and Bibliography.

            Inferring that i am a conspiratorialist because i simply dismiss Peter Frost work in this said article as being total rubbish is something that i expected better from such a learned poster who tries hard not to be unkind.

            Again,this article dosen’t demand specifics or proof because it dosen’t give it…it is opinion. Have a good day.

          • JohnEngelman

            It is all too easy to dismiss what you don’t like as the work of some enemy conspiracy.

            – David Ashton

            That is an excellent comment. That sentence belongs in “Bartlett’s Quotations.”

          • David Ashton

            Thanks, but too late!!

  • ed

    This article is absurd.

    John says “People often blame public misfortunes on what they privately dislike.”, to dismiss two possibilities and says no more.

    John forgets the practice of drafting. It isn’t merely the aggressive who serve in war; it is often everyone they can find. And strong aggressive men kill weak timid men in war, especially in the age before guns. It was Rome’s practice to put their strongest, most mature troops at the rear. The way of the ancient world was “kill the men, take the women”. And we are to believe that all the strong men died, when the strong men were naturally the victors. The premise of the article makes no sense whatsoever.

    I can answer this “why did Rome fall” question. It was ignorance of what would happen if they went about giving away citizenship to foreigners. This WAS compounded by Christianity. Look at the US and you’ll see that I am right.

    • BonusGift

      Good point.

    • JohnEngelman

      Most armies during most of history did not rely on conscription.

      • ed

        Now you’re either just flat out lying, or are completely ignorant of this subject.

      • ed

        This is the second time I post this. Hurrah for heavy handed favoritism from our dear moderators.

        You’re wrong. You’re either lying, or you’re ignorant of the very history you are trying to present to others.

        • JohnEngelman

          Yay for the moderators!

      • ed

        I’ve posted three times now that you are wrong in this claim. Let’s see how long the moderators allow me to dare contradict you this time.

      • http://www.amren.com/ Michael Christopher Scott

        How would you know?

  • Cannot Tell

    I keep thinking that it would be to the benefit of racially conscious whites to study white populations that succeed in keeping out non-whites. Why are Eastern Europeans the only whites that are proud of their race and strive to keep their countries all white?

    • rightrightright

      Because East European countries only hand out subsistence level benefits (or even lower) and provide lousy housing, if any, and minimal state services to those who do not work. So the blacks and browns don’t want to go there and East Europeans themselves move West to get more. Further, the third worlders by now have tribal connections in the West, not in the East.

      From 1 January 2014, Britain opens its doors to all of Romania and Bulgaria, two E European countries right at the bottom of Europe’s civilisational heap and both with sizeable gypsy and muslim populations.

      • Antipodean WN

        Exactly –Eastern Europe just doesn’t attract non-whites in the way Western Europe does. Have you been to Ireland or the UK —the place is swarming with Poles. I have nothing against Poles, but surely white nationalism does not mean that England should turn into Poland, or Russia into say, Italy?
        Poles should be in Poland sorting Poland out.

        And South European migration to Australia was the hole in the dyke which eventually led to wholesale and unambiguous non-white immigration. Every country should have the right to retain both its ethnic as well as racial character.

        • watling

          In the UK we have the insane situation where Polish men are working here and claiming UK state child benefit jointly with their womenfolk, who remain in Poland with their kids. That UK money leaves the UK for Poland where it will buy a hell of a lot more than the equivalent Polish benefit (if it even exists).

          Our cloud cuckooland dwelling politicians have kindly informed us that we can move to Poland in the same way that the Poles have moved here. But in the real world that is ludicrous given the massive differential in income.

          In any case why should a nation’s indigenous people be expected to leave because immigrant stock – used to much lower pay and poorer working conditions – are prepared to live 10 to a house and work for the bare minimum just so that they can send money back home, to where they can return a few years later as moneyed big shots?

  • Tarczan

    This is a hypothesis for which the author presents no facts, it’s just a theory. If what he is saying is correct, we are to believe that all the nations that fought in WW2 have genetically changed since then. If it is genetic, then in 75 years the Russians, the Japanese, and the Germans have somehow mutated into docile, non-violent people. This article is mostly nonsense.

    • Mike Lau

      Nothing wrong with coming up with a hypothesis. Its food for thought.

      “If it is genetic, then in 75 years the Russians, the Japanese, and the
      Germans have somehow mutated into docile, non-violent people.”

      Evolution does not rely only on mutation. If a certain heritable characteristic is simply removed from the gene pool, then the genetic nature of the population changes. You don’t have to sit round for eons waiting for favourable mutations.

  • Antipodean WN

    So Amren provides a soapbox for a self-acclaimed Asiaphile and serial Asian women dater, John Engelman. Nothing new about this though, they had John Derbyshire and Ramzpaul speak at the latest conference.

    Disgusting.

    There is zero difference between a white person dating a black person and a white person dating a Chinese. Both equally contribute to the genetic destruction of the white race.

    • ed

      I’m with you brother; I have zero tolerance for that sort of thing. How can they claim to love their people? They can’t while they are chasing Asian females.

      Some of these folk are motivated by a strange obsession with race, or do actually hate certain races, instead of actually loving their people. They are the vile dregs of this position, which have held it back since the very beginning.

      • Antipodean WN

        Yes, I’m not obsessed over who is smarter, dumber, better looking, more ethical, less ethical, more psychopathic, less psychopathic.

        All I care about is being around my own kind and to be separated from those who are not my own kind. I really don’t have a beef with blacks or Asians or any other race —-just don’t want to live in the same country as them, in the same way as I like my white neighbour, but don’t want him living in my house.

        Now I will admit that Asian women can be attractive, or even beautiful. But that is no excuse to date them and marry them, anymore than a rapist has an excuse because he lusts after women, or a paedophile who acts out his fantasies has an excuse because he lusts after little boys.

        In the case of Engelman, if his posts are to be believed, he has dated scores of East Asian woman. Derbyshire has gone so far as to marry one, bring her to the United States and add two non-white mongrels to the population. Ramzpaul has a strong attraction for Asian women and proclaims this in his videos, making fun of those who are against it.

        Amren is as much an Asiaphile site as a white nationalist site. It thus becomes useless to our cause.

        And harping on and on endlessly over the shortcomings of non-whites is as stupid as blaming guns for gun violence, but not the one shooting the guns.

        Who are the ones shooting the guns? You know who I am referring to. Amren’s favourite little minority.

        • ed

          I agree with everything you said.

          We are European people. That is what I care about.

          Is there some other site where people who “get it” can go?

        • Lagerstrom

          Yep, I’m sick and tired of hearing how ‘smart’ Asians are and how much ‘smarter’ they are than the likes of you and me. I could make a very long list of bizarre ‘driving and complete lack of common-sense incidents’ involving these people.

          I’ll mention one of many. A young Asian man, most likely a student whose parents are buying his education here in Australia, is walking along with his phone in front of his face. He walked into a parked car and then nearly got run over. These two ‘lessons’ didn’t prevent him from continuing to walk down the road with his phone in front of his face.

          Speaking for myself, not only would I never do that, I don’t think any of my peers from a similar age-group would do that. I don’t care in the slightest that they can train (force) their little children to be violin virtuosos by age five. The fact is that they need us and our societies, yet we don’t need them. Simple. And that applies to all the others whose countries people like you and I are not interested in moving to.

          • JohnEngelman

            Those are anecdotes. On a number of occasions I have documented the higher average intelligence of Orientals, using material I have found on this website. In the United States Orientals tend to be more prosperous than white Gentiles, although Jews are more prosperous still. Prosperity is the reward for high IQ power.

          • BonusGift

            You haven’t documented s__t; and, incidentally, you are the IQ anecdote king. You refuse to report numbers with proper accuracy and nuance. For example, the average IQ for Israel is around 94 (i.e., lower than the US values, and lower still than white Christian Americans). In addition, only certain Northeast Asians have higher average values and not greater standard deviations. That is, “Orientals’ do not have higher average IQs, some groups and/or sub-groups do some don’t; and they don’t have many/any true geniuses in the European sense (or as many idiots for that matter) because of the tighter distributions. Also, ‘Orientals’ in the U.S. are a biased sample of ‘Orientals’, etc. etcetera. In short, you generalize when you shouldn’t and/or repeat false/inaccurate information as if the act of repeating it makes it true, it does not; and, this piece is silly and you and your silly incoherent IQ numbers are distractions from those of us who give a darn about white genocide.

          • ed

            Wealth and success is not perfectly correlated with IQ. Take wealthy CEO’s, who make far more money than the smarter engineers below them.

            Wealth and success, to the extent that one could be called truly wealthy in the western world, has more to do with connections and upbringing than raw intellectual ability.

            In fact, there is a large and growing class of poor gifted in this country.

          • Sick of it

            Prosperity is also the reward for tribal behavior. Whites do not support one another in America. We take what we can from each other. That lack of solidarity ruins everything for us.

          • DiversityIsDeath

            As a racially aware White woman I don’t CARE how smart and wonderful Asian men are. They are an alien race is our midst. I find them unattractive anyway. As a White woman I don’t want to bed down and breed with Koreans or Chinamen. I love OUR men– White men! We were made for each other. As a White woman I would like to see more White men out there– not less.

          • Lagerstrom

            That’s the spirit; well said!

          • Lagerstrom

            Yes, one anecdote out of about several hundred that I could mention, but I don’t have the time. I’d lay a bet that the fellow I mentioned above probably doesn’t even clean up after himself.

    • JohnEngelman

      Antipodean WN,

      My taste in women is my business.

      Oriental women have less testosterone. That is why they are more feminine.

      • Antipodean WN

        Well it is not only your business when you try and enter our white nationalist community. Do you pass muster or do you not? That is the question.

        Race mixers and race traitors do not pass muster.

        Now you insult white women by implying that they are more ‘masculine’ than your oriental women.

        Would Amren post an article written by a woman with a self-declared fetish for black guys, and then went round saying that black men were more manly say, than white men?

        The hypocrisy here is staggering.

        And I see the moderator has deleted several posts of mine, and those who agree with me. Of course, it must have been because of mention of the unmentionable tribe.

        • JohnEngelman

          I too have noticed that the moderators have deleted some of your comments. It may be that I pass muster, and you do not.

          One can be a race realist without being a white nationalist. I am the first, but not the second.

          I have it on good authority that Jared Taylor finds antisemitism almost as distasteful as I do.

          • BonusGift

            You are an idiot with a fetish you revel in.

          • JohnEngelman

            If that is all you are capable of, I do not fear you as a debate rival.

          • Gertruden

            You must be very pleased with your president today…he is now seeking congressional approval for action against Syria…so now you speak for Jared Taylor? Can you tell us if Jared finds James Edwards and Keith Alexander as being “antisemitic?” Or perhaps someone from AR Staff can answer that question.

          • ed

            It may be, and it is far more likely, that AmRen itself does not pass muster. This place is decaying, and you’re a prime example of the rot.

          • Antipodean WN

            And obviously I’m getting a helluva lot more ‘likes’ to my comments than you are. So who is passing muster?

            Jared Taylor admits to the fact that Jews are troublemakers. However when asked recently he said Amren avoids the issue because “we can’t afford to be a ‘crank’ on more than one issue at a time”, or words to that effect.

            So Jared knows. But wants to retain whatever ‘respectability’ he thinks he has. But that is a dead-end strategy. Simply for being a race realist, the liberal MSM is going to cast you into outer darkness in any case. It would be better if Jared concentrated his efforts on the real problem. Not the symptoms.

          • http://countenance.wordpress.com/ Question Diversity

            Except, I’ve been around long enough to know that when people start dwelling on the “real problem,” as you put it, (i.e. Jews), they’ll actually go into crank territory and lose sight of the real problem.

            As I said on OD a few days ago:

            ***

            If Abraham Foxman took a long walk off a short bridge, I’d be as happy as anyone on Earth. But you’re right; I do not let my mind dwell on Jews. Because I have seen what happens with people who do; they obsess so much over Jews that they do stupid things like:

            * Make every excuse in the book for Ron Paul, because they think his neutralitarian foreign policy was going to “get over on the Jews”

            * Endorse Chuck Bagel for Defense Secretary, because he supposedly hated Israel and the Jews supposedly hated him, (reality: Most Jewish groups and Jewish senators approved of him, and his one brief criticism of Israel mirrored that of what leftist anti-Israel Jews say about Israel). Now Bagel wants us to march boots into Syria.

            * Side with terrorist bomber rock throwing “Palestinians” (<—– invented people, FGS, they're ARABS~!)

            * Be too ideologically neutralized to oppose swinging the doors wide open to millions of new Muslim immigrants/invaders, because "the JOOOOOOOZ are provoking us to hate Muslims, and if we let them in, they'll kill Jews"

            * Prostrate their minds to wacky and out there conspiracy theories, ones that I wouldn't give the time of day to even though I'll believe anything for five minutes but most CTs no longer than that.

            * Claim that the AR regular poster "JewAmongYou" is part of a Jewish conspiracy, that "THE JOOOOOOOZ" are "sending him" into AR to "ruin it." (Yes, I've actually read that one on some of our "favorite" sites).

            Long and short, fulminating over the Jews is not healthy for our people.

            ***

            I could have added to that:

            * Either endorse or vote for Barack Obama for President because they assume that someone who got 84% and 69% of the Jewish vote in 2008 and 2012 respectively somehow has it out for "THE JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOZ" because of his Arabic middle name and that he's pro-Israel in a different way than the typical Republican/evangelical Christian/neo-conservative Jew.

            Though I was probably wasting my keystrokes all along. It's like I've said here in the recent past, anyone who is so thrown into an ideology will find a way to credit it for anything that goes right and blame the lack of it or blame its competitors for anything that goes wrong. People who dwell over J will obviously find a way to blame J when something goes wrong or is about to go wrong. Which proves my point.

          • David Ashton

            What is wrong with opposing Jews and anyone else, whatever their motives and numbers, who advocate non-white mass-immigration, and supporting Jews and anyone else, whatever their motives and numbers, who are opposed to it?

          • Antipodean WN

            You are deflecting.

            Remove the Jews you solve the problem.

            The fact that you have written a long screed attacking me, while completely ignoring Engelman’s fornication with Asiatic women shows us all whose side you are on.

            Engelman — a self-admitted asiaphile or dates only Asian women and sees no problem with whites mating with Asians. Do you have anything to say about that?

          • David Ashton

            Free speech for communists – AND white nationalists?

          • JohnEngelman

            I advocate free speech for both. I am neither.

            In the long run truth will emerge from the free market of facts and opinions, but emotion lengthens the process.

      • DiversityIsDeath

        How are Asian women more feminine than White women? Physically they are built funny–hipless, flat chested, and with short bowed legs. No Oriental woman has ever in human history been held up as a bodily ideal for other women to emulate or envy. Can you think of one? If so, name her. (And remember– the European female is global ideal envied and copied by Oriental women– not the other way around.) Or by femininity do you mean Asian women’s behaviour, their supposed subservience to men? Because that is a cultural trait which is gradually going the way of bound feet. Please elaborate on how you find Oriental women more feminine than European women.

        • JohnEngelman

          Chinese women are much more wonderful.

          • David Ashton

            Only to you, a few others, and Chinese men.

            “Much more wonderful” isn’t an “elaboration”.

        • Lagerstrom

          Maybe John just likes Chinese food?

    • JohnEngelman

      My article got printed. Your comments get deleted. You’re the one who does not belong here, not me.

  • http://countenance.wordpress.com/ Question Diversity

    their stoic Republican forbears had created such a surfeit of wealth and security that they could live off the grain dole, hire mercenaries, and watch circuses for a couple hundred years before it collapsed

    Only today we have EBT, illegal alien Hispanics in the military and football.

  • rightrightright

    Emmet Scott in his book “Mohamed and Charlemagne Revisited” makes a good case for the continuation of the Roman Empire under new, Germanic management. The dark ages did not descend upon the West as a consequence, as the Germans admired Rome, and proved to be capable administrators. The Empire in many places, such as North Africa, Spain and Gaul have provided archaeological evidence of prosperity in the years subsequent to 480 – ie a great deal of new building.

    What brought the Roman West down was plague, manpower draining war with Persia and then the killer, Mohamedanism which cut the West off from its Southern Mediterranean lands and isolated Roman Byzantium.

    Yet modern Italians don’t look like Germans (well, some in the North do), so the Italian bloodlines have been retained, diluted in the South by Muslim invaders and of course in Spain much of the original fair-skinned appearance has been lost due to 800 years of islamic colonisation.

    England, unlike other Western European lands, was entirely overrun by Germanic peoples. Gaul, Spain and Italy retained Latin-based speech. In England there is no more than a trace remaining of Britonic vocabulary which demonstrates how entire was the conquest. There was little continuity with the previous civilisation of Roman Britain and no reason to learn Latin. Yet after the Christianisation of England, English kings chose to retire to Rome (after witnessing the crowning of their chosen successors) to lead lives of prayer and contemplation, as monks. The English, too, held Rome in high esteem.

    I agree with John that we have become effete, but consider this to be conditioning rather than genetic adaptation. I understand there is a word in Japanese which means “to be made senile through peace”. That’s it.

    The years post 476 AD demonstrate the perhaps unique ability of Europeans to adapt and make good. Other conquerors who rolled over other people’s land destroyed them, then imposed their own way of life on the defeated populations. The Germanic tribes adapted to what they found, as the later Vikings also adapted (even in their language – see Normandy, in their religion and administrative methods – see England).

    Europeans have adapted to their conditioning by the Left, an adaptation too far. It can be reversed although at this stage, a reversion will not be pretty.

    Mr Engelman’s view I find to be somewhat simplistic and harsh.

    • David Ashton

      Agree with this tribute to Germanic achievements. See also my post with references to reasons for the accelerated decline of the Roman Empire, and books by Ricardo Duchesne and Lawrence Brown.

  • Dave6034

    I read that male career criminals father, on average, just as many children as law-abiding men, despite their lack of “free time” to pursue mating opportunities. Thugs score faster because they’re not afraid of sex. So what if they knock up an underage girl? Jail is a welcome break from street life, and they have no legitimate income to garnishee.

    This is very different from pre-1800 civilized societies, where criminals were summarily executed and their children allowed to starve.

    • Sick of it

      Many criminals were executed prior to their becoming fathers as well. If we had kept up that tradition, crime would certainly be lower in modern America.

      • JohnEngelman

        That is the argument Peter Frost is making in an essay he is working on.

  • Gertruden

    It’s the Culture, Stupid!

  • Spartacus

    Not quite. Long after the Vikings stopped raiding and had converted to Christianity, Swedes had one of the most powerful empires in the world (Svenska Riket), which even beat Russia on the field of battle .

    And while I agree social causes might be the cause for Russians being much more violent, how then do you explain Poland ? Since the fall of Communism, their social and economic situation has greatly improved, and yet they still have excessive violence.

    Have you taken into account that within our own race some groups (like Slavs) might be inherently more aggressive than others (like say Scandinavians)?

    Your article also considers that a strong central government will automatically lead to excessive deaths among the most violent men, but I think you’re wrong because self-control kicks in when violence is no longer a life-or-death matter, so those violent people might not necessarily die off but just stop fighting, without it leading to their removal from the gene pool .

  • Anan7

    This is so damned frustrating. I want to speak out about the destruction of western civilization by non-Whites, but I would be expelled from school for what George Orwell would call “thoughtcrime

  • JohnEngelman

    The Black Death may have increased the average European IQ for the reasons you suggested.

    It is generally acknowledged that it lead to a higher standard of living for most Europeans and a more equatable distribution of wealth and income, again for the reasons you suggested.

  • Mike Lane

    I’m confused. The author claims the wealthy and prosperous tend to have more children, yet it has been universally acknowledged that it is the other way around- as noted by eugenicists in the early 20th century.

    • JohnEngelman

      That is a recent development. During most of history starvation and malnutrition were significant limiting factors on the population. During famines the rich could buy food. The poor could not. Also, the rich were less vulnerable to disease epidemics.

      • Norseman

        Approximately when did this change take place?

        • JohnEngelman

          After the Second World War fewer people wanted to believe that innate differences between individuals and races were important.

  • gemjunior

    Knights and aristocrats didn’t practice chivalry and decency out of their own class. Despite being of the same race of Europeans or even their fellow citizens, if the lower-class female inhabitants of a house they were plundering got in their way, they raped them. If they were torturing these women they used techniques like ‘half-hanging’ where the person was hung and released, questioned, hung and released, questioned, etc. as many times till they were satisfied. These ‘vulgars’ as they were known to the higher-classes, were similarly untouchable. These were also the men who had much to do with establishing the British Empire – sailors and military men. Usually captained by an aristocrat to keep the troops from the worst excesses, it’s to be expected that he could not or would not always have stopped what today’s wimps would categorize as “atrocities,” which were the usual techniques of war. Today’s ‘people in charge’ want victory, but want to separate themselves from the ugliness and savagery that it takes to gain victories. At least the British didn’t shy away from sending their own sons to war.

  • JohnEngelman

    The British Empire was not made possible by the violent nature of British men. It was made possible by the scientific and industrial revolutions in Britain. These in turn were made possible by the increases in British intelligence.

    • David Ashton

      The soldiers and sailors fought and died overseas.

    • David Ashton

      Increase in the numbers of intelligent British people, but perhaps not the average level of the communities in the 16th or 19th centuries.

  • gemjunior

    It was not “mindless or uncontrolled” aggression by any means. Admiral Nelson comes to mind. In addition, they were very much a world power in medieval times as the Normans (who had come from France but were soon named Englishmen) had established themselves throughout England and Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and France. The only other nation that provided a worthy adversary was Spain. Out of the medieval era, once the English began coming to the New World, Spain’s power began to wane in North America as the English began wholesale takeover. Canada fell to England, and Australia was declared a commonwealth. The English were strategically planning for a long time and not in a mindless way. It was not mindlessness or uncontrolled aggressiveness that is the reason we all speak this language, and it is by default the language of the entire world.
    Come on now, as an Indian you don’t have to LIKE them but the truth is the truth; give credit where it’s due.

  • gemjunior

    You really said a mouthful there.

  • JohnEngelman

    Literacy declined significantly after the end of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD. The Germans respected the achievements of the Roman Empire, but they were not able to maintain them. Roads and aqueducts decayed. Populations in cities declined. Life became more violent.

    The Germans of the era remind me of Negroes now. For over two centuries Negroes have tried to adopt western civilization, but they have not come close to emulating it.

    • William Krapek

      Literacy cratered because the Muslims cut off the papyrus supply from Egypt. We had to turn to parchment, which was a lot more expensive. It was also impossible to produce more of this beyond a certain limit. This period of the Roman Empire still had first class philosophers.

    • Plautus Dicta

      ancient Germans = current Negroes!? Herein Engelman reveals his true colors and complete ignorance of history and juvenile obsession with IQ beyond its proper relevance. History was never made by nerdy characters; it was strong Germanic peoples that kept Western civilization alive after the Roman empire came down. The barbarian Indo-Europeans were always crucial to the West.

    • David Ashton

      The Germans made a better job of it than the Africans have done. Life was quite violent before 476. See my post giving references to the final period of the Western Roman Empire, if Disqus puts it on again.

  • JohnEngelman

    There is no reason to suppose that the German barbarians who lived two thousand years ago were more intelligent than Romans, Greeks, Jews, Syrians, and Egyptians. They were probably much less intelligent on the average because they had not benefited from the evolutionary pressures of civilization.

    • Kevin W. Cornell

      Your reply is a non-sequitur. You need to read William Pierce in the link I posted.

      • JohnEngelman

        Ever since I was a child I have enjoyed political arguments. Whenever I win an argument I am frequently given a reading list. If what William Pierce had to say is important, express his argument in your own words.

        If you cannot do that, you do not understand what he has to say, and I have won the argument.

        • Kevin W. Cornell

          As you wish: The “mixture of foreign blood” thesis concerns the Nordic mixing with non-Nordic blood. According to this thesis, the repeated Nordic invasions from the north founded and regenerated Classical Civilization over the long term. In other words, the “mixture of foreign blood” thesis does NOT concern the Roman mixing with the Germans – as your reply to one David Ashton assumed – but rather the thesis concerns the Nordic mixing with the natives of the Italian region whom the founders of Rome conquered but didn’t exterminate. Furthermore, your reply to me was a totally irrelevant non-sequitur insofar as no one asserted that the barbarian Germans were more educated than other peoples of the time period. Finally, I posted a link to excerpts from the late-great William Pierce because his writings are absolutely essential on this issue and I had hoped that your perusing of his writings would disabuse you of the ignorance you displayed concerning the thesis of how the mixture of foreign blood destroyed Classical Civilization. – Kevin

  • JohnEngelman

    That is certainly one of my points. Unfortunately, it is still dangerous to make publicly.

    The emphasis of the criminal justice system should be to get criminals off of the streets and out of the gene pool. There should be little confidence in rehabilitation, because it is usually ineffective.

  • JohnEngelman

    Those who blame Christianity for the fall of the Western Roman Empire need to keep in mind that the Eastern Roman Empire survived for another thousand years, and that the Holy Roman Empire, which was a restoration of the Western Roman Empire, survived until the nineteenth century.

    The Eastern Roman Empire, and the Holy Roman Empire at different times prevented Muslims from conquering Europe. Both of these empires were thoroughly Christian.

  • JohnEngelman

    Computer technology increases the relationship between intelligence and income. Computer technology will continue the evolution of humans toward higher intelligence.

    • Screamin_Ruffed_Grouse

      That’s a bit of double-edged sword. So much of computer technology, especially the parts most most commonly used, have the net effect of facillitating dependency and enabling intellectual laziness. It’s true that highly intelligent people will be needed to develop computer technology, the bulk of it is being designed for easy use by the less intelligent, and specifically aimed at enabling them to do things with as little thought and attention as possbible.

      I would not say satellite tv, online banking or the Call of Duty video game serires, for instance, have marched society toward higher intelligence.

      • JohnEngelman

        When jobs become computerized they are eliminated. Two computer programs I coded on my first job as a computer programmer enabled my company to fire four clerical workers.

        I only learned about that after I completed my assignment. When the director of the business office mentioned that at a meeting my boss said, “Oh good.” I felt sick, but I could not have saved their jobs. If I refused to code the program my boss would have fired me, coded the programs himself, and replaced me in two weeks.

        Computer technology makes automation possible. It also makes it possible for executives to send American jobs to other countries.

        During the 1950’s it was possible for a white man of average or slightly below average intelligence and a a high school degree to earn enough to support a home in the suburbs, a wife who did not need to work, and several children. Now it’s not.

        It might be satisfying for some to blame liberals, or “the tribe” for the change. Computer technology is the main culprit.

        • Screamin_Ruffed_Grouse

          Perhaps you meant to reply to a different post, and hit mine by mistake.

  • jeffaral

    Is it just my imagination? Does the first image depict a Christian zionist praying to Yaweh for the well-being of Israel?

  • PouponMarks

    Aversion to violence, direct retribution or force versus the Social Contract of exchanging force-relinquishing same to the State-in pursuit of justice for general passivity and focus on economic and social activity is the hallmark of successful societies. However, it must be stated that when the State inevitably becomes State-ist, centralizing authority and excluding input or choices from the many, it must needs the Nietzschean solution, The Will To Power. For Goodness, Charity, Humanity, Godliness to exist and flourish, there must be a violence option (“Break Glass to Operate For Emergencies”) in which to hold in obeisance forces of Evil and The Demon. In my Greek Orthodox Church of many icons, there is a particularly large one that shows an angel on a white horse spearing the Devil laying prostate on the ground, symbolized by a Negro, interestingly enough.

    The Violence Card must always be ready for use in the deck. Even monasteries and pacifists rely on a surrogate force of violent men to shield them from the forces of usurpation of wealth and slavery.

  • Gertruden

    In a reply to Ed whose post was deleted…This is what happens when you allow your real enemies into the fold…soon after there is much dissension and all the while J.E.’s handlers sit back chuckling and laughing.

    • ed

      I agree. This place has become less than worthless. It is now harmful. What does all the negative news, and all the racialist science actually accomplish? Nothing. Nothing good for our people, at least. It keeps us distracted, and depressed.

      Is this site not called “American Renaissance”? Surely such a name is a call to action. There is nothing within the AmRen “in crowd”, however, but empty headed elitists, who put on airs they do not deserve, and masturbate themselves with words.

      • Gertruden

        Agreed…now that we are once again on the precipice of war(special report today that obama is seeking congressional support to take “action”” against Syria) will Amren be posting special articles about this.Any critical analysis forthcoming? Good grief!

  • Spartacus

    Ancient Sparta and Nazi Germany both achieved something along those lines, but they were ultimately destroyed by excessive militarism(other factors as well, but this was the main factor in both cases) .

    • Sick of it

      Germany was defeated by an armchair general who thought he knew better than the brilliant minds working for him. Too bad they did not succeed in killing him.

      • Spartacus

        I never said Hitler wasn’t partially to blame, but that’s not the point . The most important strategic mistakes that Germany made weren’t Hitler’s fault .

        • Sick of it

          It has been said that if the Germans went straight to Moscow, as his generals wanted to do, the USSR would have fallen rather quickly. It should also be noted that the Normandy invasion would have been impossible without Hitler moving so many troops to Scandinavia.

          • Spartacus

            Actually, the fault lies primarily in the German diplomacy . If Hitler&co would’ve convinced Japan to postpone declaring war on the US, and to go to war against the Soviet Union, Hitler would’ve most likely won the war , as the soviets were in no position to fight on two fronts .

          • Sick of it

            I do agree that the Japanese screwed up by attacking a country they obviously could not beat. That was the most foolish thing they had done in centuries.

          • Spartacus

            Ironically, the Japanese screwed us up more than they did themselves, in the long run .

          • Sick of it

            I’m not sure about that, considering Fukushima.

          • Spartacus

            I don’t think the situation there is that bad. Look at Chernobyl, Ukraine is still there. And Japan is a much more competent and advanced country than Ukraine .

          • Sick of it

            That’s just it, I’ve read the reports on the ridiculous amount of long-term damage suffered in the Ukraine and other areas in the region just from Chernobyl…and they managed to seal the reactor away. Fukushima is in the middle of a huge population and it’s still leaking radiation.

  • guest

    The explanation for the reduction in aggressive and rebellious traits is convincing. But what about this other point, made in the first paragraph, about which I was most interested:

    “It can also explain why most whites have come to accept the immigration of less civilized races.”

    Disappointingly, the article did not proceed to address this issue. It’s as if we are simply to infer that our tolerance of invaders is an expression of our non-aggressiveness. But I see no convincing logic to that. As a commenter (Eagle_Eyed) noted already, the Japanese are very restrictive of immigrants, and yet they are arguably a less rebellious people than whites. And let’s not forget that we, the U.S. and European nations, used to be much more controlling and selective about immigrants.

    I really want to see a good discussion of this question: Why have white peoples, and only white peoples, allowed such invasion of their homelands? Because I’m a big believer in the genetic component of human nature, I do think European genes have something to do with the answer here. I am not sure of the answer, but here’s my best guess…This is not a function of aggressiveness (or lack of). It is more an expression of: 1. Guilt. 2. Altruism.
    I think these are two traits that white peoples exhibit more than other peoples. (Consider the aftermath of WWII — the Germans were guilt-ridden, the Japanese felt shame, but much less guilt.) In recent times we have been conned by the racial-guilt-mongers, and suckered into believing that it is right to share our country away.

    • Gertruden

      More rubbish/trolling…White people never voted to have their countries blessed with multi-racial/culturalism. Stop baiting and tell us what you really think.

      • guest

        I think it’s our foolish bleeding hearts. You’re not that foolish. I’m not. But a lot of people, even now, are suckered with ideas of how needy these newcomers are, how they deserve a chance too. And their children, those poor innocents kids. How can we deny them? (Hell, I can.) They have dreams!
        Look, all this stuff, the 1965 legislation changing our policies, the amnesty in the mid-80’s, it all had to be sugar-coated. I mean, even whites aren’t that generous (and stupid.) But face it. This has happened in so many white countries. And in no other countries. We are a more welcoming people than other peoples. And we are too giving, generous to a fault.

      • guest

        And there’s the guilt too. Over imperialism, colonization, slavery, racism, all manner of domination. And so the mindset in Europe of accommodating North Africans, Arabs, Indians, and other formerly colonized peoples. The mindset here of accommodating blacks, Central Americans, any “people of color” for that matter. Of course, it did take some insidious influences to plant all these ideas. But the fact that we have fallen for this line to the extent we have demonstrates our propensity for guilt.
        We should be proud. Considering all we have brought to this world, enriching it with our science and arts, we are the opposite of an oppressor. (What’s the word for that?)

        • Spartacus

          “And there’s the guilt too. Over imperialism, colonization, slavery, racism, all manner of domination.”

          —————————————————————————————-

          The most monstrous Empire in human history was made by Turks. Nearly 1000 years of continuous and open sex slavery of women and children. You ever heard any Turk feeling guilty about it ?

          • guest

            Never. Great point.

          • Spartacus

            If you want to destroy a marxist’s argument, just point out the Ottoman Empire was worse than anything any Western Empire ever did. And the second worse – Genghis Khan’s Empire, again, no Western Empire even comes close . Third worse – The egalitarian, anti-racist Soviet Union, that killed tens of millions of people.

            And I’m only talking about Empires that butchered other nations. I didn’t even talk about China, that was, even before Mao, the biggest killer in human history . You know that big wall they have over there? Well guess what – there’s at least a million corpses buried in it. Corpses of the SLAVES that built it…

          • Lagerstrom

            A Marxist wouldn’t care, as Turks and Chinese aren’t White. They’re too busy putting down the Brits for, ohh, let’s see; building railroads, initiating sensible and stable government, building a decent road system, I could go on, but you know what I’m talking about.
            Then, when the former colonies are granted independence and revert back to killing and raping each other, it’s the old chestnut: ‘legacy of colonialism’.

          • David Ashton

            Taj Mahal and Pyramids built by slaves later killed.

          • Spartacus

            And the Angkor Vat as well .

          • JohnEngelman

            The Mongolians conquered much of the world in a rampage of unbelievable cruelty. Nevertheless, Genghis Khan is a national hero in Mongolia.

          • David Ashton

            What conclusions about the Mongolian mindset should be drawn from this?

    • Sick of it

      When people with a foreign mindset took power in western nations, they changed the way everything worked in our nations. Only in more recent years have our young begun to think they want what has been forced upon them for generations.

      • guest

        I recognize that foreign mindset. But how can a foreign mindset take power? By war takeover, surely, but how in this passive, insidious way? It hasn’t been forced upon us. (though yes, you can cite some forced pieces, such as court decisions and the education elite.) Only white peoples are this persuadable to a foreign viewpoint. We are the most empathetic of peoples.

        • Sick of it

          They did takeover after a war, a war which cost over 600,000 American lives. They took over even more after the Great Depression, which wiped out their competitors by destroying their wealth. After that, you find steady encroachment. Their original means to power were quite violent.

          • guest

            Huh? “They”, “they”. If you’re talking about juice, they didn’t win any wars. If you’re talking about a war of ideas (that would include communism, to which your final sentence refers, I think), then that took a lot of acquiescence by us white suckers.

          • Sick of it

            They’ve had white helpers and perhaps superiors the entire time who have connections to some of the royal families of Europe. It’s the same thing in Europe – The opposition (entire noble families in some cases) has been obliterated through war and economic destruction. This is all pretty obvious when reading the history of the past 300 years. The World Wars really don’t make sense until one looks at who gained and who lost.

            As far as acquiescence, this has been a top-down affair mostly and only recently has had real support from regular folk, who have been terribly brainwashed. Even today there are plenty who do not like this world order being pushed upon us. The removal of one obstacle could make their entire plan fall to pieces. That one obstacle is the weapon that has been used to bash the world into submission since the 1860s.

          • guest

            I’m with you about the brainwashing, and that it’s a top-down affair. But only whites have enough of that selfless streak to make us brainwashable. It’s really quite a feat to get a people to think against their own interests; impossible with other peoples.

            I’m not with you about a “they” that has puppet-mastered a path of world history for several centuries or even one century. No cabal can be that brilliant, that manipulative. History is a much messier affair than you are seeing it.

          • Sick of it

            I never said it was clean, neat, or brilliant. Tribal solidarity and expansion into many regions have helped the plan along, as has the creation of increasingly integrated systems worldwide. As has the ruination of education whereby people don’t know who they are or where/who they came from.

            They probably don’t plan these things 50-100 years ahead, but see ways they can destroy normal human consciousness and replace it with something of their own design. They see power players who need to be destroyed. They see wealth that should be confiscated. They see potential allies to bring into the fold. Objectives and goals (often short term)…not some ridiculously well thought out plan.

            In contrast, normal people, including the smart ones, are becoming increasingly short sighted, lacking in identity, and don’t truly know what they want for themselves. We just float along the sea of the here and now, full of hope for a future for which we should honestly plan.

          • guest

            Okay. Now we’re more in sync. Your World Wars statement was misleading. (It’s interesting to view those wars in terms of who gained and who lost, but they’re not senseless without that perspective.)
            Yes especially to “education whereby people don’t know who they are.” It’s amazing how we have lost our sense of identity. The word “American” used to have a distinct meaning.

          • Sick of it

            Since I’ve really started thinking about such things and had to pretty much redefine myself after breaking out of the programming, I’ve found myself becoming the true American type, really more in line with Jefferson than anyone else (I agreed with a lot of it even as a child, but the other garbage was poured on top).

            It’s sad really, because everything that our Founders, including my own ancestors, fought so hard for is disintegrating before our eyes. But they did warn us that to keep our freedoms we would have to be eternally vigilant. Even reading Helper’s works (author of Negroes in Negroland among other things) tells me he was completely misled regarding the Northern cause. And that was before, during, and after the Civil War. Only after did he finally start to see the Radical Republicans as they truly were. I doubt he had any idea they were ’48ers pretending to be Americans.

    • Spartacus

      “Why have white peoples, and only white peoples, allowed such invasion of their homelands?”

      ———————————————————————————————————–

      Jewish brainwashing. That really is the most important difference between the West and – say – Japan. Japan doesn’t have millions of ethnocentrist, well-organized non-Japanese that actively try do destroy it .

      • guest

        Juice has played a big part, certainly in our country. In Britain, France, Germany, Sweden, etc., it’s been a much smaller factor, I think. There’s more to this.

        • Spartacus

          I’m not American, so it’s not “our” country :) But do they really need anything other than the US ? That’s the Empire of the day, the one that decides who’s a terrorist and who’s a freedom fighter, who’s a tyrant and who’s a democratic leader. They never needed to take over everything, just the most important part .

        • David Ashton

          I am a sceptic about a single-cause mega-conspiracy theory, but there is plenty of solid, detailed evidence that ex-PM Tony Blair has been far too close, socially, politically and financially, to Zionists from his lawyer days to his present posturings on the world stage.

        • Chris Granzow XI

          Not really. If you can speak French, you should go on YouTube and watch videos from Alain Soral and Dieudonné. They talk a lot about how jewish elitists are controlling France.

    • watling

      Whites have never even had to fight to block the post-WWII invasion of third worlders. They have simply needed to vote appropriately at election time.

      However there will come a time when whites cannot vote en bloc for a particular policy because they’ll be the minority. Then they’ll have to fight but after decades of passiveness how many will have the stomach for it?

      • David Ashton

        Not possible so to vote in some UK first-past-the post elections, when no major party choice was offered, and when New Labour lied to the electorate, and for other reasons. Immigration was a huge public issue at the last election, and again vague assurances about control were offered by Con & Lab, but little effective has been done, or allowed to be done, since the Con-Lib coalition. The BNP, UKIP &c divide and waste the overt anti-immigration votes.

    • ThomasER916

      If you want to know how this happened look at the big scam with the “New School” and mass immigration of Bolsheviks. They came en masse and were given bogus credentials as FDR’s administration built new schools to indoctrinate our GI.

  • Sick of it

    I think of the prettier, lighter skin, light haired girls that I grew up with rather than Kate Middleton, but a good point nonetheless.

  • Sick of it

    That mentality has definitely sunk our birth rate since the 1950s. Despite the fact that most manufactured goods today are so much garbage and that kids are much more interesting.

  • Sick of it

    Mao was responsible for the deaths of more people, mostly if not entirely his own, than any other in all of human history. So yeah, not exactly non-violent.

  • Sick of it

    Don’t forget the estrogen-like compounds found in modern plastics, not to mention personal care products.

  • Sick of it

    Are you in Italy? If so, how’s Lega Nord doing these days?

  • Sick of it

    You’re referring to Roman auxiliaries, not the army proper. It was one reason their military was so successful, by utilizing troops with special skills the Romans did not possess.

  • Sick of it

    You’ll find that we have been people of law throughout history. It is hard to accept that we bred out aggression for various reasons you mentioned above, but aggression does not preclude civilized behavior nor does a civilization worth one’s time exclude all aggressive persons.

  • Sick of it

    While our society accepts marrying anyone willy-nilly, you have good reason for your fear. But, if the entire society collapses, I could easily see this country becoming more tribal and less inclined to recreate Brazil. It’s fairly obvious that several groups already here are 100% tribal, that their violence will cause others to respond in kind.

  • Claudius_II

    I disagree that the late Roman Empire suffered from a loss of warrior tendencies in it’s armies. It was a series of strategic blunders caused by the emperor Valens and a divided command that led to Hadrianopolis and the destruction of the Roman Army by the barbarians (Huns) in 378 AD. What also happened is that the Roman decision making apparatus had become ossified and this precluded any wise long term decisions for it’s own survival.

    Also we (the West) do seem to be embracing our own demise. Eventually our advanced civilizations will fall and the globe will regress to the level of constant tribal fighting, small wars, periodic purges, and level of technology that is endemic throughout Africa today.

    Eventually all of humanity will die off next time the Earth gets whacked by a large asteroid as scientific progress will have ceased and we won’t even have the means for an early warning against such space debris.

    Had Western civilization survived within 2 centuries we would easly develop the ability to colonize much of our solar system and detect and deflect catastrophic asteroid strikes which have happened around 6 times in our past.

    • Romulus

      Your recollection of Roman history is much better than Englimam, I’ll give you that, but colonizing anything other than the moon is pure hogwash. As an engineer, I can tell you that, unless humanity can “come up with” a replacement for the KNOWN laws of physics and a fuel to match for space travel, space exploration on the scale you propose is ludicrous. America has presently scrapped it’s shuttle craft exploration not only because of the economic logistics but for lack of fuel and other proprietary systems that are great in a star trek movie but don’t work so well in actual reality.

      • Claudius_II

        The following might be considered minimum requirements for colonization of other places in the solar systems: Mars, the Jovian moons, etc.

        1) Controlled nuclear fusion in a somewhat portable package: like the size of a powerplant of a sub for example.

        2) Some way of getting stuff into space cheaper and more reliably than the USA used to do.

        3) Of course some sort of determination or national will to go there or economic reason to go there. Of course our government spent X? trillion $ on the great war on poverty without accomplishing anything +, so compared to that, solar system colonization is a great bargain.

        Laws of physics? Voyager-1 is currently 5 times further than the orbit of Pluto and I think has just used chemical rockets and gravitational assists to get there. With a fusion engine + perhaps some anti-matter injection to get the thrust/ weight ratio up we should be able to reach Jupiter, particularly if cryogenics are developed. Note that none of this presupposed warp or FTL travel which we really have not even a clue about.

        Note that I’m also an injunear and collect the Roman coins (& study the history) as a hobby.

      • watling

        Maybe America would have more money to spend on space exploration if it weren’t pumping billions into both welfare for low IQ immigrants and clearing up the mess that blacks make.

        • ThomasER916

          You can either have a Welfare, non-white civilization without the Hostile Elite or you can have space travel. You cannot have both.

          Did you know that Buzz Aldrin wanted to have Communion on the moon but NASA couldn’t afford a lawsuit?

          ^^That’s our problem. We’ve tolerated the Culture of Critique. After seeing the past few decades of Feminism, Marxism, and MSM, I would fully support a 10th Crusade to burn heretics.

    • Puggg

      You were doing so great in your first two paragraphs. Then, gee, thanks for the positive thinking and encouragement.

      • Claudius_II

        Sorry, my 3 yo son is currently fascinated by youtube videos of asteroids colliding with the Earth. In fact in 1994 a 1.4 km diameter asteroid impacted Jupiter: this was Shoemaker-Levy-9. That impact released 300,000 megatons of energy (note Hiroshima was only 0.02 megaton) However, I believe that with 200 years of “true advances” in technology, asteroids of this size could be deflected.

        Stephen Hawkings, the physicist, believes that it is absolutely essential for mankind to develop a space-based civilization (colonize the solar system) or else we’ll go the way of the dinosaurs. It apparently happened 6 times in the past (ELE’s).

        Thus the current tend to blame Western Civilization and whites for all of mankinds’ sins is simply non-adaptive for the species as a whole as they’re the best bet for the scientific advances necessary for survival.

        Also I believe that, at least in the short term, life in space will be much less forgiving to the less intelligent surviving and multiplying with abandon. Finally space might be considered as a last resort in the event that things begin to go the way they did in Haiti after their Independence in 1803? and the way things are going in South Africa today.

        • Puggg

          But worrying about that kind of stuff in contrast to the problems we worry about here is like worrying about slow global climate change when your house is on fire.

          • Claudius_II

            Yes I agree that the main point of AmRen is to generate awareness on more pressing issues.

            Getting back to John Engleman’s comments on genetic shift or feminiztion of Roman citizens, I’m not so sure. At it’s hight The Roman Empire encompassed a population of 80 million. I recall that it was protected by a military force of around 25- 40 legions each of which had about 5,000 men. Added to this were auxiliaries which were non-citizen lower class troops which Wikipaedia lists as being around 50-60% of the regular army. Thus the Empire was defended by a mobile army of approx. 300 thousand troops.

            Thus even when the army was wiped out, there was still a lot of genetic diversity left.

            I couldv’e joined the Army myself but was too young for Vietnam and too old for Desert Storm. Also the ideal for young kids of my generation were the WW-II veterans and the idea that the US military was a Noble Thing. I think that for many this idea no longer holds, thus there are a number of people who can defend themselves who are not being bred out of our genetic pool.

            But okay, no more dicsussion of asteroids.

  • http://tmasierrahills.blogspot.com/ tma_sierrahills

    Interesting points but ignores ‘The Culture of Critique’ and decades of anti-Western indoctrination. Capital punishment has knocked out the most aggressive alpha males, like what happened in the limp-wristed Old West? Some points have merit, but overall seems to be a somewhat bizarre patchwork of arguments.

    • Romulus

      That was my assessment as well. Biological precepts are but one aspect of a Society’s collapse.

      • http://tmasierrahills.blogspot.com/ tma_sierrahills

        True, and we shouldn’t forget that Multicultural Marxism also impacts biology, since fashionable alpha males and females will tend to be PC and will be more successful in society and have kids more like themselves.

  • Romulus

    I’ll take gibbon over engleman any day of the week. His review is but a subset of the many factors that comprise an empires collapse. Modern intellectuals love to write articles positing “The real story” or ” the real truth”. Combining the aspects of human social behaviors with biological dispositions to piece together a panaramic view of any given society always gives a clearer picture.

    We all know that engleman is a strong tribe supporter, so it should not come as a surprise that he is biased against the so called barbarians.

    • JohnEngelman

      Extensive experience with people of different races has made me a race realist. It has also taught me to appreciate the biologically civilizing effect of civilization.

      • Romulus

        Civilizing? So, using superior intellect to create complex infrastructure and weapons of war to crush barbarians is civilized? (see mr.ashtons comment). Barbarism is barbarism no matter who is conducting it. I agree that more participation can be disseminated within a society’s populace because of higher degree of sophistication. Having better magic does not automatically make one civilized or more moral.

  • ed

    @Gertruden. I think we got our answer.

  • JohnEngelman

    george00,

    In my life I have failed to achieve some of my goals, and I have made mistakes that I would rather learn from than rationalize.

  • JohnEngelman

    I desire a tougher criminal justice system and an end to Aid to
    Families with Dependent children. Your observations reinforce that desire.

  • http://ostrovletania.blogspot.com/ Andrea Ostrov Letania

    “The two world wars also killed off millions of the more aggressive Europeans before they had a chance to reproduce. Whites have become innately civilized, and no longer need a draconian criminal justice system.”

    Russia lost the most men in WWII. Communism also killed millions of rebellious types. But Russians are still rough and tough.
    West is dying because the elites have ceded to Jews and homos. The masses cannot lead themselves and can only follow. But the western elites are collaborators with the Jewish supremacists and homo neo-aristocrats.

    • Lagerstrom

      Yes, look at the two most important ‘issues’ facing the Western world at the moment; ‘racism’ and ‘gay rights/marriage equality’.

  • JohnEngelman

    European rule in sub Saharan Africa ended centuries too soon.

    • David Ashton

      Why did it end so soon? That is a more interesting and important than whether Hitler was a good or bad military strategist.

      • JohnEngelman

        World War II exhausted the imperial European nations.

        Also, at the end of the war countries that had been civilized prior to their conquest by Europeans were ready for independence. I am thinking of Indochina, India, Algeria, and perhaps Indonesia.

        High hopes were raised for sub Saharan Africa. They have been disappointed, along with the hopes raised by the civil rights movement.

        • David Ashton

          Agreed, with the addition that the propaganda against Nazi “racism” and for Soviet “international democracy” was symbiotic with British, French and Dutch physical exhaustion.

  • D. K.

    Why are you addressing this issue to me? I am personally an isolationist– like the Founding Fathers! My pointing out that the United States had world hegemony– i.e., after the Soviet Union imploded– but that that hegemony now is falling apart is simply an historical observation, not a defense of American imperialism (which began in the 19th Century, regardless, not in the wake of World War II, as the cultural decline did). I was addressing the essayist’s own comparisons of the decline and fall of the two civilizations, Roman and American, vis-a-vis the theory that the former’s decline and fall was genetically determined, to some significant extent. I seriously doubt that theory, vis-a-vis the decline and fall of Rome (i.e., the Western Roman Empire, as opposed to the successor Byzantine Empire, in the East), and I reject outright any similar genetic theory for the decline and (pending) fall of my own country, which I find patently absurd. My opposition to the cultural decline of both my nation and, more broadly, my entire civilization is not an apologia for American imperialism– past, present or future– nor was any such sentiment stated or implied by my first comment, above.

  • gemjunior

    Imagine being serious and even writing the words “England was a backwater” or even using them in the same sentence. Go wash your mouth out with soap. Clean the remnants of this blasphemy from your tongue, man. Then down on your knees for 10 Our Fathers and 20 Hail Marys.

  • Bossman

    The Roman empire disintegrated because the Barbarians went through a learning curve. Ordinary Romans did not care to serve in the army because for the most part it became sheer hell and they too went through a learning curve. Most Roman soldiers were unmarried rapists. The Roman empire also reached its limits. It did not have the technology to hold such a large empire together. Christianity also worsened the problem by making a lot a people more other-worldly and less engaged in civic life. If the present day Western world is in decline, it is also because the Third World is going through a learning curve. And finally, selfishness, elitism and sexual perversity are causing people to have less babies.

  • Claudius_II

    Apparently comments pionting out errors in this article are not permitted

  • JohnEngelman

    The historical economist Gregory Clark argues that this kind of behavioral selection shaped the English population. Once central authority had become established, male homicide fell steadily from the twelfth century to the early nineteenth.

    Meanwhile, there was a parallel decline in blood sports and other forms of exhibitionist violence (cock fighting, bear and bull baiting, public executions) that nonetheless remained legal throughout this period. Clark ascribes the behavioral change to the reproductive success of upper- and middle-class individuals who differed statistically in temperament from the much larger lower class. Although they were initially a small minority in medieval England, their descendants grew in number and gradually replaced the lower class through downward mobility. By the nineteenth century, such lineages accounted for most of the English population (Clark, 2007, pp. 124-129, 182-183; Clark, 2009). They now had the numbers to make their behavioral mean the norm for English society.

    – Peter Frost, from “The Roman State and Genetic Pacification”

  • Romulus

    Celts and gauls are the same people. Gaul is literally the Roman word for Celt.

  • guest

    We have allowed it more than you recognize.

  • John McNeill

    From what I’ve gathered, by the time Augustus established his empire, true Romans were only represented by the patrician class, which is why Augustus’s natalist campaign was primarily directed at the patricians. I think the plebeian class had long absorbed foreign peoples, and eventually its sense of Roman identity had disintegrated. Even before Julius Caesar came to power there was a mass citizenship given to all Italians. While the difference between Romans and neighboring Italians might have been small in comparison to whites and non-whites, I imagine the mass absorption of Italians during the tail end of the Republic helped to dilute Rome’s ethnic identity.

    • David Ashton

      See the references in the “Biological Factors” section of my post on the Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire.

  • Spartacus

    “Which may explain why the world’s lost 14 points in IQ since the Victorian Age”

    —————————————————————————————-

    That’s actually because of the demographic explosion of the lesser races, who have a lower IQ, and not due to texting or porn…

  • David Ashton

    There is an important core of truth in this. The feminization and in some areas infantilization of western institutions and outlook, the “therapy state”, are desperately serious problems. Lewis Way’s “Man’s Quest for Significance” and George Gilder’s “Sexual Suicide” are among several rare, yet thoughtful, books that long ago warned against such developments, aggravated by cultural marxism and entertainment media, and which should be revisited for implicit remedies.

  • David Ashton

    Of course, you make a good observational point, but it highlights the pernicious impact of the “equality and diversity” imposed on “race, gender and class”. The concealed agenda behind putting women in the front line, homosexuals in submarines, colored faces dotted about otherwise uniform military parades, transexuals in the police, and cripples in the ambulance crews, is to undermine the effectiveness of the armed forces.

  • Nathanwartooth

    John Engelman, the only guy who can write an article and then get overall negative votes in the comments section of his article.

    I have to disagree with your assessment that intelligent people are having more children like in the past. Intelligence is becoming a positively skewed distribution and only getting worse over time.

    But I think that’s good news for smart families who do have children. They will rule over the unwashed masses.

    • JohnEngelman

      A point I have made here on several occasions is that during most of history the most intelligent people had the largest number of descendants, and that our current period of dysgenics is a temporary phase, as Aid to Families with Dependent Children is being phased out, and as computer technology increases the relationship between income and superior intelligence.

      • Nathanwartooth

        You are wrong.

        By 2100 Africa is projected to have 3.6 billion people. The under 100 IQ club is massively outbreeding the over 100 IQ club.

        Also if you haven’t noticed the elites are trying as hard as they can to destroy good IT jobs by flooding the country with foreigners willing to do the work for half the price.

        Not to mention intelligent people are just not having kids. A woman who has dropped out of high school is 60% more likely to have a child than a woman with a masters degree.

        All of the data is pointing towards a low IQ future for the Earth.

        • JohnEngelman

          How does that contradict what I wrote? “The elites” are the folks with the high IQ’s. They are the people who will have descendants on this planet, and elsewhere in the solar system, ten thousand years from now.

          I doubt there is much of a genetic future for all but a small minority of Negroes. Already the elites are getting tired of subsidizing them.

          I am not celebrating or endorsing the process I am describing. I lost my IT job to H1B visas. Nevertheless, I recognize what is happening. What matters in this economy is neither race nor sex but IQ.

          Those who complain about “cultural Marxists,” “the tribe,” “genocide,” “race displacement,” and all that would rather see themselves as defenders of the white race than acknowledge that in an increasingly competitive economy they have little of value to offer an employer.

          I understand how they feel. I am in the same situation. Nevertheless, I do not blame my predicament on a conspiracy. Brilliant men are doing what is in their self interest to become billionaires. In an earlier stage of capitalism one could argue that most people benefited from the economic behavior of the rich. It is no longer true.

    • JohnEngelman

      John Engelman, the only guy who can write an article and then get overall negative votes in the comments section of his article.

      – Nathanwartooth

      I would rather tell the truth than what people want to hear. They want to hear that their problems are caused by conspiracies of evil men. They are angry and they want targets to hate.

    • David Ashton

      If they do, and if they can. Eugenics is an aim to work for.

  • SirMe

    I would put Jews as better businessmen overall..

  • Franklin_Ryckaert

    Better still : no more welfare for an unwed mother if she gets a second child. Offer unwed mothers of one child free sterilization. This will end the phenomenon of the (mostly black) “welfare queen”.

    • JohnEngelman

      Even if she has one child who survives she probably gives birth to a parasite who may become a violent street criminal.

      The valedictorian at my high school was drop dead gorgeous. She never got married, and never had children. I think about her when I see a stupid looking welfare mother with her litter of bastards.

      That valedictorian was also as liberal as could be. She probably thinks unmarried welfare mothers should get bigger AFDC checks.

      • Franklin_Ryckaert

        Well, if you can limit the damage to society to one child only, then that is already a gain.

      • David Ashton

        This is a serious problem. In Britain liberal newspapers and magazines like The Observer celebrate and advocate childlessness, especially for brainy and often also beautiful women. This may reduce the future number of youngsters with leftist beliefs but more importantly affects the IQ level of the society. Meanwhile, in England it seems that the high birth-rates that affect our primary school mumbers, and class management, have been led by immigrants or the white underclass.

    • Claudius_II

      Recently on the news there was a guy who was fairly young and who had 33 kids. I don’t believe he had a job and was proud of the fact that society paid for all his kids. He stated that his goal was to have 50. He appeared very assertive of his rights to have so many children and was black. I doubt he’d willing undergo any type of sterilzation.

      • Stan D Mute

        This for the same reason welfare queens will spit out a dozen future parasites, because we pay them to do it. Funny thing about social policy, people tend to do what they’re paid to do..

      • David Ashton

        It would be appropriate punishment for his theft of resources from the provident and hardworking, and a prevention of cruelty through neglect of his offspring.

  • JohnEngelman

    British intelligence increased because superior intelligence propelled one upward in British society, and because the upper classes were more prolific than the lower classes.

    That is the way it happened. The evidence can be seen in the achievements of British civilization.

  • JohnEngelman

    Civilization increases intelligence while reducing physical aggression. “The best fighter pilots” have high IQ’s, but they lack felony convictions for violent street crime.

  • dmxinc

    Don’t forget….you can add that John is also passionately democrat to the list.

    • JohnEngelman

      I am a registered Democrat. I love Jews, Judaism, and Israel. I admire Oriental people. I love China. I am pleased that Jews and Orientals prosper in this country. They deserve it because they pack plenty of IQ power.

      • dmxinc

        So by your standard, if we were invaded by aliens from outer space that were twice as intelligent as we are, you would be fine with it? You would think they deserve our world? You would give up without a fight?

        I trust most on this site are not as defeatist as you are.

        • JohnEngelman

          If the Chinese attacked us militarily, like the Japanese did, I would want to fight back. The Chinese who live here came in peace. The Jews did too.

          • dmxinc

            As I said, you are ready to give up without a fight whether an invader comes in “peace” or not.

            With all the legislation (Immigration Reform Act of 1965 comes to mind, for one), lawsuits (attempting to remove every vestige of Christianity from our shores), egging us on to fight every war in the Middle East and controlling our money supply to our detriment (the FED), you have a strange notion of “coming in peace.”

          • stewball

            Well you won’t be asked to fight in the next israeli war so don’t worry.

          • dmxinc

            Going through one has been enough for me, but that’s not the point. I’m concerned about my fellow citizens who will have their lives taken, their limbs and their faces blown off and their futures destroyed. I know. I visited many at Walter Reed.

            It’s not about what you personally will have to endure. A true nation cares about it’s citizens and the future of the country.

          • stewball

            We have been through many wars being attacked and fighting against millions of arabs bent on destroying this tiny country and we’ve done it alone. Now comes the threat that if the mighty USA attacks Syria then they and Iran, who Obama et al, seem terrified of will attack us. Maybe that’s the whole idea. Get rid of the gnats that plague the world. Nobody will say a word except maybe serves them right
            Something you all don’t know is Israel has been treating wounded Syrian people in our hospitals. Some have been sent by a hospital in Syria with a note saying what has been done so far. We also are treating wounded soldiers of both sides. Those bad enough to go to the hospital have better treatment, medically and physically, than they would in Syria. I wonder what would happen if it was reverse!

          • dmxinc

            Stewball,

            Is it true that the US Taxpayer pays for the college education of Israeli students? I heard this from of friend who was told so by an Israeli. Just curious.

          • stewball

            What utter rubbish. Why should the USA pay for israeli students. I’m sorry. Never heard of that. Imagine the uprising of tax payers should that actually happen.

          • dmxinc

            Israel is the largest recipient of US aid, so the idea that some of that money might be spent on somethings other than defense is not too far fetched.

            Did you pay for your own higher education or were there grants that greatly lowered the cost?

          • Stan D Mute

            What you’re missing is that the Jews did not come to invade, maim, murder, or otherwise harm America. They genuinely believed they were “helping.” Where everything failed was as stated in my post above – in US allowing an *alien* population the full rights of citizenship with NONE of the costs in blood or toil in pioneering and taming the continent.

            The problem was NOT their tribalism. It was OUR failure to be tribal.

          • dmxinc

            I think of the millions of dead Ukrainians and Russians. It makes me unsure of your attributing a claim of innocence and stating “..did not come to ..maim, murder or harm.”

          • JohnEngelman

            Stan D Mute,

            Jews and Orientals have fought for this country and built it. They have a much of a right to be here as you do.

          • Stan D Mute

            Orientals have a right to the Orient, I strongly support that. But when my ancestors were fighting savage Indians and the English crown simultaneously, Won Hung Lo was no place in sight. How many Jews and Orientals signed the Declaration of Independence?

            If by “fight for this country and built it” you mean “showed up after whites had secured Independence, tamed the Savages, and made the Nation secure and prosperous” then by all means I agree there too. But if you can find Jewish names or Oriental names on the manifest for the Mayflower then you’re seeing things the rest of us have missed..

          • Stan D Mute

            The problem is with neither the Jews nor Chinese who came here “to live in peace.” The problem is in the fact that WASP’s who pioneered and tamed this nation allowed these self-interested groups, *alien groups*, to become regular citizens and then to allow them to inflict their self-interests on the rest of us. As anyone who has followed my posts knows, I am far from a Jew or China basher. In fact, I have a great deal of admiration for both groups and believe there is *much* we could learn from each. The problem, again, lies in allowing *aliens* to come into a nation and immediately become citizens without sharing the common heredity, experience, and culture of the nation.

            A case in point: America had hundreds of years experience living with Africans and had developed a system, imperfect though it was, of accommodating both groups’ interests. Jews arrive. Jews, through a different experiential and cultural lens, see Africans living in ghettoes outside white America. Jews think of their history in ghettoes and vow to help Africans invade white America. This in turn dominates all other events of the 20th century and fundamentally destroys the nation.

            The problem, again, was in giving these aliens the right to vote and participate in our democratic processes. Jews have brought much greatness to America, but we also allowed them to destroy it. In other words, our immigration system is and has been broken for a very long time. We could learn from Mexico where it’s well-nigh impossible to become a citizen and aliens are constitutionally barred from all political activity.

      • Jefferson

        Since you love Asian women so much, you should sign up to a free site called DateInAsia. Asian women on that site are looking for a White man to marry so you are at an advantage. Even more so if you are blond haired and blue eyed, because they consider those traits exotic.

        • JohnEngelman

          Thank you for that suggestion.

          • David Ashton

            Don’t forget that a Barbie Hsu in the picture may turn out to be a Zhong Wuyan dragon lady when she arrives on the doorstep.

      • David Ashton

        I am not being funny, but wouldn’t you be happier converting to Judaism (the Reform lot may not require a snip, if you need it) and then move to an English-speaking area in China or Taiwan? You could still post stuff on websites to annoy “white nationalists”.

        • JohnEngelman

          I am content being an Anglican. However, I would love to move to Israel or Taiwan if I could get a job there.

          I would still annoy white nationalists by explaining the truth about race realism. The truth is that Ashkenazi Jews and Orientals have higher average IQ’s than white Gentiles.

          • David Ashton

            You could perhaps move to Kiryas Joel in Orange County and do something for them with your computer skills. Rents should be cheaper than in Aventura or Boca Raton. The best is the enemy of the good.

  • Iron Helm

    Britain fought as many wars as anybody against other Europeans. it fought France for pretty much its entire history straight while France had four times the population. It fought Spain when it was the wealthiest country in the world successfully and Russia too. Needless to say, it also won two world wars.

    It was England/Britain’s rivalry with France that drove it to build the Empire and achieve as much in the sciences as it did.

  • JohnEngelman

    IQ tests did not exist as England was rising to prominence. We can only evaluate the English by their achievements, and they have been impressive.

  • MBlanc46

    There’s probably something to this, but there’s also something to the cyclic model of Ibn Khaldun. Fierce nomads sweep in from the desert or steppes and conquer the effete, civilized settled people. With a couple of generations the descendents of the nomads themselves become, settled, civilized, and effete, leaving themselves open to conquest by the next band of fierce nomads. Repeat.

  • MBlanc46

    The Roman Empire, aside, the application of this thesis to the apparent decline of the West in the face of the brown horde has a serious flaw. The browns are not significantly more warlike than we are. They’re overwhelming us, or possibly soon will, not by any inherent virtue of theirs, but because Western economic elites prefer to employ them to employing white people. They’re going to overcome white working people because they’re poor and willing to work cheap, not because of their martial valor. They’re not really our enemy. They’re merely the instrument of our enemy. Our enemy is Western capitalism.

  • Lagerstrom

    Lord knows Defoe. More feminine than my wife of British Isles decent maybe? He dwells in the land of nod.

  • Lagerstrom

    Can you enlighten me slightly on Engdahl? If you have some time?

  • Lagerstrom

    From what I can see during the course of my day-to-day dealings with all sorts of people, I see a complete lack of intelligence, common-sense and even (what my mother used to call it) common knowledge. From the ‘high’ money earners down to the low.

    You know, the sort of common knowledge that can win you a trivia competition. The capital cities of nations. What’s the capital city of Poland? Who wrote the Cantos of Ezra Pound (a trick question)?

    A young person once asked at my workplace, what sort of people live in Norway?

    Can these people boil an egg? Or do they live on pizza?
    I know one thing about them, they’re all on facebook.

  • MBlanc46

    One final, somewhat related thought. I don’t believe that the question of how empires end is the interesting one. The general answer always suffices. Entropy. What goes up must come down. There’s endless squabbling about the details, almost never conclusive, but in general the answer is clear: everything comes to an end. The interesting question is: Why do empires begin?

    • David Ashton

      A most important as well as interesting question for this site. To Ibn Khaldun, we need to add Colinvaux, Darlington, Spengler, Danilevsky, LeBon, Quigley, Sorokin, Huntington, even Polybius, among many others, sorting the wood from the trees, and adding our modern knowledge of human biology.

      • MBlanc46

        That’s quite a reading list. I’m only familiar with a few of those authors. I fear they’ll have to wait until I retire.

        • David Ashton

          There is a fair summary of Colinvaux’s controversial “Fates of Nations” on Wikipedia. Sorokin’s “Sociological Theories of Today” is worth a place on anyone’s shelves, accurately detailed if a bit “dated”. If you don’t already know them, these make a good start. Your posts are always valuable.

          • MBlanc46

            Thanks, David. I know of Sorokin, Spengler (read a little of Decline of the West in my youth), and Polybius. There others are new to me. I will have a look at Colinvaux’s ideas.

          • David Ashton

            A pleasant coincidence. It was Spengler who aroused my lifelong concerns with the “rise and fall” question. In grammar school when I was a teenager, a premature anti-communist and political maverick, we had a row of orange-spined “Little Lenin Library” and “Left Book Club” volumes, with a black-bound “Decline of the West” stubbornly alone at the end of the library shelf. Spengler caught my eye, and gripped my interest ever since. The conservative philosopher and composer Roger Scruton had a similar adolescent epiphany, though his mind is far superior to mine.

          • MBlanc46

            The “rise and fall” questions are good conversation pieces, but they tend to be much too speculative for my very empirical mind. Spengler had some currency in the US in the fifties and early sixties, but he’s definitely out of fashion (though I did recently encounter him in a book I was working on about Weimar culture). Scruton I know of, but not much about. In recent years I’ve focused much more on history than on philosophy.

          • David Ashton

            General systematic “theories of history” are necessarily suspect, but some clues as to why things have happened can be pulled out of the mists of the past, and similarities can be identified. An infinite canvas cannot be shrivelled into a miniature cameo.

            Braudel copied Spengler and Huntington likewise endorsed his broad “cultural” categories. Given its date and circumstances “Hour of Decision” was remarkably prophetic. John Farrenkopf has attempted to bring Spengler into modern focus with comparable “pessimism”.

            Best wishes for your work on Weimar culture.

          • MBlanc46

            I’ve read some Braudel. The Weimar culture book was for work. I have a bit of an interest in German culture and philosophy, but my temperament is definitely skewed toward empiricism, and it becomes more so as I get older.

          • David Ashton

            German philosophy (unlike science) and empiricism are not the closest bedfellows!

          • MBlanc46

            Indeed. With one significant exception: Kant. After being “awakened from his dogmatic slumber” by Hume, he provided a firm philosophical foundation (or as firm as foundations get in philosophy) for empiricism.

          • David Ashton

            Many readers will be more interested in the views of Hume and Kant on Blacks and Jews than in their philosophical achievements.

          • MBlanc46

            I imagine that’s true, especially here on AmRen. But it’s their epistemology that’s world-historical.

  • MarcB1969

    Musician Robert Taylor has provided a similar opinion in interviews, and it makes a lot of sense. Several centuries of large scale warfare has largely decimated the most aggressive Whites. I traveled to Europe regularly and bemoaned the rise of the “New Man”, but as the new millennium approached, I realized that American males aren’t much different. Russia seems like the last White land with sizable numbers of warrior stock.

    “The fall of the Soviet Union represented the failure of an ambitious
    effort to create a “new Soviet man,” who would be motivated by altruism
    rather than self interest”.

    Reminds me of what passes for modern liberalism these days. How are you supposed to trust anybody who willingly subordinates their own self-interest? It’s a philosophy suitable for human doormats.

  • Iron Helm

    Britain did face Hitler’s Germany alone. The fact that history played
    out that way and they rebuffed Soviet advances shows that there was no
    ‘plan’. Considerable portions of the Napoleonic war saw Britain fight
    alone against a country with 4 times its population. There is no chance
    the Kaiser would have taken Britain at all. The only non-medieval European war that was one versus one for its entirety was the Franco-Prussian war.

    How
    about Gibraltar? Britain still has control over that. Given that there
    is a large distance between Gibraltar and the British mainland this is a
    more powerful example of British military power than anything. To look
    at Northern Ireland one can say that Britain ‘occupies’ the largest
    territory claimed by another European country.

  • JohnEngelman

    Orientals and Jews who immigrated to the United States had to struggle against decades of discrimination. They have thoroughly earned their positions in the best universities, and with the best corporations. They deserve their big pay checks because they are loaded with IQ power.

    • David Ashton

      Discrimination was an incentive to ethnic networking and nepotism, as well as application to study.

  • JohnEngelman

    Your arguments lack coherence because you refuse to believe what you do not want to believe.

  • Arius1071

    I remember reports of Muslims being shocked when Western TV programs were first broadcast in the Middle East. Their response: “The West has abandoned Christiansity! They are ripe for conquest!”. Muslims see in us what we don’t or can’t see in ourselves. We don’t want to think that we were once Christians, so the West is busy exterminating Christianity. That’s why the West doesn’t care about the immense suffering of the Christians in the Middle East. They remind the West of what we were, and what we must destroy, so the West turns a blind eye to their suffering and supports jihadis in the Balkans, Libya, Egypt, and Syria that are attacking Christians. No matter what Muslims do to Christians the West will turn a blind eye to it, and support it. This is what you should expect to see near the end of a civilization mega trend life cycle, when the civilization turns in on itself.

  • Hal K

    The problem with this sort of argument is that it is basically anti-white. It says that the reason white civilization is declining is because there is something wrong with white people. The real problem, however, is anti-whiteness. Whites never speak up for themselves as a group. If we say our problem is genetic, then we have already given up.

    • http://www.youtube.com/user/Matt1599r Anonymous White

      That’s like saying “The problem with your argument, you racist, is that it’s racist.” All that matters is whether it’s true.

      Also, it’s not about whether “our problem is genetic” entirely but about whether certain genetic traits play a role. Besides, the more conservative elements of our populations are outbreeding our more liberal elements.

      • Hal K

        If you think there is a genetic problem with whites relative to nonwhites, then you are not pro-white. Right now the important thing is to boost white solidarity, not to come up with genetic theories to explain why whites don’t support their own people.

        I didn’t say “racist.” One should avoid that term, since it is logically meaningless. It is better to say anti-white, pro-white, anti-black, pro-black, etc. There are many things that are true. The question is whether you phrase things in a way that builds up morale or brings it down.

        • http://www.youtube.com/user/Matt1599r Anonymous White

          Your first statement is false. I agree about the word ‘racist’, but my point was that calling a claim “anti-White” doesn’t discredit it anymore than calling it “racist” (as the leftists do).

          • Hal K

            Leftists play a heads-we-win, tails you lose game with whites. They are happy to talk about genetics, provided it doesn’t benefit whites at the expense of nonwhites.

            There are quite a few different theories you could come up with to make whites look bad relative to nonwhites. Jared Diamond came up with one of these in his Guns Germs and Steel book. The theory advanced in this article falls into that category.

  • Hal K

    The best racial explanation for the decline of Rome is that the original genetic stock of the people who built the empire was overwhelmed by immigrants and slaves. The common people were driven off the land by the elites, who preferred slave labor.

    This is the explanation given by Arthur Kemp in his March of the Titans, which I recommend.

  • David Ashton

    WHY did the Roman Empire “decline and fall”? An important question because of similarities with today’s “American ‘Empire'”; cf. Niall Ferguson, “Civilization” (2012). Historians like Peter Brown challenge the whole concept, while Michael Grant listed 13 defects responsible, notably oppressive taxation, and Alexander Demandt found over 200 different suggestions, many reflecting personal prejudice or ideological fashion. Here is my own selection, omitting both Augustine v Gibbon on Paganism or Christianity, and the “lead-poison” hypothesis:

    CONTINUOUS LATE ANTIQUITY
    1.”A myth” (R.M.Haywood) 2.”The ‘end of the Western empire’ in 476 was an event that no one at the time much noticed” (Henry Chadwick) 3.”No collapse until the Islamic invasions” (Henri Pirenne) 4.”No general causes made it inevitable” (J.B.Bury)

    “POLITICAL” EXPLANATIONS
    1.”A predatory state that lived by war and piunder, and exhausted her own strength” (Christopher Dawson) 2.”A consequence of its relationship with the Germanic world…Roman imperialism [itself] was ultimately responsible” (Peter Heather) 3.”The fundamental cause of the collapse lay in the Roman army” (Arthur Ferrill) 4.”A specific military crisis” (Bryan Ward-Perkins). 5.”Civil wars eroded the political capacity to maintain the army” (Adrian Goldsworthy) 6.”German barbarism” (Andre Piganiol)

    7.”Slavery” (Max Weber) 8.”Slavery” (F.W.Walbank) 9.”Excessive government” (Bruce Bartlett) 10.”Socialism” (H.M.R.Leopold) 11.”Loss of economic freedom” (W.L.Westermann) 12.”Uncontrolled bureaucracy” (M.Cary) 13.”Too poor to support industrial production” (John Haywood). 14.”Manpower shortage” (Arthur Boak) 15.”A crisis of authority” (G.Ferrero)

    16.”The paradox of social development” (Ian Morris) 17.”Absorption of the educated classes by the masses” (M.I.Rostovtzeff) 18.”The moneylender killed out the husbandman…labour had to be imported” (Brooks Adams) 19.”Fighting among ourselves” (St Jerome) 20.”Internal wars” (Montesquieu)

    BIOLOGICAL FACTORS
    1.”Epidemic diseases” (William H. McNeill) 2.”Wars, plagues, poor food supply, and a growing reluctance to raise children…led to enlisting barbarians [and] settlement of the newcomers” (Shepard Clough) 3.”Childlessness” & “change in race” (Madison Grant) 4.”Waves of immigrants [but] by the time of the Vandal sack…only about 120,000 recipients of the food dole in Rome, which had long ceased to be a capital city, though still a centre for games” (Anne Glyn-Jones) 5.”Home of every barbarian tribe” (Zozimus) 6.”Drainage of the original blood” (Count Gobineau) 7.”The Roman race had disappeared” (Kelburne King) 8.”Ausrottung der Besten” (Otto Seeck) 9.”Centuries of race mixture” (Alfred Rosenberg) 10.”Change of race” (Tenney Frank) 11.”Medley of races” (Martin P. Nilsson) 12.”The inhabitants of Rome at the close of the days of its empire were completely different from those in the time of the elder Cato” (Fritz Lenz)

    REFLECTIONS
    “The idealization of pure blood, the condemnation of mixed marriages…have their roots in Greco-Roman antiquity” (Benjamin Isaac)
    “A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within” (Will Durant)

  • dd121

    I’m with Gibbons, I think the feminizing influence of Christianity destroyed the warrior culture of the Romans. We see a similar situation today in western culture. Females run education and are turning the American male into feminized, computer gamer who lives at home with his parents in the basement.

    • Chris Granzow XI

      But that started in the post-wwii world. We’ve had christianity long before that without any problems.

    • MartelC

      How do you explain the Knights of Malta? The whole concept of Chivalry? How do you explain the Reocnquista -which was led by a woman – Isabel – and drove the Moors from Spain?

  • YngveKlezmer

    The only reason that Whites these days have trouble understanding that the other races have different temperaments than us is the corrupt media. We have a condition, these days, where most Whites who are racial realists tend to be those of us who have had to deal with the other races extensively in our daily lives. Whites who have little exposure to non-Whites tend to either not realize that they have different behavioral traits than us, or do not take it seriously when racial realists try to tune them into this important reality. This is because the reality one experiences when dealing with Negroes, especially, but also other non-Whites, is never portrayed pragmatically in the media anymore. The reality of the Negro temperament is only hinted at, at best, but the raw reality is never laid out for the uninitiated.

    • ThomasER916

      Bingo! The entire article reads like anti-White propaganda. The problem we have today is we have absolutely no language and no identity. The media and teacher’s Unions have turned us all into slaves and the elite among us as Janissari.

  • Defiant White

    If I could have a dime for every overly-gigantic generalization, assumption and lousy piece of logic in the thesis and this article . . . well, I might be able to afford next month’s rent. It’s ludicrous to conclude that Roman society became weaker as a result of some genetic mechanism . . . while you simultaneously ignore all the other mechanisms at work. A bit like blaming the knee-high pile of poop on the poodle while ignoring the 600 pound gorilla in the corner? While it may be true that the Roman state prosecuted thieves and robbers, there’s no evidence that they were any better at it than we are. Has the US seen a decline in violent crime? Have we somehow eradicated the aggressive gene throughout 1,000 years of European-American civilization? How can you look at the decline of Rome and not take into account collapse of its military as a fighting force . . . the empire’s political upheavals . . . the lack of industry . . . the need to continually expand the borders to “feed” the state machinery and so on? Sorry, but Dr Frost does not offer a valid explanation for what’s happening today with his shallow treatment of the Roman Empire.

    • dd121

      I agree with you. I think the whole premise of the article is too full of crap to waste time refuting.

  • Kevin W. Cornell

    Those who blame the fall of the Roman Empire on “the mixture of foreign blood” are not referring to the Roman mixing with German blood but to the Roman mixing with non-Nordic blood.

    • JohnEngelman

      And they are mistaken. Within the Caucasian race the Nordics were as alien to the Latins and Greeks as were Caucasians from Asia Minor.

      The difference is that the Latins, the Greeks, and the Asians were civilized sub races: more intelligent than the Nordics, and less violent. The Nordics, whom I prefer to call “Germanics” were at about the same level of development as the Bantu were two centuries ago. They had iron technology and primitive agriculture, but no cities, no system of writing, and no mathematics. Their political unit was the tribe.

    • JohnEngelman

      And they are mistaken. The Nordics, whom I prefer to call “Germanics,” were as alien to the Latins and the Greeks as were the Caucasian immigrants from Asia Minor.

      The Latins, Greeks, and Caucasians from Asia Minor had practiced civilization for centuries, or over a thousand years. They were more intelligent than the Germanics, and less violent.

      The Germanics who lived during the time we are talking about were at about the level of development as the Bantu were two centuries ago. They had iron technology and primitive agriculture, but no cities, no writing, and no mathematics. The political unit was the tribe.

  • Stan D Mute

    The problem with this approach is you run straight into the Evangelicals who believe every life is sacred and would never allow such a thing to happen. They consider it a sin to abort a fetus with Down’s. Try convincing them to abort Fo’Mica Di’Nett’s perfect little welfare baby!

    A more practical solution, still with no hope of adoption, would be requiring sterilization for welfare. Sure, we as society will support you if you cannot support yourself, but you must have your tubes tied before you get that first check. This is 100% common-sense, doesn’t interfere with the “sanctity of life,” allows completely for free choice as nobody would be “forced” to become sterile, but if you mention this aloud (as I’ve done repeatedly since my teen years), people will cover their ears and scream to prevent hearing such heretical thought.

    • JohnEngelman

      As a society we are unwilling to talk about the reproduction of those with nothing of value to contribute to the gene pool. Liberals want to believe that all they need is more social welfare spending. Conservatives think all they need is a lecture or two on self reliance and hard work

      If Evangelicals think the lives of the illegitimate children of prostitutes, unmarried welfare mothers, drug dealers, and violent street criminals are sacred, they should be encouraged to adopt them and give them good Christian upbringings.

      Those Evangelicals will discover that good Christian upbringings are as ineffective for those children as liberal social programs.

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/Matt1599r Anonymous White

    The Germanic peoples hadn’t gone through a bunch of taming like that yet.

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/Matt1599r Anonymous White

    Nordics dominate strong man competitions because they’re big, not because wildness or lack thereof. Also, although their establishment is more hardcore leftist than America’s, Scandinavia has more of a nationalist presence.

  • Stan D Mute

    I assert that Africans could fly before evil whitey took from them that power. And I challenge you to “prove me wrong.”

    At least 99% of what we “know” is “soft science” with the possible exception of math. But ask any mathematician of sufficient prowess whether it’s *possible* that everything we “know” is wrong and he will admit that indeed it is *possible*.

    History, as a *story* of biological and geological events, is necessarily flawed. Even history of recent events, where we have photographic and sound recordings, is flawed. Two people and a camera see the same event with three different versions and as many more interpretations as there are viewers of the videotape. How can we know with greater precision what drove man’s evolution to his present state?

    Would you then prefer a world where nobody attempts to analyze and explain what he thinks happened?

    Instead of childishly demanding “proof” of something which necessarily cannot be proven, why not tell your analysis and let the court of public opinion decide which is most accurate? THAT is what history is after all, the most popular consensus of what we think probably happened.

  • David Ashton

    Very shrewd of “us” Brits, you could argue -Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the resources of the African highlands. As someone who has always supported British co-operation with its Saxon, Norman and Roman neighbours, and who regards the Boer War, and WW1 and WW2, as tragic mistakes, I do not think Britain would ever have become part of a German empire, even if the Kaiser or Hitler ever really wanted us as a colony.

  • David Ashton

    Many similarities between “Rome” and “America”. See my post with references to reasons for decline & fall; I omitted the equivalent of “white-flight” in the migration away from Rome to outlying provinces. However, we are not finished, as we know what our circumstances are and what could be done about them. The brilliant Spengler, writing longhand a century ago under a poor light, did not push his insight that western civilization is Faustian and scientific to its ultimate conclusion: we can prolong our existence and create a biocultural renaissance, provided the will exists.

  • David Ashton

    A Japanese acquaintance, with rare discourtesy, described England as the Land of the Rising Scum.

  • David Ashton

    “Liberal” interventionism does not appear quite so “liberal” to a Muslim wedding celebration when hit by a drone. More like the “Ugly Americans” again. Get Islamists out of the west, and get western troops out of the Dar al-Islam.

  • David Ashton

    Marx thought that international capitalism had created the basis for international communism. He underrated the power of nationalism among the workers, but also regarded some nations as deserving of destruction in the international revolutionary process. See e.g. “Karl Marx – Racist” by my late friend Nathanel Weyl, who was once in one of the communist subversion rings whose existence you have pooh-poohed, but later became a pioneer race realist.

  • David Ashton

    Engdahl is important, though he has his critics who need to be consulted, but there are other writers on different aspects of the global money-power who need to be considered also. Don’t rely on him alone.

  • Sean

    By this logic wouldn’t WW2 not have happened? Wouldn’t the Congo be peaceful and the Balkans tame?

    EDIT: Most black criminals die young, wouldn’t that be pruning their violent urges as well?

  • David Ashton

    A qualification: the blending of Nordic with related Mediterranean genes may have triggered the Greek civilization; it was the import of near eastern and African genes that adversely affected the Roman civilization; see the qualifications of simplistic Nordicism by Ilse Schwidetsky, A. James Gregor, &c.

  • Romulus

    J.E. Must believe that aliens and not huge hordes of white slaves built most of the infrastructure of the Roman empire (especially the western half).

  • JohnEngelman

    Most of my male friends, and most of the women I have dated have been white.

  • http://valeofdarkness.blogspot.com/ ValeofIgnorance

    Intelligence also has a direct connection to naivity, excessive tolerance and pathological levels of altruism. People like Bill Gates may be more intelligent, but he is also far more predisposed towards destroying his own favourable genetic inheritance through altruism.
    If you read Satoshi Kanazawa’s “Intelligence Paradox” you’d know that intelligent people are far more predisposed towards self-destructive attitudes, behaviour and
    pathological levels of altruism (such as the acceptance of ideas which directly threaten your entire race).

    White people may have bred out their genetic violence over the centuries, but those with greater “intelligence” also encourage us to re-import those very same traits through mass immigration and racial assimilation with more violent races. So “intelligent” White people will be blended out of existence and their non-White progeny will be ever more violent.

    IMHO, violence will always be a necessary because “intelligence” leads to the kind of mindless altruism, weakness and excessive tolerance which is encourages guilt, self-loathing and self-destructive attitudes and behaviour. Overall, this is probably far more dangerous than a few violent men. Pathological altruism, unlike violence, relies on self-deception and now threatens our entire race.

  • Zaporizhian Sich

    As a Slav, I disagree that whites have been genetically tamed, they control them better than in the past. Aggression has definite survival value in the face of mortal danger to one’s person, family and community. Our decline has everything to do with hostile racial and religious aliens hijacking our nations and implementing policies designed to exterminate us.

  • JohnEngelman

    The argument that the Nordics created the civilizations of Greece and Rome is a circular argument. Madison Grant even credited the Nordics with the formation of the ancient Egyptian civilization.

    In a circular argument one assumes what one needs to prove.

    Arguments exaggerating the achievements of Nordics go something like this. The first civilizations were established by the most superior race. Nordics are the most superior race. Therefore the first civilizations were established by Nordics. The fact that the Nordics established the first civilizations proves their superiority.

    The Nordic nations are generally considered to be the Scandinavian nations. To them I would add Germany, Holland, and England. The English are descended from three Germanic tribes. The Scandinavians, the Germans, the Dutch, and the English are descended from the Germanic tribes written about a thousand years ago by Julius Caesar and Tacitus.

    Of the European peoples these were the last to build cities, acquire literacy, and adopt mathematics.

    The Greek, Roman, and Hittite civilizations were established by Indo European peoples. They were not Nordics by any definition of “Nordic” that merits respect.

    Urban civilization was first established in Egypt and what is now Iraq by nations that were not even Indo European.

    • Kevin W. Cornell

      Wrong again. At this point, after having read some of your other comments on disqus to other people, I consider you a fifth column within American Renaissance – i.e., someone whose goal is to sabotage white nationalism by spreading confusion and discord. I have serious doubts about both your sincerity and your character generally, so this will be the last time I reply to you. Nordic is a racial classification. The Nordics come from the same seed as the ancient Aryan Indo-Europeans; in other words, the Nordics, more than any other people, share close genetic ties with the ancient Indo-European conquerers. That’s why the terms “Nordic” and “Aryan” are often used interchangeably.

  • JohnEngelman

    I do not.

    • David Ashton

      I bet you don’t in Chinatown either, if there are girls about.

      • JohnEngelman

        They are fun to look at, but I would not try to pick one up.

        • http://www.amren.com/ Michael Christopher Scott

          Why ever not? They don’t bite.

          • JohnEngelman

            They do not like it when someone tries to pick them up either. They have morals.

  • Chris Granzow XI

    There is so much wrong with this article…..it would take an entire essay to respond to all the myths and fallacies in here presented as fact.

  • Chris Granzow XI

    He tends to associate violent crime with noble aggressiveness and masculinity. The two are not the same (obviously). Wladimir Klitschko was a champion heavyweight boxer, who was also good at chess, and has a place in the ukrainian parliament…..yet he’s never been jailed for rape, murder or robbery. Does that make him less of a man? Of course not. But according to Engelman’s principles, it would. You see, race realists like Engelman hold a deep-seated belief that black men are the most masculine men, then everything else they argue is made to prove that flimsy assertion. So, in his mind, more masculine men do more pointless crime and more pointless violence; so, because white men aren’t as indiscriminately violent, they’re less of a man. Pseudoscience at its finest…

    • Jack Burton

      I agree, he’s conflating aggressiveness with criminality. It’s oversimplified. Criminality isn’t merely aggressiveness, it’s lack of impulse control and psychopathy, also correlating with a low IQ.

      Certainly I agree with our diminished warrior caste within our societies especially among White males, who are more than ever raised by women, emasculated and confused as to how to be a male. I don’t think it’s all genetic however, much of it is environment and media control. What happens to an aggressive, outspoken White male? The mob is against him, he loses his job, and the anti-White mob tries to ruin his life. We’re not allowed to be aggressive.

      • Chris Granzow XI

        Exactly, right on point. It’s not so much that eastern europeans (who are used as a shining example of “masculine” whiteness) assert themselves because of better genetics…it’s just that they haven’t been “enlightened” and “educated” yet. We’re so used (at least people like us) to finding genetic reasons for behavior that I think some of us tend to overlook the plausibility of a social influence. In this case, it should be obvious. There’s been behavioral psychotherapy and behavioral modification going on towards white men in the “western” world since the 60s. Anytime we justifiably and legitimately assert ourselves (especially towards blacks) we are immediately struck down indiscriminately with all the power and strength that society can muster.

        Another factor, which I doubt Engelman explored, is game theory ( en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Game_theory ). As whites have a higher IQ, most white men are intelligent rational decision-makers and know that if they retaliate violently, in our current society it won’t benefit them in the end. The whole Zimmerman ordeal showed us that even when someone has the moral and ethical right to defend themselves against a minority, society will still make their life a living hell. So, if we’re getting our heads smashed into the pavement and still can’t defend ourselves, why would Engelman think that white men would respond violently to other situations less dire (i.e. racial insults/intimidation, anti-white politicians/rhetoric, etc.)? We all know the media will make us look like the bad guys no matter what the situation is. With all this in mind, it is blatantly obvious that our problem is a result of social factors and not genetics.

        And still, even with everything I mentioned, you still have white men who aren’t afraid to go against the grain:

        -youtube. com/watch?v=-4jdVzjMOII
        -youtube. com/watch?v=qp9RcGYBbgE
        -youtube. com/watch?v=QZvJT9KjUbI
        -youtube. com/watch?v=Md2_fxnCyeg
        -youtube. com/watch?v=3Tqg885irSg
        -youtube. com/watch?v=jy42MJ2m6PE
        -youtube. com/watch?v=Pr5TcUKWbuo
        -youtube. com/watch?v=cS3klBzoNjk
        -youtube. com/watch?v=Ooww4vTc5OU

        • M.

          “it is blatantly obvious that our problem is a result of social factors and not genetics.”

          ————————————————————-

          I think it’s a little of both. You explained well the social factors, but Engleman’s might have a point on the genetic ones. Although he did conflate gratuitous crime with general aggressiveness (or potential thereof) and masculinity.

          Those who survived, or had more children, under Roman or Christian Europe’s rule were mostly law-abiding.
          But a law-abiding person doesn’t mean they’re not capable of aggression or violence. It just mean that they have a good impulse control, and a good measure of consequences (this one also has to do with IQ). Civilization selects for this kind of people, regardless of whether they’re capable of aggression or not when
          push comes to shove. And more often than not, they are. The modern White Europeans, and Whites in general, have a better impulse control, because they descend mostly from those who had and could fare well under societies that favored those traits.
          Northeast Asians are very known for their impulse control. They have low crime and illegitimacy rates. However, they have shown
          time and again that they can be capable of tough discipline and even vicious violence (imperial Japan, WWII Japan, communist China, North Korea).

  • David Ashton

    Excellent comment. My son-in-law does exactly this with four splendid grandchildren, but is taxed heavily to subsidize feckless breeders including immigrants of alien culture, one of whom made a fortunately incompetent attempt to rob the home.

  • MartelC

    “a genetically pacified population became receptive to Christianity,”

    Yeah, that explains the Knights of Malta, the Reonconquista and bulwark that Christianity provided against islam.

  • http://www.amren.com/ Michael Christopher Scott

    This was very well done.

  • Jack Burton

    While I agree that the White warrior class needs revitalizing, I don’t think it’s significantly genetically based. Look at Asians, they’re far less masculine, smaller, the least fast-twitch muscles, least athletic, etc, yet they don’t have the problems we have. Their elites haven’t betrayed them and sold their people out.

    Let’s start with removing the hostile alien elite that controls our media and then we’ll go from there.

    Look what happened with Germany, from the decadent Weimar Republic to the NS German war machine. It can happen.

  • Iron Helm

    Britain fought for a full year alone before Hitler invaded the USSR. Napoleon was fighting the British long before he invaded Russia, and we took Gibraltar from Spain.

  • JohnEngelman

    Something is wrong with your thinking. I explained Peter Frost’s theory clearly.

  • Formerly_Known_as_Whiteplight

    I don’t buy this argument, even though it is an interesting one. Violence in Europe remained despite the Roman Empire. Christianity both mollified and promoted violence in what probably has led to more cases of schizophrenia than any other institution. The Crusades, which saddled those recent converts to Christianity and my ancestors the Normans was as bloody as any Roman suppression ever was. The Reformation that horror caused produced bloody, hate filled religious civil wars that have only still simmer in Northern Ireland. Two world wars with white European neighbors killing each other wholesale out of pure hate and warrior bravado. No, I don’t buy Mr. Engleman’s latest brain storm.

    A better explanation is that since Europe has lived under the codes of law longer than say, Africans and a different, more technically progressive culture, caused by something only genetics can explain, they have a historical, vested interest in maintaining law and order and BEING lawful themselves.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Aunti-Occupy/100003232140389 Aunti Occupy

    THIS THEORY HAS MERIT

    Its why Liberals condemn genetics in public but study it religiously in private. Its why Hollywood now creates themes on TV and film plots were the Black man is the hero and the smart guy while the white man is the dunce. Even TV commercials depict the white man as the stupid buffoon while the women and black are smart.

  • JohnEngelman

    The Windows operating system makes this website possible. I am confident most of us use it.

    • stewball

      Actually David I use my phone. My laptop irritates me.

      • stewball

        Oops. Sorry. John. Blush.

    • Carney3

      The only reason to use Windows is:

      1) You’re forced to by IT at your large employer
      2) There’s a specific app you MUST have that is Windows only

      Anything else is better. Linux, MacOS, ChromeOS.

  • http://www.amren.com/ Michael Christopher Scott

    And the murderous violence of the Scots, Welsh and Irish once they were landed. Nobody in their right mind wanted to fight them, except the French and Germans, and even they didn’t like it very much.

    The Germans rated the Scottish 51st Highland division the most “furchtbar” – dangerous – allied division during both world wars. They should be happy they forgot about US marines after the Battle of Belleau Wood in 1918.

    British sailors are still very, very, very good.

  • http://www.amren.com/ Michael Christopher Scott

    Hmm. We Scots were very useful, even then.

  • http://www.amren.com/ Michael Christopher Scott

    On the contrary, I suspect they will look very much like me.

  • Zaporizhian Sich

    I think because of decisions made during the past century, the danger is real that all humans could be extinct a century from now. A man-made or natural pathogen, famine or other event could eliminate the human race forever.

  • M.

    “Pacify” here meant the aggressive ones didn’t breed as much as the less aggressive and rebelious, so the society evolves into a more civilized one, with gradually more civilized people than primitive. The nurture (via Christianity or whatever) has little effect if the nature is savage. And the differences that are still persisting between the Christian bantus and mestizos on the one hand, and Christian whites on the other is the best example of it.
    Religion has little to do with it. Scandinavians are mostly atheists, but they’re still definitely not the type to go on a rampage and loot villages like their ancestors used to do.

  • M.

    I wouldn’t want them converted to Christianity. Religious (and thus cultural) differences has served as a barrier between Whites and non-Whites as far as Europe is concerned.

  • M.

    This still doesn’t negate the explanation of the article. Those who survived under Roman or Christian Europe’s rule were mostly law-abiding. But a law-abiding person doesn’t mean he’s not capable of aggression or violence, it just mean that they have a good impulse control, and has a good measure of consequences. Civilization selects for this kind of people, regardless of whether they’re capable of aggression or not, if push comes to shove. And more often than not, they are. The modern White Europeans, and Whites in general, have a better impulse control, because they descend mostly from those who had and could fare well under Rome or Christian Europe.
    Northeast Asians are very known for their impulse control. They have low crime rates. However, they have shown time and again that they can be capable of vicious violence.

  • M.

    Are you sure they’re White and not Muslim north African “Whites”?