Faustian Rome: The Indo-European Nature of the Roman Republic, Part 1

In his monumental tome, The History of Rome, the historian Titus Livius wrote, “There is nothing man will not attempt when great enterprises hold out the promise of great rewards,” and in the annuals of human history nowhere is this aphorism truer than when one examines the nature of Faustian Europe and its rich diversity of constituent peoples.[1] In more specific terms, and as articulated quite definitively by Prof. Ricardo Duchesne, the uniqueness of Faustian Europe lays not with its institutions, but with the primordial drive of Faustian Man to overcome all that constrains him in the eternal quest for immortal fame. [2] Returning to Titus Livy, in his history of Rome the historian was exploring not only the meteoric rise of ancient Rome, but rather attempting to ascertain the exact reasoning behind the nature of Roman hegemony. Livy’s Rome was one of transition, the historian himself being born in 64 B.C. and dying 17 A.D., and as such had lived through the tumult of the Late Republic and bore witness to Rome’s imperial rebirth under Augustus Caesar. [3] Moreover, the nature of the age that Livy had lived through was a period of “transition” not only of governmental forms, from republic to empire, but more importantly was the beginning of Roman deviation from the racio-cultural values which underpinned the Faustian nature of Europe. When European man is truest to himself, it is when he and his civilization exist in harmony with his Indo-European, Faustian nature. When deviation from this historical, dare I say cosmic reality occurs, it is a prerequisite for civilizational chaos. In the historical context of Republican Rome, it was the transition from republic to empire, and the accompanying degenerative racio-cultural changes, which deviated from the Indo-European nature of the Faustian soul of Europe, which laid the foundation for Rome’s future collapse.

Evolutionary speaking, White-European success has its origin in the prehistory of the “Last Interglacial Maximum,” and it was through the successful surmounting of the trials and tribulations of such hardship that the Faustian soul of European man was forged. Irrespective of age or context, the success of European civilization stems from its evolutionary backgrounds as made manifest by the Faustian spirit of its earliest peoples, the Proto-Indo-Europeans and their successors, the Indo-Europeans. Early Rome, both of the monarchial and republican variety, was a continuation of the Faustian soul of Indo-Europe. Moreover, it is from within the racio-cultural values of early Rome that much of the Faustian soul of Indo-European Europe was transmitted to later societal and civilizations externalizations of the European soul. Returning back to Republican Rome, my proposition is that the success of early Rome was in large part predicted upon its adherence to the racio-cultural values of its Indo-European patrimony. While conversely, the fall of Rome coincides with its abandonment of its Faustian Indo-European patrimony, as evidenced by the demographic shift, immorality, and overall degeneration of the martial spirit of Indo-Europe, as evidenced by the Roman Empire, most notably in its later historical incarnation after the second century A.D.

The Indo-European, proto-Roman Latini people most likely migrated to central Italy, i.e., “Old Latium,” during the European Bronze Age, and from early on in their prehistory made their presence felt. [8] In continuation their Indo-European forbears, the racio-cultural world of both Monarchial and later Republican Rome was extremely competitive, with aristocratic individuals vying for power and prestige. This penchant for competition in both the IE and IE successor cultures more often than not found expression in a highly militarized racio-cultural milieu, From 509 B.C. to 27 B.C., in a series of gradual and militaristically stunning conquests, first of Italy, and eventually culminating with the conquest of entirety of the Mediterranean Basin, the Roman Republic reigned supreme. In continuation of the Faustian soul of Europe, the Republican era of ancient Rome was an epoch or martial glory and by extension, militaristic expansion, and one could argue by even the most objective metrics, the apogee of Roman civilization. Rome’s geopolitical expansion and eventual hegemonic lordship over huge swathes of Europe, North Africa and Western Asia is unprecedented in European history in terms of its sheer scale, scope and tempo, and as such is an important period of study for ethnonationalists. Furthermore, the Republican values held so dear by Livy and many of his fellow Roman contemporaries, that is martial valor, honor and what the later twentieth-century Danish scholar Georg Brandes would term “radical aristocratism” when describing the political orientation of Friedrich Nietzsche, are the hallmarks of European civilizational success. Ancient Republican Rome existed for nearly 500 years, and a great deal of this civilizational longevity was achieved by the Republic’s adherence to Faustian spirit of our Indo-European forefathers, particularly their warrior ethos.

The Indo-Europeans most likely originated from within the vast Pontic-Caspian steppes of Eurasia, and were initially a nomadic and later a transhumant pastoralist people, who conquered, colonized and migrated throughout Europe proper, the ancient Near East and the Indian Subcontinent. The Indo-Europeans were a hierarchical tribal people, with society being divided along tripartite lines, i.e. the religious, cultivator and warrior castes. In relation to our discussion of Republican Rome and its relationship to its Indo-European antecedents, the warband, referred to as the Comitatus or Männerbund was integral component of Indo-European society. The Männerbund consisted of pan-tribal groupings of military-aged men, led by free, non-autocratic aristocrats (what Duchesne labels “aristocratic egalitarianism”), and it was the nature of this client-patron relationship with its emphasis on high-group solidarity, meritocracy, and individual courage, particularly within the realm of combat, which was the hallmark of Indo-European culture and its descendant peoples, including ancient Rome. In ancient Rome this system of patronage was manifested under the guise of the clientela (Latin: patronship), which was a hierarchical and meritocratically inegalitarian system of bilateral mutual obligations. [4] One of the benchmarks of Indo-European culture, ancient Rome, and ultimately White-European civilization was a collective desire for prestige and glory, achieved through feats of martial prowess. In Republican Rome, the system of the clientela was a continuation of the Indo-European Männerbund, and it was through the racio-cultural medium of the clientela by which many of the military successes of ancient Rome were achieved.  Militarism, despite its negative contemporary connotations, was an important component of the Indo-European spirit, and a fundamental elemental of Roman success in the Republican period. The much later Greco-Roman biographer Plutarch, when waxing poetic about the then lost nobility and military prowess of Roman men from the Middle Republican period went so far as to write “They were the foremost men of their generation. In their youth they had campaigned against the Carthaginians for the possession of Sicily; in their prime they fought against the Gauls for the defense of Italy itself, and as veterans they found themselves matched once more against the Carthaginians, this time under Hannibal. In this way they never enjoyed the relief from active service which old age brings to most men, but because of their noble birth and their prowess in war they were constantly summoned to take up new commands. [5]

The basis of success during the Roman Republic was martial prowess, but in ancient Rome war and politics were intimately linked. In fact, the Latin word honos has a dual definition, meaning both “honor” in the traditional sense and to be in possession of political office in a more generalized sense. In stark contrast to the practices of the later Roman Empire, military service was a prerequisite for entering into politics. The cursus honorum (Latin: ‘course of offices’) was a sequentially ordered course, or ladder of military and political offices, which Roman aristocrats ascended as they vied for prestige and glory. Entrance into the cursus honorum presupposed military service, and in actuality was an informally organized institutionalized manifestation of the Indo-European Männerbund.

Intrinsic to the being of Faustian Man is the will to overcome that which constrains, and the Romans of the Republic in a continuation of the racio-cultural precepts developed by their Indo-European ancestors, sought to overcome the limitations of the material world via military force. Friedrich Nietzsche, when writing about “mankind,” but in reality implicitly referring to European man, posited that the underlying essence of the universe was “an insatiable desire to manifest power,” with power in the Nietzschean sense referring to the capacity of an individual (or a collectivity of individuals) to exert worldly influence over the course of events. [6]

In accordance with the Nietzschean conceptualization of the “will to power,” as a means for exerting influence and cultivating power, Romans, like their Indo-European ancestors, were imbued with a unique sense of historical agency. For our purposes, “historical agency” refers to the capacity of an individual or group to exhibit freedom of choice, and as such is in direct contradistinction to the reigning “structural” train of thought endemic to the contemporary social sciences which posits that variables like class, religion, gender, etc. determine action; some academics go so far as to posit that the theory of independence of agency is not only false, but any sense of free-will is merely an “illusion of control.”

However, it is from this sense of historical agency that the ‘Faustian’ soul of Europe and its peoples, specifically the early Romans, is derived. When the brilliant poet T.S. Eliot wrote about being in the possession of a “historical sense,” he stated that it “involves a perception, not only of the pastness of the past, but of its presence.” Mirroring this notion, it was the unique ability of the Romans, as part and parcel of their Indo-European heritage, to transcend the delimiting nature of time and space, through the medium of fierce competition, embodied most saliently by a vibrant militarism. [7]  As a point of fact, during the Republican period alone, the Romans found themselves engaged in warfare virtually continuously, ranging in scale from small, localized cattle disputes with neighboring Italic tribes, to full-scale, multi-continental wars fought generationally over the decades; the most notable of these large-scale conflicts being the three Punic-Wars.

However, it’s important to remember that the uniqueness of European man, and specifically of the Faustian soul of the Roman Republic, shouldn’t be retroactively conflated with some myopically postmodern sense of individualized ego-gratification, but rather of a striving to transcend all delimitations in the service of a higher purpose; the purpose itself, could be the mere act of taking action, but the results are reaped by the many, not the few. More succinctly stated, he men of the Roman Republic sought individual glory through the attainment of prestige, most notably through the struggle of combat, both literal and metaphorical, but in doing so, they created great wealth which, given the non-despotic political organization, accrued in substantial measure to the plebeians as well.

Beginning in earnest around 133 B.C., in a time categorized by modern historians as the so-called “Crisis of the Roman Republic,” widespread political instability and social unrest began to grip and destabilize the Republic. In grim parallel to the current crisis gripping the contemporary European-world, the destabilization of the Republic was the natural accompaniment of creeping demographic change, and expanded notions of citizenship. The Romans, like their Indo-European ancestors were welcoming of racially analogous outsiders, mainly of the intra-European variety, and it was only when the political enfranchisement of  a large non-European racial element into a relatively homogenous population occurred that racio-cultural incorporation provide impossible, and the Republic began to become destabilize. Of course, like all historical processes related to the shifting complexity of demographics, this was a chronic, long-term, incrementally occurring process of degeneration which only began in the Roman Republic and wouldn’t blossom fully until the time of the later Roman Empire. In fact, it was during the death throes of the so-called Principate (when the Roman Emperor Caracalla, himself of Punic North African descent, conferred citizenship onto literally all peoples living within the geographical boundaries of the empire) that Rome began its long march to total systematic collapse. [9]

Competition is still, and has historically, always been both indigenous to the Faustian nature of European man, and a main contributory factor to White-European civilizational success; competition is however only a social net positive when it occurs within racially homogenous societies. Race and culture are inextricably interrelated, and when huge segments of racially alien DNA admixtures are incorporated into relatively genetically homogenous population clusters, change at both the biological and sociocultural level is all but a foregone conclusion. Genetic and in turn racial evolution is relatively “recent, copious and regional,” and when this delicate balance is shattered, chaos and civilizational destabilization are never far behind. [10]

All peoples are unique, but it was the specific uniqueness of the Indo-European martiality of the Roman Republic which endowed the tiny ‘Latin’ republic to conquer the majority of the old Mediterranean world. Conversely, and not entirely unironically, it was the Republic’s expansion into racially dissimilar geographical locales which ultimately diluted the Indo-European nature of its racio-cultural spirit. In The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity, James Russell argues that it was actually the Hellenization, i.e. the expansion of late Hellenic and Hellenistic sociocultural values onto the Roman sociocultural milieu which contributed to the de-Indo-Europeanization of Rome, and with this assertion I am in total agreement. [9] Prior to the unification of the Italian Peninsula under Roman hegemony, the ancient Romans had always been in close proximity to their Greek brethren of southern Italy, in an area they called Magna Graecia (Latin: ‘Great Greece’). It wasn’t until the ‘Middle Republican’ period, during the civilizational life or death struggles of the Punic Wars, that the Indo-European Romans came into contact with the racially, and socially, degenerated elements of the so-called ‘Late Hellenistic World.’ After the defeat of the Persian Empire by the Greco-Macedonian general Alexander the Great, the great conqueror undertook a subsequent set of conquests which forged an empire extending from the Aegean all the way to the Indian Subcontinent. Upon Alexander’s premature death in 323 B.C., a number of ‘Successor’ states and kingdoms emerged, and for nearly 300 years were engaged in a perpetual state of war with one and other.

The American general, George S. Patton once said of war that “Battle is the most magnificent competition in which a human being can indulge. It brings out all that is best; it removes all that is base.” Although this statement is in complete accordance with the martiality of the Indo-European soul, it underscores the racially degenerative aspects of war that occur as a negative eugenic consequence of the massive loss of life. [10] In war, it is the brave who perish, and when the ‘successor’ states of Alexander the Great waged a series of nearly intractable wars amongst themselves for nearly 300 years, it was likely the Indo-European and Greco-Macedonian elements of the population which declined. Nature abhors a vacuum, and when the ‘successor’ states of the post-Alexandrian East ran short of manpower they began to recruit, and impress, ‘indigenous’ members of their kingdoms into the service of their once homogenous armed forces. Military service has always been an instrument for political enfranchisement and by extension participation, and in European societies almost always leads to racial heterogenization and civilizational dissolution.

When the ancient Romans entered into the world of the ‘successor’ states of the ancient Near East, they were dealing with a racially mixed Greek-speaking population completely foreign to them and their traditional geopolitical dealings with the Indo-European Dorian Greeks of Magna Graecia. As Rome expanded further and further into the recesses of the so-called “Greek East,” years of proximity began to alter the racio-cultural spirit of the Republic. Regardless of the sociohistorical context, population proximity engrains a people with familiarity, which in turn encourages racial miscegenation, which leads to racio-cultural hybridization, and ultimately racial degeneration. Thus as the breadth, scope and duration of Roman contact with the post-Alexandrian Near East increased, the Indo-European nature of the Roman Republic lessoned and a concomitant process of degenerative Hellenisticization occurred. Sadly, this process of Hellenisticization continued unchecked and wouldn’t be reversed until the re-Indo-Europeanization of the Late Roman Empire by the Germanic invasions of the fourth century A.D.  Moreover, late Republican Rome became destabilized as it came into contact with the non-Indo-European peoples of the ancient Near East, and it was from this clash of racially incongruous civilizations that European demographics and ultimately Indo-Roman morality declined from within the Republic.

Go to Part 2

41 replies
  1. Marcus Janos
    Marcus Janos says:

    Excellent essay. The cycle of racial and historical decline of ancient Rome in many ways mirror that of the West, and the American Empire. I look forward to the next installment.

  2. Name
    Name says:

    By Spengler’s terms, Rome was Apollonian, not Faustian.
    In fact, if I could have a saying in this:
    The Roman Kingdom was Indo-European to the core (and so was Doric Greece, the Doric people being Indo-Europeans, further leading Greece into their cultural/genetic direction, as the early Mycenae was just a tidy bit Indo-European, 10~12% genetically speaking).
    The ends of the Kingdom and the early Republic saw an extension from core-Indo-European to an Apollonian society (like in Greece), whereas in the end period of the Republic the Indo-European aspects vanished.
    The Empire was a mismatch, it had a decaying Apollonian society mixed, entangled and infected by Magian middle eastern beliefs, and in an internal battle, it just collapsed. Byzantium survived because it abandoned completely the remnants of Indo-European/Apollonian spirit it had and adopted the Magian completely.

    The later Europe, post-Roman Collapse experienced a revival in Indo-European spirit, as the late Roman bindings got loose. This, then, turned into Apollonian all over again in the Renaissance and Faustian after that.

    Of course, using Spenglerian terms all around.
    A book I extremely recommend is Stephen Zarlenga’s “The Lost Science of Money”, which is more than anything, a history book, which contemplates Rome as well as many others.

    • Gary Italo
      Gary Italo says:

      Al good points, but from reading the article I’m certain that the author wasn’t using “Faustian” in the sense used by Oswald Spengler. For one he uses a definition of “Faustian” more akin to that of Ricardo Duchesne, and writes this early on.

      Personally, I thoroughly enjoyed this authors style. It’s intelligent and almost has a poetic quality about it. Literary sources are abounding; I’m imagining it difficult to incorporate a T.S. Eliot quote into an article about ancient Rome, but he seems to have done it well. Plus, it’s a unique theory that he is purposing, and one of which I’m finding myself agreeing with. Ancient Roman experienced collapse because it lost its European population and with the Europeans went its “Faustian Nature.”

    • Irene
      Irene says:

      Spengler considered Greece to be mostly Asiatic. Rome was doomed from the moment they started importing Middle Easterners and North Africans into their imperial capital. These christian slaves demografically overwelmed the native Romans who had become totally degenerated. That’s why true Nationalists are 100% pagan.

      • T. J.
        T. J. says:

        from the article [dangers-monetary reform]-

        First, the Fed was created through an act of Congress. Not only that, a separate constitutional amendment was added in order to create the central bank. Which amendment might that be?


    Interesting article. But, is there any archaelogical evidence that the “Indo-Europeans” have ever existed? Is it possible that the theory about the existence of the “Indo-Europeans” has been created in order to furhter specific geopolitical interests?

  4. James Bowery
    James Bowery says:

    It is ironic that the origin myth of Rome illustrated in this article’s photo, of Romulus and Remus being nursed by the she-wolf, is never referenced in the article itself. This myth likely references the evolutionary origin of Euroman’s _organic_ individualism from which rises the article’s Faustian theme.


    Coevolution with wolves fostered Euroman’s organic individualism by freeing the Paleolithic individual male head of household from the hunting group.

    People who don’t understand this don’t understand what most essentially differentiates Euroman from other types.

    Moreover, the “two” brothers — Romulus and Remus — are likely a mythic remnant of the western vs eastern Y-haplogroups that also come down to us as the Vanir vs Aesir respectively. Both of these haplogroups coevolved with wolves during the late Pleistocene, merging in the Holocene.

    Understanding this essential aspect of Euroman’s organic individualism, is the key to freeing Euroman to “become who we are”.

    Don’t side-step it as a minor nor even secondary detail.

    It is primary.

    Its _organic_ relationship to the tripartate social organization upon which Rome was founded is to be found in the exigencies of war as eusocial evolution. The organic individual has an integrated tripartate neurophysiology sometimes called the firebrain, midbrain and hindbrain. When organizing a group organism, which is necessary for war, neurophysiology is disintegrated into the separate castes which represent thought, motivation and motion. Reintegrating these castes into a group organism is the key to civilization as war. Retaining the memory of the integrated organic individual is what gives Euroman’s civilizations their unique Faustian attribute.

    However Nietzsch was not up to the task. While “power” is essential to waging war, the end of war must be “moral” in the sense of upholding the organic individual against the mass of humanity that was never liberated from the group by the wolf.

    • James Bowery
      James Bowery says:

      PS: After writing this, I decided to look into the possibility that a climactic event resulted in the aforelinked 8000 year-old rock carvings in Saudi Arabia, depicting the “individual male head of household” with his “hunting pack”. What were Europeans doing that far south during the Holocene climatic optimum? I suspected a cooling of some sort may have driven Holocene Euroman a bit further south.



    • James Bowery
      James Bowery says:

      Adopting organic individualism as the essence of Euroman permits us to examine the the Ashkenazim group evolutionary strategy in a new light. Specifically, if organic individualism is the _essence_ of Euroman, the various travesties of “individualism” rightfully despised by pro-white movements can be seen as an auto-immune disease fostered by the Ashkenazim which serves two very important purposes:

      1) It turns the warmaking capacity of Euroman against his own spiritual essence.
      2) Into this spiritual vacuum can be injected any of a variety of counterfeits that enslave Euroman.

      The most recent example of such an attack on the organic individual is the Austrian School of Economics “non-aggression axiom” to which “libertarians” adhere. Into the spiritual vacuum left by the well-motivated attacks on such “individualism” is injected everything from the post-modern “individual” to the cultural Marxist “oppressed group”.

      • Trenchant
        Trenchant says:

        An ethical system that defends the right to initiate aggression isn’t a system at all. All Western legal codes uphold in varying measures the right to self-defense, ie. the non-aggression principle. Even warmongers cast around for a casus belli.

        I think you’re confused about “Methodological Individualism”, which means nothing more that macro-social phenomena are the sum of individual actions. “The economy” doesn’t exist as something separate, divorced from the aggregated actions of all individuals in the society.

        • James Bowery
          James Bowery says:

          The non-aggression principle presumes a civil environment. It cannot be axiomatic if one is interested in the _organic_ foundation of a civil environment.

          Property rights are not natural hence “the economy” is not natural. They are a civil achievement.

          Failure to understand this is _precisely_ the Jewish notion of civilization because they rent-seek by shifting tax burdens of maintaining a civil environment (ie: military) off of property rights and onto economic activities AND onto religious indoctrination (For God and Country, etc.) so you can kill off the best of your men to protect their power.

          White “leaders” that don’t get this are their puppets.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        Mr. Bowery: I note with disappointment that in your first paragraph you offer no rationale for believing that “organic individualism”—an expression so curious that I am tempted to style it neo-Boasian, if only to leaven its air of contrivance—merits being accorded the status of a diagnostic tool. Indeed, you effectively admit the term’s lack of real-world utility by hedging it closely with conditional grammatical constructions.

        As a footnote to Trenchant’s intellectual and moral critique of your apologia for aggression, I’d add only that I fail to see how your view differs in a meaningful sense from the familiar and doctrinaire anti-Western, anti-Christian sentiments of the neocons.

        • James Bowery
          James Bowery says:

          Mr. de Craon,

          Is the 600 million year old explosion of life forms driven, in large measure, by the advent of male intrasexual selection a “contrivance”? Do you see the advent of group selection resulting in eusocial species in the insects and naked mole rats as an evolutionary advance over the prior “neo-Boasian contrivance” if individual selection? Indeed, do you, as does E. O. Wilson in “The Social Conquest of Earth” see the incipient evolution of eusociality in the primate line starting with CHLCA as embodying such a high virtue that it qualifies as “essential”?

          Since when did Boasians, “neo” or paleo, admit the organic into their anthropology? Are you talking about the folks that deny human biodiversity but admit sociobiology as “neo-Boasians”? If so, in what way can you characterize a position that Europeans represent a unique bioculture as denying human biodiversity?

          The neocons would run screaming from a society that upholds organic individualism. They’d find themselves excluded from civil society and then of course, killed. The mechanism?

          Here it is:

          First, recognize that an individual male in nature has an innate, heritable, genetic, organic “right” to fight for reproduction with quality mates. This is true across all sexual species except, perhaps, the pseudo-sexual eusocial species in which parasitic castration of the sterile castes by the reproductive caste forms the “body politic” of its “civil society”. Second, recognize that “fight” is — in virtually all sexual species — between individual males. It is _not_ just some quaint notion of high time preference males that Jews routinely portray in their climactic movie, mano-a-mano scenes. Third, recognize that when “civil” society abrogates its responsibility to defend borders against “immigrant” males of other societies, it is doing something far more subversive to the foundation of civilization than is admitting young, childless fertile females. Certainly, the pro open borders propagandists understand this PERFECTLY as one can see by looking at their exemplars of “illegal immigrants” which routinely such females as “high school valedictorians” — and which one can see by noticing the routine advertising images wherein a non-white male is featured in conjunction with a white female. Now consider the central importance of limiting duel during the civilization of northern Europeans by JudeoChristianization. Who was _really_ protected by that ultimately? See:


          Now, imagine how excited a Jew, neocon or cultural Marxist, would be about financing the production of such a screenplay.

          Perhaps this this background you may be able to understand why a civil society founded on a single “human right” to individual subsistence land, cojoined with territory others sharing one’s beliefs so as to _exclude_ those not sharing one’s _social_beliefs, would be terrify parasites.

          It’s really hard to understand how people who consider themselves interested in the white race can ignore these things except as the parasitic castrati of Jews and other invasive species.

          • James Bowery
            James Bowery says:

            “cojoined with territory others” -> “cojoined with the territory of others”
            “would be terrify parasites” -> “would terrify parasites”
            “which routinely such females” -> “which routinely features such females”
            “Perhaps this this” -> “Perhaps with this”

            PS: WordPress supports editing of comments to blog posts. This is offered on almost all blogs now and the abuse potential is contained by limiting the time to, say, 5 minutes of editing. Moreover, it’s difficult to proof read in the tiny textarea provided.

          • Pierre de Craon
            Pierre de Craon says:

            “Parasitic castrati” may seem a witty and penetrating wisecrack to you, but it bears about as much sense and substantive weight as the lowbrow’s use of “faggot” as a generalized term of abuse.

            As to the overall nature of your reply, its aim seems to be overwhelm with word count rather than fact-based reasoning, the latter of which hardly lies thick on the ground. No one could ever chide you for a shortage of theories about everything under the sun, but their all-too-frequent lack of concern for and lack of grounding in lived human experience and observation serve only to make your oft-stated claims for their intellectual and moral content and explanatory power far from convincing.

            Put otherwise, I see far more pretension than deep reflection in the present comments and in a great many others of yours. And I am well past the point of buckling at the knees before a man who calls me a “parasitic castrato.”

      • T. J.
        T. J. says:

        I have yet to see individualism defined in our movement. Here goes: Individualism means free thought, or reason. It strongly correlates with IQ, I presume- how could it be otherwise?

        The magic number, IQ wise, may be 112. Police departments, I have heard, will not hire recruits with IQs over 112. Such folks ask too many questions, such as “does this law violate rights?” Perhaps both free thought and individualism begin at 112, on a continuum- the higher the IQ, the more of each.

        To the left of 112 would be, roughly, more religion. To the right would be more philosophy. Religion is to collectivism as philosophy is to individualism.

        But wait- suppose you have a group of 140 IQs [Whites] on a deserted island- free thinkers all. Over the horizon comes a group of jungle bunnies- prepared for war. One of the smart ones says- “uh oh, what are WE gonna do?” WE? Yes, WE. I see nothing at all that would preclude smart individuals from acting as a group.

        • James Bowery
          James Bowery says:

          “individualism defined in our movement”

          “Individualism”, like “intelligence” needs to be disaggregated. Just as I used “organic individualism” in describing Euroman’s essential quality, to distinguish it from the travesty called “individualism”, so must “intelligence” be disaggregated so we know what we’re talking about.

          One of the best attempts at disaggregating “intelligence” was Shane Legg’s PhD thesis, summarized in his Singularity Summit (2010) lecture “Universal Measures of Intelligence”:


          If one looks at NE Asian intelligence, statistically higher than Euroman intelligence, it presents your definition of “individualism” with a substantial outlier, at the very least.

          My definition of “organic individualism” is, perhaps, more properly called “culture of individual integrity” contrasted with “culture of group integrity”. The words “culture” and “integrity” then become salient. “Culture” in this respect is artificial selection — the direction of biological evolution consequent to the values and norms of the society. “Integrity” is in terms of the relationship of parts to wholes.

          Now, here’s where the white identity movement has gone off the rails:

          Peoples bred for individual integrity can form _temporary_ groups of higher integrity than can peoples bred for group integrity — but they require conscious agreement to do so. Such agreements are called “Declarations of War”:


          The process of establishing conscious agreement among individuals of integrity is therefore attacked in every imaginable manner by the culture of group integrity.

    • TGD
      TGD says:

      From my rudimentary knowledge of the classical world, didn’t the Romulus and Remus myth represent the two peoples who interbred to form the Roman ethnie: Latins and Etruscans? Whereas the Latini were an Indo-European tribe, very little is known about the origins or even the ancient language of the Etruscans. Some scholars suggest that the Etruscan language was derived from a proto-Semitic tongue. Whatever its origins, the Etruscan alphabet formed the basis of the Latin alphabet, which is the standard alphabet of the world today. And having an alphabet meant that the Etruscans were far more advanced culturally, civilizationally and intellectually than the Latins

      And what about the famous “aquiline countenance” or “Roman nose?” Is this not a characteristic of middle eastern peoples indicating a middle eastern origin of the Etruscans? The assertion that ancient Rome’s spectacular civilization and conquests are due to Limpieza de sangre is called into question.

      • James Bowery
        James Bowery says:

        Origin myths are quite contentious; they are central to culture which is the subject of priestly appropriation. What is known about semitic cultures and literate cultures in general, is they tend toward priestly appropriation of less literate

        Whatever one may claim about the origin myth of Rome, it is clear that indoeuropean culture was more than a genetic influence and that, to the extent that Etruscans influenced the culture, it likely had its greatest impact on the priestly class.

        • Chad Crowley
          Chad Crowley says:

          Concerning the Etruscans and their origins, I’ve found the works of Prof. Cavalli-Sforza to be the most convincing. Specifically, he posits that the Etruscans developed in an autochthonous fashion from the earlier Iron Age Villanovan culture.

      • Seraphim
        Seraphim says:

        Etruscans were actually the extra-italic element. Villanova culture is not autochtonous in Italy. According to Mario Alinei there are strong affinities between Etruscan language and Finno-Ugric ones.

    • Trenchant
      Trenchant says:

      Knowing little about the subject, are you saying that domestication of the dog was unique to the historic Euroman?

      • James Bowery
        James Bowery says:

        Not so much unique as earlier and more essential. I’ve been pursuing this line of inquiry about European organic individualism for over 5 years and, despite the ongoing discoveries of ancient DNA/sites with revisions, one thing is clear: The most likely domestication event occurred in the same geographic range usually assigned to the ancestors of the indoeuropeans. Most recent finds place the event in Europe proper — but other finds place the domestication event further east. This fairly recent (2016) paper titled “A wolf in dog’s clothing: Initial dog domestication and Pleistocene wolf variation” may point to an even earlier coevolution than would be indicated by canine DNA changes alone.


        Since the appearance of Cro Magnon corresponded to a dramatic change of fauna in its range, the exceptional phenotypic plasticity of the wolves pointed to by this paper may well have resulted in multiple quasi-domestication events throughout Eurasia that left little or no genetic trace in the wolves early in the coevolution. It could well have happened that as wolves, driven by the change in fauna, teamed up with the abundant trail of mammoth leftovers, young Cro Magnon males — having difficulty finding their place in the human hunting pack — found themselves preferring the company of wolves that treated them as alphas. The ones that, in this role, found success in hunting smaller prey could have fared relatively well with the disappearance of megafauna. The “dog” may have then appeared circa 16,000 years ago.

        Indeed, we may well see more of a genetic impact on humans than on the wolves early in the coevolution of the relationship, and this genetic impact may have been felt throughout the Eurasian range of what became Europoids.

        An obvious open question then becomes: What of the higher degree of collectivism in east Asians? Why didn’t they go through the same coevolution? Or did they and then revert to the collectivist evolutionary direction in evidence among the rest of the descendants of the Chimpanzee-Human Last Common Ancestor?

        Here’s my working hypothesis:

        The east Asians did not undergo this evolution as early and, therefore, did not develop as great a dependence on dogs, nor the proto-nuclear family with its organic individualism fostered by a human alpha and his canine hunting pack. This may have been due to the greater _relative_ abundance of megafauna in the east. When these cultures came into contact, a human hunting pack would win against the individual with canine hunting pack. Thus there was no evolutionary selection for canine dependence, thence organic individualism.

        • Trenchant
          Trenchant says:

          Thanks for the clarification. It’s a fascinating theory, the dog-man co-evolution.

          I had assumed that the East Asian collectivist bent was primarily a function of agricultural structures. This was elaborated by James C. Scott in his classic, The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia. In short, where rice is the staple, the society is likely to be very hierarchical with a large bureaucratic class.

          • James Bowery
            James Bowery says:

            The evolution of eusociality in the primate line is the default for human society as it goes back to the Chimpanzee-Human Last Common Ancestor (CHLCA). See “The Social Conquest of Earth” for E. O. Wilson’s in-depth analysis and synthesis of this “human origin story”. There are many variations in the post-CHLCA evolution of eusociality and among human races in particular. Wilson does a good job promoting his myth but he neglects 3 keys to understanding the human races and, in particular, Euroman:

            1) Fire enabled the growth of human neuroanatomy by pre-digesting food which made more of the calories available for cognition. This, thermodynamic driver, was more important than his posited socially-driven expansion of cognition.
            2) Firemaking — as a skill — enabled individual males to become less dependent on the group, and contributed to the archaic human expansion out of Africa.
            3) Human-wolf coevolution enabling individual males to become even less dependent on the group.

            The major, even catastrophic, omissions from Wilson’s “human origin story” are basically of a piece with his obligation as a Harvard scholar to deny human biodiversity and, in particular, the unique culture of individual integrity that emerged as an instauration of the 600 million year old Cambrian explosion in the form of a _moral_ sensibility of fairness toward the individual.

    • James Bowery
      James Bowery says:

      Since there seems to be some overloading of “Faustian” in the context of “European Civilization”, I’ll clarify my perception of its origin from this passage in W. D. Hamilton’s “Innate Social Aptitudes of Man”:

      “The incursions of barbaric pastoralists seem to do civilizations less harm in the long run than one might expect. Indeed, two dark ages and renaissances in Europe suggest a recurring pattern in which a renaissance follows an incursion by about 800 years. It may even be suggested that certain genes or traditions of pastoralists revitalize the conquered people with an ingredient of progress which tends to die out in a large panmictic population for the reasons already discussed. I have in mind altruism itself, or the part of the altruism which is perhaps better described as self-sacrificial daring. By the time of the renaissance it may be that the mixing of genes and cultures (or of cultures alone if these are the only vehicles, which I doubt) has continued long enough to bring the old mercantile thoughtfulness and the infused daring into conjunction in a few individuals who then find courage for all kinds of inventive innovation against the resistance of established thought and practice. Often, however, the cost in fitness of such altruism and sublimated pugnacity to the individuals concerned is by no means metaphorical, and the benefits to fitness, such as they are, go to a mass of individuals whose genetic correlation with the innovator must be slight indeed. Thus civilization probably slowly reduces its altruism of all kinds, including the kinds needed for cultural creativity (see also Eshel 1972).”


      The secondary definition of “Faustian” (after the primary reference merely to the character in the novel):

      “sacrificing spiritual values for power, knowledge, or material gain”

      Culture, viewed as artificial selection imposed by moral sensibilities, directs genetic evolution. The culture of individual integrity, when it combines with “mercantile thoughtfulness”, produces the “sacrificing spiritual values for power, knowledge, or material gain” which finally decays, through the culture of group integrity into dysgenics: Hell On Earth.

  5. AmericanusRex
    AmericanusRex says:

    I’ve never seen the word “Faustian” written so many times in one place.


    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      Americanus Rex: It seems, doesn’t it, that the term’s sheer numbers are meant to cow readers into submission before they challenge the author to explain himself?

  6. Protestant
    Protestant says:

    1) “Faust is a charlatan who is highly successful yet dissatisfied with his life, which leads him to make a pact with the Devil, exchanging his soul for unlimited knowledge and worldly pleasures.”

    2) “Indo-European” is a false construct designed to absorb European “white” achievements into the large Indian Subcontinental Amoeba now blobbing its way across the world.

    3) Is Chad Crowley another (((Marxist Subversive)))?

  7. Alan Donelson
    Alan Donelson says:

    Given the highly relevant topic, I would like to ask if anyone other than myself has experienced frustration, complete estrangement, from darkmoon.me, a wolf of alt-media today.

  8. Walter Lewkowski
    Walter Lewkowski says:

    “Ricardo Duchesne, the uniqueness of Faustian Europe lays not with its institutions, but with the primordial drive of Faustian Man to overcome all that constrains him,. in the eternal quest for immortal fame.”
    I don’t think Faust is a good image for the adventurist European man.
    Faust is a man who could not on his own accomplish his goal, so he sells his soul to the devil to get the devils help to gain Jewish Cabal magic, secrets of alchemy, and a woman.

    When it comes time to pay up Faust chickens out.

    Faust is more like the white man who sells out his fellow white people for what he desires most.

  9. anon
    anon says:

    Interesting but somewhat superficial treatment. See Fustel de Coulanges’ Ancient City, Louis Rougier’s Genius of the West, the works of Julius Evola on Rome, etc.

  10. Vasily Sora
    Vasily Sora says:

    I’d like to see what sources suggest that the Greeks had become as a society significantly mixed with non Greeks by the time the Romans conquered them.

    • Franklin Ryckaert
      Franklin Ryckaert says:

      This mixture probably happened only in the Hellenistic eastern Mediterranean rather than in Greece itself. In that part of the world Greeks were a minority anyway.

  11. T. J.
    T. J. says:

    [From Libertarian Realist (a race realist)]:

    Wednesday, August 10, 2011

    The Structural Marxism of Anarcho-Austrians

    Some self-described free-market economists of the Austrian school explicitly credit Karl Marx for the analytical framework they employ. A few years ago I attended a seminar put on by the Institute for Humane Studies in which an Austrian economist openly stated that his analytical method was Marxist in nature. He substituted “state” for “bourgeoisie” and saw freedom as an institutional class struggle against the state.

    Among those who profess the anarchist strain of Austrian economic thought, structural Marxism is implicit, is not inherent, in their conception of government. They anthropormorphize the abstract concept of government and attribute to government desires and motives that couldn’t actually exist apart from the individuals who make it up.

    One cannot understand a particular state simply by referring to one’s own abstract definition of a state and deducing its characteristics. A state could be China or it could be Sealand. A politician could be Robert Mugabe or Ron Paul. Ideas matter. A lot of things matter.

    But anarchists have no need for context. They want to smash the state – not particular states for particular reasons, but their reified concept of the state. For anarchists, particular countries or politicians or cultures or populations need not be considered. All they have to do is deduce from their definition of the state. They deduce that it is necessarily preferable for Somalia to be stateless – preferable not merely in comparison to a socialist dictatorship, but preferable in comparison to any conceivable state, including colonial states that have a better track record of producing freedom, prosperity, and order in Africa than does anarchy.

    [also see comment by Cosmic Runt]


Comments are closed.