The Meditations [2] of Marcus Aurelius are a remarkable spiritual diary and, in general, a sure way for the modern reader to imbue himself with the practical wisdom of our ancient forefathers [3]. That said, I do not believe we should uncritically defer to anything, and on two points in particular, I believe comment and criticism are warranted.
Firstly, a pervasive theme of Marcus’ is his struggle to control his judgment and emotions, in particular anger, and thus be as detached and “philosophical” as possible. The goal is to accept non-judgmentally all that Nature — which is the law of the universe — gives us and to ensure harmony with the world and the rule of reason within oneself.
Marcus makes these comments particularly with regard to his colleagues and subordinates: do not get angry with their inevitable failures and ignorance, he tells himself, but rather try to make them see the light:
How cruel it is not to let people strive after what they regard as suitable and beneficial to themselves. And yet, in a sense, you are not permitting them to do so whenever you grow angry at their bad behavior. For it is surely the case that they are simply drawn towards what they consider to be suitable and beneficial to themselves. “Yes, but they are wrong to think that.” Well, instruct them, then, and show them the truth, without becoming annoyed. (6, 27) (Numbering refers to the book and paragraph in the Meditations.)
And elsewhere: “Even if you burst with rage, they will do the same things none the less for that” (8, 4). More generally, Marcus affirms that “an intelligence free from passions is a mighty citadel” (8, 48).
The potential problem in these affirmations is that one might be led to believe that Marcus is suggesting becoming a kind of harmless, emotionless monk. However, I believe these comments should not be misunderstood. Marcus does affirm that, when push comes to shove, coercion is justified: “Try to persuade them, but act even against their will the principles of justice demand it” (6, 50).
Marcus honors Diogenes, who was a great philosopher of an evidently very different temperament, for he sought to moralize society by repeatedly shaming and ridiculing the immoral and the ignorant through various shock tactics. Diogenes once reputedly criticized Plato saying: “Of what use is a philosopher who doesn’t hurt anybody’s feelings?’ Marcus’ ostentatiously tranquil way is evidently not the only one available to us.
“Freedom from passions” furthermore must be understood in a wider sense, of one’s reason being invulnerable to not just emotions, but also pleasure and pain. The Romans in particular perfected this with an unbelievable gravitas in the defense of honor and duty: Seneca following Nero’s order to kill himself, in accordance with tradition, by slitting his wrists in a hot bath; Marcus Atilius Regulus who was captured and released by the Carthaginians, urged the Roman Senate to continue the war, and then returned to Carthage to fulfill his parole, where he was tortured to death; or indeed the famous soldier at Pompeii [4] who, having not been relieved, stoically remained at his post until he was buried by the ashes.
These sacrifices may seem futile, but they reflect the supreme manliness of the Roman tradition, a virility which reflected the discipline and sacrifice necessary to maintaining that greatest of world empires. In our age, the Roman example shames us for our cowardice. Marcus’ “mighty citadel” is a model for defending our people and the truth, whatever the personal consequences might be. When we are cowards, we should think of our forefathers, whether religious reformers or scientific innovators, who were willing to risk being burned at the stake to affirm the truth.
Having said all this, perhaps Marcus is too categorical in dismissing emotion. Plato argued that emotions were meant to be the powerful subordinate allies of reason. For example, anger is an emotion propitious to the extermination of one’s enemies. (Then again, Marcus was a fairly effective military commander in his continuous and often brutal campaigns against the Germans. So perhaps I am in no position to talk, but I share my reaction.)
Certainly in both elite and mass politics nothing is possible without the inspiration of emotions, in particular appeal to our deep-seated tribal and spiritual longings. Practically, the fact is that Christianity displaced ancient philosophy and the old Pagan religion by appealing to emotion. The philosopher may protest that this is irrational, but all the same, ancient philosophy died and only lived on in the Middle Ages, to the extent it did, in Christianity, because Christianity could better appeal to that irrational part of us, particularly among the masses.
Marcus writes that one should not aim for “Plato’s ideal state . . . For who can change the convictions of others?” (9, 29) The answer, to the degree men can be socio-culturally programmed and moralized, is of course education and religion. In the ancient world, the ability to do so in a vast realm like the Roman Empire was limited. In the modern era however, fascists have emphatically and convincingly argued that there are enormous possibilities for mass education and civil-religion, especially given the new technological and material means enabling mass communication and mass ceremony.
Secondly, and this is a more critical comment, Marcus’ Meditations are a striking example of pre-Christian universalism in Western thought. As Kevin MacDonald has stressed, both universalist and ethnocentric trends are evident in the Western tradition. While Diogenes declared himself a “cosmopolitan,” Plato’s masterwork The Republic [5] powerfully makes the case for ethnocentric morality [5].
Marcus adheres to Stoic cosmopolitanism, a kind of dual citizenship. He writes: “As [emperor], my city and fatherland is Rome; as a human being, it is the universe; so what brings benefits to these is the sole good for me” (6, 44). He elsewhere defines himself as “a citizen of this great city [the universe]” and argues that one should not be dissatisfied with a short life, playing only a small part in this vast play (12, 36).
I do not believe this is problematic. The laws of Nature are the same for all creatures and, in this sense, all human must seek to be in harmony with them. This is a message which will resonate as much with the Jeffersonian deist as the esoteric National Socialist, and indeed perhaps with almost all of the world’s religions. Since Darwin in particular however, we as evolutionary thinkers understand natural selection and survival of the fittest as fundamental principles and imperatives of life. These principles must be recognized and lived up to if we and indeed any creatures capable of conscious morality and reason are to survive and thrive, for all this, whatever the spiritual beyond, rests upon a biological foundation and genetic prerequisites.
I believe all of this is compatible with ethnocentric morality: solidarity with one’s kin is a natural principle, and Nature expresses herself uniquely in every creature. (What is required of a donkey to be in harmony with the universe is not the same as what is required of a man, and so forth in the infinite diversity of humans and other living creatures.) More generally, the world would in fact be a better place if all societies recognized genetic homogeneity and quality as social goods in and of themselves. While I am no expert on moral philosophy, I do not believe the Kantian moral imperative necessarily undermines nationalism, perhaps the contrary in fact.
More problematic however is the following:
Say to yourself at the start of the day, I shall meet with meddling, ungrateful, violent, treacherous, envious, and unsociable people. They are subject to these defects because they have no knowledge of good and bad. [. . .] [H]is nature is akin to my own — not because he is of the same blood and seed, but because he shares as I do in mind and thus in a portion of the divine. (2, 1)
This comment needs to be understood in the context of Marcus’ attempt to get along with inadequate and unsociable colleagues, arguing that frustration is inevitable but improvement is possible through appeal to a common reason. Elsewhere Marcus is more explicit still: “how close is the kinship which unites each human being to the human race as a whole, for it arises not from blood and seed but from our common share in reason” (12, 26).
The assertion that “his nature is akin to my own – not because he is of the same blood and seed, but because he shares as I do in mind and thus in a portion of the divine” is of course partly true today (all humans have some capacity for reason) and was probably truer still in the Roman Empire of Marcus’ day, which was far less racially diverse than are the United States and even much of Western Europe in our time. (That the Empire had intermingled Europeans and Semites in uneven quantities cannot be compared with societies made up of people from different ends of different continents with no contiguous clinal link at all, e.g. Western Europeans, Sub-Saharan Africans, East Asians . . .).
As evolutionary thinkers however, we are cognizant of the fact that intelligence and personality are significantly heritable [6], and thus they in fact do ultimately stem from “blood and seed.” There is a large body evidence that different racial groups have differing average levels of intelligence (also varying by kind of intelligence, e.g. verbal, spatial . . .) and, more importantly, different average temperaments. Reason is the same for all but in different brains manifests itself in different degrees and is inflected with different motivations.
This has enormous implications for political morality: ethno-genetically heterogeneous societies are disharmonious both because of each ethnic group’s differing preferences and in the lack of identification/solidarity between the groups (the latter made especially problematic when the different groups, inevitably, become socially unequal due to differing behavior). This prevents, in multiethnic societies, the possibility of a collectively rational and solidary cohesive community, which must be the organic unit of human history.
One might answer: reason is the same for all creatures, even if their capacity for it differs. Perhaps if one could strip emotions away, but that would also vary by individual and group. It is obvious that reason manifests itself differently in different groups, who find different things intellectually interesting and emotionally compelling. (For instance, northern Europeans seem prone to a kind of selfless piety, only among sub-Saharan Africans have I observed this quite spontaneous phenomenon [7], and Jews more than any other group seem to get a kick out of criticizing the host population’s real and imagined flaws.)
Put another way: Reason is the same for all? Quite. If so I invite our colored cousins to answer the question: Is the slow bit steady disappearance of the European peoples reasonable? Is this event in the higher interests of the human race and universal consciousness and morality? I observe that in arguing against us, these same people resort to moral principles founded in the West (“international law,” “human rights,” “democracy” . . .) and use Western technology which thus far, only the East Asians have shown any talent for emulating, let alone inventing. Furthermore, innumerable millions of colored people throughout the world are so convinced of their own inability to create a good society that their only plan for improving their lot in life is to . . . move to our societies! And then, I should add, the process repeats itself within countries, with the notorious dialectic between forced integration and white flight. Well, colored cousins, these antics will not work when you run out of white people.
In their heart of hearts, all must know that the disappearance of the Europeans is a supremely immoral act, and some colored people might even be endowed with sufficient reason to overcome their ethnic pride in acknowledging this. And some will come to the conclusion that the defense of ethnic European interests is reasonable and in the universal interest. But only an infinitesimal number, for such is the power of the call of the blood [8].
But all that is none of our business, for you should not “allow your happiness to depend on what passes in the souls of other people” (2, 6). We take our own side. Inspired by the best of our magnificent tradition [9], including the formidable Stoicism of Marcus Aurelius and the other great men of the West whose wisdom and character put us to shame, we must become Eurocentric Hereditarians.
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Parmi les philosophies antiques, le stoïcisme tient une grande place. Traversant l'antiquité grecque et l'antiquité romaine sur près de six siècles, symbole du sérieux et de l'abnégation de tout un peuple, l'école du Portique apprend à ses disciples à vivre en harmonie avec l'univers et ses lois. Maîtrise de soi, courage, tenue, éthique, ce sont là quelques mots clés pour comprendre le stoïcisme. Le Manuel 1 d'Epictète, condensé de cette sagesse, permet à chaque Européen de renouer avec les plus rigoureuses racines de notre civilisation. Brillant exemple de ce que pouvait produire l'univers mental propre au paganisme européen, le stoïcisme continuera d'irriguer la pensée européenne sur la longue durée (avec notamment le mouvement du néo-stoïcisme de la Renaissance). Et au delà de la longue durée, il est important de souligner l'actualité de la philosophie stoïcienne. Philosophie de temps de crise comme le souligne son histoire, le stoïcisme redirige l'homme vers l'action.
La pensée stoïcienne dégage à ses origines trois grands axes d'étude: la physique (l'étude du monde environnant), la logique et l'éthique (qui concerne l'action). La pensée d'Epictète a ceci de particulier qu'elle ne s'intéresse pas à l'étude de la physique et ne s'attarde que peu sur celle de la logique, même si Epictète rappelle la prééminence de cette dernière dans l'un de ses aphorismes: Le Manuel, LII, 1-2. Car en effet, toute éthique doit être démontrable. 
Et c'est cet Honneur au-dessus de tout, au-dessus de la vie elle-même qui est invoqué par la pensée d'Epictète. Car rappelons-le, la tenue est la base de la pensée stoïcienne. Sans Honneur, point de tenue. Sans tenue, point de voie d'accès à la Sagesse. Et sans Sagesse, on ne saurait faire le Bien. Il faut d'abord et avant tout vivre dans l'honneur et savoir quitter la scène le jour où notre honneur nous le commandera. C'est ce que ce grand Européen que fut Friedrich Nietzsche rappelle dans Le Crépuscule des Idoles 4 (Erreur de la confusion entre la cause et l'effet, 36): Il faut « Mourir fièrement lorsqu'il n'est plus possible de vivre fièrement ». Et s'exercer à contempler la mort jusqu'à ne plus la craindre, jusqu'à lui être supérieur est une des principales méditations stoïciennes : Le Manuel, XXI: « Que la mort, l'exil et tout ce qui paraît effrayant soient sous tes yeux chaque jour ; mais plus que tout, la mort. Jamais plus tu ne diras rien de vil, et tu ne désireras rien outre mesure ». Celui qui se délivrera de l'emprise de la mort sur son existence pourra alors vivre dans l'Honneur jusqu'à sa dernière heure.
Nous devons donc ne nous préoccuper que de ce qui ne dépend que de nous car selon Epictète, l'une des plus grandes dichotomies à réaliser c'est celle existante entre les choses qui dépendent de nous et celles qui n'en dépendent pas. Parmi les choses qui dépendent de nous, le jugement que l'on se fait de soi et de l'univers qui nous entoure. Ce qui dépend de nous, c'est tout ce qui a trait à notre âme et à notre libre-arbitre. Et parmi les choses qui ne dépendent pas de nous : la mort, la maladie, la gloire, les honneurs et les richesses, les coups du sort tout comme les actions et pensées de nos contemporains. L'homme sage ne s'attachera donc qu'à ce qui dépend de lui et ne souciera point de ce qui n'en dépend point. C'est là la seule manière d'être libéré de toute forme de servilité. Car l'on peut courir après richesses et gloires mais elles sont par définition éphémères. Elles ne trouvent pas leur origine dans notre être profond et lorsque la mort viendra nous trouver, à quoi nous serviront-elles ? Pour être libre, il convient donc de d'abord s'attacher à découvrir ce qui dépend de nous et ce qui n'en dépend pas. C'est bel et bien la première discipline du stoïcisme : celle du discernement. En se plongeant dans Le Manuel d'Epictète, on apprendra vite qu'il faut d'abord et avant tout s'attacher à ce que l'on peut et au rôle dont le destin nous a gratifié. Le rôle qui nous est donné l'a été par l'univers (que ce soit par l'entremise des Dieux ou par la voie des causes et des conséquences) et c'est donc avec ferveur que nous devons le remplir. C'est en faisant ainsi, cheminant aux côtés de ses semblables, modeste et loyal, que l'on sera le plus utile aux siens et à sa patrie. C'est bel et bien une vision fataliste de l'existence, un amor fati très européen. Rappelons-nous qu'aller à l'encontre du destin, c'est défier les Dieux et l'univers. Et pourtant... cela nous est bel et bien permis à nous Européens. La Sagesse consiste à savoir que cela ne peut se faire que lorsque tel acte est commandé par l'absolue nécessité et en étant prêt à en payer le prix. On se replongera dans l'Iliade pour se le remémorer. Mais comme il est donné à bien peu d'entre nous de connaître ce que le destin leur réserve, notre existence reste toujours ouverte. Il n'y a pas de fatalité, seulement un appel à ne jamais se dérober lorsque l'histoire nous appelle. Voici une autre raison de s'exercer chaque jour à contempler la mort. Car si nous ne nous livrons pas quotidiennement à cette méditation, comment réagirons-nous le jour où il nous faudra prendre de véritables risques, voir mettre notre peau au bout de nos idées ? Lorsque le Destin frappera à notre porte, qu'il n'y aura d'autre choix possible qu'entre l'affrontement et la soumission, le stoïcien n'hésitera pas. Que seul le premier choix nous soit accessible, voici le présent que nous fait le stoïcisme. Le Manuel, XXXII, 3: « Ainsi donc, lorsqu'il faut s'exposer au danger pour un ami ou pour sa patrie, ne va pas demander au devin s'il faut s'exposer au danger. Car si le devin te déclare que les augures sont mauvais, il est évident qu'il t'annonce, ou la mort, ou la mutilation de quelque membre du corps, ou l'exil. Mais la raison prescrit, même avec de telles perspectives, de secourir un ami et de s'exposer au danger pour sa patrie. Prends garde donc au plus grand des devins, à Apollon Pythien, qui chassa de son temple celui qui n'avait point porté secours à l'ami que l'on assassinait ».
Il convient de s'attarder maintenant sur ces définitions de l'être et de l'action. Comme nous le voyons, non seulement nous devons aller dans la bonne direction mais qui plus est nous interdire tout ce qui pourrait nous en détourner. Vivre en stoïque, c'est vivre de manière radicale. Que l'on vive le stoïcisme en philosophe ou en citoyen ne change rien à cela. Il n'y a pas de place pour la demi-mesure. Une droite parfaitement rectiligne, c'est ce qui doit symboliser le chemin parcouru par l'homme antique, l'homme stoïque. Il a été dit plus haut que tout était éphémère, que tout n'était que changement. A partir de cette constatation, sachant que nous ne devons point désirer et accorder d'importance à ce qui ne dépend point de nous, il devient dès lors impossible de s'attacher à ses possessions, à ses amis, à sa famille. Ceux-ci ne nous appartiennent pas et rien de ces choses et de ces personnes ne sont une extension de nous-même. Hommes ou objets, nous n'en jouissons que temporairement. Et cela ne doit pas être vu comme un appel à l'indifférence et à l'égoïsme. L'enseignement qui doit en être retiré est que la vérité et l'exigence de tenue ne doivent pas tenir compte de ces que nos contemporains, si proches soient-ils de nous, peuvent en penser. De même, l'argent et les biens matériels ne sont que des outils. Des outils au service du bien, de la cité, de la patrie. Celui qui se laisse posséder par ce qui est extérieur à lui-même ne mérite pas le titre de stoïcien, le qualificatif de stoïque. Et à ceux qui verront le stoïcisme comme trop dur, Epictète répond que la Sagesse a un prix. Nous ne pouvons désirer la paix de l'âme et les fruits d'une vie de servitude. A vrai dire, à vouloir les deux à la fois, on n'obtient bien souvent ni l'un ni l'autre. Et à ceux qui se décourageront en chemin, Epictète rappelle que nous pouvons trouver en nous tous les outils pour persévérer. Face à l'abattement, invoquons la ferveur, face à la fatigue, invoquons l'endurance, face aux insultes et aux coups, invoquons le courage. 
Aller au-devant du monde le cœur serein. Rester droit face aux pires menaces et affronter la mort sans faillir, voilà la grande ambition du stoïcisme. En des temps troublés, l'Européen, quel que soit son rang, trouvera dans le Manuel tous les outils pour y arriver. Par la méditation, la raison et la maîtrise de soi il pourra se forger jour après jour une antique et véritable tenue. Le stoïcisme est également l'une des traditions par laquelle on peut se rapprocher du divin puis enfin mériter soi-même ce qualificatif. Devenir « pareil au Dieux » fut l'une des grandes inspirations de nos plus lointains ancêtres au sein de toute l'Europe. Germains et Celtes aux ancêtres divins ou Latins et Hellènes rêvant de prendre place à la table des Dieux, tous étaient habités par cette métaphysique de l'absolu qui guide nos âmes depuis nos origines. Une métaphysique de l'absolu qui les poussait à rechercher la perfection, l'harmonie, la beauté. Avec la raison menant au divin et le divin menant à la raison, le stoïcisme réussit un syncrétisme que beaucoup ont cherché à réaliser en vain pendant des siècles. Et cette sagesse n'est nullement incompatible avec les fois chrétiennes comme avec nos antiques fois européennes. Le libre penseur, l'incroyant lui-même n'en est pas exclu. Voilà pourquoi celui qui ouvre Le Manuel aura alors pour horizon l'Europe toute entière et ce, à travers toutes ses époques. Que celui qui contemple alors notre histoire se rappelle ces paroles d'Hector dans L'Iliade 5 (XII, 243) : « Il n'est qu'un bon présage, celui de combattre pour sa patrie ». 
French and English racism was introduced to Germany by the Englishman Houston Stewart Chamberlain who had a seminal influence on Hitlerism. English Darwinism, a manifestation of the materialistic Zeitgeist that dominated England, was brought to Germany by Ernst Haeckel; although Blumenbach had already begun to classify race according to cranial measurements during the 18th century. Nonetheless, biological racism reflects the English Zeitgeist of materialism. It provided primary materialistic doctrines to dethrone Tradition. Its application to economics also provided a scientific justification for the “class struggle” of both the capitalistic and socialistic varieties. Hitlerism was an attempt to synthesis the English eugenics of Galton and the evolution of Darwin with the metaphysis of German Idealism. Italian Traditionalist Julius Evola attempted to counter the later influence of Hitlerian racism on Italian Fascism by developing a “metaphysical racism,” and the concept of the “race of the spirit,” which has its parallels in Spengler, whose approach to race is in the Traditionalist mode of the German Idealists.
Julius Evola, while repudiating the zoological primacy of “racism” as another form of materialism and therefore anti-Traditional, suggested that a “spiritual racism” is necessary to oppose the forces seeking to turn man into an amorphous mass; as interchangeable economic units without roots; what is now called “globalisation”. 
Here Livy is observing that occupiers among foreign peoples “go native”, as one might say. The occupiers are pulled downward, rather than elevating their subjects upward, not through genetic contact but through moral and cultural corruption. The Syrians, Parthians and Egyptians, had already become historically and culturally passé, or Fellaheen, as Spengler puts it. The Macedonian Greeks in those colonies succumbed to the force of etiolation. Alexander even encouraged this in an effort to meld all subjects into one Greek mass, which resulted not from a Hellenic civilisation passed along by multitudinous peoples, but in a chaotic mass from which Greece did not recover, despite the Greeks staying racially intact. Unlike the Jews in particular, the Greeks, Romans and other conquerors did not have the strength of Tradition to maintain themselves among alien cultures. Dr. W. W. Tarn stated of this process:
“In our time all Greece was visited by a dearth of children and generally a decay of population, owing to which the cities were denuded of inhabitants, and a failure of productiveness resulted, though there were no long-continued wars or serious pestilences among us. If, then, any one had advised our sending to ask the gods in regard to this, what we were to do or say in order to become more numerous and better fill our cities,—would he not have seemed a futile person, when the cause was manifest and the cure in our own hands? For this evil grew upon us rapidly, and without attracting attention, by our men becoming perverted to a passion for show and money and the pleasures of an idle life, and accordingly either not marrying at all, or, if they did marry, refusing to rear the children that were born, or at most one or two out of a great number, for the sake of leaving them well off or bringing them up in extravagant luxury. For when there are only one or two sons, it is evident that, if war or pestilence carries off one, the houses must be left heirless: and, like swarms of bees, little by little the cities become sparsely inhabited and weak. On this subject there is no need to ask the gods how we are to be relieved from such a curse: for any one in the world will tell you that it is by the men themselves if possible changing their objects of ambition; or, if that cannot be done, by passing laws for the preservation of infants”.
Alien immigration introduces cultural elements that dislocate the social and ethical basis of a Civilisation and aggravate an existing pathological condition. The English scholar Professor C. Northcote Parkinson, writing on the fall of Rome, commented that the Roman conquerors were subjected “to cultural inundation and grassroots influence”. Because Rome extended throughout the world, like the present Late Western, the economic opportunities accorded by Rome drew in all the elements of the subject peoples, “groups of mixed origin and alien ways of life”. “Even more significant was what the Romans learnt while on duty overseas, for men so influenced were of the highest rank”. Parkinson quotes Edward Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, referring to the Roman colony of Antioch: 
What is notable is not that the Romans miscegenated with Orientals, but that the uprooted, amorphous masses of the cities no longer adhered to the Traditions on which Roman civilisation was founded. The same process can be seen today at work in New York, London and Paris. Duff wrote of this, and we might consider the parallels with our own time: 
India is the most commonly cited example of a civilisation that decayed through miscegenation, the invading Aryans imparting a High Culture on India and then forever falling into decay because of miscegenation with the low caste “blacks”, or Dravidians. However, Genetic research indicates that the higher castes have retained to the present a predominately Caucasian genetic inheritance.
Of Egypt’s chaos contemporary sages observed, as they did of Rome and India, a disintegration of authority, traditional religion, and the founding ethos and mythos around which a healthy culture revolves. Egypt was often subjected to invasions and to natural disasters. These served as catalysts for culture degeneration. The papyrus called The Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage, state that after invasions and what seems to have been a class war, Egypt fell apart, there was family strife, the noble families were dispossessed by the lowest castes, authority was disrespected and overthrown, lawlessness and plunder were the norm, and the nobility was attacked: “A man looks upon his son as an enemy. A man smites his brother (the son of his mother)”. Craftsmanship has become degraded: “No craftsmen work, the enemies of the land have spoilt its crafts”. There is rebellion against the Uraeus or Re. “A few lawless men have ventured to despoil the land of the kingship”. It appears that the foundations of Traditional society, god, monarch, family and land, have been caste asunder. Further, “Asiatics” have seized the land from the ancestral occupiers, and have so insinuated themselves into the Egyptian culture that one can no longer tell who is Egyptian and who is alien: “There are no Egyptians anywhere”. “Women are lacking and no children are conceived”. Evidently there is a population crisis; that perennial symptom of decay. The political and administrative structure has collapsed, with “no officers in their place”. The laws are trampled on and cast aside. “Serfs become lords of serfs”. The writings of the scribes are destroyed. 
Ipuwer avers to Egypt having gone through such epochs, alluding to his saying nothing other than what others have said before his time.
Caucasoid mtDNA sequences are at frequencies of 96% in Moroccan Berbers, 82% in Algerian Berbers and 78% in non-Berber Moroccans. The study of Esteban et al found that Moroccan Northern and Southern Berbers have only 3% to 1% Sub-Saharan mtDNA. Although difficult to define, since “Berber” is a Roman, not an indigenous term, the estimate for present day Morocco is 35% to 45% Berber, with the rest being Berber-Arab mixture. The primary point is that the Moroccan civilisation had ruling classes, whether pre-Islamic or Islamic, that remained predominantly Berber-Caucasian for most of its history, whether during its epochs of glory or of decline. Miscegenation does not account for the fall of the Moorish Civilisation. 
Ibn Khaldun begins from the organic character of the noble family in describing the analogous nature of cultural rise and fall, caused by a falling away of the original creative ethos with each successive generation:
Contrary to the beliefs of certain racial ideologues, including extreme Zionists and ultra-Orthodox Jews, this survival is not the result of bans on miscegenation. The Jewish law as embodied in the Torah, the first five books of the Old Testament, is based not on zoological race but on a race mythos. The Mosaic Law demands “race purity” in the Traditionalist sense; that of a community of belief in a heritage and a destiny. 
Minerva aveva la sua festa nel giorno delle Quinquatrus, giorno che cadeva, come dice il nome, il quinto giorno oscuro dopo le Eidus: il giorno era in origine sicuramente dedicato a Mars, dato che in esso i Saliari celebravano uno dei loro riti, ma venne in seguito “usurpato” da Minerva, certo in coincidenza con la sovrapposizione della Triade etrusca Juppiter-Juno-Minerva all’arcaica Triade Juppiter -Mars-Quirinus.
La qualité de l’armée romaine venait aussi de sa polyvalence et de sa capacité d’adaptation à toutes les situations. A l’aise dans toutes les formes de combat, elle n’a jamais hésité à emprunter aux autres peuples ce qui pouvait parfaire son efficacité. L’héritage grec fut ici aussi fondamental, notamment en ce qui concerne la poliorcétique (l’art du siège). Par ailleurs, l’armée romaine se caractérisait par une tactique de combat où rien n’était laissé au hasard. La logistique, les services, le génie, le renseignement, la santé et les transmissions avaient été développés comme dans aucune autre armée de l’antiquité. La stratégie, à savoir la mise en œuvre des divers moyens de gagner, était très étudiée et les conflits étaient préparés par des actions politiques ou diplomatiques et s’appuyaient sur une économie prospère.
Sin embargo, la convivencia entre buenos propósitos y acciones deshonestas por parte de los gobernantes fue siempre una de las características de Roma. Un ejemplo de esto fue Licinio Calvo Estolón, tribuno de la plebe en el 377 a.C., que introdujo una fuerte limitación a la acumulación de tierras por parte de un único propietario, además de una severa reglamentación para los deudores, pero luego fue acusado de haber violado sus propias leyes.
Otras leyes importantes fuero la «Lex Sempronia» (122 a.C.) o la «Lex Servilia de Repetundis» (111 a.C.), que establecieron penas más severas para los delitos de cohecho. La segunda, en concreto, fue la primera ley que introdujo la pérdida de los derechos políticos. Ambas fueron completadas con otras como la «Lex Livia Iudiciaria» (91 a.C.), que impuso una corte especial para los juicios contra los jueces corruptos que hubieran cometido extorsión, o la «Lex Cornelia», que aumentaba las condenas para los magistrados que aceptaran dinero en un juicio por cohecho. Esta última debe su nombre al dictador Lucio Cornelio Sila, que la estableció tres años antes de morir.
The claim that the Roman empire was a legally sanctioned multiracial state is another common trope used by cultural Marxists to create an image of the West as a civilization long working itself toward the creation of a universal race-mixed humanity. This is a lie to which patriots of Western Civ must not yield.
(1983).
L’État-nation, dont la France est l’archétype, désire l’égalité, l’uniformité, la centralisation ; il établit une loi unique sur l’ensemble de son territoire. Il ne reconnaît pas la diversité des coutumes et tend à la suppression des différences locales. Il suppose que tous les peuples sous son empire adoptent les mêmes mœurs et s’expriment dans sa langue administrative.
En somme, on peut croire désormais que bien avant les Vikings, les Romains fréquentaient le continent américain. De nouveaux indices archéologiques convaincants semblent confirmer désormais que les navires romains entretenaient des relations commerciales avec l’Amérique. Elio Cadelo, vulgarisateur scientifique, l’a annoncé lors d’une conférence tenue en marge d’une conférence de presse à Bologne portant sur la série cinématographique archéologique “Storie del Passato”. Le documentaire “Quand les Romains allaient en Amérique” dévoile des choses surprenantes sur les anciennes routes de navigation.
«Tu quoque mi fili!» («Toi aussi, mon fils!»)Tels furent les derniers mots prononcés par Jules César le 15 mars de l'an 44 avant Jésus-Christ, en découvrant que son fils, Marcus Brutus, faisait partie du groupe d'assassins qui le poignardèrent à 23 reprises.
and the 
. Tacitus, a senator, is believed to have held the offices of quaestor in 79, praetor in 88, consul in 97, and proconsul or governor of the Roman provinces in “Asia” (western Turkey), from 112–13.
En affirmant à la fois l’unicité et l’intelligibilité du cosmos, puis en l’investiguant par la libre réflexion appuyée sur l’observation et l’expérimentation, les Grecs de l’antiquité avaient fait accomplir à la pensée un véritable saut quantique. Sur ce plan, aucune civilisation ne fut jamais comparable – la nôtre, immergée dans son ébriété marchande et technicienne, n’étant que l’héri- tière bâtarde et improbable du « miracle grec ». Cette performance unique fut au fondement de la culture dite « gréco-romaine », dont le cadre politique fut, durant des siècles, l’œuvre tenace d’un autre peuple de génie, l’Empire romain que Nietzsche considérait comme « la forme d’organisation la plus grandiose jamais atteinte jusque-là, et en comparaison de quoi tout ce qui précède, tout ce qui suit, n’est qu’ébauche, amateurisme, dilettantisme » (L’Antéchrist, § 58).
In questo articolo prenderemo in considerazione l’importanza rivestita dalla 
