Johnson on Why Conservatives Can't Win

Insightful.

Here.

The core of Pierce’s argument is that conservatives can’t win because they aren’t really trying. The left plays for keeps. They have an overriding goal. They have a world to win. Conservatives are just trying to hold on to the 1950s or the 1980s. Conservatives may fight ferociously from time to time, but they are always playing defense. They think the election of a Nixon or a Reagan is a great victory, then lapse into complacency, only to awaken a few years later to find that the left has been on the march the whole time.

Other things being equal, the side that fights to win will defeat the side that fights for a draw. Fortune favors the bold, those who launch offenses, not those who merely play defense.

Conservatives also make a virtual cult out of being good sports, graceful losers, and ready compromisers.

Pavel Tulaev Interview

Russian Nationalist, Pan-Slavist, and Pan-European.

Here.

Some Futurist Writings

List from Counter-Currents.

Here.

Includes one of my essays - a book review on "Avante-Garde Fascism."

Kevin MacDonald's Good Sense

In response to absurd comments at the TOO site:

Kevin MacDonald

December 12, 2010 - 4:42 pm | Permalink

The term ‘White’ is useful because in fact the various White groups do have biological common ancestors. See, e.g., Salter’s On Genetic Interests. We are related and constitute a race or ethnic group. In America, where the various White groups are mixed, it makes no political sense to emphasize the various pure White ethnicities because there aren’t many pure types (e.g., I am German and Scottish) and because we need a larger category that has political potential. The designation of ‘White’ has a long history in American culture, although I am not averse to calling ourselves European-Americans. White Americans have common interests with various European indigenous ethnic groups and all of us have interests in defending Europe from invasion by Muslims and other non-Whites. Hence, it seems to me that a larger category like White that applies to all of us is useful. This is not to deny the reality and usefulness of particular White ethnic groups in the European context. For example, in Sweden, it makes sense to appeal to the traditional people and culture of Sweden.

"Secret Agents"

Interesting Greg Johnson essay.

Here.

Explicit White Nationalism

Excellent Johnson article.

Here.

Also note the comments thread, where Greg Johnson effectively answers the divisive "arguments" of "Revolt." "Revolt's" "arguments" would hold more water if ethnoracial nationalism was successful in the more ethnically homogeneous nations of Europe and was only singularly unsuccessful in America. This is not the case. Granted, openly nationalist parties are more extant in Europe, even with the speech restrictions. But they are no where close to achieving any preservationist objectives (never mind just coming to power in any one election) and, in many cases, they openly eschew biological arguments in favor of assimilationist cultural ones. A European "nationalism" that is indistinguishable from the Neocon/Paleocon "conservative" boundary in America is not exactly a selling advertisement for the "arguments" of "Revolt."

Further, in a practical sense, how to all the American "Euro-Mutts" practice ethnic nationalism? Their right arm supports one group and their left arm supports another?

Implicit Whiteness and the Republicans

Greg Johnson on KMacD, implicit whiteness, and the GOP's scam of whites' interests.

Here.

The Death of Francis Parker Yockey

O'Meara essay.

Here.

Greg Johnson on White Unity, Immigration, and America

See here.

Actually, I agree with much of what Johnson says here, especially in that reproduced below, with emphasis added - including that we should emphasize Northern European immigration to strengthen the ethnic core of this nation and to further encourage the assimilation of the Eastern and Southern European "white ethnics." And that from the original Old Stock perspective, all later European immigration was a "mitigated" disaster.

A favorite argument of immigration advocates is to seek out Italian, Polish, Irish, or other “ethnic” (i.e., non-Anglo-Saxon) Americans, and say: “They wanted to keep you out too, you know, so how can you side with people who want to keep out Somalis and Haitians and Mexicans?” Of course, in doing so, immigration advocates tip their hand. They know diversity is a source of weakness among whites. It undermines our solidarity, and our enemies seek to exploit that.

To my ears, there is nothing more grating today than a white American talking about his “Anglo-Saxon” identity. It is grating for two reasons. First, most of them are Euro-mutts anyway. Second, pure Anglo-Saxons like me are the people who gave this country away in the first place, and if “we” are going to take it back, we are not going to do it alone. Perhaps, then, we should begin by shutting up, setting aside our old prejudices against fellow whites, and learning to work with the Irish and Italians and Poles who as a rule are far less hamstrung by “white” guilt, emotional repression, and reluctance to take our own side in a fight.

That said, I can still grant that the Anglo-Saxons of the past had good arguments for wanting to exclude other white ethnic groups. They knew that ethnic diversity was a source of social conflict and weakness, even when the diversity was among fellow whites. The same arguments are even more cogent today when applied to non-white immigration, since non-whites cannot be assimilated without the destruction of the white race and white civilization.

When it was founded, the United States was primarily an Anglo-Saxon society. If we really take seriously the idea that diversity weakens a society and homogeneity strengthens it, then we must conclude that the US should have striven to become even more homogeneously Anglo-Saxon. And that implies that if the US permitted immigration at all, it should have been only from Great Britain. That means no Irish, Germans, Poles, Swedes, Norwegians, Italians, Greeks, etc. need apply.

But immigrants from Europe are not like non-whites. The peoples of Europe have common racial and cultural roots that make it possible for Irishmen, Germans, Italians, and Frenchmen to all become Americans. Europeans can be assimilated. But non-whites can never become Americans, except in a purely legal sense. This means that immigration from the whole of Europe was not an unmitigated disaster for the United States.

But we must be objective enough to admit that it was a (mitigated) disaster nonetheless. Just because non-Anglo-Saxon immigrants were assimilable, that does not mean that they had the same interests as the Americans who were already here. Their arrival depressed wages, just as non-white immigration does today. Immigration aided the rise of an establishment of rootless, raceless men, just as non-white immigration does today. Immigration led to an increase in crime and violence, just as non-white immigration does today. Immigration diluted the political power of Anglo-Saxons, just as non-white immigration dilutes white political power today.

I do not deny that many immigrants who would have been excluded by this argument made enormous contributions to this country. But, by the same token, there is no way to calculate the Anglo-Saxon geniuses who may have been lost because of the social dislocations caused by immigration. Furthermore, it is possible to point out real contributions by Jews and other undesirables, but does that constitute an argument for letting them in? If the contributions of a Jonas Salk do not trump considerations of homogeneity, then why should the contributions of a Nikola Tesla?

How would the vastness of America have been settled without immigration? Where there’s a will, there’s a way. Without immigration to fill sweatshops and coolie gangs with the half-starved refuse of Europe and Asia, the capitalist class would have lost a significant advantage over the working class. Wages would have been higher and work weeks would have been shorter. And since the only way to add new workers would have been reproduction, the system would have encouraged large families and made sure the children were properly educated. Big business would have developed more slowly, if at all — which is fine.

America’s large and prosperous working class would have developed much sooner, along with a large and prosperous middle class of farmers and shopkeepers. Both groups would have had the resources and the leisure to protect their rights and liberties from the plutocrats and do-gooders and war-mongers. America would have been a freer, less divided, more harmonious, and happier society.

Well, it was not to be.

Now white America is a mixture of people from all over Europe, slowly being submerged in a rising tide of mud.

If we are going to survive as a race, we have to unite as one. In this context, I understand why my fellow White Nationalists are hesitant to revisit old debates about immigration. How does it help the cause of white unity in today’s America to look at failed arguments to exclude the Irish, the Slavs, and the Italians?

The Americans of the past wanted to hold onto their Anglo-Saxon identity, and they failed. With each new generation, there is more and more mixing between the descendents of different European immigrant groups. What is emerging is a generic white American, with a sense of his interests merely as a white. The linguistic and cultural divisions of the Old World are fast disappearing, and with them the ability of our enemies to exploit them.

This need not be seen as a loss. After all, there is still a France. There is still a Poland. There is still a Germany. And Americans will probably still celebrate Saint Patrick’s Day and Oktoberfest. It will simply be the same crowd at both events.

But how is this a gain? America may be the place where we recreate the original unity of the white race before it was divided and pitted against itself. In order to preserve and advance this emerging (or re-emerging) white unity, we need to stop and then reverse the influx of non-whites into the United States.

Aside from barring non-whites, what sort of immigration policies would a White Nationalist America have? I would of course open our borders to persecuted whites in Rhodesia and South Africa. But does that apply across the board? Do we open our borders to persecuted Muslim Kurds and Afghans too? Some of them are not just white, but Nordic.

Here Johnson becomes absurd, and confuses phenotype with race. First, very few "Kurds and Afghans" are phenotypically "white" in the European sense, let alone "Nordic!" Second, even "Nordic" Asiatics are genetically distant from Europeans - a "Nordic" Afghan is going to be more genetically distant from a Swede than a swarthy Greek. Why not just stick to Europeans?

And how white is white? Most of the peoples of the Middle East, Central Asia, and South Asia have to be categorized as Caucasians. Even pure-blooded Dravidians of South India, unmixed either with the Aryans or with the Australoid aborigines, are Caucasian, even though their complexions are sometimes blacker than Blacks’. There is, in short, quite a lot of diversity within the Caucasian race.

But we should remember that in politics diversity brings weakness and homogeneity brings strength. Therefore, we should be quite hesitant to accept any immigrant simply because he or she is Caucasian in the broad sense.

Since the population and culture of white America is still primarily Northern European, I would like to see immigration policies that preserve and strengthen that element. If we value greater homogeneity, the quickest way there is to promote immigration from Northern Europe.

Individualism-Collectivism on a Global Scale

Differences.

Here.

Pathologizing Dissent

Dishonest leftists.

Here.

Judging, Accuracy, and Costs of Democracy

Inefficiencies.

Here.

MacDonald Interviews

Online.

Here.

What Will Work, II

Conclusion.

Here.

What Will Work, I

Important TOO essay.

Here.

This is part one.

Whites, Class, National Socialism and Leftist Pathology

Useful KMacD analysis.

Here.

Pathology of Moral Universalism

MacDonald reviews an interesting article.

Here.

White Anxiety and Higher Education

Mainstream article discusses discrimination against "lower-class" whites in higher education.

Here.

Is EGI Degenerate?

Criticism refuted.

Here.

Note the part that asserts that EGI means that we must preserve gene frequencies exactly as they are. I guess all proponents of EGI are degenerate?

No.

I seem to recall Salter writing that genes can be replaced if that increases fitness of the overall distinctive genome and also writing that competition and selection must continue.

On pages 88-89 of On Genetic Interests Salter discuss how genetic interests can be mostly retained and even enhanced while substituting alleles. Salter makes the point with regard to additive and epistatic genetic effects, and emphasizes the advantages of replacement in certain defined circumstances. That EGI is rigidly preservationist is a lie..

The critical point is that replacement of maladaptive genes actually increases genetic interests. While, it is not in a gene's interest to be discarded, our human genetic interests lie with the with the entire (distinctive) genome, not with any particular gene. Persisting with a malfunctioning allele or gene hardly makes sense from a Darwinian perspective; conversely, it does reduce our genetic interests to substitute a different alien gene for a native one that is working just as well or even better. That’s the major point about EGI.

This allows for evolution to continue. It even allows for outcrossing if the loss of kinship between generations is compensated for by greater long term fitness, especially avoidance of extinction.

EGI says that we must avoid race replacement and avoid large, unnecessary, and maladaptive changes in genetic information. It doesn't say gene frequencies shouldn't change - they will change as a matter of course, even if for no other reason than genetic drift and recombination and independent assortment during sexual reproduction.

These types of comments against EGI are biologically ignorant and made by those who either didn't read Salter’s book or didn't read it very carefully.

On a positive note, I agree with Greg Johnson that culture is important, that the white nationalist “movement” as it exists today is essentially degenerate, and that much of the problem does derive from nitpickers who disdain the offered hand of friendship and cooperation from fellow Westerners.

Race and Culture

A fine O'Meara piece.

Here.

Jewish EGI?

Jewish EGI?

TOO blog post here.

Original essay posted at Western Destiny below:

A thorough analysis of the Atzmon et al. data, particularly that most relevant to genetic interests (i.e., gene sharing, the IBD findings), clearly shows that Jews, while genetically close to Europeans, form their own cluster in between Europeans and Middle Easterners, and are more similar to each other than they are to Europeans. However, a controversy has erupted as to what these findings may mean with respect to the genetic interests of Jews. The thoughtless comments found elsewhere, with respect to this topic, have been a focus of discussion here. How can this issue be more properly addressed? Below I start such a discussion. Note that this is obviously not meant to be any comprehensive analysis, it is merely one example of how such a discussion could begin, provided we assume that those discussing this issue actually want to achieve a reasonable analysis, rather than using “Jewish EGI” in a purely instrumental fashion for political propaganda purposes.

Note as well that this analysis can in no way be considered “anti-Semitic,” as the entire point of this exercise is to determine what an optimal strategy would be for Jewish survival as a unique people – in other words, “is it good for the Jews?”

RESOLVED: By promoting mass non-white immigration into the USA and other Western nations, Jews are damaging their own ethnic genetic interests and are hence behaving maladaptively.

Argument: Mass migration of non-whites brings in peoples, who are, for the most part, genetically distant from Jews, directly displacing Jews and harming their EGI. Since Jews are relatively genetically close to Europeans, and since there are large numbers of European-descended people in the USA, race replacement immigration into America also harms Jewish EGI, by replacing those more similar to Jews (i.e., Euro-Americans) with those genetically more distant to Jews (i.e., non-Whites).

Counter-Argument: Jews are a distinct people from Europeans, and are not really assimilating into Euro-America (see below), and therefore have to be considered separately from Euro-Americans with respect to their direct EGI. Jews make up a very small percentage of America’s population - they are far from directly influencing American carrying capacity with their own numbers. Hence, changes in the demographic composition of the greater American population will not result in displacement of Jews – they’ll always be a small proportion of the population one way or another. Therefore, the only real possible harm to Jewish EGI comes from the indirect effect of immigration on Euro-Americans, who are genetically closer to Jews than are most non-Whites.

However, Atzmon’s findings show that Jewish groups cluster together and are characterized by a very high degree of gene sharing. This means Jewish populations have a very marked degree of genetic interests in other Jewish populations, in contrast to their genetic interests in Europeans. Further, even though there are many more Europeans worldwide than there are Jews, the much weaker Jewish gene sharing with Europeans means that Jewish genetic interests may be overwhelmingly concentrated in the gene-sharing-dense relations that Jews group have with their small number of co-ethnics. In this sense, if an action can boost the probability of Jewish group survival, then this action can be adaptive even if it harms the interests of the more numerous Europeans, with whom Jewish populations have a more diluted and attenuated genetic relationship.

In On Genetic Interests, Salter defines four basic ethnic strategies (or lack of a strategy): first, majorities defending their ethnic interests in an ethnic state; second, majorities living in multiculturalism and not defending group interests; third, minorities that assimilate into the majority; and fourth, endogamous strategizing minorities that do not assimilate and preserve themselves as a separate unique ethny. Given that Jews perceive themselves, and are, a unique people, and have traditionally avoided assimilation, it seems that they do/should follow the last strategy, which typically is observed among Diaspora peoples (e.g., Jews, Gypsies, Parsis, etc. – people living in host nations).

If so, the presence of a biologically and culturally homogenous host nation can be perceived as a threat to such an unassimilating minority, if for no other reasons than that (1) there will always be assimilatory pressures in a majority-centered state, (2) in a majority ethnic state the interests of the majority will be given precedence over that of minorities, and (3) naturally, whenever two distinct groups share the same territory without assimilation, overall differences of interests will always crop up.

Therefore, it would be in the interests of an unassimilating Diaspora-type minority to oppose majority ethnocentrism and the formation of an ethnic state and, instead, favor a minority rights-focused multicultural model in which mobilized minorities are favored over atomized majority members who do not defend specific group interests Further, diluting the biological and cultural preeminence of the majority through mass alien immigration can also be seen as a useful strategy for a Diaspora minority.

Whatever loss of genetic interests that may occur because the minority is relatively genetically close to the dispossessed majority, will be counter-balanced by gains that accrue to that minority by following the anti-majority strategy. Again, these gains, causing a net positive advancement of genetic interests, are predicated on the facts that (1) the minority is genetically integrated and different from the majority, and (2) the minority is not fully assimilating. After all, if the genetic distinctions are negligible, minority losses from majority displacement will be large; if assimilation is occurring, then the minority will share the fate of the majority they are melding into, a fate that is obviously maladaptive.

Argument: First, Jews are assimilating, as intermarriage rates show; therefore, shouldn’t they have interests that coincide with gentile white Americans? A future non-White America may be less accommodating to Jewish interests than are White Americans. Racial conflict may result in serious anti-Semitism; growing numbers of non-Whites would feel no attachments to Jews or to Israel, and may well just consider Jews to be another variety of hated White.

Counter-Argument: Intermarriage rates are likely over-estimated, and in any case, are 1.5-2 fold lower than they should be, given population proportions, if genuine assimilation was occurring. Further, there are solid anti-assimilation elements in the Jewish population, and the more ethnocentric elements have the highest birthrates. There's no evidence that the separate Diaspora strategy is being fully abandoned. More importantly, this confuses prescriptive and descriptive arguments. If Jews are a distinct people and perceive themselves as such, and if they are not already predominantly assimilated (albeit these are descriptive arguments they may be controversial), then, prescriptively, they should eschew intermarriage and follow a separatist model.

In addition, Jews have shown the ability to make alliances with non-Whites against Whites (e.g., the Civil Rights movement) and are now attempting to make alliances with Hispanics within the USA and with East and South Asians globally. By portraying themselves as a distinct, persecuted minority in solidarity with the non-West, Jews may survive and thrive in a post-Western, post-White America and world. They are already strategizing to ditch the West once the White race collapses.

Argument: But, the Jewish alliance with Negroes has essentially fallen apart, and Negroes are among the most anti-Semitic of Americans. As long as Israel exists, Muslims are expected to be hostile to Jews. Jews may broker some sort of quid pro quo arrangement with Hispanics (i.e., Jewish support for immigration and amnesty in exchange for Hispanic support for Israel), but for how long will America’s growing Hispanic population tolerate Jewish oversight of their politics? Won’t they rebel, just like the Negroes? And why should Asians tolerate Jewish competitors, except as part of a temporary alliance of convenience against White gentles?

Despite all the “persecutions” of history, the only place Jews have prospered in has been the West. Therefore, I argue that long term preservation of Jewish EGI requires Jews to drop their historical grudges against the West and to move away from fears of “white goy persecutors” and instead attempt to make a deal with Europeans that would safeguard the existence of both peoples.

Counter-Argument: But, why would the Europeans trust Jews (and vice versa) after all that has happened, and with a growing knowledge of the Jewish role in Civil Rights, mass migration and multiculturalism?

[Debate Continues…]

Obviously, reasonable arguments can be made to support either contention: that Jews are acting adaptively or acting maladaptively in pursuit of their EGI in the context of their “progressive activism.”

Hopefully, the issue will be taken seriously. All peoples have preservationist rights; even groups that have heretofore wished to deny preservationism to others may become convinced of the legitimacy of Salter's "universal nationalism" if they realize their own long term group survival depends upon it. Therefore, it seems reasonable that we keep an open mind in the event that Jews rationally conclude that their optimal interests are best served by preserving the European peoples.

Yockey's Alleged "Plagiarism"

Irrelevant.

I have read some critics of Yockey and Imperium term Yockey a plagiarist since much of Imperium has been lifted from other authors, Spengler being just the most obvious.

Now, I think this is all irrelevant. First, Imperium (and all of Yockey's writings) is a polemic work, a call for action, not a scholarly treatise that must come with academic-style footnotes and references.

Second, when did Yockey ever deny that he's borrowed from other people; it's obvious for example the debt he has for Spengler's work; indeed, Yockey praises Spengler as "The Philosopher" (of History).

And, in the Foreword to Imperium, Yockey openly writes:

There is nothing original in the content of this book, the book itself only is original.

That's hardly the statement of a "plagiarist" attempting to take credit for the work of others.

Third, even if Yockey was a plagiarist, does that invalidate his message? Does it invalidate the synthesis of others' ideas that he puts forth? Hardly.

These criticisms of Yockey are completely irrelevant to his work.

Another Kurtagic Essay on Strategy

I may not agree with all (free speech for example), but it is thought-provoking.

Here.

A good critique of Kurtagic's essay is here.

Whether you or I agree or disagree with the points made in the two posts, it is important that these things are discussed, and "movement" strategy and tactics are evaluated and reevaluated.

Salter in Quadrant Online

Against open borders insanity.

Here.

Dedicated Activism

Imitating the Left.

Here.

The Cancer of Bureaucracy

Thoughtful article.

Here.

Relevance to racialism? Well, this form of parasitic bureaucracy contributes to racial decline both directly and indirectly.

Directly, in that leftists use these forms of parasitic bureaucracies to seize control of professional/political/social/economic institutions, and use such structures to impose race replacement action on our populations, behind a screen of impersonal, immovable, and unapproachable "bureaucracy."

Indirectly, in that the mindset here: fuzzy group decisions, unaccountability, female-like "teamplayerness" and all the rest is a stark contrast to individual initiative, firm decision making by qualified personnel, and characteristics of heroic (male) leadership.

This is all an example of the emasculation of the West and the irrationality of a hyper-rationality that confuses means with ends.

Another Defense of Free Speech

From Occidental Dissent.

Here.

MacDonald on the Costs of White Advocacy

We need to create an infrastructure that can allow full-time activists to have productive and "normal" lives.

Here.

Against Free Riding

More support for the idea that punishment against free-riding is a viable strategy; Jobling's criticisms of ethnic nepotism undermined yet again.

Here.

Kurtagic Again, 5/1/10

Another fine Kurtagic essay on aesthetic aspects of the "movement."

Here.

MacDonald: White Empathy and Ethnocentrism

Excellent article.

Here.

MacDonald vs. Auster

MacDonald wins.

Excellent rebuttal to Auster's mendacity is here.

Movement Image and Social Construction vs. Social Pricing

Excellent Kurtagic essay.

Here.

Modern Conservatives

Udolpho analyzes modern "conservatives" - the picture is similar to that of Nietzsche's "last man."

Here.

Centrism and the Media

Udolpho commentator gets it right.

Here.

Of course, the "conservative" and "right-wing" view on many "news programs" is represented by a (usually neoconservative) centrist, continuously shifting public policy debate to the left - as "liberals" are usually represented by true leftists.

Thus, the "left" is represented by the anti-white left, and the "right" is represented by the anti-white center.

The Overman High Culture: Future of the West

New TOQ essay.

The Western Big Tent

Recognition of the Unity of the West.

Here.

For my part as a Western Man, my friends are those who are friendly to the Western Tradition, and my enemies are those who are enemies of that tradition. I find much of value in Eastern and other traditions. But as Kipling wrote: “East is East, and West is West.” We can coexist and share ideas and recognize threads common to the human experience. That said, everything is not the same; everything is not everything. My people were never samurai. We have our own history — a history that includes Roman legions and Vikings, knights and Crusaders, conquistadors and cowboys. The artistic, philosophical and technological achievements of the West are truly awe-inspiring when compared to any standard. We can claim one of the richest traditions on the planet.

Fascist Socialism

Economic truths.

Here.

Ted Sallis: EGI and Separatism

TOQ Partition Essay

Here.

Taylor on the 2010 Amren Conference

Protect free speech.

Here.

The leftists' "yell fire in a crowded movie theater" analogy does not hold water. Unless the theater really is on fire (and, come to think of it, we do have a racial crisis, so in a sense racial activism is analogous to alerting people to a theater actually on fire, a situation in which it would be morally reprehensible to say nothing), then such a yell of "fire!" is nothing more than verbal vandalism, with no reasonable social or political content or justification.

On the other hand, for example, a principled opposition to genocidal replacement migration and a defense of white racial interests are activities that, by definition, are of significant social and political content. Advocating (non-violent) racial nationalist memes is not an "incitement towards violence" and it is not "yelling fire in a (perfectly safe) crowded movie theater" - it is politically relevant speech no different from having a position on taxes or the death penalty - except for the fact that the sociopolitical implications of racial issues are the most important that one may consider.

What's more important than the future demographic makeup of a nation? Of the world? How can one say that these fundamental issues cannot e discussed? How is that a democracy when the most important issues facing a people are equated to yelling "fire!" and suppressed or even outlawed?

Even the most dim opponent of white racial interests must understand that their reasoning - labeling any speech that they disagree with as "dangerous" "hate speech" equivalent to yelling "fire!" - can be used against them, by anyone with power that disagrees with their views.

Are they do confident that their current high status as the "running dogs" of establishment globalist economies will last forever?

In Support of White Nationalism

Better than conservatism.

Here.

TOQ on AR Meeting

"Tolerance" in action.

Here.

Sallis on the A3P

TOO blog entry.

Here.

Norman Lowell Interview, 2009

Lowell.

Here.

I am a strong supporter of Lowell; although I may disagree with him on some issues, he is a powerful spokesman for the Pan-European viewpoint, and his overall vision is inspiring.

One detail: he needs to avoid using the term "Mediterraneans" as that group does not exist. "Latins" may be better.

Sallis vs. Malik

TOQ.

Here.