Tomorrow, #1 Florida plays #2 Alabama in the SEC Championship game. It is basically an early national championship. The winner of this game is, most likely, the best team in college football. The match is incredibly exciting, as both teams are unbeaten, and both have played incredibly good football to get where they are.
#3 Texas has done what it takes to play the winner of this game for the National Championship, but first it will have to win its own championship against Nebraska. This will also be determined tomorrow. Texas is also undefeated and it would be fun for my home state to take home the national championship trophy once again. ((Last time it was under Vince Young in what was probably the greatest game in football history, against Matt Leinart and USC. Trust me, watch it, you'll see my praise isn't exaggerating.))
Meanwhile, today the World Cup drew the various groups and matchups that will be played in South Africa this summer. USA got a wonderful draw, in Group C with Slovenia, Algeria, and England. The first two are no big deal, and even England is only ranked 9th compared to our 14th, in the FIFA rankings. The USA could go deep into the world cup this time, but of course they aren't the only story. Holland is at the top of its game and also in a group it should handle easily. If you have never watched Holland play, watch it this summer. They are like visual music. There is only one World Cup every 4 years. Only a few countries have ever won a world cup. It is the most popular event in the world, and the highest award given in Sportdom.
With bowl season in football, and the playoffs around the corner, we can't forget the Vancouver Winter Olympics. In just a couple months, the world will gather yet again under the Olympic Torch ((after an incredible Beijing Olympics that went flawlessly and left everyone feeling good, the USA and the Chinese hosts.)), and fight over skiing, skating, hockey, and the all important curling.
2010 is a good year for sports. Heck, it may be the best year for sports in a long time. But my point is this -- sports are wonderful. Athletes are wonderful. Their performances are wonderful.
Sports does three things that nothing else can -- it brings the world together in peaceful competition -- it unites each individual nation (or state, or city) in patriotic support of their team -- and it lets people glimpse the highest heights of mankind's greatness. The beauty of an athlete performing well in his game is the same as the beauty of any dancer, singer, or any other skilled craftsmen. To denigrate athletes as somehow being inferior to other art forms is ridiculous. What they do is incredible, it is popular because people understand that it is incredible, and there is no reason to resent what few accomplishments other races have when we already have plenty ourselves. Not that blacks are necessarily better than whites in football, soccer, or the Olympics -- in many cases it's just the opposite. But to resent anyone who likes sports, and to mock anyone who is good at sports, simply because they are not white -- is churlish. It's stingy. And most of all, it's intellectually dishonest. We can give credit where credit is due. We can admire the beauty of a skilled player playing well. And we can do all of this while still wanting a country of our own.
One of the most inspiring scenes on earth is the Olympic March of Nations, where all the athletes walk around the stadium with their flags waving, even poor countries, even countries at war, even countries in total diplomatic isolation, and all of them being applauded with friendly encouragement by the crowd. People who have little to cheer for in their normal lives, people who don't even know where their next meal is coming from, can look up and take pride in their nation marching alongside all the others, a legitimate contender for medals that has put forward their very best to show the whole world what their people are made of. It's wonderful that like the ancient Greeks, we can put all of our differences aside and just celebrate humanity's skill and strength together as one for a month of games. Even while Georgia and Russia were at war with each other, their athletes faced each other with politeness, goodwill, and fair play, across the whole range of Olympic events. Who can't be inspired by their example?
For the next year, we are going to watch just what mankind is capable of, when they take their very finest physical specimens, and dedicate their entire lives into training their bodies and minds into doing something well. We can't possibly compete on their level, nor would we want to -- not everyone is born for athletics, and we can't all afford to spend every day concentrating on them. But what we can do, is marvel that we belong to the same species as these people, and that the human body and brain really can pull off the stunts we see in front of us. Walking through the Louvre is one way to become spellbound at the works of man, but another is to simply sit down in front of the television and watch these events. The miraculous performances some of these people put on, is every bit as beautiful. I still remember Carly Patterson on the Balance Beam, and Nastia Liuken on the floormat, the two all around gold medalists, both Americans, of the last two Olympics. Not only am I incredibly proud that these two girls are Americans, and that they are white, but simply that they are human beings. That within the human race there exists liars, deceivers, criminals, fools, assholes, and hypocrites -- but also these two gymnasts who wipe the entire slate clean. These people redeem the whole human race. They show what we can be -- and what more and more of us will be -- in the future. If any one person can do it, it is physically possible to replicate. This is why investigating the limits of human ability is a story of hope and joy for us all. Once a limit is broken -- a tiny bit faster 100 meter dash, a tiny bit higher high jump, a tiny bit more intricate synchronized dive -- we can all smile and think, "Someday our children will be all this and more."
But also, we don't need to perform at the same level as our best. We just need to support them, so that they can be their best. God knows the Olympics couldn't happen without billions of dollars of sponsors, fans, viewers, equipment providers, coaches, and so on. The same is true of our inventors, scientists, artists, and so on. It's a lot harder to write a twilight saga, or a harry potter series, if the authors had had to invent the very concept of magic, witches, vampires, werewolves, and so on. The fact is we all participated in the writing of these stories, because we all shared a basic cultural heritage with the writers, who could easily tap into our shared folk stories. You could say everything written for the last century has just been Tolkein, Tolkein, Tolkein. But then you must recall that even Tolkein got his ideas from more ancient myths and folk tales, dating all the way back to the dawntime of our heritage. Tolkein had the support he needed, and in turn he provided support for even more ambitious works -- like The Wheel of Time -- which were even better and more popular than the original. So it is that each generation's best is slightly better than the previous generation's best. And so it is that the best are because of the masses ((what is a scientist without the LHC to perform tests with?)), and the masses all benefit from our best (( What is the LHC without a scientist to interpret the results?)). If this isn't symbiosis, if this isn't a hive brain, if this isn't an interconnected whole, what is?
Instead of worrying about who precisely is winning the gold medal, it is more accurate to say that humanity has produced yet another gold medal winning performance. If aliens were watching us from space, they wouldn't be impressed by our soldiers, our businessmen, or our firefighters. They would relegate all of this to the same activities as ants and other animals who all ceaselessly and mindlessly engage in the same things. But they would be amazed to see Florida vs. Alabama being cheered on by hundreds of thousands of people on all sides. They would marvel at the figure skaters in Vancouver. They would be completely floored at the frenzy surrounding the World Cup. Why? Because it produces nothing but excellence. And that is a concept animals can't even understand. It is a product they have never made, and never will. And alongside the excellent people, are the excellent fans -- all likewise establishing their unique humanity, by the fact that they value excellence themselves. Aliens could come up with dozens of theories about how humans instinctively learned how to fashion skyscrapers and cars just like birds make nests or badgers make dams -- but there would be no way for them to explain why humans make ski jumps except one -- Man lives in two worlds, the natural and the transcendental -- and every weekend we take time off to sojourn from one to the other.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Collective Pride Exists (And so Does Collective Guilt)
It is absolutely moral and right to take pride in your race. Just as it is moral and right to take pride in your family. People are NOT atomized individuals, they are parts of a much vaster, and much more sublime, whole. If people could only take pride in themselves, then they would never get past Robinson Crusoe level survival. EVERYONE RELIES ON OTHERS TO ACHIEVE WHAT THEY DO.
Can a worker take pride in a product no one buys? Can a soldier take pride in protecting nothing? Can a doctor take pride in curing no one? The existence of other people is a precondition for 99% of the good we do in the world. Without them, what are we proud about? If you are a businessman you rely on your workers, your customers, and thousands of other businesses up and down the supply chain. To claim that you produce, single-handedly, a car, or an airplane, is absurd. You can only take pride in .0001% of the finished product.
However, if you consider yourself, (correctly) a part of a group, you can identify with said group, and take pride in its collective accomplishments. As a corporation, you can take pride in your product. As a parent, you can take pride in your child. As a white, you can take pride in your race.
What did you do to deserve the borrowed light of your group? Simple, you loved and supported said group. By loving it, you made it happier. By supporting it, you made it stronger. In both cases, you made it more able to achieve what it did.
Furthermore, collective pride is fair for another reason: We are all baskets of probability. For one Newton to be born, tens of millions of whites must bear children and raise them well in the hopes of producing a Newton. Why should Newton get the entire credit for the efforts of millions of families, across thousands of generations, trying over and over again to hit the jackpot of genes that is Newton? Obviously everyone who participated in the effort of Newton creation, deserves as much credit as Newton, who was simply the lucky winner. Newton exists only in the context of a white culture he didn't produce, and a white genome he didn't produce. Every single person who ever contributed to, or was part of, that cultural and genetic matrix, should take pride in Newton's existence, because they are as much a part of Newton's achievement as he is. He could not have done it without everyone else. If you realize that every generation carries with it a sacred trust to preserve and enrich our cultural and genetic heritage, passing it on to the next generation being our primary duty and greatest achievement possible in life, why can't you take pride in the fact that you have done so? That newton's genes and newton's discoveries live on in you, and in your kids, and in your grandkids, is the only reason Newton achieved anything. Without us, what was Newton worth? Just a flash in the pan, 50 years come and gone. But in us, he can be immortal. Isn't that worth something?
To be honest, I have no idea why you would even post on Amren, if you don't take pride in your race. If you have no pride in your race, if you feel no attachment to your race, if you think you, and your race, have nothing to do with each other -- then why would you possibly care what happens to it?
Can a worker take pride in a product no one buys? Can a soldier take pride in protecting nothing? Can a doctor take pride in curing no one? The existence of other people is a precondition for 99% of the good we do in the world. Without them, what are we proud about? If you are a businessman you rely on your workers, your customers, and thousands of other businesses up and down the supply chain. To claim that you produce, single-handedly, a car, or an airplane, is absurd. You can only take pride in .0001% of the finished product.
However, if you consider yourself, (correctly) a part of a group, you can identify with said group, and take pride in its collective accomplishments. As a corporation, you can take pride in your product. As a parent, you can take pride in your child. As a white, you can take pride in your race.
What did you do to deserve the borrowed light of your group? Simple, you loved and supported said group. By loving it, you made it happier. By supporting it, you made it stronger. In both cases, you made it more able to achieve what it did.
Furthermore, collective pride is fair for another reason: We are all baskets of probability. For one Newton to be born, tens of millions of whites must bear children and raise them well in the hopes of producing a Newton. Why should Newton get the entire credit for the efforts of millions of families, across thousands of generations, trying over and over again to hit the jackpot of genes that is Newton? Obviously everyone who participated in the effort of Newton creation, deserves as much credit as Newton, who was simply the lucky winner. Newton exists only in the context of a white culture he didn't produce, and a white genome he didn't produce. Every single person who ever contributed to, or was part of, that cultural and genetic matrix, should take pride in Newton's existence, because they are as much a part of Newton's achievement as he is. He could not have done it without everyone else. If you realize that every generation carries with it a sacred trust to preserve and enrich our cultural and genetic heritage, passing it on to the next generation being our primary duty and greatest achievement possible in life, why can't you take pride in the fact that you have done so? That newton's genes and newton's discoveries live on in you, and in your kids, and in your grandkids, is the only reason Newton achieved anything. Without us, what was Newton worth? Just a flash in the pan, 50 years come and gone. But in us, he can be immortal. Isn't that worth something?
To be honest, I have no idea why you would even post on Amren, if you don't take pride in your race. If you have no pride in your race, if you feel no attachment to your race, if you think you, and your race, have nothing to do with each other -- then why would you possibly care what happens to it?
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Fjordman Skating Dangerously Close to the Truth:
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2009/12/surviving-coming-crash.html#readfurther
Everyone should read the new fjordman article. I've actually been looking forward to this article ever since he released a 'preliminary draft' some weeks ago. Would fjordman actually come out and say anything? Would he make a stand? The funny thing is about Gates of Vienna, is it regularly purges commentators who come out and say something, or make a stand, with Fjordman regularly leading the charge for said people to be purged. If Fjordman were to start telling the truth, it would signal that similar comments are now welcome among the audience, a new dawn of openness and honesty at one of the most two-faced blogs on the web.
First, I congratulate Fjordman for being an excellent writer. I laughed out loud multiple times at the zingers he threw at the sheer ridiculousness of liberalism. But let's take his article apart piece by piece and see where it leaves us, substantively:
I don't understand why he thinks this collapse is occurring in the near term. From sheer momentum South Africa has maintained a semblance of civilization even after 14 years of ANC rule. This is a 90% black country, with an average IQ of 70. It is obviously possible for Atlas to shoulder the load of many more non-whites in America and Europe before our eventual demise too. A more reliable estimate would be 50 years. That said, I agree with everything he's saying. There will be a collapse, the people in power are too powerful to stop, the crash is a wonderful and welcome event, our only salvation from the grip of said tyrannous rulers, and there is no point trying to delay said crash by attempting various pawn-grabbing fixes. Worse is better. I would even agree with his choice of adjectives describing the new dawn: stronger and healthier. Not 'freer and fairer.' Strength and health is a fascist approach to statecraft, all talk of liberal democracy seems to end for Fjordman at the time of the collapse.
I'm sure white guilt plays some part in the mooching from the west. But the largest reason why we coddle minorities is out of compassion, and 'competitive altruism' as described in the Amren article of long ago. Women are too emotional to think rationally and will sacrifice their own well being for the sake of any poor sad looking child anywhere on earth, while men have realized that social status and power in the West is gained solely by being more altruistic and enlightened on racial matters than the next guy. Decades of media outlets showing high-status whites believing in racial equality and low-status whites denying it has shaped our psyche in a fundamental way, such that it is now impossible for men to say or even think what they really think. Their careers, their sexual prospects, their friendships, will all be lost if they balk at any limit to liberalism and non-discrimination. The rapid progress of gay rights around the world shows how unlimited the principle of non-discrimination has become, and how quickly people are marginalized who fail to jump out of the 'bigoted' boat before the tidal wave of social disapproval hits them. Once gay rights are done, you can be sure competitive altruism will begin to posture around some other group, like the insane, retards, AIDS carriers, prostitutes, or drug users. No one needs to feel guilty over past sins, to adopt the liberal line of thinking. All he has to see is which way the wind blows, who the media lionizes and demonizes, and who the girls are attracted to, before he makes the obvious conclusions.
I do not think these leaked emails on global warming in any way proves Anthropogenic Global Warming false. He is jumping the gun to call climate change a lie. The truth is there simply isn't enough data to say one way or the other, what impact CO2 has on the climate. Even though CO2 has been rising steadily all last century, the Earth underwent various cycles of warming, cooling, warming again, and now we are back to cooling this decade. Until we understand just what other factors are influencing the climate, and what influence on the climate they will have on our near future, global warming is an irresponsible act of scaremongering. There are experts on both sides of this question and the best thing a layman can do is maintain a healthy skepticism and wait for more data to come in. The Copenhagen summit is of course wretched, because even if we were causing Global Warming, and even if it did have horrible consequences, there's no proof that cutting carbon emissions is the best way to solve the problem. There are plenty of geo-engineering solutions that would be much cheaper. Furthermore, at the rate alternative energy efficiency gains are being made, we could easily let the free market simply switch over to wind and solar as a way to save money, rather than cost us trillions like the Copenhagen plan does. Letting the economy switch to a carbon free economy when it is good and ready is highly preferable to a) high taxes that achieve inconsequential cuts in carbon emissions or b) draconian policies that succeed in stopping all carbon emissions, at the price of putting us into a new dark age.
I agree with his larger point though, that the whole world is living a lie. The lies are so big, and so various, and so plentiful, that everyone is born a slave to fraud and lives out a completely unnatural, unsatisfying existence due to them. Misery has completely overtaken the West as a result of living lies, and our suicide and anti-depressant rates tell the tale. Our fertility rates tell the tale. Our drug and alcohol rates tell the tale. One of the absolute goods in life is Truth, we are all born desiring it over all other things, and we all "perish for lack of knowledge." Socrates revealed the dictum, "know thyself," as the ultimate wisdom, and Sun Tzu more practically pointed out, "Know yourself and know your enemy, and you will be the victor of a thousand battles." Jesus said it maybe even more clearly: "I am Truth." Truth is so divine, that even God equates himself to it.
Not only does living a lie deny us the joy in knowing the truth, and the prudence of living according to natural laws, but it worms away at our souls, both humiliating and degrading us into something less than human. People who do not love truth are inevitably wicked in every other way as well. Truth is a bulwark against the darkness in our souls, without it, self-justifying rationalizations permeate everything. For instance, cheating finds excuses for its actions, people become shameless and guiltless no matter how they hurt others, no one takes responsibility for their actions, and sin, even crime, is magically transmuted into 'lifestyle choices.' No one can take genuine pride in anything, since it's all just a lie, and people take ridiculous pride in worthless things, which inevitably feels shallow in their heart of hearts, and leads to a rejection of all values altogether as the only escape. Take modern art's trend of selling urinals for millions, or putting shit in a can and calling it art. By attaching honor to things that don't deserve it, and not honoring people who do deserve it, you aren't left with simply a redistribution of honor. You are left without any honor at all. People simply cannot swallow vomit and call it good forever.
Again, I don't see why Fjordman is so hostile to the EU, or so reverent for popular influence. After all, it is popular influence, democracy, and the individual states of Europe that got us here in the first place. The EU is just a tool, it can be used for good or evil. What you really need to ask yourself is why did every universal democracy lead to self-suicide within a century? Limited democracy has been shown to work for centuries in America and the UK, where there were some standards before just anyone could vote, and women were excluded on account of their complete lack of common sense when it comes to politics. Small, homogeneous democracies have also worked over long time periods, like Athens or Iceland. But universal, multi-cultural, democracy led almost immediately to full-scale collapse of every nation that adopted it. Don't blame the EU, a treaty made to ensure peace and free trade between its member states. Blame democracy, which has elected every 4 years pro-immigrant, pro-lie, pro-suicide laws.
If open rebellion occurs, it will not be over the economy. It will be over men's lack of access to wives and children. The real powder keg in the world today is the alpha male monopoly of all our women, and the resulting beta male sexual deficit that renders their lives empty and meaningless from start to finish. There could be no more painful fate, and there can be no greater fury, than the beta male who suffers it. When monogamy was replaced across the west by promiscuity and divorce and adultery meant the competition was never over and your family was never secure even once you did escape the dating world, it created a completely untenable position for the vast majority of men. Who better to rely upon for a violent revolution? And what better promise than a wife and children to motivate them?
Fjordman and I are remarkably agreed on this. I cannot tell whether our nation will follow the 'total collapse' model, which would allow a white rebirth in a new ethnostate, or the much worse 'gradual collapse' model, which would result in America becoming the new Brazil, with no escape and no hope for the white race. The debt and the dysgenic loss of human capital, however, does ensure one or the other.
The transformation of North America into Latin America is not lamentable because we would 'cease to be a major force in world politics.' It is lamentable because we would cease to be a major force in science, medicine, industry, trade, art, literature, math, peace, prosperity, and so on. We would cease to be anything. We would cease to have the unique traits that make whites so incredibly valuable to the universe, our love of truth, beauty, and love, and our remarkable capacity to produce it. This kind of amoral, geopolitical thinking, worrying about how many battleships and carriers America would float around the world if we became the next Brazil, indicates a deep disconnect between Fjordman's priorities, and the true tragedy that is engulfing our beautiful brilliant white children.
This is an incredibly powerful segment of his article. First off, he admits a worldwide conspiracy to genocide the West, and only the West, off the face of the map. He says it is intentional, not accidental, and that the goal is not kumbayah and rainbows, but our 'deconstruction' so that we will never be the majority again -- in any single country on earth. What is frustrating is Fjordman conveniently refuses to see the disproportionate role of jews in this 'global oligarchy,' this 'world conspiracy,' and this 'plutocratic monstrosity.' If I simply rephrased these paragraphs to, "Jews ever since 1965 have been attempting the genocide of white Americans by 'deconstructing the majority so that we will never be the majority again,'" Fjordman would have conniptions. And yet, that is the real story of what is going on. One can argue that jewish high IQ just makes them inevitably a disproportionate segment of the global oligarchy conspirators, and that they are fundamentally no different from their WASP friends, but it really makes no difference. Either way jews are guilty, and either way breaking the power of the jews is the only way for western man to escape our encirclement and destruction. It is much easier to fight an enemy when you know who they are -- talking about a shadowy conspiracy instead of straight out naming the jew does not follow the advice of Sun Tzu.
One must wonder what satisfaction these elites can feel as they watch the churches, statues, buildings, museums, and art of Europe go up in flames just like the buddhas of bamiyan. As they watch our beautiful women dragged by the hair into alleys by gangs of feral teenage muslim rapists. As they watch our soldiers jeered and spat upon as they arrive home. What twisted souls, what evil men, can these be to watch all that is happening with complacency, even joy? I don't understand their motives, and I really don't want to. As one serial killer once explained to a psychologist, "You don't want to know what is in my head. It is vomit. Just pure vomit." It is enough to identify the sheer evil of their goals, and to eliminate them, without worrying about why. I hate all these arguments about why jews do what they do -- is it due to past persecution, present anti-semitism, their wealth, their liberalism, their IQ, their religion, their genes? Who knows, who cares? They are evil and they must be smashed! That is the truth we should focus on, everything else is, as the serial killer said, trying to fathom "vomit, just pure vomit."
Interesting that I said earlier today 'high taxes is genocide,' and here Fjordman is making the same point. Good job, Fjordman.
This is the sort of two-faced writing I absolutely despise on GoV. Say what you want clearly, or don't say it. What cowardly wording. Basically, sign my petition: "If a million other men agree to take up arms to secure our country, I will too, and on that day, we will launch a surprise attack and do what it takes to force the USA to the negotiating table, where we will gain our freedom, our sovereignty and our 14 words." Gates of Vienna is saying people need to sign their petition. More power to them. Everyone should sign. Maybe someday they'll have the balls to spell out what their petition says too.
Since he's already told us we cannot prevent the collapse of the West, I assume he is talking about what the petition-signing militia should do after the collapse?
This isn't a very convincing argument. (Though very funny!) The anti-racists would argue that they certainly don't have any hard-wired instincts to favor their own. Whites are a uniquely flawed tribe, in that we have no instinct of self-preservation. The fact that we have let things get so far, the fact that South Africa, Brazil, and Rhodesia didn't fight their minority status, doesn't speak for any magical instinct that will save us. I think whites have far stronger instincts that may motivate them than tribalism. For instance, compassion, fairness, justice, curiosity, conformism, cowardice, sloth, lust, hunger. . . It's obvious that other instincts are currently trumping our tribalism, and I see no reason why they wouldn't continue to do so. The solution is not to rely on naked tribalism, but to associate many other instincts into the same basket as tribalism. I love white people, but only because they appeal to me on so many levels beyond just kinship. Posting pictures of the Eiffel tower and Alexis Bledel is a stronger appeal to our race-soul than talk about gene maps.
Why? Why can't it be? What makes Europeans uniquely valuable? What makes us superior to our slated replacements? What would we lose by ceasing to exist? As that one philosopher said, "The only question in philosophy is why we shouldn't commit suicide." Simply saying we cannot allow this to continue changes no one's minds. they are well aware of the demographics, but like Bill Clinton, they think it's great. They think it's just swell. They don't care at all. This is another instance of thinking an argument is self-evident, when it is only self-evident to our own small circle. To everyone else it's a 'phobia.' Fjordman needs to have more outreach, to explain why Europe should live, to explain why we are a Good people, a life form worth saving. So long as whites are best known for the holocaust and slavery, it makes little sense to preserve us.
Why should we? Why not just look after other people's interests? Why are our interests any more important than theirs? Only the argument of superior vs. inferior can make headway against these questions. Our natural instinct to live obviously isn't strong enough, or it would have surfaced already. Fjordman will have to invoke something stronger than that. As for his wish to preserve European heritage, WHICH European heritage? The one that has led us, uniquely, amongst all mankind, to self-annihilation? The one that produces the night life of Britain? The one that has more children out of wedlock than in? I have no interest in preserving our culture, Europe has had a thousand cultures and it will have a thousand more. Out of all our cultures, the current culture is the absolute worst. The most destructive, the most anti-human, the most evil to have ever been conceived. I'd rather see him posit a new culture worth preserving, something that fits like a tailored suit the European race-soul, but has nothing to do with the world we live in today. Culture is a tool, it is the creation of people to further their genome, their darwinian success at survival and reproduction. When the culture ceases to be an effective tool, it should be discarded like any other. Also note his use of hypotheticals: 'conceivable,' 'highly likely,' about an issue he knows full well is definitively proven beyond all doubt. I vehemently dislike qualifying your statements when you know full well they are the truth.
Well said. 2012 really was about as subtle as a hammer to the head about its message to whites: "Die, die, die, you worthless scum, so we can create the new rainbow utopia already." It may serve as the best white nationalist recruitment movie yet -- step aside Riefenstahl, we now have 2012. He fails to mention who runs Hollywood though -- in the case of 2012, it was a faggot. In other cases, it is jews. In all cases, they are "vomit, pure vomit," and must be named and opposed directly.
Thank you, Fjordman! Suddenly he speaks honestly, even starting with 'the truth is. . .' ie, nothing he said before was nearly as frank as what he will say now. The truth is we are superior. After all, what other quality should man be judged by than the quality of society he produces? If whites create superior societies to any other on Earth, what else is there to say? It means we are superior to all other races, end of story. Welcome to the ranks of white supremacism, the only honest argument for white survival. I share his praise of Northeast Asia. Honestly, I have more respect for Japan than any white nation left on Earth. But they suffer from the same multi-culturalism, the same low birth rates, the same finance capitalism, the same massive debt, the same women's lib, as we do. I don't really see Asia saving itself without us. They seem to simply copy whatever we do, for good or ill. If anything, Islam will inherit the earth, simply because it still retains a masculine strength that the rest of the world has lost. Also, bravo to fjordman for admitting without equivocation that intelligence is genetic.
Fjordman makes a good, and humorous, point. Our enemies are parasites. They don't actually think we are oppressing them, or they would be emigrating out of Europe and the USA, not immigrating into us. Everything they say is a lie and they know it. If we ever do develop space flight, they will insist as a matter of human rights that diversity will inhabit the stars alongside every single white who escapes. Obviously, our space program will have to be under the control of a white ethno-state at that time, so that we can simply reject their claims. For now I am willing to live alongside non-whites, because the alternative of Turner Diaries like genocide is too unattractive. Covington got it right, when he depicted the Northwest Republic sending colonies to Mars and saying, "in just a couple generations we'll be free of the muds forever." Indeed. We need to realize that the technology for space flight already exists and we have no reason to stay on this planet. Even if space colonization is expensive, it is of such infinite value, that issues like expense simply don't matter. The process should probably be '1) build a space elevator so we can cheaply get into orbit. Colonize the moon. 2) use water and materials from the moon to build and launch spaceships, because the low G makes it relatively easy. 3) use new, more powerful telescopes to find Earth like planets in habitable zones around their stars. 4) Escape to one, without telling anyone else where you are going. 5) as soon as the new colony has the means, send a new spaceship out to colonize something else, again not telling anyone where they are going, repeat ad infinitum, so that the trail eventually runs cold and our people really will be free, secure, and happy once and for all.
Yes, physical separation is the key. The only true physical separation, free of all threats of Mongol conquest, jewish lies, and black crime, is in space. First we carve out our own, separate, state. Then we use the state's resources to get into space. Then we separate once and for all. Separation is the key. Thus, space is the key. Though funny, it is a weak argument to say 'if whites are so evil, why don't you leave?' Obviously, because they can make more money if they stay. To a liberal, this isn't because whites are generous or productive, but due to various accidents of history, like, we stole native's land, or, we happened to be blessed with the industrial revolution fairy, or, we were given cows and grain by various nature deities unfairly long ago. Due to an accident of history, we control all the world's wealth, so non-whites are forced to live among us, even THOUGH we are evil. The solution isn't to just let us evil whites off the hook, it is to break us, and reform us, so that we are no longer evil, and non-whites are no longer poor. Why separate when we can just reeducate whites to do the right thing? Liberals will never agree to silly arguments like, "if we're so evil why don't you leave?" It's another truism WN uses that honestly doesn't fly.
Fjordman is basically repeating the same line as liberals, 'there's no such thing as race.' The fact is, all European nations have very similar genomes, any genetic map will show a massive intra-European homogeneity compared to the outside world. For someone so eager to include the alien Jews into Europe, he's excessively diligent in throwing other whites under the bus. Europeans are not just close blood relatives though. We also share many common traits that do unite us as one people: our looks, our Greco/Roman heritage, our shared history as united 'Christendom,' our relatively equal contributions to art and science, our shared participation in the Age of Discovery and Empire, and our shared history of fighting the saracens, the turks, the huns, the mongols, and all the other invaders of fortress Europe. I don't see why he cannot conceive of a 'white' identity. All I see in Europe is a white identity, the petty nationalities are just a distraction from how great every nation of Europe has been, is, and/or will be. Since Europe has agreed to join 27 different nations into the EU, Fjordman seems out of touch with most Europeans too, who clearly think there is a shared white identity among all the member states.
Obviously, since Europeans are being attacked as whites, not as French of Germans, all whites in Europe will come to realize that defending themselves as whites is the only possible response. White Nationalism is inevitable.
Here fjordman changes his statement of 'near future' collapse to 'many generations of decline.' A shame, but that's how I see it too. There is no deliverance just around the corner. We will have to persevere. Perseverance requires passion, ie, radicalism. As time goes by, we will see the wheat separating from the chaff, between those really intent on revolution, and those who lost heart somewhere along the way. (Mind you, I reserve the right to lose heart! It is the movement I am arguing will not. If one person drops the flag in a fight, someone else simply picks it up. There will always be someone fighting for the 14 words.)
I agree. There are still millions of healthy white people who are in this for the long haul. These people tend to be smart, passionate, and strong. They have all the best traits in our race, and they're on our side. One way or another, we will win.
All in all, Fjordman said what needed to be said. And he said it to an audience that is used to being fed gruel, and has balked at anything more serious than milk. Viva Fjordman. Write some more essays like that.
Everyone should read the new fjordman article. I've actually been looking forward to this article ever since he released a 'preliminary draft' some weeks ago. Would fjordman actually come out and say anything? Would he make a stand? The funny thing is about Gates of Vienna, is it regularly purges commentators who come out and say something, or make a stand, with Fjordman regularly leading the charge for said people to be purged. If Fjordman were to start telling the truth, it would signal that similar comments are now welcome among the audience, a new dawn of openness and honesty at one of the most two-faced blogs on the web.
First, I congratulate Fjordman for being an excellent writer. I laughed out loud multiple times at the zingers he threw at the sheer ridiculousness of liberalism. But let's take his article apart piece by piece and see where it leaves us, substantively:
As I have stated my essay The Coming Crash, I think we need to realize that the current ideological order is broken and beyond repair. There will probably some sort of pan-Western economic and social collapse in the not-too-distant future; I fear this is too late to avoid by now. The people who support the ruling paradigm are too powerful, and the paradigm itself contains so many flaws, that it cannot be fixed. It needs to crash. Instead of wasting time and energy on attempting to fix what cannot be fixed we need to prepare as best as we can for the coming crash and hopefully regroup to create a stronger and healthier culture afterward.
I don't understand why he thinks this collapse is occurring in the near term. From sheer momentum South Africa has maintained a semblance of civilization even after 14 years of ANC rule. This is a 90% black country, with an average IQ of 70. It is obviously possible for Atlas to shoulder the load of many more non-whites in America and Europe before our eventual demise too. A more reliable estimate would be 50 years. That said, I agree with everything he's saying. There will be a collapse, the people in power are too powerful to stop, the crash is a wonderful and welcome event, our only salvation from the grip of said tyrannous rulers, and there is no point trying to delay said crash by attempting various pawn-grabbing fixes. Worse is better. I would even agree with his choice of adjectives describing the new dawn: stronger and healthier. Not 'freer and fairer.' Strength and health is a fascist approach to statecraft, all talk of liberal democracy seems to end for Fjordman at the time of the collapse.
White GuiltWe are currently in the middle of the White Guilt Gold Rush. If you are a white Westerner you may not have fully realized this, but I can assure you that the rest of the world knows this. The trick is to keep the white man on the defensive and vaguely guilty at all times so that he can be squeezed for money. The climate quotas for carbon dioxide constitute a thinly disguised form of global Socialism through the UN-sponsored redistribution of wealth.
The recent scientific scandal about fake data regarding man-made global warming is just the tip of the iceberg. There are currently so many different layers of lies from “gender equality” via IQ differences to climate that it is virtually impossible to deal with all of them. Our entire society has essentially become one big lie. Our media, our schools and our political leaders repeat these lies every single day; those daring to question them are immediately ostracized.
I'm sure white guilt plays some part in the mooching from the west. But the largest reason why we coddle minorities is out of compassion, and 'competitive altruism' as described in the Amren article of long ago. Women are too emotional to think rationally and will sacrifice their own well being for the sake of any poor sad looking child anywhere on earth, while men have realized that social status and power in the West is gained solely by being more altruistic and enlightened on racial matters than the next guy. Decades of media outlets showing high-status whites believing in racial equality and low-status whites denying it has shaped our psyche in a fundamental way, such that it is now impossible for men to say or even think what they really think. Their careers, their sexual prospects, their friendships, will all be lost if they balk at any limit to liberalism and non-discrimination. The rapid progress of gay rights around the world shows how unlimited the principle of non-discrimination has become, and how quickly people are marginalized who fail to jump out of the 'bigoted' boat before the tidal wave of social disapproval hits them. Once gay rights are done, you can be sure competitive altruism will begin to posture around some other group, like the insane, retards, AIDS carriers, prostitutes, or drug users. No one needs to feel guilty over past sins, to adopt the liberal line of thinking. All he has to see is which way the wind blows, who the media lionizes and demonizes, and who the girls are attracted to, before he makes the obvious conclusions.
I do not think these leaked emails on global warming in any way proves Anthropogenic Global Warming false. He is jumping the gun to call climate change a lie. The truth is there simply isn't enough data to say one way or the other, what impact CO2 has on the climate. Even though CO2 has been rising steadily all last century, the Earth underwent various cycles of warming, cooling, warming again, and now we are back to cooling this decade. Until we understand just what other factors are influencing the climate, and what influence on the climate they will have on our near future, global warming is an irresponsible act of scaremongering. There are experts on both sides of this question and the best thing a layman can do is maintain a healthy skepticism and wait for more data to come in. The Copenhagen summit is of course wretched, because even if we were causing Global Warming, and even if it did have horrible consequences, there's no proof that cutting carbon emissions is the best way to solve the problem. There are plenty of geo-engineering solutions that would be much cheaper. Furthermore, at the rate alternative energy efficiency gains are being made, we could easily let the free market simply switch over to wind and solar as a way to save money, rather than cost us trillions like the Copenhagen plan does. Letting the economy switch to a carbon free economy when it is good and ready is highly preferable to a) high taxes that achieve inconsequential cuts in carbon emissions or b) draconian policies that succeed in stopping all carbon emissions, at the price of putting us into a new dark age.
I agree with his larger point though, that the whole world is living a lie. The lies are so big, and so various, and so plentiful, that everyone is born a slave to fraud and lives out a completely unnatural, unsatisfying existence due to them. Misery has completely overtaken the West as a result of living lies, and our suicide and anti-depressant rates tell the tale. Our fertility rates tell the tale. Our drug and alcohol rates tell the tale. One of the absolute goods in life is Truth, we are all born desiring it over all other things, and we all "perish for lack of knowledge." Socrates revealed the dictum, "know thyself," as the ultimate wisdom, and Sun Tzu more practically pointed out, "Know yourself and know your enemy, and you will be the victor of a thousand battles." Jesus said it maybe even more clearly: "I am Truth." Truth is so divine, that even God equates himself to it.
Not only does living a lie deny us the joy in knowing the truth, and the prudence of living according to natural laws, but it worms away at our souls, both humiliating and degrading us into something less than human. People who do not love truth are inevitably wicked in every other way as well. Truth is a bulwark against the darkness in our souls, without it, self-justifying rationalizations permeate everything. For instance, cheating finds excuses for its actions, people become shameless and guiltless no matter how they hurt others, no one takes responsibility for their actions, and sin, even crime, is magically transmuted into 'lifestyle choices.' No one can take genuine pride in anything, since it's all just a lie, and people take ridiculous pride in worthless things, which inevitably feels shallow in their heart of hearts, and leads to a rejection of all values altogether as the only escape. Take modern art's trend of selling urinals for millions, or putting shit in a can and calling it art. By attaching honor to things that don't deserve it, and not honoring people who do deserve it, you aren't left with simply a redistribution of honor. You are left without any honor at all. People simply cannot swallow vomit and call it good forever.
EU Skull Dragon
Since the EU has forced through the EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty and in essence abolished not just popular influence on EU policies but dissolved dozens of nation states, the self-appointed European elites have in effect banned any legal opposition to their rule. It is no longer possible to formally oppose their policies within the regular political channels. Given that the same elites appear hell-bent on running the entire continent into the ground, this leaves the options of rebellion or a structural collapse. I don’t think we will see open rebellion just yet, although this could change if the economy deteriorates further. This means that the most likely way out now is a structural collapse, and I fear that’s exactly what we are going to get.
Again, I don't see why Fjordman is so hostile to the EU, or so reverent for popular influence. After all, it is popular influence, democracy, and the individual states of Europe that got us here in the first place. The EU is just a tool, it can be used for good or evil. What you really need to ask yourself is why did every universal democracy lead to self-suicide within a century? Limited democracy has been shown to work for centuries in America and the UK, where there were some standards before just anyone could vote, and women were excluded on account of their complete lack of common sense when it comes to politics. Small, homogeneous democracies have also worked over long time periods, like Athens or Iceland. But universal, multi-cultural, democracy led almost immediately to full-scale collapse of every nation that adopted it. Don't blame the EU, a treaty made to ensure peace and free trade between its member states. Blame democracy, which has elected every 4 years pro-immigrant, pro-lie, pro-suicide laws.
If open rebellion occurs, it will not be over the economy. It will be over men's lack of access to wives and children. The real powder keg in the world today is the alpha male monopoly of all our women, and the resulting beta male sexual deficit that renders their lives empty and meaningless from start to finish. There could be no more painful fate, and there can be no greater fury, than the beta male who suffers it. When monogamy was replaced across the west by promiscuity and divorce and adultery meant the competition was never over and your family was never secure even once you did escape the dating world, it created a completely untenable position for the vast majority of men. Who better to rely upon for a violent revolution? And what better promise than a wife and children to motivate them?
- - - - - - - - -
Didn’t the Obama Administration with international aid “save” the world from a looming financial crisis? Of course they didn’t. The main problem for the USA is that the national debt keeps rising while the national IQ keeps falling. This hasn’t changed one bit in the past year. On the contrary, it is worse now than it was before, and it looks like it will be worse still next year and the year after that. As long as this situation remains unchanged, my bet is that the price of gold will continue to rise as people seek safe harbor from the collapsing US dollar.
Although other industrialized countries have heavy debt loads, too, the case of the United States is especially serious because of its sheer size. Had the USA been a private person he would probably have been declared bankrupt a long time ago. But the United States is not a private person; it is still the world’s largest economy and has the world’s largest armed forces. As writer Takuan Seiyo states in the latest installment of his brilliant From Meccania to Atlantis series: “The strongest, most admired country in the world until just a few years ago is now a cautionary tale of the wages of sin and stupidity told to Chinese schoolchildren.”
I don’t know what the future holds for the USA. It could split apart along ethic and ideological lines in a Second American Civil War, or it could become just another Latin American country along with Canada, in which case all of America will be Latin America.
I could add that I don’t hate Latin America. If we do end up with a series of nasty Multicultural civil wars in Western Europe it is possible that some areas of South America could be better places to live than Birmingham or Marseilles. However, Latin America never has been and probably never will be a major force in world politics. If the United States declines this will shift global power back to Eurasia, where it has been throughout most of human history. China will in all likelihood be a leading player and perhaps the dominant one.
Fjordman and I are remarkably agreed on this. I cannot tell whether our nation will follow the 'total collapse' model, which would allow a white rebirth in a new ethnostate, or the much worse 'gradual collapse' model, which would result in America becoming the new Brazil, with no escape and no hope for the white race. The debt and the dysgenic loss of human capital, however, does ensure one or the other.
The transformation of North America into Latin America is not lamentable because we would 'cease to be a major force in world politics.' It is lamentable because we would cease to be a major force in science, medicine, industry, trade, art, literature, math, peace, prosperity, and so on. We would cease to be anything. We would cease to have the unique traits that make whites so incredibly valuable to the universe, our love of truth, beauty, and love, and our remarkable capacity to produce it. This kind of amoral, geopolitical thinking, worrying about how many battleships and carriers America would float around the world if we became the next Brazil, indicates a deep disconnect between Fjordman's priorities, and the true tragedy that is engulfing our beautiful brilliant white children.
I am increasingly convinced that some of the developments we are witnessing are deliberate and that there is a long-term goal among certain powerful groups of breaking down Western nations to facilitate the creation of a global oligarchy. The lies we are being served are virtually identical in every single Western country. I’ve had discussions about this with my Chinese friend Ohmyrus who thinks this is caused by a structural flaw in our democratic system. I don’t necessarily disagree with that, but there are other forces at work here as well.
According to Herman Van Rompuy, the newly-installed President of the European Union, the climate conference in Copenhagen is a step towards the “global management” of our planet. As author Bat Ye’or has demonstrated and as I have confirmed in my own book Defeating Eurabia, the EU is actively collaborating with Islamic countries to rewrite the textbooks in European countries to make them more “Islam-friendly.”
Euro MedIt is well-documented that there are detailed long-term plans to expand the EU to include Muslim North Africa and the Middle East. This has been publicly confirmed by several high-ranking officials, including the British Foreign Minister in 2007. One newspaper leaked EU plans to import 50 million (!) more Africans to Europe in the coming decades, although urban communities across Western Europe are already in the process of breaking down due to mass immigration. A high-ranking official from Tony Blair’s Labour Government in Britain openly confirmed that they promoted mass immigration to import voters and alter the ethnic composition of the country. Similar policies are undoubtedly being promoted in countries from Germany to Australia.
In June 2009, only a few years after a group of Arabs killed thousands of Americans in a Jihadist attack, former US President Bill Clinton told an Arab American audience that soon the USA will no longer have a majority of people with a European heritage. He believed that “this is a very positive thing.” It wasn’t that first time that Mr. Clinton expressed such views.
Jens Orback, Democracy Minister in the then Social Democratic Swedish government, during a radio debate stated that “We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so towards us.” He took it for granted that the natives will become a minority in their own country and that they have no right to oppose this.
I could add that Sweden has no colonial history. Neither have Finland or Norway, which gained their independence as late as the twentieth century, yet both countries are still force-fed mass immigration of alien peoples. The “colonial guilt” argument used against the natives in Britain, France and other Western European countries is bogus. The real issue is that we white Westerners should not have any countries to call our own. Our countries should be giant Multicultural theme parks for everybody else, financed by brainwashed white taxpayers.
Arguably the leading academic Multiculturalist in my country, Professor Thomas Hylland Eriksen of the University in Oslo, who has received millions in government funding for his projects, in an interview stated frankly that “The most important blank spot exists now in deconstructing the majority so thoroughly that it can never be called the majority again.” This is the ultimate goal of Western Multiculturalists. Make no mistake about it. Needless to say, this agenda is only pushed in white majority Western countries. All other countries are allowed to retain their demographic profile; only the West is required to commit suicide.
This is an incredibly powerful segment of his article. First off, he admits a worldwide conspiracy to genocide the West, and only the West, off the face of the map. He says it is intentional, not accidental, and that the goal is not kumbayah and rainbows, but our 'deconstruction' so that we will never be the majority again -- in any single country on earth. What is frustrating is Fjordman conveniently refuses to see the disproportionate role of jews in this 'global oligarchy,' this 'world conspiracy,' and this 'plutocratic monstrosity.' If I simply rephrased these paragraphs to, "Jews ever since 1965 have been attempting the genocide of white Americans by 'deconstructing the majority so that we will never be the majority again,'" Fjordman would have conniptions. And yet, that is the real story of what is going on. One can argue that jewish high IQ just makes them inevitably a disproportionate segment of the global oligarchy conspirators, and that they are fundamentally no different from their WASP friends, but it really makes no difference. Either way jews are guilty, and either way breaking the power of the jews is the only way for western man to escape our encirclement and destruction. It is much easier to fight an enemy when you know who they are -- talking about a shadowy conspiracy instead of straight out naming the jew does not follow the advice of Sun Tzu.
One must wonder what satisfaction these elites can feel as they watch the churches, statues, buildings, museums, and art of Europe go up in flames just like the buddhas of bamiyan. As they watch our beautiful women dragged by the hair into alleys by gangs of feral teenage muslim rapists. As they watch our soldiers jeered and spat upon as they arrive home. What twisted souls, what evil men, can these be to watch all that is happening with complacency, even joy? I don't understand their motives, and I really don't want to. As one serial killer once explained to a psychologist, "You don't want to know what is in my head. It is vomit. Just pure vomit." It is enough to identify the sheer evil of their goals, and to eliminate them, without worrying about why. I hate all these arguments about why jews do what they do -- is it due to past persecution, present anti-semitism, their wealth, their liberalism, their IQ, their religion, their genes? Who knows, who cares? They are evil and they must be smashed! That is the truth we should focus on, everything else is, as the serial killer said, trying to fathom "vomit, just pure vomit."
Law and order is rapidly breaking down in major cities across Western Europe, and indeed the Western world, as immigrant gangs rule the streets. The law is only upheld against the “racist” white majority population to ensure that they keep on paying ridiculously high taxes to authorities that do nothing but lie to them, insult them and aid their national destruction.
Interesting that I said earlier today 'high taxes is genocide,' and here Fjordman is making the same point. Good job, Fjordman.
As the eminent English writer El Inglés says, “The nature and severity of the problems we face are now sufficiently clear for European patriots to start asking themselves what actions they and others like them will eventually be called upon to take when the failure of the state reaches a critical point, and what sort of battlefield they will be arrayed upon at that moment.”
This is the sort of two-faced writing I absolutely despise on GoV. Say what you want clearly, or don't say it. What cowardly wording. Basically, sign my petition: "If a million other men agree to take up arms to secure our country, I will too, and on that day, we will launch a surprise attack and do what it takes to force the USA to the negotiating table, where we will gain our freedom, our sovereignty and our 14 words." Gates of Vienna is saying people need to sign their petition. More power to them. Everyone should sign. Maybe someday they'll have the balls to spell out what their petition says too.
Karl MarxOne thing we absolutely need to do is to break the stranglehold that Marxist and Leftist groups have successfully established over the media and the education system in Western countries. These people need to be squashed. Maybe some readers think this sounds too harsh, but I firmly believe that we cannot deal effectively with our external enemies as long as our internal enemies control the information flow. We must reject those who promote a Globalist world, including multinational corporations that desire unlimited access to cheap labor.
Since he's already told us we cannot prevent the collapse of the West, I assume he is talking about what the petition-signing militia should do after the collapse?
Imagine if you have a person jumping off a plane without a parachute because he is convinced that he has “moved beyond gravity.” If works for a little while, until it suddenly doesn’t. That sounds too crazy to be true until you realize that this is what the entire Western world is doing right now when we pretend that we have “moved beyond ethnic divisions.” It is hardwired into the human brain to look after your people and “tribe” first. The only ones who are not currently doing this are whites. If, or rather when, white Westerners start behaving like everybody else our countries will quickly become Balkanized nightmares of competing tribes.
This isn't a very convincing argument. (Though very funny!) The anti-racists would argue that they certainly don't have any hard-wired instincts to favor their own. Whites are a uniquely flawed tribe, in that we have no instinct of self-preservation. The fact that we have let things get so far, the fact that South Africa, Brazil, and Rhodesia didn't fight their minority status, doesn't speak for any magical instinct that will save us. I think whites have far stronger instincts that may motivate them than tribalism. For instance, compassion, fairness, justice, curiosity, conformism, cowardice, sloth, lust, hunger. . . It's obvious that other instincts are currently trumping our tribalism, and I see no reason why they wouldn't continue to do so. The solution is not to rely on naked tribalism, but to associate many other instincts into the same basket as tribalism. I love white people, but only because they appeal to me on so many levels beyond just kinship. Posting pictures of the Eiffel tower and Alexis Bledel is a stronger appeal to our race-soul than talk about gene maps.
We must switch from a “save the world” to a “save ourselves” mode. In the early twentieth century, people of European origins made up one third of the global population, maybe as much as 40%. In the not-too-distant future this figure will be down to less than 10% and falling. This sharp reduction has not been caused by a plague but by a massive population increase in Third World countries, ironically facilitated by the global technological civilization created by European advances. We have given alien peoples the technological ability to multiply, move to our countries and colonize us. This cannot be allowed to continue.
Why? Why can't it be? What makes Europeans uniquely valuable? What makes us superior to our slated replacements? What would we lose by ceasing to exist? As that one philosopher said, "The only question in philosophy is why we shouldn't commit suicide." Simply saying we cannot allow this to continue changes no one's minds. they are well aware of the demographics, but like Bill Clinton, they think it's great. They think it's just swell. They don't care at all. This is another instance of thinking an argument is self-evident, when it is only self-evident to our own small circle. To everyone else it's a 'phobia.' Fjordman needs to have more outreach, to explain why Europe should live, to explain why we are a Good people, a life form worth saving. So long as whites are best known for the holocaust and slavery, it makes little sense to preserve us.
We must start looking after our own interests just like everybody else. Self-preservation is a natural instinct for all living things down to plants and bacteria. The first thing we must do is to bury the entire notion of “racism,” which is anti-scientific nonsense exclusively designed to intimidate whites. It is perfectly conceivable, indeed highly likely, that there is a major genetic component to culture. This would imply that the preservation of the European cultural heritage can only be accomplished through the preservation of our genetic heritage.
Why should we? Why not just look after other people's interests? Why are our interests any more important than theirs? Only the argument of superior vs. inferior can make headway against these questions. Our natural instinct to live obviously isn't strong enough, or it would have surfaced already. Fjordman will have to invoke something stronger than that. As for his wish to preserve European heritage, WHICH European heritage? The one that has led us, uniquely, amongst all mankind, to self-annihilation? The one that produces the night life of Britain? The one that has more children out of wedlock than in? I have no interest in preserving our culture, Europe has had a thousand cultures and it will have a thousand more. Out of all our cultures, the current culture is the absolute worst. The most destructive, the most anti-human, the most evil to have ever been conceived. I'd rather see him posit a new culture worth preserving, something that fits like a tailored suit the European race-soul, but has nothing to do with the world we live in today. Culture is a tool, it is the creation of people to further their genome, their darwinian success at survival and reproduction. When the culture ceases to be an effective tool, it should be discarded like any other. Also note his use of hypotheticals: 'conceivable,' 'highly likely,' about an issue he knows full well is definitively proven beyond all doubt. I vehemently dislike qualifying your statements when you know full well they are the truth.
It is becoming more or less mandatory for teachers in many Western countries to disparage European peoples, their culture and their heritage. We don’t need to have special reeducation camps because the media and the education system ensure that our society is virtually one large reeducation camp. Unfortunately, that’s not much of an exaggeration. In Hollywood films such as the disaster movie 2012, which I had the misfortune of seeing, all whites are portrayed either as evil and selfish or as losers whereas the non-white characters are portrayed as selfless and heroic. In reality, whites are today among the most selfless and least ethnocentric groups on the planet, and we are being punished heavily for this trait.
Well said. 2012 really was about as subtle as a hammer to the head about its message to whites: "Die, die, die, you worthless scum, so we can create the new rainbow utopia already." It may serve as the best white nationalist recruitment movie yet -- step aside Riefenstahl, we now have 2012. He fails to mention who runs Hollywood though -- in the case of 2012, it was a faggot. In other cases, it is jews. In all cases, they are "vomit, pure vomit," and must be named and opposed directly.
The truth is that whites create superior societies. Not only are others not capable of creating what we do, most of them are not even capable of maintaining it. The one major exception would be Northeast Asians, the only other large group of people on this planet apart from Europeans capable of sustaining a technologically sophisticated society. If anybody replaces us as the world’s leading civilization it will be them, for the simple reason that they are the only ones who possess a genetic intelligence to match ours, and they are not suicidal.
Thank you, Fjordman! Suddenly he speaks honestly, even starting with 'the truth is. . .' ie, nothing he said before was nearly as frank as what he will say now. The truth is we are superior. After all, what other quality should man be judged by than the quality of society he produces? If whites create superior societies to any other on Earth, what else is there to say? It means we are superior to all other races, end of story. Welcome to the ranks of white supremacism, the only honest argument for white survival. I share his praise of Northeast Asia. Honestly, I have more respect for Japan than any white nation left on Earth. But they suffer from the same multi-culturalism, the same low birth rates, the same finance capitalism, the same massive debt, the same women's lib, as we do. I don't really see Asia saving itself without us. They seem to simply copy whatever we do, for good or ill. If anything, Islam will inherit the earth, simply because it still retains a masculine strength that the rest of the world has lost. Also, bravo to fjordman for admitting without equivocation that intelligence is genetic.
ImmigrantsBecause we create attractive societies other peoples want to move to our countries, but in displacing us they will gradually destroy what made our countries desirable places to live in the first place. They both hate and secretly envy us, and our children suffer needlessly from the violence and verbal abuse caused by this. If whites put up a colony on the planet Mars, I am sure others would hitchhike there on our space ships and demand that we let them in. Once there they would not exhibit any trace of gratitude. On the contrary, they would constantly whine and complain about how evil and racist and oppressive the white man is.
Muslims would demand respect because we owe all our scientific and technological advances to medieval Muslim scholars and because the Martian colony is the 63rd holiest place in Islam. In case you thought the latter sentence was intended as a joke, think again. In 1997 three Arab Muslim gentlemen from the Yemen sued NASA for trespassing on Mars, which they claimed that they owned because they inherited the planet from their ancestors 3,000 years ago.
Fjordman makes a good, and humorous, point. Our enemies are parasites. They don't actually think we are oppressing them, or they would be emigrating out of Europe and the USA, not immigrating into us. Everything they say is a lie and they know it. If we ever do develop space flight, they will insist as a matter of human rights that diversity will inhabit the stars alongside every single white who escapes. Obviously, our space program will have to be under the control of a white ethno-state at that time, so that we can simply reject their claims. For now I am willing to live alongside non-whites, because the alternative of Turner Diaries like genocide is too unattractive. Covington got it right, when he depicted the Northwest Republic sending colonies to Mars and saying, "in just a couple generations we'll be free of the muds forever." Indeed. We need to realize that the technology for space flight already exists and we have no reason to stay on this planet. Even if space colonization is expensive, it is of such infinite value, that issues like expense simply don't matter. The process should probably be '1) build a space elevator so we can cheaply get into orbit. Colonize the moon. 2) use water and materials from the moon to build and launch spaceships, because the low G makes it relatively easy. 3) use new, more powerful telescopes to find Earth like planets in habitable zones around their stars. 4) Escape to one, without telling anyone else where you are going. 5) as soon as the new colony has the means, send a new spaceship out to colonize something else, again not telling anyone where they are going, repeat ad infinitum, so that the trail eventually runs cold and our people really will be free, secure, and happy once and for all.
Novelist Virginia Woolf famously wrote that women need “a room of their own.” In the twenty-first century it is whites who need a room of our own, and if we cannot have that in Europe, which is our cradle, then I don’t see where else we can have it. The alternative is that we maintain a continuing cycle where whites create dynamic societies that are overrun by people incapable of sustaining them. This cycle will finally end when the existence of white communities itself ends. The only viable long-term solution to this dilemma is physical separation. If you force very different peoples to share the same geographic space, conflict is inevitable. This insight was once considered common sense. Now it’s “hate speech.”
Will such a policy not be denounced as “hate” and “Fascism”? Possibly, but I don’t see why we should care about that. We, too, have a right to shape our destiny. Besides, we could always use the arguments of our critics against them. If whites truly are uniquely evil and oppressive, as some people seem to think, is it then not an act of mercy to keep non-whites away from us? That way they don’t have to become exposed to our racism, our hatred and our Islamophobia, but can retain their diverse, authentic and colorful tribal violence undisturbed.
Yes, physical separation is the key. The only true physical separation, free of all threats of Mongol conquest, jewish lies, and black crime, is in space. First we carve out our own, separate, state. Then we use the state's resources to get into space. Then we separate once and for all. Separation is the key. Thus, space is the key. Though funny, it is a weak argument to say 'if whites are so evil, why don't you leave?' Obviously, because they can make more money if they stay. To a liberal, this isn't because whites are generous or productive, but due to various accidents of history, like, we stole native's land, or, we happened to be blessed with the industrial revolution fairy, or, we were given cows and grain by various nature deities unfairly long ago. Due to an accident of history, we control all the world's wealth, so non-whites are forced to live among us, even THOUGH we are evil. The solution isn't to just let us evil whites off the hook, it is to break us, and reform us, so that we are no longer evil, and non-whites are no longer poor. Why separate when we can just reeducate whites to do the right thing? Liberals will never agree to silly arguments like, "if we're so evil why don't you leave?" It's another truism WN uses that honestly doesn't fly.
One change that could conceivably take place is that people of European origins develop a stronger identity as “whites” on top of their national identities. I tried to explain to a hostile and now luckily discredited American blogger a while ago that the term “white nationalist” is meaningless in a European context. Maybe it carries some meaning in North America or Australia where most whites are of a mixed heritage, but over here it does not. Englishmen and Germans look fairly similar, but that hasn’t prevented them from slaughtering each other by the millions. Ditto for the French and the Spanish, the Poles and the Russians etc.
I don’t know if there ever will be a “white” identity. Perhaps we are just too different. What I do know is that if such an identity ever comes into being it will to a large extent have been created and forced upon us by our enemies. I have watched a number of disturbing videos, filmed by the attackers, of gangs of blacks or Arabs attacking what appears to be completely random whites. This happens from Sweden via Germany, Britain and France to the United States. This escalating wave of anti-white violence is one of the least-reported major news stories today as Western mainstream media almost uniformly try to cover these things up.
What strikes my about these attacks is that they are based on skin color; nobody asks the victims whether they are Russian Orthodox, Polish Catholics, English atheists, German Lutherans or Dutch Calvinists. These distinctions matter a great deal to us — we have fought many bloody wars because of them — yet they do not seem to matter to those who hate us. If people feel that they are attacked as whites they may start defending themselves as such, too.
Fjordman is basically repeating the same line as liberals, 'there's no such thing as race.' The fact is, all European nations have very similar genomes, any genetic map will show a massive intra-European homogeneity compared to the outside world. For someone so eager to include the alien Jews into Europe, he's excessively diligent in throwing other whites under the bus. Europeans are not just close blood relatives though. We also share many common traits that do unite us as one people: our looks, our Greco/Roman heritage, our shared history as united 'Christendom,' our relatively equal contributions to art and science, our shared participation in the Age of Discovery and Empire, and our shared history of fighting the saracens, the turks, the huns, the mongols, and all the other invaders of fortress Europe. I don't see why he cannot conceive of a 'white' identity. All I see in Europe is a white identity, the petty nationalities are just a distraction from how great every nation of Europe has been, is, and/or will be. Since Europe has agreed to join 27 different nations into the EU, Fjordman seems out of touch with most Europeans too, who clearly think there is a shared white identity among all the member states.
Obviously, since Europeans are being attacked as whites, not as French of Germans, all whites in Europe will come to realize that defending themselves as whites is the only possible response. White Nationalism is inevitable.
The coming pan-Western crash will at the very least lead to an ideological-political paradigm shift and the rise of a new mythology to replace the post-WWII “suicide paradigm” of misunderstood anti-Nazism. At worst, the discontinuity will be so long and severe that what emerges on the other side will be a completely new civilization, the third generation of European civilization, just like what emerged during the Middle Ages was a different civilization from that of Greco-Roman Antiquity. The transition between the first and second generations of European civilization took centuries. History generally moves faster now than it did back then, but I suspect such a transition will nevertheless take several generations.
Here fjordman changes his statement of 'near future' collapse to 'many generations of decline.' A shame, but that's how I see it too. There is no deliverance just around the corner. We will have to persevere. Perseverance requires passion, ie, radicalism. As time goes by, we will see the wheat separating from the chaff, between those really intent on revolution, and those who lost heart somewhere along the way. (Mind you, I reserve the right to lose heart! It is the movement I am arguing will not. If one person drops the flag in a fight, someone else simply picks it up. There will always be someone fighting for the 14 words.)
>How a new civilization would look like I do not know. Medieval Europeans used different elements of the Greco-Roman legacy creatively and added new innovations on top of this. Generation Two of European civilization contained within itself aspects of Generation One, but also contained elements of sharp discontinuity. This will probably be the case next time, too.
All of this does admittedly sound a bit gloomy, yet I truthfully remain convinced that we have the necessary cultural and genetic resources to regroup and regenerate at some point, although it is conceivable that whites will in the future come from fewer bloodlines than we do today.
I agree. There are still millions of healthy white people who are in this for the long haul. These people tend to be smart, passionate, and strong. They have all the best traits in our race, and they're on our side. One way or another, we will win.
All in all, Fjordman said what needed to be said. And he said it to an audience that is used to being fed gruel, and has balked at anything more serious than milk. Viva Fjordman. Write some more essays like that.
Liberals Aren't Stupid
Why don't liberals admit they are wrong when we trot out magic bullet arguments like 'mass immigration is genocide,' and 'affirmative action is racism,' and 'all violent crimes are hate crimes.' We have such pithy phrases, they seem so slam-dunk, but those dratted liberals refuse to accept them. The right then accuses them of double standards and hypocrisy, and rests its case.
But the liberals aren't using double standards and hypocrisy, and the right can't 'rest their case.' The argument is far more complex than that, and it is our fault for thinking we can reduce it to a pithy phrase.
Take 'mass immigration is genocide.' First off, though the dictionary definition of genocide does include 'making it impossible for the native people to carry out their normal lives,' and 'introducing various programs that in effect reduce the native birth rate,' everyone has been taught in school that genocide means only one thing -- sticking jews in gas chambers -- or if they are more cultured, they will include leaving armenians to starve and dehydrate to death in death marches under the Ottomans, or if they are even more cultured, they will include, giving small pox blankets to Indians, which clearly accounted for all Indian deaths by disease in all of North America.
First we would have to teach people the moral equivalence between territory destruction, economic impoverishment, and outright genocide, as they all equally reduce a people's population. To say 'mass immigration is genocide,' you must first prove 'high taxes is genocide.' "job competition is genocide." "white flight is genocide." "low quality schools are genocide." Because the effects of mass immigration are all these death of a thousand cut attacks on the native white population, which results in their constant attrition, which eventually results in their wholesale non-existence. If people aren't willing to accept the moral equivalence between high taxes and genocide, the whole thing falls apart.
Next, we would have to prove that what makes genocide wrong is not the fear and pain of being physically exterminated, but the after-effect, ie, that there are no more people of that genome still alive. People don't feel that birth control is a big deal, they don't even feel abortion is a big deal. This is because there is little fear or pain when these people die, and few people are bereaved by their not existing. The argument that birth control and abortion are bad because the people they destroyed are no longer here is a far more tenuous argument than most people accept. All they care about is suffering -- no suffering, no foul.
Suppose we can convince people that it is an important cost that people who would be alive are no longer alive on Earth, hypothetically. This cannot be true if A) there are no biological differences between people, and thus we are all interchangeable. In that case, genocide cannot occur, because nothing is lost until you extinguish every last human on earth. B) the people who replace us are superior to us. After all, no one today regrets replacing the neanderthals and thinks the world is worse because they aren't around. No one regrets replacing the dinosaurs with mammals. The only time genocide can possibly be bad is if, in sequence, we establish:
Genocide's true crime is cutting off the existence of a group identity, regardless of whether they suffer or not in the process.
The people being genocided are unique and the good they accomplish/characterize cannot be replicated by any other group or lifeform on earth, it represents a total and irretrievable loss to world utility.
The people being genocided are not being replaced by a greater good than what the original people could accomplish.
Liberals object to all three of these arguments. First, they attach no value to collective identities or even existence, as they are hedonists and nihilists who only attach value to feelings. No suffering, no foul.
Second, they do not believe people are unique, and insist we are all interchangeable. There is only one race, the human race. It is completely irrelevant which groups live and which groups die.
Third, those who do think genes matter, commonly spin some story about 'hybrid vigor' and talk about all the wonderful qualities of non-whites that can enrich our boring, inbred, evil white genome. They believe a coffee colored mixed race world that replaces the original white race will be superior to the white race in every way.
The slogan, "mass immigration is genocide," consists of dozens of original premises which must all be proven first, most of which liberals reject. No wonder it isn't very convincing.
Next, the slogan, "All violent crime is hate crime," is obtuse. Yes, a violent crime against a cheating wife is a 'hate' crime, so is a violent crime against a bully who's teased you for months until the day you snap, so is a violent crime where you get in a gun fight with a rival gang that's trying to kill your friends. But these are all clearly, obviously different in moral terms than simply generating a violent antipathy to someone you've never met before, who has never done anything to you, and killing him on general principle, and with great pleasure, and with the obvious inference that you would do the same to all the others of said group with equal pleasure. Who is a greater danger to society? Who is less understandable? Who represents a greater threat to the state? Localized violence, localized hate, that has a target, and ends when the target dies. Or generalized violence, generalized hate, that has an endless series of targets numbering in the billions, and will not end until every last one of them is snuffed out?
It makes me sneer when white advocates try to erase all distinctions between things. Our entire movement is about refusing to erase distinctions, by pointing out the distinctions between things, by rejecting the liberal leveler who wishes to posit 'we all consist of atoms, so bacteria and mankind are equal, much less blacks and whites.' Then these white advocates make this smirky argument, "all violent crime is hate crime," as though they can't tell the clear moral differences between crimes motivated by personal antipathy, and group antipathy. Who is the leveler, the liar now?
The argument against hate crimes cannot be based on sophistry. It is much more complicated. It might run like this: "whites are also victims of hate crimes, I reject this law until we are as protected as all other groups." You can also argue, "Collective guilt is real. Hate crimes are simply collective retribution against a collectively guilty people, who have earned this reprisal due to their collective behavior against us." You could then point out the outrageous black on white rape rate, 20,000 white women raped by black men every year, and say they have brought this judgment upon themselves. Or you could make the argument, "We are not hate criminals, but the vanguard of the revolution, enforcing our rightful and legal authority under our constitution to eliminate all non-whites in our sovereign territory, we do not recognize the authority of this court, we are at war, and in war all civilians are legitimate targets due to their upholding of the state that unjustly occupies our territory -- just as you firebombed dresden, we firebomb black churches, let the chips fall where they may." I certainly do not recognize the right of our government to genocide us, and I fully hold accountable the non-whites shipped in by this government, the willing tools of our genocide, and the active agents who carry it out, regardless of how 'civilian' they are or how much they may smile at me in the street.
You can also make this argument, "95% of blacks voted for Obama, a vote for Obama is a vote for genocide of whites. Obama's program is a genocide platform. Anyone who sanctions genocide and brings genociders to power, is a genocider. Therefore I am performing hate crimes in self defense against those who are attempting to genocide me." Of course, it might be important to make sure the victim of the hate crime really did vote for Obama, but if the US army can brush off collateral damage, so can hate criminals.
The one argument you can't make is that a hate crime, motivated by hatred of people based on their group identity, not anything in particular about any individual, is the same as crimes against individuals for various individual reasons. So of course this is the one argument white advocates tend to make. Go figure. Also, you cannot argue that the result of the crime is equal however it came about, because we already have in place 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, and manslaughter! I don't hear people saying we should repeal those laws and try everyone equally, since 'the result of the crime is the same.' There are clear distinctions in morality between accidentally killing someone, killing someone due to a unique set of emotional factors that are difficult to repeat, and killing someone in cold blood under conditions that are normal and can be repeated endlessly upon further victims. Hate crimes fall under this third category, they are people killing without remorse, on purpose, pre-planned, and with the intention of repeating themselves endlessly. Obviously they fall under a far more serious definition of murder than most other murders. Creating a special category for them is just as sensible as creating three different categories for murders like we already have.
Let's assume a hate crime is not a murder, but simply an assault, or graffiti, or a racial slur. In this case, the crime is still far more insidious than saying 'fuck you' or drawing a smiley face on a wall. The reason is these hate crimes dissolve community cohesion and lay the foundation for later violence and riots. They are uniquely capable of spreading lawlessness and endangering the state. From a state's point of view, a hate criminal is more like a subject in rebellion, or a brigand trying to undo state authority. Of course they take higher priority than a childish vandal or a bad-tempered drunk. The results may be the same whether you draw a smile or a swastika on the wall, but to the state, one is annoying and costs some paint to clean up, whereas the other is a rebellion, a treasonous adherence to anti-state principles, which could flare up into country wide civil war.
Downplaying hate crimes is therefore not in good faith. It is dishonest to dismiss hate crimes as no big deal, as pranks or just 'free speech.' Honesty would be saying "yes it's war, and it is a just war." Or to simply abide by the law and not do hate crimes, and condemn those who do as troublemakers and a discredit to the cause. It would also be honest to point out that hate crime hoaxes are the equivalent of a hate crime against whites, by slandering us as 'nazis,' and 'haters,' and 'lynchers,' and so on, which destroys community cohesion and incites violence of non-whites against whites. If we are going to pass hate crime laws, I would at least like to see an equally harsh penalty for hate crime hoaxers as hate criminals themselves. That this is lacking really is a double standard we can reject.
Then there's affirmative action. Whites insist it's racism to give preferences to non-whites. However, when these preferences are looked at in light of the drastic inequalities in outcome that still remain between whites and blacks, whining about black preferences just comes off as churlish. Why are we so greedy, so selfish, that even though we make up the vast majority of all lawyers, we simply can't stand a single black lawyer making it as well? That even though our average income is tens of thousands of dollars higher than theirs, that we resent a single black getting into college and living a middle class life? Real racism would mean making whites live at a lower quality of life than blacks, it cannot be racist if the 'racists' are the poor, oppressed, weak, and most miserable people in the country. It would be like drumming up a giant campaign against those 'racist' untouchables. Those darned lowest-caste untouchables are getting uppity and thinking even a single one of their members should live a decent life! How dare they, that's racist! How preposterous it must look for all the rich, pampered white people to march around and complain about how they are being oppressed by black children who never had a father, who can't read, who can't get a job, who live off food stamps, and who are destined to go to jail sooner or later because everything they do is against the white man's laws. Liberals hate the 'whites as victims' meme because they are sitting here staring at disparities that make the very concept laughable. How can whites, who have complete power in America, who have all the money, who have all the fine houses, who have all the college graduates, etc, be the victims of black oppression? The very idea is so outrageous they simply close down their minds and reduce our whining to a 'bzz, bzz.'
The answer of course, is that white well-being is being systematically demolished over time through a process of 'death by a thousand cuts,' a process that is so slow and invisible that it is not clearly apparent why whites are victims when just looking at the world around you. Only serious research into the issues and future trends can establish the idea that 'whites are the biggest victims in America.' One thing whites need to do is stop resenting blacks who have nothing, and start resenting jews who have everything. It's always better to be the oppressed underdog. Second, whites need to stop comparing themselves to blacks in terms of well-being. They need to compare themselves to whites 20, 50, and 300 years ago to whites of today. By making this comparison, we can show how affirmative action and other programs are making whites suffer, are making us worse off than our ancestors used to be, and will make our descendants worse off than even we are. Blacks are irrelevant, they have nothing to do with our worries and concerns. Whites are worried about white well-being compared to 'where they should be,' not to any other group. This is why whites want a nation of their own, not because we resent the existence of a black middle class (or a jewish upper class), but because we have fewer members in the white middle and upper class than we should have, if we were left alone. So long as we live among blacks, it is churlish to demand that all blacks must stay lower class, just so that a few more whites can be middle class. The economy is a zero sum game and demanding whites be hired instead of blacks by getting rid of affirmative action, is comparing sob stories: "I'm a white with a generally good life, but I could have had a yet better one!" vs. "I'm a black with a horrible life, for a brief second my family and my children were allowed to have a bright future free of all the inner city human wreckage around me, but then some white made a fuss and so instead of 99/100 of the workers being white, now 100/100 whites are, and I'm right where I used to be, at the back of the bus." You will never win that sob story competition. You will never get the 'whites are victims' meme through.
How much easier it would be to say, "I don't care how well Indonesians are doing, because we live in Vinland, not Indonesia. They can hire themselves, fire themselves, be upper, middle, or lower class, and it makes no difference to me. All I care about is Vinland, and in Vinland, we look after our own." As far as I know, there isn't a single country on earth that has two races but no affirmative action. Maybe somewhere in south america. In America, Asia, and Europe, the story is always the same -- the underperforming race gets the handouts. But so long as your country is homogeneous, affirmative action is effectively banned, because it never comes up. Whites would have an easier time getting rid of affirmative action via homogeneity, than any amount of political grousing in a multi-racial state.
When liberals say there is no such thing as race, but are adamant in the prevalence of racism, they are not being logically contradictory. What they mean is there is no such thing as biologically different races. Everything about blacks, whites, and asians is the exact same, except for skin color. Racism is still prevalent however, because there are still cultural differences between the races. When liberals argue diversity is good, the white advocates say, "but this makes no sense, just previously you argued we are all exactly the same, but now you are arguing that diversity is good. Which is it? Are we the same, or diverse?" But of course it is both. Liberals argue that we are all biologically the same, and if we simply shared the same environment, we would all end up the exact same as well. However, because the races tend to have unequal environments, the result is diversity, along racial lines. This diversity is not biologically determined, but a result of growing up in different environments and experiencing different things. Blacks have unique insights into how black environments are bad for blacks, that whites simply could never understand, because we never experienced those environments. Thus, it is important to have diversity in all positions and policy decisions and trials and so on, so that we always have access to this unique wisdom of blacks who grew up in these environments. Between liberals, the argument continues along the line of "who is to blame for bad environments?" and "how should we make bad environments better?" Republicans and democrats tend to argue endlessly about this. They all agree race is a social construct, but they also all agree that race is the most important problem in the United States, because of the unequal environments children of different races are raised in, followed by the unequal outcomes that follow. The new term is 'underserved,' and 'disadvantaged.' Just because race is a social construct, doesn't make the reality of racial differences disappear. It just proves how unjust these racial differences are.
For a white advocate looking in, this entire debate is nonsense, because race is biological and the differences in racial outcomes are also biologically determined. The environment is meaningless and there is nothing anyone could do to change the racial hierarchy we see all around the world. But this does not mean liberals are hypocrites, contradictory, or irrational, when they endlessly discuss race, while also rejecting the very concept of race as non-existent. They reject biological races, they do not reject cultural races. The answer to this argument may be simply drumming away at them with all the latest scientific research into the issue. Alternatively, it might be fun to argue, "What would it take for you to believe in biological racial differences?" After letting a group of black children and white children be raised in any environment of their choosing, and then comparing the outcomes, we should be able to prove to liberals that the environment simply is not the issue. Granting liberals complete control of the environment is the only way to prove liberal's belief in environmentalism wrong. instead of rejecting more funding for black social programs, whites adopting black babies, trained therapists staying with black mothers and children 24 hours a day, special diets prepared for blacks, free clinics for blacks, black-centric education, and so on, we should grant all of it. Grant anything. Anything they ask. Even a free white harem of willing white girls so that black boys can nurture their self esteem. I don't care, anything in a liberal's wildest imagination. If they get everything they ask for, craft whatever environment they choose, and still cannot erase the biological differences between the races, we win. If they don't get everything they ask for, they will simply argue that the one thing we didn't grant, is the key to equalizing black and white environments. There are plenty of liberals who would simply revise their theory and demand that whites are benefiting from alien mind rays that improve their intelligence after they are born, and the aliens are racist because they don't shoot the blacks with said mind rays. "Until we convince the aliens to shoot blacks with these mind rays, there is no proof that the black-white gap is biological." But there are also liberals who believe deeply that if just schools, parenting, poverty, disease, or some other thing were finally handled, we could finally create equality between the races. For people with these more reasonable assumptions, it should be easy to grant all their wishes and prove them wrong. Once liberals have the perfect parenting, the perfect school, $100,000 per black a year, and so on, and it still results in a black-white gap, even they will have to admit it's biological. Until then, nothing we say can prove it definitively, so there's little point in bothering.
There are many more 'truisms' white advocates like to advocate, but they all tend to be just as shallow and debatable. The point is, without establishing all the premises that make a truism true, there is no truth to a truism. truisms are conclusions, conclusions after long chains of logical premises, none of which liberals accept. To accuse them of hypocrisy and double standards for not agreeing with your truism is stupid. Everything liberals think and say has a logic and a sort of bizzarro honesty to it. Everything they say makes sense to them. We must understand the world from their point of view, and point out where they are factually mistaken, which is the cause of their error in thinking. We must also establish that we have separate values from theirs, and however laudatory their values might be, it is not in our psyche to gain any pleasure or satisfaction in pursuing them. That the only way for two groups of people to both celebrate and express their unique values, is for both of them to be sovereigns of their own states, among people like themselves. Just as Saudis get to legislate morality from an Islamic point of view, some whites wish to legislate morality from a white nationalist point of view -- this does not reject the liberal values universally, they can still celebrate diversity and feel enriched all they want in the old United States. It is simply a statement that these values are not universal, and that some people would be happier living under different rules, without harming or being harmed by anyone else -- simply living out their lives under rules more suited to them, because that's the shoe that fits, among fellow believers like themselves.
If liberals can be convinced that not all people share the same values, and that some people would be, or at least feel, better off under a non-liberal code, then we don't need to convince them that our code is right or true, or that they should adopt our code. We don't have to argue the merits or demerits of affirmative action as it pertains to blacks in the United States. All we have to argue is that we would like to live sovereign and free, under a new flag, under our own laws, among people like ourselves, and everyone else can do whatever they like.
But the liberals aren't using double standards and hypocrisy, and the right can't 'rest their case.' The argument is far more complex than that, and it is our fault for thinking we can reduce it to a pithy phrase.
Take 'mass immigration is genocide.' First off, though the dictionary definition of genocide does include 'making it impossible for the native people to carry out their normal lives,' and 'introducing various programs that in effect reduce the native birth rate,' everyone has been taught in school that genocide means only one thing -- sticking jews in gas chambers -- or if they are more cultured, they will include leaving armenians to starve and dehydrate to death in death marches under the Ottomans, or if they are even more cultured, they will include, giving small pox blankets to Indians, which clearly accounted for all Indian deaths by disease in all of North America.
First we would have to teach people the moral equivalence between territory destruction, economic impoverishment, and outright genocide, as they all equally reduce a people's population. To say 'mass immigration is genocide,' you must first prove 'high taxes is genocide.' "job competition is genocide." "white flight is genocide." "low quality schools are genocide." Because the effects of mass immigration are all these death of a thousand cut attacks on the native white population, which results in their constant attrition, which eventually results in their wholesale non-existence. If people aren't willing to accept the moral equivalence between high taxes and genocide, the whole thing falls apart.
Next, we would have to prove that what makes genocide wrong is not the fear and pain of being physically exterminated, but the after-effect, ie, that there are no more people of that genome still alive. People don't feel that birth control is a big deal, they don't even feel abortion is a big deal. This is because there is little fear or pain when these people die, and few people are bereaved by their not existing. The argument that birth control and abortion are bad because the people they destroyed are no longer here is a far more tenuous argument than most people accept. All they care about is suffering -- no suffering, no foul.
Suppose we can convince people that it is an important cost that people who would be alive are no longer alive on Earth, hypothetically. This cannot be true if A) there are no biological differences between people, and thus we are all interchangeable. In that case, genocide cannot occur, because nothing is lost until you extinguish every last human on earth. B) the people who replace us are superior to us. After all, no one today regrets replacing the neanderthals and thinks the world is worse because they aren't around. No one regrets replacing the dinosaurs with mammals. The only time genocide can possibly be bad is if, in sequence, we establish:
Genocide's true crime is cutting off the existence of a group identity, regardless of whether they suffer or not in the process.
The people being genocided are unique and the good they accomplish/characterize cannot be replicated by any other group or lifeform on earth, it represents a total and irretrievable loss to world utility.
The people being genocided are not being replaced by a greater good than what the original people could accomplish.
Liberals object to all three of these arguments. First, they attach no value to collective identities or even existence, as they are hedonists and nihilists who only attach value to feelings. No suffering, no foul.
Second, they do not believe people are unique, and insist we are all interchangeable. There is only one race, the human race. It is completely irrelevant which groups live and which groups die.
Third, those who do think genes matter, commonly spin some story about 'hybrid vigor' and talk about all the wonderful qualities of non-whites that can enrich our boring, inbred, evil white genome. They believe a coffee colored mixed race world that replaces the original white race will be superior to the white race in every way.
The slogan, "mass immigration is genocide," consists of dozens of original premises which must all be proven first, most of which liberals reject. No wonder it isn't very convincing.
Next, the slogan, "All violent crime is hate crime," is obtuse. Yes, a violent crime against a cheating wife is a 'hate' crime, so is a violent crime against a bully who's teased you for months until the day you snap, so is a violent crime where you get in a gun fight with a rival gang that's trying to kill your friends. But these are all clearly, obviously different in moral terms than simply generating a violent antipathy to someone you've never met before, who has never done anything to you, and killing him on general principle, and with great pleasure, and with the obvious inference that you would do the same to all the others of said group with equal pleasure. Who is a greater danger to society? Who is less understandable? Who represents a greater threat to the state? Localized violence, localized hate, that has a target, and ends when the target dies. Or generalized violence, generalized hate, that has an endless series of targets numbering in the billions, and will not end until every last one of them is snuffed out?
It makes me sneer when white advocates try to erase all distinctions between things. Our entire movement is about refusing to erase distinctions, by pointing out the distinctions between things, by rejecting the liberal leveler who wishes to posit 'we all consist of atoms, so bacteria and mankind are equal, much less blacks and whites.' Then these white advocates make this smirky argument, "all violent crime is hate crime," as though they can't tell the clear moral differences between crimes motivated by personal antipathy, and group antipathy. Who is the leveler, the liar now?
The argument against hate crimes cannot be based on sophistry. It is much more complicated. It might run like this: "whites are also victims of hate crimes, I reject this law until we are as protected as all other groups." You can also argue, "Collective guilt is real. Hate crimes are simply collective retribution against a collectively guilty people, who have earned this reprisal due to their collective behavior against us." You could then point out the outrageous black on white rape rate, 20,000 white women raped by black men every year, and say they have brought this judgment upon themselves. Or you could make the argument, "We are not hate criminals, but the vanguard of the revolution, enforcing our rightful and legal authority under our constitution to eliminate all non-whites in our sovereign territory, we do not recognize the authority of this court, we are at war, and in war all civilians are legitimate targets due to their upholding of the state that unjustly occupies our territory -- just as you firebombed dresden, we firebomb black churches, let the chips fall where they may." I certainly do not recognize the right of our government to genocide us, and I fully hold accountable the non-whites shipped in by this government, the willing tools of our genocide, and the active agents who carry it out, regardless of how 'civilian' they are or how much they may smile at me in the street.
You can also make this argument, "95% of blacks voted for Obama, a vote for Obama is a vote for genocide of whites. Obama's program is a genocide platform. Anyone who sanctions genocide and brings genociders to power, is a genocider. Therefore I am performing hate crimes in self defense against those who are attempting to genocide me." Of course, it might be important to make sure the victim of the hate crime really did vote for Obama, but if the US army can brush off collateral damage, so can hate criminals.
The one argument you can't make is that a hate crime, motivated by hatred of people based on their group identity, not anything in particular about any individual, is the same as crimes against individuals for various individual reasons. So of course this is the one argument white advocates tend to make. Go figure. Also, you cannot argue that the result of the crime is equal however it came about, because we already have in place 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, and manslaughter! I don't hear people saying we should repeal those laws and try everyone equally, since 'the result of the crime is the same.' There are clear distinctions in morality between accidentally killing someone, killing someone due to a unique set of emotional factors that are difficult to repeat, and killing someone in cold blood under conditions that are normal and can be repeated endlessly upon further victims. Hate crimes fall under this third category, they are people killing without remorse, on purpose, pre-planned, and with the intention of repeating themselves endlessly. Obviously they fall under a far more serious definition of murder than most other murders. Creating a special category for them is just as sensible as creating three different categories for murders like we already have.
Let's assume a hate crime is not a murder, but simply an assault, or graffiti, or a racial slur. In this case, the crime is still far more insidious than saying 'fuck you' or drawing a smiley face on a wall. The reason is these hate crimes dissolve community cohesion and lay the foundation for later violence and riots. They are uniquely capable of spreading lawlessness and endangering the state. From a state's point of view, a hate criminal is more like a subject in rebellion, or a brigand trying to undo state authority. Of course they take higher priority than a childish vandal or a bad-tempered drunk. The results may be the same whether you draw a smile or a swastika on the wall, but to the state, one is annoying and costs some paint to clean up, whereas the other is a rebellion, a treasonous adherence to anti-state principles, which could flare up into country wide civil war.
Downplaying hate crimes is therefore not in good faith. It is dishonest to dismiss hate crimes as no big deal, as pranks or just 'free speech.' Honesty would be saying "yes it's war, and it is a just war." Or to simply abide by the law and not do hate crimes, and condemn those who do as troublemakers and a discredit to the cause. It would also be honest to point out that hate crime hoaxes are the equivalent of a hate crime against whites, by slandering us as 'nazis,' and 'haters,' and 'lynchers,' and so on, which destroys community cohesion and incites violence of non-whites against whites. If we are going to pass hate crime laws, I would at least like to see an equally harsh penalty for hate crime hoaxers as hate criminals themselves. That this is lacking really is a double standard we can reject.
Then there's affirmative action. Whites insist it's racism to give preferences to non-whites. However, when these preferences are looked at in light of the drastic inequalities in outcome that still remain between whites and blacks, whining about black preferences just comes off as churlish. Why are we so greedy, so selfish, that even though we make up the vast majority of all lawyers, we simply can't stand a single black lawyer making it as well? That even though our average income is tens of thousands of dollars higher than theirs, that we resent a single black getting into college and living a middle class life? Real racism would mean making whites live at a lower quality of life than blacks, it cannot be racist if the 'racists' are the poor, oppressed, weak, and most miserable people in the country. It would be like drumming up a giant campaign against those 'racist' untouchables. Those darned lowest-caste untouchables are getting uppity and thinking even a single one of their members should live a decent life! How dare they, that's racist! How preposterous it must look for all the rich, pampered white people to march around and complain about how they are being oppressed by black children who never had a father, who can't read, who can't get a job, who live off food stamps, and who are destined to go to jail sooner or later because everything they do is against the white man's laws. Liberals hate the 'whites as victims' meme because they are sitting here staring at disparities that make the very concept laughable. How can whites, who have complete power in America, who have all the money, who have all the fine houses, who have all the college graduates, etc, be the victims of black oppression? The very idea is so outrageous they simply close down their minds and reduce our whining to a 'bzz, bzz.'
The answer of course, is that white well-being is being systematically demolished over time through a process of 'death by a thousand cuts,' a process that is so slow and invisible that it is not clearly apparent why whites are victims when just looking at the world around you. Only serious research into the issues and future trends can establish the idea that 'whites are the biggest victims in America.' One thing whites need to do is stop resenting blacks who have nothing, and start resenting jews who have everything. It's always better to be the oppressed underdog. Second, whites need to stop comparing themselves to blacks in terms of well-being. They need to compare themselves to whites 20, 50, and 300 years ago to whites of today. By making this comparison, we can show how affirmative action and other programs are making whites suffer, are making us worse off than our ancestors used to be, and will make our descendants worse off than even we are. Blacks are irrelevant, they have nothing to do with our worries and concerns. Whites are worried about white well-being compared to 'where they should be,' not to any other group. This is why whites want a nation of their own, not because we resent the existence of a black middle class (or a jewish upper class), but because we have fewer members in the white middle and upper class than we should have, if we were left alone. So long as we live among blacks, it is churlish to demand that all blacks must stay lower class, just so that a few more whites can be middle class. The economy is a zero sum game and demanding whites be hired instead of blacks by getting rid of affirmative action, is comparing sob stories: "I'm a white with a generally good life, but I could have had a yet better one!" vs. "I'm a black with a horrible life, for a brief second my family and my children were allowed to have a bright future free of all the inner city human wreckage around me, but then some white made a fuss and so instead of 99/100 of the workers being white, now 100/100 whites are, and I'm right where I used to be, at the back of the bus." You will never win that sob story competition. You will never get the 'whites are victims' meme through.
How much easier it would be to say, "I don't care how well Indonesians are doing, because we live in Vinland, not Indonesia. They can hire themselves, fire themselves, be upper, middle, or lower class, and it makes no difference to me. All I care about is Vinland, and in Vinland, we look after our own." As far as I know, there isn't a single country on earth that has two races but no affirmative action. Maybe somewhere in south america. In America, Asia, and Europe, the story is always the same -- the underperforming race gets the handouts. But so long as your country is homogeneous, affirmative action is effectively banned, because it never comes up. Whites would have an easier time getting rid of affirmative action via homogeneity, than any amount of political grousing in a multi-racial state.
When liberals say there is no such thing as race, but are adamant in the prevalence of racism, they are not being logically contradictory. What they mean is there is no such thing as biologically different races. Everything about blacks, whites, and asians is the exact same, except for skin color. Racism is still prevalent however, because there are still cultural differences between the races. When liberals argue diversity is good, the white advocates say, "but this makes no sense, just previously you argued we are all exactly the same, but now you are arguing that diversity is good. Which is it? Are we the same, or diverse?" But of course it is both. Liberals argue that we are all biologically the same, and if we simply shared the same environment, we would all end up the exact same as well. However, because the races tend to have unequal environments, the result is diversity, along racial lines. This diversity is not biologically determined, but a result of growing up in different environments and experiencing different things. Blacks have unique insights into how black environments are bad for blacks, that whites simply could never understand, because we never experienced those environments. Thus, it is important to have diversity in all positions and policy decisions and trials and so on, so that we always have access to this unique wisdom of blacks who grew up in these environments. Between liberals, the argument continues along the line of "who is to blame for bad environments?" and "how should we make bad environments better?" Republicans and democrats tend to argue endlessly about this. They all agree race is a social construct, but they also all agree that race is the most important problem in the United States, because of the unequal environments children of different races are raised in, followed by the unequal outcomes that follow. The new term is 'underserved,' and 'disadvantaged.' Just because race is a social construct, doesn't make the reality of racial differences disappear. It just proves how unjust these racial differences are.
For a white advocate looking in, this entire debate is nonsense, because race is biological and the differences in racial outcomes are also biologically determined. The environment is meaningless and there is nothing anyone could do to change the racial hierarchy we see all around the world. But this does not mean liberals are hypocrites, contradictory, or irrational, when they endlessly discuss race, while also rejecting the very concept of race as non-existent. They reject biological races, they do not reject cultural races. The answer to this argument may be simply drumming away at them with all the latest scientific research into the issue. Alternatively, it might be fun to argue, "What would it take for you to believe in biological racial differences?" After letting a group of black children and white children be raised in any environment of their choosing, and then comparing the outcomes, we should be able to prove to liberals that the environment simply is not the issue. Granting liberals complete control of the environment is the only way to prove liberal's belief in environmentalism wrong. instead of rejecting more funding for black social programs, whites adopting black babies, trained therapists staying with black mothers and children 24 hours a day, special diets prepared for blacks, free clinics for blacks, black-centric education, and so on, we should grant all of it. Grant anything. Anything they ask. Even a free white harem of willing white girls so that black boys can nurture their self esteem. I don't care, anything in a liberal's wildest imagination. If they get everything they ask for, craft whatever environment they choose, and still cannot erase the biological differences between the races, we win. If they don't get everything they ask for, they will simply argue that the one thing we didn't grant, is the key to equalizing black and white environments. There are plenty of liberals who would simply revise their theory and demand that whites are benefiting from alien mind rays that improve their intelligence after they are born, and the aliens are racist because they don't shoot the blacks with said mind rays. "Until we convince the aliens to shoot blacks with these mind rays, there is no proof that the black-white gap is biological." But there are also liberals who believe deeply that if just schools, parenting, poverty, disease, or some other thing were finally handled, we could finally create equality between the races. For people with these more reasonable assumptions, it should be easy to grant all their wishes and prove them wrong. Once liberals have the perfect parenting, the perfect school, $100,000 per black a year, and so on, and it still results in a black-white gap, even they will have to admit it's biological. Until then, nothing we say can prove it definitively, so there's little point in bothering.
There are many more 'truisms' white advocates like to advocate, but they all tend to be just as shallow and debatable. The point is, without establishing all the premises that make a truism true, there is no truth to a truism. truisms are conclusions, conclusions after long chains of logical premises, none of which liberals accept. To accuse them of hypocrisy and double standards for not agreeing with your truism is stupid. Everything liberals think and say has a logic and a sort of bizzarro honesty to it. Everything they say makes sense to them. We must understand the world from their point of view, and point out where they are factually mistaken, which is the cause of their error in thinking. We must also establish that we have separate values from theirs, and however laudatory their values might be, it is not in our psyche to gain any pleasure or satisfaction in pursuing them. That the only way for two groups of people to both celebrate and express their unique values, is for both of them to be sovereigns of their own states, among people like themselves. Just as Saudis get to legislate morality from an Islamic point of view, some whites wish to legislate morality from a white nationalist point of view -- this does not reject the liberal values universally, they can still celebrate diversity and feel enriched all they want in the old United States. It is simply a statement that these values are not universal, and that some people would be happier living under different rules, without harming or being harmed by anyone else -- simply living out their lives under rules more suited to them, because that's the shoe that fits, among fellow believers like themselves.
If liberals can be convinced that not all people share the same values, and that some people would be, or at least feel, better off under a non-liberal code, then we don't need to convince them that our code is right or true, or that they should adopt our code. We don't have to argue the merits or demerits of affirmative action as it pertains to blacks in the United States. All we have to argue is that we would like to live sovereign and free, under a new flag, under our own laws, among people like ourselves, and everyone else can do whatever they like.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Wonders of the Modern World:
Recently, some society or other released a new 7 wonders of the world.
Their choices can be found here: http://www.new7wonders.com/n7w/world
Out of the 7, there is only 1 European wonder of the world, the Colosseum. Latin America got a full 3 wonders of the world, it's apparently the cultural center of humanity and our greatest legacy on Earth.
I'm not satisfied with these results. I think they suck.
Instead I think I'll offer my own 7 wonders of the world. First, in a strict architectural sense:
1. Eiffel Tower.
2. Hagia Sophia.
3. Sistine Chapel.
4. Parthenon.
5. Pyramids of Egypt.
6. Taj Mahal.
7. Kremlin.
But we must recall that all buildings are built not just to look pretty, but with some function in mind. Due to this, all great buildings have some utilitarian role in mind, they aren't just to be looked at. The churches, temples, tombs, and world's fair proof-of-principle concepts listed above were all designed with a function that meant a great deal to the people of their era. The modern world is different. We don't have enough faith anymore to build a new cathedral or mosque to match the old ones. So it is important to ask ourselves, what structures we Are building in the modern age, that are of enormous scale, but funded anyway due to some function we find desirable. When you look at it through this lens, we can find a lot of more interesting targets for the title, 'modern wonder of the world.'
1. The US Flag on the Moon.
2. The International Space Station.
3. The map of the human genome.
4. The Large Hadron Collider.
5. Dolly the Sheep.
6. The nuclear submarine.
7. The World Wide Web.
I don't list either the first list, or the second list, in any particular order. I think they are all incredible achievements. I am perfectly willing to believe that I'm missing a few items, and should replace a few items listed. It doesn't matter. This is a good barometer of the true wonders of the world, and is accurate enough to make my point.
I think these are our most 'wonderful', hands down 'splashy' achievements not because they might be the most useful invention (like say, antibiotics, or transistors, or silicon chips), but because they evoke the same ancient spirit of creating magnificent, overawing landmarks and breakthroughs. The fact that man once walked on the moon, and the small little flag that dots the lunar landscape to prove it, has to be our proudest achievement in that vein. But the decades long project to create a continuously manned, scientifically useful, and comfortably, safely, cheaply habitable space station is also great stuff. The ISS constantly growing and morphing these last decades, moving steadily towards completion, using the united space programs of the entire civilized world, is a wonderful and splashy sight.
The fact that we can now clone life forms and take reproduction into our own hands is a signature breakthrough with huge potential across many fields, and the humble little sheep named Dolly will always go down in history as its representative. After billions of dollars and decades of work, our computers have finally given us a complete map of the human genome. Not only is this simply an enormous landmark of data over the most interesting topic in the universe, but it opens up the possibilities for genetic engineering and the discovery of how genes relate to intelligence, personality, disease, mental illness, sexual preference, and behavior. That endless string of letters is the answer to the questions that have dogged our philosophers and theologians for thousands of years.
The overlaying of virtual and physical reality into a new, parallel, e-world is something no one even imagined in the past. People are just as likely to interact online as in real life, digital content from music to movies is easily downloadable, shopping can be done at home, businesses can stay in touch with their workers and their products, and information previously unheard of or known only to a few scholars is available to everyone on earth for free. The world wide web has made us redefine reality, romance, communication and commerce, and continues to shape each generation's lives in new and unexpected ways.
The nuclear submarine encompasses an impressive display of independent technologies, and is the ultimate weapon in humanity's arsenal. With a nuclear power engine, it stealthily floats miles beneath the sea, using a specially constructed metal skin that can resist both water pressure and detection from above. Deep in its vaults lies the nuclear missle, combining a rocket that can send payloads into space and a nuclear weapon that can annihilate whole cities. Such a creation is on the level of ancient gods, it's hard to believe Thor or Zeus would stand any chance against it. A submarine can survive virtually any disaster, natural or man-made, and can stay underwater for months. The owner of a nuclear submarine, just one, is stronger than the majority of nations on Earth.
Deep beneath the mountains of Switzerland lies our newest microscope, the Large Hadron Collider. Using billions of dollars, endless vats of computers, magnets, cooling agents, miles of underwater tunnel, and thousands of highly trained scientists, we accelerate particles to near light speed and smash them together with unimaginable accuracy, just in hopes of seeing something we haven't seen before. As proof that man will go to any length to satisfy his curiosity, and having the real potential to finally make sense of the laws of physics that define our universe, the LHC cannot be rivaled in importance by anything else in science. The sheer scale of the project, the tininess of the subject they are studying, and the foundational aspect of what its discoveries mean for both the origin and destiny of the universe, makes the LHC as splashy as it gets.
Without political correctness' intervention, the architectural beauty of the world is centered in Europe. It contains 5 of the 7 wonders of the world. Both the pyramids and the taj mahal were built by Caucasians, which under a wider net would give us 7/7 wonders of the world.
Given that man's genius has always sought some function to its endeavors, rather than buildings for the sake of mere frippery, and given that religion has taken a back step to science in the modern age, it stands to reason that we should look at giant scientific works of the modern world as our new 'wonders.' From that viewpoint, whites have built 7/7 of the new wonders of the world as well.
So after looking at these lists, you have to come to a new conclusion: The greatest wonder of the ancient and the modern world, is the white race who built all the others.
Their choices can be found here: http://www.new7wonders.com/n7w/world
Out of the 7, there is only 1 European wonder of the world, the Colosseum. Latin America got a full 3 wonders of the world, it's apparently the cultural center of humanity and our greatest legacy on Earth.
I'm not satisfied with these results. I think they suck.
Instead I think I'll offer my own 7 wonders of the world. First, in a strict architectural sense:
1. Eiffel Tower.
2. Hagia Sophia.
3. Sistine Chapel.
4. Parthenon.
5. Pyramids of Egypt.
6. Taj Mahal.
7. Kremlin.
But we must recall that all buildings are built not just to look pretty, but with some function in mind. Due to this, all great buildings have some utilitarian role in mind, they aren't just to be looked at. The churches, temples, tombs, and world's fair proof-of-principle concepts listed above were all designed with a function that meant a great deal to the people of their era. The modern world is different. We don't have enough faith anymore to build a new cathedral or mosque to match the old ones. So it is important to ask ourselves, what structures we Are building in the modern age, that are of enormous scale, but funded anyway due to some function we find desirable. When you look at it through this lens, we can find a lot of more interesting targets for the title, 'modern wonder of the world.'
1. The US Flag on the Moon.
2. The International Space Station.
3. The map of the human genome.
4. The Large Hadron Collider.
5. Dolly the Sheep.
6. The nuclear submarine.
7. The World Wide Web.
I don't list either the first list, or the second list, in any particular order. I think they are all incredible achievements. I am perfectly willing to believe that I'm missing a few items, and should replace a few items listed. It doesn't matter. This is a good barometer of the true wonders of the world, and is accurate enough to make my point.
I think these are our most 'wonderful', hands down 'splashy' achievements not because they might be the most useful invention (like say, antibiotics, or transistors, or silicon chips), but because they evoke the same ancient spirit of creating magnificent, overawing landmarks and breakthroughs. The fact that man once walked on the moon, and the small little flag that dots the lunar landscape to prove it, has to be our proudest achievement in that vein. But the decades long project to create a continuously manned, scientifically useful, and comfortably, safely, cheaply habitable space station is also great stuff. The ISS constantly growing and morphing these last decades, moving steadily towards completion, using the united space programs of the entire civilized world, is a wonderful and splashy sight.
The fact that we can now clone life forms and take reproduction into our own hands is a signature breakthrough with huge potential across many fields, and the humble little sheep named Dolly will always go down in history as its representative. After billions of dollars and decades of work, our computers have finally given us a complete map of the human genome. Not only is this simply an enormous landmark of data over the most interesting topic in the universe, but it opens up the possibilities for genetic engineering and the discovery of how genes relate to intelligence, personality, disease, mental illness, sexual preference, and behavior. That endless string of letters is the answer to the questions that have dogged our philosophers and theologians for thousands of years.
The overlaying of virtual and physical reality into a new, parallel, e-world is something no one even imagined in the past. People are just as likely to interact online as in real life, digital content from music to movies is easily downloadable, shopping can be done at home, businesses can stay in touch with their workers and their products, and information previously unheard of or known only to a few scholars is available to everyone on earth for free. The world wide web has made us redefine reality, romance, communication and commerce, and continues to shape each generation's lives in new and unexpected ways.
The nuclear submarine encompasses an impressive display of independent technologies, and is the ultimate weapon in humanity's arsenal. With a nuclear power engine, it stealthily floats miles beneath the sea, using a specially constructed metal skin that can resist both water pressure and detection from above. Deep in its vaults lies the nuclear missle, combining a rocket that can send payloads into space and a nuclear weapon that can annihilate whole cities. Such a creation is on the level of ancient gods, it's hard to believe Thor or Zeus would stand any chance against it. A submarine can survive virtually any disaster, natural or man-made, and can stay underwater for months. The owner of a nuclear submarine, just one, is stronger than the majority of nations on Earth.
Deep beneath the mountains of Switzerland lies our newest microscope, the Large Hadron Collider. Using billions of dollars, endless vats of computers, magnets, cooling agents, miles of underwater tunnel, and thousands of highly trained scientists, we accelerate particles to near light speed and smash them together with unimaginable accuracy, just in hopes of seeing something we haven't seen before. As proof that man will go to any length to satisfy his curiosity, and having the real potential to finally make sense of the laws of physics that define our universe, the LHC cannot be rivaled in importance by anything else in science. The sheer scale of the project, the tininess of the subject they are studying, and the foundational aspect of what its discoveries mean for both the origin and destiny of the universe, makes the LHC as splashy as it gets.
Without political correctness' intervention, the architectural beauty of the world is centered in Europe. It contains 5 of the 7 wonders of the world. Both the pyramids and the taj mahal were built by Caucasians, which under a wider net would give us 7/7 wonders of the world.
Given that man's genius has always sought some function to its endeavors, rather than buildings for the sake of mere frippery, and given that religion has taken a back step to science in the modern age, it stands to reason that we should look at giant scientific works of the modern world as our new 'wonders.' From that viewpoint, whites have built 7/7 of the new wonders of the world as well.
So after looking at these lists, you have to come to a new conclusion: The greatest wonder of the ancient and the modern world, is the white race who built all the others.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Problems Only WN Can Solve:
Why do I keep saying America will fall and only white nationalism can possibly emerge in its wake? Do I have a crystal ball? Am I just indulging in fantasy?
No, and no. What I have is the force of history and the intelligence and knowledge to interpret the historical signs I see in front of me.
First, no diverse empire has ever held together in history. Eventually it always fractures along ethnic lines. The Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia are all recent examples of this. But in truth for centuries now we have seen examples of this -- When the European empires fell, hundreds of ethnic nations emerged in their wake. Some, like Hungary, in Europe. Some, like Iraq, emerging from the Ottomans. Some, like Venezuela, splitting off from 'Grande Colombia.' Some splitting from South Africa and becoming Swaziland. You see, it's everywhere. History has been utterly merciless to diversity for centuries now. As late as 1960, America was still 90% white. It was stable for centuries because it was not, in fact, diverse. Only in the 1980's did Mexican immigration pick up speed enough to start creating a truly diverse America. That has set the clock ticking -- no country has ever survived diversity, we have been in the midst of diversity for 30 years now. It's just a question of time. The stress builds every day. White flight proves whites are unwilling to live around non-whites, at any price. Eventually America will run out of places to flee, and whites will be forced to turn and fight for a land of their own instead. Current white attitudes, and a history of thousands of years, shows America is no more magical than any other section of mankind -- just like everyone else, we can't abide diversity. We want to live around people like ourselves. And like everyone else, we will eventually resort to civil war to secure this right.
The answer to diversity is a white ethno-state, set up in a sparsely populated but large landmass of the United States, the northwestern states and Alaska. Only white nationalism is offering people this solution. No other solution is viable. There is no other way to escape diversity. Therefore when the problem of diversity reaches a flash point, no one will seek out communism, libertarianism, christianity, or any other creed. They will see none of them have any solutions to their problem, and they will seek out white nationalism instead.
Second, the debt is approaching the level of a failed state. Once the majority of a country's GDP is spent on interest on its debt, it has become a failed state. It will either be seized by its creditors, or collapse in revolution, as the government fails to provide any services to its people while collecting massive taxes. This has also happened multiple times in history. Britain seized Egypt in the 1800's because its entire GDP was simply servicing interest on the debt to Britain. When Egypt threatened to not pay back its debt, Britain conquered Egypt and kept the interest payments coming. America's debt is impossible to pay back. It is now at 130 trillion. The interest on the debt is approaching 50% of all government spending. Once the baby boomers retire and start collecting social security and medicare, we are doomed. The extra benefits programs of Bush's prescription drugs, and now Obama's national health service, will only exacerbate the problem. The onerous provisions of cap and trade will bankrupt America that much sooner. Our endless wars overseas are only exacerbating our debt. Just like the Soviet Union collapsed from Afghanistan, Afghanistan is going to bankrupt and collapse America too. Neither republicans nor democrats have shown any ability to control deficit spending or eliminate debt. It will continue to rise, it cannot be paid off, and interest on the debt will reach such unpayable levels that a taxpayer revolt will follow.
White Nationalism has an easy answer to our debt problems. If we are a new nation, we don't owe a dime to anyone. We have nothing to do with the USA's debt, as we are no longer a part of the USA. A white separatist state would leave behind the decayed husk of the USA, which would still exist on paper, and would still be responsible for all of its debt and the people who have to answer to all of their creditors. We won't be. We will start with a new currency and a new budget, at a complete 0. A new beginning, total debt forgiveness for everyone, a clean slate. Considering how many people are in debt to their ears just to pay for necessities in America like housing, transportation, and education, total debt forgiveness to all the vampires who gave out these loans is a selling point only WN will offer. Come to our state and start over, this time with a citizen's dividend to help pay your way through life. That is the only answer. The old USA is bankrupt and can't do anything anymore about its headlong plummet into insolvency.
Third, modern employment is a shell game. Most people are not in fact in productive employment, they are pretending they are doing something and collecting pay checks from those they con -- either from tax payers, or from fools who buy their useless products and services because of a sufficiently persuasive advertisement. America is determined to exist for the sake of the super rich, who set public policy. They will continue to allow millions of unskilled immigrants into the country even with 20% unemployment rates. They will continue to take advantage of gullible and stupid people with all sorts of insurance, lawyers, debt, and luxury spending scams. Credit cards have interest rates at like 50%. This is just usury. Public bureaucrats who ostensibly were hired to take care of the poor, pocket all of the money for themselves and only take care of themselves. Teachers fail to teach their students the most basic abilities in math, reading, and writing. Kids are going to college incapable of converting fractions to decimals.
We are facing a dual problem, a giant employed workforce that do nothing but leech off of the productive, and a giant unemployed workforce that can't even do that. The answer isn't to get everyone back to work. There isn't enough work to do that. The answer is a new paradigm where work is not the center of life. First, we must stop immigration so that what work there is, is available to our citizens. Second, we must pay a citizen's dividend so that people without work can still live and raise children in our community. We should return to jobs based on manufacturing, extraction of natural resources, and high tech gadgets our geniuses can provide the outside world. As we will have high standards for our citizenry, and use eugenics from there to improve them, we will quickly have the best scientists and universities on Earth. Converting that into businesses that provide money is not that difficult. Imagine our experts going around building fusion power plants for China. That's a very large market, that only White Nationalism will achieve, because we are the only people on earth serious about creating genius (eugenics) educating genius (IQ tracking and schools for the gifted, not the remedial, put first), and employing genius (giving them the money they need to spend on science experiments of their choice). In America, some woeful amount of GDP is spent on research and development. Something less than 5%. All of it goes down the sink of maintenance costs, like medicare. By lowering our maintenance costs and honoring a more frugal living (and abolishing all parasitism that diverts our economy down sewer holes), we can save more money and sink it into science. By investing more in science, we can become the leaders of the world in technology. By becoming the leaders, we can create whole new markets that will both employ and enrich our citizenry.
Fourth, nihilism and hedonism have seized our youth culture and it is hurting them, and those around them, in incalculable ways. Anyone you ask, if offered a choice between being dumped, or beaten up, would choose being beaten up. But assault is banned and dumping is fine. Anyone on earth who was given a choice between losing their wallet, and losing their wife, would choose their wallet. But stealing is banned and divorce is fine. Anyone on earth who was given a choice between their house being burned down, and becoming addicted to a deadly chemical which warps their whole life around mindless highs and lows until they die, would choose for their houses to burn down. But arson is banned and drugs are fine. Anyone on earth would prefer to be groped or called a lecherous name, than their kid die in a drunk driving accident (whether it was their kid or the other driver.) And yet sexual harassment is banned and alcohol is legal.
In our bizarro world, the things that hurt us most, are all legal, and we have no legal recourse to avenge ourselves upon our victimizers. Whereas the things that hurt us least -- well, it's not like they are rigorously persecuted either. Crime gets almost as large a free pass as immorality in the new improved America. America has no intention of stopping this descent. Crime will rise in direct correlation to the demographics of our minorities. Feminism will continue to entrench itself, and hedonism will continue to spread, so long as broken homes perpetuate a vicious cycle into worse and worse behavior each generation. There is nothing communism, libertarianism, liberals, or Christianity can do to stop these trends, because none of them are willing to pass any law against them.
White nationalism is different. It grants that if a government is going to take away your right to redress your grievances, then it must redress your grievances itself. If we are not allowed to kill women who cheat on us, then the government must punish them, and prevent them from committing adultery, in the first place. If we are not allowed to seek out and kill anyone who hurts our family, the government must seek out and kill them first. If we are not allowed to enforce oaths like "till death do us part," then the government must enforce those oaths for us, by banning divorce in all but exceptional cases. If we are not allowed to protect our children by limiting their access to mental sewage, drug dealers, sluts, alcohol, and so on -- then the government must be willing to do so for us. The current US government requires all the children of America run a gauntlet of STD's, miscegenation, pre-marital sex, drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, depression, suicide, and crime before they hit 25. A parent of a single child, after investing his entire life into that child's happiness, must sit back and watch helplessly to see what will become of him, now that he is outside the parent's protection. More often than not, the result is horrible, and breaks their heart. Who speaks for them? Who offers any solace to them? Just as horrible though is a parent with five kids, who has to run the gauntlet five times, each time wondering if this is the loved one who society will corrupt, betray, and kill before he even had a chance to live. We need a government that addresses a parent's fears and a child's rights to grow up in an environment that's at least attempting to give them a good life. Attempting to provide a happy path for them to follow. Our commercials, our media, our stories, do nothing but celebrate vice and degeneracy. But the people who actually practice these creeds are not happy and vivacious like the stories show. They are depressed, suicidal, poor, diseased, despised, and ashamed of themselves. Nothing good comes from it. They are sold a bill of goods, conned. They are victims of a fraud perpetrated by their society. It said drug use, alcohol, cigarettes, free love, divorce, adultery, sodomy, and all the rest were the path to happiness and liberation, when in fact they are just a path to hell and an early death, making everyone else miserable around you as you go.
Eventually society will become so degenerate it will no longer be able to raise a functioning member of society. When the entire next generation of kids become homeless nymphomaniac druggees, society will no longer stand. At that point only a pure ethnostate that starts over from first principles, that unapologetically stamps out vice and sin, can save a state from economic and violent dissolution.
Fifth, the birth rates of the modern west are unsustainable. Any culture that fails to have 2.1 children per generation is doomed to eventual extinction. Whites in America are something like 1.7. Smarter whites have an even lower birth rate. Obviously, if your population keeps halving, and halving, and halving, each generation, eventually it disappears entirely. Given the state of marriage, the state of the economy, the state of our morals, there is no way people will spontaneously start having more kids. They can't afford them, and they are too selfish to have them or raise them. Many people have a genuine fear that even having children in this age is child abuse. If they have no hope that a white born today could have a good life in a majority-minority USA, they will simply not have kids as a mercy to them.
Libertarianism, communism, christianity, none of these people can solve the fertility rate, because none of them are willing to lay down a simple law. You MUST marry by age 20 and have 2 kids by age 25. That simple. White nationalism will do so, and in doing so, secure the existence of our people and a future for white children. That is the most essential law in the entire law code. More important even than immigration control. It is the absolute pillar of the new white ethno-state. Without it, all we have is ashes, old age, and death. Alongside this law, will be help provided by the government to make sure it is possible to follow it. The citizen's dividend, which can pay for a family of 4 even without any other job. Apprenticeships for children leaving school, so they have a real chance at a skilled job they enjoy. Moral education in the schools, so people get used to their duty and do not find it particularly harsh or onerous. And laws that forbid adultery and divorce, that help keep families together. And a military and police force willing to make sure no one can harm the children you do have.
Given that America is plunging into nihilist hedonism, unpayable debt, intolerable diversity, below replacement birth rates, and economic disaster, the question isn't why America would fail. The real question is how can anyone imagine it will survive? It is fated to fall. History demands it falls. The only way for it not to fall, at this point, would be technological inventions so dramatic they simply sweep the board of all preexisting conditions and start civilization over on a new level. Technology does not have much time left to do this. The collapse will be within 30-50 years. All of the problems listed above have no answer from the usual suspects. In fact, they are the people who created these problems in the first place. The biggest problem is they fail to recognize them as problems. The second largest is none of them have the guts to pass a law against them. If you don't have the guts to pass a law, you cannot solve any problem. If individuals could solve their own problems, they wouldn't exist in the first place. It's obvious, by the very existence of our problems, that individuals CANNOT solve them alone, that government IS needed to find solutions to them. Even so, libertarians, liberals, conservatives, all harp endlessly on how individuals, freedom, and the free market will find solutions to all of our problems. If they could have found a solution, they would have by now. All across the world fertility is extinction level for the white race. Every single government has responded by saying individuals will work it out themselves. Every single country continues to reproduce at extinction levels. What larger experiment is necessary to prove my point? Will they need the extra data of the next 30 years? Do any of them think fertility will turn around in that time? With mass immigration flooding all the available jobs and unemployment at 20%? Yeah, good luck with that.
Ahh! I forgot dysgenics eventually lowering intelligence to the point that a modern technological society can no longer be maintained, another dagger to the heart of contemporary America. Another problem only WN can solve. I'd also point out a variety of environmental crisis coming our way, from global warming to water loss to topsoil loss, but I am not sure how bad they will really be. I will just point out it is possible environmental crisis will also add to America's woes, and that WN would rely on sustainability as a matter of course. Simply by switching to nuclear power and banning immigration, we would become the most green government on earth.
In any event, the point is this. America's problems are too large for anything to save our country, short of a miracle. All the other parties have no solutions to our problems. People in the midst of this collapse will continue to suffer, no matter how many parties and movements they turn to. Their continued suffering will make them continue searching and changing in the hopes of finding a solution. By default, everyone who turns to nationalism will stop searching or changing, because it is the right answer. This sorting process will result in everyone eventually, by random chance, evolving into white nationalists. At this point we will take power and solve all the problems on Earth. It is simply a syllogism. How can it not be this way? If we are right about the coming problems facing the earth, the problems only we talk about and everyone else refuses to believe even exist, much less need solutions, we will be the only group that can solve them. The only group people can turn to when the crisis arrives. Nationalism is therefore fated to be victorious, or was unnecessary all along, in which case it's better that we're not victorious. Either way we win. IF no crisis arrives and everything is magically perfect, then there was no need for nationalism and we can all just enjoy our peaceful and productive lives. If a crisis does arrive just like we predicted, then people will turn to us for their solutions and we will provide them, for our own lives and theirs, creating a utopia where we can all be happy again. I can't ask for more from either eventuality. The future is bright.
No, and no. What I have is the force of history and the intelligence and knowledge to interpret the historical signs I see in front of me.
First, no diverse empire has ever held together in history. Eventually it always fractures along ethnic lines. The Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia are all recent examples of this. But in truth for centuries now we have seen examples of this -- When the European empires fell, hundreds of ethnic nations emerged in their wake. Some, like Hungary, in Europe. Some, like Iraq, emerging from the Ottomans. Some, like Venezuela, splitting off from 'Grande Colombia.' Some splitting from South Africa and becoming Swaziland. You see, it's everywhere. History has been utterly merciless to diversity for centuries now. As late as 1960, America was still 90% white. It was stable for centuries because it was not, in fact, diverse. Only in the 1980's did Mexican immigration pick up speed enough to start creating a truly diverse America. That has set the clock ticking -- no country has ever survived diversity, we have been in the midst of diversity for 30 years now. It's just a question of time. The stress builds every day. White flight proves whites are unwilling to live around non-whites, at any price. Eventually America will run out of places to flee, and whites will be forced to turn and fight for a land of their own instead. Current white attitudes, and a history of thousands of years, shows America is no more magical than any other section of mankind -- just like everyone else, we can't abide diversity. We want to live around people like ourselves. And like everyone else, we will eventually resort to civil war to secure this right.
The answer to diversity is a white ethno-state, set up in a sparsely populated but large landmass of the United States, the northwestern states and Alaska. Only white nationalism is offering people this solution. No other solution is viable. There is no other way to escape diversity. Therefore when the problem of diversity reaches a flash point, no one will seek out communism, libertarianism, christianity, or any other creed. They will see none of them have any solutions to their problem, and they will seek out white nationalism instead.
Second, the debt is approaching the level of a failed state. Once the majority of a country's GDP is spent on interest on its debt, it has become a failed state. It will either be seized by its creditors, or collapse in revolution, as the government fails to provide any services to its people while collecting massive taxes. This has also happened multiple times in history. Britain seized Egypt in the 1800's because its entire GDP was simply servicing interest on the debt to Britain. When Egypt threatened to not pay back its debt, Britain conquered Egypt and kept the interest payments coming. America's debt is impossible to pay back. It is now at 130 trillion. The interest on the debt is approaching 50% of all government spending. Once the baby boomers retire and start collecting social security and medicare, we are doomed. The extra benefits programs of Bush's prescription drugs, and now Obama's national health service, will only exacerbate the problem. The onerous provisions of cap and trade will bankrupt America that much sooner. Our endless wars overseas are only exacerbating our debt. Just like the Soviet Union collapsed from Afghanistan, Afghanistan is going to bankrupt and collapse America too. Neither republicans nor democrats have shown any ability to control deficit spending or eliminate debt. It will continue to rise, it cannot be paid off, and interest on the debt will reach such unpayable levels that a taxpayer revolt will follow.
White Nationalism has an easy answer to our debt problems. If we are a new nation, we don't owe a dime to anyone. We have nothing to do with the USA's debt, as we are no longer a part of the USA. A white separatist state would leave behind the decayed husk of the USA, which would still exist on paper, and would still be responsible for all of its debt and the people who have to answer to all of their creditors. We won't be. We will start with a new currency and a new budget, at a complete 0. A new beginning, total debt forgiveness for everyone, a clean slate. Considering how many people are in debt to their ears just to pay for necessities in America like housing, transportation, and education, total debt forgiveness to all the vampires who gave out these loans is a selling point only WN will offer. Come to our state and start over, this time with a citizen's dividend to help pay your way through life. That is the only answer. The old USA is bankrupt and can't do anything anymore about its headlong plummet into insolvency.
Third, modern employment is a shell game. Most people are not in fact in productive employment, they are pretending they are doing something and collecting pay checks from those they con -- either from tax payers, or from fools who buy their useless products and services because of a sufficiently persuasive advertisement. America is determined to exist for the sake of the super rich, who set public policy. They will continue to allow millions of unskilled immigrants into the country even with 20% unemployment rates. They will continue to take advantage of gullible and stupid people with all sorts of insurance, lawyers, debt, and luxury spending scams. Credit cards have interest rates at like 50%. This is just usury. Public bureaucrats who ostensibly were hired to take care of the poor, pocket all of the money for themselves and only take care of themselves. Teachers fail to teach their students the most basic abilities in math, reading, and writing. Kids are going to college incapable of converting fractions to decimals.
We are facing a dual problem, a giant employed workforce that do nothing but leech off of the productive, and a giant unemployed workforce that can't even do that. The answer isn't to get everyone back to work. There isn't enough work to do that. The answer is a new paradigm where work is not the center of life. First, we must stop immigration so that what work there is, is available to our citizens. Second, we must pay a citizen's dividend so that people without work can still live and raise children in our community. We should return to jobs based on manufacturing, extraction of natural resources, and high tech gadgets our geniuses can provide the outside world. As we will have high standards for our citizenry, and use eugenics from there to improve them, we will quickly have the best scientists and universities on Earth. Converting that into businesses that provide money is not that difficult. Imagine our experts going around building fusion power plants for China. That's a very large market, that only White Nationalism will achieve, because we are the only people on earth serious about creating genius (eugenics) educating genius (IQ tracking and schools for the gifted, not the remedial, put first), and employing genius (giving them the money they need to spend on science experiments of their choice). In America, some woeful amount of GDP is spent on research and development. Something less than 5%. All of it goes down the sink of maintenance costs, like medicare. By lowering our maintenance costs and honoring a more frugal living (and abolishing all parasitism that diverts our economy down sewer holes), we can save more money and sink it into science. By investing more in science, we can become the leaders of the world in technology. By becoming the leaders, we can create whole new markets that will both employ and enrich our citizenry.
Fourth, nihilism and hedonism have seized our youth culture and it is hurting them, and those around them, in incalculable ways. Anyone you ask, if offered a choice between being dumped, or beaten up, would choose being beaten up. But assault is banned and dumping is fine. Anyone on earth who was given a choice between losing their wallet, and losing their wife, would choose their wallet. But stealing is banned and divorce is fine. Anyone on earth who was given a choice between their house being burned down, and becoming addicted to a deadly chemical which warps their whole life around mindless highs and lows until they die, would choose for their houses to burn down. But arson is banned and drugs are fine. Anyone on earth would prefer to be groped or called a lecherous name, than their kid die in a drunk driving accident (whether it was their kid or the other driver.) And yet sexual harassment is banned and alcohol is legal.
In our bizarro world, the things that hurt us most, are all legal, and we have no legal recourse to avenge ourselves upon our victimizers. Whereas the things that hurt us least -- well, it's not like they are rigorously persecuted either. Crime gets almost as large a free pass as immorality in the new improved America. America has no intention of stopping this descent. Crime will rise in direct correlation to the demographics of our minorities. Feminism will continue to entrench itself, and hedonism will continue to spread, so long as broken homes perpetuate a vicious cycle into worse and worse behavior each generation. There is nothing communism, libertarianism, liberals, or Christianity can do to stop these trends, because none of them are willing to pass any law against them.
White nationalism is different. It grants that if a government is going to take away your right to redress your grievances, then it must redress your grievances itself. If we are not allowed to kill women who cheat on us, then the government must punish them, and prevent them from committing adultery, in the first place. If we are not allowed to seek out and kill anyone who hurts our family, the government must seek out and kill them first. If we are not allowed to enforce oaths like "till death do us part," then the government must enforce those oaths for us, by banning divorce in all but exceptional cases. If we are not allowed to protect our children by limiting their access to mental sewage, drug dealers, sluts, alcohol, and so on -- then the government must be willing to do so for us. The current US government requires all the children of America run a gauntlet of STD's, miscegenation, pre-marital sex, drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, depression, suicide, and crime before they hit 25. A parent of a single child, after investing his entire life into that child's happiness, must sit back and watch helplessly to see what will become of him, now that he is outside the parent's protection. More often than not, the result is horrible, and breaks their heart. Who speaks for them? Who offers any solace to them? Just as horrible though is a parent with five kids, who has to run the gauntlet five times, each time wondering if this is the loved one who society will corrupt, betray, and kill before he even had a chance to live. We need a government that addresses a parent's fears and a child's rights to grow up in an environment that's at least attempting to give them a good life. Attempting to provide a happy path for them to follow. Our commercials, our media, our stories, do nothing but celebrate vice and degeneracy. But the people who actually practice these creeds are not happy and vivacious like the stories show. They are depressed, suicidal, poor, diseased, despised, and ashamed of themselves. Nothing good comes from it. They are sold a bill of goods, conned. They are victims of a fraud perpetrated by their society. It said drug use, alcohol, cigarettes, free love, divorce, adultery, sodomy, and all the rest were the path to happiness and liberation, when in fact they are just a path to hell and an early death, making everyone else miserable around you as you go.
Eventually society will become so degenerate it will no longer be able to raise a functioning member of society. When the entire next generation of kids become homeless nymphomaniac druggees, society will no longer stand. At that point only a pure ethnostate that starts over from first principles, that unapologetically stamps out vice and sin, can save a state from economic and violent dissolution.
Fifth, the birth rates of the modern west are unsustainable. Any culture that fails to have 2.1 children per generation is doomed to eventual extinction. Whites in America are something like 1.7. Smarter whites have an even lower birth rate. Obviously, if your population keeps halving, and halving, and halving, each generation, eventually it disappears entirely. Given the state of marriage, the state of the economy, the state of our morals, there is no way people will spontaneously start having more kids. They can't afford them, and they are too selfish to have them or raise them. Many people have a genuine fear that even having children in this age is child abuse. If they have no hope that a white born today could have a good life in a majority-minority USA, they will simply not have kids as a mercy to them.
Libertarianism, communism, christianity, none of these people can solve the fertility rate, because none of them are willing to lay down a simple law. You MUST marry by age 20 and have 2 kids by age 25. That simple. White nationalism will do so, and in doing so, secure the existence of our people and a future for white children. That is the most essential law in the entire law code. More important even than immigration control. It is the absolute pillar of the new white ethno-state. Without it, all we have is ashes, old age, and death. Alongside this law, will be help provided by the government to make sure it is possible to follow it. The citizen's dividend, which can pay for a family of 4 even without any other job. Apprenticeships for children leaving school, so they have a real chance at a skilled job they enjoy. Moral education in the schools, so people get used to their duty and do not find it particularly harsh or onerous. And laws that forbid adultery and divorce, that help keep families together. And a military and police force willing to make sure no one can harm the children you do have.
Given that America is plunging into nihilist hedonism, unpayable debt, intolerable diversity, below replacement birth rates, and economic disaster, the question isn't why America would fail. The real question is how can anyone imagine it will survive? It is fated to fall. History demands it falls. The only way for it not to fall, at this point, would be technological inventions so dramatic they simply sweep the board of all preexisting conditions and start civilization over on a new level. Technology does not have much time left to do this. The collapse will be within 30-50 years. All of the problems listed above have no answer from the usual suspects. In fact, they are the people who created these problems in the first place. The biggest problem is they fail to recognize them as problems. The second largest is none of them have the guts to pass a law against them. If you don't have the guts to pass a law, you cannot solve any problem. If individuals could solve their own problems, they wouldn't exist in the first place. It's obvious, by the very existence of our problems, that individuals CANNOT solve them alone, that government IS needed to find solutions to them. Even so, libertarians, liberals, conservatives, all harp endlessly on how individuals, freedom, and the free market will find solutions to all of our problems. If they could have found a solution, they would have by now. All across the world fertility is extinction level for the white race. Every single government has responded by saying individuals will work it out themselves. Every single country continues to reproduce at extinction levels. What larger experiment is necessary to prove my point? Will they need the extra data of the next 30 years? Do any of them think fertility will turn around in that time? With mass immigration flooding all the available jobs and unemployment at 20%? Yeah, good luck with that.
Ahh! I forgot dysgenics eventually lowering intelligence to the point that a modern technological society can no longer be maintained, another dagger to the heart of contemporary America. Another problem only WN can solve. I'd also point out a variety of environmental crisis coming our way, from global warming to water loss to topsoil loss, but I am not sure how bad they will really be. I will just point out it is possible environmental crisis will also add to America's woes, and that WN would rely on sustainability as a matter of course. Simply by switching to nuclear power and banning immigration, we would become the most green government on earth.
In any event, the point is this. America's problems are too large for anything to save our country, short of a miracle. All the other parties have no solutions to our problems. People in the midst of this collapse will continue to suffer, no matter how many parties and movements they turn to. Their continued suffering will make them continue searching and changing in the hopes of finding a solution. By default, everyone who turns to nationalism will stop searching or changing, because it is the right answer. This sorting process will result in everyone eventually, by random chance, evolving into white nationalists. At this point we will take power and solve all the problems on Earth. It is simply a syllogism. How can it not be this way? If we are right about the coming problems facing the earth, the problems only we talk about and everyone else refuses to believe even exist, much less need solutions, we will be the only group that can solve them. The only group people can turn to when the crisis arrives. Nationalism is therefore fated to be victorious, or was unnecessary all along, in which case it's better that we're not victorious. Either way we win. IF no crisis arrives and everything is magically perfect, then there was no need for nationalism and we can all just enjoy our peaceful and productive lives. If a crisis does arrive just like we predicted, then people will turn to us for their solutions and we will provide them, for our own lives and theirs, creating a utopia where we can all be happy again. I can't ask for more from either eventuality. The future is bright.
Communism < Conservatism < Liberalism < Islam < Nationalism.
I think this is an important topic, because it is my basis for all my optimism. Communism fell because it was unsustainable. It fell without even a bullet fired. It fell when people realized that there was a gap between their ideology and their reality. The gap could no longer be papered over by lies, it was simply too vast for anyone to not see it anymore. It could no longer be bullied or murdered into submission, because even the soldiers were going hungry, dying in Afghanistan, and ashamed of themselves. There were simply no pillars left for the state to continue, and so it ended. It ended suddenly, without warning, and without a shot fired. There was a collective last gasp of Soviet Man, and it simply died of old age.
The Soviet Union was less capable of long term survival than America is, as far as tyrannies go. For one thing, the rulers of Russia were Russians. This made it very hard for them to be cruel, to be inhuman, towards their own people. Somewhere in their hearts they still loved Mother Russia, and could not bring themselves to the same cruelties that the Georgian Stalin and his jewish comissaars did in the 1930's. America is firmly in the grip of minority rule. The 'slicer' coalition of jews at the top, and their low IQ legions at the bottom, have been dictating our discourse, what can and cannot be said, what can and cannot be thought, for decades. Our minority government is willing to do anything to us. Their open borders policy is genocide, they know it, and they revel in it. They feel nothing for us. Nothing but hatred and the desire to genocide us as quickly as they can. In comparison, Russia's rulers were saints.
Second, the Soviet Union did not have, for the most part, true believers among the populace. The United States does, and in ridiculously high numbers. Communism was not a religion, it was an economic model that promised to deliver people material wealth. This was a very bad system to base a tyranny on, because if it can't deliver the wealth, people have no reason to be loyal to the ideology. Islam is much better. It delivers all its goodies in paradise, after you are dead. There is no way to verify whether Islam is true or not. Therefore it can rule for eternity, and the people subject to it can think they are in fact happy and blessed to live under tyranny, penury, and brutality all their lives. I would say multiculturalism is somewhere in between. This is because the promise of multiculturalism is a spiritual good, that is delivered in the present.
The promise of multiculturalism is that blissful moment when you hold hands and sing kumbayah with people of all types, overcoming all differences for a spiritual union in the embrace of the brotherhood of man. It never has to actually happen in real life, simply imagining it is good enough for most liberals. Liberals who live in all white neighborhoods, who attend all white schools, who go to an all white church, and only marry other whites, still get the spiritual goods of the kumbayah song, rumbling throughout their lives in the back of their heads. "I am one of the good people, the chosen people, the blessed liberal who overcame hate and embraced love." There is no real way to quantify the 'good' that multiculturalism provides for these people. Feeling good about yourself, and gaining the approval of all your peers for evincing the right opinions about multiculturalism, is basically priceless. Even if the whole country is falling apart and the liberals are starving to death in basements hiding from machete wielding blacks, they will be thinking to themselves, "I am one of the good people, the people who embraced love, not hate. If only all those haters hadn't made the blacks so disadvantaged, if only we could have given them more, if only they had been raised differently, none of this would have happened. At least I'll die knowing I wasn't one of those awful racists. I will forgive the very blacks who come to slit my throat, and try one last time to hug them, to show them that really I was one of the good ones, the liberals, who embraced love."
This religious ecstasy will be the highlight of their lives. The more they suffer for diversity, for 'love,' for the brotherhood of man, the more elevated and spiritual and joyous they become. There is no point, no amount of destruction, that could convince them to change their minds. Then their life would have been in vain, and they wouldn't be the elect, the chosen, the blessed, the 'lovers.' They'd rather die than become a 'hater,' it is the new taboo, the unclean, the desecration. You can snort cocaine and have endless sex of all types with all people, and you are still pure. But if you think a nasty thought against a non-white group, you are defiled forever. Religious feeling does not go away simply because a religion has been discredited. Humans evolved to be religious. For one reason, it gave them a healthy respect for the unseen -- like germs and disease. For another, it helped promote order and cooperation between groups, which gave the obedient, the faithful, the meek, an edge over more fractious and infighting barbarians. There might also be further advantages, it might be a consolation for the suffering, a relief to the lonely, a strength to the warrior who would otherwise flee, there's so many benefits faith can provide the weak. Who wouldn't want an all-powerful, or at least very powerful, God on their side? Who wouldn't perform better, at any task, if an All-Knowing God were watching and would judge you in the afterlife? We are stuck with faith.
Liberals have chosen their faith. It is very difficult to convert people from their faith. Communism was not a faith -- liberalism, multiculturalism, is. But unlike Islam, it is a faith that can be shaken by reality. Because many of these liberals will find that, despite themselves, they really do hate the non-whites. That, after enough contact with them, it really has become too much. That they really do want out. That, after all, maybe there really is a limit to how much they can stomach. There are also the people who thought they were liberals, simply because no one had ever told them otherwise, but the moment they are forced to stop and think about it -- by being mugged by a black, or forced into bankruptcy, or divorced, or hurt by some socially approved group -- they suddenly realize they were never liberals to begin with. As non-whites hurt whites more and more often, these people will be the first to realize what a croc the whole thing is.
Liberalism also made the mistake of basing its creed on verifiable facts. It is very difficult to have faith in something when you know it isn't true. Liberalism's required fact, the foolish weakness it left in its armor, is that all people are essentially equal. That the only differences between men and women, whites and blacks, are superficial and bodily. That every single brain is a blank slate, of infinite potential. Just as communism was eventually rebutted by the fact that everyone was still poor, egalitarianism will eventually be rebutted by irrefutable scientific evidence that people are not equal and can never become equal, no matter what you do. This will occur when we find the gene(s) for intelligence. It is inevitable. The gene for intelligence is basically the same as when St. Paul said, "If Christ is not risen, there is no faith." If there is a gene for intelligence, there is no faith. That's it. It simply falls to dust forever. Certainly it is possible to doublethink, to somehow embrace a contradiction, to soldier on despite the nagging doubts in your head, but it's like a deer running after an arrow has already pierced its heart. All the hunter needs do is follow it a few hundred yards and let it die.
Liberalism will not outlive the generation that discovers the intelligence gene. It will die with them. What faith will then replace anti-racism? Like a pendulum's swing, it will of course BE racism. It will be a faith built on blood, nature, evolution, destiny. People will realize they are all born with a wyrd, a doom, a pre-existing identity, and that they are part of a vast sea of genes that are all them, that the race is all in it together. It will be the religion of the race-soul. The acknowledgment of human differences, followed by an exploration of what it means to be a member of your group, followed by an enlightened adherence to the 'type' you learn you represent. The Platonic Ideal of Whiteness will become the hero in our literature, the person our genes are telling us to be, to become, to grow into. And our faith will be judging ourselves, and others, on how closely we approach these ideals. It is clear to me what the ideals of the white race soul are, and what the platonic white man is -- a vessel of truth, beauty, and love. That is our race soul, that is our new religion. That is our staff to lean on, and our afterlife to look upon, our purpose to fulfill, our reason for being, our all in all. It is everything religion ever provided, and reality cannot break it because finally, for once, it is reality.
Our new taboos, our new desecrations, would be treason to the race. Would be acting in a manner not becoming to our race. Dishonor and disloyalty will be the two charges everyone trembles under and fears. The two charges they will do anything to avoid. And two charges we will, with righteous indignation, enforce to the hilt, just like liberalism currently legislates its morality in hate crime laws, anti-discrimination laws, etc. You can tell what morality is prevalent by what is illegal. Don't bother with the libertarian crap about how everything should be legal. Every age has its religious taboos, has some behavior banned that makes no sense, except from a religious point of view. It can be eating pork, or cows. It can be wearing magic underwear, or hats. But the law is deadly serious about it all the same. White Nationalism will be deadly serious about our laws too. You can tell a serious person from a non-serious, by his willingness to enforce his values with deadly, and righteous, justice. If his convictions have not yet reached that point, you can dismiss him as a non-entity. Anyone who won't show up for the fight doesn't matter. He will simply obey those who do. Liberals are in deadly earnest, there are thousands of people currently in jail all across Europe for questioning their creed. The communists weren't. In the end, they couldn't shoot on their own people anymore. Liberals can. Muslims can. And serious white nationalists can too.
Our myths like 'the day of the rope,' are not going anywhere. They show we are deadly serious about enforcing our values on our people, on tabooing the taboo. That is the sign of a healthy, and powerful, religion. A community that will not rot or change with the tides of fashion, because too many people are still willing to kill and die to defend it. You have to admire Islam -- after 1400 years there are still suicide bombers and assassins killing and dying to enforce their taboos. Do not badmouth the Prophet, do not become a loose woman, etc. Communism was a total lightweight. It lasted 70 years. Liberalism is probably somewhere in between. It has a higher inner strength than communism, (or libertarianism for that matter. Who has ever been a martyr for cutting government spending?) but much less than Islam, and much less than nationalism. Nationalism mobilized all the nations of Europe and made them bleed each other in the tens of millions. I don't mean dragging civilians by the hair and shooting them in the back of the head -- communism can kill helpless people in large batches. But communism couldn't save the USSR from the Wehrmacht, they were simply surrendering across the entire front. Stalin had to appeal to the people's patriotism, he had to stoop and call his people 'brothers' over the radio. In fact, it is still called the Great Patriotic War over there. Likewise, patriotism is what drove the Nazis to fight against overwhelming odds on all fronts, throughout the entire war. They were always outnumbered, outgunned, and surrounded. It didn't matter, they were nationalists, and nationalism is strong. The people answer to its call. Wave a flag and sing a national anthem, and the effect is electric. Tears spring into people's eyes. Our faith is incredibly powerful. Liberals recognize this, that is why they spend 24/7 denouncing us, and no other opposition. That is why they fight us day and night, not their deracinated Republican foes, not the aracial color blind libertarians, no one but us. They are terrified of us. Specifically, the anti-semites. Why? Because we are the only serious people. The only determined people. Anti-semites are the people who withstand the test of character. They know it is impossible for any threats to emerge from a group too cowardly to even name the jew, or tell the honest truth, or proclaim their real beliefs for the world to see. How can I identify the 'serious' white nationalists? Just look at our two stories of revolution. One is by Pierce, the other by Covington. The only two authors who wrote glowingly about a race war to save the white race, were both anti-semites. If philo-semites were serious, they would have just as bloody a story of their own, only, it wouldn't involve any antisemitism. You would expect scenes of massive slaughter and carnage, of heroes breaking all moral taboos and creating their own law wherever they went, of selfless sacrifice for the race no matter what the price -- where are their stories? Nowhere. Only anti-semites write serious pro-white literature about a serious pro-white future. The philo-semites, simply by having no vision of the future, having not even a fantasy of victory, can instantly be identified as the already defeated. The already crushed in spirit. They won't show up at the muster. They'll be muttering about having too many 'bad elements,' and 'being too socialist,' and 'making us look bad,' even after the bullets start to fly. They are the crushed in spirit and they will sit on the sidelines the whole war long. They are cowards. I'd be fine with jews in my country, so long as they apologized for what they as a group have done in the past, marry whites, and their kids marry whites, and their kids marry whites, (and so on), and adopt the same faith as the rest of us -- clinging to no shred of separate identity the moment they take on citizenship. They will either be wholly a member of the community, or not in our community at all. Assimilate or leave.
We don't need jews. If they won't abide by our terms, fuck them. There are six times as many intelligent whites as intelligent jews, in America alone. We did just fine without them before they arrived in the late 1800's, and we'll do just fine after they're gone. We don't need you. We don't need your approval. We don't need your help. We don't need you. If you want to join, fine. But it will be on our terms, and in service to us. Not you, not your tribe.
The same goes for any other assimilable minority. If you bring something to the table, if you're a swell guy, fine. But you will marry a white, and your children will marry whites, and their children will marry whites, and so on. And you will abandon your identity at the door. You will be an honorary aryan and go by nothing else. Your loyalty will be to the white race and no one else. If you don't love us, if your heart doesn't swell with pride when you read the constitution, or look at our statues, or salute our flag -- then leave. Assimilate or leave. Don't create a space in the culture for you, don't make us include you, don't try to widen our horizons or broaden our exclusiveness. Fit in or leave. Even advocacy that our nation 'should really be more about x' or 'should really include more y's' would be treason and you'd be gone or strung up on the nearest lamp post, depending on our mood. We don't need you. You're here because a white person loves you, and you love a white person. That was your ticket in, that was the good faith we saw in you. If that good faith was simply a pretense, then so is our tolerance. Our forbearance is also a pretense, liable to snap at the first hint that something has gone wrong. If you aren't confident that you belong here, don't come.
Why jump through all these hoops instead of just ban non-whites outright? Because part of the white race soul is objectivity and fairness. If they really, truly, objectively, are more qualified than a white, and more loyal to whites than a white, if they are closer to the platonic ideal of the white race soul than a white is, it would be a betrayal of our nature to turn them away. And a white homeland needs to first and foremost abide by our inner nature, or the cognitive dissonance will a) stillbirth the nation as it does not appeal to the European race soul as worthy to fight for. b) create cognitive dissonance in our populace as we read all the sob stories of people discriminated against for no good reason, even if the nation were to succeed, and the stress of this cognitive dissonance would rot us from within. It would make people less loyal, and more doubtful, over who is really in the right, and who is the moral side.
That is a moral high ground we cannot leave to our opponents. We cannot leave any morality to our opponents. ALL morality, ALL of it, will belong to us. We will have an absolute monopoly on the entire heart of the white race. If there is some part of whites we are not serving, then we have failed them. As a reflection of the white race soul, we must accept the white race's verdicts -- and one of them is fairness, objectivity, merit -- to set up standards, and judge people as individuals, not ahead of time, not summarily, not as a group.
This does not mean we can't have standards. We can have extremely high standards, standards that invalidate 99.9999% of all nonwhites and jews. So long as they are applied fairly and evenly, so long as there is a standard that can conceivably be met, whites will feel reassured that we are in the right and have the moral high ground. Citizenship being earned through love of country and adherence to its laws does not strike people as unfair. People being turned away, families being broken up, patriots who supported us from the beginning being less qualified than illiterate hillbillies -- that will break us, not them. Liberals would just love that. They'd focus all their cameras on it. It would be our undoing. That is not a moral high ground I am willing to cede.
Communism is the weakest belief system, it lasted the shortest time, because it couldn't deliver on very simple promises and was exposed for a fraud immediately. Conservatism used to be strong, but now that Christianity has been exposed as absurd, with no divine retribution, no miracles, no cures outside of modern medicine, no reward for being Christian, with the origin of the universe and life and intelligence being explained by science, the religion is dead and the rats are leaving the ship. Likewise, all that nonsense about small government, liberty, low taxes, and so on is anemic and pathetic. It hasn't had any power since the articles of confederation and it's never coming back. People Want a strong government. They Want a society that looks after them and protects them. They Want to be part of something bigger than themselves. The only people who argued for liberty were just liars who were really fighting for race. Whether it was the Confederacy, the State's Rights movement opposed to desegregation, or the tax cutters who want to give less welfare to minorities, it is always just a veiled position on race. Racism Lite can never compete with principled, determined Racism. It can't even compete with liberalism. The sooner it dies the better.
Liberalism is strong for now, but it is built on a foundation of sand -- the scientific belief in the equality of mankind. Once that is dis-proven, it will be in the exact same situation that Christianity finds itself in today. The old people will cling to it, the young will mock it and discard it for good. All of society will be searching desperately for a new direction, this time founded on the truth.
Islam carries with it a poison pill -- its lack of innovation means it will always be scientifically, and thus militarily and economically, weak. Anyone with brains and courage can smash it in direct conflict. Islam has relied on the cowardice of its opponents, whose principles were not strong enough or coherent enough to stop their extremely principled and extremely focused goal of world conquest. It will break on the rocks of white nationalism. We are smarter, we are more ruthless, we are more innovative, we are more flexible, we are everything they can never be. If Islam attempted to fuck with a white nationalist Europe-Russia-America axis, God help them.
And so we arrive at nationalism. Looking at the European elections, we're around 10% of the populace already. In the past, we had total power. Science cannot discredit our claims because we are right. Our countries can't collapse because countries only collapse due to diversity. We cannot lose a war because nationalism creates the greatest warriors of all. Our economy can't collapse because we are devoted to science, genius, and equity. Our fertility can't collapse because we will require marriage and children. Our morals won't collapse because we will use censorship, education, and law to train our people onto another path. Our genome won't collapse because we will employ eugenics. Our government won't collapse because our nobility will enforce an unchanging constitution. Nationalism has no weaknesses, it only falls to an even more powerful nationalism. That's what sunk the Germans in World War I and World War II. If not for the same nationalist fervor in the hearts of their Russian, British, French, and American foes, they would have conquered the world. Nationalists DID conquer the world. Only after the European powers had conquered the whole world, did they fall to bickering amongst each other for the spoils. The most foolish, greedy, short sighted wars ever fought. But nevertheless, proof positive that nationalism is the strongest system on earth. All attempts to replace it will fail. Meanwhile, all other system's failures will be replaced by nationalism. It happened last time society was in disorder, it will happen again. It can't happen any other way.
The Soviet Union was less capable of long term survival than America is, as far as tyrannies go. For one thing, the rulers of Russia were Russians. This made it very hard for them to be cruel, to be inhuman, towards their own people. Somewhere in their hearts they still loved Mother Russia, and could not bring themselves to the same cruelties that the Georgian Stalin and his jewish comissaars did in the 1930's. America is firmly in the grip of minority rule. The 'slicer' coalition of jews at the top, and their low IQ legions at the bottom, have been dictating our discourse, what can and cannot be said, what can and cannot be thought, for decades. Our minority government is willing to do anything to us. Their open borders policy is genocide, they know it, and they revel in it. They feel nothing for us. Nothing but hatred and the desire to genocide us as quickly as they can. In comparison, Russia's rulers were saints.
Second, the Soviet Union did not have, for the most part, true believers among the populace. The United States does, and in ridiculously high numbers. Communism was not a religion, it was an economic model that promised to deliver people material wealth. This was a very bad system to base a tyranny on, because if it can't deliver the wealth, people have no reason to be loyal to the ideology. Islam is much better. It delivers all its goodies in paradise, after you are dead. There is no way to verify whether Islam is true or not. Therefore it can rule for eternity, and the people subject to it can think they are in fact happy and blessed to live under tyranny, penury, and brutality all their lives. I would say multiculturalism is somewhere in between. This is because the promise of multiculturalism is a spiritual good, that is delivered in the present.
The promise of multiculturalism is that blissful moment when you hold hands and sing kumbayah with people of all types, overcoming all differences for a spiritual union in the embrace of the brotherhood of man. It never has to actually happen in real life, simply imagining it is good enough for most liberals. Liberals who live in all white neighborhoods, who attend all white schools, who go to an all white church, and only marry other whites, still get the spiritual goods of the kumbayah song, rumbling throughout their lives in the back of their heads. "I am one of the good people, the chosen people, the blessed liberal who overcame hate and embraced love." There is no real way to quantify the 'good' that multiculturalism provides for these people. Feeling good about yourself, and gaining the approval of all your peers for evincing the right opinions about multiculturalism, is basically priceless. Even if the whole country is falling apart and the liberals are starving to death in basements hiding from machete wielding blacks, they will be thinking to themselves, "I am one of the good people, the people who embraced love, not hate. If only all those haters hadn't made the blacks so disadvantaged, if only we could have given them more, if only they had been raised differently, none of this would have happened. At least I'll die knowing I wasn't one of those awful racists. I will forgive the very blacks who come to slit my throat, and try one last time to hug them, to show them that really I was one of the good ones, the liberals, who embraced love."
This religious ecstasy will be the highlight of their lives. The more they suffer for diversity, for 'love,' for the brotherhood of man, the more elevated and spiritual and joyous they become. There is no point, no amount of destruction, that could convince them to change their minds. Then their life would have been in vain, and they wouldn't be the elect, the chosen, the blessed, the 'lovers.' They'd rather die than become a 'hater,' it is the new taboo, the unclean, the desecration. You can snort cocaine and have endless sex of all types with all people, and you are still pure. But if you think a nasty thought against a non-white group, you are defiled forever. Religious feeling does not go away simply because a religion has been discredited. Humans evolved to be religious. For one reason, it gave them a healthy respect for the unseen -- like germs and disease. For another, it helped promote order and cooperation between groups, which gave the obedient, the faithful, the meek, an edge over more fractious and infighting barbarians. There might also be further advantages, it might be a consolation for the suffering, a relief to the lonely, a strength to the warrior who would otherwise flee, there's so many benefits faith can provide the weak. Who wouldn't want an all-powerful, or at least very powerful, God on their side? Who wouldn't perform better, at any task, if an All-Knowing God were watching and would judge you in the afterlife? We are stuck with faith.
Liberals have chosen their faith. It is very difficult to convert people from their faith. Communism was not a faith -- liberalism, multiculturalism, is. But unlike Islam, it is a faith that can be shaken by reality. Because many of these liberals will find that, despite themselves, they really do hate the non-whites. That, after enough contact with them, it really has become too much. That they really do want out. That, after all, maybe there really is a limit to how much they can stomach. There are also the people who thought they were liberals, simply because no one had ever told them otherwise, but the moment they are forced to stop and think about it -- by being mugged by a black, or forced into bankruptcy, or divorced, or hurt by some socially approved group -- they suddenly realize they were never liberals to begin with. As non-whites hurt whites more and more often, these people will be the first to realize what a croc the whole thing is.
Liberalism also made the mistake of basing its creed on verifiable facts. It is very difficult to have faith in something when you know it isn't true. Liberalism's required fact, the foolish weakness it left in its armor, is that all people are essentially equal. That the only differences between men and women, whites and blacks, are superficial and bodily. That every single brain is a blank slate, of infinite potential. Just as communism was eventually rebutted by the fact that everyone was still poor, egalitarianism will eventually be rebutted by irrefutable scientific evidence that people are not equal and can never become equal, no matter what you do. This will occur when we find the gene(s) for intelligence. It is inevitable. The gene for intelligence is basically the same as when St. Paul said, "If Christ is not risen, there is no faith." If there is a gene for intelligence, there is no faith. That's it. It simply falls to dust forever. Certainly it is possible to doublethink, to somehow embrace a contradiction, to soldier on despite the nagging doubts in your head, but it's like a deer running after an arrow has already pierced its heart. All the hunter needs do is follow it a few hundred yards and let it die.
Liberalism will not outlive the generation that discovers the intelligence gene. It will die with them. What faith will then replace anti-racism? Like a pendulum's swing, it will of course BE racism. It will be a faith built on blood, nature, evolution, destiny. People will realize they are all born with a wyrd, a doom, a pre-existing identity, and that they are part of a vast sea of genes that are all them, that the race is all in it together. It will be the religion of the race-soul. The acknowledgment of human differences, followed by an exploration of what it means to be a member of your group, followed by an enlightened adherence to the 'type' you learn you represent. The Platonic Ideal of Whiteness will become the hero in our literature, the person our genes are telling us to be, to become, to grow into. And our faith will be judging ourselves, and others, on how closely we approach these ideals. It is clear to me what the ideals of the white race soul are, and what the platonic white man is -- a vessel of truth, beauty, and love. That is our race soul, that is our new religion. That is our staff to lean on, and our afterlife to look upon, our purpose to fulfill, our reason for being, our all in all. It is everything religion ever provided, and reality cannot break it because finally, for once, it is reality.
Our new taboos, our new desecrations, would be treason to the race. Would be acting in a manner not becoming to our race. Dishonor and disloyalty will be the two charges everyone trembles under and fears. The two charges they will do anything to avoid. And two charges we will, with righteous indignation, enforce to the hilt, just like liberalism currently legislates its morality in hate crime laws, anti-discrimination laws, etc. You can tell what morality is prevalent by what is illegal. Don't bother with the libertarian crap about how everything should be legal. Every age has its religious taboos, has some behavior banned that makes no sense, except from a religious point of view. It can be eating pork, or cows. It can be wearing magic underwear, or hats. But the law is deadly serious about it all the same. White Nationalism will be deadly serious about our laws too. You can tell a serious person from a non-serious, by his willingness to enforce his values with deadly, and righteous, justice. If his convictions have not yet reached that point, you can dismiss him as a non-entity. Anyone who won't show up for the fight doesn't matter. He will simply obey those who do. Liberals are in deadly earnest, there are thousands of people currently in jail all across Europe for questioning their creed. The communists weren't. In the end, they couldn't shoot on their own people anymore. Liberals can. Muslims can. And serious white nationalists can too.
Our myths like 'the day of the rope,' are not going anywhere. They show we are deadly serious about enforcing our values on our people, on tabooing the taboo. That is the sign of a healthy, and powerful, religion. A community that will not rot or change with the tides of fashion, because too many people are still willing to kill and die to defend it. You have to admire Islam -- after 1400 years there are still suicide bombers and assassins killing and dying to enforce their taboos. Do not badmouth the Prophet, do not become a loose woman, etc. Communism was a total lightweight. It lasted 70 years. Liberalism is probably somewhere in between. It has a higher inner strength than communism, (or libertarianism for that matter. Who has ever been a martyr for cutting government spending?) but much less than Islam, and much less than nationalism. Nationalism mobilized all the nations of Europe and made them bleed each other in the tens of millions. I don't mean dragging civilians by the hair and shooting them in the back of the head -- communism can kill helpless people in large batches. But communism couldn't save the USSR from the Wehrmacht, they were simply surrendering across the entire front. Stalin had to appeal to the people's patriotism, he had to stoop and call his people 'brothers' over the radio. In fact, it is still called the Great Patriotic War over there. Likewise, patriotism is what drove the Nazis to fight against overwhelming odds on all fronts, throughout the entire war. They were always outnumbered, outgunned, and surrounded. It didn't matter, they were nationalists, and nationalism is strong. The people answer to its call. Wave a flag and sing a national anthem, and the effect is electric. Tears spring into people's eyes. Our faith is incredibly powerful. Liberals recognize this, that is why they spend 24/7 denouncing us, and no other opposition. That is why they fight us day and night, not their deracinated Republican foes, not the aracial color blind libertarians, no one but us. They are terrified of us. Specifically, the anti-semites. Why? Because we are the only serious people. The only determined people. Anti-semites are the people who withstand the test of character. They know it is impossible for any threats to emerge from a group too cowardly to even name the jew, or tell the honest truth, or proclaim their real beliefs for the world to see. How can I identify the 'serious' white nationalists? Just look at our two stories of revolution. One is by Pierce, the other by Covington. The only two authors who wrote glowingly about a race war to save the white race, were both anti-semites. If philo-semites were serious, they would have just as bloody a story of their own, only, it wouldn't involve any antisemitism. You would expect scenes of massive slaughter and carnage, of heroes breaking all moral taboos and creating their own law wherever they went, of selfless sacrifice for the race no matter what the price -- where are their stories? Nowhere. Only anti-semites write serious pro-white literature about a serious pro-white future. The philo-semites, simply by having no vision of the future, having not even a fantasy of victory, can instantly be identified as the already defeated. The already crushed in spirit. They won't show up at the muster. They'll be muttering about having too many 'bad elements,' and 'being too socialist,' and 'making us look bad,' even after the bullets start to fly. They are the crushed in spirit and they will sit on the sidelines the whole war long. They are cowards. I'd be fine with jews in my country, so long as they apologized for what they as a group have done in the past, marry whites, and their kids marry whites, and their kids marry whites, (and so on), and adopt the same faith as the rest of us -- clinging to no shred of separate identity the moment they take on citizenship. They will either be wholly a member of the community, or not in our community at all. Assimilate or leave.
We don't need jews. If they won't abide by our terms, fuck them. There are six times as many intelligent whites as intelligent jews, in America alone. We did just fine without them before they arrived in the late 1800's, and we'll do just fine after they're gone. We don't need you. We don't need your approval. We don't need your help. We don't need you. If you want to join, fine. But it will be on our terms, and in service to us. Not you, not your tribe.
The same goes for any other assimilable minority. If you bring something to the table, if you're a swell guy, fine. But you will marry a white, and your children will marry whites, and their children will marry whites, and so on. And you will abandon your identity at the door. You will be an honorary aryan and go by nothing else. Your loyalty will be to the white race and no one else. If you don't love us, if your heart doesn't swell with pride when you read the constitution, or look at our statues, or salute our flag -- then leave. Assimilate or leave. Don't create a space in the culture for you, don't make us include you, don't try to widen our horizons or broaden our exclusiveness. Fit in or leave. Even advocacy that our nation 'should really be more about x' or 'should really include more y's' would be treason and you'd be gone or strung up on the nearest lamp post, depending on our mood. We don't need you. You're here because a white person loves you, and you love a white person. That was your ticket in, that was the good faith we saw in you. If that good faith was simply a pretense, then so is our tolerance. Our forbearance is also a pretense, liable to snap at the first hint that something has gone wrong. If you aren't confident that you belong here, don't come.
Why jump through all these hoops instead of just ban non-whites outright? Because part of the white race soul is objectivity and fairness. If they really, truly, objectively, are more qualified than a white, and more loyal to whites than a white, if they are closer to the platonic ideal of the white race soul than a white is, it would be a betrayal of our nature to turn them away. And a white homeland needs to first and foremost abide by our inner nature, or the cognitive dissonance will a) stillbirth the nation as it does not appeal to the European race soul as worthy to fight for. b) create cognitive dissonance in our populace as we read all the sob stories of people discriminated against for no good reason, even if the nation were to succeed, and the stress of this cognitive dissonance would rot us from within. It would make people less loyal, and more doubtful, over who is really in the right, and who is the moral side.
That is a moral high ground we cannot leave to our opponents. We cannot leave any morality to our opponents. ALL morality, ALL of it, will belong to us. We will have an absolute monopoly on the entire heart of the white race. If there is some part of whites we are not serving, then we have failed them. As a reflection of the white race soul, we must accept the white race's verdicts -- and one of them is fairness, objectivity, merit -- to set up standards, and judge people as individuals, not ahead of time, not summarily, not as a group.
This does not mean we can't have standards. We can have extremely high standards, standards that invalidate 99.9999% of all nonwhites and jews. So long as they are applied fairly and evenly, so long as there is a standard that can conceivably be met, whites will feel reassured that we are in the right and have the moral high ground. Citizenship being earned through love of country and adherence to its laws does not strike people as unfair. People being turned away, families being broken up, patriots who supported us from the beginning being less qualified than illiterate hillbillies -- that will break us, not them. Liberals would just love that. They'd focus all their cameras on it. It would be our undoing. That is not a moral high ground I am willing to cede.
Communism is the weakest belief system, it lasted the shortest time, because it couldn't deliver on very simple promises and was exposed for a fraud immediately. Conservatism used to be strong, but now that Christianity has been exposed as absurd, with no divine retribution, no miracles, no cures outside of modern medicine, no reward for being Christian, with the origin of the universe and life and intelligence being explained by science, the religion is dead and the rats are leaving the ship. Likewise, all that nonsense about small government, liberty, low taxes, and so on is anemic and pathetic. It hasn't had any power since the articles of confederation and it's never coming back. People Want a strong government. They Want a society that looks after them and protects them. They Want to be part of something bigger than themselves. The only people who argued for liberty were just liars who were really fighting for race. Whether it was the Confederacy, the State's Rights movement opposed to desegregation, or the tax cutters who want to give less welfare to minorities, it is always just a veiled position on race. Racism Lite can never compete with principled, determined Racism. It can't even compete with liberalism. The sooner it dies the better.
Liberalism is strong for now, but it is built on a foundation of sand -- the scientific belief in the equality of mankind. Once that is dis-proven, it will be in the exact same situation that Christianity finds itself in today. The old people will cling to it, the young will mock it and discard it for good. All of society will be searching desperately for a new direction, this time founded on the truth.
Islam carries with it a poison pill -- its lack of innovation means it will always be scientifically, and thus militarily and economically, weak. Anyone with brains and courage can smash it in direct conflict. Islam has relied on the cowardice of its opponents, whose principles were not strong enough or coherent enough to stop their extremely principled and extremely focused goal of world conquest. It will break on the rocks of white nationalism. We are smarter, we are more ruthless, we are more innovative, we are more flexible, we are everything they can never be. If Islam attempted to fuck with a white nationalist Europe-Russia-America axis, God help them.
And so we arrive at nationalism. Looking at the European elections, we're around 10% of the populace already. In the past, we had total power. Science cannot discredit our claims because we are right. Our countries can't collapse because countries only collapse due to diversity. We cannot lose a war because nationalism creates the greatest warriors of all. Our economy can't collapse because we are devoted to science, genius, and equity. Our fertility can't collapse because we will require marriage and children. Our morals won't collapse because we will use censorship, education, and law to train our people onto another path. Our genome won't collapse because we will employ eugenics. Our government won't collapse because our nobility will enforce an unchanging constitution. Nationalism has no weaknesses, it only falls to an even more powerful nationalism. That's what sunk the Germans in World War I and World War II. If not for the same nationalist fervor in the hearts of their Russian, British, French, and American foes, they would have conquered the world. Nationalists DID conquer the world. Only after the European powers had conquered the whole world, did they fall to bickering amongst each other for the spoils. The most foolish, greedy, short sighted wars ever fought. But nevertheless, proof positive that nationalism is the strongest system on earth. All attempts to replace it will fail. Meanwhile, all other system's failures will be replaced by nationalism. It happened last time society was in disorder, it will happen again. It can't happen any other way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)