What is Racism? Why is it bad?

Only God knows what racism is, it has so many definitions and permutations, it is a catch-all insult used to bully anyone into submission. Racism could properly be called winning an argument against a liberal----or a libertarian. When it comes to race, they are peas in a pod.

However, to be fair, I will try to understand the opposing side and exactly what racism means to them and why they have objections to the most natural feeling in the world, preferring those genetically near to you to those genetically distant from you, just like your own relatives over strangers. Of course, you will hear from them that they don't care about even their own family because they are genetically related, that they would care just as much about step-fathers, half-brothers, adopted children, and all their in-laws. Of course, this laughably flies in the face of reality and common knowledge, everyone knows such relations are NOT equal to the real thing, but they will say it anyway. Otherwise their entire argument falls apart. To admit genetic closeness matters AT ALL to you, is to admit the entire creed of tribalism, because some people are more related to us than others. Much, much more related. In fact, from the standpoint of genetic variation, two randomly selected white strangers are more related to each other, than a race-mixer's own half-breed child is related to the white parent. And two white strangers, from the standpoint of an australian aborigine, are essentially identical twins, the gulf between them and he is so great. Don't believe me? Read it all in Ethnic Genetic Interests by Frank Salter. This is all scientifically established fact and beyond all debate. So much for that. The question isn't how genetically related groups are to each other, but whether it matters AT ALL how much.

Getting back to the definition of racism, lets try and take a few cracks at it.

1) Racism: To care about group characteristics and attach importance to the fact that people belong to certain groups, in this case the genetically related clusters known as race.

This offends a lot of people already. Individualists deny that people belong to any group, or that any group has any value. An individualist claims that only singular people have any value, that no group exists but we're just a loose collection of individuals, and that no group value can ever trump the value of a single person. To care about a group is anti-indivualist, it might put a group's interests or values or concerns over the individual, and thus, it must be rejected. These nihilist anarchists must also deny the value of other groups such as family, nation, the human race, the past, the future, the Church, the football team, the orchestra, pretty much anything conceivable offends them. Individualists must spend their whole lives being offended due to groups caring about group interests wherever they go. It must outrage them constantly to see families sticking together and caring about each other even when it pinches the individual's wishes, countries uniting to fund and fight a war for the nation's well-being even though it calls for the sacrifices of soldiers, or blockers blocking for running backs so that the team as a whole can make a first down even though it hurts to get hit. However, most people want to be part of something bigger than themselves, most people realize how puny and pointless their lives are, and wish to be part of something greater and more magnificent that they can truly respect, and thus value themselves as a vital part, a crucial member of something truly profound. A narcissist may think he's so great he can justify his own life and be all the value he needs, but the rest of us, all the sane members of humanity, realize Robinson Crusoe lived a miserable, meaningless life and the last survivor of the human race would be a crushed and hopeless man. We need to be part of something more, something that transcends our own mortal, temporary lives, something that survives, something strong, something ideal we could never be. Not in a million years of practice, not in a million years of work. Caring about belonging to a group is the most natural feeling on earth and every healthy normal person has it, the fact that This is the objection individualists have against racism is just the nihilist screaming and squealing to everyone that they should go join the death cult like him.

So let's move on to a different objection, that it's okay to care about a group, but it's wrong to care about this specific group, your race. The reason usually given is that race is simply 'physical' and not 'ideal' or 'spiritual.' This two-fold division of body and mind, matter and spirit, has been around since Plato and distorts all western thinking into this dumb, unnatural, factually wrong theory. According to western thought, there is no value to dumb inert matter, or anything physical at all. Valuable things exist in the form of 'thoughts,' 'ideal forms,' 'holiness' or some sort. To care about something which isn't composed of thoughts is heresy. God is composed of pure abstract thoughts, so is 'Good,' 'Truth,' 'Beauty,' 'Love,' and everything else we're allowed to care about. To care about race is not transcendental, it does not surpass matter, it's as silly as caring about dirt.

Western thought is wrong. The brain, a physical existence, is the source of all thoughts. There is no division between body and mind. There is no spirit, nothing that transcends matter, there is nothing but the universe around us. We are creatures of flesh and bone, strands of DNA that use our entire bodies and brains to replicate themselves in a mindless, unconsidered process. The DNA has programmed us to want certain things, our bodies give us the capacity to go get them, our brains the reason to guide our bodies in this goal. Everything in a working human goes towards fulfilling our evolutionary role. That is why it exists, power to serve the 'mothership,' our genome, the will behind all living things. Whether we like it or not, none of our thoughts matter, and nothing matters but Matter, because nothing else exists. Everything else is a fairy tale used to console us at night. Any humans who mutate to the point where genes can no longer influence them to survive and multiply, any humans who 'transcend' life, will naturally die. The rest of us who still have some healthy instincts, who are still guided by our genes and not phantasms of the mind, who still use their brain to achieve goals not craft false illusory mentally crafted tacked-on goals, simply inherit the earth and take over. Everyone whose values transcend instinct and evolution are cripples, on the way to extinction. To be pitied just like lackwits and paraplegics, their survival instincts are paralyzed, atrophied, and now they pass on like the dodos, totally incapable of protecting themselves from the harsh reality of Nature.

Let me rephrase it as many times as necessary to make things clear: The will is due to our physical nature, not an abstract thought nor a non-existent spirit. The composition of our physical nature, the A's, C's, G's, and T's of our DNA, composes our will, our purpose, and our destiny. Those who ignore their natural instincts and natural role and natural goal in life, the one provided for them at birth, the will to live, the will to grow, the will to progress, not just themselves but all genes like theirs in one giant cooperative venture, might gain their prize of some other fabricated, abstract goal like 'holiness,' 'justice,' 'truth' 'harmony,' or whatever the buzz word of the day is--but their goal will die with them and be shown for how hollow and useless it was when it becomes no more. Those who live stick to the original goal of life, they are the healthy children of each generation, those who reject it are degenerate cripples who, through some accident or other, like any other defect, are on par with retards, bubble-boys, schizos, and so on. The result is always the same, dead enders through and through.

However happy someone becomes, it's all meaningless when they die. Whatever ideology someone serves, if it's anti-life not only you, but all your precious fellow-believers, will die and, thankfully, the ideology will die with you. There can be no edifice, no tradition, no heritage from a rotten foundation. Something great, something vast, something durable, something magnificent or impressive, can rely on only one thing, one recourse, love of life and service of life as the greatest good. An ephemeral goal will have an ephemeral existence, it will sputter out just as quickly as it came, leaving just as few traces afterwards, as it had before hand. Nothing but reverence for life, love of life, and instinctual embrace of the goods life provide for you and meant for you, lives on. And thus, you can't be a part of something greater unless you join the great stream of life. Thoughts that endorse the basic goal of existence, of physical, down and dirty reality, are valuable, because they serve something valuable. Thoughts that don't, that just wander off into lala land, ideologies, faiths, abstractions, feelings, and all the rest, are pernicious and deadly, a catching disease which can cripple millions, billions of people into extinction, just like the dodos died from not fearing humans to the last stupid bird. They are mental traps that divert you from nature's course, and the more you spread them, the more harm you do to everyone you meet and everyone you care about and everyone you know.

Now, if it's right to care about a group, and it's right to care about the physical nature of life, not one's mentality, abstractions, faith, ideologies, or other ephemeral fluff that spins off from you, then caring about your physical group, racism, cannot be bad either. The clash here isn't between racists and non-racists. The clash is between Will and Mind. Those who love and embrace their Will, form one side of humanity. Those who love and embrace their Mind, form the other. Will has existed inside all living things, Mind is only a recent invention used to heighten Will's power, but perverted into its own goals like any other degenerate body part which instead of serving its intended pro-life goal, mutates into a dangerous deadly mistake, like wisdom teeth or appendixes. Those who keep using their mind to pursue their Will, the will to live, life's goals of survival, progress, growth, and empowerment, are deemed evil and heretical to those who have rejected Will as evil or 'primitive' and insist on transcending onwards to the new, abstract goals of Mind. A 'racist' is commonly described as some sort of knuckle-dragging Neanderthal because those who live by Mind consider themselves the ultimate flowering of transcendent being, and those who live by Will primitive throwbacks to the earlier stage of amoebas and ants. In their arrogance they think the petty creations of their own minds, mere phantasms and chimeras, to be superior to the true creations of the living, active, existent Universe. They worship a tiny subset of the power of life, the power to think and reason and abstract, but reject life itself. Consider it primitive, worthless, barbaric or obscene. So these cripples, these Will-less inert objects simply on their way to the landfill, arrogate to themselves the plumage of endless pretty nothings: 'honor, kindness, decency, faith, wisdom, rationality, tolerance' or God knows what (who really cares what it is? it's all one thing, the product of Mind, and thus all the same in the end), and turn around and in serious holy righteousness, declaim against those who have refused to jump off the cliff and die with them. Refuse to limit themselves to a mere emanation of life in preference to life itself, refuse to worship the creation instead of the Creator. A Racist is a follower of their inborn Will, the genetic wish for your genes to continue on to the next generation, and the one after that, and grow in strength each time so that nothing can challenge your continued survival, and grow in number each time so that Life continues its age old project of converting the will-less universe into the willed universe, a universe of Body, Will, AND Mind, and all its pretty thoughts.

There can be no prouder title than racist, no better group than your race, no higher goal than to wake the sleeping potential of the universe and turn it into a living God. Don't shun it, don't run away from it, and don't be ashamed of it. The primordial is the source of everything else, by definition. Drinking from the source of life is a lot cleaner than the bilge, the waste products of life, the effluents life throws out like poisonous breath or shit or vomit or sweat--which is all Mind can ever produce when it advocates extinction.

However, it may be unclear to some why Racism IS pro-life, even if they agree with the basic idea that the meaning of life is more and better life. Couldn't an individualist, say, be pro-life and out to achieve more and better life for himself? Or couldn't a universalist want more and better life for all humans? Or perhaps all humans and rodents and plants and bacteria too? Why race? What makes race so special? Why no bigger, and no smaller? Isn't it arbitrary?

Race is special because people with shared characteristics have naturally shared interests, basically they are one extended genome that lives or dies together. That grows or shrinks together. That succeeds or fails together, because they have the same group strategy, the same group capabilities, the same group weaknesses, the same group identity.

Take, for instance, an imaginary race which through biological relatedness, all have a love of red sand. They are only happy when living in a red sandy desert. They are great at living in a red sandy desert, and no one else is as good at them at it. They do terribly at non-red sandy desert life and are incompetent at issues beyond red sandiness. You as an individual, no matter what your other characteristics, share this characteristic with the group, you were meant for red sandy deserts. Now, is this not a natural reason to unite with the rest of your race? For one thing, if you bring in a bunch of foreigners, they'll be utterly incompetent at red sandy living, and will just be a burden on you and drag you down. For another, all red sandy desert dwellers have a fierce desire to retain their land, and thus would die to protect it, just like you, from those who would displace you from it. Third, you all share the same values and feelings and thus you feel at peace and at home with people who understand and love you. Those who mocked red sandyness, or thought the desert stinked, or thought you sucked for living in one, are far away and never meet you. Fourth, 'you' are represented all around you in people with the exact same genes as you, and protecting them amounts to protecting your will to live, which properly recognizes that your Mind is just another part of your body which will eventually be buried and rot away, but your Will can potentially live on forever, as a force infinitely larger than it is today, and a glory far beyond anything you could possess. Fifth, everyone else who agrees to care about race, will care about You for belonging to the race, and thus you will instantly belong to a loving, sharing, helping community which rewards you beyond all measure compared to the pittance of your sacrifice for them. As Kant says, act in such a manner that your act could become a universal law. If you pledge yourself to the race, the entire race will pledge itself to you, and what greater friend than an entire race of people to look after you? The strength of the wolf is the strength of the pack, the strength of the pack is the strength of the wolf. Universalism cannot provide this good because if everyone cares about you equally to everyone else, then they may as well not care about you at all. They will treat you no better or worse than anyone else, in short, caring matters only if it's special, only if it's rare, only if it's caring above someone or something else. Universalism is an empty suit, it promises love for everything and in the end, loves nothing and no one. You are just as badly off as before. And of course individualism offers just as little, you can be sure no one gives a damn about you or will ever help you there--whee.

So, let's move away from the red sandy desert and specifically say why whites should be racist, if they have any will to live at all, or any remote caring for the goals Life has given us.

Shared IQ, which means a shared way of life that we're good at together. Our shared IQ range means we can understand each other, work together, play together, talk together, interact in a meaningful manner. Those races with low IQ will only drag us down, those with higher IQ will only lord over us. But our average IQ makes interacting with each other the same as fish swimming in our own gene pool. It is comfortable. It is effective.

Shared personality, which means we don't rub raw on each other. Life is difficult enough, getting along is hard enough, without having to import people with completely different instincts and feelings than your own. The noisy, excitable, violent, shortsighted blacks or the cool, crafty, clannish, passive Asians can't make as good neighbors, friends, or lovers as people like ourselves.

Shared looks, which are easy and pleasing on the eye.

Shared vulnerabilities, which means we will all be exploited and attacked in the same way by those unlike us, and thus to defend ourselves we must defend others falling into the same trap, to the same trick, to the same device. Since the race will always have the same predators who exploit them, they may as well unite to defend against them, whether they be inexplicably violent brutes or devilishly clever shadowy manipulators, we will be prey to them alone or together, so we may as well be together.

Shared strengths, which means you can unite with those around you to accomplish something difficult because all your thinking and feelings are in the same stream. Even if random members of your race can't exchange probability theorems with you or argue what the rights of man are back and forth in correspondence, members of your race will innately be better suited to understand and appreciate your thinking, and thus well suited to your arts and sciences and receptive to them. Confucius cannot be great without the Chinese to hear him, just as Locke makes no sense without the English to read him. Poetry within the race is better than poetry outside it, as is art, literature, movies, paintings, and all the rest. A race enjoys its own culture above its ability to enjoy alien cultures, and thus if the individual wishes to keep a culture suited to it, he must protect and unite with the race. Just so, a universalist could never enjoy the unique fruits of his own race's culture, which are best suited to him and appreciate him most, but would be eternally stuck in having to listen to a rap song for every classical, read a haiku poem for every sonata, and watch a bollywood film for every Star Wars. A universalist who makes no distinctions, can never move forward between worst and best.

For this reason and endless more, race is not arbitrary, its shared genes create shared characteristics and shared interests, requiring a shared group survival strategy rather than a 'go it alone cowboy' universe, and rendering impotent any attempt to extend beyond the race with those unsuited and unlike you who will only make your life hell with their differences and antipathies. Someone who wants to live, who wants his progeny to live, who thinks evolution exists, that the fittest survive, that genes are spread across a spectrum of relatives and aren't unique to the individual, rationally ends up at race, no more, no less. Those who reject life, of course, can find a reason to ignore all the advantages of teaming up with your race in order to live, but those who embrace life, can't possibly form an argument why racism is not the way to do so.

I don't think this is the last word on racism, but these are words enough. I'll come back to it from some other angles some other time.

Libertarianism/Objectivism: The much Hyped Alternative to Socialism/Fascism, but can it really save us?

Many times I hear the same refrain, that they don't like multiculturalism or affirmative action or welfare or crime either, and that they would clean it all up too, but they would do it without ever involving race, they would do it democratically, they would do it without hurting anyone, they would do it all with birds singing and rainbows shining in the background.

Their solution is libertarian meritocracy. In this scenario, people of all cultures and backgrounds could live together because no one could impose their way of life on anyone else, nor would anyone be a burden on anyone else, no matter how poor their performance. Race and culture don't matter, only merit matters, anyone who wants to do well for himself is welcome to live in this enlightened land. Freedom is supreme, wealth flows eternal through the gardens of capitalist free-market competition and trade, and everyone gets together to sing kumbayah at the end of the day since peace enters the hearts of all prosperous and happy people. However, they have never explained to me HOW this law code is going to come about, or how this state will be kept a capitalist meritocracy, or how such a country can be founded in the first place, since it has no adherents and no natural base population but is an ideal shared only by those who would benefit most from it -- smart rich elites.

No one wants to live in a libertarian meritocracy, except the very proponents of this plan. It has never existed in human history, unlike practically every other government system on earth, precisely because it is the least popular government imaginable. The idea that if you simply talk to people enough, you will convince them of the blessings of libertarian meritocracy, ignores human nature or the fact that only a few winners would ever exist in such a system. It is not in people's self interest to live in a libertarian meritocracy, if they self-destruct when left free and lose when forced to compete. It is a system for a bunch of spoiled smart people who somehow imagine everyone is like them, instead of with IQs as far apart from them as normal men are from dogs. That everyone is ruled by reason, when nearly everyone is ruled by instinct and emotion. Compared to "Race is everything, there is nothing else." Or "There is one God and Muhammed is his Prophet." Or "Jesus died for your sins." Or any other short, simple, comprehensive morality, libertarianism demands everyone take care of themselves and, in a zen like meditation, form their entire own unique perspective on life and moral code just like Plato or Aristotle did. This is absurd. Only a handful of people every century are bright enough to be 'their own men.' Everyone else follows, and is glad to follow, and wishes to be ruled. It is a complete ignorance of human nature to demand everyone be a philosopher-king and no one a simple minded peasant subject. Egalitarianism, the idea that we're all essentially the same and have the same capabilities mental and spiritual, strikes again. Libertarianism, far from being a universal good, makes most people a slave to their passions, instead of a moral order, a strict God, or a guiding State. Instead of producing rainbows, it produces slums, anarchic gangsterism, teenage dead-enders full of drugs and alcohol and looking like auschwitz victims as they stumble into the hospital for yet another detox. Libertarianism, instead of producing songbirds, produces silent springs where 1/3 to 1/2 of women don't have a single baby and no strollers, no playgrounds, no streets resound with our new generation's shouts and cries. This is the result of the freedoms already granted us, we are choking to death on them, and yet libertarians insist that more freedom, not less, is the answer.

I haven't even mentioned yet the obnoxious accumulation of wealth into a tiny few hands who, through libertarianism, gain more power than any dictator or king ever had, due to the nature of competition. If a gold medalist wins by even .01 seconds, that person will be showered with adulation and praise and endorsements, while the loser will be forgotten and ignored. In the same way, if some industrialist manages to save a single penny over his competitor, his competitor will go bankrupt and collapse into ruin, while the penny pincher will triple in wealth from this feat alone as investors and employees rush in. This natural phenomena would serve to concentrate wealth into an ever-decreasing circle until one could imagine the entire country belonging to a single man who managed money the best. Where else would anyone put their money in a meritocracy? Never minding the fate of all the losers in a meritocracy who by not being economically productive, are deemed worthless spiritually as well and cast off by a libertarian meritocratic society to go die in some gutter somewhere. After all, why would charity exist in a world that recognizes no moral authority (libertarianism) and venerates only merit (meritocracy)? The same people who wish to disband all obligations and all legitimacy to the poor, turn around and sneeringly say 'private charities' will take care of them. Private charities infused with the same moral principles as the government? Private charities infused with the same spirit of competition and absolute individualism as the government's laws? And how, pray tell, would the government be maintained unless everyone agreed with its moral principles? So, given that the populace is not forced against its will into a libertarian meritocracy, but are all true believers in the moral rightness of libertarian meritocracy, who exactly would pick up the tab? Family members? But a meritocracy has no place for ties of 'blood,' relatives would judge each other purely by merit and accept no constricting requirements or costs on taking care of someone they didn't choose to owe anything. Churches? But a libertarian world has no place for a strict God or an irrational Faith, that would tie them down. Who is going to pick up the tab? Greedy capitalists who have been taught their merit grows and grows by the money they make, not the social good they do for others? Rich industrialists who compete with each other for the prize of 'merit' and the esteem of the public who have now perfectly wedded morality to money? Unless the system is self-subsistent, I refuse to allow some alternate philosophy to be doing all the hard work while libertarian meritocracy just kinda floats above it all and enjoys the high life of a tax-free world. That is a cop-out. Libertarian meritocracy has no solution for the poor, unfortunate, or inferior. In truth, they intend to simply wipe these people out, as that is the only result of a world with absolutely no obligations to people who cannot take care of themselves. The other alternative is through selective immigration to a new world or secession to form their own state, a libertarian meritocracy could be composed of 'only the best.' Even then I foresee singers who can outsing 99.99% of the people on earth losing in a meritocracy and starving to death in some gutter, unable to afford a crust of bread because they don't 'merit' it. Why bother with second place after all? What, after all, is a country composed of only the best? How many people could that possibly be? 1,000? 10,000? Whatever the number, it's meaningless for the remaining 6.7 billion of us who still need a government system that supports and uplifts us.

Furthermore, people are innately resentful of anyone who stands far above them. They have an innate desire to pull down and humiliate anyone who lords over them. The pecking order, the totem pole, is an essential characteristic of all pack animals, and the lessers are always trying to pull down and replace their betters. No one is going to see these rich winning by 'merit' all the women, all the wealth, all the natural resources, all the esteem, all the everything, that these same rich cannot hold by force. Let's put this simply, no one is going to lie down and die for you. The illusion that everyone will freely consent to the 'merit' of money-makers to 'deserve' all the rewards of the world funneled into one giant basket of personal consumption is naive. People would immediately resort to violence to reclaim what they could not get through free market competition, because WHAT DO THEY HAVE LEFT TO LOSE? Your competition has already taken everything from them, even their women in giant alpha-male harems, because again, a meritocracy must be infused with the ideals of merit, and that means all the women would want only the best, richest, alpha males and would never be content with the leftovers. This is not some libertarian meritocracy that actually follows a completely different set of morals, that is too convenient for the proponent, I want a system that is self-sufficient and doesn't need other principles buttressing it up. It's what I can provide, and if my opponent cannot but must become a chimera of conflicting, pretzel beliefs to create even a halfway decent society, then through aesthetic simplicity alone my principles are superior. In my society, lessers respect and obey their betters, and betters love and protect their lessers, because they are all one race, one body, one community, and they are all in it together. Libertarian Meritocracy, that utter pipe dream that has never been enacted and never can due to it foundering upon the rocks of human nature, cannot do this. It fails the most simple test of government and that is to ensure domestic tranquility and the general welfare. Not the special welfare of a lucky few, the General welfare. Everyone in your society must be better off due to your government, not a tiny handful, or why should they remain in such a losing proposition?

Let's go back to libertarianism's gingerbread house promises, which in the end just feed you for the witch's own ends:

1) Freedom from government, but with a powerful police and army to protect from any other aggressors, a peaceful foreign policy that doesn't make trouble with others. No taxes will exist, and thus no public spending either, beyond some tiny pittance to support the common defense. No regulations will exist and people will be allowed to conduct any sort of contractual agreement they please, whether selling themselves into slavery, prostitution, or buying drugs and becoming living slugs. No morality will be propagated and everyone will be free to come up with their own in zen-like meditation. No public goods like parks or natural resources will be permitted, no investment in human capital via education or health care will be allowed, no patriotism or religion will be enshrined, no infrastructure or research or monuments, nothing at all will be done by the government. No other group will do any of this either because people take their moral cue from those in charge and will simply emulate them and their cutthroat morality. No substitute government will charge in like a white knight and do the job for them, or if they do, it no longer would be libertarian anyway--the jobs so necessary to the state will simply be left undone, and everyone left to fend for themselves.

However, the gingerbread portion is no regulations means--no bad regulations like affirmative action! No taxes means--no bad spending like welfare! No public goods means--no nasty environmentalists getting in the way of production! No investment in the future means--getting to live it up in the present, free and rich! No children means--more workers and a growing economy, fewer unemployed! The absolute myopia of their solutions, solutions that simply destroy the state so that no state errors will be made, does indeed offer a solution to every issue arising--but so would simply blowing up the planet which could quickly end welfare, affirmative action, and unemployment too.

As much as I detest freedom and the resultant individualist uncaring hedonistic nihilism that follows, meritocracy is an even worse dystopia.

Let us be clear, whenever people talk of a meritocracy, they speak of a MONIED meritocracy. People shall be given whatever they can earn in a free market society, and be esteemed for their great value and worth, precisely based on how much they earn. They shall be allowed to buy anything they want with this money, and no one else has a right to any of it. Anyone who can't make money is worthless, and that is why the libertarian half where you don't have to spend anything on them comes blissfully in. Only in a meritocracy can a libertarian government be justified--in every other moral code, people have innate worth and thus a claim on their fellow man. Only be denigrating the value of mankind and a human life, can one be freed from any responsibility to it. This is the double punch of libertarian meritocracy. As you can see, libertarianism is hedonism that requires meritocracy to enjoy its selfish existence, any other principle would quash it and thus people would lose their precious freedom. This means it is meritocracy, not libertarianism, that deals the real death blows to life. It is meritocracy which dissolves the family as a sentimental meaninglessness, because your brother is only a such-and-such wage earner, not your brother. Your child is only a such-and-such wage earner, not your son. Your wife is only a such-and-such wage earner, not your wife. There is no merit outside of money. And no worth to anyone not making money. A meritocracy denies the soul because the soul doesn't make money. That is why they can all be discarded to die at the roadside, never given a helpful word of advice, never given a moral guide, never given a chance by supportive services, never given anything because they didn't deserve it. Meritocracy grows even more absurd when leading figures of the country, buggy whip manufacturers for instance who have been vastly productive, well beloved, deeply respected, suddenly become morally 'worthless' with the invention of the car and abandoned by all to starve to death by the roadside. The exact same person who yesterday was, through 'merit,' one of the best people in the nation, is the next day, though the exact same, through the same 'merit,' becomes one of the dirty worthless wretches who needs to crawl away somewhere and die. So much for gratitude in a meritocracy! Not the way you lead your life, or the values you share, or brotherhood, nothing but 'how much are you earning now?' enters the formula. It is needless to mention that the retired elderly in a meritocracy would be abandoned to their fates--better save up or tough toots, grandpa. Like the eskimos the tribe will simply leave them on the ice and keep walking if he can't keep up. There is no love in a meritocracy, only cold calculation. A relationship that has lasted 20 years can end the next day, if the wife finds someone with higher 'merit.' After all, if merit is the sole justification for property possession, then if someone else is better than you, you've lost all rights to your wife of 20 years. Who are you to complain? You didn't deserve her. You have to earn what you have, and that's through competition, right? And libertarianism is singing right alongside saying there's nothing wrong with any voluntary act between consenting adults, even if that's adultery, treachery, or abandonment. After all, it was her CHOICE, and what matters is people are free to choose--not that the choice is good, right, just, or true. All human bonds are torn asunder in this nightmare universe of unnatural values. The imagination opens up to endless vistas of suffering the more you adopt the code, the more principled you make it. It is worrisome when advocates of a position must make it as weak as possible, as little used as possible, to make it at all workable. I much prefer principles that strengthen you the more you adhere to them, that shine the brighter the more closely they're followed, which promote good the more power given to them. Libertarianism and meritocracy are the exact opposite. The more sway they are given, the more obnoxious they become. If kept in their place, of a few limited freedoms and a few limited property rights, in the field that becomes them most, like lighting on a stage or costumes for a play, they can both do quite nicely. Unfettered, unsealed, they become ravenous dragons which consume society whole and leave nothing but ashes and extinction behind.

So the next time a racist or a fascist hears the siren song of libertarianism, asking you to come closer to live in your color-blind society which respects all men equally and universally protects your property and freedom from all the ravages of third-worldism, tell them no thank you, strap yourselves to the mast, put earplugs in your ears---the song is sweet, the destination bitter.

There is only one natural society, and that is tribalism, the one we evolved to live under for millions of years. There is only one modern government informed with the principles of tribalism, and that is nationalism. There is only one bind that truly glues together a society, that truly promotes domestic tranquility and the general welfare--and that is blood.

What is 'White Supremacism' ? Why is it bad?

Typically, whenever anyone advocates any policy that remotely favors whites, he will be assailed with the usual cacophony of 'racist,' 'white supremacist,' 'hater,' 'neo-nazi,' etc. Many people insist they are not white supremacists, not racists, not haters, they just want 'x.' As the argument goes, "x" isn't racist, it's just common sense. Or "X" isn't hateful, it's just benevolent towards our own. Or "X" isn't white supremacy, it's just nationalism, separatism, realism, etc, etc.

Various groups are giving strange dichotomies like 'it's okay to be proud of your race, so long as you aren't a white supremacist.' 'it's okay to oppose immigration, so long as you aren't a white supremacist.' Etc. Most of the right wing groups, in a desperate wish for respectability, play by the liberals' rules and truckle under their demands. We'll be 'only so far to the right and no further.' And in order to prove their true PC credentials, they will sharply vilify and attack anyone to the right of them, to show the leftie liberals that they're really good people, that they're basically on the same side, and they hate the evil white supremacist nazis too. This moral cowardice infects even the 'hardest core' which turns out to be quite spinelessly soft in the end.

Let's call a spade a spade. There are two definitions of white supremacy that make any sense, the objective and the subjective. I'll explain each of them, and if you don't fall under either category, if you are not a white supremacist in either sense, you should have no interest in being anything else either. Instead of disavowing white supremacism while clinging to white separatist, white nationalist, survivalist, etc, you should just give it up and go back to being a good communist left-winger. Nothing is more pathetic than people who refuse to maintain a principled and orderly moral system but contort themselves into loops and pretzels of contradictory views. Basically, you're just a chink in our moral armor, a weak point liberals can chisel away at, dividing us amongst ourselves, causing friction and ultimately dissension and surrender in the ranks. Once you've admitted it's immoral to be a white supremacist, everything else is immoral too, and it's time to file for extinction. That's the only other path that lays before us. People must choose.

Definition 1, the Objective White Supremacism: The belief that whites are objectively superior beings, that by any fair measure, they come out 'supreme.' That whites are the best. That we are the best race and have the credentials to prove it.

Is this true or false? First of course we must decide on what objective measures we will be using, to decide if we are superior or inferior. Let's look at some simple ones then. Standard of Living. Whites have the highest standard of living in the world, we are indeed supreme at affording ourselves the very best lifestyle. Roll out a map of the world, color it in with 'wealth, freedom, longevity, lack of corruption' or any other objective measure, and white countries will come out the highest. Perhaps a few asian countries like taiwan, south korea, singapore, japan will join in, but the map of the world will be colored distinctly 'white good, non-white bad.'

Human Accomplishment is another objective measure we could use. Let's go back through history and color the map of the world based on who did what. Again, you'll get a few scattered good things in japan, china, or wherever---and then a massive, dense, overwhelming scatterplot of white countries accomplishing virtually everything. Art, music, literature, math, science, technology, whatever you want, you will find it absolutely dominated by whites. Again, whites are supreme in their ability to accomplish, they take the cake by far. Read Charles Murray's Human Accomplishment if there's any further doubt of this objective fact. 'white good, non-white bad.'

It is a fact that even non-whites prefer the looks of white women. Every other race attempts to lighten their skin complexion so they can look more like the human ideal, whites, even with dangerous toxins and bleaches that leave them looking ridiculous. Not just now, but across all time, not just blacks, but asians too. India has an entire caste system based around varna, or color, where the lighter skinned castes are respected more than the darker. The same is true in china, where parasols were used to keep the skin from tanning and skin lighteners used to chemically alter their basic skin color. We did not introduce that, they chose it on their own thousands of years ago. The objective superiority of our white women draws the lust of all the non-whites and makes them the constant victim of rape. White on non-white rape, however, is virtually non-existent. Why would a white want them? The difference is so vast, that while blacks rape 37,000 white women in America a year, not a single white on black rape occurred. Every single attempt the media has made to find a white on black rape has been discovered to be a hoax. The beauty of white women is supreme. Modeling magazines continuously find that white women sell, non-white women don't, even in the non-white world. Commercials, billboards, and marriage online dating services, all feature lighter-skinned women even within their own race than their average skin tone. Young black children prefer playing with white dolls over black dolls, because they look better. White children, of course, are instinctively averse to non-white dolls, and when they grow up, refuse to miscegenate on the whole, at a vastly higher rate than non-whites who would love nothing better than to find a white woman. 'white good, non-white bad.'

What about our physical, martial, and athletic prowess? Again, whites are supreme. The vast majority of the Summer and Winter Olympic Medalists are white, even though we are only 8% of the world population. This is just a hands down victory for the physical superiority of whites. Include any other sports, as many extra sports as you please, we would still come out on top. Whether it's our teamwork, intelligence, strength, tenacity, or skill, somehow whites come out on top objectively, beyond all debate, so that's that. What about war? On the battlefield, whites are again utterly dominant. Whites have rarely lost a war to non-whites, not in the long run, and we have with ridiculously small numbers routed non-white armies over and over again. The boxer rebellion, for instance, was put down handily by a handful of whites (and japanese). The mongols conquered china easily but lost to the not even united Europe (and to japan.) India was conquered by a handful of british troops against giant Indian armies. The same is true in africa, and the conquistadores against the Incas and Aztecs accomplished similar marvels. The exchange rate between the USA and Japan, almost 10 to 1, showed again white superiority over even the best of the non-whites. And while the Roman Empire and the Greeks defeated Persia over and over again and took over much of the middle east, no Persians, Arabs, or middle easterners ever conquered Europe. The Ottomans gave the best shot and even they couldn't beat a dis-united Europe with various countries all still squabbling among themselves. Europe paid so little attention to these non-white aggressors that they still spent all their time fighting each other---and STILL won. If one could ever imagine a 'white army' fighting as one against the non-white world, can anyone imagine anything but a smashing victory? Remember a few white texans took out the vastly larger mexican army, and the US-Mexico war was another easy victory for whites, that the boers at blood river defeated endless hordes of spear-chuckers, and that the US (or even the early settlers and pilgrims) traditionally defeated amerindians no matter what the odds over and over in our expansion westward. When it comes to the most basic measure of fitness, war and violent conflict, whites are supreme. It's undebatable. We win, they lose, we are the best warriors of all time. 'white good, non-white bad.'

So what is the use of not calling a spade a spade? The supreme race, the race that comes out on top in any competition, any measure of human fitness, any quality we respect, is the white race. We are the wealthiest, strongest, most accomplished, most beautiful race on earth. Objectively. Undeniably. Therefore anyone who even looks at the facts, anyone white or not, must through sheer logic and rationality, be a white supremacist. Whites are supreme, and therefore, anyone who acknowledges this fact, must be a white supremacist, by simple definition. Anyone who validates reality or cares about the truth, is a white supremacist, whether white or not, they must admit the superiority of the white race, as a whole, over any other. It is so impossible not to be a white supremacist, that only burying your head in the sand and intentionally looking for any little flaw in whites while exaggerating every good in non-whites, can remotely make the competition even. Only self-hating liberals are not white supremacists, there's only two choices. To say that whites are the best in every field, but aren't the supreme race, is just semantics. It's moral cowardice.

Definition Two, Subjective White Supremacism: The belief that whites, regardless of merit or cause, hold your supreme, over-arching loyalty. That the white race has a supreme place in your heart. That it trumps the other races, for you, simply because you choose for it to. Subjective White Supremacism would not be fazed by meeting aliens from outer space who are better in every way than us. Even so, we would proclaim, my duty, love, and loyalty are to my people, not yours, and I will live and die for them, not you. Rather than mercenary bean counting, rather than switching your loyalty to whoever meets some arcane criteria in your head, a simple, straightforward subjective white supremacy needs no rationale, no arguments, no proof at all. It just needs a willing heart.

Subjective white supremacy is the counterpart to subjective racial solidarity among any other group. Saying your supreme interest, your supreme value, is the white race, is no different than Michelle Obama dedicating herself to the black race and its interests and valuing it above all others. It is no different from any other group forming an 'asian blah blah' or 'jewish blah blah' or 'black blah blah' or 'hispanic blah blah.' It's an intentional effort to hold the interests of your group above all others, or loyalty to the in-group above the common or universal, of the supreme claim your race has on you. A white supremacist must simply care more about whites than any other, and he has quite clearly defined them as subjectively supreme, to him--after all it overarches all other races, and that is the definition of supreme. There is no escaping white supremacy then, if you care more about whites than other races, you are a white supremacist--they are supreme in your heart. They take the supreme place. They are on top.

Subjective white supremacy can only be held by very confused non-whites, unlike objective white supremacy which should be held by any honest person on earth. Subjective white supremacy is the natural and instinctual and healthy and normal state of whites, the counterpart to every other group preferring their own and caring about their own. Whites who don't love whites or care about how whites are doing all around the world, are race traitors, unnatural, they are like lepers and it hurts to even be around them, they are so offensive to our instinctual grasp of right and wrong. Whites cheering for blacks against whites in a sport, a war, a nobel prize award, a courtship, are all despicable and immediately yield the question: 'what is wrong with that person? Doesn't he know his own? Doesn't he love himself? Why would he do such a perverted thing?' If you don't wish to see white interests secured first and foremost, above anyone else's, if you don't choose for the white to be happy or safe or free, if a choice must be made, then you're not a white supremacist. Congratulations, you've completely denatured and castrated your moral sense, you can now join the ash heap of history with your non-evolutionarily successful views. For anyone who doesn't hold whites supreme, will immediately lose to anyone who holds non-whites supreme, and while you go on compromising and giving away your interests, they will cling to all of theirs. While whites are cheering (I'm not even kidding, they cheered Bill Clinton in his speech in Portland announcing this fact) their coming minority status in the USA, hispanics are cheering their coming majority status in the USA. Both people can't be right. If it's good to be a minority and dispossessed of your own land, then hispanics should be mourning their coming, woeful, hateful majority status. Somehow they don't buy it though, somehow they don't agree with whites in thinking majoritydom is all that hateful and bad, somehow they are quite happy with this result. Either one or the other strategy is correct. I believe in the one that will live. I believe in the one that grows. I believe in the one that lasts.

Does white supremacism make any distinction between wishing whites well defensively versus aggressively? No, it does not. Objectively speaking, wanting the survival of the fittest, 'may the best man win,' would of course imply wishing to see whites spread and grow and flourish, as the truest inheritors of perfection, there would be no desire to see it stay at 8% of the world's population, while failed, imperfect, shoddy hominids of other sorts were 92%. It would be seen as a horrible travesty, if whites stayed on earth perfectly defensively, keeping all their current land, while non-whites went off to colonize the universe. It would be a moral failure to not afford the best people the best chance at life. To not reward greatness with material goods, to somehow grovel and inch along on the edges and dregs of existence while placating our lessers and inferiors with all the fruits and pleasures of life. If we are better, we deserve better, and should get better, than our inferiors. This same logic extends not just between the races, but between species. Superior species deserve better and more than inferior ones, like bugs, rodents, bacteria, and cockroaches. Just as humans deserve the lion's share of resources and happiness and rights over non-humans, and bugs and germs deserve the least and worst spot in life, just as human interests trump non-human interests, the objectively superior white race deserves the lion's share of the world, and the dregs should go to the dregs. If we were superior, but deserved nothing more, then what would being superior mean? What would it all be for? Are we seriously supposed to divide the world equally between apes and man? Between mud huts and skyscrapers? Between criminals and citizens? Superior always implies valuing them more, it cannot mean anything else, and those who are of higher value, deserve more than those of lesser value.

I submit to you that the greatest thing that ever happened in world history, was the colonization of much of the world by the superior white race. The conquest and colonization of North and South America, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand was the high point of world history. It was the flowering of the greatest race receiving its just reward, the greatest share of world population. It was matching our excellence to our rewards, our achievements to our population, our supremacy to our property. I submit to you that it was moral and good to wipe out the scattered tribes of stone age barbarians all around the world and replace them with hundreds of millions of beautiful, brilliant white families. I submit to you that it would be a good thing to do it now, today, again. That the world doesn't belong to anyone in particular, that it is up for grabs between all lifeforms, that the best prevail in seizing it, that this de facto makes them the best, and the best deserve nothing short of the colonization of the world. I submit to you that homo sapiens did just this in their wiping out of neanderthals and homo habilus and all the other junk species long ago, and that it was moral for them to do so, because they were better and deserved better than their inferiors. I submit to you that we should take it all back, return to our just spot in the world, not as 8% of the population, but 40% like in 1900, and that we of all people deserve the stars. We should never allow the universe to slip away from us, we should never give away the future as someone else's property, we should be first and foremost in everything, we should rule. Just as humans dominate the inanimate, animal, and plant kingdoms, the best are the natural rulers of the world, and naturally who we wish to see survive AND grow, AND flourish, AND prosper. It is ridiculous to hold we are the best, but that therefore we only deserve 8% of the world, or that we can only defend our slowly dwindling land masses in some rear guard action. If we are the best, we deserve the best, and that's that.

And that chain of logic, of course, is why people are so opposed to white supremacism. Because in its implications, in its logical results, in its chain of reasoning, once you say whites are supreme either objectively or subjectively, you must also say they deserve the supreme share, the supreme good, the supreme victory, the supreme triumph over all others. You must immediately, logically, follow up by saying they should be supreme. But, does it help to shrink away from logic and reason? If it is logical and reasonable to be a white supremacist, if any honest person would be so no matter how they fight it, and if it is logical and reasonable that the superior should triumph and rule over the inferior, that the superior should succeed and the inferior fail, the superior grow and the inferior shrink, that the superior should replace the inferior and not the inferior the superior---then what choice does an honest person have?

What choice an honest thinker but go the whole way? What choice a moral person than to cheer for the most 'immoral' deeds? What choice but to rethink everything we were ever taught and start revering the true heroes of history? The colonists, the imperialists, the racists, everyone who helped not white 'survival', which was never their interest and would've sounded like a joke to them, the strongest people on earth, but white power, white rule, white imperium, white fecundity, white wealth, white victory. Was it not heroes who defeated the incas and aztecs? Heroes who drove out the mongols from Russia, the turks from Europe, the maoris from new zealand, the zulus from south africa, the apaches from the West, the muslims from sicily and spain, on and on? Were not our greatest presidents also generals who fought the Indians so that the white race might spread and prevail and grow and rule? Weren't Hong Kong and Macao good things? Wasn't Perry opening up trade with Japan a good thing? Isn't Canada and Argentina better than what came before? Aren't we glad France turned back the non-white tide at Tours? How is there any difference, the essence remains the same, defensive or offensive, what we celebrate, what we enjoy, is whites winning. Whites maintaining their power and success in the world. There can be no morality that artificially, arbitrarily draws a line and says 'white rule is moral here but immoral there.' 'a white population is good on this square acre but bad on that one.' It is meaningless. If it's good, it's good. It's good anywhere, everywhere. If it's better than anything else, it's best, it should be striven for, it's a good outcome when it happens. Though arguments can be made that objectively, non-whites are superior in some fields and thus should be, by dint of merit, given the just rewards of their supremacy, it would of course fall short of 92% of the world. It would fall short of 50% of the world. Whatever the fair debatable figure is, it is not today's figure, and thus doesn't matter. Another argument could be that like zoos or the endangered species act, even completely inferior beings should be allowed some representation on earth as simply a curiosity or exotic diversity, but such reservations would be small and essentially meaningless--it would not change the moral calculus. As far as today goes, all that can be said is whites deserve far, far better than any rear guard, or defense, or holding action, could give. For the people who created virtually everything good on earth, who created the technology and culture that allows for the carrying capacity of 7.6 billion people in the first place, to be the ever dwindling minority of the enjoyers of their own creation, is a grave injustice. A cosmic injustice. Whites must benefit from white achievement proportional to their achievement, non-whites should not be allowed to be the prime beneficiaries, the evolutionary victors, for things they never even did. For things they never were and never will be. Whites deserve better, they invented the very way of life the rest of the world is living, they afforded it with their miraculous systems and devices, and now they are to be dispossessed of it all--the very wealth and happiness they created, that non-whites had no hand in making, but consume voraciously. Preposterous. We morally can take back the entirety of our contribution, which is debatable, but well over 50%, of all the world's goods. 8% is a joke, our coming 1% is a sin.

To sum up, white supremacism is holding that whites are either objectively superior, or subjectively superior in your love for them, just like a 'family supremacist' who cares more about his children than someone else's children. Both are natural and logical, neither can be denied by any sensible white, the facts support the first case, emotions and human nature supports the second. Only pretzel people can avoid being white supremacists, and they are nothing but jokes and lepers to those of us who remain. White supremacy being true and right, it only follows that white supremacy in the material world, in resource allocation, in well-being, in power, in population, should also be good and right. If we are better, we deserve better. If we are the best, we deserve the best. White supremacy therefore advocates whites, in fact, be supreme. Starting from the initial cause that we are the happiest, brightest, fittest, most beautiful, most accomplished, best exemplars of the human race and indeed all life, we deserve nothing less than the best results, the best situation, the best position, the supreme height of the food chain, the pecking order, the totem pole. Winners should win. Anything less is a crime against nature. Any less support by a white for whites, is an act of race treason. By either definition, whites must support their own, all the way to the hilt, and though the environment means we can't enact such a morality, we can at least celebrate the time it did---The Age of Exploration, the Enlightenment, the whitening of the world that lasted until WWI, was indeed our finest hour. This pathetic groveling and decay, our darkest. With that in mind, we can keep the flame alive--for the age of salvation and rebirth.

Ignorance and Irrelevance

The problem with modern day political discussion is that everything said is either ignorant or irrelevant.

Most of this is intentional, as no one wishes to tackle the hard issues of life. Quite simply, most people can't handle the truth. The fact that we're all going to die is too tough for them, so they hide behind their fairy tale religions that give them an afterlife. The fact that life is essentially a struggle for existence between competing interests, proven hundreds of years ago by Charles Darwin, is rejected outright by 50% of the world and indirectly by the other 50%. Those who admit evolution is true, then go on to talk about how it somehow doesn't apply to humanity, that we are all identical, that our potential is infinite, that none of our genes matter, and that surviving is not a value for humanity, only for bacteria and cockroaches. No one seems to realize that it's absurd for ignorant people who can't even bring themselves to learn the easily available, well proven, well known truths to be running our country. That just as only captains are allowed to run ships, plumbers repair sinks, engineers build bridges, and so on, only people who KNOW something about their field should have any right to control its destiny.

The fact that shared genetic interests are the basis of altruism and that we are not individuals but genes that exist not only in us, but in many people that are all interested in the survival of copies of themselves Wherever they might be, is simply beyond all but the few. Even though science has already proven this and shown it working in ant colonies all the way up, the general public never learns of these essential facts which completely change the nature of philosophy, ethics, and politics on their head. That there is nothing sensible in altruism to those without your genes, that there is no such thing as the individual, is the tribalist middle ground that science has already documented and proven but no one ever stopped to listen to. How frustrating that we can never apply what our great minds worked so hard to learn for us!

That IQ is real, genetic, and varies between the races has been well and thoroughly proven since the 60's. Every year though the facts come in more thickly and more thoroughly. Every scientist in the field queried answered that IQ is partially, largely, or wholly genetic. None took the environmental view that, nevertheless, 95% of the public believes. Why do they believe this? What astounding ignorance when the scientists have already done the studies, found the conclusions, and published them over and over for all to read. Again they simply don't want to know. And again, there could be nothing more vital to determining public policy, ethics, and so on than this essential, central truth to race relationships. If groups of people are biologically different, than a meritocracy will always show unequal results. These results are bound to occur and not the fault of anyone, and therefore, the winners owe the losers nothing, nor have they wronged the losers in any way. From this alone immigration, welfare, affirmative action, 'racism', and everything else could be put to rest forever. However, ignorance stifles the truth and thus we base all our policies on lies and fantasies, which inevitably all lead to ruin.

Enough of ignorant people, this doesn't even graze the surface. Most people are so ignorant they don't know where the state of Florida is, how many days are in a year, what century the Civil War occurred in, or apparently anything about anything. Most people haven't read a single book any time this year. These people of course are the ones deciding the future of our kids, the lunatics running the asylum.

What about the people who do know, or at least know some, and should know the rest? Enter irrelevance. These are the people who endlessly whine and complain, but are not serious enough to actually kick their old prejudices and habits that fall exactly in line with the ignorance of the masses. Knowing more, they still say just as little, and act the exact same way, as if they didn't know. The same tired ethics based on false assumptions, the same tired religions based on discredited fairy tales from thousands of years ago, the same baseless 'common sense' which is just 'common folly' and no better than agreeing the world is flat because many people think so.

Many people know the crime statistics and that blacks and hispanics are 9 and 3 times as criminal as whites in America. Where they fail is the complete irrelevance of their further thinking. "This is bad, I hope it goes away." Or "We should teach them about Christ then they'll reform." Or "The right to bear arms will solve this!" All of these ridiculous band-aid quick fixes neglect the obvious, painfully apparent truth. That the only permanent, workable, serious solution that would give a real rise in the quality of living, would be a complete separation from the troublemakers and thus no need to worry about finding solutions for their pathologies. Africans in Africa do no harm to whites, so we don't care what their gun laws are, their religion is, or anything else. It's obvious this is the best, most effective model, as any other band-aid fix isn't nearly as effective at preventing crime as keeping a continent apart from the criminals of Africa. But the irrelevance of these thinkers keeps such apparent conclusions out of bounds. They prefer 37,000 white women being raped by black men every year, so they can 'talk to their black friends without needing a visa.' Well, that's just splendid--unless you're one of the 37,000 white women forcibly made a friend to your new black man who didn't even need a 'by your leave.'

Many people know IQs vary between the races and that furthermore IQ closely correlates to success, happiness, health, great achievements, wealth, law and order, etc. These same people however refuse to screen immigrants by IQ, refuse to screen babies by IQ, refuse to track students to different classes and jobs based on IQ, refuse to use this wonderful tool in any way. Thus all their knowledge is made irrelevant because they want everyone to act as though they don't know, just ignore it and maybe it will go away. Of course it does not go away, the truth is more stubborn than human whimsy, but the irrelevant crowd prefers living a lie to the truth, regardless of what harm it might do to others, their children, or to all mankind. Millions of high IQ people are languishing for lack of opportunities to use their inborn skills while diversity and affirmative action hires clog every ministry and business doing nothing at all. Millions of high IQ people aren't having kids while millions of low IQ people are having ten each, and the government shrugs and mentions completely irrelevant nothings like 'reproductive rights' and 'human rights.' What are rights? Where did they come from? Who gave them to us? The non-existent God? Or perhaps a non-existent social contract no one has ever signed?

What is relevant is concrete reality. Truth. Physical existence. What is actually happening before our eyes. What is relevant is we're watching a worldwide genocide of the greatest race on Earth, perhaps the most developed life-form in the universe, and that no one is doing anything about it. Whereas just a century before millions of people were dying in trench lines disputing whether the border would move a mile north or south, today we can not summon the interest or vigor to protect any border or any territory whatsoever. It is all being handed out, three, four continents of land, without a shot fired. This is relevant. Some fantasy, some imagined ethical code, some fairy tale King of the Cosmos with his soothing afterlife that makes what happens here unimportant---this is all irrelevant and clouding what's relevant from our eyes. There are none so blind as those who refuse to see. Those who know, but introduce irrelevancies like 'before I save 500 million people from genocide, I want to make sure no one gets hurt' or 'before I save the world from becoming a third world shit hole forever, I want you to sign on this dotted line that taxes will go down,' are the most infuriating, despicable losers of all. They are traitors par excellance. They outstrip the most ignorant of the ignorant with the sheer evil of their misplaced, warped views. It is one thing to not even realize what is at stake, quite another to know full well what is at stake, and sacrifice it anyway, to some personal petty interest. That person, to me, is worse than the ignorant sheeple, worse than the non-white wolves preying upon us, because they are the shepherds who walked away.

Remnant of a Remnant Part II

There is, however, a different strategy. "Where the oak breaks from standing firm, the willow bends and survives the harshest gales." It's all well and good to oppose race replacement, but it won't work and it won't happen. The mass deportations or genocides we fantasize about will not occur and cannot occur in time to save us. I don't even believe secession movements will occur or succeed. Non-whites want to feed off our tax money too much to ever let us go. And useful idiot whites will insist their new multicultural paradise is what they wanted all along. No one will be allowed free. Of course if one does I would fully support it and again feel like a miracle has come down and saved us. However, no secession has succeeded in Brazil, in Bolivia, in South Africa, or any other country with a cohesive white minority. Efforts have been made, but they simply never happen. I also believe the UN, a non-white controlled body, would intervene and smash any attempts at white racial solidarity. If various statistics are to be believed, whites consist of only 8% of the world population and international alliances against us and any pro-white groups we could form will naturally follow. After all, who can blame them? Whites have ruled the world for centuries, they realize how powerful and dangerous we are if given a free hand, and never want to see us united and guilt-free again. A white-only country full of white-pride and an ambitious eugenics program would terrify them, and for good reason. We'd be the strongest nation on earth in a short amount of time, and none too happy with what the third world had been doing to us in the past. So no, the different strategy isn't even secession.

It's the mormon way. Create an identity that does not compromise its values and does not negotiate them. Through indoctrination and constant communal gatherings and affirmations and sessions every sunday and so on, everyone getting involved in the creed and everyone having to go proselytize it for a year, you get your group motivated, excited, and solidified. You create an us and a them and you want to be a part of us. There's even a special mormon heaven that rewards you for staying true. The fields of Valhalla that greet all white warriors who die fighting the good fight, could serve the same. Even as a metaphor. Even if people know all it means is a reverence for their white dead that their community will not forget. Then you place yourself in geographic isolation in otherwise crappy land like the desert of Utah where no one else especially wants to go, and you live under your rules, more or less un-interfered with by nonwhites and the federal government, who simply overlook you and don't even notice your disobediance. After all, if it's just their religious foibles, and everyone has freedom of religion, who can oppose them? Even if their beliefs Are rather silly and I'd never be one of them. Even without a homeland, a close-knit religious group can survive for centuries, even millennia, as a people apart. While the storms of wrack and ruin pass all around them, they are left relatively undisturbed, doing their own thing, not demanding anything from others, but simply refusing to act like anything but themselves. Virtual secession or simply identifying ourselves as completely different from others will do where physical separation cannot. Freedom over our own souls and volition, freedom to be virtuous and good, will do where control of the government will not. And though we cannot in this manner save anyone else who doesn't adopt our creed, we can at least save ourselves---a remnant of a remnant, which will lead to our salvation and rebirth someday, when the time is right.

The death of the majority of the white race can simply be seen as the cutting away of the dead wood. The granite of our cultural core, those who see further and act wiser, can still survive. The rotting and dying elements of the white race can no longer be saved. Our greater strength and foresight cannot help them. The answer is to give up on them and look to ourselves. So long as we survive, everything is preserved, even improved, from what came before. The legacy of Newton, Shakespeare, and Beethoven does not die.

So what can We do, we remnant of a remnant, that will not perish and will instead thrive even in a time of universal collapse? First off don't worry about being rich. It will probably be impossible. Do not work your hands off trying to sustain some high standard of living in a hyper-taxed world run by non-whites who will simply feed off you. Do not measure success or failure by wealth and do not connect prestige to incomes. Poor people are left alone better than rich. A tiny minority that owns all the wealth in the country is a hateful and dangerous place to be. Zimbabwe did not succeed. South Africa did not succeed. Rather, we must be having lots of children, I don't mean two a piece. I mean become a movement, like the mormons, that highly encourages children, makes it possible to have and raise them, makes it culturally acceptable to be poor while doing this, and makes every child a gift and a treasure to be thrown into the world with the same goal of finding a spouse and having lots of children themselves. There should be a celebration of life and a yearning to see our in-group grow. The mormon church that was raided for basically the crime of having 'too many white children' is a good example. Regardless of whatever shenanigans they were involved in, they had a movement that promoted childbirth and they damn well had 400 white children, mormon children, that were going to have 1600 more when they grew up, and so on. They were what success looks like.

Like the mormons we must separate ourselves completely from the tv, drugs, sex, alcohol, and so on of modern life. We would even do well to dress our women in actual women's clothes and men in men's clothes and use other subtle cultural forces like that. Now I know mormons have their fair share of sins and mistakes along the road of life, and they aren't immune to the lures of modernity either. Neither are the amish. What's important is the rate. There is a threshold at which a community cannot support its accumulated sins and collapses. So long as we operate beneath that threshold by discouraging it as best we can, our community will prosper and thrive from the freed up human vitality. There can be no force of law to these measures, since we will have no political power. Simply approval and disapproval must do, the yearning to belong to the group will succeed by constantly keeping people together with their peers who are doing the right thing and encouraging others to keep the faith.

Like the mormons we must teach that divorce is non-negotiable, sex before marriage is wrong, that dating endlessly is wrong and should be pointed towards marriage or shouldn't occur at all, and so on. We must raise our children with our good example, a mother and a father getting along, not fighting, not divorcing, not abandoning. Together with a church every sunday teaching the same lesson and friends who all have the same type of parents, none of them fighting, the social expectation and 'standard' children emerge in will be extremely anti promiscuous, extremely pro commitment. This is so important I don't know how to stress it enough. We must all marry, have lots of kids, and be completely and utterly devoted to our wives/husbands without fail. We must never cheat, never grow angry and abusive, and never divorce. Everyone around us must do likewise and we must be seen as the norm and expected, not the abberation. For this we must all gather together and live together in some city or state. Virtual segregation is as good as the real thing for this purpose.

Unlike the mormons our focus must be on Nature, not a fairy tale God. Our spirituality must be based around the unalterable human nature, the special and unique nature of whites and our community in particular, the desire to preserve and live up to this nature, and the desire to grow. Not just into more of our natural homeland we truly deserved from the start, but into the stars. The wish to get our children into the stars should be a divine aspiration. It should feel like absolution. We should be racing to be the very first. We should consider ourselves the star people and everyone else mud dwellers. It should be a point of pride. We should call ourselves fish who wish to swim in our own gene people. People comfortable around people like themselves. People who love themselves and thus those close to them. People who hate and abuse and control nobody, but harmlessly bloop about in their little corner of the sea. We must be harmless like the willow, quiet like the reeds. There is no point in confrontation, everything can be achieved by accommodation. Our strength does not lie in power but in living better lives than average and not wishing to give up the privilege of this best of all possible lives. Our strength will come from self-love and pride, it will not be in reference to anyone else at all. It has no need of the other.

It may be that a remnant of a remnant will not be allowed due to the aggressive hatred of non-whites who resort to violence to wipe out even the most inoffensive of us. If that's the case, God help us. However this has a higher percentage chance of succeeding than any of the other proposals. More importantly, this proposal can begin at any time, without any startup costs, without any need for a political or wartime victory. We could become these 'fishians' tomorrow. With a willing partner we could be a fishian in scattered islands as small as single homes, waiting generations for the day we can gather together. We can feel like we belong to a community even if we are scattered. We can start the great work tomorrow. It is, after all, simply a state of mind and a refinement of the soul. If people are sick of waiting around with no ability to do anything due to the overwhelming odds of achieving a political or wartime victory, then THIS is the solution. Do not aspire to any victory, do not need numbers, do not attempt to save the entire white race. Become a fishian and start fishing. Begin a new life with new goals that are within your own destiny. Don't get weighed down in the depression of our coming doom. Become uplifted with the scenes of thousands and hundreds of thousands of angelic kids entering womb after womb, growing up happy and committed, and sailing off into the heavens. THIS is the future, not the south african slum life of the next century. The true, final future, is our remnant's rebirth. Salvation and rebirth works. Not everything and everyone has to survive, only we have to. We are enough, if we wish to be.

A Remnant of a Remnant Part I

In Wheel of Time, Aiel Wise Women have seen the future. The prophecies have all shown that the Last Battle will be a cataclysm for their people. The Dark One will break loose from his seal, and wreak havoc across the world. The Aiel will be some of the hardest hit, just like they were at the end of the last age.

They did not give up however. That isn't the Aiel way. "When water is gone, when shade is gone, spitting into Sightblinder's eye with our last breath." They faced their fate head on and asked themselves, very well, how shall we go about preserving a remnant of a remnant, which will be all that is necessary for our salvation and rebirth, after the Dark One is defeated and peace returns to the land.

Let's face it, the prospects are grim. The Dark One is free from his prison and it is the end of an Age. Whites will be the hardest hit and all the prophecies, the Census figures, the press, the universities, even our presidents say the jig is up, there is no rescuing of the white race. I believe it is our unchangeable fate to be swarmed with degenerates and minorities in the coming century, that it has as good as happened by now. 50% of American kids are non-white, 30% of UK kids are non-white, and so on. Even if you cut off immigration now you could not change the tide, and no one is going to endorse an ethnic cleansing platform that would remove 1/2 or 1/3 of the population from the country. Out of squeamishness, nothing will be done, and they will ignore the fact that doing nothing is ipso facto a genocide of whites instead.

I have a variety of reasons to believe we have lost and everyone concentrating on stopping this cataclysm is too little too late. For one thing, most of the opposition comes from the elderly. Like the white race itself, white nationalists are an aging, dying breed, fossils with no real power anymore. Curmudgeons grumbling about '. . .in my days it didn't used to be this way. . .damn whippersnappers. . .' ::falls asleep accidentally snoring:: Nothing can be done with these folks and obviously they are going to die of old age before the flash point even occurs.

Next off, the schools and the media are controlled by anti-white forces that will never let the truth get out, or if it does get out, will spin it in some 'enriching' way. Most people for instance still think South Africa is better off today than under apartheid. And that America has made great progress since the 1960's civil rights act and the 1965 immigration act. The remaining 50 years in which getting the truth out even helps is thus too short a time to make a 'long march through the institutions,' even if whites were genetically capable of employing such a subtle plan. I do not think whites can compete with jews at media, education, propoganda and the like simply because they have the highest verbal IQ in the world. They put our best sloganeers to shame and have won the war of words. Even with truth and justice on our side, there's simply no way to beat their smooth tongues. It hardly matters that most jews live in America because Europe listens to the same people and is just as fooled, since we are all equally white dupes and they are all equally smooth talking, smarter jews, geography simply doesn't matter. The fact that the opposition to Karl Marx's socialism, Diamond's 'geographic determinism' Boaz's 'race is a social construct' Gould's 'multiple intelligences with no objective way to test them,' the champion of the conservatives/libertarians, are the jews Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand, is even more disturbing. Even the opposition parties have been suborned by the superior wit of the jews. And indeed, Ayn Rand and her ilk are just as 'anti-racist' and 'anti-fascist' as their communist counterparts. There is no spokesman for the truth that can defeat the lies of the jews. Not in 50 years at least.

Third, there is a historical cycle that is hard to avoid that follows like this. Rich countries go fat and supine, lose their willingness to fight or take risks, become lazy and unwilling to do 'dirty work' that is 'beneath them,' and thus start paying tribute to dangers abroad and hiring foreign servants at home. This is Not new and it happens everywhere. South Africa could not separate itself from its servant class, neither could Rhodesia, even with disaster staring in their faces and becoming 10%, 5%, 1% of the population. Americans are rich and feel they deserve servants to do the work for them, President Bush famously said, as though proudly, "Mexicans come here to do the work Americans won't do." If he is right, and I believe he is, we are doomed because the majority of work on earth is work 'Americans won't do.' All white americans, for instance, aren't content until they get a college degree, but college degree jobs are few and far between compared to simple unskilled jobs. Who will do them? And if we won't do the majority of jobs, how can we stay the majority? Utter insanity. Now the obvious solution is to reward people who do our scut-work with higher pay, either through tightening the labor supply IE stopping immigration, or giving extra benefits to scut workers via government subsidy. But big business doesn't like that plan, as it either raises the price of labor (less profit) or increases taxes, so they have effectively blockaded any attempt to save ourselves in this manner. The natural born greed and laziness has caught up to us and will destroy us, like those who came before us and followed the exact same footsteps.

I also feel that generations of feminist indoctrination have made it impossible for a healthy relationship to be maintained as women are no longer content with what, realistically, men can provide as loving partners. Their unwillingness to settle, innate ability to get any sex partner they please whenever they please, their right to keep the children and get child support, everything is set up in a way that favors women and destroys the family. Obviously if every family and every relationship is destroyed by aggressive feminists demanding everything for themselves and nothing for men, who are supposed to simultaneously be superhuman with no faults but also subhuman with no right to ask anything of their wives, each new generation lacking a biologically, evolutionary normal home of a father and a mother is going to be less moral, less virtuous, less capable than the last.

I believe dysgenics is occurring and it's absolutely incontrovertible. The people having the babies and having them soonest and most, are the dumb, uneducated, poor. When you combine this with the family being torn apart each new generation is also more maladjusted than ever before. More mental health problems in each new generation. Higher criminality rates ((and yes crime has gone down in America but incarceration rates are UP ie there are more criminals than ever before we are just keeping them off the streets)). Higher illegitimacy and divorce rates. Higher everything rates. Dysgenics and dysfamilics(?) make any sort of heroic revival in our time of need impossible.

Furthermore democracy is on the enemy's side. Pandering to special interests is a good way to get swing votes at no cost to keeping your core, who will continue to endorse you as the 'lesser of two evils' and thus never demand anything from you to get your vote. For this reason the vast majority of people can be ignored in a democracy and only the few ever get their way. Democracy also encourages immigration in order to win new voters to your party's side. And lastly, the growing voting power of non-whites in America will make any new law changes in our favor that much harder to pass every year. If we couldn't do it now, why could we in ten, or twenty years, when non-whites are 40% of the population and voting for their interests? ((which certainly won't include getting deported.)) Why could we in 30 years when they're the majority? Good luck passing a bill deporting all non-whites then. In fact, by then, no law that remotely helps whites could ever be passed again. Too bad for you, one man one vote and your votes simply don't cut it anymore.

It is the perfect storm of a race war, a class war, and a sex war, all occurring at once and all distracting people from each field with the more virulent other field. At this point the white race as an organism has full scale cancer that has reached every organ and has led to total physical shutdown. No healthy part is left to turn to.

In fifty years, no one is capable of changing our philosophy, economics, childbirth ratios, family ethics, the entire governmental system, the entire concept of human rights, and so on. It would be a miracle on par with Japan's modernization from feudalism to modernity in the Meiji Restoration. It would be such an amazing turnaround it would require the hand of God coming down and personally intervening. I'm sorry, but only crackpots can be so optimistic they think this can all be turned around. In due time the free exchange of ideas may have brought people to a new understanding about life and we could have gradually embraced a new culture that was healthy for us. But this organic, natural progress was destroyed by mass immigration, which created a deadline and a time bomb that disrupted the entire process. Now we are stuck with whatever philosophy we currently have when the great demographic race replacement occurs--we have no further choices after that. From there on it will be the dimwitted, anti-white racist, corrupt and useless third worlders determining our society. Just like South Africa, they will utterly destroy it and all their ideas will be stupid and every direction they take us in will be disastrous.

The Infinite Plasticity of Man

Plastic Man. Mr. Fantastic. Monkey D. Luffy. There are tons of examples of men who can literally adapt to anything, take any shape, stretch or thin or expand or balloon to whatever the situation calls for. Luckily, these are kids stories just meant to be creative and fun, a 'gee wouldn't that be cool.'

Unfortunately, in our universities and media today, we are taught the exact same story, only this time EVERYONE is Mr. Fantastic, and it's supposed to be taken dead seriously. In fact, even questioning whether humanity is, in fact, plastic or rubber, is itself a heresy that can get you into jail, a divorce court, or fired. We are all blank slates, which you can write whatever you please upon. Each generation can be completely different from the last. If the world's environment changes, well we can just change children to suit it with proper indoctrination and education. Nothing to fear here folks, move along. If someone asks whether humanity was ever 'intended' to be equal, free, homosexual, single mothers, etc, the iron fist of the proletariat will come smashing down. Color-blind Man, Non-Gender-Biased Man, Non-Homophobic Man, is the new Soviet Man, who is himself just another Plastic Man from our fairy tales. Though of course, even using the term Man itself, should, properly, be banned. Perhaps 'organism' is more proper, since we wouldn't want to impugn any aliens or animals out there who by sharing our values are just as true participants in our community as ourselves. Indeed, in all our science fiction stories it's taken for granted that in the future, not only all races of humanity will be united under one world government, but an enormous United Universe Federation will have us interbreeding and comingling in vast diverse enriched dynamic floating cities with every bug-eyed-monster from here to the Orion Arm. I kid you not!

Are we really Plastic Man? Can we really just change our culture, or was it there for a reason? Did it, perhaps, best suit our human nature and thus, ability to survive? Does a changed culture have different survival outcomes and thus can be rated as objectively inferior or superior for its people? Do utopias commonly founder upon the basic realities of human wants, weaknesses, and needs that go completely unaddressed? Is our rapidly changing environment possible to keep up with? Can people adapt to the constant 'progress' our machines bring us in material comforts, or the dubious 'progress' in enlightened opinion our elites proscribe for us?

The myth of Plastic Man does not go away because it is a superpower we fantasize having, alongside Immortal Man and Invisible Man. But when the elites start fantasizing about what they can do with a whole world of plastic men, whose putty will of course be shaped by their hands, the shit really hits the fan. It killed 100 million people trying to enact communism, and is set to kill billions by race replacement to enact multiculturalism. Therefore it is vital to find out the true nature of humanity, what we are suited for, and what we are not suited for, no matter how good or 'nice' it sounds. The study of history and biology are key to this understanding, not philosophy, not dreamers, but the real cold facts of what humanity is. What men are, what women are, what gays are, what blacks are, what whites are, what asians are, what everyone IS. There are only two tools to ascertain this, history and biology, but both of these are of course maligned by the cult of plasticity as useless, dangerous, heretical thinking that kids at the least should never have access to. Hence the complete dismantling of history and imposition of a new, feel-good history that follows the party line. Hence the shutting up of nobel prize winners like Shockley and Watson when they dare to mention the truth to a public audience instead of keeping it to technical journals among themselves in some safe ignored corner.

We must go on to study the nature of communities and their biological underpinnings. Like a hive or an ant hill, people must live in communities and the health of the pack is the health of the wolf. Studying individuals is more like navel-watching, the insipid nonsense of psychology or Buddhism. Individualism is just one step away from nihilism and is always the eventual result, that is because individuals are not self-sufficient and do not in fact have any value. Being an individual, who is not allowed to care about anyone or anything else because he is supposed to complete himself, all alone because everyone else is just another self-interested competitor who cares nothing for him, is in fact a torturous Hell.

Truth only emerges in statistical groups, large numbers, patterns. And it is these large groups, patterns, and numbers that are the true 'living breathing being,' not its constituent parts. A man, left alone, quickly descends into insanity. Solitary confinement is considered a method of torture. And yet at the same time, our philosophers claim we are all individuals, self-sufficient, and owe nothing to each other except as mere tools to serve our own interests. Again there is a complete disconnect between reality and philosophy. It's shown time and again that the virtue of individuals depends on the prevailing norms of society at the time. Victorian England and Woodstock were composed of the same biological units, the same genetic stock lived in both eras, but the results were not random nor were they the same. Individuals, clearly, do NOT determine the values and opinions of their lives, or their actions, or anything else. They do not sit down with the clear light of reason in a darkened room with zen music playing and decide one by one all their values and opinions and morals and lifestyle preferences while in perfect meditation of the Rational Absolute. If they did, we should see a variety of conclusions all contrary to each other in all eras equally, or a complete conformity as everyone comes to the same conclusion. We don't see either case at all. The only time we clearly see patterns of human behavior emerging, are when we look at the community scale. Behavior does vary, but not over individuals. History is written by the changing patterns of communities--individuals just go with the flow.

Note I therefore agree with the premise of the utopians that men are plastic and can lead lives in a variety of different manners and ways, that a great variety of lifestyles have been practiced across time and space, and that nothing forces people to stay as they were before instead of becoming scientologists tomorrow. What I disagree with, is their ability to do this, WHILE ALSO SURVIVING, FLOURISHING, PROSPERING, or achieving any other well-recognized goal humans generally set for themselves. Yes, people are plastic and can be forced into any mold. Children will believe, largely, whatever religion their parents teach them. Whether it be cows are sacred, cats are sacred, or crocodiles are sacred, your culture can believe it and your kids will believe it and carry the tradition on. Yes, people are plastic and can be taught anything, that racism is bad, sexism is bad, homophobia is bad, etc, and they really will believe it fervently and do whatever they can to stop it in the world around them and in their own sinful hearts.

But as Horace said: "You can throw Nature out with a pitchfork, but it will always come back again."

Like a coiled spring, the cost of deviating people from their human nature keeps pushing down and down with greater and greater weight, until a reaction must occur. Either it violently pushes back and throws all the accumulated weight off its shoulders, or crumples under the weight and perishes. This is all that's left to Plastic Man and Plastic World. You can change some of the people all of the time, or all of the people some of the time, but you can never change all of the people all of the time. Those who fervently adopt your failed platform and try in all earnestness to fulfill it, like the Aztecs sacrificing people daily to keep the sun rising and not going out, will under the weight of their own enemy-making tendencies eventually be destroyed in turn by those who object to the practice. Plastic Man triumphed and made people start sacrificing each other by the tens of thousands in the most inhumane rites imaginable, Plastic Man triumphed as fathers proudly sent their daughters who relished the chance to die to the bloody knives and watched their child ripped apart in front of their eyes. But what did Plastic Man win? Only its own destruction. Only Nature's vengeance on their anti-survival, unnatural codes.

Therefore rather than asking ourselves: 'what is the ideal society?' as though not humans, but 'beings of pure thought energy' were going to inhabit it, we should all be asking ourselves "what, given our knowledge of history and biology, is most suited for human society?" We can even admit that it's unpleasent, mean-spirited, even nauseating. We ourselves may not even be suited for it, and would have to purge ourselves from it before it could even work. Nevertheless, for serious people, none of these objections matter and Nature must be the touchstone from which philosophy arises.

We must never make the mistake of reasoning out an ideal society from the standpoint of an individual. We must never craft the ideal world for ourselves to live in. This is meaningless because 'we' aren't going to be living in this society. A community will be living in it, the only living thing at all. Generations upon generations of people are going to be born into this community and keeping this community alive and breathing, long after you are dead. The transient, uncompleted parts of men and women, elderly and children, workers and indigents, warriors and poets, thinkers and doers are none of them alive, none of them the goal, none of them the barometer of our health or weakness. Only the community that includes all of them is the value-giver to any of them. If society is well, then all is well. If society is sick, then everyone in it is a failure. No self-serving shortcuts. No self-justifying excuses. We owe our ancestors and our children better.

Who are the healthy societies on Earth? Certainly no one with a below replacement birth rate, certainly no one living beyond their means, certainly no one who endangers themselves by picking fights with much stonger foes, certainly no one willingly embracing its own coming extinction. This isn't surprising, when a drastic shift to the environment occurs, Darwinian logic shows that the vast majority of all species will die out to their inability to adapt to it. Only a few fringe mutants that were uniquely ready for such an environment by sheer chance will emerge as the healthy and thriving new norm. There has been no more dramatic shift to the environment as industrialization since farming. And some parts of the world, by the time they interacted with the outside world, had to undergo farming and industrialization simultaneously. Pity the poor Aborigenes of Australia! And it may be proper to speak of a third revolution transcending even the Industrial, what could be called the Scientific revolution that not only is rapidly changing the patterns of production and consumption, but also our very way of seeing the world in upsetting but uncontradictable new lights. Those not rendered irrelevant by machine labor may be driven mad by the impersonal and uncaring nature of the Universe. Those not disconnected by the vast machine-like life of living to the clock, vast distances between themselves and everyone else they know, without ever knowing their neighbor's names, could be instead lured by the easy availability of escapism affluence, drugs, tv, video games, internet etc provide them. In an environment like this, it is unlikely many people will survive unscarred, or that many communities will not totter and collapse under the collective weight of their individual miseries. The answer comes down to a few scattered micro-communities, I am not certain that even a single state on earth qualifies as healthy. Mormons are healthy. Mormons are healthy. Mormons are healthy. And yeah, that's about it.

Look to the mormons.