Previously I defined racism as:
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.
I also gave the definition:
"Preferring those genetically near to you to those genetically distant from you, just like your own relatives over strangers."
Later I described racism thusly:
"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."
Despite how hard it is to make a compelling argument for a question of values as opposed to a question of fact, I have tried my best to show why people should value life, and that their race is the primary agent of continued survival and success. If people insist on not valuing even life itself, I'm truly stumped. If they do value life qua life, they cannot object to its fundamental principles like the wish to propagate, the wish to survive, the wish to evolve, accumulate resources, gain power, etc. The only people who accept these fundamental principles are the racists, the nationalists, who wish to order their nation in such a way as to nurture and foster these ends. This is why racism is a complete value-system that can inform every decision in life, yield a spiritual meaning and glory to your existence, and build a community for all its adherents. Instead of relying on outdated fairy tale lies peddled by religions, however, it is organic and grows from the nature of reality itself, and is thus more rewarding and stronger than any value system that has ever come before it. Properly Racism should become another world religion, its members Racists, and their creed spelled out in some sort of short, all-encompassing book that could strike to the heart of the matter. Racism is both age-old and entirely new, and this is due to the fact that the modern age has for the first time seriously thrown all the various races of the world together by breaking down all the natural borders to transportation and communication, and that modern science has found objective factual measurements of the differences between the races. In the past it was hard to be racist when contact with other races was non-existent. And in the recent past, it was hard to know if racism was correct, or just an outdated prejudice based on ignorance. Both of these factors are gone.
Like breathing, being racist isn't considered very important until one stops doing it. Then the people who never paid any attention to being racist but figured it would take care of itself, suddenly find themselves choking to death and on the edge of extinction. The need for explicit, conscious racism instead of implicit, subconscious racism is more dire than ever before, due to the breakdown of impersonal natural forces keeping the races apart. Our people are having an asthma attack, the natural working of the lungs has failed, and only explicit, conscious, reasoned racism can be the inhaler that rescues them. The impersonal barriers of separation are gone. It is time for personal barriers to be thrown up, and thus the time for Racism the ideology, the reasoning process of this survival mechanism, to emerge.
Which brings me to the second point that until recently, it was hard to know if racism was true, or truly necessary, or just an outdated prejudice due to ignorance. If everyone were truly the same if raised in the same way, then racism would have no meaning. If everyone were just as related to each other as everyone else, then racism would have no meaning. There was a brief period of time where it was intellectually feasible to reject racism as a primitive prejudice born of ignorance instead of knowledge. These people were objecting to the inborn racism built into everyone not used to seeing foreigners or differences, they assumed time and education would erase all the observed differences and the age of aquarius would roll in. However, the exact opposite occured. Science proved the exact opposite point, and every single study only showed how vital, how intransigent, how unchangeable our genetic differences were.
Ethnic Genetic Interests by Frank Salter.
IQ and Global Inequality by Lynn and Vanahu.
Bell Curve/Human Accomplishment by Charles Murray.
And a variety of different racial research that shows clear, distinct, genetic, real and irrevocable differences between the races, has made racism not prejudiced or ignorant, but knowledgable post-judice, that only prejudice and ignorance can avoid admitting is true. It may be that eventually genetic engineering will erase all the differences between people and we really will all be essentially the same. For now, however, race is real, the consequences of mixing races are really disastrous, and the evidence of this disaster is well documented and proven and observable all around the world. Research into the human genome and the influences of each gene and its unequal distribution among the various races will only continue to show how vastly different humans are, how some are far superior to others, and how imbecilic treating them as equal or expecting equal results from them is.
What is truly amazing is there is no longer any debate in academic circles that IQ is genetic and varies between the races. There is no questioning the correlations between IQ and criminality, productivity, great accomplishments, morality, stability, and so on. And thus there is no questioning that the high IQ races are better by any measure than the low IQ ones. But racism, inherent in this position, is the most derided belief of all. How can a well agreed upon, utterly proven, irrevocably established factual knowledge of reality be the worst possible belief on earth?
Or, to go back to my title, why is racism bad?
The truth is, racism is commonly defined as: "Hatred and malicious intent towards a race, or any belief that might possibly justify hatred and malicious intent towards a race, or any belief that might justify any position that has any negative impact on a race." Of course, this definition leaves out whites who, due to our presumably happy situation and circumstances in the world, don't deserve any protection from racism and indeed deserve to be taken down a few notches to, presumably, a more 'fair' spot on the totem pole.
By expanding the fishing net to include tertiary and secondary causes of the primary fear, hatred and malicious intent towards a race, a vast haul of racists is brought in to trial. Anything that could promote hatred for or harming of a racial group, is in this case just as bad as directly hating and wishing harm to said group. People who protest they take no sadistic glee in butchering darker skinned people are still racist by this definition, because their views, if enacted, would still do vast harm to said dark skinned people, and that is good enough.
Imagine if a sensible racist goal were enacted, for instance, immigration were not permitted to any white controlled territory. For the vast dark skinned masses, this is irreparable harm to their ethnic genetic interests. They could use all of that land and all those resources to house billions more of their people, but we refuse to let them and use it to house, feed, and clothe our own instead. This is inhumanly cruel to them and a vast harm to their folk. Thus, it is racist.
Or consider another sensible racist goal, restricting the technological advances we invent to benefit only our own people. This would give us a competitive advantage in productive capacity and thus the other races would shrink and shrink as a proportion of the gene pool. This is irreparable harm as the dark skinned races of course wish to grow their numbers and become the vast majority of the gene pool. Without these new technologies they couldn't support all the extra people necessary for their race to thrive, and thus it is racist to not give it to them.
Or another racist goal, to colonize a new planet in space with only whites, allowing no other race on board. What enormous harm we have done to them! Now an entire planet won't be available to them, billions of their people will not be born or be rich, and all because of our racism that discriminates against them.
Thus ANY sensible measure, any benefit whites ever do by themselves for themselves, falls under the rubric of malicious hatred of everyone else. It does not matter whether sadism was our motivating force or just love of our own and preference for the objectively Good and noble, because the result is the same. Any belief that might lead to a negative impact on the well being of other races, is racist, and must be stopped at any cost. Everything must be shared equally and everyone must benefit equally from whatever we do, lest any race be left behind or become worse off.
Any sensible belief, like blacks are idiots and thugs, is the same as hatred and malicious intent towards a race, because those who believe such things are more likely to have hatred and malicious intent. It is like how drinking and drug use are themselves illegal, in large part because they lead to criminal behavior once used. Not everyone who drinks or everyone who uses drugs then goes out and does a crime, but the risk factor is so increased that society has deemed it wise to forbid it and thus forestall the likely consequences. A belief that blacks are idiots and thugs, won't 100% lead to a new holocaust, but it raises the risk factor of the believer initiating such an action and thus is forbidden from the start to forestall such a consequence. With logic like this, the facts themselves can become forbidden, truth becomes criminal, and reality is legislated away.
"Racism is bad because it leads to the Holocaust." To these people, it does not matter whether racism is technically true or not. What matters is it ups the chances of inter-racial conflict and thus it must be stopped. An anti-racist is less likely to enslave, genocide, rape, or eat members of another race than a racist. This is all that need be known. Clearly, racism is thus bad. This is like people who view radiation as bad because it harms living tissue even while a cancer patient is in the emergency room on the brink of death. Or that knocking someone down is bad because it hurts even if it's to stop him from getting hit by a car. Yes, racism is dangerous. Yes, racism ups the risks for inter-racial conflict (at least in the short term, in the long term it actually decreases conflict by keeping races separate and thus depriving them of opportunity to conflict about anything). Yes, racism can justify genocide, slavery, rape, or anything else. But what is the alternative? Without racism the world is doomed. It cannot be simpler than this. For every bad consequence racism could produce, the consequences of not being racist are all around us and infinitely worse. It is like worrying about whether you turned the light off while the house is on fire. Yes, keeping the light on will slightly raise your electric bill at the end of the month, and all things being equal it's best to turn off your lights as you leave the room, but given the fact that the house is BURNING DOWN and you will DIE if you don't leave, it may be appropriate to consider ignoring the lights and just going.
Here is what will happen if racism and its attendant actions are not implemented:
The white race, currently 10% of the world, will dwindle to 1% by the end of the century. Birth rates, immigration, miscegenation, and anti-white legislation will all take its toll, and our day will be done, even if gas chambers don't round up and exterminate our pilfering remainder. It will effectively cease to exist, without the ability to influence society or make any impact on the future. Don't complain to me about this prediction, take it up with the UN. These are their population forecasts not mine. With it will die the most creative, smartest, highest achieving, most moral people on earth. The rest of humanity's future will be that much inferior to what it should have been. As almost all history is simply the progress of the white race across time, it is possible that with us will die all progress entirely, and that furthermore all races will regress to the point in time before they met us and relied on us to provide them with the advancements we made. Jews are set to die out as a population even sooner than whites, their birth rates and miscegenation are just as disastrous as ours, and they are far fewer to begin with. No reliance can be made on them. East Asians though more numerous have an even lower birth rate than ours, and historically speaking no confidence can be placed in their politics, science, art, or human decency. If they do inherit the earth, it will most likely be with an iron fist, lives will be stratified, impoverished, meagre and strict. Conformity will be required and change banned. Such is the way of eastern despotism. Supposing East Asians also commit mass racial suicide, Islam will rule the world by the end of the century. There has seldom been a more stultified, totalitarian, ridiculous and evil belief system as theirs. The race of its practictioners are the most violent, terrible, civilization wreckers to ever walk the earth, and after they destroy all the temples of their opponents and slowly choke to death all their minorities that live underneath them, their inherent stupidity as a race makes sure nothing will replace whatever they just destroyed. Jihad has claimed something like 500 million lives already. No doubt if Islam did conquer the world, it would claim billions more. Without whites or E. Asians to oppose them, nothing could stop them from rolling over all remaining peoples of the earth. From there they would impose their draconian policies that forbid all 'innovation' as a sin against Allah. There would be no reason to believe that the resultant dark age would ever be escaped. Supposing Islam didn't succeed we could instead have a future of 'Greater Mexico' or 'Greater Brazil.' Countries where lawlessness and corruption are king, no advancements in science or the arts ever occur, and the economy never improves since robber baron after robber baron bankrupts any money as soon as it's made. Taking whites out of the picture of Mexico and South America, all of its virtues and productivity would leave with it, and all the vices would redouble now totally unrestrained. It would be a banana republic where anything goes and nothing gets done--only writ across the whole world. Or perhaps, just for completion's sake, sub-saharan Africa will inherit the earth. Do I even have to portray the comedy of Africa writ large? Murder and rape everywhere, starvation and disease everywhere, mutilation and black magic everywhere, shacks and cardboard considered the height of architecture, Big Men with their 100 mistresses and 1,000 kids walking around bedecked in bling and surrounded by ak-47 toting skinny mean looking guards chanting 'kill x, kill y', whoever the rival of the day is. South Asians, do to their passivity and stupidity, I assure you could never conquer the world because across all history they have never conquered anything and been conquered over a dozen times. Forget about them, whoever rules the world, they will all find it quite easy to wipe out the Indians. Muslims in India are already making a fine work of it, having purged all hindus out of Pakistan and Bangladesh while still continuing to grow as a proportion of mainland India's population. Anyone else could do the same. These are our choices folk. Who do we pass the baton to? Who do you trust with the future of life and all things noble and good? If not whites, who? The obvious B-team is Japan, Korea, and China but Human Accomplishment already tells us what to expect from them. Is this really what we want to make of our only chance at life? Is there any guarantee the East Asians won't die out just like us as shown by their birthrate removing 40% of their whole population each generation? Forget about them. Relying on them so that we can lazily avoid the responsibility ourselves is mere childishness. Gambling the future of the whole universe on such inadequate successors is mere nihilism. If we value anything, we must forestall the end of the white race. We are the key to every good outcome. We always have been, we are currently, and there is a 99% chance that only we ever will be. The risk is too great to simply lay down and die.
But, we are told, a far less important risk, a danger of a much lesser magnitude, which is purely theoretical and NOT, in fact, happening all over the world like the death of the white race is--that racism will lead to a new holocaust, or harm dark skinned people in some way--means we must lay down and die. Means the white race must perish. The risk, you see, is simply too high. If we don't lay down and die, someone might get hurt. Just imagine the horrible future where africans are no longer butchering, raping, mutilating and infecting each other because evil white racists got rid of them! Just imagine how many fewer drug wars, gang wars, and bankruptices South America would have if evil white racists succeeded in getting rid of hispanics! Just imagine how many fewer slum cities, rat worshippers, and medidative trancers India would hold if whites were to replace them! Just imagine how many fewer beheadings, burqas, and terrorist bombings would occur if we were to so cruelly wipe out the muslims! And then think of all that rich diverse food we could no longer eat!
Yes, racism is bad, you see, because in one case an inferior race might get harmed, whereas right now we are only sure that the superior race, with superior accomplishments, superior civilization, superior wealth, superior technology, superior looks, superior traditions and superior thinking is only sure to die. Better to not take the risk! We don't want to rock the boat after all!
And so it goes. And all this simply from the viewpoint of objective racism, never mind the love and happiness and pride one can take in his people subjectively, and what a tragedy it would be to be surrounded by aliens completely unlike you, who don't look like you, think like you, talk like you, or love you--who most likely hate you when push comes to shove. Supposing you were the last survivor of the white race wandering around a country of darker skins, the alienation and loneliness and misery would be nearly the same as the last inhabitant on earth. A fugitive in our own historic homeland, everything we made overturned, every graveyard vandalized, every church bombed, every book burned. No, it is sickening to even think about how defenseless our minority status will make us be, how the efforts of all our ancestors will be vilified, expropriated, and smashed, how all hope for our children will be gone before they're even born, never given a chance by the supremacist hateful dark skins all around them. Most likely, like when the turks or arabs had the ascendancy over Europe, sold as harem slaves for their beautiful exotic faces--boy or girl. This is our future without racism. So if with racism, gasp, conflict might occur, people might be killed, or even enslaved, or whatever the horror story is, to this I say:
BETTER HIM THAN ME. BETTER THEM THAN US. AND TO HELL WITH COWARDS AND TRAITORS. LET THE WHITE WARRIORS STAND UP!
Monday, October 27, 2008
Thursday, October 2, 2008
What is National Socialism? Why is it bad?
First, let's form a distinction between nazis and national socialists. Nazis were a particular party at a particular time in Germany that did particular things. National Socialism is a philosophy that anyone can share anywhere on earth, while not having anything to do with the actions of the Nazis or the Nazi party. National Socialists falsely branded as neo-nazis may have nothing to do with the particular actions or decisions made by the nazis, but simply share a philosophical belief that socialism is good so long as it is confined to a homogeneous nation. That socialism lubricates the wheels of good will, peace, commerce, etc, and allows the nation to stand strong and secure. The best national socialist state in the world was not Nazi Germany, but currently exists today in Japan.
Socialism, but only for Japanese. This is the national socialist model most 'neo-nazis' are yearning for. It is neither expansionist nor genocidal, it is neither communist nor totalitarian, it is simply pragmatic good sense. When free-market capitalism doesn't produce the result one wants for a society, you include socialist policies to gently guide it back on course. You don't just shrug and say, nothing can be done, if the free market can't provide it, it can't be provided. If you want full employment, a minimum standard of living, a comfortable retirement, a safe working environment, low pollution, a safety valve for dead-enders, protection from predatory lending/advertising, etc, you cannot just leave the free-market to itself. Socialism must be included in the package. A national socialist is someone who first and foremost cares about the well-being of his people, (natio is latin for 'to be born' and all nations must be blood related by definition), and sees socialism as a tool in his toolbox to help his people. He does not care about the well being of the individual, God's will, some imaginary natural rights, the well being of the world, the trees, or anything else. National establishes his ends, socialist his means. When socialism is not productive or useful, he casts it aside and relies on some other method. When it is productive or useful, he refuses to cast it aside based on some sort of ideologically pure conformism to Ayn Rand. Though Japan is currently poorer than the USA, it has virtually no resources to work with except its own people, and thus starts at a disadvantage. Second, it has none of the other social maladies the US has. No crime, no diversity, no immigration, no poverty, no unemployment, etc. Japan is the best place on earth, the most enviable child born is a Japanese. And it, indisputably, is a national socialist state. One of the most exclusive and xenophobic countries on earth that cares about the purity of its blood from even koreans ten generations down the line, with all the standard socialist goodies of free health care, education, etc. It's the poster child for national socialism.
So let's look at the ugly duckling of the national socialist family again, our cute cuddly nazis which are trotted out in every argument to discredit anyone and everyone who cares about anything.
The nazis in the 20's and 30's were largely good guys. Applying pragmatic socialism they got their people out of a depression and curtailed runaway inflation. They built large public infrastructure and made one of the strongest economies in the world at the time, out of the complete debacle the previous government had left it in. Applying nationalist pride they stood up for their interests and took back their legitimate rights, the Rhineland, scrapping the Versailles treaty, cleaning the streets of alien communist agitator scum, the Anschluss by popular referendum with Austria and the Sudetanland Germans who were abused and oppressed by the Czechs (much like the Slovaks were). Until this point, this popular, elected Nazi party had managed one of the largest political and economic turnarounds in world history, giving themselves huge advantages for the future and being a blessing to their progeny by protecting their national interests and their economic worries. What went wrong?
Resentment of the jews became too high a priority. All of the anti-jew laws were unfair to largely innocent people. Instead of targeting specifically communist jews, or removing jews from specifically national vital roles like banking or the media, jews were simply attacked on all fronts for simply being jews. Though jews were encouraged to leave, they were not compensated for it or paid to do so like current repatriation platforms are based on for muslims. Nor did Nazi Germany create a state for them to go to, or carve out a state from inside themselves to give to the jews. In short, they persecuted jews for just being in Germany, while not allowing them to be anywhere else. They left no solution but the 'final solution,' the great injustice of the Holocaust that targeted men, women, and children indiscriminately, many of whom had never even lived in Germany and had never done anything to Germans no matter how far you stretch logic. Why did this happen? Is it due to nationalism per se, or the particular circumstances of Germany at that particular time? I of course say the latter. Due to a depression jews prominently profited from, the loss of WWI jews were blamed for however insensibly, and the Bolshevik revolution that attempted to take over Germany jews were prominently a part of, Germans developed an indiscriminate hatred of all jews and their resentment short-circuited their reason. Nationalism without such a history of prior events would never turn out the same or treat jews in the same way. Though jews are working industriously to create just as long a laundry-list of resentment native whites might feel about them, due to the real harm they are doing us all again, surely this time a more reasonable and fair approach would emerge. We do have, after all, history to learn from and not repeat.
Second, when they replaced reunification of all Germans into Germany, with simple conquest and plunder. When they occupied all of Czechoslovakia instead of just the land of the German minority, there was simply no moral justification for their act. It was after this that the world grew to distrust Nazi Germany and would declare war if they invaded anyone else. It was due to this that the reasonable demand of the german city of Danzig be restored to Germany fell on deaf ears. It was due to this that WWII began when, if Hitler had simply confined himself to 'Germans belong to Germany' no one would have objected. It was due to this Germany and the UK did not ally against the expansionist USSR and thus, the chance passed away to avoid the entirety of WWII and the Cold War. What a colossal error, and to what purpose? God knows how little conquering Czechoslovakia made Germany better, or if the occupation cost more than it gained. There was nothing nationalist about it. It was pure imperialism. Eventually this imperial streak wished to conquer all of Europe and install nazi puppet governments over everywhere they didn't intend to purge and settle for themselves. The insane belief that Germany could actually win such a war is another reason to reject Nazis and Nazism as a cause. They did the German people no favors, but in the end lost millions, perhaps tens of millions, of their finest and bravest, for a hopeless endeavor. Meanwhile they ignored the common humanity and relatedness Germans had to their fellow Europeans and created a mass slaughter of people virtually identical to them. Though this was hardly different from the 30 years war, the 100 years war, the Napoleonic Wars, WWI, or any other intra-European war for conquest and plunder, the modern weaponry and large populations due to modern technology make the same mistake look worse than ever before. Causing such a war is also doubly-tragic because it was the downfall of the philosophy they championed, striking a permanent blow to racists, nationalists, atheists, fascists, etc, who would then be bullied with the title 'nazi' forevermore, despite the theoretical correctness of their positions. Nazi Germany is evil not just for the harm they did, but for perverting something so good as what they originally had, the amazing German people and the amazing economic and political turnaround Nazi Germany had engineered and the amazing race-first darwinian view of life so necessary for a proper understanding of politics. They who had all the advantages to become the premier nation on earth and guiding light to the world, threw it all away and became a terrible example of evil instead. Thus the double blow of lost good and caused bad that smarts twice as much.
National Socialists today feel provoked to defend Hitler and the nazis, feel the need to even become neo-nazis and snap Herr Hitler salutes, due to Orwell's law: He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present, controls the past.
Communists, liberals, libertarians, and their ilk, by controlling the past "nazis were evil" control the future "nationalism is banned." These people feel that only be liberating the past from the liberals can they stand for a good future, and thus nationalism and nazism rise and fall together. 'If only,' they think, 'we could show that the nazis weren't really evil, that nazism isn't really bad, than the arguments of all our opponents would fall through, people would open their eyes, and national socialism could be reimplemented all across the world.' They're right of course, if somehow nazism could be shown to be a good thing, all the arguments would fall through and national socialism would be respectable again. To do this, however, you somehow have to prove the holocaust didn't happen, that invading Czechoslovakia was just, that invading Poland was sensible, that signing an alliance with the USSR after spending decades opposing communism as your ultimate foe makes sense, and on and on. You would have to prove the doctor's experiments on jewish subjects detailed in Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich false. In short, it's delusional and stupid to try and defend Nazism. As useful as it would be for Nazis to be good guys, they weren't, and as nice as it would be if nazis weren't used to cudgel nationalists for the rest of time, we just have to accept the fact that they will be.
There's one thing to be said for the Nazis. You can bet if they had won WWII, we wouldn't be dealing with any of these muslim immigrant issues. In the end, if nothing is done, it will turn out that a Nazi victory would have been better for Europe than the Allied one. Since the Allies, after all, just handed over all of Europe to an even worse fate, their complete annihilation and replacement by an inferior race and culture forevermore. But that's a rather steep cost to 'proving the nazis weren't really bad.' By the time you win that argument, the purpose of winning it will have already passed. Wishing it to happen just so you can finally win your pro-nazi argument is also a little ridiculous. Let's keep our eyes on the ball here, we want whites to pursue their own interests and not be exterminated by untermenschen, not to win arguments and feel good about our foresightedness. When the two come in conflict we must, sadly, care more about the former and not the latter result.
This same curious situation is why people commonly defend the Confederacy. The same revisionist nonsense is espoused, trying, fruitlessly, to prove that the South were the good guys so that history can be rescued from liberal arguments and thus a new Confederacy-like racism can emerge in the future. People concerned about hispanic immigration, black crime, miscegenation, the tax drain of minorities, and so on want a race-based secession to succeed, but since history discredited that ideal with the Confederacy, they feel the need to defend the Confederacy in order to defend themselves. This is again counterproductive. Allying yourself with a known evil like the Confederacy, who were simply slavers who cared nothing for the white race, importing millions of blacks who were commonly making up half the population of their states to do their labor for them, and thus take the precious niches of survival that white babies could have lived in forever, they were the exact opposite of white nationalists. Slavery is wrong innately because it lowers the value of mankind and creates unearned wealth for people who did nothing to deserve it. But slavery is also wrong, as is importing cheap foreign labor, because it destroys your ethnic genetic interests for the sake of your petty financial interests. Instead of giving jobs and land to more white children, you trade it away, forever, for a mess of pottage. It is a grand betrayal of your own children. It is a betrayal of your race. The confederacy stood for nothing but the extermination of whites in America in the hopes of being some sort of 1% minority rule where they would lord over endless slaves and servants who would do everything for them--including live in place of them. Trying to revise history to show the Confederacy didn't care about slavery, that they weren't racist, that they were about libertarianism, were just free market capitalists opposed to tariffs, etc, is a load of bull and again a shameful pairing of legitimate current needs with illegitimate past evil regimes.
Therefore, I ask all healthy whites to THROW THE NAZIS AND THE SLAVERS UNDER THE BUS. For God's sake, their day is done, they don't exist anymore, they lost, and good riddance. Stop associating with them, and the false associations the liberals keep drawing between them and us, will slowly fade away due to absurdity. Associate with them and champion them, and all you do is revive and give new legs to liberal calumny. It makes no sense to pair our current crisis with old, dead arguments we already lost. It makes no sense to stand or fall on the basis of Nazi or Confederate history. Let us stand on stronger, firmer ground than that! Let us stand for the early Americans who settled this land without fear of the Indians. Let us stand for the Boers who defeated the Zulus at the battle of blood river. Let us stand for Charles Martel at Tours. Let us stand with the brave Roman Emperor who died defending the walls of Constantinople. Let us stand with the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae. Let us stand with Davy Crockett and Remember the Alamo. Let us stand for innumerable champions of the white race who all represented the same healthy nationalism and racism we so need to survive. There is no need to include failed, evil versions when the narratives of good, heroic whites fall like rain around us. There is plenty of 'history' to prove our point. Every time a liberal brings up the nazis, bring up the settling of America. Every time a liberal brings up the Confederacy, bring up the Roman Empire. Every time a liberal brings up Apartheid, bring up Athens. If you continue to defend our weakest positions you will only become as weak as they were. If you stand for our strongest moments and most glorious times, then we will be at our strongest and most glorious. It isn't rocket science. If we stand for good, we are good. If we stand for evil, we're evil. Let's stop standing up for evil.
Socialism, but only for Japanese. This is the national socialist model most 'neo-nazis' are yearning for. It is neither expansionist nor genocidal, it is neither communist nor totalitarian, it is simply pragmatic good sense. When free-market capitalism doesn't produce the result one wants for a society, you include socialist policies to gently guide it back on course. You don't just shrug and say, nothing can be done, if the free market can't provide it, it can't be provided. If you want full employment, a minimum standard of living, a comfortable retirement, a safe working environment, low pollution, a safety valve for dead-enders, protection from predatory lending/advertising, etc, you cannot just leave the free-market to itself. Socialism must be included in the package. A national socialist is someone who first and foremost cares about the well-being of his people, (natio is latin for 'to be born' and all nations must be blood related by definition), and sees socialism as a tool in his toolbox to help his people. He does not care about the well being of the individual, God's will, some imaginary natural rights, the well being of the world, the trees, or anything else. National establishes his ends, socialist his means. When socialism is not productive or useful, he casts it aside and relies on some other method. When it is productive or useful, he refuses to cast it aside based on some sort of ideologically pure conformism to Ayn Rand. Though Japan is currently poorer than the USA, it has virtually no resources to work with except its own people, and thus starts at a disadvantage. Second, it has none of the other social maladies the US has. No crime, no diversity, no immigration, no poverty, no unemployment, etc. Japan is the best place on earth, the most enviable child born is a Japanese. And it, indisputably, is a national socialist state. One of the most exclusive and xenophobic countries on earth that cares about the purity of its blood from even koreans ten generations down the line, with all the standard socialist goodies of free health care, education, etc. It's the poster child for national socialism.
So let's look at the ugly duckling of the national socialist family again, our cute cuddly nazis which are trotted out in every argument to discredit anyone and everyone who cares about anything.
The nazis in the 20's and 30's were largely good guys. Applying pragmatic socialism they got their people out of a depression and curtailed runaway inflation. They built large public infrastructure and made one of the strongest economies in the world at the time, out of the complete debacle the previous government had left it in. Applying nationalist pride they stood up for their interests and took back their legitimate rights, the Rhineland, scrapping the Versailles treaty, cleaning the streets of alien communist agitator scum, the Anschluss by popular referendum with Austria and the Sudetanland Germans who were abused and oppressed by the Czechs (much like the Slovaks were). Until this point, this popular, elected Nazi party had managed one of the largest political and economic turnarounds in world history, giving themselves huge advantages for the future and being a blessing to their progeny by protecting their national interests and their economic worries. What went wrong?
Resentment of the jews became too high a priority. All of the anti-jew laws were unfair to largely innocent people. Instead of targeting specifically communist jews, or removing jews from specifically national vital roles like banking or the media, jews were simply attacked on all fronts for simply being jews. Though jews were encouraged to leave, they were not compensated for it or paid to do so like current repatriation platforms are based on for muslims. Nor did Nazi Germany create a state for them to go to, or carve out a state from inside themselves to give to the jews. In short, they persecuted jews for just being in Germany, while not allowing them to be anywhere else. They left no solution but the 'final solution,' the great injustice of the Holocaust that targeted men, women, and children indiscriminately, many of whom had never even lived in Germany and had never done anything to Germans no matter how far you stretch logic. Why did this happen? Is it due to nationalism per se, or the particular circumstances of Germany at that particular time? I of course say the latter. Due to a depression jews prominently profited from, the loss of WWI jews were blamed for however insensibly, and the Bolshevik revolution that attempted to take over Germany jews were prominently a part of, Germans developed an indiscriminate hatred of all jews and their resentment short-circuited their reason. Nationalism without such a history of prior events would never turn out the same or treat jews in the same way. Though jews are working industriously to create just as long a laundry-list of resentment native whites might feel about them, due to the real harm they are doing us all again, surely this time a more reasonable and fair approach would emerge. We do have, after all, history to learn from and not repeat.
Second, when they replaced reunification of all Germans into Germany, with simple conquest and plunder. When they occupied all of Czechoslovakia instead of just the land of the German minority, there was simply no moral justification for their act. It was after this that the world grew to distrust Nazi Germany and would declare war if they invaded anyone else. It was due to this that the reasonable demand of the german city of Danzig be restored to Germany fell on deaf ears. It was due to this that WWII began when, if Hitler had simply confined himself to 'Germans belong to Germany' no one would have objected. It was due to this Germany and the UK did not ally against the expansionist USSR and thus, the chance passed away to avoid the entirety of WWII and the Cold War. What a colossal error, and to what purpose? God knows how little conquering Czechoslovakia made Germany better, or if the occupation cost more than it gained. There was nothing nationalist about it. It was pure imperialism. Eventually this imperial streak wished to conquer all of Europe and install nazi puppet governments over everywhere they didn't intend to purge and settle for themselves. The insane belief that Germany could actually win such a war is another reason to reject Nazis and Nazism as a cause. They did the German people no favors, but in the end lost millions, perhaps tens of millions, of their finest and bravest, for a hopeless endeavor. Meanwhile they ignored the common humanity and relatedness Germans had to their fellow Europeans and created a mass slaughter of people virtually identical to them. Though this was hardly different from the 30 years war, the 100 years war, the Napoleonic Wars, WWI, or any other intra-European war for conquest and plunder, the modern weaponry and large populations due to modern technology make the same mistake look worse than ever before. Causing such a war is also doubly-tragic because it was the downfall of the philosophy they championed, striking a permanent blow to racists, nationalists, atheists, fascists, etc, who would then be bullied with the title 'nazi' forevermore, despite the theoretical correctness of their positions. Nazi Germany is evil not just for the harm they did, but for perverting something so good as what they originally had, the amazing German people and the amazing economic and political turnaround Nazi Germany had engineered and the amazing race-first darwinian view of life so necessary for a proper understanding of politics. They who had all the advantages to become the premier nation on earth and guiding light to the world, threw it all away and became a terrible example of evil instead. Thus the double blow of lost good and caused bad that smarts twice as much.
National Socialists today feel provoked to defend Hitler and the nazis, feel the need to even become neo-nazis and snap Herr Hitler salutes, due to Orwell's law: He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present, controls the past.
Communists, liberals, libertarians, and their ilk, by controlling the past "nazis were evil" control the future "nationalism is banned." These people feel that only be liberating the past from the liberals can they stand for a good future, and thus nationalism and nazism rise and fall together. 'If only,' they think, 'we could show that the nazis weren't really evil, that nazism isn't really bad, than the arguments of all our opponents would fall through, people would open their eyes, and national socialism could be reimplemented all across the world.' They're right of course, if somehow nazism could be shown to be a good thing, all the arguments would fall through and national socialism would be respectable again. To do this, however, you somehow have to prove the holocaust didn't happen, that invading Czechoslovakia was just, that invading Poland was sensible, that signing an alliance with the USSR after spending decades opposing communism as your ultimate foe makes sense, and on and on. You would have to prove the doctor's experiments on jewish subjects detailed in Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich false. In short, it's delusional and stupid to try and defend Nazism. As useful as it would be for Nazis to be good guys, they weren't, and as nice as it would be if nazis weren't used to cudgel nationalists for the rest of time, we just have to accept the fact that they will be.
There's one thing to be said for the Nazis. You can bet if they had won WWII, we wouldn't be dealing with any of these muslim immigrant issues. In the end, if nothing is done, it will turn out that a Nazi victory would have been better for Europe than the Allied one. Since the Allies, after all, just handed over all of Europe to an even worse fate, their complete annihilation and replacement by an inferior race and culture forevermore. But that's a rather steep cost to 'proving the nazis weren't really bad.' By the time you win that argument, the purpose of winning it will have already passed. Wishing it to happen just so you can finally win your pro-nazi argument is also a little ridiculous. Let's keep our eyes on the ball here, we want whites to pursue their own interests and not be exterminated by untermenschen, not to win arguments and feel good about our foresightedness. When the two come in conflict we must, sadly, care more about the former and not the latter result.
This same curious situation is why people commonly defend the Confederacy. The same revisionist nonsense is espoused, trying, fruitlessly, to prove that the South were the good guys so that history can be rescued from liberal arguments and thus a new Confederacy-like racism can emerge in the future. People concerned about hispanic immigration, black crime, miscegenation, the tax drain of minorities, and so on want a race-based secession to succeed, but since history discredited that ideal with the Confederacy, they feel the need to defend the Confederacy in order to defend themselves. This is again counterproductive. Allying yourself with a known evil like the Confederacy, who were simply slavers who cared nothing for the white race, importing millions of blacks who were commonly making up half the population of their states to do their labor for them, and thus take the precious niches of survival that white babies could have lived in forever, they were the exact opposite of white nationalists. Slavery is wrong innately because it lowers the value of mankind and creates unearned wealth for people who did nothing to deserve it. But slavery is also wrong, as is importing cheap foreign labor, because it destroys your ethnic genetic interests for the sake of your petty financial interests. Instead of giving jobs and land to more white children, you trade it away, forever, for a mess of pottage. It is a grand betrayal of your own children. It is a betrayal of your race. The confederacy stood for nothing but the extermination of whites in America in the hopes of being some sort of 1% minority rule where they would lord over endless slaves and servants who would do everything for them--including live in place of them. Trying to revise history to show the Confederacy didn't care about slavery, that they weren't racist, that they were about libertarianism, were just free market capitalists opposed to tariffs, etc, is a load of bull and again a shameful pairing of legitimate current needs with illegitimate past evil regimes.
Therefore, I ask all healthy whites to THROW THE NAZIS AND THE SLAVERS UNDER THE BUS. For God's sake, their day is done, they don't exist anymore, they lost, and good riddance. Stop associating with them, and the false associations the liberals keep drawing between them and us, will slowly fade away due to absurdity. Associate with them and champion them, and all you do is revive and give new legs to liberal calumny. It makes no sense to pair our current crisis with old, dead arguments we already lost. It makes no sense to stand or fall on the basis of Nazi or Confederate history. Let us stand on stronger, firmer ground than that! Let us stand for the early Americans who settled this land without fear of the Indians. Let us stand for the Boers who defeated the Zulus at the battle of blood river. Let us stand for Charles Martel at Tours. Let us stand with the brave Roman Emperor who died defending the walls of Constantinople. Let us stand with the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae. Let us stand with Davy Crockett and Remember the Alamo. Let us stand for innumerable champions of the white race who all represented the same healthy nationalism and racism we so need to survive. There is no need to include failed, evil versions when the narratives of good, heroic whites fall like rain around us. There is plenty of 'history' to prove our point. Every time a liberal brings up the nazis, bring up the settling of America. Every time a liberal brings up the Confederacy, bring up the Roman Empire. Every time a liberal brings up Apartheid, bring up Athens. If you continue to defend our weakest positions you will only become as weak as they were. If you stand for our strongest moments and most glorious times, then we will be at our strongest and most glorious. It isn't rocket science. If we stand for good, we are good. If we stand for evil, we're evil. Let's stop standing up for evil.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)