Racism is an ideology, a belief system, one reaches only at the end of a very long journey. Antisemitism is the same. The only way to reach these conclusions is through a long and winding intellectual journey that first discovers many other, more essential and primordial truths. Only once people have accepted all the previous realizations, can they ever move on to the more complicated belief in racism.
Racism is not a popular ideology, not because of WWII, or how our message is presented, or the personal failings of racists, or any other simplistic explanation. The real reason racism is unpopular is because it rests upon a bed of logical assumptions that most of humanity has not yet accepted. People are rejecting the foundations of racism, which then leaves racism to seemingly float in midair with zero support from any principled foundation. It's pretty easy to reject racism, once you've completely undermined the very reasons to be a racist in the first place. If people poke a hole, break a pillar of support, in any one of the underlying assumptions, it is then safe to reject racism, sexism, antisemitism, etc on the basis that one of its pillars is unsound.
Of course, none of racism's pillars are unsound -- but humanity would like to believe they are. This is because it would be more comforting if they were false. Or, the subject matter is too complicated for their tiny pea brains and they prefer a more 'common sense' theory. If evolution doesn't make sense to them, if they can't imagine how a whale can be related to a dog, then they'll just throw out the entire theory, rather than admit they're simply too stupid to understand. These are the actual problems facing racism: Moral cowards and intellectual lightweights. The moral cowards see quite clearly that the pillars of racism are true, but can't accept it and retreat into doublethink and spiritual self-censorship, to avoid the conclusions staring them in the face. Intellectual lightweights seize upon extraneous superficialities and become so fixated on their own narrow horizons of thought, they can't imagine a world as complicated as our own. It is more likely we will discover the fundamental laws of motion, before we discover the laws of human behavior and decode why people do what they do. Therefore, humanity is the most complicated subject in nature -- it's obvious stupid people will be unable to understand the points made about human nature, by those with higher IQ. It will fly over their heads just like quarks and quasars do.
I suppose there is a third group that makes racism impossible, and that is people who understand full well the underlying truths that lead to racism, and thus are extremely racist themselves, but nevertheless combat racism and antisemitism out of pure self interest. These people follow Lenin's creed of "Who? Whom?" They are certainly ruthless enough to face the truth and smart enough to realize the truth, they are simply too hypocritical to actually publish or defend the truth. Luckily, I believe this crowd is in the minority and that furthermore, their power and influence would be completely swamped if the cowards and idiots were dealt with. Though certainly the most dangerous and respectable adversary on a per capita basis, they are in a sense a footnote to the true conflict, which is the great morass of humanity still stuck in the stone age.
Here I will try and explain what the pillars of racism are, and why they are all essential to being a racist anti-semite, and why they are true. Honestly, racism is just the capstone of a philosophical pyramid, it's the least interesting and important step in the theory, simply a logical conclusion following from our pre-existing principles. Once you realize all the pillars of creation, the conclusions are as simple as adding 2+2 to reach 4. There is no major leap between these truths, and the socially ostracized conclusions -- the part about being a racist is a mere consequence of one's thinking, not the basis or cause. Which is why ascribing evil motives or emotions for the basis of racism is so comical. Racism is a conclusion, it is caused by the rest of true philosophy, it is the cause of nothing. There is no motive behind being a racist antisemite save one, the wish to follow the light of truth and avoid the pitfalls of cowardice, stupidity or hypocrisy.
Pillar #1: Atheism.
Atheism is essential to racism, for many reasons. Since atheism is even less popular than racism, it's interesting to see how selective racism is. To be a racist, much is required of your intellect and courage, it's not something people can accept lightly. Why can't people believe in a God, a creation myth, an afterlife, divine justice, etc and be racist? Where is the contradiction?
Let me count the ways! Suppose there is a creation myth. This means God created the world the way it is today, and approves of it. This is the best of all possible worlds. In that case we should fatalistically accept whatever God hands us. If the world looks inscrutably bad to us, and we wish it were different, we can just console ourselves that God works in mysterious ways, and let alone. Only by rejecting a creation myth, can people realize that we are where we are today through spontaneous chance, that there is nothing innately good about the status quo, that there is nothing protecting us from a sudden downturn in our fortune, nor is there anything stopping us from creating a much better utopia out of the materials we have at hand. With a creation myth, evolution can't exist. Without a creation myth, we can understand evolution, and thus understand the power of genetics and harness this to our will. Without evolution, life, and humanity, makes no sense. At this point stupid people insert some logical fallacy like 'God did it.' Not realizing that a) God is even more inscrutable than evolution. b) Occam's razor rules out including unnecessary components like a separate universe, supernatural forces, a Maker, etc when evolution can explain it all within the known observable universe. c) Who made God?
Perhaps the creation myth isn't the worst part about God, however. The afterlife is probably much worse. If there is an afterlife, it follows logically that everything you do in this life is of minimal importance. Instead of maximizing the welfare and good fortune of your fellow man, instead of trying to make a contribution to the future of mankind, there is a sudden priority override. Since a single person's life, if immortal, will feel and do more than the entire accumulated lifespan of everyone who will ever live in this universe, one immortal soul's fate is more important than the entire fate of the universe. With such a ridiculous and yet logical position, people will do one of two things -- seek personal salvation at the cost of all worldly interests, or seek the salvation of others at the cost of all worldly interests. Either way, the entire brain is fried, the programming becomes utterly senseless to the interests of life, humanity, or basic material reality. There is no current religion whose ticket to the afterlife is to maximize the worldly interests of the people of this universe. If so, it might be possible through sheer coincidence to be religious and still materialist and utilitarian. Instead the religions demand things in complete contradiction to our worldly needs. In Buddhism, people are supposed to stop caring about the world, meditate, and offer pacifism in the face of aggression. Instead of improving the material lot of man, they spend endless time trying to improve their spirits, which don't even exist -- but that doesn't stop them. India was mired in complete stagnation due to their beliefs and was the punching bag of any army that marauded through. Even today, India is the concentration of the greatest poverty and woe in the world outside of Africa. Westernizing influence for hundreds of years finds it very tough work to improve society in the face of a religion who has no interest in their own damn lives. And yes, Hinduism is different from Buddhism, but how different, really? Instead of caring about the world, you are supposed to simply accept it as the result of one's karma. If you believe in a divine justice ruling the world, you by default have no interest in imposing a personal justice on the world in defiance of God. You are born into your caste, and your only goal is to abide by the rules of your religion, in the hopes of being reincarnated into a different caste -- or the more ominous 'escaping the cycle of rebirth' which just means the ultimate goal of Hinduism is death. Whee.
For Islam, the best possible route to salvation is through martyrdom in the course of Jihad. Muhammed praises over and over again how dying in battle against the infidels is more favored by Allah than 40 years of fasting and praying. There is basically no sure ticket to paradise save through violent jihad, and the rewards of martyrs are much greater than non-martyrs anyway. Wherever the religion does hold sway, people are not allowed to pursue their worldly interests. Instead they are stuck in stagnation, endlessly repeating prayers five times a day, rejecting all science as contra-Islam, refusing to change any law code because it was established by God, even if one's material conditions are far different than the one's found in 600 AD Arabia. Islam does not promote worldly good, but since paradise is eternal, as is hell, the fate of one single soul's salvation or damnation is worth the slaughter of billions here on earth. After all, lifespans on earth are mere candlelight flickers in the face of immortality. Add up the lifespan of every infidel who lives today, or who will ever live, and then kill them all -- if it means Allah favors a single jihadi for his service, then overall a great good has occurred. All life combined is a mere candle flicker to immortality.
Christianity has the same problem. There's no point to this life. Jesus himself counsels people to disregard their worldly interests and look to the afterlife. "What use is there in laying up treasures on earth? People should seek to lay up treasure in heaven." A good Christian, one can derive from the teachings of the bible, is a missionary, an ascetic, a childless virgin, a meek, foolish, poor person, a pacifist who turns the other cheek when abused, and so on and so forth. There couldn't be a more suicidal religion designed if we tried. While Islam excels at promoting murder, Christianity excels at suicide. God actually favors virgins and the childless: As Paul wrote -- "It would be preferable if everyone stayed a virgin and single like me, but if they find that too difficult, it is (he grudgingly supposes) better to marry than to burn." What the hell is that? As though loving sex in the interest of perpetuating the species were immoral, illegitimate, or somehow disfavored in the eyes of God. I don't know of any religion save Christianity that promotes such an evil, diseased belief.
The endless charity and missionary services sent to Africa, the endless foreign aid from western countries that are already deep in debt and can't take care of their own people, is all due to Christianity. Without this poisonous belief that sacrificing our worldly interests will help us reach heaven and avoid hell, all of our senseless actions would disappear. The same for our ridiculous mercy given to criminals, and Amy Biehl's parents hugging and forgiving their daughters' murderers. It's all due to the poisonous teachings of Christianity, it's all for the sake of salvation, it makes no sense whatsoever from the perspective of this life.
In short, any belief in an afterlife haywires and short circuits the normal logic of good and bad, right and wrong, beneficial and harmful. Anyone who believes that reaching the afterlife trumps all other values, cannot be a racist. Because all material interests, including the betterment of one's race, are as dust and dross to the religious. Anyone who believes in God and the afterlife, has no time for such petty and meaningless concerns, and will sacrifice them in an eye blink for their personal salvation. Such people can't be trusted to be racist, and can never truly be racist, no matter what they say. When the rubber hits the road, they know where their bread is buttered -- and it isn't anywhere in this world.
Furthermore, as almost every religion believes that God is currently dispensing justice onto this world, and is somehow overlooking and guiding the fate of mankind, it would be heresy to rebel against the status quo or seek to change anything. Religion introduces a force of inertia into all our dealings. If someone proposes eliminating gays or retards or criminals, we can always bet the religious will pipe up saying that these people are 'natural' and 'God-given' and that God would disapprove of trying to remake the world. They constantly talk about all the harm atheists cause by pursuing a material utopia as opposed to an utopian afterlife. Of course, they never mention how much harm they do to material utopians by pursuing an utopian afterlife at our expense. The fact that we are forced to live cheek by jowl with subhumans, thugs, braindead animals, degenerates and parasites all due to their divine plan is swept under the rug. Any belief in a divine plan, karma, or a secret justice underlying the dealings of our world discredits any attempt to change or remake the planet along racial lines. Or along any materialist, utilitarian lines. As far as they're concerned, God will work everything out for us, we should therefore do nothing and just go with the flow. In such barren soil, the extremism necessary for real change is incapable of growth.
Apart or separately, belief in God and religion completely eviscerates racism. Phony patchwork methods of trying to link racism to various biblical verses (which can be interpreted any way one pleases) did not save the Confederacy, and it will not save us. Confederates had all sorts of biblical pretexts for enslaving blacks, but no one bought it. Why? Because God would not have created blacks if he did not love them and wish them well, if he did not have some plan for them. The moment blacks were classified as having souls, the end was nigh. A single black person's salvation was more important than the worldly interest of the entire Confederacy. Even if slavery was necessary to the economy, even if getting rid of slavery would lead to high crime, interbreeding, and the rape of southern women -- what is any of that to the salvation of a single black soul? Since slavery was seen as imperiling to the souls of the slaves and slavers alike, all material concerns were considered -- correctly if there really is an afterlife -- to be utter irrelevancies.
The sooner racists abandon their religion the better. They are on illogical, non-solid ground. Simply desiring to have their cake and eat it too, they take on the logically contradictory belief that A) there is a God, an afterlife, a divine plan, and a creation myth and B) it's okay to upset all of these things for the sake of saving one's race. Sorry, buckos. If there is a God, your only allegiance can be to Him. Everything must be sacrificed to him, nothing is left for the race. Just give it up and go home to the nice cozy anti-racism all your fellow believers have already accepted. There is a reason religion is one of the leading promoters of anti-racism and racial suicide. It's because the logical conclusion of any religious person is the death of the white race. There is no avoiding it. Silly nonsense verses patched together from here and there, cannot offset the ultimate logic underlying the nature of God and the defined routes to heaven. If people aren't even supposed to preserve their own lives or have children, there can be no divine sanction for preserving the race. There is no value whatsoever in perpetuating life on this planet. According to Christianity, it would be better if everyone stopped having children and we could just get on with the afterlife portion of God's plan. According to Islam, unless you're willing to accept incredible hardship and tedium and obey all of Allah's wishes for the rest of time, and doom the planet to complete stagnation (until the sun explodes and we all die), you're a marked man and eventually Allah will send his minions to chop off your head. Either way you're fucked. All religions are anti-thetical to life, and thus to any attempt at preserving life, including the life of your race.
Pillar #2: Utilitarianism
Now that everyone left is a materialist, we must ask ourselves, what will we value in this material world? What will we define as Good or Bad? It's completely up to us, and depending on the choices we make, we can either get one step closer to racism, or eliminate any chance of reaching it. There are plenty of philosophies to choose from, all of them poisonous and destructive to humanity's future. There is only one philosophy that protects us and leads to a better world. This is utility -- measuring the goodness or badness of things, based on the overall impact they have on the happiness/well-being of life. Utilitarianism reaches radically different conclusions than any other belief system. In Utilitarianism, the ends justify the means. This is absolutely necessary if we are going to be racists. There is no other way. Being a racist, sexist, anti-semite, inevitably ends in harming someone, however little, and making someone somewhere worse off than they currently are under the present system. No matter how much we sugar the pill, until we accept that the ends justify the means, there will be no way to 'morally' move forward. All other moral systems thus fail.
For instance, as much as I love Kant, his categorical imperative "to treat people as end's in themselves," is hopelessly contradictory. If the well being of a single person is the end goal of existence, then everyone else's well being should be sacrificed for his sake. However, Kant says every single person's well being is the end goal of existence. Who, then, should be sacrificed to whom? It's impossible to promote everyone's well being at once. The moral system simply crashes, just like the golden rule. "Treat others as you would wish to be treated." But of course, I would wish to be treated like a God, or at least a King. I would want endless tribute, praise, wealth, and women to come free of charge. Therefore, how do I intend to treat everyone as well as I'd like to be treated? It's impossible to promote everyone's welfare to the ridiculous amount as to place it as the moral End of existence. Instead we must sacrifice all personal moral ends -- like objectivists who say individuals are the ends of existence -- and retreat to a more limited, sensible end that can encompass all people. A utilitarian's end is much more objective, it worries about the larger picture, and is thus able to stay self-consistent and actually implementable. A utilitarian says, treat these things of highest value, and do what you must so that the greatest amount of it exists in the 4 dimensional universe that is space and time. There are no contradictions, only road bumps. If something is good, but not as good as something else, we get rid of that good thing. If something is bad, but not as bad as something else, we implement the bad thing. We don't get hamstrung by stupid rules requiring we maximize good in reference to all possible subjects, we take the objective view that some people's lives will be made worse for the sake of others being made better.
We accept the very phrase of Kant: From the crooked timber of humanity, nothing ever did grow smooth.
What does this mean? It means that with the universe we were given, a universe that arrived through spontaneous chance and has no interest in our welfare, a universe where evil has as much survival value as good, a universe where natural forces proceed completely heedless of what life might wish for, we can not save everyone. We cannot help everyone. We can't treat everyone in the best possible way. We have to accept a crooked, non-smooth course that tries its best to minimize the suffering and maximize the happiness of our people, given the limitations nature has put upon us. Not following this path and mindlessly insisting that everyone be treated as sacrosanct and infinitely precious, just leads to contradictions and paradoxes, because that simply isn't the universe we live in. Wishing can't make it so.
There are numerous answers to what we should value in a materialist universe like our own.
Answer #1: The meaning of life is more and better life.
Answer #2: The meaning of life is to reach infinite power, complexity, intelligence, and resilience, the goal of all life forms as seen through the process of evolution on earth.
Answer #3: We are the eye through which the universe beholds itself and knows itself divine.
Answer #4: We are vessels of divinities much higher than ourselves, who by our existence, can express themselves through us: Truth, Beauty, and Love.
There are many other formulations, all right in their own way. For such a beautiful subject as what is good about the world, much can be said, much can be included, and it's rare to grasp the entire knot in a single statement. Suffice to say, Utility is aiming for truly splendid things. These ends really do justify the means. Reaching these ends really is meaningful and important. There is value without God giving us any. From an imperfect world, truly sacred and divine, perfect, moral absolutes can be reached -- given time and effort, we can accomplish anything.
The existence of objective moral absolutes is necessary for utilitarianism. Cultural and moral relativism, that posits no definite conclusion can be reached about what is good or bad, and thus we should just leave everything alone and go with the flow, is essentially the same problem as the religious people's 'divine plan.' Relativists, who are unsure of any value, cannot calculate whether blacks or whites are superior or inferior. They cannot calculate even whether bugs or humans are superior or inferior. Only moral absolutes with set laws and goals, can define who is superior or inferior. A superior person or object, is that which better furthers the ultimate goal of Utilitarianism -- whatever that goal might be. It is easy to understand, easy to see, and thus easy to decide. Once we know what we want, it's easy to see how best to go about getting it. The big step was deciding what we wanted, and deciding that the ends justify the means. Racism is a little step. Once we know we want the values listed above, it's obvious that the white race, and perhaps the east asians, are the people best able to achieve these ends. Then it becomes obvious that we should promote their interests over and above all other races on earth, for the sake of maximizing life's, mankind's, and Good's utility. Racism is usually defined as viewing one race as superior to another. But only utilitarianism arms people with an objective absolute that can measure races, or people, and decide who is superior and who is inferior. Without that code, we are left with a vague morass. Social contract theory? That says nothing about what the contract should be. Kantian golden rule formulas? That says everyone is to be equally valued regardless of their nature. Individualism? The same rule. Socratic formulas of ethics? But they only deal with personal virtues and avoid larger systems like the morality of societies and nations. All religions have already been discussed and dismissed. Relativism? But that simply says nothing is of value, since it's all in the eye of the beholder. There's no point to anything after that.
If you want to be a racist, you have to be a Materialist Utilitarian first. There is no other way. For all the weak of heart, who refuse to sanction hurting anyone or treating anyone as less than absolutely essential/pivotal/priceless, their journey ends here. Atheists who are not utilitarians, will end up in some morass of nihilism, relativism, Ayn Randian individual subjectivism, or simply incoherent wishes to see everyone happy and the beginning of the age of Aquarius. It's likely that somewhere in here they resort to the epicurean plan: 'eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.' A utilitarian never dies --- we live in a four dimensional universe, and the actions we take today affect the entire rest of the future -- trillions of lives and billions of years to come, will all be shaped by what we do here and now. So long as we value those outcomes, it will be as important to us, how we affect the future long after we are dead, as it is to us how we've affected our loved ones today. We have no need to resort to despair or escapism, because we have a noble, higher calling, far better than drugs, drink, or sex. We have the fate of the universe in our hands. Our moral system is nothing less than remaking the world in our image, to become God and rule the world. Utilitarianism is the most hopeful, powerful, and aggrandizing belief possible. People are not helpless cogs in a system, like God's plan would have us be. We are actors on a giant stage with the highest stakes imaginable. We are the key to the world, the pivot, the fulcrum upon which destiny teeters. Though happiness may elude the Utilitarian, purpose and pride never does. Out of all the choices we can make in this crooked world, it's about the best we can hope for.
Pillar #3: Malthusianism
The third pillar of racism is belief in limited resources. The 'dismal science,' as Darwin's time period called it. Malthus reached a startling conclusion that had somehow eluded all previous eras: That life grew diametrically, and yet resource accumulation could only grow arithmetically. Therefore life had built into it the source of its own misery. No matter how efficient or powerful we become, we will not be able to satisfy everyone's desires completely. Even if people have only a 1% population growth rate, the law of exponents means this will translate into trillions and trillions of babies being born per second, deep in the future. There is no way to support this kind of population, not even with every star in the galaxy under our control. Ultimately, we will at some point have to decide on a stable, sustainable population. At that point, we will have to choose winners and losers. Who gets to live? Who do we not have space for? Who isn't 'spongeworthy' as Elayne would say? Every single person's existence on this planet, comes at the expense of someone else. They are taking up a space, devouring resources, that could have gone elsewhere. In a malthusian world, people have to justify their life, they can't just take it for granted.
We did not invent malthusianism, we discovered it. The nature of the universe is such, that there will always be limited resources, and that one person's gain is another's loss. Even having three children per family represents a massive 50% growth rate that is utterly unsustainable for even a short time on this earth. If we want some populations to rise, we must first make others fall. It isn't out of sadism or hatred that we wish others ill, it's because this is the way the world works, and when handed lemons, it's best to make lemonade. Life is a zero-sum game, those who recognize this, hardly made it that way. We just acknowledge it and follow the rules. Those who don't, perish along the wayside. Life is cruel, there is no room left for pussies.
In a world without malthusian limits, in a world of infinite resources, utilitarianism would not amount to much. We could simply give everyone everything, make some more trillions of people of all varied worths, and then give them everything as well. Since every additional person, no matter how mediocre, is better than nothing, we would have no ability to discriminate between people -- it's impossible to reach a 'bigger infinity' by promoting infinite good people over infinite average people. Infinity is simply infinity.
In a world of malthusian limits, stark choices present themselves. Every single baby on earth represents a unit: Such and such amount of energy, metals, water, trees, carbon dioxide, oxygen, phosphate, surface area, and so on must be devoted to this child. Those resources are now unavailable to any other prospective child, the opportunities of others are forever closed. Giving birth is an act of war with the entire world. It is a declaration that henceforth, you intend to double the devouring of resources for your own sake, and everyone else has to give way and give up their portion to make this so. The idea that people can generate the extra wealth that they then use to provide for the child is an illusion. Man cannot generate anything, we are incapable of creating new resources. All we can do is accumulate what was already there, and this in a world of entropy where every step we take only leads to less and less usable forms of energy. The more activity we do, the more quickly we break down the universe into a vast stellar void. There is no way to 'generate' wealth, or 'produce' resources. All we can do is devour and consume them. Life is like a gravity well. We begin at a great height, the accumulated energy of the sun, the supernovas that formed our elements that make up the earth, and the product of the big bang. We can only go down from here. We eat the sun in terms of fossil fuels, we eat the supernovas of the past in terms of nuclear power, and we eat the big bang every time we take a sip of h2o. Every time we eat something, we convert some of our potential life energy into kinetic (expressed) life energy, and descend further into the well. There is no way back up, our entire trajectory is downwards to oblivion. What we eat today, we can never get back tomorrow. Every resource used is gone forever.
People aren't really 'creating' wealth. What they are doing, is gathering it. By gathering up some oil, some water, some food, or some precious metals, we assume we somehow 'earned' it. However, it's impossible to earn that which you had no hand in making. All the person did is gather it. If he didn't gather it, it would've been available to someone else in the future. Nothing is gained from you, in particular, being the one who got it. That's just egoism. There is hardly any virtue in grabbing the Christmas turkey and devouring it whole before any other family member did. Saying how difficult it was to digest the whole thing, or how hard it was to cut the turkey, will not impress your family members. All they see is that you got the turkey and they didn't.
From this perspective, it's obvious that in order to maximize our resources, we must very carefully discriminate about who we give our resources, and who should fill these limited slots that life allows. We are living on borrowed time, with only so much money. Every purchase we make now simply depletes our bank account -- there is no way to replenish it -- the law of entropy does not allow such nonsense. Therefore, only the wisest and most deliberative of purchases should be made. With an eye towards scraping every last vestige out of every choice we make, we need to elongate and preserve as much good as we can out of the limited resources we have. Throwing away our entire bank account on a wild party or a new set of golf clubs is not reasonable. We have what we have, and it has to go the entire way, from life's beginning to life's end. It should be invested in that which yields the greatest glory, the greatest happiness, the greatest knowledge, the greatest power, the greatest security we can find. Immediately upon deciding that we are going to be frugal and careful with how we spend our limited resources, we must then decide who is the ideal life form to spend our resources on. Will it be ants? Bacteria? Bugs? Monkeys? Dogs? Blacks? Whites? Asians? Jews? Who will we trust with our bank account of limited goods? Who do we want to blow our wad on? We only get one chance, the money is never coming back. Who best deserves the future of mankind, who will get the most out of life, who can translate these limited goods into our highest values?
It's obvious to me who deserves our limited resources, who best achieves the valuable things about life, how to maximize our utility. The only race whose track record speaks for itself: the white race.
Look at what blacks do with our world. They turn it into fly-blown rape and murder carnivals, where no one thinks an intelligent thought in their lives, and no building even reaches a second story. Or look at what India has done with itself, or the Aztecs, or the australian aborigines. They are all pathetic, it goes from stagnant and insignificant, to outright vicious and negative. It would be better that life simply did not exist at all, than life be represented by the Aztecs. I swear, there is more suffering and evil in the world, than any good could possibly recompense, with them at the helm. Asians are a more tricky question. They were seemingly inept at reaching Truth, the ideals of abstract logic, math, and science completely passed them by. They weren't very loving either, romance was muted and pair bonding was weak, men did not feel heavily invested in their wives. The relationship between civilians and leaders was also unloving. People were treated disgracefully, often mutilated or enslaved, and they died in droves every time a famine came due to high taxes or warmongering luxurious court nobles. Asians did have a fine aesthetic sense and an eye to beauty. They are themselves noble and beautiful bodies and forms, which they can take pride in. If Asians could somehow be tinkered with and altered enough, it's possible they really would be a worthy investment in the future. They could be our best representative and the best inheritor of this limited resource universe that can only afford to support the best. What about jews? To me, the answer is obvious. A race that was founded on bloody conflict and has done nothing but prey on others their entire existence long, cannot be considered the epitome of mankind or the wave of the future. Despite all the achievements their intelligence can lay claim to, their morality suffers so acutely that it's hard to differentiate them from the Aztecs. How is it possible that this one single tribe has been kicked out of 50 different countries, all of whom at first welcomed them and wished them well? How is it possible that empires collapse wherever jews go, like a black plague? First it was the Roman Empire, then Poland, Russia, Germany, and now America. Who can have faith in a group of people who have destroyed everything they ever touched and laid to ruin every country they ever inhabited? Is Israel supposed to make me feel better? That is one of the most wretched countries on earth, full of violence and oppression, poor and backwards, and unlikely to even survive another century. Should humanity be one giant Israel? You've got to do better than that. Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and China are far superior to that model. It's simply no contest. Intelligence isn't enough. If you don't have a soul, if you're a bloodsucking plague, it doesn't matter how intelligently you go about your life cycle. It doesn't matter if you're a sentient disease! The question is, is this a path to more truth, beauty, and love? For a race that still celebrates its slaughter of egyptians and babylonians as religious holidays every year, I'd say they're a group that is furthest from such ideals.
However, there is one group I have faith in. Perhaps not the whites of today, but definitely the whites of yesteryear. As Human Accomplishment (by charles murray) shows, practically every achievement ever made, has been made by whites. White greeks, white romans, white renaissance, white enlightenment, white industrial revolution, white scientific age, white age of discovery, white everything. No matter where you look, anything good on earth, is probably due to some white male who invented it or discovered it was true. That's not all, whites are uniquely beautiful in their physical form. Not only to other whites, but all mankind wishes they were pale, colorful in hair and eye, tall, and hormonally feminine/masculine as we are. We are the measuring stick of beauty. The blacks try to rape us, the arabs bought our women at twice the price for slaves, the Indians use skin bleaching treatments to look more like us, and so on.
Not only that, but whites are the basis for the romantic love that so enriches our lives. The idea of chivalry, of women's innate gentleness, wisdom and virtue, of monogamous marriage, and of romantic love and courtship, are virtually unique to whites. The warmth of emotion we feel for our children is also unique. Blacks and other low IQ groups don't even attempt to rear their children, just leaving them feral on the streets to tend for themselves. Asians do care deeply for their children, but in such a strict and cold manner, that it leaves the children very unhappy throughout. An Asian helping their kid probably has strict curfews, requires they study a lot, forbids them from dating until they're out of college, and so on. Sure, it works, and they rear their children to succeed in life, but it isn't the love I'm searching for. There is something incredibly heartwarming about a happy home. A happy home is like a holy grail. When one comes upon children who laugh, parents who gaze at each other lovingly, and siblings who stand up for each other or look after one another, you have reached heaven. A white heaven. A feature of life so rarely seen anywhere else, unique to our Jane Austen novel existence, our white spirit. Gazing upon a story where a little sister takes care of her older sister when she's sick or helps her finish her homework because she's hopelessly airheaded, is something deeply more satisfying than watching a kid pass a test or eat healthily due to a parent's diligent oversight.
So one thing is clear, in a malthusian universe like ours, where every baby counts, and every person living means someone else can never be born -- not now, and not in the future, as the resource is entropically lost forever -- we should be looking for people who are best capable of progress, people who are happy, and people who already are closest to our ideal man. Even if Asians were closer to perfection, their lack of progress would be a worrisome factor. Only whites have shown themselves capable of great leaps of innovation and change. Only whites produce revolution after revolution, each dramatically more impressive than the last. We change our music, our art, our literature, and our knowledge of chemistry, biology, math, and physics at a blazing speed. Every other day we come out with a patent for some new invention. For instance, we just discovered how to make sperm cells from stem cells. Where were the africans who made that invention possible? Where were the mexicans? It always falls to the white man to make progress. Without us, where would the world be? What are the odds it would ever improve again? When you add everything up, the answer is clear. Utility wise, the average white is more valuable than the average non-white on earth. They are the best of humanity, the best life can offer. Therefore, maximizing whites while minimizing all other races and lifeforms, is the best possible path for our future.
Just as obviously as racism, other conclusions follow. For instance, straights lead a better life than gays, so eliminating gays so that there is more room for straights, becomes sensible. Intelligent people lead better lives than dumb people, so eliminating dumb people so there is more room for smart people, becomes sensible. Mentally insane and retarded cripples are less valuable than healthy babies, so we should eliminate them, free up the resources, and spend those resources on new children with real potential and value. Discrimination is pretty universal, it doesn't stop on just race. Once it's clear one life form is superior to another, there's very little left to argue about, except how we should go about replacing the latter with the former. The idea that the inferior should simply stick around, and be left to its own devices, that it should be allowed to prosper and even triumph, is absurd.
The calculation needn't be this crude however. There is no reason why we can't favor exceptional non-whites over whites. There is no reason why we can't favor some whites over others. There is no reason why we can't seek to bestow 'whiteness' on nonwhites and thus convert them into more of us, instead of exterminate them and have more babies ourselves. There is no reason why we couldn't try to interbreed and create new characteristics that ameliorate the faults of others, or accentuate their strengths. There is still a lot of latitude on where to go from here. However, there is no way to avoid becoming a racist antisemite. There is no way to not believe in white racial superiority, there is no way to not be disgusted with the lifestyles and behavior of jews and blacks, there is no way to be neutral when it comes to white racial suicide, there is no way to avoid the truth that the future by all rights belongs to us and we of all people have the past to prove it. All of these things make you racist by default, regardless of the means you choose to employ to pursue your values. Whether the means are fluffy or vicious, the ends will justify them. Es ist mir egal, as the Germans would phrase it. I don't care how we get to where we need to be, I just care that we get there. Anything that works, we should do that. In the face of the trillions of people yet to come and the quality of their lives, any suffering we cause in the world of today is meaningless. Any harm we cause will be made up in the billions of years to come, amid lifeforms so grand we have no conception of their worth, that we and we alone made possible, through the actions we took here and now. Their existence justifies anything we might do to make them possible, just as their loss is immeasurably higher than any loss we might suffer today. Therefore, we should be willing to sacrifice anything, and destroy anything, that gets in their existence's way. Fanaticism is the logical consequence of Atheist Materialist Utilitarian Malthusianism, and it's sheer nonsense to be a moderate once you've come this far. Sheer cowardice.
By pushing for Atheism, Utilitarianism, or Malthusianism, you are a shadow warrior for racism, homophobia, cognitive elitism, antisemitism, and so on. By arguing against Atheism, Utilitarianism, or Malthusianism, you are a shadow warrior for the death of the white race and a new dark age. Whether people realize it or not, the battlelines are not fought at 'racism' vs. 'anti-racism.' They are fought at a much deeper level, between God vs. Man, Objective vs. Subjective, Absolute vs. Relative, the belief that we can 'earn' and 'produce' vs. the dismal science that we can only consume and the 2nd law of thermodynamics is our doom. Unless all your ducks are in a row, racism will never be the sensible alternative. Unless we get everyone else's philosophical ducks in a row, they will never conclude that they should be racists.
Buchanen showed how fruitless it was to be a religious racist in his article about evolution, the same is true of anyone who attempts to be pro-white, but cannot get their philosophical act together. Unless you stand on sound logical principles, you'll inevitably falter at some point. For instance, you won't accept the ends justify the means, and thus you'll be powerless to implement the only program that could possibly save the white race. Or you'll grow weary of the world and put your hope in the next life sorting everything out for you. Or you'll give up and turn to drugs and alcohol. Or you'll think we can somehow build our way out of our structural difficulties, by just making a little more money or a little better technology, that can eventually solve all our problems. The mistakes are many, the path narrow. We'll never get anywhere, until our feet stand firmly upon the one and only Truth that governs this world. From there, we can achieve anything. Without it, we'll never amount to a farthing.
If atheist utilitarian malthusianism ever became the dominant philosophy of the earth, you can bet racism would succeed in the course of around two days or so -- everyone would agree with it and endorse it heartily. Until these beliefs dominate the earth, racism will always be an undesirable fringe -- even if you scream until you're blue in the face. The choice is yours. Champion racism's prerequisites, or abandon them and thus racism as well. You can't have it both ways.