Blog Archive

Monday, September 28, 2009


Some people are born miserable. Some people achieve misery. And some people have misery thrust upon them.

I have a lot of sympathy for the people born miserable, but my universal solution is that they not be born. If blacks cared about their offspring, they'd realize all they can ever give their children is the curse of existence -- not the gift of life. Then they'd voluntarily just stop having kids and let their accursed race die out. Their poverty, their crime, their disease, their illegitimacy, their drug abuse, their length of life, everything is at the bottom of every scale. It is so painful to live as a black person in the world, I think it's evil to give birth to one. I think it's evil to interbreed with a black person and give birth to HALF of a black child. What future can they possibly have? They will be the ugliest person in the group, and spend thousands trying to remotely improve their looks with hair straighteners and skin lightening cream. They will be abused and abandoned by their boyfriends. They will never understand the world around them, or enjoy any of its finer arts. They will limp through life on a string, probably in debt, going in and out of jail -- virtually every black male goes to jail at some point in their lives -- and almost all the women have an STD and are morbidly obese. This is the curse of existence. If blacks were the only living sentient beings (and let's not call them human, they are more unrelated to us than neanderthals genetically.), then I suppose from a heroic mindset I'd encourage them to live on so that someday they could evolve into something better. Since white people already exist, there is no need for that though. We are better and by dying off, blacks would leave us more natural resources for our own population growth. The best thing blacks could do for evolution is to go extinct and leave all their land and wealth to the more highly evolved species.

Instead, blacks are a perpetual albatross around the rest of the world's neck. Their crime bleeds out into the greater community. They interbreed with us and drag our children's genetics down. They take our money in social welfare, they vote for bad policies, they get our foreign aid to Africa. They coarsen the general culture by lowering standards of behavior and serving as a bad example to the whites around them. And their very existence requires everyone live a lie just to avoid offending their sensibilities. Living a lie, any lie, corrupts a soul and makes it easily bidden to slavery of any kind. Because we don't want to tell blacks the harsh truth that they are inhuman, that they are a universal curse, that they should go extinct, that they are inferior in every way to the rest of mankind -- we instead lie and cover it up. We teach them the exact reverse, even though everyone knows secretly how false it is. Everyone knows Africa is hell, Haiti is hell, Detroit is hell. Everyone knows not to interbreed with blacks, not to enter black areas of town, not to send their kids to black majority schools. We just can't say it. We are too polite, too kind to say it.

And yet it must be said. If we coddle these people, they will simply multiply their misery, until the whole world is covered with their ilk. When we relieved the famine in Ethiopia, we did not cure their misery (it is incurable, since it is in their nature and not an accident of circumstance), we just multiplied it three fold. Now there are 3 times as many Ethiopians, all just as miserable as when we originally intervened. It is better to not exist than to be a black, they are enduring the curse of existence, not the gift of life, and they must all secretly be cursing us for feeding them, curing their diseases, and forcing them to live. Life is a strange thing, no matter how bad it gets, no matter how miserable it gets, people want to live. Even if people are being tortured they try to live. Once you are born, it is too late, all rationality leaves the question. "To be, or not to be, that is the question." If people were rational, most of them would choose not to be. They'd see that there is more suffering than happiness in life, that the world is better off without them, than with them, and that life is a croc. But people aren't rational, there are instincts that trump all rational considerations, and the most basic one is people's survival instinct.

This is why people who are miserable and hate their lives don't commit suicide. They turn to alcohol, drugs, or some other mind-deadening agent. They turn to fantasies like religion to console them and avoid life's hard truths. Or they just endure, day after day, like that wonderful quote of Thoreau's:

"Most men lead lives of quiet desperation."

Can anyone reasonably believe that those fly-bitten, round-bellied, black skeleton children want to live? That they're better off alive than never having been born? We are all encouraged to save them, to relieve their suffering, but they never would have suffered at all, if their parents had done the responsible thing and not brought them into being. Even so, these children will not voluntarily extinguish their lives. Even though they can barely move and are food for worms, they will fight to go on living. This is grotesque. This is just masochism. Evolution has wired into our brains such a will to live, such a high pain tolerance, that billions of people around the world, must suffer all their lives instead of die a blissful death. Maybe someday we'll figure out the genes for the survival instinct and undo the harm they have done to the world, but meanwhile, the only way to fight this curse is to not have the children in the first place. To not bring into being the curse of existence on these poor innocent children.

Low IQ people are going to be miserable all their lives. They will get no respect, they will not understand anything, they will be poor and lacking in necessary goods like food, shelter, health, air conditioning or entertainment, their families will be broken homes, they'll probably be abused by a parent of lover, and they'll limp to the grave after 60 years of this rot without any power to change for the better, or the willpower to return themselves to the giant 0 in the sky that is death. In addition to all this suffering, they will enjoy no offsetting goods. They aren't intelligent enough to enjoy the beauty of art, music, or literature. They can't understand the truth, it's too complex for them. They will never love or be loved, the emotion requires too much self-discipline and future-time horizons to ever succeed. There is nothing they can live for. There is no solace they can take in higher goods to offset the pain, because they simply cannot reach them.

The same is true of people born with horrible diseases or handicaps, or the mentally insane, who cannot relate well to the rest of the world and thus inevitably become the world's enemy -- both harming society and being harmed by society every day they breathe.

They are born miserable. They should never have been born. The fault is on their parents, and the society that let them be born. The answer is to not let them be born. Wherever we have the power, we should be pushing for the merciful extinction of these types of people. The eugenic euthanasia of failed races and gene pools will be the greatest contributor to human happiness imaginable. Far better than new crops, new energy sources, or a cure to cancer, is simply having fitter children who can make their own good fortune and enjoy their lives with the power in their own bodies and minds. If nothing is wrong with them in the first place, they are far less likely to need help from others, or a miraculous technology to come rescue them. Starting at a higher base means less effort to excel, and less effort for the excellent, to try to uplift the others around them. Everyone wins. The unborn do not curse their fate or resent us for not being born. They don't exist. They feel nothing. We haven't harmed them in any way.

Then there are the people who had no reason to be miserable, but went out of their way to achieve it anyway. I hate these types, because not only do they squander their good fortune, but they tend to drag down everyone else around them too. You're a beautiful, bright girl with the whole world in front of you. But for some reason you get it in your head to be ambitious, or live on the wild side, or whatever. Because of your innate quality, boys will fall in love with you left and right, and yet due to your personality, they will only be betrayed and hurt every time they do so. In the end, the girl sacrifices all higher goods, all natural feelings, to her strange warped imagination or pleasures, and is left just as broken hearted as the people she hurt.

A recent study has shown that girls are less happy today than they've ever been.
I have my theory for why, and it is because they are actively 'achieving misery.' Even though they have everything handed to them on a silver platter, they just had to have more. It was never good enough. Like usual, evolution is to blame. From an evolutionary point of view, it's worth feeling any amount of pain if it means increasing the quality of your children's genes. In that case, being a despised castoff mistress of some ultra-elite, is still preferable to being the loved and cherished wife of a normal guy. The only thing love and marriage has going for it, is if women's children die due to lack of resources because the husband isn't there. If women can provide for their own families, that consideration goes out the window. Now they can shoot for the moon, or just artificially inseminate themselves with high quality DNA. This does nothing for their happiness, but it scratches their evolutionary itch to sacrifice everything for the sake of finding a better man. The moment women were able to provide for themselves and their children, they started actively achieving misery as best they could.

They have made men miserable around the world, by never providing them a reliable wife or children, or divorcing them halfway through their children's lives and separating them from everyone they love. They have made themselves miserable, by having to overwork themselves, face constant disappointment and rejection from the alpha males they hunt, never have the children their emotions are equipped to yearn for, and throwing away the consolations of womanhood that used to prevail. Company. Security. Culture. No amount of material well being can solve this misery, because it is precisely due to affluence that it is brought about. Affluence allows us to make wrong decisions and get away with it. The core of misery in the developed world is always, always emotional. People know what happiness is like, they've probably felt it at various times in their life, but they are lost in a dark maze of nihilism, they cannot find their way to the promised land, the more they struggle for happiness, the tighter they are bound by misery's snares. No one has shown them the way.

People can say we look back on the past with rose colored glasses. But how does that account for the genuine fact that women have in all surveys been happier in the past than they are today? The fact is, if a law were passed requiring women, and men, settle down into monogamous marriage at age 20, and have two kids by age 25, and not divorce. If education was made to give people a sense of pride in their identity, and a goal they can strive for that is ennobling and virtuous. If drugs, alcohol, smoking, and all that ilk were banned because something much better was provided in its lieu -- love, beauty, and truth. And if material concerns no longer mattered because the citizen's dividend meant marriage and children was ALWAYS financially viable at the time evolution meant for us to marry and have kids, when our hormones our raging at us to do so -- when lust can be married to love and create that initial rush of feelings as the foundation of our eternal bonds instead of thrown away on men and women we no longer even remember or care for -- what an improvement in people's happiness! It isn't just a theory, it's a fact, based on the fact that women used to be happier, and that this was how women used to live.

When we have gone down the wrong path, the answer is not to wander around blindly, hoping to get lucky and strike upon the path again. The answer is to retrace our steps, to reverse ourselves, until we are exactly back to where we first fell off the way. We have gone the wrong way, by following our evolutionary urges, instead of our enlightened designs.

By acting like beasts, we fell into bestial relationships, bestial perversions, bestial selfishness and bestial sins. We must reject evolution's conclusions and forge our own path, one dedicated to our happiness as higher beings. We can evolve ourselves, through eugenics and genetic engineering -- we are the masters of our evolution from here on. We must never let evolution be the masters of us. We must never let survival instincts dictate who lives and who dies, we must never let mating instincts determine who gets laid and who doesn't, we must never let a sink or swim economy decide who can afford to live and who can't. These sorts of surrenders to 'nature' are a discredit to the human race. Humans control their environment, they determine their own fate, they are slaves to no one and nothing. Whatever instincts we currently have that work against our designs, must be quashed through peer pressure and indoctrination, or simply uprooted from our very genome through science. They cannot be allowed to continue to fester and pollute the human world with all the suffering they cause.

The most unfortunate people, are those who have done everything right, who had every power in them to be happy, but have had misery thrust upon them anyway. The people who were handsome, bright, energetic, well liked and affable towards all, simply cannot succeed in a world like ours. Certainly, a great many of them have lucked out and found happiness on this earth, I will not presume that no one is happy on earth anymore. But alongside them, are the millions of people who have been betrayed by fate to a misery wholly undeserved. Their parents divorced. Their job got outsourced. Their wife left them and took the kids. A random criminal killed someone they loved. A war that should never have been separated them from their wife, who then committed adultery, stole their money, and left them while they were away. These poor people, who did everything right in their lives, never had a chance. So long as evil rules at the head of our government, so long as evil goes unpunished in people's personal lives, so long as relativism, nihilism, and hedonism pollute every young child's mind instead of an ennobling philosophy that helps them be virtuous and compassionate, what chance do the innocent have? They educate themselves with the Great Books series and ignore TV. They ignore the lies of their teachers. They resist all the drugs offered to them. They even preserve their virginity until they are married. Nevertheless, they are as miserable as everyone else -- because the same can't be said of their wife. And through that one chink, that one weakness in their armor, they are brought down to the same level of misery as everyone else. Perhaps even a worse level of misery, because they know what great things they are missing. They know what happiness should be, and how very far from it they now are.

It is not right that our most virtuous and most talented people are suffering the worst. It is not right for a depraved society to drag down our finest specimens, the very purpose and meaning of life, these heroic individuals living godly lives, dragged down by suffering. Pure suffering. We cannot do it alone. We cannot be happy alone. It requires justice, it requires peace, it requires security, it requires virtue from our fellow man. Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom were simply college kids on a date, they did everything they could to be happy -- nevertheless they were abducted, raped, tortured, mutilated, and murdered. They died miserable, and the families who spent all that effort raising and caring for them, their souls died miserably on that day too. What was it all for? What's the use? If the world is determined to make you unhappy, if the world is determined to steal every last hope and every last good in your life, there's really nothing an individual can do.

For the sake of the happiness of those who have strayed, they must be raised correctly in the first place. Guard rails must be put on the Path to happiness, so that the bumbling fools do not wander off it, or fall off it to their doom. We must legislate morality, and require people act in their own best interest, because they are too stupid or instinctually/emotionally driven, to do the right thing themselves. Some libertarian could complain, that this is needless interference, and if people bring unhappiness upon themselves, that's their problem and we should look the other way. But it isn't just their problem. Once society is saturated with these fools, they drag everyone else down with them. They hurt the ones who stayed on the path as much as themselves. They hurt the families who tried so hard to support and raise them correctly, to be given a return of pierce nosed satanism or whatever. They hurt the nation that fought and died for them, so that they might live and carry on our soul, our traditions, our genes. It isn't just their problem. We have sacrificed for them, through a thousand generations, ancestors have sacrificed so much of their own time, effort, and energy, so that this one child may be born today. They did not sacrifice all of that, so that the kids could get piercings on their private parts and enjoy lesbian orgies until they overdose on cocaine. It wasn't for that. Children have the duty to take the gift of life, and pass it on, with value added, to the next generation. Parents have the duty to make this possible for their kids. Society has a duty to make this possible for its parents. And the individual has the duty to uphold society. Everything is interwoven. There is no individual, there can be no individual, because man is a herd animal. We reproduce sexually, which at least requires a unit of two. We simply are not built to 'sink or swim', either economically, emotionally, or morally. Ayn Rand's view of the universe is simply, factually wrong.

We will all be happy or sad together. We will all be safe or endangered together. We will all be rich or poor together. A body can't have lung cancer and ignore it by saying, 'well, what of it, that's just our lung. The rest of the body is still healthy.' If any part of the system is ill, we are all ill. If anything is wrong with anyone, there is something wrong with everyone. No man is an island, we are all attached to the main.

The cure to human happiness is A) don't have children that clearly cannot be happy. B) put guard rails on the journey of life so that people do not make obvious mistakes. C) allow our natural aristocracy of people who would choose without any requirements the good life, the holy life, to rule, so that virtue is defended by those who love it best. Utopia has been within reach ever since technology freed us from our past of drudgery. It is only a matter of understanding and will today. How long must we continue to suffer?


Shakinginmyshoes said...


The women in my family are late bloomers. I have a hunch it's a Scandinavian trait. NONE of us were physically/emotionally mature at 20. We WERE at 25. Consider: older parents often make better parents, due to emotional stability.
Consider: My grandmother (in the early 1920s) married at age 30. And she had 6 kids, the last one at age 42.
Consider: My mother married at age 25 in the 1940s. She had 5 kids, me last at age 40.
I married at 25. I had 4 kids, last one at 39. So all us late bloomers had great total lifetime fertilities, and NO Down's syndrome anywhere. -- and all of us, to my knowledge, rightfully wearing white on our wedding days. But younger than 25, we just were not yet adults.
My point? I dispute that a law REQUIRING marriage at age 20 is necessary -- or, even, necessarily, a good idea.

BUT, I agree that your citizen's dividend ENABLING early marriage and child bearing would be a huge encouragement to those Whites whose bodies and minds are ready for reproduction in late teen years and would be a huge boon to White fertility, and may very well be all that's needed. Let's do it, and make the dividend available ONLY to married couples, which would be an inducement and reward for doing the right thing.

Diamed said...

It's true that the age of 20 is somewhat arbitrary. It could be set at 22, or 25. But there is a cost and a benefit for every date set.

If people wait until they are 25 to marry, it is virtually impossible that they would be chaste during that entire time. It isn't even reasonable to waste so many good years without any heartfelt relationship. If they aren't chaste before they marry, a new demon is unleashed, in that people quickly learn that sex, love, and relationships are interchangeable. They can get the same thrill from practically anyone who comes along, and thus losing their current bond is just an opportunity to gain a new one.

This is true of both boys and girls, multiple sexual relationships cheapens love and makes your boyfriend or girlfriend an interchangeable part. At that point the odds of a stable marriage emerging from an ash heap of previous failed relationships, all just as loving and sexual as the marriage itself, is virtually zero.

Pre-marital relationships and sex teaches the wrong lesson, it is best if you marry your first love, and simply work through the problems that arise from it. There is a reason why in the past, all monogamous marriages were predicated on the partners being virgins (unless they were widows/widowers). Across all space and time, this was the norm. If you want to date a lot of people before you choose someone to marry, to gain 'emotional maturity' or what have you, that's still possible within the age 20 time frame. After all, girls start dating as young as 14.

There are more problems with marrying later. Rather than maturing or becoming more virtuous, people tend to grow corrupt and more licentious as they age. Without the steadying hand of marriage and without the watchful eyes of parents, most people see their 20's as an age of hedonism without any interest in the Good. Teenagers who hadn't so much as kissed before go to college and quickly become bisexual drug using sado-masochist cheating harlots who will vigorously argue that there isn't anything wrong with what they are doing and it's all a part of their self-expression or self-development. For every person who benefits from marrying later, there is a soul that's lost forever to honor and virtue through no one intervening in time.

I also feel that people are at their best in the context of a family. Either as a child, a sibling, a spouse, or a parent. When people are completely cut loose from human relationships, they tend to be unhappy, but also extremely selfish and irresponsible. By keeping them connected throughout their lives to a larger whole, they can never forget their duty to others, and there will always be someone there for them. Allowing a huge window of time like 18-25 to go by without any connection to any family may be too long for people to willingly yoke themselves with the matrimonial, social duties it is so necessary they have.

Basically, it is less painful to lose a freedom you never had, than to gain it and then lose it again. If people live as sexual and emotional free agents after leaving home but before getting married, they will resent losing this 'right' far more than if they marry upon leaving their parent's home (the traditional norm.)

Diamed said...

The next question is whether it's necessary to deprive people of the freedom to control their sexual lives. I would argue this is emphatically necessary. A below replacement birthrate is a death sentence on any society, just mathematically, and this low birth rate has been going on now for nearly 60 years. Not only that, but let us call it the 'nihilism' rate, has been skyrocketing ever since the sexual revolution. People are less happy, more prone to drug use, more suicidal, and have more mental illnesses than ever before. People were allowed the freedom to choose, the experiment was done, and the results are in. Not only are we physically being annihilated from the earth, but the survivors are the most wretched refuse of a society we have ever seen. Just look at pictures of British night life for yourself, the living casualties of this out of control freedom.

If it were possible for people to voluntarily marry or not marry while maintaining a healthy, happy, and fertile society, then it's always better to let people be free than control them. But we have learned through a bitter lesson these last few decades, that this is not the case. Sexual liberation is as destructive as legalizing murder or theft, society simply falls apart, the center cannot hold.

A third path where we use cultural and economic incentives to encourage people to be chaste, virtuous, and marry young, by rewarding them and them alone with money and a high status in all media, by all politicians, and within friends and family, MIGHT be sufficient without compulsory action. But I have too little faith in human nature, after watching what I have seen of the world today, to believe even that is enough. Another alternative would be to start all marriages off as compulsory for the first few generations of a new country, simply to cleanse the poison of our previous culture out of society, and then try to use less coercive actions to achieve the same thing in the future. But without the iron rod of force, there is no way anyone would marry, have children, and abandon their sexual liberation they are so used to today.

Congratulations on your marriage and four children. :).

Anonymous said...

Regarding women, some truth:
Lots of good stuff there.