Blog Archive

Friday, February 26, 2016

The Enemy is 'Pluralism':

Harold Covington's books, the Northwest Quartet, seem extreme in their fervency and overwrought in its manner towards 'problem groups.'  But when you objectively dissect the inner logic behind his thinking, it turns out that all of his instincts are spot-on, and it's we who aren't being extreme enough to actually succeed in the project of a breakaway white nationalist state.

Personally, I would have no problems with Jews who agree with our politics and culture from being a part of the new all-white state, (henceforth referred to as Vinland), or gays and their assorted ilk joining the party, or even the country being 10% minority so long as the minority was well behaved and assimilated.  But my forgiving and flexible instincts are wrongheaded and Harold Covington actually has the right idea.  (Aside from his religious tolerance.  Christianity absolutely has to go.)

The reason why we can't allow ourselves to be tolerant on this issue is because of psychology.  Once diversity takes root in your nation, pluralism is sure to follow, and that's the dissolution of Vinland before it even had a chance to get started.

Diversity is not an issue.  Even when Sparta was mainly composed of helot slaves, Sparta remained Sparta so long as it stayed in control.  The same for the Confederacy, the Manchus, the British Empire, Rhodesia, etc.  Things went along swimmingly, almost as well as if there were no diversity, so long as a culture of strong self-assertion kept the rest of the population down.  But psychology dictates that any such ground state is unstable and, like radioactive decay, will eventually, spontaneously, fling apart.  Once that strong self-assertion self-abdicates, the Empire falls apart and the former majority is flung down as a despised and mistreated minority thenceforward.

Why is pluralism such an insidiously powerful force that, wherever there is diversity, it eventually triumphs over all common sense and all self preservation instinct?  Let's explain the process by group:

Let's look at blacks, muslims and hispanics.  Why is it that liberals go into histrionics whenever we propose limiting immigration of these groups into America?  Why do they go berserk when there's any policy suggestion other than open borders for all?  This is because of America's diversity.  No one cares about Japan's immigration policies.  This is the secret key that explains everything about liberal thought.

The reason why it is abhorrent for America to limit its immigration but fine for Japan to do the exact same is because we are already a diverse nation.  And that means we have minorities from all across the world already inside our country, already afforded the respect as coequal inhabitants of these fair lands.  By the way, this even applies to non-citizens, so the mere presence of illegal aliens or slaves or any other diverse group is already a formula for disaster when it comes to all subsequent issues, including immigration law.

If you propose that you do not want any further immigrants from Africa, that's casting an aspersive opinion on the Africans who are already here.  Why would you not want more Africans?  Is it because you don't like us?  Are you saying you want to get rid of us too?  Just what exactly are you implying about our collective group's worth?  The same is true for Asians, Indians, Muslims, Hispanics, you name it.  Any group you try to limit immigrating to America, there will be a group of offended Americans who say -- "that's us you're talking about.  Aren't we co-equal Americans?  How dare you question our right to be here?  How dare you categorize our entire group as inferior to yours, we belong here just as much as you do, blah blah blah."

Therefore, once you allow in any minority group, however small a proportion of the population they have, in the interests of getting along with our co-inhabitants and neighbors, we need to be nice to them and not cast aspersions on their overall worth or right to be here, which includes never limiting the amount of additional immigrants who pour in of said same group into the nation.  This is why Japan doesn't have to worry about its immigration laws -- because it does not insult anyone inside the nation who they are trying to get along with and have to be polite too.  In addition, because there is no 'oppressed minority' inside Japan, it is impossible for Japan to be evil racists, because there's no one to abuse.  If having an unwelcoming immigration policy is the first sign of fascism and the march to the gas chambers, well that's really not an issue if there's no group left to gas in the country because it's already homogeneous.  It can just be laughed off as Japan missing out on all the vibrancy of diversity, aren't those guys so silly, it's the 21st century, blah blah.  But they don't say 'Japan must be nuked now before Hitler rises anew.  Never again!'  Any non-homogeneous racist state would have that charge leveled against them in nanoseconds.  Only a homogeneous racist state isn't reducing any group to 'oppressed' or 'marginalized' status by limiting immigration from other groups.

If Vinland started out with 10% diversity, we would immediately be bending over backwards in order to prove we didn't have any hatred in our hearts, any prejudice, any wish to mistreat or treat as unequal any of the members of our diverse coalition.  And ultimately, that same logic would require that we have open borders to any group that's already collectively inside of us, because the people here would start agitating "what are you trying to imply about our group?  Do you think we're less worthy of additional new members than you are?  Why are you trying to eliminationist us, you haters?"

What's even more ludicrous is this even extends to completely unrelated minorities.  For instance, if the nation is chock full of Jews, and the white majority says "We don't want any Muslims in the country.  They're bad news."  Jews immediately go up in a frenzy and say, "So you're not for religious pluralism?  You're not for freedom of religion?  In that case what are you saying about us?  Is our moral worth also up for debate?  Is our right to stay here, to not be genocided, still respected in this country or are we just next on the cutting board?"

So long as there is any minority block in your country, all minorities worldwide must be respected, for fear of upsetting any of the minorities inside your nation who might identify with some minority prosecution worldwide and draw a parallel between their position and the other minority's.  Without a homogeneous nation, you get ridiculous scenes like Jews agitating for open Muslim immigration, even though Muslims are anti-semitic and would kill Jews any chance they got if they were ever numerous enough to get to power.  The important thing here is the principle of pluralism which is at risk.  If pluralism, the right for minorities to be respected and tolerated as equals in your country, is under assault, anything and everything must be sacrificed for the sake of pluralism's preservation.  Better that Muslims try to kill all Jews a century from now than the sanctity of pluralism is lost and gas chambers start getting warmed up in the white gentile majority country today.

It doesn't matter that this is logically speaking utter nonsense.  Disliking one minority group does not mean you necessarily have to dislike all minority groups.  If your bad opinion of one minority is due to their real bad behavior, and not just because they are 'different' from us or 'the minority,' then it presents zero risk to other, well-behaved minorities when you clamp down on the bad ones.  But they don't see it that way.  They aren't logical.  They just see you hating on a 'stranger,' put two and two together, decide you're xenophobic, and agitate against you and try to restore the injustice as quickly as possible, following that detestable Hitler poem's logic where 'first they came for the blah blah, and then they came for me.'  Even though the slippery slope fallacy makes absolutely no sense, because people have targets for reasons, they don't just systematically attack everyone 'eventually,' but only go after the groups they hated from the start to the finish.

It doesn't have to make sense.  Psychologically, this simply is the mindset of any minority group in your country, always prone to fears of persecution and hopping around looking around corners for the gas chambers that are being built for them, sensitive to any criticism and hyperventilating about any signal of 'anti-otherness' displayed in the culture.  Whether this is just an unfortunate result of the Holocaust, or an inborn psychological nature to all humans, is irrelevant.  It is what it is.  Minorities will defend pluralism to the last, and pluralism logically implies and requires open borders, so no nation can survive its minorities.

This extends to gays.  Don't ask me why!  The point is they consider themselves a minority and part of the diversity coalition, the rainbow nation, pluralism and tolerance, vibrancy, etc.  If you start persecuting muslims, who expressly hate gays and hang them in their home countries, the gay parades and riots will start saying 'free our brethren!'  'no to islamophobia!'  Because, like usual, the gays will assume, correctly or incorrectly, that they're next on the chopping block.  The same is true, hilariously, for feminists.  Even though Islam expressly says that women are to be controlled from birth to death, that they're an inferior group with inferior rights compared to men, and even though most Muslim women are abused and oppressed throughout their lives, feminists will still line up and agitate for more Muslim immigration and no laws be passed against the right for Muslims to freely live their lives in a free and pluralistic manner.  Once authoritarians are allowed to crack down on Muslims, it's only a matter of time before they start oppressing women again too, so we powerless minorities have to stick together.  It doesn't matter what Muslims would do to women if they actually got power, so long as they're a small minority that isn't a pressing issue to feminists, what is a pressing issue is if the people who currently do have power start breaking out the corsets again, which could be any minute now if you let them get ideas about the sanctity-or lack thereof-of pluralism.

Even though open borders means you've completely doomed yourself to a horrible future -- whether you're gay, Jewish, or a feminist, because the future of the world is high Muslim fertility and low non-Muslim fertility, which will mean that eventually the whole world will belong to Islam -- that's still a century away, a mythical worry like global warming, of absolutely no interest to the gays, Jews and feminists living today.

This paranoid hysteria is the #1 reason why we can't allow any type of minority to 'break out' inside Vinland.  Minorities are like AIDS, they weaken our immune system, and then we start catching all number of outside exotic infections, and we're powerless to resist a single one of them.  Minorities are by their very nature traitors who favor outsiders over the majority, because they feel like outsiders themselves and empathize with their fellow 'non-first-class citizens.'

Even if we have nothing against gays, they have something against us if we don't show perfect tolerance and respect for all different cultures and ways of life, because they think, in their fevered minds, that anything we say about anyone must secretly also be referring to them, it makes them uncomfortable and unhappy, and so the train starts rolling towards pluralism and a culture of 'welcoming' and 'acceptance.'  Celebrating diversity is a necessity for the self-esteem of all groups in a diverse nation.  Otherwise, someone might feel unwanted, and we can't have that, now can we?

There are other reasons for opposing even the slightest infection of diversity into your country, however.  The fact is, childless people have a different future orientation from people with children.  They don't care about the welfare of the polity because to them there is no polity.  There is no chain of identity and connection that would give them any feeling of investment in the preservation of their nation.  Those without children tend to keep their 'motherly instincts,' which then go haywire and start adopting any random group they can think of.  Any group that tickles a motherly instinct will do.  So long as they're miserable, weak, helpless and in need of nurturing, they're A-plus material for vicarious mothering.  And guess what, inferior groups like blacks, muslims and hispanics tend to fit this bill to a T.  'Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses' is all about wanting to mother and nurture the weak, poor little babies which a lack of having actual babies to mother necessarily instills.  Because these people are horrible people who constantly befoul and ruin their own nests, (look at Haiti, Detroit, Zimbabwe, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc), they are always pitiful and always in need of aid, which the mother-wannabes are always quick to seize upon.  Angela Merkel was childless, and so it was simply inevitable that she would eventually betray her fatherland and import a million refugees who would call her their collective 'mother' and ecstatically pose for selfies with all of her new wonderful 'sons.'

It's bad enough when single women start filling their household full of cats and other pets.  Once they start adopting black orphans and whole refugee populations you can kiss your country goodbye.  As such, allowing women to stay single and childless is a civilizational fatal mistake, an existential threat, that must be prevented at all costs.  Mandatory marriage and children (with modern high tech, it's impossible to be infertile, so that excuse won't fly) is a necessity if Vinland is going to survive any length of time into the future.  We cannot allow a new breed of Angela Merkel's to emerge and pull a Germany on us (which was, up until last year, one of the most pleasant and well-run places on Earth, but is now simply sliding into oblivion as we speak.)

Gays are obligatorily childless, and therefore they naturally fall into this treacherous mood where they start wanting to take in the weak and the meek of the Earth instead of worrying about their own homogeneous in-group, and therefore form a natural fifth column in your country that needs to be excised, even if they weren't harboring paranoid persecution complexes that require them to 'take us out' before we 'take them out.'  Gays can't fit in to a homogeneous, majority straight culture, so they'll demand pluralism for their own sakes, and then that pluralism will drag us all down into the dust as the Muslims and blacks start flooding in, and then you can kiss your future goodbye.

Harold Covington seems fixated and crazed in his wish to stamp out all gays, casting all sorts of mean aspersions against them, but if you disregard the tone and look at the logic, you come to the same exact conclusion as he does.  There's simply no place for such a group in Vinland.  They would be agitators for tolerance and diversity and pluralism from the very start, and your project wouldn't even get off the ground due to the need to compromise and protect their feelings and interests.  If it's a non-negotiable right for gays to live in our country, we need to find a way to get along with them, we need to not persecute them or make them feel unhappy, both due to internal feelings of guilt and external pressure of other nations shaming us for our oppression of a minority (and threatening sanctions and wars if public shaming isn't enough), and by the end of the process we'd have to do everything gays ask of us or they'll start whining and then the outside world will get involved and so on.

Everyone has to be on board for Vinland to succeed.  Everyone has to be part of the majority.  We need 100% inclusion, zero diversity, zero chance for pluralism to start wedging itself in and tearing us apart.  Our seed stock, the beginning of our country, like a flawless microchip, has to be completely and utterly pure, or else the law of exponential growth will rip us apart with that one tiny flaw growing and growing until it splits apart the entire boulder.  Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but someday, that initial tolerance and languid good will towards strangers will cost us our nation.  The entire Vinland project will never get off the launching pad.  We'll end up right back where we started.

For practical purposes, I don't think Vinland could be anywhere on this Earth.  All the territory is already claimed and if a nazi-racist state tried to found itself on Earth the world would unite against it militarily and economically and stomp it out.  Rather, the best version of Vinland is a colony ship (or colony fleet) heading out into space, with every single member of the colony pre-screened to not belong to any possible minority.  The homogeneous colony will grow naturally from there, without any troubles, into a population of millions and billions.  Alternatively, we don't even need to go into space if we are allowed to create virtual reality realms which we 'full-dive' into.  All we would need is a popular fantasy world where like-minded nazi-racists go to live out their homogeneous dream lives without interfering or interference from anyone else, and we would be good to go again.  In any case, in the real world of today, the project is stillborn because we would be nuked off the map in two days.  Something Harold Covington is way too optimistic about and a huge blind point for his otherwise visionary science fiction.

The reason why Christianity can't be tolerated is due to its universalist creed, which says we're all equal under God and we must love everyone indiscriminately.  With such an initial philosophy, it's impossible to avoid eventual diversification and open borders, because there is no coherent moral objection that can be raised against being inundated and destroyed by 'the other.'  There is no 'other' in Christianity so the religion is utterly incapable of self-preservation or self-defense.  It's a joke of a pacifist ideology that's doomed to die and is, in fact, dying all around us even as we speak.  Anyone infected with it may as well be part of the body-snatcher tribe already.

If polls about Trump voters are to be believed, around 10% of the country is racist-nazi in its ideological leanings.  However, most of these people are elderly who still remember the good old days and cling to their bitter hatred of 'people not like them' as Obama gleefully reminds us, and Tim Wise tick tick counts our approaching demographic disappearance.  The number of young people who share this belief, instead of climbing onto the ludicrous Bernie Sanders train, is much less than that.  In addition, the number of women who are racist-nazi is maybe 1/10 the number of men, who are naturally simply more instinctively healthy in this issue, and more logical and coherent in their view of the world than women tend to be.  As such, I doubt a viable nation could be made with any less of a filter than 1 in 100,000 Americans with any chance of being approved for citizenship in Vinland.  In a population of 320 million, that makes for 3200 people.  Enough to form a viable seed stock for a colony ship to populate a whole new world -- but not enough to take over a single plot of dirt on Earth and call it their own.  (The entire world was populated by a group of just a few hundred or maybe a thousand people who left Africa, so don't give me crap about inbreeding which A) does not apply to such a large population and B) wouldn't matter in the face of our new CRISPR genetic engineering powers anyway.)

Vinland can be as pure as it likes.  Even with a filter of allowing in only 1 in every 100,000 Americans, it can have a sufficiently sized seed stock to start civilization somewhere else.  What we can't afford to do is relax our standards and thus repeat the same mistakes as our ancestors, relive the ludicrous clown show that our world has become, and make the future as grotesque as our present and recent past has been.  We can afford to be choosy.  What we can't afford to be is tolerant of anyone, anywhere, about anything.

Another Reason to Stay Pure:

One of the biggest problems with allowing any level of diversity is the "I know a good one" syndrome.  Once people get a taste of diversity they can't kick the habit, they're addicted all the way until the inevitable overdose.

If a nazi-racist state allowed, say, Jews, or gays, or well-intentioned Asians, or whites who have already married said Jews or Asians or Hispanics or whatever and want to keep their hybrid families together, out of some sort of bleeding heart consideration for their plight, what would happen next?

Whites, who were taught that being white was special and important, would find all sorts of common ground with the non-whites around them.  Likewise straights would decide that gays weren't that big a deal, and therefore staying single for life like the gay lifestyle wasn't a problem either.  These endless counterexamples that completely disprove what we are trying to teach our kids would undermine any type of indoctrination/education program we could come up with.  You would teach the kids about how awful diversity is and how terrible open borders was, and they would all raise their hands and chime in with, "I play with Fido next door and he's great!  He's just like me!"

In the workplace, you would talk about how terrible non-white workers were and bam, all the hands would shoot up and say, "Sato Fu next door was the first designer of our new product, he's leaps and bounds smarter than we are, we'd never have stayed in business without him."

By being surrounded solely with 'the good ones,' from the dreaded "I Know a Good One" database, whites in Vinland would inevitably come to the conclusion that all diversities are 'good ones.'  After all, it's the only diversities they've ever known or met.  By being flexible in your standards and letting in all 'the good ones,' all you're doing is creating a perception in the newborn nation's mind that diversity is always so vibrant and celebratory.  In fact, if I had to choose for 10% of my population to be diverse, I would rather choose the absolute worst terrorists and gangbangers to be my diversity instead of hand picked East Asians, Jews, politically conscious gays and high-caste Indians.  At least then I wouldn't be controverting my own propaganda every day with the most ludicrously well behaving non-whites on Earth.

After getting along swimmingly with so many diversities, they would immediately be open to inviting in more diversity and undoing the whole foundation of the country.  If not solely for the desire to have more diversity to swim around in, it would be seen as an act of kindness and respect.  "Look, we like our neighbors and coworkers and classmates so much, that we want to show how much we love them by inviting in more people like them from abroad.  This will show what a special place in our hearts we have for our native diversities in an act of ultimate flattery."

The last thing any homogeneous country needs is "I know a good ones" from elsewhere.  They're the camel's nose under the tent, and sure enough the rest will inevitably follow.  All of our 'paranoid fears' about how diversity destroys civilization would be dismissed because everyone will personally have a good friendly non-white they sympathize for and want to treat like a fellow human being with equal rights and universal respect and blah blah blah.

In addition, people will always seek ways to get ahead economically or via social status at the cost of the group.  If we leave an option open for people to make group-sabotaging decisions (like staying childless, or being gay, or marrying a non-white, or staying single and focusing on a career), they'll definitely take it.  As sure as Sunday the 'minor exceptions for exceptional cases' will end up being the new majority a few years down the road.  What sounds like being tolerant and flexible on a case by case basis ends up just being a yawning loophole that everyone goes through and takes advantage of as a matter of course.

I can see it now, when a new breed of liberals is born into Vinland, they want to show how creative and progressive and rebellious and cool and challenging of the orthodoxy they are, by marrying a non-white and importing him/her into the country.  If that isn't nixed from the start, the whole population will be miscegenated in a lickety-split.  Not because there's any objective benefit from acting in such a manner, but simply because kids like rebelling against their parents and bucking the system, and are given higher social status by reverential onlookers when they do so.  Also, there's a human instinct to prefer exotics regardless of their objective worth.  For instance, a country full of blue-eyed blondes will find dark haired Italian women more attractive than Suzy next door.  This is ludicrous, but it's hard-wired into the genome so we have to take action against it or it will definitely prevail in the end.  Coercion is the only answer to irrational instincts.  Sexual freedom is the last thing we need.  The only way we can prevent miscegenation is to not give the sexes any choice in the matter.  If they don't have any diverse neighbors or friends or coworkers, if they never see or meet or even know of the existence of diversity in the universe, then they'll be content with the homogeneous people around them and breed and love appropriately.  But if you give them a plethora of outbreeding options inevitably some proportion will take that opportunity every generation, until the whole gene pool is muddied and destroyed forever.  Once they've fallen in love with a diversity it will be too late to stop them, they'd rather die than give up on what's important to them.  But if you don't create any triggers for them to fall in love over, there's zero chance of any crisis occurring, and generation after generation will procreate smoothly and without issue.

For the same reason, allowing gays in is huge trouble.  Once the very concept that gay love is an acceptable and normal alternative to heterosexuality, the numbers of gay people in a country explode.  There are some cultures where everyone is gay, like how all the little boys in Afghanistan are routinely raped by older men.  Likewise, at least 20% of women of college age in the USA say they're bisexual, and that number only rises by the year as it becomes more hip and cool and accepted in the mainstream.  There doesn't seem to be any biological damper on female bisexuality, so in the end they will all be reporting this, and then it's just a crapshoot whether they form stable reproductive healthy heterosexual pairings later in their life or get on board the barren and purposeless journey of lesbianism instead.  Even if lesbian pairings are harmless and they would have just as healthy children and just as many as if they got with guys (using artificial insemination or whatever), this would be crippling to boys who have no such option on the other side.  If 75% of women are marrying each other, leaving just 25% of women left to service all the men in the country, guys aren't going to turn gay just to get sex.  It may be true that all women are bisexual, but hardly any men are.  We're clearly hard-wired differently.  The only way a man can be happy is with a woman, so it's just rotten of women to pair with each other when A) they could be happy with a man and B) every one of them is desperately needed to make a man happy.

The bad examples "assimilated minorities" and "politically conscious gays" would give to the rest of the community is a poisoned apple that would rot the whole barrel.  It's just introducing the vectors of horrible civilization ending diseases for absolutely no reason except some silly attempt to look 'objective' and 'unbiased' and 'unprejudiced.'  We don't have to show how clean our minds are and prove we aren't racist or sexist or homophobic or islamophobic.  We don't have to prove how rational and logical and sensible and wise we are.  We have to survive as a people and as a culture.  This isn't the time to make strong poses and prove how well we can cope with diversity.  This is the time to run away from all possible challenges, make life for our children as easy as humanly possible, and make making the right decisions as clear and obvious and easy as humanly possible.

"We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children." Is the mantra of white nationalism.  No where in there does it say, "we have to assuage our pride by showing we aren't being prejudiced or unfair or judgmental by excluding people for simply their nature, which is wrong, instead of their behavior which is still morally okay."  This isn't some sort of high-handed contest where we have to dot every i and cross every t in order to have the right to survive as a community, as a people, as a culture, as a civilization, and as an ideology.  Even the good ones pose problems.  Even the most amenable minorities who want to get along, through their very existence, encourage people to adopt pluralism and re-introduce poisonous minority-friendly concepts into our children's heads.  Even if all these diversities are trying their best to support the state ideology of white nationalism and only unintentionally, through their very benign existence, countermand everything we are trying to impart to the next generation, it still would be suicidal and absolute madness to let them be part of the founding stock of Vinland.

Non-married couples, through their very presence and example, speak volumes more than any propaganda can gainsay.  Once it is in the next generation of women's minds that they can divorce, remarry, sleep around, or do whatever they want and it will all work out because after all they've seen it worked out right in front of their eyes, nothing we tell them will convince them to stop.  Once they've gotten their hands on the forbidden fruit of feminism, we'll never be able to tear it from their grasp again.  Only if the whole community is 100% purely married couples who never ever accept the idea of divorce, staying single for life and focusing on your career, being gay, adultery, slutdom, etc, will children learn from the good examples of their parents and their community and stay on the right track themselves.  Once you permit it for somebody you've just permitted it for everybody, because monkey see monkey do, and because women are so attracted to these tempting sins that if there's any sight of them they'll pounce like rabid starving wolves on the prospect.

Lead me not into temptation is a very good Christian prayer.  It means that people are weak minded, and even though they know something is wrong, they'll do it the moment they get a chance, their emotions, addictions, and instinctual urges are just so strong.  We mustn't give women the opportunity to even learn what their emotions, addictions, and instincts yearn for.  The moment they even have a clue about how deliciously sinfully they could live their lives, they'll cling to that lifestyle like badgers from there on and never give in to being housewives again.  One grain of impurity would mean the entire next generation of women would all be Gloria Steinem.

100% purity.  100% ideological conformity.  100% propaganda saturation.  100% indoctrination.  100% coercion.  If it's not 100%, it's 0%, because that 1% will corrupt and ruin the entire project in the blink of an eye.  It is infinitely easier to destroy something than it is to build it.  Give the enemy, the anti-christ, any leeway or starting position at all and they will destroy white nationalism before you can say Jack Raspberry.  Good, beautiful, true things are infinitely fragile and helpless, needing the combined swords of every man in the community to keep them safe.  You can spend a hundred years building a cathedral and an hour planting bombs that tear it all down.  You can show infinite loving affection for your daughter for five years before she's kidnapped, raped and killed in the few minutes you looked away to handle some other business.  White nationalism can fall from just one bad example giving the next generation the wrong ideas which just grow into an incurable cancer from there.

Being so proud about moral sensibilities that you would compromise the Vinland project with any potential weakness, however remote or unlikely, is unforgivable.  It's genocide all over again.  Can you imagine, the world goes to hell, but luckily, just before, we get a Noah's Arc of white nationalism to fly away to settle space, but we included a gaggle of gays, feminists, Jews, Indians and Asians to prove how broad-minded we were, and the whole thing falls apart in a couple decades?  Will you ever be able to explain to God why making sure no one could call you racist or biased was more important than the survival of your people and the continuation of Newton, Aristotle and Chopin?

We have a divine mission on this Earth, to preserve the divine glory of the white race, which has some 99% of all the greatest achievements in human history, and to make sure that white race is still around to produce the next 99% of great achievements in the future.  That isn't something to be gambling around and playing around with for the sake of looking good or feeling smug about ourselves or gainsaying our detractors.  No, we need to be a thousand times more careful and more thorough than we feel is within operational safety limits.  We need to make sure whites are taken care of, and the rest of the god damn world can take care of itself.  If they really are so full of "I know a good ones," then they'll do just fine without our babysitting and without our adopting of trojan horses into our midst.

100% separation.  If we don't completely divorce ourselves from the outside world, you'll see the perversity creep in within one generation.  Hard workers and bright entrepreneurs will receive huge pay raises if they leave Vinland and go work in Silicon Valley or Singapore instead.  They'll say to themselves, "hell, me and mine will do fine, I'm being paid so well I could live in a personal castle with a thousand servants," and then those beautifully nurtured children, investments into the future of the white race, will fly the coup and give us nothing but barren hopes and dreams while they go enrich their new diverse neighbors.

Meanwhile, people in Vinland will start booming businesses that need tons of labor and they'll say, "surely a guest worker program wouldn't be amiss.  These people are law abiding, hard workers, doing an act of love to support their families, what harm could they possibly do?"  And boom, we'd import 10 of them for every one of us, because our country would be so neat and orderly and non-corrupt and prosperous that it could afford to hire 10 of them for every one of us, and boom, Vinland will have disappeared in just one generation.  Once they're here, we'll say, 'they've been so good to us, they've worked so hard, we couldn't possibly discriminate against them now.'  And then three or so rotten generations later it will have all descended back into Venezuela and even the idea of Vinland will be forgotten, we'll be all so interbred and indoctrinated into the new liberal tolerant pluralistic fold.

We shouldn't have any diversity in our country.  We shouldn't see any diversity in our country.  We shouldn't be within reach of any diversity in our country.  We shouldn't even know about any diversity in our country, aside from history classes where it is safely dead and buried and can't infect us anymore.  100% purity.  100% separation.  I guarantee you that if we even allow ourselves to trade with diversityland it will be over, done, the dream will pop like a soap bubble then and there.

There are no cheap, easy, half-hearted, two-bit, wishy-washy ways to white nationalism.  The fervency of your convictions needs to be plasma-grade, surface of the sun hot, or it will just go the way of the dodo like all the previous failed attempts (see: Sparta, the Confederacy, Jim Crow South, Austro-Hungarian Empire, Yugoslavia, Rhodesia, Apartheid, etc.)

I don't think violence would help this project in any way, so it's not violent extremism that white nationalism needs.  Just extremism.  We need to be absolutely, 100% to the hilt convinced of our own beliefs, and pursue them absolutely, fully, to the greatest extreme imaginable.  Anything short of absolute and total extremist resolution, determination and conviction will get us right back where we started, with liberalism.  Liberalism is the ground state of an atom.  White nationalism is an excited, unnatural, exotic particle likely to fall apart at any instance.  Just like Ayn Rand said -- if you do not stand explicitly and uncompromisingly for anti-socialism, you will eventually end up a socialist.  If you are not explicitly and absolutely uncompromising in your desire for an all-white sovereign state where we can raise our white children to behave like proper whites who inherit the white race-soul that inspired Rome, Greece, Germany, the USA and Britain in their heydays, you will be liberals at the end of the day, your children will be bebopping and screwing blacks while snorking up heroin, they will be overrun with piercings and tatoos, they'll never marry or divorce ten times, and it will all be over, over, over, forever.

No comments: