The environment allows people to empower and fulfill themselves by shaping neutral or evil chaos into a moral order that reflects their highest values: It means moving the world from an entropic wasteland to an island sanctuary of love, beauty, and truth. Humans have always had this need to shape their environment away from raw wilderness and towards something more comfortable and fitting to themselves. Not living in an environment of your own shaping is like living in jail. It's being confined to a place no one would willingly choose to stay in. An un-shapeable environment is saying to the person within it: "You aren't wanted or needed here, this isn't for you, nor will you ever belong to it." It alienates, depresses, and isolates the individual. Instead of having healthy extroverted desires to interact with the society and shape the society in which he lives, he will creep into an introverted shell and avoid said society that looks nothing like him and has no interest in any of his values or beliefs. Since most whites share the same values, capabilities and beliefs, a 'white' social order will be responsive and inclusive to any whites living within it. They'll be able to affirm a society and interact with its other members, because it so closely resembles what they would have made society look like themselves. A 'third world' social order isn't responsive or inclusive to the whites living within it. No white could possibly affirm and dares not interact with third world inhabited and run areas. The obvious result is a sense of alienation, of being the sole 'living being' on the planet, a claustrophobic sense of being permanently jailed inside safe gated communities, in short, asphyxiation. Whites in societies not suitable for whites feel like they can't breathe. Like they're being choked to death by the world around them. Just imagine if you lived in places like this, is asphyxiation not the perfect metaphor for this kind of life?
Conversely, doesn't living in a place like this let whites breathe freely?
This is the difference between the cities we make for ourselves to live in, and the cities they make for themselves to live in. Why should whites, who are capable of living in cities like this, be forced to live in cities like that? Why does the third world have the right to come here and turn all of our cities, as shown above, into their cities, as shown above? And is there any doubt that our cities will all cease reflecting the character of white stewardship and start reflecting the character of third world stewardship once they've become the majority population and start running the place? If there is any doubt, just look at South Africa, or any black run city in America, for reference. Nothing survives the touch of the third world.
Our quality of life isn't just impaired or inconvenienced by living in majority third world districts. It is rendered completely inoperable. In hovels like that, full of crime, disease, and filth, no one could possibly live a human existence. It would probably be much worse for white girls than boys. Considering how many white women are raped in Sweden while they are still the majority by adventuresome Muslim youths, I really don't want to reflect long on how they would fare as a minority in these kinds of lawless shiftless slums.
Where will whites live once we are in the minority? Remote farms? But there's no safety in remote farms. For example, 3,000 white farmers have been horrifically tortured, raped, and murdered in South Africa by envious and hateful black 'co-citizens.' Modern technology doesn't allow everyone to live in rural areas anyway. Most of the world lives in cities -- cities like the ones we make for ourselves, or cities like the third world makes for itself. We can't both have our way. If we both live in the same place, the city will become one or the other, depending on who has the most people, the most power, the most influence in the region. Inevitably, with enough third worlders, there will be nothing whites could do to hold back the tide of crime, litter, graffiti, riots, drugs, beggars, etc. It would revert to wilderness. We can terraform forests and even deserts into beautiful, comfortable places for human habitation, but there's no one on Earth who can terraform a slum into something livable. And then, where will we live? The answer is we won't, not really. Oh, sure, the occasional person with pale skin will wander like a sore thumb through the waste heaps of civilization, but is that life? Is this really a good place to raise a family, or a great opportunity to self-actualize? Would anyone wish to be alive in these places, or bring life into the world? It's death by asphyxiation. When life becomes worse than death, when life is a real-world zombie apocalypse, people are no longer alive, but at best undead.
There is no reason why we have to accept such a future, such a living space, for ourselves. Whites are a competent race. They are productive, orderly, cleanly, rich and powerful. We can create wonderful environments for ourselves, with parks, gardens, fountains, anything we want. The schools are actual places of learning, quiet enough for teachers to deliver their lectures. Anywhere a city remains majority white, it remains rich, fun, clean, safe, beautiful and friendly. Even cities in Europe's remotest tranquility were more civilized and had more amenities than the third world lives in today. Rome was largely literate and had public baths for God's sake. In short, we have never been so poor or lived in such a debased manner as the third world still lives like to this day. It is unnatural for a white to live like that, and it is also unbearable. We are not constituted to endure such an environment. We would wilt and die like flowers left out in the baking sun. Why, then, should we invite the rest of the world to flood into our cities and turn them into the same slums they just left from? What suicidal belief system could possibly demand this from us? And to what end? So that a few people, for a brief length of time, might have a higher quality of life, during the brief transition period of a white majority to a non-white majority, from civilization to slum? For the sake of that, we should sacrifice any possibility of civilized, good life for anyone in every single one of these continents the third world comes to dominate? Just think about it. Europe, by staying white, could deliver a high quality of life to billions of people across time, trillions if they eventually exported that standard of living to the stars. By importing non-whites, it could give a few million people a briefly better standard of living, until whites could no longer afford it and were swamped by the ever-increasing immigrant load into just another slum like all the others, a slum of people who would never be capable of reaching the stars. What's the use in that? Could any sane individual want to doom trillions of lives for the sake of helping a bare handful for a couple generations? Why?
There is no way on Earth whites can afford mass immigration as a means of charity. But if we were allowed to develop and improve ourselves in our own territories, we could easily deliver armloads of charity to the blighted corners of the Earth. All of the latest inventions, economic models, artwork, and laws could be exported to wherever the needy lived, a continuous shower of benefits just like they've had for the last two hundred years. If we were left alone, wealth would trickle down to even the most deprived, without killing the golden goose, the very means of wealth production: safe, clean, orderly, white majority cities. If we're to instead be invaded and all of our wealth simply stripped from us in one giant charitable impulse, we will have nothing left to give others, and nothing left to even support ourselves. Love can't possibly be a motivation to flood our cities with third world civilization wreckers. Only hate could want to bomb our cities with weapons of mass destruction far worse than any damage nukes can do. Hiroshima recovered long ago. Detroit never has and never will.
No comments:
Post a Comment