Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘society’ Category

If you read Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France, you get the sense that he basically wanted the same kind of society that British Liberals wanted, but he disagreed on how to go about creating it.

Some people are old enough to remember a time when conservatives and liberals basically wanted the same sort of society but one was more ‘leftish’, with higher taxes and bigger government and the other wanted limited government and lower taxes. They were different approaches to running a political state but both agreed on what the country would actually LOOK like.

But now we have a left that wants to flood the West with mass 3rd world immigration and force the conditions that would inevitably lead to intermarriage. In other words, the left is committing genocide against white people.

Up until recently, the right in America played the loyal opposition, agreeing with the left that White people had to go, but claiming they were for ‘muh principals’ or ‘muh proposition nation’. This is why we call them ‘cuckservatives‘, because they pretended to represent the interests of White people in some abstract, muted way, but actually were complicit in organizing our genocide through mass non-white immigration and forced assimilation. They would talk about embracing the Latino vote because they were planning on a future without White people.

What is happening in politics now is that the right is being taken over by the ‘alt-right’. (Soon there will be no ‘alt-right’, it will just be the ‘new right’ and then it will just be ‘the right’). People on the alt-right want to live in a White country. A lot of mainstream conservative voters silently agree with them. We will see very soon, a political situation where the right and the left fundamentally disagree on what America should LOOK like.

The concept of having a left and a right is based on the idea that there is a CENTRE. THERE IS NO CENTRE. There is only us and them. Pro-White and Anti-White.

Issues related to homosexuality, abortion, et cetera are irrelevant. A reasoned debate on those issues can only occur between people who view each other as brothers and sisters of a common nation. We can deal with those issues later. Right now, only fighting WHITE GENOCIDE matters.

Read Full Post »

hqdefaultJoseph Tainter wrote a book called Collapse of Complex Societies, which I recommend. In it he argues that ‘collapse’ is basically when a complex society becomes less complex. An example would be the Soviet Union. It’s gone and now we have Russia and some other states. It ‘collapsed’ in the sense that Ukraine, Belarus and other parts were jettisoned because maintaining the whole thing was too expensive. I’m not sure if there has ever been a case where a society completely fell into a black hole.

Tainter also says that a complex society must provide ’tangible benefits’ to it’s participants otherwise they will no longer have an incentive to support the system and will look for an alternative. One tangible benefit is physical security. Another is food. If America can provide these kinds of things than I guess that means the system really does ’work’. But the disappearance of these things, like deadlines, has a way of focusing the mind.

I will say this; importing millions of non-whites, endlessly printing money and an economy which is based on ENDLESS economic growth are all linked. I believe that it is impossible to address one of those problems without addressing all of them. The GOP will not point out the first problem because they want cheap labour, White Liberals will not because they are PC, and non-whites will never address it because they view it as the source of their growing political power and they rightly understand that an America that is 60% White is still dangerous.

Who is the net consumer of resources in America? Non-Whites. Who is the net producer? Whites. If resources become scarce, what could we propose to the residents of the Red States to alleviate the economic hardship? When California goes bankrupt a lot of people in the Red States will not want to bail them out. When Chicago goes bankrupt (it will) the people of Illinois will not want to bail them out. Everyone in Michigan knows why Detroit went bankrupt.

Due to economic hardship and austerity, it will become convenient to be Pro-White. People like us will support WN on principal, but Joe 6-pack will support it because it will make his life easier. He will have more government benefits because of WN. WN means (just as one possible example) the residents of Northern California joining Oregon and then telling the rest of California to go screw themselves. It means the Red States dumping the Blue States because they are too expensive (as well as hostile).

WN is the only viable solution to our economic and political problems. In times of economic depression we need to pull together and co-operate. This is IMPOSSIBLE in a racially diverse country but the White parts of America could do it. America needs to collapse to a lower level of complexity.

In addition, as resources become scarce, competition for those resources will increase and that competition will not be just White vs. Non-White. Blacks and Latinos hate each other and have every reason to fight with each other – their political alliance is temporary. Perhaps we could propose austerity measures where one of them is given preference over the other in some way. Any successful WN movement must turn blacks and Latinos against each other – it is the logical strategy.

Mind Weapon is right to advocate the things he does because it will create Whites who will reject this system. It will create people who will, when presented with the prospect of bailing out non-white cities and states, choose to cede them to the 3rd world and maintain the land we currently have as an explicitly White nation that will not allow ANY non-white immigration.

But before we can plan any torchlight parades we need to do the groundwork for explicitly Pro-White political action and that is the Mantra. Once average White kids are saying “Anti-Racist is a codeword for Anti-White” we will have already positioned the pieces for checkmate. The Internet has destroyed across-the-board compliance with Anti-White dogma. We are starting to argue. They are censoring the comments section because of US.

In 1938 no one knew that Molotov and Ribbentrop had made that pact. Every war is won before the first shot is fired. By the time a bunch of people get together in a room and decide to form a pro-White party, all the work is done. The rest is just politics.

Read Full Post »

I am so sick of hearing economists talk about how we have too much debt built up in the system and one day we will pay for our economic mismanagement. The economic numbers are NOTHING. It’s the stuff you can’t put in a spreadsheet that’s really scary.

We will have to pay more than we think.

Read Full Post »

I saw part of Angels in America, an HBO program based on the play by Tony Kirshner. It reminded me of the movie adaptation of the Broadway musical Rent.

Both productions lovingly celebrate the equisite tragedy of homosexuals suffering from AIDS. It seems to be a kind of religion for urban homosexuals and the left generally. I wanted to look at this, not from the point of view of someone who thinks homosexuality is evil or sinful, but just from the prespective of someone with common sense – not a propaganda saturated, drooling leftist college kid.

Let’s forget about what you think of homosexuals themselves. Just look at them with a pathologist’s scrutiny. They like to screw each other. I’m not sure how plausible it is for one to mention that amongst ‘polite’ company, but I suspect most people KNOW it.

I have known my fair share of leftists. The kind that have been so thouroughly raped by PC dogma that they think their beliefs are not even political, but moral, and cannot concieve of how a sane person could differ. These are also the type that are so sure of themselves and the fraudulent society they live in that they have no idea how to deal with arguments or viewpoints other than the sterotypical, pre-packeged ones which are made by the toothless redneck they see portrayed on TV shows. So if even the leftists I have known have said in private company that homosexuals are very promiscuous, then the rest of us surely know as well.

If you call up the Center for Disease Prevention and Control in Atlanta, they will tell you that since AIDS is transmitted primarily though intercourse, those who engage in intercourse with a greater number of people will be more likely to become infected. If one is having sex with many different people, and in turn, those people are likewise willy-nilly with their willy, well then you have a perfect storm. Thus, it’s no surprise that homosexuals have a high rate of AIDS/HIV infection.

To get back to these two broadway productions (Rent and Angels in America), both celebrate the pain and tragedy of AIDS and how generally fag-erific it is for gays to be afflicted with it.

AIDS is a horrible disease and there are few who truly deserve to suffer from it. But I feel compelled to raise the question: If you have been busy fucking and sucking everything you can, and perhaps in some cases not even using protection, then exzactly HOW MUCH sympathy do you deserve? That’s not meant to be a rheotorical question. I’m not suggesting that you don’t deserve any sympathy. But after compulsively engaging in what is the highly sophisticated equivalent of scrathing an itch, how fucking poetic do you think your resulting medical condition is?

What about little kids who have terminal cancer? They will never get to fall in love. What about young men sent off to war against their will who get maimed or killed? They had their youth or their very lives stolen from them.

The musical Rent was based on the opera La Boheme. But in that story the final tragic death suffered by Mimi is from ‘consumption’ (probably tuberculosis). A disease that one cannot really help but contract. But there is a great deal one can do to avoid getting AIDS. Nothing is for sure but you can certainly ‘help’ it. Not frequenting the bathhouse is just one of the more basic precautions available.

It’s hard to consider AIDS and the people who suffer from it on quite the same level as starvation, war, malaria and other disasterous phenomena because to put it bluntly, you get it from having sex. And sex is fun. So if people, of whatever sexual orientation, who enthusiastically endevour to get laid with lots of different people, rather than agree to exercise the self control necessary to build a pair bond, have kids and stay toegther long enough to raise them in order to maintain some kind of viable civilization, find themselves infected with a sexually transmitted disease, I can’t help but be a little annoyed when I see this endless litany of productions extolling the eloquent misery of the AIDS patient. There are things more deserving of our attention.

Read Full Post »

Part of being involved in this conspiracy for a better future is knowing, not only that multiculturalism is bad for whites, but that it is bad for every group (except one), and that it is all based on fraud. If you are pro-white, or pro-anyone quite frankly, you must understand that the changes brought about in the last 50-75 years have not acheived their stated goals.

An excellent example of this is the black illegitimacy rate. In 1940 that particular indicator of social pathology was only 19%. Today it is somewhere around 70%. This has come about over a time when changes in law were being enacted to integrate blacks and whites and allow blacks to work and study in the same instituions as whites. If blacks could go to Harvard, it was thought, they could excell as anyone else could.

But how can any group participate in higer education or go for middle class jobs when 70% of them are born in a broken family to a mother who very likely is young, uneducated and a paragone of the very irresponsibility that caused the conception in the first place?

Blacks were given opportunities to move forward at the very same time the basic foundation of their economic and educational prospects was being destroyed. What is the point of having an admissions policy at the nation’s colleges which discriminates in favour of blacks if a whole section of them are incarcerated?

When you think of it, The KKK’s policy towards blacks was tame by comparison to the nuclear fallout of leftist sexual revolution and social policy . They basically wanted to ensure whites remained on top of Southern society. They never considered fundamentally eroding the basis of the black community.

And if you are a minority trying to survive and get ahead, government policies like discrimination can be gotten around with ingenuity and networking. But if the very moral fabric of your people has been shredded, and belicose, over gesticulating rappers extoling the virtues of ‘bling’ are your poets, it’s more than simply an uphill battle.

I would much rather be a member of an oppressed group that has kept it’s morals and traditions and has an ethic of work, sexual restraint and sobriety, than find myself in the modern inner-city of Detroit, the citadel of Obamanation.

How callously they ruined black America. What a sick joke it all is. I’ve been angry about what they have done to my race for years, and somehow it makes it all the more disgusting to see that it hasn’t even been done for the benefit of blacks. They, like every other group in any diverse society, are simply pawns being played against the other pawns for the benifit of an elite few.

And the blindingly arrogant ideology of ‘diversity’ and ‘tolerance’ is exactly what protects it and makes it impossible for people to see.

Read Full Post »

“It is a typical trait of political elites, seen from a historical perspective, to talk in very laudatory terms about the infallibility of their system precisely at a moment when their system is falling apart.” – Tom Sunic

I recently read an article by some leftist bureaucrat who teaches at one of America’s ivory towers of privilege and intellectual insularity, otherwise known as a ‘college‘. The article is titled “The End of White America?” and is written from the perspective of someone who has internalized the concept of ’whiteness studies’, a so-called ’discipline which was created to justify genocide against white people by arguing that they don’t exist. (It should also be noted that they have no problem defining us when they are blaming us for everything).

I felt I should write about this article because it demonstrates how out of touch anti-white ‘intellectuals’ are with reality.

Firstly, you get the impression from the article that this Hua Hsu (yeah that’s his name) thinks that America is post-racial or at least is about to become so. His prediction of what the newly created demographic landfill of America will become is incredibly naive :

    “There will be dislocations and resentments along the way, but the demographic shifts of the next 40 years are likely to reduce the power of racial hierarchies over everyone’s lives, producing a culture that’s more likely than any before to treat its inhabitants as individuals, rather than members of a caste or identity group.”

Given the trends in American society, and the reality on the ground you have to wonder what he’s smoking. So you say America is post-racial,

This is what 'Post-White' Detroit looks like

Hua? How about getting rid of anti-white hiring policies (affirmative action), colleges teaching that whites are the source of the worlds problems, and demands that ALL white countries and ONLY white countries accept millions of 3rd worlders? Yeah … didn’t think so.

America is post-racial but the program of genocide against White people continues.

Diverse countries have been tried repeatedly and they all failed, in some cases in a quite bloody fashion. This point is obvious (at least for me). But the deeper point is that diversity was deliberately sought and deliberately created through migration and demographic engineering because it has, for probably centuries if not thousands of years, been seen by elites as useful. Generally speaking, leftists want votes and capitalists want cheap labour. But political elites are far to smart, well-educated and above all aware (in a way that public schooling does not allow), to not notice the obvious utility of having different groups present in the territory they rule. Conflict between ethnic groups within an empire has been manipulated and managed from the empires of antiquity to Austro-Hungary. America is no different.

My guess is Hua Hsu doesn’t see this because he works and lives in the sterile closed world of academia. And he has so enthusiastically swallowed anti-white propaganda that he really believes destroying white people is ‘tolerant’. And that’s all that tolerance is to a leftist – hating white people.

The confidence and certainty of his article might anger or frustrate a conservative, but to me it is completely unfounded and extremely dangerous. Actually, it reminds me of this video :

Read Full Post »

Below I link to a video of an interesting discussion held in the lavish mansion of Jim Rogers, between himself, Marc Faber and another guy who could be considered a lightweight compared to those two. I’m not fascinated with economics like some but I want to talk about one comment I heard them make in particular.

If you go to 0.53 on the video, they talk about the EU and its economic situation. And of course, one of the issues economists always outline in 1st world countries (that are white) is that the population is falling and they need immigrants to move in and make up for the low birthrates.

Marc Farber points out that Eastern Europe will provide many workers to help with this problem, but Jim Rogers goes him one better and says that what Europe really should do is bring in Turkey, because they have a young population of 70 million who could come in and do the job instead.

As I alluded to above, you always hear arguments for immigration, but they never say that non-white countries need it. That much is simple (though it should be repeated when this subject comes up in conversation).

What I really wanted to talk about is the deeper issue of what Jim Rogers’s comments say about how we think about people, and societies.

Jim Rogers says that the Europeans probably won’t bring in Turkey because Turks aren’t white and their not Christians (“Who cares if their not Christians.“, Rogers says). Who cares indeed.

This is an example of how we view people in our modern world. They are merely tax payers, consumers, voters, producers. They are only economic units defined in wholly materialistic terms. It is a symptom of how sick our society is that we should think this opinion Rogers makes is anything other than insane.

How on earth could you fundamentally alter the ethnic, racial, cultural and religious make up of a society for economic gain? If the birthrates are below replacement level – let them be below replacement level! Who cares. How could you take a homogeneous country and make it diverse, (beleaguered by all the social and political discord that such societies are) just to see a few extra percentage points on some stupid GDP report? And what are the long term economic consequences of this 3rd world immigration? Is it really even so great in the short term?

Aside from the fact that this is GENOCIDE, it is wrong on another level as well. It is wrong to see a society as simply an economic producer. These may be economies, but what you are really talking about are NATIONS. These are societies that have developed over centuries and have in most cases, fought some pretty nasty wars just to survive and be independent.

People are not merely economic units

A nation (a people) and the political state which is erected to represent its interests, is organic. It is a living, breathing thing. People have value, in part, because they are descended from a particular ethnic group. Humans are not interchangeable. A person from a foreign group may not seem especially valuable to you. But for his fellow people he is. Norway is Norwegian and that actually means something. It gives the country its character, different from any other. If you move immigrants in and demand ‘integration‘, you begin the destruction of that unique nation.

Even the religious basis of evaluating people would be better. At least that’s based on something ethereal rather than just economic output. Whether you see people as children of God, or inheritors of a unique racial/ethnic character (the consequent of which is culture), as Yoda once said “Luminous beings are we”.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »