As the multiculti rainbow world of peace and harmony among peoples collapses around us, a specter long thought perished re-emerges. It is tribalism, that horrific inclination that the liberals thought they had squashed decades ago, at least among the racist, imperialist palefaces of North America, Europe, and Australasia. White nationalists seek to be the new spokesmen of the white tribes, and could potentially become one of the major factions in the emerging new world order. But only a fool thinks the enemy of his enemy is automatically his friend. While white nationalists get many things right, the foundations of their ideology are flawed and thus make it inadequate for combating the liberal dystopia.
To restate what I wrote two weeks ago, my opposition to white nationalism is not due to fear of “racism”. Ethnic nationalism is inevitable in a multiracial nation, and in a country such as the U.S. in which the freedom of association is constitutionally protected, either all racial nationalisms are acceptable or none are. If we can have black and Hispanic nationalist outfits like the Nation of Islam and La Raza, then white nationalist groups are equally legitimate. My problem with white nationalism is based purely on pragmatic concerns.
Two weeks ago, Hunter Wallace wrote a post arguing that white nationalism can in fact win, addressing some of the concerns I’ve written about here. While I have my doubts about the political viability of white nationalism, I’ll readily admit that most of the criticisms I’ve made up to this point are superficial and/or ancillary and can be overcome. This doesn’t change the fact that white nationalists are wrong, only that their losing is not a given. I argued a similar point last March when I wrote that the Tea Party Movement would fail to achieve their objectives even if they achieved political success. The fact that communism was wrong didn’t prevent Lenin’s Bolsheviks from seizing control of Russia in 1917, nor did it prevent Mao from ousting Chiang Kai-shek from Beijing. Revolutions are pointless if they end up replacing broken, unjust systems with different broken, unjust systems.
And there we run into our first problem with white nationalism – it doesn’t confront the core of what is wrong with the West. White nationalists are right that multiculturalism and ethnic infighting are serious issues, but they don’t recognize that the tribal soup that America, Britain and other white nations are drowning in is not the cause of those nations’ decline, but a symptom. To demonstrate this, I will use the time-honored method of the Socratic dialogue:
White Nationalist: We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children!
Ferdinand Bardamu: Tally ho, chap. I say, what are you agitating about?
WN: I want my white brothers and sisters to throw off their shackles and fight the enemies who are trying to wipe them out.
FB: I see. And just who are the enemies of the white race?
WN: The Jews! They control the government, the media, and Wall Street, and they’re trying to ethnically cleanse us from our own nation by robbing us, importing foreigners to replace us, and encouraging miscegenation with lesser races. And the Negroes! They’re slaughtering us in the streets and raping our women!
FB: Okay, Jews and Negroes are bad. But weren’t white people responsible for letting the Jews in this country and allowing them to participate in public life to begin with?
WN: Uhhhh…
FB: And the Negroes – weren’t they brought here from Africa as slaves and later emancipated by white people?
WN: Errrrr…
FB: Wouldn’t this mean that these problems that white people suffer from are basically self-inflicted?
WN: Ummmm…WHITE POWER!
White nationalism doesn’t address why all of these alien tribes have popped up in our midst. WNs like to blame these and other problems on the Jews, and while I acknowledge that they’ve had a disproportionate, malign influence, the fact of the matter is that the ideology that wrecked the West, liberalism, originates from whites. (Note: for the purposes of this essay only, I will regard Jews as a separate entity from whites.) The intellectual forbears of modern liberalism and its offshoot ideologies like multiculturalism and feminism were all gentiles – 17th and 18th century thinkers like John Locke, Thomas Paine, Mary Wollstonecraft, Voltaire, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Adam Smith. The Jewish establishment in the modern West is merely a vector for a white-created disease of the mind.
And even if we accept the premise that Jews and Jewish influence are primarily responsible for the mess we’re in, that doesn’t absolve whites from blame. The Jews didn’t invade America, Britain or any other country en masse and forcibly take over their institutions – they were invited by the natives. Prior to their emanicipation in the 19th century, Jews were despised and persecuted everywhere they went, and had little to no influence on the societies they settled in. That’s why the neoconservative description of the West as “Judeo-Christian” should make educated people laugh – Jews had about as much influence on pre-Enlightenment Europe as the Gypsies. Jewish emancipation was a product of liberalism, as the first European state to grant them full legal rights was revolutionary France in 1791. If Jews have fired the bullet into the head of white civilization, whites themselves are culpable for letting them touch the gun to begin with.
The fact of the matter, that white nationalists are either unwilling or unable to address, is that white people are their own worst enemy. Vijay Prozak elaborates:
White Nationalists tend to believe that if “we just offed all the Jews and muds,” the world would be a perfect place. I don’t. I believe the white tribes have been in decline even before Christianity arrived. Christianity made the situation vastly worse by destroying most records of pre-Christian times, slaughtering those who wouldn’t convert and encouraging people toward blind obedience of central one-size-fits-all issues (these are similar to the moral commands from the Jewish god of Christianity). If you kill all the non-whites, the white tribes will still be in the same deep doo-doo; that others appear in our midst is a sign of the degeneracy, not its cause.
While white power movements would like to believe that one day while the white man was asleep, a horde of Jews and Negroes stole in the back door, gangfucked his wife, indoctrinated his children with “rap” and “crunk” music, turned the inner city into an AIDS-ridden war zone, and took over the country, the historical fact is different: white people invited them in; white people made profit from “authentic” music of the oppressed; white people, by fighting constantly amongst themselves, have no direction that might conflict with music profiteering, inner city rot, or even violence (violence produces a product spectrum, from pepper spray to electric gates, to deal with it and is thus profitable to many sectors of the economy, although the socialized cost affects us all). White power movements, instead of being beneficial to white people, are destructive because they deny the actual sources of white problems. You can blame Negroes, Jews and homosexuals until society ends, but the problems, whitey, are within.
White power movements have simple dogmas: “if it’s white, it’s right” and the idea that if all non-whites are excluded, society will somehow become good “again.” They address (what they see as) a symptom, and not the problem. They also ignore almost all other important issues outside of race. It is as if they are more provocateurs than political thinkers, here to hit us with a quick and repellent suggestion before fading away, laughing at our discomfort in their discontent. They are not alone in this, since almost every special interest group from Environmentalists to Pro-Lifers to Black Power groups falls into this category; it may be a failing of our political system itself that makes agreement so difficult that political movements must be distilled to the ultimate simplicity and singular focus. But if all non-whites died tomorrow, what would happen? The basic problems of whites would remain.
Alex Birch continues:
Why don’t we just face the scientific facts? Eastern European Jews are highly intelligent, as a group even smarter than East Asians, and have a culture of intellectual discipline and excellence. They’re supposed to be on the top. White nationalists additionally suggest Jews are on top to destroy Europe. But if you take a second look, white Europeans are generally leftist-oriented, vote for liberal socialism, believe in some soft form of multiculturalism, and love American Hollywood culture. Europeans believe in self-destruction, because that’s been the dominant paradigm since WWII. All of our current leaders praise this development. Since Western Jews, both American and European, are liberal-oriented, they’re going along with that meme, just like the average whitey is.
Whitey, your problem is not a Jew, but self-destructive behavior and a lack of civil confidence. Clean your house or shut the hell up.
This is why I state that white nationalism is a doomed ideology – even if WNs succeed in their goals of creating white ethnostates, the original cause of white decline will remain. There are competing explanations for the origin of the liberal impulse in the European peoples. Julius Evola blamed America:
This is obviously the case with the ‘self-made man’; in a society which has lost all sense of tradition the notion of personal aggrandisement will extend into every aspect of human existence, reinforcing the egalitarian doctrine of pure democracy. If the basis of such ideas is accepted, then all natural diversity has to be abandoned. Each person can presume to possess the potential of everyone else and the terms ‘superior’ and ‘inferior’ lose their meaning; every notion of distance and respect loses meaning; all life-styles are open to all. To all organic conceptions of life Americans oppose a mechanistic conception. In a society which has ‘started from scratch’, everything has the characteristic of being fabricated. In American society appearances are masks not faces. At the same time, proponents of the American way of life are hostile to personality.
There is a popular notion about the United States that it is a ‘young nation’ with a ‘great future before it’. Apparent American defects are then described as the ‘faults of youth’ or ‘growing pains’. It is not difficult to see that the myth of ‘progress’ plays a large part in this judgement. According to the idea that everything new is good, America has a privileged role to play among civilised nations. In the First World War the United States intervened in the role of ‘the civilised world’ par excellence. The ‘most evolved’ nation had not only a right but a duty to interfere in the destinies of other peoples.
The structure of history is, however, cyclical not evolutionary. It is far from being the case that the most recent civilisations are necessarily ‘superior’. They may be, in fact, senile and decadent. There is a necessary correspondence between the most advanced stages of a historical cycle and the most primitive. America is the final stage of modern Europe. Guenon called the United States ‘the far West’, in the novel sense that the United States represents the reductio ad absurdum of the negative and the most senile aspects of Western civilisation. What in Europe exist in diluted form are magnified and concentrated in the United States whereby they are revealed as the symptoms of disintegration and cultural and human regression. The American mentality can only be interpreted as an example of regression, which shows itself in the mental atrophy towards all higher interests and incomprehension of higher sensibility. The American mind has limited horizons, one conscribed to everything which is immediate and simplistic, with the inevitable consequence that everything is made banal, basic and levelled down until it is deprived of all spiritual life. Life itself in American terms is entirely mechanistic. The sense of ‘I’ in America belongs entirely to the physical level of existence. The typical American neither has spiritual dilemmas nor complications: he is a ‘natural’ joiner and conformist.
Mencius Moldbug blames Protestantism:
We have caught the worm in the act of turning. The political program and perspective that we think of as progressive is, or is at least descended from, the program of a religious sect. Unsurprisingly, this sect, best known as ecumenical mainline Protestantism, is historically the most powerful form of American Christianity – and happens to be the direct, linear descendant of Professor Staloff’s Puritans. (You can also see it in abolitionism, the Social Gospel, the Prohibitionists, and straight on down to global warming. The mindset never changes.)
For a brief snapshot of where it is today, try this article. Note that Congregationalist and Puritan are basically synonyms, and American Unitarianism is a spinoff of Congregationalism. Of course, these belief systems have evolved since the time when these labels meant anything. Since the 1960s they have merged into one warm, mushy, NPR-flavored whole, which we here at UR sometimes refer to as Universalism. Michael Lerner is perhaps the ultimate Universalist.
Thus we see the whole, awful picture merge together. It is Cthulhu. We don’t just live in something vaguely like a Puritan theocracy. We live in an actual, genuine, functioning if hardly healthy, 21st-century Puritan theocracy.
European New Right figures such as Tomislav Sunic and Alain de Benoist blame Christianity and monotheistic religion in general:
Undoubtedly, many would admit that in the realm of ethics all men and women of the world are the children of Abraham. Indeed, even the bolder ones who somewhat self-righteously claim to have rejected the Christian or Jewish theologies, and who claim to have replaced them with “secular humanism,” frequently ignore that their self-styled secular beliefs are firmly grounded in Judeo-Christian ethics. Abraham and Moses may be dethroned today, but their moral edicts and spiritual ordinances are much alive. The global and disenchanted world, accompanied by the litany of human rights, ecumenical society, and the rule of law — are these not principles that can be traced directly to the Judeo-Christian messianism that resurfaces today in its secular version under the elegant garb of modern “progressive” ideologies?
It is a serious error to assume that totalitarianism manifests its real character only when it employs crushing coercion. Historical experience has demonstrated — and continues to demonstrate — that there can exist a “clean” totalitarianism, which, in a “soft” manner, yields the same consequences as the classic kinds of totalitarianism. “Happy robots” of 1984 or of Brave New World have no more enviable conditions than prisoners of the camps. In essence, totalitarianism did not originate with Saint-Just, Stalin, Hegel, or Fichte. Rather, as Michel Maffesoli says, totalitarianism emerges “when a subtle form of plural, polytheistic, and contradictory totality, that is inherent in organic interdependency” is superseded by a monotheistic one. Totalitarianism grows out of a desire to establish social and human unity by reducing the diversity of individuals and peoples to a single model. In this sense, he argues, it is legitimate to speak of a “polytheist social arena, referring to multiple and complementary gods” versus a “monotheistic political arena founded on the illusion of unity.”
Once the polytheism of values “disappears, we face totalitarianism.” Pagan thought, on the other hand, which fundamentally remains attached to rootedness and to the place, and which is a preferential center of the crystallization of human identity, rejects all religious and philosophical forms of universalism.
All of these claims are well-argued and I haven’t yet solidified my own opinion on the topic. But what I can say is that the central battle in this fight is not a return to tribalism, but the exorcism of liberalism from the white soul. How this can be done is a topic for another time.
The other major problem with white nationalism is that it is essentially an exclusionary form of multiculturalism. Two weeks ago, I wrote:
[White nationalism is] an ideological heresy born out of opposition to the insane, also-heretical doctrine of multiculturalism. If multiculturalism is feminism, white nationalism is the left-wing masculism of Glenn Sacks and Warren Farrell – a competing heresy that purports to be the answer to the ills caused by the former, but cannot solve them because it springs from the same flawed premises.
White nationalists want to group all whites under a united banner to face off against the dark-skinned, squid-eyed hordes. This is lunacy on multiple levels. To begin with, it is as wrong to toss white and European cultures into a blender as it is to toss all cultures into that blender. I don’t want Britain, Australia, France or any other country to be swamped with American culture anymore than I want them to be swamped with Arab, Indian, or Chinese culture. If I want to see McDonald’s, reality TV, and fat, white whales lumbering around in clothes that accentuate their ugliness, I can get that here in the states. The white nationalist vision will create ethnic and cultural confusion, as already exists in cities like Brussels and Montreal where white tribes interbreed and bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator.
Pragmatically, pan-Europeanism/pan-Aryanism is a non-starter. Whites worldwide not only show no signs of racial unity, they increasingly want nothing to do with each other:
- In the U.S., liberal blue-state and conservative red-state whites are self-segregating into their own communities, as shown by the increase in the number of “landslide counties,” counties which are won overwhelmingly by one presidential candidate. Secessionist movements like the Second Vermont Republic and the League of the South are popping up everywhere.
- Canada, a polyglot construction of the British Empire, is constantly confronted with belligerence from its French-speaking minority. Independence for Quebec failed by the slimmest of margins fifteen years ago, and the Quebecois are kept placated by an avalanche of concessions from the Anglo majority. Official bilingualism is the law of the land, despite the fact that French is hardly spoken west of Ottawa; Quebec is given a disproportionate share of seats in the House of Commons; and half of the Canadian prime ministers of the past forty years, English or French-speaking, Liberal or Conservative, have hailed from Quebec.
- In Europe, the Scots and Welsh want out of the United Kingdom, as evidenced by the growth of the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru. Vlaams Belang campaigns in Belgium to split the country down the middle between Flemings and Walloons. The European Union, a de facto alliance of white nations, will likely collapse if the global economic crisis worsens and productive nations like Germany have to keep bailing out failed states like Greece.
It’s easy to be friends in good times – the true test of friendship comes during seasons of tumult and discord, a test that whites around the planet are failing miserably. We forget that barely a century ago, the tribes of Europe sought to exterminate each other in a great war. Twenty years after they poured their lifeblood out onto the Western and Eastern Fronts, they decided to do it all over again, exhausting their power and falling under American and Russian hegemony in the process. The English, the French, and the Germans et al. will always hate each other, and no kumbaya singing on the part of white nationalists will change this. This is true of all races – if you were to drop 10,000 Zulus into Compton, for example, the throat-slitting would commence faster then you could drop the n-bomb.
And even if it weren’t for these factors, whites would still be too busy trying to one-up each other to come together, as Mencius Moldbug explains:
In Fjordman’s model, we see two groups: White and Swarthy. White people, or at least some of them, are gripped by some mysterious masochistic urge to self-destruction. If Whites unite, accept even just the slightest touch of White nationalism, and act collectively, they can defeat the anti-White neo-Communist Swarthy jihad that otherwise threatens to devour them all.
In my model, there are not two sides but five. Three of these sides are white, two are swarthy. And we see no mysterious masochism at all, just the usual hominid struggle for factional dominance. One of the white parties (Brahmin) is ganging up with the two swarthy parties (Dalit, Helot) to apply a good old-fashioned whupping to the other two white parties (Vaisya, Optimate). Just another afternoon of nasty on the History Channel.
Not only does my model clarify the reality, it clarifies the tactical options. We see immediately that Fjordman is asking the impossible. His solution is simply for the B faction to dump its DH allies and unite with its OV victims. The lion will lie down with the lamb. Yeah, right! Perhaps Fjordman could be so kind as to inform us of the last occasion on which this worked.
Now, it’s certainly likely that if the BDH alliance triumphs entirely and manages to wipe out all remnants of the OVs, the DHes will just have the Bs for breakfast. Judith Todd could tell you all about it. But has she recanted? Not even. By and large, the Brahmins are absolutely sincere. And since they are the ruling class, their ability to ignore reality is almost unlimited.
And, more to the point, what is the one ideology least likely to convince them to change their nefarious ways? What is the system of thought that Brahmins are most powerfully inoculated against? White nationalism! It’s a strategy that couldn’t be better designed to fail. It is almost eerie in its profound and incurable ineffectiveness.
I disagree with Moldbug’s shunning of nationalism, and I think his self-made ideology of “formalism” is pure insanity, but his analysis of the situation is dead right. If Marx was wrong in thinking the working classes of Europe would unite across national borders to take down the capitalist pig-dogs, white nationalists are wrong in thinking the existing castes of whites will unite across class borders to fight the teeming non-white masses. Vijay Prozak calls white nationalism “racial Marxism“:
What we have here, then, is a group of people claiming that all whites should be equal and should join together to commit racial holy war against non-whites, thus delivering us to a society that is a mirror image of our current one except that it is all “white,” including the mixed tribes mentioned above. Further, those who are involved in the quest wish to dominate this new society, and to exclude or execute those who have collaborated with the current society, much like revolutionaries have in the past. It is a revolutionary movement, not a constructive one; it wishes to tear down a hierarchy and replace it with a worker’s paradise, even if all the workers are ostensibly “white.” In short, it is racial Marxism, and it will prove as destructive to the Indo-European tribes as capitalist multiculturalism has. This is the reason it does not appeal to the Silent Majority: it would end their ability to separate themselves from the “base” rabble and achieve greater heights, therefore, White Nationalism is not the one roll of the dice we should take when reforming our society.
Some of you will counter my claim of permanent white disunity by pointing to the presence of black and Hispanic unity, as exemplified by the groups I named a few paragraphs up. Comparing minority nationalisms in the U.S. to white nationalism is comparing apples and oranges. American blacks have a united culture and a united sense of brotherhood because their previous tribal identities were destroyed in the Middle Passage. As part of the process of breaking down their newly-acquired slaves, British slavers forcibly deracinated blacks, as Gary Brecher explains:
…The English in Jamaica, Barbados and the Southern US states made sure slaves from different tribes were mixed up, made it punishable by flogging or worse to speak African languages, and forced the blacks to find Christ or die. (Ah, you gotta love those Evangelical assholes!)
In contrast, the French didn’t do this with their captives, which is part of the reason why the Haitian revolution was so successful. Brecher continues:
The French were sloppy. They let slaves from the same tribes stay together and speak their African languages. They let escaped slaves set up their own villages way inside the tropical forests. They let the slaves keep up African religions — that’s what voodoo is. And they started up a separate mulatto class.
As for Hispanic nationalism in the U.S., it’s a misnomer – all of the major “Hispanic” nationalist groups are either de jure or de facto Mexican nationalist, with little to no input from other Latin tribes. La Raza, MEChA, LULAC, MALDEF – all Mexican groups. Like blacks, their unity is based in something real. In contrast, American whites all came to the U.S. willingly and partially retained their cultures as a result. Culture cannot be fashioned out of whole cloth, but must grow organically from generations of shared cooperation and cohabitation. In attempting to force all whites into the same tribe, white nationalists are trying to construct a skyscraper in a swamp.
With all that said, white nationalism is not a completely failed enterprise. While it is still a heresy, it is a heresy that comes close to the truth. The necessity of nationalism, of each tribe and ethnic group possessing its own state, including whites, is the most important part of WN dogma. Concomitant with the science of human biodiversity is the irrefutable fact that tribes are different and possess different ways of doing things, and trying to force every tribe into the same mold can only end disastrously. This applies to whites in relation to each other as much as it applies to other races. The Dutch can handle drug decriminalization – the English can’t. The Swedish can handle cradle-to-grave socialism – the Americans can’t. The Liechtensteiners can handle laissez-faire capitalism – the French can’t. The Swiss can handle multiple tribes swearing allegiance to a single flag – the Italians can’t. The only logical position is to support nationalism of all stripes, in which each tribe gets its own nation and is allowed to maintain its own culture, traditions, and ways of doing things, maintaining the diverse tapestry that is the human race. I’m a convert to parallelism, the philosophy espoused by the American Nihilist Underground Society, who explain how it works here:
One area where this can be seen is homosexuality. For most heterosexuals, having homosexual behavior occur in neighborhoods or other areas where children are present is not positive; they would rather raise their children according to heterosexual role models and behavioral examples. However, homosexuality occurs, and the best data available suggests that in most cases it is inborn; obviously, some are induced into homosexuality much as many heterosexuals are brought into forms of deviant sexual behavior, through sexual abuse or conditioning in youth (hence the desire for normal, heterosexual role models; most heterosexuals also do not want promiscuity, coprophagia, BDSM, etc. occurring around their children even if solely in a heterosexual context). So what to do with homosexuals, for whom being raised in a heterosexual society can be oppressive, and heterosexuals, for whom having homosexual behavior around can be equally oppressive and deleterious? We think in parallel: some communities will choose to be heterosexual, and others homosexual, and when they meet on neutral ground, it is likely that neither will assert its morality as a dominant, inviolate rigid code. Morality after all is not something we can prove exists, but something we derive from natural structure in order to establish a civilization of the type we desire. Some civilizations will endorse promiscuity and coprophagia, but in doing so, they miss out on some opportunities granted to civilizations with a more disciplined moral code. The converse is also true. There is no one law for the ox and the raven; to do so is to commit tyranny.
Another area where this can be applied is that of recreational chemicals, which is our modern shorthand for perception-altering drugs. Some communities will deny alcohol and cigarettes; some will embrace LSD and marijuana and mushrooms and perhaps even go further. It is likely that the two will never find common ground except where the question of drug use does not arise (Wal-Mart?). When we see experiments in drug legalization, like British Columbia or Amsterdam or Christiania in Denmark, we see an artificial gold rush toward hedonism caused by the fact that, worldwide, there are few relatively safe places to go take drugs. Were it such that in every continent there were some area where the rules on such things were relaxed, it is likely that those who seek drugs could go there and pursue them at a fraction the cost of illicit use. This would not only curb crime, but keep drug use out of normal (heterosexual and homosexual) neighborhoods where such things are not desired as unintentional role models for children, and the cost of drug use – including, let’s be honest, increased laziness and pizza consumption – is considered funds misspent that could otherwise be directed toward bettering other aspects of the community. There is no one rule. We cannot “prove” that drugs are good, or bad, but we can see how in some places they would be helpful and in others, destructive. Do the Hindu communities where marijuana is a sacrament have greater crime and pizza consumption? Would Amsterdam have as many problems if it wasn’t the world nexus of marijuana tourism?
This may sound a bit like multiculturalism, but there’s a crucial difference. Multiculturalism is like dumping all of the animals in the zoo into the same pen and watching them devour each other – the parallelist vision of nationalism is like maintaining each species in its separate habitat where it belongs. This is the case that nationalists need to make to the aliens in their midst. We don’t hate them, we don’t wish them harm, and we don’t want to enslave or rule over them – we simply believe they don’t belong in our countries any more then we belong in theirs. This goes for all foreign tribes, including white ones. Englishmen don’t belong in Scotland any more than Tunisians belong in France, Koreans belong in Japan, or Arabs belong in Israel. We’re seeking an amicable divorce now that the marriage has been proven to be an utter failure. The alternative is a slow deterioration to anarchy and ethnic cleansing, as we saw during the Holocaust, the massacre at Srebrenica, and now the ongoing genocide of whites in Zimbabwe and South Africa.
Instead of fighting for a united white nationalism that would be disastrous if it ever came to fruition, white advocates should be fighting for individual white nationalisms, wherever they are. In the case of the U.S. and Canada, that means acknowledging the desires of the increasingly disparate white tribes to go their own separate ways. Southern nationalism, Vermonter nationalism, Texan nationalism, Cascadian nationalism, Quebecois nationalism, and so on. Keep in mind that turning back the virus of liberalism, however that might be done, is the key to success – otherwise, history will simply repeat itself. I don’t have a definitive plan for sorting out all these issues, including dealing with the presence of blacks who’ve been in the U.S. as long as whites have (per Brett Stevens’ presidential platform, everyone else can be paid to go back to their homelands) – that sort of thing is above my pay grade.
In closing, I should advise that there are no simple, clean solutions to the problems that plague us. Much like how memorizing a couple of pick-up lines isn’t sufficient to turn a Poindexter into a player, simply throwing out everyone with a shade of skin darker than yourself or a hooked nose isn’t going to make the pathologies in your own culture magically disappear. If white nationalists persist in substituting hate and transferal for self-reflection and proper advocacy and myopically reducing everything down to race, their movement won’t evolve beyond a 21st century version of a racist lynch mob. And that’s something no one with half a brain, even those turned on to racialism, will support. No my white brothers, the problem isn’t the blacks. The problem isn’t the Jews. The problem is YOU.
{ 101 comments… read them below or add one }
A good post and I agree that the issue for everyone, WNs and NAMs both, is liberalism. That disease must be extirpated for the good of all.
I am curious: do you think that Christian fundamentalist evangelicalism is affected in the same manner as mainline Protestantism?
I am thinking the answer is no, but also that Evangelical fundies like me have also absorbed some of the Enlightenment thinking that you decry above. Thus, while we’re not affected in the same manner, we are still vulnerable, and that vulnerability will eventually be expressed.
[Correct. Evangelicalism is a partial rejection of liberal thinking. Thing is, completely turning back the clock on liberalism is impossible. Mencius has written about this extensively. We can't unmake the Enlightenment, the sexual revolution, or any liberal advance - we can only go forward. This is the challenge that conservatives of all stripes have to face. - ed.]
Let’s play the devil’s advocate.
A WN can read everything you’ve said, and say this:
“OK, what you’ve said about liberalism yadda yadda is true, but fine, let us be liberal and pathetic and all that, but with whites only. We prefer that.”
This reduces the WN ideology from an overarching worldview down to a sort of extreme aesthetic preference for whiteness. Which in truth is probably how a large percentage of the less intellectual WNs feel.
The fulfillment of WN goals does mean that if in N hundred years, the population descending from today’s whites GIVES UP liberalism, then that population will still be white.
Or they might be conquered and wiped out by the Chinese before that.
So, the best justification for White Nationalism might be not, “WN will fix all of our problems NOW”, but rather “WN will guarantee a brighter future later on”. Or something like that. A significantly harder idea to sell, to be sure.
[SIGNIFICANTLY harder? If that's the best justification for white nationalism, they are fucked good and hard. - ed.]
“[SIGNIFICANTLY harder? If that's the best justification for white nationalism, they are fucked good and hard. - ed.]”
Yeah, what I have in mind basically means transforming WN from a mass movement that wishes to engage with the current world, to a collection of forward-thinking groups of survivors who AVOID engagement with the corrupt world of the present.
“Aryan Vault Dwellers”.
This kind of movement wouldn’t really be recognizable as “White Nationalism” at all. Functionally it’d be like a sort of esoteric religious order, whose members make a multi-generational vow not to mix with nonwhites. Final victory would not be guaranteed.
This is rubbish. Christianity is the single most important reason why white Europeans still mostly speak languages that are derived from Greek, Latin and the old germanic languages, not Arabic and Persian. It was the Catholic Church that, at least on a spiritual level, rebuilt the Roman Empire from its ashes in the form of “Christendom.” Without that, there would have been no united front against the Islamic invaders.
I’ll also add that freedom of religion itself is a “liberal idea.” It’s never been the norm in any part of the world, as even the “most tolerant” pagan societies have records of being brutal toward those who disagree with their views (even Hinduism can be quite savage in this respect). The same Greeks and Romans that persecuted Christians as pagans for opposing the old state cult, once converted to Christianity, turned their swords on the old state cult and its followers.
Furthermore, it was the Greek Orthodox Church that kept most of the learning of the Romans and Greeks alive during the collapse of civilization in the West. Far from being the cause of the loss of the ancient culture and learning, these “new rightists” should be thanking the Christian Church for its role in actually saving them from Islamic and pagan aggression.
A very long comment … sorry about that.
[Don't apologize, man. Long posts deserve long replies. - ed.]
======
Directionally this is accurate, but I think it underestimates the real depth of the problem.
Liberalism “comes from†the core of the Western tradition, unfortunately. This is why it is so resistant to long-term derailment – instead we have liberal ideas driving the bus, socially and politically, with “conservatives†functioning mostly as slowers-down of this track, more than anything else. Occasionally a right-wing resistance movement will take power and rule by use of extreme force for a time, but eventually liberalism comes back. That’s because liberalism *is* the West – it is the logical conclusion of the last 1,000 years of Western history.
How so?
People are wont to lay the blame for this at the feet of Christianity, noting the presence of “quas-Christian†ideas in quite a bit of liberal thought. However, the problem isn’t Christianity, but the trajectory Christianity took in the West. Following the schism of the Western and Eastern Churches, the West became disconnected from the ancient heritage – a heritage of culture and tradition which informed the development of Christianity during the first millennium, in East and West alike. Following the fall of Rome, however, and the rise of the former “barbarians†to power, secular and religious, in the West, the commonality of culture gradually broke down. The solidified following the schism, to the point of the West entering the “dark agesâ€. The light was still burning in Constantinople, but it wasn’t in the West because of the schism and the lack of access in the West to the cultural patrimony of the ancient world.
Of course, the West “rediscovered†this patrimony, through Moorish translations of it, with the rise of scholasticism in the West. However, this “rediscovery†was disastrous because it did not reflect the attitude that the early Church – which was intimately familiar with the Greek philosophical patrimony – took when approaching thinkers such as Aristotle. The Western scholastics, through no fault of their own mind you, were basically “reinventing the wheel†when it came to understanding the relationship between faith and reason – and reinventing it in a very unfortunate manner. The scholastics are the source of the beginning of the dictatorship of reason in the West, as well as the layers of the roots of the subsequent antagonism in the West between “faith†and “reasonâ€. By exalting reason to the degree they did (claiming, for example, as the Roman Church still does today, that the existence of God is deducible by reason), they forever compromised the faith of the West by laying the foundation for the subsequent, relentless challenge that reason would pose to the existence of faith in the West.
The “rediscovery†of the ancient pagan world did not stop there, of course. The humanities were next to be “rediscoveredâ€, resulting in the rise of humanism. Here again the relationship between Christianity and pagan culture had long been dealt with in the early Church of the first several centuries, but the wheel was again being reinvented – not taking pagan art forms and “Christianizing†them, as the early Church did, but instead embracing the fullness of the pagan message in terms of its exaltation of the human for its own sake – a thoroughly non-Christian idea which was being sponsored by the Christians of the West of this era.
The combination of scholasticism, with its ever-increasing weirdness (delving with philosophy into such mysterious matters as the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, or the precise nature of life after death), and humanism, with its increasing impatience with anything “imposed from above†beyond the level of the human person, led directly to the Protestant Reformation – a development which was the beginning of the end for the West in spiritual terms.
How so? The core problem of the Reformation was the nature of authority. The slogan regarding authority that was popularized by the reformers, and embraced by most of them, ranging from Luther to Calvin and beyond, was “sola scriptura†– “scripture alone†– as the source of authority. No other authority was admitted as legitimate, but was rather seen as “man-made†or the “tradition of men†rather than the word of God. While on its surface this idea sounds like it rejects a humanist idea, rejecting, as it does, “Tradition†precisely because it was thought to be of human rather than divine origin, in reality, and in practice, this idea exalts the human individual by freeing him from any external source of authority beyond the text of the Bible – a text which he reads himself and interprets himself. One result that would be predicted by this approach would be an ecclesial splintering – which is, of course, exactly what happened. In practice, Protestants began to coalesce around their own, in this case rather recent, “traditions of menâ€, yet these were formed by consensus from below rather than being “imposed†from above by a divine-human entity like the Church. The whole idea emphasized (and still does) the individual human being – it follows directly from the rise of humanism in the Renaissance and its critique of scholasticism.
Following the Reformation, the balance of power, in terms of determining the course of Western culture, shifted decisively to the Protestant powers. While Spain and Portugal colonized huge parts of the world, the general trend of Western culture was being determined by Protestant powers such as England and Holland, and then much later, Germany. And even ultra-Catholic France eventually revolted against its monarchy, and its clerical estate, becoming perhaps one of the most anti-Catholic countries in Europe following the French revolution.
This happened because the central idea of the Reformation – that authority rests with the interaction between an individual and a text – led more or less directly to the Enlightenment project. The thinkers of the Enlightenment simply followed through on this basic idea. If the truth of faith was to be found by reading the Biblical texts with the aid of human reason, it was only a matter of time until thinkers began to expand upon that and come to the conclusion that human reason itself was the critical point. In other words, once individual “interpretation†(based, as it is, largely on the reasoning an interpretative powers of the individual reading and interpreting) became the standard of authority, once that became liberated from a “diktat†of authoritative interpretation “from aboveâ€, human reason itself became exalted as the primary basis of authoritativeness, full stop. The thinkers of the Enlightenment were simply following through on the “idea†of authority which was hatched by the Reformation, and simply asked the question: “Why need we confine ourselves to that text?â€. It was only a matter of time until that question was asked, and only a matter of time until human reason became as exalted as Descartes did (cogito ergo sum) – a breathtaking reduction of humanity as much as it is the exaltation of human reason.
It will be objected as to why this is a bad thing. It’s a bad thing because once the Enlightenment got going down that track, it was again only a matter of time until it began attacking religion, as such, outright, as being “contrary to reasonâ€. Thus was laid the foundation of the contemporary secular state. At the same time, many of the old “moral rules†championed by Christianity were retained, to the extent supportable by reason as such. That’s the essence of why contemporary “liberalsâ€, who are the enthusiastic heirs of the Enlightenment for the most part, often see themselves as being deeply moral – they are following *certain* of the moral teachings which the West has inherited from its Christian period to the extent that these do not contradict reason, or the idea of the supremacy of the individual and the individual’s autonomy – something that follows from the exaltation of reason to the degree of being the sole arbiter of truth. At the same time, it explains the degree of what many “conservatives†would view as “moral decay†in the contemporary society – because, following human reason as the sole arbiter of moral truth, it goes without saying that much of what used to pass for “moral behavior†can be subject to disagreement by reasoned debate – it’s these areas that the contemporary liberal does not seek to regulate, because the moral rules in these spaces are subject to reasonable debate, and reason does not provide an obvious, universal answer – in such cases, according to this way of thinking, moral rules are something of a “jump ballâ€, and therefore should be left to the individual autonomy to be resolved. Hence the enthusiasm of liberals for the “social gospel†and “social morality†and their famous disinterest in any universal *personal* morality on issues such as sexuality.
The problem for the West, therefore, is that liberalism directly follows from virtually all of Western history for the past 1,000 years. It’s not an aberration – it’s the logical outcome of the developments of the past 1,000 years, and particularly of the Protestant Reformation and its aftermath. This is not to say that I lay the blame at the foot of the Protestant reformers – the Reformation itself was the product of very unfortunate developments in the Western Church prior to the Reformation, and the often uncritical adoption of scholastic and humanist ideas into the life of the West prior to the Reformation. It was almost inevitable that these developments would eventually lead to the ideas of the Reformation or something close to them, while, of course, no specific historical outcomes were inevitable.
As for current fundamentalist Protestants – while these are more effective in their “conservatism†than others are due to the tendency to segregate from mainstream culture, nevertheless this is simply another variant of modernism. Fundamentalists adopt many of the same intellectual assumptions as those of their adversaries – namely positivism and the idea of the scientific method as being relevant to all truth claims. For example, in response to secularist claims that Genesis does not coincide with scientific theories about the past – from biology and physics alike – fundamentalists respond that the text of Genesis is literally and scientifically true. This is based on the ideas that (1) in order for the Bible to be “true†it be literally or scientifically true (positivism) and (2) in order for the Bible to have the authority to make truth claims at all, it must be true in the same positivist way in each and every case (scientific method). In other words, fundamentalists take a paradoxically modern, positivist and scientific approach to the Bible – believing the faith to be at risk unless Genesis can be proven (in each and every case, again, in order to pass the scientific method approach, where a single false result nullifies the entire hypothesis) to be literally and scientifically true in the same way that science claims its own conclusions are true – in other words, in a positivist way. Fundamentalism, then, is fundamentally modernist in its assumptions about the nature of truth, the way truth must be discerned in order to be “true†and so on – despite the protestation from them that they are following “revealed truthâ€. The way that they approach the scriptural text belies this – while they do claim that the text is a priori true due to having been revealed, yet the “proof†of its truth in time is done by claiming that the text meets the standards for truth claims accepted by the secular world – the scientific method and positivism. The end result here is that it puts people in a bind – having to choose between the truth claims made by science and the truth claims made by the Bible, if one must assume that both of these truth claims must be true in the same way – one must pick one, and not the other. The problem here is that it sets up a false test of Christianity, and one which would appear to be destined to grow smaller and under increasing pressure as science continues to advance in its own sphere of knowledge.
The comparison to the Fathers of the early-ish Church is instructive here. The Fathers, when preaching on Genesis, almost never take a positivist, literalist interpretation – allegory, symbolism, prefigurement, moral truth and so on were the touchstones for most patristic preaching on Genesis. Literalism was the approach taken to the New Testament, for the most part, because these were very recent events which the Apostles and others witnessed in recent history – as compared with the ancient events described, and in multiple ways, in Genesis. Therefore the idea that Genesis must be literally and scientifically true for it to be true at all is an idea that the early Church considered and rejected, thereby turning what in the West is taken to be a fundamental contradiction between “faith†and “reason†into mostly a non-issue (provided, of course, that science does not insist on making truth claims outside its own domain – something science now routinely does in the contemporary West, and something which undoubtedly would be condemned by the Fathers).
It’s for all of these reasons that I believe strongly that the only “cure†for liberalism and scientism and positivism and secularism and so-on in the West is for the West to turn its back on itself, and choose a new path. A path that is not based on the developments of Western culture of the last 1,000 years. I do not think that this will happen, however – it’s too much to ask of any culture, really, and particularly one with the spectacular degree of self-hatred and self-annihilating tendencies as the contemporary West has. But the issue certainly is not skin-deep … it is *bone*-deep in the West. The West *is* liberalism, full stop. It can be nothing else, unless and until it gives up on being the “Westâ€, and embraces again what it once was many centuries ago.
[That is a...disturbing thought.]
@Brendan
A really interesting reading. I liked it. And not just because it confirms something that I discovered after a while by digging deep enough in the Manosphere.
What is that something?
Simple: Human beings NEED religion, because in the second that people realize that there’s nothing else besides their banal existences, there’s absolutely nothing that keeps them to descend in hedonism.
It can be sexual hedonism (PUAs), simple gluttony (America’s overweight population) or all other forms of stimulation (drugs, TV, videogames, etc).
Why is that? Because human beings are irrational, that truth is not only a reason to make fun of Ayn Rand’s followers, is the why a strict moral code was needed to ensure human cooperation and survival, hence the Bible.
@Ferdinand
The problem with your solutions is that, when you establish that every tribe is different, there’s no reason of why people shouldn’t kill each other for their stuff. Forced integration IS the way to keep those who you conquered in your domain.
People will simply NOT just give each other their own space and live in peace with each other, they will try to take the territory and goods of their neighboring countries by force. See: Europe.
Human history is a long list of wars because of that. People just can’t get along with each other. If we are going to recognize all tribes, better have a way to keep them in peace. I don’t believe that such thing exist.
[I'm not pitching this as a Solution to All Our Ills. War and strife will always exist. The goal is not to create a perfect world - because that's impossible - but to create a world that is better than the one we have. - ed.]
The denial of this fact is simply for self-preservation, nobody wants to die in a war. The decadent empires are just a delay, but you can be damn sure that people will delay it as long as possible.
@Gx1080
That reaction to nihilism is not irrational. When all paths lead to a dirt nap, they become equal in the end. The only difference between them is how bumpy the road is to the final destination.
An even more important reason why white nationalism is doomed is that race is not even the main criteria by which people select their “tribes”, if one at all. Social class, profession, hobbies, ideology, religion, and language play just as important of a role, which I think you do recognize. However, in some cases, they completely supplant any importance that race might play. The vast majority of people in this country have non-white friends, probably because they share one of the other criteria that I have mentioned. Almost everybody has at least one friend or family member — if not more — who is in a interracial relationship, and who might even have multiracial kids. While I agree that ethnic conflict exists, there are too many multiethnic tribes in existence to allow for a return to ethnic segregation.
My Muay Thai kickboxing class is more ethnically diverse than the city that I live in, and the fact is that our shared love of Muay Thai automatically gives us a connection that we aren’t going to automatically have with a guy of the same ethnic background that we see walking down the street. That is one of many many “tribes”. I sticking to “my own kind”, in that the brown dudes who I do Muay Thai with are closer to being “my own kind” than a skinny-jeans-wearing white emo hipster in the bar down the street. A lot of people belong to tribes that have nothing to do with race, and they aren’t going to break up just because WN’s think that race is a more important criteria. I don’t think that sporadic riots caused by ghetto urban blacks is likely to lead to their breakup either. (Most whites who do have black friends and who don’t engage in riots themselves do not have friends from that particular group of blacks, and are capable of differentiating.)
I also dispute the notion that ethnic nationalism is really as prevalent among non-whites as most posters here believe. Studies I have seen have shown that non-whites are just as approving of interracial marriage as whites — if not more so — and that their out-marriage rate is actually higher than ours. To me, that is evidence against the notion that non-whites are natural racial nationalists. The existence of Mecha and La Raza doesn’t mean much. Is there any evidence that these groups are actually representative of the opinions of most Mexican-Americans? Most Hispanics that I have met seem pretty apolitical to me.
Most people who live in metro areas are cosmopolitan in their lifestyle. That’s why WN is a non-starter. There will be ethnic tensions, but people will just have to work through them, as a breakup upon ethnic lines would probably be much more costly than just dealing with them. Most countries in the world, with the exception of Korea, are multiethnic. The European and Anglo countries aren’t exactly exceptional in this regard.
The only reason why I ever explored the WN ideas is because I once had a worry that white women — or at least the “white” phenotype among women — would become “extinct”. But then I learned a little bit about genetics, and realized that wasn’t too much of a danger.
The main problem is in the laws of each country and government. Are these laws beneficial to the people of the country or no? This is the main question.
“Multiculturalism” is part of the law but it is not beneficial to the people because it is ambiguous. What is “multiculturalism”? Is it having different tribes? Or just having different cultures?
Besides, the idea that there are nations in this world and that each nation has its own independent government is also at the root of the problem.
A nation is by itself a single tribe. So how come you can have multicultural nations? You can have multiple divisions of one common tribe, but in the case of the USA, you don’t have a common tribe.
It should be clear that when someone becomes American or French, he leaves his old nationality. An Italian who becomes American, ceases to be Italian. This should be the rule.
The problem with the law is that it does not differentiate between citizens and subjects. Citizens are the members of one nation or tribe. Subjects are those under one government. You can have many tribes who are subjects of one government. The de facto reality is that citizens nowadays are subjects and this is how they act.
Probably, one solution for the USA is that all the tribes mix, and if not, remove their tribal affiliations and belong to one tribe “the Americans”. Then, they should change the laws.
I have some ideas about the flaws of the modern nation-states system. If you like, I can write a short article about it.
“But what I can say is that the central battle in this fight is not a return to tribalism, but the exorcism of liberalism from the white soul.”
Ferdinand, I think adopting tribalism by definiton means rejecting liberalism for the very simple reason that those two concepts are ideologically incompatible. There has never been a single human community in history which was tribalist AND liberal.
[Right. Perhaps I should have written that we have to exorcise the TENDENCY towards liberalism. - ed.]
The problem is that the white majority in the US and Western Europe will never adopt tribalism due to their complacency and sense of cultural superiority. They think they are so advanced and cultured that tribalism is below them because it is the mentality of dark-skinned savages. Steve Sailer has written about this a couple of years ago.
fwiw…I’ve long thought of myself as a libertarian tribalist….liberty for my tribe and fuck yours. Something like that, anyway.
Thus we see the whole, awful picture merge together. It is Cthulhu. We don’t just live in something vaguely like a Puritan theocracy. We live in an actual, genuine, functioning if hardly healthy, 21st-century Puritan theocracy.
Interesting; I heard a much more pithy summation of Moldbug’s statement almost ten years ago by Catholic author Mark Shea: We are a nation of apostate Puritans.
I don’t think Christianity, the Enlightenment, Puritans, loss of Paganism, religion, or anything along those lines are to blame for the current state of affairs, which is that European White natives will soon be a minority in their own nations, and White Americans soon will be the same in theirs.
The real driving reason (and why WN are totally irrelevant is): WHITE WOMEN DON’T HAVE KIDS ANYMORE.
That’s it. That’s the sole reason for everything. White women don’t have kids. Because they don’t want to. Meanwhile, Muslim and Mexican women have them galore. If immigration stopped tomorrow in Arizona and the Netherlands, both would be majority (80%) Mexican and Muslim respectively. Because of the simple fact that the kids already born are mostly non-White, and the differential fertility rates.
America in 1940 was 89% White, 10% Black, and 1% EVERYTHING ELSE. You can check the US Census for past results (available as PDFs). Check it yourself. Sure immigration was part of that number changing, but mostly it has been White women not having kids (Black women mostly don’t either, they are now only 12.5% of the population).
This is not an exclusively White phenomena. Japan doesn’t have kids, either. TFR around 1.1 like Italy’s. China, in coastal regions, even with relaxation of the One Child rule, mostly doesn’t have kids. Same for South Korea. Same for IRAN. Or Tunisia. Or Algeria.
Now, what is going on? Iran and Japan and Tunisia are hardly hotbeds of enlightenment, or Puritans, or the Reformation, or Christianity, much else in common with the West. Yet they suffer demographic collapse. True they don’t openly loathe themselves like Westerners, but they aren’t having kids either. Which speaks to self-loathing even if not expressed.
Westerners are just more open about things. We let it all hang out.
There was plenty of Enlightenment thought, plenty of Puritan heresy, plenty of post-Christian One-Worldism, plenty of anti-Western folks, in America of 1940. Suffering through a brutal Depression. Yet, the attitude towards America was far more positive, far more upbeat, far more future oriented, without any self-loathing. Someone preaching America Sucks would have been thoroughly roughed up, if not lynched. America was the home of Superman, of Captain America, of Republic Serials glorifying Cowboys. It was totally unlike America of Today, only 70 years later. Why?
The answer to me is not somehow evil Enlightenment mind-rays, parasitical thoughts, or anything like that driving ordinary people to hate their country, race, religion, and heritage. Since most ordinary people live simple lives oriented around family, food, money, entertainment, and the like. Such as local holidays, sports clubs, regionalism, and the like. This is how humanity always behaves — high culture and intellectualism is for rich people with time on their hands.
Rather, what is wrong with the West, and Iran, and Japan, and Algeria, and Tunisia, and Russia, and Coastal China, is the contradiction of female equalism.
Putting women in a chador, or restricting their workplace, and social freedom, leads to dead-weight economic loss. Not even Islamic Republic of Iran, Islamic and ultra-Islamic to the core, can afford to exclude women from the workplace, political participation, and modernism. A global economy and desire for ever increasing levels of wealth means maximizing the productivity and competitiveness of the workforce, which means large scale female participation, and in effect equalism. A rough equality, even if in places like Japan, or South Korea, or Iran, or Algeria, or Tunisia, male dominance and rule remains. The women in these nations still work, have their own careers, their own money, and their own independence, which if less than those of women in the West is vastly greater than their grandmothers, or for that matter Women in the West in 1890.
Roissy’s trio of female equality, contraception, and anonymous urban living explain most of the West’s destruction.
Women in the West, or Iran, or Japan, find the men around them their equal. And sexually repellent to boring. Not interesting. Certainly not worth having kids with. If the NEtherlands native women had kids at the rate of Muslim women, Muslims would remain a minor nuisance of no real import, rather than the destined masters of the nation. If Netherlands women had these kids, they would also not tolerate the denigration of their culture, their history, their race, their kids future in the Netherlands. Of course they don’t, so they are voting with the wombs on the unworthiness of the men around them.
Muslim men from say, Algeria, who would be equal and uncompelling at home, in the Netherlands, or France, dominate their women, relying on welfare and transfer payments instead of the tyranny of economic competitiveness to make themselves more attractive to women.
Women find repulsive, or boring at best, men who are their equal.
The West, out of economic necessity, made Women the equal of men.
Therefore, women in the West (and other places) find their male peers revolting or boring, refuse to have kids with them, and worship other cultures and men from more dominating cultures and races as superior to their inferior peers.
What, therefore is the solution? [I will note that Jews, among the Western diaspora and in Israel itself, face the same demographic annihilation as Jewish women find Jewish men boring to revolting due to equality, the sole exceptions being ultra-Orthodox who sacrifice economic competitiveness for male domination and sexiness, and depend on wealth transfers from non-Orthodox. If WN hate Jews, well Jews are busy not having kids and will soon disappear. A prospect I as a philo-semite find lamentable as Italians or Japanese disappearing.]
The solution is to make men slightly more high in status than women, even a minor adjustment will do the trick, and convince women that such men with slightly higher status are men with vastly increased status socially and culturally (if not economically and politically).
This would mean open celebration of a nerdy engineer as “smarter than” a woman, with female characters celebrated as “hip and with it” regarding the man of slightly higher cultural/social status as “a great catch.” Or similar means done culturally and socially to mark ordinary men as more “brave” or “enduring” than politically-economically equal women.
This would result in: 1. A vote of confidence in Western men, culture, religion, heritage, race, background, history, culture and so on with, 2. Lots of babies by such men.
Gone would be Sex and the City harridans, replaced by twenty something women happily raising two little toddlers, considering themselves the lucky ones, with a guy making the same basic salary but considered a cultural and social superior to his wife. Even if only a bit.
Stop over-intellectualizing the matter. Whites are a minority of the world’s population (about 10-12%), and currently dwindling even more in to minority status.
Minority status would not be a major problem except for the fact that nearly all White nations are currently being invaded by hordes of immigrants, most of them primarily of Asiatic descent. This is about highly evolved Whites resisting the invasion of the faceless and primitive hordes of Asia and Africa. If immigration had been completely cut off, Whites being a world racial minority would not be a problem – but it continues nearly unabated, and if it continues for just a couple more decades The West will die a slow, agonizing death. We are being overrun in our own lands – that is what White Nationalists want to prevent first and foremost. White nations for Whites only, just as all other nations composed of Asians and Africans have their own nations which they don’t want flooded with Whites.
I wouldn’t have a problem if the racial groups supplanting Whites were superior to us – as the Whites invaded and took the lands of primitive stone-age Indians and semi-Negroids in Australia – but the fact is that the races taking over White nations are decidedly INFERIOR to us in nearly every way. They do not care for higher values, science, functional economies, learning, law and order, and so on – they are just here to breed and consume, breed and consume. Judging from the nations they came from, when they take over they won’t be able to maintain a high level of civilization, and they will descent back in to primitive barbarism as soon as the last Whites perish and the Jews scurry away to find a new post to bleed to death. See THE REVOLT AGAINST CIVILIZATION: THE MENACE OF THE UNDER MAN: http://www.archive.org/details/revoltagainstciv00stoduoft
This is an underground Asiatic demographic war against the White West – the Orient vs. the Occident. Sub-Saharan Negroids are so primitive as to be almost insignificant in the grand scheme of things, they are just an annoyance to both Whites and Asiatics. But the Oriental hordes are the main issue because they are ones swarming The West – the Latin Americans in the USA, the Near Easterners in Europe, the East Asians in Australia – a swarm of ravenous human parasites who did not build this culture, or our economies, or our science, or our art, and so on – they are trying to appropriate what we White Westerners have created and earned just because they breed like locusts. The great tragedy of the 21st century thus far is the disgusting triumph of quantity over qualit. And the irony of all this is that they are breeding at our expense, using the techniques and technologies which we invented – medical, agricultural, sanitation, etc…nearly all invented or formulated by Whites since the Age of Reason and used by the non-White 3rd world hordes in the last 5-6 decades to send their birthrates through the roof: while that surplus population of overbreeding dimbulbs of the 2nd and 3rd world is the main export to The West.
The danger of the Jew is that they are, at base, Orientals. They are in many ways the masterminds of the Oriental hordes invading The West: by holding disproportionate power and influence in government, law, academia, the mass media, and so on, especially in the rapidly declining (Jew-rotted) USA and UK, they are the ones primarily responsible for opening the door in the last 40-50 years for all the Asiatic gutter scum of Latin America, the Near East, and Asia proper to invade Western nations. This was done to first and foremost pollute the blood of their ancient and hated racial enemy – the White Western race – via mass-miscegenation, and also to keep their fake Judeoplutocratic economy going post-WWII because Whites are about quality over quantity and do not breed fast enough to keep the Jewish dominated hyper-capitalist system going at a brisk enough pace for the Jewish parasites.
If an when the Occident falls to the Orient, the crown of human evolution – the White race – will be dragged down in to the Oriental gutter of mass conformism, consumerism, and ecocide, and all higher Western goals, and ideals, and beauty, and technology will be replaced by a stultifying Mongoloid + Negroid mass of ant-like Soviet untermenschen ruled over by an elite of greedy and repugnant Jews.
The USA is on its way to becoming just another 2nd world Latin American-esque ‘Banana Republic’ a la Brazil – if you do not want that to happen, if you are willing to stand up and resist the mass-miscegenation, you must become a White Nationalist.
Whiskey:”The West, out of economic necessity, made Women the equal of men.”
Actually, blame Jewish feminists for that – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jewish_feminists
The WASPs, or Germans, or even the French have nothing comparable to that. Yeah, there were some White women – non-radical suffragettes and women’s rights activists – agitating for the vote in Western nations, but the Jewish feminists – starting in the 1960s especially – went insane with the equality thing so that now women are now not seen as the equal to men but rather superior to them even though the entirety of Western technology and culture was produced almost entirely by men.
So anon666 is willing to give up all of Western culture – law and order, functional economies, science, technology, ample food, clean water, pretty women, the best art and literature in human history, philosophy, etc – for a Muay Thai kickboxing class.
Says a lot about our current White yuppie class, doesn’t it? How ever will you enjoy your top-notch French wine and cheese when there are no longer any White French people around to make it?
anon666:”Most people who live in metro areas are cosmopolitan in their lifestyle.”
For most people that isn’t going to be the case for all that much longer – a few decades at most. With the end of cheap and abundant oil/energy the cosmopolitan lifestyle of multiracialism, endless partying, yuppie lifestyles, abundant food, and so on is going to come to an end. Then you’ll see how ‘nice’ all of your non-White friends are when you are competing for food, living space, energy supplies, etc.
The only thing keeping the system functioning at this point is top-notch White/Western brains: as those people are replaced in the coming decades by ignorant masses of lower intelligence 2nd and 3rd world immigrants the system will falter. Best to enjoy it while you can though, eh? “It’s a party in the USA,” right?
Thing is, completely turning back the clock on liberalism is impossible.
Nor would it be desireable. We live every day with the absurdity and viciousness of liberalism, but how many people would really be happier in a truly traditional society. This isn’t to say I buy into the liberal story that all was oppression and darkness before liberalism came along, but I’m really not sure that the social arrangements of 1850 or 1450 or 250 were better than what we have now.
The problem with liberalism is not that it is always a bad thing, but that it has no way to limit itself. It is all devouring. Everything must be perfectly rational and perfectly fair to every individual on the planet, no matter how insane, past a certain point, such a goal is, and no matter what other legitimate goods have to be sacrificed to meet such a goal.
I take heart in understanding that multiracial liberalism hangs on a very thin string. It’s an ideology similar to Communism, in that people pretend to believe it, but their private choices say otherwise.
Moldbug’s theory of BDH-OV struggle explains a lot, but he’s too fatalistic about the immutability of these fronts. Times change, generations pass. Yesterday’s commie is today’s capitalist. Who’s not to say that the next wave of Brahmins will decide that their V’s make better workers, make prettier daughers, and don’t litter as much. And act accordingly.
(unintended typos in previous comment)
As to Whiskey’s cry about white women not having children, that’s Mark Steynian malignant hogwash. I don’t know if Whiskey just likes to wallow in despair, or if he’s got an agenda to demoralize. But white birthrates are not ZERO. I know lots of white women who are having children. Milions of white children are born every year. Even with low TFRs, we’ll still be more numerous in the next century than we were in the last.
Furthermore, if you redefine ‘white’ to include many (not all) Turks, Arabs, central Asians, east Asian / white mixes, and Latin Americans, the numbers are solid.
If you think that whites are too small a percentage of the global population, then remember that low-IQ peoples’ present numbers are inflated beyond autonomous sustainability, as they are on West’s life support.
Ferd,
A interesting piece to say the least. (and a very interesting response by Brendan)
Here’s my response:
WNs are inherently anti-liberal and any move toward a white nationalist society would necessarily require a move toward authoritarianism. Forced relocations and segregation are not something a truly liberal society could endorse. (Although the fairly liberal United States has endorsed it in the past) Further, a racially separated society would require clamping down on the freedoms of whites as was seen in Apartheid South Africa. That WN is so anti-liberal is the reason why it will likely never take hold in the United States (although it make take hold in Britain.)
I absolutely agree with Brendan that liberalism (in the classical sense) is the West, unlike him however, I see this as the source of the West’s greatness. During the time of the Caliphate, the most advanced civilization in the world was Islamic while northern Europe was lagging behind. Why did this change? In my view, it’s because the Christian world turned to liberalism and the Islamic world turned to tribalism. Given the choice, I don’t believe that anyone here would rather live in a racially pure Nordic village in 1010 than in the United States in 2010. If this is so, than I believe that you have liberalism to thank for your standard of living.
Ferdinand,
You bring up some salient points. These ideas are always rolling around in my head. Are Whites to blame? Could we solve our problems by simply taking a reactionary route, kicking out all the non-whites, and returning to 1950s America? Or are our problems rooted much deeper?
I could write for hours about this, but I’ll cut the crap. At the risk of sounding ‘reductionist’ I’ll say that we could solve 90% of our problems by excluding all non-Whites and Jews. There would still be ‘philosophical’ problems at the root of our culture, but they wouldn’t be as destructive.
America was always a flawed creation, IMO. But our flaws were kept under control until the 20th century. In 1969 only 5% of White babies were born out of wedlock. In 2009 that number was 28%. (The national average is 40%, so Whites are still considerably “better” than the darker races.) In 1965 there was a major blackout in the Northeastern U.S. but there was no widescale looting or crime. On July 13, 1977 it happened again, only this time there was massive violence and looting. Over five hundred police were wounded and over four thousand looters were arrested. Only a few days ago rioting broke out in Los Angeles after the Lakers won their game. Ridiculous.
But pre-1960s America didn’t suffer this crap on a regular basis. True, civil unrest has occurred from time to time. But it was largely a response to something important, like the New York Draft Riots of 1863. Not a Lakers game. If ‘liberalism’ or some other cultural trait was the biggest cause of our modern decline, then it would have been apparent sooner.
All of the worst aspects of America’s individualist culture were suppressed until recent decades. Liberty was not understood as the pursuit of degeneracy. “Gay Days” at Disneyland would have horrified pre-1960s America.
My time has run out so I have to wrap this up for now. Basically, if you look at all the movements to legitimize degeneracy, unchecked individualism, left-wing politics, etc, you’ll be staring directly at Jewish influence. The founding stock of this country realized there was a problem with these people in 1924. They were unfortunately too late in their efforts. By 1918 the student body at Harvard was already 20% Jewish. Today our Supreme Court has zero WASPs, the founding stock of this country, but three Jews. (Soon to be.)
Finally, I’m sorry that I hadn’t bothered to read your site more, since you are a rare type that actually tries to understand other people’s ideas rather than dismiss them for superficial reasons. I highly respect that attitude.
“Instead of fighting for a united white nationalism that would be disastrous if it ever came to fruition, white advocates should be fighting for individual white nationalisms, wherever they are.”
I think most white nationalists would agree with this statement. I’ll say that we do yearn for a greater level of cooperation among the various white peoples, as we are all too aware of the devastation wrought by the fratricidal wars of the last century. I don’t think that this desire to prevent a repeat of prior disasters in any way implies a desire to homogenize whites. That would definitely be a minority position, at best.
Moving on, I agree with you that non-whites are a symptom and not the disease. But the reality is that, right now, we are in fact being swamped by non-whites, and are well on our way to becoming at first a minority, then rapidly a vanishing minority. We are, to quote big chief, in heap big trouble – in (formerly) white country after white country.
Further, Jewish influence on the media and academia is so strong and pervasive that we can only get our message out on various internet forums and blogs. There will be no long march through the institutions for us, for the simple reason that our opponents are totalitiarian minded and will not hire any known white nationalists. The normal avenues are, more or less, closed to us. We have quite the boot across our necks.
Point is that we have a very real and concrete problem, not merely an abstract or metaphysical one. White nationalism has not yet matured into a full and complete philosophy that deals with the complete range of human existence and endeavor. I believe that, in time, it can and it will. Our version of tribalism needs to be fleshed out in full, but the maturity is just not there yet.
However, white nationalism does accurately identify our current opponents, opponents who are stifling us and swamping us as we speak. Our desires for a deeper philosophy aside, part of this is just animalistic struggle. Right now, we are losing to certain specific competing tribes. Big time. Either we win or our opponents succeed in destroying us.
Achieving an all white ethnostate will not solve all of our problems, this is true. But at least there will STILL BE SOME WHITE PEOPLE AROUND TO WORK ON OUR PROBLEMS.
Put another way, in order to work on my problems, I find it helpful to be, well, alive. Being able to fog a mirror has its perks. So it is with the various white peoples. To solve the deeper problems that we clearly have as a people, it would be helpful for us to still exist as a people. Kind of prereq, don’t you think? Well, white nationalism seeks to provide that.
It’s fine and dandy to point out that white nationalism is as of now an incomplete philosophy, but that doesn’t make it wrong. It just makes it, well, incomplete. It accurately identifies our most pressing opponents, something pretty much nobody else does. It accurately identifies a solution: the ethnostate and self-determination.
While it’s fine to point out that white nationalism is incomplete, that should never be allowed to serve as an excuse for denying the existence or importance of certain opponents. Doing so is an attempt to obfuscate and distract from the reality of the situation. Let’s face it, that’s what some of these critics of white nationalism are in fact doing, and to me at least, it’s transparent bullshit. The job of the intellectual white advocate is to help flesh out white nationalism, not make the perfect the enemy of the good, and certainly not to obscure the areas where white nationalism is spot on.
The big problem with Evangelicalism is that it is a populist form of religion and thus has all the problems and pathologies, as well as the virtues, of any populist movement and thus is not really an effective opposition to the liberal juggernaut. Relying on the common people to be the last bastion of traditionalism was always a phenomenally stupid idea. Furthermore, things like the rejection of evolution by natural selection seem almost calculated to thoughtful people away from the faith.
Which leads me to Thursday’s maxim #1: The popular form of every major world religion will be, without exception, completely retarded.
I take heart in understanding that multiracial liberalism hangs on a very thin string. It’s an ideology similar to Communism, in that people pretend to believe it, but their private choices say otherwise.
I am afraid this is wrong. As Ferdinand has shown, liberalism goes really deep in our culture. People are immersed in it and there is no deep dissatisfaction with the system as it now stands. According to the latest happiness research, men are, despite the current misandrist culture, the happiest they have ever been. Liberalism is so seductive because it really does have its positive side. Its only people who think in the long term who see much of a problem with how things are going.
Now, I’m not one of those crazy doommongers that think the West is in any immediate danger of collapse. There’s a lot of ruin in a nation. But I’ve said it before, Rome did fall. It would be foolish to think it couldn’t happen to us.
You Know I’m Right says:
“So anon666 is willing to give up all of Western culture – law and order, functional economies, science, technology, ample food, clean water, pretty women, the best art and literature in human history, philosophy, etc.”
For the record, I don’t think that mass immigration from impoverished countries is a good idea. I think that allowing in a limited number of skilled professionals — maybe in the tens of thousands per year, not the hundreds of thousands or millions — is a good idea, as they do have something to contribute to the “functional economies, science, technology, ample food [and] clean water”
Classical art, literature and philosophy is reproduced in thousands of places. It isn’t going anywhere.
Pretty women: Perhaps you should learn how genetics works. A person who is a product of two parents who are only half-white has a 1 in 4 chance of looking like a stereotypical blonde-haired, blue-eyed Swede if both parents are carriers of the recessive allele for for blonde hair and blue eyes. Women who look white are not going away as the result of intermarriage. The genetic material is not automatically lost because of it. When you think about it, “white” genetic material has a far greater footprint than it ever had in history. Pre-1492, it was confined to one continent, namely Europe. Now, European DNA is dominant on four continents. Even in Latin America, whites are are a plurality at 37 percent, and mestizos — who are about 40-60 percent white — come in second at 33 percent.
Anecdotally, I had a girlfriend who was half-Mexican and half-white. In appearance, she was completely indistinguishable from an ordinary white chick. She had green eyes even. I’m completely European (and mostly northern European), and i have brown eyes and dark hair. This half-Mexican girl looked whiter than I do. As opposed to breeding out the white, intermarriage bred out the Mexican!
Also, my tastes aren’t confined to just white women. I think mestiza chicks from Colombia are pretty fucking hot (Mexican girls tend to be too fat, although not all of them). Eurasian women like Kristin Kreuk are pretty smokin’ too.
“For most people that isn’t going to be the case for all that much longer – a few decades at most. With the end of cheap and abundant oil/energy the cosmopolitan lifestyle of multiracialism, endless partying, yuppie lifestyles, abundant food, and so on is going to come to an end. Then you’ll see how ‘nice’ all of your non-White friends are when you are competing for food, living space, energy supplies, etc.”
I fail to see how anything that I said has anything to do with yuppies and partying. In the cities and suburbs that I have lived in, nobody — of any class background or lifestyle preference — is devoid of non-white friends or doesn’t have friends or family members that are in interracial relationships. That includes family-oriented conservatives. White nationalists are an anomaly among white people, conservatives included. The point is that we are already too intermingled for a split upon ethnic lines to be appealing to anybody, but you failed to grasp that, preferring to paint a caricature of wine-drinking and cheese-eating yuppies. What does that have to do with ANYTHING?
As for everybody’s non-white friends banding up with their ethnic kindred and hunting down and eating their former white friends in response to a peak oil crisis, well, I suppose that could happen, but it seems more likely that they will provide assistance to and receive assistance from people that they already have connections with, as it’s easier than attempting to network with complete strangers. I suppose things could turn out like Bosnia or Rwanda, but if so, whites of different political views are just as likely to kill each other as whites and non-whites are.
“The only thing keeping the system functioning at this point is top-notch White/Western brains: as those people are replaced in the coming decades by ignorant masses of lower intelligence 2nd and 3rd world immigrants the system will falter.”
You’re referring to the cognitive elite, which is a multiracial caste of people. Most white people are not a part of said cognitive elite, and do not offer any creative contributions to technological development. Most jobs are grunt work, and the vast majority of people of every ethnicity do said jobs. Obviously, certain ethnic groups enjoy higher representation in the cognitive elite than others, namely whites, Jews, northeast Asians, south Asians, etc.
“Pretty women: Perhaps you should learn how genetics works.”
And perhaps you should learn something about the genetic research that’s been done since Gregor Mendel.
“When you think about it, ‘white’ genetic material has a far greater footprint than it ever had in history. Pre-1492, it was confined to one continent, namely Europe. Now, European DNA is dominant on four continents.”
At most its three continents: Europe, North America, and South America.
To say that European DNA is dominant in Asia is insane.
“Even in Latin America, whites are are a plurality at 37 percent, and mestizos — who are about 40-60 percent white — come in second at 33 percent.”
Genetic studies show that Mexico is only 40% White by genetics.
Now Argentina is about 80% White, but that’s probably the most White Latin American Country.
Let’s say that the average for Latin America is 60% European. That’s not really what I would call dominant.
Plus a huge problem is that in Europe, America, Canada, and Australia, the % of genes which are European keeps going down with each passing year due to immigration and differential birthrates.
Just because European DNA is in better shape now than it was pre-1492 doesn’t mean things will stay that way.
If present trends continue long enough without interruption we’ll end up far worse than we were before 1492.
And then there’s the issue of contextual genetic interests, which are threatened by mixture with Non-Europeans to an extent never before seen.
“You’re referring to the cognitive elite, which is a multiracial caste of people. Most white people are not a part of said cognitive elite, and do not offer any creative contributions to technological development.”
Ever hear of something called productivity?
The main reason why there’s more wealth per capita in America than Mexico is simply that the average worker in America has higher productivity per an hour of work.
This is because the average worker in America works more efficiently, even at “grunt workâ€, than the average worker in Mexico.
But as the average American worker becomes less like a European-American and more like a low class Mexican of mostly Mesoamerican descent, the average American worker is pulled closer to the low productivity associated with the Mexican peasant class.
Look at California!
That State went from the economic powerhouse of this Country to money sucking waste of space (economically speaking).
“Obviously, certain ethnic groups enjoy higher representation in the cognitive elite than others, namely whites, Jews, northeast Asians, south Asians, etc.”
The cognitive elite isn’t as important as you think.
“At most its three continents: Europe, North America, and South America.”
I get it, you mean Australia.
Of course, there are so few people in Australia (about half as many as in the single European Country of Spain) that counting them as a Continent in this context is deceptive in my opinion.
Perhaps you should learn how genetics works. A person who is a product of two parents who are only half-white has a 1 in 4 chance of looking like a stereotypical blonde-haired, blue-eyed Swede if both parents are carriers of the recessive allele for for blonde hair and blue eyes.
You ought to learn how genetics works. Give us names and pictures of mulattoes who look like “stereotypical blonde-haired, blue-eyed Swedes.”
alexamenos,
what you are referring to is in-group morality and internal solidarity, neither of which has anything to do with liberalism. In fact, the practice of tribalism rejects the fundamental tenets of liberalism (that all people are created equal, that there should be equality under the law etc.)
IMO declining fertility rates in the West and Iran, Japan, Tunisia can be easily explained by the entry of women in the workforce alone. This requires young women to get at least a college education nowadays, which is pretty much expected of them. This means your average woman cannot reasonably have children before she finishes her education and has a promising career – and by that time she’s around 26-28 yrs old. Even if she finds a husband who dominates her and makes her wet, she will likely have two children by the time she’s 35-40 and there is simply no time left for a third, not to mention a fourth.
Add to this the four sirens of sexual apocalypse, which, in my estimation, are the following:
1. Wide economic opportunities for women
2. Access to safe, cheap and reliable methods of contraception
3. Female-friendly divorce laws
4. The disappearance of slut shaming mechanisms
…and there is small wonder we have a demographic implosion.
BTW if white women were by and large disgusted by white men, wouldn’t they start marrying latino/black/arabic men in droves?
Reginald:
“And perhaps you should learn something about the genetic research that’s been done since Gregor Mendel.”
Check this out: http://i.imgur.com/LGglD.jpg
The Finns, Balts and Russians have a high frequency of y-dna haplogroup N, which traces its lineage back to Siberia. While it has a 60 percent frequency among Finns, it has a 75 percent frequency among the Yakutsk and Nenets, which are groups that have a more stereotypical Asiatic appearance. I have been to Finland, and while many Finns do have slightly Asiatic facial features, they are some of the whitest people on the planet — way whiter than I am. Why do I bring this up? Namely, because it shows that the point at where you draw the line to determine who is and who isn’t white is totally arbitrary. Why are the Greeks white and the Turks not? It’s not determined by any objective criteria at all.
The map that I linked to alone should serve as refutation of the notion of easily defined racial categories. The global haplogroup maps are even more illustrative, as they show you how much multidirectional bleed-over exists between ethnic groups that enjoy the honor of being regarded as white and those that don’t.
The white phenotype is not going away. You can find blondes in Afghanistan.
“At most its three continents: Europe, North America, and South America.
To say that European DNA is dominant in Asia is insane.”
I meant Oceania, as you grasped in your followup. European DNA does have non-trivial footprint in Asia though, with Russia and the Stans, Uighurs, mestizos in the Philippines. All the major cities of Thailand are swimming with white people, and most of their celebrities are half-white, half-Thai (or half-Chinese). Whites will definitely leave their genetic footprint upon Thailand.
“Genetic studies show that Mexico is only 40% White by genetics.”
*Only* 40 percent? Prior to Columbus, it was zero percent!
I have seen the study that you are referring to, and the 40 percent figure refers to the admixture in Mexican mestizos: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/05/admixture-in-mexican-mestizos.html 10-15 percent of the Mexican population that is completely white. It would probably still average out to be about as much as 40 percent of the country’s DNA. Still, I’d say that the Spanish invaders left a pretty impressive genetic impact upon the population, far greater than, say, the Turkic invaders contribution to the gene pool of Anatolia.
“Now Argentina is about 80% White, but that’s probably the most White Latin American Country.”
Possibly Uruguay.
“Let’s say that the average for Latin America is 60% European. That’s not really what I would call dominant.”
As I said, it was once zero. That’s a huge impact.
“Plus a huge problem is that in Europe, America, Canada, and Australia, the % of genes which are European keeps going down with each passing year due to immigration and differential birthrates.
[...]
If present trends continue long enough without interruption we’ll end up far worse than we were before 1492.”
The present trend is for global birthrates to collapse, even in non-white countries. Birthrates in Muslim countries such as Iran, Tunisia, Algeria, Lebanon are below replacement level (although). Numerous Asian countries are below replacement. Mexico is just slightly above replacement. African countries still have high birthrates, but even they are experiencing a decline. The birthrates of other countries aren’t collapsing nearly fast enough for my tastes, but I expect the process to be hastened in the future. Third world countries are leap-frogging stages of technological development by transitioning from no long-distance telecommunication to cell-phones. Smartphones are the next stage, and with smartphones comes global pop culture: video games, movies, television, pop music, pornography, sports, etc., all of which glorifies non-traditional culture.
Also, I think that there will be a far greater number of destinations for immigrants in the future. Presently, many are attracted to the Gulf States, where the indigenous Qataris and Emiratis actually HAVE let themselves become a minority in their own land. Cities like Kuala Lumpur and Bangkok receive a ton of immigrants. There are a lot of Africans in Shenzen, China.
I guess what I’m saying is that I don’t think that predominantly white countries will be the primary destination of mass immigration forever. Further, the impetus behind mass immigration will decline as the population levels in other countries continue to flatten.
“You ought to learn how genetics works. Give us names and pictures of mulattoes who look like “stereotypical blonde-haired, blue-eyed Swedes.—
http://i.imgur.com/cAwBA.jpg
Yeah, I know, tards are going to say that the blonde child was the product of cuckoldry with a white man, but the fact is that these two babies were twins. Many newspapers had articles about this incident a number of years back. There is nothing remotely impossible about this. If those two mulatto parents inherited recessive alleles for blonde hair and blue eyes, the chance of them producing a blonde-haired blue-eyed child is one in four.
Here’s a pic of a mulatto mother with her quadroon children: http://i.imgur.com/FfGv7.jpg
Those kids are whiter than I am, and I have no known African ancestry. The girl on the right as some vaguely African features, but whatever. The girl on the left looks like she could be a part of an Amish village.
“While it’s fine to point out that white nationalism is incomplete”
It’s more than just “incomplete”.
White Nationalists talk about “White Survival” and preventing “White Extinction” as their primary motive – but other than that their rhetoric seems mostly aimed at retaking America from the liberal/Jewish forces.
So you guys say that race is the most important thing – and then you want to get involved in politics? To me it seems like massive misdirection.
Again, if WNs were serious about their goals of White Survival, they would keep a low profile, leave the Jews and liberals alone, shut the fuck up and BREED, BREED, BREED.
Functionally, the Mormons are more effective White Nationalists than any Internet tough guy. And they don’t even have to be explicitly racist to achieve it.
I suppose a WN could claim that I’ve misunderstood their movement, that they’ve always been about restoring America to its former white glory, and not “mere” racial survival. To that extent, WN could be more accurately called “Conservatism with Racial Characteristics”.
But as a vehicle for white racial survival, such a movement is extremely foolish. Retaking America from the current liberal order is a goal that is quite likely impossible – hunkering down and breeding, on the other hand, is something that anyone can do, and in the long term, success is guaranteed. Hell, the liberal order will even help you out with welfare checks.
If those two mulatto parents inherited recessive alleles for blonde hair and blue eyes, the chance of them producing a blonde-haired blue-eyed child is one in four.
Hair and eye color are polygenic traits. Also, race is much, much more than just hair and eye color.
Those children do not look like “stereotypical blonde-haired, blue-eyed Swedes.” Neither are they children whose parents are both 50% black, as you originally claimed.
The point is not whether it is “impossible” for white-looking individuals to be produced in a racially mixed population. Of course there will be a few rare instances of this. The point is that in the aggregate, the frequency of such phenotypes in a mixed population will be extremely low.
“I think that there will be a far greater number of destinations for immigrants in the future. Presently, many are attracted to the Gulf States, where the indigenous Qataris and Emiratis actually HAVE let themselves become a minority in their own land. Cities like Kuala Lumpur and Bangkok receive a ton of immigrants. There are a lot of Africans in Shenzen, China.”
The difference is that Chinese don’t see any non-Chinese as Chinese, even fellow Asians. And the Emiratis banned most of their immigrants from EVER becoming citizens.
Also, Anon is right. The chances aren’t 1 in 4 to create a Swedish looking kid. The odds are far smaller. The odds are 1 in 4 for each certain Swedish feature since they’re recessive. If you want the hair, the eyes, the nose… You get the picture. For the eyes, the odds of having a blue eyed kid with recessive genes are a lot smaller than 1 in 4, for example, since eye colour is a multigenic trait.
Also, Reginald is right. Before 1492, we didn’t inhabit the same place as nonwhites so we didn’t reproduce with them. And we also severely discriminated against foreigners, which further reduced that.
whiskey, white women don’t have any kids for a reason. For example, I consider not having any because the world is simply dumb. I don’t see why I should compete in birth rates with nonwhites because white men prefer to hand out welfare to them and handicap themselves. And I also don’t see why they should be citizens in Europe, for that matter. Also, we don’t have kids because it’s simply pointless to do it – we can make our own money, screw guys in divorce, indulge in our impulses and so on. Why bother? I don’t care about Western civilization at all, actually considering what a hindrance it is for me to achieve my reproductive goals, I wish it’s destruction. The current Western civilization, that is.
YouKnowI’mRight is more or less right. But I’d have a problem if the people replacing me was of any kind, superior or inferior. The difference is that when a group can stop it and doesn’t, it disgusts me. Inferior groups being destroyed is nothing new. But yes, all this multiethnic fantasy is kept together by our current lifestyle, which will end this decade or the next.
Oh, and another thing, I have friends of different ethnicities. I’d have no problem with stripping all of them of their citizenship, I even explained to some of them why I’d do it. lol. Funny enough, they were more receptive than a lot of white people I know to the idea, which just shows what a dysfunctional group of people whites are nowadays. In the truth of the matter, if you’re a smart white woman and make reproductive decisions based on logic(which doesn’t happen), there’s hardly any reason to have children with a white man. The mixed kid would get altruism from both sides, while if he’s with a white man he will be discriminated against due to the political opinions of the group his father is in(encouraging minorities and all that crappy social justice rhetoric) from both sides. Also, sticking your DNA in a group that will be successful reproductively is a better idea. Sure, the result doesn’t have to be pretty or whatnot, but from a reproductive point of view, that’s what I should choose, which makes me dislike that I care about my European identity, but that’s how the cookie crumbles. If I was Chinese, all this would be quite hilarious, to be honest.
God, I hate making 100 comments like this. I forgot to write that white nationalism is indeed an empty construct. White or American are terms that don’t really define anything, they’re just either racial or legal fictions. German, Austrian, Danish has a feel to it – it’s a common ancestry, culture and so on. While Americans could have done this if no civil war would have taken place and the freeing of the slaves would have been done through repatriation, once that happened and once the border wasn’t shut, you were pretty much doomed from ever becoming a real nation. Nationalism isn’t merely built on race, but on culture, social norms, language, religion and other features like this. This is why white nationalism is different than Zionism or any other type of nationalism. You must have a nation first, and a nation isn’t a race just like a proposition isn’t a nation.
@RebelliousVanilla
There’s also the fact that niggers are the only ones that would fuck a self-entitled, aging bitch like you.
In that note, I wonder how many kids have the guys that go expat.
Gx, I’d be good with a $2000 wedding ring regardless of what you make, I’d be great with living in a 500 sq feet place and just having an ok car. I also don’t really care about plasma TVs and all that. Oh, and I’m 19. Thank you though, nobody would like to have sex with a bitter fool like you either. :P
FB,
This is a load of crap. White nationalism means two things. White nationalism, proper, and white nation-statism. You can have a nation without a state. That just means having a people.
As for the later, White Nation-statiism is just like Jewish Nation-statism (read: Zionism). And there are loads of sophisticated arguments that address all of these issues. Which is why you get so many high IQ “Liberal” Jewish guys
defending the idea.
RebelliousVanilla,
Re your 5:55 post.
The common ethnic denominator of whites is European heritage. Europe was united under Christendom, and represented a cultural unity in the way that the Chinese due. Western Civilization parallels Chinese Civilization. The latter ended up unifying but could very well have split. Regardless that’s not the issue. This is:
“Sure, the result doesn’t have to be pretty or whatnot, but from a reproductive point of view, that’s what I should choose, which makes me dislike that I care about my European identity, but that’s how the cookie crumbles”
In the end, if White nationalist don’t form a white nation-state that’s life. But by consolidating a sense of Nation (read: people) and everything that goes with that (read: having collective balls to get pissed at getting pissed on), they’ll save a lot of people from what you described above.
FB calls that being a heresy of Multiculturaldom. No doubt, in part. Yet were living in Multiculturaldom, so mass heresy is the only way to bring it down.
IHTC
“Again, if WNs were serious about their goals of White Survival, they would keep a low profile, leave the Jews and liberals alone, shut the fuck up and BREED, BREED, BREED.”
No, they would work on building a cultural-social networks to bring more people in and then if they got enough people, they would work on lobbies to prevent systematic discrimination and anti-white propaganda and to bring in more people. Then go from there.
While a disagree with RebelliousVanilla about not having a common identity — when I went to school (granted they were all private) it was all about a common western/white/European identity (read: Eurocentric)– apparently white kids don’t have one. Building a nation (read: sense of people) is where the white nationalists have to start.
Chuck, we hardly had any commonality in Europe and it sure wasn’t Christianity. In case you didn’t notice, we have quite a habit of slaughtering each other. And yes, you did have a common identity, it’s just that white is a racial term and you weren’t white. You were Americans and sadly, you use the same term to refer to everybody who moves to America. This is what I was referring to. And I agree with you about building a nation, but you don’t need more people in to vote. You can just strip all the others of their voting rights – just saying. lol. I don’t get why make it more complicated than it already is.
In Europe, a good alternative to White Nationalism would be European Nationalism. European Nationalists would gain a lot of credibility if they cooperate with Mexican Nationalists.
Also, Whites and other high-IQ types would gain a lot if they memorize the Koran in Arabic. If circumstances would force one to become Muslim, one would immediately become 3ulama.
“This is why I state that white nationalism is a doomed ideology – even if WNs succeed in their goals of creating white ethnostates, the original cause of white decline will remain.”
No doubt. White nation-statism is doomed because there is no white nation. And the reason there is no white nation is more complex than white Americans not having a common ethnicity in the manner of the French or the Swedes. After all, the French and the Swedes are suffering the same fate. But the problem is not just Liberalism, because that doesn’t explain the Marxism. Marxism and Liberalism are about as closely related as Liberalism and ethnoNationalism.
If we go back, the problem was that Europeans (in the sense of the West) were held together by a glue called Christianity. It’s like the glue that holds much of the Middles East together. And that, as a enveloping world view, began to dissolve a few hundred years ago, which lead to Liberalism, romantic ethnonationalism, and Marxism. Now Christianity as a enveloping world-view began to dissolve for a number of reasons. Regardless at some point — it was able to capture whatever human impulses Liberalism, romantic ethnonationalism, and Marxism represented — or at least balance these.
White nationalists have to create a new view — if such is possible. Which subsumes all the various impulses.
RebelliousVanilla
Maybe your ancestors are not from where my are, but mine lived in a part of Europe that belonged to Western Civilization. This: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_culture
You know this: http://epress.anu.edu.au/journey/images/map.jpg
And the ones that came over were not low class bumpkins, but identified with Western high Culture. They knew Latin, etc. As for what I am talking about, here is a cultural perspective on the West:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:eafYxZdinewJ:lesacred.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/why-the-west-discovered-the-modern-world-draft/+%22why+the+west+discovered+the+modern+world%22+lesacre&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
The whole nation-state thing came about rather recently. Most of the killing up to the 30-years war was about Christianity. Can you name a non-Christian country? That’s why.
“And yes, you did have a common identity, it’s just that white is a racial term and you weren’t white”
I don’t know why you mean. White or the White world was a common term used in the US and Europe. It referred to European. Or the Western. Or the Occidental.
Edit: mine were.
Anyways. There is a reason people talk about Western culture. And it wasn’t to make up a story to justify enslaving people with dark skin. And there is a reason that the US wasn’t Multicultural before the 70′s, even though, in addition to African Americans, it apparently had a lot of what you would consider disconnected people. And there is a reason this country was founded on Greco-roman political theory and not Indian models. The idea that there was no West, in some coherent meta-cultural sense, is the most ridiculous idea.
Chuck, Western civilization is a fairly modern construct. Just ask anyone though if they feel Western or British or French. A nationality isn’t a bunch of ideas put together. Also, Americans had some left overs of nationalism, but in the end is that after the Civil War, it was all a big lie and it was eventually to fall apart. All it took is simply removing all the leftovers. By the way, right now none of the ‘Western’ countries have a Roman foundation of their government systems.
Columnist, European nationalism is just like American nationalism – empty. For Europe the solution is nationalism for each nation, which Europe isn’t. And I hardly see any gain in cooperating with Mexican nationalists, since we hardly have any Mexicans here. Oh, and learning Arabic is pointless. Most Muslims don’t know Arabic to begin with for starters and secondly, Muslims are mostly concentrated in urban ghettos, they’re not all over the place. You have any idea how easy it is to seal off a neighbourhood with the army and cut the utilities and watch them die, if it gets to that? Besides low level crime, Muslims will not do much in Europe at least for another 40 years, time by which I highly doubt the United States will even exist anymore.
Marxism and Liberalism are about as closely related as Liberalism and ethnoNationalism.
No, Marx’s thought comes out of classical liberalism, however much he may have reacted against certain parts of it. The reason so many Marxist ideas were assimilated into mainstream left liberalism is that they were already quite closely related to each other.
RebelliousVanilla – you sound like a very intelligent and interesting person…you are definitely a major outlier for a White female: you are racially aware and think outside the box – a rarity.
If you aren’t a Romanian Jewish plant or some pervert male posing as a female, come join us for pro-White discussion sometime over at Occidental Dissent – http://www.occidentaldissent.com/
There are no Jews in Japan. Or China. Or Iran. Or Algeria. Or Tunisia. So the idea that “Jews made women equal” fails the test of simple reality — places where there are no Jews (and often never have been, like South Korea) made women equal. Birth rates plummeted.
Feminism as noted in the parent post pre-dates Jewish acceptance. Blake, Wollstonecroft, and the rest, not Jews. At a time when Jews had no public role to play, and faced open discrimination.
I agree trading Muy Thai kickboxing classes (and let’s be honest, the non-Whites will all cleave to to each race/ethnicity) for Western Civilization is a losing bet.
But the idea that “Jews caused the end of Western Civilization” is not only wrong (and ignores Jews themselves ending as a race/culture) but counter-productive since it does not address the core issue:
To be economically productive makes ordinary men repulsive to ordinary women.
PA: the numbers are what they are. Italian TFR is 1.1. So low that … Chinese gangs are displacing the MAFIA in Italy. Because the Mafia does not have enough young male enforcers! In the Financial Times today! Japan is in terminal decline because it has less and less young people, who are required to invent things and so on.
If there were no immigrants, White and Black proportions in the US would be essentially unchanged since 1940, sustainable, and accomodations for past discrimination worked out to satisfactory outcomes for all.
But there are. Arizona is already irrevocably Mexican, as is California, and I’ve seen the transformation of my own State from Beach Boys paradise to Tijuana Norte in my lifetime. You don’t see it, so you don’t understand the tidal wave about to wash over you and yours.
Poland? Not enough young people. No one will speak Polish anymore than they speak Gaelic now, in forty years, because Turks and North Africans will simply move in and take over from the pitiful few Poles left. Since the TFR is 1.29, meaning roughly every generation or so there will be half as many people. Easy pickings for anyone more numerous and land-hungry.
Whether I am “despairing” or not is irrelevant. Either my or Mark Steyn’s numbers are correct (taken from the CIA World Factbook) or they are not. All else is bs.
Thursday: Catholicism (my Mother was raised Irish Catholic) historically led to almost no understanding or reading of the Bible. My late Protestant Scots Father could quote massive sections of the Bible since it was required reading, and the preferred reading, in his Midwestern household. Irish Catholics knew only what the Priest told them. Since the New Testament is basically Jewish monotheism meets Greek Humanism, any popular reading of the Bible will create a far more literary and sophisticated populace.
Lincoln quoted the Bible all the time, his audience naturally having read it all the time, understood every single allusion, and what Lincoln was saying (often unkind things to his political opponents).
Greece itself or course puts lie to a lot of ruin in a nation.
Hollenhund: Mexican and Islamic Women in the West also complete college educations, but have on average 4 kids each, compared to their Western (or Asian) sisters. Western women don’t marry Latino/Black/Muslim women in droves (changing somewhat in Europe where Muslim men ARE marrying Native European women as second/third wives) because their standard of hot/dominant requires higher economic status as well. Mr. Big, not the local gangsta who lives with his Mom.
Perhaps the only solution is “Philip Larkin Little England”-ism, which celebrates smallness and sense of place and people. Or Apple Pie and Baseball Americana. Embedded in the place are of course, people. Meaning English for the English, not Algerians or Pakistanis or what have you, and for the US, Americans, not Mexicans or Somalis or whoever, regardless of merits or drawbacks.
IHTG: “Again, if WNs were serious about their goals of White Survival, they would keep a low profile, leave the Jews and liberals alone, shut the fuck up and BREED, BREED, BREED.”
This is fantasy. We aren’t going to outbreed the Third World. We aren’t going to outbreed wave after wave of non-white immigration. It’s easy to say that a people should do X,Y, and Z, but that is difficult when your enemies control all of the key pressure points in a society: media, academia, government, etc. Our people have been subjected to an unprecedented anti-white propaganda campaign, and it has had a tremendous effect.
I’m Gen X, so neither terribly young nor all that old, but I have seen massive change just in my adult life. Huge numbers of whites don’t seem to know up from down anymore. They are the products of dumbed down schools that are really just leftist indoctrination centers (and the doctrine is always anti-white, either explicitly or implicitly), and have been subjected to an endless torrent of anti-white propaganda disguised as entertainment. This anti-white media treates white nationalists as witches to be burned at the stake. It has also been made clear to them that any white advocacy in the real world is likely to lead to a swift loss of career and income. Again, we are in heap big trouble. That’s not to say that we aren’t going to win in the end. I believe that we can and will. But there is no point in denying the enormous forces arrayed against us. White nationalists are willing to face this reality, draw the appropriate conclusions, and not default to a faux solution that ignores the fundamental problems.
It’s also ludicrous that a people should have to breed like cockroaches just to maintain themselves in the country that their own ancestors founded. There are plenty of non-white countries (see East Asia in particular) with extremely low fertility rates. Their future as a people is not in jeopardy for the simple reason that they don’t have an overclass that seeks to replace them through immigration. And that’s the point: seemingly easy solutions don’t work very well when you have a hostile ruling System that is bent on your displacement. That’s what whites face, plain and simple – an extremely hostile and powerful overclass. There are no easy solutions, only hard choices.
IHTG “Functionally, the Mormons are more effective White Nationalists than any Internet tough guy. And they don’t even have to be explicitly racist to achieve it.”
I don’t disagree with that. The Mormons, though, in addition to having a meaningful identity and subculture, also have real infrastructure. They control all sorts of institutions in Utah, from top to bottom. How did they get this, one might ask? In a way, they were forerunners of white nationalism – they carved out their own land, establishing control over their own territory and the institutions on it. It’s richly ironic that you point to the Mormons, but ignore the basis of their success. They didn’t take your advice – they instead won a land for themselves.
With that infrastructure, they’ve been able to sustain themselves better than most. BUT, they aren’t independent. They are part of the United States, so the broader trends will be their undoing as well (though, of course, white nationalists have a few things to say about that!). Utah is getting more and more non-white by the year, and less and less Mormon. If present trends continue, the Mormons will lose political power in their own heartland. This will seriously impact their ability to maintain an impressive infrastructure, and they will lose control of more and more institutions. Long before that happens, the increased diversity will undermine their cohesiveness, and they will be increasingly viewed as yesterday’s news, even in Utah. They will go from being the norm to being those old, cranky, weird Mormons. Non-whites will hunt their daughters, and will find more and more success as the anti-white propaganda campaign continues, and Utah transforms under sheer dent of numbers. Their sons won’t know up from down.
It’s up to us to stop this and turn things around. Nobody is going to do it for us, and no easy solution is going to let us off the hook.
Even the most successful practioners of being a minority – the Jews – craved and eventually achieved their own homeland, a homeland where they can control all of the institutions, from the local police and schools to courts and media, and everything in between. White nationalists understand this. Without such control over their own destiny, a people only exists on sufferance. And whites no longer enjoy even that, we are clearly slated for dispossession in formerly white land after white land.
Point is that one can recommend all of the “solutions” under the sun, and some of them may even be pretty good. But the harsh fact remains: whites are being deliberately reduced to minority status, their culture and even their right to exist as a people are constantly attacked and undermined by all of the important institutions in society, and for the most part the only place that honest discussion of these monumentally important issues is allowed is on the internet. Those are…um…serious problems. White nationalism correctly identifies those problems, and offers the only real solution. Incomplete? Yes. Wrong? Not at all.
“But the idea that “Jews caused the end of Western Civilization†is not only wrong (and ignores Jews themselves ending as a race/culture) but counter-productive…”
The Jews were the key players behind the Bolshevik seizure of Russia. During the Second World War the Red Army had at least one hundred Jewish generals. (Axell, Russia’s Heroes) Even It was Judeo-Soviet writers like Ilya Ehrenberg who propagandized Soviet soldiers into a frenzy of murder and rape when they finally entered Germany. (Beevor, The Fall of Berlin) The Jews were the main players behind the “civil rights” activism in the United States in the 1960s. They provided most of the lawyers, activists, and organizational efforts. They also, nearly singlehandedly, created the anti-apartheid terrorist groups in South Africa. (see here: http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2009/11/23/jewish-activists-and-white-institutions/ ) There were also Jews throughout the West who encouraged sanctions (disinvestment) against South Africa, such as U.S. congressman Stephen Solarz.
Jews like Susan Sontag believed that “the white race is the cancer of history.” Another Jew, Noel Ignatiev, believes we should “abolish the white race.” This kind of crap is pushed on college students throughout the West.
http://www.jewishtribalreview.com is a great resource for this kind of information.
Whiskey, I hear you, and you make many good points. I enjoy your posts, here and elsewhere. Some of the demographic data points are nothing short of startling. But the bottom line is that a people can survive a shrinking population for a long time. A very long time. Certainly it creates challenges, for example the pay as you go retirement programs that are in fact Ponzi schemes will prove unsustainable. But there are reasonable solutions for that sort of thing (like retirement schemes that involve real savings, what a thought!), as well as solutions for the other challenges a shrinking population can pose. Many of the countries that have low fertility rates are extremely densely populated. Even if, generations from now, their populations were substantially reduced, that would not be the end of the world – or the end of those particular people and their genetic inheritance.
Let’s say that Germany’s population was massively reduced to a mere twenty million. That’s still a lot of people (in a small country), and it would still “be Germany.” That is, it would still be Germany if the twenty million were all ethnic Germans. On the other hand, twenty million Germans submerged under scores of millions of non-whites would most certainly not be Germany. Add miscegenation to the mix, and the ethnic Germans would disappear entirely over time, and you’d have just another mixed Middle Eastern population – at best. All would truly be lost, and there could be no recovery. The moral of the story is simple: keep your own house clean, low fertility or not. White nations haven’t been doing that, and are now to suffer the consequences.
What ends a people is being overrun and amalgamated by competing tribes.
Unless they change course and begin to allow non-Japanese immigration, there will always be a Japan, despite their low fertility. And a Korea, and so forth. It is only the white nations that are being submerged, ruled as they are by a hostile overclass bent on replacing them with non-whites. I know that we disagree on the composition of that overclass, but a hostile overclass it is.
Obviously, if a nation allows its population to fall too far to even maintain and hold the land that they occupy, then that is just courting disaster. In general, though, whites don’t face that problem. Most white regions in Europe would still be densely populated even if their populations dropped dramatically. An exception to this seems to be Siberia, supposedly emptying of whites, and sitting right next to land and resource hungry China. Doesn’t look promising. But, in general, whites could easily hold the land that they currently occupy – if they chose to.
So is fertility a problem? Yes it is, and a big one. But ultimately it can be managed (look at Japanese automation and robotics) and all is not lost, unless one is overrun by competing tribes. Demographics is destiny, up to a point. More important is the determination of a people to survive and maintain themselves. With a hostile overclass that is swamping us with the non-white hordes, low fertility spells disaster for whites. But for East Asians? So far, so good, low fertility or not.
Of course, EVENTUALLY they’ll have to turn their rates around, but so long as they don’t allow themselves to be overrun and amalgamated, they will have plenty of time to affect the change. Whites have no such luxury of time, in fact every passing day works against us. Therefore, the Japanese can proceed at their leisure, while whites are sorely pressed for a meaningful solution.
Whiskey:
“A book is a mirror: if an ape looks in, an apostle is unlikely to look out.”
P.S. Catholicism on the ground is in even worse shape than Evangelicalism.
whiskey, you overrated the ability of blacks to wage any real war. Besides, if the welfare from Western Europe and America to Africa ends, they’ll be in a world of hurt, let alone go on to conquer Poland. Ten million European men can probably crush all the African men alive today due to sheer technical superiority and having the brain to act in an organized way. And blacks are too lazy to come to Europe and conquer anything, unless we invite them in.
YouKnowI’mRight, I have an Ashkenazi great great grandfather, so I guess I’m not welcome. lol. But I’m hardly a Jewish plant.
Jews are destroyed by feminism. But Jews also control the porn industry.
The high-IQ Jews control the West. Therefore the internal dynamics of Jewry are very important.
Europe is within reach of Israeli warplanes and submarines. Europe is dependent on Arab oil. Think of it.
“This is fantasy. We aren’t going to outbreed the Third World. We aren’t going to outbreed wave after wave of non-white immigration.”
This is a common fallacy – beleagured peoples tend to exaggerate the fertility of their enemies. Israeli Jews do it with Arabs, and whites do it with non-whites. The truth is that it is not so difficult to outbreed non-whites.
Consider for instance that for most of history the Arab World was actually quite sparsely populated. Even today nations like Syria and Iraq have far fewer people than you’d expect from Islamic nations.
“It’s also ludicrous that a people should have to breed like cockroaches just to maintain themselves in the country that their own ancestors founded. ”
I agree, but maybe it’s the only choice you have for now.
As for the Mormons – what you write is true, but the difference is that the Mormons never attempted to speak for a larger population group (i.e., whites) who weren’t part of their creed. Indeed, for many years “normal” whites were mortal enemies of Mormons.
My opinion of the liberal Jews of the 20th century is that they were basically very abnormal people. Wikipedia says this about the youth of Andrew Goodman, of “Mississippi Burning” fame:
“His family and community were steeped in intellectual and socially progressive activism and were devoted to social justice. An activist from his early youth, Goodman graduated from the progressive Walden School; Walden was said to have had a strongly formative influence on his outlook.”
Seriously, who grows up imbibing this kind of stuff? Andrew Goodman and those like him were brainwashed from childhood by a bizarre culture. I say the poor kid died for nothing.
This wasn’t an inherent Jewish tendency to undermine whites – it was a damned cult. Good thing its 1960′s-1970′s heyday is behind us.
Whiskey,
“There are no Jews in Japan. Or China. Or Iran.”
There is a Jewish minority in Iran. Just saying.
“Mexican and Islamic Women in the West also complete college educations, but have on average 4 kids each, compared to their Western (or Asian) sisters.”
I highly doubt Mexican and Islamic women in the West graduate from college/university at the same rate white women do AND the same women have 4 children on average. Do you have source?
“in Europe where Muslim men ARE marrying Native European women as second/third wives”
Polygamy is illegal in Europe. What are you talking about?
“because their standard of hot/dominant requires higher economic status as well. Mr. Big, not the local gangsta who lives with his Mom”
Let’s get this straight. In your assessment, white women will gladly have sex with Latino/African/Arabic men because they perceive them as dominant, but nevertheless they refuse to pair-bond with them because they won’t be providers?
Sam Davidson,
“They also, nearly singlehandedly, created the anti-apartheid terrorist groups in South Africa.”
Israel had rather good relations with South Africa during the Apartheid era. There was even military cooperation. How do you explain that?
Can someone really answer me? What’s the point of outbreeding the third world? You can just strip non-whites of their vote and be done with it, since this is about power. And then with the political power, you make them uncomfortable enough that they leave! It’s not like they’d be citizens anyway. This kind of thinking is one with which you handicap yourself.
Columnist, so what if Europe is within the reach of Israeli planes? The occurrence would be kind of funny since due to NATO, the United States would have to declare war on Israel. lol. And not like they’re needed, in the case you missed it, Europe could wipe off Israel of the face of the map. That’s like saying that the Romanian jet planes can reach Russia. Yes, and your point is? And I don’t get why we don’t INVADE the Arabs and TAKE their oil FOR FREE. I mean, considering we’re dependent on their oil(kind of funny, since America is even worse in this regard), if they stop providing us with it, we should invade them and take it.
“Can someone really answer me? What’s the point of outbreeding the third world? You can just strip non-whites of their vote and be done with it, since this is about power. And then with the political power, you make them uncomfortable enough that they leave! It’s not like they’d be citizens anyway. This kind of thinking is one with which you handicap yourself.”
I’ll answer: you’re right. Playing the outbreeding game is, in essence, to play by the other guy’s rules. It’s a mug’s game. Non-whites are great at breeding…especially when they have access to the white man’s dime and the white man’s infrastructure. Trying to outbreed them is pointless unless we get them the hell out of our homelands.
Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to see white fertility rates increase, but I don’t see that happening in a big way until AFTER we regain our homelands. At that point, we’ll be able to promote white families with a family friendly culture (instead of the death/shitculture that we have now) and a supportive infrastructure. It won’t be hard to do, IF we regain a sense of ourselves and start believing in our future as a people again.
Our low fertility rates are just another symptom of the disease, not the disease itself. The real problem is that whites have, I believe temporarily, lost the will to defend themselves. It is worthwhile trying to figure out exactly why that has happened, to determine the root causes and see what can be done about them. But the solution is clear: we need our homelands back. That means removing whites from our midst, and breaking the hostile overclass that has sicced them on us, and promoted our malaise and despair.
Differences in fertility rates are disturbing, and will have a variety of consequences, but they need not prove fatal. What is holding us back is our failure to defend ourselves, not our failure to outbreed. There are still many, many hundreds of millions of whites across the planet. Nearly 200 million in the United States alone and far more in Europe, not to mention Australia and points elswhere. We have the ability to defend ourselves, all we lack is the will. When we restore THAT, the various symptoms of our disease will gradually abate, including the symptom of low fertility rates.
As long as we are are being race replaced by wave after wave of non-white invasions, ruled by a hostile overclass and subjected to an anti-white/shitculture, our fertility rates are probably not going to change all that much – at least not in the right direction. So, where does that leave us? Well, first things first. Focus on the disease, not the symptom.
For any European commenters, I’d really be interested in hearing your thoughts on why the fertility rate is so low in places like Poland. Some of these Eastern European countries are utter disasters in this respect. Still, so long as they don’t allow non-white immigration, the Poles will have plenty of time to turn things around. If, on the other hand, they allow the dusky hordes entrace, then they are fucked good and proper.
Trainspotter, you should try raising more than a child on a 350Euros average wage. Basically, two average parents have a wage of 1500Euros in their early 30s. Before that wages are too small to have kids(don’t worry, we pay retirement benefits, woohoo) and even so you can’t have more than one or two kids tops and live decently. I made a poll among my female classmates and most want 2 children, some 3. The TFR for my country is 1.37. You also have to get it that like Germany, Eastern Europe has a crushed soul due to communism. Having your country mutilated takes a time to get over – a couple of generations, not 5 years. Also, the dysgenic slaughter fest that communist was in my country might be permanent considering being intellectually gifted made you unequal so you were worked to death, the German minority was butchered by Stalin and all this. Also, a lot of smart people emigrated and heck, I will do too. It’s simply impossible to have kids if you’re middle class here. It’s either if you’re rich or on welfare(which sucks too, since we don’t give lavish crap to our parasites). Rich people do have more kids.
Also, you don’t have to kick nonwhites out. I don’t get ethnostate people. You don’t need that. You need to act like a nation and think like one and then remove the rights to rule of others inside your country. Then you run the show however you like. Period. And white people are great at breeding too, we just need the proper environment for doing it and a place where to dump our excess population(Europe is overpopulated) – so bring back the empires. And yes, if we want, we can rule the world. Still, we must think like 18th century Europeans and not like the pansies that we are today.
RV: “Basically, two average parents have a wage of 1500Euros in their early 30s. Before that wages are too small to have kids(don’t worry, we pay retirement benefits, woohoo) and even so you can’t have more than one or two kids tops and live decently.”
No doubt. Once we have our homelands back, a major focus needs to be placed on affordable family formation.
RV:”You also have to get it that like Germany, Eastern Europe has a crushed soul due to communism.”
I do get it. The West in general has a crushed soul, which is the real problem. Some areas may be worse than others.
RV: “I don’t get ethnostate people.”
You’ll “get it” soon enough. Right now, many/most European nations are still over 90 percent white. That’s pure paradise compared to what is coming. Wait until every other person that you have to deal with is a non-white. Then you’ll understand.
As for stripping people of their political rights and then running the show as we like, I have no desire for that. I don’t want to rule non-whites, I don’t want to control them. I just want them out. Frankly, I don’t even particularly want to see them. Their very presence in our homelands is an affront to me. I don’t want them waiting on my table (I’d prefer a pretty white girl), and I don’t want them shining my shoes. Once things settle down, I would not be opposed to non-white tourism, just as whites may want to tour some non-white countries. But no colonization, either way. And no guest workers, or any other similar scheme. Forget all of that, none of it is worth it.
Whites have to do their own work, including the dirty work. If a ditch needs to be dug, whites dig it. I’ve got more advanced degrees than a man probably should have, but as a teenager I dug ditches, sometimes literally, but mostly hauling lumber and bricks on construction sites. It’s not that bad, we don’t need Mexicans to do it. Seemed perfectly normal at the time. This was in the 80′s and early 90′s, not all that long ago.
When whites don’t do their own work, history shows again and again that decay, strife and collapse are inevitable. Besides, today there is no such thing as cheap labor. We’re dropping ten thousand a year, per “student,” to supposedly educate literally tens of millions of non-whites. This runs into hundreds of billions of dollars per year, not to mention medical costs, welfare, law enforcement, incarceration, etc. Most of these people are esssentially uneducable. Those that aren’t end up getting scholarships and promotions far beyond their abilities, as a result of various preference schemes. Either way, it’s a loser for whites.
Then there is the incalculable cost of whole regions that have become unlivable. How many trillions (not billions, trillions) in infrastructure did these lost regions cost to build? For what? How much went into building Detroit alone, at one time a beautiful city known as the Paris of the Midwest? Similar examples exist all across this county, and now it is beginning to affect entire states. This isn’t even getting into other enormous costs, such as the strain of non-whites on our water table and other natural resources. California now has all sorts of energy and financial problems, problems that it wouldn’t have if it were all white.
What we have is essentially the privatization of profit and socialization of cost. The employer gets slightly cheaper labor, and then the taxpayer and society in general pick up far more than the difference. It’s a net loss for society as a whole, a losing proposition all around. Far, far better to simply pay the white guy a decent, living wage and let him dig the ditch. Or, better still, make him more productive through technology and capital, and therefore pay him an even better wage. Progressive societies don’t need impoverished serfs. It’s 2010 for crying out loud. Can’t we accomplish even that much?
A society can either focus on gains in productivity and pay decent wages to those who put in an honest days work, or it can seek to cannibalize and beat down the labor force. One road leads to stability and prosperity, and one leads to strife and poverty. Guess which road we are on?
Bottom line: there is no such thing as cheap labor. In fact, the costs of non-white labor that I mentioned above are far from complete. I left out the murders, the rapes, the loss of trust. I also left out that, eventually, you lose your entire country. Everything, all of it. Is there anything on earth more expensive than that? What did all that “cheap” black labor cost us? Oh, I don’t know…just a war in which nearly 600,000 white men were slaugthered, literally trillions in various government transfer payments and services, millions of serious crimes such as rape and murder…and that’s only the tip of the iceberg. Truth be told, when you add up all of the costs, “cheap” black labor has probably been the most expensive labor in the history of planet earth. I expect mestizo labor to give it a run for its money in the years ahead.
Cheap labor…what a deal!
RV, the reality is that there is absolutely no good reason to keep non-whites in our countries. It doesn’t make sense economically (except to the minority who can privatize profit and pass on the cost/loss to others), it doesn’t make sense culturally, it doesn’t make sense environmentally…it just doesn’t make sense. You already said that Europe is overpopulated. Why should the non-whites stay there? You’d be far better off with the ethnostate.
Trainspotter, obviously being a tiny minority is bad. Still, the whole idea of ethnic states is a Wilsonian stupid thing, if you ask me. There are differences in between nationality and statehood. But if you’re American, it might be harder for you to understand it. The problem is your non-discrimination laws. Without them, someone could open a clinic with all white staff. Still, this isn’t the problem. You can’t have a fixed state – this never happens. A nation, a culture and a state, either expands or it collapses on itself. There is no such thing as fixed position in time that will never change.
And you don’t rule over them, they’re free to leave. Still, what’s your problem with ruling over others? You need to get rid of all the silly liberal notions, like the universal egalitarianism, for example. In the same way, if I ran the show, not even all people of European descent would vote, even if they’d be citizens.
About hardwork, I washed my clothing as a little pre-school girl by hand and delved land manually. So I know how it is. But again, a lot of children in my country did it. I don’t say that we shouldn’t work. I do also know what carrying capacity is and as someone with a fondness of finance and economics, I can realize how staggering the costs of all these things are. I also know about free riding.
I didn’t say that we should keep nonwhites here. The problem is doing something with them. Since you don’t want to strip them of political rights, how the heck do you want to kick them out of a country to begin with? And send them where? Also, some of them are around for a few generations and are alienated from their homelands. What about the mixed race kids? I didn’t advise us becoming 15% of the population and be the only voters. I advised us increasing our numbers as much as we can in absolute and relative terms and be the sole voters. And when we reach the tops carrying capacity of a country, dump our excess population on other countries. This is how it’s done. I’m hardly making a case for Muslims, Gypsies and Africans staying in Europe.
Oh, and I forgot to add – the civil war was more about state rights than slavery. Slavery became a thing only afterwards. And really, the thing could have been solved easily – the blacks who left the territory of the United States would have been freed, those who stayed wouldn’t have been. Simple.
“Oh, and I forgot to add – the civil war was more about state rights than slavery.”
LOL. You do realize that you come off as quite silly settling such controversial debates with one-line offhand remarks.
Of course, maybe I would have been the same at 19 years old if the military hadn’t beaten all the unwarranted self-confidence out of my adolescent brain.
Here’s an HS post on that topic, I believe he had a bunch of others that lead up to it: http://www.halfsigma.com/2010/04/the-civil-war-was-started-over-slavery.html
“For any European commenters, I’d really be interested in hearing your thoughts on why the fertility rate is so low in places like Poland. Some of these Eastern European countries are utter disasters in this respect.”
I’ll try. The historical origins of the problem are undoubtedly complex but for the moment I will simply say this: the average man in Eastern Europe will only consider those girls as marriage material that have good career prospects – because he won’t be able to support a family alone. But the average woman is roughly 30 yrs old by the time she graduated, found a job and lives in a flat – IF she achieved all this to begin with. Even if she enters a successful marriage she will realistically have one or two children by the time her ovaries dry up.
I think that pretty much explains the low fertility rate.
“Still, so long as they don’t allow non-white immigration, the Poles will have plenty of time to turn things around. If, on the other hand, they allow the dusky hordes entrace, then they are fucked good and proper.”
I doubt any Eastern European nation will have a big problem with non-white immigration – or any immigration for that matter – in the near future. They won’t become popular destinations for immigrants because they aren’t many low-skilled jobs to begin with and the language is difficult to learn (as compared to English). Immigration laws are also generally strict and there is more racism as far as I can tell.
Gypsies are a much bigger problem than illegal immigrants.
Höllenhund said:
“Israel had rather good relations with South Africa during the Apartheid era. There was even military cooperation. How do you explain that?”
You want me to make it more ‘”straightforward?”
Jews in South Africa created armed terrorist groups to overthrow the white government. (In my previous post I linked to an account of that.) Then, Jews in the United States and other western countries organized boycotts and ‘disinvestment’ to punish South Africa for its ‘crimes.’ Then, Israel softens relations with South Africa in order to trade materials at discount prices. Plus, South Africa was a nice proxy against the various African countries that turned against Israel.
People often get confused with the Jewish Question because they assume that certain things are contradicting. For example, the prevalence of Jews in finance seems to contradict the Jewish origin of Marxism. In practice neither of these things contradicts each other. The Jewish bankers were waging economic warfare against Russia as early as 1905 when the Russians were fighting Japan. Jacob Schiff (who was also on the NAACP’s board) gave huge loans to Japan that helped them win the war. A mere 12 years later the Marxist Jews in Russia would overthrow the government. Two seemingly opposing sides working in coordination with one another.
RV: “Still, the whole idea of ethnic states is a Wilsonian stupid thing, if you ask me”
The rising tide of nationalism preceded Wilson by quite some time. When you think about it, it made sense with the decline of the feudalism. In the feudal system, a given king or lord might possess lands in a wide variety of areas. For the commoners, it therefore made little difference whether their lord also had estates in Italy, or France, or wherever. The average person had no political voice at all, so what difference did it make? But as this system declined, and the idea of representative government gained currency, it began to make a great deal of difference. Why should Italians be voting on what is going on in Flanders? Why should Rhinelanders be voting on what is going on in Wales? It’s easy to see why this would have been unacceptable. Of course, there is far more to it than that, for example the development of commerce had requirements of its own that feudalism was hindering. But the take away point is that once people became citizens as opposed to serfs, it made a great deal of difference who your fellow citizens were. It still does.
Today, our overclass has done us one better. They don’t just insist upon maintaining foreign possessions, they insist upon importing those foreigners into our midst, forcibly integrating them, and ultimately replacing us with them. What we have now is a particularly ugly and sinister form of feudalism, with none of the charm. And we are being steadily reduced from citizens to a form of serfdom – hence the tenacity with which the establishment promotes multiracialism. Multiracialism is ideal for serfdom, terrible for citizenship.
RV: “A nation, a culture and a state, either expands or it collapses on itself.”
Eh…I’m not convinced that the historical record solidly establishes that. It’s probably more accurate to say that an empire either expands or dies, but that has to do with the logic of empire and the particular game that empires are playing. I’m not convinced that a tribe/ethnostate has to constantly conquer other peoples (not sure that’s precisely what you mean, but anyway).
Today, power is multifaceted – technology, education, production, etc. Most of these don’t require conquest of territory, but instead the nation can grow stronger even though it holds to long standing borders. In any event, if a tribe does expand its borders, it needs to settle the conquered areas entirely with members of its own tribe. Otherwise, it’s just building an untenable empire that will tend to dissolve its own people, all in exchange for short term rule. Doing so is not much smarter than selling Manhatten for a song or a handful of shiny trinkets.
RV: “You need to get rid of all the silly liberal notions, like the universal egalitarianism, for example.”
Come on, RV. My notions are not liberal, and I do not subscribe to universal egalitarianism. I explained above, in considerable detail (and even that is only the tip of the iceberg), why the presence of non-whites in white society is problematic under ANY circumstances, and is simply not worth it. That’s not liberalism or egalitarianism, it is simply concluding that whites are far better off with their own homelands. I no more want to “rule” non-whites than I want to own obsolete farm equipment. Nothing egalitarian about that.
RV: “I didn’t say that we should keep nonwhites here.”
Good, then we agree.
RV: “The problem is doing something with them.”
Oops, spoke too soon. While I grant that it’s a problem, it is not an unsolvable one. After all, they didn’t seem to have much trouble coming to our lands. They can leave as well. Make conditions unpleasant enough, and they will. A stubborn few may require extra encouragement, but I doubt many will. They managed to get here. They can manage to get out of here.
There is ample historical precedent for large scale population transfers, it’s happened all over the world. Hell, it’s happening now, with massive non-white migration to white lands. We’ve seen it at work with our own eyes. There is no reason why we can’t promote a migration in the right direction.
RV: “Since you don’t want to strip them of political rights, how the heck do you want to kick them out of a country to begin with? And send them where? Also, some of them are around for a few generations and are alienated from their homelands. What about the mixed race kids?”
Come on, RV, this is just silly. When someone openly advocates removing an entire population from a nation, I think one can safely assume that he is willing to strip said population of their political rights – sort of by definition. My point was simply that I’m not interested in “ruling” them. My study of history, and my observations of contemporary life, lead me to conclude that keeping non-white populations around is a disastrous policy. Simply disastrous. “Oh, this time will be different from EVERY other time!” Um, no it won’t.
As to the other points that you raise, these are technical problems with innumerable technical solutions. These solutions range from partition to generous payment schemes, and everything in between. The historical record is full of people skedaddling from a particular country. When conditions are unpleasant enough, people head to greener pastures. Most non-white immigration to Europe is quite recent, and other than blacks and indians, the same is largely true of the United States. These people came, they can leave.
Most of the nations in the world are non-white, there are plenty of possible destinations. Or we may have to set up a new non-white nation to take them in, who knows? The important thing is that we regain the will to have our own countries back. We do not have to live, from now to the end of time, with what has been done to us in the last forty or so years. Why should what has been done to us be treated as permanent? It shouldn’t. We have been massively attacked by a vicious overclass. We need not leave their criminal handiwork untouched.
Of course, most readers probably would see this as all quite fantastic, but I refer them to the historical record. Massive population transfers are remarkably common, and there is no reason why we can’t have one working in our favor for a change. In the United States, we now have over 100 million non-whites. Partition, at least a temporary one, might be the best that we can do here (I have some problems with that, but anyway).
But Europe? Your nations are too small to go that route, and it would require having islands of non-whites amongst you, this time as sovereign nations. That ain’t gonna work. You’re going to have to send them packing. Fortunately…Africa is close at hand, and the air fares can be really cheap. Always a silver lining. Again, see my post above. Considering the utterly disastrous costs of non-white populations, even the most generous repatriation package would be a bargain. Hell, it would be a bargain to make them all millionaires.
I engage in hyperbole just a bit, but the take away point is that whatever it takes will be worth it. Or how about this? Older non-whites can live out their lives where they are, but those that want children must settle in a non-white country?
Enough of that. There are literally thousands of ideas, but anyone genuinely interested can examine the historical record for himself.
RV: “And when we reach the tops carrying capacity of a country, dump our excess population on other countries.”
If it’s so easy to “dump” populations on other countries (and the historical record shows it’s a lot easier than one might think), why is it so hard to go ahead and dump the non-whites? You are so cavalier about the one, but hedge and raise objections to the other.
RV: “Oh, and I forgot to add – the civil war was more about state rights than slavery. Slavery became a thing only afterwards. And really, the thing could have been solved easily – the blacks who left the territory of the United States would have been freed, those who stayed wouldn’t have been. Simple.”
As a Southerner, I’ve heard this argument a thousand times. There is considerable truth to it, but at the end of the day I doubt the Civ…er…The War Between the States (or better yet, the War Against Northern Aggression) would have happened without slavery. It was not the only issue, but it was a huge issue. So, while some may quibble, I’m going to chalk that slaughter up to the multiracial account.
Thanks for the reply, Hollenhund. It is clear that whites, as a general rule (plenty of exceptions), will not have children that they cannot support. Unfortunately, non-whites suffer from no such compunctions. My only advice: don’t let the non-whites enter. Any short term gains will be dwarfed by long term costs.
We’ve also got to figure out how to promote affordable family formation in modern societies. It is a damn shame that many white couples, people who would make great parents, can’t afford to have more than one child.
Right now, precious few white subgroups are even at replacement levels. The only two such groups that I’m aware who are solidly above replacement are the Mormons and the Amish. I don’t believe that we can replicate either of those, so we’re going to have to figure out a different approach.
IHTG: “LOL. You do realize that you come off as quite silly settling such controversial debates with one-line offhand remarks.”
lol True enough. But let’s give her credit, if she really is only 19, her thinking is far more advanced than most, as is her general knowledge base. Far more.
Also, in reply to your earlier post, I agree with you that breeding may be the only viable option for now. But the operative phrase is “for now.”
Trainspotter,
“Thanks for the reply, Hollenhund. It is clear that whites, as a general rule (plenty of exceptions), will not have children that they cannot support. Unfortunately, non-whites suffer from no such compunctions.”
Let’s be fair: middle and upper class non-whites have low fertility rates as well. The two groups of people anywhere who have lots of children are generally the filthy rich who can afford it and the lumpenproletariat underclass that leeches off government welfare and isn’t interested in getting their children into higher education anyway.
“We’ve also got to figure out how to promote affordable family formation in modern societies.”
Obsidian had a great thought experiment on this:
http://theobsidianfiles.wordpress.com/2009/12/21/lets-give-the-hbderseugenicists-what-they-want-a-thought-experiment/
Sam Davidson,
well, correct me if I’m wrong, but Israel had good relations with South Africa even before the UN sanctions were introduced. And how exactly did Israel benefit from a weakening South Africa and the eventual collapse of the Apartheid regime? And which were those African countries that turned against Israel? Those two dreaded warrior kingdoms, Angola and Mozambique?
“But the operative phrase is “for now.—
Well, time will tell.
The closest thing to serious “pro-white” politics I can see in the future of the US, is a sort of implicit pro-white movement based on a lionization of “real Americans” (codeword for white Middle Americans) and “real American values”. It will be lead by hard-headed figures of the Jan Brewer and Chris Christie mold.
In such a movement, Jews will not be in top leadership positions, not because of discrimination, but simply because they wouldn’t be interested. I assume there would be some in advisory, “court Jew”-type roles, as there have been throughout history.
Liberals would look at this, understand what was going on, and scream “Racism!”, but nobody would listen to them, because by this point they will have been discredited by the negative results of the immigration policies they promoted for decades. Also, the liberal “cult” would have lost much of its steam by then – far more youths growing up playing video games and watching pr0n than being indoctrinated with “social justice”.
In other words, it would be what the 2000-2008 Bush Administration should have been.
“The two groups of people anywhere who have lots of children are generally the filthy rich who can afford it and the lumpenproletariat underclass that leeches off government welfare and isn’t interested in getting their children into higher education anyway.”
It should be noted that being worried that you won’t be able to afford to send your children to college is the stupidest reason not to have children there is.
For the sake of a status game these morons are robbing their children of the right to exist in the first place!
Höllenhund said:
“well, correct me if I’m wrong, but Israel had good relations with South Africa even before the UN sanctions were introduced. And how exactly did Israel benefit from a weakening South Africa and the eventual collapse of the Apartheid regime? And which were those African countries that turned against Israel? Those two dreaded warrior kingdoms, Angola and Mozambique?”
I doubt the Jews have benefitted at all from their subversive actions against the West. The modern West has been the most hospitable place the Jews have ever known. And yet they’ve seemingly done their best to destroy it. Now former anti-apartheid activists like Nadine Gordimer (Jew) are being robbed in their own homes by the same Africans they wanted to “liberate.” How have the Jews benefitted? I don’t know. In apartheid South Africa the Jews were considered ‘white’ and they were allowed to attend prestigious universities and do business. Even the Communists like Joe Slovo were educated at a university – and in the first half of the 20th century that was quite an accomplishment. These same Jews who became lawyers and well-respected members of the white South African society turned against it with a passion.
Are the Jews simply more ‘moral’? Very doubtful. Their religious teaching is nothing but pure semitic tribalism. In the West they preach that we should accomodate every minority and viewpoint – but in their own country they bulldoze neighborhoods, shoot unarmed civilians, and spit on Christians who visit Israel. But in Europe and America the Jews want more accomodation! More multiculturalism!
Why do the Jews support Muslims in Europe, but kill them in the Middle East?
See here: http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/?p=51247
The Jewish community of Switzerland is opposed to the Swiss maintain their own culture against the Muslims, even though the growing Muslim minority in Europe is going to be a hundred times more anti-Jewish than any native people of Europe. How does this make sense? As the evidence mounts it appears that the Jews simply want to undermine Western Civilization without concern for the danger this poses to their own people.
Hollenhund: “Let’s be fair: middle and upper class non-whites have low fertility rates as well.”
Agreed, but I think the take home point is that there are in fact lots of responsible white people who would have preferred to have larger families, but didn’t due to economic reasons. Our goal shouldn’t be to browbeat people who don’t want kids into having them, but rather to facilitate affordable family formation for those who do want more. Just to pull a number out of thin air, let’s say that only 30 percent of white couples really want more children than they now have. Well, that 30 percent could have an enormous effect on our overall birthrate, if we make it viable for them to have three, four or five children. At that point, the fact that the remaining 70 percent average less is not so much of an issue. Facilitate the ones that want to do it, don’t worry about the rest.
Of course, this is a multifaceted problem and not just about economics. As I mentioned above, two of the few white subgroups (perhaps the only major white subgroups) that are well above replacement level are the Amish and Mormons. Clearly, their elevated birthrates aren’t just about econonmics per se, there is a religious and cultural component as well. The question is whether that sort of thing be replicated on a broader scale. My guess is probably not, at least not entirely. So we have to look at other avenues, and economics is one of them (though I think it is a virtual given that when we can restore a healthy culture, white birthrates will go up at least somewhat).
If there are healthy, responsible white couples who would like more children but can’t afford them, then certainly we can work with that once we have our own homeland and control our own culture and institutions. I don’t see much changing until that happens, at least on a broad scale. Again, right now we are in heap big trouble, and as long as our hostile overclass is still in place, we will likely remain so.
Hollenhund, I just noticed that I misread your statement. Whoops. Anyway, the reply above still more or less works.
Sam Davidson,
maybe we should entertain the possibility that there is no leftist-Zionist-globalist world conspiracy, at least not one that all Jews enlisted to.
Reginald: “It should be noted that being worried that you won’t be able to afford to send your children to college is the stupidest reason not to have children there is.
For the sake of a status game these morons are robbing their children of the right to exist in the first place!”
Absolutely, I’ve thought this many times. But, at the end of the day, responsible white couples want to be able to meet middle class expectations for their children.
My parents paid for my undergraduate tuition, in full. I was much more on my own with the advanced degrees, but they were still supportive in some important respects. The simple reality is that it would embarrass me if I could not provide the same level of assistance that my own family provided me. I am not alone in that feeling, I believe it to be common.
Perhaps one solution would be to make the following deal: parents only have to pay for two children’s undergraduate tuition. A third or fourth is picked up by the broader community; it’s on us.
It might be difficult to fashion such a policy to avoid perverse outcomes, but something along those lines would probably be necessary. Right now it is not too much of an exaggeration to say that middle class whites are terrified at the prospect of having large families. They just don’t see how to swing it. That must change.
Another possibility to overcome the college tuition stumbling block to having children would be a generous student loan forgiveness program, where roughly one quarter of the parent’s student loan would be forgiven per child. Have four children, your student loan debt is forgiven.
This provides a direct incentive for the parent, in the here and now, to get rid of their own debt (which also makes family formation more affordable, and perhaps would allow the mother to stay at home if she chooses; in any event it lowers their monthly bills). Plus, that parent would know that the same deal will apply to their own children. Their children will similarly be able to get rid of their student loans, while simultaneously providing grandchildren. That would be pretty sweet, and would largely remove college as a stumbling block, while encouraging higher birthrates among the college educated and long term planners. It would provide both short term benefits and long term benefits.
Again, it would be difficult to fashion such a program without creating unintended consequences, but I suspect it’s doable. The college thing is really killing us in all sorts of ways, from delaying marriage and childbirth, to making children appear to be unaffordable entirely.
Trainspotter, the best way to make college tuition affordable is by doing away with the student loans program. No loans, not so many people can afford the current tuition levels, which would universities cut them dramatically. The only beneficiaries of the student loans insanity are universities, not students or parents.
RV: “The only beneficiaries of the student loans insanity are universities, not students or parents.”
There is considerable truth to this, but there is also more to it. The simple reality is that student loans have allowed a lot of bright people to go to university that otherwise would not have been able to do it. Before the widespread availability of student loans, lots of people that were college material were unable to go. Just anecdotally, I know a number of elderly people that fit the bill perfectly: college material, didn’t go because of financial reasons. I don’t know any young people that fit that bill. The old practice has an unpleasant side effect: it contributes to seething class resentment, something that we definitely need to avoid. So student loans aren’t ALL bad.
On the other hand, there is no doubt that student loans have allowed universities to go absolutely insane in the tuition department. It has also allowed them to play all sorts of games that pretty much boil down to robbing Peter to pay Paul. Charge Peter full tuition, give Negro Paul a free ride, or give athlete Paul a free ride, etc. One of the biggest things driving up tuition costs is that hapless Peter is forced to pay for all sorts of things that don’t have anything to do with the core mission of the schools – from insane athletic programs where, in addition to all of the free rides, coaches make many times what a professor makes, to all sorts of social engineering and income redistribution schemes. You’ve got to love it: hit Peter up to pay for “disadvantaged” Paul, and Peter is just some 18 year old kid! Stick it to him!
To bring tution in line, colleges must be prohibited from engaging in this mischief. They have become gatekeepers of enormous power in our society, and there is a difference between guarding the gate and engaging in highway robbery. Tuition should be utilized exclusively for the core mission of a degree granting university – to pay the faculty and support personnel, keep the lights on and the grass cut, as well as provide a reasonable residential environment (students are living there for years, after all). I don’t have a problem with various student ameneties like campus centers, gyms and the like, so long as they are meant to serve the broader campus population. The idea should be to keep tuition at a reasonable level for everybody, so that even if students do have to rely upon loans, the resulting debt won’t be too bad. If private entities and sports boosters want to provide free rides, or pay exhorbitant salaries to coaches, that’s their business. Just don’t force Peter to pay for it while pretending that it’s “tuition.”
Of course, the real problem in the United States is that we have lost all sense of what actually constitutes “college material,” therefore we spend enormous sums of money sending complete idiots to college. Hell, we BEG idiots to go to college here. Laughably, Obama is demanding that ALL children go to college. Utter insanity.
The reality is that only a fairly small percentage of people are capable of mastering advanced bodies of academic knowledge, and therefore only a minority of students can truly benefit from a college education. We could save an enormous amount of money at the societal level by returning to a more reasonable definition of what college is all about. Those who don’t make the cut can enroll in community college to do their first two years, and transfer if they prove themselves. Far more effective for everyone concerned that way – except, as you point out, the universities themselves, who would of course lose students and therefore loan money under such an approach.
A more reasonable definition would be that college isn’t necessary for a respectable middle class life, and an academic pursuit in no way prepares you for most professional/white collar careers. College isn’t vocational school and a degree doesn’t give you the credentials to do anything that many people couldn’t do without one.
“My parents paid for my undergraduate tuition, in full. I was much more on my own with the advanced degrees, but they were still supportive in some important respects. The simple reality is that it would embarrass me if I could not provide the same level of assistance that my own family provided me.”
Then in a way it is your misfortune that your parents provided you with that much support.
It seems to me that if you provide Person A with life, food, shelter, love, and a massive amount of your time; Person A then demanding you give him a big sack of money so he can go to college is a bridge much too far.
If you happen to have the money and think using it to help your child go to college is a wise use of it, go ahead and use it in that way.
But if you don’t have the money, so what?
It’s nothing to be embarrassed about as far as I’m concerned.
“It’s nothing to be embarrassed about as far as I’m concerned.”
What can I say? Different strokes I guess. The point is that it is embarrassing for large numbers of the middle class.
There is nothing wrong with helping your children get a good start in the world, and I don’t see us convincing many people otherwise. I also don’t think we should try. Frankly, we want strong families that provide mutual support, as opposed to fragmented or uncooperative families that end up turning to the government/taxpayer for assistance. Atomization doesn’t work very well in the school of hard knocks.
I mentioned a couple of possible solutions above, neither of which require convincing the middle class that they shouldn’t assist children with education. As whites, our fundamental problems are cultural/spiritual, and finding the solution to that is going to be tough. But many of these other things are just technical problems, open to reasonable solutions. The overclass is the only thing standing in the way of solving at least a good deal of what ails us. A very good deal.
“I mentioned a couple of possible solutions above…”
That’s true, but at the same time some of your ideas couldn’t be implemented if parents keep their current attitudes toward college.
You can’t stop idiots from going to college if their parents tell them: “If you go to college I’ll give you this big sack of money, but if you don’t go to college I won’t.â€
And as long as there’s idiots with the money to pay tuition, the colleges would be stupid not to admit most of them in spite of the harm it does to academic standards.
“Frankly, we want strong families that provide mutual support, as opposed to fragmented or uncooperative families that end up turning to the government/taxpayer for assistance.”
Yeah, it’s good that Middle Class parents want to help their children.
It just is that so many of their children are too stupid to benefit from going to College, as you rightfully point out, and then there’s the issue that with the economy how it is it just doesn’t make sense for the Middle Class to delay having children until after they’re sure they can afford to pay college tuition.
Even if you think you’re on a track to be able to pay, that says very little about what kind of financial shape you’ll be in 18 years hence.
“That’s true, but at the same time some of your ideas couldn’t be implemented if parents keep their current attitudes toward college.”
True enough, but I think attitudes concerning college would change in a white ethnostate. Right now, the working class is undermined by “free trade” (somehow it’s free trade to buy huge amounts of goods and services from other nations, while we sell those nations..not much. Just go into massive debt instead. Free trade used to mean trading one product for another, now it means trading trinkets for perpetual debt. What a joke.), not to mention integration, immigration, outsourcing, etc. All of these factors would be either eliminated in a white ethnostate, as in zero non-white immigration, or at least mitigated, as in a trade policy that requires a legitimate exchange of goods instead of trinkets for debt (you buy a trillion from us, we buy a trillion from you. Nobody goes into debt to the other guy).
The bottom line is that in a white ethnostate the white working class would be in good shape. They would, for the most part, simply become members in good standing of the middle class. Therefore, the pressure for unqualified people to go to college would be considerably less. Even now, the higher education bubble may be in the beginning stages of popping. I’m starting to see more and more articles in the mainstream about how college isn’t necessarily the best way to go. Just a few years ago that would have been more or less unthinkable.
“You can’t stop idiots from going to college…”
True enough, at least today. In fact, we beg idiots to go to college. But that can change. Firstly, as mentioned above, one needs an economy that doesn’t cannibalize the working class. Secondly, you need a high quality K-8 or K-9 education system that gives people a solid general education. By the time they hit 10th grade or so, they should have the opportunity to specialize. Those who want to go the four year college route would get several additional years of rigorous academics, while the rest should be able to enroll in various technical programs, and graduate with an associate’s degree from a community college. This is similar to the way it’s done in some of the better European systems.
In a healthy society there would be more good options. Our society, for a whole host or reasons – from a ridiculous version of egalitarianism to cannibalizing the economy – has elevated “college” to a status all out of proportion to reality.
Healthy options aside, at the end of the day we need sensible standards as well. A college should not be accredited, and should not be eligible for student loan money, if it lets in anybody who can fog a mirror. There needs to be a more reasonable definition of what constitutes college material. If you don’t meet that standard, you don’t get in. You could still go to community college (open enrollment) and do your first two years, thereby proving yourself. We know most idiots aren’t going to do that, though, so the people that get through will likely be o.k.
Again, the take away point is this: we can’t implement any of these solutions in a multiracial hellhole, under the power of a hostile overclass. We’ll need our own nation to do any of these things – hence white nationalism.
RebelliousVanilla said: “Chuck, Western civilization is a fairly modern construct. Just ask anyone though if they feel Western or British or French.”
Yes, I appreciate how effective cultural Marxism has been. You’re the product. Fortunately, I went to private schools.
I will note the I find the existence of people like you to be ridiculous . My wife is Asian and she can clearly articulate what stands for Western Culture, and Western History, and What counted as the Western World. That there was a West is why people write books like: “From Plato To NATO: The Idea of the West and Its Opponents.” Or why people do work in comparative philosophy and discuss a West-East divide.
This is a non-issue. You are simply demonstrating that you have a ahistoric sense. If there was no connection across Europe, why I can find the works of Seneca to Descartes in Latin but not Mandrin?
“nationality isn’t a bunch of ideas put together”
Nationality is peoplehood. Peoplehood is individuals seeing themselves are being a part of a group. Often different nations have different cultures, genes, languages, religions, Ur-Myths, etc. Not always.
Your point was the White nationalism is empty. My point was that white nationalism is what it is. It is a people defined by an identity. That identity is based on a sense of shared genes, culture, and interest.
The boundaries of this identity are not always clear. I am guessing though that the boundaries exclude a Mongol, an Arab, an albino Sub-Saharan African. And that this exclusion is not done arbitrarily but because the White Nationalists sees himself, like Nietzsche did, as a good European. And there was some content and contrast which made a European a European and not a Tutsi or Tamil — and which is independent of what other Europeans did or do or whom they may choose to do.
Ethnic groups after all are life species; they constantly differentiate and some branches die off while other go one. Since all the West is declaring itself to be Multicultural and diverse in order to accommodate other groups, the White Nationalist just has to define herself as what is not diverse. Diverse from what, you ask? Well obviously from what the White nationalist is.
As for the cultural thing. When I talk about culture, in particular Western culture, I mean it in the robust sense of gene-culture evolution, cultural neuroscience, cross-cultural psychology. It is not a bunch of ideas put together nor is it schnitzel and brot. It is a mental frame of thinking and relating to the world. In this sense Western culture is neither modern not a construct. The modern era is defined as post 1500, the idea the West as something distinct precedes that. Again the major tie was Christianity. That was the medium which spread Western ideas.
Thanks for writing this. FWIIW, Paul Gottfried has been saying what MM is saying for years: he blames puritanism. I more or less agree with him; it’s one of my fundamental tenets that this religion is our official state religion. Distorted puritanism, but exactly puritanism none the less. The funny thing is, liberals think they’re some kind of anti-puritans; they’ve become what they beheld.
My argument against WN is simple. I don’t like white people. What what people am I supposed to gang up with to form the Brave New World? Let’s see; white people who are not weak pieces of dung …. Sorry: white people; you guys lose. I got way more brown pals who aren’t pathetic. Like Paul Gottfried, I’m filled with a sort of Nietzschean contempt for most honkies; degenerate girlie men, and lantern jawed viragoes; pah! I have nothing in common with those people. Rather than subject myself to them, I’d rather go live in the desert like John the Baptist, or simply watch the world fall apart, like Ammianus Marcellinus.
Props to whoever mentioned the Mormons first; they will inherit America. If their beliefs were not so ridiculous, I would have converted a decade ago. They already run vast swathes of the CIA and diplomatic corps. Also, the anus.com articles are classic and great.
“It’s well and good to stand up for your tribe, but don’t expect me to embrace everything that looks white and lump it all together into one ethnic group. That’s insane talk, and when it’s coupled with hatred for other races, you can count me out.”
“It’s well and good to stand up for your tribe, but don’t expect me to embrace everything that looks white and lump it all together into one ethnic group. That’s insane talk, and when it’s coupled with hatred for other races, you can count me out.â€
Pure, unadulterated nonsense. White nationalism doesn’t embrace everything that looks white, it fully recognizes the diseased and damaging things that many white people have done. Speaking for myself, I have no desire for the detritus of the white race to be part of the coming white nation. Lupo, if you are white, you are more than welcome to be an outcast. In fact, if I had any say in the matter, I’d insist upon it. The desert awaits.
Your post is a classic example of how the Left, crazy though they may be, is smarter than most of its conservative opposition. The Left understands that it’s all about race, which is why they will brook no dissent in the racial department. You can argue with them about abortion, or gun rights, or a thousand other things, but you want to see them go absolutely mad with rage, pulling of hair and gnashing of teeth? Easy, challenge their views on race. Take a pro-white stance. That’ll do the trick, right and proper.
The Left doesn’t spend a lot of time trying slice, dice and parse whites into various subgroups. Instead, the Left attacks whites in general, passes laws that discriminate against whites in general, pursue policies to reduce whites in general to minority status, and conduct a massive and never ending propaganda campaign directed against whites in general.
Get it now? I didn’t think so.
Then some silly twit calling himself a “conservative” or a “paleo” will attack white nationalists for defending whites…in general. The Left advances, smashing anything in its path, but some conservative lickspittle protests that he doesn’t identify as white, that “whiteness” isn’t a sufficient identity for him. LOL! The moron can’t understand that nobody cares how he identifies, rather it is he who has been identified by the opposition.
It really is to laugh how utterly clueless these supposed “conservatives” have been, and no wonder at all why they ALWAYS lose. Always. They literally can’t understand where the battle lines even are, much less begin to fight the battle itself. Love to Lose Conservatives. Scoreboard: 14,555 for the Left, 0 for “Conservatives.” And yet the silly prancers STILL don’t get it. Such people are worthless, and should not be reasoned with, only mocked and metaphorically kicked around like the mangy curs they are.
Full disclosure, the above post is mine. Name didn’t go through.
What Mr. Ferdinand Bardamu misses is the influence of Freemasonry. He mentions Thomas Paine who was not a legal member of the Masons but was a fellow traveller. Freemasonry is heavily influenced by the Jewish Kabbalah. Tolerance and diversity are Masonic values. Freemasonry was the vehicle for liberalism in the West. It was developed, or taken over originally, to dismantle Western Culture and bring about the tolerance of the Jews. Much like Protestantism was instigated by the Jews to break up Catholicism, Jews instigated Freemasonry to break up the Old Order. The Last three hundred years is about the Jews engineering and spreading lies in order to bring about their political and social tolerance.
And then their political control. The whole of the West is caught up in Cultural Marxism. Jews have been the vehicle and main propagandists for this movement. It is about deceiving the gentiles to bring about their enslavement.
Liberalism is about destroying the Old Order.
“Oh, and I forgot to add – the civil war was more about state rights than slavery.”
Wrong. Sorta. Trust me Vanilla, I live in SC, the first state to secede. It was over the conflict of whether or not mid-west states would become slave owning or not, thus tilting the balance of power between slave states and non-slave states too far to one side or the other in Congress. The core issue was about a state right indeed, the right to have slavery. Its a chicken or egg thing, but it was very much about slavery.
The liberal/secularism inflicted up European society, particularly in Germany after WWII has allot to do with the current immigration problem in Europe. In fact, the present Muslim invasion of Europe has its biggest head-start in Germany in the 1950 when Muslims took advantage of the liberal immigration policies of the post WWII liberal German government to come in as “guest workers.” As we now know, this was all the start of a grand strategic plan by the Muslim brotherhood to begin a new reconquest of Europe. While there certainly have been other factors involved in the present European immigration problem the evidence seems pretty clear that Muslims took advantage of a Europe totally drained by two world wars to come in and set up shop. France, which of course was also among the victors in WWII, also had a big hand in letting in the middle-easterners.
Indeed, a Europe totally drained by two world wars. Esperanto could prevent them.
Luckily, there are tensions in the Muslim world, too.
Okay, I have spotted quite a few misrepresentations about White Nationalism within this article, but I only have time to address one. And so, in response to: “White nationalists want to group all whites under a united banner to face off against the dark-skinned, squid-eyed hordes. This is lunacy on multiple levels. To begin with, it is as wrong to toss white and European cultures into a blender as it is to toss all cultures into that blender. I don’t want Britain, Australia, France or any other country to be swamped with American culture anymore than I want them to be swamped with Arab, Indian, or Chinese culture. If I want to see McDonald’s, reality TV, and fat, white whales lumbering around in clothes that accentuate their ugliness, I can get that here in the states. The white nationalist vision will create ethnic and cultural confusion.”
“White Nationalism” only applies to the White colonies outside of Europe, that is to say, the United States, Canada, and Australia, which have a history of intermixing among different White ethnic groups. In France, it’s French Nationalism, in Greece Greek Nationalism, in Russia Russian Nationalism, and so on. In other words, the White Nationalist movement does not apply to European countries. Hope that clears that up.
{ 11 trackbacks }