Reading through Christopher Lasch’s excellent Narcissism, the thought comes to mind that Nietzsche’s “nihilism” (which I more accurately refer to as solipsism, including necessary fatalism toward anything outside the self) is not so much a disregard of all value and truth, but a determination to not notice anything outside of the individual. This fits within its role as apologism and compensation for the collapse of Western civilization by misdirecting attention toward non-problems in lieu of looking at the larger problem staring us all in the face.
How does a civilization get to this place? In my view, the progression goes like this: a few First Families set up a healthy society, which causes prosperity. This creates a breeding bloom in the lower echelons, including the top-ranked of them, who form a mercantile caste. These make their money from the lower and find themselves bumping up against social conventions and social standards, such as are normally encoded in culture through morality and aesthetic preferences. As a result, they demand increasing power to abolish these, and they do it with a “think of the children!” style argument for altruistic egalitarianism. This eventually becomes democracy, or mob rule, at which point the electorate demands both no rules and free subsidies at the expense of the more prosperous. This eliminates the middle class and flattens the society, at which point it must hire mercenaries and foreign labor to do its work, which both guts its economy and prepares a next round of enemies to finish it off.
A more profound progression occurs through the idea of democracy itself. Voting separates cause and effect; the pulling of the bar that elects one candidate or another bears little visual or discernible relationship to what happens. Once the election is over, voters are free to blame both politicians and other voters, which conveniently removes any responsibility to think of themselves as having had an influence in the process. That in turn causes them to view their votes as more of a conversational event, or at least an emotionally symbolic one, instead of a decision-making process. Quality suffers accordingly. Voters have little “skin in the game” because socialized costs are distributed to all citizens, which encourages voters to vote terribly with the intent of evading the consequences of their acts by cheating on the bureaucracies which implement the resulting insane rules.
This situation creates a type of “learned helplessness” where voters assume that because elections always lead to failure, there is no point caring about them, and because they can blame everyone else for what went wrong, voters can justify stealing from those others. This learned helplessness allows voters to be both cynical and feel like cynicism is a “moral” response, because the voters have become victims of the system, and they in retaliating against it are striking a blow for decency. From this learned helplessness, voters learn to consider themselves victims of society and therefore to demand as much as possible to recompense them for this perceived injury.
In this way, democracy creates narcissism/solipsism. Voters think of themselves as independent from the consequences of their actions and unbeholden to consider the effects on others. The sense of unity as a society is replaced by a competitive outlook where each voter tries to sabotage society as much as possible in public acts while in private attempting to steal, cheat, lie, graft, etc. away as much wealth as possible. Because democracy reduces the question of leadership to “what is good for you” (as an individual), individuals respond by ignoring important issues like any long-term needs, foreign policy, social order and other issues which impact all citizens and benefit none specifically. The result is a classic human self-consumptive process where everyone cheats, everything said in public is a lie, no one can be trusted, and only dishonest sociopaths succeed because they pitch to the herd the lies they know it will reward from its own short-sighted greed.
Patriotism is a dirty thing, when you break it down. It means loyalty to the State that claims to represent a particular nation-state, and as you probably know, “nation-state” is what replaced “nation,” or a community of people of the same heritage. Like loyalty to the Republican party, this is a surrogate for conservatives; we represent an idea.
Although people like to pretend there are third options, politics can be broken down into two threads: those who believe in results and those who believe in intentions. The former, like lab scientists, look at history as a laboratory and pick not only what “works” (survives) but what produces the best results. The latter focus on what should be or what ought to be or any other nonsense that serves to conceal their desire to convert politics into a social question, where like when talking with friends most people cheer up when a certain thing is said. They want it to be social so they can work around the results-based nature of reality. It is a shortcut, a con job, a bluff and a deception.
Those who like results-based politics are called conservatives. We conserve what works. We do not conserve a specific age or program, only what works. Because we are not idiots, we recognize that “works” has degrees; even Communism “works” for a few years. As a result, we pick the optimal: what works best for the best possible results. Your daughter will survive if she becomes a meth-addicted hooker, and have children and perpetuate the species, but she will experience optimized survival if she instead devotes herself to discipline, wisdom and has a traditional marriage and nuclear family. Conservatives like that optimum. This leads us to a sense of “transcendence” or awareness-beyond-materiality in life; when you choose optimums, you start to see material as a means to an end and not an end in itself. This is part of the maturation process of becoming a conservative.
With all of this in mind, it is impossible to say there is such a thing as a “conservative country” or even “conservative party.” Conservatism is a principle that some hit upon more than most and so, generally, they get conservative support as a kind of shorthand. This support however comes on the condition that the party, person or country be generally also using conservative principles. When that fails, a conservative cannot morally support that entity because he or she knows it to be going in a bad direction and against principle. Mainstream conservatives would love if it they could obligate all of us to always vote Republican, because then they could do anything they wanted and be just as corrupt as the left. That would achieve the same effect as having an ideological hivemind as is the basis of liberalism.
For this reason, conservatives remain the perpetual alert guardians who do not allow themselves to be lulled by the mistake of categorical thinking, which is that assuming some conservative acts make 100% of what an entity does conservative, which in this case is a substitute term for realistic, morally right and sensible all in one. The point is that we can never entirely delegate to a symbol all that it stands for, and conservatism can only be represented by its fulfillment as a result. This lets us turn to the USA and whether we exist here as patriotic citizens or an oppositional group.
For conservatives, the USA is dead as concept. It turned on its own citizens with affirmative action, feminism and other ideological programs. It redefined citizen from its original meaning — the WASP settlers of this new world — to sell the franchise to anyone and everyone for profit. It discriminated against the prosperous so it could subsidize new groups of voters, in the Soviet style. And now most of its citizens are delusional robots that repeat the propaganda and vote for it time and again, electing our least experienced president ever (Obama) and potentially electing a known criminal (Clinton). This situation is… over. It is burned, done, destroyed and those who control it — the elites, the Cathedral — are simply making money off selling what is left. There is no such thing as an “American” anymore. There are only people who recognize that this civilization has failed, and those who are still in denial.
The death of the USA comes within the broader context of the death of the West. Despite impoverished origins, Western Europe prevailed because it adhered to the idea of promoting right ideas and better people above the rest. When it got successful enough, democracy took over and reversed that process. Nothing but failure has followed and now the West, too, is a dead letter. The USA collapsing is part of the broader scheme of Western European society falling apart everywhere it exists, and the solution is to reverse democracy and socialism, and instead go back to rewarding only the ideas and people who are above the norm. The principle of democracy is to normalize all things to a single standard of equality, where that of traditional Europe was to rise above that standard. It is no surprise that both are falling.
For most of my life, I would have gone off to fight for this country and its people. No more: these people are freeloaders on the acts of myself and my ancestors, and they promote a vision of America that excludes me and replaces me with a mixed-race, anarchic, individualistic society that somehow exactly resembles third-world societies everywhere. Their goal is to destroy me, my culture and everything I stand for. As a result, I owe them not allegiance but hatred. Much as a President once said, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” I now turn to my fellows and say:
Mr. Western European, tear down this civilization!
There is nothing left for us here except parasites who wish to share in the benefits of our acts while destroying the principles that made those acts possible. This is not a civilization; it is a Ponzi scheme based on the wealth of the past. At this point, a conservative realizes the arc of history has shifted and, once a conqueror, he is now the conquered fighting for the liberation of his people. The pendulum has swung in the other direction. This means that the USA is not something to be patriotic to, but its opposite: it is the enemy and it must die.
Pluralism, or the idea that multiple standards of values and behavior can co-exist within the same society, carries a high cost that takes years to visualize. If this cost popped up immediately, people would recognize it, but because it hides behind years and complexity it is worse than invisible to them; they actively deny any symptoms of it that they do happen to observe.
In a mono-cultural society, each citizen faces the day with the question of how to do what is right. Since whatever gods may exist left us no writing on the walls, we must infer what is right from what has worked for us in the past. This raises questions of “who is us?” and “what does ‘worked’ mean?” The former addresses both cultural group and divisions within it like class, and the latter addresses standards of values that are unique to each culture. For a German, “success” has more to do with efficiency and architectural elegance than an Italian, for whom success involves a greater degree of leisure and aesthetic beauty. Either way, a standard of values and behavior is defined.
In a pluralistic society, multiple standards of values and behavior co-exist, which means in theory that people would act according to the intersection of those. In reality, it means that people obey the level of performance held in common between them, which creates a bias toward the lowest standard because anything higher is not shared, so the weakest link in the chain defines the chain. When put into practice, this means that people do the absolute minimum possible and achieve mediocre results while attempting to avoid offending all of the groups in the pluralistic society, each of which is struggling to preserve its own values by asserting taboos and rituals. Taboos reflect things that “offend” or disturb, and rituals are activities which affirm the importance of the group.
As a result, people in a pluralistic society act not toward what is right but what is most convenient that avoids offending others. This creates a negative standard of behavior where people are not reaching for any positive result, only trying to avoid offending others or wasting time rising above the mediocre minimum. For this reason, all pluralistic societies tend to be places with low standards, but many bickering enclaves, which causes internal friction that further lowers the common standard until the society is barely a society at all. This is the condition in which most of the world exists and to which most people wish to be lowered, because it places so few restrictions on them that they can indulge in self-aggrandizing egomania and “feel” better about themselves without having to achieve anything of note.
Democracy makes life feel like sitting in a movie theater: we, the audience, see others on stage and must then raise a thumb or lower it as if we were Roman imperators at the the gladiator stage. One of the actors, our media, simplifies and streamlines news into a series of simple categories, portrayed as caricatures. Among their favorites, the “racist” — especially on the internet — plays best.
But who are these internet racists? For the most part, like marginalized minority groups, they are muted in the mainstream media. We hear about them, and see that their comments have been deleted from blogs and newspapers, but few people ask them why they do what they do and why. To rectify this, I headed over to the notorious/infamous Reddit hive of racism /r/CoonTown and asked the moderators (or “mods”) there for a few words, which they were generous to oblige.
Did you have an “awakening”? Was it solely to race, or to other factors like environmental collapse, economic collapse, social collapse or leadership failure?
Suspook: Hi, we go back a long time from IRC [#anus].
When you say “awakening” I feel like that implies that someone that was once an SJW had their eyes suddenly [finally] open to how the world really works + the advantages of actually judging people in the real world. I suppose I always knew as a kid growing up in a major American city + seeing it for myself.
George_l_rockwell: I never had any huge awakening, I got to where I am now politically in a very gradual process. I used to be a left winger when I was younger, but even back then I was much more of a socially traditional left winger and I was against immigration and “black culture” at the time.
EugeneNix: Not sure if it really could be called an “awakening,” but I noticed during my teenage years the blacks acted far different than other races, and were usually the most irritating/annoying/criminal. Over time one pays attention and reads sources that our liberal overlords don’t want us to look at.
Of course, there are other issues facing us today, but that’s the most applicable one for CoonTown.
Baba_OReilly: No fork-in-the road “awakening” for me. Negroes have always turned me off. As time goes by, my distaste grows.
I understand /r/CoonTown emerged from the ruins of /r/Niggers. How were you able to keep and apparently double your audience since that time?
Suspook: The key is having your core userbase know exactly where to go once the shit hits the fan, almost like a fire drill. /r/niggers went down so they went to rniggers.com…when that was sabotaged /r/GreatApes was formed. Once the lead mod revealed his SJW leanings, EugeneNix + myself really led people to GreatApeNiggy’s new CoonTown through the use of redirects + other tactics. We have core guys like JewishNeoCon who made about 60 umbrella subs within one “Chimpire” + all the while we maintain a very active IRC channel that people know they can all come to whenever something happens so we can regroup very quickly. Reddit’s search feature can make finding us very easy also…/r/fatpeoplehate2 got about 5000 new members in a few hours before it was also banned.
George_l_rockwell: It’s been all about making sure that we obeyed the Reddit site rules. /r/niggers broke too many rules, and we had to make sure that we would give the admins no reason to ban us.
EugeneNix: Sharp presentation, savvy moderators, and competent advertising. All we have to do is have our enemies shout loudly about us, and more people come to see what the ruckus is about.
Baba_OReilly: The key to CTs popularity is that it’s “enlightened entertainment.” The facts and statistics are hugely important, but people aren’t going to hang around long without a little “Razz-a-ma-Tazz” to make them chuckle. Let’s face it, Reddit is diversion, nothing more. If the plug was pulled on the whole thing tonight, the Grand Scheme wouldn’t even notice.
What are your feelings on black people? What are your feelings on other minority groups? What about the idea of a mixed-race society, a.k.a. diversity or multiculturalism, at all? Can it ever work?
Suspook: Diversity is disharmony. Racism is just a cause of a larger problem [read: diversity]. Diversity even transcends race at times as you can have different gangs culture clash over colors + have African Americans be seen as problematic when they decide to move to African countries [Example: Ghana]. Diversity can also run amok among religions, not just race. A muslim population in a former all non-muslim neighborhood can put pressure on delis + even fast food [check how many Taco Bell’s are completely Halal in UK now] to become strictly Halal. Muslims also will not do business in non-muslim banks + fracture the economic system there as a lot of them will just keep their money in their own homeland muslim banks. It says a lot also that leftist culture will cater to these people that they should be against [muslims + feminists/gays coexisting?…african rape statistics in foreign countries..] then again these are the same types of people who use self-hatred as a means to an end.
George_l_rockwell: I really don’t mind minorities as long as they are away from me. It’s when we all interact together in which I see the obvious flaws of multiracial societies. I have found that some minorities typically tend to be easier to interact with compared to others.
EugeneNix: I think blacks are more likely to be criminal and have lower IQs, statistically speaking. I think racial differences do exist, but blacks are the most markedly different. I think some temporary forms of “diversity” can work if it is a mostly homogeneous entity and the members not of the majority seek to assimilate themselves.
DylannStormRoof: I won’t say it can’t work. I will say that I’m tired of being on ground zero for this multiculturalism experiment. If blacks grouped up and killed each other off except for the top ~3% smartest, maybe they’d have a high IQ enough to “act white” (nigger expression for the standards of decorum whites have set) and live among us as civilians. In an ideal world, they’d be deported back to Africa except for the outlier blacks who have a high enough IQ and and are existing contributors to society, have never committed a violent crime and possess a job. Also interracial breeding would be outlawed to reduce further degeneration of the races.
Baba_OReilly: My only bone to pick is with the toxic, dysfunctional plague called the Negro race. I have no problem with any other group of people. Multiculturalism is a crock. “Different” and “good” are not synonyms.
Are you associated with any racialist groups or ideas, like White Supremacy, White Nationalism, National Socialism (Nazism) or Nationalism?
Suspook: I was only very loosely associated with the National Vanguard for a year in 2004.
EugeneNix: No, I find most of that laughable, but I’m a sympathizer of the American Renaissance faction of white nationalism. The others, the HAIL HITLER 1488 RACE WAR NOW types are fucking annoying and childish.
I think nationalism has some good ideas in it. I think it needs not be taken uber-seriously to the point where weirdness comes out of it.
Baba_OReilly: Nope. I don’t care about flags, Nazis, Hitler, KKK, jews, Stormfront, none of it. The problem is niggers and their white enablers.
George_l_rockwell: Center, to center right. Funnily enough, I’ve been banned from /r/conservative.
Baba_OReilly: I’m a William F. Buckley Conservative. I’ll leave it to you to find my absorption line on the spectrum.
Why do this on Reddit? Isn’t Reddit… uhm… rather liberal, for this sort of thing? How many of your members do you think are liberal?
Suspook: We get liberals daily claiming how they cannot take it anymore + tell their stories about finally being honest with themselves/see the narrative of equality shatter before their eyes. We engage anyone to debate/argue/etc against us + we don’t ban people for much. I think it’s telling that you don’t see people actively engage us at all in a hugely leftist place, but rather you see people use throwaway accounts to support us + tell us their own personal stories due to the fact they are worried they might be attacked by their own for being traitors of some kind.
George_l_rockwell: Reddit has one of the largest userbases on the entire Internet. It would be stupid to not expose our ideas to as many people as possible. Sites like Stormfront simply fail to do that.
EugeneNix: Because it is utterly hilarious to see some effeminate, over-educated privileged white kid salivate out at us over his Starbucks wifi connection, him living in a 99% white area just furiously freaking out at the fact we exist.
I think we have a few liberal members. I believe JediMasterMaceDindu considers himself a liberal, but he’d have to say.
Baba_OReilly: I am frankly very surprised at the number of liberals on CT. I can only attribute it to their age.
In your ideal world, what would be done about your native land and its African population? Would you deport them? Reparations? Repatriation? Exile? Genocide? Or just strict racial roles and “day of the rope” for miscegenators?
Suspook: I think the world itself has a huge overpopulation problem. Compare populations of countries like Ethiopia + Nigeria to Germany in 2050. It’s alarming to say the least. Now, scientists say, the Earth is on the brink of a sixth such “mass extinction event” + it is directly being caused by humans. College degrees are already completely watered down to how many are given out when college should only be studied by the elite not the common idiot. Sterilizing felons + having a global attitude of more kids = more waste should be promoted. I think Bill Gates is totally out of line fighting diseases like malaria. One should view such diseases as natural defenses that the Earth has had for millennia just to control overpopulation/wasting natural resources/preventing the extinction of other fauna/flora in the area. I think Nationalism has its pros + cons too as it can secure borders tighter, but countries could see themselves get into population arms races. I personally feel the less people the better it is for Earth in general.
George_l_rockwell: In my ideal world, black Americans would face the option of being sent to Africa, OR mandatory sterilization and segregation.
EugeneNix: Deport the criminal blacks for sure. Promote abortion. Promote non-blacks (preferably mostly white) to have children. Implement eugenic programs for everyone.
I don’t think miscegenation is all that bad if it’s not happening on Brazil levels, and the offspring identity with the majoritarian population. Clearly how to have a mostly homogenous USA and Europe seems to be a huge problem now, as the marxists are playing racial genocide against whites.
I think whites should remain a majority population, especially in their own ethnic homelands. It’d be crazy to implement whites only laws, but when an ethnicity is displaced by hostile foreigners, it is alarming.
Baba_OReilly: My ideal world would be that every Negro (if there were any at all) would live in Africa. Second best: utterly complete segregation.
Why do you think Reddit has not banned you yet? Do you think /r/CoonTown serves as a kind of “mascot” for Reddit’s claim of having semi-free speech, to the point where it allows them to say, “See, we’re a free society, after all we allow /r/CoonTown!”
Suspook: We are probably the best moderated subreddit on the website just because we all realize we have a huge target on us. We obey the site rules 100%. I’m only guessing on their standpoints why they don’t want to ban us, but it could be they don’t want even more negative press/negative free speech angles directed at them or they do not want 15,000 users running loose over the rest of their website. They might see CoonTown as basically a confined prison…like yeah we got all the racists on the site + we all know where they are + they only post in this one place instead of peppering comments thru their other subreddits.
George_l_rockwell: I think the admins view us as a containment subreddit. They know that if we were to be banned, literally thousands of racists would start posting their opinions on default subreddits, which would be disastrous for their public image.
EugeneNix: Your guess is as good as mine. Could be what you said, could be the feds have asked them to not ban us to “monitor” us to justify budgeting.
Baba_OReilly: CoonTown is still here because we don’t break the rules. r/fatpeoplehate did.
Why do you think white people are afraid to discuss race? Do you think this is changing? How does /r/CoonTown contribute to this situation?
Suspook: Online leftists get off to Doxxing/Calling your work to out people for it. Being taught the equality myth in school certainly doesn’t help. Honestly, I think it’s so easy for other people to scream racist/bigot/how dare you + just react emotionally to someone who can’t just respond with statistics or facts off the top of their head to actually say WHY they feel the way they do on the fly. You just don’t see responses like “13% of the population, 52% of the homicide offenders. Goodbye.”
Suspook: Technology pacifies white people more than anything too. You’ll never see them actively give a fuck about what is truly happening to America as long as they have an internet connection/phone works/check email/Netflix is up. A metaphor I use often is that it’s parallels the destruction of Rome. One Roman asks another, “Did you hear how far the Barbarians came this morning?”..The Roman replies, “Yeah, it’s looking really bad..we still on tonight for the orgy?”…”Of course!” says the first Roman. Newer + newer technology creates shorter + shorter attention spans for people that they will only care about immediate pleasure. Emotion trumps logic now especially for the Millennial generation.
When white people are accused of being a racist, even though the chances of this happening in real life are very slim, you should at least practice/rehearse exactly what you would do if suddenly confronted by journalists/media in real life so you don’t make a mistake or say something that could ruin your life/etc.
If someone gets right up to your face with a camera it can be a little intimidating, especially if you’re a naturally nonverbal type of a person. I advise everyone of you to do an exercise where you think what you would say beforehand if ever confronted to avoid becoming a deer in the headlights. Even though it’s unlikely, preparing yourself for how you would act in such a situation is key.
The best thing you could probably do is not to speak to them at all because they are gonna edit/cut the film the way so they come off looking the best.
If you DO decide to talk just use short, coherent sentences, + don’t use defensive body language. Don’t cross your arms, they WANT you on the defensive + are out to intimidate you so what you have to do is just adopt a serious look, keep your eyes straight forward [don’t look down] + intimidate them right back.
Body language is extremely important when dealing with these types. Putting your hand behind your head can work because it’s gives you an aura of control. Crossing your arms is no good because you come off as feeling intimidated or afraid.
I urge every middle class white male/female to take the short amount of time just to think about what you’d do in a confrontational situation about your views in a real life situation. Don’t be defensive about it + say what you have to say. Be prudent, but be aggressive, almost walking a line.
Either you’re gonna talk or you’re not gonna talk + 90% of the time not saying a thing is best. But, if some news reporter just ambushes you on the street trying to intimidate you, just respond by telling him something like “if you want to talk to me about my political views..make an appointment + we’ll discuss them at a more suitable setting…how would you like it if I came down to the TV station you work + ask you why you’re such an asshole liberal or why do you believe blacks + whites can get along in the complete absence of evidence?”
Every white activist should just be mentally prepared + ready no matter how little the chance is of some impromptu interview + just be ready for it + have something important to say if you say anything. Don’t ever backpedal + come off as a man not someone who is running away or weak.
You must condescend to the media + it’s actually not hard to do + it’s pretty fun. If a man is gonna come up to you + call you a “hater” or a “racist” or something then he clearly has no respect for you, so do not show any respect to him. You don’t treat people how you want to be treated, you treat people based on their behavior towards you.
EugeneNix: People are afraid to discuss race because they might have black friends they like and don’t want to hurt feelings. Mostly, however, is the indoctrination that begins in preschool, even from a young age kids are indoctrinated to be good leftists It will continue on for the rest of their life.
DylannStormRoof: Because Americans have been brainwashed, starting from the year they entered public schooling. Improving the population’s reasoning skills will be to our benefit, statistics and scientific evidence are on our side. CoonTown offers a no-holds-bar forum for racial discussion involving niggers, no matter how offensive. I could say something completely true in one of the subreddits where debate commonly takes place (such as /r/changemyview or /r/news), but I’d had to chip away at the truth of my post to make it less-offensive and less-inflammatory, where it’s no longer the truth but a politically correct bastardization, lest I be permanently exiled from participating in future discussions and my post be censored.
Baba_OReilly: Bingo! I hope CT loosens people up to the idea that you can criticize niggers as much as white people are criticized. I see CT as a tiny little catalyst for people to see the truth. That the Negro race is anathema to civilization everywhere they go.
What is “cuck” and why do people say that many mainstream white figures are cuck?
Suspook: Cuckolds are a very small minority of inadequate social lepers void of logic. There is clearly an agenda if the media is championing an individual that simply mutilated his genitals by referring Cucklyn Jenner as “her/she” while outraged that a white female had the audacity to try to pass as black. Shouldn’t actual females take offense that Cucklyn is getting called a female when he never had to deal with menstrual cycles/pressure of being a woman/etc? You can look at ESPN also for covering a 17 week sport [American Football..mostly blacks] all year round while giving minimal attention to professional hockey [mostly European + white] even while playoffs were on basketball would take priority when it comes to coverage. Bella and The Bulldogs [kid’s show] on Nick was created by someone who actually made a movie called The Cuckold and another about an interracial family. I think it’s more of a social perversion than anything because I really don’t know anyone who legitimately buys into it in real life. I could see pronouns being banned as hate speech in 20 years though.
George_l_rockwell: Traditionally, a cuck is someone who allows his significant other to fornicate with another man right in front of his very eyes. Many mainstream white figures know about non white crime and how it negatively affects normal white people, and their refusal to speak out about this is comparable to a cuck who gets off to watching his girlfriend have sex with other men.
EugeneNix: Cuck is a good term for people who bend over to the left’s narrative, especially ones who are supposed to be detractors of the left.
Baba_OReilly: Cuck is short for cuckold. A cuckold is a man who will pay someone else to watch him fuck his wife. The analogy is spot on.
What is the content on /r/CoonTown like? Do you remove material that does not fit within this model?
Suspook: Headlines/news stories about up to date daily black crime, former SJWs posting stories about their own awakenings, discussions about politics, pictures of statistics, amusing images peppered in from time. I have only banned users that make death threats against blacks simply because we as a subreddit risk being banned if we allow such posts. Cucks will also post interracial porn from time to time also that I’ll delete. If someone wishes to engage us we allow it, if someone says they are black no problem. We have whites here, asians, hispanics, italians, english, irish, jews, + blacks themselves that are all regulars.
George_l_rockwell: Usually pictures and news stories of blacks, with occasional videos as well. Many of the videos are often uploaded by black people themselves.
EugeneNix: Ranges from hysterical dissent, to agent provocateurs, “I just hate black culture,” race-realists who have a racist sense of humor, to tattooed skinhead-types giving the roman salute to a picture of the Führer on their wall.
We mostly remove topics that have nothing to do with blacks, black crime, or SJW cuckoldry. Anything that follows the rules within topic comment sections is fair game.
Baba_OReilly: The content on CT ranges from funny cartoons to the absolute worst demonstrations of nigger depravity that even Satan couldn’t imagine. Take your pick!
What are you guys like in real life? If I met you on the street, would I think, “There goes a normal guy/gal,” or would I be having associations with basements, neckbeards, cumboxes and fedoras?
Suspook: I cannot speak for everyone as I have not met them in real life, but I’m normal. I travel often + enjoy drinking at bars. I’ve met many like-minded people from the internet online + it was easy going most of the time + not awkward.
George_l_rockwell: I imagine coontown is pretty diverse. I’m sure we have our basement dwellers, autists, and fedoras, but most people on this subreddit are likely just average looking people who you’d see on the street. You definitely would not tell that I was a moderator of Coontown if you passed me on the street.
EugeneNix: Normal dude, though I wouldn’t open the shoe box I’m holding.
Baba_OReilly: In real life, I am a college educated, 64 year old retired business owner (Audi repair shop). Married with a daughter on the Dean’s list in college. Clean shaven with a full head of brownish (still) hair. I live in a 15 year old, one and a half story house in an all white section of town. I drive a 16 year old Audi (in perfect shape) and my hobby is my two late sixties muscle cars.
Your forum sidebar says, “Race realism, pragmatism, and a sense of agency: the foundation of a proper society that lacks the negro plague. We are The Lion.” What is The Lion? Is this related to Nietzsche’s concept of the blonde beast? Why mention only the African-Americans, and not Hispanics, Asians and other minorities?
Suspook: I didn’t put that up, you’d have to ask whomever put that up I suppose.
George_l_rockwell: The Lion is really up to interpretation.
EugeneNix: I have no idea, I saw that video and saw some happy “white people smiling” volkisch shit and immediately X’d out of it.
It’s easier to focus on one thing and do it well. I think this way works best because it doesn’t become a WN-only circle jerk.
Baba_OReilly: I’m curious as to the notion that if I hate Negroes, that I must also hate other peoples and minorities. Listen closely to me here… I don’t hate the Vietnamese and they were trying to kill me.
Why do you think multiculturalism/diversity is so popular? What do people gain from it? How is it relevant to their lives?
Suspook: This is an excellent questions just because how it’s so promoted in the media + other European countries right now. Maybe it’s just such self hatred that everyone being the same is the only means to an end they can foresee? What possible gains are there other than a warped personal emotional satisfaction that you think you’re doing good? Certainly isn’t healthy for the environment/crime/self identity/pride. I really do not know why, but I know there is $$ in hustling it. Look how much $ Sharpton has pimping out race. Soros gave millions to the organizers of the Ferguson protests if I remember right also. I think it could be because whites become so vilified if they ever speak up against diversity/multiculturalism that they just don’t risk it. White flight cannot last forever, the earth is only so big, but hopefully it doesn’t get to that point.
George_l_rockwell: The vast majority of people in this world are what we call “lemmings”. They mindlessly go about their days, and they let their televisions do their thinking for them. Allowing for mass media and democracy was a ridiculous mistake, as it allows for those who control the mass media to shape the opinions of the vast majority of people. Most people tend to support diversity because they’ve been brainwashed all their lives to believe it. If the media told them that blacks were inferior, they would believe that blacks are inferior.
EugeneNix: The (cultural) marxists of the 50’s used incrementalism to change the political zeitgeist, and mass media pushes a narrative. Most mainstream conservatives have to take very watered down positions because they don’t want to be labeled the “r word.”
For the most part it’s people repeating happy words and phrases to themselves so they feel better about having a very safe set of beliefs.
Baba_OReilly: People are stupid. I’m here to enlighten them.
What will you do if Reddit bans this sub?
Suspook: We have had over 140 unique users in my IRC channel at one time. As long as we have our main core of users a ban won’t hurt. Before CoonTown was even in existence I knew that one day it would be banned for probably no real reason so I’ve been telling important members they should join my IRC channel whenever the ban goes down so we can discuss where to go from there.
George_l_rockwell: I’ll join the Coontown IRC
EugeneNix: Will certainly be interesting for you guys to find out ;).
Baba_OReilly: CT gets banned? LOL! The World Wide Web wasn’t even invented until I was 40. I’ll survive somehow.
Many people out there ask why white people, especially those with classical educations, are so fascinated by race? To the majority of people out there, race seems like an external characteristic like hair color or eye color.
The answer is that history is more trustworthy than lab science, and history shows us a clear and unbroken standard: when the genetics of a population go, it never rises above a level of third-world style living. For examples of this, we tend to point to the ancient Romans and Greeks, who left behind miscegenated remnants who now constitute the third world of Europe.
In the past, children above the dividing line of the middle of middle class would read about the history of these ancient empires, and see that while we cannot identify a single touchstone for their decline, the symptoms of their decline included many things beloved by liberals: race-mixing, sexual tolerance and promiscuity, colorful cities dedicated to hedonism, welfare states and parent-like governments. All of these together point toward a cause of their decline, which was probably philosophical before it became psychological and then physiological as the consequences of their bad choices etched themselves into body and genes. We can see this cause was something like liberalism, an apologism for failure and decline which justifies itself through the nexus of altruism and egalitarianism. All who grew up under those educational burdens realized that whatever the singular cause, we wanted to avoid that type of decline, which meant beating back the symptoms until we could dislodge whatever mental block caused us to decline in the first place.
At this blog, I spend a fair amount of time writing about that cause, but it may be simpler than we think. Degeneration in any form creates degeneration in all other forms, so lowered standards and the raging egomania that supports them must be fought at every level wherever it appears. There may be no single touchstone event, only a symptom which then, as people justify it as legitimate (a process called apologism) and consider it in the abstract, gets adopted as a principle and leads to other parallel symptoms. These together constitute decline, which then changes the standard to which people must adapt to survive, which causes the independent and intelligent to die out and be replaced with the conformist, obedient and oblivious. At that point, the racial substrate of the population can still be recovered by changing the standard of adaptation, but generally these empires then invite in foreign labor and outbreed to the point of unrecognizability, having reversed thousands of years of evolution in the blink of an eye on the time-scale of history.
Few people will speak it out loud, but in its effort to win the conflict that arose during the Civil War, the United States has turned into a totalitarian society.
In Nazi Germany, you could not criticize the Führer; in the Soviet Union, you could not criticize the Party; in modern USA, if you fail to make the right noises about how great diversity is, your livelihood will be destroyed just as surely in those states. Back then, they had to lock people up. Now, they just cut off your prospects for any employment, put you on welfare and let you fall back into the ghetto. In totalitarian USA, the punishment is in not allowing you to rise above the dysfunction, much as it is in most third-world states.
The land of the free and home of the brave, famed for its First Amendment, has reached the point where people are afraid to sell flags or books because they might be “outed” and “doxxed,” then find themselves unemployable ever again. That is the real threat that the left wields: it controls who is socially acceptable, and it will use that power to eliminate ideological non-conformists.
To get appointed to a position in management, politics, law enforcement, or the professions, you must at some point stand on stage and recite the dogma of diversity and make all the right pleasant-sounding noises. If not, you are considered an ideological enemy and they will not punish you, except by omission: they will not promote you. Over time, you will find yourself in a career dead-end if not outright impoverished.
Government, industry, media and popular figures are all in total agreement on diversity. A few speak out near the margins, but mostly to give themselves edgy cred. Like the great ideological regimes, our totalitarian state insists on uniformity of opinion not for our own good, or for truth, but for purposes of further controlling us. Diversity creates social chaos, and we all try to climb out of it, which makes us obedient little tools who will do and say whatever is convenient for the regime.
As a great irony, the totalitarian diversity regime insists that we are “free.” We are free to starve in ghettos, beg under bridges and die alone in abandoned buildings. The method of control here is money and public opinion, which gets more shrill and paranoid the more society decays, which makes people hungrier for good scapegoats to form a lynch mob to witch hunt in a hive-mind Two Minutes Hate. You have freedom of speech, but who will hire you? Who will rent to you, sell to you? Who will let you shop at their stores without throwing you out, for fear that they too would be seen as supporting non-conforming ideology?
A glib literary farce once based itself upon a quotation from Jonathan Swift:
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.
From all that I have seen, this quote is not quite accurate; a true genius would find himself opposed not by dunces, but by ideas. He would find that all of the prevailing ideas of humanity — generally calculated to deny and distract from reality so that the purveyors of these ideas gain autonomy to follow selfish ends — were united against him, and that the vectors of these ideas were normal, otherwise sane, people. The tragedy of humanity is not so much that idiots rule, but that good people go along with them, because the idiots have hit on ideas that are aesthetically hard to oppose.
It is a well-known fact in democracy that to ease a law or command through society, you must tie it to a group that is pitiable or suffering. If your idea helps The PoorTM or minorities, women, sexual-nonconformists and other marginalized outliers, no one can oppose your idea without appearing to want bad things to happen to those otherwise helpless groups. As a result, no one will oppose it in public. They will go along with the peer pressure and join the bandwagon, even if it means going to their doom, because they do not want to be seen by their fellow citizens as having the bad character assumed to be linked with disregarding the needs of those lesser groups.
These ideas gain momentum over time because everyone is afraid to speak up, and those who do speak up become ostracized because no one wants to be associated with that dangerous viewpoint. Society then becomes a closed-circuit self-confirming feedback loop, offering itself ideas it knows it agrees with and then making a show of agreeing with them. Individuals, engorged on the pretense of being as good as their ideas appear, neglect to be actually good and instead just follow the trend. Dissent is quashed because it is unpopular, since realist ideas threaten pleasant illusions. At that point, all of society — not just the dunces — is aligned against an idea, not just a genius, because that idea by reflection makes what “everyone” is doing appear to be nonsense.
I cannot claim genius, nor enough fame to have all of the dunce-ideas united against me. But I can claim to have refuted all of these ideas and offered instead a simple hope: that by heeding reality, and applying ourselves so that outcomes of transcendental beauty emerge, we can not only solve our problems but go on to a new age of greatness. This notion — you might call it a surrogate for hope, since it relies not on external forces but on us humans getting our act together even in the smallest of ways — enrages most people because it invalidates what they have claimed as their solutions. It reveals their ideas as little more than subterfuge, a dodge to avoid facing the problem as it is. It does so by suggesting that instead we should be engaging in the simple process of fixing our problems, and that makes the ideas of most look like posturing and posing. That in turn makes them angry at any who speak such ideas.
If I have an unforgivable sin, it is believing in humanity and in our ability to change ourselves and beat our demons. It would be much more convenient if I adopted the all is lost outlook that, at the end of the day, suggests that there is no point doing anything except what was convenient for us as individuals to do and that we were already doing. “Keep on keeping on” is popular advice; “we must change ourselves to make a better future” never will be. All of our best thinkers and writers, whose example I attempt to emulate in my own way, have taken the path of showing us the straightforward truth, while the rest of humanity does its best to conceal, obscure and obfuscate that path. It is a sin to follow it, socially at least, but in the eyes of a realist, it is a sin to do anything else. To have a belief in our future is a sin in the eyes of most people, as is the pig-headed insistence that we can solve our problems through common sense and hard work. That would interrupt what most people are doing with their lives, and they hate those of us who encourage it.
Much of this blog talks about ideas and ramifications. While this will never be a democracy, it is not insensitive to its users and readers either, for whom it exists. For that reason, I think it’s time for one of our periodic “open threads” where you can talk about whatever you want.
In addition, it would be great if our users spoke up about what they feel is good and bad about the direction of the blog. Too much controversy? Not enough? More articles on current events, or fewer? Should there be more environmental topics, or more social ones? Anything is on the plate, and if you just want to call me an idiot who wants to murder six trillion transgender multiracial Muslim orphans, you can do that too.
I never realized that I was a religious person because my religion has never involved worlds beyond this one. Instead, like that of the ancient druids, it involves an order to this world in which ideas are the basis of reality. This order may extend beyond visible reality, but the rules do not change: physical reality is inherently logical, as is thought, and any other layers to reality play by those rules.
This ejects me from most religions. Or I should say: from most religious interpretations. As a nihilist, I recognize that writing something down — even writing it well — does not make it truthful or able to be communicated. It describes what one person knows, and other people in the way of humans immemorial will interpret it according to what they know, which includes looking for what they recognize which in turn includes both cognitive limits and preferences for what they already believe is true. With this in mind, even the most profound religion can be easily massacred by an idiot, neurotic or dishonest person and converted into its exact opposite, and this is the most common case in religion. All religions are interpretations of the same reality; all people are using interpretations of those religions; some of these interpretations make more sense than others. There is no single entity “Christianity” any more than there is a single recipe for spaghetti; people have different stuff in their fridges, different needs and different tastes. This is not to say, as Enlightenment liberals do, that every interpretation is different; like most things, they cluster around a few major points with variations. Even so, most religious interpretations find my approach unusual.
I came to this religious view from spending time alone in the forest with no hope for myself or humanity. Owing to unusual conditions of my upbringing, I was exposed to death, human denial and social posturing early on and was able to see through the “accepted” explanations for them, the consequence of a precocious development of verbal skill. In the forest, I found an order that while brutal never failed: it always kept moving forward and, in my experience, it moves forward to beauty. Higher levels of organization, greater unity of form/function, intensified gestalt, and elegance and efficiency in application all made nature to me seem far more graceful than the blocky, rigid and seemingly retaliatory human solutions. Unlike human logic, the logic of nature was not composed of a public layer and a private layer, only the latter of which approached honesty.
It was self-evident that nature addressed its purpose with finer granularity and a balance between all “details” that could not be achieved by humans, who approach all questions from a perspective of human interaction alone. As part of this, it became clear to me that nature contained a life-force that constantly worked toward greater efficiency, balance and beauty. The earth that supports both hummingbirds and eagles, mice and elephants, weeds and redwood trees clearly emerged from a more developed mind than what humans would do; we would design a concrete block of a building with booze at one end, porn at the other, and luxury goods in the middle, surrounded by dumpsters and tenements. Further, nature gave purpose to all through striving and self-betterment, such that a mouse might have real pride in overcoming its timidity and becoming an expert forager. This struck me as a wise and brilliant order that could only have come from some force geared toward ultimate good.
In contrast, humans seemed geared toward reducing the field of vision to what was immediately before them. They denied time, fearing death, and denied consequences of actions beyond the immediate in order to be less restricted. They used euphemisms recklessly to disguise unpleasant truths and then made social rules to prevent those truths from coming up. Everywhere was a sense of control or limiting what was recognized in reality to cause people to ignore it. No hawk would do this, nor any rabbit. But humans, ensconced in easy paper-pushing jobs and getting their food pre-cut from stores, had no need to face reality at all. Like children behaving badly when the teacher leaves the room, they “ran with it” and went into full denial, aware that a comeuppance was due at some point, but not right now. Parents became selfish and left insoluble problems for their children, all while treating those children as part of their own resume and denying the existence of those kids as individuals. It struck me as a sick, sick time.
At that point, I began to sense what evil was. It took many years to hone the philosophy. My first inkling came when I realized that many sources referred to sin as error, and to my mind, the root of error was failure to notice aspects of reality. As time went on, however, I saw that the root of this error was a compulsion not to notice; denial. With it came compensatory behaviors. Many people, such as liberals or religious fanatics, based their lives around denial and scapegoating. The denial allowed them to scapegoat, and that deflection removed their focus from personal improvement and doing right on their own to forcing the external world to compensate for their lack of self-improvement and hiding that fact with acts of public altruism which served their own goal of removing social rules, morality, standards and the noticing of reality upon which they are based. For them, the personal was the political, which meant that they used politics as a means to make themselves seem important and to distract from their actual agenda, which was always selfish, short-sighted, greedy, manipulative and generally cruel in effect (although not in appearance!). I also noticed how these people were chronically unhappy in ways that reflected their neuroses: liberals always talked about the suffering of others to disguise their own boredom and purposelessness, health food fanatics were always unhealthy, and religious zealots seemed to make every conversation about a coded reference to death.
For many decades, I have considered every theory I have encountered to explain this. Liberals argue that people are made miserable by their surroundings, but I find this not so. Dirt-poor people who knew no better made do and in fact seemed to have a lot of time, drink and smoke a lot and do exciting drugs, and not regret their lot in life. Did they want more money? Sure, but so does everyone else. They found ways for their lives to function and were usually highly social. The miserable people were white women in the suburbs and geeky men in dingy city apartments, railing at the world for not being what they wanted, instead of being willing to work with what it is. Some argue that the root of our problem is language, or grammar, or some fundamental defect in logic, but I found more often that it was a willful misreading of the rules of argument. Others said it was a lack of democracy, or of religion, but those did not seem to help and often led people astray. Over the years, I began to see the root as (1) what most would call “evil” and (2) its root in a type of error which we might call emptiness, or a lack of internal purpose and introspection, which required a solipsistic/narcissistic personality to support itself. For these people, everything they do is compensation (cognitive dissonance) for their own misery, apologism for actual problems and replacement in their consciousness of those with non-problems, and projection of their own desires onto others. They existed in a world of themselves, and saw any intrusion by reality as offensive, violating, victimizing and worth resenting. Most if not all human misery comes from this psychology.
Emptiness strikes when people disconnect from reality. When someone exists in a constant feedback loop with their world, noticing it and doing their part to increase order/good/beauty, they do not have this emptiness; instead, they have purpose, a place, and parts of an identity. For that to happen, they need a strong culture and strong leadership to reduce the billions of possibilities to a narrow but not artificially narrow range. However, most people rage against that under the impression that — much as they believe they will win the lottery — they need these billions of choices to feel a sense of personal power. That power however does not relate to changes in reality, but only in their own minds, and so like drug addiction or masturbation it is never satisfying because it never goes anywhere and pleasure must constantly increase to outpace its dulling through experience, much as any repetitive experience loses its intensity in our minds. Emptiness could be called “evil” but that is perhaps too mythological for this naturalistic Nietzschean, especially when evil is so commonly used to create scapegoats elsewhere. Instead, it makes sense to describe what it is: perpetual misery caused by a refusal to address reality and thus, a world created of the self which becomes a void as the self bores itself. Experience dulls over time, as said above, and so the self constantly chasing a way to stimulate itself becomes listless, entropic.
Over the years, evil has visited us in many ways, but rarely the ones the media and government identify. Hitler and Stalin thought they had a better form for society, and almost certainly they are just as much not all wrong as not all right. The real evil is mundane, occurs in tiny doses, and ingratiates itself to us. Evil does not show up as a giant demon with huge breasts and a giant penis while breathing fire, but as a seductive force that shows us an “easier way” or encourages us to take pity on ourselves, and reward us with something instead. It argues that we can have power without the ability that merits it, that we deserve more importance and less responsibility, and other illusions of the solipsistic mind. In short, it is solipsism, and its devious trick is that by making a world of ourselves, it forces that world into decay creating constant emptiness which we try to fill by destroying and consuming things around us. Instead of making us full, that only widens the hole, creating an army of mental zombies who ruin everything they touch and still remain in misery. If any condition is more like Hell, I have not witnessed it.
Inspired by (short) Twitter conversations with Alice Teller.