Genocide and murder the intelligent way

genocide_the_intelligent_way

When you exit the mainstream path of politics, usually by becoming a realist and recognizing that democracy is a scam, you take on new company who are not vetted by social filters like the people in mainstream politics.

Some of these will impress you with their depth and commitment, and others will strike you as people looking for an excuse to act out antisocial fantasies. Sometimes the line blurs: each one of them is enraged (versus mainstream conservative outrage) at how his society has been ruined and turned into an ersatz version of itself. This rage translates into emotional lashing out, and the result is hilarious one-upmanship:

“I’m going to gas the bankers and then throw their bodies into the compost heap.”

“Oh yeah? I’m going to line up all the Jews facing forward down the line, and drill them all through the forehead with a single bullet.”

“Shooting? That’s so mainstream, brah. I’m going to stuff the Jews and bankers in a giant grinder, like you use for weed, you know, and use the paste to make a wall on the Mexican border.”

“Dream on, shorty; that’s not extreme. It’s an acid bath for the Jews, bankers, homosexuals, gypsies and all journalists. Six inches at first, then the knee, then the groin. They will beg for death before it is done.”

“You guys are too dramatic. We just need a day of the rope where we string up the obvious, then armed troops on every streetcorner with a gallows. The minute someone breaks the law, they do the neckless jig.”

Needles to say, there are two factors at work here: (1) people tend to “act out” their emotions, suspending logical judgment, and (2) those who want change almost always end up emulating those who came before them. History is full of these little pitfalls.

Let me stave off some of this chaos with two observations:

1. Genocide is not necessary, not good and not effective.

Trying to whip some sense into the Dark Enlightenment audience, Jim makes some excellent points about the nature of the Other:

All this inclusiveness and diversity is not being reciprocated, and is not going to be reciprocated. It is cuckoldry. And this has been glaringly obvious since whites were ethnically cleansed out of the inner city. When whites are 43% of the voters, the government just takes their stuff away. That is simply the way things are. Just as when Muslims are ten to thirty percent of the population, you get holy war, when whites are in the minority, democracy will dispossess them.

Altruism is seldom the game theoretic solution. When it is the solution it’s a result of a highly successful culture that is fragile. The Dark Enlightenment talks about high trust equilibrium a lot. High trust equilibria are rare and hard to maintain…the trick is to break out of that natural equilibrium, to get a cooperate cooperate equilibrium.

The above summarizes the Dark Enlightenment well, but it should go further: altruism is salesmanship and nothing more. It is how one seduces societies into self-destruction for personal gain.

If the Dark Enlightenment has one core principle, it is this: all people act in self-interest as do all groups and, perhaps more importantly, this is correct behavior. When all act in self-interest, we do not need endless signaling, because we can simply address their self-interest as a contract proposal. They come to us and we assume everything they do and everything we do will be exclusively in self-interest.

Trust level and signaling are inversely proportional. The more trust you have, the less signaling you have; the less trust you have, the more signaling takes its place. In a high trust environment, like an ethnically-homogenous, religiously unified and culturally-ruled society, you do not signal anything because it is known. Your positions are those that are healthy, and those are agreed on not because they are popular but because they are right and have worked for aeons for that civilization.

Altruism is a form of signaling. Why else would it exist? When you do a good deed for someone, you tend to hide it; if you have to tell them about it, you have introduced new terms to the implied contract between the two of you. “I did this for you, now I want something in return.”

You will notice that all liberals behave this way. Liberals succeed in part because for them the contract is clear: you get equality, and in turn, you support our insane ideology by crushing any who disagree. Liberalism is simply an advanced version of the street gang. Anyone can join if they are willing to fight for the gang and die for the gang. And that fight? Revenge on anyone who is stronger than they, of course.

Which brings me to another point: we tend to see Dark Enlightenment theories as applying directly to the Western European (“white”) people. However, these rules are universal. There are only two parties in the world of leadership, and those are Us and Other. Us is your society; Other is everyone else, regardless of how smart, nice and capable they are.

This is one area where the Dark Enlightenment has gone off the rails. There is too much demonization of the Other, not realizing that we need a stricter rule regarding all Others, which is that if it is not Us, it needs to go away. It must not coexist with us in any form. It needs to go back to its continent of origin.

Which brings me to more of Jim’s essay:

A bunch of white American settlers want to settle on American Indian land. Indians have previously indicated that they are unhappy with this, and there are previous agreements that white people will not settle on this land. You offer them payment, including a lot of barrels of firewater. Indians accept the deal, land for nice stuff, including lots of firewater. They get drunk, stay drunk, while settlers move in and build some forts.

After a while, the whiskey runs out. The Indians wake up with a blazing hangover, no food, and no hunting grounds. “We have been cheated”, they wail.

They demand their land back. The settlers in the fort tell them to go to hell.

Some braves agree to go bravely looking for some undefended or minimally defended white women and children. They catch a woman, and two small children. Whom they rape, then skin, then burn alive. Then they bravely go back to their tribe and tell their tribe. “Well now it is war. So which side are you on. The side of us very brave braves, or the side of the people who took your land and gave you this hangover?”

The tribe declares for the warpath.

And then you kill them all and take their stuff.

Unfortunately, this approach is nonsensical because it is classic passive aggression and appeals because it is political, much in the way democracy only fights wars when it can portray itself as the victim and unify the herd behind war.

A more sensible view is this:

  1. Recognize the Other. Look at them: unless they share very similar genetics, similar abilities and inclinations, similar culture and proximate religious values, they are Other. If you are German and they are Irish, Nigerian, Japanese, Greek, Italian or Russian, they are Other. If they are Finnish, Austrian, northern French, English, Dutch, or Scandinavian, they could be Us; this depends on the situation. In America, all Western Europeans are Us. In Europe, only those of the same nationality are Us.
  2. Deport the Other. Tell them your self-interest: we need a society without Other, and no matter how nice you are, you are Other. So: boats! Big lovely boats with comfortable cabins. Those who resist can be subdued. But put them all on boats and send them away, and I’d make sure the bar is well-stocked with firewater, and never deal with the problem or the misery of murder again.

The angry types will say I’m not being extreme enough. But above I said genocide is “not necessary, not good and not effective.” All are true. Genocide is not necessary because deportation achieves the same result. It is not good because murder and warfare are hard on our people and not interesting for their own sake. It is also not effective because it creates negative goodwill toward themselves in our own people, and gives various Others a flag to take up against us.

My argument is not, by the way, “it is unpopular therefore a bad political move.” Genocide is usually popular if the group committing it thinks they will escape consequences. My argument is that genocide creates bad goodwill, in the form of lower self-esteem, in the group that completes the killing and then realizes they just acted out an emotional outburst and covered themselves in blood for nothing.

Deportation/exile possesses many advantages over genocide: it is not as popular, but it is also easier and easier to forget. It also preserves the order of nature, which is that different tribes separate and mature as they can, working in parallel so that different approaches are taken to the same task ensuring that one will at least work at some point. Other tribes are not a problem when the Other stays in its own continent and your own borders are sealed.

Further, deportation takes the form of a new contract. If your society is prosperous, pay them reparations for future goodwill. The trade is clear: you are displaced so we do not have to murder each other, but we are sending you on your way with gifts so you can set up a new life. This is not our act against you; it is our act against an order which fails each and every time it has tried, namely diversity.

On to our second point…

2. Those who hunger for executions have bought into the reversed logic of democracy.

Realistic people look at nature and reality, see why it works the way it does, and realize that their options are limited to things that work in similar ways. This is true because reality is not a physical thing, so much as an informational/mathematical order; that was the point of Plato’s forms.

Unrealistic people look at themselves, decide on what impulse is strongest, and find a way to justify that according to some universal principle they find that others enjoy as well. The unrealist looks at the Other, realizes that he can gain political power if he calls them rapists or pedophiles or some other unpopular outgroup, and then calls for their execution on the basis that they are bad.

This also occurs at the individual level. People love the thought of killing. They might be surprised to talk to some killers, who rarely will talk about it by the way, and to see that killers view killing as another tool, like we might view a hoe or ratchet wrench. To them, you kill when there is a need and otherwise do not think about it; the wrench stays on the bench. This is both (1) more detached than most people are comfortable with and (2) less “Rambo” emotional than people would expect. It unnerves most people, in fact, which is one reason why killers rarely talk about it.

The problem with unrealist thought is that because it is reversed, it leads to other reversed thought, such as democracy. Our Western mania from equality may have been born long ago when one person decided to act out emotionally, and rallied others to his side to justify the kill. That created a memory in which having a group agree made things easier. That worked for simple problems among honest people, but when manipulators appeared or the problem is complex, the group chooses wrong every time because its unrealistic thought process adapts poorly to reality.

Another article, this time an essay encoded within a story, from Spivonomist, goes awry at a crucial point:

Me: “You might be surprised. Plenty of laws get passed this way. Most of them are pretty standard things: no murder, no theft, no rape, that sort of thing. And nobody’s stupid enough to try to pass a new law if they aren’t very sure they’ll have the support of the crowd.” I paused to consider something. “I’d reckon they don’t have a lot of civic participation on windy days.”

The article is called “Toward a Model of Efficient Self-Governance” and talks about a society based around a gallows. Those who lead, or propose a new idea, do so with their neck in the noose. When the crowd objects, they are hung.

We call that democracy.

Unrealist philosophies are defensive because they are maintaining an illusion, that is, a narrative not based on reality. Instead it is based on preference and political power, or agreement of the group. This reverses focus from “How do we adapt to reality?” to “How do we justify what we desire?” and this reversal is the root of all human error.

You do not want a crowd making judgments. It always makes them in terms of itself alone. A crowd is a replacement reality; in a crowd, your goal is to keep the crowd on your side and not to step over the line, because then the crowd will destroy you. Just like a street gang. I say cut out the middleman and adapt to reality.

Even more, do not be so hasty with your desire to kill. When the penalty is death, only the crazy step up — or the sociopathic, because they know they can manipulate you. They will put their head in the noose, tell lies that most people think are pleasant, and then hijack your civilization just as surely as the West was stolen by democracy.

Tying this in to the first point: beware of the crowd especially when it comes to genocide. They will kill the Other they fear and keep the Other they think they can dominate, and that more innocuous Other will then simply out-reproduce them, miscegenate and assimilate them. Self-destruction in three easy steps.

I acknowledge that the problems facing us are dire. But we do not get to solutions by acting out our emotions, or by pandering to the crowd. We get to the solution by Dark Enlightenment itself — realizing the nature of people, and the nature of crowds, and instead of going with the herd, putting our best in charge and choosing honorable, efficient and effective solutions over emotional outbursts.

Published by

Brett Stevens

Brett Stevens has written about realism since the late 1980s. His work can be found at RightOn, American Renaissance, Return of Kings, Counter-Currents, Alternative Right and Aristokratia.

32 thoughts on “Genocide and murder the intelligent way”

  1. The reason North America is what it is, and South America is what it is, is that the North American settlers did a number on the Indians.

    Are you saying they should not have done a number on the Indians?

    1. Are you saying they should not have done a number on the Indians?

      Thanks for coming over to comment. I enjoyed your article.

      Instead of answering directly, let me analogize because I see the question of murder and genocide as parallel.

      Suppose there is someone who accused of thievery. It looks like somewhere around fifty percent certain that he did it.

      We can do any of the following:

      1. Shoot him
      2. Put him in jail
      3. Therapy
      4. Exile to North Africa

      All of these responses solve the problem, but with differing degrees of effectiveness and different side effects.

      Shooting him, for example, tells future burglars that if they encounter a witness, they need to kill that person because the penalty for thievery is the same as for murder.

      Putting him in therapy makes joy joy feelings for everyone in the audience, and may cure him, but mostly just keeps him occupied. There is no real feedback loop however because it’s painless for him, and it will make victims alienated because it’s a wussy response.

      Jail, well, that’s tempting. But then we assume responsibility for him, a condition also shared if we shoot him and are obligated to bury him and notify his family. And in jail he will be surrounded by other criminals from whom he will certainly learn not only technique but an even more alienated outlook on life.

      So, turning to exile. The fact is that with him looking like it’s equally possible he is guilty or not, he is not a useful member of society. No one is pointing to his history of not doing such things, or his responsible past, so we can assume that this is not a fluke. Even if he is not guilty, he will never be trusted again by his fellow citizens.

      This means that instead of waging a complex eight-week trial to figure out if he was precisely guilty or not, we can simply say “it didn’t work out” and drop him in North Africa, the traditional multi-ethnic reservation of humanity. There he gets a new start and maybe if he comes back reformed with a pile of money, we’ll let him back in. But maybe not.

      Either way, we have achieved two things: (1) definitively ended the problem and (2) not introduced any external obligations to ourselves. These include goodwill of our population and perceived injuries by the “victims” of mistaken convictions.

      More importantly to my mind, we have achieved strong signaling of social order and the requirements to the individual, and we have cleansed ourselves spiritually of this problem. The message is clear: it is not our job to make everyone happy and give them a place. On the contrary, it is their job to meet the contract terms of our civilization, and those were never ambiguous. We have cleared our souls by focusing only on those who are useful, instead of spending a minute more than necessary on the failures, who get churned up in the genetic compost heap of North African multiculture.

      The same applies to the Indians: instead of lengthy warfare, there would have been a simple procedure: we go to each community, give them firewater and beads and put them on boats, and then go on to the next. None of this BDSM style victimhood narrative. They are Other; they must go for that reason alone, and our souls are clean of both guilt and genocide.

      At least that’s how it seems to me. I enjoy your blog and chose your article because it was a clear subject for something the community of able minds should pay attention to, more in the Socratic sense than the modern “awareness raising” (ugh). I hope my answer was at least commensurately clear.

      1. The example is somewhat simple with theft, but who writes the laws? What other criteria are necessary for deeming someone undesireable? You’re a little optimistic saying the world is Us vs Other; it is in fact Me vs Other. If you start exiling anyone with undesireable traits, soon you shall have deported everyone but yourself. Even then, you shall soon deport yourself since you will no doubt identify flaws in yourself. If a group truly has cohesion, you will help the theif because he is part of your group no matter where on the planet he is. Your society produced him, therefore his behavior is most likely a product of a flaw in society. It may be that your example was only meant to apply to extreme crimes, but that is for the society to decide. Exile, inprisonment, and the other punishments you listed are collective punishments ie democratic ie the Crowd. You say leaders must not have a noose around their neck, but in your example, everyone has the proverbial noose around their neck. This is not a healthy society. For the sake of simple examples, a society is conceivable where neither theft nor murder are collectively punished. The victim of theft will go kill thief. If the accused thief was loved, then retribution will be sought against his killer. If he was an undesirable, no one will protest his killing. And thus, justice is served. If the killer of the alleged thief is an undesirable himself, he fears retribution for no one will defend him if someone seeks retribution. If however, he is honorable, then people will defend him and no one will attempt to avenge the slain thief. In such a way, order is preserved since someone will tend the defend the honorable, but not the undesirable. In daily life, there will be little crime since punishments are severe and justice is swift. Giving the government exclusive rights to dole punishment gives it undue power ripe for abuse.

  2. “On the Virtues of Mass Murder”

    Ignore the title I just wrote, it’s a bit of tongue in cheek signaling.

    First I would like to address this:

    “Genocide is not necessary, not good and not effective.”

    I’ll agree it’s not necessary in the sense we can always find members of some group whom we would recognize as “good people”. Your example of the Iranians is one.

    Is it good? Well I must have the mind of a killer but when you described killing as a tool in a toolbox I didn’t realize that this *isn’t* how most people think about it. Because I certainly do. I think of genocide the same way. It’s a tool, neither good nor bad, though as I said above not necessary. Oh I’m sure if we philosophized about it we could find some conditions where it is necessary but let’s stick to this world.

    Your last point of it being “not effective”, well I don’t think this bears out very well if we look at the historical record. It seemed quite effective in the Old Testament when the Israelites did it. Though I believe their strategy was more of gendercide – removing the males and keeping the females for breeding stock.

    Anyhow, population replacement has been a normal part of human history. Look at America’s own history with the Native Americans: killing off many of them and pushing them on to reservations. Typically this is labeled as genocide, though I believe it fails the strict definition of it since there are still Native Americans around. We killed them off, took their land, and now benefit from it. This looks like a clear case of “genocide” (if only in the colloquial sense of the word) being effective. The destruction of Carthage also looks to have been very effective in results.

    But if we are to preserve the peoples of Europe, I do have to seriously wonder if mass murder won’t be a requirement. For example: as our civilizations fail we may reach the day where we can no longer maintain our prisons. Should violent felons really be released back into the population? If “civilization is the only morality” then the more effective, and dare I say sane, solution would be to seal the prisons. After about two weeks those prisons would then become tombs. To some this would be seen as mass murder, to my ‘Mr. Spock minus liberal morals’ brain this seems the logical approach.

    But what about problematic ethnic groups? As far as the blacks go I believe it would be a loss to us if we ground up men like Thomas Sowell or Clearance Thomas. As far as the Jews go, perhaps my Nazi heart has gone soft but Kat Dennings and Ashley Rae (a.k.a Communism_Kills) will be hiding in my bedroom. On a more serous note it would be a shame to lose men like Haidt or Pinker.

    But splitting up people’s along Nationalist lines does seem to be the best solution and you’re right that would not require any kind of genocide. I actually have to wonder how effective a generalized Nationalist movement in the U.S. would be. Can you imagine the political firestorm if both Black & White Nationalist marched on Washington demanding separation and the end of the multikult? Black Panthers and the KKK marching hand in hand with the simple demand “we don’t want to live together anymore”. Now that would certainly shake up American politics.

    However, when we come to the White Liberal we have a different problem. Perhaps mass deportations of them too could work. But given their history I am doubtful this would do anything but kick the can down the road. Given the history of this group they will always be driven by their moral righteousness and always be working to subvert or destroy Western Civ. They have simply done this for too long for them to stop now. Like Islam they must consume the world. If the South had somehow won the Civil War I suspect the North would have waited a generation and invaded again. If that failed, they would have waited another generation and done it again, etc.

    No, I’m sorry-not-sorry but the White Liberal must go. Political orientation is heritable, and we have seen for centuries that rational debate will not work with them. They will always do what “r-strategists” rabbits will do.

    We know who the members of this group are as they publicly identify themselves. Start with the most dangerous ones, the leadership, and work our way down. Given the size of their population it would probably be impractical to remove all of them. But their numbers and power would be crippled as the Native Americans are today.

    Once this is accomplished a second phase would go into effect. Make the culture a hostile environment to their existence: for example if you want to vote you have to perform military service in the new Starship Troopers Republic. Low technology eugenics could be used against them by making it illegal for the mentally ill, those with addictions, and those who are incorrigibly criminal to breed. To prevent Leftward drift in society a new Inquisition could be constructed to root out known heresies such as socialism, communism and the like – think of how the Allies de-Nazified Germany.

    The forcible removal of the White Liberal population does not have to dehumanize those who carry out the plan. We have made robots that put cars together, we can make robots that take human beings apart. Polite society wouldn’t even have to see it happen in the same way that polite society does not currently see our prisons. Do it all with boring, clinical, machine efficiency and most people will probably just look right past it.

    Necessary? Yes, they are a direct threat to our existence and have been for some time?

    Good? The destruction of evil is good.

    Effective? History tells is population removal works.

    Sorry for grammar / spelling, it is early and I must get ready for the day.

    1. I’ll agree it’s not necessary in the sense we can always find members of some group whom we would recognize as “good people”.

      While I agree there are many good people in Other groups, I think that’s also a non sequitur. The point is not judging individuals, but making the social order that works best.

    2. I want to thank Brett Stevens for a thoughtful post that has reflected many of my own thoughts, recently – especially on the idea over at Xenosystems of running society from the gallows. Yes, this is a great example of democracy reduced to its core – nobody will dare to express the unpleasant truth or do what needs to be done, because he knows the mob will hang him, every time.

      As to genocide, I agree that men who hope to lead should not yield to the bloodlust. But we must recognize that there will be bloodlust. There are plenty of people who have never even heard of “reaction,” don’t even know there is an alternative to “conservatism” (USA style). Plenty of those people, and probably not a few of our own, will not easily be restrained when the moment of truth arrives. The Black Lives Matter movement, and sundry other expressions of race-baiting and rent-seeking, have turned the stomachs of many average Americans. My extended family has quite a few true-blue Republican “normies;” but at the past two Thanksgiving dinners, all the uncles and cousins, to the last man (and “racism” has never been a strong feature in our family’s dynamic), said they had given up on the idea of Civil Rights for Blacks, had concluded that most of them were simply mentally and morally unfit to be treated like adults, and they were now ready to execute every black youth who had done so much as steal a box of cigarettes, just to be rid of them.

      Likewise, I think when most people realize what the Jewish and banking elite has done, it would be almost impossible to slake the thirst for revenge. So, apart from whatever high-mindedness we aspire to, we have to realize that it may not be possible to stand against that tide – and, indeed, pushing back too hard runs the risk of becoming associated with them.

      More importantly, I agree with some of what Puzzle Privateer said. I also feel that we must not leave justice out of this. Killing a lot of people is not always “genocide,” as I’m sure we all know, here. Sometimes it is justice. Sometimes it is also necessary for self-preservation against an unjust threat. And when it comes to the Leftists, I happen to agree that it is very just and proper that they should all die. These are the people who have pushed every form of intellectual, social and moral corruption; they have murdered (abortion and their other “good intentions” gone awry), they have lied (it is their first language, prevarication), they have stolen (their entire philosophy of life), they have encouraged every vice and have financed it all at the expense of our intellectual, social, moral and economic capital. It would be greatly unjust, to let them live. I do believe there is a great moral good in seeing justice done upon them, and in setting an example to the future – Leftism is a coward’s game, and I think it’s good for cowards to know that it may all come crashing down around them, and that the seeming sterility and civility of their method of war will not save them, in the end, from a grisly death.

      But, killing folk in strange and unusual ways, and being positively willing to massacre various persons who are only guilty by association… sure, let’s avoid it, if possible. I have been thinking a lot about exile in the past few weeks, a punishment much used by my Anglo-Saxon forebears. When things are put to rights, after the initial shock, I think exile is a great way of dealing with undesirables. It should be made clear that living in a civilized society is a privilege. Political agitators and dissenters, common criminals, etc., contribute nothing, are not wanted and must be denied the privilege of living with the decent folk in the society decent folk built. I certainly think we should put Jews, Mexicans, Blacks, Moslems, etc., on boats and send them away; I think it’s preferable to killing them, so long as they were not Leftist agitators (BLM and Cair representatives, etc., get lined up against the wall with the rest of the lily white snowflakes). The white man really has nothing to fear from such people, so long as they are kept elsewhere. Even the Jews have brains mostly for long cons; I don’t believe for a minute that they’d manage to cobble a decent civilization together if they were forced to make it or break it by their own labor and innovation. Their modus operandi has for too long been to outsource those qualities.

    1. Deportation is fine and dandy…if they actually agree to leave.

      Excellent point. I suggest a twofold approach:

      1. Eliminate the easy living they would find among us, starting with anti-discrimination law, welfare and affirmative action.
      2. Make it clear that their agreement is not necessary, and offer a reparations payment to sweeten the experience.

      Even if we pay these people a fair chunk of change, it will still be cheaper than (a) a year of welfare, discrimination lawsuits, racial violence, etc. and (b) the future of our society being destroyed.

  3. Eastern European here, married to Scott-Irish stock. Do I need to deport myself based on the above? What about my progeny? :-). It is certainly visible how certain Eastern European cultures are not really mixable with the Western ones… to make a really cohesive “Us”; but what of Eastern Europeans who have always related better to the western paradigm than to the Eastern?
    That being said, the IQ of the “new company” mentioned sounds in the single digits. So if the Alt Right is to get anywhere, ever, it will probably need to purge itself from these items before it purges the “Other”.
    The point that a unified and substantive culture is essential – remains valid. Fascinating reads.

  4. The desire to massacre itself is a symptom of weakness.

    Justice requires judgment and discrimination.

  5. Brett, I do agree with exile in general but, it is only because I want it all over and done with that I would agree with your particular model and approach to it.

    It is sweet that you want to give them first class and reparations but, that is what most people would be most upset about with this plan. They have received enough. If you are going to make it so damn accommodating,I would expect every remote speck of Other genotypes to be absolutely absent when it is all said and done. If not, it wasn’t worth the umpteenth charitable act and lack of catharsis of six decades of well cultivated hate.

    Puzzle Privateer, there will be no more democracy should Brett have his exile plan executable. If there is any remaining vestige of it, it will be snuffed out. So many delicate snowflakes will be so damn traumatized by first class cruise ship cabins being gifted to worthless napscalps (the inhumanity of it all) that it will be too harrowing an effort for them to even be bothered to vote. Or, worse, they will vote to revoke the act and we will be right back where we started. Aristocracy is a must for a European style government.

    A final note, the kindness in Brett’s exile method is ultimately for the psychological well being of Us. Why bother if they are not going to appreciate it and they will still act out at their equalist views being invalidated and removed from the political structure? Genocide looks more and more effective by the day.

    1. Aristocracy is a must for a European style government.

      And that, my friends, is the bottom line.

      The Enlightenment™ was a wrong turn; individualism does not rule us, but divides us.

      So we go back down the line to where we made that wrong turn, and do something else instead. Since aristocracy works better than democracy, I suggest we start there.

      A final note, the kindness in Brett’s exile method is ultimately for the psychological well being of Us.

      We are, as a people, not ungenerous, nor vindictive. A bad policy choice was made; now, we fix it and move on. This also gives them a chance to establish thriving societies of their own which will benefit all parties through trade.

  6. I’m a Canadian, but what is always foremost in my mind is Europe, especially Britain. I’ve read Brett’s ideas about deportation in the past, and had some doubts.

    To Western Europeans today, mass, racially determined deportation is shockingly unthinkable a thousand times over. By the time we shake off the generations’ worth of deep conditioning and revert to some state of natural, healthy instinct, the problem will be so vast that surely relocation on that scale won’t be possible. I’m not at all sure the logistics would be possible even now, even if the will were there. In which country could you deposit millions of people in a relatively short period of time, and cause anything other than utter disaster?

    There are other ways of doing this, which might be more effective (though they would take much longer), as well as being bloodless (well, probably not in practice, unfortunately, but likely better than mass deportation). Massive, racially discriminatory taxation connected to children could be levied as a start, for instance. This might coincide with a smaller scale, voluntary version of the payoff and deportation plan.

    Being a compassionate Western European, you could grant them one child unpenalized; theoretically, their numbers would then decrease by halves every generation, until they became minimal. Perhaps some kind of special privileges could even be given to those groups in question, granted in a spirit of magnanimity rather than one of self-loathing. It might decrease unrest, though if it doesn’t, well, don’t bother. Also, different racial groups could be treated somewhat differently, based on discriminatory value judgements which would make any liberal progressive apoplectic.

    A plan like this would undoubtedly have ugly side effects. What happens when these people have more children in spite of the measures? What kind of violence would the plan result in? One thing seems pretty clear, any that resist would find themselves on the receiving end of the police state which I sadly suspect will have to exist in the future, if these countries are going to survive. However horrible this might be, it’s better than the ruination or extinction of European peoples.

    Obviously, none of this could happen in a society as saturated with egalitarian ideology as ours. Equally clearly, it can’t happen while democracy and universal suffrage still exist. But with Europeans set to become minorities in so many of their own countries so soon, democracy had better die anyway, before these places become war zones or Muslim states. This demographic imbalance will probably come to pass before the end of the century. Europeans will have to overcome many decades of brainwashing, and then will most likely have to learn how to rule as exclusive minorities in their own homelands before they can attempt any program like this.

    If Brett’s deportation plan avoids the future psychic scarring of Europeans, then presumably so would this one. The joke is that everything I describe would clearly correspond to point (d) of the UN definition of genocide: “Imposing measures intended to prevent births in a group.” But given the state Europe will be in by this time, perhaps no one will care.

    1. Humans are by nature self-destructive because they choose short-term benefits over long-term interests. The Europeans opted for democracy and it has destroyed them. However, enough remain to reassert order and fix these problems in a few short steps, but it requires admitting the past was failure and launching into the dangerous ground of change, and worse, change not forced on them by crisis, and people fear/hate that.

      I think the hidden telegraphing behind my plan is this: you Other are responsible for your own destiny; we are not the key to your happiness. For that reason, I see outright deportation as less painful than trying to coerce them into leaving, which will allow them to continue the victim narrative into which most humans fall, and see their acts as “resistance” instead of trying to perpetuate the impossible.

  7. I don’t see anyone here saying that genocide should not be committed because it is morally wrong. Ugh.
    I’m not naive, or unaware of the fact that human history has all sorts of dark shit that the trashy mainstream culture would prefer not to tell us about. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try whenever possible to do better for ourselves.
    I get that there are some very real problems with the erosion of the traditional ethnic boundaries of the world. I’m white (German Jewish, but I actually look downright Aryan).
    I don’t think that other races are inferior. Evolutionary biology clearly says that the genetic differences between one race and another are negligible.
    That said a human being is a pack animal. And pack animals prefer their own packs. I can admit that if I am in a crowd of black people, it takes me longer to feel comfortable than a crowd full of white people. I think that mainstream black culture is incredibly trashy. I also think there is plenty of trashiness in white culture, but less so.
    That all said, as a pussy ass bleeding heart (sorta) liberal, I am still disgusted by the clear lack of moral conscience on this site.
    Where is the proof that your sort of people and society are the morally and intellectually superior type? Where is the concern for the many decent people who would be hurt by your plans?
    I was reading some other article or conversation advocating societies drawn along traditional ethnic lines. One man talked about sending the black people back to Africa, and sending Indigenous Americans to Siberia. Even though their pre-genocide society arguably fits some of your ideals much better than the mess that white people have made of the continent. And they were here first.
    On this site, I don’t see a pursuit of the Good, the Beautiful, and the True. I see an attitude of “We should get what we want, and the rest of the world can go fuck themselves.”
    Affirmative action may seem unfair to you, but broadly speaking, a society should have some concern for the abuse of the bottom by the top. And yes, a country whose economy economy benefited greatly from slave labor does owe something to modern black people.

    In another article you describe the people on the left as whiny losers. You also say that the left controls most of our society’s institutions. Um how are they whiny losers… if they’re winning?

    I get the underlying thesis. Don’t assume I am too stupid to understand. “There are a naturally superior group of people, which is us, and the rest of the world should be subordinates. Liberalism and egalitarianism have corrupted this natural order.”
    Except where is the proof that you are naturally superior? Who’s to say that you’re not acting out the same base selfishness and often insanity of most demagogues who have championed these sorts of ideas in the past?

    I don’t even know why I am bothering to post this. Silly to argue with people who don’t care about anything but themselves. Luckily the laws of this (admittedly deeply flawed society) say that if you try this sort of shit I can call the police on you.

    1. I’m not naive, or unaware of the fact that human history has all sorts of dark shit that the trashy mainstream culture would prefer not to tell us about.

      The point here is: nature is smarter than humans. The dark stuff is there for a reason.

      The point of the article was not:

      “There are a naturally superior group of people, which is us, and the rest of the world should be subordinates. Liberalism and egalitarianism have corrupted this natural order.”

      But: we need responsibility for ourselves alone, like any other group.

      In another article you describe the people on the left as whiny losers. You also say that the left controls most of our society’s institutions. Um how are they whiny losers… if they’re winning?

      Lies are always most popular. It is why you never put the masses in control of anything. If you disagree, have a Budweiser.

    2. “I don’t see anyone here saying that genocide should not be committed because it is morally wrong. Ugh.”

      Nobody is saying that because you’re the only one that feels the need to display how nice you are. When every word you write confirms that you are, in fact, not.
      You’re among real people here, who live in the real world, and are really who they are.
      Unsurprisingly, being nothing but a bundle of neuroses, you can’t make heads nor tails of any of it.
      Still, just as long as we all see you as nice, who cares?

      1. I’m publicly saying that genocide is morally wrong to appear nice to cover up how not nice I am?
        Maybe it’s possible that as a pussy ass leftist I genuinely believe that genocide is morally wrong.
        And no, I don’t feel the need to convince people of how nice I am. I don’t fit most of your stereotypes about how a leftist is, and I am perfectly okay with saying unpleasant things, cruel humor etc.
        I’m more aware than most that the world is a dark, screwed up place. But we should still try to do better for ourselves whenever possible. It doesn’t make supporting the bad things okay.
        There’s a huge difference between being able to speak unpleasant truths, and genuinely lacking in a conscience. You conflate these things.
        You also don’t draw a distinction between “People are unequal, some have superior abilities.” and “Some people are inherently inferior and should be slaves at My feet.”
        Stevens talks a lot about the stupidity of the masses, group think, whatever.
        This website shows these trends. You guys sit there confirming each others’ sloppy thinking. I guarantee you never get any power to do anything about your ideas because you don’t expose yourself to the world outside your bubble, and don’t understand how you come off to that world.

        1. Morality without practicality is always signaling.

          Stevens talks a lot about the stupidity of the masses, group think, whatever.
          This website shows these trends. You guys sit there confirming each others’ sloppy thinking.

          This is a classic liberal argument: all of our media, government and public relations people agree with me, so you’re obviously the conformist.

          Try just asking these questions:

          1. Is is true?
          2. Does it apply in the world?
          3. Does it produce a better result?

          That’s all that matters. You don’t have to be so snide and passive-aggressive.

          1. I didn’t say you’re the conformist. I said you’re wrong and show the same biases you criticize in others. I’m well aware of the fact that in the context of modern America, your ideas are pretty non conformist. I agree that the masses are asses; that doesn’t mean disagreeing with the masses makes you right. Or even sane.
            “Morality without practicality is always signaling.”
            Yes you can imply the other person is a hypocrite in order to distract from how terrible your ideas are. http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/04/im_not_the_one_you_should_be_w.html
            And what about the many people who actually walk the walk? Who try to build institutions capable of accommodating an egalitarian society with different ethnic groups? With great success in some places.

            I’m not being snide or passive aggressive. I’m bluntly telling you that I think you are wrong and morally bankrupt. That for all the problems with America’s cultural decline, it beats what your group is offering.

            Though it certainly is entertaining to see people who have a might makes right take on the world frankly admit their lack of power in the big picture. All their left with is primitive frustration and websites where they an sit around confirming each others’ smug sense of superiority to the group think of the masses.

            1. With great success in some places.

              And where is that?

              I said you’re wrong and show the same biases you criticize in others.

              And that’s why I arrived at an entirely different perspective, which you have not criticized on its merits, but instead have used that group consensus — “morality” — as your only argument.

            2. You’d get more mileage parlaying with other leftists who co-subscribe to the fantasy that ‘the world is whatever I say it is’.

              I mean, really: you say he’s wrong, so magically he becomes wrong. Like your buddies say someone is a racist, and so, magically, that someone becomes a racist.

              BTW, I’m not addressing you, personally, since doing so is beyond pointless. I’m illustrating how your clan operates, and how neuro-nuts your clan is. Play with your own gang. That way you can all have fun together.

    1. I suggest you read up on the equivocation fallacy, as well as all the others before trying to read something of that nature. The equivocation fallacy is the most commonly invoked in writings such as this. Beware especially when you see them write about unusual definitions of words. This fallacy is especially hard to catch because the logic is sound when using a different definition than the writer’s.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *