The great Mexican race war

keep_moving

Anyone remember the Mariel boatlift? Cuba, having gone Communist, hated the USA. The USA, being saps who are ruled by cynical lawyers instead of people with thinking capacity, decided to allow in any Cuban who managed to touch US soil. That oft-derided “feet wet” policy prompted many Cubans, who wanted to flee the life-sucking void that Communism creates, to hop into rafts made of junk and traverse the 90 miles to Florida.

The scheming Reds in Cuba retaliated with a policy of their own: they dumped their prisons, mental hospitals and pedophile wards onto boats and sent them to the USA. This allowed them to both remove an expensive social program, and revenge themselves upon the Great Satan by shipping it human refuse. (And yes, if you wept over the “tards are not useful” article, you’ll cry over this one, so log off now).

A few years later Mexico began doing the same thing, except to enable its race war both on its own people and on the USA. Americans tend to think of “Mexican” as a race, but it is not; it is a nation-state, or “political,” identity. People in Mexico are either purely Spanish-descended (criollo), mixed of Spanish blood and Amerind heritage (mestizo), of pure Amerind origin (indio) or a hybrid of Spanish, Indian and African (pardo). Saying someone is “Mexican” is as descriptive as saying “He lives in Los Angeles.”

How did this come about? The Spanish conquest of Mexico was not strictly a conquest. It was actually class warfare: a few hundred Spaniards came to the new world, and became the touchstone for class revolts against the Maya and Aztec empires. These empires had vast populations of serfs of low intelligence and initiative, and those populations had prospered under the regimes while the leaders, now bored of playing babysitter to a herd, had declined. With Spanish weapons and indio slave masses, the elites were overthrown.

The result is that you do not find any of the Aztec or Maya higher castes extant anymore. They were killed during the revolt, or raped, murdered and driven out afterwards just like whites in South Africa. Instead, Mexico is populated by the descendants of those slave people, the Spanish who came as colonists, and the African slaves imported for its industry. There is also a smattering of Chinese blood from laborers, and traces of exiled Moors and Jews from Europe.

What this translates into is another dysfunctional diversity situation which explains why Mexico is in perpetual third-world status. The Spanish-descended control most higher functions, with the mostly-Spanish mixed making up a middle class, and then there is a vast population of impoverished, low intelligence, illiterate peasant indios. Every time an election comes along, they can be counted on to vote Communist like virtually every other third-world group.

Naturally this causes tension in Mexico’s middle and upper classes. Life would be better for them without these indios, or at least with fewer of them. And then they saw the Mariel boatlift, and it dawned on them: send the indios to America. The dumb saps will accept them if they so much as put a finger on American dirt because America’s bon-bon eating leftist useful idiots want people who will vote Communist every time.

Mexico had the perfect cover. None of its public institutions function anyway, and when they do, it is while shot through with corruption like a syphilitic corpse. The ruling groups made it be known that a good life existed in America, and then informally yanked out a few support structures. When Mexicans started pouring over the border, and the Mexican authorities shrugged and went on siesta, no one was exactly surprised that a Mexican institution failed to act.

This was a different form of immigration. For centuries, Central American Amerinds have been trying to get north. Their first opposition was from North American Amerinds, who correctly intuited that to allow in the horde was to be ethnically cleansed and replaced. The second was from the people who built America, the Western European settlers, who saw the same thing and drove off the Mexicans in a series of wars, only to have Mexicans return as raiders under Pancho Villa, a Communist at heart who saw his people would support him in a life of rape, murder and theft from people smarter than himself.

The new Mexican immigration takes on a different form: Mexico is like all countries heading into or staying in third-world status, bottom-heavy. It has too many lower intelligence (which correlates with low initiative, a.k.a. siesta and cerveza living) people and they have shifted its Bell Curve to the left. The elites in Mexico, especially after disastrous Communist guerrillas and electoral victories in the 1980s, needed to get rid of some of their underlings. Corrupt low-caste American industrialists wanted cheap labor. A match made in heaven!

Not really. For Mexico, the result has been some prosperity but the realization that while a Spanish-only Mexico might work, even a middle class of slightly mixed blood has produced different results than a Spanish middle class. In addition, families are divided and Mexicans in the USA feel a need to connect with the culture that has been stripped away from them by a border. They are right to do so, because although their language is Spanish, their habits and lifestyle are straight out of the Mayan years. They need an identity of their own and the ability to determine their own future.

In America, the problem is that we have now taken on Mexico’s third-world status by importing people of that genetic background. There are two essential concepts here that most Americans, especially upper class and female voters, do not understand:

  1. Nature beats nurture every time. People are what they are because their genes program them to be so. What you enjoy, your speech patterns, your handwriting and even favorite foods are genetically-determined. This offends our Christian, egalitarian view that each of us is the master of his own fate. We are actually complex chemical reactions which have some faculty of choice but usually follow our impulses and desires, which are genetically determined. As the Texas saying goes, “Poor people have poor ways,” and so do more successful people. It isn’t white privilege that 110 average IQ people with discipline toward an ideal built a functional society, and the 80-90 average IQ third world built mud huts and burned witches. Importing third worlders here means that, no matter how much you “Christianize” them (or the modern equivalent, education and entertainment), they will keep doing what they are programmed to do. And your country will become third-world.
  2. Your skin is your uniform because all people act in self-interest. Liberals think that they can “explain away” ideas and then have them disappear because their liberal friends no longer mention them. The rest of the world realizes that identity is important. Every group on this earth who is Other, or not-Us, wants to invade and take over, stealing our stuff and impregnating our women. This is the way of the world and Darwinism. Identity provides groups with control over their destiny. With identity, a group can not only exclude others but have its own direction, values and culture, which is how it governs itself, since government always erodes to third-world levels as Americans are discovering. Mexican indios are acting in self-interest: the Americans are too stupid to oppose them, so they can invade — peacefully at first — and then take over through superior numbers.

Americans do not understand this because our own diversity problems predate Mexicans. First there were the North American Amerinds, with whom we coexisted until they began raping, killing and stealing. At that point, we were forced to defeat them, but then our diseases genocided them, and we keep the remnant drunk on government gin on reservations. Next there were our African slaves who we bought on the open market and kept in better conditions than those in China, Arabia, South America and Central America, but then left hanging around in a perpetual third-world state because with their identity destroyed, they could never control their destiny and thus were left dependent on their former slavemasters.

Finally there is the issue that few will talk about, which is “white” diversity. As our cities grew, we began subsidizing lots of lower-intelligence people with safer living, constant food and easy jobs. These demanded luxuries in turn and, using the suicidal function of the vote, elected to import “near-whites” from the areas of Europe that were mixed with other races. The part-North African Irish, the part-Asiatic Italians, the Turkic Greeks, the part-Arab and Asiatic Jews and Eastern Europeans, and part-Moorish Spanish became residents here as well. There is nothing wrong with those populations by themselves, but much as nature trumps nurture in third world status, it also explains the differences between Western Europe and its Eastern, Southern and Mediterranean counterparts.

With the rise of “white” diversity, America became colorblind because Paddy O’Malley, Chaim Abraham and Antonio Milano got upset when people mentioned differences. Government, always eager to play the profitable fool, got on the totalitarian bandwagon by demanding we all treat each other as equals and be forced to associate with each other, starting even before the Civil War. Since the Western European (called “Anglo” for short) organic power structure resisted, government attempted to destroy them, first with a Civil War and later with regulations and affirmative action. This is the hidden race war in America, between “whites.” The counter-culture was part of it and finally won in the 1990s, deposing the Anglo and replacing them with the great mixed-race republic, a.k.a. Mexico-in-Waiting.

Mexico, having gone through that experience already, was looking for a way out of its third-world disaster status and sending the indios and pardos north seemed like a good idea. This is the hidden race war within Mexico, between Mexicans, but it has the same root as the American struggle: the first-world populations are trying to escape the third-world ones. In Mexico at least, the struggle is honest, where in the USA it is buried under layers of lies from democratic politicians trying to buy votes from idiots, the largest and growing group in America. The election of President Camacho was confirmation of the counter-culture victory of the 1990s.

In the meantime, Western Europeans everywhere are ceasing to breed because they realize that this war of first-world via third-world cannot be won under democracy. When the founding myth of your society is that everyone is equal, you can never turn away the Other, and then they come in, rape your women, outbreed and out-vote you and take over, promptly making the same third-world disaster in your nation that they claim they wanted to escape. Nature beats nurture, every time.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

42 Responses to “The great Mexican race war”

  1. VA says:

    You make some good points here, ones that are rarely expressed when the subjects of immigration and ”diversity” come up.

    It’s true that our ”diversity” problem began with the Ellis Island immigration waves, when people of more disparate European groups arrived, and we had to pretend that all European peoples are equal. It’s obvious when looking at the differences between countries that ethnic differences matter.

    I do think that we got to our present predicament by baby steps, first with ”White diversity” or pan-European egalitarianism and we were then on the slippery slope to multiculturalism and the ‘one world’ system.

    • It’s true that our ”diversity” problem began with the Ellis Island immigration waves, when people of more disparate European groups arrived, and we had to pretend that all European peoples are equal.

      I remember how much this was romanticized in school, and how the kids were looking around the room to see who agreed. Early on the bully in humanity — protecting a secret fear — arises.

      I understand the baby steps approach, but that can be deceptive. Our society needs a core, a center. That suggests its goals as well. If we say we are the great white playground, that core is not created. If we affirm American nativism, it is: we are Western Europeans, Frontier Division.

  2. Dualist says:

    Another great article.

    I certainly agree with your analysis of the caste-makeup of Mexico and the low intelligence of their Indio populations (and those of the other 3rd world groups we import.) That ALONE is a good reason not to allow any to enter (we don’t want to shift that Bell curve to left, obviously). Plus, they’re not US, so their presence weakens society’s cohesiveness.

    Were is disagree most, here and elsewhere, is when you make intelligence the ONLY, or at least the main, predictor of people’s behaviour. I do think you underestimate the power that nurture, especially the effect of society’s fundamental beliefs, passed on by parents, has on people (it’s about 50/50 with IQ, maybe 60/40).

    What I’m saying is: just because somebody is not smart, they can still be of great use to society. By definition, half of the population US and the UK was under 100 in the 1930’s. Then, the working classes were starving-poor. But their behaviour showed little of the reprehensibility that we see in the (relatively rich) areas of today’s inner-cities. They had old-fashioned values that still made people feel shame if they acted immorally (and, probably more importantly, feared Eternal Judgement). They lived in communities all with largely the same values and they feared the censure, or at least the decrease in respect, of their neighbours for any bad behaviour. They were ALL (practically) GOOD PEOPLE.

    Put it this way: they were more honourable and decent than most of the high-IQ output of today’s best Universities. Put another way: a dumb person having good fundamental beliefs and a good upbringing to cement those ideas will still, quite likely, become a decent, law-abiding worker – the type all societies NEED. But a smart person who has Evil fundamental beliefs (eg. nearly every member of the Academy) will still be BAD PERSON who will spread more Evil than 10 rakish dumbies ever could.

    I am working class – and I have an IQ of 158 (and I was STONED when I took the tests!). But late during adolescence my fundamental beliefs changed: and instantly I changed from a ‘good boy’ to an Evil fucker, of no use to society (though the harder drugs, admittedly, also played a huge role in changing my brain’s functioning) My behaviour became totally different from my progenitors’ who had all maintained the same outlooks that they always had and so remained the most decent, honourable, honest, generous, loving, WISE people imaginable.

    But, on the other hand, I DO agree that certain (good) traits and tendencies are present in much higher frequencies in Indo-Europeans than many other races. For example, those coming from highly polygynous cultures eg. many sub-Saharan African populations, rarely adopt well our main cultural institution, marriage. Also, young black men have low IQ’s but very high testosterone levels – so are a recipe for criminality. I agree with all that.

    Just don’t write people off JUST because they’re not smart. A dumb Indo-European with good fundamental beliefs that have taken root in his soul will always be a better person, will add more goodness to the world, than a high-IQ liberal.

    But there are still many and sufficient reasons for us not to want the Other here.

    • Were is disagree most, here and elsewhere, is when you make intelligence the ONLY, or at least the main, predictor of people’s behaviour. I do think you underestimate the power that nurture, especially the effect of society’s fundamental beliefs, passed on by parents, has on people (it’s about 50/50 with IQ, maybe 60/40).

      Nothing I have seen supports this viewpoint.

      In my experience, nurture has very little to do with it except at the extreme edges (child abuse, or grooming someone from birth to be the next CEO).

      I don’t think I am writing people off solely because they are of lower intelligence. I am pointing out that they need not to be in charge, and possibly, to be in a different society.

      As you will have noticed, on every street the Bell Curve pattern repeats, so there are some who are smarter than others among every social class. But we need a group higher still to be in charge.

      • Dualist says:

        OMG, do you ever read ALL of my posts, lol?

        “I am pointing out that they need not to be in charge, and possibly, to be in a different society.”

        Yes, I agreed with that – though not JUST because of their low intelligence but also other inheritable tendencies as well (which I’m sure you’d agree, too).

        However, maybe I could have been clearer that further on I was talking mainly about Indo-Europeans. I feel that sometimes you suggests that having ‘smart’ people in charge is the MAIN solution. This is were I disagree.

        Maybe we’re just getting confused over terminology. What you really mean is to have WISE people in charge? If we understand to Wisdom to be that intellectual framework formed by a higher-than-average IQ that ALSO has ‘good’ fundamental beliefs then I certainly agree with you. (Many people would claim Wisdom is produced from a high IQ plus sufficient ‘experience’ but this is wrong – as the subjective MEANING of any experience is first filtered by our fundamental beliefs: if those beliefs are bad, more experience just corrupts further, normally).

        Remember: all those academics from whom the liberalism drains down have high IQ’s too. It is their BELIEFS that make them bad/dangerous (their high IQ only making them MORE dangerous, in fact.)

        Like I said (read the whole bloody comment!) in the 1930’s we had a society were half of the people had an IQ of less than 100 (by definition). People were starving-poor. But nonetheless, 99% of them remained decent, honest, honourable people (certainly in England). They were incomparably better than the bottom half of white society today. Because their beliefs were those that tend to produce more Good and they lived in a society with healthy cultural values.

        I don’t just mean spiritual beliefs, then. I mean more generally, like values of hard work and thrift as opposed to the consumerist ‘me’ culture were modern people in the lower-half of the IQ spectrum will bankrupt themselves on credit cards so they can buy Luis Vuitton bags.

        It is simply not true to say that, previously, the INDO-EURPEAN working classes have always engaged in as much reckless, antisocial behaviour as they do today. Speaking only of England: they were nearly all ‘Good’ people (admittedly, better than many of our aristocrats) until the last 2/3 generations.

        But of course, even though they were ‘good’, I would agree that most of them still shouldn’t have been in charge. We need people who are Good + clever = Wise. Smartness does NOT equal Goodness, that’s my point.

        • What you really mean is to have WISE people in charge?

          I mean that we put our best people at the top, instead of what most people think is pleasurable. This means smart, capable people. I consider that to have a reality-based dimension or it’s useless. In my experience, academics are not that smart; they are 120-125 generally with high verbal skills.

          • -A says:

            Indeed, Brett. So many people are still willing to be lofty. This is not even a jab at Dualist: men like Davis Aurini are much the same way. I consider the effervescent notions he proposes are based in a kind of misplaced (though not at all unjustified) optimism in humanity and its possible spiritual (though he correctly eschews the religious measurement of this alone) nature.

            Where I do see eye to eye with you, Dualist, is something I have been saying for a long time. There is a big difference between the working class (commons/proletariat) and the peasantry.

            • -A says:

              Whoops, I have more. I have also noticed that most people who accrue even the most technical of degrees, even if they have many of them, are not that smart at all. I should not have to explain to a Doctor of Behavioral Psychology what a paraphilia is or to a Doctor of Physics that in fact, there is no real or singular theory attached to String Theory. If I may speak for Brett, a statement that he has been saying for a long time now: there is a difference between the technically intelligent and the Philosophically intelligent.

          • Dualist says:

            Brett:

            They certainly need a reality-based component. It is this type of smartness that allows us to say: if we allow a certain aspect/feature of society to either increase or diminish then we KNOW that the outcome of this either will be X if we allow it to decrease or Y if we allow increase (for example). Simple cause and effect. Crazily, many of our current leaders lack even this (or at least dogma prevents them from admitting certain outcomes). Now, which of the two options we would choose would depend on our GOAL(S) as a society.

            So here’s why having GOOD fundamental beliefs is vital: it is these beliefs that DETERMINE what our goal is. If outcome X was an increase in a particular reward for only the BEST members of society but outcome Y meant a more EQUAL share of the particular ‘reward’, then a liberal would opt for Y, a traditionalist would opt for X. It is only having good fundamental beliefs (AND wisdom) that leads a society to have GOOD goals – and so to chose outcome X.

            A liberal has a fundamental belief that all humans SHOULD have equal worth and dignity. Being reality-based alone cannot allow us to PROVE he is wrong. It cannot allow us to say what people DESERVE as inalienable rights.

            A:

            For your first comment – why you think the ideas are misplaced if they are ‘highly justifiable’? I am certainly right to say we can have optimism that people can behave better than they do now – because they once did, for centuries, till yesterday. And that was the only manner in which I could be described as being optimistic in that post, surely. Brett sometimes seems to say that people were historically at the bottom of society because they were largely only CAPABLE of destructive behaviour and needed to be ‘kept under’- this is completely wrong.

            As for your second reply: did you read my full post above? That was my whole point. Having a high IQ certainly does NOT equal wisdom. I couldn’t agree more that many scientists have almost no philosophical understanding – I speak to such people every day. My main point was actually that Brett does NOT emphasis this. He most often just mentions people as not having a high IQ and are hence are declared useless. Read all the comments above and you’ll see were I’m at.

            • -A says:

              Having faith in humanity is one thing, believing that people are broadly intelligent just because they do what they are supposed to is just optimism at its most naive.

              It is as I said in my first comment: the peasantry and the commons are two different things. The peasantry is often painted as being synonymous with the proletariat. This was just a conceit of the bourgeoisie, and not the truth. The peasantry has always been destructive.

              You confuse the spiritually healthy (Chaucer’s allusion to pauverte, Anti-Dem has a great article about that)with the broadly intelligent. Broad intelligence is correlated with high IQ depending on the bracket the test taker is in.

            • -A says:

              Whoops, I have a response to your comment to Brett.

              If we present an instance of gain solely as one group gets a benefit from the government and nobody else does, then we need to provide a good reason to the listener why that is. Liberals have created victim mentality for this purpose. Liberalism only survives in normal people because they are blockaded from a real understanding of history as well as current events, and they are shamed into noticing what is right in front of their faces and in the serious history books.

              There is nothing that could be considered to be “values” in the liberal. They are making a powergrab even as they are in power. They do not know any other way to survive. Normal people just need to understand the past and the basics of good values will come to them so long as they do not have a rational incentive to continue with degeneracy and so long as they have a real culture.

              You have made the point about culture but, so has Brett many times. That is a central and recurring statement in his posts. I am sure you realized that but the reason why intelligence is stressed is because the most intelligent will indeed grasp the higher concepts and transcendent values of conservative morality. These concepts are what allowed for all of our achievements in the first place.

              • Dualist says:

                Right, I’ll have another go. If your first language is not English, please just read what I have written SLOWLY again.

                “believing that people are broadly intelligent just because they do what they are supposed to”

                is NOT anything I mentioned, or implied. I actually even said: “What I’m saying is: just because somebody is NOT SMART, they can still be of great use to society.”

                Please, please read my comments slowly, and re-read them if you have a point you disagree with – because none of the points you have disagreed with up to now were points I actually made!

                One thing I DID say is: if ‘people’ (lower classes of Indo-Europeans) managed consistently to ‘do what they were supposed to’ until very recently – then they certainly COULD POTENTIALLY act that way again. It doesn’t even require ANY optimism to say that this situation would be POSSIBLE to recreate again in the future (I didn’t say it would be easy, though – sometimes it’s harder to get the genie back into the bottle etc.)

                There are logically ONLY three ways that the assertion (‘if they managed to do it in the past then they COULD POTENTIALLY do it once again in the future’) COULD be false:

                a) I am actually wrong about the past and such classes of people NEVER mainly ‘did what they were supposed to do.’ All my experiences dealing with the older generations from the working-class (who are just sooo superior in word and deed to our present working-class generation, almost to a man) first convinced me that I am correct, at least in my locale. And my wide and deep reading of history all seems to confirm it for the wider world. Now I WOULD genuinely be interested to hear from anybody who has serious points to make contra this.

                b) People have genetically changed in the past 50 years – and I purposefully kept emphasising that I was only talking about (pure-bred) Indo-Europeans to rule this option out.

                c) The cultural/spiritual/societal REASONS why they behaved in such a way in the past could NEVER be repeated again for some reason – and if this is the case we might as well all just stop writing on this site.

                As for your second reply – I agree with every part of it.

                • One thing I DID say is: if ‘people’ (lower classes of Indo-Europeans) managed consistently to ‘do what they were supposed to’ until very recently – then they certainly COULD POTENTIALLY act that way again.

                  If told what to do by those above them, certainly.

                • -A says:

                  You’re argument is that IQ is too much of a focus by Brett. I disagree because depending on the bracket, high IQ is correlative with broad intelligence.

  3. SheriffofAushwitz says:

    So genetic engineering when?

  4. Missy says:

    If you see the world as biological, then you get this. Most, however, see the world in terms of ideas. They are projecting their beliefs onto the world. One big mistake they make, is they assume other races are not racist. It never occurred to them that the minorities and all races around the world ARE racist. The liberal wants to feel good about themselves so they believe strongly in equality whilst denying gut instincts about race. How surprised they will be when they learn that the minority races they seek to coddle are racist (because if they weren’t, they would lack basic survival instincts). Biology overrides idealism.

  5. Eugene says:

    In the 1970’s when American companies were required to put Spanish instructions on goods and safety warnings on machinery, I knew we would have an invasion of Mexicans.
    And the Jews and Catholic Church are two groups among many others, especially religious groups, behind the invasion of immigrants to White nations in Europe and the United States now. The whole purpose of this mass invasion of foreigners to
    White countries is to take it over by interracial marriage and foreign blood domination if it cannot be done by war.
    I heard for over ten years a Catholic , Irish Monseignor preach openly that the world belongs to the Catholic Church and the Pope is its king.
    There is a video on the internet of a Jewish women bragging that the Jews are behind the mass immigration of foreigners into European White nations and the Europeans must accept it and get used to it.
    This evil will not be stopped because too many religious groups want to see Satan come to ful-fill Biblical prophecy.
    And the Jews and Catholic Church will not allow the Arabs to have nuclear weapons , but are using them just as we see. Only Jewish dominated governments have nuclear weapons.
    I could say a lot more ,but it gets depressing and nauseating talking about the same things day after day.
    Our Congressmen know who has the money and controls our government. They all go to the Jews begging for money for their campaigns; especially noticeable this year are the Conservatives, such as John Kasich and Mike Huckabee.
    I see today Al Sharpton gripping again. He’s is never satisfied. One of the reasons behind the Civil rights movement was to integrate the Blacks with White women. It’s happening and look at the porno -sites and it will make you sickened and disgusted. That’s why our politicans and religious are not against crime , pornography, drugs, alcohol, etc. etc.This young generation must be subverted in their morals and beliefs.

    • And the Jews and Catholic Church are two groups among many others, especially religious groups, behind the invasion of immigrants to White nations in Europe and the United States now.

      Religion seems to shift left a lot. Our protestant churches here are pro-immigration. Wonder why that is?

      • crow says:

        Idol worship. The greatest human failing.
        Almost all religion becomes individuals worshiping idealized versions of themselves as God.
        God is nice, so they must become nice, too. So it goes, in the self-cannibalizing intellects of the fallen.

      • Dualist says:

        Is the Catholic Church pro-immigration over there too? I imagine it would be, sadly, as the immigrants would help swell the diminishing congregations.

        Admittedly, they are suffering from the same mentality as liberals on this issue. They are taking the opinion ‘why can’t we all just get along?’ This WOULD work – as long as every person in the world took it into their hearts starting from today. It most definitely doesn’t work unilaterally, which is what they’re effectively asking us to accept, as the rest of world carries on their normal aims of self-interest.

        Put one way: Mexico wouldn’t QUITE react the same as we are ‘supposed’ to if whitey started hopping over their border in droves. And those Mexicans who are already here wouldn’t stay very long to help fix any problems if the US’s economic conditions rapidly worsened.

    • Dualist says:

      “There is a video on the internet of a Jewish women bragging that the Jews are behind the mass immigration of foreigners into European White nations and the Europeans must accept it and get used to it.”

      I’d be very grateful if you had a link for this! I’m already aware of a certain rabbi who has said he prefers the prospects of an Islamic Europe to a Christian one http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2015/11/islamization-of-europe-a-good-thing/

      • -A says:

        Good God! This is why I always say that Catholicism is the completion of European Paganism and not Judaism. At least, that is the way it should be treated.

        Modern Catholicism has been infected with liberalism and Protestant reform called “Vatican II.” Protestantism was the leading force behind organizing the people in the French Revolution. It is the movement of the people whereas Catholicism is the religion of the World. And World originally referred to the European people and their “age, era, way of life, their cycles and the eternity of thereof.”

  6. Socratic Dialoguer says:

    “How did this come about? The Spanish conquest of Mexico was not strictly a conquest. It was actually class warfare”

    Can I have some sources for this claim?

    • crow says:

      Who are you, again? The Big Judge?
      Find your own sources. Give you something useful to do.

      • Socratic Dialoguer says:

        I have. The reality:

        http://www.almanachdegotha.org/id219.html

        “Moctezuma II’s royal descendants weregranted titles in Mexico and Spain. The Aztecs and other Indigenous peoples in Mexico had a system of hereditary aristocracy in place when the Spanish conquered their empires. The Spaniards respected this system and added to it, resulting in many unions between Aztec and Spanish nobility. Descendents of the elites of pre-Columbian Mexico who received these distinctions included the heirs of the Aztec ruler Moctezuma II; That family became known as the condes de Moctezuma.”

        “Some families of pure Amerindian ancestry, such as the Mixtec Villagómez family, were among the richest landowners in New Spain. Despite being part of the colonial elite after the conquest, the Villagómez retained their Mixtec identity, speaking the Mixtec language and keeping a collection of Mixtec codices.”

        Now, I just ask because in Europe the narrative is completely different. Americans are poor peasants that immigrated to America and became wealthy, they were the lowest of the lowest, some even criminals on the run and that is why America is a materialist mechanist unhealthy country. I do not agree with this obviously.

        I is amazing that a simple question is so strong has to harm your ego. Plus, the question was not for you. When I want to question you I will mention your name

        • Two people are mentioned.

          The reality: where do we find the Amerindian elites?

          Right. In the ground.

          • Socratic Dialoguer says:

            Humm, I believe the link I provided suggests a different reality.

          • Socratic Dialoguer says:

            “Descendents of the elites of pre-Columbian Mexico who received these distinctions INCLUDED the heirs of the Aztec ruler Moctezuma II;”

            Included is not synonimous of “only”

          • Socratic Dialoguer says:

            “Numerous other Indigenous elites collaborated with the conquest, earning noble titles and privileges. Most notably, all theTlaxcallans whom resettled into northern Mexico, became hidalgos.”

            • I think you have missed the forest for the trees. Where are the Maya today, and Aztec today, who once numbers in the hundreds of thousands?

              Oh, right: mass revolt is mass revolt, and they always kill off the overthrown group. Perhaps a few were ransomed and integrated into dissolute royal families but you have missed the point: we never hear or see of them; to history, they are dead.

              • Socratic Dialoguer says:

                “Where are the Maya today, and Aztec today, who once numbers in the hundreds of thousands?”

                They became Mexicans, but this is not the main point. You pointed there was class warfare and that the indigenous elites got eliminated and that the indigenous population is only made of lower caste people:

                “The result is that you do not find any of the Aztec or Maya higher castes extant anymore. They were killed during the revolt, or raped, murdered and driven out”

                It is incorrect and an overgeneralization, my point is that they were integrated into the colonial Spanish administration and did not disappeared.
                Of course Aztec and Maya cultures did but that was not the point you were trying to pass through.

                • It is incorrect and an overgeneralization, my point is that they were integrated into the colonial Spanish administration and did not disappeared.

                  You mean that some of them were, with the rest perishing, probably as a political exercise (I remember at least one hostage situation during the Aztec conquest). And now? Zero activity and zero relevance. Disappeared.

                  • Socratic Dialoguer says:

                    “And now? Zero activity and zero relevance. Disappeared.”

                    They continued with power and property so in efect they didnt need to act in any way. They lost the aztec identity and identified as Mexicans instead.

                    “You mean that some of them were, with the rest perishing”

                    Well again here we can be discussing for years, we would need statistics. That is why I asked for your sources.

  7. hhhhhh says:

    Nature vs Nurture is more complex than this. Culture is the dominant factor in the success of a group. Culture fosters unity and trust, as well as desire to fight enemies. The only way to enslave a population for any length of time is to destroy their culture. You can see that was done to African slaves; it was very effective. The English did it to the Irish, so the Irish culture now is on par with African slave culture. The Indians in the Americas had their cultures destroyed, and now they’re useless groups. But finally, any remnants of culture in the US have been completely destroyed as well. The US is practically a slave culture. There is no chance of unity because there are no uniting elements. When Brett writes about Us vs other in the US, I honestly can not imagine who he means by Us. People who frequent this blog on occasion? Like the article says, the counter-culture succeeded: all culture in the US was destroyed. It’s even in the name ffs. They haven’t instituted the new slave culture into the whole US, but nearly the entire culture either has an old slave culture (the South because of the Irish) or the new slave culture (leftism/new age/counter-culture). While I see that the last strand of culture remaining to unify anyone is ‘Christianity,’ that is purely a slave religion and only marginally better than the New Age version of Christianity. I don’t see any meaningful differences between Islam and Christianity; the Christian ideal state is indistinguishable from the Muslim one(as history plainly shows ). Perhaps establishing a new culture, but phrasing it as a revival, would be a better alternative. The US itself was explicitly founded on a return to pre-Norman conquest England. Perhaps reestablishing the actual Anglo-Saxon law(known as common law, and it technically is still the law in the US) can be a better unifying factor.

    I’m not sure if you guys have noticed, but the oligarchs are attempting to create a subspecies of human that can never rebel. Look at Ohio and the Midwest. Entire towns where everyone is a grotesque subhuman(despite all that Western European heritage) eating mayonnaise pies while riding their Rascals through Walmart. It is not a joke; within,in my estimation, 2 generations of passing on those traits, they will literally be permanently subhuman. I suspect this is millions of people in the country. I don’t know how you guys intend to unify these assorted slave groups in the US under the alleged unity of Western European culture when most of the country is functionally illiterate and staunchly anti-intellectual. I guess this is why people think that killing the gays will fix the economy while being completely unaware that the bailouts were at least 4 times bigger than at first claimed (information resulting from the first audit of the Federal Reserve, spearheaded by Ron Paul). Ffs, most of the country literally believes that the US still backs its currency with gold despite 40 fucking years of not having done so. Thank you Nixon!

    • Culture fosters unity and trust, as well as desire to fight enemies. The only way to enslave a population for any length of time is to destroy their culture.

      I agree and would add: all destroyed cultures end up as third-world civilizations.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>