Posts Tagged ‘altruism’

“16 Points Of The Alt Right” That Invert The Alt Right Into Leftism

Wednesday, March 22nd, 2017

One of the most important experiences in life is to see how good enough is the enemy of good. Most people will settle for good enough, which results in them not only failing to address actual needs, but because they have engaged in surrogate and proxy behavior, concluding that they have fixed a problem which is now strengthened.

The good enough serves to kill off the weak of the enemy, leaving only the strong. And yet, it is more convenient, so people drift toward it like moths to flame, kids to soft drinks, voters to the early stages of Communism, and the like. Whenever you want to actually end a problem, fear the “good enough” like the plague, because it will defeat you.

Vox Day was kind enough to write back a terse reply to a recent Amerika article on the Alt Lite. He writes:

It’s an irrelevant response that completely fails to understand my position. You should try attacking my actual positions: start with the 16 Points.

So, then, let us look at the 16 points:

1. The Alt Right is of the political right in both the American and the European sense of the term. Socialists are not Alt Right. Progressives are not Alt Right. Liberals are not Alt Right. Communists, Marxists, Marxians, cultural Marxists, and neocons are not Alt Right.

While this sounds good on the surface, and in the modern time this is how writers succeed, note what it does not tell you: what the Right actually is. Instead, we have a list of things that are not Alt Right, without attacking the core: Leftism, which is like The Enlightenment™ a type of egalitarianism, and its political counterpart, democracy. Until that rubicon is crossed, the above sounds very Republican with a touch of paleoconservative.

2. The Alt Right is an ALTERNATIVE to the mainstream conservative movement in the USA that is nominally encapsulated by Russel Kirk’s 10 Conservative Principles, but in reality has devolved towards progressivism. It is also an alternative to libertarianism.

This is a misdirection. First, very few conservatives have read Russell Kirk, and most base their conservatism on the mainstream ideas pro-business, free markets, strong defense, pro-Israel, small government, and “muh freedom.” Libertarians are people who hope to hold off Leftism with freedom of association despite that having worked never throughout history. But classical liberalism (libertarianism) and mainstream conservatism both lead to Leftism, as we see in the transition to neoconservatism, because they are still based in the idea of equality. In this view, how is the Alt Right an alternative? Obviously it is not, and therefore, this definition does not fit the Alt Right.

3. The Alt Right is not a defensive attitude and rejects the concept of noble and principled defeat. It is a forward-thinking philosophy of offense, in every sense of that term. The Alt Right believes in victory through persistence and remaining in harmony with science, reality, cultural tradition, and the lessons of history.

There is much to like here, but why is “cultural tradition” used instead of tradition? There is an implication of culture as separate from race, which history shows us is not the case. It also makes sense to clarify what “science” is here, since most “science” seems to have been hijacked by moneyed interests and the Left.

4. The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Graeco-Roman legacy.

This unfortunately misses the point on two levels. First, this “pinnacle of human achievement” is a universalist concept that leaves us open to entry by anyone else who can demonstrate some kind of relevance to this pinnacle, which has already failed (again) and left us standing among the ruins. Second, these three pillars miss the point: Western Civilization is Western People, who when they act according to their character create all the other things mentioned. Some points should be given for “the European nations,” which seems to be a refutation of white nationalism, or the idea of melting all white people together into a generic/universal white tribe.

5. The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration.

It was doing so well until that second sentence. Nationalism should be defined here: what is a nation and how does it relate to ethnic group and race? The answer can be found in The Nationalism FAQ: nationalism is the philosophy that states that a nation is defined by an ethnic group. Germany for Germans, Nigeria for Nigerians, Japan for Japanese, Israel for Jews. At least he mentions homogeneity, but then again, when defined so vaguely, this could mean anything, such as “we’re all Christian.” Instead of focusing on these “rights” to exist and be free of invasion and immigration, it might have made more sense to focus on self-determination and the ability to exclude others, including those among us who are of our tribe but defective.

6. The Alt Right is anti-globalist. It opposes all groups who work for globalist ideals or globalist objectives.

Check! No problem here. However, since nationalism is the opposite of globalism, this one is somewhat redundant.

7. The Alt Right is anti-equalitarian. It rejects the idea of equality for the same reason it rejects the ideas of unicorns and leprechauns, noting that human equality does not exist in any observable scientific, legal, material, intellectual, sexual, or spiritual form.

Check! But why did it not mention the founding issue of the Left, which is class warfare? If one cannot admit the differences between castes and classes, we are back in French Revolution territory.

8. The Alt Right is scientodific. It presumptively accepts the current conclusions of the scientific method (scientody), while understanding a) these conclusions are liable to future revision, b) that scientistry is susceptible to corruption, and c) that the so-called scientific consensus is not based on scientody, but democracy, and is therefore intrinsically unscientific.

A thousand times no. The “scientific method” is deductive from material only, and misses out on both logical fact and any order beyond the material. This seems designed for the IFLScience crowd.

9. The Alt Right believes identity > culture > politics.

This cleverly sidesteps an issue: the Alt Right believes that race is upstream of culture and culture is upstream of politics.

10. The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means.

Unfortunately, this language is painfully vague. Who is native, and to what? This sounds to me like a crypto-JQ statement, which misses the point that what destroys nations is collapse from within, and scapegoating the outsider misses the culpability we have for selecting egalitarianism, as every collapsing civilization seems to do.

11. The Alt Right understands that diversity + proximity = war.

This is one of those catchphrases that sounds good but does not express the whole truth: diversity = civilization collapse, with the recognition that diversity (a synonym for “multiculturalism” or its French Revolutionary equivalent, “internationalism” as later expressed by “workers of the world, unite!”) means the mixing of different ethnic groups into one nation-state.

12. The Alt Right doesn’t care what you think of it.

While technically correct, this statement reeks of teenage bluster, and misses the real point: unlike demotic movements, the Alt Right affirms that what is actual and real is more important than collective opinion, and that only some can perceive with higher degrees of accuracy, so we follow them in a hierarchical order instead of trying some crowd-sourced “find the truth through our navels” type democratic event.

13. The Alt Right rejects international free trade and the free movement of peoples that free trade requires. The benefits of intranational free trade is not evidence for the benefits of international free trade.

No objections here. However, it might be wiser to take the broader approach and point out that culture is more important than commerce. What is efficient and profitable is not always good, and so while we are believers in free markets, we recognize that no free market exists without a culture and those standards come first. Pornography, drugs, and gadgets for idiots are profitable; they are not desirable, at least on a wide scale.

14. The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children.

Point number fourteen is David Lane’s fourteen words. No objections here other than the reek of white nationalism which seeks to reduce our national identities to “white,” which only seems sensible when one lives in a mixed-ethnic state. Nationalism covers this topic well enough: we want to survive, and the only way to do that is to show up for the future through our descendants.

15. The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers.

This is roughly a summary of the Pan-Nationalism project that I and other CORRUPT/Amerika writers launched back in the early 2000s. No disagreement here.

16. The Alt Right is a philosophy that values peace among the various nations of the world and opposes wars to impose the values of one nation upon another as well as efforts to exterminate individual nations through war, genocide, immigration, or genetic assimilation.

A smart politician, the author offers an olive branch to the Left. At first this statement seems (emotionally) appealing until one realizes that it commits us to being world peacemakers to end ethnic conflict between other groups. A saner statement is that we represent our own interests only, and the rest of the world needs to take care of itself. Altruism is dead.

He reaches a clearer statement here:

The great line of demarcation in modern politics is now a division between men and women who believe that they are ultimately defined by their momentary opinions and those who believe they are ultimately defined by their genetic heritage.

In doing so, while engaging in smart politics, he creates a great error. As Evola noted, race is tripartite, consisting of body, mind and spirit. We are defined first by our genetic heritage and more importantly, genetic interests, but also our ability to uphold the tenets and purpose of Western Civilization.

We are not democrats; not everyone is acceptable and destined to be included, even if they are of the “right” heritage. Only those who can do what is necessary to rebuild Western Civilization are welcome because there are many degenerates and sociopaths among us, and there is no need to include those.

The problem with the Alt Lite is that it represents “good enough”: a series of patches to democracy to keep it afloat, when our downfall began with the idea of egalitarianism and any vestige of that which we retain will re-create the same conditions that brought us to our current state. We must get to the root of the problem and remove that or we simply repeat history, which the Alt Lite seems to favor.

Again, the Alt Lite misses the point: the Alt Right is designed as an alternative to both mainstream conservatism and blockheaded White Nationalism. If we wanted blockhead white nationalism, we would have simply joined those groups. We want a more far-reaching purpose in the restoration of Western Civilization, and the Alt Lite is another “good enough” that stands in our way.

Worldwide Collapse Of Democracy Through Death Of Altruism

Tuesday, March 21st, 2017

Fear and trembling seizes the land as the death of democracy becomes clear:

Those three aspects of Western foreign policy coincided catastrophically with the rise of illiberal populism across the globe and a crisis of confidence in the concept of democracy in the West. This was the perfect storm necessary to halt democracy’s advance and transform it into a retreat back toward authoritarianism.

…More substantively, Trump’s early foreign policy decisions (and especially his “America First” rhetoric) has sent a clear signal that the United States will be shifting its focus away from global human rights to focus exclusively on its narrow conception of self-interest. Indeed, his budget proposal would gut the State Department budget, axe pro-democracy foreign aid, and make it far more difficult for the United States to promote democracy generally.

The we-are-all-one altruism that enables democracy to thrive worldwide has died now that the West has rejected its altruism spiral. Instead, people are looking toward realism: what works instead of what “should” work based on ideas of human equality which make people feel empowered to act selfishly, knowing the tribe cannot retaliate against them.

In fact, there is only one type of person who really likes democracy, and that is the person who thinks it is more likely that they will be criticized than praised. They want a defense against the standards of the group, and so they choose egalitarianism a.k.a. individualism, and in doing so, hope to avoid censure.

Democracy was not killed. It killed itself because it became clear that altruism was a lowering of all defenses and enabled exploitation. Whether this was by rich globalists, third world immigration, callous politicians or simply badly-behaved other citizens, it ended badly, and it became clear that further walking down this road would lead to doom.

Instead of mourning the failure of the already dead, we should look toward the future: a society which escapes altruism, but instead of being anti-altruistic, has another purpose instead. After all, that is what the West has lacked for some time, purpose. We need a goal or we stagnate and self-destruct, and even our slowest now know that this process leaves nothing for the future.

What Are “Right” And “Left”?

Monday, March 20th, 2017

Amazingly, most people have no idea what political “Right” and “Left” are, even professionals writing in the field.

To understand this division, we should go back to the origins of the terms. This is a technique sometimes used to trace the meaning of a word over time, and to figure out why it was originally used, because that generally indicates what was so different from the norm that it required a new term.

In the case of “Right” and “Left,” these terms arose after the French Revolution when parties in the national assembly sat on one side of the aisle or the other. Those who liked the new order sat on the left; those who favored the old way and wanted to resist the new as much as possible sat on the right.

From that we get these simple terms which correspond to our cultural conception of handedness: the right hand is the one where action and signaled intent are the same, where the left is the hand that does the opposite of what signaled intent suggests. Historically, this is because the right hand can be used to shake while the left hand draws a blade.

And so we must ask what the “new order” actually stood for, which requires looking at what it wanted. This one is easy; it wanted to overthrow the kings, and in order to do so, it proclaimed equality (as an opposite of hierarchy) so that all people were equal. This meant that none had the right to rule over the rest, and the mob would choose its own path via voting.

Take a moment to get over your laughter. Yes, once upon a time, people were so gullible that they thought that mass voting was a way to make decisions! It is comedic in retrospect that people somehow convinced themselves that groups, most known for panics and stampedes and ignoring crimes, would be better leaders than someone specialized. But humans are prone to denial, projection and fantasy…

The Left stands for one thing and one thing only: egalitarianism, or the idea of equality. This allows them to escape social consequences for being less accurate in their thinking than others. From this, all of Leftism flows naturally. It is not a very complex philosophy, which is why it is disguised in endless play-acting “theory” by its adherents.

On the other hand, the Right stands for what came before egalitarianism: time-honored ways of being, which means they are based in consequentialism or results instead of appearance, and in order to have direction, are also “transcendental” or geared toward qualitative improvement on the former. The Right is complex, nuanced, and has many layers.

The division is this simple: the Left believes egalitarianism will solve our problems and give us direction, where the Right thinks that egalitarianism is a distraction from the real task, which is to discover how our world works and what are the best results we can achieve through known working methods of adaptation to it.

Now where this gets interesting is that the Left has incentive to hide their actual meaning. Like the left hand move, their goal is to separate their public intent from their private actions. Altruism is a great cover story, like politicians kissing babies. It lets you give a few percent of your wealth or time for public image, then do whatever you want with the rest.

The Right, on the other hand, have no way of summarizing their intent. Rightism is inherently complex because it is based not on a human theory, but on many and dissimilar methods for making human civilization improve in quality. As a result, it is a philosophy that requires an esoteric or unequal and cumulative approach to understand.

Humans naturally prefer the Left because we are self-deluding creatures. We know what we want more than what we are. As a result, our desires reflect illusions based on what we want to be, and reflect very little who we are, or in other words, our actual needs. As a result, the Left is perpetually popular, just like circuses, bread, television and pretense.

Whenever the Left appears, it uses egalitarianism as its method of forcing acceptance and shaming those who resist it. Who can, socially speaking, oppose the idea that everyone is accepted? Using this passive-aggressive method, Leftism bullies its way in, and sets up an alternate power structure which then rules with tyranny.

We know this and can speak out against it without having to swing to symbolic opposite extremes like “freedom”, “liberty,” and “meritocracy,” which are Leftist proxies for the idea of reducing everyone to a minimum and then selecting those with the (politically) correct ideas to rise. We can instead point again to history.

When the French Revolution was won, the new government set about doing things differently than the old leadership. After a period of murdering whole families on nothing more than the word of someone on the street, the new regime set up its People Power and promptly drove the nation into worse famine and poverty than ever seen before.

As that settled in to the public consciousness, the regime distracted by declaring what was essentially the first world war and attempting to conquer Europe, an attempt that first brought victory and then great defeat. The result was that the war in the name of the people ended up making life worse for them.

After that, things settled down to the Right versus Left view we have now. Naturally, the Rightists who gave in and adopted the Leftist idea of equality found themselves more popular, and so the mainstream Right gradually eroded until it became a variety of Leftism as today. But that does not change the idea itself.

If we are to make sense of this political question, it first makes sense to go back to our roots and see what Right and Left mean. The Left means egalitarianism; the Right means time-honored solutions producing the best results. Obviously, these are incompatible, which is why the West is currently fragmenting along these lines.

Why Al Capone Gave Lavishly To The Church

Friday, March 17th, 2017

Al Capone gave generously to Catholic charities in Chicago. Perhaps he wanted to take care a few of the widows and orphans he prodigiously created. St. Valentine was probably pissed over the whole massacre thing and Capone perhaps thought he could tithe his way out of that particular faux pas. No, I’m sure that wasn’t it.

Capone was a smart enough guy to read the fine print. The typical guy who dies from The Syph in The Can isn’t doing very well at not coveting his neighbors’ wives. At least the neighbors’ animals were fairly safe — probably. Then, there’s the whole thou shall not kill clause. It doesn’t ever make it taking The Lord’s name in vain before the whole deal just has to be called off. So why drop a check into the collection plate?

You drop the check in there to make them used to it. It makes them beholden. It’s a tactic called Civic Dispersal which involves buying the means by which they survive as a tactic to protect yourself against societal censure. As long as Capone fed more orphans than he created every week, he could wage The Sophist’s argument that he was a philanthropist and a net benefit to society. Just don’t cheat on your taxes. The IRS could give a flying kangaroo fluck less about orphans. They rarely reach a high enough tax bracket to be interesting. So Capone went down like The Bismarck, but the G-Men who bagged him obviously took notes.

The DNC is using the old tactic of Civic Dispersal to oppose President Trump’s new budget. Pass this vile, greedy ¡RETHUGLICAN! budget, and Meals on Wheels runs out of gasoline.

There are a lot of details to parse through in the budget blueprint Donald Trump released this morning, but you can get the gist of it from one sentence: Donald Trump is cutting Meals on Wheels, a program that delivers meals to senior citizens in need, to pay for his border wall.

Apparently, this charity has been heavily subsidized and can be somewhat effectively held up as a hostage against any reduction to spending in the Department of HHS.

The nationwide Meals on Wheels network, comprised of 5,000, local, community-based programs, receives 35% of its total funding for the provision of congregate and home-delivered meals from the federal government through the Older Americans Act, administered by the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Community Living.

And of course, DHHS can’t retire a couple of SES-level lifers. The money specifically has to come from Grandma. Cut their funding and Chuckles the Cat isn’t getting that can of 9-Lives. And Bernie Sanders, paying barely over 1/2 the effective tax rate of President Donald Trump, just can’t quite see to selling off one of his three mansions to help poor Gra-ma-ma. Socialists, you see, favor sharing other people’s wealth. Obviously he is a #FakeAmerican with only a potemkin concern for those less fortunate than himself.

And clearly, those voicing concern for the poor elderly fed by Meals on Wheels are no different than The Lord Humongous from the movie “The Road Warrior.” They attempt to use your good will and social concern as a way to control your appetite for government spending. This, of course, must always increase — forever. They are willing to help you out with your dear Grandparents. Provided, of course, that you behave.

As Western Society continues to increasingly turn into the wasteland depicted in the old Mel Gibson flick, there are fewer resources, greater needs and an increasingly harder fight for fewer sheckels of public largesse. Expect the threats to become more and more explicit. And they have to be. They certainly can’t build what’s necessary to live without expropriation.

Your government, is not that different from the infamous Italian-American gangster. They live off the cowardice, laziness, immorality and fear of others. Their power grows in tandem with personal and social dysfunction. When President Trump threatens the racket, the hostages are put on display. Just like the hostages on the hoods of The Lord Humongous’ vehicles. Stand up to these people like Keyser Soze, and the entire crap show crashes down around their ears.

On “Promiscuous Altruism”

Thursday, July 14th, 2016

From an in-depth look at runaway universalism:

In most societies across the world (i.e., clannish ones), there are weak and highly conditional attitudes towards reciprocity. The primary targets of altruism are kin. Prosociality is maintained through various forms of social honor and shame or at worst, fear of reprisal from the aggrieved or by the state. Dealings between non-kin typically take place warily and with many measures to ensure honesty by all participants. Trust is very low and is not given freely.

By contrast, NW Europeans have evolved a sense of reciprocal altruism and can deal much more readily with non-related individuals. Trust is extended. The other party is presumed to act honestly. Indeed, favors will be extended to others because the recipient may one day return the favor (or at the very least, the helping individual may earn a reputation for generosity that may parlay into favors from others).

…Having a sense of reciprocal altruism (which actively seeks targets with which to trade favors) – along with a suite of other traits that co-evolved with this (such as a sense of fairness and a belief in the equality of all in-group members) – there is little to prevent extending the (soft) cognitive barrier those presently in an outgroup when new information serves to humanize this outgroup (by appealing to affective empathy). And since no outgroup is really any different from any other (being effectively equally unrelated), there’s nothing to stop this process from repeating once new outgroups become humanized. Runaway universalism was thus inevitable.

Universalism, or the idea that every person is equal and therefore the same methods can be used on all people, seems like it would arise from this reciprocal altruism turned into promiscuous altruism. However, there is an elephant in the room.

All human civilizations so far have gone out after achieving success. With this success came primary factors of Progress, like industry and universalism. Secondary factors like diversity and instability were both symptoms and direct causes of the disintegration.

Universalism arises from socializing. When you hang out with other people, the correct way to make them happy is to emphasize a sense of group togetherness. This requires including all of these people without looking too deeply into their failings. This is why successful societies develop universalism: what we call bourgeois values are in fact commercial values, which are social values, and demand equal inclusion which produces universalism.

From this comes the altruism we see, because altruism is a virtue signal for universalism.

Not to ruin an excellent analysis by Jayman, but if we look at the psychology involved, we can see he has the causality backward. The societies that succeed adopt a commercial/social mentality and it is what kills them. As we are starting to see, Progress and formalization are a death-trap, and these arise from the same impulse.

Unsurprisingly it also brings altruistic universalism that pervasively infiltrates our minds, starting with the smartest. This explains why civilizations succeed and then self-destruct, not the other way around.

The basis of civilization

Sunday, February 14th, 2016

the basis of civilization is not YOLO

Civilization might be described not as a tangible thing, but a process. Through that, it can be seen as a goal, and since that goal must necessarily be broad, a direction. In this, civilization seems paradoxical: its purpose is generally itself, or a qualitative improvement in the process of becoming civilized.

Several theories exist about this direction as it can be implemented by individuals. Some hold that it should be altruistic, with people working to provide for others who have less. Others suggest that it should be self-interest, or each working for his own improvement. A third option — an ancient option — exists, but more on that later.

On the surface, altruism sounds like the best option, and it is this surface appeal that explains its popularity with younger people, most women and underconfident men. We all work and give some of what we have to those with less, therefore instability is removed and people feel a lack of resentment for one another.

There are a number of problems with this. The first is that any gift-giving is a form of taking control of another person and serves to reinforce their lower status, provoking the very resentment it hoped to placate. The second is that whatever one tolerates or subsidizes, one gets more of, so poverty expands. Further, this form of transfer essentially overworks the successful to provide for the rest, damaging the brightest lights of our civilization by burdening them with guilt and misery.

Self-interest appeals more to those with experience who have seen the vastness of the world and realized that human patterns do not change. Most people are incompetent, many because they are dishonest or delusional, and very few possess the ability or inclination to understand the effects of their actions, probably on the order of 98-99%. Since understanding politics, leadership, and the far-reaching consequences of our actions begins around the 125 IQ mark, by definition fewer than 5% of our population has a chance to grasp these disciplines. Then there is character; even among the intelligent, few think of more than their immediate benefit in the short term. On the positive side, self-interest mirrors natural selection and puts the most competent on top, which ranks it above altruism which essentially enslaves the competent to the rest.

While there is truth to both of these options, they pale before the third, which is to have a direction that unites the individual to civilization. This option is to make our goals the transcendentals, or those intangible things to which we can always aim but which we can never fully obtain: goodness, beauty, excellence, truth and even identity, or the notion of the civilization itself as a distinct and worthy enterprise removed from all others. These can include both self-interest and altruism as methods toward the transcendental goal; after all, it only makes sense to put the best on top, and to help the deserving when in need, as a means of achieving these extremely long-term ideals.

What defines transcendentals is that they are intersectional, or existing within all other areas. Altruism that achieves transcendentals is good; self-interest that achieves transcendentals is good. The method no longer replaces the goal, and therefore, a direction at a level higher than technique can emerge. The difficulty is that transcendentals are appreciated by very few, both from limits of natural ability and character, and require a society willing to experience humility to the degree that it favors hierarchy.

And yet, with transcendentals there is hope: a chance that we can unite not on needs and fears of ourselves, but on a cooperative process in which participation enriches us. This is the qualitative improvement of society in living form, an entity declaring itself worth having and then making good on that promise by enhancing itself in the intersection of many thousands of methods.

At the core of this process hides identity. Without a belief in its uniqueness, no society can last. With that belief, it is able to declare its values without neurotic doubt, and then begin the arduous process of putting those values into practice, refining their meaning as it does. Culture shapes genetics, and reality shapes culture, and this way all of the different disciplines come into coordination.

If you want to find the root of nationalism, it can be uncovered through identity. Groups do not segregate themselves and deport the Other from hatred of the Other, but so that the group can apply and improve its own standards. We cannot control ourselves with mere methods like altruism and self-interest, but with culture we can define our direction and then improve it, and in that alone the process of civilization is found.

White Nationalism failed because it incorporates too much liberalism

Friday, February 12th, 2016


If you grew up after 1789, when the French Revolution formalized liberalism as the Western doctrine, you have grown up indoctrinated in Leftist propaganda. Any idea with its root in egalitarianism, or the equality of all people, is leftist.

This includes democracy, freedom, equality, diversity, pluralism, consumerism and… White Nationalism. While Nationalism itself is an idea as old as time, namely that the ethnic tribe constitutes the nation, White Nationalism is like National Socialism a modern creation. In other words: a liberal version of an ancient conservative idea.

White Nationalism misses the point. This is not red team versus blue team; it is how to save the West from imploding thanks to the influence of democracy, and through that, individualism. We need culture, cooperation and purpose to return and to rule ourselves with kings, not votes, because votes and purchases are made by groups who demonstrate the salient trait of humans, which is vanity as individuals and mass delusion as groups.

Anything short of that is failure. Our current society is a disaster and an unpleasant existential experience because it is failing. All of our institutions are inferior substitutes, our leaders are all corrupt salesmen, the voters are delusional and oblivious, and our culture has become dumbed-down mass appeal madness. This cannot be fixed solely by driving out the ethnic Other. We must fix ourselves, too.

Over at the $PLC, Derek Black makes some interesting points in the midst of groveling and logical fallacies:

Promoting a victim complex for whites does not recognize the oppressed experiences of others not in the position of a white person in society

He may have taken another bad direction into liberalism, but he has a good point about victim complexes. We do not need a victim complex; we need a can-do “let’s fix this” culture. The two are opposites.

White nationalism supports the premise that multiculturalism is a failure, and that politicians trapped in a multicultural status quo are oppressing white people in “their own country.”

Here he is correct, but he misses the underlying point: white people voted for this. Voting transforms individuals into a scared, pretentious herd that always votes for easy lies instead of honest solutions. The solution is to end democracy.

On the other hand, white nationalists consider white people in the US to be ostensibly the victims of an ongoing genocide brought about by immigration and miscegenation, and feel that when they try to speak up about it, they are subjected to a vicious double standard.

No one sensible could argue that this is not true. But: who is enforcing the double standard? White governments, at the behest of white voters.

Most arguments that racial equity programs disadvantage whites who would otherwise be hired or accepted to academic programs mask underlying anxieties about the growth of non-white social status.

Here he is off-base. The problem is that our society is being destroyed, and the only healthy societies are homogeneous ones not heterogeneous ones. This is not about our personal inconvenience, except in that having a society collapse into Brazil 2.0 is highly inconvenient and fatal.

More importantly, white nationalism’s staunch opposition to the gains in numbers and in influence of non-whites makes it a movement by nature committed to suppressing these people.

I think he misses the point here, too. The goal is to have zero non-whites and in fact, zero non-Western Europeans. Western Europeans are the only group on earth that is truly a persecuted minority because of our small numbers and relative wealth. Everyone loves to beat up on the successful nerdy kid, and that’s us.

Though there are plenty of powerful Jewish activist groups pursuing their chosen agendas, it is inaccurate and outrageous to talk about people of Jewish descent as “the enemy” of anyone, as it is essentializing a large group into a fairy tale antagonist.

I agree with him here. Jews are another group under attack, as we can see daily when 90% of the world’s liberals are keen to blame Palestinian terrorism on Israeli “oppression” despite nothing of the sort occurring.

The small, smart and successful groups (3S) like Western Europeans, Jews and North Chinese are always under assault by the rest because we have achieved what others cannot and they resent us for that.

There is no way to advocate for white nationalism but by arguing that minorities pose a threat to our supremacy.

Spot the sleight of hand: is it “supremacy” to ask that we have our own countries? Of course not. He has shiftily conflated world domination with wanting, say, Germany for Germans or Israel for Jews.

Advocating for white nationalism means that we are opposed to minority attempts to elevate themselves to a position equal to our own.

Again he is wrong. We want them to do it in their own countries and to leave us alone. We have our own destiny to plan and work toward.

I believe that a healthy sense of identity and belonging are necessary, and I think being proud of where you came from is important regardless of race or class.

He’s right here. Every group should be nationalist and work in its own self-interest. That is Darwinian, moral and common sense.

I do not believe advocacy against “oppression of whites” exists in any form but an entrenched desire to preserve white power at the expense of others.

Here he is off-base again. We want our own countries and our own destiny, the same as anyone else. Why is this denied? It is white genocide by the resentful herd that gnashes its teeth at the fact that it has not made a successful life for itself as we did for ourselves, before liberalism at least.

The point that White Nationalists miss is that we are not fighting for the current system minus minorities. We are fighting to restore our civilization to a point of sanity, and while race is part of that, it is not the whole. Our society is existentially miserable as it is now and would still be without the presence of minorities. Nationalism is a means to an end, which is allowing ourselves to be ruled by our culture instead of an ideological government and its “proposition nation” united by politics, television, economics and a team identity of a jingoistic variety.

Conservatives “conserves” the behaviors of humanity that produce the best results. Those are four:

  1. Aristocracy: A hierarchy of our best people ruling as kings, instead of having a “System” of rules and laws to take the place of clear thinking. This includes a caste system so that people make decisions only at the level for which they are competent.
  2. Nationalism: Germany for Germans, Israel for Jews. This allows the group to have a shared culture which regulates behavior through reward and shame, instead of punishment and law enforcement.
  3. Free markets: Free markets require Nationalism and Aristocracy, but are the only way to do business that rewards performance instead of conformity.
  4. Transcendence: We need goals beyond the immediate material convenience of our society. We need purpose and to aspire to greatness, not merely react to “issues.”

There are no substitutes. Either you want the above, or you are happy with the status quo… if it would only favor you a bit more. That approach will land us back in the current position in no time because it is built on the same illusions.

Our society is dying. We are near the drop-off point. Our solution is to stop using methods that do not work, and to start using methods that do. These time-honored methods work. Democracy, diversity, equality, pluralism, tolerance and altruism do not. It is that simple.

The enemy is within

Wednesday, January 6th, 2016


Humanity resembles a wide-open plain with a few mountains poking above the relatively consistent but not uniform grasses and scrub brush. From those high places, much can be seen, but most ignore them, since their concerns lie in the nice equally short bushes.

One of the mountaintops came to us from Jamaican-American thinker Marcus Garvey who, as a nationalist and integralist, intuited that no tribe can coexist with others, even geographically, because they will then be inherently in conflict and will use each other as scapegoats. He spoke of a condition called fatalism to describe those who find such long-term goals inconvenient and prefer the “pragmatic” short-term goals that end in certain (but delayed) failure:

Some of us seem to accept the fatalist position, the fatalist attitude, that God accorded to us a certain position and condition, and therefore there is no need trying to be otherwise. The moment you accept such an attitude, the moment you accept such an opinion, the moment you harbor such an idea, you hurl an insult at the great God who created you, because you question Him for His love; you question Him for His mercy.
― Marcus Garvey, Selected Writings and Speeches of Marcus Garvey

Fatalism takes many forms; the simplest occurs when people decide that their choices have no impact. They look at a much larger structure above them and induce in themselves the belief that what they do has no relevance because it is smaller in scale. They are both right and wrong.

The individual cannot have direct effect on the scope at which the mountain exists. We cannot, as individuals, kick out our feet and level the mountain. And yet, our choices have consequences. They influence others, and push back against certain ideas, which is where they are most effective. By driving out delusional ideas, we can not only subvert the mountain but change its fundamental nature. We also stop the spread of those delusional ideas by not passing them on to others as if they were true.

The biggest impediment to us having effect is not others, but ourselves. Humans are half-computer, half-monkey, and since the monkey half is simpler it is what we default to as we mature. Any human who wants to have an effect on the world must first grow past his monkey, and then defeat the various illusions that inherent to the early stages of thinking about an issue.

What follows is not popular, because it affirms the idea of us conquering ourselves instead of choosing an external option — God, democracy, drugs, love, money — that will do it for us. This is the philosophical version of the old joke: a traveler rolls down his window and asks a man on the curb, “Do you know how to get to Carnegie Hall?” to which the cynical bystander replies, Practice!

Indeed: analysis does not happen without practice. If you are stepping onto the floor with philosophical, political or social issues, analysis is what you are doing and the only method by which you will succeed. Sometimes called critical thinking, before the 1968ers ruined that term, analysis refers to the act of logically breaking down a problem, figuring out how it works, and then testing the solution as a whole to see what is a sensible answer.

Most people — about 80% — are biologically incapable of this level of thinking, and most of the remaining 20% are either too immature, too obsessive or too dishonest to do it. It falls to about 1% of the population who are both capable and of the moral character to make themselves receptive to the process. This is why almost everything in society is blockheaded: most people can repeat what succeeded for others, but not understand why, which creates an insect pathology of repetition which ignores context and situation.

If you are wondering why the internet is awash in conspiracy theories, liberals and white nationalists, the reason lies above. People are incapable of the analysis necessary and so they default to monkey behaviors like scapegoating, group identity, victimhood/revenge and projection. These theories are in fact the most popular because they are understood by the most, and people recognize truth up to their cognitive limits and assume anything above that is voodoo or a typing error.

On the right, for example, there are those who blame The Jew™ or The Negro™ while on the left they blame White Men or The Rich™ apparently without realizing the irony of “We’re the victims, so let’s victimize someone else!” In fact, this pattern repeats in both monkey tribes and human groups, which is that any party which is failing or troubled will immediately seek out a weaker party to clobber, raising its own group status to having someone to bully.

We need to turn to our logical side and point the finger where it belongs: at democracy, altruism, equality, tolerance and other illusions which cause civilization collapse. These are the cause of our decline, and we know this both through history and through the logical fact that if we remove them, our society rises out of its misery and neurosis.

This requires us to be mature and accept that we did this to ourselves. We made a bad choice, basing it on what flattered us emotionally instead of what was obviously true, and since then our society has thrashed in helpless decline. We hide that decline behind wealth, prestige and the even greater incompetence of other societies, but the mirth and power has left us. We are falling.

Why are our leaders so bad? They are chosen by voters, and (1) most people cannot make this decision with any realistic basis and (2) in groups, humans choose compromises that make the group happy instead of addressing complex real-world issues. We The People™ chose these leaders. Even if the media, entertainment and intellectuals misled us, we pulled the levers and made the choice when we should have known better to be capable of making those decisions.

Why do we suffer under degeneracy, diversity and relativism? Once you start with an idea like “equality,” the assumption that people are equal means that in every situation where someone fails, there is a scapegoat. People always blame those with higher standards for the failings of those with lower standards. Through this process, a rule of having no standards spreads through all of society.

Why is our society incompetent? We insist on altruism, which measures external characteristics like obedience through schooling and attendance, and ignore internal ones like character and intellectual traits. As a result, we promote the shallowest people for having the “right” ideology and then watch them flounder when confronted with complex problems off the beaten track.

Is the problem Jews, Africans, or even whites? Much more complex, and yet simpler: the problem is an idea. This idea flatters us. It says we are all equal. This causes us to act mechanically and treat all people as identical cogs in a big machine, which in turn much like Communism robs them of their will toward excellence, doing good and planning toward the long term.

Democracy misleads us. In the name of a kind of pacifism — the idea that we can control others by considering them “equal” — we have made our society into hell. Under the surface, it is a miserable place. People act with a “committee mindset,” taking no unpopular risks to affirm what is right, and we enable millions of parasites to take from the good. Until we fix this outlook, everything else is just a scapegoat, which is why we have failed to reverse our decline so far.

Wealth transfer is conquest

Tuesday, December 15th, 2015

Miskatonic University Orne Library Postcard Front

Since 1789, the West has known only one voice in politics: class warfare. This idea holds that some people are richer, smarter, stronger, healthier, more beautiful and more competent than others, therefore since we like to think we are all equal, the only possible cause for this condition is that the above-equal people oppressed the rest of us.

That word “therefore” should be said in Vincent Price intonation, maybe while throwing a handful of flash powder and waving a cape. It is the “magical therefore” which unites a non-sequitur with a popular image, and because most people are unwilling or incapable of engaging in logical thought, becomes instantly popular. That word “therefore” just sounds like winning an argument. Like saying “science proves it.”

In the years after WWII, which brought the fall of far-right governments but also revealed how horrible far-left ones are, we have added another fascination to our list: wealth transfer. This is popular because states owned by the people tend to fail spectacularly, but taxing those rich/smart/successful meanies and throwing the money to everyone else is always a vote-getter. Vote-buyer, I mean.

In the class warfare/wealth transfer model, the goal of every good and right person is to make sure that the people with extra money give it to the rest, starting with those who are the least equal. If you wonder why our postwar Left has been fascinated by Amerinds, African-Americans, Palestinians and Muslims, it is because these groups come from less-than-equal societies. You show how right and good you are by taking from rich groups — whites, Jews, men — and handing it over to these unequal groups. Bonus points if you find transgendered or gay ones.

What this means is that a few of us will carry the rest on our backs.

In the abstract — always a dangerous place — this does not sound so bad. Some have more, so give to the rest, and everyone is happy, right? All war and race riots end, all people are brothers, and enlightenment reigns… just like the end of the 9th Symphony. In reality, it means that the less-than-equal are given no incentive to improve themselves, and they become enraged because their destiny is now controlled by this small group. This puts them in a dual frame of mind, which we can see in #BlackLivesMatter and Syrian “refugees” alike: the rich should give us all they have, and we should destroy them too.

This psychology has been endemic to the Left since 1789. The poor blamed the rich for the population explosion of the poor, and they were right, in a way, because good management by the rich enabled the poor to thrive in good years. Had the rich been more bloodless and calculating, they would have kept the poor starving so this would not happen. But they had long memories to the peasant revolts of the previous two centuries, and figured they could buy off the turnip-pickers by letting them share in the prosperity. That created one of these mental loops among the poor, who saw the rich as responsible for the destiny of the poor, and wanted to both take all they could get and destroy the rich too.

Of course, that did not work out so well in France. It killed off its aristocrats, then went bankrupt, and when the curtain rose, the cynical businessmen of the port cities controlled everything. So it always is with popular revolts.

Several centuries later, we can see how class warfare shakes out from a tangential detail:

Approximately 71% of the 34 million 17-to-24-year-olds in the U.S. would not qualify for military service because of reasons related to health, physical appearance and educational background, according to the Pentagon.

In other words, in military matters, 29% of the population is carrying the rest.

Look at taxes, inventions, entrepreneurship and any other measurement and you will see the same. This is nothing new on a grand scale, because some are always more competent than the rest and they create all that a society does of actual import while the others just go through the motions (if you wonder why most jobs are do-nothing pro forma make-work, there’s your answer). But: this pattern is accelerating, and the takers far outnumber the makers, and thanks to class warfare and wealth transfer, the makers are getting ground down and desperate. Their lives are basically highly-paid slavery of 70-hour work weeks and constantly being on call.

And the end result? The middle class is disappearing. This particular symptom of falling Late Empire societies occurs when government creates wealth transfer as a means of buying off those who would start race riots and revolutions. It is no different than paying mercenaries, but this payola can be disguised as welfare, anti-discrimination, refugee aid and urban renewal.

The middle class in America is declining and no longer constitutes a majority under President Barack Obama, according to a Pew Research study, which found that “after more than four decades of serving as the nation’s economic majority, the American middle class is now matched in number by those in the economic tiers above and below it.”

Pew found that the “share of American adults living in middle-income households has fallen from 61% in 1971 to 50% in 2015. The share living in the upper-income tier rose from 14% to 21% over the same period. Meanwhile, the share in the lower-income tier increased from 25% to 29%.”

Everyone demands this from the West. When North Korea’s four working farms fail, they threaten to launch nuclear double-headed missiles at us so we pay them foreign aid. The Palestinians extract tribute from the Israelis, BlackLivesMatter demands it from Ferguson, and Al Sharpton squeezes it out of corporations. They are all in the unhealthy state of being dependent on us and, because being dependent is to feel helpless, hating us and wanting us dead. Within the West, the takers feel the same way about the makers.

“Equality” sounds good in the abstract until you think about it a moment and realize that it always must involve taking from the successful, and giving to the less successful, which makes the latter group angry dependents. This is why equality destroys those above: it works them to death, and then confronts them with an enraged enemy who wonders why there is not more wealth for them. Only when the more successful groups live in mud huts will these demands cease, and then they will change to demands for revenge upon the more successful for failing.

Wealth transfer and class warfare are a form of conquest. In this game, the poor are the pawns, and the real victors are those who sell the mediocre products that poor people live by: alcohol, entertainment, payday check cashing, pawn shops, pornography and overnight auto loans. This group are not talented enough to profit from the thriving, but they sure do benefit from the decline.

We have been held hostage and enslaved by the demands of the herd for too long. This path ends in certain doom; no one will speak of it. Its origin is in the defensive ego which squirms at the thought it might be inferior to anything, and wants to destroy those above it as a result. But the actual motivation is good old-fashioned mediocrity and opportunism, disguising themselves as altruism as they inevitably do, wielded by those too incompetent to realize they will destroy the real source of their wealth, which is a society advanced enough for them to do business in.

Death through Altruism: The European Achilles Heel

Tuesday, November 10th, 2015


As Europeans are beginning to figure out, failure to recognize life at times functions like a zero sum game comes at a high cost. The idea that the pie can be made bigger every year through cooperation and technological innovation and that all can benefit as long as we just try to be nice to each other is starting to suffer the effects of strain and wear, revealing the underlying reality that life consists of equal parts cooperation and competition.

Northern Europeans, typically of Germanic background, have proved successful in the past few centuries, because a society that can sustain certain large-scale projects that require cooperation and trust will have an advantage over societies that don’t. Such a society can for example, build a social safety net that won’t be abused, build nuclear weapons in secret, or exploit fossil fuels stored beneath the grounds without descending into civil war over the question of who deserves what share of the profits.

Economists are increasingly beginning to recognize the importance of trust in economic prosperity and Europeans seem to be unique in their high level of trust in the overall functioning of society and goodness of other people. Surveys tend to confirm that Northern European descended people are unique in their high level of trust of others. How this situation emerged is hard to prove, but it seems likely that climatic circumstances in our environment contributed, as survival required cooperation and long-term planning.

In non-Northern European descended societies, there is less trust in the stable and predictable nature of the future that the Germanic people expect. Germans in particular were traumatized by inflation in the Weimar republic, because it clashed with their perception of investments as having a predictable payoff. If you don’t trust that you will have a pension waiting for you by the time when you retire, you will be less willing to invest in the stock market or buy government bonds. Economic growth suffers as a consequence.

To illustrate how this peculiar excessive trust towards their social environment has benefited Europeans, consider the opposite extreme, Western Africa, a region where nobody seems to trust anyone. Over here, naive Europeans felt guilty over the low salaries they paid locals for their labor. It’s quite common for Europeans to raise salaries for their workers, only to find that their personnel stops showing up after a while! After all, they have saved up enough money to go without working for the rest of the year. Rather than maximizing their standard of living, they would rather minimize their obedience and obligations towards a master-figure.

In addition to this, it’s useful to note the fact that outside of Northern Europe business is engaged in with a different mentality. Haggling is typically expected, except when purchasing food, which becomes a waste of time and is considered one of life’s necessities and thus impolite to haggle over. For the Germanic people, haggling seem to be taboo. The Northern European assumes that his business partner wants to do a service for them, only benefiting in the process by proving themselves important to the community.

The non-Northern European on the other hand, assumes that it’s self-evident that both groups pursue their own rational self-interest. Thus the non-Northern European expects his business partner to negotiate. If the Northern European doesn’t seek to reduce the price in a transaction, his business partner will be insulted and feel as if he is the recipient of some sort of charitable donation.

Unfortunately, this difference in mentality leads to conflict between Northern Europeans and people from other cultures forced to participate in the same society together. It leads for example, to anti-semitism. In Europe, most of us Christians are descended at least partly from Jews who could not thrive within the Jewish community, as the Jewish form of survival continually selected for high intelligence. The Jews however are historically hated because they were forced into occupations that required them to scam and deceive people to survive, which clashes strongly with the Germanic model of a society that is based around trust and proving one’s importance through service to the community.

If you’re intellectually and materially confident, you’re more prone to tolerate the fact that others pursue their own rational self-interest, you recognize that it prevents you from devolving into a naive man-child. Unfortunately, many Northern Europeans aren’t very intellectually confident, thus they desire to be protected by our social value of promiscuous altruism, where everyone is expected to serve the greater good of society as a whole.

A prominent example that comes to mind consists of some poor Dutch bloke, who was crying on TV, because the small company he worked for had gotten in financial trouble, so the owner encouraged him to lend them money by opening a mortgage on his house. He says he always went whistling to work and liked his job so much that he was willing to do it. He has this naive perception that if he’s a good person, others will take care of him, which is not how the world works, except in Northern European isolated village community existence, where everyone is genetically related and promiscuous altruism can survive the process of natural selection. Today, most people pursue their own self-interest, being nice to you just makes their life easier. Thus, like most Germanic Europeans in one form or another, he ended up as a victim.

To most Northern Europeans, this realization is highly disturbing, it clashes with their fundamental world-orientation. Note how one former communist, a member of the Rote Armee Fraction, became a Nazi. His prime accusation I encounter in his writings against the Jews is that they are a race of hagglers. Why shouldn’t they haggle? The only reason it offends us is because it clashes with our Northern European culture of promiscuous altruism, where status is gained by taking care of others.

After World War I, Germans began to feel they had been excessively scammed, rightly so, but their natural instinct to look towards the Jews as being responsible was misdirected, it was the British and the French who saw them as a threat that had to be contained, but it’s very hard for a parent to look towards his children, the Franks and the Anglo-Saxons, as having betrayed him. Thus Jews who fought in the first world war for the German Emperor had their families dispossessed and slaughtered, while the British who had destroyed the German empire were sought as partners in an alliance.

I think it’s important to note that the Jews did not choose an existence of scamming and being at odds with the rest of the German nation, rather, it’s a position they were forced into by laws that prohibited them from owning land. Whenever secular Jews have the opportunity to abandon their Jewish identity and assimilate into the upper or middle class of Jewish society, that’s what they tend to do. An example would be the Rothschilds, who marry shiksa’s, grow wine and fawn over old paintings, acting like any other European aristocrat.

Today we live in a society where agriculture composes just a tiny fraction of our economy and business transaction are made with a variety of frequently changing business partners. Thus, all of society is starting to resemble a scam. We’re drowned in multi-level marketing schemes, lotteries, products designed to break down rapidly, food with inferior ingredients, marketing campaigns that abuse our insecurities, etcetera. Everyone is now forced into economic niches reminiscent of those that Jews were forced into in medieval Europe.

It’s also important to note that Jews are not unique in having been forced into this niche. In Indonesia, Chinese people took on a similar role, in the Ottoman empire, Armenians did. In all cases, participation in such economic niches as money-changers, bankers, traveling salesmen and other service industries leads to resentment and hatred, by people who feel, often rightly so, that they are being exploited and scammed. Genocide is an unfortunate although common consequence.

Note also that European anti-semitism is different from Islamic anti-semitism, it leads to awkward strategic alliances between the two at best. Muslims don’t have racial animosity towards Jews, they merely hate them because they’re seen as uppity due to the state of Israel. If they’re willing to submit to the Muslims, they’re tolerated in similar fashion to Christians, ripped of their dignity and used as a source of wives and taxes, but not eradicated.

European tend to hate Jews for different reasons, in Europe, it’s mostly a cultural clash due to our promiscuous empathy. Jews end up distrusted, because they can pass as white and are more intelligent than most Europeans. Blacks, Arabs, Chinese etcetera are not distrusted the way Jews are, because Europeans can see that they look different and thus receive a warning that their mind may work differently, whereas when interacting with a Jew, Europeans let down their guard and are prone to assuming that the person they’re interacting with is just as naive as they are.

To illustrate how peculiar the Germanic mentality is, note that in Nigeria, the most prestigious method of earning money is by not really working hard, whereas in Europe, people take pride in “working hard”, even though they don’t genuinely work hard but mostly just obsess over it, publicly displaying how crucial they are to the entire process. In Nigeria, scam artistry is actually very prestigious.

It seems that if the average Northern European could be an aristocrat, he wouldn’t want to be one, because he’d be afraid of being seen as a freeloader. When Northern Europeans do end up with a lot of money, they rebrand themselves as philanthropists and make a big deal about the fact that they give away money.

The whole world recognizes this peculiar mentality. Northern Europeans are seen as somewhat naive, in need of being protected against themselves. The Hungarian politicians tell their border guards that they are protecting all of Europe, which is another way of saying that they are protecting Northern Europeans against their own self-destructive impulse, like a child that will happily step into any predator’s car.

Of course the other side of the coin is that among Northern Europeans, the consensus can shift very rapidly. When Northern Europeans feel that they have given some group the time to prove themselves as contributing to their community, but figured out that they’re freeloaders, the pendulum swings the other way and their mentality turns genocidal quite rapidly. You either want to contribute to their greater cause, or you have to be purged, whereas in non-Northern European cultures, there’s more room for a position in between.

The rest of the world recognizes this and hence continually hammers on the “racist” nature of Europeans, who seemingly can not tolerate other races and are continually hostile and fearful towards them, even instituting traditions like Black Peter in the Netherlands, to remind each other of the “otherness” of the minority communities that live among them. Such minorities who accuse their host community of racism don’t mention the fact however, that for the European social model to work, Europeans are forced to be racist.

After all, promiscuous altruism could only emerge when Europeans lived in closely genetically related communities, as giving away resources to those who are not genetically related to you and who won’t reciprocate the gesture is suicidal . Whenever freeloaders emerge, promiscuous altruism thus requires Europeans to purge them. This is what happened to the gypsies in world war II.

Unfortunately, it is likely what will happen to minority communities living in Europe today as well. Eventually, as immigration continues and our societies descend further into terminal decline, the Germanic people can no longer afford to wait and see if the various minority groups living among them will eventually unveil themselves as promiscuously empathic people like themselves.

Germanic Europeans have convinced themselves that indoctrination will make others behave like us. Simply by giving minority communities college degrees they will begin to embrace our naive attitude towards strangers, rather than learning how to cynically exploit the social construct of “racism” against the host community on which their unprecedented level of prosperity depends.

Personally, I don’t take pride in the promiscuous empathy our people are predisposed to, I interpret it as docile and insincere. It’s nice in the sense that it prevents cruelty (inflicting suffering on others purely for the sake of making them suffer), but we have to accept that life is a zero-sum game, life is not the Northern European fantasy where everyone can become happier by trying to be nice to everyone you meet while wondering what Jesus would do. Life does not revolve around competition and deceit, but competition and deceit have to be part of life because otherwise we end up domesticated cattle.

The lack of competition and deceit that Europeans are exposed to has meant that we have now reached the point where we became so naive that we allow the third world to dump its unwanted people in our nations. Boats full of children, none older than 11 years old, are sent from Egypt to Italy. It is correctly assumed by their parents that the Europeans will take care of them. Europeans are proving themselves very easy to manipulate through guilt and a sense of responsibility. If they wish to survive however, they will have to recognize that most of the world maintains a sharply different mindset.