Posts Tagged ‘anti-racism’

“Racism” Is Self-Preservation

Saturday, November 25th, 2017

Only Leftists care about “racism.” To a conservative, the fact that some if not most people prefer to live among their own is no more consequential than their choice of shoes or favorite beer. Welcome to freedom, liberty and every other term for allowing innocent choice.

Leftists care about racism because their goal is to destroy. They bargain through collectives, but these are designed to benefit the individual by separating cause and effect, in this case the performance of the individual and the reward it receives from society. An ideal Leftist society is “equal” so that individuals do not have to prove themselves.

That serves as an extension of the decline of societies, in which people fear life more than they are willing to engage with it, so withdraw into human social groups where each person is rewarded merely for being a person, which protects individuals from loss of social status or power because they contribute nothing or are incompetent. This appeals to their fear of being insufficient or inept, and so people are drawn to it because they fundamentally do not believe in their society and have trouble believing in themselves as a result.

The impetus behind this crowd hysteria originates in people rationalizing the decay of their civilization because they lack faith in other people to reward them for doing the right thing instead of the popular thing. At its core is individualism, or the idea that by making the individual part of the group, no one can make that individual anything less than equal to everyone else, which is required for hierarchy and the social order necessary to reverse our decline. In other words, instead of the social order of a thriving civilization, a mob of equals is created so that no individual will be below any other.

As part of this, any attribute which can make someone higher than another must also be destroyed. Their primary target is caste, manifested in the modern “class,” but inherent to the distribution of IQ and moral character through a population. To that end, they must remove religion, race, ethnicity, and even sex so that everyone is finally equal. This is a pathological pursuit which has no ability to reverse itself, sort of like a psychological endgame for civilization, and its appeal to people is that in a world where they feel helpless, they are at least given control over a subset of reality, the human social arena, in which they can feel powerful. This disease exterminates every human group over time through what we call The Human Problem: the tendency of any human group to focus inward on placating its members rather than orienting them toward producing results, which benefit all unequally.

For those who followed all of that, it means that anti-racism is a death impulse by those who wish to destroy civilization because they are underconfident and fear their own ineptitude. Good guys do not engage in anti-racism; they recognize the reality, which is first that people like to be with those like themselves — not just by race but by ethnicity, caste, religion, customs and political outlook — and second that anti-racism seeks to erase the original group through miscegenation in what amounts to a slow and passive-aggressive genocide. This is why conservatives, or at least coherent and realistic ones, do not bother themselves with anti-racism and believe that “racism” does not exist. There are only choices about whom to associate with and where.

In contrast to what the herd tells you, “racism” is not cruelty toward others, but defense of your own group. That requires being the master of other groups or having them be far away. The only way to survive being bred into a hybrid, in fact, is through xenophobia that is systematically and rigorously applied, which requires some amount of demonization of Otherness, although not necessarily any specific other groups. That in turn requires the ability to apply harsh standards to those who are Us, so that what is left are the strong and powerful representatives of that group; if you love something, you prune the weak versions of it so that you get more of the strong.

On a practical level, concerns over racism are dead, for now. The Obama-Ferguson effect — the tendency of minority groups to recognize that a mixed-race group will condescend to them, but not fully include them — manifests in more racial strife, not less, the more concessions are made. In fact, diversity causes every group to begin competing with others because the only way to avoid genocide by miscegenation is to dominate all of the other groups and demonize them to a degree that interbreeding does not occur. However, this current backlash against anti-racism is not a belief in itself, but a frustration with the failed policies that have spent billions over the past fifty years to attempt to fix a problem that is unfixable.

The future for those who care about such antiquated issues as having a civilization and not a giant cultureless mixed-race bazaar can be found in the idea that it is time to start positively nurturing our culture, and withdrawing our focus from specific other groups. What we fixate on, we become; what we tolerate, we get more of. And so instead of being good stupid democracy-bots and trying to herd together as many people as possible, we can focus on the people who have actual ability and reaching them, and then aiming to disenfranchise the rest because like all good zombie voters, they will simply go back to sleep and quite happily vote for any number of pro-diversity items if those are presented with the right soothing language and promises of more social benefits.

Our future lies in snapping out of the modern dream where civilization consists of a government, social engineering and the welfare state, and lacks culture, heritage, customs, and values of its own separate from the ideology of that government. We are here to restore Western Civilization, and we cannot do that through the modern model at all.

The first step in this consists of converting “racism,” as expressed in the media, or ethnic resentment of other groups, into a dogmatic and principled xenophobia, where we stop caring at all about these other groups and whether they are good or not. Even if they are high-IQ angels, we do not want them among us, because any diversity is a path to our genocide.

Instead, we can dedicate our time to understanding who we are, both genetically and as a culture, and then enhancing the attributes of that culture in ourselves and society. This will require removing democracy, individualism, equality, and diversity, but those are only stops on the road to being a greater civilization than ever before.

Everyone Is A Racist

Sunday, November 13th, 2016

Very few people want to admit this, but everyone is a racist.

The term “racist” refers to any one of the following, depending on who you ask:

  1. Someone who recognizes innate differences between the races in the “Human Biodiversity” vein.

  2. Someone who prefers one race over another, including limited to their nation or local community.

  3. Someone who believes that a hierarchy of racial groups exist, with some destined or suggested to rule over others.

Every single person on earth fits into one of these categories, anti-racists most of all. The big secret is that anti-racists are bigoted against the existence of racially-distinct groups, because an anti-racism agenda can only be satisfied when those groups which might rule or might be distinct are eliminated through outbreeding.

This means that for every human alive, there is a racial preference. Some want their race, others want no race, which is an illusion because a race will be created through the genocide by outbreeding of existing races.

For us to have an honest conversation about race, as the media continually encourages us to do, we must first get past the dichotomy of “racist” versus “non-racist.” There are only racists, with anti-racists among them.

That frees our discussion about race to focus on ultimate end results. What should our society look like, for the best possible result? Anti-racists and racists alike — ironically — agree that it should be homogeneous, with racists wanting their race and anti-racists wanting a new hybrid race.

When we realize that not only is everyone racist, but that everyone wants racial homogeneity, our task becomes a lot simpler. We have narrowed the options to simpler choices: for our homogeneous society, do we want an existing race, or to become a mixed-race group?

Logical analysis like this removes the neurosis around the question of race and brings dialogue back to the practical. We do not need more airy terms like the racist/non-racist dichotomy. We need real plans, and judging by not just the racial tension but the general existential misery of our societies, we need to choose quickly.

Is “Anti-Racism” Simply Another Form of Anti-Darwinism?

Monday, April 18th, 2016

Clarence Darrow, a famous Chicago lawyer, and William Jennings Bryan, defender of Fundamentalism, have a friendly chat in a courtroom during the Scopes evolution trial.  Darrow defended John T. Scopes, a biology teacher, who decided to test the new Tenessee law banning the teaching of evolution. Bryan took the stand for the prosecution as a bible expert. The trial in 1925 ended in conviction of Scopes. ca. 1925 Dayton, Tennessee, USA

Charles Darwin wrote his groundbreaking work in the late nineteenth century and early in the following century, it had already become politically controversial. The idea of evolution offended people, both on a religious and secular basis, and so hysterical historical events like the Scopes Monkey Trial came to pass.

Even through the present day, many oppose the idea of Darwinism. To them, it either denies our divine origin as the deliberate act of God, or refutes the idea of human uniqueness upon which the liberal philosophy of secular humanism is constructed. Darwinism lives on through the latter in anti-racism.

If people have been disturbed by Darwinism since its inception, and if most people act by “rationalizing” their opposition to something — finding some argument to use against it, rather than becoming against it because of an innate conflict — then it is likely the same condition continues today. With “blank slate” ideologies, we see a counter-Darwin narrative being launched.

Under the blank slate idea, all people are the same and simply await the right mental programming — education, propaganda, law, rules, regulations — to make them act in self-interest toward what is right. True blank-slaters believe there are no biological differences between social classes, sexes, races and regional groups. In other words, there is no evolution going on right now, and it never could have existed, since we are all equal as if… created by a benevolent God in that state.

Of course our “scientific” society denies the existence of a benevolent God, but we are content with substitutes that do not involve an orderly force to the universe which might judge us as insufficient for our impulsive, venal and incontinent actions. For this reason, the idea of equality takes on a religious dimension.

But as others point out, Darwin remains with us, as a challenge to our sense of being “in control” through his assertion of human and racial inequality:

In 1859, Charles Darwin published his revolutionary book, The Origin of Species. Actually, the full title of the work is The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: or, The Preservation Of Favored Races In The Struggle For Life. In this book, the author contended that higher levels of biological existence are attained as the strong eliminate the weak in the struggle for survival.

Subsequently, Darwin produced yet another work, The Descent of Man (1871), in which he wrote even more explicitly:

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigourous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man (Darwin 1872, 130; emphasis added).

Something about Darwin offends us in our very soul. It says that we are not the creators of ourselves, but that we are effects of causes in the past. This affirms our impotence, degrades our egos, and makes us feel as if a Natural Selection Event (NSE) could be lurking right around the corner at any minute… and no prey creature wants to feel that.

Anti-racism came from this anti-Darwinistic movement. If it is heresy to assault the idea that all people are equal, doing so in such a highly visible way as to deny racial equality is the ultimate apostasy. The good people say we are all the same; the bad people say not only that we are different, but that we should aspire to be more than what we are, based on the best among us and the logical extension of where they are. The real blasphemy is saying that people need to adapt to reality and improve themselves, and that this happens over multiple lifetimes, which makes the individual feel impotent and mortal.

The fanatical anti-racism of the West can be understood this way. By categorizing Creationism as anti-Darwinism, by inversion we can imply that only Creationism is anti-Darwinism, which allows other forms of anti-Darwinism to go unrecognized for what they are. Racism addresses a primal fear: if there are differences among the races, then there must be among classes, and individuals, which means we are not equal, which means that our egos in not responsible for who we are. Thus we are not in Control, which means we exist at the whim of the universe or God …not a very flattering concept.

Anti-Racism is another form of anti-Darwinism similar to the Creationism on exhibit at the Scopes Monkey Trial. The same human impulse lies behind it: a desire for the individual to be the Creator of himself, and for that reason, to be omniscient and omnipotent among the events of life. This implies that the individual wields the power here, and not the world, so the individual does not need to adapt to the world, but in fact the converse: the world must adapt to the individual.

At the core of every human dysfunction, we find the same thing: a monkey preening over its fine fur, and at the same time, puffing itself up to scare away its enemies both real and imagined. A self-important organism, in other words, which is vested in denying reality. Except that with humans, the consequences of this are vast and negative, where for monkeys it is just a few more moments of contentment before the strike of the snake or wildcat.

The zombie propaganda of a dying empire

Wednesday, April 8th, 2015


In computer science, any program that keeps running after it has stopped responding to commands is referred to as a “zombie.” These do nothing but eat up resources.

As the West collapses, it becomes clear we are living in zombie empires created by the ideas of The EnlightenmentTM put into political form. That is: big government, ideological unity and equality.

Witness the slide from a presentation by the Army for which apologies have now been issued, which mentions white privilege and shames white soldiers into feeling a sense of obligation to non-whites.

Here’s the text:

  • Awareness requires effort and commitment.
  • Being able to command the attention of lower-status individuals without having to give it in return is a key aspect of privilege.
  • Race privilege gives whites little reason to pay a lot of attention to African-Americans or how white privilege affects them. “To be white in American (sic) means not having to think about it”

What is this but a zombie ideology? No matter what happens, it will always demand more from those assumed to be privileged. The last white person will owe the last 9 billion non-whites everything he has.

This zombie ideology comes about because it is used as a pretext by government. Government loves excuses to expand its power and tax base, and since the citizens were stupid enough to endorse the Great Society, social justice and civil rights agenda back in the 1960s, it has become the one sacred cow that is indefensible to criticize much less repeal. Anyone who touches it will see millions of screaming liberals, each desperate to prove just how “in touch” they are, emerge from the woodwork.

And so the zombie ideology moves on, draining all life from the productive and transferring it to the doomed, so that we may all be equally doomed together in brotherhood…

Why are liberals “anti-racist”?

Thursday, January 2nd, 2014

Soldiers march during a World War Two victory parade in Red Square in Moscow

A common saying out there is that “anti-racist = anti-white,” but I think it’s simpler than that. Anti-racist means against any majority that’s trying to preserve itself by not letting in the rest of the world.

If you have it good, they want it, so your only option is shutting the door and denying them welfare, jobs, food, sex, etc. It’s not that they’re bad or wrong so much as that they’re wrong for your nation if you want to self-preserve. Otherwise, you join the many “gray race” nations where people have roughly the same genetic makeup because they’re mixed and adulterated. It’s why people from Vietnam, Russia and Mexico can look identical; there’s only three races, and if you hit on roughly the same percentages, you get the same looking people.

But the left worldwide loves to raise anti-racism. They use it against Israel, who is trying to avoid Holocaust II at the hands of the Palestinians. They use it in the USA when a white girl doesn’t want to have sex with a brown or Asian guy. They use it in Europe when some small town says it would prefer not to have a mosque or synagogue. What’s the left’s fascination with anti-racism?

It boils down to a simple thing: it’s the one thing the Soviets did not do that other totalitarian regimes did. The left realizes that ideologically, it’s part of a sliding scale that ranges from mainstream Democrats through Communists and Anarchists. Since both of these groups are responsible for violent murders, the left is seeking some way to show that these groups can be rehabilitated. “At least they’re not anti-egalitarian,” they thought, and it was off to the races. Racism, sexism, “homophobia” et al are simply different forms of not being egalitarian. Who needs egalitarianism? Those who aren’t part of the successful majority, whether poor, minorities, perverse or otherwise alienated.

The Soviets were actually racist of course. They murdered Poles by the field, starved millions of Ukranians into death, and shot anyone they could find in captured countries like Estonia and Latvia who showed any sense of national pride. They unleashed a rape and murder wave against Germany in the aftermath of WWII despite Germans having done no similar thing to them. Even in occupied Eastern Bloc territories, the Russian Soviets were only too glad to spend local lives like water and their own like fine wine. Not to mention their periodic Jew-hating pogroms where they murdered more Jews than Hitler ever dreamed of. But that’s not the point. With liberals, truth is an afterthought; everything is ideology, concept and symbol. Symbolically, the Soviets weren’t racist, but the Nazis were, so anti-racism becomes the new liberal ideological weapon.

An ideological weapon is easy. Find a rule that can’t be broken; link what the other guy wants to the rule. You can see a version of this in debate in the US and EU. If someone has proposed a plan, and it’s not liberal (much less anti-liberal), they will wait until the audience has just about decided the plan is OK. Then out comes the trump card: “But if you do this, it will disadvantage the poor!” Now it’s done for. You can’t be for this plan without being against the poor, which makes you evil. You can be an outright Communist who advocates murdering the children of the rich, and you’re still less of an evil bastard than someone who doesn’t want to give free stuff to the poor.

The use of the term “racism” is winding down. First of all, people are figuring out that every group is racist. Second, they’re realizing that even people of mixed-race are latent bigots who hate people of any unbroken racial or ethnic line. Finally, as we look at the same color lines emerge among mixed-race people in Brazil, Mexico and the USA, it’s clear that mixed everyone into a gray race will not only fail to solve the problem, but exacerbate it. There is no longer any scientific, rational or logical reason to support anti-racism. It’s solely a political weapon against the right, who by not demanding an entitlement state that benefits those who are not of the majority (non-whites in the West) are assumed by the principle of inversion to be secretly flaming racists.

Like the Soviets before them, liberals are racists. They send their kids to private schools, buy themselves into mostly-white gated communities, assert their culture as if it were arbitrary, and condescend to any minorities they find. They generally prefer to assume the role of Great White Savior of the Unwashed Brown Hordes and pretend that if it weren’t for their welfare, foreign aid, enlightening pamphlets and affirmative action, the rest of the world would live in mud huts decorated in feces and the skulls of their dead children. In private conversation, liberals are racist in that ironic way that masks deeply submerged rage as sarcasm or humor. If you want funny jokes about minorities, don’t seek them on the right — find the liberalest hipsterest social media activist insider elitist you can and ask her. You’ll get the funny, edgy and quirky stuff that way.

Anti-racism is a convenient way to shut up the right. The left wants to hide its secret agenda, which is that everyone is supported by the collective and the collective instructs everyone in what must be done to keep this situation intact. That road leads to Communist, but in leftist zombie logic, Communism is OK because it isn’t racist. And that, not whatever palaver they spew about their palliatives for ethnic minorities, is the reason the left are fanatical anti-racists.

Whitey’s no longer on the moon

Sunday, December 15th, 2013


Most of us having grown up in the media envelope of modern society are familiar with Gil Scott Heron’s “Whitey on the Moon”:

A rat done bit my sister Nell.
(with Whitey on the moon)
Her face and arms began to swell.
(and Whitey’s on the moon)
I can’t pay no doctor bill.
(but Whitey’s on the moon)
Ten years from now I’ll be payin’ still.
(while Whitey’s on the moon)
The man jus’ upped my rent las’ night.
(’cause Whitey’s on the moon)
No hot water, no toilets, no lights.
(but Whitey’s on the moon)
I wonder why he’s uppi’ me?
(’cause Whitey’s on the moon?)
I wuz already payin’ ‘im fifty a week.
(with Whitey on the moon)
Taxes takin’ my whole damn check,
Junkies makin’ me a nervous wreck,
The price of food is goin’ up,
An’ as if all that shit wuzn’t enough:
A rat done bit my sister Nell.
(with Whitey on the moon)
Her face an’ arm began to swell.
(but Whitey’s on the moon)
Was all that money I made las’ year
(for Whitey on the moon?)
How come there ain’t no money here?
(Hmm! Whitey’s on the moon)
Y’know I jus’ ’bout had my fill
(of Whitey on the moon)
I think I’ll sen’ these doctor bills,
Airmail special
(to Whitey on the moon)

The gist of the poem is that while the people at the economic top of society are exploring space, the ethnic underclass are impoverished and miserable.

We might call the predominant lyrical device here guilt. By “juxtaposing” (that’s a sophomore English major word) the accomplishments of white people with the misery of black people, Scott Heron illustrates the plight of the black as occurring as a result of the fortune of the white, and implies that guilt should exist for this disparity.

How would this guilt be fixed, in order to make white people not feel horrible?

Why, by getting rid of those moon flights and spending the money on social programs instead. And that’s exactly what happened in the 40 years since Scott Heron penned this song.

Now who’s on the moon? China is. How did they get there? By not spending their money on social programs for ethnic underclasses.

Since the 1950s, the expansion in the US budget has been primarily in the area of social entitlements, including welfare, education, affirmative action/diversity and other programs designed to help ethnic underclasses. We have literally spent ourselves bankrupt doing this.

Have they been successful? We have a black guy in the white house, but that’s mainly because he’s the pet of white liberals. Other than those employed in government or sports/entertainment, most black people remain impoverished, and to them we’ve added other ethnic groups.

By doing so, we have sacrificed our lead not just in space travel but in uncountable other things. We are dragging our society downward with the ideological requirement of diversity.

This is not the fault of black people, or white people. Diversity does not work. Two things cannot occupy the same space without destroying each other. And that is what is happening in America.

A more sensible viewpoint is to realize that between the extremes of “racism” (hatred of one ethnic group) and “anti-racism” (hatred of the existence of any unbroken ethnic group) there is a third option, which is to realize that diversity doesn’t work.

It’s no one’s fault. It was a bad idea. Reparations with repatriation, let’s go back to a mono-ethnic WASP state, and then let’s explore the stars again. Our other option is a path downward with no end.

Recommended Reading