Posts Tagged ‘jews’
Thursday, April 20th, 2017
In perpetually-clueless The Guardian, Montana realtor Tanya Gersh — best known for her attempt to extort money from Richard Spencer’s mother — whines about how she has been made accountable:
The post on the Daily Stormer last December claimed I had been trying to extort and threaten the mother of Richard Spencer, a white nationalist whose family has a vacation home in our town. It had a photograph of me and contact information: phone numbers, email addresses, and links to social media profiles for me, my husband, my friends, my colleagues. It had my son’s Twitter handle. He is 12 years old.
…Do we tell our children that we’re running in the middle of the night because we’re Jewish?
There are too many lies so far, so we are going to stop there. First and foremost: are you running because you are Jewish, or because you committed the Federal crime of extortion in collusion with a Leftist terror group?
Here is the vital quotation from Richard Spencer’s mother:
On November 22, Gersh and I spoke on the phone. She relayed to me that if I did not sell my building, 200 protesters and national media would show up outside — which would drive down the property value — until I complied.
Tanya Gersh does not refute this statement anywhere. By doing so, she admits it is true. She spins it slightly different, but never refutes it.
However, she wants to shift the blame to anti-Semitism — admittedly a component of The Daily Stormer — instead of her own actions.
Jewish people may be as self-destructive as whites, which makes sense since Jewish people are just white people with an additional 2-5% of Semitic DNA.
Gersh, by denying the actual complaint and blaming anti-Semitism, is weakening every case of outrage at actual anti-Semitism. She broke the law. Deflecting from that will make people very angry. This is how Holocausts happen, just like the 40% participation in the Communist Party by 2% of the general population made it all too easy for people to buy into the anti-Semitism and go along with the raging mob.
Then, with no warning, Sherry Spencer published a post on Medium attacking me and telling a twisted version of our interactions.
Gersh seems to forget her own statements:
“She (Sherry) is profiting off of the people of the local community, all the while having facilitated Richard’s work spreading hate by letting him live and use her home address for his organization.”
She contradicts herself and in doing so, proves that her statements in The Guardian are lies.
That being said, Amerika stands against anti-Semitism. Jews act in self-interest like every other group, and the solution as Theodor Herzl said is nationalism, or relocation of Jews to a land of their own where they are safe. (The last part is crucial; they are not “safe” while Palestinians, Syrians and others are raging around with homemade missiles and suicide attacks.)
We also do not take the position of The Daily Stormer, although we do not support the lawsuit against them either. The correct response to abusive and criminal realtors like Tanya Gersh is to submit a complaint to the regulatory board. Note: she has not been prosecuted for her extortion attempt.
Instead of acknowledging her own failings, Ms. Gersh and those who support her have embarked upon a disastrous lawsuit which can only end badly:
Andrew Anglin, publisher of far-right site Daily Stormer, has been sued in Federal Court today for $300,000, stemming from his reporting about Tanya Gersh, a Montana real estate agent who he accused of attempting to extort Richard Spencer’s mother into selling a Whitefish, Montana property. In the lawsuit, Anglin is accused of creating a “troll storm” against Gersh that caused her emotional distress and anxiety.
…The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, Missoula Division, seeks compensatory and punitive damages. It accuses Anglin of invading Gersh’s privacy and intentionally inflicting emotional distress. It also outlines how his campaign violated the Montana Anti-Intimidation Act.
If the courts approve of this suit, they are going to open the door to infinite frivolous lawsuits by people enraged at their clashes with others. After all, what did Gersh lose? She received threatening messages by phone, email and social media. She lost her job, but then again, she also committed a crime, so Gersh losing her real estate license or job is hardly Anglin’s fault. It is Gersh’s fault.
On the other hand, if the court refuses this case, they may open the door to more online harassment. Then again, one wonders if that cat can be put back in the bag, since too many people rely on online information as “true” and not enough realize that it is the new daytime television, i.e. of dubious truth value at best.
In the bigger picture, however, the truth is plain: Gersh is not a good actor here; in fact, she is committing what can only be viewed as extortion. American courts are unwilling to raise this case because they fear violating political correctness.
At Amerika, we both reject trollstorms and think Tanya Gersh belongs in jail. Sherry Spencer did not deserve this attack, which leveraged the threat of Leftist rioters against her, and Richard Spencer should be able to speak his mind without all of these puny, parasitic people attacking him.
All of this is more evidence that America the nation ended years ago. There was a chance for a nation here, but instead, we divided it up into special interest groups, and now they are warring it out in court, essentially passing the costs on to the rest of us. As Roosh V elaborates:
As for prudent measures to protect yourself, I recommend not criticizing or speaking against individual Jews in the United States, who can reach out to multiple organizations with deep pockets. Jews are a privileged group that can not be criticized like heterosexual men or white people can by the media or organizations like the SPLC, which came after me in 2012. This lawsuit proves that even a middle class Jewish woman in the middle of Montana has the full backing of the powerful Jewish lobby—with tens of millions of dollars in the bank—to attack her enemies.
He’s right, but we should elaborate on this: Jews are only one of the many special interests dividing America. GMO foods, elderly pensions, women, military contractors, Hispanics, the pharmaceutical industry, minority races, minority religions and mothers against drunk driving all have their advocacy groups, donors and lobbyists. This is how democracy always ends, as a de facto oligarchy that becomes so chaotic it culminates in tyranny.
In the meantime, the actual problem remains unaddressed. Sherry Spencer should not have been persecuted for her son’s beliefs. Tanya Gersh (and others) did the persecution. We need to end the situation where people can be attacked for their beliefs alone, and grow up and accept differences in thought.
Monday, January 16th, 2017
In light of the recent doxxing fiasco in which members of the Alt Lite, neo-Nazi fringe and far-Left came together to destroy the life of an internet broadcaster, it is time that we on the Alt Right had a conversation about anti-Semitism and other forms of scapegoating.
It is in human nature to scapegoat. We play tennis and score badly, so the racquet is to blame, or maybe the net, possibly the fuzz on those tennis balls from the new brand that we are not yet sure we like. Dinner turned out badly? Must be the chicken, or the stove. These scapegoats live with us because they are plausible, but only tell part of the story in some cases, which means the wrong thing is being blamed.
For example, it is perfectly possible that the stove is really bad, and that the chicken is not great. However, those things alone do not make a bad meal. We knew of those challenges before we started. Also, maybe the racquet is not so good, and the new balls have less bounce. But these things alone can be compensated for. Failures come from several factors, A + B + C, and to blame any subset of that group is to scapegoat.
Scapegoating screws us in two vital ways: we fail to solve our problem, and we create other problems by chasing after the wrong culprit, including the ugly fact that we deplete our energy and will to solve the problem in the miasma of disappointment and confusion that occurs after a non-solution excites the crowd. Scapegoats doom us to perpetuate problems and create new ones.
How do you determine when you are using a scapegoat? The simple test is to correct for the factor you think is to blame and then run the equation again. If you suspect that A is wrong in A + B + C, fix A, and then re-run the test. If you would still end up with failure, or at least still be most likely to fail, then A is a scapegoat, or a contributory cause misidentified as the whole cause.
For this reason, our test for anti-Semitism is this: If all Jews died tomorrow, would our problems cease to be?
Waking up in a world without a Jew would mean that many prominent Leftist figures would be gone, true; it would also mean that the Democratic party would lose its major group of donors, and that Palestinians would both have zero restriction on their movement and no one to target for terrorist attacks. But look what remains.
The West would still be in decline, because we did it to ourselves by pursuing wealth and power instead of moral goodness. We would still have diversity, tolerance, equality, pluralism, neurosis and Leftism among us. Our civilizations would still be in the grips of an undeclared caste war, with a lack of purpose, ruled over by the democracy that makes every truth into a simplistic emotional symbolism that veers away from reality.
We would still have overpopulation, pollution and civilization collapse to wrestle with. Did Jews cause those things? They did not cause civilization collapse in Athens, nor in Tenochtitlan, nor in Chichen Itza, and probably not in Cahokia either. Civilizations tend to die when they become successful, lose purpose, and substitute with ideology and control to keep the franchise going. All civilizations die this way.
For this reason, anti-Semitism is not an accurate depiction of our problems. Worse, it fits into the form of an ideology, and is as addictive as drugs, over-eating, promiscuity or any of the other human pathologies we see around us daily. If allowed among us in a serious form, anti-Semitism becomes a replacement for realistic thinking and will lead us astray.
On the other hand, there are benefits to anti-Semitism as a conversational trope. First, it smashes a sacred cow that impedes nationalism, namely The Holocaust. Second, like most ethnic humor, it is funny because there is usually some truth to stereotypes. Finally, it widens that “Overton window” by allowing us to be critical of other ethnic groups and diversity again.
And when done by talented guys like the The Right Stuff fellows, it becomes a form of unity. People groove on the anger and mockery of a group that has been given perhaps a bit much focus in the years following World War II because of the attempted genocide that occurred during that war. You can fight over the numbers, details, dates, methods… whatever. Something happened, to our shame.
But The Holocaust has become a kind of scapegoat for Jews, too. It forces them to identify as victims, which puts them in a passive-aggressive mental state which will screw up any otherwise thriving group. It removes their initiative toward their own goals, and makes them fear “hypocrisy” for conducting necessary ethnic relocation, like that of Palestinians. The Holocaust is worse for Jews now than it was in 1945; then, it represented the loss of many people, but not the soul of a people. Now, it seems to have replaced Jewish identity with a type of self-pity that makes Jews hate themselves.
Jewish self-hatred is a widely-known phenomenon that tends to shock us goyish types when we see it. But Jews, as a group, are highly intelligent and tend to be very realistic. They know their position is dubious, since they are the results of a wealthy commercial society collapsing and, through miscegenation, converting itself into an Asiatic and African hybrid that will never again be fully European, despite having roots in what looks like populations from Italy and France. Jews also observe the behavior of fellow Jews and, much like white people, are frequently pained by it.
Perhaps the best description of Jewish identity comes from Alt Zionist, who writes of a practical Jewish identity that does not hit either of the erroneous extremes of denying mixed European heritage, or assuming that a unique and vital ethnic group has not been forged:
Instead, it is obvious that to be White is simply to be part of a certain group of people who share a common set of ancestors in Europe many thousands of years ago, just as to be Jewish is to be a part of a certain group of people who share a common set of ancestors in Judea many thousands of years ago and to be Black is to be part of a certain group of people of people who share a common set of ancestors in West Africa many thousands of years ago. That, at a certain point in the past, various people who had the right sort of ancestry in Europe were not called ‘White’ does not prove that Whiteness is membership in some sort of sinister social club, but only that people used to use the term ‘White’ in a different way than we do now. Analogously, we now consider many more people to be disabled than we once did, and on that basis give many more people disability benefits, but this does not in any way suggest that being disabled just is a matter of receiving disability benefits. Rather, we simply have found that the meaning of the term ‘disabled’ includes many more people than we previously thought it did.
There is much anthropological and philosophical complexity to the question whether racial terms like ‘white’ refer to biological groups or merely social constructs, and it is not my intention to settle the issue here. Rather, I should like to remark only on the disingenuity and hypocrisy of any Jew who adopts Brodkin’s stance on race. For such a Jew, inasmuch as they consider themselves to be White, attains to the privileged position of being able to, just as Brodkin does, decry Whiteness and slander White identity not as a hostile outsider but as an apparently repentant insider. Because Brodkin considers herself White, she must surely feel no compunction in admitting that her Whiteness is something hateful, bigoted and shameful. In other words, Brodkin’s self-identification as White allows her to make attacks on White people and their identity; whether or not these attacks are warranted by historical systems of power and oppression and present-day instutions of privilege is not germane to the issue: what is relevant is that Brodkin takes herself, as a White person, to be in a position to attack other White people.
But unlike the great majority of those White people in attacking whom Brodkin takes herself to be justifed, Brodkin is not truly attacking herself. For Brodkin has a competing identity behind which she can retreat in the face of her own invective: namely, Brodkin identifies also as a Jew. Brodkin’s own fears about anti-Semitism are evidence that she does not see herself as responsible for any history of power, privilege, and oppression, but rather as a precarious minority in the midst of a potentially hostile majority – a minority sometimes accepted as equals, but always separate and in danger of oppression. As such, Brodkin herself does not bear the personal weight of her attacks against White identity, and whatever justification those attacks might have obtained in virtue of her supposed Whiteness is merely disingenuous illusion.
The writer sees the error in assuming that Jews are “white” because it enables them to criticize whites from behind a protective alternate identity, like dual citizenship, where they can claim to be different from what they criticize. This is a dangerous position, and mirrors Theodor Herzl’s observation that to live among a national group and not be of that group would provoke retaliation, as it has with anti-Jewish pogroms in the past. It is bad to be different because each group needs to feel it is the same, and therefore, can work together as a civilization.
It does not take much of a leap to see that much Jewish self-hatred arises from this dual identity. They are mostly European, mixed with Other no more than your average Southern/Irish or Eastern European, but Jews have an identity of their own, which both makes them not “white” (a troublesome vague definition in itself) and part of a group united by commonality.
This duality confuses Jewish identity, and resentment over The Holocaust being the defining factor of modern Jewish life weaponizes the resulting discontent. For this reason, it is not surprising that many of the most virulent anti-Semites have had Jewish heritage. Witness the troubled past of Frank Collin:
Frank Joseph Collin is most often associated in the public mind as the neo-Nazi who threatened in 1977 to march and rally in Skokie, a predominately Jewish suburb of Chicago.
…The Illinois Corrections Department released Collin after three years, a “minimum time served,” from his 1980 conviction of sexually molesting young boys…For Collin’s role in the Marquette Park rallies in Chicago, the pamphlet distribution in Skokie with its “Death To The Jews” message, the media-manipulation after winning a Supreme Court decision allowing Collin to wear a swastika in any neighborhood of his choosing, Collin was never accused of anything other than being a nuisance, nor has he publicly spoken of those years since. Collin was once quoted as saying, “I used it [the First Amendment] at Skokie. I planned the reaction of the Jews. They are hysterical.”
Frank Collin was born in Chicago, Illinois on November 3, 1944. His father, Max Simon Collin (formerly Cohn or Cohen), a Jew who is said to have spent time in the Dachau concentration camp, may have had a major impact on his life. On Chicago television, one Illinois psychiatrist interviewed Collin during his neo-Nazi period and found him to be consumed with a “hatred for his father,” and thought Collin’s proposed Skokie march was, in effect, “an anti-Collin demonstration.”
Most people do not know that Up to 150,000 Jewish-descended people fought for Hitler and that many were decorated for their contributions. This leads to the obvious question of why someone who is partially or wholly Jewish would fight for a movement that is, to put it mildly, fervently anti-Semitic?
The answer can be found in looking at logical facts through history: Jews prefer the Western Civilization way because it fixes something that they find to be broken in Jewish history. A population ends up being mixed-race only if at some point, it believed in equality, and therefore encouraged admixture between ethnic groups so long as the offspring upheld the politics, culture and ways of the host civilization.
Jews have been bouncing back from that state for thousands of years. Although the diaspora was kicked off by Roman occupation, the attraction of Europe seems more than economic. Jews are in some way trying to rediscover and recapitulate their roots, as if hoping to end the dual mentality created by a mixed-race parentage even hundreds of generations later. In this outlook, strong nationalism is appealing even if it causes conflict with Jewish identity.
For this reason, Jewish people are formalizing their relationship with nationalism despite the dual attack of Holocaust fears and guilt over the Palestinian situation. They know that if left outside of their own communities in an increasingly secularizing world, they will soon cease to exist through outbreeding; if not vigilantly, Hitlerianly nationalistic in Israel, they will be outbred and thus out-voted by Palestinians who seek to destroy them.
The kerfuffle over anti-Semitism is thus temporary for two reasons: first, strong nationalism is about to be normed across the world, which means that resentment of other groups will become normal and through that, find a saner articulation — along the lines of “we want to be with ourselves, with no types of Other among us, no matter how nice they are” — instead of the moribund practice of emotional anti-Semitism. Second, as Jewish nationalism finds a voice, it is going to drive out the suicidal Leftist threads within Judaism and their reliance on multiculturalism.
This leaves us only with another question: what to do about doxxing? The destruction of Millennial Woes’ life by UK media which insisted on revealing his name and the addresses of his family homes showed us that doxxing is a tool of the Left. Only on the Left do people believe that some ideas are so seductive that they must be banned, which is separate from normal taboos that remove “words/images as deeds” activities like child pornography and easy home nuclear bomb kit instructions.
In other words, we need to simply cease destroying people for opinions, period. If we are to purge ourselves of defectives, we should do that on the basis of their behavior, much as we might have done to Frank Collin for his apparent molestation of young children. But we will only be able to get to the bottom of any political issue by allowing it to be aired fully and frequently from all sides.
Our only successful strategy here is to make sure the stigma is removed from all beliefs. Even if we hate anti-Semitism, we must defend anti-Semites, and we must abstain from destroying Leftists no matter what crazy stuff they say, if saying it is all they have done. In this way, we open the political window to its furthest possible extreme, and with it bring the hope of finally articulating the suppressed issues of the last century.
Sunday, September 25th, 2016
Over at The Unz Review, notable Alt Right author John Derbyshire pens an explanation of ethnic clashes between European-Americans and Jewish Americans:
I cherish my Jewish friends, and I have publicly—and again, I think, more than once—expressed gratitude in print for the positive contribution Jews have made to our civilization, way out of proportion to their numbers.
That said, I know the following thing, which anyone who has observed the American political scene surely also knows: A subset of American Jews—a subset, a minority—suffer from a kind of psychological deformation that keeps them trapped in a particular, strangely atavistic type of paranoia, of victim mentality.
In this mentality, it’s always 1881 and we’re still in Russia. The Jews are cowering behind their doors in fear as the Cossacks rampage through the town, or Christian peasants with pitchforks and flaming brands march on the Jewish quarter.
Jews will never have confidence in their host nation unless it is entirely Jewish, at which point they can trust the people around them to have similar interests, including protecting Jewish people, culture, language and religion.
As the Left gears up for a new round of anti-Israel propaganda, Jewish Americans find themselves wondering if they are safe from anyone. Initially they assumed that with the Left, and its embrace of diversity, they were safe, but now they are seeing that equality including racial equality always means taking from high-performing groups and giving to lower-performing groups. Jews are a high-performing group, and thus, are targets.
The solution here as with all diversity questions is to recognize that every group acts in self-interest, and that these self-interests are incompatible between groups. For this reason, as Theodor Herzl noted, Jews need their own ethnic state — and until that day, they will always be unstable and tempted toward “easy answers” like Leftism.
Diversity creates endless clashes. The solution to these is to recognize that there is no universal society, and that each group needs its own space and self-rule. In other words, to save diversity, we must abolish diversity. Instead, we can have diversity where each group has its own nation, and none are thrust into the kind of instability that afflicts the Jewish mind in the West.
Wednesday, September 14th, 2016
The Alt Right struggles to define itself in the wake of being given massive media exposure by ill-advised candidate Hillary Clinton. As part of this, it returns to the “Jewish Question” or JQ which has troubled underground rightist movements for centuries.
Amerika has consistently taken the position that, whatever Jewish injuries to the European civilizations exist, the real problem is degeneracy within those European civilizations. We did this to ourselves, and we pursue it through ideas like equality, individualism, democracy and pluralism which are perennially popular human illusions.
This angers some people. For example, Counter-Currents ceased reprinting my articles after an attack by someone who thinks the Jews are the root of our problem. My response then as now is:
I don’t know for sure whether or not the Jewish people are spawn of Satan, or black people are Uruk-Hai, but I know this for certain: the root of our problem in the West is white liberalism and its corrupting influence on all issues.
Rather than try to fight out a highly polarizing issue by blaming the Other, I’d like to point out that our problems are all ideologies of the left: diversity, egalitarianism, tolerance, and pacifism.
This position has led to some fairly entertaining statements from the underground right, including ones of this nature:
Like Guillaume Faye and Jared Taylor, Stevens has a history of being coy on the Jewish issue and has even made pro-Israeli statements: this agenda is slyly pushed by members of the bourgeoise and WASPs in general within the alternative right and needs to be watched closely when considering who is suitable for leadership roles within the movement. Along with Scott McConnell of The American Conservative, he went full Zionist during the 2014 Gaza crisis, rushing to the defense of the Jews to kill Palestinian babies in the Gaza Holocaust.
What seems universal: the position that I have taken is not taken seriously enough to be analyzed for what is being said.
On the Alt Right, we face a number of existential threats. The biggest is assimilation by what is popular, which is always an illusion. There is a mainstream version of this, including the usual stuff Republican neocon cuckservatives pursue, and an underground version, which is the Hollywood neo-Nazi approach. If either becomes accepted, it will dominate the Alt Right and convert it into yet another variety of Leftism.
Why is anti-Semitism Leftism? Because it exonerates Leftism and individualism — the root of Leftism, when collectivized, since egalitarianism is individualism converted into policy — while simultaneously bashing a scapegoat whose demise will do nothing but strengthen Leftism.
In addition, it is appalling to our people, and morally appalling to me. White people dislike cruelty and pointless savagery. Many of us realize that too much “naming the Jew” is going to create a chain reaction that will rage out of control, as it allegedly did in Eastern Europe and Nazi Germany, and end in dead Jewish families.
We are however excited by the prospect of nationalism: Us, and only Us.
That means that all other groups exit. However, this is achieved through indirect means at first, and then outright deportation, usually with reparations to make the disunion a happy one for all parties. Indirect means include the ill-named “freedom of association,” at which point country clubs and law firms will go back to not hiring anyone but WASPs. Direct means include revocation of citizenship and arrest and deportation.
When we signal a (((coincidence))) we are missing the point, and doubly dangerous, focusing on the wrong thing. Take a look at a highly erudite and accurate criticism of Jews in America:
Neoconservatives have been staunch supporters of arguably the most destructive force associated with the left in the twentieth century — massive non-European immigration. Support for massive non-European immigration has spanned the Jewish political spectrum throughout the twentieth century to the present and, as noted below, Jewish organizations and activism were responsible for the sea change in immigration policy resulting from the 1965 immigration law. A principal motivation of the organized Jewish community for encouraging such immigration has involved a deeply felt animosity toward the people and culture responsible for the immigration restriction of 1924–1965 — “this notion of a Christian civilization” as Samuel Francis characterized it. The comment of neoconservative Ben Wattenberg indicates the emotional commitment that many Jews have to the ethnic transformation of America: “The non-Europeanization of America is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality.”
We have to look at this logically: many Jews have been involved in Leftist politics; all of those Jews were Leftists. While that is not all Jews, it is something close to the majority. However, what we are most likely seeing is a clash of cultures, and the effects of diversity itself. Any group that feels an outsider acts against the majority; this is why all minority groups exclusively vote Leftist.
The solution to that is to recognize that diversity, not Jews, is the problem. That does not detract at all from Dr. MacDonald’s excellent research, or from the Walt and Mearshimer writings on the influence of the Israeli lobby, or even the criticisms by Hemingway, Eliot, Fitzgerald, Faulkner, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Heidegger and other great writers on the character of Jews and the culture, religion and ethnicities of Judaism.
The real question is how relevant it is, and if there is something more relevant, which is reversing decay.
In a decay-reversed West, Jews would not want to be here. The place would be ragingly European and invested in its own agenda and image to the point that outsiders would feel alien and isolated. Any Jews who did want to come, then, would not be the mental health success stories of Judaism, but its failures, and on that basis alone would be turned away, in addition of course to the iron rule of Nationalism, which is “This land is for Us; if you are not Us, go away or face the sword.”
Naming the Jew puts us in the Leftist camp where scapegoating, guillotines, gulags and mass executions are the new normal. White Nationalism misses the point and drives itself insane by chasing Jews instead of looking at the obvious problem, Leftism. This absolves our people of responsibility when they should be looking at what caused our decline, specifically, underclass rebellion by white people. We have to solve that problem, and any scapegoating avoids mentioning this actual problem in order to chase symbolic/emotional issues instead.
Even the Nazis understood that anti-Semitism was a quest to remove a materialistic and impulsive spirit from within us, more as symbolism than literal execution. Our problem is intangible, and we cannot beat it by attacking groups; we must attack policies such as democracy, diversity, civil rights, pluralism, welfare and human rights instead, because these are the root of the ethnic problem.
Unfortunately, most people — even in the underground far-right — are afraid to do this. They support Leftist policies for the same reason nearly everyone else does: they want equality, freedom and a “safety net.” The price of being free of the racial problem is that we must give these up because they are destructive, in addition to being false framing of a more vital question, which is civilization health. This is why people desire to crush the Jews: because then the rest of the system can keep on keeping on and no one needs be inconvenienced.
Truth however is inconvenient by nature, which is why it is also elusive. Socialism makes people lazy and dependent; welfare states make them entitled; democracy makes them careless and inert; freedom makes them passive; equality destroys the best and promotes the mediocre. These are the true enemies. Everything else is a symptom of the infection with these horrible ideas that make even worse policy.
Equality equals human pretense that the individual is the supreme being who decides what is true and real. This forms a mental virus which eats away at sanity and individuality, leaving only a robotic person who pursues what will make them popular with others, therefore affirming the equality they assert but cannot truly believe. This is what eats our people, and is consuming our civilization.
If outsiders have a way of subverting us, it is through this vector and it alone. Until we fix it, we go down in flames. When we target intermediates, like the Jews or any other minority group, we miss the point: the error is ours, the solution is in our hands, and all we must do is start acting against these illusory assumptions and we can restore the greatness of Western Civilization.
This knowledge dovetails with the JQ in that a healthy society, for Jews or Gentiles, will involve only one ethnic group. Germany for Germans, Israel for Jews. As the founder of Zionism, Theodor Herzl, wrote:
The Jewish question persists wherever Jews live in appreciable numbers. Wherever it does not exist, it is brought in together with Jewish immigrants. We are naturally drawn into those places where we are not persecuted, and our appearance there gives rise to persecution. This is the case, and will inevitably be so, everywhere, even in highly civilised countries—see, for instance, France—so long as the Jewish question is not solved on the political level. The unfortunate Jews are now carrying the seeds of anti-Semitism into England; they have already introduced it into America.
Jews cannot assimilate because no group can assimilate, at least without genetically destroying the host group. The sane solution is separation, not enmity, and definitely not the kind of morally bankrupt and sadistic behavior that has happened when Eastern European and possibly German populations took revenge on Jewish people who were over-represented in the Communist Party and in industry. This type of “lashing out” does nothing but perpetuate our problem and turn us into monsters.
As a wise man wrote:
Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster… for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.
Whatever monstrosities we see in other groups, we do not want to adopt for ourselves. The abyss — sadism, small-mindedness, vengefulness, rage — will make us into a mirror image of everything we (rightfully) hate and fear. If we want to defeat materialistic thinking, we must destroy equality as an assumption. ((( = ))) has brought the downfall of the West, and no amount of killing will save us from it until we defeat the thing itself, and not merely destroy its proxies.
Monday, August 8th, 2016
Since I am fortunate not to be a puritan or self-righteous person, I can say things as they really are, without any fear of social disapproval, because I have little — or nothing — to lose: I don’t like the Jews.
In my humble opinion derived from both real-world experience and extensive reading of history, they are a bunch of hustlers, charlatans, and parasites. They invent the most intricate theories and postulates in order to avoid picking up a shovel and working like ordinary people.
On the other hand, as a paleoconservative I see morality as an expression of the culture and society that produces it, and not as a universal and shared human value. When people tell me about how evil Zionism is, I shrug because Jews are not my tribe, and therefore Zionism is not my concern. No “I am not an anti-Semite, but an anti-Zionist” for me.
As I do not believe in magic, I won’t speak about of Judaism as if it were a religion of demons (what the hell?) and other nonsense which has been spoken over the centuries. Instead, I confine myself to the earthly things, since I’m not even sure to have a soul or a spirit chained to matter (I don’t think matter is pernicious in any way, but quite the opposite: I enjoy it and I hope a part of it will endure in time, as for instance, my genes, my pets, my books, and also my compact discs).
The Jews, just like any other people who feel that they have a common destiny and a cohesive force that transcends the merely territorial, have the right to have a homeland for their people, for their children, for their grandchildren, for their forthcoming generations and all those beautiful and honorable words we heard when they come from our mouths, but dangerous and virulent when they come out from theirs.
Despite my admiration for the Roman Empire, I think one of the larger challenges for Europe — as both blood and soil attest — was the expulsion of Jews from Judea after the Bar Kokhba revolt against the Roman Empire in 132 CE, consolidating the Diaspora we all know (Diaspora 1.0).
While other civilizations preferred the military occupation of territory, which required them to collect tribute but gave them the benefit of internal self-determination, Jews chose revolution and for that were exiled from the Roman realm. This was allowed because the Romans considered them useless — for example, the hysterical religious observance, the persecution of charlatans with messianic aspirations — which made it useless to even kidnap and enslave the population, common currency in ancient times. Instead the Jews were exiled as neurotics and petty criminals.
The expulsion of that bunch of troublemakers relieved the temporary tension and satisfied the Roman Empire: the desert territory was taken as spoils of war and a mockery against hordes of local fanatics. The Romans were admirable in their convictions, but also created headaches for European civilization.
We know well how the Roman Empire ended despite its greatness. Wwhen all has been conquered and pacified, and it is not possible to continue with the dynamics of the gang of Romulus and Remus1; imagine a yeast dying in their own alcohol, unable of eating more sugar. The sons of Zion took another path. Although they were not very skilled in buildings nor art (from the Western perspective, of course), they survived because their smallness, with a common element giving cohesion to hundreds of generations: to return to their homeland.
Over the centuries, the visually evident crossbreeding of Jews with Europeans made them more biologically white. They survived as an ethnic group by not forgetting their founding myths and the living memory of the moment in which the Diaspora 1.0 began. Despite the miscegenation, this idea of superiority and difference from the rest was never forgotten, but, even more, was emphasized, much as admixture with whites brought out the fundamentally Jewish character with greater intelligence.
Particularly, the idea of a bunch of Jews (from all races and colors) living together, happy and away from me not only does not bother me, but it pleases me. As a matter of common sense: isn’t better that they are all together at the same place, rather than dispersed around the world, being detrimental to the rest? If someone wants to accuse me of being a Zionist because of these thoughts, that person is probably accidentally correct. But, if so, I’d like to be accused of being a Zionist 1.0.
As a White Nationalist/Identitarian, how could I be against the idea above mentioned? The Jews are neither magical, and definitely they will not sublimate themselves, and as such, they will not disappear suddenly in the air. Indeed, a Holocaust to bring the final solution to the Jewish question (this time, a real one) won’t happen. Then, what is problem when boats, trains, omnibuses, airplanes and carts with Jews from all corners of the world leave their host lands, heading to Eretz Israel? For this reason, I am a Zionist 1.0 and not a Zionist 2.0, since I support the idea of a state for Israelis in Israel, and not in other place in the world. Or maybe somewhere else, but away from me. And away from my people. And away from the allies of my people.
Since the building of a Zionist state in the southern cone is my reality, honestly, I prefer a Jewish state in Palestine instead of a Jewish state in Patagonia disguised as communities with an increasing interest on ecological conservation2.
Being objective, to us, Zionism 2.0 is as dangerous as anti-Zionism: the first one wants an Aliyah of thousands and thousands of Jews going down to the Southern Cone, and the second one seeks the disappearance of the State of Israel, which leads to a Diaspora 2.0. In simple words, both Zionism 2.0 and anti-Zionism converge in the same result. When it comes to us, I’m against the State. When it comes to them (Jews), I am in favor to a State which keep them united, tight and within its current physical borders (sovereignty).
And what about the Palestinians?
Let’s be honest: no occupation is worthy; worthy men cannot live under occupation, but must be free and forge their own destiny, and it is logical that, being witness of the invasion of thousands and thousands of Jews, the Palestinians would react equally violently. Palestine is still in the third world, and while Diaspora 1.0 helped the Jews to acquire the successful methods of the First World3, it is consequently not possible that these two peoples coexist in a territorial overlap anymore. Israelis and Palestinians cannot co-exist side-by-side or comingled.
But Palestinians need a homeland, and that homeland should not be Chile; it should not be South America, nor should it be America. Currently, there is a diaspora of ten millions of Palestinians, and the place of those people should be Palestine, not any other place. From our position, we cannot and we should not advocate for any of the two sides, in fact, it is not our business. Being crude, it becomes our problem when one of them (anyone of the both sides of the coin), leaves its territory to get to ours.
Today, it is not an issue of being anti-Israeli or anti-Palestinian, is about being pro-Us and that leads necessarily to be anti-diaspora, Diaspora 1.0 as well Diaspora 2.0. As I am neither liberal nor self-righteous, I cannot base my argument in human rights, civil rights or the casualties of war. I can speak only common sense and logical reality.
I cannot tear my clothes upon seeing a lot of Israelis watching and cheering as military drops bombs on Gaza. We cannot pretend that they cry for those death toll. Palestinians are their enemies and it is normal to celebrate these bloody deeds. I expect that Palestinians celebrate the death of Israelis similarly and would be shocked if they did not. The world is cruel. Why should it be a wonderful place full of rainbows? We are animals. Aren’t we all?
Palestine needs a home and a State on its homeland. Israel needs a home and a State on its homeland. Probably, as Europeans, we are harvesting today what we sow yesterday, after the Bar Kokhba revolt, but it is time to end our sense of responsibility for the displacement of others and to look towards ourselves.
And with that, we realize that all diasporas must end, and only worldwide Nationalism can do this.
1 Jack Donovan. “Thug Life: The Story of Rome”. The Way of Men. 2012
2 “Chilean senator accuses IDF soldiers of mapping out country.” The Times of Israel.
3 Brett Stevens. “Gaza Everywhere”. American Renaissance, August 4, 2014
Tuesday, August 2nd, 2016
The internet, which is now a social interaction, like all social interactions distills complex ideas down to the viewpoint of the herd: we fear this, we do not fear that.
As a result, on the Right there is often talk about “Zionism” as being a horrible evil which intends to take over the world, forgetting that Zionism is an assertion of Nationalism — the idea that Jews need their own state, and all Jews belong there, where they can control their destiny and live according to their ways.
Its opposite is diaspora thinking, or the idea that Jews should live in every country on earth and try to be dual citizens there. The extreme of diaspora thinking is the idea that Jews must be exterminated because they corrupt these nations, and having them have a nation of their own is impossible.
Back when Ben Shapiro was writing most ardently on this issue, he stated the case for Nationalism as a way for high-IQ populations to defend themselves against assimilation by the much numerically superior third world populations:
Here is the bottom line: If you believe that the Jewish state has a right to exist, then you must allow Israel to transfer the Palestinians and the Israeli-Arabs from Judea, Samaria, Gaza and Israel proper. It’s an ugly solution, but it is the only solution. And it is far less ugly than the prospect of bloody conflict ad infinitum. When two populations are constantly enmeshed in conflict, it is insane to suggest that somehow deep-seated ideological change will miraculously occur, allowing the two sides to live together.
Unfortunately, this insanity is generally accepted as “the only way forward.” President Bush accepts it because it is politically palatable. The Arabs accept it because for them, it is a Trojan horse. The Israelis accept it because they are afraid that if they expel the Arabs, they will be called Nazis.
In Israel, Jews have the ability to live as they want according to their cultural mandate. The more people act against Israel, the more the diaspora persists, creating the usual diversity conflict which is that multiple groups living in the same place prevents a value system from being chosen and upheld.
In the West, we live through the same invasion, not just of Muslims but of many other third world groups who reproduce faster than we do, and will replace us with a mixed-race population that has third-world levels of ability, moral character and inclination to social order.
For Israel to survive, it must adopt a policy of exclusion not just of Palestinians but all others. When this happens, the presumptive victims of Nationalism during the Second World War will have validated it as a necessary principle, and the rest of us can begin to adopt it from our countries, which are also under risk of third world assimilation.
Wednesday, April 20th, 2016
The Right Stuff raised an crucial issue with an article entitled “Zero Tolerance: Why Aren’t White Nationalists and Jewish Nationalists Fellow Travelers?”. In it, the author argued that “the (((traditional enemies of the White Man)))” — including Jewish people — ought to be excluded from alt-right conferences and identitarian movements.
As a half-Jewish yet Right-leaning writer who is sympathetic to and supports identitarian ideals, I have no wish to argue the minutiae of the article and the arguments made by its author. For the sake of argument, let us assume the article is correct; this technique allows us to see the consequences of an argument taken to its logical extreme. Instead, I want to argue an addendum: that Jews are strategically positioned to mediate and synthesize between the Right and the Left.
Although I have Right-wing leanings, I am also openly a fan of Left-wing philosophy. This means I am able to mediate between Rightist and Leftist philosophies because I speak the language of each and both at once. This requires two essential deviations from politics as normal:
- Treat politics as philosophy. Politics is not two tangible sides, composed of people, as in a sports game. It is a conflict between ideas.
- Avoid the categorical fallacy. Political ideals cannot be applied by blanket approval of what one side or the other says, but are principles that must be interpreted through specific implementations at a granular or “particularized” level.
The Right seems, too often, to shut their ears whenever phrases like “social construct” come up or authors like Michel Foucault are named. Likewise, the Left seems, too often, to walk away when words such as “nationalism” or “identitarianism” come up or authors like Julius Evola are named. Jim Goad once said “In politics, both sides are convinced the other side is comprised entirely of dupes and idiots, and both sides are right,” and I think he is correct.
This tactic of ignoring argumentation based on pre-conceived ‘sides’ is intellectually lazy and, ultimately, does a disservice to whatever movement one is trying to promote. I say this not because I think Evola’s promotion of Traditionalism ought to be applied to critical race studies nor do I say this because I think Foucault’s analysis of “the repressive hypothesis” ought to be applied to studies of nationalism. I say this because, despite disagreement, both sides are attempting to be intellectually rigorous and therefore both have something to offer one’s ideology.
It may be that, as the original article suggested, people like me should be excluded from formal participation in the alternative right. Under that framework, I can take on an alternative role. If those who wish to exclude me do so based on narrowly defined circumstances, they likely are the individuals on the Right who shut their ears when they hear ‘Leftist phrases’ and I would thus happily work outside their space. Where they will ignore Leftist thought, I will read it and synthesize it with Right thought.
My role instead is to encourage interplay between both sides (Right and Left) through a mediating force that is not centrist, but focused on answers to real-world problems through political philosophy. Not everything on the Right is correct and not everything on the Left is incorrect and it is wise to recognize that fact considering that, like so much else in life, political philosophy is not zero sum but ought to be a synthesis of ideas.
Thus to my fellow Jews, half-Jews, White Nationalists, non-white Nationalists and anyone else “ought” to be excluded from the alternative Right, I present to us a new role: we are the bridge between two equally ideologically valuable, but blind, groups. As the saying goes, “the truth is out there,” and I intend to find it, and I suspect that will not be within tidily-defined human ideological lines.
Wednesday, December 30th, 2015
White people do not understand diversity in the same way conservatives do not understand pluralism. In the happy view they have sold themselves, white people and conservatives see diversity as a type of meritocracy: everyone becomes one big happy, and then we each do what benefits us, working together toward the goal of our happy pluralistic society.
When this fails, conservatives and white people tend to rage at how unfair it is. How can these minorities and liberals not share this vision of our collective destiny? In that assumption of collectivism, conservatives show they have imbibed the egalitarian mythos and doubled down on it, applying its standards to itself instead of understanding the nature of pluralism and diversity, which is “every person — and tribe — for itself.”
Conservatives were shocked to see the lack of collectivist patriotism from students at Yale University (now a third-rate college, apparently) who were demanding special treatment for themselves as divided by ethnic groups. To conservatives, this was segregation and a class system all over again, and so they criticized these liberals using liberal rhetoric:
As students saw it, their pain ought to have been the decisive factor in determining the acceptability of the Halloween email. They thought their request for an apology ought to have been sufficient to secure one. Who taught them that it is righteous to pillory faculty for failing to validate their feelings, as if disagreement is tantamount to disrespect? Their mindset is anti-diversity, anti-pluralism, and anti-tolerance, a seeming data-point in favor of April Kelly-Woessner’s provocative argument that “young people today are less politically tolerant than their parents’ generation.”
The problem here is that the liberals and minorities are right.
Pluralism does not mean “E pluribus unum” (out of many, one) as conservatives surmise. Instead, it means that every group keeps its own standards so that it can maintain its own self-interest. This is the nature of pluralism: it is to agree to disagree, not to agree to work together toward anything, least of all the kind of pro-America Horatio Alger nonsense that conservatives usually babble in public.
White people do not understand this, mainly because — as in all things — the left two-thirds of the cracker Bell Curve statistically drown out the one in five people who can understand the issue and the one in a hundred who can analyze it to a solution. In the white mentality — dominated by college students, clerks and suburban women with too much time on their hands — pluralism is the answer to “why can’t we all get along?” In their view, it means that we all tolerate each other, and then act white as a means to the end of having the white society that people claim to enjoy.
In reality, there is something more important than convenience and it appears unvocalized in all people: the need for control over one’s own destiny. For minorities, to live in a white society even if they control it means to be servants of someone else’s dream and a defeated people in someone else’s kingdom. They need an identity of their own, including institutions and leaders, and this informs their definition of pluralism, but owing to their liberal ideology, they cannot see how this means that diversity ca never work — just as the honkies cannot.
History as always shows us an answer, which usually involves the grim fact that it takes centuries to see the consequences of any act. Media establishments were amazed at how relaxed Caucasians are at becoming a minority in their own lands:
In the early 20th century, Congress, backed by the “science” of eugenics, restricted immigration by the “races” of southern and eastern Europe, which were generally viewed as inferior stock. Madison Grant’s 1916 book, “The Passing of the Great Race,” argued for Nordic supremacy to maintain the nation’s stature. A 1917 law created the Asiatic Barred Zone to further curtail already limited immigration from most of Asia and the Middle East. And in 1921 and 1924 new immigration restrictions were imposed to privilege admission to the U.S. of immigrants from Germany, Ireland and the U.K. and to reduce the flow of most others.
Current resistance to nonwhite immigration — including opposition to the legalization of undocumented immigrants who are already here — is weak by comparison. According to a December Pew Research Center/USA Today survey, 70 percent of Americans supported legal status for undocumented immigrants living in the U.S., with 43 percent also supporting a path to citizenship. Specifically among whites, 64 percent said undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay in the U.S. legally if certain requirements are met.
To Caucasians, diversity means that we just keep on truckin’ the same way we always have, but now we have ethnic restaurants and smart black hacker friends like in the movies.
In reality, the American nativists were correct all along. Diversity of any form destroys our control over our destiny by destroying our identity. After that point, there is no unity, only a sense of living in a place for convenience. Pluralism breaks down into each person doing what they want except where obligated, a kind of “anarchy with grocery stores” plus the jobs to pay for those groceries and buy your way into a gated community apart from the 80% of your society that is now a multi-cultural war zone of urban decay.
In this way, diversity takes us to a lowest common denominator. This was apparent to our ancestors. What intervened was 150 years of liberal propaganda based on the successful media blitz before the Civil War, in which the “new Americans” — Irish, Greek, Italian, Jewish, Slavic and lawyers — were convinced to beat up on the old Anglo-Saxon establishment in the South using slavery as a moral blank check. This missed the fact that starting in the 1830s, nations began abandoning slavery because technology was making it obsolete, and that the South was already phasing out slavery but did not want to take a single massive economic hit — or create diversity by freeing slaves.
Think through the logic tree of diversity. Different groups will either assimilate each other, forming a miscegenated substrate like we see in most third world countries across the globe, or will Balkanize, which is the minority view of pluralism seen above: each race segregates, gets its own facilities and institutions, and its own rules to protect it from the others. This will regress into ethnic warfare and end in mass assimilation.
Diversity means genocide. It will destroy whites, yes, but it will also destroy all minority groups and leave behind a less-capable tan group. Much as it was used as a weapon against Anglo-Saxons, who were genocided by liberals using “near-whites” from Ireland, Greece, Italy, Eastern Europe and Israel as a biological weapon to adulterate and replace the Anglo-Saxon population, it is now being used against whites.
This fits the pattern of liberal takeovers of society: liberals seize power, and all are afraid to oppose them because liberals have good intentions expressed in equality. Liberals then destroy any populations that have any beliefs which might come before liberalism, starting with the churches but extending to passive-aggressive ethnic cleansing. In the end, what is left is a 90 average IQ population that permanently votes leftist, and a country with no future.
But this remains unknown to whites. They trust their television, and they trust white liberals, who have led them on like a bull charging at a cape by allowing whites to have their illusions about what diversity is so long as whites support it. Now that the cape was been whipped aside yet again, whites are circling around for another charge, convinced that the square of red cloth, or minorities demanding pluralism as it is — and not the matador in the Che Guevara t-shirt — is the source of their frustration. Not surprisingly, this too will fail for them, just as it is intended to.
Friday, December 18th, 2015
Anyone remember the Mariel boatlift? Cuba, having gone Communist, hated the USA. The USA, being saps who are ruled by cynical lawyers instead of people with thinking capacity, decided to allow in any Cuban who managed to touch US soil. That oft-derided “feet wet” policy prompted many Cubans, who wanted to flee the life-sucking void that Communism creates, to hop into rafts made of junk and traverse the 90 miles to Florida.
The scheming Reds in Cuba retaliated with a policy of their own: they dumped their prisons, mental hospitals and pedophile wards onto boats and sent them to the USA. This allowed them to both remove an expensive social program, and revenge themselves upon the Great Satan by shipping it human refuse. (And yes, if you wept over the “tards are not useful” article, you’ll cry over this one, so log off now).
A few years later Mexico began doing the same thing, except to enable its race war both on its own people and on the USA. Americans tend to think of “Mexican” as a race, but it is not; it is a nation-state, or “political,” identity. People in Mexico are either purely Spanish-descended (criollo), mixed of Spanish blood and Amerind heritage (mestizo), of pure Amerind origin (indio) or a hybrid of Spanish, Indian and African (pardo). Saying someone is “Mexican” is as descriptive as saying “He lives in Los Angeles.”
How did this come about? The Spanish conquest of Mexico was not strictly a conquest. It was actually class warfare: a few hundred Spaniards came to the new world, and became the touchstone for class revolts against the Maya and Aztec empires. These empires had vast populations of serfs of low intelligence and initiative, and those populations had prospered under the regimes while the leaders, now bored of playing babysitter to a herd, had declined. With Spanish weapons and indio slave masses, the elites were overthrown.
The result is that you do not find any of the Aztec or Maya higher castes extant anymore. They were killed during the revolt, or raped, murdered and driven out afterwards just like whites in South Africa. Instead, Mexico is populated by the descendants of those slave people, the Spanish who came as colonists, and the African slaves imported for its industry. There is also a smattering of Chinese blood from laborers, and traces of exiled Moors and Jews from Europe.
What this translates into is another dysfunctional diversity situation which explains why Mexico is in perpetual third-world status. The Spanish-descended control most higher functions, with the mostly-Spanish mixed making up a middle class, and then there is a vast population of impoverished, low intelligence, illiterate peasant indios. Every time an election comes along, they can be counted on to vote Communist like virtually every other third-world group.
Naturally this causes tension in Mexico’s middle and upper classes. Life would be better for them without these indios, or at least with fewer of them. And then they saw the Mariel boatlift, and it dawned on them: send the indios to America. The dumb saps will accept them if they so much as put a finger on American dirt because America’s bon-bon eating leftist useful idiots want people who will vote Communist every time.
Mexico had the perfect cover. None of its public institutions function anyway, and when they do, it is while shot through with corruption like a syphilitic corpse. The ruling groups made it be known that a good life existed in America, and then informally yanked out a few support structures. When Mexicans started pouring over the border, and the Mexican authorities shrugged and went on siesta, no one was exactly surprised that a Mexican institution failed to act.
This was a different form of immigration. For centuries, Central American Amerinds have been trying to get north. Their first opposition was from North American Amerinds, who correctly intuited that to allow in the horde was to be ethnically cleansed and replaced. The second was from the people who built America, the Western European settlers, who saw the same thing and drove off the Mexicans in a series of wars, only to have Mexicans return as raiders under Pancho Villa, a Communist at heart who saw his people would support him in a life of rape, murder and theft from people smarter than himself.
The new Mexican immigration takes on a different form: Mexico is like all countries heading into or staying in third-world status, bottom-heavy. It has too many lower intelligence (which correlates with low initiative, a.k.a. siesta and cerveza living) people and they have shifted its Bell Curve to the left. The elites in Mexico, especially after disastrous Communist guerrillas and electoral victories in the 1980s, needed to get rid of some of their underlings. Corrupt low-caste American industrialists wanted cheap labor. A match made in heaven!
Not really. For Mexico, the result has been some prosperity but the realization that while a Spanish-only Mexico might work, even a middle class of slightly mixed blood has produced different results than a Spanish middle class. In addition, families are divided and Mexicans in the USA feel a need to connect with the culture that has been stripped away from them by a border. They are right to do so, because although their language is Spanish, their habits and lifestyle are straight out of the Mayan years. They need an identity of their own and the ability to determine their own future.
In America, the problem is that we have now taken on Mexico’s third-world status by importing people of that genetic background. There are two essential concepts here that most Americans, especially upper class and female voters, do not understand:
- Nature beats nurture every time. People are what they are because their genes program them to be so. What you enjoy, your speech patterns, your handwriting and even favorite foods are genetically-determined. This offends our Christian, egalitarian view that each of us is the master of his own fate. We are actually complex chemical reactions which have some faculty of choice but usually follow our impulses and desires, which are genetically determined. As the Texas saying goes, “Poor people have poor ways,” and so do more successful people. It isn’t white privilege that 110 average IQ people with discipline toward an ideal built a functional society, and the 80-90 average IQ third world built mud huts and burned witches. Importing third worlders here means that, no matter how much you “Christianize” them (or the modern equivalent, education and entertainment), they will keep doing what they are programmed to do. And your country will become third-world.
- Your skin is your uniform because all people act in self-interest. Liberals think that they can “explain away” ideas and then have them disappear because their liberal friends no longer mention them. The rest of the world realizes that identity is important. Every group on this earth who is Other, or not-Us, wants to invade and take over, stealing our stuff and impregnating our women. This is the way of the world and Darwinism. Identity provides groups with control over their destiny. With identity, a group can not only exclude others but have its own direction, values and culture, which is how it governs itself, since government always erodes to third-world levels as Americans are discovering. Mexican indios are acting in self-interest: the Americans are too stupid to oppose them, so they can invade — peacefully at first — and then take over through superior numbers.
Americans do not understand this because our own diversity problems predate Mexicans. First there were the North American Amerinds, with whom we coexisted until they began raping, killing and stealing. At that point, we were forced to defeat them, but then our diseases genocided them, and we keep the remnant drunk on government gin on reservations. Next there were our African slaves who we bought on the open market and kept in better conditions than those in China, Arabia, South America and Central America, but then left hanging around in a perpetual third-world state because with their identity destroyed, they could never control their destiny and thus were left dependent on their former slavemasters.
Finally there is the issue that few will talk about, which is “white” diversity. As our cities grew, we began subsidizing lots of lower-intelligence people with safer living, constant food and easy jobs. These demanded luxuries in turn and, using the suicidal function of the vote, elected to import “near-whites” from the areas of Europe that were mixed with other races. The part-North African Irish, the part-Asiatic Italians, the Turkic Greeks, the part-Arab and Asiatic Jews and Eastern Europeans, and part-Moorish Spanish became residents here as well. There is nothing wrong with those populations by themselves, but much as nature trumps nurture in third world status, it also explains the differences between Western Europe and its Eastern, Southern and Mediterranean counterparts.
With the rise of “white” diversity, America became colorblind because Paddy O’Malley, Chaim Abraham and Antonio Milano got upset when people mentioned differences. Government, always eager to play the profitable fool, got on the totalitarian bandwagon by demanding we all treat each other as equals and be forced to associate with each other, starting even before the Civil War. Since the Western European (called “Anglo” for short) organic power structure resisted, government attempted to destroy them, first with a Civil War and later with regulations and affirmative action. This is the hidden race war in America, between “whites.” The counter-culture was part of it and finally won in the 1990s, deposing the Anglo and replacing them with the great mixed-race republic, a.k.a. Mexico-in-Waiting.
Mexico, having gone through that experience already, was looking for a way out of its third-world disaster status and sending the indios and pardos north seemed like a good idea. This is the hidden race war within Mexico, between Mexicans, but it has the same root as the American struggle: the first-world populations are trying to escape the third-world ones. In Mexico at least, the struggle is honest, where in the USA it is buried under layers of lies from democratic politicians trying to buy votes from idiots, the largest and growing group in America. The election of President Camacho was confirmation of the counter-culture victory of the 1990s.
In the meantime, Western Europeans everywhere are ceasing to breed because they realize that this war of first-world via third-world cannot be won under democracy. When the founding myth of your society is that everyone is equal, you can never turn away the Other, and then they come in, rape your women, outbreed and out-vote you and take over, promptly making the same third-world disaster in your nation that they claim they wanted to escape. Nature beats nurture, every time.