Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘miscegenation’

A Cancer Cell Just Has To Cancer

Thursday, October 19th, 2017

If Colin Kaepernick really still wanted a job as an NFL Quarterback, I’d never be able to even milk a sportsball post out of this. He’d bank his half-a-mil, keep the clipboard warm and dry and decide for himself whether he showered before or after the game. He’d have a really nice sportsball jersey to wear out to the club. But Kaepernick can’t just shut up and get himself paid.

Once somebody decides they are too personally important to abide by culture or convention, they can’t help but being destructive. A termite has to eat the foundation, a cancer cell has just gotta cancer. Kaepernick is just that guy. He is engineered to sabotage any system he is forced to be a part of. He thinks fate can fvck off and kismet can kiss his uniquely precious ass.

Former Baltimore Ravens stalwart defender Ray Lewis, had his own set of issues with the Po-Lease. So much so that he felt sorry for Colin and wanted to get him back in the league with his old club and make things work out happily ever after. But Team Kaepernick, the only squad Colin ever really seriously wanted to quarterback, had other ideas. Ray Lewis explains his utter frustration with trying to fix the stupid maliciousness that is Kaepernick.

Ray Lewis: “When me and Steve Bisciotti were talking, this is what we were talking about, Judy. We were talking about giving this kid an opportunity to get back in the National Football League. Look, this is what I wanted to share with people. I have been fighting for this kid behind the table like nobody has … I’ve never been against Colin Kaepernick. But I am against the way he’s done it. Then, his girl [Colin Kaepernick’s girlfriend] goes out and put out this racist gesture and doesn’t know we are in the back office about to try to get this guy signed. Steve Bisciotti has said it himself, ‘How can you crucify Ray Lewis when Ray Lewis is the one calling for Colin Kaepernick?'” …

And the self-sabotage continues. Kaepernick could be in Wisconsin angling to start for one of the oldest and most storied franchises in professional football, The Green Bay Packers. Kaepernick has filed a grievance against every team in the league for colluding against him to keep his magnificent talent off the field. It’s time to gently explain to QBSJW how that Che Guvera T-Shirt he wears around exemplifies capitalism. You see, Che’s jersey still sells, while Colin’s gets burned in the grill for YouTube hits. You see, Che cultists, Jim Morrison and other commercially successful Lefty/SJW types figured out who their customers were and made a point out of protecting the brand and franchise.

Kaepernick? He’s just a termite. He burns down anything he gets invited to a be a part of. It could be because as an adopted, illegitimate child of miscegenation, he never truly can be a part of anything. Perhaps that would describe our most recent former president as well. And if such is truly the case, you wonder at the lack of wisdom that went into making ether one of them at all.

Ethnography of Civilization Collapse

Wednesday, October 18th, 2017

Tendentious bashers such as myself have a habit of reminding you that history runs in cycles, and if a civilization does not restart its cycle by restoring traditional society, it goes off into third world style subsistence living because of a lack of social order, and ends up a mixed-race shadow of its former self.

The “mixed-race” part is crucial because, throughout history, bad leaders have used diversity as a means of shoring up their own power. When they need support, they can count on those people who depend on them, namely the various different types of minorities who are allied against the majority, whose interest does not reflect their own.

When you encounter a failed civilization, you will find shorter and weaker people, generally without much intelligence but weighted toward the verbal and not the spatial, with mystical traditions based on primitive symbols, who are fundamentally comfortable living in a society where corruption takes a third off every deal and nothing ever gets done, or done right.

Third world people are individualists, and to them, the burden of struggling to have social order is too much relative to how they want to enjoy life, which is just not worrying too much. Very carefree individuals in these parts, and they seem very happy, but they never produce anything of greatness. Their society demands little of them, so they spend most of their time on themselves.

We can tell that this is the case by looking at a civilization that faded away long ago:

Researchers from the University of Tuebingen and the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History in Jena, both in Germany, have decoded the genome of ancient Egyptians for the first time, with unexpected results.

Publishing its findings in Nature Communications, the study concluded that preserved remains found in Abusir-el Meleq, Middle Egypt, were closest genetic relatives of Neolithic and Bronze Age populations from the Near East, Anatolia and Eastern Mediterranean Europeans.

Modern Egyptians, by comparison, share much more DNA with sub-Saharan populations.

In other words, ancient remains showed genetic consistency; modern genetics show the influence of diversity. This society became more diverse as it failed, and it does not necessarily matter what the diversity was, only that the genetic consistency of a network of traits was broken up and replaced by a more chaotic, less competent biological compromise.

This applies to ethnic groups as well. Mixed-ethnic states, especially those with hybridization, even trace hybridization, tend to perform less well than homogeneous nations. Most likely, when places like Egypt become diverse, it is through trace admixture; few people will marry and mate with the Other, but someone who is only an eighth other they can accept, until those are the only option and the original ethnic group is long gone.

When people talk about diversity, they often attempt to discuss it through “problems”: how to manage crime, how to indoctrinate the newcomers in our Constitution, how to assimilate them, why to make them equally accepted so they will not riot. But there is only one real problem, which is the replacement of the founding ethnic group and, with it, a loss of whatever traits it had that allowed the society to succeed in the first place.

Miscegenation Attracts Unstable, Low-Confidence People

Friday, October 6th, 2017

From a recent study on children of mixed-race unions with African-American fathers:

This study finds that 92% of biracial children with African American fathers are born out of wedlock and 82% end up on government assistance. The results of this study make it very clear that biracial children with African American fathers are fatherless on a scale much larger than the public may realize.

In the hands of most people, this may seem like an indictment of black fathers, and perhaps it is. However, a black-white union produces a child that is very obviously not of either extreme, where a Hispanic-white or Asian-white union tends to produce a child that looks like its minority parent with a few white tweaks. As a result, it might be expected that black-white children find fewer fathers.

Every parent wants a child that resembles them, but a black-white union generally produces a child of lighter skin color and different features than those of its black parents. This could be responsible for the greater abandonment rate, which in turn points out something about the type of person likely to enter into a mixed-race union.

Generally, those who marry outside of their tribe are less self-confident than those who do not. A person who miscegenates is both rejecting their parents and looking for someone who will enter into a relationship with them for exotic points or for the sake of being different.

It is therefore not terribly surprising that mixed-race children have such difficulties. To their parents, the union was a way of demonstrating uniqueness or having control over the other partner by being a rare commodity, and the children of such a union are an unwanted byproduct.

Race-Mixing Makes People Incompetent

Sunday, October 1st, 2017

Many of us argue against race-mixing, or miscegenation, on the basis of the obvious point that it is genocide. If you mix an ethnic group, you replace the original group with something else.

Proof of this comes from recent events where miscegenation equals degeneration as traits are lost:

Black Students United takes issue with the fact that there are more African and Caribbean students on campus when compared to black students. The group defines black students as those who come from black families that have lived in America for two or more generations. While the group said it doesn’t mind the university trying to recruit African students, they want the college to pay more attention to black students whose families have been affected by years of white supremacy.

Anecdotally, African immigrants achieve more than African-Americans, and this presents a problem. Why could this be? We might say that those who were subjected to slavery were from lower castes, or at least captured in warfare. We could say that those who are coming over are of a higher caste.

Or we could point out that many African-Americans are a quarter Caucasian, meaning that they are of mixed race.

In theory, if we believe the superior/inferior doctrine of races, this would improve them. But much as mixing different chemicals can produce a muddle, mixing races will destroy both.

Consider this. There are several thousand genes that code for intelligence. Remove some, and the effect is lost. This is true of most traits; they are the result of a combination of many genes.

When you breed people who are of the same race, ethnic group and caste, those genes exist in common, so the traits are passed on. But when you mix race, ethnicity or caste, then some of those thousands of genes are not passed on, and the trait is lost or only partially passed on. This results in people without the original ability or worse, the appearance of the original with less competence.

In this way, mixing an African and a Caucasian loses what each does well. This could explain the average relatively lower performance of African-Americans. Not only do they suffer from having been the type of people within their race who were likely to be enslaved, and the consequences of slavery and living in the ‘hood, but they have also been deprived of their genetic birthright.

By the same token, this shows us why mixing ethnic groups within a race is so destructive. When you mix a German with an Irishman, you get neither a German nor an Irishman, but something else. Those unique networks of genes coding for traits are lost, and with them, whatever made each group great is lost. Instead you get a person of generic abilities like the incompetents now flooding the West.

After several centuries of denying race, ethnicity and caste, the West is awakening to its importance. Mixing any of these elements produces lesser-quality human beings, independent of whatever linear considerations we apply to each race. Diversity is death, and miscegenation is worse. The new world we inherit will place a much higher priority on this concern.

Marquis Williams Did Nothing Wrong

Friday, September 29th, 2017

Conservatives are those who distrust modernity, but are still stuck in the idea of universalism, or that all people are the same except for external traits (education, hobbies, favorite foods, fetishes). As a result, they never make sense, because their fundamental idea — social/natural/divine order as most important — endlessly conflicts with their individualism.

Consequently, they are shocked when people violate the supposedly universal commandments of their society… even when it is clear that the violators have reason to not be good obedient sheep to the machine. This is where conservatives go wrong: they defend the machine, instead of listening to their inner voice, which wants to escape to the woods and let humanity face fate on its own.

As a result, conservatives find themselves opposed to reality, which puts them in the same position as those who embrace ideology or notions about how life “should” be and the presumption that those are more important than reality itself. This makes them deny situations where biology, which is a supreme form of logic, contradicts social status strategies, and instead affirms the dark empty naked bleakness of natural selection:

Sommer Gatto,18, suffered blunt force trauma to her head and torso Tuesday night. Investigators say her boyfriend, Marquis Williams, 20, beat her head against the ground on the street where she lived. He was naked and believed to be high on drugs.

…Harris County Sheriff’s Office investigators believe Williams was high on “kush,” a synthetic drug, when he ran down the street, took off his clothes and attacked Sommer. First he kicked in her family’s door prompting her grandmother, sister and two children to hide in a closet.

“This was uncharacteristic of Marquis,” said Paula Lanius, Sommer’s grandmother.

The grim fact — denied by our egalitarian anti-hierarchy composed of only two levels, proles and Inner Party members — is that those who cross caste, race, or ethnic lines are in the grips of a mental health problem. Mentally organized people do not miscegenate, as they realize that it obliterates their heritage, provides health risks, denies their offspring an ethnic identity and causes displeasure to the rest of their family, who would like to see the line continue in some consistency to its origins.

However, miscegenation appeals to some people because they have low self-confidence, and by fishing around in the gene pool of races they consider inferior to their own, they are able to find partners and spouses who are obligated to them. This is a method of control, and it is why nerdly and weak white men date Asian women just as obese white women with alcohol problems date Black men. In each case, the white person believes themselves to be valuable for being white, and therefore, desirable to the partner, which gives them more power over the partner, which they seek because they are underconfident or dysfunctional.

Marquis did the right thing because only sick and weak people miscegenate. He removed the person so broken that they are willing to miscegenate. The “in vino veritas” Williams experienced while tripping on kush allowed him to see that those who are not of your tribe will never have your self-interest at heart, and that any woman who wanted to engage in miscegenation of any kind is in fact not a good person, and so he smashed her head into the ground and fixed the problem.

Those who are not of your tribe, no matter how well “integrated” they are, will resort to self-interest of their tribe, and in the case of white women dating black men (or white nerds dating Asian women) this means that these white people are in fact using their minority partners. The honest white people associate with themselves, not just by race but by ethnicity, which is why healthy Western Europeans tend to marry other Western Europeans, but the unhealthy ones marry down to Southern, Irish, or Eastern Europeans, or in cases of extreme underconfidence or obesity, other racial groups entirely.

Like O.J. Simpson, who also did nothing wrong, Marquis Williams has done nothing wrong. He has removed a miscegenator from the populations of both the white and black races, to the improvement of each. Maybe next time he will find a better method, like deportation, but for now, his heart is in the right place and we should pray for his swift acquittal.

Conservatives, Conserve Heritage; Miscegenation Is Death

Tuesday, August 22nd, 2017

Conservatives are those who conserve, and because not all actions turn out as well, they conserve the best of what is offered. This is the opposite of a utilitarian standard: instead of whatever is “okay” by the lowest common denominator in a large herd, they choose what is best, even if most people are not clear in their understanding of that.

As part of this, conservatives are natural environmentalists, despite mainstream conservatives doing little along these lines. They are also defenders of culture, although mainstream conservatives have done nothing there. But even more, they conserve genetics, which means keeping the best of the past and bearing it forward into the future.

This is why miscegenation is death, as Jared Taylor notes:

There is one argument for anti-miscegenation laws that is stronger now than ever. Whites used to have eight or ten children, but now they are not even replacing themselves, and every out-marriage is a tiny step towards extinction.

…But why preserve a white majority? Is it not because whites have a legitimate yearning for societies that reflect their own nature and culture, and that only whites can build such societies? If, in every generation, 9 percent of whites are contributing to their own demographic dispossession, that alone will ensure that they eventually disappear.

And what about the victims of miscegenation whom Derbyshire himself writes about: the Chinese men who wanted to attack him when they saw him with a Chinese woman, and the black women who hate it when black men chase white women? (Derbyshire leaves out other combinations but they can produce resentments that are just as strong.)

Racial-sexual loyalty is a powerful emotion. Should we just ignore it?

Racial, and more importantly ethnic, loyalty is powerful because it protects something powerful: traits are not just heritable, but genes cluster together in groups to produce those traits, and so when miscegenation — mixing of races and ethnic groups — occurs, not only are some traits lost, but the overall makeup of the ethnic group, like a network of traits, is lost too.

When Germans are 1/4 Korean, they are no longer Germans. They are something new. In the same way, if Germany because 1/4 Polish or Irish, Germans would no longer be Germans, with the same habits and abilities of Germans, but something new that has through a process of genocide replaced the Germans.

Seen through sane eyes, avoiding miscegenation is how a population maintains its health, along with other breeding habits that we have denied because the individualists among us want to believe that what matters is what they intend, not who they are. As Billy Roper writes, ethnic preservation cannot be separated from other healthy breeding practices:

People understood that eugenics, or purposeful, conscious and selective breeding, is just as real for two legged animals as it is for any other variety. They strove for quality in their offspring, which meant that they strove for quality in their mates, whether they were selecting breeding partners for themselves, or as was often the case traditionally, for their children. Not any more, of course. People drag around their accidents of birth like proud badges of martyrdom, forcing them on everyone else, eliciting painfully awkward, nervous grins and tolerance. Or else. Hell, most of you probably think I’m the world’s biggest jerk already, for not wanting to group slobber hug the cast from ‘The Ringer’, which is a funny movie, by the way. Hold on, I get worse.

When people no longer care about the genetic quality of their offspring, when they actively deny that genetic inheritance plays a significant role in intelligence, personality, temperament, and jump shots, they get just what they deserve. When they fail to see that inherited psychological and cognitive characteristics cluster in racial groups, and pretend that “love” is blind to color and really all that matters is a person’s heart, Kumbaya, then they get what they pay for.

Not only did America’s Founding Fathers make it illegal for nonWhites to become citizens of the United States, they also made it illegal for different races to intermarry. A lot of people don’t know that until very recently, those laws were still on the books, too. Anti-miscegenation laws were a part of American law in some States since before the United States was established and remained so until ruled unConstitutional in 1967.

Why would someone care about the genetic health of their offspring, the level of pollution in their rivers, the future of their civilization, or the presence of great art, symphonies and novels? After all, we will all be dead relatively soon, and what happens after that is not directly relevant to us. However, that is not quite the full story either.

We find meaning in life through connection to things larger than us. These can be material things or spiritual things, but either way, by connecting to the world beyond ourselves, we have discovered beauty and importance to life. We cannot make life important on the basis of ourselves as individuals, because we are pursuing tiny pleasures, miniscule powers and transient wealth. We can however discover what is great in life and, through it, find what we value in ourselves.

That drive to virtue is the basis of dislike of miscegenation. It is beautiful that our people have existed for millennia, upholding their values and unique abilities, and conquering many obstacles in order to create great civilizations. It is amazing that all of us, no matter how small, can have a role in that if we choose to do so.

But, in order to do that, we must overcome our egos. This is what is meant by the idea from Toynbee that great civilizations are not killed, but commit suicide, when we pair that idea with another from Plato, which is that in order to know what is true, we must first want to be virtuous and take our place in a complex order where we each have a unique role, but we are not all the same, either as equal individuals or one mass hive-mind.

The ancient Greeks knew that hubris was the death of a civilization. Once people see themselves as more important than any external order — nature, logic, civilization, morality, or religion — they begin to act like squabbling monkeys, fighting over personal importance and temporary issues. The goal is forgotten, and the possibility of anything great is foreclosed.

You can see this individualistic outlook in some recent entertaining Communist propaganda from The New York Times:

Having lived her first 43 years under Communism, she often complained that the new free market hindered Bulgarians’ ability to develop healthy amorous relationships.

“Sure, some things were bad during that time, but my life was full of romance,” she said. “After my divorce, I had my job and my salary, and I didn’t need a man to support me. I could do as I pleased.”

Ms. Durcheva was a single mother for many years, but she insisted that her life before 1989 was more gratifying than the stressful existence of her daughter, who was born in the late 1970s.

“All she does is work and work,” Ms. Durcheva told me in 2013, “and when she comes home at night she is too tired to be with her husband. But it doesn’t matter, because he is tired, too. They sit together in front of the television like zombies. When I was her age, we had much more fun.”

Nevermind that the actual topic of this article is that people in “free” societies work too much. You can also ignore the fact that Communism failed to produce much of anything consistently, where the West built a great industry. The answer is somewhere in the middle, perhaps a capitalist state without any government entitlements or benefits, so that people could work less and have enough. But the real point is that Ms. Durcheva was proud of her days when she did not need a man to support her and could do whatever she wanted.

Whatever she wanted. That is the face of individualism: do not do what is right, or what is meaningful, but what you, the raging ego, decide that you want. Notice that there is no discussion of whether this activity was productive or filled her soul with joy. She was a king in her own little sphere, with her job where she was important and a personal life where she could be free from commitment. Life became not an activity with purpose, but a series of sensations, all dedicated to the individual. That is why we call hubris “individualism” now.

The New York Times only wants to draw more women to Leftism with the promise of being able to do whatever they want. It is the call of manipulation because every human responds to it: the idea that they do not need to struggle for meaning or sanity in life, but can become entirely self-sufficient, separate from nature and the logical results of their actions. They are in control, and no one can make them live up to standards, be good, or even be useful. It is all about the ego, which is both a warm feeling and an infinite abyss.

We face the same problem in explaining why miscegenation is destructive. Why care about anything but the self, my beautiful self? Even if that portends the death of meaning, people do not seek meaning because they do not understand it. When it is there, they appreciate it, but when it is not, they settle for egomania and hollow, simple pleasures.

Avoiding miscegenation is part of a path to meaning. Some of us naturally connect to something larger than ourselves; we are the producers and the civilization-builders. Others do not, and will pretend they are not miserable by rationalizing how much of “muh freedom” and independence they have. But in the end, that is a path to emptiness and death, even if the body lives on.

Portrait Of Democracy

Tuesday, July 11th, 2017

My Modern Met offers a vision of the process of democracy in the United States with a portrait of the descendants of the founders 241 years after the birth of the nation-state.

What is great about this is that it shows democracy as usual. There is nothing exceptional here; democracy always goes this way. Even if you have a group of high-caste Western European males as founders, over time democracy does what it does best, which is to break down civilizations into individuals acting in self-interest against eternal things like heritage, culture, values and beliefs.

Take even a thoroughly Nordic group of high IQ, introduce democracy, and within a couple centuries you will have the same result. First they will allow caste-mixing, and then they will import related groups. Then they will import unrelated groups. Soon you will have a picture like the “after” (or post mortem) picture.

If you took the second group, 241 years later, and had them all interbreed, you would end up with an ethnic group much like today’s Ashkenazi Jews. One reason for the fanatical anti-Semitism of the far-Right is that subconsciously, people recognize that as our future: Western Europeans, having kids with Asian women, and those breeding with other groups, producing a Middle Eastern type.

This just democracy as it happens every time. Whenever a civilization reaches a stage where it has grown weak in the face of its troubles, its leaders advance democracy as a way of preventing lower caste revolt, but it backfires because democracy ensures that the lowest common denominator dominates. Soon there are no more exceptional people, only a rabid mass living in third world conditions.

Anti-Diversity Goes Mainstream In The Wall Street Journal

Monday, June 19th, 2017

In the pages of The Wall Street Journal, we find a welcome summary of the argument against diversity. Couched in analysis of the European immigration disaster, the article examines some of the points and issues I have been writing about since the early 1990s:

It is as though some great hole lies at the heart of the culture of Dante, Bach and Wren.

When people point out the downsides of this approach—not least that more immigration from Muslim countries produces many problems, including terrorism—we get the final explanation. It doesn’t matter, we are told: Because of globalization this is inevitable and we can’t stop it anyway.

All these instincts, when put together, are the stuff of suicide. They spell out the self-annihilation of a culture as well as a continent. Conversations with European policy makers and politicians have made this abundantly clear to me. They tell me with fury that it “must” work. I suggest that with population change of this kind, at this speed, it may not work at all.

Diversity is a way of engineering a permanent Leftist majority because the new group will always vote for more benefits, which are the province of the Left (and when conservatives embrace entitlements culture, they rapidly shift Leftward). It eventually means ethnic replacement of the population first through trace admixture, where your son or daughter marries someone who is 1/8 or 1/4 something else, and eventually everyone is a little bit newcomer, and the original racial group is erased. Genocided. Gone forever.

Diversity never works because each ethnic group wants to be in control so that it can set standards, values, customs, practices, procedures, aesthetics and cultural memes. This means that in a nation-state with multiple ethnic groups, they are subtly at war with one another as they compete for dominance. Even when one wins, the others struggle, at least until everyone is mixed into a grey cultureless nu-race.

The intellectually difficult point here is that we do not have an enemy. Our problem is not Muslims, but diversity itself; even “nice” other groups will invade us and genetically replace us. A Germany that is genetically 1/4 Japanese is no longer Germany, for example. They do not mean to do this, but it is the way of tribes that want to prevail, that they assert themselves and dominate others.

Diversity itself is a bad policy because it is paradoxical in this way, promising peace and freedom but delivering constant ethnic conflict. It cannot work because it is illogical given the innate needs of different populations. Every individual and every group acts in self-interest, and diversity makes those interests clash.

In America, people are fleeing diversity because it destroys social trust in their communities, causing them to distrust even people of their own ethnic group. Minority communities suffer because of diversity as well because it deprecates their own prospects and makes them subject to the same social distrust. The nation-state itself becomes corrupt with the introduction of diversity.

Healthy nations recognize homogeneity not as a fanatical goal, but a prerequisite for health and so are abandoning diversity just like the people in the West who are fleeing it. Energy is growing behind the idea of ending diversity without acrimony.

The WSJ article goes on to point out the core reason for diversity:

The reasons lie partly in our history, not least in the overwhelming German guilt, which has spread across the Continent and affected even our cultural cousins in America and Australia. Egged on by those who wish us ill, we have fallen for the idea that we are uniquely guilty, uniquely to be punished, and uniquely in need of having our societies changed as a result.

There is also, for Europe, the sense of what I call tiredness—the feeling that the story might have run out: that we have tried religion, all imaginable forms of politics, and that each has, one after another, led us to disaster. When we taint every idea we touch, perhaps a change is as good as a rest.

Modernity — equality, consumerism, individualism, democracy, social mobility, pluralism, class warfare — is the monkey on our back. No matter what we change, we bring our fundamental egalitarian assumptions with us, and so like an inverse King Midas we destroy everything we touch.

This “tiredness” was first chronicled by the generation of writers after World War One, who noted that “the war to end all wars” had convinced no one, and that people had become fatalistic because it was clear that society was heading down a path to doom and yet our pretense of equality prevented us from stepping off that path. Drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die, and life has no point.

This leads to a condition like the present day:

The migration policies of the political and other elites of Europe suggest that they are suicidal.

The West has to decide whether it wants to keep committing suicide for the pretense that every person is good, and that we all have equal potential and abilities and moral character, or whether it wants to admit that we need an external order above the human individual. Around here, I suggest the eternal social order that made Golden Ages in the past and can do so in the future, even as we prepare to take to space for the next phase of our great human adventure.

Why There Is No “White Race”

Monday, June 19th, 2017

American Renaissance points out a vital problem with the Caucasian animal, namely its seeming lack of racial loyalty under duress:

The racial dynamic in prisons puts whites at a tremendous disadvantage. First, whites are often outnumbered by both blacks and Hispanics. But far more important, just as they show no racial solidarity in “the free world,” whites in prison do not band together to protect each other from predators. As No Escape reports, Hispanics sometimes rape Hispanics, and blacks sometimes rape blacks, but neither group permits anyone of another race to rape its own people. If a black tried to “turn out” a Mexican, the Mexicans would riot and try to kill him. Blacks also defend each other from white or Hispanic rapists. It is only whites — unless they are known members of white racialist gangs who do stick together — who are on their own and can be raped with impunity. It would be hard to think of a more cruel consequence of stripping whites of racial consciousness.

It is important to read this in context: these are whites in prison, many of whom are not really good people at all. It is quite possible to go to jail in this country for something that is not bad, but the majority of people in jails are sociopaths. Lots of people use drugs, for example, and some guys get sent up for wrong place/wrong time. But the rest are probably greedy dealers.

White Nationalists bemoan the fact that whites do not stick together. They do not do it at the ballot box, nor in the media, nor in conversation. Whites seem to identify more with the type of automobile they drive than with race. If pushed, most of them will admit that they like to live near, work with, and befriend “people like me” but will not elaborate.

This is why we should face the ugly truth: there is no such thing as the white race.

But first, let us look into the other reasons why whites are not particularly race-loyal. The first is that whites still perceive themselves as a majority in power and as a result see no reason to be racially alert, and the process of awakening takes many years, so when thrust into prison or another rough situation, they are not prepared to think in racial terms.

Another important reason for the missing white cohesion is that whites are highly competitive. This means that we see each other not as natural allies, but as the other team that needs to be beaten down. In highly competitive situations, helping out the opposition means losing position and prospects.

With this we see the problem of high-trust societies like we have in Western Europe. That high social trust is used against us in class warfare, where those with more than others are perceived as free riders and demonized for their lack of sharing. Think of how your average white parent would react to a child in preschool who refuses to share a toy.

High-trust societies function efficiently and as a result are wealthier and more resilient than other types of societies. However, they also have an Achilles’ Heel, which is that the trust can be weaponized into demands for universal sharing of resources. At first, this seems like a good idea, because it promises to reduce conflict.

The problem with it however is that it also reduces trust. When any person can launch a social attack on you for what you have, it is best to socialize only with those who you know will not do so. This is why class warfare produces even more radical class separation: each class can only trust others of the same class, and so naturally acts to exclude all other classes.

In addition, whites do not perceive a need for racial unity because they still see themselves as the majority in Europe and the USA. For those of us who have grown up in majority-minority areas, this is laughable delusion, but most people take a snapshot of the world around age eleven and expect it to be (mostly) that way for the rest of their lives.

As a result, most whites expect that the mostly-white communities of the 1980s and 1990s still exist, when in fact rising majority populations, refugee resettlement and redistribution of Section 8 housing to the suburbs has changed the nature of those communities. In addition, propaganda in schools has raised new generations who see this not as threatening but positive and cheer their own replacement.

Majorities are notoriously slow to defend themselves. The reason for this is that they do not recognize themselves as having an identity as a majority since they view themselves as the norm. To whites, identifying with being white is like introducing yourself as an aficionado of breathing air.

Because of this majority status, people within a majority identify with smaller groups (lifestyle, class, region, profession, religion) and see no link between themselves and others who share a genetic background, identified as generic because it is of the majority, but not the special interest group to which they belong.

Minorities on the other hand are constantly reminded of their racial identity. They are aware every minute of every day that this society was not designed, created or maintained in its healthy days by people who looked like them. Instead, it belongs to the Anglo-Saxons who founded it, drove out the murderous Indians, and set up systems of law, economics and culture which reflect their heritage.

In addition, it is important to note that white diversity does not work, just like every kind of diversity does not work. Poles and English and Germans and Italians can work together, but at the end of the day, they want to go home to neighborhoods filled with people “like them.” This is why ethnic groups have steadily been pulling apart in America, starting with white groups.

This is why there is no white race. There are white ethnicities, but many of these reflect an origin in Nordic-Germanic people and subsequent admixture, so they are alien to the root and resent it much as minorities resent the majority. Someone of Irish-Italian descent who is told that white diversity does not work inevitably retaliates by insulting Western Europeans. Diversity creates resentment, even among whites, and among admixed whites like Southern and Eastern Europeans, envy and hatred of the Western European founders can be seen as clearly as it is in Hispanic, Black, Asian, Arab and Amerind groups.

We do not view ourselves as a white race because of internal differences, and trying to force us to do so will fail as it has in the past. We know that there is a seed of our people which came out of Asia, brought its blonde-haired long-faced blue-eyed presence among us, and melded with lower castes of previously mixed whites from Central Europe with some ancestors from the Mediterranean.

All of our literature alludes to this distinction in castes, where those who are blonde, tall, long-faced and cerebral rule over the darker, shorter, and brown-eyed lower echelons. In German, Scandinavia, England, France and the Netherlands this is recognized as true, as it was in American class tension literature from the last century. Whites are different based on percentage of Nordic-Germanic (“Aryan”) heritage.

Those who are not Nordic-Germanic tend to want to displace that group, so that the shorter/browner trace admixed Central Europeans — who are either a previous iteration of Europeans, or a group with some mixture that happened in the near Middle East — can rule in their place, just like minority groups agitate for overthrow of whites. Every group wants to rule the world, and needs to displace higher groups to do that.

Some would call this white supremacy, but in actuality, it is a revelation of the caste system within whites which ranks us by degree of admixture, plus the natural tensions of diversity in which every group wants to be in power.

The good news is what white unity is not what we need. Our future will be one of balkanization, or many small tribes breaking away from the failed nation-states of liberal democracy. These groups will be defined by a cascade of race, ethnicity, caste, religion and region on a basic level, with additional modifiers like lifestyle, sexual preference, politics, philosophy and profession.

For example, you may find a neighborhood filled entirely with Irish Catholic ship-builders, or a gay neighborhood that is open to whites and Asians. Maybe there will be a community of metalheads or punks somewhere, like the squatter communes of the 1970s. Perhaps people will find nice WASP neighborhoods isolated by high walls and armed turrets. We are entering a time of collapse when government is an enemy.

In the coming “balk,” being one big group is not useful. Being a distinctive group is however. For example, Western Europeans can recognize each other by sight and immediately read caste/class status, so they group together well. That distinctiveness counts in the split seconds before encountering another person or group will turn out to be friendship or racial violence.

There will be no middle ground. Where old school racism was based on stereotypes and perceived slights, new school racial politics will have a simple rule: if he is of my tribe, he is good; if he is not, he must be killed quickly before he calls others from his tribe to conquer mine. Friendship or violence will erupt seconds after meeting, and to be indecisive is to die.

This saves us from a unique form of suicide that many — usually from the admixed groups of “whites” — think is a really good idea. They want to create a white group, at which point they abolish distinctions between types of white (Western, Eastern, Southern) and caste/class differences. That will produce a generic white group with none of that traits of the group that made Western Civilization great.

Our suicide move would be to throw all whites into a category for purposes of defense, just like in the prison written about above, at which point interbreeding will be natural. This means that all of the white sub-groups will assimilate each other, losing ethnic distinctiveness and caste orientation. This will create generic Europeans who will lose their distinct traits.

To do that, in effect, will be to genocide ourselves. Western Civilization pops up from time to time in different places. Those societies eventually fail, and then the members of the tribe move on to another place and start another society. Ancient Greeks fleeing the fall of Athens went into Central Europe just like Europeans fleeing their socialist states came to America.

But the core, the essence, of Western Civilization remains its Western European people. These are basically still the same group that ranged the steppes, set up empires across Asia, North Africa and Europe, and provided the genetic seeds for the Greek, Roman, German and Nordic empires. These are the Western Europeans.

America has fallen, and Europe is dead for all practical purposes, but as long as we have our people, Western Civilization can rise again. This is why all of our enemies, both white and non-white, want to destroy that group. (Note: there are many non-whites who do not want to destroy us, but their position is a relative rarity because diversity creates such intense minority-majority resentment).

If we mix all the whites together, we will bring in the trace admixture of Asiatic found in Eastern and Southern Europe, which rather than being reduced will be amplified as racial mixing tends to be. At that point, we will have destroyed the seed of our unbroken heritage, and replaced it with a mixed future.

That will lead to white third world countries, where a light-skinned group with the features of the Middle East rules over a slightly darker but dumber herd. If we mix within the “white” race, we will produce a hybrid society like those of Iraq, Mexico, India, Brazil, and the Levant. We will have destroyed our potential for restoring Western Civilization that way.

As the West slowly awakens from its latest stupefactive flirtation with equality, interest in nationalism has risen to new heights. The problem is that the newly-minted “nationalists” are taking Leftist assumptions with them, and so they want an egalitarian nationalism, which is the exact opposite of what nationalism is.

We can see nationalism in white attitudes toward other whites. Nationalism is not race-patriotism, or swearing fealty to the “white” race, but hierarchy including caste and a rough calculation of how much Nordic-Germanic is present in each person. Its ultimate goal is not to form a political herd, but to preserve the subspecies of our peoples, and this cannot be done by combining or associating them.

Did Irish Immigration Shift America To The Left?

Thursday, June 15th, 2017

A consistent theme on Amerika has been the notion that diversity itself, and not the groups contained within, creates a loss of social order because standards in common are adulterated and social paranoia results. The resulting pervasive social distrust causes people to become atomized, alienated and to “hunker down” in their homes and adopt an apathetic attitude toward politics and society, which they view as lost causes.

If diversity is the problem, then diversity even among the same race is also a problem. American history shows us this is the case through the example of Irish immigration. We can observe this by watching through history for the process of Irish-American numbers rising as the integrity of the country fell:

35,523,082 Irish

Another group who joined the great story of the United States were the Irish and the great famine of the 1840s sparked mass migration from Ireland.

It is estimated that between 1820 and 1920, 4.5 million Irish moved to the United States and settled in the large cities like New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago and San Francisco.

Currently, almost 12 percent of the total population of the United States claim Irish ancestry – compared with a total population of six and a half million for the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland today.

Irish residents of note include John F. Kennedy, Derek Jeter and Neil Armstrong and 35,523,082 people call themselves Irish.

Irish immigration accelerated as the country liberalized in the years leading up to the Civil War:

Between 1820 and 1860, the Irish constituted over one third of all immigrants to the United States. In the 1840s, they comprised nearly half of all immigrants to this nation.

These Irish people were instrumental in sponsoring the Civil War, mainly because they disliked hierarchical Anglo-Saxon societies like the South and identified with “oppressed minorities,” with whom they shared a bond in slavery dating back to pre-colonial times, and also were distinctive because of Semitic and Asiatic trace admixture in the Irish bloodline. From The Daily Mail again:

Since laws already on the books prohibited people of any Asian origin from becoming citizens, they were barred entry. The law was revised in 1952, but kept the quota system based on country of origin in the U.S. population and only allowed low quotas to Asian nations.

The American children of Italian and other European immigrants saw that law “as a slur against their own status” and fought for the system to be changed, said Mae Ngai, professor of history and Asian American studies at Columbia University. In fighting for change, they looked to the civil rights movement.

…Speaking to the American Committee on Italian Migration in June 1963, President John F. Kennedy cited the “nearly intolerable” plight of those who had family members in other countries who wanted to come to the U.S. and could be useful citizens, but were being blocked by “the inequity and maldistribution of the quota numbers.”

In fact, the Irish had a long history of agitation against the Western European ruling classes who had made the country that Irish immigrants, whose fortunes at home had been grim long before the English intervened, now enjoyed:

Irish and Africans Americans had lots in common and lots of contact during this period; they lived side by side and shared work spaces. In the early years of immigration the poor Irish and blacks were thrown together, very much part of the same class competing for the same jobs. In the census of 1850, the term mulatto appears for the first time due primarily to inter-marriage between Irish and African Americans. The Irish were often referred to as “Negroes turned inside out and Negroes as smoked Irish.” A famous quip of the time attributed to a black man went something like this: “My master is a great tyrant, he treats me like a common Irishman.” Free blacks and Irish were viewed by the Nativists as related, somehow similar, performing the same tasks in society. It was felt that if amalgamation between the races was to happen, it would happen between Irish and blacks. But, ultimately, the Irish made the decision to embrace whiteness, thus becoming part of the system which dominated and oppressed blacks. Although it contradicted their experience back home, it meant freedom here since blackness meant slavery.

An article by a black writer in an 1860 edition of the Liberator explained how the Irish ultimately attained their objectives: “Fifteen or twenty years ago, a Catholic priest in Philadelphia said to the Irish people in that city, ‘You are all poor, and chiefly laborers, the blacks are poor laborers; many of the native whites are laborers; now, if you wish to succeed, you must do everything that they do, no matter how degrading, and do it for less than they can afford to do it for.’ The Irish adopted this plan; they lived on less than the Americans could live upon, and worked for less, and the result is, that nearly all the menial employments are monopolized by the Irish, who now get as good prices as anybody. There were other avenues open to American white men, and though they have suffered much, the chief support of the Irish has come from the places from which we have been crowded.”

This caused them to identify with the Other, even fighting against the Southern United States twelve years before the Civil War:

A little-known chapter in U.S.-Mexican history is that of El Batallón de los San Patricios or “St. Patrick’s Battalion.” In a nutshell, St. Patrick’s Battalion was a group of immigrants, mostly of Irish descent, who fought alongside the Mexican Army during the Mexican-American War (1846-1848). To provide further context: this took place during the height of Manifest Destiny.

The Civil War itself may have only been possible because of the shift in political attitudes brought by the Irish to the North, where they were a larger percentage of the population than in the South, which was more Anglo-Saxon and thus despised by the Irish. The political agenda of the North shifted as the Irish gained political power:

By this time, attitudes towards the Irish had begun to change. The Civil War was probably the turning point; so many thousands of Irish whole-heartedly participated in the war (they made up the majority of no less than 40 Union regiments), and gained a certain respect and acceptance from Americans as a result. And second or third generation Irish-Americans had moved up the social and managerial ladder from their early labouring work. Some were even entering the professions.

Of course, this was not the lot of the majority. In the 1900 census there were still hundreds of thousands of Irish immigrants living in poverty, mostly in urban slums. But economic circumstances were improving for a significant proportion, and the Irish, as a group, were gaining footholds in the workplace, especially in the labour or trade union movement, the police and the fire service.

Their numbers helped. The large Irish populations of cities such as Boston, Chicago and New York were able to get their candidates elected to power, so launching the Irish American political class.

This political landslide created a new form of politics based in opposition to the Western European majority. These new political entities emphasized strong government which handed out entitlements to its constituents, effectively buying votes, as had been the norm in places like Ireland and Italy.

In addition to the Civil War, Irish-American political leanings dominated the East Coast, which became a powerhouse for Leftist politics:

New York has the most concentrated Irish population; 12.9 percent of its residents claim Irish ancestry, which compares to a rate of 11.1 percent of the country overall. Boston, meanwhile, claims the most-concentrated Irish population for a city: 20.4 percent.

Trulia’s chief economist Jed Kulko put all this data on a map, which shows the heaviest concentration of Irish-American zip codes. He notes that “Irish-Americans are at least 5 percent of the population in most counties across the U.S., and 10 percent or more in most of New England, New York state, New Jersey, eastern Pennsylvania, and other smaller counties across the country.”

The Irish influence — along with fellow trace admixed groups such as Italians, Slavs and Jews — was so great that it created a backlash against the new Southern/Eastern/Irish European immigrants:

In 1845, a potato famine in Ireland, caused by a fungus that destroyed the country’s most important food source, killed a million people and left millions more hungry. Within a decade, nearly 2 million Irish had emigrated to the U.S.

Italians followed, beginning in the 1860s, in response to economic and political turmoil at home. Many were long-term migrants. Like many Mexicans today, they went home when they had made enough money and came back to the U.S. when they needed to make more.

Jews also began to arrive in significant numbers in the 1860s, first from Germany and then later from Eastern Europe, including Russia, fleeing anti-Semitism and deadly pogroms (government-sponsored attacks on Jewish towns). Between 1880 and 1924, a third of Eastern Europe’s Jews left for the U.S., with most settling in overcrowded tenement neighborhoods like New York’s Lower East Side.

As usual, the barn door was slammed only after the horse was long gone:

In the 1920s, Congress imposed quotas that sharply reduced the number of immigrants allowed in, and gave preference to Northern Europeans in an attempt to re-create the ethnic profile of 19th-century America.

Perhaps the greatest victory of the Irish, however, was in the 1960s with the election of John F. Kennedy, the first president of humble Irish origins as opposed to Scots-Irish or English aristocracy living in Ireland, who embarked upon a liberalization program that culminated after his death in the Hart-Celler Act which reversed the previous trend toward favoring Northern/Western European immigration.

This shows us a direct line between Irish immigration and the increasing liberalization of America. This makes sense because diversity causes an expansion in Leftism, mainly because minority groups must either accept that their origins were less fortunate, or blame the new majority and scapegoat them for the problems of the minority group. The latter is infinitely more popular.

Already balkanization is occurring, where individual groups retreat to small enclaves for their own ethnic and religious cohort, and like diversity, it starts within the white race as WASPs secede from the mixed-European herd as well as the mixed-race mass.

The lesson we can learn from all of this is that white diversity is as fatal as inter-racial diversity (sometimes also called multiculturalism, cosmopolitanism, internationalism or the “melting pot,” an extension of the “magic dirt” notion that we can make people into “Americans” through laws, economics and propaganda) and that as diversity fails, so will white nationalism as different European groups go their own way and separate from the others.

Recommended Reading