Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘miscegenation’

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.

On That Irish Heritage (Semitic / Asiatic) Issue

Tuesday, June 13th, 2017

The Irish may be the West’s original experience of diversity and the inevitable ethnic replacement that occurs following it. This is why Anglos distrusted them and viewed them, along with Spanish and Italians, as not white. From recent analysis of Irish heritage:

Migrant communities did not compete with the original Irish. They became the Irish.

The ancestors of the Stone Age farmers began their journey in the Bible lands, where agriculture first began, and arrived in Ireland perhaps via the southern Mediterranean. They brought with them cattle, cereals, ceramics and a tendency to black hair and brown eyes.

These settlers were followed by people, initially from the Pontic steppe of southern Russia, who knew how to mine for copper and work with gold, and who carried the genetic variant for a blood disorder called haemochromatosis, a hereditary genetic condition so common in Ireland that it is sometimes called Celtic disease.

The middle eastern wave, which explains the middle eastern appearance of many Irish, came in through Southern Spain and wandered until it found a place where it could go no further, where it mixed with Neolithic remnants and later, the Eastern European wave.

This influence is separate from and in addition to the Black Irish:

So when or how would Sub-Saharan African (SSA) genes have arrived on our island? What other historical events may have contributed?

Well we all know about the reputation that the people of the west of Ireland have for being darker skinned, the so-called “Black Irish”. This may be due to the influence of the Spanish (people from the south of Spain have a higher percentage of SSA markers) who were active traders along the coasts of Ireland. Some five thousand Spanish soldiers made up the Spanish Armada which was wrecked across the Irish Western Seaboard in 1588.

Although the British reported that the majority of these soldiers were rounded up and executed, there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that more of these soldiers survived that was originally thought and these soldiers could have contributed to the introduction of SSA markers into the Irish population.

Irish people who hail from the west of Ireland generally have some percentage of SSA markers in their profile.

The Irish are in other words a very ancient European population which has been mostly replaced by foreign groups, which makes sense because as an Island, Ireland experienced little population change except when major historical events disrupted it, as we can see through a brief ethno-history of Ireland:

After the Ice Age glaciers retreated from Northern Europe more than 9,000 years ago, hunter- gatherers spread north into what is now Great Britain and Ireland, during the Middle Stone Age. Some 3,000 years later, during the New Stone Age, the first farming communities appeared in Ireland. The Bronze Age began 4,500 years ago and brought with it new skills linked to metalworking and pottery. During the late Bronze Age, Iron was discovered in mainland Europe and a new cultural phenomenon began to evolve.

Around 500 B.C., the Bronze Age gave way to an early Iron Age culture that spread across all of Western Europe, including the British Isles. These new people originated in central Europe, near what is Austria today. They were divided into many different tribes, but were collectively known as the Celts.

…The Roman presence largely wiped out most traces of Celtic culture in England—even replacing the language. Since the Romans never occupied Ireland or Scotland in any real sense, they are among the few places where Celtic languages have survived to this day.

From a few years before the most recent analysis, Gene Expression gave us a plot showing the relationship between English, Irish and Nordic-Germanic populations:

Most likely, what this shows from a small sample size is the infusion of Irish and Scottish blood into England, along with Southern Europeans, rather than to reject the idea that the tall, blonde-haired and blue-eyed English were not of Anglo-Saxon origin. That fits with our new knowledge that the Irish cluster more with Southern Europeans, Mediterraneans and Semites than Northern or Central Europeans:

Yet the bones discovered behind McCuaig’s tell a different story of Irish origins, and it does not include the Celts.

“The DNA evidence based on those bones completely upends the traditional view,” said Barry Cunliffe, an emeritus professor of archaeology at Oxford who has written books on the origins of the people of Ireland.

DNA research indicates that the three skeletons found behind McCuaig’s are the ancestors of the modern Irish and they predate the Celts and their purported arrival by 1,000 years or more. The genetic roots of today’s Irish, in other words, existed in Ireland before the Celts arrived.

“The most striking feature” of the bones, according to the research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, is how much their DNA resembles that of contemporary Irish, Welsh and Scots.

This shows us a tendency of diversity: it changes what is present, and then elements from closer to the equator gradually absorb anything else that comes their way, leaving behind a population closer to that of the middle east than original European elements. Those middle eastern elements are significant for one major reason: they reveal Asiatic admixture, much like that in Eastern Europe.

We can see the results of this today in DNA tests taken by the Irish:

Consequences Of Trace Admixture In “Reality Leigh Winner”

Tuesday, June 6th, 2017

At this site, we warn frequently of trace admixture, or mixing between white groups. While Western Europeans have low admixture, most people in Eastern and Southern/Irish Europe have some Asian and Mediterranean admixture.

Although these foreign influences are in “traces,” or amounts of one quarter or less, they are still there, and these groups have since that admixture evolved for different climates and social structures. Mixing them produces people who lose the original European traits and end up as round-faced people of no particular talents.

As mentioned around here before, genetics takes the form of clusters of genes producing traits and clusters of traits producing abilities more than single genes we can swap out and produce supermen. People are refined as profiles comprised of related genes, and mixing groups — whether races, ethnicities or ethnicities within a race — erases these delicate profiles.

Wherever white people mix across Western, Southern and Eastern European lines, we see the same result: round faces, low moral character, slightly above average intelligence without wisdom, and no particular cultural leaning, therefore, natural Leftists who are fanatical about it in lieu of having healthy normal lives.

Reality Leigh Winner, the most recent NSA contractor to leak information, was caught because a newspaper refused to protect its source. While one wonders who the heck is doing the vetting at the NSA these days, the bigger point is that this toxic employee was perfectly fine with her job under Obama, but freaked out when Trump was elected.

This means she is a committed Leftist, which makes sense when you look at her. There is the round face, the chunk nose and absence of any particular form or beauty. A century ago, she would have looked odd to the inhabitants of any Western European nation, and they would have identified her as foreign. She is foreign, but only through trace admixture.

When the white race is exterminated, it will not be through blatant race-mixing but through a replacement of the original groups with “whitish” people who have none of the traits of the original group, the Western Europeans, who founded Europe and then expanded into South and East where they mixed with local populations after the failure of their empires there.

Most people can accept that mixing races is destructive, but awareness is now rising that mixing within the white group will also exterminate the white genetic strain, and at that point, further outbreeding is inevitable.

Another Diversity Fairytale Collapses As Mary Kay Letourneau Divorces Vili Fualaau

Thursday, June 1st, 2017

It was an absurd diversity fairytale: the white middle class school teacher abandoned her family including four children to marry the minority student with whom she was having an illicit affair. But now, like all actions built on illusions, it has finally come to a fittingly neurotic end:

Mr Fualaau filed for separation early this month without stating the reason for his decision, it has emerged.

In the petition, he writes that neither he nor his wife own any property or have debts, US media report.

Mr Fualaau, who has two children with his wife, also states that they are no longer dependent, asking for a fair division of the couple’s joint assets.

Once the original fascination evaporated, the union collapsed. Maybe they had less in common than they thought, after all. Or maybe only people who hate their origins mix races. Perhaps compounding this is the fact that teachers who choose to have sexual relations with underage students are not the most stable group in the first place.

Either way, this is a symbol fallen. During the 1980s and 1990s, the media delighted in subjecting us to constant stories about people having mixed-race relationships. As it turns out, being similar to your spouse works best for having long-term relationships, so all of those affairs based on the exotic and different are slowly collapsing inward.

Deciphering The Egyptian DNA Puzzle

Thursday, June 1st, 2017

It is great when science confirms traditional wisdom. The net buzzes with discussion of a genetic study of ancient Egyptian mummies, following up on the the knowledge that parallel human evolution occurred in Europe (see contrarianism). But most have missed the point.

From the abstract:

The researchers discovered that ancient Egyptians closely resembled ancient and modern Near Eastern populations, especially those in the Levant, and had almost no DNA from sub-Saharan Africa. What’s more, the genetics of the mummies remained remarkably consistent even as different powers—including Nubians, Greeks, and Romans—conquered the empire.

Here we have an exercise in “hide the ball.” What is not being mentioned?

  1. Ancient Egyptians resembled modern Levantines. But who do modern Egyptians resemble?
  2. The mummies remained consistent despite occupations, but what about Egyptians as a whole?

We are — cleverly, so very cleverly — ducking the question of population change in Egypt. As a child, you too may have wondered why the Egyptians once built great monuments but now seem barely able to build a two-story house, and are known mainly for hopeless invasions of Israel and cuisine. What happened?

Luckily, National Geographic is willing to tell us something about modern Egyptian heritage:

This reference population is based on native Egyptians. As ancient populations first migrated from Africa, they passed first through northeast Africa to southwest Asia. The Northern Africa and Arabian components in Egypt are representative of that ancient migratory route, as well as later migrations from the Fertile Crescent back into Africa with the spread of agriculture over the past 10,000 years, and migrations in the seventh century with the spread of Islam from the Arabian Peninsula. The East African component likely reflects localized movement up the navigable Nile River, while the Southern Europe and Asia Minor components reflect the geographic and historical role of Egypt as a historical player in the economic and cultural growth across the Mediterranean region.

Modern Egyptians are 68% North African, 17% Arab, 4% Jewish, and 3% each from Asia Minor, East Africa and Southern Europe. In other words, while the mummies remained consistent, the population has not, which may explain why modern Egyptians do not do the things the ancient ones did.

Each population has a genetic profile based on centuries of adaptation, and these genes convey abilities and inclinations known as traits. By themselves, traits are rarely complete in the form we think of them, but when a profile is complete, different traits complement each other and produce the abilities, preferences and intuitive knowledge that we see in each population. Just as there is no single gene for intelligence, it takes many genes — like a net — to produce the effects we recognize as distinct to a population. When the genetic profile is disturbed by admixture, even trace admixture, then those abilities are lost.

In Egypt, we see a warning. Traditional wisdom was that as Egypt rose in power and wealth, people came from all over to be part of this civilization, and gradually replaced the original Egyptians with a group whose genetic net was disrupted and so lacked the abilities of the original. Originally it was thought that gradual absorption of Nubians shattered the Egyptian bloodline.

It turns out that the picture is more complex and delivers a more dire warning for us. The question is not what you mix with, but that you mix at all. Even trace admixed groups like Southern and Eastern Europeans, when mixed into another European group, can erase its genetic net and replace it with generic people lacking the original abilities.

They Admit It: “American Prosperity Depends On A Non-White Future”

Thursday, May 25th, 2017

Listen. Listen quietly. Wait patiently. If you take enough time, your enemies will tell you exactly what they think. Give them the space and they will eventually justify themselves to you, and then you can see the plan in full.

One of the leading business publications in the world, Bloomberg News offers us the clearest statement of white genocide ever offered in the media:

If the U.S. economy is going to prosper, it needs to keep taking in immigrants. Fertility is below replacement levels, and no country has discovered a way to raise native birthrates. That means that immigration is necessary for the survival of the Social Security system and the solvency of pension funds.

It is so blatant that you might have missed it: immigration is needed to pay for the pensions for Baby Boomers, and it is necessary because we are not having as many babies as occurred in that boom. Our largest and most Leftist generation ever is fading out, and in the ruins of a society ravaged by their political ideals, there is not enough wealth to keep them in a state of comfortable retirement.

They even tell you in the next few lines:

Immigrants will allow small cities to grow and expand their tax bases, instead of shriveling into ghost towns. Immigrants support the housing market and the stock market. They take care of elderly Americans and provide invaluable skills for U.S. corporations. Without continued robust immigration, the U.S. population will shrink and gray, and the country will start having the same problems as aging societies like Japan, South Korea, and East Europe.

They are promising yesterday its retirement funds by sacrificing today. As usual, drugged by the dogma of egalitarianism, business and voters assume that all people are the same, so they can move in a bunch of third world people and have America keep operating just as it has. They are relying on their laws, economic theories, Constitution, and police power.

We know this is true because Europe is doing the same thing:

Western governments are broke because of their social programs and yet cannot reduce them because the voters will panic and rage.

The demographic squeeze could be eased by the influx of more than a million migrants in the past year. If many of them eventually join the working population, the result could be increased tax revenue to keep the pension model afloat. Before migrants are even given the right to work, however, they require housing, food, education and medical treatment. Their arrival will have effects on public finances that officials have only started to assess.

There are many problems with the immigration plan. First, it stimulates overpopulation by creating an escape valve from the already-overburdened third world, which in turn causes people to breed more because the cause of that overpopulation is a Tragedy of the Commons style need to have a large enough family to subsidize each person in old age, so when that family leaves, they make more of them. Second, it destroys Western civilization entirely by ethnically replacing its one unique component, namely its people and their genetics. Third, it assumes that people from third world countries will produce at the level needed, when if they could have done that, they would have back at home where living is cheaper.

Now you see the Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg News telling you what the rest of the mainstream media will not: the great rush toward diversity has always been about ensuring an easy retirement for people raised on the socialist programs of the 1930s.

They were told back in the day that these programs could not sustain themselves; they paid out more than they took in, and investing the money only made it unpredictable as to how much would be there in the future. And so, our society slipped itself on the needle of stealing from everyone to give to a subset of the group. We are addicted to funding our retirees.

Socialism always kills societies this way. When you give out free things, people shape their lives around a negative incentive to save and be responsible. For them, it is easy; all they have to do is keep going to work for thirty five or forty years and then they retire with a pension or generous social security. It is a paradise for workers, much like Soviet Communism promised to be.

But like all our great human failings, this one starts with a simple pitfall. People who are working for the system, instead of working to achieve results, are not effective or efficient. They phone it in and do the minimum they must do in order to avoid criticism from others. In turn, the quality of output falls, and so does the value of the economy.

This rushes us into a death cycle. Millions work long hours at jobs doing tasks that ultimately are not necessary, just so their bosses can get promoted for being effective at the ineffective. They are taxed mercilessly and that money is dumped on the underclass, which spends it on consumer products. This puts money into fast motion, and causes the economy to switch to demand-based economics.

Right now, we are being erased as a people so that a generation can get the benefits it voted for after being promised them by people who knew the scheme would never work. What do they care, they got their retirement benefits already, and all of them are hoping to be very dead by the time the bubble pops.

Look at what else they are celebrating:

But even more encouraging are the numbers on interracial marriage. Marriage is proof that diversity isn’t just creating tensions between new and unfamiliar neighbors, but positive and lasting social bonds. A new report by the Pew Research Center provides some amazing numbers. Half a century after laws against interracial marriage were struck down by the courts, the share of new marriages that are interracial has risen from 3 percent to 17 percent. For black Americans, the rise in intermarriage has been particularly strong.

With unique races gone, you will have nothing but your job, government ideology and consumer shopping. This will create the perfect citizens: a grey race of people without culture, values, heritage, customs or religion. The perfect raw material to be shaped by the machine of government and media.

Amazingly, your leaders think this is a good idea. To them, the voters are dupes — here they are correct: even smart people in groups vote like morons through compromise, the lottery mentality and gaming the system — who will approve ridiculous schemes. A politician realizes that either he offers free stuff, or the next guy will, and that guy will take the election. So they all lie.

We know this means the end of the chance for the West, shattered by two world wars, to rebirth itself. With the loss of its people, so goes the possibility of their civilization. And all of this to pay for votes, bought with social welfare entitlements programs we could not afford, so that people would feel comfortable in an obviously declining, unstable society!

The U.S. is becoming more integrated at the regional, neighborhood and household level. Americans say they like diversity, and they are voting with both their feet and their ring fingers. The future of the U.S. as a successful multiracial nation isn’t assured, but it’s looking more and more likely. And that should be good news for the U.S. economy, since it means growth won’t create noxious social divisions.

Listen again. They tell you their fears: they fear noxious social divisions, meaning that they know diversity will not work. This is why they are rushing toward intermarriage, because if you destroy all of the races, then you have no social divisions. In other words, the same reason why they wanted class warfare; they want to eliminate all conflict through pacifism, and make us all obedient sheep.

The only way out of this mess is to stand up against diversity and its parent theory, egalitarianism. You cannot say that all people are equal and not invite the world to come live among you. But a group composed of every race has no race, and a country for everyone is a country for no one. Oh well, at least the Me Generation will have comfortable retirements as civilization dies out around them.

Recommended Reading