A silence fell over the West today: the silence of not noticing a great event which has been building for some time. Like the fall of the Soviet Union, it has grown first in darkness, then in offhand casual remarks, and finally as a strong will expressed through uncompromising language. And now, a wall has fallen and for the first time, we can see the world beyond the managed environment which is the politically correct West.
In Aurora, Colorado, the unthinkable occurred — an anti-white hate crime was accepted as such from the initial investigation:
Police in Aurora are investigating a sexual assault that may have been a racially-motivated crime.
…Early Friday morning, two African-American men sexually assaulted the woman outside the shopping center. Police say the victim, who is white, didn’t know the attackers. During the assault, the men yelled racial slurs at the woman before fleeing the scene.
Aurora police would not comment on whether the case is being classified as a bias-related attack.
The wall has fallen, and those who were presumed to be the enemy are recognized as human again. Much as the world wanted to punish the Germans for WWII and then, in 1989, realized that the Berlin Wall was a great injustice, and then realized in 2016 that however wrong his methods were that Hitler was right about the incompatibility of different ethnic groups, and the suicidal insanity of even microscopic amounts of Leftism, we now realize that white people are human, too, and have a right to self-interest.
Even more than that, we are seeing a recognition that equality has failed. To implement equality, one must raise the lower or demote the higher; since the lower would have risen if they could have, this means in reality that equality always indicates a need to penalize the more successful to subsidize the less successful.
This anti-moral, anti-Darwnian approach is universally popular because people, especially smarter ones, view themselves as failures and see a need to be protected against the judgment by results that is the nature of reality. People want human intent, a cross between solipsism and social approval, to regulate who is acceptable, instead of results, because often results turn out badly, frequently by chance alone. Our fear leads to an addictive and compulsive illusion through the notion of “equality,” which means “equal inclusion” in reality, or forced social acceptance.
With the backlash against egalitarianism, which is such a mentally addictive concept that it becomes an all-consuming Moby-Dick or Lord of The Rings style obsession, the West is reversing the past centuries of decline. Egalitarianism is the root of ideology, or the notion that what humans intend is more important than what has worked in reality in the past; as egalitarianism falls, it will be replaced by realism, or the study of reality.
A day after Chicago police said they were questioning four people about a “sickening” video showing the torture of a mentally disabled teen, a second video has surfaced showing the suspects forcing the young man to drink out of a toilet.
Police have said the 18-year-old victimized in the videos is a northwest suburban resident with special needs who had been reported missing.
…Several people can be seen laughing and eating during the attack, in addition to making disparaging remarks about President-elect Donald Trump and using racially charged language. At one point, while the victim is backed into a corner, someone is heard shouting “F*** Donald Trump. F*** white people.”
The fascinating with Donald Trump was also seen in another attack in Chicago two months before in which a white motorist was hit by a black driver, and when he asked for insurance information, was attacked by people shouting anti-Trump and anti-white slogans.
Our media has carefully obscured this point: for minorities, the Donald Trump election is a clear victory for white people. White people, who are still mostly acting under the assumption that we can make diversity work somehow, have not yet figured this out, and so to them it seems more of a political disagreement than a racial one.
The kidnapping in Chicago put an end to all of this. It became clear that “Trump” and “white” were synonymous in the minds of the attackers, who clearly resented this re-assertion of white identity and self-interest, mainly because they perceived that it meant an end to America viewing itself as a custodial arrangement for minorities to be financed by whites. Ethnic self-interest is a zero-sum game.
What made this case interesting was that at first, the police refused to consider it a hate crime. Some in the Lügenpresse then tried to spin it as a hate crime, but against the mentally disabled, not white people. This was made difficult by the words of the perpetrators, as reported by a traditionally Left-leaning segment of the media:
His captors yelled “F*** Donald Trump, nigga! F**** white people, boy!”
This meant that it was hard to obscure the fact that this was a crime of racial resentment, motivated by a desire to act against whites/Trump. As the earlier Chicago attack showed, to African-Americans, the two are often equated. This means that screaming “F*** Trump” at a white person is roughly the same as howling “F*** MLK!” at a black person.
Outrage in response came from more corners than expected, in greater strength, and instead of hiding this on the back pages of media like the Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian in Knoxville, TN that happened a decade prior, this time the police and attorneys were motivated to consider this case a hate crime, mainly because legally it fit the profile:
Goff said that the casting of racism as an evil worthy of condemnation made all the ways white people expressed their bigotry taboo. Those taboos are, in part, what people are referring to when they rail against political correctness. And while those new constraints certainly didn’t end racism, they suppressed behaviors that created space for people of color to live more fully in America.
…In calling the kidnapping and assault racism, we’re staking claim to moral language — and uniquely powerful moral language — to which white people can’t easily lay claim, even in cases like the one in Chicago, which seems to qualify for the most vehement reproach available.
… One way to argue that the evil of racism is not uniquely wedded to whiteness is to argue that it is a moral failing that lives equally in blackness.
In other words, hate crimes laws were intended to protect blacks from whites, so using them in the other direction upsets the social assumptions under which they were created. And yet, if racism against one group is wrong, racism against another is also wrong, no matter who the perpetrators were. In other words, whites no longer perceive themselves as the group in power responsible for all racial wrongs; diversity means that any group can be racist.
The shocking lying media should have seen this one coming because the warning signs were evident a year earlier when it was revealed that most whites thought that unjust treatment of blacks was mostly resolved, but racism against whites was rising:
A new poll shows a large number of Americans believe discrimination against whites has become as much of a problem as against blacks and other minorities.
According to the poll released Wednesday by Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), 43 percent of Americans think discrimination is just as big a problem for White people.
“Half (50%) of white Americans agree that discrimination against whites has become as big a problem today as discrimination against blacks and other minorities, while fewer than three in ten Hispanic (29%) and black Americans (25%) agree,” reads the report.
In addition, white people thought that the many laws and billions of dollars designed to ensure equitable treatment for blacks were working, and as a result, few of them believed that blacks faced unfair treatment in the workplace and law:
64% of black adults say blacks are treated less fairly than whites in the workplace, compared with 22% of whites who say the same – a 42-percentage-point gap. Blacks are also considerably more likely than whites – by margins of at least 20 points – to say that blacks are treated less fairly than whites in dealing with the police, in the courts, when applying for a loan or mortgage, in stores and restaurants and when voting in elections.
In the white mind, racism was over: it was no longer acceptable to publicly express or act out racist ideas by white people, as enforced by white people. If any gaps in outcome remained, that was the fault of something else, which meant that the success of non-whites was no longer contingent upon what white people did. “We fixed our problems, and the rest is up to you,” white America was saying.
This meant that when the tables turned, and we had a highly visible case of non-white racial sadism, white people were ready to call it a hate crime — even if the media, who leans heavily Left, was not. But in this case, public opinion beat back the controlled and lying press, and race relations were redefined as different ethnic groups in competition, rather than evil whites hurting angelic others.
Members of the Congressional Black Caucus and other Democrats this week re-introduced legislation that would set up a commission to consider whether reparations should be paid to black Americans for slavery.
Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., has proposed the bill in each Congress for at least the last two decades.
…Conyers’ new bill wasn’t released as of Wednesday, but the version of the bill proposed last year found that 4 million blacks were enslaved in the U.S. from 1619 to 1865. It said the commission would examine the entire history of slavery, and then make recommendations on whether the U.S. government should apologize for slavery, and whether reparation payments are warranted.
This represents an opportunity for Nationalists: we know that the mixed-ethnic “nation-state” or “proposition nation” does not work because every ethnic group has its own self-interest, and these clash. Specifically, each group needs identity and rules made to fit its behavioral standards, as a means of having pride in itself and control over its future.
Woodrow Wilson recognized this a century ago in response to European wars brought about by the post-Napoleonic order of nation-states:
In World War I the Allies accepted self-determination as a peace aim. In his Fourteen Points—the essential terms for peace—U.S. president Woodrow Wilson listed self-determination as an important objective for the postwar world; the result was the fragmentation of the old Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires and Russia’s former Baltic territories into a number of new states.
…First, a state is said to have the right of self-determination in the sense of having the right to choose freely its political, economic, social, and cultural systems. Second, the right to self-determination is defined as the right of a people to constitute itself in a state or otherwise freely determine the form of its association with an existing state.
He was not the only one. Marcus Garvey, writing in defense of his people, noted that mixed-race societies were a Leftist goal that would ill serve the African population:
The danger of Communism to the Negro, in countries where he forms the minority of the population, is seen in the selfish and vicious attempts of that party or group to use the Negro’s vote and physical numbers in helping to smash and over-throw, by revolution, a system as injurious to them as the white underdogs. the success of which would put their majority group or race still in power, not only as communists but as whitemen. To me there is no difference between two roses looking alike, and smelling alike even if some one calls them by different names. Fundamentally what racial difference os there between a white Communist, Republican or Democrat?
In other words, the nation-state will never give any ethnic group what it needs, which is ethnic self-determination, and will be used by Leftist forces to advance an agenda of the world market in service to Leftism. From this it logically follows that the only solution is ethnic self-determination for all ethnic groups:
This simply does not apply in Europe. The answer to “Who is French” is “I’m from here. I am a Gaul.” That is the end of the conversation. No immmigrant, no matter how long they have been there can make such a claim. A Gaul can say to be French is to be, x,y and z and that’s it. The Frenchman has every right to determine for himself what Frenchness IS and is not. And they can change that definition at will. Nobody else has the right to tell the French what French culture is. Equally the French cannot tell the Yoruba what Yoruba culture is and WHO is a Yoruba. Catch my point? …
Self determination is the right of all people. That includes Europeans.
A lot of people did not like that I stood up for the self determination of Europeans. But this is about consistency. I simply cannot honestly call for self-determination of the African while saying that the European has no such right.
This puts us in an interesting position. We know that diversity cannot work because it pits ethnic groups against one another over the question of self-determination. We know that globalism, which has always been a Leftist goal, wants one world shopping mall where all the workers are united in support of Leftist strong power. We know that ethnic tension is rising and nothing has stopped it, including electing a black president, which seems to have poured fuel on the fire.
As a result, it makes sense to consider reparations on the condition of repatriation. This way, diversity problems end. Since we know that WASP America needs ethnic self-determination, too, and that WASPs — the ethnic group that forms and perpetuates Western Civilization — can coexist together, it makes sense to repatriate all non-WASPs to their homelands, and in the spirit of fairness, give them reparations for their suffering under diversity.
Repatriation would provide to the developing countries of the world a steady influx of wealth, knowledge and people experienced in the Western method of civilization. This would give many struggling nations a chance to reach their full potential. In addition, it would end the cycle where the founding population of this country pays obscene amounts in welfare and diversity programs and gets race riots for its trouble.
Problems do not just go away. If our methods of solving them are not working, doing more of the same will also not work. We know our current path leads to doom, so it is time to pick another, even if at first it seems like we are doling out money to the other side. With repatriation, this money constitutes an investment in our future, and in those of African-descended peoples everywhere.
One of the bedrock principles of conservatism is localism, or having a solution as close to and specific to the situation as possible. This contrasts the ideal of those I will call City People, who want one rule to apply to everything, so that they can argue from this rule about what “ought” to be instead of what is. In the city, one succeeds by forcing others to do your bidding; in the country, more realism is required.
The City People are always the same: not producers so much as those who are taking advantage of opportunities, they thrive when a task is narrowly defined through rules and laws, but would not survive a night in the open forest. Thus they are ruled by both a desire for opportunism, and a pervasive fear. This drives them to demand more laws, more standardization, and more government power wherever they go.
The ultimate goal of the City People is to produce something like East Germany: a place where everyone is guaranteed employment, so all are safe from crime, and the government takes care of everything, but individuals can succeed by operating within those narrow definitions of laws, rules and ideology. They will deny this if you tell it to them, but then they end up there.
Consider modern hellish environments like New York City. To live there, one must have either a fair amount of money or choose housing in a ghetto. Social services are abundant but mediocre. Jobs are easily acquired by jumping through the right hoops, and there are few consequences for getting it wrong unless one is foolish enough to take a risk, which every candidate for a job knows is a bad idea. Go with the flow. Keep the opportunistic gravy train flowing and beat back the endless problems caused by this approach with more laws.
In another twenty years, New York will resemble East Berlin. The government will have expanded radically through the votes of the urban poor, who never met a benefits program they did not like… the rich will be taxed to absurdity, and will respond by moving away or moving their income away. This will leave government squeezing the middle class, as has happened under Obama to the USA as a whole, and this will put the city in a death spiral: tax less wealth more to fund an ever-growing parasite pool.
The same thing destroyed Communism. The Soviets created what they saw as an ideal state, but it had a fatal flaw: it was unproductive because it squeezed its most productive people the most, encouraging them to drop out and do the minimum. In the meantime, it kept promoting people who made careers out of not taking risks and saying the right thing to make the audience happy. This made it incompetent, arrogant and unresponsive.
Rome went out the same way. In an effort to maintain power, its leaders employed mercenaries and imported labor. This group then became their biggest supporter and also, a parasite pool because it was funded with money extracted from ordinary Romans. At some point, those stopped trying, and the system hit the pavement.
In the American South, people recognized that the City People are like drunken children. They are so concerned with what they want being forced on other people that they have no time to consider what its actual effects will be. They live in a world where if you can con the waiter into giving you a free appetizer, or snow your boss with praise and then suggest something that worked at another company, you win. To them, the question is not “what will happen” but “what do other people think of this.” It is all appearance.
The South suggested two types of localism: first, that rule in the South should occur in its individual communities, and second, that the virtual locality of people who were not infected with the City People disease should be able to escape that mentality by creating an entirely different society nearby. In other words, rules from New York were no good in Alabama, and City People ethics were not either, because in Alabama they were trying to get away from that corrupt and infectious mentality.
Of course, that could not be allowed by the City People. Competition of this sort would make the city lifestyle look as disgusting as it is. So the City People found a victimhood-equality narrative involving slavery to pick a fight with the South; we know it was not from caring for African-Americans because the City People were perfectly content for those to live in ghettos and company towns in virtual slavery. It was a desire to crush the people who escaped the city.
Brexit shows a similar desire for localism: the people of the UK do not want to follow the opportunistic but sheeplike bureaucrats of the EU into a multicultural East Germany (from which Angela Merkel originated). They cannot articulate what they actually want, which is natural because very few people are good at getting to the core of any issue, but they know they do not want the vision of hell that has become apparent.
And in the UK and Europe, the City People — who we might identify as Crowdists — have been gnashing their teeth and rending their clothes. They want the easy opportunism back where if you call someone a racist, they give you money and power. Those days are ending and with it, the only relevance the City People have is fading. They produce nothing and take no risks. They are the bureaucratic calcification which destroys human societies, and when exposed by the light of actual competition on the basis of real-world results, they fail every time.
How dare white people act in self-interest, in a world where every other group does so? How dare the UK refuse its wealth and power to the bigger group, which wants nothing more than to expand itself at the expense of others? Indeed, in this egalitarian age, refusing a parasite its imagined due payment is seen as a crime!
And yet, the South rises again. People want to step off the train to East Germany with BMWs that the EU represents. They can finally visualize that this is the destination of the train. In the US, people are seeing that the 0bama train leads to a national Detroit or Baltimore. We want off too. Let us rule ourselves, and let us break away from the rest of humanity and its failures, because they are parasitic and will destroy us.
The South did not want war and white people do not want a race war. But this is what they are going to get. It always ends this way, when societies go down the path of egalitarianism as Rome and Greece did before us. We were warned, but too arrogant to listen. Now, we are listening, and ready for the final battle.
There is no binary for intelligence, although there are different plateaus which operate in a method similar to a binary when a specific task is considered. At 120 IQ points, there is a threshold which determines the ability of people to understand complex political issues, and another exists at 125 IQ points.
But to see these issues clearly also depends on having a certain spirit that is capable of leadership. This is a warlike spirit, a gut instinct of what is right and the knowledge that without being forced to do otherwise, people drift back into the usual narcissistic oblivion and produce degenerative stupidity where they could have a truly great civilization.
People with this spirit tend to, when put in power, beat back the foolishness and leave everyone else alone. This terrifies your average person, who wants to face no consequences for his own bad behavior. If given the choice, he will select anti-leaders: people who herd together the group and make sure they all get along, at the high but long-term cost of ignoring the need for united action to constantly improve society, or it will be absorbed by stagnation and begin to crumble.
We are now seeing the full face of the crumbling in the West. With birth rates in free-fall, people miserable in jobs and broken marriages, the average person neurotic like a cat on meth, enemies both inside and outside our borders, record-breaking national debts and industries that are paper tigers, our elites — politicians, media, academia and other enfranchised “successful” people — are fiddling while Rome burns (or at least, the tinder is ready and soaked in kerosene).
Yesterday the big social media companies agreed to take on the public role of censors, and they were cheered for it by our elites because they need distractions. Look at this masterpiece of deflection:
Beyond national laws that criminalize hate speech, there is a need to ensure such activity by Internet users is “expeditiously reviewed by online intermediaries and social media platforms, upon receipt of a valid notification, in an appropriate time-frame,” the companies and the European Commission said in a joint statement on Tuesday.
The code of conduct arrives as Europe comes to terms with the bloody attacks in Paris and Brussels by Islamic State, which has used the Web and social media to spread its message of hate against its enemies.
…Twitter’s head of public policy for Europe, Karen White, [said] in the statement. “However, there is a clear distinction between freedom of expression and conduct that incites violence and hate.”
“Hate speech” means, roughly, anti-egalitarian speech. It is a way of saying that none can claim the Emperor has no new clothes on at all, because then the herd would panic, and goal Number One is keeping the herd together at all costs. Even if that means we sacrifice our long-term future such that we are undergoing downfall like Rome and Athens did. Especially that.
The hype over ISIS possibly recruiting through social media is a red herring. These rules will actually be used to formalize the policy that Facebook, Twitter and Reddit have demonstrated of removing or suppressing non-Leftist speech. In other words, they are now controlled mouthpieces of the power structure just as much as Pravda or the Pyongyang Times. In fact, they are better mouthpieces.
The new model of censorship is here: saturate users in propaganda, then remove anything they post which does not confirm that propaganda, creating an echo chamber where it seems like there is only one safe opinion — with token variations to express your individualism, of course — and any substantively different view is considered to be hate speech or some other synonym for anti-narrative ideas.
This has effectively created information contraband and opened up a market for people who want not just free speech, but true and accurate speech, since much like citizens in the former Soviet Union, anyone with a working brain knows that if they see it on a big site, it is controlled propaganda. The alt-right might be the most famous information contraband network at this time.
But let us look into the near future, which by the inertia of time, is already part of the present:
Our leaders are committed to “fiddling while Rome burns,” or more accurately, inducing you to fiddle. That means that it is time for the Gladiators and a solid dose of panem et circenses to keep the voters infantilized, oblivious, stupefied and self-focused. The individualism of people is both a means of neutralizing them, and the reason that these leaders are in power in the first place; it grew like a disease among us, and then as it took over gave itself more justifications and power, so now it holds sway.
The elite have become sandbagged. They are hunkered down, having circled the wagons, and are in desperation mode trying to hang on to power. Since fixing the actual problems would invalidate the conditions on which they were elected, they will not do that, but instead will enforce in increasing degrees the necessity of agreeing with the Narrative to get anywhere in life. If you disagree, you will not have jobs, housing, friends or mates. You will be ostracized as an icky person that no one wants to get close to lest those ideological cooties rub off.
Globalism is not commerce itself, but the shared political system of Leftist liberal democracy which now controls the world. As a result, all nations are adopting the same laws, attitudes, products and other utilities for influencing their citizens. This means that the idea of “nations,” as in proposition nations united internally by ideology, is dead. Only ideology remains.
With the counter-revolution, other groups are setting up their own ideological global orders which operate within the Leftist world-nation. The Trump revolution is part of this: Leftists act like a hybrid between an organized gang, a cult and a union or guild. They beat up anyone who upsets their members. Now right-wing people and white people wants a tribe of this type for themselves. It will be open war on the streets.
The good thing about this is that when multiple gangs are powerful, the Leftist grip on media and government will collapse. Like the gay mafia, Jewish nepotism, the old Anglo-Saxon order and other special interest groups, Leftists specialized in promoting their own and excluding everyone else. No more: now multiple groups will be doing that, and by competing, they will keep the Leftists in check. They will probably also start taking their share of the excess wealth of the dying West.
This means that well-funded, highly organized tribes based on some inherent identity — race, culture, sexual preference, political and religious leanings — will each be protecting their members from other groups. To keep the peace, there will at first be mutual tolerance as each group tries to minimize external warfare in order to bulk itself up so that it can be the biggest and win. Ultimately this one will be decided by biology: the average middle-class person in America, whose tribe will be the Trump tribe or whatever follows it, still has a chance at a balanced, sane life and normal family. When the generations change over, those are the ones who will be left standing.
Progs (originally for “progressives” but some suspect, a la Robotron 2084, it stands for people reprogrammed into being fast-moving robot zombies) will at first fight a rearguard action — much like conservatives have for the past two centuries — to hold on to their dominance of the single-narrative society. But that idea has been dead for some time. Instead, people will go entirely into their own realities. They will work in different offices, socialize with different people, live in different communities, watch and read different things, including on the internet, and have entirely different lifestyles. It used to be that civil rights laws allowed any group to do this except whites, but now, every group will demand that right, and it will increasingly radicalize them.
A white liberal and a white conservative will not recognize each other on the street. Their attire, speech, vocabulary, behavior and activities will have entirely diverged. If a member of one tribe beats up on another, and it was not warranted (e.g. a personal matter), the gang will descend but now it will be total warfare in the way liberals already practice. People will be hounded out of jobs and homes, beaten up or killed on the street, and face punitive hacking and bullying. These groups will segregate quickly to avoid the risk of accidentally triggering a war. Territory will become more important than property value; what makes the property valuable is that it is in with your tribe.
The liberal college campus where when someone is “triggered” a great witch-hunt is launched shows us the beginnings of this trend. In the future, these groups will not attend the same colleges, but everyone will behave like SJWs, but as if those SJWs were Crips who read Machiavelli. “You disagree with me so you must be silenced” is the new “racism”: of course they disagree, and that is why they separate; they hate each other and the very existence of the other group is offensive. The degree of radicalization that is shortly coming will seem unreal to us, but it’s straight out of West Side Story: if you let the sun set on you in another group’s territory, you will wind up dead and no one will have seen anything or be willing to testify. Cameras and police cars will malfunction. It will be open war to hold territory, which means excluding everyone else.
Peter Thiel suing Gawker under the guise of Hulk Hogan is another foreshadowing event. Each group is going to assert itself like a violent revolutionary group that also knows how to manipulate the economy, politics and the legal system. It is one thing if Gawker reports on its own tribe, which we assume is a Left-tribe or gay-tribe, knowing that the more inherent outlook (sexual preference) will trump the lesser (political orientation), but if Gawker starts beating up on members of another tribe… all-out war. We have had bomb-throwing Communists and Anarchists, but now it will be tribal war for information space, too. Report on another tribe and your car may explode, and again, no one will have seen anything. Your plane might get forced down in a hostile community, and you will be removed at gunpoint and fed to the pigs.
This is the dawn of a new Dark Age. All aspects of each tribe will be fully radicalized. On the white Right, it will be total patriarchy, extreme nationalism, vigilant social hierarchy and strong values/philosophy — including religion, but even stronger than that bond — which will be enforced by all members, with those who drive off or kill off the Other gaining strong acclaim and the protection of their community. They are going to be looking at your 23andme results for hidden Asian, African or Middle Eastern ancestors; they will lock your doors from the outside and burn down your house if you are caught reading The New York Times. On the white Left, it will be much the same: public executions with a single 7.65mm bullet to the back of the head for even looking longingly at a copy of Bleak House or The Sun Also Rises.
Leftism seeks to militarize citizens. It has now done so. The tribes are diverging. The idea of America fighting a war as a unified force is comedic at this point. If war breaks out, the tribes will be shooting at each other on the battlefield, and open warfare will break out back at home as each group vies for dominance. Every citizen is a soldier for his own tribe and the only rule is to act in pure, unbridled, aggressive self-interest. If an Other drives through your town, and gets robbed and his body is never found, no one will care — they expect the same treatment in Other communities.
Right now, our faux elites have lost control of the narrative. This is not uncommon; in fact, it is the normal outcome of Leftist revolt. The French Revolutionaries started killing each other, kicked off the first truly world-war with Napoleon, and the Russians morphed into the antithesis of what they desired. Paradoxical belief systems like Leftism always go this way because their instability requires greater extremes of power to administer, which causes internal murderfests and totalitarian regime status. The Left-elites of the West are just trying to hold the lid on now:
Like many opinion leaders he’s noticed just now there are no brakes. “They” — the Ivy League, the Republican party, Bill Nye, the churches even — have lost the ability to impose consequences or respect the natural order of things. For years we’ve talked it down and until finally we’ve pulled the brake pedal from the floor and chucked it out the window. “A lioness hath whelped in the streets” has become no more remarkable than CGI dinosaurs in Jurassic Park. “And graves have yawn’d, and yielded up their dead” is just an episode in The Walking Dead. That “the heavens themselves blaze forth the death of princes” is undoubtedly true. Too bad that he died last April in his Minnesota home.
They are hoping to do this with censorship, hate crime laws, media control and hiding any events which do not fit the narrative. Cops are already refusing to acknowledge that most crimes have been committed, up through assaults, because they do not want to end up in the political crosshairs when Black Lives Matter protests in their towns. Wait until other ethnic groups get in on that action too. The only crime that is safe to report is white kids stealing gum, and soon even that will be taboo for anyone but members of a white tribe. The more government hides, the less useful it is, which is why people will soon rely on local tribal warlords instead of anyone in Washington or their state capital.
Leftists were warned many times that their ideas were illusory. Crazed with power, they persisted in their folly because they wanted to eliminate the idea that any single standard could organize a society, like culture or an ethnic majority. This has backfired on them because as diversity fails from its internal paradox, it has made group identity more important, so that there can never be another single standard, least of all liberalism, which became what it hated by imitating its methods without the inner guiding purpose that made them legitimate. Now only warfare remains.
The term American Nativist refers to those native to America, the nation that was carved out from a mostly-unpopulated land — partially inhabited by dangerous and unpredictable Siberian-descended Indians — and was a political movement that opposed immigration from groups other than the Western European tribes who had settled the land: English, German, Scots, Dutch, Scandinavian and some Northern French.
Their vision was shared by the Founding Fathers, who saw America as a chance to break away from the rotted power structures of Europe, which had been usurped in the previous centuries but after the Mongol attacks by revolts of peasants and mercantile groups who hired their own mercenaries. With the Magna Carta, it became clear that commercial interests — hand-in-hand with popular revolt, as usual — had taken over local leadership and would use the king much like a democratic leader, as a shield for their activities.
Under the original concept, America was little more than a place with as little government as possible. The idea was that by selecting people who were all of roughly the same stock, namely Western European middle and upper classes, and letting them manage themselves through culture and religion, Americans could escape the corrupted power that now reigned in Europe. The country was designed to run itself, not be run by government.
As part of the first round of patches to the Constitution, the Founding Fathers added the Bill of Rights — and the 1790 Naturalization Act:
This article of legislation allowed an individual to apply for citizenship if they were a free white person, being of good character, and living in the United States for two years. Upon receiving the courts approval they took an oath of allegiance which was recorded. The individual’s citizenship was also extended to any children under the age of 21, regardless of their birthplace. If the applicant had never been a U.S. resident the application was disregarded.
At that point in time, “white” was understood to mean “Western European.” This was a cultural definition and not a legal one. It excluded two other groups, Southern Europeans (including the Irish) and Eastern Europeans, because those groups were racially-mixed and came from societies with lesser standards than those in Western Europe. The English found Italy and Spain to be wild and unprincipled, and described Eastern Europe the same way people talk about Mexico today.
There was immediate pushback to “expand the franchise.” Americans realized that as Europe crashed downward after the French Revolution, they had a property they could sell, which was inclusion in the American experience. A citizen here could make money by importing cheap labor, which would come for the higher standard of living, and using those to make cheap products. These people saw Southern and Eastern Europeans as business sees Mexicans today: a chance to profit and get out of the game.
The mercantile drive toward inclusivity was not the product of a shadowy cabal of “merchants,” but the mercantile instinct which arises in all of us and is always corrupt; “making money” usually means exploiting resources, including people, and cutting corners in order to pocket the cash. The aristocrats had old money, made by earning a position in a society; the gentlemen farmers of the South saw their money-making as resulting from bringing benefit to the community that sprung up around a plantation much as it had around the European manorial estates.
Naturally, these people — being canny salesmen — did not state their motives (causes) but talked in terms of benefits (effects). They cloaked their gambits in altruism, and claimed that they were rescuing poor Christian souls from horrible lives under cruel leaders, forgetting that genetics is destiny and each person from a broken state carries it with them. As Spengler and others have observed, government is a response to its people; a chaotic and unruly third-world style population creates those cruel taskmasters as the only way to maintain order and productivity.
Formed from those who were cynical about this whole process, and about “progress” — which back then meant cutting down all the trees and putting up more and more settlements — itself, the American Nativist movement had several births and rebirths and lives with us today anytime someone says, “You know, this country ran better under the WASP — a code word for ‘Western European’ — Establishment.” Their point was that America and Americans did not need growth, even if commercial interests in the cities wanted it.
Eventually they got shouted down, using ancestors of familiar terms. They were called bigots, ignorant and cruel-hearted, and so most of them backed down. The commercial interests swarmed in and imported tons of people, starting with the Irish who were quite controversial at the time. The Irish had higher rates of crime, drunkenness and domestic violence, as one might expect from people from a society closer on the spectrum toward the third world.
The new group could vote, and they hated the Nativist remnant. So much so that they picked a fight with them over slavery, and went to war with the gentlemen farmers of the South, who viewed slavery as a positive thing for African-Americans as it guaranteed employment and protected them from their own third world tendencies; this seems unkind to say, but being realistic is always kinder because it tends to produce better results, where fantasy creates misery.
In this way, the Civil War was the first American Race War: all European immigrants against those who were upholding the Western European core. This was only seventy years past the French Revolution, the same time-distance between now and the end of the Second World War. After the insurrection was put down, the new group held power. The WASP establishment hung on only in name and by virtue of pleasing these new citizens, which is why the East Coast WASP Establishment collapsed within fairly quickly, so that by the 1920s it had become mostly decadent, effete and impotent.
The First World War was built on the same model as the American Civil War: democracy accepts everyone, and not all people support democracy, so we will wage this war until everyone in Europe uses the same system. The anti-Nativists seized on this because democracy, or the political system of equality, was the force that compelled others to include them in American society or even German society. The First World War continued the tradition started by the Napoleonic Wars of attempting to “unify” Europe to make it powerful, all done under democracy so it could be “stable.”
This is why young men marched off to battle being told they were fighting the War to End All Wars, and yet had so much despair in their hearts they threw their lives away. On a subconscious level, which they could not articulate, they knew this was another vainglorious quest to find a System that could manage man, and that it would end in their eradication. It did: it opened the borders within Europe further and started obliterating the Native populations in Germany and France much as it was doing in the USA.
After that war, America doubled down on the ethnic experiment. It opened the gates to Eastern and Southern Europeans, including Spanish, Greeks, Italians, Russians — especially as they fled their own disastrous revolution, Jews, Gypsies, Poles and more Irish. This further adulterated the power of the Natives, which made the mercantile overlords quite happy. Before that time, these groups had existed only as trace elements, so that one in ten thousand people might belong to one of these groups.
When the Second World War — a continuation of the unfinished business of the First — began, the governments of European states were essentially held hostage by the anti-Natives. Democracy defended anti-Nativism; to not defend democracy, then, was to call into question the unchallenged legitimacy of this new mixed-European status. As a result, the Americans maneuvered themselves into war and then won it by flooding Europe with people, much as the Russians did. The anti-Nativist reverse race riot had begun and ended in mixed-blood American and Russian troops raping their way across Europe. In the model of democracy itself, this was a victory for the reversal of Darwinism.
The wars since that time have been ideological, because ideology drops a veil of confusion over the actual issue, which is civilization decline through demographics at the hands of the mercantile elites and their supporters among the masses. Most of these have been well-intended but poorly fought because democracy can only fight wars when it styles itself as a victim, which is to say pretends to be a victim but avoids actual victimization, so the first pictures of napalmed children or American boys facing one million well-fed Red Chinese tends to blow the story. The first does it because it removes our victim status and makes us a victimizer; the second, because it shows we might actually become victims.
This is the rot into which our time falls. It turns out the American Nativists were right, and all of the people calling them racists were just self-interested parasites. The same is true today. If you want to make your nation healthy, make it homogeneous by (1) telling others they must leave and (2) giving them financial incentive to do so:
Our civilization has been in decline for some time. The Middle Ages were a response to Greek and Roman decline, using the religion of Christianity to achieve unity of purpose. When those collapsed, under Mongol attacks and the resulting peasant and mercantile revolts, we were thrust into a degenerate time which peaked with the French Revolution, and since then has spent its time trying to make The System work. Maybe with just a few more patches… and yet, it always fails.
We need to get out of The System mentality. We do not need a system; we need a healthy demographic, very little government, and a values system including something above the material, whether that is simply ideals or metaphysical in nature. This will require some hard choices, like at Taranto, but this is the only way we will survive. From lofty perches of historical accuracy, the American Nativists cheer us on.
Anyone remember the Mariel boatlift? Cuba, having gone Communist, hated the USA. The USA, being saps who are ruled by cynical lawyers instead of people with thinking capacity, decided to allow in any Cuban who managed to touch US soil. That oft-derided “feet wet” policy prompted many Cubans, who wanted to flee the life-sucking void that Communism creates, to hop into rafts made of junk and traverse the 90 miles to Florida.
The scheming Reds in Cuba retaliated with a policy of their own: they dumped their prisons, mental hospitals and pedophile wards onto boats and sent them to the USA. This allowed them to both remove an expensive social program, and revenge themselves upon the Great Satan by shipping it human refuse. (And yes, if you wept over the “tards are not useful” article, you’ll cry over this one, so log off now).
A few years later Mexico began doing the same thing, except to enable its race war both on its own people and on the USA. Americans tend to think of “Mexican” as a race, but it is not; it is a nation-state, or “political,” identity. People in Mexico are either purely Spanish-descended (criollo), mixed of Spanish blood and Amerind heritage (mestizo), of pure Amerind origin (indio) or a hybrid of Spanish, Indian and African (pardo). Saying someone is “Mexican” is as descriptive as saying “He lives in Los Angeles.”
How did this come about? The Spanish conquest of Mexico was not strictly a conquest. It was actually class warfare: a few hundred Spaniards came to the new world, and became the touchstone for class revolts against the Maya and Aztec empires. These empires had vast populations of serfs of low intelligence and initiative, and those populations had prospered under the regimes while the leaders, now bored of playing babysitter to a herd, had declined. With Spanish weapons and indio slave masses, the elites were overthrown.
The result is that you do not find any of the Aztec or Maya higher castes extant anymore. They were killed during the revolt, or raped, murdered and driven out afterwards just like whites in South Africa. Instead, Mexico is populated by the descendants of those slave people, the Spanish who came as colonists, and the African slaves imported for its industry. There is also a smattering of Chinese blood from laborers, and traces of exiled Moors and Jews from Europe.
What this translates into is another dysfunctional diversity situation which explains why Mexico is in perpetual third-world status. The Spanish-descended control most higher functions, with the mostly-Spanish mixed making up a middle class, and then there is a vast population of impoverished, low intelligence, illiterate peasant indios. Every time an election comes along, they can be counted on to vote Communist like virtually every other third-world group.
Naturally this causes tension in Mexico’s middle and upper classes. Life would be better for them without these indios, or at least with fewer of them. And then they saw the Mariel boatlift, and it dawned on them: send the indios to America. The dumb saps will accept them if they so much as put a finger on American dirt because America’s bon-bon eating leftist useful idiots want people who will vote Communist every time.
Mexico had the perfect cover. None of its public institutions function anyway, and when they do, it is while shot through with corruption like a syphilitic corpse. The ruling groups made it be known that a good life existed in America, and then informally yanked out a few support structures. When Mexicans started pouring over the border, and the Mexican authorities shrugged and went on siesta, no one was exactly surprised that a Mexican institution failed to act.
This was a different form of immigration. For centuries, Central American Amerinds have been trying to get north. Their first opposition was from North American Amerinds, who correctly intuited that to allow in the horde was to be ethnically cleansed and replaced. The second was from the people who built America, the Western European settlers, who saw the same thing and drove off the Mexicans in a series of wars, only to have Mexicans return as raiders under Pancho Villa, a Communist at heart who saw his people would support him in a life of rape, murder and theft from people smarter than himself.
The new Mexican immigration takes on a different form: Mexico is like all countries heading into or staying in third-world status, bottom-heavy. It has too many lower intelligence (which correlates with low initiative, a.k.a. siesta and cerveza living) people and they have shifted its Bell Curve to the left. The elites in Mexico, especially after disastrous Communist guerrillas and electoral victories in the 1980s, needed to get rid of some of their underlings. Corrupt low-caste American industrialists wanted cheap labor. A match made in heaven!
Not really. For Mexico, the result has been some prosperity but the realization that while a Spanish-only Mexico might work, even a middle class of slightly mixed blood has produced different results than a Spanish middle class. In addition, families are divided and Mexicans in the USA feel a need to connect with the culture that has been stripped away from them by a border. They are right to do so, because although their language is Spanish, their habits and lifestyle are straight out of the Mayan years. They need an identity of their own and the ability to determine their own future.
In America, the problem is that we have now taken on Mexico’s third-world status by importing people of that genetic background. There are two essential concepts here that most Americans, especially upper class and female voters, do not understand:
Nature beats nurture every time. People are what they are because their genes program them to be so. What you enjoy, your speech patterns, your handwriting and even favorite foods are genetically-determined. This offends our Christian, egalitarian view that each of us is the master of his own fate. We are actually complex chemical reactions which have some faculty of choice but usually follow our impulses and desires, which are genetically determined. As the Texas saying goes, “Poor people have poor ways,” and so do more successful people. It isn’t white privilege that 110 average IQ people with discipline toward an ideal built a functional society, and the 80-90 average IQ third world built mud huts and burned witches. Importing third worlders here means that, no matter how much you “Christianize” them (or the modern equivalent, education and entertainment), they will keep doing what they are programmed to do. And your country will become third-world.
Your skin is your uniform because all people act in self-interest. Liberals think that they can “explain away” ideas and then have them disappear because their liberal friends no longer mention them. The rest of the world realizes that identity is important. Every group on this earth who is Other, or not-Us, wants to invade and take over, stealing our stuff and impregnating our women. This is the way of the world and Darwinism. Identity provides groups with control over their destiny. With identity, a group can not only exclude others but have its own direction, values and culture, which is how it governs itself, since government always erodes to third-world levels as Americans are discovering. Mexican indios are acting in self-interest: the Americans are too stupid to oppose them, so they can invade — peacefully at first — and then take over through superior numbers.
Americans do not understand this because our own diversity problems predate Mexicans. First there were the North American Amerinds, with whom we coexisted until they began raping, killing and stealing. At that point, we were forced to defeat them, but then our diseases genocided them, and we keep the remnant drunk on government gin on reservations. Next there were our African slaves who we bought on the open market and kept in better conditions than those in China, Arabia, South America and Central America, but then left hanging around in a perpetual third-world state because with their identity destroyed, they could never control their destiny and thus were left dependent on their former slavemasters.
Finally there is the issue that few will talk about, which is “white” diversity. As our cities grew, we began subsidizing lots of lower-intelligence people with safer living, constant food and easy jobs. These demanded luxuries in turn and, using the suicidal function of the vote, elected to import “near-whites” from the areas of Europe that were mixed with other races. The part-North African Irish, the part-Asiatic Italians, the Turkic Greeks, the part-Arab and Asiatic Jews and Eastern Europeans, and part-Moorish Spanish became residents here as well. There is nothing wrong with those populations by themselves, but much as nature trumps nurture in third world status, it also explains the differences between Western Europe and its Eastern, Southern and Mediterranean counterparts.
With the rise of “white” diversity, America became colorblind because Paddy O’Malley, Chaim Abraham and Antonio Milano got upset when people mentioned differences. Government, always eager to play the profitable fool, got on the totalitarian bandwagon by demanding we all treat each other as equals and be forced to associate with each other, starting even before the Civil War. Since the Western European (called “Anglo” for short) organic power structure resisted, government attempted to destroy them, first with a Civil War and later with regulations and affirmative action. This is the hidden race war in America, between “whites.” The counter-culture was part of it and finally won in the 1990s, deposing the Anglo and replacing them with the great mixed-race republic, a.k.a. Mexico-in-Waiting.
Mexico, having gone through that experience already, was looking for a way out of its third-world disaster status and sending the indios and pardos north seemed like a good idea. This is the hidden race war within Mexico, between Mexicans, but it has the same root as the American struggle: the first-world populations are trying to escape the third-world ones. In Mexico at least, the struggle is honest, where in the USA it is buried under layers of lies from democratic politicians trying to buy votes from idiots, the largest and growing group in America. The election of President Camacho was confirmation of the counter-culture victory of the 1990s.
In the meantime, Western Europeans everywhere are ceasing to breed because they realize that this war of first-world via third-world cannot be won under democracy. When the founding myth of your society is that everyone is equal, you can never turn away the Other, and then they come in, rape your women, outbreed and out-vote you and take over, promptly making the same third-world disaster in your nation that they claim they wanted to escape. Nature beats nurture, every time.
Democracy makes life feel like sitting in a movie theater: we, the audience, see others on stage and must then raise a thumb or lower it as if we were Roman imperators at the the gladiator stage. One of the actors, our media, simplifies and streamlines news into a series of simple categories, portrayed as caricatures. Among their favorites, the “racist” — especially on the internet — plays best.
But who are these internet racists? For the most part, like marginalized minority groups, they are muted in the mainstream media. We hear about them, and see that their comments have been deleted from blogs and newspapers, but few people ask them why they do what they do and why. To rectify this, I headed over to the notorious/infamous Reddit hive of racism /r/CoonTown and asked the moderators (or “mods”) there for a few words, which they were generous to oblige.
Did you have an “awakening”? Was it solely to race, or to other factors like environmental collapse, economic collapse, social collapse or leadership failure?
Suspook: Hi, we go back a long time from IRC [#anus].
When you say “awakening” I feel like that implies that someone that was once an SJW had their eyes suddenly [finally] open to how the world really works + the advantages of actually judging people in the real world. I suppose I always knew as a kid growing up in a major American city + seeing it for myself.
George_l_rockwell: I never had any huge awakening, I got to where I am now politically in a very gradual process. I used to be a left winger when I was younger, but even back then I was much more of a socially traditional left winger and I was against immigration and “black culture” at the time.
EugeneNix: Not sure if it really could be called an “awakening,” but I noticed during my teenage years the blacks acted far different than other races, and were usually the most irritating/annoying/criminal. Over time one pays attention and reads sources that our liberal overlords don’t want us to look at.
Of course, there are other issues facing us today, but that’s the most applicable one for CoonTown.
Baba_OReilly: No fork-in-the road “awakening” for me. Negroes have always turned me off. As time goes by, my distaste grows.
I understand /r/CoonTown emerged from the ruins of /r/Niggers. How were you able to keep and apparently double your audience since that time?
Suspook: The key is having your core userbase know exactly where to go once the shit hits the fan, almost like a fire drill. /r/niggers went down so they went to rniggers.com…when that was sabotaged /r/GreatApes was formed. Once the lead mod revealed his SJW leanings, EugeneNix + myself really led people to GreatApeNiggy’s new CoonTown through the use of redirects + other tactics. We have core guys like JewishNeoCon who made about 60 umbrella subs within one “Chimpire” + all the while we maintain a very active IRC channel that people know they can all come to whenever something happens so we can regroup very quickly. Reddit’s search feature can make finding us very easy also…/r/fatpeoplehate2 got about 5000 new members in a few hours before it was also banned.
George_l_rockwell: It’s been all about making sure that we obeyed the Reddit site rules. /r/niggers broke too many rules, and we had to make sure that we would give the admins no reason to ban us.
EugeneNix: Sharp presentation, savvy moderators, and competent advertising. All we have to do is have our enemies shout loudly about us, and more people come to see what the ruckus is about.
Baba_OReilly: The key to CTs popularity is that it’s “enlightened entertainment.” The facts and statistics are hugely important, but people aren’t going to hang around long without a little “Razz-a-ma-Tazz” to make them chuckle. Let’s face it, Reddit is diversion, nothing more. If the plug was pulled on the whole thing tonight, the Grand Scheme wouldn’t even notice.
What are your feelings on black people? What are your feelings on other minority groups? What about the idea of a mixed-race society, a.k.a. diversity or multiculturalism, at all? Can it ever work?
Suspook: Diversity is disharmony. Racism is just a cause of a larger problem [read: diversity]. Diversity even transcends race at times as you can have different gangs culture clash over colors + have African Americans be seen as problematic when they decide to move to African countries [Example: Ghana]. Diversity can also run amok among religions, not just race. A muslim population in a former all non-muslim neighborhood can put pressure on delis + even fast food [check how many Taco Bell’s are completely Halal in UK now] to become strictly Halal. Muslims also will not do business in non-muslim banks + fracture the economic system there as a lot of them will just keep their money in their own homeland muslim banks. It says a lot also that leftist culture will cater to these people that they should be against [muslims + feminists/gays coexisting?…african rape statistics in foreign countries..] then again these are the same types of people who use self-hatred as a means to an end.
George_l_rockwell: I really don’t mind minorities as long as they are away from me. It’s when we all interact together in which I see the obvious flaws of multiracial societies. I have found that some minorities typically tend to be easier to interact with compared to others.
EugeneNix: I think blacks are more likely to be criminal and have lower IQs, statistically speaking. I think racial differences do exist, but blacks are the most markedly different. I think some temporary forms of “diversity” can work if it is a mostly homogeneous entity and the members not of the majority seek to assimilate themselves.
DylannStormRoof: I won’t say it can’t work. I will say that I’m tired of being on ground zero for this multiculturalism experiment. If blacks grouped up and killed each other off except for the top ~3% smartest, maybe they’d have a high IQ enough to “act white” (nigger expression for the standards of decorum whites have set) and live among us as civilians. In an ideal world, they’d be deported back to Africa except for the outlier blacks who have a high enough IQ and and are existing contributors to society, have never committed a violent crime and possess a job. Also interracial breeding would be outlawed to reduce further degeneration of the races.
Baba_OReilly: My only bone to pick is with the toxic, dysfunctional plague called the Negro race. I have no problem with any other group of people. Multiculturalism is a crock. “Different” and “good” are not synonyms.
Are you associated with any racialist groups or ideas, like White Supremacy, White Nationalism, National Socialism (Nazism) or Nationalism?
Suspook: I was only very loosely associated with the National Vanguard for a year in 2004.
EugeneNix: No, I find most of that laughable, but I’m a sympathizer of the American Renaissance faction of white nationalism. The others, the HAIL HITLER 1488 RACE WAR NOW types are fucking annoying and childish.
I think nationalism has some good ideas in it. I think it needs not be taken uber-seriously to the point where weirdness comes out of it.
Baba_OReilly: Nope. I don’t care about flags, Nazis, Hitler, KKK, jews, Stormfront, none of it. The problem is niggers and their white enablers.
George_l_rockwell: Center, to center right. Funnily enough, I’ve been banned from /r/conservative.
Baba_OReilly: I’m a William F. Buckley Conservative. I’ll leave it to you to find my absorption line on the spectrum.
Why do this on Reddit? Isn’t Reddit… uhm… rather liberal, for this sort of thing? How many of your members do you think are liberal?
Suspook: We get liberals daily claiming how they cannot take it anymore + tell their stories about finally being honest with themselves/see the narrative of equality shatter before their eyes. We engage anyone to debate/argue/etc against us + we don’t ban people for much. I think it’s telling that you don’t see people actively engage us at all in a hugely leftist place, but rather you see people use throwaway accounts to support us + tell us their own personal stories due to the fact they are worried they might be attacked by their own for being traitors of some kind.
George_l_rockwell: Reddit has one of the largest userbases on the entire Internet. It would be stupid to not expose our ideas to as many people as possible. Sites like Stormfront simply fail to do that.
EugeneNix: Because it is utterly hilarious to see some effeminate, over-educated privileged white kid salivate out at us over his Starbucks wifi connection, him living in a 99% white area just furiously freaking out at the fact we exist.
I think we have a few liberal members. I believe JediMasterMaceDindu considers himself a liberal, but he’d have to say.
Baba_OReilly: I am frankly very surprised at the number of liberals on CT. I can only attribute it to their age.
In your ideal world, what would be done about your native land and its African population? Would you deport them? Reparations? Repatriation? Exile? Genocide? Or just strict racial roles and “day of the rope” for miscegenators?
Suspook: I think the world itself has a huge overpopulation problem. Compare populations of countries like Ethiopia + Nigeria to Germany in 2050. It’s alarming to say the least. Now, scientists say, the Earth is on the brink of a sixth such “mass extinction event” + it is directly being caused by humans. College degrees are already completely watered down to how many are given out when college should only be studied by the elite not the common idiot. Sterilizing felons + having a global attitude of more kids = more waste should be promoted. I think Bill Gates is totally out of line fighting diseases like malaria. One should view such diseases as natural defenses that the Earth has had for millennia just to control overpopulation/wasting natural resources/preventing the extinction of other fauna/flora in the area. I think Nationalism has its pros + cons too as it can secure borders tighter, but countries could see themselves get into population arms races. I personally feel the less people the better it is for Earth in general.
George_l_rockwell: In my ideal world, black Americans would face the option of being sent to Africa, OR mandatory sterilization and segregation.
EugeneNix: Deport the criminal blacks for sure. Promote abortion. Promote non-blacks (preferably mostly white) to have children. Implement eugenic programs for everyone.
I don’t think miscegenation is all that bad if it’s not happening on Brazil levels, and the offspring identity with the majoritarian population. Clearly how to have a mostly homogenous USA and Europe seems to be a huge problem now, as the marxists are playing racial genocide against whites.
I think whites should remain a majority population, especially in their own ethnic homelands. It’d be crazy to implement whites only laws, but when an ethnicity is displaced by hostile foreigners, it is alarming.
Baba_OReilly: My ideal world would be that every Negro (if there were any at all) would live in Africa. Second best: utterly complete segregation.
Why do you think Reddit has not banned you yet? Do you think /r/CoonTown serves as a kind of “mascot” for Reddit’s claim of having semi-free speech, to the point where it allows them to say, “See, we’re a free society, after all we allow /r/CoonTown!”
Suspook: We are probably the best moderated subreddit on the website just because we all realize we have a huge target on us. We obey the site rules 100%. I’m only guessing on their standpoints why they don’t want to ban us, but it could be they don’t want even more negative press/negative free speech angles directed at them or they do not want 15,000 users running loose over the rest of their website. They might see CoonTown as basically a confined prison…like yeah we got all the racists on the site + we all know where they are + they only post in this one place instead of peppering comments thru their other subreddits.
George_l_rockwell: I think the admins view us as a containment subreddit. They know that if we were to be banned, literally thousands of racists would start posting their opinions on default subreddits, which would be disastrous for their public image.
EugeneNix: Your guess is as good as mine. Could be what you said, could be the feds have asked them to not ban us to “monitor” us to justify budgeting.
Baba_OReilly: CoonTown is still here because we don’t break the rules. r/fatpeoplehate did.
Why do you think white people are afraid to discuss race? Do you think this is changing? How does /r/CoonTown contribute to this situation?
Suspook: Online leftists get off to Doxxing/Calling your work to out people for it. Being taught the equality myth in school certainly doesn’t help. Honestly, I think it’s so easy for other people to scream racist/bigot/how dare you + just react emotionally to someone who can’t just respond with statistics or facts off the top of their head to actually say WHY they feel the way they do on the fly. You just don’t see responses like “13% of the population, 52% of the homicide offenders. Goodbye.”
Suspook: Technology pacifies white people more than anything too. You’ll never see them actively give a fuck about what is truly happening to America as long as they have an internet connection/phone works/check email/Netflix is up. A metaphor I use often is that it’s parallels the destruction of Rome. One Roman asks another, “Did you hear how far the Barbarians came this morning?”..The Roman replies, “Yeah, it’s looking really bad..we still on tonight for the orgy?”…”Of course!” says the first Roman. Newer + newer technology creates shorter + shorter attention spans for people that they will only care about immediate pleasure. Emotion trumps logic now especially for the Millennial generation.
When white people are accused of being a racist, even though the chances of this happening in real life are very slim, you should at least practice/rehearse exactly what you would do if suddenly confronted by journalists/media in real life so you don’t make a mistake or say something that could ruin your life/etc.
If someone gets right up to your face with a camera it can be a little intimidating, especially if you’re a naturally nonverbal type of a person. I advise everyone of you to do an exercise where you think what you would say beforehand if ever confronted to avoid becoming a deer in the headlights. Even though it’s unlikely, preparing yourself for how you would act in such a situation is key.
The best thing you could probably do is not to speak to them at all because they are gonna edit/cut the film the way so they come off looking the best.
If you DO decide to talk just use short, coherent sentences, + don’t use defensive body language. Don’t cross your arms, they WANT you on the defensive + are out to intimidate you so what you have to do is just adopt a serious look, keep your eyes straight forward [don’t look down] + intimidate them right back.
Body language is extremely important when dealing with these types. Putting your hand behind your head can work because it’s gives you an aura of control. Crossing your arms is no good because you come off as feeling intimidated or afraid.
I urge every middle class white male/female to take the short amount of time just to think about what you’d do in a confrontational situation about your views in a real life situation. Don’t be defensive about it + say what you have to say. Be prudent, but be aggressive, almost walking a line.
Either you’re gonna talk or you’re not gonna talk + 90% of the time not saying a thing is best. But, if some news reporter just ambushes you on the street trying to intimidate you, just respond by telling him something like “if you want to talk to me about my political views..make an appointment + we’ll discuss them at a more suitable setting…how would you like it if I came down to the TV station you work + ask you why you’re such an asshole liberal or why do you believe blacks + whites can get along in the complete absence of evidence?”
Every white activist should just be mentally prepared + ready no matter how little the chance is of some impromptu interview + just be ready for it + have something important to say if you say anything. Don’t ever backpedal + come off as a man not someone who is running away or weak.
You must condescend to the media + it’s actually not hard to do + it’s pretty fun. If a man is gonna come up to you + call you a “hater” or a “racist” or something then he clearly has no respect for you, so do not show any respect to him. You don’t treat people how you want to be treated, you treat people based on their behavior towards you.
EugeneNix: People are afraid to discuss race because they might have black friends they like and don’t want to hurt feelings. Mostly, however, is the indoctrination that begins in preschool, even from a young age kids are indoctrinated to be good leftists It will continue on for the rest of their life.
DylannStormRoof: Because Americans have been brainwashed, starting from the year they entered public schooling. Improving the population’s reasoning skills will be to our benefit, statistics and scientific evidence are on our side. CoonTown offers a no-holds-bar forum for racial discussion involving niggers, no matter how offensive. I could say something completely true in one of the subreddits where debate commonly takes place (such as /r/changemyview or /r/news), but I’d had to chip away at the truth of my post to make it less-offensive and less-inflammatory, where it’s no longer the truth but a politically correct bastardization, lest I be permanently exiled from participating in future discussions and my post be censored.
Baba_OReilly: Bingo! I hope CT loosens people up to the idea that you can criticize niggers as much as white people are criticized. I see CT as a tiny little catalyst for people to see the truth. That the Negro race is anathema to civilization everywhere they go.
What is “cuck” and why do people say that many mainstream white figures are cuck?
Suspook: Cuckolds are a very small minority of inadequate social lepers void of logic. There is clearly an agenda if the media is championing an individual that simply mutilated his genitals by referring Cucklyn Jenner as “her/she” while outraged that a white female had the audacity to try to pass as black. Shouldn’t actual females take offense that Cucklyn is getting called a female when he never had to deal with menstrual cycles/pressure of being a woman/etc? You can look at ESPN also for covering a 17 week sport [American Football..mostly blacks] all year round while giving minimal attention to professional hockey [mostly European + white] even while playoffs were on basketball would take priority when it comes to coverage. Bella and The Bulldogs [kid’s show] on Nick was created by someone who actually made a movie called The Cuckold and another about an interracial family. I think it’s more of a social perversion than anything because I really don’t know anyone who legitimately buys into it in real life. I could see pronouns being banned as hate speech in 20 years though.
George_l_rockwell: Traditionally, a cuck is someone who allows his significant other to fornicate with another man right in front of his very eyes. Many mainstream white figures know about non white crime and how it negatively affects normal white people, and their refusal to speak out about this is comparable to a cuck who gets off to watching his girlfriend have sex with other men.
EugeneNix: Cuck is a good term for people who bend over to the left’s narrative, especially ones who are supposed to be detractors of the left.
Baba_OReilly: Cuck is short for cuckold. A cuckold is a man who will pay someone else to watch him fuck his wife. The analogy is spot on.
What is the content on /r/CoonTown like? Do you remove material that does not fit within this model?
Suspook: Headlines/news stories about up to date daily black crime, former SJWs posting stories about their own awakenings, discussions about politics, pictures of statistics, amusing images peppered in from time. I have only banned users that make death threats against blacks simply because we as a subreddit risk being banned if we allow such posts. Cucks will also post interracial porn from time to time also that I’ll delete. If someone wishes to engage us we allow it, if someone says they are black no problem. We have whites here, asians, hispanics, italians, english, irish, jews, + blacks themselves that are all regulars.
George_l_rockwell: Usually pictures and news stories of blacks, with occasional videos as well. Many of the videos are often uploaded by black people themselves.
EugeneNix: Ranges from hysterical dissent, to agent provocateurs, “I just hate black culture,” race-realists who have a racist sense of humor, to tattooed skinhead-types giving the roman salute to a picture of the Führer on their wall.
We mostly remove topics that have nothing to do with blacks, black crime, or SJW cuckoldry. Anything that follows the rules within topic comment sections is fair game.
Baba_OReilly: The content on CT ranges from funny cartoons to the absolute worst demonstrations of nigger depravity that even Satan couldn’t imagine. Take your pick!
What are you guys like in real life? If I met you on the street, would I think, “There goes a normal guy/gal,” or would I be having associations with basements, neckbeards, cumboxes and fedoras?
Suspook: I cannot speak for everyone as I have not met them in real life, but I’m normal. I travel often + enjoy drinking at bars. I’ve met many like-minded people from the internet online + it was easy going most of the time + not awkward.
George_l_rockwell: I imagine coontown is pretty diverse. I’m sure we have our basement dwellers, autists, and fedoras, but most people on this subreddit are likely just average looking people who you’d see on the street. You definitely would not tell that I was a moderator of Coontown if you passed me on the street.
EugeneNix: Normal dude, though I wouldn’t open the shoe box I’m holding.
Baba_OReilly: In real life, I am a college educated, 64 year old retired business owner (Audi repair shop). Married with a daughter on the Dean’s list in college. Clean shaven with a full head of brownish (still) hair. I live in a 15 year old, one and a half story house in an all white section of town. I drive a 16 year old Audi (in perfect shape) and my hobby is my two late sixties muscle cars.
Your forum sidebar says, “Race realism, pragmatism, and a sense of agency: the foundation of a proper society that lacks the negro plague. We are The Lion.” What is The Lion? Is this related to Nietzsche’s concept of the blonde beast? Why mention only the African-Americans, and not Hispanics, Asians and other minorities?
Suspook: I didn’t put that up, you’d have to ask whomever put that up I suppose.
George_l_rockwell: The Lion is really up to interpretation.
EugeneNix: I have no idea, I saw that video and saw some happy “white people smiling” volkisch shit and immediately X’d out of it.
It’s easier to focus on one thing and do it well. I think this way works best because it doesn’t become a WN-only circle jerk.
Baba_OReilly: I’m curious as to the notion that if I hate Negroes, that I must also hate other peoples and minorities. Listen closely to me here… I don’t hate the Vietnamese and they were trying to kill me.
Why do you think multiculturalism/diversity is so popular? What do people gain from it? How is it relevant to their lives?
Suspook: This is an excellent questions just because how it’s so promoted in the media + other European countries right now. Maybe it’s just such self hatred that everyone being the same is the only means to an end they can foresee? What possible gains are there other than a warped personal emotional satisfaction that you think you’re doing good? Certainly isn’t healthy for the environment/crime/self identity/pride. I really do not know why, but I know there is $$ in hustling it. Look how much $ Sharpton has pimping out race. Soros gave millions to the organizers of the Ferguson protests if I remember right also. I think it could be because whites become so vilified if they ever speak up against diversity/multiculturalism that they just don’t risk it. White flight cannot last forever, the earth is only so big, but hopefully it doesn’t get to that point.
George_l_rockwell: The vast majority of people in this world are what we call “lemmings”. They mindlessly go about their days, and they let their televisions do their thinking for them. Allowing for mass media and democracy was a ridiculous mistake, as it allows for those who control the mass media to shape the opinions of the vast majority of people. Most people tend to support diversity because they’ve been brainwashed all their lives to believe it. If the media told them that blacks were inferior, they would believe that blacks are inferior.
EugeneNix: The (cultural) marxists of the 50’s used incrementalism to change the political zeitgeist, and mass media pushes a narrative. Most mainstream conservatives have to take very watered down positions because they don’t want to be labeled the “r word.”
For the most part it’s people repeating happy words and phrases to themselves so they feel better about having a very safe set of beliefs.
Baba_OReilly: People are stupid. I’m here to enlighten them.
What will you do if Reddit bans this sub?
Suspook: We have had over 140 unique users in my IRC channel at one time. As long as we have our main core of users a ban won’t hurt. Before CoonTown was even in existence I knew that one day it would be banned for probably no real reason so I’ve been telling important members they should join my IRC channel whenever the ban goes down so we can discuss where to go from there.
George_l_rockwell: I’ll join the Coontown IRC
EugeneNix: Will certainly be interesting for you guys to find out ;).
Baba_OReilly: CT gets banned? LOL! The World Wide Web wasn’t even invented until I was 40. I’ll survive somehow.