As many of you know, the guillotine squads went after their latest victim, Marc Faber, an investor and writer who — perhaps strategically — rejected a few of the illusions taken as faith that power the post-Enlightenment™ world. This will either destroy him or make him more famous than before for having been able to repel The Establishment and its ideological conformity.
Just hours after Marc Faber was ousted from three corporate boards for racist comments in his newsletter, organizers of a wealth conference next month in Singapore decided to keep the veteran investor as a keynote speaker.
…“The comments might be considered racist, but we can’t ignore his life work, experience and knowledge,” Talpsepp said in the email. “In the stock markets, there is no racism at all, as all trades are anonymous. You will never know with whom you are making trades. Sometimes you trade against a computer, sometimes against white, black and Asian people. It does not matter. What is important is the knowledge.”
…Talpsepp defended Faber’s comments: “He is a statistical guy and this is where his comments come from. He looks at the GDP of Zimbabwe and compares this with the GDP of the United States. But the United States has always been multicultural and some white people in America have used black labor against their will for centuries.”
We are all familiar with this drill: person with something that we can take says something against the narrative of our time, so we humiliate them publicly, remove their power and take their stuff. Then we conclude that, because we have banished the symbols of someone knowing better than our narrative, the narrative is safe and therefore we are safe in continuing our behavior as it was.
You can see the same thing in a monkey troupe if an individual finds a fruit that no one else noticed. There is much screeching, and then monkeys come over to demand “their” share, and when it is not given, they gang up on the monkey who found the fruit, beat him up and take it. Even alpha monkeys cannot resist the numbers of the crowd. You can beat the first ten, but then it is the deluge.
So what were the controversial comments? If we read the full document that he issues through his Gloom Boom Doom consulting firm, we can see that he makes a number of controversial-but-accurate comments, starting with a critique of conservative missteps in the West:
But that fact seems to escape righteous socialists such as New York City mayor Bill de Blasio, who, unlike de Soto, believes that (according to an interview that appeared in New York magazine on September 4, 2017) “the biggest obstacle to progress is the idea of private property. He spoke of a ‘socialistic impulse,’ and seemed to favor the idea of turning the Big Apple into Venezuela.”
…he gets at least one point right when he says: “I think there’s a socialistic impulse, which I hear every day, in every kind of community, that they would like things to be planned in accordance to their needs.” (People with socialistic impulses would probably love “things to be planned in accordance to their needs” by someone like Stalin, Mao Zedong, Hitler, or Kim Jong-un.)
…Today’s politically correct society prefers to waste its time with tearing down important historical monuments that are a reminder of our history, even if it was not always glorious. (George Orwell: “The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.”) Important issues, such as how we are going to resolve the problem of excessive debts and enormous unfunded pension fund liabilities, etc., are ignored or neglected. Westerners prefer nowadays “not to give to society but for society to give to them”, and they ardently wish for freedom from any responsibility (Edward Gibbon).
I don’t want to enter into a serious discussion about the tearing down of monuments of historical personalities, but I cannot omit mentioning how the liberal hypocrites condemned the Taliban when they blew up the world’s two largest standing Buddhas (one of them 165 feet high), situated at the foot of the Hindu Kush mountains of central Afghanistan, in 2001. But the very same people are now disturbed by statues of honourable people whose only crime was to defend what all societies had done for more than 5,000 years: keep a part of the population enslaved. And thank God white people populated America, and not the blacks. Otherwise, the US would look like Zimbabwe, which it might look like one day anyway, but at least America enjoyed 200 years in the economic and political sun under a white majority. I am not a racist, but the reality — no matter how politically incorrect — needs to be spelled out as well. (And let’s not forget that the African tribal heads were more than happy to sell their own slaves to white, black, and Arab slave dealers.)
There is quite a bit to unpack there, but let us start with his actual topic: some methods work for civilization, and some do not, and each of us has a “socialistic impulse” by which we desire paternalistic society, but this leads to movements like the Taliban, Communism, National Socialism, or African tribal heads who are willing to sell slaves.
He equates this socialistic impulse with “freedom from any responsibility” and a desire for “things to be planned in accordance to their needs,” and points out earlier in the article (not quoted above) that this is the path by which societies commit suicide. Planned societies do not work; societies based on responsibility, or having everyone contribute and raising the best contributors above the rest, work well, and that is the point of the article: to relate investment strategy to the rise and fall of civilizations.
The title of the article, in case you were wondering, is “Free Markets And Capitalism Versus Socialism.”
After condemning Hitler, blasting the destruction of Buddhas, and then pointing out that destroying history is part of this “socialistic impulse” and a sign of decline, thus related to the topic of the newsletter, which is a gloomy outlook on the various booms and bubbles of our managed economy, Faber then compares two societies: Zimbabwe and America.
He takes pains to point out that he is not a racist, and gives no reasons why there are disparate results, and this is what upsets the Left the most; he has, more than violating the race taboo, violated the equality taboo. In Leftist logic, Zimbabwe is an impoverished high-crime typical third world nation by either (1) chance or (2) the Guns, Germs and Steel theory that Europeans just stumbled on wealth and technical innovation that they did not deserve. Faber violated taboo by not affirming the narrative of equality.
But since he does not give us a reason in another direction, such as comparing IQ figures or MAOA-L genes, he is simply stating history here. Much like those planned economies failed, indicating a bad method, something about the white majority method worked while the African majority method does not. Naturally the Left will see this as racist, but Faber is stating bald facts without cruelty.
Perhaps that needs to be understood in context; the article begins by analyzing the suicides of farmers in India, where the tax requirements for a planned society are destroying individual farmers. He then points out that, generally, third world countries adopt this paternalistic form of society, and that the West succeeded where it broke free from that mental trope.
Now let us return to his actual point, which is to criticize that white majority for having adopted the strategies common to the third world societies:
Two of my readers recently sent me articles that showed how ridiculous our regulatory system has become in the West.
In one instance, a six-year-old girl who was selling orange juice on a London street corner was fined $50. In another, a county in California decreed that schoolchildren who were cutting the grass of their neighbours’ lawns needed a licence.
I find it very commendable when young children try to be entrepreneurs instead of relying on handouts from the government, begging on the streets, taking illicit drugs, or attending courses on political correctness.
When we read Faber’s comments in context, suddenly we see that they are not “racist” and more a comparison of methodologies. But again, that probably offends the Left more, since it contradicts their socialistic impulse and desire for a planned society by pointing out the bald truth: planned societies do not work, whether in the third world or here.
And if we read that point in context, we see that Faber is asserting the exact opposite of a racist claim. He believes Zimbabwe could, if it adopted the original Western method instead of the planned economy method, become a success because what is holding its people back is not their race, but their choice of economic and social system.
Another day, another outrage by people with nothing better to do because they have no purpose in life. Leftists are only one variant of those; our entire society, held captive by jobs and television, seems to have lost its ability to be honest and forthright and work toward solutions. When people give up that thoroughly, no wonder they lash out in blind ignorant rage at the truth-tellers.
No discussion about politics can avoid mentioning race. This becomes further complicated, because “race” means not just the four root races but all of the ethnic groups formed from them, like Germans or Maori. It gets more complex because the races are genetically different and therefore have different average abilities and tendencies, which implicates class and caste as well as ethnic origin.
Politics in fact is inherently tribal. “Tribe” proves to be a complicated term, but to be trendy, we should use it as an intersectional term, meaning the overlap of race, ethnic group, caste, region, and political orientation. Your tribe are people like you. There are many levels at which that determination is made.
Competing with tribe is ideology, or the notion that life “should” be different than it is according to natural order, and that humans should force a human-only pattern onto the world. Ideology is a way of holding together a group of people and motivating them, and so it naturally competes with religion, culture, and heritage.
At the end of the day, political thinking divides into two camps: the ideologists and the naturalists. Naturalists think that we should use the mathematical and informational patterns of nature to guide us, and so tend to see race as a prerequisite — a necessary element, but not thecompleteset of necessary elements — for a healthy society, where ideologists want to abolish race and replace it with ideology.
This division means that we will discuss race from two angles. The Left (ideologists) will argue that we should not have a majority race, which fits their single philosophy, egalitarianism, or that all people should be equal, which requires reducing or removing inner traits like caste, race, class, ethnicity, sex, religion and family. The Right (naturalists) will argue that we should either preserve the majority or at least allow it to preserve itself.
Since America birthed itself with some degree of ideological direction toward egalitarianism, even if as a means of affirming it in order to limit it and avoid a situation like what destroyed Athens, a hybrid approach was adopted: classical liberalism, or the idea that individuals would have freedom and liberty to pursue their own course in life. This is a form of the pluralism inherent in equality, which means that people do not have to work together toward a goal, but each tries to survive as in nature, and we see what comes out on top, even though civilization is the opposite of nature in terms of order and what it rewards. The “freedom” approach of classical liberalism, now called libertarianism, seemed to work, but the ideas that take time to fail are the most deadly, and by the 1960s, a combination of wartime propaganda (Cultural Marxism) and American individualism led to an increasingly Leftward drift.
As this Leftward drift manifests, it demonstrates an increasingly Communist-like attitude toward race which it views as its primary method of smashing the majority and removing the religion, culture, heritage, caste, ethnic, class and sex distinctions which impede the imposition of total ideology:
We may call Trump dumb but he figured out this country while we never did, understanding as the black militant H. Rap Brown put it 50 years ago, when he said that “racism is as American as apple pie.” And 46 percent of Americans voted for him, not in spite of that racism but because of it.
The Aztec civilization was also highly developed socially, intellectually and artistically. It was a highly structured society with a strict caste system; at the top were nobles, while at the bottom were serfs, indentured servants and slaves.
Strong nationalism — the idea that every nation is composed of only one ethnic group — enabled the Aztecs and other ancient civilizations to remove themselves from the genetic chaos blowing around, and focus instead on refining their traits so that they preserved desired abilities, which they then distributed to the rest of the population by elevating those who bore those traits to the level of nobility, at which point others emulated them, and they were prosperous, causing gradual genetic influence in the direction toward which that society aspired. Caste and nationalism supported one another; for example, look at ancient India:
Under the caste system, Indian society was divided into four hereditary divisions. The highest is the Brahmans (priests and teachers). Second was the Kshatriyas (rulers and warriors). Followed by the Vaishyas (merchants and traders) and finally was the Sudras (workers and peasants). In additional to these four castes, there were the Harijans or Untouchables, which were not in the social order. The Indian caste was hereditary and marriage was only permitted within the same caste. Each caste had its own occupation and any contacts with another caste was strictly regulated and prohibited.
Researchers found that people from different genetic populations in India began mixing about 4,200 years ago, but the mingling stopped around 1,900 years ago, according to the analysis published today (Aug. 8) in the American Journal of Human Genetics.
…Moorjani’s past research revealed that all people in India trace their heritage to two genetic groups: An ancestral North Indian group originally from the Near East and the Caucasus region, and another South Indian group that was more closely related to people on the Andaman Islands.
Today, everyone in India has DNA from both groups. “It’s just the proportion of ancestry that you have that varies across India,” Moorjani told LiveScience.
…Archaeological evidence indicates that the groups began intermarrying during a time of great upheaval. The Indus Valley civilization, which spanned much of modern-day North India and Pakistan, was waning, and huge migrations were occurring across North India.
In fact, Western civilization famously had similar caste systems, designed to separate people by role and heritage, as was seen in the Nordic countries:
The jarls were the upper echelon of the freeman in ancient Norse society, either noblemen or wealthy landowners, merchants or traders.
…The karls were considered what is known as ‘freemen’, meaning they were free to own land, build property and start a family or business.
…Slaves in ancient Norse times were known as thralls, and they were the lowest rung on the Viking social ladder. Thralls had little to no rights in Norse times, they were not able to own land and they would perform jobs and chores for their owners. With all this considered however its important to note that the bad treatment of a slave was looked down on.
This paralleled the social order created in English society nearly a thousand years later, as remnants of caste were present during the Victorian era:
The Victorian Upper Class consisted of the Aristocrats, Nobles, Dukes, other wealthy families working in the Victorian courts…The Upper Class was by inheritance a Royal Class. Many Aristocrats did not work as for centuries together their families had been gathering enough money for each generation to live a luxurious life.
…The Middle class was the next in social ranking. The Victorian period was very prosperous for the middle class. Middle-class people also owned and managed vast business empires.
…The lowest among the social hierarchy were the working class. This class remained aloof to the political progress of the country and was hostile to the other two classes.
These castes were genetically different, and the pattern resembled that of India. Modern Europe was formed when nomadic hunters mingled with a farming population that was closely related to them, but the higher echelons of Europe came from the root of Western European society, the Nordic-Germanic element. These took up positions in the higher castes, and managed the darker, smaller people who worked for them.
Over time, every civilization succumbs to entropy which occurs when the more numerous lower echelons overpower those above them, who understand things they do not. These things are then lost, and the society loses a degree of internal complexity and becomes essentially an open-air shopping mall where some people have money and others do not.
This is why caste revolt is so important to the Left: their goal is to rationalize this decline and instead, view it as positive, and to make it come about by creating the conditions that cause the imposition of caste and then thwart those conditions, allowing the society to become totally “equal” by losing all structure and standards, including heritage.
By the converse, diversity causes racial conflict and in turn accelerates class conflict, because without a sense of shared unity that comes from being a homogeneous population, groups fragment into internally competing sub-groups. We can see how this process happened in American history:
Let’s back up to the early 1600s. This was a time where racism didn’t exist. People didn’t call themselves Black or White. Back then it was all regional. We’re Irish, we’re Greek, or we’re African and so on. Fast forward to the colonization of what would become the United States of America. This is about 1640. You basically had two groups of people. There were the rich and the workers. There were a few slaves but most people were indentured servants or free labor.
In this way, we can see how questions of race and caste are intermingled, and how the Left has used racial and ethnic diversity to force caste revolt, while the Right attempts to suppress caste revolt by preserving ethnic homogeneity, which confers a sense of shared identity and purpose.
Interestingly, the revolts against traditional social order are initiated by those who seek to expand their profit motive, giving in to the individualism that says they can take civilization for granted, and should be concerned only with the immediate effects on themselves and their profits when making decisions. This bourgeois mentality arises from those with enough mental power to be clever, but not smart, leading to a fragmentation of the power of the higher echelons:
Drawing with varying degrees of conviction and plausibility on Marx’s ideas and insights, the class-based account of modern British history begins with the social origins of the bourgeois revolution of the mid-seventeenth century–otherwise known as the Civil War or the Great Rebellion–that witnessed the transition from feudalism to capitalism and thus from late medieval to early modern times. The victims and beneficiaries of these changes were, respectively, the declining aristocracy and the rising bourgeoisie (or, in other versions, the rising gentry), and it was during the Civil War that these two classes, set on very different historical trajectories, first clashed directly. But although in the short term the bourgeoisie vanquished the monarchy, the peerage, and the established church, its revolutionary movement was curiously incomplete. By the late seventeenth century, after the Restoration and the “Glorious Revolution,” the traditional forces of authority were back in control, and for much of the eighteenth century the aristocracy, by now transformed into a quasi-bourgeois elite of agrarian capitalists, reasserted themselves.
If you wonder why so many celebrities, business leaders, professors, shopowners and union bosses lean Left, this is why: they want to destroy the power of anyone who is naturally superior to them in intellectual, morality or wealth. We are in the grips of the final parts of that process now, after it won the upper hand during the turbulent 1960s.
As a result, at this point, racial politics of the ideologist variety have won out, and since they are being used to shatter natural social order as manifested in caste, they are exclusively obsessed with race, to the point where the Right wants to have freedom of association — which would allow it all-white suburbs and offices — just to escape the vast horde of predator-parasites who hate our majority here in the United States and Europe, but want to be here for the socialist style welfare state benefits and also, to conquer us by outbreeding us.
They hate you. They always will hate you. Every group acts in self-interest, and theirs is to conquer you.
The grim fact of racial politics is that it is based in self-interest. Every group has a self-interest, which is in having control of its destiny and then becoming the best version of itself that it can. In order to act on that, it must not exist in the situation that produced the Indian caste system; any situation that is “diverse” threatens the ethnic group.
For that reason, it must win by beating down all other ethnic groups. This somewhat Machiavellian view is borne out by history. The groups that conquered others and drove them away lasted longer than those who attempted to co-exist, producing centuries of ethnic conflict until both groups, exhausted, were destroyed or hybridized.
This is not the fault of other groups, nor does it vary with the group. Any immigration above tiny levels, which is also a bad idea as it obliterates the original group through trace admixture, brings about a conflict between groups, no matter who they are. Simpler groups fight back with crime; smarter groups attempt to conquer by gaining education, wealth and power in law and business.
Ironically, the solution to this problem is for a majority group to double down on its identity and assert that identity positively in a stronger sense, which causes the groups that wish to overthrow it to reveal their nature as aggressors. The more that the majority group focuses on “racism,” instead of strengthening its culture and opposing diversity, the more it plays into the win scenario for its opposition.
Perhaps a greater step further is to oppose equality — the philosophy of lower caste revolt — itself, and by doing so, to assert a strong social order which in turn also broadcasts the importance and solidity of racial and ethnic identity.
Identity must be both racial and ethnic, as when it is racial alone, it allows itself to be adulterated by other ethnic groups from the same race, which ends up then creating a generic racial group which has no particular claim to any identity.
Already the signs are on the wall that this is happening. During the 1990s, “diversity” was a magic word for that bright cosmopolitan future where we ruled the world by inviting them here. Europeans, who both are less accustomed to diversity and are seeing its effects more immediately, have led the way in visualizing how destructive diversity is:
The most common view among the 10 European countries surveyed is that cultural diversity is neither a plus nor a minus in terms of quality of life. In no nation does a majority say increasing diversity is a positive for their country. At most, roughly a third in Sweden (36%), the UK (33%) and Spain (31%) describe growing racial, ethnic and national diversity in favorable terms.
It was the worst performance for her Christian Democrats (CDU) since 1949. They got less than a third of the vote and lost ground in all 16 of the country’s states—this for a party that used to dominate the right of German politics and was capable of winning absolute majorities. The old party of the left, the Social Democrats (SPD), did worse, barely scraping 20 percent. Coming in third with 13 percent of the vote was the brand-new Alternative for Germany (AfD), an anti-immigration party that will send 93 members to the 709-seat Bundestag, the parliament in Berlin.
Leftism is caste revolt. Racial and ethnic diversity are the weapon that Leftism uses to bring about caste revolt. When one part of this structure fails, the whole thing goes down in flames, and is replaced by sentiments of tribalist unity as the basis of nations, renewed identitarian awareness, greater trust in caste and tradition, and finally, a hearty cynicism for Leftism as it joins other ruins on the junkpile of history.
We are seeing a massive shift here. For the first time since the French Revolution in 1789, Leftism is actively losing ground; for the first time since The Enlightenment,™ the idea of human equality — a form of individualism — is also losing ground. But first, we are going to go through a period of great upheaval.
As with many bad ideas, Leftism seemed hip and refreshing when it was untried, but once it was applied, it made a mess of things. Multiple failures of Leftist programs — overpopulation, diversity, collapse of the family, debt, command economies, ignoring third world warlords, nuclear proliferation, pollution and widespread ineptitude — are now coming due. Liberal democracy and Leftism have fallen, and the furious activity we see of late is an attempt to hold on to the franchise granted to those who were allowed to succeed because they were good Leftists or fit the Leftist ideal.
What matters for us, then, is to understand race and caste so that we can reverse the process by which race became the dominant issue of our time, which is the Leftist agenda of caste revolt that is now shattering in ungraceful decay around us.
Deep in study of the Tao, in a meditation so consuming that I was unaware of the possibility of an ego, I was able to channel the mental state (in lieu of soul) of the SJW. From that came this realization: we must tear down all the statues, kill all the white people, and erase their laws, culture, language and image, if we are to do social justice in the aftermath of Charlottesville.
The entire premise behind the Alt-Reich invasion of hallowed liberal ground involved statues of dead, pale-penised malefactors that dared take up arms against social justice. Yet this entire event was shot through with a sickening irony. Many of the righteous hordes that protested this imposition attended a certain nearby university that frequently calls itself Mr. Jefferson’s University.
I see no other path to social justice except the banning of UVA from any further operation. Its was founded thanks to the wealth of an evil white slave master who was cisgendered, to boot! Its architectural centerpiece, The Rotunda, is a veritable Parthenon of European heteronormative racial, sexual and cultural oppression. Replacing it with a round pygmy hut would show proper multicultural intersectionalism.
Only when UVA has been rechristened The Rainbow Institute and when Caucasoids are forced to walk around all day in chains will true social justice be done in Charlottesville. All the statues of Honkey Tom must be torn down and smashed. No party founded by this Evil White Albanoid can be allowed to participate in future US Elections. Oh, wait…
Andrew Jackson was just as bad. He even mistreated Cherokees and other Native Amerikans. We can’t let any party he founded…Dammit, man! What happened to that history I used to own? Whig History is supposed to memory-hole inconvenient truth better than that.
If in 2020 we can elect a suitable candidate like Mark Zuckerberg or Bernie Sanders, people who lionize Whites are going to pay. We are going to erase them all. Whites have power, ergo are racist, and so we must remove all evidence of this historical stain. All of the Founding Fathers enjoyed white privilege, and none of them thought to take the time to enumerate rights for non-whites, transgender people and obese blue-haired snowflakes, so they must all burn.
Our money will have Dave Chappelle, K’naan and Nas on it instead of these white supremacist proto-Nazi homophobes. We will have statues of Beyonce, Janet Jackson and Whitney Houston around the capitol, and paint the White House a comfortable brown. Then we can get started on renaming every street with a name in a white language, finding new things to call the states instead of those fussy old English names, and maybe even rechristen the country as the United People’s Rainbow Republic.
If Charlottesville taught us one thing, it is that whites are inherently neo-Nazi. Every one of them is an affront to people of color and the multiple genders of our new world order. By just being what they are, whites remind us of the bad old days of white supremacy, and we cannot be sure they are not planning to do it again.
Perhaps we will be forced to remove them from public view. We can set up large settlements for them, with swimming pools and tennis courts, where they can sleep in bunk beds and have the inevitable lice removed with delousing chambers. They can work for us, making products for people of color, to expunge their guilt for not only what their ancestors did, but for offending us with their white heterosexualness.
Only when all traces of whiteness are gone will we be safe. Only when there are no memories of whites will we be equal. The existence of white people is oppression to us, and we would be justified in removing every one of. Die whites die. It does not matter which statue we remove, so long as it is a white person we are erasing. Wherever we start, we have to get them all, and then we can be free.
Bumbling my way around this historically minority-majority town, two things catch my eye: first, interactions with African-Americans have been polite, open and friendly; second, Hispanic people tend to ignore me if they can, or behave in a surly and passive-aggressive manner.
That struck me as curious, so it was time for a drive to the northeast part of downtown, which was historically an African-American community. Surprise and confusion: it is now a Hispanic community, save a small corner which has become gentrified and now is Soviet-style look-alike condominiums.
A quick look at the demographics of this area confirms the suspicions one might have on observing such a thing: over the past two decades, Hispanic and Asian numbers have steadily climbed, resulting in African-Americans being proportionally smaller as a portion of the population. In other words, they are losing demographic and thus democratic power.
Hitting the fast-forward button for a moment, we can see the future of this town. The white population continues to bail out with the exception of the very wealthy, who are not only high in average IQ but capable with business. They will rule industry for the near future. But everyone else will be non-white, and they will push the whites into a handful of neighborhoods.
Then, we have to ask, who will rule the remaining neighborhoods? African-Americans — mirroring the white flight of decades ago — seem to move out when too many Chinese, Mexican, Guatemalan, Vietnamese, Indian, Arab or Honduran people move in. African-Americans will find themselves in a handful of neighborhoods as well.
Surely there will be mixed-race neighborhoods for awhile. But if the answer is that the Hispanic cops do not come quickly to African-American doors, or that white people find their neighbors refuse to speak to them, the sorting will accelerate. Neighborhoods will become fully ethnic across the board.
At the same time, African-Americans will find themselves displaced. Other minority groups qualify for affirmative action as well, and tend to be picked first for low-level jobs because they have slightly higher average IQs. This means that African-Americans will be limited to working in their communities, and will get second cut at government benefits because other more numerous groups will have higher perceived need.
Enter the Asians. They are known as a hard-working group that gets great grades. These will begin displacing whites as they march through the institutions, get the degrees, and then get members in the door. Once they hit that magic 20% number, they will turn to nepotism, and soon traditionally white institutions — already infiltrated by near-whites like Irish, Italians, Jews, Greeks and Poles — will be assimilated.
In turn, Asians will begin moving into Hispanic neighborhoods by buying up the better houses, being proportionately wealthier than the Hispanics. Hispanics, or indios, are Central American Amerinds, who are distinct from the “First Nations”/”Native American” North American Amerinds, but both have a root in Siberia. These groups will find it easy to interbreed.
Over time, the more prosperous Asians will swallow up the Hispanics. For them, it will be like having a Vietnamese grandfather, because the shared genes will predominate and squeeze out any New World outliers. Soon the city will mostly have a population that resembles Filipinos or Vietnamese, and then it will begin subverting the Africans.
This happens through the oldest method possible: high-testosterone African-American youth will be attracted to the young Asian-Hispanic hybrids, and will have kids with them, but those will be rejected by the Asian community. The only obvious solution is that they will grow up among the African communities, and gradually be incorporated into the bloodline there.
Then we have another question of thresholds. At what percentage of Asian do blek people start simply feeling like Asian-Hispanics with a tan? Soon the African population, and any remaining Caucasians, will be absorbed through this trace admixture. Eventually, this population will see itself simply as a thing-in-itself, and not question its origins.
The new group will speak english, but adapt it to their genetic inclinations: short declarative sentences from the Spanish-speaking Amerinds, monosyllables from the East Asian languages, and eventually it will lose those definitive articles, with grammar more like a Slavic language and sentences that end in “yo” and “fam.” Over centuries, this will revert to a language more like Asian languages.
At this point, you will be unable to find a single African-American in the city. Their neighborhoods will be taken over, their churches bulldozed, their cultural contributions forgotten about and then dumped for “lack of funds.” They will be ethnically erased. This is what African-Americans see coming, and it is why they are wising up to the wisdom of the old white order.
People (generally) have no idea what to make of Amerika. We accept racial differences, but are focused on bashing diversity itself, because in any form — with any different races — it fails. We do not really write much about black people or other groups. The term “nationalism is the opposite of racism” floats around a lot. How does all of this make any sense?
Anytime you turn on your own concept of God, you are no longer a free man. No one needs to put chains on your body, because the chains are on your mind.
Anytime someone say’s your God is ugly and you release your God and join their God, there is no hope for your freedom until you once more believe in your own concept of the “deity.”
…Where did we go wrong educationally? After the Civil War, the period called reconstruction, a period of pseudo-democracy, we began to have our own institutions, our own schools. We had no role model for a school… our own role model. So we began to imitate White schools.
Our church was an imitation of the White church. All we did is to modify the old trap. We didn’t change the images, we became more comfortable within the trap. We didn’t change the images, we changed some of the concepts of the images, but the images remained the same. So the mis-education that gave us a slave mentality had been altered. But it remained basically the same.
Nationalism is like living on separate planets. You are a supremacist for your own ethnic group, on your own continent (Europeans get two because Europe is so tiny). You do not care about other groups. Maybe you are friends with some of them, even like them and respect them; I have had this experience with many other ethnic groups. But you do not care about them, positively or negatively. Your future is your own.
You want your society to be designed by people who look like you, for people who look like you, and administered exclusively by such people. You want to see people like you in the movies, on advertisements, on the streets, and in positions of power. In fact, the only place you want to see anyone else is at hotels in coastal cities, where they visit and then depart.
This is more racist than racist, but without any of the cruelty of racism. Your people are supreme for your lands and your purposes, and everyone else has to go do their own thing according to their standards. These will vary and there is no way to compare them. What is apt in one land will be taboo or insufficient in another, but it does not matter as each group is master of itself alone.
Only through diversity does racism arise. Otherwise, healthy normal people do not really think about other countries. The general feeling is that everyone else except the founding group of the nation is incompatible with that nation, and it is best they stay away. This educated xenophobia makes sense for every group, and this is why the Left opposes it.
Recognize that you’re still racist. No matter what.
Sometimes, anti-racist allies talk in an “us vs. them” framework when they discuss race, with the “us” being POC and anti-racist allies and the “them” being racist people. That’s an oversimplification of centuries of racism, and it also avoids one simple truth.White people always benefit from institutionalized racism, no matter how anti-racist your ideologies may be. You can’t disconnect yourself completely from the racism from which you benefit, and recognizing that is a large step in rejecting white privilege.
The woman who wrote this is more of a Leftist than she is African-American. Her message: anyone who rises above the level of mediocrity that is comfortable for the crowd will be destroyed, whether that is economic or political. You will not be forgiven for having won, which will be re-styled as oppression by those who did something silly and lost instead. Revenge, resentment and envy are your future.
Conservatives need to realize that no matter what we do, the Leftist response will be the same, which is to continue the charade of victimhood and self-assertion so they can help themselves to our money.
During the past decade, a theory was advanced on the Left to counter the rising observation that “equality” programs in fact enforce inequality by transferring money and power from the thriving to the rest.
To destabilize claims of reverse racism, the Left invented “intersectionality,” or the idea that discrimination is only important if done by those in power, and that power can be assessed through the intersection of race and social status. By this calculus, only whites — presumably in power, something called “privilege” — can be racist.
In the loftier precincts of progressive journalism, higher education, and the non-profit world, those hecklers tend to be proponents of “intersectionality,” a voguish theory purporting that power is inextricably linked to aspects of identity like race, gender, religion, and sexual orientation, and that an individual’s “marginalization” is thus determined by their accumulation of various traits.
To a conservative, equality is not a fundamental question; fairness, however, is important, and it states that those who engage in productive behavior toward the realization of shared goals should be rewarded while those who do not work toward those goals should either not be rewarded or experience negative consequences.
This forms an opposite to control, or the idea that everyone does the same thing as commanded, because it requires that individuals understand the goal and the methods used to reach it. In fairness, which is part of cooperation, the question is not who started behind — because people are unequal in ability and status by nature — but how well they were treated.
For this reason, a conservative sees reverse racism as just as bad as racism, even if it is intended as an over-compensation.
But what is white intersectionality? There are a collection of traits of Western Europeans that together provide a point for our position that fairness is needed not just at the individual level, but the civilizational level, which means we have the right to dwell alone separated from all others:
Uniqueness. Western Europeans have a culture like none other on Earth, and they have different ideas from the rest about how civilization should be organized and people should relate to one another.
Minority. Globally, Western Europeans are 2% of the population and occupy a relatively small area in Western Europe and North America. Compared to Africa, Asia and South America, we are tiny. We are also highly sociable and so unlikely to defend our minority position.
Perceptive. Our population is “sensitive” in the intersection of thoughtful, able to distinguish fine details, contemplative and reflective. We are easily distracted by new ideas and can be misled quickly.
A target. Any group which has achieved success on its own terms despite a lack of vast natural wealth will naturally be a target for the wealth it has produced, especially if it is also highly sociable.
Taking the intersection of these, we see a population which needs defending not from specific “racism” but from the desire of the rest of the world to be us, conquer us and occupy us. In that view, white racism is defensive, where reverse racism is punitive, and this suggests we need to throw out the entire “racism” debate and focus on nationalism, which works better than diversity.
Conservatives are those who wanted the old order (“1788”) but accepted that they had to work with the victorious Left, and so have bent their beliefs to fit within an egalitarian spectrum.
From this idiocy comes conservative praise of liberty, justice, peace, freedom, equality, and diversity, all of which are symbols or proxies for doing actual good, which is the main concern of conservatism.
Even more, all of these require us to accept the status quo as permanent and therefore to consider it good, even though as is evident it is not just mediocre but outright evil.
The mental hobbling that ensues turns conservatives into the defenders of values that are the precursors to Leftist issues, effectively making the Right into agents of the Left.
Perhaps the worst and most common form of this is “Dems R the Real Racists,” or DR3, in which conservatives use the Leftist idea of equality to argue for conservative ideas, but instead merely strengthen Leftist ones.
Egalitarianism is the singular idea of the Left. If you are egalitarian, you are at least partially Leftist; most conservatives are in fact hybrid Leftists, which is why conservatism usually fails. Diversity is merely racial egalitarianism, and “anti-racism” is a political movement to suppress criticism of or resistance to diversity.
For this reason, any conservative expressing DR3 has not only been subverted, but has joined the other side. Conservatives recognize realism plus qualitative concerns; nothing in that requires enforcing equality or diversity. Further, we are not ideologues but realists, and so we have no need to enforce symbolic obedience to a singular political agenda. Conservatives consider racism part of freedom.
Whenever a Democrat accuses a Republican of being racist, the talk show host will immediately go on a pre-programmed rant about how the Democrats supported slavery, the Democrats founded the Klan, Robert Byrd was a Klansman, Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act blah blah.
…Whenever Republicans try the “Democrats are racist” line, liberals retort that the Republicans simply absorbed the racist segregationist Southern Democrats as well as their agenda.
Many on the Dissident Right mock cuckservatives for engaging in “DR3” or DemsRRealRacists i.e. incapable of defending their values on their merits, they concede the Left’s moral premises, but accuse them of being the “real racists”, homophobes, sexists etc.
The Right will never win this debate unless we reframe it as follows:
Anti-racism is censorship. As long as we are in a democracy that makes the pretense of having free speech and free thought, we need to stop witch-hunts against people for having the wrong opinion. We may smash those who are actively traitors to an enemy, but adopting racism is no more allegiance to Hitler than advocating socialism makes one an agent of the Soviet Union (although many turned out to be that anyway).
We are nationalists. Racists concern themselves with whether specific other races are up to snuff; nationalists point out that diversity never works, and therefore it does not matter if the specific racial groups are good or bad because for our purposes, any racial, ethnic and cultural group but our own is bad.
Theory is not always reality. The ideas of equality and diversity are assumptions, not theories proven to work over the long-term in the real world. No one should be forced to adopt an assumption as real without some indication of a corresponding tendency of reality to reward the implementation of that assumption.
Any time we turn tail and run, or worse accept Leftist precepts as our conclusions, we have self-defeated. This gives the Left a double victory: they are the party left standing, and we self-destruct, appearing incompetent (and rightfully so) to all who are watching.
Where to draw the line on self-identification is an obvious question, and a fundamental one, Ms. Tuvel suggests in her paper. Think transracialism is tricky? It only gets more complicated from there. Her paper briefly considers other exotic forms of self-identification. How do progressives reckon with people who say they’re really “otherkins,” identifying as nonhuman animals? Are we morally required to accept “transabled” people, who are born physically normal but feel one of their limbs transgresses on their identity?
As with gender, Ms. Tuvel writes, “we need an account of race that does not collapse into a position according to which all forms of self-identification are socially recognized, such as one’s self-identification as a wolf.”
The Left insists that race is a golden ticket to permanent grievance politics; this advances the agenda of the Left, which is to break down organic civilization and replace it with artificial government, which defends the individual against the consequences of his actions by dissipating the damage as socialized cost.
The Right, in response, has claimed that noticing race at all is a form of “identity politics,” which is how mainstream conservatives slander identitarianism. The cost of their participation in democratic politics, which always lean Left, is that they deny any form of natural inequality and insist that we can all be made perfect through patriotism, religion and working hard.
In response to that rather silly gambit, the Left has doubled-down on race as Professor Tuvel did in her paper: they are insisting that it is, after all, biological and cannot be ignored. If the game is played as usual, the talking heads will be thankful for this misdirection and spend the next decade haranguing one another about it.
Reality as always hides behind the lies, partially overlapping each of them, which is what gives them believability to their audience. Identity is innate to each person much as sex, family, caste and natural abilities are. Those traits however are not equal, so egalitarians wage war against them in the most smug and passive manner possible.
Until the Right is pushed hard enough by the Alt Right, it will not publicly acknowledge that equality is a lie. Once we start saying that equality is a lie, as loudly and proudly as possible, the Left will be forced into a defensive position, and in so doing, will reveal further its actual agenda.
It’s easy to blame the anti-immigrant impulses driving so much Trump administration policy on basic bigotry. But a recent line of research has asked whether this visceral disdain for outsiders is not just psychological, but biological.
Look, what an interesting shift! Instead of blaming us for bigotry, the Left has changed tack and is blaming us for our ignorance again. Their paternalistic condescending viewpoint is that we primitive dirt people are simply in the grips of a basic instinct that helps us avoid disease.
Spray those immigrants down with Lysol, they reason, and diversity can suddenly work again! The empire is saved.
Not so fast. The classic Leftist gambit is to choose one detail of many about a situation, turn it into a symbol, and make it stand for the whole. If you dislike getting run over by red cars, the reason for your fear is the color red, not the speeding ton of metal heading right for you. If we can just psychoanalyze that fear of red-ness out of you…
There are many reasons that people dislike diversity, and they tend to overlap with one another as do the parts in all instincts, but we can boil them down to this:
Disease. As noted above, there is a fear of foreign disease. Outbreaks of measles, tuberculosis and other diseases in the American Southwest suggest that this fear is entirely reasonable.
Genetic Interests. Very few want to admit this, but most people want their children to look like them and their ancestors. What has worked in the past usually continues working, and most sane people take pride in what their families did because they have achievements, no matter how small, that they can point to. In addition, people want their children to carry on their own traits that they find valuable. In a group, people are co-related and so can share traits and pass them on together, which is why groups break away from larger populations and settle alone; your neighbors pass on your genes as well as their own. This way, they can optimize themselves through selective breeding, and then pass on those traits. This is no different than teaching future generations about the right way to do things, or values or any other social capital, except that genetics is innate, and so provides a starting point for future generations that gives them a chance to succeed.
Logic. Here is the big one: logical fact is stronger than fact, because fact is assessed from data and necessarily streamlined, which misses details which may turn out to be more crucial than the ones included in the calculus. We know that all animals act in self-interest; people do the same. This means that human groups, also, act in self-interest, which much like the goals of an individual organism, consists of reproducing themselves and raising strong offspring. In order to do this, they must bash down every other group in the area or absorb them, which requires dominating the political, cultural, philosophical and religious life of their new country. Diversity creates nothing but enmity because these groups are competing under the guise of coexisting. People who endorse diversity are classic pacifists who would rather lose than engage in conflict, and so they rationalize diversity as “peace” when it is in fact the exact opposite.
Trust the Left to continue alternating between calling us ignorant, bigoted and afraid as their means of perpetuating the rationalization of the ongoing conflict that is diversity. For the Left, there is only one truth and it is called equality, and so all other language merely serves as a pretext for advancing equality over the natural order which is its opposite.