Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘slavs’

Poland Laughs Last And Will Laugh Loudest

Wednesday, December 6th, 2017

You can’t be a Real Conservative and still like Poland. Let me tell you all why the latest Polish Joke will forever render them a laughingstock of retrograde, Christianist thinking.

Polish MPs have approved a bill that will phase out Sunday shopping by 2020. Initially proposed by trade unions, the idea received the support of the ruling conservative Law and Justice Party, who want to allow workers to spend more time with their families. The Sejm, the lower house of Poland’s parliament, passed the bill by 254 to 156 to restrict Sunday shopping to the first and last Sunday of the month until the end of 2018, only on the last Sunday in the month in 2019, and to ban it totally starting in 2020. It will still be permitted, however, on the Sundays before major holidays such as Christmas. Some bakeries and online shops will also be exempt.

You see Poland fails to worship ¡THE MARKET! You can’t be a Real Conservative and not worship money and work. If you take Sunday off, and are on your knees doing anything other than sucking a fat one, Modernity will teach you that it is a jealous god. Poland rebels. Poland looks at Black Friday and realizes, perhaps, that in Amerika NFL stands for Not For Long. A nation that tolerates this sort of garbage does not legitimately qualify as a nation. This Black Friday incident fairly close to where I live brings home what happens when ¡THE MARKET! gets prioritized over the culture.

Poland has priorities. The Poles get that a market is a distribution system. It is not a god. You do not worship Walmart. You buy your consumer non-durables there when it is convenient for the pervading and more important culture and religion to allow Wal-Mart to serve its necessary but limited function.

Nobody should feel that they have to take a third shift 11PM Sunday to 7AM Monday at minimum wage to avoid getting fired. Work should not be that important a part of a balanced and successful life. If that means The Rational Consumer loses marginal utility having to buy his baloney sandwich fixings at 9AM Monday or later, than maybe; just maybe, The Consumer should just damn well tie she/he/its guts to its shirt. Convenience is not the most important thing in life.

There are three things that can keep a nation unified at the end of any day ending in “Y”. They are all more important than the false and ultimately self-defeating whims of the market. A common cultural heritage, a common language and a common religious faith. Christianity provides Poland with two out of the three. That gives Poland a whole lot more to base itself upon than Germany, Great Britain and Amerika, whatever those things still are. Poland fights back against the rot of diversity, consumerism and robotic replacement of its people. Poland will ultimately laugh last and laugh loudest.

Those who tell dumb pollack jokes apparently lack the deeper understanding of life Poland and its government are putting on display. They get that Sunday shopping wasn’t just an option or a convenience. It was a destructive surjection of Modernity over a vital part of national identity. Jesus may have gathered sustenance on The Sabbath, but he also knew when it was time to chase the moneychangers out of the temple.

And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,

And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.

What we learn from both the Polish and the verses I’ve cited above is that the economy of a nation is a necessary but not sufficient condition to its greatness. That also the economy must exist on an Aristotelean balance between The Socialist Deathcult and the heresy of the soulless Homo Economicus. We need a functional economy to give us this day our daily bread. We cannot, however live by that daily bread alone.

The culture and the people are more important than the economy. The economical organization is merely a tool or an algorithm that must be controlled and maintained in proper proportion tot he greater societal good that it serves. Poland has chosen the greater societal good and managed to walk along the beam of proper Aristotelian Balance. Only the fools would make jokes about the dumb pollack today.

Italians, Jews, Irish, Greeks, Slavs, and Indians: The Dual Identity of “Near-Whites”

Thursday, October 12th, 2017

As the age of ideology folds into itself, and the age of organic civilizations rises, identity politics moves from perceived grievances by minority groups against majorities to a desire to define the place where each individual belongs not just by race, but by ethnic group, religion, caste, region, class and family.

People want social order, which requires both vertical and horizontal hierarchy. On the vertical side, there is a leadership hierarchy, but also a trellis of social levels, called castes, which determines who shapes the culture. This restricts consumerism, modern art, and other crass proletarian supremacist political activities disguised as culture.

Within those vertical orders, there are also localizations, such as regional orientation or specialization into a certain profession. Each town has its leading families, and each person has a unique place. This is what made traditional society so elegant and comfortable: everyone knew what they had to do in order to be seen as good.

In contrast, the age of ideology is centered on the atomized individual and what benefits come to him. It seeks to remove obligations above the level of the individual — religion, culture, heritage, caste, logic — so that the individual alone can be the focus. To enable this, individuals form into something like a mob, gang, cult or herd called a collective which demands that every person be allowed individualism, and all of its members support this because they want that for themselves.

The age of ideology wanted to obliterate social order, such as hierarchy and caste, so that the individual could be the focus, but paradoxically this required creating mass culture in which the individual was atomized, or disconnected from anything but surface obligations like jobs, ideology and consumer transactions.

It ultimately sought to remove the possibility that the individual could be “wrong” according to social standards, which is troubling because it is by some being right and some being wrong that hierarchy is formed. The individual wants to be supreme, and to have his choices be respected no matter what their consequences are, which is why he demands “equality” and social subsidies through benefits.

Individualism is society eating itself. A civilization only functions when, at some levels, everyone is working toward the same thing, and this requires that our actions be classified as helping (good) or hurting (bad) that goal; if anything, the decay begins when we start expanding the grey area of “doesn’t help, doesn’t hurt” to be “good,” at which point people flock to that because it is less of an obligation and therefore, more efficient for them and allows them more time, energy and money for individualistic pursuits.

Without social order, we cannot have identity, because identity is multi-layered — race, class, ethnic group, religion, caste, family, region, calling, philosophy — and if those become wholly arbitrary, they cease to have meaning because they do not have consequences. If you can be anything you claim to be, then that identity becomes decoration and is detached from reality.

As part of that, the question of the duality of race and ethnic group arises. Races are descriptive categories for clusters of genetic traits; so are ethnic groups, but these can occur within a race or as hybrids of multiple races, with those two types converging at some point. The term “race” is confusing because it is applied to root race, ethnic group and ethnic hybrids without distinguishing them.

This leads to confusion when someone is a member of a race, or a hybrid of that race, and therefore retains both that ethnic identity and the larger racial or continental identity. For example, Italians are Europeans, but they are hybrids of Western European (“white”) and Mediterranean, Asian and North African elements. As a result, they are both European and not quite white, hence “near white.”

Jews, at this point, resemble the Italians in the percentages of white and Other that are mixed into them. After years of dwelling in Europe, they are mostly European, but also have Mediterranean, Asian and North African elements — including Turkic and Armenid, which gives them a unique look — in them. They both see themselves as white, and as something more than white, which is their ethnic identity.

The Irish, a popular but controversial topic on this controversial blog, also show influences of Semitic and Iberian mixing, which gives them dark features and facial shapes closer to those of Arabs or Jews than Western Europeans.

Greeks and Slavs come into play too as Asiatic mixes. The term hapa refers to one type of Asian-Caucasian (or Eurasian, a term also used to refer to the territories in Eastern Europe and Turkey that divided Europe from Asia) mix, and both Greeks (Turkic) and Slavs (Mongolian/Han) show the influence of Asiatic races, much as Italians and Jews do.

For example, we can see the Asian quarter of Slavness here in this illustration of genetic differences:

That orange stuff creeping in from the top is not an error; it matches the orange of the East Asian groups to the right. In fact, generally speaking, when a European empire fails, what remains is a Eurasian population with a third-world style lack of hierarchy except for a strongman leader, which seems to also be the desired Communist model of the Left.

We see the same thing in Greece, Rome, Kiev, and across Asia. Europeans made great civilizations, which collapsed, leaving Eurasian peasants squatting in the shadows of great monuments, unable to replicate the greatness that came before them. Asiatic admixture is the death of Europe; it also is something we do repeatedly when our societies are failing.

For this reason, our Western European ancestors did not consider near-whites to be whites, but remnants of the past with whom admixture would lead to a loss of what makes us Western European. As we look at the surge in moonfaces across America and Europe, it appears that they were right: even small amounts of trace admixture destroy whatever is Us in people and leaves behind a different race that is not as competent.

Even more, near-whites have a dual identity which leads them to be white when convenient, but otherwise, to identify with their ethnic group:

Greg Morelli, the owner of Max’s Deli in Highland, Illinois, praised the shooting of “white people” in Las Vegas. Does this EYE-talian Greg Morelli know that he’s considered “white” by blacks.

I get accused of being a race-traitor, which I find humorous. I don’t understand the term, but must admit that seeing a white guy something as stupid as this does make a person take pause.

Does it? You can bet that Morelli will identify as white when it suits him, but otherwise take the outsider perspective afforded by his Italian-ness. The same is true of the Irish, who often seem more proud of being Irish than being American. It is hard to blame them for this; they recognize that they are something unique, but also, something that cannot be the dominant Western European strain.

As we dilute whiteness to become politically convenient, because every modern person thinks himself intelligent for cultivating the biggest personal army that he can, we should consider extending it further. Jews are mostly white at this point, at least as much as Southern and Eastern Europeans. Indians, who have a Caucasian paternal line, could also be included. Heck, just blend all Caucasians together into a round-faced race, and in another five hundred years, you will have people who look like today’s Asians.

In the individualistic times of the age of ideology, inner traits like racial consciousness, intelligence and moral character were deprecated in favor of living through external assertions, including personality, that valued “equality” because it separated the individual from any order larger than that of individuals socializing. That order failed, and now we are entering a new era of organic identity.

Uber CEO Travis Kalanick Was Booted For Corporate Espionage, Not Sexual Harassment Scandal

Friday, June 23rd, 2017

Asiatic-looking Russian/Jewish hybrid Travis Kalanick was recently fired from collapsing startup Uber, and many associated his troubles with Uber’s ongoing struggle with accusations of sexual harassment. As it turns out, however, he was fired for a different reason.

According to filings by Google parent Alphabet, Kalanick was dismissed primarily because he and ex-Alphabet engineer Anthony Levandowski conspired to steal 14,000 documents from Alphabet.

Contrary to the SJWs out there, the world cares less about unproven accusations than it does about hard evidence of fundamental wrongdoing. As has hit the news lately, the wrong type of people are getting rich with schemes inspired by Silicon Valley’s success in the 1990s.

White people do not understand diversity

Wednesday, December 30th, 2015

o-MANET-900

White people do not understand diversity in the same way conservatives do not understand pluralism. In the happy view they have sold themselves, white people and conservatives see diversity as a type of meritocracy: everyone becomes one big happy, and then we each do what benefits us, working together toward the goal of our happy pluralistic society.

When this fails, conservatives and white people tend to rage at how unfair it is. How can these minorities and liberals not share this vision of our collective destiny? In that assumption of collectivism, conservatives show they have imbibed the egalitarian mythos and doubled down on it, applying its standards to itself instead of understanding the nature of pluralism and diversity, which is “every person — and tribe — for itself.”

Conservatives were shocked to see the lack of collectivist patriotism from students at Yale University (now a third-rate college, apparently) who were demanding special treatment for themselves as divided by ethnic groups. To conservatives, this was segregation and a class system all over again, and so they criticized these liberals using liberal rhetoric:

As students saw it, their pain ought to have been the decisive factor in determining the acceptability of the Halloween email. They thought their request for an apology ought to have been sufficient to secure one. Who taught them that it is righteous to pillory faculty for failing to validate their feelings, as if disagreement is tantamount to disrespect? Their mindset is anti-diversity, anti-pluralism, and anti-tolerance, a seeming data-point in favor of April Kelly-Woessner’s provocative argument that “young people today are less politically tolerant than their parents’ generation.”

The problem here is that the liberals and minorities are right.

Pluralism does not mean “E pluribus unum” (out of many, one) as conservatives surmise. Instead, it means that every group keeps its own standards so that it can maintain its own self-interest. This is the nature of pluralism: it is to agree to disagree, not to agree to work together toward anything, least of all the kind of pro-America Horatio Alger nonsense that conservatives usually babble in public.

White people do not understand this, mainly because — as in all things — the left two-thirds of the cracker Bell Curve statistically drown out the one in five people who can understand the issue and the one in a hundred who can analyze it to a solution. In the white mentality — dominated by college students, clerks and suburban women with too much time on their hands — pluralism is the answer to “why can’t we all get along?” In their view, it means that we all tolerate each other, and then act white as a means to the end of having the white society that people claim to enjoy.

In reality, there is something more important than convenience and it appears unvocalized in all people: the need for control over one’s own destiny. For minorities, to live in a white society even if they control it means to be servants of someone else’s dream and a defeated people in someone else’s kingdom. They need an identity of their own, including institutions and leaders, and this informs their definition of pluralism, but owing to their liberal ideology, they cannot see how this means that diversity ca never work — just as the honkies cannot.

History as always shows us an answer, which usually involves the grim fact that it takes centuries to see the consequences of any act. Media establishments were amazed at how relaxed Caucasians are at becoming a minority in their own lands:

In the early 20th century, Congress, backed by the “science” of eugenics, restricted immigration by the “races” of southern and eastern Europe, which were generally viewed as inferior stock. Madison Grant’s 1916 book, “The Passing of the Great Race,” argued for Nordic supremacy to maintain the nation’s stature. A 1917 law created the Asiatic Barred Zone to further curtail already limited immigration from most of Asia and the Middle East. And in 1921 and 1924 new immigration restrictions were imposed to privilege admission to the U.S. of immigrants from Germany, Ireland and the U.K. and to reduce the flow of most others.

Current resistance to nonwhite immigration — including opposition to the legalization of undocumented immigrants who are already here — is weak by comparison. According to a December Pew Research Center/USA Today survey, 70 percent of Americans supported legal status for undocumented immigrants living in the U.S., with 43 percent also supporting a path to citizenship. Specifically among whites, 64 percent said undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay in the U.S. legally if certain requirements are met.

To Caucasians, diversity means that we just keep on truckin’ the same way we always have, but now we have ethnic restaurants and smart black hacker friends like in the movies.

In reality, the American nativists were correct all along. Diversity of any form destroys our control over our destiny by destroying our identity. After that point, there is no unity, only a sense of living in a place for convenience. Pluralism breaks down into each person doing what they want except where obligated, a kind of “anarchy with grocery stores” plus the jobs to pay for those groceries and buy your way into a gated community apart from the 80% of your society that is now a multi-cultural war zone of urban decay.

In this way, diversity takes us to a lowest common denominator. This was apparent to our ancestors. What intervened was 150 years of liberal propaganda based on the successful media blitz before the Civil War, in which the “new Americans” — Irish, Greek, Italian, Jewish, Slavic and lawyers — were convinced to beat up on the old Anglo-Saxon establishment in the South using slavery as a moral blank check. This missed the fact that starting in the 1830s, nations began abandoning slavery because technology was making it obsolete, and that the South was already phasing out slavery but did not want to take a single massive economic hit — or create diversity by freeing slaves.

Think through the logic tree of diversity. Different groups will either assimilate each other, forming a miscegenated substrate like we see in most third world countries across the globe, or will Balkanize, which is the minority view of pluralism seen above: each race segregates, gets its own facilities and institutions, and its own rules to protect it from the others. This will regress into ethnic warfare and end in mass assimilation.

Diversity means genocide. It will destroy whites, yes, but it will also destroy all minority groups and leave behind a less-capable tan group. Much as it was used as a weapon against Anglo-Saxons, who were genocided by liberals using “near-whites” from Ireland, Greece, Italy, Eastern Europe and Israel as a biological weapon to adulterate and replace the Anglo-Saxon population, it is now being used against whites.

This fits the pattern of liberal takeovers of society: liberals seize power, and all are afraid to oppose them because liberals have good intentions expressed in equality. Liberals then destroy any populations that have any beliefs which might come before liberalism, starting with the churches but extending to passive-aggressive ethnic cleansing. In the end, what is left is a 90 average IQ population that permanently votes leftist, and a country with no future.

But this remains unknown to whites. They trust their television, and they trust white liberals, who have led them on like a bull charging at a cape by allowing whites to have their illusions about what diversity is so long as whites support it. Now that the cape was been whipped aside yet again, whites are circling around for another charge, convinced that the square of red cloth, or minorities demanding pluralism as it is — and not the matador in the Che Guevara t-shirt — is the source of their frustration. Not surprisingly, this too will fail for them, just as it is intended to.

Recommended Reading