People do well with tangible stuff like race wars and poorly with abstractions like policy. This means that communicating with the voters is nonexistent; at best you create a mental image, and then you induce an emotion and present what you want to happen as a pleasing contrast.
Let me show you a vision: America in 2050 is like South America today, with an upper caste of people who are only a few percentage points mixed race, and an underclass that is mostly mixed. The government is always unstable. Innovation died long ago. Instead the place struggles to keep the lights on, trash emptied, and food on the table.
If we do not change direction, this is our future.
My personal quest involves ending the collapse of civilizations, which is paired with a mental state of humans that causes them to reject life as worthwhile in itself. When people stop treating our existence as sacred, they treat it as a method of manipulating each others for social gain.
Ultimately most people care only about being relevant. They want their social group to notice them. This makes them feel significant enough that the pain of being powerless which is common to all mortals is lessened enough that, they think, life will feel comfortable to them.
They are also driven by risk aversion, which means avoiding any action whose outcome they cannot control, including negative judgment from the groupthink of the herd. For this reason they chase trends and signal hard against taboos, hoping to keep the favor of the Crowd in order to keep their risk low.
Civilizations die by this pathology. So, too, do individual human consciousnesses, which are replaced with reactive minds that run toward trends and away from taboos. When humans lose sight of life as worthy in itself, they become mechanical and indulge in pathologies that lead them away from sanity.
Because the question-and-answer format seems to be more comprehensible to normal people, the confessions are presented as an interview.
Why are you a racist?
I want my people to survive. This requires avoiding genetic admixture. This means that other groups cannot dwell among us. In addition, government wages war against culture, wanting to replace it with bureaucracy, but so does diversity. When you become a diverse society, the former host majority culture is a threat to those who are of more recent origin, so they work to abolish culture, and government excitedly joins them, since it wants to administer society through rules, processes, methods, procedures, box-ticking, and punishments, not the informal but abstract bonds of culture.
For this reason, I oppose all diversity. There are no “bad” or “good” groups; the presence of any group except the original group — WASPs: English, Scots, northern Germans, Dutch, northern French, Scandinavians a.k.a. Cro-Magnid or Nordic-Germanic peoples — is bad. It destroys the host group. This is genocide and a loss of a people. It reverses the tendency of nature toward specific adaptation and genericizes the human species, which will eventually lead to genetic collapse. And all of it is done for social pretense.
I recognize genetic differences between all groups. Since I do not reject Darwinism, I see all traits as heritable, which includes the genetic frameworks of traits that make up behaviors, which seem to cluster related behaviors and produce culture. This means that even minor degrees of admixture destroy culture. In the same way, even minor degrees of diversity on the street shatters culture by making responses to any action uncertain, which is why people withdraw.
However, I am an anti-racist in the sense that I reject scapegoating other racial and ethnic groups for the problems of diversity. First, this removes agency from us and places it with Other groups; second, it lets diversity off the hook by blaming only some groups; third, it removes our own character by turning us into angry bigots; finally, it ignores the fact that we are caught in a racial civil war in which government uses diversity as a weapon.
Why do you use quotation marks around the words racist and racism?
Everyone is racist. We all notice differences between groups — race, culture, ethnicity, religion, social class, and even life philosophy, which overlaps with politics and religion — and we prefer being with our own group. If we could have a planet of upper-half-of-middle-class ethnic Western Europeans, I would be very happy there. Other people would understand me and what I am trying to do, recognize my attempts to contribute, and give me slack where needed. They would appreciate what I do and carry it on. None of this happens in diverse societies.
However, the words racism and racist are political inventions with unclear meanings, and that inclarity is deliberate because it allows the use of a broader application to accuse others of a taboo. This witch hunt mentality is never helpful, but it obscures the many flavors of “racist” and “racism”: notices differences between groups, prefers own group, will mention negatives about other groups, or the old fashioned chauvinistic bigotry, people who blame their own failures on other groups. Most minorities do this because they do not have a choice, being outsiders in a world created by and for another group.
Even the people who are professed “anti-racists” often simply hate White and hwite people. In addition, many of them hate other groups, like Jews or Japanese, who by virtue of higher average IQ have risen above the herd. Everyone is “racist.” The term means basically nothing at this point except someone who is not sufficiently enthusiastic about diversity.
Do you reject the idea that we are all one species, and do you not love these other groups?
They should not trust “love” coming from any Other group. Like altruism, compassion, pity, and conspicuous charity, “love” is often a method of manipulation by narcissists. White narcissists have used civil rights credentials to get ahead for decades, and to them, minorities are a token to be used and then kept in someone else’s neighborhood. Many White and hwite people are horrible neurotic solipsists who like to play the game of being anti-racist in public, but then sending the diversity to plague other social classes that they detest. Many of them want to breed out the hwite lower classes in order to replace them with easily-malleable voters, workers, and soldiers.
Like most grandiose human plans, this one relies on a world which does not react to our actions. Like cause-effect logic itself, life reacts to our actions, and the reactions continue in ripple effects after that, which means that very little can be predicted beyond an opening move. For this reason, our wisest stuck with simple principles that avoided actions likely to turn into runaway chain reactions. They were xenophobic, classist, favored sex roles, and saw a clear difference between good, useful, and productive people, and the many who were “common” or “typical” and were basically opportunists who were not working toward the greater good of the culture, nature, and the divine.
What would you do to fix this situation?
Diversity is like any other government policy. If it fails, we remove it and then clean up the mess. This means remigration of all who are not WASP from America to their continents and nations of origin. I favor reparations-with-repatriation to give them a chance of doing well in their homelands.
I grew up in the most diverse area in North America. I know good people of every race, ethnicity, religion, culture, and social class. I do not buy into the bigot narrative that “all X are bad” and “all Whites are good.” White eugenics is badly needed, since we have many weak and neurotic Whites (WASPs) and hwites (Caucasians of mixed White and other racial origins: southern, eastern, Irish, and mediterranean Europeans) who need to be cast out of our group. Probably a fifth of every generation is born bad and needs to be removed.
If America were to repeal the 14A, which is the roots of all civil rights law, the privileges of minorities here would end, and White people would withdraw from hwites and non-whites. This plus reparations would give incentive for voluntary remigration, and the rest could be accomplished by retroactively restoring our 1790 Naturalization Act.
This would benefit all parties the most. Those who were here who belong elsewhere would go back home with new knowledge, wealth, and skills; here and in Europe, our people would live on safe, and could start repairing the damage of the past thousand years. For now, this seems like a pipe dream, but if you look around, you see diversity failing everywhere and the flight worldwide to mono-ethnic societies. Mono-ethnicism — ethno-nationalism — seems to be a prerequisite for a successful society. Other stuff must be done as well, but without mono-ethnicism, nothing has a chance.
Since WW2, our people have been indoctrinated in anti-racism which amounts to little more than White Genocide because its goal is to settle foreigners here, breed us out, and then rule over the ashes of a mixed-ethnic grey race. That way leads to civilization downfall and third world status, and is worth avoiding if we decide we choose to survive.