Hate Speech, Immigration, Western Zeitgeist's Ennui
“White males wake up. Globally, you are an island speck in an ocean of color. The reins of power will weaken and so will your grip.”-Bernard Shaw
"Nothing that you like right now will exist when you’re a minority in your own country, nothing, no literature, no music, no community, no legal system of justice, no freedom of speech, nothing, it’ll all go away."-Tolerant Fellow @thetolerantman
The West suffers from a terrible affliction, with its non-existent borders and targeted anti-white policies allowing for a fulmination of an international “migrant crisis” entirely of its own design. Surely when by any metric “diversity” has failed, as anyone paying attention could have predicted, the “experiment” should be concluded, yet on the contrary, it has in fact been amplified beyond any measure ever witnessed in human history. As Robert Putnam discovered, “The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it’s not just that we don’t trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don’t trust people who do look like us (my note: emphasis added).” This is profoundly destructive. So why do we insist on lurching down this obviously suicidal path? To quote Revilo P. Oliver:
Sadism…when it does not find an outlet in acts of brutal violence, inspires the passion of “equality” and “social justice” that masquerades as “idealism” and is accepted as such by unsuspecting persons who do not see that the only purpose of the “idealists” is to incite the violence and brutality that will give them a vicarious delight even if they have no opportunity to participate in it personally.
Ted Kaczynski echoed similar sentiments but noted that this sadism occurs within strict confines, never to stretch beyond the received parameters of the neo-liberal zeitgeist (shaped, of course, by the “elites”) through their “activism” (a la Antifa):
In other words, by committing violence they break through the psychological restraints that have been trained into them. Because they are oversocialized these restraints have been more confining for them than for others; hence their need to break free of them. But they usually justify their rebellion in terms of mainstream values. If they engage in violence they claim to be fighting against racism or the like.
I’ve stated before that the “elites” seem to have a kind of civilizational S&M fetish, which clearly extends to the Left-wing adherents of this deranged open-borders, anti-“racism,” anti-Western mess of contradictions that passes for an ideology. It is a fetish that, for the mass of its adherents—certainly not the Soros-types who seem perfectly content to remain in the role of sadists—cuts both ways. Again, for Kaczynski:
Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics. Leftists protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke police or racists to abuse them, etc. These tactics may often be effective, but many leftists use them not as a means to an end but because they PREFER masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist trait.
Jim Goad is absolutely right to assert that the Left-wing psyche centers on projection. It is a voluntary self-abasement, a violent paroxysm of the defective and degenerate, the 1%, the privileged, and the entirety of the Third World, all unified and yet not—the “elites” would never deign to degrade themselves by living alongside this terrible mass of humanity, and for the college-educated middle class whose brains have been polluted by the better part of two decades of Marxist schooling, well, as long as they are safely ensconced in gentrification or the suburbs, they don’t have to confront the harsh reality that Emma Lazarus’s “wretched refuse” is in large part actually refuse. It’s all well and good to scream FUCK THE POLICE, but as Revilo P. Oliver wrote:
It is a great pity that so many Americans try so hard to avoid learning anything about the many kinds of human garbage with which their police must deal constantly; if our citizens were not so resolutely ignorant, they would know what to do whenever a “Liberal” begins his usual spiel about “equality” and “brotherhood.”
Of course diversity is great, as long as it is at arm’s length. A recent study out of Sweden found that those most in favor of immigration and the Nordic nation’s steady project of turning itself into a frosty version of Mauritania were those who lived farthest away from said “diversity.” Giulio Meotti states:
Despite Muslims historically having been the most aggressive colonizers, Europe’s élites have come to idealize them due to a mix of demographic decline, misconception of Islam, self-hate for the Western culture and a fatal, romanticized attraction for the decolonized Third World people.
Meotti is of course being generous with the motives of a goodly number of these “elites,” but the bulk of the rank-and-file Leftists genuinely seem to believe in the good of globalism, or at least have convinced themselves of their moral superiority so that they never have any uncomfortable cognitive dissonance in the face of the mounting evidence that globalism is, in fact, not good—morally, practically, economically, take your pick. People are tribal and they generally prefer their own. It’s that simple. Groups without a strong cohesive identity simply do not survive. As Jared Taylor writes:
All other groups are growing in numbers and have a vivid racial identity. Only whites have no racial identity, are constantly on the defensive, and constantly in retreat. They have a choice: regain a sense of identity and the resolve to maintain their numbers, their traditions, and their way of life—or face oblivion.
Strange, for an ideology that luxuriates in “diversity,” that the definition of equality, like everything else, has been bastardized by the Left to mean “sameness”—as in ability, strength, and skill, as opposed to the intrinsic or metaphysical value of a human life. But this is in direct contradiction to the premise that diversity is beneficial, for if everyone were indeed the same—equal—then what is diversity at its core really for? And besides that, the vitriolic anti-white rhetoric and policies of the Left also contradicts the central premise of “sameness.” Finally, we must also consider the fundamental paradox at the heart of relativism—if we cannot pass judgement on other cultures, then that should render it an impossibility to pass judgement on our own.
The astounding thing is that, for whites, self-preservation is on its way to criminalization, if it’s not already there. Anyone who is honest with themselves would readily acknowledge that they place a greater emphasis on their own “tribe”—be it family, friends, countrymen, what have you—over another. This is the basis of Dunbar’s Number. If we empathized with strangers the same way we empathized with our parents or siblings, we simply would not be able to go about our lives, which would in that case be all soaring highs and crushing lows with every new piece of news. This type of organism, evolutionarily, would rapidly go extinct.
Similarly, a group that does not prioritize its interests above those of others—or a group that actively works against its own interests—is not long for this world. What this means is that whites are going to need to pick up and dust off their long-discarded racial identity. For Sam Francis:
The formation of white racial consciousness does mean that whites would recognize themselves as a race and their racially based behavior as legitimate, and hence it would mean the end of tolerance for nonwhite assaults on white people and the norms of white civilization. Whites would simply no longer countenance nonwhite aggression and insults or the idolization of nonwhite heroes, icons, and culture; white children would be raised in accordance with what is proper to being white, and norms openly recognized as appropriate to whites would be the legitimizing and dominant norms of American society as they were prior to the 1960s. Racial guilt and truckling would end. Based on this racial consciousness, whites must counter the demographic threat they face from immigration and nonwhite fertility and whites’ own infertility. This means (a) an absolute halt to all future legal immigration into the United States, deployment of the armed forces on the appropriate borders to cut off illegal immigration, and deportation of all illegal immigrants (and perhaps many recent legal immigrants); (b) the end of subsidies for the nonwhite birth rate through welfare programs, obligatory use of contraception by welfare recipients, and encouragement of its use among nonwhites, and (c) encouragement of increases in white fertility…Whites must correct the political and legal order to end the political power of nonwhite minorities and their white anti-white allies. This political effort would involve a radical dismantling of all affirmative action and civil rights legislation as well as a good part of the federal governmental superstructure that entrenches minority power.
Multi-culturalism is a dagger to the heart of nationalism, and the ideology actively discourages assimilation; in such an environment civic nationalism is very clearly not going to cut it. One in five Americans do not speak English in the home. That’s a staggering statistic. The country is becoming increasingly atomized because the very mention of nationalism sets the Leftist apparatus (academia, media, etc.) into paroxysms of dread and terror, followed by naked rage, for they believe asserting national identity (as a Westerner only) is a one-way ticket to blood-and-soil Nazism. God forbid one assert their racial solidarity; race and civilization are inextricably intertwined, and Leftists yet again “out” themselves by acknowledging this contemporaneously implicit link (though it has throughout most of history been explicit) between natio and ethnicity, race and civilization. As I’ve said before, it’s not that our values are not transmissible, but they are not—and will never be—readily accepted by the majority of non-whites. Most of the people coming to this country have no vested interest in its philosophical underpinnings or even, frankly, its survival. It’s a good pay-check, most of which goes home to Haiti or Honduras or Brazil, and some nice amenities, nothing more. Hopefully, as more Westerners come to realize this, it will be the neo-liberal world order that dies, because if not, it will be Western civilization that does, and that would be a far greater loss, the likes of which would leave humanity forever impoverished. I’ll leave you with this, from Oliver:
What do we owe the rest of the world? Nothing, absolutely nothing…We are Americans. This is our country. He who would take it from us, by force or by stealth, is our enemy. And it is our purpose—nay, it is our duty to our children and to their children and to our yet unborn posterity—it is our duty to use all feasible means to destroy him.
1 post • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests