Respect

Imagine you live in a poor area of the world, and a great business opportunity opens for you in a newly thriving country with religion and culture totally different from yours. After some considerations, you decide to pack your bags and leave for a new life. Unsurprisingly, you realize thousands of your countrymen did just that same thing and came to the new lands at around the same time you did.

Now, imagine the country you moved to decided to stop publicly celebrate their most important national and religious events so that you wouldn't feel discriminated. Now, a normal person would feel pretty silly in that situation, because it's just plain awkward. Nobody in his right mind would demand or expect such a course of action, because nobody in his right mind would be offended by people celebrating whatever they used to celebrate before that person moved in.

Also, on a somewhat unrelated note, imagine the job you thought was so great turns out to be pretty crappy. But the people you moved to decide to give you pretty much the same amount of money you used to earn on your crappy job, and they give it to you for nothing. And to top it all off, they ask you to invite your family, friends, and relatives, and give them money for nothing as well. All the while cheering for you and saying you're the best thing that ever happened to them.

What would you think of those people?

I know what I would think. I would think they are self hating utter lunatics and complete idiots. And that's exactly what immigrants, Islamic or not, tend to think of us. Especially of the people on the left.

And that's the reason why all the stuff that is happening in the western world is happening today. The immigrants don't want to integrate and become one of us. And can you blame them? No sane person would want that. They see us as a decadent group of self-destructive imbeciles. Rich imbeciles, to be sure, who should be parted of their money as soon as possible before they squander it away on something stupid like rich imbeciles usually do.

We're not the ones on top

Those who are predisposed to be somewhat docile, or who are incapable of a complex organized action will just live among us as parasites. Those who have a higher purpose in life will strive to fulfill that purpose, whatever it may be. In case of Muslims, it's either the conversion of idiots to true faith, or their extermination. Either option is acceptable, because idiots such as those are not really that worth saving anyway.

It all basically boils down to respect. The immigrants don't respect us, because we ourselves don't respect us. By abandoning our culture, our history, our identity just so that someone who doesn't even care about that wouldn't feel excluded, we present ourselves as self-loathing weaklings. And how do you treat self-loathing weaklings? You most certainly don't listen and respect them. More likely than not, you will attempt to dominate them, because a hierarchy of sorts must exist and you most certainly won't let those degenerates dominate you.

Unorganized minorities dominate on small scale. Blacks get their freebies by repeating the mantra they learned about white privilege and racism. Organized minorities, like Muslims, attempt to dominate on a large scale, by subduing entire populations and forcing them into their frame of reference. Neither of them want to integrate, because they don't view us as superior, or even equals. They view us as inferior beings. And you just don't want to denigrate yourself by meddling with inferiors.

They have no respect for us, and they want to destroy us. But put yourself in their shoes. Really, can you blame them?

Materialism

What is most important in life? There are countless answers to this question, some more sensible than others, but generally there is no real consensus on the question. At least there wasn't until recently. Nowadays, at leas in the modern western world, a consensus has in fact been reached. And it basically states that the most important thing in life is to live as long as possible and avoid being hurt at all costs.

It is truly a sad state of modern society that such primitive, trivial, instincts are what really drives us. Even ancient tribes that barely mastered fire had more transcendent and idealistic view of life. Life that our mainstream considers worth living is not even human, their desires are basic animal desires that are barely fit for primates, let alone the Homo genus. Even elephants seem to have some feelings of transcendence as they mourn their dead, while attempting  to contemplate greater spiritual issues to a degree their brains will allow. Our hedonism is actually a level below that. No wonder "speciesism" has become a real term. When humans are no different from animals, it is only appropriate they all be given the same rights.

None of what we have today, and what makes us human, is here because of hedonism, or even materialism for that matter. It is here because some people deliberately sacrificed their spare time, their personal lives, and even themselves for that matter, so that the rest of the society could advance to a more complex state. Without that sacrifice, if everyone went out looking just for themselves, we'd have a thriving stone age trading community. Capitalism is fine as far as economic theory goes, because it's the natural order of things. Socialism, on the other hand, is not even an alternative. It is a herd of envious people who are just as materialist as capitalists are, but far less capable in their skills. It is not a real system, just a masqueraded robbery.

When socialism met with capitalism, it fell apart. It took 60 years to do so, but ultimately it just couldn't keep up. Although it started off fairly well, feeding on the imperial leftovers, in the end all their boastful propaganda just couldn't compensate for the intrinsic lacking of the system itself.

Nowadays, capitalism has slowly turned from "just the way things are" into a sort of an ideology. We no longer worship Gods, we worship GDP. And just as socialism, it is oblivious to the unraveling that is happening beneath the surface. Ruined families, white genocide, runaway welfare state, loss of social capital...all that is irrelevant. As long as our holy indicator is growing, and as long as we don't feel any physical pain or emotional discomfort, there is no need for concern.

But there are other forces in the society, and they are starting to rear their heads. As the baby boomers retire, their aborted children are not here to take up the torch. Those who are here are people who care about ideology more than they care about their well being. People who are aware that the world doesn't start and end with them, and who are willing to sacrifice themselves in order for the ideas they hold sacred to live another day. Who are those people? Sadly, it's these guys:

It hurts to admit it, but deep down you know it's true

While it is a tragic realization that such an underdeveloped civilization with disdain for science, knowledge, and liberty is rapidly conquering our own, denial will not make it any less true. Really, let's stop fooling ourselves. There is no more west. It is dead. What still lingers on are corrupt remains of what will soon be a minority population. Maybe a healthy seed will survive in some sort of gated communities such as Orania or Volkstaat, or it will meddle with the newcomers and end up as Neanderthals or Haitian French did, contributing to a smallish percentage of the overall genome. But the glory days are gone.

Saudi Arabia? No, Tower Hamlets, London

And the reason why they are gone is because of extreme materialism. It is because people value their new iPhone more than they value the survival of their race. It is because they value a 2 week vacation more than they value their culture and civilization. It is because they, ultimately, value their life more than that of their children.

Or to put it bluntly, we're on our way out because we've become pathetic wimps. Either we'll turn back around, become men again, and retake what is ours, or we will perish. And justly so. 

Generations

I believe we are all familiar with the story of Moses, and his 40 year long trip from Egyptian slavery into the new and promised land. There's one quite peculiar thing about that story, however, and it's the fact that the trip takes, well, 40 years. For anyone with any basic knowledge of geography, which sadly now mostly refers to people who went to school before 1968, the trip across the Sinai peninsula is something that could be done in well below 40 days, let alone 40 years. The land distance from Cairo to Jerusalem, via Gaza, is somewhere around 500km, meaning that even a slow moving group of people with women and children should have no problem making that trip in two weeks. Yet they traveled for 40 years. Why?

Well, the reason really has nothing to do with geography. The reason for the slow motion was basically that the old generation had to die for the new one to take their place. They were stale and ossified in their ways, and the only way to make a society that wasn't based on the ideas they left behind was to make a society which those people who harbored them won't be a part of. Reeducating old people is like beating a dead horse, if their ways are erroneous, we may only wait till they slowly die off.

And God told Moses: 

"Hurry before they build the fence. 

And don't turn right when you reach Nile."

I believe this is a crucial issue, and one that today's left is painfully aware of. The time of the 1968 generation is done, and they are slowly but surely on their way out. The mania of political correctness they created is all but defeated, and the mainstream media, be they "liberal" or cuckservative are in complete disarray. They don't know what's coming, but they do know they won't be a part of it.

So, what can a basically childless generation do, when they realize they didn't leave much of their followers behind? They can bring the scum of the Earth inside. One of the reasons they do that is that they hope those people will help support their losing agenda by turning the opposition into minority. But the real agenda is way more sinister than that. They're actually willing to destroy the world that they can't have. Just as Hitler ordered retreating German troops to destroy everything in their path, even his own Germany whom he held so dear, today's leftists are actively working on destroying the society and all that is good, beautiful, and true, simply because they themselves can't have it. It's like Moses' old generation poisoning the food of their children, simply for the fact that they won't be the ones who will create the new Jewish nation. It is a sickening amount of envy, even for the "me" generation, and it just shows the rot and sorrow that liberal policies and families create.

What is also important to note is the possibility of a backlash. Oppressive policies create strong opposing forces in the society, and today's quasiliberal oppression is basically creating a yet unorganized fairly radical right wing group. If the left still manages to win, the west will look like Brazil. If they lose, they won't lose to a classical liberal option. They'll lose to Nazism 2.0. Neither is a society most of us would really like to live in.

This is a battle of time, and the stakes are huge. The leftists, or progressives as they ironically like to call themselves are trying to destroy everything most people hold dear before they die out. What's worrying, and what they themselves most likely don't realize, is that they'll succeed even if they fail. Brazil or Nazism, the end result will not be pretty.

Breeds

Everyday we are told that races don't exist, that they're just a social construct. Differences, if there are any at all, are just skin deep. In fact they are so minuscule that the average difference between two individuals of the same race is usually higher than the difference between the aggregate races themselves. That is, to say it shortly, simply not true.

Differences between human races are most akin to differences between dog breeds. The "argument" the left uses to discard this claim is the fact that the differences between dog breeds are larger than the differences between human races. Or, to be more precise, 65.1% of genetic variance was within breeds, 31.1% between breeds, and 3.8% between breed groups (retrievers, molossers, etc). Fst distance is 0.31. How do humans compare to that? Well, 85% of variance is between individuals, 5% is between populations in the same racial group, and 10% is interracial with Fst distance of 0.15.

There's a few interesting things here to notice. First of all, even though dog breeds are significantly more varied amongst themselves than different human groups of the same race, human races are actually further apart than dog breed groups. In other words, while the difference between an Italian and a Dutch are negligible in comparison to the difference between an Alaskan Malamute and a Samoyed, the difference between whites and blacks is larger than the difference between the terriers and the hounds. As a matter of fact, the difference between terriers and hounds is almost 3 times smaller than the difference between whites and blacks, and it's pretty obvious that the two groups are clearly identifiable and have completely different character and capabilities.

They're all the same, aren't they?

Now, let's see how the Fst distance factors in. Although it is twice as small in humans as it is in dogs, it basically means that the difference between whites and blacks is something like half the distance between a chihuahua and a rottweiler. A chihuahua/rottweiler cross is still obviously different, in both character and capabilities, than a purebred of either type.

Even more importantly, a trait that is strongly selected for can strongly differentiate in as little as 20 generations, as the Russian fox experiment shows.

So, how does all that compare to people? First of all, what's important to notice is that, even though overall interracial diversity is somewhat high, the spread is not equal on every genetic difference. Which means that, although we as groups are not all that different in most things, there do exist some things we are very different in. Skin color, for example, is one of them. Whatever internal differences whites may have between themselves, they're all, well, pretty much white. There's practically no intraracial variation in that gene whatsoever, and it's pretty much a 100% sure indicator of one's genetic and racial ancestry. It would be silly to believe it is the only one.

One of the most important factors, at least in today's industrial society, is intelligence. And the difference is all but staggering - even when compensated for all the external factors, the difference in IQ between whites and blacks is a whooping 15 points. On the other side of the curve, Jews seem to average around 110. For some reason, their spatial intelligence is average at best, which drags their whole score down. If measured for math and verbal skills alone, they seem to reach well above 120. Which sort of explains how a group that makes up 0.2% of the world population manages to win more than 20% of Nobel prizes. And 50% of Nobel prizes for economics, to keep true with the stereotype.

On the other hand, there seems to be only one (1) black person who won a Nobel prize for something other than feel-good stuff. Kudos to him, of course, but you'd expect more from a population that's somewhere around a billion people or 15-20% of the world.

Some people, usually those on the wrong end of the bell curve, will take this realization to the extreme and force racial laws and segregation. I believe that to be both unnecessary and unfair. Although few and far between, and most often carrying a few important non-black genes, there are some very intelligent black people, such as Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Thomas Sowell, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Ben Carson, and, as mentioned, Ser William Arthur Lewis. It would be unwise and unfair to limit such people to manual labor, just as it would be unwise and unfair to let a half-retarded white or Jewish person overlook their work.

But the solution to one blanket generalization is not to make another, even more inaccurate, blanket generalization. Instead of forcing black people to do simple and lower paid jobs, or artificially distorting the labor market to equalize the race-job structure, the solution is to accept the reality for what it is. We need to realize that black people will perform, and should be performing, a disproportionate amount of simpler and lower paid jobs, but we also need to realize that it's something that should be let alone and never be enforced for its own sake. 

Idiocracy

More and more people are beginning to realize that western culture is in serious decay, and that efforts need to be made to save it. Sadly, there really isn't that much left to save. A society can be loosely described to be made up of two components - culture and people. So let's see how each of those components are faring.

Let's analyze the people first. As I mentioned before in my previous article on Jews, I believe one of the reasons for their higher than average intelligence is the fact that they were put through a pretty tough natural selection filter. Although life for dumb people is usually more difficult than for the smart ones, being a dumb white person in Europe was usually survivable. Being a dumb Jew pretty much meant you were destined to be exterminated or starve to death. Without natural selection, or with natural selection severely restricted, entropy kicks in. And it is entropy's ultimate desire to turn us from more or less intelligent entities into a puddle of organic goo. We can see that the process is happening already, as the people of today seem to have significantly shorter reaction times than the people of Victorian era. Although IQ at the time was not yet devised as a way of measuring intelligence, it seems to amount to about a 14 IQ point difference. That difference is comparable to a difference between white and black people today. Or between this:

Primitive remnants of the dark ages

and this:

Modern marvels of vibrant societies

In other words, even if we save the white race of today, what we'll save is really not even close to what the white race was some 200 years ago. Yes, it's still better than being overrun by blacks, but the difference is decreasing abruptly.

Some may say that the society of today is technologically much more advanced than the one of the Victorian era, and that is something that really can't be argued with. But when one thinks of the great scientists of today and yesteryear, one can't help but feel the progress since that era is basically inertia. Large things take a long time to stop and turn around, the same theory that works for physical objects works for civilizations as well.

Even worse than removing natural selection from the picture, the society of today actually has inverse natural selection put in place. Stupid women are having nearly twice as many children as their intelligent counterparts, which means the Africans are about to catch up with us in several generations at most. At least the inequality issue will be made irrelevant by then. Overall health decline is happening as well, because advanced medical care dramatically increases survival chances of people who would previously die way before they had time to breed. While those on the left would be shocked at the cruelty and coldness of the statement, it unfortunately doesn't make it any less true.

We've been able to put off the collapse for a while by ramping up the amount of education the children get. Since the ability to function in a society is a factor of both nature and nurture, increasing one aspect of the equation could compensate for the drop of another. But as the overall intelligence level drops, it will prove to be impossible for the average person of today to achieve the level of functionality a Victorian person had, regardless of how much time and effort we put in their learning. The seeds of what will happen are already visible today, as the school standards are dropping significantly and people no longer even care about their children's education, only their emotional well-being.

Science is also on the fast track to become a shadow of its former self. Instead of being a cold and hard system designed to rationally observe the world around us, it is becoming a way to rationalize people's emotional desires and shortsightedness. People with an IQ score higher than ours realized that a lot of what is called science today is pretty much useless garbage, and could well be done away with.

So, if the people are barely salvagable, how is the culture doing? Well, let's use the first picture from the previous paragraph and compare it to something like this:

Less is more

While the Koeln cathedral is an obvious marvel of math, architecture, art, and design, the latter is, well, something a 5 year old child could draw and construct. Obviously, the zeitgeist of the time when the great cathedrals were built is no more. The zeitgeist of the west today is basically self-denial and a desire to ruin all that once made this civilization great. In other words, the western culture of today is something that should be eliminated with disgust instead of cherished and rescued.

Could we make a new society in the shape of an old one? We could most certainly try. And maybe we'll even succeed. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking that we need to stop at what we have today, and carefully built on it in the right direction. We're way too far at this point. What we need to do is discard almost everything that's been done society-wise in the last couple of centuries. We need to go back to the time before the French Revolution if we want stable foundations. Or even all the way back to the 12th century renaissance, when the actual foundations of science were first made.

Jews

Controlling the world for 5776 years

Many on the right, while harboring nothing but hatred for the Jews, also paradoxically consider them to be a master race of sorts, a sort of an evil secret society controlling the world and doing as they please. If only it were that simple.

First of all, let's get one thing straight about Jews. They are, statistically speaking, the most intelligent race. They're great at networking. They're sort of sect-ish as a society. If anyone is to thank for that, it is White people themselves, who kept creating new obstacles for the Jews to overcome. Those that were not capable of overcoming those obstacles usually didn't have the opportunity to pass their genes along. Their religion also played a part in it, having created so many rules that life under Judaism was practically impossible to live unless one thought of creative solutions to circumvent God's laws. But they are not as powerful nor as united as their enemies seem to think they are.

Mostly for the reasons above, it is correct that the Jews are disproportionately seated in positions of power. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with that whatsoever. If people of a nation don't want them in a position of power, but are also incapable of providing their own people to fill those spots, maybe the people of that nation really are weaklings that need to be ruled by someone else.

But first we must realize that although the Jews do have disproportionate amount of control in various organizations and institutions, they really don't all work in unison. While Jews were disproportionally present in the communist movement, they were equally if not more disproportionate in the banking sector. Personally, I'm having trouble seeing how communists and bankers could easily get along.

I believe that the explanation for the fact that most Jews in the west are multiculturalist 1968 flagellants is pretty simple, and it has much to do with the creation of the Jewish state of Israel. You see, when Israel was created, all the Jews in the world had the choice to go to Israel or stay in their current homes as semi-foreigners. It is pretty self-explanatory that all the nationalists and right wingers would flock to Israel, while all the multiculturalist hippies would stay behind.

And I think that really explains why Jews in the west, as well as those in Israel do what they do. Those people aren't some sort of evil networked geniuses who attempt to destroy the west through their multiculturalist immigration agenda while wanting to keep Israel pure. Western Jews think national identity is something that should be eliminated and destroyed. They believe communism is the best system possible, and should as such be implemented all over the world. They hate the countries they live in, but they don't really like Israel either.

Israeli Jews are nationalists who want an ethnically pure nation, doing what expansive nationalists do best - occupying territory, destabilizing nearby countries and whatnot. While they don't especially delight in the biological and cultural destruction of the west, except as a bit of schadenfreude in response to what Hitler did to them, they don't really care about it either. Just as a French nationalist doesn't really care what is happening in Thailand. If the Thais want to destroy themselves in one way or the other, who is a French guy to intervene? If anything, they're thoroughly concerned by the islamization of Europe, particularly UK, Sweden, and France. They are practically getting exiled from those states by an aggressive and vocal Muslim minority. It's really not something that's in their interest.

Jews in Israel are also split in several camps. While some would like a two state solution, others would prefer the Palestinians be wiped out, exiled, and exterminated. Then again, some more would actually like Israel to be destroyed alongside Palestine as well. They are loony religious fanatics which are, as everywhere else in the world, winning a demographic battle. 

In 2 or 3 generations, it may well be Israelis themselves who decide to dismantle Israel as a state, and do it out of all things on radical Jewish religious ground. Similar to how the West is destroying itself based on a warped and radical version of Christianity. To think Jews are global masterminds, weaving the network which acts against the natural forces of biology and evolution is naive. Even if they'd try it, they'd ultimately fail. So eliminating Jews wouldn't result in an epic battle of races. It would result in a world that's pretty much the same as this one, except without any Jews in it.

And while there is some truth in the idea that global power is centralized, a rule by 147 entities, which are generally unaware of the whole picture and often have conflicting interests, is simply too much to form any coherent global policy, even if  they're all run by Jews.

The signs are here for all to see

Popeulism

Modern Christianity

Anyone who cares at all about traditionalism and conservativism is probably not too happy with Pope Francis. And for a good reason. Whether it's loosening of the Church standards regarding abortions and promiscuity, or whether it's suicidal love of Christian-hating immigrants, Pope Francis acts almost as if he has been infected by his own specific version of Toxoplasma Gondii. He's doing all the stuff that the liberal left would want him to do, which would be quite understandable if he was the part of the liberal left. But he is not, and as a matter of fact, he's sadly in control of the only institution in the west that might be strong enough to resist the leftist singularity. But just like Toxoplasma infested mice, he rushes towards his enemies, doing whatever they want him to do.  I am inclined to believe he will end up just the same as those mice usually do, except he may end up dragging with him the whole institution over which he presides.

This may be just pathological altruism, which really is an inseparable part of Christian faith. Let's not forget, after all, that Jesus died for all of us and asked nothing in return. Did such a sacrifice make a permanent change in human nature? Hardly. The spread of Christianity was one of the factors that brought the Dark Ages, and even after the world recovered, missionaries who spread the word of Christ hardly did it in a peaceful and Christian way. Let alone the Christian conquistadors, who often singlehandedly caused the deaths of millions.

It may also be extreme cuckservativism. Just as the Jewish guards in Nazi concentration camps thought they might get away by turning their coats and treating their compatriots even more brutally than the SS guards, maybe the Pope thinks he'll save himself and the church by bowing down in front of his new leftist overlords. If that's the case, one must realize that such a strategy didn't work for Jews, and it most likely wouldn't work for the Catholic church either.

Finally, there's the possibility that he's just trying to regain the church following. Because, in the age of multiculturalism, nations and traditions just aren't what they used to be. 200 years ago, it was unimaginable for someone to miss the church on Sunday. Today, it's almost odd to see someone actually go to church every Sunday. Not that I favor compulsory church ordinance, but this is just one way of showing how much things have changed.

In the age before the left took over, church was not just a feel-good place to go to when you felt lonely. It was also an institution that kept people in line and told them how they should behave. Sure, it overstepped its bounds more often than not, but it's what kept the social order. And for a society, it's more important to keep order than to have people feel good about themselves just for being what they are.

But in a modern day and age, where religion can be chosen freely, and having a lack of one is considered a perfectly acceptable stance, the church really has no way of forcing people to behave as they should. If the rules are too harsh and the rewards too little, you can give up and go to a different church that promises you more goodies for less work. Keeping the church pure may keep it tight, but it will also keep it small. In order for the church to stay large, it must be watered down to unrecognizability. And so it is gradually transformed from an institution that told you what to do into a newage-esque institution whose only purpose is to tell you how great you are just for being what you are.

But without any standard to uphold, entropy takes over and society starts to crumble. Human nature is for the most part horrible, while institutions and social pressure are the only things that keep the bad part of it contained. Without those factors, people start turning into crack-addicted morally insufficient trash. Multiculturalism destroys both the institutions and the social pressure. Because cultures have to compete for followers, they must keep making themselves more accepting or fade into irrelevance. And by becoming more accepting, they lose their corrective aspect. And when individuals are not corrected for their behavior, Dr. Jekyll will soon turn into Mr. Hyde.

Pope Francis seems to love Mr. Hyde, but even if he didn't he'd be forced to choose whether he wants his following to be made of  a small number of Jekylls or a horde of Hydes. Without multiculturalism, he'd never be forced to make that choice.