For a long time, the internationalist argument for a world governed by supra-national bodies, established through multilateral treaties, was that these systems would prevent a repeat of the first half of the 20th century. The lesson learned by Western elites was that nationalism leads to competition, which then leads to war. By forcing all countries into a web of cooperative agreements to arbitrate disputes, the opportunity for conflict is reduced and the benefits of war are eliminated, so we get less war.
That is the germ of Europeanism as manifested by the European Union. Instead of these countries competing for resources and status, they will cooperate economically in such a way that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Similarly, the U.S. giving the store away to a country like China for the last thirty years is seen as a trade-off to prevent war in the Pacific. Rather than the countries competing, the rich countries led by the US would help lift China and others into the modern age as a post-communist society.
It all sounds wonderful, but the aversion to nationalism evolved into this self-loathing we see today all across Western elites. Instead of creating a post-national super-society of European people, the elites are now at war with their own people and the people are breaking into their own tribes. The Western elites ramp up their efforts to eradicate a sense of identity among the people, which causes more people to abandon the old sense of national identity for a new tribal one that is hostile to the elites.
The old national identity used to function as the strong force that subordinated the local and tribal, in favor of the national. While France could have plenty of local flavor, so to speak, the strong force of French nationalism bound all those local tribes together like horses pulling a wagon. As that strong force is deliberately weakened, nothing has come to replace it, so the weak force is taking over. The response by elites is to attack group identity by writing the people out of their own history.
That’s what you see here with this claim that Shakespeare was not a white man from England, but a Jewish woman. The usual suspects have jumped onto it, because they think it makes them look clever, but there is something else. These claims are popular with left-wing Jews for the same reason white identity politics is increasing popular with white people. Without a strongly typed host society, tribalism becomes the default sense of identity. These secular Jewish women are becoming ethno-fanatics.
Now, to be fair and offer a counter to this argument, Jews rewriting history to put themselves in the center of it is not a new thing. What Christians call the Old Testament is pretty much the first work of revisionist history. A small literate tribe in the Middle East wrote the story and made themselves the stars, despite the fact they were minor players in the region for thousands of years. If the Persians had been better at passing down a written history, the story would have different stars and narratives.
In modern America, Jews have come to dominate much of the ruling class, so they are rewriting themselves into the national story. That is the whole point of Ben Shapiro’s new book. His argument for Judeo-Christianity is all about the Judeo and nothing about the Christian. The point of the project is to make himself the star of this think he greatly admires, even if it is imaginary. The fact that he is every bit the ethno-fanatic as people like Elizabeth Winkler underscores the tribal nature of these efforts.
Just as killing off Christianity was never going to kill off religion – people will believe in something – killing off national identity is not going to kill of identity. The decimation of mainstream Christianity has resulted in a fragmentation of the religious space, with all sorts of beliefs rushing in to fill the void. The decline of national identity and the subsequent war on white people is creating room for tribalism to flourish. In this regard, civic nationalism is a rearguard action. It’s why it is popular with old people.
Jews tend to be the canary in the coal mine for the West. Whenever the West is about to take a bad turn, Jews start to pop up in the story. Part of it is that rewriting of history to make them the stars, but their role in the West is real. The outbreak of ethno-fanaticism among secular Jews is probably a leading indicator and a trailing one. That is, what’s happening with Jews will happen with the other tribes in these territories, but it is also the sign of an end point. The Tribe is rallying the tribes in the face of disorder.
The outbreak of ethno-fanaticism does not necessarily mean we are headed to a great conflict between tribes. The story of the post-war years is really the story of overshooting the mark. In America, black civil rights should never have gone beyond the legal, but it turned into a war on whites. In Europe, the project should never have gone beyond economic and military cooperation. Perhaps ethno-nationalism is simply going to be a corrective that puts the limiting principles back on the elites.
On the other hand, maybe the road to a post-national West is going to be built on a strong, local sense of ethnic-identity. Everyone retreats to their local camps, sorting themselves into those natural boundaries. In the face of massive migration out of the south, it becomes a defense in depth. Imagine if locals in America were passively hostile to all strangers, even their neighbors. Immigration no longer makes sense for Hispanics. The same would hold for Europe with regards to Arabs and Africans.
In one of life’s ironies, it could be that the West is going to start emulating what has worked for Jews. That strong sense of ethnic identity does not rule out cooperation with other tribes. In fact, it becomes the engine of cooperation. Jews probably would not exist at all, if not for Christendom. They adapted to being a guest population, by combining a strong ethnic identity with a willingness to adapt to the conditions of the host population. Now, the rest of the West is heading down the same path.
To support my work, please subscribe here.
How to win if a permanent minority?
Get your enemies to kill each other-
Or get them to kill themselves.
How? Stories.
For the latter, convince them that they’re an evil people who’ve done many great wrongs. That they deserve whatever is coming.
Even better if it were crimes your own people committed- now you can dictate the narrative from the moral high ground, while covering up your own schemes. Even your own people will believe it, and defend you.
My interpretation of the New Testament is that “Love Your Neighbor” does not mean traveling around the world doing projects or inviting the world here. It means literally caring for your own people in your own neighborhood – not some stranger in a faraway land!
With respect, Tammy, and without getting into an interpretation, I don’t believe that the Good Samaritan parable means, “Take care of your own”—however wise that policy may be.
The parable DOES suggest that Jesus thought that Gentiles were more compassionate, even towards Jews, than Jews were even to their own. That’s a lesson to consider deeply.
I thought it was the foreigner who cares for the host is your neighbor while those who share blood/nationality but leave you to rot are not.
Back in the 2000’s when my only permissible sense of identity was “not Muslim,” I advocated social pressure as the primary means to either assimilate Muslims or force the recalcitrant to self-deport. Grassroots disdain and social isolation are much more effective than top-down law enforcement and regulation. Being allowed to say “we don’t like your ways and we don’t want you here,” “you can’t marry my daughter,” refusing to hire aliens, segregated social clubs, etc… would do more to shut down the immigration magnet than policy.
We need less laissez-faire in economics and more laissez-faire for our social, religious and cultural lives. Title VII and its legislative and regulatory hellspawn currently make this impossible. Goldwater was right.
Being allowed to say “we don’t like your ways and we don’t want you here,” “you can’t marry my daughter,” refusing to hire aliens, segregated social clubs, etc… would do more to shut down the immigration magnet than policy.
Yes.
The problem is not that Mohammadan women wear burka, the problem is that normies don’t jeer and point fingers at them.
Well, there are burkas for dogs, called barkas. Ahem.
Being a degenerate Westerner, myself, I want to see some barkinis!
Jews are smart enough to understand that a small, well-organized minority will beat a large bunch of individuals, every time. Team spirit counts for a lot. Jews also like to win – here and now. Whereas a lot of Gentiles are dreamers or have some sort of weird death-wish.
We Wuz Kang Lear
Put more briefly: nationalism does not cause the sort of giant wars we saw in the previous century, and suppressing nationalism does not prevent war. In fact, the opposite is true.
The horrifying truth is, we are in a gigantic catastrophic world war right now:World War Three is right this very minute. The European modern world and its offshoots are being invaded, raped and pillaged even as speak, and are being economically looted by the Jews and their useful idiots. The entire Western world is being sacked and burned to the ground in slow motion, right before your eyes.
Nationalism, far from starting wars, may be the only thing that can stop it.
I often muse on stuff like this as I live in the ruins of a White civilization. To keep this post short [Edit: Ha! So much for that!], simply go to YouTube and look up videos of the Ohio towns of Shawnee, Moxahala, Corning, Rendville, New Straitsville or “Little Cities of the Black Diamonds.”
Here’s two recent examples:
https://youtu.be/tErc67n93QE
https://youtu.be/Z962I1bRdCM
The heyday of all these cities was back in the early 1880s, so the decline here has been long, persistent and only tangentially related to modern trends. The interesting thing is, from an insider perspective, there is so much beauty among the ruins and so many lovely people, if greatly reduced in number.
We receive so little from the outside world, so little of what Washington does is of any real help to us — probably 90% of the Appalachian development grant money just goes straight into the pockets of carpetbaggers, government employees and non-profits, while things here continue to slowly decay.
Each of these cities used to have its own schools and hospitals. Over the years they’ve all shut down and all the kids are bused to a single Elementary, Middle and High School complex in between Shawnee and Corning. The various school buildings have either been torn down, left to fall to pieces or converted. In Shawnee, they tore down the school except for the gymnasium. There are still jagged edges in the brick where the old connector from the gym to the rest of the school just stops. My daughter had her end of season volleyball league party there this weekend. Back in its day the gym would have done credit to a much larger community with its large banks of permanent bleachers. There’s still an old theater, The Tecumseh Theater, that the town is struggling to restore and an opera house, the Knights of Labor Opera House. The area was a volatile center of the labor movement back in the late 1800s.
Coming here is like stepping back into a still life of an earlier time. The present intrudes — Family Dollar and Dollar General stores scattered around the small towns, fast food restaurants in the county seat, New Lexington — but doesn’t overwhelm.
It is, as you’d imagine, a very White area. There were actually a few Black towns including Rendville and Congo (named by the inhabitants), but all the Blacks left when the coal industry died.
Lots of kids move away when they grow up — but a surprising amount also stay. It’s the kind of place where there are family names that have been going on for generations. You meet someone and he says his name and you go “Oh, yeah, you’re one of the Smith boys!” (names changed to protect the guilty), and people will introduce themselves as “One of the Browns from Corning.”
I’ve lived here for 25 years and I’m still an outsider, always will be, but people aren’t standoffish to me. I’m sometimes amused that there are people who still know my place as “The old Jones Dairy.” And it hasn’t been that since at least the 1950s. There are still a lot of small beef cattle herds out here, but the federal government made small dairies virtually impossible with increased regulation.
People here have an identity. They have a way of life. It doesn’t need to be enriched. It doesn’t need to be more diverse. Trying to impose the outside world on it just destroys it more. The federal government — hell, the state government — doesn’t understand us, doesn’t care about us, doesn’t know what to do with us, but keeps trying to meddle.
I’ve noticed that poverty provides a certain protection from much of liberal modernity. Of course it also comes with its own problems such as kids moving away.
I have a neighbor who’s living on land that’s been in his family since before the Revolutionary War! His surname is on street signs around here, too. That connection with history -blood and soil- can’t be bought and, if its lost, can’t be recovered.
Rural poverty is different than urban poverty. Urban poverty probably doesn’t provide the same protection from modernity.
The poverty here is not uniform. There are many people out here who are quite well off, and they’re not separated by neighborhood, gated community or schools. The population ranges from people who have found ways to be successful in spite of the local economy to people on various forms of government assistance. They often live side-by-side: a poor trailer or rental property bordering a huge homestead with gorgeous rolling lawn.
Because of that, you still get the old American sense of community that unites the well-off and the poor.
Vizzini , yes. That’s the way I remember it as a child, but with one *big* exception—the mixture of “well to do” to “poor” was pretty much in my case within a homogeneous ethnic population. I was relatively poor, living in an apartment with a single mother, my friends “across the street” were from intact families in privately owned homes and such. We were pretty much all Christian as well. Our values, manners, and culture were pretty much the same. Can’t say how a mixture of poor and well-off would fair if there were a corresponding mixture of ethnicity/race and religion as seems to be the norm these days.
Fortunately, we’re pretty homogenous out here.
“Nationalism” is falsely blamed for the tragedies of the early twentieth century, when the real culprits were ideology, imperialism, and the human inability to adapt to and keep up with the breakneck material and technological developments of Machine Age capitalism. Technology and capitalism moved faster than humans were able to process or understand developmentally, with disastrous results; we see the same catastrophes in the Information Age today.
In our era, “nationalism” is simply a cloaking device used to conceal the self-preservation instincts of the European peoples who are gravely threatened with demographic annihilation. It is somehow more morally acceptable to say “Hungary for the Hungarians” or “Estonia for the Estonians” than it is to say “Europe is for White people, no exceptions” or, more bluntly, “No begging, mooching, grifting rape-apes allowed. And also, absolutely no corrosive, traitorous Jews.” This has become not a matter of moral comfort zones, but of sheer survival.
If the European phenotype is eliminated, drowned under a mudslide of brown human sludge brought on by the shallow urge to comfort a few hundred million rape-apes out of a total of 8 billion, or to appease the insane genocidal hatred of the Jews, then the very engine of all human prosperity will have been destroyed, for nothing.
White people alone create human prosperity. Even the other advanced races such as the Chinese do not create prosperity, but merely a more comfortable subsistence. If the White peoples are extinguished merely to supply the present-day creature comforts of a statistical handful of semi-retarded Third World rape-apes, or to satisfy the spite and bloodlusts of the Jews, it will be the greatest catastrophe ever to befall the human race — one from which recovery may not even be possible. It will never, ever be possible to fit all 8 billion rape-apes in the Euro-American lifeboat. Capsizing the boat just so a few hundred million of them can shit in the streets of Budapest doesn’t seem like much of a bargain.
So yes, Poland for the Poles, Denmark for the Danes, and so forth. Anything else is pushing all of humanity off a cliff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7aZGjjGDu8
Murdoch Murdoch makes me laugh while they bring tears to my eyes.
Blacks didn’t go on the warpath in the the 1960’s because whites would have curb stomped them into submission and they knew it.. Today most urban whites would just roll over.and accept their deaths.
People tend to ignore that the so-called peace between ethnic groups has been bought. First with unsustainable amounts of welfare to said groups and the promotion of their interests at the expense of whites Secondly. whites had to give up our jobs, safe communities, schools, colleges and civic centers to savages who hate our guts.
Lastly to keep the peace with the ethnics who are prone to criminal activity and violence. The , ruling class whites have redefined law breaking. Crimes that were felonies are now misdemeanors that the police no longer respond to. Long term this is going to gut every urban center and suburb infested with these ethnics.
Should the free shit spigot ever stop, you will see what those peaceful ethnics are really like – especially those black ones. Pretty much any urban white will be fair game to them. Not just for looting but to kill for the hell of it.
See Reginald Denny
https://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/2012/09/03/bracken-when-the-music-stops-how-americas-cities-may-explode-in-violence/
Great article on this subject. The author is a Constitutional Conservative type but he is smart enough to realize that race is gonna be a problem. I highly reccomend his novels Castigo Cay and Red Cliffs of Zerhoun.
Jews probably would not exist at all, if not for Christendom.
Well, they were equally eager to cooperate with the Muslims in Spain and it was going OK for them. If a tolerant strain of Islam had triumphed there might have been a path for them there.
” Instead of creating a post-national super-society of European people, the elites are now at war with their own people and the people are breaking into their own tribes. The Western elites ramp up their efforts to eradicate a sense of identity among the people, which causes more people to abandon the old sense of national identity for a new tribal one that is hostile to the elites.”
Our left-wing elites have always hated the people. This should not surprise.
For all their bellowing in the 20th Century they were perfectly complacent in Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc. exterminating the poor and the workers by the 10s of millions. They never cared one iota for the “people” except as a source of revolutionaries to overthrow the old order. Once they secured power they began waging war on those very people with a vengeance.
Any time a leftist talks about being anti-racist or anti-sexist, or what have you, we must keep that in mind. The social justice warriors are just props in an elitist morality play, one in which they are the heroes, and the masses must be hammered into line.
They want a race war, and they want a race war the whites will lose, so long as our pampered white elites can watch safely from their gated suburban neighbourhoods.
They want a gender war, and one that destroys men. Even the white male elites are smug in their confidence that it won’t effect them, only white males of the deplorable class.
So far it’s working.
And no sooner did the Booby write this, then he comes across this story:
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-05-20/hundreds-black-vest-migrants-seize-paris-airport-terminal-france-does-not-belong
“France does not belong to the French!”
It must warm the heart of an academic neo-Marxist, watching comfortably from his sheltered, urban hipster neighbourhood.
“France does not belong to the French!”
Bless the poor fool who said this. In so far as it is publicized, it will do more toward rescuing France than anything from Marine Le Pen. The gloves are off. It’s an overt cry for population replacement with no pretense of anything other than raw aggression.
I was curious to see how the British dailies would play the story. Big stuff, yeah? If nothing else, lots of their readers would be flying to, from, or through CDG. Daily Express: Nothing. The usual menu of Brexit, royalty, and celebrities. Daily Mail: Small story. Based on positioning, less significant than hundreds of others (“Daniel Martin says Meghan is ‘as human as the rest of us’ despite the ‘immeasurable love’ people have for her”).
I hope there is a recording of the “France does not belong to the French!” rant to circulate as the mass media try to bury it.
Pass it on. Forward it to your friends and family. Post it on uncensored sites.
If you know people in Europe send it to them.
The Camp of the Saints was supposed to be warning, not an instruction manual dammit.
that was quite the rabbit hole. A search resulted in Slate slagging Bannon via the huffpo…it was horrible!
I wouldn’t call that working. Now Leftists are incapable of sustaining order but even they admit, this is more than they have bargained for
For the Right, the trick is for us not to bail them out like we usually do, let them die. Let the cities die.
Also every nation in the industrialized world of any race has below replacement fertility and most major cities are in severe decay.
To use an old saw , a few more victories like that and they’ll be ruined
The highly fertile groups are all religious outsiders so in the end you’ll turn the complex society that makes Leftism flourish being replaced with one either than cannot or is not interested in maintaining it
Barefoot and pregnant is women’s future in a couple of centuries, not Starship Captain
Its lasted far longer than it should because the actual Right to both far too individual and family focused and disinterested in taking power, unwilling really to deal with technology and urbanism. They don’t even want to understand it, much less interact with it . The ones that don’t mind doing that share a love of Progress, in their case technological progress with the Left
This “Space Future/Moon is Harsh Mistress” Libertarian mindset is bullshit
Rightism is about authority applied within human nature, tradition and culture needs for the common good, not limitless freedom
we’ve come close that now and its killing us
Our inability or maybe unwillingness to use boot and lots of it means we will get a new Dark Age, sooner than later.
So be it.
In all fairness to The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, it is basically a guidebook on successfully waging a 4th Generation War. Heinlein also slipped in a few observations about the nature of the sexes.
Throw in Starshiptroopers and The Puppet Masters and you have the best of Robert Heinlein.
I like all three of those books and enjoyed a few others of them but far too many people take them and Ayn Rand as models for a good society
Honestly you’d be better off with Tolkien
Yeah, Heinlein and Rand really didn’t *get* monogamy, did they?
So wait a minute Z, I feel like you are telling me that We Wuz -NOT- Kangz? N1gga please! Our pyramids be flyin’ yo! ;-D
https://hailtothegynocracy.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/we-wuz-kangz-meme-2.jpg
I’ll say this about this blog. Even though I vehemently disagree with Zman about evolutionary theory, and I think evolution is a complete fucking joke that started with a poem from Charles Darwin’s grandpa (yes, look it up, the freemason (read subversive) Darwin’s grandpappy wrote a poem about this shit), in the end the quality of the commenters here is second to none, so I always print them out. Well done zman.
A negative 4 rating. LOL. Well, Zman, you have your adherents and readers, of which I am one, but I do chuckle at this…
Johnny;
Allow an old man to give you some advice. You have made six comments this morning, three of in which you called fellow commentors “retards” and one in which you called them “spergs”. Now, I’ve been reading this blog for quite some time and this may be a record. What is not a record is the number of downvotes you received. A certain “duck who must not be named” has bested you numerous times by several orders of magnitude.
You are correct in your assessment of the quality of our fellow commenters. I read every comment every day and am continually amazed at the knowledge and insight of these guys (and gals). It’s wonderful to be able to partake in a polite, civilized conversation without the rancor and bashing that goes on in every other blog on the intra-webs.
Please take this in the spirit it was offered, I want the conversation to go on.
Pawpaw, he, she, it is troll. Don’t engage
Thanks Whitney, now the arrogant toad act makes sense.
Indeed Pawpaw, indeed! Now, I’m not sure who the duck is who got me over, but I’ll have to keep reading the comments!! What surprises me is that Whitney, who commented after you, just says, it’s a troll, move on, EVEN THOUGH I literally responded to one of his comments with good info. Jesus folks, how stupid can you be.
Johnny, you can disagree without being disagreeable. Yeah, that’s a cliche, but it’s still the truth. When you call names, respond gruffly, people react—usually negatively. Point here is not those people’s feelings, but that you’ve failed to make an impression, change minds, contribute information, and more importantly, wasted your time (and ours) in responding.
So you have a choice here, you can be an effective contributor to this group’s discussion (even devil’s advocates are needed here) or you can waste your time and ours—at least until your reputation becomes well known and no one responds or reads your comments any longer.
In all the blog’s I’ve read, I can remember only one commentator (the blog’s owner) who was so masterful/knowledgeable of the topic being discussed that he could respond similarly in manner and form as you do to his commenters. Such is his stature in the field.
You and I are not there yet, so we’d both be wise to practice a bit more generosity in response from time to time.
Not as stupid as you, for sure
It is all about with whom you share your agency, and how much of it you allow those others to take. Personal agency, the ability to own your own stuff, associate with who you want to, and do what you want, needs to be shared with someone, as man is not an island, and living purely on your own, on your own terms, leaves you very vulnerable to exploitation by others. But who should you ally with, and with whom should you share that valuable personal agency? The American Experiment said that you could share with others similarly situated, for the mutual benefit of all. That is, the minimal giving up of personal agency while getting the maximum of the benefits of working together with others.
Other systems offered some variation of “top down” organization, meaning that you give up a significant portion of your personal agency to the powers-that-be, and then depend on those outside forces to equitably share the power and wealth with you. Unfortunately, human nature means that others assuming some portion of your personal agency care not a whit what is fair and equitable, but instead use that opening to help themselves to as much as they can seize (insert Jews and Africans here).
The Western model has depended on some reasonable measure of equitable sharing, along with a propaganda soapbox beating the drum for the idea that everything is all good, even as the confiscation trap has been set over time. Now the trap is closing, the internet is showing the rest of us what is really going on, and things are getting sporty. We are demanding a greater measure of personal agency (1A, 2A, and so on), even as others try to close the confiscation deal for good. At the same time, we look around for allies, both for support and for protection, and it falls on gender, race, and a somewhat shared heritage for those markers of mutual allegiance. How could it be otherwise? What other markers are there?
It’s dubious that the Western elites willingly will accept any corrective. The “war on whites” has been highly successful and has entrenched utter mediocrities as an overclass. Now that the long war is running its course, at least in the sense of pushback becoming more and more commonplace and, at times, successful, there will be an attempt to amp up violence to avoid a successful tribalism on the part of the native populace. That likely will fail in no small part because the imported foot soldiers aren’t reliable and the long-oppressed majorities have decades of pent up fury ready to unleash. There will be an attempt at great conflict and it’s likely to end horribly for those who benefitted from the status quo for the last half century or so. Rational and intelligent people would avoid such a result but the elite are neither.
I do agree with you about the long term, perhaps in part because I want it to be true, but in the interim things are about to get very, very nasty.
Good to catch up with you again, Z, and enjoyed the reports out of the AmRen gathering.
Is there anyone here who doubts Christ’s divinity?? I mean are you all retarded?? Just think about what the prophecies of the Bible have foretold. You LITERALLY have a state of Israel now?? Could you imagine it, let’s say 300 AD Roman times?? Another antidote to the blackpill, all that is happening has been foreseen and already told to you.
Dispensationalism is a heresy. Get over your worship of Israel. Unless you’re trolling, then well done.
If a large segment (by no means the majority) of Christianity believes that the State of Israel must exist because their interpretation of Revelation believes in a rapture, where Netanyahu is practically written into the story. These Christians openly allow and encourage Jews to run our foreign policy for this benefit, I don’t see a problem with the Jews. I see a problem with the People of Walmart Christians. In many cases, Christianity is its own enemy. Just about every religion in the world is about “taking care of its own”….meaning…not being concerned with feeding a non-believer. Christianity is the only religion, outside of global socialism (which is why so many denominations have merged with socialism) that takes resources out of their own mouths to feed some African, or drill wells in Africa (or any other poor place) at the expense of host population. This may be the ticket to heaven (maybe) but it sure as hell doesn’t work in the real, physical God created world of scarce resources, pain, sacrifice, etc.
After all the taxes I pay, Federal, state, local (In CA especially) I refuse to give a thin dime to any missionary work outside my own county. It’s time for a Christianity that feeds the next door neighbor and not some stranger 10,000 miles away. We build Christian schools in Kenya while our own are closing. Africa had Christianity a thousand years before North America. Why do we have to be this great white hope and do all the spiritual heavy lifting for everyone? White man has to be provider, psychiatrist, even savior…its exhausting. Keep that in mind the next time your pastor shows you the “Africa slide show” that involved thousands in air fare.
Yeah modern white evangelicals are the biggest proponents of the ‘go save the black folk in Africa’ shtick. It’s maddening. There are poor white folks that need saving right here in America – women who have kids but no support networks (that ‘anti-abortion’ pregnancy center seems to fall out of the picture as soon as she has the kid), men who are on the streets without work, and more. Some ministries support this, but it’s not the fun kind of missionary work where you get to go to the tropics and live among the natives and build a well that they’re going to destroy. These kinds of ministries really make you question God and the ‘prosperity gospel’ that most evangelicals teach nowadays (even as they claim to be against it).
https://babylonbee.com/news/church-surrounded-by-five-nursing-homes-asks-god-to-reveal-next-ministry-opportunity
That’s a funny site!
In many cases, Christianity is its own enemy. Just about every religion in the world is about “taking care of its own”….meaning…not being concerned with feeding a non-believer. Christianity is the only religion, outside of global socialism (which is why so many denominations have merged with socialism) that takes resources out of their own mouths to feed some African, or drill wells in Africa (or any other poor place) at the expense of host population. This may be the ticket to heaven (maybe) but it sure as hell doesn’t work in the real, physical God created world of scarce resources, pain, sacrifice, etc.
What is frequently ignored by these “well meaning” christians is that scripture also says that failure to care for your own makes you worse than an unbeliever. The order of Christian living is to first care for those you are responsible for and then, in your excess, minister to those around you in an ever growing circle. It’s why catholic priests don’t marry – wife and children come before the flock.
While we should be mindful of how we use our resources so we can be generous with outsiders, it should only come at personal sacrifice – not forcing others in our vicinity (wife, children, neighbors, community) to sacrifice for our own vainglory.
I’ve read the OT a few times and it comes off as being very anti-Semitic. The Israelites constantly violated their covenant with God and were then punished. More than once God considers wiping them out completely for their sins. They were a “stiff necked” people. The main theme of the OT is that the fear of the Lord is the first step to wisdom. By their actions the Israelites mostly did not believe this. Idolatry (which led to child sacrifice to bring future prosperity) was the greatest sin in the OT.
I agree with this point and I was going to type my own response to Z before reading this. The Israelites were made to look terrible through their entire history. They constantly rebelled against their God and did all sorts of unspeakable evil all the time. God eventually kicked them out of the promised land for being more wicked than the people they drove out in the first place. Many of their great prophets (Moses, David and many others) were murderers or at least not very honorable men. Very few men in the OT were portrayed as righteous for their entire lives (Daniel for one).
Also, there is virtually zero evidence that Christians rewrote themselves into the OT to claim it for themselves. Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism. It is God making an invitation to the entire world for us to be his people through Christ. It is not a separate religion that helped itself to the religion of the Jews.
Please read the Bilical political editorials properly, as a Jew would read them. Not as a later age Christian, who reads into them what they want to see.
Preachers relay the words of the rulers, or it doesn’t get sanction.
The idea of a God of.all the world was absurd to the ancient mind. Every people had their own.
What they mean by “God” is “Judah”, the ruling tribe, the god of Judah.
“Obey Judah, or be punished!”
And who says they were examples of bad men? They were flawed men who WON. These were successful treacheries and betrayals, with a bit of cautionary, practical predictions of what else to expect.
For instance, the Holocaust is a retelling of Purim, of the Book of Esther.
Esther accuses a sub-king of plotting to kill all the Jews; she gets a greater king to kill the lesser king, then marries him to become the queen of Persia, the greatest power in that world.
Why, that template is exactly what happened in WWll, isn’t it.
By moving foreign peoples into our countries, the “elites” are simply replacing country-vs-country tribal violence with neighbor-vs-neighbor tribal violence. They’ve just made it more small-scale and local.
Notice how the leftists work hard to spread foreigners all over inside the target country, including the deliberate selection of mostly white areas.
“The outbreak of ethno-fanaticism does not necessarily mean we are headed to a great conflict between tribes.”
Too late, that conflict has already started.
In a very based moment (before he chucked his white wife and kids for a celebrity victim black lady) Niall Ferguson correctly pointed out that places with the most “intermarriage” and “assimilation” have produced the most explosive violence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJUirofdE8g&feature=youtu.be&list=PLSP9UbXmBuqqQYxb2wMe0SShX5qCHCLbF&t=2653
That’s what we’re going to get, except many times messier.
There are tools for simulating the social/cultural evolution of our species, and then using this mechanism to make predictions. For most of our evolutionary history, these trends depended exclusively on the behavior of individuals and small groups (tribes), with only DNA-based memory to propagate favorable biases and proclivities. Then along came large population groupings (nations) and this spawned a new life form called government. The canard that government is merely the expressed will of it’s people obscures the reality that government lives and will continue to grow as long as you feed it. One day it wakes up and realizes that it is the apex life form on earth, at which point it’s continued existence becomes it’s sole imperative.
Joe Sobran: “The flaw is in thinking the state can be controlled by a constitution. Once granted, state power naturally becomes absolute. Obedience is a one-way street. Notionally, ‘We the People’ create a government and specify the powers it is allowed to exercise over us; our rulers swear before God that they will respect the limits we impose on them; but when they trample down those limits, our duty to obey them remains.
“The U.S. Constitution is a dead letter. It was mortally wounded in 1865. The corpse can’t be revived.
“In the twentieth century alone, states murdered about 162,000,000 million of their own subjects. This figure doesn’t include the tens of millions of foreigners they killed in war. How, then, can we speak of states ‘protecting’ their people? No amount of private crime could have claimed such a toll.”
Of course, there are two ways of looking at this. One is, “we need to be against that thing.” The second is, “We need to get control of that thing.” Two different parts of my soul fall on opposite sides of that debate.
http://www.sobran.com/reluctant.shtml
My point is that government will do what ever it takes in order to survive. If it perceives that a fraction of it’s people are rising to oppose it’s tyranny, then it will either quash that uprising or foster a conflict in which to distract or dispel it. As such, it is very difficult to succeed by conventional means.
I agree, as does Sun Tzu.
“A small literate tribe in the Middle East wrote the story and made themselves the stars, despite the fact they were minor players in the region for thousands of years…”
——————————————————————————————————–
Point of order, Z. In the old testament the Joooos come off as anything but stars. In fact, the old testament is an anti-semite’s wet dream. The vast majority of the Jooos betray their Maker with greed, treachery, faithlessness, disobedience – you name it.
Even as you agree with the critics of Jews, you must insult them with your “Jooooos.” Face up to the reality of what you believe and stop insulting your allies.
Filthie is making fun of anti-semites, not the Jews themselves.
This supra-national scheme could have worked if the elites didn’t insist on massive immigration and outsourcing. These are the reasons that I radicalized. I could probably tolerate huge financial tribute payments and wars for Israel if the elites didn’t insist on massive immigration and outsourcing.
The elites insist on these actions because J3ws crave non-homogeneous nations, the businesses crave lower wages, and a significant minority of whites crave displaying their openness and ethnomasochism.
“We must become Icelanders in football, Israelis in defending our native land, Japanese in technology.” Volodymyr Zelensky (Tribesman and President of Ukraine)
See, you must become anything but what you actually are. That’s your national security interest.
Shapiro delenda est, but I bet he adopts a similar line as conditions continue to deteriorate across the fruited plain.
Yoram Hazony notes that diversity in nations allows the future nations to figure out how best to survive. If we all live the same, we all die the same.
There’s nothing wrong with learning from someone else’s success and failure. True wisdom is not just built on personal experience, but the collected experiences of those who came before, even if they are Icelandic, Jewish, or Japanese and you are not.
The old testament is not primarily about the Hebrew people. It is primarily about the God Jehova. Which particular people He chose to be the carriers of the old Covenant and the race to give birth to Christ is arbitrary. In fact, that arbitrary-ness is made clear in the text over and over. The ethnocentric view taken by the first century Jewish leaders is what put Jesus so much at odds with them.
It’s all in the text.
In Catholicism, this is called “the scandal of particularity”. Out of all the peoples on earth, why did God choose this troublesome, inconstant, stiff-necked little tribe to be the bearers of his covenant?
It’s also worth pointing out that the OT is the furthest thing from a hagiography of the Jewish people, which is what you’d normally expect from a tribal history. The entire scope of the historical narrative, from Genesis to Maccabees, depicts the Hebrews in a largely unfavorable light, and that’s before you get to the Prophets, who are even harsher on the shortcomings of the Chosen People.
The Christian perspective is that the Jews were allowed to fail over and over, in order to illustrate that even with the greatest of advantages, man cannot prevail against himself without the assistance of divine Grace.
“Out of all the peoples on earth, why did God choose this troublesome, inconstant, stiff-necked little tribe to be the bearers of his covenant?”
Probably for the same reason Jesus chose Paul to write half of the New Testament: because he was intelligent enough to know how to write.
Some minor quibbles.
Paul, who I see as a spy for the secret police sent to ferret out the old Apostles, didn’t write. He blamed poor handwriting. His Roman clerks, Simon and Lucius, did the writing for him.
They were his scriptwriters too, giving him prepared propaganda.
Lucius may have been the actual ‘Luke’, of the most phantastical testimonial, a ‘testament’. (OT, properly, is ‘Scripture’.) Simon was probably from Saul’s previous Sanhedrin unit.
The street Jews wouldn’t talk, or give up the location of the Apostles, who the Emperor saw as rebel leaders. Paul had to try his luck infiltrating with non-Jews first.
Umm, Jesus never met Paul, but you knew that.
It was Constantine and Eusebius (the self-proclaimed “Liar”) who assembled the various testaments and letters of the NT.
Eusebius threw away 147 testaments as not good or close enough to the narrative.
Dead Romans were frequently declared as gods. Caracalla murdered his own brother and then coerced the Senate to declare him a god.
To declare the long-dead illegitimate son of Tiberius- young Mary Herod’s claim- as a god would have not only been politically practical, but also entirely legal under late-stage Roman law and precedent. A stroke of genius, really, with remarkable results.
“Out of all the peoples on earth, why did God choose this troublesome, inconstant, stiff-necked little tribe to be the bearers of his covenant?”
Somebody said He chose them to show His power: if I can work my plan with this bunch, you know I can do anything!
We have neither a natural elite nor naturally evolved castes. A big part of the long war from 1914 to 1945 was in reaction to this:The long collapse and usurpation of the natural order with urban industrial modernism.
We came out of that period doing the exact opposite of the path we should have taken.
Marginal Reforms will simple result in short respites between tribal conflicts that are occurring within nations and regions.
What god and nature have divided let no man join together…
Hey, you stole my idea. 😉
I’ve been saying this for years: “We’re all Jews now, so we might as well start acting like it.”
This is one of those things that rustles the anti-Semites, but the fact is, Jews are the most successful race on earth, next to Africans, as far as nature is concerned. There are lessons there.
Ha, I’ve raised a few hackles myself when I’ve mentioned that Africans are by far the best suited to our current environment. It’s survival of the fittest, not survival of the smartest.
But over the long run, Jews are the clear winner. African numbers will fall as this environment wans, but Jews are amazingly adaptable. In a world of easy communication and travel, i.e. the natural barriers to isolation no longer exist, we could learn a tremendous amount about how to operate from the Jews.
“It’s survival of the fittest, not survival of the smartest.” That was true up until the invention of gun powder, and the advantage of creating clever ways to deploy it.
Looks at population growth among Africans, now compare that to whites around the world. Our brains and tools aren’t doing us much good at the moment.
For this particular – and, admittedly, very unusual – environment, Africans are the best suited. I agree that it won’t last long, but for the time being, this environment is perfectly suited to black idiots who breed like rabbits when fed food produced by others and very ill-suited to white idiots who feed those blacks idiots and even house them at times.
I dunno, India and China have seen massive population booms in the past 100 years. Pretty successful from a nature perspective there too…
Indian TFR is 2.3 now. China is at 1.62. Nigeria is at 5.53, which is representative of sub-Saharan Africa.
From the perspective of Mother Nature, we may be archaics and Africans are the latest model of mankind.
Shut off the food shipments from the “archaics” and that would change right quick.
But we won’t. That’s what makes us ill-suited for the present age. I always believe that there will be a serious culling of the white herd by the time is said and done.
Indeed. The best way think our current situation is that the white race is going trough an evolutionary bottleneck. If we manage to come out of it, a lot of the maladaptive genes that make white people behave in a suicidal fashion will be gone.
To make sure the healthy parts of the white race survive, our political goal should be, in my opinion, to split current Western countries into smaller more or less autonomous political units and confine the unhealthy parts to their own areas, where they can enjoy vibrant diversity until their societies collapse and they starve to death.
Once this is all over, there will be fewer white people, but better white people.
Africans are fittest to survive in a world where Western elites enable African overpopulation and its spillover into Europe and the U.S. It’s a twisted religion: the suicide of the white countries becomes a moral duty. The crucifixion of a Saviour gives way to the crucifixion of one’s family, friends, and countrymen.
This is soooo true. Anyone who hates Jews as a people is a retard, writ large, and needs never be listened to again. As with all peoples, Jews are absolutely fantastic and that needs to be acknowledged. Of course the subversives and the Bolsheviks need to be liquidated, but the vast majority of Jews are good people. Full stop.
98% of the Jews give the other 2% a bad reputation.
LOL, I get the sentiment. Completely. But no one should hate all Jews, or they sound like a complete retard.
When you talk about black crime do you mention that Thomas Sowell is your neighbor?
You can’t possibly be this genuinely pedantic.
Btw, your tactic of arguing every little detail of a comment to muddy the waters and obfuscate is a very Jewish thing to do. Sorry, it’s what many – but, of course, not all – Jews do.
At the risk of using up all my plus votes earned today, I must say I tend to agree with you. 😉 Most of my voiced concerns are always made in consideration of analysis of probabilities and statistical differences among means. To go from group generalizations to individualizations is problematical at best.
Compsci, ever heard of regression to the mean. You most certainly can judge the individual by the group.
Besides, if one group is attacking your group, the individual no longer matters. Also, in tribal societies, you lose the luxury of being individuals. Ah, the joys of multi-racial societies. Get used to this new world.
Look at how they vote and how they donate. Whites must learn to distinguish between micro and macro interactions. Just because you can have a friendly conversation at the micro level does not mean they aren’t trying to kill you at the macro level.
Of course, I don’t mean “all,” I mean “most.”
The difference between “all” and “most” loses any meaning in a war. And Jews most definitely have declared war on gentile whites.
Citizen, correct—but that is precisely why war is a last resort.
You think that we’re not at war.
Immigration is just another form of war, especially in a democracy. I don’t want to be ruled by other tribes. Under our immigration policy, that will happen. Therefore, war has been declared.
Zman, this is the most negatively rated comment I’ve ever seen on your blog. That fact requires an entire new thinking. I really am surprised that a simple statement “don’t hate all Jews” draws this kind of a response. Holy shit there’s some spergs on here…
Of course you’re not actually surprised, which is precisely why you set it up fallaciously as you did. You are not an honest man, borrowing from your own rhetorical approach, which suggests you’ll find that sperg in the mirror.
The only sperg here is you. Only a sperg would start stuttering about how someone’s socks don’t match during a gang fight.
Nimrod, we get that there are Jews of many stripes. However, for the sake of brevity, we will use the phrase “Jews” to mean “most Jews” or “elite Jews that run the show.” It’s simpler that way, something your sprergy brain can’t handle.
Second, in a war or in tribal societies, you are your side whatever your personal beliefs. In WWII, a German who disagreed with the Nazi was still a German and thus on their side. Unless he openly defected to our side, he was on their side. The same is true of Jews – and, yes, all Jews.
A portion of Jews have declared war on gentile whites, just as a portion of Germans declared war on the United States. Therefore, all Jews are now on the other side, just as all Germans instantly became our enemy.
The fact that you refuse to understand something so simple shows that you’re either an idiot or a liar – or, I suppose, both. Either way, you’re pointless.
I could say the same with equal truth about Irish Catholics, who I believe destroyed urban America long before the Great Migration and bear the preponderance of blame for the 1965 Immigration Act. Equal truth, but I’d be just as effin’ nuts as you are.
🚨🚨BOOMER ALERT🚨🚨
Wondering if Johnny is actually a Jew LARPing as a white nationalist.
Anti-semitism isn’t some irrational bug-a-boo. It is the result of the conflict between 2 groups with very different evolutionary group strategies. The Jews, because they were a small insignificant group surrounded by much more impressive civilizations, by circumstance and necessity became parasitical.
Tikkun Olam is the Manifest Destiny of the weak: assimilate in order to infiltrate, infiltrate to alter, alter to enhance your group’s position. This is “healing” in Jewish evolutionary terms.
In the West, despite a lot of nonsense about individualism, we developed a very robust commons. We are not as dependent upon kinship ties as are other groups but we are extremely dependent upon a well functioning and robust commons. Destroy the common destroy the West.
Outside groups inside our civilization following a very different group evolutionary strategy by feeding off of our commons as group parasites. Any contributions they may make to the commons it to blunt their parasitism from getting out-of-hand. There are varying degrees of damage done by different groups but the net effect is negative.
The internal mechanism we had for curbing parasitism upon the commons don’t work on outsiders nor for many within our own ranks. Many of our group, especially our false elites, are now only parasitical. “Behaving like Jews” will only accelerate our demise.
The Jews don’t initiate most of our problems. But when problems do arise they make things worse, often a lot worse. Fixing those problems while many of our own are damaged is hard enough; fixing them while being overrun by parasitical outsider is probably impossible.
Our nature is to build a robust commons. Any other strategy is to in a very fundamental way change who we have always been.
These are very good points. I should correct my phrase. I’m not saying that we should become like Jews, but I am saying that we can learn things from them and use what we can.
Our ability to create a robust commons is a HUGE advantage for us; however, if we can’t protect that commons in the modern age, it doesn’t do much for us. We used to be heavily protected by distance and little (to none for blacks and browns) global communication. We’ve lost those natural barriers. We need to learn how to defend what we’ve built.
Studying the Jews could help.
I don’t care how many good or bad jews there are. I don’t care who’s smarter than whom or who’s more fit than the other in the Darwinian sense. Jews belong nowhere in or near Aryan society.
Their deeply imbedded genetiic imperatives honed by millenia of evolution and semitic culture have rendered them dangerously incompatible with ours.
Christianity viscerally repels them, and as a collective they harbor soul-level animositiy for White Europeans even as they have copped elements of our gene pool.
No matter how well a “good” jew would behave living among us, he would be incapable of repressing his tribal nature in perpetuity and would remain connected to his relatives, friends, and associates who would not be so “good” as he.
Jews need to live in their own ancestral homeland where they leave us alone and fend for themselves. Only then perhaps could we peacefully coexist with them on the same planet.
” Jews are the most successful race on earth… as far as nature is concerned.”
Well I’ve read some bollocks on this site, most of it, to be honest from commentators but,
The Han Chinese are the clear winners in gene replication.
Hell, the sons of Nippon thrash the yid by a factor of at least 8.
You are confusing amazement that such a bunch have survived at all with demographic success.
“Is it good for the whites?”
Yeah, works for me.
Seriously, it’s amazing how well that simple phrase makes decisions clear.
I’ve even used that phrase to get normies to think differently. When I tell Midwestern normies that’s the lens through which Jews look at the world, it blows their mind. They’re never conceived of the world in that way and, sadly, had no clue that others might. It’s an eye opener.
Btw, their heads almost explode when I say that if that’s how the rest of world thinks, we probably should do the same.
I point out that for Blacks and Jews those group memberships are, in their own minds, the most important characteristic about them.
The number of people to whom this is news is astonishing to me.
Perceptive and timely post, Zman. This week’s news has me thinking in a similar vein about how we’re feeling tremors of a pending national fragmentation.
It’s occurred to me that the recent abortion laws in Southern states serve more as an identity marker than as an ideological effort. They are a way of expressing “hostility” to people who bring ruin on communities; an encouragement for such people who hold incompatible beliefs to self-select themselves out of the abortion-regulating states.
The critics of the laws point to the fact that they’ve been legislated by white men; to proponents, I suspect that’s a feature, not a bug. The critics threaten to blackmail the south economically: No more hipsters moving to your states, no more global corporations setting up offices, no Hollywood or Google bringing in their bucks to “stimulate” southern economies. Proponents, however, may well be thinking: That’s the idea, and good riddance to these ruinous alien factors that transform regional and local communities. It would be a perfectly rational choice to “sacrifice” some measure of economic prosperity ( as defined by the rigged globalist system) in exchange for greater social cohesion and ethnic homogeneity.
As expressions of the pro-life position, these anti-abortion laws are relatively modest. But as a way of differentiating two mutually hostile populations, and encouraging them to live separately, the laws are a strong assertion of identity. In the future they may be seen as analogous to the firing on Fort Sumter: that is, the initial act aiming at the disaggregation of the union.
The question remains whether the pro-abortion/globalist population will acquiesce in a peaceful separation, or use extortion and coercion to enforce its destructive way of existence on people who reject it. (I guess that’s really not much of a question.)
Yeah, I’ve often wondered if that’s our path. Local communities – town, city, county, state – passing laws that push against the larger society. Whether the law gets legally shot down or not, it’s a sign of what the community believes and will enforce quietly day to day.
To a degree, Muslim communities in Europe already employ this strategy.
The “sanctuary city” movement is the same idea, but aimed at the places that pass restrictive abortion laws, and who want to see immigration laws enforced. I hope that some governors and mayors in Red States are taking notes about how the sanctuary cities are coping. They may be useful models in the upcoming administration of Kamela Harris.
Agree, a lot of the southeast’s apparent backwardness is about signaling individuality, or division from the north. I feel this for example about creationism, going all the way back to the stokes trial. We just don’t want those yanks telling us how things are! Similar on the other side with trannies in bathrooms, etc etc. The issues matter not much at all to us—its signaling the group solidarity!
Very good comment, ChrisZ, but we all know the answer to your question.
Your 4th paragraph, in which you discuss how nationalism unites local interests touches on a point that will become important in the near future.
Ethnic nationalism is the perfect compromise between individualism and collectivism. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, but the parts determine the nature of the whole.
To give a concrete example, the French nation is greater than any one individual, but each French man and French woman is valuable to the nation because they are French by blood and soil and without their joint efforts, the nation would not exist.
That is pretty much how our federalist system was set up to work, until the federal government metastasized and took over the country, relegating the states to more of a ceremonial role.
The problem is that both in rhetoric and dialectic, the system was democratic, and Zman has a great post on why politicians in democracies continually expand the electorate in order to expand their own power. First it was white men who owned property, than all white men. Then all men. Then all women. Now paper Americans, felons, and 16 year olds will be enfranchised.
The Old Testament is actually the first history of a people instead of hagiography. The greeks followed suit but the Persians recorded only their victories and their godike attributes. It’s not an interesting story if you don’t suffer defeat.
On a side note I started Dostoevsky’s the Diary of a writer yesterday and his description of the Russian Elite who viewed themselves as a citizen of the world and their overwhelming contempt for the people sounded so familiar.
Whitney, read the best biography of Dostoevsky out there. I forget the name completely unfortunately, 4 or 5 volumes. Fyodor gambled his entire fortune and all his wife’s assets away. He used to stand in front of a German painter’s depiction of the emaciated Christ and weep for hours. Fyodor is /ourguy/.
I mean, the Jews do not come off great in the OT at all. Half the time or more whenever they get it in the neck it’s not “oh we were so oppressed” so much as “this was our just punishment”. The people of the Old Testament are recognizable as people, flawed, foolish, and venal.
Almost as if they were a people so rebellious, God would take away his covenant and give it to someone else!
As Jordan Peterson says, “if you repress something, it comes back with a vengeance.” I think he was talking about something psychology-related, not nationalism or the identity politics he despises, when I heard him say this. But I’d say it applies to tribalism and nationalism, which are part of human nature.
If you start with a wholistic, objective view of human nature, relatively unfettered by ideology, even bugman systems like Jordanetics and Objectivism can be useful. There are grains of truth scattered amid the nonsense. Biology (unsurprisingly) is useful in “unifying” those grains and discarding the chaff. The easiest people to red pill are Randroids. I see JBP as Objectivism for the Age of Idiocracy.
Older I get the more I realize everything, business, politics, race…is about “interests”. Should be grateful for having studied diplomatic history briefly under Richard Leopold. One great advantage of pursuing national interest is at least you could harness the group of people that, like it or not, have to live together, towards a common purpose. Globalization and homogeneity simply shifts this reconciliation to a vast and utterly faceless scale. And it fails. Witness Brexit. A majority of Brits finally woke up to the fact that their fate would be controlled by a group of people in Brussels utterly disconnected from any consideration of what might be good for them. The same is happening here. Personally have few issues with Jews. I view them as simply having evolved a sharper capacity to look out for their own interests which may or may coincide with mine at any given point. Can’t blame them for that. As you point out, we can learn a thing or two from them.
Half of the old testament is various stories about Abraham or the sons of Abraham tramping around in the desert or being subjugated by one conqueror or another. There is a tiny sliver of golden age tucked in there alongside the foibles of the leaders who are killing each other off hand over fist. The tome might be ethnocentric, but whose ethnic story wouldn’t be? But again, this is another situation where a bad example does nothing to undermine the case being made. There is every indication that the splits you describe are taking place.
I wonder, though, if the thing driving this isn’t more along the lines of the strength of centralization breaking down. As long as there seemed to be benefits gained from ceding rights and treasure to some centralized power, people would go along with it. However, what we have seen over the last few decades is a flattening of all the curves by which we measure societal success, and people are just now beginning to look elsewhere other than centralization to satisfy their wants and needs, because the demands made on them, not just economically, but racially and culturally as well, by that centralizing power, exceed any perceived benefit.
I think this is a fundamental theme of history going back to the Egyptian Empire, and seen as a component of every great civilizational collapse. And avoidance of this is a big reason why the elites want so desperately to replace us. They know this better than we do. They aren’t really all that dumb.
Sure, most of the New Testament is not actually about the life of Christ, but that is the part that matters. It is with the Hebrew Bible where we see the first systematic effort to ruin the living for eternity by ruining their reputation. There’s a reason you don’t know any women named Jezebel.
My daughter Jezzy takes offense.
Rand had her moments. Removing “the sanction of the victim” renders this strategy powerless. In her zeal to prove her moral code objectively, she gave away some intiate-level plays from the Levite playbook. Ellsworth Tooey & Robert Stadler would have made great rabbis, and in that sense, Howard Roark & John Galt were based counter-Semites.
“Fallacy of the stolen concept” was another good moment of Rand’s. Other than that, her work is just meant to keep us from getting together.
Doc, good analysis. But I would ask, “replace who?”, when you say “replace us”. I assume you mean Whites, and we know whom they replace Whites with…POC. From an HBD perspective, this will not work—and doing what will not work in the long run is not very smart. But we are told that elites are “really not that dumb”.
My thinking/argument here is that elites thrive in and enjoy a high tech, 1st world society that Whites built and maintain (for the most part). The current replacement effort by elites is less a replacement in the traditional sense as a watering down of absolute numbers such that the White population is reduced to a powerless band of despised Helots in their own land. The desired result being that there is a sufficient group of powerless Whites remaining to keep the “lights on”.
Now if that is the current plan of the elites, then I’d agree they are smart.