s0mdqqoempexvirate0o.jpg

Hi.

Prepare your anus, you’re about to get a red pill suppository.

A Fish Called Wakanda

A Fish Called Wakanda

The Founding Fathers understood that Western civilization, rights, and race were inextricable; in fact, race is in no small part the guarantor of those rights! The Naturalization Act of 1790 was passed before the Bill of Rights was ratified! Not that simply being white means one cherishes human rights and basic human dignity, that much is plainly obvious, but that out of all races, only whites have a tradition of and respect for such concepts as property rights, freedom of speech, due process, etc. outside of a minority, and besides, these concepts originated from the European people to begin with! If you look at Rhodesia, Namibia, and South Africa, it is clear that blacks do not value property rights, equality under the law, free speech, or any of the other hallmarks of Western civilization.

As described by critical race theorist Richard Delgado, “[Critical Race theorists] are suspicious of another liberal mainstay, namely rights....Rights are...alienating." As you can see, there is no respect of any of the fundamental organizing principles of Western society, namely property rights, human rights, merit, the rule of law, freedom of speech, and even the much-vaunted democracy. It should be abundantly clear by now that the societies that whites build for themselves and apparently for others are not only unsustainable in the hands of non-whites, but undesirable in the work and trust it takes to construct such societies. They are only valuable insofar as they may be materially appropriated by non-whites without any of the effort. When they are appropriated (see: Rhodesia), the wealth is quickly squandered and the societies regress to the mean. Thus, the America or Britain or Germany or Australia non-whites think they're taking control of will cease to be once (if) said control changes hands. America will be, as Christopher Langan described it, Greater Mexico punctuated by the odd Little Somalia, or in the case of Namibia and South Africa, just as happened in Zimbabwe, it will be as if whites were never there. Sounds great for the anti-white utopians, right?

White commercial farmers still own 70% of commercial farmland in Namibia, almost three decades after independence, the Namibia Statistics Agency revealed yesterday. This means that like Rhodesia, like South Africa, this gross inequity must be resolved with the whites getting short shrift, of course, for a “legacy of colonialism,” with land expropriation high on the agenda. Never mind that in South Africa, blacks already took monetary reparations instead of land—now they want the land, too. An almost-unfathomable amount of arable land lies uncultivated in starving Africa. In 2000, the former Rhodesia’s government expropriated white farmers without compensation, triggering hyperinflation and food shortages. Agriculture represented a 21.8% share of Zimbabwe’s GDP in 1998 and has been halved since the expropriations. Zimbabwe went from a food exporter to a food importer. In 2001, Zimbabwe was the world's sixth-largest producer of tobacco, but by 2005 it produced less than a third of the amount produced in 2000, and by 2008, was producing just 21% of the amount grown in 2000. The country’s trade surplus went from hundreds of millions of dollars before the expropriations were enacted to an $18 million deficit in two years. The economy has deteriorated significantly since then. Zimbabwe was once called “the bread basket of Africa,” and it is now struggling to feed its own population, with nearly half of the population malnourished.

Agriculture is by its nature a low time preference activity and requires the ability to plan ahead among a number of other vital skills. We know that an average group IQ of 85 is necessary for a group to independently invent agriculture. In the absence of higher-IQ whites’ low time preference and expertise, it is little surprise that Africans have proven more or less unable to feed themselves, their population having out-stripped the subsistence-level standard of living they are capable of in a vacuum as, ironically, the by-product of Western medicine eliminating many of the diseases that plagued Africans for so long. The continent of Africa has an embarrassment of natural resources but its people have nothing to show for it. With one possible exception in Nigeria, sub-Saharan Africans did not even have written languages before Europeans arrived, and they had been unable to invent the wheel or fashion ocean-going vessels. There was no sanitation, something the Romans had mastered nearly 2,000 years before, and there were certainly no notions of “democracy,” republicanism, or, well, agriculture.

According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Spain needs five-and-a-half million additional “migrants” to pay for its pensions, despite the fact that the country’s youth unemployment is 33.8%—which amounts to about 3.5 million Spaniards. This also despite the fact that, Europe’s “migrants” represent at least a three generation lead weight on the state’s checkbook, far from being a boon to the economy. According to Morten Uhrskov Jensen, third-generation immigrants to Denmark, for example, are still less self-sufficient than native Danes, utterly obliterating the narrative that migration is necessary to prop up the welfare state, as they represent a multi-generational drain on taxpayer resources. Ever since the Spanish government went full communist, the number of African “migrants” pouring into the country has tripled, as if the severe issues plaguing France, the UK, Germany, Sweden, Belgium, etc. weren’t evidence enough these are not good-faith actors, let alone the “engineers of tomorrow.” These are the ten least educated countries in the world (shown with literacy rate percentage):

1.      Burkina Faso 21.8%

2.     South Sudan 24.4%

3.     Chad 25.7%

4.     Niger 28.7%

5.     Guinea 29.5%

6.     Benin 34.7%

7.     Sierra Leone 34.8%

8.    Ethiopia 35.9%

9.     Mozambique 38.7%

10. Senegal 39.3%

Interesting that they’re all in sub-Saharan Africa, eh? These same nations’ average IQs:

1.     Burkina Faso: 68

2.     South Sudan: 55 (disputed)

3.     Chad: 68

4.     Niger: 69

5.     Guinea: 67

6.     Benin: 70

7.     Sierra Leone: 64

8.     Ethiopia: 69

9.     Mozambique: 64

10.    Senegal: 66

Without whites, civilization as we understand it simply evaporates. Africa’s deterioration isn’t because of colonialism, it is despite colonialism. Of course the present dogma precludes any rational discussion of the obvious biological differences that make Ethiopia and Senegal Ethiopia and Senegal, and Spain and Denmark Spain and Denmark. A study by Donald I. Templer and Hiroko Arikawa concludes that:

Persons in colder climates tend to have higher IQs than persons in warmer climates. We correlated mean IQ of 129 countries with per capita income, skin color, and winter and summer temperatures, conceptualizing skin color as a multigenerational reflection of climate. The highest correlations were 0.92 (rho =0.91) for skin color, 0.76 (rho =0.76) for mean high winter temperature, 0.66 (rho =0.68) for mean low winter temperature, and 0.63 (rho = 0.74) for real gross domestic product per capita. The correlations with population of country controlled for are almost identical. Our findings provide strong support for the observation of Lynn and of Rushton that persons in colder climates tend to have higher IQs.[1]

Clearly it was the “legacy of colonialism,” not biological considerations, that has not even arrested the development of Africa but sent it plunging to pre-colonial levels. Zimbabwe is a disaster because of its ethnic cleansing of whites, but somehow only the white countries of the former British Empire, especially the United States, flourished because of the forced labor of the race found in Zimbabwe. Ricardo Duchesne begs to differ:

The role that millions of British farmers and workers played, together with British institutions, with their greater protection of property rights, openness to merit, including the unsurpassed presence in Britain of numerous schools and societies dedicated to the application of scientific ideas, were somehow not “crucial” but parasitic on the hard work of Africans in the Americas. How could so many academics believe that a transformation, the industrial revolution, so uniquely dependent on scientific knowledge, favourable institutions, and a population with aptitudes, foresight, frugality, and devotion to hard work — components never found before in unison — was made possible by slavery, a typical feature found in numerous societies throughout history, none of which industrialized?[2]

Freedom is slavery and all people are equal, just as “climate change” né global warming is “settled science” but the sexual dimorphism of human beings is not. The idea of sex as gender, which is itself wholly a social construct, is ludicrous, just as “race is a social construct.” It’s not that there aren’t socially-reinforced expectations for men and women, for example, but these expectations are themselves reflections of biological predisposition, as culture is inextricable from biology. Every culture ever didn’t arbitrarily decide men made better warriors due to their superior strength and higher levels of aggression. We now know women have, on average, just 50% of the upper body strength of men and 67% of the lower body strength. Our ancestors didn’t know the exact numbers but they had eyes and they could practice deductive reasoning. They were not, as is today the iron law of the land, forbidden from practicing pattern recognition. They understood the unique dispositional traits that make women more nurturing and men more rational. They understood that different peoples and races were fundamentally different. They knew that these different peoples probably did not have your best interests at heart. Only the poisonous influence of Marxism in our society has made such fundamental and obvious truths “problematic.” So the feminists will continue to try and castrate Western men all while throngs of Third World men with lower IQs, poor impulse control, and no cultural inhibitions from molesting women run roughshod over their countries.

They’ll be experiencing dhimmitude before they realize it, the Andrea Dworkin’s and Gloria Steinem’s of the world pushing the only civilization that was obviously dumb enough to give them equality right off a cliff. Then they’ll have seen their standing in society regress about 2,000 years in the blink of an eye. Only European and Northeast Asian societies have monogamy and high-investment parenting as civilizational fixtures, and only European societies traditionally understood women as fully human and with agency—indeed in some senses as almost angelic figures and certainly as invaluable ones. Though they may have had fewer rights as we understand them today, this was based on an understanding of women’s dispositional differences, chiefly an inclination to the sentimental, which precluded them from voting and holding office. In Rome, for example, women more or less had the same status as civilians in Robert Heinlein’s Starship Troopers, with the notable exception of agency in marriage. This was predominantly confined to the patricians and “knightly” classes, however. Western culture has always been more egalitarian, generally speaking, than other cultures, and should it be extinguished, women will have lost far more than most can presently comprehend.

That said, we shouldn’t take pride in such distinctions to hear Jordan Peterson tell it. Dr. Peterson is generally right on most things, but here he goes off the rails: to have pride in your civilizational accomplishments is not to take credit for them. That is absurd (or abzurd as he’d pronounce it). No, instead it is to be properly situated in the flow of history which connects the past to the present, and gives us a sense of who we are and why we should fight to preserve and advance the knowledge and accomplishments of those who came before to honor them, to honor ourselves, and to honor our posterity. Race and civilization are inextricable. Peterson, with his knowledge of critical theory and Cultural Marxism, must understand that he is merely reinforcing the erroneous relativism of this school of thought by making such a statement. He defers to the individual, and while that is essentially correct, to quote Revilo P. Oliver:

Even the earliest tribes of our race must have been aware of the potential conflict between an intelligent individualism and society’s absolute need to inspire in its members a willingness to subordinate personal advantage to the good of the whole…The social dilemma, most acute, no doubt, among Aryans, of nations must encourage individual excellence and superiority and yet prevent man’s natural philautia from weakening, and an unbridled egotism from destroying the society and culture that, in a real sense, created the individuals.

A civilization that does not understand itself can be easily mislead, as we are witnessing, and one as special and advanced as ours is nevertheless obviously not immune from being manipulated into believing it is inherently evil and needs to be eradicated for the advancement of humanity. The Left is firmly committed to its #Resistance to all that Western civilization stands for and represents, from the race that built it to the centrality of the logos and the quest for truth as its centrally-organizing feature. We are drowning in a morass of relativism and degeneracy, and we are running perilously low on time. Sink or swim, Western Man: the choice is yours. Seize the mantle of your destiny or be swallowed by ignominy, just another casualty in the graveyard of history.

[1] http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Donald-I.-Templer-Hiroko-Arikawa-Temperature-skin-color-per-capita-income-and-IQ-An-international-perspective.pdf

[2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311962969_The_Underdevelopment_of_European_Pride

Barebacked by Liberalism

Barebacked by Liberalism

“We’re Gonna Eat You Out (Of House and Home)!”: On Libertines and “Refugees”

“We’re Gonna Eat You Out (Of House and Home)!”: On Libertines and “Refugees”