A Brotherhood of Man and Other Delusions
“Safe in the comfort of their own homes
They’ve got no skin in the game
There’s only one outcome when you play a losing game
I’m not so sure that they’d feel the same
If the roles were reversed, you think they’d play their own fucking game?
It’s not my war
My war is with those who convinced you to die for their interests
Their war is endless
It leaves no winners
It shifts and it transforms
Another year, a new face.” –Discourse, “Losing Game”
The New York Times inadvertently debunked its own narrative by adhering exactly to Dunbar’s number with the following post:
Next time you’re feeling smug about your Twitter following consider that only about 150 people will likely come to your funeral and only 50 of those will consider you a “buddy.”
Well that’s interesting, because I thought the West had become not a civilization (what even is “whiteness”?), but at turns the world’s largest charity and the world’s global population dump. We are meant to care about every (non-white) person on this globe with the ferocious ardor for which we would our own children or spouses or parents, and yet here we are informed that we are all precisely as tribally-oriented as we always have been. To behave otherwise is literally psychotic; no, Hillary Clinton, it does not take a village, especially not one of horrifying drag queens, shit-handed crop-pickers, and machete-wielding Boko Haram members—especially when the latter two groups actively attack, persecute, and kill gays and transgendereds. This global village of “ours” might be exotic, be consider what exotic really means: election-rigging, declining infrastructure, acid attacks, honor killings, environmental degradation, animal abuse, female genital mutilation, cannibalism, freakish and long-eradicated (in the West) diseases, corruption, criminality, rape, and murder.
We are instructed that to condemn barbarism is the height of ignorance, and that the “civilizations” of the largely pre-modern, biologically immature races of this planet are just as good as—better, in fact, and certainly more “authentic” than—ours, yet we literally built the modern world. This “brotherhood of man” feverishly sold to us in every advertisement and piece of propaganda and collegiate classroom is a delusional nightmare for Indo-European Man. To buy into this fantasy is to welcome extinction. Europeans have never been a global majority, or anything close to it, yet we were able to conquer the globe and the moon. Despite the fact that access to whites is apparently a human right, the simple truth is that they need us, but we emphatically do not need them. In fact, multi-culturalism and all of its Bolshevik tentacles only cripple Western Man and make him fraught with unnecessary baggage material, emotional, psychological, and cosmic.
We get it: you hate us. Understandable, as an inferiority complex is. However it simply debases you and shows that you have no self-respect to demand access to us and our civilization, to invidiously eye what we have accomplished with malice, jealousy, and, though you won’t admit it, wonder. Whites are rivaled only by the Northeast Asians in the scope of their undertakings, but the Occident has the one key ingredient the Orient, despite their empirically higher IQs, lacks: the Faustian Spirit. When properly channeled, we are unstoppable. When derailed, however, we internalize and we self-destruct. Where Northeast Asians, especially the Chinese, have a terminal lack of creativity, and where Jews are neurotic and arrogant, whites can be excessively altruistic and open, and often internalize rather than, as the blacks and browns do, externalize. Our introspectiveness, often intense, can be a great positive or a great negative, depending. Hence why self-harm and suicide are so high amongst whites as opposed to blacks and browns, and why violence toward others is so much higher in those population groups. Maybe you find this “offensive,” but you should really consider the sheer amount of conditioning that has caused you to feel this way.
That’s right—feel. Not think. Blacks and browns are decidedly more violent than whites and Northeast Asians. It is exceedingly rare to hear of a white person shooting another over stepping on his sneakers, or for some other perceived slight. This is also attributable to impulse control and time preference factors, ones that will have your life destroyed if you advance as reasonable alternatives to non-white/Northeast Asian dysfunction as opposed to “systemic racism.” There is systemic racism, but it is precisely the opposite of what the Western Pravda would have you believe. For Joe Sobran:
The unadmitted premise of the [civil rights] movement, ironically enough, was white supremacy and black inferiority. It was assumed that black children couldn’t get a proper education in segregated schools; only if they sat in classrooms with whites could they become achievers. But public schools, once integrated, didn’t remain integrated long; whites fled as soon as they could. Again, the alleged reason was “prejudice” — or what Bill Clinton would homiletically call “fear of those who are different,” as in “the color of their skin.” But whites weren’t afraid of skin pigment; they were afraid of violence. They went to great lengths and great expense to escape it. Even liberals notoriously put their children in safe, i.e., mostly white, schools. If sheer, irrational racial prejudice motivated “white flight” from black-dominated cities, it should also have made whites equally fearful of Orientals and other nonwhites.
There is an obvious difference between defensive and aggressive prejudices — a distinction liberalism doesn’t acknowledge. When one group sees another group as threatening and is actually willing to pay a high price to avoid close contact with it, the prejudice would seem to have at least some foundation. The liberal response to this market judgment is to outlaw the market, making contact compulsory, without asking why such a policy is necessary. When such policies fail, liberals conclude that even more drastic policies must be imposed. Even today, black “leaders” like Jesse Jackson appear to be white supremacists. Jackson admits that blacks pose a certain crime problem; he once confessed that when he hears footsteps behind him on a dark street, he is relieved if he turns and sees a white man. The huge disparity between interracial crime committed by blacks and that committed by whites — the ratio is about 50 to 1 — causes no comment; a violent crime committed by a white against a black makes national headlines.
It is exceedingly obvious, if you are paying attention, that none of this is about “equality.” Were that the case, why are whites discriminated against in every arena from college acceptances to hiring? Why the incessant need to ascribe cosmic guilt to whites for things they didn’t even do—worked against in fact? Why is “treason to whiteness loyalty to humanity,” but the Democrats rigging the mid-term elections is described as “Hanukkah”? Why the condemnation of asking, “Is it good for whites?” but the celebration of naked self-interest for other groups? Why can you literally get away with murdering someone who called you a naughty word so long as you belong to a protected class? These are questions that deserve satisfactory answers, and in their inevitable absence, our leaders must be brought to account.