The Softest War
“This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang but a whimper.”-T.S. Eliot, “The Hollow Men”
When a woman pushes a man or a child pushes a parent, the vast majority of the time they are looking for the man to set a firm boundary. There have been a number of studies conducted that have proven that when a woman is “forced” to compete with men in the workplace, her endogenous testosterone levels begin to rise, and for men who are “stay-at-home,” their endogenous testosterone levels begin to fall. Couples where the woman works and the man does not have been discovered to have substantially less sex than those where the roles are opposite—what we might call “traditional.” Because Western feminists have continuously pushed the envelope beyond any reasonable measure, and Western men in general have been so thoroughly emasculated, the intractably patriarchal Islam is perversely starting to look more attractive for many Western women. Its boundaries are plenty firm, certainly firm enough to accommodate the “horse-shoe” set of conditions produced by modern feminism that have essentially returned ideas of women’s agency to that of pre-suffrage.
We’re in an era of prudish, hysterical Victorianism, an age where, to quote Troy Senik, “these delicate porcelain creatures”—women especially—must be protected from the predations of leering and rapacious men—unless these men are one of the Left’s prized minorities, of course. Paralyzed by weakness, uncertainty, and the fear of causing offense, the New Victorians have readily embraced Islam’s repressive “modesty culture,” going out of their way to glamorize what amounts to the subjugation of the women feminism had supposedly liberated to follow their desires and libidos wherever that may take them. What this amounted to, of course, was aping male behavior, and given the specific emotional hard-wiring of the female sex, this was bound to be a disaster.
Not that this was unforeseen by the Left, determined as they are to obliterate the nuclear family. It is yet one more foundational pillar of Western civilization knocked down, and that in and of itself is an indisputable good for the radical egalitarians. Periods of intense chaos are usually followed by periods of extreme order, and the wide-open borders, the dispensing of all kinds of distinctions, the tacit agreement to let parallel societies develop and let criminals roam free—this isn’t in the service of a great harmonious society of the future, not for the people pulling the strings anyway. It is the sowing of discord in order to continue to consolidate control.
It is very, very easy to be a Leftist in today’s society. It requires no thought, no courage, no effort. You “resist” nothing while Antifa and illegal alien shock troops (Islamists and African gangs in Europe) romp through the streets braining people so that they turn to a bigger and bigger government to protect them, but that protection never comes, only increased encroachments on civil rights and impingement on free and open discourse for the law-abiding populace. In desperation, and fear, silence and compliance becomes the only survival mechanism for the deer-in-the-headlights in the face of this anarcho-tyranny; the law is effectively enforced only against those who obey it. The DREAMers may dream, but the Kate Steinle’s may not.
Whites are imbued with self-loathing and ethno-masochism as “racists,” even though, in 1777, the Republic of Vermont became the first sovereign state in human history to outlaw slavery (Lithuania and Japan both de jure outlawed slavery in the late 16th century, but this legal abolition was irrelevant as the practice continued as de facto slavery in the form of serfdom). The following century, in chronological order, the following states outlawed the importation of slaves: Denmark, Great Britain, the United States, Spain (although its Cuban colony rejected the ban outright and continued to participate in the slave trade), Sweden, the Netherlands, and France. Spain became the second nation to abolish slavery, in 1811; Britain became the third nation to abolish slavery, in 1833; Denmark followed in 1846 and France in 1848. Contrast with 2018: An estimated 10% to 20% of Mauritania’s 3.4 million people are enslaved — in “real slavery,” according to the United Nations’ special rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery, Gulnara Shahinian. Given the contemporary persistence of this widely-discussed historical Western evil, an evil the West was first to acknowledge and then eliminate, why isn’t the Islamic Republic of Mauritania squarely in the crosshairs of liberal public opinion? No noise is made about the open-air slave auctions in Libya—in no small part a consequence of the actions of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Why is that?
If class conflict, race conflict, and chromosomal conflict are all sown, the old divide-and-conquer strategy will work like a charm. Black lives very clearly do not matter to anyone wielding real power—and nor do white lives. We are the bottom line, instruments to pit against one another while simultaneously maximizing consumption and minimizing labor costs. Homogeneous nations do not have to contend with this kind of internecine strife and are far more stable, thus more difficult to exploit. The pathological Westerner, as Jean Raspail brilliantly wrote, sees only the green of envy, not of prosperity on the home front:
The petty bourgeois, deaf and blind, continues to play the buffoon without knowing it. Still miraculously comfortable in his lush fields, he cries out while glancing toward his nearest neighbor “Make the rich pay!'” Does he know, does he finally know that it is he who is the rich guy, and that the cry for justice, that cry of all revolutions, projected by millions of voices, is rising soon against him, and only against him…It just seems to me that we are facing a unique alternative [in the West], either learn the resigned courage of being poor or find again the inflexible courage to be rich. In both cases, so-called Christian charity will prove itself powerless. The times will be cruel…Encircled by seven billion people, only seven hundred million of them white, hardly a third of them in our little Europe, and those no longer in bloom but quite old. They face a vanguard of four hundred million North Africans and Muslims, fifty percent of them less than twenty years old, those on the opposite shores of the Mediterranean arriving ahead of the rest of the world! Can one imagine for a second, in the name of whatever ostrich-like blindness, that such a disequilibrium can endure?
Of course we must open our arms to the poor children of war-torn Syria, full beards and all; 65% of under-age asylum seekers in Europe are in fact adults, and those hundreds of thousands if not millions of charcoal-skinned Syrians? From sub-Saharan Africa! Since the galaxy brains that run our countries (into the ground) no longer believe in facts, hyper-flexible notions of “morality” must be jammed down our throats. The Pope himself is using a corrupted form of Christianity to force Europeans to open their arms to the throngs of the Third World who have shown not one iota of interest in integrating or contributing, and who in fact often harbor deep-seated resentments and malevolence. It is a fool’s errand to continue to play this game, but it is one that has different rules for different players. It is peace, love, and tolerance as long as you stay on the right side of the ever-shifting narrative.
“Think of the children, won’t you think of the children!?” the media wail about an obvious false flag in Syria, while at the same time claiming black lives matter when half of their pregnancies are terminated in abortions and there’s a Planned Parenthood in every low-income neighborhood; or the media and managerial class turn a blind eye to the what Labour MP Sarah Champion believes may be as many as one million native British victims of the grooming gangs, but the use of the chemical weapons Assad does not have on children they do not know on another continent should suddenly galvanize a public whose elected officials don’t give a shit what happens to their own people. Why, for the first time in my lifetime at least, is the Left suddenly so gung-ho for a war? Staunchly (and correctly) opposed to going to war in Iraq at the beginning of the century, suddenly their neighbor is ripe for a good ass-kicking. Is it because Israel says jump and we say how high? One of the few white nations with a healthy racial consciousness, Russia, is tarred as a force of terrible evil (and trust me, I know Putin is no saint), while at the same time the United States is always backing some of the worst human rights offenders, arming and supporting Wahhabism and Salafist exporter extraordinaires like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. We are in bed with the same financiers of the Allahu Akbar crew that are, as Mark Steyn characterizes them, “hot for the jihad.”
This is all “off-screen,” though, and niche concerns, the more obscure the better, are given inordinate attention, red herrings abounding, as, to quote Lothrop Stoddard, “So absorbed is the white world with its domestic dissensions that it pays scant heed to racial problems whose importance for the future of mankind transcends the questions which engross its attention today.” The average Leftist talks about white dominance and control of positions of power, blissfully unaware that they are actually noticing “fellow whites,” aka the Jews. Blacks urged to loathe their white “oppressors” ought to look at the formation of the NAACP, for example.
From its founding, the United States has always been, and was always intended to be, an extension of but philosophical improvement on Europe, with a white super-majority always implicitly understood to be the safeguard against alienism; though in fact it was and is a bi-racial society with a substantial black minority (and this is of course before considering the remnants of the various tribes who were ultimately conquered in the service of this new nation, a tragic but irreversible consequence of the otherwise great positive that was Manifest Destiny), this does not change its orientation. Physically, it is as much theirs as ours, but philosophically, most American blacks regard the flag with a kind of suspicion, a gnawing sense of doubt that it truly represents them. This is understandable because their passage to this country was largely involuntary (though for many white slaves this is also true), and the founding of America is rooted in traditions alien to them. Negotiating these difficult tensions unique to us among Western nations may ultimately prove irresolvable—I do not know. What I do know is that the atomization of the country on the backs of a Hispanic minority that has now eclipsed blacks in numerical superiority (not to mention the further addition via mass immigration all the other assorted races of the entire world in some number) has on balance only worsened the situation for both black and white. What was a family quarrel has become a neighborhood brawl.
In mono-racial Europe, ancestral homeland of the white race plus the notable exception of the few thousand non-white Sami (Roma and Ashkenazim are much more recent interlopers), the “discussion” (read: bureaucratic mandate) centers on the notion that it must become multi-racial after it was finally sorting out its long-standing religious and ethnic difficulties, clearly intended to sow dissension once again, as if two attempted World War suicides weren’t enough. The emboldening of our long-standing enemy, the anti-Christian, anti-Western Islam, which territorially almost completely encircles Europe as the vanguard of the Third World, and the introduction of various non-white ethnicities en masse into nations that were never intended to become “multi-cultural” is allowing the EU super-state to become more entrenched and more flagrant in its disregard for national sovereignty. How many of the individual national leaders are contributing to this consciously or are simply dupes, I do not know, but I do know the “guy behind the guy” (or guy behind the goy, as the case may be) to borrow from Swingers is absolutely intending for this to happen.
For the dominant ideology, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Europe continuing to exist as bastions of “whiteness” is, if you’ll pardon the pun, beyond the pale. South African and Rhodesian whites are on the precipice of utter extermination. Instead of mustering the fortitude to #ResistTheOccupation, we’re instead encouraged, cajoled, bullied into swallowing the syrupy, saccharine lies of DIVERSITY. Think of the children…(and buy their dismembered body parts, fetal tissue, and organs sold by Planned Parenthood officials on the black market). Platitudes and posturing have now supplanted facts and reason. No wonder birthrates are down with all these omega males sucking down such effete, sentimental cocktails. Soft is the New Hard.
I’d like to leave you with this, from Madison Grant:
If this great race, with its capacity for leadership and fighting, should ultimately pass, with it would pass that which we call civilization. It would be succeeded by an unstable and bastardized population, where worth and merit would have no inherent right to leadership…Such a catastrophe cannot threaten if the Nordic race will gather itself in time, shake off the shackles of inveterate altruism, discard the vain phantom of internationalism, and reassert the pride of race and the right of merit to rule…Fight it must, but let that fight be not a civil war against its own blood kindred but against the dangerous foreign races, whether they advance sword in hand or in the more insidious guide of beggars at our gates, pleading for admittance to share our prosperity. If we continue to allow them to enter they will in time drive us out of our own land by mere force of breeding.