The Self-Genocidal Impulse: Vol. V
“The proliferation of other races dooms our race, my race, irretrievably to extinction in the century to come if we hold fast to our present moral principles.”-Jean Raspail
While Western ideas and ideals are not “racially exclusive” by any means (though they are far more concentrated among whites, and white males at that, especially the concepts pertaining to self-reliance and libertarianism) and appear able to take root in the right environment, there is something unique to the white race that makes it particularly vulnerable to sentimentality and, indeed, emotional pathology, such as irrational guilt complexes and excessive altruism. Ultimately, we can give the rest of the world the proverbial “shirt off our backs,” but at what cost? Our very existence? While our populations stagnate and slowly decline, the Third World’s population, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, is growing exponentially—and it’s growing restless, too; not content to remain in the hell of their own creation, the undefended corpulent carcass of the West will prove too tempting. Already we are having serious demographic issues with the relatively small number of non-Westerners terra-forming our towns, cities, districts, and entire states to their liking. Demography is destiny, after all.
As Representative Steve King of Iowa says, “When a country imports people, it is axiomatic that their culture is imported, too.” Assimilation is really a difficult process, and one that is largely generational. It is not done with ease and it is not done instantaneously, not if one wishes to preserve their culture in any appreciable way. In the forging crucible of Africa, the Americas, and Oceania, new ethnicities of whites emerged and, consequently, new cultures. These new cultures were not and cannot be divorced from race. No culture, no civilization, can be divorced from race or ethnicity, and since our post-1965 immigration policy has remained oriented around not just the Third World, but its dregs, as Richard Fox put it on Twitter:
Today’s America is but a mockery and adulterated version of what America could’ve been without the 1965 immigration act. We literally allowed the rest of the world to dump trash into our country and expected it to be transmuted into gold.
The cancer of progressivism pre-dates the disastrous Immigration Act of 1965 and the preceding flurry of “Civil Rights” legislation, of course, as an illness often lies dormant before its symptoms begin to really manifest themselves. Teddy Roosevelt certainly fashioned himself as a progressive, though his progressivism would certainly be unrecognizable to its adherents today. Woodrow Wilson, minus the ghastly racism (!) was definitely a proto-SJW, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt had more than a touch of the authoritarian to him. His socialist make-work schemes by some estimations added a good half-decade to the Great Depression—a period of time, it should be noted, with a suicide rate roughly equivalent to ours today. We live in an era of unfathomable opulence compared to our forebears, so what gives? Why are so many people, especially white males, simply “opting out”? We defeated the Nazis, we defeated communism, was this not supposed to be the “End of History”?
Though the United States, for reasons both historical and philosophical, has proven more adept than any other nation in human history at enfolding different peoples into its national fabric, but this relative flexibility is somewhat paradoxically only accomplished when considered alongside the following: 1) America’s prevailing Anglo-Saxon character and social structure, 2) its immigrants remaining largely European until 1965, 3) it once had a dominant uni-culture and a racial super-majority, and 4) it had a purpose, confidence, and a sense of itself. Though it was an explicitly white nation as enshrined in the Constitution and reinforced by the Naturalization Act of 1790, in practice it was not entirely, with imported African slaves and residual groups of Amerindians. That said, this does not mean the United States is a “proposition nation” open to anyone and everyone as the present progressive ideology mandates—America was founded by and for whites, and that is a matter of historical fact. The Immigration Act of 1965, after decades of intensive lobbying by primarily Jewish special interest groups, has been catastrophic for the Historic American Nation. From a nation that in 1950 was nearly 90% white to one that is only 62% white today, the decline of whites’ share of the population—in our own country, mind you—is clearly one of the primary culprits for our increasingly acrimonious political (non-) discourse. Ben Shapiro and Bill Maher can whine about civility all they want—when you’ve handed savage hordes who want you dead the keys to the kingdom and projected nothing but weakness, civility has a way of going missing.
Individualism, and consequently notions of universal human rights, are singularly Western ideas, born out of the unique biological and social contexts that we have to wonder can otherwise be replicated. To be sure, the West has proven to be remarkably adept at assimilating others and transmitting these values, but it is a bit of a tightrope act—too great an influx of non-Westerners at any one time jeopardizes the whole project, and in the absence of anything resembling social cohesion, in fact with the explicit exhortation not to abandon non-Western practices and ideas, as we are currently witnessing, the dissolution can only accelerate. It becomes, as Alt-Right fan favorite Ben Shapiro describes it, a “cultural variety hour,” without the laughs. It is very easy for democracy to be perverted, hence why I am of the belief that the United States’ system of government as it was intended is vastly superior to democracy and represents the crowning achievement of Enlightened governance to date, but democracy does at least account for the individual, in theory. In an environment of direct democracy, which the elites have been eroding the Constitution’s bulwarks against for some time, immigration and “diversity” can be deployed as lethal weapons to effect mob rule and, ultimately, tyranny.
Understanding that democracy is not a viable form of government, it is fair to wonder whether “democracy” as it’s currently used as an umbrella term for representative government, republicanism, parliamentary systems, and the like is implementable everywhere. After all, when Afghanistan was opened up to “democracy,” the five hundred-plus Afghani delegates voted in favor of the current constitution, which is perhaps the most draconian on the entire planet in its rigid adherence to the Koran and the hadiths. But, as the counter-argument might go, this is to fail to consider the Neo-Cons tried to “democratize” at the barrel of a gun, and besides, just as Iraq was immediately plunged into sectarian conflict after the removal of Saddam Hussein due to DIVERSITY, Afghanistan is similarly little more than just a loose confederation of different ethnicities and tribes. The oppressive presence of Islam certainly doesn’t help matters, either, being completely antithetical to Western culture, values, and laws. But it’s telling that, with the freedom to vote, and the chance to vote for freedom, the Afghani delegates opted instead to use their new “democracy” to end democracy.
Could it be that given the evolutionary impetus of what I’ll call “altruism-plus” among whites, in the widespread absence of this biological component, the development of the ideas and political systems that emphasize individualism and protect liberty can only be transitory, unable to be maintained for more than a generation or two? That without fertile ground for these concepts and values, the plant withers before it can really flower? The Enlightenment was exclusively the province of European Man, and the modernization of places like Turkey and Egypt was only due to the will of particular leaders like Gamal Abdel Nasser and Kemal Ataturk. Modernizing and secularizing is a process, and as we’ve seen in places like Iran, Lebanon, Egypt, and Turkey, all of the generational reform efforts can be undone in as little as a few years. Lebanon has torn itself apart in the name of religion, and though Turkey is relatively stable and has extensive contact with and even a presence on the European continent, it is an Islamic dictatorship and the adversarial (and often genocidal) relationships it has with the Kurds, Greeks, Cypriots, Armenians, Jews, and Bulgarians makes them a menace to most of the different peoples in their vicinity. Iran has one of the most repressive regimes on the planet (though this may be changing with the recent protests), and Egypt is a hot-bed of regressive Islam and a stronghold of the Muslim Brotherhood.
We should also be careful not to conflate modernizing and even secularizing with Westernization as such—these are key elements, but just as Nasser modernized and secularized, this was only accomplished by an iron fist. Ataturk only ensured the secularization of Turkey through the military apparatus Barack Obama so foolishly helped to dismantle. I look at the infrastructure the British left behind in Nigeria and its vast natural resources and I can only shake my head at what, on paper, could’ve been an African powerhouse, given a tremendous head-start courtesy of (gasp!) colonialism. Alas, Nigerians are notorious for corruption, even among African countries, and though they are the sixth-largest oil-producing country in the world and have an enviable amount of other natural resources and human capital compared to most of the rest of the continent, the aforementioned corruption plus tribalism and religious strife have ruined the country.
Even the variant of socialism as it was practiced in the pre-sharia Nordic countries relied heavily on “altruism-plus” and the cooperation of a homogeneous population. The obvious downside of said system is that in the presence of “diversity,” coupled with an increasingly totalitarian government committed to population replacement, even this benign version of socialism can be and has been rapidly perverted and weaponized against its people. Indeed, when a ruling elite becomes hostile toward its own people, the protections of the state become meaningless, the social contract completely broken. This betrayal of trust is perhaps most acutely felt by whites, not because the crimes committed against them are any more egregious than those visited upon the people of Cambodia by Pol Pot or the people of China by Chairman Mao; no, this is because Western societies are, more than any other, predicated on accountability, forthrightness, and trust.
But what about Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, all examples of wealthy, functional multi-party democracies? All three nations are high-IQ, and all three are high-trust homogeneous countries. So perhaps societies based on democratic principles are replicable, if you have a high-trust, high-IQ, and homogeneous population base. Can they be independently generated, though? These particular concepts of human rights and respect for the individual are decidedly Western in origin. There is no long-standing tradition of self-governance in these Asian societies, so it remains to be seen whether there is an eventual reversion to Oriental despotism, or if the changes in societal orientation are more permanent. It’s important not to forget that not all Western nations are democracies (or republics), and simply having some white people around doesn’t guarantee a country is going to end up a bastion of liberty, either. A good half of Europe can remember a little something called the Soviet Union, and the entire Western world at present is grappling with globalist totalitarianism to varying degrees. It’s also worth asking what becomes of the nations that do not have the three elements in their favor I’ve just described. Does humanity simply bifurcate into the haves and have-nots of cognitive ability? And if that’s the case, is it wise to prevent the next phase of our evolution?