“I propose a toast to the 21st century / I can’t close my eyes at night.”-The Acacia Strain, “Terminated”
“I can’t go back to what I was / Metallica without the drugs.”-Every Time I Die, “The Coin Has a Say”
The Great Subversion is complete. The neo-liberal mind infection that convinces a country of 350 million people that they “need” more people and more labor—especially as automation makes millions of jobs redundant—and that the height of compassion is to literally allow yourself to be raped, plundered, killed, and ultimately ethnically cleansed has become so pervasive defending your nation is now treasonous. The people themselves are the nation, not its GDP or some other abstraction. The land is theirs, the culture is theirs, the spirit is theirs, but not in the eyes of the craven “elites,” multi-national corporations, and the global financial establishment. “Westernization” no longer refers to specific ideals and means of organization that one might correctly identify as “civilization,” but rather the export of consumer culture and a loosening of morals, un-tethered from a nation’s unique peoples and traditions. As with “diversity,” “Westernization” makes everywhere the same, and in this deeply ironic way, the communistic impulse to characterless uniformity is expressed through consumer culture. Neo-liberalism is by far the most significant threat we’ve yet to encounter specifically because like communism it comes pre-packaged with an ideology that appeals to basic (or base as the case may be) human instinct, but even more insidiously neo-liberalism is able to take root because it provides material comfort and because its rhetoric is so “soft” and treacly. It works on a deep perversion of certain feminine or feminized instincts. As I wrote in “I, Blasphemer” for Republic Standard:
When a population becomes sentimentalized, it becomes much easier to shroud totalitarianism in emotional terms. Thus, “hate speech”—the criminalization of the verbal expression of nothing more than a base emotion. The idea of “hate” hinges on the notion that the legislator or judge or whomever is appraising the speech or crime as it were can determine your motive. This is legal machinery built upon a logical fallacy, but the populace is so inured to the absence of logic that they accept the need for hate speech laws in order to protect the poor Muslims or Jews or gays or whomever. Emotion is subjective and should not, in a properly-functioning society, form the basis for any kind of law-making, let alone things as vaguely- or poorly-defined as the universe of multitudinous genders or “Islamophobia.” Even these terms—transphobia, Islamophobia, homophobia, xenophobia—are meant to paint the accused into a corner of ignorance as possessed by an irrational fear of the subject in question. It is meant to short-circuit any reasonable objections to, say, mass Islamic immigration and the wholesale changes it brings. As shocking as this may seem, there’s nothing irrational to the objection of seeing your homeland engulfed by sharia law, or dissolved in what Jim Goad calls “a cleansing wave of softly genocidal immigration.”
This type of mindset also explains away any short-comings of the non-indigenous population as exclusively the fault of said population, despite the very real differences in IQ, temperament, etc. (to say nothing of the fact that the society itself was designed by and for the indigenous population, not whatever smorgasbord of global effluvium happens to wash up on its shores). The academia-media-entertainment complex caterwaul of RACISM is loudest on “behalf” of those whose behaviors, attitudes, and aptitudes (or lack thereof) are most diametrically opposed to those of the host white population. For Matt Nuenke:
When the United States was founded of course it did not need to manipulate the Black race for the fitness of the White race. No manipulation was required. Blacks were merely enslaved. Later on however, starting in the 1960’s, the host/parasite positions began to change. Indoctrination combined with compassion or concern for the status of Blacks by the maladaptive altruistic traits of Whites, started putting the resources of Whites into the hands of Blacks. Whites were being manipulated for the benefit of Blacks. How did this occur? Blacks were not intelligent, they did not control the press, and yet Whites were now being easily manipulated for the increased fitness of Blacks. At first it really did have a lot to do with concerns for justice, what is morally right in terms of the accepted religious norms, etc. Whites, with an overabundance of altruism just plain tried to be more benevolent. And the media, especially television, brought the images of an oppressed Black population into the homes of Whites who had never lived with Blacks. They were easily indoctrinated into the liberal viewpoint: “Blacks were equal to Whites in intelligence, and it was only racism that kept them down.” The public bought it, but the Blacks didn’t really have much to do with it. Others were pulling the strings.
James Watson, who might know a thing or two about genes, has been publicly crucified for daring to suggest that disparate outcomes might just happen to be due to those stubborn intractable differences caused by biology. This objective truth must be suppressed at all costs in order to reinforce the narrative. Better to use RACISM as an explanation for the fact that in Australia, Victoria police stated that in 2012 Sudanese (0.1% of the population) and Somali (0.05% of the population) immigrants were approximately five times more likely to commit crimes than other state residents. The rate of offending was 1301.0 per 100,000 for native Australians in Victoria, whereas for the Sudanese it was 7109.1 per 100,000 individuals and 6141.8 per 100,000 for Somalis. The Sudanese and Somalis seem to have a particular affinity for assault, which represents 29.5% for Sudanese and 24.3% for Somalis of their offences. Three years later, Victoria police data showed that male Sudanese “youths” were “vastly over-represented” in criminal behavior, responsible for 7.44% of home invasions, 5.65% of car thefts, and 13.9% of aggravated robberies. Again, keep in mind the Sudanese are 0.1% of Victoria’s population, and young males are only maybe a quarter to a sixth of that 0.1%. Despite constituting just 3% of the population, aborigines make up 28% of Australia’s prison population. In England and Wales, whites are arrested at a rate of 12 per 1,000, whereas “Asians” are at 14, mixed-race individuals at 26, and blacks at 38. In the United States, according to the Department of Justice’s “Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties,” for the year 2009, in the country’s 75 largest counties, blacks committed 62% of robberies, 45% of assaults and accounted for 57% of murder defendants. In Canada, as immigration has increased, so, too, has the country’s homicide rate. Black Canadians are 3% of the population but 10% of the country’s prison population; aborigines in Canada are 4.3% of the population but 24.4% of its prison population. Regardless of the location or context, non-whites (Northeast Asians excepted) commit crime at rates multiples higher than that of whites. It doesn’t matter that individuals prone to violence have a distinct profile: impulsive, low-attention, hyperactive, and low in intelligence, spiteful, deliberately oppositional, and deflecting of blame. These tendencies are far more prevalent in sub-90 IQ populations, which incidentally encompasses most of the Third World.
It also just so happens that these types of people make ideal hyper-consumers. A recent study of the city of Boston found that blacks had an average net worth of eight dollars. Yes, you read that right: eight dollars. I can hear the objections now—“underserved communities,” systemic racism, not enough educational opportunities, crime, ad infinitum—but what this really displays is an inability to invest, plan, and save. In a hyper-consumption society, “each social experience is mediated by market mechanism”" as the acquisition and display of such goods display status and form an integral part of one’s identity. What is “black culture” centered on, outside of perpetual grievances and the lionization of communists like Martin Luther King, Jr.? Easy: “bling,” cars, sneakers, alcohol and illicit substances, the conspicuous show of spending such as bottle service at the club, etc. Status symbols shaped by the market. Most whites do not do this, and those who do are generally regarded as crass and garish. Culturally, ostentation is deeply discouraged. But this is in part why our overlords are trying to atomize us and condition us to be better consumers.
It’s not just the “market at work,” however; the government ensures outcomes through the financing of your eventual population replacements and through “generous” tax-payer subsidies. They subsidize state-run propaganda outlets. They subsidize the indoctrination once known as higher education, and do not allow people to discharge their student debts through bankruptcy. They subsidize deluxe professional sports stadiums whose teams charge exorbitant ticket prices that make what would be a nice family event a veritable impossibility for most people. They subsidize unproductive trash and Third World leeches. They subsidize the NGOs and other organizations who facilitate the latter’s mass invasion. They subsidize additional headquarters for trillion-dollar companies. They subsidize fishing fleets that destroy marine habitats and push independent operations out of business. They subsidize factory farms that employ illegal labor, pollute the environment, treat animals deplorably, and kill off small family-owned farms (in the US, roughly 30% of payments go to the top 2% of farmers; between 1995 and 2016, the top 10% of farmers received 77% of subsidies, with more than 6% going toward four “junk food” components).
Remember, these things don’t vary independently. A fat and sick population requires plenty of healthcare, medication, and the like, and that is big bucks. Similarly, a weak and effete class of men are more susceptible to accepting the aforementioned narrative on “migrants” and the “under-served,” in addition to the fact that low-testosterone males will have more health problems, cognitive deficiencies, will be less likely to reproduce or ensure the maintenance of a normal family unit, and will be largely unable to physically protect themselves, their family (if they have one), and to resist attacks from governmental forces, Antifa, and/or assorted criminal elements. If they do resist or try to protect themselves, the judiciary will finish them off. They want us to be sitting ducks, big white targets for the Third World invaders and the shock troops of the Establishment to pick off one by one as we grow increasingly isolated and alienated. Defend yourself and go to prison. Don’t and be beaten, robbed, and possibly killed.
Add to this state of affairs whites’ economic dispossession. Companies explicitly state that they are only going to hire certain races or genders in job postings and internal memoranda, and the first thought is, naturally, isn’t that illegal? Well yes, but the laws don’t enforce themselves, and as mentioned, a politicized judiciary targets dissidents and Wrongthinkers. You think they’ll protect the rights of whites, especially white males, who are actively discriminated against? Further, organizations like the IRS use their resources to attack non-ideologically-compliant 501(c)(3)’s and the like. Oh yeah, and they’re coming for the guns.
The rapper Common venerates cop-killer Assata Shakur in his lyrics and has a lucrative commercial deal with Microsoft. Far be it from anti-white rhetoric being an impediment to career advancement, it seems these days to be a prerequisite (Sarah Jeong, etc.). This isn’t a culture war—it’s a culture massacre, one that’s about to turn literal. Remind me again what we’re trying to “conserve”?
 John King and I have a great discussion about this here: https://www.spreaker.com/user/johnqpublius/cocktailhour16