Somalis All the Way Down
“Nations are the wealth of mankind, its collective personalities; the very least of them wears its own special colors and bears within itself a special facet of divine intention.”-Alexandr Solzhenitsyn
“If one says ‘the future of socialism’ or ‘international peace,’ instead of native city or ‘fatherland’ (which at present may be a dubious value to some), then you face the problem as it stands now.”-Max Weber
Fanatical devotion to your favorite sports team: fine (unless it’s a white-dominated team such as Russia’s 2018 World Cup squad or the 2009-10 Indiana Pacers). Even tepid support for your nation: the Holocaust. Defending your nation is now treason. Even whites’ ancestral homelands in Europe are being decried as “too white.” Is Somalia too black? Certainly the US could use even more incestuous Mogadishu spice, but with the West Coast becoming the Chinese lebensraum and huge swathes of the rest of the country evermore resembling Juarez, where does that leave us? According to Mollie Tibbets’s father, being able to get Hepatitis A from tacos prepared by “authentic” Mexicans is more important than having a living, breathing daughter. Americans don’t want to make those tacos anyway. Plus, we “stole” the land, so bringing in even more people who are not indigenous to the Americas, or who have mixed European ancestry, makes all the sense in the world. Besides, it’s not like there have been a plethora of studies (not to mention historical evidence) questioning the veracity of the thesis of “diversity as strength.” As such, we are expected to internalize the following, that immigration is:
2. Economically necessary
3. A moral imperative
4. A punishment
Mainstream conservatism has indoctrinated many with the view that immigration is a morally-neutral, policy-based decision, but this is to misunderstand what, exactly, a nation is. To believe that it is just a set of principles is lunacy, but their propaganda is that good—they can divorce a nation from its people and frame economic systems as religious doctrine human beings must remain in thrall to. But to understand the true essence of the nation, then immigration absolutely becomes a moral issue. The Left frames it as such, and to this end, they are right. Regarding immigration, it is moral in every sense, and it impacts the nation's core by fundamentally transforming its essence. To quote Alexander Hamilton:
Foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments…to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived; or, if they should be led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism? There may, as to particular individuals, and at particular times, be occasional exceptions to these remarks, yet such is the general rule. The influx of foreigners must, therefore, rend to produce a heterogeneous compound: to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.
As Thomas Jefferson himself wrote regarding the body of still largely-unassimilated blacks:
Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free; nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government.
This is of course not true for all blacks by any means, but it is certainly true of a majority. We know what happens when each race is the master of its own destiny—whites go to the moon and blacks create Haiti or take Rhodesia and make it Zimbabwe. Quoting Graham Boynton from The Telegraph:
At the time that [Ian Smith] claimed to be defending “civilised standards,” Rhodesians had already witnessed the flight of Belgian refugees from the Congo; Idi Amin had trashed Uganda, and Mobutu Sese Seko was about to introduce an even more brutal and dysfunctional regime in neighbouring Zaire; immediately to the north of Rhodesia, Kaunda’s Zambia was in a mess, riddled with corruption and economically mismanaged, and Malawi was being similarly misruled by the eccentric despot Hastings Banda. So why, Smith argued, would [Robert] Mugabe be any different? Why, indeed…Mugabe told Smith he was acutely aware that he had inherited from his old adversaries, the whites, a jewel of a country, and he praised its superb infrastructure, its efficient modern economy, and promised to keep it that way…Today, Zimbabwe is a failed state with a non-functioning economy, a once-flourishing agricultural sector now moribund, and a population on the brink of starvation. According to a UN Development Programme index, life expectancy there today is one of the lowest in the world.
It can’t be a civilizational question, can it? Civilization can’t be informed by time preferences, intellect, and other biological factors, right? Aren’t the achievement gap and the civilization gap solely attributable to external factors like social structure, colonialism, and wealth inequality? Surely the lack of black fathers in the United States, for example, is due exclusively to racially disproportionate incarceration rates, driven by racial profiling (ignoring the obvious of why, exactly, profiling and incarceration occur, of course). Photographer Liz Johnson Artur says, “Most black Russians I met in Moscow and St. Petersburg had also grown up without their fathers.” It’s almost like the context doesn’t matter; either that or white supremacy has the omnipresence of God.
Still, chronic underachievement by global coloreds en masse does not make the moral imperative of blacks or browns determining their own future any less. Indeed, all people deserve a homeland—but whites cannot be held responsible for what they do with it. As Oliver wrote:
I did not design the universe. I did not create the realities of biology and history. And a would-be democrat, like an elfin princess who marries a mortal, must take the bitter with the sweet.
Liberals cannot have it both ways—either the “White Man’s Burden” is paternalistic and gross, or different races achieve at different levels. If it is the former, then they must have the extremely uncomfortable discussion of extending the franchise to people who are congenitally inferior. Where does that leave their much-vaunted democracy? Instead, is it not better for all races to chart their own destinies, if for no other reason than to preserve some semblance of intra-national equality? Further, Richard Spencer brings up a great point: “African-Americans have to honestly ask themselves: Can we take part in the pageantry of a country that has never really been ours, and which, until very recently, maintained our social and political inferiority? Is assimilation possible? If so, is it desirable? And if not, then what?” Certainly remaining in the country and continuing to whine and agitate seems superficially to be a fool’s errand; if things apparently haven’t gotten better in fifty-odd years despite America mortgaging its future to appease the unappeasable, why stay? But the race grievance industry is big bucks, ranging from government entitlements, special programs and scholarships, lawsuits, corporate shake-downs, hiring preferences, make-work government jobs, and a slew of other perks. Contrast that with moving to a hell-hole like Liberia. It is a rational decision to make, to stay, but it isn’t necessarily one of self-respect.
The present situation, to borrow from the Left’s parlance, is toxic. MSNBC News guest Danielle Moodie-Mills made the claim that whites “always…vote with their whiteness,” ironic from a woman whose race consistently votes 90-plus percent for the Democratic Party, and whose particular sex-race combination—black women—voted for the Democrats at a 92% rate in the 2018 mid-term elections. Furthermore, whites—unique among races—decidedly do not vote along racial lines, much to our collective detriment. Only whites fall all over themselves to prove how not “racist” they are, even if it means allowing themselves to be bludgeoned to death, literally and figuratively, without putting up a fight. Such “virtue” is not only contemptible, but can only result in our ultimate destruction and erasure. The beleaguered and shrinking white majority continues to cede ground to appease the unappeasable, all under the auspices of an unrealizable “equality” that is really just facilitating a culture of grievance and anti-white persecution. As Sam Francis discussed:
The reality is that the egalitarianism and universalism of the “civil rights” era have led to the rediscovery of race and the rebirth of racial consciousness among non-whites and hence to the animosity that non-whites feel toward whites and their heritage. It is racial consciousness, not egalitarianism and universalism, that fuels the non-white crusade against the American past, and obviously, if “multiracialism” means that some races with more consciousness, more solidarity, and more power can boycott and bludgeon out of existence the symbols of other races and the cultural legacies the symbols represent, then multiracialism promises nothing but either perpetual racial conflict or merely the same kind of racial supremacy that used to exist in the United States–though with a different supreme race whose rule would be perhaps considerably more draconian than that of whites. Of course, whites can always try to buy temporary peace and harmony by agreeing to every demand of non-white radicalism and abandoning the symbols of their own heritage. That, of course, is exactly what whites today are doing, though every concession merely leads to further demands from non-whites.
The present model of concessions and appeasements will only terminate when we ourselves are terminated. Until then, it is meek dhimmitude and endless apologies for having the gall to have even been born—that or we finally take our own side and assert not only our right to exist but to flourish.
 And of course it’s European colonialism and not ingrained preferences that is responsible for the nearly-ubiquitous preference among cultures the world over to find lighter-skinned people, especially women, more attractive.