s0mdqqoempexvirate0o.jpg

Hi.

Prepare your anus, you’re about to get a red pill suppository.

The Final Absolution

The Final Absolution

“We have runaway income inequality. We are at one of our most unequal points, economically speaking, in American history. We are dealing with a crisis of how our economy is even made up. Our economy is increasingly financialized, which means we are making profits off of interest, off of leasing your phone, off of doing all these things, but we aren’t producing and we aren’t innovating in the way that we need to as an economy.”-Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez 

“The Republicans are in a fetal position. They just don’t want to be unpopular anymore. They’ll do anything not to be unpopular. The Democrats want what they’ve always wanted: total and complete control over you and this country. Neither party will say that our economy, at is core, is badly distorted…Any economy based on interest payments isn’t really an economy: It’s a scam. Healthy countries innovate. They make things. They don’t treat people like interchangeable widgets. They don’t worship finance. In a healthy country, bankers aren’t heroes. Private equity is not the highest-paid profession. Nobody brags about working in a hedge fund. In America right now, we have the opposite, unfortunately. And that’s why Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has a constituency.”-Tucker Carlson

While Ocasio-Cortez is absolutely correct in her analysis, the difference between her and Carlson, however, is that one’s solution is a ludicrously impossible and illogical “Green New Deal” and the continued favelazation of America, whereas the other wants to empower the bedrock people and communities of this country outside of the corridors of increasingly-concentrated urban power. Diversity will not stop environmental catastrophe or economic polarization—it will accelerate them. The phrase “too much” does not exist in the neo-liberal lexicon, unless of course it refers to white identity or procreation. Otherwise, it is based on an infinite growth model which is at heart little more than a Ponzi scheme. A genocidal Ponzi scheme, but a Ponzi scheme nonetheless. Growing the consumer base is the easy part, but when the tax cattle run out, the system will collapse. That this is inevitable is unconcerning for our ruling class—they won’t be around when the bottom falls out. You or I probably won’t be, either, but that isn’t the point. The point is that we are stewards of this planet and this civilization for future generations who might advance humankind past its present constraints, and full-on collapse and ecological devastation the likes of which the planet may never recover from isn’t exactly ideal.

We need to have a serious discussion about consumption. Westerners are told to curb their consumption in the interests of reducing their carbon footprint—even (especially) if that means forgoing having children—while less restrained and more fecund hyper-consumers are simultaneously imported en masse. These people are not “instructed” to have fewer children, even though they should be. In fact, they are subsidized to reproduce at naturally unsustainable levels. Abroad, aid and Western medicine allow for an even more exaggerated level of reproduction, with the population of Africa set to triple or quadruple by the end of the century. If the human-caused ecological devastation in Haiti is any indication, these people are going to need to go somewhere. Europe sits just across a relatively narrow strip of water and does not appear to be interested in defending its borders. In fact, if Guy Verhofstadt has his way, Eurafrica will be one giant “economic zone” with a GDP to rival China’s—because GDP is apparently all that matters. But abandoning a planet you’ve allowed to be destroyed is not an option, especially as humankind is in the process of de-evolving as we speak. Just over the horizon lies Septic Planet, and it is unimaginably bad.

Neo-liberals see empty space—what we call “nature”—and fantasize about how many luxury condos they can erect. It’s disgusting. White neo-liberals see the Noble Savage and feel a thrill up their leg at the possibility that they can wage class warfare while simultaneously claiming the moral high ground and paying their gardeners and maids less. For Jews, the deal is even sweeter—they bilk the clueless goyim for all they’re worth and get to act out a millennia-old racial hatred by replacing whites in their own nations. As Joe Sobran wrote:

How does a group get a reputation that lasts over centuries? Is any such reputation a “prejudice”? A “prejudice” need not be a prejudgment; it may be the settled conclusion of long experience. In Europe Jews and gypsies were unpopular for centuries. Many Jews blame this fact, which they call “anti-Semitism,” on Christianity, which they consider superstition, thereby denying any empirical foundation to the gentiles’ distrust. The word anti- Semitism itself implies that all frictions between Jews and gentiles must be blamed on the gentiles. Hence the campaign to tar Pope Pius XII and the Catholic Church as “anti-Semitic.” But the slang words Jew and gyp tell another story: the bad reputations of both groups have less to do with religion than with practical experience and word-of-mouth tradition. Notice that the unpopularity of such groups has more to do with distrust than with simple hatred. The verbs Jew and gyp imply sharp dealing and low ethics. The Middle East bears witness that the Jews may be unpopular even where most of the population is non-Christian. They haven’t endeared themselves to Muslim Arabs; just as they were unpopular in the ancient pagan world. As a matter of fact, most of the world’s Jews have chosen to live in Christian countries.[1]

That said, cosmic guilt doesn’t work on people not predisposed to feeling guilty. Understand that the Jews in particular are an insidious force both within and without the West, but their duplicitousness was once understood and actively counter-acted. While criticisms of Jewish behavior are true, we need to be very wary of using them as the scapegoat without some rigorous introspection. Are they primarily responsible for our present peril among non-whites? Yes. Are they singularly responsible for our present peril? No. There are plenty of whites contributing to our destruction—wittingly or unwittingly. For Revilo P. Oliver:

The same parade of religiosity facilitates the other principal offensive against the occupied nation, if it belongs to our race, which is morbidly susceptible to rhetorical appeals to sentimentality and ‘ideals,’ i.e., fancied changes of the real world to make it more pleasant, usually by some magical transformation of human nature. Aryans, especially females, are easily intoxicated by rhapsodic talk about ‘all mankind,’ ‘the brotherhood of man,’ ‘world peace,’ ‘equality of races,’ ‘all men are born equal,’ and similar nonsense. That adult Aryans believe in such things without help from lysergic acid or even alcohol is simply proof of Kipling’s observation that ‘Words are the most powerful drugs used by mankind.’ The Jews cannot be held responsible for the mental weakness they exploit, nor even for their success in exploiting it. In the United States, for example, they have for decades been openly inciting the Congoids to plunder, beat, rape, and murder their white ‘oppressors,’ and the white Americans are not only so craven and masochistic that they submit.

Still others cynically traffic in “Social Justice” for personal gain at the expense of their fellow citizens. Some at least pay lip service to communist ideals, a morally indefensible system of government/economics that should be categorically rejected, but we would do well to remember that Karl Marx was not necessarily wrong about late-stage capitalism’s bourgeois decadence and moral corruption, either: “In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.” The lesson to be learned from the 21st century will be the same as the century prior with communism but with capitalism. Fortunately, our choices are not binary, and Third Positionism offers a far superior way forward for people of all nations.

Many conservatives would object to such a proposal, but what, exactly, is conservative about selling your country out to globalist interests, foreign entities, having your nation’s industrial capacity outsourced, and importing untold millions of immigrants in order to create a more pliant population of hyper-consumers with the added bonus of lower wages for the few remaining non-automated jobs in the (shrinking) service sector? Conservative rigidity with respect to Third Positionism is the ultimate oxymoron, for what are conservatives good for but to allow themselves to be dragged along behind the Left at about a decade’s delay? Conservatism is just as complicit as liberalism for the economic morass we find ourselves in. As Huey Long noticed so many years ago:

You would have to have 45 times the entire money supply of the United States today to pay the debts of the people of America, and then they would just have to start out from scratch, without a dime to go on with. So, my friends, it is impossible to pay all of these debts, and you might as well find out that it cannot be done. Is that a right of life, when the young children of this country are being reared into a sphere which is more owned by 12 men that is by 120 million people? It is necessary to save the Government of the country, but is much more necessary to save the people of America.[2]

Things are even worse now than in Long’s day. Without adaptation, we are finished, done in by fecklessness, cowardice, and greed. We also have a serious complacency problem. The bread and circuses are working exceptionally well. That said, we also have the internet, which has printing press-like power to totally change the world as we know it—for good or ill. If we can harness its awesome potential, as we have proven at times, the paradigm-shifting possibilities are incredible.

We on the Right, however, need to get our house in order, and fast. Right-wing Twitter seems to have some perverse fixation on remaining a circular firing squad. Borzoi Boskovic has rightly pointed out that fringe politics often attract fringe figures, and this is readily apparent on the Dissident Right. We have a couple of problems beyond just unstable personalities, though. We have a serious complacency problem, compounded by the system’s efforts to keep us enamored of its bread and circuses. Not even the most red-pilled among us are totally beyond the grasp of their programming, but instead of self-awareness, we often find our would-be compatriots unconsciously regurgitating received pop cultural detritus. It’s all well and good to have favorite films, music, et cetera, and have them inform your worldview, but it’s quite another for that to be your identity. We have a lot of good people in this thing, but we also have a ton of bad actors. It can be difficult to separate the ill-intentioned from the unstable or downright moronic, so it’s best to give them all a wide berth.

When people are offered solutions that don’t align with their race war masturbatory fantasies, the pithy, sarcastic snark ranges from a drizzle to a downpour. Combating white genocide by calling for the systematic extermination of other peoples is decidedly not the answer. Peaceful separation is the ideal, and though it will probably not happen peacefully, the end goal is to achieve as peaceful a stasis as is possible understanding human nature, with homelands for all people. Globalism is a threat to all unique peoples and ways of life. Peter Hitchens absolutely nailed it when he said:

Globalization is all about wealth. It knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. Without borders the world will become—is visibly becoming—a howling desert of traffic fumes, plastic, and concrete, where nowhere is home and the only language is money.

It is important—essential, actually—to find common cause where appropriate with other individuals or groups who also stand against globalism. Understand that these alliances are temporary and do not represent a compromise of vision, but rather a proper assessment of our present situation and are a means to an end. Recall George Lincoln Rockwell’s overtures to the Nation of Islam.

Thinking strategically, what else can we do? Acknowledging that we are not going to be able to vote our way out of the present situation in no way means we should be abandoning the political field to our adversaries. If anything, it means you are playing with house money. Remain focused on the construction of a solid foundation, and take exploratory pokes at the weaknesses in the power structure. When you find them, exploit them. Building parallel structures is essential because if the collapse occurs, we will need to shift first into a hardened defensive stance before the ultimate Reconquista. Some believe that the collapse is inevitable, that modern industrial society is completely unsustainable, and while that is true, it doesn’t mean it is universally true. What I mean by this is the unnatural subsidizing of billions of equatorial people well beyond their means and supplying them with modern conveniences and necessities which they would not otherwise have cannot continue into perpetuity.

The same is true of the sponsoring of your eventual replacements because, speaking frankly, they do not have the intelligence to maintain the modern infrastructure, to say nothing of a civilization which is not even theirs to begin with. The “elites” don’t care; they were born in an economic boom and just as the magnate’s spoiled children or grandchildren squander their inheritance with frivolity and short-term pleasures, so, too, does our ruling class. The painstaking efforts of centuries of Western men and women is being blown in the epochal equivalent of a night at the casino, and there is no care for the hangover. If—and this is admittedly a big if—we can wrest control of the machine away from them, a collapse as such is not a foregone conclusion. We can manage our resources responsibly and become stewards of the planet. The effects on the equatorials will be catastrophic either way, but this is the harsh reality of nature. Think of when deer populations explode out of control from a lack of natural predators when an insufficient number of hunting licenses are issued.

One final note, regarding accelerationism. There is the very distinct possibility, a likelihood in fact, that things are not going to go the way you think. Always bear this in mind. When a forest fire rages, is it something that is easily managed? And what happens when you facilitate the spread of the blaze? To be sure, forest fires are often a natural phenomenon which burn off dead wood. They are necessary for the revitalization of the forest. But if you think you’re going to be able to gently direct a roaring inferno, you might want to re-consider. Likewise if you believe the whole damn forest, the healthy and the dead, needs to be reduced to ashes.


[1] http://www.sobran.com/equal.shtml

[2] https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/hueyplongking.htm

The Church of Clientology

The Church of Clientology

This, That, or the Other

This, That, or the Other