new

Jonathan Peter Wilkinson #wingnut #racist #elitist amerika.org

Diversity will always lead any nation to the lowest possible denominator of its constituent diverse peoples. The lowest common denominator always pretty much ends being The Rape of The Sabine Women. And yet Cologne, Germany’s rape-rape festival did nothing to change the hermetically closed mind of Chancellor Angela Merkel. Or the set of her immigration policies that made it possible.

When you ask an evil scumbag “what is best in life?”, the answer you will typically get is something along the lines of this.

The greatest happiness is to scatter
your enemy, to drive him before you,
to see his cities reduced to ashes,
to see those who love him shrouded in
tears, and to gather into your bosom
his wives and daughters.

Thus, there is a good historical reason why open immigration Republicans get candidly referred to as cucks. Except I have more respect for the actual viewers of cuck porn movies than I do for pro-immigration Republicans. They only do it to their own wives and daughters. The open borders policies of GOP “thought leaders” like !JEB! or Kevin Yoder would put that pounding on the women you love and care about in life. Maybe Yoder learned to love diversity over at the local Res.

And the Democrats? I offer State Rep. Ponka-We Victors the following self-improvement challange. See if she can get Eric Swallwell and Sheldon Whitehouse to care about their own as effectively as she tries to care for hers. I’d do better waiting for Godot than I would sitting around expecting that to ever happen.

The sexual slavery trade in Amerika teaches us something truly obvious about the Liberal Democrats and Cuckservative Republicans that strive so hard to make it impossible to enforce the Thirteenth Amendment against underage exotic whore traffickers. They are highly-intelligent, well-educated, intimately connected power rangers of the DC Elite. They know better. They do not care better. They do not care about you. Your women, are their clientele’s playthings. One day their will not be enough lampposts left standing in Old Town Alexandria to properly conduct all the impromptu hanging ceremonies.

Brett Stevens #wingnut #elitist #racist amerika.org

In other words, Leftists experience more reinforcement of their behavior from propaganda, where Rightists use it mostly to confirm what they already know, although both sides seem to be pursuing information which confirms their assumptions rather than seeking new ideas.

This shows us that the Leftists are accusing us of what they are doing yet again. Their propaganda works on them, but ours seeks merely to remind us of what we believe. This makes sense since we are the minority party in a time when the West has consistently shifted far Left, especially since the 1960s.

When we look back further, what it meant to be Right-wing, centrist, and Left-wing have changed a great deal since the early 1900s. After the Great Depression, America swung Left as hard as it did in the years following the Civil War. Panic over the system failing led to embrace of desperate hopes.

This means that Rightists are trying to maintain opposition to the dominant paradigm of our time, which is liberal democratic market socialism, a fundamentally Leftist system with free markets grafted in to fund it, and globalism grafted on to spread it like the coronavirus on a cruise ship.

It also shows that the infection model applies to Leftism, not Rightism. Rightists are noticing that the Leftist system is not working, and then confirming those observations with propaganda; Leftists are trying to maintain denial of the failure of this system with increasingly inflammatory propaganda.

Brett Stevens #wingnut #elitist #racist amerika.org

February 12 is Darwin Day, a celebration of Charles Darwin and his legendary research, even the parts that the Left finds unsettling.

Darwin pointed out a simple idea: instead of an order based on predetermined outcomes, which would necessarily be circular because its assumptions would equal its conclusions and squeeze out any variability that could keep information and energy transfer occurring, nature operated by a simple heuristic, saving whatever survived by adapting and reproducing. This includes both traits and animals.

This means that if humans have a certain trait, it is because those who had the trait reproduced more than those who did not, and gradually gained genetic prominence. In addition, it states that almost all of our behaviors are strongly influenced by these traits, so things like culture — the byproduct of a sub-group adapting to a certain area — are genetic, as are the basics of intelligence, personality, and outlook, including aesthetics.

His theory remains controversial because it denies human wishful thinking, which says that we invent ourselves and can be whatever we want to be. In fact, we are products of history and our genetic origins, and no amount of education, propaganda, financial incentive, or law can change that. We are who we are, and we can only become what we are or linger in denial, causing us to become mentally disordered like any who live without figuring themselves out.

Even more, despite early religious objections to natural selection because as a theory it replaced the notion of God creating the world, and current political objections to the rejection of universality posited by natural selection, since people with unequal minds cannot be equally rational, the major objection to it today comes from its affirmation of human differences. Human groups have a spectrum aligned on the standard distribution of every trait, and traits including average intelligence vary between groups. There is no equality in nature; equality stands revealed as a human fallacy.

That seems unfortunate, since natural selection fits handily with morality. If “good to the good, and bad to the bad” is the ultimate statement of morality, it mirrors the idea in natural selection that those who figure out how to adapt, thrive, and breed will persist while those who refuse to accept reality and adapt will not. This applies to both individuals and groups.

Those who wonder where to go further should investigate Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton.

Brett Stevens #wingnut amerika.org

Freedom and accepting everyone looks good on paper until you consider time and how that order will play out. Seventy-five years later, our crumbling infrastructure, divided society, and day-to-day life of Soviet drudgery in order to pay taxes to keep the clown show going show how much our dogma has failed us.

Claire Stevens #fundie amerika.org

In the story of The Fall, Satan tempted Eve with the fruit of the tree of knowledge, telling her that she could have the power of God if she ate of it. By giving in, even if she did not directly intend to do so, she defied God and the order of nature. Feeling concerned when she realized this, she convinced Adam to join her. And then the story gets more interesting.

Adam, much as as Eve was seduced by the lies of the Serpent, is tempted by Eve. He wants the power of God, and so once given an excuse in that someone else led him down the path, he gives in. When God confronts Adam, he immediately points the finger at Eve and abdicates all responsibility for his actions.

This scenario has been repeating itself for millennia.

Human beings instinctively look for a reason why they are not to blame. If someone else can be blamed, we tend to accept that as carte blanche to go ahead because we will not be blamed. This is why people in groups are so malevolent, and why mothers always say, “If Johnny jumped off the Empire State Building, would you follow him?” to cure children of this bad habit.

Scapegoating creates a vicious cycle. First it absolves us of responsibility in our minds, but that bluff is called whenever what we are doing causes bad consequences for ourselves or others. More importantly, it serves to hide the actual problem behind a smokescreen where we are blaming demons, Satan, or the group for our own bad acts.

The last millennium has been dominated by this thinking because when we gradually abolished the aristocracy, we got rid of the idea that people who know better should be able to stop the rest of us from acting like a herd of unruly animals. For this reason, the scapegoating tendency infects us like a virus, and the Alt Right is no exception.

When I go online, I encounter legions of “woke” Alt Righters who believe that “naming the Jew” and blaming the Negro is the sum total of the solution to our manifold and complex problems as a human species, and Western Civilization within it. Most galling of these is the advocacy of abandoning Western women because some are “thots,” or “loose women” as they were called a century ago.

Taking tragedy to the level of comedy, many “pro-white activists” in fact argue that Western women are so bad that Western men should seek out Eastern women to replace those awful thots. Some argue for Slavic mail-order brides, while others advocate race-mixing itself by marrying Asian or Oriental women.

This shows a desire to evade responsibility for the actions of Western men. Under democracy, Western men gave women the vote, legalized mass third world immigration, enabled the sexual revolution, and even attempted to provide free birth control to all women. The disease of Leftist thinking infested men first, and the way women behave now is a result of the confusion and enmity it created.

Punishing women for failures of men is not the solution. Nor is erasing ourselves by hybridizing ourselves with Asian DNA. As ancient knowledge tells us, the Occident and Orient are opposites: the West guides itself by “transcendental realism,” while the East is based in a fatalistic “me-first” group think that resembles both Communism and the rule of the Mongol Empire.

If the problem is that our culture is failing, no amount of talking about Jews, Negroes, or thots will help us. The only salvation lies in taking the best of our people and giving them power, then driving out or oppressing the rest. We made bad decisions in the past, and we are now living with the consequences. Only by accepting that can we begin the process of change.

The same failures of Western men toward Western women will manifest in relationships between Western men and Asian women. Thanks to a culture where all people are essentially selfish, Asian and Eastern European women view marriage as a transaction. This makes them appear compliant, although they are always looking out for their interests and not yours when calculating future moves.

How many Western men funded Vietnamese or Russian mail-order brides, only to find themselves divorced a few years later, while the woman had her new American citizenship to use to exploit our welfare and social benefits systems?

In the parable of the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve externalized their problem by giving agency to Satan by scapegoating him. They said in effect that it was not their fault that they did bad things, because he told them it was acceptable. In the same way, people now use Hollywood films or urban rap culture as excuses to behave badly.

Western women, caught up in this whirlwind of lies, have never had proper role models to show them how to be not just wives and mothers, but leaders in their communities and supporters of their men. Instead, they wander lost in a wasteland of false promises and ersatz faith, finding themselves used, abused, and discarded by men who should know better.

Men and women depend on each other. We are not equal, either between the sexes or as individuals. Some women are born thots, and some are born virtuous, but in a time as fallen as ours, the lines blur somewhat. Our only escape from this is to end the confusion and separate the stumbling but virtuous from the born thots, who do not actually belong in our race because of their third world behavior.

If we follow the Asian model, and breed with Asians or whites who are partially Asian, we will cease to become white. We will become a new mixed-race group which will follow the model of Asian-white mixes in Brazil, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe. At that point, we will no longer be Western, and because culture is downstream of genetics, will be unable to restore Western Civilization.

The West and East think differently, which is why we ended up with such different civilizations and degrees of success. In the East, as in most of the third world, “me-first” is the rule, which ironically unites people into a collective that protects them from any people who know better enforcing sanity and limiting selfishness.

In other words, they externalize the problem of deciding how to act, while in the West we internalized it, through a sense of intuitive inner truth in discovering a hierarchy of nature and man. If we choose to externalize our problems, we will never see them for what they are and will become doomed to repeat them endlessly, no matter how many Jews, Negros, or thots we exterminate.

Roderick Kaine #fundie amerika.org

[How does awareness of genetic differences between the sexes factor into understanding a Neoreaction or right-wing platform?]

The over-arching goal of most western right-wing movements is to preserve western civilization for ourselves and especially make it available for all of our descendants. By “our” I am very specifically referring to white Europeans and their descendants throughout the world. Two very major problems are caused by female “emancipation” which are in direct contradiction of that goal. There are of course other things of concern, but I am only referring to gender relations here. The most important is the lowering of the birth-rate of ethnic Europeans. It is well-known that most European populations have a birth-rate under replacement level and that if this continues European ethnicities will eventually cease to exist. Unfortunately, our time to fix this problem is much less than it could be because of our mass importation of swarthy people from around the world. Most of these groups have a higher birthrate than the native populations and won’t hesitate to subjugate them once their numbers reach a critical mass. If we don’t do something in the next couple of generations it is very likely we will start seeing the events that have destroyed South Africa and Rhodesia repeated in most western countries. At that point however, there won’t be a strong US or European countries to suppress white interests from overseas like in those cases so I imagine things would get very bloody indeed. This is something that could and should be avoided.

Female education and employment are directly causal of this low birthrate. Setting women on paths other than motherhood obviously has a direct negative impact on birth rates. However, it also has an indirect negative impact on birth rate because it interferes with the male ability to signal provider status to the satisfaction of female hypergamy. If you take jobs from men and give them to women artificially through government regulations, you cause a lot of men to not be able to get jobs at a level they are capable of. These men are much poorer than they need to be and thus their ability to attract wives is substantially reduced. Mass immigration policies, affirmative action for swarthies, and free trade agreements do something very similar by increasing labor competition and even giving unfair and unearned advantages to the new-comers. All these policies are extremely bad for working class whites (and blacks descended from the original slave population in the US). Some men may be consciously choosing not to have kids and just play video games, but it shouldn’t be underestimated how much the lack of decent employment opportunities for white men are killing the west.

There is also another problem, not as dire but still important. As is shown in the book, the most capable humans a population is able to produce are going to be almost exclusively male. By setting up quotas for women you introduce massive inefficiencies in the economy which reduces the wealth of the country as a whole and thus its ability to maintain itself and a good standard of living for its people. This is partially the result of putting women into positions they aren’t psychologically or intellectually suited for and also through the creation of make-work jobs which require massive wealth redistribution from taxpayers. Most taxes are paid by men and that is all wealth those men can’t use to have 1 or 2 additional children.

Understanding the biological differences in intelligence, then, are very important in articulating why what we are doing today in these massive wealth redistribution plans are ultimately pointless and actively harmful. Our policies are based on a false premise: gender equality. By knocking out that premise you destroy the justification for some of the worst policies that are causing the collapse of the west. These are all things that traditionalists have all addressed before, but now that have more ammo for their arguments that didn’t exist in such a condensed form before.

...

[What do you hope will happen in the future, if things go really well, and what would life in America and Europe look like after that?]

Affirmative action would be abolished. Most of the university system would be dismantled leaving only training in demonstrably useful and needed fields. The people who would have previously pursued useless degrees would instead focus on motherhood (women) and technical vocations (men). These people would not be encouraged to take on massive debt. 3-4 White children would be born in wedlock to every family and divorce would not occur at all, or at least not until after all children were raised to adults. Alimony and child support would not exist. Focus on GDP growth would be heavily tempered by concern for the cultural and economic health of native populations. Immigration would be all but halted. New arrivals would be given strong incentives to move back to their country of origin with their children. Anchor babies would not be a legal possibility. Ethnic groups which dislike whites and for whom repatriation is impractical would be given countries of their own where they would be expected to move, and they would have full self-determination. Islam would be banned completely in all western countries. Africa would learn to control their insane population growth. Enforced diversity in housing would be abolished. Freedom of association would be an enshrined right of every person and group. I am sure there is more things I could think of, but I think you get the idea.

Brett Stevens #fundie amerika.org

The Constitution was an elaborate workaround for democracy. And still, in just a couple centuries, they have trashed the USA. Yes, we have more wealth and technology, but social order and quality of everything has declined, and now we’re at mob rule with imported voters basically dictating to the rest of us that we must have Leftists.

What system can’t be abused?

This observation contains two points: (1) there is no perfect method and (2) systems make abuse easier, because they create formalized targets.

Many of us turn to aristocracy for this reason. No formal targets, only a social hierarchy by mental and moral excellence.

Brett Stevens #fundie amerika.org

As democracy winds down in the West, many of us are facing an ugly truth that first reared its head in the 1800s: that democracy itself impedes conservatism.

Mainstream conservatives will not publicly approach this realization, but the core tenet of democracy is leadership by desire, not by reality. People vote for what they wish were true.

While the ashes cool in Baltimore and the latest news frenzy keeps us distracted so we can avoid noticing the systemic problems of Western civilization, many are wondering how the situation got so bad without anyone figuring it out.

The answer is simple: we voted for it.

By “we” I mean the largest plurality which could work itself into a frenzy over an issue. This is how democracy works: the simplest and most emotional concept unites a mob, they rage and expound and demand it, and then it gets passed. Everyone assumes the situation is decided and moves on.

In any sane democracy, every single law would be voted on every year with a simple question: Is this law achieving its aims?

When you speak to the average voter, it becomes clear that they focus on anything but this question. They talk about moral categories, such as how well-intentioned the law is, or how essential it is, or how it cannot be changed because people depend on it. Never do they look at it as a cause-effect principle that intends to achieve a goal.

The conservatives you see on the television earned the name “the stupid party” because their ideas are fundamentally paradoxical. They want a reality/accountability/responsibility-based (consequentialist) society with a transcendent focus, since if you understand reality, you have no need for the emotional distractions of ideology and go right to the need for meaning. The voters do not want this because distraction is always simpler and more emotionally comforting.

The situation can be revealed in this comical law of politics from Robert Conquest:

2. Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.

This law succumbs to an easy attack, called (sensibly) “entryism” by neoreactionaries, which is that it is easy to dress up a liberal idea as a conservative one and declare it explicitly right-wing, then use it to subvert the rest of a right-wing movement.

The left wing will forever be more popular because it offers ideas that are easier to understand, since they require no knowledge of reality and its workings, and more emotionally satisfying, since they are both distraction and “social,” or consist of gift-giving to those who identify with victimhood. Every person in their under-confident, weak and uncontrolled moments succumbs to self-pity and in remembering those, they yield to this force.

Friedrich Nietzsche wrote about this process because he saw it first-hand. In the 1800s, he drove an ambulance in one of the early wars of the forces of democracy versus the rest of us. In it, he saw the process: liberalism appeals to the best of us first because they are reacting emotionally to problems in our society, and only later do they recognize it for what it is, which is a cynical power grab by those least competent to rule.

Conservatives have balked at this dividing line so far. They hope to ride the train of liberal popularity by endorsing the great illusion that desire can decide our problems. They also fear alienating the Christian segment of the right which sees Nietzsche as an atheist and blasphemer, since they have confused the name of what is holy with what is actually holy.

Like other dividing lines — nationalism, rejection of all socialism and need for social hierarchy — this decision separates the men from the boys. Boys still want to please their mother and their friends, maybe hope one of the girls in the class will let them kiss her if they do what she wants. Men realize that original sin was correct, and that without the intervention of discipline and focus the human being is nothing more than a monkey which can talk.

As mainstream conservatism is forced to confront issues like the ongoing failure of diversity, the corruption rising from the liberal state and its institutions, and the accelerating decline of Western Civilization, more conservatives will join the “underground” fringe of conservatism and take the path that Nietzsche did. Until that point, nothing said by conservatives in public will make any sense.

Brett Stevens #fundie amerika.org

When rape first became a crime, we lived in a different world. Among the middle and upper echelons of society, women expected to be virgins at marriage and to be respectable in public thereafter.

These expectations arose from common knowledge which has been forgotten. Without the bonding that sexual inexperience provided, couples lacked the trust that came with shared exclusive experience. Their marriages also became unions of convenience, not based on the sacred but in business-like negotiations for mutual satisfaction on a day-to-day basis.

Not surprisingly when we abandoned this outlook our fortunes fell as far as marriage is concerned. First infidelity swept through marriages, then divorce became common, and now people simply avoid marriage in the first place to avoid being penalized to subsidize someone else after the inevitable divorce. Marriage is like extended dating at this point.

In saner times, rape ruined a woman. If it occurred before marriage, it made her unlikely to become married; if it happened afterwards, people saw her as being ejected from the throes of marital contentment.

...

In our new age however rape no longer carries this weight. No woman is ruined by having sex with one more man, since they commonly have sex with six of them on average that they will admit, but we know that people lie on surveys and the actual number may be ten times higher, some without even knowing his name or spending more than a dozen minutes in his company. At this point, it is farce and injustice to keep rape classified as a crime of violence.

Rather, we should view rape as a form of theft. We know that the woman intended to have sex with someone because she does it on a regular basis; what happened instead was that she had sex with the wrong man. It occurred not by force, since we no longer require that to prosecute a man for rape, but by mistake. She said no and he heard yes, or she said yes and meant no, or (as is most common) both had to get so drunk to engage in the animalistic act that neither knew what the other said and in the haze of regret the next day, she decided it was rape.

But no matter: In all of these cases, the only crime was theft of sexual services. She could have sold that sexual encounter for anywhere from a few dollars to a few thousand. Perhaps it was wrong that he took her as he did, but we have worse physical affronts in car crashes and when people crash their shopping carts into us at Wal-mart. As with an auto accident, we could write him a ticket and slap a heft fine on him, then move on.

It is not as if anything permanent were taken from that woman. She is already accustomed to having sex with strangers. She does not expect to be virginal for marriage, but fears being virginal past age thirteen, as socially that means failure. The only real crime here is that the wrong man ended up having sex with her, or that he did not pay. Our legal system offers many ways to rectify this. If he is ticketed, she can sue in small claims court much as she would if he took her paid parking space for a month.

But what we must not do is use the old punishment and the new crime in the same action. Rape is no longer a violent crime, but a case of mistaken consent, like parking in spot 81 when you rented spot 82. We should not punish it like grand larceny, assault and murder. As the feminists tell us, most rapes are acquaintance rape. And for that, a quick ticket and a sharp fine should do the trick, and we can stop ruining the lives of men for regrets in a sexual marketplace of the lowest common denominator.

Avery Morrow #fundie amerika.org

Equality is a god that demands perfection, punishes weakness, and calls for the destruction of unbelievers. It is heretical to claim there are “different paths to Equality”, for there is only one, unquestionable path, that has many pillars which must all be followed. Its holy warriors must always be pure, must work twice as hard to cleanse themselves if any flaw is detected, and are always open to any practice that could improve their purity. It rewards those who fight for its cause, although its adherents argue over whether violence is an acceptable form of battle. Yes, Equality is a Muslim God.