Aug 31, 2015

Bryce Williams Attack: It's Whitey’s Fault

via Aryan Skynet

Racist Homophobes
A man claimed to be the gunman in the Virginia TV news shootings wrote in a chilling manifesto that he was “pushed” over the edge by the Charleston church massacre.

In a 23-page fax to ABC News and a follow-up call, both after the attack, the man identified himself as Vester Flanagan and as Bryce Williams. He said he suffered racial discrimination and bullying at work and was attacked for being black and gay.

As in the Dylan Roof shooting, we have a “manifesto” claiming a clear racial motivation, with the added progressive hot button issue of “homophobia.”
But it would be ill-advised to hold one’s breath waiting for the media to do much analysis on the racial motivations or to demand LGBT rainbow flags be banned from public spaces.
Victim of White Racism And Homophobia
Victim of racism
and homophobia

In fact, Black commenter Boyce Williams has a Black guest suggesting that this incident, like the Dorner massacres from a few years ago, were “caused” by White racism. Two Black men trying to “play the game” were nevertheless constantly subjected to White racism and then “snapped.”

A presumably Black commenter on the video says that White people just need to “forgive” the shooter and that it’s “shameful” that some Whites have responded with “hatred and racism” instead of “sympathiz[ing] with his issues,” thus proving we aren’t “good human being[s].”
White people need to open their hearts and forgive. It’s shameful that they responded to this with hatred and racism. white people have been telling black people for years to forgive and show dignity in the face of violence by them. Now it’s time for them to practice what they preach. Forgive the disgruntled employee with ‘mental’ issues and sympathize with his issues.. Otherwise, you’re not a good human being.
When the Charleston shooter’s purported manifesto was discovered, blogger Henry Raciot immediately claimed Roof acted out of sexual jealousy, suggesting that the South Carolina schools that Roof attended were hotbeds of miscegenation and illustrated the point with imagined, yet high detailed, lurid stories of Blacks boys “pawing” White girl “in the hallways.” A few days later, a curious story appeared on Glenn Greenwald’s site, The Intercept, where a Black reporter claimed to have interviewed “Scott Roof, who identified himself as Dylann Roof’s cousin” and said a girl had “snubbed” Dylann for a Black boy.

No confirmation, or even a second source, were ever reported, placing the story squarely in the realm of “not journalism” and hearsay, although the claim was repeated in a handful of news sources. Greenwald’s The Intercept is the publication created to manage the damaging Edward Snowden leaks by downplaying the most significant part of the NSA revelations, that the major internet companies like Google, Facebook, and Microsoft were working closely with the NSA. But the source itself has no significance and even noticing the provenance is a “conspiracy theory.”

On reddit, a poster suggesting that the video looks “fake” was immediately downvoted to invisibility, and told to “fuck back off to /r/conspiracy.”


Already, the Bryce Williams shooting is being “spun” as the exact opposite of the Charleston incident. Despite the reports of Dylan Roof being a heavy drug user, his acts were attributed to raw racist hatred, while the Williams shooting is being downplayed as simple mental illness.

The pattern is clear. White violence against Blacks is due to innate racist hate, likely caused by White men’s jealousy of the superior sexuality of Black men and White women’s supposed preference for Black men (unless White women prefer White men, then it’s simply more proof of enduring White racism.) Black violence against Whites is simply retaliation for racism, and in this case, also White homophobia against gay Black men.

It’s only hate when Whites do it.

Even more importantly, the media never lies and suggesting they do is a “conspiracy theory” and proof of the doubter’s “crippled epistomology” mandating “cognitive infiltration” by the government.

The Egalitarian Illusion: The Anti-White Attempt to Close the "Acheivement Gap"

via American Renaissance

“It’s the biggest train set a boy ever had!” Orson Welles is reported to have said in 1940, upon arriving at a Hollywood soundstage to make Citizen Kane.

I don’t know if the Welles line is apocryphal, but it kept going through my head as I was reading The Long Crusade, Raymond Wolters’s masterful, comprehensive survey of progressive education fads and fallacies of the past half-century or so. A public education system is a huge and expensive train set–and one you cannot shut down. And so there’s endless opportunity for politicians, social engineers, and preening philanthropists to experiment: Chris Whittle’s Edison Project, Wendy Kopp’s Teach for America (and its many spinoffs), charter schools, magnet schools, universal Pre-K, No Child Left Behind, Common Core, etc.


The common thread running through most of these experiments is a preoccupation with race, or more specifically with the presumed needs of poor and “culturally deprived” black children. The fundamental questions never seem to change. How do we close the gap between black and white students? How do we make poor black children willing to learn and behave themselves in the classroom? And finally: How do we manage and teach our disadvantaged minorities without acknowledging the basic reality of racial differences in IQ?

As Prof. Wolters, emeritus professor at University of Delware, explains in his introduction, this preoccupation with black uplift had its origins in the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, but did not really gather steam until the Green v. New Kent County ruling in 1968. The Brown ruling abolished statutory segregation in public schools, but it did not mandate busing to ensure “racial balance.” Forced integration resulted from Green and later rulings.


In 2007, the Supreme Court finally quashed the notion of forced busing, but by that time the damage had long been done. The question was no longer how do we integrate public schools, but rather: How do we repair our miserable public schools, particularly those from which all whites have fled and are left only with poor black and brown children? Should we replace them entirely with semi-privatized school systems, or should we focus on getting rid of incompetent, unionized, teachers? Should we have a federally mandated curriculum? Out of such questions were born the endless fads and expensive gimmicks that have been forced onto our public schools.

This cry for school reform often includes misleading statistical claims. Who hasn’t heard the cliché that American children are far behind Children of Other Lands in reading, math and science? The PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) scores prove it. This makes for a great wake-up call.

But it isn’t true. Prof. Wolters notes that if you disaggregate American test scores by race (p. 540):
There is simply not much improvement to be made. Our Asians are as good as Asia’s Asians–actually, better than Koreans or Japanese. Our white kids beat everyone else’s white kids except Finland’s. Our Hispanics outscored all eight Latin American countries. Our black kids trounced Trinidad, the blackest nation on the PISA list.
Prof. Wolters notes that the problem is not schools. It is increasing numbers of low-scoring blacks and Hispanics who are dragging down our scores in international comparisons.


Because of his encyclopedic knowledge and the span of time he covers, Prof. Wolters shows how certain educational and sociological theories pass in, out, and back into vogue. For example, recent years have seen the revival of what he calls the “inadequate mother thesis” to explain the black/white learning gap. This gap starts in kindergarten and even earlier because, according to the thesis, poor black mothers are not nurturing. They are hostile, abusive, and don’t read to their children. And so the children start school with small vocabularies and big behavior problems.

This “inadequate mother” idea was popular in the 1960s, but quickly fell out of favor because it suggested that black families suffer from some kind of social pathology. Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s 1965 Report on the Negro Family, which worried about high black rates of illegitimacy (25 percent at the time; 72 percent now) and absentee fathers, was attacked for the same reason.

Daniel Moynihan testifying before the Senate.
Daniel Moynihan testifying before the Senate.

But, as Prof. Wolters himself wrote last year, the theory has made a smashing comeback through the writings of University of Michigan psychologist Richard E. Nisbett (particularly in Intelligence and How to Get It, published 2009). Prof. Nisbett does not believe genetics have much effect on IQ. Instead, he argues that family behavior greatly influences intelligence, and that black families are often dysfunctional.

As Prof. Wolters wrote, “Prof. Nisbett expected to be criticized for resurrecting the social pathology rationale in the 21st century . . . [b]ut such criticism barely surfaced . . . .” In fact Prof. Nisbett’s theories helped push the idea of putting black children into Head Start while they are still in diapers.

History and analysis

The Long Crusade can be divided roughly into three parts. There is historical background that includes “neo-progressive” reformers of the 1940s-70s, including Theodore Sizer, Howard Gardner, and Jonathan Kozol. Despite the subtitle, the book’s historical perspective goes back well before 1967.

Then, there is a vast middle section of nearly 300 pages that describes the theories and nostrums of the past 35 years. This section is rich in detail and will be useful social historians. The average reader may find it tedious, but this is not Prof. Wolters’s fault. The education-reform theories themselves are similar and repetitive.

The most engrossing section is the last few chapters, in which we meet the critics of education reform. On the left there is education historian Diane Ravitch, a sort of neo-liberal who deplores the demoralizing effect that some reforms have had on public schools, and wishes we could return to the days of forced integration and court-ordered busing. On the right are the “race realists”–writers and academics who talk about IQ and evolutionary biology, and dare to point out the obvious.

These include molecular biologist James A. Watson; researcher Jason Richwine; anthropologist Henry Harpending of The 10,000 Year Explosion; and evolutionary biologist (and insect novelist) E. O. Wilson. We are also treated to the strange, surprising adventures of John Derbyshire, controversialist (We Are Doomed) and sometime mathematician, who was evicted from National Review Online in April 2012 after he published a satirical, race-critical essay called “The Talk: Nonblack Version.”

E.O. Wilson
E.O. Wilson

Robert Weissberg, who can also be called a race realist, gets a chapter of his own, which describes his theory that if schools are bad, it’s usually because the students are bad. Prof. Wolters praises Prof. Weissberg’s 2010 book Bad Students, Not Bad Schools (Wolters, pp. 552-553):
With a combination of erudition and wit that is rare in scholarly analyses of public policy, Weissberg said ‘what everybody (or nearly everybody) knows to be true but is fearful of expressing in public–America’s educational woes just reflect our current demographic mix of students.’ [Wolters quotes Weissberg]
Prof. Wolters concludes with a summary of his analysis, and explains how his own views evolved:
The false narrative is that American schools are failing. I subscribed to this view at one time. I began to rethink this assumption when I learned that very poor immigrant students from China, Korea, Russia, and Vietnam have done well in America’s inner-city schools. (Wolters p. 571)
And further:
As egalitarianism became a pervasive orthodoxy, school reformers doubled down on their commitment to abolishing racial and ethnic achievement gaps. Instead of acknowledging that even capable teachers would fail if students were not motivated or lacked an aptitude for school work, reformers insisted that things would be better if the American educational system were re-fashioned. (p. 575)


Prof. Wolters has written at least seven books, two of them analyzing the effects of the Brown and Green decisions (The Burden of Brown, 1984; Race and Education, 1954-2007, 2009). As might be imagined, his evolving views have sometimes aroused hostility. Black historian Genna Rae McNeil did not care for The Burden of Brown:
Wolters does not stress the variety of components of socioeconomic status such as distribution of wealth, material conditions, or the impact of racial and class oppression on access to opportunities within the society. Rather he immediately focuses on ‘illegitimate births among Negroes’ and single-parent homes . . . . He ends this paragraph with a sentence which barely hints that he is discussing persons rather than animals: ‘A new pattern of mating and breeding had emerged, one that is at odds with traditional moral standards.’ (Georgia Historical Quarterly, Spring 1986, p. 169)
In fact Prof. Wolters has spent much of his career studying black social and intellectual history, and approaches it with much care. His first book was Negroes and the Great Depression (1970), and more recently he wrote a study of W. E. B. Du Bois called Du Bois and His Rivals (2002). It would not be possible to write a realistic analysis of black and Hispanic school performance in a more restrained and carefully nuanced way. Prof. Wolters’s sin is against taboos, not against sensitivity or the truth.

Immigration or Invasion? Africans Overrun Europe


Thousands of African migrants rushed past authorities at the Macedonian border early last week. Surreal images of human hordes racing through fields of grain smacked of a Hollywood production. Watch the video here.

The scene was quite real, however.

It underscores the urgency of Africans longing to escape the poverty and violence of their own making to embrace a better life at the expense of native Europeans. The scenes also remind us that the pathological altruism of Western culture may be its downfall.

The refugees weren't rejected.

Rather than loading them on cattle cars bound for Europe's southern shores to be shipped back to Africa, the migrants were routed to buses and passenger trains that delivered them to Serbia.

Europe is becoming Africa.

Tragically, not all migrants are grateful for their new homelands.

A video surfaced from Italy this week that ostensibly portrayed African migrants trashing a police car with iron bars. The serene sanctity of Italy now resembles Ferguson, Missouri or Baltimore, Maryland. Watch the video here.

Another video captured Muslim men in London assaulting an elderly Englishman. What caused the row was never explained. The sight of a British pensioner being pounded by men half his age in his own country is quite disturbing. The video may be viewed here.

In Austria a bus driver was assaulted by screeching women covered in their traditional Islamic garb. Sources say the attackers were nonplussed that the driver failed to open the door in a timely manner. It's a coarse analogy of Europe's open border policy. They can't let them in quick enough to suit the predatory left. That video can be seen here.

The implications of the African invasion of Europe transcend the mere inconveniences of random violence.

I call it cultural thermodynamics.

It's akin to dropping an ice cube into hot coffee. The coffee cools and the ice melts.

Melding African and European cultures does not bode well for the future of Europe and Africa. Given the fact that Western culture provides the technological and economic infrastructure that supports Third World nations, we are compelled to wonder what the end game will be if the African invasion continues.

Once Western civilization has collapsed under the burden of migration, who will provide the healthcare technology to fight the next Ebola or HIV outbreak? Who will send billions of Euros (and dollars) to prop up failed African economies?

Once European culture is eclipsed, to whence will the next wave of refugees flee?

That appears to be the purpose of open borders; to remove the economic disparity between Third World nations and Western culture.

The current migration to Europe will plunge the world into a new dark ages from which it will never emerge. That seems to be the objective of social engineers.

Idols Demand Blood

via TradYouth

The series of shootings in public places over the last couple of years are related by much, much more than the simple fact that the each of the shooters were frustrated and angry men lashing out at the world.  The men who went out and shot up these places were sociopathic, mentally ill or just plain old crazy.  There’s no two ways about it.  You’d have to be nuts to just pick up a gun and go shoot random people.

However, there is some significance to this phenomenon.  Think about where these shootings have occured.  Adam Lanza shot up a school.  James Holmes attacked people in a movie theatre.  Dylan Roof attacked black people in a Church.  Americans, most of us, worship the almighty dollar, decadent consumerism and cosmopolitan multiculturalism. Movie theatres, shopping malls and colleges become our holy sites where we “religiously” spend money and the shrine upon which we sacrifice white identity.

American society is paying the price for the new religion of Liberalism, too.  The good news is that our Idols of Liberalism are not miserly in their gifts.  They comfort and pleasure us to wild abandon.  The bad news is they will demand a blood payment for services and products rendered.  These Idols are not picky about who pays, but they will get their pound of flesh.

These sites of decadent consumer pleasures and all-validating bad religion are where “unexplained” occurrences of mass shootings and violence are happening, and they’re also some of the most stringently “no guns allowed” places.  Obviously, the “no guns allowed” signs aren’t deterring any of these shootings, so why do they keep happening there?

What if all of the theatre, shopping mall and church shootings weren’t related only by virtue of them each being a “target rich environment” and the shooter being a pissed off white (or white-ish) guy, but because each of these attacks were a person’s violent rejection of our perverse religion of consumerism and anti-identity politics?  That’s what starts to give these shootings a stronger and more more cohesive narrative.

“Holy” places here are sites in which society has deemed that we are not allowed to commit any violence.  G.K. Chesterton said it best when he opined that nobody ever came to an agreement with another person by saying “I will not hit you if you will not hit me,” rather people come to an agreement that they “must not hit each other in the holy place.”  The inverse of this holds true as well.  White people, land and space bearing significant value to white culture and identity and spaces or places where white people gather are all “fair game” for ethnic cleansing and destruction.  White kids get shot by black cops, white pizza delivery drivers are stabbed to death by black kids and white women are victim to black violence and nobody cares.  One black thug runs at a cop in the middle of the street after robbing a store and his face is in the news for the last year.

Black-on-white crime is at an astronomically high level.  State-sponsored homo-fascism drives businesses into bankruptcy or into violating their religious conscience and convictions.  Marriage in Modernity is one big sorry affair comprising broken marriages on the one hand and failure to find lasting relationships on the other.  Illegal immigrants are entering, re-entering and terrorizing border-states while white communities are powerless to do jack shit about it.  Men and women of all ages are destroying their communities with pathological altruism, negrophilia and such an extreme compulsion to engage with all things non-white that Ash Ketchum would blush.

The most recent of these shootings was Dylan Roof.  Roof shot up an AME church in Charleston, South Carolina.  His motivation for doing so was plainly written on  Roof felt that white identity was universally under attack, and it is.  What he did to resolve this problem was inappropriate to say the least.  But, look at the metaphysical significance of his attack: He was trying to destroy a holy site to which anti-white Americans kowtow.  Roof and others were broken by a viciously anti-white society and they exploded on the public in the only way they knew how.  Destroying the “holy places” held up by anti-white Americans as a means of winning support or positive awareness for white people is similar to forced religious conversions: temporary, insincere and rejected by pious men of any cloth.  So, there you have it.  One more reason to condemn Roof’s violence as well as that from other young white men.

There is an entire young generation that knows more about Harry-fucking-Potter and the Hogwarts academy than they do about Christianity. Young people know more about those damned Kardashians than they do about what’s happening in politics. People today are more eager to get a new iPhone than to make an honest tithe.  Our Idols of multiculturalism are skinning our youth alive.  Young men are breaking under the strain of a society that hates them.  They should indeed be punished when they fail to submit to proper authority, but it is also our responsibility to lift them up, to help and encourage them to live a Heroic life.

White Students in Australia Reject "Diversity" Agenda

via White GeNOcide Project

According to Dr Christina Ho from Sydney’s University of Technology, White Students have not obeyed the command to become “multicultural”.

White Students have very rarely mixed with non-White groups, and Dr Ho thinks that this is a problem which must be solved.

Schools are becoming more segregated in terms of both class and ethnicity,” she told the Sydney Morning Herald. “More and more students are going to schools that do not represent the range of people in their neighbourhood, but rather a select group.

You can walk between some of these schools in a few minutes and yet one is like a white bubble and the other is like a non-white bubble,” she said. “Its astounding that this can be happening in the same suburb like say, North Sydney.

The fact that there are so few students from language backgrounds other than English raises questions about the ethnic exclusivity of these networks, with ramifications for the composition of Australia’s future political, cultural and economic leaders,

In 2012, Dr Helen Proctor from the University of Sydney told the Sydney Morning Herald that ”Parents are broadly in favour of multiculturalism but alarmed about any concentrations of ethnicity, other than Anglo ethnicity, in a school,” The parents have been forced into paying lip-service to “multiculturalism” and “diversity”, but when they actually see first-hand what their children will have to go through, they don’t like it one bit.

The most basic point that we should think about here is, why exactly must White people – no matter where we are on the planet – be bullied and forced into this whole “diversity” agenda?

Is it such a hideous crime that some White kids in a school somewhere are left alone to study for their futures?

Yes it is, but only if you are an anti-White leader, or one of their bootlickers. Anti-Whites you see, want to turn us into a minority, from America, to Europe, to Australia – all in the name of “diversity”.

It is not “diversity” if it is a deliberate attempt to turn a group into the minority – it is genocide, and in this case, it is White genocide.

The Cuckservative Myth

via Alternative Right

In his famous novel, East of Eden, John Steinbeck wrote about the life and times of Adam Trask, a Prince Mishkin-like character, who – among other misfortunes – fell in love with a sociopathic prostitute/ blackmailer/ murderer by the name of Cathy Ames, whom he had rescued after she received a thorough beating from her fat and very angry pimp.

As he tended to her wounds, Trask became so enchanted by Cathy’s beauty (and vulnerability) that he constructed a fictional image of her inside his head, essentially turning the whore into a goddess. Adam’s brother, Charles, saw through Cathy’s facade stating to his brother that “She’s no damn good, I tell you. She’s a whore.”

Of course, Adam couldn’t see any of this, because he could only see the image of Cathy in his head, and his inability to see the actual being of flesh and blood blinded him to the dangers that his romantic delusions brought him. The irony in all this was that Charles later sleeps with Cathy, essentially cucking his own brother, and (quite possibly) fathering Cathy’s children.

Cathy Ames in the 1955 movie of East of Eden.
Shortly after their marraige, Cathy gives birth to twins, Caleb and Aron and with that burden gone, Cathy decides to conclude her relationship with Adam by putting a bullet into him and running off to the nearest whorehouse to do what she loves doing.

Now, Steinbeck’s portrayal of Adam and Cathy’s “relationship” gives an intriguing look into the complicated nature of cuckoldry, which, of course in our current context, brings up the issue of “cuckservatism.”

Despite what happened to him, Adam Trask was no weakling (he had been a highly decorated war hero), nor was he stupid (he managed to break out of jail and survive for several months as a hobo). However, despite all this, he was still powerless to see Cathy for what she truly was, and later in the novel, still wept for her after he heard that she had died.

The lesson here, I think, is that Adam was “cucked” because he loved too much and too strongly an image that existed only inside his head, and it was this delusion which nearly destroyed him. Delusion not weakness, therefore, was Adam’s folly, and a similar condition applies to people who are pejoratively called “Cuckservatives.” They are labelled as such because they pursue goals which are detrimental to their interests, and to the interest of that which they seek to preserve, which is a strong and stable country. Like Adam Trask, they are enamored with what they think exists and consequently what truly exists harms them. Such are their myths.

All peoples and persons have their myths, of course. Myths can either be simple or complex, idealistic or pragmatic, but they all have one thing in common, and that is their interpretative value. Myths explain how the world works, or even how it should work. In this sense, all myths are self-serving (including those on the Alt-Right/New-Right).

Whether it’s the “Diversity is Strength” meme of the Western World or the “Zhōngguó Mèng,” of China, social and political myths are ultimately feelgood philosophies designed to strengthen social and ethnic cohesion, offer intellectual consistency, and at the same time provide a framework for understanding the world. In this sense, there’s nothing really wrong with myths in and of themselves. It is human to create myths by which we relate to the world around us. Myths only become problematic when they divorce our perceptions and decisions from reality; making us vulnerable to forces which prey upon our hopes and fears. If myths do not correspond with existing reality then they simply turn into self-delusions.

Jeb Bush: the reality behind the delusion.
What makes cuckservatism so effective as a pejorative is that it expresses this delusional detachment from certain demographic and geopolitical trends. More importantly, however, the cuckservative meme also exposes the feelgood philosophy which exists in many mainstream conservative minds. This feelgood philosophy is rooted mainly in the desire for moral and ethical certainty, which prevents the “cuckservative” from thinking in terms of self-interests. After all, self-interest opens up the possibility for hypocricy.

In contrast to the myth of equality and global compatibility, self-interest is perceived to be petty, cynical, harsh, cold, and even inhumane. There is also the perception that self-interest is Machiavellian, and perhaps even unjust. More importantly, self-interest is nebulous, and offers no emotional reassurances or psychological protections from guilt. It only offers tangible results, and where is the mythical value in that?

Another important characteristic of the myths which exist in the cuckservative mindset is the fear that what they think may destroy what they have; that to think in terms in terms of self-interests may undermine the myth that the United States and the Western World in general have a “sacred duty,” and that to lose such things will ultimately destroy the mythical pasts and futures that exist in their dreams. Consider, for example, Trump’s remarks about China. There is the fear here that his populist protectionism could undermine the stability of the global economy or lead to economic isolation, and thus undermine Pax Americana.

Trump: killing the myth of global America?
In this sense, “cuckservative” anxieties are not just rooted in psychology or morality. They’re also rooted in the fear that too much self-interest and self-affirmation may trigger a global decoupling, and if the world decouples then it could spell the end of this particular phase in Western History, a phase that they once mythically believed would last forever, but has now played itself out.

So if we all just dig a little deeper, it becomes clear that the essence of the “cuckservative” meme goes beyond American or even perhaps Western politics, because it is essentially an attack on the mythical urges which defines our modern, globalized world: to be interdependent, and to project unto the future the dreams of the post-Second World War global dispensation.

In short, to attack the myth is to attack the system. And Cuckservatives – despite the pejorative against them – still want to protect this system even though it’s killing them, because the myth in their minds tells them that it is all the good which exists in the world.

To get back to Adam Trask, his relationship with Cathy changed several years later when he finally mustered up the courage to visit her in her brothel. There, for the first time, he saw Cathy (now “Kate”) for what she truly was, and he was able to free himself from the image in his mind.

The same thing is required for “cuckservatives” and for any people gripped by their myths, whether such myths are on the Right or on the Left. Reality – not truth (for it is too nebulous) – will set them free. However, they must first will themselves to abandon the beautiful goddess inside their heads, and instead look at the unstable world of blood, flesh, passions, tribes, self-interests, and dirt.

Paradigm Shift: Transubstantism

via European Guardian

It is respectfully suggested that a discussion of our cosmic origins demands a passionate, determined exploration of ultimate questions: Why are we here? Why does reality exist? Where did reality come from?

It is submitted that reality had to come from somewhere, that there must be meaning and purpose behind it all – not out of wishful thinking, but because the fact that consciousness has emerged from the void self-evidently favors meaning and purpose.

Please closely examine the punctuation mark immediately at the end of this sentence. The moment before the Big Bang, the entire visible universe – everything you see outside of you and within you – existed within a point less than the size of a punctuation mark period. Logic suggests – indeed, Darwin's own method of scientific reasoning has as a key principle – that if you're trying to explain something in the remote past, you should invoke a cause or causes which are known to produce the effect that you're trying to explain. It is therefore submitted that the most rational way to perceive the Big Bang is as a seed: a teleological, autotelic cosmic seed, with disembodied free will/consciousness as its fruit.

There is a sense in which the multiverse hypothesis is intended to make cosmology the new opiate of the masses: there's no need to fret too much about what happens here, right now – just relax, enjoy yourself, and don't think too deeply. After all, if you don't get what you want in this universe, a parallel you will get it, is getting it, or has gotten it in at least one alternate universe.

There is also a sense in which the multiverse hypothesis is really the mechanistic atheists' heaven. Every possible event has happened, is happening, or will happen in every possible combination: in one universe you're a Beethoven, in another you're a Stalin, in yet another, a flea! You can almost see the egalitarians, materialists, Zionists, Marxists, reductionists, and plutocrats popping the cork out of the champagne bottle.
Darwinism/methodological naturalism states that given enough time, mechanism can bring about life, sentience, and consciousness. And what is the multiverse hypothesis if not a spatial variant of evolutionism's time game? The multiverse hypothesis contends that given enough space, mechanism can bring about life, sentience, and consciousness. But what are the elements, forces, laws, and entities that will manifest themselves within space-time, and how and why will they self-assemble as they proceed to do so?

It is respectfully submitted that Gould's concept of religion and science as "nonoverlapping magesteria"is a fallacious paradigm: reality is an integrated, holonic totality; science, philosophy, and religion tend to compartmentalize reality and therefore each tends to view reality from its own perspective – and each is tempted to mistake its own limited perspective as embodying the true, complete understanding of reality. To a significant extent, however, reality is analogous to a Gestalt image: the viewer sees what she or he chooses to see.

The anthropic principle offers perspectives that attempt to explain the existence of observers capable of recognizing that the laws and forces of nature are bio-friendly; the "explanation" offered is that the laws and forces of nature must be bio-friendly – otherwise no such observers could exist. But the fact that the bio-friendly laws and forces of nature have induced conscious beings capable of observing them is self-evident; such reasoning merely begs the question: Why are the laws and forces of nature bio-friendly?

Darwinism (understood as a-teleological reality) and the mulitverse hypothesis seem to have in common a prior commitment to mechanism, i.e., to the doctrine that holds that natural processes (as of life) to be mechanically determined and capable of complete explanation by the laws of physics and chemistry. Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis are both inimical to teleology; indeed, Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis seem suspiciously crafted to eliminate any role whatsoever for teleology. Darwinism maintains that natural selection and random mutation can bring about life, sentience, and consciousness; the multiverse hypothesis purportedly eliminates the need for an intelligent Creator: together, Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis are the twin pillars of atheistic mechanism –ultimately there is nothing but matter and time and energy and unguidedness and space.

Natural selection operates on entities that possess some kind of a "survival" drive, or impetus. How and why would the plasma/radiation released by the Big Bang spontaneously self-organize into the visible universe? Sir Roger Penrose maintains that an incredibly high degree of "fine-tuning" (i.e., amazingly low entropy) existed in the organization of the initial universe: How and why would the visible universe emerge from an unguided expansion of space-time? Unguided plasma/radiation and inanimate matter do not have a "survival" drive, or impetus; to even suggest otherwise seems to risk resorting to teleology in some form, or “essences" of some kind, both of which mechanism forbids; until life somehow arises, natural selection has no self-organizational impetus to sculpt: How and why would inorganic, lifeless, unorganized, unguided plasma/radiation structure and contextualize itself so as to induce life, sentience, and consciousness? The response of the materialist-atheist is invariably some form of mechanism, i.e., the answer is somehow to be found in the laws of physics and chemistry. But mechanism states that there is no Creator to write the laws of physics and chemistry. Why then do these natural laws operate as they do? Why do they have the parameters that they do? Why do they interact and manifest themselves so as to integrate themselves into a cosmos that can then in turn induce life, sentience, and consciousness?

The life engendering balancing of the laws and forces of nature seems to fly in the face of the unguided processes required by mechanism: i.e., a stacked deck isn't unguided. The existence, the hierarchical ordering and meaning imposed on each card in the deck, and the rules required to give card games meaning, fly in the face of unguidedness. To say that life arose by "accident" or via unguided processes seems analogous to stating that someone pulled the nine of clubs by "accident" or via unguided processes. It seems self-evident that life had to have a teleological reality in which to self-generate and then self-replicate; the deck has to exist before someone can draw a card from it.

What Darwinism (a-teleological reality) stands for is the proposition that life can blindly arise by unguided processes, and thereafter self-complexify via natural selection operating on random mutations. But Darwinism has a problem with explaining how life began, as well as with explaining the origin of the bio-friendly cosmic laws and forces of nature: enter the multiverse hypothesis.

The multiverse hypothesis seems to have been designed by mechanistic atheists in an attempt tosidestep the question of the origin of life and the question of the cause of the bio-friendly cosmic laws and forces of nature; it seems popular now among mechanistic atheists (a-teleological reality adherents) to maintain the existence of an infinite (or near infinite) number of universes (i.e., the multiverse), and but of course it follows that one or more of these universes will emerge in a form capable of generating and supporting life – and voila! – Darwinism's (a-teleological reality's) just-so story is buffeted by an untestable, question-begging supposition.

Evolution understood as change over time and even as common ancestry is rational and is clearly demonstrated by empirical evidence, but the Darwinist/evolutionist (a-teleological reality) position that everything can be explained by mechanism seems wrong: it flies in the face of facts, logic, reason, and even science itself.

There is a sense in which Darwinism (i.e., a-teleological reality) represents the mechanization of life. But is the cosmos really best characterized as a watch or a machine? Is it possible the cosmos is more akin to a living organism (or perhaps a living "multiverse" super-organism)? What is the multiverse – if it exists – but self-replication on the grandest scale? The multiverse hypothesis, as explicated by a-teleological reality adherents, is the mechanization of the cosmos, and as such it protects Darwinism's exposed flanks. Darwinism (a-teleological reality) does not permit teleology, and the multiverse hypothesis purportedly does not require an intelligent Creator.


A-teleological reality (mechanism) is a paradigmatic-hegemonic, de jure ideology, imposed by the reigning paradigm's Power-Structure, designed to render teleological reality (vitalism) unthinkable. Mechanism rules out teleology a priori, and anything/everything gets interpreted through mechanism's unsubstantiated assertions and self-proclaimed parameters.

Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species, but he didn't copyright reality. Darwin recognized that change occurs over time, and he saw nature's incrementalism from the perspective of methodological naturalism. But is methodological naturalism the only perspective from which to view nature's incrementalism? The emergence of life, sentience, and consciousness, the bio-friendly laws and forces of nature – as well as the progression of the cosmos from a seed-like singularity to today's visible universe – suggest that perhaps nature's incrementalism actually is goal-based teleology.

Why should the Darwinian patina of metaphysical nihilism be the final word concerning nature's incrementalism? Why is the statement: "Ultimately, everything is an accident" any more or less scientific than the statement: "Ultimately, everything is goal-oriented"? Why must the brain be viewed exclusively as a piece of electrified meat?

Perhaps the brain is an organ, a portal to higher dimensions, to disembodied Consciousness, but mankind, still with primordial mud on their boots, are unable to perceive this supra-dimensional bioelectrical teleology of the matter-body-brain-mind-consciousness-spirit continuum. As Aristotle's teleology demonstrates, thinking is godlike: abstract contemplation is the highest end. Plato's Republic and Timaeus, St. Augustine's notion of evil as distance from God, Aristotle's view on biological reproduction as somehow participating in the divine: none of these thinkers or their ideas would seem to dispute evolution understood as change over time, or perhaps even as common ancestry – but to deny teleology?

At this point in history there seems to be no way of knowing – in an ultimate sense – if reality, as mankind are capable of perceiving it, is the result of unguided processes or of purposefulness. But as intelligent, conscious beings, mankind have a duty to consider all the best possible evidence and, based upon that evidence, set forth the soundest hypothesis they can – without appeal to revelation.

The seed is somehow impelled to become the plant; the electron is somehow brought to orbit the nucleus – and what does intelligent imagination suggest to us what the mind might somehow be induced to do and become? Who's to say that everything –reality – is a happenstance confluence of blind mechanism, sifting through an eternity of unguided, randomized ripples? Perhaps rather reality is the sprouting of Beauty – a symphonious cosmic garden – and not a cacophonous, materialistic hellhole. Perhaps the Big Bang singularity was a seed, and not an unguided expansion of matter-energy space-time. Cosmologists and physicists generally agree that the entire visible universe expanded from a singularity much smaller than a pea. The atoms composing your body are stardust. Consciousness has quite literally emerged from the void. The cosmos is a holonic hologram.


The Big Seed:

Does existence have meaning or is reality meaningless? Is everything inside of you and outside of you, from quarks to quasars, all the result of unguided, accidental happenstance? Is the exquisite, life-

consciousness engendering balancing of the cosmic forces of nature a fluke? Could reality as we perceive it have manifested itself into existence on its own accord, from a singularity or from nothing?

The multiverse hypothesis does not seem to resolve the issue, because the multiverse hypothesis is not dispositive: it's not falsifiable, it violates Occam's razor, and it begs the question (see, for example, Sir Antony Flew's There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind). Moreover, even if – and that's an awfully large if – there is a multiverse, we can never know whether the other universes too are teeming with life processes, and even if there is a multiverse, we're still faced with the question of what set it in motion, and even if there is a multiverse, how do we know life was not teleologically intended to seed its other constituent universes too? Furthermore, there seems to be no way to know with reasonable certainty precisely what happened before the Big Bang, nor likewise to know what, if anything, comes after the heat death of the universe (or, alternatively, what, if anything, comes after the "Big Crunch"). Many of the world's foremost scientists (cosmologists, physicists, etc.) have developed a theory that the universe-Creation occurred from a singularity or from nothing. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that the Big Bang brought forth an integrated, teleological reality-totality capable of spontaneously inducing self-generating and self-replicating life, sentience, and consciousness.

It is respectfully submitted that the Big Bang was not an unguided expansion of space-time matter- energy (i.e., it was not an event analogous to a "bomb" "exploding"); rather, it was an ordered expansion of space-time matter-energy (i.e., it was an event analogous to a "seed" "sprouting"): therefore, it did not "explode" – it sprouted. As to who or what "planted" it, there is no way to know. Nevertheless, Aristotle's notion of the unmoved Mover (or God, if you prefer) is a sound hypothesis. Therefore, adherence to a theistic-spiritualistic-teleological paradigm is just as, if not more, sound than is adherence to an atheistic-materialistic-evolutionist paradigm; note please the use of the term evolutionist: evolution of course is true, scientific, and undeniable. Evolutionism, on the other hand, is the philosophy of nihilism: evolutionism is nothing more than atheist metaphysics.

Darwin didn't perceive the larger, all-encompassing order – the layered, nestled, hierarchical space-time matter-energy bioelectrical harmonic webbed nexuses of holonic planes and dimensions – in which the processes of evolution unfold, without which the processes of evolution could not engender ever more complex life, sentience, and consciousness: but for the proto-order somehow embedded in the Big Seed, blind, unguided evolutionism seems incapable of producing anything other than chaos. Evolution seems more akin to a cosmic process, initiated by whatever entity/force begot the Big Seed; it seems undeniable that the cosmos has gradually, incrementally, spontaneously self-organized – from the very small to the very large – and that mankind are teleologically unfolding parts of that gradual, spontaneous, incremental, self-organized expansion.

It is respectfully submitted that this perspective successfully defends the proposition that adherence to a paradigm of theism-spiritualism-teleology is just as, if not more, sound than is adherence to a paradigm of atheism-materialism-evolutionism.


Even if we are spared destruction by war, our lives will have to change if we want to save life from self-destruction. We cannot avoid revising the fundamental definitions of human life and human society. Is it true that man is above everything? Is there no Superior Spirit above him? Is it right that man's life and society's activities have to be determined by material expansion in the first place? Is it permissible to promote such expansion to the detriment of our spiritual integrity?

If the world has not come to its end, it has approached a major turn in history, equal in importance to the turn from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance. It will exact from us a spiritual upsurge, we shall have to rise to a new height of vision, to a new level of life where our physical nature will not be cursed as in the Middle Ages, but, even more importantly, our spiritual being will not be trampled upon as in the Modern era.

This ascension will be similar to climbing onto the next anthropologic stage. No one on earth has any other way left but – upward. -ALEXANDR SOLZHENITSYN FROM "A WORLD SPLIT APART," DELIVERED AT HARVARD CLASS DAY AFTERNOON


In recent times it has been fashionable to talk of the leveling of nations, of the disappearance of different races in the melting-pot of contemporary civilization. I do not agree with this opinion, but its discussion remains another question. Here it is merely fitting to say that the disappearance of nations would have impoverished us no less than if all men had become alike, with one personality and one face. Nations are the wealth of mankind, its collective personalities; the very least of them wears its own special colours and bears within itself a special facet of divine intention. -ALEKSANDR SOLZHENITSYN FROM HIS NOBEL LECTURE IN LITERATURE (1970)


via Western Spring

You’re in eternal gene wars and you may not even realize it. These gene wars are waged automatically and silently and they never end. And, they never can or should end. They are necessary.

They are the wars between different versions of genes. Most Whites live their whole lives not knowing about the gene wars and they are the ones who are most at risk of going extinct in our new reality where non-White genes are flooding White lands.

By having a little knowledge about the gene wars–just an awareness of the concept, really–will help you survive our present Dark Age and help you expand your genotype and thus also help all other Whites to survive and thrive. The more Whites there are, the safer is this dark planet for all Whites.

At the most personal level, the gene wars happen right in your own body as different versions of genes for the various characteristics that make you, you, battle it out for expression and dominance while you are in your mother’s womb developing from a few cells to a complete individual.

Your mother and father each contributed around 10,000 genes to give you the full 20,000 or so genes that make humans. Many of those genes come in different versions. A ready example is eye color. In simplest terms, If your mother had one color eyes and your father another, there was an internal war or competition within you between the different versions as you grew in the womb. Look in the mirror today and you’ll see the winner.

Happy White People 5When Whites have a child with another White, the gene wars go on internally, but the battles are relatively benign because the winner will still be White. That is, the result of two Whites mating is a White child as the two White genotypes are combined, and our race (many of us say we Whites are actually a different species) expands and continues on through the White child. This is good for all of us as Whites and this is as it should be. And, to be clear, even though you are White and I am White, your genotype and mine are also engaged in the gene wars. Yours “wants” all Whites to be like you and mine wants the same for me. However, and again, if you win, I still win, because we share the same general White genotype and we are part of each other as Whites. Your win will simply mean your descendents will have more of your minor features and fewer of mine. They may have, for example, your ears, and not mine or your nose and not mine. But, at the next lower level of existence in the DNA code, your White descendents are my White descendents.

So far so good. However, when Whites do evil and have children with non-Whites, the result is always non-White children and this is the contraction and the death of the White genotype carried by the White parent. This is bedroom genocide. This is the extinction of a White family line. This diminishes all Whites. This injects more non-White DNA into the White gene pool. This is a huge evil for us and this is not as it should be.

The genemies of Whites as Whites are all non-Whites. Those among us of more delicate outlooks and language may prefer the terms competitors and competitions or even natural selection rather than genemies/enemies and gene wars. No matter. They mean the same thing. Call them what you will, but understand the basic principles because understanding them is essential to our survival as Whites, our expansion as Whites, and our evolution as Whites in this age when our once pure White lands are being swamped with non-White genes.

White Oppression 2It doesn’t matter if every non-White on the planet is a wonderful person, is smart, is good looking, has the same interests as you and you really like them. They are not our kind–the White kind. They are still genemies of Whites–enemies of the White genotype–they can’t be anything else. It is nature’s way. And, they are genemies simply because their genotype “wants” to win the war for survival and take over all lands and replace your genotype–just as your genotype wants to do the same thing to their genotype. It is part of the program of life itself and it applies to all living organisms. They are your genemies and you are theirs. That’s how evolution works. It is not something to be unhappy about or something that one should try to ignore or overcome. It is, however, something that we Whites should be conscious of so we can work for our survival and not simply be eliminated from existence without even knowing it is happening and without even fighting back to survive and prevail.

As individuals in our everyday reality, non-Whites may mean us no harm and we may mean them no harm, but this everyday reality is not where we need to focus most of our thinking. We need to focus on the genotype, the genes, the DNA code that we carry. It is on this basic DNA level where the gene wars are waged. The danger non-whites pose–at this level–is unconscious and a programmed part of nature’s way of evolution. The danger they pose is gene flow from their genotype into the White genotype. You might even think of it as an infection they carry that can kill you even if they mean you no harm. Your defense is to remain separate and isolated from them as much as possible and to remain only around your fellow Whites. This is not always possible but it is up to you to find a way even if it is just being separate and isolated in place. Mating with non-Whites is the death of the White genotype you carry and which you should protect and propagate in pure form.

What is the “goal” of different genes and genotypes? It is to replace all alternate versions with themselves. So, back to the eye example for a moment. All blue eye genes want to replace all other color eye genes and it is this way with all genes for all eye colors and all other internal and external characteristics of an organism and then for entire genotypes as wholes. And, all the different versions of genes for our characteristics–eyes, hair, skin color, brains, etc.– will continue to be our genemies and ours theirs until one version comes out on top and the others are eliminated. But, even then, the gene wars will continue within the ones that win as nature fine tunes the type.

Happy White People 6

Even if we take conscious charge of our evolution and make the leap to full specieshood–a desirable status where we Whites will no longer be able to bear viable children with non-Whites–the gene wars will continue. Nature is the tireless tinkerer and backyard engineer with living organisms and it constantly tries to perfect life first to be the best in a particular niche and then to be the best in all possible niches.

To ensure the best outcome for the sheer volume of life, nature must bring forth organisms with general adaptations so they can survive in many different niches. If things go our way, and by living consciously with knowledge of the gene wars, we are indeed more likely to have them go our way, we will develop general adaptations that keep us as White people but with some survival advantages that give us a leg up and the ability to roll with the punches that nature throws our way. The way forward is for us to develop more intelligence, a higher breeding rate, a dislike of miscegenation, a desire to remain separate and isolated from other human types, quicker reflexes, more intuition, more cunning a stronger sense of our identity and a desire to maintain it unsullied. In a few words: The way forward is for us to become more White, not less so.

Today, we Whites are lumped in with all other humans in the general term “modern human.” Do not be confused and think this means all present day humans are the same. We are not. We are far different from each other and this is the way evolution works. It is the differences that are important. It is the differences that bring improvements. And, we Whites are the new kids on the planet, so our genes are less fixed than earlier models and unless we avoid miscegenation, we are going to be swallowed up by the earlier, darker models of humans and we’ll go extinct.

To be clear, the greatest threat to our existence as Whites is not from wild animals or diseases or natural calamities or nuclear wars, or even from those who hate us, but from those who can mate with us and cause our genocide via their genes. We can be loved to extinction.

Neanderthals didn’t die off because they were eaten by bears or other wild animals or even because of supposed hatred by so-called modern humans. They died off from physical love–sex with modern humans. They died off because they didn’t fill every land where they lived with themselves and because they miscegenated. They didn’t understand the danger of miscegenation and they didn’t separate out and isolate themselves from so-called modern humans. Then, nature took over and they committed their own genocide through mating with so-called modern humans. The Neanderthals were absorbed and blended away by so-called modern humans. That’s why many modern humans–Whites and Asians, but not sub-Saharan Africans–have small percentages of Neanderthal genes within us.

Just as non-existence, cold, dark, death and stillness take no effort or struggle to be, and just require that there be no effort, no struggle for existence, for heat, for life, for light, for movement It takes no effort to make non-Whites. All of these things are, when there is no effort or struggle for their opposites. Just combine any non-White with any White and you end up with a non-White. It takes effort and struggle to make a White. You have to have two Whites to make a new White. There is no other way, and this requires effort and struggle and the effort and struggle are becoming even greater as our White lands are flooded with non-White genes.

The gene wars play out in our everyday world as wars between the so-called races of humans for dominance and the extinction of those humans who are different from you. There are no good or bad guys in this. This is just nature’s way to evolve the best organisms for every niche.

Some people like to call themselves the People of the Book, and by this they usually mean they find their people hood in certain religious books. This is absurd. We Whites are the people of the Code. That is, we find our people hood in the genetic code that is contained in our DNA which gives rise to our genes. Our Code goes back further than any book written on paper or pieces of mud. Our Code is within every cell of out body that has a nucleus. Our religious book is our DNA code.

It is from an understanding of the DNA code and genes that our true White ethics, morality and values flow, but this is for another essay. Suffice it to say for the time being that we, each of us Whites, must look out for ourselves and our own self interests as Whites and be indifferent to non-Whites and not interfere in their destinies by either helping or harming them. They are not our kind. Let them survive or perish as the fates determine. Seek your happiness in a White context.

Here, again, are two very important quotations for our kind. If you truly understand these and live these, you are on the right track:
“[T]he varieties of mankind are so different that similar differences found in any other animals would warrant their classification in different species, if not in different genera.” — Charles Darwin
“Living organisms must necessarily compete, for food, for mates and for living space, especially with other members of their own species [i.e. those they can breed with]. They must avoid predators and other dangers. For all these various reasons, some will leave more offspring than others, and it is the genetic characteristics of such preferred replicators which will be passed on preferentially to succeeding generations. This is the essence of natural selection.” — Francis Crick (Nobel laureate and co-discoverer of the shape of DNA) Emphasis added.

Times of Israel Writer Insists “Jews are not white”


A bloger (sic) with the Times of Israel posted an opinion piece stating emphatically that Jews are NOT white. The issue here is not whether her arguments are sound or the facts she cited correct or even the definition what constitutes a race. What is significant is that this is a view that has enough currency among Jews that a leading newspaper would publish it.

In fact, the writer, Hila Hershkoviz, claims that most Israeli Jews reject the notion that Jews are white. Astute observers of Jewish behavior, such as Dr. David Duke and Professor Kevin MacDonald, have long pointed out that Jews tend not to view themselves as white, although they also tend to nurture the perceptions among whites Jews are just another ethnicity within the white race.

Hershkoviz cites history, culture, and genetics in making her argument, which is laced with anti-European overtones throughout. In the end, she calls on Jews who do consider themselves white to “decolonize your identities.”

Anyone who cannot understand why the Jewish elite that rules America and most other majority-white countries would be promoting the destruction of the white race needs to read this article.

The Fish Rots from the Head

The Camp of the Saints is upon us, and as the Third World hordes storm the borders of Europe’s affluent Schengen Area – by land from the South East and by sea from the South – little accidents are bound to happen.

A truck has just been found in Austria stuffed with 50 bodies, apparently victims of heat and suffocation. Meanwhile in the Mediterranean hundreds more have apparently drowned in the short gap that exists between Libyan territorial waters and the European navies that serve as a ferry service into the continent.
Hundreds of people are feared dead after two boats carrying up to 500 migrants capsized off the Libyan city of Zuwara, residents and officials say. The first boat, which signalled for help early on Thursday, had nearly 50 people on board. The second, which sank much later, had as many as 400 passengers. The Libyan coastguard is still conducting a rescue operation for that boat, but most of those who were on board are feared dead. . . . The victims included migrants from Syria, Bangladesh and several sub-Saharan African countries, the resident said, but the information could not be independently verified. At least 20 migrants have reportedly been rescued from the two incidents. About 2,400 migrants have died trying to cross the sea to Europe so far this year, the UN says.
These are the kind of stories that will be used to call for a loosening of any anti-immigrant measures that are still technically in place. For example, Germany recently started to allow all Syrians in Germany to seek asylum there, even though under EU rules it could deport them if they had arrived in a previous EU country.
The EU leaders have also been indulging in general moral signalling, while not actually bothering to burden themselves with the consequences of their actions, leaving that instead to various local communities, where it is obvious that asylum seekers are less than welcome, prompting yet another round of moral signalling.

But while news stories of unsuccessful migrants pile up, the question still has to be asked Who’s really dying? Because it is not the migrants or at least the population groups they come from. Instead it is Europe itself.

Back in the 19th century, it wasn’t boatloads of non-Whites who were drowning, but instead Europeans. A typical example of many: in 1874, the Cospatrick, a wooden sailing vessel, was en route from Gravesend in England to Auckland in New Zealand. It had 44 crew and carried 433 passengers, including 429 assisted emigrants, of whom 125 were women and 126 were children.

While rounding the Cape of Good Hope, the heavily crowded ship caught fire, leading to a panic, which meant the fire could not be brought under control. Under-provisioned with lifeboats as it was, this led to the launching of only two of the ship’s five lifeboats, leaving the majority to drown. Of the two lifeboats, however, one disappeared without trace, while the remaining one drifted for ten days and a distance of 500 miles before being picked up. By that time there were only five men left alive, and they had been reduced to drinking the blood and eating the livers of their dead companions. Shortly afterwards two of these “lucky men” died, making a grand total of three survivors, out of 477.

Accidents like this were numerous and frequent in the 19th and even early 20th centuries, when White demographics were extremely healthy and there were vast, sparsely-populated areas, like the Americas and the Antipodes, that put a premium on highly productive European labour. The Titanic is perhaps the most famous case, as along with the transatlantic millionaires who frequently sailed back and forth between New York and England, the ship was also carrying hundreds of emigrants seeking a new life in North America, most of whom died.

While sad and tragic, mass deaths at sea are actually a sign of a particular demographic’s health and vitality and its need to expand. While there are many reasons that Africa and the Middle East are ripping themselves apart – the most important being constant Western interference – one of the main drivers is a disparity between population and productivity, in simple terms overpopulation – too many people for the low amount of economic activity taking place.

Compare Germany and Egypt, the most populous Middle Eastern state and one that is at least now (thankfully) under the grim rule of a military tyrant. Both countries have similar sized populations – 80 to 90 million – but Egypt’s exports are a little under $25 billion (2013 estimate), mainly oil, cotton, and a few dates. German exports, by contrast, are 1.511 trillion (2014 est.) or 60 times more than Egypt’s.

These figures hint at the different nature of 19th century European expansion and that which is occurring now. European expansion was from already economically dynamic areas to economically underdeveloped areas. In short, it was healthy outward growth. Contemporary Third World expansion reverses this – it is from economically underdeveloped areas, areas that are limited in their economic development by the natures of their population, to economically dynamic areas. In short it is inward and essentially parasitical in nature.

But if it is parasitical and therefore harmful, why is it being allowed to occur? The simple answer is that although economically healthy, Europe is not socially healthy. This is reflected in various factors like the breakdown of social cohesion and shared values, and the rise of materialism, atomism, hedonism, and narcissism, and most obviously in plummeting reproduction rates.

This disjunction between economic health and social health can mean one of two things: (1) there is an essential conflict between social health and economic health, with greater economic development exerting a number of harmful effects on social health; or (2) the global economic system is itself deeply flawed so that those elements in its vanguard are entering into its death throes sooner than other areas. To use a proverbial expression: the fish rots from the head.

In the 19th century, global capitalism existed in healthy synergy with its vanguard European population. As capitalism spread so did the White race, as it grew, so did they grow and spread. We could never have had the development of North America and Australia without the “dark, satanic mills” of England or the forges of the Rhur.

But over the course of the 20th century, things began to change. The easy growth and gains of capitalism ran out of road, leading to an increasing tendency towards economic cannibalization.

The first obvious danger sign was decolonization. Much can be said about the “Wind of Change” and the “aspirant national spirits” of this piece of jungle or that piece of malarial swamp, but, let’s not kid ourselves here, this was essentially downsizing by The West Inc., with cost-cutting, cheap exploitation, and maximization of falling profits at the cost of long-term investment and development.

The next danger sign was the rise of feminism and the expectation that women would enter the work force with the same degree of commitment as men. This supposedly “progressive” development was simply a way to reduce the dependency ratio and dilute the labor market.

The result was a larger pool of workers, cheaper labour, drastically falling birth rates, and initially more tax revenue. With more to spend, governments could also grow the unproductive public sector with its attendant nomeklatura, creating an additional artificial economic stimulus that marched hand-in-hand with Keynesian economics and consumerism.

The economic model this created – social democratic capitalism with its crass materialistic values – was clearly dysgenic and “sui-genocidal,” but in the spiritual vacuum caused by WWI and the ideological vacuum caused by WWII, there was little resistance. The dystopian circle caused by these factors could only be temporarily squared by the expedients of outsourcing and mass immigration – in essence a cannibalization of Western supremacy.

It is this process that raised up first Japan and then China, the cooption of whose highly productive populations, gave globalist social democrat capitalism an additional lease on zombie life from the 1970s onwards. It is this process that has also artificially maintained the service economies, property prices, and client populations of the social democrat nomenklatura, of the West.

The vitality of the Victorian economy was demonstrated by being able to generate enormous profit margins by selling its manufactured goods at great distances to the people of the Third World in the actual Third World.

Western social democratic capitalism demonstrates its extreme lethargy by maintaining its profits through outsourcing production and by then importing its consumers from the Third World into the First World where they can then be expected to pay – usually through tax-assisted wealth redistribution – a much higher price than if they had stayed in their kraals on the banks of the Niger or their slums by the Ganges.

Everywhere in the modern West, the sound you hear is the sound of the decks of the ship being torn up to feed the dying fires of its boiler.