init

Light of the West/"Hey Tom, Kill that German".md

@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+
+	Why so much focus on groups like blacks and Jews?
+
+You don't think groups have characteristics?
+
+	I think we are all individuals, and should all be judged as such
+
+Is that how war works?
+"Hey Tom, kill that German!"
+"NO! He is an individual!"

Light of the West/0. Light of the West.md

@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+
+
+*The task of any nation is to be Godly, meaning Good for Life*.
+
+
+*Life is a River* --
+
+*Life may grow, Life may shrink; 
+
+*but Life will never stay the same*.
+
+
+[[1. Why is the West Shrinking?]]
+
+[[What is a Nation?]]
+
+[[Liberalism, Conservatism, Expansionism]]
+
+[[Globalism and Barbarism]]
+
+[[Mind vs. Gene]]
+
+[[Competition, Collaboration]]
+
+[[God]]
+
+[[The Light of the West]]
+
+[[New Heights]]
+
+
+

Light of the West/1. Why is the West Shrinking?.md

@@ -0,0 +1,236 @@
+
+This is the question I asked myself in January, as I watched the American border disappear.
+
+Illegal immigrants poured in, forming giant crowds in Eagle Pass. Joe Biden tried to force them in. 
+
+Shocking.
+
+I was deep in my own project and company. Suddenly, my work could not distract me. 
+
+Biden was never competent, but this cut deeper. Foreigners walked into our land, and took our money to do so. 
+
+As we saw the news, Americans agreed: we don’t want open borders. 
+
+Even former liberals spoke out, such as Stephen A. Smith and Elon Musk. But the people’s voices changed nothing. The opinions and desires of Americans went unanswered.
+
+So I wondered - why? 
+
+Why are Americans forced to accept a giant invasion, and even to pay for it? 
+
+I watched the news. I watched liberals gloat over the outrage. They said “What? Are you afraid of a little competition?" Something about that felt strange, but I did not know why.
+
+I saw Mexicans rejoice. They released vitriol and resentment against whites, which I had never seen before in this quantity. They bragged about the demographics changing. They rejoiced that the illegals would take jobs. 
+
+Still, that question stuck in my mind. "What? Are you afraid of a little competition?" Still, it confused me. 
+
+Why doesn't it make sense?
+
+This attitude isn't just from liberals. It comes from some conservatives too. It is the attitude that economic performance is the only thing that matters. To these people, political identities and problems are largely irrelevant. As long as the system allows a man a job and some money, what is there to worry about?
+
+This is the ideology of individualism. It is the ideology of the American mainstream. It is the one I was taught as a child.
+
+But somehow, that ideology has failed. The nation is getting invaded; foreigners are ascendant. If this continues, America will be nothing like it was when I was a kid, and certainly nothing like I want it to be.
+
+This was not an economic problem for me. I already have a job. Two, actually. I just moved to Austin, my tech startup was growing rapidly, and the future looked bright. Illegal Mexicans are not an economic threat. If anything, they are probably helpful, because they provide cheap manual labor. I am not in that industry, so there is no competition.
+
+But what about the nation? Do I want to live here if everybody speaks Spanish? If everyone is Mexican? What happened to the America I grew up in?
+
+That America is dying. Fast. In this moment, I don't actually care about the economy - I care about the nation. The culture. The people. All of which are, apparently, dying.
+
+Seeing this existential situation, I think back to my childhood. I attended Classical Christian schools from the time I was seven to the time I was eighteen. They were very English, and very Protestant. Now, I have fond memories of growing up in that culture. A culture which was, undeniably, my own.
+
+I never recognized the Englishness of these schools before. Strange. To me, they just seemed normal. But now, in the face of a foreign culture, my own is more clear. My high school in Texas had four houses that each of the students would get sorted in. Each was named after an English author. Not American, not European, but English. My grade school in Florida had a memorable logo: A red shield with a blue cross, and a gold lion on the front. Like Richard the Lionheart.
+
+In the literal sense, a huge proportion of the students and teachers were English. 98% or more were white.
+
+And I liked it.
+
+If that culture is dying, then I must know why. In this moment, nothing else feels important. Nothing else matters.
+
+And then I realized:
+
+THIS IS THE COMPETITION.
+
+One people holds a territory, another covets it. What competition is older than this? 
+
+A war, to decide who wins. That is the oldest competition of all. It is a competition we have lived for thousands of years.
+
+After all, what does a nation do but own land? The jobs and economy are secondary to that simple purpose. We own this land, and they do not. That is what it means to be a Citizen of the United States.
+
+The more I considered, the worse it was. Forcing in foreigners is what a government does to its enemies, not its citizens. Ten or twenty million would permanently change the nation. If they vote, it could even change this election.
+
+For months, I had followed politics on the surface level. I had watched all sorts of extreme opinions flying about. Through it all, I always remained focused on my work. But this time, it was different: 
+
+This is a coup against the American people. 
+
+Now, whoever imports and bribes the most foreigners can rule the land. We, the people, mean nothing to our leaders. We do not rule this land. Our very land, the basis of this nation, that is shrinking. We are literally losing ground.
+
+I considered this, and why it impacted me so much. Nothing else in politics had. All I could conclude is that the opening of the border is far more important than just a presidential policy, and my reaction is far more primal than just a political opinion. The reason is simple:
+
+What man wants to lose his land?
+
+The border dispute is not simply American, but human. Men are territorial. Man’s desire to rule land is as old as all the nations. For thousands of years, we have forged governments and fought for land. Even animals do the same: clans of Chimpanzees fight over their borders, defending and expanding their nation. Our civilizations are measured by their land. 
+
+This is even why we remember Rome: land is the eternal measure of achievement.
+
+In that great measure, Americans are declining. We are being forced, by our own government, to let in foreigners. Our borders were our nation’s influence; the land we owned. Now, those borders are caving in. Our leaders are importing millions, and even using our money to bribe them. 
+
+The tyranny that began the American Revolution was nothing compared to this. King George made our stamps expensive; Biden is giving away our birthright.
+
+Perhaps the immigrants are nice, hard workers. But it is still wrong to open this land up for all. It goes against Americans’ basic interests. It destroys American culture, since many immigrants don't even speak English. It hurts many of our own young men, who now have more economic competition for resources. 
+
+If we were really the rulers of our own country, we wouldn’t do this. 
+
+But apparently, we’re not. 
+
+We no longer rule this land. 
+
+So who does? 
+
+Obviously, the Democrats are the ones opening the border. They are the party of elites, globalism, multinational corporations, and the political establishment. They are the heirs of neoliberalism, which began around the 80s. They are the party of the urban: men less connected to the land.
+
+But as I considered the Democrats, I realized: Europe is open too. As we speak, Europe is being invaded by Muslims, Africans, and Indians. The people don’t want more migrants, but they are forced to accept them.
+
+So, it's not just the Democrats. It’s across this civilization: an open-borders alliance of bureaucrats, liberal citizens, big corporations, journalists, and intellectuals. 
+
+All Western leaders are opening our borders. All Western leaders are giving away our land.
+These actions, which seem so contrary to the idea of a nation, are brazen and clear.
+
+But why?
+
+I listened to one of Britain’s political debates. They said it was economics. They said birth rates are declining, so they need migrants to work jobs and maintain quality of life.
+
+I had heard this once or twice before. I never gave it much mind. But as I thought more, it became strange. Our populations are shrinking? Why do our leaders sound so indifferent? Do they not care about us more than a random foreigner? 
+
+But that’s when I realized something much more important: it’s not our borders.
+
+It’s us. 
+
+*WE* are shrinking.
+
+Losing our land is just the result.
+
+Our nations themselves, our people, are on the path to extinction. 
+
+But decades ago, when our leaders found out about the birth rates, when did they ever bring it up? When did they try to reverse it? Strangely, they sought the opposite: they encouraged feminism and women in the workplace. They outsourced our manufacturing jobs, impoverishing millions of men. Together, these policies destroyed the middle class family.
+
+Our leaders pushed comfort and consumerism, and the birth rates fell. Now, they use the birth rates as an excuse to give away our land. 
+
+Before, it seemed like a coup. But this seems more like a murder. Or like a suicide. Either way, the nation ends up dead. 
+
+So why? Why would they do this?
+
+They say it is about economics. To them, it does not matter which people are on the land. They don't care about the people, and they don't care about the culture. Instead, they care about the system: the government and the economy. 
+
+Somehow, “by the people and for the people” has been hung upside down. Our government is now “by the system, for the system”. We are just numbers in a spreadsheet.
+
+Our governments have gradually shifted the goalposts to imply that they, the system, are the source of the nation’s greatness. The conclusion this leads to is good people support the system. Those who don’t are traitors. 
+
+This puts Westerners in grave danger: our governments were meant to be our collective will. They were the guardrails to our lives. Now, if our governments are betraying us and their new slaves are attacking us, where can we go? We are trapped between a runaway system and angry barbarians. We have no state at all.
+
+How did we get to this point? Don’t we have leaders that care about the people?
+
+Where are our conservatives? Where is our tradition? Entire countries are falling apart, and many are simply complaining on the internet. They don't say it - we are shrinking.
+
+Instead, all they say is: “Can we open the borders more slowly?”
+
+Our conservatives don’t discuss land and people at all. They only know a third word: "culture". Year after year, our conservative politicians speak of "preserving culture" and "assimilation." They never mention the birth rates; they never mention the land. They talk merely of preservation, as we watch millions of random foreigners pouring in.
+
+European culture keeps on shrinking. Christianity is at an all-time low. Divorce rates are at an all-time high. Vulgarity prevails in the media. Migrants assimilate less every year.
+
+Is it really any wonder why? If our people and land are shrinking, why would our culture grow? And if we never make an effort to gain more people or land, won’t we keep shrinking?
+
+If we never make an effort to grow, why would we even *exist*?
+
+Isn't it simpler to have children than try and force our culture on foreigners? And yet, nobody says it. Nobody campaigns for more people or land.
+
+Our traditionalists only try and *conserve* what exists. That is why they are called conservatives. Our liberals work to give it away: abort more children, import more immigrants. 
+
+If one man in the rowboat paddles backwards, and one doesn't paddle at all, won’t we always go backwards? Of course. With these two choices, we always shrink. We never, ever grow.
+
+Seems obvious - even scandalous. Our entire political system of liberals vs. conservatives aims toward one outcome: 
+
+We will shrink.
+
+But nobody talks about it. 
+
+And so, it continues.
+
+How long has it been this way? 
+
+How long has this been going on? 
+
+How long have we been shrinking? 
+
+In America, the last time we had a birth rate increase was 1945. The rate peaked at 3.65 children per woman, and then steadily declined ever since.  
+
+These are the demographics of the past 60 years:
+
+In 1960, 35 percent of the Earth was white. 
+90 percent of the U.S. was European.
+99 percent of Britain was British. 
+
+In 2024: 
+Whites are 9 percent of Earth.
+Europeans are 54 percent of America.
+The British are 80 percent of Britain. 
+
+And nobody has said a word.
+
+With 100 more years, there would be no whites on Earth. Europeans would cease to exist. Yet - not a shot fired. No wars killing us. Only ourselves.
+
+Only in the past ten years have populists appeared, infusing more energy into these vague ideas of “preserving culture.” Almost always, these leaders act shocked at recent events. They talk about the "Great Replacement," as if it's a new idea. But haven’t our people, culture, and land been disappearing for the past 60 years?
+
+For the first time in more than a millennium, we are shrinking on the world stage. 
+
+We are accepting unvetted young men from foreign countries. We are welcoming danger and watering down our culture. We have lost the will to be fruitful and multiply, and we are losing control of the land our fathers gave us. This is not a healthy civilization, but a dying one. 
+
+And the only way to reverse this decline is to seek growth.
+
+When is the last time a leader campaigned for growth? 
+
+And why aren’t we doing it anymore? 
+
+Unfortunately, this one was an easy answer.
+
+April 1945:
+
+the last great Western Expansionist shot himself in the head.
+
+And, ever since, we have shrunk. 
+
+By 1970, all European nations had abandoned their colonies. The only future aspiration? Conserve the postwar borders and conserve the traditional culture.
+
+In 2024, even that is ambitious. Our men are jailed for ideas. Our women are threatened in the streets. Our borders no longer exist.
+
+Only America, supposedly the great victor of World War II, still clings to a shred of freedom. And even here, in the gilded postwar cage, we see:
+
+humans do not reproduce in captivity.
+
+Our leaders welcome migrants through the door, luring them onto the land and handing them the livelihood that my grandfathers fought to obtain.
+
+But still:
+
+we think it evil to grow our borders, expand our culture, or multiply our people.
+
+
+
+After all: isn’t that what Hitler did?
+
+Isn't that what the Nazis did, in all their regalia? The embodiment of all evil in this world, who every child is taught to fear?
+
+But it's clear:
+
+that was last time we tried to grow.
+
+
+
+So,
+
+As we see our nations trampled, standing between Hitler and oblivion,
+
+We must know:
+
+
+
+Why does the West shrink?

Light of the West/Archetypes of Man.md

@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+
+
+Lion
+Bear
+Sheepdog
+Wolf
+Beaver
+Hawk
+Owl
+Shrew
+
+
+Kings are lions.
+
+Country men are bears. They have very specific personal territory, often in cold places, and they defend it ferociously. 
+
+Soldiers range from sheep-dogs to wolves. Some get a taste for blood and don’t want to stop. Some, though, remain friendly.
+
+Farmers, engineers, and some construction workers are beavers. They are 
+docile, hardworking, and helpful. Crops, buildings, and concrete are not often stolen, especially when they are a part of a larger society. Therefore, these men are concerned with construction. They are not concerned with defense or destruction. 
+
+Architects are generally docile but opinionated. They have a strong crossover between sensory and calculation ability.
+
+Entrepreneurs and Explorers are like hawks. They fly around until they find prey, and then pounce on the opportunity.
+
+Clergy are like owls. They watch the other animals and learn.
+
+Accountants, Mathemeticians, Scientists are generally very docile. They are like shrews. Their domains are perhaps too small to yield the testosterone required for serious land ownership, but they can be ferociously opinionated in their specific niche. 
+
+
+
+
+
+**What is the Ideal Human Type?**
+
+There are many human types. Everyone has a preference for a type, and a desire to push the interests of their own type.
+
+The most endangered type in the Western world is the type of the aristocrat. This type is violent, willing to use force, but typically as a part of a larger group. The western nobleman is socialized enough to favor guns and strategy, but not so socialized as to run from violence at all.
+
+Many of us were killed in the World Wars. Now, because of the carnage and the ensuing bureaucratic insistence on peace, the Western aristocrat is hated and hunted.
+
+The most loved type in the Western world is the type of the 
+
+Christianity, like all great systems of belief, changes the genes of society. The Christian type is that of the diligent, patient, kind, and hearty. A good example would be the dog.
+
+Many would interject and say "what about the dog?" But even domesticated dogs tend to be territorial. Christianity has few stated tendencies or loves for territorialism, and, on the whole, appears to discourage it as a main force of the soul.
+
+The advantage of Christianity is that it enables the creation of a large populace, because cow-like animals will not fight each other and can be grouped into tight spaces.
+
+Spengler made the argument that we are carnivores. 
+
+What do we know?
+
+The ideal human type must be social. This is a basic fact of humans, within and without Christianity. We are tuned to be a part of a group larger than ourselves.

Light of the West/Babel or Eden?.md

@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+This is the question that lies behind all our modern pursuits.
+

Light of the West/Can a Classical Society have Modern Technology?.md

@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+
+The convenient answer would be yes, because it would mean that nothing must be lost for us to survive and prosper. But can this really be true?
+
+There are many aspects of technology which seem to innately contradict Classical values.
+
+These are:
+
+1. The development of technology is much faster than the development of human nature
+2. Technology requires a high rate of specialization
+3. The Tower of Babel explicitly warns against trying to unite humanity
+
+These things are all connected. They are ways of describing the same phenomenon.
+
+Everyone today knows that technology is unsustainable. Everyone can feel it. Everyone is waiting for the fall. 
+
+"
+In living close to nature, one discovers that happiness does not consist in maximizing pleasure. It consists in tranquility. Once you have enjoyed tranquility long enough, you acquire actually an aversion to the thought of any very strong pleasure - excessive pleasure would disrupt your tranquility. 
+
+One also learns that boredom is a disease of civilization. It seems to me that what boredom mostly is is that people have to keep themselves entertained or occupied, because if they aren’t, then certain anxieties, frustrations, discontents, and so forth, start coming to the surface, and it makes them uncomfortable. 
+
+Boredom is almost nonexistent once you’ve become adapted to life in the woods. If you don’t have any work that needs to be done, you can sit for hours at a time just doing nothing, just listening to the birds or the wind or the silence, watching the shadows move as the sun travels, or simply looking at familiar objects. And you don’t get bored. You’re just at peace.
+"
+
+- Theodore Kaczynski
+
+This is a sentiment echoed in Growth of the Soil, by Knut Hamsen. The main character goes into the forests of Sweden, builds a house, finds a women, and they live simply there together.
+
+However, as the modern era comes, it brings temptation and the Fast Life along with it.
+
+Interestingly, there seems to be a split here between the “mere life” and the “aristocratic life” ideals.
+
+Costin Alamariu discusses this in Selective Breeding and the Birth of Philosophy, as well as Nietzche before him.
+
+
+
+
+People whose religion is “nature” but who are terrified of violence or aggression don’t really follow nature. They follow technology, and they rely on it to hold sudden motion at bay.
+
+For them, Industrialization is the only thing that allows “nature” to be a rosy experience.

Light of the West/Churchill vs. Hitler.md

@@ -0,0 +1,156 @@
+
+The curious British and the hearty Germans formed the two greatest nations of Europe. They were the Athens and Sparta of our time.
+
+Like Athens and Sparta, they split the philosophy of the West between mind and body. 
+
+Like Athens and Sparta, they reached a crossroads: was it our ideas that got us here, or our genes?
+
+In Greece, the warlike, monarchical, gene-worshipers won. They defeated the open-minded, democratic, and intellectual Athens. But Sparta declined shortly after, and all of Greece was never the same. 
+
+In Europe, it was the opposite. The open-minded, intellectual democrats won. This is why people today will read the terms “warlike, monarchical, gene-worshipers” as negative. 
+
+However, as 80 years have passed since the Great War, it is clear that history has repeated. The winning side did not really win. Britain fell apart just like Germany. The Empire is gone. Even Churchill was in dismay at how quickly Britain declined. He stated that he regretted the war; that it was “unnecessary”. He would be livid at Britain in 2024.
+
+Like Athens and Sparta, the fight between Churchill and Hitler destroyed the future of their civilization. The Greeks, who led the way for so long, were conquered by a greater and more powerful Rome.
+
+And so, the Europeans have been conquered by America. 
+
+America is different than the polities of Europe: more pragmatic, less traditional. The systems of Athens and Sparta were rigid, but Rome and America are flexible. 
+
+We have gone from Monarchy to Republic to Monarchy again. We have turned our nation into something which Athens and Sparta never were: an idea.
+
+Athens and Sparta were not vague entities like Rome was. They did not have a system to accept and introduce foreigners into their land. They were a particular people in a particular city: not so with Rome, and not so with America.
+
+Churchill loved the empire, and put an emphasis on helping lesser peoples to progress.
+
+Hitler, on the other hand, believed in a more ancient form of progress, where one population displaces another on the land.
+
+Neither Churchill nor Hitler were Christian. Churchill, much like Benjamin Franklin, was a scientistic believer in "basic human values" and the essential sameness of all religions. Hitler was a scientistic pagan, who simultaneously elevated pagan beliefs and leveraged science for eugenics and racial theories.
+
+Both were rushed men, hungry to achieve great things.
+
+Churchill was obsessed with preservation, while Hitler was obsessed with regaining what was lost.
+
+Eighty years later, we can now see that both men lost.
+
+Churchill's conservatism did nothing to stop the dissolution of the empire, and Hitler's defeat brought exactly the decline he predicted.
+
+What can we learn from this?
+
+It is clear that Hitler, not Churchill, had a more accurate vision of the future. Apparently, Hitler was more in tune with the demographic and national trends that were about to sweep through Europe. In retrospect, Hitler's desperate attempt to stop these trends betrays a deeper understanding of them than Churchill's simple desire to win a great victory for England.
+
+However, one important lesson is that neither nation won while separated from God. 
+
+Churchill’s British Empire was an attempt to create a new Babel, and Hitler’s Germany was an attempt to mechanically favor German genes.
+
+Neither worked, because both lacked faith in God. Both relied solely on science and man’s understanding to achieve their goals. 
+
+Athens and Sparta came before Christ, but one could surmise they suffered from the same problem. They advanced too far from God and from nature, and their societies could not support the weight of their aspirations. 
+
+Socrates, after all, was essentially an atheist. Athens was an expansionist empire much like Sparta. Sparta was a eugenic nation, much like Nazi Germany. 
+
+It seems this dichotomy between principles and genes is a common split in failing societies. They each insist that doubling down on one of these will bring them success, but neither actually does.
+
+
+**Territory vs. Class**
+
+The distinction between Britain and Germany can also be described as territory versus class. These can be thought of as the X and the Y axis, respectively.
+
+Focus on territory is an outward and horizontal focus. This is why it is the X axis. It is a focus which requires borders, ownership, and often war. It is a focus which leads to the creation of geographic races over time, meaning races who have a strong connection to the land they occupy.
+
+Focus on class, however, is an upward and vertical focus. It is a focus which often involves defining universal principles and morality, which can then be used as a pretext for a people to rule other lands which they do not come from. Being vertical, class is something which typically exists inside a nation as well as outside (when one nation conquers or colonizes another, the conquerers occupy the ruling class).
+
+From this, we can see the differences of in Britain and Germany quite clearly. 
+
+Britain was a seafaring nation; a nation which built an empire from maritime trade and exchange. She was the the ruler of a multicultural global empire, and her dream was never to displace all the peoples she ruled but to extract resources from them. Britain wanted to rule the world benevolently as a sort of global aristocracy, which would enforce peace, prosperity, and good moral values. Indeed, this was the vision Churchill wanted for the British Empire [CITATION NEEDED].
+
+Germany, on the other hand, was a mostly landlocked nation with a far less developed naval tradition. Germany's strength laid in her agriculture and her industry. Because of this, Germany was less a merchant nation and more a cultural institution of the land and regions it occupied. Germany was also quite militaristic, owing much of its success to the Prussians.
+
+Interestingly, the class and land distinctions can also be used to describe Churchill and Hitler themselves. Churchill was an aristocrat; the descendant of the Duke of Marlborough. Hitler was a lower-middle-class son of a civil servant, who grew up in rural areas and small towns. When Hitler was a corporal in World War I, Churchill had already been a famous politician for decades, owing his start to the preceding reputation of his father.
+
+Unlike Athens and Sparta, there was another factor. America, essentially the Rome of the time, had already risen to power. America profited off the division of Europe by inheriting the British Empire and beating Germany into submission by building a strong manufacturing and agricultural base.
+
+In a sense, America united both the landlocked agricultural and industrial tendencies of the Germans with the Maritime and trading tendencies of the English. America has united both the people and the spirits of both countries. The Midwest, traditionally a base of agriculture and manufacturing, is where most German-Americans are. The coasts, typically a base of ideas and trade, are where most English-Americans are. [CITATION NEEDED].
+
+
+
+
+
+
+The mind does not love the body, and the body does not love the mind.
+
+The mind seeks greener pastures. Other cultures, other ethnicities.
+
+The body rejects the mind altogether.
+
+Hitler represents the last time the mind and body of a Western nation were connected: the last time they worked together.
+
+
+
+
+Hitler and Churchill represent disconnection from the land.
+
+Churchill preferred to ignore the land in favor of values, and Hitler became obsessed with controlling genetics.
+
+Genetics are closer to the land than values, but both are fundamentally intellectual.
+
+ World War I was the first great destruction of the West, in which Europe displaced its aristocracy in favor of a frenzied obsession with the short term.
+
+This is when the landed aristocracy was replaced with a political polarization that lasts into today: class versus territory.
+
+Money and land, class and territory, are not supposed to be separated. They are the same thing.
+
+This is the foundation of Western Civilization: the man, the landowner, the noble. This is who founded Rome, who brought the Trojans down, who ruled in the Middle Ages, and who created America.
+
+These were men who cared about both lineage and culture. About both territory and class. And when these men went missing, the West went into free fall.
+
+World War II represents the final dispossession: a complete loss of territory. Nobody wants more immigration, but it comes anyway. Why? Because we don’t rule this land.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+This destruction began in the 1800s, with the Industrial Revolution. As they grew and multiplied, the factory workers and their employers began to displace the landed aristocracy. They replaced the long term with the short, the spiritual with the material, and the estate with the apartment.
+
+This is because factories and offices are constructions of the human mind. The men who run and work in them live in the human mind, not in God’s mind.
+
+If a man can be sustained by thought; if he can be sustained by the human mind; then only the present moment matters.
+
+All that matters is generating new ideas.
+
+Hitler’s racism is perverse because, although races are obviously different, a scientific approach presumed human ability to shape the races ourselves. Therefore, the implication is that the mind is actually still supreme. 
+
+Unlike in a man like Churchill, this fact is obfuscated. A man Hitler has the pretense of desiring nature, but really he desires his own mind. He maps his mind onto nature, whereas an escapist like Churchill simply ignores it.
+
+
+The interesting dichotomy is that many people will say all this is the point of Christianity; the end goal of it.
+
+After all, Christianity is domesticating. It allows more people to live in smaller spaces. It helps with establishing dense quarters like factories, and with producing docile workers who follow commands.
+
+
+Christianity reduces territorialism. This is why it was called the religion of women and slaves. It encourages community over domination of space.
+
+The supporters of the postwar consensus and of technology will say we are remaking Eden; we are reaching the end.
+
+This is interesting, because the communalism and anti-territorialism of Christianity hearken back to ancient human ways.
+
+It resembles many Africans, Native Americans and other tribes. These tribes do not have much individual property and are expected to help each other out at all times.
+
+They also do not plan for the future; as Will Durant says, ............... 
+
+As James says:
+
+13 Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go into such and such a town and spend a year there and trade and make a profit”— 14yet you do not know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes.
+
+The difference with primitive tribes, of course, is that they practice much violence.
+
+In this sense, Christianity is like the mirror image of the Noble Savage: it is a promise of primitive man's communalism and lack of worry, sans any of the violence which accompanied those things.
+
+And this is manifest in the factory.
+
+Man no longer needs to be savage, because he is ruled from above. He needs to be docile, because he must operate within the giant and interwoven supply chain of the global economy.
+
+The question at the core of everything is:
+
+Is this Babel? Or is it Eden?

Light of the West/Competition, Collaboration.md

@@ -0,0 +1,379 @@
+
+
+Trying to phrase things so everybody understands takes a lot of time and effort.
+
+The more you are family with people, the less you must do this.
+
+This is the source of a strange tension for Westerners: should I create more people who are like me, or should I create a culture that is like more people?
+
+This, of course, is the conflict of Churchill and Hitler.
+
+
+
+
+“Phrasing so everyone understands” is the discipline of coding
+
+Emmett's family facial recognition app is an example of this strange tension.
+
+Why would you employ a bunch of random asians to tell you who your family is?
+
+Why would you outsource your understanding so much?
+
+
+
+
+Modern societal competition is now metric-based versus physically-based.
+It's much less acceptable to be in a competition over something physical - like a woman.
+
+
+
+
+We know competition is good. But where does that leave us in the sphere of nations? What basis should we compete on?
+
+The current suggestion is that we compete based on arbitrary characteristics. We simply happen to be a part of a state; company; or neighborhood. We could be in a different one tomorrow. 
+
+But what is the point of this? Wouldn't it make more sense to compete based on something real?
+
+Such as genes? And geography?
+
+And herein lies the problem: the modern system wants humans to be so disconnected from the land that it does not shape us at all. Like the players on a professional sports team, it does not matter whether we are from the city we are in. Just like the players are expected to simply show up to the city and play, all that matters is we show up to the city and work. 
+
+Essentially, we are to treat all geography, culture, and genetics as temporary and unimportant.
+
+This seems like a huge mistake.
+
+
+
+
+**What sort of Competition is good for Life?**
+
+What is competition?
+
+Here is a good definition:
+
+_Multiple parties striving for a reward which will not be shared._
+
+According to this definition, competitive situations and cultures are always outcome-dependent. They are focused on results, because few or no rewards are guaranteed. A competitive situation is also known as a zero-sum situation, in which one person must lose for another to gain.
+
+The opposite of competition is collaboration, which can be defined as follows:
+
+_Multiple parties striving for a reward which will be shared._ 
+
+One important difference that follows is that, in competition, the different parties must have different views of the future (each party is striving for the future in which they win). In cooperation, however, the parties have an agreed view of the future. 
+
+Therefore, one way to understand competition vs. cooperation is to study the future expectations of the different parties. If they are shared, there is cooperation. If not, there is competition. 
+
+This can be understood further in terms of order vs. chaos. With order, each party is aligned with their actions and expectations. With chaos, each party has its own expectations, and will take self-selected actions to achieve their goal.
+
+To go even deeper, it can be understood in terms of togetherness and separation. Togetherness is cooperation: physical bodies which is moving in the same direction. Competition is separation: physical bodies which are moving in different directions.
+
+
+
+
+There is also another measure of a society: liveliness. Life is moving, and some societies have more movement than others.
+
+The liveliest society would be a primordial soup of individual life forms, competing or collaborating in the moment but with no vision of the future.
+
+
+**The Postwar West is Anti-Competitive**
+
+Today in the West, we live in a radically anti-competitive culture. This culture largely began in the 1960s, and accelerated with the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.
+
+Here are some examples of the anti-competitive mindset which has slowly gripped us over the years:
+
+- “Innovation helps all of humanity! A rising tide lifts all boats! Life and economy are not zero-sum!” 
+- Promotion of participation trophies and scoreless games in children’s sports leagues (something I especially hated as a kid - so much so that I would keep the score in my head and announce it)
+- A myriad of platitudes against outcome-dependence (“life is about the journey not the destination”, “the ego is a destructive force”, “comparison is the thief of joy”, “all that matters is that you learned something”)
+- Search “competition vs. collaboration” and see the myriad articles on Google which promote collaboration over competition
+- The Google Gemini and ChatGPT responses of which is better (they both favor collaboration)
+- Kamala Harris discussing how she wants “everyone to end up in the same place”
+- George Bush and his “no child left behind” policy
+- Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
+- Affirmative Action
+
+As I said, the 1990s have a unique claim on these ideas. Here are some examples: 
+
+- Increasing talk of “tolerance” as a virtue
+- Popular movies and media, especially after 1991, where only villainous bullies want to promote competition and hierarchy in school
+- Radical individualism - where the phrase “be yourself, no matter what!” is the essential life philosophy. 
+- The suggestion that no individual should be made to change their behavior, as long as it is not illegal. 
+
+Surely, there are many more. But this is a good start.
+
+Many of these values are so normalized that some will be shocked to see them labeled “radically anti-competitive”. But, they are. 
+
+Let us take the first example: the oft-repeated economics and business claim that the world is not zero-sum.
+
+This is only partially true. Yes, it is true that many goods can be produced more cheaply when technology helps out. This is good, because it lowers the bar for entry to many markets and services which are good for people.
+
+But what about land?
+
+If I want more land, there is little technology or innovation that can help. Elon’s colonization of Mars is a long-term example, but that land will not be habitable for hundreds of years.
+
+So: if we want more land, we are in competition. The Earth is all owned by someone. Few give up land willingly. So, we must compete.
+
+Competition for land is perhaps the oldest competition of all - and deeper than just humans. Even animals, like wolves and chimps, are very territorial. They fight over borders constantly.
+
+On its face, this makes sense - we are a life form, and life forms are meant to expand. If the land can’t support or fit all of us, we must compete. 
+
+However, today, there are many who believe that competing for land is outdated. They believe that this is a false and bad mindset, which produces violence and does not bring the most economically viable outcomes. 
+
+The question is, though - America has a great deal of land which our companies control, directly or indirectly. So how did we get it? Through violence and competition, of course!
+
+Our victory in World War II allowed our economic footprint to expand vastly across the Earth, opening many lands to American purchase and rule. We still use our influence, backed by our giant military, to keep these lands open to our economy.
+
+Taiwan and Ukraine are great examples: both valuable plots of land, which other civilizations covet. So, we do what we can to fight for them.
+
+As it turns out, competition over land has never gone away. The spirit of competition has never gone away, because countries like China and Russia are still trying to take our land. 
+
+So, an interesting question: why is competition so discouraged within Western nations, if we are still outwardly competing? 
+
+To answer this, we need to look at the actual Westerners who have adopted these values. 
+
+As mentioned, many of these cultural values were born in the 1960s. For instance, the radical individualist ideas of “no judgment” and “tolerance” were core parts of the hippie movement. They then became mainstream in the 90s. 
+
+Thinking of the 60s and the 90s, we can see that the Baby Boomers and the Millennials are emblematic of these patterns. The Baby Boomers were the 1960s hippies, and the Millennials were the 1990s children in an anti-competitive culture.
+
+This is interesting, because the implication seems to be that the children born after great victories (WWII for the Boomers, Cold War for the Millennials) end up with especially anti-competitive behavior. Perhaps the thinking goes something like this: 
+
+“There is little threat in the outside world, so why compete? After all, there are enough resources for everyone.”
+
+This sort of mindset would mean that conflict is useless, since it would only create unnecessary pain in a very wealthy society. In the short term, perhaps this is true. 
+
+So: why are Western nations internally anti-competitive but externally competitive? The answer seems to be that the internal natives of our nations have chosen and been encouraged to forego the spirit of competition. Our men have become less territorial and more risk-averse. Ultimately, this is due to victories in wars, which allowed a cultural shift towards cooperation in the face of large quantities of resources.
+
+On its face, this doesn’t seem necessarily bad. We did well, and we enjoyed the spoils of victory. There is nothing inherently wrong with this. 
+
+But we are in 2024: a presidential candidate was just almost assassinated, threats to democracy are normal, and talk of civil war is common. The American border has evaporated, birth rates are below replacement, and accusations of communism and Nazism are everywhere in the public discourse. Our system is spinning like a top, with our citizens blaming each other for ruining the nation. 
+
+Finally, the spirit of victory, unity, and cooperation is under attack. For 60 years, the internal West has been increasingly anti-competitive: until Donald Trump. 
+
+For the first time in 60 years, Trump ran on the basis that, actually, things were not so good. He ran on the basis that, perhaps, there is not enough for everyone - not unless we fight for it. His most famous base is manufacturing workers - left behind in the fun of victory, they lost jobs and purpose in life. The nation became more prosperous, but many of these workers fell into a pit of despair. 
+
+Trump ran on two main principles in 2016: More manufacturing and less immigration. He stewed at the loss of American manufacturing jobs overseas, and he rejected allowing many immigrants into this land. 
+
+Because of this, our governments have begun embracing large numbers of immigrants to replace gaps left by low birth rates. 
+
+One thing which is very strange is that we, heritage Westerners, were never told of these trends or decisions. We were never encouraged to expand and seek growth - only to continue seeking comfort as much as possible.
+
+I only really became concerned in 2024, when I saw the border evaporate. On a primal, competitive level, it felt terrible - not just to me, but many other men as well. Unfortunately, it turns out that this is only the outward result of 60 years of anti-competitive behavior. It is the result of seeking comfort above all else, even if that means outsourcing our manufacturing jobs, creating softer and softer workplaces, and foregoing kids because it is “too hard” to support them. 
+
+Therefore, it seems that the anti-competitive camp made a miscalculation. They assumed that it was better to be a service economy than a manufacturing economy, because service is easier and prettier work than manufacturing. They assumed that the nation’s overall GDP was what mattered, but actually there was a large class which lost much in the midst of growth. That miscalculation has now brought the neoliberal project within an inch of life. 
+
+In 2024, the greatest competition in the West now seems to be between the forces of competition and collaboration themselves. As I write this, the spirit of competition is gaining ground. But the spirit of collaboration is still fighting. So who are these people? 
+
+So - who are the collaborators? We have established that extreme collaboration flourished in the 60s and 90s, but how does it manifest today? 
+
+The forces of collaboration are the people who are often called “Globalists”. Their philosophy is defined by a loose patchwork of ideas, that usually 
+
+1. Promote secular values
+2. Promote consumerism and multinational corporations
+3. Promote technology as a means to solve many or all problems
+4. Promote the future as a potential utopia or fantastic improvement, as long as the former 3 are retained.
+
+Who holds these ideas? Typically: technologists, women, and societal elites. Often, there are entire companies that match this profile (e.g. there are many large corporations who intentionally favor women in hiring, vote Democrat, and benefit from loose multinational regulation).
+
+In other words: these people are urban. Vastly the occupants of large cities and large corporations, perhaps it makes sense they are more collaborative: their societies require more collaboration to function. 
+
+See this email from the king of tech, Steve Jobs:
+
+This sums up life in a city. One must rely on countless others, simply to live. One is packed with countless others, working and traveling as a large mass. Therefore, to be ideologically consistent, one must favor extensive collaboration in daily life. Otherwise, cities would quickly become chaos. 
+
+So: we have the urban-rural divide. This divide has existed as long as cities and country, obviously - but interestingly, it seems, post-1960, that **the urban and collaborative perspective began to win**. A coalition of technology, women, and elites managed to take power in both government agencies and corporations. Farmers and factory workers, on the other hand, were increasingly marginalized. 
+
+The coalition produced an increasingly anti-competitive culture at large. Now, in 2024, that culture is suffering from political turmoil, low birth rates, large debt, and a deepening faction of Republicans who thirst to drain the swamp, close the agencies, and destroy the postwar cooperative spirit.  
+
+So: why did all this happen? Why did the cooperators begin to win in 1960, and why did factory workers and farmers get marginalized?
+
+Again, we can go back to the generational question. It seems that generations born into victory will naturally adopt more utopian values, like the Boomers and the Millennials. 
+
+The Boomers, especially, are at the heart of this question. And the Boomers were shaped by their parents: The Greatest Generation.
+
+Little is said of the divide in values between the Boomers and their parents, but it is massive. It is undoubtedly the largest divide of any two generations since. 
+
+The Greatest Generation were racist: they liked FDR, who believed that America was only for Northern Europeans. Immigration was outlawed for any other group. Segregation was expected. Hard labor was expected. Fighting was expected. They didn’t have a Department of Defense: they had a Department of _War_.
+
+Meanwhile, only 20 years later, the Civil Rights act was passed. The Department of War was renamed. The Boomer children smoked marijuana, wore bright colors, and watched Jimi Hendrix. It makes sense that we celebrated, after a great victory: but our celebration wasn’t cast as such. Instead, it was cast as part of the victory itself - what we fought for in World War II. Instead, It was cast as _the way society can and will be, forever._
+
+Instead of finishing the celebration and getting back to work on expanding our nation, peacetime values became “human values”. Pleasure became an expectation. Instead of moving forward, the Baby Boomers huddled inward. They huddled in the corner with our military, intelligence, and nuclear bombs: the power of which guaranteed them a perfectly blissful existence. 
+
+Through this nestling, though, community and intermediate power structures collapsed in America and the West. Because Boomers looked inward instead of outward, they congregated around a small set of men who promised to do the hard work that few wanted to. These men offered pleasure to the people, and in return were able to consolidate power in military, government, and industry. 
+
+This is the origin of the Deep State, the Total State, or the Establishment: whatever you would call that small class holding disproportionate power in America today. Born from a toxic relationship between the excessive comfort of ignorant masses and the excessive strife of ambitious men, it is now an entrenched system which hollows out the middle class to pursue giant designs. This is the “managerial class” of which Samuel Francis spoke in the 1990s: the class which gave away our manufacturing sector, and who he hoped would have their day of reckoning.
+
+Exactly one generation after the Great War, that day of reckoning finally came: Donald Trump became president. 
+
+Trump is extreme competition bursting out of an extremely cooperative system. As has been mentioned, the small amount of ambitious men who have been consolidating power for 60 years, want regular people to be as comfortable and cooperative as possible. It makes them more controllable. In riling up the masses, Trump has committed the cardinal sin of the ambitious: he has betrayed his own elite class and weaponized the common man against them.
+
+  
+
+
+But what if I want more land?
+
+Currently, land is finite. All land on Earth is owned by someone.
+
+Therefore, if I decide I want more land than I have, I am in competition. Assuming, of course, that the other person still wants theirs.
+
+  
+So what is the mechanism with which I can acquire ownership?
+
+In this society, the answer is money. Produce value equal to the owner’s care for the land, and I will have it.
+
+This is the order of a market society.
+
+  
+In primitive society, the mechanism is violence. If we want the same land, then war will decide.
+
+  
+What is the fundamental difference between these two states?
+
+  
+In the market, our lives are both continuing on their track. We must simply align in incentives.
+
+In the war, our lives are against each other. We must fight.
+
+  
+The market is competition of **time** without competition of **life.** 
+
+We do not pit lives against each other to see which of our beings are more valuable. Instead, we pit minutes and hours against each other to see who can **produce** **more life**.
+
+  
+Therefore, a wholly market society eliminates fear for life from human competition.
+
+However, currently, there are multiple societies that exist. These societies are in competition.
+
+So: who will win this competition?
+
+If we take our advanced market society and pit it against a more primitive one, we have an interesting question about human nature: 
+
+Do we produce better results when we have no fear for Life?
+
+  
+Is it right to have no fear for life?
+
+Is it productive to have no fear for life?
+
+And:
+
+Is there anything you would die for?
+
+Any land, any people? 
+
+Any idea, any religion?
+
+
+Even if they aren’t producing well?
+
+
+If you initiate this fight, are you Cain?
+
+Should Abel have been ready for war? 
+
+
+Communism and Fascism are the radical manifestations of these beliefs. Funnily, one always requires the other.
+
+“I will compete against millions to kill anyone promoting strength, competition, and hierarchy”
+
+“I will cooperate with millions to kill anyone promoting weakness, cooperation, and equality”
+
+The interesting situation we see is that, in the West, competition never went away. It simply became monopolized by a couple of men at the top, who are actually _excessively_ competitive. The great mass of men, meanwhile, become extremely anti-competitive, and all small-to-medium power structures are destroyed and aggregated. The only cause for which anyone is now allowed to compete is that of the great mass itself. 
+
+This is the pattern which produces the “Total State” - in which the intermediate power structures and communities of the nation have been hollowed out, leaving only two classes: the few who own power, and the many who do not. 
+
+One must ask the question: is this civilization? After all, the processes I am describing here are the same processes which took the primitive clans of Vikings and Picts to a civilization on the first place.
+
+Upon further investigation, it turns out that this is a copy of the earlier argument that our current time is merely an extension of normal technological advancement. This would make the Globalists the correct standard-bearers of history, and everyone opposed part of a pointless anti-progress camp. 
+
+This leads to a rather niche opinion: the Globalists, as most futurists, are probably right about some of their predictions for society.
+
+The brain and technology are the crown jewel of humanity. Our intelligence and consciousness are what make human beings greater than animals.
+
+Or, they can - _as long as we reproduce_. It turns out we are missing a trait we _share_ with animals: reproduction. Our birth rates are tending towards collapse. No children, no brains, no technology. If tech is our crown jewel, children are our foundation. That foundation is crumbling. 
+
+The problem is that today’s Globalism has slipped to an insatiable pitch, which cannot be accomplished with the resources and societies we currently have.
+
+Indeed, much of what characterizes Globalism today is desperate pandering to flatter minorities. These minorities are from more animalistic civilizations: _the ones with higher birth rates._
+
+It seems clear today that “noble savage” lovers in Western society are a yearning for what we now lack: growth, expansion, movement, children, Life.
+
+Therefore, the correct position is not to be against technological advancement, but to be against the pursuit of this at all costs. It is the people and the society, not the technology, which form the foundation of a civilization’s power. The tech is a close second. 
+
+Therefore, when we oppose the Globalists, we do not say that technology is inherently bad, or even that the Globalists are all wrong about the future. Rather, the Expansionist claim is this: 
+
+Sex and reproduction are the greatest form of invention known to man. If we fail in these, we will lose our technology too. Just like the Persians, the Greeks, the Romans, and every other society which fell prey to low birth rates and loss of identity. Our civilization will falter, stagnate, and then fall. 
+
+Technology comes from Life; Life doesn’t come from technology. Technology is to _enhance_ Life, not to produce it.
+
+To understand this truth about the organism of society is to understand every other perspective in this book. 
+
+To go against this perspective is to be an Extinctionist: to support a type of society which does not produce Life. These societies, obviously, do not last. Often, they get conquered. 
+  
+
+How acceptable is using force in daily life?
+
+  
+
+That’s how collectivist your society is
+
+  
+
+Collectivism requires stillness, does it not? 
+
+
+How much pain should be allowed to exist in the world? 
+
+This is the question of competition vs. cooperation
+
+Nature vs. nurture
+
+Western society is attempting to eliminate most pain from the world
+
+To eliminate competition
+
+But perhaps it will flip
+
+  
+
+When nations flip between these extremes of competition and collaboration it is a flailing defense mechanism against situations they are not ready for 
+
+  
+
+Christianity shows the way forward
+
+We are in competition or cooperation all the time, at various moments. But for the most important questions of human nature, there must be a way to address them:
+
+Sex, violence, money.
+
+Without a way to address these, society will flail between competition and collaboration, picking whichever is convenient. 
+
+This is the flailing of communism and fascism. 
+
+Testosterone has dropped 50% in the last 20 years 
+
+The lack of courage is what needs to change first 
+
+Tucker Carlson … take the jump. Take the job you’re not qualified for, have the kids, etc 
+
+How would you most like to advance society?
+
+1. Produce more technology and become more comfortable
+
+1. Produce more people and take more land
+
+Is the point of life to grow and expand, or to be as comfortable as possible?
+
+This is the masculine/feminine dichotomy at play. 
+
+Whether you are racist depends on whether you are playing the game of Life
+
+Whether you are playing the game of Life depends on whether you believe humans or machines are the most important creation.
+
+Were the Old South slavers playing the game of Life more than the Union? 
+
+After all, they never wanted to outsource the slaves to technology. Only to have a symbiotic relationship, where they were the masters. 
+
+Marc Andreessen wrote that “software is eating the world”… meanwhile, immigrants are eating it from the other side.
+
+We won World War II. It was great.
+
+We celebrate this victory by sinking into comfort while mad technologists and rabid migrants, at the top and bottom of our society, devoured the land which would be lived in by our children.

Light of the West/Dialogues/The Atheist Engineer.md

@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+  
+
+- “Oh, I’m not saying we _need_ to be peaceful. Climate change is real! Look how much they are polluting. If we invaded Africa and India and stopped them from polluting, I think that would be the _morally right_ thing to do.”
+
+  
+
+Really? I’m surprised. I’ve never heard a liberal talk like this. 
+
+  
+
+- “Yeah I’m not against fighting a war. As long as it is moral. Think about it this way:  if we nuke India and Africa, we would save more lives than we lose, because we avert climate change. So - it would be moral right? It’s for the greater good.”

Light of the West/Dialogues/The Catholic Maiden.md

@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+
+
+If they are the hardest thing to create, aren't genes the most important competition of all?
+
+"Why is it about competition?"
+
+Because I am a man, and I am telling you it is.
+
+All across the world right now, in every nation, there are men who agree with me.
+
+In fact, in every non-Western nation, there are *more* men who agree with me.
+
+We have established a global empire for every race, religion, and nationality. We have opened our land up to every more competitive country. We have completely given up on the competition. If we don't fix it, it will cost us everything.

Light of the West/Dialogues/The Christian Mom.md

@@ -0,0 +1,151 @@
+
+This man’s testimony is absolutely fascinating. It really challenged me to consider how vast the mercy of Jesus really is. He was literally experiencing hell, and Jesus rescued him. Listen to the way he describes both hell and heaven. He certainly has some things to say about race and racism also. Clearly, a man who has been changed by the power of Jesus’s love.
+
+While I understand and agree with some of your points that it’s beneficial to focus on traditional Christian values and supporting each other in maintaining what is good in our cultural heritage. My real goal is about the kingdom of heaven, not any kingdom of man on earth. And the currency of heaven is love. It is Jesus who unites us. And the enemy who divides us.
+
+Also, I love your house. It was fun to see you yesterday.
+	
+	I’ll give it a watch.
+	And thanks, it was fun.
+	Why do you think they put religion in the Civil Rights Act, along with race?
+
+Hmmm… my guess is as a majority “Christian” nation perhaps some people were discriminating against Jews and or Muslims, etc., when they were applying for housing or jobs.
+There is a difference between immutable differences among us like race and sex versus things we can choose like political values or maybe even religion. But it would seem the civil rights act was an attempt to make things more fair for everyone because some with leverage or power were not judging people on the content of their character. 
+I think the civil right a Against hard and biased hearts. Unfortunately, the pendulum has swung too far now. And we are once again back to judging people, according to externals and not the content of their character.
+Civil Rights act was an attempt to correct hard and biased hearts
+
+	Interesting, biased how?
+
+Not allowing someone to buy a house in a certain neighborhood because of the color of their skin. Or not renting an apartment because the renter was a woman and not a man. Or not hiring or paying equal pay for equal work because someone was black or female, etc..
+
+	Where do you think that bias came from?
+	And do you think it’s wrong for Christians to be biased towards other Christians? 
+
+Probably cultural traditions and stereotypes, and maybe lack of exposure to people who were different from them in order to know them as human beings and see what was good inside of them.
+
+I think there Call themselves Christians who have a form of religion, but do not really know Jesus or his ways and are not truly led by the Holy Spirit. I think if someone is a true follower of Jesus, their goal should be helping others to know an experience Jesus. So being biased against other Christians is not in keeping with the ways of Jesus. Again, we always want to focus on what separates us not what unites us. And that is how the enemy works. 
+
+	Don’t you think that the more homogenous a community, the less people will think about race? 
+	I.e. if a man of one race only knows others of his race, how often will he be thinking about other races he has never even met? 
+
+Sam, I don’t even have a homogenous family. I have a daughter of another race. And yet I never look at her and see her as culturally Chinese. She is an Erikson 100%. A funny thing, when she was in about second grade 2 separate friends told me stories of how their daughters of approximately the same age or totally shocked to learn that Susie was adopted. Because when they looked at her, they just saw her as part of our family and they didn’t recognize that her Asian features indicated she was from a different race. I think people have to be taught to focus on race. 
+
+And one of my dearest friends is African-American. She grew up in New Orleans in the 60s and 70s. She was bussed to a different school and experienced desegregation. She became a brilliant FBI agent. She’s far smarter than I am. I have the utmost respect and love for her. What unites us is our commitment to Jesus and his kingdom. She certainly doesn’t act like a so-called ghetto black person might. But some of her family members do, (more so than I might’ve expected.) However, that doesn’t threaten me in any way. We marvel and how the Lord has united our hearts and how it’s difficult for some other people to even understand that. She is a strong Trump supporter and a conservative, however, not a republican per se. She has cousins who are high ranking members of the DNC. She sees them as foolish and blind, just like we would. It’s far more about world view, and who the True king is, and what the values of his kingdom are than the color of skin. She often talks about the foolish pride of her wealthy and powerful black relatives who are so proud of being black. God hates pride, no matter what color your skin is.
+
+	Do you think God created race? Or humans? 
+	
+	After all, we hate when someone denies the sex they are assigned at birth. We hate it because sex is given by God, and not changeable by choice.
+	
+	Isn’t it the same with race?
+	
+	Actually, I can think of nothing more beautiful than the many ways in which God has shaped men. The ways in which the land, the culture, the religion, and God’s own choices have shaped us are truly a sight to behold!
+
+The pendulum has simply swung too far. I understand how young white men like you may feel discriminated against. In fact, you probably are. DEI and woke ism are vile, false beliefs, straight from the pit of hell just like true racism is. The alternative to woke ism not more racism or separatism. It’s becoming awake to the real truth of Jesus and his Kingdom. 
+
+Are you familiar with theologian Michael Heiser? He’s one of my favorites. He points out in scripture what many of us in this modern age fail to see: The reality of two kingdoms on this earth. The Earth is currently ruled by the enemy and his various Spiritual principalities. The early chapters of Genesis hint at this, and several of the psalms show this too.  The ancient world understood that the so-called gods of other nations were supernatural beings that had certain powers. But God separated out the people of Israel, in order to display himself and his nature through them, and to show His supreme power and authority as the Most High God. And, to bring forth one who would change the order of things on earth, for all nations and people groups. Of course, that’s Jesus. Paul helps continue the clarification of this teaching when he admonishes Jews to not get caught up in genealogies. True followers of Jesus love people: male, female, Greek, Jew, slave, Free. and we are to be united together as different parts of the body with unique abilities and even perspectives, all of us focused on building up Jesus and his kingdom.
+
+I would love to discuss all of this with you more. But I can’t really do it over text. Come visit us soon and let’s talk. This is fascinating. I appreciate how you ask questions and I do sympathize with some of your concerns.
+
+I think God enjoys the unique diversity of his creation. All creation: plants, Animals and humans. I think our racial differences happened over time as a result of the fall of the tower of Babel and the peoples of the Earth being spread out and given different languages and different principalities to rule over them. I think God created our differences and enjoys them. I think the amount of melanin and skin is definitely affected by the amount of exposure to sunlight and the need to be protected from too much of it. This is why we see darker skinned people closer to the equator on continents like Africa south and Central America, etc. I think these adaptations happened over time and were directed by God for our best Good.
+
+	Sounds good, we can definitely discuss it next time I see you. Might be next week.
+	
+	I’ll leave off with this:
+	
+	The idea of anti-racism seems to be the idea that we should judge everyone by the content of their character. Which you appear to agree with: you say that people’s character should matter more than the color of their skin.
+	
+	The Civil Rights Act is the incarnation of this philosophy, applied to everyone within America. 
+	
+	In other words, The Civil Rights Act is the idea that we should not care about anything which is long-term. Because that’s what an innate characteristic is. A man cannot change his sex, race, or even religion without a good deal of effort and consideration. Racially, of course, it is simply impossible. Even harder than sex - nobody is “trans-racial”. That’s because race takes multiple generations to form.
+	
+	Therefore, it seems race is the most determined by God of these characteristics, because it is the most outside of human choice. That’s an interesting observation.
+	
+	The second observation is that, for seemingly no reason at all, this government also said that we should forget about God. They said that as long as you are working, God must stay separate. They tell us, under threat, that the content of someone’s character is not related to their religion. Doesn't that seem strange?
+	
+	If a Christian business owner publicly says that Christians are more moral than non-Christians, which I would assume is a normal belief, what’s the next step for atheists? 
+	They will find someone to act Satanic around this Christian in the workplace, such as pushing homosexuality, and then claim that Christian is violating the Civil Rights Act.
+	
+	"Don't ask, don't tell" - that's today's policy in corporations.
+	
+	Whites-only private schools were attacked and disbanded by the Civil Rights Act - why not Christian Schools next?
+	
+	The only reason they don't is because public support hasn't gotten there.
+	
+	Of course, they tell us - “these are Christian values, these are European values - we must judge everyone fairly”. And yet, the nation gets less Christian and European every year. If that is the result of our values, what exactly is going on? The people in charge, too, get less and less Western. All the while, they whisper in our ear to abandon the traditions (the biases) of our ancestors. "Race - religion - sex - who cares! Life is meant to be fun!”
+	
+	That’s what they led with, in the 60s. That’s how they got the Act passed - by using the enticement of immorality against the kids, and the barrel of a gun against the parents.
+	
+	So, in some ways, anyone who supports the Act is a progressive. You believe in the rapid change of values that has accelerated after WWII, becoming exponential, your only desire is to go back to a different point when the exponential decline had already started.
+	
+	When a race in a nation goes from 90% to 54% in 60 years, and a race in the world goes from 35% to 9% in 60 years, most people would say ”hey, there’s something unhealthy here. Why are our people declining?”
+	
+	That’s what the statistics are for whites. And yet, nobody ever brings it up. A white would never dream of making things about race - only a gloating liberal.
+	
+	The problem is, though, that nations are biological. And, therefore, the races which make them up are very important.
+	
+	If a nation is an organism, a real, biological being, then the health of the race is crucial to understanding the health of the nation. And, as we can see in history, this is true.
+	
+	It was exactly when the Roman birth rates fell that the Republic was overthrown, and an atheist empire was created.
+	
+	And then Rome fell, not through illegal immigration, but through legal.
+	
+	The riots that led to the sack of Rome were started by legal, discontented German immigrants.
+	
+	By that time, everyone in Rome was German. They said "who cares?" The support was not mustered, and so Rome fell.
+	
+	One would think, because no man was willing to risk his lives merely for "character", or for another short-term characteristic.
+	
+	The conclusion I came to, not just after facing discrimination but, actually, after sitting down in January 2024 and watching the country get invaded with the help of the sitting president, is that the reality is that the Civil Rights Act was, itself, from Satan. It was an attempt to disconnect Man from everything God gave him - everything man could not change by his own mind and desire.
+	
+	Race, sex, religion, and even nation - all banned.
+	
+	Sounds like communism, doesn't it?
+	
+	Man is a colorless, genderless, atheist animal. That’s how the Civil Rights Act mandates you to think - 8 hours a day, 40 hours a week. 
+	
+	Now, of course, they apply that logic to foreigners too. 
+	And it represents the death of the nation. 
+	
+	How could we possible judge the entire world by the content of their character? Doesn’t that sound like… playing God?
+	
+	The idea that we, in our corner of our world, MUST meet every human who comes, and spend hours determining his worth?
+	
+	Doesn’t that sound globalist?
+	
+	If you believe in individualism, or globalism, or anti-racism, or anti-religious-discrimination - this is what you believe.
+	
+	Because, if we are successful, which I would assume is the point of a nation, people will come. And then we must judge them. According to these ideas, as an individual.
+	
+	That's what Churchill believed. When he ruled the world with the British Empire. And we adopted that belief when we won.
+	
+	But, physically, it isn’t possible. There aren’t the resources or the time to do it. The British Empire doesn't even exist anymore - since adopting that philosophy, they have lost almost everything.
+	
+	And, if it was possible, but merely costly, to judge every man on Earth - what would we be we saying to ourselves? That we are worth so little that we need to spend hours learning about every other race, religion, and culture? And if we don’t, then we can’t make a living?
+	
+	It’s no wonder the birth rate is down - how could it not be! Our value of our own people has steadily plummeted.
+	
+	That’s not what a great or free nation says (at gunpoint, remember) - that’s a conquered one.
+	
+	And what you all fight against now, as simple “conservatives”, is exactly what was signed into law 60 years ago. And you say you fight for Christianity, too - but that was also signed into law, 60 years ago. “You must be a globalist atheist in the workplace” - that is the literal translation of the law. And that law is what you are conserving.
+	
+	My belief - based on what I have discerned from most people - is that most people who speak against racism are not actually against racism. After all, almost every other race is more racist than us. Actually, our people are against secular racism, because that is the only racism we have known. That is National Socialism. 
+	
+	You are right, that secular racism (Nazism) is increasing. But the problem is that secular globalism and secular racism, i.e. Churchill-ism and Hitler-ism (who were both atheists), are two sides of the same coin.
+	
+	Each man was attempting to play God - Churchill by thinking that we should judge every man on Earth by his character, and Hitler by saying we should use technology to micromanage biology.
+	
+	It appears to me that there is not a way to completely divorce race from God. There is a reason why the Amish are all German. That's why I think that, even if Jesus ruled the Earth, race would still exist and would cross our minds. And that's not a bad thing - because racial differences are God's creations, and are really quite remarkable and interesting.
+	
+	Churchill won, obviously, but Hitler was right in many ways. He predicted the future better than any other Western leader. His resurgence is not necessarily evil. It is a natural correction, that we must now understand in America and find the true solution.
+	
+	My opinion is that the West began its decline with the Enlightenment, which was where separation from God and anti-racism really began. When I saw America getting invaded, I realized, on a personal, level, that I would like to live in a real nation. I realized that a real nation is better than a globalist empire. A real nation is connected to the long-term - it discriminates on nationality, on sex, on religion, and, yes, on race.
+	
+	Being in a real nation is something I originally got a taste for at Geneva, and the classical school I went to in Florida. In Florida, there were several years where it was actually 100% white, and at Geneva it was almost 100% (and almost all of the minorities became Democrats after - completely okay with invasion). Those were schools which both genuinely loved God, and genuinely loved the English people. And white people. And I find it impossible to believe that the experience would have been at all the same if it were mostly minorities. 
+	
+	Our people are going away so quickly, if things continue we will cease to exist. So it's an important decision. If we really love the English people, or the European people, we can't accept what's happening. If we want to have an environment like Geneva in any way, we can't accept it. War may well be necessary to restore Canada, America, England and the rest of Europe. The other nations are almost certainly not happy that we are getting more racist again - they were enjoying our decline.
+	
+	Recently, many young men have understood this. That is why we are racist. Once war begins, egalitarianism and "judging on the content of character" is not relevant. How can I judge an enemy combatant before I shoot him? Only innately by race, and maybe by religion or nationality depending on the uniform.
+	
+	Anyway, the Case for Christian Nationalism is a good book which also discusses this. By Stephen Wolfe.
+	
+	I'll finish watching that interview too.

Light of the West/Dialogues/The Christian Oil Man.md

@@ -0,0 +1,147 @@
+
+If we take Haiti and eradicate the gangs, what would we do then? There are 10 million people there. What would we do with them?
+
+	We would have to establish a permanent region. A nation. And then we could grow the borders from there. 
+
+I don’t know if I’m down for that. Taking land from a bunch of peaceful citizens doesn’t seem like Christian values.
+
+	But they’re not that peaceful.
+
+But you just said they are!
+
+	They’re peaceful in the sense that they aren’t gang members, that doesn’t mean they’re generally peaceful. They’re a primitive nation with high crime. One must assume they fight and kill each other all the time. Stab each other at the bar and whatnot.
+
+“Yeah don’t we all?”
+
+Sure, so why not go over there and stab em?
+
+“I dunno, it doesn’t seem very Christian. To go and conquest their land.”
+
+Isn’t that exactly how America started?
+
+“Yeah…
+But I dunno man.
+I would be down to maybe subvert them, and get them to sign away their land in exchange for first-world amenities. That’s what the Chinese are doing in Africa.”
+
+Yeah, but Africa is winning.
+
+“What? No they’re not”
+
+Yeah, Africans are much more demographically successful than the Chinese are.
+
+“Oh but that’s not what I mean. I’m talking about the nations and their power.”
+
+If everyone in China becomes African, does it really matter how big their government is?
+
+Would that government even exist?
+
+“Maybe not, but I don’t think everyone in China is going to become black anytime soon.”
+
+Sure, but nations are organisms. At any given point, they are growing or shrinking. So why would we, or the Chinese, want to shrink?
+
+“I don’t know if I agree that a nation is just biological. Immigrants can come in and assimilate to the culture or the system.”
+
+Okay, but where does the culture or system come from?
+
+If they have a low IQ, doesn’t that limit the complexity of their legal system?
+
+Doesn’t that determine what sort of structures they will build?
+
+Doesn’t that determine what sort of books they will write, or songs they will play?
+
+If they can’t eat certain foods, doesn’t that change the dishes they will make?
+
+Doesn’t it determine how they worship God, or which God they will worship?
+
+“I suppose”
+
+So what you are saying may be true: some immigrants can assimilate. 
+
+But doesn’t it also seem true that when we describe national cultures or systems, we are actually describing reflections of biology?
+
+“I don’t know. I believe on of the reasons our system in America is better than the others is because it has such a big Christian influence. I think God’s will for people can and should be a part of our nation. I don’t think it’s as simple as just a reflection of biology.”
+
+You don’t think there is such a thing as Christian biology?
+
+“What do you mean?”
+
+Okay. Since we are talking about Christian values, let’s talk about the Fruits of the Spirit.
+
+Would you agree that the Fruits of the Spirit are a good approximation or summary or Christian values?
+
+“Well there’s certainly more to the story than just the fruits. But sure, I think they are a good introduction or approximation to what Christ is like.”
+
+And our goal is to be like Christ?
+
+“Yes”
+
+So our goal, or at least one of our main goals, is to display the Fruits of the Spirit.
+
+“Yeah, sure”
+
+Okay, now let’s talk about dogs.
+
+Thousands of years ago, we bred dogs from wolves. 
+
+Now when we think about the Golden Retriever versus the wolf, what is the difference?
+
+“Where there are a lot of differences, but he’s definitely a lot nicer. Less aggressive.”
+
+So he is Kinder, Gentler, more Peaceful, and more Self-Controlled? 
+
+“Yeah”
+
+And this is a part of his nature?
+
+“Yeah”
+
+And How did Golden Retrievers come to have this nature?
+
+“We bred them.”
+
+So we got dogs by breeding the Fruits of the Spirit into wolves. 
+
+“Hmm. Yeah I guess so.”
+
+One would think, then, that the same could be accomplished in humans.
+
+“Interesting.”
+
+And therefore, if our goal is to have a Godly nation, which displays the Fruits of the Spirit, we want to push forward those genes in our society. 
+
+Now, back to the original topic. You say that you don’t think nations are purely biological, because some systems and laws are of God.
+
+But if we have a nation that displays the fruits of the spirit, and the fruits of the spirit are biological, wouldn’t even those Godly laws be biological in nature?
+
+But if the fruits of the spirit are biological, then wouldn’t Godly laws be biological as well?
+
+Don’t you think there’s such a thing as Christian biology?
+
+“What do you mean?”
+
+Well, do you believe that temperament is hereditary?
+
+For instance, the pit bull is aggressive because of his nature. The golden retriever is peaceful because of his nature.
+
+Right?
+
+“Yeah”
+
+And we bred these dogs from the much more aggressive wolves?
+
+“Yeah”
+
+Kindness, gentleness, patience, peacefulness, self-control:
+
+Aren’t the Fruits of the Spirit genetic?
+
+
+
+“But does that make it right?”
+
+I mean hey man, my opinion is that they should peacefully turn over the land to us and go back to Africa. But you and I both know they won’t do that. So it’s not a question of violence or not - it’s a question of who deserves that land.
+
+And if you are saying that we can’t invade, you are saying that they deserve the land more than we do. And I cannot agree. 
+
+
+

Light of the West/Dialogues/The Good Ole Guitarist.md

@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+
+- “But you’re not _actually_ racist right?”
+  
+Well sure I am. The races are obviously different, aren’t they?
+
+- “Well yeah. But that’s not what I mean. I meant hating them and stuff like that.
+
+Oh, I see. Well yes, I don’t just blindly hate other races. But it makes sense to be competitive with them, right? 
+
+- “Yeah, I guess so”
+
+Well, if the competition becomes a war, won’t we end up hating them? After all, that’s why all those old guys hate the Japanese. None of us do.
+
+- “True. Makes sense”
+
+So that’s all.
+
+- “I gotchu”  
+
+- “These fries are damn good”
+
+Hell yeah. Let me get one. 
+
+- Oh yeah bro, did I tell you about all those blacks that attacked me on the campaign trail? Shit was wild.
+
+No, you didn’t! What happened?

Light of the West/Dialogues/The Lady of the Empire.md

@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+**Emma (Lady of the Empire)** 
+
+  
+- “It’s going to take like 10 years. Prop are going to suffer”.
+
+Yes. 
+
+
+(Mom) It will take some time but we already have things going. We’ll see.
+
+She’s right. It will take ten years, and people would suffer. But if that’s what has to be done, why not? We have to be competitive.
+
+  
+
+- “Yeah, okay fine. The logic checks out. But who cares? If that’s what’s going to happen then just kill me now. There’s no point in all this.”
+
+  
+
+What do you mean who cares? Is this not the game of Life? Is this not the game that every one of our ancestors played in order to create us? What would our grandparents say?
+
+  
+
+- “Look, part of what I’m saying is - even if this is true - I just don’t see how we could win. I don’t see the point.”
+
+  
+
+Alfred the Great reconquered the whole of England from a small marsh. It’s never over until it’s over. Our position is not that bad.
+
+  
+
+- “Still, I just don’t see the point.
+
+  
+
+- “So, what, I can’t marry someone of a different race? Who wants to live like that?”
+
+  
+
+Everyone that came before us.
+
+  
+
+When you played basketball, were you sad that you couldn’t pass the ball to the other team?
+
+  
+
+- “I just don’t see the point. And most people aren’t going to want to change their lives like this.”
+
+  
+
+We’re not asking. If this is what has to happen, it is what will happen. Trump is laying the groundwork for power right now, the monarchy is probably already here.
+
+  
+
+- “Just kill me now then. I don’t care. I don’t want to live like that. That’s terrible.”
+
+  
+
+You mean live like the women being raped and the people being killed by illegal immigrants?
+
+  
+
+- “We’re not going to feel those effects. We’re the last ones who are going to experience that.”
+
+  
+
+Oh, we will feel it soon enough if we lose a war. And we will lose a war if we have no manufacturing.

Light of the West/Dialogues/The Liberal Christian.md

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+  
+
+I believe it is because homosexuality is further from the type of person that creates Life, and therefore it is worse to be gay.
+
+- “But Ghengis Khan had a lot of kids. Was he good for Life?”
+
+Well, you tell me. Do we wish to destroy his descendants? 
+
+- “Hmmm”

Light of the West/Dialogues/The Mixed-Race Technologist.md

@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+Inherently dependent on the "building" "technology" mindset
+
+
+Minecraft, redstone, engineering obsession from a young age
+Spirits in the house
+
+
+
+- “I think that the only at this will go is that we will be brought down to a lower standard of living, and also we will become a part of a community which will level everyone to a more equal playing field.”
+
+  
+
+Explain. What do you mean by that?
+  
+
+You don’t think the soul is connected to your biology?
+
+
+- “I think of it in terms of that movie, Life. I am an independent soul that was dropped into the body”
+
+
+
+So you don’t think that your soul is connected to those of your parents? Or your ancestors?  
+
+- Well, I’m not sure. I’ve met people in other parts of the world who I had a super strong connection with. Some of my family, I don’t.
+
+  
+
+But even those Scandinavians are more related to you than most others, are they not? It is a common lineage with Britain and the Anglo-Saxons of your mother. 
+
+- That’s true.
+
+  
+
+God forms us through the land, does he not?
+
+  
+
+At what point in all of human history did the story suddenly change, and now is about the development of technology rather than the development of people? 
+
+- It seems that there was a point at which the development of technology became disconnected from the development of people. During the Medieval era, perhaps.
+
+  
+
+Did it? As far as I can tell, national populations are intimately connected with the Industrial Revolution. 
+
+- “What do you mean?”
+
+  
+The rise in machines was the same as a great rise in populations, and of what we know as the “modern lifestyle.”

Light of the West/Dialogues/The Patriarch.md

@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+
+- “ Son, it’s good to see you. I’ve got to tell you, it’s been a while. Didn’t know when I would again. But look at you! All grown up, you look like a movie star.”
+
+
+Yeah it’s good to see you too. When was the last time?
+
+- “Shoot I don’t know. 
+
+
+- “But look son. I’ve got to tell you. Don’t know when I’ll see you again. Just wanted to say. Always follow God. Above all else. Always trust God. I have made plenty of hard decisions in Life. It’s not always easy. Trust yourself, trust God. Be a man. Do what needs to be done. You understand?”
+
+  
+Absolutely.

Light of the West/Dialogues/The Weary Parents.md

@@ -0,0 +1,97 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Technology represents our restoration of the Garden of Eden.
+
+It never says you won't be with a woman in heaven; only that you won't have a wife.
+
+
+
+
+
+Yes, there are many atheist Jews.
+
+"I think we have more in common with Islam than the Jews"
+
+	But aren't there many of us that are working together with the Jews? There are many whites that assist them.
+
+"Only because they've been forced into it"
+
+	No, it's because they have the same perspective. They benefit from this system. These whites gain the same wealth and status that the Jews do.
+
+	Not to mention that we lived among them more recently and for longer than anyone else.
+
+
+
+
+
+It’s important to not let fear take over. You have to remember - we are not of this world. We are of God’s kingdom.
+
+	Why are you advocating for the separation of church and state?
+
+At the end of the day, these political systems are evil.
+
+	So you are denouncing the past 1500 years of Christendom as evil? Isn't that how we achieved all our growth? Isn't that the golden age of Europe?
+
+It just isn't right to combine worldly systems with heavenly ones. 
+
+When Jesus came to the Earth, everybody was expecting him to do that. They were expecting him to start the revolution. But that's not what he did. 
+
+Instead, he created the church. He began restoring the Garden of Eden on Earth, not through violence and politics but through peace and the church.
+
+	You don’t think Constantine advanced Christendom?
+
+No, I don't.
+
+What would the devil do? As soon as he saw Jesus' church growing and working, what would he do?
+
+	Comnbine the church with state?
+
+Exactly. And as soon as Christ's message became interwoven with the political system, everything became corrupted.
+
+	But how can we really say Constantine didn't advance the church? Weren't there more real believers that were converted, protected, and saved as a part of his adoption of Christianity? 
+	
+"Real Believers?" How are we defining that?
+
+	Well, however you would define the true and good church. People who earnestly accept Jesus into their life, and have faith in him.
+
+Okay, sure. I don't know.
+	
+	And surely, this is the same for all of Christendom - the fact that the kings and governments adopted Christianity as a policy helped lead to growth and advancement of the church.
+
+I don't know. I'm just saying that we can't put our faith in worldly solutions. Kingdoms of man rise and fall.
+
+	When Jesus spoke to the centurion, he didn't tell him to resign. Why, then, do we assume that Jesus doesn't want us to be a part of any worldly political system?
+
+Yes, but these political systems aren't good. Look at what we did to the native Americans - I think it would have been better if we didn't do that.
+We brought feudalism to the New World.
+They had a different system, which we replaced with that European one. And we wiped them out as a result.
+
+	So you are saying that, because we did this to the Native Americans, we shouldn't be mad when it is done to us. Is that right?
+
+No, that's not what I'm saying.
+
+	Well, that is why we are concerned. Because our own nations are now being invaded. That is why politics is important right now.
+
+I just don't think we can put our faith in worldly solutions.
+
+	What if I become a politician? What if I am the one writing the law? Am I wrong for that?
+
+Then sure, write the law how you want.
+
+	Okay, then isn't it important to engage with worldly matters? Shouldn't I write the law in a way that is more congruent with Christian teachings.
+
+I suppose. But to me it seems wrong to explicitly link the two.
+
+	But you say yourself that the founding fathers got many things wrong. You think they were mistaken in their worldviews and their deism. And I agree. But isn't their secular government marked precisely by their separation from the God-given monarch of England?
+
+	And if you don't agree with their views, then what else is there? There is no such thing as a neutral governemnt. It must be either secular or Christian.
+
+	You say that it is important not to let fear take over. That is true. But what you seem to be saying is that it is bad to have any fear at all. That does not make sense.
+
+	I would argue that ignoring everything because "we can't let fear take over" is, itself, a manifestation of fear. To ignore real atrocities because they may lead to political action or even war is not a virtue.
+
+	In fact, a real lack of fear would mean a willingness to act quickly and, if necessary, to die for God's kingdom. This position you are saying sounds suspiciously like the one that will be most likely to keep you alive and comfortable.

Light of the West/Domain.md

@@ -0,0 +1,203 @@
+
+Civilization is the rule of the few over many.
+
+The many are domestic;
+they don't fight or explore;
+Like a dog, they only face nature if forced.
+
+But they are not built for it.
+
+When the King walks by, they kiss the King's hand.
+They all know, they live on the King's land.
+Every house, every village is a guest.
+They kneel for every request.
+
+The King is their Lord;
+Their link to Almighty.
+He is the closest they've seen to divine. 
+By his word, they build up the nation. 
+By his word, they march on time.
+
+This is the way that Europe advanced.
+Inspired by Plato to shape their men
+
+But every time, the sun must set 
+They ran from God and killed their kings
+And all their people began to blend.
+
+The American Republic is different.
+Every man is Elite.
+The fugitives and royals who came
+For freedom to stand on our feet.
+
+The fighters, explorers who did not fit in.
+Too restless, too bored to care about sin.
+We sought domain,
+We sought rule,
+We followed Destiny and conquered the world.
+
+For better or worse, we are leaders.
+For better or worse, we are kings.
+We are the mighty who bested our parents,
+and we are the ones they need.
+
+We are the ones they yearn for,
+we are they ones they watch.
+Though they will never admit it,
+As soon as we say, they will march.
+
+Hail to the King of America,
+Hail to the King of the West,
+Hail to the King of the English Empire,
+the one where the sun never sets.
+
+
+
+
+
+Collectives become larger when people are more indoors.
+
+Big groups are helpful for winter.
+
+For farming, for building, for keeping the peace.
+
+Peace is important when we are inside.
+
+This is why the Havamal is so interested in manners.
+
+When we are inside, we are united.
+
+We are not crossing each others' paths;
+
+We are not creating chaos.
+
+This is why Northern peoples are more collectivist.
+
+Seriousness is fear.
+
+But there is always a spirit, even in the North.
+
+A spirit of movement; a spirit of war.
+
+These men keep moving, when others stay still.
+
+These men rule the domesticated many.
+
+Sometimes, as the Mongols, they conquer.
+
+For many years, collectives have been growing bigger.
+
+This is the Story of Civilization.
+
+With World War II, we expanded the collective to the Earth.
+
+This is the domain of America.
+
+It has lasted 80 years.
+
+Every man needs a domain.
+
+The smaller the domain, the simpler the work to maintain it.
+
+Large ones seem to be unreliable.
+
+For the whole Story of Civilization, men have kept small estates.
+
+As Kings come and go, many small estates stay the same.
+
+This is because they are connected to the Land.
+
+They are useful to the King.
+
+They make food and goods for him.
+
+But sometimes, they are displaced too.
+
+Sometimes, every man wants to be a king.
+
+This is the birth of democracy.
+
+Instead of living on the King's land, they live on their own.
+
+They are their own conduit to God.
+
+They talk to him directly.
+
+They do not trust large political or religious collectives.
+
+But, if every man becomes a king, every man risks decadence.
+
+If every man is a king, every man can raid his neighbor for goods.
+
+Some domains naturally require more work than others.
+
+The fall of civilization occurs when the citizens manage to build a domain which is unsustainably easy to live in.
+
+Often, this unsustainable domain is based on resource extraction from other places.
+
+In other words: Empire.
+
+If they get a taste of this Empire too long, they no longer care about dominance.
+
+They no longer care for domain.
+
+When the momentum shifts, and the occupied come for revenge, the wise enemies will offer help instead.
+
+They offer to help make the citizens comfortable, in exchange for power and money.
+
+They make the lives of their oppressor easier.
+
+They replace the natives, and take their land.
+
+Finally, when they can, they revolt. They destroy the nation.
+
+This is what the Germans did to Rome.[^1]
+
+This is what the Mexicans are doing to us.
+
+So, what do we do?
+
+A man needs a domain.
+
+A man needs his land.
+
+I do not want their help.
+
+So, what do we do?
+
+When times are good, we experiment.
+
+When times are bad, we must return to tradition.
+
+This is what we are doing today.
+
+We are returning to God and nation:
+
+the only loves that can win a war.
+
+Nobody fights for Empire.
+
+Empire brings pleasure, but not love.
+
+That is why it falls.
+
+We cannot do this without returning to the land.
+
+Our law, race, and traditions are from the North.
+
+The North is our home.
+
+We must recognize this.
+
+This is why Alaska is paramount.
+
+Every northern European place is liberal.
+
+There is no conservative Northern country.
+
+This is the peril we are in: dangerously disconnected from God.
+
+
+
+
+[^1]: Will Durant, Caesar and Christ

Light of the West/European Union.md

@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+
+"We are carrying out a great experiment, the fulfillment of the same recurrent dream that for ten centuries has revisited the peoples of Europe: creating between them an organization putting an **_end to war_** and **_guaranteeing an eternal peace_**."
+
+These are the words of French Minister Robert Schuman, spoken on May 5, 1949. In 1993, they were finally fulfilled, with the official creation of the European Union.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+1. https://schuman.info/Strasbourg549.htm

Light of the West/Fuentes Tucker.md

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+57:40
+"Identity politics is bad", Individualism
+
+Tucker's position is the same as that lady from long ago. "Are you afraid of a little competition?"
+
+It is the position that politics is based on morality. That there is no political interest or element besides what is moral, and what is making things more moral.
+
+It is, as Evola would say, a position which lacks the sun of the ruler. Of the man who simply acts, because this is what men do.
+
+White people haven't used politics to improve our lives for 80 years - only to conserve or destroy. So, what happens? Our lives get worse. Obviously.
+
+If you don't use politics to improve your life, and another group does, that group will always win.
+
+Why? Simple. 
+
+They are willing to die for their group; for their cause. Their willingness to do so is a source of energy we do not have.
+
+We are totally disconnected from that wellspring of God's vigor. Therefore, we shrink.
+
+1:11:00
+Once again, Tucker brings up blood guilt as the reason why people don't like the Jews. He's turning a practical conversation into a moral one.
+
+1:17:35
+Tucker bringing up balkanization, we have to put group interests aside if America is to stay together.
+Interestingly, he is in favor of multiculturalism and post-1960s ideas
+
+1:18:42
+"Why not just set universal rules that apply to everybody?" - Tucker
+
+2:01:40
+Women
+Tucker says women just need to be shown the way by a good husband
+more individualism
+Nick is right about the system incentives being wrong but doesn't elaborate enough
+
+2:05:10
+"Men are the responsible party but with no authority"
+Very true. Rice 101
+
+2:07:05
+Male vs. female nature
+
+2:08:55
+Tucker - you need someone who's not interested in what you do. You don't need hero-worship.

Light of the West/Globalism and Barbarism.md

@@ -0,0 +1,273 @@
+
+*Our enemies are gnawing on the West, at the top of her Mind and the base of her Body.*
+
+Let’s look at who is most against Western expansion.
+
+Who were the biggest voters for Kamala 2024?
+
+Jews, Blacks, and Gays. 
+
+In other words: 
+
+Globalism, Barbarism, and the Death of the West. 
+
+Notice, for a second, these classifications of Globalism and Barbarism. Here, they are used to refer to Jews and Blacks, but they also represent the political divide of America itself. This is not a coincidence.
+It has been clear since 2016: the mind and body of America are divided.
+We saw this when Trump so greatly polarized American voters, splitting them between rural and urban areas.
+
+There is an important reason for this: for years, Europeans have been led to believe that the opposite part of the nation is the problem.
+
+Intellectual Europeans have been taught that poor whites, the body of the nation, represent violence, ignorance, and filth.  Mysteriously, though, they have a lot of reverence for black people. 
+
+On the other hand, rural whites have been taught that intellectual whites - the mind of the nation - represent weakness, Satanism, and greed. Mysteriously, though, they have a lot of reverence for the Jews - because they are "God's people."
+
+The strange reality, and the reason why American politics has not made sense for 80 years, is that smart and dumb whites have been deceived into hating each other. The opposite traits they see in each other are actually the shadows of other races. The groups they most respect are other races - the ones which are opposite of their own nature. Really, those two groups are a representation of Western self-hatred.
+
+Those two groups are the races who cast the most votes for Kamala Harris - the blacks and the Jews.
+
+We must keep in mind, here, that America was 90% white in 1960. This is the period when polarization really began, and it is also the period when America was changed from an officially European nation to an officially globalist nation. This was done through Hart-Cellar Act and the Civil Rights Act.
+
+60 years later, America is about 50% white and shrinking. Is this natural? No. It is a drastic invasion of territory by foreign races, gods, and nations. It is one of the most extreme such invasions in history.
+
+
+~~
+***Trading Birthright for Comfort***
+~~
+
+What have Europeans received in exchange? Many patriots might say "nothing!", but this is false.
+
+What we have received is a level of pleasure, peace, and prosperity which is unparalleled in the history of civilization. We have received these things because, upon giving up any serious desire for reproduction or working the land, we have offered our accumulated resources and land to other nations and peoples. The bargain is that they must do all the hard work for us.
+
+The reason why we are able to do this at all is because we are so strong. We are truly Romans now: we adhere to the principles of "otium et bellum;” war and leisure. When we are not practicing violence, we use our huge military to ensure peace and easy lives for ourselves. 
+
+These are aristocratic principles; the principles of a people that live by ruling others and extracting resources in return. 
+
+What has happened in America is that everyone, no matter what their profession or background, has been turned into a sort of aristocrat. Americans rule the world from our comfortable throne. This is why foreigners want to come.
+
+In a sense, this is the ideal outcome of a republic. A group of capable men, voluntarily joined together, have conquered everyone else.
+
+However, the outcome which so often follows conquest is decadence and decline. It took a lot of work and effort to get to this point. Now, America barely has a manufacturing industry. Factories and breweries have been turned into trendy shopping centers.
+
+The only question that matters is whether America and the West will have the spirit to once again go to war. From this principle, everything else follows.
+
+
+~~
+***Why Do We Have To Go To War?***
+~~
+
+The narrative since World War II has a unique character, which is rare or even nonexistent in history. Today, many people believe that World War II was not only our victory against Germany, but our victory against war *itself*.
+
+Many of us have been told that Hitler was evil. We all know about the postwar narrative. But what many don’t know is that the narrative has changed over the years. At first, Hitler was bad because he wanted German supremacy. Obviously, this would be against the interests of Britain and the United States. 
+
+Now, though, Hitler’s defeat has taken a religious and moral character. The new narrative is that any man who starts or wants to fight is a bad man. It is essentially pacifism, but sometimes with a carve out for self-defense. 
+
+This is a different completely different attitude towards violence than we had before the war. It has shaped all Western nations since.
+
+Because this narrative has grown, Western peoples have been slow and unresponsive to mass migration. They have come to believe that it is wrong to fight against a large group of people in order to gain or keep land.
+
+So, when people see a large group of foreigners coming, and they want to use force to stop this, the response is “that sounds like Hitler!” And they are right, because this is in fact what Hitler was trying to stop. Because Hitler lost, we have been taught that *group territorialism is wrong*.
+
+Why is this a problem?
+
+It is a problem because group territorialism is the way that many mammals, including humans, have always managed land.
+
+From the very first primitive human tribes, humans have fought over territory as a group. This is one of the most essential parts of human life.
+
+Now, it is chastised as “collectivism”.
+
+
+~~
+***Why does Civilization Fall this Way?***
+~~
+
+Indeed, too much comfort seems to be the thing which destroys most civilizations. Perhaps the issue is that the "aristocratic lifestyle" is inherently unhealthy. People increasingly try to simulate health, through things like medicine and the gym, instead of vying directly with Nature.
+
+This is particularly clear in America, which has a near-obsessive gym culture and a vast array of trendy diets, supplements, and medications.
+
+The clear reality is that, in every civilization, God destroys those who are too comfortable.
+
+The increasing comfort is what many call "progress." Is it, though?
+
+
+
+
+
+
+The West is shrinking. Amidst this, America’s political positions are spinning like a top. We throw open the borders and fly in immigrants, and then we build a wall and deport millions. 
+
+The people of America want to fight for our own growth. The elites of America want to replace us with foreigners who are growing faster.
+
+This has caused a crisis, most pronounced in Great Britain, where Europeans are sandwiched between aggressive foreigners and governments who actively empower them.
+
+Currently, everyone seems to think matters will automatically right themselves in the end. Surely, things will return to normal, right? 
+
+No. 
+
+If the current birth rates continue as they are, extinction is imminent. And the Muslims have no intention of slowing down. Indeed, they have wanted to conquer Europe for a thousand years. So why would they stop now?
+
+In America, the situation is slightly less dire. The often-Hispanic foreigners are generally more docile and Christian than the Arabs and Africans invading Europe. However, there is still a great problem of cultural erosion and increasing violence.
+
+The English language is losing ground in America. In the Miami airport, many of the workers and guests speak no English. Signs and communications across southern states are printed in Spanish. This is an erosion of the fundamental foundation of the country, and cannot lead to stability. 
+
+These immigrants from Central and South America are also much more unpredictable than regular Americans. 
+
+
+
+
+Liberals superficially enjoy other cultures (food) but harbor secret contempt for the meaningful elements (gender norms). 
+
+Right-wingers superficially hate other cultures (curry is disgusting slop!) but respect the meaningful parts of other cultures (remember Trump's burqa rant?).
+
+Obama ate Ahmed's food but bombed his country because Ahmed's wife covered her face.
+
+Trump is probably disgusted by Ahmed's food, but he also doesn't care how backward Ahmed's home life is.
+
+https://x.com/sharghzadeh/status/1857176326576169375?s=46
+
+
+
+
+This difference is because traditional cultures are based on genetic competition. Modern society hates genetic competition, and therefore competes with anyone who engages in it.
+
+Our elites have cocooned themselves in an ever-shrinking bubble of Western culture and prosperity while denying the tradition and competition that created it. They continually use past relics of power like nuclear bombs to justify their supremacy, while the cultures of European nations are hollowed out.
+
+Eventually, the elites themselves will be replaced. They will have allowed their constituents to be conquered, and the new populations will have no reason to want America or Britain as the capital of the world instead of Mexico City or Tehran. 
+
+Globalists often cast their actions as mere practicality, but nations can’t succeed without competition. It is not sustainable to  insist on global collaboration while the empire’s shrinking population huddles in the shadow of nuclear bombs. Technology decays. Other nations grow. The only way to succeed is for us to seek growth, too. 
+
+This distinction is the explanation for the Russia-Ukraine polarization in the West.
+
+Western liberals think Putin is the devil because he is a traditionalist engaging in traditional genetic competition: expansion of territory through war. To liberals, this is the ultimate evil, so anything is justified to stop it.
+
+To Western traditionalists, however, Putin is not the ultimate evil. Instead, as J.D. Vance says, he is a competitor. For traditionalists, war is a part of life and should benefit the nation if pursued. Any traditionalist would gladly fight Russia if it attacked the U.S., but conservatives are not interested in fighting to prove a point that “violence is never the answer.” Many aren’t sure that is the case. 
+
+It is likely that many warhawks are now partnered with liberals because the moralistic justifications are profitable excuses to fight. 
+
+Likewise, many doves are partnered with conservatives because the idea that the war is not directly beneficial is a peaceful excuse not to fight.
+
+In some sense, this situation is bad for the West. The people who care about Western tradition have no desire to fight or expand, and the people who do not care are starting wars and accelerating cultural decline through excessive pursuit of profit. 
+
+In other words: our native populations have shrunk and are unwilling to fight for growth, while our greedy globalist aristocrats are emboldened to prosecute wars for their benefit. Ideally, it should be the opposite. Otherwise, we are accelerating decline by taking actions which drain the native population rather than help it. 
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Often times, the low birth rates in the West are justified with an argument that industrialization naturally leads to lower birth rates. The argument goes that once poor societies develop, they will also have low birth rates.
+
+The problem is that we are not the first civilization to reach relatively great heights and then suffer decline. The Persians, Greeks, and Romans all surpassed their peers in technology and comfort of lifestyle. This is why we remember them. But they also declined precipitously in birth rates and expansion. 
+
+These societies all reached *different* levels of technological advancement. Yet, they all began to decline after that point. So it doesn’t make sense to say that there is some specific, arbitrary level of development which causes decline. Historically, it is unlikely that we have reached a magic point of technology where no further growth can happen. After all, it has never been true before. 
+
+It is probably not the technology itself which is causing us to decline. It must be something about *us* - about our society.
+
+Of course, there are some people who do not want growth and some elites who do not accept shrinking. But these are the trends.
+
+The mind and body of America are divided.
+
+Tech is liberal, farmers are conservative. And the reason is that they answer this question differently:
+
+Which mode of invention is greater: the brain or the DNA?
+
+If your answer is the brain, then what matters most is ideas. Technology, ideas, and smart people are what is good in the world. Our goal should be to maximize these, improve our systems of government and economy, and find great success.
+
+This is also the divide between those rely on God and those who do not.
+
+Globalists have generally been left-wing, but not always. 
+
+Genetic, and therefore cultural, community, and national competition is discouraged in the Western Globalist paradigm because the Globalists believe that the mind is a superior mechanism of invention. Therefore, genetic competition is foolish. The only thing which matters is the individual personality - the individual brain - which can be shaped by the individual's choices within the larger system.
+
+
+
+
+Liberalism is the ideology of shrinking. The most direct way Liberalism shrinks us is by importing millions of foreigners into the land. 
+
+These foreigners are, undoubtedly, hungry for the peace and prosperity of the West. Liberalism takes advantage of this hunger, and low Western birth rates, to import these men into our societies. Then, they occupy the spots where our children would be.
+
+They come from nations more poor and violent than the West. That, of course, is why they come. 
+
+This is the Barbarism. And, for the most part, it is perfectly understandable. These men see opportunities, and they come. 
+
+These are the two pincers against Western expansion: Globalism and Barbarism.
+
+The Barbarism comes from the people who are actually entering Western land. They are always from poor and less civilized countries, and they often bring that brutishness to their host nations.
+
+Then, there are the elites - the politicians, media, and higher-up forces which aggressively push for these people to enter. These people are what could be called “globalist” - they have a rosy view of technology and collaboration, and believe nationalistic competition is outdated.
+
+To understand why the West is shrinking, we must understand these two forces.
+
+The forces of barbarism are perfectly understandable: poorer people see an economic opportunity, and they take it. Imperialistic men, such as radical Islamists, see an opportunity to seize more land. These are the natural, national forces of all human history. They do not require much explanation.
+
+The forces of globalism, though, are more perplexing. Why do these people want mass immigration? Why do they believe what they do about nations and borders? Who even are they?
+
+Globalists are the often utopian people in our societies who don’t mind that the West is shrinking. They believe that this idea of “dominion over the land” is outdated. In fact, many would prefer that Western citizens forget about owning the land altogether.
+
+Clearly, there are many people with this view in our government. Therefore, if we want to understand why the West is shrinking, it would be good to understand the mindset of people who don’t care about governance over land at all.
+
+These are two worldviews that most often seem to hold this belief:
+
+Technological Communism
+
+- Because of AI and technology, we are approaching an era of complete abundance. This means that everything will be automated, nobody will have any reason to seriously compete with each other, and therefore we will be happy to live as individuals in a prosperous society rather than a collective vying for resources.
+
+- This belief is commonly held by Silicon Valley thinkers and workers. Naturally, these people have a very strong belief in technology. Silicon Valley, and the tech world in general, is also typically averse to physical conflict. This is probably because thinkers are often sensitive people. These people often live physically comfortable lives in the city, and believe that everyone will eventually live this way when tech automates more jobs.
+
+Neoliberal Globalization
+
+- Because of globalization, we are approaching an era of extreme abundance. This means that nobody will have any reason to seriously compete with each other, and therefore we will be happy to live as individuals in a prosperous society rather than a collective vying for resources.
+
+- This is similar to the technological communism belief, except that it has slightly less faith in technology. People with these beliefs are not necessarily counting on a post-abundance society, but are simply counting on technology to continue to advance and provide opportunities for global cooperation. With these increased opportunities, the thinking goes, there will be no reason to seriously compete as nations because we all have different geographic resources and can all benefit more by building a global supply chain.
+
+So - consider these two belief systems: Techno-Communism and Neoliberal Capitalism.
+
+We were taught in modern America that Capitalism and Communism are complete opposites - so why do they seem so similar?
+
+Why does America now have so many prominent capitalist leaders who believe in a centrally-controlled, technological distribution of resources? Why do they believe in a global utopia that will erase our problems? That’s supposed to be communism, right?
+
+Indeed, mainstream Western economies are filled with globalist and utopian ideologies - universal creeds which do not believe in the importance of a strong connection to land. The reasons they give are that it is unnecessary for human societies to compete for resources.
+
+It is no coincidence that many of the most prominent promoters of this ideology are those at the forefront of information technology: the world of bits. As Peter Thiel has acknowledged, the world of bits has grown greatly, but the world of atoms has not. (~35:00 Joe Rogan)
+
+
+But - hold on - isn’t competition the point of capitalism?
+
+It seems as if our societies tolerate monetary competition, but not geographic competition. Why?
+
+Geographic competition - competition for land - is the way of much of the mammal world. Historically, this includes humans. Geographic competition, in both humans and animals, is the main source of war.
+
+But today, and for the past 60 years, Western nations have been striving to eliminate geographic competition. We have been striving to keep global borders the same, and to eliminate any conflagrations or significant changes that might occur.
+
+This way of thinking is typically called the “Postwar consensus,” in reference to World War II. Since that time, no Western nation has seriously attempted to expand its borders in a meaningful way.
+
+If our leaders shun geographic competition at any costs, there are essentially two possible answers as to why:
+
+1.
+They are correct. We have to discovered human truths that have never been discovered in the past. The truth is that competition over land is fruitless, and it is much better to focus on technology and cooperation.
+
+2.
+World War II scarred the Western nations such that we became inward-facing and averse to conflict. Therefore, the popular ideology is to shun geographic expansion, and instead seek economic partnership with everyone in the world.
+
+Most Westerners, I believe, still agree with #1.
+
+But, as I watched the border collapsed, it made me angry. And upon seeing the way that Western demographics are shrinking, it made me very concerned.
+
+If we shy away from competition for land - are we forming a monopoly against nature?
+
+Are our leaders giving people so much pleasure that they forget about competition?
+
+These are the questions we must answer.
+
+
+**Utopianism is a death cult**
+
+Live comfortably and die
+
+Treat the world like a museum
+
+No footprint, no trace
+
+No descendants to speak of
+
+
+One thing we must understand, though, is why there are so many. 

Light of the West/God.md

@@ -0,0 +1,90 @@
+
+*"The task of any nation is to be Godly, meaning good for Life"*
+
+What is Life? What defines it?
+
+Life is the greatest Order in nature. An organism is a giant collaboration: billions of cells, working to achieve a common goal of growth and reproduction. 
+
+Though an organism is a large collaboration, every organism has many competing elements. In each organism, the amount and nature of these elements varies.
+
+At the great poles of Life we have God and Satan. God is good for Life, Satan is bad for Life. God and Satan fight the war of Order vs. Chaos, Collaboration vs. Competition, and Togetherness vs. Separation.
+
+In the beginning, Lucifer was in God's kingdom. They collaborated.
+In the present, Lucifer fights God's kingdom. They compete.
+In the end, Lucifer will be cast down and defeated. God's collaboration will be restored.
+
+Therefore, we can see that the Bible is ultimately in favor of collaboration. The Bible is ultimately in favor of Life. However, the message of the Bible is that competition and division are essential to form God's kingdom. Without these, there would be no free will.
+
+We know this, because God enforces competition and division himself. In the story of the Tower of Babel, God destroys the collaborative spirit of humanity and scatters our language. This results in us going outward, to different parts of the Earth.
+
+What does this mean? How could a God that loves collaboration and Life be in favor of division and competition?
+
+Perhaps we should consider the economy. Does monopoly result in good outcomes? No. Monopoly almost always results in stagnation.
+
+So, if we look at the Tower of Babel as a monopoly on Life, it is the same principle.
+
+In the story of the Tower, the humans are united with the purpose of building the Tower. Due to this, they share Language, Culture, Race, Location, and Government. Therefore, these people are one nation. Their nation has no competition, and God destroys it.
+
+Let us look at the modern day. We are building our own Tower. We are erasing language differences with software, and pushing Globalist policies to erase all borders and mix the nations. We even built a literal tower; a monument to this endeavor - the World Trade Center. 
+
+In the story of the Tower of Babel, God enforces competition and division. But God's future kingdom will be collaboration and togetherness.
+
+Therefore, there are only two options in the present day:
+
+1. We are following the same pattern of empire and decline as Athens and Rome
+2. We have reached the End of History. The Kingdom of God is here.
+
+So which is our situation today?
+
+Does the Tower of Babel still apply?
+Or are we done with competition?
+
+What exactly is this "end of history"?  The term was pushed by Francis Fukuyama in 1989, with his essay "The End of History?". It was also pushed by Marx, and is also implied by the Bible.
+
+The "End of History" implies a lack of competition, individualism, and prosperity for everyone. It implies that humans have completed development. 
+
+Consider this notion: *Humans have completed development*.
+
+Knowing what we know about Evolution, what sort of statement is this? What does it say about the mindset of the nation?
+
+If the species has completed development, that implies extinction. There is no life form anywhere that doesn't change. So, if we stop changing, we don't exist.
+
+The truth about a nation like ours is that we love the temporary. This is why we are debaucherous; this is why we accept homosexuality in increasing numbers. If all that matters is now, why do we need reproduction? Why do we need to avoid addiction?
+
+And, most of all - why would we take any sort of risk?
+
+In the End of History, there is no point in fighting. Just as in the Roman Empire, our military recruitment numbers are dropping. We enjoy erasing all "archaic" bonds such as culture and ethnicity, because these bonds are hundreds and thousands of years old. If all that matters is the past 80 years, why would anyone fight? If a man's actions only last a single lifetime -  why would he give his life?
+
+The best and only way for a man to risk his life is for him to be a part of something greater than himself. If that something has already arrived, there is no longer a point. If we are not part of a great long tradition, and we do not carry that tradition on, what is the point of risking one’s life?
+
+Perhaps this is the true cycle of civilization: once we reach the life of the successful tribesman, there is nothing left. There is no future; there is no past. Our collective has achieved maximum movement and freedom, and any path forward only offers more hardship.
+
+Movement and freedom break morality and predictability. Free sex; free indulgence. Society is disordered, just as the primitive individual.
+
+It seems the ultimate truth of civilization is that primitive experience is undefeated. Sooner or later, debauchery takes all. The society moves towards individualism and the present moment, and this present movement breaks the society's ability to achieve collective goals. 
+
+The only way for tradition to exist is if we are a part of a larger national project than one or two generations. The only larger national project is a cultural and ethnic project, formed over generations.
+
+If you want your nation to last, do not become an empire. Empire is the supernova of a dying race. 
+
+
+What if the human project is not about what we do, but who we are? What if those obsessed with large scale achievement are those who have no internal faith in the propagation of their genes?
+
+If life is about who we are, producing a healthy and surviving population is the most important thing. 
+
+But if life is what we do…
+
+The long term is disregarded. God is left behind. Anyone can choose anything; anyone can be anyone. 
+
+Regardless of race, creed, sex or religion - the sky is the limit. Long-term projects are irrelevant. Everything is here; everything is now. All that matters is what a *person* can produce. 
+
+But what is an individual compared to a couple? After all, isn’t another human being the most significant production of all? A child?
+
+And so, what is a couple compared to a family? After all, a healthy family is a much stronger organism than a simple man and woman.
+
+But what is a family compared to a community? After all, the children will need to marry and have children of their own. Wouldn’t it be great if there was a community of like-minded people who could exchange children for marriage? 
+
+And so, round and round we go. 
+
+
+

Light of the West/Godly.md

@@ -0,0 +1,150 @@
+
+**God**
+
+The Alpha; the Omega; the source of Life and matter. 
+
+**Life**
+
+The most complex and most impactful Order.
+
+**Order**
+
+Collaborating or organized matter.
+
+**Chaos**
+
+Dispersed or unorganized matter.
+
+**The Game of Life**
+
+Life forms are always moving, always changing. As long as we are alive, we are in motion. Therefore, we are always changing.
+
+Because we are always changing, we are always growing or shrinking. A body is always gaining or losing energy; an organism is always gaining or losing cells.
+
+The reason we are always changing is because the world is always changing. At every moment, our environment is shifting around us. 
+
+The ultimate mission of Life is growth. Growth can be in quality or quantity.
+
+Quality determines the depth of connection a life form has to its surroundings. Quantity determines the physical number of the life form and the area it occupies.
+
+When a Life form deepens its connection to its surroundings, it achieves better Quality. When a Life form expands itself, it achieves better Quantity.
+
+The effort to achieve both is the Game of Life.
+
+**Nation**
+
+A group of humans that coordinates to defend and govern a geographic area. This area is larger than a tribe, but smaller than the Earth.
+
+**Nations are Organisms**
+
+Nations are living things; they are organisms. They are always moving, always changing, and are always growing or shrinking. 
+
+The only thing a life form does not do is stay the same, because only dead Life stays the same.
+
+At core, a Life form wants to grow. We want to expand. This is the mission of Life.
+
+A Life form which succeeds in this is Godly. It is Good for Life.
+
+Therefore, a shrinking Life form is bad for Life. This is our current position. There are two explanations for this: either we are reaching the end of our natural Life, or we are making the wrong choices.
+
+If we wish to understand what is happening in the West, we must know which of these is causing our decline.
+
+**Why is the West Shrinking?**
+
+Our goal, as a nation and a people, should be Godliness. It should be Goodness for Life. It should be Growth.
+
+Growth, in the barest sense, is reproduction. We are born into this world with no children. Through our lives, we create children and therefore growth. We grow our families, our villages, and our tribes.
+
+Therefore, to be truly Good for Life, we must pass our Spirit to the next generation.
+
+This is primarily through genes, and secondarily through culture such as buildings, art, stories, and so on.
+
+So:
+
+**How may man pass his down his Spirit?**
+
+The first step for a man to pass down his Spirit is to acquire his basic needs.
+
+These needs are food, water, shelter, community, and a mate.
+
+If a man cannot acquire these, he cannot pass down his Spirit.
+
+Conversely, if he can acquire more of these than he needs, he can pass down more of his Spirit. 
+
+The ability to acquire these needs is dependent on two things: Man’s relationship with the Land, and Man’s relationship with other men.
+
+These two relationships are named Economics and Politics.
+
+**Economics**
+
+Importantly, the ability to acquire material needs from the land is dependent on where the man lives.
+
+Therefore, since a man cannot be Good for Life if he does not acquire these needs, what is Good is also dependent on the Land in which the man lives.
+
+A man who is Good for Life is a man who interacts with the land in a manner which is both stable and bountiful.
+
+Bountiful, because it allows for health, joy, and reproduction.
+
+Stable, because if it does not last then it cannot be considered very good.
+
+This aspect of Spirit is the economic. It is the question of interacting with the land to produce material gain. 
+
+Although it is dependent on the land, there are certain Human qualities which are almost universally considered good. They are:
+
+
+
+**Politics**
+
+There is another way to produce material gain, though, and this is to interact with people. This is the political aspect of Life. 
+
+
+
+This depends on the way man interacts with the Land.
+
+Is it feasible in the long term? Does it produce higher Quality of Life?
+
+
+In Northern places, Godliness takes the shape of restraint.
+
+Time spent indoors, as well as dangerous Nature, encourage these traits.
+
+For these reasons, Christianity is an essentially Northern religion.
+
+Christianity domesticates men, so they will interact with each other well.
+
+
+Historically, there was a layer of Kings and Aristocrats on top of European Christian nations.
+
+These men were less domesticated.
+
+They fought for power and took many wives.
+
+They acted more like Africans than the middle class.
+
+The low class, also, was this way.
+
+
+There is an innate connection in European nations between those who have plenty and those who have none.
+
+Between those of much comfort and those of much strife.
+
+They are the most niggerly of the bunch.
+
+
+
+However, they are niggerly in different ways.
+
+The aristocracy is originally the same. It is coarse, rough, and willing to fight.
+
+Over time, though, the aristocracy becomes safe and wealthy. It ceases fighting.
+
+The peasants, however, never lost their spirit. They face pain and toil.
+
+Cultural production is associated with the aristocracy because the aristocracy is polarized between war and leisure.
+
+Therefore, they produce culture when they are at leisure. Because culture is often made of things which are not directly related to survival.
+
+The more a man is guaranteed of his survival, the more he can produce culture for its own sake. He can read, write, play music, and so on. 
+
+None of these things are directly related to economics, politics, or biological survival.
+

Light of the West/How To Judge a Political Entity.md

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+
+
+1. Level of Civilization
+How large is the collective?
+How internally peaceful is it?
+How externally peaceful is it?
+
+2. Culture
+How has the geography shaped the race?
+How has the race shaped the geography?
+
+3. Time
+How long has it existed?
+Have there been any significant migrations?

Light of the West/Individualism is Decline.md

@@ -0,0 +1,387 @@
+
+**Life is a river --**
+
+**Life may grow;** 
+
+**Life may shrink;**
+
+**but Life will never stay the same.**
+
+
+~
+
+
+**The study of Life is the study of populations.**
+
+This is especially true for organisms who live in groups - such as ants, chimpanzees, and humans.
+
+All life forms are moving; all life forms are changing. 
+
+Cells grow; cells die; cells change. Life is never still. 
+
+Compared to a moment before, a man is never the same age, health, size, weight, intelligence, or skill.
+
+The same can be said for a people.
+
+At any moment, a people is growing or shrinking.
+
+At any moment, a people is improving or declining.
+
+Humans are populations; groups of the greatest species on Earth.
+
+The greatness of a life form can be measured by quality and quantity of Life. 
+
+Any population can be measured by these metrics.
+
+Because human populations have spread across the whole Earth, and have formed the strongest reality-connection of any species, we are the greatest animal.
+
+To maximize the size of population and strength of connection to reality are the highest callings of any Life form.
+
+**Therefore, it is the duty of any population to maximize quality and quantity of Life.**
+
+This is what it means to be Godly: Good for Life.
+
+Humans have always been limited, first and foremost, by our survival needs: food, water, and shelter.
+
+Humans have always formed collectives to obtain these needs.
+
+**Humans have always needed collectives to survive.** 
+
+We began with the smallest collective: the tribe.
+
+Over time, collectives have increased in size.
+
+**As we grow a collective, we increase our supply of resources**
+
+**As we increase our supply of resources, we grow the collective.**
+
+**This is the cycle of civilization.**
+
+Civilizations are great spikes in both the quality and quantity of Life.
+
+They are examples of populations which become very successful.
+
+But collectives do not always increase.
+
+Every civilization has fallen. 
+
+At some point, Persia, Greece, and Rome all began to shrink.
+
+Their populations began shrinking, and so did the land they controlled.
+
+Their resources became reduced, and their standards of living decreased.
+
+There are many sub-populations within humanity. 
+
+The result is families, races and nations.
+
+As with any other animal population, human sub-populations are observable groupings of genes and customs.
+
+A certain set of families takes over a certain piece of land, and forms customs based on their interaction with the land.
+
+These customs are known as culture.
+
+Over time, the families are shaped genetically by the land and by circumstance.
+
+This shaping is known as race.
+
+The genes of a population shape its customs,
+the customs shape the genes,
+the land shapes both,
+And God shapes the land.
+
+Human collectives are usually formed based on genes and customs.
+
+The Tower of Babel explains how this came to be.
+
+However, there are two great exceptions:
+
+Rome and America.
+
+Rome and America adopted universalist principles - a reversal of the Tower of Babel.
+
+Under these collectives, any person from another collective could join.
+
+The promise of both collectives is success.
+
+Rome and America were both the best in the world.
+
+They were willing to accept anyone for material success.
+
+They nullified competition by posturing themselves to accept anyone who showed loyalty
+
+They were not inherently opposed to any man
+
+They quit the competition of populations and genes to collaborate instead
+
+**They lauded the Individual**
+
+For Rome, this process began after defeating Carthage
+
+For America, it began after defeating Hitler
+
+And shortly after the individual began to reign supreme, the nations began to fall
+
+Why?
+
+The tribe, not the individual, is the atomic unit of humanity.
+
+Individualism doesn't exist in nature.
+
+Collectives are required for success
+
+By embracing individualism, men forget where success comes from
+
+As Cicero said at the fall of the Republic, they “retreat to their ponds”
+
+When the men of the collective forget its importance, they open its doors to other men who are harder workers
+
+They open its doors to men from worse circumstances
+
+Individualism is an anti-competitive philosophy
+
+By extending the collective to all humans, the collective becomes anti-competitive
+
+And since Life comes from collectives, not from individuals, this precedes the fall of the Civilization
+
+If no man will die for his nation, can it remain alive?
+
+After the Republic fell, Rome could not effectively recruit soldiers
+
+If the point of Rome is success and comfort,
+If the point of Rome is a good lifestyle,
+If the point of Rome is to be a good for the individual: *why would that individual die for it*?
+
+Today, this is becoming the point of America too.
+
+And, sure enough, the military recruitment is falling
+
+Why would a man choose to die?
+
+A man will only die for something greater than himself
+
+A greater collective, a greater cause
+
+But our cause has been weakened
+
+It has been opened up wide
+
+All humanity is in our scope
+
+And unlimited comfort and freedom
+
+So why would we fight?
+
+The men don't fight, and the collective shrinks
+
+They say that we should judge people as individuals, not populations.
+
+But when we see immigration to our countries, are these newcomers judged as individuals?
+
+When a man steps onto our land, does anyone in our country know him? His attributes, his origin, or his values?
+
+The purveyors of immigration do not.
+
+They ask us to judge as individuals, but only after these men have stepped across.
+
+We are told to accept these new men first, and ask questions later.
+
+But if these men are not known by anyone as individuals, and they enter the land as a vast group, the only natural response is to judge them as such.
+
+The only natural response is for us to judge the Muslims on our thoughts of the Muslims; the blacks on our thoughts about the blacks; and the Mexicans on our impressions of their race.
+
+Unless we learn their individual merits, there is no way to decide.
+
+But we cannot learn their individual merits, because there are millions.
+
+And the truth is that they do not want us to decide.
+
+Anyone who supports mass immigration and who resists mass deportation is not an individualist, but a collectivist of the worst kind.
+
+They are a collectivist against our people. 
+
+And the one, single, coherent way to respond is in kind:
+
+To be for our people.
+
+Not just our culture, our laws, or institutions. But our very soul.
+
+Foreigners can be judged as such from outside the border: but they were not. 
+
+They invaded, and took this land for their own. 
+
+Not as individuals, but as their people. 
+
+And so: we are ours.
+
+And this is our land.
+
+And they will say that anyone who says this is a racist
+
+And I would have to agree
+
+They would say it is xenophobic
+
+And I would agree
+
+Because these are the only options in the collectivist life of a human being
+
+Today we compete as a group
+
+Or one day, not too long from now, this all falls apart.
+
+And one generation of our descendants bears the full brunt of the price
+
+Paid in blood,
+
+And they will ask: why?
+
+Because we would not play the game.
+
+We would not compete.
+
+Man has always been groups
+
+Man needs groups to survive
+
+The health of the nation is the health of the man
+
+If man seeks himself, the nation will wither and die.
+
+So do not go gentle;
+
+but FIGHT
+
+FIGHT 
+
+FIGHT
+
+Fight for the Light of the West.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+The medieval Briton, for example, has much more freedom to choose his life than the prehistoric tribesman, who is bound to rigid tribal customs and the ever-present danger of starvation
+
+To summarize: 
+human collectives have always been necessary, 
+human collectives exist primarily to manage and obtain resources,
+and successfully obtaining resources results in higher individual freedom.
+
+In the 18th century, amidst the rise of the British Empire - the greatest collective the world has ever seen - the philosophy of "individualism" began to appear
+
+America is a beacon of individualism because our ancestors found themselves on a vast, untapped land with an effective society and supply chain
+
+Therefore, because there were so many resources and so much open land available, the obvious philosophy was to maximize freedom
+
+But in a society with overpopulation and resource scarcity, individualism becomes much less attractive
+
+The health and prosperity of the collective determines individual freedom, not the other way around
+
+
+
+We live in the most large-scale collectives that the world has ever seen
+
+When someone refers to an "individualist" system, what they mean is a humanity-scale, technological collective which works to maximize "individual freedom"
+
+Because the study of humanity is the study of collectives, and because these systems desire to "individualize" all humanity, they are fundamentally anti-competitive systems
+
+They wish to eliminate conflict between human collectives, such that they are the only one
+
+The origin of humanist collectives is non-humanist collectives which achieve great prosperity
+
+This prosperity allows the leaders and thinkers to expand their mind's eye far past the immediate concerns of the nation, towards the corners of the Earth
+
+It is impossible to have a humanist collective unless the society is **already** large-scale and prosperous
+
+Freedom comes from prosperity, not the other way around
+
+
+
+Individualists are the greatest collectivists of all
+
+They are collectivists on the scale of all humanity
+
+They are the first in history to draw a political framework which includes every human being
+
+They believe humans are fundamentally similar, and can each be compared individually
+
+They believe in a government so all-knowing that it can adjudicate cases based on individual merits
+
+This is the Civil Rights Act
+
+They eye of government is so powerful that it is watching every decision in the workplace, every hour of the day, and will judge whether an individual is deserving of certain treatment
+
+
+
+"Woke" is the desire for a less powerful humanist government, and more powerful governments based on other collectives
+
+Therefore, the "woke right" suggests either getting rid of laws like the Civil Rights Act, or making the federal government less humanist
+
+The truth is that the humanist sector cannot allow this, because in lieu of the Civil Rights Act, new governments would form and supplant it as the greatest power
+
+The humanist government must break up all other collectives which could be a threat to its power
+
+
+
+Traditionalists have correctly identified that anti-competitive and monopolistic behavior is not sustainable
+
+We have identified this because we see humanism destroying our own populations
+
+The birth rates are down, and we are being supplanted by other gene pools
+
+We are in a state of stagnation and shrinking, signs typical of a bureaucratic monopoly
+
+Our governments have begun to recognize this, and now they must choose between one of two options:
+
+1. Double down on the humanist monopoly, and take as many foreigners as possible to stimulate growth and perpetuate the system
+2. Dismantle the humanist monopoly, rebuild exclusionary collectives around the native population, and attempt to achieve previous levels of success
+
+The humanist monopoly will bring short-term satisfaction but will erode long-term prospects
+
+There is no country in history which has retained power for long after hollowing out its culture
+
+Currently, in 2024, the incoming Trump administration has not decided which route it will take
+
+They have made statements across the spectrum
+
+These are the signs of each:
+
+**Monopolism**
+Donald Trump and his campaign have consistently disavowed racism
+Donald Trump has suggested giving citizenship to students who study in America
+Elon Musk is a global businessman who lauds "human values"
+Elon Musk has suggested more high-skilled immigration
+Vivek Ramaswamy, a Hindu Indian, seeks a humanist monopoly
+J.D. Vance has an Indian wife
+
+**Traditionalism**
+Donald Trump wants to deport illegal immigrants
+J.D. Vance has suggested that America is not just a system, but a people
+J.D. Vance and his staffers are interested in traditionalist thinkers
+Elon and Vance are concerned about Western birth rates
+Elon and Vance have increasingly warmed to Christianity
+
+**Overall**:
+The administration is biased towards Westerners, but is not ideologically committed to us
+They would prefer that we are the engine for growth, but they will seek others if we do not provide it
+This is an opportunity to become a driver for growth, while eroding the standards of humanism
+This is the only way to achieve lasting success
+If we fail, immigrants and outward pressure will further erode Western people and culture
+This erosion will collapse the civilization with two or three centuries.
+
+So how do we become a driver for growth?
+
+
+1.
+***Each man in nature, according to his ability***
+
+2.
+***Community***

Light of the West/Indoors vs. Outdoors.md

@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+How optimized are you for indoors versus outdoors?
+
+This is the heart of the cold-warm, indoors-outdoors, asian-black, collectivist-individualist divide.
+
+Art is a good representation.
+
+As art evolved into “modernity,” it shifted from a more indoor and person focus to a more nature and outdoor one.
+
+This can be seen in the Romantic movement in the 1800s.
+
+As this happened, color palettes became lighter. Dark medieval portraits and scenes gave way to bright landscapes.

Light of the West/Is an idea best judged by its strongest supporters or an impartial party?.md

@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+
+The party is supposed to be God, of course.
+
+If we believe ourselves to be an "impartial party", we are playing God.

Light of the West/Liberalism, Conservatism, Expansionism.md

@@ -0,0 +1,109 @@
+
+If you aren’t seeking new land for your race, nation, and culture - you will lose the land of your race, nation, and culture:
+
+
+~~
+
+
+For sixty years, Westerners have been told that politics is either liberalism or conservatism. This is a lie.
+
+As conservatives know, liberalism is the force which destroys our society. Liberalism is abortion, regulation, and open borders. Liberals want to to reduce the citizens, control the citizens, and give aid to the citizens' enemies. 
+
+The way our society is set up, Conservatism simply opposes Liberalism. As sixties conservative William Buckley said, the conservative is the man who "stands athwart history, yelling Stop". 
+
+Apparently, the yelling hasn't worked. Our countries have been getting more liberal every year. 
+
+And really, why wouldn't they?
+
+If half the men in a boat are rowing backwards, and the other half are staying still, the boat is will move backwards. Just because half the men have stopped, the boat isn't going to stop with them.
+
+In fact, for the men who want to keep things the same, the *only* option is to row forward. Only then will they have a *chance* at staying the same. And this is why conservatism is the big lie of the twentieth century:
+  
+In Life, at any given moment, we have _three_ choices: 
+
+GROW, Shrink, or Stay the Same.
+
+Liberals are rowing our boat backwards, and conservatives yell "stop!". But where are the expansionists? The men who want to GROW our society? Where are the men working to export our people and our traditions, and to acquire more land?
+
+Up until now, these men have not existed. And nobody knew they were an option.
+
+That's because Expansionism died with Hitler.
+
+And, if we want to live, we will have to resurrect it again.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+This is a problem, because Conservatism is not a sustainable mindset - in Life or in politics.
+
+So why do we have it?
+
+For the past 80 years, anyone who has identified with Western Tradition has been defined as a "conservative". 
+
+Let's consider the implication:
+
+What does it mean to conserve? According to the dictionary:
+
+1. To protect from loss or harm; preserve.
+2. To use carefully or sparingly, avoiding waste.
+3. To keep (a quantity) constant through physical or chemical reactions or evolutionary changes.
+
+So, in summary: to conserve is to protect, preserve, and maintain. So let's replace that in the original statement:
+
+For the past 80 years, anyone who has identified with Western Tradition has been defined as someone who is protecting, preserving, and maintaining that tradition.
+
+Protect, preserve, maintain: what is the similarity between these? In a word, they are all defensive actions. So, for the past 80 years, love of Western Tradition has been assumed as defensive position. Anyone who loves the West is only expected or allowed to respond to assaults on that tradition: only to protect, preserve, and maintain it. The deception is so great that most Westerners have never considered the third option: what if we sought growth?
+
+What if we sought to *grow, export, and expand* our culture? And why do we not?
+
+After all, the Earth is a finite place. At any given moment, our peoples and borders are touching each other: pushing against one another, in a dance of expansion and contraction. Somehow, it has been chosen that *we*, the West, will contract. We were never given another option. Most of us don't know one exists.
+
+Conservatism is the option to stay the same. As conservative icon William Buckley said, the conservative is the man who "stands athwart history, yelling Stop". (https://www.nationalreview.com/1955/11/our-mission-statement-william-f-buckley-jr/) Hardly an inspiring battle cry. Sure enough, Liberalism is winning.
+
+For sixty years, we in the West have been given the option to either shrink or stay the same. So, of course, we shrink. If half of society wants to shrink and the other half wants to stay the same, then society will shrink. Worse, society will then shrink even faster, because it has lost strength.
+
+Ask any man on the street: which is the most healthy mindset? Grow, shrink, or stay the same?
+
+Grow, of course.
+
+Yet, that option has been unspoken for the past 60 years.
+
+It is true: Conservatism fights against Liberalism: but <i>only to keep things the same.</i> Conservatism only advocates enough people to maintain our numbers; only enough freedom to placate enthusiasts; and only enough borders to keep the culture intact.
+
+Consider a man who says "I only want to keep the job I have"; "I only want to keep my current relationships"; "I only want to stay as good as I am". Is this man a good influence? Do you want him in your job, or as a companion?
+
+If he is very old, perhaps this mindset is understandable. But even then - do you think he will succeed?
+
+Life has never rewarded the mindset of hoarding resources and living on past achievements. In a world which is always moving and changing, seeking growth is required <i>just to stay the same</i>.
+
+Not only have we never chosen to grow, we have fallen prey to an even deeper fact: *there is no such thing as Conservatism*. Conservatism is a mirage; an idea that Life can somehow be frozen in place. But, nobody can stop Life. Life is always moving, growing or shrinking. The only question is in which direction - and for a generation, the direction has been against us.
+
+Life is a river: we can swim against the current, or be carried back. To do nothing is to be carried back. To even have a <i>chance</i> at conserving what we have, we have to seek growth. Endlessly fighting the current will only tire us out. Then, as we are, we will drown. But, we haven't: so, for 60 years, the men who fought World War II and their descendants have lost control over large amounts of territory. This is not opinion: in 1960, 35% of the Earth was white. 99% of Britain was white; 90% of America was white. Now, 20% of Britain is postwar foreigners; 36% of America is the same.
+
+https://x.com/ScenicTrailAppr/status/1827917915229962600
+
+This third option died with Hitler, 60 years ago.
+
+If we don't seek more land and more people, it is obvious that the culture will fade as well. Perhaps, the entire civilization. This is not acceptable.
+
+Life may grow; Life may shrink; but Life will never stay the same.
+
+The basic game of Life is people and land. Conservatism seeks to conserve these; Expansionism seeks to expand them; and Liberalism forgets them altogether.
+
+The Postwar era is over. Conservatism is over - because it was never real to begin with. It was a mirage - a comfortable death for a culture which lost the will to grow. Birth rates in all Western nations are below replacement. Conservatism is the path to death.
+
+Conservatism must be abandoned. Liberalism never worked to begin with. That only leaves one option: seek growth. So, stop identifying as a conservative.
+
+To fight for the Light of the West, we must embrace Growth. Therefore, we must embrace Expansionism.
+
+Surely, people have understood this before me. But, nobody has succeeded in doing it. 
+
+So: 
+
+Why did Hitler lose? Why was America affected? What prevents us from expanding now?
+
+  

Light of the West/Mass Psychosis and Jews.md

@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+
+*Removing Leeches is a Prerequisite to Life, not a solution to it.*
+
+Many men who are not a part of high society look upon high society and do not understand it. They see the culture and the rulers and it feels alien. They see their nations declining, and they believe these strange elites are orchestrating everything. 
+
+Before the Jews, it was the Illuminati, the Freemasons, the Aliens… the Jews are simply the newest and perhaps most potent manifestation of the is psychosis. The Jewish obsession is the result of the body of the society, the low-class and blue-collar man, and its desire to assign blame to the mind for our present moment.
+
+Now, the blue-collar man is not entirely wrong. The mind of the West has been infiltrated and subverted by leftists, and especially by Jewish leftists. They have also infiltrated the media and financial institutions. In fact, almost all Jews in America are leftists - and they are very disproportionately powerful. 
+
+So, in a way, this particular psychosis is closer to reality than ever before. It identifies a real problem, and has real grievances against the pain this problem has caused.
+
+However, the chief problem is that they assign a mysticism to the Jew that does not really exist. They seem mystic to the blue-collar, partially because they are not European but especially because they are intellectuals. Because the body does not understand the mind.
+
+The real truth of Western decline is that it has been in motion for hundreds of years; since before America existed. There is no easy answer, there is no single group, and there is no reason to become obsessed with one.
+
+The real problem is that everyone is disconnected. Disconnected from God; from the land; from history; from each other. These things are the result of individualism and collectivism and technology on a massive scale. They are a comfortable life with no connection to the past, and therefore no connection to the future.
+
+The hard truth is that every civilization, time and time again, has fallen to these influences. They have not fallen because the Jews were pulling levers behind the curtain, but because they *wanted* these things. People *want* comfort. People *want* to live in the moment. That’s not the Jews - it’s human nature. 
+
+Ironically, the Jews themselves are also falling prey to many of these influences. This is why they have so many leftists and homosexuals and other degenerates in Israel.
+
+Of course, we should stop sending billions to Israel. Of course, we should get rid of AIPAC influence on our politicians. We should rid our media of degeneracy and our universities of communists.
+
+But if we actually manage to do this, the question for many people, currently in the throes of psychosis, will be “now what?”
+
+Without Jewish influence, the world will not be a paradise. Migration will not stop. War will not be over. The Boomer life will not be suddenly granted to the young. All our problems will still exist, just with less distortion around them.
+
+When we have broken free from that distortion, we will have two options: fight the invaders who try to subvert us, or continue to fight the Jews who have dwindling power in this country by the day.
+
+The right answer will be to fight the invaders; the risk is that some may be tricked into continuing some crusade against the Jews in the name of “humanity”, “Christianity”, or some other idea.
+
+If we really want to be competitive and respected in the Game of Life, removing leeches is simply the first step. The next step, getting into the arena and fighting, is much tougher.
+
+If we throw off the leeches and ignore the wolves at the door, we have failed as a nation. Life is not ABOUT leeches. They are annoying, and you swat them away. If your life is ABOUT leeches, you are probably avoiding some other problem.
+
+Do people really have the will to reverse decline? To become a nation again? Or are they seeking an east solution to a very deep problem? 
+
+Only time will tell, but I fear it may be the latter.

Light of the West/Men and Women.md

@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+
+She hangs onto you as you move.
+
+She stays home when you go.
+
+Men drive society forward; women bind society together.
+

Light of the West/Mind vs. Gene.md

@@ -0,0 +1,320 @@
+
+Does society favor the reproduction of the honest?
+
+Those who freely express their thoughts and opinions?
+
+If the violent can't express themselves, they are repressed and do not have a physical impact on the space around them. This includes a lack of reproduction.
+
+Connection to the land increases with perception, emotion, and individualism.
+
+Ants are so unaware of their surroundings.
+
+They are moving, turning, grabbing, aligning.
+
+But does the ant sit and observe? 
+
+No. 
+
+He is driven by *signal*, not *perception*.
+
+~~
+
+
+*How many people do you rely on -*
+
+*How many people are responsible for your Life?*
+
+*How much uncertainty can you sustain in your Life?*
+
+*How immediate is the energy from your actions?*
+
+
+Movement and risk tolerance are directly linked.
+
+Does Industrialization make products cheaper, or does it make cheaper products? 
+
+
+
+Will Durant says there are four components to civilization: Economics, Politics, Religion, and Culture. Of these, economics is our most direct connection to nature. It is how we eat, drink, and shelter ourselves from the storm.
+
+It is commonly thought that the individual is the atomic unit of society: the basis on which all else is formed. This is false.
+
+Humans were not formed to live alone. Our smallest and most ancient unit is the tribe. This is a familial unit on the scale of hundreds of people. Such primitive tribes still exist in nature.
+
+Individualism as a political ideology is innately tied to a relatively large governmental size. Individualism and advanced Western technology are not coincidental in their appearance: they are the same.
+
+
+
+**Society is a trade of individual liveliness for predictability**
+
+But which is better, who can say?
+
+The ants are a successful species. But so are the lions.
+
+The West and the East worship these different human archetypes. 
+
+There are two ways to narrow the gap between what one desires and what one has: one is to increase wealth, and the other is to decrease desire.
+
+The Asian societies are antlike - great masses of individuals, subservient to the greater organism.
+
+The Americans are bearlike - powerful autonomous individuals, who enjoy stretching out and hunting on large pieces of land.
+
+However, neither ants nor bears are the animals most similar to humans. That honor goes to the ape.
+
+African societies are the societies not moving towards a new archetype.
+
+The Africans are chimplike - small clans of warlike individuals, often living from naturally-growing food.
+
+The African lifestyle, then, is most similar to other primates. If evolution is true, both capitalism and communism are opposed to this African state of being, which has existed for millions of years. 
+
+They are both large-scale social structures, seeking opposite ideals of human experience - individual autonomy and collective coordination. And, therefore, Capitalism and Communism are very similar.
+
+Yes, capitalism is collectivist. The strange paradox is that, even though the American society worships individual autonomy - there are no sovereign humans in nature. Individual autonomy is only possible through technology. Technology is inherently collectivistic. Therefore, individualism is a collectivist ideology.
+
+Capitalism and Communism are, so far, the two most collectivist ideologies in history. 
+
+Imitation of both the ant and the lion require a high level of verbal intelligence to sustain. They require agriculture, pastoralism, and robust government structures.
+
+The least collectivist ideology is the tribe. The tribe is the smallest self-sustaining human unit that has ever existed. It requires the least technology and verbal thought to operate. 
+
+The development of communication and technology are tied, because the vast majority of technology is reliant on a larger supply chain. And the larger supply chain is reliant on communication. And communication is reliant on technology.
+
+The development of communication and the amount of order and stillness in society are also tied. The more movement all individuals have, the less of an ability they will have to coordinate en masse. 
+
+This is because mass movement must be learned through the brain, unlike individual movement. All humans know how to eat, fight, and reproduce. Anything beyond that requires learning and brain-led action. To conduct this learning requires stillness and outward attention. 
+
+A sort of paradox in America now is that many men seek to become as collectivist as possible, typically through technology, with the hopes of one day becoming an individual with purely animalistic instincts. 
+
+In other words, many men spend vast quantities of time in brain-oriented stillness, with the dream of one day simply cruising on a boat and having sex and eating well.
+
+Since 1945, the culture of the America has begun splitting from the ideal of the bear. We have increasingly fluctuated between wanting more and less movement; more and less coordination; individualism or collectivism. This is an existential threat.
+
+We have built a structure with a particular level of complexity. We are now fighting on whether we should increase or reduce it, with wider and wider gaps between the proposals. This war threatens the entire structure.
+
+Farming and law are such complex structures that we have no direct animal analogue.
+
+Beavers and ants are good comparisons, though.
+
+Pastoralism is the highest calling of all - an existence based on the ordering of other large creatures.
+
+Ants practice some form of pastoral agriculture with Aphids, herding them to safety and feeding on the sweet substance they produce.
+
+Ants also farm. Leafcutter ants bring leaves back to their den and grow fungus to be consumed.
+
+
+*Logic is Lower Bandwidth than the Senses*
+
+So, we have the two archetypes: lion and ant. Both of these archetypes are distant from the original primate.
+
+Interestingly, one thing which follows from this distance of archetype from the ape is that both sorts of societies have a “distance layer,” which is a large group or set of groups whose sole focus is distant times or places.
+
+This “extra layer” of society consists of all the technological and civilized jobs which deal in high levels of abstraction: the more civilized, the more distant the affairs.
+
+Take, for instance, academic studies:
+
+The primary purpose of all academic study is the ability to map or manipulate distant matter. This is the usefulness of science, math, history, philosophy, and computing. 
+
+Some careers which involve such geographic or temporal distance are engineering, journalism, radio, or air travel. 
+
+Here, distance does not mean simply physical distance but also time. The purpose of science is to discover experimental results which can be replicated over large distances. These distances could be geographic - scientists in other countries should get the same result - or temporal, meaning that scientists 300 years from now should get the same result.  
+
+Africans, however, are close.
+
+Africans display characteristics common among all primitive apes and humans: a mind focused almost solely on the present and small social structures. 
+
+There are conservative critiques of the infertility of modern liberalism. And, it is true: progressive ideals directly destroy the birth rate through abortion, open borders, and loose morals. 
+
+However, Western conservatives are still liberal compared to the rest of the world.
+
+And, Western conservatives still have a lower birth rate than the rest of the world.
+
+Indeed, there seems to be an inverse correlation between civilization and birth rate. 
+
+Now, from the African perspective, can they not make the same critique of us? That ours is an infertile culture?
+
+Empirically, it would be true. 
+
+Even in our larger societies, we are only able to form deep connections with several hundred people. This would imply that the human social mind has not changed as fast as the human society. 
+
+It seems the most blissful human existence is that of the successful tribesman.
+
+After all - is Life not the ability to move unimpeded?
+
+Is all Life not wrapped in that desire?
+
+Expand. Grow.
+
+Life is about how much you can move without pain.
+
+Kanye has spoken many times about how he wants to make everyone more like a child.
+
+About how he believes children are where good is contained.
+
+This is directly polar to the "grown up" inhibitions which prohibit movement in the world.
+
+Life is walkable. Life is spontaneous. Life is colorful. Life is energetic. Life is rich. Nearly every action is Life or Death. 
+
+Technology is a facsimile for Life. As is verbal thought. 
+
+Too much technology means too much disconnection from Life or Death. The “power process”, as Kacyznski calls it, is not achievable. Everything is either boring or impossible. There are no hard, vigorous tasks to be done. 
+
+Our logical mass of control is a safety net, but too much of it results in slow death.
+
+And, indeed, it seems what whatever is experienced or produced within this net is inferior to what is experienced or produced in raw nature. 
+
+Consider music: for all the speakers and sound systems for a concert, the most beautiful and substantive sound is the raw voice of the singer. We may diffuse this information; compress it so it can be communicated over time and space; but something is always lost. We can never surpass the basic experience of our ears. 
+
+Logic is lower bandwidth than the senses.
+
+
+*The Evolution of Technology*
+
+Technology is tools. An ape and his rocks; a hacker and his computer. We all use tools to shape reality.
+
+What’s the difference between a rock and a computer? Mainly, it is the computer’s long path from raw materials to finished product. 
+
+All tools are made from nature. However, the length of the path from raw materials to tool varies drastically. This difference in length is the difference between natural and social technology.
+
+The more natural a technology is, the shorter the path from materials to product. Rocks are perhaps the most natural technology: apes use them to crack nuts. Fire is not as natural, but close. No society is required to create or use it. The ingredients are directly in nature.
+
+Social technology is technology whose value or creation is derived from society. The more a technology relies on societal order and cooperation, the more social it is. A computer is the extreme example of a social technology: to create one, we need giant supply chains spanning multiple continents.
+
+When we speak of technology today, we nearly always mean social technology. The vast majority of American lifestyles are reliant on a huge and intricate supply chain. As computers become more common, this supply chain is getting even bigger.  
+
+Actually, it turns out, the vast majority of all technology ever invented is social. There are few really natural technologies. Fire, primitive buildings, tools, and farming are natural. But most of what we see is social. Even mechanical clocks, which are an obvious necessity today, was not invented until around 800 years ago. Before then, the medieval societies simply relied on the sun.
+
+This means that when we think about technology, we are implicitly thinking about society. When we think about whether a certain amount of technology is good or bad, we are really thinking about whether a certain amount of *society* is good or bad. In other words:
+
+“How much technology is good?”
+
+Is the same question as 
+
+“How large is the ideal society?”
+
+As we have seen over the past 6,000 years, social technology compounds on itself. We invent writing; this births law; law births the nation; the nation births roads; roads help us transmit the law and any other idea.
+
+This means that there is a big secret embedded within the most technology: it's not actually about the technology at all.
+
+The secret of humanity's technological evolution is that it only happens through changing human genes. Specifically, we have altered human biology to make us more sociable. This is how civilization forms. Aggressive outliers are conquered, punished, and killed. This allows the members of a previous tribe to integrate into a larger whole.
+
+It is the exact same idea as the domestication of dogs from wolves. Aggression is punished, while friendliness is encouraged. Over time, this creates organisms which can exist in close harmony with little or minimal violence.
+
+The Jews are the oldest and most effective civilizing force. The Africans are the oldest and most effective animalistic force. The confrontation between Jews and Africans is the final battle of civilization itself.
+
+This is why Africans are everywhere in media. It is part of a two-pronged Jewish strategy. They use the host civilization to exert force on their next target for domestication, while also making attractive overtures of a better life to the target's citizens.
+
+The problem, though, is that European civilization is becoming unstable. We are still very early in the process of African domestication, so if civilization were to fall it would be catastrophic for Jews and Europeans alike. Apparently, there is a strong possibility that Germanic civilization will implode before the Jews can establish a strong foothold in Africa. Already, blacks like Candace Owens and Kanye West are running a direct campaign against Jewish power.
+
+Therefore, from a Germanic perspective, the same playbook can be run. Exaggerate black opposition to the Jews, while making overtures to them on the basis that this civilization is Germanic, and if it falls then it will be catastrophic for Jews and Germanics alike.
+
+At the same time, we must establish more primal communities in some areas. We must be able to balance the African energy with our own. We must have many spectrums of primality among us, such that if one is to fall then the more ancient communities can continue.
+
+
+
+As noted in the previous chapter, our nations yearn for more collaboration. Is this because we are afraid of competition? 
+
+
+
+
+
+Social technology itself has two primary classifications: transportation and communication. 
+
+Of these, transportation is more fundamental, because communication technology is really just the transportation of very small items (such as electrical impulses, or letters in the mail). Before electricity and the telegraph, transportation encapsulated both.
+
+Most technologies are a mix of natural and social:
+
+Natural gas, for instance, is very useful for physical manipulation. It is also, of course, natural. However, it can only be extracted and refined through a very lengthy and expensive process which requires the cooperation of thousands of humans. Therefore, natural gas is very social, even though it comes from the Earth and manipulates the Earth extensively.
+
+Tesla cars are another example of overlap. Tesla is using physical technology to make its cars, but the cars rely on heavy communication between each other and with the man-made roads that our society has built. Teslas are not built for a non-centralized society. Therefore, even though they are physical inventions, they are also extremely social.
+
+
+
+Social technology makes up the vast majority of all inventions. Collectivization, supply chains, and the exchange of knowledge have allowed for drastic rates of invention.
+
+However, this raises questions for our own civilization: one which seems to be faltering under the weight of its own collectivist goals. The Globalists, after all, worship technology. This worship is shrinking us. But can we have technology without centralization?
+
+Can natural gas be refined by a small community? Can a computer be made by a village? No. The more social technology is present, the more centralized society will be.
+
+This puts us in a difficult position. We want to live technological lives, like the Globalists. But we also want to be fruitful and multiply, like the Barbarians. Is there a middle ground? How much centralization should humanity have? How much should we focus on technology?
+
+
+
+Nature is God's domain. So is the church, which was previously the brain of society. Thus, even within Christianity, we can see the principles of competition and collaboration at odds.
+
+If we want to think of "left" and "right", perhaps we should find the ultimate expressions of these principles. My argument is this: the fundamental principle of "left" is increased collectivism and centralization in human society. The fundamental principle of "right" is living in the old ways, which means living like the apes and the original humans.
+
+This would create an implication that the Africans are the most right-wing human race, and the ultimate conservatives. Along with some scattered tribes on the Earth, the Africans are very slow to collectivize and collaborate on a large scale.
+
+If it is true that the Africans were the first humans, this further argues the point. They are, in fact, the most traditional human beings on Earth. Civilization itself is a liberal idea.
+
+This also implies that it is primitive peoples who are most reliant on God. They exert little control over the physical world, relying on weather and natural patterns in order to survive.
+
+In society, on the other hand, many of the citizens are quite disconnected from God's domain, and therefore are less directly reliant on God and more reliant on other people. The level of centralization we have today is vastly taken for granted.
+
+
+
+Look at this famous email from Steve Jobs:
+  
+From: Steve Jobs, sjobs@apple.com
+To: Steve Jobs, sjobs@apple.com
+Date: Thursday, September 2, 2010 at 11:08PM
+
+I grow little of the food I eat, and of the little I do grow
+I did not breed or perfect the seeds.
+
+I do not make any of my own clothing.
+
+I speak a language I did not invent or refine.
+
+I did not discover the mathematics I use.
+
+I am protected by freedoms and laws I did not conceive
+of or legislate, and do not enforce or adjudicate.
+
+I am moved by music I did not create myself.
+
+When I needed medical attention, I was helpless
+to help myself survive.
+
+I did not invent the transistor, the microprocessor,
+object oriented programming, or most of the technology
+I work with.
+
+I love and admire my species, living and dead, and am
+totally dependent on them for my life and well being.
+
+Sent from my iPad
+
+
+
+Each man in nature according to his ability.
+
+
+
+The church used to be the brain and the workers used to build its cathedrals.
+
+They still do - but we worship humanity and technology instead of God and Nature.
+
+The church was the DNA of society. That is its function.
+
+Now, the DNA is the universities, technologists, and researchers.
+
+
+
+Technological society will have Catholicism.
+
+Natural society will have Protestantism.
+
+America is becoming more Urban and settled, and therefore it is becoming more Catholic.
+
+
+Thesis of the Globalist religion
+
+Is the womb the greatest inventor, or the brain?
+
+Are humans the greatest creation, or human systems?
+
+
+
+
+ 

Light of the West/New Heights.md

@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+*The Vision*
+
+
+
+
+

Light of the West/Next Steps.md

@@ -0,0 +1,105 @@
+
+
+Build Community
+	1. Find others in the network
+	2. INDUSTRIALIZE. Even a small metalworking shop is useful.
+	3. Have Children
+	4. Arm Yourself
+	5. Take over local and regional governments
+	6. Take any chance to shift the Overton Window
+	7. Only buy from good companies
+
+
+**Repeal Gun Laws**
+Concealed Carry reciprocity
+
+**Eliminate Visa Rules for White Europeans across Nations**
+
+Britain - 6 months' stay
+	Can refuse for any reason after that
+EU - 90 days on, 90 days off
+
+How do we get into Europe? 
+
+Ireland has a travel visa that lets you stay for a year
+
+**Education**
+Not required to follow national curriculum, only to provide basic standards
+
+*Britain*
+Best to never enroll child, thereby making it so that no approval is required in England or Scotland
+Homeschool is legal, schools are required to say yes to withdrawing child in England. Scotland requires local approval
+Only oversight is local councils, rare for intervention
+
+*Ireland*
+Apply to Tusla, they check for minimum objective standards
+
+**Civil Rights Act**
+
+**Divorce Laws**
+- MS and SD are the only ones without no-fault
+- Mississippi: This state does not allow unilateral no-fault divorce. Both parties must agree to the divorce for it to proceed under no-fault grounds. If one party does not agree, the divorce must be based on fault.
+- South Dakota: Like Mississippi, South Dakota also requires mutual consent for a no-fault divorce; if one spouse objects, the divorce must proceed on fault-based grounds.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Britain
+Communications Act
+	Overwhelm them with content (shift the overton window)
+
+
+25 Steps
+
+1. Establish mainland, self-sufficient communities in reliably white states (Vermont, Maine, West Virginia, Montana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas)
+2. Arm and take over local governments
+3. Achieve positive birth rates
+4. Found Hyperia in Alaska
+5. Take over state governments
+6. Conquer neighboring states
+7. Liberate England, Germany, Scandinavia
+8. Repeal the Civil Rights Act
+9. America 80% white by 2150
+10. 
+
+
+
+
+
+
+**New Heights**
+
+We must surpass what we have previously achieved. Clearly, though, we have taken a wrong turn: somewhere in the last 300 years. We are going to have to go back until we find it.
+
+Where we stand now is bad. Our national governments and corporations have been captured. Our nations have been occupied. Our birth rates are negative. Therefore, it will take time to recapture lost territory. 
+
+It is tempting to think that we can have the best of both worlds: maintain our comfort and quality of life, while also finding expansion and growth. We can’t. The comfort is what destroys us. 
+
+We must dig in our heels and move quickly; reducing dependencies and quality of life. We must be ahead of the trends instead of responding to them. We still have a strong civilizational foundation, spanning more than a millennium. We must save the traditional culture, especially before the 18th century. We must move towards nature. We must find the point of balance and growth again. We cannot know exactly what this point will be, but we will know when we find it.
+
+This must be done on the small-scale, community level. Communities and regions must find ways to provide for each other.
+
+The name of the game:
+
+REDUCE DEPENDENCIES
+
+Cancel subscriptions to companies like Amazon, Netflix, and Apple. 
+
+Forego shopping at companies like Walmart, Target, and Lowe’s. 
+
+Stop banking with big banks. Buy gold. Come up with gold standards which the community is used to exchanging. 
+
+Homeschool children. If this is not possible, teach them traditions anyway.
+
+Reducing the supply chain is not easy, and that is why this is not an individual movement. The *community* must find ways to fill the gaps in the supply chain, as best we can. 
+
+We must find self-sufficiency. We must have pride for the community, and a willingness to compete. 
+
+On a national level, we ought to vote but not to waste too much time. Vote for candidates who will help us to reduce our dependence on giant centralized structures.  
+
+

Light of the West/Old/Brain vs. DNA.md

@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+
+Land, namely the Earth, is the basis for all human life.
+
+A [[Culture]] is the relationship between people and land. 
+
+However, is it the relationship between the land and its people, or the people and their land?
+This question is at the heart of the Globalist - Tribalist divide.
+
+The question, when posed this way, is a question of whether we are reliant on greater forces or whether we are gods who will shape the universe.
+
+
+
+[[Invention]] is the greatest shaper of the universe - whether the invention of life itself, or one of life's inventions - such as the printing press.
+
+This question can be phrased another way - which is the primary mechanism of invention?
+Sexual, or mental?
+
+Mental invention, such as of writing or the steam engine, has been one of the primary drivers of human life.
+However, sexual invention has birthed humans themselves.
+
+
+
+*The Thesis of the Globalist Religion*:
+We have created humans with the capability to produce paradise and eternal life. Therefore, the project of sexual invention is over. Now, we can use brain invention to supplant sexual invention, and this will enshrine us as gods. 
+
+A mind-based, Globalist perspective seeks to replace the invention mechanism of DNA with inventions of the human brain. Essentially, they believe future life will come from the human brain instead of from sex.
+
+This is an interesting assertion, because it essentially argues that the brain is a better information storage and retrieval device than DNA. DNA stores, so far, the greatest information we could think of - the information of Life. The brain stores the Globalist's preferred medium of information, human symbols.
+
+
+
+A lot of this philosophy comes form too much comfort. Overthinking and comfort lead to a preponderance of theory and wishing without actual substance.
+
+
+
+Now, one could argue that the DNA is obviously better for this than the brain - after all, DNA stores information for the brain itself. But now, we have the computer - so the question then becomes, can the brain create a storage device which is better than DNA?
+
+The one advantage of the brain in this argument is that, though it stores less information than DNA, it has more ability for interconnection. Or does it?
+
+Certainly, we can communicate thoughts through the computer, but we can also communicate emotions, which can be thought of as a more DNA-based communication mechanism.
+
+  
+
+Because they believe this, they believe distinctions based on sex and DNA are outdated. They believe that the idea of an ethnic nation is outdated. They try and minimize differences between the nations - and between people.
+
+
+
+The greatest mechanism for invention is sex and DNA.
+
+The idea of one nation ruling the others is the idea of one set or type of DNA ruling others. Building a nation used to be the project of building DNA.
+
+The project of the church is sexual invention of people who are like Christ.

Light of the West/Old/Collectivism.md

@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+
+*What do you fight for?*
+
+Since 1945, we’ve been indoctrinated to think that collectivism is bad because Europeans destroyed each other in World War II over collectivist ideas, such as race, culture and nationality.
+
+The idea that America is not a collectivist country is a lie. Liberalism and humanism are the most extreme forms of collectivism - because they advocate fighting for the biggest collective of all, humanity. “Human rights” and “individual liberty” are human collectivist justifications, which have been used for invading several countries over the years.
+
+Human collectivism is collectivism based on humanity - based upon the idea of fighting for certain concepts or truths inherent to humanity itself. 
+
+This is not to condemn human collectivism, but to make people aware of what it is. Christianity is a form of human collectivism - and it is a great form of human collectivism because it has an accurate idea of human nature. Christianity acknowledges that we are not perfect, and cannot build a perfect world. Globalist collectivism is the opposite, and thus is one of the greatest threats we face today.
+
+Pulling people together because of identities depends on how much life that identity brings. The truth is always “some”. But like any concept, they will never fully bring life.
+
+There is a difference between globalism and globalization. Globalization is just a description of what happens when humans become prosperous - we develop better communications and travel technologies. There is nothing inherently wrong with globalization - it is a natural byproduct of prosperity.
+
+Globalism, on the other hand, is the new religion which is built around globalization. Globalism and Individualism can both be religions, and are both the same thing. Think about it - from the perspective of a globalist leader, what will give that leader the most power? If every intermediary power structure is insignificant. If everyone is atomized into an individual. Individualism is the natural ideology of someone who wants to rule all humanity.
+
+It is the strange situation of America - America was founded on a cooperative structure of Christianity and Globalism. The founding fathers explicitly stated rights as individual, inalienable, and human. Thus, they laid a legal groundwork which, if true, applies to all human beings. They also stated that the government was intended for a religious and Christian people, which the original citizens vastly were.
+
+Now, Christianity and Globalism seem to be divorcing. Many in government want Globalism without Christianity, and many Christians want Christianity without Globalism. 
+
+So - why?
+
+The current globalist/nativist divide is not a divide between individualists and collectivists. It is not even a divide between secular and religious - it is a divide between addicts and realists.

Light of the West/Old/Cooperation vs. Competition.md

@@ -0,0 +1,380 @@
+e/acc vs. Effective Altruism
+Rich vs. Poor
+Tycoons vs. Christianity
+Nationalism vs. Globalism
+  
+
+**Competition and Cooperation**
+
+Today’s society loves the synthesis, but not the decomposition.
+
+I heard a quote from a priest yesterday - “When we do things that are destructive to Creation, we’re not working with God.”
+
+Can life exist without death?
+Can a fire burn without gas?
+Can a crop grow and not uproot the grasses?
+Can a fruit be eaten, not wither in acids?
+Compose a song without erasing a note?
+Take a job without crushing a hope?
+
+Well, nature says no
+It’s the way of the world
+So can we write better genes without deleting strands?
+
+The answer seems to be no, because this is not the way of nature.
+Is the way of nature the way of God?
+Is eternal salvation God’s offer in exchange for how he tills the fields, fans the flames, eats the fruit, composes the song of Civilization?
+Did God imbue us with destructive ideas to clean up bad parts of Creation?
+
+If we as nations choose to collude, will God break up our monopoly? 
+Is human monopoly as bad for God as company monopoly is for our economies?
+
+Was the Tower of Babel a story of God breaking up our monopoly on nature?
+Was 9/11 another?
+
+Can a society exist where men avoid pain and danger of hard work?
+
+Can a society exist where women avoid the pain and danger of childbirth?
+
+Can we lift the curses of Adam and Eve?
+
+Only through technology, globalists say. Because technology is their God.
+
+There is tension between the idea of God and the idea of science because science says that this pattern of consolidation and competition is how we are formed, while the Bible says that we were formed by that ultimate creative process - God - which makes no mistakes. But is that really real creativity?
+
+Perhaps competition is more in the moment and God’s message is in the past and future, precisely because when we are in the moment we don’t need the message.
+
+It certainly seems like both competition and collaboration are required at different times, when helpful. Rigidly having one or the other is the problem with the jihadists and the globalists.
+
+
+**Biology**
+
+  
+
+How fast does human nature change?
+
+  
+
+What is the human biological relationship with geography?
+
+  
+
+Is the great human project one of genetics?
+
+  
+
+Is the greatest competition in life that of genetics?
+
+  
+
+Is the competition of genetics the competition of Life?
+
+  
+
+As Darwin says, does competition make our genetics better?
+
+  
+
+When the span gets broad enough, genes always become diverse?
+
+  
+
+Are we may bodies, or are we one body?
+
+  
+
+Do cells in the body compete with each other or do they work together? Or both?
+
+  
+
+Where do our desires come from?
+
+  
+
+Is good genetics the highest form of Quality? Of Plato’s Good?
+
+  
+
+Is Jesus the ultimate example of good genetics?
+
+  
+
+  
+
+**Groups**
+
+  
+
+Is it wrong to compete against other people groups? 
+
+  
+
+It is right to compete for our families, but it is wrong to compete for our ethnicities? Nepotism is okay, but racism is not?
+
+  
+
+At what point does discrimination for family become discrimination for race?
+
+  
+
+We will die for our family. Will we die for our race?  
+  
+Seeing other cultures is great. But what about living in other cultures?
+
+  
+
+Is it more fun to be with your friends? People who think like you?
+
+  
+
+Are “diverse” communities made up of people who can’t fit in to the previous, normal groups?
+
+  
+
+Are people rejected from ethnically-based communities because of their genetics?
+
+  
+
+Do ethnically-based groups have a bad judgement of genetics?
+
+  
+
+Who has the best view of genetics?
+
+  
+
+How much can we understand about others’ genetics?
+
+  
+
+How big of actions can we take based on others’ genetics?
+
+  
+
+  
+
+**Globalism**
+
+  
+
+_I remember when that guy got mad at me because I attacked him, saying it was “less ideal” than collaborating. But what if it was ideal in the long run for me to have the land and centrally control it? Depends on my abilities._
+
+  
+
+Is Globalism is the ultimate expression of the human mind?
+
+  
+
+Why is it that so many atheists profess darwinism, and yet spend little time thinking about which human behaviors or characteristics are good for life? Mostly, it seems they are thinking of what they want life to look like.
+
+  
+
+Why do so many atheists dislike competition? Isn’t that the point of darwinism? Competition will produce better life?
+
+  
+
+Perhaps prioritizing the mind starts with darwinism but leads to utopianism?
+
+  
+
+Perhaps utopianism is a rejection of life?
+
+  
+
+Is globalism pushed more often by those who are genetically intelligent?
+
+  
+
+Does the empire grow by attracting genetic rejects from other cultures?
+
+  
+
+Do gay people want to believe globalism because globalism makes reproduction less important?
+
+  
+
+Are they rejects because of their genetics?
+
+  
+
+Does the empire grow by being so capable that it can cater to them? As a status symbol?
+
+  
+
+It is a status symbol to be so rich that you can promote people who don’t produce life?
+
+  
+
+Do people who run the empire simply not like life? Want to change its characteristics?
+
+  
+
+Is the empire a rejection of life?
+
+  
+
+Is stopping conflict a rejection of life?
+
+  
+
+If the Globalist project succeeded, what if one group of people became genetically superior?
+
+  
+
+Is individual atomization the best way to achieve globalism?
+
+  
+
+Is globalism the death of nations, or the union of nations?
+
+  
+
+Does the Tower of Babel story doom globalism?
+
+  
+
+Are different languages necessary for those with different genetics?
+
+  
+
+  
+
+**Christianity**
+
+  
+
+Is Christianity a project of genetics?
+
+  
+
+Is the point of Christianity to peacefully prioritize those who produce life?
+
+  
+
+Is Christianity a peaceful competition to promote life, while still providing for those who don’t?
+
+  
+
+Has Christianity changed our genetics?
+
+  
+
+When we live in Christian societies, do we genetically become more like Christ?
+
+  
+
+Why is Christianity slanted towards collaboration?
+
+  
+
+Because it is competing with everything else?
+
+  
+
+Will the New Earth be a place where everyone competes but the worst of competition is eliminated?
+
+  
+
+What should be a Christian’s relationship with the land?
+
+  
+
+What is the relationship of Jews and intelligence and money? 
+
+  
+
+  
+
+**Rights**
+
+  
+
+How much of prosperity comes from genetics?
+
+  
+
+Do human rights come from prosperity?
+
+  
+
+Does prosperity come from God?
+
+  
+
+  
+
+  
+
+**My Answers.**
+
+  
+
+“From a biological perspective, nothing is unnatural. Whatever is possible is by definition also natural. A truly unnatural behavior, one that simply goes against the laws of nature, cannot exist, so it would need no prohibition.” - YNH
+
+The implication of this quote is to separate nature from life. When people call a behavior unnatural, they usually mean it goes against life.
+
+  
+
+  
+
+Religion is based on human nature - e.g. how to live
+
+  
+
+Government is based on combining human nature with current circumstances.
+
+  
+
+Childhood is about building identity - reconciling one’s nature with society and the world.
+
+  
+
+Adulthood is about using one’s nature in the proper way.
+
+  
+
+**Excellence** 
+
+  
+
+Ability and morality are not separate
+
+  
+
+The pinnacle of excellence - and the union of ability and morality - is to provide for yourself and the people around you. 
+
+  
+
+Writing a computer program is like writing DNA - which is what parents and Christ and successful people do
+
+  
+
+Every society has its warriors, merchants, priests.
+
+Christianity phases out the warriors and priests.
+
+It builds people who build.
+
+It phases out those who can’t build and who destroy.
+
+  
+
+The paradox of competition is that it builds cooperation. The way to unite a country is to give it an enemy - the way to unite the world is to find aliens.
+
+Competition magnifies differences with who we’re competing against and shrinks differences between those on our side.
+
+  
+
+Yin and yang _are_ competition - but they **_collaborate_ to make up the world**
+
+Opposites are the most similar things, because they are in each other’s orbit. And thus they can be described by a unifying principle.
+
+E.g. left shoe and right shoe - “pair”
+
+Capitalism vs. Communism - Economic Ideologies
+
+Competition vs. Collaboration - Life?
+
+  
+
+Hegel’s end of history is the spiral being raised up based on opposing conflicts - like the DNA spiral?

Light of the West/Old/Culture.md

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+*A culture is the relationship between humans and their land*
+
+The stone pots, clay houses, log cabins, stucco walls, timber beams of traditional human structures make this relationship clear.
+
+At the heart of this relationship we have industry, which allows human life to grow by providing nutrients.
+
+A nation is a culture which has created a formal structure. This structure is the government.
+
+A religion is the people’s conception of the unknown and the external.

Light of the West/Old/Globalism vs. Christianity.md

@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+The interesting difference here is that Globalism respects mental reproduction while Christianity respects sexual reproduction. However, there are similarities as well.
+
+The Globalist vs. Christian visions of Heaven are very similar - free from physical burdens and differences between us. No marriage, sex, or reproduction. No hard work.
+
+The difference is that Globalism says we can achieve this vision now through technology, and Christianity says we can achieve this vision later through sex.

Light of the West/Old/Globalism.md

@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+
+Bill Gates says that the people he wants are the lazy ones because they can find new ways of doing things. 
+
+At some point, technology and invention have changed from doing more with what we have to getting more so we can put all our resources into making our lives easy.
+
+
+The truth is that life needs both competition and collaboration to grow. Different times call for different approaches. Neither should be demonized.
+
+Does Christianity idolize cooperation? Or is the point to provide a landing pad for failed competitors?
+
+  
+
+_Begin_
+
+The current globalist/nativist divide is not a divide between individualists and collectivists. It is not even a divide between secular and religious - it is a divide between addicts and realists.
+
+The scariest part of what’s happening today is that the Globalists are addicts. They are addicted to their vision of a perfect world and will fight tooth and nail to reach their perfection.
+
+Humans cannot create perfection. The human brain is not that from which all life springs, though it _is_ obviously our greatest asset.
+
+
+Globalists idolize the human brain; believe it can do anything. This is false. The brain has its limitations.
+
+
+Evolution clearly shows that the human brain is derived from concepts and processes outside of itself and its purview. The human brain, although great, is finite. We didn’t come from the brain - the brain came from us, and from God. Or physics, or evolution, or whatever you want to call it.
+
+  
+
+Invention itself is outside of the brain. The brain itself was invented - again, by God, Nature, Physics. The greatest mechanism of invention is sex and DNA. The idea that we can supplant that invention - that our brains are now chief inventors and nothing outside of them matters - is foolish. The process of invention predates the brain.
+
+  
+
+Every real inventor knows that there is no timetable for when invention happens. The Romans could have invented the steam engine - but they didn’t. We cannot control the timing of invention, and we cannot focus all our resources on it hoping that prosperity will pop out.
+
+  
+
+Globalists are attempting invert the relationship between mind and reality, and push a worldview where God, Life, evolution - all come from our brains. This is why they are attempting to build artificial Gods with AI, and why they believe everything will be automated. It is the pitch Sam Altman is giving right now to raise $7 Trillion dollars.
+
+  
+
+Even the development of AI shows that brain-first invention only goes so far. AI is a very impressive invention, but it has not at all lived up to the expectations of operation in the physical world. Many are still laboring on robots and self-driving cars, but the market success of AI has been on its information categorization and transmittal abilities. AI is taking white-collar jobs vastly more than any others. AI is a very useful map of the world - but it is not a useful entity in the world. AI people think that they are inventing a new world, but really all they are doing is reinventing the world of the mind. A better world of the mind is impressive, and clearly useful - but the world of the mind is not the real world. The mind is a tool to map the real world, not to be it.
+
+  
+
+Globalists like the idea that the world of the mind can be the real world because a perfect world is just that - an idea. A perfect world is not something we can create. Perfection is not real. Perfect is the enemy of the good. Needing perfection ends up draining more resources than it gives. Globalists need this perfect world - because they are addicted to it. Even as everything falls apart around them, they refuse to let go of their beautiful idea.
+
+  
+
+Perfection seems to be a function of comfort. Of the idea that everything that needs to happen and everything that will happen is already known - and the only thing holding back progress is other people.
+
+  
+
+The brain is not perfect - even though academics seem so gleeful to point out “cognitive biases” - they curiously seem to think that the human brain is birthing perfection. Maybe they think that their brain doesn’t have biases - only yours.
+
+  
+
+We cannot be thinking that the world will be ever be derived from the human brain. It won’t. The brain, and invention, will continue to help map and change the world. But God is the only fountain from which the world and life can come.

Light of the West/Old/Invention.md

@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+ Invention can be thought of as a new framework of knowledge - a new arrangement of atoms that change how an organism interacts with the world (Peter Thiel's Zero to One is an advocate of this.)
+
+In fact, Romer, an economist, believed that the only long-term growth of human economy was through the growth of knowledge. He proved this theorem and won a Nobel Prize.  When knowledge grows in society, we re-shape our interactions with the world, and therefore improve our relationship with reality.
+
+However, this growth of knowledge is not simply mental and symbolic knowledge - for, in face, genes are knowledge. Thus, invention - growth and molding of knowledge - is also a description of evolution, in which the knowledge-store of DNA is continuously improved over time to grow Life.
+
+  
+
+**Industry at its best is at the intersection of art and science** 
+
+Action and Observation
+Expression and Intake (of Information)
+  
+
+Algorithmic  - make it efficient
+
+Mechanical - make it run
+
+Artistic - make it beautiful
+
+  
+
+OpenAI
+
+Uber
+
+Stripe
+
+  
+
+Research - make it with our newfound materials
+
+Service - make it sell
+
+Reinvention - remake it with our newfound materials
+
+  
+
+  
+
+Provide experience -> Capture it
+
+Athlete - Tom Brady
+
+Designer - Design Trello

Light of the West/Old/Religion.md

@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+
+A religion is a [[Culture]]'s conception of where Life comes from, and of the unknown or uncontrollable parts of the world.

Light of the West/Options.md

@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+
+
+Land. Community. Liveliness. Calm. Growth.
+
+That is all that matters. 
+
+Liveliness and calm go together.
+
+Those under stress are never truly free or loose or moving.
+
+If IQ = Westernism = delayed gratification, the implication is that intelligence inherently comes with being anxious.
+
+Because part of the brain is living in some other moment.
+
+She did seem like an anxious person.
+
+But when I was with her I felt calm.
+
+Maybe that’s why I liked her.
+
+Because I always knew what she was going to do.
+
+I knew she was following me.
+
+It’s my job to bring her peace.
+
+Thinking means preparation.
+
+It is planning for future action.
+
+Low IQ doesn’t plan, it just acts.
+
+Interestingly, we consider premeditated murder to be worse.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Hyperia, local
+Hyperia, takeover
+Trade Job
+Forum

Light of the West/Quality of Life.md

@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+is a term often used to designate comfort.
+
+Curiously, increasing "Quality of Life" often decreases the Quality of Life.
+
+Because, if organisms do not interact with the world in a significant manner, they degenerate.
+
+They do not develop talents and abilities.
+
+The people who do not work hard, the cultural producers, team up with barbarians in order to preserve their free time.
+
+As Haywood Says: great brutality is required to retain cultural production.
+
+The ruling class uses the trifecta of individualism, collectivism, and technology to rule the world and disconnect people from the land.
+
+Individualism is the most insidious of all, because they use it as a pretense to make the collective bigger.
+
+They say "Look! If you conquer that nation, I will reward you with money and gifts!"
+
+And all the while, the collective becomes shorter-term and lower quality.
+
+One great big mass.
+
+
+
+In Civilization, it is always those at the top who enjoy the most comfort.
+
+This is how we began: kings lived richly, as a reward for their proficiency in violence.
+
+Those who endure the most strife enjoy the most benefits when they are resting.
+
+This is consistent with the negroid lifestyle. For the negroid, violence is sufficient for obtaining food. The man who retains his territory is the man who is rich.
+
+For Western man, this may be true, but the lands are less plentiful. This means that new archetypes must form: instead of hunter and gatherer, we begin to see herder and farmer.
+
+This domestication of the Earth and the Beast is the beginning of Civilization.
+
+It is the introduction of consistency, predictability, and delayed gratification.
+
+The motions of a herder snd farmer are less explosive and free than the motions of a hunter and gatherer.
+
+By creating a herd or a farm, man is narrowing his focus to a specific pocket of reality. This is the notion of property z 
+
+
+The largest is delayed gratification. Both of these disciplines require more thought and patience than hunting or gathering. However, they are very helpful when food is scarce.
+
+They allow man to be more stationary. This is consummate with a winter weather, in which man would rather stay with a fire than run around outside.
+
+There are exceptions, but for Western man this is the case.
+
+Even for nomadic man in the cold climate, he still must determine how to survive. He still must make clothes and shelter to protect him.
+
+This ability to control territory gave rise to an ability to accumulate resources.
+
+That is the birth of our society.
+
+Over time, resources became more plentiful. Industrialization accelerated this.
+
+The newfound offering of material wealth to peasants displaced the landed aristocracy.
+
+Suddenly, men who did not receive their credentials from war or the land became powerful.
+
+Our current decline, which began in the Enlightenment, is a phenomenon in which the peasants use kings as an excuse to gorge themselves. They use immoral kings as an excuse to abandon morality.
+
+The result of this is that the civilization becomes weaker and weaker. Because all the people become weaker.

Light of the West/Racism.md

@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+
+*Racism is Good*
+
+It is equally as stupid to say that:
+
+1. All races are the same
+2. One race has every good gene
+
+Races are different, and we as humans are perfectly capable of recognizing many of these differences. We have an innate understanding of familiarity, tradition, history, and culture. This understanding is natural and right, and it is a fact that all these things are tied to race. They cannot be untied. There is no racially neutral face, tradition, history curriculum, or cultural practice. 
+
+This is important, because humans are inherently [[Definitions/Collectivism|collectivists]]. Therefore, the story of humanity is the story of our collectives. And, if none of these collectives are racially neutral, then the story of humanity is also the story of races.
+
+The Bible is well aware of this. It is the reason why Abraham's lineage is traced so carefully, and why it was great  when God told him his descendants would "number like the stars". Because humanity is about community, the measure of a man is more about the community he can create and push forward than about his personal characteristics.
+
+A common critique of racism is that it is a new concept, developed in the 19th century, and therefore is not part of the Western tradition.
+
+This critique is effective against the large-scale political implementation of scientific racism and eugenics, which is a bad idea. But there are many ways to be racist, and one does not need to advocate for scientific discrimination to be discriminatory.
+
+For instance, when we see huge numbers of Mexicans coming over the border - Mexicans are very different from each other, but we know enough to know whether we want millions more or not. It doesn't take science, or even a scientific concept of race, to repel millions of foreign brown people invading our land. This way of thinking is timeless, and would have been shared by any Western nation throughout all history. In other words, Xenophobia is the human norm. Judging people's looks is also the easiest way to discriminate. And there's nothing wrong with it.
+
+If we understand this, and we understand that all culture is inherently tied to race, then we understand that any long-standing nation must be *correlated* with race. It must have a racial identity which people can understand.
+
+*Eugenics is Bad*
+
+However, scientific racism and large-scale eugenics are *new* concepts. And these concepts do bring considerably more risk.
+
+When we are racist towards large masses of unfamiliar people, this is a natural and healthy response. Any self-respecting nation should act this way. However, attempting to delve into genomics in attempts to prove or disprove the mass inferiority of another race is very different. There is nothing wrong with studying scientific racial differences, and in fact it is very interesting, but too much emphasis on these justifications brings us an entirely different form of racism.
+
+Instead of being naturally competitive and xenophobic, this form of racism is unnatural and an attempt to play God. When put into legislative practice, it is an attempt to replace natural forms of movement with artificial notions of which genes are superior. The truth is that we don't *need* to know whether a genome is superior or not - as long as a large group is unfamiliar or displeasurable to us, we are perfectly justified in repelling them from our lands. Or, even, taking some of theirs.
+
+However, it is unnatural to play God by determining the fate of an entire race with genetic science justifications. It also separates us from those people, in a different way than simply fighting a war with them. It makes the feud inhuman, and the killing mechanized. It is one reason the Holocaust is such a powerful narrative - because mechanized killing is disgusting to us in the same way as factory farming.
+
+The path is not to seek racial hierarchy from science, because what is the point? We will see their inferiority on the battlefield. That is how God chooses the winners.
+
+So, in conclusion: be racist. 
+
+Delve into the science, if you wish, but remember it is a supplement.
+
+They are foreign. They are weird. And we don't want them here!

Light of the West/Revolution from the Edges.md

@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+
+Sam Francis’ “Revolution from the Middle” is a great book, but the title is not quite right.
+
+Of course, the middle class will power the revolution when it comes. But they will not be the ones who start it.
+
+For years, two particular White American types have been targeted: the White English elite, and the White English country folk.
+
+It makes sense.
+
+In a takeover of a nation, who do you eliminate? You eliminate the men who can organize a large resistance, and the men who love the front lines.
+
+In other words, you eliminate the edges. You kill the cunning and daring of America: the foxes and the lions.
+
+When these edges are eliminated, the soft middle remains. Friendly farmers and shopkeepers are the heart of America, and they just want to live a quiet life. These men can be controlled into doing what the new state wants.
+
+The coming Civil War is this: the new elites versus the old. The foreign men of the empire will fight the American men of the nation.
+
+The men who built the Republic, the mind and body of America, are some of the only free Europeans left in the world.
+
+One day, the free-thinking men who face Asians and Jews at top universities will join forces with the free-wheelers who face blacks and Hispanics in their small towns.
+
+Then, the revolution begins.

Light of the West/The Fourth Quadrant.md

@@ -0,0 +1,182 @@
+
+
+This is the typical American political compass:
+
+
+![[Group 1.png]]
+
+
+The X-axis is Social Values and the Y-axis is Fiscal Values, and each of them can be conservative or liberal. Therefore, there are four different positions which we can take. These four positions are represented by the four numbered squares. They are:
+
+1. **Socially Liberal, Fiscally Liberal**
+2. **Socially Liberal, Fiscally Conservative**
+3. **Socially Conservative, Fiscally Conservative**
+4. **Socially Conservative, Fiscally Liberal**
+
+Now:
+
+What do we know about each of these positions?
+
+1: **Socially Liberal, Fiscally Liberal**
+This is the traditional Democrat position. These people are typically in favor of “socially liberal” aspects of society like gay marriage and modern art, and they are also in favor of “economically liberal” policies like free healthcare.
+
+2: **Socially Liberal, Fiscally Conservative**
+This is the Libertarian position. These people are traditionally advocates of “small government” and “individual rights.” They support socially liberal policies because they don’t want to use government for social purposes, and they support tax cuts because they don’t want to use it for economic purposes either.
+
+3: **Socially Conservative, Fiscally Conservative**: This is the traditional (pre-Trump) Republican position. It is the Mike Pence, George Bush, Koch Brothers position. It is in favor of “socially conservative” policies like banning abortion, and also “fiscally conservative” policies of small government and free trade. Therefore, we will label #1 as "Republican."
+
+4: **Socially Conservative, Fiscally Liberal**: So far, the other three ideologies are pretty simple. But what is this one? How many people in America identify as "socially conservative, fiscally liberal?" That is rare. Apparently, this ideology has no name. It is an entire quadrant of our political compass that is rarely seen or heard. It seems to bear some resemblance to Trump - who spends money using the government, institutes tariffs, and also supports socially conservative policies. But is it new? Why is it only happening now, and not any time in the past 60 years?
+
+All of these are important questions, which we will come back to later.
+
+As for now, here is the updated version of the compass:
+
+
+![[Group 2.png]]
+
+So, now that we have mostly mapped the different ideologies, we should examine the real question: 
+
+Why is America so unstable?
+
+Most people in 2025 can see how the Democrats contribute to instability. After all, many liberals and Democrats don't even like America. They certainly don't like America's founders. They seem to enjoy pointing out past American failures like slavery, and import large numbers of illegal immigrants into the country.
+
+All these things create political instability. They always would, in any country through history.
+
+The real question, though, is how America reached this point. How did we arrive at a time when statues of the Founding Fathers are being defaced and torn down?
+
+Every nation has its discontents. Every nation has its enemies. If we really want to know why America is falling, we shouldn't look at those. Instead, we should look towards the people who are supposed to stop them: the Conservatives. The "Right Wing." In the Postwar era, this is typically the Republicans.
+
+For the past 80 years, Republicans have generally fallen into category #1: Socially Conservative, Fiscally Conservative. This means that:
+
+1. Republicans are known to be more in favor of traditional Western culture
+2. Republicans are in favor of capitalism, as opposed to socialism or communism
+
+Most people in America consider both of these things to be "patriotic." That is why Republicans are considered "right-wing," "conservative," and so on. It is also the reason why Republicans have historically supported less immigration than Democrats. It is the reason why Trump ran as a Republican, even though he doesn't exactly represent either of these values himself.
+
+To understand Trump and our current situation, we have to ask: why didn't conservatism work?
+
+Clearly, Republicans have not conserved anything. They have let in vast amounts of immigrants, and have shipped countless jobs overseas. Through this, they have overseen the destruction of vast swathes of towns and communities across America. American culture is vastly more modernist, less religious, and less Western than in 1960. Additionally, more than a third of the people in America here have no pre-1960 ancestry.
+
+Why have "conservatives" supported immigration and outsourcing, even though they are not good for the citizens? Generally, the answer is money. Since 2016 immigration and free trade were pillars of the Republican platform. The "conservatism" of Republicans has clearly been focused on GDP, not on culture or people. Because of this, the international capitalism of the Republicans has destroyed vastly more American culture than it has saved.
+
+
+
+
+
+Now, people are beginning to realize this. They are putting their hope in Trump and Vance; hoping someone will fight for them again. And someone will. But there is a hidden cost.
+
+This four-part political compass represents options of government for a people. As far as I am concerned, most of the people who came to America after 1960 have little to do with me or my culture. The entire point is that we are shrinking; we have been since 1945. The reason is that we have no nation. We have been driving on autopilot for 60 years, and now it is beginning to actually hurt us.
+
+As people continue to wake up to the current situation, there is only one question that matters: will America once again be a nation, or will it officially become an empire?
+
+So far, there is no decision. Nobody knows the answer. Trump and Vance sit on the fence, because it does not benefit them to make a choice. But the real political conflict, the coming one, will be along these lines.
+
+People think Trump, Vance, Megan Kelley, Peter Thiel are nationalists. They aren't. They are Empirists.
+
+They are in the game of power, for the sake of power. They are not trying to create a cohesive organism; they are trying to create a system that can rule over as much territory and as many people as possible.
+
+Once this system is created; once it is solidified; many problems will be solved. Immigrants will be sent back. Peace will be restored on the streets. But the cost will be that Americans - real Americans - no longer have a nation. We will be cocooned in what is called America, which is really just the administrative seat of the Empire, enjoying ourselves and gradually shrinking into the void as a people while others take the reins.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+What do the Republicans represent? They represent Empire; power for powers' sake. They represent individualism, humanism, multiracialism, and globalism.
+
+Republicans, not Democrats, are the bearers of the Enlightenment. They are the lovers of multiculturalism. They are the ones who are focused on seeing the Enlightenment go as high and as far as it can go. The Democrats are merely a concoction of minorities and discontents; of people who would like to lead a nation and people who can't exist without one.
+
+In this sense, the Democrat party ends up being the more self-sufficient one. If the Democrats had their way, America and its empire would come crashing down. America would balkanize into multiple nations, each with its own responsibilities and more specific identity than "American."
+
+This is probably what will happen anyway. But not yet.
+
+Republicans represent a passing of the torch; a peaceful bargain to give away American land and responsibility to other races. This is what Rome did with the Ilyrians, Spanish, North Africans, and, most of all, the Germans. And, for a time, it worked.
+
+After the Republic fell, the Roman Empire survived for a long time. It had Gallic, Thracian, North African, Balkan, and Spanish emperors. Much of that time was troubled and chaotic, but Rome still survived.
+
+Finally, in Rome, the Germans gained enough power and energy that peaceful assimilation turned into violent conquest. Most people don't know that the Germans settled peacefully in Rome for generations; in fact, it was *legal* Germans who began the riots that destroyed the Western Empire. 
+
+So yes, assimilation can happen for a time. But just like an organ transplant, it always shortens the lifespan.
+
+It also degrades social bonds. It creates a fractured state in which citizens are often forced to rely on regional powers, and a cutthroat government which is held together by nothing but personal ambition of individual rulers.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+How do we square this? Is something off?
+
+Yes, something is very off.
+
+The problem is that Communism and Socialism have been lumped together as "government action" - but this does not make sense. Even before Capitalism, in the Middle Ages, governments routinely took actions in the economy. This continued with leaders like Bismarck in the 19th century. Nobody called Bismarck a socialist, though - he was the imperial ruler of Germany.
+
+Today, if I were to say that we should have an imperial rule by a royal family, people would think I am insanely right-wing. However, if I were to say that I want to increase government spending on social policies for the poor, people would immediately put me on the left. How does that make sense?
+
+Is this horseshoe theory? No. it is simply a lack of understanding.
+
+
+
+
+
+Most people say that Republicans are Democrats going the speed limit, and that is not actually true. Republicans are not Democrats going the speed limit; they are the foundation that allows the Democrats to be what they are. Republicans are the *source* of the American Empire, just as they were in 1865.
+
+Republicans are passionate about conserving legal immigration and economic growth. They are passionate about "individualism."
+
+What are Democrats for the past 80 years?
+
+1. Just like Republicans, but socially liberal
+2. Against international corporatism, but in favor of even more immigration than Republicans
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Now, let us consider the Libertarian definition of government for a second.
+
+Government is an entity which has a monopoly on force.
+
+Therefore, if you are socially conservative and fiscally liberal, what does that say?
+
+It says that you are a part of a biological entity, a nation, and this nation uses force to support its members. 
+
+How much force do your people have behind you?
+
+How much force supports people like you?
+
+And, as we now know, the answer for the past 80 years has been none.
+
+That is what the Republicans and Democrats have in common: they will not act in favor of the American people.
+
+The lack of "America First" politicians is not new. It did not start with Obama, or Bill Clinton, or any other modern president. It started with Hitler.
+
+Since Hitler's loss, our "Left" and "Right" have agreed on one thing: we will not put force behind our people. Our "Right," which we have typically considered the nationalistic side, is actually the Left. It is the side which demands we do not put America first. It is the side which demands individualism, outsourcing, and international cooperation. The "Left" is just the boogeyman that allows the "Right" to keep going.
+
+Do you get it yet?
+
+In America, "Conservatives" are conserving our collective pacifism. "Conservatives" are supporting constraints on our freedom of association. "Conservatives" are supporting legal immigration. 
+
+Democrats are simply pushing to do it faster. 
+
+If you want to understand why our politics is confusing, forget about the Democrats. Since the beginning of time, every nation has had malcontents and foreigners that want to bring it down. That isn't new or surprising.
+
+If you want to understand why America is in chaos, if you want to understand why the Democrats always get their way in the end, you have to ask the simple question. And you have to ask it to the *Conservatives*:
+
+Why don't we ever fight back?
+
+For 60 years, the Conservatives have been telling us why not. 
+
+They have been telling us about Hitler. They have been celebrating his defeat.
+
+Since then, not a single important politician has occupied that fourth quadrant on the compass.
+
+Not a single politician has been socially conservative and fiscally liberal.
+
+Since then, our people have had no force to back our interests.
+
+So, we have been shrinking ever since.

Light of the West/The Great Trifecta.md

@@ -0,0 +1,120 @@
+*Individualism, Collectivism, and Technology: the playbook of the Tower of Babel 
+
+This trifecta, this playbook, has been used devastatingly well by followers of the Enlightenment.
+
+The way it works is very simple. It flips narratives upside down, to confuse regular people about what they are actually fighting for.
+
+At each crucial turn in American history, this playbook has been used to subvert white European interests in favor of global ones. It has been used to convince Christians and whites to fight against our own long-term, in favor of the short. Perhaps, it is simply the song of a declining civilization.
+
+In America, we can see that it has been used in each of these instances:
+
+The American Revolution
+The Civil War
+World War II
+
+It appears that another such time may be coming soon. But first, let us examine the past:
+
+1. The American Revolution
+
+The Founding Fathers leveled many accusations of collectivism and tyranny against England. This is why America venerated the individual: because it was originally based on divorcing from the larger English collective.
+
+Now, it is not a bad thing that America became independent. It would be strange if it didn’t, considering how far away it is and how different it is from England.
+
+However, the ideological justification used to separate America was faulty. It was Enlightenment liberalism which provided the vehicle for American separation, and thus which resulted in a muddy sense of American identity.
+
+We are still haunted today by Jefferson’s proclamation in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal.” Of course, he did not mean it in the way today’s leftists interpret it. However, even in his original meaning, the statement is still wrong.
+
+Men are not born equal; the circumstances of a man’s birth can and should be considered. Of course, God willing, he can sometimes rise above these circumstances. Does this mean they are unimportant? No, it does not.
+
+After all, this is a classic argument of today’s individualism: “we are all human in God’s eyes. We are all individuals in God’s eyes. Therefore, we should not care about immigration, because to judge a man by his racial and national group would be judging him by his innate characteristics. And, this would be wrong.”
+
+By saying that we cannot or should not judge a man by his birth, we have made it impossible to manage a nation effectively. There are simply too many people to judge everyone as an individual. And, even if we try, wouldn’t this be playing God? Who are we supposed to trust with this role?
+
+The answer is yes, it is playing God. And the people who want you to trust them are the ones who use this playbook: they bring up God’s perspective and tie it with their goals for global government. Because people associate individualism with God’s perspective, it slips their mind to ask the question: is our government supposed to be assuming God’s global perspective on this Earth?
+
+That, of course, is an entirely different question. But it is always buried under arguments that “all men are created equal” in God’s eyes. And these arguments come from the founding. They gave the founders legitimacy and support to break with the Divine rule of King George, and to replace it. Not with another divine rule, but with a rule of the universal principles of individual rights. The rule which can be otherwise known as Babel.
+
+
+
+So: individualism, collectivism, and technology. How do these matter?
+
+American individualism 
+
+
+
+
+
+2. 
+
+In the Civil War, we can once again see the same sequence of operations.
+
+A nascent empire, with designs on neighboring land, pronounces that “individual human rights” reign supreme over collective considerations.
+
+Using superior technology and numbers, they defeat the nation with a stronger racial and cultural consciousness. Then, they integrate all the nation’s citizens as “individuals,” and use this victory to build an economic and technological machine even stronger than before.
+
+A large part of the arguments of Southern slaveholders, going back to the American Revolution, was that races are different. This was a distinction which existed poignantly in 1776: Benjamin Franklin, the most famous founding father at the time, believed that blacks people were the same as whites.
+
+Southerners did not believe this. Of course, they were correct. How could blacks be the same? God formed them in a completely different climate, with different temperament and survival strategies. Southerners, being the ones who generally interacted with blacks, understood that any nation which considered blacks as citizens would no longer be a cohesive nation. How could it? If a race is completely different, it will have a different culture. It will congregate with itself, if it has the numbers to do so. This was the obvious outcome, and it is clearly so today. Blacks have never completely integrated into America, because they are a different race.
+
+Nothing has really changed since 1776; but for the fact that Benjamin Franklin somehow reigns supreme. How is this possible? Black people are clearly different than whites, so how is the egalitarian position in power? Once again, it goes back to the playbook.
+
+The Union soldiers didn’t support black equality either; they would hate American blacks today. So why did they fight for this reality we are told is so good?
+
+Simple: they were led to believe, just as the Confederates were, that they were fighting for the good of their nation.
+
+When the Civil War was begun, the Union soldiers were not motivated by ideas of “human rights.” They were motivated by the idea that the United States was their country, and they did not want that country to be broken apart or attacked or morally judged. Therefore, although they had essentially the same loves and fears as the Confederates, they were convinced to intervene.
+
+In other words, the Union soldiers were basically as “collectivist” as the Confederates were. They were racist, nationalist, and xenophobic. They fought for a nation they thought they had.
+
+However, after the war, a new narrative was formed: the Union saved the “individual rights” of black people as human beings. Through this, blacks were allowed to now be a part of America.
+
+Did the Union soldiers want this? Not really. They certainly didn’t want blacks in their neighborhood. But that’s what happened anyway.
+
+See, *before* the war, it was a patriotic affair. The point was to keep the nation together; to prevent a fracture or moral mistakes by fellow men.
+
+After the war, however, it became a *human* affair. Suddenly, the focus went towards black people and their rights. This is when the first Civil Rights Act was passed: the Civil Rights Act of 1866. 
+
+The inclusion of a foreign race into the “nation” of America resulted in a permanent weakening of the homogenous American collective, and an increase in the size of the multicultural collective. This laid the foundation for America’s transition to a full empire, 100 years later.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+3. World War II
+
+Once again, World War II soldiers did not give their lives for the sake of homosexuals or Muslim-“Americans”. They gave their lives for what the country was at that time: a white, Christian, Northern European, segregated nation. Most of them supported segregation.
+
+However, as soon as they were convinced to intervene, as a “patriotic” matter, they did.
+
+And, as a reward for this intervention, they were given greater “individual rights” - I.e. they became richer.
+
+
+---
+**The Modern Day**
+
+So, “they” use this playbook every time. But who is “they”?
+
+“They” is, quite simply, Westerners who seek power at the expense of the long term. Commoners call them “Freemasons”, “Jews”, “vampires”, “aliens”, and so on. Really, they are all of these things (except aliens. I think…)
+
+Many people want a complex and conspiratorial explanation, but it is not so complicated. It is the same as Rome. As the civilization dies, it gradually becomes more focused on power and wealth than the long term. It becomes more individualist, collectivist, and materialist.
+
+
+
+
+So. We have seen how this pattern is applied every time. We also know that the West has begun shrinking and is under massive pressure from invasion. We can see how arguments against enforcing our borders come straight from the Enlightenment liberalism of 300 years ago.
+
+But how will it be applied again?
+
+We are reaching a nadir; this may be the peak of the entire cycle. After one more assertion, the collectivist-individualist-technological state will probably run out of life force and then accept massive importation of foreign organs for the body (I.e. immigrants).
+
+Currently, the American situation is approaching monarchy. It has been approaching monarchy since Trump, because Trump enjoys authority. 
+
+However, we are also approaching technocracy. J.D. Vance, Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, Marc Andreesen, and others have all adopted right-wing populist ideology in recent years.
+
+This is curious, because none of them seem like “men of the people”. Elon and Vance, maybe, but even those two are far less personable to the traditional conservative base than Trump is.
+
+We must remember: Trump 2016 was a thoroughly conservative presidency. Trump 2024 is not well described as conservative: it is more akin to raw power.
+
+The reason why our situation is strange is because this newly-ascendant technocrat camp is stretching America in two seemingly opposite directions: they are hungry to create more technology and empire than ever before, but they are also more overtly violent, xenophobic, and religious than any presidential candidates in the past 30 years.

Light of the West/The Light of the West.md

@@ -0,0 +1,144 @@
+
+
+Light of the West
+
+
+Caleb
+Robert
+Zach Arthur
+Jacob Nicoll
+Mark Rodriguez
+
+
+
+Be a great Man
+Quality 
+Strength
+Compassion
+Warmth
+
+The task of any nation is to be Godly, meaning good for Life.
+
+Each time a detractor points to death brought by the West, we can point to vastly more Life. All nations have us to thank for advancing the human condition.
+
+There are no set lines to what is “Western” and what is not - only degrees. However, we know some things are more Western, and more prosperous, than others: Christianity, Property Law, and our Western languages.
+
+We must not base our opinions on hate, but on building and protecting what we love. It is right to be angered by evil, but not to be consumed by it, or to seek it where none exists. We must push out evil from our lands, without falling to mobs or hatred.
+
+The world is in more disarray because we have left it so. We, the men of the West, have left the world to decay while we indulge in pleasure, giving money to leeching business and votes to terrible politicians.
+
+We must rise, we must bring order again, we must expand our cultures and lands, and we must go to Mars.
+
+
+Why Are We Here?
+
+Each Man in Nature, According to his Ability.
+
+The men of our societies know too much comfort. It is because national expansion has been relegated to the dustbin.
+
+The comfort sector of our culture is, largely, the corporate sector - the sector that makes money from consumerism and short-term pleasure. 
+
+“Feel-good” philosophy is a direct offshoot of this sector - 
+“Take a break. You’ve earned it.”
+“Love is love”
+“Tolerance”
+
+These values are promoted by big businesses because they are what are most profitable. If everyone can just “get along”, if corporations can make people forego all struggle or values in favor of “feeling good”, or “treating yourself”, then the CEOs will be the rulers of all. So, they try. 
+
+Now clearly, there is nothing wrong with multinational cooperation and multiculturalism. But it is not to be pursued at all costs - for many, it has become a religion, and this is wrong.
+
+The religion essentially believes that business and business values - tolerance, extreme politeness, refusal to have concrete opinions - will win over all others. This is, in some ways, the libertarian belief. 
+
+Many libertarians are hypothetically opposed to these liberal values, but they don’t realize that they are a natural offshoot from the idea of business as king, and government as weak or nonexistent. 
+
+Most liberal business leaders only care about our immediate desires. What will we buy today? But they don’t think about where we will be tomorrow.
+
+Comfortable nations can create a race to the bottom by adopting consumerist culture. This consumerist culture creates businesses which provide questionable value, and hire employees who are similarly questionable.
+
+Many marketing, finance, and communications majors in America are examples of the consumerist race to the bottom. They provide little value, and often work in capacities that are self-stroking. 
+
+This race to the bottom is not due to a fault of government legislation, but due to a fault of the will and vision of the nation. 
+
+Too much strife can also be a cause for concern.
+
+
+Life is a River
+
+We humans are on a search for life, and quality of life. I.e. - Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 
+
+National expansion has been extinct in the West since Hitler. The horror of his genocides, alongside the threat of the nuclear bomb, have confronted us with our own fallibility.
+
+However, Life is not still. Life will expand or contract; only death is truly still. Attempting to preserve an unnatural stillness in Life will only result in excessive strain. This strain will only result in contraction.
+
+In other words - one cannot tread water indefinitely in the river of Life. We must continuously swim to a better position, rest, and repeat. Otherwise, the river’s current will push us to a worse one. This is the process of Life, and it goes on forever. 
+
+It is the process our ancestors followed, all the way until 1939 - when the Germans chose to embark on a hasty and perilous grab at better position. The hastiness costed not just the lives of millions, but also the collective will of Europe. 
+
+Even the United States, which grew within its borders, has never much ventured outside them. We added two more states, in 1959, achieved the nice comfortable number of 50, and called it good. 
+
+Nothing is wrong with what has been done - what is wrong is that little has been done since. Malaise is a strong, gripping force. Elon Musk knows this all too well in the technological sense - being the first man to  again equal the achievements of 1969 - 
+
+This idea is not just true in a technological sense, but also in a political one. Systems and societies do not automatically get better over time. When societies lose milestones and ambition, they may have nice times in the short term but identity crises in the long. 
+
+
+Our Place in the World
+
+Technology
+We occupy the practical middle-ground between barbarism and utopianism - both of which are terribly destructive ideologies.
+
+We oppose the ideology currently known as Globalism, meaning the sudden smashing together of incompatible cultures in the dream of a perfect & interconnected global society.
+We promote the use of technology for increased collaboration between nations with similar ideals and beliefs - “The West” - in order to further the interests of our citizens and cultures.
+
+We understand that a wanton pursuit of perfect and complex order - the globalist pursuit - actually produces more chaos in the world, because it is a brittle ideology that does not succeed in the face of cultural opposition.
+
+We understand that to bring order and light in the world, we must recognize what is, and prioritize it more than what could be.
+To bring order and light into the world requires the willingness to face danger, and to take risks. These risks cannot be with haste and recklessness, but to gradually improve the world around us.
+To bring order and light into the world, we must be good citizens, not merely elect good leaders.
+To bring order and light into the world requires two traits: morality, and ability. To be leaders, we must exemplify both.
+
+Globalists & Jihadists
+
+Most societal problems come from those who know too much strife, and those who know too much comfort - the violent poor and the negligent rich. Viewing the West as one entity, these two predominant factions easily reveal themselves. 
+
+The global yin-yang - bearing in on the West from left and right - is the liberal globalists and the aggressive jihadists. The liberal globalists are present in every Western nation; the jihadists are more present in Europe than America - and, ultimately, a greater threat than America’s violent poor. 
+
+From this point, the globalists (as they are commonly known today), will be called “tolerators” - because tolerance is their religion. They believe, broadly, that all problems in the world come from humans being mean, and, thus, if everyone just tolerated each other and is nice - everything will be fixed! Most of them believe that the only thing holding back a perfect or pseudo-perfect society is a handful of human decisions.
+
+Broadly, we face the pincers of globalists who believe in heaven on earth, and jihadists who believe in eternal struggle. Between Brave New World and 1984; between idolizing what we love and caving in to what we fear. It is the Christian nation’s duty to find the balance.
+
+The difficulty with these poles is that they have made an unholy alliance with each other - the globalists import Muslims who are more right-wing than the most fervent Christian nationalists, and the Muslims love to come because it is free land. 
+
+It is truly evil - and I do not use this word lightly - because of how hypocritical and stupid the plan of the tolerators is. It does not work - these radical minorities do not become liberal because of the handouts, and if the Christians were to somehow be defeated the Globalists would be left with a far more terrible and contrary population to their values. 
+
+The globalists are derived directly from Christian society. They have “evolved” from Christianity because they have become rich and insulated, and now that they think this prosperity their natural state, they dislike Christianity because it seems to hamper paradise. So, they import an even more contrary minority simply for the pleasure of seeing the Christians reduced in power and the fantasy of having a different voter base.
+
+These very immigrants are successfully multiplying and spreading because they are fervently right-wing - and yet the globalists attempt to deny Western Christians any similar pride, heritage, or nationalism because they hope we will go extinct, and foolishly believe the Muslims will come to their side.
+
+The Muslims, meanwhile, have no intention of doing so - like all men, they simply want more land. They see free land being offered, pried away from its original inhabitants, and, of course, they take it. They don’t assimilate, and they don’t become liberal. They simply multiply. Now, Muslim countries are forming political parties for their little Western colonies. These colonies conduct politics in the Western system without ever speaking the language. By the time the isolated globalists begin feel the effects, we, the regular western citizens, will be all but burned away. This is what will happen if unequal law enforcement and indiscriminate immigration is allowed to continue. It cannot be allowed to continue. Immigrants must assimilate, and criminals must be deported. The globalist coup must end. 
+
+All societies have these poles - America, for instance, has a problem with crime in poor, African-American inner cities. America also has a problem with crime in wealthy liberal cities (i.e. San Francisco) who have given up prosecuting crime altogether. Sometimes, the wealthy liberal city and poor minority city is the same city.
+
+These factions individually exist in most Western countries (and indeed in almost all countries). However, they also exist in aggregate.
+
+America, of course, has its own problems with migration, but because it does not border the Middle East, the problems are much milder. Mexicans and Central Americans are largely Christian, and they are far more amicable and willing to assimilate than Muslims. 
+
+Therefore, while it is imperative that America curb all illegal immigration, and prevent all drugs and violence from entering, there is plenty of opportunity to work together with the Hispanic immigrants. We should think of these Hispanics as potential allies and future Westerners because, practically, they are - most of them are hardworking Christians who are willing to learn English. 
+
+As long as we can ensure legality and assimilation, we can afford to let in many more of them than Europe can afford Arabs.
+
+However, where America is concerned, there are also better opportunities at play. Instead of simply letting the Hispanic immigrants in, we should be meeting them where they are. Instead of wasting $10 billion on a wall, we can build hundreds of factories near the border. Thus, we can 
+	1.	Accelerate the removal of manufacturing from China
+	2.	Vet immigrants without immediately letting them into the country
+	3.	Ensure that these immigrants are safe and have work
+	4.	Bolster American manufacturing
+	5.	Expand relations with the Mexican people
+	6.	Combat Cartel Violence 
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

Light of the West/The Myth of the Objective Society.md

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+
+Objective truth exists. But this doesn’t mean we can run society on it.
+
+Baked into a James Lindsay-style argument about "objective truth" is the idea that society should be completely rational; that group actions should only be determined through logic and fact.
+
+What does this imply?
+
+That we are domesticated, of course. 
+
+It implies that we only act after our intentions have been communicated to others.
+
+If our group says everything we want before we act, and lists all the pros and cons of different actions, and only acts when we are certain we are correct… we are completely domesticated. No society would be afraid of us, because they would always know what we are going to do. Because we always seek social permission before we act.
+
+Logic and fact are real. Nobody should deny this. But it is possible to spend too much time on them.
+
+Humans need to eat. We need shelter. We need safety. 
+
+We need to keep our land.
+
+In the course of obtaining these things, rationality and truth are only useful as far as they help with the mission. They are a tool.
+
+And, therefore, if a man like James Lindsay says that we have subjective reasons for our politics - well, of course we do. We are humans. We are creatures. We have loves and fears; hates and wants. We have needs beyond mere logic.
+
+Logic is not the goal - survival is. Life is. Health is. Happiness is.
+
+It is, in fact, a great and remarkable con that "conservatives" have convinced our people of the opposite. They have convinced so many of us that the system - the corpus of logical thought and technology that rests on our land - is the point of Life. 
+
+They have convinced us that the point of Life is to communicate our actions before we take them, and always obtain social consensus.
+
+No.
+
+Life is the point of Life.
+
+Health, reproduction, energy, and vitality are the point. If any thing does not provide for our Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness, it is supposed to be torn down. Remember?
+
+And that includes the system they made.

Light of the West/The Open-Air Prison.md

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+
+In prison, they stop you from killing yourself.
+
+The noble animal is the one who dies instead of living in captivity.
+
+Safteyism in society is not just the Longhouse. It is prison.
+
+They tell you to stay comfortable and out of the way. "Because they care."
+
+If you could talk to a a caged animal at the zoo, isn't this what you'd say?
+
+"Calm down, calm down. It's a scary world out there. Be glad you have me here to protect you."
+
+All while they call it the "Land of the Free."

Light of the West/Timed/10 Seconds.md

@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+
+Since 1945, the people, land, and culture of Europe have shrunk.
+
+Why?

Light of the West/Timed/60 Seconds.md

@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+
+
+
+We must reduce dependence on centralized power structures 
+
+
+
+Since 1945, the people, land, and culture of Europe have shrunk.
+
+Why?
+
+Adolf Hitler was the last Great Western Expansionist. Was he right?

Light of the West/Two Options - Decline or End Times?.md

@@ -0,0 +1,136 @@
+
+For many, the discussion comes down to two possibilities: either we are following the typical pattern of civilizational decline, or we have reached the times described by John in Revelation.
+
+The end-times supporters are typically aligned with the Jews.
+
+Peter Thiel, Nate, Joel, Dispensationalists fall into this camp.
+
+Perhaps Nate Fischer does too, although that remains to be seen.
+
+Nate Fischer and Joel have both echoed the idea that technology is our reshaping of the world towards the Garden of Eden.
+
+This seems true and untrue at the same time.
+
+On the one hand, yes. Technology is making us more comfortable. It is allowing us to follow our impulses and do less work. It is creating a more peaceful and docile society.
+
+Except … 
+
+Is it?
+
+Too much technology too quickly can lead to disaster. And nuclear bombs have increased the potential impact of this disaster tenfold.
+
+Additionally, tales of pre-civilized peoples seem to imply a relatively peaceful existence. They did not have the great wars that we do, because they did not have property.
+
+
+### Side 1: Christianity, Technology, End Times
+
+It seems as as if the ultimate goal of Christianity and civilization is to recreate the primitive state, but with even less problems than it has. state but with less problems.
+
+	The early church shared all their possessions, and had everything in common.
+
+	The promise of no husbands or wives in heaven is not necessarily a guarantee of no gender. Perhaps it is a promise of unlimited fulfillment?
+
+	The Garden of Eden was a plentiful place with no war or property
+
+Our technology and our military power are already creating this life for us. They have been since the 1960s.
+
+
+
+
+
+Christianity? | Should we go towards Tech or Nature? | Are we in Decline or the End Times?
+
+
+### ~~Christianity, Technology, Decline~~
+Neutral-Semitic, would prefer to avoid the question
+
+Nate Fischer, Charles Haywood, Jared Taylor?
+
+This view does not seem feasible because, if we are really in the decline people think, it has a 1:1 relationship with technology, democracy, and the Enlightenment. It is a slim to none chance that the anti-Enlightenment stance magically allows for the technological increase we have seen.
+
+This is because of the devastation of technological war, combined with its leveling attributes.
+If survival and performance in war is largely random or not tied to physical attributes, how can we form leadership around it?
+
+Also, Rome's decline was marked by some technical blunders from advancing too fast. (like lead pipes)
+
+### Christianity, Neutral, Decline
+Pro-or-Neutral-Semitic
+
+Me, maybe Late Evola
+
+If there is no answer to the "nature vs. technology" question, then there is probably nothing we can do on a large scale. We are declining due to God, i.e. Climate Change. Therefore, it the over-civilization is not what is destroying us, but rather it is just a symptom of a dying life-form. Therefore, there is not much we can or should do. The Jews have identified this and are acting accordingly by shifting their resources to other places.
+
+### Christianity, Nature, Decline
+Anti-or-Neutral-Semitic
+
+Me
+
+This view is similar to the previous in that it is skeptical of technology and over-civilization, but is different in that it is less conspiratorial and anti-Jew (since we are not in the end times, there is no single evil party that is causing problems right now. Rather, our problems are a result of earnest mistakes or bad luck that have been taken advantage of by various enemies and also demoralized us).
+
+Problem: Christianity encourages domestication. This view seems to imply we have domesticated too much.
+
+
+
+
+### Christianity, Technology, End Times
+Pro or Neutral-Semitic
+
+Joel
+
+This perspective would state that Technology is helping create the Garden of Eden once again, and that Jews and their intellectualism are to be respected. We don't need to do much, because we are in the end times.
+
+### ~~Christianity, Neutral, End Times~~
+
+Nobody has this view. Probably because, if we are in the end times, there must be something wrong with society. Therefore, neutrality on the "tech vs. nature" question is very unlikely.
+
+### Christianity, Nature, End Times
+Anti-Semitic
+
+Bryce Mitchell, often Noah. 
+
+This perspective would state that the current Israeli-American empire is ungodly and against the natural order. Generally skeptical of tech and figures like Elon. 
+
+
+
+
+
+### Atheism, Nature, Decline 
+Anti-Semitic
+
+Hitler, Kaczynski, Evola, Spengler
+
+This is the view that centralization, technology, and global capital have all created a situation in which humans are being sapped of our life force. Therefore, we must rebel against the system and un-domesticate ourselves.
+
+### Atheism, Neutral, Decline
+Neutral-Semitic
+
+Trump
+
+This is a mercenary view. Just wants to fix society so it is enjoyable again. "Whatever works."
+
+### Atheism, Technology, Decline
+
+Elon, Unwin?, Jared Taylor, Steve Sailer
+
+This would probably be J.D. Unwin's view, if he was alive and stuck to his theory of rational civilizations being superior. The thought would probably go something like "we are prioritizing the wrong things, stupid third worlders are going to ruin progress"
+
+
+
+
+### ~~Atheism, Nature, End Times~~
+
+Joe Rogan, Kaczynski (kinda)
+
+One of those sciencey reddit type guys that thinks that the world is ending because we've achived too much technology. Too paradoxical and self-hating to be a legitimate view. "GUYS MAYBE HUMANS ARE JUST A PLAGUE"
+
+Which, of course, would make one of these guys the worst of the plague. Because they are always sciencey intellectuals.
+
+### ~~Atheism, Neutral, End Times~~
+
+Joe Rogan
+
+Same as the other two.
+
+### ~~Atheism, Technology, End Times~~
+
+Same as the previous one, with the same flaw. Often, it's the same guy. If technology is so good, why are we in the end times?

Light of the West/We Need Balance.md

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+
+
+The Jews, Cold Weather, and Christianity have bred us toward docility.
+
+But still, there are many who are violent.
+
+This is the strength of the Aryan.
+
+
+We must have both.
+
+A herd of producers, and a vanguard of warriors.
+
+We must find a philosophy that has balance between violence and docility.
+
+
+Monarchy comes from conquest.
+
+Democracy comes from talk.
+
+Is it any wonder modern society is feminine?
+
+This is the core issue: there can be only one at the top.
+
+This is the tension of church and state.
+
+
+
+
+The Midwestern farmers are the docile type. They will not be kings.
+
+Our only chance is the Scots or the Irish.
+
+
+
+Writing this feels self-defeating because it's justification.
+
+But the king just does it.
+
+
+
+People look at the ground when they expect pain.
+
+Cringing, expecting to be hit.

Light of the West/What is a Nation?.md

@@ -0,0 +1,246 @@
+
+A nation is a collective which claims a piece of land and uses force to enforce that claim.
+
+In 1945, the European nations were at the peak of our success. We used force to conquer many lands, and we sent men far and wide to settle them. 
+
+Today, other nations are rapidly approaching our power. They are invading us through our open borders, and putting their culture, customs and language on our land.
+
+But why? 
+
+We never fought these nations; never lost a battle. World War II was a civil war in Europe. So why, now, is everyone else invading?
+
+There is only one answer. We never lost a conflict against any outside countries: Therefore, we were subverted from *within*.
+
+Our leaders asked - 
+“What’s the harm if some foreigners come in?”
+“Why do we need make children at all?”
+“What is a nation, really?” 
+
+And, all the while, we were plied and tempted with the greatest pleasures mankind could offer. We embraced drugs, free sex, and easy corporate jobs. 
+
+As it turns out, none of these produce life. Life is found in GOD, and God is found in children, hard work, and strong community. None of these things are easy; and we want to believe we can escape them.
+
+We want to believe that we can escape God’s demands for Life while also keeping our position in the world. We want to believe that all we need is individualism or xenophobia; globalism or barbarism; All we need is these *ideologies* that will allow us to elect a good leader and live our lives passively.
+
+But, the truth is, the only ideology will save us is the one that demands us to leave our comforts, and demands a lower quality of life, and demands a willingness to die. God demands communities that aren’t replaceable. 
+
+
+The purpose of a government is to use force for the interests of the nation.
+
+The nation of white Europeans have no government.
+
+We cannot use force for our own sake.
+
+We have decided this is wrong.
+
+Therefore, we insist on economic competition and "colorblind meritocracy".
+
+But other populations are homogenous; other nations use force for their interest.
+
+And, because humans are social creatures, those nations will always win.
+
+
+
+
+The purpose of a government is to use force for the interests of the nation.
+
+The nation is an organism, made up of people and defined by their relationship to each other and to the land.
+
+Everyone here who is honest must admit that white Europeans are observable organisms and populations.
+
+We can be distinguished from others by both culture and biology.
+
+Therefore, white Europeans have observable nations.
+
+However, our nations have no government. Our organisms are not represented.
+
+We cannot use force for our own sake.
+
+We have decided this is wrong.
+
+Therefore, we insist on economic competition and "colorblind meritocracy".
+
+But other populations are homogenous; other nations use force for their interest.
+
+And, because humans are social creatures, those nations will win.
+
+
+
+
+There are many in the West who don’t believe we are shrinking at all. This is because they consider immigrants to be a part of the nation, as long as they work for the system.
+
+This means we now have two definitions of a nation. So, we need to know:
+
+When we talk about our nation, what are we actually talking about?
+
+And, when we think of our nation, how much should we care? Should we die for it? 
+
+**What is a Nation?**
+
+Today, there are two competing definitions:
+
+1: A system which reigns over a certain piece of land
+
+2: A group of people who are related by culture, religion, or race
+
+Usually, and for most of history, the two definitions go together. Men formed governments based on shared characteristics, and used these governments to rule a certain territory.
+
+But now, in the West, something curious has happened. These definitions have diverged. European governments, which were formed to advance our people and culture, are now opposed to our growth. They are opposed to our culture and tradition.
+
+In America, we can see these two definitions fighting each other aggressively. For four years, we close the border and build a wall. Then, we open the border completely and fly migrants in with taxpayer money. We are spinning between two ideas of what it means to be a nation: tradition and people, or values and system.
+
+The reason for this is because we have been presented with a paradox. Since the Enlightenment, Britain and its former colonies increasingly defined ourselves by open-mindedness and tolerance. During the time of the American Revolution, it seemed that tolerance was a virtue. It seemed that tolerance provided growth. At first, it did. We abolished slavery, built up other colonies, and worked to define universal human values. The British Empire became the greatest empire of all time, and then America took the mantle in 1945.
+
+But, now, we are shrinking. We have been shrinking since 1960. We are receiving large amounts of outward pressure from other races and nationalities. These races and nationalities are broadly less tolerant than we are. So, we tolerant people - what do we do? Do we compete for the sake of tolerance? Or do we tolerate intolerant immigrants, allowing them to increase intolerance in our societies?
+
+So far, nobody has figured it out. Muslims in England are dragging it downhill every day. America is struggling to define what America even is. Clearly, the current values are not working.
+
+So, we need to ask a deeper question: is tolerance a virtue at all?
+
+Tolerance is not what got us to the Enlightenment in the first place. For 1600 years, Britain and Europe were aggressively nationalistic and protective of culture. This competitiveness culminated in European world domination, with each country attempting to snatch up the rest of the Earth.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+This is quite dangerous. If “nation” is rewritten to mean the system, Westerners have no outlet for collective expression.
+
+It is something we are all aware of, in the West: groups like blacks form clubs and alliances all the time. Every university, every big corporation has explicit groups for black people. It is also often true for gays, Mexicans, Muslims, and others.
+
+At first, nobody minded, because these were all minorities. It was accepted that they had little power, and therefore the extra power they received from forming collectives was not a problem. However, as we now know, there is something deeper going on.
+
+White people were 35% of the world in 1960, and 90% of America. Before the war, we had explicit collectives. Only Northern Europeans were allowed to come to America; Britain was 99.9% British.
+
+After the war, we have no explicit collectives. All Western nations based on shared characteristics of race and culture have vanished. They have been replaced by pluralistic systems which promote other races and cultures above the natives. 
+
+The truth about humans is that we always operate in collectives. From the most primitive tribesmen to the modern office worker - there are no individuals in nature. Human collectives are the source of our life, and a coherent society is always necessary for achieving some goal. 
+
+It should be clear, then, the issue: there are no coherent societies for growing European cultures and peoples. And if there are no collectives which seek a goal, it simply will not happen. The birth rate can be discussed as much as anyone wants; the value of other races and cultures can be lauded; it does not matter. Even if society is pluralistic, Europeans can never grow within that society unless there is a collective which sought that end. 
+
+Therefore, all white people in European nations will have to make a choice. 
+
+It is important to note that not everyone has to be a part of such a collective. Just as every black man is not part of a black-focused group, not every white man would need to be either. The groups must, however, exist.
+
+The less Western collectives there are, the less powerful Westerners are. This means, of course, not people who subscribe to vague ideas like “freedom” but people who are are of European culture and blood. 
+
+These people exist. They are discernible. I am one. And it should be obvious that if we have no collectives which explicitly fight for us or our culture, we will shrink.
+
+So why don’t we? 
+
+Because of Hitler, of course.
+
+Hitler has delivered this great question - if Westerners form groups based on race and culture, won’t we kill and enslave everyone around us like he did? 
+
+The idea is flattering. It implies that if we are able to collectivize, we will automatically dominate and enslave all other races.
+
+But then, of course - why didn’t that happen? Why did the white and racist United States seek to destroy European domination? The country was, after all, 90 percent European.
+
+Many have begun to ask today: did we really benefit from fighting Germany? On one hand, it put America on top. On the other, it caused a rapid decline of the European tradition, which is what defined America in the first place.
+
+Prior to 1945, only Northern Europeans were allowed to immigrate to America. It was an accepted fact that if a large group of Mexicans, Arabs, or Africans tried to enter and settle, they would have been immediately thrown out. There would have been no question.
+
+This is the way things were for most of history. Humans are naturally xenophobic. We establish territory, and we use it to grow. Since there are only so many resources on Earth, this creates competition.
+
+America was born from an Anglo-Saxon tradition; a melding of British and German peoples. To this day, white Americans are nearly all either British or German, and the two groups are the same size. 
+
+These races and traditions are thousands of years old. Therefore, when we broke that tradition in 1945, it was an enormous move. In less than a generation, we filled up to more than a third of America with radically different peoples and cultures.  The implications of this were not merely definitive for the century; they were definitive for the millennium. 
+
+
+
+Another observation is that the first category, the system, is far more temporary than the second. Races, cultures, and ethnicities usually span several millennia or more. 
+
+When a nation becomes based on the system, as ours has, there is **always** a temporary sentiment towards human affairs. In America, it is strange to care about old tradition. In communist China, they *destroyed* old tradition. In fascist Germany, they yearned for old tradition - but they used as much technology as possible to push it.
+
+Of the big three 20th-century ideologies, communism is the most rabidly system-based ideology ever. Capitalism, supposedly so different, is the second most system-based ideology. Fascism, the losing ideology of 1945, is third.
+
+
+
+
+
+For all of history, there has been a pattern of binding and separation. Talented men arise, and inspire others to form nations. 
+
+Over time, these nations have become larger. This increased scale changes the characteristics of the individual humans within. 
+
+As the nations become larger, men become more civilized. Typically, this means a reduction of aggression and competition in the life of the individual. Instead, the individual spends time on endeavors which diffuse across all of society, usually involving communications of some sort.
+
+Verbal communications are the obvious example: the civilized man has a skilled tongue. Mathematics are also a large-scale form of communication, meaning they can transfer concepts rapidly over a large area. Another example is scientific experiments: they are conducted in such a way as to be “reproducible”, which actually means that they must be simple and segmented enough that they can be conducted with only verbal instructions as a guide. 
+
+The trend here is the replacement of colorful personal experiences with greyer, larger-scale collective experiences.
+
+If all men simply hunt animals, their experiences will be very individually visceral. However, the diffusion of energy across any sort of society will be very small. It will be limited to discussions of shared experiences within the tribe.  
+
+To achieve larger scale, the tribe would need writing: at the minimum, they would need tools for writing and scribes. Therefore, the tribe will have to add jobs which are inherently less colorful and visceral. 
+
+
+Elite
+A government which rules over a certain land area and a certain people. 
+
+
+
+Would you die for your nation? 
+
+To the elites, it is simply the land itself. The people and the culture are interchangeable, so long as they produce economic value. 
+
+Hitler was the last Western leader to campaign for territorial and population expansion. His definition of Germany was the German race and the land they occupy.
+
+
+
+
+
+Hitler defined a nation by the race of the people. For him, to be a patriot meant to fight for the German race. 
+
+First, to understand why the West is shrinking, we must know what the West is.
+
+What is the West? What is a nation?
+
+A nation is a large group of people who work together for Life.
+
+I say "for Life" because many people can work together, but if they are not aligned in questions of Life (law, religion, and culture) then they cannot be considered a nation. The question when understanding any nation, then, is which questions of Life require alignment for people to be included.
+
+The lines and measures of human alignment are vague, of course. Humans are too complicated for any discussion of large groups to be logically complete and self-contained. But we can still label these groups based on general patterns and trends which we observe. The difference is that these labels will not be as powerful as labels which are smaller in scope.
+
+With that being said, let us examine which elements define a nation:
+
+
+**Government**
+One of the most obvious alignments of traditional nations is law. If there is a large group of people who do not follow the law of the nation, then they are probably not a part of that nation.
+
+**Culture**
+
+
+**Race**
+Many nations are easy to group by race. This is particularly true for European nations, which have more variation than normal. The Irish look very different from the Italians. They both have a general look and gene pool which we are aware of.
+
+
+**Religion**
+Religion does not need much explanation. Most nations are aligned on questions of religion - but, in recent times, this has changed.
+
+
+We know that Nations have two key things: government and culture. Some nations also define themselves by their race.
+
+We know that Western nations are shrinking, because they have a birthrate which is lower than replacement. Therefore, the only way to keep the nation the same is to import foreigners.
+
+Now, this is the question: if we import foreigners from other nations, do we still have the same nation? Can it still be said to be intact?
+
+The answer to this question is the answer to the question that is at the heart of most political disputes today:
+
+How important is race for the identity of a nation? 
+
+The answer to this question betrays whether someone is for or against European peoples. 
+
+If a man believes that European peoples are an inherent part of Western nations, then any amount of immigration weakens the character of this identity. Particularly if those immigrants bring other cultures with them.
+
+Liberalism is the opposite of collectivism: it pushes for each piece of the organism (each person) to go in their own direction. Obviously, for it to be a nation of some kind, there are still some collective actions, such as paying taxes or fighting in the military.
+
+Java / Swift
+Racism
+
+
+
+
+At any point in time, a group is either gaining land or losing it.
+
+The Western nations are shrinking because World War II has destroyed our spirit.
+
+We must seek growth instead of stasis.

Light of the West/You think Churchill was right?.md

@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+
+Did we get what our grandfathers wanted?
+
+Those men who braved the seas?
+Those men who tamed the nations?
+The greatest the world has seen?
+
+Did we get what they wanted?
+
+To lose half their land?
+To live in a Godless world?
+To send all our work abroad?
+Give up our women and girls?
+
+To foreign nations, tongues, and races? 
+
+Did they fight for an Indian temple?
+Did they fight for Muslim rule?
+
+The war has already started!
+
+Do not wait for more.
+
+Did they fight 
+
+Do you believe their genes and their descendants were so inadequate that we needed to replace more than a third of them with foreigners?
+
+Did they ask for an America where 
+
+Did they fight for an America where half their grandchildren did not 
+
+Roosevelt led us to vice!
+
+The problem with America was never us. It was our refusal to keep going.