20 KiB
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:
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.
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.