Amerika

Racism and the sexual revolution

The purpose of this article is to give an in-depth elaboration of White-Nationalism by holding it up against the state of affairs brought about by the sexual revolution. Racism, after all, is all about breeding. The article is a bit long – that is because I want to provide the audience with a thorough and objective analysis of the racist ideology, that can be used as a source of reference in the future. The question “how to relate oneself to racism” might be relevant for any who place themselves on the ‘right’ side of the political spectrum.

The idea of providing this first surfaced when a self-declared White-Nationalist recently told me that White genetics drives progress in the world. He said: “And when White genetics are mixed with non-White genetics, it may as well have been erased from the earth. To mix clean water with sewage only increases the sewage. I am who I am and you are who you are largely because of the genetics each of us inherited.”

I argued this is questionable; back in the 1950-era, Europeans and Americans used to have the same paterfamilias-style families (multiple children with a man at the head whose authority directed the household), as the rest of the world. The European historian Jan Romein, who lectured in Indonesia during the colonial era, argued for the existence of a ‘Common Human Pattern’; according to him, Western civilization was not dominant due to the genetic-makeup of the White man. It was dominant because it deviated from other civilizations in some crucial aspects, such as property, labour and time. Unlike some cultures, the Western man could own the land on which he lived, and he could do with his property as he preferred without being restrained by family-loyalty.

This explains why today a Western employee is generally more expensive than a non-Western one. It’s Western culture to have your own wife, buy an own house, and provide for yourself. It’s non-Western culture to, whenever you get your girlfriend pregnant, take her into the house of your parents (or to run away). This is why large families of cousins, uncles and grandparents can live under the same roof. And since they don’t have to pay for the rent of the house, their wages can be cheaper in comparison to Western employees. However an employer who hires such a worker for cheaper profits, is indirectly undermining Western civilization.

Yet, this would be entirely in accordance with Western civilization, since another trait which distinguishes Western culture from the rest of the world, is its outlook towards economics. This is utilitarian; possessions are exploited not just to sufficiently satisfy the needs of the present, but to create more wealth for the future. Therefore, it’s a good idea in Western eyes to hire cheap labour and ‘outsource’ production, since this will render greater profits. That in turn is tied up with the Western conception of time; which was not seen as abundant and immovable, but instead as a scarce resource that can only be spent once. So for the Western man the most effective way of spending time is to invest it in increasing future wealth.

I find ‘White-Nationalism’ a confusing term. Not only are White people not united in an overarching nation, but as a matter of fact, the decline of Occidental power is the direct result of nations of White people fighting one another in the name of nationalism. These fights are commonly known as the World Wars. The White-Nationalist viewpoint might argue that Nietzsche’s Überman philosophy from Thus Spake Zarathustra could be applied to current racial science: the European would be seen as an Überman in comparison to the African. He might add that there is a Jewish conspiracy at work to destroy White culture, manipulating Hollywood, the financial sector and the house of Congress.

Sure, I will admit that in the big picture, yes the White race is important. The White race developed trade-Capitalism and constitutional rights, it created the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution and the Information Revolution. However, this is all just the last 600 years. Before that, non-White races have established the Neolithic Revolution and have invented writing and architecture. So, it all seems to be part of a big cycle that at some point a civilization flourishes, until it reaches its peak and regresses somewhat again. The fruits of its work will be adopted and expanded upon by other civilizations.

The fact that the White race has dominated the world for a millennium does not mean that it would always dominate the world. But it could be in our benefit if it continued to dominate the world; especially if the alternative would be to live under sharia-law. Problem with all of this is that other races don’t like to be dominated. The rebellion against ‘American Cultural Imperialism’ in Oriental nations is partly due to the fact that Western people have developed egalitarianism and feminism, and tried to apply these to other societies in the form of human rights. But even so, people don’t see the bigger picture; there is no real group-unity between Western nations, or between White people within Western nations. And if there was a unity, it would probably be based on some feeling of animosity towards what is ‘other’, rather than on a thorough awareness of the creative principles beneath our civilization.

The bottom-line of White-Nationalism seems to be this: a genuine belief in the superiority of the White man could probably only thrive with trailer-park level people (even though a genius might one day rise from a trailer-park). Then I mean people who criticize other ethnicities while themselves having the same or comparable flaws. Such as excessive drinking, smoking weed or lacking cultural knowledge. It remains the question if such people could really gain new invigoration from this belief in White superiority, feel united and submit the fruits of their labour to visionary leadership. For if not for this result, what would the point of White-Nationalism be in the first place? And the people who transcend that level described could probably see the need for nuance when dealing with others; not all persons belonging to a race possess the negative traits generally associated with that race. They would also be intelligent enough to see the flaws of White people’s civilization just as I do. So they too, with a healthy regard to objective facts, would feel reluctant to submit to White-Nationalism. They would only see a reason to if the ideology could give direction to the lives of the unproductive.

Alternatively, the White-Nationalist ideologist might try to maintain himself after my response by reformulating the sewage-water analogy into a less strict version. He might say one can drink water that has a little sewage in it without harm. But if the level of sewage is at a certain level, it becomes very harmful. By the same thinking, if any of us who call ourselves White are actually a small part Jew, Gypsy, native American, or perhaps even Black, if that non-White portion is small enough, it is harmless. The greater it becomes the less palatable is the water into which it has been poured. In short, the White-Nationalist would advise me to marry a White girl and to have children with her, and if I couldn’t do that, to marry a non-White girl and to find a White child to adopt. 

I might play devil’s advocate here and say that the most logical thing to do for any white hero or supergenius is to date a non-White woman. Women and homosexuals have been gaining more and more influence as TV-presenters, fashion designers and directors of musicals. Today, the ideal man of the common White adolescent girl wears his pants down his hips so that his underwear emerges. He shaves his chest and perhaps even uses facial crème. Simply put; they see their ideal man as a sensitive dweeb that they can manipulate emotionally and whose money they can spend. Their ideal boyfriend is not a rational and ambitious man. I’m playing the devil’s advocate here, so I don’t hold that women are only suitable for a kitchen and the pushchair, but let’s just say that the female judgement for rational decisions is often clouded by bursts of emotion.

Another thing I would stress is that taking children is a serious consideration for me. I’m not going to produce children “to spread my race”, as the White-Nationalists would have it, just so they can grow up as economic puppets for some tax-farming governmental bureaucracy.

It inevitably leads to self-contradiction. White-Nationalism will have to argue that the White women are not inherently corrupt, but have become corrupted as the result of (post)modern ideas and culture. They will argue that White people, intellectual or successful as they may be, should not be reluctant to breed. Since there is a welfare state with provisions that many non-white ethnicities will shamelessly seek to take advantage of, this encourages non-White people to breed. At the same time, these arguments would be the best evidence possible that the White race is not inherently superior. It’s the White race which invented feminism, postmodernism, and the welfare state. It’s Western culture which bore the seeds of its own demise.

I conclude that this realization does not dismiss us from the obligation to struggle against this decline. Yet, the narcissism of White women has undeniably grown out of hand. This is a fact that you obviously cannot disagree with (if you did, you would deceive yourself). Maybe in the times of 1933-1939 the lines were clear. White people represented civilization and progress (Shakespeare, Leibniz, Newton, Darwin, whatever, all White men) versus ‘Orientals’, representing the submission of the free creative spirit.

But today, the lines aren’t clear like that. In the 1960 period, postmodernism took over the intellectual thinking of White people. Women had to be equal to men, there were no absolute truths so every culture was considered equal, and every opinion was equally valuable as other opinions. Long story short, today I find White people preaching homo-tolerance and female-emancipation, which obviously upsets the tranquil harmony between the sexes. Immigrants on the other hand, although they, going by the statistics, rob old ladies and deal drugs to teens more often than White people, don’t advocate that stuff.

The lines aren’t clear anymore. I’m willing to fight for ideas and for truth, but not for a ‘race’ of people who willingly walk towards destruction. If they were really so superior as White-Nationalism holds, they wouldn’t have allowed themselves to discard their cultural heritage in favour of consumerism. What do I care to breed children so that after my death they can be adopted by a homo-couple and spend the rest of their evenings being treated on fast-food?

White-Nationalists have to see the bigger picture here. When Troy was raised to the ground, Aeneas gathered up all the knowledge he had from his old civilization and escaped, founding a new city – Rome. Rome adopted this knowledge and quickly grew into a leading world power, spreading its culture until it crumbled from decadence. Boethius, who foresaw that the Roman empire was crumbling, compiled all knowledge from philosophy, since he foresaw that the rising barbarians would not treasure it and it would be lost.

So, my mission is not to breed and create children that can bring themselves up in a empty world without culture pursuing substitute goals. My mission is to create the best philosophy that has ever been devised in history so that it can be the foundation of a new empire. I don’t care who will carry these ideas out. Asians, White people, whatever. As pointed out in the trailer-park example, racism is a simplified way of seeing the world in ‘us’ and ‘them’. I’ve been in a fight with a black person before. But is this a reason for me to, when a black person politely asks me the way, lead him into the wrong direction?

As a last resort, a White-Nationalist may argue that taking a stance for ideals is meaningless when confronted with a physical threat. That physical threat being non-White people outbreeding White people in their own estates.

My first response would be that general overpopulation of the world also puts a gargantuan strain on the quality of life, and my second would be not to underestimate the importance and power of ideas. Obviously, without direction there can be no coordinated action, and any action is aimed towards the future (long or short term). When we act, we are always in motion towards something. If you haven’t given thought to that destination, you are doomed to fail. Therefore ideas have power. They move people towards purposes and goals. And this gets me back to what I opened this with: Non-White people are here in large numbers because of the welfare state. The welfare state is here because it was carried by an ideology which had the power to move people.

One might say trading in a White woman for a non-White woman, whose culture tells her to be servile and submissive to her husband, is not the solution. A non-White wife from a traditional male-dominated culture and brought into the modern American/European culture, will adopt the same characteristics that bother you and me about White women today. These characteristics would at least be taken on by her offspring which is half-White and half-Asian.

But obviously, the point is not to bring her to your country and make babies with her. The point is to date her, visit her when you can spare the time, and do it again when you feel like. One might say this itself is opportunistic, but it might as well be argued it is simply coming to terms with reality. Learn the way things are going nowadays with Western women, and adapt, use this knowledge to your advantage. Struggle against it, and you will perish without leaving an effect on the world, and without ever having felt happiness or satisfaction.

The alternative would be to man up and to do our best to reform women. Yet women today are generally atomistic and can’t be reformed, because it requires their consent, which they aren’t going to give. They can’t be forced, since we lack the power to force them. Access to the female body is a commodity ill-acquired against the women’s volition, lest one faces the wrath of the law. This gives women a significant amount of power over the largely sex-driven man. It was one of the genious inventions of the Medieval Age to frame the woman as a lust-oriented creature. Women had a hard time using rape-accusations, abuse-charges and sex-blackmail to triumph over the power of the male intellect. Women had a hard time convincing others they were raped, since the woman had probably seduced him. This uplifted a large burden from male rationality and allowed it to develop itself. With the sexual revolution this burden was placed back.

Contrary to the Medieval people, we can’t obtain the power to reform women, since people refuse to get together and unite behind a common ideology or purpose. White people are atomistic. They do well when it comes to developing technology and industry. But they fail at uniting themselves behind a common goal and united purpose and throwing their full weight behind it. Somehow people were capable of working for a common ideal in the times of the Third Reich, but that’s an exception in history instead of the general trend (C.H.P). Generally speaking, with the possible exception of the readers who visit this site, women don’t care about the very topic that was debated here. “They are not interested in this very topic I am discussing with you right now: They don’t care about your ideals or about your race. They don’t give a dime. They probably get a kick out of it when some African plays with their boobs.” That’s what I told the White-Nationalist, too.