Equality had a nice run.
For something that has never, ever existed in all of human history, its pursuit was an extraordinarily interesting phenomenon in political philosophy. I will not say “noble,” the way that some people do to throw an olive branch to the other side, because that would presume the goodness of the object in question. It was merely interesting.
For some, this may seem to run against the very spirit of American Democracy. But the Declaration of Independence did not declare that people are literally equal when it said that “all men are created equal.” The pedantic logical response would of course be that people can become unequal after they were created. More importantly, however, the statement was not an assertion of literal fact, but a denial of the divine right of kings held by King George III, which held that certain men were created to rule over others. Even this, it only asserted specifically (albeit implicitly) within the context of a homogenous group.
What would equality mean anyways? We know that being tall is an advantage when playing basketball, and yet we are not all the same height. Some genetic groups of people are, in fact, taller on average than others. Some are shorter, which has its own set of cardiovascular benefits. Some groups have blood types that make them susceptible to extreme pain or sudden death from prolonged strenuous exercise, but makes them resistant to malaria. And yes, different groups of people have different aggregate intelligence measurements.
If the founding fathers did mean that we were all equal, then they were simply wrong. Blacks are not superior to whites, nor are whites superior to blacks. Men are not superior to women, nor are women superior to men. The claim of “superiority” would be equally absurd, like claiming a deer is a superior animal to a hawk. It is a category error, comparing one set of adaptive traits for a particular environment to another set of adaptive traits for a separate environment. But it would be nonsensical and unhelpful to call these groups “equal.”
The globalist or post-scarcity presumption that we do all live in one world, together, necessarily puts the global idealist in the unenviable position of arbitrating which adaptive set of traits–which race–is superior. Since they are competing for resources within a constrained environment, there must be a scale of adaptivity, on which different combinations of traits fall. It is not a necessary or even possible determination for a nationalist, so I’ll wait on the globalists to declare which race they think is superior.
The genetic differences between populations means that there will be an empathy gap between how we feel for people who look like us and people who do not look like us. Groups naturally have an in-group preference for people likely to share genetics with themselves. This is not proved by, but conforms to, what we would expect evolutionary psychology to predict.
These differences between groups also come with different languages, cultures, and religions. These traditions–being adaptive augmentations to the population itself–become a part of the people in the same manner, albeit not to the same degree, as the genetic code itself. Forgoing these things is to literally give up a part of yourself. In addition to just feeling awful, the incompleteness, incongruity and implicit subjugation is unattractive in the sexual marketplace. It is no wonder people have historically fought to the death to retain their “way of life,” even if their way of life appears inferior to the confused would-be conqueror. And if all that weren’t enough, the fact that cultures, religions, and hierarchies of value emerge to compliment a particular genetic and environmental set of characteristics in a population (i.e., cultures evolve to “fit” particular races), we can naturally expect people to return to their own nation’s traditions, even after several generations of separation from their cultural source.
People are not equal, in any way, shape, or form. However, the price we pay for acting as if everyone is equal–which is to say interchangeable–in a Republic is a building of tension, and that tension is going to break. It is no longer viable to continue believing that Democracy is the answer to civic problems. “More transparency,” “more civic involvement,” “activism,” “letting our voices be heard,” all of these are well and good in a homogenous society, but we do not live in one. If only one out of ten people believe in the value of freedom of speech, and nine out of ten prefer the security of protected speech, more transparency is not going to convince them to change their minds. Debate is not going to change their minds. Historically speaking, minds are only changed on sufficient scale to make any kind of civic difference through bloodshed on an epic scale.
This is not an advocacy for war. The opposite, in fact. I don’t want a race-war, a civil-war, a religious war, or any other kind of war. But when it comes to war, it only takes one side’s vote. If someone declares war on you, there are only two options: fight, or surrender.
And make no mistake: war is being waged on you, if you are of European descent. The migration influx being experienced by Europe is an invasion. The immigration America is experiencing from Mexico, though less dramatic and less violent, is an invasion, as the eminent military historian Martin Van Creveld has demonstrated:
In other words, migration was war. In fact, insofar as ancient war frequently involved not only soldiers and armies, but entire nations who left their homeland “mit man und Ross und wagen” (with man and horse and wagon), as the Germans say, war was migration.
For the present, it would be going too far to say that the refugees, as well as those who are responsible for their plight back in their homelands, are actively waging war against the West. They lack the leadership and organization required for the effective, large-scale violence that war entails. However, it must be recognized that more than a few in their midst are not averse to using violence in order to achieve their aims. They have, after all, invaded numerous countries without regard for the will of the people of those countries, and their presence is no less likely to spark resistance than the armed invasions of the past. Since war, as Clausewitz teaches, has a built-in tendency to escalate, the resistance can be expected to graduate into all-out armed conflict over time. Especially, as seems likely, if the influx continues and all the valiant efforts at integration prove futile.
Who is waging this war against European-descendant nations? Economics is, more than any particular person or organization; to put it more precisely, the prioritizing of gross economic development for all over the self-determination of discreet peoples means that the people in charge of maximizing economic output (for all) are happy to plunder the resources of those who are industrious and willing to part with their wealth. Or at least unwilling to put up a fight.
And for those who think that we might be approaching a post-scarcity society, I am not just referring to material wealth:
“What is the goal? It’s going to be controversial. The goal is to meet the challenge of racial interbreeding. The challenge of racial interbreeding that faces us in the 21st century. It’s not a choice, it’s an obligation. We cannot do otherwise. We risk finding ourselves confronted with major problems. We must change; therefore we will change. We are going to change all at the same time. In business, in administration, in education, in political parties. And we will obligate ourselves as to the results. If this volunteerism does not work for the Republic, then the State will move in to still more coercive measures.”
–Nicolas Sarkozy, December 17, 2008
It’s time to quit playing around, and giving lip-service to lies. Men and women are not equal. “Morally equal,” sure. Whatever. They are not the same. Races are not the same. Nations are not the same. The people who comprise these different races and nations, are neither “equal,” nor the same. And a nation predominantly formed from, and comprised of, a particular nation–a race–cannot continue to exist if its population is genetically replaced.
I wrote a satirical piece in December about the Drexel University Professor wishing for white genocide. And it is an amusing subject. If the 20th century taught us one thing other than “don’t fight a land-war in Russia,” it has to be “don’t fight a race-war with Germans.” But behind the humor, there is a serious undertone. “Genocide” doesn’t quite capture what’s happening to whites, no matter how broadly the UN defines it. There are no piles of bodies, no ovens, no heaps of machete-stricken corpses or wagon-fulls of diseased blankets. But there does appear to be an attempt to dilute, undermine, and destroy the white race: morally, culturally, and genetically.
There is already a massive rise in ethno-nationalism across the Western world. This movement–called the “Alt Right”–is not a response to popular arguments, but to environmental forces: immigration, racial hatred towards whites, and institutionalized discrimination against whites. The source of these forces is the false ideology of equality. The idea of sameness, the notion of the interchangeability of peoples within nations, is transparently and observably untrue. Yet people are terrified of being called a racist, or a sexist, or xenophobe, for noticing that the emperor is naked.
If the Alt Right scares you, it is only because you do not see what is coming on the other side of a failed Alt Right. Ron Paul–a classical liberal, non-interventionist libertarian–was America’s first chance to ease the tension. Ending, or at least significantly reducing, the welfare state and wealth redistribution would have reduced the economic forces that cause these clashes of nations. But America didn’t take it. So Trump was option two. But Trump is only here for four, maybe eight years, and the immigrants are already here. He may or may not be able to ease the tension, and for who knows how long. As Jack Donovan says, that ship may have already sailed.
So what would option three be? Perhaps Richard Spencer. Everyone freaks out about Richard, because they think he is a Nazi. But anyone looking with a clear eye will see that he isn’t. If he’s a Nazi, he’s only one ironically.
Real Nazis are option four. And they will kill millions of people. And the public will cheer them on, if you repress their ability to solve these mortal threats to their identity and their existence. And why shouldn’t they? Haven’t others been feeling the same about them for years, on both sides of the aisle? The things that Kevin Williamson and Tim Wise say about whites are more overtly antagonistic than what Dr. David Duke says about Jews, and roughly on par with what Dylan Roof had to say about blacks.
Lest you be fooled, there are actual Nazis out there, like Weev of Stormfront. Click the link, and listen to five minutes of them talking. Then look at the like/dislike ratio. Look at the comments. Notice how well-received this guy is. Christopher Cantwell (the interviewer) is a relatively well-known and popular person in Libertarian circles. If the problems are not allowed to be talked about in public, then they will simply be talked about in private, and the resolution to White people’s problems will manifest suddenly and violently.
I don’t want this, and I can only hope that you don’t want this either. My wife and I plan on having a family (a large one), and I’d like to be able to raise my future children in peace. But in order to avert a war in the next 10-15 years, we are going to need to start getting really courageous, really sincere, and really, really intolerant of the people who will try to shut down conversation on important subjects on the grounds that it might be offensive, however delicately they might express the sentiment.
The time of equality is over. Mass-migration has moved so quickly in Europe that its come to the entire world’s attention, and now America has to face this decision like its trans-Atlantic cousins. Revolts against Global Government are happening in America, Britain, Italy, France, and elsewhere, and you can be sure the Globalists will double down in response. But they will lose, because their solutions are solipsistic. Economic. Unsustainable. It’s out with democracy, and back with a balanced Republic. Out with equality, in with quality. The only question will be whether this transition will manifest through dialogue or force.
Even if you think equality isn’t over, and is a good thing, the alienation and elimination of whiteness that is happening on the grounds of advancing equality is still an unjustified mortal threat. If you think it is justified, then expect to be treated as a genocide-apologist and advocate in the coming years.
The years of “not seeing color” are gone. 2017 will be the year of race realism. If you think this is a bad thing, then learn the arguments and get prepared to debate seriously, because you won’t be able to dismiss everyone who disagrees about race as Nazis anymore.