Or
The superiority of Nietzschean apostasy
vis à vis semi-apostasy
Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965) was a New Testament scholar and medical missionary in Africa. He received the 1952 Nobel Peace Prize for his philosophy of “Reverence for Life,” expressed in many ways but most famously in founding and sustaining the Albert Schweitzer Hospital in Lambaréné in Gabon, Africa.
I am absolutely indebted to Schweitzer and the other Germans that started a secularized research on the New Testament texts since the 18th and 19th centuries. Hadn’t the works of the exegetes whose work Schweitzer so aptly summarizes in The Quest of the Historical Jesus been written, I would probably still be trying to exorcize from my mind my father’s doctrine of eternal damnation (see for example this entry as an introduction to the subject of New Testament exegesis from a non-Christian point of view).
Schweitzer’s book was one of the first books that I purchased in California when I was “struggling with the Daimon” in a mental warfare that almost drove me mad (cynic commenters will say that it actually drove me mad!). But even as I must be eternally grateful to people like Schweitzer and their exegetical works, I must say that the biography of this extremely intelligent man depicts what is wrong with those who abandon Christianity only to become Secular Christians so to speak (“liberals” they are called today).
First of all I must quote a page I stole from a Swede that used to comment at Gates of Vienna:
Our progressivist paradigm is based on Christian ethics. The Left is all about Christian ethics. What the left-wing is doing is not destroying Western civilization, but completing and fulfilling it: what I call “The Finish of the West.” The current order is the last and terminal phase of Western Christian civilization.
It’s the Western Christian civilization that feeds all these processes. So the Western Christian civilization is in fact the worst enemy of what I call European civilization: another reason for wanting the Western Christian civilization to go away. For the very same reason that Christian ethics abhors infanticide, [presently] it causes the population explosion in the world.
Christian ethics cannot stand the sight of little brown children dying. They must help them, or they will freak out. According to Christian ethics it is forbidden and unthinkable to think in terms of not saving every little brown child across the planet.
But the consequences of this mindset are catastrophic, not only to us but also to them, as I have already explained. But since people are so programmed according to Christian ethics, what I’m saying does not seem to enter their heads. The thought is too unthinkable to be absorbed. It’s an utter taboo.
This is derived from the deepest moral grammar of Christianity. The population explosion is not caused by liberalism, it is caused by Christianity in its most general form.
The following is the crux of the Swede’s gospel. It explains why, once you research honestly the New Testament texts to the point of becoming skeptical about the historicity of the narratives, you will find yourself not a Christian anymore but instead looking for the downtrodden, like Schweitzer with his niglets in the above pic, to fulfill a form of secularized Christianity:
With Christ as part of the equation, the Christian ethics of the Gospels became balanced. Humans were seen as imperfect and it was Christ who covered for us with his self-sacrifice. In Secular Christianity each person has to be like Jesus himself [my emphasis], doing self-sacrifice, since there’s no other way to realize Christian ethics. On top of that, with the Industrial Revolution and the surplus it created in our societies, we came to the point where all the good deeds of Christian ethics could finally be executed by giving off our surplus to all the poor and weak foreign people around the world: food, Western medicine, and other aid.
We should remember that our progressivist paradigm, which is always going left, is based on Christian ethics. And Christian ethics means the inversion of values [my emphasis]. So it’s the weak that is considered good, while the strong is considered evil.
The keynote of Schweitzer’s personal philosophy, which he considered to be his greatest contribution to mankind, was the idea of Reverence for Life (Ehrfurcht vor dem Leben). Like millions of secular liberals today, Schweitzer inverted healthy Aryan values when he de facto abandoned Christianity to elaborate an ethical foundation for his new tables. Instead of helping the crown of the evolution in Germany, Schweitzer used all of his will to help the cloaca gentium of Africa.
According to online encyclopedias, for Schweitzer mankind had to create a new moral structure of civilization that showed respect for life and that led the individual to live in the service of other people—yes, non-whites included. Such was the new set of values which Schweitzer sought to put into practice in his own life as he departed for Africa in 1913 to work as a medical doctor in the Paris Missionary Society’s mission at Lambaréné, in what is now Gabon. The site was nearly 200 miles (14 days by raft) upstream from the mouth of the Ogooué at Port Gentil.
In 1917, exhausted by over four years’ work and by tropical anemia, Schweitzer was taken to Bordeaux. By 1920, his health recovering, he was giving organ recitals and doing other fund-raising work to repay borrowings and raise funds for returning to Gabon.
In 1955 Schweitzer was made an honorary member of the Order of Merit by Queen Elizabeth II, another deranged altruist. (Remember how the first Puritans and Spaniards that arrived to the New World celebrated the fact that Amerinds started to die of viral infections that whites were already immune. The central point in the Swede’s analysis of the axiology that is killing us is that in Secular Christianity—what I call Neochristianity—Christian out-group altruism is not abandoned but reinforced in the new tables.)
Schweitzer was also a chevalier of the Military and Hospital Order of Saint Lazarus of Jerusalem. He died in 1965 at his beloved hospital in Lambaréné, Gabon. His grave, on the banks of the Ogooué River, is marked by a cross he made himself. This, in spite of the fact that from the times of his most famous book, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, it is clear that he had ceased to believe in the historicity of the New Testament stories.
But the cross was appropriate: internally Schweitzer never gave up Christian ethics, only Christian dogma. Like millions of westerners today—many white nationalists included—, he was a semi-apostate from Christianity, not a full apostate.
What is the moral that we should learn from Schweitzer’s life and work? Well, who needs the Jews when we got Christianity and Neochristianity? Only total apostasy from Christianity will save whites from extinction. And by “total” I mean what Nietzsche said when criticizing the Neochristian Anglos, which also applies to other secular men (like Schweitzer himself I would say):
In England one must rehabilitate oneself after every little emancipation from theology by showing in a veritably awe-inspiring manner what a moral fanatic one is. That is the penance they pay there. —We others hold otherwise. When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one’s feet.
Hitler, not Christ, saves. Unlike the white nationalists we must say Umwertung aller Werte (my bold type).
41 replies on “Schweitzer’s niglets”
Thank you. A succinct and devastating comment on the effects of a corrupt mentality. Christianity and its child Liberalism will doom White man.
You (and the Swede) have a knack for phrasing this criticism in just the right way.
Thanks.
Exactly.
It’s what I had thought before. The esquerdopatas suffer an evolutionary pattern that could easily be embedded in a kind of syndrome, mental disorder. Martyr’s syndrome. In this case, these people have two choices:
Or try to do ”the best”
or worse
I believe I suffer from this disorder, because I have a number of symptoms it, a very deep feeling of moral and intellectual superiority (which can properly be characterized as megalomania, pure and simple), bipolar disorder, obsessive-compulsive moderate, paranoia, among others.
The difference is that I consider myself definitely outsmart them to understand the bio realism but in the end, I’m not much different from them.
What is funny for me is that I entertain a great sympathy for white people, I definitely bought their struggle, despite knowing that states ethnically white, will surely be disadvantageous in the long term for a person like me who can not define me as white.
It is a kind of inversion. While white liberals nourish one platonic love for all races except hers, I entertain great admiration, near vassalage, compared to white Caucasians.
I feel that I can and do something for the community, it’s like I definitely will not have a quiet life, get married, have children, and count the stars on the porch when aged 60.
I have a very large brain power and I’m easily bored. I think that this cognitive profile is the same as the white liberals and Ashkenazi Jews.
And that is not good, because all that is excessive or missing, is bad.
This is fascinating. In the blogosphere I have found that those who most love the white race in Latin America are not pure whites. IMHO it’s because half bloods have a direct, personal experience with the horrors of mestization…
Just like working-class people have a tendency to be the most conscious about class, because they know that if they stop having a work ethic and a populist morality, they will sink down into the lower-classes.
This explanation really makes sense.
May be it. But I think this is not so.
It’s funny when I read a text in Alternative Right, on the Democratic Party. Two blond Norse belonged to the youth wing, seemed British missionaries of the nineteenth century. In the U.S., the most racist south is where in my opinion, without a doubt, happened some form of mild racial mixing between blacks and whites while New England is originally the land of the purest Anglo Saxons of the Americas.
It’s a matter of purity. The purest white people are the least racist because they evolved directly to end this kind of Christianity. While most people clearly mixed, as a considerable part of the Russians, Iberian and Balkan remained tribalists. What might save me from being a complete fool liberal, are, my genes nonwhites.
It could also be a form of hybrid vigor, because I know I’m not a complete mongrel. My mother is predominantly Caucasian while my father, almost certain to be a pure Iberian. The hybrid vigor occurs when groups of people genetically more distant from each other by a continuum family marry. We can say that hybrid vigor has happened consistently within Europe.
Note also the Nazi leaders. Most of them even was Nordic. Note on Arthur Kemp.
This also relates to the level of aggressiveness, brilliantly reported by the late Phillip Rushton. Persons of strokes lighter skin and tend to be less aggressive. So, by this logic, blondes and redheads tend to be less aggressive humans on the planet.
Still on the Nazi leaders. Was extremely common among anthropologists past classics portray Alpine populations, and as having mixtures Mongolian. It makes sense that a good part of the Nazi leaders were of the alpine type.
In fact, I feel increasingly repulsed by racial mixing, but I see that many white people here are too stupid to realize it or too cowardly.
Still on the mental disorder of leftpaths, at least in my case, I consider myself extremely introverted. Introverts have a tendency to idealization of the outside world through her own world, built parallel to reality.
Again, I feel I have control of these two realities, the real (getting worse) and I built, but surely much of lefthpaths not have the same luck.
Gottlieb,
Does this mean that half-blood princes (cf. the fictional world of J. K. Rowling) are the chosen ones to save the white race? I must confess that I find your thoughts fascinating.
I have two cousins that used to be very close to me long ago. Unlike me, they could easily pass for Nordish-type whites. But they are timid like mice, and apparently have no racial conscience at all. They would obviously freak out if listening to one of my hell-rising, racial discourses when I leave my inner daimon free rein among the scared mortals (my spoken Spanish is a bit scarier than my written posts in English).
What’s wrong with these peoples?
I like to think that there is nothing wrong with these people in a literal sense. Rather, they are the epitome of human evolution by Christian ethics. But without a doubt they are a type extremely weak to survive. That video you posted on the parasitic wasps shows that nature is not for the weak and naive that offer the other cheek.
I find surprising that possibility, even if we stop to think that resistance to Jewish imperialism occurs especially in the periphery of the white race, or the Middle East, Russia and yes, in our Latin America.
Of course here, especially in Brazil, you can not call resistance because the Brazilian case is particularly distressing, but there are some people like you and me to make a difference, more a sense of quality than quantity.
Like I said, purest white people are more liberal. That must mean something. Meanwhile, more mixed tend to be the most tribalist.
I think the pure white, especially Nordic, is extremely naive, I mean, he does not understand the trickery.
But what about the Vikings and the Goths? Didn’t they manage well before Christianity brainwashed them?
Sorry, I have no “brain power” but “energy brain”, slightly different.
Genes change. There are some who say that the descendants of Vikings currently would be the Russians.
Numerous events have happened in Europe since the Viking era to the present day, but the main one was the Christianization.
I recommended on the theory inbreeding-outbreeding, which has been developed by Hbd Chick. The north and northwest European populations are historically more outbred in Europe. The Vikings should have moved and mingled with the people they conquered.
The Christian religion prohibits marriage between close relatives. Well, this is one of many events that caused this drastic change.
But it’s interesting you compare crime rates and inbreeding in Europe. Europeans of the late Middle Ages were so tribalist as Arabs today.
I do not accept full-time to this theory because I believe that personality and intelligence are also important factors that influence our behavior as much as the standard mating.
Therefore, in my opinion, apart from outbreeding prolonged, certain combinations of personality traits, which are much more common in Europeans, were selected, resulting in this state of affairs.
Clearly there are subtypes of the Nordic race, which diverge from this trend now achieved. We do not know what can happen, but it is likely that in the coming years, with increasing crime and deepening of Western decadence, changes occur in sexual selection. In fact, it’s happening for a long time. In the U.S., liberals are much less fertile than the Conservatives.
However, the most liberal of conservative parents were born, as many conservatives are born to liberal parents. Liberals as well as lefties and homosexuals, for some reason, seem to be beneficial for the human species.
Would be heterozygous advantage.
‘Liberals’ have always existed in European societies and the Jews, it seems that more than once, always took advantage of this.
I would have called this the Sin against the Holy Ghost.
Similarly, think about the example of Greece. Genetic studies indicate a more significant non-European (West Asian, etc) genetic component relative to other European countries.
Yet Golden Dawn is almost certainly the most promising European nationalist party; rather high level of popularity but rather limited level of compromise in their ideology. (Last time I checked).
I’ve long suspected that this is not a coincidence. Sure, the economic crisis in Greece also helps explain the success of Golden Dawn, but I have trouble imagining such a party enjoying success in today’s England, even if they were facing a similar economic crisis.
The evolutionary concept of inclusive fitness tells us that fitness comes not just from passing on your own genes, but from helping other people who share your genes reproduce as well. IE: Your cousin shares a percentage of your genes, so your fitness increases when he reproduces.
In more highly inbred populations, the inclusive fitness payoff of helping relatives is greater, because they share more of your genes. The result is greater tribalism, nepotism and corruption (as you help your family at the expense of the rest of society).
Most population groups engage in some inbreeding and it is not necessarily dysgenic, if you avoid marrying the closest relatives.
But Western Europeans are uniquely outbred, due to Christianity. The various Christian churches banned cousin marriage and this was taken quite seriously in much of Europe. The result was 1600 to 800 years of outbreeding. Genes for familial altruism were bred out of Europeans to a significant degree. They became less focused on altruism towards family only and more willing to be altruistic towards unrelated individuals. The result was less nepotism, less corruption, higher trust societies but also a lack of healthy tribalism and a vulnerability to exploitation by populations that are not similarly outbred.
This phenomenon was more pronounced in England, France, Germany, Scandinavia and Northern Italy and less pronounced (but still significant relative to highly inbred populations like Arabs) in Ireland, Spain, Greece, Southern Italy and Eastern Europe.
More: here.
So, if this theory is correct, it would not be at all surprising if an influx of non-European DNA can restore these excessively outbred populations to a more healthy level of tribalism.
It’s not hybrid vigor, it’s just that tribalism is partially genetic and some groups have more of it than others.
I talked about hybrid vigor in relation to groups predominantly Caucasoid but with some blends non-European in the Americas. Of course, not everyone in this group will have a significant improvement in their skills whether physical or intellectual, but many will. In my case, I see a burden in relation to my physical fitness combined with bonus for my intellectual aptitude. I have a kind of intellectual hunger permanent’m not a genius, but I have a good average iq and present traits, some of them close to exhaustion, obsession and as intellectual curiosity, I do not see in other people.
I believe that racial purity is mainly the reduction of heterozygosity and genetic stabilization of all genetic traits, including behavioral. It is no coincidence that the Nordic seem so much more civilized compared to southern Europe.
When a breed becomes purer, it eliminates the neutral range, that perhaps it may be advantageous in some hypothetical event. Another advantage of heterozygosity is the internal divergence, which causes competition for resources (eugenics arms) and diversity of cultural choices.
This does not appear to have happened in Scandinavia where entire countries converged to almost entirely liberal states.
Behavioral heterogeneity relates to genetic heterozygosity and in my opinion is beneficial. What will save the Norse is that they are not completely inclined towards liberalism, leaving some minorities genotypic divergent. These minorities could eclipse the good part of the majority and make it phenotypically closest genotype tribalist Nordic. Cultural changes that eventually shape the next sexual selection, so start.
Of course, the internal competition is good but what is happening in the West is an extrapolation of this reality that shaped European biology in the past.
Of course, the policy implications of this are unclear, as there is a good chance that the resulting mixed offspring would have a healthy level of tribalism…towards the group that his non-European parent came from.
Well, I compare my father with my mother. Both are archaic prototype of the typical liberal today’s ,in other words they are religious but are at a higher level of universality of the typical conservative, which tends to be inherently more tribalist. However, my father who is more European, is definitely the perfect example of this subtype of liberal, yet behavioral conservative in essence but now more individualistic or universalistic than (conservative) tribalistic. My mother is definitely more tribalistic and less european.
I corrected your sentence as requested.
Someone who is of pure race, has less chance of losing his race, while someone who is somewhat mixed, or lives in a mixed society has to fight to be himself and therefor is more likely to become a white purist. The same is true of working-class people, who usually have more class-consciousness then middle-class people, because they have a bigger chance of falling into the lower-classes.
The reason is am of pure-blood, but also fight is because I am more of an elitist then most white people, I set very high standard for behavior, art and morals, to me it is not enough to be white, I want to be of the highest spiritual and cultural order.
I am white+ and that is most likely the way to attract a large amount of white people to white purism.
Agreed. And I would add that once the Goths started to miscegenate after Christianity took over, centuries later the hybrid Iberians found it easier to mix even more their blood when they conquered America.
Genetic suicide, especially for Portugal. But last time I spent part of my life in Spain I didn’t feel I was in a pure white country.
It is because most of the Spaniards are not actually pure white. It’s funny to see Portuguese and Spanish trying to prove they are pure, of course, there are regions in the two countries where the mixture with the North African, Middle Eastern and even some sub-Saharan African, was almost nonexistent, resulting in a closer look, Englishmen with eyes and brown hair. But it is also clear that in many regions the mixture happened. It is interesting to see how they could prove that the Iberians were not blending with the Maghrebi, since the mixture between the two peoples (Iberian and North African) has occurred since before the Roman invasion.
It is a mix of ignorance genetic, historical and anthropological. The North Africans in the past were more European in appearance than the current, which clearly resemble the predominantly Caucasoid Europeans here.
I saw some pictures of girls from southern Italy in a forum on the internet and anthropology became clear to me that many of them definitely looked more mixed-race with fair skin than white European.
I’m not trying to sell anti-white agenda here. I do not care if the southern Europeans have some blending with non-whites and non-Europeans, they are white because they have preserved much of the racial characteristics of its main trunk. So they are white. Moreover, almost all people Eurasians had some mix at some point, be it intra or extra racial nature.
Populations are always in the process of metamorphosis. Who guarantees us as was the appearance of the British in 1200. Perhaps they were more brown or more redheads. These changes are quite common and natural in all races, and is called evolution and sexual selection. What is not normal is programmed genocide.
I’m a no-pure caucasoid men that agree absolutelly with this.
Hmm, I don’t think admixture theories explain the Third Reich, it was smack in the middle of Europe and had better-developed racial policy than, say, Fascist Italy or Falangist Spain. There was also a short-lived racial renaissance in America, believe it or not, among the Anglo-Saxon ex-Puritans who pushed forward eugenics, Manifest Destiny, racial immigration laws, and so on (they were eventually destroyed by Christians and Marxists).
The interesting thing about these movements is that the populations involved in them flip-flop much more than the Russians or Greeks. They go from extremely racialistic to extremely humanistic in a short window of time, whereas the Russians and Greeks are operating on a more continuous low-level tribalism, without such high peaks and valleys.
My assessment would be that outer-Europeans are indeed more inherently tribal (though still less so than other races), but that inner-Europeans are not inherently humanistic or liberal, but rather inherently “purist” in their outlook; they embody whatever doctrine they profess to believe in more strongly than others do.
So an Italian Christian will observe the rites but not obsess over saving “starving”-but-multiplying-exponentially Africans. An Italian Fascist will rah rah rah over Italy but not obsess over how the genetic integrity of Italy can be maintained and strengthened. He operates closer to his baseline at all times. (At least, this is the case when compared to a German or Englishman; compared to a Chinaman he’s still radical and unpredictable.)
For this reason I’d say that the “big flip” in terms of psychology if not geopolitical influence will be the transvaluation occurring in an inner-European country, like Germany, Norway, Britain, Australia, or parts of America. A country who will distill the doctrine into its most potent form, and become the ideological leader of the coming conflict.
Basically, a population that thinks more like a Puritan than a Confederate, as I think Alex Linder said. We need crusaders, who aren’t merely free-thinking rebels but fanatical utopians of a completely different Order.
Before the flip happens the outer-Europeans will need to set the stage though, like Mussolini set things up for the German Revolution. Golden Dawn might not wind up the brownshirts, but they may well become the blackshirts. The people who actually live through such a colossal change in consciousness are terrified by it, and for that reason I think radical change beginning in an inner-European country would be unlikely, as unlikely as it cumulating on the periphery.
Agreed, and I would add that this entire genetic excursion distracts the original purpose of the above entry: how Christian values multiplied squarely in secular liberalism.
True, but we did make progress explaining the race problem and that is always a bonus.
Yes, forgive me for this, but I think that to understand any kind of behavior, you also need to make considerations about human biology. Just becoming too abstract.
Perfect comment!! Yes, This idea resembles your idea about a text alternative right that talks about the revolutionary character of innate European mean, Europeans are extremists by nature. So I think that when more intact is the gene pool of the nation, the more evident and clear will be the unique traits of the breed. That’s why the Swedes, who sterilized 60,000 people during the twentieth century, became one of the most liberal countries in the world.
There is actually a Dutch saying that explains this pure idealism perfectly ”Doe maar gewoon, dan doe je al gek genoeg” which translates as “Just act normal, then your acting crazy enough”.
Varlaan,
It is. I see exactly the same thing. It makes sense. There is no act normally, because if you think about it, there is no ”normal”. There is only rule. Supposedly, to be politically correct nowadays is to be in accordance with social norms most essential good coexistence, so this is act normal.
In fact, the normality is not subjective, it can only be scientific. If science seeks firmly the reality of the facts then be normal is to act in accordance with the logic.
(In this case, logic and pseudo subjectivity that leftpaths love trumpet, are the same or have the same function)
Science seeks reality, but the objectivity that it seeks with comes from racial-consciousness, objectivity became internalized, through spiritual conquest, before it was applied to science. As an example I can mention the medieval scholastic that made the first steps towards modern science by trying to create an objective way of understanding God.
Science can be used without the objective aspect, then you get the left which claims they belief in evolution, but deny there is any difference between two groups of human beings that have split over 60K years ago.
Or the global warming fanatics that claim human pollution is causing the earth to warm up and that anyone saying differently, like real scientists who speculate about solar spots are no better then flat-earthers.
Or how about the complete lack of a historical consciousness amongst the left, imagine it’s 1946, every European on earth has to be aware that several large racial and class based genocides happened in the last 50 years (beginning with the second Boer war), Then the left and greedy capitalists say, let’s import a foreign lower-class into Europe, I am sure the holocaust and holodomor won’t repeat itself!
Not to mention every leftist has this air of arrogance and superiority around them that’s disgusting to smell. They idealize fashion and pop-culture and think they are the pinnacle of humanity.
The intellectual arrogance of leftpaths is unbearable.
Words from a friend of mine.
I do think it matters whether the culture is patriarchal, or matriarchal, and whether the race-mixing is done by men or women.
One of your most insightful texts up to now, Chechar, thank you.
Its timing was particulary appropriate now that black-run Detroit is trying — unsuccessfully — to go officially bankrupt so it can keep on rolling a debt worth many billions of dollars (link).
Significantly, the last article linked above is by Mr. Parrot, a self-entitled “Christian” White nationalist. Like I have pointed out several times before on this blog, it is well beyond me to understand how such a thing is possible.
“Hey, nigger, you’re my brother in Christ and all that stuff, but could you please take your damn pickaninnies and your damn she-monkey-wife and leave my White society forever?”
As far as the discussion on miscigenation that began on this thread is concerned, my own view on the subject is as follows:
My father’s grandfather on his mother’s side was
Black. Besides, one of my grandmather’s grandmother was Indian. Needless to say, I’m neither White nor I see myself as one. But having at least two brain cells to rub together (to borrow Mr. Covington’s expression) I can see the net result of racial intermixxing for what it is: the most tragical human experiment people could engage in. I challenge everybody who disagrees with this judgement to visit the most miscigenated and most Negro/Indian heavily-populated states in Brazil and try to live there as the natives do for at least a year and see if they can leave these places with the same views on race they had when they arrived.
These people are not real human beings. They are humanoids at best and simple animals at worst.
It’s not just that they are physically repulsive. It’s that their intelligence, their morals, their behavior as a whole is simply too different from what you expect from a minimally civilized White man. And it’s not a matter of education or income either. Give them good schools and they will destroy it, give them money and they will promptly squander it some in extravagant way or another.
Having in mind that miscigenation is a self-reinforcing phenomenon, the only way to prevent it is to take an Alcoholics Anonymous approach about it. The AA people attitude to alcohol, as everybody nows is “avoid the first drink” : the only way to stop having drinking problems is not to drink and the only way not to drink is not to drink at all, to completely abstain from drinking. That is to say, as far as preventing race mixxing is concerned, the one-drop rule is the only rule that really works: only pure Whites are Whites. If you open a single exception, where the hell do you draw the line? If being White cesses to be a biological concept and becomes an honorary title (“I’m mostly White and I’m pro-White, so I deserve to be counted as White”) you’ll go down a very dangereous conceptual slippery slope with no clear benefits for the White nationlist movement and for the real White population by and large.
Tough and sad as it may sound coming from a self-defined non-White as I am, there should be no non-Whites living in any future White Homeland. Zero.
The survival of the White race should be placed above all personal considerations and interests. Any other stand on the subject cannot be taken seriously.
I’m not naive. The overwhelming majority of Whites are stupid assholes who dont give a fuck to anything beyond their own petty personal interests and who consider WNlism the summation of Evil itself. But the Western civilization is rooted in the the European gene pool and you cannot have the former without the latter. And if to preserve the latter you have to go to great lengths, including the cruelty of keeping out of a future White Homeland partially White people who are even smarter or more racially aware than most Whites living there (people like me, for example), THEN BE IT.
People like you are worth of a million of degenerate whites…
John Martinez
us, we could ”predominantly Caucasians” compose our own nations. I agree with you about it. I think that some nations could be good nurseries of new breed compositions such as Chile, which according to an old book of my Geography, has people with ”british behavior.”
Regarding hybrid vigor, well, exactly what is the composition of the best traits of two or three races. It happens, but it is a minority, in most cases the effect is catastrophic as say a lot.
With respect to pure white, yet complicated define think someone like pure, was watching a video of the last Universiade in the Russian city of Kazhan and saw in the audience, a wide range of ethnic types found in Russia, since the Nordic classical types to Turks, Mongoloids and mixed.
I have the impression that due to the large genetic distance that separates the Eurasian peoples of sub-Saharans, the mixture of Mongoloid and Caucasoid seems less devastating. Sure, they are just observations, I do not want to leave anything implied here.
I think that Latin America became an Indian, would be interesting to emulate them also a racial caste system deeper, through religion, a mix of Hindu tradition with the Catholic to preserve our racial configuration.
The only way to save a people for his downfall is through eugenics.
The Parsi people are a awesome example this.
Besides, one of my grandmother’s grandmother ON MY MOTHER’S SIDE was Indian*.
Great. What about posting the above as my next entry?
As you please. I would just ask you to make the above correction to the original comment, regarding my maternal grandmother.
Also, these are the 2 links I provided in the second paragraph of the same original comment:
http://takimag.com/article/the_motor_city_blows_its_pistons_jim_goad
http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/07/detroits-downfall-and-japans/#more-40980
Cheers.
[…] a Red Giant Star. What the Germans are doing can be understood as a combination of two evils: what Albert Schweitzer did with his pickaninnies in real life and what Mr. Earnshaw did with his legitimate son in Wuthering […]
Indeed, it’s almost like an adult hang-over of some two year old playing with his faeces.