In a recent repost, “Liberals are about to be mugged by reality,” the author talked about “The Pods”: contemporary whites docilely or actively complicit in their own displacement, in the context of the 1956 film Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
Today, “Kat,” an unabashed Body-snatched Pod tried to post a couple of comments in two of the four “About” pages of this blog. In the page “This blog in a nutshell,” Kat said:
Wait……. why does it matter [to preserve the white race from extinction]? What’s so good about “nordic and mediterranean whites”? I think dark skin looks nicer anyway. It’s called biology, mate—all races evolved from one race (AFRICAN); now race continues to evolve and change.
Maybe you should spend your time fighting for people who actually have real problems, like fundraising for children’s cancer research. I hope this website is a huge practical joke.
Of course: I didn’t let pass thru Kat’s comment. Still, in the page “What is white nationalism?” she (I guess Kat is a she) tried to post:
“Our own countries” —Ok, maybe Europe. But as for the USA, Australia, etc—those were never our countries in the first place, they only became ours because we murdered/raped/slaughtered the original inhabitants.
Who are you to say that someone born in a war-torn country like Somalia has no right to seek a better chance at life elsewhere? Because they were born in a less privileged position than someone born in, say, France? So the little Somalian boy who, by coming to France, would have survived, instead gets murdered at age 12 so the white people can have their own little private space?
All the while, those who hold economic power (NOT limited to white people, but including) exploits the fuck out of those in the third world and perpetuates the cycle.
You are clearly someone who has never experienced true struggle. BY THE WAY, I AM WHITE.
One of the many things that the Pod ignores is that I have experienced personal struggles far beyond belief, but I’ll leave the replies to the Pod’s other points to my dear readers…
14 replies on “A Body-snatched Pod!”
Instead of an unproductive kneejerk reaction (“shut up, stupid bitch”), I am going to use our little Kat (Katy? Catherine? She sounds feminine) to make a point about conservatism.
Basically, Kat is right. I totally agree with her on this. Who wouldn’t?
If Whites and Blacks are racially and morally equal, why would you refuse a unhappy and miserable Congolese the search for happiness, life and comfort in the West? On the basis of the country he were born in? On the basis of international boundaries? That doesn’t make sense. This is cruel. This is unjust. He didn’t choose to be born in Congo. (emphasis on this argument, which is the most important). He could be a good, educated, moral, productive citizen if only we accepted his venue.
Here we observe the limits of traditional conservatism, exemplified by the Republican Party in the United States.
Conservatism does not integrate genetics, racism or Darwin to its equation. It is therefore powerless, both on logical and emotional grounds, to oppose the ever-increasing demands of “justice” coming from the Left, which uses the most powerful argument of all, morality.
The software of conservatism cannot prevent miscegenation, and cannot even prevent genocide by mass immigration, because up to the last moment, it claims that “we can turn all these lazy Hispanics into well-meaning Americans, if only we make the effort”…
It even cannot combat welfare and socialism, since only someone “cruel” would oppose laws in favor of equal opportunities and anti-discrimination…
Conservatism loses eternally. It has since the 1800s, and there is no reason to expect that will change.
The Left uses Christian morality against Christianity. For instance, they claim that atrocities perpetrated by non-Whites do not matter, because “everybody does it” isn’t a moral argument. But this is straight out of the Bible: “do not follow a multitude into evil”. Abagond calls this the “Arab trader argument”. He says not following it would lead to cannibalism. I say, when Black people want to eat each other, they should do so. I also say Whites are allowed cannibalism. As long as the Left singles out Whites as racists, I return the double standard and say only Whites are allowed to be racist, or, only Whites cannot be racist.
This Kat creature speaks without experience of the true nature of the non-whites. She spouts all the jew-inspired canards about the origin of humanity and qualities of the races. She is in effect suffering from a mental illness to which only white people, especially white females, are subject, ie liberalism. Liberalism is like a religious mania. Logic and rational thought have no place in it. The jewish gurus lay down the tenets and the white acolytes accept them without question from then on. Anyone who does question those tenets, whether about race, history, politics, Israel and so on, is a Nazi, racist, anti-semite etc and is to be crushed, either physically, if possible, or if not, legally. I suspect that this Kat is not open to any arguments about the nature of the niggers and jews or the true origin of race and so on. Only an enforced stay of several years in a place like Nigeria or Haiti would begin to penetrate her brain of mush, that is if she managed to survive, which is doubtful. Unfortunately for the rest of us she will not be forced to pay for her perverse, selfish attitude but will work to help bring about the hell that is looming for white civilisation and that has been planned for us by the tribe of demons who are the source of virtually all trouble on this beautiful planet of ours.
Only the threat of hell and damnation slaps the irrationality out of the Leftist. If she wants race-mixing, ask her if she is comfortable with the idea of Women of Color in White harems. Probably she freaks out. Then ask: “So ‘justice’ trumps race-mixing?”
She’s probably young and just out of indoctrination school. Her parrot language is too crisp to be of any original thinking.
Alas, I am just old enough to remember when teaching “original thinking” was one of the reasons we went to school.
She is a wild-eyed zealot of the church of judeo-liberal orthodoxy. It is fruitless to converse with her.
“Kat” doesn´t understand that humans are groupish. Group = survival. People that don´t belong to the group destroy the group. To have aliens within the group is equivalent to death. “Kat” wants us to embrace death. The rejection of Somali boys is not a discrimination against the Somali but a discrimination IN FAVOR of US.
In her selfhate, she fails to see that also Whites have the right to survive: by intact groups.
In her selfhate, she fails to realize that a Somalian boy doesn´t have to go to France: he can go to Kasachstan.
In her selfhate, she fails to see that if ever a refugee gets hosted, he has to leave later in order to keep our white group intact. But the refugees never leave.
“Kat” is a person blinded by selfhate which is the result of jewish hate of Whites.
This female, Kat (doesn’t deserve the noun woman, hopefully she will in future, one can always hope), is making the so called progressive political sound bites of the Australian Labor/Green internet echo chamber. I guess she is either politically active, or possibly a university student. They even have a funded Soro’s activist wing called, “GetUp”.
Most of this ilk (useful idiots) don’t even comprehend the politics that they support, generally only the militant feminists male and females do. They all have a degree in mental brain legion aids.
The Labor party, the equivalent to the USA The Democrat party, who are both ideologically bred from the left liberal camp of, The Fabian society. The Greens are a mish mash of strict environmentalists and socialists(old communists), we call them watermelons, Green on the outside, but RED in the middle.
Her type is a dime a dozen in the young cohorts of the middle and upper class, I remember the indoctrination, and it’s very strong in Australia, though we tend to grow out of it, I know I did. Usually it takes reality to smack you in the face first.
Females in Australia also get opportunities at affirmative action, along with the minorities they vote to import, so it’s in the individuals atomised culture-less best interests to support this, apparently. Yet statistically the non-white immigrant men surpass them, so they are unwittingly seeding the destruction of our country.
Surprisingly though the Patriarchy can take advantage of the woman’s grants via your wife accessing subsidised small/medium business loans. So the patriarchy wins again, even if a small consolation. 🙂 I love my wife, apparently we are a small pocket of resistance, there must be many of us in Australia though. 🙂
I know this female is Australian by the way, due to her common idiosyncrasies, small minded political sound bites and sad uneducated grasp on human evolution. I hope she reads these posts. 🙂 Just a suggestion perhaps you could let her post in this thread just to deconstruct her POV.
Oh that’s for sure:
Please dear Katty: discuss with all of us, please…!
Her faith relies on the open declaration of total abstinence from all racial thinking, induced by the inherent Christian morality within the grounded liberal politic. It makes for an interesting contrast: though the conservative frame of mind attracts most open Christians, it is hard-left liberalism itself which possesses most of the Christian tenets of universalism and equality.
Kat should induce within us a hate of the Shepard and not the sheep. Liberalism and the Jewish Frankfurt School had implemented these doctrines from an early age, consistently and subtly, while very effectively crushing the views of the opposition. We must remember that all sheep can be led to greener pastures, which we can induce by burning the tainted grasslands of our enemies.
However Kat herself may very well be a sacrificial White. She could sincerely wish to spread White wealth to African poverty and to purify her evil ancestry with miscegenation. (Her “attraction” to dark skin).
If that is the case then with much reticence I must admit that she is lost to the white race. She becomes pure, cancerous agent within the white psyche, leading us and our children into the hands of destruction.
When the rivers flow with blood, will it be better to merely cull such people if they openly stand against Occidental salvation? She’ll likely be amongst most of the cowardly leftists and silence with the realization that their cancerous beliefs will no longer be tolerated by the awakened Occidental man; their safety no longer guaranteed by the armed wings of the multikult.
My own Christianized upbringing makes me uncomfortable to say these things, but such white women serve us best as examples of the “traitorous class”. We will show them the same mercy that they have shown their own race in the face of its destruction: none. They will be culled, killed, banished. The men hung and the women relegated to the forced production of White babies as concubines for men who have proven great service to the Occident. White men, and especially women, must be introduced to a new visceral fear if they betray the honor of their blood and kin.
This is an interesting contradiction, born out of a strange understanding of the biological imperative. She declares us all originated from the African race: true from the modern understanding. However, the destruction of White genetics is not really evolution and change: it is devolution, regression to the mean, the extinction of distinction.
European superficial traits: our colorful mosaic of hairs and eyes, our white skin, was born of 10,000 years of evolution that can be obliterated in only a few decades of miscegenation. Sadly, this applies to our genetically induced spiritual, intellectual, and social tendencies as well.
Biologically, we possess fragile, rare adaptations to a climate once seemingly inhospitable to early man, who by the nature cannot survive even the most mildly of chilly nights by the warmth of skin alone. Yet, they are also the most glorious examples of man’s ability to exceed his nature: adaptations to an inhospitable environment by tool, by altruism, and overtime by evolution.
Like an Amoeba absorbing smaller organisms surrounding it, Kat wishes to destroy a unique human subgroup in the name of general human amalgamation.
Interestingly, as in all contradictions there’s a future irony. If the White race disappears in even our true homeland: Europe, then something fascinating will occur. Though a mostly dark mulatto population will reside, evolution will enact its slow but thorough process. Without the aid of the Vitamin-D enriched diets of Western Civilization, the invasive species of Europe will quickly find their skin maladaptive under the overcast skies of Scandinavia and England. Overtime, maybe thousands of years, darker skin will be eliminated from the population by their non-adaptive nature in the sun-stricken lands of Northern Europe, and melanin deficiency will once again become the norm amongst the inhabitants. This same process will occur against their primal natures, which cannot survive in the lands of the North where man must be kind and honorable to his kin in order to survive.
From this, another European race will be born, just as different from their equatorial ancestors as the ancients (us) who resided in the Occident before them.
My point is that the liberal obsession for amalgamation is futile as well as immoral: why destroy what nature both desires and ordains?
However, Kat likely wallows in modern ignorance. She lives far from the hood or bario, enriched in the blinding wealth of the West, hardly possessing the (fairly obvious) premonition that the importation of Mexicans and Africans will make the West look more like, well, Africa and Mexico.
She is merely the representation of the insanity that has gripped what was once humanity’s crowning civilization. She is complicit in the sacrifice of her kin and civilization, only satisfied when the West has atoned for both real and perceived sins by drowning in a festering vat of its own multicultural, decadent filth.
I loved this sentence. Have you read one of the featured posts here, “Lycanthropy”?
Ask me: who am presently living in a Mestizo “Latin” American city surrounded literally by millions of browns. How I wish Kat visits this town and destroy her passport to taste a bit of the flavor of the natural outcome of her beliefs…
“The men hung and the women relegated to the forced production of White babies as concubines for men who have proven great service to the Occident.”
So you agree with my religion that men and women must be treated differently?
I am however, myself beginning to think that religion is more important than race. Jews and Muslims can only be defeated by religion. Although Jewry has been racialized the last century, at its core it still based on religion. This is proven by the fact that they subsidize the Haredim, who do nothing but to study the Talmud. During the Dark Ages, Europe didn’t suffer under usury, and was not dependent on oil. Maybe God exists, and will atheists burn in hell. i know Cesar, that this will bring back painful memories, but ultimately, it is for your own good. Ask me, how can an atheist defeat the international bankers and the oil sheiks? Even if they can be converted to atheism, why wouldn’t they become racists, and promote the Brown race to the expense of the White race?
Columnist, it very interesting what you are saying but not the subject-matter of this blog. I believe that Hitler was right by the way: that the racial State should tolerate but reject both pagan and Christian religion. In the coming times religion won’t do it. The paradigm will be based on race realism together with some numinous symbols alone, just as the Nazis did.
There are so many fallacies in this argument.
Subjective opinion does not become objective simply because it is your opinion. This may be hedged under two fallacies: using authority instead of evidence (I believe it, so it must be true), and ignoratio elenchi (the genocide of the white race doesn’t matter because I don’t like the way they look that much).
Moreover, by making a racial judgment, that black skin looks nicer, you are positing that one race is superior. You don’t have a problem with that so long as the superior race is said to be black, apparently.
This is a very convoluted sentence. All races evolved from one race, therefore all races are equivalent. However, now race “continues to evolve and change,” therefore trying to stop the destruction of one race is wrong. Which is it? Either there are no racial differences (which is already undermined by you dark-skin-looks-nicer claim) or there are racial differences because of evolution (it’s called natural selection, mate). Do you mean that there has been no evolution among homo sapiens in the past forty-thousand years or so, but today evolution resumes, to the detriment of whites (who were the last race to evolve, by the way)? I think you will find that those scientists who accept racial differences accept that Europeans and East Asians are the most evolved people. Thus, if we go with your reasoning, all others races are but fodder for the European and East Asian.
Ah, but do those kids have nice-looking dark skin? You’ve suggested that the vulnerable (the white minority with recessive genes) must yield to the “dark” people, so why do you give a toss about kids whose bodies weren’t strong enough to ward off cancer?
Was there such widespread rape and murder (and why do you differentiate between “murder” and “slaughter”–what’s the difference?)? Even if there were, it wasn’t exactly something particular to the white race. Ever heard of the Mongols? Ever heard of contemporary South Africa? Haiti? Thailand? (your fallacy here is Stacked Evidence, by the way)
Plus there’s Guilt by Association and Non Sequitor (because some past whites did bad things, all contemporary whites should be eradicated; because whites didn’t originate in these lands, they should yield to other races that didn’t originate in these lands). Few black South Africans can trace their ancestry to pre-colonial times? Does that mean we can expunge them from South Africa, or at least stop their horrific rapes and murders (>30,000 whites killed by blacks in SA since the end of apartheid, who knows how many raped)?
This is of course a sentimental appeal (An innocent little boy will die if we try to protect the white race or stop immigration). You’re ignoring the possibility that culture is a least partly genetic. You’re also ignoring that by bringing more people into white countries we increase competition for scarce resources, such as food, jobs, and mates, which has a disadvantageous if not genocidal effect on whites (You don’t care about “Nordic or Mediterranean people, as you already stated). Why must we bear the burden of other races and countries. Why not allow those people to correct their own countries? Does the huge amount of aid given by the West to Africa mean nothing? To take your tack, what about the 12 year old French kid who lives in a majority black area of Paris, who suffers racial abuse all of his or her life and eventually is killed by a racist black gang? Does this child’s life weigh nothing in your scales?
This is also an either or fallacy (bring the child here or he dies!)
Where is this exploitation? How were conditions before these evil white people came? Could things actually have been better under colonialism? How did this exploitation come about and how would you fix it, so that no one is “exploited the fuck out of”?
Again: stacked evidence (though there is really no evidence), guilt by association, sentimental appeal.
What is “true struggle,” and how differs it from “false struggle.” You’re creating a dichotomy within the concept of “struggling” so that you may determine who has “struggled” and who has not. Your criterion for determining the “true” seems to be weighing each instance of adversity against a more brutal standard. To those white women who are raped by black men, you might say, “Oh, yeah, well there are pregnant women in Somalia who are raped and have their fetuses cut out and are forced to eat them; so you don’t know anything!” (Allow me to note that that example of pregnant African women is not something I concocted but about which I have read. I know it might be difficult to credit that “nice-looking dark” men could be so savage…) And does a person have to “struggle” to understand logic? If so, then you yourself have clearly never struggled.
If you had but a rudimentary knowledge of rhetoric, you would know that by putting this sentence at the end of your final paragraph automatically gives it more weight than any other phrase you wrote, save perhaps the first. The capitals are superfluous, perhaps showing that you have difficulty apprehending important things unless they are CLEARY DELINEATED.
Furthermore, you have spent this entire piece proclaiming that race, or at least the white race, doesn’t matter. You then conclude by telling us you are white in order to make your argument look stronger. If race be irrelevant, then why tell us what you are? Whether you be white or black, your logic remains infantile. Thus we have another instance in which you play up racial differences while condemning people for talking about race.
We end much as we began, with you using false authority and red herrings.
The Stacked Evidence Fallacy is illustrated and refuted in a section of my book, which demonstrates that non-white tribes and even high cultures such as the Aztec and the Peruvian committed infanticide and even child cannibalism on a gigantic scale when they were conquered by the Europeans in the 16th century.
The Stacked Evidence Fallacy is ubiquitous in present-day academia even when, in the case of the Americas, the native anthropologists of these countries accept the realities of such infanticide and cannibalism. (Of course, dishonest as they are they rationalize the Amerindian behavior using the fraudulent Boasian anthropology, which prevents whites from passing value judgments on such Amerindian practices.)