[stextbox id=”warning”]For many reasons – but mainly political and financial – I believe there is little hope for the survival of a (Western) civilisation which has lost its pride, its confidence and its moral compass. Yet, unlike as in WW2 and the subsequent Cold War, it is not threatened by aggressive militaristic foreign powers but by enemies within who number not just the trivial 4,000 or so resident Germans and Austrians in WW2, (most of whom were anti-Nazi but they were rounded up and dumped on an island prison anyway) but in the multi-millions. I am not just talking about the plague of brown Muslims and black African invaders who have been let in by Labour governments (no co-incidence that virtually all brown and black people vote Labour) but also about the legions of white cultural Marxists who are in almost totally control of the media and the education system, but especially the universities. When our civilisation succumbs to the weight of all the forces aligned against it, our sprawling OBeCities will rapidly descend into nightmarish dystopian hell-holes. But those fortunate enough to be in the comparative safety and self-sufficiency of OΔCities will be in a much better position to ride out the chaos and anarchy.
DEMOCRACY
“Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others” is what most people remember Churchill saying about democracy. Yet, he is also quoted as saying “the best argument against democracy is a 5-minute conversation with the typical voter” which tends to contradict his better-known statement. I suspect that what Churchill really believed was along the lines of Oscar Wilde’s (or GB Shaw’s) “Youth is wasted on the young” quip. ie, “Democracy is wasted on the people” .
The majority will vote for whoever offers them the most short-term benefits, therefore democracy must inevitably lead to socialism and even communism, So-called “right-wing” or “conservative” parties can only stay in this game by gradually shifting their policies leftwards and ever closer to socialism. You can see this trend clearly in the UK and no doubt every other “liberal democracy” and even the USA of late. Supporters of democracy will point out that all the best countries in the world are “democracies”, but I believe this to be in spite of, not because of, democracy. China is making incredibly rapid progress without democracy, admittedly at the expense of many human rights.
It is always assumed that Europe’s prosperity is largely due to democracy, yet Singapore – which the Economist describes as a “flawed democracy” – most Westerners find to be a very pleasant place to live in and would quite possibly prefer it to their own “flawed” (in a different way) democracy. Who can say that Europe wouldn’t have progressed further and faster if they had kept their monarchies – or other form of benign authoritarian rule similar to that of Singapore..?
The three evils imperiling Western civilization are:
1) economism – the creed that accumulating material wealth and luxury goods is the primary or only goal worth pursuing. Wealth without wisdom leads to decadence and complacency, moral and spiritual degredation, decline and destruction.
2) multiculturalism & diversity – the ideology of cultural suicide which says that if altruism (towards less accomplished cultures) is good some of the time, then it is good all of the time and we must share our civilization with those from the failed cultures of Islam and Africa and even adapt our core beliefs and our culture in order to please them and to placate their hostility.
3) OMOV (one man one vote) – EQUALITARIAN MAJORITARIAN
[stextbox id=”info”] 1) the majority clamour for a higher minimum wage, improved public transport, more and better (free) social services and, in general, they want “MORE FUNDING” for all manner of things. 2) this majority then elects those representatives who, often self-servingly, promise to agitate for more government-funded programmes under the guise of calling them “basic rights”. 3) This ever-expanding social-security net means that the number of net “receivers” of these “basic rights” soon come to outnumber those who deliver (fund) them. So majoritarian politics is ALWAYS about gaining more “benefits” and more “rights” whereas “responsibilities” are rarely mentioned.
DIVERSITY
“I LIKE a world of diverse cultures but, unless each culture is segregated and keeps to its own space, the diversity is quickly diluted and then disappears”
“Diversity” destroys social cohesion. The more diverse an area, the less people are likely to volunteer, vote, donate to charity, trust their government, or trust their neighbours”
If the entire world were subjected to the multicultural, multiracial mixing that is being imposed in Europe and the United States, no truly distinct people or culture would survive. It is only white nations in which this kind of cultural and demographic displacement is taking place. No non-white nation would accept immigration or other policies that could reduce its native people to a minority.
EUGENICS
Eugenics is the idea that the quality of the human population can, and should, be improved by encouraging greater procreation between individuals who are above average in IQ, morality, health, athleticism, physical attractiveness, etc. In a eugenicist society, individuals with positive traits would be encouraged to breed “up”. Those with negative traits would be discouraged from breeding, or even sterilised in severe cases of inherited congenital genetic faults. Sir Francis Galton (1822-1911), a child progidy and cousin of Charles Darwin, launched the eugenics movement in Britain although, ironically, having had no children of his own despite being married for 43 years. By the early 20th century eugenics was a very respectable idea and was (almost) as widely advocated by the left as by the right and many countries (notably socialist Sweden) adopted eugenic policies intended to improve the genetic stock of their countries. Such programs often included both “positive” measures, such as encouraging individuals deemed particularly “fit” to reproduce, and “negative” measures such as marriage prohibitions and forced sterilization of people deemed unfit for reproduction. People deemed unfit to reproduce often included people with mental or physical disabilities, people who scored in the low ranges of different IQ tests, criminals and deviants, and members of disfavored minority groups.
Today eugenics is regarded as an odious idea only advocated, if at all, by the “extreme right” or “neo-Nazis”.
Yet today all western democracies have welfare states which dole out all manner of freebies in the form of – unemployment benefit, child benefit, housing benefit, single mothers benefit, disability benefit, free medical care – and so on. The great majority of the recipients of these handouts are the most “unfit” members of our societies.
Welfare statism facilitates and effectively subsidises greater procreation amongst the less fit members of our society. Meanwhile, in order to pay for all these state benefits and subsidies, our best people have to work at 2 jobs which reduces their desire and opportunity to have their own children. It is difficult to find exact figured but it should be obvious that the fertility rate of our less “fit” people is much higher (maybe twice) that of our most fit people.
The end result is that, in the absence of a eugenics programme, a welfare state means DYSGENICS by default – the polar opposite of eugenics. It does not take much imagination to realise that our present social welfare system is bound to produce a lower quality population – on that, in the long run, will be unable to maintain our civilisation let alone produce any technological advances.
By only admitting better specimens of humanity – “cherry-picking” if you like – 3MC’s will facilitate and encourage an improvement in the human stock. For some reason this is anathema to lefties, but this is as loaded with hypocrisy as most leftist ideals. Who does not want their children to be born intelligent, healthy, physically fit, and attractive? Who would not want to be born that way? And, if we’re talking about creating new societies, why would anyone want to create a society of physical and mental retards?
MULTI-CULTURALISM –
You cannot have a cohesive and co-operative society that is also a multi-cultural society. The two are fundamentally opposed.
Race is a biological reality–not a “social construct”–and is an important aspect of individual and group identity. The leftist mantra that races are equivalent and even interchangeable is pure insanity and is intended to destroy western civilisation by diluting our genes with those of lower IQ people from dysfunctional and violent cultures.
All human races and cultures are equal and none is superior to any other”. The unrelenting tide of leftist “cultural Marxist” propaganda that, for the last 50 years, has been making inroads from all sides is summed up in this single sentence of stupidity. Since it is not controversial to say that some breeds of Dog are more intelligent than others, why should it be so for human “breeds”? If you believe that does it mean you “hate” the less intelligent dog breeds? Of course it doesn’t..!
This totally goes against history and logic because, if one accepts the compelling arguments and evidence presented in Charles Murray’s book of that name, then 98% of “Human Achievement” has a European origin, and even most of that stems from a quite small part of NW Europe and N.Italy. The ideology of “equality” is relentlessly propagated – sometimes subtly, but often not – in the education system, all forms of the media – print, radio, TV, and Cinema especially – and also in the advertising of products and lifestyles. Typically the ideal couple is depicted as a black man paired with a white (usually blonde) woman. “Multi-culturalism”, “Diversity” (of race, but not opinion) and “Cultural Enrichment” are all part of this grand assault and “long march through the institutions”.
As a “Race Realist” I am considered part of the “radical right”, although no doubt leftists would describe my views in more slanderous terms. I don’t understand why RR is considered a minority viewpoint when, until quite recently, almost everyone had RR views. People have only stopped voicing their true feelings on race and 3rd world immigration because of virulent leftist establishment vilification and intimidation and out of fear of losing their livelihoods. That said, I do hold quite a few lefty views – the most relevant of which (for the purpose of this website) is that I strongly believe in the reality of man-made Climate Change. Other viewpoints that I share with the left are – pro-choice on abortion, pro drug legalisation, anti death penalty (not out of some misplaced belief in the supposed sacredness of all human lives but because extreme criminals can be used to benefit humanity).
RELIGIOUS BELIEFS
I don’t believe in any specific religion, as to do so would mean endorsing a rigid ideology and “menu” of beliefs. What if I don’t like something on the menu? However, I do believe that a “God” created this realm and other “Gods” created other realms – and, in due course, those of us who pass all the tests will become “Gods” ourselves. In a sense then, we are all God’s little apprentices – but at different stages of apprenticeship.
RE-INCARNATION
Since about the age of 5, or 6 at the latest, I have strongly believed that our “souls” are immortal and, after my body expires, I will be re-born into a new body. Nobody taught or ever mentioned anything to me about this possibility – I came to that realisation entirely on my own. In fact, until about the age of 11 or 12, I didn’t even know that my “strange belief” had a name and I certainly never told anyone in my family about it for fear of being ridiculed. None of my family and few of my friends share my belief, but I can only assume thats because most people don’t like to think about dying. Like Shirley MacLaine and others, I found that coming to this conclusion made me feel better about life – not because I want to live forever, but because it just made so much more sense than having just one life. Many people claim that RC is a religious belief, I suppose on the grounds that it implies an ultimate purpose in life. If so them I must be a religious person, though I never felt that I was. I know this sounds like a highly ambiguous statement but I believe “the meaning of life is to know the meaning of life “. In other words we have to keep coming back until we fully understand our purpose, after which we can then move on to a higher level whatever that