I'm making this thread because the topic is stinking up the Trump thread but it's still a bit beyond the Politics and War lounge.

The me preface the rest of this by saying this thread is not an invitation to shit on anyone's race, religion, country or political affiliations. Please keep the thread clean of emotionally driven bullshit.

I'll keep it simple. When it comes to demographics, be it in relation to race, ethnicity, politics or religion I hold the following premise to be foundational.

Since the arrival of the Boeing 747, any national, racial, political or religious demographic that fails to hold self preservation as it's highest priority is doomed to be subsumed or enslaved by other demographics that do.

This is nature's fundamental law. The will to power.

Can an institution be inclusive, charitable AND survivable or will such an organisation be hollowed out by opportunists who have no true allegiance to that institution?

In my opinion this is the most fundamental question in regards to the survivability of the West and the people contained there. It is the most fundamental question in regards to what lessons must be learned if we get a chance to survive this insanity and rebuild.

At what saturation point does racial inclusivity doom a society (give examples)?
At what saturation point does political inclusivity doom a society (give examples)?
At what saturation point does religious inclusivity doom a society (give examples)?
At what saturation point does national inclusivity doom a society (give examples)?

What are examples of highly survivable demographics? What can we attribute this to?

I don’t think the problem in the West is the diversity per se. I think a society can be inclusive and successful, if the following conditions are met:

- laws must be strictly enforced. You can’t have special licence to certain groups or minorities to flout the law
- no political correctness or affirmative action because not only it is socially sub-optimal, it also alienates groups which are not protected
- not perverted incentives subsidizing unemployment or irresponsible families
- economic opportunities for all and limited social inequality

Whether these conditions can be met I don’t know

Quote: (01-30-2018 05:30 AM)Montrose Wrote:  

I don’t think the problem in the West is the diversity per se. I think a society can be inclusive and successful, if the following conditions are met:

- laws must be strictly enforced. You can’t have special licence to certain groups or minorities to flout the law
- no political correctness or affirmative action because not only it is socially sub-optimal, it also alienates groups which are not protected
- not perverted incentives subsidizing unemployment or irresponsible families
- economic opportunities for all and limited social inequality

Whether these conditions can be met I don’t know

What do you think of the Singapore example? Does it adequately fulfill all those conditions?

Quote: (01-30-2018 06:52 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

Quote: (01-30-2018 05:30 AM)Montrose Wrote:  

I don’t think the problem in the West is the diversity per se. I think a society can be inclusive and successful, if the following conditions are met:

- laws must be strictly enforced. You can’t have special licence to certain groups or minorities to flout the law
- no political correctness or affirmative action because not only it is socially sub-optimal, it also alienates groups which are not protected
- not perverted incentives subsidizing unemployment or irresponsible families
- economic opportunities for all and limited social inequality

Whether these conditions can be met I don’t know

What do you think of the Singapore example? Does it adequately fulfill all those conditions?

It does work there. But they have an authoritarian government and a stable ethnic mix with a clear majority (Chinese). Impossible to replicate in a western democracy/republic.

Quote: (01-30-2018 05:30 AM)Montrose Wrote:  

I don’t think the problem in the West is the diversity per se. I think a society can be inclusive and successful, if the following conditions are met:

- laws must be strictly enforced. You can’t have special licence to certain groups or minorities to flout the law
- no political correctness or affirmative action because not only it is socially sub-optimal, it also alienates groups which are not protected
- not perverted incentives subsidizing unemployment or irresponsible families
- economic opportunities for all and limited social inequality

Whether these conditions can be met I don’t know

Arguably many Western nations featured most of that list at some point but degradation followed regardless.

For example, minorities not being allowed to flout the law falls afoul of larger numbers of certain groups ending up in prison per capita. There are only two ways to explain that. Either the group being locked up more per average is the victim of racism, or members of that race are simply more prone to breaking the law.

If the core of your society is not intellectually or emotionally capable of conceding to the latter then they will choose the former and presume racism exists in the police force and the judiciary. Candidates would stand on the platform of "stopping this racism" and you end up where we are today.

Or in other words, having (x) is pointless if because of (y) you end up with (z) regardless.

Having hard and fast rules is pointless if because of wishful thinking you end up with lawlessness regardless.

For a group to be survivable their core ethos must prevent (y).

All I know is.
A society that allows or promotes hedonism on mass & has no core principles.
To the point where it's 'foundation' is that of sand.

Is far more likely to falter as opposed to a homogeneous society founded on solid core principles / stone.

I was going to point out Singapore, but others got there first.

Here's an excerpt from an interview with Lee Kuan Yew in his declining years:

Quote:Quote:

SPIEGEL: During your career, you have kept your distance from Western style democracy. Are you still convinced that an authoritarian system is the future for Asia?

Mr. Lee: Why should I be against democracy? The British came here, never gave me democracy, except when they were about to leave. But I cannot run my system based on their rules. I have to amend it to fit my people's position. In multiracial societies, you don't vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion. Supposing I'd run their system here, Malays would vote for Muslims, Indians would vote for Indians, Chinese would vote for Chinese. I would have a constant clash in my Parliament which cannot be resolved because the Chinese majority would always overrule them. So I found a formula that changes that...

The whole interview is well worth reading. An interesting snippet is that he predicts China learnt from the USSR and will not try and arms race the US, but will keep smiling for the 40 to 50 years it takes to beat them economically. I was shocked at the amount of truth bombs coming out of this guy's mouth.

Something else to be noted is all of the accolades he received from world leaders while effectively running an authoritarian autocracy.

I think the Singapore experiment can only be adapted to newly formed nations or smaller states (<10 million population), particularly those facing a credible external threat. It would face blistering opposition if a western nation tried to adapt it because western nation's are the only ones held to certain standards of progressiveness that other cultures are exempt from.

Also Singapore was basically kicked out of Malaysia and was an incredibly vulnerable city state that was given a LOT of leeway I believe in consideration of the dangers it faced in its nascency (such as a belligerent Indonesia). You might infer some parallels with tolerance of Israeli policy last century.

tldr; Lee Kuan Yew is an absolute baller and turned Singapore from a shithole into a First World Nation. It was only possible through Authoritarianism.

The Ottoman Empire was a quite successful multicultural state for much of its 600 year history. Of course, it was not a democracy. I don’t see democracy surviving in the West in the long run anyway.

Quote: (01-30-2018 09:49 AM)Speculation Wrote:  

I was going to point out Singapore, but others got there first.

Here's an excerpt from an interview with Lee Kuan Yew in his declining years:

Quote:Quote:

SPIEGEL: During your career, you have kept your distance from Western style democracy. Are you still convinced that an authoritarian system is the future for Asia?

Mr. Lee: Why should I be against democracy? The British came here, never gave me democracy, except when they were about to leave. But I cannot run my system based on their rules. I have to amend it to fit my people's position. In multiracial societies, you don't vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion. Supposing I'd run their system here, Malays would vote for Muslims, Indians would vote for Indians, Chinese would vote for Chinese. I would have a constant clash in my Parliament which cannot be resolved because the Chinese majority would always overrule them. So I found a formula that changes that...

...

Some time back on another thread I talked about the fact that if your democracy relied on one demographic outnumbering another (or several others) to remain viable then you weren't running a universal franchise, you were running a zoo where you pretended to let the animals have a say.

Take America. If blacks persistently vote full-retard communism at outrageous percentages then the fact that they make up ten percent of the population essentially robs them of any self determination as a peoples.

Now, you can put a gun to their head and say "you're Americans first and Blacks second" but what if that's not what they want? Reverse the situation and imagine whites make 10 percent of a full-retard communist black dominated nation (in fact, we have at least one example of that right now).

Would anyone blame the whites for seceding, or at very least being incredibly bitter about their situation?

Same goes for Latinos, or American Indians, or the Aboriginals in Australia.

The lynchpin of a multi-racial democracy is that the majority of each individual race must see themselves as a nationalist first and a white/black/indian/latino second (or third, after religion).

So it also goes that the lynchpin of a multi-religious democracy is that the majority of each individual religion must see themselves as a nationalist first and a Christian/Muslim/Jew/Hindu second (or third, after race).

If you can't meet that standard then, congrats, you have instantly become either an oppressor or the oppressed. That you wield or suffer that oppression through democracy is of little relevance.

Quote: (01-30-2018 06:52 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

Quote: (01-30-2018 05:30 AM)Montrose Wrote:  

I don’t think the problem in the West is the diversity per se. I think a society can be inclusive and successful, if the following conditions are met:

- laws must be strictly enforced. You can’t have special licence to certain groups or minorities to flout the law
- no political correctness or affirmative action because not only it is socially sub-optimal, it also alienates groups which are not protected
- not perverted incentives subsidizing unemployment or irresponsible families
- economic opportunities for all and limited social inequality

Whether these conditions can be met I don’t know

What do you think of the Singapore example? Does it adequately fulfill all those conditions?

Singapore is a model state (i.e. clean, safe, rich, insanely low to non-existant crime, high quality of life) only because of authoritarianism.

I like Singapore but there is no way in hell that Westerners would be able to stomach the type of government necessary to make it the way it is even if it meant absolute safety and high quality of life.

It's Han Chinese authoritarianism with a sprinkle of English-ness that allows for a slightly less authoritarian version of China.

Yes it's diverse but challenge the Hans' supremacy and you'll be toast.

I feel at this point the U.S. is doomed for failure in its current incarnation.

There's just too many competing interests and a damaging confluence of cultural and social issues that will drag it down eventually. It's not all about immigrants or race either but a change in the majority culture in a way that has severe ramifications towards future stability.

This doesn't mean I think the U.S. will fail completely and be conquered by outside powers but I do think it will undergo a drastic change eventually. I don't think this will happen soon either.

The current strength of U.S. institutions, lack of serious military competition, and its current economy means it can still persevere for possibly quite a long time to come. I think the alt-right guys advocating for an ethnostate are being short sighted and not a single one of them or their grandchildren will live to see that happen.

It will be a slow long grinding decline of a great nation until things reach such a tipping point that it forces a cultural awakening or revolution. Afterall, Latin America is also full of almost failing nations limping along in modernity who also have unusual demographics.

Contrary to some halycon idealists of the past I don't think the U.S. was ever a high trust society either. I'd call it more of a "middle trust" society where people grudgingly cooperated because resources were viewed as plentiful. The only reason the original white european diaspora ever worked in the first place was because of that. You can go back to ancient civilizations and examine that they were never ethnostates or on the opposite side of that spectrum..multiracial. They were always ruled by a elite sub ethnic group who utilized authoritarian like extremes to keep power and order.

This is where I disagree a lot with racial ethnonationalist theory. I don't think people in the same racial category have a predisposition to work together. I think people will work together when it falls into a very specific ethnic sub group (tribe) or strong religious community running the show but over arching racial similarities are too general to create a lasting bond of a nation as big as the U.S.

It will all still fray eventually.

On the otherhand if one dominant sub ethnic group like Anglo saxon (as in the past) or some new ethnic group were to gain control then yes it can run well enough to formulate its own identity and maintain cohesiveness but it wouldn't really be an ethnonationalist nation either.

At best it would then become a nation with clear ethnic "winners" from one group ruling over subordinate ethnicities who happened to be the same general race. World history is full of far more examples of that happening than some multiethnic monoracial paradise of people working together.


I don't think this attitude has changed much over time. The remnants of the anglo saxon elite still hold court in many ways but they divested much of their power to Jews. It's really the U.S.'s economy, infrastructure, and unprecedented living standards which keeps things together today.

It will eventually all fail if the U.S. ever reaches a point where its great economy falters. Then that's when people will really turn on each other in a way never seen before.

At that point I don't know what North America will look like either and I don't care to find out.

I can say one thing though..the Mexican incursion into the north is an unprecedented soft invasion of a nation. I can't think of any other situation in the last 50 years where a powerful nation ceded territories to its neighboring country from covert demographic flipping. That is what is happening now.

I also can't think of any other powerful nation which allows a tiny foreign nation of 8 million dictate its military and economic policies to such a degree.

In many ways the U.S. is uncharted territory.

I think multiracialism can work if the demographics are weighed heavily in favor of the dominant culture/glue group. It can work with strict rules governing the allowance of foreign workers and immigrants. However as policies exist right now there is such an ideological pull from all directions which hinder rational and practical policies.

With this weird racial and cultural plurality it has now the longevity of the U.S. system drops every year.

Over the long term any institution (political, cultural, or religious) cannot survive with inclusiveness and multiculturalism. Competing ethnic, racial, and cultural groups will tear it apart.

Furthermore unless an organization is explicitly right wing in orientation and steadfast in it's fidelity to the founding stock it will whither and die. Some people say it is possible so long as we "enforce the law" but how can you do that when jurisprudence is tied very closely to racial and cultural origins. As soon as America started opening her doors to people who do not understand or appreciate Anglo-Saxon legal tradition it was inevitable that the constitution would be rendered null and void. The further you get from Anglo-Saxon thought the harder it will be to assimilate those people. Italians, Poles, and Slavs are at least European and Western so they have some grasp of the tradition in which the American legal and political system sprang up from, unlike Indians, Somalis, or Arabs.

Christianity was a poison pill for the West from the start being a multicultural, universalist religion. Religions need to spring organically from a race of people and are reflections of the unique folksoul of those people. There is a reason Christianity was warped to near unrecognizableness when it came to Europa, we needed a religion we could understand. Christianity was morphed from a esoteric peace cult founded by a rebellious Jew to a warrior cult focused on the cultivation of martial and manly virtues. The religion of Charlemagne, Richard the Lionheart, and Vlad the Impaler was not the religion preached by Jesus in the desert ancient Judea. As Christianity's center shifts southeastern it will change once again.

In white countries we carry the torch of western civilization. In aggregate, only white people can create and maintain western civilization. The key word here is “aggregate”.

Now on RVF some people say “what about the degenerate whites undermining the nation - the SJWs, pussy hatters, ANTIFA , etc.”

Well of course we have all kinds of white people - these people are outliers. They're in the white minority. Put whites together though, and in aggregate you have a western civilized country - one that is safe and calm and orderly and prosperous and relatively non-corrupt.

You look at whites in aggregate in the USA and you see a red map of the country. You look at a non-white voter map and you see all blue.

Then there’s some non-whites on the forum who say “What about me? I’m conservative. I’m pro-Trump. Don’t you want people like me instead of white liberal SJWs?” Guys like Kaotic and cobra and Ghengis - all good men - are the outliers. Roll up their ethnic group in aggregate though and you can kiss western civilization goodbye.

And that’s the hard part. I’m glad those guys are part of America and part of the forum, but I have to recognize that too many of their co-ethnics would destroy my country. I think those guys recognize that too.

Their level of assimilation is rare and can’t be replicated in aggregate.

Assimilation basically means “acting white.” Probably more accurately, acting and thinking like someone whose heritage is Christian European when it is not. Can you expect a Muslim Somalian to think and behave like someone brought up in a European-American Christian household in a European-American Christian neighborhood in a European-American Christian country? Maybe a rare few can, but most will not. And in the Current Year, how do you tell Somalians to act white? They’re brought here and taught white people and their history is evil, and that white people are their Current Year oppressors.

We have some not-so-clever guys on the forum trying to sell the Brown Pill. They point to the white minority degenerates and the Brown people good guy patriots (a small share of their ethnic group) and try to sell the idea we need more brown. Again, whites in aggregate (despite outliers) create and maintain good societies, POC people in aggregate (despite some good guy outliers) create and maintain shitholes. (Usual caveats apply - japan/Korea -honorary whites- are not shitholes.)

I wish that were not the case but isn’t it rather obvious?

The white outliers - and (((whites))) - align with the POC majorities to undermine conservatism - western civilization really. This is why shitlibs are so hell bent on flooding the country with turd world illegals and amnestying them.

I’ve seen surveys where a majority of immigrants are not fans of the first amendment. And the second amendment?, get the fuck out of here. I’ve met so many immigrants from shithole countries who are completely perplexed how citizens can own guns, and who are outright hostile to our Bill of Rights. They are strangers in a strange land - and you can’t rely on them to carry the torch of America as we know it. Give them the torch and they’ll use it to burn it down.

We can handle some diversity and some multiculturalism, but not too much. What is the tipping point? I don’t know but we seem to be nearing it now or at it. I never felt this level of polarization in my life. Too many divergent views - meaning a critical mass building of people hostile to American ideals and heritage Americans thanks to runaway immigration. Even before Trump entered the scene I felt like we were careening towards civil war.

Multiculturalism works to a point, then it doesn’t.

In my view the single biggest flaw of America's founding, aside from the greed-driven importation of a black underclass, was the failure to enshrine Christianity as a legally favored religion. Many of the Founding Fathers seem to have been agnostics or Deists riding off of the destabilizing intellectual current of the Enlightenment.

Today America is on the way to becoming a second Brazil, with little sense of national unity and a high degree of social fragmentation. Nonwhite immigrant and birth rates aside, whites themselves came from a fragmented variety of countries with their own languages and cultures. They came to the United States, a rootless state founded on philosophy of legal liberty, not cultural strength.

It so happens that Europeans, who invented the nation-state, are intensely proud of their national identities. Modern American descendants of Poles, Germans, Irish, and Italians might not identify as being from those places, but thus far America has totally failed to create a cultural identity that is anywhere near as strong or deep-rooted as the belonging (not loyalty, that concept died with WWII) that an average European feels for his own land and customs.

A big reason for white Americans buying into Cultural Marxism and leftism as if they were articles of religious faith stems from their socio-cultural rootlessness. In Europe, by contrast, the process of mandating leftist ideas and policies seems much more top-down, which makes sense since Europeans have long tended to trust their governments to make sound decisions for the public good. In either case, people need something to believe in. The deterioration of moral and cultural identity once mandated by religion paved the way for leftist ideologies to infiltrate the institutions of political power and social order.

The experience of some Eastern European countries suggests that it is possible to resist the negative pressures of globalism to some extent, but the jury is still out on this one pending what happens in Western Europe and other places. I still place higher bets on the ability of native German/French/Italian national identity to push out the Muslims (along with their traitorous leaders) than I do on the likelihood of Americans to magically craft a strong and unified national culture in the timeframe necessary to stave off fragmentation.

Quote: (01-30-2018 11:30 AM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

I don't think this attitude has changed much over time. The remnants of the anglo saxon elite still hold court in many ways but they divested much of their power to Jews. It's really the U.S.'s economy, infrastructure, and unprecedented living standards which keeps things together today.

It will eventually all fail if the U.S. ever reaches a point where its great economy falters. Then that's when people will really turn on each other in a way never seen before.

Once the fragmentation of American society and identity can no longer be reversed, then the country will continue to chug along on the strength of its economic base and political institutions for however long it can sustain these demographic and cultural contradictions. It is like a tooth that has undergone a root canal. The decayed root is now dead, but the tooth can keep biting and chewing until one day it cracks and can only be extracted.

Quote: (01-30-2018 01:12 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

In white countries we carry the torch of western civilization. In aggregate, only white people can create and maintain western civilization. The key word here is “aggregate”.

Now on RVF some people say “what about the degenerate whites undermining the nation - the SJWs, pussy hatters, ANTIFA , etc.”

Well of course we have all kinds of white people - these people are outliers. They're in the white minority. Put whites together though, and in aggregate you have a western civilized country - one that is safe and calm and orderly and prosperous and relatively non-corrupt.

The problem is that the torch of western civilization has never been carried by the aggregate whole of Europeans. It's always been this or that country -- Greece, Rome, France, Great Britain, Italy, Germany -- each with its own exclusive identity and sense of superiority.

White SJWs are not, unfortunately, outliers. The state I come from is like 90% white and it is extremely liberal. States of similar demographics are also very liberal. The only significant places with overwhelming white majorities that are not also overwhelming liberal are in Eastern Europe. Ironic, isn't it. The only places where Western, Christian civilization is still dominant are the same places where another Western, Christian power wanted to clear out or enslave the "subhumans."

I will try to say this as nicely and diplomatically as possible.

Those who are advocating that Christianity is a certain (((conspiracy))), negative, or misleading need to take a break from Storm Front or Mein Kampf.

Sure, there have been many civilizations in history that have done well before Christianity ever came along. Sure, Rome fell not long after Christianity was adopted. But these observations cannot be viewed in a vacuum. Rome was already on the downswing regardless of Christianity. As for other civilizations in the past - compare them to Europe (and their offspring nations) for the last 1,700 years. These civilizations pale in comparison to the accomplishments of Western Christian nations. And although I can't prove that the same couldn't be done without the aid of Christianity, anyone with common sense realizes Christianity's significant contribution (i.e. defending a developing renaissance Europe from Islam).

I have stated this before on the forum, but it got lost in a sea of posts. Hopefully it will stand out more this time. People need to understand what the fundamental concept of Christianity is. I say this in a way that acknowledges the possibility that God may not exist. It is a breakaway from Judaism analogous to the breakaway of the United States from England. To be extremely simplistic, Judaism contains a set of rules that was either formulated by intelligent red-pill men making observations over time and passing down those observations (if you don't believe in God), or passed down directly from God via prophets (if you do believe God). These set of rules are the optimal way to run a society. They allow humans to surpass a hunter-gatherer group of 30 some-odd people to a society with no population limit. Among these rules include monogamy, no theft, no murder, no degeneracy, etc.

Judaism however, in addition to the requirement of following these rules, imposed a racial/genetic requirement as well. In order to be a Jew, you had to be genetically Jewish. Christianity however, removed the racial requirement of Judaism. It took invaluable knowledge of how to build a society, and gave it to all the people of the world, just as the United States took the power of government from the old monarchy of Europe and gave it to the common man. Yes this is highly simplistic, and yes there are obvious differences between Christianity and Judaism, but I am trying to get the fundamental concept across.

Something that is so often told to small children in Sunday school, 'all you have to do is let Jesus into your heart' is something so few people understand. It is an illustration of this fundamental concept. All that is expected of you is believe and follow this set of rules. That's it. You don't have to be Jewish, or white, or black, or anything. This simple concept is why slavery was eliminated and why Western Christian nations ultimately do care about others. Because in the Christian's mind, everyone has the potential to go to heaven and be saved - or for those who don't believe in God - everyone has the potential to be a productive member of society. Why do you think the (((Elite))) do not hesitate in poisoning and killing billions of people, or that a godless Hitler or Stalin did not hesitate in killing millions? The answer is far more simple than most make it.

Who were Europeans 1,700 years ago? Barbarians. Killing the Romans, and even each other over the smallest of things. Yet they would become the people who invented the airplane, computers, end an institution that was in existence since the beginning of mankind - slavery? None of which was accomplished before in human history. As we see society crumble around us today - a directly result of abandoning God - we see the significance in these rules. So please, let's put that to rest.

Quote: (01-30-2018 02:59 PM)kamoz Wrote:  

Who were Europeans 1,700 years ago? Barbarians. Killing the Romans, and even each other over the smallest of things. Yet they would become the people who invented the airplane, computers, end an institution that was in existence since the beginning of mankind - slavery? None of which was accomplished before in human history. As we see society crumble around us today - a directly result of abandoning God - we see the significance in these rules. So please, let's put that to rest.

Thank god a breakaway Jewish sect came to Europe to save us ignorant savages from killing each other:






Pre-Christian "barbarian" Europe:

Quote: (01-30-2018 03:51 PM)Raylan Givens Wrote:  

Quote: (01-30-2018 02:59 PM)kamoz Wrote:  

Who were Europeans 1,700 years ago? Barbarians. Killing the Romans, and even each other over the smallest of things. Yet they would become the people who invented the airplane, computers, end an institution that was in existence since the beginning of mankind - slavery? None of which was accomplished before in human history. As we see society crumble around us today - a directly result of abandoning God - we see the significance in these rules. So please, let's put that to rest.

Thank god a breakaway Jewish sect came to Europe to save us ignorant savages from killing each other:

This is a cheap rebuttal commonly used by stereotypical modern atheists (not saying you are one of them, but it is a staple of their arguments). I am glad you brought it up so it can be addressed.

This rebuttal is misleading and an example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Simply put, people will always compete with and kill each other. This was humorously illustrated in the Southpark episode 'Go God Go.' If you haven't seen it, Cartman travels to the future where two random atheist alliances are at war with each other. Yes, I'm aware that Southpark is not scientific or historical evidence, but it explains things in an easy to understand fashion. For actual evidence one only needs to review pre and post Christian society history.

Now in the grand scheme of things, did Christianity overall reduce violence and killing versus if it had never existed? That is hard to tell and difficult to prove, but to argue the converse is nonsense.

Many atheists and leftists cite the Crusades, the Inquisition, and colonialism as examples of Christian violence. These are viewed in a vacuum devoid of other factors. As for the Crusades, I shall wield Meme Magic ™ to illustrate my point:





Now, these do not discuss the crusades in Eastern Europe by the Teutonic Knights, of which one of your pictures illustrated. However, fighting between Slavs (especially Poles) and Germans has gone on for a millennium and is independent of Christianity. Hell, to this day the Germans are still trying to impose their rule on Poles by trying to force them to take in migrants. It is an age-old racial issue.

The Inquisition (more specifically, the Spanish Inquisition) has been given a bad rap, like the Crusades, to fit the Leftist narrative. It has been found by based historians to not be nearly as gruesome as we are led to believe in the mainstream. One must also understand Spanish history, in that the Spaniards were invaded in the late 600s and early 700s by the Muslim Berbers and Moors, had almost their entire country occupied, and over the course of 700 years until 1492 fought and took their nation back. Anyone with common sense would run some inquisition to not only rid the Muslims that were occupying your country for the last 700 years, but also Jews who were found to be playing both sides.

Colonialism has been discussed recently on this forum related to the topic. The conclusion is that it was natural consequence of more advanced civilizations expanding, and that it brought more positives than negatives (i.e. medical care, infrastructure, farming methods). There was no Christian genocide committed.

The Protestant Reformation is another example of violence which you alluded to (I think) in your pictures. However, it's cause is falsely attributed to Christianity itself, when in the end it is just human nature. The Catholic Church over time was used a vehicle to consolidate power to the few. The leadership took advantage of certain things for its own gains, such as using confessions to spy on people, or withholding knowledge from the people by not translating texts from Latin. With the advent of the printing press and increased literacy, people realized what was going on, and were pissed. Had knowledge been more dispersed and not consolidated would the same have happened?

Even if you disregard all of the above, the point still stands that Christian Europe has made the most advancements of any civilization to date. This level of advancement was not even matched by nations in East Asia - which is evident by the flow of technology, industry, and culture over the last 100-200 years.

As for looking to the future, it is silly to think some sort of return to paganism will save Western civilization. It will only fracture it even more and is a wet dream for the elite. The only hope is to return to a form of based Christianity, such as Orthodoxy (and I say that as someone who is not Orthodox). I say this based on my interactions with Orthodox people and priests. They have an understanding of what is going on in the world, and can support their positions with logic. This versus the cucked Jesuit Pope, or the Catholic priest or protestant preacher that pats you on the head and says 'aw cute, now go pray' whenever you try and discuss these topics.

Mountains rise & fall.
Empires rise & fall...

Quote: (01-30-2018 05:02 PM)kamoz Wrote:  

As for looking to the future, it is silly to think some sort of return to paganism will save Western civilization. It will only fracture it even more and is a wet dream for the elite. The only hope is to return to a form of based Christianity, such as Orthodoxy (and I say that as someone who is not Orthodox). I say this based on my interactions with Orthodox people and priests. They have an understanding of what is going on in the world, and can support their positions with logic. This versus the cucked Jesuit Pope, or the Catholic priest or protestant preacher that pats you on the head and says 'aw cute, now go pray' whenever you try and discuss these topics.

I nominate E. Michael Jones as the new head of our Church.

Quote: (01-30-2018 09:55 AM)Montrose Wrote:  

The Ottoman Empire was a quite successful multicultural state for much of its 600 year history.

Maybe in Cenk Uygur's History of The World. In the area still known as The Armenian Highlands, over a few hundred years Armenians were slowly eradicated through regular war, rape pillaging and the blood tax. The Ottomans only started reforming due to the dual pressure of the European powers and internal ethnic pressures and the country imploded when the Turks refused to grant equal rights.

Up to 75% of Armenians live outside of Armenia.

I would like to quote the article of an excellent and now racist German writer who is a second generation Turkish immigrant - currently he is called a Nazi - Akif Pirincci:

http://der-kleine-akif.de/2018/01/25/deu...und-staat/

The google-translate is passable:

Quote:Quote:

The self-image of a nation is bound to and inseparable from the ethnic group and the human race from which it has recruited itself over long periods of time and over victories and defeats. This is a prime example, which seems to prove exactly the opposite at first sight. The United States of America consists of different races and descendants of descendants of different peoples and nations. Whites, blacks, Latinos and Asians with different religions and world views, which in turn have their family origins in the various corners and ends of the planet, merge here into a single proud nation. More importantly, they carry a sense of nationality, which clearly distinguishes them from all other peoples of the world as Americans. Exceptions confirm the rule and fashionable countercurrents as well.

[Powerful founding myth:
+ American dream - work hard, become prosperous or at least comfortably middle class
+ Part of the American dream meant highly integrating into the system - calling yourself American 2 years after setting foot on the land]

The secret of success of this multi-ethnic mix, however, lies not in the functioning of the chimera called integration, as claimed by state-paid dumbbells, but in shared history (and its reverberations across generations) and in a sheer chauvinist-inspired ideal of a chosen nation. In particular, however, there is always a need for a lead ethnicity, which radiates charismatic on all others, because their so-being promises an added value in quality of life. This is still done in the US by the white man or his "style", even though he is demographic retreating.

Every black man knows the crimes of slavery that the white person has committed against his ancestors, and real or imagined experiences of self-discrimination. Yet, in God's Own Country, it's hard to find a black man who yearns for his African roots he has ever been interested in it. On the contrary, the black and the Haitian continue to pay tribute to the typical middle-class ideal of the white to the favor of a certain furniture taste and the smoothing of the Negro frill in black women.

In a national context, history, and even private family history, does not just play a role that binds all sections of the population together, when, as it were, it only appears in good and is remembered. B. bearing in mind military victories or great moments of reconciliation within the people. No, even the history of gathering together, finding each other, yes, even "dark hours", in short, the legend contributes to the national identity.

The situation is quite different with a state that has been broken up into its individual parts, such as the former Yugoslavia, which for many years purported to be a strong nation under (semi-) communist conditions. The attributes that apply to the US apply in this case as well, just under the opposite sign. In the territory of Yugoslavia at that time, the history of the Ottoman occupation through the centuries had always been a source of disgrace and shame. It is even worth considering whether the individual small peoples in the former Jugo Land, who after Tito's death each turned to a dogged nationalism, after such a long time of their (ambiguous) rape by a foreign war people with a completely foreign religion both ethnically and may be described as originary in their nature.

Given these two opposite examples, let us turn to the normal case of the nation, namely Germany. That means a Germany that maybe existed 20 or 30 years ago. Today there is no longer this Germany, but only more parts of its skeleton, which from umpteen times revised laws (and their punitive break), a green-left, borrowed essentially children's books pseudo-moral institutions committed, millions of de facto and real civil servants and from degenerations of once sacral German terms such as "human dignity". But the flesh and blood, that naturally grown fluid that breathes life into a nation, have disappeared from it. The nation was exchanged for the state,

The nation is the epitome of emotion that lies over a nation. Afflicted with many clichés, sometimes chauvinistic and operetta, then again maudlin and quaint, guarding their own language as a treasure chest, but always transferring the phenomenon of love to their own destiny community. Nation can be the view at the Deutsches Eck on Moselle and Rhine or a Bavarian snack or escapist raptures about the Germanic gods. And of course sometimes self-exaggeration and resulting violence against others .

The state, on the other hand, is a completely different thing. He is an apparatus, an executive organ and a posterior seer for the good of the nation. He does not interfere in the philosophical, ideological and religious concerns of the nation, but to work through clearly defined administrative tasks. As hard as it sounds, the state has to be soulless and only stubborn to work ...

Essentially the nation-state of the USA as a more pressing example of a multi-ethnic state meant that the dominating White (and here more-so the dominating anglo-saxon tribes) created and maintained the uniform nation-state in which the other nations and ethnic tribes melted into - some better, other worse.

-----------------------

Based on that account it's likely true to state that the US Nation State consistent of the dominating White ethnicity, Christian mindset and positive association with the American founding myth - that this NATION IS AS GOOD AS DEAD.

Civic Nationalism is like wanting to give the state a cultural unifying meaning.

Currently the previous nation state is as good as dead because:

+ many of the local dominating population of Whites are vehemently opposed to the previous American mythos and only see it in a negative light
+ most new immigrants do not even want to join that American mythos and wish to retain their own set of values and culture while only wanting the economic advantages and the care of the state which is just a technical apparatus
+ most new immigrants since 1965 were too far apart from the original white Western settlers and immigrants - they are separated by race, by IQ and by religion too much to bridge the gap quickly
+ even when you have tribes that may be similar in IQ like the Chinese, when there are 500 mio. of them in a country like the US, then the US ceases to be exist as the US and becomes Hong Kong

------------

Regarding Leonard's questions it is really hard to point to one defining factor as the doom of a culture. A good example of this is the Serbs and Croats - genetically virtually identical, but culturally far apart to wage war against each other.
The same can be said about most European internal conflicts until WWII.

I think that the questions asked should rather be:

1. is the underlying ethical and cultural founding myth strong internally and is it being shared by the newly arriving immigrants/settlers?

(A good example for this would be Rome - the newly arriving European tribes up north were racially identical, but they were not sharing the values of Rome at all and they did not integrate - which later in combination with the rising Muslim invasion and wars - doomed Rome.)

As noted - above the US had such a powerful myth that a German, Greek, Italian, Polish, Iranian or an Armenian immigrant wanted to quickly integrate as he came to the US in the 1890s. What should he integrate into now? He gets the passport which is a civic thing, he gets a job while still hating on the Whites, because everyone piles on them anyway.

2. Race and nation state

I think that we have to talk about this as well. As much as the ideals of a rainbow multiculturalism are praised, race is a great unifying factor. Also there are currently too big important differences in racial IQs among some tribes. At 100 avg. IQ you can function well in a modern system, at level 90 or lower it gets increasingly tougher. The globalists even state that an avg. IQ of 90 makes it utterly impossible for a serf-class to ever rise against them. So keep that in mind - at level 100 they still fear you somewhat, at level 90 they no longer do.

That is for example why White European immigrants to the US did not create entire German, Italian or Russian states despite immigrating at numbers of 10 mio. each over a decade in the 1880s-1930s. White European cultures melted well into the original American culture created by mostly protestant Anglo-Saxons. Even US blacks at one time tried their best to integrate into that American culture model - probably right until the 1960s when this process stopped, the families disintegrated and the gap between the tribes began to widen.

So whenever you let in a highly different racial group you have to take into account that their progeny will look also highly different even in the next generations. When that group becomes far more numerous, then this will utterly change the current ethnic makeup and even endanger the previous culture.

A country like South Africa or many other previously white-dominated African countries prove that as soon as Whites are usurped by a less-productive African population, then that country is devolving into a negative spiral on all accounts.

Keep in mind that I don't think that racial IQs are set in stone. If you took for example the 1 mio. blacks in the world with an IQ above 130+ (plus 9 mio. between 110-130) and put them into a country, gave them the Switzerland constitution, then I can actually predict that this country would indeed become the Switzerland of Africa. But unfortunately the millennia-breeding process created more pressure to have progeny with propensity for speed than for smarts.

3. Religion and ethical/cultural framework

This is a funny aspect as obviously you had quite barbaric religious nations like Greece, Rome or Persia create grand advanced civilizations.

In addition you had tribes like the Mongols or the Huns which were almost without religion, but they were marauding warring tribes - and it also explains why they did not create much instead conquer and pillage.

The Aztecs for example had a terrible ethical and religious framework that essentially was hell-on-earth not only for different tribes, but even most of the people living within their own.

I personally think that there are different levels among each ethical and religious systems.

In a way it is more like a hierarchy - if you have a primitive and negative system, then you get a primitive and negative society. The more positive and more ethical it is with a good set of rules, the more positive and advanced a society you get. If you for example still sacrifice people to the Gods like in Rome or have slaves, then this will also hold your society back.

Christianity is a funny thing, because it was at one time a great positive factor of seeing value in every human being (even a slave) while preaching love to everyone. It also unfortunately held back the scientific development of Europe at one time torturing scientists and trying to forbid for example the study of the body etc.
Still - their positive aspects were strong enough to keep on influencing all Western and even global societies to this day!

Now to the topic at hand - if you destroy this binding ethical framework, then it is necessary to replace it with something else. The globalists have picked the ever changing cultural marxism as their replacement dogma. So far it has mostly managed to influence enough people so that those people actively destroy their own nation states.

I might add - you can replace Christianity with a superior ethical framework, but cultural marxism, Islam or Atheism are not those kind of things.

How about modern day India? It's a fully functioning democracy with lots of races and religions.

In general most of the population (apart from some Muslims and North East states people) see themselves as "Indian", even though they may identify with their their ethnic group/religion/caste before they consider themselves Indian.

India has different laws for Hindus and Muslims and other religions and they seem to get by on the whole.

Quote: (01-31-2018 03:06 AM)WalterBlack Wrote:  

How about modern day India? It's a fully functioning democracy with lots of races and religions.

In general most of the population (apart from some Muslims and North East states people) see themselves as "Indian", even though they may identify with their their ethnic group/religion/caste before they consider themselves Indian.

India has different laws for Hindus and Muslims and other religions and they seem to get by on the whole.

1. Racially similar enough (yes - I get it - there are huge differences, but similar enough)

2. Hinduism, Code of Manu and class system as the great binding force that permeates India to this day (it is highly stable, but frankly also holds to the country back somewhat)

3. The dominating tribes are Hindus who will even work together if a different group is becoming too troubling - Muslims the last major and still somewhat ongoing conflict

In addition - before the advent of the British India was not actually one nation state, but a great many states living next to each other - something fighting brutally similarly to Europe. Actually this also made the conquest and control later even possible. The British back then would not have managed to conquer and control India if they had fought them for example as much as North American Indians.

Also I think that the societies are less individualistic than the Caucasians.

Christianity doesn't have to be a conspiracy to be a dead end.

Red-pill Christians will debate endlessly about how this scripture or that verse is misinterpreted but at the end of the day it is what it is. Nobody is going to come up with a knockout interpretation of Christ's teachings that spreads like wildfire and has Christians up in arms, flooding once more to the Gates of Vienna.

I've said it before and I'm yet to see evidence to the contrary.

Christianity will survive in spite of itself. Chance may fall to the favour of enough Christians that their creed is spared total annihilation, but no Christian will survive the next century because of their ethos. In fact, many will have to temporarily turn a blind eye to their faith in order for their bloodlines to survive.

Quote: (01-30-2018 05:06 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

I'm making this thread because the topic is stinking up the Trump thread but it's still a bit beyond the Politics and War lounge.

The me preface the rest of this by saying this thread is not an invitation to shit on anyone's race, religion, country or political affiliations. Please keep the thread clean of emotionally driven bullshit.

I'll keep it simple. When it comes to demographics, be it in relation to race, ethnicity, politics or religion I hold the following premise to be foundational.

Since the arrival of the Boeing 747, any national, racial, political or religious demographic that fails to hold self preservation as it's highest priority is doomed to be subsumed or enslaved by other demographics that do.

This is nature's fundamental law. The will to power.

Can an institution be inclusive, charitable AND survivable or will such an organisation be hollowed out by opportunists who have no true allegiance to that institution?

In my opinion this is the most fundamental question in regards to the survivability of the West and the people contained there. It is the most fundamental question in regards to what lessons must be learned if we get a chance to survive this insanity and rebuild.

At what saturation point does racial inclusivity doom a society (give examples)?
At what saturation point does political inclusivity doom a society (give examples)?
At what saturation point does religious inclusivity doom a society (give examples)?
At what saturation point does national inclusivity doom a society (give examples)?

What are examples of highly survivable demographics? What can we attribute this to?

This is a very big topic and I will come back to it, but for starters, here's probably the summary of how Nassim Taleb would answer the question:

Essentially there seem to be two ways in which to conduct a society: either as an Extremistan, or a Mediocristan, which in turn come down to how that society handles its own fragility. In short, what happens when that society suffers harm and what is its response to volatility?

By way of Mediocristans, we can take Switzerland as the main example. It's now one of the longest-running "governments" in Europe, a nation-state that's been around more or less continuously for five hundred years or so, and without a single massive revolution or slaughter (though they've supported or profited from plenty in countries around them.) But I put the word government in italics because Switzerland has a very decentralised structure, it's very difficult for a large, bureaucratic government to overtake it because every canton has its own voting rights and whilst every so often stupid-ass measures come up for votes, they don't tend to succeed because you have to take down each canton one at a time. There is a lot of volatility at low levels - over the height of the neighbours' walls, over whether Glinda the Prostitute should be working next to the local pub - but there isn't high volatility at the macro levels where systems can be changed in large scope. The checks and balances operate at the lowest feasible level which prevents a small communist infection spreading into the wider Swiss community.

However, it's a Mediocristan, as Taleb puts it, because this sort of small-scale volatility proves to be actually pretty stable in wider terms - like I said, no revolution, no mass bloodlettings in Sweden, and because the cantons don't try to impose society-wide rules on money, banks and other people hide their money there - it also results in mediocrity. The old joke is that the Swiss only ever invented cuckoo clocks, but as Taleb points out, the joke is on them, because they didn't even invent that, either. They don't have massive market crashes, but neither do they really profit from market booms either. The idea of the EU was meant to incorporate this principle, but in practice, as we've seen with Poland, the EU has too much power over the pursestrings to be able to resist trying to bring members into line by fiat aikido.

This also links up with Taleb's observation that all it takes is an intolerant minority to overwhelm a tolerant majority in a relatively short space of time. With small cut-off cantons, it's harder for the intolerance to spread, because the partitioned small sectors have to be 'conquered' one at a time, rather than using larger societal levers to change the entire structure at once.

At the time of the Declaration of Independence, the American colonies were Mediocristans, subservient to the British Empire. They were small and independent. And it's here I somewhat part from Taleb for speculation on my part, but I suspect that while the US's founders didn't know anything about antifragility, they had an instinct for this same issue - this same need to keep the Federal government small and relatively powerless. If they were careful readers of Seneca, they might well have gotten the point anyway. But over time the US has slowly been morphing towards the other end of the spectrum - that of the Extremistan.

In Extremistans, because everything is linked together legally, financially, culturally, changes tend to bring massive benefit or harm in ways that are simply not able to be predicted - period. Size also links into this: the more complexity in a system, the more unseen consequences and the higher incidence (note I say incidence, not chance) of Black Swan events. Indeed the more complex the system the more impossible it is to make meaningful predictions about the future state of affairs.

Extremistans basically allow fragility within the system to be passed upward or onto other parties. Consider the very concept of the corporation: it relieves/liberates/offloads personal responsibility for debts from the individuals running the corporation to the shareholders at best, or at worst, to no one at all. Government becomes social security, making perversely both the government and the poor fragile to economic shocks since you deprive the poor of the ability to find other options than the welfare check. Where the entire system is large and keyed to public hysteria - i.e. the Federal government in the US and in most other countries in the West - it is invariably fragile to economic shock. Massive harm in economic shock is not something it is built to handle or survive easily. And the problem is that this fragility is shared across all societal spectrums, because government intervention pervades all societal spectrums and therefore warps all of them when it goes to shit.

Taleb's work is not an easy "Small government good, Big government bad" argument. Even he doesn't like the implications of what he sees in the concept of the triad -- fragility/robustness/antifragility. The concept of fragility appears to pervade the entirety of existence bar perhaps the most direct cause/effect areas such as physics. And Nature, because it's been around longer than anyone else, is the most antifragile system of the lot, with evolution - which gains from harm - one of its primary mechanisms.

Getting back to the subject and the original question: Can an institution be inclusive, charitable AND survivable or will such an organisation be hollowed out by opportunists who have no true allegiance to that institution?

The answer, according to Taleb, is this: only if that institution is perfectly robust or is antifragile to the sorts of harm we are worried about. And that can only be achieved -- in part -- by the elevation of the institution as more than something that just serves people, by taking literally JFK's old line "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

Entrepreneurs, he suggests, should be given a national day, and a speech along the lines of "We know most of you will fail, and for that we give you thanks for trying, even knowing that. We thank you because if you fail you allow other businesses and other people to thrive and succeed, and we all benefit from that."

This is not to argue for communism, by the way: that is the most fragile system of all since it demands centralised control of all aspects of economic if not personal life, which -- as we saw when the USSR collapsed -- is the most fragile system of all. Observe, rather, the current state of Russia in the wake of that breaking of their fragile system: they are survivors, they believe in their God and their country, and they are certainly more antifragile than the West because I doubt any of them have any confidence the government will come riding up to save them if economic shit goes south again.

No, what is required is a large enough cohort of people who live their lives as service to the institution they would see succeed. Not a life of mutual benefit directly to them, as in "my country looks after me and I look after my country" - no, a life of dedication to that country's ideals, of real heroism, not this bullshit "firefighter doing his job on a Tuesday" heroism that became popular after 9/11 because the system likes its heroes unarmed and unthreatening.

This, in my view, will not come without a Soviet-ish collapse of the American system. Since the Baby Boomers went to college the West has been in the grip of narcissism, and narcissism by definition requires the whole world suborned to the self, while Taleb's ethics would require that reversed.

This is a big old tangle of thoughts here, of course, and I might come back when I get more lucid.