Theme: Ethnoculture

Answers to “Here are Sargon’s 8 questions for White Nationalists.” – via Johnson. (You know, it’s just reducible to nationalist(eugenic) vs globalists(dysgenic). And that’s just whether your kin group or other king groups are more advantageous to you. Any group can choose nationalism vs globalism. IMO whites and east asians just benefit most from eugenics/meritocratocracy, because we HAVE benefited most from eugenics/meritocracy. But any group can convert to eugenic meritocracy and aristotelianism/truthfulness if they choose to.) >1. Are Jews Oppressing White People? The western group evolutionary strategy relies upon homogeneity, truth telling, high trust, and extraordinary contribution to the commons, particularly the territorial commons, to produce rapid adaptation to changes. This is a masculine (k-selected) territorial group evolutionary strategy. The jewish group evolutionary strategy relies upon radical internal homogeneity, gossip(rally/shaming) and parasitism upon the commons of hosts, making particular use of incentive to moral hazard, concentrating capital in the group rather than the commons. This is a radical feminine (r-selected) pastoralist/vagrant/diasporic strategy. One does not beat a dog for being a dog. One takes the responsibility of training the dog, or removing it from society. The reason we have a problem with jews is we do not defend against them by creating laws that are unnecessary for whites, but necessary for us to tolerate them (and women for that matter). Meaning ‘warranty of truthful speech’, prohibition on moral fraud (yes it’s possible), and full reciprocity (meaning that they cannot make display, speech or action not fully reciprocal with the host). I won’t go into this level of detail but under law it’s trivial to force jews to integrate or leave. For most of our history we had laws constraining the immorality of women (‘scolds, gossips, prostitute ) just as we have had laws constraining the immorality of men. We simply have not modernized our laws for the introduction of women and jews (and frankly other hostile minorities) into the commons, and political commons. In other words jews exploit our high trust society by using a radical innovation on the female reproductive and social strategy, that parasitically preys upon, privatizes, and then uses against the host people, the commons (human, social, behavioral, political, institutional, legal, cultural capital) that those host peoples produce. And yes, it is solvable. Just like women are solvable. A THING DOES WHAT IT NEEDS TO. You defend against pests, you do not ask why they choose to be pests. > 2. Should Interracial Couples be Forced to Separate? If whites (or any marginals) want to outbreed at the cost of leaving the high trust white polity, market, and society, then it is in our interests to ‘exit’ such undesirables. The mistake white nationalists make is in not separating incompletely evolved peasant whites, from completely evolved aristocratic whites. It’s in our interest to take the aristocratic white people and then to exit the non-aristocratic white people. This only improves our ability to create a high trust, demographically superior society. I would not force anyone to do anything other than leave. This brings up the problem of territory. It is better to revolt, separate, and run a smaller homogenous territory while the other groups descend in to brazil/india/levant/north-africa. > 3. Should the Government Prevent Citizens from Leaving the Country to Preserve the Race? I don’t see any value in preserving defective members of the race. It’s not like reproduction is a difficult thing. Our aristocracy has been domesticating the human animal for at least 3500 if not 5000 years, and while the process was most advanced in today’s holland, and least in those places to the southeast bordering the Turks/Muslims. We did far more during the high and late middle ages through the 1800;s than is polite to speak of. So it is best to leave behind those people that we must bear the cost of developing. >4. Should the State Control Education? The law should prohibit education in falsehoods, immorality, ir-reciprocity, and fictionalisms. If this is the case, the market will force truthful education. and that means EUGENICS. “control” implies wisdom that does not exist, and will cause malincentives. Anything that is true, moral, reciprocal, and scientific is not harmful. The primary problem with western civ is that it’s a eugenic strategy and always has been, and this is incompatible with the use of democracy as a means of seizing power from the landed (agrarian) gentry during the enlightenment and industrial revolution. > 5. Should the State Control the Media? The law should prohibit falsehoods, immorality, ir-reciprocity, and fictionalisms, and require warranty of due diligence in public speech. If that was the case, the market would rapidly destroy the left, which uses the industrialization of lying as a weapon against eugenic, meritocratic, society. This will work far better than any attempt at regulation. >6. Should the State Control the Economy? The law should prohibit violations of tort, whether personal, interpersonal, familial, corporeal common, social common, political common. And should require reciprocity at all times. If this were the case we would have no need to regulate it. Contrary to libertarian dogma, fiat currency (shares in the state used as a money substitute) is just as necessary for modern states as the stock market and bank credit, and private investors are for modern enterprises. Furthermore, monarchies have a far better record of the production of commons than do ‘governments’. In an extremely portable world, people can use market forces (movement) to select monarchies that better match their interests. If a monarchy takes basic taxation, and uses direct democracy to raise funds necessary for other commons, then that’s fine. Civic Society will fill any other demands that state and commerce do not. >7. Do the Decisions of Individual White People Matter to the Alt-Right’s Goals? It’s time to acknowledge that the enlightenment and marxist programs have been catastrophes and return to aristocracy (meritocracy) – the private government of kin by and for kin. Democracy is against our interests if not all of humanity’s interests. It’s just communism and dysgenia by slower means. So either people want to come along, or they don’t. If they don’t, then they don’t matter. No. >8. Should Women Have a Role in Public Life?​ I see no reason for political life outside of a hierarchy of monarchy-nobility-civic-organizations, and the family. The problem with women, as is the problem with jews, is that they use the same destructive means of gossip and moral hazard in order to increase privatization of the capitals of the commons. That said, if we are to have any kind of participation women should have their own ‘house’ just as men have houses of common(lower house), industrial-financial (middle house), territorial(upper house), so that they are in a position to negotiate but cannot make use of ‘feminine means’ of persuasion (gossip, falsehood, pseudo-moralism, pseudoscience, fictionalism) to cover their attempted parasitism. CLOSING Furthermore, I don’t see how this advice differs for whites and any other people. It’s either kin and nation states and eugenia and innovation, or corporation and globalism and dysgenia and stagnation or regression.

Answers to “Here are Sargon’s 8 questions for White Nationalists.” – via Johnson. (You know, it’s just reducible to nationalist(eugenic) vs globalists(dysgenic). And that’s just whether your kin group or other king groups are more advantageous to you. Any group can choose nationalism vs globalism. IMO whites and east asians just benefit most from eugenics/meritocratocracy, because we HAVE benefited most from eugenics/meritocracy. But any group can convert to eugenic meritocracy and aristotelianism/truthfulness if they choose to.) >1. Are Jews Oppressing White People? The western group evolutionary strategy relies upon homogeneity, truth telling, high trust, and extraordinary contribution to the commons, particularly the territorial commons, to produce rapid adaptation to changes. This is a masculine (k-selected) territorial group evolutionary strategy. The jewish group evolutionary strategy relies upon radical internal homogeneity, gossip(rally/shaming) and parasitism upon the commons of hosts, making particular use of incentive to moral hazard, concentrating capital in the group rather than the commons. This is a radical feminine (r-selected) pastoralist/vagrant/diasporic strategy. One does not beat a dog for being a dog. One takes the responsibility of training the dog, or removing it from society. The reason we have a problem with jews is we do not defend against them by creating laws that are unnecessary for whites, but necessary for us to tolerate them (and women for that matter). Meaning ‘warranty of truthful speech’, prohibition on moral fraud (yes it’s possible), and full reciprocity (meaning that they cannot make display, speech or action not fully reciprocal with the host). I won’t go into this level of detail but under law it’s trivial to force jews to integrate or leave. For most of our history we had laws constraining the immorality of women (‘scolds, gossips, prostitute ) just as we have had laws constraining the immorality of men. We simply have not modernized our laws for the introduction of women and jews (and frankly other hostile minorities) into the commons, and political commons. In other words jews exploit our high trust society by using a radical innovation on the female reproductive and social strategy, that parasitically preys upon, privatizes, and then uses against the host people, the commons (human, social, behavioral, political, institutional, legal, cultural capital) that those host peoples produce. And yes, it is solvable. Just like women are solvable. A THING DOES WHAT IT NEEDS TO. You defend against pests, you do not ask why they choose to be pests. > 2. Should Interracial Couples be Forced to Separate? If whites (or any marginals) want to outbreed at the cost of leaving the high trust white polity, market, and society, then it is in our interests to ‘exit’ such undesirables. The mistake white nationalists make is in not separating incompletely evolved peasant whites, from completely evolved aristocratic whites. It’s in our interest to take the aristocratic white people and then to exit the non-aristocratic white people. This only improves our ability to create a high trust, demographically superior society. I would not force anyone to do anything other than leave. This brings up the problem of territory. It is better to revolt, separate, and run a smaller homogenous territory while the other groups descend in to brazil/india/levant/north-africa. > 3. Should the Government Prevent Citizens from Leaving the Country to Preserve the Race? I don’t see any value in preserving defective members of the race. It’s not like reproduction is a difficult thing. Our aristocracy has been domesticating the human animal for at least 3500 if not 5000 years, and while the process was most advanced in today’s holland, and least in those places to the southeast bordering the Turks/Muslims. We did far more during the high and late middle ages through the 1800;s than is polite to speak of. So it is best to leave behind those people that we must bear the cost of developing. >4. Should the State Control Education? The law should prohibit education in falsehoods, immorality, ir-reciprocity, and fictionalisms. If this is the case, the market will force truthful education. and that means EUGENICS. “control” implies wisdom that does not exist, and will cause malincentives. Anything that is true, moral, reciprocal, and scientific is not harmful. The primary problem with western civ is that it’s a eugenic strategy and always has been, and this is incompatible with the use of democracy as a means of seizing power from the landed (agrarian) gentry during the enlightenment and industrial revolution. > 5. Should the State Control the Media? The law should prohibit falsehoods, immorality, ir-reciprocity, and fictionalisms, and require warranty of due diligence in public speech. If that was the case, the market would rapidly destroy the left, which uses the industrialization of lying as a weapon against eugenic, meritocratic, society. This will work far better than any attempt at regulation. >6. Should the State Control the Economy? The law should prohibit violations of tort, whether personal, interpersonal, familial, corporeal common, social common, political common. And should require reciprocity at all times. If this were the case we would have no need to regulate it. Contrary to libertarian dogma, fiat currency (shares in the state used as a money substitute) is just as necessary for modern states as the stock market and bank credit, and private investors are for modern enterprises. Furthermore, monarchies have a far better record of the production of commons than do ‘governments’. In an extremely portable world, people can use market forces (movement) to select monarchies that better match their interests. If a monarchy takes basic taxation, and uses direct democracy to raise funds necessary for other commons, then that’s fine. Civic Society will fill any other demands that state and commerce do not. >7. Do the Decisions of Individual White People Matter to the Alt-Right’s Goals? It’s time to acknowledge that the enlightenment and marxist programs have been catastrophes and return to aristocracy (meritocracy) – the private government of kin by and for kin. Democracy is against our interests if not all of humanity’s interests. It’s just communism and dysgenia by slower means. So either people want to come along, or they don’t. If they don’t, then they don’t matter. No. >8. Should Women Have a Role in Public Life?​ I see no reason for political life outside of a hierarchy of monarchy-nobility-civic-organizations, and the family. The problem with women, as is the problem with jews, is that they use the same destructive means of gossip and moral hazard in order to increase privatization of the capitals of the commons. That said, if we are to have any kind of participation women should have their own ‘house’ just as men have houses of common(lower house), industrial-financial (middle house), territorial(upper house), so that they are in a position to negotiate but cannot make use of ‘feminine means’ of persuasion (gossip, falsehood, pseudo-moralism, pseudoscience, fictionalism) to cover their attempted parasitism. CLOSING Furthermore, I don’t see how this advice differs for whites and any other people. It’s either kin and nation states and eugenia and innovation, or corporation and globalism and dysgenia and stagnation or regression.