Theme: Ethnoculture

RACISM

Well, you know, pointing out our differences is all well and good. I want to preserve my culture and my extended family and our gene pool too. And I certainly prefer to sacrifice and contribute to my gene pool rather than someone elses. I can’t imagine anything more moral and ethical than that. And I certainly respect the data that shows homogenous societies are superior to diverse societies in every respect.

But those statements are in the context of city states and a barrier to political participation. With political participation, minorities can attempt to use the state to redistribute status, and with that, create friction and civil conflict that if conducted in the market would be beneficial, but conducted in politics is nothing but destructive.

I am all for africa for africans, south american for natives, asia for asia, and every other blend of people’s on earth. But I’d also like europe for europeans. And that’s because there is in fact something very special about our culture, or we would not have started the industrial revolution in greece, and restarted in britain.

So the moral argument is that the ultimate imperative is not redistribution, it is to create an environment where all extended families can compete in the market according to their abilities, biase and preferences without relying on majority tyranny to oppress one another.

WHile I don’t feel guilty for the white man’s burden so to speak: I am happy that we dragged humanity out of ignorance and poverty with consumer capitalism and as the remainder of the world reluctantly secularized into the corporeal consumer capitalist system, I think westerners should take credit for it. No matter how badly they did it. No one changes the world easily and we destroyed our civilization in the process. if there is any price to be paid we have paid it.

No more guilt. Ever.

EXAMPLE OF THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT SPREADING

Now, I think most of us know that history is a complex interaction of societies and technologies. I think most of us know that ‘white folk’ had a much wider territory after we developed the chariot, horse and bronze. I think we know that our ancestors interbred and were eventually subsumed by the civilizations that surrounded them.

I’m just more interested in what happens to western identity once our omnipotence is erased by technological equivalency and declining relative population. We’ve exported our way of thinking to the rest of the world. And our way of thinking (technological) is, in other than islam, the way of the world.

But what will happen to our identity?

—quote—

“After recent advances and discoveries the only reason people aren’t laughing and pointing at historians is because The Silence covers the total idiocy that they preached just a generation back.

We are taught that our forefathers never bathed and lingered in caves all through the Middle Ages, and then came The Renaissance.

We are taught that during this glorious Renaissance scholars discovered Classical Writers and, reading Aristotle and Galen and so forth, we began to emerge from the Caves of Darkness into the glorious New World that existed in the Middle East.

At the very moment they are recoloring the Egyptians, the whole history they are reciting, all came from Egypt, has been so discredited that The Silence cowers even mentioning it.

The historical …revision… will come .. when the full implications of the Renaissance Myth are put together.

Not only did Western Civilization NOT come from discovering Classical Writings, but every single advance in our thought, from medicine to math to engineering, has had to beat down a solid wall of Galen’s Medicine and Aristotle’s …nonsense….”