Read Part 1 here.
Read Part 2 here.
In this final installment, I will cover, briefly, the false signal sets of video games and other virtual worlds and conclude with a road map out of the mire and despair.
Every human has, to some extent, a capacity for self-evaluation. Thus, it will not do for us to simply vegetate with fast food and porn and achieve happiness. Humans require the active social approval of other humans for happiness. Unfortunately, artificial worlds can provide this as well.
Games like World of Warcraft and other massively multiplayer online games (MMOG’s) provide a community of individuals engaged in fantasy lives lived out online. Unlike the days of my youth, which might involve a couple of hours wasted with friends playing Tecmo Bowl, online MMOG gamers spend time measured in days per month rather than hours per day. The internal world of the MMOG demands this kind of dedication for success, as other players who invest more time in the game gain social status at the expense of those who do not.
The power of this virtual reality can be externally verified through economics, as the emergent market for “virtual goods” matures. Objects captured in-game by the player can be sold in a marketplace for real money, cash. Clearly MMOG’s are more than “just a game”.
Thus, we see evolution yet again turned on its head. What should be socially ostracized (overweight young men frittering their life away in front of a meaningless game) is socially rewarded in the internal mechanics of the game. The gamer is sucked in, as the more time is spent in the game, the greater the player’s relative status is in the game world as compared to the real world. By day, pizza delivery boy. By night, elite Orc warrior. It is very hard to disengage from any activity where social rewards are provided, and the human brain, with its great imaginative and suspension-of-disbelief capacity, will put up little resistance to engaging with a virtual world with the appropriate social incentives.
Indeed, in some MMOG-like environments (for example, Second Life, more of a virtual island of sorts for social interactions than a game per-se) we see two of our horsemen in synergy, as the environment allows for virtual sex between the players’ model-perfect avatars.
So what is to be done?
Clearly, the genie is out of the bottle. Fast food, pornography and MMOG’s are not going anywhere and will likely improve their allure as new technologies come online. The Internet is clearly impossible to control. Even content universally condemned and legislated against by almost all of humanity, child pornography, is easily locatable online. Banning these things is simply not an option.
A friend of mine once proposed to me in college that in the future, the human race would consist of two groups. A large group spending all of their leisure time attached to virtual reality-type environments while working menial jobs a minimum number of hours to pay for their basic needs, living out impossible fantasies in cyberspace, and a smaller, wealthy group who run the society and are rewarded in reality for their preference for it. I propose a new human trait, “reality preference,” to indicate those individuals with a strong predilection for avoiding false signals rationally and seeking after true success in this world.
The question as to who will inherit the future is simple: who is jacking in and who’s jacking out? Who’s having the children?
By and large, white nationalists are more jacked in to virtual worlds than jacked out. From what I can tell, the typical WN is an atheist or agnostic materialist with an intellectual fetish for taboo topics like racial differences in IQ and (sometimes) the overrepresentation of Jewish individuals in the leadership of the West’s decline. They are less likely to have children than non-WN whites.
White nationalism, as it currently exists as a movement on the ground, is not sufficient to produce viable, high-fertility families.
I think there are several reasons for this. First, is my belief that an atheistic mindset, independent of its truth value, inevitably produces a sense of despair, a paralyzing emotion not conducive to the hope for the future necessary to motivate marriage and child-rearing. I offer the following quote from Bertrand Russell as an illustration:
[I believe] That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of the universe in ruins. . . . Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built. (Why I Am Not a Christian)
I don’t know about you, but that’s not a lot of motivation to get out of bed in the morning. Research into the fertility (technically fecundity) of atheists bears this out. For example, a German study comparing church service attendance to fecundity:
Many atheists will retort that such trends can easily be explained by IQ differences, i.e. that intelligent people are more likely to be atheists and intelligent people have fewer children. The idea is that atheists’ low fertility is part of a larger dysgenic trend rather than particular to atheism. The data disagree with this hypothesis.
The Inductivist blog recently pointed out that in the General Social Survey, the correlation between WORDSUM (a ten question vocabulary test that is highly g-loaded for fluent English speakers) and frequency of religious service attendance was 0.00 (i.e. absolutely no correlation). Similarly, education levels and religious service attendance were correlated at a statistically insignificant 0.02.
In a follow-up post, Inductivist further explores the data, this time looking directly at belief in God. He finds that belief in God almost completely mitigates the naturally dysgenic higher fertility among the lower-IQ cohort. Among low-IQ people, belief or non-belief makes almost no difference in fertility levels. For example, low IQ atheists have 2.54 children on average and low IQ believers have 2.62, with random variance along the belief/non-belief axis. Among the high-IQ, however, atheists have only 1.81 children on average while believers have 2.32.
Thus, it appears that the atheist argument that religion is dysgenic is exactly the opposite: religion has no effect on the fertility of the low IQ, while atheism is associated with low fertility among the high IQ.
Atheism is dysgenic because it seems to cause high IQ people to have fewer children.
As Harry Seabrook has commented, if atheistic materialism is real, then my wife is just a piece of meat who helps me spread my genes; if another piece of meat comes along offering a better opportunity to spread my genes, why wouldn’t I take it? Thankfully, most atheists do not take their reasoning to this extreme, but the corroding effects of such a mindset on the self-sacrificial spirit necessary for family life is self-evident.
At the very least, WN atheist materialists are fighting against the grain to become successful husbands and fathers of large families. The history of the scientific racialist, hard right movement is littered with examples of brilliant men who wrote great books but died childless.
More problematically, some of our best thinkers have pointed out the structural problems inherent in marrying and child-rearing in the current Dark Age. F. Roger Devlin leads the field in his descriptions of the sexual dystopia of our society. In a foreshadowing of the current interest in “Game” as a countermeasure, Devlin discussed several years ago the implications of feminism as the bottom 75% of women compete for the top 25% of men.
However, Devlin’s prescriptions are unacceptable. He seems to advocate that WN men (or men in general) simply refuse to marry or have children until the abuses of feminism and the divorce courts are corrected. This may be the principled stand of a Stoic in the face of adversity, but it is not a rational evolutionary strategy.
White nationalists need to get some skin in the game by marrying and having children, and soon. Talking about white dispossession and dysgenic decline without actually having white children is kind of pathetic. I’m reminded of the pathetic idiots who listen to sports talk radio endlessly obsessing over baseball statistics, but none have actually played baseball at the professional level. There has to be another way.
Let me introduce you to a modified evolutionary strategy I like to call “Postmodern macro-utilitarianism.”
Its postulates are simple. First, the truth is more complex than our human minds, so an absolute search for truth absent foundational assumptions is meaningless. Second, there is a marketplace for these foundational assumptions among communities of people, and the measure of success is the quantity and quality of children produced by said community. Third, one should determine which community one wants to be a part of before seeking to determine what one believes. Since beliefs drive results, a pure Darwinian strategy is to allow results to drive beliefs.
These foundational assumptions and beliefs form barriers between communities, but more importantly offer integration into viable, high-fertility groups. No white family can go it alone.
To my view, there are three viable American communities (all religious, all high fertility) where white racial nationalists may find a home: Mormonism, traditional Catholicism and the Reformed churches.
I personally believe Mormonism and Catholicism to be problematic because of the top-down orientation of their structures. All groups, of course, have leaders that seek to sell out their parishioners and cater to the globalist elite, but the Mormon and Catholic churches have the means to enforce these pronoucements. The Reformed community, on the other hand, is less centralized and more compatible with our Anglo-Saxon culture.
For those not familiar with the taxonomy of American Protestantism, the Reformed include conservative Presbyterians, Dutch Reformed Churches, and other miscellaneous groups unified by three general traits: they are highly conservative, highly literate, and based upon Calvinist theology.
The relatively small Reformed community (several million in the US) probably produces at least twice the serious scholarly work as the much larger Southern Baptist Convention and Methodist churches. This is not the dumbed-down Rick Warren Christianity many WN’s associate with mainstream believers.
Scaling up to a larger group, the homeschool community (which has its roots in and significant overlap with the Reformed community in many areas) is another group with high investment parenting and high fertility. Sure, many of them believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old, but these kids are actually reading the great documents of our civilization instead of a two paragraph summary in a textbook written by a Marxist.
Practically, there exists in both of these communities (and to some extent in the conservative evangelical churches as well) significant numbers of women who explicitly reject feminism. Finding a way to meet women untainted by feminism is a key challenge for men looking to raise a family. The world was created in seven days, and a wife must obey her husband. Which one of those doesn’t matter and which one makes all the difference in the world?
Recently, I attended an engagement party for a young couple. Both come from homeschool families. The prospective groom comes from a family of eight, and the attendees at the party were largely from the same pool of evangelical homeschoolers. At the table where my wife and I sat, one couple had four children and another couple had nine children, seven girls and two boys. The mother of the nine said to my wife, “I think it’s good for them to have so many siblings and help out with the babies because it helps them develop the sense of self-sacrifice they’ll need to be a good wife and mom.” My wife and I have three children and plan to have at least one more; never would I have thought that my goal of four would sound paltry in any dinner party group.
This, my friends, is the future of Western Civilization; when moms are helping their daughters to develop a sense of “self-sacrifice” to serve their husbands, we have arrived at a total rejection of feminism. These are the only white communities with aggressive birthrates, people who are having children like they own the future. Not mindless breeding like the lower classes, but intelligent, middle class white people intentionally having as many children as they can. The fathers have authority over their children, as most practice courtship, in which any potential suitor must ask permission to spend time with a daughter.
And the kids! Untainted by the public school ghetto culture, they are way ahead of their peers academically. But even more importantly, because they do not interact with their peer group all day, they are socialized more like adults at an earlier age. The fourteen and fifteen year olds will have an adult conversation with you instead of acting like you’re from a different planet, with a surprising level of self-confidence because they do not play the zero-sum popularity game at a school.
I’ve often wondered if it is a bigger challenge to convert fecund homeschoolers to racialism than to convert typical racialists to fecundity.
The universal goods are the good, the beautiful and the true. I think humans are least equipped to objectively determine the truth, but we are pretty good at seeing good and beauty. The goodness and beauty of the homeschooling community might convince you to ease up a little bit on the elusive search for truth, not on quantifiable questions like racial differences but cosmological questions. Perhaps expose yourself to their literature and ideas, spend some time among them and see what happens. This is better than Pascal’s wager, which consoled the struggling doubter to try to believe in hopes of rewards in the next life. Adopt the beliefs of a conservative Christian and you gain access to a community untainted by feminism, a place where functional white women and families exist. The afterlife is icing on the cake.
Religion, then, provides a solution for the question of false signal sets. Its rules and regulations define behavior boundaries that serve to force its members to pursue fitness directly instead of following false signals.
Christian theology talks much about man’s struggle with his two natures, one more divine and rational, the other fleshly and irrational. Man’s rationality is merely emergent and largely serves its master in the lower parts of the brain. Religion, then, can be seen not as a primitive artifact of less advanced development, but rather functionally as a system of thought that enables man to struggle against false signals of fitness and enable some progress by the emergent rational neocortex. By making individual men personally accountable for their behavior upon threat of eternal punishment, it enables the weak, waffling neocortex to wield a large club to beat down the wild dogs of the lower reptilian brain: yes, pleasure now, but much more pain later!
Christian religion, in both its conservative Reformed and Catholic varieties, is the least primitive and most refined, its tenets interpreted and expanded by the cream of our race over nearly two millennia. It offers practically no evolutionary disadvantages to adherents, and many practical advantages.
For materialists who insist that all of their beliefs be proved, the choice is between what you perceive as truth and life, i.e. evolutionary success. The former is rational, the latter is meta-rational. What choice must a consistent Darwinian make?
43 Comments
I believe you are correct in your assessment of the viability of traditional Catholic communities. As a Protestant whose faith is only 500 years old, I certainly cannot critique something 1500+ years old.
I think my bias towards Protestant Christianity is based on my experiences in the rural Deep South. Nearly all Catholics I ran into were “ethnic Catholics” of Cajun descent who didn’t really take their faith that seriously. It was a cultural thing they did a couple of times a year and didn’t impact their behavior. The Protestants, however, hokey as they are, did seem to take their religion more seriously. Then, once I discovered the Reformed faith, I was happy to find a non-hokey non-goofy version of the Protestant religion.
I did, however, move one step closer to Rome from my Southern Baptist roots in doing so. My children have been baptized as infants and they memorize the catechism more than they do Scripture. And, come to think of it, I had to move to a larger metropolitan area to find a small conservative Reformed church. They’re almost non-existent in the rural Deep South.
What we’re finding is that high-IQ white people want to live around other high-IQ white people, and some of them are forming high-IQ high-fertility religious communities. Yet another manifestation of “The Big Sort”.
Along the coasts or in major metropolitan areas there would be a critical mass of conservative Catholics who could form a cohesive community, every bit as cohesive as the Protestant homeschooling mainstream.
Thanks for this excellent set of articles. I would like to add to the comments of several other posters that you should give more thought to the position of traditional Catholics.
1. They are an actually existing group with establishments around the globe who enjoy a coherent philosophy and theology, one that includes the fecundity that you are seeking.
2. While admiring Mormons and Reformed Christians for their positive attributes, they are are at best relatively recent offshoot branches of the main tree of Christian tradition. Only traditional Catholicism links you to a 2,000-year history of white people actually believing and practicing what you are seeking. This includes the Europe of the Middle Ages, a time when white nations were unified in their beliefs, rigorously expelled or at least controlled the Jews, and had the strength to fight back against foreign invasions.
3. Among religious leaders who have spoken up, you can include Bishop Williamson of the traditional Catholic SSPX who has received more heat from mainstream sources for defending traditional white males, being realistic about Jews, questioning the ZOG establishment and attacking feminism than any other notable figure. Since he is one of just 4 recognized traditional Catholic bishops, this is a high percentage.
4. Even in comparison to Mormons and homeschool evangelicals, traditional Catholics already have much higher birth rates. Every chapel will have several 15-passenger vans parked outside on Sunday mornings filled with children of families who “willingly accept children from God in whatever number He chooses to send them.”
5. It’s true that traditional Catholicism is strong on the feminist and Jewish question but weak on the racial issue. However, the reality is that traditional Catholic communities consist almost 100% of people of European descent who are marrying each other, having large families, and working to restore the world in which white European Christians flourished, even without a well-developed racial philosophy. Moreover, traditional Catholicism provides something lacking in neo-pagan WN movements, a way to transmit traditional values to countries like the Phillipines. While seeking the best for our own people, and while recognizing the existence of a war against the white races currently being waged by Jews and their minority foot soldiers, ultimately we cannot simply ignore the billions of other people living on the planet.
6. Regarding the question of aesthetics which you raise in your articles, traditional Catholicism offers “the beautiful” in a way that is not possible in any other group. Virtually all of the greatest art and music in the history of mankind was created for the service of traditional Catholicism. The traditional Catholic service is justly described as “the most beautiful thing this side of heaven.” The same cannot be said for Mormons or Calvinists. If “truth is beauty and beauty is truth,” then traditional Catholicism is “all you know or need to know.”
6. Lastly, we must recognize that the ultimate goal is eternal life. All thinking men in all times and all places have recognized that one question looms above all others — death and what comes after it. Traditional Catholicism creates a natural society on the ground which becomes the foundation for the journey towards heaven. I recognize that Mormons and Reformed have their own theories on these topics, but I submit that only traditional Catholicism has a coherent theology and practical strategy for attaining eternal life.
Not sure why Orthodoxy was left out of the discussion since of all the Christian communities, it is still the most ethnic. There has been a concerted effort to remove ethnocentrism since it is viewed an impediment to the Gospels, but it still exists among Orthodox communities. It seems to me that one would do best by working with it since it’s old and has balanced the universal nature of the Gospels with their particular expression.
It’s very easy to make sweeping claims about Christianity being weakened by its universalism. One would do well however to recognize that Indian Catholicism as practiced by the Malabars is different from European Catholicism. Other examples from places like Ethiopia can be used as well in compare and contrast exercises. Recent popes have stressed the need for all the sui iuris churches to reclaim their unique identities.
The varieties of ritual, canon law and spiritualities indicate that Christianity can actually foster a healthy particularism, one that doesn’t give itself over to reckless miscegenation. Much of this trend is a of a particularly Latin flavor and is merely a rough period in history rather than a signal of the end of Western religion. Even within Roman Catholicism, there’s a been a serious rethinking of the papacy as an absolute center of pastoral life.
A Russian friend pointed out to me that among the autocephalous Orthodox Churches, there are differences in character and temperament. His example was that Romanian Orthodoxy was more into mystical theology.
Most of the comments here reflect a real ignorance of Christian history, liturgy and theology. Do yourself a favor and visit an Orthodox or Eastern Catholic parish sometime. You’ll find that in general, the more ethnic, the friendlier they are (this is especially true of Arab parishes). WNs could learn a lot about the importance of ethnicity and spirituality by seeing real examples of it among churches which have existed continuously for two millennia.
“So to answer your question: Is my idea of victory an America in 2080 with 500 million whites and 400 million non-whites? No, I’d like to aim higher than that.”
-Thomas White
Ah! At last.
So, you just want more of the same, only more of it.
.
.
.
“How exactly do you think white people having more babies is bad for white people? ”
-Thomas White
You seem like a smart person capable of engaging in a debate without resorting to cheap tactics.
So why the above?
That would be like me asking you why you think an elderly White couple incapable having more children should be euthanized.
I’m not being coy about my viewpoints so take aim at them if you disagree with them. It’s just a waste of time to take shots at what you want want to imply that I’m suggesting rather than simply defending your position.
.
.
.
“Maybe it’s because if white people have too many children, they’ll forget to call their Congressman to stop amnesty? ”
-Thomas White
Yeah, good point. Because since amnesty has not been granted yet, there are no illegal immigrants in our nation, right? They all went home?
And their children, whom the government have deemed to be full fledged citizens (as they were born here)?
No amnesty means they’re leaving as well, I take it?
.
.
.
“You seem upset that I won’t ride your hobby horse as the end-all and be-all of white restoration. Sorry, I disagree with you.”
- Thomas White
Nothing to be sorry about. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But my “hobby horse” here is pointing out that you are advocating the same basic tactic of which you (correctly) attack others of engaging in, Albeit on the other end of the spectrum.
There are two extremes in this movement. One is waiting for the “inevitable” apocalypse so they can turn into the Road Warrior. The other is waiting for the “inevitable” revolution so they can turn into George Washington.
Both extremes essentially advocate doing nothing in the present.
.
.
.
“I do think a lot of the apocalyptic language are rationalizations of many white nationalists’ lack of success in life and with women; to suggest someone should have children also implies they should exhibit the self-control to get a good job and woo a wife…”
- Thomas White
This above quote of yours is what I’m talking about. It’s fixated on the notion that if a person does this or that, the future will be made magically better.
There are in fact a multitude of young White men out there who have no jobs, no prospects, no money and live with their parents AND YET are living with their girlfriends (or are married) and have kids.
It requires no mystical fortitude, skill or even basic charisma in this day and age to find a woman to shack up with and have children. There are apartment complexes and trailer parks full of such.
.
.
.
.
“One big disadvantage to a marginalized movement is it tends to attract losers, and I personally can’t wait to break out into the mainstream where more winners get involved…”
- Thomas White
Once again, this notion that once this or that happens the pieces will all fall neatly into place is no different than the lonewolf huddled around his stockpile waiting for the apocalypse to “wake people up”.
.
.
.
“On Christians and Haiti: there are plenty of non-Christians adopting out of Haiti and other places. Does Angelina Jolie strike a bell with you? How about queer Anderson Cooper? Again, you bring anecdotal, selective evidence when the data clearly show that white religiosity and ethnocentrism are correlated (e.g. plot Obama’s share of the white vote vs. frequency of church attendance by state).”
-Thomas White
(I’ll let slide the fact you accuse me of anecdotal evidence then throw out Angelina Jolie and Anderson Cooper as a rebuttal)
But I’m willing to go out on the anecdotal limb and bet that had Obama been pro-life he would have gotten 99% of the White church attending vote.
By the way, where can I find that data on Obama’s share of the white vote vs. frequency of church attendance by state?
.
.
.
“Christians are helping in Haiti because the place suffered a natural disaster, and whites are a noble race with compassion for the less fortunate.”
-Thomas White
Sorry, no, that’s not their motivation.
The following (written over a year ago) explains the motivation of “White Charity”,
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/charity_and_the_savage/
.
.
.
“You are trying to make this into a false choice. It is not as if we must choose between above-replacement birthrates and restoring a white supermajority to our country. I’d like to accomplish both goals.”
-Thomas White
Restoring a super majority?
We either aim for situation that is 100% White or we just learn to live with the status quo.
My ambition is towards my children or grand children (or great grandchildren) having a land of their own. To be able to walk the streets or tred the country without the possibility of coming across so much as one person that is not like them. To be able to live, work, vacation etc… solely in the company of their own kind.
Otherwise I wouldn’t even bother.
We may never get that, but we must at least work towards it as the ideal.
In that, I’d prefer a country of ten million if it was 100% White to a country of 900 million that was 70% White.
…
You are trying to make this into a false choice. It is not as if we must choose between above-replacement birthrates and restoring a white supermajority to our country. I’d like to accomplish both goals. You completely dismiss the idea of the importance of our people having above-replacement birthrates, and I simply disagree.
So to answer your question: Is my idea of victory an America in 2080 with 500 million whites and 400 million non-whites? No, I’d like to aim higher than that. However, that would be a better outcome than 400 million non-whites and 200 million whites. I have children and will one day have grandchildren who will have to live through this demographic transformation. I do not let the perfect become the enemy of the better, especially when there’s no logical connection between the two.
How exactly do you think white people having more babies is bad for white people? Maybe it’s because if white people have too many children, they’ll forget to call their Congressman to stop amnesty? Your argument is a ridiculous, non-sensical fallacy trying to make a choice out of two compatible, self-reinforcing strategies. You seem upset that I won’t ride your hobby horse as the end-all and be-all of white restoration. Sorry, I disagree with you.
I do think a lot of the apocalyptic language are rationalizations of many white nationalists’ lack of success in life and with women; to suggest someone should have children also implies they should exhibit the self-control to get a good job and woo a wife instead of engaging in competitive displays of “who’s the better Nazi” on Stormfront. One big disadvantage to a marginalized movement is it tends to attract losers, and I personally can’t wait to break out into the mainstream where more winners get involved and leave the WN/VNN ghetto behind.
On Christians and Haiti: there are plenty of non-Christians adopting out of Haiti and other places. Does Angelina Jolie strike a bell with you? How about queer Anderson Cooper? Again, you bring anecdotal, selective evidence when the data clearly show that white religiosity and ethnocentrism are correlated (e.g. plot Obama’s share of the white vote vs. frequency of church attendance by state). Christians are helping in Haiti because the place suffered a natural disaster, and whites are a noble race with compassion for the less fortunate. Even the Japanese are sending relief teams. To criticize people for helping after a natural disaster is both inhuman and un-European.
But unfortunately there are a lot of white nationalists who insist on an autistic, inhuman way of relating to the world as a mark of ideological purity.
“There is no evidence religious Christians are any more crazy on race than anyone else; ”
-Thomas White
Really?
……………………………….
‘ Haiti awash in Christian aid, evangelism ‘
“The horrific destruction and human suffering in Haiti exert an almost irresistible pull on U.S. Christian missionaries eager to help.
“Every church and mission group has a presence in Haiti,” said Wendy Norvelle, spokeswoman for the International Mission Board, which supports foreign missions for the Southern Baptist Church. “It’s very, very, very saturated with those who would want to go and share God’s love and do hands-on ministries providing humanitarian relief.”
Before the earthquake, there were about 1,700 long-term, professional missionaries in Haiti, according to Bert Hickman, research associate at the Center for the Study of Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in South Hamilton, Mass. He said that number is about average for Latin and South American countries with populations similar to Haiti’s 10 million.
But that count doesn’t include the thousands of American missionaries who go to Haiti each year on trips that last just a few weeks or a few months, drawn by Haiti’s extreme poverty and its proximity, just a two-hour flight from Miami.
Some of these missionaries go on their own. Some are sponsored by churches or denominations, or through groups like Campus Crusade for Christ, which sends college students all over the world. Since the quake, there has been another wave of trips thrown together by churches to help needy Haitians and to check on mission properties supported by their churches.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35262608/ns/world_news-haiti_earthquake/
…………………………………………………
I’ll tell you what, when the International Brotherhood of White Atheist Charities outnumber Christian charities in the third world you can assert that White Christians” are (not) any more crazy on race than anyone else.” Until then I think I’d hold off on such proclamations.
.
.
.
.
“We don’t have a black people or brown people problem, we have a white people problem. When whites improve themselves spiritually and regain their self-confidence these other problems will be solved as well.”
-Thomas White
That’s “magic thinking”.
Our problems are not going to be solved magically.
Far too many Whites today buy into Magical Thinking, whether it’s “Judgment Day” when all the wrongs will be made magically right or “Racial Equality” in which ’social-justice’ will magically make blacks intelligent.
Having lots of children will not magically make non-Whites go away anymore than keyboard commandos will.
Until we drop the magic thinking and accept the cold hard reality of our predicament, we will remain where we are now. Right now (in the present) we need our leaders to begin constructing the economic, cultural and political ‘lifeboats’ for which our people can seek to escape the HMS Diversity. We need fully functioning segregated communities as soon as possible.
And that will be hard work. No magic thinking will get us there. It will not be easy. It will be costly and full of heartache and turbulence but it is the thing which we must do.
Otherwise, to follow your track, it would be like the Revolutionaries in 1776 proposing that colonists simply have more children than the English as a way to gain independence from the British Empire.
.
.
.
.
“I’m not sure why you’re so hostile to the idea of increasing white birth rates,”
–Thomas White
I’m hostile to the notion that Brazil is the ideal.
I’m hostile to shifting the focus off of what is of greater significance. If the White population in America were to fall by half there would still be more than three times as many Whites left as there were during the civil war.
.
.
.
.
“The incoherence of your arguments is staggering. I feel like we are talking sideways at one another.”
-Thomas White
Then I will spell it out once more for your edification.
Our numbers are not the issue. The issue is the presence of non-Whites in our communities and nations. Remove them/segregate ourselves from them and our numbers can fluctuate up and down with no long term ill effect.
Ill ask (for a third time) is your idea of victory is an America that is (circa 2080) around 500 million Whites and 400 million non-Whites?
It’s a simple question.
The incoherence of your arguments is staggering. I feel like we are talking sideways at one another.
Like many white nationalists, you are obsessed with non-whites instead of addressing the problems with whites first. This leads you to mischaracterize my arguments. I have not said let’s increase our birthrates INSTEAD of working to reduce and reverse non-white immigration. I am saying work towards both goals. And in fact, they’re the SAME GOAL. Feminism is destroying us at the family level while its allied ideology of multiculturalism is destroying us at the national level.
You totally miss the point of this article if you think my point was to encourage Christians, in general, to have more children. I am simply reporting the FACT that more religious people have more children, and to highlight the self-defeating dysgenic tendencies of the atheism present among some white nationalists.
There is no evidence religious Christians are any more crazy on race than anyone else; in fact, NumbersUSA reports evangelicals to be the MOST conservative demographic group in regards to immigration. You want to cite anecdotal, statistically insignificant reports of non-white adoption, yet the facts show that interracial marriage is lowest in places where white people are the most religious. Yes, there are a few Christian multi-culti nuts out there, but there are even more secular multi-culti nuts. Among the white population, non-Christians were much more likely to vote for Obama than Christians. Your hypothesis simply doesn’t hold water based on actual data instead of your own false stereotypes, however personally hostile you feel towards Christians.
I’m not sure why you’re so hostile to the idea of increasing white birth rates, except perhaps because this idea requires more of you than ranting about non-whites on a blog. It requires you to go out in the real world, marry a woman, get a good job and raise a family. Unfortunately, our movement is full of people too eccentric or dysfunctional to manage those tasks. I am amazed at the hostile response among people who present themselves as advocates for white families to the idea of actually having a white family; there’s always some excuse, some reason why the obvious logic doesn’t apply to “me.” Sorry, I’m not interested in a club of quirky, childless bachelors complaining about the latest multicultural grievance.
We don’t have a black people or brown people problem, we have a white people problem. When whites improve themselves spiritually and regain their self-confidence these other problems will be solved as well.
“Narrator: absolute numbers and birthrates can be independent variables. During Napoleon’s time, whites were having plenty of children.”
-Thomas White
Yeah I know. I pointed that out above.
In fact it’s a bit of an understatement to say they were having “plenty” of children as our numbers more than tripled in just two centuries.
In other words, the rate of increase since 1800 has, until very recently, been EXTRAordinary.
My overall point was that the declining numbers of Whites in The West is completely unconnected with the increasing numbers of non-Whites in The West.
If White couples were having ten kids per family the thirdworld would still be pouring into our lands because it is the goal of our adversaries to multi-cult our societies one way or the other.
.
.
.
“You argue as if turning off non-white immigration is some kind of switch we can just flip.”
-Thomas White
That’s actually the complete opposite of what I’ve been saying.
I’m warning about the need to focus on non-White immigration. It is no mere switch. It is, from our current vantage point, an insurmountable task. Nevertheless, flipping it is indeed the ultimate goal.
Not just stopping it but reversing it.
At any rate, what of the non-Whites already here? And what of the ones yet to be born to the already swelled ranks of various colored peoples here?
Us having more children will not diminish their numbers.
Or (and I’ll ask again) is your idea of victory an America that is (circa 2080) 500 million Whites and 400 million non-Whites?
Again, the goal is for a nation/area/realm/what have you, which is 100% White.
Anything less is just more of what we already got!
Our survival depends on the complete physical segregation of ourselves from them, irregardless of our present numbers.
.
.
.
“We subject ourselves to destruction as a race because we have a spiritual problem, a lack of self-confidence in our civilization. Feminism, and thus low birth rates, is family-level manifestation of this spirit of despair. A healthy society that wants to maintain its racial integrity ALSO, and I think by necessary implication, is a society in which children are valued such that we have above-replacement birth rates.”
-Thomas White
Well, your own article suggests Christians have more children. Are they working to preserve our race and civilization?
Really?
Is there any group working harder than White Christians to flood The West with non-Whites?
The jews are certainly encouraging and cheer-leading it, but for sheer enthusiasm and ‘boots on the ground’ effort none come close to White Christians.
Yes, the Christians value children. So much so that they are adopting them from every corner of the earth and bringing them into Western lands.
And the fact of what is happening in Haiti right now should give you pause in how you frame your argument.
From charities to independent couples, Christians are working hard to bring as many Haitians into America as possible.
And the White Christians running off to Haiti are doing so using their faith as the imputes for what is, essentially, an assault upon the White race.
Right now Whites are probably only around 53% of the population of America. In twenty years time where will that percentage be?
45%, perhaps? Maybe less.
And as mainstream Christians (as in 99% of believers) are disposed towards egalitarianism there is AT LEAST a 50% chance that the children born to White Christians today will marry non-Whites and produce even more non-Whites.
And what argument will you make with them to prevent that? After all the biblical depiction of paradise is that of a city where people from every nation, race and ethnicity come together to worship their one, universalistic, god.
…
Narrator: absolute numbers and birthrates can be independent variables. During Napoleon’s time, whites were having plenty of children. You argue as if turning off non-white immigration is some kind of switch we can just flip.
We subject ourselves to destruction as a race because we have a spiritual problem, a lack of self-confidence in our civilization. Feminism, and thus low birth rates, is family-level manifestation of this spirit of despair. A healthy society that wants to maintain its racial integrity ALSO, and I think by necessary implication, is a society in which children are valued such that we have above-replacement birth rates.
A society like Italy where women have 1.2 children, spending half their lives on selfish idle dissipation in Eurotrash discoes, is also a society that is going to lack the cohesion to defend its ethnic interests. You can’t have one without the other.
Both are symptoms of a common ailment, the white man’s loss of nerve.
“Narrator: two parts of your argument are fallacious. A) I have never proposed pursuing white birthrates instead of a white nation;”
-Thomas White
I never said you did.
I’m responding to a specific argument you made in THIS piece, not to your your entire body of writings.
My point was that declining birthrates is not a problem, at all. By all indications the numbers of White people more than tripled over the past two hundred years. There are now 500 million more people in Europe than there were when Napoleon was on his rampage in the early 1800’s.
Whites today are probably around 12% of the worlds population. And that is probably about where we were when Columbus sailed the ocean blue.
Declining birthrates does not = increased immigration. That’s a sham argument being used by those who wish us ill. It’s a smokescreen.
It simply does us no good to pick up the contrived talking points of our adversaries and run with them.
It’s not about numbers relevant to square miles. Nor is it about industry, national economy or the sustaining of critical social functions. If it were then Europe would have been flooded with 50 million Africans and Asians after the Black Death wiped out a third or more of the White race in the 14th century.
The issue is about the presence of non-Whites in our lands.
Remove them and our numbers can shrink by half and it won’t matter. Whether one billion or one hundred million, we would still be 100% of the population.
…
Narrator: two parts of your argument are fallacious. A) I have never proposed pursuing white birthrates instead of a white nation; we should pursue both, and pursuing the former ensures WN’s replicate themselves through what is likely to be a long struggle and B) I disagree that falling white birthrates are somehow a rational response to population density. It’s a spiritual problem infecting the West arising from feminism. Russia has plenty of land but faces losing half her population this century due to below-replacement birthrates.
Observer: This discussion is practical, so I have to say good luck with your strategy, but I wouldn’t bet my genes on it. I can just imagine the pickup line, “Hey baby, come join my fundamentalist Mormon commune where you get to be a part of my harem and we abort most of the boy babies”.
In this article, I have pointed to a supply of untainted anti-feminist women that exist on the ground, at least in the Deep South, among conservative Protestant Christians. They’re surrounded by these wimpy beta Christian males and would be fairly easy to woo for a confident, fit man of a truly traditional mindset. It does require, though, letting go of dysgenic atheist materialism and embracing the historical faith of our people over the last millennium.
We can argue pie-in-the-sky all day of what could/might work, but for a young WN with a five-year timeframe to get married and start having babies, I know of no better alternatives.
“You can’t have a country with below-replacement reproduction, it doesn’t work.”
-Thomas White
.
.
.
A country, at least the majority of them, is a people; a biological entity. It exists and functions whether it is comprised of 4 million or 40 million.
Birthrates fluctuate.
That’s why Europe today is OVER POPULATED. As is America -even taking Whites alone.
In 1800 Europe’s population was, roughly, 200 million. By the year 2000 it was over 700 million (with around 95% of those being native Europeans).
What has happened recently with declining birthrates was most likely a natural balancing of the hyper-population growth brought on by the industrial revolution.
The flood of third world peoples into The West has nothing whatsoever to do with our birthrates.
America has off-shored almost every critical industry. Even menial jobs like ‘customer service’ is contracted out to places like India. Our biggest export is Hollywood!
So exactly what critical slots/functions are being left empty that requires tens of millions of foreigners (and their families) to fill?
And how many immigrants are on welfare or other (White) tax payer funded government programs? Probably 75% or better.
Factor in crime and their presence is actually a dramatic net loss on the national economy and a progressive drain on the local one. Not to mention the effect on quality of life.
I’ll say again, declining White birthrates have absolutely nothing to do with the flood of third-worlders into The West.
And, I’ll ask again, what exactly is gained if we simply compete with them (blacks, hispanics, Indians, Chinese, Arabs, etc..) numerically if they are still here among us, still pouring in and still breeding?
We have a problem. The goal is to solve it, not to perpetuate its conditions.
Whites being 51% of a slum is not a solution.
The goal is Whites being 100% of a population, whether that be 4 million or 400 million.
Physical segregation and geographical partition is the goal. That is the solution.
Our best minds should be working on the facilitation of that end. All of our politics, philosophy and money should be aimed at that inevitable necessity.
After all, the concept behind the term White National is a White nation.
…
Regarding the assertion that polygamy is the practice of Semites: Was Mormonism founded by and practiced by Semites? Was Utah settled and built by Semites?
Regarding an excess of young men, which seems to be the main concern: If the young men go forth and convert others what exactly is the problem? Isn’t the goal to have a surplus White population that is expanding again?
The fringe polygynous practitioners of today are unsophisticated, cruel, and foolish in how they expel their young men. If the youths were prepared to be missionaries they would be a force to be reckoned with.
If the very long term concern is whether the young men have enough wives keep in mind that it is very easy to have more female than male babies without resorting to invasive technologies. But that is a concern for the far future.
It’s a fact that this has been done successfully by Whites and that it rapidly led to revolution, a de facto ethnostate, a healthy family environment with good values, and a prosperous modern culture.
I think the comment regarding Brazil is demonstrative of a particular WN tendency, which is to see everything relative to minorities. Fecundity is a necessary but not sufficient trait of a functional white nation. You can’t have a country with below-replacement reproduction, it doesn’t work.
I think many WN’s console themselves with various excuses of why it should always be OTHER white people doing the wife-wooing and child-raising. I see very little room for excuses as to why WN’s shouldn’t be fecund and thus self-replicating through time, if we’re a serious movement in for the long haul. For some it seems WN is a sympathetic-complaining-and-moaning club.
This piece was an exercise in showing what I believe to be the most practical way to achieve those goals. Many will go back to reading their Evola, Oliver, Spengler and Ludovici (childless eccentrics all), cursing the decadence of our age while their genes rot. Maybe some will realize the sterility of curmudgeonly intellectual singleness and go get some skin in the game.
I agree completely with White’s first two parts of his series, but I am a little taken aback with the third segment. I will not elaborate on what I feel was incorrectly stated by Thomas White in his article, others have done more than enough to express these. I would like to point out one thing that needs to be corrected in one of your comments however, that no one else has pointed out:
Thomas White – 1. “ On the idea of building a WN religious community based on some sort of paganism: the new paganism will never serve in the same way as the old paganism. What I mean is that the new paganism does not consist of people who literally believe in some sort of Aryan god or goddess, but rather the idea of the gods and goddesses serve as vague metaphors for a kind of quasi-spiritualism/mysticism. Asatru adherents remain atheistic materialists from what I can tell, believing in no afterlife or ultimate accountability for their actions. They are analogous to the modern Anglican Church, whose adherents are comforted by the trappings of religion but in reality has no power over its adherents because they don’t really believe anything anymore. The current Archbishop of Canterbury once went on record as saying he wasn’t sure there was a God!”
I consider myself an Odinist, however vague that may seem to you. You are correct insofar that some Asatru followers don’t believe in literal gods but see them as metaphors — in fact, I would say the majority see it this way. However, I believe you have reduced it down to make it appear simple, something befitting peasantry perhaps. Asatru/Odinist, or whatever you want to call them, generally do not see their gods the same way a Christian looks upon their God, we believe we are descended from them, case in point, I have read that some pagan kings even traced their lineage back to Odin. Personally, I do not condemn myself to place so much grief on making a choice about what the gods really are; it’s not important; it is how we conduct ourselves that determines who we are.
I would also like “materialist” defined. I’m sorry, but I see no problem with men working towards a better life for their future generations, however materialistic they may have to become to support such an endeavor (such as living in the here and now).
Why do we have to depend upon an afterlife to account for our actions? Here again, Asatru/Odinists stand divided on what they believe, but also, it doesn’t matter, and we do not splinter because of it. I believe you should research Odinism more thoroughly before making these accusations and by doing so you would have encountered what is called Wyrd (not to also mention the Nine Noble Virtues). In essence, everything that we do will affect us somehow, if not us personally, than some one among us… this is our accountability. You can sum it up this way, instead of fretting over where we will be going when we die and trying to insure that we behave ourselves so we can guarantee our destination, I prefer to consider my family and friends when I make choices, and the effects my choices will have upon future generations to account for my actions — what better accountability could their be beyond this?
I will humbly submit to you what I have stated elsewhere: the free, courageous, and proud white man does not fear death because he knows where he is going, but because he knows what he has done!
As a side note, I believe the term “pagan” can be replaced with the term “culture” without losing anything in the transliteration. Mr. O’Meara, your recent article in TOQ (“Race, Culture, and Anarchy”) have certainly broadened my view about culture and will continue to make a lasting impression upon me!
I hold you men who fight for our cause with high regard!
~ Krista – 25 year old homeschooling mother of two beautiful girls!
So Brazil is the ideal?
How exactly is having more children going to improve our lot in the day-to-day function of our society?
Our problem is not our numbers, but non-White numbers. It is their presence among us, great or small, that is the problem.
I doubt Whites having more babies will stop the flood of non-Whites into Western lands.
Will we really consider it some sort of victory if, circa 2080, there are 250 million Whites verses 240 million non-Whites living together in America?
We have to segregate ourselves from them one way or the other.
Engaging in a numerical horse race with the third world is merely a continuation of the status quo.
My idea of victory doesn’t look like Brazil.
As for Christianity, here is the mentality among even conservative protestants, articulated by Albert Mohler head of the Southern Baptist seminary,
…………………………………….
“Richard and Rowena Pet were the young Dutch couple who wanted so badly to be Arno’s mother and father. They had struggled with infertility for years before deciding to adopt. As they awaited the adoption of Arno, Rowena became pregnant. Last August she gave birth to Jim, who was left in the care of relatives as Richard and Rowena flew to Haiti in January to claim Arno and complete the adoption process.
According to Charter, adoptive parents often stay at the Hotel Villa Therese in the Pétionville district of Port-au-Prince. That is where Richard and Rowena took Arno. That is where they were when the earthquake came. And that is where they died together.
Who can read this account without heartbreak . . . and a heart warmed?
Of course, for the Christian there is far more to this story. In the story of Arno Pet we find a picture of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Adoption is perhaps the most powerful depiction of the Gospel found in the Bible. We are all orphans, born under the curse of sin. By the sheer grace and mercy of God, those who come to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ are adopted as sons. Redeemed sinners are adopted as sons “through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise and glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.” [Ephesians 1:5-6]
Arno Pet began life as an orphan, but he ended life as a son. He was abandoned at his birth, but he died in the arms of his parents. He did not die as Arno, he died as Arno Pet.
In the rubble of the Hotel Villa Therese the film crew found the bodies of Richard and Rowena and Arno Pet. In that same rubble, we find a picture of the Gospel of Christ. He who has eyes to see, let him see.”
-http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/02/03/adopted-for-life-and-death/
…………………………………………
Monotheism is a poison pill. It’s very nature advocates the idea of a universal standard and universal humanity and morality.
And those concepts are killing us.
Simply having more children will not make the colored hordes go away.
…
To Johnson: An acknowledgment of the limitations of objective truth in cosmological matters is precisely why the great Reformed theologians (once past the first generation of authoritarians like Calvin) emphasized the necessity of faith. Our minds are finite, so all we have is faith, our best guess of what God is like. The Apostle Paul said “see through a glass darkly” in what we know now versus what we will know eventually. In any case, the notion that cosmological things can be known with the same certainty as the boiling point of water is not a Christian one. This is also why the best post-Enlightenment theologians, like Dabney, recognized the importance of liberty of conscience, that no one should be forced to believe something. Dabney condemned the Crusades and inter-religious wars that were so destructive in our history.
Re: polygamy. I think a major piece of Kevin MacDonald’s non-Jewish research is his documenting how monogamy is the essence of Western culture. The pre-Christian Germans practiced it naturally. A polygamous society is not a Western society. They are also unstable societies, as evidenced by the practicing polygamists out in Utah who constantly have to run off young males so the patriarchs can ensure sexual access to the young women. To me, anyone who endorses 40-year-old men having sexual relations with multiple teenage “wives” is fundamentally anti-Western; this is the behavior of Semites, not whites. You might as well tell white people to stop eating beef and start eating insects, it’s just not in us.
To O’Meara: Sacrificing one’s genetic future for the sake of establishing a White Republic is the sort of winner-take-all game it is wise to avoid in life. It could be 100 years before this is viable, and in the meantime we need racially aware whites to reproduce and sustain themselves.
Higher fertility won’t save us from anything — unless it’s part of a larger process to re-sacralize our heritage and our destiny.
Morgan’s right. It will be the warriors who will form the White Republic — for the fathers will have to look out for the safety of their children.
Ceasar said that the Druids teach the imortality of the soul and reincarnation, and believe this encourages courage and fearlessness. After the Romans conquered Britain they persecuted the Druids more than any other religion because it was not compatible with the multicultralism of the empire.
I think a religion that belief in reincarnation could be more useful than other forms of afterlife, as it turns the presevation of your nation and eugenics into not just a legacy for your decendents but also the only way of ensuring that your afterlife is a good one. While many christians dont care what hapens to this world and those “Left Behind” as they are going to heaven.
I just read your articles at the suggestion of Spirit, Water, Blood. I must say I share their endorsement for your insights and apologetic. Outstanding!
If Whites wish to save the White Race: Get married, have as many children as God will give you, shoot your TV, get your youngins out of Government Schools, and form flesh and blood communities.
Abjuring the realm,
David, I’m not aware of any evidence that polygyny as practiced by Whites would de-stabilize a modern society. It may de-stabilize aspects of our current modern society but I see that as a good thing.
Real world evidence shows the opposite: a White polygynous community founded what has become a thriving modern state.
As for women being put off by it, this would only be the case if it was a rigid, dogmatic standard that all women supposedly had to adhere to. Instead, a better approach is to make it clear that everyone should be free to choose which option they prefer.
A certain percentage of women who want children would be open to polygyny or actively interested in it. If anything, intelligent advocacy of polygyny as one of several strategies would help WNs appeal to those women who are interested in it.
I had long thought
of these things myself (how Christian communities seem to be the last
place an active Darwinist can go, ironically enough). That point was hammered
in well, but I’d possibly dispute the idea that the Reformed Churches
may be the best of the 3. My encountering with these people suggest
that they take the most “biblical” approach to Christianity, and
emphasize Jesus without any other good figures that a Catholic could
give reference to (saints, kings, heroes etc.) This is more about
ideals than practicality, which the article was going for. Can’t say
anything about Mormonism except that Salt Lake City was remarkably
clean and pleasant.
Widespread polygyny is not a stable arrangement for a modern society. By allowing a few powerful men to monopolize the most desireable women, it produces a surplus of perpetually marginalized young men who are not socialized by marriage and have little incentive to contribute to the society.
I might also add that WN needs to appeal to women, and the status of women in polygymous societies is considerably poorer than in traditional monogamous arrangements.
Thomas, if your standard is working backwards from fecundity then pre-modern Mormonism, where they practiced polygyny, is the most true.
I’d like to know how you can possibly justify the claim that Christianity is any less mad on the surface than Mormonism, or that the founders of either religion are any more or less mad. To say Christianity may be true and Mormonism not is just a statement of faith.
There are several facts about the original Mormonism that are relevant to WNs:
1. It was a successful revolutionary movement in the face of severe government oppression, including the legalization of the murder of Mormons.
2. It was founded by Whites.
3. It was a White religion that created the highest levels of fecundity.
4. It led to the settling of what could have been, and was in effect if not in name, an ethnostate.
5. It has endured for over a hundred years and it still going strong even though it is now in a very watered down format.
As a general strategy it is a good idea to notice what has been the most successful practice historically and use that as the primary template then adjust other factors for one’s personal situation and the reality of our time.
Additionally, Whites have practiced polygyny very differently from Blacks. It has been more functional and productive; civilization has not suffered.
Given the criteria set out in your article, basically working back from observable facts to deduce cosmological (by which you mean theological or the will of Nature or God) truths, and using fecundity as the standard, then it is crystal clear which is the best approach.
Polygyny itself is the cosmological truth or will of God.
RE: Objective truth, my point was very specific, to wit that the Jews seem to be the source of the idea of ascribing an objective and exclusive truth to myths, i.e., to putative accounts of ultimate realities that cannot be known by ordinary means. I certainly do not think that the idea of objective truth about historical, scientific, empirical matters is a Jewish invention. Quite the contrary. Jews seem to lack any scruples about objective truths on such matters. That sort of objectivity is very much a Western thing. But part of Western objectivity is objectivity about the limits of our own minds, and that leads to a salutary skepticism about our ability to know ultimate reality. But we still have a drive to speculate about such matters, so myths and theories are necessary and inevitable. But we also know that it would be folly — hubris — to think that our myths and speculations are absolute and exclusive truth.
To briefly respond to Johnson’s comments:
Yes, an atheist materialist could integrate into a fecund, pagan WN community. That is, if one existed. Waiting for a fecund pagan community before trying to find a good, non-feminist wife is not a strategy I’d recommend, however.
In regards to Mormonism, I think you’ll find most Mormons actually do believe what Joseph Smith and Brigham Young taught, both now and historically. Smith and Young likely believed it as well, as they were both probably mentally ill and that gave them the ability to genuinely believe and more easily create adherents through that self-confidence. I’m not aware of any religion that can sustain fecundity in an era of easy birth control without explicit reference and belief in the supernatural. So yes, I do think neo-pagans are more like Anglicans relative to actual historic pre-Christian European pagans, who genuinely believed in the existence of Thor, Wotan, Zeus, etc.
To clarify, I do genuinely believe that Christianity is true. My discussions here regarding its practical benefits are tempered by my audience. All truth is God’s truth, as the RadTrad Catholics say, and this includes the true, observable parts of Darwinism. Thus, any true religion or worldview must necessarily provide practical reproductive benefits for its adherents in the aggregate. Atheism, it seems, fails on this count.
I find all of Nietzsche and philosophy in general hard to understand. I think I understand what you’re saying, but belief in the existence of objective truth is not a Semitic artifact but rather what I thought made Western man culturally Western, as opposed to the reality-denying mysticism of the East.
My relativism vis-a-vis religion is driven by the fact that we can’t observe or do experiments to determine cosmological truths. Instead of trying to figure it out in our heads, or automatically rejection religious claims because of our inability to test them, I recommend working backwards from the data we do have (fecundity, for example) to see which set of cosmological truths seem to function best. I happen to think that those that function well would be a superset of the one that is true, considerably narrowing the field of inquiry.
1. I don’t dispute that atheism is associated with low birth rates among intelligent people. But I do dispute White’s explanation of how that works.
2. If, as White posits, an atheistic materialist can successfully integrate into an existing Christian religious community, then I see no reason why the same process cannot take place with a pagan community.
3. I also dispute his apparent belief that some sort of neo-paganism cannot be a genuine religion just because it is constructed by non-believers as a vehicle for their genetic interests. I think a better analogy for the neo-pagan project is the birth of Mormonism rather than the senility of Anglicanism. Mormonism shows just how genetically powerful a blatantly constructed religion can be.
The fact that Mormonism was created within recent historical time and is therefore susceptible to far more withering demystification than, say, early Christianity, has not — against all odds — proved to be a fatal weakness.
The first generation of neo-pagans might consist of non-believers going through the motions. But the second generation, if they are brought up to believe, will believe. And as for those in later generations whose belief wavers, they can be kept within the community by appealing to their genetic interests and other goods. When that time comes, pagan apologists can lift a few pages from Thomas White.
4. As a historical point, many religions have functioned quite well without (a) notions of an afterlife, (b) notions of an afterlife where one’s lot is any more just than in this life, (c) the idea of a providence directing the world for the better, and (d) belief in the literal truth of their myths. That said, I think that Christianity has an advantage over such religions on the first three points. Therefore, as a Darwinian religious pragmatist, I would definitely incorporate these elements into a neo-pagan synthesis. It should be noted, moreover, that these three ideas were already being proposed in the works of the first great pagan religious reformers known to us: Socrates and Plato.
As for the idea of the literal truth of myths: this seems to originate with the Jews, and it is a dubious legacy. Nietzsche, in the third essay of On the Genealogy of Morals, makes a compelling argument that this notion is the ultimate undoing of Christianity. Christianity makes a cult of truth. It makes truth something that people are willing to die for. Yet once that idea has been planted in the culture, it is inevitably turned on Christianity itself, and the process of demythologization begins, and with the death of Christianity comes the death of Western civilization.
Nietzsche is a profoundly religious thinker. He mourns the death of Christianity, even as he blames it because the wound was self-inflicted. Nietzsche thinks life requires culture and ideals to flourish. And the core of a culture is a religion. With the death of the religion of the West comes the death of the West. But Nietzsche sees no reason to try to revive a religion that is dying from self-inflicted wounds. He hopes for something new and better.
Nietzsche thinks that the Christian cult of intellectual probity is contrary to the interests of ascending, flourishing life. One way to measure life’s ascent is through fecundity. I think that the connection between atheism and infecundity is that they are both rooted in a life-smothering intellectual probity that is (irony of ironies) ultimately Biblical in origin.
Thomas White, by recommending that we look to the good and the beautiful — to fecund and flourishing communities — rather than to intellectual questions of truth is (irony of ironies again) being a good Nietzschean. This kind of pragmatic defense of religious belief, which begins in Plato’s Phaedo and runs from Pascal to Rousseau to Kant to William James, may in fact save Christianity from itself, but only by undermining its pretense to absolute and exclusive truth and subordinating it to the necessities of worldly flourishing. These are good things, to my White Nationalist eyes.
5. I think the question of which is the true Christianity — present-day Christianity, which is cheering our race on to suicide, or the Christianity of the past, when our civilization was flourishing — is based on a false alternative. Both forms of Christianity are “true,” because the truth about Christianity is that it is ultimately an otherworldly religion that has always adapted its teachings to stay on good terms with the secular powers, because such accommodation is necessary to work in this world to save people for the next. When Christianity had to remain on good terms with a healthy Aryan society, it preached healthy Aryan values. Now that it exists in a sick, Jew-dominated society, it preaches those values. This is actually cause for hope, however, because if we whites ever regain control over our destiny, the Churches can easily be brought into line. Their kingdom is not of this world. So they will not challenge our title to it too vigorously.
6. That said, given the writ of the Sermon on the Mount, the churches have a far easier time reconciling that with white racial suicide than with white racial preservation. Just look at the latest orgy of racially suicidal altruism toward Haiti. Again, our race is not going to preserve itself by increasing our susceptibility to sob stories, our sentimentality toward every brown biped with a swollen belly and an empty bowl, or our tendency to turn the other cheek when assaulted by our enemies. If we could adopt Homer as holy writ, we would be far better equipped to survive.
A few more comments:
1. On the idea of building a WN religious community based on some sort of paganism: the new paganism will never serve in the same way as the old paganism. What I mean is that the new paganism does not consist of people who literally believe in some sort of Aryan god or goddess, but rather the idea of the gods and goddesses serve as vague metaphors for a kind of quasi-spiritualism/mysticism. Asatru adherents remain atheistic materialists from what I can tell, believing in no afterlife or ultimate accountability for their actions. They are analogous to the modern Anglican Church, whose adherents are comforted by the trappings of religion but in reality has no power over its adherents because they don’t really believe anything anymore. The current Archbishop of Canterbury once went on record as saying he wasn’t sure there was a God!
2. Johnson’s idea that atheism provides more motivation for genetic survival, however effective that may eventually prove for him personally, cannot explain away the clear message of the data: atheism is dysgenic for intelligent people. I acknowledge there are individual exceptions to any trend, but in the aggregate I continue to believe atheism to be dysgenic. I wonder if the NLSY would provide some more concrete data, perhaps looking at the sample of white Christian kids and seeing which ones turned atheist at some point and comparing to their non-apostate peers. In any case, in my experience with WN’s, I see no particular reason to believe that WN atheists are exceptions to this rule. The more religious, the more children, holds true for WN as well.
3. Johnson’s critiques of Christianity are in my view stereotypical objections. While true of much of modern Christianity, they are not true of historic Christianity, and the conservative Christian groups I discuss are more like the latter than the former. Very intelligent theologians have re-interpreted the seemingly dysgenic statements in the Bible to a Western standard of morality. For example “Love your neighbor as yourself” really means “respect your neighbor’s property rights” from the Reformed view (this re-interpretation, BTW, is justified by relegating many of Jesus’ seemingly radical teachings to the category of “wisdom literature,” i.e. parts of the Bible culturally distorted by the Jewish tendency for overstatement and thus cannot be taken literally from a Western perspective). Perhaps read the Westminster Catechism (http://www.reformed.org/documents/larger1.html) for a survey of what historic Christianity really was and is.
4. Regarding Christianity and the Jews: Kevin MacDonald has recently written that Christianity was the dominant anti-Jewish force in the late Roman Empire. The current evangelical fetishism for Jews is due to the heresy of dispensationalism, and I admit it’s very unfortunate. However, I don’t think Christians are any worse as a group in their Jewish fetishism as any non-Christian group of whites. Consider the essential story of Christianity: God becomes incarnate as a man, and the Jews kill him, but through His Holiness triumphs over their evil and delivers salvation to all mankind. That sounds eminently compatible with the WN worldview, and also explains the continued antipathy of Jews towards Christianity, even in its mainstream neutered form.
5. One commenter complains that no Christian leader stands up for whites. This isn’t true, and I can provide four examples: James Edwards, Pete Peters (CI, admittedly, not technically an orthodox Christian), Harry Seabrook and Pastor John Weaver:
http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?SpeakerOnly=true&currSection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=John%5EWeaver
Now, there are not many Christians speaking publicly on behalf of whites, but there aren’t many people, period, doing that anyway. Heck, few white nationalists can publicly do this, and we all know why. Our enemies can make us pay a personal price for doing so.
6. As for the idea of building a supportive, pro-natal, real-life WN community, pagan or not: I wish anyone luck in such a project. People have been trying for years and eventually someone will succeed, but it’s not something I’m going to pin my genetic future on.
7. Perhaps I can close with an example so people can see more clearly what I mean. Philosophical debates, IMO, accomplish little but solving specific problems avails much. Functional nations (and I use nations here in the sense of a genetically related group of individuals sharing a common culture and religion) are composed at the cellular level of functional families.
Feminism is an autoimmune disorder of civilization that attacks at the cellular level, whereas racial ambivalence attacks at the national level. I think it’s possible that if you solve the feminism problem, you solve the racial problem. People with large families have a vested interest in their children’s futures.
If you’re a 25-year-old WN male, your immediate genetic future is threatened most by feminism, as this is what is most likely to prevent you from having a successful, fruitful marriage. The first objective is to find a community untainted or less tainted by feminism. And you need to do this within about 5 years, integrate into a community, meet a girl, get married and start having kids. This timeline isn’t set in stone, but you obviously can’t wait 15 years.
I see this as an imperative if you are truly consistent in your WN beliefs, unless you have some sort of biological/developmental deformity (homosexuality, untreatable infertility, a severe handicap etc) that causes you to have to punt on the wife/child issue and advance your genetic interests indirectly as a general white advocate. We can’t all sit on the sidelines and coach, 95%+ of us need to be on the playing field.
So the challenge is to find this community on a compressed timeline. I don’t think it’s realistic to depend upon creating some sort of WN community to do this. You have to find a community in real life. Unfortunately, if you’re also an atheist materialist, these communities are all religious, and you’ll need to adopt the beliefs of the community to truly integrate.
That’s hard. I know it’s hard to make yourself believe something you don’t believe. However, from a meta-rational perspective, I know I am personally influenced by whatever I expose myself to. If I expose myself to Christian books, I believe more strongly. If I expose myself to atheist materialist views, I doubt more.
My advice is to explore the worldviews of these functional religious communities and see what happens. If you end up believing, your reward will be rich, both in this world and the next.
Wikitopian,
Is it true that the Mormon church still discourages miscegenation?
Perhaps while practicing Mormon Taqqiyah?
Very interesting.
We can also turn Christianity into a White religion, like this guy does, meaning a religion where White Europeans and their descendants have a special status as the people who embraced the true religion and spread and protected it. Where Whites are the chosen people who are closest to God. God, who by the way created the human races for a reason, and did not intend for them to mixed into a single bastard race.
White’s claim that atheism undermines reproduction because it contains no supernatural grounds for hope in the future (divine providence, an afterlife) strikes me as dubious.
Speaking as an atheist, my conviction that there is no divine providence — that the cosmos is not fixed so that the good will triumph in the end — is precisely what motivates me to fight for my values every waking moment.
And my conviction that there is no personal immortality is precisely what makes partial genetic survival through reproduction so attractive.
So an explanation of the correlation between atheism and low birthrates needs to be sought elsewhere.
It may also be the case that there is no direct causal connection between these two phenomena, but that both of them are manifestations of an underlying cause.
Excellent comments Greg Johnson (and Yogic Student).
I think that Europeans are a fundamentally religious and moral people. It comes from motives within, when compared to knowing how the world works. Therefore our science is a fundamental, even religious, tool for understanding what constitutes a moral act. That we invented science shows how serious (and able) we are to be religious in a generic, fundamental sense. It shows that we hold the future, and the timeless principles which bring it, in high regard over more selfish pursuits. We are serious about destiny — about bringing heaven onto Earth so to speak, if I were to use old religious terminology. Some patterns which people call “religion” in the world are really other-group-directed battle plans more than anything else. These others chose lower motives by which to organize their people. Motives that will destroy truth and real moraility eventually. Our race IS our religion, so is our science, so are our cathedrals. They work together, and they are the same thing.
Truth is such an important component of this that I think the only moral reason, the only real reason, to ever go to war is to protect truth and the freedom to pursue it. Therefore if an invading army has a higher truth, is better able to pursue truth by their history, motives, and abilities, then we would be immoral to stop them. If the reverse situation was true (as it is in white western countries) then it would be immoral NOT to stop them.
What I am saying is that Objective assessments of the world in science are inextricable from morality. Raymond B. Cattell in his “Beyondism: Religion from Science” book covers this idea pretty well too. Just like we need facts and evidence in a courtroom to come up with universally moral decisions important to the future of society, so do we need science to make moral decisions about the future of humanity. Religion needs to accept this and encompass this objective information. If it does not, it is not truly religion at all — just as truth is not optional when seeking justice.
Great article, we really need to be having at the very LEAST 4 children — 3 is replacement level.
Only problem with the article is this sentiment:
“I think humans are least equipped to objectively determine the truth, but we are pretty good at seeing good and beauty.”
Wasn’t it Keats who penned the words:
“Beauty is truth, truth beauty,”–that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.
and further, isn’t it objective truth that every good thing is based on? Things like real justice? Isn’t it the capacity to value and follow objective truth that defines a human being above all other traits of character? Isn’t the very foundation of religion the enshrinement of this deeper longing for timeless truth? Religions seek timeless principles by which the world is ordered, and the higher destinies we can forge as a result of knowing these things and ordering society based on them. Doesn’t science show us these things too?
Every time we think we are at a dead end in society, doesn’t science show us ways out and around obstacles? Can’t the entire process of evolution itself be defines as the search for truth by biologically replicating organisms which survive depending on how well they can discern and operate according to accurate information (truth)? Truth is the soul of a people, the soul of life itself. Without desire for and movement toward truth, civilization is a pointless materialistic orgy of greed and power. Even our best emotions of love and caring are information — distillations of countless generations of selection in nature about what is important to the future.
Studies at Los Alamos recently which model mathematically the logistics of civilizations and its cities shows that cities are optimally arranged not for resource distribution, but for information distribution.
Truth, beauty, and goodness are facets of the same thing. The reason that I even think the white race is worth preserving at all is not simply because I am one of them. I might as well be a sports fan of a team with a spurious mascot. Lol. It is because I know that they are the best hope of life to reach the destiny of all life since the beginning of time. Much of this comes from knowing about brains and science, about history too — TRUTH in other words. The injustice based on untruths in the egalitarian “diversity” movement which is destroying us is the fundamental reason it is so absolutely and unequivocally IMMORAL.
Anyway, I explain the absolute morality and the fundamental moral imperative of saving not just the white race, but the truthful cutural trajectory that they are naturally on in my book: “The Textbook of the Universe: The Genetic Ascent to God”. We are a fundamentally religious race in this sense, never mind the facets of this path perennially reflected in our various religions.
The white race has a chance of truly overcoming the dark animal desires of our past, of reaching a new and amazing destiny unique in the universe. The corruption of other races and the patterns introduced by their genes is our only real threat at this point — a very real and “red in tooth and claw” threat. (”red” in political orientation too I might add…). These alien genes with their alien motives and world view will undoubtedly destroy us, our destiny, and the hope it brings to life unless we cn drastically and quickly turn our situation around.
I look at this truly as the final battle of good and evil on Earth because of truth and it’s universal relevance to the future of life and every good thing on Earth. Truth needs warriors — people willing to sacrifice for it. So does beauty and goodness — otherwise these delicate flowers of human striving and sacrifice will wither and die maybe forever — given the different technological modern environment we now live in. We have jettisoned the booster-rocket of our earlier harsh evolutionary history which gave rise to us, and if we do not transition to the next stage with our genetic knowledge, we will fall hard and permanently into a deadly hell on Earth eventually. This is it, folks, this is the time for heroes because of this. This is our time to do or die FOREVER. Truth is pretty important.
I have argued and shown in my book that science and religion are the same thing, come from the same underlying motives. It is motives that can make the same exact act either good or evil. Motives that are toward higher truth, and higher functioning of society, toward the future of the very fundamental principles if life itself, are moral. Science and religion are both about choosing life paths based on the highest truths, the timeless principles of nature and the people around us. They are exactly the same, not kind’ve the same… Everything depends on truth.
This is for the Spenglerians out there.
Is the West yet to arrive at the Age of the Caesars or have the great Caesars come and gone now with the setting of the sun over the West? If the former is true then Christianity as the historical religion of Western Culture should also be the religion of the last stages of Western Civilization. If the latter is true new gods are in order.
I’ve seen people state that the age of Western Caesarism has indeed passed citing a range of possible Caesars. Usually it’s technology. Though the most interesting theory I’ve come across was that the media empires were the Caesars. I refused to believe such nonsense. How could the greatest Hochkultur to date end in this most inglorious way? With the Caesars being Jews that inverted every ideal of the historical West. Though the more I thought about it part of me saw it to be true. Faustian man’s Culture ending in a most tragic way; being robbed of the IMPERIVM.
The new Aryan Hochkultur will be born in the East. The Berlin-Moscow axis. Will the ethnostate in Northern America be a part of this new Culture, or will it be its own organism? That is an important question. What will happen to the colonies of the West once the West is no more; with a new High Culture awakening on its periphery?
This is important also in regards to religion. If the North American ethnostate is to be an offshoot of the new High Culture then it is presupposed that the religion will be the same. If not, then a different religion will need to take root.
In either case the religion will be pagan. By that I mean particularistic and unimaginable outside of the Culture/ethnostate. To that end it doesn’t really matter what the gods are called. If it is a rehash of Asatru or a Solar cult; so long as it is a reflection of the Aryan Weltanschauung. Though what I propose would be a reconstruction of the religion of the (Proto-)Indo-Europeans.
I honestly can’t see Christianity being the religion of the ethnostate. A few racialists that are devout Christians I know are of the opinion that religion is universal. I have to remind them that we do not like universals. The more particularisms the better! As we know etymologically religion means to connect or unify. There is nothing universal about this. D. H. Lawrence saw that the god of love [Christianity] was a spent force. Himself hearing the pounding of the Dark God’s fist on the door.
In answer to your question Dr. Johnson. There are enough WN’s out there to form a community. However, at this stage it would be a Männerbünd. Having said that, from the Männerbünde comes the State.
‘Or this community could be based on a religion tailored toward promoting white genetic interests. If this option is preferable, then we can already build upon the efforts over the last few decades to revive or create a form of racialist Nordic neo-paganism (Asatru).’
I expect that white nationalist pagans are already aware of the great spiritual heritage of India.
Some version of yogic philosophy, Buddhism, etc. combined with a strict emphasis on procreation might serve to get some WNs procreating who otherwise would be lost. I would argue that Buddha himself was blue-eyed, although my history on that claim is thinly sourced at best.
I would like to believe that the great spiritual heritage of India’s blue-eyed invaders might rise again, to revivify the blue-eyed populations of the world. I think it was the Bhagavad-Gita that had the words:
‘When unrighteous disorder prevails, the women sin and are impure; and when women are not pure, Krishna, there is disorder of castes, social confusion.’
Is it too unrealistic to hope that spirituality rooted in Indian scriptures might restore order and prevent blue-eyed women from sinning? Perhaps.
As an unmarried, childless, atheistic White Nationalist, I find Thomas White’s article compelling. I need to find a religious community the norms of which reinforce high fertility and high investment parenting among people who are intelligent and racially aware.
But if I am going to choose a religion based solely on secular concerns like these, then why restrict my options to different forms of Christianity?
Christianity, after all, has serious disadvantages from a WN point of view.
First, Christianity posits that the Jews, our principal enemy, have a privileged place in human history, that God is the God of the Jews, and that the Savior of the world was a Jew. These beliefs go a long way toward explaining why Jews now dominate the Christian world but never really penetrated the great civilizations of the East: India, China, Japan, etc. If Europeans had not become Christians, our very survival would not be threatened by Jewish power today.
Second, Christianity is a universalistic religion, offering salvation to all human beings. This means that all nations and races can become part of the Christian community. This undermines the barriers to interracial reproduction, adoption, and general altruism that whites desperately need to erect if our race is to survive. By by the standard of racial survival, a particularistic, tribal religion like Judaism, Hinduism, or Shinto is superior to Christianity.
Third, Christianity preaches destructive and dysgenic values. If the white race is going to survive, it will not be through an increase in pity, meekness, turning the other cheek, and coddling the botched and inferior.
Of course none of these are problems for believing Christians, but for the non-believer who is White’s principal audience, they are serious objections. So if WNs were to choose or construct a religion solely to promote our genetic interests, Christianity would not be it.
But White might argue that this is merely academic. The point is not to construct an ideal religion in the abstract, but to find a real, functioning religious community. Even if, eventually, a religion tailored to white genetic interests could be created and form the core of an existing community, that does not answer our pressing needs in the present day.
These are important considerations, but here is a thought. White’s argument presupposes that atheistic White Nationalists are sufficiently motivated to pass on their genes — without supernatural commandments, rewards, and sanctions — that they can be persuaded to join a pro-natal religious community, where their genetic interests will find social support among people who believe in the supernatural.
My question is: are there enough WNs who fit this description that we could form our own community?
This community could be non-theistic, and focused simply around the Darwinian ethic of survival. (Again, if White presupposes that this is sufficient motivation for WNs to join a Christian religious community, then why is it not sufficient motivation to create and sustain an atheistic community?)
Or this community could be based on a religion tailored toward promoting white genetic interests. If this option is preferable, then we can already build upon the efforts over the last few decades to revive or create a form of racialist Nordic neo-paganism (Asatru).
Of course such reconstructions of ancient religions are easily mocked. Ancient paganism is dead, we are told, and attempts to revive it merely lapse into New Age fable-making. But if our concern is creating a vehicle for white genetic interests, then we do not need to care about such considerations, do we?
Atheism isn’t a ‘dead-end’ viewpoint; or, at least, not necessarily. Atheistic people also just affected with the same sort of egocentric, money-is-everything, here-and-now hedonism that permeates our whole society. If you add in the fact that they are, without a doubt, higher in average intelligence, it is small wonder why Atheistic types are underreproducing…
I don’t think that racially-conscious Westerners need to develop a renewed religious sense, nor do I think alligning with an existing ‘non-mainstream’ religious sect is a good idea. You failed to mention that ALL of those groups, without exception, make sure to parrot the politically correct party line with respect to race. I would wager that there is not a single person from one of those denominations that would publicly go on record as stating preferences that are specifically and unmistakably pro-White.
Westerners simply need a new ethical foundation based on reason and self-respect. They don’t have ANY self-respect right now, and that partly explains why they underreproduce, especially the most valuable specimens. Confidence and self-sacrifice are necessary, but so is self-respect…
I did probably over-simplify my critiques of those two groups, particularly RadTrad Catholics. Since many of them believe the Vatican II popes to be a false popes, they’re not exactly respecting their authority. I also think they’re usually bad on race even if a little wise on the Jewish issue.
Protestantism is prevalent in the South and the South is still the most racially aware portion of the country. So if one is trying to maximize the probability of finding a good non-feminist girl with some workable vestiges of healthy racial instincts, you’re limited in my view to rural Southern Protestants. It’s not ideal at all, but it’s the best we have left as a people. Of course, I grew up in the Deep South among rural Southern Protestants, so I may have a bias here.
As for Mormonism, I guess I dismiss that out-of-hand because their beliefs are so ridiculous. Mainstream Christianity has the benefit of being potentially true, whereas Mormonism is obviously false. The LDS Church is also much more authoritarian than either the Catholic or Protestant churches. I do not believe the church any longer discourages miscegenation, and all it would take is a “revelation” from the church prophet that all racialist Mormons are excommunicated. Because of its controversial past, LDS is today very sensitive to political correctness.
Fairly bizarre essay, do you have proof that WN don’t have as many children as other whites?
This is an excellent article. I have been discouraged by the casual dismissal of Christianity on TOQ, and I hope your writings will lead to a more substantial discussion of the importance of religion.
It should be obvious that atheism and neo-paganism are dead branches. Atheists have no defense against shifting trends in media and scientific orthodoxy, and frequently become mired in a cynical and infertile nihilism.
Likewise, paganism may be an appealing individualistic worldview, yet it has never been able to resist proselytism or enforce boundaries against the Abrahamic religions. As a group evolutionary strategy, it has consistently lost out to monotheism.
I also suggest investigating Catholic theology. Vatican II did not succeed in neutering this great tradition. Chronicles magazine, the IHS press, and SSPX are possible starting places.
If WNs want to have the most children while still maintaining positive child-rearing practices then the original Mormonism or similar religions that practice polygyny are the best choices.
That’s great, Thomas. Your reasoning is simple, but powerful and encompassing. BTW, I have translated first two pieces into Russian on ethnopoliticsonline.com
Great essay! I think you too casually dismissed Mormonism and Traditional Catholicism and would appreciate a comprehensive assessment.
Fast food, porn, and video games are our “fire water.” The civilizational managerial castes (Brahmins, Mandarins, Jews) are genetically and culturally superior to us at delayed gratification and impulse control. As such, all they have to do is throw out enough distractions and temptations to neutralize our will to power and wander up to the throne of global hegemony unimpeded.
The rigid hierarchy in the Mormons and RadTrads is the one thing that can empower us to overcome our relative handicap. Consider that the Mormon Church still discourages miscegenation and Mel Gibson still openly defies the Jews. This implies that your point might be a bit hasty, that the structureless Protestant sects may be the most eager to sell out their congregations.
Great stuff.