Modern Exploiters of the Earth’s Downtrodden

The schools teach kids to suspect the motives of capitalists. They are supposedly motivated strictly by greed. Being careerists themselves, teachers give a pass to other careerists. However, what the great socialist Upton Sinclair said, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!” certainly applies to do-gooders as well. The motives of those who are forcibly resettling unassimilable foreigners in American and European communities are as suspect as those of the slavers of three centuries ago. The damage they are doing is at least equally great. Let’s compare.

African slaves were tribesmen who had been captured by other Africans and transported to the coast to be sold. They were people with no control of their lives, in desperate circumstances. Had they not been sold to the white man, they could well have been sold to Arabs, as had been going on for centuries, or might have become victims of cannibalism or human sacrifice.

Today’s African refugees from Ethiopia, Somalia and Sudan are equally desperate. Tribal and religious warfare, and their own uncaring government, force them into camps where international “humanitarians” can pick them up for relocation. Refugees from sectarian fighting in Syria and Afghanistan are coming as well. The aid workers’ salaries are generously funded by an assortment of nongovernmental operations, the United Nations among them. They receive fawning accolades from the governing classes – well enough fixed that they do not have to live alongside said refugees.

Slavery did not begin with the availability of Africans. European law and institutions were in place when the Portuguese discovered slaves for sale along the coast of Africa in the fifteenth century. Roman law, which had defined the position of a slave in society, still applied. Elsewhere in Europe institutions such as serfdom filled the same role. The Barbary Pirates had been enslaving Europeans for centuries. Russia finally emancipated its slaves, fellow Slavs, only one year before the United States freed the blacks.

Descendants of the slaves appear to have done better than the beneficiaries/victims of today’s humanitarians. Though their ancestors ran a deadly, brutal gauntlet of transport and hard work, along the way they learned the white man’s language and ways. As Tocqueville noted, those who were able to learn, who were of economic value, were generally treated with dignity. Just as in Jesus’ day, intelligent slaves were used as teachers and bookkeepers. Their civil status did not greatly detract from the quality of their lives. Booker T. Washington lamented the passing of the generation that had grown up in slavery. Their white masters had taught them trades, whereas Blacks growing up after emancipation had less to offer in the workplace.

Today’s so-called humanitarians are not able either to turn Somalis and Ethiopians into anything like white people, or enable them to reestablish their own cultures in rural Vermont or small-town Sweden. On the one hand they foster a sense of entitlement, raising the expectation that refugees can rise to the standard of living of their host country. On the other hand, the do-gooders’ commitment to multiculturalism leaves intact all of the cultural hindrances, including favoring native languages, that prevent them immigrants from finding jobs and assimilating.

W.E.B. Du Bois’ arithmetic was approximately right when he called on the “talented tenth” of black people to compete on a par with whites. The top 10% of Blacks are statistically smarter than the average white, and should be encouraged to exploit their abilities. On the other hand, when today’s humanitarian demagogues insist that Black and white populations are equal in average ability, they do everybody a disservice. They create unfulfilled expectations and resentments among Blacks. It is not just America. In just the couple of decades since the humanitarians introduced large African populations, Sweden and Finland are being called racist societies. The problem is with the immigrants, not their hosts, but nobody can afford to tell the truth.

Neither the slavers nor the modern “humanitarians” take externalities into account. Southerners who could not afford slaves resented them. The wealth they created led to a two class society, aristocratic slaveholders and white trash “crackers.” Today’s humanitarians willfully neglect the impact that the refugees and asylum-seekers they dump on unsuspecting town in America and Europe have on school, police, prisons and other social services. They likewise ignore statistical evidence indicating that crime rates will rise and property values will fall.

The secretive tactics they use indicate that they are well aware of the impact. If the locals know what’s going on, they will understandably, rightly resist the settlement. Therefore there is a concerted effort, from the President of the United States on down, to keep the targeted local communities in the dark until the last possible moment, and to grease them up with the propaganda of multiculturalism before slipping it to them. The press is complicit. One never reads about immigrant rapes in the New York Times. “The Sweden Story,” “La France Orange Mecanique” and similar books document how immigrant crimes are ignored overseas.

The Christian church has played a significant and morally ambiguous role in both slavery and modern resettlement. The Jesuits led the parade as Spain and Portugal colonized South America. Initial efforts to enslave the Indians didn’t work. The Indians simply did not respond, even to the most brutal exhortations, to do slave work. The twin goals of enslaving the Indians and making good Christians out of them were not compatible. Missionaries made some deep compromises, accepting the importation of African slaves, primarily to Brazil, and tolerating the encomienda system in Spanish colonies.

Today’s Christian church, in particular the militant leftist successors to the formerly mainline Protestant churches, are leading the charge in resettling refugees and asylum-seekers. Multiculturalism forbids them from proselytizing. They actively support the refugees’ perpetuation of their own religions and customs. They support them even when they are in flagrant conflict with the mores, values and even laws of the host country. Christ’s message has been interpreted in a vast number of ways over the past two millennia, but this may be the first time it has been so forcibly directed against Christian populations. To what end? It appears to be out of contempt for traditional Christianity. The militants have a Marxist contempt for American society, as well as the everyday Americans who populate the heartland. With an absolute dearth of examples to demonstrate that their resettlements work, anywhere in the world, at any time in history, they simply impose their will on their fellow citizens. The functionaries collect their salaries. Advocates of the welfare state collect new voters. When it all collapses, they will cry that nobody could have seen it coming.

In the end, salaried humanitarians funded by transnational institutions, governments, churches and philanthropists will have done more harm than the slavers of yesteryear. When slavery died, the Blacks were able to take their part in the most prosperous nation in world history. After the humanitarians have destroyed that rich society, there will be nobody to pay the benefits, and no place to seek asylum.

Will a Serendipidous Catastrophe Save the White Race?

White people are losing ground. Our numbers are dwindling in every traditionally Caucasian country. We are not having enough children to reproduce ourselves. Meanwhile, Black, Muslim and Hispanic populations are burgeoning in their traditional homelands – and in ours. Is it really that bleak? It may not be.

First of all, we are victims of our own success and our own consciences. It is white people who decided that we are overprivileged and that we are obliged to let other peoples have their place in the sun. It is fairer to say that we are giving rather than losing ground.

Most significantly, we have concluded that the earth is overpopulated, that its resources are fast running out. In the end, we have concluded that we are unworthy of reproducing ourselves. We long ago gave up the religious convictions that would have us believe that having children was a good thing. White voters established governmental systems that make having children unattractive. We promised ourselves, via The State, that our fellow citizens would take responsibility for our medical and retirement needs. Our politicians believe, and have convinced us, that asking the ethnicity of the taxpayers is an irrelevant and unbecoming question. One taxpayer is as good as another, and open immigration will supply the numbers.

Extrapolating population trends in the United States does not look promising for white people. Our birth rates have been declining for decades. Having kids is too expensive, fewer people feel obliged to do it for family or religious reasons, and more and more people are opting for gay in swinger lifestyles that don’t include children.pyramid

The statistics are muddled, seemingly on purpose. The Census Bureau conflates European whites with Hispanics. The published statistics that show that the white population is more or less reproducing itself are wrong. The supposed whites of Latin American origin are more than reproducing themselves, but we descendents of pioneer stock are not.

Making a ludicrously large number of assumptions, the biggest of which is that current trends will perpetuate themselves over the next 25 years, one can make the projections shown in the diagram. The number of non-Hispanic white babies born (represented at the bottom of the graph as the size of the age cohort aged 0-4) will continue to decline. The baby boomer generation will continue to move, like a pig through a python, until the oldest of them turn 90 at the end of the projection, at which time they will still be the largest age cohort of white people. Isn’t that a frightening thought! The overall number of non-Hispanic whites will drop from 192 to 183 million.

More and more women do not want the burden of children, and more and more men seem to be unwilling to commit to a family. The arithmetic behind the diagram optimistically predicts that white women will produce babies at today’s rate. However, their fertility has been declining for decades and there is nothing to suggest that it will reverse itself. Boldly projecting forward using present fertility, births to non-Hispanic white women will drop from 10.3 million to 8.2 million over the 25 years.

The largest caveat in making such a projection is that the years since World War II have been remarkably stable. The world has not seen any large wars, epidemics, or other massive disruptions. It has been a time of relative peace and prosperity. The era witnessed a flowering of technology and productivity which resulted in unprecedented prosperity. Liberal democratic governments throughout the world instituted safety nets to protect their citizens from unemployment, health problems, and poverty in old age. All this has worked for the 70 years since the end of World War II. However, only the blind can fail to observe that time is running out on the welfare state. There are too many people drawing its benefits, and too few people paying taxes. As the diagram show, we white people, the backbone of the tax paying class, are getting older: too few are joining the labor force, and too many are leaving it. Governments throughout the developed world are going bankrupt at a rate that is both fast and accelerating.

But that’s not all! People joining the labor force are less able to compete, with older members and with foreigners. They are born dumber., at a time when the skew of jobs available increasingly favors the more intelligent. There will be more and more freeloaders, as fewer and fewer are capable of doing mankind’s work. Massive resentments are predictable – nobody likes to think of themselves as useless. While we can only speculate what will happen, we can be fairly sure that something will. That which cannot go on forever – will not. To throw Francis Fukayama’s question back at him, what happens after the end of history?

The white race continues to have huge advantages. The land we control is more extensive, better watered and more fertile than that of any other race. We have far and away the best weaponry to defend ourselves against outside aggressors. Should they choose to use them domestically, the white majorities remain in a position to suppress any uprising by other races within their borders. The institutions that almost all societies have now adopted were products of the Enlightenment. We invented them, and in many cases do a better job of administering educational institutions, police departments, military organizations and the like.

When one reflects on the resources of the other races, and what may happen to them over the next few decades, the prospects for the white race do not seem that dire. If that is so, the key question becomes one for us as individuals. How do we prepare for changes to come? But first, here is an extremely broad-brush handicapping of the prospects of other races.

The black races are reproducing themselves handily. Hillary Clinton observed that it takes a village to raise a child. The village is especially useful when you don’t know or care who the father is. The Blacks have been good at having children, but have not been socializing them to be productive workers in a modern economy. They do not have, and have shown no ability to acquire either the intellect or the temperament to, for instance, run South Africa or Zimbabwe after they took them over. There is not enough land to support them. Africa’s continued existence, and that of the black race in other countries, appears to depend on the goodwill of the white man.

Native Americans face the worst fertility problem than white people. They are having fewer children, and those children are ill-equipped either by temperament or intellect to compete in the white man’s world. Four centuries after Dartmouth and Harvard College wrote Indian education into their founding documents, the Indians remain defiantly outside of the mainstream culture. They have the good grace to be committing racial suicide by not reproducing.

The North Asian peoples – Chinese, Japanese and Koreans –have the same kind of fertility problems as we white people. The Western concept of individualism is hurting them even more than those of us who invented it. Living cheek by jowl, they cannot afford to indulge a Western appetite for consumer goods such as cars and houses. Nevertheless they want them, and they are destroying their habitat in the quest. They have far less agricultural land, water, and mineral wealth than we white people. Their air pollution even affects Californians.

Even worse, in moving to the cities Asians have adopted the Western notion of “true love.” They are abandoning traditional arranged marriages only to discover that they really are not given to romantic love. Their fertility is plummeting. As among us in the West, it is the smartest who are having the fewest children. North Asians are the only major racial group with average intelligence rivaling (exceeding, actually) that of white people. Though they are uniquely positioned for the triumphal age of technology, they are not having children they would need in order to exploit this advantage.

South Asia is the burned-out cradle of civilization. The land is overworked, people undernourished and well below white and North Asian averages of intelligence and enterprise. The smartest among them –and among that many people, there are many highly intelligent ones – have been immigrating to Europe and the United States as quickly as they can. South Asian fertility appears to be affected by technology in much the same ways as white and North Asian cultures. Arranged marriage is on the wane, and the men and women are discovering that they really don’t like each other.

The last major race to consider are Latin Americans. They are in actuality a blend of many races, Native American, white and African with an admixture Chinese and Japanese. Whether or not they are a race, they can be considered as an evolutionary group. Their averages of intelligence and industry reflect the admixture. America is witness to their capabilities. They do not produce scholars, business executives and other leaders in anywhere close to their proprtions in society. Conversely, the business elite of Latin American countries remain the descendants of Europeans, Japanese, Lebanese and other traditionally successful cultures.

The water and agricultural resources Latinos control, a somewhat distant second to those of the white civilizations, are unequally distributed. The Southern Cone countries have a lot, most others do not have much.

When all is said and done, the North Asians appear to be the only racial group remotely well positioned to supplant white people in an evolutionary sense, and they suffer from worse resource and reproductivity problems than we do. When today’s world order collapses, it appears the wreckage fall to us whites simply because no other group is positioned to take it. How will our less numerous, less intelligent successors deal with it? What about you and me?

The white race is currently going through a population bottleneck. Many have been convinced that, given the world’s scarce resources, having children is almost criminal. Others have concluded they can’t afford them. It may get worse: many white children are being born to people without the wit to find work even today. Technological progress does not bode well for them; it may be that the best existence they could hope for is being doped up on Aldous Huxley’s soma. Which it appears we already have, in the form of legalized dope and video games.

Given that all others appear destined to fall by the wayside, there may well be a promising future for the progeny of those of us who are smart enough to find meaningful work in this generation and committed enough to find a partner and create a stable home for raising the next. It is a matter of faith. Do we have it? Do we cherish our inheritance enough to pass it along? That question, above all, may decide the future of the race.

White people are the product of evolution… which works only through reproduction.

Ah, mankind! The crowning achievement of three billion years of evolution. Except – we now dismiss evolution and we take credit ourselves for our achievements! What hubris!

We race realists will make the blindingly obvious, and scientifically indisputable, statement that world’s different races must be the product of evolution. As Darwin himself observed, a large successful species such as ours invariably separates into races and sub species adapted to different geographies and niches.

Adaptation, the process of becoming better suited to an environment, means becoming more disease-resistant, faster, or better able to deal with unexpected problems that the environment presents. Intelligence is the term we use to describe this adaptation. Yes, evolution, which favored intelligence over the seven million years since our ancestors split from chimpanzees, seems somehow still to favor intelligence. The unavoidable conclusion, except for those whose thought is muddled by liberal fantasies, is that different peoples have to have evolved to different average levels of ability.

Altruism has been another of our northern European adaptations. The survival of our own genome depends on the survival of the tribe. We learned to support the weaker members of the clan. As we consolidated from clans into tribes, nations, and states that altruism persisted. It served our ancestors as nations and states coalesced and competed with one another.

We support other like us. The hierarchy of our loyalties summed up by Hamilton’s Rule: family, clan, tribe and nation. My genome is carried by my direct descendants. Each child carries half, grandchildren a quarter, and so on. But it is also carried by my people. In biological terms, I am part of their gene pool. I share a measurable amount of my genome with cousins, both close and distant, and eventually with all populations of Northern Europe.

Altruism persists even today in the liberals’ argument that all of mankind is somehow our tribe. Not at all – peoples are still in competition with one another. Our altruism is seen by other breeding groups as unilateral disarmament. They don’t understand it, they don’t trust it, but they certainly are willing to take advantage of it. Yesterday’s virtue has become today’s vice. Pathological altruism has entered the lexicon. The United Nations and European Union convince nations everywhere that an infusion of Somalis will be good for them.

I am not writing to complement us on our insight, but chastise us for what even us realists are unwilling to see. Our problems are not with the other, but with ourselves. Just as weeds won’t grow in a healthy lawn, a healthy people is able to withstand incursions by other races. Our European ancestors did it for centuries. We have lost that ability, and are being overrun. Why? How?

Richard Dawkins famously wrote in The Selfish Gene that the phenotype – the living, breathing animal – is no more than the vehicle for its genes to reproduce themselves. Primitive people know that. The individual is transient, ephemeral. Only the tribe is permanent. Carle Zimmerman wrote that individuals in primitive societies regard themselves as simply trustees for one generation of their tribal inheritance. It frightens us that modern Moslems, sharing that view, are so reckless with their lives – and ours. But, we must concede that they are reproducing themselves. They remain evolutionarily successful whereas the fertility rate for Caucasians in every nation of the world is below replacement level.

Individualism is a perverse outgrowth of our overdeveloped brains. The Greeks, then the Enlightenment philosophers gave the full flowering of individual talents greater emphasis than passing such talents along to one’s offspring. Providently, the people who entertained such lofty notions remained a minority until the last century. The modern age, however, fostered the conceit that we are all Enlightenment men, such precious and delicate flowers that we cannot be bothered with making seed. One may welcome such thinking among progressives – may they die out quickly – but it almost equally affects those of us who would like to pass along our white identity.

It has long been known that animals raised apart from their kind do not reproduce well. Animals born in radically changed social environments also do poorly. Even though we would like our children to appreciate, absorb and reproduce the culture that formed us, we cannot. That culture has largely vanished from America. As a prolog to the proposing some fairly radical solutions, let me catalog some significant changes since my boyhood in the 1950s.

I went to school with kids like myself, taught by teachers like our parents. The teachers saw it as their job to form us into adults like them. We sang traditional songs. We learned square dances. We learned social dancing, and the etiquette of inviting girls to dance. Our textbooks depicted families like ours – the kind we were being programmed to form.

We were taught to extend to girls an array of courtesies and considerations that make sense only on the assumption that they would mature into women, being primary responsibility for our offspring. Why would I open a door, or carry a heavy parcel for another person who is no more than a competitor in the marketplace? I do it because women are essential to perpetuating my genome. It makes evolutionary sense.

We had institutions like Cub Scouts, Brownies, Boy Scouts, the YMCA and others that reinforced the notion that boys would grow into men, girls into women, and that they would marry one another and have kids. Moreover, we were members of a community, and were expected to contribute to that community. Our parents took leadership positions in local government, Scouts, church and other institutions, and we were quite consciously trained to assume such roles in our turn.

Most of us belonged to churches. No, we were not so credulous as to accept the Bible as the ultimate authority. We were simply humble enough to concede that neither science nor philosophy, and certainly not politics, had all the answers. We accepted scripture and preaching the way our ancestors had done. It is our cultural inheritance, and if not a body of knowledge to answer every question, at least a body of wisdom about how to lead one’s life.

Our parents were self-reliant. Roosevelt’s Social Security notwithstanding, they planned for their own retirement. They paid their own medical bills. They disciplined their kids – and neighborhood kids as necessary. They trusted each other, and knew each other well enough to work problems out without resorting to lawyers.

Thus, the world of my childhood had evolution covered from both angles. The whole society impressed upon us kids the expectation that we would marry and have children. Those same institutions, in turn, offered the promise that they would help form our children in the image of our society. As among Zimmerman’s primitives, the interests of society were still able to contend strongly against individual interest, at least to a great enough extent that society perpetuated itself.

Sir Arthur Keith, writing at the time of my birth, understood the implications of evolution for us Caucasians. Evolution had been a hot topic for the previous half century, among luminaries such as Darwin, Galton, and Herbert Spencer.

We modern traditionalists, conservatives and/or libertarians of today are more prone to state our case in Enlightenment language, that of individual rights. We rightly contend that the government has no right to invite immigrants, to shut us up in the name of political correctness, or to invade our privacy. We are looking after ourselves, as individuals.

In rising to defend our phenotype, our genotype is left to shift for itself. Which it does, in perverse ways. White people not bright enough to have accumulated property or hatched ideas worth defending through the political process let instinct guide them with regard to children. The smarter among us – you and I – have our elbows out, contending with liberals and other threats. We despair of raising children in an environment we know all too well to be hostile. And… we don’t have them.

There’s the rub. If not for our posterity, for whom would we save the country? We concede the fight before the battle is joined.

Our dismal fertility means that we white people are set for another shake-out, a bottleneck of reduced population. We will leave behind the liberals who did not deign to have children. Technology will obsolete, and probably eventually doom human strains without wit enough to master it. Those above middle age in the advanced societies will discover that government promises of health care and retirement income are unsustainable. Just as in the former Soviet Union, the promises will persist, but the actuality will be that these societies must employ inflation to make them affordable – in other words, meaningless. Those who cannot contribute to their own upkeep by continuing to work, and don’t have children to care for them, will feel the same pinch as elderly former Soviets do today. We hope our children will muddle through. How?

Evolution is the survival of the fittest. It requires several conditions. There must be enough births to sustain a population. For the species to improve, there must be more born than can survive. Otherwise there is no mechanism for eliminating less useful traits from the gene pool. Additionally, the more fit must reproduce more successfully than the unfit. Attributes of fitness: resistance to disease, physical strength and intelligence, are all heritable. White people do not come close to meeting any of these conditions. Until we do, it is vain to even consider other races’ success vis-à-vis our own. We have doomed ourselves from the start.

Evolution itself is a blind, purposeless force, whatever the intelligence of the creatures on which it operates. However, a few times in human history intellectual currents have changed the course of evolution. The brilliant thinkers of antiquity – Buddha, Confucius, and Jewish, Greek and Roman writers established cultural institutions that made their adherents dominant. Culture co-evolved with the genome, bringing the Asians a dogged work ethic and us the blessing and curse of our altruism. Christians prevailed in ancient Rome because they alone believed in “proles, fides, sacramentum” or children, fidelity, and the sacred, while others pursued hedonistic pleasures. To make it work they established their own communities apart from the heathen mainstream.

We may have some remote hope of nudging evolution this way or that along its blind path. In any case, we can anticipate where it is headed and avoid our bloodline getting steamrolled.

The first and most important observation is that today’s political processes will not save us. So-called liberal democracy is the captive of mass sentiment: smart politicians pandering to dumb voters. The self-interest of those voters is firmly in the present; our evolutionary interest is in the future. The voters are average; evolution favors the strong. Here are five ways we as individuals can, ever so slightly, nudge evolution our direction.

We can bear three or more natural children and raise them in a stable environment. That’s two for replacement, plus a spare to increase our numbers, or just in case one doesn’t turn out. This commitment involves sacrifice of time, money, and freedom. The choice of a mate is often a compromise. We have to have the courage to bypass those who, however attractive, don’t want children. We have to recognize the need for compromises and maintain the moral courage to live with them. No spouse is ideal, but our progeny usually benefit if we stay together.

We can set examples for our children, through our own lives, of the values that will enable their progeny to succeed. These involve the traditional virtues of hard work, thrift, commitment to family, and leadership in the community as well as earning a living. “Protestant Ethic” was a serviceable all-inclusive phrase for these values.

At a local level we can attempt to maintain homogeneous communities and do our best to control the influences on our children. If we raise them with the idea that they will become parents in their turn, and will contribute to the community, they may just do it. The Mormons offer one example. The Amish, the Hutterites in the Hasidic Jews are others. Note that no examples spring to mind of secular groups succeeding in this. Having children is an act of faith; there is nothing logical about it. Even if we are not religious, we have to have a religious-like commitment to our people.

We can educate children to be good spouses and responsible citizens as well as to earn a living. Children are socialized by peers and other adults in the community just as much as parents. The choices of where to raise them and how to educate them are of paramount importance. The right choice may involve making financial sacrifices to raise a family away from the city, in places like Idaho or Montana, Chile or Ukraine, and to home school them. We want to raise them among people with traditional values rather than the free lunch mentality and Gay BLT smorgasbord values of big city schools, public and private. Truly gay kids will figure it out without the active encouragement of teachers. We can accept them if they are, but for the sake of our genome, pray it is otherwise. The religious groups cited above demonstrate the advantage of raising kids in a community of like-minded people.

We must participate actively in the political process, to protect our own interests against the encroachments of others who would deprive us of our property and live at our expense, and prevent us by force from forming our own children to be our legitimate progeny, by culture as well as by blood. Religion, home schooling, commitment to freedom, and above all commitment to our white identity under constant challenge. We need to recognize the challenge and defuse it by keeping a low profile, changing where we live, or as a last resort, taking the fight to a political arena in which we are vastly outnumbered.

We have to concede the irrationality of our project. There is no logic driving our desire to perpetuate our kind, no more than three billion years of evolutionary history. Peoples who have not had the drive to reproduce died out. We can also, however, point out the absurdity of the opposition. For whom are liberals pretending to save the planet, if not their own progeny? We have to have religious-like conviction regarding our desire to have children, and be willing to call out the absurdity of our opponents’ dogmatism. Stick it to those liberals with Darwin-fish stickers on their cars – point out how utterly at odds their positions are to evolution.

Evolution is unfair. If it has better equipped us for survival than some others, so be it. That’s how it works. If Caucasians are to avoid becoming the dodo birds of human evolution, we cannot be embarrassed about exploiting traits in which we are superior, looking out for our own. If we fail to acknowledge our white identity, we perish.