Click here to link to the outline that I didn’t actually follow. One of my greatest fears is public speaking or being in spotlights (I had to change out of a drama class in high school because I would freeze on stage). I believe in facing my fears, so this is now my second interview and it feels the same as public speaking. I would like to thank the guys at Rebel Yell, I thoroughly enjoyed the discourse even if the idea of so many people hearing makes me nervous.
Interchangeable Identity and Quantitative Egalitarianism
In past eras your identity wasn’t so separate from your job, but who you were was all encompassing. A knight had different expectations and limitations compared to a noble woman or a blacksmith. Modern egalitarianism requires all to be interchangeable by job or role, but that role must remain separate from their personal life (though this is quite impossible to fully achieve). People also change jobs or roles over their lifetime as much as they change locations – there are no roots, which is very destabilizing for limbic health. All now have this fragmented identity, compartmentalized in ways that are not grounding or functional.
The modern paradigm doesn’t hone those with the highest potential from a young age into their most suitable roles, which is very unjust to the individual and to society as a whole for losing what they could have contributed. This increases projection – environment has an exponential mediating function between genetic potential and resulting phenotype yet this is hidden by the normative nature vs nurture false dichotomy – since they will assume that others are held back or helped by environment as much as themselves. Such loss of potential can also result in a damaged sense of self-worth, regret, and hurt their ego to an extent that further reinforces an emotional attachment to the quantitative egalitarianism itself, because comparing themselves to other’s success would highlight their own shortcomings. When circumstances in life prevent someone from reaching their full capabilities, they tend to cling to a victim’s identity – justifying or championing their faults instead of striving for strength and overcoming them. Since society grants all equality, the most dysfunctional are made equal to those held down by creating this false humanist-quantitative equality. Those held back will lash out at any who seek merit based hierarchy, since they know they won’t meet their squandered potential’s level of achievement.
Modern Humanist Egalitarianism Stems From Past Injustice
The current downward spiral originated from the inability to find functional and just hierarchy. The right balance between preservation of class/station and upward/downward mobility is very hard to find. Modern increasing loss of identity is rooted in many factors prior to the enlightenment period, which had too rigid of class lines that stagnated over time. Nobility can have very regressive genetic recombinations, which leads to some dysfunctional aspects in their ability to lead when this is not corrected with some level of downward mobility… yet too much fluidity creates no respect for higher positions as much as resentment is created by dysfunction in those same positions. Brilliant or even lower level genius (not someone who will go down in history but who has much more use to their society in a higher place) recombinations continually occur to varying degrees in lower classes. If not realized at a younger age and allowed some level of upward mobility, there is a loss of efficiency, a sense of growing injustice, and an expanding disenfranchised segment of high-functioning people that resent the hierarchy they are under with abilities to rival the nobility.
Uprisings and revolutions aren’t created by the low-functioning; they are reactions by those with the genetic potential to be natural aristocracy that experience some level of actual oppression – this is not the way oppression is now used to describe the dysfunction of regressions or primitives. Keeping people with higher ranging potentials too rigidly to a low station over generations is actual oppression, as is hierarchy not based on merit as much as right. This is not to say that there wasn’t some mobility to varying degrees’ pre-enlightenment or to demonize the past, just that there was not a functional system of early mobility. Looking in hindsight to demonize is easy and not respectable, trying to understand the past is useful when developing a new system to take you out of the compounded, long created mess. The dysfunction in aristocracy (in-fighting did not necessarily cull out their regressions as well as some type of mobility would, but could create a nobility with decreasing honor and non-merited power) led to more perceived injustice by those with favorable genetic recombinations without noble title or the ability to achieve their potential from a young age. Hierarchy that is too rigid becomes dysfunctional, leading to a rebellion against hierarchy itself and the loss of identity in current times.
This fragmentation of identity and interchangeability parallels the break between rights and responsibility, which is a hallmark of the current dystopian humanist world. To make unequal people equal requires the best to give up rights to take responsibility for the weakest, instead of lead them. The ever-expanding lessors no longer respect their betters but scorn higher capabilities in itself, increasing the downward spiral. Reality can’t be negated for emotional attachments to quantitative egalitarianism, there is no such thing as quantitative equality in nature because that would require everyone to be interchangeable and the same. People bond as much from their compatible differences as they do similarities that pull them together – identity (job/role) specialization is a balance between being and becoming.
Tying Racially Homogeneous Dysgenics To Hierarchical Injustice
In a Europid society the gap between class disparity would shorten compared to current multiculturalism, yet the disparity within Europid nations predated and allowed for the immigration invasions. Racially homogeneous civilizations historically rose and fell on a bell curve – dysgenics of world racial population percentages was predated by dysgenics within Europid societies. The industrial revolution which prevented the birth and death cycle of Eruopid civilizations, which allowed dysgenics to spread globally. Going into the rise of a civilization there is a surplus of high-functioning genes with less disparity in ability, culled from times closer to natural selection. After the onset of civilization, the most reckless are able to piggyback off of the surplus in society, reproducing at a much higher rate with no natural consequences. The best increasingly decline by population percentages, since the most responsible tend to have less children while focusing on achieving the success that upholds the rest of their society. Dysgenics was always present in past racially homogeneous societies, it is simply the dropping of quality in the population by percentages. The industrial revolution stopped this rise and fall, allowing more surplus than ever before in an overly complex system, creating rapid global dysgenics.
Pre-industrial civilizations started off with less disparity in abilities and everyone had a use – closer to true qualitative egalitarianism, which is valuing people for how best they fit their nature. Civilization dysgenics promotes a high volume of reckless reproduction while straining the most responsible to do so, the disparity between countrymen grows. The civilization becomes harder to uphold while the quality by percentages starts to become bottom heavy. This downward spiral doesn’t allow for self correction, because as percentages are regressing and polarizing (the polarizing does not necessarily reflect class lines at all) it creates chaos that compounds hierarchical injustice. With stricter class divides in the past, this results in the previously discussed rebellion. The lower classes are more likely to turn against their nobility in proportion to how chaotic the civilization becomes from dysgenic decline, in tandem with injustice enraging the high functioning recombinations stuck in lower stations to rally them.
Reversing Incentives from Natural Dysgenics into Eugenics
Preventing dysgenics is the key in preventing the fall of a civilization and injustice in its hierarchy. Upward mobility would be efficient if society is geared towards improving its population’s average quality of genes. This prevents the natural Europid egalitarian tendency from warping into quantitative egalitarianism, which is completely destructive since the quality of people will polarize. There always needs to be a balance between being and becoming, a balance between egalitarian impulses and respect for natural merit-based hierarchy, a balance between what you feel and your ability to reason. Making unequal things equal is a rejection of reality, skipping steps results in more inequality and injustice. You can’t help your own people or others if you can’t logically see reality and reason yourself to the best possible options for end results – the means and ends cannot become separated. Dysgenics makes a people vulnerable to external threats, reversing and preventing this is the only way to preserve Eruopid greatness and identity.
Egalitarian reproductive liberties given to all yet the best made responsible for incentivized dysgenics, the incentives have to be recognized and reversed. The comfort of society will allow the most dysfunctional to reproduce more rapidly than is natural, and society will take up the burden for the dysfunction of low functioning offspring which continues this cycle. Societies burden is carried by the middle to higher functioning, and this needs to be prevented to not decrease their replacement rate from the strain. Recognizing the need to limit the rapid expansion of regressions is not cruel, but crucial. Limiting dysfunctional reproduction will create less of a burden on the middle class and highest functioning of the society, allowing those capable of contributing to afford a large family. Incentivizing high functioning couples to have more children will only maximize the circulation of the best genes, over time raising the mean – eugenics simply is encouraging higher quality replacement by percentages. Incentive based eugenics for the upper crust is far more effective than hard eugenics, since Europid greatness has a tendency to rebel against force; the more dysfunctional outliers are well suited for hard eugenics, and in this case some force or changing welfare incentives is needed. Incentivizing eugenic couples’ replacement will also put them in a slight standing of prestige, which culturally glamorizes eugenic traits. This cultural shift is in itself eugenic and creates healthy competition for the best mates without micromanagement.
A Propertarian Model Outlining A Reverse Incentive Eugenic System:
Civilizations in a globalized world need to combat dysgenics.
If a couple has favorable traits, they should be incentivized on a sliding scale to have more children based on their combined abilities (IQ, genetics, extreme athleticism, rare skills, and other outstanding success can have an affect on the scaling method).
If a couple is within a normal scaled range, they should be allowed greater rights (like local voting) when they invest in their society by having two or more children to replace themselves.
If low functioning people are incapable of caring for themselves or their offspring (in a eugenic society the cost of living would be much lower since the unnatural strain of billions of hominids in dead weight would be lifted off of Europids) , after one year on aid they can choose to continue aid in exchange for having their tubes tied or a vasectomy (both are reversible if they change their outputs to earn that). If they choose to not get the procedure then they also choose to forfeit their aid and make responsible contributions to their society again.
Severely dysfunctional people (major degenerative diseases, retardation, extreme forms of mental illness, dangerous and untreatable types of criminality) should all be required to have their reproductive abilities terminated.
This is all possible with voluntary genetic testing, IQ testing, gathering information on performance in real world situations, athletic competitions, birth records, requirements for the continuation of aid after one year of not working/studying/contributing, set standard procedure for long term mental ward patients, those diagnosed with mental retardation, and specific criminal convictions.
Balancing Natural Hierarchy and Qualitative Egalitarianism
Job specialization from quantitative differences is enriching when there isn’t a huge disparity between the quality of people. Even with varying abilities all can be appreciated for their contributions. The conundrum of a desire for both individualism and egalitarianism in Europids is harmonious if you realize that creative individuality allows for job specialization, while qualitative egalitarianism appreciates all for fulfilling the best of their nature. The true essence of egalitarianism is qualitative, which preserves individual and group identity while protecting against injustices for not being the same. Even the best political or economic system alone could not create a healthy Europid society, but by preventing dysgenics the quality of a people by percentages of replacement will make or break their future generations. The best balance between natural hierarchy and egalitarianism in a Europid society is only possible through combating dysgenics.
In a eugenic system, a gifted artist wouldn’t have the same quantifiable skills as a mechanical engineer or a general contractor, but they all would contribute to the world by living up to their own qualitative nature, including inspiration. All three would be appreciated equally under the law based on their qualitative value, not just their quantifiable utility. Art, infrastructure, other’s unique vantages, and nurturing the creative spirit are crucial to the Europid vital force. The ugliness of modern art, the jarring infrastructure, and the tyranny of popular opinion parallels the hollowness of these times. Not having merit based hierarchy destroys your true ability to connect because appreciating differences and varying abilities is how you truly can appreciate others. Modern times has increased comfort with technology, but makes everyone into interchangeable cogs in a machine – far less fulfilled without true connection or a cohesive identity. It is in quantitative inequalities and qualitative equality that you are able to truly bond with others. Eugenics is needed to keep the vital force of Europids alive, and pass the torch of a better future to your progeny.
“The only true voyage, the only bath in the Fountain of Youth, would be not to visit strange lands but to possess other eyes, to see the universe through the eyes of another, of a hundred others, to see the hundred universes that each of them sees, that each of them is; and this we do; with artists like these we do really fly from star to star.” -Marcel Proust
In a recent interview, I completely didn’t follow the outline I had for it because I found out that, like speeches, I get nervous and unfocused in interviews. I think it is important to link my outline here so that all the background information is present to give what I am talking about context. I will soon be writing an article (or maybe series) on the UN and World Bank, along with much more of the material.
Here is the outline: https://quip.com/oP0uA4kJMxqc
Europids are the only group in known history on a course of out-moralizing each other to self-destruction, yet you all wear it like a badge of honor. The world’s hominid population was around 1.6 billion at the turn of the 20th century. Today the world has around 7.3 billion, with that number projected to rise to 7.8 billion in the next decade. Europids made up at least ⅓ of the World’s population, around 530 million, in the year 1900 (see reasoning at end of article), which is a low estimate – some estimate as high as 50%. Today that number isn’t much higher, roughly around 800 million, making Europids only 11% of this rapidly expanding world, at most.
There are around five and a half billion new hominids, and the most rapidly expanding have been the most primitive and reckless. You should let that sink in – almost 3.5 times the natural world population’s numbers in additional unnatural expansion alone. 5.4 billion in freshly made dead weight, and counting. You should be scared.
How did this happen?
You need look no further than how Europids colonize to see how uniquely responsible they are for other races. Where other groups, like muhamadens, kill most of the men or enslave them to work to death while bringing the women in to procreate at the bottom of a caste system, as happened in North Africa. Whites, on the other hand, build infrastructure and are fair to the native populations; they increased the survival rates of those they colonized. This was the first indicator of what was to come, by bringing civilization to the un-civilizable it took primitive races slightly out of a state of natural selection. Before colonialism, primitive numbers were very small and not growing. They were reckless in procreation but they were not able to sustain the lives they created. With medicine and adequate food, this reckless breeding did not stop. The way that Europids colonized shows just how altruistic they are, yet few could then see where this would lead… very few can even see it in hindsight now and less have the mental dexterity to face the full implications.
Industrialization allowed Europids to see and stop the natural selection of other races, while simultaneously having a dysgenic effect on their own. As colonialism fell away, food aid replaced it and medical advancements were given to primitives by bleeding hearts. Lothrop Stoddard (in The Revolt Against Civilization) states that, even in the 1920s, the brightest of Americans didn’t have close to a stable replacement rate. The most responsible have upheld this increasingly strained Europid worldwide economic backbone and the most reckless expanded to be “oppressed” by it. The best Europids had to increasingly work harder to be responsible for the growing burdens of a global civilization, in turn having to choose between achieving much harder earned success in life or having a larger family requiring all their effort in high investment parenting. Primitives and mixed breed regressions could now fill the Earth to maximum capacity with no natural checks to safeguard such recklessness. In short, the brightest of Whites have had to work ever more, foregoing breeding themselves, to maintain order.
Grant predicted the decline of the quality of Europids (in The Passing of the Great Race) but what he didn’t account for was that as the best Europids did not replace themselves the primitives would keep expanding and be increasingly imported. If there is one trait the plebeian classes of Europids shared with their nobility, it is a tendency towards altruism and empathy. True nobility would be able to see bigger pictures and have the strength to lead their people the right way, sheltering them from falling to their innate guilt – that guilt being both a blessing and a curse. It allowed for high trust societies, while also being a grave weakness if the flocks ever grew too large compared to their shepherds. As civilization became more complex, the best of Europid stock did not replace themselves and could no longer lead their masses away from inevitable self destruction of altruism. As this shift took place the last century or two, it compounded the expansion of primitives with ever-growing emotional mob morality. Idealism has long run rampant with no care for end results.
Luxuries also increased from industrialization, enabling the degenerate escapism (toys, boats, pornography, video games, etc) needed to ignore reality for those capable of seeing it. If the masses are at too high a ratio to their leaders, the masses end up leading their betters – requiring either extraordinary courage to face or something to drown out or distract from such a backwards world. The aristocracy retreats and disconnects; disallowing their informational flow-back and external replacement for out-breeding recombination and better genetic innovations.
White genocide is intrinsically tied to altruism and an ever-dwindling restrained natural aristocracy. No one is genociding primitives. The only genocide is happening against Europids. Keeping primitives afloat and importing them is creating the genocide of Europids.
As Europids went through these dysgenic shifts, the ethics and virtues of their nobility fell to emotional instant gratification of the mob. The result of guilt-based morality is one of victimhood being equated to morality; the most dysfunctional and reckless are the oppressed, the victim. By championing the “oppressed,” the problems created by Europids are compounded with more “help” and “fairness,” which is deeply rooted in the projection of the “Nature versus Nurture” false dichotomy. The Humanist egalitarian fantasy is revealed; if every “oppressor” is taken out and all the “oppressed” championed it yields a super peaceful and loving world filled with no pain. This delusion is the only way that most Eurpoids can ignore the ominous rapid primitive expansion, as if it will never catch up to them in the near future.
The First World is Drowning in Idealism and Emotional Morality
The root of this Humanist dystopia is another fundamental quagmire in the modern mindset since industrialization. Pain, struggle, and hardship are seen as things to be avoided at all costs instead of a normal part of life. Pain, struggle, and hardship builds strength and virtue by facing and overcoming obstacles if it is ever present and not piled on at a certain age. A love for easy luxury, especially in the young we coddle, helps to distort Europid world views. Our children are easily turned into bleeding hearts when faced with reality and a shockingly different adulthood. Show a scenario of the pain or suffering of an “oppressed” group, attach any narrative to it (because photos/videos do not have context), and those with a guilt based morality project away. When comfort is the focus of life and reality hits, many feel a need to find an oppressor to blame – shifting away blame is a type of shield from the emotional pain of facing racial ramifications, which is why being a (race realist) nationalist and humanist is quite a conundrum. The saddest part is, this circular downward cycle could be avoided if the natural aristocracy stood up to lead their sheep instead of trying to let them lead – there is nothing less respectable than a humanist nationalist leader.
Some races are more volatile than others, among many other distinctions in characteristics. Humanism is based in egalitarianism instead of recognizing the volatility of a group, the focus is shifted away to create a victim. The only way for unequal people to become equal is by weakening the strong and blaming them for the suffering of the dysfunctional. This is why the only scenarios you see in propaganda are of the “oppressors” victimizing the “oppressed”. The million more examples of the “oppressed” harming their own, other “oppressed” groups and the “oppressors” are nowhere to be found, or at least not as well funded and promoted. You tend to pay attention to what is most readily available – for the purpose of promoting the egalitarianism of Humanism, what is most available online and in the media perpetuates emotionally-driven victim morality.
Where did this victim morality come from? Gandhi was a false prophet, increasingly forced into the moral fabric of Western Civilization as some great role model. What did Gandhi do? He guilted his own people into destroying themselves and hating natural hierarchy – the perfect false prophet of Humanism. He was anti-colonial – biting the hand that fed him and promoting hatred of Europids who actually helped India – and promoted the acceptance of enemies to India: muslims. All the bloodshed and pain brought to his fellow Indians by the muslims he guilted them into accepting is on his hands. India has the worst affirmative action to promote egalitarianism and shame the past, which is exactly why he has been promoted so much in the West. Any time you see a SJW signaling their idealistic morality, thank Gandhi.
Now all violence is demonized, unless perpetrated by an “oppressed” group that just needs more unnatural equality. Primitive violence is completely ignored or blamed on environmental factors (created by the people making up that environment) when it is really a regular part of primitive interaction, any violence to keep them inline when clashing with higher trust societies is then focused on as a means to demonize Europids even further. Preventative or reactive violence is no longer distinguishable from pointless or impulsive violence, leaving no means of maintaining any semblance of civilization or protecting the high functioning from those they uphold. There is one undeniable trend, the “oppressed” deadweight is growing exponentially off of the guilt of their “oppressors” who aren’t replacing themselves. Primitives cannot help it since reckless procreation is instinctual to them and they have long since been provided with the means. There is no amount of help or environmental changes that can make primitive races fit for civilization, and in trying to do so they are unnaturally expanded in ways that continually feed off the host civilizations and compounding the tidal waves of Europid guilt projection.
The increase of inhumane, chaotic, and horrible conditions worldwide directly parallels dropping Europid world population percentages (a decrease of natural aristocracy by ratio contained within). This only creates a rise in guilt (all they see around the world are suffering primitives) that reinforces those dropping percentages, feeding off of the Humanist worldview that primitives are oppressed. Separating rights from responsibility is unnatural, if Europids are responsible for all other races then they need to have rights over those they uphold in a natural hierarchy. Not to be swarmed by those they are trying to help but freed to give the structure needed. Humanism is something that is not ever going to favor Europids since they are the only group interested in helping others. But, in doing so from an egalitarian standpoint, they will destroy themselves and the post-White primitives? The world. Appealing to other primitives through nationalism will only go as far as it helps to destroy “oppressors” and will turn on Europids the moment that it no longer gives instant gratification to primitives.
This notion that an unnaturally expanded world, that is sustained by Europids, could just return to some type of nationalism with complete separation is also an egalitarian delusion. Who will enforce this equal separate nationalist utopia? Enforcement will need a heavy hand, the same heavy hand of any hierarchy, yet the notion we can all break off and support each others nationalism is very foolish. It is madness to think that it wont need Force and Hierarchy.
Nationalists are able to see that mainstream conservatives are playing a rigged game, by accepting the premise of the left. MWhat many of them are unable to see is that they too are playing a rigged game by accepting victim morality and any aspect of humanism. They will never win this game because, by design, it is against them; Whites are too high functioning to ever be a victim group. No one cares to be Captain Planet except for those same Whites. Even if Europids could become dysfunctional enough to be considered an oppressed victim group, no other group would champion them because no other races have a guilt-based morality. Nationalists, like David Duke, advocate for a turn to “true Humanism,” when that would require Europids to be slaves to those they are responsible for. These are not the type of leaders that Europids need to get them out of this mess. He advocates for victim-morality and, in gaining a following, he is literally blind and leading the blind. Admittedly, he has the best of intentions, as any blind man out for a stroll by a cliff has no bad intentions. True leaders need to attack the premise of White genocide: Europids upholding the unnatural expansion of primitives. Thinking such unnatural expansions will ever be stable and that, if the “oppressor” group is taken out, all races will depart on their way to being self-sustaining nationalists is a fool’s notion.
Emotional morality sounds good and feeds the ego, but it is a very slippery slope. Right now is too crucial a stage in history for emotional morality. It is do or die.
David Duke is the Anglo Bernie Sanders
This might come as a shock to many nationalists, but the Jews did not create this expansion, they are having to deal with it just as Americans and Europeans. It is ironic that David Duke screams “Palestinian Lives Matter,” leading his flock to emotional signaling. He encourages nationalists to shift blame and sympathize with the victims, aligning them with those who would destroy Whites, to support their own nationalism. Sanders does the same thing with Black Lives matter and helping those who would destroy his own. Playing by the same game just increases the destruction of the other and out moralizing each other as the primitive hordes keep growing. Both Duke and Sanders project their own qualities and compounded struggles onto primitives and champion those primitives that don’t help their own in any way yet from a vantage of in-group orientation wanting to help their own. They attempt to appeal to the guilt of primitives and get them on board with humanism, but they will only go so far until it stops benefiting themselves. Neither Duke nor Sanders are fit for leadership in these crucial times, they’re both true believers lead by their altruism.
Appealing to primitive and volatile races to support Europid nationalism is the most naive form of altruism ever. Being pro-primitive is anti-white – the pally victim narrative is anti-colonial and anti-racist in nature, just like every other idealistic anti-“oppressor” narrative. Mohammedans will turn on you the second it no longer suits their agenda, just like any other primitive group. Some don’t even realize that they shouldn’t yet bite the hand while it is still feeding them. Even in a humanitarian dystopia, people still follow winners, not victims, so if others fight your battles for you or fix your problems, they take the power and become your new master. When you support humanism for primitives and demonize apartheid, you reinforce the narratives leading to White genocide. Instead of having the nerve to face humanism head on, you skulk around the periphery and swallow yourself. There is nothing different about Israel “apartheid” from South African apartheid (that Israel ironically was the last Europid country to support), and having consistency is important because it empowers your followers with demonstrable logic when they go out to change minds.
Admitting supremacy would take away from the delusion that if the “oppressors” were gone, all Europids and mohammedans nationalists would somehow live in peace. No nationalist can support primitive nationalism because they will never take care of themselves. There is no genocide of arabs, their numbers have climbed greatly in the last century off of food aid and medical advancements provided them by “oppressors.” They will never be stable without massive intervention. To think we can all live apart is a fool’s notion long gone, the world depends on Europids. Are you going to build up an audience of Whites that wants to save primitives but then expect them to not keep expanding or being sustained by Whites which is too heavy a burden to bear?
South Africans built prosperity that drew in and expanded subsaharans, who then felt entitled to that land. White genocide correlates perfectly with the expansion of primitives because, as they grow, the weight and burden of that guilt reinforces policies that will lead to Europid extinction. Championing primitives as victims, denounce the apartheid of the “oppressors” in Israel, and furthering the modern and wrong-headed victim morality is a losing strategy. No primitive will care to help Europids, as if they ever could, when they can’t even care for themselves when given the means. The moment Europids stop floating their numbers, the Europids will become the “oppressors” again for mohammedans. Whites are far too functional for victim morality to ever benefit them, it seals their fate of self-genocide. It is a losing battle.
Does anyone expect primitives to stop reckless reproduction, stop being a burden, be productive, and champion an increase in White replacement rates while wearing “Save Whitey” ribbons? MEven if Europids ever became dysfunctional enough to be considered a victim group, there would be no one to save them since only Europids are pulling “Captain Planet.”
The same guilt that allowed for expansion is this projection you see let out in the form of humanism – you don’t win by repeating the same mistakes. It does nothing at all for Europids to equate the fall of their greatness to the plights of primitives, when the burden of those primitives IS the fall of Europids. In fact, it only confuses an already complex matter. By shifting away into focusing on how Whites are oppressed like primitives, it doesn’t allow for now deeper examination of extremely complex factors playing into this fall nor does it allow for self correction or fixing old animosities between high functioning groups.
The only way to fix world stability is to reverse the unnatural expansion and return to more functional population ratios, both internally and externally. That will not happen because none are willing to stand against their own masses to accept their supremacy, stop compounding things, and take realistic measures to stop the ever growing dead weight killing Europids slowly, both emotionally and economically. Right now is an extremely crucial time period, all that matters is Europid replacement rates, not championing primitives. In a few decades the aging populations of Europids will cause a further decline in their numbers. You are not creating your future generations – those generations are simply not being born while primitive races are still expanding unnaturally. Every primitive is a direct threat to future generations, this is a lesson you will learn whether you like it or not.
Countering the downward spiral by reinforcing its narrative and accepting victim’s morality is suicide. Those primitives will turn on you the moment you can no longer do something for them. Humanism is WHITE SLAVERY to uphold those they “oppress.” Europids kept stable numbers for awhile. As the primitive populations grew, and yoke of responsibility did too, and Europids have stopped replacing. The next generations will be so outnumbered and so strained by that weight, they will be eaten alive by the primitives your hearts bleed for. When you see a piece of propaganda meant to guilt trip you, think that this is one more primitive that should never have been born, swamping and suffocating the life out of your future generations – you cant choose to reason with your altruism instead of letting it consume you, wearing a sign of suicide like a badge of honor.
The only way that Europids are going to survive the next century is by recognizing their own supremacy and how this projection has led to such unnatural expansion. Out-group morality is not a survival trait, it is suicide. No one has been genociding any primitives, but that narrative is what promotes upholding such unnatural expansion – the genocide of Europids is the result. To shake free of this, people need to admit their altruism, admit primitives do not have it, and see the negative effects it has imposed on themselves and their progeny. Nationalist leaders need to reject the whole premise of humanism and see that, right now, it is do or die: all that matters is Europid replacement rates and rejecting victim guilt morality, the whole paradigm. In all its forms, victim morality MUST be completely rejected. What unnaturally goes up must come down, you cannot stop this, you can only be selective with whom you choose to save. Prepare your mind, the best case scenario is that billions will die when they’re cut off the “Great White Guilt Tit.” Nature reclaims, it cares not for whether the bounty is of high or low moral caliber and, not matter what is done, many Whites will die in the process.
Estimates in Part One:
It is hard to tell the exact number of Europids in the year 1900, however looking at the breakdown of countries’ populations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_in_1900) a rough estimate can be made. It is safe to guess that Canada, the US, Australia, and Europe’s populations were all Europid then, along with at least half of their respective colonies. This roughly places Europid numbers at 530 million in the year 1900, which is a very low estimate considering that no Latin American Countries were counted. At this very low estimate, Europids made up ⅓ of the world’s population.
It is extremely hard to find an accurate reading of the current population of Europids worldwide. Taking 80% of Europe’s population (after deducting Turkey) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Europe), 70% of the US population, and adding that to the entirety of Canada’s and Australia’s populations (not deducting for foreigners there to account for diasporic Europids), the current estimate is around 800 million. Of the 5.7 billion new hominid growth in a little over a century, only 270 million (5% of the new growth), dropping Europids from ⅓ of the world population to just under 11%. Since Europids have such an aging population with unsustainable replacement rates while the world is rapidly expanding, in a decade or less that should fall below 10% and even in America White Children will be a minority (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2015/03/05/Census-White-children-to-become-minority-by-2020/9751425612082/).
Two independent variables lacking a proper relationship will perpetuate confounding factors that are used in place of the controls. The false dichotomy of nature vs nurture creates confusion to overplay nurture for some and underplay it for others. When their relationship is zero sum, the outcomes can only be egalitarian in nature – applied the same to all.
What is hidden by this false dichotomy is that environment’s meditating function between genetic potential and phenotype is exponential, not linear.
When the relationship between nature and nurture is linear, it follows suit that environment affects all to the same degree. In reality, the greater the genetic potential a person has then the more environment can help or harm them – high genetic potential has a much wider spectrum of possible phenotype than a low genetic potential.
Many of those with the highest quality of genetic inheritance will understand how environment has helped or harmed them. When placed in a horrible environment, the high functioning are far more likely to project their own abilities and struggles onto those with low genetic potential – who are nothing like them and are even a part of sustaining the harmful environment. In fact, the current paradigm of nature v nurture almost guarantees projection because it gives a narrative that reinforces this innate tendency. Thus, in a declining society the dwindling high-functioning will support wasting resources in an egalitarian fashion on those it will not help, instead of restoring the natural order that protects loss of potential.
Projection and guilt of the high functioning – who can see how much environment has influenced their own potential – perpetuates the false nature v nurture debate as normative, especially those that have had their potential brought down from the highest peaks. It is the catch 22 that the only capable of figuring this out are the ones projecting the most to reinforce it. This is yet another case of circular reasoning woven into the false reality created by nature v nurture.
The perfect example of the downward spiral created by accepting an egalitarian (linear) importance of environment is the failure of Blacks in America. No matter how many Whites project themselves onto Blacks and do for Black communities what they would need to help themselves – they cannot make Blacks, as a whole (see unemployment, incarceration, and fatherless household rates compared to the amount of scholarships and aid out there for them), civilized or a functional part of society. There is no amount of aid or affirmative action that will change this because Blacks will waste instead of utilize it, yet this waste of resources is only increasing.
It is understandable how those not made for a civilization would feel overwhelmed by it and oppressed; Sub-Saharan Africans have shown throughout history that they can neither create nor sustain a civilization. Instead of accepting this as their nature, liberals go on pretending they can change the genetic potential of Blacks – as if environment is an independent variable not restricted to genetic potential – which has time and again show to be futile. This has escalated to the point that the monster they created is turning on them, yet they still refuse to see it for what it is because of their projection.
Bernie Sanders is continually interrupted by Black Lives Matter protesters. They are emotional and unreasonable, which seems to be confusing for so many in the coverage of this fiasco (around the three minute mark is just hilarious). The leftist emotional tier system has no method to their madness and that is because it is based off of the same premise of nature v nurture. Their latest attempt at giving some logical form to this victim hierarchy is to use the word “power” – as if this magical thing is granted to some over others, yet no one seems to ask where power comes from.
The truth is that many of the “oppressed” are just dysfunctional and meant for a more primitive environment. Blacks can’t even see the strategy in not biting the only hand in the world that feeds them, yet it is the shock of leftists that truly shows how ingrained their projection is into their ideology. Bringing the third world into a first world environment won’t turn savages into high functioning beings, it will only turn a high trust civilization into a third world hell hold.
The reality that is hidden by Nature v Nurture needs to be understood to stop the downward spiral of the world. Keeping the primitive in line is not enough, since projection will harm the high functioning over time and lead to guilt for the plight of those with genes that no one can change. It is important to keep the lowest functioning separate from those with more potential, as to not bring down their betters. By apportioning resources to prevent substandard environments from destroying those with the best genetic potential, they are able to uphold all – this is the beauty of restoring natural order. It is hard to accept the most functional reality when being idealistic feels better, but it will only make reality worse to deny it’s optimal ordering – The world needs it’s natural leadership, and to stop the unnatural expansion of the least capable.
Setting the normative mindset to view the world in terms of nature v nurture has a snowballing effect and is driving civilization downhill. Genetic potential is the independent variable, environment the mediator variable, and phenotype the dependent variable for the Individual Epigenetic Spectrum. The mediating function of environment in this is exponential, with the vastness of the possible phenotypic range directly proportionate to the greatness of genetic potential. Nature v Nurture needs to be recognized as fallacious; every study and mindset derived from it is fruit from a poisonous tree.
How would this change in seeing reality affect food aid, both in-state and internationally? If the quality of genes is important in population percentages, then expanding the mosts reckless people exponentially with food aid would be a ridiculous solution to poverty. Resources would be better apportioned if the right framing was given then there wouldn’t be so much guilt for those that can’t improve. Duty to future generations would return over guilt to the lowest functioning that are growing en masse. How would this new framing effect affirmative action, both de facto or de jure? Schooling systems catering to the least common denominator would be recognized as a horrible idea. This small shift in how reality is understood could reverse the current shaming of excellence and success. Hierarchy becomes preferable to egalitarianism, as it is more functional and just. Unequal rights proportionate to the amount of responsibility the person can handle would be properly gauged and valued above idealistic human rights. There are numerous ways this could apply, this just outlines the jist of it.
“We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.” -Werner Heisenberg
The Nature versus Nurture debate is paradigmatically flawed. When conducting statistical analysis, determining the correct variables and their relationship to each other is crucial. If the variables’ relationship is incorrectly determined, and this subjective framing is accepted as absolute fact in normative thinking, it creates a warped perception of reality that doesn’t allow for correction. This is the case with the entire premise of Nature versus Nurture, it is foundationally flawed by viewing both parts as having a perfectly causal interaction and thus is purposefully misleading. Both nature and nurture are considered independent variables which puts them in a state of conflict, only allowing for a zero sum relationship. This sets them on equal standing to the other when looking for controls, which further creates confounding variables.
Before this can be explored further, a different misleading oversimplification needs to be addressed. The macro and micro level of how genes and environment affect each other should not be lumped together, as they are in the current paradigm. External conditions that, over time, select for specific traits on a large scale do not equate to the same thing as the micro level of how environment affects individual gene expression, which actually falls in the realm of epigenetics. The two have enough interplay that they should be kept separate in order to avoid misinterpretation of the ways they contrast from how they compare. For the sake of discernment, this article will call the environmental honing of certain genes over long periods of time the Generational Selection/Adaptation, while the environment affecting the expression of genes at a specific time will be called the Individual Epigenetic Spectrum.
The reason these concepts need to be kept separate is clearly seen by discerning when genes or environment are the independent variable or the mediator variable. In Generational Selection/Adaptation the independent variable is the environmental pressures, the mediator variable is the potential (starting) genes in that population, and the dependent variable is the resulting phenotype of that population. In the Individual Epigenetic Spectrum the independent variable is the person’s genes, the mediator variable is the environment, and the dependent variable is the phenotype. Placing both nature and nurture as independent variables confuses these two scenarios, while creating confounding variables that are seen as controls to the flawed system.
(The rest of the article will focus solely on the Individual Epigenetic Spectrum.)
A common misconception is that being able to raise IQ means that environment on it’s own can create IQ potential. This is a perfect example of how a person’s potential genetic spectrum of phenotype and their current phenotype itself have been confounded. To say a person can raise their phenotype’s IQ doesn’t mean that their current phenotype is their genetic potential, nor does it prove that being able to change it for the better means that environment created this outside the possibility of their genes. This simply means that they will affect the independent variable (their genes) with a different mediator variable (environment) to yield a change in the dependent variable (phenotype’s IQ); the genetic potential of an individual is still set to the same limits. It can be affected by the environment in how it expresses, but that potential just isn’t fully expressed via the mediator. A change in the dependent variable by a mediator variable in no way disproves the importance of the independent variables role in this process. The genes predict where the ceiling effect will cap the person off, however people’s phenotype isn’t at the full potential of their genetic possibilities.
The phenotype being confused for the genes itself also creates another misconception in siblings having such different personalities being proof that environment creates this change alone. Phenotype is the real life genetic expression, but not the genetic potential, as was discussed above. Parents pass on their unexpressed genes – not just the expressed ones in their phenotype – to their children. Children randomly get half of their parents chromosomal genes (expressed or not) in varying recombinations from each other that are then expressed, or not, in each child. To claim that environment creates differences in close relatives’ phenotypes makes the assumption that their genes are all in the same combinations or expressed the same ways to be considered as a control. Once this bastardization of genetic potential is understood, then it can be seen as a confounding variable, which leaves many of the Nature vs Nurture studies without a real control. False controls against nature to prove nurture allow for a Circular Cause and Consequence fallacy.
This fallacious downward spiral also doesn’t take into account that choices or lifestyle are not purely nurture. The reason that nurture must be a mediator variable is because the nature of a person helps determine their environment – their choices, values, preferences, and actions are expressed differently through conditioning only to the extent that their genes allow. Any externally determined aspects of their environment also must interplay with their genetic potential to be expressed in phenotype, so even externally uncontrollable factors are subject to the genes in how they affect the individual. The combination of many people’s phenotypes, within a given group, at a set point in time, determines many factors of their environment. This variation on part of the environment but not on part of the constant individual given genes in regards to affecting phenotype shows why the former is the mediator and the later is the independent variable – it also is key for insight into what type of mediating function environment actually is (stay tuned…. hint: this is heavy foreshadowing lol).
The interview donewith Bruce Jenner about his delusion is an expertly orchestrated propaganda piece. It was gearedfor impact on all levels, tugging the guilt-ridden heart strings of a world conditioned to idealism, emotional morality andhypersensitivity. The long-term consequences of a society accepting and even promoting transgender-ism are completely ignored for feelings in the now. The underlying mentality shift of looking at dysfunction as oppression, and thus something to give positive attention, and to champion, is ever more detrimental. A world that glorifies tolerance of sickness as a herd-morality status signal will never thrive.
Social norms were created to bring a people to the best of their nature’s potential. Time tested wisdom slowly woven into a civilization isn’t some arbitrary form of oppression, but more a guiding outline built and handed down to protect people from themselves. A people spits on the sacrifice of their predecessors when they reject their cultural norms and social inheritance – the guiding hand of their ancestors geared at bringing them to the best of their potential. In addition, rejecting biology to completely negate reality is a recipe for a sickness to fester and spread. It is no coincidence that traditional guidance is based off of keeping us in line with our biological sex; just as there is the best of one’s potential nature there is also the other end of the spectrum –the perversion of it.
Bruce Jenner has a sickness. There is no amount of verbose and confusing analysis that can prove there is such thing as being born the wrong biological sex. This is purely a delusion; it differs in no way from any other delusion despite claims of it being unique or different. The fact that it gets so much attention – a glorious victim status – only reinforces and compounds this sickness to its full manifestation. If it were called what it is from the beginning or never allowed as a “special” identity, then it would be nipped in the bud – not exacerbated by positive reinforcement. This illness might have some biological predispositions, as may illnesses do, but it’s full expression is purely self-fulfilling. The conditions of the current social environment are set up to induce and perpetuate transgendered delusions, and by making it into some oppressed and glorified condition – by bringing the afflicted to stardom – it leads the way for the masses to follow their social leaders off ofa cliff.
Where is the line drawn between victim and victimizer? To what extent does the distinction even matter? The focus of modernism is to understand emotional pain as an excuse to wallow in self-pity, as if empathy without action is moral, while true ethically based morality dictates that the cycle needs to be ended. The only extent that a gangrene limb should be understood is in a quick realization that it has to be cut off before spreading. Would feeling bad for a person as their body is consumed by the gangrene until they die, when they could have been saved, moral? Surely getting one’s hands bloody amputating is the more honorable choice – despite being more difficult.
It doesn’t matter if Bruce Jenner is ill, or if those who used this ill man for their propaganda feel bad; what matters is that he is famous and this gangrene will spread quickly. Once things go this far it is passed the point that just recognizing the illness will do anything. There are prepubescent children who are now taintedwith this sickness. Children that need guidance instead of positive reinforcement to define themselves by a delusion. How many people follow the lead of famous people or want the attention of being a special snowflake as member of a victim group? How many of them influence the children in their lives? Girls that are tom-boyish will develop normally through puberty if left alone, but children will now be completely lead astray from the best potential of their nature. This is child abuse.
Guilt is destructive without the balance of duty. Feeling guilty for people with a sickness doesn’t justify not calling it what it is, for then there will soon be much more sickness to feel guilty about. Creating an avalanche of guilt to suffocate under is the epitome of immorality and selfishness – to avoid taking a hard stance that corrects what is wrong. From an evolutionary standpoint guilt is only useful because it prompted action to change harmful aspects in a people, not perpetuate them. Guilt serves as a means to overcome other conflicting emotions when fulfilling the duty of fixing the core of what caused the guilt – to do what needs to be done so that future generations do not have to suffer the same fate.
Normalizing transgendered delusions goes far beyond tolerance of evil – it is a direct attack on the health of future generations. The current environment is designed to bring out the worst of one’s potential nature and spread sickness to those in most need of guilt’s protection: innocent children who are the future. The time has passed for naming the sickness alone, since Pandora’s box has now been completely opened. This is a war and the only way to face it is to feel guilt for one’s progeny alone in order to prompt dutiful action. Stop trying to win the moral high ground or cater to feelings by not being aggressive – recognize this for what it is: the last nail in the coffin for the future.
There is a balance between the states of being and becoming
To understand human connection it’s important to understand where one comes from and where one is headed. The similarity between a people is like their roots – the mother and feminine half of their vital force. There is comfort and nurturing quality to similarities; common origins and upbringing builds bonds. Shared experiences parallel shared blood. This is one half of healthy bonding between people: the state of being.
The state of being is the origin, but a tree should never be frozen in time or it brings stagnation and decay. Creation and destruction are part of life and healthy growth – they create and contrast each other to give meaning and life to the other.
Our experiences and the concrete reality of our connections are propelled forward by our creative energy. The abstract gives life and continual motion to the concrete – that connection must be maintained as a tree’s limbs are connected through the trunk to it’s roots. What mankind is now as a species, race, ethnic type, community, and family is not what it was a millennia ago, and sure not what it was 10,000 years ago. There is a steady growth on the life and death continuum that is natural and healthy. A drive to create and destroy, conquer and settle, build and explore… The abstract or symbolic is the masculine half: the state of becoming. The home births a person and raises them with nurture while the next frontier brings the passion that makes one feel alive.
It is what a people share that grounds them to give strength, yet it is the differences that enthrall them to give inspiration. In a high functioning people’s inequalities lies their growth and evolution; appreciation for these differences is also bonding. This is why a high rate of sexual dimorphism is seen in the most advanced of people – they were able to hone into the proper balance of what binds them and to what propels them, creating interdependence. Herein lies the key to why multiculturalism and the equalizing of unequal things are so harmful: both complementary sides of this balance are attacked.
Multiculturalism aims to undo the present state of being, which has been slowly woven over the whole evolutionary process and needs to continue to grow naturally, not cross what never should be or could be possible. Then the equalizing of unequal things brings down those who uphold the rest – it drowns out the spark of excellence that keeps humanity in motion and the tree of life growing. Turning the balance on both ends upside down creates stagnation.
Traditional art; infrastructure in line with the golden ratio; unique vantages; allowing people to dream; and nurturing the creative spirit while keeping people grounded; these are combined to give civilization an upward pull. These connect right down to the very essence of one’s being – the origin threaded through the rich fabric of many phases of becoming upheld in a detailed tapestry. Maintaining a healthy environment in line with one’s nature is how to get to the best of that nature, while rejecting it will have it implode on itself. The unnaturalness of the times requires force and leaves all in a stagnant chaotic mess of a world with no deeper connections. The ugliness of modern art, jarring infrastructure, tyranny of popular opinion, conditioning herd morality, multiculturalism’s chaos and the blaming of all excellence for the ever-expanding dead weight is suffocating the life out of mankind. The commonalities of people must remain separate and distinct to give any meaning to those whom it connects, and to keep appreciation for the differences in race, community, and family. The balance of what is shared with what is unequal is what truly connects and bonds people. Improving superficialities in technology for base needs and desires will never fill the void or replace this key understanding of human nature, which must remain active to continue growing for future generations.
A tree must be connected to its roots to keep growing, but the leaves will never grow back into the branches, nor the branches into the trunk, nor the trunk return the ground and become a seed once more. New seeds will only be produced by the healthy growth of that tree. One day when it returns to the ground it will bring even more nourishment to all the new life it created. True traditionalists understand their nature and want connection to the past to keep growing, not try to reverse time but find balance between where they come from and where they are headed.
“Tradition is not the worship of ashes but the preservation of fire.” -Gustav Mahler
Idealistic morality based off of the Enlightenment period is now normative. It has permeated almost every political party and movement – they seem to compete for which will hold the higher morality based off of this ever-rebelling premise. The mainstream left vs right is disguised as opposing sides, when really they are just two ends of the same Globalist spectrum. The Conservatives are fighting an uphill battle by trying to hold onto Modernism, while the Progressives are pushing through to full scale Postmodernism, yet no mainstream groups are rejecting the slippery slope of Enlightenment-based dogma as a whole.
The anti-islam movement is very much in the battle for morality between two ends of this same spectrum. The lack of democracy, inequality, wealth disparity, political freedom, oppression of women’s rights, inability to coexist in multiculturalism, etc., are all very common mainstream arguments against islam.
The Enlightenment’s legacy pushes for pathos based morality; it is no wonder that the present era has developed extreme emotional hypersensitivity to prevent the exploration of their stances’ illogical outcomes – the further left on this spectrum the more absurd it gets. Their false sense of morality is unquestionable since it revolves around feelings and offense instead of ethos. The inevitable moral paradoxes create the need for “oppressors” and “perpetual victim” groups: the higher in victim status a group is deemed to be, the more that group will trump other victim groups when it comes to a conundrum of conflicting stances. Likewise in asininity, the groups deemed to be privileged “oppressors” are overlooked for any type of merit, thus instead of emulating the strong, more perpetual victim groups are created. This oppressor-victim mentality is even more enticing to the Globalist mindset because it comes full circle into feeding their self-proclaimed moral superiority – the social justice warriors can create the bad guys to fight off while giving them a ranking system to put their paradoxical “victim-groups” into a pecking order.
The (Post)Modernist ranking system is why the Left leads the Western appeasement of the islamic immigration invasion, while the Right needs to constantly push counter narratives for other victim groups as justification to oppose islam – a perfect parallel to show the enlightenment legacy’s spectrum from Left to Right are the flip sides to the same coin.
The world not only glorifies those seen as victims, but all must wait to champion or become victims in order to fight evil. The public outcry of the world when any use more than “proportional force” when fighting islam, is a telling sign of this era of absurdity.
Leftists don’t oppose islam even though it is the antithesis of all the idealistic views they hold, because muslims are a higher ranked victim group – they are among the least functioning, laziest, and most self-pitying, so they can put on a good show to shame the “oppressors” with.
The only thing oppressing islam is it’s own primitive and regressive ideology.
Globalist mindsets stand for everything at once and thus nothing at all, because there is no logical method to their pathos. Modernity holds their destructive, fictitious victim-oppressor paradigm as the highest importance, so the only place the Conservatives can oppose their left of the spectrum from is in defense of other victims. The only use a Traditionalist has for arguing this point should be to show the inevitable, paradoxical outcome of all rebellions stemming from the Enlightenment, leaving their lands susceptible threats like islam.
What weakens Western Civilization most to islam, is the destruction of it’s own superior traditionalism. The Western world is becoming more and more r-type since the Enlightenment period, thus on some subconscious level the rabid, r-type traditionalism of invading muhammadans is left as the only politically correct option to fill that void. There is a strong link between Feminist appeasement of islam and conversion or self-destruction of Europeans. This is why many Modernists do not have such high zeal in opposing islam, they have lost their own k-type vital force – Western Traditionalism.
Islam is not the root of all problems in the world, it is a deadly symptom that has run amok because of a weakened host. Islam is a destructive force that needs to be purged from the earth; not watered down, excused, assimilated, or any other fantasy Modernist ideals for dealing with this viper. It is the duty of the strong to vanquish the plague of Islam once and for all – Western Civilization must lead again.
Cease arguing against Muslims from a victims narrative that needs to wait for more victimization to counter with proportionate losses. The world must stand united against islam, but the West has to rise up to its duty and oppose the immigration invasion from the hordes seeking to destroy their posterity – for once the West falls, the world will follow. It is vital to destroy islam from a stance of strength, not weakness.
To find the resolve for what is to come ,Western Civilization needs a return to traditionalism so that their people may regain their vital driving-force.
The Postmodernist looks upon the islmic threat for a safe place to apportion blame and excuse them, or ignores the threat all together. The Modernist looks upon the islamic threat and is scared, sad, and worried. The Traditionalist looks upon the islamic threat and wants to take up a spear and plunge it through every last islamist in sight until the enemy is smote or one must embrace a glorious death in pursuit thereof. A revival of Western Tradition is the fire needed to purify the earth of the islam and the Enlightenment’s sickness that has festered far too long.
The Israel-palestine conflict is seen from such a simplistic vantage point that it leads to a false dichotomy – One must understand the entirety of Middle-Eastern dynamics, not one localized aspect of them that has been divorced from all context.
Palestinians are simply arabs with a jihadist political agenda that draws them to the need for an ethnicity . They have no specific ethnic allegiance alone; the importance of their fight is to expand the islamic lands (“waqf) and implement sharia law. Before the decline of the Ottoman Empire, there was no distinction between arab ethnicities. Palestinians, like all muslim arabs, give their first allegiance to muslim ummah. They will never compromise, because a compromise requires both sides to make concessions; when dealt with as equals, muslims can only accept gains while giving nothing in return. This is also why Coptic Christians in the Middle-East are constantly persecuted by muslim arabs no matter if they share the same arbitrary ethnic identity – at best they live as de jure second-class citizens under the protection (or rather, at the mercy of) islamic law, where a blind eye is turned to their random – and not so random – victimization.
The argument against Israeli occupation ignores the fact that muhammaden arabs are occupying all land outside of the Arabian Peninsula. The importance of this is that there will never be a compromise in which some people are not displaced. Middle-Eastern Jews have been displaced and re-accepted by their own in Israel. Muslims choose not to accept their fellow muslim arabs because creating the “palestinian” as a political tool is far more important than the lives of their ‘brothers’. Others should not bear the burden of the consequences that stem from of the selfish priorities of the wider arab and muslim world.
There is no possible compromise with mohammaden arabs. Their political identities are shallow adoptions that are easily cast off when it becomes politically expedient to do so. Asking Israel to accept one-sided peace would just allow arab muslims to keep playing a false victim role. According to the doctrines of shariah law, all ceasefires and truces with an enemy like Israel are only for the purposes of refreshing and rearming, and never are permitted with the intent of sincere settlement or peace. Muslims will only have peace according to their own unconditional terms – that the world submit to islam, and convert, pay the jizyah, or die.
Who are the faultless victims in the Middle-East?
The false dichotomy of “Jew and arab” ignores the plight of the nationless. Zoroastrians have almost been completely eradicated by muslims. Coptic Christians have no refuge from their torment and no homeland to defend them. Time and again they are butchered in Egypt, where they have no support or security. Apostates of islam are also left helpless and homeless in the Middle-East.
The real victims of Gaza are Copts, suffering in silence at the hands of their islamic, “palestinian,” “victimized” counterparts. This is paralleled across all islamic lands in which Christians reside as dhimmis under shariah law – they endure constant, unending persecution.
Looking at ethno-nationalism alone is the flaw of bleeding hearts on the right, who swallow palestinian propaganda, as the hypocritical anti-colonial claims of occupation seen with biased tunnel-vision works for the left. The Middle-East must be viewed in terms of theocratic tribal nationalism.
The real two-state solution will require both halves of the current paradigm to make concessions – a real compromise. The palestinian territories would be Israel’s contribution. Since arab muslims have not ever been willing to give anything up they must take a loss too. Jordan should be required to give up equal land as the west bank territory to be added to it in an actual compromise, likewise Egypt equal land for the Gaza strip. This two-state solution will give a homeland to Middle Eastern Christians as a safe refuge where they no longer have to live under another theocracy’s rule. Perhaps a Coptic government can choose to provide a safe refuge for other oppressed non-muslim populations, and islamic apostates as well.
The requirements of this compromise are quite reasonable when looking at the entirety of Middle-Eastern dynamics. It puts Israel’s objections over a two-state solution to rest because they won’t fear those lands will be used as a means of political jihad and continual attack. Under current circumstances this is a valid safety concern as arab muslims under the palestinian pseudonym have made their intentions – unceasing violence and escalation until Israel is destroyed – quite clear. The current wrong-headed debate will be shut down, as the security risk to Israel posed by jihad will be properly recognized when theocratic distinctions are added in to the discussion. Israel can give up responsibility for those territories – with equally added land from Egypt and Jordan to match them in compromise – because a Coptic christian country would pose no threat to them. If anything, this gives Israel an ally in the region and more importantly gives Middle-Eastern Christians a level of protection that they have not had, massacre after massacre.
This two-state solution is just, fair, and good; allowing arab islamists to play the victims for the aims of political jihad, while they slaughter the real silent victims, is a dishonorable travesty.