Another insightful comment by Bluegrass

Cesar’s point is that White ingroup-outgroup psychology was already extremely weak relative to other races.

“There is only one race: the human race!” is a PC concept seemingly compatible exclusively with the White mind.

It is difficult to imagine the majority of Tutsis, Hutus, Han, or Mestizo being capable of accepting such egregious ethno-masochistic self-deception. However, this is complicated even further by the genetic character of the White Race.

Hypothetically, even if every African believed in “One Race: the Human Race”, and imported a Han man and Women for every three African men and women, who in turn believed in total amalgamation as well, the genetic effect on the African gene pool would still be insubstantial.

This is due to the dominant nature of African genetics. This is vastly different case to Northern-Europeans: particularly of the Nordic variety, who may be the most recessive-mutated subspecies of humanity (the pygmy people might be more recessive-mutated).

In other words if one African genetically mixed with a Nordic, but whose subsequent descendants mated entirely Nordic for 2 or 3 generations, you would still see remnants of their African ancestor when compared to pure Nordic descended families.

It takes very little foreign genetic input into our group to destroy the very fabric of our identity, and is naturally one of our greatest inherent weaknesses. We simply do not have the luxury that the colonial Africans or Mestizos faced, when they passively absorbed European genetic input into their gene pool with seemingly miniscule consequences.

In larger perspective: for Africans to genetically invade the world they merely must set forth and breed. For Whites to genetically invade the world, we would need to wipe out the rest our genetic group competitors to literal non-existence to ensure our futurity.

Since the genocide option is either morally reprehensible or practically impossible in the opinion of most White Nationalists, our most prescient option is complete separation while upholding ideologies that restrain as effectively as possible our Universalist natures.

Original source: here

See also “Extermination or Expulsion?”

from this series of articles

16 Comments

  1. A really insightful comment indeed.

    Given the frailty of the White genetic make-up even Jim Crow or outright Apartheid would still be too bland: it would take a total racial separation in order to safeguard it.

    • Precisely, a prime example being the civil war south. There was widespread miscegenation of slaveholders with their enslaved women. (Calling it “rape” in my opinion, is a highly suspect pathology of liberal historians though I have no doubt black on white rape occurred. However, knowing both the female sexual drive for empowered men and the already sexually loose culture the slaves imported from Africa, likely the only thing holding back White slaveholders from miscegenation was their own sense of decency.)

      However, it is absolutely fascinating how little this effected either the general appearance of the Africans nor their general sense of identity. The African racial pathology is so strong and hereditary that it absorbed literally hundreds of thousands of mulatto children born from their women who were not only wholly accepted within their communities, but were oftentimes seamlessly made into a kind of “light skinned” colored-elite.

      This was a much more pronounced phenomenon in SA with their colored population.

      On the other hand, if one African impregnated a White girl in a slaveholding family it would not only, A: destroy the very dignity of the White women and her family, it would also B: endanger the very social fabric of the community they lived in.

      The recessive nature of our genes is tantamount to understanding any future of White survival. We could literally enter an African nation and destroy every single one of their men and then forcefully impregnate all their women, and we’d still eventually get “bred out” by our mulatto offspring in a few generations.

      When White’s set sailed to conquer the known and unknown world, we possessed the most developed societies and advanced weapons ever known to mankind.

      Yet we also set forth with some extremely fragile genetics from our isolated northern hunter-gather evolutionary upbringing. These genes were simply not prepared for the intense gene competition and constant amalgamation found amongst equatorial regions and people’s.

      • I would like to correct myself. Above I forgot to begin with “pre-” in referencing the civil war south.

        Also, at the end the “constant amalgamation” of equatorial people’s is actually untrue in at least the genetic sense. Africans actually have the highest inter-race ethnic diversity of any of the races.

        However, culturally “constant amalgamation” seems consistent with history. Equatorial people are more often inclined to think racially than Europeans, but have still been prone to mate indiscriminately due to lack of social controls in keeping mate selection within the race.

        The Jews have survived for so long due to both A: Genetic propensity for racial consciousness, and B: possessing a highly sophisticated and developed religion and culture that puts significant social pressures on the group to facilitate racial homogeneity.

        While it seems history has proven White’s as having the least intrinsic racial consciousness, equatorial races amalgamate seamlessly due to lower cultures that can quickly destroy an ethnic or racial identity, mostly due to their unconstrained sexual practices and propensity for low investment parenting.

  2. We could deport every jew and save this country.

  3. “Cesar’s point is that White ingroup-outgroup psychology was already extremely weak relative to other races.”

    How then does Cesar explain that the 1924 immigration restriction, a defence of Nordic/Anglo-Saxon founding Americans against, not just other races, but other sub races of Europe, can occur if N. Europeans have ‘extremely weak ingroup-outgroup psychology’?

    • The 1924 Immigration Act represents the side of America that I love. Writers like Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard were the intellectual force before the Act, with Madison even being friend of an American president (something like Greg Johnson being friend of W. Bush!) and his books published by mainstream houses. After the Big Betrayal of 1941-1947 Americans chose listening to the evil Jewish press instead of their hero: Charles Lindbergh.

    • the 1924 immigration act is exactly the kind of think I was alluding to when I wrote:

      “upholding ideologies that restrain as effectively as possible our Universalist natures.”

      National Socialism, in its most raw ideological form, is another fantastic ideology that can protect our frail White genes from the highly absorptive genetics of the equatorial peoples.

      America was the per-eminent racialist country before any European equivalent arose, but it was always held back from completely securing the existence of the European race by the mitigating power of our Christian foundation.

      No Christianity means no Puritan proselytizing and universalism within the American psyche, which means no ideological foundation to tolerate the presence of Africans, Indians, or any non-White immigration.

      Christianity always made it “uncouth” to be overly racialist. European America was able to implicitly secure the genetic stock through immigration restrictions, segregation, and what have you, but it was always a precarious position.

      This semi-implicit racialism, always pervaded by the Christian sense that it was not necessarily the most dignified of ideologies, was easily destroyed by the Jewish culture of critique.

      From then on without the sounder minds to Shepard the flock (Coolidge etc), our universalism took hold and our religion became the realization of the proposition nation.

      Of course, to realize that dream the destruction of White genetics has become a necessary sacrifice.

      • Just a question, when you wrote “per-eminent” did you want to say “preeminent”?

        Also did you mean “shepherd and Flock” (ask you this because I want to quote you again)?

      • Ah yes! really need to put these comments in Microsoft word beforehand to catch these typos.

        I meant: preeminent

        and for the second I meant:

        Shepherd the flock

        or

        Shepherd our flock.

        Thanks for any corrections.

  4. “There is only one race: the human race!” is a PC concept seemingly compatible exclusively with the White mind.

    Do you travel the world a bit, Chechar?

    The belief that there is only one race and — as a very logical consequence — that there is nothing wrong with race-mixing does not stop at all at Whites.

    The same goes for the belief intelligence is acquired rather than inborn.

    Ask the average, 2012, Thai, Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Iranian or Pakistani about it. You will be surprised. Sure, they may be a bit more xenophobe than us, but if a rich and handsome westerner asks in marriage a local girl the parents will almost always give their consent, especially if he is Muslim in the latter cases.

    What Alex Linder says of Johnson and you (by association) is more or less true: you are pushing the “white suicide” meme of Jared Taylor.

    If you want my true opinion on the problems we’re facing: I don’t believe that talking about “Whites” makes sense at all. “Whites” is a practical term to use in an article or a book to hasten things, but it stops there. You can’t say that “Whites are committing suicide” without being rude by your impreciseness. This is too general, too vague, and frankly false. The truth is that Whites haven’t suitable elites, haven’t suitable rulers and priests.

    As I already wrote on Counter-Currents some time ago, you can transform Pakistan into a Buddhist country, or the USA into a Communistic country if you wish. I will now add other examples: you can transform France into a national-socialist country, or England into a Catholic country. The masses are irrelevant, they will go anywhere and do anything. You just need (A) sufficient moral authority (Christianity, for ex.) or (B) control over the mass medias.

    So, is there something wrong with Whites taken as a whole? Nope, for the same reason there’s nothing wrong with Arabs or Niggers as a whole. It’s the brain that matters, not the body. The priest class, not the layman.

    Is there a problem with the brain? Perhaps. But there’s another explanation: the brain isn’t there anymore! Our elites aren’t us , they are Jews with money-grubbing, amoral hedonists as their servants.

    • Tonight I just reread O’Meara’s very controversial October 2011 article at CC and believe he’s right: America’s Low Church worship of Mammon is the underlying source of our problems. Hadn’t America been tempted by the One Ring no Jew would have “scourged the Shire”.

    • Deviance: “Our elites aren’t us , they are Jews with money-grubbing, amoral hedonists as their servants.”

      Our elites aren’t elites at all. Rulers is a better word.

      “The masses are irrelevant, they will go anywhere and do anything. You just need (A) sufficient moral authority (Christianity, for ex.) or (B) control over the mass medias.”

      I agree more or less with your point of view, that there is no collective suicide, and so on. But I think the Jews rule over us through direct dictatorial rule, not through psychological manipulation. The masses are irrelevant because we live in a dictatorship, not because they can be manipulated into accepting any nonsensical ideology. In fact, White people have never accepted the idea that it was good for them to get race-replaced. Actually, the dumb masses are better than smart people at resisting some of the Jewish nonsense. Control of the media is essential as a means of censorship and intimidation. But it doesn’t work very well as an instrument of brainwashing.

      • But I think the Jews rule over us through direct dictatorial rule, not through psychological manipulation. The masses are irrelevant because we live in a dictatorship

        I can’t speak for the USA or elsewhere, but in my native country, there are general elections every 5 years, where the candidate who receives 50%, +1, of the total votes is elected absolute and legitimate ruler of the State.

        These elections aren’t fiddled with either; there is immense evidence they are not. Ballot stuffing is impossible because of the presence of random assessors and numerous civilian volunteers in every single station at all time, and the existence of a reliable census/identification system.

        This doesn’t look at all like a dictatorship to me. A “dictatorship of the majority”, if you wish, but certainly not a dictatorship in the usual sense, with rigged elections or no elections at all.

        I do think our “rulers” rule us through psychological manipulation, notably via television, fabricated opinion polls, and demonization of dissent using various tools (law, psychiatry, TV series, movies, etc.)

      • Deviance: “This doesn’t look at all like a dictatorship to me. A “dictatorship of the majority”, if you wish, but certainly not a dictatorship in the usual sense, with rigged elections or no elections at all.”

        It is a soft dictatorship, implementing a soft genocide. In spite of the softness, I think it works more like the former URSSR than like Switzerland used to work before the era of mass immigration.

        “I do think our “rulers” rule us through psychological manipulation, notably via television, fabricated opinion polls, and demonization of dissent using various tools (law, psychiatry, TV series, movies, etc.)”

        There is no question that the result of the elections is decided by the media. It works mainly through censorship. People vote for whoever they see on TV. They are against race-replacement, but they still vote for candidates who have been vetted by the Jewish lobby, and who will enforce race-replacement. Basically, it isn’t different from washing powder advertising. There is no deep psychological manipulation, except in the demonization of dissent. And the demonization of dissent couldn’t work without mass censorship.

  5. “It’s the brain that matters, not the body. The priest class, not the layman.”
    Precisely. Race-mixing is a primal issue but the weakening of the European priest class is what has allowed this modern take-over. ‘Christianity’ can easily be interpreted any way you like, including a strict racialist POV as evidenced by the Christian Identity crowd. The greatest enemy of the Priest class were these pseudo-intellectuals who weren’t happy enough with their own ‘enlightenment’, they had to disturb the ‘flock’ for their own subversive pursuits.
    The masses need a traditional ‘other-worldliness’ type religion… even the greco-roman mysteries are not so different to ‘christianity’ as a whole. As long as individuals are able to pursue their own higher initiation (through discreet sects), then there shouldn’t be a problem. In fact, it worked quite well for a 1000+ years. Now who is there to fill this ‘brain/spirit’ drain for the west?

  6. This post and my inicial exchange with bluegrass here at the comment thread are available in Portuguese here.

    I’ll be translating more posts from your blog, Chechar, I’ll keep you informed. :-)

    By the way, I took the liberty of adding a couple of pictures related to the topic in discussion (racial amalgamation) but I made it clear to the readers that they did not belong in the original post.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: