Wednesday, 7 June 2017

Why do whites tolerate other races?

The question of why whites tolerate, indeed are even welcoming to other races is frequently asked in alt-Right circles. Even luminaries of the movement profess themselves baffled. Why, they ask, is the white race so accepting of the entry of others into their lands; so keen to integrate them; so willing to provide advantages and preferences not even available to other whites?

These same luminaries note that this welcome is never reciprocated; immigrants are not invited into Japan, or China, or India or the Arabian states, or Africa. And yet these peoples when moving into the West are welcomed, housing found, preferential education and employment opportunities are made available.

The alt-Right rails against the generosity of their fellow whites and is quite unable to understand it. The alt-Right considers it a strange and fatal flaw in the make-up of the white person, that they knowingly take into their midst alien people who will ultimately, by faster breeding if nothing more violent, replace them. And they glory in this replacement. No other race is so self-destructive – the situation is puzzling.

Be baffled no more, fellow alt-Rights, the answer to why is below (but not a cure.)

It’s an answer we need to sneak up on. We need to start with the r/K-selective breeding strategies. Consider these extremes: each time a male jellyfish mates with a female jellyfish they make a million young. They do this by a round-about way involving larva which clone themselves and turn into polyps which attach themselves to rocks for years until eventually turning into medusae which swim off looking for mates to complete the circle. This is “r” or rapid breeding.

At the other end of the spectrum we have elephants. The female gestates for two years and then parents a “litter” of one calf for another three years. So, she makes one baby every five years, perhaps having a total of six offspring during her life. This is “K” or slow breeding. The K stands for a constant population size, the lowest possible breeding rate for any species not imminently extinct. The reason it is not called C is because of the Germanic influence on mathematics. K is the far end of the spectrum beyond which no species can survive.

Intrinsic to r-selection is making many babies which the parent barely looks after; in the case of the jellyfish, it never even meets its children. The K-selected animal makes few babies but lavishes attention on each. The net result is both species bring the same number of offspring to breeding age (in theory, elephants are endangered and jellyfish are a plague – but that is human doing.)

It is important to realize that neither strategy is right or wrong. There is a different optimum somewhere between the “r” and “K” extremes for every ecological niche. If you were to tell the jellyfish they were wrong and irresponsible to make so many babies they would retort (if they had a brain) they have been around since before the dinosaurs and you have not.

Let us consider how this applies to humans. Clearly, we are up there with the elephants, near the K end of the spectrum. Few animals are more K than us; elephants yes, the blue whale – probably. We don’t know much about them. The “wild” human female might make 10 babies in a lifetime.

Next consider the races of humanity. How do they place themselves on the spectrum? For sake of simplicity I will refer to the races of our species using colour coding. It should be obvious that blacks make a lot of babies, browns also make a lot of babies, yellows are inclined to make a lot of babies, although fewer than the blacks and browns. The yellow situation is complicated by the recent one-child policy in China and the economic situation in Japan. The yellow norm is more babies than they currently make. It also interesting to note, as an aside, that there is no hard link between IQ and rK selection. Yes, the jellyfish is literally brainless, but the Chinese and Japanese are cleverer than whites, and the fast breeding Ashkenazi Jews are streets ahead in brain power and baby-making.

There is a correlation with size: generally, the bigger the creature the more K-selected it is, but this is not hard and fast. Jellyfish can be bigger than humans.

Whites are therefore the most K-selected of the races. We make the fewest babies but tend the ones we make the most. In fact, we are beyond the “K” boundary and not breeding at replacement rate. White women produce 1.6 babies on average. That is not enough to continue the race. It needs to be 2.0 minimum. Our kind will be extinct in a trivially short period, evolutionarily speaking.

Next consider how the different social classes spread themselves on the spectrum within the white race. Who makes the most babies; who the fewest?

The answer, pretty obviously, is that the higher up the social totem pole a person is, the fewer babies they make. This is a logical extension of the K-strategy. Dividing your resources between fewer offspring makes sense if you have significant resources. If your children are going out into the world with only the clothes on their back, then have more children – clothes are cheap.

Though, in fact, there is a slight inversion of this at the top end of society. The middle class have fewer children than the working class, but the genuinely rich can afford big houses and servants and have more children. At the top end of the middle class parents consider if they can give each child their own bedroom and a private education.

What this boils down to is, a white middle class person is (more or less) in the most K-selected class, of the most K-selected race, of the most K-selected species, on Earth.

Lastly consider the differences between men and woman. Strictly speaking both have, on average, exactly the same number of children – each child having both a mother and a father – so the sexes could be placed at the same location on the r-K spectrum. However, male and female attitudes are different because any given man could have far more children than any given woman. A woman has a realistic baby limit of about 20 but a man could father thousands. In practice, neither will approach their potential, but the theoretical possibility none-the-less affects where they feel themselves to be on the spectrum.

Women should be considered more K-selected than men.

Of course, I have not explained why white people tolerate other races yet. But we’re getting there.

Consider what character attributes a creature employing the K-selection reproductive method must develop. Such a creature must be caring, prudent, forward-looking, alert to danger, nurturing and must develop a strange neurotic bifurcated personality.

This last needs explaining as it is not obvious. Imagine a mother has a 7-year-old son. She is trying to teach the son an important life-skill. What, is not important, maybe riding a bicycle. The boy falls off repeatedly. The boy says, “I’m too small – I can’t do this.”

The mother thinks: yes, he is too small, but what she says is, “Keep trying son, you’ll soon manage it.”

The external encouragement the mother provides is diametrically opposite to her internal thoughts because her future is invested in her child. Any K-selected adult would instinctively shy away from discouraging a child. “You’re too small or young – stop trying,” is never what we tell our children.

And the teaching and nurturing instinct is so ingrained in us that other races who live among us also benefit from it. They get the encouragement, the preferential treatment, the consideration we are designed to give our children. They even get the ultimate privilege of being allowed to replace us – as we would expect our children to do.

But they are not our children. They are cuckoos masquerading as our children. Of course, they don’t know it. Most of us don’t know it. They just take what is offered (in the alt-Right parlance, the “gibs”) because why wouldn’t they. And the gibs are as much social as physical: opportunity, preferences, acceptance – as well as the money, housing, healthcare. No-one can blame them for taking what is proffered.

It has not always been this way. Five hundred years ago, whites made more babies than today. This was mainly because the social structure was skewed towards the bottom. The peasants bred and the nobs were careful – the eldest son would inherit the title and land, the next would join the army. More than that would leave surplus men with no obvious role.

Note that K-selection among the upper classes of many societies was encouraged by steering surplus boys into celibate institutions. In fact, in the middle ages monasteries were open to all men, at all times. Any man willing to commit to celibacy could have his roof and meals assured at no cost (save his labour.)

And this ends the story. It would do no good to tell the middle-class lady SJW immigrants are not your children and like your cats they will eventually eat you (unlike the cats, only metaphorically.) The maternal instinct is too strong to be broken with mere logic. In fact, the more helpless the immigrant is, the more the parenting instinct steps in to protect and provide, to encourage and hush any dissenting nay-sayers.

Ironically, but understandably, those immigrants who arrive and thrive and need no help are of little interest. They do not present as children and don’t get the gibs. Unfortunately immigrants are not children - even most of the ones claiming to be - they will never grow up; they will always need, and so be given.

All that remains to be explained is why the alt-Right has not fallen for the deception. Well, the alt-Right is mainly male and so more r-selected and thus less nurturing. There are women in the alt-Right, but they are considerably more intelligent than the average woman so brains have overridden instinct. I suspect such woman mainly also have close connections with white children, either their own, or nieces and nephews, or even the white children they intend to have in the future (this works emotionally) and so see the invaders as threats to these children rather than children to be nurtured themselves.

But a childless middle-aged white SJW lady with no white children in her life is a lost cause. The cats aren’t going to be enough.

Monday, 5 June 2017

Why does the Left pander to Islam?

Two weeks ago, in Manchester, a muslim terrorist detonated a suicide vest and killed 23 people and injured another 119. Last weekend, three muslim terrorists drove a van along London Bridge mowing down pedestrians and then ran amok in the local area with machetes, killing 7 people and injuring another 48. (The London Bridge attackers killed and wounded fewer people than in Manchester, but - fear not - during the month of Ramadan martyrdom counts double, says the Qu’ran.)

As is usual in these circumstances, public figures were swift to announce that the Islamic community was in no way to blame and the terrorists were not true adherents to the faith but rather confused individuals who had deviated a long way from true Islam – the Religion of Peace.

However, there were no demonstrations by Islamic organisations against the acts of terrorism. (Excluding a fake one orchestrated by CNN.)

Swiftly on our screens we saw politicians reassuring us that an overwhelming majority of muslims abhor violence.

The stats are slightly against this. Yes, a majority of muslims do reject the imposition of sharia by force, but not an overwhelming majority, probably about 80%; leaving 20% who do support violence, which is a disturbingly large number. Consider that MI5 have 23,000 jihadis on their watch list and had assessed Salman Abedi, the Manchester bomber, and decided he was not high enough up the extremism scale to merit personal attention.

Clearly on the Right, Islam is castigated. There are calls from everyone from Pamela Gellar to Richard Spencer (both banned from the UK by Theresa May while she was Home Secretary) to enact a tough solution on Islam – generally requiring them to leave the West and stick to blowing up their own kind in their own countries.

But the Left is soft and apologetic, as it always has been with terrorism. Jeremy Corbyn refused to condemn the IRA when they were the ones blowing up London in the 1980s. (The IRA always phoned in a warning before the bomb went off, so the damage was greater but the causalities fewer.)

So why do the Left appease?

Well, there are two reasons.

First is the nature of the Left itself. The Left is formed of individuals of little intrinsic merit. Most of them have never had a proper job. Corbyn, for example, took to far Left politics after failing his exams at his private school (yes, privileged background) and not getting into University. His is a common story: brought up with all the advantages money can buy, failed to achieve anything, so decided the system was at fault and tries to destroy it.

Such people actually fail because they are weak in mind and body. (Research has shown that left-wing people are physically weaker than right-wing people, and footage of the alt-Right vs anti-fa at numerous demos shows Anti-fa need a many-to-one advantage in physical combat.) The Left are simply losers-at-life (as Donald Trump recently tweeted) who fail because they are neither gifted nor hardworking – either of which would likely bring success.

In this category Diane Abbot, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown also come to mind. None of them could earn an honest living and they are frightened and jealous of those who can.

What the Left cannot allow to happen is for society to become militant. The Left only has any social status in a totally supine society which just accepts aggression because they themselves have no strength of mind or body. They want us all to be losers together, rather than them be losers and the rest of us to be winners.

To paraphrase a well-known saying: when the going gets tough, the weak get left behind.

The Left don’t want their spurious status removed, and their inadequacies laid bare for all to see, so they prevent any conflict from starting in the first place by arguing for surrender.

However, I did say there are two reasons. There is another player on the field: the globalists.

The globalists have an agenda which is instinctive to them. They see a united white society as threatening to them and they do everything in their power to disunite us. They do not want us to be masters in our own land – they want a diverse mix of groups competing. They want the muslims to have as much power as the whites currently have. They want us to be so busy fending off Islam that we have no time or energy to think about them. In our downfall lies their profit. They play all sides all the time.

Naturally the globalists are much more pro-Islam than pro any other ethnic group. Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, etc do not threaten white society – they genuinely want to join it. Muslims want to destroy it. So globalists favour Islam.

This brings the Left and the globalists into an un-Holy alliance. Of course the Left are too stupid to realise any of this, but that does not matter to the globalists: the globalists lead and the Left, thick as ever, follow.

Who are the globalists? You know who they are.