Post: #26

(05-16-2017 04:23 AM)Excelsior Wrote:  2. There is no real conspiracy (or, at least, no successful one) and what we see is merely the product of western nature (as I theorize in my post above).

I don't need to read anything more than this.

I skimmed through your other posts, but this one sentence was the one that perturbed me. You are using anecdotal evidence to push the idea that there is something inherently flawed with the nature of the European people.

Could it be that Europe is a limited set of territory and 750 million people may be the height of population that can occupy the land? Could it be that WWI and WWII led to so much death and destruction of Europe internally that it led to a shift in behavior due to the psychological effects of two destructive wars?

Also, most countries across Eurasia have declining birthrates. South East Asia has birthrates that mirror Europe's across the region. Is there something inherently wrong with the South East Asian people too?

The fact is that we live in a world with limited habitable territory, a zero-sum world. I will act accordingly. Also, once my finances are sorted, I plan on having many children Excelsior. In the not too distant future me and my flawed babies will roam America spreading my inherently flawed "western nature" across these great lands.

Post: #27

I am at odds with the idea of building "stability" to have children. If anything not being sure about the future should be more of an incentive to make rm while you still can. With the right mindset (or ar least not a welfare leeching one) would dare say poverty begets drive to improve your and your children's situation, not to mention it would make them appreciate the value of things.
(Now if I can only get on the same page with my bird...!)

Post: #28

(05-16-2017 04:23 AM)Excelsior Wrote:  {truncated for the sake of legibility}
... That leaves us in a middle ground that combines both possibilities 1 and 2 and, effectively, forms a possibility 3: an easily malleable group that was inevitably heading in this direction as a result of everything I mentioned in my original post (which contributed to the ease of said malleability) and largely did so of its own free will.

We can keep going on and on about this narrative and that conspiracy and that manipulation and etc, etc, etc. At the end of the day, all paths lead to the same place, and that place puts a lot more responsibility on western society than White Nationalists at Amren or Red Ice Radio (and, indeed, here at RvF) will ever admit.

I disagree with this notion, as does E. Michael Jones. The baby was deliberately targeted and thrown out with the bathwater, meaning that the imperfections from the 1950s could have been easily corrected without a complete destruction of that period's moral framework. This would have ed to a much healthier and wealthier modern society. This destruction is the guiding imperative of those at the top of the pyramid, and those who serve their agenda.

The problem is that the "current year" culture get so deeply internalized that it feels as if the way it came about was through an organic process, as opposed to the result of a deliberate social engineering program. The reason for this is that the process is practically invisible, and the outcome gets entirely ensconced by the shifting morality code. What seems normal and desirable today would have been perceived as extreme not too long ago.

By the process being invisible, I mean that the great majority of people could not conceive that for instance, leading change agents like Gloria Steinem or the Grateful Dead were lifetime actors working for the deep state. Tell the average person that Steinem, the most influential feminist ever, was a CIA agent, and they'd think you're nuts.

Quote: The fact that a man like Macron with the views and lifestyle Macron has can even exist as a leading political figure in modern western society makes my point. A man like Macron (with his particular set of traits and views toward the future of his own culture/society) would have no chance in a place like Pakistan, Nigeria, Jamaica, Honduras, or Qatar. He'd be mince meat in Russia, China, or Belarus as well. The fact that he got only 24% of the vote directly is irrelevant - that he was able to get 2/3rds of a western electorate to put him in office is living proof of their having a substantial degree of comfort, empathy, and sympathy for who he is and what he stands for (note that it is possible to have those things even without "really liking" someone - for the purpose of the topic we're discussing here, the mere ability to "tolerate" someone is good enough). That's because, at the core of it, the bulk of the electorate simply isn't that bothered or discomforted by him. That is what made it easy for them to back him against Le Pen. Le Pen would have won if there were any other rational conclusion.

All societies are malleable and vulnerable. All these countries have been subjected to intense social engineering. Honduras for example has had a legacy of death squads brought about by US foreign policy that has altered the psyche and moral codes of its populace.

Qatar and Arabia have been shaped as wahhabi societies because that is the theology that was used to bring legitimacy to the Saudi regime, a regime that was chosen for the region by the Anglo-American empire, as opposed to more moderate islamic philosophies like those from the Levant or even more culturally open parts of Arabia (like the old trading port of Jeddah). The Wahhabi tradition was adapted for the desert center of that peninsula, home to the harshest people from the middle east.

China and Russia were subjected to decades of ruthless communism. The approaches drew their inspiration from french communists like Babeuf, but were adapted to the local culture. Both countries were completely bent out of shape by foreign agents who have planned those countries' course. The Bolsheviks were funded and set up by Wall Street and western European globalists, while Mao was a product of the Yale/skull and Bones presence in China, which has had a dominant presence there since the opium wars and the East Indian Company.

The reason you have Macron in France now is because this is the path that was chosen for France, it is a result of 2 1/2 centuries of social engineering. Macron's hidden religious beliefs are very much the same as those who have led the French Revolution. He was forced onto the French through the runoff system and decades of WW2 propaganda that have brainwashed most people in western Europe and rendered le Pen unelectable. Most of the electorate does not like him, he was able to win despite of this.

Post: #29

(05-16-2017 09:10 AM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

(05-16-2017 04:23 AM)Excelsior Wrote:  2. There is no real conspiracy (or, at least, no successful one) and what we see is merely the product of western nature (as I theorize in my post above).

I don't need to read anything more than this.

We can't really have much of a discussion, then.

Quote:I skimmed through your other posts, but this one sentence was the one that perturbed me. You are using anecdotal evidence to push the idea that there is something inherently flawed with the nature of the European people.

My statements were directly referring to members of western society.

Not all of Europe is part of western society.

Quote:Could it be that Europe is a limited set of territory and 750 million people may be the height of population that can occupy the land?

No, that doesn't sound very convincing.

Quote:Could it be that WWI and WWII led to so much death and destruction of Europe internally that it led to a shift in behavior due to the psychological effects of two destructive wars?

That would only prove my point (WW1 and WWII were direct consequences of longstanding trends driven by inherent traits of western society - thousands of years of development leading to an inevitable outcome).

Quote:Also, most countries across Eurasia have declining birthrates. South East Asia has birthrates that mirror Europe's across the region. Is there something inherently wrong with the South East Asian people too?

This just isn't true. Southeast Asia's fertility rate is still just at or slightly above replacement level (2.1). There are several nations within SE Asia with rates well above replacement level. The fertility rate within the EU-28 is just about 1.6.
That is without taking into account the fact that much of the fertility we do have in Western Europe is coming from the developing world. Remove the first and second generation migrants from the picture and you've got a much more dire picture.
Europeans, more so than almost anyone else (save for Northeast Asians) simply do not procreate. There's no way around this.

All that being said, this is not all about fertility. As prominent a factor as the utter unwillingness to replace oneself is in determining the long term health/sanity of a culture and a people, there's more to what I'm talking about that total fertility rates.
Japan, for example, is a low fertility nation. Iran has below replacement fertility as well. You'd be hard pressed to find a Merkel or Macron in either nation.

Quote:The fact is that we live in a world with limited habitable territory, a zero-sum world. I will act accordingly.

That's not much of an excuse, as noted earlier, but do as you will.

Quote:Also, once my finances are sorted, I plan on having many children Excelsior. In the not too distant future me and my flawed babies will roam America spreading my inherently flawed "western nature" across these great lands.

OK.

Post: #30

(05-16-2017 07:57 AM)Liberty Sea Wrote:  

(05-16-2017 07:14 AM)Excelsior Wrote:  

Quote:* Even Trump's three wives had only five kids, for an average fertility rate of only 1.67, which is below the 2.10 replacement rate, so in that sense The Donald has not actually done his part to stave off a population collapse.

Ex: Procreation. As Jean has noted here, Trump's 5 children offer a pretty deceptive view of his actual fertility. Average that number out across the 3 women he has impregnated and you get a fertility rate of 1.67 - well below replacement level.

I have some issues with this point specifically.

In my (admittedly amateurish) understanding, the replacement rate is roughly 2.0 (can be a bit higher if mortality rate is taken into account), i.e a couple needs to have 2 children to replace themselves, precisely because the couple is comprised of 2 people. But instead of saying 2 children per couple, we say 2 children per woman, so it can be confusing. In Trump's case, Trump and his 3 wives make up a total of 4 people. So he would need a total of 4 children to replace himself and his 3 wives. He has 5 children, so he has done more than his duty. Ivana has also done more than her duty to replace herself and Trump with 3 kids; Marla and Melania each did sufficient duty to replace themselves by having 1 kid each (since Trump has already replaced himself with Ivana). If Marla remarries and her new husband has no kid previously, then it's her new husband's duty to replace himself by having 1 more kid with her.

Did I miss something?

4 adults produced 5 children so yes, in that sense they replaced themselves if you only want to look at that one self-contained group.

On a larger, society wide scale, however, such practices would not be the most conducive to ensuring consistent rates of fertility above replacement level.

(05-16-2017 05:14 PM)911 Wrote:  I disagree with this notion, as does E. Michael Jones. The baby was deliberately targeted and thrown out with the bathwater, meaning that the imperfections from the 1950s could have been easily corrected without a complete destruction of that period's moral framework. This would have ed to a much healthier and wealthier modern society. This destruction is the guiding imperative of those at the top of the pyramid, and those who serve their agenda.

The problem is that the "current year" culture get so deeply internalized that it feels as if the way it came about was through an organic process, as opposed to the result of a deliberate social engineering program. The reason for this is that the process is practically invisible, and the outcome gets entirely ensconced by the shifting morality code. What seems normal and desirable today would have been perceived as extreme not too long ago.

By the process being invisible, I mean that the great majority of people could not conceive that for instance, leading change agents like Gloria Steinem or the Grateful Dead were lifetime actors working for the deep state. Tell the average person that Steinem, the most influential feminist ever, was a CIA agent, and they'd think you're nuts.

I wouldn't doubt the Steinem thing, I just think your point of view overestimates her capabilities and those of any would-be "handlers".

Quote:All societies are malleable and vulnerable. All these countries have been subjected to intense social engineering. Honduras for example has had a legacy of death squads brought about by US foreign policy that has altered the psyche and moral codes of its populace.

Yes, many developing countries have shared this fate. Qatar, Saudi Arabia, China, Russia, etc. Few are embracing their own Merkel/Macron, however, and few are electing to forsake their own culture and wipe themselves off the face of the Earth.

We may just have to agree to disagree on this, but I still think the forest is being missed for a few (possibly nonexistent) trees.

Post: #31

You still need new bodies to feed the monterey model that is focused on debt creation. If it isn't babies it is imported immigrants.

That global debt machine needed to bodies for fuel to keep it going. It used to be that population growth was always tied to resources and the esse and ability to access and convert them. Oil broke this challenge but the Breton woods debt machine laid on top of oil resources blew things up into the ness we have now.

In my mind a future that can ensure safety and stability for its children and elders is a stable and viable system. In North America elders est cat food and die alone and kids are born into broken homes and fed into a shitty education system that makes them marginally useful to run a cash till. It shouldn't be this way.

Post: #32

(05-16-2017 09:33 PM)Excelsior Wrote:  

(05-16-2017 09:10 AM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

(05-16-2017 04:23 AM)Excelsior Wrote:  2. There is no real conspiracy (or, at least, no successful one) and what we see is merely the product of western nature (as I theorize in my post above).

I don't need to read anything more than this.

We can't really have much of a discussion, then.

What I was trying to say is that I disagree with the premise of your argument. You are basing your argument on the idea that there are innate attributable factors to the Western people that are unique to them, which is leading to an overarching decline of Western civilization.

I saw it as perturbing because historically "Western people" applied to those of European descent, so I perceived your criticism of Western civilization as an insult. Now we can argue that "Western people" can apply to a broader group of people as Western civilization has become more inclusive as a part of the negotiating process between those of European descent and non-European descent in order to maintain long term political stability.

Reading this follow up:

Quote:

Quote:I skimmed through your other posts, but this one sentence was the one that perturbed me. You are using anecdotal evidence to push the idea that there is something inherently flawed with the nature of the European people.

My statements were directly referring to members of western society.

Not all of Europe is part of western society.

I will admit that my perception of who you were talking about was flawed.

Quote:

Quote:Could it be that Europe is a limited set of territory and 750 million people may be the height of population that can occupy the land?

No, that doesn't sound very convincing.

From what I have observed is that as human population density increases, birthrates decline. If you have more habitable territory, human population density would increase at a slower rate, which would in turn slow down the decline in birthrates.

I have come to believe that the size of controlled territory, the quantity of habitable territory, in addition to the level agricultural intensity, will be the overarching factors that affect the behavior of human populations along with their subsequent growth or decline.

This experiment laid the seed for this idea of mine in relation to human behavior on a large scale:



Ultimately a mammal population even with unlimited resources will reach the maximum population possible inside of a habitable territory, and subsequently abnormal behavior will emerge coupled with a drop in fertility rate.

Quote:

Quote:Could it be that WWI and WWII led to so much death and destruction of Europe internally that it led to a shift in behavior due to the psychological effects of two destructive wars?

That would only prove my point (WW1 and WWII were direct consequences of longstanding trends driven by inherent traits of western society - thousands of years of development leading to an inevitable outcome).

The following statements are premised on the idea that the longstanding trends were due to these to traits: tribalism and the development of nation-states.

You could argue that the tribalism and development of nation-states were inherent to Western society, but it would be inaccurate to state that this is unique to Western society. Tribalism and the development of nation-states have existed across a broad spectrum of ethnic groups and civilizations.

Quote:

Quote:Also, most countries across Eurasia have declining birthrates. South East Asia has birthrates that mirror Europe's across the region. Is there something inherently wrong with the South East Asian people too?

This just isn't true. Southeast Asia's fertility rate is still just at or slightly above replacement level (2.1). There are several nations within SE Asia with rates well above replacement level. The fertility rate within the EU-28 is just about 1.6.
That is without taking into account the fact that much of the fertility we do have in Western Europe is coming from the developing world. Remove the first and second generation migrants from the picture and you've got a much more dire picture.
Europeans, more so than almost anyone else (save for Northeast Asians) simply do not procreate. There's no way around this.

All that being said, this is not all about fertility. As prominent a factor as the utter unwillingness to replace oneself is in determining the long term health/sanity of a culture and a people, there's more to what I'm talking about that total fertility rates.
Japan, for example, is a low fertility nation. Iran has below replacement fertility as well. You'd be hard pressed to find a Merkel or Macron in either nation.

If we are talking about sanity of a nation, Japan would be a poor example given what we know about the absurd sexual behavior that can be observed of the Japanese people in modern times. Iran had the rise of the Ahmadinejad who was perceived to be unhinged at various points. On top of that Iran and Japan are to a significant extent closed societies outside of international trade. This is exactly what European populists are advocating for.

Do you believe a return to sanity for Europe would be to become a more closed, more exclusive society again?

I guess South East Asia was the wrong region to refer to. I was thinking more in terms of China, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam (part of SEA), and Thailand (part of SEA), all of which are below replacement rate for fertility.

Also, all countries that I know of that industrialize experience a drop in fertility rate, one that usually drops below replacement rate.

Post: #33

(05-16-2017 07:14 AM)Excelsior Wrote:  

(05-16-2017 04:27 AM)Jean Valjean Wrote:  What will survive the collapse?

Whoever procreates. We already know who they are. The numbers with regard to fertility rates around the world tell the story. The future belongs to them.

I doubt the future belongs to them because they are going to inherit a shit world that will treat them a lot worse than their parents were treated.

As the West dies the entire world is going to become much, much poorer. No other group of people come as close to being as productive or generous with their time than Westerners. I'm afraid once they are gone it's going to be a dark ages for just about everyone. Read up on what happened as Romans were collapsing in population. Like hell on earth.

Especially militarily, USA world police is gone forever. The invasions and wars will be massive once the power vacuum is opened.

Quote:All of this is not a reality because of some insidious conspiracy to pick and choose a handful of insidious "agents" (as described above by 911) and somehow mislead the masses. This constant effort to shove blame over to one group or the other is just a weak effort to move attention away from the heart of the issue: the westerners embrace this. They want this. They fight tooth and nail to propagate this because it is what they desire. They don't like their history. They do not like their culture. They do not want children, nor do they believe children are valuable or that family is particularly worthwhile to pursue. Even those few who do believe in those things often don't appear to believe in them strongly enough to encourage others to live accordingly and even when they do, must confront the challenges imposed by a society around them that is openly hostile to all of those things and seeks to prevent their promotion.

The degeneracy you describe is definitely socially engineered, and you can trace the intellectual roots back to the Frankfurt School.



Rich interests within the West (read: White civilization) decided to work with the Jews for their own profit, and here we are. The great mistake Whites made was trusting their leaders - not just the political leaders, but their educational, spiritual, and media leaders way too much.

Especially our education system. Our education system is the source of all poison, and must be dismantled or redesigned if the West is to survive.

When leaders decide to betray their people, usually the people lose. That's how it's always been and always will be.

Not all of the White world is going to die, and I find this statement absurd:

McCarthy Wrote:I’ve been ranting about this on ROK for years.

Anglosaxon Protestantism has been the cancer of the West. A cancer that now is metastasis.
England/US: An empire based on hypocrisy and usury.

How can the Anglo Protestantism be the cancer of the West when it is they who are carrying the torch the best? The Catholic and German Protestant world is basically dying or dead. Catholic countries are terrible messes, almost without fail.

Britain passes Brexit and America votes in Trump. How is that cancer? I think you've got it backwards. The parts with cancer are dying off (France, Germany, etc) while the functional parts are fighting for survival.

Post: #34

If you look at the Frankfurt school, and their program to undermine and destroy traditional values, family, patriarchy, and notions of self reliance and limited government, it looks like they succeeded brilliantly. At one point I thought how amazing it is that they were able to construct memes that carried so far as to play out over 80 years and destroy western civilization, which was at its peak when these ideas were conceived.

However, as others have noticed, they didn't really create these ideas and launch them into western culture. They were merely tapping into the existing zeitgeist, and articulating ideas and trends that were already fully under way.

Most of what is happening in western society and the world in general is the result of human nature combined with the effects of key technological trends, like birth control and the ability of women to work in offices and factories.

These forces will eventually have the same effect in the moslem world, and in the few remaining areas of the world with currently high birthrates.

None of us can prevent these trends from playing out. We red pill men are the remnant. In any society, woke men can still build a personal empire and dynasty. Most men are and will be sheep, but we don't have to be.

Ultimately, I don't care if the white race remains predominant. I'd like to see red pill ideas spread, to the point where red pill men are winning in their personal lives and are spread throughout the world, at every level of society, impacting and leading in their families, workplaces, and communities.

This is our path to victory.

Post: #35

It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out for the rest of my natural life.

I'm pulling in the direction of halting the slide of the West into oblivion but I'm not going to martyr myself for it.

More and more these days my bet is on the elites engineering a scenario that dramatically wipes out much of the r-select population but retains important infrastructure (like those nuke reactors we've mentioned recently). To my mind it's the only thing that makes sense in the context of retaining civilisation at the same time as restructuring it toward a low-quantity high-quality population.

My main reason for believing this is that there are just too many dead ends that we're heading toward at breakneck speed, k-select people being unable or unwilling to breed being one of those critical dead-ends. The rapefugees might keep the debt train rolling but they're not going to be maintaining those nuke plants much less building new ones.

And here's the insane reality. If the dumbest 80 percent of the world's population died in short order then there would be barely any need whatsoever to "oppress" the remainder. Nobody would want for anything. They would be working two days a week at most to produce everything required and everything desired by those who survived.

And it's eminently possible to do this. Not with 100% accuracy but to a "close enough is good enough" level of efficiency.

I feel somewhat sorry for the idiots that will suffer through this all without understanding the fundamental principles in play. It's one thing to know you're a pawn. It's another thing entirely to not even realise you're on a chessboard until you see a knight bearing down on you.

I guess a lot of this is off topic, but the roundabout point I'm trying to make is that the elites absolutely have plan, and I very much doubt it includes the extinction of whites no matter how much it might seem that way right now.

Post: #36

One of the agenda items of the British Empire is the culling of most of the people on the planet Earth. They also intend that the mass of the remaining population will be reduced to peasant social status, and kept in perpetual ignorance so that any revolt against their overlords will be impossible. By these means they intend to establish a global empire which will rule the world for all time without any possibility of being overthrown, either by any competing empires, which will all have been eliminated, or by the peasants, who will be held in perpetual bondage and therefore likewise unable to rise up against the oligarchs.

The following passage is quoted from the book, "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives," which was written by Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1997.

""In that context, how America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe's largest continent and is geopolitical axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the world's GNP and about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." (p.31)


The British reasoned that Russia was their primary rival for world dominance, partly because of it occupied much of the strategic heart of the Eurasian land mass, and partly because it huge population and abundant natural resources gave it vast military potential. Other smaller potential rivals such as France, Germany and Japan would be crushed later and reduced to depopulated puppet states with plantation economies. America, was not considered an immediate potential rival because it was effectively re-colonized and under British control, and had been since the assassination of President McKinley by British design in 1901.

Post: #37

Time is working against the Anglo-Americans in both economic and military terms. The longer Britain waits to attack China and slaughter it back to the stone age, the harder the task will be. The British and their American stooge ally will not be able to defeat China if they wait another twenty years. Their own logic tells them that it is now or never as far as the British Empire is concerned. Britain will either conquer the world within the next few years, or Britain and its stooge ally America will slide first into insignificance, and then both will be torn apart in starvation-induced internal wars because they will no longer be able to extort the resources of the world at gunpoint.

Post: #38

(05-17-2017 08:09 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  I feel somewhat sorry for the idiots that will suffer through this all without understanding the fundamental principles in play. It's one thing to know you're a pawn. It's another thing entirely to not even realise you're on a chessboard until you see a knight bearing down on you.

I guess a lot of this is off topic, but the roundabout point I'm trying to make is that the elites absolutely have plan, and I very much doubt it includes the extinction of whites no matter how much it might seem that way right now.

Well said, and you can be sure the elites are educating their offspring as to where they stand - on a chess board - and how to play the game. Since about WW1 America has been full of useful idiots doing the dirty work for European, American and eventually Israeli elites. It's not all a conspiracy but to deny obvious power structures and influential groups is just fitting into the bolded sentences above.

Post: #39

(05-17-2017 09:21 AM)rudebwoy Wrote:  Time is working against the Anglo-Americans in both economic and military terms. The longer Britain waits to attack China and slaughter it back to the stone age, the harder the task will be. The British and their American stooge ally will not be able to defeat China if they wait another twenty years. Their own logic tells them that it is now or never as far as the British Empire is concerned. Britain will either conquer the world within the next few years, or Britain and its stooge ally America will slide first into insignificance, and then both will be torn apart in starvation-induced internal wars because they will no longer be able to extort the resources of the world at gunpoint.

Defeating China on a military level would be impossible right now. The United States is currently just trying to stop China from reaching absolute global dominance both economically and politically.

China is in the process of stripping the United States of the reigns of global leader and I doubt there is much we can do to stop it. In fact I am happy for it, everyone will start paying attention to China and look to them for help.

Also, the United States is not Britain's stooge. We are a close ally because as you stated Anglo-Americans make up a significant portion of the country. Anglos in the United States have already accepted a decline in power, it started around the 1940's.

Post: #40

American Renaissance is a white supremacist website. Their links have no place here. No debate.

As far as the point about "deep state actors" like Gloria Steniem and talk of cultural Marxism, have you read any of their books? Herbert Marcuse's "One Dimensional Man" and Steneim's several books were all best sellers. Did the globalists manufacture that, too? Their ideas may have been deeply flawed, but they resonated with people. Their audience was receptive precisely because the course of Western civilization had created people ready for their measage.

Post: #41

(05-17-2017 09:21 AM)rudebwoy Wrote:  Time is working against the Anglo-Americans in both economic and military terms. The longer Britain waits to attack China and slaughter it back to the stone age, the harder the task will be. The British and their American stooge ally will not be able to defeat China if they wait another twenty years. Their own logic tells them that it is now or never as far as the British Empire is concerned. Britain will either conquer the world within the next few years, or Britain and its stooge ally America will slide first into insignificance, and then both will be torn apart in starvation-induced internal wars because they will no longer be able to extort the resources of the world at gunpoint.

Your view of the geopolitical landscape is out of date, it's not about nation-states fighting each other, it's about the elite club of rulers extending control over their middle classes, who in theory should be in charge under a democratic system.

China's growth was planned from day one by the globalists. Oligarch clans like the Rockefellers, Rothschilds or Desmarais have bet big on China and willingly built the country into the world's manufacturing center. They've backed Mao right from the start, he's a product of the Yale in China/Skull and Bones program. The communist regime was propped up politically and financially by the oligarchs. At the time, they chose Mao over Chiang Kai-Sheck because the former kept their country backwards, reduced their population and destroyed their traditions.

They're more threatened by a strong American/western middle class than by China, which they partially own through their investments, through the global financial system and the local oligarchs. Gutting the western middle classes couldn't have happened without the industrial rise of China.

Corbett covers a lot of this:

Post: #42

(05-17-2017 11:47 AM)2Wycked Wrote:  American Renaissance is a white supremacist website. Their links have no place here. No debate.

While I do not find AmRen too interesting, they are far from the only ones who have noticed Europe's top leaders are childless. I've seen this exact same topic posted on several message boards.

Quote:As far as the point about "deep state actors" like Gloria Steniem and talk of cultural Marxism, have you read any of their books? Herbert Marcuse's "One Dimensional Man" and Steneim's several books were all best sellers.

They are terrible books with shit logic. Tons of self-refuting statements, such as "subjectivity is truth," in just about all of them.

Quote:Did the globalists manufacture that, too? Their ideas may have been deeply flawed, but they resonated with people. Their audience was receptive precisely because the course of Western civilization had created people ready for their measage.

Why did these people even have an audience in the first place? The globalists gave the Jews nearly unlimited control of our education system and women are easily brainwashed.

People act like it's complicated, but it's not. Anyone with an IQ of 120+ could have done what the Jews did were they in the same position. Does anyone here seriously think, "Make love, not war," is a deep complex message? No, but it sounds good when it comes from leading "academics." People are stupid and easily fooled by big fancy titles.

The "people" are always ready for a message, providing there is enough power behind it. People are sheep, in all cultures, and the smart and powerful can always manipulate them (and always have).

People forget that Christianity's rapid rise in the White world was because of ultra powerful leaders promoting it, not necessarily because the average guy suddenly saw the light of God. Constantine was a true believer and one of the most powerful Emperors of all time whose influence lasted for almost 1800 years, but do not forget that most medieval rulers were content to simply promote Christianity as a means of social control.

It was not until the 19th century that White elites started looking at other means of social control besides Christianity, and started to flirt with the Jews (which began with Napoleon's emancipation of the Jews). The Jews then unleashed Communism which found support among many White leaders who were tired of Christianity and wanted other methods to satisfy their lusts (for money, pussy, and power).

Post: #43

They're almost like unfeeling, uncaring robots, aren't they?

Post: #44

Samseau Wrote:While I do not find AmRen too interesting, they are far from the only ones who have noticed Europe's top leaders are childless. I've seen this exact same topic posted on several message boards.

The point isn't about whether the link is interesting or not, the point is that white supremacy isn't welcome here. And if you have other links on this topic, please post those.

Samseau Wrote:They are terrible books with shit logic.

I asked if anybody had read these books that were immensely popular, not whether they were shit or not. If they are so terrible, why?

Samseau Wrote:"subjectivity is truth,"

Really? "Subjectivity of truth" is ridiculous? Because in your next bit of commentary. . .

Samseau Wrote:The "people" are always ready for a message, providing there is enough power behind it. People are sheep, in all cultures, and the smart and powerful can always manipulate them (and always have).

All that matters are those in power, huh? Let's play a game. . .

Quote:The problem with society is that X are in power. People are inculcated with a false consciousness that prevents them from seeing the true nature of society and their oppression at the hands of those in power. Those in power fight for their own interests to maintain their own privilege. Power maintains power. It is a fool's errand to debate theory or ideas because, at the end of the day, what matters who is in power, not their professed ideals. Everybody lies, nobody has concrete value systems that inform their decisions and only the truly brainwashed believe that those in power have any intention other than oppressing the masses.

Is this critical theory? Or what you just said above? Don't worry, I know are intelligent enough to refute the charge that your worldview is critical theory for white men, but isn't the similarity eerie?

If you want to bash critical theory or cultural Marxism, go ahead. You can start by reading their publically available books (no conspiracy there) and refute their points directly. We don't need any more theoretical views of critical theory or cultural marxism.

Further, the idea that Jews are the cause of the downfall of the West and not the result of many ideas and actions over time that have corroded and corrupted traditional institutions of faith, family and work is completely wrong. People are not mindless drones that will spit back whatever you feed into their head. They are certainly very impressionable, but they are not sheep being led astray by a manipulative Jewish elite. Women are not so stupid that they need superior minds like yourself to explain what their true interests are. People are definitely not blank slates that the elites freely manipulate for their own benefit.

Post: #45

(05-17-2017 02:45 PM)2Wycked Wrote:  

Samseau Wrote:While I do not find AmRen too interesting, they are far from the only ones who have noticed Europe's top leaders are childless. I've seen this exact same topic posted on several message boards.

The point isn't about whether the link is interesting or not, the point is that white supremacy isn't welcome here. And if you have other links on this topic, please post those.

Personally, I didn't even know what AmRen was. I don't read those sites.

99% of my news reading is done on Wall Street Journal, which I consider to be straight shooter reporting aside from the editorial content. The other 1% comes from Cernovich and here, which I know are partisan.

Also, I responded to this thread because I disagreed with the premise of the Excelsior's ideas surrounding his explanation as to why Western civilization is in a state of decline. There is a longer and more elaborate post above that I feel is pretty coherent and provides a solid rebuttal (or at the very least alternative viewpoints) to specific subsets of the ideology that Excelsior was expounding on.

Post: #46

This was written over a hundred years ago.

World War III is to be fomented by using the so-called controversies, the agents of the Illuminati operating under whatever new name, as are now being stored up between the political Zionists and the leaders of the Moslem world. That war is to be directed in such a manner that all of Islam and political Zionism (Israel) will destroy each other while at the same time; the remaining nations once more divided on this issue will be forced to fight themselves into a state of complete exhaustion; physically, mentally, spiritually, and economically.

Now, can any thinking person doubt that the intrigue now going on in the near Middle and far East is designed to accomplish that satanic objective? Albert Pike himself foretold all this in a statement he made to Mazzini on August 15, 1871. Pike stated that after World War III is ended; those who will aspire to undisputed world domination will provoke the greatest social cataclysm the world has ever known. Quoting his own words taken from the letter he wrote to Mazzini and which letter is now catalogued in the British Museum in London, England; he said:


"We shall unleash the nihilists and the atheists and we shall provoke a great social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to all nations the effect of absolute atheism; the origins of savagery and of most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the people will be forced to defend themselves against the world minority of the world revolutionaries and will exterminate those destroyers of civilization and the multitudes disillusioned with Christianity whose spirits will be from that moment without direction and leadership and anxious for an ideal, but without knowledge where to send its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer brought finally out into public view. A manifestation which will result from a general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and Atheism; both ! conquered and exterminated at the same time."

Post: #47

(05-17-2017 02:45 PM)2Wycked Wrote:  Really? "Subjectivity of truth" is ridiculous? Because in your next bit of commentary. . .

Samseau Wrote:The "people" are always ready for a message, providing there is enough power behind it. People are sheep, in all cultures, and the smart and powerful can always manipulate them (and always have).

All that matters are those in power, huh? Let's play a game. . .

Quote:The problem with society is that X are in power. People are inculcated with a false consciousness that prevents them from seeing the true nature of society and their oppression at the hands of those in power. Those in power fight for their own interests to maintain their own privilege. Power maintains power. It is a fool's errand to debate theory or ideas because, at the end of the day, what matters who is in power, not their professed ideals. Everybody lies, nobody has concrete value systems that inform their decisions and only the truly brainwashed believe that those in power have any intention other than oppressing the masses.

Is this critical theory? Or what you just said above? Don't worry, I know are intelligent enough to refute the charge that your worldview is critical theory for white men, but isn't the similarity eerie?

No, because of the part I bolded. Such braindead relativism cannot even justify itself. If everyone lies, then what was just written is also a lie and not to be trusted.

Most women cannot spot the above flaw in logic. It's a struggle to get 60% of men to understand it. It is absolutely brainwashing for women because women listen to authority figures more than their own reason and logic.

Quote:If you want to bash critical theory or cultural Marxism, go ahead. You can start by reading their publically available books (no conspiracy there) and refute their points directly. We don't need any more theoretical views of critical theory or cultural marxism.

Been there done that.

Quote:Further, the idea that Jews are the cause of the downfall of the West and not the result of many ideas and actions over time that have corroded and corrupted traditional institutions of faith, family and work is completely wrong.

Not, "the cause," but "a major and leading cause." Sorry if this is offensive but eventually you will accept this as true someday. Nearly everyone will, 50 years from now Jewish power will be taken as a serious and concerning problem.

Quote:People are not mindless drones that will spit back whatever you feed into their head. They are certainly very impressionable, but they are not sheep being led astray by a manipulative Jewish elite.Women are not so stupid that they need superior minds like yourself to explain what their true interests are.

If women weren't stupid, predictable animals, game wouldn't work on them. Any man who has held authority over women knows how easy it can be used to direct and bang them.

It makes no sense to let such emotional beings have a right to vote, most will never be able to make reasoned abstract considerations of their Neighbors.

Quote:People are definitely not blank slates that the elites freely manipulate for their own benefit.

Perhaps you should go tell that to the Frankfurt school?

Post: #48

Excelsior, I didn't mean to beat up on you too much. I went back and reread your posts in their entirety and I agree with a lot of what you said. I think you have good ideas, and I hope you share them more often on the forum. Your analysis is pretty spot on.

Post: #49

Post: #50

These elite politicians tend to be dysfunctional weiros full stop. But on the wider topic of demographics of indigeneous Westerners...

In Britain, in a way I think there's a real feeling of "lack of abundance". Bearing in mind its supposedly a wealthy country realtive to elsewhere! People are always hassled not to throw away leftover food. I mean we're talking cheap shit like bread and stuff. There's hardly been any new family homes built since the mid 1980s. Its all overpriced apartments.
Young people who went to college often have a terrible standard of living. They're bombarded with "instagram generation" pics of Ferraris, yachts and models, but they're living with family or working a McJob on zero hours contracts. Women are as likely as men to have a good job, or be the boss of men. The ones who have employment easy are the Poles or 3rd world immigrants. (They can go home after a few years and live well, VERY well!). Female obesity, faggotry and tranneyism are hailed as "new religions". So I can understand why a lot of guys and some women don't feel great about starting families.

If I was working in a "McJob" in my late 20s (a traditional age to start a family) I'd be utterly ashamed if I had children knowing I did that for a living. No matter how much it "wasn't my fault". So if I was in that position, I'd do anything not to have kids.

Its like how some West Indians emigrated to Britain many years. They left their middle status jobs back home, obut only managed to get shit jobs in Britain (it was a great surprise/shock to them). Anyway, some left their young family because of deep feelings of shame and embarrassment. Naturally it was a very sad state of affairs, but I can understand these guys in a way. I noticed this a couple of times at weddings I went to - the older men weren't there.

My friend's dad lost his career job and only got a shitty job when he was a kid. He says his father always had a horrible, tyrannical temper after it. Not a healthy state of affairs for a kid to grow up in.