Metternich
8th February 2009, 07:03
Discrimination is a fundamental aspect of nature and of success. Every day we discriminate in every single choice we make, simply by preferring one option over another. This is a necessity, given the fact that time is finite. Economists call this the ‘opportunity cost.’ For each choice we make, there is a chosen choice, and an unchosen choice. Therefore, all (discriminatory) acts are logically acts of positive discrimination and negative discrimination. However, every decision we make is made on the basis that our decisions will benefit us the most. This applies to our dealings with other people, as well.
Western Man is the direct result of thousands of years of discrimination; of discrimination in breeding habits, in marriage, and in cultural relations among other individuals and tribes. Western Man is the direct result of the principle of divergence. There was a time when every single province in Europe was home to a unique language, and a unique tribal identity. The principle of divergence has only continued up to a certain point, however.
Since the French Revolution, the principle of divergence has waned, as its opposite, the principle of convergence, has waxed. Culture, language, and tribal relations have become homogenized, and continue to become more and more so, as we speak.
Today, in our postmodern age, the only enshrined principle is that there are no principles, and the only sin is discrimination (specifically, that of preferring those similar to us over those who are dissimilar). Naturalistically speaking, we are truly living in an extremely dark age!
If we accept the proposition that our current value system does not condone discrimination (and there are certainly enough laws to make this claim!), we must proceed to question why that is the case, or more precisely qui bono? Who benefits from this fact?
The answer is, of course, those with the most power (as is always the case in society), and who has the most power? We should immediately know that in a capitalist society the individuals with the most power are the individuals with the most money. Now, in order to proceed, my dear reader, we must simply deduce who has the most money, and it does not take a genius to realize immediately that it is the Multinational Corporations.
So why do these corporations support ideas that come from the cultural left such as multiculturalism, feminism, and homosexuality?
It is simply this: profit. Multiculturalism increases profits because it lowers wage rates, feminism increases profits because in brings women into the workplace and turns them into consumers, and homosexuality is desirable because gay men have no children to feed, and therefore more money to purchase on vanity items.
Corporations care most about profits. This is a simple fact. But they are running a huge risk. Just as corporations wish to increase immigration (in order to lower wages by increasing the qualitative amount of eligible workers in the labor pool) so do politicians wish to profit off the new immigrants from their votes. Nowadays politicians buy votes with promises, and promises invariably mean spending money, however politicians collect money in the opposite way as the corporations do: they take it, instead of make it. Therefore, the middle class is automatically squeezed from both ends: from the wage-lowering mechanisms of mass immigration to the substantial taxation hikes of the welfare state that inevitably increases along with immigration.
Therefore, we can deduce that the very powerful from both the public and private sectors will desire to increase immigration, given the incentives of our current system. The aggregate losers, however, are the working, taxpaying citizens. Therefore, it is no doubt that we are getting poorer, and that jobs are getting harder to come by, while our taxes are being raised.
So why isn’t this issue being addressed? Well, those who claim to represent us are not representing us by taking what is ours and giving it to others. That is for sure. The issue is not being addressed, simply because the powerful forces of globalization have made it a taboo subject, be it that by doing so it protects their own perceived best interests.
Allow me to quote the eminent economist, Thomas Sowell, on the matter:
“The media and the intelligentsia love to say that most immigrants, from whatever group, are good people. But what "most" people from a given country are like is irrelevant.
If 85 percent of group A are fine people and 95 percent of group B are fine people, that means you are going to be importing three times as many undesirables when you let in people from Group A.
Citizen-of-the-world types are resistant to the idea of tightening our borders, and especially resistant to the idea of making a distinction between people from different countries. But the real problem is not their self-righteous fetishes but the fact that they have intimidated so many other people into silence.
In the current climate of political correctness it is taboo even to mention facts that go against the rosy picture of immigrants -- for example, the fact that Russia and Nigeria are always listed among the most corrupt countries on earth, and that Russian and Nigerian immigrants in the United States have already established patterns of crime well known to law enforcement but kept from the public by the mainstream media.
Self-preservation used to be called the first law of nature. But today self-preservation has been superseded by a need to preserve the prevailing rhetoric and visions.”
Now the elites are running a tight gambit. The elites are capitalists, members of one class. They are using ‘the masses,’ another class to create a desired outcome, and they are using the engines of mass democracy to do this.
There is, however, a risk that they are taking: that the mob could actually take over and destroy business interests, in favor of wealth redistribution. This is a common phenomenon in this day and age. It has happened in Zimbabwe, in South Africa, in Venezuela, and in Bolivia. Given demographic trends it will probably be occurring in America and in Europe within the present decade.
When mass wealth confiscation occurs, the very wealthy will try to hide their wealth and transfer it to other safe havens, but without a civilization of their own, the wealthy will have less and less options for potential growth, and without working protestants, there can be no protestant work ethic. This implies that a society devoid of a stable middle class that has a stake in the system, the rich will not be able to hold on to their wealth.
The current zeitgeist is best summarized by Pr. Noam Chomsky:
“Capitalism is not fundamentally racist -- it can exploit racism for its purposes, but racism isn't built into it. Capitalism basically wants people to be interchangeable cogs, and differences among them, such as on the basis of race, usually are not functional. I mean, they may be functional for a period, like if you want a super exploited workforce or something, but those situations are kind of anomalous. Over the long term, you can expect capitalism to be anti-racist -- just because its anti-human. And race is in fact a human characteristic -- there's no reason why it should be a negative characteristic, but it is a human characteristic. So therefore identifications based on race interfere with the basic ideal that people should be available just as consumers and producers, interchangeable cogs who will purchase all the junk that's produced -- that's their ultimate function, and any other properties they might have are kind of irrelevant, and usually a nuisance.”
But the idea that consumption can unite people enough to create a cohesive and stable ground for investing purposes is tenuous. Tribal and ethnic conflict destabilizes business, and tribal conflict exists everywhere around the world where several self-identified groups exist under the same government. It is only logical that these groups will unite within their own tribe to maximize gains via the wealth redistributive channels of the public sector.
These trends are crystallizing right now in the United States.
According to CNN exist polls in the 2008 presidential elections, non-European Americans cast their votes for the Democratic (wealth redistributor) nominee 79%-18%. Blacks voted for Obama by a 94%-1% margin!
European Americans exhibited similar block-voting preferences in heavily diverse areas such as Alabama, where they voted for McCain 88%-10%.
Simply put, there are those who make wealth, and there are those who take wealth. The two groups are naturally at odds with each other, and conflict is what happens when equality-of-outcome (socialism) is preached from the pulpit of every established institution in the land, while the majority of people believe in equality-of-opportunity.
Egalitarianism rules through envy; constant, red-hot envy. In order to put out this unholy fire, a return to tradition is required. This implies hierarchy. Hierarchy based on the natural qualities within man’s being.
A return to traditional values would mean more stability for moneyed-institutions, and more happiness for the (essentially already traditional) families that comprise Western Civilization.
This means acceptance of churches, of traditional, wholesome values, and a return to a culture of self-sufficient people.
It is the social security system and other aspects of the welfare state that has turned the pillar of Western Civilization into the upside-down pyramid of today’s social values. Our ancestors survived for millennia without such a contrivance, and are now reaping the rewards of it: mass unemployment (due to artificially high minimum wage standards), the breakdown of the family (as children are now an economic liability, instead of a an economic asset), and of course the magnet-like pull of millions, if not billions of poor, third-world immigrants that wish to live off the entitlement system.
Immigration cannot keep the welfare state alive forever, but it can essentially dissolve the bonds of indigenous European people-hood that has organically developed for thousands of years. Therefore the social security system should be slowly phased-out of existence (without harming those who have already paid into it), and the young should be allowed to return to live in an organic environment based on identity and tradition, as their forefathers enjoyed.
This is a basic human right. An empire of violence and coercion is a cancer, not a legitimate nation. Such is the price of multiculturalism. The intellectual forefather of this weltanschauung was the learned philosopher Johann Gottfried von Herder, who stated in 1784 that:
"Nature brings forth families; the most natural state therefore is also one people, with a national character of its own. For a people is as much a plant of nature as is a family, except that it has more branches. Nothing therefore seems more contradictory to the true end of governments than the endless expansion of states, the wild confusion of races and nations under one scepter. An empire made up of a hundred peoples and 120 provinces which have been forced together is a monstrosity, not a state-body."
The Holy Roman Empire was the direct result of organic human ties, united by the rite of the Emperor. They were not taxed to the high degree that we are today, they did not work half the year in order to pay the government to redistribute their own wealth. They did not have enforced fraternity shoved down their throats as we do today. They were comparatively richer than we are; we, the true serfs of the ages.
When I am talking of riches, I mean spiritual riches. The utility of money runs into diminishing returns, which means that money cannot buy happiness. Happiness is created by strong, healthy kin-relations according to the modern social sciences.
We must reestablish our organic kin-ties in order to revitalize our civilization. This is a basic human right, recognized by the United Nations, which states that: "Indigenous peoples have the right to determine their own identity or membership in accordance with their customs and traditions."
The process of Western capitulation is degrading to both Westerners and non-Westerners alike. It treats one side as the weak-willed parent, and the other as the spoilt child. This is improper behavior between civilizations. The West will become respected only once it makes itself respectable.
Western Man is the direct result of thousands of years of discrimination; of discrimination in breeding habits, in marriage, and in cultural relations among other individuals and tribes. Western Man is the direct result of the principle of divergence. There was a time when every single province in Europe was home to a unique language, and a unique tribal identity. The principle of divergence has only continued up to a certain point, however.
Since the French Revolution, the principle of divergence has waned, as its opposite, the principle of convergence, has waxed. Culture, language, and tribal relations have become homogenized, and continue to become more and more so, as we speak.
Today, in our postmodern age, the only enshrined principle is that there are no principles, and the only sin is discrimination (specifically, that of preferring those similar to us over those who are dissimilar). Naturalistically speaking, we are truly living in an extremely dark age!
If we accept the proposition that our current value system does not condone discrimination (and there are certainly enough laws to make this claim!), we must proceed to question why that is the case, or more precisely qui bono? Who benefits from this fact?
The answer is, of course, those with the most power (as is always the case in society), and who has the most power? We should immediately know that in a capitalist society the individuals with the most power are the individuals with the most money. Now, in order to proceed, my dear reader, we must simply deduce who has the most money, and it does not take a genius to realize immediately that it is the Multinational Corporations.
So why do these corporations support ideas that come from the cultural left such as multiculturalism, feminism, and homosexuality?
It is simply this: profit. Multiculturalism increases profits because it lowers wage rates, feminism increases profits because in brings women into the workplace and turns them into consumers, and homosexuality is desirable because gay men have no children to feed, and therefore more money to purchase on vanity items.
Corporations care most about profits. This is a simple fact. But they are running a huge risk. Just as corporations wish to increase immigration (in order to lower wages by increasing the qualitative amount of eligible workers in the labor pool) so do politicians wish to profit off the new immigrants from their votes. Nowadays politicians buy votes with promises, and promises invariably mean spending money, however politicians collect money in the opposite way as the corporations do: they take it, instead of make it. Therefore, the middle class is automatically squeezed from both ends: from the wage-lowering mechanisms of mass immigration to the substantial taxation hikes of the welfare state that inevitably increases along with immigration.
Therefore, we can deduce that the very powerful from both the public and private sectors will desire to increase immigration, given the incentives of our current system. The aggregate losers, however, are the working, taxpaying citizens. Therefore, it is no doubt that we are getting poorer, and that jobs are getting harder to come by, while our taxes are being raised.
So why isn’t this issue being addressed? Well, those who claim to represent us are not representing us by taking what is ours and giving it to others. That is for sure. The issue is not being addressed, simply because the powerful forces of globalization have made it a taboo subject, be it that by doing so it protects their own perceived best interests.
Allow me to quote the eminent economist, Thomas Sowell, on the matter:
“The media and the intelligentsia love to say that most immigrants, from whatever group, are good people. But what "most" people from a given country are like is irrelevant.
If 85 percent of group A are fine people and 95 percent of group B are fine people, that means you are going to be importing three times as many undesirables when you let in people from Group A.
Citizen-of-the-world types are resistant to the idea of tightening our borders, and especially resistant to the idea of making a distinction between people from different countries. But the real problem is not their self-righteous fetishes but the fact that they have intimidated so many other people into silence.
In the current climate of political correctness it is taboo even to mention facts that go against the rosy picture of immigrants -- for example, the fact that Russia and Nigeria are always listed among the most corrupt countries on earth, and that Russian and Nigerian immigrants in the United States have already established patterns of crime well known to law enforcement but kept from the public by the mainstream media.
Self-preservation used to be called the first law of nature. But today self-preservation has been superseded by a need to preserve the prevailing rhetoric and visions.”
Now the elites are running a tight gambit. The elites are capitalists, members of one class. They are using ‘the masses,’ another class to create a desired outcome, and they are using the engines of mass democracy to do this.
There is, however, a risk that they are taking: that the mob could actually take over and destroy business interests, in favor of wealth redistribution. This is a common phenomenon in this day and age. It has happened in Zimbabwe, in South Africa, in Venezuela, and in Bolivia. Given demographic trends it will probably be occurring in America and in Europe within the present decade.
When mass wealth confiscation occurs, the very wealthy will try to hide their wealth and transfer it to other safe havens, but without a civilization of their own, the wealthy will have less and less options for potential growth, and without working protestants, there can be no protestant work ethic. This implies that a society devoid of a stable middle class that has a stake in the system, the rich will not be able to hold on to their wealth.
The current zeitgeist is best summarized by Pr. Noam Chomsky:
“Capitalism is not fundamentally racist -- it can exploit racism for its purposes, but racism isn't built into it. Capitalism basically wants people to be interchangeable cogs, and differences among them, such as on the basis of race, usually are not functional. I mean, they may be functional for a period, like if you want a super exploited workforce or something, but those situations are kind of anomalous. Over the long term, you can expect capitalism to be anti-racist -- just because its anti-human. And race is in fact a human characteristic -- there's no reason why it should be a negative characteristic, but it is a human characteristic. So therefore identifications based on race interfere with the basic ideal that people should be available just as consumers and producers, interchangeable cogs who will purchase all the junk that's produced -- that's their ultimate function, and any other properties they might have are kind of irrelevant, and usually a nuisance.”
But the idea that consumption can unite people enough to create a cohesive and stable ground for investing purposes is tenuous. Tribal and ethnic conflict destabilizes business, and tribal conflict exists everywhere around the world where several self-identified groups exist under the same government. It is only logical that these groups will unite within their own tribe to maximize gains via the wealth redistributive channels of the public sector.
These trends are crystallizing right now in the United States.
According to CNN exist polls in the 2008 presidential elections, non-European Americans cast their votes for the Democratic (wealth redistributor) nominee 79%-18%. Blacks voted for Obama by a 94%-1% margin!
European Americans exhibited similar block-voting preferences in heavily diverse areas such as Alabama, where they voted for McCain 88%-10%.
Simply put, there are those who make wealth, and there are those who take wealth. The two groups are naturally at odds with each other, and conflict is what happens when equality-of-outcome (socialism) is preached from the pulpit of every established institution in the land, while the majority of people believe in equality-of-opportunity.
Egalitarianism rules through envy; constant, red-hot envy. In order to put out this unholy fire, a return to tradition is required. This implies hierarchy. Hierarchy based on the natural qualities within man’s being.
A return to traditional values would mean more stability for moneyed-institutions, and more happiness for the (essentially already traditional) families that comprise Western Civilization.
This means acceptance of churches, of traditional, wholesome values, and a return to a culture of self-sufficient people.
It is the social security system and other aspects of the welfare state that has turned the pillar of Western Civilization into the upside-down pyramid of today’s social values. Our ancestors survived for millennia without such a contrivance, and are now reaping the rewards of it: mass unemployment (due to artificially high minimum wage standards), the breakdown of the family (as children are now an economic liability, instead of a an economic asset), and of course the magnet-like pull of millions, if not billions of poor, third-world immigrants that wish to live off the entitlement system.
Immigration cannot keep the welfare state alive forever, but it can essentially dissolve the bonds of indigenous European people-hood that has organically developed for thousands of years. Therefore the social security system should be slowly phased-out of existence (without harming those who have already paid into it), and the young should be allowed to return to live in an organic environment based on identity and tradition, as their forefathers enjoyed.
This is a basic human right. An empire of violence and coercion is a cancer, not a legitimate nation. Such is the price of multiculturalism. The intellectual forefather of this weltanschauung was the learned philosopher Johann Gottfried von Herder, who stated in 1784 that:
"Nature brings forth families; the most natural state therefore is also one people, with a national character of its own. For a people is as much a plant of nature as is a family, except that it has more branches. Nothing therefore seems more contradictory to the true end of governments than the endless expansion of states, the wild confusion of races and nations under one scepter. An empire made up of a hundred peoples and 120 provinces which have been forced together is a monstrosity, not a state-body."
The Holy Roman Empire was the direct result of organic human ties, united by the rite of the Emperor. They were not taxed to the high degree that we are today, they did not work half the year in order to pay the government to redistribute their own wealth. They did not have enforced fraternity shoved down their throats as we do today. They were comparatively richer than we are; we, the true serfs of the ages.
When I am talking of riches, I mean spiritual riches. The utility of money runs into diminishing returns, which means that money cannot buy happiness. Happiness is created by strong, healthy kin-relations according to the modern social sciences.
We must reestablish our organic kin-ties in order to revitalize our civilization. This is a basic human right, recognized by the United Nations, which states that: "Indigenous peoples have the right to determine their own identity or membership in accordance with their customs and traditions."
The process of Western capitulation is degrading to both Westerners and non-Westerners alike. It treats one side as the weak-willed parent, and the other as the spoilt child. This is improper behavior between civilizations. The West will become respected only once it makes itself respectable.