Whenever I read something on your site, it seems to me that you find it easy to oppose White Nationalists, but you advance no real plan to oppose globalist multiculturalists.Firstly, I agree that there is an existential battle for civilisation going on. It's been going on for at least 100 years so I guess that there is no point of disagreement there.
There is an existential battle for civilization ongoing.
You appear to be on the side of the Jews and against the Whites.
If it is otherwise, you might want to spend more time explaining yourself and less time attacking the Alt-Right.
Secondly, as regular readers of this blog will know, I am opposed to multiculturalism but where I and the Alt-Right differ are our the reasons.
As I've said before, Richard Spencer with help from the Mainstream media, has now co-opted the name Alt-Right in the minds of public and has achieved semantic association with his brand. So when I use the term Alt-Right it represents the ideas of Spencer & Co. i.e.
(1) The Alt-Right is hostile to Christianity.
(2) The Alt-Right believes in Genetic Calvinism. (It's understanding of the the human person is, as Trotsky would say, grounded in "Zoological Materialism")
(3) The Alt-Right believes in the ideas associated a with Ariosophy.
(4) The Alt-Right is irrationally Anti-Semitic and this irrational focus on the Jews cause it to chase the mote instead of extracting the beam in its own eye.
(5) The Alt-Right is historically revisionist.
(6) The Alt-Right as defined by Spencer is objectively Fascist--as defined by Griffin--represents a series of ideas which represent a conscious departure from the "traditional ideas of European civilisation" and replace them with a Modernist volk based nationalistic palinogenisis.(7) It rejects truth if it conflicts with its own understanding of things.
(1)(5) and (7) and partially (6) are common to Socialism. (4)(5) and (6) are common to Nazism. (3) is a New Age religion based upon end of 19th Century romantic navel gazing which came about with the abandonment of Christianity. (1) and (7) it also shares with the Neocons.
The Dissident European Right believes in;
(1) The subordination of any preconceptions to the Truth.
(2) The truth of empirical observation.
(3) The truth of Christianity or at least it's possibility. (I'm not going to go into this into detail now as I have covered this before.)
Now its obvious that Christianity and the seven points listed above are incompatible, both in values and in their metaphysical metaphysical underpinnings. It's these ideas and their metaphysics which seperate it from the ideas which made up the "Old Europe". The aim of this blog, and those who are in sympathy with it, is to restore the "Old Europe". But it's clear from an analysis of history that the "Old Europe" had problems which for a variety of reasons (Hello Traditionalists) ensured the birth of Modernist movements which are currently in the process of destroying her.
While my analysis is still incomplete the problems with "Old Europe" were primarily cultural and religious. Namely;
(1) A false anthropology which ignored the instinctual nature of man and over emphasised his rationality.
(2) A morality which gave too little acknowledgement to instinct. (this is important with regard to multiculturalism)
(3) A morality which expected instinctual override without due understanding of the consequences of this failure.
(4) A morality which failed to acknowledge the legitimacy of the erotic dimension of human nature.
(5) A failure to appreciate the consequences of the massive increase in population in the 19th Century.
(6) A failure to appreciate the consequences of the transformation in society bought about by technology in the late 19th Century.
(7) (1) set up the legitimisation of Democracy, (5) ensured that the franchise was extended to everyone and (2) meant that practically, societal control shifted from the rational to the instinctual.
How does this all apply to my differences with the Alt-Right?
Returning to multiculturalism when the Alt-Right criticises multiculturalism it does it through the understanding that other people are hostile elements with regard to the realisation of its potential. "Become what you are" is only possible if the darkie is kicked out of the group. The other practicle problem is what to do with the suboptimising elements. "Ovening" them might be "ironical" but given the materialist conception of the human person, it might be a bit "yucky" but its pretty convenient. As a side note, while its true that Nazi Germany did not like the Jews it initially had no plans of "ovening" them, but as the war progressed and without an ideology of moral limits, as the options became limited it became a "good" idea given the circumstances. Aryanism v2.0 turns you into a bastard who everyone hates.
On the other hand a Dissident Right opposition to multiculturalism would rest up the notion that human being are instinctual and that homophily is one of the strongest and most easily observable human behaviours. Trying to make people live against the grain of instinct is possible but its hard and the requires a strong government hand. It's "entropically unstable" with terrible consequences if the guiding hand is lifted in any social crisis. So it is best for people to live in their own groups with their own customs. Christianity would assert that all people have a human dignitiy and therefore any manner of social reorganisation needs to be humane and done with dignity to all parties concerned. There's no "ovening."
Oh but Slumlord, the Christians have been vicious to other peoples in the past! It's true, but it in the past it was understood that what the Christians did was bad and therefore the Christian system tended to self correct limiting the evil. On the other hand, the Nazi's and Communists that murdered were considered good by the ideology and therefore the murder kept multiplying.
Richard Spencer with help from the Mainstream media, has now co-opted the name Alt-Right
ReplyDeleteThat is a lie.
The Alt-Right is hostile to Christianity.
Many are Christians. Most who aren't defend Christianity. Name another group of non-Christians who do so.
The Alt-Right believes in Genetic Calvinism.
This is rare. Spencer himself has spoken at length against this notion.
The Alt-Right is irrationally Anti-Semitic
What is the threshold at which Antisemitism becomes irrational?
this irrational focus on the Jews cause it to chase the mote instead of extracting the beam in its own eye.
The alt-right is intently focused on moral self-improvement.
The Alt-Right is historically revisionist.
Who isn't?
[a whole lot of pigeonholing]
Is this what empirical observation looks like?
Incidentally various "Christian" atrocities, like kurder of Jews in the Rhineland during the first crusade, were condemned and recognized as evil at the time (Bernard threatened excommunication to stop the massacres).
ReplyDeleteThe alt right take progressives at their word and declare the opposite to be good, like clockwork (as if the left was ever honest about motives). It's Opposite Day leftism. They also share the leftist desire to "no platform" their enemies. 'No enemies to the right" is the most notorious one (translation: I can hit you but you can't hit back, also a very leftist impulse). Like the left, they love sloganeering and view history as the story of a great struggle between classifications of peoples, as opposed to the Christian story of God and Man. They also have more aryan than thou virtue signaling contests. Denunciation of enemies of the (white) People. They also, like leftists, seem deeply unhappy and corseted personally. Never doing what they like or ought but terminally trying to live up to some image and avoiding "selfishness".
Stop cucking.
ReplyDeleteAs regular readers of this blog will know, you are a hypocrite faggot who lives in a white nation that other men kept that way using methods you faggotishly disparage.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteThe West, including Canada and America, is not and never was intended to be, a place for "all races and nations". To claim that it is, or was, is a direct attack on the identity, legitimacy, and existence of the Western people.
They are coming to conquer. That they use passive means — moving in, demanding society adjust to them, and reproducing until they can vote themselves into power — does not matter, nor does it matter that they do not consciously intend these things.
Their presence, whether they mean it or not, amounts to an invasion.
The 'Melting Pot' and 'Diversity' is the very anti-Christian globalist vision of New Babel and the One World Order that Christianity claims to oppose.
It is the United Nations, the European Union, NATO, NAFTA, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. It is Somalis in Minneapolis, 50% non-White Toronto, a non-White London, and Canadian government celebrations of White Genocide by immigration POLICY.
While violence is a concern, the prime reason we don't want non-Whites and Muslims is because we have the right to have our own countries.
How has Christianity come to be for the Tower of Babel: it is not Christianity.
Sheesh, I don't think the guy is saying open borders.
ReplyDelete@CaveLion
More of a maybe mistake than a lie. The origin of the term Alt Right is murky as I understand it.
There have been plenty of Christians who have supported many foolish or heretical things. The trick is which ideology wins in a conflict. You see it in the episocopal church all the time, in a conflict between the Bible and orthodoxy versus progressivism, progressivism tends to win. In a battle between Christian doctrine and NatSoc thinking, NatSoc wins.
Genetic Calvinism, I don't know man they seem pretty deterministic based on race. But if you say Spencer says elsewise I'll take you at your word.
Antisemitism becomes irrational when a tiny minority of law abiding people become the scapegoat for everything and those who aren't Jewish are accused of having a "Jewish mentality". Jew becomes shorthand for evil, like how the left uses the term nazi. All I know is no one has ever panicked finding themselves in a Jewish neighborhood after dark.
Focused on moral self improvement? I wish but maybe you see something I don't.
On revisionism, it's got to be based on respect for the truth. It's no good just taking the opposite position reactively and making assumptions. You see it in 9/11 truthers, if you ask them how they would know if they were wring they couldn't tell you, they believe in a perfect circle that can't see anything outside the circle and has never seriously contemplated opposing arguments.
Read Leftism Revisited, look at the footnotes, see that all of this has roots in at least the French Revolution.
@Cave lion.
ReplyDeleteThis is a lie.
Spencer has spoken against this notion.
Some are Christian He's a Christian in the same way Charles Maurras was, i.e believing it a useful myth but not something to get in the way of race.
@Cecil Henry.
You might want to read this.
http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=4622.
The constitution is "blind" to religion. The founding fathers recognised that if the people lost the faith then anyone could become an office holder or president. The only thing that kept the country Christian and White was the will of the people, not constitutional law. It's a feature and not a bug of the constitution.
"As to the subject of religion…[n]o power is given to the general government to interfere with it at all…. No [Christian—DM] sect is preferred to another. Every man has a right to worship the Supreme Being in the manner he thinks proper. No test is required. All men of equal capacity and integrity are equally eligible to offices…. I do not suppose an infidel, or any such person, will ever be chosen to any office unless the people themselves be of the same opinion (Elliot, 1836, 4:208, emp. added)."
The problem is not with Christianity instead it is with a pagan/aetheistic population which has lost its will to live.
@ Hoyos.
Thanks for chipping in. Much appreciated.
I follow your posts on the Alternative Right/Dissident Right pretty faithfully, primarily because as a black American, I wonder where exactly people like me fit into the vision painted by those who criticize your thoughtful points.
ReplyDeleteMy ancestors didn't immigrate to American as cultural invaders, but were here since the beginning and quiet as it's kept, and did contribute to the building of the nation, even if the contribution was only that of blood sweat and tears. My husband, who is as brown as a paper bag, is the great grandson of a white American.
Culturally, we are completely and totally out of step with what is often offered as standard black cultural behavior. We are devout Christians who believe in freedom of association but also believe that faith and cultural practices trump race.
And so, as people who would be left without a country in the Richard Spencer et al vision of a white utopian America (I suppose we could try and find the other 10% of blacks who lean conservative), I am always interested in the rebuttals offered by those who object to your thoughts.
Keep up the good work, SP.
Thank you for responding to my comment.
ReplyDeleteI don't necessarily disagree with much/most of what you have written.
However, I do disagree with you training your guns on the Alt-Right rather than the real enemies of the West.
There is no Christianity left on this planet, save for small pockets.
The church in the Anglosphere has been thoroughly Jewed and feminized. And the RC church - a club for degenerate Marxist faggots, not Christians (apologies to the faithful, I do not mean the laypersons, but the leadership).
And, the entire history of the 20th century is a history of Jews destroying European civilization for their own ends.
Yet, you seem to believe that this is all a parlour game, in which the real enemy is some young comic "Nazis" who, mostly, are reactionary and are not following any real ideological path.
In times of historical crisis, genteel criticism of evil is mere moral-posturing. It will not win the day. White men are being persecuted by the state. Blood is being shed, and blood will be shed in genocidal waves before the world is righted. The choice for Whites is whether that blood will all be ours and that of our heirs or whether we will fight for our future.
I object to your tone, and your targets, because it seems to be all tut-tutting the comic Nazis yet being ostrich-like to the real issues and real enemies.
However, on balance, this is friendly fire, or I wouldn't be here reading your contributions to the debate.
@Elsepth
ReplyDeleteThanks.
@Maple Curtain.
However, I do disagree with you training your guns on the Alt-Right rather than the real enemies of the West.
I think it's a given that this blog assumes that the positions of the Left are evil till evidence suggests the contrary. The really intellectual task is to determine what is the basis for the lefts malignity. Because once you start travelling down that rabit hole you realise that there is not that much difference, apart from window dressing which separates it from the Left. Without really getting into an argument on the matter, I'd suggest you do yourself a favour and have a read of Roger Griffin's A Fascist Century. I hope to write about the book soon.
My problem with the Alt-right is that it is, at its core, just a different flavor of the Left. And for Christians, in particular, the Alt-Right is far more dangerous menace. The evil of the Left, is pretty easy to spot, the evil of the "Alt-Right" is not so obvious, and superficially it looks like an ally, while in reality it as hostile to Christianity as is the Left. It's more dangerous because its evil is cloaked.
With regard to your charge of Christianity being effectively "cucked", I think the charge has some merit. I am of the opinion that Religion is going to have to get some pushback by the laity to get straightened out. I'm hopeful.
As for the Jews, there's no doubt as a community they push Left but it needs to be recognised that there were honorable exceptions. Gottfried coming immediately to mind. Sam Francis, who was as nationalist as they come, wasn't seduced by the notions that the Jews were responsible for societal decline. Many "Jewish" notions, were actively and aggressively pushed by many whites independently. Massachusetts is more of a threat than Judaism when it comes to the survival of the West. Christian Fundamentalists seem to be bigger shills for Israel than actual Israelis.
For the record I agree with Mearsheimer.
@ Social Pathologist:
ReplyDeleteWell, as another Jew, the late Hungarian-Canadian writer George Jonas, remarked, often, it is the 2% of any population who do the political/cultural moving, not the other 98% - the fact that there are Gottfrieds and Jonases out there is irrelevant in the greater scheme of things.
Judaism, like Islam, is organized hatred of the other - both are nationalist, particularist, ethnic supremacist belief systems that hold the 'other' to be less than human and less than worthy (Islam as it is, not as it claims to be).
That is why I have spoken of Jewed Christianity - contemporary 'Christians' don't know the details of their own faith or of other belief systems - i.e. that Christian universalism is not universal, and they certainly do not want to know that the Jews and the Moes hold them in utter contempt.
No Christian society when significant numbers of Jews/Moes reside within and, Christianity itself cannot survive in a nihilist 'secular' Left society.
At the heart of Western 'Christianity' today are the prosperity gospel, feminism, and Equalism - all 'of this world' and having nothing to do with the historical faith.
Most of these youthful comic Nazis have grown up in a culture of nihilism, and they have known only the relativist Jewed church, so they know nothing of Christianity but associate it with feminism, Marxism, materialism, and with a leadership of unprincipled, unmanly, homosexual or crypto-homosexual effetes.
Why wouldn't these young people be disgusted by a belief system fronted by Bergoglio, cardinals as grandees, and any of the last 50 Archbishops of Canterbury?
The "Alt-Right" does not subsist in Richard Spencer. Even if it did, you'd a tough row to hoe to show his manifesto (which AFAIK doesn't exist) is all those 7 things. 90% of everything is crap. You can't judge the thing by the crap.
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of your characterizations of the alt-right, except for "historical revisionism" - which is not only a legitimate practice, but essential to unthinking the stupid nineteenth (as Leon Daudet christened it) and twentieth centuries. A good chunk of the eighteenth, too. In fact, my favorite arbitrary cut-off date for the downward spiral of Old Europe is the Bourbon reform of 1767 that would ultimately destroy the Spanish Empire, and in the ashes of the Peninsular War emerge the proclamation of the liberal Cadiz Constitution of 1812, the ensuing Liberal Triennium and ultimately the complete destruction of the remnants of the old feudal rights (fueros) during the Carlist Wars.
ReplyDeleteI also don't know about "objectively" fascist. Personally I do not consider Roger Griffin to be the best authority on fascism. Those would be A. James Gregor (one of the most remarkably honest scholars I know of given his liberal-democratic orientation, defending both Evola and Dugin against accusations of fascism) and Zeev Sternhell. Alt-right ideas are absolutely romantic nationalist in the sense of Herder and Fichte, combined with a hereditarian core. But not fascist. Fascism is thankfully dead.
You know what the alt-right really are? Here it is, straight from Mike Enoch's fingers on his Reddit AMA some 4 months ago (You should really quote this some time.):
"Honestly I think that if there had been a more stingent [sic] restriction on Jews entering academia and the media and lobbying politically many problems would not have arisen. The country was basically given over to Jews after 1965 and they had lots of power even before that. If you look at the assumptions of gentile intellectuals from that time you will find that they were not far from ours. In many ways the alt-right is a resurrection of old progressive values from the turn of the century."
That's right. Mike Enoch flat out admits that he's an early 20th century progressive to the tune of over 30 upvotes in his AMA. These are our great right-wing intellectuals, ladies and gentlemen. (The AMA is down due to the recent banning of /r/altright, but you can still find it cached if you look it up.)
I'm disappointed but also not surprised by the comments you get. The massive infatuation that so much of the modern dissident right has with being Forty-Eighters who think that all social dynamics boil down to a bunch of sociobiological primitives and some Atlantic Charter idea of "national self-determination," is frustrating. By now it's a common theme (I've seen both Kakistocracy and The Alternative Hypothesis promote it) that political economy doesn't matter as long as you have a high national IQ and ethnic homogeneity which automagically sets it straight.
But then Moldbug pointed out the dynamic that left-wing incumbents being avenues of power tend to negatively select against right-wing oppositions, which causes the latter to intellectually degenerate. The temptation to play vanguardist power politics in our climate is far too great, and ultimately our "right-wing" rarely seems to advance beyond national socialism, whether lower case or upper case. Keep writing these articles, they're breaths of fresh air.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@NTSS
ReplyDeleteThat was a very well written comment.
Personally I do not consider Roger Griffin to be the best authority on fascism.
Gregor is very good (though I've only read snippets of his work) and he has offered critiques of Griffin's understanding of Fascism, especially his early formulations. I think Griffin's thinking has been shaped by Gregor's criticism and of (Zeev Sternall) so his thought represents a informed development of their ideas.
I also don't know about "objectively" fascist.
Firstly, we have to agree on what you mean by Alt-Right. I'm equating Spencer's view with the Alt-Right label. "Become who you are" is about "romantic" i.e. intuitional as it gets. Spencer's idea of a "greatness" coming about through the purification of race, is romantic modernism. Now, is it fascism? Well here is where it gets interesting. The thing is when you look at the subject of Modernism you realise that Fascism and Socialism are different expressions of it. My own view is that Fascism is modernism which promotes a palingenesis based up historical Identarianism whilst Socialism promotes it based upon equalist universalism. Spencer's Alt-Right thus fits the title of Fascism. As I see it, Spencer isn't a Nazi but he is a Fascist by Griffins definition.
The country was basically given over to Jews after 1965 and they had lots of power even before that. If you look at the assumptions of gentile intellectuals from that time you will find that they were not far from ours. In many ways the alt-right is a resurrection of old progressive values from the turn of the century."
Bingo! A lot of the Alt_Right progressivism/Modernism repackaged for those temperamentally disposed towards it. Hence the overlap between conservatism and fascism. Most conservatives are dumb and can't distinguish between overt display and the metaphysic, hence the eternal trap for conservatives is the embrace of totalitarianisms which ultimately will consume them in the end.
The massive infatuation that so much of the modern dissident right has with being Forty-Eighters who think that all social dynamics boil down to a bunch of sociobiological primitives and some Atlantic Charter idea of "national self-determination," is frustrating.
These concepts are easy to grasp for the cognitive miser and hence their appeal. Any man wanting to comment in public forums has to expect a fair amount of blowback from IQ blessed but rationally lite.
Thanks for your comments.
@Nick
ReplyDeleteThe "Alt-Right" does not subsist in Richard Spencer.
Unfortunately the public see him as the face of the brand. Marketing works on the power of association not logic. The Cathedrals conditioning project has been a success.
Even if it did, you'd a tough row to hoe to show his manifesto (which AFAIK doesn't exist) is all those 7 things. 90% of everything is crap. You can't judge the thing by the crap.
Spencer's vague but all I need to know is that he does not like the Baby Jesus, everything else flows from this.
"The Alt-Right is historically revisionist."
ReplyDeleteHow so? Are you referring to the pre-Christian pagan obsessions men like Spencer have, or something else?
Lucas Temple
ReplyDeleteAre you referring to the pre-Christian pagan obsessions men like Spencer have, or something else?
Yes.
"as people who would be left without a country in the Richard Spencer et al vision of a white utopian America"
ReplyDeleteWell, no. According to his statements, what he envisions in the future is further national fragmentation, that is, de facto or de jure dissolution of current North American nations through voluntary and mutual racial resegregation (he calls it "peaceful ethnic cleansing") into various ethnostates. This isn't completely unrealistic, because history shows that people self-segregate all the time (white flight etc). The problem, so to speak, is that it is never mutual. That is, white people are willing to segregate themselves from other races, but nonwhites aren't willing to segregate themselves into their own ethnostates. (The two historical examples I can came - Haiti and Zimbabwe - are complete basket cases, as expected.) African-Americans and Latinos will never want to form their own North American ethnostates, because they don't want to forfeit the benefits of orderliness, civilization and surplus wealth created by European-Americans and Asian-Americans. So Spencer's vision isn't feasible without violence, or at least the threat of violence. He sort of denies this, because it makes him uncomfortable, but facts are facts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cKNhjQHWFo
So Spencer's vision isn't feasible without violence, or at least the threat of violence. He sort of denies this, because it makes him uncomfortable, but facts are facts.
ReplyDeleteYep. It's interesting to note that while the Nazi's hated the Jews, they initially had no plans to oven them. The policy became a sort of "logical conclusion" when Germany's options for dealing with them became limited. The German ideology had no capacity for soft solutions. Likewise a policy that advocates homelands for white people without an express plan for doing so tends to go into the direction of forced resettlement.
NTSS - By now it's a common theme (I've seen both Kakistocracy and The Alternative Hypothesis promote it) that political economy doesn't matter as long as you have a high national IQ and ethnic homogeneity which automagically sets it straight.
ReplyDeleteThe argument as I generally see it stated is that high national IQ and ethnic homogeneity are necessary, not sufficient conditions. Then you get the rebuttal, "why isn't North Korea paradise?" which misses the necessary/sufficient distinction completely.
"Sam Francis, who was as nationalist as they come, wasn't seduced by the notions that the Jews were responsible for societal decline."
ReplyDeleteI think he gets close to such a notion here: http://www.vdare.com/articles/mass-immigration-eats-through-the-melting-pot
Spencer is also contradicting himself now. I remember one of the first times he was a guest on Right Stuff Radio, and he specifically stated that voluntary white Apartheid is unrealistic. The Whitopia that older paleocons like Brimelow, Buchanan and Jared Taylor promote, namely a society where whites peacefully form their own racial suburban enclaves to isolate themselves from underclass nonwhites, will never come to pass, for two reasons. First, whites will never leave nonwhites alone, and have never done so. White colonialists, supremacists, SJWs, social activists etc. will always exist. None of them want racial separation. Likewise, nonwhites will never leave whites alone either. Some nonwhites will always want to live in majority white societies, to benefit from white surplus wealth, social order and civilization. And other nonwhites will always engage in anti-white identity politics, complaining about whiteness, demanding reparations for slavery and colonization, rent-seeking etc. They don't want racial separation either. Spencer was right about this.
ReplyDelete@Che Dolf
ReplyDeletewhich misses the necessary/sufficient distinction completely.
And yet when you look at the HBD positivists it is both necessary and
sufficient. Hence the fixation on Race.
If you do not have a White Nation then you have nothing. There are NO MULTIRACIAL NATIONS. Not now, bot ever. Its a lie. Yes a jew lie. They are of their Father the Devil, he was a liar and a murderer from the beginning, and that rotten apple has not fallen far from there. Whatever ill you care to talk about, seculuarism, feminism, marxism, homosexuality, or whatever, is always fronted and pushed by jews. These jews have no real principles, these are blatant attacks on a host Nation to weaken and corrupt it for subservience. Do I want them dead? Yes obviously. Their attempts at White Genocide are pretty blatant and upfront now. Hardly a lunatic "conspiracy theory" that anyone can really Truthfully deny. They have NO COVENANT with God. They HATE GOD. They oppose all prayers, even silent ones. Hardly pious by any conceivable definition. The COVENANT was broken with Israel. They turned away and worshipped false gods. They were abandoned by God and conquered by Babylon. These jews Today are NOT ISRAELIS, they are Babylonian heretics. The Torah is merely an affectation. It may as well be a table decoration. They follow the Babylonian Talmud, a book full of hatred, heresy and deluded fantasies of being special satanic beings promised the Whole World and to whom everyone must become slaves. Believe it or not, but they are the Enemy.
ReplyDeleteNecessary is a lot harder to come by then sufficient.
ReplyDeleteSufficient can be worked out over time, through trial and error. Denmark is different from America which is different from Japan, but they all make it work. Cultural trends and public policy can always be overturned later on if they are found to be mistakes.
Even terrible trial and error can be fixed. Japan and Germany got bombed into the stone age, and within a generation they were up and running again.
If you lose the genes though...game over. No matter what they do, no matter what systems they adopt, no matter how hard their people try, those that don't have the necessary are doomed to the nasty, brutish, and short.
The alt-right exists because when considering our children's future, Angela Merkel will be worse for Germany then Hitler was. The non-alt-right failed to defeat Merkel, and it can't even bring itself to do what's necessary if they were to get power (forced mass deportations). If you care about your children you have to stop the invasion.
"but as the war progressed and without an ideology of moral limits, as the options became limited it became a "good" idea given the circumstances."
ReplyDeleteIf you believe in post-war allied propaganda. Surely the zionists/media, liberals and Jewish Bolshevik Communists would never lie would they?
Read the Red Pills of Zion.
and these:
http://pastebin.com/TzZC78cp
http://pastebin.com/Uc1EkvGZ
and watch the TGSNT, "the Myth of German Villainy" as well as "Holocaust, why we believed part 1". I'm sure that manual labor was not needed for the war effort & what they really wanted was to 'oven' them :)