No amount of social change is going to change the nature of races. Egypt has had racial mixing for several thousand years and blacks have always been criminals, servants, and slaves.
But change the race, as is the policy of the permanent and unelected government in every formerly white country except Iceland, and you will change the society.
In a few white countries the merely elected government is resisting the policy of the permanent and unelected government. In Australia, the merely elected government has the support, loyalty, and obedience of the military, and is prepared to use it, so, despite a continual storm of attacks by the permanent government, it gets its way on this issue against the will of the permanent government – until the next election. The elected government is only temporary after all, and so, from time to time, will yield to pressure.
What has happened in every white country is that the merely elected government has laws limiting illegal immigration, and limiting benefits received by illegals. And in every white country, those laws are not enforced.
Asylum laws are knowingly and intentionally abused to bring in people persecuted for ordinary non political crimes, and for such political crimes as terrorism. Many recent terrorist incidents in white countries have been committed by terrorists who gained asylum on the basis of persecution resulting from crimes of terror or from ordinary non political crimes. The permanent government wants an underclass, and it wants the worst possible underclass, the worse the underclass, the better it can be used as a weapon against the former majority. Hence the active recruitment of terrorists and criminals, and the use of the school system to indoctrinate the new majority with hatred against the former majority.
I don’t agree with the ethnic conflict model that “Jim” and “Horus” suggest; this malevolent manipulation to ensure stability at the top.
Ref: http://whiterabbitradio.net/audio/FTWR-1.mp3
Rather, my view is that the anti-whites throughout are incredibly sick, who are especially myopic in their psychopathy. Tying this into Neo-Reaction, this is what all pagans look like to a Christian – animalistic individuals chasing their lusts unto damnation. Weakened canon law and failure to establish state churches, something which is natural on the Republicanist path, have allowed sick individuals to rise to the most powerful positions in society…
This Republicanist degeneracy also extends to de-emphasis on martial virtues like honour and loyalty; a sure sign of this is, at least in the 21st century environment, general officers not moving regularly and with celebration into high prestige positions in their country’s civil government. The pitting of the Pentagon versus the State Department (as exposed at this blog) is a dysfunction, but apparently typical of a late-stage republic. Does anyone believe that shameless bureacrats have what it takes for high-pressure, low time-preference decisions? The polarisation caused by The Cathedral looks like a really weak chink in its armour…
A.J.P.
George H. W. Bush was the last decent President. Slick W. Clinton was chosen because he was blackmailable. It’s not just individuals chasing their individual lusts unto damnation. Crooks are chosen because they are crooks.
There have been no decent presidents. The rot set in with George Washington putting down the whiskey rebellion.
What about Calvin Coolidge?
OK, yes, Calvin Coolidge was the last, and possibly only, good president.
Jim, would you mind pointing me to some info as to why you think Calvin Coolidge was the only good president?
I’m of the opinion that Nixon was at least alright as Watergate happened at a rather suspicious time considering that he was trying to reorder the government and break the power of the permanent government in the process.
There’s a case to be made for Nixon.
SoBL lays it out quite well here http://28sherman.blogspot.com/2014/08/unified-theory-on-watergate.html .
At the very minimum he actually tried to rule as president. That’s something.
That would be Nixon who greatly expanded affirmative action and introduced price controls, which price controls had the usual results.
Avarice seems to be lust of power and material wealth. That’s going to be inherent in those with low character and it’s going to be enabled by other some-ones who are also intent on using first some-one for their own lust, not love – high time-preference, not low-time preference.
There could be an argument that loving money, even on a longer time scale, could be an evil unto itself, but loving power on the longest time-scales shouldn’t lead to negatives but should lead to things like appreciation of tradition.
A.J.P.
I mean, think about the incentive structure. There are two kinds of people who have an incentive to act collectively in a democracy, crooks, and Jews; and it is through collective action that these groups punch well above their weight, while everyone else bickers endlessly.
Progressive Jews are not in fact cohesive.
Nor are crooks.
Observe the financial crisis. In so far as it was the result of collective action, the problem was progressive policy of attempting to make blacks and mestizos into middle class by giving them free money. Various crooks intercepted this humungous stream of free money in various ways, but each crook did so for himself, not as part of a big plot.
How did the British government become a nest of pedophiles? Why is the age of consent to buggery in Britain 16? Is this related to the silence regarding the Muslim rape scandal?
Why did Prince Andrew defend Roman Polanski? Well, until recently, everyone thought that Alan Dershowitz defended Polanski due to the ‘do not publicly humiliate a fellow Jew’ rule. But now people have heard of Jeffrey Epstein.
When you’re a crook, you don’t only not blow the whistle on the other crooks, your fortunes are tied to theirs. This replaces the loyalty from martial values that AJP mentions.
L.O.L.
You missed my point. I’m against an Inquisition for “heresies” against the The Cathedral’s religion of Political Correctness. But, you seem to find its advocacy quite naturally “Peppermint Papist”.
Britain has been pro-sodomite for a long time. Now you have all this Alan Turing BS being churned out. Nobody mentions Ernst Roehm though. I wonder why…
you are mistaking a lack of intellectual cohesion with a lack of tribal cohesion.
Pure jibberish. Fascism for the concave-chested nerd.
LOL your dork-king looks like a stiff wind would blow him over. It makes sense though– yet another sexually-frustrated, failed artist turned fascist!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aa2UJX_EpQ
“We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so towards us.â€
– Jens Orback, Minister for Democracy, Metropolitan Affiars, Integration and Gender Equality ~ Sweden
How is this different from any other affirmation of the intention to genocide?
“Society is a racial construct”
yes, Dawkins calls it the extended phenotype
(he doesn’t talk about it with regard to humans, but there is no conceptual barrier to doing so)
He would nonetheless shit himself if anyone suggested that different races have substantially different extended phenotypes, even though this quite obviously follows from his theory.
…and all of human history.
[…] Society is a racial construct. […]
Specificity needed.
Society is not *only* a racial construct. Quite obviously it is also a sexual construct.
The list goes on…
you miss the point. Races co-evolve with cultures. Sexes evolved once long ago and much of today’s variation in sexual strategies is racial.
But… but… semantics are so unboring!
Jim’s posts make perfect sense in and of themselves. But from post to post, they tend to weaken because of lack of consistency. But I may be reading too strict and remembering too long.
Probably am.
Inconsistency?
Give me some examples.
If I put the time in will you?
Don’t fuckin’ do your thing where you answer the post by not answering but instead giving a historical example which loosely correlates.
A little sample – see our last conversation. Make laws to fight the natural. WUT?!
Okay sure. That is part 1 of 1000. And if you just fap to porn a few times a day and just fuck around and do your thing, I’ll see through it.
You take my evidence seriously, or fuck off. So you call it. 😉
Not following you. What evidence?
Zach, that is Jim’s shtick. It’s part of his argumentative strategy. When someone raises a valid point, provide vague loosely correlated example to defeat said point and act like it is a devastating critique. He’s not going to change that, mate. It works too well.
[…] he notes (with a colorful personal illustration) that, “Yes, Roissy is Correct”. Also, Society is a racial construct. It certainly is that. And also, for the sake of completeness, an economic, religious, and memetic […]
“What is natural is feral behavior. Natural law is those restraints that are natural to impose on feral behavior – we are disinclined to tolerate predation on people like ourselves, or parasitism on people like ourselves.”
BEFORE THE EM DASH!
WTF?!!!!
So I suppose to do deals is unnatural?
If we make an agreement with each other to suppress certain undesirable behavior, we are socially constructing law or society, because we could quite easily have made some different agreement. Hence socially constructed. If we spontaneously are angered, disgusted, or frightened by some bad conduct, without consulting each other, then when we suppress that behavior, whether by killing people who perform it, or merely by declining to associate with people who engage in it, then natural law, in that the law against that bad behavior is spontaneously enforced.
Fuckin’ A Jim.
Believe me, you lost.
And believe me, you are a fuckin’ genius.
John Candy = all knowledge
Steve Martin = Obama and Jim
(John Candy is so underrated it makes me want to not pet my dog)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFh5FzXIeBg
Not making sense
Just watch John Candy. Just take away his genius.
The rest… who gives two fucks.
[…] I za kraj, slogan koji grije srce, Å¡iri zjenice i ježi dlake na vratu poput drugog stavka Beethovenove Sedme nad olujnim morem:  Race is not a social construct – society is a racial construct. […]
Society is also a gender construct, but feminists want to deny that as well.
Consider the source, I suppose.
Huh?
A counter argument to “race is a social construct” pushed by the semites. Genetic science has proved race is real. Besides, you can see it with your own eyes. How could a white man come from an african! This culture/race movement is part of ending the “…legacy of whiteness” or so called “white privilege.” It’s all bullshit. Pull your head out white man. If our species is to survive, we must ignore “white guilt” and name calling.
FBI, you’re going to have to go back.
the early 2010s were a few years ago
You were a faggot then and you’re a faggot now.
Instead of spamming this blog with non sequitur comments, explain why men should be in prison because a 13-year-old slut flirted with them.
Is it because your balls are in a jar on the shelf?
Or is it because your wife makes you “clean it all up” after Team Mobutu is done stretching out and injuring her orifices?
Or is it because your bi-sexuality has been moulded by the older faggots who raped your virgin butthole and you’re unwilling to de-program?
Which one is it, cucklord?
What? I posted this and the counter comments came quick. And they make no sense. So, maybe you’re nuts or trying to be ridiculous. Whites or Europeans are a race of people. Science proves this. If you think otherwise, you are wrong and need to educate yourself. If you’re part of the semitic con, I don’t care what you think.
The first response was by a Serial Spammer who thinks that men only develop sexuality at age 21, and women only develop it at age 19 – and the reason he thinks that is because his lizard brain severely malfunctions, which is why we constantly mock him by insinuating that his wife is a Coalburning Castratrix and suchlike.
Hope that helps!