Check out this video from The Alternative Hypothesis, he has given some serious thought to something that I have been pondering for some time and that I think is inevitable if we are to survive, specifically the dissolution of the Union into multiple smaller, more manageable states.
One specific problem I came away from the video with is the impact of the rural-urban divide. Their map would give a lot of rural lands to progressive areas to connect Chicago and the West Coast cities but there are only so many organic pot growing progressives to work the land. They wouldn't want or know what to do with hundreds of thousands of acres of farm land. This was my comment on the video:
Very interesting work, I have been thinking this is the only way forward for a while and especially since the 2016 election and I like your thought process as to how it would play out. I do wonder about something, with free trade between the former United States and the rural/urban divide, why do leftists need or want huge swaths of largely uninhabited land that they are not inclined to live in or produce from? Wouldn't semi-independent city-states along the East Coast and the interior make more sense? I also don't care for the idea of creating continuity corridors that largely cut off access for the rest of us to the fresh water treasure of the Great Lakes.
All in all though, it is a good thought process and one we need to have. I especially like the comparison to the break-up of the Soviet Union, which while it was far from smooth and perfect was still preferable to the War between the States, even if a new version would be lopsided since the Left has disarmed themselves.
It is just chock full of good stuff, first and foremost someone living in Australia talking about fertilizing women (or fertilise because apparently Australians don't know how to spell. It is an island populated by criminals after all). I love me some good misogyny but fertilizing them? Are women the equivalent of corn? I am not a professional farmer but I think it you try to knife anhydrous ammonia into a woman, the cops will get involved, unless you live in a Muslim country and then the whore probably had it coming. What is even better is the picture the Daily Mail lifted from Facebook:
Where are the White women for the fertilizing?
Mmmm. What a stallion.
Yes sirree Bob! I bet the blonde Aussie babes are lining up for a good old fashioned fertilizing from this Casanova. Girls just swoon over the protruding mole on his forehead. This is what he actually posted:
Muslims have a duty to make your women happy. By fertilizing, forcing them to cover themselves head to toe and keeping civil order by ordering men to rape teenage girls in retaliation for her brother raping a different teenage girl. Life is a barrel of laughs for women in Muslim countries, as long as they laugh at home or in public while covered up and escorted by a male relative. Please note that this woman-fertilizing-machine, that totally unironically calls non-Muslims "bigots" after a juvenile screed, is quoting from a curious study:
His comments follow research by Hebrew University-Hadassah Braun School of Public Health and Community Medicine in Jerusalem found male fertility had sharply declined by more than 50 per cent in less than 40 years in Western nations, including Australia.
Now what sort of linkage might one make there? Hmmm.
Anyhoo, he isn't totally wrong. Creepy and self-unaware af yes, but not totally wrong. Sperm count is going down among Whites and no one seems quite sure why or for that matter if it is a problem. Young White men are apparently more interested in drinking beer and playing video games and watching porn than they are in finding a woman to marry, settle down with and have kids together (i.e. fertilizing). Given the generally deplorable state of a significant portion of White women in the West that are either pussy hat wearing man haters or THOTs and skanks, not to mention government policies that encourage and subsidize men to knock up women and not marry them, you kind of can't blame men for sitting at home on the couch.
On a more serious note, this article is something to take note of for two reasons.
First, it is perfectly acceptable to talk openly about White genocide. You can advocate for replacing Whites with no repercussions unless you go about it in the sort of clownish and clumsy way that Mohamed here went about it. It is really happening. It has been for some time. White birth rates are plummeting while Africans, some Asians and Middle-Easterners are fertilizing like rabbits. Sperm counts are going down, not by a little bit but by HALF in Western nations over the course of my lifetime. I have a bunch of kids so clearly no sperm count problems here. The question you have to ask is:
Why are sperm counts inexplicably plummeting in Western, i.e. White majority, nations while remaining apparently high in non-Western nations especially when Western men enjoy the best nutrition and health care in the world?
Let me adjust my tinfoil hat for a moment...
....that's better. It almost seems as if this is being done intentionally. If someone, a small minority group for example, wanted to replace a threatening and dominant majority race but can't because they are too badly outnumbered and outgunned, what would their plan be? Perhaps slowly poison their men to reduce fertility, encouraging birth control and abortion to reduce the number of pregnancies carried to term and creating social conditions where men don't want to get married or wait far longer than in the past so they can spend more time being single and getting into debt that discourages them from having children. At the same time you create crisis in Third World nations and encourage their male residents to leave to go to these low sperm count, low birth rate Western nations in massive numbers. Whites slowly die out, a lower IQ race that is easier to manipulate and control replaces them and you never have to pull a trigger yourself. If you have the long view, it is pretty ingenious.
The second thing that is important is to talk about are Whites in general. I plan on one or more likely several posts on this topic but in short one of the main problems with the alt-right and White nationalists in general is that they seem to think that getting rid of non-Whites will make everything better. It isn't that simple. Come with me to a suburban or rural Wal-Mart and I will show you what Whites in this country are like right now. Read about the opiod epidemic in rural White America and books like Hillbilly Elegy. Rural Whites have always been kind of redneck but at least they still got married and went to church. Now they pop pills and get knocked up. Many rural areas have the same social pathologies as minority dominated inner-cities minus one glaring problem, the murder rate.
Suburban White neighborhoods are full of cucks and low testosterone sissies. Young White men are angry and frustrated but they have no outlet so they sit at home alone being angry, shooting Nazis and aliens on the X-Box. They don't form friendships and they don't have girlfriends. When you can stay in the basement playing video games and watching porn or if you are especially adventurous you can get girls you know to send you nude photos without leaving the house, how are you supposed to form bonds with other people? Put yourself in the shoes of a modestly aware White middle-class male teen. You are going to graduate from high school having learned nothing except how to take tests. You have no skills. You have to go to college, everyone says so, and that means four more years of drudgery on campus being told how evil you are for being White by teachers paid by White tax and tuition dollars in a university built by White people. As an added bonus you get to leave with no job prospects, a mountain of debt, four years worth of psychological torture and for most of them still no job skills. You better find a job though because those student loan bills are going to come due! What could be better than paying for an "education" where you learned nothing for decades after you get your degree? I think the suicide rate is going up not because of "bullying" but because who the hell wants to walk into that for the rest of their lives?
Urban "Whites"? Please. The ones still in the urban settings are either so rich that they are insulated from all of this or are self-loathing liberals or they aren't actually White at all.
I read a lot of White nationalists and alt-right voices talking about social welfare programs to benefit Whites once we get rid of non-Whites but the stark reality is that Whites in the West are in terrible shape. Just getting rid of non-Whites won't magically make White men's sperm counts go up or convince White women to stop whoring around. It is easier and very tempting to focus on what others are doing to us instead of what we are doing to ourselves but that is not going to fix anything and it is precisely the sort of mindset that I find repulsive about a lot of non-Whites that claim to be oppressed at any and every opportunity.
Getting mad at goofball creeps like Mohamed up there doesn't do much. I am an advocate for my own people, why should we expect anything different from him? He is a Muslim and desires to see Islam dominate the world and people like him to rule, especially if that means ample White girls to fertilize. We should point this out again and again to redpill our friends, family, neighbors, fellow believers, etc. but we need to do the harder, more invested work at the same time. I can knock out a blog post in 20 minutes, if I stop checking social media and watching Youtube, but the work of raising a new generation of Whites to reclaim our heritage and civilization is a daily grind that only pays off decades down the road. That is where we need to focus a lot of our efforts and that is going to be a constant theme for me.
Anyone who runs in any circles online where the discourse crosses the boundaries of what is "acceptable", particularly on matters of human sexuality, religion and of course race, is all too familiar with the omnipresent and often trolled tendency of the traditional controllers of social media that are almost entirely a homogeneous pile of leftists to suppress, manipulate and outright shut down politically incorrect speech and expression. It is just a reality of social media. Facebook jail is often the sentence for "hate speech" while Black Lives Matter thugs and agitators can say anything they want. Imams can preach *actual* hate for anyone but other Muslims of the correct flavor but a mommy-blogger who doesn't hate her own race sufficiently gets banned. We see it everywhere. One of my favorite Youtube content creators, VertigoPolitix, was hit with a suspension that as sure as a John McCain political betrayal is simply a prelude to a sudden and without warning complete deletion:
Notice to Subscribers and Followers: Our Youtube channel is under fire right now; and we are banned from uploading any videos for two weeks.
VP's main crime, I suspect, is that not that their material is un-PC or offensive, it is that they present counter-narrative dialogue in a way that is reasoned, sober, intelligent and well-researched. Some porky Mountain Dew swilling redneck angrily ranting about Jews and niggers, especially if he spits on the camera a time or two, is fine because it reinforces the race realism = hatred and ignorance narrative. In fact I suspect that more than a few of the most vocal and least intelligent voices on social media are likely plants to undermine the movements. An intelligent voice using facts and reason? Now that is dangerous. From what I have heard it sounds like VP was caught up in a massive attack by a small group of leftists that spam report posts, giving Youtube and other outlets the cover they need to suddenly ban and delete certain types of speech.
Of course everyone knows about Lauren Southern having her Patreon account deleted. Not suspended, just arbitrarily deleted. As she relied on Patreon for a lot of her income, this means she sort of got fired from her job.
Lauren Southern is not a dyed blonde version of Richard Spencer, not by a long shot. But she is not sold on mass importation of young, often violent and even more often perpetually unemployed men from third world cultures, to replace the population of Europe. So the Patreon Nazis say "No soup financial support for you!"
Why do they do this? The answer is both complex and simple. I will just give you the simple version.
They do it because they can.
I am sure it is partly ideology but also largely because they just can. Not to be graphic but they sort of seem to get off on it. Like the over the top, heavily fictionalized Nazi camp commander Amon Goeth in Schindler's List, social media outlets like Facebook and Twitter can sit on high in Silicon Valley, pointing to one ideology and declaring it gets to live and pointing an another and declaring it shall die.
I am completely serious.
We are living in a massive and bizarre cultural dichotomy. We are in a season where anyone who wants to can say whatever they want online. We also are in a season where a small number of uniformly leftist beta males can arbitrarily shut anyone down if they are so inclined. I can publish whatever comes into my head about what I had for breakfast or the latest sports squabble or politics or pictures of cats. I can also write about racial replacement and White genocide or Islamic extremism or the danger of normalizing sexual deviancy. On the other hand, the people who run places like Blogger (i.e. Google), Youtube, Twitter and Facebook can toss me in social media gulag for two weeks, delete my posts without warning or provocation or just ban me outright. They made the platform so they make the rules.
That brings me in a rather roundabout way to my point. Most of us have a limited pool of resources to draw from. If we spend money on X, we don't have it to spend on Y. We aren't the government so we can't just print money or steal it from tax cattle when we need more. It is not a stretch to say that we are far more politically engaged in how we spend our money day to day than we are when we go through the farcical cultural charade of voting. As an example, my family doesn't have cable or satellite TV and we haven't for a very long time. I honestly can't remember the last time I sat on a couch and watched anything at all on a TV screen. Most of what comes over the TV is garbage and almost all of it is politically subversive in a way that directly opposes everything I believe in. Why would I pay someone to pipe into my home stuff that is harmful and undermines what I believe? I might as well pay a neighbor to pipe his car exhaust into the ducts in my home.
On the other hand I have no issue with paying for internet because I can pick and choose what content I consume. Granted we watch a lot of silly junk on YouTube like PewDiePie (I never watched him until the Wall Street Journal went after him but now I watch every video for a couple of seconds as an act of defiance) but we choose what to watch or not. We also don't go to the movie theater or rent movies from RedBox or pay for Netflix because again those outlets are creating mostly garbage that undermines and opposes what I believe. Why would I pay to see that and directly put money into the pockets of moronic actors who lecture me about global warming, gun control and racism while living in an electricity guzzling mansion behind walls, gates and armed guards to keep unsavory people, that coincidentally are often minorities, away from them?
For example, I priced DirectTV for my area since we don't even have the option of cable. I can get 150 channels of crap being broadcast to a little dish on my house 24-7-365 for only $50 per month, provided I agree to sign up for two years and lo and behold after 12 months my rate goes back up to $90 per month (subject to change and I assume the "change" would be higher, not lower). So over the course of two years that comes to a grand total for the most basic package of $1,680 or $70 per month. I am not paying that. In fact I am not paying $5 to get propaganda streamed to my house. So what can I do with that money instead?
For starters I just began supporting Gab financially on a monthly basis. It isn't a lot of money but it gets me the cool Gab pro logo.
I still tend to visit Twitter more than Gab but I give my money to Gab because I think it is important to have a platform that is not censoring thoughts that I support and not promoting nonsense that I do not support. More broadly, they don't censor anything so there is a lot of stuff I don't like but that is OK because I am sure plenty of people don't like what I say either. Gab is pretty exciting and I think it has the potential to become an alternate platform for thought and speech banned elsewhere, not just in character limited posts like Twitter but in video hosting, live chats and maybe an alternative to Patreon/PayPal. I believe that Andrew Torba, the founder of Gab, probably doesn't agree with all or much of what I think and say but I do believe that he is committed to providing a platform where I can say what I want. That is something worthwhile for me to support.
I also support, for now, via Patreon a few other voices like RAMZPAUL. I am guessing he will follow Lauren soon enough into the Patreon abyss but he amuses me and says stuff that needs to be said even if he isn't 100% on the right path on 100% of the issues. In this world we live in, someone who is more right than wrong is precious and someone who is mostly right is doubly so.
It doesn't matter to me specifically who or what you support with your time and money. I don't ask for permission from anyone else and no one asks me. Just be aware that how you spend your money matters. If you direct your money to garbage, mindless entertainment and "news" from people who probably hate you and would like to see you dead, your children enslaved and your race annihilated, then you kind of get what you have coming to you. You might still get that even if you don't subsidize them but at least you can go down swinging.
How you spend your shrinking discretionary income is one of the few remaining channels for you to make a difference. Don't waste it on nonsense that subsidizes people that hate you.
The cult of White guilt in America is ubiquitous and is especially insidious because it tends to pop up in unexpected places and is reinforced via subtle and endless reminders designed to cement in the minds of every White American that they are bad people because of the misdeeds, real and imagined and inflated, of prior generations of Whites whether they are related or not. As such we all deserve to be insulted and punished at every opportunity. The opposite is never true of course. We are never given credit for creating the greatest and most enduring civilization known to mankind (We wuz kangz, you didn't build that, etc.) and other civilizations are never to blame for past abuses or current failings. The movement to replace White civilization, culture and ultimately the people themselves can only happen in a setting where White self-loathing and guilt gives the impression that the world would be a better place if Whites were gone and we pretended that Whites never existed. The obvious inconvenient truth that people from non-White nations are desperate to get to majority White nations because they recognize that nations run by Whites are better places to live no matter your skin color is best left unsaid.
The reason I bring this up is something I read the other day on Fox News. It had to do with a new show from the producers of the hit HBO show Game of Rape Thrones, David Benioff and D.B. Weiss. The new show will be called Confederate and is a fictional look at what the world would be like if the South had won the War between the States. As with anything Confederacy related, this show is already cancer. After all, it might accidentally portray a Southerner as something other than an uber-evil ogre that only bought blacks slaves so they can rape black women and we cannot allow that! The show sounds interesting, I like alternative historical fiction from the likes of authors like Harry Turtledove because it is fascinating to think how the world would be different if events happened in a slightly different way. That isn't why I am writing. What caught my attention and the point of my post was this line:
Taking on issues involving race and America's original sin - slavery - was sure to court controversy, Benioff said.
I have seen that phrase before. Why exactly is slavery America's "original sin" when slavery did not originate in America? Slavery predated America and lingered (and lingers) well after the Civil War. Slavery was practiced and is practiced in Africa, and of course many slaves sold to traders who ended up in America were captured and enslaved by fellow black Africans. Slavery was common throughout most of human history in one form or another and was common in non-White cultures. We see it repeatedly mentioned, although not condoned, in the Bible. In fact America is one of the few places where Whites fought and died in large numbers over the issue, a vicious and bloody war between Whites that ended up with American slaves being freed.
Unfortunately slavery was and remains the most useful weapon in the arsenal of those who wish to impugn Whites and denigrate Western civilization. No matter how the facts present the history of slavery, it is always and only the fault of Whites. Slavery is the sin that keeps on giving because no matter what good Whites have done, it is irrelevant because of slavery, and no matter what ills befall blacks it is never their fault, also because of slavery, even though there are no living former slaves or slave owners and haven't been for some time.
Pay attention to the language people use and call them on it when the language they use is aimed at pushing a false narrative. Slavery might have been sinful but it was not and is not unique to Whites or America. When we let others redefine history in order to create a framework that provides cover for the replacement of Whites civilization, culture and people, we are accessories to racial murder. Be sure you are informed because the assault on our people is constant.
The whole thing reminded me of a scene from 48 Hours where Eddie Murphy borrows Nick Nolte's badge and gun to get information from a "redneck" bar.
"I'm your worst nightmare, I'm a nigger with a badge"
Replace "nigger" with "Somali", for the sake of precision, and you get the situation in Minneapolis. Noor is one of 9 Somalis on the Minneapolis police force, so statistically White women in Minneapolis have at least a one in nine chance of getting murdered if they encounter a Somali cop.
Once upon a time societal institutions like the police and the military were intended to serve a specific purpose: to keep the citizens, who grant them lethal force authority and fund their existence via their taxes, safe from criminals and foreign adversaries respectively. Now? Now you can't even get enough "conservatives" in the House of Representatives to vote to overturn the policy of having the military pay for the "gender reassignment" surgery for mentally ill people who somehow got into the military and you have a "police chief" hiring people from primitive cultures and giving them guns, at least when they take a break from prancing around with rainbow sodomy pride flags. Ironically the same people that she hires as cops will someday be the people throwing perverts like Chief Cunnilingus off buildings. The MPD is obviously sold out on this idea, based on the crowing of Chief Harteau (did I mention she is the first female chief of police in Minneapolis?! And a lesbian!!!!) about promoting a Hispanic, Medaria Arradondo, to be assistant chief. The website for the Minneapolis police is like a poorly done parody site mocking social justice. Look at out staff!
So a Hispanic of some sort, a colored officer, a Muslim of some sort and a butch looking woman. If you keep scrolling you run into some White men, but even there you have a White cop with a little Muslim girl in a hijab. I would be willing to bet that the actual officers on the force are majority White males, but even that might not be true anymore. What White man would want to put his life on the line for people who by and large hate him and who will blame him for being too forceful or not forceful enough no matter what he does, not to mention the humiliation of having a lesbian ordering you around? Serve and protect has been replaced by pander and "pride".
It is suicidal to continue to bring in people from primitive cultures to flood our nation. To turn around and give those same primitives guns and the legal cover to use lethal force simply hastens the suicide.
Wake up. The word diversity is just a polite way of saying White genocide and now it is simply getting more blatant.
I don't think Mohamed Noor was intentionally planning on striking a blow for White genocide, given the average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans I doubt he could think that far ahead. But the murder of a White woman by Mohamed Noor is the inevitable result of a policy that places feelings and "diversity" over public safety and cultural survival.
Look at these two. One is dead and the other killed her. I am not super excited about importing spiritual healers or whatever silly but harmless nonsense Justine Damond was into but I would take 100 of her coming to this country over one of Mohamed Noor's ilk.
The most well known ending of the four Gospels is found in Matthew 28:18-20. Jesus speaking to His disciples upon rising from the grave sends them forth with Good News....
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
(Matthew 28:18-20 KJV)
These words are the command of Christ that has driven much of the church for the next 2000 years. Countless missionaries and evangelists have gone to all the ends of the earth to preach the Gospel. They have also gone across the street. Later in the first chapter of the Acts of the Apostles we see more details from Jesus on this sending:
But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
(Acts 1:8)
Take note of the order. The Gospel goes out locally to globally. He doesn't say this and I am loathe to put words in His mouth but it seems that He is saying that we should preach where we are first and foremost. Even in America with a church on every corner and sometimes two, there are a ton of unsaved people. That is due in part to our assumption that being an American = being a Christian and also thanks to a ton of confused to heretical "churches". From liberal, apostate denominations like the United Methodists and the Episcopalians to historic enemies of the Gospel like the original globalists in Roman Catholicism to out-and-out heretics like the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, America has been a breeding ground from cranks and crackpots and has proven to be fertile soil for both the Gospel and for anti-Christs.
If you ask any even slightly aware Christian they will admit that there are a ton of people who are lost in a small circle around their home and that there are a ton of people with real, legitimate needs in that same circle. So why then do we see so much focus on overseas mission and mercy work?
The simple answer is that it is White guilt mission porn, virtue signaling under the guise of the Gospel. Most of my social media contacts in my "real" life are Christians and that means social media pages full of photos of White Christians in some far off land, grinning at the camera with a black, Hispanic or Southeast Asian kid. They are overwhelmingly "vacationaries", blending a week or two long "mission trip" with a little vacation to an exotic locale. It is how we get street cred in church. Why don't we see photos very often of those same folks in Appalachia or other rural areas in the U.S. wrecked by opiod addiction, broken families, unwed mothers, unemployment, hunger and poor medical and dental care? Read Hillbilly Elegy and tell me there isn't a need in rural, White America. I am afraid the answer is that we feel better about ourselves if we are seen to be "helping" non-Whites. A picture of me with a little boy in West Virginia coal country is not going to get a lot of heart "likes" and emoji on Facebook. But a picture with a little girl in Vietnam or a couple of little black kids in Ethiopia is going to shower me with virtue signaling manna. Perhaps you think I am being harsh but if you are honest with yourself you know I am right. Even Samaritan's Purse, a monster of a relief agency with over $634,000,000 in contributions and other support according to their annual report, a number that staggered me even though I was expecting a large figure, bills itself as an "International Relief" agency and fills their webpage and annual report and marketing materials with pictures of kids from around the world, even though they actually do a lot of work in the United States. One place you won't find much diversity is on their board of directors who all kind of look like me, just older:
A dozen board members and they are 100% White men. Many would complain about a lack of diversity. I would too, where are all of the "people of color"? Or is mission work overseas just a burden for Whites? I am willing to bet that their missionaries, aid workers, staff, etc. are also overwhelmingly White. Even though Whites are a small percentage of the world's total population, we do an incredibly out sized amount of mission and mercy work that far exceeds our representation in the world. Yes I know, "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more. " (Luke 12:48). Also "With great power comes great responsibility", Spiderman's Uncle Ben Parker. I don't deny that. I also understand that in the U.S. a lot of the social safety net is already provided by the Feds. I just don't see where "Well Caesar has America covered, so off to Ecuador we go!" is in the Bible. Many Christians have been on a lifelong guilt trip from the pulpit that tells them that they should feel bad about having running water and Uber.
Another issue is simple stewardship. For example, just using Travelocity and picking a date in September, I found airfare for one from O'Hare to Addis Ababa, Ethiopia is over $1,000 and that cheapest flight takes over 38 hours and sounds kind of sketchy. That doesn't take into account other expenses like meals, housing while you are there, vaccinations, extra cost for luggage, the need for a passport, the time commitment, etc. On the other hand, driving from Chicago to Charleston, WV is about a 500 mile trip and takes about 7 hours. Even in a big church van getting 10 mpg that is 100 gallons of gas round trip and at an inflated $2.50 a gallon that is $250 plus meals and accommodations. The difference is that a big church van can carry a dozen people or more so the cost per person is next to nothing compared to over a grand for a single person to go to Ethiopia. So ten people could go to West Virginia for less than the cost of one person going to Ethiopia. Rather than sending White aid workers and missionaries overseas, it is much more cost-effective to have them serve and evangelize in the U.S. and if you are so led send cash to local aid groups and missionaries so that they can make a living and also work with people with whom they share a culture and language, instead of English speaking Whites. If you don't think places with a heavy mission work presence like Guatemala, Haiti and others have a lot of people who take advantage of White American Christians, you are naive. I have been overseas and I know it happens. For a fraction of the cost and with far greater impact American churches can aid people in the U.S. who need help and the Gospel plus reach far more efficiently and effectively people in third world nations by supporting local missionaries.
Don't even get me started on the need for the Gospel in Europe. According to one survey, something like 5% of of people in the United Kingdom attend church services, which is by far the lowest bar possible for gauging actual faith, and American Christians share a lot of culture and have a common language with Brits. In other Western European nations the numbers are just as bad. Only in places like Poland is church attendance still strong and most Poles are attending the Catholic Mass which is almost as bad as not going to church at all. In general, apart from Muslim majority nations, according to Wikipedia the least Christian nations are European. So why no mission trips to England or Poland or the Ukraine or Sweden? I know of some Christians that do go to majority White nations like Russia and the Ukraine but nowhere near the numbers that go to non-White nations. The only explanation that makes sense is that we get more satisfaction out of being seen to be compassionate toward black and brown people than we do White people. Little Colombian or Kenyan orphans generate more social media love than little Russian orphans even though it seems iron-clad to me that it is more efficient and effective to send money instead of White missionaries and aid workers.
Somewhere along the line we seem to have forgotten the purpose of the Great Commission. It is to spread the Gospel and make disciples, not to go for a week to a third world nation so we can post pictures on Instagram of little brown and black kids to signal our virtue. It is not that I think non-Whites are less in need of or deserving of the Gospel and simple mercy. The Gospel is for all people everywhere. I am simply making the case that we need to be smart and realistic about how we allocate our resources. For what it costs to send a "team" of "missionaries" to some third world country for a week to paint a building and take pictures of little non-White kids you could realistically fund a number of indigenous workers for a year or more. Hire a Dominican to paint the orphanage so he can also feed his family instead of paying thousands of dollars so a White church lady can do the same thing.
Let's set our virtue signaling and White guilt aside and start serving with our heads as well as our hearts. You don't get extra points in Heaven by guilt-driven fundraising to go to Ghana instead of going to Alabama and the Lamb's Book of Life doesn't have links to your Facebook page.
Lauren Southern (who is not right on every issue but she is more right than not and I believe is getting righter by the day, plus is a bit of eye candy) posted a video a while back on the Great Replacement. Here it is below if you want to watch....
During the video there was a screenshot of an older article (from 2000) from The Guardian titled not-so-subtly "The last days of a white world". It is pretty old so the data it has is both stuff we already know and way out of date. The article is nothing special and as it comes from a far Left publication it glosses over or ignores the seriousness of the issue with quotes like this:
Yasmin Alibhai-Brown of the Foreign Policy Centre, who
arrived in London from Uganda in 1972,
said such fears are basically racist: 'Only white people worry about this. It's
because for such a long time the world has been their own. To talk about it
feeds a particular type of racism that says that blacks breed like rabbits.
There is an underlying assumption that says white is right.'
She added: 'There is a white panic every time one part of
their world seems to be passing over to anyone else. But it's foolish to panic
about it. So what if we do become a majority? What difference does it make?'
For Alibhai-Brown, the decline of whites is a question of
redressing the balance after they colonised much of the world. 'The empire
strikes back really. There was this extraordinary assumption that white people
could go and destroy peoples and it would have no consequence. It astounds me,'
she said.
Almost two decades later in 2017 as the hordes of "migrants" invade Europe and slowly but inexorably mutate what was for centuries the heart of civilization, not just Western civilization but civilization period, I think many of us and more by the day are answering her question "What difference does it make?". I would wonder why Yasmin, who came to London in 1972, stays in Europe if it makes no difference whether a country is populated by White European or Ugandans. I went to her Wikipedia page and was treated to this little gem:
Alibhai-Brown was born into the Ugandan Asian community in Kampala in 1949; her
family belonged to the Nizari branch of the Shia Islamic faith, and she identifies
as a Shia Muslim. Her mother was born in East Africa and her father moved there
from British India in the 1920s.
After graduating in English literature from MakerereUniversity
in 1972, Alibhai-Brown left Uganda
for Britain, along with her
niece, Farah Damji, shortly before the expulsion of Ugandan Asians by Idi Amin,
and completed a Master of Philosophy degree in literature at LinacreCollege,
University of Oxford, in 1975. After working as a
teacher, particularly with immigrants and refugees, she moved into journalism
in her mid-thirties. She is married to Colin Brown, chairman of the Consumer
Services Panel of the Financial Services Authority. The couple have a daughter,
and Alibhai-Brown has a son from a previous marriage.
So she is a divorced Muslim woman who doesn't cover her head and who essentially fled the paradise known as Uganda when it was taken over by lunatic Idi Amin. Why did she flee to the U.K. only to get a divorce and then marry a White Englishmancuck? Oh that's right. because it was full of people not like herself but then she makes a career out of bashing the people who took her in and gave her shelter, happiness and prosperity, protected from the likes of people like herself. I have more to say on that line of thinking for another day, suffice it to say the sheer ingratitude of the non-Whites who enjoy the fruit of centuries of labor and blood from Whites is infuriating.
My main point comes from the subheading of the article: We are near a global watershed - a time when white people will not be in the majority in the developed world, Britain included.
You will note if you read the article that the Guardian doesn't lament this seismic change, it seems to celebrate it and if anything be kind of miffed that it is taking so long to happen.
It is nonsensical for the Guardian to have a subheading that talks about "the developed world" with a minority of White people. Apart from a small handful of nations in Asia which are notable for being highly homogenous, there is no developed world apart from majority White nations. That is not a coincidence. It isn't as though the developed world magically sprang up from the earth overnight and the lazy Whites just moved in and occupied it, and it certainly is a fantasy that blacks created civilization and Whites stole it. We created it. The developed world is the direct result of the advancement of White civilization.
A lot of people, concentrated in the ranks of the elites in our culture, are giddy at the prospect of Whites becoming a minority despite the clear and obvious suicidal mindset behind this. The very culture that has made them immensely rich, powerful and influential will evaporate like a morning mist once Whites become a minority and a black, Hispanic and Muslim combination reaches critical mass.
There is a very small contingent of people for whom this change is going to be immensely profitable and they tend to be the loudest advocates for replacement. The very wealthiest among us who can pay to insulate themselves from the impact of the policies they push, who can afford armed guards and high powered attorneys and lawyers and live in segregated communities will be just fine and tend to be disproportionately Jewish, even "conservative" Jews like Jennifer Rubin and William Kristol who openly advocate wholesale replacement. Everyone else will not. Do you suppose that when Whites are a minority and Muslims and blacks dominate our population that having a Coexist bumper sticker on your car and an ACLU donor card in your wallet will stop them from stealing your Prius and raping your wife and children (and perhaps you as well)?
Here is a little thought-experiment I would like you to try. Imagine what America would be like if you could overnight magically remove segments of the population (this is hypothetical to make a point, I am not advocating genocide against any group).
What would America be like if you took away all of the blacks?
We can know a few things for certain. The prison population would shrink dramatically as blacks are wildly over-represented in prison (because they are wildly over-represented in crime). The violent crime rate would drop by a huge percentage as something like 3% of the population, young black men, commit around half of all murders. It would be a long term positive for our economy. As it stands right now, the average black is an enormous net drain on our economy. Vox Day posted The Cost of Black America and shows that the average black receives a net three quarter million dollars in benefits from the system over the course of an average lifespan whereas Whites pay in over $220,000. More on that in a moment. Other than diversity hires at universities and corporations and a contingent of largely low-skill, low-wage workers which could easily be replaced by the increasing number of prime working age White males who are out of the workforce, there would be nothing but benefits if America were suddenly bereft of blacks.
What about Hispanics? A lot of the same things are true as they are heavily over-represented in crime and prison. They are largely lower wage, lower skill workers but at least they do fill a niche but one again that could be filled by unemployed/underemployed Whites. Like blacks they are net takers from the system, although at a lower rate ($7,298 for Hispanics versus $10,016 annually for blacks). So again the result would be a net benefit to the U.S..
Well what about Whites? Remove the White population and America collapses. Immediately. We make up the vast majority of the tax base in our role as tax cattle for minorities. We make up the vast majority of professional jobs, executive positions and the skilled trades. Education, academia, the arts, the "culture", all are dominated by Whites. Who would feed America as Whites make up most of the farming population especially outside of South? Well sure you might say, Whites are the majority of the population so we couldn't do without them! Even if you could swap average blacks or Hispanics one for one for Whites, it wouldn't be the same. Blacks and Hispanics, especially blacks, simply have a lower average IQ and sit largely on the lower end of the bell curve for intelligence. In spite of untold billions spent to try to bring minorities closer to the same academic achievement level as Whites and Asians, it has been an utter failure and in many ways is getting worse. Those who shrug off or even openly welcome the eradication of White majority status don't seem to understand, or are too rich and connected to care, that aging Whites that will depend on Social Security and Medicare are going to be in trouble as the White tax cattle retire and are "replaced" by low-IQ, low-wage minorities. When push comes to shove and Whites are no longer the majority, do you think that given the choice of funding retirement benefits for old Whites or current welfare benefits for "people of color" that the new non-White majority is going to be appreciative of the society Whites bequeathed to them?
It is inescapable that when Whites are no longer the majority of the developed world that the developed world itself will rapidly collapse. Whites and the developed world go hand in hand. That doesn't necessarily mean that there is no place for non-Whites in the developed world, simply that one cannot replace Whites with non-Whites and end up with an equivalent society. If you replaced the population of India with a White population, India would inevitably change. The same is and will be true in the West. We are about to discover this first hand but unlike something trivial like fashion we will not be able to go back to normal pants when we realize bell-bottoms look stupid. Once the developed world is transformed, it will never go back and the balance of power will shift to places like China/Japan/Korea and Russia and Eastern Europe. For those of us who are left behind, the only question left is what to do about it. Sitting back passively hastens the collapse so our only options are to fight back against the tide of White hatred and suicidal White self-loathing or to seek an Exodus to homes more hospitable to Whites. I am not sure how feasible either of those options are right now but the alternative is for Whites to see America turn into post-apartheid South Africa on a much larger scale and that ought to horrify anyone who cares about the future of our civilization and our culture.
