Sign into an existing account

This is the danger in rejecting a universal part of human nature, those who lacked the capacity to hate died out because they were unable to force out those who were dangerous to others. Without hate, you are a victim of of those who are deserving of hate.

What hate is, is a keeping of records, it's recognizing a pattern of actions and the individuals who engage in them.

It develops like fears do, we notice that whenever we encounter a specific thing, we experience a negative consequence, and so we learn to develop a fight or flight response to the stimuli we now associate with the negative events.

Fear is a flight response, which helps us to avoid the thinga that have proven themselves to be dangerous, and hate is a fight response, that helps us to repel or otherwise rid ourselves of the things that we associate with a threat.

The second response is usually more associated with those things which will likely seek out encounters with us of left alone, and thus our drive to destroy it is a proactive approach thay is effective at keeping ourselves and those around us safe.

When we hate a single individual, it's because they've done things that have shown them to be risky to be around.

When we hate a group, we do so because they are statistically likely to be dangerous for us, and while it may cause some non-threatening people to be hated, it's an undeniable benefit to our survival to excise the whole group from our presence and a risk to keep them around.

Cruel as it may be, survival is a matter of playing the odds, white blood cells and chemotherapy target more healthy cells in our bodies than the unhealthy ones, but in so doing, they are more effective at removing the unhealthy cells that endanger us, it's a nuke then from orbit trait found both in put natural biology and in the technologies we use to medically treat ourselves when we are ill.

We wouldn't develop a trait thay causes us to act so drastically unless those who lacked it ended up winning the darwin awards of extinction.

This is because being unnecessarily aggressive is the second most surefire way to see your contributions to the gene pool die out, the jews originated as a group that was on constant full aggro, and they should have died when their enemies got together to remove the common threat, if it wasn't for the traditions of hospitality practiced by the first empires we'd have seen their ancestors perish at the hands of their enemies instead of transforming into the treasonous global menace that they are today.

So we didn't develop the capacity of hatred as some excessive trait prone to misfiring, and the fact that this trait is found in all human populations speaks volumes to its essential nature.

In fact, it seems that our instinct to hate is as strong as our instinct to humble ourselves before some cause or idea or organization or leader or entity.

We live in a society where the popular stance someone would claim to take is to be about "love over hatred".

But the fact is that this mainstream culture simply compensates by declaring specific groups of people defined by particular racial, sexual, religious, national, and political characteristics as an exception, and then increasing the degree of hatred they put upon these acceptable targets to increasingly extreme levels, until they become absurd, like their very existence is a crime against the rest of the world.

I've heard Klansmen talk about blacks, and Neonazis talk about jews, but never have I heard such insane, vicious, and irrational hatred as that expressed by a white liberal towards his own race, when talking among themselves, it's like they put on a contest to see who can outdo the rest in terms of their extreme expressions of pure unbridled hatred.

Same with feminists speaking among themselves about men, almost as if cultural marxism is mainly concerned with stewing in vicious hatred towards the founding stock of their countries, until an opportunity arises to act on this hatred.

This reminds me of how those who stop worshipping God often turn to worshipping whatever is most enshrined in their prevailing metaculture, along with sacrificing their independence to what they perceive to be the immediate consensus within their proximity (often some pretentious group of self-congratulatory pseudointellectuals, the San Francisco fart-sniffing smuglords).

We should open a discussion on hate, and whether it deserves the hatred it receives in our culture.

Why do we have it? What purpose does it serve? Or what purpose did it serve for our ancestors to make it into a universal human characteristic?

I proposed we use jew speak to make anti-white hatred and white racial inequality into issues, historically other races had used similar tactics as a stepping stone to eventually gaining dominance in their societies, and it's been very effective.

You all rejected it, so what's you alternatives?

"We go and kill those fuckers" or some hardcore shit like that. Ok then, muster your army together and go do it, or go out and do it alone. What's stopping you? Yeah, that's what I thought.

"We find a wife and move out into the woods, then have a large number of kids". Yes, that's also been tried, we can see the ways in which such action will not only fail to save us, but make things worse for ourselves, we will be isolated and hunted, easily slandered as a danger warranting our asses being sought out and destroyed, and we will still be abandoning our countries to the enemy if we do so.

A better move than heading out to some remote place in your country is going on an organized mass exodus to some foreign shithole of a country with your fellow racial conscious whites, forming your own self-segregated self-sustaining communities in that place, building up your numbers with more organized breeding, sending out people from your community to take over key positions within the country, then sending people out to repeat the process in other surrounding countries.

Basically puling a reverse uno card with regard to the migrant crisis by having whites invade and colonize a shithole to improve it rather than the shitholers invading and colonizing our countries to destroy it, if you wanted to go innawoods, then you already admitted that you are alright with abandoning your homes to the enemy.

Also, if you are objecting to this on the basis that we won't be legally permitted to migrate, you miss the point that we will not be going there legally, we will go there without asking permission to enter, and we will do so in such great numbers, and be so difficult to remove, that we will be able to stay in the place we choose as our destination, again, exactly like the illegal invaders we'd been dealing with for almost a century now.

"We just tell white people that X are as bad as they are" haven't we been doing that for 80 years now? What's that got us so far? How many gains have we attained by doing this thing? How long do you think we have until doing this will get us what we seek? How long do you think someone doing this kind of thing 80 years ago would say we need to keep it up for?

Better question: do you honestly think that people are genuinely ignorant about all the redpils you are dropping on them? do you not imagine that these facts aren't so obvious that everyone has picked up on them? because I've been interacting with normals and our worst enemies, and I think that the normies are fully cognizant of what the truths are likely to be, and that the further "left" you go, the more aware people are of the reality.

They aren't toeing the line of the kike agenda because they are convinced of their claims being true, the normies are on board only because of apathy and a need to conform, the leftoids are relishing the thrill of being the ones to know the truth while making sure that everyone else at least pretends to believe the lies.

The rest of your responses are likely to be some sort of retarded blustering about principles or honor or what it means to be white.

What it means to be white is to be an extinct race of people of you keep this idiocy up, we wont become jews just by emulating their methods to achieve the same level of success for our own side, do we owe them honor? What I see is you coming on here, shutting down a proposed change of strategy that could give us massive gains in the culture war, then acting like you have noble reasons for doing so.

You don't, you just want to gimp our ability to act effectively for the cause, if you were really concerned with saving our people and giving a future to our children, then you'd be willing to make any sacrifice to achieve that. This is not the case with you, so it would be best that we disregard ANYTHING you have to say from now on.

Every fictional character has to be some sort of LGBT, or they will have a legion mostly composed of women who will loudly demand that they be made gay to some degree in some way.

Remember those cringey 13 year old girls writing their slash fanfiction about the latest young adult or children's fiction?

They are the ones making all your shows now.

The reason all the female characters in our children's media are spontaneously becoming lesbian or bisexual when they were formerly 100 percent heterosexual?

That's because we have a bunch of homosexuality obsessed women who were rightfully told by the audiences that they really suck at writing men.

Expect nothing in media to be clean of this filth for a long time.

The devil is in the chemicals, the demons in the DNA, there's no ghost in the machine, the ghost is what is produced by the machine in it's functioning, we aren't minds expressing ourselves through flesh, but flesh projecting minds through it's expressions.

Look up philosophical zombies, and the chinese room thought experiment, also consider what makes you yourself by learning the parts of you that could be removed, and imagining your existence after each part's removal, so much of what you consider a defining trait of yourself as an individual is something you could conceivably find yourself living without.

Also note that after around seven years in your life, not a single cell in your body is one that you were born with, and every seven years every physical part of you is completely replaced by new components produced by your body.

Also imagine a teleportation machine that creates a perfect copy of yourself on the other side, but doesn't destroy the original you which enters the machine at it's origin, each version of you, new and original, are the same from their own perspective and from the perspective of their duplicate on the other side of the machine.

This is far more than just identical twins or a biological clone, it's an exact copy of everything about yourself, including all the information in your brain at the time of teleportation: every memory, personality trait, pattern of thinking and feeling, all things are 100% identical at the moment the duplicate was made, all the clothes worn and items taken with you are also copied in the exact position and nature as was at the entrance of the machine.

The other you doesn't share one thing with you, and that's the experience of being you, instead they have a separate experience of being themselves, your death will not end their experience of being alive as an exact copy of you, just as their death would not bring an end to yours.

Also the "exact copy" thing is only at the time of teleportation being completed, outside of that moment things start to diverge, as each of you have separate experiences that change parts of yourselves, you might even be brought to a strong difference with your copy through these different experiences and your gene-programmed reactions to them.

So you could say that under such circumstances, even if you go back in time to kill a version of yourself from five minutes ago, you and your most exact copy could be said to be different people for two separate reasons.

Now imagine uploading your mind to a machine, but it's just a copy of the data stored in your brain, obviously the part about your physical body doesn't apply here, but the mind uploaded could exist in the machine at the same time that the original mind which uploaded itself continues to exist in the physical body it was copied from.

Contrary to brain uploading being frequently sold as an unorthodox form of "immortality", that mind in the box is not you, because it doesn't get to experience being you, it only remembers your prior experiences before the upload and then goes onto "live" a wholly different experience of existing within the machine from the one you get to keep experiencing while truly living on the outside of it, if the uploaded mind gets deleted, your experience of living goes unaffected, if you die, it's experience of being "alive" is unaffected by it as well.

So, if multiple personalities exist, then you could count these as being different people, purely because each personality only experiences their existence while they are active, and even if memories from before the split occurred are shared, the memories after that point diverge to only include the experiences each personality has wen they are "out", in that way, an MPD sufferer is like a conjoined twin, one body, two (or more) different experiences of lives being lived within it.

They are just doing what's best for themselves, and we are just doing what's best for ourselves, I hate them like the antelope hates the lion, and the lion hates the hyenas; It's the rules of nature to do what's best for your genes, and under natural law, you often have to do things that harm other in order to benefit yourself.

I see White Supremacists, Nationalists, and Imperialists as being much the same as these jews who are also supremacists, nationalists, and imperialists.

It's just that both are doing what they can for the sake of their people - Gentiles for Gentiles, and jews for jews.

We can't really blame the other for doing what's in the best interests of their genes, families, and peoples, we just can't coexist in peace because our motives are inherently opposed to one another, mutually exclusive, we have to defeat or destroy the other in order to win, the other must lose. May the best competitor win.

I'm sure there are those who think we can live in peace, separately or together, many white nationalists and separatists who just want to be left alone feel this way, and at times I am one of those people, at other times I feel like I realize all too well the cold harsh truth of reality regarding this situation, and feel like it's impossible for things to be any other way, especially when I see none of the previously mentioned sentiments being expressed by these jews - they don't want to be left to themselves, they want to seek us out and destroy us so that they can inherit everything in the world and stand unopposed in their total dominance.

So why should I afford them anything but a reciprocation of the attitudes they express towards me?

It's a grapple, between being a just man in a just world, and being a living creature, a collection of genes expressing themselves in an environment, each gene with the driving purpose of seeing copies of itself expressed in other organisms.

For me the fight is nothing personal, but I have the obligation of fighting this fight to the best of my ability and with everything I could possibly have to give to it.

If this conflict is one of this true nature, then each of us owes it to ourselves to give it our all, to pull no punches, and have them fight us at our best, so that the best of us and them is truly the victor left standing at the end.

All our minds, all our bodies, all our efforts, the best of our abilities, everything we've got, that is what we owe to this fight. I respect my opponent as worthy, and that is why I will do my all to defeat or destroy them, expecting nothing but the same from them toward me, as they owe me that in turn.

I am without honor, but this one very limited kind of honor is an exception for me.

Fiat currency is evil because it's backed by nothing except government power, untethering it from any representative resources with real value and finite supply for which it could be redeemed, as it stands, it can be exchanged for nothing that could be used as a substitute for it's use as a medium of trade.

Credit culture is evil because it produces a world of debt for a country and it's people, while also paving the way to a system that seizes the ownership of one's own funds from the nation's people, placing their money under the control of the government, megacorporations, and the banker dynasties that controls both.

Fractional reserve lending is evil because it allows banks to cheat their clients into debt (the government frequently being included among their number) and the economy into (you guessed it) inflation.

Private central banking is evil because it allows foreign powers in the form of international banking dynasties and megacorporations to hold the government hostage, forming a deep state aristocracy that controls the government and legal system of the country, usually to the insane ends of an archaic agenda that goes against the interests of it's nation's people.

Corporate personhood is evil because it allows those acting within their capacity as a corporate figure to avoid facing legal consequences for their criminal behavior.

Requiring companies to submit to the immediate financial interests of their shareholders is evil because it forces them to conduct their business like psychopaths.

ESG scores are evil because of the way they also rob companies of their agency by forcing them to operate in accordance with a specific set of political agendas.

Intellectual property is evil because it infringes upon the ownership rights that individuals and groups have over their own real physical property, people are restricted in making profits off of their actual goods and services for the sake of people being able to profit off of their ideas, on a moral level, this is profit off of nothing, which places it on an equal standing with charging interest in terms of it's on-principle evil.

I have good reasons to hate all these things, not only are they all morally wrong concepts, they are also harmful in very tangible ways, the race to the collapse of our civilization had truly started at the introduction of each of these concepts into our economic systems.

Of course, it was jews and hoodwinked or corrupted gentiles who passed each of these into law, some were present from the beginning of the nation's founding, a sensible design for the American system would have prevented such things from being made so.

I could probably think of other terrible economic policies that had ultimately brought about the doom of our country down the line, If you have anything to add or say about this post, I would appreciate you letting me know in the comments. thank you for reading this post.

I know I've neglected to mention the evil of government intervention in the market, be assured that I know that there should be a clear separation of market and state, a lack of such a vital separation is one of the worst evils, that gives rise to the corporations, which fosters an incestuous relationship between them and government in conspiring against the people, and which produces the monopolies and oligopolies that kills market competition and creates the plutocratic corporatism that so many of the anti-capitalists on here love to mischaracterize as being the true ultimate form of the free market.

Yes, any involvement of government in the economy outside of enforcing the NAP (which includes things like enforcing the terms of contracts, and prosecuting fraud) is evil, be it through services that redistribute funds (like welfare and healthcare), or policies that interfere with market activity (like subsidies and regulations), it is something I intensely regard as inherently vile, producing disastrous results for the society and it's individuals.

Things are made moral or immoral by whatever most people will say, if most will say that X is moral, then it is moral, if most will say that X is immoral, then it is immoral.

Might makes right because with might you can manipulate this consensus on morality - you can make something evil by punishing those who do it, and making those who support the punished action fall under suspicion.

Similarly, you can use power to make something good, such as mandating human sacrifice, as some among those in the centre and south of the Americas had.

Good and evil is whatever the prevalent culture believes it to be, and it changes as the culture does, not everyone is in agreement, and those who disagree can overtake the rest of society to alter the moral standards it's people will operate under.

Morality changes with incentives, as the threats and rewards of different actions change, so does the morality of these actions, some acts are evil only by the virtue of there being a punishment for doing them, some acts are good only because those who do them are rewarded, even if the reward is only being regarded more positively for their deeds.

If morality is a value judgement and up to personal preference, then whatever is most generally preferred is whatever is most moral, and whatever is most generally disliked is whatever is most immoral.

Everyone has their own moral values, and there's likely to be some overlap, put them together and you get a sort of consensus on the most common sense of moral righteousness is, and this morality is what is found at the foundation of the culture that itself serves as the basis for the religion and politics of a society.

Regardless of its form or source, the use of power can manipulate the expressions of preferences among people, making them more or less likely to express like or dislike for different activities (slavery, for example). Power is not just force, it could also be control, or the sum of both parts.

This is a very pragmatic view of morality, cynical, but not necessarily pessimistic, in fact it's quite useful, and with its utility there's the capacity for good (whatever good is to you).

Look at heroes and villains, the hero is good because in our world we will most likely express agreement with his actions and statements (if we say anything of them at all), the villain is evil because we would express our disapproval with his actions and statements if we say anything about them.

Jesus Christ is regarded as good because we mostly find ourselves in agreement with his words and deeds, the pharisee and romans both are seen as villains because of what we see and hear from them being generally disagreeable to us.

Even though his story ends with what is largely regarded as a loss, we still see him as a hero because of how his morality resonates with our own.

Our dominant culture largely aligns with him at this point in time, and it contrasts with that of a pharisee and the romans.

The morality of a hero or villain reflects the values of the culture that they emerged from, the standards outside the story determine those found within.

It's a rare event when the work expresses a moral view that is different to tbat of its society, and in those cases, the story fails on its time, but may find itself enshrined as a great classic as the cultural standards shift, typically in those cases, the work was either a harbinger of the change to come, or more rarely, the cause of the shift in morality.

Threats and insults are a great way of getting people to fall in line without the need for physical force, contact, or even proximity. Humans are programmed to fit in, so expressions of disapproval are an effective way to impose values on others. It can be a general insult, or one that appeals to the value specific specific the in group using fear of rejection on the misfit individual.

Equality was always only ever a clever ruse to allow those without supremacy to seize it from those who possess it by tricking them into giving it up.

It was only ever a way to progress towards the destruction of those who will accept another group as being equal to themselves.

For whites, it was only our people who have had a majority that has been so naïve as to accept unwisely to give up our power and share a lowered role in society with those unlike us, and now we see the final form of equality.

We are now being made to live beneath the supremacy of all those whom we had been so foolish as to accept as our equals prioritize your people over others: if you are a male then you should seek to gain and keep power over females, if white, over all who are not white, if gentile, over those who are jewish, if straight, over those who are not straight, if Christian, over those who are not Christian. Etc.

Failing to prioritize your own group supremacy is in effect advocating for your groups to be placed in a position of inferiority.

I'm sure there are true believers of all races who want a world where everyone can live in peace, but they should keep in mind that those they rally around are not unlikely to be just using the cause of equality as a stepping stone to destroying the dominance of a group that they could be made inferior to other groups instead.

For white people this is what has occurred in our homelands and the lands founded for us in other parts of the world, this has been the method by which we were intended to be wiped out in a transparent plan conceived by a select few of the wealthiest and most powerful jewish people, and put into operation by those who occupy the aristocratic upper crust of our world.

We've been disempowered politically, discriminated against institutionally and on all other levels of society, and had our productivity taken from us by force to be transferred to those of other races, and after all this, we are still defamed with slander and libel that we are the ones who have it easiest because we are uniquely barred from openly expressing the fact that we feel persecuted for our race.

The funny thing is, despite us being further defamed as being this irrationally hostile threat to other races, it is all happening to us precisely because the people in charge know we won't respond with violence or other expression of outrage when we see others of our kind being mistreated, if we were expected to do so, as is the case with almost every other racial group, then they wouldn't be as willing to persecute us and lie about us so.

History is used as a weapon against us, by selectively exposing people to only the bad things done by whites towards other races while simultaneously hiding the times other races had done bad or worse things to whites or each other, they produce the misconception of white people as being inherently worse in the moral sense than all other races, this misconception is encouraged and straight up promoted in our culture, to the point where it is just assumed by most people as being the way things are and always were, no doubt this has led so many people to develop a prejudice and hatred towards white people, even causing widespread self-hatred among those who are white themselves, the degree of trauma inflicted by this deliberate institutionalized incitement of racial hatred towards one race of people cannot be overlooked, this is a great crime against white people all on it's own.

Either we tell the whole truth and move onto a society where everyone is given truly equal treatment, or we move onto an older and more instinctual paradigm were everyone looks out chiefly for those who are most similar to themselves, we can eradicate discrimination or we could accept it as not being the evil that we assume it is.

Seeing how the former pursuit was used to effectively turn everyone against one race, I'm not optimistic about the idea of pursuing true equality.

Besides, I have other causes for cynicism, in that once we have a world of true equality, and I'm talking a full clean start that removes all advantages which are not genetic, one where everyone owns nothing and we have a brand new generation tat has learned nothing from the previous ones (including by records), we will see the natural differences in ability among the individuals of different racial backgrounds start to show themselves far more blatantly than they currently do, we will see far more successful white people than black, and far more black people in prison than white, because white people have a higher amount of talented individuals and black people have a higher amount of criminal individuals.

I'd also much rather have the latter option, because it reintroduces a darwinistic element into things, which is needed so that humanity could continue to improve, and to limit the population down to manageable levels.

This idea of egalitarianism is an experiment, a historical aberration, and the results aren't good, while there were some initial signs that such a world could conceivably work out, we found that those bits of positivity dissipated rather quickly, it's an unstable system, one that undergoes entropy as problems crop up and things get worse until we see the rise of open conflict as a result, the problems cannot even be addressed, not only do all solutions but allowing for separation not work, they have the inevitable effect of making things even worse, the issues aren't few either, diversity just makes everything worse.

The experiment has failed, and now we must clean up the mess left behind as a result of it, which I think would be best accomplished by simply going back to the model of competition we had for all those years before the 1960s, and let people naturally find a place for themselves in the world, even if it's among a group exclusively composed of their own race, that's the group they've chosen for themselves to live amongst.

I don't think there's anything wrong with people of different races being able to live among each other or interact in any way they choose (including race mixing), so long as it's their choice in doing so, even if the results are bad, it's their personal decisions, and I will respect that.

What I absolutely oppose is forcing people to live or interact with those whom they do not wish to, you could try to argue that this is an unavoidable part of life, but I'd come back with two points: First, that what I'm speaking about is the government forcing diversity on people, which implies that without government involvement there to make decisions on it's citizens behalf, that there wouldn't be diversity there. Second, that if being forced to be around people you don't want to be around is to be accepted because it's unavoidable, then why is expressing your dislike of those people on the basis of their race not accepted as well? racist thoughts are natural, so why are we forcing people to keep those hidden?

This brings me to another point, that you can't fight racism or prejudice, and you aren't fighting it, either, because you can't, when ever someone says anything about fighting racism or being against it, what they are actually doing is fighting the expressions of racism, the racism will never go away because it's a natural instinct, it's a part of human nature ingrained in us by millenia of natural selection, and it's mainly thoughts and feelings that spring up of their own accord even in those who oppose them the most, in fact, it seems that anti-racists are the ones who are most often having racist thoughts and feelings, while projecting them onto others in an adamant denial of them.

Kind of reminiscent of the claims that leaders of churches who campaigned hard against homophilia were trying to conceal that they were homophiles themselves, often projecting their own faggotry and dykery onto others in the process, you all know what I'm talking about here, at one point it was kind of a big deal.