When it comes to nuclear attacks, mega cities are probably the worst and rural areas probably the best places in order to survive. So in the nuclear age, a relatively small tribe, if it is located in rural areas, is probably the best kind of togetherness.
The case of nuclear attack:
In the first place, you have to survive the nuclear attack, which is almost impossible in mega cities, if they are (and they probably are) the target of the nuclear attack.
In the second place, you need the help of other people, but in mega cities, if they are (and they probably are) the target of the nuclear attack, the other people are too many people and acting too chaotically (because of the huge panic).
In the third place, you need your water and food and to defend this, if there are other people who want to steal it from you, which is probably the case in mega cities and probably not the case in rural areas.
In the fourth place, you need a small group where you can address yourself to, and this is probably possible in rural areas and probably not possible in mega cities.
I guess that e.g. the relatively small tribes of the Amazon River region have probably good prospects to survive a nuclear attack.
I don’t see how. It’s circles of care, not circles of sexual attraction. If anything, it would point toward keeping it with myself and being sexually attracted to myself.
Well, if you’re gonna prefer a more broad category (species) to a more specific one (race), then why not also prefer genus to species, and so on?
Things that have worked in the past work now and always will work. The natural law that permeates the universe and determines interactions between physical entities didn’t change. In large societies the forces of natural selection may not act upon individuals directly, but it doesn’t make them disappear, it just means they act upon that which is protecting the individual, which is society, so instead of the individual paying the cost for his weakness/degeneracy, society will pay the accumulated costs for all the individuals whose weakness and degeneracy it shelters.
So you may set up society in which you create what you would call “other conditions”, aka, where you select for weakness, faggotry, and tribe-betrayal (whereas nature selects for strength, is anti-faggotry, and tribalistic) but this just means you are making that society weaker and that all other factors equal, it will get defeated by a society which has more natural conditions, if conflict happens (and it always does).
You can think of it in terms of concentric circles. Societies and individuals exist within the circle of nature. Each circle imposes laws upon those who exist within it. Individuals may escape the law of nature to an extent by entering the circle of society, but society itself still exists within nature and has to abide by its laws. So the natural selection that acted upon the individual is merely transferred to society instead, it doesn’t disappear.
Another way to put it is that natural selection applies to all living entities, and society is a kind of a living entity composed of many other living entities, and in the same way the overall health of an organism depends on the health of its organs, and the health of a wolf pack depends on the health of the individual wolves, the health of society depends on the health of the individuals that constitute it.
You can create a society where you select against mentalities like tribalism, but that only means you’re selecting against health and making that society weaker in relation to other societies, all other factors equal.
Changing the laws of society doesn’t mean changing the laws of nature. The latter will always remain the same and determine the former.
Universal law might be a bit more complicated than you can imagine. I mean, something like “might is right” is just going to be way too general as the highest law of nature. You’d be surprised at what can possibly constitute might now and in the future. Your distinction between natural and non-natural conditions is arbitrary with respect to evolution. What matters is what competes. If a group is out-competed it goes away, doesn’t matter if it was the traditionally stronger group. The game is always “rigged” by what competes the best. “Natural conditions” is a meaningless term here. There is only a distinction between local and global optima, where there are any number of examples of what’s called a local optimum in the fitness landscape, i.e. a population that reaches it’s highest peak with respect to its characteristic set and environment. If there is a global optimum, rest assured it would not even be related to homo sapiens sapiens, much less the white ones in particular.
The welfare state example is a poor excuse for racism. You tell me how many white and black people receive welfare of some sort in a given society and why they receive it. Oh a significant proportion of white people receive welfare, too? Meanwhile, my uncle is a medical doctor using his expertise to diagnose disease, perform surgery, and treat a variety of serious health issues. I’m white. He’s black. We’re family.
The reason the white nationalist movement has found some footing lately is that the more and more populated society gets, the more people in general feel crowded, stressed, and threatened by their neighbors. Tensions are high and resource scarcity is up. The larger group fractures along predictable political lines to consolidate resources for their racial/ethnic/cultural group.
You probably haven’t read and definitely didn’t understand what I wrote and the stuff I linked, as none of it wasn’t intended to be a justification for racism. But now that you say it, related:
Because if you had read and understood them, you wouldn’t have written any of the stuff you wrote. Go back and re read it. It addresses all of your claims. I’m not gonna waste time posting the same things all over again.
I think there’s a conflict between this and the apparent trend thatwhite nationalism is a primarily rural phenomenon. Diverse and crowded cities, with much higher crime, are much more racially tolerant, which we wouldn’t expect if crowding, stress, and threats from neighbors are what’s driving white nationalism.
What about all the white folks in the suburbs and as they fall to diversity with all diversities (“feel crowded, stressed, and threatened by their neighbors” and the accompanying crime) shortcomings and push out farther from the inner cities to create harmonious new suburbs away from older, now corrupted suburbs, aren’t they infringing on the rural folks by swallowing up small towns with their liberal mentalities and lack of traditional values? Do the whites not flee from diverse and economically impoverished areas such as Detroit, Michigan? Without economic incentives, the whites do not so willingly diversify their mentalities and sell out their souls to the highest bidders. They say they live there because they love the city culture but they do not love it walking the streets alone at night or even in certain areas during the daytime and without the fat paychecks they would never stay near those cities.
Also, I’d like to note that Stormfront has been shut down too. And keep in mind Stormfront was very moderate - I would even call them cuckolded. At Stormfront you could call whites rednecks, white trash, crackers, etc. but you weren’t permitted to call blacks “niggers” or Jews “kikes”. Their only message was that they want the white race to survive and have their own countries - some of them even willing to accept small amounts of non-white migration. If somebody denied such a basic thing as survival and a right to their own country to blacks, or Asians, or Indians, or any other race except whites, it would surely be treated as intolerant, racist, blah blah. It was also a feminist site.
Still, they were shut down in the same way Daily Stormer, a much more “radical” site, got shut down.
The point here is that there is no appeasing our (white people’s) enemies. They only care about destroying us, and they have no issues whatsoever with having double standards and doing whatever it takes to accomplish this goal, and they will have no mercy towards anybody who advocates things which would prevent them from destroying us. Trying to moderate yourself and begging for the approval of your enemies only makes you look weak and ultimately serves no purpose, because you’ll be shut down and called a “Nazi” anyway.
Freedom of speech must include hate speech although what constitutes hate is entirely subjective
No one has a right not to be offended and banning speech on those grounds is simply unacceptable
