Updated: Jun 28
I encountered a conversation on Twitter about the migrant crisis where someone said, “The white race faces extinction,” and somebody else replied, “There are more white people than ever.” My first response was, “And the quality has never been lower,” because I take that statement by Heraclitus, “Give me one man in 10,000, if he be the best,” seriously—hence, for example, I hold that the final situation could come down to 12 men (not angry, but virtuous).
To move from the mystical, you can see that with Wagner. An effective mercenary group can shoot down six or seven aircraft from their own air force, occupy a city, march on the capital and be sentenced to—exile in Belarus, the equivalent to being exiled to Scotland when you attempted to overthrow the British government (sometime in the future).
By contrast, if you happen to be the J6 “coup”, you find yourself thrown in maximum security for six or seven years for “treason” (“terrorism”)—because you put your legs up on Nancy Pelosi’s desk (perhaps if you used some newspaper to catch the mud—though there was none—that would have been a mitigating circumstance). To paraphrase Donald J. Trump, “If you’re well-organised and effective, they let you do it (attempt to overthrow the government, kill soldiers from your own side with impunity that is)”.
This has been a diversion, yet only a slight one. The extinction (rebellion) of the white race itself exemplifies a concern in recent articles over Pirsig’s “Classical” and “Quality” forms of knowledge. The first speaker takes the Classical approach, like race and crimes stats as recorded per capita, and says as a proportion of the world population white people have never been smaller (hence, imminent extinction). The second speaker, who works in raw numbers, takes a holistic approach—like a progressive who says “but whites commit more crime over all” (“there have never been more of us”).
Notably, Jonathan Bowden, a nationalist speaker, used to say “there are more of us than ever”—because that is fortifying rhetoric, you want to leave your audience on a high with their thymos tweaked for action, not in despair. So it’s significant that the “qualitative” approach found in progressives also re-surfaces in rhetoric from the right—because rhetoric is an artistic, aesthetic act that deals with the whole.
The scientific “Classical” approach deflates that—says, “In proportional terms, the situation is grim”; or, alternatively, it belongs with rhetoric designed to produce fear “the immigration invasion” because fear causes anger and might, just might, put people on the streets. Since both approaches represent “true facts”, whether you prefer one or the other reflects your preference for “Classical” or “Quality” knowledge—as well as your preference to build confidence (“more of us than ever”) or create fear (“a tiny proportion of the world’s population”).
Will whites go extinct? So far as science is concerned you can rebuild a human population with ~98 people—or, in ideal circumstances, around 1,954; so, in the last Ice Age, the whole human population was down to about 12,000 individuals. As is obvious, by this criteria, the whites are a long way from extinction—although you wouldn’t want to build up a population from those numbers, that really is the worst case scenario.
What is meant by “extinction” in this context is really—and I think the posters know this—that whites could be reduced to a minority in their own countries. In other words, in the “Classical” idiom, the scientific thought-mode, that refers to “white” as a biological category then, no, there’s no real danger (anything is possible, of course—a Chinese bioweapon as final revenge for the Opium Wars; or, perhaps, a misfired Fauci-inspired virus created to protect us from just such a weapon but accidentally released).
Yet it’s not really “whites”, a biological category, who are in danger—it’s Western civilisation (which has an inextricable relation to the white race but is not reducible to it). In other words, to drag out the old university jargon, “Whites are necessary but not sufficient for there to be a Western civilisation”.
So if you refer to whether there will be a France, a Denmark, a Germany (a “West”) then, yes, extinction is possible—the scenario we are on course for at the moment is South Africa. On current trends, we’re talking about a Europe where a typical country is 23.4% white, mostly African (with influential Jewish and Asian minorities at the 2.3% and 16.4% levels respectively)—and all the tax base is provided by that white clump (plus contributions from Asian and Jewish businessmen).
Per South Africa, the blacks will on occasion—just like 2011 in London, in fact—go on a rampage and loot and destroy shopping malls, infrastructure (or, indeed, look at the South African riots last year). Infrastructure will be in chronic disrepair, fading away due to lack of skilled workers to keep it together—this is the Indian problem, lots of islands of highly intelligent Indians surrounded by dark morasses of “untouchable” stupidity. It’s why India can’t get its act together like China—the Chinese have a nice consistent population, while the Indians are patchy.
The Indians can design their own submarines but then a stupid crewman will leave a hatch open and sink the indigenous vessel. It’s the “midwit”, the 100-110 IQ, backbone that is missing—so you have country with the nuclear bomb but you’ll turn up at a hotel and three out of four lifts don’t work (because the “lift repairman” demographic is missing, that 100-110 skilled tradesman). It’s that kind of society that current Western policies will create.
There will be no high culture because high culture requires a cohesive “backdrop” against which to act. Art requires you to reflect reality—yet in a multiracial, multi-religious society to reflect that society in realistic terms will anger multiple racial and religious sensibilities.
The result is a neutered culture that can only produce sentimental propaganda pieces (“We’re all in it together”); and, indeed, many European countries are already in this state today—it’s a moot point in a way because we can’t produce high culture anyway due to general exhaustion, but there is also a specific political prohibition on actual art (because Western regimes ban reality in multiple dimensions).
Shakespeare’s worst play is Henry VIII, because it was about the reigning monarch’s father and even Shakespeare, an artist with integrity, decided to compromise on reality for that (because Lizzy had a temper like dad and Shakespeare valued his head). The current Western system ensures it will all be Henry VIII—all compromised so as not to “offend” (anger) all demographics; and if you compromise with “women” (actually, feminists), gays, Muslims, and then every other racial group—or racial group with a grievance committee— then you have no art (because reality is banned).
Advanced scientific research goes the same way, in fact—it requires an individualism only found in whites, not just very intelligent people; and once the general culture is a tribal “homeostasis”, then a potential Newton or Darwin will just be snuffed out—and then you have China, a country of exquisite intelligence that was static for centuries (because it practiced that much-beloved conservative shibboleth “meritocracy”, aka “the art of the exam”).
The problems that this situation will cause for government are obvious enough—the endless suspicion, the attempts to appropriate the Golden Egg (per Mugabe) that then kill it, the de facto civil war situation that will pertain in many nations in the West. Unlike South Africa, the Western situation will be salted with a large Muslim contingent—just to add to the political complexity.
The map below, from Bosnia in the 1990s, gives you a flavour as to what, well, what contemporary London is like—and, as it happens, while the American empire is distracted there are ructions in Bosnia, Serbia, and Kosovo again (once settled by Anglo-American “bomber diplomacy”); so we may soon have a chance to see, if you didn’t live through or have forgotten the 90s, what “diverse, vibrant” societies look like when the political system reaches a crisis.
And, of course, the scenario outlined above is official policy—that’s why my Spotify adverts talk about “black farmers” in Devon and why Poland, seen by many as a “reactionary stronghold”, will be compelled to take migrants (migrants will go to every European country and the intention is to salt the roots right down to the rural areas that are still “hideously white”, still the nation’s core—albeit much denuded by industrialism).
Although whites will not go extinct either as a race or a cultural bloc, that isn’t to say that the people who run the West don’t aim for “soft extinction”. The general media climate tells white men to kill themselves (self-sacrifice), encourages white women to mate with black men—the fresh migrants imported from Africa; and, contrary to dissident right reaction formation, visual observation confirms the propaganda works (do you think their fathers will forbid it?—hardly, they are as narcotised, as fearful, as everyone else).
Further, you sometimes see suggestions that white people will be downgraded for medical treatment—and the dissident right worries about it. This has already happened—it has been policy for years, the official announcement is a fait accompli. You can tell because, for example, I have an elder relative who wanted to do some work during retirement—so they applied to invigilate university exams; even though they were an experienced lecturer, they were told they had to wait “to see if there were more qualified people for the post” (to see if there was a black or an Asian they could give the job to instead). It’s like that with jobs, it’s like that with healthcare—it’s like that with many things (by which I mean, everything).
The same goes for mass immigration—as I’ve noted several times, when Enoch Powell first enquired about immigration statistics when it was a trickle (relative) he was provided with falsified stats. That shows mens rea. The people who run the West, not the elected finger-puppets out front, have been at this for a long time.
There’s no single document on a hard drive—or even in a Prague cemetery—that says “Destruction of the West: 1895-2064” with benchmarks for progress. Rather the people who run the West—really run the West—have a certain malice and vindictive attitude towards Europeans and that manifests in ways that are predictable given human nature. There are just things you do that make sense (burn down Notre-Dame, par exemple)—there doesn’t have to be a grand plan, and there isn’t a grand plan (man doesn’t work that way).
It’s like when I did my school leaving exams—that year, they decided to arbitrarily downgrade anyone who went to a private school; and everyone knew that was what happened, but nobody could say—because that’s the system. Just like they will kill your aged parents because they’re white, because that’s the system. It’s rigged, rigged to the core—and everyone knows it but most are too afraid to explore what it really is because, like the proverbial Soylent Green, it’s “made of people”; and it’s easier to believe the flattering lie that “the white man” is a global oppressor—whereas he is, in fact, enslaved himself.