top of page
Search
  • Writer's picture738

Genocide



Revelations often come about when you drop your assumptions and presumptions—when that happens you often have a “Copernican revolution”, suddenly it all seems so simple and obvious. Genius is less to do with new facts than with an ability to drop your assumptions and presumptions and then “see it as it is”. Hence genius is often simple.


So, for example, people go round and round in official circles—and I mean intelligent people here—asking “how can we solve the problem of black socio-economic disadvantage and their high exposure to criminal activities?”. There are endless position papers, reports, articles, and so on that seek to “address the problem”—billions of dollars are spent on this problem every year, whole careers are built around “solutions” to it.


Yet if you take away the assumption “race does not exist” then the answer is obvious. Blacks have lower IQs, on average, than other groups and also have different personality characteristics—so that they are predisposed to be more involved in criminal activities. Take away the assumption and this is completely obvious—yet you cannot take away the assumption “race does not exist” in Western societies, so very intelligent people go round and round in circles (for them it’s frightening and immoral to take away the assumption—it’s so normative and ingrained they can’t do it, wouldn’t be able to operate at high levels if they did).


It’s like you’re a grown man in a child’s paddling pool right next to a vast ocean, you go round and round your tiny little pool—often you find it really annoying that you can’t spread out (something is wrong, somehow); and yet, in another way, everything is comfortable (perhaps you just need to top up the water in the pool?). The notion “the ocean is a body of water I can swim in too” is ruled out a priori—“swim = paddling pool”. But remove that assumption and suddenly…


So a person changes their views when they drop their presumptions, not when they acquire new information. This is why I often say “I don’t believe anything”—beliefs are assumptions or anchors, if you work outwards from certain assumptions there are certain things you will never, ever see.

Philosophy, when you get down to it, always hits this problem (as does mathematics): you have to start somewhere, and where you start is pre-rational. You have to start with an intuition, instinct, or assumption and then you can work your logic out from that assumption. It’s why the left is often very logical but totally unreal—it’s because they start from the assumption “everyone is equal, natural equality has been distorted by negative agents (capitalists, white people)”. Drop that assumption and it’s obvious why people are unequal.


So, for example, Nietzsche’s assumptions:


  1. There is no God (or gods), there is no metaphysical realm;

  2. Intelligence is decadent, instinct is more valuable than intelligence (Nietzsche assumes there is only one type of intelligence);

  3. There is no soul, mind and body are one system;

  4. The 18th century in France was an era of lightness and intellectual sophistication we should return to (counterpoint: the thought Nietzsche extols led to the revolution he deplored and destroyed the French as a people).


Another example: the Jews are constantly expelled from countries they inhabit. Presumption: this is because people have an irrational hatred of Jews that we need to overcome. However, if you remove this presumption, you will find that the Jews often work against the societies they inhabit—their expulsions down the centuries are no longer “irrational”, but rather a rational response to a society threatened by a parasitic intruder.


Similar “revelations” can occur if you drop other assumptions—e.g. “What if Jesus didn’t come to save the world, but just the Jews?”. Is that why I always feel “wrong” in a church? “But he came for all of us!”. That is what is said—that is the assumption. But what if it’s wrong?


A final dropped assumption that most will not buy: if you drop the Christian worldview that says “all gods are demons apart from our God”, and if you drop the techno-science view that grows from that that says “superstition is not real, materialism is the default assumption” then the UFOs are obviously the gods—everything about them conforms to what people have said about the gods for thousands of years. And if you experiment with magic you will find this doubly so (another assumption “magic doesn’t work, that’s just superstitious nonsense for primitives”—again, drop the assumption…).


So people talk a lot about “genocide”—nay, “white genocide”—but really there’s no such thing. As you can see from the above graph, the term was invented in the post-war period. It was invented by a Jewish lawyer in response to the holocaust. It’s part of a new international order that came into being after the war and what it assumes is that there is a putative “global state” (as the UN was at first conceived to be, before it fractured in the Cold War) that polices nations like a bobby on the beat. There are no wars anymore, just “crimes against peace” and “war criminals”.


Reality: Caesar went into Gaul and killed about 1M people (perhaps enslaved and/or killed 3M in total)—was that “genocide”? Oddly, you probably think of Julius Caesar as some notable Roman “Julius Caesar, Roman geezer, squashed his wife in a lemon squeezer,” if I recall the playground chant correctly. Cruel but nothing to do with the “genocide” of “the French”. You just don’t think “genocide” and “Caesar”—if anything, you think “great Roman general”.


That’s because, like “racism” and “homophobia”, there’s no such thing as “genocide”—and so it doesn’t really “read back” into history before the 19th century (as far as the people who use it are interested in it for propaganda purposes—to demonise a certain racial group, as we shall see).


So the Yanomami, a primitive people in Brazil, often experience events where one tribe will invite another for a feast and then, when the guests are disarmed, hack them all to death. Horrible. Is that “genocide”? Or is it just that different human tribal groups—national and racial groups at a large scale—are in a competition for access to women (the cause of wars among the Yanomami—and among us) and that to hack your opponents to death while they are disarmed is to your advantage?


So what is called “genocide” is really “normal behaviour”. Further, some groups, such as the Jews, do not enjoy a military advantage over others—only an intellectual advantage. For such groups, it would be, to use the Darwinian jargon, advantageous to create an extended phenotype, a legal structure, such as “human rights” and “genocide”, that says “you must not exterminate other tribal groups, particularly weak ones”.


So the development of the concept “genocide” could be seen as part of the way the tribal group “the Jews” wages war against more powerful foes, not through direct arms but through mental manipulation. This is why there is no such thing as “white genocide” or “racism against whites”—the concepts behind those words are so designed as to exclude whites (hence Caesar did not commit genocide against the Gauls).


The naive person who thinks “they’re being racist against whites”, “it’s genocide against whites” doesn’t understand that the concepts exclude that possibility. Similarly, when people say “there are no indigenous Europeans” they are correct—the concept “indigenous” is itself designed so as not to pertain to Europeans.


The problem is that people don’t understand conceptual thought. They think “racism” just means “racial discrimination or hostility on the basis of race, towards any race”—it doesn’t. The concept itself would be better described as “to be white is racist, the existence of Western civilisation, which in itself suggests one race is superior to all others, means that whites must be destroyed so that all can be equal.”


Hence what you need to do is drop the whole post-war conceptual apparatus. There is no such thing as “genocide”, there is no such thing as “racism” (or “sexism” etc). Western nationalists will never win because they are often uneducated people from the lower strata and they try to defend themselves with the conceptual vocabulary they are programmed with by the system. So they think they can say “it’s racism against whites”, “it’s genocide against whites”—you can’t, the concepts don’t admit that possibility (you are stuck in your enemy’s conceptual world and cannot win—you cannot get traction).


You see something similar with Soviet dissidents. There were Soviet dissidents who used to try to challenge the CPSU by saying “you’ve betrayed Lenin”, “this is a violation of Leninist legal norms”, “this is against proletarian dictatorship”. Yet they never got anywhere—for example, there never were “Leninist legal norms” that were “violated” by Stalin (the Leninist legal norm was “permanent state of emergency until socialism is achieved, no legal limits on the operation of the Party”).


Yet if you knock out the assumption “Lenin good, Stalin bad—Soviet system basically good but distorted” it’s bleedingly obvious that the whole Soviet system was bullshit. Why oppose it in its own terms? “You’ve betrayed Marx!” “Brother, this is the logical outcome of Marxism…”


Concepts like “genocide” assume that some third party—the global policemen, basically the Western military apparatus as controlled by Judeo-Masonry—will swoop down and “stop the massacre”. If you say “help! whites are being genocided in South Africa” nothing will happen—you cannot genocide whites.


It’s like saying, in the Soviet Union, “the working class is being massacred by the Communist Party—a violation of Marxist principles!”. Sure, it’s true (the massacre)—but you assume Marxism was ever about “helping the working class”. The CPSU cannot be against the working class by definition, it embodies the will of the working class. “But it’s bleeding massacring us!”. Well, it’s what you really want…the Party knows best…the Party is your own will objectivised…


Same deal: the original “genocide” is “the holocaust”—there is only one perpetrator of genocide in the world (the Germans—and the Germanic peoples by extension, the English and Swedish and so on). There will be no “cavalry” to come and rescue white South Africans—white South Africans are “Nazis”, if they fight back against blacks they will be accused of “genocide”. Genocide is when whites defend their own interests—it’s baked in the conceptual cake.


Just drop the concept and all becomes clear—understand that the concept is a Jewish creation to kill off Europeans and all becomes crystal clear (Kristallnacht clear?). It’s the same with Marxism and Christianity. What it works on is your ego, your sense you’re a “nice person”—someone who “loves his neighbour”, “loves the working class”, “loves all races”. What you don’t realise is that it’s not reciprocal, it’s a one-way street—you die for them. The practical implication is that it asks you to kill yourself for another race—because it’s a “meme weapon”, just as much as the F-35 is a “weapon weapon”.



229 views

Recent Posts

See All

Dream (VII)

I walk up a steep mountain path, very rocky, and eventually I come to the top—at the top I see two trees filled with blossoms, perhaps cherry blossoms, and the blossoms fall to the ground. I think, “C

Runic power

Yesterday, I posted the Gar rune to X as a video—surrounded by a playing card triangle. The video I uploaded spontaneously changed to the unedited version—and, even now, it refuses to play properly (o

Gods and men

There was once a man who was Odin—just like, in more recent times, there were men called Jesus, Muhammad, and Buddha. The latter three, being better known to us, are clearly men—they face the dilemmas

1 Comment


Some guy with no plan
Some guy with no plan
Aug 01, 2023

You're actually gonna get on the ships aren't you? It's gonna be a complete fucking nightmare

Like
Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page