Moralism and Moral Arguments in the War for Western Survival, Part 3

Kevin MacDonald

Part 1
Part 2

Is It Possible to Develop a Specifically Moral Argument for the White Past of Conquest and Slavery?

A second message is that in order to appeal to a wide range of Whites, we have to fashion an underlying moral message or at least have good rejoinders to the moral arguments of others. We already see that to some extent among conservatives who have nothing but scorn for the Alt Right. They emphasize the treatment of women and homosexuals in Muslim countries and refer to “radical Islamic terrorism” — implying that the terrorism has something to do with Islam (while avoiding the idea that jihad is central to Islam.  They will bring up the criminality and lack of labor participation of Middle Eastern and African immigrants. These are effective moral arguments because they argue for immoral, unfair effects on the traditional populations and culture.

But this doesn’t really get at the overriding moral argument that uniquely evil Whites are responsible for the actions of their ancestors in conquering land settled by others, slavery, etc. Of course, these accounts are carefully contextualized to ignore things like morally crusading Whites who uniquely ended slavery after a campaign based on empathy for far-away Africans. Whites ended slavery, passed Civil Rights, have funded endless uplift programs for Blacks, and twice elected a Black president — the liberal tradition so common among Northern Europeans aided and abetted in contemporary times by our hostile Jewish elite.

Also ignored are the characteristics of Whites and non-Whites that feed into current realities (e.g., IQ and personality differences, the Faustian soul of the West, etc.). Apart from the West, I have yet to hear of a movement opposed to slavery or anything else that worked by eliciting empathy. Appeals like this only work with Wersterners. These movements are a Western phenomenon and the media thrives on showing photos of suffering refugees and immigrants; “we need to help them,” never mind the short term and long term costs to our own people.

Pressing the guilt/empathy button doesn’t work in Africa or Asia despite the fact that huge swaths of humanity there (Arabs, Han Chinese, Bantu) have achieved their present territories as the result of the conquests of their ancestors. And slavery persisted in these areas long after it was abolished in the West. And even if these areas were prone to messages of guilt/empathy, you won’t see them there because these societies are not controlled by elites hostile to their traditional peoples and cultures of those areas.

One does not see Chinese people agonizing over the fact that the Han Chinese greatly expanded their territory at the expense of other peoples—a point brought out by Ricardo Duchesne in his groundbreaking The Uniqueness of Western Civilization. Nor does one see the Bantu peoples of Africa worrying about the ethics of displacing other African peoples as they spread far and wide from their homeland in Central Africa, including into South Africa where their treatment at the hands of White South Africans became Exhibit A for White evil during the apartheid era; nor do the Bantu-speaking peoples agonize about the widespread practice of slavery in Africa. Arabs do not apologize about their conquests in the name of Islam or their centuries-old role in slavery and the slave trade.

The lack of contextualization and the continual deluge of messages hostile to the White majority are good indications that the button pushing is an exercise in propaganda emanating from a hostile elite, enabled because of their control over the moral, intellectual, and political high ground. It’s not just emotional buttons that are pushed. Some of these memes are much more purely intellectual — a good example is the “race does not exist” meme, although I suppose many of these terms have emotional overtones as well because they are often linked in such a way that that they plug into the guilt mechanism. This means that they are addressed to  the higher brain centers which are able to exert substantial control over the more primitive (and self-preserving) lower brain centers responsible for things like ethnocentrism. Control of the  media and the academic high ground by the left means that Americans are bombarded by messages that enjoin them to inhibit their natural self-preserving tendencies and indeed, to feel guilt for them. These messages have also filtered down to churches and schools, so, unless they tune in to dissident media on the internet, Whites can spend their entire lives without hearing any contrary messages. It’s hard to overcome that.

Only Whites have been made to feel moral disgust at their own past of conquest and expansion. And only Whites—not all, to be sure, but a significant and important proportion—have felt moral outrage about slavery, to the point of banning it despite its material benefits to the society as a whole and to a great many individuals much more like themselves than the slaves they were freeing.

But this “everyone does it” is not really a moral argument, but rather an argument based on how we understand human nature and genetic self-interest, combined with showing that Whites uniquely developed moral arguments against the very things they were so good at—colonization and slavery. As an evolutionist, I am quite comfortable with these because they have been common throughout human history and again, Whites uniquely ended slavery. But the “anti-racist” answers that Whites have no moral claim to North America, Australia, and New Zealand, and that present-day Whites have “White privilege” as a result of the immoral actions of their ancestors. Of course, such an argument would not apply to Europe where we see the same phenomena of massive non-White immigration presented as a moral imperative.

So be it. Can Europeans make a moral argument to retain the lands they have controlled since the glaciers receded? Is longevity in a certain area a moral argument? I think not. But if it is, it would apply to every other people in one way or another, as Jared Taylor notes in a recent video. We would find that some native American groups displaced others, and we would talk about the Aztec empire and its subject peoples. Even the Hawaiians who came to the pristine islands eventually developed a society dominated by a particular chief that unified the islands at the expense of their close relatives holding power on the various islands but vicious fighting took place long before that between various islands. So then the White people take it over and suddenly we have a moral crisis. It’s what they call “selective prosecution.”

Fundamentally, if we take the ethical perspective that dominates the West today based on fairness and impartiality rooted ultimately in individualism and egalitarianism, we cannot make a specifically moral argument for White conquest. Such a perspective was foreign to the ancients who prized aristocratic values and were profoundly opposed to egalitarianism. In The Genealogy of Morals Nietzsche sketches this alternative morality — the morality of the strong versus the morality of the weak, the ethical world view of our Indo-European ancestors.

There is nothing strange about the fact that lambs bear a grudge towards large birds of prey: but that is no reason to blame the large birds of prey for carrying off the little lambs. And if the lambs say to each other, ‘These birds of prey are evil; and whoever is least like a bird of prey and most like its opposite, a lamb, – is good, isn’t he?’, then there is no reason to raise objections to this setting-up of an ideal beyond the fact that the birds of prey will view it somewhat derisively, and will perhaps say: ‘We don’t bear any grudge at all towards these good lambs, in fact we love them, nothing is tastier than a tender lamb.’ – It is just as absurd to ask strength not to express itself as strength, not to be a desire to overthrow, crush, become master, to be a thirst for enemies, resistance and triumphs, as it is to ask weakness to express itself as strength. (25–26)

The point of the left is to abolish any argument for retaining control of any territory for historically White countries—open borders for Whites and only for Whites. There are a variety of motives: hatred for Whites as ethnic competitors, monetary compensation (the massive infrastructure that incentives anti-White activism), and virtue signaling for many White SJW’s made possible because the control of  the media by the left has created a morally defined community opposed to the legitimate interests of Whites. Forget about ecological arguments—that bringing in 1 million plus immigrants yearly is an ecological disaster, forget about arguments from IQ, welfare dependency, criminality, not to mention the ethnic genetic interests of Whites. Forget about intellectual consistency — these people would be horrified at the thought that Korea or Nigeria ought to have displacement-level immigration. We are asked to ignore the evil effects of the racialization of politics and increasing political violence as non-Whites coalesce in the Democrat Party, the disuniting of society as community ties are destroyed, less willingness to contribute to public goods, etc.  These consequences of the invasion all have clear moral overtones and they support our interests because they have negative impact on people who cannot control the behavior of some of their ancestors.

Was it fair to the traditional White majority to bring in these millions of non-Whites given that the flood gates were opened by the 1965 immigration law presented dishonestly as having no effects on the ethnic balance of the country? Was it fair given that the arguments in favor of ending the bias toward Europe were the result of scientific fraud and developed by Jewish ethnic activists motivated by hatred toward the traditional White populations of the West?


In conclusion, I would love to be able to present a specifically moral argument within the current egalitarian zeitgeist for why it is morally okay for White people to take over North America at the expense of the natives. I can’t do that. Being susceptible to such moral arguments may well be part of our nature. But if so, we have to get over it. I suspect that the people in this room are quite proud of the accomplishments of our ancestors. And as an evolutionist, I have no problem with that.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks

37 Comments to "Moralism and Moral Arguments in the War for Western Survival, Part 3"

  1. Sally's Gravatar Sally
    March 8, 2017 - 7:10 am | Permalink

    I can make an argument that my people ‘deserve,’ in a fundamental moral sense, to retain control over a significant part of North America. So could you if you wanted to.

    The race realists simply don’t want to do this. It’s not because the facts and argumentation aren’t there.

  2. Bramble's Gravatar Bramble
    March 8, 2017 - 11:53 am | Permalink

    “Being susceptible to such moral arguments may well be part of our nature.” Dr. MacDonald has grasped the unique character of European people. May I point out three other things:
    1) Everywhere Europeans have settled in the world, they have built those lands into great nations.
    2) Pennsylvania actually banned the import of slaves into the colony over 300 years ago, in 1712.
    3) Native Americans, like Australian Aborigines & Maori, were given THEIR OWN TRIBAL LANDS by Europeans (as the Jews were given Israel), SAFE HAVENS where they have been able to PROTECT THEMSELVES for centuries by denying entry to other ethnic groups, and some of them even require DNA testing before allowing anyone to settle on THEIR LANDS. They are now under threat from Mexican drug dealers and Muslim invaders, who will NOT respect their tribal lands if the “white man” is exterminated.
    The collective geographical area of all US reservations is 87,800 square miles, approximately the size of Idaho (and Austria), while 12 reservations are larger than the state of Rhode Island (about twice as large as the wealthy European country of Luxembourg), and the largest Navaho reservation is the size of West Virginia (about the size of Macedonia).
    The only ethnic group DENIED SAFE HAVENS are Europeans, which is why they are on the point of extinction, thanks to the Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan. In the 1950s, 25% of the entire population of the planet were Europeans. Today, they comprise just 7%, falling to 5% within a decade, and TOTAL EXTINCTION after that. It is Europeans who must declare their western countries as SAFE HAVENS from European Genocide.

  3. John C.'s Gravatar John C.
    March 8, 2017 - 11:56 am | Permalink

    I see no problem with that at all. Just looking at how Black Africa has become after the White man left is evidence enough that colonization was the best thing ever for Africa. Looking at how America was a wilderness before the White man took it is evidence enough that is was a good thing. Looking at how integrating Blacks into schools and society has ruined schools and cities is evidence enough that segregation was a good thing.
    Looking at how much better Blacks in America live than Blacks in Africa means that slavery has benefited Blacks who otherwise would be back in Africa living far worse.
    So where the moral hand-wringing and self-doubt comes in I have no idea. Brainwashing maybe?

  4. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    March 8, 2017 - 1:52 pm | Permalink

    I don’t think a convincing moral argument can be found to defend the conquest and settlement of North America, parts of South America, Australia, New Zealand and Siberia by Europeans other than that ethnic expansion is “normal” in human history and that it has been practised by nearly all other peoples of the earth (with varying success). To name the bigger ones : Han expansion in China, Bantu expansion in sub-Sahara Africa, Austronesian*) expansion in South East Asia. Non-Europeans have been imperialists too : Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Hittites, Persians, Arabs, Mongols, Turks, Aztecs and Incas. All “countries” have been created by conquest by smaller city states. In short, human history is the story of imperialism and colonialism. Europeans were only “normal” in their expansive behavior, though more successful than others.

    As for Europeans having no exclusive rights on the lands they conquered, if that idea would be accepted as universal principle, then it should also be applied to all other peoples who now inhabit lands their ancestors once invaded (probably the majority of the world’s population). Same with the idea that Whites outside Europe should “go back to Europe”. If that would be accepted as universal principle, then all Austronesians should go back to Taiwan, all Han Chinese should go back to the Huang Ho and all Bantus should go back to Nigeria.

    Of course this whole argument is not made to redress historical injustices at all, it is made to make Whites feel “guilty” and give up any resistance to mass non-White immigration that will make them into minorities in the countries they built. The valid argument against such immigration is that it goes against our existential ethnic interest and therefore should be rejected. Further debate not necessary.

    *) Austronesians are the peoples of the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia and the Polynesians of the Pacific who expanded from their home in Taiwan in the third millennium BC, displacing the Australoid aboriginals in the process.

    • Curmudgeon's Gravatar Curmudgeon
      March 9, 2017 - 10:48 am | Permalink

      You are quite correct about a convincing moral argument not being found. However, for North America (and South as well?) we have too many cover-ups of what the real people migrations are. How does one explain the Bronze Age mining of copper in Northern Michigan; the pre-Columbian Aztec art showing Whites being sacrificed; the 19th century newspaper articles of red haired giant skeletons, which would include Lovelock Cave; the dozens of “Whites” found in Florida bogs; and the 26,000 year old Solutrean artifacts on the Eastern seaboard to name a few?
      I have been coast to coast in Canada, and seen “Indians” in every province. There is a marked change in both physical appearance and colour between the East coast and the West. To cut to the chase, it is probable that those from the West invaded Eastward murdering all before them, while keeping the women of child bearing age for breeding purposes – not unlike the Mongols.

      • Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
        March 9, 2017 - 6:19 pm | Permalink

        Yes, that is the Solutrean hypothesis, according to which Whites from Europe settled first in North America, but were later exterminated by Asian immigrants. The problem with using this idea to defend the colonization of North America by modern Europeans as a kind of “reconquista” is that the time lapse is simply too great (about 17000 years) and that there is no continuous ethnic identity consciousness between the Solutreans and modern Europeans. Compare the difficulty the modern Jews have to defend their colonization of Palestine with the claim that they are the original inhabitants of that land who “returned” after a diaspora of less than 2000 years. They are seen as evil colonialists who stole the land from the “autochtonous” Palestinians. At least the Jews have a continuous identity consciousness with the ancient Israelites. For the Whites of North America such and identification with the Solutreans would have to be artificially created (and then be taken seriously by nobody).

    • Karen T's Gravatar Karen T
      March 9, 2017 - 4:59 pm | Permalink

      Not only were Europeans “normal” in their expansionist behavior, they are fair. In Canada 8.6 million acres are set aside for Natives. These reserves are self-governed with private police forces and the inhabitants pay no taxes on income earned on the reserve and are not liable for personal and real property taxes. In America 56.2 million acres are reserve land and tax exemptions are the same as in Canada for those living on the reserves.

    • pterodactyl's Gravatar pterodactyl
      March 12, 2017 - 3:56 am | Permalink

      “The valid argument against such immigration is that it goes against our existential ethnic interest”
      Another argument is that the races we are inviting over are actually RACIST themselves, and if we were to measure our own racism as 2 out of 10, then theirs is 9 or 10 out of 10. When did an ethnic business not employ ethnics when they could? (see whiteabyss above)
      So to invite them over would be to make us more racist. Since racism is the biggest offence that can possibly be committed, we cannot follow a policy that invited RACIST people over and therefore made society more racist.

  5. Gus's Gravatar Gus
    March 8, 2017 - 1:52 pm | Permalink

    Dr. MacDonald: I do not seem to be, myself, very influenced by the things you have mentioned in your last three articles. I wonder if language plays any part in that. When I read a lot of these kinds of articles what comes into my mind is Latin. My grandfather was a Latin teacher, I took 26 credit hours of it in college myself. I do not have to exhort myself to care about Western Civ because I have many examples of it in my mind along with its Lingua Franca. I know it shares commonality with other cultures in many ways. I just basically ignore the criticisms.
    P.S. There are plenty of amateur Latin sites that your readers can look up. It takes diligence but what worthwhile does not?

  6. royAlbrecht's Gravatar royAlbrecht
    March 8, 2017 - 3:55 pm | Permalink

    “… Is It Possible to Develop a Specifically Moral Argument for the White Past of Conquest and Slavery? [… AND…] I would love to be able to present a specifically moral argument within the current egalitarian zeitgeist for why it is morally okay for White people to take over North America at the expense of the natives. I can’t do that. ”

    For whatever reason it exists, an IQ difference between the average, fooled, self-destructive by Jewish induction Whites AND the average contributor or even the average White nationalist/socialist/separatist/advocate runs well into the 30 to 50 point range.

    When you think about it…, that is quite a huge difference.
    It’s at minimum a 30% difference!
    Does that mean that the people standing in the way of planetary healing are literally about half as smart as those few trying to implement the change for the better?

    I usually do not even bother talking one-on-one to the average person on the streets because I have realized that they just have not got a clue about what is going on and even if they did have they are usually too stupid/cowardly to stand firm on their suspicions.
    So to attempt to have an intelligent conversation with them is a non-starter.

    The Jews on the other hand, although on average more stupid than the average WN/S/A by say…, 10% to 20%…, make up for their intelligence deficiency with cunning, theft, and down right “…accidental murder…” of their opposition.

    Faced with these odds, considering what needs to be done and the time frame given to complete the task…, a certain amount of “…bitch slapping…” and down right violence will inevitably be required.
    The difference between “…White Bitch Slapping…” and “…Jewish Bitch Bludgeoning…” is that Whites do it within a context of tough love in order to achieve a long term positive result for all involved, whereas Jews do it out of a sense of Perverted Psychological Escapism.

    It will not matter where on the timeline, ANY life form is viewed, because as they say.., “…hindsight is 20-20…”.

    The difference between Aryans exerting force to control things and Jews exerting a force to control things is that Aryans are convinced that theya re doing it for the moral good of all involved “…within the context of the given time period…”
    Jews do it out of a Perverted Sense of Escapism from the nasty reality that they are Grotesque Caricatures of Life Deformations.

    Whites made mistakes, yes, but when we realize we made them we try to correct them.
    Jews make mistakes out of a twisted sense of escapism and gratification and when confronted with those mistakes place the blame for them on the victims of their insanity.

    Whom would you rather be ruled by?
    If you need to think about the answer to that question, then I have a Bitch Slapping I can show you.

    • pterodactyl's Gravatar pterodactyl
      March 12, 2017 - 3:50 am | Permalink

      “So to attempt to have an intelligent conversation with them is a non-starter”
      There is certainly no point in talking to a young person who has accepted the narrative of the left and is already pro-immigration. But there is another category of left-voter to whom you could say just one thing – those who you know oppose mass immigration, yet vote for it. You could say: ‘actually the party you keep voting for is the party that wants even more mass immigration’. If you say just this to them you will plant a thought one that they will never have heard in the MSM TV that they rely on for their opinions.

  7. Armor's Gravatar Armor
    March 8, 2017 - 4:45 pm | Permalink

    I think the tactic of pressing the guilt/empathy button only works because it is backed by force, intimidation and censorship. Likewise, in North Korea, we could blame the Asian tendency to conformism for the lack of a rebellion against the current regime, but actually, their conformism is exacerbated by the threat of violence. So, the problem really comes from the government.

    In the U.S., many White people who resent the third-world invasion, and would be more radical than Trump about it, were dissuaded from voting for him because he’s been described as a jerk by the media.

    In France as everywhere else, most people would like the invasion to stop and be reversed. The only reason they can’t bring themselves to vote for Le Pen is that she has been demonized by the media. It has nothing to do with empathy for the invaders, but voting for Le Pen would be like meeting with someone who is being shunned by everyone else.

    • Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
      March 8, 2017 - 9:23 pm | Permalink

      No it has nothing to do with empathy for the invaders, but everything with cowardice. The only “courage” asked of these people is to vote for a nationalist party in the anonymity of the voting booth. Then others will do the fighting for them. But apparently that is asking too much of such people…

      • March 9, 2017 - 11:35 am | Permalink

        I agree with you.
        We must acknowledge the fact, that 90% of our population are cowards or very silly. None the less, they are our own people. We have no other folk. We cannot change them. The only conclusion is: The small rest (id est the non-cowards and non-silly part of our folk, in other words: 2 to10% of the white population), is forced to do the work for the whole group.
        We do not have an alternative: We have the honour and the duty to do the salvation of the white race. We are small in number, but on the other hand our number is much larger than the number of those who have the world-power today. And the masses will go along with us as soon as they see our success.

        • T. J.'s Gravatar T. J.
          March 9, 2017 - 8:54 pm | Permalink

          The ordinary person is born unconscious and dies unconscious.

      • Armor's Gravatar Armor
        March 9, 2017 - 3:28 pm | Permalink

        This isn’t just a matter of courage and cowardice. There’s a lack of intellectual clarity, caused by ZOG’s domination over public discourse. You cannot expect people who lack intellectual clarity to resist the intimidation.

        Before you have the courage to defend your opinion, the first step is to have an opinion. But ZOG interferes with that. Normally, people will examine the situation, listen to their friends and family, read the newspapers to get the opinion of the intellectuals (government, writers, professors, bishops…).

        But right now, the media have been hijacked and our elites replaced by frauds. They offer confusion instead of leadership. So, there’s a lack of intellectual clarity in the population.

        People are intellectually isolated by the lack of a pro-White TV and the vilification of the nationalists. As a result, they cannot believe that ZOG’s priority is to destroy us. It sounds too far-fetched. They will only believe it once they know that many other people have come to the same conclusion. And then, more of them will vote for the nationalists. That’s why it’s useful to have Trump say that the media is the enemy of the people.

        I think those who usually don’t think about politics are especially vulnerable to the official propaganda. They will just turn on the TV three days before the election to see who is running. They cannot imagine that everything is a sham and that there is a false opposition taking place between the phony right and the phony left, both of them obeying the anti-White lobby that has bought the media and won’t give a voice to normal people. Anyway, Trump was still able to get elected, in spite of all the fakery and the rigging.

  8. Armor's Gravatar Armor
    March 8, 2017 - 4:47 pm | Permalink

    “Can Europeans make a moral argument to retain the lands they have controlled since the glaciers receded?”

    Most third-world people who invade us do not really have any claim on our territory. They are here for the money, not the land. Many also go to Europe to look for sexual opportunities and be given free apartments. It’s not really a claim on European land.

    What happens is that White people renounce having children, or settle for fewer children, while they are being taxed by ZOG to provide welfare money to the non-White invaders.

    So, before we start defending the idea of White countries for White people, I think we must defend the idea of White women for White men (and vice versa), White children for White families, White society for White people, White welfare money for White people, and no forced labor of White people for the benefit of the non-whites.

    Also, it seems to me that rape is becoming less of a crime in Europe. I’m not sure, but the penalties seem to keep getting smaller. So, we also need to defend the idea that women’ bodies belong to themselves, not to the rapefugees.

    Jewish anti-racism is an inversion of reality. They make it sound as if we were exploiting and persecuting the non-White invaders, when the truth is that we are the ones being exploited, replaced, and used as a disposable commodity. I think that’s what must be denounced.

    • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
      March 8, 2017 - 8:34 pm | Permalink

      … it seems to me that rape is becoming less of a crime in Europe. I’m not sure, but the penalties seem to keep getting smaller.

      I’m happy you wrote this, because that’s how it seems to me, too, Armor.

      All through the centuries describable as Europe’s Christian era—that is, from 400 or so through 1750 or so*—rape was a capital offense in most places.** Although this is a topic about which reasonable people will certainly differ, I myself regard the penalty as morally justifiable, and I would not object to its reinstitution should whites ever regain control of their homelands.

      Nevertheless, precisely because I quite agree with your quoted sentences, I would not support such a reinstitution were any of (((our present masters))) to propose it, since as things stand now, the death penalty for rape would be applied only to whites convicted of rape, never to the Vibrant or the Diverse.
      *Of all the ludicrous instances of self-congratulation that the Judeo-Masonic framers of what they called the Enlightenment were guilty of, one of the very worst and most egregious was their claim to do away with the droit du Seigneur, which they also falsely claimed dated from Christian feudal times—though, nota bene, its existence is nowhere mentioned in Marc Bloch’s still standard Société féodale. Indeed, one important reason that the “Enlightened” rulers of the late eighteenth century reacted so strongly to Beaumarchais’s Noces des Figaro and to Mozart’s much tamer (but far more enduring) opera based on the play was that these works made plain to all and sundry that the renunciation of the “right” was more factitious than real. (Some things never change, of course. Cf. today’s move to protect Tim Kaine’s son from any legal consequences of his criminal conduct. Anyone care to hold his breath whilst waiting for Obama, Hillary, de Blasio, Schumer, Sharpton, or any of the other usual suspects to demand that these particular white guys check their privilege?)

      **I speak of course of real rape, not what is now called rape by microaggression or an instance of some guy patting a pretty girl on her bottom, however angry she or her dad might legitimately be about such misbehavior.

      • Seraphim's Gravatar Seraphim
        March 9, 2017 - 3:49 pm | Permalink

        Innuendos of fantastic sexual performances leveled at rulers have always excited the public (think of Cleopatra fellating 1000 men in one go, the stallion who killed Catherine II, Le Parc aux Cerfs of Louis XV).

      • Armor's Gravatar Armor
        March 9, 2017 - 4:44 pm | Permalink

        “rape was a capital offense in most places”

        That is because it was viewed primarily as an attack against society as a whole, maybe even against the race. It is more serious than a simple assault against a person. Today, the promotion of interracial sex is also an attack against us, even when the people involved are consenting. Even without the racial aspect, the promotion of casual sex, and the efforts to desacralize sex and human life, are also an attack against us. I hope in the past that would have been a hanging offense too.

        The rape of White women by non-white guests of the government is something worse than rapes committed by White felons. It is also something more violent, more likely to happen in the street, and it happens with the complicity of the government, the media, the leftists and the phony feminists. So, our objective should be to get a nationalist government, and then, racial separation.

  9. Sam J.'s Gravatar Sam J.
    March 8, 2017 - 6:35 pm | Permalink

    It might not hurt to show the immense size of Africa compared to other countries. Show how we are cramped up in our little countries and how they are hogging all the land. Africa should be split up and a large portion of it should go to Whites and Asians.

    Map of Africa comparing it to other countries.

    • Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
      March 8, 2017 - 9:15 pm | Permalink

      They have an enormous territory, immensely rich in natural resources and yet they are poor and try to flee to Europe. We have no moral obligation to accept them. Their primitiveness is not our fault.

    • March 9, 2017 - 7:03 am | Permalink

      Note that Russia isn’t included; greater Russia is about half the size of Africa. I’m tempted to attribute the suboptimal condition of both vast areas, to the Jewish worldwide ‘nation’ and its contrived attacks and deliberate provocations.

  10. March 9, 2017 - 6:07 am | Permalink

    Everyone here is avoiding the obvious point – no doubt as a result of Jew propaganda. Human beings are exceptional among animals in having understandings, insights, cultural knowledge. In the past, it was obvious enough that some groups and individuals had more of these than others. It makes sense to value valuable things. The usual summary is ‘IQ’, but of course this (though cheap to measure) is hopelessly inadequate. And so on.

  11. Michael Adkins's Gravatar Michael Adkins
    March 9, 2017 - 8:10 am | Permalink

    “Being cast as evil means you are outside the moral community. There’s no need to talk with you, no need to be fair, or even worry about your safety.”

    “There is good reason to think that quite a few non-White ethnic activists do have malevolent intentions. I suspect activists on behalf of immigration and multiculturalism as having rather obviously self-interested motives (diluting the White majority), their hypocritical posturing in terms of moral universalism, and often hateful attitudes toward European peoples and their cultures.”

    From Uniting the Right, by Stanislav Vysotsky and Eric Madfis

    Racists argue that if, “according to the values cultural pluralism and diversity, ethnic or racial pride is legitimate for (other) ethnic or racial minority groups….then it is also legitimate for “whites.” With this logic, the members of a white supremacist group can feel comfortable in their racist ideas because they are no different from other ethnic groups in American society that express pride in their heritage.

    If I am reading Vysotsky and Madfis correctly they are saying that, “at no time should Europeans have a right to a cultural identity.” I think all know where that kind of thinking leads. It begins with the letter “G.”

  12. March 9, 2017 - 12:09 pm | Permalink

    … In conclusion, I would love to be able to present a specifically moral argument within the current egalitarian zeitgeist for why it is morally okay for White people to take over North America at the expense of the natives. I can’t do that. …
    There is a time and place for a private moral and there is a time and place for the great questions of historical developments. — One thing is private or religious moral, the other thing is “Realpolitik”. Bismarck: … nicht durch Reden oder Majoritätsbeschlüsse werden die großen Fragen der Zeit entschieden … sondern durch Eisen und Blut.“ (not by means of speaking the great questions of the era are decided, but by means of iron and blood”) .

    The above said current zeitgeist can only live because there were hard men 150 years ago. They built the USA-state of today, and only they enabled the today-zeitgeist to exist and to do its whining and “pseudo-moral”. That “pseudo-moral” is a killer-tool against our own children and it is the highest moral in the whole nature that those who will kill our children are the ugliest scum and morally extremly low. No matter, in which clothes and with which “world-wide-principles” and with which “moving stories” they come: They will kill our children, they are killers, they are our mortal enemies.

  13. Nick Dean's Gravatar Nick Dean
    March 9, 2017 - 12:40 pm | Permalink

    I was using this argument 10-5 years ago, when I thought it worth debating our right to live free, quote:

    It’s a simple matter of fact that humans have been aggressing against each other in groups forever and probably always will do so. But if we’re serious about trying to justly settle disputes arising from past aggressions we have to think about an appropriate moral and legal framework for dealing with the problem.

    Since we’re dealing with behaviours that have been a constant since time immemorial that only recently became universally publicly disapproved of, we cannot and should not try to impose our recently arrived at worldview on ancient conflicts. But it is possible to try and fix a point in time when the new morality came into existence and around which modern disputes can be assessed in light of our new moral code.

    I have in the past suggested the 1919 Paris Peace Conference as the moment when today’s popular and quasi-official ideal of Universal Nationalism became the global vision of how the people of the world wanted to live. From studying Erez Manela, THE WILSONIAN MOMENT, it’s very clear that even though the subject nations of Europe and the Ottoman Empire were the focus of Wilson’s Fourteen Points, people from all over the world who desired self-rule and a dedicated nation state of their own were inspired by the promise of Wilson’s ideal. Asian and African nationalists attended the conference and recognised the advantage they had gained when Wilson made a principle of nationality and self-determination.

    Before 1919 it’s very difficult to argue that a colonised people would not have turned tables on their conquerors if they had been able, it’s basically what everybody did if they could. But after 1919 the idea became untenable that we had a right to settle in a country if the people already living in it did not want us there.

    • Nick Dean's Gravatar Nick Dean
      March 10, 2017 - 1:02 pm | Permalink

      Elsewhere around the same time I went into how we can construct a practical politics around that hinge point of the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 – which is truly the origin of today’s general assumptions about how the peoples of the world should live and relate, quoting:

      TUESDAY, 5 OCTOBER 2010

      The Meaning of ‘Zero Hour for Universal Nationalism’

      Inspired by Leon Haller’s call for an ethical program to reverse race-replacement, I got around to writing up my ideas on that score, hinted at here and stated in general terms here:

      I agree we need an ethical model for restoration even though I think force will ultimately save us.

      I think the proper basic distinction is between pre- and post-January 1919 peace conference when the ideal of universal nationalism can be shown to have become pretty well, ah, universal. Before that Might was Right and those who could invaded the living space of those who couldn’t. If your people happened to be on the receiving end of conquest before WW1, too bad, you’d probably have done it to the other guy if you could.

      But after the conference of 1919 it’s hard to make the claim that one’s colonising of another people’s living space had any moral legitimacy if known to be against the wishes of the native people. Popular opinion everywhere said it simply couldn’t be legitimate when so characterised. That remains the case and we can capitalise on that, Old and New World peoples equally, insofar as popular opinion is known to have opposed the colonisation.

      Although the issue is more complex between states and populations that were involved in a formal colonial relationship post-1919, it can generally be settled quite easily by adding a second reference point: the date the colony achieved independence. For example, between Britain and India, you would make distinctions in today’s Britain between Indians whose first Indian ancestor or themselves came to Britain before 1919, Indians whose first Indian ancestor or themselves came between 1919 and August 15th 1947 when India gained independence, and Indians whose first Indian ancestor or themselves came to Britain after that date.

      There would be no action taken against the pre-1919 ‘British’ Indians or their descendants, a handful of people anyway, except as should apply to all alien and minority ethnies: they would be prevented from organising collectively and lobbying politicians and businesses or having relations with the Indian government. Middle period Indians, again such as can be said to exist at all, would have those restrictions placed upon them, but also, to encourage their leaving, various financial penalties and limits on civil rights would be imposed. All who came after independence in 1947 – and their descendants – would be required to leave and all their assets would be seized. Minimal action would be taken against descendants of all three Indian classes who are part British ethnically, again a small number, perhaps they might both lose the vote and pay increased taxes in proportion to their adulteration. And of course every community would be empowered to prohibit or permit the settlement and employment of any remaining Indians, part-Indians (and other aliens) within its jurisdiction according to its own conscience.

      Simple, clean, historically reciprocal. Ethical. I think … /endquote

  14. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    March 9, 2017 - 5:39 pm | Permalink

    I fail to be convinced that slavery brought net benefits to the white community. Rather, the security/governance costs were socialized and the benefits privatized by small minority of land-owners.

  15. Junghans's Gravatar Junghans
    March 10, 2017 - 5:01 am | Permalink

    We can have the best moral arguments in the world, but with the mass media in Jewish hands, the mega question is: how do we end-run this media monopoly to reach our deluded people? This is the real dilemma. We just have to keep chipping away as best we can, understanding that this (racial conflict) is an historical process that will hopefully give us a racial-political breakthrough. We may be on the cusp of it now, if Trump doesn’t fumble it. If not, the fight will go on, and get much harder.

  16. WhiteAbyss's Gravatar WhiteAbyss
    March 10, 2017 - 5:21 am | Permalink

    It was reading this article after one day becoming aware that all the small businesses in my area such as the local bakery, pizza takeaway or newsagents were all staffed by only one ethnicity, while noticing the opposite is true for white run businesses that woke me up to ethnocentrism in non whites. Having lived in west africa for two years, and observing how countries without a white presence are always lacking, this gave me a perspective many of my white peers will never understand. It was only after I was made to wait for an interview in a wholly Chinese run and staffed business, where despite arriving first was interviewed last, with later arriving Chinese interviwed ahead of me, that I realized we are being out competed by ethbnocentric minorities and losing. And so I find myself here. Hope you enjoy reading the article.

    Also an interesting study area may be the link between Islamic radicalization of children born in the West to non white immigrant parents of Islamic background, and the similarities to Jewish ‘activism'(what I describe as radicalization), as both seem to be one in the same thing. An alien minority growing up in a White society and hating everything about that White society. Whether it is jealousy of Whites or an inferiority complex I don’t know, but I think it is one and the same phenomena.

    Keep up the great work, never get bored of reading your insights!

    • WhiteAbyss's Gravatar WhiteAbyss
      March 10, 2017 - 5:55 am | Permalink

      Actually you could expand that phenomena to include anyone of a non white minority background born into a white society. They all have their own ethnocentric communities and can disappear into them without ever having to interact with the wider white society. They all have an ingrained hatred of Whites and White society, and fail to integrate, and it is this ethnocentrism and hatred of outsiders that is why I am finding it harder to see why Whites should tolerate such people in their societies.

    • pterodactyl's Gravatar pterodactyl
      March 12, 2017 - 3:15 am | Permalink

      I once went to a place offering grants for a certain type of business in the area. The ethnic person said “the grants are only for ‘the community'”. (Note that this was public money ie from taxpayers). I said ‘what if all my clients are from the Somalian community?’ He said the grant was not only FOR the community, it was also BY the community, ie those delivering the service (via the grant) had to be ‘in the community’ also.

      The point is that this racism, even with public money, is actually OFFICIAL just as positive discrimination is. In other words it is slapping us right in the face and making no attempt to hide the double standards.

      This happens because as you go up the ladder to complain or object about the outrage you will meet only lefties who support the outrage, right up to the government.

  17. WhiteAbyss's Gravatar WhiteAbyss
    March 10, 2017 - 7:20 am | Permalink

    Interesting article about how Whitess in Australia saw the invisible people as ‘pushy Jews’ . Funny how Monashs grandson just expects us to believe our ancestors just suddenly came to those conclusions via antisemitism without any part being played by Monash. The evidence of Jewish incompatabiliry is everywhere.

  18. Sam J.'s Gravatar Sam J.
    March 11, 2017 - 6:19 pm | Permalink

    If we can’t make a straight up moral argument for us being displaced by diversity then we can make an argument that “WHITES ARE STEALING ALL THE DIVERSITY!!!” and that all diverse immigration should be stopped and even rolled back with non-diverse immigration until other countries catch up with our level of diversity. All in the name of fairness of course.

  19. Harry Heller's Gravatar Harry Heller
    March 14, 2017 - 6:04 am | Permalink

    Prof. KMac: “In conclusion, I would love to be able to present a specifically moral argument within the current egalitarian zeitgeist for why it is morally okay for White people to take over North America at the expense of the natives. I can’t do that.”

    That must be the dumbest statement you have ever made. Would you like to know why, exactly? (I am astonished, sir.)

  20. Armor's Gravatar Armor
    March 15, 2017 - 4:05 pm | Permalink

    Instead of territorial claims and talks of deportation, we should insist on our right to racial separation and free association. It implies the idea of population redistribution. It means that, instead of expelling the non-Whites to Mexico to defend American territorial integrity, we would redistribute them to Mexico to improve the overall ethnic cohesion of the world.

    Deportation is the most effective solution. But the important thing is that even if Mexicans are allowed to stay in the US in deference to La Raza’s territorial claims, they still should not be allowed to be part of White society.

    The anti-White claim is that practically all territories rightfully belong to the non-Whites. I’d rather not take part in that debate. Anyway, what prevents them from going back to Mexico and Africa is not that those places are overcrowded, too dry or too wet, with too many mosquitoes. The real reason is that those places don’t have enough White people.

    The main reason non-Whites go to Western countries is White people, not the beauty of the landscape, and not territorial claims. So, our message to them and to ZOG should be that non-Whites don’t have any right to our enforced presence by their sides, nor to welfare money and modern comfort provided by us.

    If we accept the Jewish idea that all non-Jewish people and places must be interchangeable, it means that Europe doesn’t belong to the Whites and Africa doesn’t belong to the Blacks. Everyone has a right to go anywhere.

    But that is not our view. From a White point of view, the main thing is whether we want to keep living along non-Whites. And we don’t. So, we have to enforce a system of separation. One possible solution would be for the non-Whites to take Europe and the USA, and the Whites would take Mexico and Africa. I wouldn’t mind being transferred to another part of the planet as long as I stay with other White people.

    But when we start redistributing the population, it makes more sense to regroup the non-Whites in places where their population is already the highest, that is to say, in Mexico and Africa. It’s not about refuting Mexican territorial claims, but about getting Whites to live with Whites, and non-Whites with non-Whites.

Comments are closed.