Yes it is, because when you have nothing left to lose, you really have nothing left to lose.
The only difference here is that when I speak of economic collapse it is a mathematical certainty where with this lottery the numbers are already known. My estimation is between one to six years from now, Iâm a patient man as I play the long game concerning long term tactical interests much as a chess player has to think long term concerning strategy. For me all the national and international chess pieces if the world was a chess board game are going exactly as Iâve foreseen, the crucial element will be what last pieces are left concerning the end game. The end game is the opening or window of opportunity for revolution, like many things perfect timing is everything.
Yes, I live for the future as I am nothing currently where I have no present. If people only knew how I lived they would understand. You ever seen movies of sleeper cell spies just waiting to be activated in what pertains to their overall mission? Something like that. Those spies, infiltrators, and assassins will wait decades if need be until theyâre called for to be activated. In the meantime they just do a lot of waiting getting a job, house, mortgage, or a hobby just to pass the time blending in.
Except my waiting for an event once again is based upon facts and mathematical certainties. The math is incapable of lying or deceiving.
Wrong, I will be very happy, ecstatic, and full of joy when the collapse finally comes especially of this miserable piece of shit nation known as the United States. Itâs like judgement day for the United States only instead replace God with that of nature itself.
Because your people are at the center of everything that damages and destroys my people.
Because they incrementally took over the UK and US with their fraudulent banking practices and Russia in 1917, subsequently massacring tens of millions of whites.
Because your people are at the center of the white men bad, donât deserve countries or borders of their own narrative, and everything rotten and degenerate in our society.
Because the Israel lobby is the most powerful lobby in the US, 1 3rd of American foreign aid goes to Israel, and 90% of neocons (Zio-cons) with their Project for the New American Century i.e. Greater Israel are Jewish, and I could go on and on.
I understand where youâre coming from, but for me, populism is more concrete, rather than just what the people want, or what a politician thinks they want.
Itâs that, but itâs also putting the majority first, meaning working and middle class white men and women in Canada, the US and the UK, increasing their positive and negative rights in particular, at the expense of foreigners, and the elite and minorities if needed.
Yes, Jews produced Einstein and Freud and a lot of other forms of power.
Poor dumb people, I guess.
Of course all this holocaust denial is too absurd for words. It is this dumbness and happiness to believe lies, this eagerness to blame ones weakness on some other people, that may indeed produce an American downfall, as it produced the German downfall.
Right.
We can visualize society as consisting of two concentric spheres.
Outside the spheres are foreigners.
Inside the outer sphere are the overclass at the top, minorities in the middle and the underclass at the bottom.
Inside the inner sphere are middle and working class white men and women.
The people outside the spheres as a whole are of less value to us and ideally our state than the people inside the outer sphere.
The people inside the outer sphere as a whole are of less value to us and our state than the people inside the inner sphere.
Why?
Because weâre us and theyâre them.
Whyâre humans more valuable than nonhumans?
Whyâre family and friends more valuable than strangers?
Furthermore, foreigners, the overclass and minorities have been propped up at our expense for the last several decades, they owe us.
A few more things:
The underclass as a whole are of less value to us and our state than the overclass, middle and working class minorities.
Thereâre are also allies, other white nationalist nations, occupying a space between outside the spheres and in.
Value should be determined both decentrally, socioeconomically, and centrally, socio-politically.
Weâre comparing the value of demographics as a whole here, not the value of individuals between demographics.
Right, weâve got our priorities backwards.
White middle and working class families first, theyâre the cream of the crop, our future.
If society, government and economics doesnât serve them, what good are they?
Their standard of living should be rising, not falling.
Whoever and whatever stands in the way of their standard of living rising, must fall.
Conversely, whoever and whatever supports them, should rise with them.
They should have the majority of wealth and power in our country, not the overclass, nor minorities and foreigners.
Civilization is broad, in some respects, weâre already part of one big global heterogenous civilization, in others thereâs western civilization (North America, Europe and Australia, some include Latin America and Russia), Islamic, Vedic, Sinic and so on.
Western, Islamic, Vedic and Sinic are the big four, and theyâre all heterogenous.
If youâre talking nation states, then countries like the US have been heterogenous for centuries, whereas countries like Spain and Sweden have been homogenous until recent
In a heterogenous society, populism appeals to the largest minority, or coalition of minorities.
If we continue importing the 3rd world, a non-white population group will eventually become the largest minority or nonwhites as a whole the majority, and so populism/majoritarianism will appeal to them.
Populism/majoritarianism should appeal to us, but unfortunately weâve developed an inferiority complex, we think like we owe the 3rd world something.
We donât owe them shit, itâs a privilege for 3rd worlders to make it here.
Or rather thereâre three spheres, from least to most valuable.
Outside the spheres are foreigners.
In the outer sphere are the underclass.
In the middle sphere are working and middle class minorities and the overclass.
In the inner sphere are working and middle class whites.
As a populist, the way the political spectrum is commonly conceived is deficient.
The Nolan Chart for example is a purely quantitative way of conceiving it.
Libertarian or minimal government intervention on top, centrism or moderate intervention in the middle and authoritarian or maximal intervention on bottom.
Liberal is defined as socially libertarian and economically authoritarian and conservative as socially authoritarian and economically libertarian, but in reality thisâs not the case.
For example, liberals can be every bit as socially authoritarian as conservatives, anti-free speech, anti-gun, some feminists are anti-prostitution, ecological and scientific authoritarianism: anti-homeschooling, carbon taxes, forced inoculations, identity politics, ethnic, racial, religious and sexual authoritarianism: socioeconomically and politically propping foreigners, immigrants, minorities and women up at the expense of citizens, the majority and men.
Conversely conservatives can be every bit as economically authoritarian as liberals, corporate bailouts, subsidies and welfare, raising taxes to pay for the so called wars on drugs and terror (in reality theyâre wars for drugs and terror).
And of course in practice thereâs very little difference between liberals and conservatives.
For me, thereâs a qualitative dimension to the left/right political spectrum in addition to a quantitative one, which Iâll get to in just a bit.
So quantitatively left is libertarian, quantitatively centrist is communitarian, where government locally or moderately socioeconomically intervenes and quantitatively right is authoritarian or totalitarian, where government federally or maximally socioeconomically intervenes.
Being socially libertarian and economically authoritarian or socially authoritarian and economically libertarian isnât liberal or conservative respectively, itâs just being socially libertarian and economically authoritarian or socially authoritarian and economically libertarian.
So you see the Nolan Chart is all about how much government intervention there is, but not at all about what kind of government intervention there is.
Just as there is quantitative left, libertarianism, and a quantitative right, authoritarianism, thereâs a qualitative left, and a qualitative right.
So what are they?
The qualitative right is elitism or conservatism, the notion that the upperclass ought to have more positive and negative rights than the working and middle classes, and that citizens, the majority and men ought to have more positive and negative rights than foreigners, immigrants, minorities and women.
The qualitative left is at times egalitarianism or progressivism and at others reverse elitism or reverse conservatism, the notion that the working and middle classes ought to have more positive and negative rights than the upperclass, and that foreigners, immigrants, minorities and women ought to have more positive and negative rights than citizens, the majority and men, at least until theyâre socioeconomically and politically equal, if not until theyâre the new elite.
So what is populism then?
Populism, whichâs the antiestablishment in the west, is socially elitist, and economically egalitarian.
Conversely, unpopulism, whichâs the establishment in the west, is socially egalitarian, and economically elitist.
Thereâs also qualitative centrism, whichâs collaboration between elitism and egalitarianism, socially progressive conservative and economically social corporatist.
Thereâs also a difference between separatism and patriarchy, or matriarchy on the one hand, which can be seen as part of qualitative centrism, and supremacism on the other, but Iâm not going to get into that just yet.
To recap, quantitative right-left: authoritarianism, quantitative conservatism, communitarianism, quantitative liberalism and libertarianism.
Qualitative right-left: elitism, populism, centrism, unpopulism and egalitarianism.
Bearing all that in mind, Iâm a communitarian, and a populist, altho qualitative centrism has some appeal to me as well.
What Iâve learned is that âwhite nationalismâ, although demonized, is the Status-Quo. White people arenât supposed to talk about it, openly, but itâs there. Liberals feel guilt and shame for the thoughts; but they have the thoughts. And in times of emergency, natural disaster, war, famine, and austerity, ethnic and racial groupings immediately coalesce and exclude. In hedonistic times, of prosperity, there is more miscegenation, mixing, blurring of the lines. Liberal-Leftists want to keep the âHedonismâ and pleasure going forever. They are unrealistic, turning to Socialism, as a last-vain attempt to keep the drugs flowing. Conservative-Right, though, understand economics and know the flow doesnât last forever. There is burn-out. There is risk of the well running dry. There is risk of consolidation and monopolization, excluding the low and middle class out of Hedonism, which seems to be the next step of âprogression/regressionâ of Western society.
So, yes, the white-middle-class will look to other white societies/cultures (Europe) if and when they get lost, need guidance, or be righted back on track.
However, within the âWhiteâ category, there are many internally competing factions/ethnic groupings: English, Scottish, Irish, French, Italian, German, Swedish, Polish, Russian, Greek, Romanian, Albanian, etc. The âAmerican muttâ, a cross-breed of tradition ethnic groupings, doesnât have a âplaceâ yet, except in the âWesternâ sphere and society. So USA is fundamentally different than Europe.
I agree, but thatâs the Modern division between Left-Democrats (Minorities) and Right-Conservatives (Whites). Itâs becoming 50-50 power-sharing. So the non-whites are close to usurping resources (Socialism) through voting and social-movements. The radicalization of ideologues is the consequence. Youâre a âracistâ if you want the (white) middle-class to prevail, rise, or even mention it publicly, to safeguard it. Youâre a âsexistâ, if you want to protect your (white) women.
History shows that some locations, demographics, countries, and nations will be infiltrated and overthrown, pushed the boundaries until something breaks. European nations are being infiltrated and overrun by Moslem, Islam, and ethnic-minorities. Europeans fear âNaziâ and "Hitlerâ more than Americans, where in America, itâs a cliche to be associated as âNeo-Naziâ, as-if that were a threatening label, when itâs not. So American âracismâ (white in-group) is stronger than the European version. The force being fought against, is the desire to âprotect your ownâ, if youâre a white-male, is automatically âEvilâ, according to the Left. This has to be addressed, and confronted.
Thatâs the struggle. As Populism turns to and appeals to the âNew 51%â, the non-white majority, it risks destabilizing the entire system. This is why I believe Left-Right and radicalization is occurring. Whites will self-segregate though, as usual, âwhite flightâ from areas where minorities take over. Then these places collapse (Detroit). So minorities will keep following Whites emigration around, until there is nowhere left to run, and Whites must become radicalized and fight back.
Youâre right. Whites donât âoweâ minorities or foreigners or outsiders. Itâs the other way around. But that will label you as âFar-Rightâ or âAlt-Rightâ, whether you want labels or not. Fighting back is becoming a âcrimeâ.
To repeat, the threat and destablization of Western Society is the rising minority, non-white population that is approaching 50-50 or 51-49. What does Democracy then imply? If minorities and non-whites comprise the majority, then they can start voting-out and overthrowing people from within. This is evident, daily, within the Democratic Party, where they more and more, everyday, appeal to âRacistâ-âSexistâ-âHomophobicâ identity politics. As you mentioned, the Liberal-Left-DNC, believe that whites owe minorities rather than the other way around, minorities owe whites. The Conservative-Right-Republican party appeals to the latter. Minorities owe Whites, not the other way around. And what is the point of a âtolerantâ society, if there is no class-division, upper-middle-low? Whites still hold the wealth; this frustrates the minority, non-white, and foreigner.
So institutions of wealth are also holding power, which isnât necessarily political power, but economic power. This is represented by Mass-Media siding with and protecting the Democratic party, because they are the potential âNew Populismâ by which they can aim commercials, products, and seek to drain wealth and profit off their potential audience (minorities and non-whites, queers, etc).
Iâm going to change things up a little, keep the Nolan Chart definitions of liberalism and conservatism and replace communitarianism with quantitative centrism.
With that in mind, quantitatively right-left: authoritarianism, conservatism, centrism, liberalism and libertarianism.
Qualitatively right-left: elitism, populism, centrism, unpopulism and egalitarianism.
Qualitative centrism is class, racial, religious and sexual collaboration, as opposed to the class, racial, religious and sexual competition of elitism, populism, unpopulism and egalitarianism.
Additionally thereâs separatism, whichâs when different classes, races, religions and sexes share different subgovernments within the same government.
Elitism or supremacism is when the bourgeois, the majority and men have more positive and negative rights than the proletariat, minorities and women, but patriarchy is when the bourgeois, the majority and men have more negative rights, but less positive rights than the proletariat, minorities and women.
Conversely egalitarianism or reverse elitism is when the proletariat, minorities and women have more positive and negative rights than the bourgeois, the majority and men at least until theyâre socioeconomically and politically equal if not permanently, but matriarchy is when the proletariat, minorities and women have more negative rights, but less positive rights than the bourgeois, the majority and men. Communitarianism is federally libertarian and locally authoritarian.
Libertarianism fits with anarchism, quantitative centrism with democracy and authoritarianism with dictatorship.
Elitism fits with majoritarian plutocracy, populism with majoritarian democracy, qualitative centrism with supermajority timocracy, unpopulism with minoritarian plutocracy and egalitarianism with minoritarian democracy.
"American âracismâ (white in-group) is stronger than the European version. "
Am I correct in presuming youâve never visited a European city, like Paris?
There is virtually zero integration.
America had a black president, all kinds of famous black well respected high society people, famous writers, directors, big business owners, public speakers, mayors, governors, â
none of that exists in mainland Europe.
If you are seriously under the impression that Poland or Serbia, or Austria and Italy or even France and the Netherlands are less racist than the US - well it just speaks to the perfect ignorance of Americans about the world outside their borders.
You are the least racist country on Earth by an enormous distance.
Thatâs not enough and ânever enoughâ for Modern-Post-Moderns, Neo-Liberals, and Cultural Marxist.
Itâs ânever black enoughâ for them. You need to understand and accept that some people want âWhiteâ, and all its identifies, to die, to cease to exist.
Right, racism is natural and healthy in moderation.
What does conservatism mean in general and in this context?
In general does conservatism mean authoritarianism?
Libertarianism?
Economically libertarian and socially authoritarian?
Does it mean to try to preserve what is, socially, politically and economically?
Does it mean to try to restore what we suppose was, decades, centuries or even millennia ago?
Is it traditional (Greco-Roman, Judeo-Christian and/or Anglo-Saxon) values?
Is it traditional institutions, family, church and nation state?
All of the above?
In this context are conservatives less hedonistic than liberals?
While they seem less sexually hedonistic, they seem more gluttonous and materialistic.
Some liberals are always going on about eating greener, more vegetarian, vegan and whole foods for the sake of the planet and our own health, altho some omnivorous and carnivorous conservatives are also into eating greener and more whole foods e.g. paleos.
Some liberals are always going on about downsizing and localizing the economy and/or redistributing the wealth from the greedy to the needy for the same reasons.
Sometimes youâll hear liberals say, buy local, think global (conversely do conservatives buy global, think local?).
Do liberals want to keep their party going, by undeservedly redistributing the wealth downward, or do conservatives want to keep their party going, by undeservedly redistributing it upward?
Are conservatives more antiimmigration than liberals?
Lately yea, but theyâre not necessarily more anti-globalization than liberals.
Conservatives tend to want a more economic globalization, whereas liberals a more sociopolitical globalization.
The words conservatism and liberalism themselves never change, but their meaning does, depending on the time, place, speaker and listener.
Perhaps their meaning should be refined, or they should be discarded altogether.
Labels can oversimplify things.
Discarding the labels for now and getting back to hedonism and immigration themselves, I think hedonism is inherently good, and immigration can be good.
But of course too much or the wrong kinds of hedonism can be extrinsically bad.
If housing, jobs, wealth and resources are plentiful, if thereâs lots of room for economic and population growth, then legal, moderate, predominantly white collar immigration from friendly nations with similar, or at least compatible biology and culture can work.
But of course thatâs not whatâs occurring, arguably we donât need any more immigration, and weâre getting a lot of illegal, mass, predominantly blue or no collar immigration and refugees from biologically and culturally incompatible and hostile nations.
Young/poor, weak nations tend to suffer from scarcity, old/rich, powerful ones from abundance.
When a nation goes from scarcity to abundance, especially if the transition is rapid, it often loses sight of moderation, it only regains it near the end, but by then itâs often too little, too late, and weâre a very, very immoderate civilization, in all sorts of ways, perhaps the most there ever was.
After decline and collapse, itâs moderation, or minimalism and asceticism by default.
Only the upperclass may be able to indulge/have to keep moderation in mind.
I mean we all have to keep it in mind, even a peasant can get drunk off homemade moonshine, itâs just especially true of the rich and rich societies.
Overall, I donât think liberals are any more to blame for immoderation than conservatives.
I think conservationism rather than conservatism is the antidote, but not just environmental conservationism, like the word has come to mean, but racial, national and cultural conservationism, social, political and economic conservationism.
Most whites in Canada and the US are (nearly) 100% white, whereas most so called African Americans (mulattos), Hispanics and Native Americans (mestizos) are half black or brown and half white.
As Iâve said elsewhere, before 1965 Canada and the US had an immigration policy designed to keep us majority white, not majority Anglo-Saxon.
However, barring collapse and balkanization similar to the soviet union, itâs doubtful weâll be able to restore white nationalism to North America soon if ever.
Right, theyâre doing it through racial socialism, strictly economic socialism is next to nonexistent in North America and the UK, unless youâre a megacorp, itâs more about race than class now, and to a lesser extent sex.
Itâs a war, weâre being gutted by the elite on the one hand, and minorities on the other.
Diversity = division, diversity is killing us.
Right, itâs survival, we defend ourselves and our own, whatever doesnât will be consumed by those who do.
I wouldnât underestimate European racism however, theyâre far more racist than us.
The American media likes to pretend America is more conservative and racist than it is, it makes it look like weâre already far right and we need to take a left turn.
Americans arenât native so they feel less entitled to the land, more guilt-ridden, and theyâve been diversifying for centuries so theyâre more accustomed to racial globalism. Australians and Canadians are probably the least racist people on earth, followed closely by Americans.
Iâll split this by Liberal-Left versus Conservative-Right, the x-axis. Liberals, today, believe in high taxes and socialism as means to acquire Resources. So Resources are acquired slowly. Liberals believe that everybody âownsâ those Resources. They are owned by Society, not the Individual. Thirdly, Liberals believe to spend the Excess frivolously and âlive it upâ, leaving little, nothing, or worse, debt to the next generation. Conservatives believe in low taxes and capitalism as means to acquire Resources. Thus they are acquired quickly. Conservatives believe that individuals, small groups, or corporations âownâ those Resources. They are owned by Individuals, not the Society. Lastly, Conservatives believe to spend the Excess carefully, sparsely, or not at all, thus comprising a Monopoly or Control of flow of Hedonism. Conservatives have restrictive access to wealth and excess, allowing who they deem âworthyâ, into the trough. Liberals are against these Restrictions, and want to give everybody access to wealth or High Class.
No, not necessarily, although it can.
Iâve been thinking about your classification system. Hereâs my interpretation:
X-axis (left-right) = Liberalism (left) vs Conservatism (right)
y-axis (top-down) = Authoritarian (top) vs Populism (down)
z-axis (forward-back) = Progressivism (forward) vs Regressivism (back)
Most people are simple-minded, common, average, etc. and think that Politics is one or two dimensional (Liberal-Left vs Conservative-Right) when it is 3 or more dimensions. More intelligent minds can have more means of measure and understanding the axis, and peoplesâ positions. A society can be Liberal-Populist-Regressive (âSocialistâ). Another society can be Conservative-Populist-Progressive (âSecularistâ).
I think the three-axis (or more) demonstrate these nuances.
Liberal sexual hedonism would be sex outside marriage, multiple partners, polyamory, bisexuality.
Conservative sexual hedonism is adultery, serial-monogamy, children out of wedlock, maybe homosexuality.
Like you say, either group has their form of Righteousness. Liberals consider themselves Morally-Superior, Haughty, eating âgreenâ and paleo.
While Conservatives consider themselves superior by High Class, High Dining, Cultural Sophistication, etc.
Liberal and Conservative elitists attack each other with âmy Morality is better to/superior than yoursâ.
Skip to 45:45 mark, about Immigration, Environmentalism, and selling-out.
(I was rewatching this video earlier tonight and itâs very relevant.)
I think âLiberalism vs Conservatismâ is best founded upon, as I mentioned above,
Resource Acquisition
Resource Ownership
Resource Excess
Iâd clarify to say âRewards and Excessâ is always good, but not Hedonism. Hedonism is explicitly bad in a severe/austere/scarce environment.
Itâs interesting how poor, disparate, displaced, and anti-American groups within the US, are introduced to Hedonism. Nobody really talks about this. But is American wealth âowedâ to fresh immigrants, who have not lived here or been patriated? Are African immigrants, beyond 2000, still âblack-Americanâ, although they technically have not been slaves? Are Reparations owed to them, based on race-alone? How about Moslems, what do they think of American Hedonism, except repulsion, disgust, and leads to more animosity? Or how about welfare-dependents, are they owed Excess? Should poor people be able to buy beer, cigarettes, and junk food with food-stamps? Etc.
Agreed, going down-up in Wealth is dangerous as is going up-down, back to poor, is dangerous.
Ideally, people should be âhedonisticâ with Excess and Wealth, âstoicâ with Austerity and Scarcity.
I believe that âLiberalâ, by definition, is going to âspend it all awayâ more or faster than Conservatives. But, yes, both will spend it away, or lose it eventually.
The relevant shift now is from a Capitalist/Meritocracy, to Socialist/Aristocracy, where Resources become further entrenched through Inheritance. This leads to strict Class rigidity and severe restriction of class-mobility.
I donât think thereâs necessarily a âcorrectâ way to act with Excess, Abundance, and Wealth. I personally prefer stoicism, and so see myself as Conservative/Conservationist in that regard. But I also understand the importance of âletting yourself goâ and indulging. Sometimes people should reward themselves and relax, especially when they deserve it. America is still lingering with Hedonism from the Post-World War Victories. But that Excess is running out. You canât stay High forever. You need to win the next wars too.
US is becoming polarized. I look to âwhite-flightâ, out of racial minority areas, leading to Fragmentation. There comes a point when non-whites create simply undesirable areas where nobody, not even themselves, want to live. These quagmires are bad-bad, all around. Lose-lose. So âracismâ would be good, to solve that dilemma, but itâs a blind-spot to Liberals and Liberalism. They canât imagine a means of solving it, and so simply give-up and themselves flee.
Thatâs part of the struggle of the overclass versus underclass. Liberals want to say Excess/Wealth should be spent this way, Conservatives say it should be spent that way or not at all.
Yes, and then when there is a consolidation of âWhite-Americaâ, itâs labeled as a threat, white-nationalism, âracistâ, etc. I think the âRacistâ label is being played-out. The more Liberal-Left scream, emotional hysteria, and fearmonger, the middle or Center develops resistance or immunity. At this point, fine, Iâm a white-nationlist, so what? What are you going to do about it? I care about my family more than yours. Donât you? And yes, it turns out, Liberals care about their families more than other peoplesâ. Theyâre no better, and especially no moral authority. Furthermore, if you want to attack my family, or simply, teach American youth that âgender is fluidâ, then maybe some fighting needs to happen to prevent this, to protect the sexual perversion of children. If the opposition is so low, so immoral, then fuck them, they will lose sooner or later.
Europeans would hurt a neighboring country rather than deal with a problem themselves though. In fact this is how and why European countries are literally selling their foreign immigrants to neighbors, or paying Turkey to stop immigrants from Africa. They are putting a dollar $ symbol to the problem. Europeans donât work as a âwholeâ, as a nationality, except in last-ditch efforts of all-out warfare. Europeans are only unified during severe wars or existential threats (like the Ottoman invasion attempt, Mongolians or Huns long ago, etc).
Again, I tell you, I canât even watch television commercials or programs anymore. The propaganda is so bad, mixed-race here, miscegenation, all these subliminal messages, itâs overload. Itâs grotesque what US âMass Mediaâ has become. The message is black-and-white now, obvious. I think lots of people are become repulsed and revile over how far US Culture has receded and degraded.
If we could have racial, religious and sexual libertarianism, where government protected and provided for all of us equally, that wouldnât be so bad, but instead we went from white separatism and patriarchy in the 19th century, to non-white and female supremacism in the 21st, with the 20th being a transitional period between the two.
Anglo-Saxons can live together with other whites, but we canât live with nonwhites, and like you say, as weâre transitioning from a white majority to a non-white majority by the mid-late 21st century, itâs becoming more apparent, their hatred for us is growing or rather revealing itself as our numbers decline and theirs incline.
Weâre already 2nd class citizens, if we donât put a stop to this shit then by the mid-late 21st century we could be hunted like dogs and rounded up like cattle, like South African whites.
Only the west has adopted multicultural and multiracial policies while the rest of the world mobilize for economic, cold and hot war.
At the very, very least we need to hold onto our white majority by ending non-white immigration and deporting all illegals, refugees and non-contributing non-white immigrants, if not all non-whites, and at the very least we need sexual libertarianism, if not patriarchy.
Multiracialism and multiculturalism, where we all join hands and sing kumbaya, was an absolute fantasy and disaster.
Racism is natural and normal, the question is not if racism, but what kind of racism are you going to have, one that protect you and yours, or subjugates and exterminates them?