The Horror of Rotherham

Wow.  Just wow.  The depravity of this is truly unbelievable.  Over 1,400 young white girls were tortured and sexually molested by Pakistanti gangs for years and no one lifted a finger to stop it because they were afraid they would be called “racist”. In other words, it’s better to have your white children raped and tortured by brown curry pimps than it is to be a “racist”.

I think it’s time we retire the word “racist” from our usage right now.  This insidious, Marxist term has already done too much damage.   And while we’re retiring things, let’s retire these Rotherham officials and put them in prison.  In fact, a major purge of sorts is long overdue throughout the West.

As we reach the 11th hour of the West, we need to ask some serious questions. Like, isn’t it high time for a moratorium on all Third World immigration into the West?   Do white people have the right to exist?   And if so, how?  Shouldn’t whites have racially exclusive homelands to raise their families, just as all other races have including Ashkenazis?

Some must reads:

Kevin MacDonald:  “The Rotherham Pathology

Heartiste:  “The Rotherham Evil

HBD Chick:  “Stop creating a climate of fear!

Statistics on crime and race.

Roger Scruton: “Taking Revenge on Traditional Britain








Cthulhu and the White worldview

Moldbug famously (at least in some quarters) once wrote that Cthulhu only swims left.  Having myself recently re-read H. P. Lovecraft’s “The Call of Cthulhu,” I’ve been thinking about what Cthulhu means.

One interesting facet of Lovecraft’s story is how HBD-friendly it is; in fact, “The Call of Cthulhu” could be called “HBD literature,” if such a genre exists.  In the story, you find ancient gods (extraterrestrials), which are adamantly worshiped by non-whites, especially blacks, mulattoes, and mestizos.  These gods are primordial.   Whites, however, seem to have more difficult time intuiting these gods and when they do, they often die.  Professor George Gammell Angell, the Norwegian sailor, and the narrator (it’s implied) all die after coming into some form of contact with Cthulhu.  It reminds me of a passage from Nicholas Wade’s The Faith Instinct where someone states that Westerners (European-descended people) now seem psychologically incapable of the collective ecstasy of primitive religion.

Sam Francis writes:

Lovecraft’s stories are dramas of modernity in which the forces of tradition and order in society and in the universe are confronted by modernity itself—in the form of the shapeless beings known (ironically) as the “Old Ones.” In fact, they are the “New Ones.” …The conflicts in the stories are typically between some representative of traditional order (the New England old stock protagonist) on the one hand, and the “hordes” of Mongoloids, Levantines, Negroes, Caribbeans, and Asians that gibber and prance in worship of the Old Ones and invoke their dark, destructive, and invincible powers.

The irony of the Old Ones is that evidence of them is often in plain sight, but whites simply cannot see them, when when whites do, it’s often through reason (such as the professor and narrator) and not through spiritual intuition.  Most whites, however, will probably never see Cthulhu; they are incapable.

Cthulhu in this sense is like HBD.  It’s right there in front of your eyes, but most whites are incapable of seeing it.  Outbred Northwest Europeans project their own psychological worldview onto the world and non-whites – for whites, it’s all blank-slate deracinated universalism.  For whites, everyone is white. (And even some non-whites strive to be be white.)  Whites can’t hear Cthulhu.

One of the wisest things ever said about HBD was actually once said to be my a black man to the effect (paraphrase): “Whites are fighting other whites about HBD.  Deep down, most blacks probably know HBD is true, even though whites tell them it is not.”

So if Cthulhu only swims left, it’s because whites allow him to do so by unknowingly ignoring his very existence instead of harnasing his primordial power.  To acknowledge Cthulhu is the ultimate red pill.  Although Lovecraft had most whites die when coming into contact with Cthulhu, this is not true of HBD.  In this case, it’s probably a sine qua non for survival.  Maybe the rise of multi-racial states will hasten Cthulhu’s return.



Racism and the prisoner’s dilemma

Guest Post: Racism and the prisoner’s dilemma

By Zith Met

The prisoner’s dilemma should be familiar to everyone (see here).

It is generally best for society as a whole if everyone within it cooperates*, and moral teachings can broadly be thought of as guidelines designed to influence individuals to sacrifice their own interests in favor of group interests. Many, if not most, moral and ethical questions have prisoner’s dilemma aspects. (See a list of these sorts of problems here.)

Since society has an interest in moving people toward cooperation, social norms tend to develop to influence people to cooperate. The Golden Rule is an example of a widely-followed ethical rule that increases cooperation. If you’re in a society where people generally follow the Golden Rule, you may be able to cooperate with confidence that you won’t be defected upon. Additionally, religions usually have moral codes designed to increase cooperation among members. Social norms punishing or shunning defectors also work to increase cooperation.

When social norms are insufficient at generating cooperation (or when scale makes coordination too difficult), government and the legal system step in to increase cooperation and punish defection. This implies that the burdens of government will be reduced in places where social norms (and people’s innate inclinations) result in widespread cooperation.

People are naturally more inclined to cooperate with more closely related people–it can be an effective evolutionary strategy to help people like oneself. This is most obvious in the context of the nuclear family, but it is also true in the context of more distant relations. In societies with a tradition of cousin marriage, clans are distinct and individuals are more distantly related to people outside their clan. In contrast, in societies like much of northwest Europe with a history of prohibitions on cousin marriage, clans are relatively absent and genes have spread more evenly through society.

Unsurprisingly, the societies with the greatest cooperation and with the most effective norms promoting cooperation tend to be the most historically outbred societies. Consider the cooperative spirit and socialism of Scandinavians as an expression of this. Neoreactionaries often refer to the “universalism” of progressives, and this universalism leads to universal cooperation. In contrast, consider the tribal and corrupt nature of places like Afghanistan at the other extreme.

Although it’s a winning strategy for everyone in society to cooperate, it’s a losing strategy for a person to cooperate with someone who is going to defect. If one person follows the Golden Rule and another follows a strategy of pure self-interest, the self-interested party will consistently defect and the Golden Rule follower will be a loser. This is the fundamental flaw of strict universalism–it is ultimately suicidal. If social norms that cause people to cooperate break down, defection becomes more and more common and government intervention becomes more and more necessary.

One prominent way for cooperation to break down is to add a lot of very unrelated people–something that becomes more likely in a universalist, xenophilic society. Diversity reduces social bonds and trust (see here). People are less likely to cooperate as more distantly related groups move in. Even if you’re a Swede who naturally wants to cooperate with everyone, the Somalis you just brought in don’t necessarily have any interest in cooperating with you. The Somalis will defect on you all day and all night while raping your women. The result is a net loss to society and particularly large losses for cooperators.

The best bet for effective cooperation and a pleasant, efficient society is a relatively small, outbred nation with minimal distinct groups within that nation. Ideally, people will want to cooperate with everyone else within the society for the overall good of the society as much as possible. Strong social norms promoting cooperation and punishing defection help. Significant immigration should be avoided to prevent an increase in defection.

* I suspect that a society that goes too far into cooperation will not only have the problems described above with respect to dealing with defectors and outsiders, but also creativity and advancement may require some defection. Imperfect information and varying time preferences complicate the picture as well. However, promoting cooperation is more important as a primary moral concern, and the utility of defection is beyond the scope of this post.