Political memory

to be posed to progressivists:

"there is no genetic/racial basis that explains a tendency towards success and competency"

do you agree with this statement?

if you do, you surely must understand that the rational alternative that might explain the vast and disparous natures of various races is only a cultural/memetic one? if not in their genes, then what other factor than cultural tendency exists? by agreeing with the statement, you are putting cultural traits that are held within a people, within an identity, on such a high pedestal. to say that it is only cultural traits that explain why some people might touch the moon, when another might fail to even develop a writing system over the millennia, is to exalt these culturally inherent traits to the highest value in that they determine whether some can create steam engines, and printing presses, penicillin, and vaccination theory, calculus, and relativity, whereas another can consistently fail to even understand how to create mortar, to stack stones. what did berlin, london, hiroshima, nagasaki, look like 60 years ago? and what do they look like today? what did detroit and johhanesburg look like 60 years ago, and what do they look like today?

if you consider traditionally held norms, ideas, philosophies, roles, ideals, values to be of such monumental importance that they are the sole significant factor in determining the empirical greatness of a folk, why then do you so desperately work to deconstruct these traditional traits among a successful people? worse, to intentionally deconstruct a piety to tradition in the first place? why would you work so hard to destroy that which you yourself hold to be of the highest and most significant value, to the extent that you would censor any research that reinforces it, that you would prevent any arguments or reasoning that support these values from reaching the ears of the people, that you would create laws in certain countries that legally prevent such facts and logical arguments from even being spoken at all? why would you subvert and destroy that which in your own mind you describe as the only defining factor of greatness and higher life?

my claim is that this is irrational, and that this shows your contradiction.

----------------------------------------------------------------

general ideas:

1. it takes longer to build something of value than it takes to destroy it, this is especially relevant when it comes to culture/memes.

2. 80% of humans will always find a way to have someone control what they do and think, on matter how "free" they are, with this understanding what follows is that 20% of humans will always find a way to think for themselves no matter how much conditioning and socialisation they receive. most people will always be easily led by something, what matters is exactly what it is they are lead by.

3. culture is a darwinian entity, cultural traits that are passed down through a people, through a language, much like physical traits that are passed down through genes, are subject to the natural competitive processes. for this reason, traditional traits have inherent empirical value.

------------------------------

ideas more specific to the modern problems:

1. free press means having a small handful of private business have a COMPLETE monopoly over the worldview that most citizens see, they have an ABSOLUTE power in that they can justify any military investment against a small foreign nation, incite any idea no matter how evidently harmful and subversive, and shun any arguments no matter how reasonable and how rational.

2. the various races of this world have both racially and culturally inherent tendencies, the most relevant ones to the modern situation and rate of violent crime and average IQ.

3. mass immigration into first world countries is the systematic ethnic and cultural replacements of the native people.


--------------------------------------------------------

on diversity quotas:

the claim is that hiring people of diverse ethnic identities results in having more diverse views and ideas being present within the organisation, and that this is a positive. however a progressivist would say that there is no correlation between ones race and ones views or ideas that they hold since that would open up problematic (for them) discussions. this is their contradiction.

-------------------------------------------

on equality:

due to the varying nature of all biological things, equal opportunity makes impossible equal result and vica versa. the two ideas are incompatible, meaning one must choose between them. equal opportunity is self evidently the more just and also the more benevolent of the two, both in the short and the long term. in the modern situation this applies both to international socialism (international lending and the resulting usury) and also endo-national policy.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

refutations of common arguments for mass immigration to first world countries:

1. "it helps people"

the human population of an area will always swell, increase or decrease to fit the limits of that area. for simplicities sake lets say that limit is farmland (although its roads, schools, hospitals, factories, tools, how functional the economy is, etc) in undeveloped areas and jobs/employment options in more developed areas. when an area loses a small percentage of its population as some leave for a better life their birthrate will increase as they naturally have a surplus in farmland/food. when these people are added to the population of a first world country the number of unemployed increases and therefore the birthrate falls both because people have less money to raise children (less jobs, lower wages, higher house prices, etc) but also because it is simply human societal nature to follow this pattern. with this understanding, you know that no matter how many people migrate from poor areas to successful ones, the number of humans living in poverty, and the number of humans living in areas with a high quality of life will always stay the same. the only way to "help people" is to teach them how to better their country and how to learn. all mass immigration does is demographically replace the native populations of successful areas, the very ones who were able to build them in the first place. this does not serve humanity.

2. "well not people in general, but it at least helps the migrant peoples"

when all of the people who openly acknowledge the vast difference in quality of life between first world countries and third world countries decide to desert and abandon their people in a time of need, how can one expect this country to grow, when all of their aware stock leave them in their want for the free things they will find in another area (free healthcare, free welfare, a free civilisation and functional economy that their people did not have to build themselves, etc)? it does not benefit them.

3. "it benefits the native economy"

it drives down wages and drives up house prices, it benefits the money-power, not the people. it allows for quick and easy loans to be doled out, providing a quick and temporary boost to consumption however this has disastrous consequences in the long term. it benefits the career politicians who cannot makes unprofitable decisions in the short term, it does not benefit the people.

4. "its bad but its not that bad"

what is the most fundamental responsibility of any government, any state, any political system? you might say that it is to provide the best possible future for the people, yet there is something even more integral and fundamental a duty to the people than that, the same people who hire the state to do a job with their tax money, the same people who cut stones, built civics, sowed seeds, harvested crops for centuries upon centuries to build the strength of the nation. that most basic duty before anything else is to ensure A future of the people, for what do the people want above a future for their children and grand children to live in? when you consider this, you understand that the current system has failed ABSOLUTELY and that it is a TOTAL failure in that is has politicians enact policies that knowingly and intentionally replace the people in their own homeland. the destruction of a future for the folk, for their own kin, to replace their children with the children of foreigners until there is nothing left of their race. even if the current system might be more successful in other less significant areas, because it fails in that most sacred of duties, is it not the case that it has failed more so than any other system in existence? it is so.

5. "you are being too dramatic, a complete replacement will never happen"

in britain, as of august 2017, London, Leicester, Luton and Slough are below 50% native. frankfurt and others outside of britain were also recently deemed to be less than 50% native. soon will come the time of the smaller cities, the towns, the villages, the hamlets, the dales. if they were willing to do it until now, and laugh while they were, they will also be willing to do it into the future. when anyone who questions it is announced a racist, when anyone who logically questions it is shouted down for being politically incorrect, when news stations and popular website moderators consider it morally correct to censor certain opinions and facts so that the people do not see them, when there are laws in germany and britain actively preventing certain arguments from being legal, i ask you how would it supposedly stop before the entire replacement is enacted?