Perspective

“Skin Color Doesn’t Matter”: Or the Truth About the World’s Most Dishonest Straw Man

One of the most ingrained and misleading straw man arguments which exists in the immigration debate is that of “skin color”. The skin color straw man has been used systematically by the media to distort the standpoints of nationalists and has established itself as a core tenet of leftist mythology. The lie has been repeated time and time again in popular culture and politics in order to portray race as only a question of superficiality.

First off though, we need to understand what a straw man is. And the answer is that a straw man is a distorted version of your opponent’s standpoint. Thus, straw man argumentation means arguing against a distorted version of your opponent’s standpoint, instead of their real one. It can look a little something like this:

A: We should limit immigration. We’ve had too much immigration in too short time.

B: We can’t close our borders to the outside world.

“Skin color doesn’t matter” say multiculturalists when nationalists say it’s a bad idea to get replaced by foreign peoples. And the truth is that skin color isn’t especially important. It’s just that nationalism isn’t about skin color. Nationalism is about life.

Skin color, and looks generally, is just a marker of origin: phenotype is a marker of genotype. A term like “white” doesn’t mean light skinned, but European, just like “black” doesn’t mean dark skinned, but of sub-Saharan African origin. The skin color straw man is simply the equivalent of reducing class to just a question of paper. But perhaps we should begin scolding democratic socialists for “dividing people on the basis of paper” too if they want to protect the working class and reduce income differences.

The reason for terms such as “white”, “black” or “yellow” is that skin color is a conspicuous, easily identifiable trait which often differs much between and less within human populations. But just like it isn’t looks which make your family your family and your relatives your relatives, it isn’t looks which make Europeans who we are. In fact, it’s just as natural and moral to stand up for ourselves as Europeans, as it is standing up for the interests and survival of your own family. Because they’re both based in one and the same principle: protecting your genetic interest.

Multiculturalists are like people who stand by the shore and watch, shrug their shoulders and say “Who cares about skin color?” when their child is drowning. At least that is tantamount to willingly accepting the destruction of your own race. The falsehood of the skin color straw man is that it reduces the utmost purpose of life, genetic survival, to just a question of superficiality. It doesn’t get more dishonest than that. Through it, the media has managed to convince millions of Europeans that the destruction of everything our ancestors fought and died for only means a change of hue.

You should take a moment to consider that fact. You should take a moment to consider the complete brainwashing it takes to make a people believe its own survival is just a question of superficiality, and protecting its own interests just a question of immorality. And you should remember that history has proven, with the right amount of brainwashing, you can literally make people believe almost any kind of shit if it gives them higher status to do so. And when the most powerful institution in the world, the media, ends up in the hands of the worst enemies of the white race, you should no longer be surprised.

We have to understand that replacement by foreign peoples isn’t bad for survival because the looks of the population changes, but because a lower part of our genes will exist in future generations. That’s what survival is about, and that’s why nationalists oppose mass immigration and race mixing: because it damages our genetic interest as Europeans. We realize it’s better to contribute to the life of your race, than its death. And we understand that survival is the utmost purpose of life, which is why it deserves to be at the root of politics.

So let it be made clear once and for all:

Nationalism is about life. You are a nationalist because you want to live.

It’s not about skin color. It’s about our survival as Europeans, and about upholding life as the highest good.

And that fact remains just as true, no matter how many times the media repeat their goddamn lies.

  • theDracoIX

    Look at Europe. Look at sub-Saharan Africa. Is the only difference skin color?

  • DaveMD ✓ᴺᵃᵗᶦᵒᶰᵃˡᶦˢᵗᴰʳ

    As I used to write on another forum, skin color signals race; it doesn’t define it.

    Good article.

    • ben

      Race: more than skin deep

  • Aurelius

    I didnt believe in the occult until I came to understand the brain spell that our people have been put under.

      • Josh

        Yep. Judaism is very bizarre in that the Talmud is hyper legalistic and the Kabbalah is pure mysticism, too sides of the dialectic, to either mystify (like it did our European thinkers and philosophers like Pico, Dee, or Giorgi), or legislate as it does in the modern court systems through the silencing and imprisonment of intellectual and religious dissidents. Somehow these disparate forces combine within that bizarre religion to create a synthesis seldom understood by us gentiles…

        • Dillon Francis

          Two different set of jews created Qabbalah, and the Talmud. The latter is from Hebraic times, the former from the Middle Ages. This is important to note because the jews no longer follow their original faith but rather the watered down, materialistic and legalistic form of judaism commonly called rabbanic judaism.

          • silviosilver ✓ᵀʳᵘᵐᵖ ˢᵘᵖᵖᵒʳᵗᵉʳ

            Yes, that’s very important to bear in mind. Just ignore the fact that there’s no known method of convincing them to abandon their received creed and take up that old-time Judaism, nor that there is any assurance their doing so would in any way benefit us.

          • Dillon Francis

            Who said anything about convincing the chosenites about something?

          • silviosilver ✓ᵀʳᵘᵐᵖ ˢᵘᵖᵖᵒʳᵗᵉʳ

            Then why is it so “important to note” the distinction?

          • Dillon Francis

            Because jews don’t follow their original religion let alone qaballah. So it’s much ado about nothing

          • Hamm

            Yeah that’s true historically speaking, the Talmud (remember that is very broad umbrella that covers the Babylonian Talmud (something like 22 volumes? and includes the Mishnah and Tosefta) and the Jerusalem Talmud. I understand the Jerusalem Talmud predates the Babylonian. The Jewish mystics created their own Kabbalah out of various ideas borrowed from other faiths with some original qualities too. Kabbalah is important because (though yes, I agree it is a load of rubbish), it is what constitutes Freemasonry according to Albert Pike(Scottish Rite) and more famous Jewish Freemasons have said as much–that Freemasonry and Judaism were basically in tandem–amounted to the same ideals. Freemasonic influence in Christianity and all aspects of politics in post Enlightenment Western world cannot be overstated. (There’s more to it than just “it’s the Jews” mentality that people say all the time. Is it largely a Jewish creation? Yes, but look how many brilliant Europeans have been deceived into these false ideologies. It’s astounding. The political class in Europe and especially the U.S. is utterly dominated by Freemasons. (Think about French President Francois Hollande–high Freemason in the Grand Orient– ) Ultimately whatever these occult orientations are, they are highly negative for nationalists of any country.

        • John Dee was the ultimate cuck. A competent intelligence agent and cryptographer, he succumbed in his later years to rank superstitions and lost his fortune, his books – and even his wife – to a charlatan who sold him on idiocy about “Guardian Angels” and speaking to the dead.

          Seems to run in the business as Jack Parsons was a similarly brilliant but pathetic character who also lost his money, his boat, and his girlfriend to a similar charlatan, the infamous L. Ron Hubbard.

          The Zohar is nothing but the rantings of an insane person likely on drugs, there is no wisdom or secret knowledge to be gained from it. It’s essentially the mutterings of a carnival palm reader but far more long-winded.

          Why do people have such a fascination with such rubbish? I mean it’s one thing for teenage girls to have fun reading their horoscopes but for White men – or women – to engage in such primitive superstitions is beneath us.

          Superstition for the darkies, priests for the Jews, and natural philosophy/science for White men.

          • Joseph Curwen

            You mentioned Jack Parsons. He is an interesting example of how a person could be highly intelligent and yet succumb to magical thinking. The problem lies in the white man’s imagination: we are highly imaginative individuals, that imagination allow us great accomplishments (technical, literary, political, etc) but if we don’t keep it in check, we could end in magical thinking, mysticism, etc, etc.

          • Joseph Curwen

            are you high or something?

  • practicallyperfect

    Nice simple lesson in rhetoric. This is sorely needed to help ours to be able to verbally define and defend our positions. We need more post like this.

  • This is a bullshit article because Klartankt neglects to identify who’s behind this immigration policy! Say it! Why don’t I blind fold you Klartankt and place a stick in your hand so you can try and hit the piñata too!

    • DaveMD ✓ᴺᵃᵗᶦᵒᶰᵃˡᶦˢᵗᴰʳ

      31 comments, uses a real, live person’s name as a handle (who does that?), and complains that the author of an interesting article doesn’t name the Jew, as though Alt-Righters/White Nationalists are incapable of all else.

      Grow up.

      • Marcus

        Right, I’ll be changing my name and profile pic presently.

      • DaveMD Same person who would use his parents mailing address in Whitefish, Mt. for business, doesn’t file an NPI tax return for 3 yrs. says Michael Kunzelman at the Associated Press!

        Klartankt represents Alt-Righters/White Nationalists he/she should be forthcoming and identify who’s behind this immigration policy, that’s my opinion, one of thirty. Read the article, could be talking about the Saudi Royals, Democrats, the displaced Jews the writing is cryptic, at this point American voters could be responsible for poor immigration policy.

        PS. Geert Wilders name I use it jokingly for my avatar! If it offends you I can change it back to my name, I’m not hiding… chuckle, chuckle

    • ))) Depeche Europa (((

      All Jews are not our Enemy……

      • Alex Harris

        “Let me enlighten you, (((fellow Aryans)))!! These are the ‘good jews’. (((Trust me.))) They’re ready and eager to defend White interests against the predations of the ‘bad jews’, who are easily identified and distinguished from the ‘good jews’. These ‘good jews’ want nothing more than to see Whites triumph over the ‘bad jews’. They’re an extraordinarily selfless people, these ‘good jews’. They’ve seen the wisdom in the pathological altruism of White liberals and cuckservatives, and they want to replicate that success within their own communities. On a side note, can I interest you in some beachfront property in North Dakota?”

  • Gubbler Chechenova

    Latin for ‘similar’ is similis.

    Latin for ‘different’ is alium.

    Britain was a nation of similigration or simmigration. New peoples arrived but they were of same race. As such, they could easily blend into the native Britons and become part of Britannia.

    What is happening now is aliumigration, and these people stick out from the natives. They don’t blend in and become invisible. They stand apart so visibly.
    And in cases where whites and non-whites mix, they stand apart from whites and non-whites.

    Who/whom matters in immigration. Similigration blends with native population. Aliumigration contends with the native population.

    ————————–

    Jews tell us that America is a nation of immigrants. They go even further and say even Great Britain is a nation of immigrants. But we must ask… which immigrants?

    It’s really a matter of who/whom.

    Even if Britain developed as a nation of immigrants/invaders over the eons, it mattered WHO or WHICH PEOPLES invaded or arrived.

    Even in the Age of Invasions, Britain was conquered by Europeans, so it remained European.

    If Britain had been invaded by Muslims, Chinese, Hindus, and Africans than by Danes, Vikings, Romans, Germanic peoples, it would have become a very different nation. After all, every place on the planet was created by invasions(or ‘immigration’), but WHO INVADED decided the race, culture, and heritage.

    Pre-Columbian America was a land of ceaseless invasions(since time immemorial) as indigenous peoples, the Indians, invaded each other’s territories. But regardless of which side prevailed, Indians still ruled the continent since Indians conquered Indians. But when America was invaded by whites, the culture totally changed because whites were racially and culturally different. White conquest of America was different from conquests by other Indians.

    So, who/whom matters. Suppose UK were to accept millions of immigrants of only Anglo or Anglo-ized white stock from America, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. European Britain would be maintained EVEN IF these new immigrants become the majority of UK. Overseas Anglos and whites would be rejoining native Anglos. Being of same racial stock, they would blend together as one people.

    But if UK brings in tons of Pakistani and black immigrants who become 25% of the population, the nation will have been drastically been altered. Indeed, one only needs to look at the fate of London today.

    So, we need to clarify the notion that AMERICA IS A NATION OF IMMIGRANTS… Okay, but WHICH immigrants.

    It’s like saying AMERICA IS A NATION OF CONQUERORS. But then, which conquerors? Who-did-what matters as different peoples do different things.

    Suppose the first wave of Anglos conquer America and take land from Indians. Suppose a second wave of Anglos conquer the first Anglo-America. Then, suppose third wave of Anglos conquer Anglo-America of first wave taken over by second wave. Then, suppose fourth wave of Anglos conquer Anglo-America of first wave taken over by second wave taken over by third wave. So, this America would be a nation of series of conquests, but since all the conquerors were Anglo, it would be Anglo-America even after all those waves of new arrivals.

    But suppose American conquerors were of different stocks with each successive wave.

    Suppose first wave of conqueors are Anglos who conquer Indians. Then, second wave of conquerors are Hindu. Third wave of conquerors are Mongols. Finally, the fourth wave of conquerors are African. Therefore, the demographic and cultural outcome is a hodgepodge of various races under the thumb of the latest conquerors.

    So,both Americas — the one conquered only by waves of Anglos and one conquered by waves of different peoples — would be nations of conquests, but they would differ drastically from each other due to demographic differences.

    Consider two glasses filled 1/4 with milk. Suppose in the first glass, another 1/4 of milk is added to conquer the previous milk. Then another 1/4 milk is added to further conquer the pre-existing milk. And then, another 1/4 is added to fill the glass. So, the first filling of milk has been conquered by three additions of milk. But despite the conquests by new milk, the glass is filled with real milk.

    In the other glass, suppose the 1/4 milk is conquered by 1/4 orange juice. Then, suppose the resultant mixture is conquered by 1/4 prune juice. Finally, the glass is conquered by 1/4 beer.

    Now, both glasses have been ‘invaded’ or ‘conquered’ by new material, but the first glass is still milk because milk conquered milk. But in the other glass, it is milk no more. In fact, I don’t know what it is, but one thing for sure, it’d be hard to digest. In the first glass, the new additions of milk ‘restored’ the earlier milk. In the second glass, the new additions of non-milk ‘replaced’ the earlier milk.

    Palestine was a place of conquests since time immemorial, and it always mattered WHO conquered. Romans didn’t RESTORE Jewishness. They REPLACED it. Muslims didn’t RESTORE Christianity. They REPLACED it. Jews/Zionists didn’t RESTORE Arabs. Jews REPLACED them.

    Other people’s babies can RESTORE your people ONLY IF they are of same stock and culture. But if they are another race and culture, they will REPLACE your people.

    When Bismarck’s Prussia conquered other German areas, it was still service of German identity and power as Prussians and other Germans were all Germans. This is why Bismarck was mainly interested in conquering and uniting fellow German lands and peoples.

    So, terms like ‘immigrants’ and ‘conquerors’ miss the point because of their generality. The crucial question is who/whom.

    Israel can be said to be a nation of immigrants/conquerors. But which ones? If current Israel were to be conquered or ‘immigrated’ by 5 million new Jews, the result will still be Israel, the nation of Jews. But if Israel were to be conquered or ‘immigrated’ by 5 million Arabs or Africans or Hindus or Iranians, it’d be a very different country.

    It’s like it’s meaningless to say ‘Hungary is a nation of people.’ Of course, it is, just like every nation is a nation of people. But what makes Hungary Hungarian? Can just any people keep Hungary Hungarian? No, it is Hungarian because it is a nation of Hungarian people, not just any people. Israel to is a ‘nation of people’ but which people?

    Jews are cognizant of the power of identity and demographics. Consider elite-demographics or elitographics. Why is the American Agenda so heavily geared to serve Israel, to oppose nations hated by Jews, and to prop up the Holocaust narrative? Because Jews are heavily represented in elitographics and esp in super-elitographics, or aristographics.

    If all those elite Jews were replaced by elite Arab-Americans, would US policy and agenda remain the same since both Jews and Arabs are ‘people’ or ‘fellow Americans’? Would Arab-American elites RESTORE or REPLACE the current US policy that is heavily biased toward Jewish concerns? Ruling power is always defined by elites, but which elites? American Power is heavily pro-Jewish-supremacist because Jews command elite-demographics. Demographics matter even more at the top than at the bottom. Jews certainly have no problem with Jewish elite demographic domination of media, academia, finance, entertainment, and judiciary.

    The generality of ‘elites’ hardly answers the question of power.Who/whom clearly matters. It really mattered when ‘Bugs’ elites — busy urban globalist Semites — replaced the ‘Wasp’ elites. The entire trajectory of American politics, culture, and narrative was changed.

    Indeed, why are Jews and Democrats flipping out over Trump and rise of nationalism? Because who-controls-the-elite-power matters. Elitographics matters. Not all elites are interchangeable, just like not all peoples are interchangeable. It’s amusing how Jews say white gentiles can be ‘restored’ by other people’s babies but Jewish elites and their cuck-servants cannot be ‘restored’by other elites with contrasting agendas and ideas. Suddenly, who/whom matters.

    Indeed, Jews call for more non-white immigration not to RESTORE white America but to REPLACE it with Diversity that allows the game of divide-and-rule by Jews who thus keep their dominance.

    By the way, William Kristol and David Brooks were saying whites are a bunch of dying losers who should be replaced by immigrants of other races. But after representative Steven King’s remark, Jews are pretending as if non-whites are selflessly coming to america to RESTORE white America that need not worry about eclipse and extinction. Whites trusting Jews is like chicken trusting weasels.

    Following this logic, black America can be restored by non-blacks. So, when Mexicans or white/Jewish gentrifiers take over a formerly black area, blacks call tell themselves that it has been restored of its blackness. LOL.

    • Aryan_Pride

      Gubbler-nice addition to Klartankt’s well-written article.

  • Evolver1

    Is skin color important? Yes, for many reasons, not the least of which is the importance for our survival from existential dangers to our continued existence as White people.

    The first rule of nature is: Survive. To do this, nature has equipped all organisms with ways to know danger and it usually gives each organism one King of the Senses to quickly know danger.

    In humans, the King of our Senses is sight. We can know this because it is linked to our sex drive and the concept of survival means more than self-preservation, it also means group preservation.

    The main enemies of White survival are other humans. Because the major races are color coded, we can quickly identify who is like us and who is unlike us; and those unlike us are the greatest danger to our survival as Whites. Non-White humans can wipe up us out directly via violent acts and they can also wipe us out simply by mating with us and hijacking our White family lines and turning them non-White.

    • Abcdedcba

      How many Aryan überbabies have you sired?

  • ))) Depeche Europa (((

    WOW!

    Maybe the Best Alt-Right Op-Ed I’ve read in a while……

    WOW!

    That hit a Nerve……

    Powerful stuff, Klartankt…..

    Powerful stuff…..

    100% AMEN…..

  • MorallyCorrect2

    White Nationalists overlook a fairly obvious fact. Upper class whites, especially Nordics and Anglo-Saxons, don’t like whites from the lower portion of Europe and they really don’t like the Slavs to the East. It’s 2017 and I can tell you there are very few Germans, etc at my country club. And there are very few at the schools our kids went to.

    Todays White Nationalists are almost always from countries other than the Nordic and Anglo-Saxon ones. What we have today are the lower class and more backward whites trying to lift themselves socially by claiming to be white, just like the Nordics, etc! The sad fact is that these lower class whites come from countries that have no tradition of democracy or national independence. We don’t want to mix with them. Who wants a Hungarian or German son-in-law? No one I know!

    • silviosilver ✓ᵀʳᵘᵐᵖ ˢᵘᵖᵖᵒʳᵗᵉʳ

      The (((typical bullshit))) one expects from your kind. It’s certainly true that nordicists predominate in the ranks of people calling themselves WNs and that they very often do indeed express disdain towards southern and eastern Europeans, but you ludicrously exaggerate the degree and extent to which this occurs.

      More importantly, these attitudes, such as they are, are not really relevant to the question of racial interests. Even if eastern and southern Europeans are excluded from the nordic circle, they continue to have racial interests nonetheless, and would be no less justified in pursuing them.

      • MorallyCorrect2

        I’m OK with a nationalism limited to Nordics and Anglo-Saxons. As for exxaggerating hatred towards the Slavs, etc, you just haven’t met many of us and none of us has ever trusted you enough to share.

        • craicher

          You are here to split this movement. Fuck off. You know very well that your ideas are bound to fail. I smell a jew troll. Poland for the Poles. Sweden for the Swedes. America for the Celto-Germanic peoples who created it.

          By the way you idiot English are Germans!

        • silviosilver ✓ᵀʳᵘᵐᵖ ˢᵘᵖᵖᵒʳᵗᵉʳ

          Desperate circumstances call for desperate measures. Even the greasy dago is a sight for sore eyes against the prospective backdrop of four billion black niggers.

    • Seth Shekelbarblatt

      Lol complete trash. Get lost nordcuck.

    • craicher

      I wasn’t aware that the internet was around in 1890 and that you could send messages to the future? Yea all those Germans trying to get into the country club in 2017? Go away troll.

      This argument is mote. When the nations are restored it will not matter. And besides the slavs don’t need your recognition, they are fighting to save their own peoples.

      Back to the Yeshiva with you yid boy.

    • R. Casimir

      From personal experience I think your assertions are mostly incorrect.

  • silviosilver ✓ᵀʳᵘᵐᵖ ˢᵘᵖᵖᵒʳᵗᵉʳ

    Races obviously differ by more than skin color. If they didn’t, subcontinental Indians and Negroes would look “the same”, as would East Asians and Latinos.

    The falsehood of the skin color straw man is that it reduces the utmost purpose of life, genetic survival, to just a question of superficiality.

    I’m not convinced that genetic survival, per se, is really all that important to people. If it were so important, I have to wonder why it has been so easy for so many people to completely neglect it. If they are simply unaware of the long-term implications then pointing those implications out should serve to correct their behavior; but it doesn’t seem to.

    Clearly, at the conscious level “genes” are far too abstruse for most people to grasp. If the word means anything to them, it’s as a stand-in for “blood” or “my people” – or more fundamentally, identity. This is what people throughout the ages have been prepared to consciously kill and die for. Perhaps what they’re “really” fighting for is their genes, but if they don’t know it, what difference, politically, does that then make?

    • Jarod

      I agree. “Blood” has always been the better emotional argument.

      • silviosilver ✓ᵀʳᵘᵐᵖ ˢᵘᵖᵖᵒʳᵗᵉʳ

        Still, we shouldn’t cease exploiting the scientific cachet of “genes.”

        In some ultimate sense, even I’d agree that it comes down to genes. I just prefer to utilize genes as a kind of racial “accounting method” rather sacralizing them as the be all and end all of human existence.

    • Alex Harris

      I think it is a pretty convoluted way of thinking to give microscopic strands of coded proteins within the body primacy. A completely backwards way of understanding reality. We are what we are, most directly at the perceptual/experiential level. “Beingness” is a holistic affair. And being motivated by ties of blood, family, love, duty, loyalty and the like is far more powerful than some abstract notion of ensuring that your proteins are replicated.

      • silviosilver ✓ᵀʳᵘᵐᵖ ˢᵘᵖᵖᵒʳᵗᵉʳ

        I’ve never been interested in genes. All those flashy “principal component analysis” plots leave me stumped. To this day I don’t really understand what a gene is, beyond a vague notion that it’s some kind of unit of inheritance. But as I said, I believe genes-talk has its uses.

  • harman1

    Skin colour is important,it is a reflection of genetic inheritance,character, culture.If we were ‘all the same’ we would have produced similar cultures,history etc.European culture is a product of Europeans,African culture of Africans,Chinese of Chinese etc
    Distinct races produce distinct cultures.It is only the malevolent globalists who wish for coffee coloured miscegenated chaos.

  • Gubbler Chechenova

    Free Will vs Free Swill.

    Unfettered Liberty favors Free Swill over Free Will.

    Will implies control, restraint, vision, focus, direction, design, and destiny. Something greater than impulsive want of instant gratification so common among children, boors, and animals.

    Will is about challenging gravity and climbing a mountain. That requires will, stamina, commitment.

    Human nature is programmed to prefer Swill.

    Ease, comfort, fun, pleasure. Human nature prefers the slide than the climb. The slide requires no will and flows with swill. Gravitational pull of human nature favors the swill. It takes no effort to go down a slide. It takes effort to climb the slope. Of course, effortless slide eventually hits bottom, whereupon one is compelled to make the climb to enjoy the slide once more.

    Western Freedom used to be defined by the Power of Will. It was about using one’s freedom to pursue one’s destiny with determination, discipline, and conviction.

    Now, western freedom is mostly about Surrender to Swill. Pig out, orgy-porgy, hedonism, infantilism.

    The genius of capitalism is to entice people toward the Will with the promise of Swill. Capitalism sees human nature as a slave of pleasure; therefore, people will work and toil to gain pleasures. When levels of productivity were lower in the past, people worked mainly to meet basic needs of survival. Also, the lingering power of tradition and morality put a brake on the anarchic allure of pleasure. But once productivity levels rose to the point where all basic needs were met and traditional morality was drowned under the flood of ‘youth culture’ and pop culture, the main purpose of work & will became the pursuit of unfettered pleasure or swill. When so much Will is committed to Swill, isn’t there something wrong with the picture? When so much that is thought good and noble — work ethic, determination, and diligence — is expended for the attainment of opportunities for gross behaviors, what is the core meaning of our civilization? Imagine a society where everyone works very hard so that, on weekends, everyone can get together to indulge in drugs and orgies.

    But there is worse. While some people still use the Will to afford the Swill, many people demand the Swill without Will on their part. They see Swill as a ‘right’. They demand free computers and internet connections as a ‘human right’ so that they can indulge in little more than video-games, celebrity culture, and pornography.

    We need to be aware of the dangers of Swill. It can lead to dissipation.

    While one can become exhausted by an excess of Will, one can become enervated from excess of Swill… like Ottoman Sultans who did little else but have orgies and pig out.

    Unless individual liberty is hardened by values and vision, it leads to Free Swill than Free Will.

    Also, a healthy society prefers meaningful pleasures over shallow ones. Deepest happiness comes from love and family. So, the main purpose of will & work should be to have a family. Money spent on the well-being of one’s family as torchbearers of one’s race and culture is surely more meaningful and consequential than money blown on momentary pleasures.

  • Albionic American

    The “color” of our minds matters a lot more than the color of our skins.

  • As usual, these anti-whites can’t even get their own talking points right. “Racism” isn’t about skin color – “colorism” is about skin color, which is why the laws refer to both “race” and “color.”

    http://infogalactic.com/info/Colorism

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Brown_Paper_Bag_Test

  • Seth Shekelbarblatt

    Thoughts on darker skinned Europeans? Some Italians, Greeks and eastern region’s?

  • craicher

    Search images of black albinos. Then tell me it’s only skin color.

  • Helvena

    Skin color should be considered a form of aposematism.

  • Dominique Nuit

    We need to start breeding. Alt-right meet-up’s should have two purposes, formulating political action and hooking-up with like-minded white nationalists of the opposite sex (which is to say, courtship leading to marriage)

    • ThomasER916

      I think it should have a bigger purpose than that: community.

      Currently when we’re in trouble we have nowhere to go. When we celebrate our holidays we’re surrounded by normies. Meetups should be community building.

  • JosephtheGreat

    Skin color appears to be determined mostly by the equator. The races that evolved closer to the equator have darker skin, while those who evolved closer to the poles have whiter skin. Hence why northern aborignals are lighter skinned than southern aboriginals. Same race however. Race is not determined by the equator or how much sunlight one gets. A Caucasoid cannot become a Negroid simply by living in Sub Saharan Africa.

    Koreans

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/364ac6f267e6ff4cf9df47e28cdc1c9792fc3e1befdc8ba502121b80be815930.jpg

    Philippines

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8c9090436560d2ae18a3277ad944f811aa118542bb3e460d53296bba5c56404b.jpg

  • CrouchHarper

    We’ll all be replaced by robots in 50 years.

  • R. Casimir

    At root you have a philosophic question, which is obliquely stated in this article. “it reduces the utmost purpose of life, genetic survival, to just a question of superficiality”

    I would guess that vanishingly few Americans, of any race, would put “genetic survival” as the “utmost purpose of life”. That’s a radical Darwinian reductionist view, not at all widely held.

    The traditionalist view of the purpose of life is that it is to allow man to bring himself into harmony with the divine, to “learn lessons” in this world and successfully transition to the afterlife. The specifics vary, but the broad outline is the same across most religions.

    I would argue that the most popular non-traditional philosophy (even if people themselves would not describe it using the term) is Existentialism, which posits that “existence precedes essence”, meaning that once one becomes a self-aware human it is a matter of choice and will to decide what one’s purpose in life is, and there are many equally valid choices – from artistic or intellectual achievement to various forms of hedonism to pretty much anything else one can think of.

    There are also a lot nihilists who deny any purpose to life whatsoever (again they might not call themselves this, but their actions show it).

    The number of people who feel that “my purpose in life is to extend my genetic material into the future, and this is better served by mating and producing lots of high value children with someone who shares as much of my genetic material as possible, without risking in-breeding” is tiny, in my opinion.