Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old May 24th, 2018 #1
Sean Gruber
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,448
Sean Gruber
Default Imperium YES, Imperialism NO

I would post this comment on Spencer's, but that site is down, possibly forever.

Spencer seems to be leaning toward imperialism/colonialism as an aim or goal-- this aim basically means "taking up the White man's burden" again. His argument for this can be summarized as "like it or not, Whites will have to take care of non-whites in other nations, because if we don't, then someone else (maybe the Chinese) will" and "beware the rise of the Chegra (Chigger)."

But imperialism/colonialism as an aim would be bad for Whites. Reasons:

1) Backwash. Pursuing a policy of imperialism/colonialism necessarily means being a multi-racial empire, with all the miscegenation and degeneracy that entails. Imperialism/colonialism not only leads to members of the imperial legions "going native": more importantly, it means refugee backwash. Conquered peoples always have their revenge by dispersing their refugees and other migrants in the lands of their conqueror. This happens either gradually, as in the case of US imperialism (Vietnam, Middle East) or less gradually, as in the case of France and Algiers. That last example is a good case study. France's imperial interference in Algiers had only one world-historical result: it pumped untold amounts of black blood into France. The nightly carbeques et al. are a result of French colonialism in Algiers. It made no difference that the French tortured the Algerians in the Algerians' own land, in the sense that this served as no disincentive to their emigrating from Algiers.

It would do no good to declare, "We shall not permit imperial subjects to move around within the empire." A multi-racial empire is what it is.

2) Collapse. Multi-racial empires always collapse destructively. The easy examples are Portugal and ancient Rome. Even helots create snowballing problems which wreck the system, so that Jefferson did not really go far enough when he wrote, "the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government." Free or slave, non-whites are tar babies: dominating, owning, trading, screwing, employing, or ruling over them leads ineluctably to amalgamation. Or to put the point in popular language: any touch of shit on ice cream ruins the ice cream.

All that is fairly obvious, but for some reason Spencer isn't addressing it, to my knowledge-- perhaps he has a desire to rule the world and this is clouding his thoughts, or perhaps he sees no clear way forward for Whites and so is reaching back somewhat desperately for old solutions. I don't know. But rewinding the tape of imperialism/colonialism and playing it again won't lead to a different ending.

What is my recommendation?

It is this: Fortress Europe. Fortress North America. Fortress Australia. In other words, a White Imperium. This Imperium would have one policy toward non-whites: domestically, keep them out; and internationally, benign neglect. More fully stated, the policy would be: no immigration of or trade with other races, and military sorties in their nations for our sake. About such sorties: if in non-white nations there should be a resource that we need or want to have, then we simply take it and eliminate any non-whites who get in the way.

This obviously implies an end to international aid for non-whites. Let them eat each other or otherwise fend for themselves. Catholics of course are clutching their heads, because this implies, for example, mass starvation in Africa. But if hundreds of millions of blacks die, so what? They aren't us. That principle may go against the (jewish) cant/Kant of "universal morality," but international altruism has always been the core cancer in international relations. It must be cut out summarily.

Yes, Boomers. That means no more UN. Woo-hoo! So there is a reason for even you Boomers to roll your mechanized wheelchairs on board.

But what about "the rise of the Chigger"? It's meaningless. The worst outcome would be war, but that is better than mixing yourself out of existence with a multi-racial empire of incredible cost. A war is something you can win. A multi-racial empire is only loss in the end.

My recommendation combines the inspirational goal of having a global empire--the White Imperium--with the race realism of White Nationalism. Thus White Nationalism is transfigured from something defensive into something assertive. Not "please permit us to have our own lands" but "we're taking these lands for our future, and eliminating opponents." In principle, it could mean taking over the opposed to taking care of the world. Which is a more motivating and inspirational goal: changing the diapers of Negroes the world over, or killing for territory?
No jews, just right

Less talk, more action

Last edited by Sean Gruber; May 24th, 2018 at 02:45 PM.


Display Modes

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:18 PM.
Page generated in 0.07412 seconds.