Thursday, August 14, 2008

Kill Whitey and South Africa Sucks

The Emperor's pronouncements were recently quoted on the hugely popular (over 1.5 M visitors) blog, South Africa Sucks. He was writing in response to an article reposted on the Kill Whitey blog (no link, because fuck him).

Now, South Africa Sucks in an unapologetically racist blog which, when pedantic corrections for punctuation are made, "chronicles the slide of a once-magnificent, thriving First World country into that of a crime-ravaged, Stalinist, turd-world hellhole!" Its several white contributors raise mostly news-related points which do indeed highlight South Africa's sad decline.

Unfortunately, racial bias and epithets slip in from time to time which, in the Emperor's panoramic view, are reason enough for the unreasonable to dismiss all of the blog's perfectly valid points. Of course, as the unreasonable are wont to dismiss anything that condradicts their worldview, His objection is largely a matter of aesthetic preference.

The charmingly-named Kill Whitey blog, insofar as a cursory examination reveals, presents mostly the optimistic side of the South African coin, that side being the milled edge. The country's genuine problems are dismissed or denied while any positive news receives centre-stage, if not outright fellatio. In the Imperial Opinion, to which any opposition is vilest heresy, neither the pessimistic nor realistic faces of South Africa are shown.

Though the race of the blog's author remains unclear, it can be surmised given the hateful title and the pro-black spin placed on everything. So be it. While He finds such things personally distasteful, the Emperor stands firmly for the author's right to be as rabidly in favour of his own people as he likes. If the author is indeed black, it would be unnatural and perverse for him to take any stance besides one favouring his own race.

Now, that is exactly the same thing the South Africa Sucks people are doing, taking a stand for their own race. That is a courageous act, particularly given the state of fear and capitulation in which most whites, South African or otherwise, eke out their days. Further, what the SAS folks are doing is entirely natural, if not terribly genteel. They're simply being "nice to insiders and nasty to outsiders," in the terminology of evolutionary genetics. This is what human beings do everywhere, by instinct and with good genetic reason. The only general exception to this rule (as it applies to race) is to be found in Western liberal circles, in which the dark and destructive heresy of competitive altruism has taken hold.

This is largely the point His Imperial Majesty made in an attempt to bring some enlightenment to the benighted ignorance of the original Mail & Guardian article, entitled "‘Two nations’: Who is stalling progress towards reconciliation?" Though He is likely to be called a double-racist for holding such views, not to mention His association with South Africa Sucks, here follows the God-Emperor's position on the matter, edited for Imperial perfectionism:

You fail to understand an extremely important point, sir. Humans are tribal by nature. Social engineering cannot alter this fact. Short of genetic engineering, you cannot erase this inherent bias any more than you can erase the tendency for humans to organise themselves according to a social pecking order, or the tendency of human males to compete with one another and dominate females.

Just as with our status-conciousness, our pair-bonding instincts and our selectional sexual drives, tribal loyalties serve to keep the races, and by extension the species, strong and healthy. Thus, what you denounce as racism can be clearly seen from an objective, scientific standpoint to be nothing but an adaption for favouring in-group over out-group decisions. I remind you that such adaptations only become widespread if they fulfill this category: they promote genetic survival. Understand; it is for this reason that people are not naturally egalitarian. They are tribal. "My team yay, your team boo." Now, how does the old prayer go?

"Serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And Wisdom to know the difference."

A great many wise and rational men realise that accepting our inherent tribalism is the best way to go. Indeed, there are strong arguments for it being not only natural but fair, moral and in the interests of peace. The worst conflicts around the world are inevitably racial conflicts, I draw your attention to almost all wars throughout history and those raging today.

Fighting our normal human inclinations is futile, the best we can hope to do is channel them constructively. Perhaps the Olympic Games suggest how we might channel such racial (ie. national, under a sensible world order) competition to good and productive ends.

As far as I can see, and I believe history and science is on my side here, human nature is largely unchangable by unrealistic ideologies. Communism offers us a rather elegant proof of this. And really, the tribal urges made taboo for white people today, like the sexual urges made taboo for white people in the Victorian era, are not such a great "evil" once their purpose is recognised and accepted.

Think of them this way: I love my children more than other people's children. Not because my children are better or other people's worse, but simply because they are MINE. Likewise I love my family more than strangers and, equally sensibly, I love my race more than other races. That is the instinctual, emotional side of it.

The more rational side is a matter of genetics. I will engage in an in-depth debate on genetics only if I must (and indeed it seems I must at some future point) but just trust me that it is commonly accepted within the field that organisms will co-operate in direct proportion to the amount of genetic material they share. Parents won't risk their lives for strangers but will gladly sacrifice themselves for their children. Even though the shared DNA between parent and child is only 50%, the child nonetheless represents the parent's chance at genetic survival and... Naturally, this extends to favouring one's own race, albeit marginally unless in such an instance as an inter-racial war.

For these reasons and more, a truly integrated society remains a pipe-dream and diversity a weakness to any nation. I would recommend the entirety of the American Renaissance site, as well as The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins, as excellent works on the subjects covered, assuming you wish to learn more on why racial divides will remain persistent and, indeed, crucial. Whites need to realise that promoting their own interests is fair and just, and that if they neglect to do so they will only bring about their own extinction.


Anonymous said...

Is it not our spiritual quest on earth to resist and overcome things such as "status-conciousness, our pair-bonding instincts and our selectional sexual drives, tribal loyalties serve to keep the races, and by extension the species, strong and healthy"? Or are we to act on animal instincts and ignore our higher level of evolution and spiritual conciousness? In your opinion, when all is said and done, and at the end of it all, when it is just you and God, was this life and the others just about promoting genetic survival? I think it's just another obstacle in the way of attaining true enlightenment.

Dante said...

Our spiritual quest according to whom? I could as easily state my own personal belief, that the ultimate purpose of mankind is to spread life throughout the universe and beyond.

The key is that such beliefs - all beliefs - are only products of the human mind. Unlike status-conciousness, our pair-bonding instincts and our selectional sexual drives, beliefs are not the direct products of millions of years of adaptation. Beliefs are phantoms.

Simply put, humanity's first priority must be to address reality. Until we master the basics, we are unable to attain this higher level of which you speak. Our very survival depends on adjusting ourselves to reality, rather than expecting the reverse.

I wish you well on your quest for religious enlightenment. I only hope it's not a selfish path which benefits you alone rather than your blood, race and species.

The Rooster said...

I don't know why you allign yourself with those muppets. Your socio-biological view, while entirely intellectually redundant (I don't know why people would observe a natural or physical phenomena and project and anthrocentric spin of meaning on it) it's at least an intlligent argument that has behind it some scientific basis.

I think you will find that as a scientific proposition it fails at every hurdle. The conclusion is muddle with thousands of thousands of contradictions where partent child bonds are socially constructed as with adoptee' twin iq studies done ammongst people of the same races in different social settings etc.....,...these are not merely inconvenient..they tear about the entire basis of your argument. You seem a smart guy...don't let your brain stagnate and fixate on one silly side of the whole deal.

Dante said...

While I enjoyed your colourful usage of the colliquialism "muppets" - one of my favourite Snatches of dialogue - everything else rather glanced off meaningful interpretration at an oblique angle.

Sociobiology is redundant? Hmm... You may be on to something there, Roo. After all, why devote such study to that which is patently obvious?

Allow me to answer that rhetorical question: people like you, my old cock, are why such study must be devoted to the patently obvious.

And do you really think you can get away with such specious nonsense as "parent-child bonds are socially constructed?" Come now, really. The Kibbutzniks themselves disproved that. Hell, even the hardline Marxists of yore couldn't "socially-construct" their children into communal assets. People being wrong on the internet, Roo, is all very well, but you could at least put a little more homework into your incorrectness.

Start over, explaining in detail how twin studies et al. disprove whatever assertion of mine it is you're disputing. Genetic IQ perhaps? Funny, I always believed such studies confirmed the high heritability of intelligence, in accordance with evolutionary theory and, you know, common sense...

Or are you saying such studies disprove the entire field of sociobiology? Despite my fondness for Derren Brown, I'm not a mind-reader. Yet. Please state your points more clearly next time.