When will you learn, Whitey? When will you understand racial differences and stop trying to ignore them?
# # #
But of course, this is just part of evolution. If a type of organism doesn't make more like itself to fill its land to repel other kinds, then the other kinds will gladly take over that land and fill it with their kind and displace the original organisms.
And, there can be no excuses, none of "Well, our kind has written great books and composed great music and invented many things." The retort to this is that it was not "your kind" that did these things but "individuals" of your kind. "Tell us, dear chap, what part you,personally had in writing those great books and composing that great music, and what hand did you have in all those inventions? And, while you're at it, tell us why you should get to keep this land, when others are coming here who are competing better for it than you and while you simply get old, have no children and die off?"
Nature doesn't care. It just keeps grinding on, and those who hear and obey nature's cry to make more like themselves or perish live on and take over lands while the effete, low reproducing, and poor competitors--the former "owners"--are replaced and go extinct.
And, Great Britain is a good example of nature's way of rewarding the best suited for any niche.
As I've written before, the native squirrel in Great Britain is the Red Squirrel. It's a cute little thing with fur tufts on its ears. Now, it is heading toward extinction as the American Grey Squirrel has found its way to Great Britain and is competing better for space and resources. The Greys are more aggressive, breed more and quickly take over land once the exclusive province of the Reds. A living metaphor for White Brits, perhaps. And, nature doesn't care if humans think the Reds are cuter and less a problem than the Greys. If you can't or won't compete, you lose. Period.
* * *
I wonder how many White people who have read the above headline even realize that what they are reading are stories about their own genocide and extinction?
My guess is that most Whites are unconcerned and might say something like "Hey there are plenty of humans and we all bleed red blood, so what does it matter if there are fewer Whites as a percentage of the population?"
Of course, that sort of statement shows, at the very least, that the person is alienated from himself or herself at their most essential level; and saying that would be a little like a guy saying that it doesn't matter if he's shot dead while walking down the street because there are plenty of other humans.
Individuals and groups of like individuals are not fungible.
We, as individuals, and as members of distinct groups, are all different. If we are replaced by people from other groups, we simply no longer exist.
Meanwhile, some other Whites, who do have a little more awareness of such things (but not enough), try to justify their genetic contraction by sniffing, incorrectly, that Whites should breed for quality instead of quantity and that's how, they say, we'll stave off our extinction.
Nature disagrees with this fewer is better argument.
It is so obvious that quantity is what is needed for the survival of a group, that one feels silly even having to argue the point. The simple truth is that Whites, no less than any other living things, must breed or die.
How many stories do some people have to read about blonds dying out or blue eyes becoming rare to get it? How many once mostly White cities and countries, now full of non-Whites, do some people need to visit to understand?
You don't win life's game by being the few. You win by being the many.
Expansion is life, contraction is death. At present, Whites are on a death spiral caused by their contraction as a percentage of the human population.
What happens when a people contracts in a land and does not fill that land with its own kind? Well, nature abhors a vacuum, and will soon fill that land with other people. That's what happened to the American Indians and now that's what's happening to Whites.
Whites really do need to get out of the sleep-like state they're in as a people and understand about existence and survival, and the purpose and meaning of life, and how nature works.
As we seek understanding, we first need to know that all of existence is a struggle to be, to be more, and for dominance of a niche or niches. Or, to put this in other terms, all of existence is a fight for the best seat in the house. It is this way from subatomic particles to entire galaxies of millions of stars. And, it is no less so with us.
Even within our individual bodies there is a struggle between individual genes for expression. Genes for blue eyes struggle to be against genes for brown, green, grey, hazel eyes, and it goes for every other part of your body. Everything is in conflict for existence and dominance. There is no right and no wrong in this. There is just a struggle to exist. All of existence is a vast spinning, whirling battle to bring forth the best adaptations in every species for the niche or niches that the species occupies.
The struggle for existence isn't something to be avoided, but to be embraced. It is completely natural.
As far as we know, we humans are the only organisms on Earth that can understand the struggle for existence on an intellectual level, and in understanding we can make conscious adjustments in our behaviors to come out on top.
We also need to understand that the individual human being isn't important in the big picture. It is his or her internal code--the genotype (that leads to the phenotype) that is important, i.e. his or her collected genes that make the person what he or she is.
In all organisms, it is the internal genetic code that must survive if the species is to survive. All organisms at our level of existence (meaning what you see around you every day) are the finished life forms "spun" by their internal code to be as they are. It is that internal code--the recipe--the genotype that gives all organisms their external appearance, their phenotype, that is important.
So, why aren't Whites making more like themselves? They've lost nature's plot.
You'll hear them saying things such as "Oh, taxes are too high so I can't have children," or "My wife and I have decided the Earth is too crowded so we're going to help save the environment by not having children," or "I haven't met the right person yet." or "With kids, I wouldn't be able to live the kind of life I want to live." Some will then say snide things about welfare mothers who have many children but who can't support them and how they're not going to do that.
Such people need to rethink their biases, because their way is the way of extinction. That welfare mother with many children, will have her children dance on the graves of these effete Whites who don't reproduce to their maximum.
But, instead of getting blue in the face arguing the finer points of this and saying over and over that Whites must start having large White families again, I'll just switch to a recent news story from England.
You see, I know that even using the word White, makes many Whites squirm. Pitiful but true. So, I'll now talk about squirrels, which should relive the squirming and still make the point.
In brief, the native Red squirrels in England have almost been wiped out by the Grey squirrels and now the grey squirrels are being wiped out by the Black squirrels.
It's now been confirmed (genetically) that the Black squirrels in England are all the offspring of a single Black squirrel from America that escaped into the wild in the 1880's and mated with Grey squirrels (also from America). The offspring of the single Black squirrel and the Grey squirrels weren't Grey squirrels--but more Black squirrels.
If you don't understand why the offspring are Black squirrels and not Grey squirrels or why they're not half Black and half Grey, just look at Barack Obama for a clue.
Want another clue? Dominant vs. recessive genes.
[Note: Dominant and recessive, here, just means that it only takes one parent with the dominant genes to have those genes expressed, but it takes two parents with the recessive genes to have the recessive genes expressed. Most genes do not produce blended results, so it's either this characteristic or this other characteristic.]
What's happening is that the Black squirrels in England are more aggressive than the Reds and the Greys and they're also breeding more of their kind. As a result, they're taking over squirrel land. It's no more complicated than that. Their Black squirrel genes are becoming a larger percentage in the squirrel gene pool than other squirrel genes.
Now, if squirrels could talk, we'd probably hear some weak willed and ignorant Reds and Greys talking about how much they love the diversity and how all squirrels are the same because they all bleed red blood.
Bye, bye deadender Red and Grey squirrels. You have not adapted, you have not been able to compete, you have not bred to your maximum. You are on your way to extinction. If you produced more of yourselves, you'd take back your land. But, as it is, your genes are being replaced in the squirrel gene pool. Love your diversity while you can because such diversity doesn't remain, it's just the time period before you are replaced.
This is the way of nature. It is the same with squirrels as it is with all living things including all humans and, of course also, White people.
But there is one difference. We humans can use our brains to understand what's happening and we can consciously adapt and take proper steps so that we don't become extinct.
In other words, our fate is not beyond our conscious control as it is with the Red and Grey squirrels. They don't have a conscious thought about what's going on. They can't count or think abstract thoughts. They just know there are newer squirrels who don't look like them and who seem to be more numerous with each passing year, while those who look like them are fewer and fewer.
Pretending still that the squirrels could talk, might we not hear some weak-willed Reds and Greys telling other Reds and Greys, who see the extinction that is looming, that it's racist for them to notice that they're being slowly killed off and largely because of their lack of producing offspring?
In thinking about the pumpkins in my back yard the other day, and how they compete for living space and the energy provided by the sun,my mind turned, of course, to thinking about the competition between Sciurus carolinensis and Sciurus vulgaris who are more commonly known as the Eastern Grey Squirrel and the Red Squirrel.
Yes, dear friends, the competition in nature is all encompassing and affords constant examples of how nature works.
But, here's where some get it wrong about this competition. They think the competition is always conscious or involves direct combat-like contests between different types that occupy the same niches.
Thinking this way gives too much weight to the importance of the actual whole organisms; in our present case, Greys vs. Reds, rather than to the organisms' internal genetic codes.
Behind the genetic codes is dispassionate nature itself, which is the eternal tinkerer constantly tweaking the codes and reshuffling parts of them on a never ending trial and error basis to develop life forms--no matter what they are--that can prosper in all niches and survive various changes. Yes, this is the stuff of natural selection and the survival of the fittest.
The two types don't attack each other or engage in any sort of furry fisticuffs, but the Reds just can't compete with the Greys in the same niche that they both occupy.
Why are the Greys winning the competition?
It's because the Greys have some natural adaptations that give them a slight survival advantage over the Reds. Among other things, the Greys are more aggressive. They also live longer and thus produce more offspring. In addition, they are also able to store more fat in their bodies that gets them through harsh winters. It also helps that the Greys aren't as picky eaters as the Reds and can digest acorns and presumably other food items that the Reds cannot. The Reds also die from a virus that doesn't much affect the Greys, but which the Greys may carry.
Now, some might say that the Greys and Reds should just hold paws in a circle and sing kumbaya and decide to all just get along. Sorry, that's not the way nature works and nature knows best for the long term survival of life.
The story of nature's way with life is one with the story of evolution. And, evolution always leads to the extinction of some forms and the bringing forth of others. The Earth has seen massive extinctions. It is estimated that about 99% of all life that has arisen on Earth is now extinct.
What does nature gain in all this extinction? If nature "wants" to bring forth life, wouldn't it make more sense to not let any forms go extinct?
Nope. Nature is right again.
We don't live in a static universe. The only constant is change. That's because everything is moving. With movement comes change. When things change--even on our small level of existence right here on Earth--such as having colder or hotter or wetter or drier weather--those organisms that can't adapt die off and new forms will emerge that like the new conditions just fine, thank you very much.
So, if you were nature, would you come down on the side of the Greys or the Reds? Should the Reds get the land and food just because they were there first or because they look cuter (to humans)? Or, should the Greys get the land and food because they're better able to compete for the land and food?
Actually, if you were nature, your decision would be automatic. The ones that have the better survival adaptations for that niche, win. The others don't.
Read: The more and the tougher the competition, the more likely are the organisms involved in that competition to be successful if they invade another niche populated by organisms that didn't have as much or as tough competition to earn a living.
I wrote recently about a plan afoot to poison millions of rats on the Galapagos Islands.
I also wrote that this is natural selection via poison.
Let me explain a little more, because I find it ironic that this attempt to kill off rats is taking place on the Galapagos Islands--the very islands that provided Charles Darwin with his major insights that led to his theory of evolution.
One of the key elements of Darwin's theory is natural selection. Natural selection is the process whereby nature selects out the best organisms for any environmental niche by eliminating those who can't compete and replacing them with others who are better adapted to those environmental niches.
Now, because we live in a dynamic universe where everything moves and everything changes, no organisms--and in this case, those such as certain lizards, birds and tortoises, that seem to be the best adapted to the environmental niche found on the Galapagos Islands-- get a free ride forever.
Just because organisms are the first in, doesn't give them any moral high ground or guarantee that this is their area forever. And, just to be more precise, they are probably not really the first in at all, and simply replaced earlier forms and the earlier forms replaced even earlier ones going back to when the first life appeared on Earth.
Also, even among the so-called native species on the Galapagos Islands--the lizards, birds and tortoises, there has always been a constant competition for the best suited for all of the micro-environments. That's the way it is with all life.
In time, and in every niche, environmental conditions will change and other organisms will arrive there; such as rats arriving on the Galapagos Islands. A static environment and complete isolation are almost impossible to maintain.
And, these other organisms might have adaptations that give them survival advantages over the earlier inhabitants such that the new arrivals may eliminate the older ones. That is what is going on today on the Galapagos Islands. The aggressive, hungry and fast breeding rats are taking over and they're eliminating the other organisms that live there.
So now there is a plan to try to kill off the rats with poison. What will happen? Here's my prediction: Millions of rats will die, but some of them will develop mutations that make them directly immune to the poison or some will be clever enough to avoid the poison or will in some way survive. Those survivors will breed a new generation of rats that will continue to thrive and they'll continue to take over the Galapagos Islands to the detriment of the older species found there.
Why will this happen? To really understand on a deeper level, you have to know that every organism has a DNA code within it that makes that organism as it is.
Now, think of that DNA code as though it is a computer which has been programmed to expand the particular kind of life it has fashioned to fill all of existence. To do this, it must overcome all obstacles thrown in its way and it must compete better than other organisms.
Some DNA codes are better at this than others. The DNA code for rats is one of the codes that has proven itself to be better than some others because it is able to adapt quickly to get through, over, around or under most obstacles thrown in its way.
It does this primarily because of a very high birth rate which allows the DNA code sufficient material and time to bring forth a new ONE, a branching of the older version that may not only not die from the poison, but which may actually relish it, or it may bring forth a new ONE that is simply smarter than others, or a new ONE that has dietary preferences that makes poison bait unattractive to it--there are many possibilities and many of them will be automatically explored via constant mutations.
It is this way with all life, including humans, as nature constantly tinkers with life to bring forth the best form to compete for and occupy every environmental niche.
Whenever there are winners in the struggle for survival, there must also be losers.
Another example that I often use for this evolutionary process is the rise of White people in Europe.
* * *
I've written elsewhere about how it's a mistake to think in terms of "superior" and "inferior" when talking about living organisms. The terms really have no meaning in nature, just as good and evil have no meaning in nature.
I thought everybody knew this basic stuff, but after reading some comments, I'm not so sure that's the case.
There's probably no simpler way of explaining the basics of evolution than to simply look at this drawing Darwin made in 1837 when he was studying the finches on the Galapagos Islands.
The drawing can really be applied to any organisms. The circled number 1 is the organism that starts it all. Then, its offspring begin branching off and becoming different as the forces of evolution work to engineer an organism that is suited to its environment.
With the finches, the standard model Number 1, had offspring and some of these offspring were scattered, for whatever reason--storms, high winds, floods or whatever--on various other of the Galapagos Islands far from where Number 1 was located, and they became isolated from the main breeding population.
Over the centuries, these offspring, that were isolated on the several different islands in the Galapagos chain, began to change in many ways, but mostly related to their beaks. Some developed heavy strong beaks and lived on seeds. Some developed slender long beaks that could get insects out of rotten plants. And, so it went.
The question is silly.
The correct answer is that they're just different. It's the same way with all organisms including humans.
JURY ORDERS PHILLY SCHOOLS TO PAY $2.3 MILLION TO A WHITE FIRM IN A BIAS SUIT
The school district took away a contract from the White firm and gave it to a Black one.
Yea! More Whites standing up for their rights!
# # #
MOST COMMON AGE FOR WHITES 56--HISPANICS 9
Effete, weak seed, self-hating Whites who lack the proper life force aren't having children.
Too many of these sicko Whites think their short lives are too important to be bothered with making more like themselves, so they get old and die and they go extinct and they take their particular DNA Code with them to the grave and eternal nothingness.
Their lives are meaningless. They might as well not have been born at all. And, the shame of it is that many of these Whites are married to Whites who may not be weak seeds so that means two Whites have lived meaningless lives. The good one dies off with the weak one.
Perhaps we are better off without them, and perhaps it will be for the good in the long run that they don't pass on their weakness to children who might also be weak. Perhaps, nature, or God, is culling the weak seeds--separating the chaff from the wheat.
Good riddance to such scum. Don't be like them, Whitey. Have as many White children as possible. Go into the future and don't go extinct.
# # #
# # #
EXAMPLE OF RAPID SPECIATION--NEW BRANCHING OF COMMON MOSQUITO INTO A NEW SPECIES THAT LIVES IN SUBWAYS ONLY
The principle is the same with all life that we know about. Some organisms adapt, change, evolve when faced with new challenges and when there is reproductive isolation from others of the species, evolution often leads to a new species.
In other words: Stop the gene flow and introduce new internal and external environmental differences and in tme you'll usually end up with a new species that is no longer able to bear viable offspring with the parent species.
It was once thought that speciation took millions of years. Now, it is known that rapid speciation happens.
# # #
CM PRESS RECIPE FOR CORTON (French Canadian Pork spread--from old family recipe)
This is called Cretons in Quebec but Gorton or Corton in coastal Mass., and in the latter it is pronounced as Kutung (the first "u" is almost a short "a," and the "g" is almost silent).
What could be healthier than a pot full of pork fat?
3 lbs ground pork
3 minced onions
3/4 c water
1 t black pepper
1 t cinnamon (add more to taste if desired)
1 t ground cloves (can add more)
1 pinch garlic
Cook in pot on top of stove for several hours over low heat until all the water/fat is absorbed. Mash constantly with a potato masher as it cooks. Let cool for several hours in the refrigerator. It should have the consistency of a spreadable pate. Use as a spread on crackers, bread or bagels.
# # #
COURTS SAY LIVING BY CHRISTIAN FAITH ILLEGAL
The Bible is very un-PC. No problem, though, Christians will simply throw out Bible sections that PCitis demands. What God said? Ah, he didn't mean it. Why, He's Love, and Love means you accept whatever humans in any age decide is fine. Homosexuals should be killed? Ah, God didn't mean that, he was just joking. He loves homosexuals.
Welcome to the religion of what's happening now, baby!
# # #
THE DAILY STORMER
FYI--Here's a Website that takes on PCitis very directly by violating all the PC rules.
It's pretty much doing what Gays did by intentionally taking over words such as "queer" and "faggot," that had previously been used as smears, and using them as in your face identifiers.
# # #