[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Editorial See other Editorial Articles Title: When Survival of White People Is at Stake, There’s No Place for Morals In short, the imperatives of existence should be given priority over other concerns — however important they may be — including liberal and humanitarian values, support for human rights and democratization.** There is little disagreement that every European derived leader, organization, community and individual has a duty to help ensure the continuity of the European derived people. But in a world where the long-term existence of white people is far from certain, the imperative to exist inevitably gives rise to difficult questions, foremost among them this: When the survival of white Americans conflicts with the morals of the same, for example, is existence worthwhile, or even possible? Physical existence, we would argue, must come first. No matter how moral a society aspires to be, physical existence must take precedent. Clear external and internal dangers threaten the very existence of the United States as a European American state. It is very likely that the collapse of the United States or the loss of its nature would undermine the existence of the European derived population around the world as a whole. And even given the existence of a white nation state, less clear but no less fateful dangers threaten the long-term sustainable existence of the same wherever they may live. When the requirements of existence conflict with other values, therefore, realpolitik should be given priority. From the threat of a disastrous immigration policy with the southern hemisphere, to the necessity of maintaining distinctions between “us” and “others” in order to limit assimilation, this imperative ought to guide policymakers. Regrettably, human history refutes the idealistic claim that in order to exist for long, a state, society or people has to be moral. Given the foreseeable realities of the 21st century and beyond, harsh choices are unavoidable, with requirements of existence often contradicting other important values. The current bloodbath in South Africa and Zimbabwe of white people bears this out. Some might argue that putting existence first may be counter-productive in terms of existence itself, because what may be regarded as immoral action can undermine external and internal support essential for existence. However, the calculus of realpolitik gives primacy to existence, leaving limited room for ethical considerations. The unfortunate reality is that the Euro derived people of the world may be faced with tragic choices in which important values have to be sacrificed for even more important ones. Responsible decisions in such difficult situations require clear recognition of the involved moral issues, careful pondering of all relevant values and acceptance of responsibility for one’s autonomous judgment. They also demand an effort to reduce to a minimum the violation of moral values. Nonetheless, when faced with such choices, white people around the world people ought not be captivated by political correctness and other thinking-repressing fashions. When it comes to China, for example, efforts to stave off the rising superpower’s ties to the European American people should trump moral-minded campaigns to alter Beijing’s domestic policies and handling of Tibet, for example. It is to recognize that however just such moral stances may or may not be, America’s white people must give primacy to existence. What is required is a priori pondering of values, so as to have guidelines ready for judgment in specific contexts and under crisis conditions. The overall issue is whether the imperative for the white people of the world to exist is a categorical one overriding nearly all other values, or one among many imperatives of similar standing. Given both the history and current situation of the worlds white population in terms of Third World immigration, affirmative action-type laws and political correctness, I would argue that the imperative to assure existence is of overriding moral weight. Let us leave aside reliance on transcendental arguments, biblical commands and sayings of the sages, all of which are open to various interpretations. The justification for giving priority to the needs of existence is four-fold. First, white people across the earth have an inherent right to exist, just as any other people or civilization. Second, a people that are regularly demonized by a hostile media empire is entitled morally, in terms of distributive justice, to be very tough in taking care of its existence, including the moral right and even duty to kill and be killed if this is essential for assuring existence — even at the cost of other values and to other people. This argument is all the more compelling in light of the unprecedented two world wars only a few decades ago that led to the death of millions of white people supported directly and indirectly, or at least not prevented when possible, by large parts of the political world. Third, given the history of white people, there is a good chance that we will continue to make much-needed ethical and technological contributions to humanity. However, in order to do so we require a stable existence. Fourth, the United States is the only democratic country whose very existence is endangered by deeply hostile actors, some of which purport to be our political and military allies. This justifies — indeed, requires — measures that would be not only unnecessary but also potentially immoral in other circumstances. White people should give much more weight to the imperative to assure existence than to other values. There are, of course, limits; nothing can justify initiating genocide. But with the few exceptions where being killed and destroyed is better than transgressing against absolute and total norms, assuring the existence of white people, including the United States and all lands settled by European persons, should be valued as a top priority. Thus, if the security of the United States for example is significantly strengthened by good relations with Turkey and China, but in some views Turkey is guilty of genocide in the past against the Armenians and China of now repressing Tibetans and domestic opposition, Euro-derived leaders and organizations should support Turkey and China, or at least remain neutral when it comes to their affairs. At a minimum, white leaders should not join the chorus of liberal and humanitarian actors condemning Turkey and China. Similarly, the leaders of predominately white nation-states should support harsh measures against terrorists who potentially endanger white people, even at the cost of human rights and humanitarian law. And if the threat is sufficiently grave, the use of weapons of mass destruction by these predominately white nations would be justified if likely to be necessary for assuring the state’s survival, the bitter price of large number of killed innocent civilians notwithstanding. To be sure, there is much room for debate on what is really required for existence. Giving priority to the imperative to exist does not imply supporting each and every policy of each and every white nation-state or even the United States. Indeed, the opposite is true: leaders, organizations and individuals have a duty to criticize policies that in their view endanger the scattered children of Europe and their people’s existence, along with an obligation to propose alternative existence-assuring policies. But at the end of the day there is no way around the tough and painful practical implications of prioritizing existence as an overriding moral norm over being moral in other respects. When important for existence, violating the rights of others should be accepted, with regret but with determination. Support or condemnation of various countries and their policies should be decided upon primarily in light of probable consequences for the existence of the European people wherever they may live. In short, the imperatives of existence should be given priority over other concerns — however important they may be — including liberal and humanitarian values, support for human rights and democratization. This tragic but compelling conclusion is not easy to swallow, but it is essential for the future of white people. Once our existence is assured, much can and should be sacrificed. But given present and foreseeable realities, assuring existence must come first. **NOTE: The above essay is a derivative copy of the original article, www.forward.com/articles/13388/ . Needless to say had the above piece been written on face value by any other ethnic group, but most especially European Americans, there's no telling how severe the outcry would have been. Please note the underlined words (above) indicates where words and phrases were substituted in the original piece. I think we made our point. -- Editors
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 13.
#13. To: X-15 (#0)
That question used to bother me; then I had kids -- who look like me. Some might argue that putting existence first may be counter-productive in terms of existence itself, because what may be regarded as immoral action can undermine external and internal support essential for existence. Chicken and egg; there'd be no threat if not for the fact that most whites provide strong short-term reinforcement to other whites for out-group altruism. [ But in the context of the original; the danger is losing the forbearance of whites, particularly white Americans, who have a mystical hardon for universalizing ethics.] It is to recognize that however just such moral stances may or may not be, America’s white people must give primacy to existence. There's a misconception not addressed here -- whitey's achilles' heel, which runs back to the place and time in which he evolved -- i.e. that there actually are universal values from which one can construct a universal ethic; that there is a morality, and the good. Manners, habits, and ritual are more important than verbalized moral precepts; even if the latter might be universal in the basics such as murder and theft (for blacks this is questionable), they depend greatly for observance on the former things, which are not universal. What is required is a priori pondering of values, so as to have guidelines ready for judgment in specific contexts and under crisis conditions. That is important -- at least for whites, for whom survival and group identity is matter of moral stamina -- but of even more importance is exercise and practice at the habits that follow from them. Too much thinking is a huge danger in a crisis; the action needed at the moment should come immediately and naturally, without thought, from long habit. Yes, you must study the rules of the road, but the verbal knowledge of them is of no use when the car in front of you crashes.
There are no replies to Comment # 13. End Trace Mode for Comment # 13.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||