On Miscegenation: A Theory of Everything

In the EU, Australia, and North America, all aspects of our lives have now become politicized. Such a demonstrable fact admits that our societies are not only radically shifting to an augmented Marxist paradigm; but that the entire range of our human experience is also under this subversive filter. Perhaps the most significant target of this politicization process is our biology, specifically reproduction. Whether it be planned parenthood, feminism, the LGBT front, or the effects of sterilizing chemical inputs, the attack on Western reproductive behaviour has been relentless for almost a century now. And at present, the coup de grace is taking place: miscegenation. In just a few short years, a massive mainstream push has completely inundated Western society with sexualized white/non-white pairing arrangements in both institutional and commercial settings, earmarking in particular the younger generation for such programming. It is, simply put, a logical, evolutionary component to the European Replacement model which, for several generations, has subtly, but continuously been pacifying our group’s sexual acceptance of outside races. Once normalized however, there would be no going back, and the entire history of the parent haplogroup will forever cease to exist.

Typology / Design / Promotion

(1) Typology

The difficulty in achieving a complete revaluation of beliefs within a culture over two generations is impossible to comprehend but for the fact that it has simply not happened before. Some examples could be made, such as the Bolshevik assault against Russian Orthodox culture during the 1920s and 30s, the Anglo-French subjugation of the North American Indians, and the Moorish occupation of Visigothic Spain, to name a few. Although these episodes had drastically different elements at play, each operating culture under attack eventually overcame this struggle to retain much of its cultural and racial identity after a period of time. In all three cases, language, religion, art, and social infrastructures were suppressed to varying degrees by the conquering culture in its attempt to maintain dominance. But in none of these instances did the perpetrators use the forethought or subtlety that the replacement of an entire race in its own indigenous lands requires; only within the architecture of a liberal, surrogate culture, similar to that subsuming ours, may one observe such a deceptively laid design.

The inversion of values and morals occurs at a certain point in the life-arc of any particular culture. When the Roman Republic was transformed into an Imperium, its entire ethos also shifted; and the days of honorum publicus and racial sacrifice became numbered. Likewise, when Sparta could no longer resist the flow of Eastern money systems into the Greek city states with which it competed, forcing it into a titanic struggle with the Delian League, it lost its soul forever in a compulsory alliance with its spiritual nemesis, Persia. But these were only players in the early history of Western Civilization—our most cherished and finest, to be sure—whose moral ruin did not change the inherent character of the European race. As societies they had fallen to an oriental, halachic poison; but the interior lives of their peoples were still instructed by the fundamental cultural tenets of Classical Philosophy and Ethikos. In the two millennia since, the core civilization grew in size, power, and reach, before its extent and dominance began to decline on the world stage. This recent collapse, however, differs from the others that preceded it; as the impetus has come from within the general population itself, and not by some aristocratic elite or outside force, prompting a “moral ruin” that is far more expansive and deep than those previously experienced. One which has come to effectively pollute the inmost soul of every human being who can claim European ancestry: racial self-hatred.

(2) Design

So, how do you compromise a racial group’s integrity and compel it to virtual suicide? Answer: You must first establish a psychological complex that is self-critical, motivated by an abstract sense of guilt. But to develop this you will need three components which must be broadly controlled: psychology, mainstream media, and institutional support.

In Western society, psychology became prevalent towards the late 19th century. By the Great War, it had become academically and socially accepted. Its main proponents were almost exclusively Jewish, most of whom held antipathies towards classic European thought; in fact, many of these men considered stock European religious attitudes and establishment philosophy as predominantly neurotic, rather than metaphysical. Furthermore, Sigmund Freud’s examination of culture in his “Civilization and its Discontents” (1929) was a thinly veiled attack on Western society where he began undermining the significance of the individual by redefining what culture and civilization were in relation to that person. For Freud, the individual was just some libido-controlled automaton—a highly sexualized being—that fluctuated between pathological and healthy states. This rendering of humanity was absurdly reductionist, diminishing the common man to some kind of passive animal with communal instincts when he was good, maladjusted and hyper-sexual when he was not. The Jewish mentality when comparing these contrasting values is immediately apparent. But the road had been paved. And the next generation of academics, one group of German-born intellectuals in particular, took these subversive, anti-classical ideas, and rewrote them into the greatest cognitive threat ever imposed on a civilization: Cultural Marxism.

With the Frankfurt School, we have the emergence of an avant-garde group of thinkers who passionately desired a despondent, pathologically motivated, self-inimical culture to replace the burgeoning, nationalistic, optimistic European culture that was quickly eyeing the world as its dominion. They were, to a man, Marxist Jews, and their vision of a socially bankrupted Western Culture, devoid of classic European values, became the revolutionary force behind the post-1945 world. Their intellectual creation, Critical Theory, was a toxic mixture of Marx’s critical methodology, and Sigmund Freud’s subtractive view of humanity and culture. In a word, it was designed to establish a highly politcized social contract where the principle players in society were no longer people, but issues. This they realized would bring about a catastrophe in Western Civilization, a sort of collective schizophrenia. Their belief was that after this massive breakdown, in the throes of nervous exhaustion, European culture would then be powerless against the social programming necessary to make it permissive, liberal, and creatively impotent from within, entirely malleable to a Marxist intellectual elite for millennia.

(3) Promotion

The approach to promulgating such an anti-cultural model within a society is a delicate business, as the tendency of a healthy, homogeneous population is to identify then thwart alien ideas that run counter to its sense of well-being. In the case of the Frankfurt School, its principals had the fortune of deportation from Germany, only to land influential positions at a number of academic institutions in America. One can make the observation that these situations, at the most prestigious Universities, were given to these intellectuals without any competition: they were just handed placements, directing the faculties of Sociology, Philosophy, Psychology, and Law at the most distinguished institutions in the United States. They then began teaching the next generation of educated Americans how to despise their own country, its people, its traditions, its laws. Their books were published, without censorship, straight from the desk to the presses en masse, so millions of Americans became saturated with their anti-cultural invective. In fact, the entire 1960s social revolution was a synthetic psychological operation which the Frankfurt School spearheaded. It was a death-knell to all the potential that America had fostered. Since then, the United States has been a graveyard of ideas…

So how does miscegenation fit in?

Modern feminism.

Feminism did not begin as a unique, broadly defined social movement. It was a sub-category of revolutionary Marxist strategy that sought to undermine the family unit in the West. After the subsumption of feminism into modern Liberal social dynamics, which the Frankfurt School aggressively endorsed, the generally understood concept of the Family, a foundation stone of all races or cultures for millennia and a barrier to authoritative rule, was deliberately fragmented through law codes and negative socialization. By wedding them to the Liberal welfare state through social and economic sponsorship, European women were given carte blanche in their sexual and relational behaviours. After two generations, Western reproductive rates plummeted, the roles of men and women were blurred, and the sexual binary that sustained European civilization (like every culture that has ever existed) was broken. As the impaired social paradigm continued to manifest, Western women began levering their new-found “power” to optimize the benefits granted by Liberal governments. The single mother became normalized, the ostracized male was generalized. This then created the sexual vacuum that we now have.

Enter the African “refugee.”

With the advocacy of sexual options for the “liberated” Western woman, mainstream commercial institutions have initiated a major disarming campaign that has standardized mixed race coupling—but only in Western countries. The primary platforms for this hyper-sexual propaganda have been pornography, mainstream fashion advertising, talk shows, and news media: all targeting Western women. The pacified European male, choosing to become a beta surrogate rather than lose his connection to female company, has taken on a feminine, secondary role in his intimate interactions for fear of losing any sexual contact altogether. This has allowed for a higher testosteroned, culturally deficient male type to enter the sexual vacuum for reproductive dominance. And who is this new male type that our elite is marketing? Any male who is not White.

Normalizing an historically-incorrect social devolution is a typically liberal prerogative, and an essential tactic of neo-Marxism. It is a design flaw deliberately placed within the architecture of Western Civilization. The proponents of critical theory have only one supreme goal: the end of European culture; and they have made us distrust this cultural heritage. But their greatest imposition against us was the socially accepted division of the family; for prior to this, we considered the intact Family unit as natural and necessary. If we Europeans can somehow re-normalize these familial roles between each other, and find a lasting accord, the Marxist mirror can finally be smashed.

Wouldn’t it be staggering to see ourselves again?


4 thoughts on “On Miscegenation: A Theory of Everything

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s