It is with this view in mind that I've decided to write a small piece on supremacism, and its place in human nature.
On Supremacism And Its Relation To Man.
Supremacy is the end goal of all manner of organic life, each and every organism strives to attain this goal.. Each one adapts, not just for the purpose of survival but for the function of being supreme over that which previously endangered its existence. One could even say that survival implies the attainment of supremacy over that which threatened its existence. The process of self perfecting will always lead to the result of the one being supreme over the other, even if just momentarily. We see this example with numerous virus': the moment man had found a solution to this problem, it gradually adapted itself into a new strain, ensuring its chances of survival against this solution, thus making it supreme above the solution itself.
So considering this, whenever accused of being a supremacist, one must always affirm that they are, for it is natures law that they should be. We see ample examples of what failure to adhere to this principle does. Civilizations, which are in themselves designed by organic lifeforms for the purpose of fulfilling this goal, have both risen and fallen. The minute they ceased to have any interest in supremacy they stagnated, withered and died. For it is a constant truth throughout history that each civilization was forged out of the need to survive, whether to defend or to obtain land, it all had the desire to be supreme above those that endanger them, and those who stand in the way of materials necessary for their survival. One such example being the British Empire, which grew out of its industrialization and subsequent collapse in agricultural land mass. It is not just the need for land that pushed the English into colonialism. It was also a desire to be supreme, to enforce its will wherever it desired, often at the cost of others. It was the same for Rome, as it was for Egypt, and many other Empires that had existed in the past. Each one perceived himself supreme in relation to its enemies, each one concerned itself only with its will and not that of others. We today perceive this past (colonialism) to be an “evil” but as I already mentioned before in my article; “on the issues of Abortion” [1] nature has no capacity for evil, it only has a capacity for what is right. And the need to survive necessitates doing what is necessary. This much is true of all organisms: when it comes to the point where survival necessitates certain adaptations, there are none, upon being aware of their own survival being at stake, who would hesitate to put them to use.
There are may today who love to delude themselves into thinking that we can give up this desire for supremacy. But this is borne, rather from emotion, which bears no merit on the rule of life. It is necessary though, to address some of these issues so it may be better illuminated:
There is frequent talk among egalitarian minds, that “co-operation” between the different sub-species is a far more desirable option than that of supremacy and struggle. This however, is just wishful thinking, because even today when we not only “co-operate” but endanger our own existence at the benefit of others, we come to find that life is filled with discriminatory practices, as well as the desire for supremacy. For instance we find that governments do discriminate in the sharing of information or technology that invariably equates to power. There exists no nation on earth who would share armaments among other nations on an equal footing, because doing so would immediately remove their superiority over what may be a potential enemy in the future. What is exported or traded with foreign nations is only that which would ensure that the stronger maintain its position of strength. We also come to find that the importing and exporting of goods other than weaponry contains within itself a struggle for power and superiority over others. It certainly is often argued that this co-operation in terms of imports and exports of goods, is done for mutual benefit. But this is not the case - trading by its nature is an act which expresses supremacy over another, there is no fair trade, since there is competition among both the buyer and seller, regarding the pricing of these goods. One will always try to extract the maximum out of it while the other tries to pay as little as is possible. Each one viewing his product as better to the one offered in exchange. What effects the outcome, is power in the form of demand, there is nothing fair about it. One will always leave having given out more than was actually necessary, one will always have the power over the other. Outsourcing and Globalism I am sure, will be perceived as indications that it is shifting toward mutual benefit, but is this really the case? Can there be a strain of this inherent superiority found within this modern method?
Outsourcing they say, provides jobs in underdeveloped regions, thus creating a viable economy within these nations, uplifting everyone gradually toward a common economic stability. This however, is another false claim. Since outsourcing by its nature is the exploitation of cheaper regions, to maximize profits, it not only does nothing in terms of economic development in the undeveloped regions, but it does equal damage to the nation it abandons, since it is causing severe unemployment in an already existing market, losing itself its only loyal and secure market base. Furthermore the education, financial injections and support from G8 nations toward Africa is not done for the sake of mutual benefit, but because of a desire on the part of the ruling nations, to reinvigorate its former colonies into a viable export for produce, which it previously had under its control, but can no longer obtain through means of trade, it cannot obtain it by means of trade, because the African hasn't mastered agriculture. At the moment the relationship is not even reciprocal since Africa is a beggar, and offers nothing even remotely close to mutually beneficial. Ah but I am sure, there are some who'd say, that it is in fact for mutual benefit because the African would have what it didn't have before: - a constant supply of food, which is beneficial to them as well. If only life were so simple, we seem to forget that we all feel that those we aid are in debt to us when they've found their feet. Not only will the G8 nations obtain its produce it lost through the end of colonialism, but it would gain a market for its industrial products, and furthermore, Africa would be in a position to repay the debt it incurred through decades of begging, exercising its power completely. And should we as we have done in the past, write these debts off, then it is not beneficial to us, as we've lost billions in investments with no return on the capital.
There is also another ugly aspect to “trade” which most people tend to forget: It is often used as a weapon to enforce the will of the Democratic West upon others. As it is currently done in Zimbabwe, and as it has been done in the past against Apartheid South Africa and many other nations both past and present. So there is an element of constant power in it. And this perhaps is an idea to consider in and of itself. That Ideologies themselves have the desire for supremacy, and use whatever is at its disposal to enforce its will upon others. But it is not something I wish to elaborate on here, as it will, detract from this particular essay, which deals with supremacy in a different context.
That aside, we must explore the “Globalism” aspect of the claim to mutual benefit. It is true that the current establishment desires to create an international “one world” that it calls Globalism, and it uses the notion that all people of all walks of life will be “brought together” as though this is a longed for occurrence. But life shows that this can never be, it is inevitable that different races will ultimately seek to obtain the advantage over others. In Multiracial society today we see the ample indications there of. In European nations, the Arab, Jew, Negro among many others, all see to their own interests, each one has a group that represents their interests and theirs alone, not the interest of some “higher purpose” or some “higher goal”. “But they stand against racism which is a factor that divides humanity”....That they stand against “racism” is no indication of their desire to “breach the gap between the different peoples” as is commonly believed, but is more an indication of their desire to maintain their survival, and the positions they obtained through anti-racial laws. Which serves to curtail and shackle only European man.
If they truly were against racism, would they not stand against all forms of it? And not as they do today, only target the European and label him a racist, whenever he desires to see to his own interests? It is a means to defend themselves and maintain the status quo, that is: working toward the displacement of the European and the empowering of their own kind, and not as is popularly believed, an actual indication of their desire to do away with racism. Displacement? You may wonder, “how precisely are they working toward the displacement of the European”? Affirmative Action is a policy not designed to “right previous wrongs”, or to “do justice to those whom injustice was done to” as is commonly believed, it is a policy that place all manner of non-White on the top of the preference list for occupation, to work, which is the means with which to secure ones existence and to provide for one's family. It is a policy that shifts the balance of power gradually away from the European, nullifying his influence in society.
Co-operation can only truly exist among those who share the same hereditary traits, because it is mutually beneficial to do so, and not those who compete against you so that they may increase the reproductivity of their own. In other words, true co-operation can only exist between the Europeans, for they all share the same hereditary traits, they are not in competition with one another to perpetuate their own racial hereditary traits. The same cannot be said for the non-European.
All manner of life is a battle for supremacy, to either get to the top or to maintain that position. This is the way the world functions, and while we may live in a world where humanity today denies any notion of “color” or of “race” the reality of the matter, as is demonstrated, is vastly different. The only one foolish enough to adhere to “tolerance” and forsake the natural strive for supremacy is the European, and it is costing him his very existence.
[1] See my article on Abortion : http://nationalsocialistletters.blogspot.com/2010/08/issues-of-abortion.html
No comments:
Post a Comment