Jew World Order

By Anonymous

We see that a society creates all the diversity it needs in a very efficient way and that seems really amazing to me.

We don’t get all persons with the same skills, but rather people whose skills complement each-other’s. It’s almost like a body that creates all the different kinds of cells it needs with its body parts programmed to interact properly with the rest of the body. I think this is only possible because they were created by the same body.

I wonder if a gene pool of people (a race) operates the same way, creating the diversity it needs to fulfill the diverse functions of a society in a safer and more efficient manner than if we would just artificially pick different individuals from different gene pools (races) and try to integrate them.

This is not far fetched after considering the sophistication and elegance of nature. If snakes have infrared vision and whales can communicate underwater, nature can arrange races to be self-sufficient without interference from other races.

It certainly wouldn’t work to take different organs from different persons and try to build a healthy body with them. In fact, people who undergo a single transplantation always end up with health problems for life. Imagine if not just one, but most of your organs were transplanted!

Greatness comes from deep unity in a people and when you create disunity you won’t have progress no matter how talented these disunited members are. Uniting people by mere economic transactions won’t ever do the job.

The best computer program is useless if it cannot be installed in your computer. With some talent you can work marvels using the programs that are compatible, even if they are not the best on the market, but you will do nothing with the best software in the world if they cannot adapt to your hardware.

Thus, the smartest black person or the most hardworking Mexican won’t be of much use in a society where he cannot be properly “installed”. Society is much more than economic transactions and a less intelligent teacher, but who belongs to the same race and shares a common genetic setup of sensibilities, will be more useful than the most intelligent teacher if he comes from India, Mexico or Japan and evolved different kinds of sensibilities and his work in the classroom lacks the idealism that can only be inspired by a sense of belonging to the whole community.

The greatness of white civilizations arises not because of all the individual members being perfect, but because on average they share a sensibility and some form of character that in unison creates the kind of beauty that inspires progress; disrupt that beauty with individuals from the most exotic places and these individuals won’t have a society suited for nourishing their talents.

Thus, the hardy white farmer is as valuable and necessary for a successful society as the intellectual as long as both share the same sensibility and ethics inherent in their race, their value vanishes when isolated and thus that value exists more in their genetic belonging than in any virtue they might have as lone creatures.

This is not to deny the contribution of individual geniuses to white civilizations, but they would have been worthless if there was not a society in tune with their inquietudes from where they derived inspiration and nourishment. If Kepler, no matter how poor he grew up in Germany, had been born in Uganda, he would have achieved nothing.

The idea that transcendental beauty and a sensibility shared by a gene pool is more important than “learned tricks” and a favorable environment came to me after studying the Middle Ages.

Nowadays the idea of an enriched environment has become fashionable to explain differences in skills among races. Supposedly, the theory goes, if a child is not raised in an enriched environment with absolutely everything in place and protected from even the slightest rush of wind, he or she won’t develop all of his or her potentials (the reader should already be acquainted with twin studies refuting in a scientific manner those claims thus lets
focus here just on historical arguments).

As it turned out many of the greatest intellectuals and political leaders of the Middle Ages were children abandoned by their poor parents growing up in a monastery, raised in the austerity and impersonal way a community of all male monks could afford.

Many European geniuses like Leonardo da Vinci or Johannes Keppler grew up poor in times where cheap books and sophisticated education were not available to them, seeing their parents and siblings die young, etc., nevertheless they accomplished more than any Mexican raised in modern America with the most efficient and accessible welfare and education systems in human history.

Thus, these European geniuses and leaders derived the fuel for their achievements from the beauty experienced in their community, despite of lacking any material aid, and that could only have come from inner and deeper sources, an inner sensibility and a way of feeling that belongs to a certain race.

The best individual parts won’t fit together if designed for very different cars. Nowadays we talk about individuals and the value of a person being totally independent of everything but himself.

It’s silly and dangerous to put much emphasis on the value of an individual, since an individual has never and will never ever exist outside of a community (we are always bound to simply form part of something greater).

An individual derives physical, cultural and emotional nourishment from a community, thus, more important than the individual we have to put value on his role as part of the community and give priority to the preservation and elevation of the community itself because without communities individuals can never exist.

A good set of questions would be:

• Regardless of his virtues as an individual, do his virtues help the community or do they vanish in that context?
• Are his virtues as an individual simply outweighed by the damage he causes in the community? Etc.

This is a difficult exercise because it requires the use of an expanded vision.

Communities have existed millions of years before humans and if we destroy healthy communities we destroy the foundations of human progress. We would end up with something capable of producing only creatures with less capacity than modern humans.

If we change the community, we will inevitably change the kind of life forms it sustains. That would go counter to any notion of humanity because the idea of humans being special or more than animals resides in their capacity to create progress and of understanding reality, by undermining the further development of those qualities (through the destruction of higher forms of society) we are negating the value of the very thing that makes us human (“human” rights anyone?).

My doctor wouldn’t play around with the health of a patient, and similarly it’s better not to risk the health of a society, especially when talking about white societies, which are the scarce sources of the cultural beauty which make higher forms of living possible.

I really believe that only Beauty can legitimate life itself and inspire progress. Life without transcendental beauty is worthless. You can have all the commodities and practicalities of life without it being worth living. Only beauty can inspire creativity and improvement, “learned tricks” alone won’t.

Also the process of evolution is not static. If we put so much value on humans, it follows that if a more sentient and sophisticated life form evolves from us, it will be even more valuable and thus it should be more immoral to undermine their existence than the immorality of genocide.

To deny a society the possibility of creating more sophisticated life forms (Eugenics) than what we currently have should be considered a worse crime.