The Death of Multicultus

November 20th, 2016

Awake Goy

Philosophers don’t get Blackmailed; Become one in 15 minutes

After reading this you will be able to:

Explain to anyone why Multi-cultus is illegitimate
Have an unending supply of arguments against it
Rebuff even your most learned teacher in the university

After understanding the following basic concepts you will become an expert in the philosophical arguments against Multiculturalism. The idea is that every White person, from the hardy and honest truck-driver to the bookworm intellectual will become able to refute Multiculturalism without having a degree in the subject or even memorizing a bunch of factoids. That’s the beauty of Philosophy!

We will kill the beast by shooting directly to the heart. Once we understand the philosophical arguments, everything falls into place and facts, arguments, reasons, etc. will come easily when needed.

Concept Number 1 – “Objectivity doesn’t Exist”

The core of Multiculturalism is the idea that everyone’s interests should be considered and that we should not take value judgements. Every person, every culture, every way of feeling is as legitimate as the other, therefore when we sum them together we become enriched…. [You can’t get more stupid that that]

There is no denial that there are facts. For example, there’s a tree out there, or there’s a a glass with water in it, but (here comes the paradox) as soon as we pay attention to these facts, they become subjective. The act itself of making something knowable transforms these facts into subjective ideas. It is something similar to the Quantum paradox; the act of observing makes the wave collapse into a determined form that it didn’t have before. This might sound like mumbo jumbo, but stay with me and you will realize its repercussions in the Moral realm.

From an infinite number of factoids, we can only memorize and pay attention to the ones that are useful, the ones that resonate with our preferences and that’s the opposite of Objectivity. Even when you report in a dry language a boring factoid, you are already endorsing a set of values that are subjective. You are selecting, just as Evolution acts through natural selection.

Furthermore, if the situation above were not subjective enough, here comes another problem. We very seldom report something as dry and unemotional as a math book. From these facts that we “selected in a subjective way” we explain them in a language that expresses our values and preferences (language is never neutral).

In other words, choose the right combination of facts and you can paint a positive picture, but choose another set of facts and paint a negative one; each one as full of truthful data as the other. The only way of being totally objective would be by excluding nothing, something which is obviously impossible (all the possible truthful formulations run up to infinity). Thus, you have to be subjective, to have preferences and values, to discriminate and to exclude.

we select suitable information, the same as we select tools for a task

Thus we can be sure that when a book about history paints a negative picture of White people and a positive one of the Jews or the Mexican, we can be 100% sure that they do it because that favors them and that it has nothing to do with the truth or with objectivity (we know that they could as easily, have given a positive view of white people, as faithful to the facts as the other, and nevertheless they decided not to do it).

What many scholars do in order to “sound” objective is to present an equal number of positive and negative factoids and give no more importance to either, but that’s also wrong because in the real world there are things that are clearly more desirable and interesting than others. To present them as having as many pros and cons as anything else is just lying.

They leave out an immense amount of positive facts about white people when they write a history book, the same goes for negative facts about non-whites. A huge amount of meaningful information is being suppressed in the name of Jewish “Objectivity”.

Why do I spend so much time talking about objectivity? Because she is the evil mother of all the intellectual pestilences that we face today. These ideals of tolerating what should be fought, pacifism in the face of destruction, the equalizing of the genius with the brute, the loving of what makes you ill, etc. all of these pathologies come from the idea of Objectivity.

The only way of not selecting in this world is to stop breathing, but that in itself is a choice and, who knows, maybe after death we have to deal with the consequences of our bad choices. If we give away our power in this lifetime, and stop discriminating between beauty and ugliness we might find ourselves powerless in the next one.

Have you ever wondered why scientific books are sometimes so boring? Objectivity is death, the closer you are to objectivity the closer you are to death, and that’s the opposite of exciting and lively. Only when you are dead can you stop having inclinations, biases and passions. We could easily say that this Jewish cult of Objectivity is nothing more than a diabolic cult of death.

Here comes the hypocrisy and the lie. These Jewish liberals obviously don’t want to embrace death themselves, therefore when they promote equality and objectivity, they do so in order to gain immense power (which is the total opposite of being reduced to equals with everyone else). Just like Judaism/Christianity are two faces of the same religion, but with the one suited to weaken the Goyim and the other to empower the Jew, is also Zionism/Multiculturalism the updated version of this Janus religion.

The difference between Hitler and the Jews is that Hitler was honest about his intentions, instead of committing the cowardice of pretending that he acted out of love for everyone and altruism, he openly stated his preferences and tried to fight an honorable fight. The Jew commits the most repulsive act of dishonor by disguising his hatred as love, his selfishness as altruism and his enslavement as freedom.

Here are a few examples of this:

Peace: Peace has never and will never exist among different people who have equal standing (that’s why equality brings always unnecessary conflicts). Peace only comes when someone has taken a dominant place and everyone is convinced that they have a place according to their merit.

When someone talks about peace, in reality he is endorsing a war against anyone who opposes his dominant position. All the World Wars and the present ones in the Middle East are always legitimated in the name of bringing peace and tolerance.

Also, as soon as there comes about a power balance, the Jew will look forward to destroy it and bring more wars; these bloodbaths and genocides will go on until the Jew finally sees a power balance that benefits him and only him. That’s what he means when he talks about peace (a power balance where he has the upper hand and eternal war against dissenters).

Also, modern warfare is evolving in such a sophisticated manner that you won’t need a gun or a bomb anymore in order to destroy a whole nation. Psychological warfare against a people and the destruction of their desire to live, through propaganda and drugs, is arguably crueler than anything ever seen before. You see, beware of the ones who talk about peace because they are the ones who wage wars in the most unscrupulous manner.

Tolerance: When someone talks about tolerance, it simply means that they won’t tolerate any dissidence from the Marxist dogma of Equality. We should notice that the censure and banning of anti-establishment views has never been so complete as now is the case. From the millions of publications and media transmissions, you will never ever hear a tolerant view about White interests or a critique of Jewish power.

Also, we should not be talking about tolerance because intolerance implies that you reject a situation that is good, out of ignorance. When it comes to multiculturalism, we are talking about the opposite. Regardless of how easy it would be to just tolerate this situation, I must reject it, and decide not to tolerate it, because reason and reality tells me that multiculturalism is not good for me.

I’m not intolerant, on the contrary, it’s easy for me to tolerate situations that must be tolerated, but in the case of Multiculturalism, human decency and Intelligence oblige me to leave my tolerance aside and reject Multiculturalism.

Therefore, we should not talk about tolerance, but rather about belief (whether it is good or not) and I stopped believing in Jewish fantasies long ago.

You see, beware of the ones who talk about tolerance because they are the ones who will the least tolerate different views even if they are the reasonable ones.

Love: loving someone has only meaning when it is exclusive to that person. Were someone to tell his son, I love you just the same as I love any other stranger or were he to tell his wife, I love you just the same that I love all women in Africa, he could be charged for psychological-abuse to his family.

Also, until now, choosing freely who we love was the most basic right of every living creature, but when the loving of anything and everything becomes mandatory, this diabolical oppression will make it impossible for real love to grow among people.

You see, beware of those who talk about love because they want to destroy the meaning of love and with that, leave the door open for hate to come in.

After the destruction of Germany, the occupied government put in Heidelberg a statue of a monkey holding a mirror in order to say something like this: “You go on and discriminate other people but in the end, you are just a monkey like me… don’t take yourself too seriously”

The paradox with this liberal idea is that Multiculturalism is the epitome of taking humanity too seriously and forgetting that race is a cornerstone of life, not only in humans, but in all living species and that discriminating, differentiation, disliking of the ugly, etc. are everywhere in nature and to deny them is to lose our humanity and totally disconnect us from what every living creature must do in order to evolve (including mirror-loving monkeys).

It would be like pretending that we are not the product of life, rather artificially perfect Characters in the narrative that the Jew, in his perverted mind, invented. We are taking too seriously these Characters that the Jew wrote for us, first in the Bible and now in Hollywood… at the expense of beauty, our dignity and freedom.

Thus, we just saw that all these concepts have meaning only in a discriminatory context, they have never and will never exist without their contrary (tolerance; intolerance, peace; competition, objectivity; self-assertion, peace; rebellion, love; repulsion, etc) and they cannot exist outside selection. The only healthy manner of living with them is to promote positive feelings among the members of your group (the ones who will help you) and use the “negative” ones against the outsiders who will only hinder your interests. These negative feelings are unavoidable and if we don’t apply them rationally against our enemies, we will end up canalizing them against ourselves

This leads me to the second part of this article.

But it is the same with man as with the tree. The more he seeks to rise into the height and light, the more vigorously do his roots struggle earthword, downword, into the dark, the deep – into evil” Thus Spoke Zarathustra – Friedrich Nietzsche.

Concept number 2 – “Morality is selfish too”

Morality is a toolkit that we got from evolution and its only purpose is to allow us to cooperate within human communities (it is not objective nor unselfish).

There has never and there will never exist a morality that doesn’t come at the expense of someone else, therefore we should make sure that we endorse a morality that suits our interests and not the ones of the Jew or the Mexican.

The crazy liberal will protest at this point and say “but, but… there is also cooperation in nature and symbiosis”. Well, the answer to that claim is pretty easy. “When two cooperate a third one will suffer”.

We can cooperate only with a limited number of people and its always in order to have an advantage while competing with other groups. Even when we talk about cooperation between nations, we are simply talking about an economic competition that is not less cruel than a war with weapons.

All of our feelings are good and necessary in the right context. Only now have scientists begun to realize that our instincts and emotions are more intelligent than our conscious mind and when we feel hatred or anger in the appropriate circumstances, it usually allows us to survive and compete in the “social jungle”. In other words, being “irrational” and limiting your options, gives you power.

Who can take seriously someone who is always rational and conciliatory? Besides, “irrational” inclinations, for example towards white people, become totally adequate when we see them under an evolutionary light (racial marks are as honest a mark as you can get because in contrast with clothes, ideologies etc. you cannot change them… someone who committed himself before birth to certain physical marks, really shares something with racial members). Also beauty is a sign of a more advanced race.

All of this leads me to the opening quote from Nietzsche before the beginning of this chapter. Good and evil are intrinsic parts of nature and we need both in a healthy balance. There has never been and there will never be something good if it is not rooted in evil.

Only beauty and sophistication can make us happy and in order to achieve it, we have to assert our interests using the cruel rules of nature. We can only be moral when we are also “immoral”. The secret lies in selecting and canalizing. If we do things that seem brutal (just like nature) in order to achieve an advanced and beautiful civilization, that would be better than to destroy beauty and progress in the name of morality (in every case there’s always the unavoidable evil side), but the difference is that the laziness and fearfulness of being moral make us slaves of ugliness and backwardness while the determination of fighting for beauty will make us grow (just like Zarathustra’s tree) into a higher realm.

“Der Mensch ist etwas, das uberwinden werden muss…. ich bringe euch den Ubermensch” (Humanity is something that must be overcome… I bring to you the superhuman”).

Because of this ambiguous nature of morality, we shouldn’t be surprised that morality alone doesn’t make one happy, only tangible beauty and tangible achievement bring happiness. We need a morality that serves those goals. Only then will men be happy and with that, they will love each other.