PDA

View Full Version : Our Own Racial Tragedy



anonymaus
Thursday, June 30th, 2005, 06:08 PM
This is the first in a series of threads focused on dealing with the Racial Tragedy from our perspective; visionary, rather than reactionary.

As of now, there are 3 parts of "Our own Racial Tragedy" planned; I will add more as needed.

There are only two special rules for this thread:

1) Please stay on-topic. I realize there are many inter-related issues in this area, and we will be covering them in later topics in the depth they deserve. If you need to deviate from the topic briefly to make a point, however, that is acceptable.

2) Please do not debate and discuss each other's opinion on the subject until I declare it allowed in the thread. I will update the original post and copy it to a new reply as well--you won't miss your chance. I ask this because I want people to express their full opinion without fear of entering an intellectual melee immediately.

Note: I may create a separate thread for discussion and debate of these issues, so as not to undermine the weight of the initial responses.

Thank you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first topic of discussion is: Northern males.

The average Northern male seems to have lost his moral courage and, with that, his physical and mental fortitude as well. Our males are severely emasculated in every concievable way. How did this happen? If there is blame to place, where do we place it? What can we do to fix the problem?

Vanir
Saturday, July 2nd, 2005, 12:40 PM
Just off the top of my head....

The Feminist deconstruction of Gender Roles in their (vile and sick) agenda to destroy the traditional Family Unit. Defined gender roles (and I hate using their terminology, trust me, it makes me nauseous) obstruct the interchangeability and fluidity that the "anything goes" Liberalists worship, as well as obstruct their desire to create a "new" society.

Note that pre WW2 (or pre 1960's cultural revolution even) Males were still male though since that time, every fundamental premise we view our world from and by has been unravelled, and attempted to be re-written by Liberal social engineers.

A strong Male identity held together the Family Unit, and being the basic unit of a traditionalist oriented society, thus society in general on larger scale.

In other words, the question is tied in with the Family Unit in a way, and is another version of disarmament in way I suppose.

It is also why I am happy to be perceived as anachronistic in my unflinching defence of Male-ness, and Family, as I know that I am walking in the footprints of a healthy role that our Folk desperately needs.

The violent polymorphism in recent years of what the boundaries of Male are, and what the ideal Male is, point to the weaknesses in Liberalism also. Now that they have the power, they don't know what to do with it. They tamper with the machinery, and find it all starts falling apart. So they just keep tinkering, for worse and for worse...

Another thing, when one is "doing" something, they have a sense of direction, location and perspective. When you are on your feet like that, you CAN say "Yes" or "No" to things. You can see what is good or bad for you, as you KNOW what you are in the first place.

What are Males doing now? Where are they going? What is their function or prime directive in this New Liberal World of permissiveness?
There is nothing. Anything goes. And look at all the poor sods trying to find a meaning to their lives, or a direction. Reeling from one faddish identity to another as it is dictated to them.

Family is the first step IMO.

I'm pretty tired, but I hope at least some of that meandering ramble made sense....

Death and the Sun
Saturday, July 2nd, 2005, 01:36 PM
Siger wrote a very good reply to anon's op, too bad it was destroyed. :mad:

Constantinus
Saturday, July 2nd, 2005, 05:17 PM
Here is something you won't see me post often: I agree with most of what surt posted there. When the nuclear family is destroyed, all the rest unravels immediately.

lei.talk
Saturday, July 2nd, 2005, 09:45 PM
part of the confusion is compounded
by the next couple of steps.

when a man is not self-employed,
he tends to feel that his job is his identity
(every other activity becomes leisure).

when he sees a woman with the same job,
she has the same identity
(their leisure activities differ some what).

that is, obviously, a silly-gism.
just as obviously,
most persons are not rigorous thinkers.
none the less,
they act on their thoughts.

infoterror
Sunday, July 3rd, 2005, 03:51 AM
The average Northern male seems to have lost his moral courage and, with that, his physical and mental fortitude as well. Our males are severely emasculated in every concievable way. How did this happen? If there is blame to place, where do we place it? What can we do to fix the probelm?

Individualism: the values system that individual desires come before all else. Heroic values systems encourage self-sacrifice, but in doing so affirm a manly idealism, e.g. do what must be done. They are healthier.

From this individualism, egged on by Jewish Christianity and mass revolt including individual economic competition, comes the source of our decline. No pro-white groups recognize this, thus they tilt after windmills and are destined to fail for being inferior.

Stig NHF
Sunday, July 3rd, 2005, 10:46 AM
Hum....no groups? :annoysigr

Constantinus
Sunday, July 3rd, 2005, 11:23 AM
Hum....no groups? :annoysigr

please elaborate

Sigel
Tuesday, July 5th, 2005, 02:43 PM
Sigel wrote a very good reply to anon's op, too bad it was destroyed. :mad:
Pity. It was pretty much on the same lines as Surt's post, he's spot on there.

Should any white men, or women for that matter, try to even contemplate or discuss their ethnicity, there are those who will not cease to attack them. To nail down the faintest signs of awareness, to extinguish the smallest flame.

anonymaus
Tuesday, July 5th, 2005, 05:19 PM
Well we've some good new replies and lost some great ones in the outage, it kind of stifled Part 1. No matter, I'll leave this open for the next couple of days while I get Part 2 ready.

I'm glad to see some people can take a few extra moments to think instead of react :)

Cheers. :beer-smil

anonymaus
Thursday, July 14th, 2005, 06:50 AM
tNP STAFF has been focused primarily on security and rebuilding the forum for the past week, myself included, and I hadn't time to continue this series until tonight. I apologize for the long delay between topics--with our recent issues settled I present Part 2 of Our Own Racial Tragedy.

This is the second in a series of threads focused on dealing with the Racial Tragedy from our perspective; visionary, rather than reactionary.

There are only two special rules for this thread:

1) Please stay on-topic. I realize there are many inter-related issues in this area, and we will be covering them in later topics in the depth they deserve. If you need to deviate from the topic briefly to make a point, however, that is acceptable.

2) Please do not debate and discuss each other's opinion on the subject until I declare it allowed in the thread. I will update the original post and copy it to a new reply as well--you won't miss your chance. I ask this because I want people to express their full opinion without fear of entering an intellectual melee immediately.

Note: I may create a separate thread for discussion and debate of these issues, so as not to undermine the weight of the initial responses.

Thank you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The second topic of discussion is: Birthrate

The birthrate of Nordish families has been steadily on the decline since the end of WWII. The birthrate of non-Nordish families and peoples has been steadily on the increase for decades.

The Nordish birthrate is too low. Why aren't we breeding?

Blutwölfin
Thursday, July 14th, 2005, 10:47 AM
Nowadays, if a family wants to be even "middle class", both, man and woman, have to work. With just a single income, life isn't financially feasible anymore (except when you are the manager of Sony Music or something like that). There's simply no time to have children.

Furthermore there is less security to get your job back after a year of maternity leave. More and more people work as a freelancer, self-employed, without real contract with the employer. So he isn't committed to keep your place free anymore, like it was in former times.

If you get your job back or a new one - who will care for the baby? A childminder? The kindergarten? Well, that costs a lot today. Additionally to the rental fee, the car, not to forget the taxes and other regular cash disbursements, this can be unaffordable.
Not everyone has nice parents or friend who will care about your child when you're at work.

And at last: It's not "trendy" anymore to have children, it's not "trendy" anymore to marry. More and more people are singles and don't even think about breeding. They just live for their career, want to achieve great goals in their job. A family and child would be obstructive.

tuddorsped
Thursday, July 14th, 2005, 02:38 PM
No, it is not a Nordish problem alone. It is a problem associated with urbanisation and mass literacy. A soon as female literacy rises, the birthrate declines. Race has nothing to do with it.

I have mentioned this before, but Iran's fertlity rate has dropped from 6.3 in 1986 to 1.82 in 2005. Literacy rates for females more than doubled in that same period.

The fertility rate in Algeria has also decreased from around 7.28 in 1960 to an astonishing 1.82(est) at the beginning of 2005. Female literacy rates increased five fold during that same period.

http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator_detail.cfm?IndicatorID=138&Country=DZ
http://www.indexmundi.com/algeria/total_fertility_rate.html
http://reference.allrefer.com/country-guide-study/algeria/algeria5.html

It is simply a key symptom of modernisation, urbanisation, increased prosperity and education. The fact that this trend hasn't happened in Sub-Saharan Africa is merely more proof of their rapid descent into prehistoric chaos and barbarism. Ditto for countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh.

Personally, I see no cause for concern in the current climate. Finite natural resources (oil and water in particular) will soon lead to a rapid decrease in population everywhere imho.

But declining birthrates are definitely also a symptom of cultural pessimism and racial nihilism too. That simply cannot be contested.

Frostwood
Friday, July 15th, 2005, 05:36 PM
And at last: It's not "trendy" anymore to have children, it's not "trendy" anymore to marry. More and more people are singles and don't even think about breeding. They just live for their career, want to achieve great goals in their job. A family and child would be obstructive.

Yes, I have noted this as well, and who wouldn't have? There just has been so much hype about how "being single and free" is the ideal status of nowadays women. Though, I don't say that people who absolutely detest having children should have them, since they wouldn't place so much emphasis on the children then. Motherhood is seen as somekind of a burden which restricts one's ability and freedom to make money, the one and only meter of success and social status nowadays, which is true though. But I think that people should consider their opinions on the so-called "freedom" again. Is life worth just pursuing the tokens of the consumer-culture, sight fixed at one's nosetip?

Communities needed children during the old times. We do need them now as well to continue on, of course, but because one can survive by having a job so that the selections at the grocery stores are open to him, single and "free", it's kind of less apparent than it was before, I think. Meaning that we view the world too much through the veil of money.

Am I totally off-course or do these ideas have some merit in them?

Death and the Sun
Friday, July 15th, 2005, 05:46 PM
The Tuddorsped Effect (TM) strikes again -- he has said what I had in mind much better than I could.

Falling birthrates affect Japan and diaspora Jews also (in fact the birthrates for both of these groups are even worse than ours).

The solution? Well, since no-one probably would suggest not allowing girls to attend school anymore, I'm tempted to say that the ideas of racialist transhumanism, eugenics, genetic engineering and doubling, tripling or quadrupling our lifespans may be worth considering. :)

Blutwölfin
Friday, July 15th, 2005, 05:48 PM
Can we please start to discuss, anonymaus? :viking2:

tuddorsped
Friday, July 15th, 2005, 06:39 PM
Eldritch rightly emphasised the decline in Japanese birthrates. South Korea too appears to be in a perilous situation:

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002788.html

Taiwan, Singapore are also ranked near the bottom. The other area of the world with low birthrates is the Caribbean (excluding Haiti). They also have some of the highest literacy rates for women in the world. Jamaica's women have a literacy rate nearly ten percentage points above that of the men!

http://www.indexmundi.com/jamaica/literacy.html

I actually went to school with a Jamaican born girl who had 27 brothers and sisters! She later had two daughters, although obviously she lived in England. Nevertheless, that is one hell of a demographic shift. As for Jamaica itself, the fact that the fertlity rate is now below replacement level is truly incredible considering that there is litle social welfare and crushing poverty. So the pressure to have kids just to take care of you in old age must still be immense. And yet the fertility rate is still dropping.

Anyway here is a slightly out of date global chart for fertility rates. Which goes some way to explaining why Europe is currently being over run with Somalis.

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?c=jm&v=31

anonymaus
Friday, July 15th, 2005, 06:58 PM
Can we please start to discuss, anonymaus? :viking2:

Ja go right ahead :guinness:

Blutwölfin
Friday, July 15th, 2005, 07:02 PM
Thanks, anonymaus.


There just has been so much hype about how "being single and free" is the ideal status of nowadays women.

This is not just the ideal status of WOMEN, but also of MEN. I really don't like it when people blame the decreasing birth rates on women only. Men, too, consider career as more important than family today.

Sigel
Friday, July 15th, 2005, 10:11 PM
The Tuddorsped Effect (TM) strikes again -- he has said what I had in mind much better than I could.
Ditto.

Falling rates are not a problem, as long as perceived gaps are not plugged by those of another race. The sacred cow of GDP is thrown at us as a justification for taking third world surplus, but you guys know my opinion on that one anyway.

In the long run, our nations may benefit by returning to environmentally sustainable population levels.

tuddorsped
Saturday, July 16th, 2005, 01:01 AM
Thanks, anonymaus.



This is not just the ideal status of WOMEN, but also of MEN. I really don't like it when people blame the decreasing birth rates on women only. Men, too, consider career as more important than family today.

I don't think it is a question of "blame" at all. And you are correct in allocating an equal responsibilty for men, in a strictly societal context, when judging the current state of affairs.

But is is a biological fact that men cannot physically give birth themselves. Hence the emphasis on women in this debate. Surely you would agree with this point? I think the salient facts are that socio-economic pressures are impacting on both sexes and leading to this current crisis.

And the question still remains: Can anything be done to halt this process?

anonymaus
Saturday, July 16th, 2005, 01:17 AM
And the question still remains: Can anything be done to halt this process?

This thread deals only with why we aren't breeding. We will get around to the other areas of these issues before we're done. I want each covered in their own thread in-depth. :)

lei.talk
Saturday, July 16th, 2005, 03:08 AM
This thread deals only with why we aren't breeding.career-pursuit is, i think, a clue - not a problem.
career leads to money,
which provides many of the resources of child-rearing.

could it be that many prefer to live within their earnings
and, therefore, postpone parenthood
until they can afford it?

the transmission of knowledge
from one generation to the next
is an important cultural advantage.
is not the transmission of wealth,
also, an important cultural device.

certainly, the societies that evenly divide property
among descendants spiral into poverty.
whereas, all other things being equal,
those that pass the entire accrual
to the first-born - steadily advance.

my son has the advantage over a welfare-recipient,
in that he builds on my wealth and his mother's,
just as he has built on our accumulated knowledge.

does a legacy of financial poverty
make any more sense
than one of intellectual (cultural) poverty.

superiority is demonstrated by gene-dominance.
provide your children with all the tools for success.

Blutwölfin
Saturday, July 16th, 2005, 08:17 AM
But is is a biological fact that men cannot physically give birth themselves.

It's also a biological fact, too, that women can't gave birth to a child without having met a ("test tube") man before. So nothing works without the other.

There are a lot of men in my circle of friends, who simply don't want to have a child, who even left their girlfriends for having this wish! So please don't put all the pressure on women. Thank you.

Anyway, another fact that comes to my mind when thinking of anonymaous question is that a German study from 2004 (see here, only German, sorry (http://www.heidelberger-familienbuero.de/archiv/Geburtenrueckgang-Akademikerinnen-Kinderreiche.htm)) says that families just want and have one child nowadays, extended families with three ore more children have become very rare. Why? It's again the money, but there's also a social effect: In former times, a family's wealth and power was measured on the number of their kids, nowadays, a family with more than two children is seen as "lower class", as antisocial, as a symbol for poverty. I don't know why and when the view has changed, but it did. Unfortunately.

tuddorsped
Saturday, July 16th, 2005, 10:56 AM
It's also a biological fact, too, that women can't gave birth to a child without having met a ("test tube") man before. So nothing works without the other.

There are a lot of men in my circle of friends, who simply don't want to have a child, who even left their girlfriends for having this wish! So please don't put all the pressure on women. Thank you.

Anyway, another fact that comes to my mind when thinking of anonymaous question is that a German study from 2004 (see here, only German, sorry (http://www.heidelberger-familienbuero.de/archiv/Geburtenrueckgang-Akademikerinnen-Kinderreiche.htm)) says that families just want and have one child nowadays, extended families with three ore more children have become very rare. Why? It's again the money, but there's also a social effect: In former times, a family's wealth and power was measured on the number of their kids, nowadays, a family with more than two children is seen as "lower class", as antisocial, as a symbol for poverty. I don't know why and when the view has changed, but it did. Unfortunately.

Sorry, but I have to disagree on the emphasis again. I simply cannot go out tomorrow and get myself pregnant and give birth to a child. Whereas I have encountered dozens of women who have done simply that, regardless of whether they were in employment or not. There also are still quite generous welfare benefits in most European countries that allow women to have children with very little or no input from a male partner. Scandinavia being a case in point. These are simply the facts of the matter.

Nevertheless, I don't think that I have ever implied, in any of my earlier posts, that the overall decline in the fertility rate is the sole responsibility of women. Neither have I attributed blame to any sex. Saying that rising female literacy rates have contributed to the decrease in the birthrate, across the entire world, is not the same as saying that women are purposefully becoming more educated so that they can avoid having babies. That would be like saying that people are eating more nowadays with the express intention of developing heart problems and diabetes in later life. It is an absurdity.

Please do not manipulate the emphasis of my argument through the inability, conscious or unconscious, to distinguish between the subtle nuances in my argument.

lei.talk
Saturday, July 16th, 2005, 09:05 PM
There are a lot of men in my circle of friends, who simply don't want to have a child, who even left their girlfriends for having this wish!there is an antecedent to every thing,
including human choices and actions.
why would a man not want a child?
is he emotional retarded, psychologically,
intellectually or financially incapable?

why would a woman be attracted to such a man?
why would she desire his child?

to find a good mate,
one must associate with persons of that potential.
any other course would require "magical thinking".

lei.talk
Saturday, July 23rd, 2005, 03:09 AM
why would a woman be attracted to such a man?
why would she desire his child?
i had not intended those questions
to be regarded as rhetorical.
i was hoping a woman would articulate the conflict.

integrity is the state of mind
in which no contradictory ideas or desires
are maintained.

is a man that does not desire to have a child
behaving inconsistently?

or, are the attributes and aspects of a man,
that a particular woman
may find attractive,
inconsistent with his reliability as a father?

the woman could integrate her desires
or concepts of masculinity,
which would generate not only phronesis
but, eventually, eudaimonia.

if she chooses to avoid that intellectual effort,
an effective solution would be a sisterhood
that cared for pregnant women and their children.
a gynacaem that utilised men as avatars
(in their periodic fertility-rites)
to inoculate the community with varietal genetic material.

in this fashion, a woman could sustain her fantasy
and not confuse a real person
by her inconsistent demands.

Sigurd
Friday, November 18th, 2005, 10:58 PM
On the whole, thing just briefly.

Women nowadays don't see children as a gift anymore, but as a burden. My mother is a bit different, she loves to have children and looks after them with care (which gets a bit annoying at my age, if you understand :D ), but then again her economic situation is not the best.

Many women see children an obstruction to their career, and go for the career.

The fact that all this feminist movement has kicked in has had the result of women giving away all the positive traits they had and adopting the bad materialistic traits that we men often have. This has led to their being no definition of roles for a gender, and as a result no one is at home to look after the kids.

Sorry, but it worked so much better like it was in the old days. And actually both my grandmothers stayed at home until the kids were reasonably grown (roughly 15 years of age). And my maternal grandmother still had a kind of good working career after that.

But I guess some women don't care.

And seeing that the willingness of women to stay at home decreases with literacy and education, the better schooled races, like ours, don't breed anymore, while all those immigrant Muslim women who often can't read, write nor talk the language of the country they are in, or even if, will not be working, get 5-6 children, making our homelands a mediterranean conquest of sorts.

Hell Cell
Friday, January 27th, 2006, 09:54 PM
men should be men women should be women they both have thier own rules to follow and any abstact theories that we are all equal simply ignores the laws of nature and that is a classic trademark of the liberal.

They are all emotional thought and have no deep forward thought on the long term impact of lardy dar ideas. The are superficialy good but in the long term their ideas when put in to action always result in suffering and degredation. Nothing a liberal does ever works in the long run.

gyge
Friday, October 13th, 2006, 10:06 AM
It is a tragedy of our own making. What happens when disparate groups of people are thrown together into a limited territorial space ? Conflict ensues, it is part of the dynamic of nature. What happens when an army conquers a territory ? The invader targets the female of the vanquished, targeting the females it devalues the stature and standing of the vanquished male while dispossesing the main vehicle for the continuance of the defeated entity, the womb of their womenfolk.

The massive immigration wave of thirld world life forms , following the disaster of the second WW, into Europe's heartland , carried the lethal poison of blending and mixing with the invading forces. Europe can only blame herself for her myopic , dysgenic , dystopic policies. But then again, when a land is conquered by force of arms, colonization and settlement follows. Economic reasons are only a mirage and a fiction when citing the immigration catastrophe. There are countries in Europe with a barren economic landscape, lack of natural resources, lack of an industrial-manufacturing base, yet they are being flooded by Negros and Asians. These negros and asians are prolific breeders, devoid of any moral standards, without any fixed abode, devoid of a historical background, rootless flotsam. They stand in street corners peddling garbage, trinkets,CD's and other inconsequential rubbish. Their contribution to the land that has given them a welcoming mat is a surfeit of deleterious testosterone and destructive tons of semen.

In conditions such as this, the native population senses the diminution and reduction of its living space; without adequate living space families will not procreate. But the invaders are not hamstrung by such qualms. They are the conquering "army", and with their infinite breeding capabilities the prognosis for the defeated native looks bleak and dark indeed.

ChaosLord
Thursday, October 19th, 2006, 12:29 AM
Hence, why most caucasian countries have a lowered birth-rate. They don't want their children growing up in a world where their minds will be flooded with race-mixing propoganda. Seems to be a logical defense, but if people really want to stop the brown-drown then they do need to have more kids and teach them ways to excel. This way more worthy people are having jobs and pushing the 'others' out.