Message from CarletonJ in Literature Club #tir
Glad you guys liked it! 🙂
*"Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment had enacted into law, confirmed this principle: “All persons born in the United States and __not subject to any foreign power__, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”
Who are the subjects of a foreign power? Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.” Thus, the statute can be read as All persons born in the United States __who are not alien__, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States."*
For those saying ending birthright citizenship for illegals is unconstitutional.
Im surprised you can end it by EO tho. That was not my impression
@VinceChaos the President is betting on success at the SCOTUS.
*"Western elites are determined to ignore this evidence and to insist that absolute equality between all races is “settled science.” This has profound consequences. If all groups have identical potential but are not identical in levels of achievement, the only possible explanations are that less advanced groups suffer from bad environments, or that more successful groups oppress them and hold them back. If the groups we call races lived in equivalent circumstances, and are in fact biologically equal, all would show the same level of achievement. Separate races in the same settings should, according to this view, produce equal proportions of artists, scientists, entrepreneurs, and Nobel laureates.*
*An important corollary to these beliefs is that since all human populations are identical, they can replace each other without any loss to the groups being replaced. The replaced population is, in effect, being replaced by itself.
This orthodoxy is dangerous for any country that tries to apply it. Here are some of its real-world consequences:
1. In the United States, compared to whites, blacks and Hispanics do worse in school, and are more likely to be poor and in jail. If we accept the principle of biological equality, this can only be because blacks and Hispanics are being exploited and oppressed by whites. If we accept this proposition, it becomes the responsibility of whites to transform themselves and restructure American society so that less successful groups can achieve at the same level as whites. Furthermore, continued unequal levels of acheivement are not taken as evidence that biological equality is a flawed theory, but as proof that white racism and oppression requires even stronger counter-measures. Any orthodoxy that refuses to recognize racial differences in ability has no option but to blame and penalize whites-unjustly-for all differences in outcomes.
2. If all groups are identical, it is irrational and bigoted-certainly for whites-to use race as a basis for any kind of decision-making. Whites must never express a preference for white-majority schools or neighborhoods, or the company of other Whites. They must be equally open to friendship, dating, and*
*marriage with people of all races. Any preference for whites, by whites, is “racism“ and “discrimination.”
In the West, racial discrimination has come to be viewed as a particularly shameful moral failing. Official loathing for racial discrimination has expanded to an almost equally deep loathing for other kinds of discrimination, whether on the basis of sex, sexual orientation or even religion, disability, or appearance. Discrimination of any kind has become suspect in the West.
It would be theoretically possible for a society to accept racial discrimination while forbidding discrimination on the basis of sex, religion, etc. However, it is likely that the loathing for racial discrimination led to attacks on every other kind of discrimination. This means that traditional distinctions our ancestors took for granted and were the foundations of society-distinctions between male and female, beauty and ugliness, homosexual and heterosexual, Christian and pagan, Western and non-Western are now widely dismissed as expressions of bigotry.
3.All groups may be identical, but it is good for them to mix because this results in “diversity.” In white countries, at any rate, diversity is said to be a positive good because it is supposed to bring a wealth of new ideas, insights, and perspectives-and also to offset the theoretical oppression and subjugation of nonwhites by whites. Any largely white locale or institution is thought to be defective. In 2015, the black female CEO of Sam’s Club caused a stir when she described in an interview how displeased she had been earlier that day when she found herself sitting across from “all Caucasion males” in a meeting.3
To argue that diversity brings benefits appears to contradict the idea that groups are identical. If blacks and whites, for example, are equally smart, creative, insightful, and*
*hardworking, it is hard to understand why mixing the two groups brings special insights, but the advantages of “diversity” are a central tenet oforthodoxy. Ironically, mixing populations dilutes whatever differences were originally found in them.
4. Immigration of nonwhites inclined to high birthrates is reducing the percentage of whites in the United States. Current projections are that whites will become a minority sometime in the 2040. However, because races are presumed to be equivalent, whites should have no reason to object to becoming a minority; to object is, in fact, immoral. This transformation is welcome because it will bring “diversity.”
5. The same arguments apply to Europe. There can be no moral or political objection to the arrival of millions of African and Middle-Eastern immigrants because there are no differences between groups. According to current projections, nations such as France and Britain will cease to be majority white somewhat later than the United States but, just as in the United States, this must be thought of as an improvement.*
*Many of the newcomers to Europe are Muslim and bring habits that clash with a traditionally Christian population. Orthodoxy denies that this could ever justify keeping them out. First, most Muslims are nonwhite, so a religious objection might be cover for “racism.” Second, religious discrimination itself is almost as bad as racial discrimination and is therefore not grounds for exclusion. Europe is left with no principled justification for remaining European.
The desire to remain European-or white, or Western-does not require a belief in the supermajority of Europeans or their*
*civilization, only the recognition that they are different from others. It would be hard to describe the New Guinean way of life as one of man’s great achievements, but even our rulers recognize the right of New Guineans to remain a majority in New Guinea and to preserve their own culture. Our rulers refuse to grant white people the same rights."*
**Jared Taylor (A Fair Hearing)**
Long but worth it.
Just read a brilliant argument on egalitarianism by Jared Taylor:
*"Since, despite all these efforts, whites continue to achieve at higher rates than blacks and Hispanics, there is actually a way in which academics are beginning to conclude that the races may NOT be identical. It is now common to assert that whites are uniquely malevolent and that this explains nonwhite failure. Ta-Nehisi Coates is probably the most prominent black author in America today. He writes:
'I would like to tell you that a day approaches when the people who believe themselves to be white renounce this demon religion [white supremacy] and begin to think of themselves as human. But I can see no real promise of such a day.13' "*
TL;DR Any Executive Order would only command an agency of the Executive to enforce law that already exists.
*"Alpha/Beta, Madonna/Whore -
-The best way to understand women’s mating and life strategies is through the lens of the alpha/beta dichotomy, a concept taken directly from theories in evolutionary psychology. All normal women want to have children by and investment from the most successful and most respected men in their spheres, i.e., “alpha males.” However, while all women being impregnated by alpha males is more or less feasible, all women gaining investment and commitment from these men is mathematically impossible. Therefore, the women who aren’t able to secure the commitment of an alpha male must employ a compromise strategy if they want*
*both long-term security and the highest quality genes for their brood. In other words, they must get impregnated by the alpha male, but must secure investment from a secondor third-rate man, or “beta male.” This can involve the outright deception of the beta male (paternity fraud) or, if a woman’s “alpha” children are already born, she may also have some children by the beta male to sweeten the deal. Either way, the beta male is being convinced to invest in and secure resources for someone else’s offspring.
In short, from the unconscious perspective of medium to Iow-quality women, alpha equals good genes combined with low commitment, and beta equals bad genes combined with high commitment.*
*Men have a similarly dualistic strategy, which is called the Madonna/whore dichotomy. In this context, the concept of a Whore should be an easy one to grasp. A man can never be sure a child of a promiscuous female is his, so he has a high probability of wasting his resources if he invests in her children. A normal man will, however, copulate with the “whore,” because it doesn’t cost him much to give her his seed, so long as he can avoid being bound to her.
The avoidance of false paternity is so important, biologically, that men have evolved a sense of moral disgust where promiscuous or immodest women are concerned. Lust might impel a man to bed a “loose woman,” but afterward his attitude tends to be one of disdain, and he is overcome with a desire to distance himself from her. This isn’t an accident. The instinctive revulsion felt toward sexually unprincipled women protects men from wasting their resources on children that aren’t their own.*
*The Madonna on the other hand is quite rare, at least in the wake of the sexual and feminist revolutions. A Madonna is a chaste and loyal woman who a man can be reasonably sure will bear his own biological children. Men instinctively know that their children stand a better chance if they, the men, stick around and provide resources, but they can only risk a high level of commitment for a woman of high moral character. A Madonna gives a man the opportunity to invest in his children with low risk of paternity fraud. This is a good opportunity for him because the chance of successful reproduction of his children in turn is much higher if he directly invests in them. If a man meets a woman Whom he perceives to be a genuine Madonna, he will often develop warm feelings for her and try to secure a commitment from her, since reproducing with a virtuous female typically gives his genes the greatest chance for further reproduction in the next generation.
In short, from the unconscious perspective of the average man in civilization, the Madonna equals high paternal confidence and hence high commitment, and the whore equals low paternal confidence and hence low commitment."*
**Roderick Kaine - A Fair Hearing**
Great read for those interested in what men and women truly desire.
@CarletonJ Very enlightening. This explains almost all of today's problems when it comes to relationships.
@Axel if you want to read more from Roderick Kaine's work, check out his book Smart and SeXy.
^^^It might still be on kindle unlimited. It was when I read it
*"There is something I want to share with other whites, and it is something hard to describe. It is to, in a moment, “feel” the past. How can I convey this? How can I show this? Around 7700 BC, white skin had, as biologists say, “reached fixation” in modern-day Sweden. That means it had become a standard, expected trait throughout the population. Some time around 3500 BC, white skin reached fixation in the rest of Europe.1
I don’t say this because white skin is super-important (although melanin is a hormone and its absence will have causal effects on behavior), but just to give an idea of how quickly a genetically-based trait can spread. Henry Harpending and Gregory Cochran, in their book The 10, 000 Year Explosion, explain “introgression,” the process whereby the genes of a different population can enter another population, and then those genes get selected upon, the result being that a trait can spread through a population far faster than you would expect from traditional natural selection.2
For example, a mutation that increases fitness by 10 percent (makes a person 10 percent more likely to successfully procreate than the average for the population), if it came into existence in a*
*single person, would come to dominate a population of 149,000 people in about 125 generations. If each generation is 25 years, this would mean that in 3,125 years, one advantageous trait that happened to appear in one person would become a standard, expected feature (or reach fixation) in the entire population. And that’s assuming the mutation only happens in one place. If the mutation for light skin or ability to drink milk into adulthood independently crops up in 10 places, and has a 10 percent reproductive advantage, then it would reach fixation in a population of 1.49 million in 3,125 years. If it independently appears 100 times, it could transform a population of 14.9 million in the same amount of time.
The important takeaway is that evolution happens fast-or at least the “small” things-such as the range of cognitive differences between what are considered functional humans-happen fast."*
**Ryan Faulk - A Fair Hearing**
There is so much more to add to this... But to avoid spam - evolution happens fast.
And small genetic variations have major consequences
Thank you for these excerpts and suggestions, many of which I've been planning to read. What's the plan with the book club? Discuss weekly? End of month?
@Mick Good question! I am talking the schedule over with my team at the moment, we will post a schedule which should answer all your questions by no later than 8ET tonight. Thanks!
Alt Hype is a good boy, he's just a bit sad right now.
Althype dindu nuffin!
*"The time is short! The challenge is huge, yet it is from our enemies' folly that wisdom is born, from this will that life is passed on, and from this despair that hope rises: for only at the very epicentre of danger does that which saves continue to grow - provided one knows, believes and wants it."*
Guillaume Faye - Why We Fight
Have a good day!
Heart of Europe by Peter Wilson
Some things never change.
Give this a read chaps