Message from Mick in Literature Club #tir


2018-10-31 01:56:20 UTC  

*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*

2018-10-31 01:57:04 UTC  

*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.

2018-11-01 02:49:20 UTC  

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' "*

2018-11-02 06:02:50 UTC  

TL;DR Any Executive Order would only command an agency of the Executive to enforce law that already exists.

2018-11-03 00:38:41 UTC  

*"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*

2018-11-03 00:39:02 UTC  

*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.*

2018-11-03 00:39:28 UTC  

*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.*

2018-11-03 00:39:48 UTC  

*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."*

2018-11-03 00:40:12 UTC  

**Roderick Kaine - A Fair Hearing**

2018-11-03 00:40:17 UTC  

-

2018-11-03 00:40:39 UTC  

Great read for those interested in what men and women truly desire.

2018-11-03 00:50:56 UTC  

@CarletonJ Very enlightening. This explains almost all of today's problems when it comes to relationships.

2018-11-03 00:53:41 UTC  

@Axel if you want to read more from Roderick Kaine's work, check out his book Smart and SeXy.

2018-11-03 01:00:14 UTC  

^^^It might still be on kindle unlimited. It was when I read it

2018-11-03 01:07:00 UTC  

@CarletonJ I'll check it out. Thanks 📖

2018-11-03 16:15:02 UTC  

*"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*

2018-11-03 16:15:44 UTC  

*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**

2018-11-03 16:16:14 UTC  

There is so much more to add to this... But to avoid spam - evolution happens fast.

2018-11-03 16:16:28 UTC  

And small genetic variations have major consequences

2018-11-03 17:57:47 UTC  

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?

2018-11-03 19:48:02 UTC  

@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!

2018-11-03 21:22:57 UTC  

Alt Hype is a good boy, he's just a bit sad right now.

2018-11-03 21:24:36 UTC  

Althype dindu nuffin!

2018-11-04 14:27:24 UTC  

*"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!

2018-11-05 07:00:31 UTC  

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/393247992939020288/508898391091314688/image0.jpg

2018-11-05 07:00:50 UTC  

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/393247992939020288/508898470677970945/image0.jpg

2018-11-05 07:01:28 UTC  

Heart of Europe by Peter Wilson

2018-11-05 07:01:48 UTC  

Some things never change.

2018-11-09 14:56:18 UTC  

Give this a read chaps

2018-11-09 15:22:24 UTC  

@Nemets which book is that? Is that e Michael jones?

2018-11-09 15:27:24 UTC  

@Myndrian Heart of Europe by Peter Wilson

2018-11-09 15:27:44 UTC  

Awesome thanks

2018-11-14 01:15:53 UTC  

FIRST WORLDISM-

*-As I use the term, First Worldism refers to the idea that Western social systems and standards are not the product of mere policies or ideas, but are by-products of high averages of certain inherited traits in Western populations. Due to the above-described process, the “first world” as you know it is entirely a function of the genetic changes that created a New European, who, without any outside help, destroyed serfdom and created the modern world-modern government, modern conceptions of human rights, modern manufacturing and technology, and the generalized economy we are all familiar with.

Other peoples-the Oriental Caucasians, Indians, East Asians-only broke out of serfdom and the medieval economy when the Europeans either did it for them, or, as in the case of Japan, when they witnessed Europe and rapidly emulated the final outcomes of the agricultural and industrial revolution.*

2018-11-14 01:16:01 UTC  

*And when you can “see” this, it’s an amazing feeling that I don’t know how to convey with words. In an instant, to see people, hardly removed from the stone age, with burlap clothes, farming in a way not dissimilar from how farming was done by our prehistoric ancestors, with modest changes in their clothing-and to see that every piece of “technology” in this world is understandable within perhaps 10 minutes of explanation. To see a world in which all of the existing technology could, in perhaps a week or so, be understood by a single person.

To see the “elite” of 1250 being like “chavs” or “trailer trash” or “traq soot” slavs that you know today, and the lower classes being so casually crude, so casually violent in a way that you at first think isn’t real, like they’re joking. To see a mob take out sticks and improvised metal weapons and, with enjoyment, butcher a man to death. Not just the odd sociopath, but half the males in the village, with the females egging on the brutalization. To see them go about their daily lives, and then when they catch a criminal, mutilate him, or, just for the fun of it, burn a bunch of cats alive (3. common practice in Western Europe until a few hundred years ago), and then go back to weeding their wheat fields.

Then in 1500, to see those chavs and “trailer trash,” once the elite, now just the average person, and the elite like the average white guys of today, with what we think of as normal levels of aggression and abstract thinking. Then in 1750, to see white people who are like today, with the*

2018-11-14 01:16:30 UTC  

*elite being of similar demeanor and intellectual leanings of doctors and corporate managers of today.

And to see all of this represented as what is able to be produced: to see that iron forged by hand into new shapes and molds, and then into the parts of a primitive steam engine, and then hand-building a steam engine with a better design, the blacksmith changing in character over the centuries from someone unrecognizably brutish and prone to fights to someone like you and me as the complexity of what he makes increases. And then the smithy turns into an iron workshop, and then that building gets bigger and the blast furnaces grow larger, requiring steam engines and five-man crews to move them.

It’s like I can feel this material creation, as if crafting and screwing and gluing the wood and iron and cloth together myself, and in some weird way, this wood, iron and cloth and straw and burlap are themselves, somehow, an extension of those peoples’ own biology, like a bee hive.

And I know the people in each phase of genetic development. I can hear an old hag cursing in some indecipherable precursor to modern English; a dashing young blond-haired man who doesn’t look like the criminal sort at all, who then robs you, and later rapes a woman. To see someone who looks like the blond Aryan warrior Link from The Legend of Zelda, but then acts like an African. Women who smile courteously at you, but then stuff their bags full of produce and sneak out; who mock the boys who can’t fight and are attracted to only the most physical and dominating men. People who are European in appearance, but then behave like... well... do I need to say it? As if an alien race entered their bodies. But no, that’s them! That’s who the Romans called Barbarians. The modern world as we know it came from this genetic change in Western Europe. The change was most concentrated in England, which is where the “first world” started to come into existence.*

2018-11-14 01:17:13 UTC  

*This is why First Worldism means not mere “white nationalism,” but the whole mentality and state of being of the European who evolved, and evolved in, in this setting. Objectively-speaking, free speech, private property, and consistent law free from clannish sentimentalism does not exist where modern Europeans are not the deciding majority of an area’s demographic makeup.

If anyone should have racial pride, it is Europeans, the more northern and western the more so. And all of the old fables-the world of forms wherein empty heads murmur about oppression and hierarchy and domination, or jackasses imagine that their Northwest-European ideas of individualism and free markets are some universal truth-are revealed for what they really are: petulant nothingness. Just as those idiots who say Detroit is crap because of Democrats, when the obvious difference between Copenhagen and Detroit is the same as the difference between Copenhagen and Haiti, or Copenhagen and Eastside Los Angeles.

These people-libertarians, liberals, “cuckservatives”--burn so hot and so fiercely over the mere superstructure of our civilization, and not only deny the genetic base, but treat the people who understand the clear primacy of the genetic base as somehow sick or wrong-headed. And when you understand what this thing is we call “modern civilization,” the totally new and revolutionary conception of property, of law, and of life itself that preceded it, the hidebound, primitive economies it replaced, and the genetic changes in Europe from which it came-then you have a visceral understanding, in an instant, of how this, our genetic inheritance, is absolutely it.

This is the one thing that needs preserving above anything else.*

2018-11-14 01:17:30 UTC  

**FIRST WORLDISM BY RYAN FAULK**

2018-11-16 22:58:21 UTC  

*At ten o’clock in the morning a large band of Indians rode up to the fort, stopping in front of its main gate. Estimates of the number of warriors vary from one hundred to six hundred, but the smaller number is probably more accurate. There were women, too, mounted like the men. The riders carried a white flag, which might have reassured more naive settlers. The Parkers were too new to the western frontier to know exactly who this painted-for-war group was-seventeen-year-old Rachel Parker Plummet guessed incorrectly, and perhaps wishfully, that they were “Tawakonis, Caddoes, Keechis, Wacos,” and other sedentary bands of central Texas - but they had encountered Indians before and knew immediately that they had made a disastrous error in leaving themselves so exposed. Had they fully understood whom they were confronting - mostly Comanches, but also some Kiowas, their frequent running mates - they might have anticipated the horrors that were about to descend on them. As it was, there was nothing to do but play along with the idea of a parlay, so forty-eight-year-old Benjamin Parker, one of the six men in the fort, walked out to meet the warriors.

What happened next is one of the most famous events in the history of the American frontier, in part because it came to be regarded by historians as the start of the longest and most brutal of all the wars between Americans and a single Indian tribe. Most of the wars against Native Americans in the East, South, and Midwest had lasted only a few years. Hostile tribes made trouble for a while but were soon tracked to their Villages where their lodgings and crops were burned, the inhabitants exterminated or forced to surrender. Lengthy “wars” against the Shawnees, for example, were really just a series of Indian defeats strung out over many years (and complicated by British-French alliances). Wars against the northern Plains Indians such as the Sioux started much later, and did not last nearly as long.*

2018-11-16 22:59:07 UTC  

*When Benjamin Parker reached the assembled Indians, alone, on foot and unarmed, they told him they wanted a cow to slaughter and also directions to a water hole. He told them they could not have the cow, but offered other food. He returned to the fort through the open gate, told his thirty-two-year-old brother, Silas, what the Indians had said, remarked on the absurdity of their request for directions to water when their horses were still dripping wet, then gathered up a few staples and bravely went back out, even though Silas warned him not to. Meanwhile, seventy-eight-year-old family patriarch John Parker, his elderly wife, Sallie, and Rachel Plummer’s sister Sarah Parker Nixon were Heeing out the back exit, a low doorway - too low for a horse to pass through - that led to the spring. Another Parker in-law, G. E. Dwight, did the same with his family, prompting Silas to say, scornfully “Good Lord, Dwight, you are not going to run? Stand and fight like a man, and if we have to die we will sell our lives as dearly as we can.” This was bad advice. Dwight ignored it. In spite of his bravado, Silas had left his shot pouch back in his cabin. He then made another mistake, failing to tell his niece Rachel to join the others and run away with her fourteen-month-old son, James Pratt Plummet. “Do you stand here,” he said to her instead, “and watch the Indians’ motions while until I run into the house for my shot pouch.”*