Consoom World War
(media.scored.co)
New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
Toast message
Proof? Compare Hiroshima and Nagasaki - now first-world cities - to Chicago, Detroit, or to any other cesspool inhabited by lower men today. Consider where you would feel safer. Consider what looks like less of a cesspool. Consider where you would feel less embarrassed to be seen.
The truth sinks in: You, I, indeed, any sane person, would feel safer, less embarrassed to be seen, where atomic bombs once exploded than in 'tha hood'. If a White is in Nagasaki, people will see him as a tourist. If a White is in some Detroit hood, people will see him as some whigger probably looking to buy or sell drugs, yes, even the 'anti-racists' will see him just the same, not realizing the implications of this view on how they unconsciously see lower men.
The inescapable conclusion: Your country - any country - would literally have been better off having two *atomic bombs* dropped on key cities than having pestilential, verminous bean men, curry men, kikes, and niggers all over it.
If we invented a time machine and could make the choice between: 1) The timeline we have; or, 2) Never allow lower men into the country (no enslavement or immigration of lower men), but an atomic bomb will be unavoidably dropped on two key cities in 1945. Which choice do you make?
Any sane person wouldn't even hesitate to make the second choice. It doesn't even come close. If an atomic bomb razes a city, you rebuild it. The lower man's proliferation, by contrast, is effectively permanent: unless you develop the will to physically move or kill off very large numbers of them - good luck convincing the average person of the desirability of that - you will *never* recover. There is no analogue to rebuilding without mass deportation and/or genocide. And, for most people, rebuilding is psychologically far less taxing than mass deportation and extermination. What guilt is there to be felt in placing a brick here and there?
As long they wake up to snakes like Takaichi, Japan will end up having won the Pacific theatre of World War II. Win? How? Surely, you jest. Win in what way? Didn't they surrender to the Americans? Aren't they living under a Judeo-American constitution?
All of that is historical fact. But consider this: Japan - if it is able to reject Judeo-Westernization - will still be Japanese, while America will be the Brazil of the north. Only a fool would, upon understanding this, conclude that America 'won the war'. Won what? Japan still stands, a first-world nation; while America becomes the Brazil of the north, a third-world cesspool?
Because of the racial egalitarian myth, few people understand the sheer gravity of the difference between the higher and lower man. They think that the differences are miniscule, trivial. That couldn't be further from the truth: the higher man can make it to the stars; the lower man, left to his own devices, cannot make it to the stars even if he were given a billion years. The higher man can build a first-world city within a lifetime, the lower man cannot build a first-world city at any point in time, ever.
The differences are often occluded because there are good specimens among the races of lower men, and whiggers and other trash among the races of higher men.
Yet even the 'anti-racist' is flummoxed when faced with the simple fact that he himself regards 'acting White' as the indication of a good specimen among the non-whites, and that he regards proximity to 'blackness' (what we might call 'acting black') as the indication of a bad specimen among the Whites, which, for him, is proof that racial egalitarianism is true. Good non-whites and bad Whites proves racial egalitarianism. Right?
Yet his own worldview, ironically, is the proof that it is not true: if non-whites 'acting White' raises them in your esteem, and Whites 'acting black' lowers them in your esteem, you tacitly admit that the White standard is *higher* than the non-white, and you believe that because, deep inside, you know that racial egalitarianism is false.
You give a free pass to niggers 'acting black' but not to whiggers 'acting black', kudos to niggers 'acting White' but not to Whites 'acting White'. Why? Because you know, deep inside, that the races of men are *not* equal, that the standards for the non-whites must be consistently lower than those of the Whites, and thus that what is exceptionally good and worthy of praise for the lower race is only standard and unworthy of praise for the higher race, and what is exceptionally bad and worthy of condemnation for the higher race is only standard and unworthy of condemnation for the lower race.
The double standards exist in the minds of such people because they are living a lie: their conscious mind, over-run by ideology, has them constantly doubling-down on what their unconscious knows is false. No 'anti-racist' truly believes in this rubbish: if he did, the double standards would not exist. He'd either treat the average nigger with the same contempt that he has for the lowest of Whites, or he would simply cease having contempt for the lowest of Whites, having realized and accepted that they do nothing worse than the average nigger.