Why Civilizations Die

Life arose on Earth around 3.8 billion years ago, although some evidence suggests that life was here closer to four and one quarter billion years ago. It's been a bit of a struggle ever since. A crude understanding of the way of life is the classic, cliched "kill or be killed", but that's inelegant and nihilistic in the way that we characterize petulant, moody, brooding teenagers as nihilists. They aren't really nihilists, you understand, we call them that because we don't really understand nihilism (because Nietzsche is, like, hard, man), and they call themselves nihilists because the word nihilism sounds pretty fucking metal.

A better way to characterize the way of life, and indeed the way of the universe, is that everything has a cost. People think of dollars and cents when they think of the cost of something, but what something costs really means what the requisite exchange is for an intended result. The man lifting weights in the gym is spending time at the gym, money for a membership, and calories and ATP expended during exercise for strength and (more often than not) improved aesthetics. The man who spends his evenings playing vidya instead of working out is exchanging his hours of leisurely (but pointless) stimulation at the cost of doing practically anything else.

In a more natural setting, the eternal war between predator and prey comes at a cost to one or the other's life. For the predator to eat, it must take the life of it's prey. For the prey to survive, the predator must expend precious energy on a fruitless hunt, thereby risking starvation. This is the story of life from the beginning to the present, and beyond. The struggle is an immutable, omnipresent fact of life. It has always been so, and as such, we should expect life to be finely tuned to the need to struggle. Life and death are balanced by the war between predator and prey. While the brutality of failure startles us - either through the agony of being consumed, or the ignoble end through starvation - struggle is not without hope. There is no hope of reprieve from the struggle, other than through death. But there is hope in that, over time, the better will win out over the worst, and the good will accumulate while the bad is washed away.

The accumulation of the better and the erasure of the worse is the very condensed version of how we got from simple single celled organisms to the complex civilization of today. Obviously, this version of the story is a little misleading, as there were quite a few ups and downs along the way, but the general trend of life has been a move from less complexity and less organization towards greater complexity and greater organization. And, again, the point must be stressed that getting from there to here cost something - the countless creatures that were eaten or starved or perished in some cataclysm or unfortunate accident.

This is all well and fine, but at this point all I am doing is reiterating, in a very puffed up fashion, the sort of narrative that you'd find in a middle school zoology textbook. How do we know that life is finely tuned to struggle? Besides going into the wild and observing that animals tend to eat one another, we can go beyond base observations and examine what happens when the opposite conditions are met. What happens to a population that isn't forced to struggle?

Thankfully, this question is not just an idle hypothetical. In the 1960's an ethologist named John B. Calhoun embarked on a series of experiments using lab mice that culminated in the famous (but widely misunderstood) mouse utopia experiment. You can read a scan of Calhoun's paper here. I strongly suggest that you do so.

Calhoun's mouse utopia experiment, naturally, involved observing mice in a literal mouse utopia. A colony of mice was introduced to a controlled environment with unlimited access to food and water, zero risk of predation or natural cataclysm, and thanks to regular testing for the presence of harmful pathogens and periodic cleaning of the mouse enclosure, mitigated risk of disease. For the first year, the mouse utopia expanded rapidly. Between the first year and day 600, the birthrate declined as the mice began displaying increasingly aberrant behavior. After day 600, no more birthed mice survived, and the aberrant behavior reached its crescendo with a complete abandonment of natural behaviors as the mice became withdrawn and solitary. From there the mouse colony collapsed into extinction, with only 27 mice surviving to the close of the experiment. For reference, at it's peak, the mouse colony contained over 2000 individuals.

Calhoun, incorrectly I believe, postulated that the cause of the decline of his mouse utopia was a "behavioral sink", where aberrant behavior formed as a result of all space and roles being filled with no outside release to vent the excess. The problem, I noticed, with this line of reasoning is that the mouse colony never ran out of space. At it's peak, the colony still had room for almost double the population. The 2200 mice that existed seems an arbitrary point of collapse if we are to accept that all 'social roles' being filled was the cause of the colony's decline. Why 2200? Why not 2300? Why not 1000? Why not the 3900 that the colony could, in theory, accommodate?

The answer, I've concluded, doesn't have to do with numbers, but is rather drawn out from the aberrant behavior displayed during the decline of the colony and the natural mating habits of animals. First, copying directly from Calhoun's Wikipedia article for convenience, the following are the irregular behaviors Calhoun observed in his mice:

"...between day 315 and day 600 saw a breakdown in social structure and in normal social behavior. Among the aberrations in behavior were the following: expulsion of young before weaning was complete, wounding of young, inability of dominant males to maintain the defense of their territory and females, aggressive behavior of females, passivity of non-dominant males with increased attacks on each other which were not defended against.

After day 600, the social breakdown continued and the population declined toward extinction. During this period females ceased to reproduce. Their male counterparts withdrew completely, never engaging in courtship or fighting. They ate, drank, slept, and groomed themselves – all solitary pursuits. Sleek, healthy coats and an absence of scars characterized these males. They were dubbed "the beautiful ones." Breeding never resumed and behavior patterns were permanently changed."

Does any of this sound familiar?

The next important piece of evidence, which Calhoun evidently did not consider, is why animals breed the way that they do. Of course rabbits fuck (and therefore, reproduce) like bunnies, everyone knows that, but the why actually has to do with... resource availability. Animals favor one of two selection patterns, r or K, a theory (really, less a theory than a simplified categorization of observed behavior) more or less given new life by a Dissident Rightist who calls himself Anonymous Conservative, to whom I at least owe the courtesy of a link.

The two strategies, basically, are quality versus quantity. A population of r-strategists favors quantity, like rabbits and mice. The characteristics of r-strategists with regards to mating are promiscuity, polygamy, low parental investment, rapid sexual maturity, and low tribal loyalty. These characteristics are important for a successful r-strategist because r-strategists inhabit an environment of resource plenty. In order to spread it's genes as effectively and as efficiently as possible, an r-strategist quite literally fucks like a bunny, because investing in a life-long mate, rearing your young, or fighting over (nigh infinite) resources means that your competitor who wastes zero energy on any of those things while burning all of his calories in the pursuit of making more of himself has a genetic advantage over you in the long run. If you have not deduced this already, r-strategists are exclusively herbivores, although herbivores are not exclusively r-strategists (elephants being an obvious example of an herbivore that doesn't clearly fit the r-strategy profile, off the top of my head). The herbivore thing will be a little funny later. In a dark sort of way.

Anyways.

K-strategists, being quality, are the opposites, naturally. A population of k-strategists favors quality, like the wolf. The characteristics of K-strategists with regards to mating are low promiscuity, monogamy, high parental investment, delayed sexual maturity and high tribal loyalty. These characteristics are important for a successful K-strategist because K-strategists inhabit an environment of resource scarcity. Where the r-strategist is reproductively advantaged in an environment of extreme plenty by promiscuity and extreme fecundity, the scarcity of calories available to harvest relative to the calories a K-strategist must expend in the acquisition ultimately mean that promiscuity and extreme fecundity are simply not survivable options. However much a wolf might want to mate with every female he encounters, his young will never survive - and therefore his genes will not pass on - if great care is not taken in rearing of the young. Hence the opposite traits from r-selection manifest in large predatory mammals: Tribalism, monogamy, paternalism, delayed maturity, and - for lack of a better word - chastity.

This all basically boils down to a ratio I referred to in the paragraph above: Calories available for consumption compared to the calories burned acquiring said calories. In simpler, individual terms, we use this rough approximation to gain or lose weight, depending on what your goals are (or aren't - the most grotesque fatbodies I know don't seem to think all that much beyond the reflexive action of shoveling food down their gullets). A 1:1 ratio is stasis, 1:>1 is surplus and >1:1 is starvation. A pack of wolves (that survives to reproduce over a given time period) is probably closer to 1:1 without descending into starvation, while a selected population of rabbits is far more heavily skewed into the 1:>1 range.

What I believe John Calhoun's experiment actually demonstrated wasn't a behavioral sink. I also don't believe his experiment simply showed the consequences of simply introducing an r-selection population to an environment free from culling. If this were the case, we should have seen a population continue to expand exponentially until all available space was occupied. What the rise and then fall of the population seems to show us is that - surprise - an environment does indeed shape a population. In this case, Calhoun took natural features and benefits the average mouse might expect to find in the wild - namely an abundance of calories for cheap - and removed the natural hazards and revealed that the selection strategy will eventually produce and extremely warped population that displays aberrant behavior. In a sense, the 'individualism' Calhoun observed at the end of the mouse colony is r-selection taken to it's superlative form.

Isn't that curious? But what does that have to do with why a civilization dies?

---

Near the end of the British Empire, a soldier by the name of John Glubb was stationed in Outremer - the British holdings in the Middle East - where he sated his soldierly boredom by voraciously reading the ancient texts of the old Islamic scholars. Later in life he wrote a fascinating essay called The Fate of Empires, which I strongly suggest you read as well. The Fate of Empires is short enough that I need not explain the entire essay to you - really, go read it. The most important takeaway from the essay, in relation to this one, is that civilizations follow similar life cycles. First comes the outbreak, colonization or conquest by the strong and adventurous. After establishment and a period of growth, a mercantile class arises, which generates wealth. Wealth eventually begets great public works, and then intellectualism, as duty, industriousness, strength, optimism, and virtue fade. In their place, selfishness, sloth, weakness, pessimism and corruption take root. Soon there after, the civilization dies - no longer capable of maintaining itself, it collapses under it's own weight. Glubb noticed that the tipping point in all great civilizations was the onset of great wealth, but he could not explain why.

Some specific, curious developments that Glubb linked between the downfall eras of the great civilizations he examined included cosmopolitanism and an increase in the presence of foreigners, the loss of martial and religious traditions, the liberation of women from traditional roles, the primacy of higher education, and the growth of state welfare and benefits reserved for the underclass.

If you haven't already caught on to what my argument implies, allow me to hit you over the head with it: The reasons civilizations die is because they prosper themselves to death. We've demonstrated this phenomenon under laboratory conditions, we've experienced it through the many iterations of the civilizational life-cycle, and it's happening to us right now.

Why do you think that is is now, at the apex of Western prosperity following World War II, that this exists?

Or this?

Or this?

Or this?

Or this?

Go to any major city across the United States and the freakish signs of this sort of dis-ease will smack you in the face with the tsk-tsking noise constantly coming out of the mouths of hipster urbanites with a chip on their shoulder for their ruralite cousins and an unrelenting, unwarranted sense of self-importance. The garish hair dye, the obtuse politics, the ugly mode of dress, lumpy bodies, poor aesthetics, weak arms and necks and backs... these aren't mere signs of a culture swirling the drain, hijacked by a merciless cabal of coin-clutchers. These are the outward manifestations of a deeply sick population. This sickness is caused, essentially, by gains at no cost. The prosperity we live in is like nothing that has ever existed in all of history - ever. All the way back to the primordial era of proto-cellular life. At no point was life ever conditioned to live in such absolute plenty. We're living longer, fewer of us die at birth, giving birth, during our childhood, or through the violence of war and conquest. Our lives are mostly sedentary, food is so easily accessible that our underclass is grotesquely fat. Jobs less and less involve direct labor, most of us sit at desks or in chairs, talking on phones or typing on computers. We weren't built to live like this. And given the clear indications of decline, it appears that nature isn't too keen on letting us live like this for a whole lot longer. Someday, the bottom will drop out on us. The imbalance between naturally occurring hierarchies will bring this whole thing toppling to the ground, and the survivors will sit in the wreckage, dazed, confused and covered in ash. It may happen as soon as 10 years from today, or 100, but whatever date it will look like 410 all over again.

---

As an aside, the biological reality of unaccounted prosperity equals aberrant behavior conveniently answers the question of why former vassal-states of the U.S.S.R. seem immunized to the call to degeneracy, while their Western neighbors are completely enthralled by hedonistic pursuits. Material prosperity is, ultimately, more toxic than communism.

Go figure.

---

Any system that arises out of those ashes (our out of the clay that formed the West, remolded) must take into account the toxicity of accumulated gains without paying the costs. This is why I never really enjoyed or supported Richard Spencer's policy ideas. I met Spencer once, at a clandestine meeting near my hometown [if you're reading this, I asked you if BAP was your Chad-Nationalist alter-ego], and while he was a likable fellow in his own right, I immediately realized that Spencer's policies were designed to entice the shit-lib urbanite crowd. This is a mistake. Supposing, for a moment, that a significant portion of shitty White urbanites can be enticed into a racial awakening by baiting them with "you can have socialism! but only if you let go of darky", that would win one battle while leaving us desperately weakened in the face of our most important obstacle: The decline in quality of our own people. So far as I am concerned, the genetic shredding urban sprawl is a boon to we who wish to make it through the dark of this night. The worst of us migrate to the cities, where our desire (and eventually capability) to reproduce fades under a deluge of alcohol, hedonism, swelling fat cells, and cats. Good riddance.

This also explains why Feudalism, however unrefined it may otherwise be, provided the momentum for the greatest technological advancement in human history. One thousand years of segregating the bad from the good (usually vis-a-vis the gibbet) provided us with the intellectual and social fuel to get us to the moon. We are on the downward side of that rise, but with we catch, or really, make, a new wave, then perhaps we really will be able to claim the stars as our birthright.

More Bitching About White People

There is nothing quite like a well ordered garden. I worked landscaping for a while post college, and while I have always appreciated a nice yard my tenure as a paid gardener added a particular level of... horticultural awareness I might say if I wanted to sound hifalutin. Something that always exasperated me - still exasperates me - is when a well-to-do person with a large or very nice house on a beautiful property lets their garden run wild. The non-commercial properties that I worked on were almost entirely affluent, sometimes to the point of being grotesquely so, and I would always scratch my head at the rich folk who didn't take care of their property. Hiring a lawn crew to come by once a month to pick weeds does not make for a particularly aesthetic flowerbed. The Mexicans I worked with would make fun of these people, which I find amusing. I have some observations about Mexicans that maybe I'll jot down for your reading pleasure at another time.

Gardening is a sort of micro-metaphor for population dynamics in that you must pay attention to your flowerbeds, to what is growing, to the weeding and watering and levels of sunlight and the general orderliness, lest things get out of hand and the weeds choke everything. Now, you probably suspect that I'm making a metaphor about the relationship between White people and everyone else. You certainly could do such a thing with the projected population explosion of Africa. But that's for another time and to be frank Steve Sailer has that issue covered pretty well. I actually do not want to spend any more time worrying about a few extra billion people with lukewarm IQs. That comes later.

I'm actually thinking about White people as a whole. According to Brett Stevens, civilizations have an inborn flaw in that they begin to fail once they achieve success. I enjoy Brett's rhetorical style and highly recommend his book on Nihilism, and I have to tip my hat to Mr. Stevens for having stared so long into the abyss, so to speak, without descending into the madness that I see in many dissident Right-wing camps. More on that in a second - forgive me for being scattered in my thoughts, the morning is young and I am only one cup of coffee deep.

Brett's observation that civilizations begin to fail after they achieve success might appear to be a bit of a tautology if taken in isolation. He has an excellent explanation for the curious, but let me expand on that in my own way. There are two very important things you must know to understand what I'm going into - r/K selection and Calhoun's "Mouse Utopia" experiments. If you don't know anything about either, take the time to briefly go through the links provided. You don't need a degree in either subject, just passing familiarity.

r/K selection is the sort of thing that, like race, can be endlessly deconstructed into non-existence by a dutiful postmodernist. Let me preempt quibbling and deconstruction by providing the most accurate definition of the phenomenon that r/K selection attempts to describe. Instead of viewing r-selection and K-selection as two distinct, clearly divided 'camps', as it were, r/K selection should be viewed as the logical extremities of a population's breeding strategy, which is influenced by the ratio of calories available to calories burned acquiring available calories. In an environment where more calories must be burned in the acquisition, longer-term, high investment breeding and tribalistic disposition are advantageous. In an environment where the ratio of calories available to calories burned is very low, short term, low investment breeding and low tribal loyalty are more advantageous. Ultimately what we are looking at when we talk about r/K selection is what is the most efficient way to make babies given the current environment. Should the environment change one way or another, so too will the population's strategy (assuming the change isn't so drastic as to cause extinction). Calhoun's experiments showed us that in a post-scarcity environment a population will none the less head towards collapse and extinction, only through a behavioral sink instead of starvation. Where K-selection taken to its maximum is starvation, r-selection taken to its maximum, which is what Calhoun inadvertently experimented on, is also population death. This demonstrates the impossibility of post-scarcity (a signally piece of SWPL conversation flair if there ever was one), but also demonstrates the most pressing issue the Alt-Right must tackle next, now that they have achieved entry-level political legitimacy. And that issue is:

What the fuck is wrong with White People?

Talk to ten members of the Alt-Right and I guarantee you that all ten will agree with the following statement:

If I have one bullet to spend between a traitor and an open enemy, the traitor gets it.

It is curious then that so many calories are burned bitching about the Jews relative to White Leftists. Jews are not traitors per se. I hate clarifications like the vast majority of x reject y behavior, because saying such a thing is at best unquantifiable but is more often than not a rhetorical ruse designed to mollify a set population's concerns when confronted by things like spontaneously exploding Muslims. I have no way of accurately gauging the percentage of Jews that simply want to mind their own Jewish business relative to the civilization wreckers. I am well aware of the malfeasance of certain Jews, and should the day come that I install myself as Emperor, believe you me, there will be a reckoning. But the malfeasance of Globalism, Inc. is only partially attributable to a wretched set of Hebrews, who would have zero power and influence over White Amerikaners were it not for White Leftists.

And what causes White Leftists to exist? Well, Leftism, in part, is an economic theory, and because I do not care about the economy beyond a firm rejection of Communism, I have little to say about why people are inclined towards the left end of the economic spectrum. Dividing economics between Left and Right is partially confused and muddied by the malfeasance of Republicans in the thralls of Globalism, Inc. Are unions bad or good? I don't have anything to say about that. But Leftism as a social theory makes sense as a parallel to the degenerated behavior Calhoun observed in his experiments.

White people are wildly overbred. The ancient regime of Feudalism once allowed us to weed out the bad while allowing the good to flourish. We have come a long way since then, and our garden is overgrown. The most important order of business for the continuation of White civilization is a culling of the lowest quality Whites. While you may think ovens and helicopter rides, really the matter is far less serious and far less likely to generate an international response (and potentially military intervention) than outright SWPL genocide: Incentives against procreation.

The Alt-Right spends an inordinate amount of time worrying about White birthrates. It is doubtlessly true that a precipitous decline in births stemming from high financial and economic barriers to safe reproductive havens (i.e. suburbs) should be something to keep a wary eye on. As Michael Enoch has said, "Whites don't breed in captivity". Lacking the power to immediately capture the political infrastructure required to enact a wholesale deportation of all non-Whites, the Alt-Right must route around the damage wherever possible. That simply means encouraging self-aware Whites to retreat to the safe redoubt of the countryside, accepting the economic loss - which is of no consequence in the grand scheme of things - in exchange for the security the hinterlands offers. Just three hours outside of one of the worst metropolitan areas in the nation, where I live, there is nothing but White people, and, more importantly, fecund White couples. From personal experience clandestinely interviewing ruralite Whites, these people are seething with anger - somewhat misdirected - at the city folk that shit on them at every turn. With the rate of reproduction I noted among couples, usually something like three or four kids per couple, the countryside is an army in waiting. The only thing they lack is officers and direction. As affirmative action squeezes Whites out of college, and therefore out of the requisite four year certificate to move to the city to work as a desk jockey for a cushy salary, both the percentage of Whites and the real number of Whites in the city doing the SWPL thing will decline, especially considering the paltry birthrate among White leftists. We have not yet seen a full accounting of the lack of births among Millennials. As the blue hairs pass into their thirties this contraction will become more noticeable, which in turn will exacerbate the ethnic awakening among Whites.

The most pressing concern therein is keeping White leftists away from the hinterland redoubts. The select few married White Liberals I know have already abandoned the fashionable and hip inner city for the security of the suburbs as they attempt to breed. When they say they're looking for 'good schools' remember to tell them that you already know that means 'no niggers' so they might as well speak plainly. Anyways, "White flight", as it is currently defined, is not understood correctly. White flight isn't just fleeing from the social decay that a third world population brings to a White enclave, White flight is Whites fleeing from the insane and destructive policies that White leftists foist upon all Whites through their obsession with Diversity™. The reason I despise White Leftists can be boiled down to the fact that White Leftists advocate for whatever positions grant them the greatest amount of social capital, and then whatever costs are associated with their positions are imposed upon everyone other than themselves. If White Leftists, who really are Top-Globalists-in-Waiting (they imagine this themselves, doubt you not), were forced to deal with the consequences of their actions, none of this would be a problem. You want to bring in refugees? Okay, fine, but you must house them, you must bear the costs of integrating them and, most importantly, any crime that they commit you shall likewise suffer the consequences. So in a sane world, if a refugee committed a crime that warranted the death sentence, his sponsor would share his fate. We do not live in a sane world, so the last sentence - a little piece of LARPing - should be tucked away in the back of your head when the time comes to rebuild Western Civilization. A few years ago an area of rural Colorado that was so frustrated by the bullying tactics of the populous SWPL citadels attempted to secede. While this attempt failed, what is important isn't the tactic, it's the intent and the sentiment. White ruralites, who outpace their SWPL brethren in births, are fucking pissed. They're so angry that they threw a Hail Mary to elect Donald fucking Trump to the highest office of the United States. If Leftist Whites had any awareness whatsoever outside of a finger on the pulse of whatever grants them the most status per syllable, they would be utterly terrified of what White ruralites might do next. The only thing that remains to screen them from the wrath of Heritage America are their wayward minority mercenaries, and it appears that their ability to control the ascendant part of the Coalition of the Ascendant is all but spent. If they find themselves hemmed in on all sides, so be it. Let them perish. They deserve no sympathy, and allowing them to remain, to procreate, and to intermingle among Heritage America will only ensure that the sickness inside them propagates among future generations. At some point, the most wretched of our tribe must be physically, materially and spiritually expelled from our ranks.

The ultimate target isn't minorities. Its not Jews or Negros or Mestizos. Everything is a smokescreen blocking us from seeing the absolutely most pressing issue: We must remove the sickness of White Liberalism to secure a future for White children. White Liberalism is the thermal exhaust port of Globalism, Inc, the glue holding our insane world together. Everything else we do is potshots that will never amount to anything. Dylan Roof was a catastrophic failure because he targeted minorities, around whomst the Coalition of the Ascendant rallied. Anders Breivik was resoundingly successful because he executed the children of White Norwegian Socialists. No minorities rallied to their cause. Convert whoever can be. Do not expect much success there. Purge the rest. The only strategy that can possibly work against the "Diversity Is Our Strength" crowd is divide and conquer, but the first domino to fall must, must be White Leftism, or else the fractious coalition will rally together. Without White Leftism gluing them together, Negros and Hispanics and Transexuals and Muslims will quickly fall into infighting. Minorities of all varieties only take advantage of us because they see us as supplicating and weak. Minority experience of Whites is largely confined to the educated SWPL class, which taints their perception of Whites as a group. If minorities are made to see Whites as an armed, hostile and monolithic group ready willing and able to defend themselves, their leaders will quickly move to the negotiating table, because at one point in time all of these groups went toe to toe with armed White hostiles and lost. Hard.

Quality Control

The common and fashionable way of thinking claims that America is divided between White and non-White. While indeed common and fashionable, this is also very surface level. People who frame politics this way - garden variety Millennial liberals, for instance - are not particularly insightful. Digging a little deeper, the Alt-Right claims that America is a captured nation, that the new Judeo-Globalist elite use third worlders as a gigantic stick to beat down Heritage America. This is a little better, but also causes the Alt-Right to fall into a sort of psychosis or downward spiral where the Jew is behind everything. To be honest, the Daily Shoah is sometimes hard to listen to because I get tired of hearing the same lines about the Hebrews. Whatever coin clutching malfeasance is currently in the spotlight - and there is no end to it, as I am sure you are well aware - this still is not a fully accurate description of the source of American political conflict.

The United States of America is a White nation currently in the midst of a cold White on White civil war. Minorities of all varieties are [currently] ancillaries. It is true that there are major non-White factions, but all of them are organized under the banner of White Leftism. White Leftists, by their nature, do not have the numbers, the martial acumen, the toughness or any sort of safe redoubt by which they may wage war on their provincial brethren. Minority groups essentially serve as mercenaries, barriers and cannon fodder for White Leftists. In exchange for attacking provincial Whites and serving as a distracting foil for the seething hatred the White Leftist feels for flyover country, the Left grants minority groups resources extracted from productive Whites. This, of course, is a classic deal with the devil. No matter how disparagingly you might view La Raza or Black Lives Matter, you cannot deny that there is a degree of self-interest in their activities, and the full breadth and width of their agency is wholly concerned with fulfilling their own needs. Some minority groups have far greater agency than others, which is why you find a disproportionate number of Ashkenazim at the upper strata of society. None the less, the less endowed, slow though they may be literally and otherwise, grow in strength and encroach upon the territory of White Leftism. That the roll of White Leftists as leaders of the Coalition of the Ascendant was downgraded from dubious to doubtful may cause some White Leftists to flee Postmodernism in the same way that White men fled Occupy Wall Street when it devolved into an identity shit-flinging festival. There are quiet rumblings of a sort of "Alt-Left", where disenchanted Bernie Bros are [allegedly] starting to realize that their dreams of socialism are being cock-blocked by burdensome minorities. Perhaps, only time will tell.

Millennial Leftists are particularly sensitive to prestige, and while at present Whites can still harvest prestige through flaunting their Leftist credentials, the Law of Diminishing returns and the demands of minorities that allied Whites shut up and follow their lead suggests that at some point, the prestige granted to Whites by being obedient, goodthinkful Leftists will be outweighed by the pain and shame inflicted by the wayward mercenaries the Left hired to fight their backwards, provincial brethren. If that comes to pass, we may see a massive conversion of Leftists into White identitarians. As I have said previously, for the TRS/Daily Stormer crowd this is a good thing. Their most pressing concern is that they need more bodies, without which they will have trouble making demands that the USG must take seriously.

Sympathetic though I am to the goys at TRS, I don't think that the pressured conversion of self-deprecating White Leftists to White identitarians would be anything more than a stop gap. Should Whites claim a White homeland, should the minorities be sent elsewhere and should a reckoning come to deal with the malfeasance of Globalism, Inc. there still remains an issue within the White population, namely that Whites abandoned eugenic selection pressure vis-a-vis reproductive quality control when Whites abandoned Feudalism. White people are wildly overbred, and I strongly suspect that what makes White Leftists so insufferable is not merely their ideology. Yes, the blue hairs are at best annoying and at worst the most wretched sort of traitors, but my suspicion is that the social conditioning program of Postmodernism isn't the only variable accounting for their wretched state. I'm not sure that you can necessarily condition someone to be insufferable, to have an unwarranted sense of self importance, to have a drive to constantly out-signal one another, etc. Postmodernism is the vector, but the disease may come from something else. I cannot currently quantify my suspicions, but perhaps this points us in the right direction:

Decline in White IQ from 1889 through 2004

Estimating IQ through simple reaction times, scientists claim that the average White IQ has depreciated by one full standard deviation. This fits neatly with a history lesson I first became aware of through Curt Doolittle of the Propertarian Institute. The advent of the Feudal/Manorial system created a highly eugenic selection pressure on Europeans by excluding those who could not form families and contribute to the economy, and by brutally hanging criminals. The end result of centuries of this pressure created the conditions by which high IQ, socially cohesive Europeans eventually negated their eugenic progression. With the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution the culling of those who couldn't slowed and eventually outbreeding accelerated, resulting in a general decline in the quality of Whites. Where our estimated average IQ once rivaled Ashkenazim, today we're barely above 100.

Whether there is a parallel decline in the quality of our character is a matter I can only speculate upon, but my gut feeling points to yes.

None the less, despite Progressive Liberalism's attempts to foil biology, today there seems to be another selection pressure hard at work upon the demographic groups fighting over the marrow and bones of Weimerica. There is a striking discrepancy between the birthrate of White conservatives and White liberals. White conservatives reproduce at slightly above replacement rate, while White liberals don't even come close. Others have made the same observation, that each new generation of Whites is more and more dominated by children sired by conservative parents, such that Generation Z is being [perhaps prematurely] dubbed "Generation Zyklon". There is, of course, some bleed-over from conservative parents who lose their children to the clutches of academia, but how consequential this loss is as a percentage of the would-be conservative population remains to be seen. Furthermore, something that gives the Generation Zyklon meme some serious legs is the fact that White youngsters are being lectured to death by cunty blue hairs that have fully embraced Postmodern dildo worship that berates them for the sin of being White in a nation that is increasingly not White. Very few of my peers from my Catholic School days still go to church, and given that Postmodernism is more virulent, more abrasive, more screeching and tyrannical than even the worst lecturer I have ever encountered in Christendom... I suspect that there will be some serious blow back.

Less commented on is the dysgenic effect the modern world may be having on minorities. The immediate cause of the low White liberal birthrate is that liberal women put off family formation in favor of careerism, which tends to lead to regrets down the road. The same academic-industrial complex compels minorities to favor careerism over family formation, but there is a pretty serious caveat:

Intelligence may be a more profound selector with regards to minorities entering university than Whites. Low average-IQ populations that qualify for affirmative action have a much shallower bench, as it were, of high IQ individuals. It is true that there are 150 IQ Blacks, the issue is that there are not many of them. Were Black America run competently, those select few 150 IQ individuals would be husbanded to increase the relative percentage of Blacks with similar levels of intelligence vis-a-vis heredity, while suppressing the lowest echelons of Blacks through some sort of sterilization program. Black America is, of course, run wildly incompetently, adversely pressured by clever rent-seekers among the Black population that only seek to enhance their wealth and prestige, and further pressured by White Leftists who place a higher premium on garish and very public displays of fake-altrusim than they do on finding solutions that work. Affirmative action none the less requires a higher degree of intelligence, in that Blacks who simply can't hack it in the ivory tower will end up washing out of their degree programs, sending them back to the ghetto as it were. Having a much shallower pool to draw from, and losing a substantial portion of that pool to careerism at the expense of reproduction is probably going to be a disaster for the African American community, and maybe Hispanics too.

Populations are dynamic, not static. Selection pressure moves them one way or another, and given enough authority and enough time you could forge a nation to rival peak White civilization out of darkest Africa. Regrettably, we're doing the opposite here and across the ocean by constraining the highest quality individuals and fully subsidizing the reproduction of the lowest quality individuals. It may be several steps ahead of our current predicament, so much so that it probably is not worth giving a whole lot of consideration at present, but eventually, even with the advent of ubiquitous ethno-nationalism, without a permanent social institution culling the lowest quality among us, the White populations will continue to experience a decline in quality. It is a massive mistake to assume that by simply removing the Jews, the Negros, the Hispanics and the Muslims, everything will carry on as happily as we want it to. Whatever arises out the ashes of the American Empire must, must keep a clear focus on biological realities, both external and internal.

If there's a silver lining to all of this, it's that the lowest quality Whites seem to be the most liberal, and the least likely to have children.