Few mortals embrace evil for its own sake; in the fallen world, the vast majority of evil acts, especially ones done by those with enough intelligence and cunning to secure for themselves a seat in the halls of power, are done for rather practical or mundane purposes: maintaining or expanding their power or control, accumulating wealth far beyond what they could hope for with honest work, sating their desire for material security and/or sexual pleasure, etc.
So, it is with the vast majority of the elites’ policies, be they those American ones under whose boots our human faces are being stamped on (seemingly forever) or those of the ancient world. The Babylonian captivity, that greatest of cataclysms for the ancient Hebrews, has since the rise of Christianity and its dominance in the Western world taken on metaphysical significance, becoming a metaphor for the human condition within a fallen world presided over by Satan’s ultimate evil before our rescue and release by Christ through His sacrifice on the cross.
But though there is absolute and eternal truth in that metaphor, and though it must never be forgotten that evil done consciously and voluntarily, no matter the reason, leads one to the eternal realm of that fallen prince of this world, it is equally important to look at evil in terms of its more mundane aspects, so as to better combat it. Therefore, we must devise more practical and effective strategies for opposing the evil our elites engage in. And, so that we may make those who might join us in the effort more likely to do so by showing those moral but wavering normies that for all the elites’ rhetoric about human rights, compassion, etc., those posturing moralists who call for de facto open borders and accuse anyone opposing their plans of being irredeemably evil are themselves nothing more than soulless, avaricious businessmen who would gladly sell out their people to save on labor cost, and would be tyrants hoping to translate weakening cohesion into greater centralized control. After all, this is an ancient strategy, with its new form being merely the flip side of its old.
When the kings of Assyria and Babylon – who, despite their rhetoric about being the descendants of gods or their highest servants here on earth, were shrewd, practical men – would, after conquering a nation or putting down a revolt in an already conquered territory, march large numbers of the native peoples off and plop them down in some other part of the empire, while bringing in other peoples to replace them in their old homelands. They did so merely to solve the problem that plagued tyrants since the dawn of civilization: how do you maximize the wealth and tax revenue that various subjugated people can generate for you while minimizing the chances of revolt against your rule, since killing large portions of a conquered people will help you with the latter but hurt you with the former, whereas keeping their population stable or allowing it to grow will have the opposite effect?
The solution they hit on was very similar to that of our own (currently petty but quickly growing) tyrants on the Potomac: keep the population numbers the same but mix them up to reduce their overall cohesion. This is why they moved only parts of populations around, rather than whole populations – to make all feel like either strangers in a strange land (if they are among those moved) or strangers in a familiar land (if they are among those who remained). When all or most imperial holdings are as such, none is likely to revolt at oppressive taxes until the entire region is so bled and starving that pure hunger and desperation provides the cohesion and unity of purpose that shared genetics and culture provide under normal circumstances. And even then, the revolts would be much easier to suppress as it will be possible to turn one ethnic faction against the other with the promise of better treatment for that one and that one alone.
Such was the logic of Tiglath-Pileser lll (referred to as Pul king of Assyria in the Old Testament) and Nebuchadnezzar ll, and such was the logic of Joseph Stalin, who as an ethnic Georgian shared an ancient and mutual hatred with the Chechens, shipped them by rail from their mountainous homelands to the far-off deserts of Kazakh SSR. This was a move ultimately reversed by Khrushchev after Stalin’s death, but not before the deaths of many of those being moved, either from the conditions of the move itself or the conditions that met them at their destination.
Our rulers in the Imperial Capital know this well and are pursuing it in its inverse form: importing large enough numbers of peoples of alien cultures and genetics to make us feel like strangers in a familiar land, such that we, while still working to produce the wealth they siphon off into their self-aggrandizing projects and imperial war machine, can’t coalesce in the public sphere. In turn, we retreat into individual atomized cells of hedonistic indulgence (think Amazon or Uber-delivered food and booze consumed over Netflix and Pornhub), unable to act as a unified front to oppose the increasingly bold gutting of our already weakened rights.
Also, when we cease to do our interactions in person and in public, we become much more susceptible to the lies of the surreal world of mainstream (i.e., regime-friendly) news. In the end, it isn’t about greater numbers of those who would vote Democrat so much as it is about greater and greater percentages of the population who can’t unite and rally enough to oppose the powers that rule behind both parties. This is what we must make those non-elites who accuse us of immorality for opposing limitless immigration see: that what they are defending is nothing less than a modern version of the strategy by which the most vicious tyrants from the ancient to the more modern world maintained their empires; those who defend it defend a formula for tyranny, whether they know it or not.
We, on the other hand, as defenders of nations in the true sense (i.e., of people sharing the same or very similar genetics, cultures, and laws) are defending, if only implicitly, all that those evil imperialists sought to destroy in their pursuit of absolute power. As such, we should stand fast and make no apology for doing so.
-By Hannibal Africanus
O I’m a good old rebel, now that’s just what I am. For this “fair land of freedom” I do not care at all. I’m glad I fit against it, I only wish we’d won, And I don’t want no pardon for anything I done.
Good article.
You write: “This is what we must make those non-elites who accuse us of immorality for opposing limitless immigration see”.
I’m afraid the sheeple masses are already so brainwashed they’ll never see it; but keep on preaching to the Remnant! A few will.
I’d say that’s mostly true about the sheeple or normies, but not entirely. In my opinion, for vast numbers of people, the ideology of officialdom’s brainwashing directed at them is not so much believed as used as a mere fig leaf to cover their naked fear of job loss, social ostracism, etc. Hence, the trick is to seed the moral and logical arguments into the minds of normies, in whom it will take root subconsciously. That way, when the you-know-what hits the fan from a combination of the Fed’s decades of credit expansion and the loss of dollar hegemony (thanks to China’s and Russia’s alternative monetary systems) and they realize the regime whose insane ideas they slavishly parroted can’t keep them from losing their jobs and purchasing power anyway, those seeded ideas will grow into conscious ones and both increase the normies’ righteous anger and channel it into healthy directions; i.e., armed with such ideas, the normies will see both the failed crony capitalism of the Repubs and the big business–approved socialism of the Dems as false solutions. That way, if by then there are alternative institutions for the normies to support (real dissidents; South and north must begin creating them), enough of them will leave the duopoly to grow those alternatives big enough to either replace the duopoly or act as enough of a rebuke of it that it will be too scared of destroying all of its support to use force against those alternatives. Think I’ll make that the topic of the next essay I’m working on.
As someone who engaged in a good deal of evil myself (basically, everything short rape and murder), I’d like to add another rationale for evil, and perhaps the most prevalent one: SIMPLE BOREDOM. Young men, without the yolk of family and a spouse act as a stabilizing force in their lives, tend to get involved in increasingly violent and deprived activities. It really is often just that simple.
Want a simple way to stop feeling like a stranger in your own country? Make it a goal to spend an entire day a week, should you live near a city, to just leave your smartphone at home and spend all-day walking around. Make random comments to passers-by, talk to shop owners, strike up a conversation with a random homeless dude, whatever. To alleviate any boredom you may feel, carry an auto-roasry and just do the Jesus Prayer during the dull moments. Its great to prevent your thoughts from wandering to inane and useless internal-monologue. Also, talking to yourself isn’t mentally healthy and portends and individual who is detatched-from-reality
Gloria Steinem once gave an interview (2014, if memory serves) in which she openly proclaimed that feminist support for abortion is largely based on the idea that native population growth can be greatly reduced and controlled via abortion (and contraception, of course), thereby opening the door to the introduction of masses of foreign immigrants. In other words, to determine demographics and societal incohesion.
When I was heavily involved in the immigration restriction movement, our biggest opponents were the various Chambers of Commerce, certain Catholic organizations, Hispanic organizations and of course Jews. Not necessarily in that order. All of which groups essentially have the federal courts in their hip pockets.
Good topic and good article. Looking forward to your next, sir.