- Registrado
- 17 de Jul, 2025
For your optional reading pleasure:
White supremacy in the mainstream did not go away, it re-organized around plausible deniability and self-insistence.
What is it.
Example, California Governor Gavin Newsom describes Blacks as inherently unintelligent to a live audience of Blacks, 2026:
Instead of saying "Blacks (Niggers) are unintelligent", he says "The facts, sourced from self-insistent institutions, say that you are unintelligent, and that is OK, it is your culture.". You have seen and will see this pattern everywhere, from DEI to "their cutlure". It is primarily centered in passive aggression and implication; so the next time you see a UK article say "restrictions lifted on incest for certain people", you, as evident every time in A&N, correctly understand they are referring to Muslims; that is the intention, not the exception. The idea is to maintain in creation a pervasive sense of racial, ethnic, religious, or otherwise inherent or semi-inherent, difference.
Likewise, the obsesssion with "White Guilt" is similarily the attempt to maintain knowledge and inclination of Whites towards White supremacy while being plausibly deniable through its surface condemnation. Without this, all of it would be forgotten. Populations considered "White" do not have a biological tendendency to insist upon themselves in their own superiority, that is a social construct.
The deniable and passive-agressive nature of it make it more total. Despite that, it is largely reactive, as initiative action would make it harder to deny.
This system is how racial, ethnic, and religious, tensions remain at growing all-time highs, despite overt hostility being socially removed for about two to three decades now.
Why is it.
Varied, but primarily imperial decline and loss of industrial (broader technological) advantage. Secondarily, ideological capture by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and general cultural instability. Tertiarilly, declining White birthrates and the need for non-White imports to maintain speculative economics (investors see population number go up, assume economy will grow too, which in turn makes the economy grow). All with the assumption some technological breakthrough will be made to restore White global dominance and re-implement overt Whtie supremacy.
As stated, if the idea of supremacy were no longer maintained, it would vanish. So if enough time had passed, and a White (Western) nation hypothetically developed the breakthrough advantage, it would likely NOT use it for global dominance in the way it used to, if even for global dominance at all.
Overt White supremacy cannot be implemented now because the economy is structurally dependent on collaborating import populations. However, AI is increasingly considered to be the technological breakthrough that will restore proper conditions; especially as evidenced by growing elite speculation against immigration, usually believing AI will make it unneeded.
Does it work.
No, it is comically retarded.
For one, it is, by its very nature, hidden and indirect. Meaning that while the general public may consume it as expected, significant numbers will either take it seriously (e.g. non-college social liberals), or identify it as a conspiracy against Whiteness itself (e.g. this site). The risk of transmission failure increases as time goes on.
For two, the importing of non-White peoples, cultures, and religions, in the host nation of a culture very much hiding from itself, often means the non-White culture will win out over the White one. Functionally, Whites assimilate more into non-White ideas and cultural concepts, than non-Whites do into that of Whites; though this remains a somewhat secondary dynamic, encouragement of social separation reduces its impact.
Generally speaking, it is a gamble for an idea in retreat. If the technological advantage does not appear, then the main leverage for success does not exist. Moreover, non-White populations are not static actors, and competing civilizations have matched (or surpassed) Western technological development, even as the West allocates everything towards it. Migrant populations have proven significantly more resistant to assimilation than originally expected, to the point many understand that full civilizational assimilation is simply impossible.
In a hypothetical abstract world where Whites were the only ones who thought and acted, perhaps this would work; but we do not live in that world.
Is this bait.
Depends on what the best answer for me is. The general trends of this idea have been noted for about a decade now, especially with the outbreak of polarization in the West just over a decade ago. However nobody has described the general concept around it, other than the occassional "liberals are the real racists" in conservative outlets that usually don't go anywhere. Aspects of replacement theory and racial betrayal don't wholly explain elite disinterest in racial intermingling, their substantial and most ideologically engaged White voter bases, their lack of focus on finanical gain (nor what they would get out of it other than 'more money'), and why-how they would overcome the extreme psychological burden of betraying one's own people.
This is, obviously, not intended to be taken in absolute, and is intended to describe what has been noticed.
White supremacy in the mainstream did not go away, it re-organized around plausible deniability and self-insistence.
What is it.
Example, California Governor Gavin Newsom describes Blacks as inherently unintelligent to a live audience of Blacks, 2026:
Instead of saying "Blacks (Niggers) are unintelligent", he says "The facts, sourced from self-insistent institutions, say that you are unintelligent, and that is OK, it is your culture.". You have seen and will see this pattern everywhere, from DEI to "their cutlure". It is primarily centered in passive aggression and implication; so the next time you see a UK article say "restrictions lifted on incest for certain people", you, as evident every time in A&N, correctly understand they are referring to Muslims; that is the intention, not the exception. The idea is to maintain in creation a pervasive sense of racial, ethnic, religious, or otherwise inherent or semi-inherent, difference.
Likewise, the obsesssion with "White Guilt" is similarily the attempt to maintain knowledge and inclination of Whites towards White supremacy while being plausibly deniable through its surface condemnation. Without this, all of it would be forgotten. Populations considered "White" do not have a biological tendendency to insist upon themselves in their own superiority, that is a social construct.
The deniable and passive-agressive nature of it make it more total. Despite that, it is largely reactive, as initiative action would make it harder to deny.
This system is how racial, ethnic, and religious, tensions remain at growing all-time highs, despite overt hostility being socially removed for about two to three decades now.
Why is it.
Varied, but primarily imperial decline and loss of industrial (broader technological) advantage. Secondarily, ideological capture by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and general cultural instability. Tertiarilly, declining White birthrates and the need for non-White imports to maintain speculative economics (investors see population number go up, assume economy will grow too, which in turn makes the economy grow). All with the assumption some technological breakthrough will be made to restore White global dominance and re-implement overt Whtie supremacy.
As stated, if the idea of supremacy were no longer maintained, it would vanish. So if enough time had passed, and a White (Western) nation hypothetically developed the breakthrough advantage, it would likely NOT use it for global dominance in the way it used to, if even for global dominance at all.
Overt White supremacy cannot be implemented now because the economy is structurally dependent on collaborating import populations. However, AI is increasingly considered to be the technological breakthrough that will restore proper conditions; especially as evidenced by growing elite speculation against immigration, usually believing AI will make it unneeded.
Does it work.
No, it is comically retarded.
For one, it is, by its very nature, hidden and indirect. Meaning that while the general public may consume it as expected, significant numbers will either take it seriously (e.g. non-college social liberals), or identify it as a conspiracy against Whiteness itself (e.g. this site). The risk of transmission failure increases as time goes on.
For two, the importing of non-White peoples, cultures, and religions, in the host nation of a culture very much hiding from itself, often means the non-White culture will win out over the White one. Functionally, Whites assimilate more into non-White ideas and cultural concepts, than non-Whites do into that of Whites; though this remains a somewhat secondary dynamic, encouragement of social separation reduces its impact.
Generally speaking, it is a gamble for an idea in retreat. If the technological advantage does not appear, then the main leverage for success does not exist. Moreover, non-White populations are not static actors, and competing civilizations have matched (or surpassed) Western technological development, even as the West allocates everything towards it. Migrant populations have proven significantly more resistant to assimilation than originally expected, to the point many understand that full civilizational assimilation is simply impossible.
In a hypothetical abstract world where Whites were the only ones who thought and acted, perhaps this would work; but we do not live in that world.
Is this bait.
Depends on what the best answer for me is. The general trends of this idea have been noted for about a decade now, especially with the outbreak of polarization in the West just over a decade ago. However nobody has described the general concept around it, other than the occassional "liberals are the real racists" in conservative outlets that usually don't go anywhere. Aspects of replacement theory and racial betrayal don't wholly explain elite disinterest in racial intermingling, their substantial and most ideologically engaged White voter bases, their lack of focus on finanical gain (nor what they would get out of it other than 'more money'), and why-how they would overcome the extreme psychological burden of betraying one's own people.
This is, obviously, not intended to be taken in absolute, and is intended to describe what has been noticed.
Última edición:
