Successful societies become bloated. It is not that they become weak, but that so many weak people appear that a market for delusion is created.
Their wealth is not the cause of their problems, but it allows the weak to survive and prosper, just like technology does.
In other words, we see two models of civilization:
One optimizes production and dies by bloating; the other optimizes control and dies by fighting over control. Obviously the former triumphed with the rise of the West, but it remains to be seen if it can resist the many attempts to dominate it, including most likely from within, since that is what took down the Greek and Roman states as well as Aethelred II.
We might call these models “supply-based” and “demand-based.” Supply-based systems seek to increase production, creativity, and invention, even if these are not equally distributed and therefore a hierarchy of wealth, power, and status emerges; demand-based societies aim to give things to their citizens in order to enforce unity, and therefore need more tax targets. The West has always been supply-based, at least until the most recent conquest, and the rest of the world especially the third world appears to be demand-based.
Our political shift toward egalitarianism, starting with the French Revolution but accelerating after WW2, changed us from a supply-based organic society to a demand-based modern state run for the perpetuity of government, not the perpetuity of the civilization or its best citizens.
Even though the Great Replacement is happening, they’ll deny it’s happening while celebrating the fact that it’s happening, and they’ll call you crazy for daring to notice that it’s happening. That’s precisely how twisted they are. And if you get mad about the web of lies they spin like a noose around your throat, they’ll simply say, “See? He’s crazy! Told you so!”
A little over a century ago in The Rising Tide of Color: The Threat Against White World-Supremacy, Lothrop Stoddard warned that whites would eventually drown in a tide of population surges by other groups.
In 1913, the combined population of Europe and “Western offshoots” was about one-third of the total global populace. Whites currently comprise about 16% of the world’s population, a quotient that is expected to fall to 10% by 2060.
Whites have always been a global minority, but they’re en route to becoming an even tinier minority than ever before, all while the global propaganda machine has demonized their very existence. Why does this sound like a bad movie plot?
Ever since I was a kid, being a minority was considered a good thing. Well, it was a bad thing in the sense that you were presumed to suffer constant oppression from incurably cruel whites, but we were taught that the role of government was to protect the weak and marginalized from bullying. So one is to presume that when whites achieve minority status, this will be a good thing . . . right?
Say hello to the global majority — i.e., what we used to refer to as “minorities”:
Global majority is a collective term for ethnic groups which constitute approximately 80 per cent of the global population . . .
The term was used as early as 2003 as a way to challenge the normativity of a Eurocentric perspective. Its proponents argue that terms like “ethnic minority” marginalize the skills, the ways of thinking, and the lived experiences of those from African, Asian, indigenous, or dual-heritage backgrounds. These terms were therefore seen as racializing ethnicity.
For years the British media has been using the acronym BAME (Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic) as an umbrella term for all non-whites in the United Kingdom. In 2020, spurred into hastily guilty action over the death of model citizen George Floyd, the Church of England stopped using the clunky term “United Kingdom Minority Ethnic” (UKME) in favor of the even clunkier “United Kingdom Minority Ethnic/Global Majority Heritage” (UKME/GMH). This was apparently done to remind indigenous Britons that although ethnic invaders may still be a minority in England, they are a majority worldwide and can sweep them up in a tsunami of color whenever they wish. It’s frightening to think that the global majority is perched right outside of your tiny island, staring you down at all times.
England’s Westminster City Council recently moved to drop the term “BAME” and replace it with “global majority” in an attempt to be more “inclusive and diverse” toward everyone except indigenous Britons. An official statement read:
We do not use the terms BAME (black, Asian and minority ethnic) and BME (black and minority ethnic) because they emphasise certain ethnic minority groups (Asian and black) and exclude others . . . The terms can also mask disparities between different ethnic groups and create misleading interpretations of data. . . . Similarly, we do not use people of colour as it doesn’t include white minorities. Our aim is to look and tackle inequalities and disparities wherever they are seen. That’s what we are doing through the levelling-up agenda.
What is a “white minority,” you ask? It’s anyone in the UK who is not English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, or Romani. In other words, the Westminster City Council is pitting everyone in the world, even whites who aren’t native to the British Isles, against its own indigenous population.
I’m not sure why the Romani wound up on the “wrong side of history,” but I’ve never liked them anyway, so I shed no tears.
But the term “global majority” is being adopted by non-whites across this dying planet.
The term “people of color” centers whiteness even as it attempts to be an affirming identity label for non-white people. The term perpetuates the pernicious idea that whiteness is the default and white people therefore have no particular race. Race is a special identity marker that is only assigned to people who are not white; who are the other. Race comes with color. Non-white people are subsequently of color by virtue of not being color-free, white people. . . . The term “people of the global majority” affirms non-white people’s inherent power as the majority of the world’s population. This is in contrast to the fact that people of color in the U.S. are often considered minorities even as they will outnumber white people in the country by as early as 2050. . . . It enables global solidarity against white supremacy without cultural erasure.
In other words, so long as whites are being erased from the global discussion, non-whites can oppose them and bask in their own newfound racial power while pretending they’re against racism. We can be inclusive so long as we exclude whites. The minute that whites have been officially acknowledged as a minority, the roles have switched: Minorities are no longer in need of protection, and the majority is no longer a bully.
The lies have been stacked so high, it can cause a peckerwood like me to faint.
“Nationalism is of course a political ideology, but it is nonetheless an ideology based essentially on a group’s own biological interest. Understanding the history of ourselves from an evolutionary perspective was pretty difficult up until the advent of Ancient DNA studies, with the first accurate papers being released as late as 2015 in regards to European lineages.
For every liberal argument about immigration in the past, there is a reactionary counter argument of invasion and conquest. The latter is more accurate – our ancestors were quite brutal and innovative, they needed to be to survive – and it’s that version that should be taught to the next generation.”
The Tactical Hermit 
You must be logged in to post a comment.