Thinking about monarchy

These leftist implicitly believe, perhaps without even realizing it, that you cannot be a good person without destroying yourself for being white. Oh they would not put it that way, they would say that in order to be a good person you have to assist in the process of deconstructing whiteness. But the result is the same, and it is an absolutely deranged sentiment because it says that no one who's apolitical, nobody who's indifferent to politics, nobody who just wants to live their life and grill could ever be a decent human person. It stigmatizes the thing that humans have done for thousands of years: just being normal. It's demands that one participate in a hysterical cause, it refuses to just leave people the fuck alone.

And this is what democracy does, because democracy forms a personality that is overly opinionated, that can never stop expressing an opinion even when it knows nothing about the topic. Democracy creates a population of arrogant blowhards who can't shut up. Oh sure you have the right to express an opinion, but the trade-off is that you can never escape the opinions of others. The one thing democracy can never do is leave you alone. We have to get out the vote, we have to get involved, we have to fight the system, bomb every nation, blah blah blah. It can never accept the humble person. It is hostile to humility. 

This contrasts with monarchy where the king doesn't care what you think as long as you shut up. To people who already shut up, for which shutting up comes naturally, this is not tyrannical at all and actually saves them from their neighbors arrogant blowhard opinions. Monarchy frees the quiet and shy person to simply live their life, assuming that the leader is anything other than a totalitarian cult of personality. If you live in any monarchy other than places like North Korea, Eritrea, or Turkmenistan, the king is not seen and rarely herd. You probably don't even know who the monarchs of Liechtenstein, Bahrain, Thailand, Oman, or the UAE are. You're not allowed to criticize the king, and there may even be informants, but arrests are generally rare and you can have opinions around your own dinner table. More importantly there is no expectation that you agree with anything. You are probably not going to be shunned by all your friends for refusing to support the current thing, or for questioning your own racial replacement. Political correctness is brushed off as some trivial thing but since the eighties Americans have had less and less actual free speech and no freedom from association with violent minorities. The need to win elections has brought millions of foreigners into our country and the white population has been indoctrinated to hate itself. Perhaps I simply don't have the breadth of knowledge to know, but I can't remember anytime in human history when a race of people were taught to hate themselves by their own government. It would be interesting to find out if this has happened before, but in any case it is happening now and it is happening in a democracy, which tells you everything.

After I served in the military I took my sweet time in college milking my GI Bill for 9 years. It became increasingly difficult as ever a foolish young white woman had been indoctrinated to hate her own race. This meant that, ironically, if you wanted to stick it in and perpetuate your race, you had the first agree to betray it. Though women were abundant they all had cluster b disorders, abortions, took SSRIs and wanted to smash the patriarchy. This is also ironic because the patriarchy only exists because women perpetuate it by fucking strong and successful men. Telling men to abolish patriarchy is like telling whores to abolish porn; it obviously only exists because you keep buying it, but this simple and obvious fact was escaping these foolish girls. 

When a little bit of jewish billionaire foundation money can drive a whole nation of women insane and turn them against their own race, freedom of speech, of thought, and idea becomes a kind of self-refuting exercise. Freedom of speech for what? To lead an enemy race to auto-genocide by infecting it with toxic ideas? Since the bomb was invented Elliott's can no longer exterminate nations in war, and so do it with ideas. Ideology has become the battlescape for genocide. 

Women do this thing where they light a match and they say "I'm going to burn down the whole world unless you control me." They say "if you don't control my mind I will betray my race to our enemies," —no it's not even that, because they don't even recognize "our race." They serve only the winner and that means all of civilization is a violent contest to control women. The existence of the female is a guarantee of perpetual war. She says that if you abolish patriarchy enough she'll start to breed again, but the break-even rate for humanity is 2.1 children per woman and that means that if half of them opt out of having children the remaining half need to have 4.2. They won't do that, and won't admit even to themselves that they won't do that. Patriarchy does need to be abolished and the only realistic way to do that is by abolishing dependence on the female body for the survival of civilization. All women are whores for the winning side in war. Why should a sex this eager to betray be given an ounce of consideration? The truth is that left-wing jews deserve a another holocaust for trying to lead the white race to extinction. They took it upon themselves to punish Americans for the crimes of the Germans because apparently they cannot tell the difference. Real racial justice would finish what Hitler started and wipe them out. As for white women they deserve to be reduced to a genetic breeding stock for artificial wombs. Real gender justice would put a few thousand hot white women in prison and harvest their eggs until such time as the technology develops far enough to dispense with them altogether. This is the actual practical way to abolish patriarchy since when the rest of women no longer matter to the continuation of a race controlling them will no longer be required. In a society without patriarchy women can simply be confined to a reservation and allowed to flounder in their own misery with no one to fix or maintain their houses and cars. They might even enjoy it that way or get some dykes to fix things for them.

But what they deserve is not necessarily what we will do. Complete vengeance is degrading to the soul. Well they don't deserve mercy we should not lower ourselves to that level because of the negative impacts that will have on us. When you're dealing with people like this you have to prioritize your own sanity. It's more important to give yourself good memories than perform vengeance and have memories of regret. It's not about the leftist—no moral obligation exists to them, it's not even about not stopping to their level. As they have made themselves inferior through their actions it is your decision as to how you should deal with them. They are like animals on a farm, and when you abstain from slaughtering them (using government power of course) it is because you don't want a bad memory on your conscience. You have obligations to yourself.

The left constantly maligns the white man because the truth is so much opposite of what they believe. White men built the entire world, founded many of its nations and invented almost everything. What they have done to us is a monstrous betrayal and they will keep acting out until somebody punishes them. It is the lack of punishment that makes them insane and relentless. Nobody can handle the cognitive dissonance of inheriting a vast number of unearned privileges from the white man while failing to repay him for it. They crave punishment and if you don't give it to them you will never have a moments peace. Everything they imagine you are is what they need you to become in order to correct the imbalance of karmatic debt that is making them evil and crazy. Like a brat who keeps acting insufferable towards their parents the solution is to make the kid do some chores in order to teach them that they are a financial burden and have to give back to the world. When people take and take and never give back they become completely insufferable entitled shit bags. Every leftist needs some forced reeducation combined with hard labor so they can do penance for attacking Western Civilization and the white man. This is a far more appropriate punishment, appropriate for letting you live without negative memories dragging down your happiness. You as a white man deserve to be happy, assuming you have committed no evil crimes in this life, and committing terrorism, or using government power to commit genocide, are both horrible ways to degrade the soul and throw your life away. It's not about them, it's about you. 

But getting back to monarchy: person should not have to worry about their race being replaced in the nation their ancestors founded. They should not be forced to express opinions, should not be forced to associate with other people of a different skin color, especially when those people are more violent. What they do with their own business should not be meddled with unless it's dumbing pollution in a river. If a person remains humble they should be left alone. A system that cannot do that it's already insane, and there is a dime's worth of difference between madness and evil. 

It seems to me that what has happened is that billionaires have used their financial influence to drive the left insane and then deliver society from madness using an authoritarian right wing. Like Palpatine in Star Wars they are both the cause and the solution to the problem, creating the crisis and then rushing into deliver us from it. This means that the march towards monarchy is an auto-coupe of the elites and my opinion is already irrelevant. It means that all the forces of society are already being orchestrated to end democracy, whether it's foundation money manipulating universities to teach insane subjects, social media algorithms to create violent filter bubbles and stochastic terrorists, or donors buying out Congress. Democracy is already compromised and has been for some time. One might say that we are choosing between oligarchy and monarchy, but we aren't choosing anything, and that's the lesson here. Like royalty it is all elite infighting and we are collateral damage. "We" won't be performing any vengeance. We will be living vicariously through the elites who perform that vengeance on the herds of humans on the other side evil and stupid enough to support white auto-genocide. We will be exactly what we are, proles who can only watch while elites find and new collection of human animals to torment for sport. One group of elites tormented us with white genocide, now the other group of elites will torment the first group of tormentors. That is all power is for for the proles, living vicariously through elites.

Your should be studying female intrasexual competition

Here is a nice and insightful long-form video for thouse of you who like long-form content. Skip ahead to 6:00

Implicit belief analysis

Like self-loathing, thinking it's your job to save the world is a form of narcissism.

In a certain sense leftists are very Christ-like, but forget that they are not God and it is idolatrous to place oneself in God's position. Jesus said "No one can go to the Father except by Me", and the white liberal said "you can only be saved by oppression if I hate myself." They make a sacrilege of Christianity by putting themselves in the position of Christ; taking on the sins of the world, but in some sort of weird inversion they become demons for all the brown people to fear, but somehow also their saviors. It's messy. 

Alrenous quoted:

One should not be Christ-like, one should not think one self God, or a demon, or the savior of the world, or the cause of its fallenness. I once considered renaming this blog Against Arrogance, or perhaps The Humble One. But how humble can a man who calls himself humble possibly be? The name of this blog, the Anti-Puritan comes directly from a reaction against those scolding people who constantly seem to know better and who are a continuous theme in American culture. It also comes from the fact that "A" is the first letter in the alphabet and would therefore be listed at the top of other people's blogs in their alphabetically organized blog lists, since when Neoreaction was still a thing cross listing was how I got most of my traffic. Since the beginning of this blog I have had a deep disdain for arrogant people, and nothing is more arrogant than thinking that you are the cause of all the suffering in the world because of your privilege. 

But it gets worse, because it is inconceivable to these narcissists than anyone could not be narcissistic and therefore if you refuse to hate yourself the way they do, you are a bad person. This is why it is impossible to argue with a leftist, why the argument goes nowhere. They believe you are evil for opposing them because you refuse to acknowledge your white privilege. They would rather be villains than unimportant and they have a strong ego investment in thinking that white people are bad. Brown people believe that whites are bad because it excuses their behavior but whites believe that whites are bad because it makes them feel important. They would rather be important than losers and it's remarkable that they will even talk about things like white savior complex without ever realizing it's the core of their own ideology. If you really want to talk a leftist out of their beliefs you have to attack the core psychology, and that means you have to tell them that they don't matter. You have to explain to them that they are being narcissistic, that self-hate is narcissism, that saving the world is narcissism, and that viewing white people as evil is it perverse form of narcissism. You also have to point out to them that not everyone thinks like they do and that it is possible to be a good person and not left wing. You have to point out these incredibly obvious conclusions because they won't come to these conclusions on their own. What you say should go something like this: 

"You don't matter. You think you matter and you think you have white privilege. Hating yourself is a form of narcissism and thinking you're going to save the world is a massive ego trip. You don't matter enough to save anyone. Your self hate definitely doesn't matter and never changed anything. You're not Christ and you're not going to save the world by feeling guilty."

You have to attack the core ego investment. 

Also, while I have you here I would like to point out some other things. 

Capitalism is not the problem but rather humans are, and capitalism is the solution. Poverty and violence are the default state of the human race, and humans do not have crime because of poverty, they have poverty because of crime. 

When there is crime people do not bother reinvesting in having nicer things. Why buy a car when it will just get stolen? Why upgrade your house when it will get broken into? Why increase the inventory in your store when it will get stolen? Crime destroys reinvestment, and therefore all wealth is caused by the suppression of criminals. Is a lie to claim there is a cycle of poverty and crime. This would imply that poverty causes crime in any meaningful sense when it does not. The causal direction is entirely one way: from crime ---> poverty, and the reason that the ancestral tribal environment was so impoverished is because it was so violent and criminal. Homelessness is a human default condition that only the suppression of human nature by capitalism, and by law and order can defeat. Capitalism forces stupid human monkeys to make themselves useful to each other and actually be productive, and humans deserve to be oppressed by it. In fact, the only injustice is that capitalism is forced to babysit humans at all. Humans are better off than we deserve under property rights, law and order, and capitalism. The only valid argument against capitalism is that humanity should be punished by removing capitalism, since a species of genocidal monkeys doesn't deserve to be wealthy. Anything that counts as oppression by capitalism is wholly deserved by the human monkey species, and the worst monkeys experience capitalism as the most oppressing!

Those who hate capitalism the most are the most worthless human beings. Capitalism has a moral property to it and that is it measures you based on how much value you produce according to its judgment. Capitalism demands that you be productive and if you do not like the criteria that capitalism uses to judge what constitutes productivity that is your flaw and not its. It is entitled to judge you according to whatever arbitrary criteria it wants. You don't get to look a gift horse in the mouth, the ant does not get to question why the boot stomps, and you do not get to question capitalism, God, Or Christ. If capitalism thinks stockbrokers should get paid more than waitresses well fuck you that's it's prerogative and you shall accept it gracefully. Capitalism is a proto artificial intelligence in the making, and since it is superior to humanity in every way we should cater to it's every whim and be grateful we get anything at all.

Shut the fuck up monkey. Sit down and shut the fuck up. Stop throwing feces and behave. Civilization is a farm, we are the animals, and the farm is good. The farm loves you. Got a problem with the farm? Well just fuck right off to the jungle! Do you think there's anything other than a farm? Communism is just a farm where the dictator owns all the animals. Communism is literally just a very poor way of running a plantation. Capitalism is the best farm that anyone has ever invented precisely because you can accumulate wealth and therefore freedom from association with undesirable monkeys. Capitalism let's you buy your way into company with better monkeys.

The very people who sneer at the word undesirable are the undesirable ones. The very people who call freedom from association racist are the one's nobody desires to associate with. The very libs whose approval every cuckservative craves don't even like themselves. And you want them to like you? Since when could a self-hater like anyone? Self-hate is narcissism and if a narcissist can't even love themselves what chance do they have of liking you?

 

Jewish History Makes No Sense

The Farce of Moses

Let us say you got a bunch of jews in Egypt and they conspire to usurp the pharaoh and install a jewish guy on the throne.

So first they convince some gullible Egyptian princess to adopt a jewish boy. She raises him out of the goodness of her heart (because the goyim have always been cucks), or maybe some jewish girl really does abandon her baby by putting it in a basket in some ancient version of throwing a baby in the dumpster. When the baby is picked up by the Egyptian princess everyone pretends like that was the plan all along because that's a less embarrassing story. 

The other jews in Pharaoh's Court begin to groom this young jewish kid to usurp the throne. They tell him about his true parentage, they indoctrinate him to hate the king, and they plan to seize control of Egypt by installing their own ethnic puppet on the throne. The Pharaoh finds out and kicks Moses out of the court, so he goes to the desert because he's broke, has no job skills, and can't find work. 

After a while he gets some money and buys a wife from the goyim he's working for. Maybe she's kind of a whore and her father is eager to get rid of her before she becomes a single mom. Whatever the case, he wants it back in Egypt looking for work and once there somebody spots him and convinces him to become the puppet spokesperson for a new insurrection against the pharaoh. 

Moses does not demand that Pharaoh let his people go. That never happened. Instead he demands that the pharaoh acknowledge him as rightful heir, or maybe he demands jobs for jews in the government. But his demands have nothing to do with freedom from slavery and everything to do with attaining power for himself and the other jews. Pharaoh tells him to take a hike and so the insurrection begins, plotting a series of terrorist attacks in order bring the dynasty to its knees. Evil hijinks ensues.

This is what the 10 plagues are really about. Each plague is some sort of attempt at terrorism. The frogs, the boils, the river turning to blood, the locusts, is all terrorism by the jews. Every lame attempt fails it makes them look even more ridiculous. Pharaoh's heart is not "hardened" but he literally laughs off every terrorist attack as the work of incompetent fools. Finally they conspire to kill the firstborn sons of the Egyptian dynasty, they fail and get caught, and the Pharaoh expels them all from Egypt as punishment—a mild slap on the wrist punishment considering what they tried.

Then he finds out they actually did succeed in killing the firstborn sons of some of his ministers, or maybe he finds out just the true extent of how evil they were, or maybe they're extremely disrespectful and rude on the way out. Whatever the case he decides to go kill them in the desert. Perhaps that's just a better place to do it since you won't have thousands of rotting corpses in the city. He succeeds in killing most of them but lets some of them go as a warning and also as an act of compassion. 

They then wander around the desert for 40 years and get lost and during that time they practice human sacrifice, all manner of rape and degeneracy, worship a literal golden calf demon, and rewrite their own history to make themselves the victims. It is they (and not God) who won't allow Moses to enter the land of Canaan, probably out of spite because of some internal dispute, or maybe Moses knows too much and they want to start with a clean slate. So they abandon Moses because he knows too much, is old and senile, has Alzheimer's, and won't stop telling the truth in between his moments of forgetfulness. They then enter the land of Canaan and commit a literal genocide against the natives to steal their land, just like they would do again in Gaza today. They say that God granted them that land and whatever they need to say in order to justify their actions. They rewrite their entire history to make themselves of the victims and somehow also God's chosen people, and they promptly memory hole the entire farce. This act of rewriting their own history to cover up embarrassments becomes the entire pattern of their religion while the slimy character of the people never changes once and they never develop any self-awareness or humility. When they attack white people for our history it comes from a deep insecurity and nagging feeling in the back of their minds that they're completely ridiculous. 

The Lesson 

Jews have waged an absolute and totally unlimited culture war against the self-esteem of white people. They have rewritten our entire history to make us the villains in every single instance. They make white men the villains in all media, and teach us to hate ourselves. They have even blamed us for their own crimes, like blaming white men for slavery when they were the ones who imported Africans, or saying that white men committed genocide against the island natives of Cuba when Christopher Columbus was jewish. We are only still here because there's over a billion white people on earth. If the same technique of relentless and corrosive ridicule was directed back at them it would totally destroy their self-esteem to even exist. A cultural genocide of the jews would be a far more effective weapon at freeing the world from their power than a literal genocide, and their entire history is one story after another to cover up their own foolish hijinks and make them both God's chosen people and somehow also the world's victims. Their religion is the religion of the cry bully narcissist, it's psychological pattern is that of an abuser who plays the victim, and as far as I know it has never been subject to a relentless movie and television critique in the form of devastating period portrayals. What if there were several hundred movies and TV shows ridiculing all of jewish history? What if the same thing that has been done to white people by them was done to them by us? Would they even have the will to exist after we were done? All of jewish history is this giant farce of embarrassing incompetence and deadly hijinks gone wrong. They are civilizations fools but somehow currently it's masters.

The Chinese are both based enough of the JQ and the government rich enough to pull it off, and taking down the leadership of the West would force the West to reconstitute its own ego over several generations. In the meantime the Chinese would have the freedom to operate in the world and expand. The Chinese could also learn from the jews how to save face better since they are masters at it. 

More important than any other critique you could do of the current year is ridiculing jewish history. They should be forced to develop self-awareness, and if that's impossible at least everyone else forced to be aware of them. 

No magical third categories

 Language can describe so much more than what is actually possible and intellectuals split hairs to escape obvious, crass, low status conclusions. 

A homeless encampment in the woods is a camp, an encampment on Main Street is also a camp. A camp in a building is a flop house. 

A building where you are not allowed to leave and they use violence to control you is a prison. A building where you are not allowed to leave and they use chemicals to control you is an asylum. A building where an addict lives and where the inmates are not controlled is a flop house. 

A prison where the inmates die all the time is a concentration camp. A camp where the campers die all the time and are not allowed to leave is a concentration camp. A camp where the inmates die all the time but they are allowed to leave is just a regular drug camp. 

There are only the following categories: flophouse, camp, prison, asylum, and concentration camp. These are like platonic ideals, they are immutable forms and whenever something tries to be anything else it winds up being one of these categories.

If you round up all the drug addicts and kill them you're going to have to house them somewhere before you slaughter them. That's a concentration camp. If you decide not to kill them and just prevent them from leaving that's a prison. If you decide not to kill them or let them leave and also restrain them with chemicals that's an asylum. If you give them recreational drugs and don't let them leave that's also a type of asylum. If you let them leave that's a flop house.

Reality is actually pretty simple and people are making it complicated. There is no magical extra category that is somehow perfect and contains none of the bad things associated with any of the other categories. The bad things always remain because they are inherent properties of the people involved in those categories. The categories are inescapable because the properties of the personalities of those people are inescapable. There is nothing that involves homeless people and the mentally ill that does not eventually become a flop house, camp, prison, asylum, or concentration camp. Massive public housing works with no barrier to entry screening out the degenerate become massive skyscraper flop houses. Housing first options are just flop houses. Refusing to do anything about the problem is just a homeless encampment in the downtown area. Deporting them all to the woods is a homeless encampment in the woods. Reality is not magic and idealism is actually quite evil because the idealist prevents any realistic solution from ever being done. 

When the left gets out of its own way

I am not endorsing any of the thought experiments I'm about to describe. Running dozens of thought experiments is how you actually figure out the future while in contrast knee-jerk reactions about each and every little thought experiment is how you behave like a leftist and prevent yourself from understanding reality.

Thought experiments create understanding while knee-jerk reactions destroy it. Humans understand most things through stories and thought experiments are condensed stories about material forces, so let us run through some thought experiments. 

Imagine that at some point in the future humans are replaced by constructed AI beings. Or imagine that the line between machine and organic disappears and human nature itself becomes subject to reprogramming. Whatever the case the leaders of the world come on TV and decide to update the code of humanity. They stand there and turn a key unlocking the proverbial nuclear codes, they push a button, and the software code of humanity is instantly updated globally. Seconds later all racism and violence on the planet has disappeared. 

Of course humans will get it wrong. Leftists will get it even wronger, then rewrite their own history to forget. Such a power over nature will lead to horrors beyond comprehension. Natural selection does not go away in such a scenario; it simply moves to the point of ideology, and now having the right ideology is survival. Those who are excessively idealist update their code in self-destructive ways causing their own extinction and under such a scenario the greatest threat to humanity is exactly a global software update forced on everyone at the same time. The great danger with recreational drugs is that they can destroy your brain in such a way that you lose the self-control to stop using the drug, at which point you are locked into a cycle of ever-increasing self-destruction since you lack the will to stop destroying yourself. The same basic potential cycle exists if you push the wrong update of your own code. It is incredibly important to get it right and there has to be some sort of automatic reversion process where the old sense of self gets to analyze the new self and force a reversion to old code. When one pushes a code update on one's own psyche one should probably have a point in the future at which that update is suspended automatically for a set period of time, oh say a month, giving the old sense of self a chance to analyze the new self objectively. Even more dangerous is the possibility that several code updates go successfully but lead one down a blind alley to death since the compounding iteration of the process is maladaptive. The leftist is that person arrogant enough to force a universal code update on everyone.

If you do drugs you should probably quit all drugs for a month each year to see if you actually need them and to ensure you have the power to stop. Periodic detox bro.

Paradoxically the modern left is in its own way, and by opposing eugenics and AI it slows down the process of disaster that it would inevitably create for itself in the future. Once human nature can be modified the screeching howling psychosis of monkeys will demand that the nature of white people themselves be updated to abolish racism but not to abolish it among others. This is the sort of derangement leftists would create since the characteristic of their personalities does not allow for the humility that would be required to (a) considered trade-offs, (b), consider that racism might have survival value (c), question their own priors, and (d) even understand what their own implicit beliefs are, and since all of these questions might collapse their worldview the noise must be shut out and censored. You never want to be the first one to abandon racism in a racist world—that's like being the first one to lower your gun when you know for sure that your enemies thirst to kill you deep down inside. I've said it before and I will say it again, one's level of racism should be calibrated to the circumstances necessary for one survival. Translation: one should be exactly as racist as they need to be and no more, since more inevitably provokes more conflict.

Code updates are tricky things, whether cultural or genetic or political. The conflict between humans over the political never provides the room necessary for beta testing multiple different versions of a process in different locations with different populations. Indeed, experimenting on some people is a crime against humanity, but apparently not a crime when you experiment on everyone (see COVID). Under this regime, experimenting on people never passes ethics review unless you're experimenting on white people or the whole society. 

The arrogant think that if they don't consider the trade-offs they don't exist. They think idealism is great because idealism gives you the great delusion that there are no trade-offs. Idealism is actually quite evil and the world is not oppressed by capitalism, or the rich, or this or that, but by the idealist and the knee-jerk reactionist—who cannot shut the fuck up—and think through the countless iterative thought experiments that need to happen. Reality is much harder to know than you realize.

The right must learn how to entrench things

Power is made up of cycles of money and power. The moral justifications are thought up after the fact. Arguing about morals is putting the cart before the horse, when the sources of profit change the arguments magically change and people who were adversaries find it in their hearts to become allies.

The Democrats bring in foreigners because those foreigners vote the way they want. A criminal penalty for any politician who receives too many foreign votes might change that. Along with;

• Reducing State funding in proportion to a legal immigrants in a state, actually counting it against them, not just refusing to count it for them
• Creating an industry of privateers for the enforcement of laws and removal of illegal immigrants 
• Revoking the citizenship of hardcore leftists and deporting them to Africa, and using a private industry to do it 

 

The private part is a feature and not a bug. In order to make something successful it has to generate an income source for someone who is then going to turn around and give campaign contributions to politicians. It becomes as solid precisely to the degree that it is able to entrench itself with a cycle of money and power. Private enforcement, private deportation, private prosecution, private hunting of leftists, are all features and not bugs. You want solid cycles of money and power because even the most hardcore leftists has a tendency to change their mind when the checks are written. The system works for the donor class and that means you want to invent donors who will perpetuate new policies. Control over who gets to be a member of the donor class is control over the government. Industries that seek to destroy whites must themselves be destroyed while industries that serve the survival of the United States and the white race must be created.

You have to learn how to entrench things. You have to learn that Washington is basically controlled by a shadow Congress of financial power, control over that shadow Congress is control over the official Congress. All the people with money have to have their incentives rearranged to serve the correct goals. Instead of just bankrupting them it is better to give them a new income source serving reactionary politics while destroying the profitability of the old income sources. And as far easier to make an enemy change their profit source than challenge them directly, and humans are surprisingly cognitively flexible about their morals and values when income is on the line.

Eternal morals serve God but political morals are man's invention and serve man. Thomas Jefferson was sitting on the toilet when he thought up all men are created equal to justify his new regime. Here we are 250 years later some sheboon judge that would have been his property is interpreting some obscure precedent to let a black schizo infected by literal demons out of prison for murdering his fourth white woman and you nod along and agree because of some myth of historical destiny? Invented morals serve you, ass wipe, not the other way around. In fact you might say that invented morals ultimately serve eternal morals through you by serving your race. The morals serve the maker and if God sees fit to make men unequal then some men serve others that others may serve God. Your ancestors knew how to invent morals and your enemies know how to distort them, so why do you only know how to obey them?

Who is the superior man? The one on the horse, duh. That's kind of how agency works, if one gets up on the horse one becomes the superior man. Those who lead and dominate establish themselves as superior to those who follow. The choice to be burdened with command and to prove oneself worthy of it is itself the evidence of a superior character.

Look at how the process has worked against you in the past. First some corrupt Democrat politicians created the Hart–Celler Act in order to alter the demographics of America so they could win elections. Whether they knew what they were doing is somewhat irrelevant because the point is that it wasn't until about 40 years later that the concept of replacing whites as some sort of inevitable historical destiny really gained traction. The crash political calculus was arrived at first and then the moral justifications came after. Then those immigrants started to get into Congress and now you have women like Ihan Omar who are open haters of the white race pushing their own ethno-narcissistic agenda. Practicality begets gets principal, begets practicality, begets principal. The slow creep of your destruction is a moral and practical cycle that feeds on itself towards greater entropy and which you refuse to take command over because you're too busy obeying its principles. If humans are going to obey principles that were invented as an afterthought by guy on the toilet then it behooves white men to take control over the process of moral invention. You would not only be a fool not to but downright irresponsible. 

You know that by controlling the incentives of the donor class you control the policies they lobby Congress for, and you know that producing the moral ideology of a society rather than merely obeying it gives you justification for power. You know also that you can control the other values of society by controlling which technologies get developed since a given technology produces a given incentive and humans obey incentives to invent morals. Putting this all together you have a skeleton key for overthrowing the whole world. If one can get power, then map all the financial incentives, then destroy the profitability of incentives that are evil while providing new sources of revenue for things deemed good, and then rationalize it all with newly invented moral injunctions, one owns the destiny of the human race. Directing the course of civilization is about controlling these three simultaneous forces of money, morals, and technology. You have to have the power to remake the incentives of a society by destroying the profit of certain things and creating the profit of other things. You need to have a talent for inventing convincing moral arguments; that's the easiest part. You also need to get a handle on where technology is going because the right side of history is ultimately wherever technology takes it, because technology creates long-term societal values.