Sunday, November 15, 2015

White Whateverists: Know Your Greatest Enemy

When it comes to the Islamic Invasion of Europe in the 21st Century, White people have three enemies, as detailed in the pictures below:

1) The Migrants


2) The Jews

3) White Traitors

Now, imagine you had the power to wish one of these three groups to be transported to the oxygen-less surface of the moon. Which one do you pick? No cheating and choosing more than one group, and no wishing for more wishes! Your answer will reveal what type of White Whateverist you are:

Group 1: Would wish the Migrants to the moon, and leave behind the Jews and White Traitors.
Group 2: Would wish the Jews to the moon, and leave behind the Migrants and White Traitors.
Group 3: Would wish the White Traitors to the moon, and leave behind the Migrants and the Jews.

I really recommend that you use this test when you visit any White Whateverist website. Try to imagine how the owner of that site would answer. In fact, I would like every White Whateverist to take this test and include their answer at the end of each comment, post, article, or video they produce. Think of how quickly we could cut through so much intellectual squabbling and posturing if we knew how the other person answered! Think of how cleanly we could delineate positions among ourselves, and thereby prevent erroneously labeling ourselves part of the same struggle. This is because the question not only lets you know who that person blames for the Death of The West, but also tells you how that person thinks s/he could Resurrect The West.

I suggest to you that White Whateverists are wasting more energy trying to wrangle their disparate approaches together under one tent, then they ever expend simply taking their personal approach and paddling their enemy's backside with it. The result is that countless hours are wasted arguing the approach "we" should take, when there really is no "we" in the first place. The result is that countless more hours are wasted with one group blaming the failure of their approach on the mere existence of another approach, when in fact none of the approaches is being brought into the real world in a substantive way.  The result is that we end up struggling with each other over how something should be done and not on actually doing something - anything! - that will take the struggle to the chosen enemy. And finally, the result is that by making all three of these groups "our" enemies, we unite them together against "us", when, as previously mentioned, there is no "us" in the first place because we have fundamentally different outlooks on the root cause of Western Death.

If you will please indulge me, I have one last analogy on this topic today -

Imagine a caravan of White settlers traveling West. They have crossed a wide desert and arrived at the last stretch of wilderness before their destination. Before them, a swamp, a mountain pass, and a plain block the way forward. A furious debate rages among the settlers, because their leader and guide blew his brains out in a bunker ... er, got hit in the head with a tomahawk, and no one can agree what to do next.

Group 1: The swamp is a quagmire! It will take forever to get through and the wildlife is hostile!
Group 2: Yes, but there will be fish and berries and game, and we won't starve.


Group 2: The mountains are barren and cold, we could starve or freeze!
Group 3: Yes, but there is no wildlife and no natives to harass us.

Group 3: The plains are covered with hostile natives who will attack us at every turn!
Group 1: Yes, but the land itself will not oppose our crossing.

Unpopular Humorist / Pioneer: Why not split up and take separate routes?
Groups 1-3: We can't do that, we have to remain united or we won't make it!


Unpopular Humorist / Pioneer: But we aren't united, otherwise we would already be moving forward together.
Groups 1-3: Now is the time for ideas, not action! Anyone who calls for action is an obvious agent provocateur.

Unpopular Humorist / Pioneer: But if we stay in the desert much longer, we will die of thirst.
Groups 1-3: Defeatist! Who asked you anyway?

Later that same Movement ...

Damn those Jooz for making the desert dry!

11 comments:

  1. Groups 1 and 3 are so massive that their presence on the lunar surface would cause extreme tides and weather possibly leading to an extinction level event. Therefore group 2 must go.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ha! Good one, but I fail to see the downside of human extinction. =D

      Delete
  2. The best choice is always gas the kikes
    The muzzie terrorists are no match for the viking nords or tough Russians
    The Shitskin niggers can be dealt with by closing borders and deporting all apes to Africa
    Faggot liberals can also GTFO

    problem solved

    According to DS trump is our saviour

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm pretty sure their trinity of salvation over there is Putin (Father), Trump (Son), and Interracial Cuckold Porn (Unholy Ghost).

      Delete
    2. You are forgetting chuck johnson
      A.A s ginger butt buddy
      A.A is also a big fan of the whore tila tequila
      The feud with ramzpaul was dumb,ramzpaul could have finished A.A if he wanted to

      Delete
  3. fuck you all, racism-nazi scum

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. HA! Made you hate! I win.

      You could at least have told us which group you belong to, so we could wish you to the moon. From your poor grammar, I would say group 1. But given your knee-jerk association of White racial awareness with Nazism, I would say group 2. Then again, group 3 is also obsessed with Nazis as the epitome of evil, and this group is getting dumber by the year, which would explain aforementioned poor grammar.

      Delete
  4. I know we are only supposed to pick one, but they will all have to be dealt with if we are going to survive. I'm done trying to figure out who's primarily responsible. By the time anyone figures out bears the most blame all three will have had their way with us. Even if by some miracle someone actually happens to figure it out it would still be ineffective as focusing exclusively on one group would effectively leave the others with open opportunity to do as they wish to us.
    The correct answer is they are all our enemies and anyone who tells you otherwise is an enemy.

    (By the way even alt-righters have a hard time with this one. I see a lot of it on their sites as well. They also like to accuse anyone who points out we aren't going to be allowed a peaceful solution to our survival and/or asking our enemies for permission to exist isn't a viable option of being agent provocateurs or federal agents.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello William,

      I certainly won't fault you for thinking outside the box of this little game. White people have a great capacity for independent thought, even though the masses of them choose not to utilize that talent.

      My concern is that White Whateverism is fractured into small groups of people who spend most of their time thinking about the problem, and when it comes time to do something, they would prefer to debate other White Whateverist groups, rather than apply their conclusions against their chosen enemy/enemies. This desire to assemble in a circus tent before any action is taken has manifested itself as thousand pup tents with delusions of grandeur, and creepy, cult-like invitations at the door: "become who we are". And guess who is being invited inside? Why some of the people that are in the three potentially moon-bound groups described above.

      Delete
  5. I figured that was the point of your article. That there isn't a correct answer, if you think it's A then deal with A, if you think it's B then deal with B. Just stop bickering about it.
    The point I was trying to make is that recognizing all these groups are threats to us and that they will all have to be dealt with would possibly be an effective way to put an end to the constant infighting as well. I can speak from personal experience. Now that I recognize all three groups are our enemies I no longer waste my time concerning myself with who is ultimately to blame, as it is entirely irrelevant to our survival.

    ReplyDelete