I used to think homosexuality posed no danger, and thus decidedly did not care about what homosexuals did or didn’t do in the privacy of their bedrooms. But later at the same time that I started to lose my more liberal and untrue beliefs on race. And came over to the “wrong and bad side” of the human biodiversity argument. I learned a lot about the homosexual community as well.
One of the most difficult things I came to realise is that there are clear negative externalities to having homosexuals in your civilization. One example would be their higher propensity to paedophilia which, in a sense, has the liberal solution of the criminal justice system. However there are other externalities that don’t really have liberal solutions at all, like their increased likelihood of being infected with, and spreading off, (new) strains of STD’s. There are plenty of possible scenario’s where this behaviour could endanger a normal heterosexual couple in a way that would not leave the gay prosecutable for a crime of any kind in a liberal society. So what are we to do? Exchange some of the liberty of a minority of gay people for the safety of the majority of heterosexual people by forcing homosexuals to change their behaviour? Increasingly I’ve come to believe that: “yes the safety and comfort of the larger whole is more valuable than the liberty of this minority”.
This is a common Alt-Right talking-point, another Alt-Right talking-point would be: Ethnonationalism for everybody it is usually meant in two ways, first of all we mean to say that all these other people invading us already have their own home-countries that are explicitly theirs. “Why does Erdogan try to motivate Turks in the Netherlands to out-breed the native Dutch? Isn’t Turkey already there for the Turks, can’t us Dutch just have our own home-country?” And secondly it is meant as “ok, ok, if you just leave us alone we won’t be imperialist again, pinky promise!” However, I recently came upon an argument against this lack of imperialism on the part of whites. And that would be environmentalism.
Firstly, I want to go through some arguments that aren’t good enough for me to break the sovereignty of another nation state though. Some examples would be: extreme hunger, civil war, etc, governments shouldn’t intervene in these issues in another nation. Especially not in those nations of a completely different race. An example of how badly this usually ends, would be the incredibly subsidised export of grains from the European Union to Kenya. For two reasons, firstly it crushes the possibility of any local agricultural industry to come into existence. Secondly, partly thanks to our great supply of cheap food and healthcare the Kenyans are breeding like rabbits. And most certainly will at some point out-breed our capacity to take care of them, especially in the context of an economic downturn, thus guaranteeing large scale starvation and civil strive at some point in the future of Kenya. Better cut the umbilical cord now, and have a little starvation today, rather than much more in forty or fifty years. Of course, although I may wish they behaved differently, none of this applies to private entities.
So after almost making a case for no-contact with anything less developed than the second world. I am going to make the case for what could best be summarised as the white man’s burden to hug trees. Data shows that just about nobody except for the white man seems to care about the long term effects of their behaviour on the environment or the continued existence of mankind. Some examples would be how 95% of the plastic soup in our oceans has it’s origin from 10 rivers, none of which flow out of white countries. Another example would be the ease with which antibiotics are prescribed in India making them the origin of many brand new
antimicrobially resistant strains of disease. Or lastly the nearly unquantifiable damage the Chinese are doing to their soil, water and air that will almost certainly have its externalities in Europe. Us whites may not be entirely free of blame either, but on a per capita basis the difference is incomparable.
Imagine a world in which we pinky promise to no longer interfere outside our white territory. How long would it take until not a single elephant, giraffe or lion would be left on the African continent? A week? A month? A year? And that would be a very subtle matter. Plastic soup growth would only increase in speed, until the economies of the countries of their origin would give in due to the absence of white engineers, business owners and farmers. Nevertheless imagine the amount of damage that could be done before sub-Saharan Africa collapsed back to a hunter gatherer state.
So, what alternatives do we have but to intervene? Should we just send some white engineers out to the different river mouths of those extra polluting rivers. With this message: “listen you Indians/Africans you clearly can’t take care of this yourself, we white men will be taking over here.” To promptly built some river cleaning installation and start recycling the plastic and other possible junk. Or should we do nothing and just keep trying to fix these problems at their ultimate effect rather than their source. Or as a Dutch proverb would summarize, mopping up the floor without also turning off the faucet.