The History Channel is advertising a program with the words “All humans are 99.9% identical.” They are also 99.5% identical in other articles, equally Politically Correct.

Bill Clinton said 99.99%, and he wouldn’t lie.

This is the latest One Sentence Truth about race. Fifty years ago, I read in a COMIC BOOK that “scientists have proven that all races are equal in inherited abilities.” The illustration showed an Oriental, a white and a black breaking the tape in a FOOT RACE at the same moment. Now that we have SEEN other races in action the idea that all races run at the same speed would get you institutionalized.

But the One Sentence Truth changes from month to month:

All races have equal innate IQ.

Race is a myth.

Race is a social construct.

All races are 99.9999% identical.

All of which means the white race should disappear.

Please note that the History Channels One Sentence Truth says that ALL PEOPLE are 99.9% identical. This means geniuses, idiots, dwarfs, giants, ugly and beautiful, healthy and congenitally doomed to die as children.

If you think about it’s not a very comforting thought. But nobody ever THINKS about One Sentence Truth. You can get arrested for doing that.

Sherwood Forest is gone. All the giant forests of Medieval England are either gone or are midget versions of their former selves. What saved the forests was coal and oil.

If we had not progressed beyond the use of wood for every new industry every tree would have been sacrificed. That is what happened on Easter Island, what became the Sahara Desert, in Central America and in thousands of other places.

In other words, as usual, the Guilt People have it dead wrong. We all took it for granted that a stagnant world destroys itself. As you run out of one resource like wood or oil you develop new ones. But this is not done by stagnation in a world planned for stagnation by some Wordist priest.

The environmentalist establishment today is exactly like the priests who said masses to stop the Plague. We cannot deal with any of the crises they make their living on by shouting out guilt about technology and breeding Ethiopian children. The last people in the world who could deal with global warming are Ethiopians.

Dave’s article below shows the fundamental difference between life-thinking and death thinking. On the one side there stands the Guilty Man, whose only aim is to be sterile and miserable. On the other hand is the man who demands human beauty, fecundity, and a march to the stars and beyond.

It is hard to believe that a generation ago we were talking about space colonization and comparing the economic growth rates of country. Today all the talk is about how we can make up for our sins by going back to the stone age. Our ideal today is the non-carbon producing, Ethiopian, almost the only group on earth who are actually managing to STARVE.

Our ideal today is the man who “lives with nature,” which is code for being an animal himself. There is absolutely no difference between the loving praise heaped on stagnant stone-age men today and that heaped on animals.

This was called socialism, now it is called environmentalism, but it used to be called Christianity.

There were two versions of the story of Faust. One was the Medieval on in which Faust wanted more knowledge and sold his soul for it. It ends with him torn to pieces and his soul screaming in Hell.

Goethe’s Faust has Faust bound for Hell after his search for knowledge and one moment’s happiness, two things that Medieval “Christianity” hated. At the last moment the angels come and chorus, “A man who tries his best, him can we save:”

“Der der strebend sich bemueht, den koennen wir erloesen.”

In other words a German saw Faust’s desperate pursuit of happiness and of knowledge to be good, the opposite of damnable.

The Mantra goes with a general attitude of good, of humanness. Its opponents is at best Medieval and fundamentally stone age.

Race mixing looks ugly and has bad results. These are the two things the Guilty Man loves. As Dave says, the Guilty Man Mantra is Sacrifice. It is giving your neighbors and future generations permanent sterility and changelessness. It is evil.

We used to have a saying when I was in college: “Every freshman is a socialist and an atheist.”

Like all such sayings, it was not literally true, but it contained a basic observation. Lots of kids getting away from their parents were completely knocked over by their first exposure to professors, nearly all of whom were socialist and atheist.

Many, many freshmen instantly concluded that they had gone from Provincialism, meaning the views they were raised with, to True Sophistication, the ideas of Professors, like Hillary Clinton. But, from the saying above, you can see that most of us grew out of this.

In fact, most people are aware of this on some level. That is why anti-whites react so viciously to my term Mommy Professor. I don’t bother to explain it. They know what I am talking about. A kid goes from Mommy to Mommy Professor and actually BELIEVES that Mommy Professor is completely unbiased, Realistic, and above all, Intellectual.

Childish minds react exactly the same way to any kind of guru. This happens so routinely that the mere use of the term Mommy Professor is resented bitterly.

One of the big arguments for universalism is how much alike the Great Religions are. But if you recognize the disease of Wordism and you want to get back to actual concepts of Christ or Buddha or mohammed, these “common” growths of the institutions that grew up in their names if the first thing you must jettison.

As one commenter said, I seem to love Christ and hate Christianity.

I see Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism as wordist institutions that grew up after Jesus, Buddha and Mohammed. They are, in the worst sense of the word, growths, like cancer.

And they are, indeed, very much alike. The laws which govern the survival of any institution are very much alike. So Christianity was very much at home with Roman slavery and is very much at home with etting rid of the white race today. That’s how institutions are.

With long, long Commentaries and so forth what Christ or Buddha actually said becomes incrusted with the same wordist effluvia.

It is precisely by getting rid of “what the Great Faiths have in common” that one can begin to get back to the message. Wordism is one of our BASICS. Let’s USE it.

I just said that the blacks were almost certainly right that Obama’s win would have been far greater had he been white. That is heresy for conservatives, but am anti-liberal, not conservative. The only purpose “conservatives” have is to be a harmless opposition .

I’m not harmless. So let me agree with the liberals on another point they constantly make which every professional conservative denies:

It’s racial.

For National Review, True Western Civilization consists of a sterile pedophile in a dress shouting at the ceiling in a dead language. That is the kind of “opposition” the establishment thrives on.

In the broadest sense the opposition is as sterile as the establishment. Political Correctness offer us the future of an ant colony. Conservatives differ with them only in the nature of the ants they want.

Political Correctness sees a brown stagnant future where mankind, each one of which is a carbon emitter, will fit in with the stagnant environment.

National Review sees a future Latin America, where a racially mixed population concentrates on going to church and living according to the dictates of a sterile ruling class.

In both cases one’s society is dedicated to guilt. Young people can spend their lives trying to appease God for their Original Sin or they can spend their lives being sterile to keep down their carbon emissions. In both case they are Born in Sin and deserve less than nothing.

Liberals and conservatives insist that any other scenario smacks of Racism. They are perfectly correct. This all started with white self-hatred.

Once you learn self-hatred, it spreads to the rest of your thinking.

Conservatives now insist they are far more anti-white than liberals. They are certainly more DESPERATELY anti-white. They want all humans to be guilty of being human. Political Correctness rests on the same foundation.

The bewildering and contradictory set of groups that are listed as “conservative” is easily explained.

Any group that opposes established liberal doctrine is defined as conservative. They can be libertarian and militantly atheist like Ayn Rand’s Objectivist or they can be fanatically theocratic, like Islamic militants. They can be fundamental Protestant or Tom Fleming’s total papists. All are defined as conservative or rightist.

One of the funniest examples of this was when the media started declaring old-line Stalinists in Russia as “right-wingers.”

As usual, conservatives bitched about the people they had fought almost alone to the death being defined as belonging to conservatism, but they MISSED the critical point they could have made from it.

One thing that the media let slip here was that Stalinists were now conservatives because old Communism was no longer as a part of “progressivism.”

Such is the cost of failure.

The one thing the established religion monomaniacally hides if the obvious fact that there IS “an established point of view.” There is absolutely no other way to explain the sudden change of Marxist-Leninists to conservatives except by the fact that they no longer fitted into the ESTABLISHED “progressive” framework.

Conservatives did not make that point. Conservatives did not even REALIZE that point.

That is why conservatives are so useful to the establishment. They NEVER see the POINT.

I have said many times that I am the least conservative person you are ever likely to meet. The MOST conservative people you could possibly meet make the editorial board of the New York Times.

They like the way things are going. The kept opposition thy call conservative represent a few bumps on the road, and very small bumps at that, as we can see from the 1994 Contract With America and the results of the Republican Ascendancy until it totally collapsed in 2008.

In the real world, “conservatism” is a way to make a living. Professional conservative pimps like this writer was spend most of their time finding out what the establishment opposes and then getting checks from people who want to object to it. Their only function is to provide people who don’t like the way things are going with the illusion that they are opposing it.

That is reality I find it very heard to get across.

It is the ONLY important reality. To get anywhere, you have to start with hard reality.

Not with wise-sounding analyses of what was just said in the newspaper, but with time and hard thought dedicated to the real world you are trying to redirect.

Anti-whites are always spouting about how massive immigration and assimilation demanded of ALL white countries and ONLY white countries is just Freedom.

I am really ticked off at my comrades for NEVER telling the truth about this.

The same anti-white who spouts this libertarian nonsense knows very well that free speech does not apply to US, but I am STILL waiting for us to SAY so every time this crap appears.

They keep saying we can live in our own bunkers if we want to. Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth, it is forbidden for us to do so.

But no one points this out.

As O’Reilly said, “There should be no all-white ANYTHING in America.”

At least O’Reilly SAYS it. That’s more than my comrades on SF do.

For all their “diversity” talk, the fact is that all-white areas are forbidden because people will MOVE there. If we had freedom of choice integration would be doomed in the long term.

That is the justification for our entire set of laws, the ones O’Reilly is all for and states so clearly. Why do my comrades let the anti-whites get away with this “Freedom” crap?