“It’s like, ‘What the hell is going on?’ It will be hundreds of years before some wise person can assess what happened to the English speaking world. You know 20 years into the 21st century but all at once they decided to kill themselves and a lot of other people on the way out. It is really amazing.”
Tucker Carlson
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2024/11/26/tucker_carlson_theres_nothing_shallower_dumber_more_repetitive_more_controlled_or_less_informative_than_cable_news.html
40 minute mark
It really doesn’t take that much wisdom to figure out or to assess.
1.) All those who hate me love death. What is happening to the English speaking world is that God has turned us over and in turning us over we delight in suicide.
2.) Dabney recognized way back in the 19th century that if tyrannical control is what a Government desires then that Government must rid themselves of white people. The current NWO government in the US wants total control and so the NWO US government is killing white people both via overt means like poisoning us to death with the food that they put on the shelves or as by vaccines and by covert means like breeding our gene pool out of existence.
3.) There is a desire to create a New World Order where all colors bleed into one. In order to do that then the English speaking world must be cut down to size. The New World Order is global Marxism and Marxism must always pursue a lowest common denominator social order. The English speaking people are too high of a social order and so the English speaking Marxist globalist will cut the English speaking world down to size.
“2.) Dabney recognized way back in the 19th century that if tyrannical control is what a Government desires then that Government must rid themselves of white people.”
This Dabney could have learned from Aristotle, who had explained, in his dry academic language, that tyrannical rulers cannot stand too proud or independent-minded people as their subjects:
https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0058%3Abook%3D5%3Asection%3D1313b
“Also the things that occur in connection with the final form of democracy7 are all favorable to tyranny—dominance of women in the homes, in order that they may carry abroad reports against the men, and lack of discipline among the slaves, for the same reason; for slaves and women do not plot against tyrants and also, if they prosper under tyrannies, must feel well-disposed to them, and to democracies as well (or the common people also wishes to be sole ruler).
…
And it is a mark of a tyrant to dislike anyone that is proud or free-spirited; for the tyrant claims for himself alone the right to bear that character, and the man who meets his pride with pride and shows a free spirit robs tyranny of its superiority and position of mastery; tyrants therefore hate the proud as undermining their authority. And it is a mark of a tyrant to have men of foreign extraction rather than citizens as guests at table and companions, feeling that citizens are hostile but strangers make no claim against him.2”
The Oriental despots could even prefer the eunuchs as their functionaries – men who had literally had their nuts cut off, and thus could not become rivals of their master.
One could argue that Thomas Hobbes, the great pioneer of Leviathan-state ideology in modern times, was like unblushingly following Aristotle’s description of tyranny as if it were prescription (like the quip says, “Orwell’s 1984 was not an instruction manual!”):
https://books.google.fi/books?id=mTdUtsbybqkC&lpg=PP1&hl=fi&pg=PA74#v=onepage&q&f=false
“The proud – those who consider themselves superior to others, those who glory over others, and demand to be honoured – are a perennial threat to stable government, which requires their expulsion from the arena of politics altogether so that they can do no harm to the body politic. It might be God who humbles the proud, according to the text of the Magnificat, but Hobbes assigns this task to the secular sovereign.”
In this piece written in 1917, the ex-president Teddy Roosevelt (who was greatly concerned with the WASP “race suicide”) could see writing on the wall for any race that would adopt the Socialist cradle-to-grave welfare system, and the moral anarchy implicitly connected to such a system:
https://archive.org/details/foesofourownhous01roos/page/164/mode/2up?view=theater
“Professor Carl Pearson, a leading English Socialist, states their position exactly: “The sex relation of the future will not be regarded as a union for the birth of children, but as the closest form of friendship between man and woman. It will be accompanied by no child bearing or rearing, or by this in a much more limited number than at present. With the sex relationship, so long as it does not result in children, we hold that the state in the future will in no wise interfere, but when it does result in children, then the state will have a right to interfere.” He then goes on to point out that in order to save the woman from, “economic dependence” upon the father of her children, the children will be raised at the expense of the state; the usual plan being to have huge buildings like foundling asylums.
Mr. Pearson is a scientific man who, in his own realm, is worthy of serious heed, and the above quotation states in naked form just what logical scientific Socialism would really come to. Aside from its thoroughly repulsive quality, it ought not to be necessary to point out that the condition of affairs aimed at would in actual practice bring about the destruction of the race within at most a couple of generations; and such destruction would be heartily to be desired for any race of such infamous character as to tolerate such a system.”
“What people in all places have to do is to limit the number of birthrates and promote mixed marriages (between different races). This aims to create a single race in a world which will be directed by a central authority.”
G. Brock Chisholm, first Director of the World Health Organization (OMS)
“Genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation. … It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves.”
Raphael Lemkin