The New Tribe: Profuse Proliferation

TNTFrontFrom: The New Tribe: Profuse Proliferation

Over­whelm­ing the Planet

The pur­pose of life has undoubtably been stu­diously pon­dered over and debated since man’s cere­bral cor­tex first coerced him into think­ing sen­tiently about him­self and his place and sta­tus in the wider envi­ron­men­tal matrix. Before even this momen­tous par­a­digm shift in human evo­lu­tion, the bio­log­i­cal antecedents of Homo sapi­ens engaged in pro­cre­ation with­out con­sciously com­put­ing the longterm ram­i­fi­ca­tions or sig­nif­i­cance of their actions. We can state, with the utmost con­fi­dence, that the impulse to breed is a hered­i­tary instinct present in all fauna. Ani­mals which do not or can­not repro­duce them­selves are, it can be sur­mised, no longer with us.

The Chris­t­ian holy book acknowl­edges pro­cre­ation as a divine task and intro­duces an early, syn­er­gic con­cept of an infi­nite man – capa­ble of prop­a­gated both the human species and the mes­sage of his immor­tal deity – and man as the stew­ard of the planet:

“And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruit­ful, and mul­ti­ply, and replen­ish the earth, and sub­due it: and have domin­ion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every liv­ing thing that moveth upon the earth.“[1]

It is prob­a­ble that a reli­gious cult or sect which pro­scribed sex and fecun­dity, or aspired to depress these biotic com­pul­sions, would not have per­sisted for more than a sin­gle gen­er­a­tion. It is there­fore an incon­testable tru­ism that sir­ing off­spring is of piv­otal impor­tance to liv­ing organisms.

In rela­tion to ‘higher’ life­forms, and humans in par­tic­u­lar, the promi­nence of repro­duc­tion is no less sig­nif­i­cant, and yet when choice (pre­sum­ably a reper­cus­sion of an unusu­ally robust and over­ac­tive frontal lobe) is intro­duced into the exis­ten­tial expe­ri­ence, we, espe­cially those cat­e­gorised as Homo sapi­ens sapi­ens, and more specif­i­cally, White/​Aryan sub­di­vi­sions, have been found sorely want­ing of late.

Oswald Spen­gler adeptly elu­ci­dated the self-​imposed sui­cide of the Occi­dent in his impres­sive reflec­tion on the diminu­tion of our race. From The Decline of the West:

“When the ordi­nary thought of a highly cul­ti­vated peo­ple begins to regard ‘hav­ing chil­dren’ as a ques­tion of pro’s and con’s, the great turning-​point has come. For Nature knows noth­ing of pro’s and con’s.”[2]

Spengler’s “great turn­ing point” is, of course, the falsely edi­fy­ing cul­tural apex upon which we tot­tered for a brief period. Since Spengler’s book was penned, we, as a racial group, have stopped oscil­lat­ing; our col­lec­tive per­spec­tive is now held in thrall by a sheer and bar­ren decliv­ity and we are grad­u­ally suc­cumb­ing to the mas­sive grav­ity of absolute obliv­ion. We must draw a stark line under the notion that the per­ceived rights and hap­pi­ness of the indi­vid­ual dis­places the essen­tial and pro­nounced ame­lio­ra­tion of the Whole.

One such crit­i­cal method of aggran­dis­ing our eth­nic sept is the pro­duc­tion of White chil­dren. Young are pro­duced by a process of sex­ual inter­course, and repro­duc­tive sex can only occur between a fer­tile male and a fer­tile female. For that rea­son, we must have both. This is clearly stat­ing the blind­ingly obvi­ous, but it is often the case that racial nation­al­ists humbly neglect this fun­da­men­tal verac­ity. Any doc­trine, belief, or con­vic­tion that does not embrace the basic processes of life — the chief among them being sex and pro­cre­ation — is defec­tive from the out­set and is likely only tem­porar­ily loi­ter­ing in our col­lec­tive psy­che before it is unmasked as a fraud­u­lent and aber­rant travesty.

It is excru­ci­at­ingly appar­ent that our ene­mies (any group or indi­vid­ual which actively encour­ages our regional and global reduc­tion or extinc­tion) were cog­nisant of the truth that our unique race can effec­tively be ham­strung by impair­ing and repress­ing our nat­ural, fre­quently hor­monal, urges, long before our synapses finally fired-​up and assisted us in join­ing together the rather large and abun­dant dots. Con­se­quently, it should come as no rev­e­la­tion to us (we who fully under­stand our inter­na­tional plight) that our ene­mies pro­mote entirely anti­thet­i­cal prac­tises to those regarded as nor­mal and salu­bri­ous by our forefathers.

Fem­i­nism – or the pro­mul­ga­tion of the hatred of White men – is a form of psy­cho­log­i­cal con­di­tion­ing devel­oped by our oppo­nents; it effec­tively under­mines the con­ven­tional inter­de­pen­dence that tra­di­tion­ally existed between White men and women. The schiz­o­phrenic ver­dict espoused by imbe­ciles that gen­der is osten­si­bly a com­po­si­tion of social and cul­tural dif­fer­ences, rather than a com­plex array of entrenched bio­log­i­cal vari­a­tions, is patently moronic, though it is widely rat­i­fied nev­er­the­less. It is a cruel dialec­ti­cal sub­terfuge that the entirely jus­ti­fi­able and war­ranted eman­ci­pa­tion of women, and their ele­va­tion to a legal sta­tus equal to that of men, has been amal­ga­mated with the sin­gu­lar seething loathing for our peo­ple — a thought which con­sumes the minds and motives of many Jews and the fren­zied rene­gades within our own race.

Sim­i­larly, the pro­mo­tion of the Negro male[3] by a hos­tile media cre­ates dis­so­nance between the sexes; pres­sur­ing the Mas­cu­line to mimic the behav­iour of, or become piti­fully obse­quious towards, the afore­men­tioned per­son­ages — who rep­re­sent the bisec­tion of a com­pet­ing human sub­species — and the Fem­i­nine to seek his sex­ual atten­tion. The resul­tant inter­ra­cial con­tact does not ben­e­fit our race. In point of fact, the after­math of mis­ce­gena­tion is the genticide[4] of our race, wherein pre­cious genetic mate­r­ial fails to be dis­sem­i­nated and com­bined (due to the pres­ence of com­peti­tors) or is per­pet­u­ally con­t­a­m­i­nated with for­eign DNA.

Other malig­nant ord­nance unleashed against us includes the unnec­es­sary abor­tion of healthy White foe­tuses; the endorse­ment and cham­pi­onship of homo­sex­u­al­ity (and numer­ous — and ever grow­ing — cog­nate vari­eties of sex­ual degen­er­acy and per­ver­sion); and the advo­cacy of ful­fill­ing and stim­u­lat­ing careers, espe­cially when directed at our women, who become pre­oc­cu­pied by their paid, heavily-​taxed, hob­bies in lieu of the cre­ation of fam­ily units. The sti­fling of our pro­lif­er­a­tion is a bio­log­i­cal weapon and it is being deployed with­out mercy.

But pro­lif­er­a­tion is not sim­ply the mechan­i­cal pro­ce­dure of pro­duc­ing off­spring: it insin­u­ates some­thing more exhaus­tive, sweep­ing, and pro­found. Cer­tainly we require more White peo­ple, but we should not pro­pose a red line or an upper limit. Our pro­lif­er­a­tion must be bound­less, uncon­strained by triv­ial notions such as the earth’s finite nat­ural resources. Our tech­no­log­i­cal genius is inex­haustibly pro­fi­cient and able to alle­vi­ate all mat­ters mate­r­ial, while our bur­geon­ing con­vic­tion will finally encour­age us to sever the eth­i­cal umbil­i­cal cord that has so dis­as­trously teth­ered us to our racial competitors.

It is true that in ages past smaller fam­ily sizes made sound eco­log­i­cally sense. Dur­ing the last glacial period (the Ice Age), for instance, proto-​Europeans would habit­u­ally con­ceive only one or two off­spring, but would pro­vide for their prog­eny an unpar­al­leled level of parental care and instruc­tion. Due to the severe envi­ron­men­tal con­di­tions of the North­ern hemi­sphere dur­ing the Pleis­tocene epoch, the pro­duc­tion of fewer, though more adapt­able, chil­dren was a dis­tinct evo­lu­tion­ary advan­tage and per­mit­ted our ances­tors to flour­ish in excep­tion­ally grim and chal­leng­ing ter­rains. This gen­er­a­tive behav­iour is at odds with the char­ac­ter­is­ti­cally fecund human beings endemic to the warmer South­ern continents.

In the cur­rent geo­log­i­cal epoch (the Ceno­zoic) our abil­ity to adapt to envi­ron­men­tal con­di­tions has shifted from the phys­i­cal world to the con­vo­luted grot­tos of the psy­che. Per­spi­ca­cious mem­bers of our idio­syn­cratic eth­nic group have begun to under­stand that in order to with­stand geno­cide [gen­ti­cide] we must adapt our vis­ceral sur­vival mech­a­nism and emerge as a crea­ture ‘most respon­sive to change.’ The pro­duc­tion of many White chil­dren is now essen­tial given the shrink­ing global rep­re­sen­ta­tion of our folk and other dolor­ous fac­tors, such as mis­ce­gena­tion, mass non-​White immi­gra­tion, high non-​White birth rates, uncon­scionable polit­i­cal admin­is­tra­tions, and an enemy-​occupied media.

As we are no longer forced to con­tend with the ardu­ous haz­ards syn­ony­mous with a pro­longed glacial period, a high White natal­ity should be viewed as desir­able, par­tic­u­larly when we reflect upon the mon­u­men­tal accom­plish­ments of our race and its rare and ven­er­a­ble gift: the adven­ti­tious pro­duc­tion of geniuses and men and women of great esteem, mar­vels which are notice­ably less preva­lent in our bio­log­i­cal com­peti­tors. Our latent poten­tial will never be realised unless we beget bil­lions of healthy, hardy, and inge­nious descen­dents. We can­not stop short of this — our thoughts can­not stray to merely replac­ing our dwin­dling population.

We must proliferate!


[1] King James Bible, Gen­e­sis 1:28.

[2] Oswald Spen­gler, The Decline of the West, 1918.

[3] In 1921, the father of the (racial) inte­gra­tionist move­ment in Amer­ica, Franz Boas, who appears to have been a racial Jew, admit­ted the destruc­tive char­ac­ter­is­tic of what has been called a human­i­tar­ian cru­sade: “It would seem– that, man being what he is, the Negro prob­lem will not dis­ap­pear in Amer­ica until the Negro blood has been so diluted that it will no longer be recog­nised.”

[4] Gen­ti­cide is lin­guis­ti­cally the cor­rect form of this con­trived word, which was cob­bled together from mis­matched com­po­nent parts: the Greek genos, mean­ing “race, kin, tribe” and the suf­fix –cide, from the Latin “killing.” The mis­shapen locu­tion was first coined by a Russ­ian Jew, Raphael Lemkin, in 1943 and employed in his Axis Rule in Occu­pied Europe: Laws of Occu­pa­tion — Analy­sis of Gov­ern­ment — Pro­pos­als for Redress, in 1944. Lemkin, a lawyer by trade, become a Supreme Court advi­sor dur­ing the piti­less post-​war witch hunt fiasco known as the Nurem­berg Tri­als before he relo­cated to the United States of America.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s