Rural Repopulation

Urbanization has been the absolute worst case of gerrymandering against whites I've ever seen. It surrounds productive whites with constant distractions (bars, clubs, fast food, shopping) leading to a clear decline in interest in history, philosophy, etc. among urbanites, and lifestyles of gross decadence that requires a sizeable population of lesser races who have so little ambition and free thought that they'll work in menial positions to uphold the rest. Entire states can be 95% white, yet any random city is most likely 30-40% black, giving leftists a hard edge with massive, negro voting blocks that tip the scales of densely populated counties in elections.

An unrelated issue: obesity is commonplace now, healthcare costs are mounting and sperm quality is on the decline, all because of the incredibly low-quality, mass produced foodstuffs cities import to feed their huge populations cheaply. Urbanization is making our race less wise, less physically fit, and genetically poor.

Resettling the rural land is killing two birds with one stone: communities fed with better nutrition, conservatives break free from liberal voter county orbits, more humbled, culturally enriched lifestyle, and no negros mucking everything up, so long as we stay clear of recreating factory farming.

Agriculture has always been the lot of the European family; we have grown weak by moving into cities and becoming confined to office chairs save for recreation (a declining activity still). We should reclaim Our Land which has been abandoned for decades now. Leave the lonely nights of getting home from work and playing video games to the betas with desk jobs, let the men work the land for their families and communities and hold the lesser folks at arms length.

Anyway, I've been studying forestry and resource management in university, and I've taken a huge interest in resettling our white population to rural lands, Holla Forums. Anyone else tired of urbanization yet?

Other urls found in this thread:

moscow.sci-hub.bz/b07eea271319351abd34f645ce0c04b0/[email protected]
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

I'm good

Up to the Mountains and Down to the Countryside!

Automation does not imply toxins or other problems of today's food production.
Especially with image detection and drones.

Imagine pest control and harvesting drones. would be cool as fuck
Although it would probably end up blinding someone

Agree with everything you said. I just want to find a piece of land to live off and a waifu to help farm and watch the 12 kids we'd have to bad right now that is a life of being chucked by the bank until you die.

The main reason I would rather production be left in the hands of a fraction of members of various small communities is that it makes communities stronger and more closely knit. After the housing bubble you had lots of homes empty and be refilled over and over by renters and communities disintegrated and gave way to crime. It's easier to build strong communities on trust and mutual business between farmers and other workers.

Recently I've been thinking along the same lines. About to graduate and dreading being a wagecuck for the rest of my life but I need to make money. Or do I? Then I realized that by owning some land and practicing subsistence farming I could survive on much less money. But how to do this in a country where all good land is owned by farming corporations for growing GMO cash crops? And how do you get money for other things that you can't grow?

If this ever happened it would be a hilarious scenario. Without whites the cities would collapse just like current day Baltimore and Detroit.

Whites are the lifeline and majority tax base of any major city in the United States. Without out them each city would city would turn int a little Congo.

Poverty causes a lot of these issues. Especially obesity and poor genetics. Poor white people are uglier and have a lower IQ. And by poor I don't mean the coal worker who lost his job because of some government policy. But those whites who fit the stereotype of the hillbilly cousin fucker with shit genetics.

Everything else goes hand in hand with not living off of the land like you are supposed to. I don't live in the city and there are plenty of fat fucks here. This is due to office jobs, McDonalds, and everything else that is present in cities minus the walking/daily exercise benefit you get from living in a big city. All the same amenities are here, just spread out.

This can be solved by not depending on corporations to do the things you can be doing yourself: Finding your own fresh community water source, growing your own food, building your own homes/consumer goods, etc.

This is more ideological than you think user, have you ever thought about the past? 100% white cities where crime was simply an after thought, where even the drudgery of society had an air of respect about it.

You move to the country, very simple, Marxism comes to you instead of you to it. In a society free from the stinger of this poisonous ideology, it doesn't matter shit where you live.

In the past conservative America, cities where vibrant places. Imagine going to a museum teaching real factual history instead of revisionism. A place where you could walk the streets at night not having to worry about a nigger killing you for your shoes. A place where you could leave your doors open during the day and your neighbor knows you and you know him.

You don't need to flee to the countryside, you need to rid THE NATION of Cultural Marxism and NON-WHITES

Small farm ownership definitely doesn't net you a ton of cash, generally "just enough", but you do own land which goes a long way in the right hands. As for acquiring it, it depends on the country. I may pick up and move my operations to the UK because the Small Farm Future and Low-Tech Ag movements are really strong there, and the government basically holds rural land for farmers so that the rich folks in London don't buy it all up to build summer homes on.

Roman graffiti would like to have a word with you, it says "Anyone who wants to shit in this place is advised to move along. If you act contrary to this warning, you will have to pay a penalty. Children must pay [number missing] silver coins. Slaves will be beaten on their behinds"

The cities would be ok if they weren't full of immigrants.

...

Roman cities were very multicultural, not a good example of a conservative culture.

You could definitely benefit from a visit to a history museum if you think cities were utopias before marxism. Where there's a surplus of people, there will always be crime and depression. That doesn't mean that cities are inherently bad, just that they come with inherent problems we have to work to minimize. Take a look at London during the industrial revolution.

I know farming is hard work and doesn't garner a huge income, but in regards to a family, are the usual costs per child drastically lowered since you're providing the food yourself? Would it be cheaper to have half a dozen kids on a farm than two in a suburb?

The problem is most Americans were farmers who had a dozen head of cows, now farms with a hundred head have made the farms that most Americans lived on obsolete.

Come to Maine. Live you heritage or even pretend to concur a foreign land. We've got room to spare and then some, and a little town for every continent.

With the recent legalization of pot, a contentious issue, comes the legalization of hemp. This can be a cash crop, and a quick one at that. Hemp paper is the shit.

The left and right arrows look almost exactly the same

Hmm. My wife and I are firmly below the poverty line, but we're both very attractive. I'm not sure your money=attractiveness premise holds beyond having money for new clothes.

I agree. My train of thought comes from my own personal travels. I've been to Japan and seen true monoculturalism in practice, crime in those cities is no where near the level of our multicultural hellholes. So I imagine to myself, if the Japanese can form impressive cities with practically no crime looking at it from an American perspective, I only imagined what an all white American city would have looked like.


The country has it's own inherent problems, it's lack of amenities is one. Having to drive 30 miles to buy your groceries and where the nearest hospital in an emergency is over 100 miles away. I've lived in those short of places and believe me it was far from pleasant. The allure of the countryside soon gives way to massive boredom. There is a reason why there is currently an epidemic of drug abuse in those parts, literally nothing to do besides getting high.

You're what's known as an exception.

Also, I live in East Tennessee, and I get the feeling that people who romantacize country folk and just making some modern noble savagr fantasy. Rural people aren't spending their spare time reading history and philosophy, they're getting fucked up on beer, weed, and oxycontin

History, sure.

But philosophy, it has always been shit.

A city should not exceed twenty thousand.

moscow.sci-hub.bz/b07eea271319351abd34f645ce0c04b0/[email protected]

Thank you for proving my point. OP is either delusional or city folk who has never lived in the sticks for a considerable amount of time.


I concur

Yes, both urban and rural life have their own pros and cons, and to compare them in terms of 'which is better' is a false dichotomy. It's not as apparent, but it's similar to dividing along class lines. Multiculturalism is another source of division, and Japan is a good example of how being "one people" can allow a nation to effectively minimize problems like crime. Although, it's obvious by the suicide numbers that they either haven't figured out how to deal with the depression part, or they just don't care. I have faith in our people's problem solving abilities though.

Maybe spreading our populations out more can kill two birds with one stone. More people in rural communities means less boredom, relatively less people in cities means less crowding, more employed people and less crime. Strike a balance somehow.

Am not saying one is better than the other, all am saying that it's entirely subjective where you decide to live. If you want to live with meth heads in the sticks, please be my guess.


The Japanese are suffering from overcrowding and overpopulation, if they were still an Imperial power and could conquer some land perhaps the suicide problem would disappear in it's entirely. Also you are forgetting that the Japanese are extremely hell bent on the concept of respect and honor, everywhere you go, you must bow and bow again, just for starters.


Don't underestimate the size of the countryside, effective resetting will be a massive undertaking not possible under the current regime. Even then there is no guarantees people won't just flood back into the cities when given the opportunity to seek a higher standard of living or just a different environment overall.

I get the feeling your city folk who just wants to escape the hustle and bustle of the city, that's good, going to the country for some piece and quite is fine by all means. I personally just wouldn't want to live there. Been there, done that sort of deal.

I'd love to work out some sort of scheme (aquaponics or something?) that'd let white families cheaply feed themselves and then put it in the public domain to be spread as far and wide as possible. I think the idea of self-sufficiency would be easy to sell to normalfags, too. Things being "sustainable" and "off the grid" are positive buzzwords for them. For example, the people that want base pay would probably love it, since their sole motivation is wanting to survive if they get fired.

If you don't have the cities, you don't have the country.
You need to RECONQUER THE CITIES. The rural areas will always remain and stay the most conservative in politics, tradition and whatever else have you. But that can and will be eroded when you don't fight for and control the cities.

I'm not good with words, but god damn..you can't get rid of cities, and they will always be where change is bred. We need to retake the cities.

Well shit.

It's pretty much this in a nut shell.

We just need to reconquer our cities from the moral degradation that comes form cultural Marxism. See

Then everywhere, no matter where you live in the nation, will be a great place to live.

having a contact with nature makes your character far more conservative. A city creates egoisme and individualism. You can see that in french books from the 18th-19th century, paris always been a degenerate city. It's the same for any city.

It's not a uniquely Japanese phenomenon, depression is just something that becomes an increasing problem with urbanization, specifically industrialization. My primary point is that simply having an all white society won't lead to a utopia, it just removes one of the roadblocks to success. There will still be plenty of obstacles to overcome, however that doesn't mean we should give up on cities or the idea of a more agrarian society. We should keep an open mind to what is best for our people.

Holla Forums used to have regular threads on forest gardening and converting rural properties into perma-culture havens. I'll be able to post some things when I get home on this.

Don't worry, OP, you're not alone.

cities have something a village can't offer in the current year. That is a feeling of collectivism. The want to be a part of something bigger. There is a village in france that did something special. Has the village become older, youth was missing. So a bunch of old people started to do public gardening. The vilalge won some kind of recognition for being good looking. A week later, people started to buy home over there. People were interested on public gardening. They went there and contributed to beauty of the city. Now they were able to open an elementary school. Basically, vilalges were killed by larger roads with larger house and the lack of small shop and collectivism.

I'm going to search for the name of the village

This isn't to say get rid of cities, it's just to say decrease their density and repopulate the rural country, something more akin to the agricultural society America was originally, or even up to the 1860s when there were 20+ million people living on farms and more in farming communities supplied by small farms, versus the 750,000 farmers we have today.

I have a half dozen acres of undeveloped land in a Midwestern town of about 2,500 people. The town is 97% white in a county that is 96% white.
Around 75% of the county voted Trump.
Three cities large enough to have professional sports teams can be driven to in under six hours… one of them in less than two hours.

The land is zoned for multiple residences. I'm not selling anything but would be open to the possibilty of two or three good Holla Forumsacks building on what I own. Not sure on how things would be set up legally since the thought just ocurred to me after seeing this thread but I'm sure something can be arranged… especially since I'm not going to try to Jew my brethren.

I'm not starting a commune, cult, or militia either and will drop your body in a sinkhole if you try that shit.

It's not the easiest land for a build. It's rocky, hilly land in rocky, hilly country. Been kicking around the idea of a stilt house myself.
Pics are of the land; they suck but they're real.

I just set this email up for anyone who is interested:
[email protected]/* */

I'll like to believe you, but my instincts tell me your FBI.

I like your paranoia.
But I'm not FBI.
Not sure what I'd gain if I was. You know they already have our IPs anyway.
Nothing illegal about trying to find a place to live.

I like this idea, saved your email and will send you something when I am not on compromised machine.

No, fuck off and stay the hell away from Wyoming. I like the lack of people here, we're full.

Too bad I live in Queensland, Australia.

Move to Galacia. Its the best land in spain, its cheap (villages for price of houses) and it's fucking perfect.

...

Damn, I just looked up some pictures of Galicia too, nothing like the Spain I had imagined. The weather even sounds nice too. And it was one of the few places in Iberia never under Muslim rule

Looks pretty amazing

Oh, and what's the catch?

I've lived in the countryside all my life (still do) and this is true to an extent. Most people in the village work in the nearest town so the boredom isn't as bad because they do 9-to-5 jobs, but believe me you'll still experience why rural areas here have the highest alcoholism rate in the country. I live in Eastern Europe so drugs aren't a problem since you have to be a city slicker to even have access to them, but everyone makes moonshine and wine, so it's really easy to get fucked up on alcohol (for cheap too).

The good parts of living in a village are this sense of freedom you get from being able to walk anywhere around the village, I went hunting a lot with my late father and I still go hunting alone and I know the surrounding countryside like the back of my hand, not to mention that having things to do like that kills your boredom. You'll also get to meet a relatively higher concentration of virtuous people and since you're living in a small community it'll be much easier to get in contact with them. This is a double-edged sword though, since there's also bound to be complete pieces of shit and you'll have to tolerate their presence more often as well.

To conclude, it's easy to just tell people to buy land in the countryside and live there from your own work, but not everyone can handle living in the countryside, including people who were raised there and still live there for all their life. This also very much depends on what the countryside in the place you want to live in is like. Recently, two families moved into my village with their children. Now, living in the countryside can be really tough for children especially if there are no other children to play with, but there is a football (soccer for you burgers) field in the neighbouring village where children and teens gather so it's not a problem where I live, but if there's absolutely nothing for your kids to do where you'll move, then you'll have a problem.

Since we are on topic I had this little epiphany a couple of months ago.

Cities are important, but we are using them wrong.
As a collective of individuals working together for a common goal, we need communication and let's be honest, commerce has open big opportunities. So the concept of a city being the center of international commerce of a Nation or Region is valid.
The problem is, living among the walls of concrete. Like OP said:

That is why, cities should only be populated by law enforcement (only to maintain the cities safe) and other people who are just temporally visiting. Students and workers should get their apartments and residences outside the workspace inside the city. We are already developed enough for our transportation to be efficient, so there is absolutely no reason why you MUST live inside the city.

While there will always be people needed for the city to function, those people can be from the surrounding areas of the city. They live and are raised near to nature, their only reason to go to the city is to keep society functioning as we know it and be used as educational centers and reminder of Human greatness, with all the buildings and such products of Human Engineering.

Instead of cities being the most populated areas in the region, they should be the least populated ones, lowering the chances of people getting caught inside the consumerist world view. Many business will be shut down in such a change, from monopoly of big supermarkets, to people aiming to be auto-sustainable.
But this is all too ideal, would mean each family having and being able to maintain their own piece of land.

This could be brought down to the case that because there is few people living around those areas.
There must be an Interval of people living in a defined area for them to not get bored from too few or too many.
Maybe check cities and populations in relation to the area to how happy those people are.

Nah, its stupid to commute for hours every day, some people live in the city and thats OK.
But it should only be the ones who absolutely have to, because they work there.
Welfare queens of any kind (students like you said) should be banned from the city.

I also live in East Tennessee and there's generally three groups. The ones you mention, the ones who spend most of their time hunting, fishing, and going to church. And finally the group that mostly just goes to work, goes home, and veges out in front of the television. I've lived in the city before and I now live in a very rural county, even with the drawbacks I'd still take rural areas.

I'd support a Pol Pot style return to agrarian society but with natsoc characteristics.

Heh, Holla Forums Pot.

gtfo
National socialists strive for endless progress, to make every generation live better than the last one.
Thats why they went to space and the arctic.

Merely existing on a plateau is for animals and untermenschen.

...

Who the fuck cares about glaciers

But Maine, aren't most of your people liberal cucks?

You sound like the cucks who call everything the jew. Watching tv? That's just the electric jew. Browsing the internet? That's just a propaganda tool of the jew. Playing vidya? That's just the interactive jew. Reading a book? That's just the written jew. Drinking alcohol or smoking tobacco? That's just the liquid and smoking jew respectively. Decadence is only a bad thing when dealing with low energy people that will find any vice to cradle.

Fuck you polpot.
We cant force people to be rural, most people think already of flipping burgers for income as a horrorscenario, so the vast majority is of course unmotivated to life agrarian and away from the cities comforts rendering their productive drive useless.

This is what the Kang of Zimbabwe did, killing white farmers then placing people on the soil who were not motivated nor knowledgable enough to work with it.

Agrarian production will become mostly automated at some point with a few cooperations running the countries foodproduction completely and thats good because it will be most effective.

Now, what if you want to be free and sovereign?
The villages of the future must be very effective and low effort to maintain, so the community establishes itself on narrow space for the sake of having a community.
Being a villager must be fun and pander to at least a part of the gargantuan citypopulations of the future as a romantic alternative.

Imagine a few blocks of hydroponic farms and a chicken or guineapig pen which were build by a bunch of like minded individuals/familys and only need 1/2 hours a day of work to tend to with additional income being generated by internet related jobs for which you dont need a trainticket to the city everyday.
Motivation will be cultism, ethnic segregationism or the weednpeace lmao hippielife.

Leave the fields to Monsantos harvest-bots, any other community is a dyinng breed.

The Gauls?

Nothing. The spaniards w t too fervent on pushing college and no have a SJW problem, and they are unwilling to do real work or take care of the land, the lad their ancestors fought and didd for, repeatedly.

On the bright side, those fucks alllive in the cities and you will never need encounter them.

Found the defeatist jew

Found a newfag! Fuck off to reddit, our kind does not accept you!

Fact is, when I talk to my friends (working men in their 20s an 30s) there s only one fucking thing they wish they had. Their own fuking land to work.

No man is free who relies on another's property for survival.

Fuck off decadence jew

Wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which one is more economically viable

I live in a small city now, but want to go rural when I finish school. Problem is, no jobs in rural areas. Boredom would be an issue, sure, but I want some acreage (40-50 tops, nothing crazy) because all I like doing outside is shooting guns and riding dirtbikes, and if I could just go do that in my "backyard", I would be set. Problem is, places with enough land to do that are rural and as has been mentioned, massive commutes for a job, or even to buy food and supplies. I don't give much of a shit about the bar and club scene. Done that shit and I'm over it. I found a place in Idaho where the land was cheap enough to afford, but the nearest city with jobs was 160 miles away. No fucking way is that doable. Closer to the jobs? Land is unaffordable. It fucking sucks.

start riots in the cities and white flight will solve that problem.

Seems like there's a pretty good entry cost. You have to be able to practically live off the land, and produce something you can sell to pay property taxes and buy things you can't make yourself.

See, this is how you start something cool.

Ah, God's land user. We ought to set something up.

Email sent. Sounds like my area

Definitly use zoning laws to enforce population density maximums. And as governments we can do a lot by spreading everything out.

There is no need to put everything too close together and it should be banned for new construction or remodeling.

I bet you're inhaling the oxygenated Jew right you degenerate. Something I don't even breath, just to stick it to them

Maybe we can set up semiannual camps?

Rome fell for a reason. A country does not survive without healthy cities. Cities are the hearts of nations.. Concentrated poison in the heart will spread through and conquer the body.

If Trump were smart, he would cut funding to urban police departments and release large numbers of violent criminals into the cities. This would drive white flight and depopulate the cities, lowering the Democrat voter base.

Cities are outdated and no longer necessary. Internet has made them redundant. Best we can do now is try to get whites out of the cities and keep the niggers in.

The problem is most Americans were farmers who had a dozen head of cows, now farms with a hundred head have made the farms that most Americans lived on obsolete.

Cities have always been hellholes. There has never been a good city in all of history. They breed weakness and faggotry like puddles breed mosquitoes.

Something else that rustles my jimmies about urbanization is how urbanite politicians have an inherent advantage.

I mean, think about it. Let's say there are 100 people living in a city and 100 people living out in a rural area. There are politicians who are trying to "get out the vote" from their constituencies.

The urbanite politician literally only needs to do a single speech somewhere in the city and every one of his supporters is within walking distance. He can go door-to-door to all his supporters in a couple minutes because everyone is right next to each other. It's so much easier to organize in a big dense city.

Now compare that to the ruralite politician. His supporters live very spread out. He has to drive miles to get from one supporter to another. It's becomes logistically much harder for him to hold a rally, because people would need to drive from far and wide to attend, since they're scattered all over the place. Reach out becomes much harder.

Even if conservatives wanted to commit fraud on the scale that the democrats do, it'd be impossible. You'd have to drive all over the countryside, rather than doing block to block with a city bus.

Whites (esp. Protestants) need to do a combination of the Benedict Option and Mormon-style organization, ie. communes/compounds and workers'/consumers' coops. By making housing, income and food (and recreation) available (and cheap) you are de-facto subsidizing white birth rates.

get on it Holla Forums

In a city, you don't rely on those around you to survive- and those around you don't rely on you either. You form no bonds with your fellow man, your social circles are paltry temporaries that fall apart whenever the fuck you feel like pursuing a different hobby or getting a different job. There's no impetus to form bonds- there's no reason to love your fellow man or value a woman at anything more than fuck and run because the supply will never dwindle. Living in a city makes kinship obsolete, renders the spirit redundant and crushes the soul.

I`ve been thinking old school colonialism is the way to go, top tier white societies urbanizing shitholes and kicking out the natives.
I don't know what that makes me politically though.

Rhodesian.

Nope.
I live in a city, although not in the United States (Spain) and I wouldn't call that the case. At least on my neck of the woods, I know my neighbors and almost everyone in the apartment block. We have get-togethers every weekend in the center of the block and everyone from the local vicinity brings food and beer. Again, it's a different culture and Spain is still relativity monoculture so I can't really picture what apartment living in the states must be like.


Yes, repeat the same mistake that led Europe to it's current crisis. Europe is now being conquer by this "former" colonists, my country included.

Europeans didn't do it right. You need to exterminate the majority of natives and then put the remaining in reservations where they can run casinos like we did.

I don't think Anglos actually engaged in a genocide against the Indians besides stuff like the "Trail of Tears". Most of the natives died because they didn't have sufficient immunization against European diseases, you Anglos just mopped up afterwards.

Spain is a monoculture. You have established roots, no matter how slim. I'm describing the life of the American metromutt

I've lived in the same apartment for 2.5 years now. I don't know a single person in the building.

Or this city, really.

Spain is more like 6 or 7 different cultures tied together.

I agree.

Right, people don't keep your water flowing or electricity working. Nobody provides you transportation so you can get to your job where your employer pays you, or a restaurant where people make you food.
Everything else you said I agree with, city people suck, but you know that old saying: Be the change to want to see. Or just move to the country.

I'll keep that in mind


That is unfortunate, multiculturalism truly is the devils work. The first day I came into the block, I had neighbors bring me food, another even allowed me into their home for a cup of espresso and a smoke on their balcony. When you are of the same race and the same culture, it's like your staring into a mirror, people relate with you and you with them.

I hope you can make it to the countryside then user, hopefully it isn't as mixed as the cities.


Si senor, I hate the Vascos with a passion though, faggots don't shower and are hairy as fuck, also many are sephardi judios believe it or not.

It is also turning men into women. Transexualism is real, a disease, and consciously deployed.

The problem of rural repopulation, especially in a mass scale is that the city beasts will outcompete us technologically, which means they'll do whatever they want with us and our environment. Not even whatever they want but whatever The Machine wants.

We have to beat them first, the country will come later.

In all this I've personally come to be at odds with consumerism more than anything else, and yeah technological superiority is exactly the issue. Consumerism only keeps itself afloat on "The Myth of Progress", that there will always be more and at no mean expense. The environmentalists just spread lies and false hope, saying there's nothing wrong with more technology, "We'll make it sustainable!", they say, so they can feel good about their consumption of nonrenewable resources. Because under consumerism even the truth can be bought. And the politicians reassure everyone, "Don't worry, we'll regulate the corporations," or "We'll implement tax incentives and emission credits, " As if these politicians don't already have the corporations' interests in mind to begin with–can't the law be bought under consumerism too?

In the end, our only hope is finding some way to reduce the role of consumers in the global economy, or just reduce the global economy, to hit consumerism where it hurts the most. There are just too many unintelligent people, with enough corporate bigwigs out there to exploit them, to keep the wheels turning, and nothing short of a Galt's Gulch would keep us out of it, it feels.

I grew up in township of less then 5k and that doesn't sound any different

He probably worded it ambigously.

I guess that he meant that one does not need to communicate in city if he does not want to.

To be completely honest, I don't believe there is a future for human beings as we are, not to mention races. Techno-capital favors increasing fungibility (Exchangeability of parts (people, institutions, etc.) Imagine just one or two kinds of people who have been optimized to be more efficient (Probably ultra-goyim and reptile-like autistopsychopaths as handlers), useful and very good consumers of meaningless cyber drugs, mostly.

Consciousness itself will get deleted at one point because it's not the most optimal thing, and in the far future the whole system just turns into some kind of cosmic goo or intelligent "space" that looks almost dead because its economics are so perfect they can be understood as "laws of physics", maybe this goo allows for replicators just like our laws of physics and maybe this happened before, we could be living in such a thing, many layers deep.

So progressivism is a capitalist affair and nobody on either side wants to recognize that they are in bed with each other. Capitalists fear communism as a reaction against these degenerate elements of capitalism by people traditionally anti-communist. Progressives fear attacks by the working class and other people fucked by capitalism, who begin to see the connection. Trump and the alt-"right" are actually to the left of the establishment, as are nat-socs. It feels fantastic right until the chinks surpass us because we "wasted" time taking care of our people instead of competing as best as we could.

Fascism is communism with common-sense ethno considerations and better aesthetics, but it shares the same issues in the end.

Even the few technological tendencies in our favour (Local production like hydroponics and 3D printing, etc.) wont be enough to counter globalization and homogenization, but who knows…

Islam will get Europe and then progressivism will get Islam, never thought I would feel sad for those fuckers. At this point I'm almost sad for the kikes, but fuck them because they know this is going on and they actively work for it.

Which environmentalists are you hanging out with?

What environmentalists do you know because in my experience without fail the bigger then environmentalist the bigger the luddite

Portland is chock full of cucks and Lewiston is chock full of dindus. These two cities cause Maine to be a blue state. North of Androscoggin county, Maine is paradise.

What are we going to do about dirty lew