Taking things from white people

Chad Crowley

We are living through a slow-motion collapse. As with the dissolution of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD, there will be no single dramatic moment. It unfolds through a sequence of pressures and withdrawals, complex in structure, often imperceptible, and advancing beneath the rhythms of daily life.

Its signs are not always visible: the quiet disintegration of institutional authority, the dimming of ethnocultural inheritance, the collapse of future orientation, and the disappearance of any sense that something greater might lie beyond the narrow horizon of the present.

Most will not grasp what has been lost, for they possess no standard by which to measure decay, having known nothing else. They have lived their entire lives among ruins, mistaking decline for normality.

The markets still open, electricity flows, men labor for the barest subsistence, and digital noise sustains the illusion that nothing has changed.

Yet the deeper foundations have already shifted. What once gave coherence—ancestral identity, moral confidence, and the transmission of blood, spirit, and memory across generations—has been hollowed by fatigue, amnesia, and a life severed from origin.

When the Roman West fell, it did not vanish in an instant. The Senate still convened, coins bore the imperial image, and men continued to call themselves Romans, though the people who had forged the civilization were no longer present in spirit or in kind.

So it is again. The outer forms remain, but the animating spirit has withdrawn. The collapse we face is not limited to politics or economy. It reaches the very foundations of order and being; it is as much a metaphysical disintegration as a material one. And when the final threshold is crossed, it will not be recognized as a turning point. It will appear ordinary, absorbed into a world that has already forgotten what normal once meant.

This is not to suggest that its arrival will be peaceful. By that point, disorder will be constant and unremarkable, so familiar that even violence will no longer be seen as an aberration. The Rubicon will be crossed not with a cry, nor with resistance, but with a shrug, and the mass of people, dulled by habit, will do nothing but blink.

 
And the only reason they were not utterly annihilated and wiped from the face of the earth, is because their White conquerors were much more benevolent than Mayans or Mongols or Persians or Zulus would have ever been.

Well, now, to be fair, once the Mongols had raped and slaughtered a city or two as examples, they seemed more or less content to leave be the people they conquered, as long as they paid their tribute in a timely manner and didn't cause trouble for the Khans or their emissaries.

As for the Persians, Xerxes was kind of a jerxes - but Cyrus the Great doesn't seem to have been so bad, as conquerors go. (He may perhaps even have been one of the few historical figures referred to as "Great" who came to somewhere remotely within the vicinity of actually deserving such a title.)
 
Last edited:
Well, now, to be fair, once the Mongols had raped and slaughtered a city or two, they seemed more or less content to leave be the people they conquered, as long as they paid their tribute in a timely manner and didn't cause trouble for the Khans or their emissaries.

As for the Persians, Xerxes was kind of a jerxes - but Cyrus the Great doesn't seem to have been so bad, as conquerors go. (He may perhaps even have been one of the few historical figures referred to as "Great" who came to somewhere remotely within the vicinity of actually deserving such a title.)

Everything comes down to money. Everything. Including the Kings of different lands who interracially married. [ @Anti Federalist ]

Even Kim Dot Com understands what "fuck you money" means.

Money comes down to me too, except I don't have the fuck you kind.
 
Chad Crowley

If we survive, if our people endure, then what we have built will not die. Our civilization will not vanish. It will be reborn.

This should not need to be said, yet it must be.

Western civilization did not arise from abstractions. It was not the product of ideology or institutions alone, but of a people formed over millennia, shaped by struggle, tested by time. Everything we now call Western, from the visible achievements of architecture and law to the invisible structure of custom, restraint, and spirit, exists because our ancestors created it and passed it forward. It continues to function, however faintly, because we still bear its weight.

This is why demographic replacement is not a marginal issue. It is the issue. This is why everyone laments and lambasts its unfolding.

If we surrender our lands and institutions to peoples who are not us, then what they create in our place will reflect them, not us. The cultural and spiritual order that once animated the West will not survive in alien hands. It cannot. Culture flows from the people who create it. Change the people, and you change the form in which culture appears. Replace them entirely, and what once stood will vanish without recognition.

This must shape how we think about collapse, because we are living it. If the civilization we inherited is, at its root, a reflection of us, then its decline is not the end—so long as we remain. Even if the superstructure of Western civilization falls, even if the cities burn and the symbols are torn down, the seed survives in the people. And if the people endure, something new can be built. Not a replica of what came before, but something greater. Something shaped by memory and suffering, purified of weakness, ordered toward life.

The modern mind imagines history as a line, always progressing toward some undefined utopian finality. But that belief is recent, false, and myopic. Our ancestors did not think this way. The Indo-Europeans, the Greeks, the Romans, the Medievals—none of them believed in endless ascent. They understood history as a cycle. As Oswald Spengler and others before and after him observed, civilizations are born, rise, and die like living organisms. Decay is not failure. It is transition. Every birth, and every rebirth, presupposes death.

The question, then, is not whether this world will collapse. It will. The question is who will remain when it does.

If we understand that civilization is bound to the character of those who create it, then we have no reason to fear decline. Our people fear little, and have little to fear, for we are excellence made flesh, the biological incarnation of order and ascent.

What we must actively resist, whether metapolitically, politically, or otherwise, is our demographic erasure: disappearance, forgetting, surrender. Against this, we prepare. We build for what lies beyond. We lay foundations not to preserve a hollow structure, but to give rise to something higher.

We are not here to manage decline. We are here to outlast it, to endure its trials, and to bend its course toward our own renewal. For among all peoples, none have been so forged in the crucible of collapse, none so tempered by struggle, none so destined to rise again. Ours is the task not merely to remember, but to rebuild—to reclaim what was lost, and to give form to something greater than before. That is the burden of heirs. That is the duty of those who still remain.

 
This is why demographic replacement is not a marginal issue. It is the issue. This is why everyone laments and lambasts its unfolding.

Demographic replacement (or expansion) is the symptom, not the disease. The disease - or its carrier - is Empire.

Rome is the example par excellence.

It's polyglot heterogeneity began with the expansion of franchise beyond the Romans to include the Latins ... and so on to the enfranchisement of all the Italians ... and then eventually to the provincials (by which point Rome had long since ceased really being Roman).
 
Everything comes down to power (i.e., the capacity to apply violent force, or to credibly threaten its application).

Once you've got that, the money follows.

Yes and no. Old money, new money, stolen, earned. Money can and does buy a lot of things, including power and a seat at the table. And hot chicks, unless or even if you're a magnet too ;-)

Example: some big, tough, military-aged poor immigrant isn't getting a seat anywhere, unless they need him/[some hers too] to do the dirty work. And/or take the fall.

Take Bill Gates. He's a puny punk. But with all that money, power is secondary, but goes along with it because of it.
 
Yes and no. Old money, new money, stolen, earned. Money can and does buy a lot of things, including power and a seat at the table. And hot chicks, unless or even if you're a magnet too ;-)

Example: some big, tough, military-aged poor immigrant isn't getting a seat anywhere, unless they need him/[some hers too] to do the dirty work. And/or take the fall.

Take Bill Gates. He's a puny punk. But with all that money, power is secondary, but goes along with it because of it.

Money seeks to buy power because power is primary.

Put Bill Gates (with a lot of money and no power) and "some big, tough, military-aged poor immigrant" (with a lot of power and no money) alone together on a desert island, and then watch how the equities finally balance. Beyond that desert island, society and politics is just a more complex, intricate, and sophisticated working out of the same fundamental dynamic.
 
And what happened to them, the Noble Redskins, who could not, would not, defend their borders, their land, their homes and their nations?

They were conquered, dispossessed, double crossed, waged war upon and marched off to reservations.

They became third class citizens in the land they once called home.

And the only reason they were not utterly annihilated and wiped from the face of the earth, is because their White conquerors were much more benevolent than Mayans or Mongols or Persians or Zulus would have ever been.

And somehow, in Small Hat Club America, I'm the bad guy because I do not want that for my children.

Now, of course, I'd not expect you to understand or agree.

You figured it would be deserved karmic justice if my family all got smoked in an Iranian missile attack.

(ETA - Which has already been forgotten of course, The Mother Of All World Wars that was going to kick off because we blasted some holes in the sands of Iran. This is not, of course, an endorsement of yet another war mission carried out for God's All Stars with our blood and treasure, just a statement of fact. AmeriCunt NPCs have about as much long term memory as Trump does.)
You really have no idea how karma (or rather God's wrath) works do you? My giving you fair warning about the crap you're bringing on yourself through your own hate is not the same as my wishing it on you. And you're deluded into thinking that you have to be hateful to protect yourself it's because of some "white conquerer" BS that you haven't been wiped from the face of the earth. The Romans got halted by the Parthinians (Iranians) who didn't turn around and invade Rome. They just wanted to be left the fvck alone.





Queen Amarineas of Nubia halted the advance of Rome without turning around and invading it.



But most people only know about Hannibal who went from defense to offense and sacked Rome. But Rome kind of brought that on themselves.
 
Money seeks to buy power because power is primary.
It probably needs to be noted that no one really "has" that much money. What they do have is the power to decide where the money goes. The greater economy "has" the money. The person with the power over it decides where it gets invested, how it gets used, and who it benefits. Wealth is a measurement of that power.
 
It probably needs to be noted that no one really "has" that much money. What they do have is the power to decide where the money goes. The greater economy "has" the money. The person with the power over it decides where it gets invested, how it gets used, and who it benefits. Wealth is a measurement of that power.

Also, money is just a fungible unit of account.

What really matters are the resources it accounts for (material goods, services, time, etc.).

Power - i.e., the capacity to (credibly threaten to) apply physical force/violence - is employed to either seize and/or control those units/resources (as in a kleptocracy), or to protect and defend voluntary exchanges of those units/resources (as in the free market).

Although power is one of the "service" resources money can account for (i.e., "buy"), power is still the primary factor. Mere power can bypass money, but mere money can not bypass power.
 
Money seeks to buy power because power is primary.

Put Bill Gates (with a lot of money and no power) and "some big, tough, military-aged poor immigrant" (with a lot of power and no money) alone together on a desert island, and then watch how the equities finally balance. Beyond that desert island, society and politics is just a more complex, intricate, and sophisticated working out of the same fundamental dynamic.

On that island the resourceful person would accumulate fish, coconuts, aloe, to use as money. Big grunt might try to use his power to beat the person over the head for those things, but after the person is beaten senseless and the resources are used up...

The resourceful person might think to himself, with all of my resources [money] I could pay off the the grunt to leave me alone and/or utilize his strength for something productive. Then you finally have balance, at least to some degree.

Anyway, we are debating which came first, the chicken or the egg. I'll take my logic over anyone's. Good thing I have brawn and brains ;)
 
On that island the resourceful person would accumulate fish, coconuts, aloe, to use as money. Big grunt might try to use his power to beat the person over the head for those things, but after the person is beaten senseless and the resources are used up...

The resourceful person might think to himself, with all of my resources [money] I could pay off the the grunt to leave me alone and/or utilize his strength for something productive. Then you finally have balance, at least to some to some degree.

Ayn Rand wrote a rather large and famous novel about this.

Anyway, we are debating which came first, the chicken or the egg. I'll take my logic over anyone's. Good thing I have brawn and brains ;)

Power always comes first.

It defines the context (e.g., kleptocracy vs. the free market) under which any money will operate (or fail to operate, as the case may be):
Although power is one of the "service" resources money can account for (i.e., "buy"), power is still the primary factor. Mere power can bypass money, but mere money can not bypass power.
 
Ayn Rand wrote a rather large and famous novel about this.

:up:

Power always comes first.

It defines the context (e.g., kleptocracy vs. the free market) under which any money will operate (or fail to operate, as the case may be):

People allow kleptocracy to win out. See how far "the state" gets without the resources and money that people provide to it.

I guess you can make the case that "democracy is true power". But then if only 2 people were on that island... what democracy?

No, I'm not saying that there will some "Great Awakening". Either way, money does come down to everything, up to and including power, exploited or not.
 
It defines the context (e.g., kleptocracy vs. the free market) under which any money will operate (or fail to operate, as the case may be):

Democratic Socialism IS Totalitarianism


Mises Wire
William L. Anderson
07/17/2025


The word ā€œdemocraticā€ is supposed to soften the blow of socialism, with Zohran Mamdani's campaign being the latest to fool the voters. In reality, there is no softening real socialism, as it depends upon coercion, violence, and ultimately becomes totalitarian.

Continue:

 
People allow kleptocracy to win out. See how far "the state" gets without the resources and money that people provide to it.

I guess you can make the case that "democracy is true power". But then if only 2 people were on that island... what democracy?

No, I'm not saying that there will some "Great Awakening". Either way, money does come down to everything, up to and including power, exploited or not.

Whether kleptocracy or the free market wins out, it is always and only because sufficient power was employed to enforce it.

When it comes down to it, all the money in the world counts for nothing against a bullet through the head.

Power is the root, and money is the fruit. Without the former, there is no latter.
 
Whether kleptocracy or the free market wins out, it is always and only because sufficient power was employed to enforce it.

When it comes down to it, all the money in the world counts for nothing against a bullet through the head.

Power is the root, and money is the fruit. Without the former, there is no latter.

Power is the goal, and money is the means. Without money, one may end up in Section 8.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top