Author Topic: Homo Hubris  (Read 3279 times)


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7411
    • View Profile
Re: Homo Hubris
« on: March 24, 2021, 01:05:09 am »

This one needs a smackdown:

Both whites and non-whites complain about each other, but only one side is making sense. Observe:

Proximity to non-whites makes whites suffer. Therefore, whites denigrate non-whites because they want less of them.
Proximity to whites makes non-whites prosper. Therefore, non-whites denigrate whites because they want more of them.

Which perspective is more honest and reasonable?

Why do bandits run away after raiding? Because proximity to the victims makes the bandits suffer (by getting punished).

Why do victims of the raid chase after the bandits after being raided? Because proximity to the bandits makes the victims prosper (by recovering the stolen property and exterminating the bandits).

Does the above make the bandits "more honest and reasonable" than the victims?

Also this does not imply that we want more bandits. We would rather no raid ever occurred in the first place. But that does not mean that, given the reality that the raid did occur, we are willing to let the bandits get away with it unpunished.

An honest and reasonable approach would be for non-whites to praise whites for creating great civilizations, and also to state explicitly that non-whites have it better among whites than among their own kind.

Would it make sense for the victims to praise the bandits for creating great raids? Should the fact that the victims can recover their stolen property only from the bandits and not from other victims (duh!) be spun into an interpretation that victims "have it better" among bandits than among other victims?

If they were honest, they would show more respect for their generous white hosts and for the Truth.

Do bandits deserve respect? Can bandits to claim to be "generous" with property that they stole? (And is the mysteriously capitalized "Truth" the same one used by Trump?)

But these people don’t show respect. They act like invaders, and they never fail to give in to anti-white bigotry in their politics. And when whites quite naturally resist this, they redouble their efforts against the whites, the very people who’ve been their benefactors all along – all because they want more out of white people, not less.

Is storming the bandit hideout to demand return of stolen property "invasive"? Is it "anti-bandit bigotry" to demand the bandits be punished?

I agree that it is natural for bandits to resist returning stolen property and to resist being punished. It is also to the victims' credit that they redouble their efforts to bring the bandits to justice. And yes, the victims should want as much justice as possible.

What is a white supremacist? In the eyes of non-whites, a white supremacist is a white person who wants to get away from non-whites: to effectively give them smaller portions, or none at all.

Yes. A bandit who belives that bandits owe their victims nothing, and hence wants to get away from the pursuing victims to prevent them from recovering their stolen property - in other words that initiated violence is respectable but retaliatory violence is not - can accurately be called a bandit supremacist.]

This is why they demonize and promise to wage war against the very people who’ve been their benefactors for decades. It all boils down to the Woody Allen Fallacy: The very thing they profess to hate is what they desperately want more of.

We do not want more bandits to exist. What we want is to leave no existing bandit unpunished.

Non-whites need to be called out for this. They also need to understand that they have no right to complain about white people, because white people don’t owe them a portion of anything.

Compare the two parts in bold.

Non-whites don’t come to America or Europe because they are doing such a bang-up job running their own countries, after all.

I was unable to find where the author explains why "whites" came to America. Or everywhere else around the world they ever colonized, for that matter.


Our enemies again set themselves up for us to laugh at them:

In Wilmot Robertson’s watershed book The Dispossessed Majority (1972), in the chapter titled “The Esthetic Prop,”[1] he describes the Esthetic Prop, which he associates most closely with the “Nordic physical ideal,” as a “genetic resource” and “an enduring, deeply-ingrained esthetic preference on the part of most Americans.”[2] It is also a source of White (i.e., European) racial feeling and allegiance and one of the few remaining props supporting the White position:

It is the…Esthetic Prop which helps the American White Majority to hold on to the trappings, but not the substance, of its former power. Only in the sector of esthetics, through the pervasiveness of the idealized Nordic [i.e., Northern European] biological type and its continued acceptance as the national template of physical charm and attractiveness, has the Majority been able to mount a small but successful holding action in the present racial melee.[3]
Robertson’s words point us toward a still active beacon of light which has been given too little consideration. We should give new heed to what his words clearly suggest: that the Esthetic Prop is a latent source of power that could and should be activated to help our cause.
Its proper appropriation, which we should use to full advantage, would be to prop up the race to which it belongs, to help inspire and motivate the upward trajectory of a White resurgence, by helping us clearly see what this time we really are fighting for.

OK? And then here come their examples:


But wait, they have celebrity examples too!


That profile view in the second picture is almost cartoonishly subhuman.

It's not over yet:

There is certainly a great degree of personal preference on this subject, especially in terms of particular ranking, but there should be general agreement (outliers always excepted) as to qualification. Some such safe examples I could cite would be Audrey Hepburn in Roman Holiday (1953), Vivien Leigh in Caesar and Cleopatra (1945), Elizabeth Allan in A Tale of Two Cities (1935), Greta Garbo in Queen Christina (1933),[7] and Grace Kelly in any of the films of her brief career.

I'm even going to do the work for them. Hepburn in Roman Holiday:

Leigh in Caesar and Cleopatra:

Allan in A Tale of Two Cities is the cartoonishly subhuman profile view covered above. Here is a front view:

Garbo in Queen Christina:


Remember: these are the best our enemies could find. In other word, when they think of the ultimate in "white" beauty, this is what is in their minds.

To counter the power of White beauty they have long labored to deconstruct and relativize it, and even to debase and debauch it

No, all I have to do is repost the exact same pictures that you yourself posted, and exhibit the same examples that you yourself chose. And laugh about it.

Garbo was a personal favorite of Robertson. He had a large picture book of her in his library which caught my eye. When I pulled it off the shelf and started looking through it he became quite animated and enthused about what she meant to his generation (he was eighteen when Queen Christina was released) for whom she personified the ultimate esthetic ideal.

Fine, let's do another Garbo:

One thing I will say: her face goes perfectly with the Western chair. (This is not a compliment, of course.)

And then from the comments:

the beauty of our women creates jealousy and provides even more motivation to destroy our gene pool.

The urge to decry, belittle and destroy beauty, be it white women, or the incomparable best of white civilisation and art, is of course founded upon the Nietzschean concept of ressentiment, or more simply sour grapes.

And this is why we aptly call them Homo Hubris. Hubris is not just when they have a ridiculously high opinion of themselves, but when they are convinced that everyone else does as well, and interpret all criticism as motivated by jealousy. Meanwhile back in reality, we are honestly bewildered as to how it is even possible to call the above examples "beauty". Or, more to the point, how racially inferior our enemies must in order to indeed perceive beauty in the above examples.

Homework: graphically visualize our enemies jacking off to the above pictures.


Also from the comments:

I nominate Elizabeth Taylor, Penelope Cruz, and Sophia Loren as famous exemplars of European beauty




Monica Vitti wasn’t bad either


Sissy Spacek-type women work fine for me


This is turning into a Cro-Magnon skull yard sale! Does anyone still think (in this case Giant) blood memory is not real?
« Last Edit: May 09, 2021, 01:02:35 am by 90sRetroFan »