Appalled by Something Beautiful

Purity is something beautiful because it is good for the race. Liberals are obsessed with racial purity – they are always reacting to it. They claim to be appalled, whilst they deny their own desires for purity. Liberals themselves desire purity in morality and essentially claim that whoever desires racial purity is morally impure – stained even.

Trying to make that which is beautiful look ugly is proposing an upside-down worldview which is what liberalism has been about since the beginning. Liberalism is the total inversion of normal healthy human racial values in an effort to create a new post-racial man. What is healthy is then suddenly sick, what is normal is then suddenly abnormal, and what is human is then suddenly inhuman.

Liberalism is merely a reaction to race, a reaction to racial purity. It condemns whatever is good for the race, while preaching whatever is bad for the race. Liberalism is an anti-evolutionary state religion of modern Western countries. It is certainly inspired by Judeo-Christianity with all its appeals to altruism and morality.

Racial purity is what is best for the race, and that is why liberalism advocates race-mixing. Many people take their upside-down liberal valuez with them even if they ‘convert’ to nationalism. That is why it is vital to talk about racial purity as a fundamental value for the race. There can be no racial continuity without the practice of racial purity.

Racial purity is the basis for racial survival – it cannot be ignored. Liberalism is literally the path to racial death. Liberalism can be analysed as a (state) religion which is radically against racial survival. Liberalism embraces whatever will cause racial death. It is a religion of irreversable death instead of inventive survival.

Someone who wishes to survive ought to be flexible and practical and open-minded. However, liberals possess not of those survivor’s virtues. Liberals are radicals who only oppose racial purity. They try to offer all sorts of critiques of racial purity. They do this by responding or reacting to racial purity, and these responses or reactions are usual emotional.

They may, for instace, claim to be appalled by racial purity. However, this can be solved by offering another perspective. We should not forget there is another story. The point is to ask for empathy by telling our side of the story: The story of racial purity. Our story is about the people’s need for survival. This need should not be ignored or neglected – it should be empathised with.


9 thoughts on “Appalled by Something Beautiful”

  1. Hello there interesting blog. I think that among Asian there are 2 types. Cold adapted neo mongoloids which refer to the peoples of China, Korea and Japan. Then we have tropical mongoloids, like the Austronesian speakers and austroasiatic speakers of south east Asia.

    Then there are partly mixed ones like the Vietnamese. What do you think of race mixing between neo mongoloids ? Like Koreans and Japanese ?


    1. You are absolutely right with your observations. What you call cold-adapted neo-mongoloids are usually called Northeast Asians according to race science. We evolved in the cold North of (East) Asia. I think it would be nice to preserve the Northeast Asian ethnicities: Japanese, Mongolians, Han Chinese and Koreans. It is fair to say this ethnic diversity is the result of racial purity.

      Koreans did generally only reproduce with Koreans, Japanese with Japanese and Chinese with Chinese. There are, moreover, regional differences in China that are not to be ignored. We belong to the same race – that is true. There are ethnic differences within the Northeast Asian race – that is also true.

      We can compare the situation to that of the White or European race: There are multiple European ethnicities or ‘smaller races’. A Han Chinese mixed with a Japanese would still be an Northeast Asian – this cannot be denied. At the same time, this Northeast Asian would unfortunately not possess the ethnic uniqueness that characterises pure Han Chinese or Japanese.

      Although inter-ethnic mixing is not the end of the world, it is still a breach of existing traditions of racial purity – Japanese have their custom of racial purity, Chinese do and Koreans do. Nations are essentially founded on the basis of who has sex with whom. Leftist globalism is contributing to the erosion of Northeast Asian and European ethnicities – but also of the entire races. Globalism is a political-ideological force, and it is not a mysterious inanimate divine power.

      I hope that I answered your question to your satisfaction.


  2. I agree with what you said. In Asia there is a trend towards inter marriage between lower status rural men and women from poorer countries. For example, in Korea and Taiwan farmers often cannot find wives so they marry women from Vietnam/Philippines . I think this happens because women when they get more educated they will not settle for lower status men. As a result what you will see is that a lot of career women end up not getting married, and a lot of rural farmers getting foreign wives.

    In the long run, i think this will be quite dysgenic as it will lower the IQ of the nation. Smart women not carrying down their genes. I think the solution to this is to go back to the Confucian ideal of the farmer as higher status then the merchant. I don’t know if it is possible to change they way people think in modern times but it is still worth a try in my opinion.


    1. That will definitely be dysgenic, but IQ is not my only concern because racial psychology is far more complex – if you ask for what I want to achieve in the long run, then I can tell you that I want to preserve it all and not just our IQ scores. I am not very enthusiastic about IQ as a topic anyways, because low-IQ peoples can easily be more successful than we are if we do not focus on racial purity first and foremost. They can simply swamp us genetically through miscegenation and then all is over. Superior IQ is, moreover, not necessarily a recipe for success….. low-IQ may also be evolutionarily adaptive. We just need to keep our heads cool and focus on what we need to do in order to survive: protect racial purity.

      The idea of the farmer above the merchant is a typical monarchical idea – and I do not oppose absolute monarchy at all. It is said that princes and farmers are the two most conservative classes. Absolute monarchies are built by the cooperation of these two kinds of people, in opposition to the merchants. Confucianism is essentially the implicit ideology of absolute monarchy made explicit. The only way to restore Confucianism would be by doing missionary work and raising awareness. Christians are not the only ones who can convert others – and yet our cause is better for mankind. Confucius tried to convert the people, and we should continue his work, making use of efficient new technologies and strategies.


  3. Hi there,

    I have recently discovered your site and have been reading your most recent blog posts. I have some questions on political policies for maintaining racial purity.

    Two common solutions for majority White countries which are proposed are to either
    a) divide the country based on ethnic lines, which would forcibly separate White from non-White
    b) deport all non-Whites

    I think the first is unworkable and would not be permanent. There would still be a lot of mixing between the races after a while. As for the second, I think it is immoral because many people have friends, partners and business colleagues who are non-White. Some businesses might collapse if those people were removed.

    I understand that this isn’t the topic of this blog post, but I thought that this was a brilliant opportunity to ask someone who seems to be knowledgeable on the topic of the races and their interactions.

    Furthermore, you say you yourself are an immigrant to a Western country, or are otherwise living there temporarily. How do you reconcile this with your views on race?

    Thank you very much,

    MM. (MoralityMatters) – I prefer a pseudonym for most of my online dealings, and I already have other commenting accounts in this name on other sites.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Hey,

      Welcome on this blog and feel free to post more.

      You ask some good questions there. I could schedule to write an article about this soon. Where to begin answering your questions? I believe morality is spontaneous. It comes from our human nature, and I feel this is a sacred source. Humans have needs and desires in the real world, and those must be understood and empathised with. Humans are not merely individual beings, but we are group animals. We have evolved beyond being solitary creatures – we have a real stake in the group that we were born into because our personal survival and personal success ultimately depends on it. Ethnic or racial realities are relevant to our lives,and we cannot escape them. If we were to make a diary about this, we could study this consciously in our own personal lives.

      The modern ideology in the West is that all races are equal, that races should mix because that is the future, and that being mixed is superior. There are obvious problems when you see these beliefs together. Evolution never created equality – it is a fantasy or moral aberration. Evolution creates inequality, and that inequality is moral. Confucianism – which comes from an affirmation of man’s inner nature – embraces this natural inequality and sees it as moral. Mixing is not per se inevitable, but liberal ideologues see it as an inevitable goal for the world. Evolution does not favour this experiment, because the races spontaneously emerged through the process of evolution – and so liberalism is against the natural order. In other words, liberalism is against evolution. This can also be seen in the fact that they deny that humans evolved for the past 50.000 years. They deny human evolution. However, evolution never stops while it is not static but dynamic. Mixing is, moreover, posed by liberals as a moral imperative but it is not based on any human need or desire for which we should feel empathy. The liberal moral inperative for mixing is devoid of any moral meaning. In fact, it is against human needs and desires, but I will come to that later (see paragraph below). It is not possible to simultaneously believe races are equal and that being mixed is superior. This claim about superiority is based on a misunderstanding of hybrid vigour. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that there are ‘absolutely superior or vigorous hybrids’. The ‘vigorous hybrids’ we see in nature are not necessarily ‘vigorous’ because their ‘vigour’ is not a hereditary trait – they cannot pass it on to the next generation, which is a basic requirement for evolutionary adaptability. Many hybrids in nature are even sterile. No matter how you argue, that would not be ‘vigour’ in the end – only ‘temporary or fleeting vigour’ at best. Hybrids are in some sort of transitory state, even if they can reproduce. Either they start forming their own kind (which means more hybrids of the same kind are needed) or they assimilate back into the kind of either of their parents. Hybrids are freaks of nature, biologically speaking. They lack the evolutionary stability their parents enjoyed (you need some genetic stability to pass on your genes successfully, hence the human interest in racial purity) even if they may be ‘successful beings’ on their own when we exclude reproduction from the consideration. Moreover, the claim that hybrids in themselves are more vigorous than their parents is a moot point. Evidence is far from conclusive to support that point. Some hybrids may seem vigorous – but it is not really clear whether they are truly. A hybrid may survive in a certain habitat, but he may not be so well-adapted or specialised as either of his parents. Being a hybrid means lacking evolutionary specialisation in some sense – or at least that specialisation which the parents did not have in common. There is an eternal trend towards specialisation in evolution. Some specialisations are lost, and some are kept. It depends on what works. Hybrids are shaking things up – they are some sort of error in the system. Sometimes they evolve into their own race (e.g. see what happened in South America) or they cease to exist either because a. they fail to reproduce or b. they assimilate back into either of the races of their parents. But as transitory beings, you cannot claim mixed people are biologically superior. This is the truth and no matter whether it is uncomfortable to hear that truth, this will remain the truth and morality of the world.

      It is an observable fact that people self-segregate in society on the basis of race. American society is now more racially segregated than when racial segregation was legally enforced. The social push for racial segregation is apparently much stronger than the legal push could ever have been. The textbook of one of my law courses in university also recognises that social pressures can be much stronger than the law. As someone who believes in evolution, I will look for an evolutionary explanation of this strong push for racial segregation. Humans apparently desire and need that although they may not be conscious of their behaviour. In a study it was showed that babies segregate themselves on the basis of race. White babies group themselves with Whites and Blacks with Blacks, for instance. This is an inborn tendency. The current ideology goes against this tendency. The point is to embrace this tendency and to push it towards its logical conclusion. We have no business struggling against nature, and only misery and tragedy will come of that. The Soviets tried to make the new Soviet man and they failed tremendously. The liberals are trying to make a new post-racial man, the race of the future (google it) and they will fail – but humanity will be left with the mess of their experiment of trying to engineer human beings to their ideological liking. Confucianism, for instance, does not seek to engineer human nature but to embrace it. The Confucian attitude is much healthier, because it does not try to fight against nature. We are subject to the forces of nature and we will be punished harshly if we forget our place in nature. I feel that accepting human nature is the only way forward.

      I hope this provides an answer.


      1. Thank you for the response.

        I have come to value morality and virtues recently, as a feel much of humanity is becoming demoralised and weak, both mentally and physically.

        I have wanted to learn more about Confucianism for quite some time. I feel that it is a very good system to live by, from what I’ve seen so far. There is also the ancient Japanese system of Bushido, which I read a short book on that one of my mother’s friends had.

        Your claim that the races self-segregate makes sense to me and there is a lot of evidence for it when I observe people from one day to the next. So yes, it does help with my questions. I live in London in the UK, which is highly diverse in the central areas. So highly diverse in fact that the White British population is less than 45% within the city. I find this very sad.

        Also, your point about the mixing of the races and hybrids makes sense as well. They are not a race by themselves because each ‘mixed-race’ person is a mixture of multiple races. This means that they will be less likely to perpetuate their specific mixture because they may not reproduce with someone of the same specific mixture as them.

        In typing the above, another question comes to mind. Would you regard Europeans/North Americans/Canadians/Australians etc as the same race because they are White or would you say each one of these is a race of their own?

        Liked by 1 person

        1. My pleasure.

          You summarised it nicely and I see that you understood my points well.

          I value morality and virtues a lot too. I believe that once upon a time absolute monarchy used to morally strengthen humanity and to encourage them to adopt virtues. I see absolute monarchy as an abstract teacher of morality and virtue. Not unlike Plato, I see a connection between absolute monarchy and morality and virtue. Confucius never rejected absolute monarchy, but he only affirmed the old order and he sought to find ways to improve it because he loved morality and virtue.

          Confucianism is essentially a monarchical value system. The only way to get ahead in a monarchical society is to seek morality and virtue. The way to get ahead in a democratic society is to shout and aggressively assert your interests at others’ expense. Plato is right in my view that different political systems create different personalities. In Plato’s view, democracy creates the worst character. I believe that the creation of this kind of character is a continuous process. If democracy creates a bad character, then it will only become progressively worse.

          I have a great admiration for Bushido and I have read a great deal about it. The book by Inazo Nitobe is quite inspiring:

          Bushido consists of two words. Do means way and bushi means warrior. Bushi comes from a Chinese word for warrior. Bushido essentially means the Way of the Warrior. It is the essence of Japanese culture. Besides Bushido, Japanese people also have Shinto. I am a very traditional Chinese. I am an adherent of Chinese folk religion. The ancient name of my religion is Shendao. Dao is the Chinese word for way, and the do in Bushido also comes from this. Shen means God. Shendao means the Way of the Gods. Shinto also comes from the Chinese word Shendao. Shinto is the pre-Buddhist religion of Japan and Shendao is the pre-Buddhist religion of China. We do not have commandments in our religion, because we can just know morality by listening to our hearts. Morality is revealed to us. Our religion needs to be felt, it must be lived, it cannot be understood. That is why it is a ‘way’ and not really a ‘religion’ in the Western sense. It is rather a philosophy that is to be lived. There is no need to think much about it. Feeling it deeply and intensely is what we always try to do.

          You ask another good question.

          I would call them ‘European-descended peoples’ to distinguish them from the ethnic Europeans we find in Europe. They are basically a new group. They arose from the mixture of primarily Northwestern European peoples. They are closely related to the Europeans from Europe, although they are not exactly the same – bear with me because this statement requires some explanation and contextualisation. You can find the old European ethnities in Europe. However, European-descended peoples are basically the new group. If given the chance, they will also evolve in another direction over time. Since they are closely related to the ethnic Europeans in Europe, they are part of the White race. They just do not belong to the same ethnic categories as the Europeans from the ‘Old Continent’. They are still a people in the making. Americans are also seeking an (ethnic) identity. Their ethnic identity is not yet as deep as that of the peoples in Europe. Theirs is primarily a racial one, and that is why ethnicity is not so relevant to Americans whereas it is for Europeans in Europe. Europeans in Europe also see their racial kinship with other Europeans, but they have another deep extra dimension: ethnicity. Europeans in Europe tend to be less individualist and European-descended people in America tend to be more individualist. I think this difference has an obvious evolutionary explanation: Europeans in Europe tend to be more cohesive because they have an ethnic identity, whereas White Americans still need more time to establish their own ethnic identity. Some people argue that Europeans should all mix so that they would have a racial identity and so there would be more cohesion, but I think the evidence clearly points in the opposite direction: it is better to keep the European ethnic identities intact.

          In conclusion, the White race is made up of European-descended peoples and Europeans.

          I hope to see more of your comments. Thank you for reading and commenting.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Thank you for the information about Confucianism, Bushido and yourself! I will be sure to examine that book.

            Your analogy on European people and European-descended people has cleared up my confusion on that issue so thank you for that.

            I look forward to more of your blogs and may get around to commenting on some of the older ones.


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