The Billions Must Die Question
#1
This is in response to Anthony, who said elsewhere that he has long gone back and forth on the BMDQ. I thought it would make a good thread. The thread is also known as the Second Wannsee Conference.

It is sensible to be ambivalent on the BMDQ. Since causing death is not the goal in itself it stands to reason there could be any number of approaches to solving the foreigner problem dictated by circumstance. If the economy is good, and immediate manpower needed, segregate and strip of rights. If military production needed, enslave them. If conquest required, conscript them. If they would willingly leave, let them leave. If they are good for nothing and you can make them leave, make them leave. If, and whenever, they are good for nothing and will not leave, kill them.

Some foreigners in some places might prove too large an interest group to trust keeping around. This does not mean that they must be totally eliminated, only at the least culled. It would be good if the BasedReich did this to them at the outset, and then gave them any necessary leniency afterward. It would also possibly be good at some period of time to hypothetically opportunistically cull them individually extra-legally, especially if the individuals selected have no economic value.

In my own imperial fantasy, I like the idea of sending armies of foreigners off to conquer their native lands as client states of the Empire. This, like TND or categorical BMDQ, is a fantasy and not a strategy.


It must be said also that immediately killing all of them is kind of a caricature. The way this usually goes is: make things progressively more inhospitable for them, then maybe flat out tell them to leave. Anyone remaining is killed. Expenses need not necessarily be spared to deport them; if these people would migrate treacherous oceans on shitty rafts for free shit, I'm sure they would migrate treacherous oceans on shitty rafts to not get rounded up and shot to death.

I believe that the 100% white nation is also a kind of fantasy, and sub-optimal. Such a nation is not as meritocratic, not as versatile. Especially so if the ideal should be "100% native ethnic group". A return to normal (pre-WW2) levels of nativism is desirable. But there has undeniably been an abnormal fuck up since then that must be corrected by abnormal measures.
#2
It's entirely possible the course of history will change in the coming century: it's delusional to imagine it as a punishing of your perceived enemies.

Nazi Germany in general and the Holocaust in particular are as close as you can get in contemporary Western (American) society to ontological evil. There's never going to be industrialized murder in the foreseeable future in anywhere but dilapidated shitholes cutoff from the dominant world culture. There's also not going to be anything like an Aktion T4 analog (not couched in the language of women's rights or some such thing, of course), the Armenian Genocide, the displacement of American Indians, etc.

What there might be is a nuclear exchange between nuclear powers. Or a sinking of an American fleet if they are struck by developments in missile technology before countermeasures are developed (very doubtful - you can always just shoot more missiles at it than they have means to intercept).

No one's killing Mexican-Americans for their 10% Native blood, and no one's committing a pogrom against African-Americans two years after the entire United States went into a collective hysteria over a guy passing a banknote and overdosing on opiates on camera caused a summer of riots.

The entire reasons most events become historically important is specifically because they were not foreseen. Trust me: some retard in India is going to bomb Pakistan eventually.
#3
BMDQ is probably more of a reality than a question. The reaction to COVID-19 should be regarded as an early prologue here. At a certain level of complexity, Capitalism tends to optimize against redundancy in favor of immediate growth. Far more so if nature hasn't slapped its hand often enough. We're about two centuries deep into this, with a rapid acceleration over the last fifty, and when the 'real one' hits - be it a plague of actual substance, an unforeseen war, or a climate catastrophe - the resulting decimation to supply lines and international trade will trigger a butterfly effect with effects ranging from mass migration, localized conflicts, and mass starvation. As certain aspects of the socius get dragged to shit, the rest will get pulled down for the ride.

Whatever there is to say about the IMF/WEF/etc - they have their eyes pretty firmly fixed on this potentiality, and it shapes and orients the overall guiding philosophy of our elite. It is baked into the ethos of the Gates Foundation and innumerable non-profits. Despite this, they've yet to produce a workable solution to the issue. Still, their winning condition is trying to prevent it entirely. On the other side, nationalism represents one possible self-defense for both America and Europe in a losing scenario. In a Malthusian situation, it is still a dramatic economic 'loss' leading to direct 'quality of life' losses (depending on how you measure QoL, ofc), but it avoids the total and absolute loss of being overrun by a mass migration of third-worlders.

Pretty much every other political question is irrelevant in comparison to this one.
#4
(12-28-2022, 12:37 AM)calico Wrote: It's entirely possible the course of history will change in the coming century: it's delusional to imagine it as a punishing of your perceived enemies.

Nazi Germany in general and the Holocaust in particular are as close as you can get in contemporary Western (American) society to ontological evil. There's never going to be industrialized murder in the foreseeable future in anywhere but dilapidated shitholes cutoff from the dominant world culture. There's also not going to be anything like an Aktion T4 analog (not couched in the language of women's rights or some such thing, of course), the Armenian Genocide, the displacement of American Indians, etc.

What there might be is a nuclear exchange between nuclear powers. Or a sinking of an American fleet if they are struck by developments in missile technology before countermeasures are developed (very doubtful - you can always just shoot more missiles at it than they have means to intercept).

No one's killing Mexican-Americans for their 10% Native blood, and no one's committing a pogrom against African-Americans two years after the entire United States went into a collective hysteria over a guy passing a banknote and overdosing on opiates on camera caused a summer of riots.

The entire reasons most events become historically important is specifically because they were not foreseen. Trust me: some retard in India is going to bomb Pakistan eventually.

If there is one thing to learn from history, it is that governed rarely consent to being governed and public opinion doesnt matter. All meaningful changes have come about due to actions of small group of intelligent young men, and I dont see why an era where this group is uniquely deprived of purpose and influence wont see similar attempts.

I really doubt India-Pakistan nuclear showdown could happen, and that if it did it would affect great changes. Potential impact of small-scale nuclear warfare in general is usually very overestimated imo. Mikka made a good post predicting course of next few decades-Russia will decline in significance as a result of overspending on war with Ukraine, as will US for obvious reasons, while China wont be able to cope with demands of their insanely low fertility rates with Xi still in charge-by the time someone decisive enough to deal with this assumes power it will be already too late. With EU failling to take advantage of this multipolarity 40s and 50s will afford strong regional powers greater freedom.

(12-28-2022, 01:08 AM)Zed Wrote: Despite this, they've yet to produce a workable solution to the issue.

They already have it-global transfer of wealth from 1st world to 3rd world concomitant with mass migration. Almost everything else exoteric ZOG does is calculated to cope with inevitable consequences of these two processes.
#5
(12-28-2022, 01:08 AM)Zed Wrote: BMDQ is probably more of a reality than a question. The reaction to COVID-19 should be regarded as an early prologue here. At a certain level of complexity, Capitalism tends to optimize against redundancy in favor of immediate growth. Far more so if nature hasn't slapped its hand often enough. We're about two centuries deep into this, with a rapid acceleration over the last fifty, and when the 'real one' hits - be it a plague of actual substance, an unforeseen war, or a climate catastrophe - the resulting decimation to supply lines and international trade will trigger a butterfly effect with effects ranging from mass migration, localized conflicts, and mass starvation. As certain aspects of the socius get dragged to shit, the rest will get pulled down for the ride.

Whatever there is to say about the IMF/WEF/etc - they have their eyes pretty firmly fixed on this potentiality, and it shapes and orients the overall guiding philosophy of our elite. It is baked into the ethos of the Gates Foundation and innumerable non-profits. Despite this, they've yet to produce a workable solution to the issue. Still, their winning condition is trying to prevent it entirely. On the other side, nationalism represents one possible self-defense for both America and Europe in a losing scenario. In a Malthusian situation, it is still a dramatic economic 'loss' leading to direct 'quality of life' losses (depending on how you measure QoL, ofc), but it avoids the total and absolute loss of being overrun by a mass migration of third-worlders.

Pretty much every other political question is irrelevant in comparison to this one.

An excellent point. Existential politics is only palatable to normgroids in face of defined existential problems. Liberalism has reduced the racial instinct of the global white population more or less in the soft conquest of immigration politics; let's hope it hasn't completely gutted our will to power in a more serious case.
#6
I think this is related to the Billions must die question:

https://westsdarkesthour.com/2018/08/30/...e-are-you/

"How awake are you?

Level 1:

Nadzees are evil, Democracy is good.
Jews are Holocaust survivors.
Christianity is for idiots.

Level 2:

Nazis were misled by an anti-Semitic demagogue.
The Holocaust may be false.
Christianity is ‘okay’.

Level 3:

Germans were fighting against Zionists.
The Holocaust is false, Zionism is evil.
Christianity is good.

Level 4:

White Nationalism is good.
Jews are evil.
Christianity is a White religion.

Level 5:

National Socialism is good.
America is evil.
Christianity has been corrupted by Jews.



Level 6:
National Socialism is the only solution.
All countries are evil.
Christianity has always been a Jewish Psy-op.

Level 7:

White segregation is the only solution.
Modernity is evil.
Anti-Christian Paganism is good.

Level 8:

There are no political solutions.
Civilization is evil.
Blood and Soil is the only true religion.

Level 9:

Non-white exterminationism is the only solution.
Most Whites are not true Whites.
All Whites are spiritually flawed.

Level 10:

10% of Whites are true humans, and must survive.
90% of Whites are defective humans, of which 50% must die (males).
100% of non-Whites are sub-humans, and all must die.

Personally I’m a level 9, verging on level 10.

I’ve met some level 4, and only a few level 5.

The leap from 5 to 6 is astronomical due to the Xtian malware rejection. Feels lonely sometimes."
#7
WDH is an interesting website but it always struck me as impotent rantings - the fact that the owner is Mexican is also suspect.
#8
It feels like no one in this thread except OP is actually talking about the Billions Must Die Question, they're shifting the question to matters of hypothetical mass-dieoffs in the coming century. That's clearly not what people are referring to when anons say Billions Must Die. BMD is an intentional prescriptive choice to kill off the vast majority of the world population. The idea behind this is rather obviously because the world is overpopulated and most "people" who populate it are more like semi-autonomous biofuel. For much the same reason why the Nazis wanted the Reichskommissariat Moskowien, I think there is value in the inevitable Overman having an underclass. The Samurai couldn't wield power without the castes below them for which to control. The mastery the Greeks achieved couldn't be done if they were bothering with agriculture and other basal industry, they had slaves for that. That being said, there's zero need for this many people in the world. The utility sub-90 IQ underlings could provide does not even cover the cost of keeping 90% of them alive. OP is right, the 100% White (read: Human, Alive, Conscious, etc) nation is a fantasy, but this is only true if that percentage is supposed to include non-citizens.

(12-31-2022, 12:32 PM)Guest Wrote: ...

Coal. The BMDQ is not just the end of some sliding scale of based-ness, its an actual Question, that's what the Q stands for. Even when the origin of BMD arguably entered American neo-nazi discussion with the Turner Diaries, there were lots of guys who were "awake" who disagreed with it. What the author of this link has done is just made up a scale and decided that they were at the top of that ladder by some metric they've made up. Congrats. Did you know that Amarna forum is actually the cumulation of millions of years of physic power collected from interstellar Aryan supermen culling the universe to power their Utility Machine? It's true, I can prove it by linking to a midwit blog.
#9
The core of BMD: acceleration of Human evolution. However, with technological development like gene modification, etc coming up, I don't think it's necessary, or economical. The manipulation of intrinsic group/race traits will become trivial in the future, and under a wise guiding hand the effects would stack exponentially, you'd literally get a Golden Age within years.

But with BMD the generally catastrophic manner in which it would be done, as well as the fact that it would be a truly mind-boggling act of logistics (for which I believe there is no more the human capital to pull through anyway - in Victorian times with modern technology, perhaps), you'd probably just get what BAP warned about collapsists and retvrn trad fags - instead of fixing things, you would just get a depopulated, decentralized collection of villages that are still longhoused.
#10
I think there is more to Billions Must Die than the basics of biological quality. Billions dying in a sudden way would inject that fear of God...death...nature...whatever back into the population quickly and strongly. That being said, you don't need billions to die for this to happen. One rough war in a region is likely enough for that region.

I think it's less something that would be planned and executed and more as calico said: A chaotic event that spirals away. As for good or bad...generative or degenerative, it all depends on who is there to make a play. I like the statement, because it is a reminder that chaos is one of the mechanisms of life that causes change. Also, it is purely anti-moral which is good. (Yes, yes I know.)

I don't think of the question as one of someone saying: "We will wipe out X billions of people". But more that someone is saying: "My actions will cause this one way or another." Or even the more passive "Billions must die before X can happen". Simply as a requirement.

It might also just be an expression of the growing bloodlust in populations. Whether this is real or just a pose is up to your judgement. I tend towards real but unlikely to cause the person to change. They lack the will and are more likely to hurt themselves then do anything to shift their local order (let alone national order.) I don't even think it is enough to cause young men to enlist in a military. Lastly, it is funny and enjoyable to say. BILLIONS MUST DIE!

As for BAP warning...He is speaking to the long-housed in spirit. There is nothing that can happen that forces a man into it. Yes, it might be that one dies quickly in such an environment or lives in some unsavory manner. But if one refuses to be long-housed, then he cannot be long-housed. Scientific-maxxing of the population may well lead to a very pervasive longhouse as well. There are too many unknowns. A few things need to be present for a larger organization of people to be free of the long-house. As I said in the Eugenics thread: That question of "Why to Reach Beyond" has to be answered. Something has to fill the void. Conquest is the only thing that comes to mind for me. Or some brutal hatred. These are other pointers towards "Billions Must Die". I don't think any religion, old or new, can do it. Or if they could, they would involve conquest or some brutal hatred. I don't think that "Love for one's own" can work in disparate populations. Given how fractured and withdrawn into inner worlds people are, it doesn't seem viable. I feel that it would only be a pose.

But to simply transition from general decline to even a flat-line through genetics-alone...I feel it's not enough. I may be cynical, or too ignorant of the true possibilities.

Truly Lastly Now: I concede and accept that I may simply be one of those included in "Billions Must Die". Such is life!
#11
(01-08-2023, 11:37 PM)Guest Wrote: I think there is more to Billions Must Die than the basics of biological quality. Billions dying in a sudden way would inject that fear of God...death...nature...whatever back into the population quickly and strongly. That being said, you don't need billions to die for this to happen. One rough war in a region is likely enough for that region.

I think it's less something that would be planned and executed and more as calico said: A chaotic event that spirals away. As for good or bad...generative or degenerative, it all depends on who is there to make a play. I like the statement, because it is a reminder that chaos is one of the mechanisms of life that causes change. Also, it is purely anti-moral which is good. (Yes, yes I know.)

I agree that it's more about working the kinks out of the world and letting energy flow in a vital and chaotic manner again.

Quote:"War is a good thing", he wrote, "because it is honest, it admits the central fact of human nature.... A nation too long at peace becomes a sort of gigantic old maid".
#12
Africa is the most obvious target, to me, if population decline is what we are after. The entire continent is propped up by outside influence, dependent on the billions of dollars of Western aid it receives each year, and as such has had a meteoric rise in the numbers of mouths to feed since such programs were put in to place sixty-something years ago.

Maybe I don't need to explain this, but when you provide first-world infrastructure to individuals with a third-world state of mind, there is nothing obligating them to change their behaviour: meaning, for example, that while mammy can now get her and her gaggle of blinded lepers the malaria vaccine, that does not necessitate, to her, that she thus stops having so many children, as we in the first-world have largely done, to adjust for our "medical prosperity." She breeds as she, and the women that came before her, have always done, not accounting for the fact that her numbers are now bolstered, because she and her people did not earn it naturally.

Now what we are seeing is an effort to educate the women of Africa, in an attempt to get them to develop first-world patterns of reproduction, but it has been largely unsuccessful. The year-to-year percentage increase is consistently upward, and overall projections for the future are high. The West is losing money in this endeavour, gaining nothing in return in the short-term, and outright jeopardizing everything it has achieved past, present, and future in the long-term. Something has got to give.

Realistically, it is unlikely that billions will, or even can, die. To reach such numbers, you would need a cataclysmic-type event to consume the Earth, in which case your likelihood of survival would be quite low, and as such would be your top priority - more than any considerations for the bug-men of the world.

I think it will take a sufficient collapse of modern infrastructure in order for anything to happen: you're not going to get the opportunity for an "extermination campaign" - more likely is that the West will be unable to continue its foreign aid, and subsequently, the population will begin its gradual die-off. That's a topic for another thread, maybe.

In the meantime, border control on the European front seems like the best, and most attainable, possibility for us. BAP advocates for this, and champions people such as Zemmour, for this very reason. Continue to push for this - romanticize the architecture, the history, whatever - make people proud of Europe, and make them feel like it's something worth protecting. Then, when and if the die-off starts to happen, and the resulting tidal wave hits the shores, people are ready and willing to defend their land.


[-]
Quick Reply
Message
Type your reply to this message here.

Human Verification
Please tick the checkbox that you see below. This process is used to prevent automated spam bots.



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)