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.
#13
(01-26-2023, 10:13 AM)Guest Wrote: 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.

Who is trying to get Africans to develop first-world fertility rates? We give them billions in medical and food assistance. By all accounts Africa has fallen short of its population projections. In the 2000s sociologists were certain Nigeria would hit a billion bantus by 2100, now the estimates barely break 600 million. In the 1968 Paul Ehrlich scared a bunch of college students into getting their tubes tied, but beyond that there's been no serious drive to lower the fertility rate of Third Worlders. If anything, the powers that be are disappointed that there aren't more browns to fill every crevice of the world. The worry isn't about what the population of Africa will be in a century, there's already a billion of them.

(01-26-2023, 10:13 AM)Guest Wrote: 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.

This is a sentiment I can agree with. Billions survive on the backs of Whites, and all it would take is the shrugging off of these chains to begin TND.
#14
"Actually African birth rates are falling, and will fall below replacement in the near future."
#15
(01-27-2023, 02:45 PM)Svevlad Wrote: "Actually African birth rates are falling, and will fall below replacement in the near future."

Infinitely more believable than the idea that there's going to be 10 billion nogs in Africa. Being worried about the population growth projections is outdated; Africa is already overpopulated by about 1.3 billion.
#16
Guest is 100% right that it is a fallacy to expect turd world population growth to slow as a function of increasing wealth (by gibsmedats and free food) with the same curve of increasing wealth among whites and Asians (by evolving to be more K-selected and culturally having longer time preferences, actually creating this wealth themselves, including the cost of choosing to have less children). That was the main point of his post, not that GNC genuinely wants to depopulate Africa.
#17
I agree with other Guest on pretty much everything. The main focus should be protection of the first world, ideally a total partition. The third world is useful as a slave class but you cannot allow the field nigger into the home, you don't shit where you eat, etc.

Once the partition is established who cares about the billions. In antiquity the population of the America might as well have been billions, Greece would be great nonetheless and thats all that matters.
#18
(12-27-2022, 09:58 PM)The_Author Wrote: 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.

I really like these categories.
Direct mass homicide is only necessary when a group is good for nothing and will not leave, and this describes a rather small percentage of the whole. This describes Africans, for whom no productive use could ever be found.
There is, however, an exception to this heuristic: being that of the Jews, who would be willing to leave but who cannot be allowed to leave; and who might be economically or technically useful, but who must be disposed of regardless. 

But now, on to the BMDQ. I am against it. I believe only one billion must die. There are 800m Africans in the world, 100m Jews, and leaves a working budget of 100m other homicides to clean up this shit show.
Consider reservations and one child policies. Mass homicide can easily be side stepped by simply putting subhumans into large reservations and sterilizing all women after their first child. This effectively halves their breeding population each generation and requires no homicide.
Next, consider combining this forced one child policy with eugenics. Rather than leaving the race to dwindle down to nothing over 5-6 generations, impose some sort of eugenics system or gene therapies on the breeding population each generation. Now you are reducing population while also uplifting a race from subhumanity into something worth preserving long term.
And finally, consider the recessive nature of Aryan genes. This is a blessing and a curse, which punishes us severely for single acts of miscegenation generations in the past, but also ensures the purity of the survivors who did not engage degeneracy. A problem with leaving other races alive is that these other races, even if we uplift them, if we preserve them in any way, will always be an existential threat to the survival of the Aryan peoples. The assumption is, probably validly, of inevitable mixing into oblivion of the Aryans with whatever underclass you wish to have in order to be """optimized.""" It happened in India and countless places elsewhere throughout Central Asia and the frontiers of Europe. (Consider the Medis, who are very recently mixed, in the grand scheme of things, and now build an identity steeped in the worst kind of pride in their otherness from the nordic Aryans from whom they sprang, creating a self-imposed separation from Nordics and fetishizing their negro and semitic admixtures).
If we take all these three points together, there is one conclusion, that any races we preserve must be bleached through eugenics and gene therapies. We must erase their non-whiteness in the process of uplifting and winnowing them.

So, either billions must die, or else billions must have their descendants become white. No other outcome is permissible in the long run.

There are three ways in which this might be accomplished.
The first and most obvious is also the worst, and that is through racemixing. This would be, taking the weakest and least desirable males of each generation of whites, and exiling them to the reservations of the nonwhites to serve as middle men, managers, governors, and enforcers in the reservations, while they racemix and mongrelize the untermenschen. This has the side effect of causing the heterogeneous core territories of the ubermenschen to also experience a eugenic effect of getting rid of its worst males. This option I consider to be foolish on its own, with monumental capacity for backfiring. Not only is it degenerate, but Empires do not last forever, and if our empire fails to last for 5-6 generations, then what we have done is created powerful rival races that have just received an infusion of Aryan admixture so they will better be able to compete with us, who are ruled directly by a resentful class of pure Aryan elites. 
The second way is through direct gene therapies, which will probably be developed within our lifetimes, and simply be able to cause a person's child to come out as a clone of some very smart and attractive and strong white person. This eradicates the target race in one generation, and uses their wombs as incubators for our own benefit, and makes their men cuckholds raising our children with their work. But these children in the care of the underclass we are gentle-genociding would lash out at these children with every type of cruelty that a parent or care giver can inflict on their child or ward. An ideal middle ground would be to only have the gene therapy effect half of the DNA, so that the children are still the carriers for their parents genes and still look somewhat like them. That method would reduce the process from step 1 as taking 6 generations to a more reasonable 3.
The third way is replacing women with replicants, whose wombs always produce high caste Aryan eggs, and always give birth to sons. This would reduce the population of breeding females of the target race to 0 in one generation, would bleach a race completely within 3 generations, would avoid resentment (indeed, males of the target race would be quite pleased to be getting attractive high caste replicant gfs), and would actually have vastly larger implications for human wellbeing as a whole and far into the future. Replicants would be incubators for human organs and human blood that would vastly increase human lifespans and survivability over the course of their lifetimes.

And then there is the option of combining all three of these approaches to completely bleach every race on earth except Africans and Jews (who will be the only targets of mass homicide for the reasons listed above), in less than 3 generations. That is, the females will all have dorky white husbands, the males will all have high caste replicant gfs, and in the first generation, the breeding population will be half white and decreased in number. The second generation will be 75% white and sharply decreased in number. The third generation will be 88% white and sharply decreased in number. And the fourth generation will be 94% white and sharply decreased in number, and be ready to re-enter white society with their children being 97% white. This will eliminate the existential threat and provide the Aryans (who will have been undergoing Eugenics for four generations as well) with their underclass.
#19
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtHgdyoY5Ws
#20
(02-16-2023, 07:21 PM)Guest Wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtHgdyoY5Ws

the displacement of the boers, the demolition of the estates, poaching the nature preserves to near desolation, torturing the horses to death
its all so unbelievably evil, every scene reminds me of the horse dream from crime and punishment (or nietzsche and the turin horse), nothing angers and saddens me more than seeing innocent beauty destroyed, that is the definition of evil

we should remind ourselves that the boers lived in south africa for over 300 years, much longer than the us has existed, and we must never be complacent



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




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)