Daniel Pekic

𝗛𝗶𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗻𝗼𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗺 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗺𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗺𝘆 𝗳𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗹𝘆. This is my preference for who I want around me and my children. I rank groups by long term compatibility, cultural continuity, and average cognitive capacity as one measurable proxy. 𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗳𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁: 𝗪𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻 𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀, 𝗦𝗹𝗮𝘃𝘀 (𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀, 𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀, 𝗲𝘁𝗰.), 𝗕𝗮𝗹𝗸𝗮𝗻𝘀, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗚𝗲𝗼𝗿𝗴𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝘀 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝘂𝘂𝗺. Inside that group there is a further ranking. Nordic and Germanic populations sit higher on historical achievement and average IQ (~100–105). Southern and eastern Europeans sit a bit lower but still inside the preferred set. 𝗠𝘆 𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘆 𝗶𝘀 𝟱𝟬% 𝗖𝗿𝗼𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗻, 𝟮𝟱% 𝗜𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗻, 𝟮𝟱% 𝗕𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘀𝗵-𝗔𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗻. 𝗜 𝗱𝗼 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗺𝘆𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳 𝗮𝗻 𝗲𝘅𝗰𝗲𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀. East Asians come second (~105–107 average). They have built high-functioning societies and are generally compatible in small numbers. Hispanics and Arabs sit in the middle tiers (typically 80–90). Indians and Sub-Saharan Africans sit at the bottom (Indians ~80–85, Sub-Saharan averages often estimated 70–80). Other groups fall in between or are too small to matter for this ranking. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗴𝗼𝗮𝗹 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗻 𝗲𝗻𝘃𝗶𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝟵𝟴–𝟵𝟵% 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗼𝗽 𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝘁𝗶𝗲𝗿. The remaining 1–2% can come from the next-highest ranked groups, selected on individual merit, provided the European character and majority remain dominant. That is the realistic limit I accept. I want this for the same reason anyone wants a stable neighborhood: shared norms, lower conflict, higher average competence, and continuity for my children. Average group differences in IQ track the ranking closely enough to be one useful data point among others (crime rates, institutional performance, cultural patterns). Individual variation exists; the averages still describe the distributions that shape places.

Some of you will have a chance to speak Join me in 4 hours xitter.twitterapi.xyz/i/spaces/1vyOMrMBrbooN…

All levels of IQ are welcome. Chat to you all in 1.5 hours xitter.twitterapi.xyz/i/spaces/1vyOpXLQWZpZA…

Indians and reply-guys mass-report me in Telegram chats. They’re easily triggered. Posts on X get removed with almost no effort. The second you start offering actual solutions and your DMs fill up with people ready to act, the posts disappear.

While we try to teach our children all about life, our children teach us what life is all about. 2nd birthday 🎂

Race mixing ends the human story forever. 𝗡𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘆 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗲𝘀 𝗹𝗶𝗳𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗵 𝗹𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗕𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘀𝗵, 𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘀, 𝗙𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗵, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗜𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀, 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿. Over 95% of all relevant inventions come from just those four ethnicities. And that’s North Italians, not south. Florence. It’s basically just a circle around one area in Europe. That’s where every invention came from. Most people already get the obvious case. African or Chinese parent, European parent. Kid looks like neither. Other kids see it. Kid grows up unable to answer who he is without a speech. That one is settled. The one people still refuse is the same thing happens inside Europe. British, northern German, northern French, and northern Italian are not the same as southern Italian, southern French, or Balkan. Smaller gap than with Africans. Still large enough that it decides who invents the shit and who just lives in it. Mix a Croat with a Dutchman or a northern German and the kid still gets a face and a story that match. Mix the same Croat with a Sicilian and the averages drop. Fewer kids hit the top end. Two generations later the drop is bigger. 𝗣𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝘀𝗮𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝘁 𝗸𝗶𝗹𝗹𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗳𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗹𝗶𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆’𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁. For everything Hitler got wrong, he got this one right. Race mixing is not okay. Not even once.

Gun to your head: one million Christian Nigerians, or one million Japanese (atheists, Buddhists, whatever). 𝗬𝗼𝘂 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗝𝗮𝗽𝗮𝗻𝗲𝘀𝗲. Not because you like sushi. Because you have eyes. 𝗘𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝗔𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝟭𝟬𝟱 𝗜𝗤. 𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝟭𝟬𝟬. 𝗦𝘂𝗯-𝗦𝗮𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗻 𝗔𝗳𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝘀𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝟳𝟬𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗹𝗼𝘄 𝟴𝟬𝘀. Indians are a bimodal mess with a high tail and a huge low end. That gap is not a rounding error. It is the difference between a population that can mostly operate complex systems and a population that mostly cannot. How many Japanese people have you seen randomly stab someone on a European street? How many Korean gangs control a neighborhood in Paris or Melbourne? Exactly. Their crime rates in the West are the lowest of any immigrant group. Often lower than the natives. They open shops and go home. They do not form parallel societies that require their own police. They also do not treat mean words as capital punishment. If a black American overhears you using the word nigger, it can turn into a fight. If a Japanese person overhears you use a racial slur about them, the most common outcomes are silence or walking away. They got nuked. Firebombed. Cities erased. Then they rebuilt, industrialized, and became one of the highest-trust, lowest-street-crime societies on earth. You do not hear Japanese activists on European television explaining why every local problem is actually Hiroshima’s fault and the solution is more Japanese immigration plus reparations. They moved on. Hygiene is better. Public spaces stay cleaner. Litter rates are lower. Drama is lower. Blacks and Indians are drama queens. If Europe had to pick one non-European population to live next to, and the choice was forced, East Asians win by a wide margin.

𝗠𝘂𝗹𝘁𝗶𝗰𝘂𝗹𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗺 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝘄 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗰𝘂𝗹𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲. Everywhere looks the same now. Indians, Chinese, blacks, and Arabs everywhere. What’s the point if every city looks the same? Multiculturalism is a failed modern experiment. When you have dozens of different ethnic and racial groups vying for power, people just vote along racial and ethnic lines (besides whites). It ruins any social cohesion, and each group couldn’t care less about each other anyway. The problem is us. 𝗪𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗯𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗸𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗮𝗺𝗲, 𝗮 𝗹𝗼𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗪𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗺𝗲 𝗯𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗸. I’m 25% Anglo, 75% Southern European. Plenty of Whites would file me under “not white” the second the comparison group disappears. 𝗜𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗰𝗮𝗻’𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗶𝘁, 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗰𝗮𝗻’𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝘁. 𝗦𝗼 𝗜 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹: 𝗪𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀 “𝗹𝗼𝗼𝗸𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲, 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲, 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲.” Pan-European is the broad category. Meds, Slavs, Anglos, Nordics must all unite. At least for now. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. In the interim, stop sorting ourselves by regional sub-types. Go where the numbers still work. If the numbers in your country have already tipped, or the major parties treat your existence as the problem, the local fight is over for now. European ancestry is the line. Identify the countries that are still majority European. Move there while the numbers still work. Concentrate. Build the homogeneous zones. Expand later from a stronger position. Congregate first. Expand later. Go.

𝗚𝘂𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗱: 𝗮 𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗡𝗶𝗴𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗖𝗵𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗼𝗿 𝗮 𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗔𝘀𝗵𝗸𝗲𝗻𝗮𝘇𝗶 𝗝𝗲𝘄𝘀? Ashkenazim look white. Nigerians are black. Wait. These are the irreligious ones. The ones who rejected their faith, live like everyone else on the street, and if anything carry Christian values. They look like everyone else on the street, talk like everyone else on the street, dress like everyone else on the street. They don’t bring up the Holocaust or guilt. They just live their lives. These Jews are an abomination to the Orthodox and Haredi ones! I know what you’re thinking. He told you he was an atheist and you figured that was the cover. You’re a Jewologist. You know your stuff. You can spot the ones who hide it. Except the ones who actually hide it never bring it up. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗱 𝗮 𝗝𝗲𝘄 𝘃𝗼𝗹𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗹𝘆 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝗝𝗲𝘄—𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗵𝗶𝗺𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳 𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝘀𝘁—𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘆 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗼𝗼𝗺 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸 𝗵𝗶𝗺𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳 𝗮𝗻𝘆𝘄𝗮𝘆. 𝗧𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗲𝗹𝗹. With an average IQ that high they know exactly what they’re doing. Strip away the posturing—and the fact he never told you he was a Jew—and almost everyone picks the Ashkenazim. Even the religious ones. Especially the religious ones, once the question is forced and no one can see their answer.

A lot of non-Europeans seem convinced the European preference for living among other Europeans is some kind of supremacy contest. It isn’t. 𝗜𝗳 𝗯𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗸𝘀 𝘀𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗵𝗶𝗴𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗻 𝗜𝗤, 𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗻 𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲, 𝗵𝗶𝗴𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗻 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗺𝗲𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗰 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗰𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁, 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱𝗻’𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗺𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗹𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺. Same for Indians, Chinese, or anyone else. A European wants to live around Europeans. Every group prefers its own. That’s normal tribalism, not a LARP. Even if you personally rank another group higher, most people still prefer their own kind. The fact that large numbers of third-worlders keep trying to move into European countries doesn’t contradict that. It just shows which civilization is currently the one worth moving to. The same preference holds at smaller scales. I was born and raised in Australia and still feel more at home in Central and Eastern Europe than among German Nordics. Homophily is ordinary at every level. The arguments over who counts as white enough are irrelevant to the basic point. Nobody is running a superiority pageant. The preference is simpler: 𝗜 𝗱𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗹𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱 𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗴𝗲 𝗻𝘂𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗻’𝘁 𝗺𝘆 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲. Neither does @RupertLowe10 Let the man cook for his people.

𝗚𝘂𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗱: 𝗮 𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗡𝗶𝗴𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗖𝗵𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗼𝗿 𝗮 𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗕𝗼𝘀𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗠𝘂𝘀𝗹𝗶𝗺𝘀? Bosnians are white. Nigerians are black. And if you strip away the posturing, almost everyone picks the Bosnians. Even the religious ones. Especially the religious ones, once the question is forced. Because deep down they already know religion is a choice you can make or unmake, while ancestry is not. Homophily is not a social construct. It is the default setting of a species that spent a few hundred thousand years sorting itself into groups that could trust each other enough to survive. You prefer the people who look, sound, and smell like the ones you grew up with. That preference does not vanish because someone hands you a different book or a different flag. 𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝘀𝗮𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗜𝘀𝗹𝗮𝗺, 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗶𝘀 𝗔𝗿𝗮𝗯𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝘂𝗹𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗹𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺. 𝗔𝗿𝗮𝗯𝗶𝘀𝗺. Different clothes, different food, different smells, different volume, different rules about women and public space, a language that does not sound like anything already on the street. Islam makes it worse once you read it, but most of the men arriving are not arriving to wage jihad. The data is clear on that. They are arriving because the place they left is worse and the place they are going is softer. The objection is the same one that appears when the group is Indian, Chinese, or African instead: 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘂𝘀.

𝗪𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗿𝗮𝗰𝗶𝘀𝘁𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘀𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆’𝗿𝗲 𝗖𝗵𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗿𝘂𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. Jesus was a 1st-century Levantine Jew. Dark hair, dark eyes, olive skin. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗵𝗶𝗴𝗵𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝘄𝗮𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲. 𝗙𝘂𝗹𝗹 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗽. Christianity shaped a large part of Western morality. That’s real. But if race is actually what matters to you, then the religion is a tool you inherited, not a master you serve. The irritating ones are the ones who won’t shut up about it. The ones who treat Christianity as the non-negotiable foundation and then still practice race politics underneath. You don’t get to make the religion supreme and then act surprised when that religion includes Nigerians and Koreans as your brothers. If race is actually what matters, stop pretending the faith ranks higher. If the faith ranks higher, stop pretending race is the real line.

𝗟𝗲𝗳𝘁 𝗗𝘂𝗯𝗮𝗶 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝘁 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼𝗼 𝘄𝗲𝗹𝗹. 𝗧𝗵𝗮𝘁’𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝘆 𝗜 𝗹𝗲𝗳𝘁. 𝗕𝗲𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗜 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘂𝘀. 𝗘𝗺𝗯𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘂𝘀 𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀. 𝗘𝗺𝗯𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘂𝘀 𝗪𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝘀. A city built by Arabs averaging the low 80s in IQ, in a desert, is safer and more functional for its actual citizens than anything we have managed with a full standard deviation more and a temperate climate. No kids are getting stabbed or shot. Kids walk alone after dark. Citizenship is kept scarce, the foreigners do the hard work, and the citizens get the best of everything. The Emiratis are master delegators. There are only about a million of them. They had no other choice. They are citizen-first. They simply enforce the standard and do not apologize when someone from outside criticizes them about “human rights.” We have the population, the philosophers, the cathedrals, the patents and four seasons, yet are still negotiating with people who treat physical safety and social cohesion as optional. Cost of living for our own citizens keeps rising while the places that stayed citizen-first made theirs thrive. I had already lived across America, Asia, Europe, and Latin America. Dubai was the one that made the comparison unavoidable. The Emiratis have their thing for their kids and I want our thing for our kids.

In the UAE and Singapore I was treated better than I expected. Truly high functioning places. Competent and VERY ordered. I have the usual bad experiences in other countries. I didn’t need them for this: “𝗜 𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗹𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲” The preference held even after seeing the best of what other groups can build. That tells me it’s real. Glad I spent the time figuring it out.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗛𝗶𝘁𝗹𝗲𝗿 𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗸𝗲𝗱 𝗵𝗶𝗴𝗵𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗿𝗮𝗰𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘀 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗵𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺𝘀𝗲𝗹𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝘀𝗲𝘅𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲. Three stories circulate about why Europe’s demographics are shifting. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗼𝗻𝗲: elites import workers because natives stopped having children and the pensions need young bodies. Whites got lazy, outsiders are productive, keep the spreadsheets from going red. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗻𝗲: a deliberate, multi-generational effort by Jews to weaken Christian Europe, create disorder, and retain influence over whatever remains. It is a theory with a long pedigree in certain circles. It is also not required to explain the children currently being born. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗻𝗲: the Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, and Nordic populations Hitler considered the purest Aryans simply race-mix more than Slavs or Balkan peoples, and they do it for the oldest reason there is: “𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗳𝘂𝗰𝗸 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼” Very often those women have dark skin or yellow skin.

Croatians didn’t get their nationalism from a pamphlet. They got it the old-fashioned way: 𝗯𝘆 𝗸𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗲𝗻𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝗸𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗬𝘂𝗴𝗼𝘀𝗹𝗮𝘃 𝗮𝗿𝗺𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺. Most of NATO spent the last thirty years doing logistics and peacekeeping. Croatia spent the early nineties actually winning a war against a larger force that already had the tanks and the air force. A lot of the men who did the winning are still walking around. Some of them still own the rifles. Their kids and grandkids grew up knowing the family story wasn’t “we petitioned the UN until the bad guys felt sad.” It was “we shot them until they left.” That produces a particular kind of confidence. Not the TED Talk kind. The kind where an eight-year-old can call a black tourist a nigger in front of his entire extended family and nobody corrects him, because half the people at the table already shot people for worse reasons and the other half are just relieved the kid isn’t soft. Still, that same confidence can turn into a blind spot. I’m mixed — 25% Anglo, 25% Italian, 50% Croatian — and I can see it clearly. Croats are fierce fighters. Average height of a Croat is high. Croats proved they can win a war against a bigger army. 𝗕𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝘂𝗹𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗹 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴-𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗺 𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝘂𝗻 𝗮 𝗵𝗶𝗴𝗵-𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁, 𝗵𝗶𝗴𝗵-𝘁𝗲𝗰𝗵 𝘀𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗲𝘁𝘆 𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗼-𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗿𝗼𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗡𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗰-𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗰 𝗯𝗹𝗼𝗰. 𝗪𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗹𝗮𝘆𝗲𝗿, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗕𝗮𝗹𝗸𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗯𝗲 𝗳𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗹𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗿𝗶𝗳𝗹𝗲𝘀. Nikola Tesla was a Balkan genius, and the region has produced sharp minds, but one-off brilliance is not the same as the continuous institutional and inventive machinery that built modern Europe. Some Croats, in the grip of a narrower nationalism, refuse to admit this. That refusal is not a Croatian trait so much as a failure of perspective. The better path is to keep the warrior confidence we earned and still join a larger pan-European order — one that values both the men who can hold a line and the societies that can build the systems those men are defending.

𝗥𝗲𝗳𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗮𝗰𝗲 𝗺𝗶𝘅 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘆 𝗮 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲, 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗯𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲. What that means, in plain terms, is having children with someone who is also white. White as in the ordinary European stock—Caucasian, the people from Europe and their overseas descendants. 𝗬𝗼𝘂 𝗮𝗹𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘆 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗹𝗼𝗼𝗸𝘀 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲. 𝗜𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗯𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗸. 𝗜𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗹𝗼𝗼𝗸 𝗮𝘁 𝘀𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝘀 “𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗲𝗻𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵,” 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗲𝗻𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵. A distant offshoot somewhere in the family tree does not change the picture. We are talking about the actual difference that matters, not purity spirals over ancestors from 250 years ago. Notice that the people who want to shrink the category of “white” never apply the same standard to anyone else. A black person with some European ancestry is still black. No one spends time arguing that they are not black enough. The purity test only runs in one direction. It is a tool for reducing the number of people who count as white, not a consistent rule about ancestry. 𝗧𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗹𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗶𝗰𝗲—𝘄𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗿𝗲𝗻 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗮 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗻𝗲𝗿—𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗳𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝘅𝘁 𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝗻 𝗮 𝗱𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗳𝗮𝘃𝗼𝗿𝘀 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗽 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁 𝗶𝘁. 𝗘𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗲𝗹𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝘀𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗿𝘆. You are not going to reverse the larger demographic trend from your living room. The numbers are what they are. That does not mean you have zero leverage. You do not need a platform, a political career, or an online persona that eventually gets you stabbed in Paris. Those are high variance, low probability paths. The reliable path is ordinary. Stop treating other white people as the primary enemy. Where possible, allocate your hiring, business, and neighborhood preferences the same way every other group already does. They do not import people and then carefully distribute opportunity by individual merit. They cluster, vote as a unit, staff their businesses with their own, and keep going until the local mayor and the city council are theirs. Then they talk about fairness.

𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞𝐝. Indians will remain universally disliked for as long as they refuse to acknowledge any fault in their society. 𝐄𝐱𝐚𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞: Indians have a near universal reputation for poor hygiene and smelling bad. The standard reply from Indians online is that Europeans are dirtier because they use toilet paper instead of a bidet hose. Indians with the visible sanitation problems claim the higher standard of cleanliness. This is the bizarre part. The practical response would be for Indians to improve hygiene until the reputation disappears. Instead, Indians double down. They refuse to admit the problem exists. They bite back at anyone who notices it. That refusal is consistent, angry, and immediate. 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐥𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐧, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥, 𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐨𝐭𝐭𝐨𝐦 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐥. 𝐄𝐱𝐚𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞: Indians are insecure about appearance. They call Europeans “cum skin” or “pig skin.” They also go after the females in a family. The insult is almost always sexual: your daughter is a whore, your mother was used, your sister is ruined etc. This holds even when the target has no daughter. In Indian terms this is an attack on izzat—family honor carried by the women. The pattern is predictable because that is the insult Indians treat as effective on themselves. As always, exceptions to the rule do not negate the rule. Nearly 1.5 billion Indians on this planet and many of them behave this way.

𝗜 𝘀𝗲𝗲 𝗙𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗲𝘀𝘁𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲: 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸𝘀 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗪𝗲𝘀𝘁. Not arguments about 1948 borders. Not a debate about who lived where. Those things exist. Most people watching from the outside do not care whether a Palestinian state exists or does not. If a group of people decides they are Palestinians and wants to fight Israelis for territory, that is a local dispute. Israelis can fight back. Arabs can back their side. Muslims can treat it as a religious cause. None of that requires the rest of the world to pick a team or treat one side as the definition of moral progress. 𝗣𝗮𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘀𝗺 𝗶𝘀 𝘀𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗲𝗹𝘀𝗲. 𝗜𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝘂𝗻𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘁. It treats the Palestinian cause as a ready-made moral instrument that can be used against the societies that host the protests. The people waving the flags in Western cities are rarely fighting for a state they plan to live in. They are using the conflict as a way to mark who is good and who is bad inside the countries they already inhabit. Support the protest and you are on the right side of history. Fail to support it, or simply say you do not care, and you are aligned with the other side. Neutrality is not allowed. Indifference is treated as collaboration. This works because a large number of people judge themselves by what they 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 rather than by what they 𝘥𝘰. Attending a march or posting a slogan costs little. It produces the feeling that one has done something virtuous. Anyone who does not share the feeling can be treated as deficient. The slogan “genocide” is useful here because it is absolute. It does not require evidence that meets ordinary standards, and it does not need to be applied consistently. Other conflicts with higher death tolls or clearer intent do not generate the same reaction. The branding is what matters. This particular conflict has been packaged so that opposition to it functions as a status marker inside certain Western institutions and social circles. The same packaging explains why groups with no historical connection to the Middle East adopt the cause. It is not about land or refugees. 𝗜𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗪𝗲𝘀𝘁. 𝗜𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗪𝗲𝘀𝘁. 𝗜𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗺𝗲𝗻 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗪𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗱 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝘂𝗹𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝘀𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀. The protest is a symbol that those men, and the moral framework that produced their position, can be treated as the problem to be corrected. Resistance to that correction is then framed as immoral by definition.