Wednesday, June 19, 2019

Let's Remember that Adolf Hitler was an Immigration-Invasion Enthusiast in More Ways than One

When Globalists are confronted with nationalists who argue for autonomy, sovereignty, and security, they often invoke Nazism and 'racism' to insult, shame, and intimidate patriots into silence, moral defensiveness, and apologetics. For example, when Hungary and Poland(and several other Eastern Europeans nations) refused the offer of countless African and Arab migrant-marauders, they were accused of being like the Nazis. Ironically, Angela Merkel of Germany herself berated those nations for drudging up negative ideological attitudes of the Bad Ole Days. And of course, the Jewish-controlled globo-homo-shlomo World Media praised Merkel as the true 'leader of the free world'. You see, if you neglect the needs of your own nation, compromise the safety of your own people, and enforce policies that essentially nullify national sovereignty, you're the darling of the Globalist Elites. But if you dare to defend your own nation from invasion(cultural, demographic, or political), then you're reactionary(or just plain evil) and standing in the way of truth and progress. And you will even be compared with Hitler and the Nazis(as Jewish Power has a way of invoking Adolf and his henchmen at every opportunity).

Granted, the problem of nations like Germany(and Sweden, France, UK, and etc) isn't just a matter of bad cuck-collaborationist leaders but the dire effect of the combination of moral narcissism, ideological(and 'spiritual') earnestness, cultural conformism, feminism, Holocaustianity as new religion, Homomania as new cult, Afromania as new idolatry, and Jewish mental colonization of goyim. After all, if War Guilt is the reason for the demise of national consciousness in Germany, how does one account for similar(or even higher) levels of cuckery in nations that were either victims of or victors over Nazi Germany? Or were neutral. UK should be proud of its role in defeating Nazi Germany. Sweden and other Scandinavian nations were neutral or were occupied by Germany. But in some ways, UK and Sweden are even worse off than Germany in many respects.
Part of the reason is that the agenda of Holocaustianity has been to paint ALL white nations with WWII guilt. According to this logic, all Europeans were directly or indirectly guilty of the Shoah. If Germany was directly guilty, some nations were indirectly guilty for (1) having collaborated with Germany (2) done business with Germany (3) not having done enough to defeat Germany sooner than later — Jews think gentiles should be happy to sacrifice their own sons to save Jewish sons because... Jews are eager to sacrifice their own sons to save goy sons? LOL — (4) having harbored similar 'antisemitic' sentiments and biases as the Germans even if they ended up fighting the Nazis. As Holocaust memorials and catechisms spread from one European nation to another, every European nation was made to share in the guilt.
Furthermore, the Jewish takeover of the US, eventually to become the sole superpower after the Cold War, meant that Europe went from a political colony of Anglo-America to that of Jewish-America. At the very least, Europeans could openly criticize Anglo-America because so-called Wasps weren't seen as a holy people. They were respected, admired, feared, and even resented as a powerful people, but it was understood that Anglos in UK and US were fair game to honest criticism. But when Jews took over the US, it became difficult for Europeans to criticize the new masters because Holocaustianity elevated Jews to the state of holiness. Being anti-American when the US was ruled by Anglo-Americans was one thing, but it was a far more sensitive matter to voice opposition to a US ruled by Jews and their cuck-puppets like George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

But there were other factors as well as to why Europeans, especially in Western Europe, got more cucky-wucked. One had to do with a combination of moral narcissism, ideological earnestness(or purism), and cultural conformism. This was especially true in Northern Protestant nations that had developed a more thoroughgoing culture of conscience and goodwill. Thus, Northern Protestants came to take special pride in being GOOD. Of course, 'good' is a broad term and open to change and revision. Most people are not independent thinkers and rely on OTHERS to supply them with the terms of Goodness. In the post-religious age, many turned to Marxism or some such ideology for answers. But with the fall of communism and rise of Jewish supremacist power, the Good came to be defined mainly by Jews. Jews not only had the money, influence, and connections but were basked and shielded with the glow of Holocaustianity. Just by being Jewish, one could say anything in front of a European audience and be treated like the sage of the age, a modern day prophet(and even messiah). How else did a third-rate huckster like Barbara Specter get so far spreading her Jewish supremacist filth in Sweden?
Being more earnest and conformist, Northern Europeans of Protestant background took the Good more seriously. Being Good became the cornerstone of their pride, and so, they became slavishly loyal to whatever was presented to them as Good. Generally, people who tend to be earnest and conformist tend not to be independent thinkers or free spirits. They want to latch onto something deemed as good and holy. Incapable of thought or vision on their own, they need Others to supply the vision of the good. For most of European history since the Middle Ages, the vision of Good was supplied by Jesus and other Jews who'd laid the foundations of Christianity. In the post-Christian era, it was the vision of the atheist Jew Karl Marx. After the fall of communism, it was the vision of globo-homo Jews who presented themselves as the neo-christs of the Shoah who died for the sins of white goyim and deserve to be worshiped. Since Jews are holy, whatever they push must be holy too. So, if Jews say mass-immigration-invasion, Afromania, and Globo-Homomania are sacred, so many Good people just go along.
Now, one may argue that Europeans, being white folks, are not conformist but individualist, but it's all a matter of degrees. Europeans are less individualistic than Americans, and furthermore, Western freedom wasn't based on anarchy and chaos but on order and discipline, i.e. in order for intelligent or imaginative people to do their thing and make a difference, they needed the support of a well-run social system where most people were mindful of their place in the larger society and carried out their duties with sobriety and conscience. Thus, white freedom was never like black freedom. Black freedom is about humping and jumping and hollering and walloping and acting like jungle savages. It is freedom at a crude and low level, like that of apes. It is the freedom of groins and asses, which is why blacks everywhere like to celebrate by shaking their butts and bumping-and-grinding. In contrast, white freedom is about the heart and mind, and for it to thrive, the lower freedoms must be suppressed. Obviously, it'd be difficult to maintain a society of scientists, doctors, engineers, and the like if young people, instead of studying in school and obeying rules to mature into responsible adults, act like Negroes & chimpanzees and indulge in the freedom of jungle savagery. If you want the freedom to be a doctor, you need the discipline to make it through medical school. Paradoxically, higher freedoms require restraints upon lower freedoms. One needs less partying and more studying(conforming to the ideal of education) if one is to get a medical degree and be prized as a doctor. So, white freedom is built upon white order, discipline, and conformism(to the respected and acknowledged norms of excellence, propriety, and competence). But this conformist streak can also lead to an urge to be agreeable in the eyes of the Order and not make trouble. In the modern world defined by fads and fashions(and with loss of roots, customs, and traditions), the idea of the Good can change almost overnight. Whenever the elites change their attitudes on a whim, they could use the power of media and academia to spread the New Good into every corner of society. How else did something as crazy as Homomania and Tranny-lunacy spread so fast? There is also the power of celebrity and entertainment. Just associate the 'gay pride flag' with advertising, famous stars, and TV shows, and millions of morons will be nodding along. As goy elites suck up to Jewish elites, the process of mass control is pretty simple. Jews decide what is Good. Then, goy elites, as collaborators, comply and obey the Jews. Together, the Jewish and goy elites spread the New Good to the masses, so many of whom just follow along unthinkingly as most people are incapable of independent thought or critical inquiry.
Now, Jews know that it's better to control and rule a people through moral righteousness than through fear alone. Humans are emotionally closer to dogs than to cats. Cats are naturally disobedient and defiant. They understand fear but not obedience. In contrast, dogs not only understand fear but seek satisfaction in emotions of outrage. Dogs love to bark at everything and work as a pack to hunt and tear things apart. But they also crave the approval of the master. While a dog-owner can use fear alone to make a dog do things, it's far more effective to make the dogs do things with enthusiasm, as if their own emotions are invested in the task at hand. So, even if the dog is really being made to hunt for the master, it is made to feel that it's a partner in the adventure. Dogs naturally love to hunt, but they also naturally want to feel 'justified' and 'approved' by the alpha superior. So, when the dog hunts for the master, it is not only acting naturally as a predator but seeking absolution as a 'good dog'. Its pack instinct craves approval. Its self-worth is indistinguishable from group approval. When a cat hunts, it is only for itself(though some cats may bring their kills to their owners out of generosity). When a dog hunts, there is more at stake than mere hunger or want of play. It seeks approval and confirmation from the master of the pack. Thus, it is emotionally far more invested in the hunt. There is a crude sense of 'righteous' and 'outrage mob' mentality. The prey isn't merely for the killing but for killing with special gusto and enthusiasm. If Jews were to just order goyim to obey and follow orders, goyim would grow resentful, rather like sullen cats. But if Jews manipulate goy minds like a master toys with his dog's mind, the goyim can be made to feel that their obedient service to Jews is a matter of righteousness and moral outrage. Just like a dog cannot distinguish between its own will and its master's will, a Jew-controlled goy is made to believe that his 'moral outrage' and righteousness is the same as that of the Holy Jew. When a dog kills the prey and has it taken away by the master, the dog doesn't feel that it has been used and exploited. It doesn't feel that its kill has been stolen from it. Rather, it feels 'justified' and 'righteous' in having done something deemed GOOD by the master. It feels tremendous satisfaction in being a Good Dog. Its goodness before the master becomes the main reward. So, even though it's been used, it feels self-worth and self-satisfaction in having been a Good dog that did something to please the master who represents not only power but the Team Spirit. The Jew-Goy relationship is much the same. The Good Goy has been trained to believe that the greatest satisfaction in life is to be Good in the eyes of the Holy Superior. Since Jews, Negroes, and Homos have been elevated to god-status, the Good White Goy feels that the highest good is doing whatever to appease and please Jews, blacks, & homos and doing whatever to bark & bite at whatever/whomever is deemed the enemy of the Three Holies of Jews, Negroes, and Homos. (The doglike nature of man can be seen in Christianity. In the end, the power of Christianity rests not in Jesus having been a decent fellow but the Perfect Man, the Son of God. His Godliness ensures the sanctity of His Goodness. In the film MERRY CHRISTMAS MR. LAWRENCE, why does it matter so much that Jack Celliers[played by David Bowie] is the agent of Goodness and nobility? Because he is seen as the superior man. When a perceived inferior man is good, he is just seen as weak, wussy, or pathetic. It is only when a perceived superior chooses the good that the good become The Good, something worthy of admiration and respect. The power of Christianity rests on the faith that the Great has chosen the Good. The Son of God chose to be Good and died for the sins of man. Just like a lowly serf was more likely to be moved by a friendly gesture by a prince than by another lowly serf, mankind is most impressed when the perceived superior descends to his level. But why would the godly superior come down to ground? Because he's not just about naked power but about the Good. In Nagisa Oshima's film, Jack Celliers is perceived by Captain Yonoi as a superior man — indeed, Celliers has been highly regarded from by peers from childhood — , but Celliers takes the side of the suffering victims, and it is that fact that affects Yonoi's heart. In the end, it wasn't goodness per se but goodness-chosen-by-the-god-man that moved Yonoi to the point where he came to regard mankind differently.)

Because Jews used the media, academia, and state power to elevate themselves to neo-god status, as if they're a bunch of neo-christs who died for the sins of White Christian Europe, white peoples on both sides of the Atlantic have come to see Jews as god-men, the Holy Men, the saint-christ-messiahs. And Jews elevated Homos and Negroes to godly level as well.
But of course, reality suggests otherwise. So many Jews are lowlife weasels, gangsters, and hucksters. So many blacks are thugs, brutes, and lunatics. And so many homos and trannies are decadents, degenerates, freaks, sickos, and nihilists. If people come to regard reality as reality, they'd see the Real Jew, the Real Negro, and Real Homo. But because most people rely on mass media, mass entertainment, and mass education for their vision of the world, their minds are molded by endless celebrations and/or commemorations of Holocaust, Homomania, Magic Negro Cult(via MLK & Mandela worship and reverence of TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD as the Negro-Testament better than the New Testament), and etc. And there is cult worship of the Statue of Liberty as an icon of Immigration-Sanctimony while forgetting the fact that mass-immigrations have led to imperialism and even wholesale genocides around the world.
Ironically, the Three Peoples worshiped most by the world as quasi-holy are the most problematic. For all the Magic Negro myth, what are blacks mainly known for culturally, politically, and socially? Culturally, blackness has degenerated into Rap thuggery and 'twerking'. Politically, blacks are the most corrupt and incompetent around the world, both in Africa and America. Socially, they are notorious for high levels of crime and dysfunctions. But we are supposed to worship blacks as sacred victims and redeemers. But one wonders if all this pro-Negro sympathy owes more to pity for their historical victimhood or to awe of their current domination of sports & pop music, especially as globo-technology has spread Rap and black sports all over the world. Consider how even immigrants from nations without blacks know so much about black rappers and basketball players. As for black Africans headed to Europe, they've heard of white female sex tourists who come to the Dark Continent for jungle fever. And on their computers and smartphones, these black Africans no longer watch relatively tame stuff like BAYWATCH but Jewish-controlled pornography that tell the world that white women now belong to black men while white men are a bunch of cucks. Joe-Buckery has gone global. In MIDNIGHT COWBOY, Joe Buck has this idea that New York is filled with horny women who hanker for a Real Man from Texas. Tons of black Joe Bucks in Africa head for Europe in the belief that white women can't get no satisfaction from wussy white men and are eager for Negro men. BBC and British advertising now regularly feature the pairing of black man and white woman as the New Ideal, and this is becoming a feature of Hollywood movies as well. Needless to say, both BBC and Hollywood are run by globalist Jews. The way things are going, the future of France and UK will be Midnight Mandingo.

Anyway, on the subject of mass-migration and mass-immigration, nothing could be further from the truth than the notion that Hitler and the Nazis were all about closed borders and restrictions to immigration. Hitler's favorite nation was Great Britain, the center of the world empire that was created by endless adventure, invasions, conquests, and colonization of other lands. The British Empire was one of the biggest destroyers of walls. The British invaded India and huge swaths of Africa. They conquered Australia. They battered down Chinese walls and forced China to open to Western Imperialist powers. And UK, along with US, forced Japan to open up to the world. Hitler never denounced this aspect of British Imperialism. If anything, he admired the British for using force of arms, trade, and diplomacy to take control of one-fourth of the world. Rather than denouncing British power of movement and military might, Hitler praised the British and sought an alliance with them as the migratory masters of the world. (Of course, Jews also wanted partnership with the British as co-masters of the world. Jews feared that the Anglos might abandon the Jews and go with their racial brethren, the Germans, but the Anglos decided to side with the Jews as the Other Master Race. If Jewish Supremacists and Nazi Germans had one thing in common, it was admiration for Anglo/American conquest and domination of the world. Germans wanted partnership with Anglos, and Jews wanted marriage with the Anglos and Anglo-Americans. As Jews were more adept at infiltrating other peoples, they got closer to Anglo ears. Also, Jews controlled media in UK and US, giving them a huge advantage over Germans. Finally, the fact that a German nation existed made the British feel more of a threat from the Germans. In contrast, as powerful as the Jews were, they were without a nation of their own, and the Brits thought the Jews would never gain dominance in Anglo nations or the US. They thought wrong as Jewish Supremacism eventually took control of US, UK, and Canada; and today, World Politics is mainly about US, UK, and puppet EU doing the bidding of Jews as the Master Race.) Just as Jews admired the creation of new Anglo-made nations by invasion, imperialism, conquest, wars, and mass-immigration, Germans like Hitler were similarly impressed. Neither Jewish Supremacists nor Nazi Germans were bothered in the least by the fact that imperialism and mass-immigration of Anglos and other white immigrants led to the 'genocide' of the native population in both North America and South America. They cheered for the victors, the winners, the creators of New Nations. Jews didn't weep for dead American Indians. If anything, they joined in the White Conquest of the Americas. Super-rich Jews financed much of Western Imperialism. And lower Jews served as merchants, selling guns and ammos to the White Man to kill the Red Man with. Jews fully took part in the 'genocide' of the American Indians. And many German immigrants also joined with Anglos in the conquest of America and the destruction of the American Indian tribes. When Hitler was a young boy, he loved reading Western novels by Karl May. And he loved American Western movies produced by Hollywood Jews. Jews and Germans were agreed that Anglo-American conquest of the West was awesome. Just like Jews went on and on about how America is great as a Nation of Immigrants, Hitler felt likewise. He admired how Anglo and other white settlers, adventurers, and immigrants came to the New World, vanquished the indigenous folks, and created an imperial-nation, a nation that was an empire unto itself with vast spaces and resources.
So, contrary to current PC, Hitler was pro-immigrationist when it came to American History. He agreed with Jews that the native savages had to be swept aside to make way for the adventurers, pioneers, settlers, and vast numbers of immigrants. Even though Jews were more nervous about white racial thinking, they favored white nations in their doings and dealings. After all, one of the reasons why European Jews chose the US over other nations as the favored immigration-destination was because it was dominantly white(unlike Latin American nations that were mostly disdained by Jews). If we judge Jews by what they've done as oppose to what they've said, they favored whiteness uber alles. If Otto von Bismarck was essentially a German nationalist whose vision was to create a unified Germany that was sufficiently powerful and independent, Hitler's vision was infinitely more far-reaching. Like Kaiser Wilhelm before him, he thought in global terms. No, he didn't want to conquer the whole world, but he wanted Germany to have an empire of its own and be allied with the British Empire that had control of over a quarter of the world. If possible, Hitler wanted an alliance with Anglo-Americans as well, but he regarded this as unlikely as Jewish power was far more extensive in the US and because he thought the black problem would lead to America's ruination. Hitler was wrong about lots of things, but he was right about some things, namely about the dangers posed to the West by Jews and blacks as Jews could outwit whites and as blacks could out-muscle whites. In a way, it's understandable why Anglos and Anglo-Americans sided with Jews. There was something self-deceptive about the Anglo character. Though world conquerors and imperialists, they were vain enough to convince themselves that their power was all about spreading enlightenment, reason, goodness, progress, freedom, and justice. They committed their share of horrors but wanted to hog the honors. The problem with the Germans, somewhat in WWI but especially in WWII, was they were too blunt about the nature of the game, i.e. it's all about the Power. It's like gangsters want to come across as respectable, like Don Vito Corleone of THE GODFATHER. They don't want to be associated with someone like Tommy(Joe Pesci) in GOODFELLAS even though they are all crooks and killers. Hitler was too eager and excitable, too much like Tommy, and the Anglos with their preening vanity or righteous demeanor, couldn't stomach his ideology and movement. It was too 'pornographic' in terms of power. They wanted to do imperialism while pretending to have loftier aims. Jews understood Anglo psychology much better and knew which buttons to press to flatter the Anglos into thinking they were for 'justice' and 'peace' than war and domination. We see this with current US and UK. They are still playing the imperialist game but with nonstop rhetorical BS about how they're all about 'liberal values', 'peace', and 'democracy'. They now play the game under the auspices of Jewish supremacism, but the self-deception and duplicity remain the same. Of course, it's worse now than in the past because Jewish Power that pulls the strings remain hidden even if out in the open. Jews are especially dishonest as they are the most powerful people on Earth with supremacist aims but in pathological denial of their power & influence and never tiring of accusing OTHERS of supremacism. Jews wiped Palestine off the map but accuse Palestinians of plotting to wipe Israel off the map. Israel has lots of illegal nukes, but it accuses Iran of being a rogue nuclear state even though Iran has no nukes. Jews use their power to force all Americans to support Zionist imperialism and Judeo-centric supremacism, but Jews accuse whites who are skeptical of Jewish Power of 'white supremacism'. Jews are a very vile people. Though Jews would have us believe that Nazi Germans and Jewish globalists are polar opposites, they actually have more in common. They ended up as super-enemies in the 20th century not so much as opposites but as neck-and-neck competitors. It's like two boxers pummel each other in the ring because they have so much in common. They both want to beat the other feller and win the championship belt. Nazi Germany vs Jewish Empire was not about supremacism vs egalitarianism but about German supremacism vs Jewish supremacism. The difference is that Jews, like Anglos and Anglo-Americans, mastered the art of deceit by masking their supremacism with lofty talk of 'universal values'.
There's all this dumb talk of how Trump's anti-immigration stance is like Hitlerism. We are told that the 'plight' of migrants and illegal immigrants are like that of Jews during World War II. According to such logic, national walls = Nazism. But nothing could be further from the truth. During World War II, Jews were safest in nations with strong walls against Nazi Germany. After all, French Jews were endangered AFTER Germany breached French walls and conquered France. Any European nation that maintained its walls or barriers against German aggression was safe not only for its citizens but for Jews. The Nazi War Machine was a wall-smasher. Even though many Poles loathed Jews, the mass killing of Polish Jews happened AFTER Germany broke through Polish walls and defenses. National walls against Nazi aggression was the ONLY thing keeping many Jews safe and alive in Europe.

But the truest sign that Hitler was an immigration-enthusiast was his Lebensraum plan in the East. Long before he took power, he dreamed of conquering vast areas of Russia and opening them up for German immigrants who'd take the land from the Slavs and build farmlands for the Fatherland. Hitler eyed Russia much like white pioneers, settlers, and immigrants eyed the Americas. It was for the taking. Just like European and Jewish immigrants moved westward, displaced the American Indians, and built a new order, Nazi victory over Russia would have ensured that millions of German immigrant-invaders would settle in the East. Slavs would have been replaced by the Germans, much like how the Palestinians came to be replaced by the Zionists looking for their own lebensraum, or Levinsraum.
Granted, the Nazi plan was many times crazier than the American or Australian plan. For one thing, the New World and the world down under were sparsely populated(relatively speaking) with savages, whereas Russia had lots of people with rich culture and history. So, if the conquest of America and Australia was both inevitable and even necessary(to make way for progress), the destruction of Russia would have been a crime much like the Mongol destruction of Persia. To be sure, had the Germans prevailed in the East, they wouldn't only have committed great evils but built great cities and an impressive new order as part of a great German Empire. Unlike Mongols or Vikings who knew how to destroy and pillage but not build, the modern Germans would have been great builders as well as great destroyers, much like the Roman Empire. Still, German victory and mass-immigration into Russia would have been one big tragic hell for the Slavs and a great moral stain on German history.

Anyway, don't let anyone fool you that Hitler was about anti-immigration. He admired the immigration-invasions of the Anglo-empire, and he planned to create his own version of European Union by destroying borders among nations(much like Napoleon had once done), and he had a super-plan of Nazi Manifest Destiny into Russia whereby the German 'Cowboys' would expel, enslave, and/or exterminate the Russian 'Indians'. His lebensraum plan was deeply immigration-invasionist.

1 comment: