Saturday, March 31, 2018
Play a Simple Children’s Game to Demonstrate that Maximum Homogeneity is Best and Maximum Diversity is Worst for Nations
A simple children's game can easily demonstrate the ideal conditions for World Peace: More Homogeneity or More Diversity? To find the answer, just get yourself a World Map.
The game is played thus:
Take a good look at Europe on the map. Now, erase all national borders until all of Europe is one landmass without divisions. Then, redraw national borders to either...
(1) Maximize homogeneity
(2) Maximize diversity.
You can draw borders around where the bulk of Polish people live to maximize Polish Homogeneity OR you can draw borders so that what is now Poland is broken up into 5 parts, each of which is included with OTHER nations that are also made diverse.
If you go for Maximizing Homogeneity, your newly drawn Poland will be mostly Polish.
But if you go for Maximizing Diversity, your nation will include a part of Poland, part of Germany, part of Hungary, part of Czech Rep, part of Ukraine. Polish people, instead of having a nation in which they are the solid super-majority, will become like the Kurdish people who are scattered among other nations.
You might do the same with Germany until there is no single Germany in which most Germans are situated. Instead, Germany would be divided into five or six parts and joined with other nations made up of diverse peoples, not unlike the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
Now, which will be more socially peaceful, culturally meaningful, and politically more stable? A Poland where Polish people and culture are maximally homogenized or an entity where Polish people are divided and included as minorities in six other nations(in which no people are a majority)?
I think the answer is pretty obvious. Polish people with a nation of their own are likely to feel far more content, secure, and happy than if Polish nation is dissolved and if Polish people are divided and included as minorities into a bunch of nations filled with diversity of Germans, Hungarians, Czechs, Ukrainians, Slovenians, Croatians, etc.
A nation may gain something by having minorities, but it’s always good to have a super-majority who define the identity, character, culture, and heritage of a nation and people. After all, don’t we pity the Kurds because they don’t have a nation in which they are the solid majority and can feel at home? Instead, they are scattered in nations like Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. As a minority in each country, they always feel oppressed or marginalized. And other people look upon them with suspicion and hostility. Indeed, let’s play this game in the Middle East where much of the problem stems from maps(drawn by Western Imperialists) that maximized diversity than homogeneity. Was that a good idea? Well, just ask the Kurds who are a thorn on the side of every nation in which they constitute a sizable minority and to whom every nation seems like a boot pressed upon their face.
Anyway, let's suppose we are back in 1918 after World War I. Suppose we have the chance to draw borders in the Middle East to create new nation-states. We have two choices. We can draw borders to
(1) Maximize Homogeneity in every nation
(2) Maximize Diversity in every nation.
Which would be the wiser option? To draw the borders on the map so as to give Kurds their own nation(or at least one where they are the overwhelming majority) OR to break up Kurdish-populated areas to be included into other nations designed for maximum diversity?
When we look at the current mess in the Middle East, the answer is pretty obvious. If the map of the Middle East had been drawn to maximize homogeneity after WWI, much of the political problems, at least pertaining to ethnic and/or sectarian conflicts, could have been avoided or at least greatly reduced. Take Iraq. If the imperialists had allowed a separate Kurdish nation, had united Sunni Arabs in Iraq with Sunnis in Syria, and if Shia Arabs in Iraq had been given their own nation, there would have been far greater stability. Instead, imperialists created nations like modern Syria, modern Iraq, modern Afghanistan, and etc. to be excessively diverse. As such, only an iron-fisted strongman could keep the peace as democratic experimentation would have led to divisions along ethnic lines.
How things might have been different if, following WWI, the Europeans had carefully surveyed the demographic reality of the entire region and drawn national maps to ensure that one particular group would be the overwhelming majority of every new nations. If Kurds in what is now Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and maybe even Turkey(if Turkish resistance could have been overcome) would have been given a nation of their own, they would be far happier and securer. They would be causing far less trouble to their neighbors and vice versa.
Now, let’s play this game in crazy-quilt region of Southeast Asia. Suppose we erase the current map and draw new borders to either
(1) Maximize Homogeneity
(2) Maximize Diversity.
Would it be better to draw maps to create a maximally homogeneous nation for Vietnamese, a maximally homogeneous nation for Cambodians, maximally homogeneous nation for Laotians, maximally homogeneous nation for Thais, maximally homogeneous nation for Burmese, OR would it be better to draw arbitrary borders so that one nation(shaped like a longitudinal snake) is created that is demographically 1/5 Vietnamese, 1/5 Cambodia, 1/5 Thai, 1/5 Burmese, etc.
Which would be the wiser option? A nation that is as homogeneous as possible for each people OR a bunch of nations that is made of maximally diverse populations?
Would it be better for Vietnamese to have Vietnam, Cambodians to have Cambodia, Thais to have Thailand, Laotians to have Laos, and etc., OR would it better for there to be several nations in which every group is a minority? So, instead of the Vietnamese having a nation to call their own, Vietnamese people would be dispersed, like Kurds, among other nations filled with diversity?
We can also play this game with Northeast Asia. Currently, Korea is divided in half because the US, after Japanese defeat, split the nation with the Soviet Empire. If European imperialists forced different peoples into a single nation in the Middle East and Africa, Americans divided one people into two peoples in Korea.
But suppose there is a chance for great change on the peninsula. What would make more sense? To erase the border between North Korea and South Korea and form one nation composed of people of shared ethnos, language, and history... OR to join North Korea with Manchuria and to join South Korea with Japan? If we want to maximize homogeneity, North Korea and South Korea should merge. But if we want to maximize Diversity, North Korea should be added to Manchuria and South Korea should be added to Japan(like Ireland used to be joined to Great Britain). What would be better? To maximize homogeneity or to maximize diversity?
What does history tell us? I think even a child would figure this out. Maximizing Homogeneity wherever possible has been the best formula for peace within nation and with other nations. The threat to world peace usually happens when nationalism is violated in favor of imperialism. Imperialism causes diversity by invading other nations or by turning one’s nation into some cosmopolitan center welcome to all... in which case foreigners arrive to take advantage and eventually take over demographically, which is exactly what has happened in many cities and towns in France, UK, Sweden, and Germany.
Finally, let’s play this game with Israel and neighboring nations. Suppose we erase all existing borders and draw new ones. We can draw borders to maximize homogeneity or to maximize diversity for each people. Now, what would be better? To draw borders to maximize, say, Jewish homogeneity in Israel or to break up Israel into three parts and include each with other geo-political entities for the purpose of more diversity?
Now, suppose northern third of Israel is joined with Lebanon and parts of Syria. The middle third of Israel is joined with Jordan and a part of Saudi Arabia. And the southern third of Israel is joined with a part of Egypt and a part of Libya.
So, would it be better to draw maps to maximize Homogeneity of Jews within a nation to call their own OR to divide up Israel and Jews(like Kurds) and turn them into minorities in diverse nations?
Now, isn’t the main problem facing Israel due to diversity caused by Occupation of West Bank?
The answer is SO OBVIOUS, but Jewish globalist elites pressure the entire world to maximize diversity(except for Israel where Jews support JEWS-ONLY immigration to maximize homogeneity). Why do Jews give such bad advice when it’s bad for gentile nations? Because it is good for the designs of Jewish Globalist Supremacism. When nations turn overly diverse, it’s easier for Jews to manipulate in divide-and-conquer fashion. Also, a diverse nation hardly has any useful nationalism. Because the various groups don’t trust one another, they tend not to unite as ONE PEOPLE but forge alliances with foreigners and imperialists to gain an advantage.
This is why Jews find homos so useful. Because homos feel alienated in many nations, they will gladly collaborate with World Jewry that showers them with money and favors. As such, homos around the world have effectively become the proxies of Jewish supremacism.
This is why truly independent and autonomous nations like Russia, Iran, China, and now Turkey do NOT allow the US(the primary tool of Judea or World Jewry) to force Homomania on them. Turkey used to allow ‘gay pride’ parades but finally stood up to World Jewry and said NO. But puppet-whore nations of the US, such as Germany-UK-Italy-Japan-Mexico-Ukraine-S. Korea-Taiwan-UK-etc. all put on massive Homomania festivals. If Uncle Samowicz tell them they better, they better.
Jews know that a patriotic and unified people can stand together against Jewish infiltration. That’s why Jews do everything to weaken and dilute gentile national identity. Jews do this by spreading Homomania that says Minority Privilege must take precedence over Majority Values. Jews also use Afromania to make people all over the world addicted to rap music, black sports, and jungle fever. Afromania destroys the manhood of non-black gentiles around the world because black rappers sing louder, black athletes got more muscle, and black hustlers got bigger dongs.
And of course, Jews try to promote Holocaustianity as a neo-religion all over the world so that every people will feel sorry and ‘guilty’ about Jews. And then, once a nation’s identity and patriotism have been weakened, Jews use their immense power of media, academia, and finance to brainwash the gentile elites into believing that DIVERSITY is not only a great boon but a moral necessity.
The result is something like the disastrous experiment taking place in Sweden, a nation where hideous feminists rule, where men are castrated cucks, and where endless streams of invaders are ‘welcomed’ as adding more wonderful Diversity to the nation. Well, goodbye to Sweden. With Jews, You Lose.
Friday, March 30, 2018
It is Time to Dispense with the Myth of Elito-Egalitarianism - Elites say One Thing but Do Another - Critique of Sam Dickson and Patrick Casey at Identity Evropa Conference
Because we tend to frame politics in terms of Left vs Right, there is this myth that the Progressive Elites are for Egalitarianism whereas the Right is for natural hierarchy. But if this is true, why are Progressives concentrated in the most elitist and privileged circles? Why have they created a Elysium World of their own? Do today’s ‘progressive’ elites really believe in Marxist notion of class equality?
In its original incarnation, Progressivism was not egalitarian in the sense of flattening all of humanity into shared or common mediocrity. Rather, it was a way of moving society forward, genetically as well as socio-economically, to increase the overall quality of humanity. It’s no wonder that a man as hierarchical as Theodore Roosevelt was part of the Progressive Movement that espoused eugenics in both the US and Europe. In contrast to this kind of Progressivism, there was the Proletarianism of Communism that did try to flatten humanity into an equal and shared mediocrity. Some intellectuals found communism to be morally justified and did try to create a society where people were forced to be as equal as possible. But this kind of society was like a mass prison(where inmates are forced to be equal by sacrificing freedom that always breeds new inequalities), and worse, it bred a new elite that preached equality but hogged all the power and privilege for themselves(as satirized in George Orwell’s ANIMAL FARM).
Dickson would have us believe that Hillary is the kind of woman who would offer her teats to Haitian babies as well to her own child Chelsea. We are to believe Hillary’s pathological altruism favors all of humanity equally. Well, I say, judge people by what they do, not what they say. Based on actual facts, people like Hillary have no use for egalitarianism. It’s all just talk to renege on their obligations and duties to the national people. Let’s look at Hillary’s actual practice of power as opposed to her mush-headed rhetoric. She showered Chelsea with all the attention, privileges, and care in the world. Chelsea, by all accounts, was raised as a brat, a princess. Also, through her parents’ many connections, Chelsea married a princeling son of a super-rich Jewish family. So many career paths opened up for her because she happened to have Billy Boy and Hillary as parents. And what was Clinton Foundation’s record in Haiti? It was pretty lucrative. Clintons not only mugged for attention as do-gooders but raked in lots of cash.
Sam Dickson should know better. Prosperity Progressivism, like Prosperity Gospel(of unscrupulous Televangelists), is a scam. It’s like the sleazy Morris Dees of SPLC always decrying ‘hate’ in the Jew-run Media to rake in many more millions... mainly from Jewish supremacists.
There was a time when true-believing radical intellectuals really did commit their lives to creating an equal classless Marxist-Leninist society. It happened in Russia and China but also in Cuba, Vietnam, and especially Cambodia. But NO ONE believes in that kind of egalitarianism any more. Communism in the USSR was ended by ruling elites themselves who got tired of running a system to take care of all the people made lazy under excessive statism. And China moved away from Maoism to a market economy, and it has lots of billionaires. Sure, the CCP will sing paeans to Mao’s vision but it’s entirely rhetorical, to maintain the facade of ideological legitimacy for the ruling party. What China really runs on is nationalism and enterprise.
Furthermore, there is a reason why the elites changed Leftism from a class-based ideology to a fashion-statement-idolatry. If the ‘new leftists’ are mainly obsessed with 50 genders, green hair, tattoos and piercing as identity, and pornography as empowerment, they hardly pose a threat to the Hyper-Elites who hog most of the wealth, power, and privilege. So, when people like Hillary Clinton yammer about ‘equality’ and caring for all of humanity, it's just empty rhetoric to mask the true character of what her ilk are really about: Insatiable greed for power, privilege, status, and wealth. (Aristocrats of Old hid their ambition and greed by invoking Jesus the King of the humble and the meek. Aristocrats themselves were neither humble nor meek.)
Indeed, the current order is more about personality or personal idiosyncrasies than about political ideologies. It’s about personalities that are especially obsessed with gaining entry into the elite club. To enter this club, they will do or say anything to be accepted. People like Hillary, Mitt Romney, Fareed Zakaria, John McCain, Nikki Haley, Amy Chua, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Paul Ryan, George Hawley, and etc all share a common personality. You know that type in high school, the kind who are so eager to be part of the Popular Group. They want to be liked and accepted by the ‘right kind of people’, the ‘best kind of people’. The Power generally favors such personalities because they tend to be obsequious to the Rules of Rulers. They will grovel, roll over, and play the game as long as they are let in. So, if the Ultimate Power says Homomania is the new religion of the land, these kind of personalities immediately roll over and fall all over themselves to cheer and go along. Because Judea is the ultimate power in the world and control the locks to the gate leading into the Elysium Globo-Club, these 'Popularist' Personalities say and do anything aligned with Jewish supremacist interests. Popularism differs from Populism, the political passion of the hoi polloi, in that Popularism isn’t really about concern for the masses. Rather, it’s like being the ‘popular kids’ in school who are not really popular with most kids. To be a ‘popular kid’ means to be part of the Cool Crowd around athletes, rich kids, or attractive kids. It’s to be part of an exclusive club. Most people who become rich and successful later in life didn’t have the stuff to be ‘popular’ in high school. Geeks, nerds, and brainiacs are not ‘popular’ in high school. But once they graduate from college and gain success, they create their own Popular Club that is shut off to the 99% or even 99.99% of the people.
Now, there are certain personalities that are especially obsessed about being allowed into this Club. While most of us may be live-and-let-live, there is a kind of personality that feel self-worth ONLY WHEN allowed into exclusive clubs. People with brains and talent can make lots of money and afford to enter such clubs with money alone, or they can create their own Clubs. But if you don’t have the means to make tons of money, you can enter politics and cater to the rich and powerful. Or you can work in media or media and do the bidding of the Power Elite, as Fareed Zakaria, Amy Chua, and Niall Ferguson do. While such individuals may be smart, even brilliant(in the case of Ferguson), their main passion is to be part of the Club. As such, there is always a limit to how far they will discuss matters freely. They dare not venture out of the perimeter of permitted discourse as set by the Power(currently of Judea).
So, in a way, the current divide in the political struggle isn’t just about ideology or identity. It’s about personality. The main difference between what is known as the Alt Right and what is known as Conservatism Inc is that Alt Right pulls in personalities that are hard and willing to pay the price of being denied entry into the Club. Alt Right attracts the most defiant personalities in the world. You have to have a strong heart and stomach to be part of the Alt Right, a movement targeted for destruction by the Power. In contrast, Conservatism Inc. attracts obsequious personalities whose priority is to be allowed into the Club and rub shoulders with the right kind of people.
Granted, the truly-truly obsequious personalities gravitate to Democratic Inc. because most of the wealth, privilege, and prestige are now associated with haute-hip-riche urban centers, entertainment industry, and elite academia, all of which are owned and controlled by Democratic Jews who control the idols and icons of what is ‘cool’ and ‘uncool’. Paul Nehlen, whatever one thinks of him, has a defiant personality. In contrast, Paul Ryan has the most malleable personality that will do anything to keep his membership in the Club.
Another thing Sam Dickson overlooks is the Paradox of Inverse Proportion of Compassion and Conceit. In other words, it’s easier to be selfish and self-centered IF one claims to care for ALL humanity. Why? Because there is simply NO WAY one can take care of all of humanity. Because saving all of mankind is fantastically utopian, it becomes purely rhetorical without real-world practicality. If a person says he cares for his community and nation, being a manager of a community or a leader of a nation is doable. As such, rhetoric has to be proven by reality. If someone who lives in a certain town claims to care for the townsfolk but does NOTHING, he will be exposed as a phony. Theory has to be proven by practice. But if that very person says he wants to save ALL OF HUMANITY, he can just dream like John Lennon singing ‘Imagine’ in front of a piano without doing anything. So, he can talk BIG but do nothing since it is impossible to manage, represent, or lead all of humanity. After all, it was a full-time job for Moses just to lead the Hebrews. Imagine if he claimed to lead all of humanity to the Promised Land. He would have all talk and no walk. Jesus did claim to be the Savior of all of humanity, but the myth says He is the Son of God, so He must have superhuman powers that no human can have.
Anyway, all this elite-egalitarianism or elito-egalitarianism is really just a ruse. Just look at the likes of Bono of U2. He spends most of his time living in mansions, penthouses, hanging with rich celebs, and attending cocktail parties. Off and on, he flies off to Africa for photo-ops with African children to playact at being modern messiah, but precisely because his shtick is about caring for all the world, he actually does nothing to fix any specific problem anywhere. It’s like a man who says he has ideas for a thousand novels but fails to write a single one since he wants to write all of them, which is impossible. So, his wish to write 1000 novels just becomes an excuse for him to be lazy and not write even a single one. Irishmen like Bono renege on their obligation to Ireland and their ethnic kinfolk by pretending to care for All of Humanity. It requires real commitment and devotion to do something for a specific community or nation. That means no more dreaming and time for actual doing. But all these narcissistic and vain personalities don’t want to roll up their sleeves and do something REAL for a community or a nation. Too much headache. So, they pontificate about how they care for ALL OF HUMANITY to rationalize neglect of their own specific communities and nations.
|Bono the bonehead. Too busy SAVING THE WORLD to ever care about what happens in Ireland.|
Elites push Diversity for the same reason. By pretending to care for ALL the diverse groups in America, the elites care for NONE at all except for themselves and the uppermost elites(the Jews) whom they must serve in order to remain as members in the Club. Just look at the state of California. It’s supposedly the most diverse and most ‘progressive’ state, but it’s also the most unequal between the Have-lots and Have-nots. The super-elites of Hollywood and Silicon Valley make all the right-sounding noises about how they are so into diversity, equality, tolerance, inclusion, and etc., but at the end of the day, all they do is care about themselves because it is impossible for elites to represent, manage, or lead such a diverse population of whites, blacks, Asians(of so many varieties), ‘Hispanics’(of many origins and gradations of color), gender-bender folk, and etc. Ultimately, it is easier to serve one master than to represent 10 groups, and so, the California elites(made up of ‘popularist’ status-strivers with obsequious personalities) mainly serve the ONE Jewish Master that dominate both Hollywood and Silicon Valley(and not far away, there is Las Vegas also ruled by Jews).
In contrast, when the US was 90% European-American, a man like FDR did feel a strong bond with white Americans. Also, because it is doable for the elites to represent, guide, and manage ONE people, something like the New Deal was doable. New Deal was essentially about white elites doing something for white nationals. But something like the New Deal is now impossible because the US has become so diverse and divergent in identities and interests. This is wonderful for the elites since they can spout off about doing something for ALL THE DIVERSE AMERICANS but then do NOTHING SUBSTANTIVE because it is virtually impossible to do everything for so many groups who don’t see eye to eye on anything. So, instead of truly representing many peoples, today’s elites really just serve one master: Jewish Power. At the end of the day, the only people who get served are Jews and Israelis because, if all bought-and-paid-for politicians have one thing in common, it is their obsequiousness to Judea.
Another issue I have with Dickson is his misunderstanding of individualism. He says the problem with Anglos is they are too individualistic. But the greatness of Anglo civilization was in the fusion of individuality and cooperation. The film DUNKIRK conveys the balance of individualism and communalism among the British. In contrast, Nazi Germany went crazy because all those Germans totally surrendered their individuality and outsourced their minds to the Fuhrer who ordered his men about like mindless obedient dogs. In contrast, British Civilization was about the balance of order/discipline/collective-action AND individuality, especially as expressed in wit and satire that had a debunking element to power. Radical individualism or individualism without attachment to something higher or bigger is worthless, but without individuality one cannot have a mind, free will, or agency. One just becomes a cog in the machine. So, just like truth isn’t ‘right’ or ‘left’ but a useful balance of both, best kind of society is one where individuality is balanced with ‘collectivity’.
Paradoxically, the biggest danger of an extreme collectivist order is that it may be predicated on the ultra-individualism of a single ruler. Nazi Germany wouldn’t have been so dangerous if NO ONE had individualist power. In fact, all the individualist agency that was denied to the German masses were concentrated in the individualism of Hitler who decided to play demigod. In the end, Nazi Germany was destroyed not so much by collectivism but by Hitler’s concentrated individualism that decided the fate of the nation. Same goes for Maoism in China. While Chinese had no individuality, Mao had the ultra-individuality of a godlike figure. He could play Shiva and Zeus over the Chinese. His individual whims could turn the nation upside down.
This is why National Humanist Neo-Fascism must foster a sense of agency and self-worth in every individual. While there is a need for order, discipline, and collective action, the movement will turn into a mindless Cult of Personality UNLESS everyone in the movement has the will and courage to say NO when they see something wrong. There were many good things about Italian Fascism and National Socialism, but both failed because the masses outsourced their individualism to Il Duce or Der Fuhrer who, inflated with demagogic egomania, acted as gods than cautious men.
Also, while Dickson is right that individualism must be suppressed in warfare in favor of order and unity, the might of nations depends not only on collective military action but on the economy of innovation. It is the economy that produces wealth that can be taxed to support a military. The USSR was heavily militarized but its suppression of individualism in the economic sector led to stagnation. In the end, the Soviet Union could not afford its massive military because its economy could barely produce enough bread for people. In contrast, capitalist US produced lots of wealth that could be used to fund a massive military. Also, individual incentive led to tremendous advances in science and technology that could be applied to military ends. The US has the most powerful military in the world not because it has the most soldiers or the most disciplined fighters. It’s because US military has a huge budget(thanks to a capitalist economy) and the most advanced weaponry made with technology advanced in large part in the private sector where individualism is key to entrepreneurship.
As for Patrick Casey, he says America came to be about progressive movement toward equality. Not so. American concept of equality was not like communism. Rather, it was about equal freedom for individuals in pursuit of happiness. So, equality wasn’t an end goal but an instrument whereby people would be equally free to make something of themselves.
America never much cared for those who did nothing with liberty. America loved those who gained fame, fortune, or reputation with their freedom. This is why America is so obsessed with Jews, blacks, and Homos. Not in the name of coercive freedom but in awe of their demonstration of superiority in the areas Americans are most obsessed about: Money, Power, Science/Technology, Entertainment, Sports, Sex, and Fashion/Celebrity. If Patrick Casey is right and American ‘progressivism’ is about equal concern for all peoples, how come the main concerns of Progs center around Jews, Negroes, and Homos only? Why is American Power so into Jews, Jews, Jews, Israel, Israel, Israel but so very little about Palestinians and Iranians? Why is there so much about blacks but so little about American Indians or poor Mexican-Americans in places like El Paso? Why is there so much concern for Homos but nothing about incest-sexuals? It’s because, as Patton said, Americans love winners. So, even as Jews, blacks, and homos play the Victim Card, their vaunted place in American Mythos is due to Jewish victory in finance, science, and law; black victory in sports, pop music, and sex(via jungle fever among white women); and homo victory in fashion, celebrity culture, and entertainment. In a way, the fact that all three groups have blended victimology with victorology is the secret to their special success. After all, Americanism is a strange blend of underdog persecution complex and top-dog domination compulsion. There is the story of America’s founding as a refuge for poor souls persecuted in tyrannical Europe. There is the story of blacks struggling for justice. But there is also the celebration of freedom in the New Land allowing people to go from rags to riches. So, a nobody can start from the bottom and become richer than even kings and monarchs in the Old World. Jews who started with little created the Empire of Hollywood. Some black ghetto kid got into the NBA, made millions, and sexually conquered thousands of white women. Or homos, though ravaged by the AIDS epidemic, worked so hard in vice-and-vanity industries to make so much money and gain key connections with the power. As such, along with Jews and blacks, homos have become the one of the three most iconic groups in America.
So, Casey is making a mistake if he thinks the American ‘progressivism’ is all about ‘equality’ as a goal. Barack Obama got a $60 million book contract and will live like a king. Silicon Valley and Hollywood, bastions of ‘progressivism’, are awash with billions and billions in cash. Harvard, a ‘progressive’ elite university, is endowed with more money than it can ever spend. The most exclusive institutions in the US are ‘progressive’. If they use radical-leftist-sounding rhetoric now and then, it is to mask their total obsession with power and privilege. It’s like Jews being the richest and most powerful people in America but concealing their real status by cliches about ‘social justice’. Don’t You Believe It.
Patrick Casey mentions the French Revolution as the beginning of the right vs left divide at 5:30 in the video. He seems to favor the French rightists who supported the King and the aristocracy. He condemns today’s Right of being belated Leftists, i.e. Rightism eventually comes around to agreeing with the Left. Casey is overlooking two important matters. First, the French Revolution was necessary in many ways and the beginning of real nationalism. If anything, today’s globalism is a return of the aristocratic system despite its use of ‘progressive’ rhetoric. Prior to the French Revolution and nationalism, the ruling elites saw their own peoples as subjects and servants. They felt no special bond with their own people. French aristocrats mainly identified with other aristocrats in other parts of Europe. Even as various kingdoms jostled for greater power, the aristocrats of Russia, Germany, Austria, France, Spain, UK, and etc. all identified with one anther, married one another, and hung around together. They were the globalist Jet Set of the time. If they all had one thing in common, it was viewing their own people as subjects, servants, serfs, or even chattel. We have something similar today. The elites of Germany, UK, the US, India, Hong Kong, Mexico, Canada, Argentina, Saudi Arabia, and etc. no longer care about their own people. They are main obsessed of belonging to the Club where only the rich, well-connected, and properly credentialed can get in.
Indeed, for the globalist elites, multi-culturalism isn’t about making EVERYONE equal. They themselves certainly don’t want to be equal with the hoi polloi. Does anyone think people attend colleges like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, and Cambridge to become equal with the rest of us? Sure, these colleges take in token non-whites via Affirmative Action and make symbolic noises about ‘social justice’, but they are elite-generating factories for the Club. As such, they are very much like the aristocracies of old. Granted, past aristocracies were more honest in being openly snobby and arrogant. Aristocrats told their subject folks to lick their boots. Aristocrats made sure that only they got to ride around on horses and carry guns. Similarly, old empires were at least honest in telling conquered peoples that they were subject of foreign powers.
In contrast, today’s neo-aristocratism hides the snobbery and conceit with Proggy Symbolism, and today’s neo-imperialism(of the US controlled by Judea) rationalizes its world hegemony with cliches about spreading ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights’, concepts employed with utter cynicism as the US is allied with some of the most corrupt and inhumane nations on Earth. Judea or World Jewry rules the US that rules the world.
Does Patrick Casey really think that neo-aristocratic, neo-monarchical, and neo-godlike Jews really want equality with all of mankind? Just look how Jews treat Palestinians and neighboring Arabs. Jews love seeing Syria torn to pieces. Jews loved how Iraq and Libya were laid to waste. Jews call on the US to cripple Iran's economy. Jews are the 2% that controls 95% of media. Jews control 50% of Wall Street and nearly all of Hollywood and Las Vegas. Does Casey really think these 'progressive' Jews want to be equal with us? That would mean Jews who are 2% of the population should have 2% of the wealth? Does Casey really think so-called ‘progressive’ Jews are committed to creating such a future?
This is why we need to dispense with the notion of right vs left. True nationalism must be left AND right. The French Revolution was excessive and crazy at times, but its template of creating a modern nation where ordinary people would have basic rights and be led by national elites that identified with, represented, and led the people was a great one. Without common rights within a nation, an aristocrat can abuse the lower elements and just be slapped on the wrist... like in ROB ROY. If a rich man kills an innocent poor man, he should be punished as harshly as if a poor man killed an innocent rich man.
The problem today is that common Rule of Law no longer applies in the West. George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton could act as War Criminals at the behest of Jews but never face justice. Or Jews can pull all sorts of dirty tricks but get off easy. Jonathan Pollard is now a free man with a plush job. Marc Rich was pardoned by Bill Clinton while on the lam. And now, Trump pardoned some lowlife Jewish son-of-a-bitch because Jews, the neo-aristocrats, are above the law. In contrast, white patriots at Charlottesville weren’t even allowed their basic Constitutional Rights of free assembly and free speech. And the Powers that be use Antifa(who are always given just a slap on the wrist) to terrorize dissenting voices. And yet, Casey is arguing in FAVOR of aristocracy and special privilege? Well, if he looked past the bogus PC rhetoric and notices how the globalist system really works, he’d realize it’s totally neo-aristocratic and privileges certain groups and individuals above others. Hillary Clinton certainly got just a slap on the wrist by the FBI despite her email scandal.
In a world that bestows neo-aristocratic favors to Jews at the expense of basic rights for whites, Patrick Casey romanticizes the Old World of French kings and aristocrats who treated their own people like today’s elites treat whites. It was the French Revolution that gave the French people basic rights and protections. It was the Revolution that gave them dignity as free nationals than as subjects of kings and noblemen. And the revolution stressed that the national elites must serve the national masses. So, the truth for us is not in the ‘right’ or in the ‘left’. It is in the intelligent combination of both. Nationalism is inherently both leftist and rightist. Nationalism is the Goldilocks rule between egotistical individualism(or petty tribalism) and impossible universalism. Nationalism says, even though some may be rich and some may be poor in the nation, every member of the nation has equal right to the nation. Also, nationalism necessitates some degree of socialism for the common good. Public education is to ensure that ALL people of the nation will be literate, knowledgeable, and skilled. National healthcare, enacted in both National Socialist Germany and Social-Democratic Sweden(before it went crazy with globo-elite-pushed multi-culturalism), was for the good of the entire nation. Also under nationalism, conscription meant that sons of the rich must serve and fight alongside the sons of the poor. Indeed, nationalism is the only way some degree of socialism can work. Socialism is about common economic interests, and it works best when a people have a common sense of ethnic identity and destiny.
Another thing. It’s only half-true that the Right trails the Left, eventually agreeing with the Left on a host of issues. It’s equally true that the Left abandons its principles and restores Rightism(though by another name).
In some cases, the Right never ‘catches up’ with the Left. If Casey is correct, Western Europe and the US should have eventually become communist because, after all, the only thing the Right does is trail and follow the Left. But in fact, the ‘free world’ never turned communist and, if anything, effectively contained and defeated or discredited leftist communism. It was Russia that dropped communism and reverted to nationalism. And in China, Maoist radical egalitarianism gave way to rise of nationalism, neo-traditionalism, and capitalist-elitism.
Also, 'leftist' Clinton didn’t follow in the footsteps of FDR and LBJ but in those of Reaganism. His New Democratic Party was tough on black crime(and locked up record number of black males), deregulated Wall Street, abandoned Big Labor, supported ‘free trade’, and shifted the Democratic Party from the working class & unions to the new super-rich of Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and the so-called ‘creative’ economy. And the reason why the Democratic elites love homos is because the homo style is naturally neo-aristocratic with hyper-narcissism and vanity. Homos are the mascots of the rich. They do little else but celebrate glamour, fame, and celebrity. Indeed, homos were instrumental in the old world of aristocrats because they were adept at concocting fancy dress and manners for the super-elite class. The fact that the New Progressivism went from Mayday to Gayday should clue us to the fact that history is not about Left always leading and the Right always following.
Indeed, classic leftists would NOT recognize today’s leftism as any kind of leftism. They would see it as decadent indulgences of ultra-bourgeois neo-aristocrats who turned the idea of Progress into a celebration of vanity and privilege.
And course, Jews want it this way. Jews now hate Class Warfare politics because it could mean gentiles who have less versus Jews who have so much. And the only nationalism Jews love is Zionism because it is about the nationalist-socialist unity of all Jews, rich and poor, in their sacred homeland. But they wage relentless war on all gentile nationalisms, especially those of whites, because whites who are into their own national identity are likely to abandon White Submissivism that sucks up to hegemonic Jewish Supremacism that simply cannot operate without the cuck-collaboration of White Submissivism. Jews fear White Uppityness.
It is time for white people to go BEYOND RIGHT VERSUS LEFT. They must realize that both leftism and rightism are necessary and complementary, just like night and day, just like mind and body, just like work and rest, just like study and play. If we are supposed to see ourselves as ‘rightist’, then are we suppose to reject even good things of leftism? Likewise, if one must be a leftist in the purist sense, must he reject even essential things of the right? Leftism and rightism should be seen as complementary, like yin and yang, like positive and negative charge in electricity. Why are Jews so powerful? It’s because they’ve learned to use both leftist and rightist modes of thinking. Israel was created by fusion of leftism and rightism. It was to be a Jewish state but also a nation where every Jew, rich or poor, had common rights ensuring his basic dignity as a member of the state.
If leftism is all bad, rich whites shouldn’t care about all those ‘white trash’ suffering from loss of jobs and opioid epidemic. If white elites should think aristocratically, they should identify mainly with other similarly privileged people around the world. Nationalism is a crossing of rightism and leftism. It is a well-defined and restrictive definition of a specific people on a particular land. Yet, it also says every member of that community, from richest to the poorest, has equal value as a patriot and citizen, and as such, there must be a sense of national camaraderie from top to bottom. Jews stress exactly this theme in Israel where the richest Jew feels closer to the poorest Jew than with rich Arabs. But in the West, Jews promoted neo-aristocratism among white elites whereby rich whites are supposed to identify mainly with rich Jews, rich Asians, rich blacks, rich Hispanics, rich Hindus, and rich Muslims than with fellow whites in the middle class and lower class. Thus, neo-aristocratism divides White Folks.
This is why we need National Humanism and Neo-Fascism, a better kind of fascism that overcomes the monumental mistakes and crimes of Italian Fascism and especially National Socialism that ultimately failed because of sacrificing of individual agency in favor of Cult of Personality and Imperialism(that violated the blood -and-soil principles of other peoples).
Thursday, March 29, 2018
Now, what's the point of having your own nation? To have a homeland for your people, right? If you're not going to own and defend it as such, why have a nation at all?
Indeed, why not just abandon your identity and history? Why not abandon your people's special right to the territory? And why not dissolve borders so that any number of peoples can move in and out, like animals roam the wild? If you believe that any number of people should move in and out of any place, there is no need for nations. We might as well act like animals that migrate freely from place to place. All of us might as well become like Gypsies and surrender all sense of roots.
What about Rule of Law? I have no idea how that would work out. If a nation cannot even defend its borders and decide who enters and exits, how can it enforce any kind of rule of law? And if all the world should welcome endless wanderers, nomads, and invaders who come with their own cultural norms, who's to say one Rule of Law is better than another kind? After all, Rule of Law depends on the law itself. In the Current West, the Rule of Laws says you will be financially destroyed if you refuse to bake a cake for 'gay wedding'. And Rule of Law can be used against Rule of Law. In some states, illegals who have violated American laws are given protection under the Rule of Law that favors those who break laws over those who want to defend them. Rule of Law in California and many other states protect illegals and prosecute those who take actions against the invaders. So, what is Rule of Law in a world of Broken Borders?
Indeed, this will be the big question in Europe as Muslim communities demand their own sets of laws and as African communities insist on their tribal customs and norms.
Already, Jews are virtually above-the-law in many parts of the West. Rule of Law can only be enforced within a well-defined nation with shared values and habits. But in a world where nationalism is condemned as passe and where peoples of different cultures, manners, and habits move in and out of communities that they lay to waste, what chance is there for Rule of Law?
Having a nation is like having a house. A nation didn’t just fall from the sky or grow from the ground. It had to be secured, built, defended, built some more, defended some more, consolidated, claimed, and maintained. Likewise, a house has to be built or bought. It doesn’t come into existence just out of the blue. Now, what is the purpose of having a home? To own it as one’s property. To defend it from others, especially trespassers and marauders. Worst thing that can happen to a property is for others to trespass and take it. Now, if you intend to allow just about any human or creature to move in and out of your house, why did you build or buy the house in the first place? Why did you go through all that trouble just to let OTHERS to occupy and tear it apart?
Same thing goes for a nation. Why did your people build that nation if you’re not going to defend it and own it for posterity? Why go through all the trouble of securing the land, settling the land, developing the land, building institutions, enacting laws, and growing the economy IF your final purpose is to just let others have it? If you’re going to give it all away, why did your people go through so much struggle, even great wars, to claim and defend the land? If you think OTHERS should have it, then your people should not have bothered to pour so much blood, sweat, and tears into transforming the land into a nation.
Imagine there is a wasteland that most peoples show no interest in. Suppose YOUR PEOPLE enter into the land, cut down trees, till the soil, and do the heavy-lifting to turn the land into an oasis. ALL OF A SUDDEN, other peoples now want a part of it because it's nice. (It's like people who neglected Noah's advice to build arks of their own trying to climb into the Ark when the rain began to fall.) Should you let them take it? But why did YOUR PEOPLE build up the land just to let others have it? If you think others should have the land, then your people should not have bothered to build anything on it. Let others do the hard work to develop the land. Non-white peoples had no interest in exploring, discovering, conquering, and developing the New World. They didn't even have the vision or commitment to develop their own lands that, even today, remain poor and backward(despite abundance of land and natural resources). But now that they realize that white people have nice nations, they want to claim and take for themselves what was made by whites.
Also, if any people have the ‘right’ to trespass into your nation and take over, do YOUR PEOPLE also have the right to just mass-invade any nation and take over? So, 50 million Africans have the ‘right’ to take over Italy, and 50 million Italians have the ‘right’ to move to Japan and take over... if they feel like it? And the invaders and trespassers have the prerogative and the ‘right’ over the natives with deep roots in the land? Is patriotism the biggest crime in the globalist era? Doesn’t anyone realize that losing a nation is much worse than losing a house? If you lose your house, you can build another one. But if you lose your nation, your people have no homeland to call their own. And it’s very difficult to get it back. Good luck to Hawaiians taking back Hawaii. Good luck to Palestinians getting back Palestine. Good luck to Serbians getting Kosovo back. Good luck to Greeks or Christendom getting Constantinople(now Istanbul) back. It was by a miracle that Jews got Zion back, and it was very messy and bloody, and the problem continues to this day. Kurds continue to suffer because they don’t have a nation to call their own and happen to be scattered among several nations, all of which are hostile to them.
It’s bad business to lose a house, but another house can always be built or bought. But lose your nation, and good luck about getting it back. Jews reclaiming the Holy Land was the exception that proved the rule. Also, a homeland has much greater meaning than a home. Individuals don’t live forever. A man may own a great mansion, but he will be six feet underground after several decades on earth. And the mansion will pass to some other people. But a nation can exist indefinitely as the homeland of a people. Most of the pioneers of Israel are now dead, but their children and their children’s children ad infinitum hope to keep the land for the Jews as long as mankind survives.
Now, some argue that the newcomers will just become part of the national community, but this is wishful thinking. Usually, minorities remain cooperative and respectful ONLY WHEN they’re small in number and faced with a confident overwhelming majority that also commands patriotic elite power. But when the native majority acts all apologetic & wussy and says that their nation belongs more to foreigners than to themselves, the minorities will just call on more of their kind to come invading. And as their numbers continue to swell, they will begin to smell the blood of a dying nation. They will sense they can take over and feed off it. Scavengers and leeches don’t respect weakness in the host.
But then, even if newcomers came with respect and kindness, too many of them will alter the character of the nation because a people are MORE than merely a name. Germans are more than ‘Germans’. It’s like, if you have a daughter named Sue, she is more than ‘Sue’. Even if her name was changed to Jill, she would still be your daughter. But if someone who is not your daughter changes her name to ‘Sue’ and pretends to be your daughter, she is not your daughter despite having the name ‘Sue’ and wearing similar dress as your daughter. But the West is now suffering from the Changeling Syndrome. So, Germans fool themselves that if they take in millions upon millions of Muslims and Africans and pretend that they are ‘Germans’ or ‘New Germans’, then Germany will remain Germany because all the newcomers are ‘Germans’ too. Right, and imitation crab meat is real crab meat. And cats are dogs if you call them ‘dogs’ and teach them to play fetch, which is exceedingly hard to do.
How did this Inversion of Prerogatives happen? How did people(especially whites) come to believe that OTHERS have ‘first dibs’ or primary claim on what had been theirs rightfully and ‘fightfully’(as they’d ancestors had fought to claim it)? Imagine if someone did so much to build a home but then put up a sign that said, "claim my house". Why did he go through the trouble of building a house to let others have it and push him out? That would be retarded. Or, suppose a house was built long ago by your ancestors and handed down generation after generation as special place for your family lineage. Suppose that house is meant to be more than a place of residence; it’s meant to be a place of remembrance. Then, why would you allow a bunch of marauders and squatters to trespass and tear the place apart?
In a way, the problem began with the discovery of the New World. While most parts of the Old World were settled, the New World nations came into being with conquest, settlement, colonization, immigration, and rise of new identities. (The New World template of constant migration and mobility was turned into a universal 'human right'. So, even the EU is to be seen as The Other America, a 'union of immigrants' that must take in endless 'huddled masses' from Africa and the Middle East. This template is now also being applied to East Asia as The West constantly applies pressure on Japan to welcome Diversity and Inclusion-Invasion. According to Western PC, it should be a 'human right' for millions of foreigners to move to Japan and become 'New Japanese' and take over entire communities.)
The trajectory of invasion and expansion couldn’t be helped in the New World as most of it was either unpopulated or underpopulated(by standards of other civilizations, not least due to the deaths of tens of millions as the result of lack of immunity to Old World diseases). But the New World was not discovered and founded by the world but by specific populations. Spanish and Portuguese conquered most of what came to be Latin America. And Anglos and the French to a lesser extent conquered most of North America(minus Mexico). And these peoples created their new orders as racial, ethnic, and cultural extensions of the worlds they knew back home. So, Anglo-American preferred Anglo immigrants and settlers. When the US needed More People, it preferred those who were racially and ethnically closest to Anglos: Irish, Dutch, Germans, and Nordics. As they were virtually same as Anglos in appearance and temperament(though Irish could be rough at times due to the James Cagney gene), they could easily be assimilated into Anglo-America. Also, as fellow Christians, they worshiped the same God and symbols.
The US was not founded as a World-Nation for the simple reason that the World didn’t discover and develop it. A specific population of Anglos and Northern Europeans did, just like a specific population of Spanish and Portuguese came to set the cultural template for Latin America. Their biggest mistake was bringing over all those Sub-Saharan West African blacks who were more muscular and more aggressive than the white race. The race problem between whites and blacks is testament to the Danger of Diversity or DOD. To maintain order among tougher and more aggressive blacks, whites sometimes had to use ugly and cruel violence. And once blacks got their freedom, they began to prey on whites physically, materially, and sexually as the weaker ‘wussy’ race. Another threat came from the Chinese IF they were to be ‘welcomed’ in huge numbers.
In the past few decades, we’ve seen what virtual Open Borders(or Broken Borders) can do to a place. California, which had been overwhelmingly white, is now poised to have more Mexicans than whites. And along with Asians(craven teachers’ pets of Jews and homos), whites are being squeezed out. Worse, remaining whites in California have been mentally colonized by Jews to hate their own race and to welcome the flood. Based on recent events, imagine what would have happened if the US had allowed Open Borders to Chinese immigration-invasion in the late 19th century. China, with a huge poverty-stricken population, would have taken over California and much of the West like Mexicans are doing today. Or look at China itself. As Tibetans don’t have the means to say NO to Chinese migration-invasion, Tibet itself is poised to be majority Han-Chinese if it isn’t already.
Immigration is a tool that can work for or against your people. For most of the 19th century and even 20th century, white people used immigration to boost white presence and power in America. Immigration favored white folks. Immigration is never generic. It depends on who/whom. Israel was created by immigration but of Jews Only. Suppose Israel was founded with color-blind immigration. It never would have become a Homeland for Jews. Suppose Chinese government were to allow Asian-Indians to move into Tibet. In time, Indians instead of Chinese could dominate the place. There’s a huge difference between the Russian government encouraging Russian ethnics to settle Siberia and allowing Chinese to migrate there. If the latter, the Chinese will effectively own much of Siberia. So, when people say the US is a Nation of Immigrants, it’s meaningless because it pretends that immigration is generic. In fact, the kind of immigration that formed the foundation and basis for America was genetic than generic. Back in the 19th century, Emma Lazarus’ poem was not a threat to the US because it was understood, even by Lazarus herself, that immigration would favor European whites(of whom Jews were a part). Race-ism was great for America. It made America and defined America. Without Race-ism, the US wouldn't have developed as an extension of European Civilization. Suppose upon the establishment of the US, the Founding Fathers decided to call on peoples ALL OVER THE WORLD to pour into the New Land. Anglos and whites would soon have been turned into a minority outnumbered by Muslims, Africans, Asians, Hindus, and etc with their own norms, customs, and values. And without race-ism, whites would have had no justification to replace red savages and their primitive cultures with far more advanced Western ones. (Ism means belief, and Race-ism means belief in the reality of race & differences and/or the need for racial identity and consciousness. ‘Racism’ has been willfully mis-defined by Jews to mean irrational or knee-jerk racial hatred, chauvinism, and supremacism.) Whites who settled America were aware of the importance of race. If whites were to build a modern and progressive(as opposed to the degenerate ‘progressivism’ of today) nation, they had to be racially aware. Whites had to make a distinction between themselves and American Indians whose world was savage and primitive. The biggest mistake was bringing blacks over as slaves. This is regarded as a ‘racist’ crime’, but it was really a criminal negligence of true race-ism. If whites had been truly, rationally, and sanely race-ist back then, they would have thought, "Maybe it’s not a good idea to bring over all those blacks. Just look at their muscles. That mountain-sized Negro looks like he can crush my head like a zit. And look at those black women whose main expression is shaking their booties and acting like nappy-headed ho’s. And look at the dongs on them fellers. Not only will stronger blacks whup our ass but turn our women into jungle-fevered whores who go with Negro men as the superior race and look down on us as a bunch of cucky-wucks. So, let’s NOT bring over the ‘groids’ as slaves. Slavery is cruel and unpleasant and will besmirch our reputation, which is bad enough, but furthermore, there is no guarantee that slavery will last forever. Once freed, them ‘groids’ will kick our butts in sports, turn young people wild with jiggity music, reduce us to a bunch of dweeby cucky-wucks, and colonize the wombs of interracist white women who get to thinking like Rachel Dolezal." Now, that is some Core Race-ist thought, and if white people had accepted such Race-ism, they never would have brought over those Sub-Saharan West African Americans. At most, they might have brought over some Pygmies who, being small and short, could only have looked up to white folks like Arnold of DIFF’RENT STROKES and whined, "What you talkin’ about, white man?" This is why we need proper Race-ism that acknowledges and understands racial differences. Integration between whites and blacks leads to loss of white manhood and ACOWW(Afro-Colonization of White Wombs) because black men are more muscular, louder, funkier, and generally got bigger dongs. And the nature of women is to get sexually excited about ‘bad boys’ who act tough. This is ever more so in a culture where the main modes of expression is Rap thuggery and booty-chuggery. The main problem with blacks was not slavery; after all, black Africa had slavery for 10,000 yrs. It was the fact that the races are not the same. If whites had enslaved any other people, the dynamics would have been totally different. If Anglo-whites had enslaved white Russians, former masters and former slaves would have merged into a common race after Emancipation. After all, the end of Serfdom in Russia led to a unified single people. In contrast, why did Caste divisions last so long in India? Because there was a racial element to the caste system from the master caste to the middle caste to the slave caste to the untouchable caste. Even so, even the racial-caste system wasn't so bad in India because the darker peoples there are NOT bigger, stronger, and more aggressive than lighter-skinned upper-caste folks.
Europeans fail to understand this. They think their Africans won’t turn out like Black Americans because Europeans don’t have the ‘original sin’ of slavery. Granted, some European nations did take part in the slave trade, but Swedes and Germans didn’t. And the French less so than Anglos and Spanish/Portuguese, not least because the French eventually lost out in the New World to Anglos. So, Europeans think their African arrivals will turn out so much better than black Americans. But the end result will be the same because the problem in the US between whites and blacks was racial than historical. Europe can take in millions of FREE Negroes and treat them well, but the Negroes there will end up like Negroes in the US. Why? It’s in their oogity-boogity genes to act wild and crazy. In Africa, they drive hippos crazy, and in Europe they will drive white folks crazy. Also, their generally lower intelligence will mean they will leech off whites forever. Furthermore, their egomaniacal personality makes them less reflective and self-critical. Blacks have poor grasp of modern concepts of property, ownership, contracts, and manners. Blacks think like predators. When lions, hyenas, or bears see something they want, they try to grab it for themselves. Lions don’t think, "Hmm, those hyenas are eating that Zebra. I think it belongs to them, and we should bring down our own zebra." No, lions just think, "Sheeeeiiit, let’s take the eats from the hyena mofos." And if hyenas see a lone cheetah eating a gazelle, they don’t think, "You know, I’ll bet that cheetah tried so hard to bring down that prey. It’s his and let’s get our own grubs." No, the hyenas think, "Sheeeeeeiiit, a free meal! Let’s drive that punkass cheetah away and take his meat." Negroes feel the same way. Their sense of property and ownership is based on "Gots to have me". That’s what Rap is all about. It’s about the thuggery of taking stuff just because you want it. This is why blacks are champion robbers and rapists. Indeed, blacks rape even white women who put out to them. So, when white co-eds with jungle fever put out to blacks, blacks still have to rape them by saying to their brothas, "Here’s some free white pussy for us all, sheeeeeiiit." Blacks don’t hanker for no little white mouse like the mountain-sized Negro does in GREEN MILE. They’s want white wealth, white women, white lands, white everything. They think everything white exists to be taken by them. Blacks even feel that white history should be owned by them. So, white historical characters should be turned into ‘groids’ and blackamoors.
Therefore, people need to stop blaming ‘racism’ for the black problem in America and increasingly in Europe. The problem has been due to the lack of True Race-ism. If white folks had acknowledged the truthfulness of True Race-ism, they never would have brought over all those blacks to the New World.
Unfortunately, whites were motivated by Christianity, Commercialism, and Chauvinism. One part of whites felt that they were civilizing black savages into good decent Christians. By this logic, slavery was a Leviathanic process whereby blacks would go from wild savages to good Christian folks, whereupon they would be freed. But for such process to work, slavery would have had to last over a 1000 yrs with wild and dangerous blacks being weeded out of the gene pool. It’s like it took some time to domesticate wild bulls into livestock. It took some time to turn wolves into dogs. It took some time to turn wild boars into the farm pig. But blacks were under slavery for only a couple of centuries. Also, whites stupidly bred blacks to be extra-strong to carry all them cotton. So, in some cases, white made the stronger race even stronger and ended up like guys like Sonny Liston and Mike Tyson(who looks more demented than even African Negroes).
'Racism' violated True Race-ism. Abraham Lincoln was a True Race-ist insofar as he understood the black threat. This is why he wanted the blacks freed and sent back to Africa. He had the same fears as the visionary prophet D.W. Griffith of THE BIRTH OF A NATION who feared something closer to BIRTH OF THE CONQUEST OF THE PLANET OF THE APES. But True Race-ism was overlooked by those with short-term commercial interests or Christian folly that Negroes could become nice meek humble Uncle-Tom-like Christians when, in fact, the Negro soul is too wild and rough to understand the true meaning of higher spirituality. Jesus founded His religion by silently meditating for 40 days. A Negro has difficulty sitting still for 4 minutes. His jiggity oogity-boogity nature turned even Christianity into a butt-shaking foot-tapping pandemonium. If Negroes take up Buddhism, they’ll turn Nirvana into something you attain by hollering and ‘twerking’.
Other than commercial greed and Christian folly(of civilizing blacks into nice Uncle Toms), there was white chauvinism of False Race-ism, aka ‘racism’. Unlike True Race-ism that honestly explores and notices racial differences, False Race-ism or ‘racism’ led to white chauvinism and denial of reality. White ‘racists’ were full of themselves as the toughest and manliest fellers in the world. They believed in the ‘great white hope’ who would finally whup the Negroes and show the world who’s the real King of the Hill. ‘Racism’ stupidly boosted white male pride when white men should have been in alarmist mode(like honest D.W. Griffith of THE BIRTH OF A NATION) and feared the ghastly Negro. Of course, on some level, white men did fear the Negro as a threat. After all, Jack Johnson whupped all those white guys, and later, Joe Louis whupped tons of white guys, and Muhammad Ali and other blacks dominated boxing. And blacks took over basketball and football. And blacks in schools beat up so many whites. But white ‘racists’ were too filled with bogus chauvinism to come to terms with the black threat and admit their legitimate fears. Whites had been winning so much for so long against so much of the world that it seemed white superiority was a birthright. But in fact, whites were superior only in certain things while inferior in other things. In raw struggle of animal drives, white men were bound to lose to the tougher Negro men. But too many whites didn’t admit to their fears(lest they come across as ‘scared’ and ‘wimpy’) and exaggerated their manhood by calling blacks ‘niggers’ and acting nasty like Southerners opposed to Segregation. Their anti-integrationist stance would have been much more effective if, in the spirit of True Race-ism, they had laid out why blacks, being more muscular-more-aggressive-and-bigger-donged, pose an existential and ‘sexistential’ threat to the white race. But nope, they just huffed and puffed as tough white guys and acted like thugs in front of TV cameras while blacks were pretending to be marching for ‘peace’ when they were really thinking, "You honkey mofos gonna get your ass whupped once the laws be changed cuz we just pretendin’ to be for MLK’s message of peace as Trojan Horse trick and shit." Yep, the Black Rampage was unleashed on America with the passage of Civil Rights Bill.
Anyway, the point is immigration is never generic. It is about who/whom. A nation has something to gain by letting in more of their own kind. So, when Germany took in millions of Ost-Germans after WWII, Germany just became MORE German. And when Polish ethnics were pushed into Poland from Western Ukraine(which used to be part of Poland from 1918 to 1939), Poland just became more Polish. Granted, even migration of the same kind of people can be stressful and challenging. The sudden rush of millions of Ost-Germans into Germany after WWII led to a humanitarian disaster. And the rush of many Mainland Chinese fleeing Maoism into Hong Kong led to severe socio-economic stress. Even so, problems eventually faded because Ost-Germans were fellow Germans, and all those Mainland Chinese, once they found their footing in Hong Kong, were just fellow Chinese. But the millions of New Germans(from Africa and Middle East) rushing into Germany today will alter the character of the nation. And imagine if a million Hindus than Chinese had rushed into Hong Kong. There would be big tensions between Chinese and Hindus, even if they’re regarded as ‘New Chinese’. Why did Hong Kong return to China? Because of history, ethnos, and culture. If China had the right to reclaim Hong Kong(even though Brits played a key role in having built it) because it was part of Chinese territory and populated by Chinese, why don’t the native folks of Britain have a right of claim to their ancestral homeland? Chinese don’t think, "The rest of the world has first dibs on Hong Kong and any other part of China." So, why do the Brits, French, Germans, Swedes, and etc. feel that OTHERS have greater claim to their own nations? How did such Inversion of Prerogatives happen?
Because of the Inversion of Prerogatives, we now believe that white minds belong to Jews to mold, white wombs belong to black men to impregnate, white wealth exist for non-whites to filch, and white lands exist for immigrant-invaders or immi-vaders to colonize and takeover. As for whites, they must say YES to the surrender of their claims. If they say NO, they are demeaned as ‘racist’, ‘xenophobic’, ‘exclusionary’, ‘Islamphobic’, and ‘antisemitic’. Now, if whites were in other lands lording over others, I can understand why the natives would complain and demand that whites get lost and return to their own lands. But now, even whites in their own nations are told that they don’t own their own minds, womenfolk, wealth, and land. Not even history as White History is being darkened with non-whites(especially blacks) cast in roles of white historical characters. And so many whites serve as cucks and collaborators because they’ve been raised fro cradle to obey Jews, worship homos, revere Negroes, celebrate Diversity(of Immi-vasion and replacist demographics), and hate white patriots who say NO to their own racial demise.
Part of the reason is Western elites are now worthless cuck-collaborators of Judea. But another reason is globalism has inflated Western elitist ego with dreams of neo-imperialism. So, French, British, and German leaders no longer see themselves merely as leaders of their own respective nations but of the World. Theresa May the hideous harridan talks like she is ruler of all humanity than of her British kinfolk. Angela Merkel sees herself as big-titty dairy cow to people all over the world. And the French elites still dream that France will become like a Mini-World with all the immi-vaders turning into New Frenchmen who appreciate French culture when, in fact, most Newcomers assimilate to globo-mondo-trash culture emanating from Hollywood and Rap music industry. While millions of Black Africans flock to Europe to demand "Where the white women at?" and while millions of white women yell out, "I’m here with jungle fever, you big-donged Negro", mentally castrated white males honk out, "I’m a cuck! I’m a cuck!" Indeed, among too many white males, the only warrior passion they can muster is against their own race. So, while Antifa white males honk, "I’m a cuck!" before the Negro and the Jew, they get murderously violent against white patriots who refuse to honk, "I’m a cuck!"
It’s not enough to own something. One must feel one has righteous claim over what he owns. And this is determined by control of the Narrative. It’s like it’s not enough to possess a house. You must back it up with rightful and/or righteous claim. Without the claim, one’s possession of the house becomes iffy and questionable. One is put on the defensive against would-be invaders. It’s the Claim Game. Before Jews could gain Palestine, they had to claim it with their own righteous Narrative about how the land really belongs to Jews due to history. And after WWII, Jews added the Shoah Clause to the claim, i.e. because of what happened in WWII, the West is morally obligated to back Jewish claim on Palestine. If Jews had just tried to take Palestine by brute force, they might have succeeded but would have had no moral claim to back up their ownership. The problem with whites in South Africa is they failed to come up with a useful claim on the land, made much worse by allowing blacks to become majority in the nation.
The US was founded with a specific and special claim made by Anglo-Americans and other Europeans. But Jews resented the special role of White Christianity in claiming and owning America. Jews wanted to own it for themselves. But because they didn’t have the numbers with which to beat out white gentiles — in contrast, Jews did have the numbers to squeeze out Arabs in Palestine — , Jews sought to subvert and nullify the White Christian claim by pushing for mass non-white immi-vasion. America has been a Nation of European Immigrants, but Jews took out the ‘European’ and just made it a nation of Generic Immigration from all over the world. By pushing this Diversity Narrative, Jews terminated the special white claim to America... and that meant that Jews would be the defacto rulers and owners of America. Why would that be if the World comes barging in? Wouldn’t Jews lose out along with White gentiles? No, because Jews control the upper echelons and elite level of America. With control of Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Las Vegas, Real Estate, Hollywood, Big Media, Ivy Leagues, and much else, Jews would be the Hyper-Elite overlord class over Diversity of Gentiles who can be manipulated and controlled by machinations of Divide-and-Rule.
This is why it was so important for Jews to push Homomania as well. That too is an Inversion of Prerogatives. We know what real sex is. We know that all human life was created by sexual union of men and women. So, marriage and family are something that belong to straight and normal people. Not a single life was ever created by Homo fecal penetration or Lesbian poon-grinding. Marriage developed as a Bio-Moral institution. It understood the way of biology — the sex drive and creation of new life by reproductive process of men and women — and the way of morality — the need for a man and woman to commit to one another to take care of the very lives they produce — , and as such, it was the most important institution in human history. Now, because most people are straight men and straight women, True Marriage has valued the majority population over the homo(and tranny) minority of sexual deviants. Straight people not only got married but had a special claim on and ownership of marriage. This affirmed the power of the majority and normality. Jews figured that such a ‘majoritarian’ institution undermines minority ambitions. If a society of mostly straight men and women should be ruled by them and guided by their needs, the corollary is a mostly gentile society should be ruled by gentiles in service of gentile interests and needs... but that would undermine Jewish supremacist claim on gentile societies. So, Jews pushed the LGBTQ Inversion of Prerogatives that fooled so many PC-addled and Pop-culture-addicted dummies into believing that straight and normal people have no special claim on Marriage. Instead, it belongs just as much or even more so to Homos and trannies. Thanks to Jew-run media and Jew-run government, there is now more fanfare for homos getting ‘married’ even though it’s about guys committing to bugger each other for life.
But such degeneracy has been so sensationalized and blessed by the Jew-run media and entertainment that many vapid, shallow, and superficial straight people now get ecstatic at any manifestations of Homomania, which is now essentially a neo-religion for globalized, deracinated, and desexualized hedonist-morons.
And this lunacy has also bled into the idea of womanhood. We sane people know what real women are. They are the fairer sex, have boobs and pooters(or cooters), and can give birth. Some men used to dress up as women, but we knew they were men as fake women. But now, the Power tells us that womanhood is ‘fluid’. So, if some guy with dick and balls puts on a wig, wiggles his ass, dons a dress, and claim to be a ‘woman’, we better admit he’s a woman. He can get a fake ‘vagina’ through Frankenstein surgery OR keep his dick and balls. The thing is the Inversion of Prerogatives says he is a ‘woman’ and we better acknowledge him as one... or else we are ‘transphobic’ and to be fined for big bucks by cities like New York.
So, just like native Anglos no longer own UK and native French no longer own France, real women no longer own womanhood. The new prerogative for Brits and French is to defer to Immi-invaders and roll out the red carpet to them as having more claim to the land than the existing inhabitants with deep roots of ancestry and history. Because the core meaning of UK and France has been re-coded to define them as ‘nations of immigrants’ and worshipers-of-Diversity, the mass-invaders(as ‘immigrants’ and ‘people of diversity’) now have greater claim to nations like UK and France than the native folks do.
And if tranny men want to claim ‘womanhood’, the New Feminism(totally controlled by Jewish globalists) says women should welcome them as ‘sisters’. So, the Prerogative of Womanhood is no longer to define woman-ness according to biological truth but to the social construct of PC. (Ironically, LGBTQ that says homosexuality and tranns-genderism are biologically fixed, immutable, and unalterable says sex is just a social construct, and there is no fixed ‘man’ or ‘woman’.) So, the vast majority of women must surrender their prerogative of Womanhood to a tiny minority of tranny freaks who claim to own womanhood just as much as real women do. But because virtue-vanity in the prog community is invested in being ‘more evolved’ and ahead-of-the-curve in ideological fashions, so many people unthinkingly go along due to hype and hysteria or out of fear and intimidation, as those who don’t comply are identified and attacked by purity-spiralers.
But then, all the West, despite being majority white Christian — even nearly homogeneously White Christian in places like Hungary and Poland — has surrendered to the Inversion of Prerogatives whereby the prevailing idea is that Jewish & Zionist interests must always take precedence over White Christian/Gentile ones. Indeed, that was the beginning of the end. When white gentile majorities began to defer to Jews and treat them like a Holy People whose identity, interests, and narrative must take precedence over white gentile majority ones, Jews gained tremendous pride, prestige, and power to reprogram the core-coding of the West. The result was Inverted Prerogatives whereupon whites, even in their own ancestral lands, must surrender their title and claim to All the World that the Jewish horsemen use as cattle to stampede over the White West. If white people don’t want to be overrun by the never-ending stampede, they must circle the wagons and, better yet, build fences to keep the cows out.
If Western folks think they can appease Jews and the Invaders by being nice to the ones who have already invaded, they need to think again. Such wussy meekness and weakness emboldens Jews and invaders to push for yet MORE STAMPEDE. If squirrels invade your house, it won’t do to treat the ones-already-inside nicely. Squirrels on the outside will not think, "Humans are being nice to squirrels in the house. Let’s respect them and not invade further." No, when squirrels on the outside see that squirrels-inside-the-house are getting free food and other goodies, they will invade too and more and more will come. It’s just the Law of Organisms. Humans are organisms and naturally flock to where the goodies are. If white nations were dirt poor, corrupt, and messy and IF non-white nations were rich and overflowing with goodies, white organisms will want to move to non-white places. When people heard of gold in the West, there was the Gold Rush. When Africans and Muslims hear that Europe has Broken Borders through which millions can pass through and gain access to goodies, the Euro-Rush is on big time.
It is time to Re-invert the Prerogatives. Not only must the stampede must be stopped but those who’ve invaded the West must be kicked out and returned to their own homelands. If they resist, they must be accused of being ‘racist’ and ‘white preferist’. After all, why do these non-whites not want to live with their own kind? Do they hate their own people and culture? Why do they prefer to live under and with whites? Isn’t their preference for whiteness a form of ‘white preferism’? The invaders must be liberated from ‘white preferism’ and made to re-appreciate their own peoples and cultures. They must be sent back.
And there must be reckoning with Jews who messed with the Narrative and re-coded the West to invert the prerogatives. Something must be done with Jewish Power. Whatever happens, there must be stringent laws that prevent Jews from corrupting and sabotaging the Core Survival Code of any white nation.
Organic Diversity vs Imposed Diversity - Diversity as Imperialism and Genocide - The Need to Reconnect the White Mind(the elites) with the White Body(the masses)
Not only is Diversity the chief cause of butchery and hatred, it is the RESULT of butchery and hatred.
Diversity is the product of invasion, imperialism, enslavement, and domination.
How did the Ottoman Empire become diverse? Turks invaded and ruled over others and forcibly integrated them. Stalin did the same with huge population transfers in the USSR.
Israel became diverse because of Zionist imperialism and mass colonization.
Tibetans are angry because of Han Chinese imperialism under the banner of ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’. Tibetans are forced to ‘include’ the Han Chinese colonizers.
Latin American diversity resulted from Hispanic invasion, genocide, and slavery. And then Spanish and Portuguese brought over millions of black Africans as slaves.
Since diversity resulted from butchery and hatred, it furthers butchery and hatred.
Being wary of foreigners is a sound idea. Foreigners could be nice and well-meaning, but as often as not, they come with intentions to take over, replace, and to rule. Just ask the American Indians. I’ll bet they are sorry they gave corn to the starving Pilgrims.
True, empires can unleash new possibilities and discoveries; they can spread useful ideas and values. Imperialism led to the discovery of the whole world and much that is novel, exciting, and epic resulted from world explorations and conquests. And diversity can lead to creative friction and birth of revolutions. Christianity couldn’t have been possible without the friction of Roman Imperialists and Jews. And the clash of empires led to rise of new movements and civilizations, like the clash of warm front and cold front creates storms that produce rain to make plants grow. But there’s always been a huge price tag to diversity. The clash of civilizations also wiped out entire peoples and cultures. It’s like powerful storms can wipe out entire eco-systems and human communities.
Also, we should make a distinction between Organic Diversity and Imposed(often incompatible) Diversity.
A society will always have children, young people, adults, and old people. That is organic diversity. Everyone goes from infancy to old age. Also, even a homogeneous society will have smart people, average people, and dumb people. And it will have strong people, normal people, and weaklings. That kind of diversity is intrinsic and part of ANY community. So, a community can be all German, all Black, or all Jewish, and it will have different kinds of people. At any rate, such differences of age, intelligence, and strength are ameliorated by the fact of racial unity or ethnic homogeneity. At the very least, despite the differences in age and ability, there is a sense of togetherness and mutuality because they have at least one thing in common: ethnos and shared history. So, a society can be all Japanese, and there will be smart ones, dumb ones, young ones, old ones, healthy ones, sick ones, and etc. Naturally, such diversity in age and ability leads to social divergence. And yet, the factor of shared Japanese ethnicity and history maintains a sense of unity and purpose.
But even that is impossible in a society of Imposed Diversity or Extrinsic Diversity. Now, even an extrinsically diverse society will result in formations of groups based on common age, interests, or skills. So, young people of various colors may hang out together. And smart people of various colors may work together. And people of shared interests might rub shoulders at a convention. But age is not constant. Whereas a Jewish person is Jew from baby to old age, a child grows into an adult who grows into an old person. So, age cannot be an identity. That conceit was the profound delusion of the Boomers who thought they would be Forever Young with slogans like “Don’t trust anyone over 30?.
As for ability, it only applies on the job. So, while a smart Hindu may identify as SMART at work with other smart people of different races, that identity(of ability) has little use away from work or particular ability that requires intellect. Also, even smart people can give birth to not-very-smart kids. And even smart people can fall in love with not-smart people. Smart women may fall for handsome but not bright men, and smart men may fall for pretty bimbos. So, ability alone doesn’t do it as a stable identity. Also, ability is unstable. A person of great brilliance may lose the muse… as with so many music composers. Or a strong person may become injured and no longer be strong. Look at helpless Burt Reynolds's character after breaking his leg in DELIVERANCE. Suddenly, he’s even more helpless than a child.
In contrast, ethnicity is constant if tended and cared for. It is the ONE constant from childhood to old age. So, a Chinese person or Jewish person can be Chinese or Jewish from birth to death, and that gives deep meaning to his life. Also, ethnic identity is one thing that even poor people can pass down to their kids. A rich Hindu and a poor Hindu will bequeath different sums of wealth to their kids, but ethnic identity is priceless. It’s one area in which a rich Hindu is not richer than a poor Hindu. The Hindu-ness inherited by a poor Hindu child is no less valuable than the Hindu-ness inherited by a rich Hindu child.
The problem with a Diverse Society that encourages excessive Race-Mixing is that the identity of ethnicity is diluted and weakened, and identity becomes confused, contradictory, and/or unstable. Or overly narrow — the very smart club — or overly generic — like ALL young people. It’s no wonder that there’s been an explosion of bogus identities such as 50 genders. The death knell to racial and ethnic identity(esp among whites but also among Hispanics and East Asians) has led to a search for new identities based on hair color, holding up placards, wearing pussy costumes, or whatever.
Now, it’s been said that a lot of affluent white people don’t care about other whites(who are less well off or facing hard times) because they have it so good. Since they got wealth, privilege, and comfort, why should they care? After all, they are not feeling the pain(not even the kind of pain that Bill Clinton pretended to feel in the early 90s).
But surely, there are two kinds of pain. Physical and emotional. Even those in total physical comfort can feel great emotional pain IF they feel a connection to those who are suffering. This is true of animals as well. Even if some elephants are safe, they will feel emotional discomfort if one of their kind is suffering. So, elephants will try to save and help the one in distress. And this is true of chimps, dogs, and dolphins too. Even if they are safe and have plenty to eat, they will feel sad or worried if they sense pain or agony in their ‘friends’ or pack members.
So, there is something wrong when well-off whites feel NO sadness or concern about whites who are either suffering or falling behind(esp due to policies pushed by rich whites). This wasn’t always so. When whites sensed other whites-in-pain in the past, they all rallied to help those whites. When they heard of the Alamo massacre, white folks all across America wanted to go aid Texans. When Americans heard of Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that killed 1000s of white folks, they got roused up. But such feelings have been suppressed among whites under PC, and the elite-educated whites now act as though it’s beneath their dignity to care about other whites. If they must CARE, it’s always for the Holy Three: Jews, Negroes, and Homos(though other groups may be included for political expediency, like the sudden libby-dib faux-compassion for Muslims when Trump got elected).
But, the fact that a good number of well-off whites did vote for Trump or at least support a kind of nationalism shows that they are not simply about material or physical comfort. They do feel emotional pain, agony, and distress over the fact that so many Americans have fallen to the wayside. Maybe some of these people, though individually successful, have siblings or cousins whose lives have gone the wrong way(and there is no one to lead such people back to the fold; it’s like the estranged brother in MICHAEL CLAYTON). Now, this kind of white-on-white sympathy is frowned upon, even vilified, by PC. But some well-off whites do feel it. They understand that life isn’t just about individual material comfort but an emotional peace of mind. When so many of their own kind are falling behind, there is bound to be emotional discomfort among such people.
Libertarians may only care about themselves as free individuals. So, if they are doing fine, that’s all that matters. They may scoff at altruistic feelings as ‘weak’ and ‘irrational’. Libertarianism is a cancer of Anglo individualism, like National Socialism was a cancer of Germanic communalism. Both individualism and communalism have genuine worth but only in relation to other -isms. Excessive individualism cuts one’s emotions from rest of humanity, even one’s own kind. And excessive communalism leads to conformism of the mind and to tyranny.
Unlike Anglos who led the way in the development of individualism, Germans were closer to blood-and-soil sense of an ethnic and cultural community. The positive side of this was a greater concern for the nation as a family. And this positive side was there in National Socialism as well as it emphasized the needs of every member of the German Volk. But it was pushed so far that it turned into a radical racist supremacism that disregarded the worth of OTHER nations and peoples. Too much Germanic or Aryan sense of brotherhood failed to regard other peoples as part of larger brotherhood of man.
In contrast, the excessive libertarianism of Anglo-America has led to atomization and self-worship(esp by imitating trashy narcissistic celebrities). Some will say US is too proggy and ‘socialist’ with Big Government, but American Statism exists not to bolster a greater sense of American Community(as during the New Deal) but to facilitate more individualism. It serves as safety net for excessive behavior in a society where profits are privatized and losses are socialized. We see the same mindset from Wall Street to Beat Street. Financial sharks gamble and then get bailouts. Negroes and ‘white trash’ act like louts in schools and personal lives and then rely on government for safety nets so they can go on acting like pigs. Same thing in UK with its statist-enabled Chav pigs and sows.
It’s not fascist-socialism(the only one that will work) but welfare-socialism(that eventually degrades the soul). Fascist socialism is conditional. It’s a system that cares for everyone but also pushes everyone to do their part. New Deal was a form of liberal fascist socialism. It was about providing work and benefits for those who wanted to work and be responsible. In contrast, Great Society socialism(the American Great Leap Forward) was welfare-socialism predicated on rewarding those who were least responsible and least civic-minded.
Fascist socialism is about asking everyone to lift 100 lbs. Many can lift that weight and some can lift more. But some can’t lift even that. But fascist-socialism ask them to try, and it’s this effort that matters. So, if someone tries his best and can only lift 50 lbs, the system lifts the other 50 lbs for him. It was aid to someone who did at least try. In contrast, welfare socialism is like lifting the full 100 lbs for someone who won’t even try to lift any amount of weight. This is degrading to the soul. In the past, blacks worked hard in this country and had dignity even with menial jobs. At least they tried. So, when these Negroes asked for more, it made sense for America to be generous. But since Great Society, Negroes think the US exists to just give them any shi* they be demanding. It degraded their souls.
Anglo individualism was a great idea, but it was meant to exist within the cultural context and community of Anglo culture and tradition. It was not supposed to be a deracinated globalized nothingness where only ME matters. Also, any such individualism — no matter how successful the individuals are — is bound to lose to group-oriented strategies of others. After all, no matter how rich a person, he is powerless against the unity or the mob. Unless some higher theme links him with OTHERS OF HIS KIND to form a united front, he can easily be taken down by others of another kind. It’s like even the strongest man will lose if 20 people decide to gang up on him as a group. He may be able to beat them up one-on-one but will lose if 20 attack him in coordination. It’s like wolves can bring down a moose or a bear because they work together.
The trick is to have individualism within a community or to have a community with individuality. Failure of current Anglo-America is there is room for white individuals but no sense of white unity. Failure of National Socialism was the absence of individual independence from the communalized power of the radical state.
Jews surely learned their lesson about the necessity of communal consciousness… though they’ve now taken it too far, as with National Socialists. It’s one thing to defend and serve Jewish identity and interests, but it is wrong for Jews to sacrifice the identities and interests of OTHERS so that ONLY Jewish identity and interests will be served. That is a form of supremacism with similarities to Nazi chauvinism. The fact that Jewish Globalists are willing to push a ‘new cold war’ with Russia, create yet more havoc in the Middle East — war with Iran next on the menu? — , and push destructive diversity on the West suggests too many Powerful Jews are willing to sacrifice any amount of gentiles to get what they want.
Still, there is nothing wrong with Jews caring about other Jews. If anything, some Western European Jews were more into their own status among White Gentile elites than into caring about the fate of Eastern European Jews. But the horrors of WWII, Shoah, and rise of Israel changed all that. There was a sense that it’s not enough for Jews to be physically safe and comfortable in one part of the world when other Jews in another part of the world could be oppressed or being killed. So, even though American Jews had it pretty good in the US, they felt emotional duress and pain about what was happening to European Jews. It’s this connection that makes life meaningful. It’s like the thief in the Akira Kurosawa film KAGEMUSHA. At one time, he had no concern about anything but himself. But once he feels a connection with the Takeda Clan, he feels emotionally sick to see it wiped out. Without such sense of connection, he would not have cared and would have just gone about looking for good times for himself.
Or consider the scene in DISTANT THUNDER by Satyajit Ray. The man is served a plate of food in another town, and he can have a nice meal, but he feels emotional pain because his wife and others in his hometown are suffering from hunger. And it’s like TEN COMMANDMENTS. Moses in exile could have had a nice life with wife and all, but God talked to him through a Burning Bush and told him he better care for Hebrews still in bondage in Egypt. So, it’s not enough that he is safe and eating well and has a nice life. He has to care for his kind in Egypt under the iron rule of Yul Brynner. From that moment, Moses’ life is about bringing every last Hebrew out of Egypt because everyone matters(though, to be sure, he kills half of them later when they get funny with the Golden Calf, the homo parade of the day).
Anyway, even well-off white folks can be politicized IF they are made to feel a racial, cultural, and historical connection with fellow Europeanites. Once that connection is rewired, even affluent whites who are physically comfortable will feel emotionally uncomfortable when they realize that so many whites are suffering or facing hard times.
Also, it’s not just about love of fellow white folks but love of white European history and civilization. This is a great heritage and must be preserved, and only white folks can do it. (And even if it weren’t a great culture, it’s worth preserving because all peoples and heritages deserve to survive and be protected. Tajiks are not a great people who contributed much to humanity, but they have every right and responsibility to survive as people and culture in their own homeland.)
White people must preserve white civilization. The idea of Another People taking over and preserving white heritage is a joke. For one thing, PC instills non-whites with hatred toward whites. But even if non-whites were made to appreciate and preserve white culture, it wouldn’t be the same thing. It’s like white people can pretend to preserve American Indian culture, but only American Indians can genuinely preserve and guard their own heritage. Non-Indians can study and appreciate Indian stuff, but it is NOT theirs to own and preserve. Elizabeth Warren is NOT a squaw. It’s just a joke. It’s like it’d be pretty stupid for a bunch of Mexican-Americans to take over a black community and pretend to be New Blacks who own and preserve Black American History and Heritage. That would just be ‘larping’.
Anyway, any people who care for their own great culture and civilization should feel EMOTIONALLY SICK when such are being destroyed or replaced. It’s not just a matter of economics but sacred memory and appreciation.
Just think. White people are supposed to feel angry and outraged if the Mona Lisa were destroyed. But they are not supposed to feel angry and outraged when the very race depicted in the painting is destroyed or replaced or mixed into mulatto-ness. Never mind that Mona Lisa exists only because the kind of people depicted in such paintings existed to be represented by an artist.
Suppose there is a beautiful flower or animal that inspired a great painting. Now, imagine if people would be outraged if the painting were destroyed but NOT outraged if that species of flower or animal were destroyed. But the painting was possible only because such flower or animal existed(to be represented in art). Indeed, no matter how great the painting, it is still just a pale imitation of the real thing that is infinitely more important. It’s like one’s mother is more precious than a good painting of her. Creativity is precious, but Creation is priceless. The most beautiful painting of clouds is nothing compared to real clouds.
Western art and culture are the product of and a representation of white people, but for some reason, we are told that the culture is worth preserving but NOT the people who made it possible. So, Greek sculptures are worth preserving but not the Greek people whose forms are depicted in the sculptures. It’s okay if Africans come to Greece, hump all the women, and turn every Greek into someone who looks like a Moroccan.
And so many white people are okay with this because PC cut their connective cords to their own race and history. It’s like a paralyzed person with severed spinal cord who can’t feel sensations in the rest of the body. PC has cut the spinal cord between the white mind(elites) and white body(masses). White mind feels no pain even when the white boy is being destroyed.
But once the white nervous system is reconnected, even the most comfortable and affluent white person will feel great pain, distress, and agony when he realizes what is being done to the civilization and culture of his folks.