Selective Nature than Natural Selection is the Name of the Game for Progs of Globalism — Global Implications of the Pussification of Europe and the Rape of Europa by Africa

Selective Nature(than Natural Selection) is the favored Biodeology of the West. It's obvious from so many stories of interracial violence that Racial Integration with Blacks is a form of tyranny, indeed the worst kind as it's biological. When Russian elites enforced serfdom over fellow Russians, the tyranny was social, economic, and political. Once laws and ways were changed, all Russians were one people. In contrast, the element of biology means that the problem between the races may well remain even after the laws have changed. Even if the law says whites and blacks are equal under the law, the fact remains that blacks are tougher, more aggressive, more muscular, more savage, more impulsive, and more thuggish than whites. If anything, this black thug supremacist advantage is made much worse by (1) 'affirmative action' laws that favor unqualified blacks over whites (2) the Magic Negro myth derived from MLK cult, Civil Rights Narrative, and Hollywood Tropes that made so many whites, even 'conservatives', worship at the feet of the illusory Sacred Negro (3) Idolatry of badass blackness derived from black success in sports, pop music, and interracist jungle fever that made many whites so enthralled with the black-cool-factor that they are either blind to black pathology or fascinated with it even to the point of self-destruction; after all, so many white women enter into relationships with black men knowing full well of the dangers; if anything, the Thug Factor attracts them, just like Femme Fatale factor drew so many men to trouble; it's like many people use illicit drugs knowing full well of the dangers because insta-pleasure trumps all else in our pop-culture-dazed society of easy and quick thrills.

Anyway, black biological tyranny over whites is the most dangerous kind of tyranny because it cannot be legislated away. It's like men will always be bigger, stronger, and more aggressive than women, and no quality or quantity of laws will change the fact that there will always be more physical violence from men to women. What makes the unity of men and women essential and resilient despite the differences and the problem of male-on-female violence is that they are attracted to each other for those very differences. Men are attracted to women for being smaller/weaker/fairer, and women are attracted to men for bigger/stronger/tougher. Some radical feminists might call this a kind of fatal attraction, but without it, there would be no life. Men and women must be together to perpetuate the species, but this isn't true of the races. Races can remain apart forever and still thrive on their own. An all-white Europe would do well to remain all-white. As long as white men and white women mate, the race will continue.

And yet, a kind of male-female dynamics may be developing between whites and blacks. Due to black manhood eclipsing white manhood in sports, pop music, and sexual idolatry, there is a growing impression: Africans are the Penis, Europeans are the Vagina. This phenomenon among the race with the defeated manhood is called 'pussification', aka cucky-wuckery. Even though there are black men & black women and white men & white women, blackness as a whole takes on the masculine principle while whiteness as a whole takes on the feminine principle. In a way, this makes sense as masculinity is sort of a zero-sum game. It has winners and bitches. It's like white men are 'bitches' of stronger black men in prison, which is why so many white guys end up taking it up the ass. As the white race is 'pussified', white women look to black men as the real men, and white guys look to black males as the true athletes, true stars, and true studs, as the 'best men'. As American Entertainment is global in reach and influence, even nations without blacks may come to feel they must have blacks to treat their own masculine deficiency. Now, why would European nations feel this way when they got white men as white heroes? Because all of humanity is now part of global culture centered in the US, and its impression is that black men are the Real Men. Therefore, just like women seek out 'real men', all the world seek out the Idols of Real Manhood. Just like a woman dreams of putting out to a Real Man, the whole world is becoming more eager to put out to Africa.
Why else would the peoples of EU do what they're doing? It's because of mass pussification. Of course, pussification affects men far more than women. Being natural 'pussies', white women still act like women whose main loyalty is to Manhood of Power(even if of another race). In contrast, men are not natural 'pussies', and therefore, pussification does something strange to their mentality and behavior. Naturally, men like to win and be on top and attract the females. To this extent, there is some degree of pussification even in homogeneous societies as some men win big, most men do not. Even in an all-white nation where all the athletes are white, few become champions while rest are losers. Even so, homogeneity tempers and limits the degree of pussification among the loser males because of the power of identification. Even if most white guys lose out, they still get to identify with white winners as fellow racial brethren. Thus, the manhood of the white champions rubs off on masses of white men who identify with their own national heroes. While there may be only one white champion, he may serve as the model for white manhood for all white men, even the losers. Thus, there is a kind of psychological empowerment even among loser white males.

But something different happens when blacks become the winners and champions in a majority white society. Not only are white guys defeated in manhood by the tougher Negroes but there is no way for white guys to identify with black champions; it is black losers who identify with black winners, which is why even a gimpy black guy like Spike Lee feels empowered by the likes of Michael Jordan or Muhammad Ali. When white guys lose in manhood to blacks and cannot identify with champion black manhood, they go into pussification mode best exemplified by the dorky countenance of CucKen Burns the pathetic and worthless dweeb. Pussification began to spread in the US as blacks took over sports and pop music. Jews even decided to push jungle fever in pop culture, what with madonna the inflatable sex doll of the NBA turned into the main role model for white women. As American pop culture is global, the pussification spread to Europe as well, and if anything, white men and women there began to feel a Masculine Deficit due to lack of blacks. Now, why would Europe feel masculine deficit when they had a white man for every white woman? Even without blacks, they could have white sports heroes and etc. But as Americanism became the unipolar world standard, whites in Europe were no longer satisfied with what they came to deem as inferior white manhood. There was the idea that black manhood is the only real manhood and that white manhood is decidedly inferior and must kowtow before black manhood, the real thing. Thus, especially with the aid of globo-homo lunacy, white guys all across EU were urged to become pussy-boys, and it seems to have worked as 50% of British Millennial men say they aren't sure what 'gender' they are. They are pussy-boys who look to blacks as the real men. And this mindset has taken over European elites who are eager to let Africa be the mega-dong to Europe-as-vagina. Look how Emmanuel Macron celebrated a virtually all-black French team defeating white European teams. He didn't cheer as a white man because, after all, a true white man would feel threatened by black manhood and DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE to defend and salvage white manhood. No, Macron cheered as a white pussy boy who imbibed the globalist worldview that Africa is the Man/Penis and Europe is the Woman/Vagina. He became the Icon of Mangina.

This is why it's so dangerous when the male/female dynamics are applied to entire groups or races. It made one race into the Man in the equation and the other race into the Woman in the equation. And just like women are attracted to men for their superior strength and what is called 'manhood', the 'womanized' race longs for the 'manized' race for its manhood. It's like in ZARDOZ where the Eternal females gravitate to Zed(Sean Connery) because he is More Man than the fruity-looking fellas of privilege. What we are seeing happen in the West is something worse than the Vietnamization of the white race. During the Vietnam War in Saigon, America was the penis and Vietnam was the vagina. Not only did America have more money and firepower but it came with bigger white and black men to whom many Vietnamese women flocked as prostitutes, mistresses, or prospective wives. Vietnam was turned into a vagina-nation vis-a-vis the the US as penis nation, but the thing is the Vietnamese men, despite being short and scrawny, fought back like young Zeus who hid and ambushed his father Cronus by cutting off his balls. The thing is the Vietnamese men at least resisted, but white men not only have lost all will to resist but are now happily cucking out to black men as their masters. Even Donald Trump, despite talking big, grovels before rappers who shi* all over him.
It might be called the Afro-Thug Paradox of the Thug-Thrill Complex and Hunt-Cunt Logic. In some cases, people are drawn to the very thing for the very reason that they are repulsed by it. Consider the war lover. He knows war is dangerous and horrible. He knows he can be killed or maimed, and yet, he is drawn to war and feels most alive in it because everything is so extreme. It’s like what Willard(Martin Sheen) says in the opening scene of APOCALYPSE NOW. When he was in Vietnam, he thought he wanted to return to America, but when he was home, he wanted to be back in the jungle. He knows war is horror, but horror and the ever-present specter of death makes him feel truly alive, like a real man. In a similar vein, primitive folks are terrified by big powerful animals such as grizzly bears or lions, but it is for that very reason that they are most drawn to such beasts, even emulating them and drawing from their power by donning fangs, claws, and fur of those beasts. And even though we humans are grateful for no longer serving as prey animals for such predators as lions, tigers, crocodiles, and the like, the most popular nature programs tend to be about predators chasing after prey and devouring them. Then, it’s not surprising that, even as whites are repulsed by black thuggery, they are also drawn to it because it is seen as so primal and masterful. White people don’t want to be attacked and mugged by blacks in the streets, and many whites go out of their way to avoid such scenarios, BUT they are addicted to blacks in NFL whose behavior is really just legally sanctioned forms of thuggery. Granted, whites would be drawn to such sports with or without blacks. Ancient Greeks loved their Olympic Games that only included Greek athletes. Still, once word and image got out that blacks are tops in masterful thuggery in sports and rap culture, the closet-animal side of whites became fascinated and even enthralled with black thuggery as the core principle of life force. And to white girls, it doesn’t matter that so many white guys are beaten and humiliated by black thugs. To them, black thuggery represents the New Normal in Western Manhood, and white female behavior has been Afro-Colonized in the sense that so many white girls think life is all about ‘twerking’ their butts to attract black males. They now act like African girls in tribal villages who do the butt-dance to attract the males.

Blacks knock out a white man and jump, hoot, and holler like black athletes in NFL and NBA. Whites might find such behavior appalling, and yet, they are drawn to it as well because the favorite entertainment of whites is rap thuggery and black domination of sports where blacks are paid to act like thugs. So, next time you watch black-dominated sports or wiggle your white ass to rap, know that you're delighting in the demise of your own race. It'd be like zebras enjoying themselves by watching lions bring down prey.

Anyway, what is this Selective Nature among the Progs of Globalism? How does it differ from Natural Selection of Charles Darwin? Natural Selection is about how evolution works, and of course, evolution made and molded all lifeforms. Every organism evolved to possess certain traits and tendencies. While those tendencies can be overridden, the process is arduous and difficult, often near-impossible. For instance, it's not easy to train a horse to carry a man on its back. Horses want to be free and don't want to carry extra-weight. Still, with much effort, man can train a horse to carry men on its back. Its will as a free horse can be broken. Still, even a broken horse would rather have a free back than a man on his back. Humans have trained bears, lions, tigers, and elephants. But it was never easy as those animals would rather do their own thing than be prodded to do stuff that go counter to their nature. Dogs are easier to train because they were bred via artificial selection to possess traits of sucking up to their masters. Still, despite such elaborate breed selections, there remains the wild wolf within the dog that still prefers to run freely than obey orders. If you let a dog loose from its leash and let it run freely, it is most happy. Same could be said of Negroes. Under the power of the white man, blacks could be trained to work the cotton fields and be Good Negroes singing "Ole Black Joe" under the shade of a tree. But black nature being what it is, once it's been allowed to run wild and free, blacks were going to diverge markedly from other races who evolved under different natural and cultural pressures.

At any rate, Natural Selections says all organisms have always been profoundly affected by evolution, and this process didn't suddenly or miraculously end for humans some 10,000 yrs ago. (Even if all human evolution did end about 10,000 yrs ago, Sub-Saharan blacks and rest of humanity would still have evolved differently and diverged because Out-of-Sub-Saharan Africa or OSA happened 150,000 yrs ago and Out-of-North-Africa or ONA happened around 60,000 yrs ago.) There was, furthermore, cultural selection. Surely, if a community prizes smart people and have them breed most, it will turn more intelligent, as happened with Jews. If a community prizes tough warriors and have them breed most, it will turn tougher and rougher, as happened with Maoris.

Then, it makes sense that different groups would not only have different physical traits and possibly cognitive abilities but different temperaments, tendencies, and levels of 'impulsivity' or 'trepidation'. Of course, even within a homogeneous group, there will be a range of personalities from outgoing & extroverted to inward & introverted, but any honest person surely knows that certain groups tend to have more(indeed many more) of members with a certain pronounced personality type. Then, considering that different races/groups evolved separately, it's very likely that they will have different racial tendencies. And since these tendencies are biological at their root, they powerfully push towards a certain direction, and it takes special effort(and much suppression of freedom) to redirect them in other directions(hopefully more constructive). It's like humans have found ways to irrigate water and even reverse the flow of rivers. But such is usually a tremendous task requiring lots of engineering, manpower, and commitment. It also goes against the the river's natural flow, which is powerful and requires immense effort on part of man to reverse or redirect.
In the past, white folks were able to control blacks, suppress their natural tendencies, and put them to constructive use. But given the savage nature of blacks, this required much repression of natural black savagery that necessarily denied blacks equal freedom. (Of course, given that all humans are hairless apes to a certain extent, all of them must be controlled and suppressed in nature to make them useful to civilization. That said, given the far greater tendency among blacks toward savagery, more effort must be made to reverse the natural black tendency and, furthermore, blacks must be denied the kind of freedom allowed to most non-blacks.) If blacks are allowed full freedom, they will not act like black versions of Europeans, Turks, Arabs, East Asians, Hindus, or even Mexicans. They will act wild and crazy, ugabuga. It's too much a part of their nature. It's like that Four Tops song "I Can't Help Myself". Now, those were more 'innocent' times, and the Four Tops were singing about sweetness and love, but what has become of black culture since the outburst of total freedom in the 60s? They are now rapping, making apelike motions, and hollering 'muh dick' and 'muh gun'; and black 'biatches' are 'twerking' and acting like lunatic skanks. In a way, we can't blame blacks for acting this way, no more than we can blame wolves from howling, skunks from spraying, hippos from wallowing in mud, and bonobos from sucking each other's dicks. Black nature + Freedom = Jiveassery and Thuggery. It can be funny and entertaining, as with David Chappelle and the like. Or it can be exciting, as when tough Negroes dunk balls in NBA or rush with ball in NFL. But in real life, it is often dangerous as the black lack of inhibition + black physical power = black thuggery that totally humiliates and wussifies white manhood into cuckery.

In a way, racial integration of blacks and whites favors white cuckery over white pride because the cucks, being servile, can find a niche of survival and servitude. This was also true when whites practiced social power and tyranny over blacks. A ho-de-do'ing and shuffling 'uncle tom' found a more conducive place in the order than angry tough blacks. Whites could tolerate and even reward 'uncle toms' for their subservience but feared and hated the angry black who dared to act 'uppity'. So, a proud black guy had a much greater chance of being whupped or even killed than an 'uncle tom' Negro who kept his head low and constantly yapped out, "Yessuh Massuh". Among the losing side, the cucks, collaborators, and wussies are better adept at survival than tough warrior types who dare to stand tall amidst the defeat of his tribe. When France lost to Germany in 1940, the French cucks were better suited for the new order of German domination. When Germany lost in 1945, the German cucks were better suited for survival whereas German men who insisted on standing tall alongside Soviets and Americans got beaten and crushed.
In a racially integrated community in the US, the white cuck pussyboys have a niche in the new order(or disorder as the case may be). Blacks tolerate them as 'white toms' who cower before blacks and cheer for tough blacks who take white girls. As for white guys who insist on being tough and proud, they are likely to get hurt because white toughness is no match for black toughness. So, while black guys tolerate white wussies, they take umbrage at the sight of proud white guys. Such 'white boys' who dare to be 'uppity' are an affront to the black sense of thug superiority. So, tough blacks pick on whites who dare to act tough. Just like tough and proud blacks got whipped in the Old South and were forced to say, "My name is Toby, not Kunta" and act the uncle tom, white tough guys are beaten by blacks until they too are compelled to act like white wussies. Thus, white wussydom has become the dominant template for white un-manhood, or 'white boyhood'. Blacks got manhood, whites got boyhood or pussyhood. CucKen Burns is the model for all 'white boys' to follow. Of course, CucKen Burns lives in a tony part of town and isn't threatened by black violence, but the bigger culture, in promoting blacks as the Real Men and Tough Guys, implies that white guys have lost in the tough guy department, and so, they must take on roles of servants and wussies. In basketball, white guys are more likely to play the role of 'assists'. Therefore, the current climate favors white guys like CucKen Burns who is only too happy to smile like a dweeb and look like a fa**oty-ass-white-boy, as blacks might call such creatures with condescension and tolerant contempt.
When the tough guys of one 'race' conquer another race, the men of the defeated race must get used to cucky 'uncle tom'-ism. For some men, it comes naturally as they were born to be wussy and subservient. But even naturally tough guys of the defeated tribe must go into 'uncle tom' mode. There was a time in America when even tough blacks who were as big and strong as Sonny Liston and Mike Tyson had to act the 'tom' in front of their white massuhs. It would have been risky for them to act tough and 'uppity' in front of whites. Today, in integrated schools, even tough white guys must act like 'white tom' wussy boys because white toughness pales next to black toughness. It's like Muhammad Ali, Ken Norton, and Joe Frazier all made mincemeat out of Jerry Quarry who was a tough white guy but no match for the Negroes.

Progs say they respect Charles Darwin and believe in Natural Selection, but when it comes to most social discourse, they practice what might be called Selective Nature. The theory of Selective Nature says that biology exerts great natural force on certain groups, indeed to such an extent that no amount of social pressure and/or programming can undo the natural tendency. So, while progs have been associated with 'blank slate-ism' and nurture-over-nature arguments, they've been totally pro-nature when it comes to certain groups. We've all heard feminists argue that boys prefer toy guns and girls prefer dolls because of cultural conditioning, and yet, these same people will argue that a homo-boy naturally prefers dolls because he was born that way. So, masculinity or femininity is not real but acculturated, but tutti-fruitiness is totally natural. So, when women act feminine, that's just a product of social conditioning, but when a homo male acts whoopity-poo, he's totally acting according to his innate nature.
According to Selective Nature Theory, homos can't do anything about their nature. They so very much want to bang the bungs of other men that there is nothing we can do about it. It's a case of "Have Buns, Will Boof". Homo nature is THAT powerful. It's so powerful that homo men MUST stick their dongs into the fecal holes of other men, and in turn, they must have other men stick their dongs up their hynies. Sure, we can argue that sodomy is unclean, gross, unhealthy, and a good way to spread disease, but no matter. Homo nature is such that homo guys must chase each other's bungs for fecal-penetration. Or so we must remind ourselves everyday.
Now, isn't that strange. Progs, the very people who usually favor nurture over nature and often scoff at biological/genetic explanations for human behavior and social phenomena, say biology is king when it comes to homos. So, nature, which happens to be inert at most times among most groups, suddenly flare up into the dominant factor when it comes to the behavior of homos. We are to believe that homo nature is such that we simply cannot stop homos from indulging in their wild homo behavior. And this applies to trannies as well. Selective Nature Theory says that tranny nature is such that a man cannot help himself from transforming himself into a 'woman', even if it means undergoing radical hormone treatments and even genital mutilation of tranny-penis-cutting in order to obtain a fake 'vagina'. It all sounds crazy, but never mind. Progs will tell us that, whether we like it or not(though PC says we BETTER like and praise it), it simply cannot be helped. Tranny nature is so powerful that it simply cannot be stopped or reversed. Trannies MUST become the Other Sex, and that's that, because the sheer power of their nature urges them to undergo radical transformation.

Now, one could argue that for most of human history, homos and trannies were told to either knock it off or keep it to themselves, and for the most part, that's exactly what happened. So, even if homo/tranny nature has a tendency toward weirdness or perversions, societies have been successful in suppressing such behavioral manifestations or keeping them under wraps. But to progs, this was a great injustice all throughout history because it stood in the way of the true nature of homos and trannies who MUST do their thing with 'pride' to feel fulfilled and happy. They MUST do it because nature is that powerful. But if homos (1) MUST act that way and (2) have considerable POWER in society, won't the result be the Normalization of perversion, decadence, and degeneracy? After all, homos aren't merely a bunch of oddball individuals who are buggering each other and leaving the rest of us alone. No, they constitute an organized and highly politicized group of vanity, narcissism, and precious sensibilities that demands that ALL OF SOCIETY be compelled to praise, celebrate, and honor what they do and stand for. But never mind all that. Progs will tell us that homos are just so wonderful because... they are the 'rainbow' people.

Now, if homos and trannies can't rise above their nature that compels them to indulge in homo fecal-penetration or opt for tranny-penis-cutting-and-castration, one might conclude that nature is indeed a very powerful thing. And if homos and trannies have certain natural tendencies that define what they are and direct their behavior, who is to say such natures don't exist in OTHER groups as well(and for that reason, people should be wary of those tendencies)? After all, if the desire to perform sodomy or cut off one's penis is so naturally powerful that it must not be suppressed or denied, who is to say certain other groups have powerful natural propensities that are difficult to suppress, control, or inhibit, especially in a free society where the motto for many is 'follow your bliss' or 'pursue happiness'?
Take the Negroes. Given their natural selection in hot dangerous Africa teeming with monstrous beasts and their cultural selection that favored warriors/hunters over farmers/herders, an honest evolutionary assessment would posit that blacks have different natural tendencies from other races. Or even if all races are similar in most ways, blacks have MORE of certain tendencies than other races. It's like all breeds of dogs are natural hunters but some are more aggressive(and bigger and stronger) than others. In the wild, some animals have stronger drives and more excess energy than other species that are more-or-less content to just have enough to eat. Badgers and wolverines are especially known to be restless, aggressive, active, and troublesome.

Something similar might be said of human groups. In any given diverse society, many groups are merely content to get along and live, whereas certain groups tend to be especially aggressive, confrontational, hostile, and nasty. In some ways, such groups end up with many enemies, but they may gain advantage over society if they have special talents that earn them admiration and/or awe. Jews have long been known as a troublesome people, and they suffered a lot for that(along with their goy victims), but they are also high-IQ, and this combination of aggression and high IQ in the relatively free and individualistic US meant Jews would make a lot of money and earn the respect of so many goyim who are willing to carry water for the Tribe for favors. And blacks are also known as a very problematic people, but their success in pop culture and sports meant that black aggression + black prowess = blackness as favored idolatry in the US. Generally, aggression and nastiness turn people off, but such can be the fuel of businessmen, empire-builders, athletes, comedians, or musicians. Then, the element of aggression and nastiness becomes prized as the source energy of greatness and awesomeness. This is true of homos and trannies, two groups who are known for their bitchiness, nastiness, and impossible-to-please-ness. And yet, their tireless work and success in certain elite fields have made their aggression seem justified as the raw material of ambition and drive. It seems that while most groups have moderate natural tendencies, certain groups — especially Jews, blacks, and homos — have extreme natural tendencies. It might also be true of Hindus and Gypsies, but Hindus are intellectually no match for Jews and physically no match for blacks. And Gypsies are just losers, and no one is interested in losers.

Anyway, if it's true enough that homos and trannies have natural tendencies that are so powerful that they cannot be stamped out(and shouldn't be suppressed), might not the same dynamics be at play among blacks as well? If Sub-Saharan blacks evolved separately from the rest of humanity for over 100,000 yrs(as Out-of-Africa is really Out-of-North-Africa) in a world that was wilder, more dangerous, and more chaotic, then it is very possible that blacks have an extreme natural tendency toward thuggery, muggery, jiveassery, funkery, and oogity-boogity-ness. And if those natural tendencies were forged into black genetics over many 10,000s(or 100,000s) of years, we shouldn't expect a limited period of social programming, conditioning, or engineering to alter them in some significant manner.
Sure, the Old South did manage to control black behavior and use blacks toward constructive ends, but it took slavery and threat of violence that always hung over blacks who got out of line. Under such pressures, even animals can be made to obey. Even bears and tigers can be trained to do tricks at circuses, especially if raised from a young age. But just as bears and tigers never really lose their beastly nature and can strike out at their masters, the black thug gene always remained despite their ho-de-do shuffling and 'uncle tom' act before their massuhs. White race-ists always sensed this dangerous element about blacks. Not only did blacks look more savage and primitive but they communicated in ways wilder than the norm among whites and other non-black races. So, even after slavery ended, white folks went about devising all sorts of legal codes and social norms to keep the distance between weaker white folks and tougher black folks. Also, the power of the Church was such in the past that it had a role in suppressing the wilder energies of blacks. But nature is like the accelerator while society is like the brake. While society can step on the brake against nature, there are times when the foot comes off the pedal, and then, nature lurches forward bit by bit. When we consider the racial changes in the 100 years from 1915, the year of D.W. Griffith's THE BIRTH OF A NATION, and 2015 when Rap thuggery & Jungle Fever are the hallmarks of Americanism, it's quite obvious that nature eventually wins out, especially in a free society like the US that says every individual has an inalienable right to 'pursue happiness'. Nothing makes blacks happier than acting like thugs and 'biatches'. Just like different things make a teetotaler and an alcoholic happy, it's wrong to expect all races to pursue the same kind of happiness. That said, there is the animal inside every human, and this animal side, even among whites and Asians, secretly long for a return to the natural state. As blacks are wildest and most in tune with savage nature, they've come to be the role models of this 'liberation from civilization and its discontents'. While every group has its idea of festivity and having a 'good time', blacks take "Let the Good Times Roll" further than most races, and in our age of EXTREME THIS and EXTREME THAT, people gravitate to that which is perceived as the Most Gone-Wild. To keep the power of nature under lid, there has to be tremendous amount of repression, as in the Muslim World where blacks were kept under control, even if it meant executing blacks who got out of control or castrating them.

If homo nature is so incessant and insistent that homos cannot help wanting to bugger countless butts(and will find so many ways to do so), then it's just as likely that black nature is so wild & explosive that it cannot be contained in a free society. So, when blacks act the thug, maybe we should just remind ourselves that it's part of their nature, and blacks can't do anything about it, no more than homos can do anything about their desire to bugger butts. Sure, black thuggery can be contained, but the means must be undemocratic or anti-individualist as freedom + individualism + black nature = black mayhem. Letting blacks be free is to allow black nature of thuggery to run wild, and then, society will fall apart IF there are too many blacks. Take a look at black parts of St. Louis, Baltimore, Chicago, Milwaukee, and etc. Look at Selma. Black nature + Freedom = Tyranny of Black Thuggery.
Consequently, the freer blacks become, the more biologically enslaved the non-black races become. Look at parts of Europe with large numbers of blacks. Blacks freely run wild and crazy, but many whites dare not walk those streets out of fear of being harassed, assaulted, robbed, or even killed. While blacks are humans like the rest of mankind, they have more of the savage animal nature and they are tougher/meaner, a fact that blacks are all too aware of in their contempt for 'faggoty-ass white boy'.
And that's why racial integration with blacks is sort of like trying to co-exist with wild animals, especially the predators. We mustn't confuse ourselves by applying White Norms on blacks, just as it would be foolish to impose East Asian norms on whites. Just like what is normal among straight folks doesn't apply to homos and trannies whose idea of the New Normal is to associate rainbows with homo fecal-penetration and penis-mutilation-to-obtain-fake-vagina, what is normal about whites in terms of aggression & behavior doesn't make much sense when applied to blacks for whom criminality is a norm than a deviance. What would be considered the criminal personality among whites is an all-too-common personality among blacks who tend to have higher levels of psychopathy, shamelessness, egotism, megalomania, and savage infantilism. And blacks can't help themselves because it's a part of their nature. And whites have a hellish time trying to balance democracy and blackness because democracy-for-blacks means chaos and mayhem. In order for whites to control blackness, they must use undemocratic means as in the Jim Crow South or in the Ham-Fisted North where ethnic whites relied on tough cops to keep the blacks in their place. But such means were denounced as tyrannical and repressive, and so, blacks were given equal rights under the law. But what did blackness + freedom lead to? Urban blight, thuggery out of control, black-on-white violence, explosion of rape, jungle fever, and pussification of the white boy.
With blacks, it's damned if you do, damned if you don't. To maintain order, you must be like Fidel Castro or Bull Connors and suppress black savagery. To enforce liberal democratic norms, you must grant equal rights to blacks who then run wild and free and create all sorts of havoc. If we can't wean homos in a free society away from sodomy, we can't wean blacks in a free society from chimp-outs.

The only solution is for whites to seek White Liberation from the natural force of Black Thug Supremacism. From the black POV, they are the happy predators and whites are the prized prey. To the black mind, whites exist merely for them to prey upon. In the past, black nature was restrained by slavery and Jim Crow, and white power was ensured by race-ism and the law. But in the liberal democracy of the US since the 60s, equal freedom for both races hasn't led to equal respect and peace. Black nature ran wild and began to beat up whites. And then, blacks lost respect for whites as the weaker and wussier race. Black guys saw white guys as benchwarmers or waterboys and began to feel ownership over white girls who grow up to rap, jungle fever, and 'twerking'. Unless white folks seek racial emancipation or white liberation from the tyranny of black thuggery, it will be over for the white race, especially as 100s of millions of black Africans are aiming to move to Europe with the full support of cucky-wuck white elites.