What if the Terms of Globalism could be determined by the National Folks than by the Greedy Elites? — Do Winged Monkeys favor Winged Monkeys of Other Tribes or Grounded Monkeys of their own Tribe? — Nationalism as Goldilocks Rule of Soundest Way of Governance and Consensus

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-mitt-romney-supports-the-status-quo-but-for-everyone-else-its-infuriating

In Tucker Carlson's monologue, he mentions Mitt Romney and his role at Bane Financial. Romney's job was to maximize the profits for the upper echelon by making the bottom fall out for the masses of lower-level workers. Globalism comes with a price. It has its sacrificial lambs. It's not win-win for everyone. Given the costs of globalism, why do the elites promote it? Don't they fear losing out? No, they don't. Why would they harbor such fears when it is THEY THEMSELVES who get to call the shots on how globalism shall transform and remake the world? They are obviously going to rig the project so that THEY get the lion's share of the globo-meat while everyone else gets bones and scraps ground into worthless sausage. So, when the globo-cow is slaughtered, the prime rib and filet mignon go to the likes of Romney and the bigger sharks whom he serves. They don't pay the costs of globalism. If anything, they reap the biggest rewards of globalism while everyone from middle class to below not only get less but bear most of the costs.

Now, would people like Romney support globalism if WE ORDINARY FOLKS got to rig the program in such a way that people like us reap most of the rewards while people like Romney have to bear most of the cost? Of course not.
Now, in a hypothetical world of noble-minded people, those with power & privilege would think in terms of the Common Good and arrange things so that the sacrifices are shared by all sectors of society(and rewards are shared likewise too). But the sort of people who rise to the top are generally not the most ethical and morally inspired. Things are even worse because the most powerful people, the Jewish elites, tend to see the goy masses as the potential enemy than fellow brethren.
But even white elites are also useless in a deracinated world that denigrates nationalism. Nationalism applies pressure on the elites to see fellow countrymen as national brethren. This is even truer if nationalism is combined with race-ism. There was an especially strong bond between white elites and white masses in past America & past Europe because both the elites and the masses were of the same race(and even ethnicity). Still, even as Americanism dropped race-ism, there was still nationalism to maintain the semblance of unity of American elites with American masses. But globalism did away with nationalism as well, and that means that the elites, as globo-homo 'citizens of the world', feel no special bond, affinity, or sense of obligation to the American People.
And history and heritage no longer matter. Who cares if your people have relatively deeper roots in America? Globalism says your kind is no more American than the latest immigrant-invaders who just got off the boat or plane. Indeed, the globo-homo elites even idealize people who haven't even left their own nations(for America) as More-American-than-American. So, if there are millions of Muslims, Africans, Asians, and Meso-Americans who dream of coming to the US, they are more deserving of the attention(and adoration) from the globo-homo elites than already-existing Americans are. Indeed, having roots in America makes you 'less American' according to the globo-homo formula. Especially if you're white, having historical roots in America means your blood is tainted with 'racism' and 'white supremacism'. So, your roots are not a point of pride but shame and guilt. So, your kind is even less deserving of status as American citizens than the newcomers who come 'guilt-free' as blank-slate Americans on whom the globo-homo script can be inscribed(and enshrined). (And yet, the call for the World to come to the US implies a supremacist mindset that the America is better than the rest of the world. Why else would globalists tell non-whites in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Middle East to drop whatever they're doing and permanently depart from their own homelands, cultures, and peoples to become 'Americans' and start all over in the New World? It's a strange contradiction. On the one hand, the history of America is said to be evil and ugly. And yet, for some reason, all that evil and ugliness created such a great and wonderful nation[that is superior to all] that peoples all over the world should reject their own nations, peoples, and cultures to come to America to become New Americans.) Of course, historical guilt is dumped only on white goyim -- never mind that Jewish immigrants also took part in slave trade, benefited from 'white privilege', and participated in the 'genocide' of the Indians. Blacks and American Indians are allowed to feel moral pride on the basis of their roots in American History. But even that does little to protect them from endless waves of immigration-invasion. Blacks with American roots are not favored over new African immigrants whose ancestors had captured and sold blacks into bondage in the era of the Atlantic Slave Trade. And the Indians have NO SAY in whether further immigration-invasion is a good thing. Even as PC pretends to care about indigenous peoples and cultures, it totally ignores the fact that mass-immigration and ensuing Diversity did much to wipe out the indigenous peoples and cultures.
At this point in history, most Jewish-Americans have considerable roots in America that goes back at least 100 yrs or more. They too have become Historical-Americans, but the cultist nostalgia about Ellis Island forever tags Jews as 'Immigrant-Americans', indeed as if they 'spiritually' get off the boat every year as dreamy-eyed newcomers. Jews act as if fresh immigrant-invaders keeping alive the Jewish Dream of Immigration. (It's similar to how every new generation of Jews get to 'larp' as the eternal race of Holocaust Survivors.) Given the fact of established Jewish History in America, one would think that Jews would identify more with Historic America than with America Reinvented. But the truth is, during all their time in America, most Jews never connected with White Christian America. Jews learned the language, ate the foods, appreciated the arts, and traded with goyim, BUT they never bonded with goyim as fellow brethren. When Christians say 'Judeo-Christian', it is in the hope that Jews will consider Christians as fellow countrymen. When Jews say 'Judeo-Christian', it is to dupe naive white Christians into believing that "Israel is America's greatest ally" when, if anything, Jews themselves do not and will never regard white Christians as fellow brethren.

In the end, we must ask WHO gets to decide the terms of the New Policy or New Order? While, theoretically speaking, those who get to decide may be noble-minded, generous, & even self-sacrificing and mindful of the common good than the matter of "What's in it for me?", the chances are that those placed in positions to decide who-gets-what will favor themselves, their friends and relatives, and their social circles than anyone else.
Take any company that must restructure. Who gets to decide? The masses of low-level workers? No, those at the top get to decide. And invariably, the decisions favor the top executives and biggest shareholders than the masses of laborers and the little guys. Before anyone at the top loses his gig(often with super-lavish golden parachutes), thousands of workers(and their benefits and pensions) are sacrificed first. Globalism is like a sinking ship where the captain and upper crew are either the first ones to get on lifeboats or the last ones to go down with the ship. It's like DOWNFALL, the film about the last days of Hitler's regime. Hitler and his inner circle were the last to go down. To the very end, they were partying and dancing while millions of Germans had already perished or been raped.
Nassim Nicholas Taleb talks about the elites not having 'skin in the game', but even those with skin in the game get bled or burnt last. By the time they pay the price, the little guys have been wiped out already(and far more brutally).



Hypothetically, how would the elites react IF populists were to gain control of globalism and rig the terms to serve their own mass interests at the expense of the elites? Suppose the populists decide to replace the current elites with new elites from a global pool. Replace oligarchs like Adelson and Koch Brothers with more civic-minded business leaders. And replace the crooks and goons of the current Deep State with noble-minded managerial class from other nations. Furthermore, the crooks and goons are made to face the music and sent to prison or executed. The result might be a fairer and sounder nation ruled and governed by elites with some sense of decency. Such globalism might actually have mass-populist support. Of course, the current elites will do everything to oppose it. The reason why the current elites support globalism is they totally get to call the shots in how the game is played and who wins. Why would people like Tim Cook, Mark Zuckerberg, Sergei Brin, Koch Brothers, Warren Buffett, Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, Jeff Bezos, Barack Obama, Michael Bloomberg, Paul Ryan, and etc. oppose globalism when THEIR KIND gets to write the rule-book of who gets to hold the most cards and reap the most rewards?

Suppose there is a pantry with lots of donuts, cookies, and candies in a school with a 100 kids. Suppose 5 kids are put in charge of the pantry, and they get to decide who gets what. They naturally favor themselves and their closest friends while leaving only crumbs and stale bread for the other kids. Would the 5 kid and their closest inner circle complain about the arrangement? They might if they're ethical, but most people aren't. And the kind of people who shoot for the top are animated by something more than intelligence and talent. They have insatiable greed, egotism, and status-obsession, like that terrible bitch Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos. Maybe Hillary Clinton had some ideals as a young woman, but by the time she entered politics, the ONLY thing that mattered was power, prestige, and privilege. And maybe Mitt Romney had a bit of ethical streak as a Mormon missionary, but he just turned into an egotistical and narcissistic pig. These vile elites dream of replacing existing Americans with New Americans, but they would think twice about the globalist project if it were about replacing the Existing Elites with New Elites. Alas, the hoi polloi don't get to choose the terms and overall direction of globalism. The elites do.

Elites have wings and fly around the world to make deals to fatten themselves ever more. Most people are grounded and lack the mercurial means of the globalists. Over time, those with wings identify more with others with wings than with their own kind. Imagine there are five species of monkeys. Suppose 5% of monkeys of each species begin to sprout wings and fly around. As time passes, will these winged monkeys identify more with winged monkeys of other species or with the wingless grounded monkeys of their own species? Ideally, the winged monkeys of one species should use their special ability to gain advantage for all the monkeys of the tribe. So, the winged monkeys of Tribe A will use their power of flight to serve the grounded monkeys of Tribe A, and winged monkeys of Tribe B will use their power of flight to serve the grounded monkeys of Tribe B. And indeed, winged Jewish monkeys think and feel this way. Though Jewish globo-elites have tremendous wing power, they will not collaborate with winged goy monkeys to harm or destroy grounded Jewish monkeys in Israel or elsewhere. Rich globalist Jews care even for lower-income Orthodox Jews. Liberal Globalist Jews care for Jewish nationalists in Israel, many of whom are not rich by any means.
Jews understand that there are two meanings of Justice. The legal definition that involves redress for individual wrongs or grievances. So, if Bob committed a wrong against Bill, then Justice demands that Bob offer recompense to Bill. There is this concept of justice in the Old Testament, especially in regard to intra-tribal matters. So, if a Jewish individual wrongs another, there must be compensation or punishment. Eye for an eye. But the Torah deals with a grander concept of justice, the idea that, on some basic level, a people must struggle and strive as one. While society cannot do everything for everyone, all members of the Tribe must be assured a meaningful place in society as fellow brethren(and sistren). This is why Moses tries to save every Jew from Egypt. He doesn't think in terms of rich Jews or poor Jews, privileged Jews or ordinary Jews, smart Jews or dumb Jews. At the basic level, ALL Jews deserve to be free and make it to the Promised Land as part of the Covenant. This grander concept of Justice doesn't mean freebies for lazy bums. All members must struggle and strive as individuals. But, they are still part of a racial and/or cultural community, and all members must make sure that everyone, even the lowest member, is assured the basic necessities that make for dignified existence.
Neo-Fascism and Humanism allow for such concept of justice, whereas globo-libertarianism says it must be about Me and never We. Jewish globalists push libertarian mindset onto goy elites but reject it for their own Tribe. Goy Libertarianism means goy elites should only think of themselves(as successful or lucky individuals) and throw their own racial brethren to the ditch. In contrast, Jewish commitment to Tribal Justice means that even the richest Jew should care about the lowest Jew. If there are suffering Jews in some part of the world, the rich and powerful Jews should try to do something for them.
Now, it's understandable why goy elites are drawn to individualism and globo-libertarianism. It means more profits for themselves since they never have to think about and be dragged down by the collective good of their own folks. White Libertarian elites have no qualms about raking in more profits by sacrificing the well-being of fellow whites. They are addicted to more money. Now, since Jewish elites also love More Money, shouldn't they throw the Jewish masses under the bus as well? Won't Jewish elites make even more money by thinking only of Me than of the We? This is less a problem with Jewish elites because there are far fewer Jews in the world than goyim. Russian elites, Chinese elites, Iranian elites, and etc. have many more people whose well-being they have to consider than Jewish elites do about Jewish masses. After all, the entire population of Jews around the world is less than 15 million. Also, as many Jews are higher-achieving than goyim, they are less in need of socio-economic support. 50% of Jews in the US make $100,000 or more. Finally, Jewish Power is such that they can make goyim foot the bill for Israel and Jewish interests.
At any rate, we saw what happens to a goy nation when its elites are goaded into Libertarian Me-than-We mode in the Russia of the 1990s. Jewish globalists persuaded drunken fools like Boris Yeltsin into just turning Russia into one big casino-economy. While tens of millions of Russians fell into destitution, the oligarchs were raking in all the dough. Of course, the Jewish oligarchs still cared for fellow Jews. Even as they plundered the Russian economy, they made sure to favor and take care of their tribal brethren. In contrast, Russian oligarchs were told to just shut their hearts and minds to the suffering Russian masses. Vladimir Putin reversed some of that but nearly not enough as Russia still remains an oligarchic gangster-state.

In the current state in most Advanced Nations, the winged elite monkeys mainly identify with the winged elite monkeys of other nations than with their own grounded monkey kind. Of course, the tribalist cries of the grounded monkeys are heard by the winged monkeys, but the fact is the latter would rather fly around with winged monkeys of other tribes than be bound to the 'loser' wingless monkeys of their own kind.
What is to be done to drown out the national cries of the grounded monkeys? This is where the Sea Monkeys enter the picture. Via endless migrations of grounded-monkeys across the seas all over the world, every monkey realm loses its original tribal integrity and becomes so diverse that the national cry(to winged monkeys above) gets drowned out by an increasingly confusing and contradictory babel of monkey shrieks. To be heard by winged monkeys, the grounded monkeys must cry ever louder and louder, but as their cries turn into a cacophony of clashing sounds, the diversified grounded monkeys end up screaming at one another than making intelligible sounds that reach the elite realm. So, while the diversified grounded monkeys bicker and scream at one another, the upper-realm of flying monkeys are feeling free and having the time of their lives. Of course, there is ONE special tree that is reserved for grounded Jewish monkeys only, and their cries are heard and addressed by all the winged monkeys.

Now, white globalist-libertarian elites will claim to be about the Greater We than about the Me. They will mask their radical Me-centric libertarianism with Proggy rhetoric about the Global We that transcends national borders. The gospel according to Bryan Caplan. These progo-globo elites will argue against nationalism as 'petty' and 'small'. They are oh-so-generous-and-compassionate that they care for ALL OF HUMANITY around the world. It's like globalist shill Emmanuel Macron derided 'nationalism' while redefining 'patriotism' as a form of globo-compassionate-imperialist consciousness. But such radical concept of the Mega-We fails on both the moral and pragmatic level.
On the moral level, it is often a cynical rationale by the globalist elites to neglect their obligations to their national folks. Their excuse for ignoring the well-being of the nation is that they are TOO BUSY caring about all the world. It's like a negligent parent who excuses his rotten behavior by insisting that he's too busy caring for ALL THE CHILDREN of the world when, in fact, he spends most of his time and money on self-indulgence. It's invocation of abstraction to justify extraction.
But EVEN IF globalists were genuinely idealistic in their dream of saving all the world, it just can't be done. Goldilocks rule sets in. History has shown, time and time again, that the nation-state is the most ideal unit for governance and collective action. Sure, nations need to trade with other nations and get along, but politics of shared purpose and governance work best within nation-states. After all, what's the point of having national leaders who neglect the national folks while busying themselves with the world affairs that either have little national relevance or do harm to the great majority of the national folk? What's the point of having national elites who tell you to your face that YOUR KIND should be replaced by New People and that your children must be brainwashed to embrace such racial suicide as the greatest good?
The recent Yellow Vest protests in France prove that globalism only misled the French elites to neglect the needs of their own French Folks while providing endless favors for Jewish globalists, Afro-Islamic invaders, and insane homo-narcissists. The radically grand concept of the Mega-We intrinsic to globalism has value only as greedy cynical ploy or Utopian fantasy. For people like the Koch Brothers and Tim Cook, globalism allows them to seek out the cheapest labor to maximize their profits. It also means accelerating brain-drain from non-white to white nations so that places like San Francisco and New York will have the nerd-drones to toil away in Tech companies. And for bleeding-heart types in Sweden and Norway who, in their childish naivete, really want to SAVE THE WORLD, the concept of Globo-Mega-We fills them with neo-messianic fervor. Of course, moral vanity is a kind of emotional greed, a tendency to hog righteousness as one's special virtue. In any case, it should be obvious by now that all of Sweden's endless efforts as a Moral Superpower has come to naught. It failed to improve any corner of Africa, and taking in all those African and Muslim 'refugees' has only turned many parts of Sweden into Third World ghettos. Also, isn't it arrogant and conceited for people of one nation to believe that they are so good, so wise, so caring, and so wonderful that their Love and Compassion can magically save the rest of humanity? If people of a nation really respect the peoples of other nations, why not let them figure things out and fix their own problems?

The Palestinian Argument for the Wall and Border Security — We all heard the Pro-Israeli or Zionist Argument for the Wall, and It is Time we heard the Palestinian and BDS perspective as well

We've all heard the argument for the Wall based on the national security needs of Israel. Whenever anti-wall critics(who happen to be disproportionately Jewish) decry Donald Trump's Wall Proposal as unrealistic, ineffectual, and/or immoral, the Pro-Wall advocates point to Israel and its powerfully effective walls. There is a factual and polemical aspect to naming Israel as Exhibit A in the usefulness(and indispensability) of Walls. First, it is true that Israel’s walls are among the most effective in the world and against not only Arabs but African migrant-invaders. So, anyone who says that walls don’t work is lying. The other reason is to shame Jewish anti-Wall opponents. It exposes their hypocrisy as the Tribe that insists on The Wall for the Jewish Nation-State but opposes it for any white-majority or Western nation. It’s an effective way to shame-face and silence Jews who are ardent Zionists and support extensive wall-building around Israel and Occupied Territories but nay-say walls for goy nations. How dare these Jews say walls are great for the Jewish Homeland but for no other people and nation? Also, both Political Parties in the US remind us over and over that Israel is wonderful and indeed the greatest ally of the US. Well, if Israel is so wonderful, whatever it does must be wonderful too, and these days, Israel is mainly known for its super-high and super-tough walls. So, if Israel is so great and its walls are so wonderful, maybe it makes good sense for other nations to also build walls for their own national security.

Now, we know why Jews are for Walls for Israel and No-Walls for goy nations. It’s the same reason why Jews are for Balls for Jews but No-Balls for white goyim. Jews want white goyim mentally castrated to serve the Jewish master. White Gelding is the main agenda of PC. And ever notice that Jews have contradictory positions on guns as well? Jews are all for guns in Israel, a nation that actually mandates gun-ownership for each and every Jewish family. But Jewish-Americans call for stringent gun-control and even gun-banning in the US. Why would Jews support universal gun-ownership in Israel but then push for gun-banning in the US? It’s because Israel is majority Jewish, and so, gun-ownership means a well-armed Jewish people. In contrast, Jews are only 2% of Americans, and that means Jews are out-gunned 50 to 1. Therefore, Jews want guns to be monopolized by the state that is controlled by Jews who have bought up most whore-politicians and appoint most judges. As with everything else, Jewish Logic all comes down to “Is it good for Jews?” Jews only feign ethics and morality in their argumentation, the main purpose of which is to ensure not only security but supremacy for the Jewish People. So, one should never listen to Jewish appeals to humanitarianism or what-must-be-done-for-the-children. They are all rhetorical smokescreen to push through an agenda that is really meant to consolidate Jewish Control and Power. Then, it becomes obvious why Jews are pro-guns in Israel. It means majority of Jews out-gunning Arabs. And it makes sense why Jews are anti-guns in the US. Gun ownership means goyim outgunning Jews. What goes for guns also goes for walls. Walls in Israel mean security for the Jewish state. Having extensive walls means Jews can keep out any people who are deemed hostile, burdensome, or troublesome. Thus, Jewish nationhood is secured, and hopefully, Israel can last forever as it favors a policy of Jewish-Immigration-Only while excluding non-Jews who might crash the Zionist Party.
But, when it comes to walls in goy nations, Jews think differently. After all, the Wall during WWII came to symbolize Jews trapped in the Warsaw Ghetto, a precursor to the current situation in Gaza according to pro-Palestinian advocates. In Europe during WWII, Jews didn’t get to control the walls and decide who got in and who remained out. Walls meant the Nazis got to keep Jews trapped in the ghetto, from which there was virtually no escape and no entry(except by the Germans who were often murderous). (Jews often bitch about how nationalism and anti-open-borders policy are like Nazi Evil, but if anything, it was Nazi Germany that enforced Open Borders and it was non-German nationalism that was the best bet against Nazi aggression. Hitler wanted an Open Europe where Germans could move in and out of any nation at their whim. Indeed, Jews were safest in nations that still had effective national barriers against Nazi pan-Europeanism. It was following Germany's Open Invasion of Poland and France that Jews in those places really came under tremendous heat. And Germany’s Open Invasion policy against Russia promised doom for countless millions of Slavs and Jews. What saved the Jews was the nationalist push-back by the Russians and others who resisted the Nazi German Open Invasion policy. Given what Open Invasion policies have done to Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Yemen in recent years, why would any sane person oppose national sovereignty and secure borders? It was precisely because Iraq and Libya were unable to prevent foreign invasions that they ended up in the mess that they are. And there would have been no Syrian War if the Syrian regime could have controlled its borders. But Saudis, Turks, Israel, the US, and myriad Jihadi groups all worked together to breach Syrian borders and tear that country apart. Jews are willfully telling lies when they conflate nationalism and borders with Nazism and inhumanity. In nearly every case, erosion of national borders led to more tensions, conflicts, wars, and even genocides. Nazi Germany was not content to mind its own borders and respect the borders of other nations. It was all about Open Borders Imperialism, and when one ponders its effect on a nation like Syria in recent years, one would have to be stupid, ignorant, or evil to push for the erosion of borders.) Jews also hate the idea of Walls for Goy Nations because such symbolizes autonomy, independence, and sovereignty against Jewish-dominated globalism. It means limits on the Jewish Globalist penetration and takeover of those nations. It’s like the Portnoic Jewish penis hates the idea of well-protected goy vaginas. The Jewish Pud wants to freely penetrate and conquer white pooters.

One might argue that Jews are over-reacting when it comes to demand for border security among goy populations. After all, when Hungarians prevent foreign migrant-invaders from barging in, they are not shutting their nation to foreign travel, investment, and business. They just don’t want their lovely nation inundated with law-breaking marauders who will surely cause lots of social problems(as well as change the character of the nation were they to remain indefinitely). So, why do Jews condemn Hungary? It’s because any show of national assertiveness signifies desire for national autonomy and independence. And that means a nation like Hungary belongs to Hungarians first and foremost. Non-Hungarians, goyim or Jewish, must respect this fact of Hungary. Now, almost all goyim are willing to respect Hungarian national rights, so why are Jews so hellbent on insisting that Hungary doesn’t belong to Hungarians and that Hungarian-ness must be ‘fluid’(like 50 genders) and ‘inclusive’, i.e. recently arrived Muslims and Africans should be welcomed as New Hungarians. It’s because Jews are the premier globalist-imperialists in the world, and their power derives mainly from worldwide networking. After all, even though Jews do have a nation of their own, the fact is Israel, in and of itself, hardly constitutes a great power. The real basis of Jewish Power is that the Tribe has penetrated and taken over GOY nations and uses complex networking to coordinate Jewish-First Agenda from NY to London to Paris to Tel Avis to Moscow to etc. This is why Jews regard ANY sign of goy defiance against the Jewish Globo-Agenda with alarm.
After all, it is most unnatural and unjust for a tiny minority to wield such disproportionate power over nations where the overwhelming majority populations are composed of non-Jewish races and cultures.
Granted, Jews are playing with fire when they push for radical globalism in goy nations because of the danger of populist backlash. After all, the ONLY thing Hungary wanted was border security from the Muslim and African ‘refugees’. It was willing to work with EU and US on most things. But Jews like George Soros pushed so hard against Hungary over the ‘Refugee’ Crisis that Hungary ramped up their nationalism to not only keep out the invaders but to boot the Soros foundation out of the country. Jews have gotten so arrogant and so used to having their ass kissed(even by America, the most powerful country in the world) that they now seem incapable of the smallest compromise. Their attitude is ‘our way or the highway’.
Given that such chutzpah is bound to piss off any goy group, Jews go about promoting Diversity so that they can play divide-and-rule among the goyim. After all, no matter how rich and well-connected the Jewish minority may be, they are no match for a united majority goy population with guns and pitchforks. Once the goy majority break free of the programming and realize what Jews are really up to, they may rise up and really stick it to the Jews. Jews know this, and that is why they not only seek to deracinate every goy national identity(and spread decadence and degeneracy) but to diversify the population so that the various goyim will be at each other’s throats than go after Jews. Now, if Jews stopped acting crazy, none of this may be necessary. Most white goyim are willing to co-exist with Jews and respect much that is admirable about the Jewish community. But maybe there is something in the Jewish psyche that just can’t leave things alone. They just have to keep pushing for more and more. Ironically, Jews are rather like Adolf Hitler in this. Der Fuhrer just didn’t know when to stop with his insatiable ambition.

Now, let’s consider the Pro-Wall argument from the Palestinian viewpoint. We know why walls have been good for Israel. We know that walls have effectively ended terrorist bombings in Israel. We know walls make Jewish occupiers/settlers in West Bank feel much safer. Combination of walls, Zio-Apartheid restrictions, and IDF presence allows Jews to live relatively safe even in areas where they are outnumbered by (justifiably)angry Palestinians. And Pro-Wall advocates in the US love to rub the faces of Jewish Anti-Wall activists and politicians in the facts about Israel and the Wall. But what goes unspoken is that the Pro-Wall argument is just as, if not more, compelling when we bring Palestinians into the equation. For starters, how was Palestine wiped off the map from the river to the sea to make way for the new nation of Israel? It was because Palestinians had no effective walls to keep the Jewish-Zionist migrant-colonizer-invaders out. If Palestinians had walls like Jews have today in Israel, there would be no Israel. The place would still be Palestine inhabited mostly by native Arabs. The destruction of Palestine by endless Jewish migration and finally by the Nakba Pogroms of 1948 goes to show that walls or some form of tough border security is necessary for any nation to survive. Indeed, the creation of Israel proves not only the importance of walls but the danger of mass-migration. The wholesale ‘immigration’ of Jews to Palestine eventually led to ethnic cleansing. Same had happened to Serbians of Kosovo, now owned by Albanian Muslims who'd migrated into the region under Ottoman Imperial rule. Granted, Serbians could argue that they are like the Jews on the subject of Kosovo because they long for their ancient homeland just like Jews had longed to reclaim the Holy Land over the centuries, a dream finally fulfilled in 1948. But apparently, only Jews have the right to reclaim ancient homelands. Jews (re)taking Palestine was great but Serbians better forget about retaking Kosovo, especially as World Jewry are totally on the side of Albanian Muslims there.

The importance of the walls is demonstrable not only with the recounting of Nakba and destruction of defenseless Palestine but by what is going on in West Bank right now. While Jews in Israel have effective walls against Palestinians in West Bank, Palestinians in West Bank have no effective walls against Jews in Israel. That means Israel can defend itself from Palestinian infiltrators and terrorists, but West Bank cannot protect itself from Jewish colonists, invaders, and settlers. So, which side has the advantage? Jews with effective Walls against Palestinians OR Palestinians with No-Walls against Jews? If two swordsmen square off, who has the advantage? The one with sword and shield or the one with only sword, a wooden one at that compared to the steel sword of the opponent? Walls mean security and survival. The ONLY reason Constantinople lasted as long as it did was because of its massive walls. When they were finally breached, it was all over. Ideally, walls would not be necessary in a world governed by Rule of Law or Rule of Honor, where all peoples respect the borders of other nations in deference to laws or the honor system. And many people do have a sense of honor and obey rules. But then, many people don’t. In the 21st Century, two peoples are least mindful of laws and honor: Jewish globalists at the very top and the masses of Third Worlders who act like zombies in WWZ. Now, why would the uppermost elites work with the barbarian masses to destroy the Great White Middle? One reason is that both the elites and the barbarians have no respect for rules. Barbarians think and act like animals driven by primitive drives and appetites. So, if Third World masses can invade the West and feed on freebies, that’s just fine as far as they’re concerned. As for the uppermost elites, they regard rules as for the ‘little guys’. They themselves feel as gods who are beyond the ‘petty’ conventions of ‘right and wrong’. Barbarians think in terms of ‘below the law’, whereas the Rulers, as globo-deities, think in terms of ‘above the law’. But a more practical reason for the alliance of uppermost Jews and Third World hordes is because Jewish elites are convinced that the ONLY SURE WAY to secure Jewish supremacist domination in the West for all time is via Diversity. Only Diversity will lead to conditions where the goyim are so divided that they will never be able to unite to challenge Jewish Dominance.

Anyway, would you rather be Israelis with powerful walls against Palestinians in West Bank OR Palestinians with powerless No-Walls against Jews in Israel? Who are invading whom? Are Palestinians in West Bank invading and colonizing Israel OR are Jews in Israel(and around the world) invading and colonizing West Bank? Which side has the force of walls? The answer is, of course, obvious as day. But because Jews want to monopolize the power of walls for themselves, we are fed endless propaganda by the media(another power source monopolized by Jews) that walls are bad for goyim. Funny that whatever is good for Jews is bad for goyim. And whatever is bad for goyim is good for Jews. It’d be like Jews telling us that money is bad, but the moment we toss away our dough, they pick it up and pocket it. The fact that so many white goyim have been persuaded by Jews to see walls as a bad thing(despite the fact that Jews keep building more walls for Israel) is sad proof that a lot of whites are real dummies or idiots. Haven’t they figured it out that Jews are playing them like a fiddle and setting them against fellow white folks who happen to be patriotic or slowly shaking free from the hypnosis(or virulent hysteria) of PC? Isn’t it interesting that both ‘right-wing’ Jews and ‘left-wing’ Jews are agreed on the necessity of Israel’s walls, but the white population is divided between those who see the value of walls and those who think it’s an evil symbol of ‘xenophobia’?

But the fact that even relatively 'red-pilled' people like Ann Coulter and Tucker Carlson argue in favor of the Wall by invoking only Israel goes to show that they have yet to fully awaken from what is really going on. They are still under the impression that Jews may accept them as partners(if not equals) even though Jews regard ‘fellow whites’, the dimwit goyim, as sheeple to mess with. Patriots go to great lengths to demonstrate that they like Jews and want to be like the Jews(especially the proud ones in Israel), but the fact is most Jews in the West look upon white goyim in the manner that Jews in Israel & West Bank look upon Palestinians: An inferior people to subjugate, humiliate, and castrate. White Patriots flatter themselves as akin to White Zionists when, if anything, their condition is more akin to that of White Palestinians. Indeed, every day, it seems more like what Jews are now doing to West Bank is merely a dress rehearsal for what they intend to do with all the West. If Jews have the numbers to take over West Bank for Greater Israel, they intend to use hordes of Third World masses as proxy-armies of Jews. Of course, these Third Worlders have no love for Jews, but they don’t have the brainpower to challenge Jewish power once they enter the West. Also, as the main conflict will be between whites and non-whites, Jews can play off both sides. It’s like Jews cajoled white Christian soldiers into invading and destroying the land of the ‘muzzies’ and then encouraged Muslim migration-invasion to the West to use them as dreamy-eyed immigrants against white ‘racist-supremacist xenophobes’. What people like Ann Coulter and Tucker Carlson need to start doing is make a case for the Wall by invoking the history and plight of Palestinians. Palestinians lost their homeland in the Nakba Pogroms because they had no effective walls or border security against the Jews who were favored by the Great Powers like UK, US, and USSR. And Palestinians in West Bank are now losing what little remains of their homeland because they have no effective wall against Jews. In contrast, Jews have effective walls against Palestinians(and others), and that means Israel remains secure as the homeland for Jews. Walls mean power, security, and survival. No Walls means no power, no security, and extinction. It should be obvious by now that World Jewry work to deny the right of walls to white nations. Also, by promoting Afromania, Jungle Fever, Homomania, and Feminism, Jews also seek to rob white men of balls. No walls and balls for the white race if the Jewish Globalist Hegemonists can help it. Because American Jews regard whites not unlike how Israeli Jews regard Palestinians — and because the Jewish Plan for the white race is White Nakba on a massive scale — , it is about time white Americans came to identify more with Palestinians than with Jews. After all, with whom do white Americans(and Europeans) have more in common? Jews have the power of walls and balls in Israel. Palestinians have no power of walls and balls. Do white people in EU and US have walls and balls OR no walls and balls? They have no walls and balls. Well, which people did most(via their monopoly of key institutions and industries) to rob white people of walls and balls? Jews of course. Then, it is about time that white people began to feel, think, and act in terms of WE ARE ALL PALESTINIANS. Not White Zionists but White Palestinians. Just like it’d be great for Palestinians to have walls and balls, it’d be great for whites regain have walls and balls. Well, which people are denying both Palestinians and whites the advantages of walls and balls? It's the Jews. Whites keep thinking they are partners and allies of Jews when, if anything, Jews regard whites like they do Palestinians: Slaves, servants, serfs, peons, or cattle. After all, what do Palestinians in West Bank and Anglos in Texas have in common? Day by day, they continue to lose the demographic struggle against invasive populations. What Jewish colonizers do in West Bank, Mexicans and Central Americans do in Texas and Southwest territories. Now, do Jews side with Anglos OR with Mexicans & Central Americans? Isn’t it surreal that while Anglo-Texans root for Jewish colonizers in West Bank, Jews root for Mexican & Central American colonizers of Texas? Whites root for Jews against Arabs, but Jews root for browns against whites. Geez, no wonder whites are losing. Texas has anti-BDS laws that forbids government workers to stand against the Zionist Occupation of West Bank, but the great irony is that Jews are hellbent on doing to Anglo-Texans what they did to Palestinians.

Whites have become such worthless cucks. Among the elite whites, it’s just a case of craven greed as all they care is about more shekels from Jewish Power. Among white masses, too many are dimwit Evangelicals who worship Jews-as-the-Chosen or moronic gun-huggers whose worldview came from Hollywood-produced Chuck Norris movies where gung-ho Americans mow down a bunch of subhuman terrorist ‘muzzies’. They seem to have no idea that Jews have no more regard for them than they do for Palestinians.

According to Jewish Logic, White Christian Soldiers exist to be shipped off to the Middle East to fight Wars for Israel and kill tons of 'Muzzies'. These Jewish-instigated wars lead much havoc and Muslims moving to the West. Then, Jews hug Muslims as 'refugees' and 'immigrants' and use them to berate white Americans as 'xenophobes' and 'Islamophobes'.

Incidentally, the US-and-Mexico situation is the reverse of the one in Israel-and-West-Bank. In the case of Israel and West Bank, it is the bigger, richer, and more powerful party(Israel of course) that gets to defend itself while also invading the weaker territory. Palestinians in West Bank can’t intrude into Israel, but Jews in Israel sure can enter West Bank as they please and grab more territory. Tragic as it is for Palestinians, it seems natural because, historically speaking, the greater power gets to defend its domain while invading other domains. The basic law of imperialism.

But between the US and Mexico, things seem to go against the grain of historical norms. After all, the US is far bigger, richer, and more powerful than Mexico, but almost all the invasions are from south to north... and the US seems helpless to do anything about it.
If anything, Mexico has a tougher and more effective border policy(except when it willfully wants to serve as conduit for the Caravandals between Central America and the US) than does the US where migration/immigration policy is all but broken. Donald Trump talks tough but has been unable to enforce any effective border policy as the courts are dominated by Jews or their globo-homo commissars.

Why is the bigger, richer, and stronger nation weaker in the equation? Why is the US like the West Bank vis-a-vis Mexico/Central America that act like Israel with their endless reserves of invader-settlers? In the past, it was the big tough US that not only defended itself from non-white foreigners but invaded and took SW territories from Mexico(as well as other parts of the world). Back then, the US was like Israel, and Mexican territories were like West Bank.

Today, US is still many times richer and more powerful than Mexico but weaker when it comes to border security. Why is the US like West Bank in its utter impotence to stop the invasion of migrant-settlers from the South? Well, we know why. The elite institutions of America are ruled by Jewish supremacist hegemonists and their globo-homo cuck-dogs. The real problem isn’t that the US is unable to stop the migration-invasion due to lack of manpower or materials but that it is hamstrung due to dictates from ABOVE. Big tough body of America is now animated by the Jewish head. Globalism says, "Jews can invade West Bank, and browns/blacks can invade US & EU, but whites in EU and US better just give up and take it up the ass like the helpless Palestinians in the West Bank."

In a strange way, Jews support massive non-white immigration-invasion as their own Pro-Wall policy. From the Judeo-Hegemonic Perspective, a huge mass of non-whites amounts to a Human Wall or River-like Barrier against White Power. Non-white masses are the demographic-electoral-economic moat around the globo-homo Jewish Supremacist castle to keep out the white populist-nationalists with pitchforks. In war, flooding is sometimes used to hold back the enemy. Dams are blown-up to let the water flow between your side and the approaching enemy. Jewish elites regard the non-white demographic flooding of the West as akin to the crashing waves that engulfed Pharaoh's cavalry and spared the Hebrews from Egyptian wrath.

Commentary on the Nassim Nicholas Taleb's IQ Controversy on Twitter

In a way, maybe Nassim Nicholas Taleb speaks a certain truth about IQ, at least in the socio-political sense if not so much in the cognitive-scientific.

Now, IQ can tell smart apart from the dumb, but it is now essentially a ideo-economic tool used by the IYI('intellectual-but-idiots') to favor their own kind. The great contradiction of the Current Order is that the 'right' supports the concept of IQ whereas the 'left' tends to suppress it, BUT it is the 'left' that benefits from it far more than the 'right' does. Look at all the elite academic institutions that rely on IQ-esque tests, and they are totally 'leftist'. So, even as the 'left' tends to downplay IQ, it is the biggest beneficiary of it. And even though the 'right' emphasizes IQ, it is the biggest casualty of it. After all, the biggest beneficiaries of IQ meritocracy, the Jews and the 'left', use all their power to shut down the 'right'.

Even if affirmative action were to be eradicated and pure meritocracy reigned supreme, the fact is the elite institutions will remain 'leftist' and anti-'right'. Why? Because people aren't just rational beings but righteous beings, and 'leftist' ideology is simply seen as more on the side of 'justice'. (Also, the modicum of 'diversity' on campus gives the elites the justification for their own position and privilege on the basis of IQ. Affirmative Action & Diversity create just enough impression that the most prestigious institutions operate on the basis of 'inclusion' than elite exclusion based on IQ.)

The problem with Taleb is he throws out the baby with the bathwater. He should have said IQ, while measuring real cognitive abilities, doesn't measure integrity, individuality, courage, and honor. It only separates the smart from the dumb. But in a society where both smart and dumb are inundated with PC from cradle, even the smart grow up using their mental skills to aid and abet the Official Holiness.

This is why the 'right' is foolish to put all its eggs in the IQ basket. IQ alone is just a cognitive tool. It's like an advanced computer has super-fast processing power but works according to algorithm. If Google rigs the algorithm to ban certain ideas and information, the processing system does as programmed no matter how fast and efficient it is. So, IQ alone won't lead to truth. IQ serves something deemed 'higher', something holy. And all kids, smart and dumb, are raised to worship PC gods.

To break out of this mold, society needs people with traits other than IQ. Even though higher IQ is always better than lower IQ(all things being equal), higher IQ doesn't guarantee anything. Even a high IQ person may get all weepy about MLK and Mandela because of childhood indoctrination. Or even a high IQ person may be conformist in personality, craven and cowardly. China had a system of choosing smart people over dumb ones for over 1,000 yrs, and it produced little more than IYI obsessed with passing eight-legged essays.
In China(past and present) as well as in the current West, IQ is mainly associated with careerism, so the Smart Art is mostly about test-taking and memorizing knowledge WITHOUT the individual-and-independent will to ask questions as to WHO is pushing the knowledge and WHY. It's been said the Deep State is brimming with smart people with super-credentials, but notice there is hardly any real integrity-and-independence of thought. It's filled with cretins like Cass Sunstein, Samantha Power, Hillary Clinton, and James Comey. Things are so bad that one guy with a modicum of integrity finally said enough and quit.


Anyway, it's too bad that Taleb went the throw-baby-with-bathwater route. He would have done better by saying that even as IQ measures real mental ability, it does little to separate those with integrity and independence of mind from craven careerist-minded sheeple whose main passion is status and social approval. And status according to whom? That would require the JQ(Jewish Question), and most people don't want to go there(because of conditioning-from-cradle that Jews are the Holy Holocaust people who must never be criticized or doubted). What the world needs is ICQ or Integrity-Courage-Quotient, the will to break out of the mold and speak the truth against social opprobrium and political pressure. Something Socrates had(and Galileo too though not as much).

Anyway, the mob-lynching of James Watson by none other than the cognitive elite goes to show that IQ is no guarantee for honesty, integrity, and courage. All said and done, most smart people push the Big Lie for two reasons.

(1) Cynical power play. Smart Jews privately know that Watson is right, so why do they torment him? They need to perpetuate 'white guilt' about blacks to keep whites browbeaten and servile to Jews and their allies(mainly homos and blacks). 'White Guilt' paralyzes white pride that enables white independence that leads to white agency liberated from Jewish Power. So, Jews feel a need to push 'white guilt'(especially about blacks) as long as possible.

(2) As for smart goyim who attack Watson, they act as they do because they've been raised since cradle in the secular church of Magic Negro Worship. They've been instructed from a young age that blacks are holy and that whites can atone their 'historical sins' only by helping blacks fulfill their destiny of becoming First Humanity, the Wakandans. So, if blacks are lagging in schooling or some such, it's all due to ANYTHING(often associated with 'white evil) except the mundane facts of biology. Blame history, geography, or economics.

-------------------

Now, a theory as to why Nassim Taleb may be the way he is.



Nassim Nicholas Taleb claims to admire the Romans than the Greeks; he called Ron Paul a 'Roman among Greeks' as high praise. Romans got things done whereas Greeks theorized without solid grounding in reality. But it seems like the Romans he feels closest to are the Byzantines than those of the Western Empire. Taleb comes from a world that was once part of Byzantium, a world where everyone cautiously eyes the hidden power, the shadow hand, the ‘deep state’. Turks, Lebanese, and etc don’t trust anything at face value. And it seems Persians are much the same. Watch any Iranian movie, and there are no straight lines, physically-emotionally-dramatically. It’s all about navigating roundabout ways, with the shortest distance from point A to point B avoided for any number of reasons ranging from tragic to farcical.



BLACK SWAN’s success, as I take it, was the argument that what people consider to be straight lines of cause-and-effect in history really aren’t. It’s just the illusion of straight lines of cause-and-effect. Sometimes, the suppose straight lines are false or illusory. In fact, there are OTHER hidden factors at play almost everyone fails to notice.
And this is where Taleb was right about the financial crash in 2008. So many experts were speaking in terms of cause-and-effect straight lines between home-ownership and economic growth. Everything was getting better because more people were ‘owning’ homes. And yet, this supposed straight line between cause and effect was bogus and illusory because it required so many crookedness and devious instruments — derivatives that allowed for bad loans which could be bundled, sliced, and sold around the world — to keep it afloat. But people willfully ignored these hidden factors and just thought in straight-line terms of cause(the policy of ‘ownership society’) and effect(economic growth and rising home prices making everyone richer).
Taleb, having worked in the financial industry, knew what kind of devious forces are at play to distort prices and value, to effectively bribe politicians into supporting nutty policies based on dubious high-sounding ideology, such as that led to ‘compassionate conservatism’ which should really be called ‘compassionate libertarianism’(and let’s not forget ‘compassionate neo-imperialism’ of warmongering and ‘spreading democracy’).
It’s interesting that Adam McKay who made BIG SHORT, a movie about ferreting out the hidden factors behind the mess, failed to really address the role of Jewish power. He was even more negligent in this regard in the new movie VICE where he blames Big Oil for the war. When a movie purports to expose the hidden truth but does a switcheroo with an even bigger lie, it’s worse than a simple lie.

Anyway, Taleb comes from the Byzantine part of the world. Christian-Greek-Lebanese, his 'emotional' and 'temperamental' worldview isn’t much different from Turks of the Gulen School.

And this could be why he finds it difficult to trust the methodology of IQ. It’s too simple, too much of a straight line. He’s used to black swan thinking. In his worldview, there are no Occam’s Razors, just the Assassin's Daggers(hidden behind shadow behind a shadow). So, Taleb has a tendency to be distrustful of ANY theory or argument put forth by the western intellectuals(most of whom he dismisses as IYI) who, in their naivete or childishness, still believe in straight lines and cause-and-effect when, in fact, the truth is hidden and/or lurking.

But what Taleb fails to understand is that IQ theory is NOT part of correct or approved Western PC ideology. If anything, it is PC ideology that is downright ‘byzantine’ in looking for the ‘black swan’ excuses as to why blacks fail. It can never be the simplest answer that blacks are less intelligent and more impulsive(thus less likely to focus on study because their cultural life is all about fun and jiving). Besides, the current IQ theorists are the crime-thinkers who are going against the grain of Western PC, a true poison of the mind. A true black swan is what everyone fails to see. PC, in contrast, constructs fake black swans(or rubber ducks) as explanations for black failure in school. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Even Freud said so. And IQ is real. But it doesn't measure integrity.

--------------------------------------

To understand Taleb, you have to consider his cultural personality. Emotions, often unchecked, override reason and logic. This is true of Jews with excess chutzpah as well. You have to know their mindset before you really understand their minds. Tucker Carlson said he often felt confounded in the presence of Robert Kagan. Kagan's a smart and erudite guy, so one would think someone like him would be cautious and thoughtful. But no, too many like him get all boorish about certain matters, esp pertaining to Jewish power and advantage, with which their egos and pride are invested.

Some people have smaller personalities and bigger minds.
Some have bigger personalities and smaller minds.
Big minds with small personalities tend to be more rational, but they lack direction because reason is 'adirectional'. Reason doesn't favor one agenda over another. It tries to understand all sides. Reason lacks emotions or passion and is 'blind' as judge and jury. It is passion(love, hate, pride, paranoia, greed, resentment, envy, etc) that pushes reason in a certain direction. Big personalities with small minds do have a sense of direction, but they fail to see the big picture because they're stupid. It's just a matter of 'me, me, me', and such narrow-minded egotists burn out fast.
And then, there are big personalities with big minds. Now, which guides which? The big mind or the big personality? It's the latter because the mind, no matter how capable, is 'adirectional' and neutral(and objective in analysis of all things), whereas personality is about ego and passion.
This is why big personality with big mind will push around small personality with big mind. This is why Jews gained over Wasps. Wasp culture was about controlling emotions, and Wasps may have been bred to be reserved than temperamental(a trait that was sent to the gallows for bad manners). Also, small personalities with big minds are drawn to big personalities with big minds. Because they lack passion of their own, they latch onto the impassioned egotism of others. It's why Albert Speer was drawn to Adolf Hitler, why Zhou En-Lai was drawn to Mao Zedong. It's why cucks like Romney and Ryan are drawn to Jews with big big personalities.
The key difference between big personalities with big minds and big personalities with small minds is that the former see the big picture. They realize that 'me, me, me' isn't enough for sustained power and reach. It must be 'we, we, we'. So, while Nicky Santoro -- big personality but small mind -- in CASINO can't think beyond 'me, me, me', the Jewish moguls who eventually take over Las Vegas have a sense of 'we, we, we', i.e. We Jews working as one. After all, individuals don't last forever, but the Tribe can last a long long time.


Of course, there are white goyim with big personalities and reasonably big minds. Trump is such a person, and that's why Jews fear him and what he stands for. He has White Chutzpah though, to be sure, he can't do much as he is hemmed in by all sides by Jewish Deep State chess moves. Still, his own ego and passion are big enough that he doesn't need to latch onto Schlomo-Ego to feel pride and show bravado. Jews don't fear the White Negro, but they fear the White Jew, the Goy with chutzpah to match that of Jews.

Taleb is obviously smart, but he is also a big personality, and his egotism drives his reason... sometimes unwisely, as with the recent IQ controversy. But then, his perspective on IQ is different from our own. We tend to see the IQ issue as breaking the PC ice so that truth can be told. It is the battering ram against the Establishment's Wall of PC.
In contrast, Taleb sees IQ testing as the tool of the IYI establishment to keep the power and pat themselves on the back as the 'best and the brightest'. How many times have we been told that Obama Administration had the Most Qualified people or that Hillary is the 'most qualified' candidate who ran for president? The elites justify their grip on power on the basis of 'meritocracy', which is primarily grounded in various forms of IQ testing. But Taleb regards so many individuals selected by means of 'meritocracy' to be worse than retarded. So, he considers his anti-IQ stance as anti-Establishmentarian. Still, he failed to be measured on the matter because it became so contentious and personal(and because he made it so personal).

He comes from a part of the world and gene pool where people tend to be Infuriating. A diverse world of many religions, sects, ethnic groups, clans, and etc. Even within the same ethnic group, it was often more a matter of kinship than shared identity. So, no one got anywhere in such a world without the personality of a haggler or bully. In a diverse world, one has to be willing to raise his voice to be heard. You have to hustle and tug at harder to get 'what is mine'. In a homogeneous trust-society, people believe that 'what is mine' will come their way in time if they wait with trust and patience. In a diverse world, you get nothing unless you make a fuss, and Taleb sure knows how to make a fuss.
The extreme opposite of Taleb's culture of Infuriating-ness is the Inscrutable-ness of the Japanese who, even when upset and angry, try not to express their real feelings lest doing so upsets the social order. In between Far East personality and Near East personality is the culture of Indecision of the Anglos. Anglos aren't as restrained as the Japanese but aren't really keen on speaking their minds because it might constitute bad manners and form. So, there's a ironic micro-push-and-pull between repression and expression. Much is intimated and hinted but never really laid out.
In contrast, the culture of 'infuriation' is never afraid to speak one's mind though it doesn't necessarily mean honesty or truth. It's more like expression of ego and personal pride than well-reasoned thought. (There is the Insane cultural personality of blacks, but that belongs in a world of its own.) But 'Infuriation' is often a ploy. It can be personal but can also be a game of how far you can push before being pushed back. It's a measuring tool in social situation. It's about acting as if you take everything personally without really doing so. So, people of this culture can switch emotions in a heartbeat. They can go from trying to slit your throat to hugging you as best-friends-forever.

Anyway, the essence of Taleb's personality can be seen in the MR. SHOW video below: People from that part of the world emote and act like that. Too often in the West, people try to understand others by their stated views and ideas. It's the product of the Cult of Reason and Enlightenment, the notion that humans are, above all, thinking beings with reason.
More often than not, knowing their personality(individual and/or cultural) hits closer to the mark of what they are really about. If one really wants to understand people like Max Boot, Robert Kagan, and Victoria Nuland, one should first study their cultural personality than their stated reasons. More often than not, their reason follows their passion than vice versa. In THE GODFATHER, it's not just about conflict of abilities but personalities.

-------------------------------------------------------

Nassim Nicholas Taleb vs Stefan Molyneux(on Twitter) suggests the real reason why Taleb dislikes IQ as the measurement of all things. It makes Europeans and East Asians look smarter than his own folks. It might matter less if not for the cultural baggage of the Near East and Greece, the cradle of civilization. But those parts had long been surpassed by Western Europe and even by East Asia. Taleb is nothing if not proud, and the idea that Northern European upstarts got the better of the people of Greece and Near Easterners is too much for him to bear. He attacks Molyneux of Nordic supremacism, but Taleb's pride is animated by Levantine Pride(if not supremacism). If IQ tests showed his folks to be as smart or smarter than Northern Europeans, maybe he wouldn't be so anti-IQ. Taleb sees himself as a wise man from the Levant who has arrived to teach the bright but childlike people of the West. Sure, the West reached great heights, but it is too materialistic and trusting in the Cult of Reason(which is too often manipulated by Deep Reason, the hidden undercurrents of Official Reason. Official Reason: Home Ownership For All makes perfect economic sense vs. Deep Reason: It's a killer way for Wall Street to rake in billions).

But there are ironies about Taleb's thinking. He prefers Romans over the Greeks but thinks like a Greek. Romans were more pragmatic in politics and technology. They were doers, whereas Greeks, in their preference for theories and ideas, were talkers. And yet, Taleb's role is as a talker who sticks up for Eastern Cultural wisdom & prestige against Western arrogance & materialism. Taleb consciously roots for the Romans but thinks and feels more closer to the Greeks(and presumably Persians and etc). Molyneux mentions real material achievements of the Modern West, and Taleb dismisses them by invoking the once-greatness of the East.

Now, I think Molyneux's argument about Iraq and Jeffersonian democracy was stupid. The democratic project failed in Iraq because of diversity more than anything else. Sunnis who'd had the most power were suddenly shut out. Shias and Kurds, with less practice in politics, took power. Also, they were in revenge mode and made things bad for Sunnis.
Furthermore, the US didn't pound Iraq like it pounded Germany and Japan. At the end of WWII, all Germans and Japanese knew they better go along with the new order or it'd be extermination by rape, bombs, and nukes. US and USSR invaded those nations as victors with all the righteous fury and pride. In contrast, the US entered Iraq as liberators and friends. So, the moral advantage was with the Iraqis. US position was Iraqi folks are wonderful and ONLY HUSSEIN AND BAATH PARTY were bad. So, Iraqis never felt defeated by Americans. They just saw an opportunity to grab whatever under the New Order.
Also, keep in mind that the US has been extremely cynical, devious, and hypocritical in its promotion of democracy. When Hamas won in the Palestinian territories and Muslim Brotherhood won in Egypt, the US did everything to subvert those democracies. US also pulled a coup in Ukraine and toppled the democracy that was replaced by an odd alliance of Jews and Neo-Nazis. If Iraq had been homogeneous upon US invasion, maybe things would have worked out better. But Sunnis couldn't swallow defeat, just like the white South had difficulty accepting the terms of defeat imposed by the North after the Civil War.
Also, did Japan and Germany really become democracies? Japan became a one-party state with the backing of the US. The Japanese Left was powerful after the war and with US backing. But once the Cold War set in with Mao's takeover of China, US worked with the Japanese Right to effectively suppress the Japanese Left, and Japanese politics has been more like Chinese one-party system ever since. Except for few yrs, the LDP has ruled Japan. (Oddly enough, both homogeneous Japan and diverse California became one-party states albeit for different reasons.) And German Democracy didn't really matter because regardless of the party in power, Germany was just a puppet of the US. Look how worthless Merkel is. And when Europe elects real leaders with the will of the people(like Viktor Orban), the US elites lead the way in condemning it as 'anti-democratic', 'autocratic', and 'far right'. As far as US elites are concerned, 'democracy' around the world means national leaders taking orders from Soros & Co. and submitting to Homomania. If success of democracy = High IQ, then why are Jews, the people with the highest IQ, doing everything in their power to subvert real national democracies all around the world? Maybe democracy works best when the IQ of the upper class isn't all that different from IQ of the rest of the population. Higher but too much higher. But when IQ differences are considerable between elites and masses, the the former may want to lord over the masses than merely rule over them.
Anyway, democracy certainly didn't work in Yugoslavia due to diversity. So, I don't necessarily agree with Molyneux that democracy = high IQ. Singapore is high IQ but found a rational non-democratic way of rule that is effective.

But Taleb's argument fails too. He says the Near East came up with all the great stuff until recent times. But this isn't really true. Even during most of the Ancient Era, most of the great civilizations stopped advancing. Egypt was a fossilized civilization for 1000s of yrs, even at its peak. And Greeks stopped being inventive long before the rise of the Modern West. What was the great achievement of the Byzantines or even before that? Except in some periods of the Ancient Era, the Near East didn't produce much that was revolutionary. And much of Arab achievements in the Middle Ages were due to rediscovery of ancient Greek learning.

But even if we agree with Taleb that the East was far more accomplished than the West until about 500 yrs ago, it doesn't follow that those who invent or found something are naturally better at it. Japanese invented Judo, but bigger whites and blacks have natural advantage over Japanese(all things being equal in training and diet). Whites invented boxing, basketball, football, and etc, but blacks are naturally better at them. White people invented the saxophone, but black Jazz musicians were most creative with it. On the other hand, blacks invented blues and rhythm-and-blues, but British whites took the forms to new levels of sophistication. So, there is no guarantee that the people who found or invent something are going to be naturally better at it than those who didn't.
Due to reasons of climate and trade, the East was more advantaged than the North West in Ancient Times. North West was too cold, and people there focused mainly on survival(though not as much as the Eskimos). Also, as the Near East was situated among Europe, Asia, and North Africa, it could draw ideas, goods, and talent from all sides. But trade and communication routes could be a disadvantage as well. While people in the Near East could gain access to new goods and new ideas(and new blood in talent and intelligence), it could also be invaded by peoples of lower IQ or enslave them in great numbers. Tyrants were addicted to slavery as easy source of labor. So, great civilizations oftentimes brought in tons of foreigners as laborers. Egyptians enslaved a lot of blacks, but what did this to do the Egyptian gene pool? And maybe Greeks used a lot of dummy foreign slaves who came to mix with Greeks and mess things up. Would it really be to Japan's advantage in IQ if it took in lots of less intelligent people as labor force? Japan is doing just this, and it will be profitable in the short term for Japanese businesses, but what will it do to Japanese gene pool and IQ? Not good. Japan will be Philippinized... just like European IQ is being Arabized and Africanized. But for awhile, all that cheap labor was surely great for businesses.

Finally, the Taleb Controversy is amusing because so much of Taleb-ism isn't really about East vs West but East vs East. Taleb won't say it, but he knows that the West came under the control of Jews who originated from the East. And Taleb himself originated in the East. So, much of Taleb's tirades over the years have really been against Jews. He can't believe that a handful of Jews hoodwinked the West so effectively and sold them on PC, financial fraud, and wars for Israel. Naturally, Taleb has been an admirer of men like Ron Paul who refused to play along to Neoconism and such.

Taleb feels that the West has become a platform for one part of the East: Jews who originated in the Levantine East. So, the West is all about supporting Israel, waging wars for Israel, and praising Jews to high heaven. He sees himself as the OTHER side of the East: Christian Greco-Arab side. Though he's not too crazy about Muslims, he has much in common with them because both Christians and Muslims in the East have been pounded by the West controlled by Jews. Deep down inside, he may wish that the West would wake up, stop sucking up to Jews, and come to appreciate a better relation with the Other East, the non-Jewish one.

IQ debate goes against his agenda because it says (1) Jews are smarter, so they deserve all their power and privilege(the argument of Jordan Peterson) and (2) Northern Europeans are smartest after Jews, so they should feel closest to Jews(the argument of Jared Taylor despite being bashed by Jews from all sides). All this IQ debate puts Jews at the top and makes whites aspire to be accepted by Jews, the royalty of IQ. This makes it more difficult for whites to wake up to the dark side of Jewish power and take sides with the Other East.
And this is why Molyneux's remark about Iraq and democracy is especially hurtful to Taleb, and I'm inclined to agree with him here. Blaming the failure of Iraqi democracy on IQ is besides the point. While higher-IQ people may be better suited for running a democratic system, the implosion and destruction of Iraq owed other factors. For instance, real achievements in living standards had been considerable under secular Hussein. Iraq moved from Third World nation to Second World nation, and that was precisely why Israel was so triggered by Iraq as a rival power. Not because it was a total basketcas but because it was making real gains. (Iran is sanctioned for the same reason with bogus nonsense about nukes.) Contrary to official line about 'Muslim Terrorists', the US(under the control of the Jewish Levantinians) has been most opposed to secular modernizing Arab nations. It has been in bed with arch-Islamic monarchies with which it colluded to spread terrorism against secular regimes and the Soviet Union. The one exception was when the US aided secular Iraq against Islamic Iran(which however, contrary to Zionist-US claims has NOT been one of the main patrons of terrorism). After the Gulf War, Iraqi economy and healthcare were destroyed by sanctions, not lower IQ. And by the time the US invaded, the Iraqi economy was a mere shell of itself and civil society had all but vanished in a world of misery. Imagine if the US sanctioned Israel over its human rights abuses in West Bank and starved 100,000s of Jewish kids to death. People would have called it another holocaust, but the West mostly pretended not to notice all the misery in Iraq except in the alternative media.
So, sometimes, this talk of IQ can be obscene in explaining the failure of nations. Recently, the fall of Libya was engineered by the West(controlled by the Jewish East). Given the total domination of the West by the Jewish East, it's not a bad idea for the West to pay more heed to the Other East: the Christian/Muslim Arabs, Greeks, Turks, and etc. of the Near East. While IQ is important, it isn't everything. If the West applied the kind of pressure it placed on Iraq on Israel, there would be great social crisis in Israel despite the presence of some very high IQ Ashkenazim there.

Enlightenment was great for the West in paving the Way for Reason. But the Cult of Reason and Freedom has fooled so many in the West into believing that they live in a world defined by facts, logic, reason, truth, and liberty. Well yes, the West has comparably been more rational and free than other parts of the world. But, the real power in the West happens behind the scenes, and in this, the West is like the non-West.
Indeed, the non-West may have a better grasp of power and its dark ways because it is less under the Cult of Reason. In contrast, Westerners think even the power that governs them is guided by concern for facts and logic. In fact, reason can be used in a million ways by those who control the platforms and outlets of 'rational discourse'. The Power can use 'reason' to fool people into thinking that men are 'women' and that Iraq with its WMD poses an 'existential' threat to the US.
Reason is good, but power will always be about something darker and deeper than reason. It will be about passions of ego and/or ethno. The West is now controlled by Jewish East because of its immense ego/ethno. Wasp Episcopalians have been known to have IQ equal to or even higher than Jewish Ashkenazim, but they lost out big. Why? They subscribed to the Cult of Reason whereas Jews were animated primarily by the dark powers of ego/ethno. Jews used reason alright but as directed by their deep passions.

Jewish-Power-grown-cancerous is Destroying the World, but the Great Jew Taboo not only prohibits us from noticing the Cancer but insists We must see the Jewish Supremacist Cancer as a GOOD THING

There are so many dire problems facing the world, but the nature of their origins and trajectories go misunderstood because of the Great Jew Taboo. While not everything has to do with Jewish Power, the fact remains that whatever the US does has ripple effect on the rest of the world. US is at the center. And the Power that gets to throw stones into the center of the Pool is the Empire of Judea. People in the Dissident Right know it and say so. People in the Dissident Left know but would rather not say so. Too many are Jewish or fear the charge of 'antisemitism'. Still, a growing number of people on the Dissident Left are at least voicing opposition to Zionist overreach in West Bank and the Middle East(via Neocon foreign policies).

As for Establishment Conzos and Libby-dibs -- these cartoon characters don't even deserve to be called by the proper labels of 'conservatives' or 'liberals' -- , some of them MUST know what is really happening and why, but they remain silent about Jewish power out of cynical careerism or slavish cuckism(as some people just love to worship and put out to the ultimate power like groupies to Rock stars and athletes).
It used to be Jewish Power had its good side and bad side. But when a Power goes un-criticized, the bad side almost invariably overshadows the good side. The nature of power is to want more. It's like nature of hunger is to eat more and more, leading to gluttony or over-eating beyond what is necessary and healthy. The nature of sex is to want more action, leading to lust and 'sluttony'. The nature of self-interest is to become greedy as people want to have more and more. So, unless the natural drive isn't countered by other drives, a sense of balance is lost. The excessive gains over the moderate.
Generally, if there is balance in the world, it's not because it is favored and enforced as an ideal. It is because it is met with counter-force and is thus unable to realize its most excessive ambitions. After the end of the Cold War, the US didn't opt for balance of powers but strove to rule the world(mostly in service of narrow tribal agendas as Jews became the overlords of America). So, whatever world balance that had existed during the Cold War wasn't due to the ideal of compromise but because the two superpowers were in a stalemate. It's like Alexander the Great wanted to conquer all the world. He stopped only because his army just couldn't go on anymore. More often that not, the prevailing balance, if such exists, is not the hallowed ideal but the result of compromise among various forces, none of which has been able to gain decisive supremacy. The reason why rabbits and deer don't eat up all the forest and vegetation is not because they have an idealized appreciation of balance. They will go about multiplying and feeding to the fullest capacity. The natural balance is the result of predators keeping down the number of rabbits and deers. The natural balance isn't achieved by internal will among organisms. All organisms seek to multiply, spread, and feed as much as possible. Total dominance of one organism is prevented by external counter-violence of other organisms.
Granted, human organisms do have self-awareness and CAN rely on internal will to favor balance over excess. A man knows overeating leads to obesity and can control his appetite. And many people do regulate their drives. But then, many people don't. And people who tend to be ambitious almost never know when to stop. They want to conquer and gain everything regardless of the consequences upon rest of humanity. 'Enough' is not in their vocabulary. Look at Amazon.com. It won't stop growing because nothing stands in its maniacal drive to swallow all of retail. Same with Google. It wants to acquire more and more and control everything. Ideally, various companies should compete in all sectors. But it seems like Amazon is trying to swallow all of retail(and much else). And Google not only monopolizes the search engine and online video but is moving to take over other industries. And, payment monopoly in the online world means that one or two companies get to decide who gets to earn/spend money and who can't.
This is why the government exists to control monopolies because, by their very nature, monopolies are out-of-control leviathans. They became monopolies by swallowing up all competitors, and they won't ever stop in trying to grab more and more of everything. But the current government does almost nothing about monopolies because there is such a comfy tribal, socio-cultural, and/or ideological amity between Big Industry and the Deep State. They all went to the same schools and scratch each other's back. Also, in our post-religious age, they all share in the worship of the same neo-idols, such as MLK and Mandela, and the Holy Three(of Jews, Negroes, and Homos, the three sacred groups). Thus, they even feel sanctimonious about their piggish monopolization of power, privilege, and influence. They deserve it, of course, because they worship the Holy Homo and dole out lavish sums for 'gay pride' parades. And there is, of course, a Jewish ethnic element in this collusion. After all, many of the biggest players in high-tech, gambling, media/entertainment, pharma, finance, law firms & courts, elite academia, and the Deep State are Jews. One might think that Jews would feel that they got more than enough as the 2% that owns something close to 50% of the wealth in the US. But no, they are like the Max character in ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA. They must have more and more. The world is ruled by gangsters.



In the past, such Jewish ambitions would have been pushed back and checked by various counter-forces in politics, the economy, the church, and various institutions. Jewish force was met with counter-force, and this required Jews to be somewhat mindful and try to put forth a positive image of themselves. There was some pressure on Jews to favor the good Jews or nobler Jews over the worst kinds of Jews. The worst Jews always existed, just like scum exists among all groups. But because of the pressures of 'antisemitism', the good Jews felt they had to do something to restrain some of the worst elements of their kind. After all, if bad Jews got out of control, then even good goyim will unleash the bad goyim to go after the Jews, in the melee hurting good Jews along with bad Jews. So, the bad Jews were always there but usually on a leash. But ever since Shoah became the quasi-religion of the West, Jews became the Holy Holocaust people, and just about any criticism of Jewish behavior, no matter how despicable, came to be regarded as 'rabid' and 'virulent'. So, the traditional goy critics of bad Jewish behavior either clammed up or were shut down. Still, there was the chance that good Jews could go on clamping down on the bad Jews, but as bad Jews cooked up ever more schemes to rake in tons of money for the Jewish community and advantage Zionism over its rivals -- through gambling, pornography, drugs, financial theft, media propaganda, warmongering, and etc -- , even good Jews became less and less critical of bad Jews. Bad Jews may be bad, but they sure know how to get things done and fast too. Before his downfall, Bernie Madoff made some serious money for his Jewish clientele; the good Jews couldn't get enough from bad Jew Madoff. Bad Jews among the Neocons and Liberal Zionists got the US to destroy entire nations perceived to be rivals of Israel. And Jewish control of gambling sent billions and billions into Jewish coffers. And the Sackler family sure made a killing with opioids. And monopoly capitalism allowed Jews to take over entire sectors of the internet via the close cooperation between Jewish-dominated finance and Jewish entrepreneurs. While guys like Mark Zuckerberg and Sergey Brin are obviously super-smart, they wouldn't have so easily attracted financial backing if they weren't Jewish. We know that people with wrong identity or ideology are willfully targeted by the System for exclusion. And so, over time, bad Jews grew out of control and pretty much came to define the essence of Jewish Power as it went about spreading more wars, degeneracy, addiction, lies and propaganda, invasion of the West by the Third World, and etc. The mass media that pushes Russia Collusion nonsense for over 2 yrs is truly chutzpah on steroids. In other words, Jewish power got cancerous. But it's actually worse because the prevailing PC tells us that we must admire, praise, and defend this Jewish GLOBlastoma as healthiest and holiest wonder in the world. Imagine that, the very power that is most responsible for the world's biggest crises is supposed to be most prized and protected. And yet, people can't help but notice its ill-effects in every corner of the world. People do notice the symptoms and report on them. The problem is they can never associate all those signs of sickness with the main source, the Jewish globo-homo cancer in America, the center of the world that takes orders from the cancerous worldwide network of the Empire of Judea. So, most people in media and academia just blame Russia, Iran, Assad, Putin, China, North Korea, Palestinians, 'white supremacists', populism, the 'far right', 'xenophobia', and etc. when, if anything, the aforementioned are, more often than not, victims of or reactors to Jewish supremacist moves toward hegemony. It's probably the case that Jews in media/academia peddle BS to protect the Tribe, but what about goyim? Are they hapless tools or eager dupes of Jewish Power? Either way, they are a pathetic lot.

Imagine a world where people are told by doctors that there is nothing more healthy and wonderful than cancer. Indeed, the official message says all people should aspire to get cancer, and once they get it, they must make sure it spreads faster because having cancer makes you healthier. Cancer has healing powers, almost like a miracle. So, never entertain negative thoughts about cancer. It is good, and you better believe it or else you are soul-sick anti-cancerite.
But what happens as the cancer spreads? It obviously leads to a host of health issues that get worse by the day. So, you notice the worsening condition and go to the doctor. He agrees that those are illnesses and something must be done. He offers you all sorts of drugs and treatments, BUT he never says that your ailments have anything to do with cancer. If anything, he tells you that you should feel so lucky to have cancer because, without it, you'd be sicker than you already are. So, the main reason you have a good chance of recovery is because you have miraculous cancer inside of you that does everything to keep you healthy and fight off disease.
Of course, it is the Cancer that is really causing the other illnesses. Cancer is the source of the other problems. And it is total quackery to say that cancer is wonderful and has NOTHING to do with the sickness. One thing for sure, if the quackery continues and if the doctor and the patient carry on with the charade that the cancer is the cure than the cause of the worsening condition, the patient is doomed. Quackery always kills.

Now, anything can become cancerous. Germans grew cancerous with Nazism, which overwhelmed what was good about Germany and made all of Germany serve a great evil, leading to WWII and deaths of tens of millions. And today, it appears the bad Jews have gained over the good Jews, and the Jewish cancer is spreading rapidly all over. But most people say nothing because PC has instilled them with irrational quasi-spiritual feelings about Jews(ALL Jews) as Holy Holocaust people, the implication being that noticing anything bad about Jews is a form of soul-disease called 'antisemitism'.
In fact, both Antisemitism and Philosemitism can become out-of-control cancerous. Nazism was antisemitism gone cancerous. It went way beyond calling out on bad Jews. Its ideological quackery said that even good Jews are bad Jews and that the pathological Hitler-Himmler Cancer is the best cure for Germany and all the world. While radical cancerous Antisemitism can do great harm, so can cancerous Philosemitism. Now, excessive Philosemitism wouldn't matter if Jews were a dumb, weak, and powerless people. I mean, what harm could come to the world if all of humanity were to excessively fawn over Eskimos, Tibetans, or fat native Hawaiians? Unlike those insignificant folks, Jews are a great people(like the Germans once were) and capable of much good and much evil. And because of their greatness, when they go bad, they can blanket the entire world with tremendous evil. It's like, when a massive volcano blows up, its ashes and toxins affect vast expanses of land and sea. Jewish Power has grown monstrous and cancerous, but PC Narrative tells us to forever see Jews as a bunch of Anne Franks and emaciated survivors straggling out of Death Camps at the end of WWII. The effect is the Jewish cancer only gets more out-of-control as the logic of cancer is to spread faster and further. The more we carry on with the philosemitic charade, the cancer will accelerate. And then, it will finally reach a stage when it will destroy humanity and the world because cancer always ultimately kills. Or, if people finally and properly diagnose the cancer as a disease when it's too late, their anger may be such that their solution might be something like radical surgery and heavy-duty chemo & radiation treatment, in which case Jews and goyim will suffer greatly, even if they survive.

We must call a cancer a cancer. This doesn't mean that Jews or Jewishness per se are cancers. Any people, any ideology, or any movement can become cancerous, whereupon the 'bad cells' are no longer contained by the 'good cells' and just spread and run wild, overtaking the 'good cells' that become helpless to stop the rampage of the 'bad cells'. In the end, even the 'good cells' just come to support a sick system that has effectively been overtaken by the 'bad cells'. Current Jewish Power is obviously one where the Bad Jews have taken control over the farm. Sure, there are Good Jews like Stephen Cohen and Oliver Stone who call out on the madness of the current Jewish-driven anti-Russian policy, but two swallows don't make a summer.



It is bad enough to ignore cancer, but it's far worse to elevate cancer to the status of good health. Bad Jews stole the mantle of Shoah and put on Anne Frank masks to carry out one heist after another against the wealth and health of nations. The US media was never trustworthy, but today's mainstream news are more surreal than Soviet propaganda during the Cold War. And the current hysteria about Russia makes people like Joe McCarthy seem downright sober. At the very least, Soviet Espionage in the 40s and 50s was a fact. Signs of Jewish perfidy were evident all throughout the Cold War. After all, one of the great canards of the Cold War era was that anti-communism or 'Red Scare' was mostly unfounded hysteria and paranoia about noble 'progressives' as champions of civil liberties and freedom. In fact, the leftists of the 40s and 50s were apologists of Stalinism, supported the Iron Curtain, and were ruthless in silencing renegades in their own circle. They invoked 'free speech' and 'constitutional rights' only because they got caught red-handed as either spies or members of the Communist Party. The fact that such a big lie was pushed on the public during the Cold War indicates that there was a cancer growing in the Jewish community long before Jews gained dominant power in the US. Still, prior to the 1990s, there were still enough counter-forces(even among Jews) that prevented the worst elements of Jewish Power from getting totally out of control. But since the 1990s, Jewish power in finance, gambling, high-tech, big pharma, law firms, and etc PLUS the Holy Holocaust Cult made it possible for Jews to do as they pleased(even to excess) while being seen by the world as the saintly hapless innocents in SCHINDLER'S LIST. The very people who were swallowing up the world came to be fawned upon as the weakest of the weak. Even as Jews were building new casinos and banks(and looting the economy of Russia), they were also erecting the Holocaust Museum in the Mall and filling billions of minds around the world with the new genre of the Holocaust Movie. The Holocaust became an effective hologramic moral shield for Jewish Power as it penetrated into every corner of the globe for opportunities to plunder nations and peoples.

While it'd be wrong to say Jews = cancer, we need to call it like it is when the power of a particular group grows cancerous. And it is all the more important when that group happens to be powerful. And it is deadly important when that group happens to be the MOST powerful and holds the world in its palms. Jewish Power has grown cancerous. New York Times, the premier mouthpiece of Jewish globalist supremacist power, puts forth a sack of shit like Thomas Friedman as some wise worldly sage. If anything, Friedman is a tribal-supremacist who even supports ISIS tearing Syria apart as long as it serves Israel. He is a total cretin hiding behind highfalutin talk. So, even as we can agree that no particular people = cancer, we can acknowledge that any people/power can grow cancerous... just like any individual can go from health to cancer. An individual grows cancerous when the bad cells gain over the good cells. And a people/power grow cancerous when the good(or at least better or saner) members can no longer hold back the radical and/or criminal impulses of the bad(or worse or crazier) members. Good Jews made a fatal mistake when, push come to shove, they stuck with Bad Jews than with Good Goyim. Even as Jews urged upon Good Goyim to reject Bad Goyim, they prioritized the union of all Jews, even evil and crazy ones. Notice how most Jews got together to get Jonathan Pollard sprung from prison even though his betrayal led to the deaths of hundreds of people. Just like it makes no sense to speak of good cells and bad cells in a person in whom cancer has taken over -- existing good cells have become powerless to stop the spread of bad cells --, it is becoming meaningless to speak of Good Jews and Bad Jews because both are now so joined at the hip. After all, if the Good works with the Bad, the Good also becomes the Bad by enabling the Bad. A cop who works with crooks becomes a crook himself despite his badge as officer of the law. Granted, there are a few hopeful signs that some Jews are trying to restore some measure of goodness. The NBC journalist who resigned in protest is one such Jew, Willam Arkin.

Bio-Socialist Defense of Men-at-Work and Women-at-Home, or Why the Workplace is Far More Essential to Men than to Women / Humans as Organisms first and Econo-viduals second

German National Socialism turned evil with imperialism and war, but its family policy was sound. Feminists shriek that the NS policy put women in the home and placed men at work, but it made good sense(and New Deal Era in America wasn't all that different; in both US and Germany, women entered the workplace in huge numbers only during the wartime due to manpower shortage; when men returned from war, they took up the bulk of jobs again). Both NS and ND understood the relation between biology and sociology. Men's role is to 'hunt' and bring home the bacon. Women's role is take care of home and hearth. So, jobs are many times more important to men than to women.

Also, functionally speaking, women have TWO places in society. Most women can function as homemakers or as workers. In contrast, men have only ONE place in society: at work. Sure, men return home, but they must bring home the bacon from work. It's like primitive men must bring home the meat from the hunt. Now, among many animals, males play no role in 'family life'. Family consists of just mother and offspring. So, the animal-mother has to do everything. But human society developed so that both man and woman play role in raising of kids(though less among blacks). So, what is the man's place and woman's place in this? Women have two places. She can work or she can take care of home. Man has only one place. He has to work. So, even if workplace is taken from the woman, she still has a meaningful place in society. Place in the home. But if workplace is taken from the man, he has no place in society, esp because most women will not marry 'losers'(men without jobs or lower-paying jobs). When women take jobs(esp well-paying ones), they are taking jobs from men who need them far far more than women do. If women were to lose their positions in the workplace, they still have the home-place. But if men lose positions in the workplace, they cannot go home(because they can't even start a home life).

Consider the One-and-Two-Dic*-Hypothesis. Imagine there are two guys. One guy has one dic* while the other guy has two dic*s. Suppose there is a need for a dic* donation. Who should lose the dic*? Obviously, the guy with two dic*s. Even if he loses one dic*, he has one left, whereas the other guy will have no dic* if he loses his.
The fact is women have 'two dic*s' whereas men have only one, metaphorically speaking of course. (If dic* talk is too vulgar, replace dic*s with hearts. Surely, a person with two hearts is in a better position to give up one of his/her hearts than a person with only one heart is.) The problem of the Modern World is that men have been browbeaten into letting women dic* around too much. Women are told that it's great to have well-paying jobs AND be mothers too. So, women should be super-women and have it all, and society must do everything possible to ensure that women can be both the most successful workers and most fulfilled mothers. Such a society not only leaves men dic*less but ball-less. It pegs them in the arse.

In order to have meaningful bio-socialism, we must have a law that says a family can only have one earner with income higher than $90,000. If a family is allowed to have two high-earners, it leads to concentration of wealth in elite communities. Two incomes that could have supported two families just go into ONE family, esp one that is likely to have only one or two kids. Bio-libertarianism sucks. We need bio-socialism that takes into account the biological underpinnings of social reality.

Also, too much of the discussion focuses on the premise that people are essentially individuals and economic units. But this is a shallow view of reality. Individuals didn't just pop into existence out of the blue. No life was ever created by ideas or ideology(just like no life was ever created by homo activity). No life ever leaped out of the pages of a book or the screen of a TV or mobile device. All humans are biological products of their parents who are biological products of their parents and so on. Before they are anything, they are life-form and organisms. Life is created through union of men and women, and males and females are most fertile, moral, and mutually fulfilled under certain conditions. While every man or every woman is an individual, a male individual has his male needs/abilities and a female individual has her female needs/abilities. Men and women may be interchangeable in most professions(that are asexual in function), but they are NOT interchangeable in life. Men produce sperm, women produce eggs. Men are stronger and better able to protect the home. Women are warmer and kinder to the kids. Fathers and mothers impart different influences on the kids, and both are essential in a yin/yang manner. But because so much of the discourse is about individual rights and economic competition, we overlook that men and women are not mere interchangeable individuals in the actual saga of life. Sure, the tranny cult would have us believe a man is a 'woman' with a wig and hormone injections and a woman is a 'man' with a dildo-strap-on, but that's just decadent and delusional(not to mention batshit crazy).
Feminism makes no sense because it emphasizes womanhood as identity but then ignores and neglects what makes women distinct from men. Feminism is really asexualism. It says women should take part in professions where their female-ness doesn't matter. After all, a female accountant is just like a male accountant. An asexual number-cruncher. Emphasis on professionalism makes one's sex irrelevant. There is no such thing as a good FEMALE law clerk or good FEMALE baker. The skills necessary in those jobs can be done by men or women. Professions, with few exceptions, are asexual in their design and operation. Now, some professions are better with men because they require lots of muscle strength and manly attitude. And some are better with women(or homos) because they involve lots of 'dainty' or whoopity stuff with fingertip than hand-grip work. Because most professions are asexual in purpose, it makes little sense to emphasize female-ness in relation to them. There is little to distinguish a female short-order cook from a male short-order cook, a female insurance agent from a male insurance agent. They are given a job to do, and they do it.
Where women are truly different from men is in the way of life, sex and reproduction, and parental role. So, if feminism is really about the special role of womenfolk, it should focus on what is unique and special about them: What women can do that men can't do and why women must do them to fulfill their womanly roles in the river of life. The question must be asked, Why did nature design women that way? With that understanding, a better society can be conceived in which women do their womanly things in partnership with men who do their manly things. (Feminism also fails as an egalitarian ideology. While it calls for equal opportunity for women in the workplace, it is only because women with extra-smarts want to rise as high as possible to marry and have kids with high IQ men who are just as rich or richer. So, it's about elitist-minded women wanting to be equal with elite men. It's not about the equality of all sisterhood or equality of women with the under-privileged of society.)

While it makes good sense to regard ourselves as individuals with rights and economic units with utilitarian roles in society, we mustn't put individualism or economism at the core of our consciousness. At the center must be the sense of ourselves as organisms. Laws, culture, society, and freedom arose from organisms, not vice versa. While it's not enough for us to be mere organisms -- like brutish animals -- because we are creatures of culture, ideas, and civilization, the fact is we are organisms before we are anything else. And even the abstract ideas and values in our heads exist only because we have organic matter like brains with neurons and hearts that pump blood. If all of culture were to vanish, humans could create new ones through more imagination and inspiration. After all, so much was destroyed by barbarian invasions and wars, but surviving humans revived or reinvented culture and civilization(even surpassing the earlier cultures that were destroyed and turned into dust). But if all human organisms were to perish even as all the culture -- museums, art works, architecture, libraries, etc -- were to remain, it would be the end of everything. After all, culture is useless without people to appreciate them. And people are organisms, and they appreciate culture through organic senses such as eyes and ears.
As people age, they grow a bit tired of culture because they'd seen it already: Been there, done that. That is precisely why they need to have kids because children experience culture(and nature) with fresh eyes, and then, the adults/parents can share in the wonderment. This is why Christmas continues to be special for families with kids and grandkids. Even as the adults don't feel much excitement themselves, they share in the magic through their kids' eyes.

If our core sense of self is organismic than individualistic or economic, we need to ask WHAT KIND OF SOCIAL ARRANGEMENT optimizes the existence of humans as creatures of continuity in the endless cycles of life and death. How are men different from women and vice versa, and how can that truth be acknowledged to arrange for social and professional roles that produce the greatest good for most people. This is where the (bio)socialist element comes in. Purely from a libertarian view, every woman is primarily an individual. And if all women, as individuals, want to take well-paying jobs from men, they should have the freedom to do so. The ONLY thing that would matter is the demand of the individual. But what would be the long-term and wider consequences of such socio-economic practices? It would spell doom, ultimately for women as well as for men because neither sex can survive/thrive without the other. It'd be like a society where everyone on the football team decides to do his own 'individualist' thing instead of knowing his place in the game. Imagine if an offensive lineman demanded that he be the quarterback and if the kicker said it's his turn to play running back. It'd be chaos.

Also, humanity must understand that home, not work, is the center of life. In other words, work exists so that people can bring something home. It's like a primitive savage goes hunting not just for the hell of it but to bring the kill back to the community to share with his family and kinfolk. Home should be the constant in life. People may go from job to job, from place to place, but the one constant must be family and home. It's no great deal to leave a job to take another, but it's a serious matter to leave one's family, though, to be sure, in our decadent-degenerate age, much of the stigma has been removed from people abandoning or rejecting their spouses or children. It's no longer shameful for men to renege on their obligations as husbands/fathers. It's no problem for women to get pregnant and raise kids on their own(with government assistance) while they shut the door on the fathers of the children. Or worthless skanks shunt off the kids(often mulatto) to be raised by the grandparents while they whore around some more. (Obama's mother was just an higher variation of whore-life.) The current culture doesn't put home/family at the center. Rather, the ego-driven individual occupies the center. Even when a man or woman decides to have a family, it is not to serve the family but to have it serve one's own 'needs' on the conceit that 'one can have it all'. It's just another trophy in the game of leggo-my-ego.

In an ideal society, people work so that they can bring home the bacon. It is in the home that genuine attachments and deep devotion exist. There is love for spouse and kids. And when people grow old, the only people who are going to care are the members of the family. After all, how many co-workers over the years in the various companies are going to be at one's deathbed and funeral? Because the Home is central and because Workplace really exists to serve the Home-place, a sane society must prioritize the MAN's position in the Workplace because that is his ONLY WAY HOME. Without a place at work, men cannot go home because they can't get married and build a home. In contrast, women have a place at home even without a place at work. They can marry someone and take care of the home while the man labors at work to bring home the bacon.

Anyway, the basic fact of life-and-culture is that women have two dic*s and can afford to surrender one. In contrast, if men lose their one-and-only dick*s, it's all over now, baby blue.