Sunday, February 18, 2018

Nikolas Cruz Is Small Potatoes Compared to Big Time Sociopaths who Destroy Entire Nations

The Florida School shooting adds yet another bloodbath to the long and depressing tally of individuals going loco and randomly killing people. Many critics blame guns, but guns don’t kill people by themselves. Why has there been a spate of such killings since the Columbine incident? Some might argue that the media are to blame for ‘sensationalizing’ these murders with extensive coverage.
While most sane people care about their good name, the crazy ‘losers’ might crave fame and notoriety instead. While it’s natural for people to be liked and admired, what about those who have no such hope? The ones who are ugly, dumb, or just plain unappealing? If likable and talented people attract the right kind of attention, the unlikable and unappealing either get no attention or get the wrong kind of attention: Mockery, bullying, ridicule, rejection, contempt. Now, most people, even if disliked and ignored, learn to accept their lot in life. They find ways to cope and adapt, and in time, they even find people with whom they can form a community of friends and family.
However, certain people aren’t only disliked but troubled and demented due to traumatic child-rearing or genetic reasons. Granted, likable people can be crazy too. Ted Bundy is possibly the most famous case. He was a reasonably good-looking guy with smarts. He held a nice job and had no trouble meeting women. But he became a serial rapist-and-murderer. Still, sick people who are attractive or smart are less likely to end up like Nikolas Cruz. They have more of an incentive to live within bounds because they have something to lose. An attractive person may lose friends and lovers. A smart rich guy may lose his fortune and privilege. Thus, the attractive or smart people with sick souls do what is necessary to remain respectable and find more creative ways to indulge their sickness, like the Podesta brothers.
But if someone is crazy, ugly, and dumb, he has nothing to lose if he were to embark on a horrible act. If anything, they might finally gain the attention that had been missing all their lives.

Things are worse for troubled youth like Nicholas Cruz because there aren’t any moral norms anymore. What passes for right-and-wrong are PC posturing on current issues, gender issues, foreign policy, and historical narratives. Whatever meaning such subjects may have on the nation or the world, it means nothing to the personal life of a young boy. Children need a solid foundation in family life & community and a sense of culture that provides deeper meaning & sense of morality that is relevant to one’s personal existence. After all, ideology or political positions themselves do not secure a stable and meaningful existence for a child. Suppose a child is raised in a family with all the fashionable PC values. The adults that move in and out of the house are all for ‘gay marriage’, ‘trannies in the ladies room’, ‘new cold war with Russia’, ‘hating Trump’, ‘anti-racism’, ‘interracial sex’, and ‘climate change’ legislation. But suppose the adults don’t act like responsible parents or guardians, there’s no discipline(or if such exists, it’s brutal and arbitrary, thus only traumatizing the child) in the home, cultural experience is composed of watching trash on TV & playing ugly video games(and pornified music videos), and no teaching of fundamental right-and-wrongs when it comes to personal virtues such as honesty, propriety, dignity, and due diligence.
This rule applies to conservatives too. Even if the parents are ‘good Christians’ in ideas and values, if they fail to act like responsible adults in instilling their children with proper mindset and attitudes, the kids may grow up all wrong.
Now, generally speaking, conservative values & ideology are more useful in instilling the right kinds of values in children than liberal values & ideology are. This is because conservatism is more grounded in a culture of responsibility, duty, and discipline. Before kids can learn to be free, they need to be molded into young adults with core virtues. Liberalism has great value as a mode of open-mindedness, inquisitiveness, curiosity, and progress. Liberalism is more free-spirited than conservatism, and that can be a good thing. But unless freedom is grounded in respect, discipline, honor, and experience, it has a tendency to become aimless, decadent, and confused. It’s like an athlete isn’t going to get anywhere just by running like a crazy headless chicken no matter how fast or strong he is. He has to respect the coach, learn to take orders, cooperate with others, and train to gain the necessary skills. An athlete will eventually have to learn to be free and find his own footing in the sport, but he has to follow a path that leads gradually from obedience and discipline to ability and agency.
In the past, even American liberalism was grounded in conservative modes and values. Liberal Education didn’t mean you got to do whatever you wanted or blind yourself to everything except the latest fashionable dogma. Rather, you learned from professors with credentials and experience. You learned from the greatest thinkers, scientists, and artists in history. Even if you found the elders' teachings and methods less than ideal, you built upon their knowledge and appreciated their efforts in their time.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt is considered as the greatest liberal president of the 20th century, but he had many conservative concerns about the New Deal. He worried about the potentially negative impact welfare may have on families. It’s doubtful that he would have endorsed the Great Society programs of the 1960s that went about rewarding teenage girls for being pregnant out of wedlock. The New Deal was about lending support to families with solid moral values and to men who wanted to work. America back then had a great sense of shame. New Deal was about offering aid to men and women of virtue who’d fallen on hard times. It was not, as would be the case with Great Society and other programs that followed, the reckless abandonment of culture of responsibility and the soulless rewarding of bad behavior, especially among young black women.
A lot of ‘progressives’ tend to place all the burden of social betterment on rich people and the government — rich should pay more taxes and government should provide more programs — , but the ‘national character’ of a people matter in the outcomes. Indeed, it is THE most decisive factor in the success or failure of nations or communities. Why did Europeans do so much with Marshall Plan while no amount of foreign aid does anything for black Africa or Detroit? What happened to all the money poured into black communities all across America? Why do some nations that receive less foreign aid to better than those who received so much?
And even in Europe, why is there more bang for the government buck among Swedes than among Southern Italians? Despite the current demise of Sweden(entirely due to liberalism-gone-pathological), it was a nice nation for much of the 20th century because most Swedes had civic virtues of diligence, honesty, responsibility, and work ethic. And whatever the ideology, left or right, most Swedes knew how to keep order in the house through proper parenting. As such, most Swedes believed that one should work hard, pay taxes, and take only what is necessary and due from the government. So, there was a culture of give and take between the state and the people. But in Southern Italy, the sheer lack of national character means a lot of people are shameless about lying, cheating, stealing, and acting like the cast of characters in GOODFELLAS.
So, anyone who’d say something like "Southern Italy is backward because the government doesn’t provide the kind of services available in Sweden" is missing the point. Swedes have civic virtue that is taught in every home. (If anything, Sweden’s current problem of Diversity is the result of its virtue of trust & cooperation having been projected onto the whole world. Just because Swedes made a little paradise for themselves, they naively got to thinking that the Swedish model could save the world. And if Swedes failed in exporting their model to African nations, maybe Africans can be made Swedish-like via immigration. In the past, such naive idealism was tempered by rational race-ism that informed most Swedes, even those on the Left, that the races are different, and therefore, most Africans could never be made into nice Swedes. But the rise of PC ideology forbade such rational & sane thinking and replaced it with the reckless conviction that any bunch of African ‘groids’ could be turned into good Swedes. But then, there was another reason for the embrace of Diversity. If one reason was naively idealistic and pro-civilization — the hope of elevating lowly & primitive Africans to the status of advanced Europeans — , the other reason was primitivist. Even though or precisely because Sweden was so nice and orderly, many Swedes grew bored with modernity and civilization. They craved the heat of Afro-jungle boogie-woogie of Afro-pop and American black music. Especially Swedish women developed jungle fever and wanted to have sex with black men and welcome ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. So, the combination of naive idealism and lusty primitivism will destroy Sweden, a nation so far gone that it cannot be saved.)

Anyway, ideologies are about big things. Parenting is not about ideology or big ideas. Whether parents are communist, fascist, Jewish, Catholic, Mormon, Muslim, atheist, socialist, or whatever, there are fundamental rules that apply to ALL families in the proper rearing of children. Kids need love and affection. Kids need discipline and a basic sense of right and wrong, e.g. "Do not steal", "Don’t lie", "Don’t be discourteous", "Don’t kick the dog", "Don’t bully other kids", "love thy parents", and etc. And for kids to grow up with right values, parents have to be mature adults. But is that possible anymore? With the cult of everlasting youth, we have old people who still act like kids. It won’t be long before we have rappers who are 60 yrs old. We see tattoos and piercings among adults all over. What kind of message is that to kids, to grow up in a family where your own parents are marked with ugliness all over their bodies? In the past, the Church used to provide the family with a sense of community with other folks and sense of continuity with the past and tradition. But what are churches nowadays? Many have closed, some are Evangelical nuthouses whose main message is "Muh Israel" and "Nuke Iran" while Mainline churches are about little more than "Muh holy homo". And the Catholic Church is all about "Muh refugees" or "Muh Illegal Immigrants". It’s all about helping Other peoples but offer nothing to the rooted or existing community. It preserves nothing of tradition in terms of demographic & culture and only seeks to replace the existing faithful with waves of foreigners, immigrants, or illegals. If anything, Diversity made things much worse. Even in affluent communities, diversity tends to undermine a sense of togetherness. When American cities used to be divided along ethnic lines, the Irish in Irish town, Italians in Italian town, and Poles in Polish town had a sense of their own ethnic community. It’s like how Mike Royko used to remember how people in his neighborhood, many of them of shared ethnicity, would to all come out and celebrate Fourth of July together. Especially damaging was feminism because, even in a world of Diversity, there can be the core foundation of family within the home at least. Even if a Pole marries an Italian, there is at least the family, father and mother to raise the child. And for a child, nothing is more important than the unity of man and woman as his parents who are committed to one another and to their children. So, even in a world of ethnic and racial strangers, a child can feel whole and part of an organic unit if he has father and mother. But feminism drove a wedge between this most essential of unions. It encouraged too many women to see men as The Enemy or filled women with the idea that they can raise children alone without the men who should just come and go into their lives as ‘boyfriends’. This had a totally toxic impact on society, but most critics, even conservatives, are loathe to say this because the demented feminist-dominant ideology deems such sane views as ‘misogynist’.

Also, the rise of electronic media meant the erasure of community in many parts of America. In the past, if people in a local community needed the news, they got together in the town square to chat. Or they gathered together at rallies or meetings. It’s like how people act in MEET JOHN DOE and IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE. But with the rise of TV and electronic media, people can just sit home and get all the news and information. Now, it wouldn’t be so bad if every locality had more autonomy over its own media. But in fact, most of what is beamed to every community, big or small, in the US, is controlled by a handful of conglomerates, all of which are owned and/or controlled by Jewish globalists whose idea of the highest virtue is Homomania.
Worse, the increasing crassness and vulgarity of American culture has made Americans far more shameless. In the 70s, a talk show was something like Phil Donahue. But by the 80s, it was turning into something like Oprah and Jerry Springer. Both were corrosive in their own way. Oprah went from just another talkshow host to an object of worship. This shameless and self-aggrandizing fat black woman was supposed to represent all our hopes and dreams. It was one thing to enjoy Oprah as a TV personality, but it was obscene to elevate her to Magic Negress. Millions of Americans looked to Oprah to be told what to read, whom to vote for, what issues to care about, when to laugh, and when to weep, that is when she wasn’t doing what was she was best at: Interviewing vapid celebrities in love with their own vanity. Being fat, gross, and stupid, Oprah had no discernible talent of her own, but that was the hook with the audience. Most Americans are now fat, gross, and stupid, but they are obsessed with celebrity. When they look at Oprah, they see someone unseemly like themselves — fat, gross, and stupid — dillydallying with famous actors, singers, and athletes. Through Oprah, they also feel connected to the world of celebrity. Also, the fact that she’s ugly, black, and female means that her success is proof of the redemptive power of America. There was a time when someone like Oprah would have been a fat black mammy with kerchief on her head suckling some white kids on her big chocolate titties, but now, here she is with many billions of dollars. Only in America. Though Oprah is stupid, she’s been savvy enough to milk white tears of guilt and joy for all its worth(rather like Obama), with the help of Jews, of course.

And then, there was Jerry Springer and Maury Povich. If Oprah-ism was about elevation of a fat, gross, and stupid black woman as holy Magic Negress, what Springer and Povich did was reduce working class whites and blacks to the state of animals and savages. Now, there were always dumb, stupid, retarded, and trashy people in America. But American society had frowned upon such behavior.
The idea was that such people should watch BONANZA, THE WALTONS, BRADY BUNCH, and LITTLE HOUSE ON THE PRAIRIE and learn to be halfway decent. So, even if they had trashy tendencies, they shouldn’t wallow in them. They should be ashamed of their ways and at least try to raise their kids right so that the kids won’t end up like their stupid parents. But shows like Jerry Springer(in mainly targeting ‘white trash’) and Maury Povich(in mainly targeting ‘black trash’) sensationalized bad behavior into a shameless gladiatorial sport. Soon, entire families watched garbage like that together, and American turned into Amerika. Such shamelessness paved the way to the culture of EXTREMES. So, there were all these shows on TV that featured ‘extreme’ this, ‘extreme’ that, extreme anything. And then, there arose extreme sports where fighters do ugly things to one another. And then, even women were allowed into the sports, and they were bashing each other’s faces like demented chimpanzees.

Now, someone like Nikolas Cruz was born with an unfortunate set of genes. He looks goofy and was probably born funny-in-the-head. But if such a kid had grown up in a more traditional America with stronger sense of right-and-wrong, a sense of family and community, and a culture of shame-and-restraint, there would have been less chance of him turning out like this.
Of course, we can’t just blame the larger culture. Ultimately, Cruz has to face up to what he did as an individual and pay the price. But, our culture is really messed up. Now, I’m not saying all of us should be blamed. Oftentimes, those who blame themselves for what others did are virtue-signaling. Not all Americans played a role in degrading this country into a cultural and moral shithole. It is THOSE people who deserve most of the blame. The controllers of media. The radicals who spread poisonous ideas through the academia. Those who promoted drug culture and loose sex. Those who spread gambling and the idea that anything is justified by profits.

Be that as it may, Nikolas Cruz could only attack one school and destroy the lives of several people. As Hyman Roth said of Pantangeli in THE GODFATHER PART 2 , Cruz is ‘small potatoes’.

What Cruz did is horrible and unforgivable, but it tore up only a local community. He was arrested, and he will have to face the music. He will likely receive the death penalty, surely something he deserves unless it can be proven that he’s seriously mentally ill.

Now, let’s move from small potato Cruz(who will soon fade from the news cycle) to the BIG POTATOES. Let’s look at neo-imperialist US that has destroyed not just random lives but entire nations. Yes, the national elites who condemn and bemoan what happened in Florida seem to be completely blind to their far greater crimes and bloodbaths all over the world.
So, why is the US so pathologically hypocritical and oblivious to what is plainly obvious, i.e. the US has been the main source of Evil around the world since the end of the Cold War?
It’s because the elites(especially the Zionist-globalists) are rabid with power-lust, paranoia, megalomania, resentment & vengeful angst, and contempt for the hoi polloi(both in the US and abroad); they spread lies through the worthless fake news media and engineer falsehoods in collusion with Deep State. Remember CIA and ‘slam dunk’ about Hussein’s WMD? The hubris, the arrogance, the sheer lack of concern for lives, and etc. The vile elites don’t care about American soldiers traumatized in wars and don’t care for the countless people who died, were maimed, or mentally destroyed in the Muslim World. With the elites acting like that, was anyone really surprised when Abu Gharib happened? From top to bottom, Americans have gotten used to the nihilist notion that they are above the law. You see, truth is just an ‘essentialist’ inconvenience. With creativity of spin and terminology, anyone can be made into a ‘New Hitler’ with WMD. And if Nikolas Cruz will be executed or spend the rest of his life behind bars, the globalist sociopaths who used lies to destroy entire nations, peoples, and cultures will do the what villains do in Akira Kuroawa's BAD SLEEP WELL. Hillary and Obama will not be brought to justice for what they did to Libya, Ukraine, and/or Syria. Hillary the mass murderer almost got to be president. Obama got a $60 million book deal. And all the Neocon Jewish globalists who goaded dumb George W. Bush into war in Iraq on false pretext are still not only free but rich and ensconced in seats of power and influence. And the movers and shakers that colluded with the Deep State to spread lies that led to Wars for Israel and New Cold War with Russia still control the media and spread lies all over. As for AIPAC goons who pressure the US to support Zionist imperialism in West Bank, they are invited to the biggest galas and showered with cash by oligarchs like Sheldon Adelson whose genius idea is that the US should drop a nuke on Iran, a nation without any nukes. As for Colin Powell who did his little act before the UN to push for Iraq War, he is still a respected statesman. When he had the chance to choose between integrity/courage and status/opportunism, he opted for the latter. In the end, his position in government mattered more than his moral compass, if he ever had any.

It isn't far-fetched to say that the Deep State, Media, Academia, and elite institutions are filled with more intelligent versions of Nikolas Cruz. They aren’t the types to stupidly go around shooting people, but then, they have bigger fish to fry: To take down entire nations and destroy millions of lives through death, disease, or trauma, and all based on lies to feed the insatiable hunger of this monster called globalism. The US, despite calling Putin a 'new hitler', wasn't averse to recruiting Neo-Nazis to bring down the regime in Ukraine. It shamelessly cooks up lies(like meth) to sustain a new Cold War with Russia, needlessly increasing tensions that may lead to an unnecessary war. (Unnecessary to sane sane people. But then, Deep State psychopaths don’t play by normal rules of decency, reciprocity, and limits. They play for power and more power, and for them, people around the world count for little more than humanity-as-‘fleas’ that Harry Lime sees up in the Ferris Wheel in THE THIRD MAN.) What other kinds of nastiness give the Deep State a hard on? Oh yeah, the taking down of Gaddafi and turning Libya into a total clusterfuc*. I recall Hillary laughing like a hyena at the lynching of Gaddafi. As for pathological egotist-narcissist Obama, he just shrugged his shoulders, smiled, and said , “Oops, my bad.” Destroying an entire nation was just a ‘mistake’, you see. And let’s not forget how the Deep State gave aid to terrorists and Jihadis to tear Syria apart in yet another great bloodbath of the 21st century, once again brought to you by the US and its allies. Priceless ancient treasures destroyed forever, and 400,000 people killed, and millions more uprooted. But who cares? The only concern among the elites in US media, academia, and Deep State is, “Is it good for Israel?” and "Is it good for US position in the Middle East?"

In status-centric globalist America where the elites no longer feel a national-humanist bond with the people, all that matters is their insatiable nihilist craving for power and position. To them, the whole world is just a violent video-game, the difference being that while gamers play in a world of fantasy, the Deep State plays in a world of reality with real people, millions of whom end up being killed, maimed, or soul-destroyed.

The Deep State scum are like the psychopath yuppie in AMERICAN PSYCHO. Sure, they talk the PC talk about ‘equality’ and ‘human rights’, but it’s all just smoke screen for their power games. These elites are so eager to be insiders and members of the Club that they will say or do anything to get in and stay in. Whether it’s Samantha Powers or John Bolton or Nikki Haley or John Yoo or any other bunch of scum-suckers, they are all a bunch of status-obsessed sociopaths whose only compass is whether the needle is pointing to Power.

And if you long for moral values and spiritual meaning in these times, just go worship the holy homo and make sure to convince yourself that Bruce Jenner is a ‘woman’. Ah, ‘rainbow’ in your eyes. It’s all lies upon lies.
As for you Negroes, never mind that you’re losing out due to globalism, mass immigration, and gentrification. Just watch the bling-movie BLACK PANTHER, make Jewish Hollywood even richer, and distract yourselves with the fantasy of Wakanda, sheeeeiiit. The elites find creative ways to push you out of cities while directing your gaze at bling heaven on the big screen for distraction. But then, what is the culture of blacks? Rap thuggery and ‘twerking’.

Fish rots from the head. We know from the bogus ‘Russiagate’ affair that the whole media complex and deep state are utterly corrupt and will go to any length to subvert Rule of Law and democracy. We know from Charlottesville that the Power will trample on the most fundamental American liberties to silence dissident voices. A completely legal assembly protected by the Constitution was shut down by the Power simply because it didn’t like the message. But the media, which are just part of the Deep State, just ran with the official narrative pushed by the Power.

US is now an empire of lies. Lies about the wonders of homosexuality and tranny nonsense, lies about BLM, lies about Russia as new ‘nazi nation’, lies about War on Terror(because it’s the US that’s actually allied with terrorists to wreck nations like Syria), lies about Iran, and etc. US has gotten so evil and demented that even a nutball regime of North Korea sometimes sounds rational in comparison.

We need a new nationalism, a real nationalism. The people of America and other nations need to come together and demand that the elites serve, lead, and guide the people. It must be a People Nationalism. A nation exists for the leaders to represent and serve the People. But the current elites of the US give the middle finger to Middle America and call for its replacement by endless tides of foreigners bribed with gibs. David Brooks, Max Boot, and Jennifer Rubin would never go on a killing spree like Nikolas Cruz, but if the likes of them get their way, Real America will have been murdered for good. You don’t have to actually kill people to kill a nation. Sufficient demographic changes will bury and erase a nation-that-had-been and replace it with something else. Jews didn’t kill a lot of Palestinians in the Nakba of 1948. There was no genocide in the sense of what happened in Ukraine or WWII. But Palestine as a nation was effectively murdered by massive demographic transformation. Israel was born because Palestine was murdered. And today, the Zionist-globalists are hellbent on murdering White, European, and Western nations via massive-invasion-immigration. Cruz shot up a school and killed 17 people. Jewish-Globalists plan to bulldoze White America & White Europe and replace them with Third World masses as their divide-and-rule helots. Cruz is indeed small potatoes.

In our time, is National Renewal even possible with the kind of leaders and elites we have whose soulless minds were molded by decades of degeneracy, decadence, and pseudo-intellectual PC garbage that reduces morality and ideology into empty slogans about ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’ that can be twisted to mean just about ANYTHING? Too many Jewish elites are fueled by animus, hatred, contempt, and vengeful emotions vis-a-vis Muslims and white gentiles, though Jews are also working to destroy Japan by pressuring it to take in more ‘refugees’(even though Israel takes in none). For too many Jews, everything they don’t like in the world is boiled down to hysteria about Pogroms or WWII all over again, so much so that they are blind to the fact that their kind now constitute the New Power that is acting like the Russian imperialists and German warmongers of old.

Now, I’m not saying that if we have good elites and a culture of truth, there won’t be sickos like Nick Cruz. But he would be the exception in such a social order.
Why are there now so many instances of sociopaths like him acting as if they are above the law? One key reason is our culture is one of nihilism from the very top. The fact that Harvey Weinstein was able to get away with so much gross behavior while rubbing shoulders with the most powerful people in the world should tell you what kind of nation we are living in.

Granted, fish rots from the gut as well as from the head. The most corrupting gut-rot force in America has been blacks. Naturally savage and prone to psychopathy, they’ve given us a culture not of the mind and heart but of the fist, genitals, and butts. In the current year, the symbiotic alliance between elites minds and black butts have degraded culture beyond moral recognition not only in the US but around the world.

Lies have always been a part of America as in any other society. But now, lies have been institutionalized as the New Truth. Americans are so poisoned by lies that they are blind even to the ugliness of homo fecal penetration. Instead, they support massive homo parades, drape churches with homo colors, support ‘gay marriage’, and believe bakers ought to be destroyed for having moral courage. This is a sick sick society.

Libertarian types will say ‘homomania’ doesn’t kill people, but it murders something far more essential: Truth. Homomania murders the truth because it not only tells lies but canonizes lies as the holy truth. If the norm of a society is to murder truth in this manner, then the cancer of lies will grow and poison all of society.

It’s like what Merlin said:

Saturday, February 17, 2018

Ethno-Nationalism, if possible, is the Ideal Form of Political Organization

Polish Patriots on the March

It’s easy to demonstrate that Ethno-Nationalism is the soundest foundation for political organization. Granted, not every nation can be ethno-centric due to complexities of history. This is especially true of nations created by imperialists who mixed together various peoples and cultures through invasions and slave trade. Latin American nations didn’t rise organically from the soil of natives. Rather, they are the products of Hispanic and Portuguese invasions followed by African slave trade and mass immigration from Europe and even Asia. As such, there isn’t much meaning in what it is to be ‘Colombian’, ‘Venezuelan’, or ‘Costa Rican’. Too much of native cultures was wiped out, and too much of European identity was mixed and diluted. In the case of Indonesia, it’s essentially an end-product of Dutch colonialism. When the Dutch were finally driven out, the territories they’d held just became the nation-state of Indonesia. While Indonesia has peoples with deep cultural roots, the idea of ‘Indonesian’ is not ethno-nationalist since the nation is made of many notable and sizable ethnic groups. Islam became so important because it was one of the few glues that held diverse ethnic groups together. If most Indonesians have one thing in common, it is their faith. African nations are especially problematic. Prior to European invasion, the Dark Continent was home to literally thousands of tribes. The current African nations are NOT the organic political expressions of African themselves but the end-result of territories divided among the Europeans.

So, minus major political and demographic upheavals, ethno-nationalism simply isn’t viable in many parts of the world. The most that peoples in such nations can hope for is to get along in the spirit of tolerance, cooperation, and mutual respect in absence of genuine trust among diverse peoples.
If the people at least have share common religion, language, and/or legal code, it is generally more functional than if they’re divided even among those lines. In diverse nations, democracy usually means every group voting along ethnic lines. When this leads to recriminations and insurmountable tensions, such entities can only be held together by iron rule, which is the case in most Arab nations. Introduction of democracy in Iraq & Egypt and experimentation with reforms in Syria only led to more violence and even bloody civil wars that became easy to game by outsider powers.
Given the reality of the world, it isn’t possible to have ethno-nationalism for every people. But for those who have it, they should consider it the greatest blessing. Ethno-nationalism can be nearly homogeneous, but it can exist in a healthy form even in a diverse nation as long as it has a solid majority AND as long as the majority constitute the ruling elites. This is true of Israel where Jews are 80% of the population(which means there is a sizable Arab minority) and control the government, culture, and economy. Jewishness is secure and dominant. Also, the Arab population in Israel, though none-too-happy, tend to be peaceful because they are treated reasonably well by the Jews. (Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank are another story.) Turkey, like Israel, manages to function as an ethno-state because it is majority Turk and Turks comprise the ruling elites of the nation.

Perhaps, if Iraq had originally been ruled by the Shia population, it could have been like Israel. The main tension in Iraq owed to it being majority Shia but being ruled by the Sunni minority. Likewise, tensions in Syria owe to it being a majority Sunni Arab nation ruled by an Alawite minority. There aren’t enough Alawites in Syria for it to be an ethno-nationalist state, so the ruling elites of Syria have favored secular modernism and Iron Tolerance to ensure continued Alawite dominance over Sunnis and others. Now, would such problems exist if Syria were 100% Alawite or 100% Sunni Arab? Of course not. It just goes to show homogeneous ethno-nationalism is best for peace and stability.
But for some nations, it’s simply not an option due to accidents of history. It’s possible for a diverse nation to crack up and form more stable homogeneous nations, but it isn’t always easy to do. It’s relatively easy if one ethnic group mostly happens to be territory A while another group is mostly in territory B. Then, it can amicably separate like Czechoslovakia into Czech Republic and Slovakia. And some parts of Yugoslavia broke away with relative ease. But things got bloody in Bosnia because Croatians, Serbs, and Muslims were intermixed all over the territory. Even now, the problems haven't been totally resolved.

Anyway, to demonstrate why ethno-nationalism works best, consider the following examples.

Take Israel, Jordan, and Lebanon. Israel is ethno-nationalist even though it has a sizable Arab population. Israel supports a solid Jewish majority, healthy natal trends for Jews, and Jewish patriotism as the soul of the nation.
Jordan is 80% Palestinian. It’s ruled by ‘Jordanians’, but they are Arabs who are racially the same as Palestinians. Indeed, the difference between ‘Jordanian’ and ‘Palestinian’ is territorial/incidental than ethnic/historical; those designations owe more to Europeans making maps than natives making tribal distinctions. At any rate, Jordan is 100% Arab nation. Lebanon is more complicated due to Shia, Sunni, and Christian divisions. Still, most of the population is Arabic. (The modern history of Lebanon is a useful illustration of how rising diversity can lead to more tensions, civil war, and interference by foreign powers. The conflicts among Christians, Sunnis, Shia, and Palestinian exiles once turned the entire nation into a bloody war zone, and many observers worried the madness would never cease, that is until Syrians moved in to restore order. Ironically, what happened to Lebanon in the 1980s replayed itself on a much larger scale in Syria itself.)
Anyway, despite the existing internal divisions of the three nations(most problematic in Lebanon), each still manages to keep order and stability within its borders. Israeli is for Israelis, Jordan is for Jordanians/Palestinians, and Lebanon is for Lebanese, be they Christian, Sunni, or Shia. Whatever problems may exist inside the three nations, they are agreed upon the borders that separate one from the other, and that is the basis for the current peace.

Now, would it improve matters IF Israel, Lebanon, and Jordan were unified into a single bigger nation? Who in his right mind would think the dynamics of politics, culture, and society of this multi-national state will work better than if the three nations had remained separate?
Jews have enough problems with the Arab minority in Israel. Would they want to deal with many more Arabs in the bigger multi-national state who will constitute a majority population over the Jews? And how will the Arabs feel about the immense wealth and influence controlled by Jews? As long as Jews are in Israel, Jewish money is Jewish business and none of Arab's business. But if Israel were to unite with Lebanon and Jordan into a single nation, disproportionate Jewish wealth will become a contentious political issue for the Arab majority that will demand a big chunk of it, just like the black majority in South Africa keep demanding a bigger share of the economic pie, much of which is still in the hands of whites. And in every election, the various groups in the Israelebajordan will just vote along racial, tribal, and sectarian lines than ponder political issues in terms of right and wrong. Indeed, such tribalism is already a problem in Israel and Lebanon. If they were to merge into one nation and then also include Jordan, tribal tensions will be exacerbated many times over. So, even if Israel, Jordan, and Lebanon are not ideal homogenous ethno-nation-states, they still have some semblance of meaningful identity and history in their current manifestations. This would be totally lost if the three nations were to merge into one in the spirit of greater Diversity and Tolerance.

Next, consider Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. All three ethno-nation-states used to be part of Indochina under French rule. Today, they are three separate nations. For the most part, they get along in peace. There used to be bloody conflicts, especially between Vietnam and Cambodia, but the wars are over, and peace prevails among the three nations. Peace is nice.

Now, who in his right mind would argue that things would improve if Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia were to merge into a nation called New Indochina? Of course, it will just lead to political tensions, cultural conflicts, and social friction. Vietnamese would look upon their Cambodian and Laotian co-nationals as inferior and backward, Laotians wouldn’t have much in common with Cambodians, and Cambodians would resent the domination of the Vietnamese majority. New tensions could easily flare up, like between Uighurs and invasive Han Chinese in Xianjiang. Things would be much better if Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia remained separate. Then, each people can feel secure in their own nationhood, respect each other as neighbors, and trade with one another.

Next, consider Yugoslavia. What was the catalyst for its breakup into separate nations? Because other ethnic groups resented the Serbian-dominant central government in Belgrade. Also, the idea of Yugoslavia had been imposed on the people there by bigger powers. Granted, some of the ethnic groups in Yugoslavia were similar to one another, but like the division between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland, historical resentments made things difficult among some groups, especially between Serbians and Croatians, who with the backing of Germans, had massacred 250,000 Serbians in WWII. As for the Muslims, they were converts who'd collaborated with Turks during Ottoman rule, and this was bound to lead to bad blood. As for Kosovo, it transformed from the cradle of Serbian civilization to Muslim territory when lots of Albanians were allowed to migrate there under Ottoman rule. So, the lesson of Yugoslavian/Balkan history is diversity is one big headache, especially if it’s imposed on a people by foreign domination. But then, most of Diversity in the world is due to imperialism.
By the way, where did WWI originate? Of course, in the Austro-Hungarian Empire that stifled ethno-national aspirations of peoples who wanted to be free of Imperial Diversity.

Next, we all know Czechs and Slovaks decided to go separate ways. Thus, Czechoslovakia amicably divided into Czech Republic and Slovakia, and both nations seem to be happy as homogeneous ethno-nation-states. Again, it illustrates that the ethno-nation-state is the most ideal form of political organization in terms of cohesion, unity, and stability.

For the next thought experiment, consider Japan, Korea, and Manchuria(now part of China but, for the sake of argument, considered separately here). Japan and Korea are ethno-nation-states. Manchuria is part of China that is essentially a Han ethno-nation-state. Now, who in his right mind would argue that things will be better if Manchuria, Korea, and Japan were to ditch their ethno-nation-state models and merge into a single multi-national entity called New Asia? Would politics run smoother in New Asia made up of Manchurians, Koreans, and Japanese as co-nationals? Would social trust go up? Would there be more national unity and solidarity? Would the peoples of New Asia become more civic-minded and more responsible citizens? Historical experience tells us that the experiment will be a disaster.

After all, who bemoans the passing of the Soviet Empire, the biggest multi-national-state that ever existed? Upon its collapse, ethno-nationalism became the template for all the liberated peoples: Lithuanians, Estonians, Latvians, Moldovans, Armenians, Azerbaijans, Georgians, and etc. And these peoples don’t want to revert to the Soviet multi-national model.

Also, the collapse of the Soviet Union was welcomed by the West. The emancipation and emergence of ethno-nation-states from the rubble of communism were seen as a good thing.

Then, just how did ethno-nationalism become such a dirty word? It was because Jewish globalists gained dominance in the US and wanted hegemony over the world. From the globo-hegemonic perspective, patriotic ethno-nationalism is the toughest barrier against globalist takeover. So, while ethno-nationalism was an effective, indeed invaluable, tool in the weakening of the USSR and Yugoslavia, it came to be problematic as an obstacle to Anglo-Zionist globalist imperialism. Consider the ethno-nationalist determination of Poland and Hungary that defies the globalist entity that is the EU. Globalists hate those two nations that operate on the principle of ethno-nationalism to keep what is demographically, culturally, and territorially theirs.

An empire will exploit the nationalism, nascent or deep-rooted, of a certain people against a rival empire or great power. It’s like, even as globalists denounce the ethno-nationalism of Poland and Hungary, they gleefully support the ethno-nationalism of Ukrainians(even among Neo-Nazis) as an effective weapon against Russia. But at the same time, globalists seek to weaken nationalism among Ukrainians in relation to the West. Similarly, the Japanese imperialists encouraged Manchurian separatism & nationalism against the Chinese, Russians, and Europeans, but they also weakened it in relation to Japanese interests. ‘Emperor’ Puyi was used as a puppet-patriot, or puppatriot.

The world would have been so much better if the US and EU hadn’t embarked on Diversity. The great opportunity in the Golden Age of Nationalism was lost due to change in American and European immigration policy. After WWII, nationalism became vogue either as the dream of every people(living under imperialist rule) OR as safe haven for expelled imperialists. So, Algerians, Vietnamese, Kenyans, and Cubans struggled for national independence from imperialism and achieved their goals. And with the fall of empires, Europeans returned to their mother countries. Imperial powers were reduced to nation-states once again. French empire was gone and there was only the French nation. British empire was gone and there was only the British nation. Fall of empires meant that the world would be composed of sovereign & independent nations. In time, Africans, Asians, and Arabs regained ownership and control over their own territories, some more soundly conceived and organized than others. And having lost their empires, the Brits, French, Dutch, and other Europeans had nowhere to go but back to their motherlands that welcomed their blood kin with open arms. It was truly the Golden Age of Nationalism, and almost all peoples around the world were optimistic in their patriotism.

And even though the US and USSR locked horns as new empires, both upheld the ideal of nationalism and condemned the other side as the ‘real imperialist’. If ever they admitted to presiding over an empire, it was deemed a necessary evil to stave off the hegemonic ambitions of the Other power that was deemed far worse. Indeed, both empires claimed to lend support to peoples around the world for the sake of national liberation from the Other imperialist power. So, the Soviets backed Vietnamese patriots against the French and American imperialists. And the US condemned Soviet imperialist crushing of Hungarian, Polish, and Czechoslovakian ethno-national aspirations.

But what messed up the ideal of universal nationalism, the hope of national sovereignty for every people? Immigration and globalism. If Europe and the US had kept their gates shut to non-whites, then non-whites would have remained patriotic and invested their smarts & energies toward developing their own nations. Everyone from the educated elites to the laboring masses would have had no choice but to come together as one people and struggle to make his nation better. But once the EU and US offered the bait of immigration and instant-material-improvement, too many non-whites from top to bottom couldn’t resist the temptation to neglect challenges at home and hop on the first train, boat, or plane to move permanently to the West. This had a deeply corrosive and corrupting effect on non-white nations. And it also had a terrible effect on the West as white folks began to be replaced in their own territories and even lose civil liberties on account of PC police deeming any anti-Diversity voice as ‘racist’ and ‘xenophobic’. The New Disorder corrupted everything.

The fall of the USSR was the last hurrah for the dream of universal nationalism. As Soviet Union dissolved, it brought about the emancipation not only of non-Russian republics but of Warsaw Pact nations that had been occupied by Soviet troops. This was a great time in history but unfortunately short-lived.

It didn’t take long for globalists to swoop down like vultures and spread their hegemony over newly liberated nations. In the name of offering advice and providing aid, the Anglo-Zionist globalists took over entire economies and bought up the national media and politicians.
For globalists, nationalism had been useful as an indispensable weapon in destabilizing and dissolving the USSR. But once the Soviet Empire was gone, the globalists did everything possible to retard the emergence of truly independent nations. They eyed the weak emerging nations as their pawns in the game of global hegemony. Globalists saw the new nations as akin to drowsy animals coming out of hibernation: poor, weak, hungry, and disoriented. What an opportune moment to gain control over them before they gain their footing. What an easy way to turn them into debt slaves to the Jewish globalist bankers.

Mass immigration, cult of Diversity, and neo-imperialist hegemonism destroyed what could have been. Just think of how Third World nations might have done much better from top to bottom IF the West had remained in nationalist mode and blocked easy entry to would-be immigrants. Then, European nations and the US would have remained in better shape with national unity and sense of purpose. And Third World nations would have been ruled by patriotic elites whose main objective would have been to make their own nations great instead of dropping everything to run off to the West to live the good life or rub shoulders with the globo-jetset like the loathsome Fareed Zakaria.

Wednesday, February 14, 2018

Daniel E. Hanrahan’s Hokum Is a Perfect Illustration of How Even Elite Self-Criticism Is Just More Vanity, Boast, & Self-Aggrandizement

Get a load of this typical self-serving rubbish from a member of the Overclass at Harvard University.

What sheer hokum. Most people would be embarrassed to write such disingenuous tripe short on logic and facts. It just goes to prove that elite universities are essentially magnets for sycophants and conformists short on integrity and big on opportunism. But lacking integrity, people like Hanrahan surely believe their own BS, just like good little boys and girls reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in 4th grade.

Hanrahan’s piece is really underhanded self-flattery, a roundabout way of boasting about his self-effacing virtues. Though ostensibly a self-damning confession, his most grievous transgression turns out to be having made a few unflattering remarks about girls.
It’s like some guy claiming to be racked with guilty because he once played poker for pennies. Oh, it’s the end of the world! Of course, anyone making such noise is really boasting of his goody-goodiness on account of his very worst behavior being more innocuous than the good behavior of most people. In other words, Hanrahan is such a well-behaved mama’s boy and a dork that the most untoward thing he ever did to womenfolk is mutter a few uncomplimentary remarks about them... when they weren't even around. Since they weren't around, he couldn’t have done anything to them, but I guess it’s the thought that counts(or subtracts, as the case may be). He still shouldn’t have said them because a good-goody-two-shoes dork like him must be a perfect gentleman at all times. (Maybe his next confession will be about a dream he had where he looked at a sexy woman without her permission.) It’s like someone confessing to an act of theft where he didn’t actually take anything but only coveted someone else’s belonging. On the surface it sounds like an admittance of guilt, but it’s actually a statement of pride that (1) he never really stole (2) he’s such a goody-good person that he feels guilty even to think of pilfering something.

Also, notice how Hanrahan makes himself the moral superior in relation to OTHER guys. You see, the other guys were unperturbed about their loose and unseemly talk about womenfolk, but Hanrahan, oh Hanrahan, he was overcome with an ethical and spiritual dilemma for having partaken of such undignified behavior. His sensitive heart felt soul-tremors, like a Victorian who’d accidently cast his eyes on smut. Hanrahan’s pristine conscience was oh-so-disturbed… like the moment Peter was overcome with grief for having denied Jesus three times.

Now, if Hanrahan wants to be seriously honest about problems of womanhood, he would address the fact that the main booster of beastly male behavior is black rap culture where guys refer to women as ‘skankass biatches’ and where women ‘twerk’ like wild apes & actually enjoy being sluts & ho’s whose idea of ‘empowerment’ is acting like hookers-gone-wild.

But of course, in our PC culture(not least enforced by elites who graduated from institutions like Harvard), honest criticism of blacks is taboo because any damning perception of their culture must be ‘raciiiiiist’. Political Correctness, as rigged by Jews who control the elite institutions and industries, decree that blacks, along with Jews and homosexuals, are holy and above scrutiny & criticism. Jews, blacks, and homosexuals are like moral royalty, meaning they are ennobled by their blood alone. Just like even a stupid moron born into a noble family belonged to an aristocracy of caste, any Jew, Negro, or Homo is, on the basis of his blood alone, a member of the moral aristocracy. So, if a bunch of stupid blacks listen to ugly rap music, beat up teachers and classmates, and ruin their neighborhood, they are blameless, and we must find other culprits as scapegoats. Or, if a bunch of powerful Jews use media and deep state to wage another War for Israel and end up destroying millions of lives, they are blameless, and the mess must be pinned on others. And if homo behavior degrades social mores and spreads disease, the problem is never with homo excesses or degeneracy but with non-homos who aren't doing enough to make homos have their fun without risks to themselves and rest of society.

If Hanrahan had an ounce of honesty, he would note that there are actually very few cases of rape in most colleges. Among actual rapes, a very high percentage involve blacks who are there only because of athletic scholarship. But that ‘inconvenient’ fact would also be ‘raciiiiiiiist’ because it casts negative aspersions on black attitude and behavior. With PC telling us that we must have faith in the holiness of Negroes, it’s simply not okay to think of blacks as rapists. After all, associating blacks with rape is too much like ‘Jim Crow’ Era when, supposedly, white women were falsely accusing always-innocent black men of rapes they never ever committed.

Finally, if Hanrahan is really a true-blue progressive who cares about equality, what is he doing at ultra-exclusive and ultra-elitist Harvard? Doesn’t he want to be with real people? Doesn’t he want to rub shoulders with people at state universities? Is he too good for the public colleges or the hoi polloi? Or, is he going to tell us that he’s studying to be the best of the best to save all of humanity? Wow, what an original idea!

Universities like Harvard pontificate about ‘inclusion’ to mask their actual role as exclusive laboratories for the production of a special kind of elites who all think alike in perfect obedience to the Jewish elites and their homo proxies. Worse, many graduates of Harvard end up working for Wall Street to fleece the world, working for Deep State to perpetuate US globo-hegemony, or working for elite institutions to expand & enforce PC and suppress freedom of speech & honest criticism of globalist elite power that is now mostly concentrated in the hands of Jews and their homo allies.

Tuesday, February 13, 2018

Will China’s Rise be as Problematic as the Rise of Germany and Japan? What about Jewish Supremacist Power and the Problems of White Submissivism?

Some geopolitical strategists fear that China’s rise in the 21st century will mirror the dramatic rise of Germany and Japan in the late 19th century and first half of the 20th century. Perhaps, it’s a misplaced fear. Such assurance may seem counter-intuitive because China is so much bigger and more populous than Germany and Japan. Paradoxically, however, China might be less dangerous than Japan and Germany precisely because it is a bigger nation. Being huge in land mass and population in its own right, China may be satisfied with what it has. It surely wants to expand trade with the world, but China doesn’t need to conquer or control other nations to be a great power. It doesn’t need an empire because it is an empire-sized nation.

Same could be said for Russia. Its gigantic size and limitless resources ensure its place in the world as an important player. While Russians are underachievers, Russia doesn’t need more territory to be one of the great powers of the world.

In contrast, the reason why Japan and Germany became so problematic was the discrepancy between their ambitions(in will and ability) and their limitations(in land and resources). If both had been content to be normal nations, they would have accepted their prescribed place in the world. But modern Germany looked to Great Britain and France as models, moderate-sized nations that became world powers by amassing empires. Unlike the US and Russia that could be great on their own due to abundant geography and sizable & growing demography, France and Great Britain couldn’t be great on their own. They needed to control the seas and other lands.
Germans perceived themselves to be a capable, even superior, people, and felt deserving of greatness too, and that meant Germany needed an empire of its own.
As for Japan, its rapid rise filled them with confidence and then hubris. Especially after the great naval victory in the Russo-Japanese War, they began to feel they could overcome all odds. But like Germany, Japan had limited land mass and resources that could feed and supply only so many people. On its own, it could be a regional power but not a great power. Especially after observing the miserable failures of China, Japan saw itself as the rightful master-ruler of Asia.
Now, if China had modernized at the same time and at the same pace as Japan in the 19th century, then it would also have developed as an industrial power, and then, Japan would have had no choice but to acknowledge China as the dominant power in Asia. It would have been less likely for Japan to develop an over-sized national ego from the perception of China as the Sick Man of Asia. In its encounter with the West, China was slow to modernize whereas Japan did so almost overnight. Flush with power and success, Japan was determined to remain ahead of China as the main power of Asia. Back then, Japan was much smaller than China but much stronger, and China was much bigger than Japan but much weaker. This contradiction led to the great war between the two nations. It was like a fit and feisty small guy taking on a flabby and feeble big guy. Japan as the tough small guy was the better fighter but couldn’t deliver a KO blow to a guy who was too big despite his sickness. At any rate, because Japan could only be a great power by having an empire, it was desperate to gain more territory and clashed with other empires and eventually was crushed by the combined might of the Allies.

Well that was then, this is now. China now has both a bigger economy and bigger military than Japan. The bigger nation has the bigger power, and so, the geopolitical dynamics in Asia is more normal as it’s only natural that the bigger nation should be more powerful. Indeed, for most of Asian history, Japan had always acknowledged China as the main power in the region, and that recognition had been the basis of peace between them as well as with other Asian nations.

Now, will the newly risen China feel tempted to act like Japan in the first half of the 20th century? Flush with wealth and might, will it aggressively seek to gain hegemony over all of Asia and maybe the world? Will it be like Militarist Japan x 10? It’s unlikely because China doesn’t need more land and more people to be a great power. China can be a great power with what it has within its borders. Thus, its ambitions are limited to coastal areas. China has no territorial ambitions in other parts of the world. Also, it has enough problems within its own borders, especially with Tibetans and Uighurs. The last thing it needs is more ethnic conflicts.

So, which people will be the main menace to world peace and geopolitical stability? The main problem lies with the Jews because their Contradiction of Power is the most radioactive by far. What is the essence of this contradiction? Jews are rich in money and influence but poor in numbers(demographics). The result is a Jewish neurosis composed of equal measures of megalomania and paranoia.
Just think. Jews are more powerful than the Chinese, Hindus, Russians, Anglos, Germans, Japanese, French, and Iranians, but there are far fewer Jews than the populations of major gentile nations. Japan has over 110 million, Germany has 80 million, Russia has 125 million, etc. In contrast, there are only 13 million Jews in the world. And their nation, Israel, is a tiny speck in the Middle East. Jewish super-power owes to Jews controlling US(the most powerful nation on earth), UK, Canada, and the EU, but their influence hangs in the balance of White Submissivism, i.e. unless white gentiles continue to remain servile and defer to Jews, Jewish Power can collapse overnight.

This is why Jews are so fearful of the slightest whiff of White Identity & Interest and hysterically defame any sign of white consciousness as ‘white supremacism’. Without white gentiles putting Jewish interests before their own, Jewish supremacism cannot be sustained because Jews simply don’t have the numbers. It’s like a mind is useless if it can’t control the body. A cowboy is in trouble if he can’t control the steers. A shepherd is lost if the sheepdogs and sheep decide to do their own thing.

This is why Jews hate nationalism in all its manifestations except in Israel. Nationalism makes the people of a nation think mainly of their own kind, their own race and culture. Also, universal nationalism — national autonomy and sovereignty for each people and culture — means greater peace and stability among gentile nations as each nation will expect other nations to respect its sovereignty as it respects the sovereignties of other nations in turn. And then, there will be easier facilitation of trade and communication among nations. Also, if every nation is sovereign, it will find its own ways to deal with other nations. It won’t need a middleman power to get involved as the ultimate arbiter of what is doable and undoable, what is or isn’t right. In other words, there will be less reason for Jews to stick their noses into everything. There will be less need for Jews, period.

Therefore, it’s in the interest of Jewish Supremacism to have a turbulent world of gentiles vs. gentiles: US vs Muslims, EU vs Russia, US vs China, Saudis vs Iran, etc. This way, gentiles will be too busy hating one another to focus on what is best for their own nation. When gentiles hate gentiles, Jews can squeeze in between the cracks and manipulate all sides. Consider how American Jews declared New Cold War on Russia while Netanyahu and Jews-in-Russia assured Putin that they are doing their best to improve Russia’s standing in the world. Jews play good cop/bad cop.

Now, gentile peoples can create havoc around the world all on their own without Jews. Indeed, history in all five continents is a testament of how people can be warlike and brutal, and most human conflicts had little or nothing to do with Jews. Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan didn’t invade other peoples at the behest of Jews.
Still, there was a golden opportunity for world peace after the Cold War when the final great ideological/imperial conflict came to an end. There could have been good relations among US, EU, Russia, China, and other parts of the world as nations committed to mutual respect and rational restraint. The golden opportunity was lost because Jews knew that world peace would be 'bad' for the Jews or, more precisely, for the purposes of Jewish Supremacism. (Jews were no longer content with the good life and wanted to rule the world. Jews saw the entire world as a casino that must be controlled by themselves.) There were too many nations in the Middle East that Jews wanted destroyed. Since Jews themselves couldn’t do it, they manipulated American Power to wage Wars for Israel. And when Russia failed to fall completely into the hands of Jewish globalists and when Jews feared that the Russian resistance to Jewish supremacism might spread to EU and even the US, Jews concocted the so-called ‘New Cold War’ against Russia that actually wanted peaceful ties and trade with EU and the US. Jews simply couldn’t stand the idea of white Russian gentiles getting along with white Europeans and white Americans. By turning US and EU against Russia, Jews got to play one side against the other and vice versa.

If most peoples think in terms of their own national sovereignty, they will see no point in supporting Jewish supremacism. Why should they favor the interests of an alien people over their own? (The problem is not Jews per se but Jewish insistence on their supremacist domination of other peoples. Jews denounce gentiles-serving-gentile-interests as 'supremacist', but Jews not only serve their own interests but demand that gentiles serve Jewish interests. That is the essence of supremacism.) So many people are so confused and lost because they’ve been misled by Jews to think globally than nationally. After all, if they can’t be for their own kind, whom should they be for? Individuals have a natural longing to serve something bigger than their lone selves. But if white people have been taught that it’s evil and wrong for them to care about their own identity and serve their own interests, what about their need to serve something bigger than themselves?
This is where Jews step in as consultants to all those confused and alienated whites. Yes, whites are told they must serve something bigger than individual interest, and it happens to be Jewish interests. Or, if fanatical Zionism isn’t your cup of tea, then you must serve Homomania(which is just another way of serving Jewish power since the Homo agenda has been a proxy of Jewish power from day one). So, we have the odd spectacle in the US of White Conservatives worshiping the 2% of the population that is Jewish(even though most Jews despise white conservatives) and of White Liberals worshiping the 2% of the population that is homo(and closely allied with Jewish supremacist power).

But despite all the hysterical euphoria of praising Israel and Homos, the Jewish advice unto white goyim ultimately spirals into more confusion because a people will continue to lose out by serving another people(especially one as contemptuous as the Jews) than by serving their own interests. Imagine what would happen to Jewish power if Jews decided to serve Palestinian, Iranian, Russian, and Anglo interests but never their own. It’d be Game Over for Jews soon enough.

Because whites have been led to believe Jews are so wise and wonderful, they want to believe that the Jewish advice is the best and noblest in the world. In their childlike and sheeplike state, they believe that serving Jews is as good as serving themselves because, in return for their devotion and support, Jews will do what is best for all mankind. Whites would never be so easily hoodwinked by Chinese, Iranians, or Hindus because there is no Taboo that forbids skepticism about them. But the notion of ‘antisemitism’ has made any skepticism or criticism of Jewish power and agenda a Taboo. Any negative view of Jews is deemed a ‘rabid’ and ‘virulent’ ‘canard’. So, when Jews give advice, white people believe it’s their duty to trust and obey, just like Christians are supposed to blindly worship God and Jesus.
But when things keep getting worse as the result of heeding the Jewish advice, a complex is bound to form within white minds. One side of them says they must trust Jews because Jews are so holy & wise, and besides, it’d be ‘antisemitic’ to cast aspersions on Jews. But as the world crumbles around them, there is a growing sense that maybe Jews are not only up to no good but are no good at their very core. Russians sure found out in the 1990s when Jewish advice led to mass poverty and/or mass death for so many people. And people in the EU are beginning to notice that the Jewish push for ‘multi-culturalism’ is leading to their racial and cultural demise. According to Jewish advice, Europeans must import millions more non-whites in order for Europe to ‘survive’. Imagine the loopy logic of this Jewish advice. In order for Europe to survive, Europeans must be invaded and replaced by non-Europeans as ‘New Europeans’. Now, such an advice would sound totally nuts to a sane person, but alas, the Holocaust Cult has instilled white gentiles with mindless Jewish Worship and even more mindless ‘White Guilt’.

It’s no wonder then that Jewish supremacists can use the US & EU to wage Wars for Israel to smash the Muslim World and then steer tons of ‘refugees’(aided by George Soros & his cabal) to flood into Europe. And all those cucked-out Germans think their duty as Europeans is to serve ‘refugees’, Muslims, and Africans on the advice of World Jewry. When Germans and others put the interests of the Other above their own kind, it means White Submissivism to Jewish Supremacism is their main mode of existence.

Sunday, February 11, 2018

White Gentiles Must Operate by the Rule of GFJGFU or What’s Good for Jews Is Good for Us

Whenever Jews think or act, in the back of their minds is the question, "Is it good for the Jews?" Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with such an attitude. Just like every individual acts in self-interest(to a large measure if not entirely), a person who belongs to an identity and culture will have to think of the good of the tribe as a whole.

Should a person just see himself as an individual? Should everything be determined by the narrowest self-interest?
Or should a person see himself as part of humanity and try to act in a way that is good for all of mankind?
Actually, both are extremes. A person is more than himself. After all, he didn’t make himself but was created by his parents who fed, nursed, nurtured, and cultivated him. Furthermore, his parents were also created by their own parents, and all such people were part of a heritage, culture, and community. So, a person who only thinks of himself as a godly individual who made himself is living a conceit.
But then, a person who sees himself as a member of all of humanity is also deluded. While it’s true that all humans are part of the same species called Homo Sapiens, mankind not only branched out into different races but, within each race, distinct cultures and histories came into being. So, even though Russians and Poles are racially closely related, there is Russian culture & history that is distinct from Polish culture & history. So, even though any people must recognize the rest of humanity as part of the same species and wish others well(and find constructive ways to trade, communicate, and learn from one another), it is practically impossible for any person or any people to belong to all of humanity. There are over 200 nations in the world and so many cultures. And so many languages, histories, customs, and heritages. Anyone who claims to belong to all those peoples, cultures, and histories is being presumptuous. Even though he may consider himself tolerant and ‘inclusive’, he is pretending to belong to cultures he knows nothing about. He is laying claim to other lands and cultures. The so-called ‘global citizen’ is implying that he has the right to go to any nation and demand the right to live there and belong there(like illegal 'dreamers' do so in America). So, Obama the glob-citizen thinks he has the right to go to, say, Hungary or Japan and demand all the rights as a 'citizen of the world', a truly neo-imperialist notion. No wonder the US, with such mindset, has been embroiled in so many invasive wars and so much cultural imperialism. A 'global citizen' is also under the delusion that cultures will survive and be enriched if he allows limitless numbers of foreigners into his own nation. Of course, the result of mass invasion will be the loss of distinct identities and cultures, like what happened in North Africa and Latin America where no one really knows what they are.

So, the best solution is the Goldilocks rule of the middle. Just like hot soup is too hot and cold soup is too cold but warm soup is just right, a person finds the most meaningful place and purpose in life as a member of a tribe, the domain of shared culture, history, and identity. It’s too selfish and petty to only live for oneself and too daunting & confusing to live for all of humanity. It is best to temper one's individuality to find a place and purpose within the world of one’s tribe. And if all persons chose that path all around the world, they and their communities & nations would be much better off. Indeed, that is the core principle of nationalism.
But instead, the current globalist order only tolerates the libertarian individual(on the capitalist ‘right’) and the communitarian universalist(on the socialist ‘left’). People seem not to understand that it is via nationalism that capitalism and socialism can best be combined to produce and maintain a well-ordered system.

The reason why nationalism is Taboo has to do with the question of "Is it good for Jews?" But, upon carefully scrutinizing the Jewish argument against nationalism, it turns out nationalism is not bad for all peoples and for all times. Nationalism is wonderful for Jews as far as Jews are concerned. Not only do Jews safely guard Israel as a Jewish state but they demand that gentile nations(especially Western ones) bend over backwards to secure the future of Israel as a Jewish state. Well, well, nationalism must be wonderful, at least for Jews.
Also, Jews will fan the flames of nationalism or tribalism among gentiles when it serves their own interests. Since Jews hate Russia, they are not averse to fanning Ukrainian and Georgian nationalism against Russia. (At the same time, Jews try to weaken that very same nationalism with Homomania. So, Jews use Ukrainian nationalist rage against Russia BUT also subvert it in relation to Jewish power by pressuring Ukrainians to bend over to Homomania, the proxy cultural and quasi-spiritual agent of Jewish globalism.) To break up Yugoslavia and Syria, Jews were more than willing to encourage tribalism in those regions. As a result, Yugoslavia is no more, and Syria was seriously damaged by the ‘civil war’ that has raged since 2014, a conflict that was stoked along ethnic and sectarian lines. And Jews threaten to subvert Iran the same way by driving wedges among various ethnic groups in a nation where the majority Persians barely make up the 50%. So, when Jews say "Diversity is Our Strength", the ‘our’ doesn’t mean all of us but only the Jews. Diversity means Jews can play divide-and-rule among the various groups of gentiles.

Extensive diversity is so problematic that very diverse nations can maintain stability only under autocratic or oligarchic rule. When democracy is introduced into a diverse region without a dominant majority, the result is often what we witnessed in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria. Indeed, the reason why democracy has been more problematic in Latin America was due to its great diversity. This is why Jews can practice democracy in Israel where they comprise the solid majority but must rely on military rule in West Bank where they’re a decisive minority.

Jews know a good thing when they see one, and they see nationalism as the most useful, secure, and powerful foundation for power. That is why Jews love nationalism for themselves. True nationalism combines identity, history, and homeland. But even without a homeland, a people can survive as a nomadic-nation. But a people-and-culture without a land are in a unstable situation. They are like a people on a boat than on a rock. They can go from rock to rock but don’t have a rock to call their own. And because of such uncertainty, there is a tendency for the members to jump ship and assimilate with other peoples in the various lands. Why be stuck on a rickety boat when one can live on an island and join with the native tribesmen?
Indeed, it is not natural for a people & culture without a homeland to survive as a distinct ethnos for long. With each generation, more people will be lost to other tribes with more secure roots and footing in their own lands.
So, in order to keep the kinfolks within the Tribe, Jews expanded the field of Talmudic studies. The rabbis informed Jews that they are the most special people with a special Covenant with God. Also, through the great Talmudic scholarship, each generation of Jews would learn the great tradition and discover new revelations through debate, prayer, and prophecy. With such heady stuff happening in the Jewish community, there was less chance of Jews opting to cut ties with the Tribe and join with the goyim. Not only were the goyim filthy and unclean but they lacked the Talmud and its living wisdom.
One of the core objectives of the Talmud was to boost morale to keep the biological family of Jews together, but it had paradoxical and unintended consequences, for good or ill for the Jews. It’s the Tribal-Cerebral Paradox. Because Jewish culture became so intellectual as a result of Talmudic studies, many Jews, male and female, came to value the life of the mind over the life of the body. The danger was that ideas, unlike sperm and eggs that remain in specific bodies, tend to morph into universality. After all, ideas are abstractions and, as such, divorced from their material or biological foundation. While every body belongs to a single person, the scientific facts about blood, bones, and cells apply to all human beings and all animals. So, even though Talmudic studies were meant to be about the Covenant between God and Jews — a spiritual idea inseparable from Jewish blood — , the thought processes grew ever more complex & elaborate as theories. By their nature, theories want to be tested for universal validity in the larger world. So, Jews who maximized the power of ideas to persuade their kinsmen to stick to their own race inadvertently ended up creating lots of Jews whose intellectual curiosity went far beyond the Tribe.
As a result, we live in a strange world of Jewish neurosis. Because Jews rule America that rules the world, the entire world spins on the axis of Jewish Neurosis. We've become infected with Jewish confusion because Jews control the media, academia, and the Narrative. On the one hand, Jews are a very cerebral and intellectual people whose ideas are supposed to have universal import. But if we dig far back enough, the origins of Jewish intellectualism are to be found in Jewish tribalism. Jews didn’t embark on intellectualism to construct universal ideas for all of humanity. Jews didn’t mean to be purely abstract in their thinking like the Greeks in their philosophy, science, and math. Jewish intellectualism was meant to come up with powerful reasons as to why Jews should all stick to the Tribe and keep it all in the family in the name of obeying God, the master of the universe. But because Jews thought so very hard to justify their tribalism as the greatest thing in the universe, their mental processes grew ever more abstract, and abstract thinking, by its own logic, longs for universal validation of truth. So, modern Jews are so radically universalist but also emotionally entrenched in a deeply rooted tribalism that will not compromise on anything.

Anyway, Jews are convinced that their way is the best. One reason why Jews cannot tolerate ‘anti-Semites’ is because the stupid dummies fail to understand and appreciate the rightness, greatness, and nobleness of Jews. Jews like David Brooks, Thomas Friedman, Paul Krugman, Richard Cohen, Anne Applebaum, Jennifer Rubin, John Podherotz, and so many others are shocked and outraged that there are still all those repellent gentiles who dare defy and resist the way of Jews. A Jew like David Brooks thinks, "We Jews know what's right whereas them white deplorable dummies don’t know jack shit. So, why don’t they just shut up, kiss my brilliant hynie, and just do like we say?" Be a ‘changemaker’ or some such.

But increasing numbers of white Americans are growing skeptical of the Jewish Way. Some even think Jews are out to harm the European goyim with ‘white genocide’.

Well, I have a perfect solution that will solve the tension between Jews and whites/gentiles. Instead of denouncing the Jewish Way as harmful to goyim, the goyim should find more creative and useful means to adopt the Jewish Way. What way would this be? GFJGFU or "What is good for Jews is good for us". So far, the problem hasn’t so much been the Jewish Way but how it's been presented to the goyim. Jews have done wonderfully by the Jewish Way but white gentiles have done poorly from it.

If the Jewish Way is so good for Jews, why has it been so bad for whites? Because whites have gone about the wrong way of learning and mastering the proper way of using the Jewish Way. Thus far, the rule has been Jews using the Jewish Way for themselves but telling white gentiles to do the opposite of what Jews do. We’ll call this the Jewish Way #1.
Imagine a soccer game where Team A has a way of winning. It is to work as a team to kick the ball to one another to move down the field to ultimately score a goal. So, the Team A Way is to work together to score and win. But suppose Team A tells Team B that the Team A Way is for Team A to work as a team to score goals whereas the Team A Way for Team B is for members of Team B to think of themselves as individuals than as part of a team and not play defense while Team A cuts down the field to score more points. Naturally, this formulation of Team A Way is great for Team A but terrible for Team B.
So, should Team B conclude that Team A Way is bad? No. What Team B should do is study the Team A Way and realize that it should do like Team A does. They should realize that the Team A had hoodwinked them about the Team A Way. Team A had convinced the Team B that the Team A Way for Team B is for Team B to not play like Team A does. But that was the great lie. If indeed Team A Way is so great for Team A, then Team B should also play like Team A. In other words, the real Team A Way for Team B would be to play like Team A, coordinate the game as a team, try to convince Team A not to play as a team and defense, and score as many points as possible. After all, what was the Team A Way? It was (1) Team A playing as team (2) telling the other team not to work as a team and not to play defense (3) score as many goals as possible. So, if Team B were to use Team A Way properly, it should (1) play as a team (2) tell members of Team A not to play as a team and forget about defense and (3) score as many goals as possible.

And that is the way whites need to play the game with Jews. Whites should admire the Jewish Way, learn from it, and do the same thing Jews do. If whites were to act thus, Jews should have no reason to blame whites of ‘antisemitism’ because, after all, whites would only be emulating Jews. If whites are wrong to act like Jews, then aren’t Jews wrong to act like Jews? If the Jewish Way is great and noble, then whites should do like the Jews do. But if whites acting like Jews is terrible, then acting like Jews must be terrible, in which case Jews shouldn’t act like Jews. If whites acting like Jews is ‘antisemitic’ then, Jews acting like Jews must also be ‘antisemitic’.

Anyway, if the Jewish Way #1 is Jews acting like Jews but telling whites not to act like Jews, the alternative Jewish Way #2 would be Jews acting like Jews and whites acting like Jews.

Now, how do Jews act? (1) Jews preserve their sense of history, heritage, and ancestry. They are big on inheritance and identity. (2) Jews believe that the best way to ensure the continuation of Jewishness is to secure a territory for themselves. Even though Jews ‘stole’ land from Palestinians, Jews operate on the principle of ‘takers keepers, losers weepers’. (3) Jews tell their white/gentile competitors, rivals, and enemies to forgo identity, territory, and sense of history. Jews tell gentiles to be just atomized amnesiac consumers whose entire culture revolves around watching blacks go ‘muh bling’, ‘muh butt’, and ‘muh dick’. (4) Jews tell gentiles to abandon border security and open their nations to endless invasions. (5) Jews tell gentile women that gentile men are their worst enemies. Jews say white women should see white men — fathers, brothers, husbands, and sons — as wicked a**holes. Jews tell white women to welcome ACOWW or Afro-colonization of white wombs. (6) Jews say white history is ‘sinful’ and whites should be filled with collective guilt forever. (7) Jews say white people should replace Christianity with Homomania and Queer Worship. (8) Jews say gentiles should let Jews take over the elite institutions & industries and never complain about Jewish abuses of power. (9) Jews say whites should blindly admire, praise, and revere Jews and never ever criticize Jewish power or even notice it.

By practicing such a way, Jews have accumulated great wealth and gained mastery of the world. Shiite, I have nothing but admiration for the Jewish Way. Now, between Jewish Way #1 and Jewish Way #2, I prefer the latter. Why? #1 means only Jews get to play ball while others must just stand around and let Jews score all the goals. In contrast, #2 means gentiles can play by the same way, the Jewish Way.

So, what should whites do when they play the Jewish Way #2? The following:
(1) Europeans and Euro-Americans must preserve their sense of history, heritage, and ancestry. They must be bigly mindful of their own inheritance and identity. (2) Whites must believe that the best way to secure whiteness and white power is to secure their own territories. Even though whites ‘stole’ America from Indians, whites must operate on the principle of ‘takers keepers, losers weepers’. (3) Whites must tell their Jewish competitors or rivals to forgo Jewish identity, territory, and sense of history. Whites must tell Jews to be just atomized amnesiac consumers whose entire culture revolves around watching blacks go ‘muh bling’, ‘muh butt’, and ‘muh dick’. (4) Whites must tell Jews to abandon border security and open Israel to endless invasions from Muslims and Africans. (5) Whites must tell Jewish women that Jewish men are their worst enemies. Whites must urge Jewish women to see Jewish men — fathers, brothers, husbands, and sons — as wicked a**holes. Whites must tell Jewish women to welcome ACOJW or Afro-colonization of Jewish wombs. (6) Whites must tell Jews that Jewish history is irredeemably ‘sinful’ and Jews must atone for their collective guilt forever: Genocide of Canaanites, stoning homosexuals, evil Jewish patriarchy, murdering Jesus, theft through usury, communist mass murder, Nakba, etc. (7) Whites must say Jews should replace Judaism & Holocaust Remembrance with Homomania and Tranny Worship. (8) Whites must say Jews need to allow gentiles to take over the elite institutions and industries of Israel and never complain about gentile abuses of power. (9) Whites must say Jews should admire, praise, and revere whites and never ever criticize white power or even notice it.

In other words,



So, it’s about time Jews stopped giving advice to whites and gentiles. There is a saying, "Action speaks louder than words." So, the BEST lesson that whites and gentiles can learn from Jews is to closely observe and study what Jews really do in terms of action and then formulate that knowledge into a course of action that enables whites and gentiles to follow the successful Jewish way to power. And why should Jews complain? After all, isn’t imitation the sincerest form of flattery?

Saturday, February 10, 2018

Human Behavior Is Mostly Animal Behavior - Humans Are Organisms & Will Act on Animal Instincts If Given the Chance

Because the West is so rich & advanced and so proud of its achievements in arts & philosophy, there is a tendency among white people to believe that they are above animal drives and appetites. In other words, they are motivated by higher ideals and principles than by base instincts. Apparently, what they are most proud of is their sets of beliefs, the so-called ‘Western Values’. And these values are supposedly all about universalism, tolerance, compassion, liberty, and individualism. And these values are so noble and inspiring that so many people want to come to the West to partake of them, defend them, and spread them.

But this is like putting cart before the horse. All these wonderful ‘Western Values’ are really the product of Western tribal, territorial, and material successes. And even if higher values guided the West in its ascendancy, the rise of the West couldn’t have been possible without certain tribal, territorial, and material guarantees.
It’s like you can espouse moral values to do good things for your family, but first and foremost, you must have a sense of family(who is and isn’t part of your family), a sense of ancestry(history and memory), a sense of home(home-sweet-home for your family), and sense of private property(the wealth that belongs to the family). Without those foundations, any amount of ‘values’ and ‘principles’ is useless. If there is no essential family and if anyone can be a family member, you won’t have any meaningful family to belong to, serve, and lean on. If everyone in the world is your family member, then no one is a family member. The meaning of family would be rendered pointless. Also, unless your family has a place to call their own, their home can be trespassed by just about anyone. After all, if your family home should be open to all the world on the universal notion that everyone is part of your family, you and your family won’t have a home. Especially those people who are incapable of building and managing nice homes of their own will come to your home to leech off you. And unless your family has its own private property, its wealth can be taken by anyone, especially the lazy and parasitic that prefer to live off others than create their own wealth.
So, even as values and principles are important, they can be applied usefully ONLY WHEN your tribal, material, and territorial integrity has been secured.
Even on the libertarian individualist level, your freedom and liberty mean NOTHING unless you can secure the legal and material guarantees that protect you and your well-being from the ravenous appetites of others, especially those who’d rather pilfer others than be productive members of society.

But so many people in the West have grown either naive or decadent because the West was so powerful and prosperous for an extended period following WWII. Entire generations grew up without knowing hunger and war. They’ve grown soft & decadent or naive & goody-two-shoes. They take for granted that good times will last forever. Also, even if they believe the West will fall from excessive Diversity, they feel that it can’t be so bad and, besides, the West deserves it for its ‘historical crimes’. They think that way because they have no idea what real societal collapse is really like. For them, the fall of the West is purely rhetorical or theoretical. They have no idea how traumatic and horrible such an event will be. South African whites know what it's like to see civilization crumble all around you, but the Jewish-controlled media have mostly forced an information blackout to keep white people in the dark about the dangers.
Because Western people take their physical well-being for granted — the main worry even among the poor is obesity, not hunger — , their view of society is essentially abstract and concerned with ‘ideals’ and ‘values’. They believe that whatever is good about the West is PURELY the result of these ‘ideals’ and ‘values’ while totally neglecting the hard facts of identity, materiality, and territory.

So, Swedes overlook the fact that Sweden became such a nice place because Swedes came together as a people of shared history & culture, secured a territory for themselves as a nation, and worked very hard to create industry & wealth(and welfare) for the well-being of the people. Instead, they’ve been made to believe that the success owed entirely to ‘western values’ such as ‘tolerance’, ‘democracy’, and goo-goo-thumbsuckery. Therefore, since the only reason for Swedish success are ‘values’, there is no need to emphasize the Swedish tribe, secure Swedish territory, or guard Swedish material property. It doesn’t matter if tons of foreigners flood into Sweden because they can partake of the same wonderful ‘values’ and make Sweden even better. Also, because Swedes define themselves mainly by ‘values’, they project their idealism onto other peoples. Swedes want to believe that all those Africans, Arabs, and Muslims are pouring into Sweden to partake of those wonderful ‘values’.

But in fact, the ONLY reason why those people are coming to Sweden(and other parts of Europe) is because they want comfort, easy life, and free stuff. Just do a mind-experiment. Imagine Two Swedens, A and B. Let’s say Sweden A is rich & generous but autocratic than democratic. Let’s say Sweden B is poor & desperate but democratic than autocratic. Suppose a million Africans want to move to Sweden. Which Sweden will they prefer, A or B? Will they prefer the poor & desperate Sweden B over the rich & generous Sweden A because ‘values’ and ‘ideals’ are what mainly motivates them? And if indeed those Africans are so idealistic, why don’t they stay in their own poor nations and work hard to improve things for themselves and their own people? Why are they so eager to run from their own problems and find better life in another nation?
The fact is people are migrating to nations like Sweden for a simple reason. It’s for comfort and better material life. That’s about it. Their motivations are no different from those of animals.
If you offer food to squirrels, what do they do? They come for more. And in time, more and more squirrels come to realize that you’re handing out free stuff, and they come too. In time, you will be swamped by all those squirrels. It’s the same with any other bunch of animals. If you feed the geese, they will come for more and make louder demands. Worse, they will alert others, and they too will come to you for food. If you feed the animals, more animals come.
Now, it may sound offensive to some to talk about people as ‘animals’, but humans are animals. Human behavior isn’t much different from that of other mammals. Like any organism, humans seek what is easy and comforting. If you offer an airplane passenger in the coach section a free first-class ticket, you bet he will take up the offer. If you offer a free car to someone on the street, he will surely take it. If you offer free pizza to people, they will take it. When Jesus offered free fish and bread on the beach, a crowd gathered. Ostensibly, they came to listen to His ideas, but, on the more primal level, they came for free fish and chips. While "man doesn’t live on bread alone", he puts bread first before all else. Or that’s the case with 99% of humanity. Just like most people will choose money & success over ideals & poverty, most people who move to other nations have the most mercenary motives for doing so. After all, both the US and Brazil are democratic and diverse. If anything, Brazil is even more diverse. If Diversity is the great ideal for the entire world, most immigrants should prefer Brazil over America. But the fact is most would rather move to the US than to Brazil. Indeed, people who chose to move to Latin America were those weren’t allowed into Canada, US, or Australia. The theory of idealism-as-motivating-factor breaks down here because the ‘ideals’ of Brazil are hardly different from those of the US. Then, why do so many people prefer to move to the US than to Brazil even though both nations are democratic and share more-or-less the same ‘ideals’? The simple reason is the US is richer, and immigrants will have more access to material wealth and comfort in the US. That's about it.
Indeed, even if the US were run by a one-party autocracy, countless people will still want to come AS LONG AS it remains the richest nation on Earth. People are not motivated much by ideals, and this is especially true of the Third World where the cult of idealism is almost non-existent. We are often told that Diversity will effectively turn the US into a one-party state. We are told Democrats will win all future elections since non-white numbers will swamp white numbers. In that case, the US will effectively no longer be a two-party democracy but a one-party dictatorship. But would non-white immigrant-hopefuls be less willing to come to the US for that reason: Erosion of democracy? No, they don’t care if the US becomes a one-party state under permanent Democratic Rule AS LONG AS they can come to instantly improve their material well-being. It’s not about the ‘dream’ but about the cream. Immigrants see America as a dairy cow that provides easy cream for the entire world.

Granted, past European immigrants were no different. They too were seeking better material lives. White people back then were more willing to take a chance in another part of the world because few nations had social safety nets or welfare. Many people were mired in poverty without relief. So, the ONLY way to improve their lots back then was to try their luck in the New World or Australia. Of course, the new adventure wouldn’t be easy. They would have to work on farms and factories from sunup to sundown. But it was still a chance to start a new life. But ever since white nations developed a system of social security, there was far less impetus to leave one's own nation. Even if you don’t have much in Western European nations, the state provides you with enough to make your life reasonably comfortable. If non-white nations could afford similar social safety-nets, many people would be more likely to stay. But for a lot of people in the Third World, having little means your life is a constant struggle just to get by on a day to day existence. So, they figure it’s better to move to the rich West.

One crucial difference between past immigration and recent immigration is that past immigrants had to be willing to work hard, very hard. While the US offered new opportunities in land and enterprises, it didn’t have an extensive welfare system until the New Deal and especially Great Society. So, anyone who decided to come to America couldn’t expect an easy life or handouts. He had to come with the determination to work hard, even harder than in the home country. But it was appealing to many because of the promise of owning one’s own land and because there was a time when the US was one of the few democracies in the world with Rule of Law and Property Rights.
Also, because the US still had to be settled and built, most of the immigrants who came in the 20th century worked at making something out of nothing, which is so different from immigrants who come today to take something from something other people had already made.

Consider typical animal behavior. If you offer food to squirrels, geese, or raccoon, their first response will be like, "Is this for real? Is that person giving me free stuff? No way! But... but, it’s true!" So, initially, the response is amazement and appreciation. But once the animals become accustomed to you feeding them, they begin to feel that you should keep feeding them. They go from feeling fortunate to feeling entitled. They no longer see your as being nice enough to offer them food. They see you as obligated to offer them more food. Indeed, they come to see you as the main supplier of food. And then, they make demands for more and more, and then they call on more of their kind to come to demand even more. And if these animals had human intelligence, they would cleverly wrap their vulgar demands with moralistic gibberish. Moralism is also useful to hide their shame. No one wants to admit that he has failed on his own and depends on the largess of others to have nice things in life. All those people in the Third World don’t want to admit that they’ve failed their own nations. They don’t want to admit that they see the White World as superior and want to move to white lands to leech off white folks. So, they use PC moralism to pontificate that the universal obligation of ‘Western Values’ is to open up white or white-majority nations to the Third World filled with ‘dreamers’ who supposedly are motivated by the highest ideals when, in fact, they just want easy stuff. (If white people expect gratitude, forget about it. On some instinctive level, people feel contempt for the do-goody suckers who dole out free stuff to strangers. Whatever gratitude may exist melts and vanishes like snow as the freeloader is eager to get more stuff from the naive sucker who thinks people will love him because he's handing out free stuff. The fact is the freeloaders see the do-gooder as a fool. They even hate him because his compassion means he's in a position to condescend to them as those-in-need and those-to-feed, like pigeons in the park. The contempt for his naivete plus the resentment for his higher status makes the freeloaders demand even more, if only to see him finally fall to their own level.)

Against such animal behavior, there are only two defenses. You must yourself become like an animal. After all, animals guard their own territory and stuff from other animals through viciousness and counter-aggression. An animal that fails to do this will lose its turf and food to is rivals and enemies. Animals in nature are NOT nice to one another.
The other way to defend oneself is to create a domain that is separate from that of animals. It’s like human housing is built to keep out bugs, birds, rodents, and all kind of animals. Thus, humans can safely and securely live in their own homes without worrying about animal invasions.
So, if you choose to live side-by-side with animals, you must act like an animal yourself. But if you want to remain 'human' and don’t want to be brutish, you must create a world of your own that is distinctly separate from the world of animals. So, even though birds fly above, squirrels climb trees in the yard, and rabbits run on the grass, none of them will enter your house that was built to be safe and secure from critters.
But the current use of ‘Western Values’ in the globalized world is utterly contradictory and nonsensical. It calls on white people to remain in ‘human’ mode while allowing non-whites to invade the West in the most animalistic manner. So, even as non-whites increasingly burrow into the West, build their nests, and set up colonies to leech off whites, whites must remain cool, calm, & collected and pretend that all these newcomers arrived to partake and uphold the ‘highest’ principles of ‘Western Values’ that are now deemed to be Tolerance, Diversity, Inclusion, Mixing, Homomania, Afrophilia, and Hedonism. Even if we were to champion ‘ideals’ and ‘values’ as the highest expression of the West, just when did the values of the West become so insane and ludicrous? For most of Western History, the current set of ‘Western Values’ would never have been regarded as high virtues or even virtues of any kind. It just goes to show that ‘Western Values’ is a Trivialist Fantasy that is currently decided by whomever controls the academia and media.
Of course, the ‘intellectual’ elites of the West happen to be mostly cunning Jews, pathetic white cucks, and resentful token members of ‘color’ who are especially resentful because, on meritocratic grounds, they are likely to remain on the bottom, and so, they gain access to upper echelons only as tokens.

But the biggest contradiction of the Current West is that, even as the West claims to stand for the highest ideals and principles grounded in abstract philosophy and enlightenment values, the main expression of Western culture and politics often tends to be primal, bestial, lustful, crude, and vulgar. Despite the highfalutin rhetoric of politicians and the pomp & circumstances of official ceremonies, the fact is Pop Culture is THE culture of the Current West and mindless PC supplies its core ideological tenets. And what is this Pop Culture mostly about? It’s about brutish black rappers and white imitators yapping endlessly about ‘muh gun’, ‘muh dick’, ‘muh bling’, and ‘muh biatch’. It’s about violent movies and TV shows where characters’ behaviors are primarily fueled by raunchy instincts of sex, violence, thrills, and/or domination. And so many kids are lost in the video-game world where the main objective is to blow away as many ‘bad guys’ or even ‘good guys’ — how can anyone tell which is which is anymore in a nihilistic culture where violence is its own reward? Pop Culture, which is the dominant cultural expression and experience of the Current West, for the most part has nothing to do with any higher values or principles. It’s mainly about savage black thuggery, slut culture, or vulgar pop fascism where all races and all ‘50 genders’ get to indulge in fantasies of will-to-power.
As for PC, it’s a new kind of ‘progressivism’ that has been kosher-bled of any genuine intellectual & moral content and, as such, mostly wallows in self-pity & self-aggrandizement. Political Correctness is more like Pop Correctness. Just like Modern Art spawned Pop Art, Modern Left spawned Pop Left where narcissism, nihilism, hedonism, and egotism are the most essential elements of the Movement. If Classic Leftism was about everyone making sacrifices for the better future and the common good, PC is about the hope of every loser and dork fantasizing himself to be a cross between Lady Gaga and Che Guevara. If Classic Leftism was about the workers demanding their just share of the pie, Pop Leftism is about spoiled brats demanding stuff for free. It’s no wonder that so many young people identify with immigrant-invaders and illegal-infiltrators. They all feel entitled to make demands. They’re really motivated by animal instincts but wrap their lowly demands with cliches about ‘justice’ based on dubious notions such as ‘inclusion’ and ‘diversity’. They act in baboonish gibs-me-dat mode, but they talk as if they’re owed something by some divine will. If they really cared about Justice, non-whites would work hard to fix their own nations, and young ones would learn some useful skills, learn to be productive, and stop acting like pigs.
Just look at feminist politics that revolve around all this Pussy Talk. On the one hand, Western ‘progressives’ act like they’re above the animal-biological instincts of tribe(our pack), territory(our land), and materiality(our stuff), but so many people on the Pop Left base their core agendas on their race(black or brown pride), genitals(my vagina or ‘muh dick’), and stuff(gibs me dis, gibs me dat). So, the very Westerner who claims to rise above biological determinism and live by higher ‘universal values’ is addicted to rap music and black expressions that reduce the meaning of humanity to savage celebration of ‘fuc*ing and fighting’. So, the very Western female who claims that ‘sex is just a social construct’ weaves her own identity on the fact that she has a vagina. A very confused vagina at that. On the one hand, these ‘vaginalists’ are into slut pride as liberation & emancipation. As vaginas want to be filled and experience orgasm, the vaginalists say the main purpose of their lives is to pleasure their animalistic poons. But then, they say their precious vaginas must be protected from Evil Men such as Trump the ‘pussy grabber’. These ‘vaginalists’ wear ‘pussy hats’ and dress up as walking pooters but then bitch about how their pussy-willows must be shielded from male attention. Feminist literature should now be called ‘Cliterature’.

For a people who claim to rise above biology and mock sex as a ‘social construct’, they sure have a funny way of grounding their identity on their strangely passive/aggressive pussies. "Don’t you dare grab my pussy, but fuc* it all night long."
To be sure, this gets complicated by trannies whose arguments are also confusedly both anti-essentialist and essentialist. Even as they denounce the essentialism of sexual differences between men and women, they also make an alternative-essentialist argument that Trannies are BORN THAT WAY and have no choice but to pursue their own kind of happiness. In other words, trannies are essentially tranny, and what they are(or want to be) cannot be negotiated.

It’s a strange world after all.