Thursday, March 23, 2017

It all comes down to Globalism vs Islam in the Grand Battle of Macro-History

It boils down to Globalism vs Islam as the war of Macro-Historical Forces

There are now three big forces in the world: Globalism(largely controlled by Jews), Nationalism(controlled by gentiles of each nation), and Islam.

Nationalism is powerful but it is not a grand ideology. It is limited within particular national borders.

In contrast, globalism and Islam seek world dominance. It is no wonder that the main clash is between these two ideo-empires.

Islam is universalist, and globalism is imperialist. When Big Forces collide, each vies for supremacy.

It's like Cold Front meeting Warm Front. It leads to storms and hails.

Both are violent on a worldwide scale. Muslims will use violence and war to spread Jihad.
Globalism will use bombs, sanctions, financial manipulation, and worse to destroy entire nations that won't put out. Consider the fates of Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc.

Marxism was the other grand ideology, but it died. Its radical element joined forces with globalism that is a fusion of oligarch capitalists, decadents, and radical nihilism. In former Soviet Republic states, many former Marxists reverted to Islam.

So, it's Globalism vs Islam.

We accuse Islam of violence, and yes, Muslims can be violent.
But globalism has been the far more aggressive, destructive, and invasive force. Muslim terrorism killed 1000s in the West. Globalist imperialism has come close to killing a million or more in the Muslim World.

Because of the Cold War, there was once alliance-of-convenience between globalists and Muslims, esp in Afghanistan. But fall of communism no longer made the alliance viable.

In material terms, globalism is 1000x more powerful and well-funded than Islam despite the riches of Saudis and Gulf states(that, despite their Islamism, are allied with globo-US against Iran).

But Islam has certain advantages. Islam is rapidly spreading worldwide. Muslims have no guilt conscience. Every Muslim is a warrior of the heart and/or womb.

In contrast, the warrior culture of globalism is purely mercenary. It hires and pays soldiers to fight for 'muh liberty' and 'muh smartphone', but its ideology revolves around Beastie Boys 'right to party', homomania, 'pussy hats', and tattoos & piercings. Globalism is mega-rich but utterly vacuous and degenerate morally and spiritually. Whites and yellows who are the core demography of globalism have forgotten how to create life. They prefer materiality and 'liberty' over life, family, and culture.

Also, there is the lack of unity between elites and masses in globalism. Among globalists, it's a case of Jewish oligarchs like Soros and Adelson throwing cash around to foment divisions or to buy support for Israel in a world in which Jews are less than 0.1% of the population. Most people of the globo-west haven't a clue as to what globalism is really about. For some, it's Hollywood movies for the world. For SJW's, it worship of Statue of Liberty. For homos, it's homo parade in every nation.
In contrast, among Muslims there is spiritual unity between Muslim leaders and Muslim masses.

Globalist soldiers are the best in the world in training and equipment, but the globalist masses have no idea what they're fighting for.
But every Muslim knows why a Muslim fights and carries on with Jihad either violently, culturally, or reproductively.

How much of Muslim terror in the West is for Jihad and how much is it for revenge?
If it's a matter of revenge, it's less about ideology and more about 'justice'.
It's like US got 'just' revenge for Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Indeed, US even extended the revenge for 9/11 to Iraq even though Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11.
So, the logic of revenge is part of politics.

So, some of these attacks by Muslims are not about religion but about retaliation for globalism's war on the Muslim world. Even 9/11 was 'blowback'. If Muslims attack all things 'infidel', why don't they target Brazil and Japan with their vile decadent cultures? (Imagine if China became far more powerful than the US. Suppose China stations troops in the US and carries out operations that decimate entire cities. Suppose so many Americans are reduced to refugee status like in the original RED DAWN. Suppose China decides to put on a Nice Humanitarian Face and allow American refugees to come live in China. While some Americans might be cuckishly grateful for China's generosity, might not some Americans want to get even with the 'slanty-eyed buggers'? Might they not carry out acts of terror? Would it be accurate to blame the violence on Uncle-Sam-ism? Wouldn't the violence have been motivated by revenge than any belief in American values?)

So, I think much of the Muslim violence has to be seen as retaliatory than religious.
If the US feels what it did in WWII against Germany and Japan was morally justified on grounds of revenge, then Muslims have a case too.

That said, because Muslims do have a universalist, warrior, and missionary creed, Islamic rage(even when retaliatory) takes on a prophetic and even apocalyptic overtones. Once Muslims get riled up, their rage just keeps burning. It's sort of like, once Jews acquire a certain resentment, it never seems to go away until their enemy is totally ground into the dirt.

Also, Muslims must be frustrated by the schizo character of globalism. It has the mightiest military in the world that can destroy entire Muslim nations in no time. But when Muslims go to the West, they don't see a race of mighty warriors and heroes but a bunch of cucks, pansies, wussies, and dorks who get pushed around by shameless sluts, henpecking feminists, goofy Jews, funny homos, nasty Negroes, and even trannies.
The West is still defined by the image of the White Male, and the globo military is still dominated by white male warriors from top to bottom. They are formidable killers who make Muslims shit their pants in the desert, like in the movie AMERICAN SNIPER.
But when Muslims come to the West, they see all those pansy white boys who cower before Negroes, kiss toes of Jews, get henpecked by wenches, pushed around by slut daughters, and do nothing to protect their women from rape gangs. Also, Muslims realize that whiteness and white men are most denigrated, degraded, and vilified in the center of the white world.

Muslims fear the globo-mercenary force operating in the Muslim World, but they see the West itself as a soft underbelly, or an overripe fruit just waiting to drop from the tree. Whites may be effective killers in the Middle East, but they seem to be political & financial slaves of Jews, cultural slaves of homos, and sexual slaves of blacks.

Nationalism would be the best thing for most nations, but globalism weakens all nationalisms. Only nations sufficiently big like China, Russia, and Iran can maintain true nationalism by weathering the onslaught of globalist hegemony. All other nations have become vassals of the US empire whose invite/invade strategy is messing up the whole world.
But unlike most peoples, Muslims will not succumb to globalist since they have a deep-and-powerful eternalist sense of what is right or wrong, holy or profane.
In contrast, Japanese no longer feel any sacred connection to their culture or history. Defined by globo-disposable cosplay culture, they follow the US and even have homo parades. Japanese people have become like gadgets and robots and cartoon characters.

So, non-Muslim nations that haven't the political, economic, military, and/or spiritual wherewithal to sustain autonomous nationalism like Russia, China, and Iran find themselves succumbing to globalism in all its deracinating and defiling manifestations.

But Muslims resist because they do have a hardy, durable, and eternal sense of what is right, holy, and sacred.
Also, they still believe in the faith. In contrast, no one cares about the church of England whose latest theme is 'gay marriage'. Because Christianity is a pacifistic religion, it wilts and fades without the protection of a Noble Warrior Class.
In contrast, Islam is a fusion of warrior creed and spiritual vision. To believe and have faith, in and of itself, is to be a warrior in Islam. A Muslim can defend himself in accordance to the Prophet. In contrast, a true Christian must turn the other cheek, and if he chooses to fight and shed blood, he must feel guilty afterwards and beg forgiveness before the Lord.
As for materialist globalism, it means you are NOTHING unless you got status and money. In contrast, even the lowest poorest Muslim feels spiritually rich as a man of God.
To be sure, there is a kind of quasi-spirituality to globalism with its New Age fantasies, but can anyone explain what Ashley Judd and madonna were yammering about at the 'pussy hat' pandemonium? It's virtue as faddishness.

So, in a way, Samuel Huntington called it right. It is about Islam vs the West. But he was wrong in one sense because Globalism, not the West, is the main contender with Islam. Globalism has already swallowed up the West; it is fusing the West with the Rest, and this voracity is advancing at rapid pace and unfortunately succeeding all too well in Latin America, Asian, and non-Muslim Africa. They are all turning into variations of Rammstein's Amerika, and the US and EU are being third-world-ized in turn by these crass materialists whose main culture is Rap, Hollywood, and video games.

It is Muslims who've thrown the monkey wrench into this globalist project by rejecting its sham ideology and values(and we should be thankful because it sticks in the craw of the GLOB monster). Even though Muslim mass entry into the West happens via globalism, Muslims will not bow down to globalist creeds and fads.

Now, I think Sharia is pretty backward and brutish. But, does anyone really think current Western values are any better?
Worship of homos and trannies? Christian bakers destroyed for decency and integrity?
Slavish & craven goy worship of Jews and Zionism in Congress?
Anti-white vitriol from the mass media?
Rap Music as expression of America pride?
White boys raised to be cuck-wussies into Gayria, Negria, and Zioria?

What kind of girls white fathers are now raising? Should these men be prouder than Muslim men because they have 'western values' that is now little more than cuckery of the likes of Justin Trudeau?

Political Discourse needs Forthrightism

The  REAL interests and demands of most groups are quite basic and simple. They are really about 'what is mine' dressed up with disingenuous conceit of highfalutin ideals. Jesse Jackson was perhaps the most obvious practitioner of this shtick, always meaning "stuff my pocket, honkey" while pontificating in grandiose manner. Speak loudly and carry a big shtick.

But because US is supposed to be about ‘high-minded principles’, various groups drag out the usual cliches about ‘equality’ and ‘justice’ and 'human rights' to justify what is little more than racial tribalism of 'what is mine'.

Given all the fancy and holier-than-thou BS that clogs up the discourse, I’d like to see more Candidism or Forthrightism. Be candid and forthright about what you or your kind really wants. Principles have value only when all sides sincerely adhere to them. Principles are for the birds when some groups cry 'foul' just because things don't go their way despite equal application of principles for all. It's like a child losing in a game fair-and-square and then throwing a tantrum like a sore loser and complaining "it's not fair".

Consider the issue of immigration. All this stuff about ‘huddled masses’, ‘inclusion’, ‘diversity’, 'dreamers', 'no human is ilegal' and etc. are just so much hooey. No, the real issues are far more basic and tribal. Non-whites want to come to white nations for material goodies. The reasons are not high-minded but primal and instinctive. It’s like animals enter human habitats for easy access to food.
If white nations were dirt-poor, would non-whites be lining up to come to them for some 'dream'? NO.
Just like animals go where the food is, people go where the good stuff is.
That's it. They are not dreamers but feeders: Foragers, scavengers, hunters, and/or parasites.

We need an Organicist explanation of human behavior.
Indeed, what are often referred to as ‘principles’ are really weapons or instruments used by organisms to gain advantage. Among whites, their interpretation of principles had a binding effect of trust and cooperation to made for more security and prosperity for the white organismic community.
As for non-whites, their reinterpretation of 'western' principles is meant to have a paralyzing effect on whites with venom such as ‘white guilt’. It has a ‘chemical’ sting that neutralizes white defenses and counter-aggression against would-be usurpers and invaders.

Via Forthrightism, it’s about time we flip all the hidden cards on the table and revealwhat EVERY SIDE Is really after.

Non-whites wanna come to white nations for better material lives. That’s it.
Jews want more diversity to play divide-and-conquer among goyim. It is about power and control.
White patriots oppose immigration because it will reduce white power into white powerlessness.
White cucks go with mass immigration because, as opportunists, they will be materially and emotionally rewarded as collaborators.
White progs push immigration because they’re addicted to virtue-signaling as a narcotic. Pleasure Principle. Also, their minds have been stung with PC chemicals that turned them cancerously against their own race. It's like ant colonies steal the ant larvae of other colonies and raise them to serve their enslavers against their own parental colony.

Russian Nationalism is the greatest threat to Jewish Supremacism

America is part of the Empire of Judenia(the most powerful empire the world has ever seen), and Jews hate Russia as symbol of white gentile national sovereignty. That is more threatening to Jews than communism and National Socialism ever were.

Why? Even though communism was universalist, its repressive statism didn’t appeal to many, not even in poor nations. Also, Marxism was too intellectualist for hoi polloi. So, there was little chance of communism taking over the world and robbing Jews of their power and privileges.
National Socialism(of Germany) was arrogant and supremacist. It said only ‘Aryans’ are great and the rest sucks. As such, it appealed to few nations outside Germany. If anything, much of the world came to fear Germany under Hitler's reign.

But Russian Nationalism is about respect for each and every gentile nationalism. It doesn’t seek wars of conquest. It isn’t supremacist. It is sensible and limited within national borders. It is mutualist with other nations. Therefore, many nations can accept and adopt the Russian Way. Not because Russia is some paradise. After all, Russia is filled with excessive numbers of lazy bums and drunken fools. No, it’s because Russian Way says, “You respect our nationalism, and we will respect your nationalism.” This can have appeal to gentile nations. Russia isn’t saying its way is the ONLY way or one-size-fits-all. It is saying what is right for Russia belongs in Russia. The corollary to this is that other nations belong to their majority populations who should determine what their national identity and destiny are really about. In contrast, America tries to force Americanism(now defined by Jews, homos, and Negroes) on the entire world. It tries to break down all national borders and subvert all cultures and traditions. Also, there is a great contradiction at the heart of Americanism. It says America is the 'exceptional and indispensable nation' but all other nations must follow it, obey it, and emulate it. How can unexceptionals hope to be like the sole exceptional?

In contrast, the Russian Way gives leeway for every nation to define its own ideas & values and decide on its own destiny without the meddling of other nations, Russia included. THIS  ASPECT is the greatest threat to globalist Jewish Power predicated on destroying all nationalisms(while 'passovering' Jewish nationalism in Israel. Jews ought to be called Passovermen, or Passubermensch). Jews actually wish Putin was Hitler peddling Russian supremacism. That way, Jews can persuade many nations that Russian Power is a threat to the entire world and an enemy of mankind. But the fact is Putin is no 'hitler', and the workd knows it. If anything, Putin preaches independence for each nation from the globalist-imperialist domination of America as crown-in-the-jewel of Judenia.

That is why there is a Jewish War on Russia.

It’s not about Putin being a thug. If Putin is a thug, US leaders are super-thugs.
It’s not about Putin being a killer. If Putin is a killer, US leaders are mass murderers.
It’s not about Russia being ‘illberal’ or ‘undemocratic’. When political results in the West are displeasing to globalist elites, the elites demean them as ‘populist’(rule by yahoos) and even call for a Deep State coup d’etat. Some even hint at assassination of elected leaders.

‘Liberal Democracy’ is euphemism for globalist domination by the likes of George Soros, Mark Zuckerberg, Haim Saban, Jeff Bezos, and the oligarchs.

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

Guardians of Political Correctness DUCK honest engagement with Those with the Courage and Honesty to Speak the Truth on Race, History, and Identity

Long ago, white boxers -- and even black boxers like Jack Johnson and Joe Louis -- 'ducked' fights with black boxers who might beat them.

Today, PC-pushers duck engagements with those who speak candidly about race, culture, history, and identity because they fear getting KO'ed.

On race, the facts point to racial differences. Races are different, and these differences have profound impact on society in terms of income, crime, sex, sports, culture, and power.

On culture, it's irrefutable that Western Culture is now decadent & degenerate and non-Western Cultures have problem with modernity.

On history, facts say all peoples have been violent and invasive. Whites weren't the only conquerors and colonizers. Also, white expansionists did a lot of good as well as bad.

On identity, it's a fact that people crave some form of group identity and that an identity rooted in ethnicity, history, and territory is the most sound and stable. After all, why did Jews seek a land of their own where they can be Jews with a sense of history?

With PC ducking honest debate and discourse, Alt Right and HBD community have become like the Negro Leagues.

Tuesday, March 21, 2017

Progressive Immigration calls for Mass Migration of Enterprising Peoples to Poor Nations, Not to Rich Ones

We are told that immigrants are a blessing for the national economy.

In that case, progressive immigration should be like progressive taxation.

Now, under progressive taxation, the lower classes pay little or nothing and instead receive much of the revenues.

Likewise, under progressive immigration, poor nations should receive most of the blessing of immigration.

We are told that more immigration will lead to more economic growth because immigrants are so hardworking, intelligent, motivated, and enterprising. They are wonders for any national economy.
Well, rich nations don't deserve such blessings since they are rich already. Why should they take in immigrants to make their big economies even bigger?
After all, the worst teams in sports get the first draft picks since best teams got the best players.
It makes no sense to send more great players to an already great team.

So, progressive immigration should bless the poorest nations with mass immigration. And since immigrants claim to be 'progressive' and 'leftist', they should want to help the poor than the rich. If immigrants say they want to go to nations that are already rich and help grow the economies, that'd be like helping the rich to become even richer. We don't want that.
We want all that immigrant energy and ingenuity to be used to help poor nations develop into richer ones.

So, I think progressive immigration should be about sending most immigrants to the poorest nations where the new arrivals will use their skills and energy to grow their economies there. Why help rich nations grow richer? Why not help poor nations grow rich too?

So, send all the Mexicans, Chinese, Indians, Arabs, and Africans to the poorest nations on Earth. Now, that is truly progressive in blessing the poorest nations with human capital of talent, spirit, and industry that will do wonders for the economies.

And if the would-be immigrants are already in poor nations, they should summon their great spirit, intelligence, and skills to build their OWN economies. They should help expand the economy in their poor nations than go to rich nations to make the already rich even richer.

Next Prog Frontier: Against Genital Privileging

All this talk of Gender Politics privileges sexual organs above other organs.

What about identity based on fingers, toes, noses, lips, knees, belly buttons, ears, armpits, etc?

Instead of gender studies, why not organ studies? All organs should define identity. And we need to understand to which organs are biological realities or social constructs.

Unfortunately, elitist and exclusionary world of academia privileges the brains and genitals above all else.
Academia favors the brains because they use ideas and the genitals because they offer intense pleasure. (In a sense, 'gender studies' are a variation of leisure studies.)
But should the processes of thought and the experience of pleasure be privileged over other bodily functions that are no less important to the existence and well-being of people?
Besides, who is to say other body parts don’t think? Maybe they just 'think differently'. Maybe one’s neck thinks in its own special way. Or one’s thighs or feet.
And maybe we need to expand the meaning of ‘orgasm’ to include any body part. Maybe every part of the part is a erogenous zone in its own way. After all, aren't tongues pleasure zones? And don't muscles feel pleasure when massaged?

And maybe we should instigate certain neglected organs to rebel against other organs that are favored and privileged.
Body Politics will consider the ways in which the body is in revolutionary struggle with itself, and a dialectical understanding is necessary to understand the conflict among the various organs that are complementary but also contradictory. For example, the stomach cries out for more food, but other organs say, "please, no more, because we are turning fat and ugly." Or the mouth cries out for more beer or sugary beverages, but the buttocks and thighs call for reduction of consumption because they are turning lardy as the result of mouth's insatiable gluttony and thirst.

Maybe we should go even further. When we conceptualize ‘oneself”, we tend to differentiate between the cellular body and the things not innate to it but co-mingling with it. So, we talk of the body and germs as if germs are something apart from the body. Also, we don’t consider feces or urine as part of the body but as ‘waste material’. We don’t consider booger and snot as part of the body either. We don’t consider abscess and puss as part of the body. But such a view could be said to be xenorgophobic, or drawing an exclusionary distinction between the cellular self and the Other.

Also, the notions of 'diseases' and 'parasites' are judgmental and exclusionary. Why should hookworms be considered a foreign element feeding on the body than as parts of the body?
Why should cancer be considered a disease instead of as an alternative form of biology?
Indeed, the very notion of health vs disease must be questioned because ‘health’ denies and denigrates the kinds of lifeforms and/or processes that are deemed to be ‘harmful’ to the body. But that is to privilege one's human body over other organisms.

Thursday, March 16, 2017

Ethno-Conservatism vs Credo-Conservatism

Ethno-Conservatism is about conserving the racial identity and biological inheritance of a people.
Credo-Conservatism is about conserving the principles or dogma of an ideology or belief system.

An ethno-conservative can also be a credo-conservative. A person may believe in preserving race and identity but also believe in free markets. A person may believe in preserving ethnicity and territory but believe in socialism or communism as the ideal economic system. However, what matters above all for an ethno-conservative is the survival of his race and preservation of his people's history and territory.

For example, let's suppose an ethno-conservative who believes in free markets is offered two options: For the next hundred years, (1) his ethnic kinfolks will remain the dominant demography in their nation under the dreaded ideology of communism OR (2) his people will become a minority in their nation and forget their own identity & history, but free market economics will dominate.
A true ethno-conservative will prefer the survival of his people even with bad ideas than the demographic demise of his people despite the prevalence of good ideas. (But then, can the demise of any national demographics be a good idea?) An ethno-conservative believes that humans are first and foremost lifeforms with culture, history, and territory. More important than any ideology, set of abstract principles, or universal creed, there is the need for human life and its preservation in relation to land and history. Ethno-conservatives are bio-conservatives, geo-conservatives, and mytho-conservatives.

In contrast, credo-conservatives are first and foremost wedded to a belief system. Their set of ideas is held to be so sacred and dear that it must trump all other considerations. So, even if a credo-conservative may want his race and territory to survive, when forced with having to choose between saving the idea & losing his race/territory AND losing the idea & saving his race/territory, he will opt for the former.

This is why Jews prefer credo-conservatives to ethno-conservatives. Ethno-conservatives know what they want. They want their race and history to survive on their territory. The object of their loyalty is tangible and obvious. In contrast, ideas can be manipulated and altered with sleight-of-hand trickery. So, Jews can take the idea of America and change it to a 'proposition' and say 'America' is an 'immigration nation', whereby America is no longer America unless it welcomes endless non-white immigration to supplant native white Americans as Core Americans.

There was a time when almost no white American believed in such an ideation of America. But the thing to remember is that ideas are always mutable and open to manipulation by the power and clever.
For instance, if someone holds onto some object, he is in possession of something tangible. He has it and he wants it. Simply on the basis of object-hood, it is difficult to take it from him because he feels it is his. But if you associate the object with an idea and if you convince him that the idea of the object is more important than the object itself, then you can manipulate the idea and mess with his mind until he freely hands the object over to you. Suppose you tell him that the true idea of the object is for it to be handed from person to person. So, it is wrong for him to cling to the object as his since such claim of ownership goes against the very spirit and meaning of the object-as-idea.
Indeed, this is how Jews stole America from white gentiles. Jews turned America from a white entity to a 'universal idea' that could be manipulated with at the whim of Jewish globalists(who say American immigration must not favor whites over non-whites but must favor Jews over gentiles). So, if America is turned into an Idea and if the 'sacrosanct' rule of this idea is that endless immigration is essential to what America is all about, then white Americans who've come under the spell of this idea cannot object to non-white newcomers taking America from whites. America went from a concrete nation owned by whites to an abstract entity whose future is to be determined by Jewish globalist who seek to increase gentile diversity to play divide-and-rule among the much divided goyim.

And Jews don't just stop with the US. They've convinced the Brits and the Irish that their nations are mere ideas too than concrete entities. They are no longer tangible and specific territories that belong to a particular genetic stock or ethnic group with unique histories. No, they too are 'nations of immigration' and, as such, must open up to endless immigration of non-whites in order to be true to their 'idea'. And Jews did the same to Sweden, indeed to the tragic effect that many Swedes no longer believe that there is Sweden as a territory, ethnicity, or history. There is only Sweden as a universal idea of ceaseless immigration, diversity-worship, and humanitarianism. Sweden went from concrete nation to concept nation.

Credo-centrism has rendered most American Conservatives useless. They are credo-conservatives than ethno-conservatives(preservers of European genetics), geo-conservatives(defenders of white lands), and mytho-conservatives(torchbearers of white narratives). Their main loyalty is to the Constitution, free markets & free trade, family values, and individualism. Personally, I don't have anything against the Constitution, free markets, family values, and individualism. I see them as good things, even great things. Indeed, peoples all over the world might have something to gain by emulating the general political and economic ideas of the United States.
However, a nation is primarily about a specific people with a specific history on a specific territory. A nation is not about universality or generality. A nation is meaningful in its distinctiveness from other nations.
It's like Christianity is a great universal creed, but it is not a basis for nationhood. Italians, Chinese, and Nigerians may be Christian, but that doesn't mean they are the same people with shared nationality.
Russians, Chinese, and Cubans may be communist, but that doesn't mean they belong in the same nation. Many peoples practice democracy and free markets, but they have different nations with different histories. So, the conservatism of any nation has to put race, territory, and history above all other considerations. After all, Israel will be a Jewish state whether it is a democracy, monarchy, or a dictatorship. The core of Israel isn't democracy but Jewish ethnicity and territoriality. If Israel's core meaning is democracy, would it still be Israel if Arabs took over and practiced democracy? If a Jew had to choose between a non-democratic Israel dominated by Jews and democratic Israel dominated by Arab Muslims, which one would he choose? If he's a true Jewish nationalist, he would choose dictatorship with Jewish rule than democracy with Arab rule. Democracy is nice, but it cannot be the core meaning of a nation. It is merely a political means of governance that may or may not serve a nation well.

If American Conservatives were merely overly idealistic in their credo-conservatism, their naivete might be forgiven. But they are hypocrites, snakes, and/or morons. They are hypocrites because, even as they excoriate white identity and interests, they go out on a limb to 'celebrate' non-white identities. And most obnoxious of all, they go all out in promoting Jewish power and Zionism as the core meaning of what America is about. If credo-conservatives really prioritize universal ideas and values above all else, why do they lavishly exhibit such shameless obeisance to Jewish identity and power?
Also, American credo-conservatives don't have control over the ideas and values that they claim to espouse with utmost commitment to high-minded principles. They claim to believe in family values, but these values are always molded and remolded by Jews and their cuck-collaborators. So, if Jews say 'family values' are now about 'gay marriage'(which supposedly is 'conservative' because homos are choosing 'family life'), many credo-conservatives simply nod along and go along. Since everything has been abstracted into ideas that are always mutable and open to re-interpretation, credo-conservatives really believe in nothing that is true and essential. For the credo-cons, family values went from defense of traditional family to singing praises to 'gay parents'. The American Idea went from defending America as part of Western Civilization to promoting America as the 'exceptional' and 'indispensable' Universal Nation open to non-white hordes who just might appreciate the Constitution(at least through HAMILTION the rap broadway musical). Credo-conservatives don't have autonomy and agency over their own ideas. Being servile and spineless like slugs, their idea of Conservative Principles depends on the faddishness of think-tanks funded mostly by globalist-Zionists. It is hardly surprising then that credo-conservative Heritage Foundation fired Jason Richwine, an ethno-conservative, at the behest of Jennifer Rubin. Is Rubin a credo-conservative herself? No. She is a Zio-ethno-conservative who is all about Jewish power, Jewish identity, and Jewish territory. She reviles and attacks the ethno-conservatism of white gentiles as posing a threat to the ethno-supremacism of Jews, her main passion. So, in her mind, white gentiles can either be credo-liberals or credo-conservatives, but they must NOT be ethno-anything.

What is truly tragicomic about credo-conservatives is they naively believe they can have one without the other. They think Western Ideas, Cultures, & Values can survive without Western Peoples. So, it doesn't matter if non-white peoples replace white peoples who created Western ideas, cultures, and values. All that matters is that non-white invaders and usurpers appreciate and practice those ideas and values. But the loss of Western people will also lead to the loss of Western Culture. Culture flows from the gene pool of a race. Even when Europeans adopted ideas & icons from the non-West, they reshaped and remolded those ideas & icons in their own image and inclinations. Surely, what whites did with Christianity is different from what other races did with it. So, even if non-whites were to adopt Western ideas, their use of them will drastically different from what white people did with them.
It is like different races of women will do different things to the same seed received from the same white man. If a black woman takes white seed, she will produce a mulatto. If an Asian woman takes white seed, she will produce a yellato. If a Hindu woman takes white seed, she will produce a Hindotto. Only with a white woman can white seed produce a real white child. When white cultures are inseminated into other races, the latter may do interesting things with them, but the result will be something other than a truly white culture. But given the current levels of immigration, what the West is experiencing is not the insemination of Western Cultures in the hearts & minds of non-whites but the Rape of the West by non-white hordes made especially nasty by rap culture, decadence, and Jewish anti-white propaganda. Their view of the West is essentially Negroid. The West is now a white woman to be raped and conquered, especially since white men are now a bunch of cucks, either sexually, ideologically, or morally.

Contrary to the conceits of credo-conservatives, Western Culture can only remain intact with white peoples. The fact is most non-whites are not interested in preserving the West as a culture or idea. They come to the West for material comfort and sex with white people whom they find more attractive. But even if non-whites wanted to preserve Western Culture, they wouldn't be able to. They could imitate Western Culture, but in the process of mimicry and reinterpretation, something new would be created in its stead. Imagine if whites took over an African nation and replaced its native population. Suppose these whites then decided to preserve the indigenous culture by acting like black Africans. Despite all the sincerity in the world, it would only be a parody of African culture. At best, something new would result from the process but it could no longer be called truly Africa.

So, credo-conservatives are seriously deluded. They are like the dog with the bone in its jaw looking at its own reflection in the water. In going for the abstract bone over the real bone, it loses both the real bone and the abstract bone that no longer shows in the water since the real bone is no longer in its mouth to show up as reflection.

We need to learn from Jews. Jews fused the credo with the ethno. Jews came to believe that there is a universal power BUT that it has a special covenant with the Jewish people. Then, likewise, each people must find their own unique covenant with the Truth of the World.

Why do Jews hate Gentile Nationalism? Same reason a man with a sword hates your sword.

Even though Jews love Israel and Jewish nationalism(aka Zionism), Jewish power really resides in gentile nations, especially the US and nations of EU. Since the survival and viability of Israel depend to a large extent on the support of Western nations, Jews feel they must ensure the loyalty of gentile nations to the Jews and Israel. In other words, white gentiles must favor Jews over themselves.

So, when Jews say nationalism is a bad thing, what they really mean is that the rise of gentile nationalism poses a challenge to Jewish nationalism. If nationalism means one's preference of one's own people over others, it means gentile nationalism will lead to gentiles favoring themselves over Jews. And that may pose a threat to Jewish nationalism and supremacism. China is nationalist and favors Chinese interests over any other. Iran is nationalist and favors Iranian interests over any other. Even though China and Iran may not be overly anti-Jewish, they will not place Jewish interests above their own. So, Jews cannot control those nations to serve the Jews. But Jews have persuaded white gentiles that nationalism --- at least in white nations --- is evil, a kind of 'Nazism'. (In truth, it was Polish nationalism, French nationalism, Russian nationalism, Chinese nationalism, and American nationalism that rolled back the tide of Axis Imperialism.) White gentiles, baited with Holocaust Guilt and in awe of Jewish power in media & finance, have become mentally colonized or psycolonized by Jews.
However, when Jews demean nationalism, it is not ALL nationalisms. Paradoxically, Jews attack white gentile nationalism to shore up and boost their own nationalism. Jews don't say ALL peoples, Jews included, must abandon nationalism. If anything, Jews justify their own nationalism among themselves on the basis that gentiles are innately evil and wicked. 

At any rate, Jewish fear of gentile nationalism is rational. If nationalism means the favoring of one's own people to others, then every gentile nationalism will favor the gentile majority to the Jewish minority. This doesn't necessarily mean 'antisemitism' or anti-Jewish discrimination. After all, Russia allows all sorts of freedoms and opportunities to Jews to get rich and pursue happiness & success. But gentile nationalism does mean Jews are not allowed to gain supremacist power in gentile nations, and this denial is no longer tolerable to Western Jews who now feel entitled to supremacist control over goyim. Jews no longer struggle for equality or fairness. They are addicted to maintaining their supremacist control over gentiles, especially whites. They want whites to spiritually worship Jews, financially serve Jews, culturally follow Jews, sexually surrender to Jews, etc. Jews accuse white gentile nationalists of being 'Nazi', but if 'Nazism' is a form of supremacism, then no people are as Nazi-like as the Jews are in today's world. Ironically, Jews fear gentile nationalism because gentiles will act like Jews: Favor their own kind over others. Since gentiles greatly outnumber Jews in gentile nations, this can be a real challenge to Jewish power and supremacism if gentiles were to have their own kind of gentile 'zionism'. 

Nationalism is a political weapon. It is a shield with which to defend one's own people from others. It is a sword with which to fight the enemies. A swordsman uses his own sword & shield in his fight against other swordsmen with their swords & shields. In battle, a swordsman wields his weapon to disarm his opponents of their weapons. A swordsman prizes his own sword & shield but fears, even loathes, the swords & shields of his rivals. So, it is only logical that Jews, in love with their own tribalist sword & shield, seek to destroy the swords & shields of gentiles. Jews want to be the only ones with the sword & shield of nationalism lording over all others who kneel before the Jewish king and kiss his one and only true sword. 

If we recognize nationalism as a powerful weapon, we can understand why Jews would fear the gentile nationalism of other peoples. If Jews had a nice big nation of their own, they might be content with what they have and tolerate other peoples' ownership of their own nations. But Jews are a majority in only one nation, the tiny state of Israel. So, unlike Russians, Chinese, Indians, or Iranians, Jewish power isn't much if located only in Israel. Jews must derive their power and wealth from gentile nations in which they are minorities, and therefore, Jews are keen on suppressing the nationalism of gentile peoples who've come under their thumb. Also, no people are as ambitious and arrogant as the Jews. If most peoples are content with control over their own nations and respect other peoples' control over theirs, Jews like George Soros feel this insatiable desire to remake the entire world in their radical image. Jews are tireless like rats in gnawing away at the national defenses of other peoples. Jews bitch about anti-Jewish hatred or 'antisemitism', but they ignore the fact that anti-Jewish hatred has often been defensive against Jewish aggression that gnaws itself into every region on earth to subvert and undermine gentile identity and interests. Even when Jews gain mastery over other peoples, they don't stand tall and upright as the new masters --- which would at least be honest and honorable --- but shrug their shoulders and underplay the Jewish nature of their agenda to fool the goyim. They want to be invisible masters, and this is why they rely so heavily on shabbos goyim to serve as Fronts. 

From a purely strategic viewpoint, Jewish hostility to gentile nationalism makes total sense. If Jews want to ensure that gentiles in US and EU will primarily serve Jewish interests, Jewish nationalism, and Jewish supremacism(or Jewish 'Nazism'), then gentiles must be persuaded and/or pressured to forgo their own ethno-nationalist identities and interests that, if left to grow of their own accord, could turn into obstacles to gentile subservience to Jewish identity and interests. 

History has proven time and again that the MOST POTENT force against imperialism has been nationalism. All anti-imperialist struggles were nationalist. Without the rise of nationalist consciousness, the subject peoples failed to unite to fight to overthrow the foreign rulers. It was with the spread of nationalist consciousness that the peoples of world began to regain independence and drive out the imperialists in places like Algeria, Cuba, and Vietnam. Creation of America has been portrayed as a birth of liberty, but it was more the birth of new nationalism against the overweening imperialism of the British. So, even imperialism births nationalism among the colonizers who rebel against it.

It was the rise of nationalism that finally brought an end to European imperialist domination. In some cases, the Third World nationalism was organic. For example, there really was a Vietnamese civilization going back over  a thousands years. In other cases, the nationalism was newly constructed, as in Indonesia and even India, places that gained a sense of common destiny under the imperialism. The narrative of shared tragedy under imperialism forged a political bond. Rise of nationalism made imperialism no longer viable in the Third World. 

Today, it is the West that is under imperialist rule. It is called globalism, and it is essentially Worldwide Jewish Imperialism. All whites are under the globalist imperialist domination of Jewish supremacists. Globalism spares only one nationalism, that of Zionists. Israel gets Passover treatment while all other nationalisms are eventually to be extinguished by Jewish-globalist power. Because gentile nationalism seeks to shutter the window against this poison gas of the Jews --- Zio-Klon G -- , Jews want to shatter the glass of every gentile window so that the globo-gas will enter every nation(but Israel) and destroy national identity and pride. 

Nationalism has a populist element in obligating the elites of a nation to represent, serve, and defend the people of the nation. According to nationalism, Hungarian elites should represent, serve, and defend Hungarian identity and interests. Japanese elites should represent, serve, and defend Japanese identity and interests. German elites should represent, serve, and defend German identity and interests. This is precisely what Jews fear. Jews want the best-and-the-brightest among the gentiles to serve Jewish identity and interests. Jews want gentile elites to collaborate with Jewish globalist imperialists than to represent and serve their own peoples. It's like the British imperialists wanted Indian elites to collaborate with the British than represent the aspirations of the Indian masses. And French imperialists wanted Vietnamese elites to collaborate with the French than fight for Vietnamese independence.
Now that Jews rule the West, Jews want Western gentile elites to serve their Jewish masters than lead and guide their own peoples. (But then, even the white gentile masses have been turned onto rejecting their own identity/interests and to serving Jewish globalism under the barrage of 'white guilt' indoctrination, 'jungle fever' in sports & rap, decadent faddishness of homomania, and the Cult of Diversity. So many white people have been reduced to virtue-signaling idiots who think themselves righteous because they champion their own demographic demise via mass immigration, race-mixing, and degenerate behavior.) 

When Jews say white gentiles must forgo their national identity and interests, they don't mean it applies to Jews as well. They mean whites must put down their swords & shields to submit to the sword & shield of the Jew. If ten people have guns and if the Jewish guy happens to be anti-gun, it doesn't mean everyone INCLUDING THE JEW should surrender his gun. It means everyone EXCEPT THE JEW should give up his gun. That way, the Jew is the ONLY ONE with the gun, and he has the power over the others.
Indeed, Jewish attitude on gun rights is no different from their attitude on nationalism: It is For-Jews-Only. 
Why do Jews want to take away gun rights in America? Jews have no problem with every Jewish family owning automatic rifles in Israel because Jews are the majority there. Gun ownership in Israel means Jewish power over Arabs. But in the US, Jews are only 2% of the population; therefore, a well-armed nation means many more gentiles with guns than Jews with guns. But then, Jews control the government and elite institutions that control the military and the police. So, if only the government has the power of firearms, it means ONLY JEWS have the power of firearms since nearly all politicians are owned by Jews and nearly all of the judiciary is under Jewish control. 

Whether it's guns or nationalism, Jews want to monopolize it all. Know your Jew. 

Wednesday, March 15, 2017

Which American State is Quintessentially Most American?

Which American State is ideally Most American?

People say America is a nation of immigrants. Okay, but which immigrants?

Today, globalists say All nations are 'nations of immigrants' since humanity originated from Africa and people moved out all over the globe. Also, there were series of invasions in every territory.
But even if we agree that all nations are 'nations of immigrants', why are they different? Because different peoples 'immigrated' there. So, white Europeans 'immigrated' to Britain and made it European. So, East Asian Mongoloid people 'immigrated' to Japan and made it East Asian.

So, even if we agree that both Britain and Japan are 'nations of immigrants', they are fundamentally different because different kinds of people 'immigrated' there and built different cultures and recollected different histories.

And this applies to the US as well. Okay, let's use the broad term of 'immigration' to mean not only legal immigration but illegal kind, migration, invasion, imperialism, colonization, etc.
So, one can say US has been a 'nation of immigrants' from the beginning. And since Indians arrived from Asia and moved all around in endless tribal invasions, they too were 'immigrants' going from one part of America to another. And we can say South American natives 'immigrated' from North America.

Still, a 'nation of immigrants' means little. What is crucial is WHICH people immigrated, whether legally or illegally, peacefully or violently.

Consider an alternative American history. Let's say Anglos founded and settled America in the early stages. But instead of allowing more immigration from UK and northern Europe, suppose the Founder Fathers caught the PC bug -- don't ask me how -- and decided they are going to favor non-white immigration. So, from American Independence to the next 100 yrs, US takes in only Hindus, Chinese, Arabs, Africans(as free immigrants on tops of slaves), Mexicans, Filipinos, Egyptians, and etc. Anyone but white Europeans.
Now, this US would have been a 'nation of immigrants' too, but would it have become the US that we know, the one that came into being as an extension and outgrowth of European civilization? Absolutely not. Surely, WHICH people is crucial. Suppose there are three exact Vermonts. First one takes in 500,000 Germans, the second one takes in 500,000 Hindus, and the third one takes in 500,000 Haitians. In the most generic senses, all three took in 500,000 immigrants. So, will the result be the same? No, culturally, racially, intellectually, politically and economically, they will differ drastically. Even among only whites, preponderance of different ethnic groups led to different outcomes. Germans in Wisconsin behave differently from Scotch-Irish in the South. Indeed, it is amusing that East Coast Wasp types, Minnesotan Scandinavian types, and West Coast Jewish types all sneer at southern Scotch-Irish as 'white trash'. If all Americans are the same and interchangeable, why such ethnic and cultural snobbery and contempt?

Now, consider the various American states. Officially and legally, all Americans of any race or culture or religion is 'American'. So, every American state is equally 'American'. But are all races, cultures, religions, histories, and etc equally valuable to the meaning of America?

A mind-experiment. Suppose all of America were to become like a particular state. Would the result be the same regardless of which state is chosen? Or are some states more quintessentially American than others? Suppose all of America were to become like a giant Iowa. Suppose all of America were to become like a giant New Mexico(where Mexicans outnumber Anglos). Suppose all of America were to become like a giant Hawaii. Suppose all of America were to become like a giant Wisconsin. Suppose all of America were to become like a giant Vermont.

Now, each of those hypothetical nations could be said to be a 'nation of immigrants' since all Americans came from elsewhere. And each of them are legally just as American as any other.
But can any honest person say that an America that is like a giant New Mexico is as American as one that is like a giant Iowa? A giant New Mexico would be more Mexico than America. And a giant Hawaii-as-America would be more Filipino-Japan-China than European America that is quintessentially America.
And a giant Mississippi as American would be Euro-Africa.

The fact is America would still quintessentially be American without non-whites, but it is inconceivable without whites who extended European civilization, peoples, cultures, and ideas into the New World.

WHICH matters. Every New World nation, from Canada to Mexico to Panama to Venezuela to Bolivia to Chile, is a 'nation of immigrants'. So, why are they so different? Because they took in different kinds of immigrants who interacted differently with the native populations.

Jewish Ethno-Spiritual Mindset still informs their Secular Zionist-Globalist Mindset

Jews used to be monotheist. They believed their God is only true God while all other gods are false. As Yahweh said, “Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.”

So, Jews believed there is only one true God, and that God favors Jews above all other peoples. All other gods of all other gentiles are false and beneath contempt.

Ever since Jews abandoned God, they’ve replaced worship of God with self-worship as the Master Race. Their new god is the GLOB, the god of globalism controlled by themselves, Jewish Supremacists.

And Jews now say THERE SHALL BE NO NATION BEFORE OURS, THE ONE TRUE NATION, ISRAEL. And there shall be no power before ours, the one true power justified by history and righteousness.
Therefore, ALL NON-JEWISH PEOPLES(gentiles) must surrender their own nations to mass invasion & migration and massive race-mixing and forgo any sense of ethno-national identity.
The ONLY nation they must believe in, support, defend, and honor is Israel, which is to be a JEWISH state where ONLY JEWS are allowed to immigrate.

Jews went from monotheism to mono-ethnicism, a conviction that ONLY THE JEWISH ETHNICITY is sacred and worthy of preservation & adulation. It calls for blind devotion of gentiles to Jews as their masters.

When Jews say humanity must abandon nationalism, they really mean gentiles must abandon their false nationalisms and worship & serve the one true nationalism of the Jews. So, all of gentile humanity are to become a mixed-and-matched bag of glob-mass without strong identities of their own.

As for the gentile craving for identity, such shall be satiated by serving the eternal identity of the Jews and their Jewish state. Gentiles must vicariously ‘share’ in the glory and supremacy of the Jews. Gentiles must discard their own identities to serve the Jewish identity that, however, is for Jews only.

So, we have Irish, Polish, French, Swedes, Dutch, Germans, Norwegians, white Americans, and etc all rejecting their own identities and nations as tainted and ‘false’ while praising and worshiping Israel as the only nation that deserves to be honored and preserved.

Zionism isn't a mutual nationalism that respects other nationalisms. It is a mono-nationalism that demands all other nationalism bow down to Jewish Supremacist Power.

Monday, March 13, 2017

Nature and Liberty. Free Will and Free Swill.

Unfettered Liberty favors Free Swill over Free Will.

Will implies control, restraint, vision, focus, direction, design, and destiny. Something greater than impulsive want of instant gratification so common among children, boors, and animals.
Will is about challenging gravity and climbing a mountain. That requires will, stamina, commitment.

Human nature is programmed to prefer Swill.
Ease, comfort, fun, pleasure. Human nature prefers the slide than the climb. The slide requires no will and flows with swill. Gravitational pull of human nature favors the swill. It takes no effort to go down a slide. It takes effort to climb the slope. Of course, effortless slide eventually hits bottom, whereupon one is compelled to make the climb to enjoy the slide once more.

Western Freedom used to be defined by the Power of Will. It was about using one's freedom to pursue one's destiny with determination, discipline, and conviction.
Now, western freedom is mostly about Surrender to Swill. Pig out, orgy-porgy, hedonism, infantilism.

The genius of capitalism is to entice people toward the Will with the promise of Swill. Capitalism sees human nature as a slave of pleasure; therefore, people will work and toil to gain pleasures. When levels of productivity were lower in the past, people worked mainly to meet basic needs of survival. Also, the lingering power of tradition and morality put a brake on the anarchic allure of pleasure. But once productivity levels rose to the point where all basic needs were met and traditional morality was drowned under the flood of 'youth culture' and pop culture, the main purpose of work & will became the pursuit of unfettered pleasure or swill. When so much Will is committed to Swill, isn't there something wrong with the picture? When so much that is thought good and noble -- work ethic, determination, and diligence -- is expended for the attainment of opportunities for gross behaviors, what is the core meaning of our civilization?  Imagine a society where everyone works very hard so that, on weekends, everyone can get together to indulge in drugs and orgies.
But there is worse. While some people still use the Will to afford the Swill, many people demand the Swill without Will on their part. They see Swill as a 'right'. They demand free computers and internet connections as a 'human right' so that they can indulge in little more than video-games, celebrity culture, and pornography.

We need to be aware of the dangers of Swill. It can lead to dissipation.
While one can become exhausted by an excess of Will, one can become enervated from excess of Swill... like Ottoman Sultans who did little else but have orgies and pig out.

Unless individual liberty is hardened by values and vision, it leads to Free Swill than Free Will.

Also, a healthy society prefers meaningful pleasures over shallow ones. Deepest happiness comes from love and family. So, the main purpose of will & work should be to have a family. Money spent on the well-being of one's family as torchbearers of one's race and culture is surely more meaningful and consequential than money blown on momentary pleasures.

The Real Danger to the West comes from Anti-White-Supremacists and White Submissivists.

The main problem of the West is not this so-called White Supremacism. Where do you see Nazis or KKK? I mean real ones as opposed to 'hate-hoaxers' -- usually blacks, Muslims, and Jews -- who spray-paint Swastikas in various places?

White patriots don't want to conquer other nations and peoples. They don't want to tell other peoples and nations what to do. That is why they voted for Donald Trump who invoked nationalism --- Americans minding their own business --- against globalism, which is Jewish-Homo-Supremacist domination of the world.
White patriots only demand the right of white peoples to maintain their identity, heritage, culture, and territory in the lands of their forefathers. If that is supremacism, then Tibetans who resist being taken over by the Han Chinese must also be supremacists. And Palestinians must be 'supremacist' because they don't their ancestral lands to be taken over by Zionists in the West Bank.

The real problem of the West is not White Supremacism(that hardly exists as a political force) but Anti-White-Supremacism that says that the white race doesn't even have the right to defend its identity, territory, and history. Anti-White-Supremacism says that whites must SUBMIT to demographic invasions of non-whites and SERVE the elite agendas of Jewish-and-Homo globalists.
Anti-White-Supremacism is not anti-supremacist. It is essentially Supremacist over whites. Thus, Anti-White-Supremacism is Anti-White for the sake of Supremacism of non-whites, especially Jews. It is the supremacism of Anti-White forces.

Anti-White-Supremacists say that black men should claim, conquer, and colonize white wombs to produce black babies than white babies(who are effectively 'killed' because the white womb space has been taken over by black seed). Anti-White-Supremacists say that white daughters should be raised to be used as sex meat in Jewish-controlled porn industry. Anti-White-Supremacists say white American soldiers are cannon fodder for Wars for Israel. Anti-White-Supremacists say white students should be instilled with shame, self-loathing,and self-hatred. Anti-White-Supremacism says that any white person who wants his people to survive as a race, culture, and territory is a 'white supremacist'. Anti-White-Supremacism projects onto whites the vile hatred of Jews and their allies of POC and Cucks(whose only 'white pride' comes from debasing their own whiteness).

Anti-White-Supremacism and White Submissivism are the real dangers to the West. Time to wake up.

Not all immigrations are alike. Simmigration vs Aliumigration.

Latin for ‘similar’ is similis.

Latin for ‘different’ is alium.

Britain was a nation of similigration or simmigration. New peoples arrived but they were of same race. They were all white Europeans. As such, they could easily blend into the native Britons and become part of Britannia.

What is happening now is aliumigration, and these new non-white immigrants stand apart from the natives. They don’t blend with the natives and become 'invisible'. They stick out visibly and obviously, and they themselves are all-too-aware of the difference between themselves and native Britons.
And in cases where whites and non-whites interbreed, the offsprings stand apart from whites and non-whites.

Who/whom matters in immigration. Similigration blends with the native population. Aliumigration contends with the native population.

Jews arriving in Israel is Simmigration. It boosts Jewish numbers and power.
But if Israel were to allow massive arrivals of Arab Muslims, it would be Aliumigration, and newcomers will weaken and undermine Jewish demographics and power eventually.

A Nation of Immigrants? Okay, but WHICH immigrants?

Jews tell us that America is a nation of immigrants. They go even further and say even Great Britain is a nation of immigrants. But we must ask... which immigrants?

It’s really a matter of who/whom.

Even if Britain developed as a nation of immigrants/invaders over the eons, it mattered WHO or WHICH PEOPLES invaded or arrived.

Even in the Age of Invasions, Britain was conquered by Europeans, so it remained European.
If Britain had been invaded by Muslims, Chinese, Hindus, and Africans than by Danes, Vikings, Romans, Germanic peoples, it would have become a very different nation. After all, every place on the planet was created by invasions(or 'immigration'), but WHO INVADED decided the race, culture, and heritage.

Pre-Columbian America was a land of ceaseless invasions(since time immemorial) as indigenous peoples, the Indians, invaded each other’s territories. But regardless of which side prevailed, Indians still ruled the continent since Indians conquered Indians. But when America was invaded by whites, the culture totally changed because whites were racially and culturally different. White conquest of America was different from conquests by other Indians.

So, who/whom matters. Suppose UK were to accept millions of immigrants of only Anglo or Anglo-ized white stock from America, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. European Britain would be maintained EVEN IF these new immigrants become the majority of UK. Overseas Anglos and whites would be rejoining native Anglos. Being of same racial stock, they would blend together as one people.
But if UK brings in tons of Pakistani and black immigrants who become 25% of the population, the nation will have been drastically been altered. Indeed, one only needs to look at the fate of London today.

So, we need to clarify the notion that AMERICA IS A NATION OF IMMIGRANTS… Okay, but WHICH immigrants.
It’s like saying AMERICA IS A NATION OF CONQUERORS. But then, which conquerors? Who-did-what matters as different peoples do different things.

Suppose the first wave of Anglos conquer America and take land from Indians. Suppose a second wave of Anglos conquer the first Anglo-America. Then, suppose third wave of Anglos conquer Anglo-America of first wave taken over by second wave. Then, suppose fourth wave of Anglos conquer Anglo-America of first wave taken over by second wave taken over by third wave. So, this America would be a nation of series of conquests, but since all the conquerors were Anglo, it would be Anglo-America even after all those waves of new arrivals.

But suppose American conquerors were of different stocks with each successive wave.
Suppose first wave of conqueors are Anglos who conquer Indians. Then, second wave of conquerors are Hindu. Third wave of conquerors are Mongols. Finally, the fourth wave of conquerors are African. Therefore, the demographic and cultural outcome is a hodgepodge of various races under the thumb of the latest conquerors.

So,both Americas --- the one conquered only by waves of Anglos and one conquered by waves of different peoples --- would be nations of conquests, but they would differ drastically from each other due to demographic differences.
Consider two glasses filled 1/4 with milk. Suppose in the first glass, another 1/4 of milk is added to conquer the previous milk. Then another 1/4 milk is added to further conquer the pre-existing milk. And then, another 1/4 is added to fill the glass. So, the first filling of milk has been conquered by three additions of milk. But despite the conquests by new milk, the glass is filled with real milk.
In the other glass, suppose the 1/4 milk is conquered by 1/4 orange juice. Then, suppose the resultant mixture is conquered by 1/4 prune juice. Finally, the glass is conquered by 1/4 beer.
Now, both glasses have been 'invaded' or 'conquered' by new material, but the first glass is still milk because milk conquered milk. But in the other glass, it is milk no more. In fact, I don't know what it is, but one thing for sure, it'd be hard to digest. In the first glass, the new additions of milk 'restored' the earlier milk. In the second glass, the new additions of non-milk 'replaced' the earlier milk.

Palestine was a place of conquests since time immemorial, and it always mattered WHO conquered. Romans didn’t RESTORE Jewishness. They REPLACED it. Muslims didn’t RESTORE Christianity. They REPLACED it. Jews/Zionists didn’t RESTORE Arabs. Jews REPLACED them.
Other people’s babies can RESTORE your people ONLY IF they are of same stock and culture. But if they are another race and culture, they will REPLACE your people.
When Bismarck’s Prussia conquered other German areas, it was still service of German identity and power as Prussians and other Germans were all Germans. This is why Bismarck was mainly interested in conquering and uniting fellow German lands and peoples.

So, terms like ‘immigrants’ and ‘conquerors’ miss the point because of their generality. The crucial question is who/whom.

Israel can be said to be a nation of immigrants/conquerors. But which ones? If current Israel were to be conquered or ‘immigrated’ by 5 million new Jews, the result will still be Israel, the nation of Jews. But if Israel were to be conquered or ‘immigrated’ by 5 million Arabs or Africans or Hindus or Iranians, it'd be a very different country.

It’s like it’s meaningless to say ‘Hungary is a nation of people.’ Of course, it is, just like every nation is a nation of people. But what makes Hungary Hungarian? Can just any people keep Hungary Hungarian? No, it is Hungarian because it is a nation of Hungarian people, not just any people. Israel to is a 'nation of people' but which people?

Jews are cognizant of the power of identity and demographics. Consider elite-demographics or elitographics. Why is the American Agenda so heavily geared to serve Israel, to oppose nations hated by Jews, and to prop up the Holocaust narrative? Because Jews are heavily represented in elitographics and esp in super-elitographics, or aristographics.

If all those elite Jews were replaced by elite Arab-Americans, would US policy and agenda remain the same since both Jews and Arabs are 'people' or 'fellow Americans'? Would Arab-American elites RESTORE or REPLACE the current US policy that is heavily biased toward Jewish concerns? Ruling power is always defined by elites, but which elites? American Power is heavily pro-Jewish-supremacist because Jews command elite-demographics. Demographics matter even more at the top than at the bottom. Jews certainly have no problem with Jewish elite demographic domination of media, academia, finance, entertainment, and judiciary.

The generality of ‘elites’ hardly answers the question of power.Who/whom clearly matters. It really mattered when 'Bugs' elites --- busy urban globalist Semites --- replaced the 'Wasp' elites. The entire trajectory of American politics, culture, and narrative was changed.

Indeed, why are Jews and Democrats flipping out over Trump and rise of nationalism? Because who-controls-the-elite-power matters. Elitographics matters. Not all elites are interchangeable, just like not all peoples are interchangeable. It’s amusing how Jews say white gentiles can be ‘restored’ by other people’s babies but Jewish elites and their cuck-servants cannot be ‘restored’by other elites with contrasting agendas and ideas. Suddenly, who/whom matters.

Indeed, Jews call for more non-white immigration not to RESTORE white America but to REPLACE it with Diversity that allows the game of divide-and-rule by Jews who thus keep their dominance.

By the way, William Kristol and David Brooks were saying whites are a bunch of dying losers who should be replaced by immigrants of other races. But after representative Steven King’s remark, Jews are pretending as if non-whites are selflessly coming to america to RESTORE white America that need not worry about eclipse and extinction. Whites trusting Jews is like chicken trusting weasels.

Following this logic, black America can be restored by non-blacks. So, when Mexicans or white/Jewish gentrifiers take over a formerly black area, blacks call tell themselves that it has been restored of its blackness. LOL.

Sunday, March 12, 2017

Incidentals and Fundamentals in the Consideration of Truth

In the search for truth, we need to consider two sets of knowledge: Incidentals and Fundamentals.

Incidentals are facts about incidents that take place everyday all over the world. Crimes, accidents, meetings, mergers, riots, marches, deals, and etc. all comprise the realm of incidentals. Incidental truth seeks straight facts about what happened where, when, and how. Exactitude and accuracy are crucial. Incidentals are often difficult to ascertain without indisputable video & audio evidence.
It's like we don't know exactly what happened on the night when George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin. We know for sure that Zimmerman was assaulted and Martin was shot, but we don't know how the event unfolded. We only have Zimmerman's account and approximation based on collected material evidence. Incidentals vary from incident to incident even though there are patterns to certain kinds of incidents, such as drive-by-shooting. They happen to be drug-related and carried out mostly by black gangs. Because each incident is unique and isolated, one can't rely on other incidents, however similar they may be, to determine what happened at a particular incident. So, every murder or business deal happened within its unique set of circumstances. Incidentals are mutable, each incident being different from other incidents.

Fundamentals are immutable. They are about general truths governing peoples, things, and places around the world. For instance, it is a fundamental fact that lions are stronger than leopards and hyenas. There may be cases where a wounded or old lion is killed by a hyena or leopard. So, not every incidence of violence between lions and hyenas(or leopards) involves lions emerging victorious. But despite variations among incidents, it is a fundamental fact that lions are bigger and stronger than hyenas and leopards, and that means most encounters between lions and hyenas(or leopards) will favor the lions.

To know the facts about an incident, every incident has to be investigated separately. Just because many murders follow a certain pattern doesn't mean that a particular murder under investigation happened in the same way in the same place by the same people for the same reasons as other murders.
In contrast, the ever-shifting details of countless and ever-unfolding incidents aren't crucial to our understanding of the fundamentals of the world. So, even though there may be dumb Jews and many incidents involving Jews doing stupid things, it is a fundamental that Jews(at least Ashkenazi kind) are smarter than other groups. Likewise, even though there are cases where black athletes lose to non-blacks, it is a fundamental that blacks are generally more muscular and athletic than non-blacks.
Fundamentals don't ensure that every incident will conform to general truths. It is possible that, on a bad day, a black basketball team will lose to a non-black one. Also, even in games in which the black team wins, the margins of victories will be bigger in some games than in others. So, each game, as an incident, has to be reported on differently. And this is what the news are about. They are about reporting the incidentals. So, sports pages will cover each game as an isolated and singular event. While some teams will be expected to win more games than others, each game has its unique set of stats and results.
But that still doesn't invalidate the fundamental fact that some teams are better than others and that some races excel at sports more than other races do. Also, it's a fundamental fact that men are better at sports than women are. There may be rare cases when women are victorious over men, but the fundamental says men will prevail in most cases.
And in gambling, it is a fundamental that the House-Wins-in-the-End. Without such fundamental, gambling industry couldn't survive. So, even though there are individuals who gamble and win, the overwhelming truth is the casino wins far more than it loses.

While incidentals gleaned from news are crucial to our understanding of world affairs and social issues, more important is an understanding of the fundamentals of the world. For instance, one may learn of many individual cases where gamblers have won against the House, but the central fact one must know about gambling is the House-Wins-in-the-End. That is the immutable truth about the gambling industry. The odds are calibrated so that the House will usually win or win more than lose.

Consider the incident with Michael Brown, the big black guy who was gunned down by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. To know the incidentals, we have to rely on witness accounts and material evidence from the scene of the altercation. There are incidents where black thugs attack the police first. There are incidents where cops shoot an unarmed man who poses no threat. So, each incident has to be treated independently.

But we cannot ignore the fundamentals of black violence. These are immutable fundamentals about blacks: (1) Blacks are bigger and more muscular. (2) Blacks are more aggressive and abrasive. (3) Blacks feel contempt for whites and other non-blacks as 'weak and wussy'. (4) Blacks are generally less intelligent. Their lower intelligence & higher aggression make them less reflective and self-critical. (5) Due to aforementioned facts, blacks are more likely to act thuggish, commit crime, and come in conflict with the police.

Those are fundamentals that must be considered in race relations in America. Now, those fundamentals don't guarantee that every altercation between blacks and whites will involve blacks-as-aggressors and whites-as-victims. There are cases, rare as they may be, of white aggressors and black victims. But given the fundamentals, it is hardly surprising that interracial violence is overwhelmingly black-on-white. Likewise, it is a fundamental that men are bigger, stronger, and more aggressive than women, therefore most sexual violence will be male-on-female even though there are incidents where women attack men.

Fundamentals are essential, but we mustn't confuse true fundamentals(developed from integrity, honesty, and courage) with false fundamentals(concocted from official dogma, political correctness, intimidation, moral blackmail, and self-serving antics of the elites). Black Lives Matter or BLM was based on a false fundamental. It posited that rogue 'racist' white cops are out-of-control and gunning down innocent angelic blacks for no reasons. This false fundamental was erected from bits and pieces of the Magic Negro myth, Hollywood & TV shows, education as PC indoctrination, and propagandized media that employ semantic tricks like referring to black criminals & thugs as 'teens' and 'youths' to suppress true fundamentals of race relations. They all conspire to maintain the image of the Magic Tragic Innocent Negro from the pages and reels of TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD. Also, even in cases where blacks are indeed depicted as killers, they are romanticized as rappin' outlaws & gangstas who be so 'cool and shit'. So, black thuggery is either glorified as something 'badass'(therefore beyond conventional 'lame' morality) or as heroic rebellion against the 'racist' system that won't give the Negro no chance to 'survive'.

Because of their willful preference for the false fundamental of BLM, it was assumed by Proglodytes and blowhard blacks like Charles Blow that the main problem of America is innocent blacks being gunned down by 'racist' white cops. Of course, this was all just a fantasy. Blacks are mostly killed by other blacks --- blacks also rob, rape, and murder many non-blacks --- , and most cops(black or white) have been justified in shooting at violent non-compliant blacks. There are surely cases where innocent blacks are killed by panicked or psychotic cops. But those are exceptions than the rule.

Because the false fundamental of the BLM narrative was so ludicrous, the activists had to scream & throw tantrums and resort to intimidation to push their agenda. It's like a liar or fool who can't win on facts and logic will fall back on high drama and volume. If you can't win by facts and argument, try kicking and screaming.

So, what has been the result of BLM's false fundamental's being crammed down America's throat? It led to the Ferguson Effect that only increased crime, violence, and number of dead blacks in cities.
True fundamental on race says that blacks commit more violence and crime because they are stronger, more aggressive, less intelligent, and less reflective. So, more police presence will suppress black crime and save black lives(and non-black lives). False fundamental on race says that rogue white cops are going around killing angelic innocent blacks. Because of BLM rage and demands, police in many cities decided to retreat and be 'more sensitive', which allowed blacks to be more flagrant and arrogant in their natural racial tendencies. So, the result of cops standing down or retreating led to more licentiousness among blacks to indulge in violence and mayhem. And that meant more dead black bodies. But black pride, the product of lower black IQ and childlike egomania, cannot own up to any of this. You can't expect people who describe their own emotions as 'incandescent rage' to think clearly or logically. They are full of self-righteous self-flattery that is nothing more than moral flatulence. And white 'liberal' conscience, premised on virtue-signaling and preening display of 'compassion', is too stuck-up to come to terms with reality.

Anyway, even though unique details matter for each and every incident, one cannot overestimate the importance of assessing the fundamentals of racial differences, black characteristics, Jewish abilities, homosexual tendencies, ways of power, basic facets of human nature, racial differences in personality & temperament, and etc. in order to understand the true state of the world.
True fundamentals are the most important guide in our interaction with the world.
That is precisely why Jews who control the media and academia are so invested in spreading false fundamentals as palliatives to sustain their power and privilege. After all, true fundamentals enable gentiles to understand matters more clearly and deal more effectively with Jewish Globalists whose tentacles of false narratives have done so much in service of Jewish Supremacism at the expense of gentiles.

Saturday, March 11, 2017

Fingerprint Analysis is Crucial for understanding Any Cause

In 'liberal democratic' societies, it's generally the case that most causes, agendas, and movements claim to serve some universal, humanitarian, and all-embracing ideal. Terms like 'justice', 'equality', 'liberty', 'freedom', 'truth', 'tolerance', and so on are bandied about by all sides.

But how can so many different causes claim to be for the same universal ideals and principles?

To understand the true nature of power, we need to check for fingerprints on the steering wheel of any agenda. Who created it and organized it? Who funds it and manages it? Who does the hiring and firing? Most crucial of all, what is the ethnic content and/or class character of these fingerprints?

A Jewish-American organization and an Arab-American organization may preach near-identical-sounding principles, but Jews will direct those 'ideals' toward serving Jews while Arabs will do so for Arabs.

It is the naive, earnest, and inexperienced who focus more on stated principles than on ethnic, cultural, and/or class character of those who head the movement. Of course, many people join the movement out of sincere commitment, but they are invariably the tools, not the tool-users.

Because 'liberal democratic' societies claim to represent bland humanity than specific nationalities, various particularist agendas invoke universal principles to obfuscate what are really narrower agendas. So, a hundred different organizations in America could very well be for 100 different specific interests,but they will chant the same genetic mantras. Rhetorically, they sound remarkably alike, yet inter-relational conflicts owe to the fact of sharply divergent real interests. In cases where various groups come together, the alliance is less the product of agreement on universal principles than agreement of mutual favors(for the time being).

Always dust for fingerprints to notice which individuals of which groups are behind the design, framework, and funding of a movement or cause. Currently, there's convergence of shared interests between Jews and Muslims in the 'Age of Trump'. This has nothing to do with Jews and Muslims respecting each others' common humanity. It has everything to do with Jewish alarm about Trumpism(as an emergent gentile challenge to Jewish supremacist power) and with Muslim/Arab eagerness to gain entry to the West for better material lives. So much of it is tribal and/or mercenary.
But it sounds nobler to celebrate the alliance in terms of 'justice' and 'equality'. It sounds less cynical and cutthroat.

Wednesday, February 1, 2017

Elites invoke Universalism to renege on their Responsibility to the National People

For most of history, it was difficult for mankind to trek and communicate across great distances. So, the elites of a community developed a strong bond with the people on their allotted territory.

This bond between elites and people was most resilient among the Jews, not least because their nomadism required strong tribal bonds to keep the community together. The paradoxical nature of the Jews is their preferred mode of existence tended toward the division of elite and people yet their commitment to Tribal Will demanded conservation of unity. The Jewish Will of the Tribe grew stronger against the Jewish Nomadic Drive. Under normal circumstances, the Tribal Will should have weakened under the pressures of Nomadism, but Jews forged for themselves a culture of blessed particularity and unceasing paranoia(and humor of contempt) that militated against the Jewish loss of identity and unity, especially between elites and peoples. Jewish Culture claimed that Jews are a specially chosen people of the only true God and, furthermore, warned of decay and downfall were Jews to give into temptation of assimilation with other peoples and their wicked ways. Thus, even though the Jewish mode of nomadism was naturally most conducive to weakening of identity and unity, the Jewish spiritual worldview fed on that very existence to produce the opposite effect. What should have made Jews weaker as a Tribe made them stronger as a Tribe. The Jewish example illustrates how a people can rise above or triumph against Determinism with a special mindset. It is like the sport of Judo where one channels the force of the opponent against the opponent. What is naturally directed against you ends up favoring you against the opponent. If he pushes, you pull. If he pulls, you push.

If, in the past, the difficulty of travel, trade, and communication drew the local elites and local masses closer, the ease of worldwide networks has had the effect of pooling together the elites or the best-and-the-brightest all around the world. Thus, globalism acts against the unity of the elites and the masses in any national community(with Israel being an exception because Jews have a special mindset). It is natural for the best-and-brightest to favor other best-and-brightest, just as it is natural for the rich, the famous, and/or the beautiful to seek the company of other people of comparable status or qualities. Since the rich and privileged can travel and communicate easily around the world, they've come to disdain the local community of 'losers'. Why would a rich Briton care much about 'dumb and dirty' working class Britons when it's more fun, thrilling, fulfilling, and glamorous to hang around with rich Hindus, rich Asians, rich Arabs, and rich Russian Jews? (To be sure, the internet has afforded this 'privilege' to the masses as well, and this accounts for the rise of the Alt Right made possible through independent worldwide networking of Eurosphere nationalists. Since the white elites no longer care about white masses, the white peoples around the world have formed an international network of voices sharing their disillusionment with the globalist elites and their venal ways, especially in 'cucking' out to Jewish Globalists whose advantage depends on white-elite-collaboration with the likes of George Soros. And yet, Alt Right networks, even though international in reach, has an agenda at odds with globalism. If globalism is a neo-aristocratic pact among elites around the world to bond closely with one another than with their own peoples, Alt Right's neo-nationalism is about mutual pact among different nations and races to respect each other's borders, histories, and unique narratives.)

Since the globalist elites have chosen neo-aristocratic privilege over identity-and-unity with their own peoples -- Irish elites feel closer to Hindu and African elites than to fellow Irish masses -- , they must make up for their moral deficiency. After all, favoring one's globalist elite privilege above the interests of one's people sounds rather vain and greedy. An Irish elite member who prefers identifying with rich Asians, Africans, and Muslims has pretty much betrayed his own countrymen.

So, how does he go about regaining moral legitimacy.

1. One is universalism over nationalism. The elites may argue that nationalism is too narrow and petty. It's about us-versus-them, whereas universalism is about the good of all humanity. This may sound nice and noble, but it's just a pipe dream invoked as an excuse to abandon what is real and doable. It is doable for national elites to look out for the interests of their national people. In contrast, it is impossible for even a nation as powerful and rich as the United States to save and redeem the world. So, lofty rhetoric used by globalists is just a convenient utopian hat-trick to morally excuse their reneging of responsibility to their national folks.
The truth is the elites of any nation can effectively rule over the nation, but even the grandest project by all the elites of the world cannot fix or redeem the world. It's like a father and mother can feed their own kids but cannot take care of all the children of the world.
The lofty-impossible is a useful crutch to excuse one's dereliction of duty to the real-possible. Parents who neglect their own kids and let them starve in the name of caring for and saving all the kids of the world are just fooling themselves as they throw a party for themselves in the name of saving ALL the kids.
This is a definitely problem in the black community where leaders are full of Big Talk about 'social justice' bu utterly lacking in down-to-earth actual deeds that might make a real difference. So, when a globalist elitist yammers about humanity-over-nationality, it's just an excuse for him to indulge his own narrow interests. After all, if one's goal is the lofty-impossible, one can stick to mere rhetoric while doing next-to-nothing since nothing real can be done to save all of humanity. When national leaders take after celebrity phonies like Bono and George Clooney, they no longer care about their own people. Just take a look at Justin Trudeau who can't tell the difference between Hollywood and nation.

2. Another is Multi-Culturalism and Diversity. Generally, a nation has a dominant racial, ethnic, religious, or cultural group that defines the essence of the nation. It's like Greece is defined by its majority Greek population and Turkey by its majority Turkey population. So, the core national duty of the national elites is to be mindful of the interests of the national majority. Greek interests should trump all else in Greece, and Turkish interests should take precedence over all others in Turkey.
But this is problematic to the globalist elites that now rule many nations, especially advanced ones. The ruling elites don't much care for their own people since their main identification is with globalist elites they rubbed shoulders with at Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Stanford, and etc.and whom they meet at globalist gatherings and conferences.
Still, as national leaders, they come under pressure to look out for the interests of the national masses. So, a kind of tension develops in these globalized national leaders. They feel closer to the diverse membership of the Global neo-aristocracy but are obligated to represent & serve the identity and interest of their national masses.
So, what is to be done? Multi-culturalism, mass immigration, and Diversity are meant to do the trick. If their own nations are made more diverse and multi-cultural, it means their nations are no longer defined by a dominant history, narrative, or culture. Their nations are now just another globo-diverse nation. Since all nations are to be defined more by multi-cultural 'minority rights' than national-majority-interests, the globalized national elites no longer need to be mindful of representing and serving core national interests. After all, if each nation is just a diversified mini-version of the World, there is no such thing as national interests, and national leaders can more legitimately pursue global interests while neglecting national ones.
If UK is made into a mini-version-of-the-world with its Africans, Hindus, Chinese, Pakistanis, and etc. who are all said to be equally British, then there is no need for British elites to favor British interests since Britain is just one more carbon-copy colony of the Globo-Community.
Also, the intermarriages among the elites of the world, like intermarriages among the European aristocrats in pre-modern times, tend to favor globalist privileges over national interests. If Chinese in America or Canada marry whites or Jews, they are going to feel closer to globalist empire than to China the motherland.

3. Pop Culture as Core Culture. In order for the globalist elites to justify their own privileges, they've given up on the notion of High Culture and Serious Art. Sure, they might still attend classical concerts once awhile, but they'd rather have fun, like Princess Diana did with celebrities and trash culture. The globalist elites prefer the Pop Art of Andy Warhol and his imitators than serious art or high culture that may be deemed as elitist and 'exclusionary'. So, with pop culture, Pop Art, dance music, and Hollywood as the centerpiece of globalist elite culture, the impression is created that the richest, most privileged, and the most powerful people are 'just like us'. After all, there is Hillary at a rap concert. There is Justin Trudeau hanging with famous homo celebrities. There is even the British Queen who's into 'hip stuff' now. There's some national leader taking a photo with Bono or some Hollywood star. And in some cases, these phony celebrities, like Oprah, become a member of the elite. Elites 'hipsterize' themselves to seem like any other consumer.

But in the end, all of this for the globalist elites and for them alone. For the rest of humanity, there's just tattoos, piercings, and obsession over 50 genders as the meaning of their life.

Monday, January 30, 2017

The Paradox of People Power


The truth is the Globalist Elites fear the Masses. The rich class fear the masses of workers and middle class. Even if a society is homogeneous, the ruling class is a minority class since most people are not rich. There is always a 1% vs 99% dichotomy.
This may explain why even the rich native elites of homogeneous nations sometimes call for more immigration and diversity. It reduces the unity of the national masses as the demography becomes more mixed. Consider how the British elites, who used to be on the moral defensive against the demanding white working class, managed to gain the moral advantage over the white working class by posing as the defenders of immigrants against the 'racist' white rabble.

Anyway, the elite fear of the people is even more pronounced when the elites are of a different race or ethnic group from the majority. In the US, Jews are the ruling elite whose identity is distinct from white gentiles. So, Jews fear People Power in a gentile majority nation.

People Power is most potent in a homogeneous population since homogeneity leads to unity and commonality of purpose. So, paradoxically, in order for Jewish Globalist elites to destroy People Power, they invite MORE PEOPLE to come to the West. It leads to MORE PEOPLE but since the new-comers are non-white(or even anti-white), the huge increase in population leads to fragmentation of People Politics along identitarian lines.
Diversity leads to divisions that can be exploited by the Jewish elites on a divide-and-rule basis. So, MORE PEOPLE in America means LESS People Power. Now, if all new immigrants were white gentiles, it might boost People Power as newcomers may join with native white Americans. But since most newcomers are non-white, it leads to fracturing of People Power, and that means less People Power because Jewish Globalist elites can cynically play divide-and-rule among the goyim, as they are currently doing with the 'refugee crisis'.
Jewish Globalist Elites are into xenopathology because of their nopiophobia. Greek word for 'native' is ντόπιος or 'nopios'. Since Jewish Globalist elites fear the native or established gentile majority population and its potential for People Power, they go into Nopiophobe mode and try to weaken the potentiality of People Power by increasing mass immigration of peoples who are racially, culturally, or ethnically different from the native population.
Jewish Globalist elites thus gain the opportunity to play divide-and-rule among the various gentile populations. Also, as the Jewish elites morally and emotionally ally with the New Comers as the 'dreamers' and 'noble victims of xenophobes', the new template for ideal elite power goes from representing-and-defending-the-rights-and-interest-of-native-majority-against-enemies TO championing-the-newcomers-as-the-people-of-hope-while-denigrating-the-native-majority-as-deplorables.

Jewish Globalists fear an America that is settled and established because such a state solidifies a sense of what America is, which can serve as basis for People Power against the globalist elites.
Jews prefer the notion of America-in-constant-flux due to massive immigration of diverse peoples because such a state renders difficult the meaning of what is and isn't 'American'. Such uncertainly weakens national People Power since we are told 'America is always in the process of re-inventing itself'. In other words, the elites are always re-inventing America so that the masses of Americans will never be certain what they are and what they stand for. Vagueness doesn't lead to Power. It's like a cloud of dust doesn't have the gravitational pull of a solidified mass. Jews prefer that gentiles be lost in a state of anxiety and uncertainty.
Paradoxically, the only permissible CERTAINTY is that 'America is a Nation of Immigrants'. But that is an Uncertain vision of America. If America is always coming-into-being with the mass arrivals of newcomers, what is it really? Such confused narrative puts America in a state of neurosis, even schizophrenia, because its Official Certainty is really an Uncertainty. The official narrative says America is MOST CERTAINLY an UNCERTAIN nation.
Given our psychology, human nature abhors a vagueness. Yet, the meaning of America is now so vague, therefore so confusing and un-fulfilling to Americans. But then, the genius stroke of the globalists was to turn this vagueness into a kind of faux-clarity and faux-certainty. Since people crave some kind of certainty, they've been presented with the principle of certainty of uncertainty. So, America is most certainly an uncertain nation that is always changing and coming into being only to change again. Flux is its only constancy... though the purpose of such narrative is to make permanent the power of the ruling Jewish elites.

Perhaps, what we can hope for is something like Diversity of the Elites. The US used to be wasp-ruled, and now it's Jewish-ruled. Maybe greater diversity among elites will put Jewish elites under pressure from contrary visions, narratives, interests, and agendas. Playing divide-and-rule among the elites is more difficult than playing divide-and-rule among the masses. But it's not impossible. Already, there are signs that some non-whites rising to elite status are not with the Zionist program. Keith Ellison who is rising to elite ranks in the Democratic Party isn't partial to Jewish Power. In Kurosawa's YOJIMBO, the hero exploits the 'diversity of elites' as he pits one elite against another.

If elites gain power by playing on divisions among the People, the People may gain power by exploiting the divisions among the elites.