Will 'Anti-Racist' Political Correctness Endanger Meritocracy in Years to Come?

Every order would benefit to have the best & brightest working in the various fields of inquiry and enterprise.
If, say, a social order prohibits social advancement to non-believers and admits only avowedly religious persons, then it will miss out on the talents of atheists and agnostics. To be sure, some may lie and pretend to be religious. But anyone who remains true to his convictions will summarily be denied entry to competition. The problem will be compounded if the many intelligent people happen to be non-believers. Then, all that talent will never see the light of day. Consider all the smart people who were sent to toil on farms during the radical Maoist era that insisted on ideological purity.
Granted, if most intelligent people were religious and most dummies atheist/agnostic, then the impact of suppressing non-believers will be far less deleterious. When even most intelligent Europeans believed in God in the pre-modern period, it wouldn't have made much of a difference if non-believers were banned from institutions of higher learning. But as scientific discoveries began to cast serious doubt on Church teachings, increasing numbers of smart Europeans tended toward disbelief. Therefore, restricting science and math only to the religiously-inclined would have held back in advancements in those fields.

In the several decades following the end of World War II, the impact of ideological taboos had a minimal negative impact. The reasons were twofold. Most intelligent people sincerely believed that Race was more a social construct than a biological fact. So, even if people deemed 'racist' were banned from hiring and promotion, it didn't affect the hiring of the best and brightest. Also, the definition of 'racist' wasn't as broad as it eventually came to be. By today's PC standards, even most liberals of the not-too-distant past would be deemed 'racist', as well as 'homophobic', 'antisemitic', and 'xenophobic', not to mention 'sexist' and 'misogynous'. Back in the 50s and 60s, a 'racist' was someone in the Klan or someone who explicitly resorted to racial slurs against minorities in the West.

And most people deemed outright 'racists' in the past were indeed rather low-grade in terms of ability, achievement,and moral character. So, banning such people hardly affected the talent pool of America. It'd be like banning cripples from sports. The best would still play. It was not like banning Jews in National Socialist Germany that immediately impacted the quality of the sciences, especially in physics and mathematics. Or like the suppression of Jews in the Soviet Union. Though the Soviet Union was never explicitly anti-Jewish, its harsh stance against Zionism led to the blacklisting of many Jews suspected of greater loyalty to the Tribe & Israel(and by extension the US) than to the USSR. Because of the higher intelligence of Ashkenazi Jews, this led decrease in talent pool in key Soviet institutions.

Anyway, PC might finally begin to impact the talent pool in the West. For one thing, the New Right in both the US and EU is not made up of low-grade morons who made up the bulk of KKK, Neo-Nazis, skinheads, or far-right cranks. Many people in the New Right are pretty bright, and their views are actually more grounded in facts of biology, laws of history, and needs of morality. So, the blacklisting of the Right in the 21st century will not just deny hiring and promotion to far-right dummies but to a growing number of men and women of talent.

Even more troubling is the way in which PC has rendered promiscuous the meanings of 'racism', 'antisemitism', 'homophobia', and etc. In the current year, just about anything can be construed as 'racist' depending on the feelings of the aggrieved or 'triggered'. So, even if you did nothing, you could end up like Joseph K. of THE TRIAL, accused of crimes you have no idea you committed. Worse, even 'hate hoaxes' perpetrated by blacks, Jews, and homosexuals are less likely to be condemned than showcased as 'teachable moments', indeed even after the hoax has been exposed.

'Racism' now means the failure to flatter blacks and their egotistical delusions 24/7. 'Antisemitism' now means the mere act of noticing Jewish Power and/or being critical of it. 'Homophobia', a bogus term for a non-existent phenomenon, means not being properly deferential to vain homos and their narcissism. As if that isn't absurd enough, there are also panics about 'transphobia', something one could be accused of if he believes a man is still a man despite his insistence that he is now a 'woman'.

As more and more intelligent people become aware of the reality of race, key differences between the sexes, degeneracy of the homo-tranny agenda, and/or the problems of various non-Western Cultures due to mass-'immigration'/colonization, AND FURTHERMORE, as PC Taboo casts a wider net as to which attitudes & actions constitute Thought Crimes, it is inevitable that the West will increasingly suppress real talent and integrity(a necessary quality for courage and honesty to speak the truth) in the Talent Pool, and as a result, meritocracy will suffer in many fields of science, letters, enterprise, and arts & culture.

Banning 'hate' in the past used to mean denying voice and choice to low-grade dummies. Now, banning 'hate' means the suppression of any able, honest, and courageous voice that is hated by the globalist elites, most of whom are contemptuous Jewish supremacists and their craven shabbos goy cuck-whites.
To work for any 'progressive' outfit, one must not only denounce the KKK & Neo-Nazis but revere homos & trannies and keep mum about the overwhelming reality of Jewish Power. Also, one must make believe that black problems today are still on par with race problems of the Jim Crow Era. According to PC, any white person who boycotts the NFL is a 'racist'. That's a lot of people who could very well end up on the PC blacklist.

The future will be interesting as Liberalism has gone from expanding meritocratic freedoms to more kinds of people to limiting meritocratic opportunity only to those who adhere to Politically Correct dogma.

The Central Question is this: Do you see your Nation as your Home or your Apartment? Are your people the Owners or Renters of the National Property?

The central question is this: Do you see your nation as your home or your apartment? Are your people the Owners or Renters of the National Property?

If you see it as your home, your people collectively hold the title on the property.
If you see it as your apartment, then it's just a lease held by individuals and can be revoked.
And those with leases than titles can be evicted and replaced with new occupants.

Title or Lease? That is your choice. National Ownership of the Title OR Rented Property owned by a handful of Globalist Oligarchs. Globalists hate Putin and Russia because they nationalized natural resources as the property of all Russians, not private property to be owned by globo-oligarchs who 'rent' and 'lease' them out to the Russians.

The Elite Globalists see all of the West as their property, not yours. They see themselves as the landlords with the power to rent out national property to people-as-apartment-dwellers.

So, white people in Europe or New Europe(America and Canada) are denied collective ownership of their nation. Th entire nation is just private property owned by globalist landlords who lease it out to 'diversity'. Replacism is the Name of the Game.
In a sane world, each individual owns his personal-private property, BUT the nation-as-civilization-history-and-culture is owned collectively by all patriots.

Globalists push the Renter-Principle on ALL PEOPLES... except guess which nation? Israel where the Jews are recognized as the Eternal Title-Holders to their own nation.

Why do globalists deny such Principle of Patriotic Ownership of Homeland to Poles and Hungarians?
Wake up people.

The Plaque on STATUE OF LIBERTY turns us all into mere Renters, not Owners. It takes away our title and replaces it with a lease. It is the STATUTE OF LESEE.

Rule of Empire: Only the Master Race is allowed both Nationalism and Imperialism

If you want to know who controls the empire, look to the group that can play it both ways: nationalism and imperialism. All other groups must play only by the rules of imperialism.

In the British Empire, the Brits could be patriotic & nationalist(and guard British sovereignty) but also imperialist in transgressing against the national or tribal independence & sovereignty of other peoples. Since non-Brits couldn't insist on their own tribal or national independence/sovereignty, their only option was to submit to the imperialist agenda enforced by an external power.

So, even though there were many races and cultures in the British Empire, the Brits ruled whereas others were ruled. Brits guarded their power and independence in the empire whereas all other groups had to succumb to British power and obey.

And it was likewise in the Japanese Empire. Only the Japanese could be both nationalist and imperialist. Japanese territory, identity, and independence were inviolable.
In contrast, other Asian peoples within the empire had to play by rules of imperialism. They could not have national sovereignty or independence. So, Japan wasn't just part of the empire but its master. Empire was designed to glorify and increase Japanese pride and power at the expense of others who could only benefit as imperial subjects.

Today, globalism is the new imperialism that mainly emanates from the US. Now, which is the ONLY group that is allowed both nationalism and imperialism in the globalist game? Some might say Americans, but that's not true. After all, white Americans(and Europeans) are not allowed to have a racial, cultural, or national identity. Even Germans, French, Swedes, British, and Irish now must believe that there is no such thing as distinct or particular European Culture. 'Western Values' are now all about Diversity, Pop Culture, homomania, and opening white nations to endless tides of Third World thugs, savages, and grubsters.

Does this mean globalism is a kind of universal imperialism where ALL nations and peoples become equally invaded and overrun and transformed?
After all, the West easily invades and turns the Middle East upside down. And, the West is helpless to stem the invasive tide from Middle East and Africa. So, are all peoples equally helpless and victimized under globalist imperialism?

No. There is one people and a nation that are exempt from the imperialist rule. Look at AIPAC, Israel, and Holocaust-as-religion, and Jews are clearly exempt from the imperialist rule of having to surrender -one's identity, heritage, and nation-hood. If anything, there are more holocaust memorials going up all over Europe to spread the worship of Jews as a holy people. And if there is ONE ISSUE that both parties are agreed upon in the US, it is that we must all support Zionism and Israel, even turning a blind eye to 'apartheid' conditions in West Bank and war-torn ghetto conditions in Gaza.

So, globalism is not universal imperialism that equally tramples on the national sovereignty of every people. One people are passed-over, and if anything, all nations must sing hosannas to Israel. Even as globo-Jews insist that Germany, Sweden, Poland, Hungary, Austria, and Baltics states must fill up with Muslims and Africans(or else be denounced as 'far right' or 'nazi' by world media), all those gentile nations must pledge in unison the utmost importance of defending, preserving, and glorifying Israel as a Jewish State.

And even as whites must never ever fret about the loss of their identity and culture(and instead welcome non-whites as 'new Europeans' and 'new Americans' to replace them and spit on their graves), it's perfectly fine for Jews to worry about the loss of Jewish identity as the greatest tragedy imaginable.

So, if only the rulers of the empire can have both nationalism and imperialism, then it's reasonable to conclude that Jews are indeed the rulers of the globalist empire as they and only they are allowed to proudly keep and guard the distinctness of their identity, history, and territory.

American Identity went from National to Imperial. Identity has become like Currency. Jewish Globalists now act like British Imperialists.

American Identity went from National to Imperial.

It's like how Roman identity went from the property of real Romans to that of Non-Roman Others in the Empire.

Once identity becomes de-nationalized and then imperialized, the Core Population grows demoralized as what had once been special and unique to them becomes generic and diluted. And the new 'citizens' only care about the identity as a meal ticket.

Identity became like currency.

There was a time when currency was backed with precious metals, especially gold. But when gold standard was gone, any new amount could be printed at the whims of bankers or the state. Currency became easy to manipulate.

Likewise, Identity was based on blood. Once it was cut off from river of history and ethnicity, it was stamped with generic ink. So, anyone could easily become an American, and as Americanization is the globalist-imperium that sets the template for the world, every nation(except Israel with Passover exception) is 'Americanized', which means its identity must also go from National(unique and special) to Imperial(generic and mercenary).

So, there is no longer any difference between American, British, German, French, Italian, Spanish, Irish, Brazilian, and etc. 'Diversity' and Elite-Minority-Supremacism define their New National Identity, which is anything but truly national. They are interchangeably Global. France is turning into a nation of 'Americans' who speak French.

So, just as anyone can easily become American, a newly arrived African with no roots in France is just as French as a Frenchmen with racial & cultural roots going back many centuries, and a newly arrived Turk or Syrian with no roots in Germany is just as German as a German with racial & cultural roots in Germany since time immemorial.

Americanism is no longer just a national idea that applies only to America but the ONE AND ONLY IDEAL FOR ALL NATIONS(with the exception of Israel that must remain Jewish-majority and Jewish-ruled).

The reason why imperialists hate nationalism is two-fold.

Imperialists are filled with hubris, and their own nation is no longer big enough for their ambitions and pretensions. So, whereas Bismarck was content with German nationalism, Kaiser Wilhelm and later Hitler wanted world empires. And in striving for empire over nation, they brought ruination upon Germany.

In striving for empire, imperialists neglect the sober interests of their own nation and drive their nations to huge risks... like Japan did in WWII that led to defeat and destruction.

Today, we have Merkel and her Empire of Compassion that is based on Moral Hubris. That too is destroying Germany. And Sweden's pretensions as a 'Moral Super Power', a Empire of Political Correctness, is leading it to Swedish Suicide or Swecide.

Another reason why imperialists hate nationalism is it undermines the legitimacy and power of the empire. After all, imperialists have majority power only in their homeland. Outside the empire, they are alien minority elites over OTHER peoples. If nationalism were the norm worldwide, native masses will rise up and push out the elite minority imperial overlords. So, the ONLY way the imperialists can justify their power over Other Peoples is to make the latter feel as part of a Great Empire that transcends tribal or national interests.
This is what the British did. Consider how the Brits used to rule over India, Malaysia, Kenya, Uganda, Rhodesia, Palestine, etc. (And the Japanese sold their regional globalist-imperialism as a radiant project of the Great East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere.)
By rules of nationalism, each of those peoples would have struggled for national independence & sovereignty, sought to drive out the British overlords, and have their own nation. Indians would have demanded India for Indians, Malaysians would have demanded Malaysia for Malaysians, Kenyans would have demanded Kenya for Kenyans, and etc. That would have meant end of empire.
So, the British Imperialists sought to convince their non-British subjects that it was glorious and gratifying to be part of this grand wondrous empire under the loving care of the gentle queen. Also, the British imperialist elites appealed to class/caste as a binding principle among various peoples in the empire, i.e. however different they may be in race or culture, the non-white (comprador) elites and British elites belonged to a shared community of superiority and privilege.
If nationalism emphasized the special bond between national elites and national masses, imperialism urged subject elites to collaborate with the ruling imperial elites while neglecting their own peoples. Under British Imperialism, the great contradiction lay in British elites' representation & defense of British masses while pressuring non-British elites to forgo their patriotic responsibilities to their own peoples. Only the British elites could be both nationalist and imperialist whereas subject elites in the empire had to operate only in the imperialist mode of obeying British mandates.

Today, as the Anglosphere World is the subject domain of Jewish globalists, the ONLY people who have the privilege of being both nationalist and imperialist are the Zionists. Only Jews can have both powerful nationalism in Israel while, at the same time, demanding that gentile elites cut their ties to gentile masses and serve Jewish Globalists elites instead. If you disobey, you become ostracized, isolated, and sanctioned by Russia under Putin and Hungary under Orban. (Jews saw right through the British BS, and early Zionists in Palestine had no desire to serve as comprador elites of the British Empire. In time, they used terror to drive out the British, and then used war to ethnically expel the Arabs to create a Jewish nation-state. Ironically, even though Israel was an imperial creation, it was the first non-Western nation to 'liberate' itself from European imperialism after WWII. Zionists, being imperialists themselves, understood the guile of Western Imperialism better than most.)

Today, Jews think and act not unlike the British Imperialists of old Jews are only a majority in Israel. While Jews want a Jewish state in Israel, their power and influence are precarious in all other nations. Why? Because there are few or no Jews in most gentile nations. Nationalism is a barrier to Jewish penetration and takeover. So, in order for Jews to take over the entire world(by using American neo-imperialism controlled by Jewish elites), Jews must convince the entire world to 'Americanize' as America goes from a white nation to a non-white one. So, America is to turn non-white, and Europe is to 'Americanize'. And then, all other gentile nations must dilute their national identities and formulate a new shared globo-imperial identity based on Americanism that says anyone can become anyone almost overnight based on 'rule of law' as devised by Jewish globalist lawyers. And the new shared neo-religion for all peoples must be worship of Homomania since Anno Sodomini.

Globalism calls for Clash of Civilizations but also Mash of Populations. And the Problem of Excessivism and Homoholics.

Globalism calls for Clash of Civilizations but also Mash of Populations.

It's about forests at war with forests but trees being uprooted and moved all around.

So, we have these Wars for Israel that pits the West against Middle East and North Africa.
Western military invades and bombs those places. It's Western Forest attacking Muslim Forest in a strategy premised on Clash of Civilizations.
But then, Muslim trees are uprooted and replanted in Western soil. Thus, Muslim trees are planted alongside the Native trees(that have been severed from their roots, therefore no longer able to draw sustenance and meaning from heritage and history).
We are told that the forests must fight but the trees must get along together.

Another Clash of Civilization is the ridiculous 'new cold war' with Russia. We are supposed to support NATO of US and EU against Big Bad Wolf of Russia. At the same time, US and EU urge all Russians of talent and ability to move to the West and settle in Germany, UK, and US. Or Israel.

There is also growing Western intervention in black Africa for whatever reason: Terrorism, competition with China, neo-imperialist meddling. And we hear about how black Africa is 'less evolved' because it doesn't worship homos. So, that's another clash of civilization... but the EU actively promotes repopulating its nations with African 'migrant' invaders.
The West must intervene in Africa because African Values have made a mess of things, BUT Africans with African values are most welcome in the West, and white folks must 'welcome' them.

Another much-touted Clash of Civilization is between the 'liberal democratic' West and autocratic China ruled by Ming the Merciless. So, we are told that the US needs to surround China with massive naval presence. And maybe a war may be inevitable in the future.
At the same time, US-Australia-Canada welcome and allow tons of Chinese immigration. In some parts of Canada and Australia, Chinese are buying up entire areas. Get ready to fight the Chinese Forest but let in tons of Chinese trees.

What a schizo world. Clash of Civilizations running alongside Mash of Populations.
We are told the West must fight the Non-West due to clash in values and interests... but those non-whites are welcome in the West because the West is about 'inclusion', 'diversity', 'intersectionality'(of all groups with holy homos), and 'anti-white privilege'. Supposedly, all those newcomers will be Queeristened(homo-christening) in time, and all will work out. Like the queeristened Mosque in Canada.

"We will let Muslims Islamize the West, but we will Queeristen Islam."

The synthesis: Homoslam.

All of this could be avoided if the West didn't give into Excessivism. Lots of things are okay or even beneficial in moderation or proper doses. Diversity can be good if restricted or limited. But excessive diversity is a mess. Empires fall apart due to excessive diversity, so why make diversity the core character of a nation? The whole point of a nation is to have a homeland independent of empire. But if the homeland itself becomes excessively diversified, there is no peace and stability.

Homo culture is okay and even creative & productive if properly constrained. But let homos run wild with their narcissism and vanity, and we end up with Homomania as new religion.

It's like alcohol. In moderation, it's no problem and even has some health benefits. But excessive drinking and addiction leads to sickness, mental breakdown, and self-destruction.
Alcohol is okay but alcoholism is not okay.
Homos are okay, but homomania or homoholism is not okay. What we have now is Homoholics who are addicted to homomania as the central value and core conviction of their lives. Most homoholics are not even homo. They are straight but were raised from cradle with the 'sacralization' of the homo. So, just as Christians feel cleansed in association to Jesus, most millennials feel justified and redeemed in association with holy homos.
A certain cause or group is deemed more righteous if it has the blessing of homos. It's like 'God on our side' except as 'Holy Homos on our side.'
And they cannot get enough of this because they are addicts or homoholics. And there are also Afroholics who more-or-less worship the black race as Magic Negroes. Consider all those white fools who frothed at the mouth and fainted at Obama rallies or consider Chris Matthews with thrills up his legs.
And then you got Xenoholics who can't get enough Diversity since their self-righteous supremacist arrogance is predicated on hugging immigrants, minorities, and foreigners to showcase how 'tolerant' and 'inclusive' they are in contrast to all those 'racists'. It's their drug of moral supremacism to get high on themselves.

Why is the Globalist 'left' far more Dangerous than the Classic Left? Its aim isn't to help the masses but to Replace them.

It's no longer about the Left vs the Right. Long ago, even leftists were patriots. New Deal was for Americans Only, and the French Communist Party was anti-immigration and for the French Working Class.

So, the victory of the Left was not an 'existential' threat to the nation. French Revolution didn't destroy France. Labour governments in the past didn't destroy Great Britain. And even though far-leftist communism was terrible, it still preserved the peoples and cultures of various nations such as Russia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, East Germany, Bulgaria, and etc.

The Left called for more power to the working class of the nation. It didn't call for the replacement of native folks with invasive foreign masses. So, regardless of political victory, left or right, the nation was preserved in terms of racial, cultural, and historical integrity.

Also, the Left used to be anti-imperialist and pro-nationalist. It championed the right of Third World peoples to cast off the yoke of Western Imperialism and amass their own power in their own nations, ancient or new.

That was then, this is now. Today, what is called the 'left' has nothing to do with the Classic Left. It is globalist, controlled by Jewish-Homo oligarchs, and seeks to destroy the ethnic/cultural/historical character of every nation. It is like Ugly Americanism on steroids. It is rude, intrusive, and arrogant. It goes to EVERY nation(except Israel) and demands that it 'welcome' endless immigration-invasion, even to the point of having the native folks(with deep roots in the soil) be REPLACED by others.

This new 'left' isn't about economic policy or workers' rights. Its Sorosian Agenda is to destroy the unique ethnic/cultural/territorial character of every nation.

When the Old Left won, it meant a change in economic policy. It didn't destruction of the nation's sense of history, identity, and territory.
But, if the globalist 'left' wins, it means your nation is lost forever. Worse, this globalist agenda of Replacism is pushed not only by these 'new leftists' but by neo-liberals and neo-conservatives who see no value in the preservation of History, Identity, Territory(or HIT), except in Israel of course.

The victory of this Sorosian 'left' means your nation is gone forever, and your people have been REPLACED by foreign masses who, btw, came to your nation not out of respect or admiration but parasitic self-interest.

History, Identity, and Territory. HIT, that is the essence of a nation. Be a HITTER against the REPLACISTS. The so-called 'new left' of REPLACISTS says your nation doesn't belong to your people. It says your nation belongs to the globalist oligarchs(like George Soros) and their Replacist hordes.

Paradox of Globalism. We are made into Animals and then Tamed into Obedience.

The Perverse Paradox of Globalism.

It says we should reject & abandon our old 'repressions' of civilization and be uninhibited(much like black-Africans). We should give into our wild animal nature in sex and aggression. It's no wonder that Rap, MMA, and pornification of mainstream culture are what the Current West is all about.

This return to 'natural' freedoms also means erasure of national borders and facilitation of free movements of peoples like wild animals and migratory birds. This is where globalism meets libertarianism. We should give into our natural urges and instincts and be like animals liberated from old inhibitions.

But 'nature' isn't only about fun & excitement but about tension, conflict, and crisis. Nature gains equilibrium through constant violence and counter-violence, through the endless friction between aggression and defense.
So naturally, when people are urged to feel, act, and express themselves like animals, there will be more tribal tensions among them. Nature seeks balance, pitting the aggressive drives and defensive reactions. This leads to social chaos, and this worries globalist elites who see rising problems all over the world. The elites tell us to act like animals but then admonish us for acting out-of-order or tribal-and-defensive.

Globalists want us to be like animals because people who give into their animal urges and impulses are more likely to be excessive consumers of goods and services. Also, humans-as-consumers are merely economic animals and have no sense of identity, culture, or heritage. They are easier to manipulate with the latest fads and fashions. They are useful minions who work and then blow all their earnings on 'fun and games' of the Moment.

The problem for globalists is that Being-Natural means being uninhibited not only as excessive consumers and hedonists but as tribal warriors and territorial defenders. A 'natural' person could be a mindless consumerist pig(favored by globalists), but he could also be someone who expresses his or her TRUE and HONEST feelings about Jews, homos, and blacks(the holy three according to PC cult). And Jews can't tolerate that kind of 'naturalness' since it challenges their supremacist claim to power. Jews want us to be like animals and children with big appetites for consumerism. They want us to be like pigs who will buy whatever pushed onto them. But they don't want us to be brazen and uninhibited with our true blue honest opinions about power(held by Jews), crime(dominated by blacks), and degeneracy(spread by homos).

For globalism to sustained(to the point of breaking the spine of European consciousness), we need to be turned into trashy animals who've lost their sense of identity, culture, and heritage. We need to be like animals who will go wild over the latest 'fun' fad or fashion. However, natural passions can also run wild and free against Jews, blacks, and homos. After all, the natural tribal passion among whites is to defend themselves against Jewish malfeasance, black brutality, homo pathology, and demographic imperialism by hostile peoples. But that is the natural side of white folks that globalists cannot tolerate. So, PC is used as Obedience School to TAME us to act proper when it comes to certain topics and issues.

We are no longer cultivated into thinking rational individuals with respect for heritage and culture. Traditionally, the Western Ideal was to elevate people from their base animal nature with a combination of critical reason, cultural reverence, and creative individuality. No more. Thanks to globalism, we are to be turned into wild impulsive animals(addicted to trashy junk pop culture and infantile pleasures) and then be tamed by PC to spare certain groups & interests (Jews, blacks, and homos) from our natural ire. If whites are allowed animal-like hatred, it is against other whites or whomever Jews hate at the moment(like Iranians or secular Syrians at war with Jihadis).

Globalism doesn't regard us as humans capable of rising about animality. It encourages us to be dumb animals enslaved to piggish appetites and restrained not by reason and civility but by sticks & carrots of PC with its simple-minded taboos and hysteria.

Muslim Terrorists are like Fire. 'Nice' Immigrant-Invaders are like Carbon Monoxide.

Terrorists are like fire. You can't help but to take notice.
In contrast, 'nice' immigrant-invaders are like CO or Carbon Monoxide. You don't notice the danger they pose and die in your sleep.

Muslim Terrorists are better than 'nice' immigrant-invaders of all stripes. The main threat to the West is not terrorism but demographic replacement, white genocide(aka White Nakba), and loss of European lands to foreign invaders. Even if not a single immigrant-invader committed acts of terrorism, mass immigration-invasion will totally transform Europe into the Third World. Even if every immigrant-invader were law-abiding and hard-working, their mass arrival and colonization will destroy the ethnic, cultural, and historical character of the West.

Therefore, terrorists are better than huggerists. If Sadiq Khan were a terrorist, he would not be mayor of London. He would be dead, in jail, or shipped back to Pakistan and never allowed back.
His huggy-gentler approach disarmed Britain into 'welcoming' mass invasion and replacement. Khan's kind-and-gentle approach has done more harm than the work of any terrorist.

Terrorists subvert and sabotage the globalist agenda. They force Europeans to wake up and take notice of the dangers unleashed by clash of peoples and cultures.
As such, Muslim terrorists should be prized as effective wreckers of globalism.

Far more dangerous are the globo-opiate-peddlers who addict Europeans to hedonism and self-righteous vanity(of PC) as distractions while releasing the CO gas of replacement-immigration to overwhelm and dispose of European peoples and cultures.

Diversity Demands Sensitivity. Open Borders mean Shut Mouths. Globalism says Identity has value only as Minority.

Immigration-Invasion by other races is like guests arriving but never leaving your house. It’s like kids of other families coming over to play but never leaving and, if anything, demanding to be clothed and fed.

Diversity is like always having strangers in and about your house.
Diversity demands Sensitivity, which means you can’t say or express anything that might ‘offend’ strangers and invaders who won’t leave.
Just like you can’t relax in your home with strangers around, you can’t be open and free in your nation with Diversity.

Open Borders mean Shut Mouths. Diversity demands Sensitivity, and a Culture of Sensitivity means Censorship of Real Feelings and Closing of Honest Minds.
Your nation, in which you once could express yourself freely, has become a place where you have to look over your shoulders and watch what you say, and for what and why? To serve Diversity and facilitate takeover by foreigners as ‘new nationals’.

That is globalism and current state of the world.

This is why Jews spread homomania all over. The Spread of homomania means every nation must be Sensitive to the elite-minority vanity of homos. It means the silencing of the great normal sane decent majority to appease and flatter a deviant minority. Once this mentality takes root in a nation, its mind-infected populace is more likely to surrender to foreign invasion and appease the nasty sensitivities of minorities-as-new-nationals.

Under the law of globalism, you have more pride, rights, dignity, and honor as a minority than as a majority. So, if you’re a Japanese in Japan, you suck. But if you’re a Japanese minority in Australia or the US, you are special and to be 'celebrated'. If you’re a Hindu in India, you ain't nothing special. But if you’re a Hindu in Canada, you are such a darling. If you’re a Muslim in the Muslim world, you and your kind deserve to be bombed back to the stone age by globalism’s Wars for Israel. But if you’re a Muslim minority in the West, you are the most wonderful kind of person who must be shielded from 'Islamophobia'.

Globalism says “You suck in your own homeland where you are the majority, and your ethnic pride in your nation is ‘far right’ and evil’”… however, “If you leave your homeland and become a minority in another country, you are so wonderful and your ethnic identity, along with homomania(which attaches itself to everything like germs) must be celebrated.”

So, in your own nation where your ethnicity and culture have the best chance of survival, such have no honor & value and must bow down to the foreign ethnic groups and cultures of the world.

But in foreign nations where your ethnicity and culture have very low chance of survival, such have great value and honor(especially as tools of globalists to undermine the majority ethnicity and culture of that nation).

What a wacky set of rules. But that’s how globalism works.
It's like saying rabbits have no value on land and should only be prized underwater(where they will drown and disappear).
It's like saying fish have no value in water and should only be prized on land(where they will die). Yeah, by the butchers of globalism who would turn all of us into fusion sushi.

Globalist Rule: Your identity is evil and ugly where your the majority, but it's noble and beautiful where you're a minority.
So, in your nation where your kind is the majority, you must invite more diversity to make your identity less-majoritarian-dominant, therefore less 'evil'.
And if you want to be praised and admired for your identity, you must move to another nation and make a big fuss about your new minority status. But as a minority, what chance does your kind have of retaining ethnic identity for long?

Now, what is to be the common bond among all peoples in the end where all cultures are diluted and degraded by globalism?
Homomania. By praising homos-as-elite-minorities above all, the entire world will be pro-elite-minoritarian, and that is wonderful for Jews, the most powerful elite-minority in the world. Worshiping homos is gateway to worshiping Jews as homos are elite-minority-proxies of Jews as elite-minority-masters of the world.

A People without Patriotism is like Organisms without Defensive Mechanisms. Globalism is Secular Rapture.

All organisms have defensive mechanism.

Organisms can only survive by assessing threat and acting upon them. As humans are organisms, they are no different. In order for race-culture to survive on a territory, it must defend and preserve itself from outsiders and invaders. While it's true that every nation has history of invasions and incursions, they only became stable civilizations when there was sufficient political, military, and legal power to protect the nation from further invasions. Without such security and stability, national order isn't possible. This is why stuff like 'UK is a nation of immigrants' is retarded. UK was constantly invaded BEFORE it was a nation. The invaders came at will on warships and laid waste to native populations. (Also, the invaders of the past were fellow white Europeans, so they could eventually meld with the existing populations.) Once Britain gained security, order, and power, it defended itself from further foreign invasions. If foreigners did arrive(and settle), it was with the permission of the state in consideration of national interest.
A nation that cannot stop or control the inflow of outsiders is the victim of military imperialism, demographic imperialism, and/or financial-ideological imperialism(that colonizes native souls with the mental virus that 'diversity' is good when it spells doom for native identity and culture).

Look at nature. All animals must sense and assess degrees of threat level. When humans encroach on wolf territory, the wolves growl. Hippos don't like Negroes coming closer with spears. Bears fight other bears to maintain territory for food, mating, and security. Birds guard their nest and attack threatening species. Without such defensive mechanisms, no complex organism could survive. Bees don't just allow any bunch of organisms to come and eat the honey. Bees work like crazy to collect the honey to feed their own community. (Some say modern societies cannot produce enough life and that's why they need immigration to get new workers. But if modern societies have given up on life, it means they are soul-sick and culturally misguided, and THAT DISEASE should be diagnosed and treated. If someone won't eat, don't give his food to another person. Convince him to eat again.)

Globalism has infected Western minds with the notion that their natural defensive mechanism is 'evil', 'racist', and 'xenophobic'. It dilutes hormonal instincts and weakens carnivorous instincts, turning whites into human herbivores. Brits have been turned from lions(without a powerful pride of territory) to rabbits(who just wander around aimlessly in their own nation without claiming it).

Globalism is like quasi-spiritual cult of rapture. It’s the Promise of Deliverance, a hopeful ecstasy of departing from the ‘sinful’ nationalist flesh and becoming one with the transcendent globalist spirit. It's secular cult of being 'saved'.
Since all histories are associated with cultures/nations and since all cultures/nations are stained ‘sinful’ deeds, globalism offers deliverance from 'tribal' sins via collective union o all peoples in Glob Heaven. This rapture is experienced through PC kumbayah and Pop Culture orgiastics. Take leave of roots, senses, and obligations. Just scream, feel orgasmic, and let one’s soul lift from national earth to globo-heaven.

So, even though UK is being remade by massive invasion, Brits have no defensive mechanism left. If Brits still have any aggressive drives left, it is against their own will for self-preservation. (Jewish ideological control infected British minds with the sanctimonious notion that white Britons must serve the interests of the holy Jewish minority before their own. This elevation of minority-as-sacred-group led to white Britons placing every non-white minority above whites on the national pedestal. In time, white Britons even came to worship homos. That this is a globalist-imperialist phenomenon is made clear by what is happening in Ireland. Even though the Irish have defined their own narrative against Great Britain, its current national agenda is identical to that of the British because both nations are under globalist Sorosian control. Both nations worship non-white minorities and homos above native whites and real-sexuals who are to be attacked and denounced if they resist massive immigration-invasion and homomania. This is why Ireland has a Hindu-Homo prime minister and why London has a Pakistani-Muslim mayor. The two peoples who never agreed on much are now totally agreed on national self-destruction and white self-loathing as the highest virtue. Other than the ideological infection of Jewish-controlled globalism, there is the factor of Afromania and Jungle Fever that have whites all over the world worshiping Negroes as MLK-Mandela Magic Negro race and 'cool-badass' race whom whites must admire, praise, and emulate 24/7.)

It used to be Brits were most aggressive against would-be invaders, such as Spanish or Germans. Now, they are most aggressive against would-be-patriots-and-defenders. Brits get most passionate about attacking and destroying patriots and offering UK to the Sorosian god of globalism. UK is no longer seen as a nation among nations but a part of a globo-rapture-empire of Jew-worship, homomania, Afromania, and Diversity. UK must serve that higher god by surrendering national identity, borders, and sovereignty. UK is now to the world what Puerto Rico is to the US.
And the elites of UK, instead of standing up for national defense and preservation, lead the nation in surrendering to globalism and mammon. Also, elites have used the media and academia to infect the younger generation with the idea that UK has always been a 'nation of immigrants', a defenseless domain that welcomes invasions than fends them off.

What UK really needs is AUSTERITY AGAINST DIVERSITY, 'diversity' being just euphemism for invasion.

Now, some organisms are compatible. Even in the wild, lions coexist with gophers, turtles, vultures, and etc. The biggest threat to lions are other lions.
Likewise, people of any nation can co-exist with birds, squirrels, pond turtles, seagulls, chipmunks, rabbits, raccoon, opossums, and etc. People need to fear other peoples the most, just like lions need to fear other prides of lions the most. White Australians have nothing to fear from kangaroos, koala bears, or wombats. Not even from crocodiles as long as one doesn't get too near them and prod them with sticks. They have far more to fear from massive immigration of Asians, Arabs, and Africans.

Different groups of humans have competing identities, interests, narratives, and appetites.
Palestinians weren't done in by pigeons, fish, or jackals. They were done in by other humans: the British imperialists, Zionists, Soviets, and Americans.
Tibetans and Uighurs are not being done in by sheep, eagles, toads, or snakes. They are being done in by other humans, the Han Chinese. The biggest threat to any organism is, more often than not, others of its own kind. Because they have similar objectives, they compete and fight for the same thing. It's like a man who wants a certain woman need not compete with male pigs, wolves, moose, hippos, wombats, and etc for her. Those other species are not interested in the woman. He must compete with other men. A horse, bison, bear, hamster, python, or cougar will not take a white woman from a white man. It is the Negro who will.

Nation is the same way. To own it, a people must compete with other peoples. Lose the defensive mechanism(under whatever fancy pants 'progressive' idealism), and it's only a matter of time before you lose your nation, narrative, and culture.

Notable Films of the 21st Century

Platinum List:

A.I.
Mulholland Dr.
Werckmeister Harmonies
Still Walking
Wicker Park
Mothman Prophecies
High Fidelity
Insomnia (Remake)
Memories of Murder
Ghost World
Damsels in Distress
Amelie
C.R.A.Z.Y
Assassination of Jesse James
Katyn
Unbreakable
Farewell (French)

Gold List:

Inception
Tron Legacy
Tomorrowland
The Hunt(Danish)
The World’s End
Zodiac
Ant-man
A Serious Man
Indiana Jones and Kingdom of Crystal Skull
Slow West
Kings of Summer
Life of Pi
Silence
August: Osage County
O Brother Where Art Thou
Gravity
Friend
Downfall
Take Care of My Cat
Into the Wild
Y Tu Mama Tambien
Amores Perros
House of Mirth
Tropical Malady
Poetry
Snow White and the Huntsman
New Moon
The Counselor
The Others
American Splendor
Lost in Translation
Hurt Locker
Master and Commander
K-19: Widowmaker
The Return
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Beyond the Sea
Count of Monte Cristo
Everlasting Moments
Triad Election
Sunset Song
Sunflower (China)
Rush
The Informant!
11 Flowers
The Way Back
Safe Conduct
Before I Disappear
Barbarian Invasions
Map to the Stars

Silver List:

Robocop
Split
Shaun of the Dead
Hot Fuzz
Moana
Me and Orson Welles
Scanner Darkly
Everybody Wants Some
Panic Room
Footnote
The Village
Blue Jasmine
Inside Llewyn Davis
Wolf of Wall Street
Heist
Summer Hours
Spartan
Toni Erdmann
The Conspirator
Beijing Bicycle
Michael Clayton
Bridge of Spies
Adventures of Tintin
Catch Me If You Can
Minority Report
American Sniper
Flags of Our Fathers
Letters from Iwo Jima
Rescue Dawn
W.
Despicable Me
The German Doctor
Last Orders
No Man’s Land
Three (Johnnie To)
Paterson
Son’s Room
Blade Runner 2049
Chasing Sleep
Waking Life
Yellow Asphalt
State and Main
City of God / City of Men
Guru
The Pianist
Spider
The Rules of Attraction
Twilight Samurai
Elephant
Goodbye Lenin
Tristan and Isolde
Art School Confidential
Sunshine
Bourne Identity
No Country for Old Men
The Wrestler
Moon
Black Sea
An Education
Shutter Island
Like Father Like Son
Nobody Knows
Our Little Sister
Silent Souls
Elena
Senna
Ripley's Game
Diving Bell and Butterfly
4 months, 3 weeks, 2 days
In the City of Sylvia
The Sun (Russo-Japan)
Distant
Time Out
Crimson Gold
Act of Killing
Lady and the Duke
The Great Beauty
This Must Be the Place
Only Lovers Left Alive
Twilight
Breaking Dawn Pt 1
Joe
C.O.G
The Day
Queen and Country
The Tiger's Tail
Anomalisa
Kabei
The Mist
Ender’s Game
Ray
Blind Mountain
Not on My Lips
Congorama
All Is Lost
Alexandra(Russia)
Together
Che
Dharm
Evil(Sweden)
Ararat
Hidden Blade
Love and Honor
Best of Youth
Hana and Alice
Anything Else
Requiem for a Dream

Bronze List:

Phil Spector
All About Lily-Chou-Chou
Internal Affairs
The Master
Drive
Byzantium
Café Society
Ondine
In a World
Looper
Lone Survivor
American Pastoral
Bad Lieutenant
Little Miss Sunshine
Last Samurai
Matchstick Men
Donnie Darko
Piano Teacher
Cloverfield
Diary of the Dead
Boiler Room
My Dog Skip
The Happening
Devil
American Hustle
In the Bedroom
Blackhawk Down
Beautiful Mind
Matrix Revolutions
Star Wars: Attack of the Clones
End of the Tour
Mistress America
Kicking and Screaming
Moonrise Kingdom
Mesrine: Killer Instinct
Mesrine: Public Enemy #1
Coming Home
Cold in July
Elite Squad 1 & 2
The Box
Once
Defiance
Gran Torino
United 93
World of Kanako
The Prestige
The Ward
Session 9
Casino Jack

Fool’s Gold List:

Resident Evil
Resident Evil: Apocalypse
Resident Evil: Extinction
Resident Evil: Afterlife
Resident Evil: Retribution
Resident Evil: The Final Chapter
Jeepers Creepers
127 Hrs
Hunger Games
Thor
Identity
The American
Noah

Globalism is the Greatest Evil. Tyranny of Bad Ideas is Temporary. Tyranny of Demographic Transformation is Permanent.

Demographic Imperialism and Replacism are the most ruinous phenoms that can befall a nation, people, and culture.
Ideological disasters are nothing by contrast in the long run.
Ideas exist in the mind and may eventually pass away. Even an idea as disastrous as communism was no big deal in the wider scope of history.

While communism can wreak havoc on a nation’s economy, once it’s relegated to the dustbin of history, the nation and its people & culture remain intact and can thrive once more.
Communism oppressed Poles in Poland and Hungarians in Hungary, but Poland remained the nation of Poles and Hungary remained the nation of Hungarians. A nation under communism is tyrannized by a bad idea, not by a foreign people.

In the end, ideologies are come-and-go. Bad ideas lead to bad socio-economic results, but ideas do not alter or erase the essential character of a nation’s people and culture.

But demographic imperialism and replacism do just that. Once masses of foreigners take over a nation, they mean to stay and, absent a serious war and revolution, they will take over and grow in numbers until the native population has been eclipsed and replaced.

Communism’s ill effects on Eastern Europe were NOTHING compared to globalism’s fatal impact on France, UK, Germany, and Sweden.
Nations under communism could eventually be rid of the ideology, and once freed of the illusion, could carry on with the same people and culture.
But after globalism is finished with Western Europe, the result will be an entirely new world populated by Muslims and Africans.
It’s a daunting challenge to rid society of bad ideas and institutions, but it’s a gargantuan(and even impossible) task to be rid of demographic imperialists once they’ve taken over your own nation. Serbs will never take back Kosovo. Palestinians lost Palestine(now Israel) forever.

Communism was about proletariat overthrowing the bourgeoisie. As economically disastrous as it was, the nation still belonged to its people at the end of the day since the proles and bourgeoisie were of the same ethnicity and class. So, Romania run by dictatorship of the proletariat was still Romania dominated by Romanians.

If communism is about one class replacing another in power, globalism is about foreign ethnics replacing the native ethnic. This isn’t merely an ideological struggle but a biological and cultural one. Upon its victory, all nations(except for Israel, which is ‘passovered’ with special exemption) are transformed by globalism to the extent that native folks no longer even own and control what had been their homelands. Globalism is about making every people(except Jews in Israel) strangers in their own homeland. It turns a nation of kinfolk into a nation of strangers and foreign usurpers. The native folks are duped into welcoming this dire fate by having their minds infected with delirious mantras such as ‘Diversity is our Strength’ when only an idiot could believe such.
Globalism is appealing to the elites of advanced nations since it means more opportunities to make a buck. And it is appealing to masses in poor nations since it means an opportunity to demographically migrate to rich nations and leech off them.
It is also appealing to holier-than-thou me-huggers who see globalism as a utopian project of making the whole world sing in perfect harmony.
But for patriotic natives who care about preservation of ethnicity, culture, and history, it is an absolute tragedy.

In this sense, globalism is a far greater evil than communism. Communism forced bad ideas on a nation like Poland. It didn’t force Poland to be invaded and transformed by non-Europeans.

In contrast, globalism says Europe MUST welcome endless invasions by tons of foreigners, and its native populations must be REPLACED. And if Europeans say NO to Replacism, they are defamed as ‘Nazis’ by globalist forces controlled by Jews.

Anyway, the ill-effects of bad ideas can be reversed and repaired. But the impact of bad demographic policies is often irreversible. If you adopt a stupid idea, the stupidity is eradicated once you come to your senses. But if you swallow poison, its fatal consequences can’t be reversed even if your mind realizes you did something dumb. The poison will take over your body and will destroy you.

Communism was a bad idea that infected Europeans in the 20th century. Once European minds rejected the idea, it was gone for good.
In contrast, globalism force-feeds mega-doses of poison(in the form of massive foreign invasion) as ‘medicine’ to Europeans, and the poison spreads all over Europe.

Bad ideas, as illusions, are real only to the extent that certain people believe in them. Once the faith is gone, the ideas are also gone.
People are different. They are real, and once a foreign people take over your nation, they are there to stay regardless of what you think.

Imagine if your people adopt Islam as an idea. It may be a bad idea, but it’s just an idea. Therefore, there is the chance that your people may one day reject Islam and be rid of it.

Now, imagine if your people adopt Islam and accept 10 million Muslims. The dire reality is that those invaders are now part of your nation no matter what you think. Even if your people reject Islam, those 10 million Muslims and their offsprings are in your land and taking over. That is what globalism does and not to just one nation but all nations(except Israel). It is the greatest evil the world has ever seen.

Tyranny of Ideas is transitory and reversible. It can be undone once the native people realize the badness of those ideas.

Tyranny of Demographics is permanent and irreversible. It can't be undone even when the native people realize they made a huge mistake in letting in all those invasive foreigners.

It is the difference between Acute Illness and Chronic Illness. Globalism leads to chronic disease for any nation that surrenders to its agenda.

Demographic Numerology Game: Globalism says NATION IS A NUMBER. Don't you believe it.

Globalist use the Numbers Game to hoodwink peoples around the world.

Globalists say if a nation has a certain population, that NUMBER = NATION.

So, if Nation A has 50 million people of A-ethnicity, that nation MUST maintain that number in order to 'survive' as that nation. So, if the population is anticipated to decline to 40 million, it has to get 10 million people to maintain the magic number of 50 million. So, numbers trump ethnicity. According to this view, Nation A with 40 million people of A-ethnicity is less A-ish than Nation A with 40 million people of A-ethnicity and 10 million people of B-ethnicity.

Take Poland. Its population is 40 million. Suppose Poland's population is destined to decline to 20 million in 100 yrs. Now, a sane person will say Poland will be Poland whether it has 40 million or 20 million since Poles live in Poland. But globalists will differ and say 20 million people(even if non-Polish) must be added to keep Poland Polish. So, Poland is essentially a number. According to globalists, a Poland that is 20 million Polish and 20 million Nigerian is more Polish than a Poland that is all Polish at 20 million. Indeed, by globalist rules, a Poland that is 40 million Nigerian(with no Poles) is more Polish than a Poland that is 20 or 30 million all Polish.

Globalism says there is no deep connection of ethnicity, territory, and history for a nation. Anyone who barges into Poland has a 'human right' to be Polish. So, if 10 million Nigerians barge into Poland for gibs-me-free-stuff, they are Polish. And if real Poles condemn such invasion and demand that the Negroes return to Nigeria, they are un-Polish since such 'xenophobia' is not what 'European values' are all about.

Using this globalist logic, we could argue that Jews were not Jews after WWII. After all, if a people are defined by a number, then Jews were no longer Jews since they lost millions in the Holocaust, anywhere from 4 to 6 million. Let's assume the number of Jewish dead in WWII is 6 million.

Now, by some estimates, the Jewish population of Europe prior to WWII & Holocaust was 10 million. So, Jewishness = 10 million people. Since 6 million were lost in the war & extermination, it means Jews were no longer Jewish since 6 million were gone and the magic # of 10 million was lost. In order for Jews to be Jewish again, the 6 million losses have to filled in by any bunch of people. So, using globalist logic, Jews should have recruited 6 million gentiles to become 'New Jews' in order for Jews to be Jewish once again. And since Poles lost 3 million in the law, they had to get 3 million more people(even if non-Polish) to be Polish again.

Now, you see how stupid such logic is. Whether there are 1 million Jews, 3 million Jews, 5 million Jews, or 10 million Jews, the fact of Jewishness isn't about statistics but ethnics. If a Jewish nation has 1 million Jews or 10 million Jews, it is Jewish if Jews are the predominant ethnic group of the nation. If Nigeria has 100 million people and if all of them die due to some epidemic, it is not Nigeria again if 100 million Hindus or Russians resettle it. It will be New India or New Russia.

But globalists are playing a clever numbers game in persuading nations that their essence and identity are pegged to some demographic magic number. So, if Japan currently has 100 million, it must maintain that number in order to remain Japan. If the population goes down to 70 million, that ain't Japan no more. It needs 30 million additional people --- even if non-Asian and disruptive to Japanese society --- in order for Japan to remain Japanese.

Globalism is controlled largely by Jews, and if Jews want to use such logic, then we should say Jews in Europe are not Jewish since there are only 1.5 million Jews in current Europe. Since Jewish population of Europe was 10 million in 1939, there has to be 10 million Jews in Europe today in order for Jews to be Jews. So, what current Jews-in-Europe need to do is to turn 8.5 million gentiles into 'New Jews' in order to reach that magic number of 10 million.
Only then will there be Jews in Europe again. Therefore, unless Jews accept 8.5 million gentiles as 'New Jews', there are no real Jews in Europe since demographic numerology says there must be 10 million Jews in Europe in order for Jews to 'survive' as Jews.
Sounds crazy? Well, that's what Jewish globalists tell goyim around the world.

Don't you believe it.

Muslim Terrorist Attacks in the West are partly the Continuation of the Clash of Cultures between Arab Islamism and African Savagery

There's long been a violent Clash of Cultures between the Muslim World(especially Arab) and the Afro-pagan World. Arab Muslims considered black Africans to be wild, savage, lascivious, and beastly. So, Arab Muslims not only enslaved black Africans but castrated them to tame their Jungle Nature. It was Jihad Justice against Jungle Junk. This went on over many centuries. Scholars say Arabs enslaved millions of black Africans, seeing them as little more than animals.
But Arabs also spread Islam among black Africans, and many black Africans became Muslims and waged Culture War on other black Africans who were seen as mired in tribal-pagan-savagery.
As both the West and the Muslim World were dominated by spiritual institutions and communal values, the main thrust of their moral-cultural narrative was directed against black African savagery that was regarded in a negative light, not good for much of anything. White Christians and Arab Muslims held that black Africans had value only as slaves or converts to Christianity or Islam. They didn't find intrinsic value in black African-ness.

That was then, this is now. With the ebbing of religion and morality in the West, Pop Culture became the main mode of cultural expression and experience. Also, with the fading of traditional mores and authorities, the new religion became Political Correctness or Cult of Social Justice. PC came to be controlled by Jews. YMCA buildings in colleges are now more likely to host homo celebration or hip hop orgy.

This gave a huge advantage to blacks. With the rise of electro-amplified Pop Culture, black music or black-inspired music came to dominate the modern world. The most popular music among Western elites is reggae. Among ordinary people, it's Rap or Hip Hop. Also, sports as the New National Culture led to worship of blacks as local heroes since blacks are most athletic. Also, the erosion of moral values led to sexual licentiousness, and the cult of black twerking booty and hung black dong became iconic in the Western/Modern consciousness. Black savagery, once regarded as the lowest state of human existence, became the most popular and in-demand(even though this techno-savagery often appeared in the form of imitation by white, brown, Jewish, Asian, or Hindu performers).

So, if the religious-moralistic Arab Muslim World and the White Christian World once had in common their low regard of black savagery as just backward, animal-like, crazy, and beastly, those facets of blackness came to be admired, adulated, fetishized, sensationalized, and even revered in the Age of Electronic Mammon, at least in the technologically advanced West.

White girls now grow up to Rap music and Jungle Fever. White boys now grow up admiring black athletes who routinely beat up white males and colonize white wombs. Cuck-dom is the state of the Modern West, and most white men(except those in the Alt Right) have accepted their inferior racial status via-a-vis blacks. This is why we have 'whiggers'(and even 'chiggers' or yellows who appropriate blackness to compensate for their innate 'lameness'), but we don't have blacks trying to imitate country music or J-Pop.
Much of Pop Culture in the US and EU are variations of Jungle Fever where white girls imitate black girls and fantasize about having sex with blacks and having mulatto babies. And there is hardly any resistance from white males since they've been lobotomized and castrated. (White fathers are more afraid to say, "I wish my white daughter marries a white guy" than "I'd be proud to see my daughter be knocked up by a black guy." ) Indeed, even after Muslim bombings, these cucked out males condemn terrorism mainly in defense of concerts that promote Jungle Fever among white girls and cuck-wussiness among white males. For most whites, Homomania and Jungle Fever are their main cults or neo-religions. 

But blacks prevail over whites not only with sports, music, and sex. Because of the Slavery Narrative(and milking of 'white guilt' by PC) and the bellowing voice of the Negro, whites also see blacks as the Magic Race, the Holy Race, the soulful people of god. Your average white American worships MLK more than God; your average European worships Mandela more than Jesus. Whites feel no comparable reverence for figures of other races.  Even Gandhi has faded in appeal. Dalai Lama is more a figure of adoration than adulation.

But if White post-Christian West surrendered to Black Savagery, the Arab Muslim World is still in a state of Culture War with Black Africa. Arab Muslims never felt sorry or apologetic for their imperialism in Africa or black slave trade. If Christian morality is steeped in the cult of guilt, Islam is immersed in other matters. Muhammad preached to his followers to be warriors, hardy and ruthless. So, Arabs don't feel sorry or guilty about their historical role in Africa.
Also, if Christianity is a spent force and only survives in its secularized form of PC, Islam is still very much alive as a spiritual and moral force. As such, it continues to view black African culture as savage, backward, beastly, and demonic. If the West gave up its traditional certitudes and now worships Negroes as heroes, studs, angels, and demigods, the Arab Muslims still regard themselves as culturally, morally, and spiritually more advanced than black Africans, indeed by light years.

So, it must be strange for Arab Muslims to come to the West only to realize that black techno-savage culture is favored over Islamic values by the white natives who are into reggae, jungle fever, black sports, and Magic Negro idolatry. Hail Mandela but hell with Ayatollah and Arafat.

Even though Muslim terrorism is characterized in terms of Islam vs 'Western Values', it is really a Culture War between Arab Islamism and Black Africanism(that has culturally colonized the West and is now sexually colonizing the wombs of white women, with the sheepish approval of pathetic cucked-out white males). It is Jihad vs Jungle, a Clash of Cultures that's been going on over a thousand years. This battle is now being waged on Western Soil since both black Africans and Muslims have been allowed in huge numbers.

This aspect of the clash eludes detection under the radar because some of the Muslim attackers are black Africans and most of the victims are white Europeans. (Of course, there is also the factor of PC pushing the fanciful notion of all People of Colors being united against 'white racism'.) But devout black Muslims have made the cultural shift from Jungle Jive to Jihad Justice. They've come to reject Afro-pagan-savagery.
Also, those white victims of terrorism are often 'whiggers' to the extent that their main mode of entertainment and enjoyment involve black sports, sex, and music.
In that sense, the so-called Clash of Civilizations we see today isn't Islam vs the West but Islam(still a spiritual-moral force) vs Whiggers(whose main objects of worship are electro-amplified Afro-savagery and homomania).

The Uneasy Dynamics of Rancor, Religion, and Rationality

Religion stands in the way of reason, but intellect or higher mental activity is impossible without restraint of savage nature, the animal rancor in the heart of every man. Savage nature is beastly & brutish and prefers breeding & fighting over reading and writing. It has no use for learning, reflection, or cultivation of heart & soul. It is about the law of the jungle.

Religion suppresses & restrains animal rancor and steadies & prepares the mind for reflection & contemplation. Thus, religiosity/spirituality cultivates the life of the mind even as scriptures place strictures on what can be thought and said.

Rationality had to break out of the taboos of religiosity, but then, reason could arise only after spiritual authority had forced chaotic animal rancor inside the cage and tamed it.

Reason is the bird that flew out of the cage of religion, without which the wild cat of animal nature would have devoured the bird while still inside the egg. For there to be higher freedom of the mind, the lower freedom of savage instinct must be tamed. And religion played a key role in restraining lower freedoms so that higher freedom could finally arise, though, to be sure, they had to break out of the confines of religious taboos.

As most people weren't sufficiently smart or privileged for higher thought, the only viable option for them were spiritually guided moral life of restraints OR animal-driven beastly existence of excesses. If most people were moral, a stable community was possible and could sustain institutions for higher learning. But if most people were barbaric, social chaos ensued and even smart people had to scramble just to survive. (There are smart people in Africa, but they can't cultivate the life of the mind because most Africans indulge in animal nature of jungle boogie. Same is true in most black-majority communities in the the West.)

With the fading of religious authority and the weakening of constraints on animal nature, we are now witnessing the degradation and destruction of Western civilization by the savagery of black thuggery, harlotry of slut pride, and decadence of homo vanity. Blacks are especially dangerous because their animal nature is more aggressive, wild, destructive, and beastly than those of other races.

If there is a kind of 'religion' in the current West, it is Political Correctness, the official dogma of Jewish-controlled Globalism, that enforces taboos on honest minds that notice that the Emperor has no clothes. Honest people see the reality of racial differences and its dire implications. They also perceive the threat to the West(or any sane civilization) posed by black savagery, homo degeneracy, Jewish supremacism(via globalism), and feminist insipidity, but inquisitional PC imposes the politics of silence, shunning, or witch-burning on any brave soul who refuses to cower before the court of globalist dogma.
Actually, shallow & stupid PC is worse than real religions, which, at the very least and despite their repressive dimensions, were grounded in genuine contemplation, profundity of vision, and reflection of higher truths. PC is just a disingenuous tool of Jewish supremacists to bait and milk 'white guilt' so that there won't be a viable challenge to Jewish Power.

Globalists promote Homomania to Young People to Sever their Connection to People, Culture, and History

Globalists promote the homo stuff because, when young people are made to primarily identify with or admire/praise homos, they lose connection to their own race, culture, and history.

Every people have its deep ethnic roots. Irish have deep Irish roots, Poles have deep Polish roots, and Japanese have deep Japanese roots. So, if kids are raised to primarily identify with and admire their own family, people, and culture, they feel a deep meaningful connection to their ancestors, lore, and roots.

Imagine there's a Greek kid who is raised to identify most with family, kin, nationality, and Greek culture. His main loyalty will be to Greekness. Also, Real Sexuality is about procreation and continuity since all human lives are the product of sex between men and women. Real Sexuality reminds us of our biological roots, the value of families, and our duty to life.

In contrast, homosexuality cannot produce and has never produced life. So, when young people are made to identify with or praise homos, they reject the very source and process of life.
As a result, Life becomes a game of vanity, theatrics, frivolity, and narcissism. Also, homos come in all colors. There are homos in every nation and of every race. And homomania is a global phenomenon than a national one. It's about the united supremacism of homos all over the world in spreading 'rainbow' degeneracy into every nation as the main theme of love, morality, and spirituality.

Since homos cannot produce life, they indulge in 'creativity over creation'. Homo acts, such as fecal penetration and vaginal grinding, can never ever produce life, not a single one. As substitute for life, homos create a cartoon-fantasy land that favors hair dyes, tattoos, and piercings. And these forms of degeneracy are spread throughout the culture. This is great for globalism since its agenda is to sever people from cradle to their sense of roots, origins, race, and history.

This is why globalists push homomania on your nation. Notice that people who come under homo-influence almost invariably lose their sense of roots and connection to the rich tangibles of race, culture, and history. Their main identity is one of vapid celebrity narcissism and pop culture fantasies controlled by Jewish globalists and Homo decadents.

Multiculturalism is Not about Tolerance of Minorities. It is a Cancer that Demands Endless Demographic Imperialism until the Native Majority is Reduced to a Minority.

Multiculturalism is like a cancer that keeps on metastasizing. It never stops. It grows bigger and bigger and demands more and more Diversity until the native host population is consumed and devoured by it.

PC or Political Correctness is the mental virus that fools a people into seeing Multiculturalism as a magic cure than as the cancer that it really is.

Those who ignore cancer because it begins as a small tumor doesn't understand its true nature. Unlike a birthmark or mole that remains fixed in size, cancer cells tirelessly grow and spread, eventually to sicken and kill the person.
Likewise, those who ignore multiculturalism as just some small thing fail to realize that it is a radical ideology designed to keep increasing foreign populations until the native folks are reduced to cowered and powerless minority.

It is natural for a society to have minorities. That is not the problem. Every society has some minorities.
However, multi-culturalism isn't about humane tolerance of existing minorities. It is a radical ideology insisting that MORE minorities and foreigners must be added UNTIL the native majority is reduced to a minority and shamed and intimidated into obeisance.

It is about immigration-invasion and destruction of native folks and culture.

There is no negotiating with multi-culturalists. They will not accept any limits on the percentage of minorities. If a nation is 99% white and willing to accept multiculturalism until the nation is 90% white, multiculturalists will only insist on more diversity. If the white majority settles for a 80% white nation, that won't be acceptable either. Indeed, the more you try to negotiate or compromise with multi-culturalists, the bolder and nastier they get. So, if you seek compromise for a nation that is to remain 60% white, the multi-culturalists will again say NO!
Then 50%? 40%? 30%? No, the multi-culti process is radical & ravenous and continue with zeal even when whites become 10% or less of the original population.

THAT is multiculturalism. It is a cancerous mechanism that never compromises and insatiably presses fore more conquest and concessions.

Dangers of Academic Neo-Stalinism; The Proglodyte Dilemma of Serving the Progoligarchs; The Power of Hedonics in Culture and Politics.

For the progs, Free Speech was always a tactic, not a principle. They were for when it served their interests. But now that Free Speech challenges and exposes their corruption and abuses, it is 'hate speech' that must be shut down. Of course, the powerful globalists know that the notion of 'hate speech' is just mind-control tactic to control the discourse, but bottom-feeding antifa dummies are too stupid to realize they are being used and abused as minions and goons.

It looks like neo-stalinism is coming off the rails in US colleges, at least some of them.
Why? Unlike Stalin who had iron-grip over his minions, the neo-stalinist professors don't. Likewise, even as Mao unleashed the crazy Red Guards, he had the power to clamp down anytime he wanted. So when things got out of order, he sent the military into the cities and sent the students to the countryside(to serve the people).
In contrast, neo-stalinist or neo-maoist college professors can't control what they've unleashed. Their power is too weak to serve as lid on the pressure cooker of nutball ideology.

Also, there is a lot of unspoken resentment among the nutball radicals on campuses. Even though they don't articulate it, the contradictions can be sensed.
Our world is about winners and losers. Globalism and mass immigration/diversity made it nearly impossible to have the middle class as the defining and dominant group in America. It is now about the winner class and the loser class. This being the case, the natural thing would be for radical leftists to challenge and attack the winner class that is hogging the wealth and prizes. And in an earlier time, this would have been the case when the upper classes were more conservative, 'reactionary', rightist, and Wasp. And anti-homo, anti-statist, and even 'antisemitic'. Back then, the upper classes were attacked by the Left as the bastion of right-wing white-supremacist privilege.

But such political attitudes have been nullified since the rise of boomers. With Jews taking elite power away from Wasps, leftist politics became less focused on class and more on minority-identity. So, rich Jewish minority now have more victim points than poor white gentiles. 'Minority Rights' doesn't make a distinction between billionaire Jews or fancy neo-aristocratic homos AND ghetto blacks or lettuce-picking Mexicans.
Likewise, 'white privilege' doesn't distinguish 'poor white trash' from someone like Bill Gates or Warren Buffett. Indeed, because rich whites can buy off the opposition by funding 'progressive' causes, they get less hatred than white working class or poor folks who tend to be more nationalist(as globalism does nothing for them).
With Jews as the new elites, attacking the rich isn't as ideologically correct. Why, it might be deemed 'antisemitic'. Also, as the rich classes now fund homomania and diversity, they are seen as engines of 'progress'. So, nutball proglodytes go easy on George Soroses, Michael Bloombergs, Tim Cooks, and James Camerons of the world. Millennials are the Generation of Harvey Milk and Starbucks Coffee.
Also, as elite colleges are now virtually entirely 'progressive', the future winners who will hog all the wealth and privilege enjoy the defense shield of PC. I mean, how can they be 'bad people' when they are for 'gay marriage' and 'trannies playing in womens sports and peeing in the ladies room'?

So, this had led to a strange kind of ideological schizophrenia. The NATURAL thing for proglodytes to do is to attack the winners as the hoggers of wealth and power. But in the New Order, the winner class has refashioned itself as bobo hipster proggy.
Even in the 80s, there was the hatred of the Reaganite-Thatcherite yuppie. Consider the vapid yuppies of Oliver Stone's WALL STREET and Mike Leigh's NAKED. And AMERICAN PSYCHO was meant to expose such mentality. In the post-60s era, the boomer professionals were so into success and money that they neglected politics and ideology. But over time, especially under Clinton, they formulated a way to seek success AND shroud themselves with progginess. One way was to turn leftism from Mayday to Gayday or from class politics to ass politics. This worked like a magic glove because homos are so vain, fancy-pants, and love to server the rich. So, with homos as the dominant face of the 'progressivism', the main theme came to be about fancy vain homos toying with politics to serve the economic interests of Jewish elites and rich boomers. It all became whoopy-pee-poo.

This robbed the proglodytes of the opportunity to bash their true enemies. If progs are supposed to be leftist and for egalitarianism, their natural enemies are the rich class. But the rich class is now 'progressive' and, furthermore, the main theme of 'progressivism' is forcing people to bake 'gay wedding cakes' and having men in dress wee-wee in women's room. This does NOTHING to challenge the power of the rich. If anything, the oligarchs in Wall Street, Hollywood, and Silicon Valley are cracking up that the proglodytes in the US and EU are sooooooo worked up about silly issues about trannies and worship of homo fecal penetration.

Surely, proglodytes in colleges, especially lesser ones, are really envious and resentful of students in better colleges and/or more prestigious majors who will rake in all the dough. Those specializing in medicine, business, computers, science/technology, corporate law, and such will gain the most success. Those in humanities, history, arts, education, and various schools of resentment will gain the least success. Many will be burdened with huge student debts with college degrees that are useless in the market place.
So, naturally, a college graduate with degree in Crazy Negro Studies or Bitchy Grrrl Studies will face a less promising future than someone with a degree in computers or finance. Since politics is driven by envy and resentment(though these emotions as masked as 'justice'), the proglodytes should direct their ire at the Mark Zuckerbergs and Sergei Brins of the world.
But since prog losers were taught from cradle that the true meaning of 'progress' is all about Diversity, Homomania, and fighting 'racism'. Since today's rich elites make all the correct-sounding noises about More Immigration, More Homo Celebration, and More Magic Negro Worship, the loser proglodytes feel they must be admire and support the rich progoligarchs.
But if loser proglodytes must still scream, rant, and hate on something. After all, that is what radical politics is all about. It's about me-hugging self-righteous displays of holier-than-thou virtue, a neo-puritanism. Since they cannot attack the powerful(who are now for 'gay marriage'), they look around and strike out at easy targets, like wussy professors or an odd conservative on campus.

But then, these wussy professors brought in on themselves by favoring neo-stalinism. Now, by 'neo-stalinism', I don't mean they are ideologically stalinist. I highly doubt if any leftist professor wants forced collectivization of agriculture or mass executions of 'class enemies'. By neo-stalinism, I mean the favoring of machine politics over individual brilliance.
Even though people with individual brilliance can be totalitarian and tyrannical, they are more likely to be for free discourse than less brilliant people are. Why? Because the brilliant have confidence in their abilities to argue and dominate. This was why Trotsky failed against Stalin. Now, Trotsky was autocratic and ruthless himself. But he was less totalitarian-minded(at least within the Soviet hierarchy) because he thought he would win out with wit and brilliance. Stalin was smart and experienced, but he couldn't match wits with Trotsky or other top Jews. So, the ONLY way Stalin could win was by building up machine politics. He would organize an army of cadre who were dim but obedient. They would be loyal to him like dogs and would attack anyone he set them upon.

The really smart intellectuals on the Left tend to be less totalitarian. Christopher Hitchens had confidence in his ability to take on anyone and win or at least hold his own. Steven Pinker also has confidence. But a lot of academics and intellectuals are really hacks or colorless. They lack brilliance or the nerves to match wits on a one-on-one basis. So, they prefer the stalinist way over the trotsky way. They'd rather create an army of pseudo-intellectual goons who will learn and obey than learn to be critical. They are more taboosters than taboo-busters. They would rather have obedient goons than free-thinkers.
The danger, however, is that goons can get out of control(especially if they are crazy negroes). Unlike Stalin and Mao who had the means to rein in any outbreak of excessive radicalism, the neo-stalinist professors are helpless when the goons bark and bite at them.

But then, is PC really the most powerful force in the US? We tend to associate PC with puritanism, but hedonism seems to be the main force in the West. After all, why did Jews, Homos, and Negroes become so powerful? There is the holocaust thing, slavery thing, and AIDS thing(caused by homos themselves), but most people don't think of such things. Most people seek pleasure, and the fact is Jews, blacks, and homos won because of their dominance of hedonics. Jews control comedy, wit, entertainment. Blacks got music, sports, and sex culture. Homos are into fashion and vanity and celebrity culture. Celebristianity is the new christianity. Once basic needs are met, people mainly live for pleasures: Consider the exponential rise in gambling, video games, pop music, pornography, celebrity mania, drugs(with meth killing poor whites), homo bacchanalia every year, dances such as 'twerking', and etc. So, it seems Poo-C counts more than PC. (poo-c meaning 'pussy' and poo-ride of homos.)

We can see the power of hedonics in US elections as well. Since the 1960 election, the rule of hedonics led to the more hedonic candidate winning. The more-hedonic-candidate is one who seems more 'fun'. That's why Kennedy beat Nixon. Though Johnson wasn't 'fun', he was more fun than Goldwater. Nixon wasn't fun, but Humphrey wasn't life of the party either. And McGovern, though the leader of the debauchers, was a dull guy. Carter was more fun than Ford. Reagan, former actor, was more fun than Carter and Mondale. Bush, though not fun, was still more fun than colorless Dukakis who had nothing of Zorba about him. Clinton was lot more fun than Bush and Dole. Dubya was more fun than square Gore and droopy Kerry. Obama was more fun than Mr. MaGoo McCain and Mormon Romney. And Trump was more fun than Hillary. (Maybe Bernie Sanders would have beaten Hillary if he told more jokes like a Jewish comedian.)

In a State of War, Individual Freedom & Liberty cannot be the Highest Values or Principles. Survival and Victory come First. Race-Traitors and Sexual Deserters deserve Contempt.

We all want liberty. We all want to be free as individuals, but in a state of war, liberty and freedom cannot be the highest values. In a state of war, what matters most is survival and victory, which are best ensured by teamwork, organization, loyalty, and trust. Those who invoke liberty & freedom to betray their own side or desert to the other side deserve our contempt. It doesn't matter if they betrayed or deserted in the name of freedom or liberty. The fact remains they are traitors and/or deserters who turned against their own kind. This is why libertarianism is worthless in a state of war.

The white race is currently in a state of war. It is in a state of war with Jewish globalists who infect and colonize white minds with 'white guilt' and 'diversity'. It is in a state of war with Third World masses who invade and appropriate white lands to leech off white wealth and achievement. It is in a state of war with blacks who beat up white males and colonize white wombs of white women whose minds are infected with the Virus of Jungle Fever disseminated by Jewish-control-of-media.

In this WWWW or War of Words, Worlds, and Wombs, any white person who collaborates with Jewish globalists is a traitor. Any white person who welcomes mass non-white invasion is a cuck-collaborator. Any white woman who offers her womb to Negroes is a sexual deserter. She has deserted her bio-cultural obligation as creator of future white children and instead uses her womb to make black babies for blacks, the enemy of the white race. White women who choose ACOWW, or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs, are enemies of the white race. It's no wonder that Jews, who are hellbent on destruction of white power, are going all out to turn every white woman into a mudshark, a race-traitor and sexual-deserter.
And it doesn't matter if these traitors and deserters did what they did in the name of individual freedom or liberty. The fact remains that, in a state of war, they sided with the enemy and worked against their own race, culture, heritage, and homeland.
After all, the military and intelligence services do not forgive traitors and deserters because the transgression took place in the name of individual liberty and freedom.

Only when white people can ensure survival & enjoy security, only then the issue of individual liberty & freedom can be of primary importance to the white race.
When a people, culture, and land are threatened and in a state of war, Survival and Victory take precedence over all other considerations and principles, even over liberty and freedom.
After all, George Washington hanged traitors. He knew that traitors and deserters could invoke individual freedom to do as Benedict Arnold did.

This is why Jews promote libertarianism as the favored ideology among white 'conservatives'. It leads to atomization, dissension, self-absorption, decadence, and greed, none of which fosters or encourages teamwork and cooperation among white people.

Now, am I arguing for 'my country right or wrong' or 'my people, right or wrong'? No, that would be imperialism.
What I'm arguing for is nationalism for all peoples that ensures survival and victory of each people in their own realm in accordance to the particularities of identity, history, and territory.

Individual freedom and liberty are wonderful things but only in a State of Peace and Security. In a State of War, they must take a backseat to group unity, organization, loyalty, solidarity, and trust in order to roll back or defeat the existential enemy of one's own people, land, and culture.

Problem of Trust Culture & Education. Problem of Power Core in America.

There are lots of advantages of being part of a Trust Culture. But one of the downsides is the tendency to earnestly trust the Prevailing Authority and its Official Dogma.
Blind trust is a hindrance not to learning but to realizing that there may be an unspoken agenda behind the stated intentions of the Authority. Official Propaganda becomes all the more tricky when the Power is shrouded in the sanctimony of 'Social Justice'. The Power often does this by directing the righteous rage of the indoctrinated toward something other than the ruling power. In the West, the globalists have the real power, but they avoid scrutiny by directing the righteous rage at nationalism and the bogeyman of 'white supremacism'.

Culture of Trust is good for cohesion and cooperation, but when Authority if unworthy of Trust, we need a Culture of Inquiry. We need to question what we are being taught and why. When students trust the Authority, they can be good students of what they are taught. But they will never learn to realize the agenda behind the education. They will not awaken to the fact that education is often indoctrination to serve the interests of a certain group.

For most of American history, Wasps constituted the ruling elites. And then, the ruling elites have been Jewish. If Jews fall from power, Wasps won't be able to gain dominant power again. Will the result be come colorblind elite based on meritocracy? No way, as identity politics and groups interests will heat up. Without a ruling racial or ethnic group to hold it all together, can there even be a union? Without Turkish domination, the Ottoman Empire wasn't possible. Without the Russian Core, the USSR would have lacked gravitation forc.

The power core of US used to be Wasps, and this made good sense because Wasps founded America and comprised a huge segment of US population, even as other groups grew in number and power.
Then the power core shifted to Jews. This is problematic since Jews have shallower roots in the US and constitute only 2%. Also, if Wasp power was premised on positive Pride of founding and building America, Jewish power has been premised on negative shaming white gentiles for their historical sins, which can be expatiated ONLY BY the non-whitening of America, or so PC says. (But if the great sin of White America had been to Indians and blacks, how are those groups well-served by massive invasion of the US by Asians, Hispanics, Hindus, Muslims, Africans, etc?)
Still, even if Jewish power core is problematic, it is still something around which everything else revolves. It is a nucleus of power. But if Jews lose that centrality, can there be any operative power core in the US?

Mass Immigration is Intro-Colonization, and it is just as bad as Imperialism, or Extro-Colonization

How is Intro-Colonization better than Extro-Colonization in the long run?

Extro-Colonization conquers and takes other people’s lands, like what Alexander the Great did. Or like what the Persian Imperialists did.
Intro-Colonization allows one’s own civilization, kingdom, or nation to be colonized and conquered by others.
Both lead to the demise and replacement of one people and culture(in their own homeland) by another or many others.

What happened to Palestinians as the result of mass Jewish immigration, which was both intro-colonization and extro-colonization? The ruling elites in Palestine allowed it, but these ruling elites were really foreigners, namely the British Imperialists.

Of course, Palestinians didn’t choose that path for themselves. It was chosen for them by the British elites who ruled that part of the world. British rule in Palestine allowed massive Intro-Colonization of Zionist Extro-colonists. The result was tragedy for Palestinians.

Extro-colonization or Intro-Colonization, it is a form of replacism and displacism. In our globalizing world where all nations are threatened with mass-conquest by others with ZERO respect for national borders, identities, and cultures, all people should be against demographic imperialism. Especially Jewish globalists have NO respect for any nation and its identity and culture. They seek to weaken and exploit any nation that possesses an ounce of sovereignty and autonomy with ‘multi-culturalism’, ‘diversity’, homomania, and minority-elite-supremacism.

And in the Golden Age of Universal Nationalism following the end of WWII, all peoples agreed on the ideal and necessity of National Sovereignty. European colonists in the Third World had to return home and mind their own business and preserve their own nations. And newly independent Third World nations guarded their own autonomy and sought to develop their own economies. All nations tried to respect one another even as they expanded world trade and exchange of ideas and expressions.

So, what destroyed this balance?
The process of massive Intro-Colonization pursued by Western elites, especially with the encouragement and pressure of Jewish elites. For the Western elites, Intro-Colonization meant cheaper labor and more consumers. For Jewish elites, it meant Diversity and divide-and-rule over the goyim. And for non-whites in the Third World whose main theme has been nationalism and autonomy following WWII, the siren call of abandoning their own nations, moving to the West, and enjoying better material lives was too much to resist. They betrayed the ideal of national autonomy by favoring narrow self-interest over the national good. In seeking entry into the West, they join with Jewish globalists to undermine the national sovereignty of Western nations. But this will boomerang on their own nations. If they argue that the West must ‘put out’ to the world as a moral imperative, then the same logic will apply to their own nations. Thus, globalism doesn’t merely undermine and destroy Western nations. It promotion the Western Rejection of National Autonomy as the New Ideal for all nations… with the exception of Israel.

So, globalism brought about the New Age of Mass Colonization. Elites sermonize about ‘principles’ to push this madness, but I’ll take their principles more seriously when they make the same demands for Israel as for Poland and Hungary.

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

It’s not ‘supremacism’ if you defend your turf. It is ‘supremacism’ when you invade others and rule over them.
Japanese were not supremacist when they were only defending Japan. They became supremacist when they invaded China and tried to rule over Chinese.

Greeks keeping Hellas for Greeks was not the problem. The problem was Greek imperialism over others. But Kennedy is less bothered by imperialism than immigration, which can lead to reverse-imperialism or demographic imperialism by foreigners.

Btw, most slaves in Greece were white and fellow Europeans. It’s like virtually all slaves in past Japan were Japanese. So, how is that a form of ‘racial supremacism’? If Greeks were biased, it was about culture. Greeks thought barbarians had inferior culture.

But then, Kennedy’s argument is oddly western-supremacist too. By arguing that Western Civilization belongs to everyone and not just to whites, she is saying all the world should be ‘westernized’.

Now, given that the West did most to create the modern world, the world had indeed become ‘westernized’. But this IDEA-aspect of Westernization doesn’t need massive transference of peoples. Ideas travel through the minds. Japan, Turkey, and Germany don’t need Hollywood in their own nations to learn to make their own movies. You don’t have to invite an Italian into your house to make pizza. Just learn the recipe from a book.

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

We are told ‘cultural appropriation’ is bad. But non-whites must now appropriate Western Classical culture? What’s wrong with keeping and preserving their own culture? Why must they adopt Hellenic cultural identity?

Also, should the West be appropriating peoples from other parts of the world and turning them ‘western’, thus cutting them off from their own cultural roots? Sharing Western Culture with non-Westerners may sound generous and ‘inclusive’, but it cuts non-whites off from their own cultures and encourages them to pretend that they are Greek. It’s like converting heathens to Christianity. It may seem ‘inclusive’ and ‘nice’, but the missionaries are cutting non-Christian natives from their own roots, cultures, and spiritual belief systems.

Also, Kennedy seems not to understand what Steve King really meant. There is a difference between Western Ideas and Western Folks.
It’s true that Western Civilization’s achievements don’t belong only to the West. They belong to anyone who will draw inspiration from them and use them. So, even though cinema is an American(and French) invention, other peoples can use the technology and make Arab movies, Asian movies, and African movies. The gun belongs to anyone who learns how to make them and use them even if the modern firearm is a Western invention.
Also, anyone can enjoy Beethoven or Mozart, just like anyone can appreciate Chinese architecture or Hindu temples or the Taj Mahal.

But there is more to a people than their arts, ideas, science, and technology. There is a thing called ethnos, a sense of national family, and this is deeper than any set of abstract ideas or technological advances. And it is this sense that the West has lost.
This sense of people-hood is more important than high achievements. After all, there are many peoples and nations that didn’t produce anything great. If Azerbaijanis had never existed, it wouldn’t have mattered much to the world. Unlike Jews, Greeks, Chinese, Arabs(with Islam), and Asian-Indians, Azerbaijanis didn’t do anything that fundamentally changed the world.
Still, at least for Azerbaijanis, their history, culture, and sense of lineage/heritage surely mean something simply because they are unique & distinct and imbue Azerbaijanis with a sense of who they are, where they’ve settled as homeland, and how they remember their folklore & history. So, even if Azerbaijanis don’t matter much to the world in terms of ideas and science, their culture means everything to them because it defines what they are in terms of blood, soil, and story. It’s like Jews became a people and culture first before they gained greatness.

And this is why there is something deeper than this thing called ‘Western Civilization’. While it’s true that it did more than any other civilization to reshape the world — and therefore became the template for modern world civilization —, the fact remains that European peoples and cultures would still exist and still have value even without the high achievement. Suppose Germans had never produced people like Kant, Goethe, Beethoven, Heisenberg, and etc. German civilization would have meant far less to the world, but German sense of folk, memory, and culture would still have been of priceless value to Germans. Before greatness is possible, there must be a people and culture. When a people attain greatness, they’ve created something of world significance. If they fail to achieve such, they cannot change the world… BUT their culture, even if not great, has immense value as something that defines a people, guides them, and lends them a sense of where they came from. Consider the Greeks during the Dark Ages. This was before Greeks created a Great Civilization, the ideas of which would come to eventually change the world. But even in the Dark Ages, there was a folk who struggled to defend their land and told stories to keep the legends and memory alive. This is the Core of a People. Greatness is the fruits that grow and hang abundantly from a tree, but such growth of fruits is possibly only if there is tree with trunk and roots. Too often, people regard Western Civilization as the fruits without any regard to the trunk and roots of ethnos, narrative and mythos, and territory.

So, for people like King, the achievements of the West are of secondary importance to the existence and survival of Western peoples and their sense of who they are in terms of ethnos, memory, and territory. And this core sense of blood, soil, and story is one thing that great peoples and ungreat peoples can have in common. However great or however ungreat, there is more to a people than its achievements. It’s like West Germany achieved far more than East Germany when it came to science, technology, and economy, but East Germans were no less German in the sense of blood, soil, and story that goes back for centuries and even millenniums if we count the world of Germanic barbarians.
All peoples, great or ungreat, should have the right to preserve and defend the core of blood, soil, and story in their designated homelands. Whether it’s Great Britain or un-great Bulgaria, it should have the right to preserve its core ethnos, history, and territory.

Also, even though Western Civilization can be appreciated by any people and can inspire any individual around the globe, there is a racial basis to its rise and achievement. In the most basic sense, Western literature conveys European temperament and personality. Western music conveys European emotions and passions. Western arts depict European forms and expressions. If Greeks looked and felt like Africans or Chinese, their arts and expressions would have been different.
Even when a people borrow culture from another people, their genetics work on the material and make it their own. It’s like Christianity, originated by Near Eastern Jews, was expressed differently among Arabs, Europeans, and blacks. Black people took much of Western music and created ‘black music’, and whites too black music and made it into ‘white rock’.