Politics of Saints and Sinners in the World of Political Correctness -- The Monstrous Idiocy of Rebecca Futo Kennedy, a hapless mental midget and puppet of Donna Zuckerberg, the Globo-Homo Jewish Termite gnawing away at Western Heritage

Donna Zuckerberg, the hideous Jewish globo-homo bitch and sister of a**hole Mark Zuckerberg, abuses her position in the field of Classical Studies as a termite gnawing away at the pillars of Western Civilization. Who is this vile and toxic Jewess to subvert another peoples identity and culture? 

Rebecca Futo 'Fatso' Kennedy

The Politics of Saints and Sinners.

People on the Right tend to believe ALL peoples are sinners. But through the cultivation of virtue, they can become more like saints.

People on the Left tend to believe ALL people are saints. But due to social conditions, they are corrupted into sinners.

With the rise of Identity Politics, things got a bit more complicated.

People on the Right(or at least the true right) care more about winners than sinners. The Right is about the competition among individuals/groups to win as much as possible. Libertarians emphasize winning on the individual level, whereas identitarians stress winning on the ethno-organismic level. The Right still believes all peoples to be 'sinners', but it has pretty much abandoned the Christian Project of 'saving the world' through Jesus Christ, the patron saint of sinners seeking redemption.

People on the current so-called 'left' believe certain groups are natural saints, certain groups are natural sinners(or historical sinners so stained with the legacy of guilt that wickedness has become their second nature), and certain groups are neither. Jews, blacks, and homos are seen as natural saints. Whites are seen as natural sinners. The rest are neither. (Muslims, for example, are sometimes seen as saints[as victims of white 'racism' or 'Islamophobia'], sometimes as sinners[as terrorists who want to harm Jews and Israel].) But since all groups prefer to be regarded as saints than sinners, they emulate the politics of Jews, blacks, or homos OR try to associate themselves with one or all three of the sacro-anointed groups. So, we have Muslims bitching about 'Islamophobia'(which sounds like 'homophobia'), and we have even successful Asians moaning and groaning as 'victims' in imagined alliances with blacks, Jews, or homos.

The New Left of Identity-Politics differs from the Old Universalist Left of the Rousseauean Catcher-in-the-Rye School that regarded ALL peoples as natural saints prior to becoming corrupted by social tyranny and injustice.
The New Leftism of Identity Politics bestows natural/automatic sainthood upon certain groups while reviling certain other groups as naturally/innately sinful.
This dynamics has ironically led to new sins: The sin of pride and moral vanity among certain groups, especially Jews, homos, and blacks. It has also led to the sin of self-debasement and suicidal mentality among whites. Atonement and redemption are one thing, but self-debasement and/or self-destruction are another. (Worse, those whites who debase themselves and call for white suicide feel a sudden rush of pride and vanity for being 'good whites' who've seen the Light. Their display of self-debasement thus serve as moral exhibitionism.)

There is a kind of moral exemption for white 'progressives' in the current 'leftism'. True, Identity Politics Leftism says that all whites are natural sinners, but by dramatizing their self-purgatory rituals, whites can score temp-sainthood points, at least against 'deplorable' whites who aren't so hung up about 'white guilt' and redemption.

Consider this piece of tripe: We Condone It by Our Silence. Confronting Classics’ Complicity in White Supremacy.

So, even though the putrid and disgusting Rebecca Futo Kennedy belongs to the race of natural sinners, she feels smugly superior by the virtue of smearing OTHER whites, alive and dead(even 1,000s of yrs ago), as 'racist'. She's the sort to dig up her great great great great great grandfather from his grave and spit on him just to score 'virtue' points with PC. This is the 'sinergy' that progs like Kennedy draw upon to congratulate themselves.

It never occurs to these smug (ass)holier-than-thou prigs and progs that people of different times and places thought and felt differently and had other priorities due to particular circumstances and crises. They lack empathy and fail to understand the rules of the game in other times and places.
For them, the PC of the Current Year is the absolute truth, and they wield it like a cudgel(or padlock for smashing skulls) and smugly pass judgement on others, even on Greeks who lived 1000's of years ago and struggled to survive in a dangerous and contentious world. (After all, Greeks not only invaded others but were invaded many times by others. It was a very insecure and dangerous world torn asunder with constant warfare, not least among the Greeks themselves.) But affluent, comfortable, and privileged bubble world of academia, prigs and progs like Kennedy have NO idea of how things may have been in other times and places. Any sensible person knows, just as it'd be stupid to judge ancient Hebrews by standards of today's PC, it'd be ridiculous to judge ancient Greeks with today's 'values'.

There was a time when historians and classicists tried to understand and empathize with peoples of different times, places, and cultures. They understood that only a narrow-minded self-righteous idiot studies history just to pass judgement on other times, peoples, and places, indeed as if current values and assumptions are the only true ones, the end-all of truth. Real scholars studied history to broaden their understanding of peoples and cultures, not to reduce history into Smug Self-Righteousness for Dummies.
Today, we have PC snobs like Kennedy feeling superior to others and even turning up their noses at 'ancient racists'. She's like a junkie addicted to smugasms. She needs her daily fix and is on the constant lookout to call something else 'racist' to get her next high.

Also, where do people like Kennedy get the idea that today's PC is the 'most evolved' and most advanced moral value-system? If so, why has it led to such decadence, degeneracy, and corruption in the West(and its political & cultural satellites) as the Whole World began to adopt Diversity and Homomania as universal truths? Is Sweden really getting better with the invasion of Africans and Muslims? Will Italy and France really fare better with millions of black Africans who come only for sex and money and whose idea of culture is gangsta-tribal rap music? Is it really morally uplifting to associate the venerable institution and tradition of marriage with men who do homo fecal penetration or have their penises and testicles cut off to get fake vaginas? Really? Has Western Europe really benefited morally and intellectually by handing its culture and discourse over to rappers, flaming homos, and Zionist globalists? Really?

As a sinner, one seeks atonement and redemption. When this is sound and sincere, it can lead to moral good and rejuvenation. But when one dramatizes one's 'sinergy' to feel holier-than-thou, it's just vanity of bogus sainthood by other means. Vanity is an especially corrupt form of pride, and as such, a sin.
Kennedy is saying that, though born of sinful white 'racist' blood, she is an honorary saint because she bleats endlessly about 'racism', even to the point of spitting on ancient Greeks for having been too white. What an idiot.

In truth, all peoples are sinners. The most they can do is draw some inspiration from saints, but then with caution because there real saints are exceedingly rare. Also, is it worth being a saint when genuine saints usually get martyred? (Sometimes, I suppose it is worth it. The Christian bakers who lost their businesses and their savings because they refused to bend over to degeneracy and bake 'gay wedding cakes' should inspire all decent people for whom there is higher value in life than profits and social approval of the corrupted.)
The best moral/spiritual formula is for all people to accept that they are sinners. 'Sinfulness' is just the way of human nature. With that in mind, people should also try to be winners since life is about competition, without which there is no achievement. But being conscious of our sinner-nature, we need to observe the Golden Rule that applies to individuals and to nations in their competitions. Just as an individual shouldn't do unto others what he doesn't want others to do unto him, a nation shouldn't do unto other nations what it doesn't want other nations to do unto it. The golden rule among nations should be DO NOT INVADE OTHER NATIONS AND DO NOT VIOLATE THEIR NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY.
The US is now a sick evil nation because, even as it bitches endlessly about non-existent Russian Collusion in US elections, it has done more than any other nation to interfere and mess with other nations' political processes.

The current problem is that Jews, blacks, and homos now act arrogantly, aggressively, and insufferably because they regard themselves as Natural Saints who can never do wrong. This has led to total moral corruption, a kind of moral nihilism or amoral morality. Indeed, what are SJW but a bunch of Justice Nihilists? Then, it's not surprising that blacks now think it is their Moral Privilege to carry out 'hate hoaxes'. Even when they get caught, they act like the aggrieved... because they've been flattered constantly as being natural saints NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO. So, a black doing wrong is more righteous than a white doing right. You see, blacks are BORN Saints whereas whites are BORN sinners.
And we have Jews acting the same way. When the Israeli hate-hoaxer was captured and exposed for having defamed white people as 'anti-Semites' who send bomb threats to Jewish centers, the reaction from ADL was the Jewish hoaxer is also an 'anti-Semite' and therefore, Jews are once again the pure-as-snow victims even though the Jewish hate-hoaxer had defamed white people to serve Jewish interests(by drawing sympathy to the Jewish community).
As for homos, we must believe the fiction that they weren't in any shape or form responsible for the AIDS epidemic. Never mind all their foul and irresponsible behavior in bathhouses. It was all the fault of "Reagan's Indifference". We must look upon homos as something akin to angels. In the Current Year, men who have other men stick their penises into their fecal holes are to be revered as possessing the cleanest souls. When will there be 'gay hymns' in churches singing about how nothing excites the angels as much as a guy cutting his penis and balls off to get a fake vagina?

The cult of Natural Sainthood for Jews, blacks, and homos has led to total moral corruption, not least because Jews, blacks, and homos tend to have out-sized personalities that lean toward pushiness, egomania, thuggery, and vanity. We have chutzpahstic Jews, rappin'-hollerin' Negroes, and bitchy-flaming homos acting like they are the paragons of all that is good & noble despite the fact that Jewish-directed US foreign policy has wrecked the Muslim World and restarted 'new cold war' with Russia, blacks commit the most crime and social violence in the US and other places where they are prominent, and homos routinely degrade culture around the world into a celebration of narcissism, decadence, and degeneracy. (If the Ancient Greeks should be admonished for one thing, it was letting too many homos and pederasts get out of hand.)

But there is another group of people who are a pain in the ass. The sinner-saints of the White Prog Community. Unlike Jews, blacks, and homos, these white progs see themselves as born sinners stained with 'white guilt'. So, their moral imperative is to make scenes of atonement and redemption. They have an obsessive-compulsive mental disorder of constantly washing themselves of sin. They feel so dirty, having been born with wicked white blood, so they do their Lady Macbeth thing as PC theater.

But paradoxically, those who feel most dirty and compulsively wash themselves feel so much cleaner than others who don't share in the obsession-compulsion. If Jews, blacks, and homos feel clean for having been born with clean blood, white progs feel cleansed and replenished by endless rituals of PC blood transfusions. The difference is Jews, blacks, and homos feel clean simply by being what they are since PC deems them to be natural saints. In contrast, white progs must tirelessly, or obsessively-compulsively, undergo self-cleaning ritual-therapies to feel cured. White progs can never feel clean; they can only feel cleansed, and this requires endless process of enema-like expurgation of one's natural sinner-status. The ensuing hysteria makes the sin-cleanser feel superior to those whites who aren't as obsessive-compulsive in their expiation of natural white sin.

Kennedy the white sinner constantly washes and dries her wicked dirty white soul. Because she feels dirty and constantly lathers her soul with PC soap, she feels so much cleaner and superior to whites who don't feel so dirty and don't feel an obsessive-compulsive need to take PC showers. So, Kennedy's sin-obsession has ironically filled her smug-ugly soul with the supremacist pride of soapy-sudsy sainthood. She may be not be a natural saint like Jews, blacks, and homos, but boy oh boy, she surely is saintlier than 'racist' whites who don't scrub themselves with PC soap as obsessively-compulsively as she does.

Her ilk doesn't impress me. They are just snot-nosed supremacists of another kind. They are virtue-nazis wallowing in ideological supremacism. She thinks herself so superior to other whites who don't preen, sneer, and virtue-signal like she does in her foamy white-guilt bubble bath.
Worse, her moral masturbation is blind to her preferred ideology being the biggest evil in the world, one that is destroying entire nations and communities. ONLY AN IDIOT thinks 'diversity' is a panacea for all problems. Diversity is the product of imperialism and colonization. Alexander the Great created an Empire of Diversity, and how much blood was spilled in the process? And eventually, the Greeks became part of a diverse Roman Empire that didn't expand peacefully. The loss of autonomy was NOT GOOD for Greek Civilization. PTOLEMY WAS RIGHT IN HIS PRIVATE MUSINGS in Oliver Stone's movie: https://youtu.be/YK4s2Fjefn8?t=1m3s

The last thing we need is Mark Zuckerberg playing Alexander the Grape, with his snot-nosed spoiled-brat sister Donna doing the Angelina Jolie part of the crazy mother hen.
At least the real Alexander, crazy and ruthless as he was, was a real romantic and courageous leader of men. The master-connivers of globalism like Zuckerberg are a bunch of snakes and weasels who risk nothing of their own power and privilege while endangering what is most meaningful and valuable for most people: A sense of homeland, a place to return to. If an Hungarian travels around the world, he may see all sorts of remarkable things and meet interesting people. But he will always be a stranger in other nations. It is only when he returns to Hungary that he can relax and feel 'this is my homeland.' It's good to know that there is at least one place in the world where you are not a stranger but an owner along with your fellow countrymen.
But what happens when Hungary fills up with foreigners? There WON'T be any part in the world where a Hungarian can feel at home. He will be a stranger even in a familiar land, in the land of his ancestors. Globalists and their well-paid and well-connected commissars don't understand this since they live in a Laputa-Elysium world of their own.

Globo-Homo Mark Zuckerberg, the cyber emperor of censorship and Jewish supremacism, pretends to sympathize with blacks and Christianity. These Jews...

Oddly enough, PC says the only way to clean whiteness is by staining it with color. (But won't, non-whiteness be 'stained' and infected with Evil Whiteness?) Oddlier enough, non-whites who denounce whiteness are ever so eager depart from and abandon their colorful societies to go to white nations and live & mix with whiteness because they prefer whiteness over their own kind.
Now, if whiteness is so problematic, then non-whites should stay in their wonderful non-white colorful world and revel in it. But all they ever dream about is running from the world of color and going to where white folks are. Since non-white immigrants prefer whiteness above all, even over their own kind, aren't they a bunch of 'white supremacists'?

Afro-Colonization of White Wombs(ACOWW) has been facilitated by White Achievements and Power of Electricity and Electronica as Magnifiers and Amplifiers of Black Prowess

Many nationalists blame the rise of feminism as the main cause of West's downfall.

Feminism is a big problem, but it alone can't do much harm. After all, prior to mass immigration-invasion, feminism was just a headache in Sweden, not an 'existential' matter. Feminism or no feminism, the real threat to the white race is due to biological differences among the races, especially between whites and blacks.

After all, the white underclass is hardly intellectual/ideological or into stuff like 'feminist' Critical Theory. Most never came across academic tracts on anything. But we see more and more 'white trash' women breeding with black men than with white men... which only adds to white male depression and White Death, esp as white-have-nots have no leadership or guidance from white elites. If anything, they are condemned for 'white privilege' by the white elites who hog the real privilege(by cucking out to Jewish overlords). White elites ameliorate the burden of 'white guilt' by fancy displays of virtue-signaling. Look how far Tom Brokaw, Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, and their ilk got by mixing privilege/success with self-serving displays of 'conscience' that dumps most of the burden of 'white privilege' on Joe Sixpack.

Even anti-white-ness per se may not be the main threat to the White Race. After all, white women are not attracted to American Indians -- legit 'victims' of US history -- despite the Narrative that morally advantages Indians over whites. So, even if white men are accused of 'genocide' against the Noble Red Man, the fact is most white women will not run into the arms of Red Man. And no matter how much we hear about the mistreatment of Chinese railroad workers, white women will not have 'yellow fever' for yellow gorks.

The real problem is electronica and Afro-funkery.

Paradoxically, the greatest achievement and strength of a people can end up serving the power of another people. It's like the roads built by Romans. They were meant to expand Roman power and domination. But in the end, it made the invasion of Rome much easier because the barbarians could use those very pathways to march toward Rome to sack it. So, what the Romans built to ensure their domination over others facilitated the domination by others over Romans. Rome ended up being 'host' to invaders. It's like a dog's mobility is a great advantage, but it also enables the spread of parasites much more effectively. Dog's speed allow dogs to hunt and run from danger. But it also means dogs will run all around and spread fleas and ticks to other dogs and mammals. Dogs unwittingly serve as the hosts and carriers of the very creatures that feed on them. It's like the Alien creature in Ridley Scott's movie uses humans as host-carriers of their eggs.

Prior to white development of mass travel, mass communication, and electronic media, blacks were nothing more than oogity-boogity primitives in their own world. Though physically powerful and aggressive, they lacked the intellect and temperament to develop the kind of technology necessary for world domination. They mostly chucked spears at hippos and then yelled "run like a mothafuc*a". They beat on bongo drums and shook their booties and told folktales about how someone's grandma was an antelope. So, no matter how physically powerful and wild they were, they were stuck in their own little worlds and meant nothing to the rest of The World.

So, how did Afromania spread(indeed, even before homomania)? It was due to white achievements in electricity and electronica. Electricity allows the development of electronica, the gadgets, especially of media and entertainment, that AMPLIFY and MAGNIFY human expression, showmanship, and prowess. Before electronica, it took an entire orchestra or a big chorus to make loud sounds. With electronica, a skinny Mexican like Carlos Santana or dufusy Briton like Jimmy Page could create thunder with a single guitar on par with Wagner's operas. Rock music wasn't possible without electricity. Prior to electronica, black music could be loud and raucous but its reach was limited to a saloon or hall. But when bluesmen went electric, they sounded 1000x more powerful.
Even without electronica, people could express themselves powerfully, but the impact was limited. Electronica amplified the power of expression 100x and transmitted images and sounds to millions and even billions of people, especially via satellite technology.

Now, blacks had NOTHING to do with modern science. White folks did it all, just about. Even non-white achievements by Japanese were micro-improvements on white macro-paradigms. So, the power of electricity and electronica developed as achievements of white power to serve white power.
The problem is the power of electricity and electronica came to favor the expressions of another people, even ones that posed harm to the very people who developed the technologies.
It's like Japanese companies like Sony and Toshiba made lots and lots of TV sets and sold them around the world. So, did Japanese TV's spread Japanese culture and prestige? No, for the most part, what people around the world watched on those Japanese-made TV sets were Hollywood and American culture. So, if Japan sold 100 million TV sets, they did little to spread Japanese racial or cultural prestige or enhance Japan's soft power. What really mattered was what was broadcast on TV, and it was mostly American sports and entertainment and movies and music. Japanese provided the hardware but not the idols for global consumption.

So, all those Japanese TV's were really serving the American Sound and Image.
In the end, who prints books is less significant than who provides the ideas and images conveyed on the pages of books and magazines.
I mean a person in some part of the world with a Sony TV does NOT think when watching a movie, "I'm watching a TV set made by Sony. Gee, those Japanese make good TV's. Good workmanship. Nice technology." No, he ignores all that and just gets excited about what is coming through the Tube, which is far more likely a Hollywood product than a Japanese movie or TV show. If Jews were to make all the TV sets but if Palestinians were to make all the TV shows, which side would gain the advantage? Will people show more appreciation to the fact that Jews made the TV sets OR will they show more appreciation to the programs created by Palestinians?

So, when white folks feel assured of their power because so much of Human Achievement was the result of white genius, white brilliance, and white innovation, they are not seeing the bigger picture. Much of white achievements in technology is merely useful and convenient. People don't pay attention to the technology itself but what it can deliver or convey. How many people know what really goes into a TV, smartphone, computer, internet, or video game in terms of technology and programming? They just like the sight-and-sound, the fun stuff relayed by such technologies. Thus, so much of white genius and white-human-achievement goes undetected and remains invisible. When people flush the toilet, they don't think of the important historical figure who came up with modern plumbing and sewage system.
People are still organisms, and most organismic needs are basic and functional. People do them because they must. It's like taking a urine, taking a dump, drinking water, getting some sleep, cleaning and bathing, and etc. People do them not because they want to but because they must. They're about bodily functions.
What people fixate most on are things of pleasure. Not just any food but sugary-creamy food. Music and dance, related to sex culture, as music and sexuality light up same parts of the brain. And human organisms still have that warrior-hunter instinct, which is why people, esp men, still love sports and action movies and video games.

As for culture, elitist high art has no chance against pop culture. Elite culture had prestige when the world was ruled by aristocrats with fancy airs. They were patrons of high art. Also, the power of religion emphasized themes of grace, dignity, transcendence, and redemption over ones of wantonness, excess, vulgarity, and shamelessness. For most of human history, most people had humble folk culture and family lore. Elites had high culture. But in the democratized world of mass consumption, pop culture is the only dominant culture, and it is driven by profits derived from catering to 'base' animalistic drives of masses of human organisms.

White people developed the power of electricity and invented electronica on a massive scale. Today, even tribesmen in Africa have smartphones that connect with all the world. Since white folks developed the technology and since East Asian nations make a lot of these gadgets, one would think the power of electricity/electronica would favor whites above all and Asians second. But, the controllers of much of globalist media and entertainment are Jews who generally happen to have their own ethno-organismic interests that tend to be hostile especially toward white gentiles(but also against Muslims and Asians). So, movies like GET OUT, DJANGO UNCHAINED, and 12 YEARS A SLAVE are financed by them(but nothing about the Nakba Pogroms that wiped Palestine off the map).

Also, in our culture of shameless thuggery and lasciviousness, blacks have a decisive advantage in entertainments with greatest reach for masses around the world: Pop music, sports, vulgar comedy, pornography, increasingly sexualized dance forms, and art of hollering(like in rap battles, though when used well, it can lead to impressive oratory, as with MLK).
Blacks always had these traits, but they were contained in Africa. Someone in Mexico, India, China, Turkey, Iran, or Hungary wouldn't have known about black volume or virility prior to mass electronic communication. But with the spread of electronic networks all around the world, blackness in sports, music, dance, sex, and hollering has spread all over. And this is leading to a kind of Afro-mono-culture. Now, global electronic networks can, theoretically or ideally, spread all sorts of cultures and expressions around the world. And this spirit does exist in the Art Film Community where people still show interest in different works from around the world. But these films make minuscule amount of money. Look at any Variety box office charts, and it's rare for a foreign or indie film to make more than $100,000 at box office in the US, no matter how good the film is. Most indie or foreign films make much less than even that.
Especially in a world culture that is increasingly shameless, infantile, savage, and vulgar, people don't have patience or interest in anything except that which gives them a quick fix or high, like crack or smack. Also, sports is a zero-sum game. People only care about top winners and no one else. Blacks dominate sports because they got more fast-twitch muscles, making them quicker and more explosive. Also, blacks have tougher bones and faster reflexes. Evolution made for racial differences in physical advantages. Since blacks are most wild and dominant in the culture of mass thrills -- even coming up with a dance called 'twerking' -- , World Culture is going Afromaniacal. Long ago, French pop music was unique. While it borrowed elements from other musical styles, it maintained a distinctive Frenchness. But go on youtube and check the top 10 hits of France last year, and it's just French version of Afro-funkery and rap. And look at the French soccer team. Almost all black.

This means that the most advanced part of the world, the West, has done most to promote and disseminate the attitudes and (lack of)manners of the most primitive, aggressive, and troublesome race on earth, the blacks, whose racial nature has made a total mess of Africa, Haiti, Detroit, parts of Baltimore, and etc. Whites built computers and the internet. Blacks had nothing to do with it. But black expressions are spread to all corners of the world via the internet.

http://www.ozy.com/fast-forward/how-hip-hop-is-fueling-feminism-in-an-unlikely-place/77095?utm

Afromania may be sold as 'diversity', 'feminism', 'progress', or 'tolerance', but it is really Afro-colonization of the world via the CARRIER of white technology. Even though technology was created by high intellect, great discipline, and much learning, their purpose is to make things easier and simpler for most people. Initially, technology was to ensure better survival and production of basic goods like automobiles and laundry machines. They were not about pleasure but necessity and convenience. But once people's basic needs were met, they relied on technology more and more for pleasure, especially with the rise of youth culture in the 50s and 60s when hedonism became the main mode, even to the point of infecting leftism, whereby May 68 in France was ignited by French male students being angry for lack of easy sexual access to coeds.

The masses find most pleasure in sports as form of neo-tribalism, pop music, dance as horny expression, comedy & culture of vulgarity, pornography & other forms of sex culture, and narcissism & celebrity(to the point that even fat homely Lena Dunham imposes herself on us as 'hot stuff), and etc. And blacks have gained dominance in many of those. And because US media have global reach and because internet interconnects all the world, it means Euro-power in electricity and electronica have come to serve as midwife to and carrier of savage Afromania. And this may be a destructive force, not least because modern technology not only allows mass communication but mass travel. In the 50s and 60s, white Britons may have listened to black music and drawn inspiration, but most black Africans had little chance of making it to UK. Also, there were far fewer blacks back then in Africa. But modern medicine and food vastly increased black population in Africa. Also, air travel is now cheap enough that any well-off African can fly to any part of the world. Also, the breakdown of borders and loopy redefinition of 'western values' mean that Africans can willfully endanger themselves at sea to be dragged into Europe, whereupon they can trek from Italy or Spain to northern parts of Europe. And since the 80s, European women have been dosed on madonna-ism, the ideal of white ho having orgy with the entire NBA. This leads to the Afro-Colonization of White Wombs or ACOWW. And if you have trepidation about any of that, all of EU, from top to bottom, have been mentally-colonized to condemn you as 'racist'. A people who are only territorially conquered can still survive as a race. Poles and Kurds had been conquered this way, but as most of their women had children for their own men, the people and culture survived. But when the women of a race are womb-colonized by another people, it leads to something like mestizo-ization. The Hispanic colonization of native wombs in Latin America forever destroyed the identity and pride of Meso-Americans who still linger as strangers in their own land, or strangers in a familiar land.

At the current rate, the white race is going from boomers to doomers. Not only do more and more white women invite their wombs to be colonized by black men but white men, as sappy cucks, have embraced their own inferiority and fitfully virtue-signal their 'anti-racism' of having accepted the black man as the 'better man' who's more deserving of possessing and enjoying white female beauty. Paradoxically, white 'progressives' who rhetorically reject the notion of racial differences actively behave in ways that are premised on racial differences. After all, why would white women go with black men unless they believed black men are superior as savage-warrior-hunter-studs over sappy white loser males? And why would white males seek comfort and compensation in Asian women? It's because they are losing white women to black men.

Problems of Mutant-ism in a Decadent and Degenerate World

Decadence sets in when people have it too easy. Most manifestations of decadence are obvious and come to a ready end because decadence invites demise and downfall.

But sometimes, decadence is contained and institutionalized, and this kind of decadence can even be mistaken for something of value because of the cult, ritual, and 'legitimacy' about it. It can gain validation and prestige, thus power.

Consider the decadent culture of dog-breeding.

There was a time when dogs were appreciated for what they could do. They had to run fast, hunt, retrieve, fight, herd sheep, guard the house, pull sleighs, or etc. So, even though dog breeds were different, they were healthy, purposeful, functional, and sound as organisms. Their existence and legitimacy depended on essential utility than decadent futility.

But over time, dogs grew less useful as mankind became more mechanized, secure, and urbanized. So, many people just raised dogs as trophies, prizes, or oddities.

The healthy and purposeful breeds were perverted in their traits. Their traits were exaggerated or caricatured. The resulting extreme traits had no purpose and could even be unhealthy to dogs, but they were perpetuated(and made even more extreme) to serve the vanity of owners who had nothing better to do except show off that they owned something 'special', 'exotic', or 'cute'. Some owners had a perverse knack for grotesque and unwieldy traits. But some people acquired such strange breeds because the Establishment deemed them to be 'valuable', 'worthy', or 'expensive'. And over time, these freak-dogs were prized for their 'purity' even though their purity was based on something close to deformity.

The ancestor of the bulldog was a tough and healthy dog. But the later bulldog as show-dog was a genetic perversion with over-sized head, cumbersome limbs, and flat nose that made it difficult to breathe. Such dogs were totally useless, but owners wanted them because of their cartoonish features and 'pure' pedigree. And the Establishment deemed such a breed to be of 'value' as status-item.

The Chinese court bred totally useless dogs like the Pekinese, the canine equivalent of bound feet. Small, neurotic, inbred, and nuts. They were 'toy dogs'. Totally useless but fun for the owners. It served the owners' decadent whims.

And consider something as ridiculous as the Sharpei. Just awful.

Even the original dachshund wasn't what it is today. They were bred to be shorter in limbs and longer in body to attack burrowing animals in holes. But over time, they made the legs even shorter and body even longer, leading to all sorts of spine problems.

When dogs served a real purpose, they had to be healthy and functional. But as dogs became show-objects of vanity, they were designed for quirks, oddities, and eccentricities. What mattered was less the health or function of the dog than the 'charm' of their peculiarities.
Some of these prized peculiarities could be harmless enough, like colors and patterns on the fur(though extreme-inbreeding to maintain those traits could lead to health & mental issues), but others were obvious genetic disasters, which, sadly enough, were lent legitimacy by the Establishment that determined the relative 'value' of dogs. And many people bought such dogs as 'status' symbols. Since such dogs were associated with 'status' and 'privilege', many rich owners preferred genetic disasters to healthier and sounder dogs lacking in 'pedigree'.

We are seeing the same development with this gender-bender craziness. When life was tough but meaningful, humans knew it came down to men and women, family and children, health and sanity. Sure, some people were born weird and could be tolerated as such, but they were at the periphery or fringe. If a guy wanted to bugger another guy or if a guy wanted to wear a dress and act whoopsy-doo, that was his problem. Most people understood the true meaning of life as shown in an Akira Kurosawa film or John Ford movie. It was about struggle and choosing the essential right over the wrong. There was a time when most people had a definite role in life in terms of survival, health, morality, and meaning. Life was about core values and essential needs.

But with massive increase in prosperity where even poor people get fat and where 'leftism' turned into celebration of vanity & narcissism, humans are becoming like the degenerate breeds that developed when dogs became less purposeful and turned more into props and prizes. We went from Kurosawa & Ford to Tarantino & Takashi Miike the hideous freak.

So, the various healthy and virile breeds of dogs were turned into mutants of the original. Look at the mutative degeneration of the bulldog. Once a well-proportioned and powerful animal later turned into a gross mutation of its former self. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulldog#History

And what we are seeing all over in pop culture and political culture is the Rise of the Mutants. Now, it was always understood that arts and pop culture tend to attract the eccentric and strange. That much was long accepted as part of the creative scene & sensibility. Still, such peculiarity was seen for what it is. People figured some creative folks have talent but are just weird, like Michael Jackson or Boy George. That is why I wasn't particularly offended by either in the 80s. I liked some of their songs. And even though they were funny-wunny, I figured it comes with the territory in the creative realm. It's like David Bowie was a serious weirdo but very talented.

But over time, this weirdness got theorized and politicized into some kind of ideology & worldview, and millennials were raised with the notion that gender-mutation is some kind of New Normal, a noble 'human right' or even holiness, something even deserving the blessing of the church.

The world seems to be heading toward the Rise of the Clones and the Rise of the Mutants.
Bio-engineers are working on clone-beings. To be sure, the two trends are polar opposites in their tendencies. Since bio-engineers will predetermine the IDEAL traits, clones will likely be very similar to one another: Intelligent, healthy, fit, attractive, emotionally stable. So, in one way, the future of clone-ism seems to be anti-mutant-ism. (I mean if a future couple wanted a perfect designer-baby, how many would want someone like Chris 'Leave Britney Alone' Crocker or Trigglypuff?)


And yet, at the same time, our 'progressive' culture encourages mutative-identities of batshit crazy neurotic derangement. Mutationism favors the weird, ugly, demented, unstable, wacky, tardo, gargoylean, putrid, repellent, gross, degenerate, sorry-ass, and etc.

In some cases, we have a combo of both clone-ism and mutantism, like in that Martin(e) Rothblatt the 'transhumanist'. On the one hand, he seems to eagerly anticipate cloning or bio-engineering technology that will allow the creation of ideal humans from scratch genetically. But lacking such technology in the present, he has made a total whacko of himself by pretending to be a 'woman' with make-up and dress(and maybe surgery?)

Clone-ism narrows the range of ideal traits. It weeds out the dumb, ugly, unhealthy, and demented. It will favor Sean Conneries and Pierce-Brosnans over Elephant-Boys and Crackhead-Bobs.

In contrast, mutantism widens the spectrum of 'acceptance' and 'normality', like what was presented on Bill Nye's (sex)junk science. So, some fat ugly guy with hair on chest who says he's a woman and wants to be called 'them' and wants to play with dolls and pretend to be 5 yrs old is part of the 'new normal'.

Clone-ism and mutantism are opposites, but they are allied at the moment because they both go against the spiritualist and humanist mode of what constitutes meaning and purpose. Mutantism is nothing new. It always existed because some people were born strange. It's like the Kyoami character in RAN. A weirdo. But then, nutjobs can see things from interesting angles all too often missed by conventional perspectives. So, they could have special value too... as long as they know their relative position in society. Oddity of perspective is part and parcel of abnormality(and possibly subversion) but also offers glimpses that often eludes the normal eye. The problem sets in when this odd angle is made the main angle. That's like using the triangle in an orchestra as the main instrument.

Kyoami the jester weirdo of Akira Kurosawa's RAN

Kyoami has his place and even value in RAN because he knows what he is, and others know it too. He is a weirdo, a jester, and clown. But because he's an outsider, he catches things that insiders often miss. He has his own kind of intuition and insight. And this mutual understanding between normal and abnormal used to define society where most people upheld the True Normal but could also be tolerant of and even appreciative of the views of the weird and strange. But now that this mutant-ism has been promoted as the New Normal, nothing makes any sense. If nuttery is the 'new normal', what is truly normal. And if the outsiders now have the insider-view, what can they offer us? I mean the value of the outsider's view is from the outside. When the outsider serves as the insider, his view is neither insider nor outsider.

Weirdness has value in uneasy relation to normality. The value of HAROLD AND MAUDE, for example, depends on them being surrounded by 'normal people'. Normality may be limited(and hypocritical and corrupt) but it has a fuller grasp of the essentials of life and society, like family, law and order, military and defense, and spiritual tradition. In contrast, weirdness is innately dysfunctional and has value as counterpoint, contrast, and variance. It's like the Adult World may be compromised and all in THE CATCHER IN THE RYE, but if everyone was like Holden Caulfield, there would be no social order, period.

Mutants will always exist, and on occasion, they may offer something valuable. But it's not something we should be encouraging and not something that should be promoted as the 'new normal', and certainly not something that deserves the benediction of spiritual authority. While the deviance of Weimar Germany was not without artistic merit or cultural value, the problem was it often occupied the center of national life, especially when so many people were in dire straits(far worse than even Americans in the Great Depression).

Also, if weirdness is encouraged and popularized, it devalues genuine weirdness and what it has to offer. It's like, once the underground scene was 'upgraded' to appeal to the bobo-yuppie crowd, it lost its authenticity and own kind of integrity.
In the past, those with 'gender-issues' had REAL problems. They couldn't help being what they were despite pressures of normality. So, their difference had meaning and even value. It meant a genuine struggle to understand one's strange self and its place in society. But now, thanks to gender-bender-mania promoted by PC and Pop Culture, every confused kid going through adolescence could fantasize he or she has issues too since it's the 'new normal', therefore a 'cool' magnet for attention and sympathy. As such, both the meaning and the value of the Normal and the Abnormal are lost.

Also, when the Abnormal are at the sidelines, they are more likely to use their special insights and talents for something bigger than themselves, something meaningful for the larger population of normal people. And something like a respectable bourgeois or middle-class culture exerts pressure on the weird and different to use their odd tendencies and creative gifts to produce something of higher value and wider meaning. Thus, eccentricity serves something higher and/or grander than the mere solipsism of escapist vanity. In the bourgeois age, closet-homosexual Marcel Proust wrote IN SEARCH OF LOST TIME. In our shameless age, 'gay' expression has come to this: It sure isn't the Sistine Chapel

Diversity and Inclusion as Mental Viruses to paralyze White Immunity against Parasitism of Non-Whites

Diversity is like a virus, or Divirus. It is a disease or Diversease. It is a meme as a parasitic 'ideorganism' that burrows into white people's minds not unlike hookworms, fleas, and lice that, once attached to their hosts, are difficult, if not impossible, to get rid of.

Diversity doesn’t really mean diversity per se is great. It's just a parasitic mind-trick to fool rich successful nations into letting in outsiders from poorer ones.

After all, if diversity is so great in and of itself, people in diverse nations should stay put. Such nations exist all over the non-white world(and in regions where whites are a minority). Latin American nations are very diverse, most of them with white minorities. Africa is diverse in terms of languages and tribes. North Africa is racially diverse and mixed. Turkey is diverse of ethnicity and languages and cultures, far more than European nations(before mass migration). Central Asia is diverse, made up of whites, Asians, Muslims, Turks, etc. India is very diverse, and so is Indonesia. So, they have more diversity than much of the West(or Far East nations like Japan). If diversity is so great, those people should stay put in their ultra-diverse nations. After all, they have the magic wonder of diversity all around them.
They should not try to go to US, Canada, Australia, Japan, or EU that are far less diverse or even near-homogeneous. After all, we are told diversity is so great. Then, people should stay in their own diverse nations than head for less diverse nations of the West. Why head to horrible homogeneous nations or to terrible LESS diverse nations away from ultra-diverse nations?

As it turns out, the most successful and prosperous nations have been the relatively homogeneous ones in Europe and East Asia, especially Japan. The thing is organisms(and humans are organisms) want to migrated to and invade places that are more bountiful, efficient, and convenient.
But how do you convince homogeneous prosperous nations that they must open up to foreigners? You infect them with the diversity virus or divirus. Make them feel bad or shameful for being homogeneous and not diverse enough. Make them feel something is wrong about their society for lacking sufficient diversity. Make Diversity morally assertive and make lack of diversity morally defensive. Make Diversity-Deficiency a kind of social malady, disease, or dysfunction(even though white societies were far more functional with homogeneity).
Fool them into thinking diversity is noble and wonderful whereas homogeneity is wicked and evil. Tell them that Diversity-Disease or Diversease is the cure whereas Healthy-Homogeneity is an illness. Fool them into thinking their societies will be improved with diversity. But if diversity is the magic pill, how come so many diverse nations in Latin America, North Africa, and Central Asia are failures. How come India is such a mess whereas relatively homogeneous China has achieved more? Who really thinks Israel will be better if filled with more Africans and Muslims at the expense of Jewish demography? (The only successful nation with diversity is the US, but this has to be seen in proper historical context. In its formative stages, the US was far less diverse than Latin America that has always lagged behind. Also, the white North was more successful and productive than the diverse South with lots of blacks. And, until 1965, the US was 90% white. And even Ethnic whites who arrived in early 20th century were Anglo-Americanized by education, culture, and propaganda. And we must remember that the US rose to great power status long before the 1965 immigration act. Diversity didn’t make America rich and powerful. If anything, America attracted diversity because its relative homogeneity was far more successful than the preponderance of diversity in Latin America. Also, the ONLY two non-white-gentile groups that contributed something unique to America have been blacks and Jews. Blacks had a huge influence on music, and Jews contributed in many brainy fields. But to get the full picture, one mustn’t overlook the negative cost of black presence in the US, what with all the crime, pathology, violence, thuggery, corruption. Also, there is a dark side to black music, especially in rap, that promotes sociopathic tendencies, nihilism, and neo-savagery. As for Jews, their spread of PC has done incalculable damage to the West, and their war-mongering has made a total mess of the 21st century. Europeans who see ‘cool badass hip’ blacks in US sports, music, & movies and want some of that stuff in Europe fail to see the bigger picture of black impact on the US: Detroit, Baltimore, Ferguson, and etc. Is Detroit worth it because of Motown? Should Japan Detroitize its cities with lots of black crime & pathology in the hope that its music culture might become more ‘vibrant’? But then, if you want to listen to black music, you don’t need blacks. Just buy a CD or download stuff on the internet. It's like you don't need real Italians or real Chinese in your nation to learn how to make pizza or chop suey.)

So, all this Diversity talk is disingenuous. If homogeneous nations in Europe, Japan, US, and Canada were dirt poor and famished, no one would press diversity on them. No one would want to go there, so who’d care if they accepted foreigners or not in the name of Diversity? After all, no one presses Cameroon, Mozambique, or Bolivia to embrace more diversity. Diverse or homogeneous, what does it matter? Who’d want to move to a failed black African nation? Who would want to move to messy India(unless one can be assured of good job and can live in the nicest parts; being poor in the US is preferable to being middle class in India).

If white nations were poorer than non-white ones, no one would care if whites embraced diversity or not. It just so happens that whites are best at creating wealth, producing nice stuff, and running functional societies. And foreigners want access to the White Cow to drink the milk. Since they have no ancestral claim or national right to white lands, they invoke Diversity as a noble ideal to gain access. And plenty of cucks in the West, having been mentally colonized by globo-homo PC, fall for this shtick.
Jews pioneered this mind-trick since their success and power have depended on access to white non-Jewish nations, even to the point of gaining elite domination over them. Any idea of a ‘World of Our Own’ for whites is anathema to Jews since it means Jews may be left out in the cold(and made to live in non-white worlds where the natives aren’t so nice and productive as whites are).

So, Jews have persuaded whites that it is ‘racist’ for whites to have things for themselves: White lands, white wealth, white institutions, white women, and etc. must all be made available to non-whites and Jews. And then, non-whites of all stripes have allied with Jews to make the same demands.

Once whites are infected with Divirus, they can no longer have anything to call their own. Even their past history is retrofitted to serve PC. So, BBC now makes historical shows with blacks and other non-whites in white roles. Even past history must be ‘corrected’ and made diverse to send a message to whites that ANY vision of a ‘world of our own’ must be banished from white minds, past-present-and-future. Don’t even think about it, don’t even feel nostalgia for it. Even memory is ‘racist’ unless the past is rewritten as a 'diverse' narrative. Just like the Tyrell Corporation in BLADE RUNNER implants someone else's memories into Rachel's mind, Jewish Power is implanting false historical memories into the minds of whites. Thus, impressionable white British children now grow up seeing black and non-white characters as key figures and heroes of British & European History on TV and in movies. Donna Zuckerberg, a disgusting Jewish globo-homo agent, says Ancient and Medieval periods of Europe weren't white but belonged just as much to blacks, Muslims, and Asians. I suppose Poles should celebrate the Mongol incursions into their territory. And Spanish should celebrate their subjugation under the Moors. (Using this logic, the French have just as much claim to Vietnam since they once invaded and ruled over it.) To Jews, white people are mere 'replicants' whose minds exist only to be messed with.

Once whites have been infected by Divirus, whatever they do must ‘include’ non-whites. So, if whites want to move from the browning city and settle in the suburbs, the suburbs too must eventually surrender to diversity because, otherwise, they’d be ‘non-inclusive’, therefore 'racist' and evil. They are to be inspected and penalized for lack of diversity. Diversity is offered as a vitamin but it's really a virus.
Whatever whites possess(through inheritance or ingenuity) must be shared with others. Because this idea has been virally programmed into the very core of the white ideological DNA, it is now deemed wrong for whites to do anything without adding diversity. If whites want to go to Mars and settle a colony there, they MUST include diversity even if all the science and funds were provided by whites. So, non-whites are allowed to freeload and piggyback on whiteness. And there is white-shaming for whites who create anything that resembles a World of Our Own. According to the Jewish Narrative, white scientists not only stole the labors of Jewish genius but hid the contributions of blacks who were REALLY responsible to sending American astronauts to the Moon.

Related to Diversity is the virus of ‘Inclusion’(really a euphemism for invasion). It’s just parasitism on the part of non-whites to leech off whites. Since non-whites can’t do much on their own, they must rely on the white world to have nice things for themselves. So, they invoke ‘inclusion’ to pressure whites to ‘include’ non-whites into anything nice created by whites.

Now, if non-whites really believe in racial equality(as they claim to), they must believe that non-white nations can have nice things too. After all, Latin America is huge with tons of natural resources. Africa has lots of nice places, lots of people, tons of natural resources, and has great potential. The success of white farmers in Zimbabwe, Kenya, Uganda, and South Africa in the past is a testament of what people can achieve in Africa if they really have a mind to. PC says all races are equal, so all peoples must be equally capable and should be able to have nice things in their own nations by doing what whites did in white nations.

But, of course, races are different, and some races fail badly at creating and running modern societies. So, the only way they can have Nice Things is to gain entry into the White World. But they have no ancestral right or national claim to white lands. (In the New World, only American Indians have ancestral claim to the land. Only they can make a moral claim against whites who conquered. In contrast, non-whites around the world have NO moral claim to come to America or Canada as the New World wasn't taken from them.) So, they rely on the guilt-tripping ideo-virus of ‘inclusion’ that makes white people feel 'guilty' for not ‘including’ masses of non-whites. Under PC-mental-infection, whites feel good only when they allow ‘inclusion’, which really means invasion, via which so much of nice things created by whites are leeched by non-whites. We are often told that the Chinese Exclusion Act was a horrible thing. But why? Didn't the Chinese invade and take over Tibet? Do the Chinese invite people from all over the world to share in the colonization of Tibet? It seems Tibet is for Han Chinese Only and excludes the rest of the world.

On the other hand, I can understand why white folks prefer immigrants to blacks. Better to use immigrants as buffers.

Blacks are more muscular and more aggressive, and black violence terrifies whites. Immigrants are useful buffers against blacks, esp. for purposes of gentrification: http://takimag.com/article/las_dirty_little_brown_secret_david_cole/print

Muslim-Jewish Alliance Owes to Immigration -- Muslims will betray anything to gain access to the West and the Easy Life

How amusing to witness the rise of Zionist-Muslim alliance in the Democratic Party.

http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/u-s-election-2016/1.753161

I find this curious. Donald Trump, sincerely or not, condemned Bush's WMD lies and Iraq War. He condemned Obama and Hillary as destroyers of Libya and enablers of ISIS in Syria. He said he would strive for greater stability and peace in the region(though it must be said his record in Yemen, as continuation of Obama's policy, has been disastrous; and his Iran Policy has been worse than Obama's). In other words, less Invade, less Intervention.

In contrast, Hillary, as the Democratic candidate, was threatening WWIII with Russia over Syria, which means Middle East will blow up even more. Also, she and her globo-feminist cohorts were largely responsible for the chaos and destruction in Libya and Syria.

Now, you'd think most Muslims would side with Trump over Hillary and Deep State Democrats. Granted, the GOP has been just as belligerent(if not more so) than the Democrats when it came to the Middle East, but Trump ran in 2016 as the most anti-war candidate, thus alienating many Neocons in the GOP. And as President, despite his sometimes volcanic rhetoric, he restrained the hawks when it came to North Korea and Syria. For these reasons, one would expect Muslims to be more favorable toward Trump as the politician who is less likely to spread more hell-fire and brimstone in their homelands in the Middle East. And I think they would have been... if not for the issue of immigration.

Suppose the US has had a zero-immigration policy since 1965 and took in no one from the Middle East, North Africa, and Muslim nations. Then, Muslims would have no hope of entering the US. Under those circumstances, I think most Muslims living in their home nations would have preferred Trump over Hillary(and Democratic Deep State hawks). Their worldview would have more-or-less run parallel to the position of the Alt-Right and Paleo-Con types who call for no more wars. They would have reviled Neocons, Zionists, and Liberal Interventionists.

So, why do so many Muslims(there and here) side with the very Americans(Neocons, Liberal Zionists, Democracy-pushers, hawks, New-Cold-Warriors, etc) who are most hellbent on wreaking more havoc in the Muslim World? Why do they fear America First more than America Thirst(for oil and domination)?

Because... even though the Alt-Right, Paleocons, and America-Firsters are more likely to be for peace and non-intervention, they are also likely to be more anti-immigration-invasion.
For Muslims, entry into the West is like a drug. They crave it and dream of it, indeed so much so that they will side with the very people who are doing most to destroy the Muslim World, the very homelands of Arabs and Muslims.

In a way, America/West has a narco-drug effect on all the world. These non-white folks seeking access to the West will join with ANY SIDE that serves the role as the PUSHER-of-the-'dream'. It's like an addict will neglect his own house, family, and kids to get another fix of that smack or crack from the dealer.

The desire to go where the mammoths are(white wealth is mammoth meat to the migrant-hunters of the world) distorts all values. It was the desire to go to America that made Fabrizio betray Michael in THE GODFATHER. He didn't personally hate Michael or his bride. But he wanted to go to America so badly that he was willing to betray the very people who'd hired him and trusted him.



This craving for the Invite-Immigration-Smack makes Muslims form an alliance even with Zionists and Neocon War-mongers. Also, despite their noises about Islamic values and Middle Eastern pride, they privately prefer rule by whites than by their own cousin-humping kind.

People do care about tribe and culture, but they are still organisms and prefer the Good Life, the place where the mammoths are. This is true of anyone. Suppose one had to choose between one's homeland where it's hot, dry, and requires lots of work to get by AND another land where the temperature is nice and where fruits grow in abundance. One's cultural sense might cling to the homeland out of loyalty and heritage, but one's organismic self will want to go to the land of mangoes. This is true of animals in the wild. They go where the plants, game, and water are. Among humans, it's somewhat different because humans don't just live off nature like their primitive ancestors did. Humans build their own economies, and it just so happens that whites have proven most adept at creating the best economies and most functional systems. (Even if non-whites were to face discrimination in the West, they'd still live in a stabler and more orderly system where whites do things better than non-whites do in their own lands. So, even left-overs and crumbs from whites are more than what they get in their own homelands where they may not be subjected to discrimination but have so little because people are so corrupt, inept, and do a crappy job of running things.) Indeed, it's amusing that so many Third Worlders head to Sweden, a cold dark part of the world with long winters(much of it in total darkness). So, why go there? Because Swedes build, manage, and run good economies, whereas non-whites are dysfunctional even in nicer lands with more natural resources, good climate, and etc. One thing for sure, the non-whites are not going to Scandinavia for the weather. They are going to feed off white mammoths. (As a result, whites may go extinct just like the mammoths that couldn't survive the onslaught of migratory hunters.)

Because whites developed the Midas-touch, they were drawn to primitive and backward places in the Age of Empire and could make a positive difference. Whites could go to South America, Australia, New Zealand, Africa, Asia, and etc. and build something from nothing. Even the great Chinese civilization was amazed by what the British could do with Hong Kong almost overnight. Turn a muddy island into a booming city in a short span. But the Age of Empire eventually came to an end. And whites were forced to go back to Europe from many parts of the world that they'd colonized. And for a time, non-whites believed they could do just as well as whites by building up their own nations... but only a handful of nations succeeded in this. And so, lacking the Midas touch, the ONLY way they could have the good life was by migrating to white nations. So, we are now in the Age of Demographic Imperialism. Reverse-imperialism, this time the migration of non-white peoples without the Midas touch heading to the lands of white people with the Midas touch. If, in the Age of Empire, white colonizers made something out of nothing in non-white lands, non-white reverse-colonizers will make nothing out of something as they leech off whites in ever greater numbers. Also, ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs will create destructive black kids out of white wombs. Black leech-sperms will feed off white wombs to create horrible Negrolets.

The notable exception has been Israel. If the post-war West has been mostly about non-white migration-invasion to white nations, Israel was a concerted effort among Jews to favor cultural obligations over organismic wants. Materially, any Jew is better off in Europe or US than in hot and dry tiny Israel. But the call of culture inspired many Jews to settle in the Holy Land and defend it. But then, Jews, like white gentiles, are another people with the Midas touch, able to create something out of nothing. Jews know this, and Jews know others want what they got, so they erect barriers to keep their mammoths to themselves. But Jews in America fear that their mammoths might be taken by non-Jewish whites one day. So, Jews welcome more immigrant-invaders so that diverse gentiles will squabble over the white mammoth meat than salivate after the Jewish mammoth meat.

Things were much simpler right after WWII. Back then, neither the US nor Europe allowed mass immigration-invasion from the Third World. So, people in the Third World thought in terms of 'kick out imperialists' and 'do whatever is necessary to boost our power and sovereignty'. But ever since the West opened its door to immigration-invasion by non-whites, the priority of so many in the non-West is going to the West for easy mammoth meat than fixing their own nations and farming their own mammoth.

It's like how the slave trade distorted the economies of West Africa. While slave trade had always been a fixture among black Africans, the tremendous amount of wealth to be made from the Atlantic Slave Trade made so many blacks drop everything to go capture other blacks to sell to whites. Things got so bad that the Africans sacrificed humans to crocodile gods to stall the decline.

It's also like any gold rush. People hear about get-rich-quick opportunities and drop everything to look for gold. All these non-whites are addicted to White Rush. White lands are where the mammoths are, and it is the quickest and easiest way for them to attain anything in life. It might take a lifetime or many generations(or never) for many parts of the non-West to achieve anything approaching Western levels of success. But if you go to the West, they offer you sanctuary, benefits, favors, protection, housing, welfare, and etc. Also, there are lots of self-hugging white assholier-than-thouists who will defend you and even elevate to saint status.

In the US, Jewish power is undeniable. Jewish power may be less extensive in the EU, but Shoah Worship is stronger there than here. Also, EU nations are essentially servant-states of the US, and their intellectuals and bureaucrats take cues from ideas emanating from Harvard and Yale and US media.

Anyway, all this highfalutin talk of 'liberty', 'inclusion', 'diversity', 'proposition', and etc. are BS. It is really about nonwhite craving for white mammoth meat. It is organismic. Nonwhites pressure the white world to live up to 'high ideals' not because they prize principles but because they want access to easy white mammoth meat. If all of the US was one giant Detroit, would Jews or Muslims or any other people care if US was a 'proposition nation' or not? No one would want to come here, just like no one wants to move permanently to Africa.

Nativism is the Flip-side of Invavisism — It's the Way of All Organisms

People are better off studying biology than political science to understand what is really going on in world affairs.

All organisms, including humans of course, are invasivist(offensive) and nativist(defensive). Some are more invasive than others, but all are invasive to some measure. Some are more nativist than others, but all must also be nativist to some degree.

Living organisms are not content to stay put. They like to spread out and take over more turf. If bacteria or viruses are making someone sick, they are NOT content to stick with that person. They spread out and take over other men and women. It's like the pod creatures in THE INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS. Or the morphing organism in THE THING.


It has this need to take over other areas. But humans are like that too. After all, why do humans have military bases in Abel Ferrara's BODYSNATCHERS? Why else have humans colonized a distant corner of Antarctica in John Carpenter's THE THING?
Why are they in the land of penguins? Because humans too are invasive. So, the dynamics of THE THING is a war between invaders: Humans vs The Thing. But both are also defenders of what they claim. Humans seek to defend their 'new nativist' turf in Antarctica. And the Thing tries to hold onto the humans, dogs, and other organisms it has colonized; they've become part of its turf. (There are two kinds of claimants. Of the tangible and of the intangible. Those who claim land or immovable objects are claimants of the tangible. Those who claim people's minds or systems(of a Mercurian nature) are claimants of the intangible. Nationalist power is about taking over and defending a definite piece of territory; it is tangible. Christian or ideological power is about infecting and taking over the minds of people all over; it is intangible. Christianity doesn't have to take over Chinese territory to take over Chinese hearts & minds. It only needs to infect and own the souls of converts. Finance is somewhere between tangible and intangible. In the end, finance has power because money can be converted to real goods and properties. But the global financial system allows massive amounts of money-power to easily and instantly flow from one part of the world to another.)

In Carpenter's movie, what the humans fear most is that the Thing will try to spread out and take over all organisms around the world: all humans and all animals and maybe all plants too if such is possible. (The Thing could turn into a penguin or whale and then take over other sea creatures and then swim across oceans and climb up onto other continents.) So, the humans try to prevent the Thing from taking over humans in the station. If the Thing colonizes every human, then the thing-ized humans can go move to other continents and colonize other humans, and then, the human species will all be Thing-ized. The cucksters of the West have been pod-ized and thing-ized by the Glob.
Sometimes, there is a duality, an anxiety, even in the colonized or ones being colonized. We see this in Blair in THE THING.


There are two ways the Thing can take over someone. By physically overwhelming the person, killing him, and copying his DNA. Or, it can infect a person and slowly change the person from the inside. That seems to be the case with Blair. Because he operated on the Thing, it's possible that some of the Thingy germs got into his skin and bloodstreams. So, the Thing is incubating inside him like a virus and taking over gradually.
There is a moment when Blair's mentality becomes dualistic. He feels the human emotions of wanting to defend the human species. But he also feels the Thingy emotions of wanting to take over the human species. Among whites, some remain nationalist and resist the Glob. Some have been completely mentally colonized by the Glob. But there are those who feel anxiety and inner-crisis. Their natural white racial instinct tells them that globalism means hell for the white race. But they've also been infected by the Glob virus that makes them feel 'racist' and wicked for feeling such thoughts. So, to suppress their 'evil' side, they might become extra-fanatical to push the Glob agenda. But then, it maybe possible to come up with new mental-vaccinations to change back the pod-people to sane nationalist white people. After all, there have been cures for certain diseases such as mumps, syphilis, and etc. There is a cure for Globohomostoma.

Nativism is the flipside of invasivism. One cannot exist without the other. After all, to invade means to make an effort and a claim. It isn't merely wandering into new territory accidentally or arbitrarily. It's about advancing with the purpose of making a claim upon the territory. When you invade, take over, and make a claim, it means you have to own it, defend it, guard it, and preserve it. Thus, you as invavist also must be prepared to play the role of nativist on the territory that you have conquered and claimed. If you don't play the nativist role, other invasive elements will take it from you, and then, the whole point of your invasion would have been for naught. If you're going to give up what you conquer, why conquer it in the first place? Why not just leave it alone? When a team wins the championship trophy, it knows it has to keep playing hard to keep the title. Otherwise, another team will take it.

Wolves don't have colleges and study political science, but they instinctively understand this fact of life. Wolves don't invade another territory just for the hell of it but to take over and claim it. They mark the territory with body scents and urine. They guard it through violence and group unity. So, invasivist(or offensivist) wolves are also nativist(definsivist) wolves. If you invade but don't protect what you've invaded, you won't keep it because other invasivist forces will take it from you. The invasivist must also be nativist to keep its bounty. It's like a taker of water needs a bucket(without holes) to keep the water. It's like the character of OLD MAN AND THE SEA is both an invasivist hunter and nativist holder of his trophy. He invades the sea to catch a marlin, but he does everything to defend his catch from other invasivist predators. Hyenas try to guard their kill from other hyena packs, leopards, and lions.
It's like football. The game is invasivist and nativist. Each team tries to invade and grab more of the territory of the other team. But invading isn't enough. What is invaded must also be defended in nativist mode. What is taken from the Other must be guarded as Ours. Because all organisms are invasivist by nature, organisms must nativistically defend what they've invasively conquered.

This is true of all nations. Israel was created(or regained) by invasivism -- Jews had lost it long ago to the invasivism of the Romans. Zionists arrived as invasivists and drove out the Palestinian nativists. But Zionist Israelis must now be nativist and defend what they've claimed for themselves. Without such nativist zeal, the fate of Israeli Jews will be that of Palestinians(and Swedes 50 yrs hence).
The cleverest invasivists try to weaken the nativist resolve of their enemies or targets. Thus, the invasion is made easier, as Greeks did with the Trojans with the false gift of the Wooden Horse. But once the invasion has taken place, the invasivists must turn nativist if they are to keep what they invaded and claimed.
Jews have two ways of doing this. In the case of Israel, it is majority-nativism. Since Jews comprise the dominant demography of Israel, they can be straightforward nativist-nationalist in declaring THIS MUST BE A JEWISH STATE.
But Jews can never take the US, Canada, and EU in such manner. Jews can never be the outright majority in those territories. So, if Jews promote nativism in such nations, it will only lead to white nativist consciousness, white pride, white unity, and white power... which may challenge Jewish minority elite supremacy. So, Jews cannot act like invading wolves in the West like they did in Palestine. They must operate more like invading viruses that penetrate into cells undetected and alter the programming of the goyim from the inside. By colonizing white minds and persuading them that 'diversity' and 'multi-culturalism' are the highest & noblest goods while white identity, racial consciousness, homogeneity, and nativism are the greatest evils, white organisms are rendered less nativist and lose the will to defend themselves against the invasivist Third World that wants access to the richer West(just like predators and parasites head for areas where food is more bountiful). Worse, the PC virus might fool whites into thinking that 'Western Values' are all about welcoming Diversity or endless invasion from the Third World. Now, what kind of sane ideology is predicated on welcoming and celebrating mass invasion? But then, Jews fooled whites into believing 'gay marriage' is the New Normal in morality. Clever Jews sure run circles around square whites(who, despite their hipster conceits, are pretty earnest and childlike).

Now, why would the invasion of the West by the non-West be good for Jews? Won't Jews be invaded too, along with whites? There is that danger to be sure, but Jews are banking on Diversity as insurance for the dominant minority elite(that would be themselves). More Diversity means less unity among the masses. It means the elites can effectively play divide-and-rule among the disunited masses. Thus, Jewish elite power will remain secure above the fray of the squabbling non-Jews divided by diversity. But, some may ask, what if the newcomers challenge Jewish elite power and status? Won't they topple the Jews one day? Jews aren't too worried about such hypothesis since most immigrant-invasivists don't have the wherewithal to rise very high. African immigrants, Muslim immigrants, and 'Hispanic' immigrants(the non-white ones) are mostly limited in ability. East Asians can rise higher, but they lack the spark and leadership qualities to really take over. Also, too many East Asian women have kids with whites and Jews for there to be East Asian unity. The only people who might pose a threat to Jewish dominance are Asian-Indians, many of whom are intelligent and entrepreneurial. Also, Asian-Indians tend to stick together in sex and reproduction. And there are so many of them, and many more are being born. India now has 1.3 billion people and will soon be more populous than China, if it isn't already. It has more people than all of Western Europe and US combined. This is why Jews are trying to forge 'friendly' ties with Asian-Indians and Pakistanis. Jews hope for a Zio-Indo wink-wink cooperation against white power. (Pakistanis are more useful than other Muslims since they are not Arab and thus less likely to care about Israeli-Palestinian conflict.) Also, Jews know that Asian-Indian elites are not a united bloc like the Chinese and other East Asians. While most Chinese feel as one people from top to bottom, no such feeling of solidarity exists among the various ethnic groups and neo-castes of Indian society. Indian elites see themselves as an ethnically distinct people who rule over OTHER ethnic groups. Because of the tensions between Indian elites and the diverse masses, the political dynamics are somewhat similar to Jews and non-Jews in the West. Jews are like the Brahmin caste that rules over non-Jews, and Indian elites are like South Asian 'Jews' ruling over lesser groups. So, Hindu elites and Jewish elites see eye-to-eye to some degree.

Anyway, Jews know that have an advantage that Hindus and Pakistanis lack. Jews can pass as whites, whereas Hindus and Pakistanis can't. So, Jews play it both ways. Jews play the Asian-Indian card against whites. Jews go to Asian-Indians and Pakistanis and say, "Look, we Jews and you Indians/Pakistanis are victim-brothers against those white supremacist racist nativist scum." And Hindus and Pakistanis play along because they want continued access to the richer West. But Jews also curtail Hindu-Pakistani power in the West by playing to white fears and anxiety. The coded Jewish message to whites is, "We Jews ain't Christian, but we are 'white' too, just like you white gentiles. So, Jewish power is still white power, whereas Asian-Indian power is Alien. Therefore, white gentiles should support Jews against Asian-Indians if differences were to arise between Jews and Hindus."

Jews play it like the character in YOJIMBO and A FISTFUL OF DOLLARS. They play every side against each other. They don't play it like the honorable Gregory Peck character in THE BIG COUNTRY who is caught between two feuding clans and valiantly attempts to resolve the conflict and bring peace. In contrast, Jewish globalist-supremacists thrive on the conflict among various groups. They are like Paul McCartney's 'grandfather' in A HARD DAY'S NIGHT. A king mixer.



Anyway, those who conquer must also be prepared to defend. Otherwise, what was the whole point of all that preparation, investment, industry, risk-taking, and sacrifice in the conquest? I mean, imagine if Zionists went through all that trouble of invading Palestine and laboring to create Israel... just to hand it over to Africans, Iranians, Hindus, and Chinese. Why invade something just to let others invade it? Why climb a mountain to give the credit to another?
To invade something means to make a claim, and once the claim is made, it has to be defended in nativist mode. Multi-culturalism is a Jewish globalist mind-virus trick that fools all nations that they must NOT defend their homelands in the spirit of nativism. PC turns the claim into a 'blame' of 'white guilt'. Whites are told they must surrender to invasivism. Now, why would Jews promote such things all over the world when they don't for Israel?
Because when all gentile nations become less nativist and defensive and embrace the cult of Diversity, they will lose a sense of unity and solidarity. And that means Jewish globalist power can more easily infiltrate and penetrate and take over. Jews also use the homo-agenda to weaken the moral pride and confidence of every nation. Any nation that celebrates the perverse 'sexual' behavior of homos as the highest moral good has lost its equilibrium and bearing. Such a degenerate nation can be manipulated and subverted by any foreign power. This is why Jews are bitter about Russia's resistance to the globo-homo-agenda, the proxy of Jewish supremacists.

Anyway, the multiculturalist experiment in the US, Canada, and EU should be studied as a cautionary tale on what happens when nations surrender their nativism. Without nativism, your people and nation will succumb to more invasivists who arrive and take what belongs to your people: the land, the wealth, the womenfolk, and the children too(like at Rotherham) that were claimed and defended by your ancestors.

It's true that every nation is the creation of invasivists sometime in history. Every nation, old or young, is a territory with a history of invaders and conquerors. But those invavists made a claim on what they invaded, and that meant they defended it in the mode of nativists. They, as invaders, understood and feared that invaders can be invaded in turn. So, if invaders are to keep what they've invaded, they must turn into nativists over the land that they've claimed as their own. It's no different with wolves. An invading wolf pack invades turf from another wolf pack. But then, it can also lose that territory to yet more wolf packs. So, when a wolf pack takes land, it must turn nativist and defend it from others. This is why Israel has survived over the years. Zionist invaders took the land from Palestinians. But through brute force of the IDF, patriotic race-ist immigration policy open only to Jews, and nationalist education, Israel has preserved itself and prevented it from being invaded in turn by other peoples. The US used to be like a giant Israel for European folks.

This is why all this stuff about America's 'racist' immigration policies is total BS.
Yes, it is true that white folks invaded and took the land from Indians(and wild animals). But the whole point of invasion is to make a claim on the land you invade. After all, why go through all the trouble of invading(often a violent, bloody, and taxing process) if you're not going to make such a claim? For every ounce of happiness, there was also lots of pain in the creation and expansion of America. It took tremendous work and even great sacrifice at times. So, why should whites folks just hand over what their ancestors invaded and claimed to other would-be invaders? This is especially bogus when whites did most of the work whereas the new would-be invaders just come and live off the bounty of what the ancestors of whites have done to create. Whites make something out of nothing, and others live off that something while spitting on whites(at the behest of vicious Jewish Supremacists). Worse, these new invaders, brainwashed by PC, spit on the graves of white people who'd done so much to build America.

It's like a battle. It takes tremendous blood sacrifice. Lots of soldiers get killed. Lots of families will never see their kids again. So, if one side gains territory in war, it was often at great cost in terms of life and material. So, if territory is gained through war, it must be defended so that it won't fall to the enemy once again. If land that was won through great sacrifice won't be defended, what was all that sacrifice for?

The reason why so many white peoples lack nativist instinct is three-fold: (1) They had it too good for too long, and they have lost the survivalist-organismic instinct (2) Pop Culture-as-main-culture has severed their ties to history and roots. So, they are unaware of the sweat-and-toil of their ancestors. Also Pop Culture makes them prefer other cultures, especially that of the Negro, over their own kind since Negroes be fun, funky, and shi*. It leads to amnesiac jungle-hipster neo-savagery among white youths. (3) PC has filled whites with 'white guilt', so even whites who know something about history see it through the prism of 'white historical sins' as manipulated by Jewish-controlled media and academia. Also, PC, in cahoots with Pop Culture, made Diversity so iconic and sacrosanct that whites feel apologetic if they imagine any story or narrative that is all white and lacking in 'diversity'. So, British TV is now featuring blacks in the roles of white historical figures and penalizes programs that don't feature non-whites. Apparently, British History was deficient because it was too white. PC retrofits or retro-corrects history by Africanizing white heroes. It's like the TV show that has a Negro as Lancelot in the new telling of the Arthurian tale, which is also a means to promote Afro-colonization of white wombs and cuck-mindset among white males reduced to the submissive status of 'white boys'.

History is a story of human biology.
Military history is study of human biological aggression.
Economics is story of human biological drive for territory and property.
Literature is human biological use of signs and words as weapons.
They are all about biology.
At their roots, all of human behavior are analogous to what happens among germs, animals, and plants.

In the end, all our science and technology are nothing more than a beehive made by bees, their Death Star(of STAR WARS).

Human intellect, science, and technology allow people to do amazing things, but, as DR. STRANGELOVE shows, the WHY is ultimately biological. In 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, it begins with the bone and develops into a rocket ship, and the driving force is biology.

The question is WHY do we create stuff, make stuff, innovate stuff, and etc? And this stuff we make may seem so amazing that it seems divorced from biology. But we make them to serve biology: the organism’s attraction to great comfort, security, fun, pleasure, power, sex, domination.

Consider immigration. It is explained in highfalutin terms of ‘proposition nation’, ‘huddle masses yearning to breathe free’, etc. But it’s just organisms seeking greener pastures, no different from a herd of deer or bison entering new territory for more grass to chew on.

Whether humans are making bows & arrows or B-52 bombers, it’s the manifestation of the same biological impulses. Everything we do and make is to serve our biological needs.

Suppose we suck out all the hormones of a group of people while leaving their mental faculties(intellect) intact. There will remain the same intellect and same intelligence. But without hormones that fuel instinct, humans are merely apathetic calculating machines. Without instinct and drive, they have no will, agency, and compass to direct their intelligence. Without hormones, there is no sense of 'us and them'. One has no greater feelings for one's own people than for others, even those who aim to hurt one's people. This is why Jews promote apathetic zen-ism among whites to weaken their sense of us-and-them while Jews maintain a strong sense of us-Jews and them-goyim. (But then, even as Jews tell whites not to feel strong feelings about white identity, they insist that whites must passionately favor Jews over Palestinians, Arabs, and Iranians. What a sneaky bunch of lowlifes.)

They actually carried out such an experiment where the hormones of some guy were removed. He just felt numb. He looked around and lacked the will. And everything seemed equally ‘pleasant’ in this emotion-drained state. Everything seemed to be of equal value. Show such a person gold and lead, and they are equally valuable... or equally valueless.
To a person with emotions, gold means power, wealth, and that means success, sex, and good stuff. His hormones drive him to fight for gold. But to a person without emotions, gold is just like anything else. And stuff like power, success, happiness, and etc have no meaning to him since he has no emotions.

If Einstein had no hormones and only intellect, he never would have bothered to discover the laws of the universe. No matter the ability, there would have been no drive, no will, no hunger. He would have been at peace with himself doing nothing. But he had emotions; animal emotions drive man to conquer, and this 'animal' within Einstein drove him to conquer knowledge and unlock the key to the universe and attain the forbidden fruit. And he wanted fame and recognition. So, his life was really about intelligence driven by ape emotions.