What Happens When the Weak-of-Survival Are Favored over the Strong-of-Survival? The Western Conundrum under Jewish Supremacism.

Suppose there are organisms in a certain environment. They compete with other organisms and even face the invasion by foreign organisms. Within these native organisms, there are those that react strongly to threats and act accordingly. They fight or build defenses. And then, there are those that are passive, weak, or even welcoming of rivals or invaders. Over time, what will happen? The Law of Survival will weed out the weak members as they'll be conquered and devoured by rivals or invaders. Meanwhile, the strong members will survive with their tenacity and fighting spirit. In time, the organisms will be defined by the survivors with the spirit of warriors. That way, the organisms will remain strong.

But what if a different set of dynamics takes hold of this environment? Suppose there is a Power that coddles and protects the weak-willed members of the organism while hampering the strong-willed members that are exposed to constant attacks and invasions. The weak-willed survive because they don't have to fight under the protection of the Power. In contrast, the strong-willed come under ceaseless pressure. Furthermore, they are prevented by the Power from using all means at their disposal to counter the attacks and invasions. What will happen over time? The strong-willed will wither, fade, and eventually be forced to cower before the enemy. After all, even the strongest bear or biggest bull can eventually be brought down by a pack of wolves; even a giant lizard succumbs to a massive killer ant attack. Meanwhile, the weak-willed members survive and even thrive... but as pathetic puppets and minions of the Power that protects them(and subverted the defensive capability of the defeated strong-willed members).

Imagine an environment with lots of chimps. Among them, there are strong-willed chimps and weak-willed chimps. Strong-willed chimps are vigilant, always on the lookout, and ready to fight for territory, females, and food. Weak-willed chimps, on the other hand, are passive and kindly toward outsiders, be they rival chimps or dangerous animals(such as leopards). Now, when crisis breaks out, the strong-will chimps will prioritize survival and go into fight-or-flight mode. Fight those that can be defeated, take flight from the stronger, and set up a wall of defense. In contrast, the weak-willed members will be slower to flee from danger. They may even move toward danger as a 'friend'. They'll act like the dufus scientist in the 1950s sci-fi horror THE THING, a naive brainiac who seeks to commune with and 'understand' the fearsome and ruthless creature from another planet. Over time, as the weak-willed chimps will be weeded out by murderous enemy chimps and predators, the chimp community will have more strong-willed members.
But suppose a Power takes over the chimp community. It creates a well-stocked sanctuary for the weak-willed chimps that thus become favored in the game of existence. Despite possessing traits disadvantageous for survival, they are favored and coddled by the Power. The strong-willed chimps get no such protection and are therefore disadvantaged in survival. They must fight and struggle to survive, and tough as they are, some are destroyed or devoured by rival chimps and predators. But there is worse. The Power decides to make things more difficult for the strong-willed apes. Their fangs are ground down so their bites are far less effective. Also, they are supplied with narcotics, and many succumb to addiction. Under such organizing principles, the weak-willed members survive(but essentially as chattel dependent on the protection/mercy of the Power) while the strong-willed members dwindle in number and eventually become destroyed.

In a way, the favoring of the weak-willed over the strong-willed is the story of civilization. It is also a strategy of power. It can be advantageous to a people if they control the terms of 'domestication', but it can be disadvantageous(and eventually fatal) if the terms are controlled by another group.

There are parallels between humans and dogs, though some human groups and certain dog breeds became more domesticated than others. The Golden Retriever became more domesticated than the Alaskan Husky that, despite living with man, still came under tremendous natural pressures in freezing climates and in proximity with dangerous predators such as polar bears and wolves. Dogs are weaker and smaller than wolves, their ancestors. They are also weaker-willed and more prone to trust and be friendly with other organisms, especially humans. As such, humans favored and protected dogs. But humans also owned dogs as property, as pets and servants. Thus, even though countless dogs led far safer and happier lives in the protective human realm than wolves did in the wild, they were at the mercy of their human masters. But humans didn't merely favor dogs over wolves but made a concerted effort to make things difficult and often deadly for the wolves. Therefore, even though wolves have greater survival skills than dogs if both were placed in the same wilderness — indeed, it's likely that most, even all, dogs will be destroyed in the wild — , the Power of Man has made it so that weak-willed dogs have far greater chance of survival than wolves in the wild(that has been limited to wilderness preserves). The interference of the Power made it so that the wolf's natural advantage became a disadvantage whereas the natural disadvantage of the dog became an advantage under Man. After all, mankind naturally prefers the trusting, submissive, and friendly dog to the ferocious and proud wolf. Dogs have done better under humans than in the wild but at the loss of all pride, autonomy, and independence. Still, as they are animals, pride doesn't matter much to them. But what about people who've lost pride and independence?

But then, can real pride and independence exist in civilization? After all, if people, as truly free individuals, decided to do as they like, civilization would fall apart. Imagine a world run over by Alexes of A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. Despite all the talk of freedom and individualism, the main reason why modern civilization holds together and continues is because most or majority of the people support or serve the hierarchy and adhere to the 'values' and 'narratives' pushed by the Power. Also, the Power enforces the same sets of laws, language, and lore over the vast populace. Under communism in the Soviet Union, the law was Marxist-Leninist. The language of the empire was Russian. And all children were raised on the lore of communist saints and heroes. There's been far more freedom in the West, but the system cannot be sustained unless enough people submit to the existing Power Structure. For most people in the West, there is a measure of freedom in their personal lives but hardly any freedom or means to change the workings of the existing power structure. Only a handful of people with the means to enter the inner sanctums of power can make a real difference. Also, even personal choices are shaped, even dictated, by a handful of big players. Most movies are made by Hollywood, or Movie Inc. People choose from what is offered to them by mega-corporations, just like voters choose from a bunch of politicians vetted by the ruling power, i.e. people vote for puppets, not leaders. People may select from various media outlets that create the impression of choice, but most of media are controlled by a handful of Jewish oligarchs. People may choose the kind of music they like, but pop trends are dominated by a few entertainment oligopolies. There was talk of how the internet would unleash an era of citizen journalism and alternative views, but the biggest platforms are dominated by Zionist Jews who shut down what they deem as 'hate speech'. Jewish oligarchs at Google also manipulate algorithms so that Jew-run news are favored in search results over voices critical of Jewish Supremacism. Therefore, what is called 'free press' and 'free speech' are highly proscribed and controlled in the Free West. Indeed, paradoxically enough, people in a democracy might be even more clueless as to what's really happening because the conceit of 'liberty' and 'freedom' blinds them to the fact that they aren't so free. At least, people in Iran and China know their freedoms are restricted by the State. In the West, many are still under the delusion of living in a 'liberal democracy' when, if anything, they are minions of a Jewish Supremacist Oligarchy. Labels can fool a lot of people. It's like the 'fat-free' label that fools so many people who don't realize that the fat has been replaced by more sugars. Same with 'progress' and 'conservative'. So much of what is nowadays labeled as 'progressive' or 'conservative' is anything but. So-called 'progressive' Democrats are totally in cahoots with Wall Street that push globo-homo to replace May Day with Gay Day. And so-called 'conservative' Republicans are now into chanting 'gay marriage and trannies-in-washrooms are conservative values.' How the world loves a label than the reality.

In a way, this loss of true freedom and independence is the price we all paid for civilization. A civilization can be more free or less free, but when push comes to shove, it must be about most or the great majority submitting to the power, the status quo. Those in power may change — American Power went from Wasp Rule to Jewish Rule — , but regardless of who are on top, most people must go along. So, Russia went from the people obeying the Czars to obeying the Commissars to obeying the oligarchs. And most Germans went from obeying the Kaiser to obeying the Weimar Republic to obeying the Nazis to obeying the bureaucrats in West Germany or East Germany. Even if many people are cynical about power and disrespect the ruling elites, they've no choice but to go through the daily motion of working for the system. In other words, even the disobedient find they've no choice but to obey to make a living.
And even when the people do rise up and overthrow the existing system, as in the case of Shah's Iran, the only way civilization can continue is if most people support or comply with the new order. Civilization cannot tolerate too many wolves. It needs lots of dogs. As for controlling the power, it usually goes to the weasels. George Orwell in ANIMAL FARM illustrated how the banishment of humans only led to the rise of Pig Tyranny. But then, as bad as the pigs are, can the animals govern themselves? Besides domestication means to become part of a system, an order based on organizational principles. It is then the nature of domesticated organisms to long for the iron hand, albeit so-called Liberal Democracy learned to cover it with a velvet glove. As individuals, we can only be so free. After all, we don't want to live in a world of chaos where everyone, as an independent maverick, makes up his or her own rules. This is so many manifestations of 'rebellion' and 'difference' in a 'liberal democracy' are manufactured as a chimera by the Power. Have the 'rebels' conform to officially tolerated or approved forms of 'rebellion', like cheering loudly at Rock concerts, piercing one's nose, or turning one's hair green, all of which are harmless to the Power(while harmful to the pride of resistance). All these 'differences' lead to new conformist communities than truly independent turns of mind and spirit. It's like the Power's idea of 'dark web dissident right' turned out to be Zionists like Ben Shapiro & Dave Rubin and shills of Zionists like Jordan Peterson. But then, even if dissident rightists were to come to power, wouldn't they prop up their favored Norms and Sacraments as the governing principle in the new order?

Civilization must favor the mild-willed over the strong-willed. While weak-will is too sappy, strong-will is too contentious. While society gains something by having some strong-willed leaders and alphas, most people must be less-strong-willed if people are to get along and go along. (Also, if two civilizations are defined by mild-mannered-ness, they may find ways to co-exist and cooperate than remain locked in terms of conflict. Mild-willed outlooks can serve as roads and bridges between civilizations.)

If everyone were strong-willed, it'd be an endless battle of egos. Therefore, most people must be mild-willed, somewhere between weak-will and strong-will. And the meritocratic system is geared to favor mild-willed over strong-willed, that is unless the strong-willed happen to be particularly gifted in intellect, creativity, or leadership qualities. After all, what is required to do well in school, gain credentials, and find good jobs? One must be patient and diligent. One must be reasonably obedient to teachers and authority figures. Despite the American mythos of the cool rebel, most people who succeed play by the rules. No wonder women and Asians are favored in the current order. Both are more mild-willed than white males who tend to be a bit more adventurous and cantankerous in spirit.
Obama certainly understood who's boss(the Jews) and did as told to be handpicked to be president, or cuck-in-chief of the Jews. One reason why Jews can't stand Donald Trump is the way he became president. He howled too much like a wolf than acted the well-heeled canine in a dog-show. Though a total dog to Jews in substance, he was wolf in style, and the Jewish Masters of America took this very badly, and the whole Russian Collusion Hoax and other nonsense were a means to punish the Bad Doggy.

Anyway, precisely because civilization favors the mild-willed over the strong-willed for most of its managerial positions, there is the real danger of a survival-deficit in elite ranks of society. Consider nations like Sweden. Well-ordered and well-run, peaceful and prosperous Sweden elevated mild-willed individuals to upper levels of government and institutions. Indeed, its military is run by a bunch of mild-willed women who did the homework and did as told in their student days. So, is it any surprise that the Swedish state is so soulless, gutless, and bland? Its managerial class may be well-educated, diligent, and competent on the technical level, but they lack patriotic passion, survival instinct, and requisite ruthlessness toward potential threats and enemies. If anything, it is most 'triggered' by the emergence of strong-willed Swedes who see what is happening and demand that something drastic be done to stop the invasion and great replacement.

Since individuals can't be truly free and independent within a civilization, the only way for a people to be free is as a collective. While Me-the-Person can only be so free within the Order, We-the-People can be free from the control of Other Peoples. It's like Asian Indians gained independence by rising up against British overlords and expelling them. The Vietnamese gained national liberation by resisting French Colonialism and then American Neo-Imperialism. And it was as a collective that Russians pushed back against Napoleonic France in the 19th century and Nazi Germany in the 20th century. Freedom for the Motherland couldn't have been won by Russians as individual wolves. They had to cooperate and fight as Russian dogs in defense of the Order.

While ideally the freedom of we-the-people should expand the freedom of me-the-person within the Order, it hasn't always been so. Textbook examples are Tokugawa Japan, Red China, Castro's Cuba, Islamic Iran, and North Korea. Though politically independent and relatively free of foreign influence, their suppression of me-the-person either intensified or hardly eased despite the autonomy. The reason was either for the survival of the Order or survival of the elites. In certain cases, the Order had to suppress considerations of me-the-person because it was under threat and at a great political-economic-military disadvantage. After all, patriotism and willingness to die were essential among the Vietnamese IF Americans were to be driven out. With excessive freedom of me-the-person, too many Viets might choose not to fight or even join with the other side as collaborators. In Sam Peckinpah's STRAW DOGS, David Sumner(Dustin Hoffman) decides he must force his wife to obey him if they are to defend the house from marauders. She is forbidden from collaborating with the Other side. She is forced to choose we-the-people over me-the-person despite her temptation otherwise.

Castro's Cuba also had to be repressive in order to survive. As the US had so much more money, it could have bought off so many Cubans to do the bidding of US interests. Indeed, Cuba had essentially been a CIA-mafia-Jewish-run plantation/casino before Castro led an army of spartan patriots to take power. But, of course, the downside of repression in favor of we-the-people over me-the-person has been downright Orwellian. The system threw the baby out with the bathwater in its purge of turncoats, traitors, spies, and collaborators. Worse, over time, the invocation of we-the-people can become an excuse to perpetuate a system of we-the-elites.
This is why a system has to find a balance between me-the-person and we-the-people. One thing for sure, history has shown time and time again that an order that is independent of foreign tyranny can be rife with domestic tyranny.
While all systems must maintain order with some degree of repression and control, some take this to extreme measures due to radical ideology, excessive paranoia, or just plain greed of rulers who stingily hog all the power and privilege. As profoundly different as North Korea and the US are in just about every way, if they have anything in common, it's that both are ruled by elites who will do ANYTHING to maintain their supremacist or absolute grip on power. Even though North Korea seems like a fossilized hermit kingdom whereas the US seems a dynamic country constantly reinventing itself, both are essentially governed by the principle of elite-stasis. In other words, the reason why Jews are trying to make America so different is to keep same the power equilibrium, i.e. Jewish Supremacism must define American Power. As Jews are a minority-elite, they fear that stability in America will eventually lead to people realizing they're ruled by Jews. For that reason, Jews stir up the impression of constant upheaval and transformation to misdirect the American Gaze from the one true constant in American Power Politics: JEWS RULE, JEWS GET RICHER, JEWS EXPAND THEIR CONTROLS.

Anyway, if civilization ordains that people must be servile dogs than defiant wolves, at the very least human-dogs can be ruled by their own kind than by another kind. In other words, English dogs should be ruled by English masters, Japanese dogs should be ruled by Japanese masters, German dogs should be ruled by German masters, Italian dogs should be ruled by Italian masters, Russian dogs should be ruled by Russian masters, Iranian dogs should be ruled by Iranian masters, Jewish dogs should be ruled by Jewish masters(though, to be sure, every Jew feels as a master than dog), and etc. After all, there is greater likelihood that master A will feel greater affection and sense of obligation for dogs A, and master B will for dogs B. Granted, it may not always be so. Master A could be cruel and abusive of Dogs A, and it's possible Master B has more sympathy and heart for Dogs A. But generally, rulers of Nation A will have more feelings for the people of Nation A than for the peoples of Nation B, C, D, E, F, etc. Do Jewish rulers in Israel have more feelings for Jewish people or the Arab people, the Palestinians?
Now, one may point to white elites who seem to care just as much, if not more, for non-whites as for whites, but his anomaly is the result of Jewish conquest of the white mind/soul. Jews made it anathema among white elites to care about fellow whites because they want white elites to primarily serve and obey Jews. In other words, to convince white elites to favor the Jewish Other over the White Brother, Jews indoctrinated white elites(and even many among the white masses) that there are few things as evil in the world as whites caring for whites. It's NOT OKAY to be white. Another problem with elites of one nation excessively caring for other peoples than for their own is they will end up ill-serving both. After all, it is a full-time job to govern and take care of a nation. A national elite that tries to save the world as well as govern its own people is like a dog that loses the bone in his mouth for the one reflected in the water. It's like a parent who tries to take care of all the kids in the neighborhood. He'll just fail with all the children, including his own. Also, it makes the elites of other nations lazy and corrupt. Suppose if the elites of Nation B came to depend on elites of Nation A to provide food and aid for the people of Nation B. Why would the elites of Nation B clean up their own act when Nation A is providing Nation B with free stuff? And why would the people of Nation B try to replace the existing elites when they get by on handouts from Nation A?

While all of us must be more dogs than wolves within civilization, the ideal should be for the dogs and masters to be of the same identity. English masters for English dogs. That way, even if civilized man cannot be truly free and independent like a wild wolf, he can still be part of a people that are free and independent of rule by other peoples. The problem with the current West is that white folks are not only dogs of civilization — a necessary condition for social order — but dogs of a foreign master, the Jews. Worse, Jews are not even good masters over the Other. Jews look upon goyim as mere cattle, commodities, or cuck-dogs. The way Jews look upon goyim is far more contemptuous than how British Imperialists looked upon Hindus and Africans. At the very least, the Christian element of Western Civilization reminded whites that non-whites are also precious children of God. In contrast, Jews look upon goyim as barely human. Jews believe a single Jewish life is worth more than a million goy lives. Just Ask the Palestinians! Under Jewish rule, whites don't even have the freedom, pride, and power of We-the-People. They've been reduced to We-the-Cucks.

The black African threat to Europe makes things much worse. Blacks are barely domesticated as dogs; they are more like wild dogs, almost like wolves. As such, a sane West will do everything to protect European mild-willed dogs from African wild dogs. But three factors are forestalling this most necessary course of action. (1) Jewish globalist supremacists who control (((Western))) media and academia have elevated Negroes to god-like status. So many whites worship MLK and Mandela more than their own national/racial heroes, even over God and Jesus. And Jewish Power vilified 'racism' as the worst of all sins, and 'racism' is deemed most wicked when harboring negative feelings about blacks. Political Correctness demands that whites must love and honor blacks NO MATTER WHAT blacks do. (2) Even though blacks have thug supremacy over weaker whites and cause havoc in white nations, the fact remains Europe is rich while Africa is poor. Therefore, many Europeans still have this image of themselves as all-powerful and of blacks as helpless/harmless children. Thus, they fail to grasp the threat posed by black thugs on Western Civilization. (3) Even though civilization did wonders for non-black mankind, it also turned robust human-wolves into less impressive human-dogs. Though civilization can be maintained only by human-dogs, there is still the wolfish element in human-dogs that hankers for wolf-like glory and excitement. Because blacks are more impressive in sports, dancing, hollering, and fist-shaking, many white dogs are in state of awe of the wild black dawg that seems so badass.

The result is that the Current West not only favors mild-willed white dogs(those who go-along to get-along) over the strong-willed white dogs(those with the most survival instincts and fight/flight reflexes, problematic in peace time but essential in times of crisis) but also favors wild black dogs over strong-willed white dogs. This fatal alliance of mild-willed white dogs(and weak-willed white dogs) with wild black dogs against strong-willed white dogs will be the lethal formula that will bring down the West. In times of crisis, the strong-willed dogs must come to the fore to defend the order. In such times, the mild-willed dogs must look to the strong-willed dogs. (However, beware of the ultra-strong-willed dogs like Adolf Hitler. While Hitler's strong-will led Germany in its recovery of lost lands and resurgence in pride, he wasn't content with German affairs and embarked on wolf-attacks on OTHER nations to create a Greater Germanic Empire. This is why strong-will must be limited by Universal Nationalism — respect other nations as you expect them to respect your nation — and humanism that reminds people of their all-too-fragile humanity. Fascism elevated man to mythic hero while communism reduced man to a unit of History. In World War II, the German ubermensch rediscovered their humanity in defeat and humiliation. And the story of communism is the danger of sacrificing human lives as so many units in the service of History.)

Zionism vs Afrikanerism as Political Philosophy of Labor — How the Ideology of National Labor eventually trumps the Expediency of Global Labor — Mind and Body in Man and Nation

Politics of Labor will decide the future of nations.

What was the most crucial difference between Zionism and Afrikanerism?

Zionists debated early on whether the Jewish settlers should hire Arab workers or Jewish workers. Zionists came down on the side of Jews hiring Jews. Thus, the Jewish head would be wedded to the Jewish body. And as the theme of Zionism would be ethno-cultural, it would serve as the heart between the head and body of the Jewish nation. In the short-term, it would have been more profitable to use Arab labor. It would have been cheaper than Jewish labor. Also, whereas a Jewish boss would feel moral obligation to treat fellow Jews with some sense of justice, he might merely exploit Arab laborers as expendable than essential members of the Community. But if Zionism had opted for Jewish owners and Arab workers, it would have failed in the long run. As there are always more workers than owners, Arabs would have outnumbered the Jews, and Jewish dominance would have been difficult to maintain. So, even though Jewish owners hiring Jewish workers was economically more costly in the short-run, it was crucial in the long-run in the creation of a Jewish state where the Jewish mind was united with Jewish body. It became one organic unit and fought off all challenges. But, suppose Zionism had opted for Jewish owners hiring Arab Workers. When the Partition of 1948 was declared, would all those Arab employees of Jewish owners have sided with their Jewish bosses or with their Arab brethren? Most would have joined with Arab Brethren, and the Arabs would have won the war, and Jews would have been expelled from Palestine permanently. But because Zionist opted for Jewish owners and Jewish workers, when the crisis moment arrived, all Jews from top to bottom united as a single force and fought the Arabs and won... and were even able to grab most of Arab territory.

In contrast, let's look at the Politics of Labor of South Africa. Afrikaners were race-conscious, but they opted for economic expediency. They decided to hire lots of black workers to do much of the work. In the short-term, this was a terrific bargain. Blacks could be hired for cheap. They could be exploited because they weren't white. White owners and bosses felt some paternal feelings for black workers but not as much as if they'd been white. So, this was a great boost to the South African economy on farms and in the mines, not unlike the economic arrangement in Rhodesia where blacks worked for white owners. But in the long run, what happened in South Africa? These blacks increased in number, outbred whites, and more blacks moved to white areas from the hinterland and even from other African nations. This meant lots of cheap labor that whites could exploit, but it also meant whites being outnumbered by blacks by an ever-increasing margin. Unlike Israel that came to be about Jewish mind wedded to the Jewish body and united by Jewish heart, South Africa increasingly became a world of white mind wedded to the black body with heart of stone lodged between the two communities. Afrikanerism wasn't organic like Zionism. Zionism decided to see Labor as part of 'us' and 'ours'. Afrikanerism decided to see Labor as the Other.
Zionists had been tempted to go with Arab labor. After all, Western Jews honed their skills in white-collar professions and in ownership of property. They weren't really into manual labor. That was for the goyim. Granted, there were poor Jews in Eastern Europe at the time who did manual labor. And even in the West, there were plenty of poor Jews in the garment industries. Still, the Jewish ideal was to use one's brains, not to toil like a 'dummy'. Labor was looked down upon as stuff Dumb 'Polacks' did. Even Jewish communists wanted to be intellectuals or commissars representing laborers; they didn't want to become laborers themselves. Karl Marx never stepped inside a factory in his entire life. And yet, another side of Jewish culture had more respect for the common man, at least if he was Jewish. As Jewish culture wasn't about warriors, it didn't develop an aristocratic culture like the Europeans and Japanese. Among the goyim, the warrior caste became the noblemen, and their power and privilege rested on blood. So, the Western ideal came to be aristocratic-minded, like that of Sparta though not nearly as extreme. Aristocratism deemed that a certain caste was superior over all the rest, and they had the right to rule over others who had to do the heavy lifting as peons and peasants. In contrast, the Jewish Covenant was shared equally by all. Rich Jew, poor Jew, it didn't matter. So, at least within the Tribe, Jews could be more mindful of the humanist value of every Jew. After all, in the Jewish Lore, the kings came later, long after the emergence of the Jews as a people and culture. In contrast, many goy narratives begin with some great leader figure who conquers and rules. According to the Jewish Lore, Jews are a people with certain needs, and they reached a point where they needed a king. In contrast, the Goy Narrative is often about how some guy beat all the others and gained the right to rule, and therefore, it was the duty of everyone else to obey him and his descendants.

National Laborism believes Labor isn't just some economic entity or measure but part of what defines and defends a people, land, and culture. Zionism is National Laborism, and it may be the only nation that is ideologically formulated to be that way.
In its day, National Socialist Germany had a similar ideology. German workers weren't seen merely as economic units but as part of the national family. Labor was organic. It was the body wedded to the German mind and soul. Unfortunately, this ideal all went to hell when Germany decided to go imperialist and turned non-Germans into slaves, thus going from National Socialist ideal to Imperialist Exploitation expediency. And yet, Hitler understood the need for German owners and German workers to be united in the newly occupied lands. Hitler's vision of Russia wasn't for German owners to hire and rely on Slavic laborers. Initially, Germans would use Russians as slaves, but eventually they would be replaced with German workers as a strong German Empire could be assured only by unity of German minds and German bodies. But this was a grisly vision outside Germany because it entailed removal, even extermination, of entire populations. Hitler was right about the New World. North America(minus Mexico) was sounder than Latin America because North was mostly about white owners and white workers. There was organic racial unity of white mind and white body. In contrast, Latin America was about white minds ruling over brown bodies. Thus, there was no heart between mind and body in Latin America. In North America, there was a sense of heart between white mind and white body because it's tougher to exploit one's fellow tribal brethren than another people. It made labor more expensive but also more precious because it wasn't seen merely as economic value but as national-cultural asset. But Hitler was wrong to apply New World historical lessons to the Old World. While it's true that the Red Man lost out tragically to the White Man in North America, there weren't all that many Indian savages in North America. Also, primitive world was supplanted with a modern world as a result of White Conquest of the Americas. In contrast, German invasion of USSR was a war on 170 million people. Also, despite evils of communism and Slavic backwardness, Russia was still part of the great civilized world. Eradicating all of that to create Greater Germany was a mad vision. Though Zionist occupation of West Bank isn't nearly so spectacular, it could be the undoing of Israel if it's ever annexed as Israel will have to offer some form of citizenship to all those Palestinians who may tip the demographic balance of bigger Israel. But then, Jews could try to expel them, but that will stir up a giant international shi*-storm.

When the US was gloriously race-ist, it had a defacto if willy-nilly kind of National-Laborism. While immigration was key to the rapid expansion of the US in the 19th century and early 20th century, most of the newcomers were white and, in time, assimilated. People like the Joads in THE GRAPES OF WRATH mattered because it was deemed a moral necessity for white haves to have a heart for white have-nots. George Bailey doesn't bowl alone in IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE because those white folks of Bedford Falls are his people. If they were a bunch of crazy Negroes, apathetic Mexicans, and angry Muslims, he would have left the town. Labor was seen as part of the National Family. New Deal addressed the issue of Labor and Laborers as fellow Americans.

In contrast, the white elites in Latin America always saw Labor as a huge threat. Latin whites were the mind, but the Laboring body was brown(or black). There was little heart between the two. In some ways, Latin white elites envied American white elites, and vice versa. Latin white elites thought American white elites had it better because they hired white workers. Latin America too tried to encourage more white immigration to stem the tide of Rise of Color. But most white Europeans wanted to move to US than to Latin America. Anyway, American white elites also envied Latin White elites. Because American white elites had to hire white workers(for the most part), they felt an obligation to pay them more and offer more benefits. After all, it wouldn't do for whites to mistreat whites. But in Latin America, white owner class could treat the brown workers like expendable peons desperate to work for few pesos. It's no wonder some American capitalists romanticized Latin America. It's like what Hyman Roth says about Cuba. Money goes further in Latin America where the owners don't have to treat the people as Workers with Identity and Rights. Workers are mere peons, and political 'leaders' are whores who can easily be bought. (Today's DC resembles Havana before the Revolution, and ironically enough, this makes Trump with his Deplorable rabble army seem like New Castro to the Deep State.) It's no wonder Buckleys and Bushes had romantic views of Latin America and Mexico. It's where the distinctions of race and class have been more clearly etched. Owners are up here, and workers are down there.
We tend to associate mono-racialism with conservatism, but there is something inherently socialist about mono-racialism even if the dominant economic system in such a society is capitalist. Under mono-racialism, everyone is seen as part of the national family, and so, there is a sense of obligation to each and every person who is seen as deserving of education, opportunity, job, and benefits. In contrast, Diversity means the owner class may well be racially and culturally different from the working classes. And that means the owners don't have to pay much attention to the Other, the lesser folks who do work that is deemed low and inferior. Though Diversity is often associated with liberalism and equality, its effect is often a form of conservative hierarchy like in caste-ridden India of old. Latin America was more diverse than the US and also more conservative and reactionary in just about every area. To this day, it's about white elites ruling over browns. Of course, the official rhetoric of Latin America is that everyone is nicely mixed and no one sees race, but that's just bogus fantasy to mask the fact of hierarchy and lack of communion between those on top and those on bottom.

East Asian nations like Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan have been about yellow minds and yellow bodies. And nationalism was the heart that glued yellow minds to yellow bodies. But the rise of elitism via near universal college enrollment and elevated expectations may lead to the demise of National Labor ideology in these nations. Today, most Japanese see non-white-collar jobs as 'dirty, demeaning, and dangerous.' Same in South Korea and Taiwan. Not only do many yellows prefer to commit suicide than take up 'dirty and demeaning' labor, they refuse to have children who might fail in school and end up doing 'dirty and demeaning' labor. Also, Asian women, nearly all college educated, only want to marry 'winners'. This means sudden drop in birth-rates, and it means low-level jobs must be filled by... someone, and so, even Japan is now taking in 500,000 foreigners to take up those jobs. And according to Peter Frost's research, South Korean labor will be 40% non-Korean in 25 yrs. Taiwan seems to be following similar trends. So, their economic ideology is closer to Afrikanerism than Zionism. In the short term, it will be profitable and convenient as poor laborers arrive from places like Philippines and Indonesia to fill up 'dirty and demeaning' jobs. But in time, those newcomers will take over the nation just like blacks took over South Africa. Another threat to East Asia is globalism. East Asian mentality is essentially TO SERVE. The samurai, also known as 'bushi', was about submission. 'Bushi' means To Serve. Even though samurai were the elite caste, they were all about serving the Lord. Without someone to serve, one was a ronin, a nothing. Among Chinese and Koreans, the ideal was to become a Confucian bureaucrat and serve the emperor or king. Thus, an individual has no value except in service to the highest power. In Akira Kurosawa's SEVEN SAMURAI and RED BEARD, samurai are initially reluctant to serve the 'common rabble' than some fancy lord. They are used to serving the High than the Low, just like the shoe-maker in HIGH AND LOW must really struggle with himself before coming to regard his chauffeur's kidnapped son as akin to his own. When the top power in Asia was national, most were happy to serve the local power. But now that globalism made the West the uppermost power, most Asian elites are servile to the Western globo-homo way. This is in contrast to Jews who have a sense of self-worth. The Covenant means that every Jew has a direct connection to God. So, even as Jews may work for or with other people, they don't believe they exist to SERVE others. If anything, the key is to make OTHERS serve them, the Chosen Individuals. Asians lack such mentality. Today, Asian elites believe they should serve the West, the toppermost power, and they think they, as 'fancy Asians', should be served by lower people such as 'jungle Asians'. This goes against the grain of Zionism and will be disaster in yrs to come. (There is also a matter of personality. Three groups -- Jews, blacks, and homos -- have big personalities that tend to be egocentric or vain and expect the world to serve them. In contrast, most other groups have either neutral or servile personalities. Jews think everyone should revolve around Jewish Genius, blacks think everyone should suck 'muh dick', and homos think everyone should kiss their behind. No wonder the Three have such out-sized roles in World Culture.)

At one point, whites were like 50% of the South African population. Had Afrikaners taken the Zionist route and decided upon white workers for white owners, South Africa might have become a White Israel. But whites thought short-term. And same could be said for California. When the Golden State had been gloriously race-ist, it came to its senses and excluded Chinese Invasion and Colonization. It didn't want to end up like Tibet or Xinjiang are ending up today. California Dream was a kind of White Israel on the West Coast. And it was a fantastic success story, in some ways the most spectacular tale of American can-do spirit. But at some point, white Californians got used to Too Much of a Good Thing. And they turned grasshopper and took things for granted, even leading to the rise of the California Teenager meme. So, Californian economic ideology went from quasi-Zionism to quasi-Afrikanerism: Whites were too good for certain jobs, and they were to be taken by all those lowly 'beaners'. But just as lowly blacks took over South Africa, these lowly 'beaners' came to demographically take over much of California. This is what happens when the mind and body are no longer one.

Though a collective of people is different from a single person, there are certain parallels that are instructive. Even if heads and bodies could be traded among peoples, a person functions best if his head is connected to his own body via his heart. "My mind, my heart, and my body." But suppose we do an experiment where one person's mind is connected to another person's body and both are pumped by heart of yet another. Would such a person feel as one? When men pretend to be 'women', what happens to their psychology?
In John Carpenter's THE THING, the extraterrestrial creature doesn't care about any of the bodies it takes over since it can move from body to body. It has no organic unity with any single body. It considers every body as expendable. As far as it's concerned, all bodies exist just so it could move from one to the other to spread more Thingish-ness. Now, imagine if your head was severed from your body and suppose your head could move around from place to place. Suppose, it could supplant the heads of other people and take over their bodies. Would you take good care of those bodies? Not likely. Why not? They are not your bodies. You're just a parasite that sees every body as a host. You'd use and abuse the body as long as possible and then move onto to new bodies to mess with. This is indeed how George Soros and Paul Singer operate. They are heads without bodies. They move from nation to nation and attach their heads to the nation as 'advisers' and then do everything to suck that nation dry and then move onto new national bodies. But would Paul Singer do such to his beloved Israel? No. When Singer's head connects with Israel's body, it feels like 'Home', like when ET saw Yoda on Halloween.
https://youtu.be/VrVEHszxL7E?t=2m12s
In the current West, the Jewish head/mind feels little connection to the white body. If anything, the Jewish mind fears rejection by the 'deplorable' white body that might call for the return of the proud white head, and so, the Jewish mind is hellbent on diversifying the body so that it won't be white anymore: White torso, Mexican liver, Asian lungs, African dong, Muslim hands, homo anus, and etc. These body parts will be too busy rejecting one another to come together to reject the Zardoz-like Jewish Head.
As for the former white mind that used to control the white body, it was decapitated long ago, and having no organic connection to the body, it dreams silly dreams of Homo and Tranny as the new god.

A sane and sound person's mind is connected to his body and soul. A sane and sound nation is essentially of one elite ruling over one people. While Israel has a sizable Arab population, it has been a Jewish majority nation led by Jewish elites for Jewish identity from Day One. Zionic beats Bionic. Organic beats artificial. And if Turkey remains viable to this day, it's because modern Turkey was founded as an organic nation of the Turks. Its biggest problem has been with Kurds, a people who insist they are not Turks, but fortunately for Turkey, Kurds are a minority like Arabs in Israel.

Now, it may be understandable why some elites want to boost Diversity and destroy organic nationalism. They feel burdened by having to lead and deal with their own people. It's like Moses had a fearsome task ahead of him because he was a Jew leading the Jews. Because they were his people, he couldn't just see them as chattel or the rabble or human trash(even though the mobs sometimes acted like that). He had to whip them into shape, inspire them, and secure their future in terms of land and survival. Such is a huge challenge and burden, and not all elites are up to it. They just want to make money, gain privilege, and live in the glam world.

American elites were more conscientious and mindful. Protestantism suppressed narcissism and vanity. In contrast, in the colorful Catholic Latin America, the elites were more shameless in lavishly furnishing themselves with the Good Life and style over substance. In a way, the rise of Marxism was like the Second Reformation in Latin America. A way of saying ENOUGH IS ENOUGH to all the Havana playboy lifestyle. Castro decided to play Moses by ruling Cuba as a nation where every worker would matter as part of the national family. Unfortunately, the fool chose Marxism than Neo-Fascism, the true way to bridge the mind and body. But in the end, the problem wasn't only bad choice of ideology but race. No matter how much Cuba's white elites tried, they couldn't represent whites, blacks, and mixed-race people in between the same way. A racially diverse nation has a hard time being organic. Ideology goes only so far in stitching the differences.

Anyway, Zionism or Afrikanierism when it comes to Labor? Should Labor be seen as part of National Family or Global Finance? When we compare the fate of Israel vs South Africa, I think the answer is clear. So, why do Jews push Afrikanerization of Labor for all nations EXCEPT Israel? Because smart(and devious) power wants to keep the secret formula for itself. Let the suckers fall for the hustle of short-term profits for long-term demise.