White Folks and Their Fascinating/Exasperating Submission to Negro as Id and Superego

https://www.simplypsychology.org/psyche.html

What is the id?
The id is the primitive and instinctive component of personality. It consists of all the inherited (i.e., biological) components of personality present at birth, including the sex (life) instinct – Eros (which contains the libido), and the aggressive (death) instinct - Thanatos. The id is the impulsive (and unconscious) part of our psyche which responds directly and immediately to the instincts. The personality of the newborn child is all id and only later does it develop an ego and super-ego.

The superego's function is to control the id's impulses, especially those which society forbids, such as sex and aggression. It also has the function of persuading the ego to turn to moralistic goals rather than simply realistic ones and to strive for perfection.
The superego consists of two systems: The conscience and the ideal self. The conscience can punish the ego through causing feelings of guilt.

Why are white psyche and white ‘physiche’(the psychology of physicality) so chained to and slavish before the Negro?

Part of the problem is blacks have come to represent both the Id and the Superego(or SuperNegro) among white folks.

1. Blacks as Id.

Because blacks are wild, expressive, colorful, and ‘vibrant’/violent, many white folks(and other non-black folks, be they Asian, Muslim, Mexican, or Hindu) look to blacks to express what is repressed, restrained, or relatively lackluster(or 'lame') within themselves. So, a ‘bland’ and ‘generic’ proggy white girl may listen to Tina Turner, Beyonce, or Rihanna and feel her own inhibited sexuality & angst expressed through the less inhibited Negress’ shamelessly lascivious performance. It's like Jungle Therapy. Because the ‘white bread’ girl hasn't the sheer intensity of vocality, personality, and temperament to express her own sensual desires and natural drives so aggressively and nakedly, she identifies with the propulsive Negress as shaman-medium for her overly tamed and civilized whims and limbs. Because it comes naturally for the Negress to act wilder and nastier, she serves as a kind of Negro-electro-amplifier for the emotions of the white woman that simply cannot charge up to that level of hyper-funky-dynamism.

Among white males, there is a vicarious Negro-for-a-Day thrill in watching black athletes dominate the field because black male-athletic prowess leaves the white kind in the dust. Blacks can run faster, jump higher, dodge better, punch harder, and etc. So, a white guy, brown feller, and yellow boy may look to the Negro as the most potent purveyor of the Global Male Id. In any local high school, the top athlete serves as the idol of manhood in the community. In the global community, the victorious Negro has become the idol of manhood for all the world. As white manhood and especially Asian manhood have been degraded by comparison, white men are increasingly moving into cuck mode and Asian men are moving into pussy-boy mode. When whites in lived their own world and favored local heroes, white people could have white heroes. Consider a movie like CHARIOTS OF FIRE. And when Japan was closed off to the world, it has its local native heroes as top samurai swordsmen and sumo champions. But in global open competition, local/national heroes are easily blown away. It's like all dogs will lose to greyhounds in sprinting, and all dogs will lose to pitbulls in fighting.
Though all males have the masculine Id or male animal drive, it is manifested most loudly and aggressively among blacks, as when Muhammad Ali KO'ed Sonny Liston and howled he’s the ‘greatest’. In the 70s, the soccer world looked to Pele as the greatest idol of the game. Even in nations with no standing in world soccer, young boys grew up looking to Pele as some kind of sports god.

So, there could be a kind of global Id Addiction to or Id Worship of the Negro. Especially because the electronic-globo-world culture is so sports-pop-music-sex-porn-obsessed, many non-black women look to and imitate black women as the model of the most bodacious purveyor of the Id. Consider the success of Beyonce, Rihanna, and Nikki Minaj of the twerking-big-butt-school. So many white girls want to be like them.

And among non-black males, their less robust and rambunctious manhood channels the more aggressive, domineering, and violent Id of the Negro who can howl the loudest as rapper, who can sack the quarterback hardest as defensive lineman, and who can hump the most women as mandingo-man.

The Negro-as-Id phenomenon is surely manifested in the 'cuckolding' community where white men invite black men to hump their wives or girlfriends. Thus, white men partake of the bigger and stronger Id of the Negro who be humping da white ho wid gusto. Negro guy becomes the fantasy-extension of the white guy's Id. The white guy plays both biological slave to the Negro(as biological master) and fantasy Negro(as he identifies with the Negro doing his woman[who is sure to leave him sooner than later as no woman can for long respect a cucker]). As sexuality is about domination, people may find pleasure as either master or slave or as both. This is why so many white and Jewish homos go for black men, though white homos also, at times, bugger black men who usually bugger them, which makes the ‘sexual’ dynamics more complicated. The interesting aspect of homo porn(if one has the stomach for it) is that the ‘politics’ of sexuality is far more confused and ambiguous, and this may explain why homo artists/thinkers like Pier Paolo Pasolini, Yukio Mishima, and Michel Foucault made for interesting theorists of power. Though there is the female dominatrix(and recent feminist encouragement to ‘peg’ the men), the male-female sexual dynamics is far simpler, with men as dominant master and female as submissive slave. In contrast, the homo who is buggered as the ‘bitch’ can turn around the bugger the buggerer and make him the 'bitch'. In some ways, the inclusion of the Afro-homo in the Western homo community made things both simpler and complicated. Simpler in the sense that the Negro homo, being more muscled and bigger donged, was more easily recognized as the dominant partner while the white homo was relegated to the ‘bitch’ role. Even so, whereas a white woman cannot screw a Negro man, a white homo can still screw an Afro homo. So, among interracial homos, even the ‘bitch’ slave can bugger the dominant master who can play the ‘bitch’. Though Andrew Sullivan and Milo Yiannopolous are hardly important thinkers, their interracial homo-eroticism may have made them a bit keener about the various shades of power politics. The sexual ambiguity of Camille Paglia certainly accounts for her dual perspective on sexuality, watching through both male and female gaze.

Anyway, given the hedonistic Id addiction to blackness among white folks in US and EU(and among Japanese who are into Jungle Fever and among Chinese who worship black NBA players), the West may be helpless in its sensual-slavery to the Negro and too blind to wake up, come to its senses, and realize that Negromania is fatal to civilization. There is a reason why Odysseus ordered his men to tie him to the pull of the ship. Under the mesmerizing power of the Sirens’ song, he was willing to abandon everything and steer toward the femmes fatales even though he knew it meant sure death.

Emanuel Macron under the Id Power of the 'Groids'. The leader of France, the second power of EU, welcomes Negroes as Sensual Liberators and promotes Jungle Fever and ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs.

Emanuel Macron, the Wonder Boy of Globalism, cheers as the Afro-French Soccer team wins the World Cup. As athletes are demigods of current culture, white Frenchmen now worship Negroes as the superior god-race. Macron plans to bring 150 million black Africans to France to impregnate all white wombs while white men are reduced to cucky-wuck status.

2. Blacks as Superego.

Because America dominates the world with media-academia-news-entertainment, its particular brand of Guilt Cult, Iconography, and Redemption Narrative defines global morality. What America feels guilty about, the rest of the world is also made to feel guilty about: The Imperialism of Guilt. What American reveres or worships, the rest of the world is made to revere or worship. After all, American stories, passions, and hangups are beamed to all corners of the world. So, if white Americans feel pangs of guilt about a handful of dead blacks, that matters more than 100,000s or even millions of dead victims in other parts of the world. To an extent, White Guilt is a form of White Power. Even though it burdens whites with the paralysis of guilt, it also burdens the rest of the world with particular white passions for redemption and atonement(even though the world had no part in white ‘historical crimes’). If whites feel sorry about Topic A, the rest of the world is made to feel sorry as well. This is why Negroes especially have gained so much from White Guilt. As US is a global super-soft-power as well as super-hard-power, its narratives and iconography are never just its own but beamed to all people around the globe. If whites feel guilty about Negroes as a sacred people, then the whole world must share in the guilt... or else be derided as ‘racist’. Since whites feel guilt about Jews, the rest of the world better share in the guilt... or else they are Anti-Semites. (This is most comical when it comes to Palestinians, clearly an oppressed people under Jews. But never mind what Jews did to Palestinians. Since whites feel guilty about Jews over what happened in Europe in the Shoah, the rest of the world better share in the guilt... even if the people, such as Palestinians, had nothing to do with Shoah and, if anything, were wiped off the map by Zionist imperialists). Especially because Jews dominate media and academia, they've promoted White Guilt vis-a-vis blacks as one of the great sins(next to the Holocaust) in order to paralyze white power and make it subservient by way of moral blackmail.

As a result, the deification of MLK and Mandela became central(and even mandatory) to global morality. Under such barrage, one might think no people other than blacks-under-white-rule(and Jews of course under goy Christian rule) suffered so horribly, overcame tragedy so nobly, and deserve all of our sympathy in all their transcendent splendorousness — never mind all the black brutality against blacks and Arab enslavement of blacks.
In truth, black Americans throughout the 20th century were generally better off and safer & securer compared to countless peoples around the world. Of course, the US was discriminatory toward blacks, but black-American experience in the 20th century could hardly be compared with true horrors in other parts of the world. Consider the death tolls of Armenians, Poles, Russians, Ukrainians, Chinese, Algerians, East Timorese, Cambodians, Kurds, and etc. And recently in Syria and all because Jewish-supremacists must get things their way.

But because the Jew-run US narrative dominates the world, MLK became a world figure and the 'plight' of black Americans(though piddling compared to true horrors suffered by other peoples in the 20th century) was hyped as one of great 'global' tragedies. And never mind all the dead Iraqi, Syrian, and Palestinian children as the result of Wars for Israel. Just wax tragic about Emmitt Till for the umpteenth time. (To be sure, it also owed to the Cold War in which the Soviet Union and its agents exaggerated the race problem in the US to make Capitalist America seem like an especially evil place.)

And even though blacks in South Africa had it much better than blacks in black-run African nations, Apartheid was made out by the Jew-run and cuck-managed Western Media to be one of the most evil things in history. (Never mind that the South African largess never would have been created under black rule.) If whites feel bad about something, it must be truly bad because white emotions count for more in a media-world that emphasizes whiteness to the hilt as both agency and scapegoat. If whites are glowing over something, it must be especially glow-worthy. If whites are crowing about something, it must be especially crow-worthy. (In contrast, most Americans and much of the world still know little or nothing about Nakba and the Occupation of the West Bank. After all, Jews control the Western Media as main source of world news.) Anyway, because of the cult of Negro Nobility and sanctimony around MLK and Mandela — when Negroes playact as 'noble' and uplifting, they come across as more eloquent & inspirational than most races because of their booming voices or Morgan-Freeman-like folksiness — , white people have come to look to Negro as the gatekeeper of higher morality, the holders of the key to heaven. For many whites, the Magic Negro might as well be god hisself. Indeed, for most whites in both US and EU, it is more blasphemous to badmouth MLK or Mandela(or even Morgan Freeman and of course holy homos) than God or Jesus.

The Negro celebrated as Id and worshiped as Superego.
So, there you go. We have a paradoxical situation where whites look to Negroes as both revelers of the Ultimate Id and torchbearers of the Ultimate Superego. Negro revered as both savage beast and spiritual icon.

Such deranged White Delusions are now at the center of globalist morality and culture.

Of course, white elites don't suffer physically(not yet anyway) from the consequences of this delusion because they have money, privilege, and safe spaces. People like Emanuel Macron, Theresa May, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden have it made no matter what happens. They rub shoulders only with fancy Negroes like Obama who know how to push the buttons and milk White Psychology. They reside in their own Elysium world. Elite scum integrate with the creme-de la-creme of Diversity while the native hoi polloi must deal with the sewage of Diversity. It’s so easy to rant against ‘racism’ if your kind need only integrate with fancy Negroes while poor whites must integrate with the likes of Mike Tyson.

In the long run, the spread of blacks and black influence in the culture-at-large will be the fatal undoing of the West. But whites are too blind to understand this because of their addiction to Negro Id and Negro Superego. On the animal level, they cower as beta-dogs before the masterful Negro as alpha-wolf. On the spiritual level, they kneel in atonement as guilty whites before the Magic Negro as black jesus. Because of this racial-sexual-spiritual complex, it is very difficult for whites to think skeptically and rationally on the matter. Both animal emotions and spiritual passions override criticality, evidence, sense, and logic.

If current trends continue, the White Race will be destroyed by the black fist, black dong, black booty, and the black holler as it gazes up at MLK and Mandela as god-angels at the gates of heaven. Also, even as blacks beat up and humiliate whites in schools and streets, whites will be too busy cheering for black athletes to realize that black physicality isn’t their dream team but their doom and gloom..

What is the current condition of the white race? Just imagine the white race as Milo with a Negro dong up his bung as he bitches that Democrats are the 'real racists' because MLK, the black moses and jesus rolled into one, was for the "content of one's character" and salvation of all of humanity through black magic.

Identity-over-Ideology(esp if masked with pseudo-universalist-values) beats Ideology-over-Identity — Why did Jewish Ashkenazim prevail over Anglo-Episcopalians despite Comparable IQ? — Why Jews beat Whites on the Issue of South Africa

One of the biggest truths of modern history is that those who favor ideology-over-identity will lose to those who favor identity-over-ideology. Those who choose blood over ink will prevail over those who choose ink over blood. Now, everyone has some identity and some ideology. The question is a matter of which goes on top. Among whites, it used to be identity first, ideology second. Now, it is ideology first, identity second. Or it's idolatry first, ideology second, and identity last? Idolatry of worshiping the Holy Three of Jews, Homos, and Negroes. The ideology of DIOS or 'diversity is our strength' and 'white guilt'. And last and also the least, white identity. In contrast, Jews and blacks put identity before ideology. Also, they celebrate the idolatry of worshiping themselves over the Other. Jews elevate and disseminate the image of Jews as Holy Holocaust People and Happy Humor People. Negroes elevate and lionize themselves as the superior badass people who win in sports, pop music, fighting, and sex. Blood is stronger than ink, seed is stronger than creed.

Indeed, we can see the results of identity-over-ideology vs ideology-over-identity in recent US history(as well as in South Africa or any other part of the world). Two highly intelligent and talented groups have been Ashkenazi Jews and Anglo-Episcopalians. Studies show that both groups have equal intelligence, generally one standard deviation above the American average. Some estimates even suggest Anglo-Episcopalians may have slightly higher IQ than the Ashkenazi Jews. So, given parity in intelligence and talent, the two groups should have been neck-and-neck. Or the Anglo-Episcopalians should have had the advantage since they are Christian and share race and religion with the white majority population, among whom Anglo or Northern European stock has been prominent. But since the end of World War II, Jews kept gaining while Anglo-Episcopalians kept losing ground. Now, one reason could be personality. Maybe Jews have more a dogged, aggressive, and insistent personalities, the chutzpah thing. Or, maybe Jews were more adept at navigating through modernity due to greater(and more shameless) familiarity with strangeness, and indeed, the 20th century was a very strange era with so many upheavals and transformations. Due to their long history as a nomadic people who developed Zelig-ish and Houdini-like means to adapt to different nations and cultures, all the while maintaining a strong and resilient sense of tribal continuity and identity, Jews were perhaps more 'creative' in the way they played the game of modernity. After all, if there are two boxers of equal speed and ability but one is rather stiff while other is fluid, the latter will have the advantage. Shamelessness was part of the fluidity that allowed Jews to take control of vice industries that, though disreputable(at least initially), made Jews a lot of money in stuff like gambling and pornography. Also, this strange fluidity served Jewish Identity well because hostile identity had to be camouflaged with hopeful ideology. Jews couldn't have won over goyim if they'd insisted on their identity alone. Imagine if Jews said, "We are so proud to be Jewish and want you goyim to do the bidding of us Jews." Even the biggest Philo-Semites would have been offended by such presumption and arrogance. So, Jews cleverly sought power by spouting ideological talking points about 'justice', 'equality', 'progress', 'universal values', 'human rights', 'proposition nation', 'fighting hate', 'diversity', 'tolerance', and etc. By pushing such ideological themes, Jews created the impression that human progress depends on peoples all over the world suppressing their particular identities to welcome the one-and-only universal ideology. After all, identity is rooted and tangible whereas ideology is rootless and abstract. You can't immediately transform someone to another national identity(nor would you want to, that is if you want to maintain the integrity of identity), but you can quickly convert anyone to your beliefs and values.
Now, if Jewish Power led the charge with identity, goyim would have countered with their own identities. If Jews say, "We are Jewish, we are proud, and we work for Jewish power!", then goyim such as Poles would have countered with "We are Polish, we are Catholic, we are proud, and we work for Polish power!" Therefore, Jews decided to charge with ideology than identity. Jews said, "We are for justice and progress based on 'western values' and universal human rights, and if you oppose us, you're a bunch of 'racists', 'supremacists', 'xenophobes', and probably 'anti-Semites' too." This had a disarming effect on the goyim. After all, if Jews claim such noble neo-Christo-visions of bringing all of humanity under one umbrella of justice, tolerance, and understanding, why should any people say NO?
In truth, however, Jews weren't charging with ideology to serve ideology above all else. They were charging with ideology to smash goy identity so that Jewish identity could squeeze through the barriers and score the touchdown to win the game. In football, the offensive linemen do not smash into defensive linemen to score touchdowns. The offensive linemen rarely get to handle the ball. Their only role is to defend the quarterback and/or open up holes for the running back to slip through. And this is the game that Jews have been playing. They used the force of ideology as offensive linemen so that the ball of Jewish identity handled by the quarterback/runningback would slip through and score the touchdown. So, in the end, the elite competition in the US after WWII was not about Jewish commitment to ideology vs Anglo-Episcopalian commitment to ideology. It was Jewish commitment to ideology masked with ideology vs Anglo-Episcopalian commitment to ideology over identity. Well, guess who won that game? Increasingly, Anglo-elites lost their sense of identity. They even came to regard it as evil and wicked. This spread not only among Anglo-elites in the US but spread to the UK where the elites now celebrate the fact that UK will be overrun with Africans and Muslims. (To be sure, white elites seek to preserve their own status and privilege, so they don't really practice the ideology they preach. But unlike Jews, they are not using ideology as cover for identity. Rather, they use ideology to have immunity. Sticking with PC talking points buys them some protection from criticism.) Anglo-elites have chosen ideology(and immunity) over identity... without realizing that Jews pushed the toxic ideology that is now poisoning the West in order to favor Jewish identity above all else. Jews didn't push ideology over all identities. They pushed ideology only against goy identities to make space for Jewish identity(that got passover rights). So, while Anglo-American elites in US and Anglo-British elites in UK have been pissing away their land, legacy, and lineage, Jewish elites the world over have been doing everything to reinforce and strengthen Israel as a Jewish State and to turn Holocaustianity as the reigning neo-religion all around the world.


Now, who knows how the world might turn out IF all groups sincerely and conscientiously committed themselves to ideology over identity. Whatever the result may be, at the very least one could say all groups acted in good faith. But reality is never one where all sides behave with utmost honesty and highest principles. After all, why does every nation have an intelligence agency that specializes in spying, stealing secrets, planting disinformation, subverting other nations though covert means, and etc? So much for mutual trust and fair play. Or look how corporations operate. Why do they get sued? Why do they have to pay fines? Because they are often caught cheating or doing stuff to gain an edge. It's always been like that and always will be. If anything, most big corporations seek monopoly power so that they won't have to deal with competition. It's the nature of power. Then, it's the same with tribes, peoples, and nations. The idea that all peoples will be equally committed to ideology-over-identity is a pipe-dream. Furthermore, even if MOST peoples do somehow manage to favor ideology-over-identity, it only takes ONE violator to mess up everything. Suppose there are 100 people, and 99 of them act fair and honest while ONE guy exploits the 'naivete' of others to steal the entire loot for himself. Just like one bad apple can spread its mold and mess up the whole barrel, one transgressor can mess up everything. This is why libertarianism never works. It assumes that all of humanity could be persuaded to behave as principled individuals who are sincerely committed to liberty and personal responsibility, but that is fairyland. Consider how all those guys on Wall Street were preaching about 'free markets' and against government regulation, but the minute their fortunes were threatened by the crash of 2008, they were the first to run to government for bailouts and protection. And notice how they used their muscle to ensure that none of them would go to jail. Talk about professional(and tribal) courtesy. Indeed, the reason why the US is so corrupt is because it came under the domination of Jews who rose in power by pushing ideology only to favor their own identity above all else. Indeed, Jews favor Jewish identity not only above goy identities but above the ideology that they pretend to espouse. What applies to other groups doesn't apply to Jews. So, the US must sanction Iran, Russia, Syria, and any nation hated by Jews, but if any conscientious people want to sanction Israel for its Occupation of West Bank and brutality in Gaza, the hell with free speech, freedom of conscience, and universal justice: Criminalize BDS. Its Juden Uber Alles. Current Israel is more further right(often in dark ways) than any European nation, but notice the Jewish-dominated media never call it 'far right' while the label is used so often to denigrate even moderate nationalist movements in Europe. So, even the slightest sign of white/European identity or Christian consciousness(the real kind as opposed to globo-homo-infected cucktianity) is 'far right'(implying connection to Nazism) while even the most hardline Zionist extremism and supremacism is merely described as 'right-wing'.
The main reason why Jews get so triggered about white goyim in EU, US, Russia, and etc. expressing the slightest concern for whites in South Africa is because such sentiments suggest at the stirrings of white identity, i.e., whites coming to realize that they must choose identity-over-ideology for the survival and well-being of their race. Jews want identity-over-ideology only for themselves. Indeed, Jewish-dominated media even try to suppress it among black Africans. While the globohomo media have no problem with Jews doing everything possible to keep Israel predominantly Jewish, they have lambasted black South Africans for trying to stem the tide of migration-invasion from neighboring African nations like Zimbabwe(with economy worse than South Africa's due to total black rule or misrule). Jews fear that if whites favor identity-over-ideology, whites will come to favor their own identity over any other. And that means whites will put their own racial pride and racial interests above those of Jews. If that happens, Jewish Supremacism and globohomo hegemony could well end sooner than later. The utter hypocrisy of Jews is most evident in their reaction to white favoring of Jewish identity over goyim, white or otherwise. If Jews are indeed disdainful of identity(as tribal , dangerous, and obsolete), why are they so happy to see so many white people pledging their support to Jews and Israel? Isn't Jewishness an identity and isn't Israel an identitarian-state? For whites to favor Jews means favoring one identity over another. e.g. Zionists over Palestinians. If the politics of identity is so toxic and if Jews insist that whites must forsake their own racial identity, why do they also insist that whites must extol Jewish/Zionist identity and do everything in the world to serve and defend it? Why should whites favor Jews over Palestinians? Why should whites favor Israel over Syria or Iran? Why should whites favor economic sanctions on any people, nation, or group hated by Jews -- consider the sanctions on Russia, Syria, Iran, Venezuela, Palestinians, Christians who won't bend over to Homomania, white identitarians like Jared Taylor who are denied Twitter and Paypal, and etc. -- while showering Israel with billions in 'aid' every year? Why should whites get all worked up over non-existent nukes in Iran while overlooking the nukes in Israel built with uranium stolen from the US? But then, Jewish logic would have us believe that actual Jewish communist spies and subversives in the 40s and 50s were innocent victims of the McCarthyite 'witchhunt' whereas Trump and his associates are guilty of 'Russia Collusion' even though there isn't a shred of evidence and the 'evidence', as such exists, was fabricate by goons hired by the Hillary Campaign and the Deep State. Jews often deflect criticism by invoking the concept of Protected Groups. Because Jews have defined themselves as the Holy Holocaust people, they insist on Protected Status. Perversely, such protection has led to Jews becoming the New Nazis or Judeo-Nazis. It's one thing to offer special protection to weak and helpless groups. After all, it makes sense to offer protection to few remaining tigers in their natural habitat. But if tigers were plentiful and prowling the streets to devour people, should they be protected? Maybe it made sense to offer protection to the badly wounded Jewish tiger after WWII, but today, the Jewish Tiger is the apex predator, and protected status for such power is dangerous for all of humanity. Just ask the Palestinians, Russians, Syrians, Iranians, white Christians, Libyans, white Europeans, Arabs, Muslims, etc. Or, consider the twisted logic when it comes to Jews and Muslims. Jews say Muslims need to be protected in the West due to 'Islamophobia', but it was Jewish Hollywood that made all those movies that portrayed Arabs and Muslims as subhuman scum terrorists. Furthermore, the biggest tragedies that befell the Muslim World since the End of the Cold War have been due to Wars for Israel steered by Jewish Neocons and Neolibs. So, Jewish Power has done tremendous harm to Arabs and Muslims. And yet, Jewish idea of Protected Status for Muslims and Arabs has NOTHING to do with what Jewish Power is doing to those people. Rather, it's about protecting Muslims from Donald Trump and his supporters who, if anything, are more likely to oppose further Wars for Israel and want to bring US troops from the Middle East. The concept of Protected Groups has rendered justice meaningless when it comes to Jewish-and-Arab relations. If, as Jews insist, Jews and Arabs/Muslims both deserve special protection, what are we to do when Arabs/Muslims need protection from Jewish Power? After all, isn't BDS a movement that calls for special protection for the much beleaguered Palestinians from Zionist-imperialist-supremacism? But, because Jews are also protected or more-protected-than-others, Jewish greed takes precedence over Palestinian needs. The end result is the Protected Supremacism of the Jews who, posing as Eternal Holy Holocaust People, get to justify all their nasty deeds by pretending to be a 'victim group' in this day and age. Imagine Nazi Germany invading Poland and then trying to silence all international opposition by claiming Protected Status for Germany. Nazi Germany and Judeo-Nazis both demonstrate how the Cult of Victimhood can blind so many to their victimization of Others. Because so many Germans felt that their nation got a raw deal at Versailles and suffered so much during the interwar period, they regarded themselves as righteous victims righting wrongs even though they were doing wrongs to other people. And because Jews rationalize everything through the prism of 'Munich' and destroying 'new hitlers', they are blind to how they've become the new hitlers.

Identity-over-ideology will always beat ideology-over-identity. The recent history of Jews vs Anglo-Episcopalians bear this out. And it explains why Israel is proud and has healthy birthrates while Scandinavian nations are browbeaten and have low birthrates; it's because Israeli Jews put identity over ideology whereas the Scandies put ideology over identity.
Now, this doesn't mean that a people should be all about identity and no ideology. "My country right or wrong" is a terrible idea. There must be a constant effort toward shared principles of fair play, justice, and mutuality among nations, peoples, and cultures, just like individuals mustn't think in terms of 'myself uber alles'. If you did something, you need to pay the price. Even so, to an individual, his own survival and well-being come first(as long as he doesn't maliciously harm others). To a nation or people, their survival or well-being comes first. As long as a nation or people acknowledge the right of other nations and peoples to feel and act likewise, there should be no problem. The problem with Jewish Power is not universal nationalism, which is a sound idea. The problem is mono-nationalism whereby Jews and Only Jews get to enjoy the rights of nationalism while all other peoples must forsake their own nationalism mainly so that Jewish hegemonic power can systematically penetrate their nations and take control, especially with the aid of globo-homo 'gay' collaborators of every nation. (Homos around the world collaborate with Jewish Power because the spread of Jewish supremacism means homo-favoritism.) Even as Jews tell goyim to abandon their identity, Jews not only cling to theirs but practice what is essentially 'my country right or wrong'. Jewish mono-nationalism isn't a fair kind of nationalism but a gangster-nationalism where the politics of Jewish Identity is above the law and beyond reproach. Zionists occupying West Bank? Israel aiding terrorists in Syria? Wars for Israel turning millions of Arabs/Muslims into homeless nomads? Whatever happens, never blame Jews. Even though Israel is aggressor against Syria, the cuck-puppets in the media yammer about how ISRAEL needs to be protected from Syria. It's all so surreal, so very strange and Kafkaesque, but then, Jews are masters of strangeness. Ironically, Jews have become like the Nazis who were into 'my country right or wrong' mentality. Now, if Nazi Germans and Globo-Zionists were without power, it wouldn't matter what they think. But because Nazi Germany was a great power, its arrogance and supremacist lunacy brought the world to the brink. And now, Jewish globo-homo hegemonic power is doing much the same, spreading filth, hate, and lies all over. In some ways, Jewish globo-homo lunacy is more dangerous than Nazi lunacy because, at the very least, the Nazis were honest and forthright about their arrogance, contempt, and supremacism. Even those who admired certain aspects of National Socialism could see that it was led by real a**holes. Jewish supremacist are also monsters but notice how they pretend to be human-rightists, liberal-democracists, universal-valueists, diversitists, and etc. But boil down the Jewish stew to its essentials, and remaining salts in the pot taste like Kosher Supremacism.

Now, there is a better kind of nationalism. A tempered and moderate one where a nation, people, and culture prioritize their survival, preservation, and well-being all the while rejecting the arrogant mentality of 'my country right or wrong'. Thus, if that nation or people are known to have done something wrong, they fess up and make amends. It's like if your son commits a crime, it is only right that he should pay a fine or do time in jail. But that doesn't mean he's not your son. After serving time, you still favor him and try to help him because he's part of the family. It was this kind of nationalism that prevailed for a time after WWII. Germany and Japan were made to admit their wrongs and paid a heavy price. But they were allowed to survive and take care of their own interests. Their nationalism was okay as long as it respected the nationalisms of other peoples. Back then, the US and Europe were ruled by genuine nationalist leaders who felt a strong bond with their own folks, culture, and history.
But ever since Jews gained supremacist power in the US(that controls so much of the world through money, hard power, and soft power), the ideological coding of the West has been altered so that its goy elites would not only favor ideology over identity but abort even the mere thought of white identity within the white womb. And yet, this ideology was bogus because it wasn't molded out of good will and reciprocity but to dupe goyim into dropping their own identities so that Jewish identity could slip through the weakened cracks to make the touchdown and win the superbowl of Global Power. It's like Jews want whites to surrender their guns so that Jewish-controlled institutions will monopolize all the firepower. At this point, trusting Jewish Power is like trusting a fox in a henhouse. Tails I win, heads you lose. Maybe, it needn't have been this way IF Jews, as the new elites, favored 'what is good for American people' over 'what is good for Jewish supremacism'? It need not have been a zero-sum game. But as the new elites, Jews never felt much fondness or connection with the non-Jewish majority and just focused on increasing diversity to make goyim-fight-goyim while they grab more of the loot.

People need ideology because identity alone isn't enough. But ideology must serve or revolve around identity. Just like Earth revolves around the Sun, ideology must revolve around identity. A people must be identocentric than ideocentric, just like true astronomy is Helio-centric than Geo-centric. Those who choose to be ideo-centrists will surely lose to those who choose to be idento-centrists(while feigning as ideo-centrists). That is the history of Ashkenazi Jews vs Anglo-Episcopalians since the end of World War II. So... which side won and why? Just do the political math.
And in South Africa, why are things getting worse for white Afrikaners while it's looking so up and up for Jewish super-capitalists? Jews all over the world, in the spirit of identitarianism, stick up for Monopoly-Capitalist Jews in South Africa. In contrast, whites all over the world have been made to feel that it's 'racist' and 'white supremacist' to care about white women being raped and white children being beaten to a pulp by blacks in South Africa.

'Minority Rights' means Different things to Minority Elites and Minority Underclass. To Minority Elites, it means the Right to Rule. To Minority Underclass, it means struggle for representation. Jewish Minority Overlords and Non-White Minority Underclass.

There are different meanings to ‘minority rights’. We must ask, what kind of minority are we talking about, and what is meant by ‘rights’?

After all, both British imperialist elites and the native Untouchables were minorities in India. But whereas one minority, the Brits, was at the top, the other minority, the Untouchables, was at the bottom.

For the British imperialists, ‘minority rights’ meant the right to rule over Hindu(and Muslim) masses. For the Untouchables, 'minority rights’ would have meant the modest hope of having the same legal protections conferred upon other Indians of 'higher' castes.

A similar confusion of meaning perplexes the Current West when it comes to 'minorities' and 'rights'. After all, right-to-rule(like the Divine Rights) is light years apart from right-to-representation. One is for kings, the other is for the peons. (To be sure, universal rights flowed from elite rights. The idea of rights began at the top and gradually reached the bottom.)

In the US and UK, Jews are the ruling minority or the minority elites. (Homos also belong to this group.) But Mexicans, many blacks, and many immigrant groups are either part of the minority underclass or minority ordinary folks; they have no special power or out-sized ambitions & expectations(though blacks have out-sized egos that demand attention and adulation, the blings and glitter). Asians do better academically & economically than most other immigrant groups, but their dim sense of identity and servile attitude don't translate to much power and prestige. Even in Hawaii where yellows constitute the majority, they lack political will or cultural vigor. They are just parrots and puppets of PC emanating from Harvard and Hollywood.

So, ‘minority rights’ means different things to Jews and to other minorities. For Jews, it means the quasi-divine right to rule over US & UK and make demands & dictate policy. Old ‘antisemitism’ used to mean denial of basic rights and liberties to Jews. New ‘antisemitism’ means any kind of criticism of or challenge(no matter how justified) to the Jewish supremacist right-to-rule over goyim.
And the logic is similarly operative with homo politics. ‘Gay rights’ used to mean the tolerance of allowing homos be homo and do their own thing without persecution. Today, ‘gay rights’(or Gay Rites as the neo-religion of Homomania) means we must admire, celebrate, and worship homos as angels and even change marriage laws to appease the Great Holy Homo. It means those who mock or deride the so-called LGBTQXYZ community, culture, lifestyle, or agenda must be quarantined as being afflicted with 'phobia' and be blacklisted. (In Castro's Cuba, homos suspected of HIV were quarantined and stigmatized. In the Jew-run West, sane people who seen LGBTQ nonsense for what it is are effectively contained and blacklisted from engaging in social discourse and economic competition.) And we must even put homo regalia(or re-gay-lia) in churches. It’s as if homos have some divine right to be admired and adulated, and so, we humble folks must perform our obligatory duty to homos as our 'spiritual' superiors. In all big cities, it is virtually mandatory for all politicians and 'respectable' citizens to sing hosannas to homos & trannies and take part in 'gay pride' parades. Indeed, people mustn’t even joke about(or cringe over) something as ridiculous as Bruce Jenner calling himself 'Caitlyn' or Bradley Manning(as Chelsea) expressing joy over replacing his penis and balls with a fake 'vagina'. (In the UK, a criminal investigation is under way to hunt the man who cursed out precious Brucie.) We must laud and applaud like dumb dogs at the feet of their master.

Now, there are other minorities that also demand special favors. Blacks demand affirmative action, and Mexicans demand affirmative immigration(amnesty). But many blacks and Mexicans are on the bottom looking up. Their hope is to reach the middle. (To be sure, too many blacks just fantasize about being sports stars or rappers, goals out of reach for most blacks, but then, blacks are stupid.) But even if blacks and browns demand special favors, they won’t amount to much and will never gain elite power in the West(unless they race-mix with higher-IQ Jews, whites, or Asians). Historically, all they could hope for was equality(and then some) under the law.

In contrast, equality of any kind isn’t good enough for Jews(and homos) anymore. For them, ‘rights’ means something closer to ‘divine right to rule’. Jews are now addicted to supremacism and won't settle for anything less. The New 'Antisemitism' isn't about denying Jews basic rights(what the rest of us have) but refusing to cave to all their demands(as rightful decrees of overlords who deign to rule over us as 'sheeple').
But the current arrangement makes Jews nervous because it is natural for the masses to resent and challenge the ruling elites, especially if of another racial, ethnic, and/or religious identity. Jews are different from non-Jews both ethnically and religiously. This makes Jews nervous because they, as the current ruling elites, make natural focus of the critics of power and populist angst.

So, to morally shield their power, Jews associate themselves with minorities who are relatively powerless. (Notice how Jews rig admissions at Ivy League Schools to favor Jewish students but obfuscate this operation by making all the usual noises about the need for 'Diversity'. Jews hide behind affirmative action for blacks and browns to justify the current 'holistic' system, the main agenda of which is to favor Jews uber alles.)

Since many immigrant groups have historically arrived with little and started on the bottom), they've been pegged in the popular imagination as humble and vulnerable(like a newborn baby), indeed as if Ellis Island Blues is still the anthem of New America. So, Jews associate with immigrants as 'fellow minorities'. This way, Jewish minority supremacist power is morally sanctified in association with the 'huddled masses' of recent arrivals who presumably need protection from the native populist mobs and nationalist 'xenophobes'. By posturing as noble defenders and champions of newly arrived minority immigrants, Jewish minority supremacist elites pose with(and even as) the 'powerless' by association. It's like the desperate alliance of the minority Afrikaner minority elite and the black Inkatha Freedom Party in the twilight yrs of Apartheid South Africa. Even though whites were at the top and Inkatha party members were on the bottom, they were both minorities(racial or political) and faced the challenge of the ANC party supported by the great majority of blacks. (Inkatha Party, as the political embodiment of the historically aggressive & expansionist Zulus, found common ground with European-Imperialists who came to dominate South Africa.)

The logic behind Jewish minority uber-elite alliance with economically depressed non-white minorities(mainly browns and blacks) and scab-immigrant-mercenaries is comical if one thinks about it. (Keep in mind the British Imperialists also used Migration-Collaboration to bolster their empire. Brits used Chinese migrant-minorities in Southeast Asia and shipped tons of Asian Indians to Africa to do their bidding. It was also under British Empire that the Jewish migration to Palestine began in earnest, and we know how that turned out for the native Arabs. Today, Jews control US & EU and use mass-migrations of non-whites to alter the balance of power in the West by reducing native whites into just another minority at the mercy of the divide-and-rule master strategy of the Tribe.) Imagine if the British Imperialist Elites in India sided with the Untouchables as ‘fellow minorities’ against the ‘bigoted’ and ‘populist’ masses of Hindus and Muslims demanding national liberation and independence from alien imperialism. Imagine the gall of the British ruling minority elite making overtures to the Untouchables, the underclass minority, and claiming shared victim-hood as ‘fellow minorities’ regardless of the fact that the British minority rule as the Master Class whereas the Untouchable minority is mired in poverty at the bottom. That would have been pretty amusing. But devious as the Brits could be, they didn't have the sheer audacity of chutzpah to pull off something that ridiculous.

That said, there were times when the Brits did advance the Minority Issue to morally justify their rule over India. In Richard Attenborough’s movie GANDHI, the British ruling minority presents itself as the protective guarantors for the Muslim minority from the potentially domineering Hindu majority were India to gain independence. The Brits were "masters in someone else's home" just like Jewish globo-homo elites are currently in the West. For Jews, everything is a question of "Is it good for Jews?", and this is why Jews get hysterical when whites begin to ask a similar question, i.e. "Is Jewish power good for whites?" As far as Jews are concerned, Jews and whites must share the same premise: "Is it good for Jews?" Jews must operate to serve Jewish interests, and so must white folks. One might call it shared interest and destiny, but the same can be said for master and dog. Master and dog both act on the basis of "Is it good for the master?" Shared interest is not the same thing as common interest. In a case of common interest, both sides have autonomy and arrive at a compromise that benefits both sides more-or-less equally. In contrast, there is no guarantee of parity in shared interest. Master and slave have shared interest, but it's all about the slave serving the master. Jews and whites cooperating on the basis of either 'Is it good for Jews?' or 'Is it good for whites?' is a case of shared interest, but the former is about whites serving Jews whereas the latter is about Jews serving whites. It makes all the difference.


Thankfully for India, it had a leader of Gandhi’s caliber who was witty, shrewd, and devious enough to match wits like a lawyer with the British. (He would have made Professor Kingsfield of PAPER CHASE proud.) Too bad the West lacks such leaders with just the right combination of cleverness, will, tenacity, and resolve.
Back then, the British Imperialists claimed that India was ‘British’. Now, the bloody fools in UK, under the influence of their Jewish masters, say non-white immigrant-invaders are the ‘New British’.

Gandhi urged Indians to engage in civil disobedience until the British minority elites left. Maybe white Europeans can do something similar. A strategy of mass non-cooperation and civil disobedience until the West is cleansed of globo-homo imperialism, cuck-collaborators, and Third World migrant-invaders & African sexual colonizers doing ACOWW(or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs).
Since overt resistance has been banned by the PC state, whites can exert their collective will through mass non-cooperation. (Whites can start by asserting that they will no longer support WARS FOR ISRAEL and act as goons for Jewish Imperialists. Let Jews fight their own wars.) But then, so many whites have been led to believe that Diversity is sacrosanct and that restoration of nationalism is unacceptable. After all, PC reminds them endlessly that the truest expression of 'European(or Western) values' is hankering for spicy exotic restaurants and jungle fever mating with Negroes. (Interestingly enough, Brexit won in UK because of older voters, but Macron won in France especially with the older demographic, 80% of whom chose him over Marine Le Pen.)

The future of Europe will be determined by whether it can produce leaders like Gandhi, Mao, Lenin, Ataturk, Mussolini, Castro, T. E. Lawrence, Trotsky, Stalin, Hitler, DeGaulle, and maybe Putin(as fate of Russia is still uncertain). While some of those men were pathological and dangerous, they could play politics on the grandest scale. When a civilization is faced with an 'existential' crisis, it calls out for visionaries and prophets, not technocrats, paper-shufflers, and wine-sippers. Run-of-the-mill 'leaders' won’t do. The current heads of state in Europe are not leaders but spineless flunkies of globalist oligarchs(with Jews having the most power due to Moral Advantage stemming from Shoah-Worship, the reigning religion of the West; a white goy with $10 billion is richer than a Jew with $1 billion, but the latter has 'spiritual' advantage because the Shoah Cult confers holiness upon him; the material has a price tag whereas the spiritual is priceless, and Jews have priceless value due to their moral exploitation of the WWII tragedy). Just look at Justin Trudeau the Man-Child cuck of Jewish donors. Why did so many Canadians vote for such pathetic clowns? Because Jews control media & academia and have infected so many white minds with nothing but PC and Pop Culture. 'Celebristianity'(largely shaped by Jews, Afros, and 'gays' or JAG) is the neo-religion of the West.

If Europe keeps producing nonentities like Merkel, Macron, Hollande, Sarkozy, Blair, Cameron, May, Berlusconi, and even Farage, it’s finished. Things are getting serious, and it will take real visionaries of wit and grit who can take the shit.
As for nationalists, the likes of Le Pen, Geert Wilders, and others won’t do. (The exception may be Viktor Orban.) They are too much part of the system(despite disapproval from the ruling elites) and unable or unwilling for bold action under current rules that are totally rigged by media, academia, and deep state. Trump made it in the US, but he is not a serious man. He’s a showman and salesman, and he can’t be counted on to do much that really matters.
Also, as long as enough white people are comfortable and satiated with bread & circuses and mentally infected with PC for the time being, it's difficult to shake them out of their doldrums.
If Europe is to be saved, it will require the rise of truly remarkable individuals with the power to inspire, lead, and forever alter the trajectory of history.

Extreme times call for powerful personalities.

The threat that Europe faces is the greatest ever. Past wars and repressions were horrible, but WWI and WWII were still about white Europe. So, even after millions died, it was the same white Europe. And as bad as communism was, it didn’t change the demographics in most communist nations.
But now, things are direly different. Not only is Europe being colonized physically by foreign masses but European minds have been PC-colonized to ‘welcome’ this as a good thing, even as a 'European' thing.

We need a new set of leaders and rulers who can eradicate the mental virus from European minds and purge them of this ‘guilt’ and ‘fever’. Indeed, the task is daunting because whites welcome mass invasion not only out of ‘white guilt’ but because of ‘afro-fever’, aka jungle fever. European women are turning into sexual deserters who are offering their wombs to millions of African men who are storming the beaches of Europe. As African birthrate is 6 or 7 children per women and since EU has a policy of ‘saving’ millions of self-stranded Negroes in the sea, the demographic and sexual math for Europe is horrible.

White minds are colonized by Jewish PC, white lands are colonized by Third World mobs, white males bodies are brutalized by stronger Negro men, and white females’ wombs are colonized by Negro seeds. It is White Nakba.

In Jewish history, there were two kinds of cleansers: prophets and warriors. Prophets cleansed Jewish minds of the virus of pagan idolatry and reminded them of the Covenant with God. And the warriors took up arms to do battle with enemies of Jews. (The third kind of Jews were diplomats who used wit and cunning to negotiate with rivals, enemies, or overlords of Jews.)

Anyway, unless warriors have vision and conviction, they are mere mercenaries(or Janissaries). In order for white knights to rise, white souls must be cleansed and purged of the PC virus of guilt-and-fever.
It’s like Islam has two meanings for ‘Jihad’. One means to do physical combat against infidel, but there is another meaning that says the soul must be cleansed of infidel ideas and images.

In the present, even if great white leaders were to rise, majority of white masses will curse them and denounce them since their minds have been infected with the crazy idea that ‘racism’ is the greatest sin when, in fact, race-ism is a most noble creed and conviction.

The Irony of Jewish Moral Outrage and the Axis of Jewish Neurosis

It's all very ironic.

Zionists make so much noise about Iran(and North Korea) having the Bomb. They say everything must be done to stop Iran getting nukes. An EVIL REGIME or ROGUE NATION like Iran doesn't deserve to have the Bomb.

Well, the ironies...

1. Due to the continuing Occupation of West Bank(and building of new settlements with full approval of the US), much of the world sees Israel as the Rogue Nation. Israel has nukes, lots of them. And if any nation has been acting 'rogue' around the world, it is the US, usually at the behest of Zionists and globalists. It's amusing that the US should be accusing Syria of torture and human rights violations. Yes, the Syrian government has carried out torture, but the US did Abu Gharib. US also used extensive torture in the 'war on terror'(and has aided Jihadi terrorist elements in Syria and is still shielding such groups). And Israeli torture of Palestinians has long been documented even though Israel insists the practice has been ended.

2. Jews have often said that Apartheid South Africa was the worst nation in the world since end of WWII, but Jews overlook the inconvenient fact that its main ally was Israel(which currently enforces apartheid policies in West Bank). Also, Israel supplied South African with Atom Bomb Technology. Imagine that. Jews, who say rogue nation Iran must NOT have the Bomb, once looked the other way while Israel was funneling nuke secrets to South Africa.

3. The most closely guarded secret in the early part of the Cold War was the Bomb. In the beginning, the US was the ONLY nuclear power. Stalin desperately sought the Bomb, and he finally got it through a pro-Soviet espionage network with lots of radical Jews. Among the key players were Julius Rosenberg and Morton Sobell. So, Josef Stalin, one of the biggest killers and tyrants of the 20th century, got the Bomb thanks to certain key Jewish figures.

https://newrepublic.com/article/61271/red-dusk

When the extent of radical Jewish involvement in Soviet espionage became undeniable, the Jews in the media and academia went into hyper-drive and put the anti-communists on the ethical defensive by framing the Cold War in terms of 'Red Scare', 'right-wing fear-mongering', 'paranoid style of American politics', and etc. That way, the attention was diverted from the fact of REAL JEWISH INVOLVEMENT in espionage and the passing of nuclear secrets to the USSR. Liberal and even Conservative Jews closed ranks with leftist Jews who had betrayed the US and aided/abetted a mass killer and tyrant(whose empire stretched over all of Eastern Europe) in the worst possible way.

4. We are now living in the post-Cold-War age when Russia wants peace with the world. It has no ideology for World Revolution. And yet, Jews fear the current much-diminished Russia more than the Soviet Union of the Cold War era. Why? Because Russia is for limited national sovereignty for itself and, as such, serves as a model for other nations that also want emancipation from Jew-dominated globalism.
Why would Jews fear a Russia whose ambition is far more limited and restrained than during the Cold War? Paradoxically, limited Russian nationalism is more threatening than boundless Soviet expansionism to the Empire of Judea(or EOJ) because nationalism is the most potent force against imperialism and empire-building. Jewish power is globalist-imperialist, and Jews fear that Russian nationalism might inspire nationalism among many peoples around the world.
Current Russian 'ideology' simply amounts to Russian control over Russia. If Russia minds its own business and respects(and even supports) the sovereignty of other nations, why should Jews feel so threatened(especially when Russia has good relations with Israel)? What is wrong with each nation minding its own business and protecting(than projecting) its own national interests?
It is because national sovereignty is the most effective barrier against Jewish Globo-Homo intervention, penetration, subversion, and inversion-of-values. After all, Jewish Power is globo-hegemonist, not nationalist(except in Israel).

The current Russian example doesn't say all nations should be like Russia. During the Cold War, the Russians-as-universal-Soviets championed the Soviet model as the correct one for the entire world. Not surprisingly, many peoples around the world resisted and rejected this model(even though some peoples aspired to emulate it, usually with dire results). So, international communist revolution was bound to fail. But the current Russian-ism is not universalist(as in 'all nations should adopt the Russian model') but particularist(as in 'each nation should define its own interests and future'). Under the nationalist logic, Iran should be Iran and preserve Iran-ism. China should be China and preserve China-ism. Hungary should be Hungary and support Hungary-ism. Real blood-and-soil ideology is the best formula. It certainly works for Israel(if we subtract the problems in West Bank where Jews violate the blood-and-soil principles of remaining Palestinian territories).

People who associate Nazi evil with 'blood and soil' totally miss the point. National Socialist Germany had a sound policy with blood-and-soil. It simply meant Germany for Germans and unification of German peoples on German soil. Hitler initially took back Rhineland, part of Germany. Then, Germany united with Austria as both nations wanted it that way. They were both German peoples. And then, Hitler took Sudetenland because it was mostly German. This blood-and-soil part of National Socialism was sensible and led to greater stability in Europe. But then, Hitler began to violate the blood-and-soil principles of other nations: Czech Republic, Poland, and most fatally, Russia. And if any force rolled back Nazi imperialism(as well as Japanese imperialism and then, after WWII, French imperialism and British imperialism), it was the blood-and-soil nationalism of the native folks. Poles resisted the Germans to save their blood-and-soil nation. Russians drove back the Germans for blood-and-soil Mother Russia. Chinese resisted the Japanese based on blood-and-soil defense of China. And then, Asian, Arab, and African nations began to roll back Western Imperialism on blood-and-soil principles. So, true blood-and-soil nationalism has meant defense and preservation of one's own nation.

If anything, it is imperialism and globalism that violate the blood-and-soil principle of each nation. Hungary isn't trying to push Hungary-ism on the world. All it is saying is that Hungarians have a blood-and-soil right to their own nation. But globalist Jews say NO, your nation must be swamped with endless waves of African and Muslim 'refugees' and immigrant-invaders, and you must encourage Hungarian wombs to be colonized by seeds of non-white men, especially black Africans. So, Hungarian wombs should belong to invading races and produce kids for them than produce Hungarian kids. Invasivism is at the heart of the Globo-Homo-Zio Soros Project(that is now sold as the European Project). Globalism is for Womb Colonization, like what Spanish did to native wombs in South America on a massive scale.

Now, NO Jew would push such a policy on Israel, which by the way takes in ZERO 'Syrian' or other kinds of refugees. Jews support the blood-and-soil concept of Israel as sacred, but they denounce any blood-and-soil nationalism of non-Jewish country(even when totally defensive) as 'ugly' and 'far right'.

Now, why do Jews hate national sovereignty except in Israel? Because, with the exception of Israel, Jewish power around the world is held by minority-elites. Jewish power is 'mino-cratic' outside Israel: Rule by Minority. And for Jews to maintain their supremacism over other nations, they must deactivate nationalism, deracinate native goy identity, and promote globalism(essentially dominated by Jews and their proxies homosexuals) as the highest good. So, if you're Swedish, put Swedish ethnicity and heritage in the back-burner, and instead, wave the 'rainbow' flag in delirious worship of homos & trannies and, better yet, reject white men and instead offer your wombs to black men and have black babies.(If you refuse, you're a 'nazi' and 'racist'.) To understand this dynamics, look at the fate of George Soros in nations that restored national sovereignty. His power has been reduced or blocked. They've had enough of his penetrative, disruptive, and subversive acts masked by NGO's tagged with bogus labels of 'freedom', 'democracy', and 'human rights'. In fact, it's just globo-oligarchic greed and power-lust hiding behind nice-sounding cliches. Soros has a much easier time gaming and taking over nations without sovereignty and autonomy. But he's pushed back in nations with blood-and-soil defensive nationalism.

Anyway, the irony screams at us. Jews, who'd been most responsible for passing atomic secrets to one of the biggest killers and tyrants of the 20th century(Stalin), are now making the biggest stink about Iran and the Bomb. Also, these very Jews are freaking out about Russia when Russia no longer pushes World Revolution and global domination. Jewish Logic is incredible.
According to Jewish Logic, when Jews gave nuke secrets to Stalin the mass-killer during the height of the Cold War, it was the anti-communists who were extreme, ignorant, rabid, virulent, paranoid, fear-mongering, and crazy. (Robert Oppenheimer, a communist-sympathizer, who wanted to share US atomic secrets with his beloved USSR came to be portrayed as a saintly dissident for world peace.) But now, when the Soviet Empire is no more and Russia is ruled by a mild nationalist who upholds national sovereignty as a model for all nations, Jews are freaking out, frothing at the mouth, screaming about Russian hacking & interference, and Russian aggression. Such reaction is supposedly 'rational discourse'.
But where is the evidence of Russian aggression? Did Russia invade Iraq? Did Russia level Libya? Did Russia foment the coup d'etat in Ukraine? (Russia annexed Crimea only in retaliation of US-engineered coup, but then Crimea has historically been part of Russia.) Are Russian tanks encircling the US from Canada and Mexico? It's the Jew-run US that pushed NATO up to the Russian border and mobilized soldiers and tanks into Poland and Estonia. It's the US that used Neo-Nazis in Ukraine to pull off the coup. It's the US that cooked up lies to destroy Iraq and Libya. It is the US that worked with Saudis and Turks to aid crazy Jihadis against secular Assad who protects Arab Christians in Syria. The saying, "Jew screams in pain as he strikes you" is most apt here.

The real problem for the world is the Axis of Neurosis, mostly Jewish. The world is on the precipice of another war because of Jewish neurosis of globalist domination and hegemony. The notion that each nation should be autonomous and sovereign is anathema to Jews who see gentile nationalism as a barrier to Jewish financial, ideological, and military penetration and takeover. Of course, much of this is done with bribery. With immense wealth, Jews try to buy off the elites of every nation to collaborate with globalism than defend one's own nation. It's no wonder so many nations wave the homo flag. Want a good trade deal with the US? You have to let US imperialists plant the homo victory flag in your country. Carrots & Bribes OR Sticks & Sanctions(or even Bombs).

It makes no sense for the whole world to revolve around the Axis of Jewish Neurosis that demands that all nations bow down to Jewish supremacist interests over their own national identity and interests. Jews denounce true nationalism as 'blood and soil' so as to associate it with Nazism, but this is disingenuous because the best thing about National Socialism was blood-and-soil nationalism up to 1939, and the WORST thing about Nazism was its imperialist violation of the blood-and-soil of other nations. If National Socialist Germany had been true to the principles of blood-and-soil, it would have united only German peoples in German lands -- just like Israel sought to unite Jews from around the world in Israel. In the end, both Germans and Jews failed because they went from nationalism to imperialism. Hitler wanted more than German lands, and Jews grabbed West Bank in 1967 and never let it go. Worse, via the US(which came under total Jewish power under Clinton), the Zionists have been exerting their hegemonic ambitions all over Middle East and North Africa, causing so much havoc as a result.

Nationalism is blood-and-soil. Imperialism is a bloody takeover of other people's soils. It was when Hitler moved into imperialist mode that his project was doomed. His aggression awoke blood-and-soil rage in other nations that refused to live under the German heel. When Bismarck unified Germany, his goal was to forge German peoples in German areas into one nation. He wasn't interested in violating the blood-and-soil of other peoples; he advised the Kaiser against emulating the French and British imperialists in grabbing other parts of the world that belonged to other peoples. If Hitler had kept his nationalism on the Bismarckian level, WWII would have been avoided.

In our world, 'Russianism' means every nation should preserve itself and be itself. It doesn't mean all nations should be like Russia or imitate Russian values. It means, "just as Russia preserves Russian-ness, other nations should preserve their own unique identities and heritages." THIS is what most threatens Jewish globalists because the rise of non-Jewish nationalism in each nation means more barriers to Jewish penetration and takeover(not least with the proxies of homosexual globalists who seek to plant the homo-globo victory flag in every nation; also, when homos take over the culture of a nation, they promote the ideal of the pansy-wussy male, which undermines national masculinity that serves as bulwark against foreign threats. Europe, having been wussified, cannot even defend itself from US bullying and Muslim/African invasions. Jews want it this way).

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.