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.)

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Without Race-ism White People are Done for - Fall of Patriarchy leads to Fall of Civilization - White Weakness leads to Clash between Jungle and Jihad

With Neocon stooges Mike Pompeo and John Bolton standing over Donald Trump’s shoulders, the polemic against Iran and radical Islam is likely to heat up. But Iran is strictly little league when it comes to terrorism, the champion sponsors of which are the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia.
People who push for wars in the Muslim World are Zionists who seek regional dominance and global hegemony. Though Zionists have low regard for ALL Muslims, they cleverly use one bunch of idiot Muslims against others. Zionists shroud their contempt for Muslims by feigning compassion for Muslim/Arab ‘refugees’ and ‘immigrants’. Of course it’s the white gentiles who are burdened with providing sanctuary to all them hordes. Don’t expect Israel to offer even Golan Heights, stolen from Syria, as safe haven for Syrian refugees. Zionist foreign policy destroys the Muslim world and sets off a refugee crisis, but nasty Jews shame white gentiles of insufficient compassion for Muslims and not taking in even more ‘refugees’. A dirty game indeed. Pathetically, too many stupid whites fall for this Jewish shtick, not least because they were raised from cradle to worship ‘Diversity’ as preferable to Continuity and to regard whiteness, especially as embodied by proud white males, as the greatest moral stain. Most people in the West, ‘right’ or ‘left’, believe ‘racism’ is the worst thing that ever existed in the universe. In the Current Year, 'racism' doesn’t only mean something extreme like Nazism but the mere desire of white peoples to defend and preserve their nations. If Austrians want Austria to remain Austrian or if Italians want Italy to remain Italian, the Jewish-run media smear such expression of patriotism as ‘far right’.

In truth, a nation will fall without race-ism. (Ism means belief, and Race-ism should mean belief in the race as reality, racial differences, and need for ethno-racial consciousness.) Race-ism means being mindful of one’s own race, one’s own ethnic culture, and one’s own nation. A people of a nation must favor their own kind and their own land. A nation is impossible to maintain without such mindset because humans, being organisms, are naturally invasive. Unless a people define who they are, lay claim to a certain land as theirs, and enforce laws to prevent mass-invasion, they cannot survive. Otherwise, other human organisms will take over, gradually or rapidly. Without race-ist territorialism, the people of the nation can also turn traitor(even as a 'virtue') because PC anti-race-ism instilled them with the idea that it’s ‘hateful’ to deny foreigners the ‘human right’ to be ‘included’ into your nation until they take over.

When white nations were race-ist, white folks connected with and cared for one another. They circled the wagons and protected their own domain, narrative, and interests. But now that whites have been made anti-race-ist, they dread to assert their own identity and interests. What had once been the most natural thing to express with pride and joy has been turned into the most shameful thing that must be repressed and expunged. Even the notion of “It’s Okay to be White” is denounced by white cucky-wuck elites and white proglodytes. Without race-ism, a people inevitably turn cucky-wuck because they no longer feel compelled to act in common interest for their race/nation as a whole. They feel virtue only when serving the Other, especially those favored by the prevailing PC who, in the Current Year, are Jews, Negroes, Homos, and the ‘Dreamers’(aka Illegal Alien leeches). In the long run, those who cling to their identity will prevail over those who don’t. Since Jews, blacks, and Muslims take pride in their identities, they keep gaining over whites in Europe, Canada, and US. (Also, interracial marriage or childbirths favor Jews and blacks. Half-black kids invariably identify as black, and most half-Jewish kids take pride in Jewishness, especially because it opens so many doors of privilege and power.) Though white people are usually tagged as ‘racists’, Jews and blacks are nothing if not obsessed with their own identities and interests. They are not merely race-ist but race-supremacist, trying to gain hegemony over all other races.

Race-ism makes a people proud and powerful. And only a proud and powerful people will be respected by others for obvious reasons. People respect those who respect themselves. People despise those who despise themselves. So, if white progs think they are scoring pokemon points with Jews, blacks, and Diversity through racial self-flagellation, they are fooling themselves. No one respects someone who spits up in the air and lets the saliva fall back on his face. Whether a people are good or bad, they will be respected ONLY IF they respect themselves. It was ultimately American Power and Pride that made the Japanese bow down to the US. And it was black pride & prowess in sports and Jewish pride & mastery of money-making that earned them respect and fear even from whites and Christians.

White people were once feared and respected by peoples all over the world, even by those who hated them. Good or bad, white folks seemed incredibly powerful and proud in the eyes of non-white folks around the world. A weak and humble people may be objects of sympathy, but they are not respected. The Corleones and Hyman Roth in THE GODFATHER saga are feared because they have pride and command respect. White people used to be like this. But now that they lack assertive pride, they are no longer feared and only reviled. If whites on occasion do show zeal, it is in renouncing their racial identity, denouncing other whites who won’t do likewise, and hyperventilating about how they, unlike the ‘deplorables’, are doing their utmost to purge the stain of ‘racism’ from their hearts and from the white community as a whole. These cucky-wuck whites are like dogs without moral autonomy. Indoctrinated to feel morally deficient vis-a-vis other races(especially Jews and blacks), their worth can only be validated with the stamp of approval from the Other. Because all their past glory and accomplishments are denounced as ill-gotten, white cucks grovel before Jews and blacks for atonement points. This is true among both highly educated whites and undereducated whites. The former tend to be more indoctrinated because they hung around institutions totally controlled by Jews and their cuck-collaborators, and the latter tend to get most of their worldview from pop culture that mostly consists of rap music, sports, and Negro-worshiping movies like GET OUT and BLACK PANTHER.

Because whites are denied pride, solidarity, and purpose(except to cuck before Jews, blacks, and homos), their power and prestige keep slipping with each passing year.
White folks have forgotten that race-ism is the force that discourages the temptation to betray one’s own kind as people are wont to do. Every individual is tempted by thirty pieces of silver paid in wealth or status. Collaborate with the enemy to get something for ‘me’. It’s like Fredo betrayed his younger brother Michael in THE GODFATHER II to get something for himself in personal pride and position. Without the strong dosage of race-ism, many people will betray their own kind or collaborate with the enemy for self-gain, thrills, or ‘narcissism of small differences’.

How did Jews remain Jewish despite egotistical temptations for betrayal throughout the ages? Their Covenant was race-ist in insisting that they stick together, preserve identity, and put their own kind first. So, even as Jews-as-individuals were tempted to betray their own kind for "Is it good for ME?", enough of them kept true to Jewish race-ism that emphasized "Is it good for WE?". Without such race-ist dynamics, Jews would have betrayed their own kind as individuals and turned collaborator and faded as an ethnic identity... like the Wasp Episcopalians.

Patriarchy is also necessary for the preservation of identity. By their nature, women are likely to run off with OTHER groups deemed more powerful. And young ones are restless and want to try something ‘new’ and ‘thrilling’. This makes them more likely to go over to any side that seems more fun.
Patriarchy(preferably one that is wise as well as stern) imposes tribal elder male power over womenfolk and young ones. Jewish Patriarchy was instrumental in keeping the Tribe together. As Jews were often a weaker & smaller group vis-a-vis other civilizations, many Jewish women naturally wanted to run off with more powerful goy men. But Jewish patriarchs forbade this and made sure Jewish women had kids with Jewish men. Also, Jewish fathers insisted that their sons stick to Jewish identity than have their puds succumb to the siren song of shikses.

Though Jews still have their race-ism and identity, the ebbing of Jewish patriarchy could prove to be fatal. Without patriarchal control over Jewish women, many are just turning slutty, vain, demented, or jungle-fevewitz. Too many Jewish women are turning out like Lena Dunham and Emma Sulkowicz. With Jewesses acting like that, more Jewish men will marry Chinese women, and their Chewish kids will have that lame yellow genes and lack chutzpah, the fire of the Jewish Soul. Also, without patriarchal control over Jewish boys, too many Jewish men are turning Animal-House-like and making total fools of themselves like Anthony Weiner and Harvey Weinstein. Also, too many marry shikses who are either bimbos(thus lowering Jewish IQ) or careerist & castrating harridans.

In PORTNOY’S COMPLAINT, there’s an older cousin who wanted to go with a shiksa but the Father said NO, so, the cousin went nuts and smashed all the bottles in the cellar. The father beat the crap out of him, but the cousin took the beating despite being stronger. Patriarchy was still operative back then, and the authority of the father kept the kid within the Jewish community.

But with the fading of Jewish patriarchy, too many Jewish boys grew up with endless porny jokes about dongs and schwarz, and their cultural sensibility got stupid and shallow. Lucky for Israel, it still has patriarchy to keep enough Jewish males in line to defend the Order. With too many Israeli Jews being decadent, they will fail their nation if patriarchy isn’t around to restrain their worst excesses. Consider that 70% of Israelis are for ‘gay marriage’, but it is banned in Israel because of the patriarchy. It’s like Moses’ patriarchal authority saved the Hebrews from the decadent revelers for whom the only truth is ‘my ding-a-ling’ or ‘my pooter’(or cooter).


In the West, the loss of race-ism has meant loss of white identity, pride, and purpose. So, even though whites still got money and status, they got no respect and therefore berated, demeaned, and mocked by non-whites. Also, many whites turn on their own kind and join with enemies(esp blacks) to cheer on their own racial demise as some kind of blessing to mankind. As a result, white people grow weaker every year in demography, iconography, status, and wealth. Also, whites who have wealth only care about themselves and feel no sense of responsibility to their white racial brethren. Indeed, the formula of retaining white prestige in the Current Order is to balance wealth accumulation with virtue-signaling. In the increasingly competitive environment, it’s sink or swim for many whites, especially with the erosion of the middle class and collapse of the working class. One can win big or not win at all. But in the current climate, any white person will be ‘doxed’ and destroyed if he has the ‘wrong’ kind of views. JewCarthyism is in full gear, and organizations like $PLC and ADL, in coordination with the Jew-run media, seek to ruin anyone who happens to be associated with ‘hate’(which means being proud of being white and rejecting White Submissivism to Jews). So, whites who hanker for success and status have internalized the mechanism of two-minutes-of-hate as constant reminder to play by the rules because they can lose it all in a heartbeat. Not only will they lose their jobs and status but they could be attacked by antifa thugs who are protected by the System that orders the Police to stand down and uses the courts to set them free to cause more havoc against patriots.

It is then no wonder that the fading of white race-ism is leading to the rise of the Jungle(black revelry) and the Jihad(Muslim reaction). Loss of white race-ism means that white men aren’t allowed to unite to defend their pride and manhood. In the past, white men had done just that, created a great civilization, and kept it as their possession and posterity. And white unity in command and battle facilitated great successes over other peoples, even against the odds.
In the movie ZULU, when faced against tough savage warriors, white British soldiers fight side by side with discipline and espirit de corps. And in the American South, white men maintained their solidarity against the black threat. Since a Negro could easily whup a whitey on a one-on-one basis, whites had to coalesce into a racial community to send a clear message to blacks aiming to rob, rape, or murder whitey. Also, white race-ism kept Jungle Fever under wraps. Since white men cooperated to keep the power and maintain racial pride, white women respected white men and had children with them. Also, because any white woman who went with a Negro was reviled and shunned, white womenfolk thought twice before betraying their race.

But the end of white race-ism commands that white men must NOT work together ever again in racial solidarity. Indeed, they mustn’t even entertain such notion and, perchance noticing such sentiment among peers, blow the whistle and have the transgressor destroyed right there and then.
Without racial unity and group effort, white men cannot win against black men. On one-on-one basis, most black guys can kick white guys in the butt and demonstrate superiority of manhood. (It’s like wolves are helpless against a bear or moose on their own. Their power to overwhelm bigger beasts comes from unity and coordination.) White males are allowed only two social modes: Outright cuckery before Jews & blacks and Libertarian Individualism. Cuckery is obvious surrender and abandonment of power and pride. Libertarian Individualism does offer the chance of personal success and pride, but real power is about the convergence of individuals, not their separation. Even if every individual were to retain his own beam of light, it can be part of something great only if it coordinates with other beams of light to come together to create a far brighter light: https://youtu.be/HHt927h9B5Y?t=4m17s
So, even if white males reject cuckery, their beams of light remain separate and weak. They don’t converge to create the sun of power.
Also, with the fading of white male pride, white women are realizing that black men got more muscle, bigger dongs, and louder voices. White women have lost respect for white men. (Even white women who don’t have jungle fever have been programmed to blame everything on the Evil White Male.) With each passing year, many more white women surrender their wombs to Negroes to be Afro-colonized. Worse, the Official Power encourages and promotes Jungle Fever among white women and Cuck Feeble among white men. Indeed, it’s telling that white cuck-wuckery isn’t pathologized but just regarded as the New Normal. Blacks now sense the white wussy(the males) and the white pussy(the females). They see that whites are now addicted to jungle music and jungle power.

Without race-ism, white civilization loses out to animal aggression and Negro lust of savage domination, thug power, and funkery. The New Normal says the nations that white people built exist now to be invaded by the World. It also says white wombs that created white children for tens of thousands of years are now to be claimed and colonized by blacks to create mulatto babies who turn out like Colin Kaepernick. And white minds exist to be colonized and tamed by the Jewish supremacist Narrative, all the better to serve Judea. So,whites no longer have autonomy over their lands, bodies, and minds. They've all been hocked to other peoples.

With the rise of such lunacy, one would expect a moral and spiritual backlash from the white community. But in the absence of race-ism, whites are loathe to invoke God and morality to denounce black savagery and Jewish perfidy. If anything, Christianity has been eclipsed by Jewish-conceived Homomania that is the defacto official ‘religion’ of the West.

However, when a society is overcome with so much degeneracy and debauchery, the cultural/moral reaction has to come from somewhere. Since it cannot come from whites(who are either too self-debased or self-centered), it is coming from the Muslims who are rapidly filling up Europe and Canada, even some local communities in the US. Because Christianity is now little more than a shill for Israel or aid to Homomania and because white morality is all about ‘white guilt-and-atonement’, the pride of morality can only come from non-white cultures. And it is primarily coming from Islam.

It is Islam that is filling the spiritual vacuum of post-modernity to denounce debauchery. So, while the likes of Ariana Grande sing about how their mudshark pooters are stretched out by black dongs, Muslim terrorist target rock concerts as sinful dens of decadence and degeneracy. The crude moralism of Islam wages Jihad on Savagery of African Jivery. But instead of Muslims directly waging war on Africans, both groups wage war on the whites. Blacks wage war on whites by wussifying white boys and colonizing white wombs. Black guys beat white guys in sports and in the streets and turn white men into scared wussy white boys and white-uncle-toms. And white girls offer their wombs to be colonized by black seed, and this is promoted by both the state and entertainment all across Europe and America. So, blacks wage sports and sexual war on whites.
Muslims find the Jungle pretty loathsome, but as both Muslims and blacks count as ‘people of color’ and part of wonderful ‘diversity’, they maintain a semblance of ‘intersectional’ camaraderie against the Official Evil of ‘white racism’, ‘white xenophobia’, and ‘white privilege’ despite their opposing cultural modes.

As white nations become culturally Afro-junglized, Muslims attack this degenerate white society as the ‘sick west’. Muslims find the modern West to be vile and debauched, but they overlook the fact that black influence(esp with backing of Jewish power) played a huge role in turning the West into a cesspool of neo-savagery. The Great Reversion of blacks to savagery has now spread throughout the West. White elites listen to reggae as their primary music, and ‘white trash’(and white middle class) take cues from rap thug music.
So, blacks junglize the white world, and Muslims denounce and attack a junglized white world with Jihad.

Now, if whites still had race-ism, they could unite to push back the neo-savage blacks. Also, being a powerful and proud people, they would strike fear into the hearts of Muslims who would respect them and think twice about waging acts of terror against the West.
Alas, current whites seem so wussy to both whites and blacks. Indeed, white men are allowed to be tough and ‘proud’ ONLY IF they join Antifa to attack other whites or join the military to fight Wars for Israel.

Though blacks and Muslims couch their condemnation of whites in PC terms of ‘injustice’, what they really mean is "You weak!" Blacks don’t understand higher morality. Blacks only understand the right-and-wrong of rough justice decided by fists, hollers, clubs, and guns. They only respect the power that kicks butt and makes them say, "daaaaaaaaamn". When they see weakness(no matter how well-intentioned and/or sincere in contrition), they see it as ‘pussy-ass-faggotry’. It’s like hyenas respect powerful lions that can tear them limb from limb. Hyenas hate them but respect them. But if a wounded lion went to them and begged forgiveness for all the hyenas it killed in the past, the hyenas would just laugh and say ‘you weak’ and tear it apart.
This is why ‘white guilt’ won’t work. Black mentality only respects power. Blacks respected the Old South more than today’s goody whites. Even as blacks hated the Old South, they feared it and with fear came respect. But no matter how nice today’s whites try to be, blacks just see weakness and feel nothing but contempt. When blacks scream and holler slogans about ‘justice’, they really mean ‘you weak!’

And Muslims, despite their spiritual values, are also into power. Islam is about justice AND power. Muhammad was a warrior, and there can be no justice without power in the Islamic worldview. So, when whites act nice and apologetic, Muslims just see weakness and an opportunity to gain advantage. They feel that such wussy people no longer deserve to own the West. It’s about time another people, one with more pride of conviction and values, took over.

Unless whites bring back race-ism, they are done for. Year after year, they will lose more and more... until they got nothing left.

Law of Tribalism says People want to be with their own kind - Law of Supremalism says People want to be the Superior or the Inferior even if Different

It is part of nature(and human nature) to fear and ward off the different. Nature exists in a state of terror and aggression. All organisms are hungry and want to devour others and fear being devoured by others. Organisms seek to get closest to organisms they want to eat and furthest from organisms that would eat them. To be sure, there are various organisms that remain oblivious to one another and co-exist peacefully as they don’t regard each others as rivals, predators, or prey. Full grown trout will swim alongside full-grown carps. Sparrows, pigeons, and ducks co-exist and just ignore one another. Indeed, often there is more violence among similar species or the same species than among different species. Chimpanzees are most violent with other chimpanzees and get along better with other animals. Squirrels are often quarrelsome and aggressive with one another while ignoring skunks, opossums, and pigeons.

In some ways, organisms feel closest to their own kind but also most competitive and acrimonious among their own kind as well. This is why many people prefer to leave their own community and go to another one where they can just be strangers. Indeed, that's been of the great attractions of America. If there were two very tribal societies, people in Tribe A would think twice about going to Tribe B. After all, Tribe B will see the member from A as an outsider. He may be treated as an outcast or come under great pressure to convert/conform to the ways of Tribe B. Therefore, in a world of tribalism, it’s best to stick with your own Tribe. Despite all the acrimony, bad blood, and competition within the Tribe, you are still treated as an organic member.
But what if there is land where everyone is a stranger? One may feel lonely and lost but also loose and liberated. One no longer has tribal obligations and duties. If you belong to Tribe A, you must carry out the duties of your Tribe, and they could be time-consuming, burdensome, or just plain boring. But if you move to a land of strangers, you can just do what you want. You are no longer part of a Tribe(and that is alienating and disorienting) but you also feel free and independent. It’s like when kids go to college and are surrounded by strangers. It can be lonely and confusing but also exciting and stimulating, as opposed to being at home where you must act in accordance to the rules of the family. Going from one’s Tribal community to a land of strangers isn’t really like going to the Other. If member of Tribe A goes over to Tribe B, he has to adjust to the Other. But in the land of strangers, there really is no Other since every person is on his own.

The land of strangers may be especially welcome to a minority living in a Tribal system. For instance, if you were a Jew in Poland or Hungary, you were reminded of your Jewish minority status at all times. There was a sense that Poland really belongs to Poles and Hungary really belongs to Hungarians, and YOU, as a Jew, was a mere guest. But in the land of strangers(like how Jews saw the US), the land belongs equally to each individual. A Pole or an Hungarian in America has no special claim on the land over a Jew. Now, Anglos and Northern Europeans who founded and built America may insist on a special claim, and Jews always saw such claim as a threat, and that was why they were so adamant from putting the Immigration Experience at the Center of the American Narrative.
And yet, there is a further twist. If indeed Jews only want to come to the US as a land of strangers where every individual is equal to any other, things might not have gotten so crazy. If Jews really only want to be individuals, there would at least have been consistency in their view of New America.
But, being free individuals hasn't been enough for Jews in America. Rather, they want to lay claim to America as theirs, indeed, the Jewel in the Crown of Judea or World Jewry. (Judea is the most powerful force in the world. The combined wealth of US Jews, Israeli Jews, European Jews, Russian Jews, Latin American Jews is much bigger than the US economy.)
In a way, Jews left Europe to get away from Tribalism and came to the US to be free as individuals. Jews valued the erosion of tribalism even among the Anglos who’d founded and built this nation. Jews envisioned a Melting Pot of free individuals easily co-existing with one another in a land defined by liberty, commerce, ambition, and potential. And yet... even as white gentile tribalism and identity grew ever weaker, Jewish identity and tribalism grew ever stronger. If the rise of Anglo-American power led to Wasps seeing themselves as a universal neo-imperial people spreading Americanism all over the world and taking in New Americans from all over the world, the rise of Jewish-American power led to Jews feeling more proud as Jews, Zionists, and citizens of Judea, or World Jewry. In the land of strangers where every group was supposed to let go of their tribal loyalties and just become ‘Americans’, Jews did the very opposite despite urging all other groups to lose their tribalisms. Jews can be Jewish, but all other groups are supposed to be just deracinated individuals whose only points of identity must be Israel/Shoah, Homomania, and Afromania.

Anyway, what is true among humans is also true among animals. A wolf may run from other wolves and prefer to live with other animals that leave it alone. While a wolf may ideally want to belong to a wolf pack, if its own pack is scattered or destroyed, it may have a difficult joining another wolf pack. Indeed, other packs may see it as a threat and try to kill it. In that case, a wolf has most to fear from its own kind and may seek solace as a ‘stranger’ among other species that just ignore him. And that is why people seek refuge in other nations. A Turk might be politically or legally persecuted by other Turks in Turkey. A Burmese may be tyrannized by other Burmese for political or whatever reasons. A Pakistani may be hounded by other Pakistanis who vie for power and dominance. Such an individual might prefer to just become a stranger in a place like UK, Canada, Australia, or the US. Or even in Japan. He may feel lonely as a stranger, but because he’s a nonentity, people will just leave him alone. This is especially true in many parts of the US where the ONLY thing that most people have in common is the fact that they are strangers in a strange land too.

An animal that flees its own kind may seek sanctuary among humans who tend to be more compassionate, at least in comparison to cold-hearted and ruthless nature. After all, wolves evolved into dogs because they preferred to be with humans than with other wolves that might kill them. While humans could be brutal to animals, they could also be kinder and empathetic. Also, as wolves could sense great intelligence among humans, they looked to humans as a guide. Animals can instinctively tell which animal is more special. Even a dog that has never seen a human or cat before will react differently to both. It will see a cat as just another animal but react with far greater curiosity toward the human. Even killer whales sense something special about humans.

Humans are organisms too, and even though many people want to be with their own kind and feel most comfortable around one another, there is also a wish among some humans to be with the superior or the inferior. This is where the Law of Supremalism comes into play. Supremalism can be (1) wanting to be with the superior people than with one’s own that seem inferior in comparison (2) wanting to feel superior over others who are deemed inferior. Missionary types are often (2) kind of supremal people. They want to feel special, admired, loved, and appreciated as a superior people. Of course, being Christians for whom humility is crucial, they won't admit to such supremal urges and instead will just claim compassion for humanity. But, in a way, they want to go to the wretched of the earth because it makes them feel as demigods or angels. Such missionary supremalism also exists among celebrities, like Bono of U2 going to Africa and standing among adoring black children. He feels like a white god bringing love and compassion to the jungle folks. Whether it’s a Christian missionary going to some poor country and playing the role Angel Savior or some Social Justice activist or journalist globe-trotting around the world and recording all the misery, a kind of supremalism is at play. Chris Hedges loves feeling important as the Big Caring White Guy who had stood with and over the Wretched of the Earth all over the world.

But there is (1) Supremalism where people want to depart from their own kind and be with the superior folks who could be superior in wealth, ability, creativity, beauty, athleticism, talent, and/or glamour. Many people want to leave their boring little town and go to the city(filled with very different peoples) where the action is because that’s where all the talent and glamour are. Many people want to move to the West because they see white nations are richer, white people are better in management & fairer with Rule of Law, white people are more attractive, white people are more capable, and etc. So, we have millions upon millions of Africans and Muslims heading to Europe. And we have people all over the world flocking to US, Australia, and Canada to be with superior white people.
Of course, they will never admit to this since it would be shameful. No one wants to admit, "Yeah, my people suck, they are ugly, they are corrupt, they are moronic, and I feel ashamed of them, so I want to go to a land filled with capable and pretty white people." No Mexican or Hindu will dare admit it. But he feels it deep down.

As for whites who welcome mass immigration-invasion, (2) Supremalism is a factor because all these non-whites flocking to white nations means that superior white Liberal folks get to lord over these ‘darkies’ pleading for a better life. Diversity makes white people feel more magnanimous as the superior breed. Again, they won’t admit to harboring such feelings because PC says we’re all equal, but such emotions are there. If indeed all people are equal, why can’t Mexicans make their own nation as good as the US? Why must they scramble to the US to live under Gringo to have a better life?
But there are also whites who want to be part of another people. Some whites see blacks as superior. They want to be with blacks, admire blacks, have sex with blacks, and have black kids. Rachel Dolezal wants to be black. And in the movie GET OUT, white people want to literally enter black bodies.
But some whites want to be with the Other because it makes them feel special. If you’re a white nobody in the white world, you must feel special if you’re among poor folks in Bolivia or India who look upon you as a kind of white god-angel.

Supremalism is built into our psyche and underlies all religions. Why do we imagine God or gods? Because we want to be with the superior being. Just as dogs prefer being with us than with their own kind in nature, we want to eventually take leave of our world and be in the world of God or gods, be it Heaven or Valhalla.

Among humans, there are many cases of preference for the Other that is perceived as more just, more able, more fair, more attractive. Taiwanese are Chinese but they prefer American hegemony over the Pacific because they see fellow Chinese in the mainland as ugly yellow barbarians. Taiwanese want to regard themselves as honorary whites. Many Zimbabweans want white farmers back because their own black kind have ground everything to dust. Most Arabs would rather go live in Germany than deal with their own cutthroat, corrupt, and haggly-waggly kind. And some whites wax romantic about the Other as wiser or more spiritual or ‘cooler’. People tend to undervalue & take for granted what they got and overvalue & obsess about what others got.

Many non-whites are drawn to white nations because they see whites as superior in every way. These non-whites get little or no justice from fellow non-whites who are superstitious, corrupt, brutal, and clannish. So, they want to go to America(or Canada or Australia) and live under white rule. Also, they find whites to be sexually more attractive.
This may seem counter-intuitive because non-whites scream about ‘white racism’ and ‘white guilt’. One might think, “If they hate whites so much, why do they want to run from their own kind and live in white nations?”
But it is precisely because they prefer whites and want to live in white nations that they employ PC to lower white defenses against non-white immigration/colonization.

And in a way, whites who welcome mass-colonization from Third World are practicing a kind of soft subconscious supremacism. They feel, “You darkies wanna leave your own inferior nations and cultures because you know that the white world and white people are better. You want to live in our superior world because you are incapable of creating anything so good in your own world.”

Most non-white ‘immigrants’ are closet-white-supremacists. They want to run away from their own kind, own nations, and own cultures to start new lives and take on new identities under white rule. They prefer white nations(esp those created by Northern Europeans) to their own kind despite the long history and culture. Chinese, Hindus, and Arabs have deep history, culture, and identity going back 1000s of years, but they are willing to give that all up just to have a chance to live with whites, have sex with whites, work for whites, and take on white names like ‘Heather’ and ‘Robert’.