Monday, October 22, 2018

Problems of Mutant-ism in a Decadent and Degenerate World

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

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

Consider the decadent culture of dog-breeding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, the various healthy and virile breeds of dogs were turned into mutants of the original. Look at the mutative degeneration of the bulldog. Once a well-proportioned and powerful animal later turned into a gross mutation of its former self.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clone-ism and mutantism are opposites, but they are allied at the moment because they both go against the spiritualist and humanist mode of what constitutes meaning and purpose. Mutantism is nothing new. It always existed because some people were born strange. It's like the Kyoami character in RAN. A weirdo. But then, nutjobs can see things from interesting angles all too often missed by conventional perspectives. So, they could have special value too... as long as they know their relative position in society. Oddity of perspective is part and parcel of abnormality(and possibly subversion) but also offers glimpses that often eludes the normal eye. The problem sets in when this odd angle is made the main angle. That's like using the triangle in an orchestra as the main instrument.
Kyoami the jester weirdo of Akira Kurosawa's RAN
Kyoami has his place and even value in RAN because he knows what he is, and others know it too. He is a weirdo, a jester, and clown. But because he's an outsider, he catches things that insiders often miss. He has his own kind of intuition and insight. And this mutual understanding between normal and abnormal used to define society where most people upheld the True Normal but could also be tolerant of and even appreciative of the views of the weird and strange. But now that this mutant-ism has been promoted as the New Normal, nothing makes any sense. If nuttery is the 'new normal', what is truly normal. And if the outsiders now have the insider-view, what can they offer us? I mean the value of the outsider's view is from the outside. When the outsider serves as the insider, his view is neither insider nor outsider.

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

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

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

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

Saturday, October 20, 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blacks are more muscular and more aggressive, and black violence terrifies whites. Immigrants are useful buffers against blacks, esp. for purposes of gentrification:

Thursday, October 18, 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday, October 15, 2018

Nativism is the Flip-side of Invasivism — 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.

Saturday, October 13, 2018

Ethno-Nationalism and Pan-Europeanism can co-exist

Ethno-nationalism and pan-Europeanism need not be opposites. They can be useful partners. One can be locally ethno-national but also unite with others for pan-European interests.

In a way, the most effective way of managing a society is on the ethno-national level. A secure and well-governed nation will get along fine with neighbors. Look how Norway, Sweden, and Finland got along through most of modern history.
It's like the human body. The liver is what it is, heart is what it is, eyes are what they are, and etc. They all have separateness and uniqueness. But they also work together for the good of the whole. For the whole body to work well, each organ must guard and play its unique role.

Excessive ethno-nationalism undermines pan-Europeanism because each nation will only think of 'my people' against other ethno-Europeans.
But excessive pan-Europeanism will also undermine the Eurosphere because mere European-ness, like mere 'whiteness', is too generic and bland to serve as a sole/core identity.
In a way, white power in both US and EU waned and dissipated because of the promotion of pan-identity whereby each people became cut off from their ethnic roots. Without core roots in unique heritages and histories, whites/Europeans sought new identity from pop culture that is all about fads and fashions. Whiteness is like the generic term of 'tree'. But there are different kinds of trees. Different trees can co-exist in the same forest but they must maintain their uniqueness as well. Oak is oak, and birch is birch. If both are merely designated as 'tree', then neither is special nor particularly meaningful. They've become interchangeable.

Imagine if Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Koreans dropped core ethno-identity and just opted for pan-Asianness. It would be rather dull and boring on the ethnic, cultural, and historical level. It'd be like one of those generic 'Asian buffets' that offers dishes from all Asian nations but without particular expertise or flavor.
The fact is each Asian nationality can maintain and defend its core ethno-identity while, at the same time, recognizing what all Asians have in common in terms of interests. Thus, 'narcissism of small differences' can be avoided.

In a way, the Golden Age of European cooperation arose from the ashes of WWII. It led to the rise of homogeneous European nations(like the article 'Us and Them' by Jerry Muller detailed in FOREIGN AFFAIRS), and each nation/people felt secure and safe. Thus, they were more likely to cooperate with neighbors. (It's like a person who feels secure about his home and property is more likely to feel at ease and work in good faith with others. But, if the house is being robbed or on fire, one's main focus is to save his property.) In contrast, the anti-ethno-nationalist USSR and Yugoslavia eventually fell apart, often violently.

Another thing. I think Alt Right(though I prefer the notion of the Left-Right) can be an international movement and not just a white one. By that, I mean Euro-Alt-Right can work with other Alt-Rights around the world for the common goal of universal nationalism and anti-globo-homo imperialism. So, let Arab Alt Right defend the Arab world, let Asian Alt Right defend Asia, and let Western Alt Right defend the Eurosphere.

The message that the Western Alt Right can send to non-whites is that the Alt Right Movement respects all expressions of national sovereignty around the world. In contrast, globalism seeks to undermine not only Western national sovereignty but national independence, cultural autonomy, and territorial integrity of all peoples. Indeed, look what globalism did to Libya and Syria by turning them into Open Borders Hellholes of endless strife and terrorism. Globalism seeks to Palestinianize all non-Jews. Palestinians used to be masters of Palestine. Now, they are a people without a home. The ONLY nationalism that globalism hypocritically respects is that of Israel. It goes to show who really controls globalism whose logic is: 'Nationalism for Jews in Israel, Imperialist domination for Jews around the world, and nothing for non-Jews except servitude to Jews and their Homo Allies.'

So, even though Alt Right in the West is a white movement and must be, it can inspire similar identitarian movements all over the world. Alt Right must send a message that what globalism does to the West today, it will do to rest of the world. It already happened in Iraq, Syria, and Libya. Open borders were imposed on them through invasions and the Zionist-controlled US funding of Jihadis who poured across national borders to foment wars and chaos.

Thursday, October 11, 2018

Intersectionality, like Identity, was stolen by the 'left' from the Modern Right

Intersectionality, like Identity, was stolen by the 'left' from the Modern Right. It goes to show the Right was sounder on fundamental matters of power and politics. Nevertheless, the 'left' gave the themes of identity and 'intersectionality' its own perverse twist, rendering them even more problematic and useless for the preservation of stable socio-political systems.

There was a time when the Left used to denounce the politics of identity as tribal, atavistic, reactionary, particularist, and xenophobic. The Left urged all of mankind to forgo their cultural identities and tribal-ethnic-national affinities and become part of Universal Man. For Marxists, this meant the brotherhood of workers around the world. It didn't necessarily mean dissolution of borders, but it meant people around the world would formulate their core interests on the basis of class than race, ethnicity, or nation. Marxism = Interests > Identity. So, the working classes of all races, nations, and cultures would form an alliance against all repressive elites regardless of race, culture, and nation.

Among capitalist liberals, the universalist project was essentially elitist(or bourgeois). They called it cosmopolitanism whereby the best educated individuals, being so knowledgeable and sophisticated, would dissolve traditional or tribalist notions of identity. Committed to meritocracy and excellence, these cosmopolitan elites would find value and form companionship based on comparability of skills, talent, and interest than on something so 'crude' as ethnicity, nationhood, and tribalism. In time, with expanding economies and rising educational attainment among the middle classes, the ideal mode of cosmopolitanism would go from elite privilege to mass reality if all worked according to plan. With rising prosperity, expanding leisure, and growing sophistication, cosmopolitan model could define mass consciousness.

But as things turned out, identity(and ethno-cultural inheritance) mattered after all. Communism couldn't stamp out nationalism, cultural consciousness, historical memory, & ethno-solidarity, and, if anything, nationalist tensions flared up even within the socialist camp, as between USSR and Red China. Also between Red China and Vietnam, and then between Vietnam and Cambodia. Also, even within the USSR, communism couldn't eradicate the ethno-national aspirations of various peoples to break free from the Soviet Empire. And despite Soviet domination over Eastern Europe, each Warsaw Pact nation guarded its national identity and sense of history.
And Jewish Leftists who used to preach Marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism, or Stalinism eventually discovered that neither political ideology nor mere economic interests(usually short-term and ever-shifting) cannot supply the meaning and compass that could be found only with identity-of-inheritance(which is distinct from PC identity-of-grievance). Many reverted to Jewish identity(with proven resilience and richness) and focused on Jewish Power or Zionism.

Also, certain non-white groups in the US became troubled by the notion of assimilation. When White America was racially conscious and exclusionary toward non-whites, the effective strategy among Jews and non-whites was to weaken white sense of identity and racial uniqueness. After all, whites held most of the power and wealth. White America was Main America back then. So, in order for Jews and non-whites to gain access to more wealth and power, White America had to be persuaded that Americanism required ALL peoples, whites and non-whites, to forgo their tribal or racial identities and melt into a single pot of new-found unity. Many whites resisted this, but many whites accepted it(not least because the melding of various white ethnics into a Common Americanism had succeeded more or less in many parts of America). And as time wore on, White America opted for the melting-pot pact where all peoples would try to be generic 'Americans'. This would apply to whites, blacks, Jews, Hispanics, and immigrants. But once this new paradigm was achieved, certain non-white groups and Jews began to fret about the overall impact of such 'melting' assimilation. After all, if US is dominated by whites, assimilation into the melting pot means non-whites and Jews forgoing their own identities & roots and succumbing to dominant whiteness. They would become ersatz-whites(meaning White Christians). So, the very people on the Left(dominated by Jews) who’d once pressured White America to let go of its racial identity and commit to a molten-identity of ‘Americanism' became the ones who found new value in the Politics of Identity. Thus arose Multi-Culturalism. Even though whites were pressured and expected to surrender their identity(mocked as 'bland' and 'white-bread'), non-whites and Jews were encouraged to defend and radicalize their own (apparently more authentic)identities against whiteness.
This was also useful in promoting 'white guilt', an effective weapon for Jewish Power in paralyzing white power and unity of purpose. Melting Pot ideal may have offended white race-ists, but it still favored White-ness uber alles since whites comprised the solid majority of Americans well into the 1980s. So, if assimilation were the magic formula for America, it meant non-whites and Jews should become more like whites and conform to white culture & standards. This might have worked if the only minorities in the US were Asians and Mexicans, as both groups generally tend to follow, obey, and imitate. But blacks came to see white people as 'weak' and 'wussy'. Black men came to look down on 'slow fa**oty-ass white boys' and didn't want to surrender their macho Negro manhood by becoming 'honky-ass white'. Also, even if blacks had wanted to assimilate to whiteness, the difference between whiteness and blackness was too stark to ignore.
If they’d so wished, Jews could have assimilated into whiteness like swarthy Southern Italians and Turkmen-looking Greeks managed to. And Jews might have done just that if not for their exclusive sense of identity/superiority and higher IQ. Being smarter and pushy, Jews felt that they could and should become the ruling elites of America. To become such, they couldn't assimilate into whiteness(at least not 100%) and become mere imitation-wasps(as some White Christian Conservatives wished them to be). Also, the wily Jewish personality found whiteness too stiff and stuffy. Once Jews reached the top, they figured it should be the whites(and others) who should try to assimilate to the Jewish Way(mainly be sucking up to Jewish Power). After all, the object of assimilation has primacy over subject of assimilation. The subject assimilates into the object, so the object swallows the subject. It’s like the food assimilates into the eater. Jews prefer to digest others into the Jewish Way than have Jewishness be digested into gentile-ness. (Assimilating into the Jewish Way isn't the same thing as goyim-becoming-Jewish. Rather, it means goyim regarding Jewish Power and Jewish 'values' to be the dominant New Normal of America and the West. For example, Homomania as replacement for Christianity.) Granted, some goyim literally do assimilate into Jewishness because they are so in awe of Jewish Power. We see this in Chelsea Clinton, Ivanka Trump, and Amy Chua. They assimilated into Jewishness, and their kids are raised as Jewish. Thus, the Best and the Brightest(and/or prettiest) among the goyim offer their wombs to Jews, and the kids of high IQ Jews and high IQ goyim are raised as Jews and serve Jewish Power.

So, the logic of the Jewish Left came full circle. The very people who'd been denouncing the politics of identity as 'reactionary' came to promote identity as 'progressive'. But of course, there is one danger to promoting identity politics. It can spawn the politics of white nationalism. After all, if identity is good enough for non-whites, why not for whites as well? This logic is partly behind the emergence of the Alt Right.
Problematically, multiculturalism among most non-whites is an identity-of-against, not an identity-of-for. It is an identity-of-grievance than an identity-of-inheritance(and reverence). Multiculturalism in the West does not encourage non-whites to grow closer to their own race, heritage, history, culture, and territory(native homeland). Indeed, if multiculturalists really believe that preservation of identity and heritage are so important, they should be anti-immigration since immigrant-invaders usually lose a sense of who they are and whence they came. Greeks in America know very little about Greece. Japanese in Brazil know and care little about Japan. Multi-culturalism does little to foster preservation of identity and heritage. If anything, it urges non-whites to abandon their own homeland nations/folks/cultures and head to White/Western nations and surrender to Hollywood culture of degeneracy, PC dementia, Homomania, and feminism. Multiculturalism is a sleight-of-hand trick. It fools non-whites in the West into believing they are empowered by the Ideology of Diversity. But surely, living in a world of Diversity makes it more difficult for any group to preserve its identity, heritage, and culture; obviously it's more difficult for a Burmese or Syrian to maintain his identity and culture in the US or Canada than in his own home nation. Homogeneity means there are others who share in your identity & culture and cooperate with you in maintaining the history and heritage of your people. Diversity means your people/culture constitute just another minority that is surrounded by other groups with different identities and cultures. Diversity undermines every culture as every group will lack a solid support system of like-minded and like-cultured national kinfolk. Surely, it's more difficult to secure Irishness if an Irish group is surrounded by many other groups who aren't Irish. There must be a constant struggle to prevent members of the group from joining and interbreeding with other groups. Also, Diversity means all groups must be united by something generic, bland, and/or superficial that has easy but shallow appeal to all groups. As America grows more Diverse, the sniffing-glue that holds America together is Pop Culture and Food. In contrast, in a Irish nation full of Irish people, you don't even have to make an effort to preserve Irishness since it's all around, organic and rooted.
Anyway, to make things even worse in the Current West, the Cult of Diversity is interwoven with Homomania, feminism, and other Western pathologies. The lie of Multi-Culturalism is that it appreciates and defends non-white cultures from Western Hegemony. Its real agenda is to associate non-white cultures with PC grievances and degeneracy. So, when Multiculturalists pretend to embrace Muslims, they don't really care about Islam per se. And they care less about helping Muslim-Americans maintain their Islamic ways and cultural values. Rather, they make a show of embracing Muslims to associate Islam with Diversity laced with homomania, feminism, and decadence. Multiculturalists who denounce 'Islamophobia' are not trying to uphold Islamic values or spread Sharia in the West. They are trying to inject homomania and feminism into the Way of Islam. They've done just that with Christianity already. Especially Mainline churches are now into Queertianity.

Multiculturalism is not an identity-of-for but an identity-of-against. Under its influence, non-whites have little idea what they are and what they are for. For example, Asian multiculturalists are not encouraged to feel closer to Asian identity, heritage, culture, and territory. If anything, they are urged to cut themselves off from their own roots in their homelands and resettle in the West. So, what is their identity under Multiculturalism? It is merely the identity of pretend-victimhood. They are to identify as 'victims' of 'white racism' and 'white privilege'. Their identity is AGAINST whiteness rather than FOR Asian-ness. Since their main identity is defined in terms of being AGAINST certain peoples/cultures, they not only turn anti-white but eventually anti-Asian as well because Asian nations are still FOR something: Asian homeland, Asian ethnicity, Asian culture, Asian history. The AGAINST mentality finds meaning only in attacking and diminishing anything that is FOR. Against-ism is a habit of mind that comes to loathe any form of For-ism.

And this is the gambit that the West is playing with Muslims. This embrace of Muslims by the Multi-Culti 'left' seems contradictory. After all, Muslims have ways, values, and manners that are so at odds with Western decadence, degeneracy, and inversion of values. So, why would the West be friendly with people who have no use for feminists and homo lunatics? The hope is that, over time, the Muslims will also develop an identity or mental habit that is more AGAINST than FOR. Once that happens, these against-ist Muslims(whose highest value is homomania, feminism, and rap culture) will wage war on for-ist Muslims who still live by the Faith.

The basis for the current alliance between Jews and Muslims, two groups who really hate each other in the Middle East and even in the West(due to reverberations of Middle East politics), is untenable in the long run because ‘leftist’ politics of identity is too thin and shallow for genuine bonding. Against-ism can never serve as strong glue for anything.
Jews and Muslims hate one another, but they are both AGAINST white nationalism as embodied by Donald Trump(even though he has been exposed as just another toady of Zionists). It is useful for Jews to portray Trump-as-Hitler even as Trump grovels before Jews. Jews and Muslims have particular reasons for being anti-white-nationalist. Jews want to keep their supremacist control in the West and fear white identity politics as a potential challenge to their power and privilege. Muslims want entry into the West for better material lives, and they fear white nationalism as an obstacle for this opportunity. Therefore, Trump-as-Islamophobe meme is a boon to Jews. It provides reprieve from the Jewish-Muslim tensions in the West. Under Obama, when mass-immigration faced no obstacles, there was the rise of the BDS movement. Muslims and Arab-Americans joined with others to condemn Israel and Zionism. But now that Muslims’ main concern is to ensure continued Muslim immigration-invasion to the West, they are willing to shush up, at least for now, about Israel-Palestinian problems and collaborate with Zionists against Trump.

Anyway, even though the 'left' stole the Politics of Identity from the Modern Right, its formulation remains shallow since it is essentially an identity-of-against or identity-of-grievance. An identity defined AGAINST whites has no value without the bogeyman of White Evil. Indeed, this is the pathological crisis of the Left in a nutshell. Essentially defined in terms of AGAINST(whatever evil of the current year), it has no meaning unless there is another war to wage against something.
In contrast, the identity-of-for or identity-of-inheritance(of history and heritage) has great value even without enemies or dragons to slay. A true Greek patriot is happy to be a person of Greek ancestry and heritage regardless of whether there are or aren't enemies. He'd be a proud Greek regardless of Victim Politics. His Greekness has value apart from Hurt Feelings.
In contrast, an identity-of-against or identity-of-grievance feels empty and meaningless unless it’s pitted against something and whines endlessly about victimization. Multiculturalism offers shallow identities to all its adherents because it doesn't encourage non-whites to grow meaningfully closer to their own race, culture, and heritage. (But then, if non-whites did just that, they would turn genuinely tribal and resist serving a mega-coalition of various tribes manipulated by Jewish elites against whites.) Rather, it tells them to define their identity mainly in terms of 'victimhood' under whites. So, without the Evil Whitey to hate and blame, their identity has no meaning. Leftists and Multi-cultists suffer from a kind of 'thunderlust'. They must thunder and rail at something to feel justified. Their identity has no inner calm or innate meaning. It's about constant complaint and whining about something or someone else. It is a vanity of feeling a**holier-than-thou.
Given the anti-white vitriol of PC, why are so many white people(ranging from SJW harpies to cucky-wuck GOP Constitutionalists) on-board with the lunacy? Because white people have adopted a kind of negative-identity and fetish-for-exoticism. Given human nature, even guilt soon turns into pride, and so, it's not surprising that 'white guilt' morphed into a new twisted kind of white pride. Since whites are no longer allowed to feel pride in white identity, they seek neo-pride in White Guilt, just like Christian obsession with Sin became just another form of pride, that of sanctimony and holier-than-thou shtick. Christians took pride in their displays of atonement, and white proggies and Cuckservatives practice neo-white-pride in the form of the Great White Atonement. They indulge in Good White Pride by loudly beating their chests and bashing the 'racist' Pride of Baddy Bad Whites. Also, so many whites are now so bored with their own history and culture that they are into exoticist fetish for other cultures(and 'genders').

I imagine the Ethiopian eunuch as a delightfully androgynous soul – dark of skin, flamboyant, dressed in bright silks, bejeweled, his lips colored and his eyes lined with kohl. He is sitting under a parasol in a large chariot, and around him are mounted soldiers and attendants. A wagon carries tents and food so that he can camp in luxury on the journey home.

Even so, politics of identity, even when shallowly defined, may lead to politics of identity-of-depth. Some might start digging deeper into their own identities and find something richer and far more meaningful than constant griping about Evil Whitey. (This is exactly what happened to some Jewish leftists. Initially, these secular Jews who’d rejected Jewish identity adopted the Jewish identity of victimhood, especially in relation to the Shoah. Under this limited formulation, Jewishness had meaning AGAINST the anti-Semites and Nazis. But over time, some of these Jews rediscovered value in Jewishness that went deeper than the ever-shifting winds of politics and recent history.)
Precisely because even shallow-identity can lead to deeper-identity, Jewish Power decided to unleash Homomania especially on the white community. If politics of identity can lead to the rise of white identity politics as well, what better way to muck it up by making homo-identity the holy identity among whites? Indeed, despite the burden of 'white guilt', whites have been craving for some kind of tribal expression. But by rules of PC, whiteness is too tainted for any kind of pride or power. So, whites were offered the outlet of Zionism as the Other Americanism(or the Outpost of Western Civilization), and many white Christians channeled all their frustrated tribal-racial energies into rooting for Israel. But that was never going to be enough for all whites, especially the secular ones. So, whites were bombarded with homomania as supposedly the fullest flowering of whiteness. Notice how white homos are among the most celebrated, praised, and admired in the media. So, the subconscious message became whiteness-is-redeemed-through-Anno-Sodomini. Is it any wonder that so many whites flocked to homomania? It is one area where whites are allowed to be dominant without apology. Otherwise, 'too many whites' or 'white power' is suspect as being tainted with 'white privilege'. But white homos are blessed for their homo-ness. So, a gathering of white homos and celebration of white homos are a kind of whiteness that has been washed of 'white guilt'. This is the paradox of White Morality in the Current Year. White guilt feelings are most effectively washed with shameful white acts(of homo fecal penetration and tranny penis-cutting).

The 'left' stole not only the politics of identity from the Modern Right. It also stole the politics of ‘intersectionality’ from fascism. What is 'intersectionality' but a leftist twist on fascist theory of corporatism? To better understand this, consider the contrasting strategies of the radical left and modern right in the interwar years following WWI.
The radical left gave us Marxism/Communism. It sought to stamp out all contradictions and create a mono-ideological system. Everything in the radical leftist state had to conform to Marxist principles and communist methods. Since communism is atheist, religions had to be stamped out. Since communism is for the proles against the bourgeoisie, the business class had to be wiped out. Since communism is revolutionary and anti-reactionary, the Old had to be smashed and destroyed. Radical leftism was mono-logical. It had one idea, and everything had to submit to that idea. Anything that didn't submit had to be destroyed or banished. There was little or no room for compromise, cooperation, or sharing of power. All power and control had to be in hands of the radical left.

In contrast, fascism strove for an 'intersectionality' among the various forces of society. Mussolini was an atheist(and used to be a militant one as a syndicalist-socialist), but as a fascist, he came to value the Catholic Church for its role in Italian history and society. So, unlike Bolsheviks who waged ruthless war on the Russian Orthodox Church, the Italian Fascists came to an understanding with the Church. The result was the Lateran Pact. Also, Fascists acknowledged that economics isn't just about the righteousness of a single class. There was and always will be a class of workers. And there was and always will be a class of businessmen and managers. So, the sensible thing was not to destroy the business class or enslave the working class. The solution was to arrive at an understanding among the classes so that all would fulfill their necessary roles in society. Also, even though Italian Fascists promoted science and technology(and modernity), they also came to see value in tradition, heritage, and legacy. Therefore, it wasn’t inevitable for the forces of tradition and forces of modernity to be in a state of constant warfare where compromise was impossible. Fascism could arrive at ways in which tradition and modernity would not only tolerate one another but support one another.
The reason why there was far less violence and terror in Fascist Italy and National Socialist Germany than in most communist nations was because they opted for 'intersectionality' among various classes, between secular institutions and the church, between the traditional sources of power/prestige and new forces in ascendance in politics & culture. (Of course, Hitler threw it all away and created hell on earth when he opted for inter-European imperialism and violated the nationalist principles of neighboring nations, but that is another story.) In contrast, communist nations were far drabber, drearier, and marked by dread since their mono-logical systems were Procrustean in bending and twisting everything into a single mold.

So, the current 'leftist' fad about 'intersectionality' was really lifted from the Modern Right. But when used by the 'left', it can only be a fad and fashion because 'leftist' machinations of 'intersectionalities' are almost always utterly shallow, cynical, conditional, opportunistic, flimsy, and superficial.
Fascism searched for 'intersectional' potentialities of depth and substance. For 'intersectionality' to be effective and stable, the common thread woven through the various forces has to be real and meaningful. So, if Italian bourgeoisie, Italian proletariat, Italian peasants, Italian artists, Italian Catholics, Italian secularists, Italian military-men, Italian traditionalists, Italian modernists, Italian scientists, Italian writers, and etc. all have their differences and contradictions among one another, what is the common thread that holds all of them together? Italian-ness! However their respective views or values may differ from one another, they could at least come to an understanding on the basis that what they have in common, Italian-ness, is far more important than what they have in contrast. As fellow Italians with shared history and heritage on the same territory, they have common interest in making their nation better, richer, more powerful, more productive, and more creative. And with this understanding, they could be more forgiving of other Italians with whom they disagree. Also, each could do its own thing to contribute to the larger improvement of Italy with the knowledge that all other sectors are also committed to serving Italy. Italian patriotism can bring together an Italian capitalist and Italian socialist. Italian capitalist may be good at business, and an Italian socialist may believe in more government involvement. But if both are committed to the betterment of Italy, both can come to respect one another and contribute in their own way. Even if their interests sometimes run counter to each other, the differences could be resolved when they look at the bigger picture of "Is it good for Italy?"

Because the locus of fascism was ethnicity, history, heritage, and territory, its brand of 'intersectionality' was sound and stable(as long as Italy didn't enter into some mad imperialist venture and reap the wrath of other nations far more powerful, which is exactly what happened when Mussolini made a foolish pact with pathological Hitler). There is no better ‘intersectionality’ than nationalism. It is the shared sense of blood, soil, and memory that allows various individuals and groups to cooperate and work together despite divergences in ideas(capitalist or socialist), beliefs(religious or secular), or professions(military men or civilian).
Nationalism as ‘intersectionality’ has real gravitas. It is the roots that hold all the other parts of the tree together.

In contrast, the 'intersectionality' of the current 'left' is ludicrous. Fascist 'intersectionality' is about meeting of the roots in the realm of depth. But, 'leftist intersectionality' is about the scratching of branches of different trees at the whims of winds.
Whatever their differences, an Italian Catholic and an Italian atheist has something real in common in their shared ethnicity and history. Indeed, what they have in common is more powerful than whatever happens to be in their heads.
In contrast, consider the 'intersectionality' among Zionists, Muslims, homos, feminists, blacks, and immigrants. They have NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE in common. Zionists and Muslims hate one another and find common ‘ground’ only in their fear of white nationalism(as challenge to Jewish supremacist power or hindrance to Muslim immigration-invasion to the West). Elite feminists and blacks have nothing in common except their scapegoating of 'white men' as the source of all problems. They may pretend to have something in common and compelling in their commitment to equality and diversity, but more diversity only leads to more inequality -- just take a look at California -- , and furthermore, a term like 'equality' is too vague to mean anything definitive. Notice every group invokes 'equality' to mean something different, usually, "We want bigger share of the pie". For blacks, 'equality' means "We ain't got enough, honkey." For Jews, it means, "We deserve everything we got, even though we have much more than other groups." And libertarians and conservatives invoke ‘equality’ to mean what they want it to mean. They mean 'equality of opportunity'.

It is amusing that the 'left' bleats on and on about the evils of fascism, but it stole ideas from the Modern Right because the 'left' has turned out to be so vacuous and discredited in all its formulations and conceits.

Neo-Fascism is the best intersectionality between the Real Right and the True Left. Left-Rightism must be the Way of the Future.