Semi-Open Thread: The Culture of Hunting and Hunting as Metaphor

 

This is an Open Thread of sorts because, most likely, many of you(or most of you) know more about the art/science/ritual/tradition/culture of hunting than I do. Actually, I know nothing of hunting as I’ve never hunted myself. And though I totally support gun rights, I’ve never owned guns or fired one myself. My personal curiosity about hunting is mainly about the tastes of various animals.

What do game animals taste like? Plenty of people have tasted venison, but what about moose(Sarah Palin’s favorite), bear(though it’s pretty close to dog meat as canis and ursus are cousins), beaver(though my guess is it’s caught through trapping than hunting — trapping strikes me as a form of animal-torture that can no longer be justified), wild turkey(and various other prairie fowl), pronghorn(seen in NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN), alligator(I’m told all reptiles taste more or less like chicken), raccoon(again, too close to dog meat), opossum(soul food meat), and wild hog. As I’m opposed to the Hogocaust, I stay away from pork, but as wild pigs must be culled, I wouldn’t mind game-pork-ribs.

Just out of curiosity, do people hunt with assault rifles, AK-47 and AR-15? I recall a political cartoon that mocked gun rights by a hunter mowing down deer with a machine gun. Of course, people own such guns for protection from the government(and maybe gangs of hoodlums during riots). I read somewhere that assault rifles on the market are merely hunting rifles designed to look military. Are cowboy rifles(like Winchesters in Western movies) good for hunting? I don’t suppose anyone hunted with a magnum 44. I can’t imagine giving the Dirty Harry speech to a dying black bear.

I chose this topic because my recent hiking trip coincided with the hunting season in some areas. Usually around late October or early November — summertime is great for swimming but mosquitos and certain flies drive you crazy — , I go on these excursions into nature, mostly to hike, sometimes to kayak. But this year, I ended up going in late November, culminating in the Smoky Mountains, and it just so happened that parts of Missouri, Southern Illinois, and Kentucky were in the peak of hunting season. So, surprisingly, some of the campgrounds were near to full capacity.

These hunters really know what they’re doing. On my hikes, I might see a deer now and then. (Despite the talk of bountiful black bear population in some states, my bear-sighting amounts to all of 15 seconds). Deer are bountiful everywhere but rarely do they cross your path on hiking trails. But these hunters sure know where to look or how to track them because there were dead deer all over the place. On the ground, on trucks, hanging from trees, on motorboats, roped to posts, and etc. It was rather impressive, as were the skills with which the men carved up the dead animals into strips. Hiking just requires stamina. In contrast, hunting requires one’s senses to become almost animal-like. You must be acute in sight and hearing, even smell. I suppose hunters like the sense of reconnecting with a more primal way of being.

Warnings were posted that hikers should don orange bright-colored clothing and hats, and there were guns firing all over the forests, and so, I didn’t do much hiking until I got to the Smokies. Lying in the tent at night, I got to thinking about the culture of hunting.

The most famous American writer of the 20th century was probably Ernest Hemingway. According to Paul Johnson, he even qualifies as an intellectual of sorts, in the code of manhood and how it related to politics. His fame as a writer was inseparable from his celebrity(and sometimes notoriety) as a man of action who sometimes risked his life in fishing trips off the coast of Cuba or hunting safaris in Africa(though what really did him in was a plane crash, or mechanical failure). It was as if his code not only required man to stand tall before danger but go out of his way to pursue danger for danger’s sake. It wasn’t enough to write but to have the right stuff.
He admired men who put their lives on the line. His novels reserve special respect for those who experienced brush with death and came out stronger — it’s as if true wisdom comes only by the test of physical endurance that can break or make a man. Gunshot wounds and arrow marks are like scars of pride, like among primitive hunting tribes. Hemingway was obsessed with bullfighting where man was both the hunter and the hunted. Some of his short stories are set in Africa among hunters and lovers(as if the hunt is a metaphor for the game of love or manhood’s refuge from its frustrations). Some writers just write. Others, like Hemingway and Yukio Mishima, sought the harmony or fusion of the pen and sword/gun. Norman Mailer, who wrote the first great World War II novel and loved boxing, was also in that category. Going deeper into American history, there is James Fenimore Cooper and the stories of hunters-explorers, though Michael Mann’s rousing quasi-fascist adaptation of THE LAST OF THE MOHICANS is the only thing I know of the Leatherstocking Tales. And though whaling(as a commercial enterprise) in MOBY DICK isn’t exactly hunting in the conventional sense, it is really about an obsessive hunt for a particular whale than whaling as commerce.
It’s as if that one particular whale keeps alive the mythic power of nature being overwhelmed by man and his technology. It refuses to be turned into more blubber for lamp oil. It’s terrifying but also reassuring because man’s dominion over nature was becoming all too evident with accelerating progress. (Isn’t it a bummer that we can’t hold any animal in awe anymore as their numbers are dwindled by poachers, though I suppose a poor Indian villager still worries about being devoured by a tiger or leopard. Personally, the most terrifying animal I encountered was a gopher on a hiking trail that did the ‘black knight’ thing in MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL. It bared its incisors and wouldn’t budge and then chased me around a good deal.)
John Huston, who made a decent movie out of Herman Melville’s novel, was an avid hunter like Ernest Hemingway, a self-professed maverick who liked to live on the edge. Supposedly, he put his life on the line several times on the set of MOBY DICK, and his African adventure, where he planned to shoot both AFRICAN QUEEN and big game, was the inspiration for the novel WHITE HUNTER, BLACK HEART, which was made into a movie(unsuccessful commercially) by Clint Eastwood who remained unmistakably himself to its detriment. (It also has Eastwood acting tough by putting down an anti-Semitic British woman; yeah, it’s really tough to pander to Jews in Hollywood!)

When I was young, movies like HATARI(directed by Howard Hawks) and MOGAMBO(directed by John Ford) often played on TV. Hunting was presented as exciting and fun. It was full of thrills and a test of man’s character in face of danger(and a world full of Negroes with spears, though most of them seemed surprisingly hospitable to whites). BORN FREE is about Elsa, a lioness raised among humans but faced with the near-insurmountable challenge of returning to nature. Having being nurtured and fed by loving humans, it failed to develop hunting-and-fighting skills and must be taught how or learn the hard way on its own or die. (Despite the happy ending in the movie, Elsa was mauled to death at the age of six by rival lions. It’s a cruel world, this nature. The best nature documentary I’ve seen is LIONS AND HYENAS, a grim, harrowing portrait of the bloodcurdling ways of predators. It also shows how animals not only exhibit aggression and rage but can burn with hatred. It’s so different from those pictorial nature programs where everything is spectacular and romanticized.)

But over the years, hunting came to be regarded with less respect, even with hostility. One of the biggest firestorms on social network some years back was when some white hunter in Africa killed a lion. Most of the outrage came from white people in the West, while some black person of African origin wrote an op-ed in the NYT that his folks back home lived in fear of the much dreaded lions. Perhaps, the lion-romantics were thinking of THE LION KING(like politicians worship The Zion King). Would they have been so outraged if the hunter killed a hippo or cape buffalo? Or a honey badger? On the other hand, movies like THE GHOST AND THE DARKNESS suggest the theme of hunting can still catch on with the mass audience. (Still, whereas in the old movies hunting was done for sport or commerce, THE GHOST AND THE DARKNESS is morally justified on grounds that the said lions are man-eaters, which makes the hunt a case of self-defense than a sport for trophy.)

Perhaps, the two most famous movies with the theme of hunting in the 1970s were DELIVERANCE and THE DEER HUNTER. In both, hunting goes from adventure to a darker metaphor of man’s place in the world. Burt Reynold’s character fishes with bow-and-arrow. Jon Voight’s character spots a deer but loses his nerves at the decisive moment. Later, the story turns into man-hunting-man, and Voight’s character is penetrated by his own arrow. It’s as if man goes from predator to prey. The hunter learns what it is like to be hunted, and the hunted learns how to become a hunter, a real killer. In THE DEER HUNTER, the first hunt is presented majestically, especially with the Rockies doubling as the Appalachian range. But in the second hunt, Robert DeNiro’s character, recently returned from the war where he was the hunted one, cannot make himself shoot the deer. Thus, the notion of the hunt goes full circle into self-consciousness. The predator discovers what it is to be the prey and even identifies with it. (Still, there is a distinction between the hunter and the soldier. A hunter of his own free will goes into nature in pursuit of prey. It is his decision and his adventure. Also, it is up to him to kill the deer or let it go. Thus, there is an element of nobility in hunting whereas soldiering, for all the talk of patriotism and honor, is about being drafted into mass slaughter of people you don’t even know. The hunter must kill mindfully whereas the soldier must kill mindlessly.) James Dickey, who wrote DELIVERANCE, was a hunter himself and an expert archer. THE DEER HUNTER was accused of jingoism, and Michael Cimino was no peacenik. Still, just like the Western genre took a darker turn in the 1950s, the hunter went from a romantic figure of manhood and adventure to a darker figure of destruction or self-doubt. In Jim Jarmusch’s GHOST DOG: THE WAY OF THE SAMURAI, couple of white hunters are deserving to be murdered by the Negro Hero because they killed a bear. Now, bears are my favorite animal, but what is the moral logic in a film where the Negro is a hired killer himself. I I guess the mere fact of being black confers upon him some extrajudicial right to punish ‘bearacists’.

THE HUNTER with Willem Dafoe is another dark-themed movie on the subject. Its hunter is a hired gun after a near-extinct species. Still, it depicts the inner struggle within the heart of the hunter. In the end, it’s more about motives than the act itself. Dafoe’s character is a mercenary, and thereby lies his treachery but also the possibility of redemption because, after all, a hunter with honor would not be gunning down the last remaining specimen of a dying species for money. It’d be as bad as killing Snow White.

This applies to war in general: The distinction between patriot-soldier versus the soldier-of-fortune. It is also why the bounty hunter was disdained in the traditional Western(and even in the neo-Western like THE WILD BUNCH by Sam Peckinpah. Even though they were after outlaws, they did it for money, not justice. It’s also the moral conflict in MIDNIGHT RUN. The question of the motives. Just like you can do the wrong thing for the right reason, you can do the right thing for the wrong reason. But then, in the more cynical universe of Sergio Leone, bounty killers/hunters could be ‘cool’ and impressive because “In a world where life had no value, death sometimes had its price… That is why bounty hunters appeared to make lots of money collecting dead bodies of people whose mugs are on ‘wanted’ posters.”

Given the vast wilderness that lay before the white man in the New World, one would think the theme of the Hunter would have played a bigger role in American popular culture. But the narratives of Westward expansion have largely passed over the theme of hunting, at least in movies and TV shows. The popular TV show GRIZZLY ADAMS would have you believe the Adams was some gentle-souled cross between Jesus and Tarzan who lived in blissful harmony with nature when he was a rough man who was ultimately killed by one of his bears. John ‘Kermit’ Denver’s idea of nature.

There are exceptions, like JEREMIAH JOHNSON, based on mountain men who ventured westward to hunt and trap animals. But most stories set in the West are about man vs man, either Cowboys vs Indians or Lawmen vs Outlaws. Maybe there is a certain shame involved in the rapid destruction of wild life. At one time, whites in the East thought that trees and animals were bountiful, almost limitless, in Western lands. But within several decades, 50 million bison were reduced to few thousands. Destruction of habitats led to the sudden extinction of the passenger pigeon that once blackened the sky(and probably rained down birdy doo all over). This sense of shame is addressed in movies like DANCES WITH WOLVES where Indians(and Kevin Costner’s character) lament at the white man’s way of killing bison merely for hide and profits, whereas Indians hunt to survive and use every part of the animal. (The less naively romantic will remind you that Indians too had no qualms about burning down entire forests and slaughtering more bison than they could consume, not least by driving entire herds over cliffs.) And Jim Jarmusch’s revisionist Western DEAD MAN begins with white men in a train car who, upon spotting bison, shoot at them like mindless killing machines. The film seems to suggest white folks see the world in the simple binary of the living and the dead, with the living living to make the other living dead in a zero-sum game of total domination. In contrast, Indians inhabit a world where life and death are interwoven as myth and spirituality, just like there’s no distinction between man and nature among the primitives. Some have found the film to be a profound and necessary critique of modernity’s tendency to categorize the world either in the name of science or commerce. Others have found it to be insane, flaky, and retarded. I’m somewhere in between. It’s often ugly and putrid(and self-righteous in tone, like the songs of Neil Young who did the music) but has a great ending worthy of Tarkovsky. American West is mostly about pioneers than about man vs animal, and the great hunts in movies are usually set in places like Africa. There is plenty of animals to kill in North America but it largely owes to the near extinction of apex predators like cougars and wolves. So, humans must cull the population of various plant-eaters busily devouring trees & roots and spilling out into highways. (For some, hunting may be associated with tracking down fugitive Negroes with blood hounds. In George Romero’s zombie movies, rural hunting folks are hardly distinguishable from the stereotype of rednecks whose favorite sport is hanging Negroes from trees.) THE REVERENT is also a dark narrative of the West.

It could be the difference between ‘liberals’ and ‘conservatives’ is the former tends to have a neo-aristocratic take on hunting whereas the latter has a more democratic attitude. Most ordinary ‘liberals’ either disapprove of or don’t care for hunting, but a good number of elite ‘liberals’ have impressive gun collections and do hunt. Elites hunt, masses don’t on the ‘liberal’ side.
In contrast, many ‘conservatives’ not only feel that hunting should be open to all but functions as a culture that defines community & tradition and rite-of-passage from boyhood to manhood. Pauline Kael criticized THE DEER HUNTER for perpetuating this very myth of American Manhood, i.e. Cimino’s work is less about the horrors of war than about how men become True Men through the trial of violence and war where every fiber of one’s being is tested. Hemingway likewise romanticized war as the greatest subject for a writer.

Three excellent movies involving hunters or hunting culture are DERSU UZALA(Akira Kurosawa), HIMATSURI(more a story about lumber men, but their culture overlaps with that of hunters), and INTO THE WILD, where a estranged son of an upper-middle family makes it to Alaska and must survive as a hunter, though what really does him in his failure as a gatherer(of plants). All three movies capture the mystique of nature without romanticizing it.

Denis Villeneuve’s PRISONERS begins with a man instructing his son in a hunt. The father is a somewhat troubled figure who is driven to the edge when his child is abducted. In the ensuing manhunt, he goes vigilante, only to be ensnared in the trap set by the object of his pursuit. (Visually impressive, it’s mostly torture porn, as well as one of those movies with the most kindly Negroes while the biggest threat to the community turns out to be – spoilers alert! – some old rural woman, LOL, who makes Norman Bates look like a boy scout. Right, never mind all the feral blacks ruining cities and communities. Never mind all the white deaths from opioids. What we really need to fear is killer granny.) A far darker take on hunting is SURE FIRE, an independent film by Jon Jost where it’s used as a metaphor for American culture of domination and death. It goes from the father teaching his son how to use the rifle to using it on his son, then turning it on himself. Sometimes, I wonder if works like these aren’t more the projection of the artist’s own neurosis than reflection of social reality.

Granted, there are some nutters out there. Though not a gun owner myself, I accompanied a friend in the early 90s on visits to private gun dealers. One guy was a Vietnam veteran and kept yammering about how Libyans were planning to invade the US and why people must be armed for the fateful day. Where did his get his worldview? From RED DAWN and Chuck Norris movies? While Hollywood’s depiction of small town America is mostly slander, there are some nutty militia-types out there. And some of these people end up serving in the US military and blowing things up in the Middle East as dupes for Zionists(like my gun-loving friend ended up doing).
According to Costa Gavras’ BETRAYED(written by the trashy Joe Eszterhas), white militia types kidnap Negroes and set them loose to be hunted down like animals, ROTFL. Thus, the culture of hunting on the Right isn’t restricted to animals but an atavistic ritual of deep-seated tribalism verging on human sacrifice. (If, on occasion, white folks still kill blacks, it has to do with self-defense against black thugs and criminals, not some ideological training in white supremacism, but then, Jewish Hollywood and Media have spread all sorts of vile defamation against white Americans that are then absorbed by international directors like Gavras. Much of European animus toward White America stems from Jewish Media’s defamation of whiteness. BETRAYED seems to have served as training film for the current FBI. To be sure, SILENCE OF THE LAMBS was the real smash at the box office but soon became unfashionable with the rise of globo-homo and tranny-wanny. Today, the FBI is like this organization directed by Jewish homos and trannies to hunt down imaginary KKK.)

On the other hand, there is the vanity of man as the ‘most dangerous game’, like in the short story by Richard Connell. Not only has it been made into a movie but spawned stuff like RAMBO and countless others where the hunted man becomes the most awesome hunter. Playing both the hunted and hunter adds a bit of christ mythology, like when Sylvester Stallone is hoisted christ-like as the maverick soldier willing to sacrifice his life for the abandoned P.O.W.s. There you go. Rambo is Conan + Jesus.

Among young ones today, their predatory instincts are surely channeled most into video games. By the age of twelve, the players probably shot, hacked, or bludgeoned half a million of units in various games. The popularity of sports owes to athletes serving in the roles of hunter-heroes. They compete for trophies. It advantages blacks because they evolved in Africa to be hunter-warriors. Thus, blacks win the most trophies as ersatz hunters of Western modernity, and blackness is highly regarded by the much-cucked white race that now offers its women to black studs. But, the black advantage in sports is also primed for criminality, and this means the police(the great majority being white) have no choice but to hunt down black criminals. The white mind admires the black hunter-prowess in sports but cannot connect the dots between black athleticism and black criminality. In their hero-worship of black athletes, they are outraged by police violence against black criminality when, in fact, if not for sports, many black athletes would likely be criminals(and indeed many of them are despite all the money they earn). As whites have lost out in sports, they look to superhero movies, horror movies, and other fantasies as outlet for their sublimated hunter-instincts. Maybe you can be Spiderman. Or, you can hunt for vampires or zombies that, in turn, hunt for you. Or become a ‘good’ vampire like Bella and feed on animal blood than human blood — what happens when Mormonism dreams of vampires.

Of course, Jews have their own favorite theme of the hunt. The Hunt for the Nazi Criminal. Simon Wiesenthal and his formidable Jew Crew of bloodhounds. It crops up in movies like MARATHON MAN and THE BOYS FROM BRAZIL. Gregory Peck, who tried to stop the Devil Child in THE OMEN, is Josef Mengele trying to produce a clone army of Little Hitlers. A more intelligent Nazi-hunting film is Paolo Sorrentino’s THIS MUST BE THE PLACE where some decadent Jewish pop star cleans up his act after his father’s death and goes on a sober(ing) journey to hunt down the Nazi baddy. Another decent Nazi-Hunt film is THE GERMAN DOCTOR. But if Latinos want to wring their hands about genocide, they should just look into their own history of what was done to the brown natives.

The most hilarious(unintentionally of course)is Atom Egoyan’s REMEMBER. (Egoyan’s decline from one of Canada’s most interesting film-makers to an agit-prop dispenser of moral cheap shots is truly dispiriting. How did a man who once made works like EXOTICA come to making such garbage?) Still, those movies were about going after Nazi-Nazis. Recently, there was some TV show with Al Pacino calling on ‘mitzvah’ on ‘white supremacists’ who could be anyone who wore a MAGA hat. Jewish Power, fearful of white awakening under Trump that may defy globalist hegemony(mostly in service to Zion), has decided to spread far and wide a bloodthirst for hunting ‘nazis’ in a world where Trump is ‘literally Hitler’, making anyone who voted for him a literally-little-hitler. (Of course, what is most Hitler-like about Trump is his total support of ultra-rightist Zionist tyranny over Palestinians, but that’s one thing even ‘liberal’ Jews appreciate about the man.) So, even as most ‘liberals’ aren’t into hunting culture, they are certainly into (witch)hunting-mentality.

Hunting-as-metaphor is a broad subject perhaps because apes evolved into man as hunters, a process that imprinted something deep in the human psyche. While monkeys and apes are also known to kill and devour small animals, they are mostly plant-eaters. Most of what gorillas and orangutans consume is vegetarian. Chimps, far more social, tend to kill more but they too subsist mostly on plants. When it comes to other animals, they are far more worried about being killed as prey than killing as predators. Gorillas mostly live in dense jungles and also have the strength to defend themselves from most animals. Chimps have to worry about leopards but can climb trees to flee danger. But when apes began to walk upright and become more manlike(like in the opening of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY), it became a matter of kill or be killed. Their mode turned more from flight to fight, and with the mastery of tools and weapons, proto-man apes rose up the ranks in the predatory hierarchy until they became the apex predator, even able to bring down buffalos, bears, mammoths, giant sloths, and tapirs. (The bone eventually turned into a space ship hunting for new worlds out in space.) Thus, the herbivore turned semi-carnivore(or omnivore), that is until agriculture emerged to make man more herbivoric once again. Still, the emergence of the predatory instinct was crucial to the transformation of ape to man, and this hunter instinct has become sublimated into so many human endeavors.

It’s oft been noted that predators generally are more intelligent than prey animals. Whereas prey herbivores merely need to chew on grass or eat whatever is available, predators must seek and capture food. And this requires some strategy. Granted, not all predators are smart, and some herbivores are remarkably intelligent. Take pigs and elephants. Herbivores but among the smartest animals. In contrast, sharks are near the top of the food chain in the sea but dumb as hell. So are crocodiles.
Maybe, we need to draw a distinction between munch-predators and hunch-predators. Munch-predators don’t need to be smart because food is all around. A shark merely needs to open its mouth and scoop up a big school of fish. Something will enter its jaws. And a crocodile merely needs to wait until some thirsty animal comes near water to drink. The food is always coming towards it. Munch whatever is nearby. In contrast, hunch-predators must hunch low and strategize to obtain their kill. For example, wolves must coordinate and rely on teamwork to bring down animals that a single wolf cannot kill on its own. A lone wolf is no match for a moose or a bear, but a pack of wolves can even scare the bejeezus out of a Grizzly. Lions also rely on teamwork and strategy. Solitary felines rely on stealth. As they lack stamina, they must get as close to the prey as possible before pouncing, and this requires subtle coordination between mind and body. (As for insect predators, I suppose they should be treated more like programmed organic machines than sentient creatures. They are totally superb in what they do but that’s all they can do.)

As for higher intelligence among pigs and elephants, maybe it’s related to their noses. Their nose-centrism turns them somewhat into predatory herbivores. If animals like deer just eat whatever is around them, pigs with their super-acute noses are always on the search for hidden foods, like roots and truffles. And elephants do amazing things with their noses, aka trunks. They’d be examples of nose-led intelligence.
As for monkeys and apes, their higher intelligence was probably related to trees. Their fingers grew longer to move from branch to branch to flee danger and seek out fruits, but as the fingers grew longer over time, monkeys and apes discovered they could do more with their extremities than initially meant for. They developed proto-creative tendencies as fingers are suited for versatility and the use(and even making)of tools. So, among herbivores, they were outliers that could compete with and even surpass the predatory animals.

Because of this duality of prey mentality(ape) and predator mentality(ape-into-proto-man) among humans, it’s hardly surprising that the culture of weaponry is both ‘clawic’ and ‘hornic’. Predators use claws to hunt prey animals, and prey animals use horns to defend against predators. In human society, criminals are like predators and they use weapons, knives or guns, as ‘clawic’ instruments. (Interesting that ‘liberals’, though disdainful of hunters who kill animals, have often been partial to the likes of Bonnie and Clyde who prey on ordinary folks.) In contrast, law-abiding folks own guns for ‘hornic’ purposes, that is as potential prey defending their life and property from criminal predators, often Negroes in the US. Kyle Rittenhouse is a perfect example of the ‘hornic’ gun-owner. (Cops are somewhere between ‘clawic’ and ‘hornic’ because they serve to protect but also actively hunt down criminals, which is why some crime movies featured lawmen as half-outlaw themselves, more domesticated wolves than sheep with horns.) The mentality is that of Ralphie(bullied at school) in A CHRISTMAS STORY who dreams of owning a BB gun to protect family by hunting down criminal varmints:

And with Jewish or ZOG-like takeover of US elite institutions, many white Americans feel they need guns against the hawk-like government. After 1/6 event, the FBI has been on the hunt for just about anyone who stepped inside the Capitol building, and some prisoners have been treated like animals in cages. Recent gun sales suggest people are stocking up for some fateful moment in the future when things will come to a head. Some speak of civil war. Wars begin as series of battles but end with the last combatants, those who refuse to give up the fight, being hunted down like animals.

In a way, if humans evolved into being from herbivoric apes to predatory hunters, dogs evolved in the opposite direction: From pure predators(as wolves) to semi-herbivoric creatures. While wolf violence is ‘clawic’, dog violence is largely ‘hornic’ in defense of man and his property. And even though dogs serve as co-hunters alongside man, they also serve as protectors and even ‘friends’ with sheep, which they defend from coyotes, wolves, and other killers. Also, dogs adapted to subsist in large part on plant diet. In impoverished societies, dogs make do mostly with corn, potatoes, rice, beans, and veggies. Japanese dogs seem to have a thing for cabbage.

The duality of prey/predator mentality is also at the profound hypocrisy of the Christian West. Jesus spoke of the meek. He was their shepherd, and ideally the Faithful should be gentle as a lamb. But the Christian West also became the most adventurous, aggressive, and ambitious civilization hellbent on conquering(and converting) all the world. It became the greatest apex predatory civilization the world had ever seen, but its Christian ethos portrayed itself in prey-like terms.
It is no wonder the Western genre focused more on decent Christian folks being attacked by savage Indian heathens than on the fact that whites were encroaching on Indian land, clearing the forests, and wiping out wild life. And yet, it wasn’t just hypocrisy but a kind of paradox: To create a more peaceful order where people could practice the brotherhood-of-man schtick, much of nature and savage-tribal ways had to be ruthlessly eradicated for civilization of laws and sacraments. It applied not only to American Indians but to black Africans brought over to serve as slaves. Only through violence could blacks be forced to live by law and order than by jungle jivery. And the post-WWII discourse held that Evil Civilizations came to see the light and walk the straight path only through defeat by ultra-violence. Thus, Japan and Germany became ‘liberal democracies’ at the cost of millions of lives in the ‘Good War’, or the good extermination. It’s interesting that Jewish Power seeks to guilt-bait white civilization for all the violence it committed in the name of progress and prosperity but then also argues that any amount of violence and mayhem is justified in order to tame and reform Evil ‘Racist’ Whites into Good Cuck Whites. So, shame on white ruthlessness but glory to anti-white ruthlessness.

Is the predatory instinct naturally more curious and adventurous than the prey instinct? Not always. Most predators do little but rest and sleep after satiating themselves with the kill. Lions sleep 20 hours a day. In contrast, rodents, though herbivores, are among the most restless and energetic animals. And they seem obsessed with gnawing through everything. It’s still probably true that predatory animals have more play in them. Kittens and puppies are more playful than kids(goat babies) or calves. But young monkeys and apes are also very playful. More often than not, playfulness seems more associated with aggression than passivity, though excessive aggression directs most of one’s energies towards narrow set of interests, which is the problem with Negroes whose aggression usually amounts to humping and thumping.

While all organisms, plants and animals, are expansive, multiplying and spreading as far and wide as possible, the hunting instinct is distinct in its surgical aggression. The hawk pinpoints the prey and swoops down on it. This surgical targeting mentality is what separates predators from prey. Prey animals must be alert to the slightest sign of danger, but the senses are reactive than proactive. Thus, it requires danger to activate their senses. In contrast, the predatory or hunting instinct, being proactive and searching, could develop beyond its original purpose, and in a way, all of human endeavors and achievements could be characterized as the product of the ‘hunt’ for something. The hunt for treasure, the hunt for hidden secrets, hunt for some cure.

In Coen Brothers A SERIOUS MAN, the white goy neighbors(who seem Germanic) are literally into hunting. The father passes the gun to the son like a torch. Though members of modern society, it’s as if their sense of culture derives from barbarian ways. However, the Jewish father is also a seeker, a hunter for truth, perhaps of God Himself, except that it’s a mental pursuit. Perhaps, this is what distinguishes the Jewish mindset from the goy Christian mindset. Though Judaism calls for humility before God, it’s also aggressive toward God in gnawing at the secrets God has hidden. In contrast, Christianity believes that all has been revealed through Jesus, and its adherents no longer need to search or demand more answers; just embrace and believe, and partake of Jesus as the final sacrificial kill in man’s hunt for salvation. In contrast, the Jewish Way is more like that of the dwarfs in Terry Gilliam’s TIME BANDITS, what E. Michael Jones calls the ‘Jewish Revolutionary Spirit’. But does he really think Jews will lose this tendency if they accept Jesus? Perhaps, white goy Christians lack such mindset not because they accepted Jesus but because their personalities are different at the genetic level. If Dan Quayle were to convert to Judaism while Alan Dershowitz were to become Christian, I suspect Quayle will remain his generic ‘white bread’ self while Dershowitz will still be restless in his neo-Christian ways. Jews turning to ‘conservatism’ as ‘neocons’ certainly didn’t take away their restless spirit.

My personal views on hunting are as follows. I generally don’t like the idea of killing animals(especially birds as flight is wondrous), but I understand some species must be culled due to absence of natural predators. Also, killing animals for food makes perfect sense. After all, life is about life consuming life, and unless one is a Buddhist, what need to break free of this cycle? Hunting for sport is understandable given our animal-predatory instincts but strikes me as distasteful for any truly civilized person.
Sam Peckinpah as a boy caught more fish than he could eat, but his grandfather made sure he ate every last catch as lesson that no living creature should be killed for fun. The same lesson is imparted in THE GREATEST GIFT, an ok-TV movie with Glenn Ford as reverend who buys his son a rifle.

There are some people into hunting as a test of manhood. This seems plausible with a primitive savage with stone-age weapon going on the hunt. But, does it make sense with a high-powered rifle that can bring down a bull elephant with one shot? What is so tough about shooting a moose or a bear? A charging Grizzly may be a challenge, but why not just leave the stupid animal alone? It reminds me of the movie CONGO where none of the craziness would be happening if the humans just stayed out of the jungle and left the dumb apes alone.
One good thing about the gun is its merciful efficiency. Who wants to be a deer stuck with an arrow wandering through the forest in agony? Who wants to be a bear with a spear stuck on its side? The scenes of hunting with spears in the Italian documentary AFRICA ADDIO is truly gruesome and gut-wrenching(though I can’t blame the primitive Negroes for what is their livelihood), and the hunting rifle sure made it a lot more merciful for animals if indeed they are to be hunted.

Some have accused Ted Nugent of being an evil person, and the invective struck me as over-the-top, typical anti-conservative spiel. But upon perusing his book, he does seem rather unhinged. His philosophy of hunting is like his philosophy of war. Just shoot em and blow em up, as if the mayhem of nature and nations is one big celebration, a rock concert. Such unthinking childishness. No wonder Jewish wits use goy dimwits as soldiers. It’s like man and dog. When order breaks down, sword rules the pen. But as long as order remains, pen rules the sword. Yet, so many of the Right ‘cling to guns’ as Obama put it. Of course, he wanted white folks to give up guns, not gain mastery of pens and cameras, but they better do the latter or perish.

The Palestinian Argument for the Wall and Border Security — We all heard the Pro-Israeli or Zionist Argument for the Wall, and It is Time we heard the Palestinian and BDS perspective as well

We've all heard the argument for the Wall based on the national security needs of Israel. Whenever anti-wall critics(who happen to be disproportionately Jewish) decry Donald Trump's Wall Proposal as unrealistic, ineffectual, and/or immoral, the Pro-Wall advocates point to Israel and its powerfully effective walls. There is a factual and polemical aspect to naming Israel as Exhibit A in the usefulness(and indispensability) of Walls. First, it is true that Israel’s walls are among the most effective in the world and against not only Arabs but African migrant-invaders. So, anyone who says that walls don’t work is lying. The other reason is to shame Jewish anti-Wall opponents. It exposes their hypocrisy as the Tribe that insists on The Wall for the Jewish Nation-State but opposes it for any white-majority or Western nation. It’s an effective way to shame-face and silence Jews who are ardent Zionists and support extensive wall-building around Israel and Occupied Territories but nay-say walls for goy nations. How dare these Jews say walls are great for the Jewish Homeland but for no other people and nation? Also, both Political Parties in the US remind us over and over that Israel is wonderful and indeed the greatest ally of the US. Well, if Israel is so wonderful, whatever it does must be wonderful too, and these days, Israel is mainly known for its super-high and super-tough walls. So, if Israel is so great and its walls are so wonderful, maybe it makes good sense for other nations to also build walls for their own national security.

Now, we know why Jews are for Walls for Israel and No-Walls for goy nations. It’s the same reason why Jews are for Balls for Jews but No-Balls for white goyim. Jews want white goyim mentally castrated to serve the Jewish master. White Gelding is the main agenda of PC. And ever notice that Jews have contradictory positions on guns as well? Jews are all for guns in Israel, a nation that actually mandates gun-ownership for each and every Jewish family. But Jewish-Americans call for stringent gun-control and even gun-banning in the US. Why would Jews support universal gun-ownership in Israel but then push for gun-banning in the US? It’s because Israel is majority Jewish, and so, gun-ownership means a well-armed Jewish people. In contrast, Jews are only 2% of Americans, and that means Jews are out-gunned 50 to 1. Therefore, Jews want guns to be monopolized by the state that is controlled by Jews who have bought up most whore-politicians and appoint most judges. As with everything else, Jewish Logic all comes down to “Is it good for Jews?” Jews only feign ethics and morality in their argumentation, the main purpose of which is to ensure not only security but supremacy for the Jewish People. So, one should never listen to Jewish appeals to humanitarianism or what-must-be-done-for-the-children. They are all rhetorical smokescreen to push through an agenda that is really meant to consolidate Jewish Control and Power. Then, it becomes obvious why Jews are pro-guns in Israel. It means majority of Jews out-gunning Arabs. And it makes sense why Jews are anti-guns in the US. Gun ownership means goyim outgunning Jews. What goes for guns also goes for walls. Walls in Israel mean security for the Jewish state. Having extensive walls means Jews can keep out any people who are deemed hostile, burdensome, or troublesome. Thus, Jewish nationhood is secured, and hopefully, Israel can last forever as it favors a policy of Jewish-Immigration-Only while excluding non-Jews who might crash the Zionist Party.
But, when it comes to walls in goy nations, Jews think differently. After all, the Wall during WWII came to symbolize Jews trapped in the Warsaw Ghetto, a precursor to the current situation in Gaza according to pro-Palestinian advocates. In Europe during WWII, Jews didn’t get to control the walls and decide who got in and who remained out. Walls meant the Nazis got to keep Jews trapped in the ghetto, from which there was virtually no escape and no entry(except by the Germans who were often murderous). (Jews often bitch about how nationalism and anti-open-borders policy are like Nazi Evil, but if anything, it was Nazi Germany that enforced Open Borders and it was non-German nationalism that was the best bet against Nazi aggression. Hitler wanted an Open Europe where Germans could move in and out of any nation at their whim. Indeed, Jews were safest in nations that still had effective national barriers against Nazi pan-Europeanism. It was following Germany's Open Invasion of Poland and France that Jews in those places really came under tremendous heat. And Germany’s Open Invasion policy against Russia promised doom for countless millions of Slavs and Jews. What saved the Jews was the nationalist push-back by the Russians and others who resisted the Nazi German Open Invasion policy. Given what Open Invasion policies have done to Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Yemen in recent years, why would any sane person oppose national sovereignty and secure borders? It was precisely because Iraq and Libya were unable to prevent foreign invasions that they ended up in the mess that they are. And there would have been no Syrian War if the Syrian regime could have controlled its borders. But Saudis, Turks, Israel, the US, and myriad Jihadi groups all worked together to breach Syrian borders and tear that country apart. Jews are willfully telling lies when they conflate nationalism and borders with Nazism and inhumanity. In nearly every case, erosion of national borders led to more tensions, conflicts, wars, and even genocides. Nazi Germany was not content to mind its own borders and respect the borders of other nations. It was all about Open Borders Imperialism, and when one ponders its effect on a nation like Syria in recent years, one would have to be stupid, ignorant, or evil to push for the erosion of borders.) Jews also hate the idea of Walls for Goy Nations because such symbolizes autonomy, independence, and sovereignty against Jewish-dominated globalism. It means limits on the Jewish Globalist penetration and takeover of those nations. It’s like the Portnoic Jewish penis hates the idea of well-protected goy vaginas. The Jewish Pud wants to freely penetrate and conquer white pooters.

One might argue that Jews are over-reacting when it comes to demand for border security among goy populations. After all, when Hungarians prevent foreign migrant-invaders from barging in, they are not shutting their nation to foreign travel, investment, and business. They just don’t want their lovely nation inundated with law-breaking marauders who will surely cause lots of social problems(as well as change the character of the nation were they to remain indefinitely). So, why do Jews condemn Hungary? It’s because any show of national assertiveness signifies desire for national autonomy and independence. And that means a nation like Hungary belongs to Hungarians first and foremost. Non-Hungarians, goyim or Jewish, must respect this fact of Hungary. Now, almost all goyim are willing to respect Hungarian national rights, so why are Jews so hellbent on insisting that Hungary doesn’t belong to Hungarians and that Hungarian-ness must be ‘fluid’(like 50 genders) and ‘inclusive’, i.e. recently arrived Muslims and Africans should be welcomed as New Hungarians. It’s because Jews are the premier globalist-imperialists in the world, and their power derives mainly from worldwide networking. After all, even though Jews do have a nation of their own, the fact is Israel, in and of itself, hardly constitutes a great power. The real basis of Jewish Power is that the Tribe has penetrated and taken over GOY nations and uses complex networking to coordinate Jewish-First Agenda from NY to London to Paris to Tel Avis to Moscow to etc. This is why Jews regard ANY sign of goy defiance against the Jewish Globo-Agenda with alarm.
After all, it is most unnatural and unjust for a tiny minority to wield such disproportionate power over nations where the overwhelming majority populations are composed of non-Jewish races and cultures.
Granted, Jews are playing with fire when they push for radical globalism in goy nations because of the danger of populist backlash. After all, the ONLY thing Hungary wanted was border security from the Muslim and African ‘refugees’. It was willing to work with EU and US on most things. But Jews like George Soros pushed so hard against Hungary over the ‘Refugee’ Crisis that Hungary ramped up their nationalism to not only keep out the invaders but to boot the Soros foundation out of the country. Jews have gotten so arrogant and so used to having their ass kissed(even by America, the most powerful country in the world) that they now seem incapable of the smallest compromise. Their attitude is ‘our way or the highway’.
Given that such chutzpah is bound to piss off any goy group, Jews go about promoting Diversity so that they can play divide-and-rule among the goyim. After all, no matter how rich and well-connected the Jewish minority may be, they are no match for a united majority goy population with guns and pitchforks. Once the goy majority break free of the programming and realize what Jews are really up to, they may rise up and really stick it to the Jews. Jews know this, and that is why they not only seek to deracinate every goy national identity(and spread decadence and degeneracy) but to diversify the population so that the various goyim will be at each other’s throats than go after Jews. Now, if Jews stopped acting crazy, none of this may be necessary. Most white goyim are willing to co-exist with Jews and respect much that is admirable about the Jewish community. But maybe there is something in the Jewish psyche that just can’t leave things alone. They just have to keep pushing for more and more. Ironically, Jews are rather like Adolf Hitler in this. Der Fuhrer just didn’t know when to stop with his insatiable ambition.

Now, let’s consider the Pro-Wall argument from the Palestinian viewpoint. We know why walls have been good for Israel. We know that walls have effectively ended terrorist bombings in Israel. We know walls make Jewish occupiers/settlers in West Bank feel much safer. Combination of walls, Zio-Apartheid restrictions, and IDF presence allows Jews to live relatively safe even in areas where they are outnumbered by (justifiably)angry Palestinians. And Pro-Wall advocates in the US love to rub the faces of Jewish Anti-Wall activists and politicians in the facts about Israel and the Wall. But what goes unspoken is that the Pro-Wall argument is just as, if not more, compelling when we bring Palestinians into the equation. For starters, how was Palestine wiped off the map from the river to the sea to make way for the new nation of Israel? It was because Palestinians had no effective walls to keep the Jewish-Zionist migrant-colonizer-invaders out. If Palestinians had walls like Jews have today in Israel, there would be no Israel. The place would still be Palestine inhabited mostly by native Arabs. The destruction of Palestine by endless Jewish migration and finally by the Nakba Pogroms of 1948 goes to show that walls or some form of tough border security is necessary for any nation to survive. Indeed, the creation of Israel proves not only the importance of walls but the danger of mass-migration. The wholesale ‘immigration’ of Jews to Palestine eventually led to ethnic cleansing. Same had happened to Serbians of Kosovo, now owned by Albanian Muslims who'd migrated into the region under Ottoman Imperial rule. Granted, Serbians could argue that they are like the Jews on the subject of Kosovo because they long for their ancient homeland just like Jews had longed to reclaim the Holy Land over the centuries, a dream finally fulfilled in 1948. But apparently, only Jews have the right to reclaim ancient homelands. Jews (re)taking Palestine was great but Serbians better forget about retaking Kosovo, especially as World Jewry are totally on the side of Albanian Muslims there.

The importance of the walls is demonstrable not only with the recounting of Nakba and destruction of defenseless Palestine but by what is going on in West Bank right now. While Jews in Israel have effective walls against Palestinians in West Bank, Palestinians in West Bank have no effective walls against Jews in Israel. That means Israel can defend itself from Palestinian infiltrators and terrorists, but West Bank cannot protect itself from Jewish colonists, invaders, and settlers. So, which side has the advantage? Jews with effective Walls against Palestinians OR Palestinians with No-Walls against Jews? If two swordsmen square off, who has the advantage? The one with sword and shield or the one with only sword, a wooden one at that compared to the steel sword of the opponent? Walls mean security and survival. The ONLY reason Constantinople lasted as long as it did was because of its massive walls. When they were finally breached, it was all over. Ideally, walls would not be necessary in a world governed by Rule of Law or Rule of Honor, where all peoples respect the borders of other nations in deference to laws or the honor system. And many people do have a sense of honor and obey rules. But then, many people don’t. In the 21st Century, two peoples are least mindful of laws and honor: Jewish globalists at the very top and the masses of Third Worlders who act like zombies in WWZ. Now, why would the uppermost elites work with the barbarian masses to destroy the Great White Middle? One reason is that both the elites and the barbarians have no respect for rules. Barbarians think and act like animals driven by primitive drives and appetites. So, if Third World masses can invade the West and feed on freebies, that’s just fine as far as they’re concerned. As for the uppermost elites, they regard rules as for the ‘little guys’. They themselves feel as gods who are beyond the ‘petty’ conventions of ‘right and wrong’. Barbarians think in terms of ‘below the law’, whereas the Rulers, as globo-deities, think in terms of ‘above the law’. But a more practical reason for the alliance of uppermost Jews and Third World hordes is because Jewish elites are convinced that the ONLY SURE WAY to secure Jewish supremacist domination in the West for all time is via Diversity. Only Diversity will lead to conditions where the goyim are so divided that they will never be able to unite to challenge Jewish Dominance.

Anyway, would you rather be Israelis with powerful walls against Palestinians in West Bank OR Palestinians with powerless No-Walls against Jews in Israel? Who are invading whom? Are Palestinians in West Bank invading and colonizing Israel OR are Jews in Israel(and around the world) invading and colonizing West Bank? Which side has the force of walls? The answer is, of course, obvious as day. But because Jews want to monopolize the power of walls for themselves, we are fed endless propaganda by the media(another power source monopolized by Jews) that walls are bad for goyim. Funny that whatever is good for Jews is bad for goyim. And whatever is bad for goyim is good for Jews. It’d be like Jews telling us that money is bad, but the moment we toss away our dough, they pick it up and pocket it. The fact that so many white goyim have been persuaded by Jews to see walls as a bad thing(despite the fact that Jews keep building more walls for Israel) is sad proof that a lot of whites are real dummies or idiots. Haven’t they figured it out that Jews are playing them like a fiddle and setting them against fellow white folks who happen to be patriotic or slowly shaking free from the hypnosis(or virulent hysteria) of PC? Isn’t it interesting that both ‘right-wing’ Jews and ‘left-wing’ Jews are agreed on the necessity of Israel’s walls, but the white population is divided between those who see the value of walls and those who think it’s an evil symbol of ‘xenophobia’?

But the fact that even relatively 'red-pilled' people like Ann Coulter and Tucker Carlson argue in favor of the Wall by invoking only Israel goes to show that they have yet to fully awaken from what is really going on. They are still under the impression that Jews may accept them as partners(if not equals) even though Jews regard ‘fellow whites’, the dimwit goyim, as sheeple to mess with. Patriots go to great lengths to demonstrate that they like Jews and want to be like the Jews(especially the proud ones in Israel), but the fact is most Jews in the West look upon white goyim in the manner that Jews in Israel & West Bank look upon Palestinians: An inferior people to subjugate, humiliate, and castrate. White Patriots flatter themselves as akin to White Zionists when, if anything, their condition is more akin to that of White Palestinians. Indeed, every day, it seems more like what Jews are now doing to West Bank is merely a dress rehearsal for what they intend to do with all the West. If Jews have the numbers to take over West Bank for Greater Israel, they intend to use hordes of Third World masses as proxy-armies of Jews. Of course, these Third Worlders have no love for Jews, but they don’t have the brainpower to challenge Jewish power once they enter the West. Also, as the main conflict will be between whites and non-whites, Jews can play off both sides. It’s like Jews cajoled white Christian soldiers into invading and destroying the land of the ‘muzzies’ and then encouraged Muslim migration-invasion to the West to use them as dreamy-eyed immigrants against white ‘racist-supremacist xenophobes’. What people like Ann Coulter and Tucker Carlson need to start doing is make a case for the Wall by invoking the history and plight of Palestinians. Palestinians lost their homeland in the Nakba Pogroms because they had no effective walls or border security against the Jews who were favored by the Great Powers like UK, US, and USSR. And Palestinians in West Bank are now losing what little remains of their homeland because they have no effective wall against Jews. In contrast, Jews have effective walls against Palestinians(and others), and that means Israel remains secure as the homeland for Jews. Walls mean power, security, and survival. No Walls means no power, no security, and extinction. It should be obvious by now that World Jewry work to deny the right of walls to white nations. Also, by promoting Afromania, Jungle Fever, Homomania, and Feminism, Jews also seek to rob white men of balls. No walls and balls for the white race if the Jewish Globalist Hegemonists can help it. Because American Jews regard whites not unlike how Israeli Jews regard Palestinians — and because the Jewish Plan for the white race is White Nakba on a massive scale — , it is about time white Americans came to identify more with Palestinians than with Jews. After all, with whom do white Americans(and Europeans) have more in common? Jews have the power of walls and balls in Israel. Palestinians have no power of walls and balls. Do white people in EU and US have walls and balls OR no walls and balls? They have no walls and balls. Well, which people did most(via their monopoly of key institutions and industries) to rob white people of walls and balls? Jews of course. Then, it is about time that white people began to feel, think, and act in terms of WE ARE ALL PALESTINIANS. Not White Zionists but White Palestinians. Just like it’d be great for Palestinians to have walls and balls, it’d be great for whites regain have walls and balls. Well, which people are denying both Palestinians and whites the advantages of walls and balls? It's the Jews. Whites keep thinking they are partners and allies of Jews when, if anything, Jews regard whites like they do Palestinians: Slaves, servants, serfs, peons, or cattle. After all, what do Palestinians in West Bank and Anglos in Texas have in common? Day by day, they continue to lose the demographic struggle against invasive populations. What Jewish colonizers do in West Bank, Mexicans and Central Americans do in Texas and Southwest territories. Now, do Jews side with Anglos OR with Mexicans & Central Americans? Isn’t it surreal that while Anglo-Texans root for Jewish colonizers in West Bank, Jews root for Mexican & Central American colonizers of Texas? Whites root for Jews against Arabs, but Jews root for browns against whites. Geez, no wonder whites are losing. Texas has anti-BDS laws that forbids government workers to stand against the Zionist Occupation of West Bank, but the great irony is that Jews are hellbent on doing to Anglo-Texans what they did to Palestinians.

Whites have become such worthless cucks. Among the elite whites, it’s just a case of craven greed as all they care is about more shekels from Jewish Power. Among white masses, too many are dimwit Evangelicals who worship Jews-as-the-Chosen or moronic gun-huggers whose worldview came from Hollywood-produced Chuck Norris movies where gung-ho Americans mow down a bunch of subhuman terrorist ‘muzzies’. They seem to have no idea that Jews have no more regard for them than they do for Palestinians.

According to Jewish Logic, White Christian Soldiers exist to be shipped off to the Middle East to fight Wars for Israel and kill tons of 'Muzzies'. These Jewish-instigated wars lead much havoc and Muslims moving to the West. Then, Jews hug Muslims as 'refugees' and 'immigrants' and use them to berate white Americans as 'xenophobes' and 'Islamophobes'.

Incidentally, the US-and-Mexico situation is the reverse of the one in Israel-and-West-Bank. In the case of Israel and West Bank, it is the bigger, richer, and more powerful party(Israel of course) that gets to defend itself while also invading the weaker territory. Palestinians in West Bank can’t intrude into Israel, but Jews in Israel sure can enter West Bank as they please and grab more territory. Tragic as it is for Palestinians, it seems natural because, historically speaking, the greater power gets to defend its domain while invading other domains. The basic law of imperialism.

But between the US and Mexico, things seem to go against the grain of historical norms. After all, the US is far bigger, richer, and more powerful than Mexico, but almost all the invasions are from south to north... and the US seems helpless to do anything about it.
If anything, Mexico has a tougher and more effective border policy(except when it willfully wants to serve as conduit for the Caravandals between Central America and the US) than does the US where migration/immigration policy is all but broken. Donald Trump talks tough but has been unable to enforce any effective border policy as the courts are dominated by Jews or their globo-homo commissars.

Why is the bigger, richer, and stronger nation weaker in the equation? Why is the US like the West Bank vis-a-vis Mexico/Central America that act like Israel with their endless reserves of invader-settlers? In the past, it was the big tough US that not only defended itself from non-white foreigners but invaded and took SW territories from Mexico(as well as other parts of the world). Back then, the US was like Israel, and Mexican territories were like West Bank.

Today, US is still many times richer and more powerful than Mexico but weaker when it comes to border security. Why is the US like West Bank in its utter impotence to stop the invasion of migrant-settlers from the South? Well, we know why. The elite institutions of America are ruled by Jewish supremacist hegemonists and their globo-homo cuck-dogs. The real problem isn’t that the US is unable to stop the migration-invasion due to lack of manpower or materials but that it is hamstrung due to dictates from ABOVE. Big tough body of America is now animated by the Jewish head. Globalism says, "Jews can invade West Bank, and browns/blacks can invade US & EU, but whites in EU and US better just give up and take it up the ass like the helpless Palestinians in the West Bank."

In a strange way, Jews support massive non-white immigration-invasion as their own Pro-Wall policy. From the Judeo-Hegemonic Perspective, a huge mass of non-whites amounts to a Human Wall or River-like Barrier against White Power. Non-white masses are the demographic-electoral-economic moat around the globo-homo Jewish Supremacist castle to keep out the white populist-nationalists with pitchforks. In war, flooding is sometimes used to hold back the enemy. Dams are blown-up to let the water flow between your side and the approaching enemy. Jewish elites regard the non-white demographic flooding of the West as akin to the crashing waves that engulfed Pharaoh's cavalry and spared the Hebrews from Egyptian wrath.

A Case for Jewish-controlled MSM as Hate News or Ministry of Hate

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.