Why Most Journalists are Essentially 'Spiritual' and Incapable of True Rationalism — How the 'Sacralization' of Jews, Blacks, and Homos has led to the Megalomania among them and Mimimi-mania among the Rest — Man and Matter must not be revered as Holy and Sacred

The role of journalists should be excavation, not burial or concealment. But too many journos use the shovel to bury than to dig. These shills should really work for the Ministry of Propaganda, which is what most of MSM really is.

One problem is most of MSM is in the pocket of Jewish gangster oligarchs, and big media companies favor Zionist-centrists and Jewish supremacists for hiring and promotion. And even among many talented Jewish reporters and journalists, there is a wink-wink understanding that the #1 mindset among them must be “Is it good for Jews?” Jewish Power is enshrined in their hearts and is tantamount to the the highest good imaginable. They were raised that way and think that way in what has been the most tribal culture in world history. So, even though they can be good and honest journalists on matters not pertaining to Jewish interests, they become quasi-Talmudic first and foremost on anything that touches directly or indirectly on Jewish-related matters. This is why most Jewish journalists, left or right, are on the same boat on Russia, Syria, and Iran. Their reporting, commentary, and narrative revolve around the core consideration of "Is it good for the Jews?"

Next, there are those who enter journalism for the glam factor. Maybe they grew up watching ALL THE PRESIDENT’S MEN(the Watergate movie) or have a Hollywood view of journalism as where the action is(in terms of activism, adventure, truth, justice, and celebrity). If Washington is Hollywood for ugly people, journalism is Hollywood for 'caring' and smart people though, to be sure, many in journalism tend not to be very smart; they just think they are. They don’t have the intellect/patience to be academics and don’t have advanced skills to be a leader or game-changer in anything — one thing for sure, science journalists know a hell of a lot less than scientists. So, they serve as scribes on the run. It’s like “Those who can’t, teach”: “Those who can’t, report.” At any rate, as this kind of journalists entered the field for the glam factor, their main concern is status and the buzz. So, if they have to stick with PC to be hired and promoted, they will do just that. They are like Peter Keating in THE FOUNTAINHEAD.

Now, what about goy journalists of integrity and honesty? Why are so many of them almost as useless as the Jewish Firsters and Paparrazi with pens? Because Political Correctness instilled them with quasi-spiritual thinking. To understand how this works, consider the psychology of the devoutly religious. They can speak and think freely on lots of things. They can even speak honestly about the failings of church elders and corruption in the highest echelons of authority. They can pore through financial dealings of the church to find fault. But they cannot talk badly or even think bad thoughts about God or Jesus.
There is a dividing line between what is man & matter and what is holy & sacred. Even the pope is part of the world of man & matter, but God and Jesus are supreme above all. Therefore, even in personal conversation or private thought, one dares not speak or think ill of God or Jesus. One can accuse the church of failing to live up to its mission or standards, but one cannot be critical of God, the Lord of all, and Jesus, who is believed to be perfect.
But such sacramental thinking operates among secular people as well because human psychology is profoundly 'spiritual'. This was evident in communist nations that were officially atheist but rooted in dogmas of godlike Marx and Lenin, the holy icons of the system. So, even though one might discuss and report on the various failings of the communist system, one better not dare cast doubt on the core foundation of Marxism-Leninism. Such mentality was so strong among true believers that even private thoughts skeptical of the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism made one feel 'sinful' and unworthy. The problem with communist systems was that, for too long, no one dared to question if the ideological underpinning itself was the real problem. While communists could, at times, criticize the outward practices of communism, they could not question the core principles. When things went wrong, the blame fell on the misapplication of dogma than on the dogma itself. It’d be like finding faults with certain calculations of geocentrism without challenging its core validity, esp in light of a seemingly better system of the heliocentric model.

We have a similar kind of problem, even among journalists of honesty and integrity? Never mind the Jewish Firsters and Paparazzis with pens. The more important question is, why are so many non-Jewish journalists of intelligence and integrity so full of nonsense or so unwilling to GO THERE? It’s because even most secular people have a spiritual side to their mentality. Just like smart and serious communist journalists were too ‘spiritually’ beholden to Marxism-Leninism to ask the deeper question — could it be that the insurmountable problems of communist societies emanate from communist fundamentals themselves? — , today’s PC-indoctrinated journalists are too emotionally and ‘spiritually’ beholden to idolatrous or iconic cults of the Magic Negro, Shoah-Worship, and Globo-Homo-mania to ask the bigger questions.

Magic Negro worship means ‘racism’ is all bad. Shoah-Worship means ‘antisemitism’ is the worst thing ever. Globo-Homo worship means we must be vigilant against ‘homophobia’. Blacks-Jews-homos are to PC journos what God & Jesus are to the devoutly faithful — unfortunately, virtually all journalists, even those of Conservatism Inc., have succumbed to PC, what with the two sides yammering, "Conservatives are 'racists'" and "Liberals are the 'real racists'." And just like the faithful may find fault with the church, church leaders, and church community but NEVER with God or Jesus, PC journos may find problems in the black community, Jewish community, and homo community(and critique some of the leaders and managers), but they feel they mustn't find any fault with the holy cult of the Magic Negro, Super Jew, and Holy Homo. So, most black problems must be blamed on whites or few bad apples among blacks. But BLACKNESS itself is magical and wonderful. Get on your knees before the portrait of MLK-Mandela(or even Obama) or twerk in veneration of the Great Negro. Same goes with the Jews. Scandals involving Bernie Madoff, Anthony Weiner, and Harvey Weinstein have shown that journalists can report on some Jewish bad apples. But never ever think that such examples reflect on or reveal something about the Jewish Community in general — indeed, one of the main media narratives associated with the Madoff case was that his crimes caused harm to some high-profile Jews and, furthermore, might fuel 'antisemitic' stereotypes, i.e. when Jews do bad, let us worry about Jews-in-general as potential victims than about the actual victims. All generalizations about Jews must be positive, never negative. The bad Jews are outliers than manifestations of something seriously wrong in the Jewish community. So, even as journalists can expose some individual bad Jews, they are never to question the essential nobility and wisdom of the Jewish People. (It'd be like pretending that there is NO LINK between the mafia and Italian culture attitudes. Of course, Jews never tire of telling the world that there is an indisputable connection between bad white deeds and the white community in general.)
And as this mentality has been instilled in the minds of journalists from cradle, they truly do revere the Jews and would feel guilt/shame if they thought ill of the Jewish community even in private behind closed doors. It’s like a religious person dares not think ill of God or Jesus even when no one is watching or listening. Their religiosity isn’t merely a response to external factors, a matter of shame, but an internal reality, a matter of guilt. Even if no one knew of their ill begotten words or thoughts about God and Jesus, they themselves would feel terrible for having entertained them. One feels free to think and say anything about the world of man and matter, but one’s mind better tread carefully about reverential, spiritual, or holy matters. Among many secular folks, Jews-blacks-homos are their highest objects of ‘spirituality’, and they can no more venture to question the sanctity of Jewishness, blackness, and homo-ness than communists could doubt the holy writ of Marxism-Leninism.

So much of what is wrong with the West is due to Jewishness, blackness, and homo-ness, but these problems cannot be honestly addressed because even the best-and-brightest are under the spell of Jew-Negro-Homo rapture, just like even the best-and-brightest under communism were beholden to the ‘scientific’ dialectical-materialist dogma of Marxism. (Ironic how, by naming something as ‘scientific’, it became holy and beyond rational discussion and critique.) While certain features of communist society could be criticized, it had to be done from the perspective of Marxo-centrism. In other words, communists could be criticized for failing communism, but communism could not be criticized for failing the communists.

Likewise, certain Jewish individuals can be criticized for making the Jewish community look bad or giving ammo to evil ‘anti-Semites’, but no one dares to ask if there is something fundamentally wrong, problematic, hypocritical, or rotten in the Jewish community, culture, or mindset. No one dares to wonder if the so-called ‘Anti-Semites’ were right on certain features of Jewishness, Jewish personality, or Jewish worldview. Rather, it is assumed Jews are holy while ‘Anti-Semites’ are evil, and therefore, any sign of Jewish abuse/criminality is lamented not as evidence of Jewish rottenness but as ammo for those evil ‘Anti-Semites’.
Imagine an order where Bob is said to be so good while Bill is said to be so bad, mainly because he said bad things about Bob. Now, if Bob often acts bad, it would seem Bob is a bad kid or has some serious issues that needs to be addressed. But because it is assumed Bob is good while anti-Bob Bill is bad, Bob’s bad deeds are blamed not on Bob’s lack of character but for having lent credence to Bill who is bad, bad, bad. Now, why would such an order feel this way about Bob and Bill? Because Bob has been sacralized while Bill has been demonized. Therefore, rational thinking is impossible regarding the two. Bob has been placed in the domain of spirit and sanctity than of man and matter(whereas Bill has been placed in the domain of devil and damnation than man and matter). Thus, even Bob’s bad deeds can’t reflect badly on him. If anything, there is even more hatred for Bill because Bob’s bad deeds have given cred to Bill’s Anti-Bob-ism, and we simply can’t have that in an order where Bob is holy while Bill is unholy.

The same logic applies to Negroes. We are told blacks are holy and magical. In contrast, there is almost nothing worse than White ‘racism’. Such ‘spiritual’ thinking dominates among even smart and serious journalists because humans are naturally spiritual, which means even secular types must BELIEVE in something. So, if too many blacks act badly, rational and critical thinking on the matter is nearly impossible. Reason wilts before the heat of spirituality. So, what is to be done when too many blacks act badly? First, the facts themselves are problematic because they go against the Sacred Narrative. Instead of pondering those facts and asking if the Official Narrative itself is fundamentally flawed, most people stick with the Narrative and either try to suppress the evidence or spin it to maintain the aura of Negro holiness while blaming it all on ‘racists’. So, if too many blacks act badly, the main problem is not with black behavior but with ceding credence to the claims of evil ‘racists’ that undermines the Sacro-Narrative. Therefore, if blacks steal too much, we shouldn’t pressure blacks to change their ways but lament how such deeds are tarnishing the Magic Negro image while giving ammo to evil ‘racists’ who’ve long maintained that blacks are more prone to violent, criminal, and transgressive behavior resulting from evolution.

A rational and critical order would formulate its general views and impressions of reality based on facts and evidence, but most social orders have sacro-narratives than hard facts as foundations of self-perception and worldview. The US Narrative, especially the one arising after WWII, says noble and magical blacks were enslaved and mistreated by evil white ‘racists’, and therefore, the US can be redeemed only by the ascension of the Negro. One can understand the appeal of such a Narrative given US history, but facts say black aggression and criminality are rooted in black genetics that formed over 100,000s of years of evolution. But as the Narrative > Facts, most of bad black behavior is blamed on history of ‘racism’ without the slightest inkling that maybe the ‘racists’, while wrong and extreme about some things, were indeed right about some other things.

And then, there are the holy homos. What was the main cause of the HIV crisis? We know why. Facts say homos bung-donged each other in bathhouses all over the West(and the Rest) and spread HIV like a wildfire. In other words, sodomy is one helluva way to spread disease and, furthermore, homos tend to be impulsive and excessive in their lusts and lewd behavior. Facts say homos are born homo and that we should accept this fact. But facts also say homos are weird and tutti-fruity, often vain and narcissistic to a pathological degree, and whoopity-poopity-doo, and such ‘gay’ sensibility can lead to lots of social problems and cultural decadence.
But no, the current dogma says homos are holy, and the HIV thing must be remembered as something akin to the 'Homocaust' where homos were just pure angelic innocent victims of an uncaring society. Young ones have been told, "It was hate and lack of compassion(than overly ripe 'love' among homos) that spread AIDS far and wide and killed all those homos." Yeah, never mind all the dongs up bungs. It’s incredible that homos, who did most to spread HIV and kill other homos, have been least blamed for the disease that has been, if anything, blamed on ‘uncaring’ conservatives. The current media are downright neo-victorian-repressive of certain facts just like Old Victorians were about sex. It’s as if all those homos died of some mysterious ‘homophobic’ disease that targeted holy homos for no reason. The biggest fairy-tale of all time. Once homo-worship became bigger than god and jesus in US culture and media, even so-called ‘conservatives’ dared not stand up to the ‘gay’ lobby. If anything, even churches began to cave and bend over to Anno Sodomini.

Now, does this mean that Jews, blacks, and homos are all bad or necessarily worse than others? No, it means that they, like all other human groups, have problems, serious failings, and dark tendencies. Same case can be made of Russians, Muslims, Japanese, Chinese, Anglos, Germans, and etc. After all, there is much about Germans and Japanese that are respected and admired the world over, but those positives don’t prevent us from looking at historical facts of German evil or Japanese lunacy. Every people can go bad, crazy, or evil. That’s why their darker tendencies need to be aired, exposed, and criticized. The German soul led to both Beethoven and Hitler. The Russian soul led to both deep spirituality and lazy barbarism. It’s fair game to contemplate the darker sides of the Russian national character, the German cult of the will, and the Japanese hive-mind. And Jews have spoken countless times about the hypocritical aspects of the Anglo character and the like. Without such push-back, a people are likely to grow more rotten and arrogant.

It’s like the prince-ling phenomenon. Inside every boy is an angel, a child, and a spoiled rotten brat. There is the good side, the all-too-human side, and nasty-vicious side. Some kids are naturally nicer than others, but no child is born perfect or holy. But suppose a child is treated like a prince-ling and doted on as the most wonderful kid in the whole wide world regardless of what he does. Suppose he’s treated like he’s something near-divine, like Puyi kid in THE LAST EMPEROR. What happens to the mind of that child? He turns into a spoiled brat and becomes utterly blind to how totally rotten he is… as with the kid in THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS who surely deserved comeuppance. Now, suppose adults around the kid look upon him as such a darling and angel, and therefore, everything he does is seen as either wonderful or somehow the fault of others(or the world) but never of the child. And if anyone just about had enough and calls out on it, he is seen as the villain for pricking the balloon of magic air. The result is like scenario in "It's a Good Life" of THE TWILIGHT ZONE.

Now, it may be that Jews, blacks, and homos are especially problematic for the 'extreme' innate qualities. Jews, with their higher IQ, pushier personality, acute neurosis, and Covenant-based worldview, have a tendency to be subversive, supremacist, and contemptuous. And blacks, due to their naturally thug-like tendencies and stronger muscles, are more prone to become criminals or bad boys or skankass biatches. And fruitkins, due to their tootsy ways, tend to be more vain, narcissistic, egotistical, and amoral than others. Still, one could name a host of positive characteristics of those groups as well, and besides, every human group has its pros and cons.

Then, the proper thing would be to have a honest fact-based discourse on Jewish Power, Black Problems, and Homo Predilections. At the very least, such fact-based discussion would counter or forestall the ‘sacralization’ of man and matter(of which Jews, blacks, and homos are a part), a stupid and dangerous thing to do as people and things should not be elevated to the status of gods or angels. Why did mankind get rid of monarchy? Because the king wasn’t just a leader but some kind of quasi-divine being whose power could not be questioned. Whether it was the old king or the new king(like Hitler or Stalin), such cult of personality led to megalomania among the rulers and ‘minimi-mania’ among the masses, who as sheep-like minions, were happy to love Big Brother.

So, if Jewish Power could be honestly criticized and countered when it goes wrong, it could do a lot of good in the world. Jews would come under pressure to be better and curtail the worse. But, the current cult of the Holy Jew prevents this. The result is ever greater megalomania among Jews and ever more ‘minimi-mania’ among goy sheeple. Just look at both Democrats and Republicans sucking up to Jews like minions before an emperor. As for homos, they've contributed much to human civilization with their creative gifts in arts and culture, and as homos will always be with us, they can go on doing much that is good for humanity. But with the current globo-homo madness, homo megalomania or homogalomania has gotten totally out of control. Instead of ‘gay’ creativity adding to human culture, we have excessive homo vanity and degeneracy defining what is left of Western Civilization, and it is an ugly sight.

But even the best journalists, because they’ve been indoctrinated since cradle with Holy-Schmoly Jew-Negro-Homo worship, are unwilling to ponder the real sources of the problems facing the West: The rot and decay emanating from Jews-blacks-homos gone bad due to the ‘sacralization’ of their identities. A person or a people are at their worst when he or they get everything he or they want. Look what happened to Michael Jackson when he could do whatever he pleased. Same with Elvis before him. Look at the Nazis at their height of power. And look what’s become of the US as the lone superpower, the thug-scum a**hole of the world. But same applies within any order. Consider ridiculous Kim clan of North Korea. All that cult of power and worship went to their heads and have done incalculable harm to the nation.

Even though the West is still politically and socially free in many respects, it isn’t ‘spiritually’ free because the cult of Jew-Negro-Homo worship has imprisoned the Western mind/soul in blind worship of certain groups as if they’re divine and holy. It’s like one can be physically free but mentally owned by another. A man can be under the spell of a woman he adores so much that he acts like her dog and obeys all her commands. In time, such mental imprisonment eventually turns into physical imprisonment as well because the woman can tell him to go to the basement, hand over the key, and lock the door. Being a mental slave, he will likely obey even though not physically forced to. And then, when he's locked up and hands over the keys, his mental enslavement has turned into physical enslavement.

Indeed, consider how the mental imprisonment of the white race is leading to its physical imprisonment. While Jews don’t own whites as chattel-slaves, Jews do own the minds/souls of whites via the cult of Shoah Worship, 'white guilt', and the like. As whites are so mentally beholden to Jews, they just nod along and go along at every turn even as every Jewish request chips away at white freedoms and security. More mass-immigration and more Diversity? If Jews want it, it must be holy, so never mind that it’s leading to White Nakba. Jews want more ‘hate speech’ laws to shut down BDS and ‘white supremacist’ defiance of Jewish Power? Well then, the FBI must be called to track down sentiments such as “It’s Okay to be White”, and the courts must allow more and more prohibition of free speech. With less and less free speech and more and more non-white immigrants who vote Democratic and support gun-control and speech-suppression, white people will go from mental prisoners to physical prisoners.

If Homos Can't Help Being Homos, Normos Can't Help Being Normos — Therefore, Just Like Homos Should Be Left Alone to be Homo, Normos Should Be Left Alone to be Normo

We've all heard a million times that homos(and even trannies) are born that way, and nothing can be done about it. Even if we compel homos to repress their own deviant form of sexuality, it still impacts the way they feel, think, and act, especially on 'sexual' matters but in other areas of life as well. There was a time when most people adhered to the reigning religious, medical, psychological, and/or ideological explanations of homosexuality. Religious authorities said it was sinful, very likely soul-corruption by the Devil. Medical community regarded it as some kind of disease of the mind and glands. Certain schools of psychology deemed homosexuality as the result of childhood trauma. Ideologies on the Right regarded homosexuality as a subversive attack on society, and ideologies on the Left regarded it as the product of decadence & degeneracy as part and parcel of late-stage capitalism. It wasn't all that long ago when virtually all sectors of society regarded homosexuality with negativity and hostility. Even up to the 80s, it wasn't unusual for Liberal Hollywood to associate homosexuality with psychopathy and villainy, as in the Kevin Costner action movie NO WAY OUT(1987). There were also movies like WINDOWS, DRESSED TO KILL, and CRUISING that featured the dark & obsessive side of homosexuality. WINDOWS(written by Barry Siegel and directed by Gordon Willis) starred Talia Shire playing opposite a mad lesbian who will go to any lengths to own and control her. (In the original story idea, the psycho was a tranny.) Brian De Palma's DRESSED TO KILL featured a tranny as a serial killer. In William Friedkin's CRUISING, the victims are homos but so is the killer(s). Even though none of these movies go out of their way to condemn homosexuality or transvestites per se, there's a sense that individuals thus afflicted tend to be possess strange hangups or excessive neurosis. And of course, one of the biggest movies of the 1990s, SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, had a tranny as a psycho-killer.



Given that sexual complex has often been used as the underlying motive for crazy, dangerous, or malevolent behavior in fiction — the murder in Otto Preminger's LAURA, repressed sexual memory in Alfred Hitchcock's MARNIE, the mad quest in THE GRADUATE, the attack on the prostitute in THE UNFORGIVEN, the bitter jealousy in RUSHMORE, the ugly tall man in MANHUNTER, and etc. — , it only seemed natural that storytellers would feature homosexuality or tranny-stuff as catalyst for neurosis, frustration, or strangeness that might trigger a chain reaction of horrors. Or, if homosexuality itself wasn't to blame, the burden was placed on the repression of homosexuality, as in AMERICAN BEAUTY where the reason for the abusive husband/father's fury & hostility turns out that he's really a homo who wants to suck dick. So, if many storytellers in the past used homosexuality or tranny-ness as the hidden motive behind anti-social, subversive, and/or dangerous behavior, later storytellers said the REAL problem derived from compelling homos and trannies to repress their true abnormal natures or 'abnature'(as homosexuality is 'abnatural' as it is abnormal, i.e. it is a part of nature to the extent that most homos were born that way BUT it deviates from the normal natural processes that make survival of organisms possible). Movies like AMERICAN BEAUTY and BOYS DON'T CRY suggested that what homos need to do is come out of the closet and embrace their true nature or 'abnature'. Then, they will be free of neurosis and will be honest with themselves and those around them, and it will be better for society as a whole since people will accept the reality of homosexuality — that some people are indeed born that way — and stop pretending that EVERYTHING and EVERYONE must be normal.


Well, we've seen how that theory played out. It's hard to think of another as wrong, but then, those who knew of the true homo nature warned us time and time again. It should be obvious to all by now that homos(and trannies) are NOT satisfied with mere social tolerance, individual rights, and acceptance of their 'abnature', namely that most Americans came to realize that most homos were born that way and it'd be as difficult to turn a homo into a normo as it would be to turn a normo into a homo. I can't imagine a real-sexual normal guy being conditioned to prefer men over women — though it may work in a few cases — , and it seems homos with their 'abnatural' predilections can't help being 'gay' either.
Now, some still argue that homosexuality must be conditioned than inborn because so many homos claim to have been molested as children. But the notion that childhood trauma can alter one's entire sexual proclivity for the rest of one's life sounds too much like a crackpot variation of Freudianism. Also, one wonders whether homos in their youth were really molested or invited such attention from older homos. According to Milo, he initiated the flirtation with an older man(a priest it turns out). And according to George 'Too Gay' Takei, he really got a kick out of being fondled and who-knows-what-else by his older adviser in the Boy Scouts. So, it is likely that homo kids tend to be sexually more voracious/adventurous and invite, by means subtle and not-so-subtle, sexual advances from older people; but when they grow up, they act like they were pure-as-snow victims, as when Milo changed his story from one where he was the seducer-predator to one where he was the hapless victim. One thing for sure, even if there are a good many homos who claim to have been molested as children, there are many homos who were never molested but are nevertheless 'flaming' in every way. Also, science tells us that we can often spot a fruitkin by his facial features and manner of speech. Science has shown that homos, far more than normos, tend to speak with a lisp and have girly voices. And when we look at a lot of homos, they tend to have a froolaloopidoopiness about them.

Anyway, once science established that most homos are born that way, it became less tenable for society to persecute or condemn them for what they didn't choose to be. They were 'chosen' that way by biology. And yet, most of society still understood homosexuality to be strange, deviant, and even perverse, especially as it involves men who indulge in homo-fecal-penetration. Also, homosexuality is often associated with a host of behavioral patterns that tend toward the obsessive, neurotic, hedonistic, vain, and/or nihilistic. To be sure, homosexuality comes with certain innate advantages in areas of design & craft. And some say that homosexuality is usually accompanied with few extra IQ points on average. But the CORE of homosexuality centers on a certain kind of 'sexual' proclivity, and objectively speaking, it cannot be good. After all, two vaginas grinding together isn't real sex and can never produce life. As for homo men doing sodomy, that is objectively gross and medically unsafe as it involves a sex organ penetrating a fecal organ. Gross.
So, even if society had to come to terms with the 'abnatural' fact of homosexuality, it still upheld a negative and dark perspective on such behavior. After all, science now seems to indicate that pedophilia is also a 'born' trait, which is why it is so difficult to reform and rehabilitate child molesters who can't help feeling their sick kind of desire. The closet-pedo father in Todd Solondz's HAPPINESS risks EVERYTHING to bugger his son's friend; despite the risk and perhaps even the realization that it's morally wrong, he still couldn't help himself. So, does that mean pedophilia is okay since some people are 'born that way'? Science also indicates that some people have greater natural tendency to be gluttons or alcoholic, but people still don't think pigging out or getting drunk is worthy of praise, let alone celebration, because it's so 'natural' or 'abnatural' with some people. There was a sane and serious time when society was willing to (1) accept the fact that most homos are 'born that way' but (2) nevertheless regard homosexuality as a deviance with a perverse streak. (Not only are some people born homo but such people tend to be far more risque about having multiple partners and experimenting in all kinds of excessive behaviors.) But, that compromise and consensus gradually and then dramatically faded as Jewish Power became absolutely predominant in the US(that controls all the West and most Westernized nations) and chose to use globo-homo-mania as substitute neo-cult for Christianity and proxy for promoting minority-elite-supremacism that would so nicely complement Jewish minority-elite-supremacism. If recent history taught us anything, it is that Jewish Hostility + Media & Finance Monopoly + Think Tank Domination + Power of Celebrity + Most People as Sheeple + Controlled Opposition(as US Conservatives are intimidated dogs of Jewish Power) = Social Madness. The West went from accepting the fact that homosexuality is a naturally occurring deviance to celebrating, revering, and near-worshiping homosexuality(and even tranny stuff) as what might as well be the second coming of bejesus.

How could so many people, from educated elites to unwashed masses, from people on the 'left' to people on the 'right', so quickly fall for the Jewish snake-oil? This amazing truth about humanity is both exhilarating in its madness and dispiriting in its implications. One thing for sure, it totally destroyed the Conceit of Rationalism. It is now quite evident that even if rationalism is the ideal way, too many people are incapable of facing facts and knowing the truth. And too many people who do know the truth would rather not speak out lest they lose in the social competition for status. One thing for sure, individuals don't decide what is good or bad based on reasoning. Rather, the decision is made at the top by the elites and then disseminated by the mass media, via which the Jewish Message enters every private space via electronic devices. We purchase and own the hardware, but most of the sounds, images, and words have been created by Jews and those mentally colonized by Jewish Power.

Jewish Power has proven that one can fool the masses that 2 + 2 = 5. Not by demonstrating it is true mathematically but by associating the formula with fanfare, music, song & dance, and bedazzling stories of how those who believe 2 + 2 = 5 are so very cool, awesome, or 'inspiring'. This is how Jews pushed the tranny business. Honesty and good sense tell us that a man is NOT a woman simply because he insists he is, but so many have been led to believe otherwise because trannies are promoted with such affection, hype, and even reverence by the Jew-run media. So, 2 + 2 = 5 doesn't have to be proven to the people. It can be promoted as 'true' by emotional and sensory appeals, like a movie that makes us suspend disbelief and revel in the excitement of watching a caped hero flying over clouds. Meanwhile, the absolute truth of 2 + 2 = 4 can be made 'false' in the hearts of many. How? Again, never mind that it can be proven true and instead associate it with negativity, such as spreading the message that 4 is a 'hate number' or having hacks as 'experts' all saying in 'unison' that 4-as-answer has been debunked and only BAD people still believe it. It's like Conservatism Inc. will not answer pointed and valid questions about the impact of demographic transformation on the American political landscape and about the duplicitous & often hypocritical role of Jewish Power in American narrative and politics. Unwilling to deal with facts, Con Inc merely goes about smearing such manner of inquiry as 'racism', 'Nazis', or 'Antisemitism'. If emotional/sensual appeals can fool so many people with the pseudo-science that a man can be a 'woman', then the same can be done to make people favor 2 + 2 = 5 over 2 + 2 = 4. It is distressing to believe that people can be so stupid, but that's humanity for you. If Jews did us one favor in the 21st century, it was in exposing how utterly stupid(or craven) most people can be.

Anyway, homos and their supporters have argued that, because homos are born-that-way and can't do anything about it, all good and reasonable people should accept the 'abnatural' facts of homosexuality and stop regarding homosexuals as willfully immoral degenerates. (Granted, if the natural inclination is nevertheless deviant and prone to danger, it should be the moral obligation of those who are afflicted to curb, restrain, or at least moderate their behavior, a lesson all too neglected in the homo community that is so vain and narcissistic — common traits among homos — that it never faced up to its responsibility in the HIV epidemic that killed so many fruitkins. That said, it seems the HIV epidemic had an effect on the homo community similar to the effect of drugs & radical violence on the Counterculture. Those most prone to abuse of drugs and political violence either burned out or were weeded out by circumstances, leaving the more cautious, organized, and bureaucratic radicals to take power. Similarly, it seems the HIV epidemic weeded out the most brazen & adventurous 'cowboy' homos, thus handing the leadership of the Community to the 'accountant' homos.) If homos are born-that-way and can't help it and if, for that very reason, we must make peace with homos and accept the facts of how they feel and behave, then the same demand must be made from the normo-sexual or real-sexual side. Just like it's impossible to turn a homo sincerely into a normo by therapy or some treatment — though, to be sure, progs keep telling us 'gender' is a social construct and not based on biology — , it's impossible to change a normo-sexual's true feelings about homosexuality. Sure, under heavy dose of indoctrination, propaganda, and intimidation(especially with loss of job & status), normos can be browbeaten into praising and even celebrating homosexuality and tranny-ness. Especially as people are loathe to admit they conformed or consented to something out of cowardice, the cucked normos often go out of their way act the 'more evolved' true-believer in globo-homo, just like John McCain, a pathetic dog of Zionist power, went out of his way to convince himself that he really and truly believed there is no greater honor than kissing the Jew's ass and sucking his cock.

Still, the fact that the Power feels a need to push globo-homo 24/7 suggests it knows that, minus the endless conditioning and propagandizing, most normos will eventually revert to the natural tendency to regard homos and trannies as weirdo deviants, freaks, or even degenerates worthy of derision. We know from history that tremendous anti-homo social pressure compelled most homos throughout the ages to either hide their sexual orientation or repress it as best they could, which would be like an natural alcoholic or glutton trying desperately to convince himself that he doesn't want a drink or another serving of cake. Throughout history, many homo men and homo women remained in the closet and led seemingly normal lives... just like in our time, so many normos keep their true feelings about homos hidden in the cabinet and pretend to be so hip and cool with globo-homo. It is here that the 'rainbow' flag has been so useful to the Agenda.
After all, people automatically visualize everything, and if there wasn't a potent deflective 'gay' symbol, a visual shield, as the main focus of our attention, most normos thinking of homosexuality, pro or con, would form images of guys sucking each other off or porking each other in the ass. Even for normos sympathetic to the homo agenda, it wouldn't be very pleasant for them to visualize homosexuality in terms of blowjobs and sodomy among fruiters. But if there is a colorful and happy symbol associated with homos and trannies, one need not think of penis-up-the-poopchute or a doctor slicing off a penis to mold a fake 'vagina'. Indeed, nowadays, so many fools seem to think homosexuality and tranny-business are all about fanfare with happy 'gay' colors. Consider the advertisement for food with 'gay' colors. No sane normo wants to think about homo-fecal penetration or tranny penis cutting while he's eating, but so many people purchase 'gay'-colorized food products because they think being 'homo' is mainly about these bright and sassy colors.

That way, one can nibble on 'rainbow-homosher'(the new kosher) oreo cookies while pretending that one is celebrating happy colors than an orientation involving guys sucking cocks and doing homo-fecal-penetration on each other. People are so easily fooled by packaging. For example, why do women spend so much money on clothing and hair-dressing? Because they think a different outward presentation will make them beautiful. Consider all those big fat black women who think they will be sexy if they get nails done in some exotic way. Or how their children will be special with 'creative' names like Mo'nique, Skankisha, and Bitchasshope.

Now, the argument that normos should put forth is as follows: Just as Homos cannot help feeling their 'abnatural' desires because, after all, they were only born-that-way, we must accept the fact that Normos can't help feeling the way they do about homosexuality and tranny-stuff because they were born-that-way. Normos have a natural revulsion, distaste, disgust, and attitude-of-ridicule about homosexuality and tranny-stuff. Just as it was cruel to force homos to reject their true homo self and pretend to be 'normal' out of fear of social opprobrium or worse, it is cruel, repressive, and corrupting to force normos to pretend that they are really hip and cool with a form of pseudo-sexuality involving homo-fecal-penetration or tranny-penis-cutting by Frankenstein Medicine. What is most cruel, ugly, and vile is the defamation that natural normo-sexual feelings about homosexuality or tranny-stuff are 'homophobic' or 'transphobic'. No, phobia is a medical term that means panicked reaction and extreme fear/dread of something harmless and safe. Normo-sexuals are naturally and rationally turned off by homosexuality that is sexually useless and physically gross. There is nothing phobic about such reaction. Just as people are grossed out by people eating feces, normo-sexuals find it gross that some men would have 'sex' by inserting their penises into the poopholes of other men. And when normo-sexuals honestly ponder what really happens at a 'sex reassignment' surgery, of course they would be freaked out.

Why wouldn't they be when it involves mutilation of a perfectly healthy organ to make for an ugly-looking fake 'vagina', especially one that smells like poop? If there is any phobia in our culture, it is Normo-Phobia that has inverted all sane, natural, and rational modes of humanity. We are to believe that men buggering one another or cutting off genitals is about PRIDE; in contrast, normo-sexuals or real-sexuals finding homosexuality or tranny-business to be odd, perverse, deviant, gross, or laughable are said to be suffering from a 'phobia'. It'd be like saying "Drinking urine is worthy of pride BUT those who express disgust over it are showing signs of phobia, or pissdrinkophobia to be exact." (By the way, if progs really believe that people with anti-homosexual feelings are 'homophobic' or suffering from a medical condition, they should show sympathy for them because people who suffer from phobias can't help themselves. If indeed 'homophobia' is a real phobia, then the affected are as helpless as those with arachnophobia, acrophobia, or ophidiophobia, extreme fear of all snakes, even harmless ones. But even as progs accuse anti-'gay' people of being inflicted with a 'phobia', they BLAME them of moral failings. But if people who oppose the 'gay' agenda are truly sick in the head, they should not be blamed for what would be a clinical malady.) The fact is real-sexuals normally feel a natural revulsion toward homosexuality and find stuff like tranny-business to be ridiculous. Just like homo men can't help wanting to suck each other's cock and bugger each other's ass, real-sexuals cannot help feeling queasy about what homos and trannies do. This is NOT a phobia of any kind. Nearly ALL normo-sexuals or real-sexuals don't have panic attacks or freak out over someone being homo. Instead, what they feel is a naturally derisive sense that the homo guy is either too effete/pansy for a man or that he indulges in gross pseudo-sexual acts.

Normality naturally favors the conventional, the standard, the usual. Now, there are exceptions. Beauty is rare, and normal people who are neither ugly or beautiful but average in looks prize beauty like precious gold. Elite athletic ability and high intelligence are also rare, and normal people admire the naturally gifted who happen to be far stronger or smarter than the average. (It could be, precisely because most people aren't exceptional in intelligence, looks, or athleticism, they now seek to be special in ways that are far more accessible, such as tattoos, piercings, and green-colored hair. If you can't be outstanding, be stand-outish.) Even so, normality generally prefers what is common and familiar, and this explains the penchant for certain negative attitudes even toward those with prized traits. For example, the overly big and strong person has often been caricatured as 'moose', more beast than man. And beautiful women have often been associated with vanity, vapidity, narcissism, self-absorption. Most people aren't rich and would love to have more money, but there is also the negative caricature of uber-rich people as snobby, stuck-up, crass, greedy, and soulless. And even as we admire intelligence, we can't get enough of the negative stereotype of the 'aspergy' geek or nerd who is all brains & bundle of neurosis and no body & life. Though 'fag' is now a dirty word, 'geek' and 'nerd' are not, and stereotypes of such are commonplace. Justified or not, the normal feels a certain disdain even for people with rare gifts, abilities, or good fortunes that most people would like to have. There is a sense that, in having those 'extreme' qualities, the 'special' people have become walking-talking caricatures than well-rounded people. Consider the cult of the artist that is both positive and negative. There is the romantic notion that, being different and special, he's devoted his entire life(and even sanity and health) toward creating a great work of art for the ages. But there is also the perception of self-indulgence, madness, and sickly obsession to attain, via a Faustian pact, the creative power of the gods.
Now, if normal people could feel naturally negative feelings about positive and much-prized traits, just imagine what they might feel for extreme manifestations of negative, useless, and/or harmless traits. If even great beauty or intelligence can be objects of mockery, imagine how most people naturally feel about extreme ugliness or extreme retardation. Now, out of kindness, most normal people, being decent ladies and gents, will not go out of their way to mock ugly or dumb people. Most of us take pity on the main character of ELEPHANT MAN and harbor no ill feelings toward the mentally retarded. But most normal people don't want to be around hideously ugly people and don't want to be friends with seriously low-IQ people. Likewise, for most normal people, homosexuality and tranny-stuff seem like extremes in negativity. We know that not all men are masculine, but certain froopy-doop tootkins are off-the-charts in pansy manners. And trannies who are men-pretending-to-be-women just look ridiculous.


And the idea of a fake 'vagina' is gross to most people, which is why even PC-addled proggy men who say all the token 'woke' things will NOT date or have 'sex' with trannies. They can tell themselves that a 'woman' can have a penis or that an artificially created 'vagina'(via Frankenstein medical surgery) is just as good as a real vagina, but something elemental in their nature says "NO, that is freaky as hell... Ewwwww." Just like people feel a natural revulsion toward gluttonous people who are grossly obese or lazy unkempt people who are overly filthy, people naturally disdain homosexuality and tranny-stuff that come across as extremes in negativity. It's one thing for men to have some feminine traits but to the extent that fruitkins do? It's one thing for men to dress a bit pretty and look elegant but put on a wig, wear makeup, and put on female dresses & high heel shoes? When confronted with such, most normal people feel revulsion or ridicule(that often turns into laughter). And such response among normo-sexuals is natural, no less than it is 'abnatural' for a homo to want to suck dongs and take them up his anus. If the natural feelings of homos are so overwhelming that it's near-impossible for them to refrain from blatantly odd(and even harmful) behavior such as 'cock-sucking' and homo-fecal-penetration(and even fisting in some cases), then we shouldn't demand that normo-sexuals refrain from natural feelings of revulsion & disdain about homosexuals and trannies. If it's unhealthy for homos to repress their true nature and keep it all bottled up, it's equally unhealthy for normo-sexuals to deny their true nature and self-censor honest responses to what they deem to be odd, strange, and deviant.

Now, a compromise has been possible whereby homosexuals do their own thing in their own space while normo-sexuals express their naturally negative feelings about homosexuality in their own space. There is no need for normo-sexuals to insult homosexuals as 'fags' and the like, but there is also no need for homos and trannies to demand that normo-sexuals honor, praise, celebrate, and even revere the attitudes and behaviors of homos and trannies as quasi-spiritual and 'rainbow'-like. But under the current Jewish Supremacist rule over the West, we don't have a sound compromise that is possible. The diva-like homo/tranny character, being naturally vain and narcissistic, isn't content with tolerance and mutual recognition with the other side. Rather, homos want to hog the stage of culture, politics, and even spirituality and present themselves as something akin to a quasi-race-of-angels. Therefore, they no longer just want their own spaces to do their homo things. They want to take over all public spaces, schools, banks, businesses, governments, and even churches to spread what could only be called Homomania or Queertianity.
Of course, homos(and especially trannies) on their own couldn't have accumulated such power in a million years. But having the full backing of venal Jews, the most powerful people in the world with control of finance, media, and much else, homos have been able to pull off an idolatrous neo-satanic takeover of Western culture, politics, and even spirituality(as so many churches fly the homo flag, as if indeed Jesus died so that His followers could celebrate sodomy and tranny-penis-cutting). As a result, even though we are told that it's cruel, unjust, and dishonest to force homos to repress their true nature of being homos, we are also forced to believe that real-sexuals must repress their own normal and natural feelings about homos and trannies on account that such are 'unnatural', 'irrational', and downright 'phobic'. So, while homos are so naturally homo that they can't help being 'gay', we are to believe that normos have harbored anti-homo feelings all through the ages AGAINST their own 'normal' nature.
In other words, current PC says it's natural and (new)normal for normos to have the most positive feelings about homos and trannies. To shore up their specious line of 'reasoning', PC commissars may point to the current West and remark how so many normos now celebrate homosexuality, but that is to totally ignore the fact that (1) most of the world media are controlled by venal Jews (2) people, young and old, have been bombarded with endless homo propaganda via education, entertainment, and advertising, and (3) Jews and their cuck-commissars have created means of purging and lawfare whereby anyone who deviates from the current dogma and 'idology' is swiftly smeared, character-assassinated, demoted, blacklisted, and/or fired.
Therefore, even though so many people seem happy-crazy about 'gay' stuff, it's really part of a ceaseless campaign of artificially manufactured hype, euphoria, and fear-mongering. History has shown that such madness isn't difficult to achieve IF the power is concentrated in certain hands. Consider the mass mania of Germany that blindly worshiped Adolf Hitler that drove them to ruin. Or consider the madness of Maoism that once engulfed the entire nation. Or consider the nutball lunacy of North Korea with its mindless displays of pageantry to sustain the mythic grandeur of the Kim clan. Looking back, we may one day wonder, how could so many seemingly normal people have been so duped and swayed into such feverish stupidity? We like to pride ourselves for living in a democracy with freedom and rational thinking, but most hearts and minds are shaped by slogans, mantras, idolatry, and dogmas pushed by institutions and industries that are really about concentration of power and control.

Now, some homos may object to the notion that homosexuality amounts to a negative extreme like obesity. Homos could argue that while there is nothing good to be said about obesity, there is much to be credited to homosexuality. For example, even though Orson Welles, Jean Renoir, and Sergio Leone were great film-directors, their success probably owed nothing to their considerable girths. There have been many successful fatty-fatkins, but it'd be quite a stretch to attribute their talents to their appetites. However, the same cannot be said of tooty-tookins. While most homos are hardly special in talent, there have been too many remarkable homos in the arts, design, fashion, music, and letters to dismiss the possibility of a link between homosexuality and certain kinds of creativity. And therein lies the difference between obesity and homosexuality. While some people have much bigger natural appetites than most people do — just like homos have a natural leaning to be fruity — the achievements of successful fatsos probably have nothing to do with their massive craving for More Food.

Thus, the (lack of)worth of obesity can be judged by its most obvious external manifestation. A fatso is fat, and that isn't good, and he should lose some weight. In contrast, there is MORE to homosexuality than its obviously grotesque and gross behavioral manifestation in the 'sexual' arena that involves fecal penetration and a generally nihilistic surrender to depravity. If such were the ONLY feature of homosexuality, we could dismiss it as a mere sexual deviance that leads to perverted behavior. But apparently, homosexuality has connections with certain brain functions and allows for nimbler use of fingertips. And this has led to homos making considerable contributions to the arts, letters, and design. Also, as homos are not burdened by family — even with 'gay marriage' as law of the land, most homos don't have children — , they can work 24/7, something impossible for men and women who seek to balance work and family. That means homos have created lots of things of great appeal to countless straight people and have been especially committed to tirelessly working as advisers and managers. And that means they've accumulated a great deal of cultural capital, social capital, connections with powerful people, and insider knowledge. Thus, there is more to being a tooty-tootkin than a fatty-fatkin. While, outwardly speaking, homosexuality does seem gross and grotesque to many/most honest normo-sexuals, there is no denying that there are facets and permutations of being 'gay' that have led to considerable and even crucial contributions to civilization and power.
In that light, we can understand why homos in the past felt so frustrated. They, as closeted fruits, made many contributions to society but hardly got the credit. So many normo-sexuals with disdain and hostility toward homosexuals were actually enjoying and/or benefiting from the fruits of talented homos. Also, most normos felt they were benefiting from the achievements of straight people since most homos remained in the closet and pretended to be straight. Homos felt like Cyrano de Bergerac. They made the poetry but the credit went to someone else. (Some even say 'Shakespeare' was a mere front for a genius homo playwright.) Therefore, unless homos came out of the closet and declared their talents, they would never get the credit and respect that they really deserved.

And yet, paradoxically enough, in our age when Homos have not only come out of the closet but out of the bedroom into the streets with their homo-stalinist banners, their creativity has mostly turned to trash. Perhaps, the formula for homo success wasn't simply innate homo talent but the social repression of homosexuality. In other words, too much of a good thing is a bad thing. Consider what black self-indulgence did to black musical culture. In an earlier cultural climate, homos felt a need to mold and channel their natural narcissism and vanity in service of something broader and deeper than "I'm so gay and pretty." After all, what makes a great actress isn't simply beauty and/or acting chops but the willingness to subsume her own considerable ego into an empathetic portrayal of another character. Thus, even as she is indeed feeding her own ego as a star(or star-wanna-be), she is also restraining and remolding her own ego in service to a portrait of another person. After all, nothing would be more boring and insufferable than an actress whose entire shtick is "Look at me, I'm pretty, I can show off all kinds of emotions." Julianne Moore was just awful in MAGNOLIA with a look-at-me performance. When homos were closeted, it was unfair that they didn't get the credit they deserved, but their creativity was enriched, deepened, and even ennobled by serving something far greater than a narrow bandwidth of ego or group identity. In our time, homos seem to do little but use their creativity to fill TV shows & movies with endless(and often irrelevant or gratuitous) homo propaganda; or much of the energy seemed devoted to making yet more advertisements about how we should consume Oreo cookies and guzzle Sprite soda because they are so 'woke' with globo-homo hysteria. So, when homos can be openly creative, they are actually less creative, or at least less meaningfully creative.

Anyway, one thing is for sure. Even if there is more to homosexuality than sodomy and poon-to-poon-grinding, its most defining feature and characteristic are not good and cannot be good. There is absolutely nothing good about homo-fecal-penetration, which is gross, disease-prone, and disgusting. As for poon-to-poon-grinding, while not physically gross from a clinical angle, it makes zero sexual sense. To the extent that most normo-sexuals are not interested in arts & culture(in which closeted homos played a key role in the past) and have a more basic and elemental understanding of humanity, they have every reason to be psychologically and physically put off by homosexuality. After all, if you asked any guy, "How would you like to have someone stick his dick up your ass?", his natural, normal, and healthy response is going to be, "What the fuc* are you, some kind of a faggot?" Indeed, what do normo-sexual men fear most about ending up behind bars? There's a good chance that their bungs will be torn apart by Negro dongs. Of course, if Milo ends up behind bars, he will probably have the time of his life. Now, is it 'homophobic' for normo-sexual men to be so put off by thoughts of homo behavior? Of course not. It's a healthy, natural, normal, and rational reaction(and defensive mechanism) to something that is so obviously gross and grotesque. Humans are naturally empathetic — the ability to put oneself in another's shoes — , and when normo-sexual men try to imagine themselves as fruiters being rammed in the ass or ramming their dongs inside the poopchutes of other men, their immediate natural reaction is Ewwwwww and for good reason. So, let homos be 'gay' since they were born-that-way, and let normos be 'nay' in their naturally visceral dislike of homosexuality. There used to be such an understanding/compromise, but today, homos and trannies are encouraged to strut their stuff in the streets and even in the presence of young school-children, whereas even the slightest negativity expressed by normo-sexuals on the matter of homosexuality leads to rabid hysteria, witch-hunts, and mania to tar-and-feather the heretic who then must be burned at the stake for all to see to send the message loud-and-clear that we must all worship globo-homo as the proxy of Jewish Supremacist Power.

Diagnosing Diversity as a Disease — Diversititis vs Diversinoma — Coping with Diversititis — Surviving & Overcoming Diversinoma

We’ve all heard the mantra "Diversity is our strength" or DIOS countless times. We’ve heard it from the media, academia, politicians, and officials. We’ve heard it from high and low, from the richest people and the most powerful people, and from the average Joe on the street. This is hardly surprising because most people are sheeple and merely repeat the talking points that come from above. Most people just chant slogans than think about anything carefully or critically. Most 'conservatives' and 'liberals' need others to do the defining and deciding for them. While they may have naturally conservative or liberal instincts, they lack ideological deftness to formulate their own positions. They must be told what is worth 'conserving' or what is worth 'changing'.
As DIOS is the official chant of the hour, so many people just follow along.

But DIOS has been especially ubiquitous because BOTH sides chant the mantra despite the fact that it undermines the interests of many segments of both political parties. For the GOP, Diversity in the form of cheaper ‘immigrant’ labor may be good for business, big and small, but as most non-white mass-invaders vote Democratic, it spells doom for the Republican Party in the long run. Also, if the US becomes overpopulated with non-whites, it will no longer be the historically European-American nation that it was founded and developed to be.
As for the Democratic Party, more mass-invaders is an electoral plus. However, it has been devastating to the American Working Class as endless pools of cheap labor depress wages and the power of Organized Labor. Also, blacks come under increased competition from mass-invaders who find it easy to outperform blacks in everything except sports, rapping, and government jobs(for which blacks get special hiring preferences).
And even though non-white mass-invaders will gain materially from America in the short-run, they will eventually become race-mixed, deracinated, and confused mass of consumers with no sense of history or culture.

The fact is most gentiles don’t have a strong sense of identity and heritage. The only reason they have a sense of who they are is because they happen to be surrounded by people of similar race and culture in a particular piece of land. It’s more an identity based on condition than consciousness. For example, a Japanese in Japan feels Japanese because he is surrounded by people who look like him, speak the same language, and share the same manners & habits. Being Japanese is not something he thinks about or defines him. It is conditional to his existence in a nation called Japan. But if he were to move to another nation in which he is a minority, he will be surrounded by new conditions and gradually adapt to those until his sense of Japanese-ness is virutally gone.
It may well be true that Jews are the only people with a conscious, as opposed to merely conditional, identity. After all, most ethnic groups who came to the US soon became just ‘Americans’. Most Americans of German ancestry don’t know German language or much about German history. They are just ‘Americans’. This also goes for most Americans of Polish, Hungarian, Italian, Greek, Japanese, or etc. ancestry. Their ancestral identity has no meaning in America because they think and feel conditionally than consciously. Indeed, even Anglo-Americans, the very people who founded and developed the US, have lost their conscious sense of who they are... and this bug has spread to Great Britain itself, where the New Normal of National Identity is to ‘include’ Africans, Pakistanis, Arabs, and Chinese as fellow Britons.

In contrast, the Covenant instilled Jews with a conscious sense of identity. Their identity has been conceptualized, made portable, and spiritualized. Thus, the primal sense of Jewish blood has been linked to ancient history, continuity, and destiny. And this is why Jews have maintained their identity against the greatest odds even in exile surrounded by gentiles. Despite the fundamental changes in social conditions that Jews faced in the Diaspora, Jews maintained their sense of who they were, are, and must be because their identity has been made conscious. And this is why Jews are bound to be less negatively affected by Diversity than other groups. While most gentile groups in the US just become deracinated, soulless, and confused consumers and materialists, the Jewish community(at least enough of them) will maintain their powerful sense of who they are on the conscious level.

Some might argue that Muslims and Hindus also have powerful identities, but Islam is not specific to a people. After all, anyone can convert to Islam. Thus, it lacks an ethnic core and consistency of Jewishness. As for Hindus, they are too much a people divided among themselves. This is why Jews feel more confident in navigating through a sea of diversity. While other groups grow more diluted and diffuse in identity amidst diversity, Jews possess a CONSCIOUS WILL to stick to their identity. Indeed, even as many Jews mix with other peoples, they ‘convert’ their spouses to Jewishness and raise the kids as Jews. Also, Jews don’t mix with low-IQ rabble but with high-IQ gentiles, and thus higher intelligence among gentiles is absorbed into the Jewish Power Network.

History of Jews demonstrates the power of Consciously Willed Identity, as opposed to mere Conditional Identity. An Hungarian surrounded by Hungarians feels Hungarian, but when is surrounded by non-Hungarians, he loses his Hungarian-ness and melds in with the new majority. In contrast, even when a Jew is removed from a Jewish environment and placed in a non-Jewish one, he is likely to retain his sense of who he is, where he came from, and why he must preserve his identity. Also, this Consciously Willed Identity is ‘democratic’ in the sense that it equally belongs to EVERY JEW, from the richest to the poorest. Jewish identity wasn’t owned by kings or elites but envisioned by Prophets and absorbed into the heart and mind of every Jew. In contrast, most gentiles relied on elites to define who they are. So, if the elites said, "We are all Christians now", the masses just followed. Or, if the elites said, "Britishness now means any African or Muslim who wants to feed off the fat of UK", the masses go along. In contrast, Jews don’t let the Jewish elites define what Jewishness is. Each Jew has a Consciously Willed Identity that is independent of elite formulations and manipulations. Alone among peoples and tribes, Jews gained in the power of identity when they were surrounded by gentiles. If the natural mode of history was for a people to become absorbed into the majority population, the Jews swam against this natural tide. Jews were like salmon that swims up against the stream to produce the next generation.

As Jews were a minority in most places, they could not have survived as a people & culture without an immense consciously willed identity. And this is why the Covenant was so crucial. It made Jewish identity not just ancestral, tribal, and territorial but spiritual. It was the sense that, wherever a Jew was in the world, he was blessed because of a unique connection to God, the maker of all the past, present, and future. So, if any people want to survive in the world awash in the tides of globalism, they need to formulate their own covenant. Without it, they will be conquered, absorbed, dispersed, and dissolved.

Anyway, it is now time to consider Diversity as a Disease. Such diagnosis wasn’t necessary in the past because diversity was limited and restricted in most of the West. Back then, a bit of diversity was seen as good for adding color, flavor, and stimulation. After all, what harm could a small number of Indians, Africans, or Arabs do in Paris or London? It added a bit of spice, a bit of variety and difference. And if diversity had been kept to such minimum, it would have been no problem. It would have been appreciated for adding a bit of accent to what is largely a united and ‘homogeneous’ society. It’s like a birthmark or even a scar can add a bit of character. Or even a tattoo, though I personally can’t stand them. The thing is, they don’t keep growing. A birthmark doesn’t get bigger and bigger. Scar doesn’t expand.
In contrast, the current Radical Diversity(or Inclusion) that has gripped the West is essentially cancerous. It keeps growing and growing. Just like cancer cells devour precious blood and spread to other parts of the body, Radical Diversity demands more and then more. There is no self-restraining mechanism that halts the process when it has reached a certain level. No, Radical Diversity insists on growing and growing until the original nation is forever dead and gone. In other words, Radical Diversity is hellbent on turning UK, France, Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Italy, and etc. into New Afro-Islamica.
Also, once something has been set in motion on a grand scale, its momentum is such that it can no longer be stopped even if elites want to stop them. Imagine poking more and more holes into the dam until the dam finally breaks. Then, there is no way to stop the torrent even if one wants to. On the matter of history, it’s not just a matter of material power but moral will. If the wall of Moral Will has been fatally compromised and broken, Material Power is useless to push against the hostile forces. And this is the problem of the West. In terms of manpower and material force, the West can still easily push back against the invasive tide from Africa and Muslim nations. White people have more than enough material power to take down the Jewish globalists who are orchestrating the Demise of the West. But the Moral Will is no longer there. The Moral Dam has been busted. The cult of ‘white guilt’ instilled into every white boy and girl by media, academia, and the state has rendered most white people wussy and weak in the face of invasion.
Also, as ‘white guilt’ has encouraged whites to hate whites, there is no white unity or solidarity against non-whites.

Moral Will is crucial. Why is it that in traditional societies, the bigger and stronger son takes the beating from the weaker and older father or patriarch? It’s because the advantage of Moral Will is with the elder. So, the younger man, though stronger, would feel ashamed and guilty to strike a blow against the older man. Jews know how this psychology works. They know that guilt-ridden whites dare not strike against the Jewish minority and non-whites. White people who fear being called ‘racist’ or ‘anti-Semite’ would rather take a beating from their Moral Superiors — Jews, blacks, ‘immigrants’, and homos according to PC — than fight back. So, Jews, blacks, homos, and non-whites have been able to get away with so much bad behavior in the West.
But Jews know that morality alone is boring. It’s not ‘cool’. So, they other way they used to break down the White Wall was with Funky Booty and Afro-Ramrod. Jews promote black female funky-booty-call to shake and bring down the White Jericho Wall. And the Negro Dong is promoted to turn white men into a white cucks and white women into ‘mudsharks’. In current France, UK, Sweden, and Germany, white women are so into jungle fever and white men are into such cuckish admiration of black manhood that whites ecstatically welcome ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. Emmanuel Macron says the future of Europe must be Eurafrica, whereby black Africans arrive to beat up weaker white men and hump white women and use white wombs to produce black babies.

Je suis un cuck. J'accueille les Africains à venir coloniser les utérus blancs.

Supposedly, white men should accept this because blacks are the Master Race. One might find this logic a bit weird since PC often says ‘race is a social construct’ and calls for equality. But always judge people and movements by what they DO than what they SAY. In terms of what is really happening, the future dynamics is Africa is the Male/Penis and Europe is the Female/Vagina. The current culture says white women should emulate black women and shake their buttocks as mating calls to black men.

So, the Western Wall against Diversity has been destroyed by both Moral manipulation and Sensual assault. Even though things are pretty dire in UK and France, white people still have the numbers and necessary materials to drive out the invaders and restore racial, cultural, and territorial integrity. But they are helpless to do anything about it because their Moral Will has been paralyzed.
In contrast, the Vietnamese and Algerians were materially disadvantaged vis-a-vis the French Colonists in their struggle for independence, but they fought on and eventually triumphed because they had Moral Will. They felt utterly righteous and justified in resisting and pushing back against the white imperialist-colonists. As such, they felt no qualms about using ANY MEANS NECESSARY(even assassinations and terrorism) to drive out the enemy. They understood the Maoist dictum, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." All orders seek peace and stability but were founded with Willed Violence.
Then, what is necessary in UK and France is for white natives to fight BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY to drive out the foreigners and Third World colonists. Also, it will be easier than it was for the Algerians and Viet Minh(and later Viet Cong) because whites have great material advantage over the foreigners in the West. The problem is lack of Moral Will because the West is no longer ruled by native elites but managed by cuck-collaborators of the EOJ or Empire of Judea. Jewish Globalists control the US that controls the EU, and they use European ‘leaders’ as comprador-collaborators to push what is essentially the Sorosian Plan of White Demise.

Europeans have been Puerto-Ricanized. They no longer feel any sense of national identity or unity. They just see themselves as faceless, colorless, and bloodless consumers of a vast empire of ‘diversity’, ‘inclusion’, ‘tolerance’, and other baby-talk charm-words. It is only when the native masses realize that they are not represented, defended, and served by genuine national elites but hoodwinked, manipulated, and led astray(to their own demise) by cuck-puppets of globalism that they many begin to wake up as scales fall from their eyes. The main responsibility of national leaders is to preserve and serve the people of the nation, not to have them invaded and replaced by foreigners. But look at Theresa May, Emmanuel Macros, and Angela Merkel. They all serve Jews who call on Europe to welcome Mass Invasion by Muslims & Africans and to be replaced by them. Imagine if Ho Chi Minh had been a lowlife puppet of the French, suppressed patriotic Vietnamese voices, and welcomed millions of Africans and Muslims to take over Vietnam. He would have been a lowlife piece of turd. Well, the ‘leaders’ of Current Europe are little more than pathetic cuck-dogs of the Empire of Judea.

Jews are master manipulators and know that it’s difficult to change a nation by brute force. If Jews had sent arms to Africans & Muslims and encouraged them to invade Europe, all of White Europe would have risen up and pushed back the invasion. So, how did Jews go about engineering the invasion of Europe? Jews spread Jungle Fever so that white women would be hankering for black men. And white boys, addicted to ‘black heroes’ in sports and rap, would come to believe that the ‘better men’, the Negroes, are more deserving of white women than white men are. Also, Jews gained control of media & academia and manipulated educated gentiles into believing that nothing is worse than ‘racism’. According to Jewish-controlled PC, ‘racism’ for whites could be ANY sense of identity, pride, and unity. Indeed, not only did Jews associate non-white Diversity with holiness but ‘pathologized’ any positive white feelings about being white as evil, sick, and ‘nazi’. If you can’t invade an Order with brute force, weaken it from the inside. Then, its defense mechanism will have been neutralized, and it can be easily invaded even by weak foreign bodies.

It’s like HIV. If the immune system goes, even minor germs can invade the body in huge numbers and bring about demise. The West is suffering from Civilizational AIDS. Judeo-Nazis buggered the West in the ass and transmitted the PC germ of anti-white HIV. Thus infected, the White National Polity is paralyzed of white identity, solidarity, territoriality, and pride. The very elites who should be, like Viktor Orban, working to defend and preserve the nation are working to favor the invasion of foreign bodies. It’s like a father of the house refusing to defend the home and his daughter but welcoming intruders and helping them hold down his daughter as she is raped. But Jews didn’t just target the elites but the masses. If Jews controlled elite minds through higher education, they controlled the masses through jungle fever. So, even if the white father tried to defend the house from marauders, the white daughter wants to open the backdoor to let them in so they can beat up her father and have orgies with her.
This is why the West is currently so hopeless. They still have the numbers and materials to hold back the Third World tide if they want to, but there is (1) No Moral Will to push back against the tide and (2) too much Sensual Addiction to Diversity(more restaurants) and Jungle Fever.

There are few things more frightening than Diversity-as-Cancer or Diversinoma. It is far worse than Diversititis, a condition that afflicts many nations with excessive diversity. The difference is a nation with Diversititis isn’t necessarily into having MORE diversity. It isn’t their national policy or something people worship as an ideal. Rather, it is a chronic condition that must be dealt with. Take Egypt, Indonesia, and India. All three suffer from Diversititis as there is too much diversity of races, tribes, clans, ethnic groups. But these nations are not calling for MORE Diversity. They have enough, and the main emphasis is making the best of a troubled and messy situation. Same goes for Iraq and Syria. Both nations have been torn asunder by diversity. Diversity-as-chronic-problem or Diversititis need not be fatal, but it’s one big headache. It’s like chronic backache. It won’t go away but with care can be managed. Or, it’s like Diabetes. It can’t be cured, but if one takes good care of oneself, a pretty decent life is possible. A person with backache doesn’t think MORE backache is good. A person with diabetes isn’t told to devour lots of sugar. Rather, they are told to manage it as a problem.
In contrast, the West is told that Diversinoma, the metastasizing cancer of Diversity, is the greatest thing in the world. Indeed, the fatal disease is sold by PC quacks as the magic cure. So, if the West is overcome with problems of Diversity, the PC cure is to have even MORE Diversity. It’s like telling a fat person that the cure to fatness is eating more food because the body burns calories to digest food. Never mind that all those digested calories add to more fat.

Well, it is time for us to say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. We must call out the quack social doctors of PC and properly diagnose Diversinoma as a fatal disease for ANY nation. Any nation that is committed to endless ‘immigration’ by foreigners will die. It’s pure and simple. The process may be fast or slow, but if foreigners keep coming and coming(especially when natives aren’t having many kids), the natives will be overrun by foreigners who will take over the land. It is simple math that any elementary school student can understand. If you keep pouring prune juice into a beaker of orange juice, the orange juice will eventually be altered and replaced by prune juice. Indeed, we need look no further than the fate of Palestine. Initially, a few Jews trickled in, and it seemed like restricted diversity that hardly posed a threat to Arabs/Palestinians. But as more and more Jews arrived, it began to dawn on Palestinians that they could be replaced and reduced to minority status living under the power of Jews. Control of demography is the #1 responsibility of a nation. The example of Palestine(that was turned into Israel) is textbook case of this. Today, Jews see all the West as just a big West Bank. If West Bank is to be taken over by Jews, the West is to be taken over by non-whites so that Jews can play divide-and-rule among goyim while they themselves hog most of the power, wealth, and narrative.

There are many nations around the world dealing with the problem of Diversititis. There is excessive diversity, and there are many divisions along racial, ethnic, or religious lines. But things may be tolerable if Diversity is maintained as a chronic condition. After all, longevity breeds familiarity even among different peoples. So, if a nation has a diverse population, but the various peoples have been there for a long while and have learned how to tolerate, interact, and even interbreed with one another, a kind of balance can be maintained. Switzerland, for instance, has three major groups, but they’ve co-existed in the same nation for so long that they know how to get along. Same with Flemish and Walloons in Belgium. But if large numbers of new peoples enter the nation, the balance could be upset. Same in nature. An eco-system has competing organisms, but over time, a kind of balance has resulted among the surviving species. But suppose a wholly new set of organism invade the system. Then, it may take a long time for a new balance will be attained(that may well lead to the demise of previously existing organisms).

Diversititis, though not ideal, can maintain a certain equilibrium. To be sure, even if new peoples don’t enter the system, the balance among various groups could be lost if one group outbreeds the other. Consider how blacks in South Africa vastly outbred the whites. And Muslims outbred Christians in Lebanon, thereby turning a once largely Christian Arab nation into a majority Muslim one. Thus, even Diversititis is always problematic.
In some cases, Diversititis can be resolved by breakup of the nation into smaller units. The breakup of the Soviet Union was perhaps the most spectacular version of this. Breakup of Yugoslavia, far more violent, was a smaller version of resolution to Diversititis by national breakup into smaller national units.

Initially, Diversinoma may hardly seem a problem. After all, non-white immigration seemed negligible and easily manageable in Europe in the 1950s and 1960s. One could also argue that immigration policy back then were not in Diversinoma mode. In other words, there wasn’t, as yet, an ideology that elevated endless non-white immigration as a moral imperative. Immigrants were allowed on two basic grounds: (1) to fill in for native labor shortage (2) non-white collaborators of the empire seeking sanctuary from violent reprisals by national liberators, e.g. Algerians who’d collaborated with the French feared persecution following Algerian Independence.
With the fading of European empires and economic stagnation by the early 70s, there was no more need for immigration from non-white nations. But it was at this point that the moral and cultural paradigm began to shift. Non-white immigrants came to be championed as having the moral right to enter the West. They were given the moral high ground over the natives. Why?
One reason was the rapid rise in the prestige of Jews. The idea of Jews as a Holy Holocaust People began to take hold in the 70s. While Nazism was vilified almost universally after WWII, there had been the useful myth of National Resistance against the Nazis. The idea was that, despite the despicable phenomena of collaboration in every Nazi-occupied nation, most people had nobly suffered or resisted, in ways big and small, against the great evil. But Jews finally blew up this ‘myth’ in the early 70s, most notably with Marcel Ophul’s THE SORROW AND THE PITY. More than anything, it was this shift that instilled ‘white guilt’ in the European Soul. Europeans had maintained that, while some people collaborated, most had resisted. Thus, Europeans could regard themselves as fellow victims, along with Jews, of the Nazis. The new paradigm reversed the narrative and argued, while some people(especially communists) had courageously resisted, MOST had either collaborated in ways big or small. Or, if they didn’t collaborate, they were apathetic and uncaring, refusing to lift a finger to save Jews. Thus, European pride of victimhood soon vanished. Only Jews could claim to be the true victims of Nazis, and all Europeans had to share in the guilt of WWII for having collaborated with Nazis or not having done enough to contain or defeat Nazism. Thereafter, year after year, Shoah became ever more the new religion of Europe. Thus, each European nation was no longer seen as a homeland justified by blood and soil but a land of shame soiled by blood of Jews who were murdered by Nazis aided by heinous collaborators.
This mindset came to affect the issue of immigration as well. Just like black slavery and Indian ‘genocide’ in America were conflated with plight of Jews beginning in the late 60s and 70s, European imperialism and colonization were conflated with Nazi crimes. (European leftists even associated American military involvement in Vietnam as akin to Nazi genocide. Ironically, some European leftists even took up the Palestinian cause in the idea that Zionists had become like the new Nazis. They got so used to regarding Jews as noble-and-helpless-victims-for-all-eternity that the idea of militant Jews waging wars and defeating Arabs violated their much cherished Cult of the Holy Holocaust Jew.) Because of the Narrative that the imperialist(and even genocidal) West had ravaged the Third World and kept it in forced poverty — in other words, all of the West had acted like Nazis around the world — , something was owed to the darky folks. But foreign aid and investment were not enough. Non-whites had to be brought to the West and given jobs, education, and welfare. Jewish minorities found such people useful. They deflected attention from the Jewish minority, and also Jews could use them as Moral Shield by making a big fuss about how the White Majority is ‘racist’ and ‘bigoted’ against poor immigrant groups. Also, it was deemed unjust to bring only single workers. What if they had families and relatives in the Old Country? The humane thing seemed to unite families by bringing their relatives to the West as well. After some yrs, one might think the Guilt Factor would fade away. One thing for sure, the high unemployment rates no longer necessitated mass arrival of foreign workers. But by then, the argument for more immigration(turned into Mass Invasion) had less to do with redressing historical-moral deficit than affirming the notion that Diversity is good and wonderful in and of itself. Diversity was just good. So good that there was need for more and more of it. It didn’t matter if Diversity caused problems. The solution was More Diversity and more training for the native populations to try harder at accommodating Diversity. Diversity was so good and holy that even problems caused by Diversity could not be blamed on it. Rather, the blame was always to be found in the native white folks for not having done enough to make it work. So, they needed even more Diversity as both punishment and redemptive blessing. Once this cancerous logic took hold, Europe was in the grip of full-blown Diversinoma.

Could Diversinoma have been checked and reversed early on? There was Enoch Powell and his ‘River of Blood’ speech. Just like cancer need not be fatal if spotted and treated early, the problem of Immigration-turning-into-Mass-Invasion could have been stopped and reversed with the proper will and resolve. But there were few doctors in the house to sound the alarm and call for radiation treatment, chemo, and surgery to remove the tumor. And even if some people knew of the dangers, they were fearful to speak out because of the Narrative following WWII. The overwhelming intellectual and cultural climate of Europe was leftist for understandable reasons. Europe in the 20th century had been decimated by the vain ambitions of Imperial Powers in WWI and the mad ambition of radical racist Nazis in WWII that was also accompanied by ghastly Shoah. And then, the post-war violence of Resistance and Liberation in the Third World made even European nations that had been at war with Germany seem like the Other Nazis. Especially because the main Moral Narrative arising from WWII was that Good Peoples had come together to defeat ‘racism’(of the Nazis) as the greatest evil in the world, any whiff of ‘racism’ on their part became anathema. So, even if British, French, and others may not have carried out killings on the scale of Nazis, they also felt tainted by their history of ‘racism’, which, in moral terms, made them sin-cousins of the Nazis. Thus, anything unfavorably associated with immigration could be denounced as ‘Nazi’. If anyone voiced fear of non-white immigration, that was ‘racist’ therefore ‘crypto-nazi’. If anyone didn’t like race-mixing, that was ‘racist’ therefore ‘crypto-nazi’. If anyone feared being overwhelmed or outbred by non-whites, that was ‘racist’ therefore ‘crypto-nazi’. In short, whites no longer had any moral grounds to judge non-whites because whiteness had been so tainted, corrupted, and compromised by history of ‘racism’ that culminated in Nazism.

In such a moral climate, how could there be honest critics of Mass Invasion? They were quickly denounced as ‘racist’, therefore ‘crypto-nazi’. The only acceptable position for whites was to welcome non-whites, embrace non-whites, praise non-whites, provide for non-whites, understand non-whites, apologize to non-whites, forgive non-whites(even when they mess up), and etc. It followed the same pattern that made it nearly impossible to speak honestly-negatively about Jewish power. As ‘antisemitism’ came to regarded as a great sin, even the most honest assessment or criticism of Jewish power or history was taboo. Therefore, white Europeans had only one option left. They had to keep proving that they are not ‘racist’ by welcoming endless Mass Invasions by non-whites. Even though this was Demographic Imperialism and Mass Invasion, whites had to pretend as though they were providing sanctuary for ‘refugees’ not unlike Jewish victims seeking shelter from the Nazis.

Of course, it never made any sense. After all, the non-whites were not fleeing from Nazis or White Supremacists but from their own people. In some cases, especially after end of the Cold War, many of the refugees had been uprooted by Wars for Israel, which would indicate that Jewish Globalists are the New Nazis or Judeo-Nazis. Also, ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs would indicate an ideology of racial supremacy. After all, the New European Ideal of beautiful white women going with Negro men is premised on the ‘racist’ notion that black men are superior to white men in manhood department because they got louder voices, harder muscles, and bigger dongs. It suggests that white men need to step aside and give up their women in the spirit of ‘may the best man win’. Since Negro men are deemed by globalism to be better men than white men, the current ACOWW ideology is ‘racist’. But then, there never was consistent logic in PC.

Perhaps, it would have been better if men like Enoch Powell had talked more like Gandhi and Ho Chi Minh, arguing for national independence from foreign invasion. But this was difficult to pull off. After all, if Europeans invaded the Third World with guns and bombs, the non-white Mass Invaders mostly arrived poor, pitiful, and penniless. So, it seemed laughable and mean-spirited to many decent white folks for anyone to sound the alarm about how those poor sods were going to take over Europe. The novel THE CAMP OF THE SAINTS by Jean Raspail addressed this insidious threat. Though I haven’t read the book, it’s about how Europeans drop their guard because the invaders seem so poor, desperate, and pitiable. (For some reason, Raspail made the invaders a bunch of Hindus when, surely, he knew that Africans and Muslims posed the biggest demographic threat to Europe.) In a way, a full-blown military occupation is less dangerous than demographic invasion. The latter happens gradually but steadily, eventually threatening to displace the native population or disgrace it through race-mixing. Consider how the natives of Latin America are forever a disgraced people who’d been mass-‘raped’ by Latin invaders. And ACOWW is a total war on white manhood. As black men colonize white wombs, white men can only be sappy, wussy, benchwarming cucks to Negro men as the New Masters of the West. The way things are going in UK and France, all their great glories are on the verge of being appropriated by blacks. BBC is filled with historical epics and dramas that feature black men as kings, warriors, sages, and saints. Anglo-Saxons are turning into Junglo-Saxons. Megalomaniac blacks are made to feel entitled to take over the roles of white historical figures. Not only do UK and France encourage Afro-Colonization of White Wombs for the future but they retro-alter past history so that many great white heroes and heroines are turned into Negroes. Of course, Negroes see no injustice in any of this because their very nature is to feel entitled to take stuff from other races. Blacks feel entitled to steal and loot even the graves of other races. Blacks are both womb-raiders and tomb-raiders, and the cucky white males and jungle-feverish white females are encouraging this all over Europe.
And if you don’t comply with this New Normal? You are denounced as ‘far right’ or ‘racist’. It’s as if whiteness is a pathology or disease that can only be healed by blackness. Now, upon taking one good look at Africa, one is liable to think that blackness is the real pathology and disease where maintaining civilization is concerned. But black poverty in Africa only brings out sympathy and/or guilt among Europeans. Oh, those poor Negroes must be saved from poverty, or maybe they are poor and don’t have Wakanda because of past history of white imperialist exploitation. Thus, Negro poverty in Africa is either a reason to feel sorry for blacks or a reason for whites to feel guilty.
Also, there is a kind of attraction to the primal element of the Negro. Current Europeans feel soulless, shallow, and materialistic. They feel as IKEA-ans than blood-n-flesh humans. So, the only way they can feel re-connection with the juice of life is to have Negroes in the West shake their booties, hump everything that move, and infect white women with jungle fever.

It’s like the Apathetics in ZARDOZ have lost the vitality of life. Too much peace, complacency, and safety have made life dull and boring. So, when Zed(Sean Connery) is among them, they draw sustenance from him. Of course, he has really been sent into the Vortex to bring it down. But then, even the denizens of the Vortex come to see that the Order must fall because it is at odds with the way of nature. Thus, barbarian invasion, horrible as it is, does serve a purpose is smashing a secure but lifeless order.

Long ago, an overly civilized, ossified, or decadent orders were brought down by barbarians of same or similar race. So, the sacking of Rome wasn’t such a bad thing. Germanic Barbarians came to dominate, and Europe remained white. But the people who will play the most decisive role in the smashing of the lifeless and decadent Current Western Order are black Africans. Thus, the blacking of Europe will have far greater impact than the sacking of Rome. It will not be a case of white barbarians bringing down a decadent and sick white civilization and, in time, creating something even better. Rather, it will be about Western Civilization being brought down by black savages whose takeover will mean the end of civilization for good because black DNA is the most antithetical to order, philosophy, and civilization. Black culture has always been centered around the buns and dongs.

The West moved from Order to Decadence because the latter seemed liberating from traditional constraints and bourgeois manners. So, when British youths listened to Jazz and Rock n Roll in the 1940s and 1950s, they felt liberated and grateful to Negroes. And Modern Art loosened up cultural conventions and allowed for new possibilities. Back then, a bit of decadence seemed healthy and productive. After all, TOO MUCH of anything is bad. But at some point, decadence turned into the degenerative excesses of Punk Culture, family breakdown, gluttony, shameless ‘sluttony’, mainstreaming of porno-sensibility, and rise of Trash as Main Culture. Worse, it combined with neo-puritanical PC. This makes UK one of the sickest and strangest nations on Earth. It is one of the most infantile, beastly, trashy, shameless, dissolute, and ugly — barbarism turning into savagery — , but it doesn’t even have the primal virtue of vulgarism: Candid and forthright talk. Even if barbarians have no manners, they can be refreshing in speaking freely and laying it all out like it is. It’s like a vulgarian belching and breaking wind. Unpleasant but, at the very least, honest and open about what his body must do. And indeed, one of the few virtues of rise of Counterculture and Punk Culture was the spirit of anarchy, freedom, and uninhibited expression. Consider the sheer zaniness and irreverence of Monty Python.
But something happened. The System decided to maintain the neo-barbarism — the elites also found it too fun, and of course, the entertainment industry found it too profitable — but curtail certain tendencies and restrict free expression that mocked certain new sacred cows, especially Jew-Worship(aka Judeovah, or Jews-as-jehovah), Black Reverence(aka Afroyalty, or black Africans as new natural royalty of the West), and Homo Celebration(aka Fairitocracy, or fruitkin fairies as the new aristocracy of the globalized West). Those are the Permanent Holy Three, but other groups can get some sympathy, on and off, depending on the political climate and expediency. Because Muslims aren’t very bright & rich, not dominant in sports & music, and not famous for creativity(esp in fashion and pop culture), there is no special feeling for them in the hedonistic, narcissistic, and megalomaniacal West. But there are many of them in the EU, and they must sometimes be heard. (It could be that Muslims resort to Terror in the West because they usually go ignored UNLESS they commit acts of violence. After all, Jews are always important because of their elite power, wealth, and of course Shoah Cult. And blacks always get jungle-feverish-and-cuckish love from whites because they dominate sports and pop music. And homos are at the center of Pop Culture because so many gravitate to Vice-and-Vanity Industry.
In contrast, Muslims, despite their rising numbers, get no love and respect from the white community. Therefore, the only way they can get some attention is by blowing up stuff or mowing people down with trucks. It just goes to show that Diversity doesn’t guarantee equal affection to all peoples. Some groups must do something really outlandish to appear on the social-cultural radar. It’s like kids in a family. Suppose out of five kids, four get the love for being either smart, pretty, funny, or athletic. But the fifth kid is ignored and made to feel insignificant. Then, the ONLY way he can get attention is by doing something crazy like burning down the house.)

Anyway, current UK is a totally debased society of foul and shameless behavior on so many social and cultural fronts. There’s been so much family breakdown, so much rise of degeneracy. And yet, it can’t even enjoy the benefit of the primal virtue of vulgarism. Consider the figure of Count Dankula, a truly gross figure splattered with tattoos and piercings. He represents everything that is ugly and demented about new Britain. And yet, one real(if lowly) advantage of vulgarism is the spirit of freedom, irreverence, and the uninhibited middle-finger to stuffy social conventions. Or so Count Dankula thought when he made infantile videos about making his pug do the ‘Nazi salute’ to commands of ‘Heil Hitler’ and ‘Gas the Jews’. It was the sort of thing Sid Vicious might have done in the 1970s just to provoke people or be a jerk. But no, the State went after Dankula for ‘hate speech’. So, UK now allows and encourages the most demented, ugly, stupid, trashy, porny, and infantile speech and expression — much of pop culture revolves around black thuggery, jungle fever, homo degeneracy, feminist vaginal obsessions, slut pride, anti-white vitriol, and etc — BUT it won’t allow ‘hate speech’ that is to be defined and determined by neo-Victorian stuff-shirts in the institutions of academia, media, and government. It reminds me of that Onion satire that complains about foul language in pornography by ‘Maggie Lehman’: https://entertainment.theonion.com/why-do-porn-actors-have-to-use-such-foul-language-1819583928#_ga=2.218135578.2072781814.1524769152-1002042756.1524769152
Thus, UK has managed to be both hoity-toity and porny-horny at the same time. In the past, the hoity-toiters used snobbery and repression to control the barbarian energies of the masses and to defend the homeland from foreigners. Back then, even fellow European Germans were considered as barbaric ‘Huns’. Today, the hoity-toiters still put on doopity-pippy-poo manner and sip tea and nibble on crumpets BUT they praise spread of barbarism and savagery(as long as they don’t mock Judeovah, Afroyalty, Fairistocracy, and intermittently Angry Muslims threatening to blow something else up unless they get some love), welcome mass invasion from backward and even truly savage nations of Africa, and dismantle all the national mechanisms of patriotism, pride, and normalcy that can save Britain. And with fading of religion — the Anglican Church is now just a nest of Homomania-pushers — , decline of the family, loss of culture, and fading of history(or vilification of white history or vindication of white history ONLY BY retro-blackening white historical characters), the only Culture left standing for the majority of Britons is Pop Culture. Worse, if Pop Culture of yesteryear represented Britishness, maturity, and morality(like in the films of David Lean and Carol Reed), the new Pop Culture is all about promotion of Homo degeneracy, Jungle Fever & ACOWW, the endless cult of Holocaust, Slut Pride, feminist vaginal pseudo-covenant or ‘cuntinant’, and mindless faith in Diversinoma as the best cure and Inclusion as morally necessary invasion.

So, the British people have been turned into beasts without even the liberation of being free like wild animals. Rather, British people are now like a horse ridden by Jews, Homos, and blacks. Or, it’s like a cow that was promised freedom but has a ring stuck through its nose to be dragged around by PC commissars. George Orwell wrote ANIMAL FARM as satire on Stalinist totalitarianism, but UK today is more like THE ISLAND OF DR. MOREAU. People have been turned into animals(made even more so by promotion of ACOWW that will turn Anglo-Saxons into Junglo-Saxons and make UK look like Morocco) but also trained to obey. The long-term result of this will be Jungle vs Jihad. As white people are now so decadent, soulless, vapid, and demoralized, they have no means to say NO to the African power of the Jungle. If anything, they are addicted to blackness as the heat-drug as whiteness, they’ve been told, is cold, dull, frigid, and lifeless without sucking vitality from other races. So, whites can’t hold back the demented influence of the Jungle. The ONLY people with the spine, courage, will, and pride to say NO to the Jungle is the Jihad, the power of Muslims. Currently, Jungle and Jihad are in a crude and uneasy alliance as both share the common interest of gaining access to the West. And Jungle and Jihad are also in uneasy alliance with Jude because Jews push Diversity to create gentile-divisions that they can exploit and manipulate. In the long run, it will be a war among Jungle, Jihad, and Judea. Whites, castrated and cucked, haven’t the spine to say NO to Judea as it’d be ‘antisemitic’, to Jungle as it’d be ‘racist’, and to Jihad as it’d be ‘Islamophobic’. So, with each year, white power will dwindle as its puts out to Jewish brains, black muscle & dongs, and Muslim threats. Can Judea, Jungle, and Jihad co-exist once white power is totally gone? Unlikely. In Africa, there is either the rule of Jungle(in most of Sub-Saharan Africa) or Jihad(mainly in North Africa where Arabs and even black Arabs use ruthless violence to keep the Jungle at bay).

When it comes to Diversititis, the chronic condition of problematic Diversity, there is no permanent fix or cure in the absence of massive civil war that leads to a bloody breakup of the existing national entity in separate parts. This is exceedingly difficult if the diverse populations are dispersed and mixed throughout the land. But a breakup of a diverse nation can be reasonably simple IF the various peoples occupy and dominate their own regions. This is why the breakup of the Soviet Union was relatively painless. Lithuania was mostly made up of Lithuanians, Georgia was mostly made up of Georgians, Armenia was mostly made up of Armenians, and etc. Even though there had been extensive population transfers during the Soviet era, most of the non-Russian Republicans had a solid ethnic majority. Some violence did flare up in border areas among republics with mixed populations, as with the case with Armenians and Azerbaijanis. In the case of Yugoslavia, the breakup ranged from painless to painful. Slovenia’s independence from Yugoslavia was relatively painless, not unlike the voluntary decision among Czechs and Slovaks to go separate ways. As most of Slovenia was made up of Slovenians, its withdrawal from Yugoslavia went smoothly. The biggest problem was in Bosnia that had large numbers of Croatians, Serbs, and Muslims who were, furthermore, interspersed throughout the region. Even to this day, the problems in Bosnia have not been fully resolved, and a very uneasy truce remains. Anyway, Bosnia is a case of permanent Diversititis. No single group can come to dominate as the majority in the foreseeable future. So, the best option is for the various groups to find ways to tolerate one another, respect each other’s spaces, restrain one’s own resentments, and develop better ways of inter-group communication and cooperation. Bosnia is an obvious case that Diversity sows seeds of discord. Still, it’s my understanding that it is in a state of Diversititis than Diversinoma. After all, the people there already know of the problems of Diversity. Why would they believe it’d be a good thing to bring in MORE Diversity when enough is enough?

In a society chronically infected or overcome with Diversititis, the only option is the coping mechanism. People must learn to cope with the tensions and conflicts. If they can’t, there will be violence and counter-violence and endless cycles of vendetta. A society racked with Diversititis will never be a Trust Society or an orderly one, but if the various peoples arrive at modicum ways to respect one another and even appreciate each other’s differences and find ways to complement one another by trading in good and services of ethnic niche specialties — for example, suppose one group is better at running restaurants while another group is better at white collar work — , then tensions can be minimized and relative peace can prevail. Diversititis generally undermines the Rule of Law as groups tend to favor ‘my group’ over common interests, but in some cases, it can boost Rule of Law because the Law is the only thing that the various groups can agree on as they differ so much in customs, manners, and attitudes. Lacking cultural consensus, there is only recourse to legal consensus, at least if the various peoples are willing to submit to the letter of the Law that has been sincerely agreed upon by all sides as being fair and balanced.
Even so, outcomes can upset the legal balance. Consider the Fireman Promotion Exam that had been approved by whites, blacks, and browns as fair prior to the test-taking but was immediately denounced as ‘racist’ when blacks and browns performed far below their white counterparts. Diversititis will always lead to headaches, frustrations, and recriminations. This is why no society should push for more Diversity.
But many parts of the world have become irreversibly and irreparably diverse due to imperialism, invasion, or careless drawing of maps. Every Latin American nation is the product of European imperialism, Atlantic Slave Trade, and Mass Immigration-invasion. And Europeans did a reckless job of drawing crazy maps in the Middle East that maximized diversity than homogeneity. Absent massive wars that lead to profound movements of peoples or redrawing of maps, the peoples of all such nations must learn to cope with Diversititis.

But coping isn’t enough with Diversinoma. It’s like one cannot cope with cancer. It has to be stopped and reversed OR the patient will surely die. If UK were to halt all further Mass Invasion, it might be able to cope with its already considerable Diversititis. Whites are still the majority, and they might be able to accept the long-term presence of non-whites who may or may not assimilate into the white cultural fabric.
Of course, the problem is British obsession with manners and politeness renders it bad form for the Brits to ‘rudely’ demand that the foreigners assimilate to British ways. To be sure, past Brits had pride of chauvinism and felt justified in berating the inferior ‘darkies’ to try to live up to superior white standards. It wasn’t considered bad form for whites to express their sense of cultural and even racial superiority and exert pressure on non-whites to improve themselves to act less like stupid ‘wogs’ and more like ‘Englishmen’. But such attitudes are simply no longer allowed among whites in the UK, so the only thing left is the good manners, which, without the backing of gruff pride or haughty honor, come across as weakness. Today, non-whites in the UK see White Culture as either HARRY POTTER-ish childishness or Benedict-Cumberbatchy wussiness. The sickening-looking Cumberbatch profusely apologized for having said ‘colored people’ than ‘people of color’. They get no respect because they don’t exude power. People, especially non-whites from brutish societies, only respect signs of might. When they see white people looking stricken, apologetic, and racked with guilt-and-doubt, they don’t feel respect or gratitude. They just feel contempt for the weak wussy white boy, especially because their peoples had, for so long, believe in the Great White Man. Sure, whiteys were the Big Bad Imperialists, but they were also the Magnificent Warriors and Administrators who’d once conquered and ruled the world. But now, non-whites see all these sorry-ass cucky-wuck boys in the UK. What passes for British Conservatism is Milo the ‘gay’ Jew and Andrew Sullivan taking black dongs up their bungs. Or, it’s that harridan witch Theresa May whose toxicity is aimed ONLY at the white native population.

Anyway, it’s worse than that because what the UK has is not a bad condition of Diversititis but a full-blown case of Diversinoma. As if things aren't bad enough already, the Official Ideology of the UK calls for MORE Mass Invasion to be followed by yet MORE Mass Invasion and more and more. Jewish globalists and their cuck-collaborators have convinced so many white British that the UK had been a ‘nation of immigrants’ from the beginning. Also, so many white Brits are so bored with themselves that they want color, flavor, and distractions of Diversity. The more the better, like people addicted to drugs must have more and more even when the drugs are killing them.
Also, ‘white guilt’ about past imperialism has produced a Narrative that says non-whites have a moral right to invade and take over UK as historical revenge/justice. And there is also Jungle Fever among white women that want sex with big-donged Negro men and ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. And there are plenty of cucky British men who welcome this because, in a way, servility has been one of the characteristics of Britishness. After all, the British could not have come to dominate the world if they were all Alpha-male warriors. No, the bulk of the British people had to be drilled and disciplined to obey, follow orders, and tip their hats and say "aye guv’nor" when a social superior passed by. In the past, most Brits were cultivated to regard higher-class members, clergy, and officers as superior people worthy of respect. But White Prestige, especially of white males, faded long ago, and the new gods of British neo-royalty is Diversity, Inclusion, White Guilt, Afromania, and Homomania. (Among Conservatives, it is Jew-Worship above all.) So, British culture of disciplined servility that had served the British Empire so well is now in the service of other gods. Especially due to influence of black pop music and black domination in sports, many Brits now revere blacks as the natural royalty. Afroyalty is their new gods and kinds, which is why BBC shows feature British historical figures played by blacks. White Brits worship blacks so much that they believe the great heroes and legends of their own history must be cast with blacks who are superior in raw power.

Also, Diversity has a moral appeal to both the white have-nots and white have-mores. Among the have-nots and Leftist intellectuals, hugging Diversity is an easy way of virtue-signaling against the rich whites. Resentful of privileged whites and Jews who hog most of the wealth and privilege, the poorer whites and leftist intellectuals claim greater moral treasure by parading their ‘compassion’ for the darkies. But then, the rich whites play a similar kind of game. By hugging Diversity(from a distance, of course), they snobbily claim moral superiority over the ‘racist’ and ‘xenophobic’ white working class that is none-too-happy to see their hometown communities colonized by a bunch of bloody ‘wogs’. So, both the ‘left’ and the ‘right’, the ‘upper’ and the ‘lower’ weaponize Diversity for its own purposes. Because whiteness has been so disgraced and discredited, white Britons of any ideological faction must wave the Diversity flag to earn righteous Pokemon points. At the very least, especially if one isn’t to keen on Diversity, one has to cling to Jews(and homos) and argue that one’s opposition to continued Mass Invasion is to save Jews and Homos from Muslim Terrorists. But this is not a winning strategy because Jewish Power is fully behind Mass Invasion and Diversity. And the great majority of Homos are into Diversity. Even if Mass Invasion may not be good for homos in the long run, the very nature of homos tends to favor colorful diversions than deep-rooted sense of belonging. Homo nature is innately disloyal because, after all, homosexuality itself is a betrayal of nature and the way of life.

Unlike Diversititis, there is no way to cope with Diversinoma. It has to be identified. It has to be diagnosed as the most fatal disease that can afflict a nation. It portends and promotes the total destruction of the nation. It is immeasurably worse than the spread of bad ideology or destruction by war. Both Russia and China suffered under the ideology of communism, but they recovered. Ideology eventually blows away. Russia remained Russia after communism. China is still China.
Also, nations recovered from the most horrible destruction by war. Japan and Germany rebounded quickly. Britain recovered as well following WWII. Poland, which had been steamrolled by every great power, recovered.

But Diversinoma will lead to the total and permanent transformation of a nation, and the effects will be irreversible. There is no way Palestinians can ever take back their lost homeland again. There is no way Serbians can have Kosovo again. And if things go on as they are, the Brits, the French, Germans, and Swedes will lose their ancient homelands for good.
Now, the newly transformed nation may still have a working economy or even a bigger one, BUT the original and core ethnos, identity, and culture will be lost forever. They will survive in pockets and fragments but will be much degraded and, at any rate, will not command the center of what the nation is about. Suppose 10 million Chinese were to move to Nepal. The economy may greatly expand, but it will never be Nepal as unique people-and-culture ever again.

Because humans are organisms and because organisms are invasive, there are invasions afoot all over the world, especially from poor to rich nations. That, in and of itself, doesn’t constitute Diversinoma. Likewise, the human body experiences invasion by germs and toxicity at all times, and some cells act irregular and weird. The body is always under threat from something, internal and external. But the body manages to fend off most germs and restore equilibrium to maintain health. Cancer happens when this balance is lost. For some reason, the body fails to limit the growth of a malignant tumor. The tumor keeps growing and growing, and cancer cells begin multiplying and multiplying. And the body feeds the cancer cells with blood. Even as white blood cells continue to wage a valiant war on cancer cells, other parts of the body help cancer cells to grow. The bloodstream is carrying them all over the body.
Now, the body is no longer able to regulate itself to control or reverse the cancer. It has taken hold of the body, and its colony of cells keep multiplying and spreading to other parts of the body. Indeed, much of the body is mistaken in treating cancer cells as welcome parts of the body. Over time, more of the body assents to the spread of cancer cells than cooperates with white blood cells to fight the spread of cancer. And then, even the lymph nodes that are supposed to serve as a immune system are taken over by cancer cells, and it becomes hopeless. Diversinoma works the same way.

This is why Diversinoma has to be diagnosed and identified as soon as possible. And the nation-as-patient must be warned right away as to what must be done to reverse the process. Since the regular functions of the nation can no longer fend off Diversinoma — just like a cancer-stricken body can no longer fight off cancer on its own — , a special draconian treatment is necessary to save the patient-nation.
Consider the UK. It’d be nice if the elites and the people were woke to what is happening to their nation, call an end to Mass Invasion, restore white pride(as white blood cells of the nation), expose Jewish globalist wickedness, denounce ACOWW, and began the process of sending the non-white colonizers back to their nations of origin, just like non-white nations had once expelled European colonizers from their own lands.
But the cancer has spread to the elites and to so many people. The elites are cuck-collaborators of wicked Jewish globalist masters who rule EOJ or Empire of Judea, the most powerful world empire, of which even the US is a vassal. As for the British masses, so many of them have been turned by the 2 PCs — Pop Culture and Political Correctness — into Negro-worshiping, Homo-worshiping, and Diversity-worshiping dogs and sheeple. Their bodies and souls have been drained of patriotism and noble race-ism. Their passions are roused ONLY WHEN they listen to black jungle music, get hysterical at homo parades, or spot a ‘nazi’ or ‘racist’, which is ANY white person who is a patriot and doesn’t want Britain to be invaded and colonized by non-white hordes. Patriots are attacked by Parrots.

Therefore, the only way to save a nation like UK is by extraordinary means. At this point, the patriots must learn from the Algerians who resisted French colonization, the Viet Minh & Viet Cong that fought against French Imperialists and American Occupiers. As the UK is ruled by Jews and cuck-collaborators and as the UK media & academia are controlled by ideological quacks who keep assuring the British people that cancer is the cure(!), the savior and the medicine must come from extraordinary individuals form unexpected places.

In the coming decades, the stakes will be super-high. It will decide if the UK can be cured of the hideous cancer of Diversinoma or succumb to it totally and become just an European version of Paki-Africa.
What Winston Churchill and the British people underwent in WWII was nothing compared to the dangers that the Brits face now. In the past, even in the case of worst possible scenario of Germans having invaded Britain, it wouldn’t have been so bad. As Germans respected Anglos as fellow-brethren, most Britons would have been treated nicely. And in time, the Germans would have left after setting up a friendly regime(just like the US Occupation of Japan and Germany ended after it installed pliable governments). Germans had no plan to racially or culturally destroy Core Britain. But that is exactly the plan of Jews, Africans, and Muslims. Jews seek to maximize Diversity to play divide-and-rule. It is also revenge for all those yrs of Anglo prejudice and snobbery, subtle if not always blatant, toward Jews. Jews want to see Anglo men humiliated by having to watch their daughters turn into shameless sluts whose wombs produce black babies. And of course, Africans love to leech off whites in the UK. They also love to beat up weaker whites and colonize white wombs. They feel as the physical champions of New Britain. And Muslims seek to keep coming and take over entire streets and spread Sharia in a nation that they deem to be decadent and lost.

If current demographic and cultural trends continue, it will truly be the fall of Britain. While the Nazis did pose a genuinely genocidal threat to Russians and other Slavs, they only demanded compliance and alliance from the UK. Indeed, the UK would have done better to ally with Germany in WWII if its only interest was narrow self-interest. Now, given the radical evil of Nazi Germany, the Brits were right to forge alliances even with the USSR to defeat Nazi Germany. Still, it must be stressed over and over that Germany posed no real threat to the survival of the British people, culture, and nation EVEN IF the UK had fallen to the Germans. The real threat of replacement, colonization, and extinction of Britain comes from EOJ or the Empire of Judea, the agenda of which is to turn UK into Othellonia. Unless a significant number of Brits wake up to the danger of Diversinoma and commit themselves fully to the struggle as Ho Chi Minh had done to the national independence of Vietnam, the UK will lost be lost forever in the coming decades. If the future is to be won and secured, there must be men like Noah, Moses, Samson, and King David. There must be heroes like Arthur and Perceval. There must be prophets like Enoch Powell. There must be barbarian lords willing to lay down their lives in the war against the decadent cuck elites who serve not the people & nation but the evil Soros-like sorcerers of EOJ. British patriots must wake up everyday reminding themselves, "Once a nation is lost demographically, it is lost forever."