Whoopie Goldberg's Problem with Jews — 'White' and 'Black' in US Political Context — False Morality of the Holocaust Narrative — Sarah Silverman's Bogus Outrage about Jews being Denied Roles in Hollywood

https://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/whoopi-gets-a-whipping/

French eighteenth century journalist and propagandist Jacques Mallet du Pan coined the adage that “A l’exemple de Saturne, la révolution dévore ses enfants,” frequently translated as “Like Saturn, the Revolution devours its own children.”

“Revolution devours its own children” doesn’t apply here. It would if Jews were destroying other Jews in a mad frenzy of purity spirals. But Jewish Power, both ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’, tend to remain united through thick and thin. The Tribe remains intact. In this case, Jews all across the ideological spectrum closed ranks to denounce an uppity Negress who dared to point out that Jewish Power historically operated at elite ranks of society. The Holocaust wasn't about powerful white Germans oppressing weak Jewish whites but about powerful German whites versus powerful Jewish whites. But Jews are invested in portraying themselves as victims, all the better to justify their immense power and supremacist grip on the West, thereby the Rest as well. So, it's hardly surprising that virtually all Jews joined in solidarity to dump on Whoopie.

Indeed, it’s been the case that Jews generally don’t destroy other Jews(with some notable exceptions like Norman Finkelstein and David Cole). Jews stick together. In contrast, goyim tend to devour fellow goyim in radical times. Why? Because whereas Jews put identity before ideology, goyim(generally possessing weaker identities) tend to put ideology first and foremost, thereby getting sucked into purity spirals. So, Russian communists destroyed so many fellow Russians. Chinese communists destroyed so many fellow Chinese. In contrast, Zionism was the Jewish Left and Jewish Right united by identity over ideology. Jews are smarter that way. Also, Jewish communists were less likely to be outright murderous toward Jewish capitalists and vice versa.

Specifically, Goldberg, who is no critic of Jews or Israel and is as willing to submit to proskynesis before Zionist force majeure as anyone in the entertainment industry, said “Let’s be truthful, the Holocaust isn’t about race, it’s not. It’s about man’s inhumanity to man, that’s what it’s about. These are two groups of white people.”

Goldberg’s statement makes sense within the more recent American context where all peoples of European descent, including European-Jewish, have been categorized as ‘white’. After all, Anglo-Americans, German-Americans, Irish-Americans, Polish-Americans, Italian-Americans, Ukrainian-Americans, Greek-Americans, and etc. all simply became ‘white’. And Jews counted as ‘white’ too, though with special exemptions(like the burden of 'white guilt'). So, Whoopie’s American-centric view failed to appreciate the significance of ethnicity in the Old World. Ethnic distinctions also mattered in the American Past, but most peoples of European origin just melded into ‘whiteness’, just like black Africans of various tribal origins simply became 'black', which also includes mulattos.
Of course, this poses problems of its own. For example, it means even white Americans of Polish origin with no history of colonizing Africa, practicing the Atlantic Slave Trade, and owing slaves in the South — if anything, Jews were more involved in that — must bear the burden of ‘white guilt’. Also, there's no sense of Poland's history of oppression under Russians and Germans. Or, you could be of Lithuanian origin, but there's no special regard for Lithuanian tragedy in the great wars and under Soviet domination — most Lithuanians, like many Europeans, had a far more difficult time in the 20th century than most blacks in America. The moment any Lithuanian's foot sets down in the US, he too counts as 'white' (in the American sense of the term) and is associated with 'white privilege'. You could be a recent immigrant from Romania, and you too would be stained with ‘white guilt’ despite having no roots in America. In contrast, you could be an African immigrant whose ancestors actually captured and sold black slaves to white slave ships, but your blackness automatically becomes associated with cotton gins, Jim Crow, and Civil Rights Movement. So, your identity is aglow with special consideration merely for being black and instantly showered with all sorts of Affirmative Action advantages. THAT is the real idiocy of racial politics in the US. Recently arrived black Africans whose ancestors massively profited from the slave trade are lumped into the Black American Narrative, and white ethnic groups(with tragic horror stories of their own) who arrived post-Civil-War and had nothing to do with the oppression of black Americans are lumped in with America's 'racist' past. And it's almost always about blacks. Take Scandinavian-Americans in Minnesota who, if they have some blood on their hands, played a role in the expulsion of the American Indians. One thing for sure, they had nothing to do with black American history, yet, their primary moral responsibility is toward blacks, much like the people of Sweden have been goaded into playing savior for all of Africa, even at the risk of losing their native land to migrant-invaders.

At any rate, as Whoopie is ignorant of European History, her 'provincial' black-American mind lumps all peoples of European origin into the generic category of ‘white’. She’s unaware of the powerful ethnic hatreds and resentments throughout European History, which ebbed since the end of WWII but flared up in fracturing Yugoslavia of the 90s. Worse, ethnic hostilities have recently been stoked in Ukraine, pitting one bunch of Slavs against another. Jewish-controlled US that controls EU made it fashionable for Western globalists to hate Russians(and Hungarians) for rejecting the cult of Globo-Homo and for reinvigorating traditionalism and ethno-preservation.

In a way, the deracinated ‘deracists’ are now the most hostile people in the West toward other whites. ‘Deracist’ whites in the US hate white patriots(deemed as 'racist') for having retained or revived some semblance of ethnic or racial identity and pride, and ‘deracist’ whites in Europe hate nationalist whites who regard mass immigration and great replacement as existential challenges.

Of course, deracination or ‘deracism’ is really a tool of Jewish Supremacism as it's directed at goy whites, not at Jews. Though white dummies or whummies take it to heart as virtue, most Jews are careful not to drink the 'deracist' kool-aid themselves. After all, even as white ethnic identity has been shamed and subverted, Jewish identity has only been further emboldened. But then, Jews will opportunistically encourage ultra-ethnic politics among goyim IF it can be directed against another bunch of goyim on the shit-list of Jewish Power. So, even as Jews denounce moderate Hungarian nationalism, they fan the flames of ultra-right nationalism in Western Ukraine against the Russian population in Eastern Ukraine. It's also why Jews, who generally deride goy nationalism, support Kurdish nationalism as it is useful against Arab, Persian, and Turkish rivals of Israel. There is no principle to Jewish Power. It’s always a matter of “Is it good for Jewish Power?”

While the Shoah was clearly about man’s inhumanity to man, it was also an extreme reaction to Jewish inhumanity to goyim. If Jewish behavior hadn’t been so excessive, would the National Socialists have come to power in Germany? No, one-third of Germans bit the bullet and voted for National Socialism in 1933 because they just about had had enough with bad Jewish behavior. (Some may argue George Soros and his ilk act destructively toward the West to avenge their fallen tribesmen in the Holocaust, but many Jews acted the same way BEFORE World War II, which is what paved the way for men like Hitler in the first place. Furthermore, Jews act the same way toward non-Western goyim. Soros sure raped the economies of Asia, and Neocon Jews concocted foreign policy to rain down maximum pain upon the Arab World.)
Of course, even those who voted for Hitler didn’t vote for war and genocide. The fact that the Nazis went out of their way to hide the horrors in the killing fields and certain concentration camps is proof that they understood all too well that mass killing was too much even for most ‘anti-semites’. Likewise, the Soviets and their useful idiots denied the Great Famine. Even as millions of Ukrainians perished, the official line was the New Order resulted in bountiful harvests and more food for everyone than before.
That said, both National Socialism and Communism were extreme reactions to real problems. Jewish Power was understandably hated for its exploitative, subversive, parasitic, and supremacist ways. And the appeal of communism owed to real problems of class exploitation under either aristocratism or capitalism.

 Still, there were more rational and sensible ways to deal with the problems, as opposed to the radical way, which ends up committing great evil in the name of fighting a great evil. Sadly, when people are driven to the edge, they tend toward extremism. A good lesson would be “don’t drive people to the edge”, but it's a lesson self-aggrandizing Jews never seem to learn as, time and time again, they're hellbent on driving goyim to the edge once again, whereupon goyim can submit and fall into the abyss and take the last stand with zealous fury. It must be said rational, moderate, and sensible opportunities were often lost in addressing the Jewish Question/Problem because Jews refused to meet the other side halfway. If one side does wrong and infuriates other sides, it's usually helpful if the former acknowledges accountability at least in part. Then, a series of negotiations can take place where lessons are learned and the problem is settled more or less. But when Jews refuse to admit any wrong and are utterly intolerant of any criticism of Jewish abuses, the wronged party may conclude there is no rational, moderate, or sensible option when dealing with Jews. It becomes a zero-sum game of Jews win and take all OR goyim win and take all. The radical will of Jews had a way of radicalizing the other side. Will Jews ever admit that German radicalism under National Socialism owed in part to utter lack of Jewish accountability in regard to the woes of Weimar Germany and Bolshevik conflagration in the East? If anything, Jewish sense of moral culpability has grown only worse following World War II. Full of themselves as the Holy Holocaust People, their every abuse is laundered as a righteous expression of "Never Again". 

So, there's no discussion of the murderous Jewish role in communism. Jews whine about Joe McCarthy and HUAC but ignore Jewish role in Soviet espionage. Jews pushed a total lie about USS Liberty and never came clean. They pull every trick in the book to get the worst Jewish crooks pardoned by puppet-presidents. Jonathan Pollard for one is sitting warm and cozy in Israel giving a big fat middle finger to the US. There's been zero accountability about Nakba and the Neocon Wars that killed so many. Or, what Jews did to Russia in the 1990s, which led to Putin's rise. Jews never admit any wrong and blame everything on 'Russian aggression'. No Neocon Zionist, whose foreign policy proposals have turned out to be disastrous, has paid a professional price or expressed any contrition. If anything, they've been placed in elite positions in the media to spread more lies in service to Jewish Supremacism. When Jews act this way, even those who desire a moderate, sensible, and rational solution to the Jewish Problem is pushed to extremes because Jews themselves are extreme. If someone burns your house down and admits no guilt(and if anything sends you the medical bill for the burns he suffered while torching your house), the chances are you're going to become 'anti-semitic' and counter-extreme against the vile extremism of the Jew.

The problem with the Holocaust Narrative is it assumes that Jews were wholly innocent pure-as-snow angels but set upon by crazed Anti-Semites for no reason at all. This is utter BS, rather like arguing Japan and Germany were smashed in WWII just for the hell of it.

If another Jewish Holocaust were to happen now, it’d be a horrible crime, BUT once again, it would have been an extreme reaction to vile and obnoxious behavior by Jewish Power: financial shenanigans, murderous foreign policy, medical tyranny, political subversion, cultural degeneracy, and etc. One may argue NOTHING justifies genocide, but people driven to the edge tend towards the extreme. It's just part of human nature under duress or in a state of outrage. Take the Morgenthau Plan. Henry Morgenthau the Jew was understandably appalled by Nazi atrocities and wanted revenge on the Germans. Look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. US went crazy from the war. Palestinian terrorism has been reaction to Jewish Nakba, and Israeli bombings of Gaza are extreme reaction to Palestinian harassment via constant rocket attacks.
In his autobiography, Woody Allen wrote of his sympathy with black rage and commendation for any amount of black violence against whites, however extreme. Blacks have the right to attack whitey. (Predictably, the book was much praised by cucky National Review.) Allen’s moral logic is hardly different from that of antisemitism. If blacks, feeling so terribly aggrieved, are justified in committing extreme violence on whites(even indiscriminately), then one could argue Germans and their collaborators felt similarly justified in their anti-Jewish violence in reaction to Jewish perfidy.

The lesson of the Shoah should not only have been “genocide(especially of Jews) is a great evil” but “try not to act in a manner that stirs up great hatred against your kind.” The tragedy of the Holocaust Narrative is it taught one lesson at the expense of the other instead of emphasizing both. Paradoxically, it has effectively turned Jews and their cuck-collaborators into the New Nazis as the Holocaust Narrative unwittingly(or maybe wittingly) became synonymous with Jewish Supremacy. If Jewish-Gentile History is about totally innocent Jews being set upon by totally loathsome goyim, it means Jews are innately noble and therefore could never have done wrong, which further indicates that any anti-Jewish expression or action among goyim must ENTIRELY be their fault and never the fault of Jewish attitude or behavior. The presumption that says Jews can be wronged but can never do wrong is essentially supremacist because it stems from the conceit of Jewish moral perfectionism, as if every Jew is a little jesus.

Such outlook can only further Jewish arrogance and supremacism. After all, Jews would feel that they, as a race of Anne Franks, must always be right while those at odds with their identity or interests must be 'anti-semitic' reprobate scum. Then, is it any wonder that Jewish Power in the 21st century has waged wars that have led to the deaths of so many? Jews, being a race of Anne Franks, feel they have the license to judge, sentence, and kill, and it's the way things should be because Jews are never do wrong and can only be wronged.

Palestinians sure know how this game works. Jews can encroach ever more into remaining Palestinian territory, but Jews have the total support of US and EU under the spell of Anne-Frankism. As for Palestinians, they are a bunch of ‘terrorists’ and ‘anti-semites’ for resisting Jewish occupation and colonization.

And in the US, Jews, as the Perfect Race, can wage endless wars on whites and whiteness. As Jews are deemed to be morally perfect, their murderous hatred toward whites not only gets a pass but underpins the national narrative and curriculum as a 'moral' imperative. Jewish supremacist contempt is deemed as 'justice', whereas white desire for identity and heritage are condemned as 'far right' hatred. But if you call out on Jewish hatred against your kind, YOU are an ‘anti-semite’ who deserves to be dehumanized and destroyed.

The Holocaust Narrative would have done real good if the lesson were, “Jews must act better because bad behavior can lead to the rise of demagogues like Hitler.” Instead, Jewish Power led Anne-Frank-worshiping goyim to concur that Jews have always innocent(and right and noble), and all tensions between Jews and goyim had entirely been the fault of the latter. But without criticism, bad Jewish behavior only becomes worse. And today, it is utterly rotten. Who would have thought US foreign policy would come to be dictated by harridans like Victoria Nuland and US domestic policy would be directed by lawfare gangstoids like Merrick Garland who pushes anti-white CRT down the throats of white school children?

“The Holocaust was about the Nazi’s systemic annihilation of the Jewish people — who they deemed to be an inferior race. They dehumanized them and used their racist propaganda to justify slaughtering 6 million Jews. Holocaust distortion is dangerous.”

While it’s true that Nazism was rife with contempt and hatred for the Jewish People, there was also fear and anxiety about Jewish superiority. While Nazis were loathe to admit Jewish superiority in anything, they had genuine trepidations about predatory Jewish Power. Germans had a strong dose of Jewish Craziness in the Weimar Period. Germans learned of what Jewish Bolsheviks had done in Russia. Also, Germans hated the fact that World Jewry gained considerable influence over Anglosphere and steered its peoples toward intense animus toward Germans, their racial cousins. Also, speaking of racial supremacy, Anglo World was hardly different from the German one, and World Jewry worked hand-in-glove with Anglo global supremacism to penetrate all corners for the world for control and exploitation.

Nazis most likely wouldn’t have pushed for outright genocide IF World Jewry hadn’t declared war on Germany. Indeed, the preferred policy was mass expulsion than mass extermination. But as Jewish Power had used its influence to turn Anglo World against Germany and as German war efforts seemed doomed in Russia, Nazis decided to pull all stops in their war on Jewry as revenge and last chance at 'victory'. Fated for defeat, Germans would take down as many Jews as possible with them, a kind of Nazi Samson Option. (Jewish mentality isn't all that different. Israel has hundreds of nukes and is dedicated to nuking all of Europe if Israel were to fall, EVEN IF Europeans didn't cause the fall. The way Jews see it, whites exist to serve Jews and ensure the survival of Zion. So, if whites fail in this, Jews should wipe out as many whites as possible as Israel falls, presumably to Arabs/Muslims.) Same happened in Rwanda where the genocide got especially heated it seemed Hutus would be defeated by the Tutsis. Kill as many Tutsis before the Tutsis wipe the floor with the Hutus.

Little Marco denounced “upscale liberals who control the media” in a tweet and was immediately attacked for “the anti-Semitic trope that Jews control the media,” which of course they do, but an ardently pro-Israel Rubio surely was not suggesting anything like that.

If the perception of “Jews control the media” is ‘antisemitic’ and if Jews do indeed control the media, isn’t Jewish Behavior ‘antisemitic’ as it fulfills an ‘antisemitic trope’? If “Jews controlling the media” is antisemitic, then Jews should relinquish their control of the media because it’d be ‘antisemitic’ for Jews to control the media.
It’s like, if the statement “Italians are prominent in organized crime” is anti-Italian, then Italians are ‘anti-Italian’ because they are indeed disproportionately involved in organized crime, thereby fueling an 'anti-Italian trope'. But then, none of this is about truth or principles. It’s about power. Jews got the power and decide what we can and can’t say. That’s about it.

(Sarah) Silverman has been on a roll complaining about the paucity of “Jewfaces” displayed playing obviously Jewish characters on television or in movies…. she is particularly incensed that a non-Jewish woman Helen Mirren is playing Golda Meir in an upcoming movie. Silverman is enraged that anyone but a Jew should be cast in roles “in which Jewishness is an inherent and substantive component.”

Her outrage is fake, and she knows it. She’s feigning outrage to portray the Jews as poor little victims. She knows Hollywood has been Jewish-controlled and that goyim have often been cast as Jews for pro-Jewish reasons. One reason is ‘Aryan’ types are deemed more attractive. It was more glamorous to have Charlton Heston play Moses and Ben-Hur. Indeed, even big Jewish stars often looked rather ‘Aryan-ish’, like Kirk Douglas, or was half-‘Aryan’, like Paul Newman.

Jews figured their public image would be improved by Aryan-types playing Jews. If Jewish characters look more Aryan, goy whites are more likely to identify with the Jews. Like Aidan Quinn as a Jew in Barry Levinson's AVALON. Ingrid Bergman played Golda Meir in an earlier TV show. Jews worry that Jewish characters played by very-Jewish-looking characters will elicit less sympathy and identification on the part of goyim. So, goy-playing-Jew, far from being a marginalization of Jews, has been a calculated move to make Jewishness more attractive and palatable to goyim. Silverman surely knows this, and so her complaint is full of shit. Take the film JULIA directed by Fred Zinnemann based on the life of Lilian Hellman. Hellman wasn’t an attractive woman, and guess who played her? Jane Fonda. But this decision was made by Jews, not by goyim. But will Silverman blame the Jews? Of course not. The vile Jewess only seeks to create the impression that poor little Jews are being denied roles in Hollywood because of… ‘anti-semitic discrimination’. ROTFL. Never mind the only roles that Arabs got from Hollywood were as subhuman terrorists.

WHOOPIE GOLDBERG’S HOLOCAUST BOO-BOO - Brother Nathanael

'Communists' and 'Fascists' as the Tools of Capitalists — Why Jewish Capitalists in Israel are allied with 'Fascists' while Jewish Capitalists in the West are allied with 'Communists'

The thing about capitalists is it's difficult to find people to fight for you. After all, capitalism is about rule by rich oligarchs. While people will fight and use violence to protect their own property, most people won't go out on a limb to defend the privilege and wealth of oligarchs and uber-bourgeoisie. You buy guns to protect your own home and family, not to defend Bill Gates or Warren Buffett.

Now, what will people fight for other than for their own family and property? People, especially those with rightist inclinations, will fight for blood & soil, nationalism, and tribalism. People, especially those of leftist inclinations, will fight for the cult of justice or messianic ideology. Rightists prefer the sacred, leftists prefer the sanctimonious. Rightists will fight for their hole in the ground, leftist will fight for holier-than-thou. Neither rightists nor leftists want to fight, kill, and die for the sake of rich people.
And this is why capitalists need 'fascists' or 'communists' as shock troops. It's like the rich oligarchs and Jewish globalists needed 'Neo-Nazis' in Ukraine to pull off the Maidan coup. This is why the oligarchy and deep state in the US recruit Jihadis and ISIS to fight in Syria. Not because the oligarchs and religious nuts believe in the same thing but because the oligarchs know that only Jihadis have the balls/nuttery to fight to the death.

So, there has been the history of fascism and communism but also the history of 'fascism' and 'communism' as the tools of capitalists, i.e. capitalists used those ideologies/movements as tools and weapons than as desired objectives or goals. Generally speaking, the goy conservative capitalists supported 'fascists' to fight radical revolution and Jewish Power to keep their privilege and maintain order. Though there were Jewish oligarchs who also supported the 'fascists', especially in Italy, many more Jewish capitalist oligarchs funded the 'communists'. Not because they wanted the communists to really win and take over but to serve as shock troops against the 'fascists' and 'anti-Semites' supported by the goy conservative oligarchs.
Now, given that fascism is far more tolerant of capitalism than communism is, one might think most Jewish capitalist oligarchs would have supported the 'fascists'. After all, Italian Fascism and National Socialism made peace with capitalists whereas the communists who gained total power wiped them out. But Jewish oligarchs were loathe to support the 'fascists', especially in Germany, because fascist elements were so anti-Jewish whereas the communists, though anti-capitalist, were opposed to 'antisemitism' and had a large Jewish contingent. Jewish oligarchs thought, "The communists may take away our property but they won't kill us." Of course, they hoped that the 'communists' would never really take power. They figured the 'communists' would be too busy combating 'fascists' to ever get around to toppling capitalism.

But in Israel, the Jewish oligarchs have united with the 'fascists' because 'fascists' there are Jewish. The alliance of Jewish fascists and Jewish capitalists in Israel is akin to the alliance of German fascists and German capitalists under National Socialism. The fascist-capitalist alliance is more natural/organic than the communist-capitalist one for obvious reasons as fascists seek to control capitalism whereas communism seek to eradicate it. The main reason why many Jewish capitalists supported communists(as the lesser of the two evils) against the fascists is because most fascist movements in Europe(and its crypto-types in the US) happened to be anti-Jewish. But in the case of Israel, we see a very natural alliance of Jewish capitalists and Jewish fascists.

In the US, the most visible 'fascist' elements are anti-Jewish. They are opposed to capitalism to the extent that the current incarnation is 'woke', but they are not anti-capitalism per se. If capitalism were pro-fascist, most fascists would be okay with it. In contrast, communism is intrinsically opposed to capitalism for what it is. So, we'd expect capitalists to prefer fascists over communism.
In a similar vein, communists in the US should be more anti-capitalist than anti-fascist. After all, communism emerged BEFORE fascism as a war against capitalism. Classic Communism even argued that fascism is just a tool of capitalism. In other words, capitalism is the ROOT of fascism: the hammer used by capitalists to beat down workers and prevent communist revolution: No capitalism, no fascism. Then, the communists should be mainly attacking the capitalists as the very source of fascism, a mere manifestation of capitalism. But Antifa and other supposedly radical leftist elements have been mostly serving the all-powerful capitalists in their hunt for mostly imaginary 'nazis' and KKK. If Antifa and such types are communist or radical leftist, why do they overlook the real and growing power of their core ideological enemy, the capitalists, while chasing after Nazi or KKK unicorns? And if Antifa and communists are the main ideological enemies of capitalism, why is US capitalism either supportive or at least tolerant of them against the 'fascists' who would welcome an alliance with capitalists as long as they aren't 'woke' or anti-white?

It's because identity trumps ideology. Just like Hollywood capitalist Jews protected and used Hollywood Jewish communists, Jewish capitalists and Jewish handlers of Antifa see eye to eye on the main threat to Jewish Power: White Liberation and White Agency. In Israel, Jews have no need for Antifa and the like. Over the years, the Jewish Left has been losing ground in Israel because Jews there face no threat from the Goy Right. Thus, Jewish capitalists are better off promoting Jewish fascists. But 'fascism' in the West is dominated by goyim who tend to have hostile views toward Jews. So, Jewish capitalists must clamp down on 'fascism' in the West by supporting the 'communists'. (But Jews will then support 'fascists' in Ukraine against Russian interests. Jewish power does indeed play it by ear.) And as Antifa has been infiltrated and guided by Jewish agents, its main agenda is always to batter down any vestige of white identity or white liberation in the name of fighting 'nazism' and KKK when, in fact, it's to keep whites cucked and servile to Jewish Power.

Via ADL as intermediary, the US police force has been trained by Israeli agents who've mastered the science of crowd control.

Now, one may ask why goy capitalists in the US, even conservative ones, are tolerant of Antifa and the 'radical left' while always virtue-signaling against any sign of white identity or interests as 'Nazi', 'KKK', or 'white supremacist'? Why aren't they like the German Conservative Oligarchs who supported the National Socialists? It's because, since the end of WWII, Jews-Blacks-Homos have become the holy trinity of the West. Shoah-MLK-GloboHomo are so revered in the West that even goy rich go along, sincerely or cynically. Just like there was a time when one had to be Christian to gain prominent positions in European society — the main reason why certain Jews converted to Christianity — , anyone who wants to be someone in the neo-'spiritual' order must profess fidelity to the Holy Three of Jews, Negroes, and Homos. Also, as whiteness is the New Devil of the West, even goy conservative capitalists dare not touch it with a ten foot pole.

Bio-Socialist Defense of Men-at-Work and Women-at-Home, or Why the Workplace is Far More Essential to Men than to Women / Humans as Organisms first and Econo-viduals second

German National Socialism turned evil with imperialism and war, but its family policy was sound. Feminists shriek that the NS policy put women in the home and placed men at work, but it made good sense(and New Deal Era in America wasn't all that different; in both US and Germany, women entered the workplace in huge numbers only during the wartime due to manpower shortage; when men returned from war, they took up the bulk of jobs again). Both NS and ND understood the relation between biology and sociology. Men's role is to 'hunt' and bring home the bacon. Women's role is take care of home and hearth. So, jobs are many times more important to men than to women.

Also, functionally speaking, women have TWO places in society. Most women can function as homemakers or as workers. In contrast, men have only ONE place in society: at work. Sure, men return home, but they must bring home the bacon from work. It's like primitive men must bring home the meat from the hunt. Now, among many animals, males play no role in 'family life'. Family consists of just mother and offspring. So, the animal-mother has to do everything. But human society developed so that both man and woman play role in raising of kids(though less among blacks). So, what is the man's place and woman's place in this? Women have two places. She can work or she can take care of home. Man has only one place. He has to work. So, even if workplace is taken from the woman, she still has a meaningful place in society. Place in the home. But if workplace is taken from the man, he has no place in society, esp because most women will not marry 'losers'(men without jobs or lower-paying jobs). When women take jobs(esp well-paying ones), they are taking jobs from men who need them far far more than women do. If women were to lose their positions in the workplace, they still have the home-place. But if men lose positions in the workplace, they cannot go home(because they can't even start a home life).

Consider the One-and-Two-Dic*-Hypothesis. Imagine there are two guys. One guy has one dic* while the other guy has two dic*s. Suppose there is a need for a dic* donation. Who should lose the dic*? Obviously, the guy with two dic*s. Even if he loses one dic*, he has one left, whereas the other guy will have no dic* if he loses his.
The fact is women have 'two dic*s' whereas men have only one, metaphorically speaking of course. (If dic* talk is too vulgar, replace dic*s with hearts. Surely, a person with two hearts is in a better position to give up one of his/her hearts than a person with only one heart is.) The problem of the Modern World is that men have been browbeaten into letting women dic* around too much. Women are told that it's great to have well-paying jobs AND be mothers too. So, women should be super-women and have it all, and society must do everything possible to ensure that women can be both the most successful workers and most fulfilled mothers. Such a society not only leaves men dic*less but ball-less. It pegs them in the arse.

In order to have meaningful bio-socialism, we must have a law that says a family can only have one earner with income higher than $90,000. If a family is allowed to have two high-earners, it leads to concentration of wealth in elite communities. Two incomes that could have supported two families just go into ONE family, esp one that is likely to have only one or two kids. Bio-libertarianism sucks. We need bio-socialism that takes into account the biological underpinnings of social reality.

Also, too much of the discussion focuses on the premise that people are essentially individuals and economic units. But this is a shallow view of reality. Individuals didn't just pop into existence out of the blue. No life was ever created by ideas or ideology(just like no life was ever created by homo activity). No life ever leaped out of the pages of a book or the screen of a TV or mobile device. All humans are biological products of their parents who are biological products of their parents and so on. Before they are anything, they are life-form and organisms. Life is created through union of men and women, and males and females are most fertile, moral, and mutually fulfilled under certain conditions. While every man or every woman is an individual, a male individual has his male needs/abilities and a female individual has her female needs/abilities. Men and women may be interchangeable in most professions(that are asexual in function), but they are NOT interchangeable in life. Men produce sperm, women produce eggs. Men are stronger and better able to protect the home. Women are warmer and kinder to the kids. Fathers and mothers impart different influences on the kids, and both are essential in a yin/yang manner. But because so much of the discourse is about individual rights and economic competition, we overlook that men and women are not mere interchangeable individuals in the actual saga of life. Sure, the tranny cult would have us believe a man is a 'woman' with a wig and hormone injections and a woman is a 'man' with a dildo-strap-on, but that's just decadent and delusional(not to mention batshit crazy).
Feminism makes no sense because it emphasizes womanhood as identity but then ignores and neglects what makes women distinct from men. Feminism is really asexualism. It says women should take part in professions where their female-ness doesn't matter. After all, a female accountant is just like a male accountant. An asexual number-cruncher. Emphasis on professionalism makes one's sex irrelevant. There is no such thing as a good FEMALE law clerk or good FEMALE baker. The skills necessary in those jobs can be done by men or women. Professions, with few exceptions, are asexual in their design and operation. Now, some professions are better with men because they require lots of muscle strength and manly attitude. And some are better with women(or homos) because they involve lots of 'dainty' or whoopity stuff with fingertip than hand-grip work. Because most professions are asexual in purpose, it makes little sense to emphasize female-ness in relation to them. There is little to distinguish a female short-order cook from a male short-order cook, a female insurance agent from a male insurance agent. They are given a job to do, and they do it.
Where women are truly different from men is in the way of life, sex and reproduction, and parental role. So, if feminism is really about the special role of womenfolk, it should focus on what is unique and special about them: What women can do that men can't do and why women must do them to fulfill their womanly roles in the river of life. The question must be asked, Why did nature design women that way? With that understanding, a better society can be conceived in which women do their womanly things in partnership with men who do their manly things. (Feminism also fails as an egalitarian ideology. While it calls for equal opportunity for women in the workplace, it is only because women with extra-smarts want to rise as high as possible to marry and have kids with high IQ men who are just as rich or richer. So, it's about elitist-minded women wanting to be equal with elite men. It's not about the equality of all sisterhood or equality of women with the under-privileged of society.)

While it makes good sense to regard ourselves as individuals with rights and economic units with utilitarian roles in society, we mustn't put individualism or economism at the core of our consciousness. At the center must be the sense of ourselves as organisms. Laws, culture, society, and freedom arose from organisms, not vice versa. While it's not enough for us to be mere organisms -- like brutish animals -- because we are creatures of culture, ideas, and civilization, the fact is we are organisms before we are anything else. And even the abstract ideas and values in our heads exist only because we have organic matter like brains with neurons and hearts that pump blood. If all of culture were to vanish, humans could create new ones through more imagination and inspiration. After all, so much was destroyed by barbarian invasions and wars, but surviving humans revived or reinvented culture and civilization(even surpassing the earlier cultures that were destroyed and turned into dust). But if all human organisms were to perish even as all the culture -- museums, art works, architecture, libraries, etc -- were to remain, it would be the end of everything. After all, culture is useless without people to appreciate them. And people are organisms, and they appreciate culture through organic senses such as eyes and ears.
As people age, they grow a bit tired of culture because they'd seen it already: Been there, done that. That is precisely why they need to have kids because children experience culture(and nature) with fresh eyes, and then, the adults/parents can share in the wonderment. This is why Christmas continues to be special for families with kids and grandkids. Even as the adults don't feel much excitement themselves, they share in the magic through their kids' eyes.

If our core sense of self is organismic than individualistic or economic, we need to ask WHAT KIND OF SOCIAL ARRANGEMENT optimizes the existence of humans as creatures of continuity in the endless cycles of life and death. How are men different from women and vice versa, and how can that truth be acknowledged to arrange for social and professional roles that produce the greatest good for most people. This is where the (bio)socialist element comes in. Purely from a libertarian view, every woman is primarily an individual. And if all women, as individuals, want to take well-paying jobs from men, they should have the freedom to do so. The ONLY thing that would matter is the demand of the individual. But what would be the long-term and wider consequences of such socio-economic practices? It would spell doom, ultimately for women as well as for men because neither sex can survive/thrive without the other. It'd be like a society where everyone on the football team decides to do his own 'individualist' thing instead of knowing his place in the game. Imagine if an offensive lineman demanded that he be the quarterback and if the kicker said it's his turn to play running back. It'd be chaos.

Also, humanity must understand that home, not work, is the center of life. In other words, work exists so that people can bring something home. It's like a primitive savage goes hunting not just for the hell of it but to bring the kill back to the community to share with his family and kinfolk. Home should be the constant in life. People may go from job to job, from place to place, but the one constant must be family and home. It's no great deal to leave a job to take another, but it's a serious matter to leave one's family, though, to be sure, in our decadent-degenerate age, much of the stigma has been removed from people abandoning or rejecting their spouses or children. It's no longer shameful for men to renege on their obligations as husbands/fathers. It's no problem for women to get pregnant and raise kids on their own(with government assistance) while they shut the door on the fathers of the children. Or worthless skanks shunt off the kids(often mulatto) to be raised by the grandparents while they whore around some more. (Obama's mother was just an higher variation of whore-life.) The current culture doesn't put home/family at the center. Rather, the ego-driven individual occupies the center. Even when a man or woman decides to have a family, it is not to serve the family but to have it serve one's own 'needs' on the conceit that 'one can have it all'. It's just another trophy in the game of leggo-my-ego.

In an ideal society, people work so that they can bring home the bacon. It is in the home that genuine attachments and deep devotion exist. There is love for spouse and kids. And when people grow old, the only people who are going to care are the members of the family. After all, how many co-workers over the years in the various companies are going to be at one's deathbed and funeral? Because the Home is central and because Workplace really exists to serve the Home-place, a sane society must prioritize the MAN's position in the Workplace because that is his ONLY WAY HOME. Without a place at work, men cannot go home because they can't get married and build a home. In contrast, women have a place at home even without a place at work. They can marry someone and take care of the home while the man labors at work to bring home the bacon.

Anyway, the basic fact of life-and-culture is that women have two dic*s and can afford to surrender one. In contrast, if men lose their one-and-only dick*s, it's all over now, baby blue.

Zionism vs Afrikanerism as Political Philosophy of Labor — How the Ideology of National Labor eventually trumps the Expediency of Global Labor — Mind and Body in Man and Nation

Politics of Labor will decide the future of nations.

What was the most crucial difference between Zionism and Afrikanerism?

Zionists debated early on whether the Jewish settlers should hire Arab workers or Jewish workers. Zionists came down on the side of Jews hiring Jews. Thus, the Jewish head would be wedded to the Jewish body. And as the theme of Zionism would be ethno-cultural, it would serve as the heart between the head and body of the Jewish nation. In the short-term, it would have been more profitable to use Arab labor. It would have been cheaper than Jewish labor. Also, whereas a Jewish boss would feel moral obligation to treat fellow Jews with some sense of justice, he might merely exploit Arab laborers as expendable than essential members of the Community. But if Zionism had opted for Jewish owners and Arab workers, it would have failed in the long run. As there are always more workers than owners, Arabs would have outnumbered the Jews, and Jewish dominance would have been difficult to maintain. So, even though Jewish owners hiring Jewish workers was economically more costly in the short-run, it was crucial in the long-run in the creation of a Jewish state where the Jewish mind was united with Jewish body. It became one organic unit and fought off all challenges. But, suppose Zionism had opted for Jewish owners hiring Arab Workers. When the Partition of 1948 was declared, would all those Arab employees of Jewish owners have sided with their Jewish bosses or with their Arab brethren? Most would have joined with Arab Brethren, and the Arabs would have won the war, and Jews would have been expelled from Palestine permanently. But because Zionist opted for Jewish owners and Jewish workers, when the crisis moment arrived, all Jews from top to bottom united as a single force and fought the Arabs and won... and were even able to grab most of Arab territory.

In contrast, let's look at the Politics of Labor of South Africa. Afrikaners were race-conscious, but they opted for economic expediency. They decided to hire lots of black workers to do much of the work. In the short-term, this was a terrific bargain. Blacks could be hired for cheap. They could be exploited because they weren't white. White owners and bosses felt some paternal feelings for black workers but not as much as if they'd been white. So, this was a great boost to the South African economy on farms and in the mines, not unlike the economic arrangement in Rhodesia where blacks worked for white owners. But in the long run, what happened in South Africa? These blacks increased in number, outbred whites, and more blacks moved to white areas from the hinterland and even from other African nations. This meant lots of cheap labor that whites could exploit, but it also meant whites being outnumbered by blacks by an ever-increasing margin. Unlike Israel that came to be about Jewish mind wedded to the Jewish body and united by Jewish heart, South Africa increasingly became a world of white mind wedded to the black body with heart of stone lodged between the two communities. Afrikanerism wasn't organic like Zionism. Zionism decided to see Labor as part of 'us' and 'ours'. Afrikanerism decided to see Labor as the Other.
Zionists had been tempted to go with Arab labor. After all, Western Jews honed their skills in white-collar professions and in ownership of property. They weren't really into manual labor. That was for the goyim. Granted, there were poor Jews in Eastern Europe at the time who did manual labor. And even in the West, there were plenty of poor Jews in the garment industries. Still, the Jewish ideal was to use one's brains, not to toil like a 'dummy'. Labor was looked down upon as stuff Dumb 'Polacks' did. Even Jewish communists wanted to be intellectuals or commissars representing laborers; they didn't want to become laborers themselves. Karl Marx never stepped inside a factory in his entire life. And yet, another side of Jewish culture had more respect for the common man, at least if he was Jewish. As Jewish culture wasn't about warriors, it didn't develop an aristocratic culture like the Europeans and Japanese. Among the goyim, the warrior caste became the noblemen, and their power and privilege rested on blood. So, the Western ideal came to be aristocratic-minded, like that of Sparta though not nearly as extreme. Aristocratism deemed that a certain caste was superior over all the rest, and they had the right to rule over others who had to do the heavy lifting as peons and peasants. In contrast, the Jewish Covenant was shared equally by all. Rich Jew, poor Jew, it didn't matter. So, at least within the Tribe, Jews could be more mindful of the humanist value of every Jew. After all, in the Jewish Lore, the kings came later, long after the emergence of the Jews as a people and culture. In contrast, many goy narratives begin with some great leader figure who conquers and rules. According to the Jewish Lore, Jews are a people with certain needs, and they reached a point where they needed a king. In contrast, the Goy Narrative is often about how some guy beat all the others and gained the right to rule, and therefore, it was the duty of everyone else to obey him and his descendants.

National Laborism believes Labor isn't just some economic entity or measure but part of what defines and defends a people, land, and culture. Zionism is National Laborism, and it may be the only nation that is ideologically formulated to be that way.
In its day, National Socialist Germany had a similar ideology. German workers weren't seen merely as economic units but as part of the national family. Labor was organic. It was the body wedded to the German mind and soul. Unfortunately, this ideal all went to hell when Germany decided to go imperialist and turned non-Germans into slaves, thus going from National Socialist ideal to Imperialist Exploitation expediency. And yet, Hitler understood the need for German owners and German workers to be united in the newly occupied lands. Hitler's vision of Russia wasn't for German owners to hire and rely on Slavic laborers. Initially, Germans would use Russians as slaves, but eventually they would be replaced with German workers as a strong German Empire could be assured only by unity of German minds and German bodies. But this was a grisly vision outside Germany because it entailed removal, even extermination, of entire populations. Hitler was right about the New World. North America(minus Mexico) was sounder than Latin America because North was mostly about white owners and white workers. There was organic racial unity of white mind and white body. In contrast, Latin America was about white minds ruling over brown bodies. Thus, there was no heart between mind and body in Latin America. In North America, there was a sense of heart between white mind and white body because it's tougher to exploit one's fellow tribal brethren than another people. It made labor more expensive but also more precious because it wasn't seen merely as economic value but as national-cultural asset. But Hitler was wrong to apply New World historical lessons to the Old World. While it's true that the Red Man lost out tragically to the White Man in North America, there weren't all that many Indian savages in North America. Also, primitive world was supplanted with a modern world as a result of White Conquest of the Americas. In contrast, German invasion of USSR was a war on 170 million people. Also, despite evils of communism and Slavic backwardness, Russia was still part of the great civilized world. Eradicating all of that to create Greater Germany was a mad vision. Though Zionist occupation of West Bank isn't nearly so spectacular, it could be the undoing of Israel if it's ever annexed as Israel will have to offer some form of citizenship to all those Palestinians who may tip the demographic balance of bigger Israel. But then, Jews could try to expel them, but that will stir up a giant international shi*-storm.

When the US was gloriously race-ist, it had a defacto if willy-nilly kind of National-Laborism. While immigration was key to the rapid expansion of the US in the 19th century and early 20th century, most of the newcomers were white and, in time, assimilated. People like the Joads in THE GRAPES OF WRATH mattered because it was deemed a moral necessity for white haves to have a heart for white have-nots. George Bailey doesn't bowl alone in IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE because those white folks of Bedford Falls are his people. If they were a bunch of crazy Negroes, apathetic Mexicans, and angry Muslims, he would have left the town. Labor was seen as part of the National Family. New Deal addressed the issue of Labor and Laborers as fellow Americans.

In contrast, the white elites in Latin America always saw Labor as a huge threat. Latin whites were the mind, but the Laboring body was brown(or black). There was little heart between the two. In some ways, Latin white elites envied American white elites, and vice versa. Latin white elites thought American white elites had it better because they hired white workers. Latin America too tried to encourage more white immigration to stem the tide of Rise of Color. But most white Europeans wanted to move to US than to Latin America. Anyway, American white elites also envied Latin White elites. Because American white elites had to hire white workers(for the most part), they felt an obligation to pay them more and offer more benefits. After all, it wouldn't do for whites to mistreat whites. But in Latin America, white owner class could treat the brown workers like expendable peons desperate to work for few pesos. It's no wonder some American capitalists romanticized Latin America. It's like what Hyman Roth says about Cuba. Money goes further in Latin America where the owners don't have to treat the people as Workers with Identity and Rights. Workers are mere peons, and political 'leaders' are whores who can easily be bought. (Today's DC resembles Havana before the Revolution, and ironically enough, this makes Trump with his Deplorable rabble army seem like New Castro to the Deep State.) It's no wonder Buckleys and Bushes had romantic views of Latin America and Mexico. It's where the distinctions of race and class have been more clearly etched. Owners are up here, and workers are down there.
We tend to associate mono-racialism with conservatism, but there is something inherently socialist about mono-racialism even if the dominant economic system in such a society is capitalist. Under mono-racialism, everyone is seen as part of the national family, and so, there is a sense of obligation to each and every person who is seen as deserving of education, opportunity, job, and benefits. In contrast, Diversity means the owner class may well be racially and culturally different from the working classes. And that means the owners don't have to pay much attention to the Other, the lesser folks who do work that is deemed low and inferior. Though Diversity is often associated with liberalism and equality, its effect is often a form of conservative hierarchy like in caste-ridden India of old. Latin America was more diverse than the US and also more conservative and reactionary in just about every area. To this day, it's about white elites ruling over browns. Of course, the official rhetoric of Latin America is that everyone is nicely mixed and no one sees race, but that's just bogus fantasy to mask the fact of hierarchy and lack of communion between those on top and those on bottom.

East Asian nations like Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan have been about yellow minds and yellow bodies. And nationalism was the heart that glued yellow minds to yellow bodies. But the rise of elitism via near universal college enrollment and elevated expectations may lead to the demise of National Labor ideology in these nations. Today, most Japanese see non-white-collar jobs as 'dirty, demeaning, and dangerous.' Same in South Korea and Taiwan. Not only do many yellows prefer to commit suicide than take up 'dirty and demeaning' labor, they refuse to have children who might fail in school and end up doing 'dirty and demeaning' labor. Also, Asian women, nearly all college educated, only want to marry 'winners'. This means sudden drop in birth-rates, and it means low-level jobs must be filled by... someone, and so, even Japan is now taking in 500,000 foreigners to take up those jobs. And according to Peter Frost's research, South Korean labor will be 40% non-Korean in 25 yrs. Taiwan seems to be following similar trends. So, their economic ideology is closer to Afrikanerism than Zionism. In the short term, it will be profitable and convenient as poor laborers arrive from places like Philippines and Indonesia to fill up 'dirty and demeaning' jobs. But in time, those newcomers will take over the nation just like blacks took over South Africa. Another threat to East Asia is globalism. East Asian mentality is essentially TO SERVE. The samurai, also known as 'bushi', was about submission. 'Bushi' means To Serve. Even though samurai were the elite caste, they were all about serving the Lord. Without someone to serve, one was a ronin, a nothing. Among Chinese and Koreans, the ideal was to become a Confucian bureaucrat and serve the emperor or king. Thus, an individual has no value except in service to the highest power. In Akira Kurosawa's SEVEN SAMURAI and RED BEARD, samurai are initially reluctant to serve the 'common rabble' than some fancy lord. They are used to serving the High than the Low, just like the shoe-maker in HIGH AND LOW must really struggle with himself before coming to regard his chauffeur's kidnapped son as akin to his own. When the top power in Asia was national, most were happy to serve the local power. But now that globalism made the West the uppermost power, most Asian elites are servile to the Western globo-homo way. This is in contrast to Jews who have a sense of self-worth. The Covenant means that every Jew has a direct connection to God. So, even as Jews may work for or with other people, they don't believe they exist to SERVE others. If anything, the key is to make OTHERS serve them, the Chosen Individuals. Asians lack such mentality. Today, Asian elites believe they should serve the West, the toppermost power, and they think they, as 'fancy Asians', should be served by lower people such as 'jungle Asians'. This goes against the grain of Zionism and will be disaster in yrs to come. (There is also a matter of personality. Three groups -- Jews, blacks, and homos -- have big personalities that tend to be egocentric or vain and expect the world to serve them. In contrast, most other groups have either neutral or servile personalities. Jews think everyone should revolve around Jewish Genius, blacks think everyone should suck 'muh dick', and homos think everyone should kiss their behind. No wonder the Three have such out-sized roles in World Culture.)

At one point, whites were like 50% of the South African population. Had Afrikaners taken the Zionist route and decided upon white workers for white owners, South Africa might have become a White Israel. But whites thought short-term. And same could be said for California. When the Golden State had been gloriously race-ist, it came to its senses and excluded Chinese Invasion and Colonization. It didn't want to end up like Tibet or Xinjiang are ending up today. California Dream was a kind of White Israel on the West Coast. And it was a fantastic success story, in some ways the most spectacular tale of American can-do spirit. But at some point, white Californians got used to Too Much of a Good Thing. And they turned grasshopper and took things for granted, even leading to the rise of the California Teenager meme. So, Californian economic ideology went from quasi-Zionism to quasi-Afrikanerism: Whites were too good for certain jobs, and they were to be taken by all those lowly 'beaners'. But just as lowly blacks took over South Africa, these lowly 'beaners' came to demographically take over much of California. This is what happens when the mind and body are no longer one.

Though a collective of people is different from a single person, there are certain parallels that are instructive. Even if heads and bodies could be traded among peoples, a person functions best if his head is connected to his own body via his heart. "My mind, my heart, and my body." But suppose we do an experiment where one person's mind is connected to another person's body and both are pumped by heart of yet another. Would such a person feel as one? When men pretend to be 'women', what happens to their psychology?
In John Carpenter's THE THING, the extraterrestrial creature doesn't care about any of the bodies it takes over since it can move from body to body. It has no organic unity with any single body. It considers every body as expendable. As far as it's concerned, all bodies exist just so it could move from one to the other to spread more Thingish-ness. Now, imagine if your head was severed from your body and suppose your head could move around from place to place. Suppose, it could supplant the heads of other people and take over their bodies. Would you take good care of those bodies? Not likely. Why not? They are not your bodies. You're just a parasite that sees every body as a host. You'd use and abuse the body as long as possible and then move onto to new bodies to mess with. This is indeed how George Soros and Paul Singer operate. They are heads without bodies. They move from nation to nation and attach their heads to the nation as 'advisers' and then do everything to suck that nation dry and then move onto new national bodies. But would Paul Singer do such to his beloved Israel? No. When Singer's head connects with Israel's body, it feels like 'Home', like when ET saw Yoda on Halloween.
https://youtu.be/VrVEHszxL7E?t=2m12s
In the current West, the Jewish head/mind feels little connection to the white body. If anything, the Jewish mind fears rejection by the 'deplorable' white body that might call for the return of the proud white head, and so, the Jewish mind is hellbent on diversifying the body so that it won't be white anymore: White torso, Mexican liver, Asian lungs, African dong, Muslim hands, homo anus, and etc. These body parts will be too busy rejecting one another to come together to reject the Zardoz-like Jewish Head.
As for the former white mind that used to control the white body, it was decapitated long ago, and having no organic connection to the body, it dreams silly dreams of Homo and Tranny as the new god.

A sane and sound person's mind is connected to his body and soul. A sane and sound nation is essentially of one elite ruling over one people. While Israel has a sizable Arab population, it has been a Jewish majority nation led by Jewish elites for Jewish identity from Day One. Zionic beats Bionic. Organic beats artificial. And if Turkey remains viable to this day, it's because modern Turkey was founded as an organic nation of the Turks. Its biggest problem has been with Kurds, a people who insist they are not Turks, but fortunately for Turkey, Kurds are a minority like Arabs in Israel.

Now, it may be understandable why some elites want to boost Diversity and destroy organic nationalism. They feel burdened by having to lead and deal with their own people. It's like Moses had a fearsome task ahead of him because he was a Jew leading the Jews. Because they were his people, he couldn't just see them as chattel or the rabble or human trash(even though the mobs sometimes acted like that). He had to whip them into shape, inspire them, and secure their future in terms of land and survival. Such is a huge challenge and burden, and not all elites are up to it. They just want to make money, gain privilege, and live in the glam world.

American elites were more conscientious and mindful. Protestantism suppressed narcissism and vanity. In contrast, in the colorful Catholic Latin America, the elites were more shameless in lavishly furnishing themselves with the Good Life and style over substance. In a way, the rise of Marxism was like the Second Reformation in Latin America. A way of saying ENOUGH IS ENOUGH to all the Havana playboy lifestyle. Castro decided to play Moses by ruling Cuba as a nation where every worker would matter as part of the national family. Unfortunately, the fool chose Marxism than Neo-Fascism, the true way to bridge the mind and body. But in the end, the problem wasn't only bad choice of ideology but race. No matter how much Cuba's white elites tried, they couldn't represent whites, blacks, and mixed-race people in between the same way. A racially diverse nation has a hard time being organic. Ideology goes only so far in stitching the differences.

Anyway, Zionism or Afrikanierism when it comes to Labor? Should Labor be seen as part of National Family or Global Finance? When we compare the fate of Israel vs South Africa, I think the answer is clear. So, why do Jews push Afrikanerization of Labor for all nations EXCEPT Israel? Because smart(and devious) power wants to keep the secret formula for itself. Let the suckers fall for the hustle of short-term profits for long-term demise.

Organic Diversity vs Imposed Diversity - Diversity as Imperialism and Genocide - The Need to Reconnect the White Mind(the elites) with the White Body(the masses)

Jewish Globalists push Diversity and ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. Invasion of White Wombs kill white-babies-that-could-have-been and replaces them with Black Babies. Only a worthless castrated cucky-wuck white male could WELCOME such a thing.

Not only is Diversity the chief cause of butchery and hatred, it is the RESULT of butchery and hatred.

Diversity is the product of invasion, imperialism, enslavement, and domination.

How did the Ottoman Empire become diverse? Turks invaded and ruled over others and forcibly integrated them. Stalin did the same with huge population transfers in the USSR.

Israel became diverse because of Zionist imperialism and mass colonization.

Tibetans are angry because of Han Chinese imperialism under the banner of ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’. Tibetans are forced to ‘include’ the Han Chinese colonizers.

Latin American diversity resulted from Hispanic invasion, genocide, and slavery. And then Spanish and Portuguese brought over millions of black Africans as slaves.

Since diversity resulted from butchery and hatred, it furthers butchery and hatred.

Being wary of foreigners is a sound idea. Foreigners could be nice and well-meaning, but as often as not, they come with intentions to take over, replace, and to rule. Just ask the American Indians. I’ll bet they are sorry they gave corn to the starving Pilgrims.

True, empires can unleash new possibilities and discoveries; they can spread useful ideas and values. Imperialism led to the discovery of the whole world and much that is novel, exciting, and epic resulted from world explorations and conquests. And diversity can lead to creative friction and birth of revolutions. Christianity couldn’t have been possible without the friction of Roman Imperialists and Jews. And the clash of empires led to rise of new movements and civilizations, like the clash of warm front and cold front creates storms that produce rain to make plants grow. But there’s always been a huge price tag to diversity. The clash of civilizations also wiped out entire peoples and cultures. It’s like powerful storms can wipe out entire eco-systems and human communities.

Also, we should make a distinction between Organic Diversity and Imposed(often incompatible) Diversity.

A society will always have children, young people, adults, and old people. That is organic diversity. Everyone goes from infancy to old age. Also, even a homogeneous society will have smart people, average people, and dumb people. And it will have strong people, normal people, and weaklings. That kind of diversity is intrinsic and part of ANY community. So, a community can be all German, all Black, or all Jewish, and it will have different kinds of people. At any rate, such differences of age, intelligence, and strength are ameliorated by the fact of racial unity or ethnic homogeneity. At the very least, despite the differences in age and ability, there is a sense of togetherness and mutuality because they have at least one thing in common: ethnos and shared history. So, a society can be all Japanese, and there will be smart ones, dumb ones, young ones, old ones, healthy ones, sick ones, and etc. Naturally, such diversity in age and ability leads to social divergence. And yet, the factor of shared Japanese ethnicity and history maintains a sense of unity and purpose.

But even that is impossible in a society of Imposed Diversity or Extrinsic Diversity. Now, even an extrinsically diverse society will result in formations of groups based on common age, interests, or skills. So, young people of various colors may hang out together. And smart people of various colors may work together. And people of shared interests might rub shoulders at a convention. But age is not constant. Whereas a Jewish person is Jew from baby to old age, a child grows into an adult who grows into an old person. So, age cannot be an identity. That conceit was the profound delusion of the Boomers who thought they would be Forever Young with slogans like “Don’t trust anyone over 30?.

As for ability, it only applies on the job. So, while a smart Hindu may identify as SMART at work with other smart people of different races, that identity(of ability) has little use away from work or particular ability that requires intellect. Also, even smart people can give birth to not-very-smart kids. And even smart people can fall in love with not-smart people. Smart women may fall for handsome but not bright men, and smart men may fall for pretty bimbos. So, ability alone doesn’t do it as a stable identity. Also, ability is unstable. A person of great brilliance may lose the muse… as with so many music composers. Or a strong person may become injured and no longer be strong. Look at helpless Burt Reynolds's character after breaking his leg in DELIVERANCE. Suddenly, he’s even more helpless than a child.

In contrast, ethnicity is constant if tended and cared for. It is the ONE constant from childhood to old age. So, a Chinese person or Jewish person can be Chinese or Jewish from birth to death, and that gives deep meaning to his life. Also, ethnic identity is one thing that even poor people can pass down to their kids. A rich Hindu and a poor Hindu will bequeath different sums of wealth to their kids, but ethnic identity is priceless. It’s one area in which a rich Hindu is not richer than a poor Hindu. The Hindu-ness inherited by a poor Hindu child is no less valuable than the Hindu-ness inherited by a rich Hindu child.

The problem with a Diverse Society that encourages excessive Race-Mixing is that the identity of ethnicity is diluted and weakened, and identity becomes confused, contradictory, and/or unstable. Or overly narrow — the very smart club — or overly generic — like ALL young people. It’s no wonder that there’s been an explosion of bogus identities such as 50 genders. The death knell to racial and ethnic identity(esp among whites but also among Hispanics and East Asians) has led to a search for new identities based on hair color, holding up placards, wearing pussy costumes, or whatever.

Now, it’s been said that a lot of affluent white people don’t care about other whites(who are less well off or facing hard times) because they have it so good. Since they got wealth, privilege, and comfort, why should they care? After all, they are not feeling the pain(not even the kind of pain that Bill Clinton pretended to feel in the early 90s).
But surely, there are two kinds of pain. Physical and emotional. Even those in total physical comfort can feel great emotional pain IF they feel a connection to those who are suffering. This is true of animals as well. Even if some elephants are safe, they will feel emotional discomfort if one of their kind is suffering. So, elephants will try to save and help the one in distress. And this is true of chimps, dogs, and dolphins too. Even if they are safe and have plenty to eat, they will feel sad or worried if they sense pain or agony in their ‘friends’ or pack members.

So, there is something wrong when well-off whites feel NO sadness or concern about whites who are either suffering or falling behind(esp due to policies pushed by rich whites). This wasn’t always so. When whites sensed other whites-in-pain in the past, they all rallied to help those whites. When they heard of the Alamo massacre, white folks all across America wanted to go aid Texans. When Americans heard of Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that killed 1000s of white folks, they got roused up. But such feelings have been suppressed among whites under PC, and the elite-educated whites now act as though it’s beneath their dignity to care about other whites. If they must CARE, it’s always for the Holy Three: Jews, Negroes, and Homos(though other groups may be included for political expediency, like the sudden libby-dib faux-compassion for Muslims when Trump got elected).

But, the fact that a good number of well-off whites did vote for Trump or at least support a kind of nationalism shows that they are not simply about material or physical comfort. They do feel emotional pain, agony, and distress over the fact that so many Americans have fallen to the wayside. Maybe some of these people, though individually successful, have siblings or cousins whose lives have gone the wrong way(and there is no one to lead such people back to the fold; it’s like the estranged brother in MICHAEL CLAYTON). Now, this kind of white-on-white sympathy is frowned upon, even vilified, by PC. But some well-off whites do feel it. They understand that life isn’t just about individual material comfort but an emotional peace of mind. When so many of their own kind are falling behind, there is bound to be emotional discomfort among such people.

Libertarians may only care about themselves as free individuals. So, if they are doing fine, that’s all that matters. They may scoff at altruistic feelings as ‘weak’ and ‘irrational’. Libertarianism is a cancer of Anglo individualism, like National Socialism was a cancer of Germanic communalism. Both individualism and communalism have genuine worth but only in relation to other -isms. Excessive individualism cuts one’s emotions from rest of humanity, even one’s own kind. And excessive communalism leads to conformism of the mind and to tyranny.
Unlike Anglos who led the way in the development of individualism, Germans were closer to blood-and-soil sense of an ethnic and cultural community. The positive side of this was a greater concern for the nation as a family. And this positive side was there in National Socialism as well as it emphasized the needs of every member of the German Volk. But it was pushed so far that it turned into a radical racist supremacism that disregarded the worth of OTHER nations and peoples. Too much Germanic or Aryan sense of brotherhood failed to regard other peoples as part of larger brotherhood of man.

In contrast, the excessive libertarianism of Anglo-America has led to atomization and self-worship(esp by imitating trashy narcissistic celebrities). Some will say US is too proggy and ‘socialist’ with Big Government, but American Statism exists not to bolster a greater sense of American Community(as during the New Deal) but to facilitate more individualism. It serves as safety net for excessive behavior in a society where profits are privatized and losses are socialized. We see the same mindset from Wall Street to Beat Street. Financial sharks gamble and then get bailouts. Negroes and ‘white trash’ act like louts in schools and personal lives and then rely on government for safety nets so they can go on acting like pigs. Same thing in UK with its statist-enabled Chav pigs and sows.

It’s not fascist-socialism(the only one that will work) but welfare-socialism(that eventually degrades the soul). Fascist socialism is conditional. It’s a system that cares for everyone but also pushes everyone to do their part. New Deal was a form of liberal fascist socialism. It was about providing work and benefits for those who wanted to work and be responsible. In contrast, Great Society socialism(the American Great Leap Forward) was welfare-socialism predicated on rewarding those who were least responsible and least civic-minded.
Fascist socialism is about asking everyone to lift 100 lbs. Many can lift that weight and some can lift more. But some can’t lift even that. But fascist-socialism ask them to try, and it’s this effort that matters. So, if someone tries his best and can only lift 50 lbs, the system lifts the other 50 lbs for him. It was aid to someone who did at least try. In contrast, welfare socialism is like lifting the full 100 lbs for someone who won’t even try to lift any amount of weight. This is degrading to the soul. In the past, blacks worked hard in this country and had dignity even with menial jobs. At least they tried. So, when these Negroes asked for more, it made sense for America to be generous. But since Great Society, Negroes think the US exists to just give them any shi* they be demanding. It degraded their souls.

Anglo individualism was a great idea, but it was meant to exist within the cultural context and community of Anglo culture and tradition. It was not supposed to be a deracinated globalized nothingness where only ME matters. Also, any such individualism — no matter how successful the individuals are — is bound to lose to group-oriented strategies of others. After all, no matter how rich a person, he is powerless against the unity or the mob. Unless some higher theme links him with OTHERS OF HIS KIND to form a united front, he can easily be taken down by others of another kind. It’s like even the strongest man will lose if 20 people decide to gang up on him as a group. He may be able to beat them up one-on-one but will lose if 20 attack him in coordination. It’s like wolves can bring down a moose or a bear because they work together.
The trick is to have individualism within a community or to have a community with individuality. Failure of current Anglo-America is there is room for white individuals but no sense of white unity. Failure of National Socialism was the absence of individual independence from the communalized power of the radical state.

Jews surely learned their lesson about the necessity of communal consciousness… though they’ve now taken it too far, as with National Socialists. It’s one thing to defend and serve Jewish identity and interests, but it is wrong for Jews to sacrifice the identities and interests of OTHERS so that ONLY Jewish identity and interests will be served. That is a form of supremacism with similarities to Nazi chauvinism. The fact that Jewish Globalists are willing to push a ‘new cold war’ with Russia, create yet more havoc in the Middle East — war with Iran next on the menu? — , and push destructive diversity on the West suggests too many Powerful Jews are willing to sacrifice any amount of gentiles to get what they want.

Still, there is nothing wrong with Jews caring about other Jews. If anything, some Western European Jews were more into their own status among White Gentile elites than into caring about the fate of Eastern European Jews. But the horrors of WWII, Shoah, and rise of Israel changed all that. There was a sense that it’s not enough for Jews to be physically safe and comfortable in one part of the world when other Jews in another part of the world could be oppressed or being killed. So, even though American Jews had it pretty good in the US, they felt emotional duress and pain about what was happening to European Jews. It’s this connection that makes life meaningful. It’s like the thief in the Akira Kurosawa film KAGEMUSHA. At one time, he had no concern about anything but himself. But once he feels a connection with the Takeda Clan, he feels emotionally sick to see it wiped out. Without such sense of connection, he would not have cared and would have just gone about looking for good times for himself.
Or consider the scene in DISTANT THUNDER by Satyajit Ray. The man is served a plate of food in another town, and he can have a nice meal, but he feels emotional pain because his wife and others in his hometown are suffering from hunger. And it’s like TEN COMMANDMENTS. Moses in exile could have had a nice life with wife and all, but God talked to him through a Burning Bush and told him he better care for Hebrews still in bondage in Egypt. So, it’s not enough that he is safe and eating well and has a nice life. He has to care for his kind in Egypt under the iron rule of Yul Brynner. From that moment, Moses’ life is about bringing every last Hebrew out of Egypt because everyone matters(though, to be sure, he kills half of them later when they get funny with the Golden Calf, the homo parade of the day).

Anyway, even well-off white folks can be politicized IF they are made to feel a racial, cultural, and historical connection with fellow Europeanites. Once that connection is rewired, even affluent whites who are physically comfortable will feel emotionally uncomfortable when they realize that so many whites are suffering or facing hard times.
Also, it’s not just about love of fellow white folks but love of white European history and civilization. This is a great heritage and must be preserved, and only white folks can do it. (And even if it weren’t a great culture, it’s worth preserving because all peoples and heritages deserve to survive and be protected. Tajiks are not a great people who contributed much to humanity, but they have every right and responsibility to survive as people and culture in their own homeland.)
White people must preserve white civilization. The idea of Another People taking over and preserving white heritage is a joke. For one thing, PC instills non-whites with hatred toward whites. But even if non-whites were made to appreciate and preserve white culture, it wouldn’t be the same thing. It’s like white people can pretend to preserve American Indian culture, but only American Indians can genuinely preserve and guard their own heritage. Non-Indians can study and appreciate Indian stuff, but it is NOT theirs to own and preserve. Elizabeth Warren is NOT a squaw. It’s just a joke. It’s like it’d be pretty stupid for a bunch of Mexican-Americans to take over a black community and pretend to be New Blacks who own and preserve Black American History and Heritage. That would just be ‘larping’.

Anyway, any people who care for their own great culture and civilization should feel EMOTIONALLY SICK when such are being destroyed or replaced. It’s not just a matter of economics but sacred memory and appreciation.
Just think. White people are supposed to feel angry and outraged if the Mona Lisa were destroyed. But they are not supposed to feel angry and outraged when the very race depicted in the painting is destroyed or replaced or mixed into mulatto-ness. Never mind that Mona Lisa exists only because the kind of people depicted in such paintings existed to be represented by an artist.

Suppose there is a beautiful flower or animal that inspired a great painting. Now, imagine if people would be outraged if the painting were destroyed but NOT outraged if that species of flower or animal were destroyed. But the painting was possible only because such flower or animal existed(to be represented in art). Indeed, no matter how great the painting, it is still just a pale imitation of the real thing that is infinitely more important. It’s like one’s mother is more precious than a good painting of her. Creativity is precious, but Creation is priceless. The most beautiful painting of clouds is nothing compared to real clouds.

Western art and culture are the product of and a representation of white people, but for some reason, we are told that the culture is worth preserving but NOT the people who made it possible. So, Greek sculptures are worth preserving but not the Greek people whose forms are depicted in the sculptures. It’s okay if Africans come to Greece, hump all the women, and turn every Greek into someone who looks like a Moroccan.

And so many white people are okay with this because PC cut their connective cords to their own race and history. It’s like a paralyzed person with severed spinal cord who can’t feel sensations in the rest of the body. PC has cut the spinal cord between the white mind(elites) and white body(masses). White mind feels no pain even when the white boy is being destroyed.
But once the white nervous system is reconnected, even the most comfortable and affluent white person will feel great pain, distress, and agony when he realizes what is being done to the civilization and culture of his folks.