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.

The ‘Progressive’ Contradiction on Immigrants, Welfare, and Character - Leftism values in Immigrants the Very Virtues It Destroys in Americans

We often hear from ‘progressives’ that new immigrants are better than existing Americans — especially the working class whites, ‘white trash’, children born to immigrants, and of course implicitly blacks — because immigrants are hungrier, willing to work harder, more stoic, and more self-sacrificing for the sake of the family. Supposedly, these immigrants have more character. And by immigrants, we mean those fresh-off-the-boat. After all, the children of immigrants become Americanized all too fast, lose the fire in the belly that their parents had, and become as useless as other ‘loser’ Americans. According to this view, the winner-Americans(elites and upper-middle class) still have value because they are ‘creative’ and make lots of money and add to the economy.

But the lower 60% of Americans born here are pretty useless. They grew up with too much welfare, safety nets, free stuff(education, benefits, and government aid); they have no appreciation for America because they take everything for granted. They are spoiled. Even the poor are spoiled, sloppy, lazy, and rotten in America. Even if they don’t have much, they know they can rely on the system to provide them with stuff to live as couch potatoes. They are like animal that got used to being fed. To them, America is just one big dump that provides them with leftovers to get fat on.

And if it’s not government and welfare, it’s American culture that fills them with vanity, narcissism, and self-indulgence. They are no good. They don’t have what the Joads had in THE GRAPES OF WRATH. They just want to do the least amount of work for the most gibs they can squeeze out of the system. And they are prone to hire lawyers to sue anything and anyone to get more gibs. And this goes for a lot of whites as well as for blacks and established immigrants whose kids have already started to go bad. It's also true of US soldiers who will squeeze the system for all it's worth to get free stuff and more benefits.

In contrast, the freshly arrived immigrants, legal or illegal, have a real appreciation for America. They come from poorer nations with much less wealth. Some of these nations have no social safety-nets to speak of. So, people learned to be self-reliant. They are hungry and willing to do any kind of work to get make a living. And being more family-oriented, father and mother are likely to stick together and do more for their children than just living for individual aggrandizement.
Unlike fat Americans who take things for granted and know how to game the system to get free stuff, these immigrants roll up their sleeves and do jobs that Americans are not willing to do. Indeed, comparing illegal Mexicans in the US with Puerto Ricans partly confirms the validity of such view. Puerto Ricans have automatic American citizenship, and that means they can feed off the system in PR or the US. In contrast, illegal Mexicans have fewer protections, and therefore, they must work to make ends meet.

But here’s a contradiction in the Leftist Worldview. Leftism seems to suggest that the very agendas and policies that they pursue have a corrosive, corrupting, and degrading influence on the people. Leftism calls for more welfare, more free stuff, more handouts, more give-aways, and more everything for not just the underclass but even for the middle class. They say the US must become more social-democratic and be generous with welfare like Scandinavian nations. Leftism says this is necessary and good for the people.
BUT, if that’s true, how come Americans who have access to welfare and other benefits are unwilling to work at many jobs? How come the US has to import hungrier immigrants, legal or illegal, who are more motivated precisely because they come from nations without generous benefits and safety-nets? Leftism idealizes and even idolizes such people as salt of the earth, hard workers, honest toilers, and so on. And yet, if such people are so noble & admirable in their work ethic and if their virtues are the product of hardship & struggle due to lack of welfare and social safety-nets, then the only logical conclusion is that welfare and social-safety-nets(agendas pushed by the Left) have an erosive effect on virtues such as sobriety, thrift, determination, commitment, humility, and diligence.
Indeed, compare blacks when there was little or no welfare to blacks since Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society programs and Nixon’s expansions of them that made it possible for entire generations of blacks to grow up on welfare and handouts. Blacks got slack, and companies preferred to hire immigrants, often from poor nations without social safety nets and generous welfare.

So, how does one resolve this contradiction within Leftism? Take someone like big fat gross Michael Moore. He even attacked Billy Boy Clinton’s welfare reform policies in the 1990s that tried to return blacks, white underclass, and legal Hispanics to the work-force. It placed incentives on welfare so that people would have to do some kind of work. Fat Moore and so many ‘progressives’ denounced it as inhuman, tyrannical, heartless, cold-blooded, neo-conservative & neo-liberal, quasi-Republican, exploitative, and etc. In other words, trying to make the welfare class get back into the workforce was sooooooooo very terrible! In other words, this kind of leftism says that welfare dependency is a human right and, if anything, the lower 50% of the US public should be showered with more free stuff and more benefits. They should not be expected to return to the work force or try to cultivate certain virtues like sobriety, diligence, and thrift to get back on their feet.

And yet, does it make sense to believe that the underclass will be better off morally or economically if they become so dependent on welfare and handouts? Indeed, even the Left seems, at least on some level, unsure and confused of their own claims. And this is most evident in their defense of immigration. The Left praises immigrants(legal and illegal) from Third World nations as having more work ethic, more energy, more zeal, and more willingness to give it their all... as opposed to the American underclass that seems hopeless on every level: In their attitude to education, work, family, culture, and etc.
And of course, we hear pro-immigration rhetoric from Conservatism Inc. as well. It tells us that immigrants are more ‘culturally conservative’ and more appreciative of what America has to offer. But this would indicate that America is a very corrupting place. If new immigrants are better than established Americans and already-settled-immigrants, it means that the process of Americanization turns people into atomized, materialistic, lazy, narcissistic, decadent, crass, and trashy individuals. If America can only carry on with New Blood because old blood is weak and diseased, then it means Americanism will eventually rot the bodies and souls of all those who come here. If Conservatives really believe this, shouldn’t they diagnose why Americanism is so diseased that those already here are no-good or worthless and must rely on transfusions of New Blood of immigrants to keep the economy alive?
The worldview of people like David Brooks and William Kristol suggests that the US is essentially vampiric. Brooks and Kristol despise white working class and white underclass as worthless. Though they don’t call out on blacks, they don’t have much love for them either. They seem to believe that, since many Americans are worthless as human material, they should just be allowed to decay and die on welfare & opioids and be replaced with the New Blood of immigrants. The elites, the only people who are still vibrantly in the globalist game of innovation and enterprise, must suck on the blood of New People since Old People’s blood is poisoned or diseased.

But if this is so, shouldn’t we ask, WHY DID AMERICAN BLOOD BECOME SO DISEASED? Doesn’t it have something to do with degenerate pop culture(pushed by Jews, homos, and Negroes), infantile PC babytalk, and too much welfare? Now, the American Right used to warn against the dangers of excessive welfare. Indeed, even the New Dealers worried about what safety-nets might do to the character of Americans. FDR was no welfare-handout looney. He strove to provide relief to suffering Americans but wanted to keep intact the noble work ethic of most Americans, white but even among blacks. This was why the New Deal didn’t offer free stuff for teenage girls who got pregnant with some trashy dude. And Neocons in the 60s and 70s in both the Democratic and Republican parties voiced concerns about what kind of effect the Great Society might have on the American underclass, especially among blacks. But the American elites soon gave up on blacks as anything except as government workers. Most of the New Workers were to come from docile and diligent immigrants, especially from Mexico and Asia. And in time, the elites even gave up on the white working class. And when Billy Boy Clinton revamped the Democratic Party as a globalist ‘free trade’ party than the party of Big Labor, American politics was about GOP and Democrats doing little else but jockeying for more donations from Wall Street, Las Vegas, Silicon Valley, and etc. And as GOP’s conservatism went from social/cultural to purely economic, the almighty dollar was all that mattered. There was a time when the GOP would have been a bit ashamed to rely on someone like the utterly sleazy Sheldon Adelson who made his fortune in gambling. But no more. With libertarianism as the new ideology of the GOP, all that mattered was profits. Even Christianity turned into, "Jesus will make you rich."

Anyway, if people like David Brooks really feel that many Americans are so worthless that the US needs more New People, why are they so reluctant to spell out clearly and honestly why the US went from a nation of sobriety, responsibility, and work ethic to a nation of excess, indulgence, and piggery? Granted, Brooks, more than others, have hinted at the social and cultural decay of the US. So have chunkhead Ross Douthat and that guy at the American Conservative, Rod Dreher. But Brooks being Jewish and Douthat & Dreher being semi-cuck dweebs, they dare not NAME THE JEW as the main corrupting force of the True American Way.

As for the Left, it’s just pathologically mendacious or downright delusional. At least the Classic Left had a certain consistency. It valued work ethic and virtues such as diligence, thrift, sobriety, and morality. Back then, the Left called for more state intervention to improve working conditions and to make life more tolerable for the toiling masses. Folk songs were about people sweating in coal mines, on farms, on train tracks, in factories, and etc. They were not about some welfare queen who be ‘twerking’ her ass for youtube audience. Left called for more social benefits for workers who were contributing so much to society.
But since the 1960s and Great Society, especially with the boomer elites having been raised in a world of excess, indulgence, and vanity, the New Leftism came to be all about self-actualization, self-indulgence, self-aggrandizement. People deserved all sorts of benefits and welfare as a ‘right’ just for the hell of it. No reason was necessary. In communist nations, the idea was workers deserve benefits and safety-nets because they worked so hard to produce stuff. In the post-60s America and Europe, the idea was people deserve free stuff because they just do... even if they are unwilling to study or work or take any responsibility for their own lives. Partly, such attitude was just the sign of the times of post-WWII economy that never seemed to stop growing. Middle class affluence projected its attitudes onto all of America. Since middle class kids grew up taking things for granted in a world of plenty, why shouldn’t the same ‘right’ apply to everyone in America? Taking-things-for-granted became a new kind of ‘positive right’. So, never mind such outdated notions as moral hazard.

Such mentality took hold from Wall Street billionaires to Mean Street thugs and whores. Wall Street could use finance like a casino, and if thing blew up, no need to worry. They could just take it for granted that the system would bail them out. And if the masses acted excessive and messed up their lives, just look to the state to take care of them. From top to bottom and from right to left, the notion of moral responsibility became dirty words.
The elites are into total decadence and degeneracy. Wall Street, Las Vegas, Hollywood, and Silicon Valley are filled with sociopaths and sickos. Ivy League colleges promote LGBTQ nonsense as the highest value. The underclass have Rap, trashy TV, and violent video-games as their culture. It’s all so soul-murdering and soul-dead.
The Left believes morality is so old-fashioned, and all problems can only be solved with ideology, such as anti-white-male-bashing, and more soulless statist programs. The Right believes the Marketplace will fix all problems if we just let it do its magic. Libertarians believe morality isn’t necessary. Just let the markets do its thing, and the ‘rational’ agency of individuals will kick into gear and fix all problems. Save-Indians-with-Casinos is the libertarian template for All Americans.

Anyway, how do we resolve this Leftist Contradiction of Welfare and Virtue? The Left loves to virtue-signal about how it cares so very much about the bottom 50% of Americans. Indeed, virtue-signaling among themselves than virtue-instilling or virtue-cultivating among the populace is what the current so-called Left is all about. For there to be true virtue, the people must be criticized and admonished as well as defended and helped. It’s like you cannot instill virtue in kids just by spoiling them, indulging them, and calling for more toys and games for them. You have to balance the fun/free stuff with a sense that they must also make an effort and grow more responsible. But the rotten Left just indulge blacks and certain favored ‘victim groups’(some of whom are rich and privileged) instead of being critical in a constructive way. What good did white Liberals do by indulging the "hands up, don’t shoot" fantasies of blacks in Ferguson, MO that led to BLM, more lies, and more violence? It’s one thing to denounce real acts of police brutality but quite another to indulge Black America, mired in crime and degeneracy, with the fantasy that is always blameless and automatically noble because of their skin color and loud hollers.

But on some level, the Left must know that its way has been corrupting because it is totally supportive of immigrants on the basis that the latter are more virtuous, more hard-working, more self-sacrificing(for their family members), more adult, and more stoic. And less self-indulgent, less spoiled, less pampered, less infantile, less whiny, and less entitled. Indeed, so many on the Left outsource virtue to the immigrants and would-be-immigrants.

If it’s true that Leftist Way makes for greater virtue, then nations that were most transformed by post-WWII welfare state — EU and the US — should have the people with the best virtues. But we are constantly told by the Left that the spoiled, bratty, whiny, and entitled peoples of the US and EU must be replaced with people from poorer nations because these immigrants, having grown up without so many goodies and freebies, are hungrier and harder; they are made of tougher stuff of character, work ethic, and responsibility. And the Left point to illegals in the US who do the kind of work that so many blacks, whites, and settled browns(already spoiled) aren’t willing to do. Using this logic, virtue is the product of hardship, and therefore, the Leftist fulfillment of the Welfare State led to the erosion of virtue among so many Americans who grew lax and lazy in taking too much for granted... like the grasshopper(versus the ant) or the hare(versus the diligent tortoise).

Does this mean that there are only two options? Poverty and virtue OR Affluence and vice? Or, is there another way? There is in the neo-fascist socialism that is more like the New Deal, National Socialism, and the Singapore Model. New Deal wasn’t about free handouts. It was aid to people willing to work hard. And while Nazism did end up committing great crimes and thus discredited itself, its core economic ideology had much of value. Its welfare policies were both conditional and thematic. It was conditional in the sense that people were expected to contribute to the system as well as take from it. Also, its socialism was founded on noble themes of serving and strengthening German-hood. So, national healthcare carried the theme of Germans caring for all fellow Germans as part of the national family. And aid to women as mothers was about collective national support for more healthy German babies.
In contrast, social democracy in an individualistic society is purely materialistic and fosters the mindset of "What’s in it for me?" Or, it can go PC & pro-diversity and deviate into "Social-Democracy for Sweden must be for the whole world", a notion as destructive as Nazi plan to conquer all of Russia. Whether an order tries to conquer others with hate or conquer others with love, it will fall in the end due to lack of understanding of limits. Nazis got swallowed up by Russian terrain, Russian climate, and Russian soldiers. And Sweden, by playing Jesus healing the sick, will get swallowed(and raped) by the African and Muslim masses.

Sadly, we don’t have Neo-Fascist socialism today. Instead, what passes for ‘socialism’ is some fat white bitch with green hair and tattoos on her ass at some PC college pontificating about what a noble soul she is because she calls for more freebies for everyone and for more immigration because... immigrants are the salt of the earth who will do jobs that Americans won’t do. But don’t expect idiots like that to notice any contradiction in their logic.

Btw, while it was true that immigrants in the past were often more hard-working out of desperation and respect for the host nation, that isn’t really the case anymore around the world. Immigrants, migrants, refugees, and invaders in the EU know how soft and weak the Europeans have become. They know there are plenty of globo-proggy lawyers, activists, and politicians in all those nations that will side with New People over Native People. So, they have no respect for the host population where men are all cucked and the women are whores with jungle fever. Indeed, BBC is now casting even white historical heroes with black actors. So, if immigrants in the past came with awe and respect for the White World, they now come with contempt for free stuff and to demand, "Where the white women at?" They notice that white politicians are all whores for Zion and that white folks worship blacks as the superior demi-god-race that dominate sports, pop music, and sex. And PC instantly teaches non-white kids to see white males as worthless 'racists' and wussy cucks.

Also, the West is far more willing to provide all sorts of benefits and even ‘rights’ to the invaders. Indeed, even Africans who willfully strand themselves off the coast of Libya are picked up by European boats and set free to roam all around Europe like pack animals.
While people might respect magnanimity backed with pride and strength, they feel utter contempt for good will supported by nothing but sappy & naive good will. This is especially true for people from cutthroat Muslim nations and savage African nations. No ‘refugee’ respects a cucky Germany that holds up ‘Welcome’ signs for invaders, most of whom weren’t even from Syria.