The Great Lesson of the Russo-Jewish War, Aka the Ukraine Conflict: Don't be Nice Unless You Hold the Megaphone - As It Happens, Neoconazis Got the Big Speakers

 Ukraine Is Committing Suicide by Cop – By the Saker

…I kept thinking about utter insanity of the Ukrainian actions. An outside observer could be forgiven for thinking that the Ukrainian people have some kind of death wish, and if maybe not most people, then at least the leaders of the Ukraine. And then it hit me. The Ukraine is doing what is known in the USA as “suicide by cop” …

A bulb went inside the head of Andrea Raevsky, aka the Saker, making him suddenly realize that the Ukraine Conflict is akin to ‘suicide by cop’, i.e. Ukrainian actions are so irrational and deranged that Russia has no choice but to apply full pressure. Raevsky has a point based purely on the externalities but fails with the internalities. After all, the meaning of ‘suicide by cop’ makes sense only in relation to the intentions of the suicidee-by-other-means. He wants to die but, for whatever reason, can’t make himself take his own life. Furthermore, in most such cases, the suicidee-by-cop has no intention of harming the police officers. Most often, he barges out of the house guns blaring but not aiming to kill. Or, he may shoot off blanks or make threatening gestures until the cops decide to put him down.

Kiev’s actions resemble those of a suicidee-by-cop only in that both were meant to provoke the stronger party to deadly action. But the intentions of Zelensky(and the Jewish Globalist Masters behind him), as well as those of the Ukro-Sub-Nazis, are entirely different from those of a genuine suicidee-by-cop. Unlike the latter who fires roughly toward cops only to provoke a deadly response, the Kiev regime has been targeting the Donbass region in particular(and Russia in general) for maximum harm. Whereas a suicidee-by-cop only feigns at being a homicidal maniac to draw gunfire from the cops, Zelensky and the Sub-Nazi scum around him are truly homicidal psychos driven by pathological impulses.

Zelensky’s worldview is in concert with that of his supremacist-minded tribal brethren, and the Sub-Nazi Slavs are merely the flipside of Cuck-Maggot-Slavs. If the Sub-Nazis bask in the nostalgia of the Aryan Nazi West waging war on the ‘Asiatic’ Slavic East, the Cuck-Maggot-Slavs wet their pants in the dream of being accepted, if only as servants and dogs, by the more affluent and supposedly more advanced, more sophisticated, more fashionable, and more ‘cool’ West.

Whether it’s reveling in Nazi Nostalgia fantasies or celebrating Globo-Homo & Negrolatry, it’s a case of self-loathing Slavs looking to the West for inspiration and approval. The Sub-Nazis hark back to the brief period when National Socialist Germany defined the fate of Continental Europe as the future of the West, whereas the Cuck-Maggots are slavish to the Current West dominated by Jewish Masters and Anglo Dogs.

Even though Sub-Nazi Ukrainians(who look to Hitler and Bandera) and Cuck-Maggot Ukrainians(the Cuck-Sacks) are diametrically opposed in many respects, they are united in their servility to their respective ideal vision of the West, be it ‘Aryan supremacist’ or ‘Jewish-Homo-Negro-centrist’. Especially as Russia partly defines itself as both Anti-Nazi(especially in relation to the Great Patriotic War) and Anti-Globo(especially in defiance of Jewish Supremacists who demand that the Russian Bear bend over and take it up the arse like Uncle Sam and others have done), it has resulted in the perverse alliance of the Far-Right and the Ultra-Cuck in Ukraine.
Something similar has been brewing in Poland. Prior to the Ukraine Conflict, the Polish Globalists and Polish Nationalists have often been at loggerheads. But if the two sides are united in one thing, it is self-loathing Slav-ism and contempt/hatred for Russia. The Globalists want Poland to go the way of Paris and London, even Los Angeles. As these people tend to be well-educated and urbane, they aren’t exactly Dumb Polacks.

Actually, they’re worse; they are Stupid Polacks, hardly surprising since stupidity now defines much of Western elite culture and ideology. As for the Polish Nationalists, they stand on questionable foundations. Even though Poles are a Slavic People, Polish Nationalism is predicated on how different the Poles are from other Slavs, especially the ‘backward’ kinds in the East. Of course, the West will always look upon Poles as a bunch of Slavic bumpkins fit only to be plumbers and sausage-makers, but Poles are so eager for approval, if only as inferior or second-rate ‘Central’ Europeans. Then, it’s no wonder that Polish Globo-Homo idiots and Polish ‘patriot’ tards are currently united and working with Jews and Homos to prolong the war in Ukraine to hurt Russia.

Still, Poles aren’t as deranged as the Ukrainians. After all, due to their proximity to the West and Catholicism & Latin alphabet, Poles among the Slavs, along with Czechs and Croats, have forged something like a unique national identity. Likewise, even though Swedes and Danish are Germanic peoples, they are clearly distinct from Germans. But this has hardly been the case for Ukraine, of which there never was a single well-defined historical concept or cultural entity. Indeed, much of Ukraine is simply inconceivable without Russian civilization, which originated from parts of Ukraine.

Paradoxically, precisely because Ukrainian nationality is so inchoate and ambiguous on its own, i.e. artificially made distinct from Russia, extreme policies have been implemented by Ukrainian elites to exaggerate Ukro-Russian enmity and to dehumanize Russians in general. While the differences between Russian language/culture and Ukrainian language/culture have been greatly amplified, the similarities & shared histories have been suppressed, even criminalized.
Then, it’s no wonder both ‘neo-nazism’ and globo-homo have been so appealing to entire swaths of Ukrainian self-loathing Slavs. Via globo-homo, Ukrainians can conveniently set themselves against Russia that said NO to celebration of homo bung-donging and child-genital-mutilation. And via ‘Neo-Nazi’ antics, Ukrainians can pry their history apart from the Great Patriotic War Narrative that once united many Russians and Ukrainians in shared memory even after the end of the Cold War and the creation of Ukraine as an independent republic. Needless to say, Jews are privately appalled by Ukro-Sub-Nazi types but are willing to work with ANY group against what is deemed their biggest global enemy, Russia. Anything that can be used to stoke anti-Russian hatred is worth its gold to Zion. Furthermore, it’s a convenient way for Jews to persuade that the Great Famine was the doing of Big Bad Russia than by the Soviets, most of its top leadership during the political terror and massive starvation was composed of non-Russians, many of them Jews.

A faker, if at least to fool oneself, has to be more extreme than an authentic person. The fact remains that, for all its worthless loathsomeness, Polish nationality is clearly distinct from that of Russia, just like Vietnam is from China. But the concept of a wholly unique Ukrainian nationality is as much hokum as Taiwanese nationality contra China, all the more hilarious in Taiwan’s case because, for the longest time, the Taipei government claimed to be the sole legitimate representative of all China.

Now, this isn’t to state that Ukrainian nationhood need be dissolved into greater Russia but merely to acknowledge that no sense of Ukraine-ness would be complete without taking into account its profound connections with Russia. Indeed, it’s hard to discern where exactly Russia ends and where Ukraine begins. Only in parts of Western Ukraine can one speak of a culture distinct enough to merit a separate nationality from Russia.

Still, just because peoples have deep connections doesn’t mean they have to belong to one nation. Brits and Irish both speak English and have a deep shared history as well(though often contentious), but they belong to different nations(though it will be difficult to tell them apart in the future as both are being neo-colonized under the Jewish globalist regimen that demands open borders, globo-homo, and Negrolatry). The US and Canada developed as profoundly Anglo-European countries but remained separate countries, also true of Australia and New Zealand. And Mexico and Central American countries remain independent despite having the shared background of brown native cultures(that of ‘Tacoans’) and colonization at the hands of Spanish Conquistadors.

In the same spirit, it had been workable for Russia and Ukraine to remain separate countries while acknowledging their deep historical ties. Viktor Yanukovych sought a path that was conciliatory to Russia while remaining friendly with the EU. He accepted Russia’s more favorable deal over the EU’s proposal, but it didn’t preclude Ukraine from dealing with the West either.
But whereas Russia could accept Ukraine dealing with both the East and the West, the US and EU, under Jewish control, deemed it unacceptable and thereby engineered a coup, which finally succeeded with the recruitment of sub-nazi elements(and possibly Mossad assassins).

The Maidan crisis gives us a glimpse into the Jewish Way. Unlike most peoples who are okay with multi-polarities, Jewish Power insists on ‘my way or the highway’. It’s certainly been no different in the US, where all the ‘Arabists’ were purged from the US government and institutions. Jewish Power could only accept ultra-Zionists and pro-Israelites. And whites can’t even express a mild sentiment like “It’s Okay to be White”. Never mind overt ‘white supremacism’; a mere hint of positive white consciousness triggers the Jews who demand that whites totally negate and purge their own identity while offering complete loyalty to Jews and Israel.
Then, why would Jewish supremacist mentality be any different abroad? Just like whites in the West cannot be both pro-Jewish and pro-white — they must be totally anti-white and totally pro-Jewish — , it was intolerable that Ukraine under Yanukovich would negotiate with both the EU and Russia for its own national interests.
Rather, it was decreed by Jewish Supremacists that Ukraine must deal ONLY with the Jewish-controlled West(or Schwest) and cut all ties with Russia, even murdering Ukro-Russians who looked eastward or expressed the obvious: Russia and Ukraine have been joined at the hip forever. Also intolerable was any skepticism of Schwestern intentions.

A massive de-Russification campaign began, one of the most harrowing ethnic conflicts in European history after World War II. The West, which once sermonized against excessive ethnic enmity in former Yugoslavia, did everything to stoke ethnic hatred in Ukraine, even to the extent of recruiting, encouraging, and arming sub-nazi and far-right elements. Anything that was anti-Russian was funded and elevated in the institutions. Though Jews denounce people like Greg Johnson in the US, they recruited such Naziesque types who wished the Germans had prevailed in the East in WWII and reduced Russia into a German colony of Slavo-helots.

For Jewish Power, its word is final, indeed the word of god, and that’s that. Look how Jewish supremacists are at the forefront of purging Free Speech in the West. Now that they got the power and no longer need constitutional and legal guarantees of free speech for themselves(as they control most of the institutions and industries that matter in Narrative-creations and public discourse), what now goes by ‘free speech’ boils down to “Jews say, goyim obey.”

Indeed, the main reason why Russia and other relatively sovereign nations are pushing back against Globo-Homo has nothing to do with ‘gay rights’ per se, or the freedom of individual homos to be tooty and do their own thing. No, globo-homo isn’t about ‘gay rights’ but about homosexuality, trans-nuttery, and related deviances as the mandatory and official ‘spiritual’ themes of the Empire of Judea. In other words, politicians and prominent people in the West are compelled to march in the ‘gay pride’ parades and consent to public buildings & big companies displaying signs and symbols that would have us believe that homo-fecal-penetration and tranny-penis-cutting are uniquely wonderful things, indeed so much so that an entire month must be devoted to affirming the West’s celebration of them.

Western goy elites, having become so accustomed to the rule of “Jews Decree, Goyim Agree”, hardly protested the demands made of the Ukrainian government following the ouster of Yanukovich in the Maidan ‘revolution’. Perhaps, privately some of these goy cuck-elites wanted a more moderate policy, but Jews had the whip-hand, and that meant working with the most cynical and most radical elements in Ukraine to use the country as a battering ram against Russia, to intimidate and demoralize it, as if to say, “We are right on your doorstep, we are stamping out Ukro-Russians, we are murdering people in the Donbass, and YOU RUSSIANS can’t do anything about it.”

In retrospect, it was foolish for Russians to think they could come to any terms with Zion. Russians should have realized, upon surveying conditions in the West, that Jewish Power, once sufficiently entrenched, won’t accept anything but total mastery. Indeed, consider the fate of the Anglos in the US, the UK, Canada, and Australia. Anglo ‘peace’ with Jews isn’t an accommodation but a total surrender to all their demands. Why would things be any different with Jewish demands on Russia? And of course, once Russia was beaten, Jews would then have moved against the Ukro-Sub-Nazis, purging them once their usefulness was past due. Henry Kissinger once said, “To be an enemy of America can be dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal”, but me thinks he was really talking about Jewish Power. After all, it’s dangerous for Russia and Iran to be the enemies of Jewish Power, but it’s been totally fatal for Anglos to be the friends of Jewish Power. Jewish Supremacists, as ‘friends’, gained complete access in the Anglo World to control everything and run Anglos into the dirt, where they now snort like pigs on a farm.

Anyway, if there is any lesson to take from the Russo-Jewish War, aka the Ukrainian Conflict, it’s that there’s no use being nice if you don’t control the megaphone. Suppose Bill is a big tough guy and can do real damage to little Bob. Bill wants Bob to listen and show some respect. He doesn’t want to hurt Bob too badly. He decides to play nice, relatively speaking. Knock Bob a few times but not deliver the knockout blow and punch out his teeth. Now, if Bill commanded the megaphone and made it well known to Bob and observers that he’s going easy because he doesn’t want to hurt or kill Bob, his relatively humane approach would be noted, even respected. He would be acting from the position of strength, not only in raw muscle power and bigger size but getting the message across for all to hear, especially Bob.

But, what if Bill doesn’t control the megaphone. Then, his ‘humane’ approach(given he could do serious damage if he really wanted to) is likely to be counterproductive to his aims. Bill is being nice, but suppose the owner of the megaphone spins the ‘narrative’ so that Bill is failing to deliver the fatal blow because he’s a wuss, he’s a pussy, he’s scared, he’s lazy, he’s incompetent, he’s confused, he’s all talk and no walk. Bob, emboldened by this spin, is likely to taunt Bill and hurl objects at him. Bob drops his pants and moons Bill and say, “kiss my ass, you fa**ot!” Then, he turns around and pulls out his dong and say, “Suck on this, maggot!” Meanwhile, the observers, taking their cues from the megaphone, will cheer on Bob as the defiant and feisty underdog standing up to Big Dumb Bully Bill who gets no respect, not from Bob, not from the crowd. Thus, Bill’s ‘nice’ approach would have been for naught. He only would have wasted time, and the Bill-Bob conflict would have been prolonged, with both getting hurt far more than had Bill gone all in to knock out Bob real quick.

It’s possible that something along those happened in the Ukraine Conflict. Russia’s relatively humane approach, sparing most civilian infrastructures and being rather conciliatory in tone, went totally unappreciated by most people in Ukraine and the West(though not so much in the non-West with their independent media that, over the years, have grown cynical of the US and EU). Every time Russia was trying to be ‘nice’ and come to the negotiating table, it wasn’t appreciated as an offer from a position of strength but desperation from a position of weakness, even cowardice by a paper bear that needs to rip out computer chips from washing machines to launch missiles. Russia hadn’t gone all in against Ukraine, but the Jewish-controlled megaphone assured Ukrainians and Western observers that Russian power is spent and all out of missiles, bombs, tanks, artillery, and men, most of whom are running with tails behind their legs to hide under the bed and cry to mama. In other words, Russians are just like Italian mama’s boys.

Furthermore, even though Russia’s rather light approach limited civilian casualties, it was ignored and made hardly any difference in Western opinion. Again, Russian efforts not only went unappreciated but were defamed by the Jewish-controlled megaphone that spun the conflict as the GREATEST HUMAN CATASTROPHE since the Holocaust. The megaphone told the West that evil Russians were wantonly targeting hospitals, blowing up schools & concert halls, and indiscriminately murdering civilians on a massive scale. Much of this ‘reporting’ was just projection of Ukrainian war crimes since 2014. Even though the Jewish-controlled Kiev regime used sub-nazi morons to bomb civilians in the Donbass region, the megaphone made it seem as if Russians are the ones routinely terrorizing Ukrainian innocents. And whenever Ukrainian atrocities were discovered, they were blamed on Russians with full complicity of the Western Media that take their cues from Jewish Supremacists.

If the Russian side had been heard throughout Ukraine, perhaps more Ukrainians would have considered Russia’s reasons and its offers. But, most Ukrainians got the news only from Kievian and Western sources, and all they heard was ‘Russians are monsters’, ‘Russians are scum’, ‘Russians are the worst of the worst’, and etc. But then, since the end of the Cold War(and especially following the Maidan Coup), generations of Ukrainians were indoctrinated with a nationalism that defined itself AGAINST Russia. Many young Ukrainians came to feel that London and Los Angeles are culturally closer to Ukraine than Russia is. That’s how retarded a lot of Ukrainians are. So, even as Russians went in regarding Ukrainians as Slavic brothers and sisters, Ukrainians saw themselves as part of the ‘West’ and regarded Russians as ‘orcs’.

So, what’s the point of being nice if you’re going to be blamed as the worst monster that ever lived anyway? If the megaphone is going to vilify you NO MATTER WHAT, you might as well go King Kong or Godzilla and really deal a heavy blow to show who’s boss. Niceness has value only when respected, appreciated, and reciprocated. But when it’s seen as weakness or stupidity, it will be wasted. That’s where Neville Chamberlain failed with Adolf Hitler, where Nikita Khushchev failed with Mao Zedong, and where Vladimir Putin failed with the Jews.

Niceness is nice ONLY IF met with gratitude. Otherwise, it’s just vulnerability and weakness, something that will only be abused. Indeed, the whole of Russian approach since the end of the Cold War has been fatally flawed for being overly nice to those who are hostile and hellbent on gaining supremacy over Russia, from Jewish eyes nothing but the land of dumb, lazy, and drunken Slavs. While Russians were referring to the US and EU as ‘our friends’ and ‘our partners’, the Jewish-run West ran countless articles about gangster Putin, new hitler Putin, thug Putin, and about all those stupid dumb retarded Russians.

Perhaps, one could argue that Russia’s friendly diplomacy was necessary, at least until now. Far weaker than it is today, Russia had to swallow its pride, choose caution above all, and play for time while developing its industrial and military capabilities, as well as ties with key non-Western nations, especially in Asia and the Middle East. But one thing for sure, in the current Ukraine Conflict, every ‘nice’ action by Russia went ignored, impugned, ridiculed, spun, and/or defamed. From this perspective, Russia would have done better to have Pavel Craig Robertsky at the helm instead of Putin. Fully aware of the mendacity and contempt that runs through the Western Media, Pavel the Terrible, Horrible, and Awesome(and his top commander General Asskickovich) would have brushed aside any proposal of going in ‘nice’. His motto would have been “No More Mr. Nice Guy”.

At this stage in the conflict, Russia has only one option left. Totally smash and dismantle Ukraine, take all of the eastern half. Those who want to stay are to be welcomed as brothers and sisters. Those who hate Russia must be forced into the western part of Ukraine. And there can be no mercy for those Ukrainians whose nationality is defined by self-loathing Slavism, fantasy ‘Aryanism’, imitating Dumb Polack-ism, and celebrating globo-homo-ism. There’s nothing to mourn or regret in killing as many of those scum as possible.

RUSSIAN FM LAVROV REVEALS THE INSIDIOUS PLAN OF NATO AND THE SUDDEN ROLE OF THE OSCE IN UKRAINE

 Video Link

How the Japan-Poland Thought-Project Demonstrates Race Is More Essential Than Culture

 

Race or Culture, what is more important to a people?

Many will answer ‘culture’ because race is about biology. Unlike animals that are entirely defined by biology, mankind is more than his biological content. A boy raised by wolves or apes in the wild without connection to human culture may appear even lower than an animal. He seems incomplete, whereas animals are complete in their biological composition. A wolf possesses wholeness as a predatory pack mammal. A chimpanzee is complete as a wild ape making funny sounds and humping anything that moves.

In contrast, man is incomplete with biology alone, as the film THE WILD CHILD(by Francois Truffaut) well illustrates. Hugh Hudson’s arty version of GREYSTOKE: THE LEGEND OF TARZAN also shows the deficiencies of the man of savagery without culture, albeit with the Romanticist twist that man of nature is, in some ways, truer than the man of civilization with his inhibitions, deceptions, and hypocrisies. (If Tarzan begins as a white boy raised in the jungle by apes in the proximity of savage black tribes, it seems modern Britain is committed to importing Jungle to Civilization in the hope that sunshiny fat-lipped black soul will kiss and thaw & liberate the frigid English sensibility.)

Culture is so important to mankind that even savages aren’t really savage in the cartoonish sense(though certain Negro behavior patterns indicate otherwise, ironically in the civilized setting, but then the modern cult of individual freedom has unmoored entire peoples not only from old repressions but simple obligations, a condition that has affected the black community especially negatively as blacks are more prone to act ‘crazy’).

Even among savage tribes in the Amazonian forests, Eskimos in the far north, American Indians hunting bison, and Congo jungle-dwellers, there was a complex culture of language, signs, symbols, stories, craft & expressions, and moral values(that, at the very least, applied to the members of the tribe). Savage folks don’t act like Caveman stereotypes in Hollywood movies where they grunt instead of talk and just shove live animals in their mouths. Even the Neanderthals had customs and rituals.

So, mankind, as we know it, simply isn’t conceivable without culture. Of course, culture has purpose only as an outgrowth of or an application onto life. While mankind, brutish and stupid, can exist without culture(albeit in an ugly way), culture cannot exist without mankind, the diversity of which has been manifested through the various races, or variant rivers of genetic flow.
Culture is always an addition to life, not life itself, though it has a profound impact on life and its future.

Also, culture is shaped by the nature of the organism. Different dog breeds can be taught the same lessons, but they learn and respond differently. Different races of mankind can be instructed with the same lessons, values, meanings, and modes, but they will process them differently in accordance to their racial natures. Teach Christianity to blacks, and it turns into a disco for Jesus. Democracy takes on different forms and characteristics among the various races, even ethnicities(though ethnic identity is largely molded by culture).

Naturally, a race with more stable emotions and higher intelligence tends to make more of democracy(or any other form of political organization) than the races with lower intelligence, especially if given to impulsiveness. Surveying the history of popular music, what blacks did with white music and what whites did with black music goes to show that, despite the cultural origin of the music, the racial processes alter the very character of the expression. A white person may act black but, instead of really becoming black, produces a synthesis of white nature and black style. And when blacks imitated white music, they couldn’t help jiggiting it up a little in tune with their own nature. This may account for white sensory fascination with blackness because blacks tend to add salt-and-pepper to white expression. And even though most blacks are loathe to admit any kind of indebtedness due to their Afrocentric megalomania and/or insecure touchiness(which are two sides of the same coin), the more honest among them do appreciate and admire the greater sophistication, complexity, and refinement that whites often added to black culture.

Anyway, instead of arguing race vs culture, the relevant question here is about Race and Which Culture. To put it simply, is it better to survive racially with the culture of another people than to vanish racially while the culture is preserved by another people. For example, would it be better for the Russian people to become Muslims speaking Arabic(while abandoning or forgetting about their Russian culture) OR for Russian culture, history, and language to be preserved by non-Russians(while real Russians fade into oblivion).

The question clarifies what is more important, race or culture. Now, we accept as given that mankind simply isn’t complete without culture, i.e. there is a need for culture, any culture, even not one’s own, in order for mankind to function as Man(contra the animal). So, even if a Russian knows nothing of Russian culture, history, and language, he can still function as a thinking, feeling, and imaginative being if imbued with some culture, any culture.

Indeed, there are countless examples of such phenomena in the US. Many, or even most, Americans know little or nothing of their cultural origins. Most Italian-Americans can’t speak Italian, have never been to the Old Country, and know little of Italian history and the arts. I’ve known Greek-Americans who know less about Greece, modern and ancient, than I do, and I’m no expert on the subject. So, to be functional as a rational and sociable person, a knowledge of one’s original culture isn’t necessary. When Europeans abandoned their indigenous pagan cultures in favor of Christianity that originated among the Semites, they still remained functional on most levels and even gained in certain areas of morality and spirituality. Over time, plenty of Slavs became citizens of non-Slavic lands and made perfectly fine Germans, Frenchmen, and even Englishmen.

So, it is agreed that there is a need for some culture, any culture, in order for man to be complete as a Man. The white boy abducted by some Amazonian forest tribe in John Boorman’s THE EMERALD FOREST(a kind of a twist on John Ford’s THE SEARCHERS) was also raised in a culture which provided him with meaning, purpose, and sense of place. Even at the primitive level, he was raised in a culture and cosmology.

The crucial question is what is more important, racial preservation or cultural longevity? Upon consideration, the preservation of the race seems of the utmost importance. For starters, whereas culture is something we made in a matter of decades or centuries — most ideas and expressions that have lasted for thousands of years were created within a rather short time frame — , we ourselves were made by the massive forces of nature — geography, geology, climate, fauna, flora — through the eons. In this sense, the difference between race and culture is the difference between a mountain and a man-made mound. While we can seek to understand the origins and meanings of culture, we still can’t wrap our minds around the processes that led to the evolution of mankind and the emergence of the various races through tens of thousands of years across the vastness of the Earth. Culture is what we create, but we are what nature created, and the latter is deeper in mystery and sheer awesomeness.

Whereas the oldest civilization is 6,000 yrs old, human races are at least 200,000 yrs old. European History is traced back to the Greeks around 2,500 yrs ago, but the European races have been around for at least 40,000 years. Of course, even prior to the rise of civilizations, the various primitive tribes had cultures(like the few remaining primitive folk do today), but the racial-biological development of man preceded culture. It is the egotism of the human intellect that tends to put ideology before biology, even at the expense of failing to secure the bio-ethnic survival and preservation of a people. So accustomed to prioritizing BELIEVING over BEING and to modern comforts & conveniences, it’s as if our survival and well-being are guaranteed by a set of values and systems of production; such an outlook totally overlooks the fact that NOTHING matters if a people failed to secure their own survival through reproduction and racial consciousness. So-called ‘reproductive rights’ are not about reproduction per se but about the right to end reproduction in favor of ideology and individual impulse, the promotion of which led to the unwanted pregnancy in the first place.

With so much emphasis on creativity(a cultural matter), there’s hardly any discussion of the importance of procreativity(except as a matter of self-fulfillment, i.e. “career isn’t enough to satisfy me, so I need some kids too”). It has degenerated into Extinction Rights and has nothing to do with real reproduction rights. There’s a lack of understanding of Our History, the very map of ethno-story, i.e. that illustrates the connective links from point A to B to C to D to etc. Without a map, one has no sense of place and direction.

A sense of Our History maps the existence, past-present-future, of a people, and one of the key reasons for Jewish Power is a profound sense of Our History. Jewish Consciousness, religious and secular, have a sense of where the Jews began, how they became what they are, what journeys they underwent, where they met the greatest dangers and found the greatest treasures.

Pathetically, whites allowed their sense of Our History to slip into the control of Jews who interpreted White History as an Evil Narrative; besides, White History is just a myth because ‘whiteness’ is really a modern ‘racist’ idea, and therefore European-ness may be claimed by ANY race. Of course, Jews control the entertainment complex that now fill up any movie or TV show about past European History with Negroes in key roles. According to Jewish media, Russians are not European but recently arrived black Africans most definitely are, indeed so much so that they must be put upon the pedestal as idols and icons above white Europeans, the meaning of whose existence according to globalism is to serve Jews, homos, and Negroes.

Because whites no longer own their own Map of Time, they have no deeper or broader sense of self. They only care about the self or individuality. And if they do feel a need for something bigger than themselves, it’s about the historical sanctity of Jews and Negroes mostly, with homos thrown in for good measure. It goes to show that your people must learn to map their own history because, if left up to others, the map will be manipulated to highlight directions and destinies at odds with those of your people. It’s like the notion of the New World is Eurocentric, as if the natives of the Americas lacked a past and culture of their own before the arrival of the Conquistadors, whose explorations made the Americas known to the rest of the world.

Now, let’s consider why Poland and Japan(or any such ethnically distinct nation) may be useful as a model as to why race matters more than culture. Of course, ideally both the ethnos and the culture of the people should remain intact and survive. Poland should be the land of ethnic Poles with their Polish culture, language, and history, just like Japan should be the land of ethnic Japanese with their Japanese culture, language, and history.

But, let’s do a simple mind experiment whereby Poland can exist as a white nation with a non-Polish culture or a non-white nation with a Polish culture. Imagine a Twilight Zone scenario where the people of Poland remain ethno-racially what they are but take on a different culture. Suppose they all turn Muslim and speak Arabic or turn Hindu and speak Hindi and worship cows. Racially, these hypothetical Polacks are just like real Poles by blood, but they no longer remember Polish history, belong to the Catholic Church, speak the Polish language, have a stupid hatred for Russians, and defer to the book of Dumb Polack jokes(written mostly by Jews) as a cultural manual on thought and behavior. They remain ethno-Poles but minus the Polish culture.

In the other Twilight Zone scenario, Polish language, culture, and history remain, but the Poles have been wholly replaced by ethno-Nigerians. Or ethno-Mongols. Or ethno-Hindus or whatever. For some reason, these people regard themselves as Polish and speak Polish and eat kielbasa, sauerkraut, and pierogis and listen to polka music and third-rate imitation jazz. Poland remains culturally but is racially gone, vanished, or replaced. For the extreme culture-centrists, Poland still remains because Polish culture is still ‘alive’.

Of course, both scenarios are visions of hell for the Poles, but which is worse? Loss of Polish culture or loss of Polish ethno-race? If Poles had to choose between Poland turning into a land of ethno-Poles without Polish culture or a land of non-Poles with Polish culture, which one would they choose? Surely, Polucks(or Polish Cucks) will opt for a Poland with Polish culture but no Polish ethnos, but I’ll bet the majority of Poles would rather choose a Poland with ethno-Poles but no Polish culture. It’s Race before Culture because race is deeper and more real than any culture. Nature(or God for the religiously inclined) created man, whereas man created culture, and nature’s work over eons far outweighs whatever mankind has created in his midst. (Of course, the brown-nosing Polucks care neither for Polish ethnos nor for Polish culture, much like the current Anglucks or Anglo-Cucks have relinquished the right of both race and culture. Polucks and Anglucks don’t care if their lands are remade by other peoples and other cultures. Anglucks are resigned to entire British cities being taken over by immi-vaders who not only racially replace whites but don’t even care to preserve Anglo-British culture, and there are plenty of Polucks who don’t care if Poland is replaced both ethno-racially and histo-culturally. All they care about is being smiled upon by globalist elites whom they regard as their superiors.)

What would be closer to your true self? Suppose you are to be exterminated and you’re offered two choices of continuance after your death. One way is to make a genetic clone of you but without the memory of what YOU were and valued. The other is to embed all your beliefs & memory in the head of another person whose DNA is entirely different from yours. Suppose Baptism matters a lot to you, but your clone is raised to be a Mormon. In contrast, the other person is indoctrinated with your exact take on Baptism. Who is more a continuation of what YOU are? What would be more of a continuation of Tom Cruise? A clone who isn’t into Scientology or a Seth Rogan whose mind is programmed with Cruise-isms?

Now, consider Japan. Which would be more like the real Japan? The continuance of the race but the loss of the culture or the continuance of the culture but loss of the race? In a way, modernization has already answered that question at least halfway. Westernization/Modernization has drastically remade Japan, East Asia, and indeed all of the non-Western World. In terms of ideas, values, methodology, habits, and practices, today’s Japanese have more in common with modern Western folks than with bygone Japanese folks prior to the coming of Commodore Perry’s Black Ships.
Indeed, much of Japanese culture has either been erased or simply forgotten, barely existing as museum exhibits or empty festival rituals. Of course, there are many continuities in language, sense of history, and etc. Still, much of the original culture has been lost, probably forever. Still, Japan remains Japan because the people are ethno-Japanese. In the modernization period, there was even some talk of replacing the Japanese language with a European one, and had such been realized, Japan would still have remained Japan because of the ethno-racial factor. After all, Hindu elites in India are well-versed in English(and some of them even speak it better than Hindi and other Indian languages), but they are still Indian above all due to the blood factor.

Saving culture instead of race is doomed to fail even in its stated goal. In time, the people will come to feel that the culture they’re preserving and practicing isn’t really theirs. Imagine you’re a Nigerian as the New Pole but you look at Polish historical paintings, and the images are of another people. I suppose the Nigerian as New Pole can blacken all the faces in the paintings and pretend Poles were always black, but that’s just a big lie and degrades the culture — it’d be like pretending that black slaves in the American South were white or Hindu OR that Jews in ghettos were a bunch of Hawaiians.

Now, certain cultural ideas and practices can be universalized, but much of the meaning of a culture is closely associated with a particular people, like Shintoism and Japanese customs. Furthermore, even something as universalist as Christianity takes on particularist significance and meaning for different peoples of the Faith. What Catholicism means for Poles is different from what it means to the Spanish or the mestizos of South America. Many Poles regard Catholic Church as the stalwart defender of the nation and culture against foreign oppression. In contrast, many Spanish came to regard the Catholic Church as a tool of Franco’s tyranny. Christianity meant different things to Southern Segregationists and the black(and white) followers of MLK, the nasty lout with the big shout.

So, if Nigerians were to become the New Poles in the cultural domain, the shtick couldn’t last for long. In time, the Nigerians would come to reject the culture as not really their own; or they will change it drastically to render it more palatable to black sensibility, resulting in something that bears little resemblance to the original thing. They will surely make use of the culture but as something to exploit than to protect. It’s the difference between butchering an animal for food and taking care of it as a valued specimen.

Indeed, the problems are obvious with blacks in the US(and EU as well). For centuries, whites tried to acculturate blacks to Western standards. Blacks were forbidden to beat on drums and dance like savages. They were given Western names and had to answer to ‘Toby’ than ‘Kunta Kinte’. They were brought to the Christian Faith. But over time with greater freedom and choice, blacks began to feel, “Dis be some honky-ass shit.” Sure, blacks take advantage of white ideas and values — ‘slavery is an absolute evil’ is a Western moral development — , but they don’t embrace them as their own culture.
Besides, even when a people dutifully try to preserve or recreate the culture of another, the result is far from the real thing. Initially, the Germanic Barbarians sacked Rome but, in time, shouldered the burden of imperial legacy. But it was never the same thing. There really never was a Third Rome despite the ambitions of Charlemagne, the Russian Tsars, and Adolf Hitler.

And for sure, the attempt to Anglo-Americanize or Europeanize the Jews failed miserably. Jews make poor standard-bearers of Americanism because, for all their Zeligish exploitation of American freedoms and opportunities, their main loyalty is to Zion and the Tribe. Thus, when push comes to shove, if having to choose between the Tribe and what’s-good-for-America, Jews will choose the Tribe. Jews may argue that their globalism is in allegiance to a higher calling, namely choosing what is good for the whole world than what is only good for America(or ‘America First’), but Jewish ‘internationalism’ is really about the interests of World Jewry. Just ask the Palestinians and countless Arabs/Muslims destroyed by Zion. Just ask the Eastern Ukro-Russians in the Donbass.

Even if the culture is lost, the survival of the race offers the possibility of cultural recovery or renaissance. In some cases, the culture can be recovered and reunited with the race. Modern/Western Archaeology has had a most profound impact on how peoples around the world regard their own sense of selfhood, history, and heritage. Consider the rediscovery of much of Ancient Egyptian culture that had been forgotten or lost under Muslim rule. Their once forgotten past is now an integral part of Egyptian-ness. Cambodians lost the Angkor Wat to the jungles, but French archaeology rediscovered it, and today’s Cambodians cannot conceive of their heritage and history without it. Christian ‘cultural genocide’ nearly wiped out all vestiges of indigenous paganism of Northern Europe, but some of it survived(mostly in distant Iceland) and later came to serve as inspiration and source of deeper identity to the German Romantics and nationalists. At one time, Hebrew was essentially a museum language, ignored by most Jews. But as long as the Jewish ethnos survived, Hebrew could be revived as the official language of Israel, the Jewish nation-state.

Furthermore, even if the entire culture of a certain race or ethnos is irretrievable, lost and gone forever, the racial nature can nevertheless produce future expressions in ‘mythic’ tune with the lost culture. Consider the American blacks who were cut off from Sub-Saharan Africa and only knew the cotton-picking fields of the South. They knew nothing of African folklore, dances, and music. They didn’t know their ancestors were named ‘Wagabunga’ and had names like ‘George Smith’. Their idea of music was imitating white folks’ songs and dance. Despite all that, their racial culture subconsciously reproduced something imbued with the spirit of Black Africa, which was written into their DNA. When the massuh and overseers weren’t watching, they couldn’t help wiggle their butts, pumping their groins, and hollering like James Brown. Even with church music, their racial nature couldn’t help but junglize it and turn hymns into humping noises. Of course, it wasn’t exactly black African culture(as the jungle tribes didn’t have blues and jazz and the like), but it had a similar blackity oogity-boogitiness. It’s sort of a Jungian thing, the seeds of culture within the racial psyche, whereby even if the culture is wholly lost, something of the same spirit is created from the racial nature. If we erased white minds and put a whole bunch of whites on a hypothetical island to produce a culture from scratch, there’s no guarantee that it will lead to what we know of as ‘Western Civilization’. However, the arising culture will be animated by the same kind of spirit and mythos that fueled the Old Europeans. Likewise, if we were to erase black minds and put black folks on a hypothetical island, the result would likely be something along the lines of Black Africa(or Detroit).

As glorious as the achievements of the West are, if one had to choose between losing all the culture and maintaining the race and losing the race but maintaining the culture(for other races to preserve), the former is always preferable. Because, for all the genius and inspiration, culture is the outward manifestation of what lies deep within the nature of man.

Of course, if whites had to create a new culture out of whole cloth without memory of their past, the results will be different from the achievements of the Greeks, Romans, and other Europeans. Nevertheless, so much of what is expressed will have been inspired and fueled by the same temperament, passion, and imagination.

Likewise, if blacks had to choose between preserving the race but forgetting all about blues, jazz, soul, & rap OR losing the race but having other races appreciate and practice black music, which would they choose? Even if they were to lose their current genres of music, they could create new ones grounded in the same soulfulness, and thus, the essence of blackness would be preserved. But if blacks are gone as a race while black culture is kept alive by other races, what the hell is that? Blacks made that shit but other races be enjoyin’ it while blacks be nowhere to be seen. (Granted, in purely civilizational terms, it might not be bad for the World if blackness vanished racially and lingered only culturally in a few musical genres. A Detroit with rap music but no black people would probably spring back to life as a thriving and mostly safe city.)

And what would Jews prefer? Keeping the race and losing the culture or losing the race and keeping the culture… alive in goy hands? Suppose some super-hitler had killed off every Jew in the world, BUT Jewish culture was still prized and preserved by various goyim. Would Jews prefer that over Jews surviving as a people but forgetting their culture? (Jews don’t seem too happy that goyim in the form of Christians and Muslims adopted much of Jewish culture in sacred text and cosmology.) In the end, cultocide is a lesser horror than genocide. If indeed culture means more than race, a super-Holocaust where all Jews are racially exterminated wouldn’t be so bad. It wouldn’t be the end of Jews because any bunch of goyim could culturally become Jews, and then, Jews are all around once again.

If a city faced the destruction of every building, museum, monument, garden, and institution but kept its population, it would be a great loss, but something similar could rise from the rubble. Paris is a city rich in arts and culture, and it would be an incalculable loss to witness their destruction. Still, as long as French people were around, French civilization could be rebuilt… much like German and Japanese cities were rebuilt after World War II. Same was true of Warsaw, of which 80% was destroyed in the war.

On the other hand, if all the arts and buildings remained intact but the population was replaced by another, it would be a wholly new civilization or a barbarism degenerating into savagery(if blacks were to take over). Warsaw suffered tremendous wreckage in World War II, but the Polish people still lived there, and it rose once again as a Polish city. But imagine if today’s nice and orderly Warsaw were kept intact brick by brick but taken over by the Chinese, Hindus, Arabs, or Africans. Chinese, Hindus, and Arabs could make use of Polish buildings and infrastructures, but their societies wouldn’t be Polish, which would survive only as an empty shell for other peoples to use and exploit. If blacks took over Warsaw, they would turn it into another Detroit. They will dismantle the city brick by brick if left to their own devices. So, race always matters more than culture. Hiroshima was smashed to bits in World War II, but the surviving Japanese rebuilt it. But imagine if today’s Hiroshima were left intact but its native population replaced by blacks. That would be another Detroit.

Response to "Hungarian Foreign Minister DEMOLISHES triggered BBC reporter calling for open borders in Europe"

Actually, this is what the Hungarian Foreign Minister should have said:

Diversity works only within the EUROPEAN Union. In order for the EU to be European, it must be by Europeans and for Europeans. As it currently functions, the EU might as well be called the World Union, or especially the Afro-Islamo-European-Union. It says something about current EU that it is so hostile toward fellow whites in Russia and Hungary and Poland while being so celebratory and welcoming of Africans, Arabs, and Asians. So, basically, the current EU wages war on White Europe and tries to unite Europe with non-Europe. Furthermore, it wages war on the meaning of what it means to be European. According to EU, a 'European' is anyone who just comes to Europe and signs a piece of paper. So, history, culture, and blood no longer matter. A European with 10,000s of years of racial evolution in Europe and 1,000s of years of cultural history in Europe is NO MORE EUROPEAN than a newly arrived African or Arab who just learned the language and signed a citizenship paper. Basically, it means that the roots of a European has NO meaning. It doesn't matter if your roots in Europe racially go back eons and culturally go back millennia. You are NO MORE EUROPEAN than some Arab or African who just came for free gibs and to assimilate to globo-homo Hollywood-Rap culture.
Calling Africans, Arabs, and Asians the 'New Europeans' is a sleight-of-hand trick. It's like replacing orange juice with lime juice and labeling it as 'new orange juice'. Suppose I take over your house and call myself the 'new you'. That way, YOU didn't lose your house to me because I'm the 'new you'. So, the house still belongs to you because I am 'you', or the 'new you'. Isn't that ridiculous? It's all semantic BS.

Hungary joined the EUROPEAN Union to cooperate more fully with fellow Europeans. It didn't join to become one with Afro-Islamo-European Union. Also, Hungarians know what a real European is. He is a person with deep racial, historical, and cultural roots in Europe. But EU has changed rules so that ANYONE can become an Insta-European by signing a piece of paper. The rich stream of European blood has been replaced with the stamp of globo-homo ink. A true European has no more claim or birthright to Europe than billions of non-Europeans around the world. (This is the logic of colonialism and imperialism. Just like European imperialists tried to suppress the birthrights of the peoples they conquered, the globalist project of EU seeks to suppress any notion of ancestral claim and birthright among Europeans in their mother-continent.) EU will say dumb things like 'Europe was always a world of immigrants', but virtually all those peoples were fellow whites, fellow Europeans. Surely, a bunch of blacks going from one African nation to another is less jarring than a bunch of non-Africans settling in Africa. The same is true of Europe. A bunch of Poles going to Germany or UK is less jarring and disruptive than millions of black Africans and Arab Muslims taking over entire areas of Europe. Also, the history of Europe was about resistance against foreign invaders. Mongols invaded Russia and even reached Poland. They were eventually pushed out. Moors invaded Sicily and Spain. They were pushed back to North Africa eventually. Turks invaded Greece and parts of Balkans; they tried to invade more. Europeans rolled back the Turkish tide. Europe wasn't about inviting invasions by non-Europeans but about repelling them.

Anyway, it is not Hungary or Poland that violated the agreements of the European Union. It was the globo-homo elites of EU who've decided to collaborate with the Empire of Judea. They are not real leaders but comprador-collaborators. Their duty was to keep Europe European and to facilitate easier and more efficient cooperation among Europeans, but they undermined their own project by effectively uniting Europe with Africa and the Middle East(and even Asia). Meanwhile, they badmouth Russia because they're puppets of Jewish Supremacists filled with hatred for Putin who said NO to Homomania(as proxy of Jewish Domination).

Also, there is no greater human right than for a nation to survive as a people and culture. Demographic Imperialism that replaces the people and culture is a form of geo-ethnocide. It's obvious from the creation of Israel that massive movements of peoples can lead to a destruction of a people and culture. Massive Jewish demographic imperialism led to the eradication of Palestine. Palestinians live like animals in a zoo in Gaza. They live under Apartheid conditions in the West Bank.
After WWII, the anti-imperialist struggles of Third World peoples were all nationalist. Hindus in India told the British to go home because India is for Indians. Africans told Europeans to pack up and leave because black Africa belongs to black Africans. Anti-imperialism founded on the principle of universal nationalism was the most fundamental form of human rights. Before we can have individual rights and liberties, we must be free as a people from foreign or imperialist domination. For example, Palestinian individuals in Israel have many individual rights and liberties, but they are NOT free as a people. Their nation, Palestine, has been taken over by Jews, and all Palestinians, no matter how rich or free as individuals, don't have a nation because their land now belongs to Zionist overlords. If it happened to Palestinians, it can happen to anyone. Consider how Kosovo had once been the sacred homeland of Serbians. But over time, Albanian Muslims moved in and settled in Kosovo under Ottoman rule, and the Serbs lost their ancient homeland forever. But I suppose EU can advise Serbians to just see Albanian Muslims as 'New Serbians'. Of course, Albanians don't see themselves that way.

Also, Diversity has many meanings. The World is Diverse, after all. So, Diversity as a condition of the world isn't a problem. The world will always be diverse, made up of various races, ethnic groups, nations, cultures, religions, regions, and etc. But Diversity as PC formula is about forcing Demographic Imperialism on each nation(except Israel). Every nation must be made into a mini-world. But why? Hungary is Hungary, and it should be Hungarian. If you want to see China or Africa, visit China or Africa. Why bring China, Africa, Pakistan, India, Afghanistan, and etc. into your own nation, especially if it's small? If rising Diversity is such a huge headache for massive nations like the US and Brazil with so much space, imagine its impact on smaller nations like Hungary and Poland? At the very least, white Americans can flee from Diversity. In small European nations, you are stuck with it right outside your door.

The kind of Diversity pushed by EU is really a form of imperialism. Diversity as a condition of the world is just a reality. But Diversity as a formula is about coercing all nations(except Israel) to surrender to massive demographic imperialism and replacement. It's usually about higher-IQ prosperous nations with low-birthrates being demographically taken over by low-IQ peoples from poor nations with high birthrates. The result will be loss of entire civilizations. Just do the math. Over time, the current Diversity policy of EU will turn all of Europe into something like Morocco. Is Morocco a happy place? If diverse North Africa is so great, why do people there want to move to white Europe?

Also, EU's pontificating about Human Rights is so much BS. If EU really cares about non-whites, why doesn't it ever stand up to Jewish-run US neo-imperialist policy that destroyed so much of the Middle East and North Africa? For the most part, the EU didn't do anything about George W. Bush's illegal war on Iraq. EU was silent about Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright's sanctions that killed 100,000s of Iraqi women and children. The EU has continued to support Israeli occupation of West Bank. EU has gone along with US sanctions against Iran that hurt so many people. EU supported Obama-and-Hillary's destruction of Libya even though Gaddafi made peace with the West. EU worked with the US to aid terrorists and Jihadis to tear Syria apart. 400,000 people died. EU never stood up to Jewish-run US empire that destroys millions of lives in the Muslim World.
Indeed, the so-called 'refugee' crisis is the result of Jewish-run US neo-imperialism in Middle East and North Africa. But the EU, that is gutless in standing up to Zionist-American power, huffs and puffs about Hungary and Poland whose only desire is to protect their nations. It is the Jewish-run US that is pushing the Invade-Invite Policy. It says the US should freely invade and destroy nations around the world(especially to serve Israel's interests), and as millions and millions of people will be displaced by such invasions, the white world must 'invite' those people as a 'humanitarian' gesture. So, Jews use Western Power to destroy all nations hated by Israel, and then, Jews morally pressure white nations to accept the 'refugees'. Of course, Israel takes none and won't even give back Golan Heights that was stolen from Syria. What a bunch of a**holes.

Finally, Diversity-as-Formula is a form of imperialism. Nazi Empire was about diversity. It was about many peoples being forced to live under the Nazi umbrella. Soviet Empire was diverse. It was about many peoples being forced to live under Soviet Hegemony. The EU is now about forcing demographic imperialism on every European nation to make them more diverse. Just like Nazi Empire forced Slavic lands to accept German settlers, the EU forces European nations to accept African and Muslim invaders displaced by Jewish globo-homo imperialist wars in the Middle East and North Africa. (Jews apparently want to use wars to empty the Middle East so that they can grab more territory.)

The EU project could have worked if it had remained European and respected the national rights of all European peoples. But it turned into an arm of Judeo-Globo-Homo project. As such, it went from a sunny project of uniting and preserving Europe to a stormy project uniting Europe with Africa, Muslim World, and South Asia. It came to be about forcing the Diversity Formula or the Demographic-Imperialist Agenda on each and every nation.

So, why did so many white people fall for this poison pill? Because Political Correctness imbues vain white people with a new kind of supremacism. If imperialist whites of the past were racial supremacists, today's whites are moral supremacists. They think they are soooooooo very goody-good and holier-than-others because they are so obedient to the Globo-Homo Agenda that demeans anything white and patriotic as 'racist' while extolling anything Diverse(usually black) as sacrosanct. So, just by mouthing sacramental platitudes about 'diversity' and 'human rights', these insufferably smug PC whites think they are superior to nationalists and patriots. But then, communists also felt morally superior by mouthing off platitudes about 'equality' and 'revolution'. Just another form of supremacism among people for whom every corner of the world must be made to cave to their dogmatically imbecile notion of right-and-wrong.