Beware of Nominalism — Why Russian & Chinese National Fascisms are Necessary Bulwarks against Jewish-Gangster-Globalist-Fascism — Paradox of How the US destroys true democracy around the world by promoting its parasitic brand of deep state Imperial Democracy

Michael Lind: "Another answer is that members of the establishment are almost all nominalists. That is to say, if they give something a name, it takes on real existence in their minds. The Afghan National Army offers a perfect example. Because we called it an army, gave it lots of American money, equipment and training, and knew its order of battle, it was an army. But it wasn't."

'Democracy' is a word game in our political culture of nominalism, or judging things by name or brand than what it really is.

Fascist Theory of Power is true. All things of power turn 'fascist'. Ideology gives into the true dynamics of power, and the winners(or at least survivors) subscribe to all or most of the pillars of power-essentialism.

Jews used to be socialist, anarchist, communist, liberal, libertarian, or etc. Today, Jews are overwhelmingly tribal. They are now focused on power, not principles. Of course, they tirelessly invoke principles but only to twist and bend them to the needs of power, not the other way around. Fascist theorists understood this nature of power and human nature. In time, all things, at least those with the will and wherewithal to survive and gain in strength, turn fascist. A movement can start from the right or the left, but the end result for survivors and winners is the intersection where fascist truths converge. It's been said fascism was defeated in WWII, but only a kind of fascism met such fate. What we've seen since is the rise of new fascisms but guised as something other. Indeed, all post-WWII fascisms have postured as 'anti-fascist'. Even fascists hate the label because it's too candid and forthright about the nature of power. Just like people wear clothes to conceal their nakedness, most forms of power cloak themselves with rhetoric about 'higher principles', 'freedom', 'social justice', or 'the people'. Indeed, even Italian Fascists and National Socialists did this with their overripe reliance on myths and cult of personality. It was to hide the essentially gangster nature of those in power who, far from embodying the noblest qualities of their civilizations, gained position by a good measure of cunning opportunism and backroom compromises.

Supposedly, the end of the Cold War was also the End of History, with liberal democratism and free markets triumphant all over the world. But Francis Fukyomama got it all wrong. The passing of the Ideological Age didn't lead to the rise of the Individual Age but to the Globo-Tribal Age, one where a group(Jews) that refused to abandon its tribal identity &power urged upon all others to do just that. Following WWII, the ideal had been universal nationalism or universal tribalism: Each nation would embrace nationalism but against imperialism as a violator of national independence. Indeed, both the US empire and Soviet empire during the Cold War justified their hegemony as the guarantor of nationalism against the imperialism of the other side, e.g. USSR supported Cuban and Vietnamese nationalism against American Imperialism, and the US supported Polish and Hungarian nationalism against Soviet Imperialism.

But following the end of the Cold War, the new mantra wasn't nationalism-for-all but one-world globalism, or the (not-so)gradual erasure of all nationalism to bring about a New World Order with US as the lone superpower guaranteeing freedom of individuals and markets all over the world. According to Fukuyama, the future was about universal individualism for all nations under the protective power of the US as the great post-national empire, one that used its might not to dominate and exploit others but to emancipate them and open them to opportunities.
Whatever one thinks of this idea, pro or con, the people who gained dominance in the West had other ideas. While Jews pushed deracinated globalist individualism to everyone around the world, they themselves stuck to Jewish supremacist tribal-nationalist-imperialism. Thus, the New World Order was really Jew World Order, with one set of rules for most of the world and another set of rules for the Jews. This contradiction has perhaps been best exemplified by the diabolical figure of George Soros.
Jewish aim wasn't to simply join the global humanity but to rule as the master race over the rest. Notice Jewish Power has been about mass migration for all nations but NOT for Israel. Jews insist on white deracination but demand that whites praise and champion Jewish Power and Zionism. As such, the agenda of universal individualist-globalism was deeply marred(and even doomed) because its most fervent proponents, the Jews, refused to apply it to themselves. It's like the Sacklers pushing opioid junk on goyim. As far as Jews were concerned, globo-individualism was for goy suckers, not for themselves. It was to weaken goyim and bring about their dissipation into atomized individuals, all the while Jews would empower their networks and embolden their identity. (True, many Jews intermarry with goyim, but the children are raised as Jews, just like black-white pairings lead to 'black' kids. In any race-mixing, one race gains dominance over the other. It's like all those mestizos are labeled as Latino, a European-derived identity.)

So, the New World Order after the Cold War was a two-faced beast. On the one hand, as Fukuyama pontificated, it was about the spread of post-ideological and post-national global-universalism of individualism, free trade, and rule of law. (Rule of Law is problematic in a world where a tiny cabal uses its legal and financial dominance to rewrite any set of laws. While goyim are expected to obey the laws, Jews get to rewrite them as they please. Rule of Law used to mean defense of free speech as a Western principle, but with Jewish rewriting of laws, it now means the police can arrest you for speaking truth to Jewish power, Homo idolatry, or Black thuggery. Worse, Rule of Law is useless when Jewish-controlled US, as the lone superpower, does as it pleases around the world. US is illegally occupying the oil-rich parts of Syria but gets away with it. So much for Rule of Law.)

Now, post-national globo-individualism is anathema to many on the Right(and some on the Left who oppose capitalism), but it was doomed to create havoc because of Jewish supremacist hypocrisy. Perhaps, the globalist agenda would have panned out better in Russia had Jewish advisers been more principled and dedicated to fairness and justice. Instead, Jews exploited the opportunity to rape Russia... which turned most Russians against globalism. And in the US, Jewish Power grew ever greedier. Via ethically dubious machinations of finance and big tech, Jews got richer and richer. By suppressing BDS, Jews created a system where Jews can call for boycott of any political group or any Muslim nation but no one can call for boycotts against Jews and Zionism. Jews in power get to decide what is 'terrorism'. When Israel does it or supports it, it's never called 'terrorism', but false-flag events in Syria, of which Assad isn't guilty, are labeled as such. Even non-existent crimes of Assad are deemed 'terrorist' by US State Department and Jewish-controlled mass media, whereas Israel's endless terror-bombings of Syria and its support of ISIS goons never are.

What Jews did to Muslims, they've also done to whites who are now being denied platforms, free speech, and financial services. Samuel Huntington wrote about the Clash of Civilizations, but the most important one was not between the West and the Muslim World. It was between the West and the Jews, but people failed to see this because (1) there were too afraid to speak truth to Jewish Power (2) they were too philosemitically beholden to Jewish Power (3) Jews are regarded as part of the West because of assimilation.
Huntington spoke of Western Values vs Muslim Values, but the main threat to Western Values came from Jews who'd penetrated deep into Western institutions. While tolerance for homos can be said to be a part of Western Value, since when was Celebration of Sodomy a Western Value? Since when was Western Values about fifty genders and the fantasy that a fat guy with penis and balls is a 'woman'? Since when was the deification of black thuggery and Afro-savagery as neo-sainthood a Western Value? Since when was Jungle Fever and White Male cuck-maggotry a Western Value? No, all these sicknesses had no roots in Western Civilization but were planted as poison seeds by Jews. But Huntington focused on Muslims. Sure, Muslim values are at odds with Western values, but why were there so many Muslims in the West in the first place? Why did Europeans become so accepting of the Great Replacement and Diversity? (For most of European History, the West was about defense of the race, preservation of Classical Civilization, faith in Christianity, and/or Rationalism & Enlightenment. What passes for 'western values' in the Age of Globalism is anything but.)
And why did the West stir up the hornet's nest in the Middle East with interventions, wars, and support of terrorists(usually against Arab secular regimes war with Islamic fanatics who were mainly funded by Saudis, key allies of the West)? Granted, Huntington expounded his views before the West went fully 'woke' with globo-homo and BLM nonsense. Still, the main flaw of his thesis resulted from fixating on Muslims than on Jews. Even 9/11 wouldn't have averted if the US, under Jewish pressure, hadn't gotten so mired the Middle East, especially beginning with the Gulf War under George H.W. Bush. 9/11 was essentially blowback with the winds fanned by the hidden hand of Zionist gangsterism. Idiot Muslim terrorists were the sailboat, and Jewish Power was the gods blowing the winds in certain directions. Just like how the gods guide men vs men in THE ILIAD.

The Jewish refusal to surrender to globo-individualism(that was really meant for goyim) doomed the principled foundations of globalism. Whether one supports or opposes globalism, one could at least acknowledge its principled universalism had it demanded the same of ALL peoples. But for Jews, it was a case of 'you goyim take the medicine while we Jews play doctor'. Russians woke up to this, and globalism failed in Russia. But there was another factor. China, like the Jews, took part in the business-aspect of globalism but clung to its nationalism under the leadership of CCP, the only Asian government, apart from that of Vietnam, that wasn't created more-or-less under US neo-imperialist domination.

So, while white cucks in the West became totally spellbound by Jewish Power, Chinese(and Russians and of course Iranians) kept their independence. In a way, this explains why white cucks(libby-dib or conzo-wonzo) are so angry with Russia and China. Why should Russian and Chinese goyim remain independent of Jewish Power when whites in the West have totally groveled and cucked to it? The anger is partly based on ideology and partly on envy. Many white cucks sincerely believe they are the 'most evolved' people on the planet because they are into self-debasement, Negro Worship, cuckery to Jews, and globo-homo mania. They really believe this. But, on the subconscious level, they feel envious of Russians and Chinese who say NO to Jewish globalist authority. White cucks can't help sensing that Russians and Chinese are more like defiant wolves while they themselves are totally obedient dogs. John McCain barking at Putin was so much like a dog barking at a wolf. It was in total servility to the Jewish Master but also in envy of Putin's relative independence from him.

White cucks will say they hate Russia and China because those two states reject 'liberal democratic' values, but if that's the case, why are white cucks so supportive of Jewish supremacism, Zionist tyranny over Palestinians, and Black megalomania? It seems white cucks also have their tribal favoritism: Blacks over non-blacks and Jews over Palestinians & Iranians. And it seems white cucks believe that Muslims, such as Afghanis, have human value ONLY WHEN they adopt 'gender studies' and globo-homo. Are white cucks even aware of their hypocrisy? Cold Hypocrisy of cynical politicians is bearable because so many people say one thing while doing another. But, white cucks are into Hot Hypocrisy, the kind where passions are at odds with principles. If we tend to despise religious hypocrites more than political ones, it's because politics is about cold hypocrisy of saying whatever to get elected. In contrast, when religious types invoke God and morality but then act like louts, thieves, and perverts, it comes across as far worse. Because 'woke' craziness has all the fervor of a religious movement, the hypocrisy is hot and beneath contempt. And of course, Jews are among the hottest hypocrites, always sermonizing about 'hate', Holocaust, 'racism', and 'white supremacism', all the while acting like Zio-Nazis or Jewzis. Just ask the Palestinians. Also, Jews who, for so long, never tired of denouncing 'McCarthyism' as the darkest period in US history are now 100x worse than the anti-communists. The former bitchers about 'red-baiting' and 'anti-communist hysteria' are into white-baiting, Christian-bashing, Constitution-smashing, and free-speech-attacking. Jews also warned people of how the Nazis used medicine as cultural metaphor and political tool, but now Jews use medical tyranny to lend the impression that those who say NO to the 'vaccine' are germs that must be stamped out.

21st century has been about the resurgence of fascism even though all these new forms of fascism hides behind the nominalism of 'liberal world order', 'democracy', 'socialism', or what have you. While some governments admit to being nationalist, a term less toxic in the globalist-controlled discourse, none dares to admit it has anything to do with fascism. It goes to show that World War II still casts a long shadow on the future. Because the peak of Soviet/Russian prestige came with the defeat of National Socialist Germany and full independence for China followed the total defeat of Japan(an ally of Germany), both the Russians and Chinese carry on the charade that they've been the main victims of and victors over fascism. And because Jews met their greatest enemy in the German fascism of National Socialism, Jews have since postured as the biggest anti-fascists in the world(though it hasn't restrained them from supporting quasi-nazi elements in Ukraine).
Of course, the main reason Jews denounce fascism is they want to keep its magic formula for themselves. After all, fascism fuses rightist and leftist elements, whereas other ideologies pit right against left, thus creating division, distrust, and general havoc among a people — indeed, whites are so divided because they reject fascism and opt for ideological partisanship(or even purism) as a 'blue-stater' or 'red-stater', whereas Jewish neo-cons and neo-libs work together to make both rightism and leftism serve the Jews. It's why the secret to power for whites isn't found in the new right or the dissident right but in the left-right, which was the source of success for Adolf Hitler and FDR — Hitler adopted leftist elements into German rightism, and FDR adopted rightist elements into American leftism; and if communism had a saving grace, it fused socialism with nationalism.

Now, there is no guarantee that a nation will be good and decent because it is fascist. Fascism, like any ideology, can be used in bad ways — democracy too can be a disaster, like Russia of the 1990s, South Africa under black majority rule, and all Anglosphere 'liberal democracies' today that have facilitated the rise of Zio-globo-oligarcho-gangsterism. Fascism can lead to brazen rule by gangsters, a case of Machiavellianism. While fascism as theory of power brings us closest to the true nature of power, the moral worth of fascist rule depends on how those lessons are reflected upon and practiced. After all, the truth can be used for good or ill, just like a gun can be used to protect or rob people or chemistry can be used to create medicine or poison. Just because fascism makes us better understand the nature of power doesn't mean we will be better people with power.

Despite the problems of corruption and general abuse of power in China and Russia, it's fair to say their use of fascism is preferable to that of Jews. Besides, paradoxically enough, the biggest enemy of democracy around the world is the Jewish-controlled US as the most fervent promoter of 'democracy'. True democracy must organically grow from the soil of any nation. American democracy worked relatively well because it developed independently of foreign meddling. It was democracy by Americans for Americans. In contrast, whenever some nation around the world tries to open up and liberalize, the US takes advantage of the freedom to infiltrate its institutions & networks and subvert its sovereignty & integrity as a unique homeland of a people and culture. It was Yanqui meddling that undermined attempts at democracy in Latin America, especially in Guatemala. Whether democracy succeeds or fails in some Latin American country, it should be up to the people there, not for Americans to interfere and decide what's what. If anything, things have gotten worse ever since Jews took over the US. In the past, white Americans, being the national majority and imbued with sound values, had no problem with majority rule and true morality. If anything, the core values of White Christian America weren't all that different from those of the Non-West; the only major difference was more tolerance of deviance and more individual liberty in the West. In contrast, Jewish-Americans seek to undermine majority authority and moral sanity in every country by spreading globo-homo and Afromania, the idea being that all European and Asian nations should elevate homo minority over the majority and care more for black thugs than their own peoples. Of course, such minority-privilege and moral inversion is means by which Jewish Power gets to sink its hooks into other nations. Jews think any nation that elevates homos and blacks over their own majority population no longer has a strong sense of national identity & security and is therefore ripe for Jewish globalist picking. Because of Jewish-controlled US meddling, democratic experiments have failed everywhere. The only kind of 'democracy' that the US and its EU satellite will tolerate is one that bends over to the Jewish-controlled afro-globo-homo-schlomo agenda. Whenever freedom and democracy lead to a system that has other ideas and says NO to the afro-globo-homo-shlomo agenda, the US does everything to undermine that country. It's like the US was for the Arab Spring until free elections brought Muslim Brotherhood into power. Then, the US backed the Egyptian military in the coup against the rightfully elected government. And Jewish-controlled US recruited thugs and stirred up mob violence to unseat the democratically elected leader of Ukraine. In other words, US support of democracy is really a kind of 'demockery'. It's not about the freedom of peoples around the world to choose their own values and destinies but about the US exploiting freedoms in other countries to infiltrate, subvert, corrupt, and prop up puppet regimes onboard with the afro-globo-homo-shlomo agenda. In other words, it's not about spreading true democracy or freedom but propping up puppetocracies. It's a form of Imperial Democracy, the cloning of 'new democracies' around the world to serve as shills of Jewish-controlled US as the Imperium. If all the houses in the neighborhood agree to keep their doors unlocked, such openness can work ONLY IF everyone agrees not to trespass onto other people's homes and steal stuff. Whenever a nation around the world unlocks its door, the US trespasses and rearranges everything in the house and even steals stuff. Naturally, the doors must be locked again to keep out the Americans(who now do the stealing for the Jews). So, even though freedom is preferable to autocracy, some measure of the latter is necessary to maintain national sovereignty in a world where the US, as the tool of Jews, promotes freedom not to bolster but to destroy national independence. It's like Jews promote youth culture not to make young people more free and independent but more dependent and addicted to junk culture and dumb fads pushed by Jews. 'Liberal Democracy' has come to mean conformity to the demands of Jewish Globalists. Of course, any honest person would notice that what Jews demand of goy nations, they never demand of Israel. What is good for Israel is not good for Hungary. What Jews demand of Hungary, they never ask of Israel. This is why the national fascisms of China and Russia are, at least at this moment in history, laudable as bulwarks against Jewish Supremacist gangster-fascist-terrorism.

21st century is turning out to be about three dominant fascisms, those of China, Russia, and the Jews. Chinese rule China, Russians rule Russia, and Jews rule US, EU, Anglosphere, and its cuck satellites(like Japan). China has arrived at a fascist equilibrium. Confronting Western Imperialist aggression in the 19th century, China was like a turtle that hid deeper into its shell of ultra-conservatism and reaction. It only kept China weak when faced with the challenges of modernity. Then, as if to compensate for its long decay under rigid traditionalism, China embarked on radicalism under Mao, but this war of culture and ideology led to great havoc and destruction. Then, China embarked on what seemed like a pro-market-oriented neo-liberal path, but the fates of Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan under US ideological and idolatrous hegemony have proven to be culturally hollow, dissipating, and suicidal. Therefore, China seeks a balance of tradition and change, of international relations and national sovereignty. Same could be said of Russia. If rule under the Tsars was too reactionary, the rule by Bolsheviks was too radical and traumatizing. Also, mere communism held back initiative, enterprise, and economic growth, and then, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the surrender to unfettered globo-capitalism led to Jewish economic rape, which dwarfed even the horrors of the Weimar Period in Germany. Vladimir Putin, for all his faults and limitations, have tried to steer Russia toward a balance of tradition and modernity, of markets and socialism. His method too is essentially fascist though he would be loathe to admit it in public.

At any rate, what Russian and Chinese neo-fascisms have in common is the conviction that power must be consolidated and constructed toward nationalist goals. Power must ultimately be about what is good for the nation and the people, not only for here and now but into the future. Therefore, even though Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin can act like gangsters at times, they do have some qualities of statesmen and genuine national leaders with a sense of patriotism and common good. Putinism is about what-is-good-for-Russia in Russia that is overwhelmingly Russian, and Xi-ism is about what-is-good-for-China in China that is overwhelmingly Chinese. Those are national-humanist fascisms. In contrast, Jewish supremacist fascism is purely tribal-gangsterist, indeed even worse than British and French rule over their colonies.

Nominalism(useful term invoked by Michael Lind) explains why so many people are fooled about the true nature of what's really happening. They are fooled by labels. Take 'gay rights'. It gives the impression that the globo-homo agenda is about allowing homos the right to be 'gay' and do their 'gay' thing. But that is not what the Agenda is about. It's about forcing everyone to celebrate and revere homos and even trannies. It's about official promotion of Anno Sodomini as the new faith for the educated elites, the 'more evolved'. Nominalism is used alongside symbolism, e.g. the 'rainbow' homo flag. So, even though homosexuality is about gross bung-donging inside the dark and dank anus, many people associate it with bright colors.

So, all this talk of 'democracy' vs 'autocracy' is BS. The current world is really about autocracy vs autocracy, except that Jewish Power hides behind labels of 'democracy', 'liberalism', 'tolerance', 'diversity', 'equity', and 'inclusion'. Right, Jews are so into diversity that New York Times is full of Palestinian-American writers - not. Jews are so into equity that.... now, that is too funny. Jews, the richest and most privileged people into equity, ROTFL. As for 'diversity', what is it really about? It's about White Preferism, Capitalist Greed, Jewish Supremacism, and White Cuck Saviorism.
It's White Preferist in that non-whites prefer to move to white nations and live with white majorities than with their own kind. If Diversity is so great, why don't browns stay put as all of Latin America is pretty diverse? India is said to be very diverse along cultural, ethnic, and linguistic lines, but all these Hindus wanna move to white nations. Diversity is White Preferism.
As for businessmen, they just want cheap docile workers who complain less than native folks. We can understand why they'd rather hire newcomers than blacks, but it goes much further. Big Business would rather hire cheaper inferior foreign workers to superior American ones just to cut costs.
There is also a Jewish Supremacist angle: Increase non-white numbers and use them against whites. Also, more diversity among goyim means more division among them... which ensures Jewish Power.
As for white cuck savior complex, so many whites are not only stupid enough to fall for Jewish Diversity BS but subconsciously hanker for a kind of white supremacism. They feel that nonwhites are too dumb to take care of themselves and must live under paternal white guidance to see the light and enjoy the fruits.

So, beware of nominalism.

After all, what is 'racism' really about. It's not about treating all races equally and rejecting racial favoritism. No, it means the 'moral' necessity and even sanctity of treating blacks as our superiors in every way. In reality, blacks are the biggest thugs and pose the gravest threat to white people, but in stupid Hollywood horror movies, whites are hunted down by space monsters or flesh-eating goblins(or Evil White Males) and must rely on heroic and/or saintly blacks as their protectors or saviors. ROTFL. When Paul McCartney was accused of possible 'racism' for having badmouthed Pakistanis in the UK, his defense was he can't be 'racist' because his favorite people are blacks. If 'racism' is racial favoritism, isn't it 'racist' to favor blacks over others? But then, the agenda around 'racism' is to favor blacks for sympathy and consideration, even admiration and reverence. It's not about racial equality but superiority of blacks.

And what is politics around 'antisemitism' about. It's not about treating Jews the same way as the rest of humanity. No, it's about the obligation that Jews be treated better, always be favored, always be forgiven, always preferred. It's not about treating Jews and whites the same way. No, it's about Jews dictating to whites as to what's what, what is right or wrong; and whites must nod along without debate. It's not about treating Jews and Palestinians the same way. No, it's about letting Jews act as they wish with Palestinians. Even when Jews are clearly in the wrong, we must support them over Palestinians, and to say otherwise is to be an 'anti-semite'. So, the politics of 'antisemitism' is really about Jewish Supremacism, not about the need to treat Jews like everyone else, i.e. neither more deserving nor less deserving of justice and fairness.

But people are blind to this because of nominalism. 'Racism' gives the impression that it's opposed to ALL forms of racial hatred. But if so, why is there total silence about non-black victims of black mayhem and violence? 'Antisemitism' gives the impression that Jews are especially targeted by irrational haters and that we need to treat Jews as human beings deserving of equal justice. But 'antisemitism', as framed by ADL, SPLC, and Jewish-run media & deep state, really boils down to Jews having the divine right to control everything and do as they please as the 'made men' who cannot be questioned. In other words, its actual practice is Jewish Supremacism. The hell with nominalism and say yes to ACTUALISM.

We need to reject nominalism and accurately describe and name what is really what and what is really happening. The problem isn't 'racism' but black-thug-supremacism. The problem isn't 'antisemitism' but Jewish supremacism and Zionist gangsterism. The problem isn't that homos are denied 'gay rights' but that Gay Rites are pushed as the new mandatory cult in the West and that anyone who won't bend over to this devil-god and take it up the ass is blacklisted and destroyed by the Power.

CHINA'S WAR AGAINST "SISSY-MEN," GAMERS & WESTERN HYPOCRISY

Inversion of Prerogatives in Our Crazy World says Your Nation Belongs to Foreigners

Now, what's the point of having your own nation? To have a homeland for your people, right? If you're not going to own and defend it as such, why have a nation at all?
Indeed, why not just abandon your identity and history? Why not abandon your people's special right to the territory? And why not dissolve borders so that any number of peoples can move in and out, like animals roam the wild? If you believe that any number of people should move in and out of any place, there is no need for nations. We might as well act like animals that migrate freely from place to place. All of us might as well become like Gypsies and surrender all sense of roots.
What about Rule of Law? I have no idea how that would work out. If a nation cannot even defend its borders and decide who enters and exits, how can it enforce any kind of rule of law? And if all the world should welcome endless wanderers, nomads, and invaders who come with their own cultural norms, who's to say one Rule of Law is better than another kind? After all, Rule of Law depends on the law itself. In the Current West, the Rule of Laws says you will be financially destroyed if you refuse to bake a cake for 'gay wedding'. And Rule of Law can be used against Rule of Law. In some states, illegals who have violated American laws are given protection under the Rule of Law that favors those who break laws over those who want to defend them. Rule of Law in California and many other states protect illegals and prosecute those who take actions against the invaders. So, what is Rule of Law in a world of Broken Borders?
Indeed, this will be the big question in Europe as Muslim communities demand their own sets of laws and as African communities insist on their tribal customs and norms.
Already, Jews are virtually above-the-law in many parts of the West. Rule of Law can only be enforced within a well-defined nation with shared values and habits. But in a world where nationalism is condemned as passe and where peoples of different cultures, manners, and habits move in and out of communities that they lay to waste, what chance is there for Rule of Law?

Having a nation is like having a house. A nation didn’t just fall from the sky or grow from the ground. It had to be secured, built, defended, built some more, defended some more, consolidated, claimed, and maintained. Likewise, a house has to be built or bought. It doesn’t come into existence just out of the blue. Now, what is the purpose of having a home? To own it as one’s property. To defend it from others, especially trespassers and marauders. Worst thing that can happen to a property is for others to trespass and take it. Now, if you intend to allow just about any human or creature to move in and out of your house, why did you build or buy the house in the first place? Why did you go through all that trouble just to let OTHERS to occupy and tear it apart?
Same thing goes for a nation. Why did your people build that nation if you’re not going to defend it and own it for posterity? Why go through all the trouble of securing the land, settling the land, developing the land, building institutions, enacting laws, and growing the economy IF your final purpose is to just let others have it? If you’re going to give it all away, why did your people go through so much struggle, even great wars, to claim and defend the land? If you think OTHERS should have it, then your people should not have bothered to pour so much blood, sweat, and tears into transforming the land into a nation.
Imagine there is a wasteland that most peoples show no interest in. Suppose YOUR PEOPLE enter into the land, cut down trees, till the soil, and do the heavy-lifting to turn the land into an oasis. ALL OF A SUDDEN, other peoples now want a part of it because it's nice. (It's like people who neglected Noah's advice to build arks of their own trying to climb into the Ark when the rain began to fall.) Should you let them take it? But why did YOUR PEOPLE build up the land just to let others have it? If you think others should have the land, then your people should not have bothered to build anything on it. Let others do the hard work to develop the land. Non-white peoples had no interest in exploring, discovering, conquering, and developing the New World. They didn't even have the vision or commitment to develop their own lands that, even today, remain poor and backward(despite abundance of land and natural resources). But now that they realize that white people have nice nations, they want to claim and take for themselves what was made by whites.

Also, if any people have the ‘right’ to trespass into your nation and take over, do YOUR PEOPLE also have the right to just mass-invade any nation and take over? So, 50 million Africans have the ‘right’ to take over Italy, and 50 million Italians have the ‘right’ to move to Japan and take over... if they feel like it? And the invaders and trespassers have the prerogative and the ‘right’ over the natives with deep roots in the land? Is patriotism the biggest crime in the globalist era? Doesn’t anyone realize that losing a nation is much worse than losing a house? If you lose your house, you can build another one. But if you lose your nation, your people have no homeland to call their own. And it’s very difficult to get it back. Good luck to Hawaiians taking back Hawaii. Good luck to Palestinians getting back Palestine. Good luck to Serbians getting Kosovo back. Good luck to Greeks or Christendom getting Constantinople(now Istanbul) back. It was by a miracle that Jews got Zion back, and it was very messy and bloody, and the problem continues to this day. Kurds continue to suffer because they don’t have a nation to call their own and happen to be scattered among several nations, all of which are hostile to them.
It’s bad business to lose a house, but another house can always be built or bought. But lose your nation, and good luck about getting it back. Jews reclaiming the Holy Land was the exception that proved the rule. Also, a homeland has much greater meaning than a home. Individuals don’t live forever. A man may own a great mansion, but he will be six feet underground after several decades on earth. And the mansion will pass to some other people. But a nation can exist indefinitely as the homeland of a people. Most of the pioneers of Israel are now dead, but their children and their children’s children ad infinitum hope to keep the land for the Jews as long as mankind survives.

Now, some argue that the newcomers will just become part of the national community, but this is wishful thinking. Usually, minorities remain cooperative and respectful ONLY WHEN they’re small in number and faced with a confident overwhelming majority that also commands patriotic elite power. But when the native majority acts all apologetic & wussy and says that their nation belongs more to foreigners than to themselves, the minorities will just call on more of their kind to come invading. And as their numbers continue to swell, they will begin to smell the blood of a dying nation. They will sense they can take over and feed off it. Scavengers and leeches don’t respect weakness in the host.
But then, even if newcomers came with respect and kindness, too many of them will alter the character of the nation because a people are MORE than merely a name. Germans are more than ‘Germans’. It’s like, if you have a daughter named Sue, she is more than ‘Sue’. Even if her name was changed to Jill, she would still be your daughter. But if someone who is not your daughter changes her name to ‘Sue’ and pretends to be your daughter, she is not your daughter despite having the name ‘Sue’ and wearing similar dress as your daughter. But the West is now suffering from the Changeling Syndrome. So, Germans fool themselves that if they take in millions upon millions of Muslims and Africans and pretend that they are ‘Germans’ or ‘New Germans’, then Germany will remain Germany because all the newcomers are ‘Germans’ too. Right, and imitation crab meat is real crab meat. And cats are dogs if you call them ‘dogs’ and teach them to play fetch, which is exceedingly hard to do.

How did this Inversion of Prerogatives happen? How did people(especially whites) come to believe that OTHERS have ‘first dibs’ or primary claim on what had been theirs rightfully and ‘fightfully’(as they’d ancestors had fought to claim it)? Imagine if someone did so much to build a home but then put up a sign that said, "claim my house". Why did he go through the trouble of building a house to let others have it and push him out? That would be retarded. Or, suppose a house was built long ago by your ancestors and handed down generation after generation as special place for your family lineage. Suppose that house is meant to be more than a place of residence; it’s meant to be a place of remembrance. Then, why would you allow a bunch of marauders and squatters to trespass and tear the place apart?

In a way, the problem began with the discovery of the New World. While most parts of the Old World were settled, the New World nations came into being with conquest, settlement, colonization, immigration, and rise of new identities. (The New World template of constant migration and mobility was turned into a universal 'human right'. So, even the EU is to be seen as The Other America, a 'union of immigrants' that must take in endless 'huddled masses' from Africa and the Middle East. This template is now also being applied to East Asia as The West constantly applies pressure on Japan to welcome Diversity and Inclusion-Invasion. According to Western PC, it should be a 'human right' for millions of foreigners to move to Japan and become 'New Japanese' and take over entire communities.)
The trajectory of invasion and expansion couldn’t be helped in the New World as most of it was either unpopulated or underpopulated(by standards of other civilizations, not least due to the deaths of tens of millions as the result of lack of immunity to Old World diseases). But the New World was not discovered and founded by the world but by specific populations. Spanish and Portuguese conquered most of what came to be Latin America. And Anglos and the French to a lesser extent conquered most of North America(minus Mexico). And these peoples created their new orders as racial, ethnic, and cultural extensions of the worlds they knew back home. So, Anglo-American preferred Anglo immigrants and settlers. When the US needed More People, it preferred those who were racially and ethnically closest to Anglos: Irish, Dutch, Germans, and Nordics. As they were virtually same as Anglos in appearance and temperament(though Irish could be rough at times due to the James Cagney gene), they could easily be assimilated into Anglo-America. Also, as fellow Christians, they worshiped the same God and symbols.

The US was not founded as a World-Nation for the simple reason that the World didn’t discover and develop it. A specific population of Anglos and Northern Europeans did, just like a specific population of Spanish and Portuguese came to set the cultural template for Latin America. Their biggest mistake was bringing over all those Sub-Saharan West African blacks who were more muscular and more aggressive than the white race. The race problem between whites and blacks is testament to the Danger of Diversity or DOD. To maintain order among tougher and more aggressive blacks, whites sometimes had to use ugly and cruel violence. And once blacks got their freedom, they began to prey on whites physically, materially, and sexually as the weaker ‘wussy’ race. Another threat came from the Chinese IF they were to be ‘welcomed’ in huge numbers.
In the past few decades, we’ve seen what virtual Open Borders(or Broken Borders) can do to a place. California, which had been overwhelmingly white, is now poised to have more Mexicans than whites. And along with Asians(craven teachers’ pets of Jews and homos), whites are being squeezed out. Worse, remaining whites in California have been mentally colonized by Jews to hate their own race and to welcome the flood. Based on recent events, imagine what would have happened if the US had allowed Open Borders to Chinese immigration-invasion in the late 19th century. China, with a huge poverty-stricken population, would have taken over California and much of the West like Mexicans are doing today. Or look at China itself. As Tibetans don’t have the means to say NO to Chinese migration-invasion, Tibet itself is poised to be majority Han-Chinese if it isn’t already.

Immigration is a tool that can work for or against your people. For most of the 19th century and even 20th century, white people used immigration to boost white presence and power in America. Immigration favored white folks. Immigration is never generic. It depends on who/whom. Israel was created by immigration but of Jews Only. Suppose Israel was founded with color-blind immigration. It never would have become a Homeland for Jews. Suppose Chinese government were to allow Asian-Indians to move into Tibet. In time, Indians instead of Chinese could dominate the place. There’s a huge difference between the Russian government encouraging Russian ethnics to settle Siberia and allowing Chinese to migrate there. If the latter, the Chinese will effectively own much of Siberia. So, when people say the US is a Nation of Immigrants, it’s meaningless because it pretends that immigration is generic. In fact, the kind of immigration that formed the foundation and basis for America was genetic than generic. Back in the 19th century, Emma Lazarus’ poem was not a threat to the US because it was understood, even by Lazarus herself, that immigration would favor European whites(of whom Jews were a part). Race-ism was great for America. It made America and defined America. Without Race-ism, the US wouldn't have developed as an extension of European Civilization. Suppose upon the establishment of the US, the Founding Fathers decided to call on peoples ALL OVER THE WORLD to pour into the New Land. Anglos and whites would soon have been turned into a minority outnumbered by Muslims, Africans, Asians, Hindus, and etc with their own norms, customs, and values. And without race-ism, whites would have had no justification to replace red savages and their primitive cultures with far more advanced Western ones. (Ism means belief, and Race-ism means belief in the reality of race & differences and/or the need for racial identity and consciousness. ‘Racism’ has been willfully mis-defined by Jews to mean irrational or knee-jerk racial hatred, chauvinism, and supremacism.) Whites who settled America were aware of the importance of race. If whites were to build a modern and progressive(as opposed to the degenerate ‘progressivism’ of today) nation, they had to be racially aware. Whites had to make a distinction between themselves and American Indians whose world was savage and primitive. The biggest mistake was bringing blacks over as slaves. This is regarded as a ‘racist’ crime’, but it was really a criminal negligence of true race-ism. If whites had been truly, rationally, and sanely race-ist back then, they would have thought, "Maybe it’s not a good idea to bring over all those blacks. Just look at their muscles. That mountain-sized Negro looks like he can crush my head like a zit. And look at those black women whose main expression is shaking their booties and acting like nappy-headed ho’s. And look at the dongs on them fellers. Not only will stronger blacks whup our ass but turn our women into jungle-fevered whores who go with Negro men as the superior race and look down on us as a bunch of cucky-wucks. So, let’s NOT bring over the ‘groids’ as slaves. Slavery is cruel and unpleasant and will besmirch our reputation, which is bad enough, but furthermore, there is no guarantee that slavery will last forever. Once freed, them ‘groids’ will kick our butts in sports, turn young people wild with jiggity music, reduce us to a bunch of dweeby cucky-wucks, and colonize the wombs of interracist white women who get to thinking like Rachel Dolezal." Now, that is some Core Race-ist thought, and if white people had accepted such Race-ism, they never would have brought over those Sub-Saharan West African Americans. At most, they might have brought over some Pygmies who, being small and short, could only have looked up to white folks like Arnold of DIFF’RENT STROKES and whined, "What you talkin’ about, white man?" This is why we need proper Race-ism that acknowledges and understands racial differences. Integration between whites and blacks leads to loss of white manhood and ACOWW(Afro-Colonization of White Wombs) because black men are more muscular, louder, funkier, and generally got bigger dongs. And the nature of women is to get sexually excited about ‘bad boys’ who act tough. This is ever more so in a culture where the main modes of expression is Rap thuggery and booty-chuggery. The main problem with blacks was not slavery; after all, black Africa had slavery for 10,000 yrs. It was the fact that the races are not the same. If whites had enslaved any other people, the dynamics would have been totally different. If Anglo-whites had enslaved white Russians, former masters and former slaves would have merged into a common race after Emancipation. After all, the end of Serfdom in Russia led to a unified single people. In contrast, why did Caste divisions last so long in India? Because there was a racial element to the caste system from the master caste to the middle caste to the slave caste to the untouchable caste. Even so, even the racial-caste system wasn't so bad in India because the darker peoples there are NOT bigger, stronger, and more aggressive than lighter-skinned upper-caste folks.

Europeans fail to understand this. They think their Africans won’t turn out like Black Americans because Europeans don’t have the ‘original sin’ of slavery. Granted, some European nations did take part in the slave trade, but Swedes and Germans didn’t. And the French less so than Anglos and Spanish/Portuguese, not least because the French eventually lost out in the New World to Anglos. So, Europeans think their African arrivals will turn out so much better than black Americans. But the end result will be the same because the problem in the US between whites and blacks was racial than historical. Europe can take in millions of FREE Negroes and treat them well, but the Negroes there will end up like Negroes in the US. Why? It’s in their oogity-boogity genes to act wild and crazy. In Africa, they drive hippos crazy, and in Europe they will drive white folks crazy. Also, their generally lower intelligence will mean they will leech off whites forever. Furthermore, their egomaniacal personality makes them less reflective and self-critical. Blacks have poor grasp of modern concepts of property, ownership, contracts, and manners. Blacks think like predators. When lions, hyenas, or bears see something they want, they try to grab it for themselves. Lions don’t think, "Hmm, those hyenas are eating that Zebra. I think it belongs to them, and we should bring down our own zebra." No, lions just think, "Sheeeeiiit, let’s take the eats from the hyena mofos." And if hyenas see a lone cheetah eating a gazelle, they don’t think, "You know, I’ll bet that cheetah tried so hard to bring down that prey. It’s his and let’s get our own grubs." No, the hyenas think, "Sheeeeeeiiit, a free meal! Let’s drive that punkass cheetah away and take his meat." Negroes feel the same way. Their sense of property and ownership is based on "Gots to have me". That’s what Rap is all about. It’s about the thuggery of taking stuff just because you want it. This is why blacks are champion robbers and rapists. Indeed, blacks rape even white women who put out to them. So, when white co-eds with jungle fever put out to blacks, blacks still have to rape them by saying to their brothas, "Here’s some free white pussy for us all, sheeeeeiiit." Blacks don’t hanker for no little white mouse like the mountain-sized Negro does in GREEN MILE. They’s want white wealth, white women, white lands, white everything. They think everything white exists to be taken by them. Blacks even feel that white history should be owned by them. So, white historical characters should be turned into ‘groids’ and blackamoors.

Therefore, people need to stop blaming ‘racism’ for the black problem in America and increasingly in Europe. The problem has been due to the lack of True Race-ism. If white folks had acknowledged the truthfulness of True Race-ism, they never would have brought over all those blacks to the New World.

Unfortunately, whites were motivated by Christianity, Commercialism, and Chauvinism. One part of whites felt that they were civilizing black savages into good decent Christians. By this logic, slavery was a Leviathanic process whereby blacks would go from wild savages to good Christian folks, whereupon they would be freed. But for such process to work, slavery would have had to last over a 1000 yrs with wild and dangerous blacks being weeded out of the gene pool. It’s like it took some time to domesticate wild bulls into livestock. It took some time to turn wolves into dogs. It took some time to turn wild boars into the farm pig. But blacks were under slavery for only a couple of centuries. Also, whites stupidly bred blacks to be extra-strong to carry all them cotton. So, in some cases, white made the stronger race even stronger and ended up like guys like Sonny Liston and Mike Tyson(who looks more demented than even African Negroes).
'Racism' violated True Race-ism. Abraham Lincoln was a True Race-ist insofar as he understood the black threat. This is why he wanted the blacks freed and sent back to Africa. He had the same fears as the visionary prophet D.W. Griffith of THE BIRTH OF A NATION who feared something closer to BIRTH OF THE CONQUEST OF THE PLANET OF THE APES. But True Race-ism was overlooked by those with short-term commercial interests or Christian folly that Negroes could become nice meek humble Uncle-Tom-like Christians when, in fact, the Negro soul is too wild and rough to understand the true meaning of higher spirituality. Jesus founded His religion by silently meditating for 40 days. A Negro has difficulty sitting still for 4 minutes. His jiggity oogity-boogity nature turned even Christianity into a butt-shaking foot-tapping pandemonium. If Negroes take up Buddhism, they’ll turn Nirvana into something you attain by hollering and ‘twerking’.
Other than commercial greed and Christian folly(of civilizing blacks into nice Uncle Toms), there was white chauvinism of False Race-ism, aka ‘racism’. Unlike True Race-ism that honestly explores and notices racial differences, False Race-ism or ‘racism’ led to white chauvinism and denial of reality. White ‘racists’ were full of themselves as the toughest and manliest fellers in the world. They believed in the ‘great white hope’ who would finally whup the Negroes and show the world who’s the real King of the Hill. ‘Racism’ stupidly boosted white male pride when white men should have been in alarmist mode(like honest D.W. Griffith of THE BIRTH OF A NATION) and feared the ghastly Negro. Of course, on some level, white men did fear the Negro as a threat. After all, Jack Johnson whupped all those white guys, and later, Joe Louis whupped tons of white guys, and Muhammad Ali and other blacks dominated boxing. And blacks took over basketball and football. And blacks in schools beat up so many whites. But white ‘racists’ were too filled with bogus chauvinism to come to terms with the black threat and admit their legitimate fears. Whites had been winning so much for so long against so much of the world that it seemed white superiority was a birthright. But in fact, whites were superior only in certain things while inferior in other things. In raw struggle of animal drives, white men were bound to lose to the tougher Negro men. But too many whites didn’t admit to their fears(lest they come across as ‘scared’ and ‘wimpy’) and exaggerated their manhood by calling blacks ‘niggers’ and acting nasty like Southerners opposed to Segregation. Their anti-integrationist stance would have been much more effective if, in the spirit of True Race-ism, they had laid out why blacks, being more muscular-more-aggressive-and-bigger-donged, pose an existential and ‘sexistential’ threat to the white race. But nope, they just huffed and puffed as tough white guys and acted like thugs in front of TV cameras while blacks were pretending to be marching for ‘peace’ when they were really thinking, "You honkey mofos gonna get your ass whupped once the laws be changed cuz we just pretendin’ to be for MLK’s message of peace as Trojan Horse trick and shit." Yep, the Black Rampage was unleashed on America with the passage of Civil Rights Bill.

Anyway, the point is immigration is never generic. It is about who/whom. A nation has something to gain by letting in more of their own kind. So, when Germany took in millions of Ost-Germans after WWII, Germany just became MORE German. And when Polish ethnics were pushed into Poland from Western Ukraine(which used to be part of Poland from 1918 to 1939), Poland just became more Polish. Granted, even migration of the same kind of people can be stressful and challenging. The sudden rush of millions of Ost-Germans into Germany after WWII led to a humanitarian disaster. And the rush of many Mainland Chinese fleeing Maoism into Hong Kong led to severe socio-economic stress. Even so, problems eventually faded because Ost-Germans were fellow Germans, and all those Mainland Chinese, once they found their footing in Hong Kong, were just fellow Chinese. But the millions of New Germans(from Africa and Middle East) rushing into Germany today will alter the character of the nation. And imagine if a million Hindus than Chinese had rushed into Hong Kong. There would be big tensions between Chinese and Hindus, even if they’re regarded as ‘New Chinese’. Why did Hong Kong return to China? Because of history, ethnos, and culture. If China had the right to reclaim Hong Kong(even though Brits played a key role in having built it) because it was part of Chinese territory and populated by Chinese, why don’t the native folks of Britain have a right of claim to their ancestral homeland? Chinese don’t think, "The rest of the world has first dibs on Hong Kong and any other part of China." So, why do the Brits, French, Germans, Swedes, and etc. feel that OTHERS have greater claim to their own nations? How did such Inversion of Prerogatives happen?

Because of the Inversion of Prerogatives, we now believe that white minds belong to Jews to mold, white wombs belong to black men to impregnate, white wealth exist for non-whites to filch, and white lands exist for immigrant-invaders or immi-vaders to colonize and takeover. As for whites, they must say YES to the surrender of their claims. If they say NO, they are demeaned as ‘racist’, ‘xenophobic’, ‘exclusionary’, ‘Islamphobic’, and ‘antisemitic’. Now, if whites were in other lands lording over others, I can understand why the natives would complain and demand that whites get lost and return to their own lands. But now, even whites in their own nations are told that they don’t own their own minds, womenfolk, wealth, and land. Not even history as White History is being darkened with non-whites(especially blacks) cast in roles of white historical characters. And so many whites serve as cucks and collaborators because they’ve been raised fro cradle to obey Jews, worship homos, revere Negroes, celebrate Diversity(of Immi-vasion and replacist demographics), and hate white patriots who say NO to their own racial demise.
Part of the reason is Western elites are now worthless cuck-collaborators of Judea. But another reason is globalism has inflated Western elitist ego with dreams of neo-imperialism. So, French, British, and German leaders no longer see themselves merely as leaders of their own respective nations but of the World. Theresa May the hideous harridan talks like she is ruler of all humanity than of her British kinfolk. Angela Merkel sees herself as big-titty dairy cow to people all over the world. And the French elites still dream that France will become like a Mini-World with all the immi-vaders turning into New Frenchmen who appreciate French culture when, in fact, most Newcomers assimilate to globo-mondo-trash culture emanating from Hollywood and Rap music industry. While millions of Black Africans flock to Europe to demand "Where the white women at?" and while millions of white women yell out, "I’m here with jungle fever, you big-donged Negro", mentally castrated white males honk out, "I’m a cuck! I’m a cuck!" Indeed, among too many white males, the only warrior passion they can muster is against their own race. So, while Antifa white males honk, "I’m a cuck!" before the Negro and the Jew, they get murderously violent against white patriots who refuse to honk, "I’m a cuck!"

It’s not enough to own something. One must feel one has righteous claim over what he owns. And this is determined by control of the Narrative. It’s like it’s not enough to possess a house. You must back it up with rightful and/or righteous claim. Without the claim, one’s possession of the house becomes iffy and questionable. One is put on the defensive against would-be invaders. It’s the Claim Game. Before Jews could gain Palestine, they had to claim it with their own righteous Narrative about how the land really belongs to Jews due to history. And after WWII, Jews added the Shoah Clause to the claim, i.e. because of what happened in WWII, the West is morally obligated to back Jewish claim on Palestine. If Jews had just tried to take Palestine by brute force, they might have succeeded but would have had no moral claim to back up their ownership. The problem with whites in South Africa is they failed to come up with a useful claim on the land, made much worse by allowing blacks to become majority in the nation.

The US was founded with a specific and special claim made by Anglo-Americans and other Europeans. But Jews resented the special role of White Christianity in claiming and owning America. Jews wanted to own it for themselves. But because they didn’t have the numbers with which to beat out white gentiles — in contrast, Jews did have the numbers to squeeze out Arabs in Palestine — , Jews sought to subvert and nullify the White Christian claim by pushing for mass non-white immi-vasion. America has been a Nation of European Immigrants, but Jews took out the ‘European’ and just made it a nation of Generic Immigration from all over the world. By pushing this Diversity Narrative, Jews terminated the special white claim to America... and that meant that Jews would be the defacto rulers and owners of America. Why would that be if the World comes barging in? Wouldn’t Jews lose out along with White gentiles? No, because Jews control the upper echelons and elite level of America. With control of Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Las Vegas, Real Estate, Hollywood, Big Media, Ivy Leagues, and much else, Jews would be the Hyper-Elite overlord class over Diversity of Gentiles who can be manipulated and controlled by machinations of Divide-and-Rule.

This is why it was so important for Jews to push Homomania as well. That too is an Inversion of Prerogatives. We know what real sex is. We know that all human life was created by sexual union of men and women. So, marriage and family are something that belong to straight and normal people. Not a single life was ever created by Homo fecal penetration or Lesbian poon-grinding. Marriage developed as a Bio-Moral institution. It understood the way of biology — the sex drive and creation of new life by reproductive process of men and women — and the way of morality — the need for a man and woman to commit to one another to take care of the very lives they produce — , and as such, it was the most important institution in human history. Now, because most people are straight men and straight women, True Marriage has valued the majority population over the homo(and tranny) minority of sexual deviants. Straight people not only got married but had a special claim on and ownership of marriage. This affirmed the power of the majority and normality. Jews figured that such a ‘majoritarian’ institution undermines minority ambitions. If a society of mostly straight men and women should be ruled by them and guided by their needs, the corollary is a mostly gentile society should be ruled by gentiles in service of gentile interests and needs... but that would undermine Jewish supremacist claim on gentile societies. So, Jews pushed the LGBTQ Inversion of Prerogatives that fooled so many PC-addled and Pop-culture-addicted dummies into believing that straight and normal people have no special claim on Marriage. Instead, it belongs just as much or even more so to Homos and trannies. Thanks to Jew-run media and Jew-run government, there is now more fanfare for homos getting ‘married’ even though it’s about guys committing to bugger each other for life.

But such degeneracy has been so sensationalized and blessed by the Jew-run media and entertainment that many vapid, shallow, and superficial straight people now get ecstatic at any manifestations of Homomania, which is now essentially a neo-religion for globalized, deracinated, and desexualized hedonist-morons.

And this lunacy has also bled into the idea of womanhood. We sane people know what real women are. They are the fairer sex, have boobs and pooters(or cooters), and can give birth. Some men used to dress up as women, but we knew they were men as fake women. But now, the Power tells us that womanhood is ‘fluid’. So, if some guy with dick and balls puts on a wig, wiggles his ass, dons a dress, and claim to be a ‘woman’, we better admit he’s a woman. He can get a fake ‘vagina’ through Frankenstein surgery OR keep his dick and balls. The thing is the Inversion of Prerogatives says he is a ‘woman’ and we better acknowledge him as one... or else we are ‘transphobic’ and to be fined for big bucks by cities like New York.

So, just like native Anglos no longer own UK and native French no longer own France, real women no longer own womanhood. The new prerogative for Brits and French is to defer to Immi-invaders and roll out the red carpet to them as having more claim to the land than the existing inhabitants with deep roots of ancestry and history. Because the core meaning of UK and France has been re-coded to define them as ‘nations of immigrants’ and worshipers-of-Diversity, the mass-invaders(as ‘immigrants’ and ‘people of diversity’) now have greater claim to nations like UK and France than the native folks do.
And if tranny men want to claim ‘womanhood’, the New Feminism(totally controlled by Jewish globalists) says women should welcome them as ‘sisters’. So, the Prerogative of Womanhood is no longer to define woman-ness according to biological truth but to the social construct of PC. (Ironically, LGBTQ that says homosexuality and tranns-genderism are biologically fixed, immutable, and unalterable says sex is just a social construct, and there is no fixed ‘man’ or ‘woman’.) So, the vast majority of women must surrender their prerogative of Womanhood to a tiny minority of tranny freaks who claim to own womanhood just as much as real women do. But because virtue-vanity in the prog community is invested in being ‘more evolved’ and ahead-of-the-curve in ideological fashions, so many people unthinkingly go along due to hype and hysteria or out of fear and intimidation, as those who don’t comply are identified and attacked by purity-spiralers.

But then, all the West, despite being majority white Christian — even nearly homogeneously White Christian in places like Hungary and Poland — has surrendered to the Inversion of Prerogatives whereby the prevailing idea is that Jewish & Zionist interests must always take precedence over White Christian/Gentile ones. Indeed, that was the beginning of the end. When white gentile majorities began to defer to Jews and treat them like a Holy People whose identity, interests, and narrative must take precedence over white gentile majority ones, Jews gained tremendous pride, prestige, and power to reprogram the core-coding of the West. The result was Inverted Prerogatives whereupon whites, even in their own ancestral lands, must surrender their title and claim to All the World that the Jewish horsemen use as cattle to stampede over the White West. If white people don’t want to be overrun by the never-ending stampede, they must circle the wagons and, better yet, build fences to keep the cows out.

If Western folks think they can appease Jews and the Invaders by being nice to the ones who have already invaded, they need to think again. Such wussy meekness and weakness emboldens Jews and invaders to push for yet MORE STAMPEDE. If squirrels invade your house, it won’t do to treat the ones-already-inside nicely. Squirrels on the outside will not think, "Humans are being nice to squirrels in the house. Let’s respect them and not invade further." No, when squirrels on the outside see that squirrels-inside-the-house are getting free food and other goodies, they will invade too and more and more will come. It’s just the Law of Organisms. Humans are organisms and naturally flock to where the goodies are. If white nations were dirt poor, corrupt, and messy and IF non-white nations were rich and overflowing with goodies, white organisms will want to move to non-white places. When people heard of gold in the West, there was the Gold Rush. When Africans and Muslims hear that Europe has Broken Borders through which millions can pass through and gain access to goodies, the Euro-Rush is on big time.

It is time to Re-invert the Prerogatives. Not only must the stampede must be stopped but those who’ve invaded the West must be kicked out and returned to their own homelands. If they resist, they must be accused of being ‘racist’ and ‘white preferist’. After all, why do these non-whites not want to live with their own kind? Do they hate their own people and culture? Why do they prefer to live under and with whites? Isn’t their preference for whiteness a form of ‘white preferism’? The invaders must be liberated from ‘white preferism’ and made to re-appreciate their own peoples and cultures. They must be sent back.

And there must be reckoning with Jews who messed with the Narrative and re-coded the West to invert the prerogatives. Something must be done with Jewish Power. Whatever happens, there must be stringent laws that prevent Jews from corrupting and sabotaging the Core Survival Code of any white nation.