The American Paradox: Americans are MOST UNITED in Support of the Group that is Most Responsible for THE POLARIZATION among Americans

https://www.bitchute.com/video/lQds7dL7RUY/


It's often been observed that Americans have grown more polarized over the years. There is talk of the far-right and the far-left. The differences between 'Red States' and 'Blue States'. MAGA Trump supporters are said to support extreme nationalism, and there has supposedly been surges of 'racism' and 'xenophobia' under Trump. And 'conservatives' say that PC has taken over the media & academia and much of the politics on the 'left' has turned batshit crazy with stuff like 'Pussy Marches' and the like.

In a way, yes, Americans are more polarized than ever before. Americans are also more fragmented and 'sub-culturized', not least due to the rise of the internet that has allowed people to form their own online communities based on interests, passions, causes, agendas, obsessions, fetishes, or just some tomfoolery. So, the problem(if it is a problem) is not only that Americans are pulling apart in two directions but self-isolating in their own artificial communities. Paradoxically, this neo-isolationism is possible only because the internet facilitates instant communication of peoples all over the world. So, even though a certain online community may be marginal, separate, and indifferent(and unknown) to others, it is the product of coming together of peoples of shared interests from all over the nation(and even the world).

Now, it begs the question... why are Americans becoming more polarized? Why are they becoming more 'hysterical' in passion or hard-line in their positions? Why do they feel the Other Side is not only wrong but evil? Why are current political conflicts more like spiritual battles and religious wars? Why did politics, or certain kinds of politics, become like the new cults or replacement for religions with 'save the world' or 'end of times' mania? Also, we need to ask if these positions have been self-generated among thinking individuals or implanted in their minds by the system that controls news media, entertainment media, academia, and official institutions.

It appears part of the reason for the greater polarization is due to separate forms of empowerment. Take men and women. When men and women lived for the good of the family, community, and society, the discussion was not about 'what men want' or what women want'. Men worked to support the family, and women played roles of wives and mothers for the family. It was about what was good for the family together. But the phenomenon of women in the workplace and feminist ideology advanced the notion that women have interests(and an identity) separate to and often at odds with those of men. And such attitude has led to men feeling more self-consciously male or male-constantly-vilified-by-angry-women. If men and women of the past mainly thought of the family and community, now men mostly think in terms of individualism while women think in terms of individualism-while-female. This is a phenomenon seen all over the world where women have entered the workforce in large numbers and directly compete with men for jobs and titles.

Globalization also led to increased polarization. There was a time when most Americans thought in terms of the National Economy. What was good for General Motors was good for America. Most US companies relied on US workers from managers to engineers to men on the factory floor. 'American Economy' meant something back then. Even though owners, managers, and workers often didn't see eye to eye, they were united in their nationalism and Americanism. But the rise of hedonism and globalism undermined the unity. Hedonism turned the American Working Class mainly into consumers. Instead of thinking of job as a means to raise a family, it was to 'get paid and get laid'. Such sloppy thinking led to shoddier behavior on the factory floor. It also led to more social and personal problems that affected performance at work. Those factors, plus the corruption and/or incorrigibility of Labor Unions, made American businesses seek workers elsewhere, either by mass-immigration or shipping factories overseas. Of course, corporations were also motivated by more profits and greed. And as those companies that went 'global' were poised to cut costs while increasing profits, enabling them to out-compete companies that didn't, it was only a matter of time before it became standard for US companies to join the global system. In effect, the US got rid of labor problems by de-nationalizing labor itself. While American Workers in the past could unite and work together to make collective demands as Fellow Americans, the diverse workforce of overseas laborers and new immigrants made collective labor action close to impossible. For a long time, the globalist elites who got richer than ever just ignored the Silent Meniality and just hoped they'd be replaced by Diversity or die en masse from opioids.

We need to distinguish between organic polarization and manufactured polarization. For example, ethnic differences and class differences will always prove to be divisive and polarizing to varying degrees. Latin American nations make a big deal of how all the people are mixed in blood and, as such, constitute ONE PEOPLE, but the race problem never went away down there. India has a far longer history of racial conquest, hierarchy, and mixing, but 'caste' consciousness still remains. And even in cases where ethnic differences don't matter so much, there are class factors as any society, even socialist ones, are made up of the super-rich, the rich, the affluent, the middle class, working class, and the poor. Often, there are correlations between race and class. In the West, for example, Jews tend to be rich while browns(from Muslim and Latin American nations though not Hindus) tend to comprise the bulk of the helot class.

But if certain reasons for fragmentation, hostility, distrust, and division are organic and 'old as the hills', other reasons are manufactured. For example, Stalin stirred up extreme anti-Trotskyitism and soon enough anything or anyone associated with Leon Trotsky became suspect and the target of purges. While the Stalin vs Trotsky feud was genuine enough on grounds of personality and strategy, the mass rage at Trotsky and what he stood for was manufactured by the state. Indeed, Trotsky had been considered as one of the great heroes of the Revolution, the right-hand man of Vladimir Lenin and the leader of the Red Army that defeated the White Forces. And most people were unaware of the Stalin vs Trotsky split and assumed that the Soviet leaders were all working together in harmony and good will. But once Stalin consolidated his power, the state apparatus went into full gear to spread anti-Trotskyite fears and hatred, and soon enough, people all across the Soviet Union came to regard Trotsky's 'treachery' to be the gravest sin against the Revolution. He came to be hated even more than the bourgeoisie. It was manufactured mass-hate.

In the Current West, so much of the recent polarizations owes to manufactured divisions not unlike the Anti-Trotsky hysteria under Stalinism. Indeed, these manufactured polarizations are useful to the ruling elites because such are damned effective among a population of flakes, idiots, imbeciles, and morons in spreading strong passions of hostility and distrust. The last thing the elites want is mass unity. Also, elites fear organic divisions far more than manufactured ones. After all, organic ones are real and involve fundamental dynamics of economics, morality, ethnic/racial identity, and historical memory. In contrast, manufactured differences are essentially amnesiac, trivial, frivolous, and slave to fashion. In a sane and normal society grounded in tradition, morality, and responsibility, the elite manipulations would be brushed aside. Imagine if Jews had tried to push 'gay marriage' when the US was centered around family, community, nationalism, and tradition. That America would have pushed back against Jews and told them to go to hell.
But since the 50s and especially the 60s, so many Americans came to regard pop culture, TV, and college 'radicalism' as their mainstay of meaning and truth. In other words, Americans got infantilized, imbecilized, and moronized. Paradoxically, the spread of higher education made Americans stupider and shallower. Not only did colleges lower their standards to meet the demands and serve the needs of greater numbers of students but more people got infected with the conceit that they know better because they attended college and sat through lectures on Critical Theory, most of which is esoteric Jewish BS.

We see manufactured divisions all over society. Indeed, the elites must be amused that so many people — even many at near-elite levels — are such true-believing suckers for ideological fads and cultural fashions. Prior to the rise of the New Idiocy, Americans would have been united from left to right in regarding trannies as, at best, laughable. There was a time when nearly ALL Americans would have found 'gay marriage' to be a gross idea, even an EVIL idea which it really is. But nowadays, people can be made totally 'impassioned' about the latest fad even though its concepts, values, and agenda were something no one cared about just few years back. Take the tranny business. No one would have gotten all worked up over if IF NOT for the fact that elite colleges and big media(run by Jewish elites) push it so hard through politics, entertainment, celebrity cult, and faux-intellectualism. Having no roots in the ground, most minds are totally at the mercy of the latest 'idological' winds and topple and toss this way and that. Jews figure, get the dummies with vulgar sensationalism and get the smarties with sophistry. Dumb pro-tranny movies and TV shows for the masses, and 'gender studies' for the intellectual types. As for members of upper middle class, they will adhere to just about any fad or fashion deemed currently respectable and 'more evolved'. Middle Class consciousness is obsessed with status and approval than anything else. So, if Jews want to cause more divisions among goy masses, they merely need to manufacture more crusades that cause more fragmentation and polarization among masses. Jews are king-mixers.
It's all the easier today because of the fading of family values, community consensus rooted in customs & tradition, and true religions with deep meaning. As the great majority of Americans have 'muh TV' and 'muh pop music' as their Main Culture, their 'values', 'worldview', and 'spirituality' all revolve around the hype and hysteria of what's-hot-and-what's-not. Pop Culture and non-stop sensory stimulation have made people bored with tradition, heritage, community, family, and real culture. They want new sensations from the Orgasmotron. And yet, human nature being what it is, man cannot live on pleasure and thrills alone. People still seek meaning, spirituality, truth, and holiness. But since they are addicted to pop culture and inculcated with PC, they seek timeless needs of the human heart/mind from pop culture and PC. Modern people are famished for true meaning and spirituality, but they've given up on real culture and religion. It's no wonder they desperately seek those nutrients from the 2 PC's: Pop Culture and Political Correctness. Just like a desperately hungry person will devour anything and his body will try to absorb nutrients(even if the food is meager in the essentials of health), today's soul-famished imbeciles, morons, and/or flakes seek truth and meaning from Pop Culture and Political Correctness... which explains why JOKER was such a giant hit among confused men. It is then no wonder that their 'spirituality' is so devoid of meaning.
Consider how globo-homo Queertianity came to replace Christianity. Even a lifelong atheist should understand why Christianity is a great and deep religion. But today's morons and flakes bow down before Queertianity as the real thing(until of course the next big fashion comes along). And this goes for today's neo-christians too as most of them are decadent, degenerate, and deceptive. Hooked on narcissism and vanity, they think God and Jesus exist to validate and bless the fashion-passion of the hour, the hype of the day. It's no wonder that 'christians' like Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton think there's nothing wrong with churches flying the homo 'pride' flag. It is of course all very ironic. All such people initially supported the 'gay' agenda in the name of liberty & free expression and against excessive religious orthodoxy, moral judgmentalism, and rigidity of social norms. In other words, their support of homos wasn't moral, let alone spiritual. Whether homos were good or bad, the idea was that a free society should tolerate the deviant and decadent, even the degenerate. And yet, the homo agenda turned from one of more individual liberty to one where everyone from cradle was compelled to cheer, celebrate, honor, praise, revere, and even worship homos(and then even trannies) as the new blessed angels of god. Today, if one freely says he finds homo 'sex' to be gross and unhealthy, he will be purged from elite ranks, shunned by so many people who worship at the altar of TV, and even fined and imprisoned(in European nations). How did this happen? When people lose deep meaning, they only have shallow meaning. But even with shallowness, they seek spiritual passion and moral depth. We now have people with strong passions based on shallow meanings. Of course, it can't last for long... just like nutball Maoist passions eventually burned out like a bad case of virus in China. True meaning arises from the blood and soul. It's real body heat. In contrast, false meanings are like fevers and delirium one gets from viral infection. True spirituality takes root in souls and grows from within. Fake spirituality comes from the pandemic of false consciousness spread by radical ideology, crackpot idolatry, and mass hysteria. Eventually it abates and passes from history, like Maoism did following the Cultural Revolution. But while it's raging, it can cause tremendous pain and destruction, like the Spanish Flu after World War I. The main spreaders of current disease are Jews with control over academia, media, advertising, entertainment, and the deep state.

The great paradox of American politics and society is that most Americans are most united in support of the group that is most responsible for manufacturing divisions that has led to increased polarization. Can people connect the dots? Do they notice a certain pattern and discern a certain strategy? Could it be that Jewish supremacists keep concocting more excuses for social divisions so that we will be easier to manipulate and handle? Also, being divided on so many things, naturally we all seek to be united on SOMETHING, and not surprisingly, Jews say that the ONE THING we should all be united on is the obligation of REVERE THE JEWS, OBEY THE JEWS, SUPPORT ISRAEL, AND AIPAC FOREVER.
This is why precisely Jews fear 'white nationalism' and Palestinian Rights Movement the most. These two are most committed to Naming the Jew as the problem. So-called 'white nationalists' demand White Liberation from Jewish Supremacism. Its message to Jews is "I ain't gonna work on the Jewish Maggot's Farm no more", and the message of BDS is Palestinian National Liberation Resistance against Jewish-Zionist-Supremacist Hegemony. It is then no wonder that the two groups MOST CENSORED in the media and internet platforms are White National Liberationists and the proponents of BDS & Palestinian Rights. The divisions that the White Liberation Movement and Palestinian National Liberation represent are ORGANIC. They understand that there is a real and organic conflict between whites and Jews, between Palestinians and Jews. Jews used Nakba to destroy Palestinian nationhood, and they are now enacting White Nakba to turn all of the West into California. The white-Jewish differences and conflict are real. And Jewish tyranny over Palestinians is real, and it's only right for Palestinians to resist and struggle against the supremacism of Jews. Jews fear and hate such polarization because it organically pits goyim against vile Jewish supremacism. And that's why Jews would rather manufacture artificial polarizations to distract people from the real differences along racial and class lines. Better to get people all riled up about bogus Russia Collusion Narrative, China-China-China hysteria, Iran-has-nukes nonsense, Assad-gassed-his-own-people slander, trannies-in-washrooms, illegals-are-dreamers, immigration-enforcement-is-new-nazism, and etc. than have people face the reality of what's going on.
Of course, Jews also create divisions by exploiting organic differences but in a disingenuously selective way. Jews play on white-black differences(which are real enough) but pretend that blacks and Jews are the best of buddies. Never mind Jews joined the White Flight from blacks: Jew Flew. Never mind that Jews eventually got sick of black crime and used Bill Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, and Michael Bloomberg to get hard on black criminality. Never mind Israel was the #1 ally of Apartheid South Africa. Never mind Israel is now the #1 apartheid state; never mind that Jewish Power is the 'new nazism' that is spreading wars and hatreds. Look what Jews did to Middle East, North Africa, and Ukraine. And Jews forced Obama and Trump to move against Venezuela because it formed close ties with Iran. Jews have long exploited black athletes and entertainers — and blacks have long beaten up and robbed Jews in the streets and schools — , but Jews would have us believe that the problem of 'racism' is essentially a Southern Thing with Neo-Confederacy. Jews used draconian measures to cut down on black violence in NY while simultaneously accusing rest of America of being insensitive to blacks and even killing innocent blacks, leading to BLM fiasco based on another lie. In truth, blacks kill blacks(and tons of non-blacks).

Under Jewish Power, so many goyim are divided along stupid or exaggerated worldviews concocted by the Jew-run media and academia. We even got 'slut pride' ideology and Pussy March mania where plenty of women came dressed up as vaginas. There was a time when feminism was organic and addressed basic issues of female freedom and representation. These first feminists, most of whom were Anglo and Germanic, weren't anti-male. They wanted more freedom and choice among women but also understood the obligations of women for the good of society. But once Jewish feminists came up with the Second Wave lunacy, a wedge has been driven between white men and white women who, along with POC, were led to believe that all the problems of the world come from Evil White Male patriarchy. Jewish feminism doesn't care about real justice; its main goal is to weaken the white race that is perceived as the main rival and potential challenge to Jewish Power(as it had been for most of Western History).
As for blacks and 'people of color', Jews direct their ire at white people even though the most powerful and privileged people in the US are Jews. As for whites, Jews direct their ire at FOREIGN nations, especially Russia, Iran, and China(though sometimes at Hungary, Syria, Poland, etc, all depending on how Jews feel about them at the moment). As white dogs bark at foreign nations, they forget that it's their Jewish Master who is pushing interracism & ACOWW(Afro-Colonization of White Wombs), the Great Replacement(or White Nakba), the Pornification of Mainstream Culture, Anti-White Political Correctness, and drugs like opioids on the masses. Divide and Rule, thinks the Jew.

But no nation can function if it's truly divided on EVERYTHING. Increasing divisions call for an even stronger need for something to bind all the peoples together. Jews of course know this. Even as they increase divisions over just about everything among goy masses, they also push REVERENCE TOWARD JEWS, OBEDIENCE TO JEWS, SUPPORT FOR ISRAEL, SUBMISSION TO JEWISH SUPREMACISM, and HOLY HOLOCAUST WORSHIP as the new pillars of the US and the West. Divide goyim on everything to unite them in service to Jews.
The reason why Jews got so angry with Jeremy Corbyn of the UK Labour Party was because, relatively speaking, Corbyn didn't totally suck up to Jews like American Liberals and 'leftist' do. Jews always loved the fact that the Labour Party stirred up anti-white feelings among non-whites. Indeed, Jews were behind most such animus and egged it on. As far as Jews were concerned, Labour was supposed to make non-whites hate and blame whites, not extend the hostility toward Jews. Unlike total cucks like Tony Blair, Jeremy Corbyn chose to be more consistent. If Labour is suppose to be pro-POC and champion non-white causes as indeed 'leftist' Jews have long insisted it be and do, then it only made sense for Labour to side with Palestinians and Muslims against European-Jewish Zionists who rule Israel as a neo-imperialist colony. Jeremy Corbyn's anti-white leftism is terrible for the UK, but his saving grace is he takes his politics sincerely and tries to be consistent. He didn't understand that so-called Jewish 'leftists' were NEVER sincere about ideology and principles; they were merely invoking and exploiting them to push the Jewish Supremacist agenda. For Jews, using POC against whites meant less white power and prestige, which meant more Jewish power and privilege. For Jews, anti-white-ism was a strategy, but Corbyn took it as holy writ and tried to follow it to the letter. For Corbyn, if white Britons don't deserve a white nation, white Jews don't deserve a Jewish nation. All the world must be globalized in the name of 'muh humanity'. In contrast, Jews have always pursued the strategy of Nationalism-for-me-but-not-for-thee. Attack and denounce white British nationalism while, at the same time, pressuring white Britons to support Jewish identity and Jewish nationalism(and even Jewish imperialism). Corbyn was either too dumb to get the message or too principled in his commitment to allow for Jewish moral exemption. (But then, he didn't have the balls to go all the way and call out on wretched Jewish hypocrisy.)

Look at current US, and the Jews, the very group that is most responsible for manufacturing ever more reasons for the goyim to be divided over, have managed to unify all sides on their total subservience to Jewish Power... though two other now near-universal points of unity are Magic Negro Worship and Holy Homo Celebration. But then, Magic Negro and Holy Homo are essentially tropes cooked up by Jews. The Holy Three, the neo-trinity of the new age. So, whatever the differences may be among Americans and various political factions, all sides worship MLK as bigger than god and jesus. And it's gotten to the point that even the most ardently Christian Republican elites are utterly silent and thereby subservient to the globo-homo agenda. Mike Pence the supposed devout Christian backed down from the Homo Lobby that has the backing of Jews. Of course, many times holier than blacks and homos combined are the Jews, the new god of America. If Jews like it, you better like it to. If you can't make yourself like it, you better not oppose it. As Jews loved globo-homo, the politics around the 'gay' cause became one of Liberals pushing it hard and Conservatives doing nothing to stop it. If one side pushes while the other side doesn't push back, the side pushing it will win. It's now gotten to the point where globo-homo is becoming the New Normal even among 'conservatives' and 'christians'. Even over 50% of Orthodox Christians in the US support 'gay marriage', which goes to show that Christianity has now rotted away. It is an empty shell without a living organism inside.

Why is there no impassioned polarization about Israel, Zionism, and Wars for Israel? If indeed the US is polarized about everything, shouldn’t one side be totally for Zionism & Jewish power while the other side is totally against them? One party should be totally pro-BDS, the other side should be totally anti-BDS. But red states and blue states both shut down BDS. What unity! Both political parties seem to be about Israel, Israel, Israel, more Wars for Israel, more Wars for Israel, more Wars for Israel, and ‘muh holy Jews’, ‘muh holy Jews’, ‘muh holy Jews’.

So much for polarization. When it comes to Jews and Israel, there is an excess of consensus and unity. But how could this be in a polarized nation?
Nancy Pelosi said that even if Congress were to fall, the US will stand with Israel.
Donald Trump has been harassed by Jews from day one, but he’s all for Israel and Jews.
Democrats and Republicans who bitch and snipe at one another will be the best of friends the moment a Palestinian family is dropped in their midst. They would become instant-buddies and beat up, murder, and hang the Palestinians from a tree and celebrate and sing and cheer.

Hmmm, could it be that the US has been made polarized and divided so that it would come together on Jews and Israel? After all, if all those goyim were united on many elemental and organic issues, they might unite against Jews who have so much power and abuse it like a habit. But if they are divided on everything, the nation could only function by the two sides agreeing on a few things… like ‘muh Israel’ and ‘I love Jews’. If you want to know who has power over the people, try to find out on which matter/issue all sides are united. The single biggest issue of unity in the US is “Israel is our closest ally.”

Jewish-Zionist-supremacist Ezra Klein of Vox brought up the issue of increasing polarization, but of course there’s going to be more divisions when people who control the academia-media-government keep cooking up new wedge issues that are meant to divide people. Prior to globo-homo, most Americans scoffed at ‘gay marriage’. But once homos were made holy, a new religion of homo-worship began, and that led to a culture war between those who worship globo-homo as the new faith and those who refuse to bow down before the holy homo ass. Before trannies, there was unity against the notion of man as woman. But media promoted nonsense among deracinated and deculturized Americans who grew up with TV and pop music as main staple of culture and ‘values’. Once illegals were made into ‘dreamers’, so many dummy Americans came to regard basic border controls as the ‘new holocaust’.

So, if Klein wants less polarization, how about the Tribe not using the media and academia to cook up new wedge issues? And how about not creating new enemies with Russia, Syria, Iran, Hungary, and whatever nation Jews happen to hate at the moment. Americans weren’t polarized over Ukraine but became so ever since the Jew media proclaimed it as the closet ally of the US next to Israel.

The source of American polarization owes really to a phenomenon of 'Sorolization'. That damned George Soros. Before the American public split in half, a certain group gained the power to drive ever more wedges into the body politic. It’s even gotten to the point where trannies and feminists are hating each other. It is wedger nation.

But whites are idiots. Haven’t they figured out the problem yet? Just think. If Jews are using Diversity against whites, wouldn’t the most natural thing be for whites to use Diversity against Jews? If Jews scream ‘white privilege’, then you should scream ‘Jewish privilege’, especially as it’s closer to the truth. If someone hits you with a stick, you try to take the stick from his hand and beat him with it. The last thing you should do is try to protect him from the stick he’s beating you with. Jews hit whites with Diversity but whites try to protect Jews from it. Jews use Ilhan Omar against whites, but whites protect Jews from Omar.

Of course, whites act like this because white elites have been blackmailed and bought over by the Jews. White elites serve Jewish elites than represent and serve their own people. So, white elites are useless, and white masses are clueless as their elites tell them, “Praise Jews, serve Israel, and it’s NOT okay to be white.” The game will change only when whites begin to support BDS and spread the message among non-whites that Jews got everything. Then and only then will powerful Jews stop pushing for Diversity. But as long as dumb whites protect Jews from the stick that Jews use to beat up whites, they will get clobbered and will lose.

The Destruction of Notre Dame Cathedral. Does It Really Matter? European Civilization is like a Beautiful but Dead Sea Shell.

Does it really matter? Notre Dame and most Churches in the West are empty shells. No matter beautiful conch or abalone shells are, they are dead without the living flesh inside. We may collect them on the beach as pretty objects, but they are dead as organisms. European Churches are dead shells. The soul is gone from them. France has ‘gay marriage’. So do most European nations. ‘Gay’ Flags are stuck inside churches as victory banners of Globo-Homo as Queertianity.
And the body is dying. London is over 50% of non-British whites. By some estimates, more than 50% of all new births in Paris are Africans or Muslims. Europe is dead in soul and withering/dying in body. There is no pride, no reverence, no sense of roots, no sense of continuity. And Jews have taken over the shells like hermit crabs and re-coded the National DNA. Jewish globalists say Vikings were black. Jewish Globalists say Britain was always a Nation of Immigrants. France as white nation? That was just fiction. Ancient Greece was white? Medieval Culture was European? European was white? No way. They were always about blacks, Arabs, and Jews… so say the Jewish Globalists and their cuck-agents, white and yellow.

Mass tourism degrades nations. In the past, only the privileged traveled. Nations were not inundated with millions and millions of foreigners who always mob national sites and treasures. There were seekers, but they were sincerely interested in visiting the places of their fascination or obsession. An art lover had reasons to visit Paris with its galleries. A Catholic wanted to visit Notre Dame or Vatican for spiritual reasons. Their sojourns had meaning. It wasn’t just for amusement. Now, drunken British blokes romp around different parts of the world to just party. And masses of tourists come to McEurope to just sight-see and have a Good Time. They have no real interest in the culture and history. It’s just something to do because others do it and brag about it. Just some place to visit on a honeymoon or budget group tour.

Muslims go to Mecca, but it’s not tourism. It is a pilgrimage. It’s the Hajj. It has meaning and purpose. Islam is a living faith and culture. And Muslims are still alive in body despite wars and famines resulting from Wars for Israel. They are alive in soul.
Apart from the West, the other part of the world that is dead in body and soul is East Asia that is most adept at imitating not only the best but the worst tendencies of the West. East Asia is better at making plastic products than organic souls. The way Japan is going, it will be replaced by robots, cartoon characters, Filipinos, Nepalese, and Africans. And Singapore will eventually be majority Hindu and Muslim(without infusion of New Chinese from the Mainland, which is also plummeting fast in population, especially among those with higher IQ).

European Churches stand empty. Almost no one shows up for services. This is true in Britain, France, Spain, and London. Ireland now worships globo-homomania and Afro-mania more than the Catholic Faith. It prefers black culture over Irish roots and history. It’s all very tragic and sad. The luck of the Irish is now about having some homo Hindu as leader. It is even prouder that they democratically voted for ‘gay marriage’ that implies a homo’s anus is just as much a sex organ as a woman’s vagina.

When people look back on the fall of the modern world, they will wonder how and why it happened. And the reasons will be(not in any particular order):

1. Feminism that destroyed jobs and respect for men.

2. Low birthrates due to feminism, hedonism, individualism, materialism, and other factors.

3. Cult of Diversity and Mass-Immigration-invasion.

4. Jewish take-over of elite institutions and re-coding of National Formula into minority-elite-supremacism and favoring the Other over the Our.

5. The siren song and dong of the Negro that spread Jungle Fever among white women and cuckery among white men. People who welcome Negroes in large numbers will turn their cities into Detroits. When the women lose respect for the men of the race, that race is doomed to enslavement and servility.

6. Youth Culture that infantilized the population to the point where even educated people get tattoos and piercings. And green or purple hair.

7. Dominance of finance that distorted and warped real economies and industries.

8. The New Elitism whereby elites of every nation despised their own folk and formed a global Elysium Club of privilege and decadence.

9. Globo-Homo degeneracy that degraded truth, morality, decency, and sanity.

10. The Cult of Novelty that made people obsess over the new thrill over a culture of continuity and memory.

The Global Implications of the Low MasQ(or Masculine Quotient) among Asian Males and the Relativity of Manhood — The Lady-Boy-ization of Asian Males due to Globo-Homo Pressures of Ideology and Marketplace — Are White Males effectively 'asianized' when Integrated with Black Males?

It's been oft-repeated that Asian-Americans do well in schools and are among the most successful member of society. And the rise of Modern Asia has been much in the news. But how is the sexual health of Asian and Asian-American community? By all measures, it appears Asia and Asian-America are least-thriving in terms of sexual health. It's not merely a matter of less sexual activity among Asians, but the sexual asymmetry between Asian men and Asian women that undermines family-formations for the continuity of the race. Before anything else, humans are organisms created by life processes, and that means no amount of Asian success with books can prevent Asian implosion as people-and-culture if their sexual-health and sexual-unity are broken. But, as we live in a globalized world, what is happening among Asians has implications for the other races as well, not least because of rising Diversity in US and Canada but also in the ancestral homelands of the white race, Europe itself. For example, what will be the effect of the arrival of hundreds of millions of black Africans on the sexual ecology of Europeans? What will it mean for white manhood and white female fecundity(and with whom?) All things are connected under globalism, and lessons from one part of the world offer clues as to problems in other parts. So, what does Asian Sickness imply for the white race and the West?

Consider the Possibility: It's very likely that Homo Asian males, unlike straight Asian males, have high 'sexual' market value. So, the divergence of globo-sexual market value isn't only between Asian males and Asian females. It could also be between Homo Asian males and straight Asian males. Now, it's well known that Asian females have high globo-sexual market value, whereas Asian men may have the lowest(though perhaps higher than that of short indigenous brown peoples of Latin America, but they too are Asiatic in origin). So, we tend to think of Asian women as winners and Asian men as losers. (But then, when women of the race are winners over the men, the race loses as a whole because it means that the women-with-sexual-market-value seek out men of OTHER races who have higher sexual market value. When Asian women in the West go with non-Asian men, it's Asian-ness sexually submitting to the more dominant sexuality and identity of non-Asian races. Notice that just about every successful and/or famous Asian female goes with non-Asian male.)

But the dichotomy isn't merely between Asian males and Asian females because Asian homo males have far higher 'sexual' market value than straight Asian males. Straight Asian males have to depend on masculinity to attract women(of their own race or any other). But, Asian straight males are seen as having the lowest MasQ due to generally being shorter, less muscular, stockier, and having smaller genitals. If white males lose out in the Dong Factor to blacks, Asian males lose out to whites and blacks.
There is also the matter of aesthetics. Even Asians in Asia prefer the Western Look even though the media there are controlled by Asians. Japanese anime feature white-looking-characters as fantasy Japanese. Chinese women do everything to look more Western. And it's very easy for white men to find sexual mates in China because Chinese girls prefer white over yellow. And South Korea may be the champion in yellow-Michael-Jacksonism, what with 1/4 of people there having had plastic surgery. And they even dye their hair blonde and dream of coming to America and having kids with white men(or even black men). So, Asian males lose out aesthetically as well. Many Asians find themselves to be ugly and are trans-racial in their fantasy of looking 'more white' or having white-looking babies. Going with whites and producing whiter-looking babies is regarded as rising up the racial ladder. Just like lower class seek to move to middle class AND middle class aspire to move up to upper class, Asian race hopes to move up to the White race by plastic surgery/hair-dyeing or by race-mixing with the more desirable races. Notice that so many Asians prefer to permanently emigrate from their own peoples, cultures, and homelands to come to white-majority nations to be approved and accepted by whites. (Granted, this is more complicated due to PC and Afromania. PC tells all non-white immigrants to hate whitey, and yellow dogs like Sarah Jeong dutifully bark at Evil Whitey the behest of their Jewish masters for doggy biscuits. But the fact is they came to nations like the US, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada to be with white-majority populations. Asians don't want to move to non-white majority nations. So, even as Asians love whitey on the visceral level, they hate whitey on the ideological level because Asians are such servile dogs of the official dogma, which is anti-white PC in the Jew-run West. And there is also the factor of Afromania. Even though white aesthetics is still much prized -- many women still prefer white males uber alles, and most successful non-white and Jewish men desire white women, esp 'Aryan'-looking blondes -- , black domination of sports and sexualized pop music/culture has led to the globo-masses worshiping blacks as the defacto superior race of jocks, studs, and badass gangstaz. This is why we see so many pathetic yellow dork boys desperately imitating blackness to appear cool and badass when, if anything, the sheer discrepancy between their yellow dorkery and imitation-blackness just makes them look laughable like clowns.)

Anyway, the reason why homo Asian males have the advantage over straight Asian males is similar to why Asian females have the advantage over Asian males. Asian females don't need the MasQ or Masculine Quotient. If anything, they are higher in Feminine Quotient or FemQ than women of other races. So, even though white female aesthetics are still preferred over Asian female aesthetics, men of all races feel attraction to Asian females because yellow women are seen as more feminine and easier to 'dominate'. Men, even 'pozzed liberal' ones, still want to feel like a MAN in the company of women. Even white beta-male dorks who feel they can't impress white girls(who are now into jungle fever) feel that they might have a better chance impressing yellow girls because yellow boys are even dorkier than white boys. Also, especially because black male dominance has so emasculated and wussified white males(who notice that more and more white girls got jungle fever and go with black men), these white males seek to regain manhood by taking yellow women. They compensate their loss of manhood to black men by gaining manhood points from yellow men. White Guys can play the role of 'white negro' in relation to yellow boys.

What do Asian homo males have in common with Asian females? And how does this advantage them in the 'sexual' marketplace? Unlike straight Asian males, homo Asian males can play the 'bitch' or the 'pussy-boy'. They can prance around, twiddle their fingers, talk girly with a lisp, and flutter their eyes in pinky-wink fashion. Whereas straight male Asians only have their penises to rely on -- a disadvantage because black dong > white dong > yellow dong -- for sexual success, Asian homo males can rely on the bungholes as ersatz homo-pooters. So, while many females may pass on the yellow dong as insufficiently large for their liking, homo men of all races may be more than happy to bugger the 'tight' yellow homo bung as bitch-homo-pussy. Granted, Asian homo males will be favored mainly by macho-homos who want a submissive homo-bitch(like the top-thug in ROAD WARRIOR has a 'gay-bitch' sidekick).




Homos like Milo Yiannopoulos won't be much interested in Asian homos because they want to play the role of lushy-wushy 'bitch' in the equation. So, Milo(like Andrew Sullivan) prefers black guys with big dongs to fill up his Greco-Judeo-Homo bung. It seems like Homos come mainly in two kinds: Tough Homo and Tooty Homo. Tough Homos want to dominate and ram their dongs into 'gay bitches', whereas Tooty-Homos want to be treated like a 'bitch' and, more often than, not want to be buggered by the dominant macho homo or Machomo. And Asian homo males probably have great success as tooty-homos or 'gay bitches' to white men and black men. Because they rely on submission and the hole-factor(with their bungholes serving as equivalent of the yellow vagina) than stick-factor, their success in the 'sexual' marketplace may be comparable to that of Asian females. They merely need to bend over and offer their bungs to men of other races.

And this may be the reason for the Rise of the Herbivore Man in Japan and K-Pop-Gay-Pop Boy in South Korea. Especially as the Internet has globalized the youths of Japan and South Korea(in ways that was not possible for earlier generations of men there), both Asian boys and girls grew up connected to winner-takes-all globalist media where black males dominate sports/song and white males dominate popularity but where Asian males are all but invisible. (Localism allows whites to win in white lands, yellows to win in yellow lands, browns to win in brown lands. Each people have local heroes, like the Ancient Greek Olympics were about Greek heroes for Greek peoples. But globalism chooses one set of winners for all the globe. As blacks can beat all in sports, they are the only ones who matter in globo-sports-manhood, which is why even Chinese boys grow up worshiping black NBA stars, why South Korea imports African sprinters to run as 'New Koreans', and why Japanese sports are being taken over by mulatto kids of Japanese women and black men. One look at the French Soccer Team, and black manhood is now the only thing that matters in France and much of Europe. In UK media, black males are used as idols of manhood while white men are now usually featured as dorks or cucks.) Asian males are still everywhere in Asian media, but Asian Media is NOT globalist media as most people around the world have no interest in Asian TV, Asian Movies, Asian sports, or Asian pop music. The ONLY Asian pop culture that became global is Anime, but it's about yellow fantasy of being White. Prior to the internet, most Asian boys and girls would have known mostly Asian culture. But via the internet, they can see the whole world, and they realize that while Asian women got global market value, Asian men do not. The psycho-social effect of this is what? Asian males realize that Asianness-as-femininity has value but Asianness-as-masculinity has no value. So, the ONLY way Asian males can gain global currency is by becoming feminized themselves. Japanese herbivore men are like effete eunuchs. Those soyboys might as well lose their penises and take of plastic vaginas.

https://www.businessinsider.com/herbivore-men-in-japan-are-not-having-sex-8-15



And K-pop boys are essentially gay-pop boys. Even straight boys in K-Pop are so gayish and girlish, but then K-pop fashion and choreography are designed by globo-homo Asian men who've been rammed in the ass by white and black guys. THAT is the premier expression of South Korean culture these days: Fantasies of yellow boys as girly men devised and dressed up by yellow homos who play 'bitch' to men of other races. But then, it's rather fitting as it's hard to think of a bigger 'bitch' nation on Earth. Even with an economy 40 times and population twice that of North Korea, the cowards and wussies of South Korea hide behind US power to protect them from Monster Kim. An infantilized and wussified nation, a land where the older generation are mindless dogs of Pentagon and the younger generation are mindless monkeys of Western globo-homo PC.

But if any Asian nation pioneered the Triumph of the Girly Men as THE REPRESENTATIVE MEN OF ASIA, it is Thailand, which should be called Thigh-Land, with a capital that aptly sounds like 'Bang-Cock' to Western ears. All Asian nations have been known as the Vaginas to the world, or Asian Beavers. In sexual terms, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, Hong Kong, Vietnam, and etc. have all been discussed in the West(and globosphere) as where men should go for the women. The idea is that yellow women are easy to get in places in Philippines and Vietnam because they're poor and you can get a lot of bang for the buck. But even in richer nations like Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, the idea is that the yellow women are so dissatisfied with their loser-men that they see foreign men as white-knights(or even black-pirates) who will liberate yellow women from being chained to loser yellow men. Such has been a universal trope for Asian nations.
This was also true of Thailand, of course, where prostitution wasn't only a big part of the economy but state-sanctioned as well. But Thailand was big for something else: the Lady Boy. And variants of this lady-boy-ism seems to have spread to other parts of Asia because Asia is becoming globalized, and that means Asian boys and Asian girls grow up with the realization that Asian masculinity has zero market value whereas Asian femininity has high market value. When Japan was a closed-off nation, its men didn't need to compete with other men of the world. Even short yellow runts could feel like king of the hill, the masters of their own nation. And Japanese women only had access to Japanese men, the only men they knew. But as the TV mini-series SHOGUN showed, when Japanese women gain access to taller gaijin, they go ga-ga and lose all interest in runty Japanese men(who are now so ronri and ronri and turning to rovots, aka love-robots while more Japanese women go white or black).

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/dateline/article/2017/04/11/love-intimacy-and-companionship-tale-robots-japan

There was a time when most people in Asia would have laughed at the Lady Boys phenomenon of Thailand or found it ridiculous. But now, Lady-Boyism is becoming the dominant mode of maleness in Asian. The signals that Asian boys receive from the globo-homo command central is, "Yellow girls or yellow femininity got worth, but yellow boys or yellow masculinity got no worth. So, if yellow boys want worth, they must be more like yellow girls because Asian worth is only with femininity." The other reason for spread of Lady-Boy-ism through much of Asia is because many of the Asian elites are educated in the West that pushes Jewish-dominated Homomaniacal propaganda. Because the servile Asian Mind is incapable of asking questions and tends to submit to the Prevailing Dogma, so many Western-educated or Western-influenced Asian elites in media and academia have spread globo-homo propaganda in their own nations. Another reason is that Asian elites, like globalist elites all over the world, no longer identify and connect with their own national folks. Their main identification and status-obsession are about being accepted into the globo-homo Davos world, and they are eager to conform to ANY set of 'most evolved values' to be accepted. Needless to say, globo-homos value are essentially about worshiping Judeos, Negroes, and Homos.

Anyway, it's not difficult to understand why Asian homo males now have such cultural currency in all of Asia(minus China and North Korea that aren't, as yet, part of globo-homo imperium). In Asian nations where globalism reigns supreme, those Asians who possess globo-worth have more prestige than those without. Asian women and Asian homo males are gaining fast in power, prestige, and privilege because they have globo-worth. Yellow women are much sought after by men of all races. And yellow homo males are popular as 'gay bitches' to rich & powerful homos all around the world. So, both groups have popularity points in the globalist marketplaces. But Asian males have no value because their MasQ is so low. Because Asian femininity and homosexuality have more globo-worth, even straight Asian men(who can't score any points due to their inferior masculinity) are jumping on the bandwagon of femininity or metro-sexual homo-fashions to score some points. That must be why 10% of young S. Korean men now use cosmetics in imitation of K-Pop Gay-Pop pussy-boys who can hardly be distinguished from Asian female pop-idols.

What this proves is that manhood is relative. Japanese men once felt like tough guys when Japan was isolated from the world. But once Japan was pried open, year after year, decade after decade, and now century after century, Japanese men are losing confidence as males and turning into asexual 'herbivores'. In contrast, Japanese women, who once used to respect Japanese men, are turning more aggressive and slutty and going with non-Japanese men, esp white and even black. And we see the same pattern in South Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong.

Now, while white manhood faces NO THREAT from Asian males, it faces existential and sexistential threat from black men who are more muscular, thicker-voiced, and have larger genitals. It is all the more dire for white males because Jews control the Western Media and are hellbent on breaking the spine of white manhood because Jewish Power finds pathetic cucks like Paul Ryan, John Bolton, Joe Biden, and Gavin Newsom far more useful as obedient running dogs. What better way to destroy white manhood than by castrating it? And what better way to castrate white manhood than by making the white boy submit to the black man as the Superior Male who deserves to have white women as his trophies? Of course, if the top white males cucks go along with the Jewish Supremacist program, they are handsomely rewarded with vaunted positions(as puppets) and lots of cash prizes.

A people are finished when the men have effectively been stripped of manhood. It's like taking stripes away from a military officer. Jews used Feminism and Black Machismo to strip white men of manhood. Feminism in America is essentially a Jewish tool to brainwash white women into hating white men as their worst enemies and oppressors. Thus, white unity of male and female is undermined. But even more effective has been Black Machismo. After all, biology > sociology. No matter how much Jews use feminism to make white women hate white men, the fact is biology still makes many white women attracted to white men as objects of love and devotion. Feminism is ideological sociology used against the biological truth of attraction between white men and white women. But Black Machismo or Jungle Fever is genuinely threatening to white men because it is a case of Biology + Sociology. Biology says women prefer the tougher men over the weaker men. And in schools, streets, and sports, white women see that black men are the REAL MEN while white guys are benchwarmer-losers who get pushed around by tougher black guys. In the past, this biology of jungle fever was counter-balanced by white-dominated sociology that pressured white women to stick with white men. But now, Jews control the tools of sociological messaging, and they promote black-supremacist Jungle Fever far-and-wide to all white girls from the youngest age possible. And while white girls are told there is nothing more wonderful than lusting after black boys, white boys are told that there is nothing nobler for white boys than to be either homo or admiring of homos(and trannies). Manhood is relative, no less for whites than for yellows. When Tom Cruise, the biggest white male star, lost both of his wives to Negroes, one begins to wonder about the future of the white race.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Need for ‘Commonal’ Sense of ‘Prioritism’ in a World out of Balance — Dangers of Universal Meritocratism to National Community — Feminism and Family

The Modern West, indeed the Modern World in general, has lost a sense of Common Interest and Shared Priority. The Rise of the West owes to its better understanding of those two principles, but in the pursuit of radical individualism, narrow identity politics(fetishization of Diversity), alien elitist globalism(mainly Jewish), deviance as the New Normal(especially related to Homomania), sanctification of the Other(mainly Negro), and division of organic unity(due to selfish feminism), the West has lost its Great Way.

What used to be the Priority and Common Interests of the Past West? There was an appreciation for freedom that allowed for flowering in the arts, necessary criticism & reform of power, new ideas & visions, and advance in science & technology. But of course, freedom in and of itself could be chaotic and infantile. Therefore, the West also prioritized excellence and hierarchy. Equality of opportunity didn’t mean equality of outcome. Equal freedom for all members of society meant meritocracy, the chance for individuals of intelligence and talent to rise higher no matter his class origin. Without prioritization of meritocracy as means of professional elevation and social advancement, the West would have stagnated like so many other civilizations where power and privilege depended less on provable ability than on birth, connections, or corruption(deeply ingrained in the fabric of society).
But then, the Past West wasn’t just about individuality and personal gain. It was also about shared identity, heritage, & culture. It was about the unity of purpose. So, the talented people of the nation were compelled to feel a stronger bond to his national folk(rich, middle, and poor) than with talented peoples of other nations. Sure, there was mutual respect for talent among the elites all over the world. Still, the talented Frenchman felt first and foremost as a Frenchman just like a talented Englishman felt first and foremost as an Englishman. An Englishman of Talent may appreciate and learn from talented men all over the world, but his core identity & loyalty was bound to nation, culture, and heritage. Thus, there was a balance of meritocratic individualism and cultured communalism.
If individualism is radicalized and pushed too far, the result is deracinated atomization. If communalism is radicalized and pushed too far, the result could be something like a dull Amish community or communism. In contrast, National Humanism can arrive at a Goldilocks middle between individual freedom to achieve and a shared national sense of identity and purpose. And the Past West understood such balance. For this reason, there was sound and rational anxiety about the Other and the challenges it posed to the One. There was Ethno-Meritocracy.

For example, the practice of universal meritocratism can eventually break a nation. Suppose an all-white nation has athletic meritocracy and lets the best man win. In favoring the superior athletes over the inferior ones, there will be justice in the selection and rewarding of athletes. Best white athletes will represent the white nation. But should such meritocratism be extended to the Other. Suppose this all-white nation takes in blacks and lets them also participate in sports. Because of the BAMMAMA Factor — Blacks Are More Muscular And More Aggressive — , blacks will beat the whites and take the elite positions in sports. It will be meritocratically fair, but would it be good for the nation? Idols and especially Icons are very important in shaping national identity and collective psychology. Human Nature makes people focus more on People of Fame by sports, beauty, talent, and star power. If blacks are let into a white nation, allowed to beat up whites in their own nation, and take over the top slots of athletic idolatry, the repercussions will be huge. After all, a nation’s athlete isn’t just a player-in-sports but the representative idol of nation’s manhood. Therefore, if black men take over sports in a white nation, the symbolic meaning will be Black Manhood as the real manhood and white manhood demoted to benchwarming cuckery. So, even though meritocratism as a principle and method has real value, there is a useful limit beyond which it begins to harm the national community. This is why the Ancient Hellenic Olympics limited the athletes to Greeks. Greeks were too smart to invite a bunch of Jaffers from Africa to kick their butts, humiliate them, destroy the iconography of Greek manhood, and then take over Greek wombs(as women are naturally wired to go with winner men).

Even if the athletes of a particular nation cannot win globally or internationally, they should be assured in winning and dominating in their own nation, their home-field. When meritocratism is globalized and universalized, then every nation will end up with blacks dominating all the sports and taking over the idolic manhood of the nation. This has happened in Japan with Mongols taking over Sumo and blacks(mulattoes created by Japanese women going with black men) dominating track. These developments have meaning beyond the athletic. Sumo has long been a sacred-spiritual sport of Japan. But because Japan stupidly allowed huge Hawaiians, tougher Mongols, and taller Eastern Europeans into the sport, Japanese fatsos have been pushed out of elite ranks. As foreigners took over the ‘idolic’ symbols of National Manhood, Japanese women are now rejecting Japanese men in record numbers and going with foreign men. It won’t be long before Japanese sports are totally taken over by foreigners or by children of Japanese women who have babies with foreign men, especially the 'groids'. But if Japan is headed in that direction, Europe has gone full cuck by letting in tons of blacks from Africa and Jamaica. Look at European track, and just about every nation puts forth a ‘groid’ as its national 'hero'. ‘European’ boxing champions are now likely to be black. And there are lots of mulattoes, almost all of them the product of ACOWW(Afro-Colonization of White Wombs) as white European women are now turned on by black men as the Real Men and Superior Men. And with 200 million black Africans(most of them men) headed to Europe in the next 20 yrs, we know what the future of Europe will be. European race will be sexually conquered by blacks as the native folks of South America and Mexico were sexually conquered by the Spanish. This is the future of EU unless a powerful movement arises to round up the ghastly ‘groids’ and ship them back to Africa(and to punish the white female race-traitor like French sexual traitors were punished after WWII). This is why meritocracy has to be for a specific people and within fixed borders. If you let blacks into your nation and allow athletic meritocracy, they will dominate sports and take over as the representative idols of manhood, and then, the women of your nation will go black and have black babies while the native men of the nation are cucky-wucked. The tell-tale signs of both Japan and Europe indicate that, unless the protection of Native Manhoods from Invasive Manhoods is prioritized, the viability of a nation will rapidly decline. A healthy and viable society is one where men feel confident in their manhood and are respected by their womenfolk. This becomes problematic when a foreign and invasive manhood enters a society and leads to the severe depreciation of the native manhood. What soon follows is loss of male confidence, feminization of men, and the loss of respect of the womenfolk who then offer their wombs to Invasive Manhood. Negroes pose the most invasive manhood around the world. In Cuba since the Revolution, despite the fact that whites kept the power at the top, there has been a massive Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. Unless white Cuban males have elite privilege, they lose out to the Invasive Manhood of the Negroes with harder muscles and bigger dongs. Camille Paglia reported that white men in Brazil tend to be weak and wussy whereas white women are assertive and confident. It is surely because white males in Brazil have lost their manhood to the stronger manhood of Negroes. In contrast, white women can just shift their affections from whites to blacks or mulattoes. Men compete to come out on top. Women just put out to whomever happens to be tougher/rougher men. Is it any wonder that the Rise of the Invasive Negro Manhood is happening concomitantly with the wussification of the white male in the West, not least via LGBTQ stuff? And is it any wonder that the ‘faggotization’ of society has reached toxic levels in Japan and South Korea? Having gone global, both nations now worship black men as the Real Men. That being the case, Asian males, having lost in Manhood, seek value in androgyny.

And, we know from the Jewish Example that cerebral meritocracy can be dangerous too. Sure, Jews are smart and talented. If your nation lets in Jews, they will out-compete your people and take over the elite institutions and industries. Now, if Jews were to identify as white, respect your people & culture, and act on the sincere premise of DON’T BE EVIL, their superior intelligence and higher talent may do wonders for your nation. But there is a good chance that Jews will continue to identify mainly as the Tribe, see your people as dimwit goyim, become addicted to Jewish supremacism, and get all paranoid about your folks having their own identity & interests. Then, instead of using their intelligence and power for the good of your people, they may very well use their advantages to weaken, harm, and even utterly destroy your people. Even though Adolf Hitler was a pathological demagogue and National Socialism degenerated into psychotic lunacy, much of Jewish behavior since the 1960s has validated the ‘antisemitic canard’ that Jews tend to be a people filled with arrogance, contempt, venom, and viciousness toward other peoples.
So, again, meritocracy should ideally be restricted to your own people and should not be extended to the Other; the best way to keep it among your own kind is to EXCLUDE the Other from ever gaining a foothold in your nation. (A nation should be closed in borders[at least to prevent Mass Invasion by the Other] and open in ideas. Secure the body but free the mind. Unfortunately, the Current West is about opening the borders and closing the minds[with PC].) It’s best to let Other peoples have their own meritocratic institutions and industries in their own nations. Ideally, German institutions and industries should provided meritocratic means of elevation for Germans, and Japanese institutions and industries should allow such opportunities for Japanese people. While a nation may benefit from universal meritocratism in science, technology, and business, there is a good chance that the Others will take over the nation in terms of wealth & power and then use their influence to radically alter the character of the nation. Surely, if Jews had been allowed to take over Japanese industries and institutions, they would have pushed far more PC and ‘multi-culturalism’ in Japan. In a way, the US benefited greatly in science and enterprise by taking in peoples from all over the world and offering them meritocratic path to success. But even if Abstract America gained something from this, the Concrete White America lost tremendously. By allowing blacks to participate in what were intended to be white sports, blacks have totally taken over the most popular sports and toppled the white male from the idol of manhood. As white-only sports no longer exist, even white Americans have no choice but to watch sports that are totally dominated by blacks. The psycho-social effect of this has been that white men are made to feel like cucky-wuck white boys rendered effete vis-a-vis black men. And in terms of sexual behavior, it has been totally devastating to the white race. White girls now grow up with Jungle Fever because Sports, Music, and Pornification of Mainstream Culture condition them to see Black Men as the real idols, heroes, and representative of American Manhood. In the end, the Fever Factor may be more dangerous than Guilt Factor. After all, despite all the PC brainwashing, the main problem is not white guilt about non-whites. Rather, the main problem is white FEVER for black sports, music, and sex.

Universal Meritocratism in sports has been devastating for whites. And Universal Meritocratism in academics and brainy endeavors has been no less disastrous for white folks. Especially beginning in the 1960s, Ashkenazi Jews used their superior wits to take over so many institutions and industries. But Jews didn’t rely on talent alone. Jews learned from history that mere superiority in wit, talent, and drive is not enough to stay on top. After all, the less intelligent and less affluent stupid goyim might organize, march with pitchforks, and bring down the Jew. So, Jews used their power to push the White Guilt Narrative on the Holocaust and Slavery. That pretty much paralyzed any sense of white pride, power, and unity. Most crucially, it meant white elites could no longer champion and defend their own racial kin because it’d be ‘racist’ — but then, Jews insisted that white Americans MUST favor Zionist Jews over Palestinians; go figure. Also, Jews used their control of Law and whore politicians to push through Immigration by non-whites(effectively a form of Mass Invasion), resulting in Diversity among ‘stupid goyim’ that would make Gentile Unity impossible against Jews. The result of Universal Meritocratism of brain power has been devastating to white folks. While it’s true that the US benefited from Jewish genius and smart enterprise of many people from Asia, it’s no less true that many white Americans have been squeezed out of elite institutions and positions by Jews and Asians. Worse, under the current PC system, whites not only lose out meritocratically to Jewish weasels and Asian grinds but ‘affirmatively’ to blacks, Hispanics(even white Hispanics pretending to be ‘of color’), and others. Whites may even have to lose out to Arabs who may soon be categorized as ‘non-white’.

The Past West understood the need to balance Individual Meritocratism and National Unity & Purpose. The problem of universalizing Individual Meritocratism on a Global Scale is that all nations could end up with the same set of winners. If all non-black nations were to allow blacks to compete athletically, all nations will have blacks as top athletes. There will no longer be local heroes in a world uniformly dominated by globo-Negroes.
If all nations were to allow open access to Jewish investment & influence, Jews could very well take over the elite institutions and industries around the world. Look what Jews did to Russia in the 1990s when they were given Universal Meritocratic access. Of course, Jews being Jews, they used a combination of real intelligence and dirty Tribal Networking(that pulled all sorts of dirty tricks to funnel most of the wealth into the pockets of Jews, as Bernie Madoff had done in NY over decades). If you want your people to remain as idols and icons of your nation, they must be shielded from Universal Meritocratism. Indeed, meritocratism must be provided only to the kin-members of the nation. Is it healthy for Southeast Asian economies to be dominated so heavily by the Chinese community? Wouldn't it be better for natives of those nations to find ways to select and train the smartest of their own kind? After all, the Chinese market-dominant minorities in those nations feel no great loyalty and, as such, don’t care for anything but more profits for themselves. And how long will Black Africa allow Asian-Indians to dominate the economies in nations like Kenya? Now, while it’s true that Chinese and Asian-Indian market-dominant minorities may do wonders for the economies of Southeast Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, can the natives and locals really trust those people to use their wealth for the general good of the nation? One thing for sure, Jewish talent almost always becomes a net minus for a non-Jewish nation. While Jewish genius and brilliance may lead to all sorts of useful products and services that benefit the nation economically and technologically, Jews will make the bulk of the profits that will be used to eventually subvert, harm, and even destroy the identity and interests of the non-Jewish majority population.

Anyway, the West needs to regain a sense of what might be called Common Priority, a shared consciousness that prioritizes certain interests over others for the overall good. Now, having a sense of priority doesn’t mean one thing has value and another thing doesn't. Indeed, just about anything has some value. But some things have greater value. Suppose you have an exam the next day. What should your priority be? Studying? Hanging out with friends? Watching a movie? Listening to hours of music? Going for a long jog? Going hiking and camping? Baking a cake? All those activities have some value, but of course, your priority must be to study and know the material.
Or suppose a family without much money moves to a new town. What should be its priority? Securing a place of residence, finding work, and saving money? Buying a boat and couple of kayaks? Throwing a giant party? Getting a swimming pool? Learning to ride horses? Of course, a sensible family will focus on residence, work, and saving. The other activities also have value, but they are not essential for what the family needs. And indeed, this is what separates adults from kids. Children, having a weaker sense of reality, always want to prioritize fun. They want to go to Disneyland even when the family has no money. Adults must know better. But in the culturally degenerate US, the problem isn’t just a poor sense of priorities among things of value but the insane prioritizing of things of NO value. While it’s foolish for a family that should be saving money to put in a swimming pool or purchase a boat, at the very least a pool or boat still has some value. But what value does tattoos, piercings, and using drugs like meth have? Nothing at all. And among the Negroids, there are so many trashy fat dumb black women whose main priorities are hair-weaves and fancy fingernails. Among stupid black guys, the priority is imitating trashy rappers, flashing blings, and firing off guns to prove how ‘badass’ they be. Or, it’s killing each other over Air Jordans. How did America become like this? That black mama in RAISIN IN THE SUN had a sense of real priority. She done get the insurance money and put a down payment on a house. Granted, she didn’t have to buy one in a white community, but she knew what came first on her set of priorities. But if she had grown up in post-60s America, her first reaction upon getting some money would have been, "Sheeeeeeiiit, gots to have me be 10 buckets of chicken, gots to get me all them weaves, gots to get my nails done..."

One area in which Western People have a poor sense of priority is in the area of sexes and family. And one of the main culprits is Feminism, a confused and hypocritical ideology that demands that women be (1) treated meritocratically as individuals and (2) favored ‘affirmatively’ as a group. So, women, as individuals, should have equal access to all professions, but if women are under-represented in certain sectors by those very rules of meritocracy, there must be remedial policies put in place to ensure that MORE women are represented. There is an obvious contradiction in the demand that women be judged as sexless individuals but also as gender-specific group with special needs and interests. But even if feminists were intellectually consistent and genuinely principled in their insistence on individual-based libertarian meritocracy, it would be violating the Common Priority and Ethno-Priority of the People. Why? Because, apart from intellectual skills at work, men and women are profoundly different in their psycho-social instincts, attitudes, and habits. It is a fact that jobs are many times more important to men than to women. It is a fact that men with jobs will marry women without jobs, but women with jobs will not marry men without jobs. Also, as women get more education, especially in elite colleges, they become super-choosy in terms of finding a mate. And if women get good high-paying jobs, they will only seek out men who are equally or more successful. In the end, a high-earning woman is likely to marry a high-earning man, and the high-incomes of both spouses go into ONE family. Is that fair for the community as a whole? Sure, it’s great for that single individual and her high-income hubby, but is it good for society? Now, imagine if her high-income job had been held by a man. Then, two men with high-incomed could have married, and TWO families could have benefitted from the high incomes. Instead of two high-incomes going into ONE family, two high-incomes could have supported two families.

Now, there are times when women should be favored for elite positions. Suppose a woman shows special aptitude in science and could contribute a great discovery that may very well benefit mankind. In such cases, she should be allowed to pursue her field as far as it can go. But most high-income positions have nothing to do with genius, brilliance, or originality. Indeed, most high-income jobs held by women in law, education, management, business, government work, and etc. could just as well be done by men if not better. Now, if all credentialed men could have high-paying jobs, it might not be a problem. But the fact is there are only so many high-income jobs, and there is great competition for them. And in most cases, women who take such positions are not better than the men they beat out. Also, even if some of these women do have higher credentials, the jobs are such that men could do them just as well. In a world where men have most jobs, they will be willing to marry women with lower jobs or no jobs and start families with them. But in a world where women have the majority of jobs, they will be unwilling to marry a man unless he has a comparable or superior job. In the end, many of these women will use their money on vanity, narcissism, and self-indulgence. Many will live the SEX-AND-THE-CITY lifestyle. If their jobs had been held by men, the guys could have married women of lower stations and started families with them. But women with high-income jobs don’t want to go low in marriage. So, unless they can catch some ideal partner, they just spend all the money on themselves. Or they choose to become single mothers whose children, growing up without fathers, turn out to be confused and neurotic. Not only have they taken jobs from men, but they wasted their earnings on short-term momentary pleasures of vanity. The psycho-social impact of this is devastating on the society-at-large. Except for the high-income woman who meets an ideal mate in high-income guy, everyone else loses out. A high-income woman who is super-choosy and finds no mate — especially because so many people like herself have taken good jobs from men — ends up alone and bitter. The men who were kept out of high-income professions because TOO MANY WOMEN took the positions have a hard time finding mates, especially in an increasingly zero-sum-game economy where the Middle Class is shrinking: Winners win big, the shrinking Middle remains stagnant, and the widening Bottom ekes out a living or falls to terrible vices.

Now, the point is not that the feminist argument has no merit. After all, feminists could argue that they too are about prioritizing certain principles and values above others. They could argue that, from their perspective, the highest priority is female freedom, female choice, female independence, female success, female achievement, and female empowerment. What is wrong with more freedom, choice, independence, success, achievement, and empowerment for 50% of the population? Why shouldn’t women have the same rights and opportunities as men? Fair enough. And one might concede that such argument would make sense IF men and women were simply interchangeable units with hardly any differences. Suppose some screws are green and others are red. What sense would it make to favor green screws over red ones when both are equally screws and serve the same function? If indeed the difference between men and women were really that trivial — if, let’s say, women were merely men with different-shaped ears — , it would indeed make no sense to favor men over women. But the difference between men and women are like the difference between screws and nuts. Green screws or red screws, that is of trivial difference, but there is a clear difference between screws and nuts. They are not only different in shape but serve different functions. Yet, they are also essentially complementary. Therefore, one cannot treat nuts like screws or screws like nuts. One must always be mindful of the fundamental differences between screws and nuts. Ideally, for every screw, there should be a nut. A screw on its own is useless. And so is a nut on its own. What makes both useful is for the screw to be matched with a nut. So, if there are 20 screws and 20 nuts, the ideal would be matching every screw with a nut. But suppose the end result is 5 screws ending up with 5 nuts, 5 screws ending up with 5 screws, 5 nuts ending up with 5 nuts, and 5 screws being on their own and 5 nuts being on their own. Something is clearly out of whack.

Then, the same goes for humanity. Even though skills and professions are important to us, the inescapable fact is we are, first and foremost, organisms that were created by sex and our kind can only continue through sex. Sex is union of male and female. So, the ideal thing is for every man to end up with a woman, notwithstanding the presence of small percentage of homos who want to do something else. Because we are living organisms before anything else, we need to prioritize our meaning as organisms. Human organisms were born through sex, and once mature, they reproduce through more sex. Thus, the main purpose of a man and woman is to reproduce. Some people may disagree and say it’s a matter of ‘choice’(whether one choose to procreate or not), but that’s meaningless from the vantage point of life. Would it make sense to argue that it’s a matter of personal choice whether one eats, drinks, pisses, and poos? In the strictest sense, that is indeed true. Every person has a right not to eat or drink or pee or poo. He or she cannot be forced by society or the state to eat, drink, pee, or poo. But the fact is a person, as a living form, MUST eat, drink, pee, and poo in order to live. It doesn’t matter what books he/she read, what job he/she has, what ideas he/she espouses, and etc. The fact is he/she won’t be alive for long IF he/she doesn’t eat, drink, pee, and poo. Or breathe air. Even though anyone can say it’s his or her RIGHT not to breathe air, no one’s going to last for long without breathing. So, the needs of life trump all else. Try reading a book without breathing air. Try going for several days without drinking? Try going for weeks without eating. Try to last a day without peeing. Try not to poo for several days. That’d be a lot of shit.

Of course, a person can live an entire life without having sex or having kids. And if someone thinks he or she, as an individual, is the beginning and end-all of life, then, I suppose it doesn’t matter if he or she leaves no kibblers behind. But that is such a narrow, vapid, and shallow view of life. After all, no individual created oneself. No individual emerged whole and all-knowing like Athena from the head of Zeus. Because our minds are so complex and because our consciousness is shaped by books, education, culture, and socialization, we tend to see ourselves more as individuals defined by abstract constructs than as biological creatures. Even when people act most animal-like — dancing like having sex at nightclubs — , they are imitating and responding to the artificiality of Pop Culture that have reduced our animal drives into recreational activity than biological functions with a certain survivalist and evolutionary purpose.
But in fact, as creations of biology, all individuals are really part of a continuum. A person is not a stand-alone creation or existence but a continuation of his parents who are continuations of their parents who were continuations of their parents and so on. Every individual that lives today exists only because of this long continuum that goes back billions of years. So, it is vain, shallow, and stupid for any individual to think that he is a separate and ‘free’ from all others. The fact is his DNA — his appearance, intelligence, temperament, disposition, and countless other characteristics — is the continuation of the DNA of his father and mother who themselves are continuations and inheritors of the DNA of their parents and so on. If one’s parents had decided not to have kids, that individual wouldn’t exist. Or suppose a particular individual’s great, great, great, great grandmother had decided not to have kids. Then, his great-great-great parent wouldn’t have existed, his great-great-grandparent wouldn’t have existed, his great-grandparent wouldn’t have existed, his grandparent wouldn’t have existed, and his parent wouldn’t have existed. And he wouldn't exist. That is the effect of life refusing to be part of a continuum. Therefore, a person, as an organism, needs to develop a deeper and richer consciousness. Sure, he or she is indeed an individual but also much more. He or she, as an individual, is a link in a very long chain. Thus, he or she isn’t just he or she but the continuation of his or her parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, great-great-grandparents, and etc. Even though all those people may be dead, their organic material carries on in the living individual. And they will continue to ‘live’ only if the individual has children who, in turn, have children. A person is a ‘me’ but also part of a much grander ‘we’. A ‘me’ carries the organic genetic material of all his or her ancestors, and if he or she leaves descendants behind, he or she continues to ‘live’ even long after he or she had grown old and died. He or she, even after death, continues to ‘live’ 500 yrs in the organic material of descendants to continue to carry the torch. From this perspective, having children is as essential as breathing, drinking, eating, peeing, and pooing. From a strictly ‘me’ perspective, having kids is not essential since a person can live an entire life without sex. But from a ‘we’ perspective, a person must have kids because he can continue to ‘live’ only through his kids, grandkids, grandkids’ kids, and etc. Just like all of one’s ancestors 'live' in one’s organic makeup — one’s intelligence, looks, emotions, talents, and etc. are the products of generations of genetic history of one’s ancestors — , everything that organically defines a person is passed down to the blood of his or her descendants. Thus, life isn’t just a individual puddle but a flowing river.
Furthermore, because humans aren’t mere animals but complex beings with memory, history, and expressions, a person doesn’t just inherit genetic material but arts, myths, narratives, and cultures that deserve respect & appreciation and future preservation by being bequeathed to one’s own children and grandchildren. (This is all the more necessary as devilish Jews have taken over the West and have agitated non-whites to join the Tribe in desecrating and destroying all the icons and symbols that are sacred to the White Race.)

Anyway, while every person and every group may have his or its sense of priority, they need to seriously ask what is the ultimate priority of any people and civilization? They need to ask, "What is humanity at the core?" At the core, humans are biological creatures. Before all else is possible, they must exist. After all, everything that happens in arts, sciences, and politics is the doing of those who are living. So, before anyone argues about right-or-wrong, he or she needs to understand that he or she is making the argument only because he or she is alive. So, life comes before all else. Why is he or she alive? Because his or her parents went through the trouble of having kids and forming a family unit. Since every person was made that way, his or her priority must be to make more people that way. After all, no one lives forever and no single life, no matter how remarkable, is the end-all of history or humanity. (Of course, we don't mean a woman should have lots and lots of kids. But at the very least, she should have two to maintain a stable population and to foster a sense of family drama that is unlikely with only one child.)
Also, the deepest meaning of life comes from the family. No one is going to live forever. No one is forever young. Every life is born, live, and die. As purposeful and useful as professions are, they have no emotional value. Even doctors who save lives hardly get to know their patients. A doctor may have mended many bones, but once the patients are healed, they hardly send the doctor a thank-you card. A teacher prepares many kids for skills, but most teachers forget their students, and most students hardly remember most of their teachers. A man working in a restaurant may feed a lot of people, but he doesn’t know who they are. A man working in a bicycle factory makes bikes that many people use, but he has no emotional connection to the people who buy the bikes. There is no emotional content in profession. Also, there is no real loyalty. A person who works for Coca-Cola may work hard for the company, but if he’s fired by Coca-Cola and hired by Pepsi, he will work for his new company against his old company. It’s purely mercenary.

So, where does the real meaning of life come from? It comes after work. It is about having a family to return home to. It is about feeling a strong emotional bond with one’s spouse and having children who grow up to love their parents.
Now, some people may look for meaning by seeking pleasures or collecting stuff. He may attend parties and eat at nice restaurants every night. But as pleasurable as they may be, they are fleeting and ephemeral. While eating a nice meal is more pleasant than feeding a baby or changing his diapers, all the things done for one's child build up to something. It's not just about the moment.
Or, instead of pursuing pleasures-of-the-moment, one could collect lots of books, lots of records, lots of clothes, lots of porcelain, lots of rings, lots of whatever. And such are nice to have around while one’s alive. But they are dead material. They have no independence, no autonomy. They have meaning only to the people who use them or enjoy them. But the minute a person dies, they are just... stuff, like lots of things that Charles Foster Kane collected in his lifetime in CITIZEN KANE. But after he died, did all those dead inanimate objects care? In the end, stuff becomes trash the minute the owner dies. Suppose someone lives alone and has lots of stuff in his house. Suppose he has no kids and no grandkids. Upon his death, all that stuff will just be tossed into the trash.
In the end, the only thing that will matter is whether a person has children and grandchildren to mourn him or her. Having a family is THAT important. It is the core of life and from which the ultimate meaning of life is derived.
Therefore, a good society is one where most individuals are assured of a family life. Before all else, that must be the priority. It is the union of biology, emotions, and culture. Through family, life is created. And in the family, there is real love, loyalty, and attachment that is generally lacking in professions. And it is through the family, at least ideally, that the culture and values of a people & community are passed down through the generations. That being the case, the Common Priority and Ethno-Priority of a People must be Family Formation.

But the Official Ideology and Current Values prioritize something else. They mostly prioritize individual vanity to have it all for the here-and-now. Also, jobs are not seen as economic means to raise a family but an end-in-and-of-itself of status, vanity, and materialism, at least for those with choice jobs. TV and Movies send the message that success and money should be sought not for meaningful Family Formation but Fun-Fulfilment as if there’s no yesterday and tomorrow. The message is to favor fantasy over reality. Fantasy is how 007 never grows old. The franchise continues with new actors, and we are supposed to believe that the James-Bond-Universe is Diamonds-Are-Forever. But look at the actors who played Bond. Sean Connery, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan, and etc. They are human all too human. They are old men, and away from the fantasy of the silver screen, their life will have true meaning only through the family.
Now, fantasy has its place, and it can be fun, but it’s not real. But in a culture saturated with celebrity-worship, homo vanity, tranny narcissism, rap infantilism, STAR-WARS-forever, superhero comic-book heroes, and etc., it appears the Consumer-Hedonist mode has taken the main seat of Priority in how we define and measure our lives. So, men don’t primarily focus on family formation for meaning but on one's exploits worth bragging about. And feminist-poisoned women don’t think of the common good of the community and culture but ‘my precious vanity’. If feminists have an idea of community, it’s the sisterhood, but it is as meaningless as brotherhood as an identity. Brotherhood is a useful spirit in a sports teams or military platoon, but it cannot be an identity. Likewise, sisterhood has meaning in the sense that some women may develop sisterly bonds, but it's worthless as a real identity. For one thing, women on their own cannot perpetuate themselves, no more than men can. Furthermore, every nation/culture has different female cultures. Also, feminism has failed to be a voice for all women because it is mainly about highly-educated women seeking more wealth and privilege. In the end, rich women, even feminists, have more in common with rich men than with middle class women or poor women. It’s all just a sham. These elitist feminists use feminist ‘victim’ talk to climb up the ladder but only to rub shoulders with winner men and to have children with them.

Anyway, if we were to prioritize what is good for society as a whole, then, we must begin with the fact that the core meaning of life is about the Family. And that means a best society is one where most people can be part of a family of their own. Because men with jobs will marry women without jobs but women with jobs will not marry men without jobs, we must ensure that men are favored for jobs. We can’t have everything — only children and the perpetually childish demand everything — , but we can have a society where most people have something, especially something that is most meaningful and valuable: the Family. Because the family is that important, all other considerations and interests must be adjusted and molded so that we can have a society where the greatest number of people can have families, lead lives rich in love & meaning, and grow old & die with the conviction of having lived a life worth living, which is not possible without family. Without a family, a Sex-and-the-City Lifestyle skank will die an old woman in a hospital where strangers who don’t give a crap about her change her bedpans only for money. And after she dies, there won’t be anyone at the funeral, there won’t be anyone to care. And all her Stuff that she thought had such meaning just became so much garbage at a landfill.

We are told by environmentalists that there is higher Priority than ‘muh car’ and ‘muh energy’. We would all like to have cheaper energy and more consumer products by exploiting nature, but environmentalists remind us that we are ultimately a part of nature, and the destruction of nature will destroy us too. We can no longer fish the oceans like we used to. We can’t just dump toxic waste into rivers because it’s economical and cheap in the short-term. We must think of the long-term. We must think of nature’s needs as well as our needs. We must be mindful of the balance of them and us. That must be the Priority. We must think of other organisms, animals and plants. We mustn’t be selfish but see the Bigger Picture, i.e. we are part of Nature, not the center of Nature. What goes for the environment and nature also goes for us. There is a kind of ecology in human society as well. And the Tree of Life of humanity grows from the family. Unless we have a society that is geared to providing the most people with a chance of family life, the social ecology will fail... and we are seeing the decay and degeneration all around. We need Biological Socialism that says NO to mindless libertarianism, capitalism, consumerism, and feminism.