The Grave Dangers of Rejecting the Biological and Racial Basis for Life and Existence

 

So often in political discourse is aired the denial of the biological basis of power and relations. It’s as if some people believe that humanity can be governed by ideas and icons alone. They pretend as if nations and communities are organizations formed on the basis of abstract principles. It’s as if everyone is(ideally) an individual defined by ideas and imaginations of his own choosing from a pool of those deemed permissible by the ‘liberal consensus’. It’s as if everyone materialized out of the thin air with total autonomy, indeed without ancestry, history, and heritage. Accordingly, parents exist only to produce self-centered individuals whose meaning-of-life is to be determined by the reigning ideologies and fashions. The appeal of individualism is certainly understandable. Who wants to be told by one’s grandparents and parents what to feel, think, and do? Modern people want to feel independent and possessed of free will.

That said, no individual, however fiercely independent in will & spirit, made himself. He was biologically made by his parents who were made by their parents and so on. Also, every individual, no matter how creative or visionary, was born into a ready-made world of history and heritage. Even the great Beethoven was born into a culture of music that he advanced further. Great individuals take giant steps but on a path set forth by others. Albert Einstein built upon pre-existing scientific knowledge. Richard Wagner advanced the language of opera. While some individuals have the spark of visionary genius that achieves more in a single lifetime than most peoples in many lifetimes, they are nevertheless inheritors of pre-existing realities. Stanley Kubrick, a genius film-maker, didn’t invent the cinema nor establish its basic grammar.

Consider a soccer ball. It moves in all directions but has meaning because it’s animated by purpose. If a soccer ball were to be randomly moved by wind or animals, it would have no purpose. If the soccer ball could move on its own, it would still have no meaning unless it’s part of a game. It has meaning only when animated for the purpose of making a goal. The purpose of a soccer ball is to be kicked into a goal at either end of the field. So, Team A tries to kick it into the goal of Team B, and Team B tries to kick it into the goal of Team A. Every individual is, to an extent, like a ball-animated-by-larger-intentions. Without purpose, a ball is meaningless. A soccer ball or football has meaning only in the game, which is played to score points and win.

The world is always in a state of play and gamesmanship among all kinds of powers, purposes, and agendas. These forces use individuals for their own purposes. Or, they accept some individuals as ‘us’ or ‘good’ while rejecting other individuals as ‘them’ or ‘bad’. In the US, Jewish Power tries to use all the individuals, Jewish and goy, to serve Jewish supremacism. In Israel-West-Bank, the Power favors the Jews as ‘us’ individuals(who are to be gathered into a unified force) while rejecting the Palestinians as ‘them’ individuals(who are to be kept at the margins of society).

Given the way the game is played in reality, every individual must consider his or her ball-purpose. Every individual can be played by any side. There is no way anyone can opt out of the game. Indeed, even if one doesn’t care about politics and power, others do and their agenda will affect even the apathetic.
Even if you don’t pay attention to power/politics, you work and pay taxes, and those taxes go to serve some agenda. Even if you ignore politics, those who are power-obsessed will use the government to favor their interests. Jews are obsessed about power and make sure that American power and wealth go to serving Israel and Jewish interests uber alles.

Suppose you join the military for non-political reasons. You want to serve for a few years to pay for college and develop some useful career skills. You see yourself as a free individual who’s just minding his own business. But just because you don’t care about politics doesn’t mean that others don’t care. Many American soldiers are apolitical(and signed up only for career purposes), but power-obsessed Jews are totally political, and their main agenda is to steer American power and wealth toward serving Israel and Jewish interests.

Therefore, an apolitical American soldier who only joined for a career opportunity could find himself 5,000 miles away from home killing Arabs/Muslims or getting himself killed. In the end, his ball-purpose is kicked around by those who have a real sense of the game.
Just like a soccer ball is kicked back and forth by the two teams, an individual can never be independent in society. Even if one has no interest in politics, his or her taxes will be used to serve the interests of a group that is obsessed with power. Or his consumer habits, along with those of others like him, will enrich certain companies with particular biases.
For example, even if you purchase Starbucks products only for the coffee, you end up doing much more as Starbucks uses its profits to fund globalism and globo-homo-mania all over the world. And if you go gambling in Las Vegas, you are making power-hungry Zionists even richer. The likes of the late Sheldon Adelson will have billions more to throw around to favor Zion.

Then, we are all part of something grander and at the mercy of bigger powers all around us that can hire us, fire us, reward us, or destroy us. Because there is a price to pay for what we say and do, even an individual in a Free Society isn’t very free. See what happens if you freely denounce Zionism in many institutions and industries. If you exercise such freedom, your career prospects are likely to be considerably diminished. For that reason, we must be mindful of the forces all around us, be they political, economic, ideological, cultural, criminal, spiritual-religious, and etc.

We need to be mindful of what the prevailing forces have in store for us, i.e. it’s better to be kicked by the right team. The notion of being above all sides is about as delusional as a soccer ball or football ‘thinking’ it has agency independent of two teams that kick or pass it around. If there is a difference between a ball and an individual, it is that a ball is totally at the mercy of the players whereas an individual, despite being played by both(or more) sides, can choose one side over the others.

For example, there are various forces in America recruiting individuals as adherents, devotees, consumers, voters, activists, dupes, or etc. to their side. Yet, individuals can cultivate a sense of who they really are and take sides accordingly. Jews, for instance, are very conscious of Jewishness. Thus, Jewish ‘balls’ favor the athletic intentions of Jewish players. Jewish balls roll with the Jewish kickers and try to score goals for Jewish Power. In contrast, white balls, robbed of racial consciousness, usually get kicked by Jews, blacks, and nonwhites.

Jewish balls/individuals have gained Jewish consciousness, and that lends a sense of tribal agency to their motions on the field. Even if non-Jews try to kick Jewish balls in the anti-Jewish direction, Jewish balls favor Jewish kickers and work with them. In contrast, white balls either favor no side and get kicked by all sides OR they favor the anti-white side because Political Correctness or its worse variant ‘wokeness’ has instilled them with a loathing for pro-white goals as ‘racist’. Too many white balls are like loaded dice. Loaded against their own kind.

Ironic but logical, Jews hate goyim who act most like Jews. The advice, “Do as the Jews do. Disobey what Jews say” will likely drive Jews crazy. Jews know that what they practice among themselves maximizes their power. Jews are into blood-and-soil in Israel. Jews are into tribal networking. Jews are into Jewish heritage and history. Jews are into feeling special, even superior, as a group.
Now, imagine if a bunch of white goyim thought and acted in a similar manner. They would gain in power and could come to challenge Jewish power.
Alas, even as Jewish balls have tribal agency and favor the legs of Jewish kickers, white balls are either haplessly kicked around by all sides OR work with non-white kickers against White Goals.

For this reason, whites must be conscious of their racial, ethnic, and evolutionary roots. Long long ago, there was a small band of proto-humans. Over time, this group splintered and branched off into separate groups that became different from one another in appearance, temperament, size, strength, stamina, and/or intelligence. And Europeans developed certain traits that were especially common among or unique to them. Just like every family has blood ties, memories, and stories that are unique, each race and every ethnic group have their special lore and legends.

Race is especially crucial as it’s the deepest definer of any people. Human history is, at most, 6,500 years old, and Northern European history is considerably shorter, at around 1,500 years old, and the history of modern nation-states is much shorter still. But long before there was any civilization, the white race had come into existence, roughly around 40,000 years ago. Before there were complex societies, civilization, organized religion, and recorded history, the European folks had been around for eons as a race.
Similarly, the American Indian claim to North America is mostly racial, especially as any long-lasting civilization failed to materialize among the indigenous folks. Long before there arose the various tribes(that came into violent contact with the white conqueror-settlers), the indigenous folks had existed as a race(or races) for around 20,000 years. The ‘spiritual’ bond of the American Indians to the land is essentially racial, i.e. the ‘red’ race has deep roots and bonds to the land, something all Americans need to respect.

Now, life would be dull if we were only receptors of tradition and heritage from our forebears. We want to be proactive and creative in our own rights as individuals with unique hopes and desires. Just as every ethnic group has its own story, every individual has his own set of personal memories and private dreams.
The answer to life is the balance of what we receive and what we create. We want independence, but we are born into a game of power whether we want to play or not. Just as the natural world is one of contests among drives, appetites, and wills among animals and plants, the human world is also driven by contesting wills in the ceaseless game of power. Those who understand this and act accordingly will gain in power. They will act in concert with certain forces with which they identify. Jews are powerful because Jewish individuality tends to be aligned with Jewish Power and Purpose. Jewish balls roll with Jewish feet that kick in them in the right direction to score points for Zion.

Granted, there are both good and bad ways to be tribal. “My country/people right or wrong” is not an ethical perspective, that is unless all tribes feel the same way. The good and decent way to be tribal, nationalist, or patriotic is to recognize the validity of other peoples as well and seek diplomatic solutions on the basis of mutuality and reciprocity. Such an order would necessitate all tribes to adhere to a common set of basic principles.

The tragedy of Jewish Power stems from its dismissal of the rules that could make for a peaceful world order. The pairing of Jewish Supremacism and White Submissivism has been among the most unfortunate developments in history, rather amusing as whites submit to Jews as an atonement for their past supremacism when, if anything, they’re only acting to enable Jewish Supremacism, even leading some whites to rationalize their cuckery on account of Jews being the true master race(either spiritually as the ‘Chosen’ or intellectually as the smartest), i.e. the problem isn’t supremacism per se but wrongful supremacism(that of whites), which must be corrected with the rightful supremacism(of Jews as master geniuses and of blacks as master studs). Call it ‘justice supremacism’. Whites, who could function as a brake on Jewish Power(and did in the past), serve as the accelerator, dangerously leading the whole world to the edge as the US is still the lone superpower with great leverage over the entire world. If whites won’t do it, others must step up the plate in calling out on Jewish Power, but then how do whites react to this? They even cuck harder to Jews by barking at the Other to win doggy-biscuits as the darling pets of Zion.

An orchestra makes music by having the instrumentalists play in unison in service of the composition. If everyone does his own thing, the result will be a cacophony, not music and harmony. Jewish Agenda is a powerful symphony where most Jewish players act in concert with Jewish Prophecy. In contrast, white individuals make a mess of things in their music-making since too many whites play contrasting melodies and work against structure.

White people need to know that they are the product of a long evolutionary process that happened over tens of thousands of years. They are a people unlike any other, also true of the other races. Even though whites have much to teach and learn from other peoples, all whites must racially and biologically see themselves as part of a unique people and culture. And their primary interests must be to preserve and serve whiteness… just like Jews feel that the main purpose of Jews is to serve Jewish interests and power.

How important is biology in all this? Everything is biology. Try holding your breath and ignoring your lungs. How long will you last? You can claim to be about ideas & principles instead of biology, but the fact is you were born and you live as a biological being. Without lungs taking in air constantly, you can’t live. Or, imagine your heart not pumping blood.

Why is murder so foul? Because it’s a biological deed. It stops life from continuing. Why is rape so grievous, especially if it leads to pregnancy? Because it’s a biological attack on a person. Surely, the physical act of rape is far more serious than a mental fantasy of rape, just like real murder that takes a life is far graver than the fantasy of murder, like in Hitchcock movies.

Before anything else is possible, there is biology. We can’t escape biology. Someone may claim to live purely with ideas & dreams regardless of biological processes. Suppose he reads books but refuses to eat, drink, urinate, and defecate. But how long will he live without performing those biological processes? Without food and drink, he will grow weak. Without peeing, his bladder will explode. Without pooping, his intestines will rot. He will eventually grow sick and die because he didn’t address his biological reality.
Yogis and ascetics have tried to transcend biological functions. Hindu gurus have meditated and disciplined their bodies to take in less oxygen and make do with less food, BUT even such extreme re-regulation of bodily functions didn’t rise above biology. In the end, even yogis and gurus have to eat and drink something; they have to pee and poo. Jesus fasted for 40 days, but even He had to finally eat and drink something.

Perhaps, we tend to ignore biology because so many of our basic needs for survival have been met. Without worries about food, a roof over one’s head, plumbing that makes water easily accessible and sanitation readily available, and etc., we’ve become oblivious to biological functions. Hungry people know they must eat to survive. But in a world of excessive food, people think food exists mainly for pleasure. And in a world of plentiful water and drink, people don’t know the power of thirst. And since slaughterhouses are hidden from view, we see meat as coming in neat plastic packages. We blithely ignore that our lives are maintained through tremendous amount of violence meted out to cattle, pigs, chicken, fishes, and vegetation. Life is an endless struggle of biology, of creation through destruction.

People in the West, in their peace and prosperity, have forgotten or failed to appreciate that their nice nations were created through great violence, struggles, and sacrifices. It is that willful naivete that triggers so many whites into self-loathing when they learn of the ‘dark’ side of white history.
Of course, there are other kinds of whites as well who, being rather proud of Western Civilization as the summit of human achievement, believe that the West is too wonderful for any single race to lay claim to and, therefore, must be shared with the whole world, and if you say otherwise, you’re a damned ‘racist’. Most mainstream white ‘conservatives’ fall into this school of thought, which is just as damaging in the long term as ‘wokeness’.

At any rate, all lands were conquered, fought for, developed, defended, and maintained. Such could not have been possible without a guiding hand that directed one set of power against another. Take Israel. It may seem like a nice nation, but it was built by a biological or ethnic struggle between the Zionists and the Palestinians. Jewish elites led the struggle and guided Jewish mass violence against Arabs so that Jews would come out on top. And Jews use border walls and pro-Jewish immigration policy to keep Jewish power at the center of Israeli affairs. Israel wasn’t created by some idle set of principles entertained in the minds of dreamers. It was created by biological Jews taking action and waging war on others who stood in their way. It was created by the triumph of Jewish organisms over Arab organisms.

Furthermore, even reading, writing, listening to music, and watching movies are biological processes. Thinking is a biological process. They all involve the mechanisms of biological organs. Without eyes, we can’t see. Without ears, we can’t hear. Without hands, we can’t hold a book. Without fingers, we can’t use a pen or computer. Without neurons in the biological organ of the brain, we can’t think. So, even ideas and icons are all part of a biological process. It’s so obvious but overlooked precisely because it’s so obvious, therefore taken for granted instead of being appreciated on a daily basis.
Likewise, Europe has taken its existence(and dominance and prosperity) for granted for so long that it has yet to wake up and take necessary measures to ensure its survival against dire globalist trends.

So, the most sensible ideas and icons are those that remind us of our biological existence, evolutionary roots, and cultural history. Ideas that deviate from the truth of biology and history have little value compared to ideas that reconnect us to our biological truth and historical reality. It’s like drugs that address real illnesses and restore our health are far more valuable than the kind of drugs that promise false heaven of escapist fantasy while degrading our bodies, like meth and crack for example.

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Biological Slavery under Blacks Is Like Social Slavery under Whites

Contrary to the impression viewers have been getting lately from films like 12 YEARS A SLAVE(not without a certain degree of masochistic ‘white guilt’ self-righteousness), the lives of black slaves in the South were not uniformly bleak, cruel, and inhuman. While there were cruel and sadistic slave-owners, there were also many kindly and decent ones who took care of their slaves reasonably well. In this regard, the TV series ROOTS was closer to the truth. Some slaves lived under nice ‘enlightened’ masters while others lived under nasty masters. It was rather like the condition of dogs and cats. If a dog or cat’s master is real nice, the dog or cat might as well be in heaven. If the master is nasty, it’s hell for the poor creature. Of course, all slaves in the South had to work hard, but in this regard, their lives were no different from most white folks around the world, America included, who had to toil from sunup to sundown. Most American whites were not large plantation owners or rich folks. They spent their entire lives working on farms and in factories. The conditions of many whites could be harsher than that of black slaves. Black slaves worked no harder than most white farmers in Europe and were, in most respects, much better off than Russian serfs. And of course, black slaves in the South had it much better than most people in non-white nations, especially under the barbaric rule of non-white elites.

But man doesn’t live on bread alone. Even if a free white farmer and a black slave had to work equally hard and ate the same kind of food and lived under similar conditions, the white man had the advantage of full legal rights and all the psychological benefits that came with it. While the law in Southern states made provisions for the well-being and decent treatment of black slaves, it was nothing like being free and being legally protected under the system of democratic government. Also, no man wants to feel himself to be the property of another man, at least in a world defined by concepts of liberty and freedom. To be sure, in certain societies, some people didn’t mind being the properties of the king, noblemen, or the state since they were raised to think and feel that way from cradle to grave. In Japan, elements of the lower castes were willing to give their lives for their masters and preferred death in the name of honor and loyalty(to their masters) than be free of their obligations. (Obligations and servitude, even if often unjust and harsh, at the very least provided the servants or slaves with a sense of purpose and meaning. It’s like dogs would rather serve a master than roam around freely. There is an element of dog-psychology in all humans. Indeed, when slaves are suddenly freed by their master, they might feel anxiety than liberation for they knew their lot under slavery but don’t know their future under freedom. This explains why a large segment of Russians longed for the old Stalinist days after the fall of communism and the economic devastation of the 1990s. At least things were steady in the good ole bad ole days. And Germans were all too willing to give up their freedoms to Hitler in exchange for security and stability. And even black slaves in America, when offered the chance of freedom and return trip to Africa, declined. They’d rather live under white folks than be free as an African savage. At least under white folks, you knew where the next meal was coming from, whereas in Africa, you might have to hunt a hippo that turn around and might bite your black ass in two, or worse, some black tribe might capture you and have you for dinner, especially if you were an albino.) And the Janissaries(enslaved boys from Christian families trained to fight for the Sultan) in the Ottoman Empire were raised to believe in the honor of serving their Muslim lord. They took pride in their roles as warrior-slaves against Christendom, the very realm into which they’d been born.
Even so, not all forms of slavery are the same. Some forms of slavery may take away your freedom and property but ‘spiritually’ make you feel empowered as a part of the collective. This was the appeal of communism. It took away individual property and freedom, but the people were made to feel as ‘comrades’ united in struggling for the common goal of creating a ‘better world’. In contrast, some forms of slavery are more nakedly honest, and perhaps the most extreme was Nazi slavery(of non-Germans) that made the slaves know that they were no better than cattle and would be treated as such. As Nazi ideology was rooted in biology than spirituality, Nazis didn’t care if non-Germans had souls or not. Germans were seen as the higher breed of pure wolves while certain other races were seen as inferiors breeds of dogs or mongrels.

The American South justified its slavery on loftier grounds, not least because the dominant cultural heritage even in the South was Christianity(even more so than democracy, which had been gained through independence from the British as the result of the efforts of mostly northern and mid-southern forces than deep southern ones; more key battles were fought in the north than in the south). Defenders of slavery argued that black Africans, being so wild and savage, needed to undergo a historical and cultural transformation so as to become worthy of living as free men alongside white folks. This line of argument believed that even though slavery would be wrong when applied to civilized white folks, it would do some good for Negroes who’d learn the virtues of hard work, discipline, order, organization, and obligations. (After all, before white folks gained freedom, they too had been civilized from brutality and barbarism through long yrs of iron discipline and servitude under kings and noblemen. In other words, there could be no short cut from barbarism or savagery to civilization. Spiritually, culturally, and perhaps even biologically, a people had to progress gradually from brutality — the world of black African savages — toward civilization where free men had rights. It took whites thousands of years to become civilized enough to be finally worthy of democracy and freedom, and so, it made no sense for blacks, the least civilized people in the world, to make a sudden jump from savagery to freedom. Ideally, they had to undergo the process of discipline, organization, thrift, and industriousness under the presumably benign guidance and management of white folks who’d made the arduous historical transformation earlier. So, if slavery was an evil when applied to civilized men, it could be a blessing, a helping hand, if applied to savages who had no concept of God and higher values. It’s like it’s wrong to treat an adult as a child, but it’s also wrong to treat a child as an adult. Of course, modern Americans scoff at views such as this when applied to Negroes, but the Liberal and even Conservative reluctance to pass proper judgment on bad black behavior suggests that there is a tendency to view Negroes as a bunch of children who simply cannot be judged like the rest of humanity. It’s like we shouldn’t expect Negroes to act like full-fledged adults since they are naturally ‘childlike’.) Thus, white Southerners rationalized black slavery as a kind of civilizing mission. The Negroes had to be fully tamed through the generations before they could rightfully claim equal freedom and full legal rights.

In any case, the Negro’s lot as a slave essentially depended on the moral character of his master. Was the master kindly and decent and did he take care of his slaves? Or was he mean and nasty and treat his slave like a dog and unduly call him ‘nigger’ too often? Of course, even the kindly master used cruel means to maintain order and discipline when Negroes rebelled or ran off. Even a kindly master may order a whipping to teach a lesson to the runaway slave, and other slaves would be made to watch the whipping as a lesson lest they too ‘get rabbit in their blood’. It’s like what the Strother Martin character says in COOL HAND LUKE. He can be a real good guy or a real mean son of a bitch. And of course, there were a whole bunch of masters who were neither too kindly or too mean but something in between.
.
Therefore, it’s difficult to defend slavery on the basis that some masters were indeed humane, relatively speaking. The fact remains that the slave’s condition depended on forces beyond his control and will. If a master was mean and nasty, he still had to work for that master. He couldn’t, like a free worker, just quit and go off to find another job. The slave was stuck in his place. Also, even if a master was nice and kindly, the slave had to always be mindful to be on his best behavior and act servile to ensure that the master will continue to treat him nice. So, when push came to shove, a slave under a good master was no freer than one under a bad one. So, at least from the moral perspective of our times, slavery cannot be defended on the basis that some masters were decent and good. At best, it can be argued that slavery in the Deep South was not uniformly the horror show that film-makers and others would like us to believe.
At the very least, we can all agree that the central fact of the SOCIALLY SANCTIONED SLAVERY in the American South was that the slave was at the mercy of the master. The master had to be good for the slave to lead a decent life since the slave lacked the freedom to make his own mind and decisions. And to that extent, American slavery was an unjust system — though much preferable to the kinds of slavery practiced by barbaric Asians, cruel Arabs, and savage black Africans, none of whom saw anything wrong with slavery(even of their own kind).

But the same kind of problem exists in the case of BIOLOGICAL SLAVER. American Slavery in the South was a form of Social Slavery. White masters ruled over black slaves because whites were better armed, had the power of law on their side, and were better organized to maintain their form of power structure. Whites ruled over blacks not because they were tougher or naturally more dominant than blacks but because they’d created a mighty civilization that had given them a decisive advantage over the non-white parts of the world that lacked big ships, guns, factories, and the like.
Abolitionists demanded the ending of slavery on the religious/spiritual ground that all men of all races and colors were equally the children of God and imbued with souls equally dear to Him. Abolitionist, who were religious fanatics, didn’t care about biological factors or issues — and were even hostile to science. They thought in terms of God, God, and God, and they were certain that as long as all humans had souls equally loved by God, it was sinful for one group to enslave another group for whatever purpose or reason. Of course, not all Abolitionists were religious fanatics. Some came to support the Abolitionist Movement and sought to free the blacks, but they still believed in the inequality of races and wanted to keep blacks separate from whites. Abraham Lincoln was such a man. He wanted to free the slaves but also saw them as dangerous innate savages and wanted them shipped back to Africa or to relocated to some place in South America.

In the 20th century, many white liberals swallowed the notion that all races are the same except for skin color. The leftist Jewish takeover of anthropology had a deep impact on social thought. Also, WWII and the great crimes of Nazi radical racism cast a pall over the very notion of the science of races; the baby came to be thrown out with the bathwater. With the so-called ‘free world’ having defeated the oppressive systems of Fascism, Nazism, and Japanese militarism, Americans felt good about themselves as not only the proud defenders of but ardent crusaders for the land of freedom and equality. Also, the Cold War with Communism pressured the US to make social reforms, especially in the area of racial equality, so as to neutralize Soviet Union’s accusation of ‘racism’ as the defining characteristic of American capitalism/imperialism. For US to win over the hearts and minds of the Third World(the main battleground during the Cold War), it just wouldn’t do to have TV images of Bull Connors unleashing his dogs on Negroes beamed all over the world.

But as things turned out, the races were not equal, and the differences weren’t limited to skin color. In general, blacks are less intelligent than whites, though blacks have superior talents in certain mental areas, just as rhythmic patterns and making jazzy and funky music. Blacks also have more colorful ape-like charisma. Like a chimpanzee, blacks can talk and act in an amusingly brash manner that delights white folks to no end. It’s no wonder THE JEFFERSONS was one of the most popular shows of all time even though George Jefferson did little else but insult white folks by hollering at them like an intelligent ape. He was colorful. So was Eddie Murphy during his heyday. (In a way, whites have valued blacks as their darker id, the repressed animal nature that has no inhibitions about sex, aggression, dominance, and pleasure. So, white people sometimes let loose and try to dance like blacks, talk like blacks, gesticulate like blacks. The have sexual fantasies of having sex with blacks or even indulge in such acts. Jewish-controlled porn peddles such fantasies, and not surprisingly, much of porn since the late 90s involve black males and white females. It’s as if white girls want the singing voices of black females, as if white guys want the muscles and penises of black males, and as if white girls wanna be ravaged by the Negro stud. White boys wee in their pants in awe of feats by black athletes, and white girls cheer for black sports kings and put out to them after the games. Thus, part of the appeal of blackness is in the allure of animal amorality or even immorality. The natural black beast, like King Kong, breaks free of the shackles of civilization & its obligations and rampages around seeking total dominance for the sake of power and pleasure. It’s like the experiment in ALTERED STATES where William Hurt’s character reverts to a stronger and more aggressive form of early ape-man. It’s a gangster fantasy, which accounts for the popularity of the ‘gangsta’ image of so many black rappers, which white rappers try to ape with varying degrees of success. Thus, it’s rather ironic that so many white ‘progressives’ are upset with black attitudes against homosexuality. On the one hand, white ‘progressives’ take delight in the wild and unruly aggressiveness of black masterfulness that ruffles the feathers of white society — white ‘progressives’ credit wild black energies for having liberated repressed and dull white people from their old priggish and prissy ‘Victorian’ and ‘Puritanical’ hangups — , but on the other hand, white ‘progressives’ — who are ideologically neo-puritanical in their bent — are so very distressed and perturbed by the fact that so much of wild black energies are of a hostile, nasty, and vicious nature, especially against certain groups favored by ‘progressives’, such as homosexuals. But, this is rather like celebrating the glorious wild energies of a tiger or grizzly bear but then getting upset over the fact that they don’t make for good table manners. ‘Progressives’ want black to run wild and free but not punch out nice Liberals like Matthew Yglesias. They admire and cheer on blacks for singing and shouting whatever’s on their minds — or lack of them — without inhibition, but if the words coming out of the mouths happen to be ‘faggot’ or ‘Jew motherfuc*er’, ‘progressives’ get awful upset, which is rather like setting a wild dog loose to run around in a kitchen but then getting all miffed because it ate all the caviar. This is further complicated by the fact that ‘progressives’ subscribe to the notion that there’s no such thing as a race, which means there can be no racial differences; if that is really the case, why do ‘progressives’ worship blacks for being better athletes, having more powerful voices, being better dances, being more colorful personalities, and having bouncier butts on the women and bigger penises on the men? To confuse the matter even further, the appeal of black animality is intermixed with the notion of the Negro as the spiritual savior of white folks. This side of the myth would have us believe that blacks are so noble that they have no time or energy for sexual interests or violence. Even a mountain-sized Negro in GREEN MILE has no thoughts of vengeance, no thoughts of sex with white women — or any kind of women — , no desire to beat up white boys and fuc* them in the ass as so many powerful black males to do white men in America and South Africa. The ONLY thing the Noble Spiritual Magic Negro ever wants to do is to love and redeem mankind, and of course, MLK played this role to the hilt, though his closeted real nature was closer to King Kong, as his main passion away from the camera and microphone was to have endless orgies, drink like a fish, and cuss like Eddie Murphy. Western morality since the 1960s is utterly confused and unstable since its core myth tries to have the cake and eat it too, i.e. it would have us believe that the ‘Nigga’ as the amoral animalist fantasy of raw power and domination is compatible with the Magic Negro as the spiritual fantasy of higher truth and transcendence.) But when it comes to most areas of intelligence involving logical problem-solving, math, and reading, blacks have been proven to lag behind other races. To be sure, there are cultural factors to this, but if blacks were naturally smart like Jews, they would show more interest in brainy matters as smart people generally gravitate to things that challenge their minds, just like fast and strong people naturally gravitate toward athletic or physical pursuits. No amount of cultural upbringing is going to turn a dumb black woman into an intellectually curious person. Even Michelle Obama, who had the advantage of being admitted to Princeton and Harvard Law School via ‘affirmative action’ never had a single original thought in her entire life. She’s just a bundle of politically correct and Afro-centric cliches picked up from patronizing professors who passed and recommended her on the basis of race.

But all said and done, the most crucial factor that underlies the racial relationship between whites and blacks is not intelligence but physical-and-emotional differences. While it’s true that dumb people achieve considerably less and end up as economic burdens on society, they are not necessarily destroyers of civilization nor much of a threat to the smarter members of society purely on the basis of their lower IQ. Suppose most blacks had low IQs and were physically like Emanuel Lewis, the little Negro child star of WEBSTER. While a bunch of them might fail in school and live on welfare(and be something of an economic burden), would they pose a threat to the white race? Of course not. There are plenty of dumb ‘white trash’ folks, but the problems they cause to the general population is nothing like the damage done by blacks.

So, what is the crucial difference between whites and blacks? It’s about time that the White Right stopped beating around the bush. White Right always complains that the media — controlled by Jews and Liberals and cowardly Conservatives — don’t properly report black-on-white crime, but the White Right itself is too wussy to deal with the true nature of such violence, namely that blacks are physically stronger and tougher than whites(by a considerable margin) and emotionally more aggressive. Blacks are also naturally more psychopathic, i.e. lacking in qualities such as empathy, self-criticism, reflectiveness, conscience, and shame. And I suspect in due time, with advances in genetic research, all these observable facts will be proven with hard data, which may be why the forces of political correctness are currently working extra-hard to expose whites to such a heavy dosages of ‘white guilt’ radiation so as to render them defenseless against political correctness even with the emergence of scientific data proves that many blacks are unfit to live alongside whites — or, more accurately, whites are physically unfit to live safely alongside stronger and nastier blacks. White people will still go on weeping over sanctimonious MLK speeches even when the hard facts of biology demonstrate that whites would be much better off living separate from blacks.

Anyway, the problem with social slavery was that even though some white slave owners were decent and kindly men, the indisputable fact was that blacks lived at the mercy of white power. Blacks had to hope and pray that whites who had power over them were good because if they weren’t, blacks could be treated harshly, and worse, there wasn’t much they could do about it.

A similar problem hangs over white people living under the system of BIOLOGICAL SLAVERY. In an integrated neighborhood, whites might be left alone or treated kindly by decent blacks who are kindly and conscientious, and of course, such blacks exist just as there were decent white slave owners. But there are also nasty and brutal blacks who are lacking in conscience and any sense of remorse. (Worse, the ‘white guilt’ narrative that predominates in America imbues even horrible blacks who commit the worst kinds of crimes with a sense of righteousness, i.e. their violence against whites was just payback for what the ‘cracker honkeys’ had done to blacks in the past; and of course, films like TWELVE YEARS A SLAVE will only harden such perspectives, not least among violent black thugs.) Since blacks are generally stronger than whites, nearly all whites in an integrated community are biological slaves of blacks. Though whites have legal rights that protect them from bullying, intimidation, hostilities, and crime, the fact is there is no way a white person can effectively rely on the law all the time for protection from Negro bad behavior. For one thing, the cops have better things to do than to be protecting whites from every case of intimidation and bullying from blacks as the integrated community could be reeling from rapes, shootings, robberies, murders, and other kinds of mayhem. Also, even when the police arrive, it’s often too late as the thug took off already after brutalizing the white victim. Also, many whites are afraid to call the cops for fear of reprisals. If the cops arrest a certain Negro for having attacked you, his family members and friends might come after you and your family in ways big and small. So, even though the law and the police do exist to ensure equal protection for all citizens, the fact remains that in an integrated community, blacks will biologically rule over whites because the power of the law only goes so far in our lives. In schools, white guys who are attacked by blacks will also be unlikely to report the abuse since (1) little will be done about it as the bullies aren’t legally adults and will only be slapped on the wrist (2) white guy will be seen as a ‘pussyboy faggot’ for not fighting his fight and instead relying on school authorities and (3) the black attacker doesn’t care if he’s suspended since such types don’t give a crap about studying anyhow and (4) the black attacker will hurt the white kid even worse for having told on him. (There is also the problem of ‘micro-aggressions’ against whites. A black guy might ‘play’ with the white boy like a toy. He will do everything within the law to belittle, taunt, and humiliate the ‘white boy’ without throwing the first punch. Thus, he hasn’t violated any law. If the ‘white boy’ walks away, he’s been pussy-whipped. If he talks back and escalates the situation or, in a fit of uncontrollable white rage, throws the first punch, the black guy will be justified in whupping the white boy’s ass. There are psychological means by which tougher guys can mess with weaker guys, as in the scene in SHANE where Jack Palance’s character legally manipulates the ‘sodbuster’ to dig his own grave. He is ‘owned’ by Palance’s character. The oft-heard term among young people today is ‘own’, and Oprah’s channel has the same name. In an integrated neighborhood, blacks OWN whites physically and psychologically. Physically, blacks can beat up whites. Psychologically, blacks can mess with whites without whites doing anything about it out of fear. Also, blacks sexually own whites. If blacks have a thing for a certain white girl in school, they can make sure that white boys don’t go near her for if they do, they’ll get their asses kicked. And white girls often submit to such sexual ownership by blacks since women naturally want to be dominated and conquered by alpha males. The only chance for whites in such a situation is to study harder, make something of their lives, and move out of the neighborhood, but ‘affirmative action’ hampers the social progress of poor whites as it favors blacks and rich whites over poor whites; and even if they make it out of the troubled community, there are Section 8 programs to relocate lots of bad blacks to the very areas that whites fled to.) Of course, such white victims don’t have any defender in the Jew-run media that cackle with glee over black-on-white-gentile violence(Jews only care when blacks attack Jews) nor among white conservative elites who seem more eager to recruit more blacks to the GOP(as trophy Negroes that prove that Republicans aren’t ‘racist’) than to call attention to the problems of biological slavery suffered by so many whites who are stuck in integrated communities and OWNED by blacks.

Thus, under biological slavery, whites have a choice between decent black biological masters or nasty black biological masters. Either way, whites are under a form of slavery, a biological one at that, which is far worse than the social one, because, while social slavery can be ended by new legislation and social values, nothing will change the nature of biological slavery. It’s like no matter how many laws we pass and enforce, most sexual violence will be male on female since men are stronger than women. Thus, the sexual threat of violence is always male-on-female, and that makes women the biological slaves of men, and to this extent, feminists have a point. But what feminists overlook is that women have a natural attraction to the power of men. By their very nature, women want to be with strong men who can ‘own’ them emotionally and sexually, if not legally. This passion and desire make the unequal relationship between men and women not only tolerable but meaningful and blissful for both partners. Even if women want to be equal with men legally, they want to meet men who are stronger and more masterful. Even lesbians have an hierarchy of the alpha female and beta female. And this sexual attraction between unequal sexes is what ensures the survival of humanity. Without the unity of men and women, no race can survive.

In contrast, there is no need for one race to co-exist with another race to survive. Japan will be Japan even if not a single Negro sets foot on the island. Norway will continue to be Norway forever even if not a single Japanese or African sets foot on Norway. So, races don’t need one another. While all races have much to gain by learning from one another, trading with one another, and even mating with other races, no race needs to mix with other races in order to survive and thrive. And some races are bound to lose out if they mix with other races. Suppose we were to mix Russians with Vietnamese. Clearly, Russian men, being stronger and bigger, will win out over Vietnamese men. While Russian men will be taking lots of Vietnamese women, Vietnamese men will not only lose their own women to beefier and bigger Russian men but they won’t be getting much Russian poon either since Russian women will still prefer bigger and beefier Russian men to scrawny Vietnamese men. Of course, one could argue that Russians will lose out too. If a whole bunch of Russian men mix with Vietnamese women, their Russian-ness will become diluted in a genetic sea of yellowness.

Same goes for blacks and whites. Despite all the rosy and idealistic yammering of ‘thinkers’ on both the mainstream ‘left’ and mainstream ‘right’, the fact is racial integration between blacks and whites can only lead to the biological slavery of whites being OWNED by blacks. In schools all across the nation, the racial violence is overwhelmingly black on white. In prisons, black thugs rape white inmates in the ass. In sports, blacks dominate over white guys who are relegated to bench-warming status and to the humiliation of watching white blonde cheerleaders shaking their asses for black athletes who mostly clobber white guys. In streets, in buses, and other public places, blacks swagger around like they OWN the whole world while white boys are reduced into dickless wimps who are afraid of being knocked out by ‘teens’.

Sure, there are good, kindly, and decent blacks, but that means whites are at the mercy of blacks being nice to them. Since blacks are stronger than whites, blacks don’t have to worry about whether whites are nice to them or not. Even nasty white guys can easily be whupped by tougher blacks. So, blacks can rule over both nasty whites and nice whites, but whites, being weaker, cannot rule over blacks. Thus, whites have to hope and pray that blacks are nice than nasty. If a black guy is like Arthur Ashe, wonderful. But if he’s like Mike Tyson, it’s big doodoo.

Now, suppose whites were stronger than blacks, i.e. stronger than both nice Negroes like Ashe and nasty Negroes like Tyson. Whites need not worry since the nice Negro won’t mess with them and since, if the nasty Negro messes with them, they can whup his jigger-jiving ass.
But reality being what it is, whites are only okay with blacks when blacks are nice, whereas blacks are okay regardless of whether whites are nice or nasty. Nice whites won’t mess with Negroes and even nasty whites are too afraid of blacks to mess with them. Thus, blacks are the lions, the masters of the community, whereas whites are like the weaker hyenas who always have to be on the lookout for nasty lions. (Also, even nice Negroes will come to sexually own the white race since even nice Negro men will lust after white chicks no less than nasty Negroes; and since nice Negroes are tougher than white men, white women will go with nice Negroes. Whether white women go with nice Negroes or nasty Negroes, it’s a humiliating loss for white men. Similarly, regardless of whether Negresses slept white nice white masters or nasty white masters, it was a case of white social slavery owning and humiliating the pride of black males. Would it have been much of a consolation for black males in the Deep South during slavery if the nice white massuh than a nasty white massuh slept with their mother, wife, or daughter? Pathetically enough, a whole bunch of white guys welcome the union of nice Negroes and white girls. It’s as if they’re so afraid of the accusation of ‘racism’ that they wanna show "how far they’ve come in the goal of racial harmony", though, of course, this "racial harmony" is premised on stronger Negroes making their moves on white territory and owning white females sexually and owning white males psychologically. Of course, some white guys hope that by offering or surrendering their white women to nice Negroes, the latter will protect the whites from nasty Negroes. And indeed, the psycho-politics as to why so many whites voted for Obama owes to such an psychology. White folks OWE and black folks OWN.)

During the age of social slavery, all whites has legal and institutional advantage over all blacks. Even a poor white knew he was a free man and legally on equal footing with rich whites. He also knew he could never be a slave. But even relatively well-off blacks who were given decent tasks by their rich and kindly white slave masters knew that their welfare depended on the kindness and mercy of decent whites. If they were to fall into the hands of nasty whites, their rights could be stripped overnight and they could be reduced to being ‘cotton picking Negroes’ again.

So, if one thinks about it, the dynamics between social slavery and biological slavery is pretty much the same. The slave side depends on the good will of the master side. As long as whites live next to lots of blacks, their well-being depends on the decency of blacks since nasty blacks can push them around and beat them up real good. Also, even nice Negroes will come to OWN white women and wussify white males as beta-male second-raters in the sexual marketplace.

Thus, the ONLY WAY for white people to be free at last, free at last, and free at last is to invoke the necessity of RACIAL RIGHTS, i.e. all races have a right to live in peace and safety for the sake of their own self-preservation and posterity. Since integration with blacks leads whites being biologically OWNED by blacks, whites are being reduced to the status of the slave race under stronger blacks(and more intelligent Jews). For whites to be free and to determine their own future and fate, they need to break free from this biological bondage.

--------------------------

So much of PC idiocy is the product of a mono-moral narrative where one side was totally good and the other side was totally bad.

That is the template of how the US sees race relations.

Whites were totally bad, whereas non-whites, esp blacks, were totally good.

It’s a cartoon vision of history, and it mortally wounds white moral pride since NO JUSTIFICATION has been offered for the Segregationists. Thus, they had no reason but PURE EVIL in having opposed Martin L. King and Civil Rights Marches.

So, all the rightness and justification during the Civil Rights Era are placed with blacks & allies and NONE with whites who opposed the movement.

Now, if blacks were just whites with dark skin, the anti-segregationists would have been right, more or less. Why deny full rights to a people solely based on skin color?

But races do exist and racial differences are real and go beyond skin color. Whites southerners(and northerners too as it turned out) had good reasons to fear social equality with blacks since blacks are the superior race when it comes to physicality, aggression, thuggery, and etc. It’d be like integrating retrievers with pit bulls. Same species, but different races.

So, while the laws were legally unfair to blacks, getting rid of those laws would have been biologically unfair to whites. Blacks would act aggressively toward whites, and lots of whites would get hurt. White guys would lose male pride and see their women go with stronger Negroes. What humiliation, what shame. Interracism is ‘racism’ insofar as women go with men of another race on the premise that they are superior as men.

And even though white northerners mocked white southern 'bigots', the Liberals in NY an Chicago and Detroit and etc. all discovered the same truth. They too began to be terrorized by black thuggery and moved away from darkening areas. White flight was due to white fright of the stronger meaner more aggressive Negro.

So, a mono-moral narrative is bogus. We need a duo-moral narrative that tries to understand both sides. (We do such for Jews and Palestinians in the Middle East Conflict. We know Jews are oppressing Palestinians, but we also know that if angry Palestinians were given full equal rights, they will violently strike out at Jews whom they see as occupiers and imperialists. So, both sides have legitimate fears and rages. We don’t use mono-moral narrative on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.)

Now, the Civil Rights Movement was a compelling one for blacks. They had a right to be angry and demand justice.

BUT, justice for blacks could only lead to all sorts of problems of whites who were likely to be treated like Jerry Quarry at the fists of Ali and Frazier.

THAT side of history should be told as well. From a biological viewpoint, whites did have some compelling moral justifications for opposing racial integration and social equality.

And given what happened to NY and other cities due to rising black crime and thuggery, we’ve seen how White Liberals sneakily resorted to massive incarceration, gentrification, and stop and frisk to control blacks or push them out demographically. They talk of ‘racial justice’ but act in ways that increase haute-segregation for themselves. Notice how rich Lib cities just get whiter and more Jewish(and maybe more Asian).

Also, if Nixon used the Southern Strategy against Democrats in 68 and 72, Liberal elites used the Foreign Strategy. They used immigration to use yellows and browns as buffers between themselves and dangerous blacks. In other words, let yellows and browns get beat up by blacks instead.

And by filling the Democratic Party with more immigrants, the party became more viable in the long run because a Black Party is bound to fall to ruin like Detroit.

In contrast, a party where browns and yellows increasingly count more than blacks is viable for the white/Jewish/homo overlords of the Dem party.

Foreign Strategy vs Southern Strategy.