Intersectionality of Wanting Entry into Anglocratic Nations

https://www.google.com/logos/doodles/2017/doodle-4-google-2017-us-winner-5145189378162688-hp.jpg

Especially the image of the Zionist and Arab Muslim arm-in-arm kills me.



So, what do Jews and Palestinians have in common? Nothing... except for wanting to have free access to Anglocratic nations, especially the US.

Surely, Palestinians hate the US for having abetted the creation of Israel possible and funneling billions to Israel every year. But Palestinians are organisms, and organisms seek comfort and well-being, and what better place than America or some other Anglocratic state for immigration destination? They crave entry into the US more than recovery of Palestine itself. Good life uber alles. Comfort-Supremacism.

So, that is the only intersectionality that REALLY matters between Jews/Zionists and Arabs/Palestinians... and among all other non-white groups. They all want access to Anglocratic states. They have NOTHING ELSE in common despite their mouthy sloganeering. All these bogus terms like 'inclusion' and 'tolerance' are ruses and obfuscations. After all, if such 'universal values' are for all the world, how come Jews and Muslims don't push such them on Africa and most of the Third World? Because they don't want to go there to live, that's why. It doesn't matter if black Africa is tolerant/inclusive or not because no people want to move there, at least permanently. (Chinese and Hindus go there for investment to dig out natural resources.)

Now, if all non-whites want access to Anglocratic nations, why is there such hostility against whitey? Why do they hate what they want(and love) most?
It's like the Jilted-Lover Syndrome. If some guy asks a girl out for prom because he's smitten with her, he might fume and seethe with rage if she says No. So, he ends up hating what he loves most.
It's like something that happened in high school. There was some Jewish kid who asked this really gorgeous Jewish girl out for the prom, and she said NO, and he, in typical neurotic Jewish way, was bitching all over the school about her refusal. It's like she did him(and the world) great injustice by refusing him.

So, paradoxically, this hate/hostility on the part of non-whites is really to gain access to white nations(esp Anglosphere), or what they love most. With such antsy hostility and accusations of 'racism', 'white guilt', 'intolerance', and 'exclusion', they are trying to make white nations cave to their demands and put out. And PC is just a Jewish & non-white date-rape drug used on Ms Liberty. In Europe, this rape thing is getting too real in Sweden and other places.

When a person asks someone out on a date or makes a proposal for marriage, the asked has advantage over the 'asker'. Asker makes a request, and the asked can agree or disagree, and that's that. So, the asked has the upper hand... as these people find out.



If the 'asker' plays by the rules, he will accept the answer NO and gracefully walk away.
But what if the 'asker' really really really wants it? Suppose he meant it as "an offer you can't refuse". Well, there is the mafia way, like in THE GODFATHER. Look what happened to Woltz's horse and Moe Green's eye. That works well enough in the criminal world, but it won't wash in the realm of public opinion.
In legal society, the NO to "an offer you can't refuse" -- AOYCR -- must be de-legitimized, impugned, reviled, mocked, condemned, and cursed.
In other words, anyone who says NO to AOYCR is publicly humiliated and shamed as a wicked person. It's like the issue of interracism. Suppose some white woman says that she personally would not go with anyone outside her race. (If a Jew or black said it, no problem, but rules are different for whites since non-whites want sex with whites. I mean who would care if indigenous Bolivian Indians or African Pygmies said they won't put out to other races?) She will be reviled as a 'racist' and 'hater' and 'nazi'. Or remember beauty contestant Carrie Prejean who said she will have to say NO to 'gay marriage'? She was attacked by all the media that even dug up dirt on her(mafia style) to de-legitimize her. They sent a message to all of America. If you say NO to homo AOYCR, you will get the Prejean Treatment.

So, Diversity is a forced marriage between Anglocratic nations and the Rest. If whites or Anglos say NO to Diversity-Invasion, they are hounded & denounced as wicked 'racists' who 'hate'. It's not perceived as a NO to a particular group for a particular reason but an affront to 'human rights' itself.
So, demographic imperialism(mostly into white nations that non-whites crave most) is promoted as a 'human right'. White nations must say YES to any bunch of non-whites who propose demographic marriage, and globalists operate as mafia-like matchmakers. (Global matchmaking operates like white slavery. It's like white slavers promise good jobs and money --- economic advantages --- to Eastern European and Slavic women who are duped and find themselves in bondage. Soon enough, the women discover they are forcibly matched with men and used as sex slaves. All this 'immigration' stuff is a lie. White nations are told that global mass-marriage will lead to fine workers and economic boom, but it's only leading to more rape, crime, and anti-white propaganda. Worse, whites who may well lose their homelands and inheritances.)

But then, the question... why do all these people want to move to Anglocratic nations? They say all races are equally talented and all cultures are equally worthy. Based on those premises, every nation should be able to become just as successful as Anglocratic ones. But the hard evidence says otherwise. So, they want to move to Anglocratic nations that they, deep down inside, see as superior in every way(because Anglos and whites do everything better). Many even want to marry and have kids with white folks(seen as superior in beauty and personality) than with their own kind. Some see their children's marriage with whites as a move up the racial ladder.
Now, to be able to do all that, non-whitse must gain a foothold into the Anglosphere. The problem is Anglosphere may say NO to their proposal of entry or demographic marriage. (US is more a Proposal Nation where whites are being forced into marriage with rest of the world.) So, all non-whites have 'intersectional' common interest of de-legitimizing a white NO as an answer. They want to make sure that White America has no choice but answer YES and only YES.
So, they go about acting like the jilted Jewish kid in high school. He asked the beautiful Jewish girl, and she said no. Okay, fine. Some girls say yes, some say no. Most guys accept it. But boy oh boy, did he get all hissy pissy and antsy-pantsy. He went around the entire school badmouthing her for having said NO to him. He said nasty things about her... until finally she broke down and cried under pressure from his defamation of her character. He made it seem like her rejection wasn't just a No to him personally but an insult to decency, goodness, wonderfulness, and love since, apparently, he was brimming with those qualities(even though he was a dork not unlike the kid in RUSHMORE). It was like Portnoy's Defamation.





Every nation has the right to say NO to other people's proposal for entry. But non-whites are so eager to enter white nations(esp Anglocratic and Germanocratic ones) that they won't take NO for an answer. And they learned from Jews how to wear down the defenses of the white refusal of marriage with Diversity. Universalize the issue. So, if whites say NO to immigration for a certain people, it's not just a No to them but a NO to 'tolerance', 'inclusion', 'what America is really about', 'western values', 'love', 'understanding', 'compassion', 'economic growth',as well as a YES to 'hate', 'xenophobia', 'racism', 'nazism', 'white supremacism', 'white privilege', and etc.

Maybe a fat ugly girl can use such trick on a guy. Suppose she asks a handsome guy on a date or wants to marry him, and he says NO. So, instead of just taking it as personal rejection, make it seem like he insulted and said NO to universal values of 'love', 'kindness', 'acceptance', 'family', 'home cooking', wedding, and etc. Universalize the issue.

Non-white world acts toward whites like the crazy woman in PLAY MISTY FOR ME. It's a kind of globo-fatal-attraction.



The whole Jewish meltdown over Russia is about crazed jealousy. What??? Jealous Jews are aghast!!! Donald Trump has the hots for Lady Russia? No!!! Captain America must play misty only for the Tribe.

Do Jews really like non-whites? No. But because Jews don't have the numbers themselves -- only 2% of US and less even in European nations -- , they rely on non-white allies to carry the demographic weight against whites.
Since non-whites serve as allies, they demand their turn with Ms America too, and Jews have to say Yes once a while. Nothing comes for free. It's like the Hammond brother in RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY must share his bride with his brothers.

It's all very odd. We are told that one of the great things about modernity is freedom of choice and independence. So, unlike the bad ole days when men and women were 'forced' in marriage by parents or others who arranged such things, modern peoples & modern nations can be independent -- the right to separate yourself from others -- and make their own choice of whom to be with.
So, if a guy is matched with someone like Andrea Dworkin or if a girl is matched with someone like Chris Farley, he or she can be independent and say NO, whereas in the past he or she would have had to enter into a kind of 'forced marriage'.

In FIDDLER ON THE ROOF, we root for the girl to say NO to the old fat guy and go for the young revolutionary. Independence! Independence means the freedom to say NO and separate yourself from others. That's how America got started. It said NO to forced membership in the empire. Anti-imperialism after WWII was about third world peoples saying NO to white colonizers.



At 2:37


But now, we are told that an Entire People(especially whites in Anglocratic nations) must be pushed into forced-marriage with other Entire Peoples. So, Jewish-controlled NYT denounces Hungary and Poland for saying No to demographic-marriage with the Muslim World.
The behavior of the globalist elites isn't much different from Rotherham Rape Gang that facilitated a system of forcing whites into sex with non-whites.
And even the governments of Germany and others are pushing their own women to PUT OUT to foreign invaders.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/16/german-govt-drops-136k-to-publish-sex-manual-for-migrants/

And guess who wrote this:

https://www.amazon.com/How-Marry-Finnish-Girl-Everything-ebook/dp/B006GB4LOS

As for proggy whites, they serve as heinous matchmakers who denounce patriotic independent-minded whites for saying NO to this forced-marriage between the West and the Non-West. And some sound like sufferers of Stockholm Syndrome.

Anyway, Non-white world is in love with the white world, but the white world may not be sufficiently in love with the non-white world that comes with stale flowers and a gruff proposal of marriage. Since all non-whites and Jews fear the reply of NO from the white world(best nations with best systems), they have this intersectionality thing going whereby they try to shame the White World for saying NO or NO MORE. So, even if Trump says NO to just a handful of Muslim nations, that is seen as an affront to 'universal values' and 'inclusion' and 'diversity'. Even though most non-whites are not Muslim, they fear that the NO to Muslims will eventually lead to NO to more of their own kind. So, despite the hostilities among Africans, Muslims, Zionists, Hindus, and Asians, what they all have in common is the desire to marry into White America or Anglosphere, and they fear the NO. It's fitting that the Progs are represented by 'pussy hats' since that is how non-whites see the US. They want penetration, and PC is the date drug. It's like Tony Montana wants entry into 'paradise' but turns it into a 'human rights' issue.



Non-whites are like ants who all get inside the white pants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ants_in_the_Pants

Human Behavior Is Mostly Animal Behavior - Humans Are Organisms & Will Act on Animal Instincts If Given the Chance

https://voiceofeurope.com/2018/02/germany-34-refugees-import-130-family-members-and-second-wives/

Because the West is so rich & advanced and so proud of its achievements in arts & philosophy, there is a tendency among white people to believe that they are above animal drives and appetites. In other words, they are motivated by higher ideals and principles than by base instincts. Apparently, what they are most proud of is their sets of beliefs, the so-called ‘Western Values’. And these values are supposedly all about universalism, tolerance, compassion, liberty, and individualism. And these values are so noble and inspiring that so many people want to come to the West to partake of them, defend them, and spread them.

But this is like putting cart before the horse. All these wonderful ‘Western Values’ are really the product of Western tribal, territorial, and material successes. And even if higher values guided the West in its ascendancy, the rise of the West couldn’t have been possible without certain tribal, territorial, and material guarantees.
It’s like you can espouse moral values to do good things for your family, but first and foremost, you must have a sense of family(who is and isn’t part of your family), a sense of ancestry(history and memory), a sense of home(home-sweet-home for your family), and sense of private property(the wealth that belongs to the family). Without those foundations, any amount of ‘values’ and ‘principles’ is useless. If there is no essential family and if anyone can be a family member, you won’t have any meaningful family to belong to, serve, and lean on. If everyone in the world is your family member, then no one is a family member. The meaning of family would be rendered pointless. Also, unless your family has a place to call their own, their home can be trespassed by just about anyone. After all, if your family home should be open to all the world on the universal notion that everyone is part of your family, you and your family won’t have a home. Especially those people who are incapable of building and managing nice homes of their own will come to your home to leech off you. And unless your family has its own private property, its wealth can be taken by anyone, especially the lazy and parasitic that prefer to live off others than create their own wealth.
So, even as values and principles are important, they can be applied usefully ONLY WHEN your tribal, material, and territorial integrity has been secured.
Even on the libertarian individualist level, your freedom and liberty mean NOTHING unless you can secure the legal and material guarantees that protect you and your well-being from the ravenous appetites of others, especially those who’d rather pilfer others than be productive members of society.

But so many people in the West have grown either naive or decadent because the West was so powerful and prosperous for an extended period following WWII. Entire generations grew up without knowing hunger and war. They’ve grown soft & decadent or naive & goody-two-shoes. They take for granted that good times will last forever. Also, even if they believe the West will fall from excessive Diversity, they feel that it can’t be so bad and, besides, the West deserves it for its ‘historical crimes’. They think that way because they have no idea what real societal collapse is really like. For them, the fall of the West is purely rhetorical or theoretical. They have no idea how traumatic and horrible such an event will be. South African whites know what it's like to see civilization crumble all around you, but the Jewish-controlled media have mostly forced an information blackout to keep white people in the dark about the dangers.
Because Western people take their physical well-being for granted — the main worry even among the poor is obesity, not hunger — , their view of society is essentially abstract and concerned with ‘ideals’ and ‘values’. They believe that whatever is good about the West is PURELY the result of these ‘ideals’ and ‘values’ while totally neglecting the hard facts of identity, materiality, and territory.

So, Swedes overlook the fact that Sweden became such a nice place because Swedes came together as a people of shared history & culture, secured a territory for themselves as a nation, and worked very hard to create industry & wealth(and welfare) for the well-being of the people. Instead, they’ve been made to believe that the success owed entirely to ‘western values’ such as ‘tolerance’, ‘democracy’, and goo-goo-thumbsuckery. Therefore, since the only reason for Swedish success are ‘values’, there is no need to emphasize the Swedish tribe, secure Swedish territory, or guard Swedish material property. It doesn’t matter if tons of foreigners flood into Sweden because they can partake of the same wonderful ‘values’ and make Sweden even better. Also, because Swedes define themselves mainly by ‘values’, they project their idealism onto other peoples. Swedes want to believe that all those Africans, Arabs, and Muslims are pouring into Sweden to partake of those wonderful ‘values’.

But in fact, the ONLY reason why those people are coming to Sweden(and other parts of Europe) is because they want comfort, easy life, and free stuff. Just do a mind-experiment. Imagine Two Swedens, A and B. Let’s say Sweden A is rich & generous but autocratic than democratic. Let’s say Sweden B is poor & desperate but democratic than autocratic. Suppose a million Africans want to move to Sweden. Which Sweden will they prefer, A or B? Will they prefer the poor & desperate Sweden B over the rich & generous Sweden A because ‘values’ and ‘ideals’ are what mainly motivates them? And if indeed those Africans are so idealistic, why don’t they stay in their own poor nations and work hard to improve things for themselves and their own people? Why are they so eager to run from their own problems and find better life in another nation?
The fact is people are migrating to nations like Sweden for a simple reason. It’s for comfort and better material life. That’s about it. Their motivations are no different from those of animals.
If you offer food to squirrels, what do they do? They come for more. And in time, more and more squirrels come to realize that you’re handing out free stuff, and they come too. In time, you will be swamped by all those squirrels. It’s the same with any other bunch of animals. If you feed the geese, they will come for more and make louder demands. Worse, they will alert others, and they too will come to you for food. If you feed the animals, more animals come.
Now, it may sound offensive to some to talk about people as ‘animals’, but humans are animals. Human behavior isn’t much different from that of other mammals. Like any organism, humans seek what is easy and comforting. If you offer an airplane passenger in the coach section a free first-class ticket, you bet he will take up the offer. If you offer a free car to someone on the street, he will surely take it. If you offer free pizza to people, they will take it. When Jesus offered free fish and bread on the beach, a crowd gathered. Ostensibly, they came to listen to His ideas, but, on the more primal level, they came for free fish and chips. While "man doesn’t live on bread alone", he puts bread first before all else. Or that’s the case with 99% of humanity. Just like most people will choose money & success over ideals & poverty, most people who move to other nations have the most mercenary motives for doing so. After all, both the US and Brazil are democratic and diverse. If anything, Brazil is even more diverse. If Diversity is the great ideal for the entire world, most immigrants should prefer Brazil over America. But the fact is most would rather move to the US than to Brazil. Indeed, people who chose to move to Latin America were those weren’t allowed into Canada, US, or Australia. The theory of idealism-as-motivating-factor breaks down here because the ‘ideals’ of Brazil are hardly different from those of the US. Then, why do so many people prefer to move to the US than to Brazil even though both nations are democratic and share more-or-less the same ‘ideals’? The simple reason is the US is richer, and immigrants will have more access to material wealth and comfort in the US. That's about it.
Indeed, even if the US were run by a one-party autocracy, countless people will still want to come AS LONG AS it remains the richest nation on Earth. People are not motivated much by ideals, and this is especially true of the Third World where the cult of idealism is almost non-existent. We are often told that Diversity will effectively turn the US into a one-party state. We are told Democrats will win all future elections since non-white numbers will swamp white numbers. In that case, the US will effectively no longer be a two-party democracy but a one-party dictatorship. But would non-white immigrant-hopefuls be less willing to come to the US for that reason: Erosion of democracy? No, they don’t care if the US becomes a one-party state under permanent Democratic Rule AS LONG AS they can come to instantly improve their material well-being. It’s not about the ‘dream’ but about the cream. Immigrants see America as a dairy cow that provides easy cream for the entire world.

Granted, past European immigrants were no different. They too were seeking better material lives. White people back then were more willing to take a chance in another part of the world because few nations had social safety nets or welfare. Many people were mired in poverty without relief. So, the ONLY way to improve their lots back then was to try their luck in the New World or Australia. Of course, the new adventure wouldn’t be easy. They would have to work on farms and factories from sunup to sundown. But it was still a chance to start a new life. But ever since white nations developed a system of social security, there was far less impetus to leave one's own nation. Even if you don’t have much in Western European nations, the state provides you with enough to make your life reasonably comfortable. If non-white nations could afford similar social safety-nets, many people would be more likely to stay. But for a lot of people in the Third World, having little means your life is a constant struggle just to get by on a day to day existence. So, they figure it’s better to move to the rich West.

One crucial difference between past immigration and recent immigration is that past immigrants had to be willing to work hard, very hard. While the US offered new opportunities in land and enterprises, it didn’t have an extensive welfare system until the New Deal and especially Great Society. So, anyone who decided to come to America couldn’t expect an easy life or handouts. He had to come with the determination to work hard, even harder than in the home country. But it was appealing to many because of the promise of owning one’s own land and because there was a time when the US was one of the few democracies in the world with Rule of Law and Property Rights.
Also, because the US still had to be settled and built, most of the immigrants who came in the 20th century worked at making something out of nothing, which is so different from immigrants who come today to take something from something other people had already made.

Consider typical animal behavior. If you offer food to squirrels, geese, or raccoon, their first response will be like, "Is this for real? Is that person giving me free stuff? No way! But... but, it’s true!" So, initially, the response is amazement and appreciation. But once the animals become accustomed to you feeding them, they begin to feel that you should keep feeding them. They go from feeling fortunate to feeling entitled. They no longer see your as being nice enough to offer them food. They see you as obligated to offer them more food. Indeed, they come to see you as the main supplier of food. And then, they make demands for more and more, and then they call on more of their kind to come to demand even more. And if these animals had human intelligence, they would cleverly wrap their vulgar demands with moralistic gibberish. Moralism is also useful to hide their shame. No one wants to admit that he has failed on his own and depends on the largess of others to have nice things in life. All those people in the Third World don’t want to admit that they’ve failed their own nations. They don’t want to admit that they see the White World as superior and want to move to white lands to leech off white folks. So, they use PC moralism to pontificate that the universal obligation of ‘Western Values’ is to open up white or white-majority nations to the Third World filled with ‘dreamers’ who supposedly are motivated by the highest ideals when, in fact, they just want easy stuff. (If white people expect gratitude, forget about it. On some instinctive level, people feel contempt for the do-goody suckers who dole out free stuff to strangers. Whatever gratitude may exist melts and vanishes like snow as the freeloader is eager to get more stuff from the naive sucker who thinks people will love him because he's handing out free stuff. The fact is the freeloaders see the do-gooder as a fool. They even hate him because his compassion means he's in a position to condescend to them as those-in-need and those-to-feed, like pigeons in the park. The contempt for his naivete plus the resentment for his higher status makes the freeloaders demand even more, if only to see him finally fall to their own level.)

Against such animal behavior, there are only two defenses. You must yourself become like an animal. After all, animals guard their own territory and stuff from other animals through viciousness and counter-aggression. An animal that fails to do this will lose its turf and food to is rivals and enemies. Animals in nature are NOT nice to one another.
The other way to defend oneself is to create a domain that is separate from that of animals. It’s like human housing is built to keep out bugs, birds, rodents, and all kind of animals. Thus, humans can safely and securely live in their own homes without worrying about animal invasions.
So, if you choose to live side-by-side with animals, you must act like an animal yourself. But if you want to remain 'human' and don’t want to be brutish, you must create a world of your own that is distinctly separate from the world of animals. So, even though birds fly above, squirrels climb trees in the yard, and rabbits run on the grass, none of them will enter your house that was built to be safe and secure from critters.
But the current use of ‘Western Values’ in the globalized world is utterly contradictory and nonsensical. It calls on white people to remain in ‘human’ mode while allowing non-whites to invade the West in the most animalistic manner. So, even as non-whites increasingly burrow into the West, build their nests, and set up colonies to leech off whites, whites must remain cool, calm, & collected and pretend that all these newcomers arrived to partake and uphold the ‘highest’ principles of ‘Western Values’ that are now deemed to be Tolerance, Diversity, Inclusion, Mixing, Homomania, Afrophilia, and Hedonism. Even if we were to champion ‘ideals’ and ‘values’ as the highest expression of the West, just when did the values of the West become so insane and ludicrous? For most of Western History, the current set of ‘Western Values’ would never have been regarded as high virtues or even virtues of any kind. It just goes to show that ‘Western Values’ is a Trivialist Fantasy that is currently decided by whomever controls the academia and media.
Of course, the ‘intellectual’ elites of the West happen to be mostly cunning Jews, pathetic white cucks, and resentful token members of ‘color’ who are especially resentful because, on meritocratic grounds, they are likely to remain on the bottom, and so, they gain access to upper echelons only as tokens.

But the biggest contradiction of the Current West is that, even as the West claims to stand for the highest ideals and principles grounded in abstract philosophy and enlightenment values, the main expression of Western culture and politics often tends to be primal, bestial, lustful, crude, and vulgar. Despite the highfalutin rhetoric of politicians and the pomp & circumstances of official ceremonies, the fact is Pop Culture is THE culture of the Current West and mindless PC supplies its core ideological tenets. And what is this Pop Culture mostly about? It’s about brutish black rappers and white imitators yapping endlessly about ‘muh gun’, ‘muh dick’, ‘muh bling’, and ‘muh biatch’. It’s about violent movies and TV shows where characters’ behaviors are primarily fueled by raunchy instincts of sex, violence, thrills, and/or domination. And so many kids are lost in the video-game world where the main objective is to blow away as many ‘bad guys’ or even ‘good guys’ — how can anyone tell which is which is anymore in a nihilistic culture where violence is its own reward? Pop Culture, which is the dominant cultural expression and experience of the Current West, for the most part has nothing to do with any higher values or principles. It’s mainly about savage black thuggery, slut culture, or vulgar pop fascism where all races and all ‘50 genders’ get to indulge in fantasies of will-to-power.
As for PC, it’s a new kind of ‘progressivism’ that has been kosher-bled of any genuine intellectual & moral content and, as such, mostly wallows in self-pity & self-aggrandizement. Political Correctness is more like Pop Correctness. Just like Modern Art spawned Pop Art, Modern Left spawned Pop Left where narcissism, nihilism, hedonism, and egotism are the most essential elements of the Movement. If Classic Leftism was about everyone making sacrifices for the better future and the common good, PC is about the hope of every loser and dork fantasizing himself to be a cross between Lady Gaga and Che Guevara. If Classic Leftism was about the workers demanding their just share of the pie, Pop Leftism is about spoiled brats demanding stuff for free. It’s no wonder that so many young people identify with immigrant-invaders and illegal-infiltrators. They all feel entitled to make demands. They’re really motivated by animal instincts but wrap their lowly demands with cliches about ‘justice’ based on dubious notions such as ‘inclusion’ and ‘diversity’. They act in baboonish gibs-me-dat mode, but they talk as if they’re owed something by some divine will. If they really cared about Justice, non-whites would work hard to fix their own nations, and young ones would learn some useful skills, learn to be productive, and stop acting like pigs.
Just look at feminist politics that revolve around all this Pussy Talk. On the one hand, Western ‘progressives’ act like they’re above the animal-biological instincts of tribe(our pack), territory(our land), and materiality(our stuff), but so many people on the Pop Left base their core agendas on their race(black or brown pride), genitals(my vagina or ‘muh dick’), and stuff(gibs me dis, gibs me dat). So, the very Westerner who claims to rise above biological determinism and live by higher ‘universal values’ is addicted to rap music and black expressions that reduce the meaning of humanity to savage celebration of ‘fuc*ing and fighting’. So, the very Western female who claims that ‘sex is just a social construct’ weaves her own identity on the fact that she has a vagina. A very confused vagina at that. On the one hand, these ‘vaginalists’ are into slut pride as liberation & emancipation. As vaginas want to be filled and experience orgasm, the vaginalists say the main purpose of their lives is to pleasure their animalistic poons. But then, they say their precious vaginas must be protected from Evil Men such as Trump the ‘pussy grabber’. These ‘vaginalists’ wear ‘pussy hats’ and dress up as walking pooters but then bitch about how their pussy-willows must be shielded from male attention. Feminist literature should now be called ‘Cliterature’.

For a people who claim to rise above biology and mock sex as a ‘social construct’, they sure have a funny way of grounding their identity on their strangely passive/aggressive pussies. "Don’t you dare grab my pussy, but fuc* it all night long."
To be sure, this gets complicated by trannies whose arguments are also confusedly both anti-essentialist and essentialist. Even as they denounce the essentialism of sexual differences between men and women, they also make an alternative-essentialist argument that Trannies are BORN THAT WAY and have no choice but to pursue their own kind of happiness. In other words, trannies are essentially tranny, and what they are(or want to be) cannot be negotiated.

It’s a strange world after all.

Mass Immigration by Foreign Elements Is Imperialism, Pure and Simple

US should have severely restricted non-white immigrants like the Founders intended.

We hear all this whining about ‘hate’, but ‘hate’ is appropriate to cases where a people aggressively attack and invade other peoples, not when they defend their turf from outsiders who are different in race and culture.
Were Algerians and Vietnamese ‘haters’ against the French in their resistance struggles? No, they only hated French aggression and imperialism. They had no hostility against the French nation per se. They were only trying to reclaim their beloved homelands from foreign occupiers.

Japan doesn’t want to be invaded and colonized by Muslims. Is that ‘hate’?
Must a people invite demographic invasion to be on the side of angels? No, a people who invite invasion are HATE their own kind. Self-hate is the worst kind of crime.

Donald Trump deserves a lot of criticism from all sides, but on the plus side, he has allowed Russia and Iran to finish off the psychopathic ISIS in Syria. He also condemned the Iraq War and Libyan War during the Presidential campaign. If anything, it was the ‘progressives’ who were tight-lipped about all the War Crimes committed against Libya, Ukraine, and Syria during the Obama-Hillary years. Notice that those who now claim to love Muslims did nothing to protest the invasions and destruction of Muslim nations prior to Trump’s victory.

Now, if Trump’s stupid talk about Iran turns into real escalation, he’s be just another pezzonovante of the Jews. I suspect he has no personal animus against Iran. He’s just sucking up to Zionists because Jews are the real masters of America no matter which way you turn. Paradoxically, one has to be more pro-Zionist if hated by most Jews. Because Jew Worship is mandatory and because ‘antisemitism’ is a cardinal sin, one has to go the extra step to prove one’s pro-Jewish credentials when attacked by Jews themselves. Since Jews say Trump is hitler, Trump must do heavy-lifting to demonstrate he’s the best friend of Jews and the ultimate shill for Israel. Even so, there’s no guarantee that he will opt for war with Iran. He could be using heated rhetoric against Iran to keeps the Jews at bay.

Concerning the ‘refugees’, the solution is for the US to stop meddling in the Middle East. Then chances of war will greatly diminish, and then, there will be no more refugees. Muslims can stay in their own nations. If Muslims want to flee their own nations even in peacetime, it means they hate their own kind and prefer to live with whites. They would be the self-haters. Why should the West welcome self-hating Muslims who don’t even want to live with their own kind?

Anyway, no nation can survive by allowing massive foreign invasion-immigration. Mass immigration of foreigners IS invasion. Mass arrival of Jews led to destruction of Palestine. Mass arrival of Spanish led to demise of native peoples in Meso-America. Hawaiians are a minority in their own homeland because of white and yellow mass immigration. The only kind of immigration that works on a large scale is one that lets in the same kind of people. This is why Israeli immigration is Jewish Only. More Jews arriving in the Jewish State means Replenishment, not Replacement. But if Israel allowed tons of non-Jewish immigrants, Jews will face Replacement, and then, the Israel as Jewish State is lost forever.

Anyone who pushes mass immigration by foreigners is an imperialist.

People like Hillary Clinton, Angela Merkel, Theresa May, John McCain, Joe Biden, the Bush clan, and etc no longer have any concern for their own race, culture, and people. They identify with power and privilege(mostly dominated by Jews). If it’s globalism they must serve to keep their positions and privilege, they will do so.

The difference between past imperialism and current imperialism is the former was about one people colonizing another people’s land whereas the latter is about ALL nations being demographically colonized by all peoples as the elites around the world collude to favor their own aggrandizement and privilege above all other considerations. Of course, Israel gets pass-over rights in being exempted from obligation to welcome foreign invaders.
But then, which people control globalism? Only Jews are allowed an arrangement where elites identify with and protect their ethnic kin. Among gentiles, elites are to despise and abandon their own national folks in favor of the company of ‘cosmopolitan’ People of Privilege, all of whom must serve the higher power of Jewish Globalist Supremacism.

Of course, these immigrant-invaders play the passive/aggressive game. They aggressively colonize other nations but then play ‘victims’ of ‘hateful bigoted natives’ who won’t let more of them in. Just look at those Hindus. They seek to take over Anglo-made worlds with massive colonization, but they harp as ‘victims’ of ‘racism’ and ‘xenophobia’. Invading other nations is now a ‘human right’ according to globo-dominated UN. Mass invasion by boat, foot, or by plane is hailed as some god-given right. So, the US is expected to offer ‘sanctuary’ to illegals sacralized as ‘dreamers’. EU must absorb all those who invade by boat or boot.

Natives are supposed to be in self-hate mode and gain love points only by welcoming invaders.

How did the world become this stupid?