In Defense of Bio-Socialism as Foundation of Family Formation — Free & Bad vs Unfree & Good — Pitfalls of Christian Sanctimony

Marriage of Feminism and Consumerism was bound to lead to miscarriages of biological justice.

In tandem, they go against nature and upset the organic balance of life and society.

To better illustrate this, imagine 4 people: 2 men and 2 women.

Suppose there are 2 well-paying jobs.

First, we need to take human nature into consideration: Men will marry women without jobs, but women don't want to marry men without jobs.

These are the possible outcomes.

Scenario 1. Two men get the jobs. Each man can afford to raise a family, and each is willing to marry a woman without a job. So, each man marries a woman. As a result, two men have jobs and they have wives with whom to raise a family. Everyone gets something. Men have jobs and wives, women have husbands, wives have family. Two incomes support two families.

Scenario 2. One man and one woman get the jobs. Each can afford a family. The man with the job marries the woman with the job. In contrast, the man without the job cannot a find a mate because women don't want men without jobs. So, the woman without the job doesn't marry the man without the job.
As the man with the job and woman with the job married, both of their incomes serve just one family. Meanwhile, the man without the job has no money and no family. And the woman without the job doesn't want to marry the man with no job, so she has nothing too.
So, we have all the good stuff in one family and nothing for the other man and woman. Also, because both the married man and married woman work, there is a chance that they will have no kids or just one kid. All that combined income goes to serve very narrow interests. Two get it all, the other two get nothing.

Scenario 3. One man and one woman get the jobs. Each can afford a family. The man with the job marries the woman without a job. In contrast, the woman with the job remains unmarried because she doesn't want to marry the man without a job. Under this formulation, three get something while the man without a job get nothing. The man with a job has a wife, the woman without a job, and they can have a family. The woman with a job has money even if no husband. She has no family but she has money to have fun with. But, the man without a job has no money and no wife. Such a man is destined for something like White Death.

Scenario 4. Two women get the jobs, and that means the two men have no jobs. Since women don't want to marry men without jobs, the women blow all their incomes on themselves in unfettered consumerism. They don't want to have families with 'loser' men with no jobs. Since the two men got no jobs, they lack status, pride, and hope.

Of the four options, only #1 offers something for everyone.

#3 isn't so terrible since 3 out of 4 get something.

#2 is awful because 2 get everything while 2 get nothing. Still, its saving grace is there is the formation of at least one family.

#4 is horrible because 2 get everything but there is no family. All that money is spent on fleeting vanity and hedonism.

Now, one might hope for a world where 4 people can have 4 good jobs, but such a world doesn't exist. There is only a limited number of jobs that can support families.

When women entered the work force in big numbers, they took away lots of good jobs from men. Every woman who got a good job robbed a man not only of a job but of a family. When a man takes a job from a woman, he doesn't take away her chance of having a family because men with jobs will marry women without jobs.
When women take jobs from men, it leads to men losing their market value as marriage prospects. Women not only take the jobs from men but also the hope of marriage and family, the most important thing in life(because people, as life-forms, are created from families and pass down their genes and memory by forming their own families); after all, it's no big deal to quit one job to take another, but it'd be terrible to dump one's family and go off with someone else. Also, in one's golden years, what does a man or woman think back on? Family(children and grandchildren) OR some 9-to-5 job he once had, some consumer item he once owned, or something he once ate at a restaurant? True meaning of human life comes from family, through which the continuity of life, culture, and memory is preserved.

When women have high-paying jobs, their standards go up in the mating game. But since fewer men will have good jobs because women took them, the 'ideal man' will be harder to find. So, women with jobs face a drought in marriageable men. Since they only want to marry successful men and will not settle for anything less, many women would rather blow all their earnings on vanity and self-indulgence. So, the income that, in the hands of a man, could have supported a family ends up serving the vain piggery of a woman hooked to SEX AND THE CITY lifestyle.
Capitalist Feminism is not about the equality of anything EXCEPT the equal(even preferential)opportunity for intelligent and/or attractive women to rise as high as possible to find superior men to be with or submit to. It's about the elitism of seeking liberation from 'beta-males' to be with 'alpha-males'. The psychology of capitalist feminism is essentially quasi-polygamist. Women are encouraged to feel that most men are not good enough for them and seek out the super-male as depicted in FIFTY SHADES OF GREY. Capitalist Feminism is less about liberation per se than liberation from the 'average guy' in search of the 'superior guy' to submit to. It is, ultimately, profoundly hierarchical and exclusionary. Given that people do want the best, such psychology among women is not surprising, but the social consequences of Capitalist Feminism have been devastating to the Modern World.

How did we end up like this? It's because we forgot the lesson that we are, first and foremost, sentimental organisms or life-forms. The role of life-form is to sustain itself. Everyone will die one day and so will his/her loved one, the partner in life. So, how do they 'survive' after death? Through their children who, as continuations of their forebears' genetic lineage, are cultural/personal torchbearers of the community. That's what Judaism has been about, indeed how it got started. It was about remembrance of ancestors by descendants, and it all went back to the Covenant.

Now, we are more than mere life-forms like animals. We have advanced brains that produced and have a need for ideas, values, and culture. Still, all those precious things exist and matter because of the living. All the books in the world mean nothing without people to read them, and every person is the product of a man and a woman(unless we create a BRAVE NEW WORLD scenario of cloning operations by the state). We are more than biology, but it begins with and is made possible by biology. Without biology, there is no being.
And the main source of meaning is in the family since every person was created by a father and a mother and since every person can only 'live on' after death through the DNA passed down to his/her kids who are also the cultural/personal torchbearers of their parents' memory.

But for some reason, the cult of narrow individualism made us forget that every individual is a 'continual', merely one link in the long chain of life. He didn't pop out of a book or materialize out of thin air or come into existence as a figment of someone's muse. Every person is born biologically and become human emotionally.
Because we are surrounded by books, movies, and fantasy, we seem to think reality can be constructed via imagination, 'creativity', or wish-fulfillment. Look at all those families where kids are raised to care more about Disney movies and HARRY POTTER books than about real people around them and those who came before them. (Or, too many people assume that, even if they don't have families and create the new generation, SOMEONE ELSE will. But the chances are, other people think the same way, leaving it up to OTHERS to pass the torch of life and culture.) We've replaced creation with creativity. It's no wonder we've come to accept something like 'gay marriage'. We confuse reality with fantasy, as if the world is created and sustained by Peter-Pan-ism. We confuse production of fantasy with reproductive fact. So, if two lesbians want to believe that they 'had a kid' together, we better go along with this charade. If a man says he is a 'woman', we are expected to agree. After all, how care we pop his bubble of desire? If a bunch of freaks want to turn the study of sexes into a hair-splitting game of ever-multiplying 'genders', we are supposed to accept it as cutting-edge 'science'.

As for consumerism, it divorced pleasure from purpose. Life-forms feel pleasure of food and sex because they must eat to survive and must have sex to produce new life. But consumerism created technologies that allowed wanton eating and wanton sex for pleasure alone. So, gluttony became the New Normal, as with fatso Lena Dunham who gorges on cakes while sitting on the toilet. It's as if she has to eat and excrete at the same time. And like an animal, she humps everyone, and she can sustain such behavior because there are contraceptives, pills, and abortion. Gluttony and Sluttony gone out of control in this one gross woman. This kind of porno-propaganda or 'pornoganda' has become America's main cultural message to the world. America is an exceptional country? Or an excessive cunt-ry?

Also, the idea of freedom has become nihilistic. It's good to be free, but for what purpose? In the end, we must make use of our freedoms. And in making any decision, we are choosing one freedom and losing the others. If we choose to study medicine, we don't have much time to study other things. We must commit to mastering the practice of medicine. If we study chemistry, we must neglect many other fields. If we decide to read a book, then we can't read another book. We have only so much time and energy at any given moment. So, even though we want freedom, every choice 'imprisons' us within one endeavor and locks out all the rest. It's like the scene in the first SUPERMAN movie. If Superman is to save one bunch of people, he can't save another bunch of people. He can't do everything. He fails to save Lois Lane and brings her back to life only by cheating.

So, we must raise the question as to what is more important than freedom. We must ask, what is the main purpose and meaning of life? Is it better to be free & choose not to do what one must or be unfree & have no choice but to do what one must? To the extent that prisons exist, we obviously don't believe in unfettered freedom. Those who use freedom badly go to jail as they are deemed unfit to enjoy freedom as a right. Of course, a libertarian would argue that a criminal must be locked up because his misuse of freedom violates the freedoms of others. In contrast, a man or a woman who commits his/her life to idiotic fun than grows into a mature person and has a family hasn't committed a crime or interfered with other people's freedoms. If we take a narrow individualist view, that is true enough, but if we take a deeper & wider civilizational view, such a man or woman has done a grave wrong to society. If such selfish people are few and far between, it's not a problem, but when they come to comprise a vast proportion of the population, the result is the demographically declining West and dying Japan. Freedom is good, but it is not the highest good.

After all, suppose there's a society where everyone is forced to be a husband or a wife. They are all forced to have families and to devote their main energies toward taking care of their children, the next generation.
Next, suppose there is another society where everyone is free and uses his/her freedom to only indulge himself/herself and not have families.
In the end, isn't the former society ultimately better off since it has families that create new life to carry on the torch? It lives on and sustains itself.
In contrast, what good is the other society in the long run? Sure, freedom is nice and individuals(esp in their youth) can have a good time, but if people used their freedoms to mainly indulge themselves and leave behind no legacy(like so many hedonistic white folks are doing today), is that a meaningful life? And how can there be meaning in the future if there are no new people to strive for meaning?

Now, we want freedom, but we need to use that freedom responsibly, soberly, and wisely. Sadly, everything about our ideology and culture fills our eyes, ears, hearts, and minds with the wrong lessons and vile temptations(designed to lead to addictions). If Lena Dunham, madonna, Emma Sulkowicz, and Ashley Judd are the 'role models' for womenfolk, it's no wonder our society is so diseased and dying. Indeed, even Stalinism or Sharia is better for women. After all, the Muslim Order, repressive as it is, has lasted for over one thousand years. For how much longer can the current debauched and degenerate West last? No matter one's elaborate theorizing about justice and the good life, if those ideas result in a civilization that fails in the most basic tasks of life-making and cultural preservation, they are BAD ideas.
In the end, the worth of a civilization isn't measured by trending ideas or fashionable values. It is measured by its ability to survive and continue. The current West smugly(and sometimes shrilly) pontificates about 'Western Values' as the 'most evolved', but if they lead to socio-demographic decline and demise, the test of time will have proven them to be the wrong values. It's like medicine. No matter what the researchers and doctors say, if it kills the patient, it's more poison than medicine. (Also, keep in mind that 'Western Values' are like the 'Constitution'. Those with the Power get to define what they mean. Jews who currently control the world say 'Western Values' are about Diversity, Homomania, Jungle Fever, Jew-worship, and hating-whitey. It's like Jews say the US Constitution guarantees 'gay marriage'.)

Now, we are not saying that the only viable choices are Western decadence/excess and something like Sharia Law. There is something sane, healthy, and balanced in between. We don't need to see the world in stark terms of either Sharia or Gayria/Whorea. It's like Aldous Huxley in BRAVE NEW WORLD REVISITED called out his mistake in the novel BRAVE NEW WORLD of having presented only two possibilities: Either neo-primitive brutality or orgy-porgy techo-hedonism.

We can have both freedom and meaning.
As life-forms, we are made by biological processes that allow for families to pass down the genetic code, keep alive the memory of ancestors, and preserve the culture/heritage. Family is bio-socialist. The essence of socialism is the subordination of absolute individualism to serve the greater need of the whole community. So, even though taxing the rich at higher rates than others is 'unfair' by libertarian principles, it is deemed necessary by socialism because the rich can afford to pay more for the GOOD of society. Socialism takes into consideration the difference between being rich, being middle income, and being poor. It doesn't just regard everyone as an individual. In a similar vein, bio-socialism takes into account that men and women aren't identical and/or interchangeable individuals on the basis of abstract theories, no more than atoms are individual-and-independent actors in chemistry. Atoms, as parts of a molecule, are always interdependent with other atoms, each of which has a specific role in any chemical combination. If not, there would be no difference between CO and CO2. If atoms are merely independent players, the only difference between CO and CO2 would be that the latter has MORE atoms. But in fact, the chemical formula for CO is deadly to life whereas C02 feeds life.

It's not just about individuals and choice. Men and women are life-forms born into existence by a certain biological process, develop ideally in a sound family environment, and whose legacy is assured by forming families of their own and having children(who will, in time, do the same). So, family must be recognized as the foremost bio-socialist unit in our formulation of what is best for society. In the aforementioned four scenarios of 2 men and 2 women competing for jobs and love in society, bio-socialism will favor the scenario of 2 men getting the jobs since everyone will get something. 2 jobs held by 2 men can support 2 families.

But the family has come under attack by capitalist feminism and other nut-job ideologies. Also, the role of mother has been mocked as 'having babies' as if that is all a woman does: Laying babies like a chicken laying eggs. In fact, babies soon grow into children, and raising a child is about molding him or her into a human with mind, heart, ideas, values, and etc. Every day, millions of new neurons are added to children's brains, and the process of their growth is amazing. Besides, what is ultimately more rewarding for a man and a woman to create than another thinking & feeling human being with heart and soul? Besides, all the products and services offered by professions and jobs exist only to serve human beings. So, creating and developing a new human being is the richest experience in life. It is the foundation of everything. The fact that the current West suppresses the creation of new life and relies on OTHER parts of the world to supply more life goes to show how decrepit our society has become. What good are 'Western Values' if they can't even encourage the creation of new life to carry on with the civilization? Progs say non-Westerners will come to the West, take on Western Values, and carry on. Even if we tell ourselves this is true(though it is not), won't Western Values eventually destroy the newcomers as well because they will be similarly affected and quit creating new life as their white predecessors? Globalist logic of 'Western Values' is like a death cult. You can have more freedom and more stuff to enjoy yourself, but the chances are you won't produce life and will die alone in misery. Therefore, newcomers from the Third World must be taught to carry on with Western Civilization, but then, even if everything according to plan, they will become just as non-productive as whites and fade away, requiring yet more newcomers to take up the slack. It's sort of like the scenario in LOGAN'S RUN where people can have a real Good Time as youthful citizens but must die before they get old so that a new batch of young people can take over. There is no sense of continuity. There's a reason why most of science-fiction offers dystopias than utopias. Technology is no substitute for life.

Life matters. It is why Michael Corleone says at the beginning of GODFATHER III that the most precious things in this world are children. "The only wealth in this world is children, more than all the money and power on Earth. You are my treasure." No matter how much wealth and power Michael accumulates, he will one day die, and then the ONLY people who will remember and care about him are his survivors, his children and grandchildren. His money, mansions, cars, and jewelry have no mind, no heart, no nothing... just like all the dead objects collected by Charles Foster Kane, after whose death, they will be disposed of or sold off to strangers. Only life loves, values, and remembers life.
But in our world, the Ideal is for a guy with well-paying job to marry a woman with a well-paying job(which means one less man with a well-paying job who can afford a family), and since both are too busy with work, the moral-and-mental development of the children is left to PC ideologues(teacher hacks) and the Mammon of Pop Culture that corrupts children from a young age.

The modern world is great for giving us freedoms that our ancestors didn't have and didn't know how to have(or what to do with them). And initially, modern people had both freedom and meaning, a sense of liberty and purpose. They were freed from traditional bonds but still morally and culturally informed by those bonds and values. It's like Michael Corleone has freedoms that his forbears didn't have in Old Sicily, but having grown up in a culture of family and values his sense individuality is informed by those bedrock values centered around family, life, and tradition. He has freedom but also cultural compass.

But as the cult of freedom took on a life of its own via ideological arrogance and hedonistic excess, the connection to a sense of purpose was lost.
Ideology gave people a sense of permanence through ideas when, in fact, ideas only exist in the organic minds of people as life forms. No people, no ideas. Ideas are nothing without minds to appreciate them, and minds are bio-mass of living matter.

If ideology filled people with a false sense of permanence via books & arts, entertainment made people feel that the Moment is Forever. Thus, people lost sight of the larger sense of time and history as they became hooked to pop music, TV, and movies that glorify the orgiastic hysterics of the moment. Humans went from organismic to the orgasmic. So, even middle aged men and women still feel like teenagers as they listen to pop music, watch Hollywood movies about caped heroes, or play dumb video games. And abortion has turned into child sacrifice on the altar of Orgasm-over-Organism.

We need to find a way to reconnect freedom with meaning and purpose.
The pussyhat feminists bitch and whine about 'freedom', as if Trump is going to turn them all into chattel slaves. But in fact, the real problem women face today is the sheer lack of meaning and purpose with all their misguided freedoms. They have freedom, but the choices they've made are terrible, not least because our reigning ideology and culture encourages women to act like tramps in SEX AND THE CITY, Lena Dunham, Miley Cyrus, Emma Sulkowicz, or one of those trashy shallow pseudo-intellectuals who write for NYT or yammer on NPR.

In a way, the oddly perverse alliance of feminists and Muslims suggests at something repressed within the modern feminist psyche. There is something deep inside that is crying out for meaning, order, purpose, and continuance. Is it any surprise that Lindsey Lohan and Sinead O'Connor are leaning toward Islam?

The history of mankind has offered people four basic choices:

1. Forcing people to do what is the right thing.

2. Forcing people to do what is the wrong thing.

3. Giving people freedom, and people freely doing the wrong thing.

4. Giving people freedom, and people freely doing the right thing.

The best of all possible worlds will have most people in #4 mode.
The worst of all possible worlds will have most people in #3 mode.

Now, why is #3 worse than #2? Why is a world where people are forced to do the wrong thing better than one where people freely do the wrong thing?
Because in the #2 scenario, there is still a political/social power that can make people do the right thing under a new policy. It is currently forcing people to do the wrong thing, but with a change of course, the system can correct its ways and force the people to do the right thing.
In contrast in the #3 scenario, the people have the freedom/power to do the wrong thing, and there is no higher power to stop them or correct them. This is why black problem today is worse than black problem during slavery. During slavery, whites forced blacks to be slaves, the wrong thing. And slavery had to end. But since whites still had the power, they could make blacks do the right thing with the end of slavery. In contrast, the corrupt and free blacks of today won't listen to anything since they got Agency and Power. But to do what with them? For many blacks, freedom means turning cities into more Detroits and Baltimores. Since the 1960s, blacks used their freedom to turn entire communities into neo-jungles and to bitch, whine, and holler like mad baboons. And since they have all the freedoms and rights under the law, they can just go on acting loutish.
In contrast, blacks in Cuba are in scenario #2. Cuban-style Socialism premised on Marxism-Leninism doesn't really work. It is the wrong thing. It keeps blacks doing what is economically backward and inefficient. However, the state still has control over the blacks, so if state policy were to change one day for the better, blacks can be pressured to do the right thing. In contrast, a lot of American blacks are hopeless. They got the power and freedom, but they use it for total lunacy and jungle behavior. And there is no power above them to say NO. Freedom can liberate but also corrupt, and there is nothing worse than corruption-under-freedom. Unlike corruption-under-tyranny where the people can't be blamed(as they must do as told), corruption-under-freedom means the people themselves freely chose to be vile and venal.

One might say #1 and #4 have same results and so are equally valid. Whether people are forced to do the right thing OR use their freedom to do the right thing, the end result is people doing the right thing. Still, we want freedom. We don't want to be forced to do things. We want liberty(or at least its semblance) than tyranny.

Under system #1, even those who want to do the wrong thing have no choice but to do the right thing.
Under system #4, those with the freedom to do the wrong thing still choose to do the right thing. That is true morality, but it's increasingly harder to come by these days because of family breakdown, cultural decadence, moral degeneration, and etc. After all, in order for people to freely do the right thing, they must be inculcated with good, sound, and healthy values, outlook, and understanding. But just look at the state of PC and Pop Culture. We are raising kids to be self-absorbed tards and snowflakes and loons. Why do so many kids get tattoos? They have no sense of time, of tomorrow and the long-term. They don't think, "Years will pass, and I will regret putting this ugly shit on my skin." No, all they care about is the NOW. If they think it's cool NOW, they must get it and the hell with tomorrow. And if they come to hate their own tattoos, they thinking adding more will fix the problem. What idiots.

In order for #4 to work, we need a society that promotes culture and values of maturity, sobriety, dignity, and integrity, like what Vito Corleone had(except for his role in organized crime, but then he was pressured into that life by thug Fanucci who was fleecing the neighborhood).
But if #4 is rendered impossible because our culture creates tons of idiots with PC and junk culture, then the only option is to go back to #1.

#1 is unpleasant even if it forces people to do the right thing because we want to be free and want people to do the right thing out of moral sense than out of social coercion. Still, #1 is the only option when #4 fails and slides us into a state of #3. The black American community, at this point, can be fixed only through the #1 option. Too many blacks have freely chosen to be total tards and stupid chillun.

Life is a form of energy.
The modern world has tons of energy made possible by electricity. Look at Earth at night from space, and entire areas are lit up with vast networks of electricity. We see the most lights in Western nations and East Asian nations. So much industrial and recreational energy... and yet, so little life energy, so little energy of reproduction. Modern folks are like moths before an artificial light. They are addicted to the false life of industrial energy that fills them with bright light, convenience, and entertainment, but they have lost the sense of real energy, that of life itself, the source of all things. Because industrial energy is so powerful and dazzling, those huddled around it feel so alive, but it's all an illusion. Watching TV filled with flashing images or playing some roller-coaster video-game may feel vibrant and alive, but it's all an illusion. Being around all that industrial energy has sapped modern man of life energy, that of family and creation of new life for legacy.

In contrast, the dark continent of Africa is having lots of kids and producing lots of life. They lack in industrial energy but they have something far more valuable: life energy.
And they will eventually move to the modern world with its aging and dying populations who prefer the artificial 'life' of industrial energy over the real energy of life around family and culture. The problem with black Africans is they have much in life energy but little in moral-and-mental energy that can shape life energy into meaning and purpose. Black behavior is in the mode of hump-and-jump, hardly different from those of chimpanzees and baboons.

Some people say we need to return to Christian values, but it's complicated. For starters, Christianity has always been a mixed blessing.
Christianity is like coal. It offers lots of spiritual heat and moral warmth. But it has to be handled with care with good ventilation. Why? What does coal produce? Carbon Monoxide or CO which is odorless and lethal.
The Church needs a good ventilation system. Yes, the Church teaches white folks to love mankind and be forgiving, and etc. That is a good message to warm the soul. But too much of anything is never any good. And excessive utopian save-the-world sermonizing of Christians can have the effect of CO.
So, we need to ventilate the Church. Give us the sermon about love and forgiveness, but air out the excess sanctimony that 'toxifies' people with holier-than-thou pied-piper-ism of racial extinction. Also, Christians need to be reminded that Jesus never said the world of man could be saved. He only said that man should try to be good and seek the Lord's grace in the afterlife.

On the Three C's. The 3Cs of Convenience, Conversion, and Convulsion. Wolf vs Dog. Negro vs White Man. Savage and Slavish. Civilization and Its Costs.

On Convenience, Conversion, and Convulsion.

Some people have noted that blacks have achieved least in the creation of civilization, complex societies, and high culture. And yet, maybe in a certain sense, blacks could take pride in not having been able to create Wakandas. After all, for every gain, there is a loss. And for every loss, there is a gain.

To create civilization, the slavish genes have to outnumber the savage genes. Obviously, slavish dogs are easier to control and handle than wolves. And yet, wolves are freer, wilder, and more robust. Dogs are more useful, more cooperative, and gentler, but they are comparatively wussier creatures than wolves.

The races that created civilization needed to be more slavish. Maybe natural forces, such as extreme cold that necessitated closer cooperation and delaying of gratification, made them more slavish, and then perhaps, 'civilizational' factors compounded the slavishness by weeding out the savage genes by execution or exile. So, as a community, such people could achieve more collectively, but this came at the cost of individual savage gene that was more robust, rambunctious, colorful, exuberant, and etc.

It’s like Chinese and Japanese built high civilizations, but they regarded by Modern Pop Cultural standards as colorless, mostly skin-and-bones, timid & sheepish, and not very good at singing, dancing, and sports. They are regarded as akin to dickless space aliens who appear at the end of CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND. The natives of Mexico may have built the great city of Tenochtitlan, but their descendants are deemed a dull, timid, and sheepish bunch. In order for them to have built civilization, they had to be have been more slavish than savage. (Granted, slave-made complex civilizations could carry out savage deeds like human sacrifice, but that's not the kind of savagery we are talking about. Savagery in our context means a primitive level of human existence and culture.)

Now, compare the wolfish Mongols with the doggish Chinese. Mongols, by Asian standards, are big & robust and have barbarian souls. They don’t like to take shit from anyone. They preferred to sack and loot other civilizations than build their own, but there’ something vital about their character, duly noted in the novel and movie WOLF TOTEM by a Chinese author who lamented that his Han tribe, in building civilization and establishing order, lost something vital and natural that the Mongols still possessed. For sure, Mongols in Sumo summarily bounce Japanese guys off the 'dojo' like ping pong balls. Though both Mongol and Japanese societies were warrior-centered, Mongols prized the robust and hale rider-hunter who took charge of things. In contrast, samurai favored the obedient subordinate and ruthlessly executed those who exhibited independent streaks; thus, a vital element of human nature was weeded out of the Japanese gene pool. This made the Japanese more cooperative and mindful of others, but it also made them duller and more neurotic. This is why so many Japanese are like the character Yohei in SEVEN SAMURAI.

Pitiful Yohei, the typical Japanese Male.

Because Negroes failed to develop civilization, they came to be subjugated by other races with superior organization, technology, and culture. And they became slaves in Arabia and the New World. But even if historical and economic circumstances made them more likely to be slaves, their nature was less suited for slavery(at least in a complex order). Blacks have more savage genes than slavish genes. From a modern social perspective, the black savage gene has been problematic because it made too many Negroes run wild and act like lunatics. But countless people also find it vibrant, exciting, manly, sexy, badass, and etc. Look at the worldwide success of rap music, reggae, and other black-infected pop music. And blacks have dominated so many of the world's most popular sports. No one watches Chinese sports outside China, but many millions of Chinese love to watch the NBA where big ass Negroes dunk the balls while being cheered by blonde women cheerleaders who now salivate over big muscular Negroes who be seen as the superior males.

Among all the arts, music is the most spontaneous and powerful, and blacks have been, pound for pound, the most dominant force in pop music in the 20th century with their contribution to or invention of blues, jazz, rock n roll, soul, reggae, rap, and etc. Such music arose from the savage genes, and it turns a lot of people on. Even though so-called 'black music' of the 20th century would not exist without white influence, input, and instruments, one could argue that the core energy is the black fire. It's like gasoline is useless without an engine, wheels, and other parts of the car, but it is the fuel that fires up the engine. So, even though something like Rock music owes a great deal to white contribution, much of its raw fuel is black coal. White influence gave it structure and style, but the core energy of beat, rhythm, and soaring/scouring vocals owes to something particular to blacks. (Similarly, much of the power in classical music owes to the Germanic soul that added an especially potent mix to the musical form invented by others.) In contrast, the world community is far less interested in the slavish-genes-music of, say, Mexicans or Chinese. Now, a musicologist could argue that there are no objective standards by which to argue that some music is 'better' than others. Also, popular doesn't necessarily mean better. Fast food is more popular than fancy food, but is it better? TRANSFORMERS made more money than worthier films, but it's certainly not better. And yet, there have been lots of great black music(and white rock fueled by black coal) that managed to be both popular and inspired, and that surely counts for something. As for rap, even though people like myself detest it as attitude and expression, there is no denying its appeal as a means of forceful expression that many find infectious.

So, in some ways, blacks may take pride in not having been able to build the Pyramids of Egypt -- most Ancient Egyptians were not black-black -- and the Great Wall of China. They were too independent-willed, too 'badass', and too wild to be subjugated into hauling bricks to build stuff for oppressive kings and queens. They preferred to run wild & free and chuck spears at hippos and then run from hippos when hippos had enough of the Negroes acting wild and funky.

For every gain, there’s a loss. Chinese may have built a great civilization, but look how scrawny they became. Non-Asian women feel no excitement about Chinese men, and just about any good-looking Chinese woman in the US would rather marry anyone but the men of her own race. Asian women are the Story of the Horniness of Women with Hots for Bigger/Tougher warriors. http://dailybruin.com/2012/11/29/rally-responds-to-incidents-of-hate-speech_1129_1129/ Despite the matter of Asians having higher IQ than blacks, if a white guy were presented with a chance to become a Negro or a yellow, he would likely prefer to be Long Dong Silver than Wong Dong Lee. Consider the first part of the animation movie HEAVY METAL where a white guy enters the body of a black guy and turns into a warrior-stud who humps white women. It was cuck-fantasy before cuckery took off. And all those white college boys cheer for black athletes as demigods that they wish to be. And the movie GET OUT is about how Liberal Whites actually see blacks as so superior that they want to kill blacks to take over black bodies. While whites may feel that Asian-ness is preferable on the cerebral level, most people's immediate responses tend to be visceral than intellectual. One can admire an athlete right away, whereas it takes time to appreciate a writer, scientist, or an artist. A woman can be turned on by a tough guy right away, whereas it takes time for a woman to appreciate an unexciting guy who happens to have good qualities as friend and companion. It's the same with men in how they react to women. Any man can look at a 'sexy babe' and be turned on immediately, but it will take some time to appreciate a homely woman who happens to have good qualities.

Animation Movie HEAVY METAL where a white boy enters a body of a black guy to hump white women.

Humanity operates, for good or ill, according to three main modalities: Convenience, Conversion, and Convulsion.

Civilization greatly improved the means of Convenience, and this has been especially true of the West(that came to change the Rest). Think of all the great Western scientists and techno-inventors who created stuff like cars, refrigerators, airplanes, machines, toilets, and etc, etc, that made life so much easier, more comfortable, and more convenient. We owe so much to such individuals, but how come they are almost invisible to us? Because the purpose of convenience is to serve us and make us forget it even exists. We don’t think about the technology of plumbing every time we use the faucet to drink water or flush the toilet. We are very glad to have such things, and they make life easier. But they don’t turn us on. They make life more bearable but not more pleasurable. They lessen the pain but don't intensify the pleasure. Once they've become a part of our lives, we really notice them ONLY WHEN they malfunction or are denied to us. Who thinks about water or electricity except when the service fails?
Also, they don't move us sensually or emotionally. Once the air conditioner is on, we hardly think about it or respond to it, any more than we think about the very oxygen we breathe, essential as it is. Elevators are useful but we don’t get excited about being inside one. Western civilization has been the king of convenience, but how many white folks are reading books about past inventors to get their jollies? Think of the guy who invented modern textile technology. He did something very great. But I don’t know his name and likely neither do you. Machines are essential for they exist to serve us and make life more convenient. And convenience is very very nice, even essential, but it’s utilitarian, not 'orgasmic'.

Then there is the matter of Conversion. It comes alive in the realm of ideas and emotions, the mind and heart. Religions and ideologies are 'conversionary'. Religions and ideology may require time and patience for us to appreciate. To truly understand Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, or whatever, we have to calm & control ourselves and do some intense reading & contemplating. And there is the need for prayer and meditation. Thus, we gain inspiration and the passion to serve something higher and greater than ourselves.
To understand ideologies, we have to attend meetings, read certain texts, and join discussions. In the end, religions or ideologies may be very fulfilling and transforming. They may provide us with the meaning of life, a sense of truth and righteousness, and the possibility of redemption and salvation. They make us realize that there’s a higher meaning to life, i.e. life isn’t just about material well-being but about spiritual, moral, and/or intellectual pursuit of truth.
The Middle East, Asia, and Europe achieved great things in 'conversionarity'. Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, Greek philosophy, Confucianism, and many schools of thoughts arose from those civilizations. Conversionary stuff may not make life easier in the physical/literal sense -- as the instruments of convenience do -- , but they are compelling because they imbue us with a sense of truth and meaning. And this is why some Muslims in the West still cling to their Old Faiteh. Sure, the Modern West offers a great deal in terms of convenience -- medicine, technology, and etc -- , but it’s not very meaningful to worship a refrigerator, ponder the significance of carburetors, or meditate on the truth of toilets. People find meaning by thinking about God, myths, high art, philosophy(ultimate meaning of life), history, moral progress, and etc.

When it came to matters of Convenience and Conversion, black African produced next to nothing. No great science/technology/invention. No great religion, philosophy, ideology, or school of thought.

But then, there is the power of Convulsion. Human eyes, ears, tongue, genitalia, and certain parts of the skin are all erogenous-like zones. Convenience makes the body comfortable. Conversion makes hearts and minds feel meaningful. But it’s convulsion that makes the erogenous-like senses explode like Juicy Fruit gum and go crazy.


Convenience is like a perfect chair that makes the ass comfortable. Conversion is the book one holds while sitting on the chair. In contrast, convulsion may not offer any long-term utility or any deep meaning, but it provides intense explosions of pleasure. It’s like a vibrator-dildo up a nympho’s pooter(though some might call it cooter).

Now, we could argue that humanity should be wiser and favor convenience and conversion over convulsion, but the power of pleasure(especially in our electronically-connected world overflowing with leisure) is so powerful for a lot of people that they’ve come to favor convulsion over all else. It’s like if you give cocaine to a monkey, it will just want more doses. It’s like once a boy or girl experiences orgasm, he or she has to look for more and more. It’s like once young ones listen to pop music, they don’t wanna do anything else but listen to more. It’s like sports addicts are crazy about sports 24/7. It's no wonder that Soma and Feelies are so crucial to the world of Aldous Huxley's BRAVE NEW WORLD. The Power figured that, instead of maintaining order through strict repression and regimen, people could be better-managed by making them carry out certain tasks in allotted roles for routine rewards of intense pleasure.

It is in the areas of convulsion that blacks pose the greatest threat to the white race. Though convulsion may be the opposite of convenience and conversion, paradoxically the power of convulsion became magnified because of the success of convenience and conversion. The Western triumph in convenience led to huge technological advances. As people in the West have all the basic amenities and own TVs/stereos/computers, their minds are barely fixated on convenience(even as their lives owe so much to it). In the 19th century, white farmers struggled to eke out a living. They had to grow food, and their minds were occupied with making life easier by gaining greater convenience with improved methods of agriculture and tool-making. Also, as there were no radios, TV, and stereos, fun and pleasure amounted to local folk dances and get-togethers where parents and preachers kept a watchful eye on the young ones(who had to grow fast into adulthood to take on backbreaking labor). And as morality and spirituality of Conversion guided society, sexuality was carefully regulated.

But today, we have enough food and water. We don’t worry about disease and cold. Also, religion has faded due to science, wealth, and education. And grand ideologies such as Marxism have lost their appeal in a world with far less need, one where even poor people get fat. If anything, 'idology'(the politics of idolatry) has supplanted ideology. Our social mores are more libertarian and freewheeling and hedonistic. So, people take basic necessities for granted and instead seek wild/intense pleasure through sports, music, movies, TV, porn, dating-services(aka hookups), and free sex.

Conversion also paved the way for the rise of convulsion. How? Because conversion-dialectic led to the emergence of the kind of political/social/moral philosophies that best served to create and maintain modern societies of peace, law, and order. Once such socio-economic-political success was achieved, people began to take ideas for granted. After all, how many people regularly read the documents of the Founding Fathers? How many read up on the history of advancement of law and ethics from Roman times to the present? Though some people do find intellectual fulfillment in reading and learning, most people don’t much care about ideas as long as life is pretty good for them. What passed for ‘ideas’ since the 'End of History' has been stuff like WWG(world war gay) and WWT(world war tranny).

But one thing people are mad about is pleasure and more pleasure. If you’re dying of thirst, a glass of water will suffice as pleasure, mainly to overcome the pain of thirst. But if you have all the water in the world, you want something like an ice cold beer or soda pop with the fizzle.

Since the success of the Modern West put people’s minds off convenience and ideas -- as their utility is taken for granted -- , people are looking for more and more pleasure. People on a cruise ship don't think about the engines, steering, plumbing, and myriad other things that make the trip possible. They are fixated on fun. Likewise, how many people watching a movie think about the machinery of film-making and film-projection? They are just fixated on the fun images on screen. How many people think about how their smart-phones work and what went into them in terms of ingenuity and innovation? They just want to trade 'butt pics' and 'dick pics'.

And it is in the area of convulsion that Negroes are beginning to take over.

Look at sports. Muscled Negroes dominate. White girls cheer for black studs and line up to have sex with Mandingos who give them the biggest orgasms. White boys in the stands cheer for black athletes like crazy. The emotional response of white male fans to black athletics is almost 'orgasmic'. White boys turn quasi-homo in their worship of black muscle and mastery on the field. They act like white cheerleaders. They scream their heads off like they’re having orgasms all over their bodies.

And consider the worldwide potency of rap music. Black guys sing about how badass they be, about how white girls worship their muscle and big dongs. And white girls have conniptions listening to that stuff. They ‘twerk’ their asses to rap as if they’re mounting big Negroes. And white boys listen to that stuff too and get quasi-homo jollies in their worship of black toughness and cool thug attitude. White rock critics sing hosannas to Kanye West. White guys try to emulate black rappers. White homo guys look for black guys to pump them in the ass.

Intense sexual pleasure are found through feelings of conquest or feelings of submission. White girls and white guys find great orgasmic pleasure in submitting to the Negro as Nature's Master(and in vicariously ‘sharing’ the conquest by the Negroes). There was even an article in DETAILS mag about how white elites are having 'mandingoes' hump their wives on their own beds. White wives must have the big Negro, and white guys can get off only by submission fantasies before black guys as the superior race over wussy whites. This has now caught on in Japan, with clubs where small Japanese men gather to see big black Americans hump Japanese women who, having caught jungle fever, are having more kids with black men and producing offspring who dominate Japanese sports and defeat weaker yellow guys.

The power of convulsion is huge in the current Globo-Homo-Afro-Shlomo order. It’s like WUTHERING HEIGHTS where some hussy runs off with Heathcliff. Or Kate Chopin's THE AWAKENING which I haven’t read but I think it’s about some white woman getting turned on by a mulatto. Or Jane Campion’s silly PIANO where some white hussy goes off with some white guy who’s gone native and acts the Maori warrior. She feels ‘liberated’ by sexually submitting to the ‘savage’.

We may admire Japanese contribution to the technology of convenience, but in the area of convulsion, Japan fails at least in its male-dom. East Asians make the bulk of world electronics, but what most people watch through TV, computer, and smartphone screens are whites and blacks than Asians(who are more likely to be depicted in cartoon form in anime or manga). Japanese males are seen as a bunch of 'scrawns'. Hard-working drones who make good radios but who count for zero in convulsion factor. On the other hand, Japanese women may offer some convulsion goodies since men prefer women who are feminine, and it seems men all over the world have fantasies about me-so-horny mama-sans.

Negroes achieved zero in convenience and conversion, but they seem to be masters of convulsion. And yet, this triumph of the Negro has been made possible by Western triumph in convenience and convulsion. Western invention of electronics, TV, stereo, and etc., made black music accessible in the bed room of every white boy and white girl. Western moral-intellectual development led to the feelings of ‘white guilt’, and MLK-ology is the reigning ideology of White folks. And of course, it was the white-made transport systems and economies of scale that led to whites going to Africa AND blacks coming to the West. Without the triumph of convenience, whites would have remained in the white world, and blacks would remained in the black world.

So, even though blacks are only really good at thuggery, humpery, and jiveassery, their power in these areas have been magnified as pleasure-drugs all over the globe through Western media. And ease of travel have sent Negroes all over the world to hump women of all color.

Pleasure may be fleeting, but it is intense(just look at the loonies who totally lose their minds during Santana’s ‘Soul Sacrifice’ in WOODSTOCK), which is why some druggies are hopeless. Also, there is an endless barrage of pleasure-inducing sounds and images via countless devices that service pop culture. Junkies may know that the drugs that give them convulsions are destroying them, but they are so addicted to the pleasure, they gotta have more and more and more. It’s like the orgasmo-orb in Woody Allen’s SLEEPER.


Just look at the state of UK today. You still have elites who are well-mannered, well-read, and well-spoken(though all seem to be committed to Diversity and Vulgarization of Society), but the main cultural interest now revolves around convulsion, especially in relation to the Negro. Andrew Sullivan the homo may find meaning in books and surely appreciates modern conveniences(created by so many white scientists and inventors), but where does he find the greatest pleasure in life? By having some muscled big-donged Negro pump him in the ass. Milo shares that excitement as he's 'married' to a homo-Negro. That pretty much sums up the essence of what the British elites stand for nowadays.


Today, Jews control much of the Convenience industry(especially in high tech) and the Conversion industry(academia, media, publishing, etc). Control of sectors like Silicon valley and finance technology gives Jews tremendous amount of wealth. And with that money, they’ve bought up all the media and funded much of the academia. And they use their control over conversion-spheres to promote ‘white guilt’ as the main moral-spiritual 'idology' of the age.

And as Jews own much of sports, media, TV, music, and porn, they work in cahoots with Negroes to push the Negro dope or Negrope on white junkies who are totally addicted to orgasmic convulsions from sports, rap music, porn, and even watching one’s own wives humped by Negroes.

So, as we look to the future, the issue is no longer a matter of which people created the greatest civilizations but which people produce the biggest convulsions for humanity?

Though non-blacks created the greatest civilizations, the price they had to pay was the rise of slavish genes over savage genes. The higher degree of slavishness among whites, Near Easterners, Hindus, and yellows enabled them to build bigger cities and get along better and obey orders. But they also grew wussier, wimpier, doglike, Dan-Quayle-like, and David-Cameron-like. Without inspired leadership from above, most non-blacks fear to step forward and take action. In the past, British elites led the British masses in defense and aggression. Today, with the elites have been brainwashed by Jewish Conversion and/or addicted to Negro Convulsion, they no longer rouse up the British masses for racial solidarity and national power. Your average Briton, left to his own devices, would rather accept national suicide than give offense to others with 'nasty views' such as 'racism'. His instincts are more slavish than savage.

Just like Japanese built high civilization but get bumped around by bigger & tougher Mongols(who excite Japanese ladies who also run around Yokohama looking for Negro studs) in the Sumo 'dojo', white folks built greater civilization but at the cost of becoming dweebier and doglike, at least when compared to blacks.

Even though the dweeby and doggish naturally fear the wolfish and savage, they are also turned on by displays of wolfish or pitbull-ish prowess. It’s like dogs are more impressed by wolves than vice versa, and female dogs will could well have bigger orgasmic convulsions with male wolves... and in time male dogs will find their jollies as quasi-homo bitches of male wolves. Looking forward to the future of wolfish Negro males and doggish white males?