Is there really a Difference between the Heaven’s Gate Suicide Cult and What is Now Happening in the West? — National Suicide Cult is Infinitely Worse than the Self-Destruction of a Tiny Cult

https://www.bitchute.com/video/xDsWg5zpOsA/


Is there a difference between Heaven's Gate Cult and what is now unfolding all across the West?

Heaven's Gate cult promised life but ensured death. But the followers blindly toed the line and went over the cliff. They weren't forced(as some members of Jim Jones cult were) but nevertheless felt obligated to go along to get along to fulfill their mission. And most likely, they felt it in their hearts to comply because they'd come under the sway of hocus-pocus presented to them a 'spiritual' redemption and rapture. Whatever trepidation they may have felt, it was overpowered by their sense of True Believer-ship. These people were not retarded or even necessarily Low IQ. But they came under the influence of a would-be guru who somehow persuaded them that his way was the only way, the ONLY path to goodness, salvation, and 'spiritual' superiority toward which one must cast away all skepticism & doubt and just believe! If not, the master would be disappointed and you couldn't be part of the special community. To 99.99% of people, Heaven's Gate cult and its members were surely fools, crazies, or retards. And yet, what is obvious in the other is often overlooked in oneself. It's like a religious person may find other religions ridiculous but fail to realize that the underpinnings of his own faith may seem just as ridiculous to peoples of other religions. So, people who are too quick to dismiss Heaven's Gate cult as merely crackpot should do some soul-searching and examine their own unquestioned beliefs(or unquestionable dogmas). After all, couldn't it be argued that what the Current West is undergoing is mass suicide based on false and even utterly ludicrous assumptions that, by the way, are not even to be questioned in respectable places and consequential institutions?

https://www.bitchute.com/video/LExhvzI1ptko/


People in the West are told that their civilization can survive ONLY with endless infusions of Diversity via mass-immigration/migration and, furthermore, can be redeemed only through heartfelt devotions to Jew Worship, Negro Adulation, and Homo celebration. And impervious to all facts and evidence to the contrary, countless white people not only believe but passionately FEEL that the globo-homo-shlomo-negro dogma is the only correct one, so much so that they seethe with contempt or even boil over with murderous hatred at those who say otherwise. But, let's consider the OBVIOUS. Mass immigration invariably leads to the Great Replacement. Look how the natives of the New World were replaced by immigrant-invaders from the Old World. Look how Palestinians were replaced by Zionist immigrant-invaders. Look how Kosovo, once the Serbian heartland, now belongs to Albanians. look how the once all-white London is now only 40% native British. As for the oft-touted elixir of Diversity, it leads to more dissension and/or atomization. All evidence have shown that blacks are by far the most destructive race; if other races are troublesome in wartime, blacks are wantonly destructive even in peacetime; even with full bellies, they love to rob, rape, loot, and burn down cities over any excuse. Jewish Power has shown itself to be hostile to whites or any goy majority that stands in the way of Jewish supremacist hegemony. Jews have pushed the Invade-Invite Strategy to swamp white nations with non-white immigrant-invaders and to destroy non-white nations(especially Arab/Muslim ones that have agendas contrary to those of Israel) with wars and/or sanctions. Globo-homo is a form of satanism, the very opposite of true spirituality/morality. It goes far beyond pleading for the rights of homosexuals to be tolerated as homo. The 'gay' agenda is essentially an insane mission to invert morality and values so that Jews can mind-fuc* the goyim and subvert all sense of autonomy of truth independent of what Jews demand and decree. So, globo-homo-mania would replace Christianity with Queertianity. Notice increasing numbers of churches that celebrate sodomy and tranny-penis-cutting over god and jesus. (Or they are flying BLM flags, as if the Black Ego and cult of Magic Negro are bigger than god.) If Jews can use globo-homo to convince you that a man who says he's a woman is really a 'woman', what else couldn't they do with your mind?
https://www.bitchute.com/video/E7A6LL74Ccxf/


And yet, Jews didn't 'win the culture war' in a world of free inquiry, open debate, facts, and reasoned logic. Instead, they turned the academia from a center of free debate into a monopolistic bastion of political correctness and conformity. And they used their power of media & entertainment to idolize and 'iconize' certain ideas, agenda, and biases as quasi-holy and beyond the realm of debate and discussion. The mantras must be chanted, the dogmas must be BELIEVED, and the idols must be worshiped; otherwise you're a heretic.
A religious fanatic is far more impossible to deal with than an arrogant intellectual. An intellectual, however snobby and contemptuous, believes he is right because his ideas are correct or better. As such, at the very least, he's open to debate, as with the cases of Christopher Hitchens and Noam Chomsky. In contrast, a religious fanatic believes his views are not merely true but holy, therefore those who disagree are heretics who should be burned at the stake.
And yet, being religious per se doesn't necessarily make one a fanatic, as there are plenty of religious people who've accepted the need for tolerance, forgiveness, and even a bit of skepticism. And of course the virtue of humility. After all, can anyone really know the ultimate truth or the divine mind when even God is full of contradictions in the Old and New Testaments(and in the Koran)? Furthermore, one doesn't need to be religious to be fanatical with quasi-religious fury. Even an atheist can feel so passionately about something — his vision of justice, his hope for redemption, his cult of collective guilt, or his sense of awe regarding a particular person or group — that he can feel and act like religious fanatics of old. Consider the save-the-world cult around Climate Change. PETA's almost 'spiritual' view of animals. The Shoah as Holocaustianity, where we must believe in the 6 million number as numerology and convince ourselves that no people suffered as much as Jews and that all their suffering made Jews especially wise and noble.
Consider the hysterical hatred among those who believe homos are holy, and therefore the rejection of 'gay marriage' isn't merely wrong but evil. And of course, the mindless cult of MLK and Negroes as akin to a demigod-race. Such dogmas and idolatry go to show that one can be atheist, materialist, and nominally rationalist and yet still come under the spell of irrational convictions. (It is precisely because of the hysterical and even violent nature of these passions that even the skeptical and non-committed choose to keep their heads low and speak out. Whereas rational people or genuine liberals may engage with opposing views, true-believers and fanatics will call for the heads of heretics and renegades. It's like New York Times went from arguing for more 'gay rights' to decreeing that no further argument should be tolerated once the institutional consensus of 'gay marriage' has been reached. It's like the HAL computer, which has a god-complex, shutting off all further dialogue with David Bowman in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. It knows best, and that's that.)

For many people, PC began as a status-thing. They jumped on the bandwagon not with great passion or deep conviction but because it seemed the proper thing among the 'better kind of people', aka the educated, sophisticated, cultured, and/or 'progressive'. But just like social drinking can lead to full-blown alcoholism among some, PC went from a matter of status to a matter of sanctity once its ruthless logic kept dissecting and 'dichotomizing' the world between 'are you with us' and 'are you against us'. It went from chic to shrill. Worse, it went from an ideology, where good-or-bad was a matter of ideas and values, to an intoxicated case of idolatry, whereby certain groups(especially Jews, Negroes, and Homos) were holy simply for their identities whereas certain other groups, especially whites, were deemed innately evil(or just 'meh') for their identities.
Given all such craziness, it's no wonder so many white people are blind to their own cultish lunacy that has spread from elite institutions right down to the unwashed masses, all of whose hearts and minds are at the mercy of media/academia controlled by Jewish Supremacists whose long-term plan for the white race is White Nakba and reduction of white people into commodities to be traded like corn and pork bellies. Jewish Power is to the white race what Jewish pornographers are to white 'sex workers'. Jews are masters and owners, whites are meats and property.

Consider how the entire Irish people, from educated elites to the lowly masses, are now little more than mental putty and human-property of the Globo-Homo-Shlomo-Negro agenda. The current Irish Policy will surely lead to national suicide, but the majority of the Irish just go along(and Poland is following in the same trajectory). Too many Irish have been persuaded that Irish racial survival is not only secondary to other concerns but even downright 'evil' as a form of 'racism' and 'white supremacism'. As Irish are white, how dare they think of Irish interests? White concern for white survival must be 'evil' because the globalist agenda insists that the holiest of the holies are Jews, Negroes, and Homos, and therefore, the Only Good Whites are those who put their own identity and interests in the back-burner and prioritize what is demanded of them by Jews, homos, and Negroes.

So many white people have bought into this crazy suicide cult. They are embracing what is most harmful and deadly to them as the very stuff of life, meaning, and redemption. They’ve chosen to be willfully blind. The Irish are happy to piss away their nation and heritage in their worship of sodomy, diversity, and colonization of Irish wombs with black seed. Then, how is this any different from the madness of the Heaven's Gate cult? If anything, it is far worse. After all, Heaven's Gate had no impact outside the cult itself. In contrast, the current mania of globo-homo-shlomo-negro cult has swept through the entire West. It is preached in college campuses, promoted by mass media/entertainment, and provided with mass funds by the richest oligarchs, both Jewish and goyim. (Jews surely know this is a death cult for whites because they do not push the same lunacy on Israel. In the land of Zion, they push nationalism, heritage, and natal-oriented family formation among their kind. But because Jews are so revered by stupid whites, Jewish power goes unquestioned and Jewish hypocrisy goes overlooked. To be sure, some do notice this discrepancy in the Jewish outlook, but the proposed solutions are hardly any better. Some on the white 'left' argue that, since white nations are nobly committed to Diversity & Great Replacement as a virtue, Israel should jump onboard too. A saner argument would be, "What works for Jews should work for us", i.e. nationalism for every people. Instead, the 'left' offers, "What doesn't work for us should be forced on Israel so that it won't work either" on the assumption that anything that destroys nationalism is good for mankind. As for the white 'right', especially the cucks at Conservatism Inc., the general notion is that Jews are deserving of special privileges of nationalism and identity because they are a greater and superior people. Such cucks look up to Jews as serfs once looked up to aristocrats.)

Ideally, national leaders should aspire to lead and defend their own people. And they should use the media and academia to instill the national masses with patriotism, solidarity, and pride. But Jewish-supremacist-dominated globalism has bought off the elites all over the world. They are offered super-rewards of money, privilege, and status for collaborating with World Jewry in the spread of Goy National Suicide Cults. As most elites are vain status-seekers, their priority is to be in good graces with the masters of globalism who have the handle on the trends and treats(to be doled out to be obeisant and servile).

The What-If-Most-People Game: An Easy Way to Tell if YOUR IDEAS & VALUES are Sound and Valid for Most of Society

What would be the simplest way to test as to whose ideas, values, attitudes, and mindset are best or most ideal for society as a whole? One of the easiest way would be to theorize as to what society would be like IF most people think, feel, and do as YOU do. After all, while any society can tolerate, weather, and overcome some degree of bad behavior and destructive tendencies, NO society can last for long if too many people indulge in wrong kinds of behavior. So, a sane, sound, stable, and healthy kind of society is one where most people do what is good, right, responsible, and constructive.

For example, suppose there are two people: Bob and John. Bob doesn't use illicit drugs whereas John is into drugs. Now, which is better? Not using illicit drugs or using them? Bob says it's better to forsake drugs. John says it's better to use them. So, who is right? First, imagine a society where most people are like Bob and don't use illicit drugs. Then, imagine a society where most people are like John and use plenty of illicit drugs. I think most of us can agree that a society where most people don't use drugs functions better than one where most people indulge in drugs. Does anyone want to live in a society full of meth-heads, heroin addicts, and the like? Even most druggies will likely admit that they don't want to live a society run by druggies. Even as they argue for legalization of many drugs, they surely don't want engineers, managers, and other essential workers to be druggies.

Now, take gambling. Is gambling good or bad for society? Suppose Jerry doesn't gamble and finds it to be wrong. Suppose Billy thinks gambling is awesome. What would be better? A society of Jerrys or a society of Billies? Would it be better if most people don't gamble or do gamble? My guess is that even people into joys of gambling would agree it wouldn't be such a great idea to have a society where MOST people gamble. Gambling is not only a vice but mass theft by oligarchs(who in the US happen to be Jewish) from the middle class and working class(and even from senior citizens and poor folks who don't know any better and become addicted to the habit).

Or take prostitution. Suppose Sarah is against it while Skankura is for it. Who would be right? Would society be better if most women are NOT prostitutes? Or would society be better if most women are prostitutes. Even among proponents of legalization of 'sex work', can they honestly say that a society where most women are involved in the sex industry would be better than one where most women aren't? Would it be good for families if most mothers were hookers on the side? Would it be good for society if fathers raised their daughters to be slut-skank whores? Would it be a better society if your mother, sister, cousin, aunt, niece, and daughter were into stripping, porn, prostitution, or S&M for money? Seriously? While we can understand the logic of libertarians who argue for legalization of 'sex work' on grounds of individual choice and free enterprise, surely even most of them know full well that it would NOT be good for society if most women were skankass whores.

Now, take homosexuality and tranny-stuff. Granted, this has less relevance to reality since most homos were born that way and only a handful of kooks are trannies. The fact is most people will never be homo. Even with all the gender-confusion pushed by MSM and academia, most men and women are not going to declare themselves homo. Still, there is the PC notion that homosexuality and trans-genderism are just as valid as real-natural-normal sexuality. They insist that 'heteronormativity' is some kind of mentally sick social construct. They say 'gender is fluid' and anyone can declare himself or herself to be anything, and all these various 'genders' are equal in value and validity. Okay, that being their premise, suppose there is Cary and Nico. Cary is real-sexual and believes a society where most people are proudly real-sexual is best for society. In contrast, Nico is a homo and believes his fruitishness to be just as valid as real-sexuality, aka heterosexuality. Nico believes homo fecal penetration is just as valid and 'natural' as real-sexuality between men and women. So, who is right? Imagine Cary's Society where most people are straight real-sexuals where men and women procreate to produce kids. Then, imagine Nico's Society where most people are fruitkins who bugger each other in the ass or tranny freaks with their dicks and balls cut off and equipped with fake vaginas. Seriously, which society would be better? Which society has better chance of mental health, moral equilibrium, and chance for continuance & survival? Is it really true that all 'genders'(as social constructs) are equally valid? (Also, if 'gender' is a social construct, why does PC say homos are biologically born that way? Is there any consistency in the logic of so-called 'woke' folk?)

How about gluttony? Some argue for 'Body-Positivity' Movement. They say that being a fatty fatkin is glorious and a badge of pride(and lard of honor). But is it really good to eat like a pig and be grossly obese? Suppose Jack believes in eating moderately, exercising, and staying slim. He believes a good society is one where people watch what they eat and watch their weight. In contrast, Otis believes people should eat all they want and there's no shame in being a fatty fatso. So, which society would be better? A society of Jacks or a society of Otises? One where people eat healthy and stay slim, or one where people eat grossly like hippos and look like hippos as well? Again, the answer should be obvious. Then, one wonders why the media, via fashion magazines and the like, push the notion that Fat is Beautiful and just as okay as being slim and trim around the weight?

How about Open Borders? Would it be better for society for most people to oppose the Great Replacement or welcome it? Would it be better for Hungary if most Hungarians were against the Hungarian Nakba or if most Hungarians were for it? For those who are unfamiliar with the term 'Nakba', it was the national tragedy that befell Palestinians when they were colonized, expelled, and replaced on their native territory by European Zionist-Immigration-Imperialists. (As you all should know, Endless Immigration = Genocide or Nakba. If just a trickle of Jewish Immigrants had entered Palestine, Palestinians would still have owned their land and would have tolerated a small Jewish minority. But Jewish Immigration was endless and came to replace the Palestinians... just like endless non-white immigration turned whites in California into a minority. Endless immigration also turned native Hawaiians into a minority in their native ancestral islands.) Anyway, suppose there are two Hungarians. Viktor is opposed to the Hungarian Nakba. He says NO to Endless Immigration, or Replacement Immigration. He believes Hungary will fare best if MOST Hungarians agree with him. Against him is Miklos who sucks up to Jewish globalists like George Soros and welcomes Endless Immigration, one that is sure to lead to the Hungarian Nakba where the native folks are turned into a minority in their own ancestral lands by Africans, Arabs, Muslims, Asians, and others. Miklos wishes MOST folks would agree with him and welcome the Hungarian Nakba. Now, which Hungary will be better off? One where most people think like Viktor or one where most people think like Miklos? If most people think like Miklos, the fate of Hungary will be like the fate of Palestine where the native Palestinians were replaced by European Zionist-immigration-imperialist Jews.

How about Jew-Worship? Would it be better for society if most people said NO to Jew-Worship or if most people said YES to Jew-Worship? Suppose there are Kevin and Lindsey. Kevin thinks it is dangerous for goyim to mindlessly worship and obey Jews who, though smart and creative, tend to be cunning, hostile, vicious, nasty, contemptuous, and exploitative over 'dimwit goyim'. Kevin thinks society would do best if most goyim, while not going full-Nazi, remained wary and cautious about Jewish narratives, agenda, and power. Don't dehumanize Jews but don't deify them either.
In contrast, shabbos goy Lindsey says Jews are oh-so-wonderful-great-awesome-wise-holy-oustanding-and-etc. in every way and then some. Jews are the most sacred, most tragic, most tremendous race of noble folks that ever existed on the face of this planet(and maybe the entire cosmos). If Jews want it, we must give it. If Jews demand, we must fulfill. If Jews command, we must obey. Lindsey believes goy society will be best off if MOST goyim were committed in blind faith to serving, honoring, and appeasing Jews on grounds that what Jews want for themselves and for us must be the BEST thing.
Now, which society would fare better? One where most goyim are like Kevin and remain skeptical of Jewish claims and criticize Jewish abuses OR one where most goyim are like Lindsey and grovel at the feet of Jews as the god-race? Especially since the end of the Cold War, the US embarked on Lindsey-ism and look at the results. Have they been good? The Wars for Israel, bailouts of Jewish banksters, the pornification of mainstream culture, the spread of interracism-jungle-fever-and-ACOWW(Afro-Colonization of White Wombs), anti-white PC propaganda, feminist wedge between white men and white women, Christianity replaced with Globo-Homo Queertianity, White Nakba & Replacement Immigration, new 'cold war' with Russia, and etc.? Has Lindsey-ism been a blessing for America?

And we can go on and on with the game of What-If-Most-People. Given that the health of society depends on what MOST people do, a good society is one where most people do what's right while a bad society(soon to be no-society at all) is one where most people(or enough people) do what's wrong. Needless to say among those cognizant of HBD(human bio-diversity) truths, this isn't only a matter of morality but biology. Some races are more prone to do the wrong thing given their genetic inclinations. Blacks, having evolved to survive in a state of savagery, are hardwired to act against civilizational norms. So, freely left to their own devices, most(or too many) of them will act wrongly and turn once-fine cities like Detroit into hell-holes. White people are genetically hardwired to make more civilized choices while blacks are genetically hardwired to make more savage choices. Whites tend to Europeanize, blacks tend to Africanize. So, a healthy modern society is one where most people are white than black; indeed, blacks in the West can enjoy modernity ONLY BECAUSE they leech off whites; even black achievements under slavery in the Americas owed to white supervision as, after all, black slaves under black rule in black Africa wielded no great results. Though, hypothetically speaking, it's possible for a society made up mostly of black people to have righteous Negroes who act responsible and moral, real-world results invariably show that too-many-blacks lead to 'savagerization'. Likewise, while we can hypothetically imagine a society full of Japanese where most act like jive-ass jiggerish savages, the likelihood is that a society full of Japanese will act in a cooperative and stable manner.

Another factor to consider is that one mustn't confuse 'most' with 'all'. While society is best off if MOST people act in a certain way in accordance to certain values and norms, it wouldn't necessarily be good if ALL people or each-and-every-person acted that way. This is especially true in science and the arts. Certain talents and abilities are inseparable from certain neuroses and eccentric(and often troublesome) tendencies. Many great artists tend to be half-mad or nutty in some way. So, while it wouldn't be good for society if most people had the personalities of Beethoven, Richard Wagner, Brian Wilson, Bob Dylan, and John Lennon, creativity and artistry have benefited from the presence of a small minority of mavericks, rebels, outcasts, and eccentrics. Indeed, this is why homosexuality has been beneficial to civilization as a creative outlier. While homosexuality is biologically useless, morally troublesome, and culturally problematic, the 'gay' sensibility has a way of seeing things that has contributed greatly to the arts, design, and perspectives. So, just because society is best off if MOST people act such-and-such, it doesn't mean ALL people should be that way. Certain social rewards are inseparable from the problems that surround them. It's like there's no honey without the bee stings, there's no championship in boxing without getting hit many times. The good can be attained only through the bad.

Still, for MOST people, there are certain values and standards that are best for society-as-a-whole, and it is essential that the great majority of people adhere to certain values and attitudes. But in our sick, decadent, and degenerate order, such sane-majoritarianism is looked down upon. Fashion magazines push fatties as idols of beauty and health. Cities put on massive globo-homo parades and children are read to by trannies on the premise that 'gay is sacred'. The once-Christian West totally bows down to the demands of Jewish Supremacism as if Jews are deities than flawed humans. Once proudly white nations welcome the Great Replacement or White Nakba. Even though blacks are the most destructive race(by their genetics), the White West worships blacks as demigods and celebrates ACOWW. Even though drugs are harmful for the most part, they are pushed on everyone as soma, soma, soma. Gambling went from a vulgar vice to a 'moral' industry that provides 'reparations' to American Indians. Women get their values from shows like SEX AND THE CITY and GIRLS by Lena Dunham. Skankery has been made the New Normal by Disney run by Jews. Under Jewish Power, society is made to push MOST people to choose the Wrong over the Right. Apparently, Jews fear any notion of majoritarian morality because they are a minority-elite and, as such, fear majority values as threatening to Minority Privilege. So, Jews are hellbent on making the majority accept minority-deviance as the New Normal. This is a terrible thing for the West(and the Rest that still looks to the West to lead the world).

'Refreshing' the Native or Majority Population of a Nation is a Bogus Idea — Why doesn't Israel share its formula for natal success with the White World — The Sheer Worthlessness of the White Elite that doesn't Protect and Serve their People but Plan for their Demise under Orders from Jewish Supremacists

The argument for Population 'Refreshment' is totally bogus. According to some globalists, mass migration isn't about the Great Replacement but something closer to Great Replenishment. The logic argues that since the native populations(generally white and East Asian) are not having enough kids to maintain existing population levels, there must be massive influxes of foreigners to keep up the current demographic equilibrium. It's like, if water in a cup keeps evaporating, more water has to be added to maintain the water level. Therefore, mass immigration shouldn't be regard as being about replacing white people but about replenishing them(indeed doing them a favor) because their balls and wombs have dried up and fail to produce More Life that is so vital to the future of the country. But this is a totally BS argument for several reasons:

1. If the point of mass migration is to maintain current population levels, why do globalists push for migration levels to vastly INCREASE the national population? Suppose there is a nation with 50 million whites, and due to low birth rates, the population will dwindle to 30 million in a generation. So, the globalists argue that 20 million foreigners must be brought in to keep the population at 50 million. But do globalists argue thus? No, they argue that the nation needs more and more and more immigration-invasion because More Diversity is always a good thing. So, they would not be aiming to keep the population at 50 million but to increase it to 60 million, 70 million, 80 million... 100 million and so on. Globalists argue that white nations can't have ENOUGH non-whites coming. Emanuel Macron wants 100s of millions of black Africans to come to Europe, beat up weaker white guys, take over sports and pop music, and colonize white wombs.

The US population was 225 million in 1980. If indeed the globalists were worried about existing Americans not having enough kids and the resulting fall in population, then they should have called for just enough immigration to keep the population at 225 million. But that is NOT what they did. They said more and more and more should come, and now the US population is over 325 million, or probably over 350 million if we include all the illegals. So much for immigration as a means to replenish the existing population that aren't having enough kids. It appears globalist mass-migration-invasion agenda is really to inundate white nations to the bursting point with non-whites in the crazed notion that Diversity is some magical formula; whereas US and Canada at least have lots of land for newcomers, European nations & New Zealand do not, but globalists push it on ALL white nations.

It's all the more idiotic(and immoral) when we consider Diversity in the New World has been the product of conquest, imperialism, colonialism, genocide, slave trade, and demographic invasions. After all, the Americas were once 'homogeneously' brown(or 'red' in North America). There were no whites, yellows, Hindus, Muslims, Africans, and etc. It only had the 'red' and brown natives. Then, what led to the Americas becoming crazily diverse? First, whites conquered and added diversity to the New World by taking over territories and 'raping' the natives. Then, whites added further diversity by bringing over millions of blacks to North and South America(and Caribbeans) without any approval from the natives who were never consulted over anything. Thus, the natives lost out not only to whites but to blacks. And then, to put down railroad tracks and man the factories, whites called on More Immigration from all over the world. So, what is so morally ennobling about Diversity when it's been the history of imperialism? And now, whites who once used Diversity to enrich themselves and boost their own power are being colonized and destroyed by their own tool(turned into suicidal weapon). Of course, to Jews(who now rule the roost), Diversity is a means to cause dissension among goyim so that Jews, as supremacist elites, can play divide-and-rule among the bickering and mutually negating goyim.

If anything, Diversity is not a cure for 'white guilt' but a furtherance of it. The New World became diverse precisely because of the 'historical crimes' of white people. Diversity is NOT something that the indigenous folks of the Americas asked for or celebrated. It was imposed on them by white invasion, white importation of black slaves, and white promotion of mass-immigration to create civilizations in the New World modeled on the Old. If 'good white people' are serious about redressing their 'historical sins', then they must realize that Diversity is the biggest consequence of their conquest, semi-'genocide', and mass-'rape' of the New World. To the indigenous folks, immigration was simply invasion, displacement, and even mass extermination by conscious policy or by outbreaks of disease to which they had no immunity.

Now, one could bring up the issue that the US(and even Latin America) for most of their history generally limited legal immigration to whites from Europe. Some might say this was 'racist' and 'exclusive', but we need to consider two things. (1) As they founded and built the new nations, it was their right to decide the demography, language, culture, and mythos of their nations. If non-whites of the Old World wanted to define the Americas, then THEY should have gotten off their asses, built ships, risked lives in ocean voyages, and conquered the lands before Spaniards and Anglos did. They most certainly did NOT, so they have NO RIGHT to lay claims on the Americas. (2) As white folks took the land from the native peoples of the New World, they owe something to those indigenous people and to NO OTHER. American Indians have valid reasons to gripe about the loss of their sacred hunting and burial grounds, but by what right should Asian Indians bitch and whine about how THEY are owed mass entry into the Americas? It's like Jews owe something to Palestinians because the land was taken from the latter. Imagine a bunch of Africans, Asians, and Latin Americans saying they have a moral right to move to Israel because Jews took it from Palestinians.

Anyway, when white folks allow more immigration, they are furthering the conquest of the New World that had, for 10,000s of years, belonged to the Red Man and Brown 'Indios'. This moral dilemma is quite evident in the case of Hawaii. If only the whites had invaded and took over from the Fat Hawaiians, it wouldn't have been so bad. Then, Hawaiians would have lost their island to just ONE people. But insane whites invited tons of Asians to come over(of course without consulting the native Fat Hawaiians), and that led to Fat Hawaiians losing their beloved land not only to whites but to all shades of yellow. And we know what mass immigration did to Palestinians in what had once been Palestine, wiped off the map to make way for Israel. (And yet, Jews tell lies about how Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map. Yeah, let's just forget Palestine was really wiped off the map, and West Bank is now targeted for the same fate. How vile. Yet, these Jews see fit to pass judgement on Goyim.)

2. A nation is not a number. In the end, a people, land, and culture are not defined by numbers, not by quantity but by identity. If anything, a nation should fear mass immigration precisely when its population is declining. For example, if whites have high birthrates, non-white mass-immigration would be less threatening to the survival of White America because growing white population would keep the nation majority-white. But if white numbers are falling while non-white numbers are swelling, the traditional Anglo/European character of America will be lost forever. All throughout history, nations/kingdoms/states underwent tremendous rises and falls in populations due to disease, wars, and other tragedies.



Jews surely understand this better than anyone. Jews lost millions in the Shoah. Now, suppose someone went to Jews and suggested that the Jewish community should include '6 million' non-Jews as New Jews to make up for the dead ones. But, such would reduce Jewishness to a mere number. After the devastation of WWII, Jews understood that in order for Jews to regrow, they had to cling to their identity and have more Jewish babies. Jews love to push the notion of 'New Europeans', but how would they like it if we insisted Jews should welcome tons of Arabs and Asians as 'New Jews' with full rights to move to Israel if they wish.

3. Speaking of Israel, Jews will say Israel has no need for mass immigration because it has a healthy birthrate among both Jews and Arabs. No need for replenishment when, if anything, the problem may be Over-Population in the Holy Land(turned into globo-homo Sodom and Gomorrah by modern Jews gone satanic). (But if over-population is the problem, why does Israel call for ever more immigration of Jews? It seems there's always more room for Jews, especially as more Palestinians in West Bank are slated for expulsion and erasure.) Anyway, if Israel has a healthy birthrate among both Jews and Arabs, it must be doing something right in the natal department. Since Israel arrived at a solution for demographic equilibrium(and even growth), shouldn't Jews be sharing their successful formula with the West(and East)? If it works for Jews, why wouldn't it work for white folks in Europe, Canada, Australia, and the US(not to mention places like Japan and Singapore)? But, Jews never seem to urge whites and other goyim to follow in the footstep of Jews. "Natalism for us Jews, Negation for you goyim." It's like Jews are mono-nationalist and believe Jews and Only Jews are worthy of national identity, national pride, and national territory. All other people are like cattle to be herded, domesticated, and controlled. Jewish Power isn't actually for 'white genocide' as Jewish Power would crumble without white managerial and military support. What Jews are after is White Herding, White Cattling, White Domestication. Jews are FREE to have identity and pride and be masters of the world. In contrast, whites, along with other goyim, are to be branded, herded, hormone-injected(mainly with estrogen), and when necessary gelded to serve Jewish Power. 'White Guilt' is the psychological whip used against whites(as the horse for the Jew to ride, the crypto-theme of Steven Spielberg's WAR HORSE: For the boy to love the horse, the horse must serve the boy; likewise, for the Jew to value the goy, the goy must serve the Jew, just like John McCain, Mitt Romney, Charlie Kirk, and even Donald Trump, a wilder horse who nevertheless is most loyal when Netanyahu and arch-Zionists are sitting on his back).

Anyway, if Jews found a secret to healthy demographic sustenance in Israel, shouldn't they be sharing it with the world, especially the Western World? After all, Israel prides itself as a bastion of 'Western Values'. If so, why not share its secret to National Life with the West that is suffering from birth dearth among whites? Jews constantly remind themselves and press upon whites that Israel must be vigilant and fecund to survive as a Jewish nation. Jews demand upon whites to sympathize with the challenges of Jews to maintain Israel as their Homeland by all means necessary. And yet, these very same Jews in Israel and abroad are telling white people to forsake their own racial identities and national territoriality. They say that whites must welcome Africans, Asians, and Arabs as 'New Europeans' or else be condemned as 'racist', 'xenophobic', and even 'nazi'. Tons of Israeli activists actually aid the mass movement of non-whites to Europe. Jews say white people should have a heart and open their nations to 'refugees', but (1) most migrant-invaders are not refugees but economic opportunists and (2) most real refugees are fleeing from Wars for Israel instigated by Jewish control of US deep state & media and The Lobby.

Anyway, what's good for the Jews should be good for the Neander(thals, aka Europeans). Just how did Israel, a modern nation-state, manage to procure healthy birthrates for itself? Does it have something to do with national pride? Sure, a people who are more positive about their own kind want to produce more of their kind. Does it have something to do with Israeli leaders representing Jewish people? After all, the main role of national elites is to protect and serve their own folks. THAT is their main duty, just like the main duty of the police is to 'serve and protect'. Imagine if cops aided trespassers, burglars, and invaders against the well-being of home-owners. That'd be terrible, but that's the kind of elites that white people have. Take the worthless traitor cuck governor of Minnesota who says his state is all about endless immigration-invasion from Africa, and if white-Americans who built up that state have reasons to complain, they should shut up or leave. With elites like that, who needs foreign occupiers? Sadly, via the power of media and academia(largely controlled by Jewish globalists whose motto is 'Identity for me but not for thee'), even many of the white masses are totally supportive of their own replacement because... 'muh white guilt', 'muh restaurant', and 'muh hipster creds'. (Is Somali cooking all that great?)

Anyway, what is the point of having national elites if they don't defend the nation's foundation and definition, if they don't defend their folks, culture, and land? Imagine the leader of Israel telling Jews to shut up about their identity and that his main priority is to allow massive non-Jewish immigration so that Jews will end up just like the Palestinians before them: Replaced and non-peopled. Fortunately for Jews, the Israeli State ensures the Jewish population that the government and all top institutions are always looking out for their interests above all else. No wonder Jews want to have kids in Israel.
Another factor for Jewish birthrates in Israel is ethno-consciousness and ethno-competition. The Jewish state and media never tire of reminding Jews that they better have lots of kids because, otherwise, the damned Ay-Rabs will overtake the Jews and turn Israel back into Palestine. And Rabbis are hard at work telling Jews that they must have kids for spiritual and ethnic reasons than merely for personal or material ones.
Jews do all that, but when it comes to the West, they order their white goy cuck-collaborator elites to denounce white identity, white unity, and white obligations. So, while Jewish folks have Jewish elites who look out for them in Israel and around the world, white people have elites who tell them to shut up about their whiteness, piss on their own past, welcome replacement diversity, wave the globo-homo flag, and celebrate ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs via jungle fever and cuckery. When Hungary went about trying to reverse its population decline with pro-family policies, Christian values, and nationalism, Jews shrieked like hysterical rats even though they have no problem with Israel using nationalism, pro-family policies, and Judaic values to boost its Jewish population.

If Jewish elites serve the Jewish People, white elites serve the Jewish elites and snub white folks who are constantly excoriated by both Jews and cuck-collaborators that 'whiteness' is a myth and that even European history was always as much 'African' and 'Muslim'(and of course Jewish) as Greco-Hellenic, Germanic, Celtic, Latin, Slavic, and Christo-Pagan.
Jewish elites and cuck-collaborators plan for replacing the white masses with a new people, but what really needs to happen is for white masses to replace the Jewish elites and cuck-collaborator scum with New Real Elites — Donald Trump ain't it as the stupid moron turned out to be just a loudmouthed neocon shill who blabbers about nothing but Israel, Israel, Israel while insulting Palestinians whose homeland was destroyed by massive Jewish immigration. Anyway, Jewish natal success in Israel seems to have something to do with (1) unity of Jewish elites and masses (2) generous economic incentives to those who have lots of JEWISH kids (3) raising awareness of natal competition from Arabs. But if whites in the West were to resort to the same strategy to boost white birthrates, we know these hypocritical Jews would scream 'Nazi', 'racism', 'xenophobia', 'hate', and 'fear-mongering'.

4. Finally, if indeed the national population is falling, return the land to nature. Animals and plants can always use more land. Birds can always use more habitat. It's good to have more forests, ponds, and prairies. It's good for nature, it's good for the environment. Also, if the national population were to regrow once again, it's feasible to take the land back from nature. But if tons of foreigners had been brought over to occupy the land, it's be a messy 'human rights' issue to take the land from them if the nationals were to reclaim the land for development. Indeed, consider all the headache involved in Jews taking their homeland back from Arabs who'd taken over and settled over the years. (Incidentally, Serbs tried to do the same thing in Kosovo — take the land back from Muslim-Albanian settlers — , but Jews led the way in having Serbia destroyed. Again, "Identity for me but not for thee.")