Friday, February 3, 2017

Immibortion Policy: Walls and Alternatives, Part 1

Putting up a wall, specifically a wall on the southern border of the United States, is stupid. It's a pacifier for overgrown infants: not as good as the real thing, but here, you moron, suck on this.

The Necessity of Walls in Israels

Walls (sorta) work for Israel for two reasons: firstly, Israel was established by, and still essentially is, a small population of colonists moving gradually onto inhabited land, and whenever any gains are made--whether disguised or open--walls and checkpoints consolidate those gains against the displacees-in-progress. Because many Semites native or partially-native to the region physically resemble each other, the risk of fresh colonists (Jews) being confused with prior inhabitants (Druze, Arabs, various more-or-less Asiatic/African Semites--like the modern Holocaust story, even the dramatic official tally of "victims" is not limited strictly to Palestinian Arabs), it is necessary for Jewish settlers to distinguish themselves through costuming (modern western), grooming (again, more akin to modern western, to provide a suitable contrast with Palestinian Arabs), speech patterns, et cetera, lest they be mistaken at a distance for Arabs. It isn't a simple matter of skin tone or facial bone structure; Israelis are good at recognizing the subtleties of their own, but non-maternal Jewish Semites, e.g. rapespawn from 1948 onward, are considered rightless Arabs, eligible for random military execution, even if they are, per modern Terran science, equally genetically Jewish. Specifically, this means that if a Jewish Semitic woman purposefully bears the child of a Europeoid man, the child will be genetically Semitic and legally Jewish, whereas if a Jewish man rapes an Arab woman--say, the frequent IDF-on-teenage-girl by force or in exchange for calories or water--and the recipient becomes pregnant, the resulting child will not be eligible for citizenship, because of an inadequately registered genetic line.

If you go to certain parts of Israel, you can see this: under the non-western hairstyles, clothing, and other less pleasant effects of Zionism, the non-citizen genetic legacy of the area, rapespawn and alternately hapless, could otherwise pass for Jewish. Consider, e.g., the costuming of the royals of the Jewish House of Saud, who through careful later marriage and elaborate costuming, make themselves out to be merely partly Jewish-Semitic (as well as the obligatory "when in Rome" Arab-Semitic admixture). This isn't meant as an insult nor a compliment to the non-citizen peoples of the various untouchable "Arab" ghettos of Israel, but as an example of the visual quandary faced by the IDF. How many Jews are killed without anyone knowing, or wanting to know, that they were genetically Jews, we'll never know. A Lovecraftian--or, perhaps better put, Kafkaesque--situation exists in Israel, for those Jews who are quietly never tested due to improper or informal parentage, and whose later deaths are recorded as due to the corpse's supposed act of Arab terrorism. This is, incidentally, the end-goal of Jewish-influenced nationalisms for other peoples as well: a horrorscape of shifting states of belonging and not-belonging, where government willingness to analyze or process tests, or to make or maintain records, is a permission that can be withdrawn wherever convenient. Gaza is a holocaust of Arabs, but also one of Jews, though history must necessarily forget that, during this period, the IDF was also executing genetic Jews. Not only must it bleed foreign hosts; Israel eats itself to survive.

Without the walls, a clever "Arab" might otherwise learn an accent, suddenly shave and trim and put on western clothing, and pretend he forgot his ID at a checkpoint. That, incidentally, is much of what they're checking at the "checkpoints"--that people actually are permitted to be considered Jews. Unspoken in many suicide bombings or vehicular assaults in Israel is the military's understanding that it can sometimes be extremely difficult to tell unapproved-citizens apart just by looking. Western media is carefully honed to present images of only dark, ungroomed Palestinians (indeed, the majority), in contrast with paler, more western-looking Israelis, to make the contrast seem obvious, and Orthodox and the few remaining permitted longtime-local Jews are supposed to hide behind particular clothing to help maintain the image of easy identification. The racial determinism inherent in Israel is far higher than mere appearances, or even objective genetic testing, can tell. Much of the system is preferenced toward the Europeoid admixtures so carefully cultivated by diaspora forces since the deployment of the Judaized Christ. Millennia of systematic inbreeding have made acceptable levels of Arab Semitism, Mongoloid or Negroid admixture, and preferenced Europeoid pairings, and their sorting, into evolving classifications for or against citizenship. As these don't need to be applied to properly registered, properly-lineaged children, and as records offices are "human institutions," the results of such un-policies are easily predictable. What makes a proper Jew, to Israeli government scientists, is a carefully evolving schemata of which indicators, how many, where, what, who, and even why; a Talmudic interpretation that can go either way for the right party or the wrong, and that can be revoked, or called a computer error, whenever necessary. The "self-hating Jews" Israel regularly excoriates are the lucky ones; those who couldn't be quietly turned into a data entry of another dead "Palestinian terrorist."

Ergo Israel needs its walls. Like southern Mexican indios who use lethal force to keep out Guatemalan y otros indios Sudamericanos, the distinction is a difficult one. Dialect and other cultural remnants, along with bank-derivatives such as costuming and finance, can influence the outcome, but--like all hypothetically meritocratic outcomes under the set of all sets that includes itself which is the Bank--the reality falls on the evil side of the nonexistent scale of arbitrariness, dependent upon a blend of laziness, deliberately controlled corrosion, and fiscal and genetic bribery.

The Wall Consolidates Prior Failures

I like walls, in the same way that I like fires and clubs and wolves, and, to a lesser extent, four-wheel-drive vehicles, because of the residual positives associated with those things and/or what they represent. Yet I can recognize, despite the pleasure I take in those things, that they are not actually practical on the international scale. Clubs are great in certain circumstances, but can't compete with guns, which can't compete with fighter-bombers, which can't compete with bank subversion. Loyal wolves and wood-burning fireplaces, too. They're ultra cool, but not effective anymore; any cop with a nine can handle your wolf and your club, and Blankfein can make a call that puts a thousand muscular men with clubs into the ground. (And your 4x4 will get stuck in the trees for several months until a grading crew can get the zoning paperwork in order to put a road there.)

Outside of an artistic setting, similarly, walls are stupid for governments in the way that medieval plate armor is, namely because once powdered balls can penetrate them, the mounted knight becomes irrelevant. Israel needs a wall because the arbitrary deception of the wall ideatically bolsters the purging process; the wall makes the people who believe they belong on the inside feel that the golem is looking outward, and provides a fixed, if false, rationalization for who dies. In America, the wall risks serving a similar purpose for Mexico, warrantying the existence and crimes of indios on this side in a way that true biological nationalism would not.

Dual citizen Mexican-American cops in America face the same problem as the Mexican Army and the IDF, generally unable to tell the difference between citizens and non-citizens based on cultural derivatives alone, ergo the necessary harassment of indios, sometimes fair (when they're not citizens), sometimes unfair (when they are). This is unfair only inasmuch as checking old white ladies for al-Qaeda-derived explosives at the airport is unfair, which is why "the left," whatever that is, is guided by the media into disliking reasonable profiling but not absurd profiling, e.g. one of those pictures of a 30-year-old Semite in a burka patting down an 80-year-old Anglo in a habit. Original American nationalism had pre-solved, or prevented, this problem, by preferencing Europeoid immigration; Trump, like any serviceable half of a false duopoly, acts now to prevent the realization of any kind of genetic efficiency, by blessing globalist citizenship-granting over biological identity.

The American Democratic and Republican parties have run this lie for centuries, alternating between bad cop and good cop. In the early twentieth century, Democrats started major wars, and Republicans had the job of initially opposing them, then consolidating the Democrats' gains by holding the line where the Democrats had left it. After the Cold War became the Israel War in the 1990s, Republicans took over the task of starting major wars, with Democrats nominally "merely preserving" the wars. Ergo George H.W. Bush attacks Iraq openly, some Democrats oppose warmongering, and Clinton then establishes sanctions and no-fly zones (verifying the inherent justness of Bush's invasion), after which George W. Bush attacks Iraq openly again. Some Democrats pretend to oppose warmongering, then embrace Obama's eight-year continuation of torture, droning, and occupation, thereby affirming again the earlier and ongoing Bush invasion(s).

Culturally speaking, Republicans serve the complementary function for Democratic drives on population replacement. It is the job of Democrats to openly promote population replacement, with some Republicans feigning opposition. When Republicans take office, they then hold the line, permitting the Democratic gains to become established. Trump, advocating the same policies that Mitt Romney did in 2012, yet being treated as a "rebel" candidate for doing so because he was meant to take office, now wishes to serve his function of proclaiming that all of the Hart-Celler citizenships granted since 1965 are completely valid, and that nationalism is wholly ideological. The supposed furor over stopping the inflow is pomp and circumstance, meant to distract from Trump's forceful consolidation of the globalists' demographic gains since 1965. As with alternating Catholic stances toward occupying the holy land versus occupying Europe, Trump's vigorous defense of "this and no more" is a clever affirmation of "this." Hillary Clinton's openly globalist rhetoric is so simplistically hostile to certain groups that it risks the chance of being understood by them; Donald Trump's very carefully and very vaguely anti-globalist rhetoric is extremely more effective at consolidating the mass gains in state-based citizenship authorizations since 1965. Not only that, but Trump's role as the theoretical opposite to Obama defuses the chance of resistance to the robbery of the worker. Will Trump skin the bastards, or at least levy the estates of the bastards, who spent 50 years crushing families and incomes, and fattening themselves on the produce thereof, through the use of foreign scabs? Will any of the trillions be recouped; will any of the enablers be disgraced, jailed, or fined? No, but he'll pay their descendants a few dozen billion to build a wall, and maybe give them some more middle class tax dollars in exchange for hiring little people at Subsistence + Cable Package wages (the new first-world standard) to build things "here." Other enabler-phantasms nowadays will make a show of advocating for increased displacement, fail in so increasing, and thereby have committed no actual crimes--but they will draw attention to themselves, reducing the chances of the much-deserved pitchforks and torches arriving at the gates of, e.g., Microsoft or Disney. It is a flashy distraction to mock Hillary's un-enacted resettlement programs, rather than employing the same energy in dissembling the Gates Foundation et. al. The wealth that was already stolen will remain in the thiefly lineages. By so doing, Trump reassures those lineages that, the next time a "liberal" (or whatever they're calling it then) is president, they can steal another few years of money, and be protected by a future "anti-globalist" who will consolidate their gains, safeguard their burgled wealth, and save them from jail, but be considered heroes for refusing, on camera, to allow them any more theft (at that time).

Demographically speaking, if you're happy with Trump over the teensy little steps of stopping Hillary's/Obama's purported immigration policies, it's a sign of Stockholm Syndrome; in 1917, Trump would've been drawn and quartered for promoting the unbelievably extreme levels of foreign infiltration that you're now embracing just because Hillary "would've been worse." This is how idiotic American "conservatives" were tricked into cheering Dubya into another war for Israel, and how idiotic American "liberals" were tricked into cheering Obama for shielding the Bank from potential retaliation, besides helping him through another mass-gouging of American workers. Now the liberals are whining on cue as Trump, their best friend even if they don't realize it, affirms the sacral permanence of the apocalyptic citizenshipping of the Cold War era. Trump, like Obama, will protect the Bank by making a big show of juxtaposing his own policies--those of pleasantly accepting pre-existing levels of rapine and displacement--against the last few years of already-overrun levels, and against hypothetical future increases proposed as a threat by the latest Mondole/Gorkakis. No prior atrocities will be avenged or compensated. To punish 2017's sanctuary cities is to pour cement over the past 50 years of the sanctuary country, and all who have been destroyed therein. A wall is stupid, not merely because it is outdated, or because of what it claims to aspire to accomplish, but because it will be used to avert effective policy changes that might otherwise boil over.

Continued in In His Image: Immibortion Policy, Part 2.

No comments:

Post a Comment