Common sense says the GOP or American Conservatives(and Realist-Liberals) can own the Law-and-Order issue in politics. After all, many Americans are concerned about law-and-order, the need to deal with problems of crime and violence that have infested and even devastated many communities across America. Indeed, even entire cities have been overcome with crime and violence. Consider Detroit and Baltimore. And half of St. Louis and one-third of Chicago have very high crime rates. Given the fact that no one wants to be robbed, raped, assaulted, or murdered, the issue of Law and Order should be clear enough and its appeal should be obvious. What sane person would choose disorder over order? What person would want to live in a town or city overrun by criminals than maintained by lawful peace? While plenty of Americans have romanticized outlaws, gangsters, and the like in entertainment, most Americans don’t want to live in a dangerous neighborhood where their loved ones could be harassed, attacked, or even murdered. No one wants their homes or apartments to be burglarized or invaded. Naturally, in a time and place where crime has gotten out of control, it’s only natural for people to be on the side of the Law against the Outlaw. And on those grounds, a patriotic candidate has much to gain by running on a Law-and-Order ticket.

Indeed, one of the reasons why Republicans dominated the Presidency from 1968 to 1992 had something to do with the perception that they were tougher on crime as opposed to ‘bleeding-heart’ Liberal Democrats who’d become overly dependent on blacks as their constituents. And despite the Liberal Media’s bias, too many people became all too aware of the connection between blacks and crime. They witnessed entire cities fall into ruin as the result of out-of-control black behavior. The problem wasn’t just in the streets but at work. Black workers were more likely to misbehave, steal, and cause trouble. Even blacks who weren’t outright criminal had all sorts of behavioral problems. There was a time when New York, the premier city of wealth and power in the US, nearly went under due to rising crime, and of course, it was mostly black crime. The great housing projects that were supposed to improve black lives in the 60s and 70s only concentrated black criminality that festered and got worse. The environment-centric solutions hardly solved the problem, and if anything, it was like something out of CONQUEST OF THE PLANET OF THE APES.

Post-War ideological trends posited rather dogmatically that all humans were more-or-less alike and that their behaviors could be fundamentally altered by external factors such as housing, schooling, and the like. It was as if humans were like pigeons inside B. F. Skinner’s experimental boxes, and the ideology underpinning the housing of blacks in huge projects was that modernity, efficiency, and symmetry would make blacks act in more orderly and productive ways. Such macro-experiment totally overlooked the possibility that blacks may be different internally at the genetic level due to 100,000s of years of evolution in Hot and Wild Africa.

Even though Modern Liberals believe in evolution, their ideological hangups have made them unwilling to accept certain implications. Evolution is about processes of divergence and change. For example, suppose there is a small race of humanoids, and those within the tribe more-or-less share the same gene pool. Then, suppose the tribe breaks up and go separate ways. Some remain in the same place, but others move to other areas that are either hotter, drier, colder, and have vastly different flora/fauna. As the various groups would now live in different environments, they would come under different evolutionary pressures that select for distinct traits as favorable. Obviously, a very hot environment will favor certain traits over others, and a very cold environment would likely choose for ‘opposite’ traits to those favored in hot regions.

Furthermore, there are ripple effects to selection that have little to do with survivability. An environment that selects for certain traits may set off mutations that lead to further alternations that make the organism(and its kind) even more different from others of its kind living far away under different environmental pressures. For example, if a tribe of humanoids go separate ways and if one ends up in an extreme cold environment while another ends up in a very hot environment, they will diverge from each other in ways other than adaptability to climate. As the environment selects for traits that are better adapted to the cold, the changes may set off cascades of mutations that change the organisms even further. The same goes for those who adapt to an extremely hot climate. For example, blue eyes and blond hair are not necessary for survival in cold climate, but they arose due to mutations of those who adapted to cold climates and by relative ‘inbreeding’.

Anyway, the theory of evolution would make no sense IF organisms didn’t diverge and change from one another. No honest person can claim that the various human races are all the same and interchangeable in their abilities and aesthetics. The races are clearly different according to looks. PC types may argue that we must go beyond looks and focus on souls, but looks do matter, and aesthetics is a valid reason for wanting to preserve certain species, races, and breeds. If looks don’t matter, why do people react so strongly to ivories on an elephant, the mane on a lion, feathers of a peacock, stripes on a zebra, or fur on a mink? Is a peacock plucked of feathers the same as a peacock with a full dress of feathers because their ‘souls’ are the same? Is a lion shaved and devoid of fur/mane the same as a lion with natural fur and mane? People rely on looks to make the most important decisions of their lives, like finding a mate and buying a house. And in deciding which dress to wear. Looks DO matter, especially to eye-centric humans with complex sense of aesthetics and design. Organisms are the designs of nature.

Obviously, looks are not everything as beautiful people can be wicked and ugly people can be good-of-heart. The Left came to believe that all individuals were, more or less, same of soul upon birth. They were born with blank-slate souls that could be made good or bad depending on the environment, education, and culture. So, at the very least, no matter how ugly someone may be on the outside, he or she has the same chance to be a good person.

But as it turns out, inner beauty/ugliness is also largely genetic though inner beauty doesn’t necessarily correlate with outer beauty(just like good looks don’t guarantee a lovely voice). It also turns out that not only are the various races different in outer looks but in inner temperaments. Blacks are more likely to have aggressive, rancorous, and troublesome personalities. Granted, a loud and boisterous person can be good-natured whereas a gentle and cordial person can be psychopathic, but generally speaking, a race that tends to be overtly aggressive and wild will tend to be more destructive of social order and peace. Even though blacks have the ‘ugliest’ and most savage inner souls, so many non-blacks are fooled by black vocality that, in its bellowing tremor, can create the impression of a deep-souled Negro, as when Paul Robeson sang “Ole Man River”.

Especially the West, having been molded for so long by Christian theology, has a tendency to conflate the Negro voice with spirituality when, if anything, the core urges that drive the Negro soul is ‘muh booty’, ‘muh fist’, ‘muh dick’, and ‘where da white women at?’ Especially because of founding of America as New Jerusalem and the national ‘sin’ of slavery, white Americans have projected their hopes and dreams on the Redemptive Negro. By rising from slavery to pursuit of happiness, the Negro is seen as redeeming the American Enterprise. By forgiving and healing white souls(stained with ‘white guilt’), the Negro is seen as the angel that can cure White America. Also, having been the most savage race to have been brought to America, the elevation of Negro to civilized status is seen as the greatest pride of the West, i.e. if the West, for all its ‘sins’, took a bunch of savages and turned them into civilized folks, it will have proven its worth.

So, the Dream is that the Negro saves the white man from ‘white guilt’ in return for the white man having saved the Negro from savagery. Of course, the latter part of the equation is no longer muttered as it’d be deemed ‘racist’, but it is nevertheless felt strongly in the white subconscious. After all, why are whites most concerned about bringing progress to black Africa? Because it is the most daunting task as Black Africa is by-and-large the most savage and backward part of the world. While it’s no longer fashionable for whites to say, “We must bring the light of civilization to those black savages living in darkness and ignorance” — whites must only say that blacks are so holy & special that only Black Magic can redeem and cleanse the white race — , so much of what white elites do in relation to Africa & blacks suggests excitement over the most challenging task of transforming blacks from poor backward savages to not only civilized folks but the holy god-men of White Cucky-Wuck Fantasy.

Bill Gates as the Great White Geek

Anyway, why is Law-and-Order such a controversial issue in America? Naturally, most people of any nation would prefer peace and stability secured by law & order. Who wants to live in a world of criminality? We might get kicks from gangster movies or Western flicks with outlaws, but we want safe neighborhoods where kids can play and where old people can walk to the neighborhood store without getting mugged or beaten. I can’t imagine a politician or leader who gains mass support as the representative of crime and disorder.

To be sure, there have been nations where criminal elements have pretty much gained control of society. This was once(and may still be) the case in Sicily. And it’s been well-known that drug-cartels have amassed tremendous hold over certain Latin American nations. There, law & order is hardly an issue since outlaws have the upperhand. If there is to be a kind of social order, it is essentially rule by warlords. ‘Peace’ is guaranteed by might than right. It’s a world of guns and bullets than law and order. In such a world, the people may prefer the better-organized and ‘scrupulous’ gangsters(those that have some honor-among-thieves) than out-of-control delinquents, the kind seen in the Brazilian film CITY OF GOD. In contrast, while the Italian mafia did terrible things in America, they kept the streets in their own neighborhoods safe.

It’s been said that organized crime played a big role in Italian-American neighborhoods and Chinatowns across America. Partly out of fear of gangsters and partly out of reliance on them(due to deep-seated distrust of the Law that was seen as corrupt, uncaring, or ineffective), the people of the community stuck with their own kind even if criminal because they were a ‘known quantity’. Thus, tribalism affects the way people see Law & Order.

Ideally, while most people prefer the clean workings of law & order over crime & corruption, they may side with criminal elements of their own kind over law & order that seems to be dominated by the Other. Out of bias, loyalty, familiarity, sentimentality, and/or fear, many Italian-Americans sided with the mafia over the Law. While they understood the dark side of organized crime, the mafia was ‘one of us’, part of Italian-American power and muscle. Just like some people prefer tyranny by their own kind over greater individual freedom(and even better governance) under foreign rule, people may have clouded views of law & order when the Law is perceived to be controlled by the Other whereas the criminal elements are seen as members of the community.

For example, there are plenty of Jews who will side with Jewish criminals(often white-collar) and gangsters over Law & Order. Jewish Power pulled all manner of strings to ensure that monkey-boy Obama would pardon Jonathan Pollard. Even Liberal Jews who kvetch so much about ‘social injustice’ are reliably silent about illegality, criminality, and pathology among their own kind… which is why the likes of Bernie Madoff and Jeffrey Epstein had been able to get away with SO MUCH bad behavior for SO LONG. The matrix of Jewish media, Jewish legal power, Jewish finance, and Jewish deep state ensured a kind of Omerta(or ‘schmerta’) among Jewish elites. They were like ‘made men’ and had license to lie, cheat, steal, rape, and even kill, indeed get away with just about anything. Sure, when some Jews get too greedy and take too many risks to the point of endangering the entire enterprise, the Jewish Power will sacrifice the Crazy Jew who’s giving the Jewish Community a bad reputation no matter how much Jews try to keep it all under a tight lid(or yid).

It seems Jeffrey Epstein went too far, and even Jewish Power figured it was better to sacrifice him than go down with him(as there are surely plenty more of such fiendish Jews working behind the scenes to pull all sorts of dirty schemes). Italian-American community has been the same, albeit in a cruder, way. While, theoretically at least, Italians in a purely Italian community may prefer law-and-order over criminality, certain factors have made Italians(in the homeland and abroad) notorious for their associations with crime and corruption. One reason is it took longer for Italy to coalesce as a modern nation-state. Thus, many Italians’ first loyalty was to a region than to the nation. Also, in contrast to Northern Europe, Italians were considerably different genetically, especially between north and south. While traditional Britain had problems among Scotch and English, at the very least they were racially identical and looked it. In contrast, while a northern Italian might look more Germanic, southern Italian might look more like an Arab or North African. Thus, instead of southern Italians working with relatively cleaner northern Italians to fight crime, many of them chose to side with the local mafia against national efforts to root out organized crime.

5 Antifa who threw Molotov cocktails at police and did $1000000 damage get bonds of $6,000 to $13,500. About the same as what happened to the Jan 6 rioters, right?.https://t.co/5lEnynMftM

— Kevin MacDonald (@TOOEdit) December 30, 2022

Furthermore, the egotism and family-clanism of Italians made civic mind-set harder to come by. The egotism and vanity made Italians prioritize MY needs and wants above all other considerations. And the family-clanism meant that Italian parents, especially the mothers, were willing to go to any length to favor their own kids over the good of society. So, an Italian mother may appeal to the local mafia, boss, or chieftain to favor her son over the sons of other families who are more deserving by meritocracy. Too many Italians think ‘me over my family’, ‘my family over my town’, and ‘my town over my country’. Furthermore, for all their big talk, most Italian men are mama’s boys. Indeed, they make a lot of noise as a kind of bluff precisely because they fear real confrontations that test their mettle. Being essentially cowardly, Italians would rather bend over backwards to criminals than be like Wyatt Earp and take them on.

It’s hard to maintain steady and stable law & order with a people with such mentality. Sense of civic duty is best guaranteed in an order where most people feel that the good of the whole trumps ‘myself’, ‘my family’, and ‘my clan’. A good society needs to be fair, and fairness must be decided by equal application of law and order. The good must be rewarded and bad must be punished regardless of who/whom. Some might characterize such principles or idealism as ‘universalist’, but paradoxically, universalism works best as a closed system within a particularism. Take Sweden before it went crazy under the influence of Jewish PC. Nearly all people were Swedish. They were one people in looks, culture, and history. And Lutheranism had long instilled qualities of sobriety, order, and earnestness.

Also, Northern Europeans tend to be genetically more disposed to severity. Even as marauding Vikings, the Nordics were more sullen and heavy in their emotions than, say, the Jafro-Jiving black savages of Africa. This lack of color in personality made for a more even temperament that adopted Christian values and respected authority with greater sense of duty and trust. So, among such a people with particular-commonalities of looks, feelings, and thoughts, a Trust Society of ideals, values, and law & order could arise. In other words, universal principles of right-and-wrong secured by law-and-order was possible ONLY BECAUSE the people of Sweden saw each other as part of a close-knit national family with so much in common.

The key distinction between Italy and Sweden was peoples in the two nations were anxiety-ridden about different things. Italians fretted most(to the state of paranoia) about the possibility that other Italians might lie to them, cheat them, or steal from them. In contrast, Swedes were most anxious and ‘paranoid’ about being regarded as liars, cheats, and thieves by other Swedes. Italians worried that other Italians might be ‘get the better of me’, whereas Swedes worried that other Swedes might regard ‘me as not good enough for their standards’. So, Italians saw life as a game of out-cheating other Italians, whereas Swedes saw life as a duty of gaining the trust(and approval) of other Swedes. It just goes to show that an attitude or outlook can have a profound ebb-and-flow ripple effect from soul to society and back from society to soul, on and on.

Between traditional Italy vs traditional Sweden, the latter comes across as much better, a well-ordered society of rule of law, fairness, and trust. In contrast, Italy comes across as a cesspool of egotism, corruption, and pettiness. Sweden seems about higher principles over petty privileges, whereas Italy would be the opposite.

However, Sweden could maintain such ‘universal’ ideals of justice ONLY IF it remained a nation of Swedes, a people of common looks, shared culture, familiar values, and similar temperaments. But because universal values worked so well inside Sweden, the foolish Swedes thought theirs was an ideal microcosm of a universal nation, and decided to become a ‘moral superpower’ by sending tons of aid to Africa and flinging open Sweden’s gates to the world. But Swedes in Africa made no progress in improving the lot of blacks who have different attitudes, cultures, values, temperaments, and IQ. And newcomers to Sweden from Muslim world and Africa could not become good New Swedes because they are so genetically and culturally different.

Needless to say, blacks are the MOST problematic. But it was made even worse by ‘multi-culturalism’ that contradicted the whole Swedish project of being a universal moral super-power. After all, if the Swedish experiment had worked out so well because the Swedish Way is the way-to-go, then newcomers should be pressured to think, act, and behave like successful Swedes as much as possible. But multi-culturalism said Sweden should welcome foreigners and let them stick to their cultures of origin. But why? Didn’t it ever occur to the Swedes that the foreigners made a mess of their own nations largely due to their cultural attitudes and behaviors?

You: “The internet isn’t real life”

The Army: we are literally recruiting e-girls to lure your sons into the military to die for US-led globalism

Psyops are real, folks

pic.twitter.com/0MJyu7INza

— Pedro L. Gonzalez (@emeriticus) October 13, 2022

Even though much of Swedish attitudes and values were rooted in the severe strains of Lutheranism, the source of much stress but also strength, the modern Swedish lost faith in religion and sought out a new faith… and found it in the figure of the holy-holocaust Jew. Swedes, regarding Jews as a wise & saintly people who’d survived the Shoah, earnestly believed that Jews would only bless them with the best advice and most wonderful lessons. Little did they realize that the Shoah, though horrific and evil, was partly the product of Jewish behavior driving goyim to madness. (The Holocaust was also the culmination of a special kind of German madness, but things got far worse in friction with Jewish radical madness.) Little did naive Swedes understand that Jews primarily favor their own tribal interests, have a special animus against Christian Europe, and harbor fantasies of vengeance against all white goyim(over the Shoah and for other reason, such as vicious envy that, for some inexplicable reason, God made the filthy ‘goy’ Aryans more handsome than the Chosen Jews). Swedes, being earnest & sincere and having been rendered respectful to higher authority under its localized version of ‘universal values’, trusted the Jews whole hog. The result was dire Diversity. And of course, decrepit decadence, supposedly a magic cure from all that dark and heavy Lutheran neurosis that must be totally expunged from the Swedish soul. (While Lutheranism had its dark side and negative as well as positive impact on Sweden, did any Swede ever study the impact of jungle ugabuga culture on black Africans? Apparently not.)

In a way, the relatively enclosed and homogeneous world of Sweden was both a blessing and a curse. It was a blessing because the shared looks and laws made for a more cogent, coherent, and consistent society, a place where higher principles of ‘universal justice’ could prevail over petty passions. But this culture of trust in societal justice made Swedes all-too-trusting of both moral and political authority. And as every Swede was so anxious to be seen as a Good Swede by other Swedes, he or she was willing to show that he/she was with the program to make for a better society, a better world.

Now, who owns moral authority and sets the cultural tenor of society? At least in traditional Sweden, there was the power of church and community. But in late-modern Sweden of atomized individuals, the moral authority and cultural hegemony were determined by academics, politicians, public intellectuals, and artists. And as the culture of the West as a whole came to be shaped largely by the US that came under Jewish control, Swedish minds from top to bottom just became putty in the hands of Jews. Even if Swedes mostly did it to themselves, their elites and intellectuals were indirectly shaped by ideas emanating from the US.

Also, as Jews became the Holy Holocaust people especially beginning in the Sixties, the Swedes(like so many in the West) were largely without critical defenses against Jewish power and agenda. Jews were seen as akin to a sacred god-race, and this allowed Jews to define the taboos of the West, and the #1 taboo became Thou Shalt Not Doubt or Question the Jew… for that would be the gravest of all sins, which is ‘Antisemitism’. Because of their trusting character and anxiety-for-approval, Swedes wholeheartedly came to embrace the new gods of Diversity, Feminism, Globo-Homo-Mania, Afromania, and the Cult of White Guilt. If Swedes of the past invested their sincerity, trust, and earnestness in God, Church, and Community, the atomized late-modern Swedes committed their goodwill to Diversity, Feminism, and Globo-Homo. And since trusting Swedes have a hive-mind, they had no defenses against the expanding horror. Even now, the average Swede is most anxious about “Will other Swedes consider me as unworthy?”

This goes to show that Swedes, though smart and capable, are incapable of independent search for truth, meaning, and justice. They can be very good at devoting their energies toward certain ideals and objectives, but they(along with most of the white race) cannot find the Truth for themselves. Rather, this truth has to be provided by the Other, those with greater prophetic vision and zeal. Because the white world lacked for prophets, it adopted Christianity, the creation of heretical Jews. White Christendom worked very hard at serving the Faith, but white folks failed to come up with a faith of their own.

And in the modern era that saw the ebbing away of old-time religion, white people were once again incapable of discovering their own truths and therefore fell under the sway of the ‘truths’ as revealed by Jews with the power of radical will and prophetic personality. These so-called ‘truths’ could actually turn out to be falsehoods, lunacies, or even evil ideas, but they had the power to captivate and hold sway over countless millions due to sheer conceptual grandeur, intellectual drive, moral passion, and/or iconic power. Swedes, like most white folks, despite all their intelligence and ability, failed to dream their own dreams and envision their own destiny. And so, one had to be supplied to them, and it came from Jews whom the Swedes trusted and revered as the Holy Holocaust people, indeed as if every Jew were a kind of modern Moses-Isaiah-Jesus rolled into one.

But in fact, they were fooled by the satanic venality of Jews who were really seeking vengeance(against all of Christendom and Western Civilization) and hegemony over the entire world. As far as Jews were concerned, Sweden as a peaceful and prosperous homogeneous white nation might send the wrong messages to whites around the world. Whiteness = Success. Such might signal that whites do best in a world of their own. But such a world might exclude Jews as the Other. Therefore, Jews went out of their way to pathologize whiteness and homogeneity so as to persuade whites that there is something wrong with the too-whiteness of their world that must be ‘enriched’ with Diversity. And stupid whites, in moral awe of Jews as the Holy Holocaust People, swallowed the BS hook, line, and sinker.

Now, one may ask, “But if white nations fail and fall apart due to Diversity, won’t white people finally wake up and realize that white homogeneity was better and it’d been retarded to trust the Jews?” Yes, effects of Diversity may make white people realize their grave mistake of trusting Jews, but then, it’d be too little and too late as their nations would have been already lost forever to Diversity. As such, they will have to live in a world where various goy groups are constantly at each other’s throats, in which case Jewish globalist-hegemonist elites can play their game of divide-and-rule among the lost and confused gentiles. With Jews, You Lose. Swedes have long ways to go before they fully realize that they’d been played for fools, but they eventually will one day.

And as they look back and wonder why they weren’t able to stop the horror in its tracks, they’ll realize it was due to their Anxiety of Trust, i.e. each Swede was most hung-up with neuroticism that fellow Swedes might regard him or her as unworthy in his/her sincere commitment to ‘goodness’ and ‘justice’. And perhaps they will even realize that their fatal error was in having allowed the vile, venal, and vicious Jews to masquerade as the Wise People bringing the gifts of reform and redemption to all white folks around the world.

The lesson to learn here is that a people with strong set of virtues but without the will of vision can be led to serious self-harm by those who control the vision thing. Indeed, we saw this with Germans and Japanese in World War II. Germans and Japanese had many virtues such as courage, loyalty, hard work, dedication, willingness to sacrifice, and honor. But as most Germans and Japanese lacked the power of personal vision, they relied on some other to supply them with the vision. If the vision was good, all their virtues went toward serving that vision. But if the vision was bad, all the virtues were wasted in service of evil. It’s like dogs. We appreciate dogs for their natural ‘virtues’ of loyalty and dedication, but as dogs lack vision, their ‘virtues’ always go toward serving the ‘vision’ supplied by the master. A dog’s ‘virtues’ can be used to save or kill a person’s life. Whether a dog is used to track down an innocent man or guilty man, the dog is only capable of the ‘virtue’ of commitment. It cannot conceive of its own vision.

The last 5 years there's been a shocking 42 936 reported rapes.

This is one of the highest rates in the entire world.

The media is refusing to report on this.

Read my article here to find out the truth about what is going on in my country