Consume Product

> All races innately protect their own over others.

The Confucian philosopher Xunzi observed that none fail to love their own kind. Where he could have fleshed out the intended meaning of his words better is that no *normal* being fails to love his own kind.

Unlike the ancients, however, we live in a grossly abnormal world. Thus Xunzi can be forgiven for either not noticing or intentionally omitting that in-group preference can be missing in abnormal living beings.

> It’s seen from birth.

This is why I scoff at that narrative circulating around the internet saying something to the effect that 'nobody is born racist, racism is learned'.

I don't think that *asabiyyah* or in-group preference is learned. It can, however, be *un*-learned through living in abnormal conditions, being bombarded with 'anti-racist' messaging, etc. This is what the yids and other enemies are counting on to further warp minds into further embracing their destructive, errant, false worldviews. This is why you are correct - although you might be discounting the aforementioned environmental aspect - when you say:

> Only external forces ... can cause this mechanism to be overridden.

OP is correct in writing that we don't *need* yids for some of these problems, such as the (relatively) low level of *asabiyyah* among Whites. The yid is a highly specialized form of parasite heavily mixed in with (actual) humans. The yid skillfully plays on, exploits, the pre-existing weaknesses of humans, and, in doing so, is able to create all sorts of problems that would otherwise not exist, weaken humans, and strengthen his parasitic relationship to them.

This should be blatantly obvious: If Whites had no pre-existing weaknesses, they'd immediately have said upon encountering the first yid trying his nonsense: 'This is a clear enemy, just kill him'. Yes, our ancestors would have put the yid to the sword long ago, and no one would even know of the yid today.

Instead, they took his deceptive, sophistry-laden words seriously, were maybe impressed by said words, accepted his gifts, believed him to be an ally and friend, eventually interbred with yids and created 'white' yids who are even better camouflaged, allowed yids to handle more and more matters, and did everything else wrong, leading to what we may as well call the Judeo-Westernized world of today.

They didn't kill the yids because they *already* didn't have enough *asabiyyah* to see all racial others, racial outsiders, as enemies. Even just giving them a sufficiently boosted intelligence would have solved much of the problem: they would have instantly seen the yid as a deceiver, a parasite, a sophist, a subversive, and not as 'God's Chosen' nor the 'greatest ally' nor as any other concept that is the product of yiddish deceptions. The yid has simply played on this confluence of factors such as these - *asabiyyah* too weak, intelligence still insufficient - to make himself near-omnipotent in today's world.

> 1945

Correct, if you mean that 1945 was the last time when any serious resistance to liberalism, feminism, globalization, multi-racialism, etc. was waged.

Rhodesia did have an implicit racial segregation but was ultimately non-racist. Here are some reasons why.

Firstly, Rhodesia perceived its war with ZANU and ZAPU as a war against 'communism' rather than as a race war.

Secondly, Rhodesia believed that Africans should have voting rights extended to them once they were sufficiently educated, meaning that 'one man, one vote' would be the actual state of affairs if all Africans were educated.

Thirdly, Rhodesia only wanted foreigners who opposed 'communism' to help them in their war: they explicitly stated that they did not want any race warriors in Rhodesia.

Fourthly, and this relies on heterodox accounts of affairs: an American anti-communist/non-racialist Cold Warrior who was in Rhodesia in the 1970s claimed that he became aware of a secret camp in which Joshua Nkomo and other captured insurgents were being groomed for an eventual transition of power. Presumably, they were trying to switch these Africans to being 'good' (liberal democratic) from 'bad' (Marxist). Realizing that the Smith government had no intention to fight the Afro-Marxists indefinitely, he abandoned Rhodesia. (This relates to the yid Henry Kissinger earlier convincing both Smith and Vorster [of South Africa] that African rule was inevitable and that they had to find a way to transition power, Smith would soon transition power through 'one man, one vote' in an election that excluded 'bad' ZANU and ZAPU to a 'good' [Christian bishop] African, Abel Muzorewa, who quickly allowed the 'bad' [Marxist] Africans Canaan Banana and Robert Mugabe to seize power in a subsequent election around a year later.)

That just leaves South Africa having survived 1945, but liberal-capitalist ideas (e.g. we need to hand over power so that economic sanctions will be lifted) rapidly put an end to that. The vote was extended to Indians and Coloureds in the 1980s, anti-miscegenation laws were lifted in the 1980s, Apartheid itself was gone in 1989, and the vote was extended to Africans, obviously ending White control of the government, in 1994.

If you mean, however, that 1945 was the beginning of non-white immigration, that is incorrect: Whites were already well on the road towards such things as decolonization and multi-racialism well before 1900. The first example that comes to mind: plenty of Africans from all over the British Empire who were opposed to its control of parts of Africa held a meeting in London in 1900, proving that the British already had no problem with letting hostile pan-Africanists, etc. into its capital to discuss anti-Imperial activities.

Even the Confederate leaders accused America's Founders of being racial egalitarians to whose errors they would provide a much-needed correction.